“Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.”
I Corinthians 14:13-17 NKJV
The Church of Corinth was not a perfect church. Most of Paul’s letters had significant aspects of correction for the churches to which he was writing. Corinth had much to be corrected, in this chapter mostly due to their zeal rather than any blatant rebellion, especially in the area of spiritual gifts and specifically in the area of tongues. Paul wasn’t dousing their zeal, but rather trying to define it and direct it.
I would stipulate that tongues has been a flash point in the modern church age. It has been the illustration for some to draw lines between the emotional and intellectual. Paul addresses that very line. One neither has to check their brain out at the door of the church, nor endure a cold, feeling-less religion. It is fascinating to note, that no earthly language requires some form of emotional moment to “practice” it. It becomes second nature as the mind embraces a new vocabulary, syntax, and sound. Paul will write similarly concerning spiritual language. It is not an emotional release as much as it is a spiritual yielding. The criticism of many cessationists and anti-tongues teachers is the assumption that Corinth had embraced a cultic, ecstatic practice which resembled the pagan euphoric practices of that era. That is a leap in exegetical practice in my opinion based on the passage we are working with in this post.
“Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.”
This verse may be able to be applied in both private and public expressions of spiritual language. Perhaps a quick discussion on what distinguishes interpretation from translation might be in order. When a person translates a language, it assumes a more precise rendering which perhaps is best expressed in written form. For example, the Bible is translated from Hebrew/Greek into English (depending on the translation) word for word so we might have the most accurate presentation of the text. Interpretation is better understood in vocal form. For example, if a person is preaching in English, an interpreter takes the thoughts and intents of the speaker and declares it in the language of the hearers. A public or private tongue is not so much translated as it is interpreted. If the tongue is the language of the spiritual realm and the Kingdom, it is interpreted by thought and intent rather than wooden translation. Why is this important? For years, I could not understand why a moment of spiritual language might be shorter or longer in length than the interpretation. Was a time discrepancy between the two undermine the credibility of the tongue? For me, the answer has become “no”. Of course, every tongue must also be spiritually appraised as genuine or not, which comes from spiritual maturity.
This passage, however, points out a critical protocol issue in a public service. If a public tongue is released, the ultimate responsibility for the interpretation of that tongue is the person who spoke it. Yes, another may have the gift of interpretation and the Spirit may prompt that person to interpret, but in the final moment, when an interpretation must come forth (as Paul instructs), the original speaker is responsible.
This also provides a window of possibility to those who may be interceding in the Spirit, to receive an interpretation of what actually was being prayed at that moment.
“For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.”
Paul identifies that a believer can pray from two locations. There is a prayer which can come from one’s spirit and a prayer which can come from one’s mind. In most instances, the prayer from your spirit will be unintelligible and perhaps, as Paul originally wrote, a mystery. A prayer with your understanding is obviously one that will be known with your mind. But notice, Paul states that he WILL pray from both locations. He also states that he WILL sing from both locations. This is important because both locations are accessed by an ACT OF YOUR WILL, not a reaction of your emotion. It is a choice, not an uncontrollable emotion. We are told, on the Day of Pentecost, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and (they) began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4 NKJV) The disciples had to choose to speak, what the Spirit gave them to utter. Their wills were not overridden, but rather they made a choice to vocalize what the Spirit was impressing upon them. I can choose to pray with the spirit or pray in my understanding.
“Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.”
Again, Paul continually returns to the awareness that others are participating in corporate gathering as well, so understanding needs to be happening so everyone may be encouraged and built-up. Nobody can say, “Amen” or “So be it” if they are not sure to what they are agreeing.
…to be continued.
No Comments