Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 2

Let=s now look at Atongues.@ A good starting point would be a quick look at the doctrine of subsequence (or, the baptism in the Holy Spirit). That school of theological thought says all believers should, at least once, speak in tongues. If subsequence is a legitimate, biblical position, we all (1) should seek the baptism, and once it is received, (2) should speak in tongues. No other view can be held if the doctrine is biblical. Should we all speak in tongues? Further, if, as one writer proposed (articles referenced in previous post), tongues is in essence a prayer language, can and should we not all aspire to glossolalia? What do we do about the Agift of tongues@?

Our problems arise with the King James Version of the Bible. The translators of the KJV did the church a great disservice when they used the word tongues, and added the word Adivers@ (1 Cor. 12:10) and unknown (14:2, et al.). Those two words (divers and unknown) were not in the original text; they were supplied by the KJV translators for theological reasons. Those who translated the KJV worked from the presupposition the Atongues@ in Corinth were something other than a human language.

Let me insert an observation, at this point, on the inspiration of Scripture. Most of us Southern Baptists believe the words of Paul: all Scripture is inspired by God. Now, given that truth, we can extrapolate the following. If the Spirit inspired one writer to use a particular word, in this case glÇssa, then, when he inspired another writer to use the same word in another context, the meaning of the word must be understood to be the same in both settings.

For instance, Luke used glÇssa in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; and 19:6. We can know exactly what Luke meant in his use of that word because of his use of a synonym. In 2:6 and 8, Luke used the term dialektos, dialkect or language. He wrote, Aeach one of them was hearing them speak in his own language (dialektos) . . . how is it that we each hear them in our own language (dialektos) to which we were born?@ One other example underscores Luke=s understanding of his terms. In 20:40, as Paul began his defense to the Jews in the Temple, Luke stated, Ahe spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect (dialektos).@ One would be hard-pressed to defend translating glÇssa in Acts with any term other than language.

So, then, what about 1 Corinthians. Paul said, ASo also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages (phon‘, sound, language) in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language (phon‘), I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.@ (14:9-11) A more literal translation of verse nine is instructive. AIf, with a language, you do not give an easily understandable word, how will they know/understand what you are saying? You will be speaking into the air.@

Obviously, what the Corinthians were doing was engaging in some kind of ecstatic speech. What Paul wanted them to know was, (1) only clearly understandable speech has purpose, and (2) the gift of Atongues@ was, in fact, the gift of a human language, not the gift of ecstatic gibberish. How can we say that? In their seeking for spiritual things, the Corinthians were to Aseek to abound for the edification of the church.@ (14:18) Further, if one wished to speak in a Atongue,@ he must refrain from doing so unless one was present who could Ainterpret@ what he was saying. The demand was for one who could translate, not give the gist of what the tongue speaker was saying. Indeed, Paul declared the one who spoke in a tongue should pray for the ability to interpret his own speaking. Far from endorsing ecstatic speaking in Corinth, Paul argued strongly for an understanding of the gift of language, not tongues. Paul put the whole argument in terms of language (phon‘ and glÇssa). Those two words are synonyms; nowhere does phon‘ mean Atongues;@ its meaning is either sound or language.@

To better understand Paul=s comments in 1 Corinthians 14, look at the text in the following manner. Let=s say the first century Roman world had English as its lingua franca. Further, let=s say we all spoke Greek as our everyday language. So, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he would have never used the word Atongues@ for what the Corinthians were doing; he would have used the word language. He would have used only language in his letter (unless, of course, he was referring to the human organ). In the same way, when we would translate his English into our Greek, we would use the word glÇssa for his word language.

On the other hand, some might argue, as the above referenced author did, Atongues@ is a Aprayer language.@ So is the gift of Atongues@ intended as a prayer language?