Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 4

I just read an article entitled, “A Biblical Basis for Speaking in Tongues in Private.” Basically, in the article, the author was attempting to show the position of the International Mission Board (SBC) regarding private prayer languages to be in error. Further, to prove his point, he attempted to prove the biblical legitimacy of private prayer languages.

He had one presupposition upon which he based his argument: tongues, as in unintelligible speech, is the correct way to translate and understand the Greek word glossā in all instances of its appearance in the NT when referring to speech. As argued in the second post in this series, Luke understood glossā as language only. Therein lies the difficulty with interpretations of the author of the above article.

The author made three points to buttress his argument for the legitimacy of speaking in tongues in private. The first was his interpretation of Mark 16:17. Two observations must be made. First, if the author accepts verse 17, does he also accept 16 and 18. In v. 16, the text says, “he who has believed and been baptized shall be saved.” Is baptism a prerequisite for, or a result of salvation? The text says baptism is a prerequisite. How about verse 18? Does the writer adhere to the implications of the picking up of serpents and drinking poison?

Second, most Bible translations with any kind of notes provide the following information: Mark 16:9-20 is not considered to be an authentic part of the original document. On the website www.biblicalarcheology.org, Dr. James Tabor was quoted. He wrote, “The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: ‘Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.’” Most likely, this passage does not give us the words of Jesus. Thus, he did not endorse “speaking in tongues.” Eusebius lived from AD 260/265 to 339/340; Jerome from 347 to 420.

The author’s second argument was based on Acts 2:1-13. In that story, Luke said, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” (1:4) In verse 8, we find, “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?” What the author of the above article failed to point out was Luke’s use of different terms in those two verses. In v. 4, he used glossā; in v. 8, he used the word dialektos. These words are synonyms. The term dialektos cannot mean tongue; only dialect or language. Thus, we are required to translate glossā as language. In neither Luke nor Acts does Luke ever use glossā, when referring to speech, as tongue, or unintelligible speech.

The writer further stated, “I can assure you that their speaking in tongues was not limited to that occasion only.” Upon what biblical authority or text does the author base that conclusion? Indeed, no scriptural evidence can be found for such an assertion. As well, the “wonderful works of God,” addressed in the preceding post, refers to the proclamation of what God had done in Christ.

Lastly, the writer said Paul affirmed the use of tongues as an act of private devotion. Again, this subject was addressed in the third post in this series, but let’s look at it again. First Corinthians 14:14 is a conditional sentence in which Paul set up a hypothetical situation. The point of that verse and what follows is to show the inadequacy of “praying in a tongue.” Clearly, Paul was referring to the unintelligible speaking of the Corinthians. We must recognize how Paul dealt with that phenomenon: he called it language. Further, he said if he did pray in that manner, his mind would be unfruitful. Instead, he said, he would pray with his spirit and his mind, thus, being able to understand what he was saying. Additionally, he said he would rather speak 5 intelligible words than 10,000 unintelligible ones.

As stated in the last post, those who use a private prayer language must derive some benefit from it. We also must realize that practice is not endorsed, encouraged or commanded in Scripture. A private prayer language is without a clear biblical warrant.

Let me say again what I said earlier: I might be wrong. The question for me, though, is why do we believers not all desire to pray in such a manner? If a private prayer language is a biblical work of the Holy Spirit, why has he not convicted us all of the legitimate necessity of such a practice?