Part 1 because I will most likely blog about this issue again.
But for now, no ideas of my own – but those of GC, worker for Matthias Media and prolific unpublished-letters-to-the-editor writer.
–ooOOoo–
Speaking in Tongues
14 December 2005 AD
Since I speak Swedish at about 4th class level, I like to let it slip occasionally that I have ‘the gift of tongues’, as referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians. I’m occasionally confronted, however, by people who are convinced that ‘the gift of tongues’ in the Bible refers to a supernatural or divinely inspired babbling, understandable only to God and someone with the divine gift of interpretation.
So, is there any evidence at all that the gift of ‘tongues’ to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 12-14 refers to anything other than normal speech, in a regular human language that the speakers don’t understand?
As Paul nowhere defines ‘tongues’ we have to make a bit of a stab at what he means when he uses the Greek word glossa. In the gospels, this word literally means the ‘tongue’, the piece of flesh that is found inside the mouth. However, it’s hard to see how even the Corinthian church would consider the sprouting of an extra tongue, say from an earlobe or a shoulderblade, as something to boast about; and it is even more difficult to see why God would choose to give such a tongue as a gift for the building up of the church (1 Cor 14:12).
Glossa, or ‘tongue’, does have another meaning, however. In Acts 2:4-6 (a highly significant passage for a number of groups who want to encourage ‘speaking in tongues’), the Holy Spirit comes down at Pentecost, with the spectacular result that people from right across the Roman Empire hear the gospel in their own language. This is because the speakers are speaking in ‘tongues’, and here we can’t avoid the conclusion that—apparently miraculously—the speakers are speaking other human languages. The hearers are gobsmacked, so to speak:
“Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues [Greek glossai] the mighty works of God.” (Acts 2:8-11)
Outside Acts—and leaving 1 Corinthians aside for the moment—the 21 of 49 occurrences of the “glossa” word group can in their various contexts only mean either the physical ‘tongue’, or simply a ‘language’ of the normal or garden variety human sort.
So a reasonable assumption as we approach 1 Corinthians is that here, too, ‘tongues’ means ‘normal human language’ (having already excluded the other meaning, ‘piece of flesh normally found growing in the mouth’ as improbable).
Whilst this meaning makes perfect sense, there are two verses that might cause us to suspect that something else is meant. In 1 Corinthians 13:1 Paul refers to tongues “of men and of angels”. And in 1 Corinthians 14:14, Paul acknowledges that “if I pray in a tongue … my mind is unfruitful”, suggesting possibly that he himself doesn’t understand what he’s saying.
However, both of these tricky verses can be understood in a simpler way that doesn’t require us (or God for that matter) to create a whole new class of languages that no human being could ever understand without the intervention of an extraordinary miracle. 1 Corinthians 13 uses hyperbolic, over-the-top language to show the Corinthians just how silly their preoccupation with spiritual gifts is. In the verses straight after, Paul imagines situations where he is variously given insight into every single mystery in the world and every piece of knowledge, having the faith to shift a Kilimanjaro, a K-2 or Kosciuszko (all mountains ranging in size from S to XXL), losing everything and giving his body to be burned. It is extreme language, sarcastic and satirical. Paul mocks the Corinthians for their preoccupation with the supernatural and the impressive. In so doing, he doesn’t necessarily imagine any of these scenarios to be true-to-life; indeed, his satire is all the more biting if the Corinthians can recognize just how grotesque his suggestions are.
As for the idea that praying in tongues means that Paul’s mind is unfruitful, it doesn’t mean that his mind is actually inactive. Trust me when I say that during the times when I have attempted to carry on conversation in Swedish with my Swedish cousins, my mind has been revved up into the red zone and has quickly overheated. But if I were to decide, for reasons best known to myself, to preach to an English congregation in Swedish, I can guarantee ahead of time that my mind would be unfruitful in the extreme. No-one would understand a word I said, and the more I spoke, the more confusing I would become.
Far better to follow Paul in his thinking when he insists that “in church, I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue”.
Or, to put this in terms that any Briefing reader can warm to, I would rather put one half-baked idea into a CHN, than compose the most erudite three thousand word Briefing article that only someone with the loyalty of a wife would read (no TP, I’m not having a go!). For which reason, I shall now stop.
Comments are closed