0

1 Corinthians 14:13-19 (ESV):

13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Verse 16 talks about the concept of "giving thanks [to God] with one's spirit" and verse 17 says "for you may be giving thanks well enough", which seems to indicate that the practice, in and of itself, is perfectly fine. However, the problem arises when this thanksgiving takes place in the presence of other people, who get no benefit from it because they are unable to understand what's being said (v16: "[...] when he does not know what you are saying"; v17: "[...] but the other person is not being built up"). To me, that's the reason why Paul, in verse 13, recommends that a person with the gift of tongues should pray for the gift of interpretation too, so that they may interpret what they themselves are saying for the benefit of others who may be listening.

However, this has an intriguing implication: if a person does not pray that they may interpret, then it follows that it's entirely possible for a person to have the gift of tongues but be lacking the gift of interpretation (because they haven't prayed for it yet). Such a person would be able to give thanks in an unknown tongue, but they wouldn't be able to interpret it, which means that they would not be able to understand what they themselves are saying and much less be able to interpret it for others. This corner case is what Paul appears to be describing in verse 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" (i.e. "I don't know what I'm saying").

Question: What's the value of giving thanks in an unknown tongue when the person doing the thanksgiving lacks the ability to interpret what they themselves are saying? Why would God give a person the ability to "give thanks in an unknown tongue" but withhold the gift of interpretation? Why not always give both gifts simultaneously and the problem is solved?

  • Again, this is only a problem for those who believe (incorrectly I think) that the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 are different. If they are the same, then this question does not arise. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 21:12
  • There is no gift of interpretation of speaking in tongues. Acts 2:6 "Every man heard them speaking in HIS OWN LANGUAGE! Sorry but its -1 from me. – Adam May 06 '21 at 21:16
  • @Dottard - If they are the same, then this question does not arise" - I don't see how the then* follows from the if. Can you develop the idea in an answer? –  May 06 '21 at 21:18
  • @Adam - see this https://www.gotquestions.org/gift-interpreting-tongues.html –  May 06 '21 at 21:23
  • I agree with the views expressed in "Got Questions" link. I think that is a good answer. However, I will provide an answer to the dilemma you express about Acts 14:14. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 21:28
  • @Spirit Realm Investigator... without even bothering to go to the other stack exchange reference in your comment...read the passage correctly in your own question. It says that we should not pray in a manner that we ourselves cannot understand. Intepreting here means, dont babble useless meaningless words. If you cannot understand them yourself, how is anyone else going to be able to make sense of your useless babbling? That is the context and theme of the entire biblical topic of speaking in tongues. it is repeatedly stated over and over again. – Adam May 06 '21 at 22:17
  • @Adam - they are not meaningless words, they are actual languages that can be interpreted (otherwise, it would make no sense to have a gift of interpretation of tongues if people were not speaking real unknown languages) –  May 06 '21 at 22:24
  • The reference in 1Cor 14 is not talking about intelligable interpreted languages...your reference is talking in terms of praying in the spirit unintelligable words only understood by God. They are very different things. Paul is saying that we should not pray this way...all our prayers should be intelligable. In reference to the upper room on the day of pentecost, each man heard them speaking in HIS OWN LANGUAGE. What you are attempting to claim with this question is that someone can babble mindless rubbish, and a possessed mind can interpret said babbling. That is the work of evil spiritualism – Adam May 06 '21 at 23:24
  • @Adam - read 1 Cor 14:26-28: 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. –  May 07 '21 at 00:16
  • 1
    Paul is regulating a misapprehension within the church. He speaks many languages in his travels. But he would rather say five comprehensible words than talk in an unknown tongue. And he shows the pointlessness of speaking words that make no sense to anybody. Yet, still, people persist in wanting to do so because they think it is "spiritual". – Nigel J May 07 '21 at 01:16
  • +1 Nijel. Well said. – Adam May 07 '21 at 12:06

3 Answers3

2

Paul is regulating a misapprehension within the church.

He speaks many languages in his travels.

But he would rather say five comprehensible words than talk in an unknown tongue.

And he shows the pointlessness of speaking words that make no sense to anybody.

Yet, still, people persist in wanting to do so because they think it is "spiritual".

Nigel J
  • 30,958
  • 3
  • 38
  • 84
1

Is there any value in “giving thanks with one's spirit” when the person doing the thanksgiving lacks the gift of interpretation of tongues?

While this may be an unpopular answer, no one now possesses such gifts the way they were initially bestowed by the apostles in the first century.

1 Corinthians 13:8: "[If] there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes [Scripture is complete], the partial will be done away" (emphasis added).

Paul has unequivocally declared that the end of spiritual gifts would soon arrive. By "soon" he meant this would occur at the completion of the Gospel "when the perfect comes." The unique gifts of prophecy, of tongues, and of certain knowledge (as Paul had) would all be "done away".

Naturally, that does not mean that God does not act on our behalf through prayer and supplication (earnest humility). And, it does not mean we cannot "prophesy" in the sense that, as we proclaim God's Word, we are "prophesying" to others about the Gospel. As well, all baptized Christians are saints, priests, prophets, and royalty (1 Peter):

1 Peter 2:9: "[Christians] are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of darkness into His marvelous light; for [we] once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now [we] are THE PEOPLE OF GOD..."

However, today, the special, profound gifts of the first century no longer exist as they once did, God's Message to humanity having been fully delivered.

Xeno
  • 9,218
  • 3
  • 27
  • 82
  • Hmmm, I am going to have to research this answer...I do not naturally agree that spiritual gifts have stopped, particularly since this sounds like justification for an incorrect interpretation for the timing of the millenium and that Jesus came the second time in A.D70. – Adam May 06 '21 at 21:19
  • @Adam That is a good attitude: I'd like to hope I have the same. I suppose many of us have had "epiphanies" while reading Scripture. But that is not the same as the special knowledge given to the apostles and disciples (whom the apostles laid hands) to deliver the Gospel to us. Remember that there was no N/T in the first century before it was ever written. So, naturally, those like Paul, Mark, Luke, etc. had to have special knowledge**, something that we do not possess. Just as with "prophecy" -- like Agabus in Acts 11 and especially Acts 21, he could predict the future while we cannot. – Xeno May 06 '21 at 21:26
  • Ok I have read 1 Cor 13. It is talking about the everlasting nature of love...it has nothing to do with gifts of the spirit terminating before the end of time. It is simply making a comparison. Your answer and using this as a reference is absolutely not the context of this passage! -1 – Adam May 06 '21 at 21:26
  • @Adam Wow, guess I should have left this alone. – Xeno May 06 '21 at 21:28
  • Don't be offended, it's ok to put your thoughts down...nothing wrong with that. We all vote according to our interpretations, not everyone will see passages of scripture the same way. This one in 1Cor is pretty clear though...one only has to first look at the title for that chapter in one's Bible to know what is actually talking about. – Adam May 06 '21 at 21:33
  • 1
    The problem with the idea that spiritual gifts were terminated in the 1st century presents a great problem with other gifts like love, Teaching, missionary activity, preaching, kindness, helpfulness, administration, etc, all of which are spiritual gift given to the church as listed in 1 Cor 12 & 13. I do not think that these gifts terminated in the 1st century. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 21:42
  • Probably of interest: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80349/how-do-cessationists-explain-spirit-inspired-prophecies-whose-contents-were-not –  May 06 '21 at 21:56
  • Not my downvote BTW. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 22:28
  • @Dottard Thanks, I agree with everything you said about "love, teaching, missionary activity, preaching, kindness, helpfulness, and administration" as all gifts. However, the text of 1 Corinthians 13:8 is specifically addressing gifts of prophecy, gifts of tongues, and gifts of [special] knowledge as being "done away." It baffles me why Paul would tell us so distinctly that these "gifts" would be done away if they were not. If not, when would they be "done away?" His words seem clear and unequivocal. – Xeno May 07 '21 at 00:04
  • @Xeno: what do you make of testimonies such as these ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. –  May 07 '21 at 00:20
  • @Xeno - the problem here is the timing implied in 1 Cor 13:8 - is it in 70 AD as some assert, or is it at the second coming as many assert. I prefer the latter as then, no spiritual gifts will be necessary. – Dottard May 07 '21 at 00:39
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator Respectfully, I cannot speak to those who are providing anecdotal evidence of something I did not witness. People make (often sincere) claims about their experiences all the time, and I am certainly not one to refute such claims. All I can do is to rely on Scripture as it is written. Who knows what really happened? I could share with you my own experience once, but the Bible tells me: 2 Corinthians 11:14: "No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." – Xeno May 07 '21 at 00:45
  • I cancelled one of the down-votes with an up-vote. – Nigel J May 07 '21 at 01:18
  • @NigelJ I appreciate that Nigel. I was beginning to feel as though I had bit off more than I could chew -- with diminishing returns. :-) – Xeno May 07 '21 at 01:27
  • @Xeno It is not yourself doing the 'biting', sir. If ye bite and devour one another, beware that ye be not consumed one of another , says the Apostle. See my own answer above. – Nigel J May 07 '21 at 01:28
  • Again 1Corinthians 13 is not about speaking in tongues...IT IS ABOUT EVERLASTING LOVE. For goodness sake, read the chapter heading in your Bible...it's not rocket science! 1 Cor 13 is simply making a comparison with spiritual gifts as an example of a finite thing. However it does not state that in A.D 70 or at some point during first century these gifts will disappear. Proof of that is clearly experienced in other spiritual gifts that are still being seen or heard around the world even today. – Adam May 07 '21 at 12:15
  • @Adam As you probably realize, many profound words in Scripture emerge from the least likely of places. It is incredibly subtle. At the risk of repeating myself: ["The text of 1 Corinthians 13:8 is specifically addressing gifts of prophecy, gifts of tongues, and gifts of [special] knowledge as being done away."] Can you tell me how you read these words differently, because the location in which they occur strikes me as entirely irrelevant? Why is Paul telling us this at all? I'm sincerely puzzled. – Xeno May 08 '21 at 06:02
1

For a good back-ground on this question, see https://www.gotquestions.org/gift-interpreting-tongues.html as note by the OP in a comment above.

There are two broad classes of people who understand 1 Cor 14 differently:

  • That Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 describe the same gift of tongues and thus, the person speaking understands what is being said ina foreign language.
  • That 1 Cor 14 describes a different gift of tongues from Acts 2. thus we would have Tongues #1 (as per acts 2) and Tongues #2 (as per 1 Cor 14). In this second interpretation, the speaker speaks an unintelligible language to both themselves and the hearers and must rely on someone to interpret it.

Both the attached link to "Got Questions" above and myself are of the view that the first understanding above is correct for the following reasons:

  • Having two different gifts, "Tongues #1 and Tongues #2", creates insuperable exegetical difficulties that do not exist in the text
  • Why would God give a gift that is of no value to either the person nor others - speaking an unintelligible language?
  • The gift of tongues in 1 Cor 14:22 is specifically given for reaching unconverted people with a message of the Gospel. Paul says that if people do not understand, then nothing should be said, V9. See also V17 & 19.

OK, so this leaves us with the "problem" of what 1 Cor 14:14 means:

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Paul here uses a personal construction that implies the whole group as he does in other places - that is, he talks about himself doing the action (which he obviously does NOT literally do) but uses it to describe the whole group. See Rom 3:9 and 6:15 for more examples of this type of expression. V15 uses a similar idiom.

Thus, Paul in 1 Cor 14:14 is saying (using Dottard's "Paraphrase") - if a person in church prays in a foreign tongue, then that is OK for the person but the rest of people's minds remain unedified.

There is also an element that we regularly pray "in the spirit" without using words but simply expressing feelings to God that cannot be put into words (see Rom 8:26).

Thus, Paul encourages this sort of practice in private, but in public settings, he want intelligible words only.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • 1
    @Dottard...i refer you to read a little further down 1 Cor 14..."15What then shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16Otherwise, if you speak a blessing in spirit,b how can someone who is uninstructed say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?" I actually think vs 15 also means in private as well. The mind is to be used in both scenarios when praying. – Adam May 06 '21 at 22:23
  • @Adam - agreed - good comment. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 22:27
  • @Dottard - there is a third option: that in Acts 2 the speakers didn't know what they were saying. The listeners did. –  May 06 '21 at 22:33
  • yes i think the key phrase in vs 15 is "how can someone who is uninstructed say Amen" ...to me this means that someone must understand what is being said. The interesting thing about God, irrespective of what may be percived useless babbling, God can read and knows what is in our minds. I dont think there is anything he cannot interpret because of that. Having said this however, what is the point of praying if we dont know what we are thinking or saying? How can we praise God in that manner or indeed ask him for help or guidance? I think prayer should have an intelligable purpose. – Adam May 06 '21 at 22:34
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - so your are suggesting that Peter did not understand what he was preaching about?? That to me is a stretch. see the other question referenced earlier. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 22:38
  • @Dottard - do you mean Peter's sermon? That part was not in tongues, at least there is no reason to think so. The tongue-speaking happened earlier in the chapter. See this question: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56226/in-light-of-acts-1044-48-were-the-disciples-in-acts-2-praising-exalting-god-in –  May 06 '21 at 22:43
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - really? How do you know? That is a distinction not in the text. And what is there to distinguish Peter's sermon from the utterances/sermons of the other apostles? – Dottard May 06 '21 at 22:45
  • @Dottard - before Peter's sermon, the disciples were in ecstatic worship of God, like Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 (no preaching). Many of the Jews who witnessed the miracle thought that they were crazy. In contrast, Peter's sermon was an actual sermon, probably in a standard language that everyone was able to understand (not in tongues). –  May 06 '21 at 23:02
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - we clearly differ and that is OK. I note your "probably" above - it feels like an attempt at eisegesis to fit your theology. I prefer to work with what has been revealed and not what is unknown. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 23:06
  • @Dottard - I can apply the same objection to your view: where in the text does it say that Peter preached in tongues (and in what tongue) during his sermon? –  May 06 '21 at 23:11
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - Ah - I did not claim that Peter preached in a tongue! He may have but we do not know. However, I did claim that part of the gift of tongues appears to be people hearing the language in their own dialect! Note the other question and comments. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 23:17
  • @Dottard - ah, you mean that there was a miracle of hearing on the listeners' side. That's possible, but that's still compatible with the speakers not knowing what they were saying. Both views are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing in Acts 2 that necessitates the speakers knowing what they were saying (unless they were simultaneously given the interpretation, which is also possible). But that's still compatible with the speaker not knowing what he's saying if the interpretation is not given (a possibility explicitly stated in 1 Cor 14) –  May 06 '21 at 23:28
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - as stated above, we clearly differ. – Dottard May 06 '21 at 23:56
  • @Dottard - to your point, I acknowledge that there is testimonial evidence for both people who understood what they said (example) and people who didn't (example), in both cases understood by a native speaker of the language. –  May 07 '21 at 00:06
  • @ Spirit Realm Investigator ... I do not agree that the person speaking did not understand what they were saying. It is already fact that on the day of Pentecost, the disciples believe they were talking in their own language. The gift was that God (Holy Spirit) gave to the listener so they could each understand in their own language as well. Both parties clearly understood intelligible language. This precisely exists for all of the gift of tongues...Paul was very clear and goes to great lengths to explain this, it absolutely must be meaningful intelligible language. – Adam May 07 '21 at 12:11
  • @Adam: "the disciples believe they were talking in their own language" - where is that said in the text? Can you provide the verse? –  May 09 '21 at 03:25
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - some of these question go too far - for example, we cannot and should not ask - where in the text does it say that the disciples were NOT wearing blue hats? Or, Where are the disciples recorded as wearing any clothes at all? Step back and say what is reasonable and do not press the text for questions that it was not intended to answer. I cannot believe that the disciples preached without knowing what they were saying!! – Dottard May 09 '21 at 04:33
  • @Dottard - since you do not believe in the possibility that people can speak without knowing what they are saying, I would be very interested in knowing your answer to this question. –  May 09 '21 at 04:41
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - I think I already addressed that in one of the other questions - praying with the mind is often with feelings only and using very few words as per Rom 8:26. – Dottard May 09 '21 at 05:04
  • I'm with Dottard on this. There is more than enough evidence to support the view that the translation in the upper room on the day of Pentecost lies with the listener "hearing it in His own language/tongue" not the preacher speaking babble he doesn't himself understand. It is the Holy spirit who bridges the gap between what is mindfully said and what is mindfully heard. – Adam May 09 '21 at 05:40