Biblical Glossolalia - Thesis 7

William Graham MacDonald

This is the last of seven theses proposed in defense of biblical glossolalia. Thesis 1 contended that glossolalia is inaccessible to worldly comprehension because of its holiness, its “from heaven” dimension, and its inextricable connection with the glorified Jesus. Thesis 2 stated that in its inception and continuation the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit glorifies Jesus. Thus speaking in tongues by His direction results in greater awareness of Jesus, the living Lord, and enhances one’s overall relationship with Him. Thesis 3 argued that biblical glossolalia has no antecedents, no precedents, and no parallels — in the Old Testament, or paganism, or pathology. Thesis 4 defended the statement that biblical glossolalia has a uniform character throughout the New Testament. While there are “kinds of tongues/languages” spoken in the Spirit, and kinds of situations where glossolalia is appropriate, there are not kinds of glossolalia. Thesis 5 stated that whenever it was Luke’s intention to feature the initial response of believers being immersed in the Spirit’s power, the one constant biblical indicator of that experience was glossolalia — whatever the other episodic variables. This historical norm bears full doctrinal authority because Jesus, “the Way,” is “the same,” temporally and universally, Thesis 6 said that, while spiritual gifts are corporate in nature intended by the Lord to build up the Church as a whole, glossolalia is the one gift given primarily for the benefit of the individual: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (1 Corinthians 14:4). This article concludes the series on biblical glossolalia. Back issues containing the previous six theses can be obtained through the Paraclete office

Thesis Seven

Glossolalia is always directed to God, and only to Him. In form, glossolalia is spoken or sung to Him. In content, biblical glossolalia consists of worship or prayer. It consists of praise or petition, thanksgiving or intercession. Because glossolalia is unidirectional to God, it cannot be an oracular utterance. Designed for individual edification, glossolalia when properly interpreted, rests at the bottom of the apostolic scale of gifts benefiting the congregation.

What is the key for interpreting glossolalia in Paul’s chapter on gifts regulation?

A Musical Analogy For The Interpretive Key

If we may think of 1 Corinthians 14 as a musical composition, the key signature is found at the beginning (1 Corinthians 14:1–3):

In these lines about spoken spiritual gifts, the apostolic composer has told us in his key signature that there are two sharps (F#: prophecy, and C#: glossolalia). Consequently, in a proper rendition of the whole composition, every prophecy note is F-sharped “to men,” and every glossolalia note is always played or sung C-sharped “to God.” Therefore, the whole chapter is structured harmoniously in the key of D major, the key of divine order for congregational gifts.

Directional Exclusivity Of Glossolalia Upward

The differentiation between the audience directions of glossolalia and prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:l–3) is as contrasting as human words can demarcate. Not only does the apostolic teacher say tongues are directed [vertically] “to God,” in the tradition of “every tongue will confess to God” (Romans 14:11), but also he rules out negatively, at the outset, any possibility they might be directed [horizontally] “to men.” We may not all be able to read music, but anyone able to read on a third-grade level can know precisely what Paul meant when he wrote so simply (1 Corinthians 14:2): “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.” The subject of the sentence, “anyone,” allows for no exceptions. If words mean anything, this clear divine direction of glossolalia must inform our comprehension throughout the rest of the chapter; and it must likewise have a bearing on what “the interpretation of tongues” must be, and cannot be.

In 1 Corinthians 14:4 we are told that glossolalia builds up the speaker himself, and prophecy edifies the whole group. One should study no further in chapter 14 until the apostle’s basic orientation sinks in. The one speaking in tongues “edifies himself” because he is communing at his deepest spiritual level with God. As he speaks in tongues, he “prays” (1 Corinthians 14:14,15); he may “sing” (1 Corinthians 14:15); he is “praising God” (1 Corinthians 14:16), and offering “thanksgiving” (1 Corinthians 14:16,17); “but the other man [who does not understand his language spoken in the Spirit] is not edified” (1 Corinthians 14:17). Yet even though his conscious “mind is unfruitful” (1 Corinthians 14:14) “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (1 Corinthians 14:4). He addresses God, and one is never the same after talking to God. The Lord has a way of sharing himself graciously with the worshiper. Likewise, whether God is addressed in a prayer of agonizing intercession or in childlike conversation, the Lord always will answer in one way or the other. That interaction results in a stronger believer, and often in the desire for more prayer — in other tongues, and also consciously (1 Corinthians 14:15).

Glossolalia as biblically described never takes the form of an oracle, a prophecy, a message, a preachment, or a judgmental denunciation. Never. It is always inappropriate for a human being to direct a prophetic oracle “to God,” and that should be indisputable. But, someone will ask, “Cannot glossolalia be an oracular message to the church from God through the tongues-speaker?” To that we must ask, “On whose authority?” Certainly not Paul’s. No one ever heard of a “message in tongues,” (or Carl Brumback’s synonymous, “address in tongues”) until the twentieth century.¹ There is not one iota of exegetical evidence that God ever passed “messages” to the Corinthian church by first speaking at them in a language they could not understand, rather than by speaking to them through prophecy in their familiar language. Nor — to say the same thing — is there any “biblical data” for any such gift as a prophecy in tongues.²

Misunderstanding Of 1 Corinthians 14:5

The message/prophecy reformulation of glossolalia hangs in mid air by fingernails’ grip from the outcropping of the high ledge of Paul’s teaching about who edifies the church best (1 Corinthians 14:5):

He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

This excerpt (1 Corinthians 14:5) teaches in context: (1) the priority that prophecy should have in the church (1 Corinthians 14:1), the theme of the chapter; (2) the need for interpretation ofglossolalia spoken out loud while holding the attention of the congregation; (3) the equality of the tongues-speaker who also translates his tongue for the congregation with the one who prophesies as one who also edifies the church, although in a different way, using speech offered to God as the means of edification.

The equation as stated (1 Corinthians 14:5) begins as unbalanced [“unless”] to which a second gift must be added to get equivalency. That means that if we are desirous of restating it without the “unless” as a balanced equation, we must make the exercising of the two gifts the first component of the equation, giving it an emphasis derived from our reconstruction, rather than from Paul’s intent.³ We get:

Not a stunt of exegetical acrobatics, but just desperate special pleading is the claim that 1 Corinthians 14:5 affords a proof text for messages in tongues. The context both before (1 Corinthians 14:2,4) and after (1 Corinthians 14:6–17) will not allow that, unless one would be disposed to allege that the author was confused, even contradictory in what he wrote. Context, therefore, collides head on with the “messages” formula. Content, as well, cancels the validity of the “messages” formula. Misconstruing both tongues and interpretation, formulators came up with a formula that makes a false equation as to content:

“tongues + interpretation = prophecy”

What this formula actually teaches can be grasped and critiqued by expanding into synonyms true to the context but not to the theory:

green apples + ripe apples = pineapples

transmission up + retransmission up = transmission down

tongues “prayer” + translated prayer = admonition, exhortation

But by that fabricated formula, 1 Corinthians 14:5 has been twisted to serve a purpose that the apostle never intended, one that would involve him in a self-contradiction. In 1 Corinthians 14:5 he is speaking exclusively of the person who is the best edifier of the congregation, and not of the direction and character of the utterance itself, which he had just spelled out in no uncertain terms (1 Corinthians 14:2).

Donald Gee, in many ways the most sagacious of the writing Pentecostal leaders of the mid-twentieth century, understood the headache the formula gives to those who are truly biblicists. Hear him as he concedes that the supposed biblical foundation for “messages” in tongues is “extremely meager,” and note his consternation caused by the fact that the alleged proof text (1 Corinthians 14:5) in its traditional “messages” conception is flatly contradicted by Paul’s preceding categorical statement:

One of the interesting phenomena of the Pentecostal Movement has been the development of this habit of frequent “messages” in tongues. The scriptural basis for this is extremely meager, being almost entirely limited to a few verses in the early part of 1 Corinthians 14 where it says that “greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues except he interpret.” This follows a perfectly clear statement that the purpose of tongues is for speaking to God, but that the purpose of prophesying is for speaking to men.⁴

Misunderstanding Of 1 Corinthians 14:6

Now verse six also must be heard in the light of the definitive assertion (1 Corinthians 14:2) that glossolalia is not directed “to men” but “to God.” Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 14:6 is that speaking “some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction” is more appropriate for congregational edification than the congregation’s hearing the individual believer speaking devotionally to God in a language of “mysteries” (1 Corinthians 14:2). So 1 Corinthians 14:6 calls for upbuilding speech addressed to men and understood by them. Glossolalia devotes to God singing, praying, praising, and giving thanks (1 Corinthians 14:14–17). In the 1 Corinthians 14:14–17 fourfold mention of the true aspects of glossolalia, no mention was made of any of the key elements of 1 Corinthians 14:6 — revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or instruction. It would have been a distortion of his 1 Corinthians 14:14­–17 argument to have added in parallel to thanking, praising, singing, praying in a tongue the impossible catachresis: if I prophesy in a tongue, my spirit prophesies.

Indeed, since God is the addressee of all glossolalia (1 Corinthians 14:2), and God has no need of revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or instruction coming to Him from His church, it does no “good” (1 Corinthians 14:6) for the listeners in church to be hearing devotion to God in a language not understood. The speaking individual himself in such a case is edified (1 Corinthians 14:4), but no one else, “unless” the worshipful utterance is translated (1 Corinthians 14:5). There is considerable difference between worship and instruction, between glossolalia and teaching.

The Anomaly Of Messages In Tongues

Neither the term, message in tongues,⁵ nor any of its equivalents (address in tongues, prophecy in tongues) is ever used in the New Testament. Nor is the concept found there using other words. Were the apostle Paul to visit a Pentecostal church today and hear an utterance in tongues followed by an utterance that began, “Hear O my people, I the Lord thy God say unto thee … ,” he would be hearing a supposed “message” in tongues for the first time — a “message,” not just an utterance, and there is, geometrically speaking, a 90-degree difference. He would be hearing for the first time a glossolalist purporting to speak, not to God, but to the congregation.

Actually, the problem is not that of a messages-novelty of glossolalia, as if such could originate post-biblically as a new gift, but the problem certainly lies with what could be called the message-type interpretations, which in reality are not interpretations of what was said — at all — but independent prophecies that find a convenient break in the service for their insertion. In other words, the twentieth-century phenomenon, “a message in tongues,” consists of a prophecy juxtaposed to a preceding utterance in tongues, that when all is said and done is never actually translated.

The Disorder Of Oracular Interpretations

The intruding “prophecy” per se may be as fully genuine as was the preceding “tongues.” But such a disjointed combination cannot pass the test as “fitting and orderly” (1 Corinthians 14:40); it projects erroneously an image of a deity of “disorder” (1 Corinthians 14:33). The incompatible substitution of prophecy for interpretation produces the following disorders:

(1) distorts “the gift of tongues” in the minds of the church as being God’s personal channel for broadcasting;

(2) obliterates the true “gift of interpretation of tongues” except occasionally for melodic glossolalia;

(3) produces false impressions about God’s antics in speaking to His family;

(4) casts aspersions on God’s character as if for some human reason He needed to be overwhelming or intentionally obscure;

(5) foments false ripples of sensationalism in Pentecostal services, as if God were more interested in theatrics than grace and peace;

(6) exempts all such actual utterances from the rigorous examination required of prophecies (1 Corinthians 14:29).

None of those six effects is edifying to the congregation. The only positive values coming out of the disorder were these:

(1) The tongues speaker himself was edified as he spoke;

(2) The congregation was edified to the degree the unevaluated prophecy masquerading as “interpretation” was genuine, and many times what was said prophetically was edifying.

Summary Of Analysis:

What today often is supposed to be a genuine interpretation actually is a prophecy riding atmospherically into the meeting on a thunderhead of glossolalia.

Need For The Subsidiary Gift Of Interpretation

Even in the Early Church the gift of interpretation was rare enough so that the apostle gave counsel as to what to do in the absence of someone with that gift: (1) pray that he (the speaker) might interpret (1 Corinthians 14:13) and if the gift is not forthcoming he should (2) practice subvocal glossolalia (1 Corinthians 14:28). Many Pentecostal congregations today are quite sensitive to the disorder of having an utterance in tongues without a following interpretation. So tension quickly builds after the glossolalic utterance if no one interprets immediately.

If the church is functioning in good order, if things are done “in turn,” and if one with the gift of interpretation is present or the speaker himself has the gifted readiness to interpret, how will a genuine interpretation come across? First, it must have a dependence on or correspondence to what was actually said. That is, it will translate the “tongue,” whether tersely or with amplified freedom. But its content, no matter how few or many the words, will be of the same nature and direction as the original utterance “to God.” Interpretation may express deep worship, praise, thanksgiving, and possibly recite the wonderful, praiseworthy acts of God. Or, on the other hand, depending on what was actually said in the “tongue,” an accurate interpretation could sound exactly like a prayer of whatever kind, in the common language.

While glossolalia is often prayer (1 Corinthians 14:14 15) it takes great courage today on the interpreter’s part merely to repeat for the congregation the glossolalist’s prayer in the common language. Given the dynamic sensationalism and high drama that message-type “interpretations” of the supposed voice of God take on, is it any wonder that in such an environment even someone with a completely genuine “gift of interpretation” would hesitate to use it when the congregation is all set to hear from God, rather than to hear a fellow believer’s praise or prayer to God translated?

When there is the disuse of the gift of interpretation, lack of teaching to support its proper use, and the warping of congregational perspective on it, is it any wonder that the gift of prophecy gravitates into the service-break after uninterpreted glossolalia? When that happens, the immediate situation is saved from the Corinthian abuse of public glossolalia without interpretation by substituting another less recognized abuse, that of cross-wiring a prophecy to a preceding glossolalia. That shorts out the standard connection between tongues and the translation required by the biblical electrical code. After a while, the white puff of strange smoke it emits each time it happens is considered a normal phenomenon. Danger!

The whole idea of interpretation is to use other words to convey the same meaning. By no stretch of the “interpretation” inexpansive paraphrase — or condensation of it into bare bones brevity — can the supposed “interpreter” legitimately exchange what actually was spoken “not to men but to God” and make it from God to men after all, reversing its divine direction, substituting a different speaker [God], and consequently reordering its content from worship and prayer into a windstorm of proclamation, to be an oracular house-shaking message from the mouth of God, congregationally esteemed to be even more directly divine than prophecy. Let all the yellow lights begin flashing on this scene!

Congregational Sensationalism

When the gift of prophecy is superimposed on an uninterpreted utterance in tongues, a supersensation stirs and often startles the congregation. It cannot be otherwise. Although that mismatching of gifts is entirely unprecedented in the New Testament, it long has been a familiar occurrence in Pentecostal congregations and in charismatic circles as well. A surprise utterance in tongues is construed by the messages-in-tongues oriented group to be a special-delivery message from God. Thought to have extraordinary priority, it will be a service-stopper. Usually valued as more important than all else that has gone on before or that will come after it in the service, it in the minds of many will rank well above the expository message by the pastor or whoever expounds the Word of God.

While minds are baffled as to the content of what is being said, the congregants murmur to themselves in hushed tones, “Now this is God speaking!” The special flow of tongue speech, indecipherable as yet, heightens the suspense as to what it is that God is presumed to be trying to communicate with such urgency that it could not come through the normal channels of preaching, teaching, and prophecy.⁶

At such times most believers automatically close their eyes lest they see something too holy for them. When the first speaker’s voice falls silent, congregational expectations are at a peak. There weighs down, therefore, a heavy burden on the spiritual leadership to free the “message” bound up in the unknown tongue of God, and not to disappoint the spiraling excitation generated in an expectant, sighing people.

This stimulating message from God is construed to be the crowning confirmation of God’s presence among His people. The congregation is prepared for startling words from the “interpreter” — not really something so tame as a believer’s testimony of praise or his or her prayer to God. The people are so galvanized by the glory of the presumed divine interruption as to be rendered virtually shockproof as to the interpretation. Momentous pronouncements are liturgically in order. The more stupendous the “interpretation,” the more authentic it is presumed to be!

What is important to understand here is that a “message” — type interpretation always operates on a presumed tier of glory decisively above that of prophecy, although the actual words uttered are indistinguishable from the words of a prophecy; and it is perceived to be several tiers above the preached message from the Bible, though the minister may have prepared and prayed over his message from God for a week or more. If the pastor, for lack of understanding or lack of spiritual spunk to correct, does not teach the congregation what constitutes the proper order in the ministry of spiritual gifts, and prophecies — genuine though they may be — are permitted to pose as the “interpretation of tongues,” the momentum for messages may mount week by week. Sooner or later the pressure will be exerted on him to become himself the “interpreter,” so that he may give what is perceived congregationally to be the highest order, most exciting “message” of the meeting, if he wants to retain “spiritual” leadership.

A Lamentable Reordering Of Apostolic Values

Alas, alas, there has been an astonishing inversion of the biblical order from last to first caused by the messages phenomenon. For in the apostolic hierarchy of gifts (“first … second … third … then … also … ”) tongues with interpretation comes in last in all three lineups (1 Corinthians 12:28; 12:29–30, and 12:7–10).

The following summarizes the historical picture:

1st century:
tongues + translation/interpretation
= the least of the gifts for congregational edification

20th century:
tongues + prophecy (alias “interpretation”)
= the foremost of the gifts for the congregation

It almost goes without saying that whenever the corrective of insisting on interpretations that are genuine (that is, relating what was actually said) are put into place, the sensationalism of glossolalia in the congregation disappears altogether, and the fascination with congregational glossolalia greatly diminishes, giving prophecies a chance to come into their own as Paul intended (1 Corinthians 14:1).

Sad to say, the scandal today that is an affront to some sincere non-Pentecostal evangelicals who visit Pentecostal or Charismatic meetings is not an offense arising out of the scriptural practice of speech-gifts. It is another scandal altogether without biblical defense, the glamorization of glossolalia as God’s disruption of a meeting to deliver a message in a manner more personal than that of prophecy or preaching.

Juvenile Alterations Of The Divine Image

Beyond the mixing up of gifts in violation of biblical order so as to sensationalize glossolalia, there is also the already mentioned theological scandal implicit in the message syndrome. What God does — as much as anything — tells who God is. Is the God in whom “there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5) the kind of God who would keep the “children of light” (Ephesians 5:8) in the dark as He speaks to them? Would He disguise His voice using another nation’s language not their own? Will His congregational communications characteristically have a long foreign stringer prefixed to them that His family cannot understand until translated? Surely, He knows the church’s language?

When in response to these foolish-but-necessary-under-the-circumstances questions, we ask, “Why on earth would God do that?” no satisfactory answer can be had, especially since no precedent for messages in tongues is to be found anywhere in the Bible. God spoke to no one in a foreign tongue at Pentecost. Pentecost, where it all began as international languages, expressed God’s deep concern that the dozen and more nationalities present would hear the Savior’s praises, “each … in his own native language” (Acts 2:6,8,11).

God’s Choice Of Languages

It runs like a linguistic thread through the whole fabric of the biblical revelation that God speaks His messages to people always in the language they understand best, their own language, and not that of another people.⁷ On the other hand, it matters not at all what language one uses in speaking to God when praying or praising with one’s mind, or with the Spirit’s mind. It runs counter to the express words of Scripture (1 Corinthians 14:2,22) and apostolic authority (14:37) to teach that glossolalia is God’s language to men. Speaking to someone or some group in a foreign language when you already know their language would not be considered polite in most, possibly all, cultures. But God is polite, considerate, and always full of light.

Important: When glossolalia is a “sign” (14:22) for unbelievers as on the day of Pentecost, it has evidential value to them that God is present and in control precisely because they hear and understand their own language through which God was speaking to them (Acts 2:6,8,11).

The one and only exception to this principle merely proves the rule (1 Corinthians 14:21,22). After God had spoken on numerous occasions to eighth-century-B.C. Israel through His prophets, and all to no avail, there was nothing more He had to say to them except this: They would not be able to understand Him the next time around. Fullillment: As the Hebrews were being bound together to be marched away into captivity by the Assyrians, the speech of their Assyrian captors falling on their ears, speech they could not understand, was in essence — if not in vocal fact — God’s strange “language” to them, since they would not submit to the message of the prophets in Hebrew (Deuteronomy 28:49; Isaiah 28:11; Jeremiah 5:15).

The foreign tongue was a last-resort “sign” to Hebrew unbelievers, a sign of the judgment of God on a people who had rejected countless times what He had said to them in their own language. That is, God had no inclination to communicate concepts to them directly in the tongue of alien Assyrians, but ironically they had forced on themselves the strange language of the captivity of 722 B.C., and the captors jabbering away among themselves in Assyrian fully exhausted the meaning of the sign.

Repeat: There was no verbal message from God passed by the Assyrians to the Hebrews. It was exclusively a situational message in which Hebrews’ aural exposure to the unknown Assyrian language dramatized something about their broken relationship with God. Since they had not listened to what God told them in their Hebrew language, He had other ways of speaking as judgment. Judgment, however, is certainly in harmony with the revealed character of God.

If this truth that God always communicates to His obedient people in their own language seems to be greatly belabored here, consider this: The only justification for obscure messages (that is, message-type interpretations) is just this one Old Testament incident, in which there was no “message” at all in Assyrian words — only the fact of Assyrians speaking sentences and epithets unintelligible to Hebrews. And certainly no interpretation was provided because God was not saying anything more to them. It would be totally out of character for God ever to speak to His faithful people in any language except their own.

Glossolalia “Sign” To The Church?

When sincere Pentecostals say — or imply — that congregational glossolalia is a “sign” God is speaking to His people (and one soon gets that impression in many Pentecostal churches), they are forced to take God’s ironic and untranslated “speech” in Assyrian to His apostate people as their only model. More seriously, they have to contradict flatfootedly Paul’s specific teaching on this very issue: “Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers … ” (1 Corinthians 14:22). These apostolic words are hard to understand only if one comes to them with a tradition that has made tongues the all-important sign of God’s presence in the congregation.

The consequences of “messages” phenomena directly overturning the double apostolic negatives (1 Corinthians 14:2,22) are serious in terms of the theological shadows thereby cast upon God, to say nothing of the confusion such denials of scriptural words (“not to men,” “not for believers”) produce in the minds of those who not only theoretically, but actually, contend for the worth of every word that comes from the mouth of God. The apostolic teaching should be decisive:

“Anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men” (1 Corinthians 14:2).

“Tongues … are a sign not for believers” (1 Corinthians 14:22).

If someone were to excise both of these negatives from Scripture, only then could he presume to say that glossolalia is the sign that God is speaking to the church. The real question then becomes: Does one throw out the offensive negatives to justify the practice, or do we correct the practice by insisting on authentic interpretations of those utterances spoken “not to men but to God”?

Incorrect Liturgy Favoring Glossolalia Over Prophecv

Opportunities for those who wish to prophesy are formally set up in many charismatic circles. Pentecostal liturgies do not generally make that provision, but usually allow prophecies to interrupt almost anything else going on. For the person prophesying for the first time, it is far more intimidating to him or her to interrupt the flow of the meeting to give his prophecy, whether he speaks in the third person “for God” or more intrepidly in the first person “as God” (“I, the Lord, say … ”), than it would be to speak out prophetically when the brakes have been applied, as at the end of an utterance in tongues. Just one successful coupling of his prophecy with someone’s “tongues” event may be all that is needed to condition him thereafter to take the easy way to convey his prophetic messages by delivering them in tandem with glossolalias.

After such combinations get set in the local tradition, it is predictable that three things will occur over time: (1) the minor gift of interpretation will atrophy; (2) the gift of prophecy will lose its primal place Paul decreed it should have (1 Corinthians 14:1,3,4,5,19,22,24–25,39) to become secondary; (3) the “interpretation” will escape the evaluative scrutiny imposed on prophecies (1 Corinthians 14:29). Correcting a prophet or an individual prophesying in God’s name is one thing, but correcting “God” deemed to be speaking directly His urgent “message” is that much more intimidating.

False Concepts Of Giftedness And Of A Spiritual Church

The one who speaks out congregationally in a tongue is also conditioned by whether 1 Corinthians 14:2,22 defines for him, or whether he has reversed in his thinking the true direction of his utterance. His attitude will be affected by whether he conceives of himself as praising and praying like all the others in the congregation except that his is in an alien tongue, or whether he sees himself as wearing an ambassadorial sash, thinking of himself as delivering each time a communiqué from God to the congregation, second in sensation only to an audible voice from heaven.

When the tongues-speaker’s concept of the direction of his speech is biblically unfounded, there are consequences for everyone. If his glossolalia is “interpreted” as if it were a “message” by someone who would not give his own identical “prophecy” as a free standing utterance as expected of prophecies, the glossolalist will be affirmed and thrilled by all the attention he gets as God’s special spokesman. The practice then feeds on itself and glossolalias are sought as the sign of a very spiritual church — one that God talks to mysteriously, while not speaking that way to others! On the other hand, if the “messages” momentum ever plays out, all other things being equal, the congregants could be blown away with the wind and conclude that the church suddenly has become unspiritual, almost dead, because God is not speaking to it anymore.

The regulatory teachings Paul set forth in chapter 14 are not options a church can adopt or not as it suits their tradition. True prophets and spiritually gifted people will acknowledge that his guidelines are indeed, “the Lord’s command’ (1 Corinthians 14:37,38).

Conclusion

Whether one speaks in tongues privately as did the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:18,19) or in the assembled church, the phenomenon, direction, and addressee is the same. The “tongues” spoken express prayer and devotion to God, recognizing His wonderful works through Jesus (Acts 2:11). In either private or congregational tongues the individual speaking is strengthened. The church is blessed only if the tongue is translated in their hearing. But — and this is what makes tongues and true interpretation the least of the gifts — the church is no more edified by hearing the proper pair of gifts combined than it would have been, had the tongues-speaker had the faith to present his or her devotion to God right from the start in the language common to the congregation. The advantage is that the utterance of praise/prayer was enabled by the Spirit, and the church benefited from it as one does when he hears another believer having his devotions. The disadvantage is that the congregation had to wait until the exotic monologue was over before they could participate in it meaningfully by way of the interpretation. All the blessing for the congregation is lost, of course, if the rare gift of interpretation is not present and properly used. The glossolalist must take full responsibility to see that the church is edified (1 Corinthians 14:27,28).

—William Graham MacDonald, Th.D., Front Royal, Virginia, taught a combined 22 years at Southeastern College, Central Bible College, and Gordon College, before engaging in a full-time writing ministry.

Endnote

1. Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This? (Springfield, Mo: Gospel Publishing House, 1947), 310.

2. The Catholic charismatic J. Massingberd Ford wrote: “The biblical data and our existential experience teach us that prophecy is often given in tongues.” “Toward a Theology of Speaking in Tongues,” Theological Studies. Vol. 32, no. 1 (March, 1971), 28.

3. His intent cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed to champion the use of tongues and interpretation.

4. DonaId Gee, Spiritual Gifts in the Work of the Ministry Today (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 52.

5. Howard P. Courtney, Vocal Gifts of the Spirit: Tongues, Interpretation of Tongues, Prophecy (LA.: Robertson, 1956), 24. Also: “one of the great PURPOSES and USES of the GIFT OF TONGUES is as a vehicle, a medium of expression for the messages to the church through the GIFT OF INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES.” 21.

6. Donald Gee’s observation is apt: “The whole habit is rooted in the mistaken idea that the utterance in tongues possesses a quality of supernatural inspiration not present in the ministry of the Word, and that idea arises from the failure to recognize the better gifts of the same Spirit being manifested in preaching and teaching.” Spiritual Gifts in the Work of the Ministry Today (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 56.

7. This has been the grand principle behind the great work that the Wycliffe Translators organization is doing around the world today in attempting to provide every people group with the Word of God in their own language, because it is God’s mandate to them and is in the best interests of those who as yet have not heard God’s Word.