But what about private prayer tongues? Is there not biblical proof that believers could speak in an unknown tongue to God for private edification? No. The common Charismatic viewpoint is read into Scripture. As we examine the three passages (Rom. 8:26, 1 Cor. 13:1; 14:2-4) commonly used as proof texts for a special private heavenly prayer language, we will see that the charismatic view has absolutely no scriptural basis. One passage used as a proof text actually has nothing to do with tongues: “The Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom. 8:26). Unutterable or unuttered groanings obviously cannot refer to tongues. Since the Spirit’s intercession cannot be articulated (i.e., spoken or uttered) the groanings must take place in the heart of the believers as they ascend to the throne of grace. Another proof text is 1 Corinthians 13:1: “If I speak with the tongues of men and angels.” Charismatics teach that Paul is identifying two separate forms of tongues. Pentecostal scholar Robert E. Tourville writes: “In 1 Corinthians 13:1 Paul states the possibility of speaking in tongues of men (foreign languages) and of angels.”69 Actually the context and the Greek grammar (ean with the subjunctive) make it very clear that the apostle is not instructing Christians about the importance of two separate kinds of tongues, but rather is speaking hypothetically to make a point. He does not instruct the church to pray in the tongue of angels. Rather, Paul is saying no matter how great your spiritual gift is (i.e., even if you could speak the language of angels), you need love. Although angels may indeed have their own separate language, the apostle’s concern here is the necessity of Christian love. The Corinthians were obsessed with special spiritual gifts and were exercising these gifts in a selfish, self-centered, unloving manner. Paul corrects this by contrasting love with a superlative (i.e., a gift even beyond what the apostle is capable of) exaggeration. Lenski writes: “The unreality of Paul’s supposition lies in the general assumption as such. Paul did have this gift to a high degree, 14:18, but he could speak only in some foreign human languages and not by any means in all of them and not at all in the language of the angels. What he here supposes is the ability to use any and every language including that of heaven. He extends the gift to its utmost height, beyond what it ever was or could be. ‘Yet if I have not love,’ even this supreme gift would be all in vain as far as God’s purpose in the bestowal is concerned.”70 Further, what if Christians could speak in the language of angels? Would it resemble the nonsensical gibberish practiced in Charismatic churches? No, it would not. All languages have a very discernable grammatical structure. Linguists have the ability to examine any language (even languages with which they are not unfamiliar) and determine patterns: noun phrases, verb phrases, adjectives, adverbs, etc. Thus, if people were really speaking in the tongues of angels, it could be determined if a real (although heavenly) language were being spoken. The best proof text for private prayer tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:1-5: “Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.” The first thing that needs to be noted regarding this passage is that, regardless of one’s interpretation of “edifies himself” (v.4), the tongues spoken of through chapter 14 are definite real foreign languages. This point was established by the Greek word for interpret (hermeneuo) which means “to translate a foreign language into the vernacular,” the analogy between tongues and real foreign languages in verses 10 to 11 and the comparison of tongues to the real foreign language of the Assyrians in verses 21 to 22. Further, if Paul was switching from heavenly-private tongues in verses 4 and 5 to real foreign language-public tongues in verses 6 and following, we could expect some sort of transition indicating such a change. There is nothing within chapter 14 that indicates that the apostle believed in two different (heavenly-private, earthly-public) kinds of tongues.71 And, as noted, the “tongues of angels” (13:1) was purely hypothetical. This fact is important because: (a) It proves that all tongues in the New Testament are the same as the tongues in Acts (i.e., real foreign languages); and, (
if one believes or teaches that 1 Corinthians 14:2-4 justifies the private use of tongues in devotions, then there is an objective test to determine if a professing Christian is speaking gibberish (i.e., syllabic unstructured nonsense) or a real foreign language: the private tongue-speaking could be tape-recorded and submitted to any competent linguist for verification. Does this passage really teach the private use of tongues? No. Paul is discussing edification in the assembly during public worship. He argues that he prefers prophecy over tongues because of its superior capability for the edification of the church. When he says, “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but God, for no one understands him,” he is not telling the Corinthians that they should be praying in tongues to God in private; he is emphasizing that without an interpreter, no one in the assembly understands except God. “It is equally clear that audeis akouse [lit. no one hears], does not mean that tongues were inaudible, or that no one listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible. One might as well have heard nothing.”72 Likewise when Paul discusses praying and singing with the Spirit (both of which are primarily directed to God), he makes it clear that it must be interpreted, since it takes place in public worship: “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” (1 Cor. 14:16)? It is simply bad exegesis to take a passage where Paul is correcting an abuse in the public worship service and turn it into an excursus on private devotional prayer. Such a thought was not at all in the apostle’s mind. But, then, what does Paul mean when he says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”? Can one at least deduce from this statement that private tongues are useful for sanctification? No. There are a number of reasons why such a view must be rejected. First, the whole thrust of the chapter is to condemn uninterpreted tongues as useless. The context indicates that the apostle is describing someone who speaks in tongues in church (i.e. public worship) without an interpreter. Throughout this chapter, Paul argues again and again for the need to interpret tongues; otherwise, the church is not edified: “Since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret” (1 Cor. 14:12-13). Since the whole thrust of chapter 14 is the edification of the body, it is probable that “edifies himself” is meant to be taken in a negative-pejorative sense. To speak in tongues without an interpreter merely calls attention to oneself and does not benefit the body. People who speak in tongues without an interpreter are showing off. Second, if one takes the common Charismatic interpretation he violates the overall broad context of scripture. The Pentecostal view is that believers can be edified by speech that is not understood; that a believer can be sanctified by a non-cognitive, mystical experience. The problem with this view is that Paul explicitly says that understanding is necessary if Christians are to be edified (14:5, 9, 12-17). If an individual could be edified without understanding, then so could a group of believers. Obviously, the apostle would not contradict himself within the same chapter. Further, there is nothing in Scripture which indicates that God’s people can be edified mystically apart from understanding divine revelation. Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17; cf. 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2; Ps. 119:9 ff., etc.). One should not adopt an interpretation which contradicts the overall teaching of Scripture.