Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 3

Paul said to the Corinthians, AFor if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.@ What was Paul saying? Was he suggesting we all should aspire to having a prayer language? Let me clear at the outset. Those who use a prayer language surely must derive a benefit form the practice. But, let=s also be clear on another point, Paul was not endorsing, suggesting, or commanding the use of a prayer language.

To get the sense of what Paul was saying requires an understanding of conditional sentences in the Greek language. A conditional sentence is an Aif, . . . then@ formulation. The Greek language has four conditional sentences. Each is used in specific circumstances. In 1 Cor. 14:14, Paul used a third class conditional sentence, generally used for hypothetical situations. He was not saying, necessarily, he prayed in a Atongue,@ he simply proposed that hypothetical circumstance to prove a point. The point was, praying in a Atongue@ means his spirit would have been praying, but his mind would have been unfruitful; he would not have understood what he was praying.

He went on to say the following: AI will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.@ Paul=s praying in the spirit was the same as his praying with his mind. He said he would pray with both and sing with both, meaning, what he prayed and what he sang he would have understood. Again, Paul was arguing against the practice of ecstatic speech. He did not say to not pray in that manner, but he surely did not say he prayed in Atongues.@ What about the comment AI thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all@?

No doubt, Paul spoke several languages. At the very least, he spoke and wrote in Greek (his native language, probably, since he was born and reared in Tarsus); he spoke in Hebrew, and, we can assume, he spoke in Aramaic (close to Hebrew). Since he was so well traveled, we might, with some justification, assume he spoke to some extent in the regional dialects and languages of the places he visited. From my point of view, I must take that position as opposed to believing Paul was declaring he spoke in “tongues,” ecstatic speech, in the manner of the Corinthians. Why would he have argued so forcefully and convincingly against a practice in which himself engaged? Paul did not contradict himself.

In the second article I mentioned, the author argued for the position all the tongues references in Acts were proof of tongues as a prayer language. Let=s look at those accounts. First, in Acts 2 (see preceding article), the disciples were given the ability to speak in languages by the Spirit (as he gave them utterance, or, the ability to speak). What about the content of what they said, Aspeaking of the mighty deeds of God@? In Acts, what were the Amighty deeds of God@? We should look no further than the sermon of Peter. In speaking of Jesus, he said he was Aa man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.@ Further, he declared, Abut God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.@ What other Amighty deeds@ of God would the speakers have declared?

What do we do with the case of Cornelius and his household?  AFor they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.@ (10:46) What were the tongues? Given the makeup of a Roman household, we know Cornelius=s biological family was included, as soldiers who lived in his house, as well as his slaves. Many of those were from the far-flung reaches of the Roman Empire. Surely, in the excitement of the moment, each spoke in his native language. Luke understood the word glÇssa only as language, (see preceding article), not as ecstatic speech. The same is true of the disciples of John the Baptist Paul met in Ephesus. When the Spirit came upon them, they, too, spoke in their native language.

The gift of languages is legitimate and still practiced to this day by those so endowed by the Holy Spirit. We simply need to get away from using the word Atongues@ as a translation of glÇssa. We are not served well in our understanding of the gift by that word. Remember, when Paul referred to the gift, he used the plural; when what one person did was in question, he used the singular. So, if one has the gift of languages, when he speaks, he speaks in a language, not languages. Are all who “speak in tongues” using the same “tongue,” or does each speak in his own “tongue.” Let’s be clear about our terms.

Is the idea of a prayer language legitimate? For those who practice it, yes. Is the concept truly biblical? I do not think so. But, I might be wrong. Consider the following. My wife Pat and I have 8 grandchildren. They range in age from 10 years old to 2 months. In addition to the 2 month old, we have another who is 9 months old. Neither she nor the 2 months old can talk. I love neither of them any less than the other 6, but we cannot engage in legitimate conversation as we do with the other six. For me, one of the more frustrating things about being a grandparent is understanding a grandchild when they are just beginning to learn to speak coherently. Their parents know their baby words; most of the time, I don=t. I want to know what they are saying, so we can have a fruitful conversation. Surely, God wants the same in his relationship with his children.