 |
Though this thought made perfect sense, it so went against almost everything I had experienced or been taught that I had to check it out in the Scriptures. So I looked at the passages in the New Testament where people spoke in tongues and there was an interpretation, or where tongues and/or their interpretation were discussed or possibly indicated, and what follows is what I found. I have concluded based on this study that the church's understanding and practice of the "interpretation of tongues" has most likely been erroneous in light of what the Scriptures seem to teach.
ACTS
Acts 2:3–11 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
The "interpretation" (in this case, the direct understanding) of the message in tongues was that the speakers were declaring the mighty works of God. However, this is really not a case of "tongues and interpretation," since the speech was either in the native languages of the hearers and/or the Holy Spirit caused the hearers to understand in their own languages what was being spoken in tongues. This passage may thus not be relevant to this discussion; however, see comments below on Acts 10:44–47.
Acts 10:44–47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
The "exalting God" could have been the interpretation of what they were speaking in tongues. That Peter seems to equate what happened here with what happened to him and those with him at Pentecost (Acts 2:3–11, above) (i.e., "just as we did") may indicate that at Pentecost Peter and his companions did speak in tongues and the Holy Spirit "interpreted" their speech into the languages of the hearers.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
If the prophesying was the interpretation of the tongues they were speaking (and there is no indication one way or the other), then since prophesy is speech directed from God to man, this could be a possible instance of tongues being a message directed to men. Likewise, it could be showing that there is a difference between speaking with tongues and prophesying (i.e., one is from man to God, the other is from God to man). This verse may neither support nor refute the conclusion of this essay.
EPISTLES
Romans 8:26–27 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
If the "groanings too deep for words" is speaking or praying in tongues, it is speech (prayer) directed toward God.
1 Corinthians 12:1–3 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
If such saying by the Holy Spirit that "Jesus is Lord" relates to speaking in tongues (and I'm not saying that it does), it is speech directed toward God or speech extolling God. I would suggest based on Romans 10:9 and Philippians 2:11 that this saying "Jesus is Lord," in this context is probably a personal declaration or confession to God rather than a prophetic or declarative proclamation to men. If, however, Paul was talking about speech directed to men, and if it was related to speaking in tongues, then it might be an instance of tongues-speech being a message to men (two big "ifs").
1 Corinthians 14:2–19, 26–32 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For 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. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue…. What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
He who "speaks in a tongue… [speaks] to God," so one would assume that any interpretation of that speaking should reflect that it's speech directed to God. Some have argued that speaking in tongues + interpretation = prophecy, hence speaking in tongues can be a message directed to men, like prophecy is. Paul doesn't seem to be saying that speaking in tongues + interpretation = prophecy, but that both edify the church. He does seems to indicate that speaking in tongues is speech or prayer directed to God, since he refers to it as "bless[ing] in the spirit" and as a "giving of thanks," and says that it calls for the response of "Amen." [In support of the view that Paul does not equate "tongues" with "prophecy," note that he seems to equate "prophecy"—but not "tongues" or the "interpretation" of tongues—with "revelation," since his list in verse 26 refers to "a revelation,… a tongue,… an interpretation" and omits "prophecy" (this omission is understandable if that's what he means by "revelation"), and his discussion in verses 29–30 clearly equates "prophecy"—but not "tongues" or the "interpretation" of tongues—with "revelation." On the other hand, in 14:6 he lists revelation and prophecy as different things.]
Ephesians 5:18–19 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
If these "spiritual songs" are what Paul meant by "sing[ing] with the spirit" in 1 Corinthians 14:15, then the discussion there, as well as the immediate context here with "psalms and hymns," indicate that they are speech (song) directed to God or about God and hence should reflect that if interpreted.
Ephesians 6:18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,
If "pray... in the Spirit" means to speak or pray in tongues, it's speech directed to or about God.
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
See the comments on Ephesians 5:18–19.
Jude 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
This could possibly be translated "[by] praying in the Holy Spirit." If "praying in the Holy Spirit" means to pray in tongues, it supports what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:4 about speaking in tongues edifying (building up) the one speaking. See the comments on 1 Corinthians 14:2–19 about this being speech directed to God.
WHAT DID JESUS DO?
Some say that Jesus never spoke in tongues, and indeed we have no scriptural record that he ever did. Some hold that because speaking in tongues was a sign of the new dispensation inaugurated after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection to declare the coming of the promised Holy Spirit, no one before that time (including Jesus) could have or would have spoken in tongues. There is no evidence that anyone in the Old Testament ever spoke in tongues either, though to say that they didn't is, as with Jesus, to argue from silence. Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was something new, it can be expected that a "new thing" would accompany this event. On the other hand, Peter equated the events at Pentecost with the fulfillment of Joel's prophesy (Joel 2:28) that God would one day pour out from His Spirit upon all flesh, a prophecy that hearkens back to Moses' desire that all God's people might be prophets (Numbers 11:29) and would prophesy as those with him had just done. There is always the possibility that speaking in tongues accompanied this prophetic speaking. Likewise, since Jesus was filled with the same Holy Spirit we receive as Christians, it is possible that he spoke in tongues even if that fact was not recorded, for he exhibited the other manifestations or gifts of the Spirit (e.g., prophecy, healing, faith, etc.).
Luke 10:21 At that very time He [Jesus] rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight."
It is possible that what we have here is an account of Jesus praising God in tongues ("rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit") and then speaking the interpretation: "I praise You, O Father…." If so, this further supports what I've written here that speaking in tongues is speech or prayer directed toward God, and hence its interpretation will reflect speech or prayer directed toward God.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF MY FINDINGS?
What I have found—and hence what I will call my "conclusion"—based on searching the Scriptures on this subject, is that since speaking in tongues is primarily speech or prayer directed to God or about God, when that speech is "interpreted," the "interpretation" should reflect that fact. If it doesn't, then the "interpretation" is likely not the proper interpretation. My conclusion could be wrong, but, on the other hand:
- If my conclusion is correct, Charismatics and Pentecostals will have to seriously reconsider what they call "the interpretation of tongues" and their practices related to it.
- If my conclusion is correct, then almost every "interpretation of a message in tongues" that a Charismatic or Pentecostal has heard or has himself or herself given has NOT been the "interpretation" of that message.
- If my conclusion is correct, then that "sense" or "impression" a person has gotten whenever he or she felt that he or she "had the interpretation" of a message in tongues was not a "sense" from God—unless, with rare exception, the "interpretation" was in accord with what my conclusion says an interpretation of a message in tongues should be.
I later read (in the same book) this comment by Fee: "Prayer (and praise), therefore, seems the best way to view Paul's understanding of glossolalia [speaking in tongues]. At no point in 1 Corinthians 14 does Paul suggest that tongues is speech directed toward people." (p. 148). Fee endnotes these statements with the remark: "See further the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:5 in GEP [God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul—see below], where I argue that the interpretation of a tongue does not thereby turn it into human-directed speech, but interprets the mystery spoken to God referred to in 14:2." (p. 151). Following is that exegesis:
5 This verse summarizes the point of vv. 1–4 by making explicit Paul’s preference for prophecy over tongues in the assembly. As in vv. 2–4, he begins with tongues: “I would like you all to speak in tongues.” This sentence is often viewed as “merely conciliatory,” especially in light of 12:28–30 where he asserts that all do not speak in tongues.540 But that is not quite correct. Paul has already indicated that tongues have value for the individual, meaning in private, personal prayer (cf. vv. 14–15 and 18–19). Now he says of that dimension of spiritual life that he could wish all experienced the edification that came from such a gift of the Spirit. But that of course is not his present point; thus he quickly qualifies that “wish” by repeating the language of v. 1: “but rather that you prophesy.”
After such a summary one would expect in this letter that it might be followed by an explanatory “for” and a reason. In this case, however, he concludes with the proposition, “Greater is the one who prophesies than the one who speaks in tongues.” With these words two matters from the preceding argument are brought into focus. First, this defines the meaning of “greater gift” in the exhortation in 12:31; second, the reason prophecy is greater is related to the edification of the community, as the preceding argument makes certain. Thus it is not inherently greater, since all gifts come from the Spirit and are beneficial. It is greater precisely because it is intelligible and therefore can edify.
This last point is ensured by the final qualifying clause added to speaking in tongues: “unless he or she interprets,541 so that the church may be edified.” The problem is not with tongues per se but tongues without interpretation—which from the context seems very likely what the Corinthians were doing. The interpretation of the tongues-speech brings it within the framework of intelligibility, which in turn means that it too can edify the community. This does not imply that such a tongue is to be understood as directed toward the community, but that what the person has been speaking to God has now been made intelligible, so that others may benefit from the Spirit’s utterance.542 Thus, even though from Paul’s perspective prophecy is clearly preferable, it seems equally clear that the real urgency is not with tongues and prophecy, but with intelligible utterances in the gathered assembly so that all may be edified.
Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 220–221.
On glance, therefore, it appears that Fee (a Pentecostal), who has undoubtedly thoroughly studied the subject, would support my conclusion. Fee's comment that speech in tongues and the interpretation have to do with "the mystery [i.e., a secret now revealed] spoken to God referred to in [1 Corinthians] 14:2" may allow for a message in tongues to be a kind of revelation, and hence its "interpretation" could resemble prophecy—but this would still not provide a scriptural basis for much of what has been and is regarded in the church as "interpretations" of messages in tongues.
A FINAL THOUGHT
I would urge anyone who reads and accepts this message and who formerly gave "interpretations" of messages in tongues to be cautious about soon giving "interpretations" that are more in line with what this essay concludes that such an "interpretation" should sound like. I would suggest that they first ask themselves how their "sense" that they now "have the interpretation" differs from what they previously felt when they gave an "interpretation" which they now agree, based on my conclusion, was probably not the interpretation and was probably not from God. (If what they felt then was similar to what they feel whenever they get a "word" from God or a "sense of what the Lord is doing," then I'd urge them to examine their discernment in all areas, not just in the matter of the interpretation of tongues.) I'm not trying to quench the Spirit. I'm just suggesting that if someone realizes and admits they have been in error for so long and on so many occasions in this area, they should be very cautious about thinking that, just because they have now been "more accurately" taught, they are now or in a short time able to discern the Spirit of God correctly and can again begin "interpreting" messages in tongues. I would advise that person and the leadership of their congregation to leave the "interpretation" of tongues for a time to those whose interpretations have in the past been according to what the Scriptures seem to teach. Hopefully the congregation has such people.
POSTSCRIPT
I sent a copy of this essay to Gordon Fee and received a response that basically said that from being in many situations where the "interpretation" did speak very directly to the needs of the church, his opinion was that: a) we may be experiencing a combination of a message in tongues followed by a prophetic word, rather than an "interpretation"; b) God may be accommodating himself to our weaknesses at this point; c) the New Testament may not address this issue; or d) a little bit of all the above.
