Iii. A Theological Proposal
III. A THEOLOGICAL PROPOSAL
Although Paul does not himself offer theological reflection on the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, what he does say — and to a degree what he does not say — allows us to make several significant affirmations as to his understanding of it. Picking up on the conclusions noted above, I offer the following reflections:
1. That Paul understood glossolalia as Spirit-inspired utterance is clearly expressed in the combination of statements in 1 Corinthians 12:7-8, 10, and 11. In 12:7 he begins by saying that “to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good,” which is followed in w. 8-10 by a listing of nine such “manifestations,” the first four of which are explicitly attributed to the Spirit in such a way (“to one ... through the Spirit,” “to another ... by the same Spirit”) so as to imply that the final five are to be understood in the same way. This is made certain by the wrap-up sentence in v. 11: “All these things the one and the same Spirit works [among you], distributing to each one just as he wills.”
This is also explicitly stated in 1 Corinthians 14:2, where Paul affirms that “the one who speaks in tongues ... speaks mysteries [to God] by the Spirit,”69 which is then picked up in v. 15 as “I will pray/ sing with my S/spirit.”70 Such praying “by the Spirit” which is unintelligible to the speaker but effective with God is also explicitly stated in Romans 8:26-27.
This theological reality in itself should cause some to speak more cautiously when trying to “put tongues in their place” (usually meaning “to eliminate them altogether”) in the contemporary church. Paul does not damn tongues with faint praise, as some have argued, nor does he stand in awe of the phenomenon, as apparently the Corinthians had done — and some later Pentecostals and charismatics as well. As with all Spirit-empowered activity, Paul held it in high regard in its proper place.
2. About the actual phenomenon itself, two things need to be noted. First, the regulations for its community use in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 make it clear that the speaker is not in “ecstasy” or “out of control.” Quite the opposite; the speakers are instructed to speak in turn, one at a time, and they must remain silent if there is no one to interpret. Such instruction makes little or no sense if the speaker is in a kind of “ecstasy” whereby one is understood to be under the “power of the Spirit” and thus out of personal control. What Paul says of prophecy in v. 32, therefore, applies equally to those who would speak in tongues in the assembly: “The S/spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” This also means that the outsiders who would view the believers as “mad” if all speak in tongues (simultaneously, seems to be implied) in their gatherings, do not see the “madness” in the nature of the activity itself (= “mania,” etc.) but in its lack of intelligibility and lack of order. Likewise, although Paul does not speak to this issue as such in Romans 8:26-27, there is nothing in that description that implies that the speaker is “out of control.”
Second, that Paul did not think of glossolalia as an actual earthly language is indicated by several pieces of converging evidence. He certainly does not envisage the likelihood of someone’s being present who might understand without interpretation; and the analogy of earthly language in 14:10-12 implies that it is not an earthly language (a thing is not usually identical with that to which it is merely analogous). Our most likely entree into Paul’s understanding is to be found in his description of the phenomenon in 1 Corinthians 13:1 as “the tongues of angels.” The context itself demands that this phrase refers to glossolalia. The more difficult matter is its close conjunction with “the tongues of people.” Most likely this refers to two kinds of glossolalia: human speech, inspired of the Spirit, but unknown to the speaker or hearers; and angelic speech, inspired of the Spirit to speak in the heavenly dialect. The historical context in general suggests that the latter is what the Corinthians themselves understood glossolalia to be, and therefore considered it one of the evidences of their having already achieved something of their future heavenly status.71
3. According to all the available evidence, Paul understood glossolalia as speech directed toward God, not toward other believers. This comes out in a variety of ways. First, this is expressly said in every case where Paul explicitly refers to the direction of the speaking, and in one case this is said in specific contrast to prophecy, which is directed toward other people. Thus in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul says that the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God. Likewise in 14:28, if no one is present to interpret the tongue, the speaker is to keep silent in the church and to “speak by him- or herself and to God.” The same is implied in w. 14-16, where the one speaking in tongues is said variously to be “praying” (w. 14-15), “blessing God” (v. 16), and “giving thanks” (to God, is implied, v. 17). So also, finally, in Romans 8:26-27 the Spirit is presented as praying to God through the believer on the believer’s behalf.
Two important considerations arise out of this reality. First, there seems to be little Pauline evidence for the traditional Pentecostal phrase, “a message in tongues,” to describe the phenomenon of tongues and interpretation as it has been practiced historically in Pentecostal churches. This language apparently was based on 1 Corinthians 14:5,72 where Paul gives equal value to prophecy and an interpreted tongue for edifying the believing community. But it seems to have been a reading into the text what is not there so as to suggest that prophecy and interpreted tongues thereby become equatable phenomena, since w. 2 and 28 make it clear that they are not. This is especially so in v. 28 where Paul argues that there must be no glossolalia without interpretation in the church; rather the speaker is told to speak “by himself and to God.” The clear implication is that what is interpreted in every case is the speech that in v. 2 is called “speaking mysteries to God.” To be sure, one cannot thereby demonstrate that public speaking in tongues is never directed toward the community; what one can say is that Paul never says or implies that it is.
Second, all of the available data, therefore, also indicate that while Paul will not forbid interpreted glossolalia in the assembly, neither is he enthusiastic about it. This is made evident by his explicit preference for prophecy in the church, as well as by the clear implication in 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 (“I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in church five intelligible words are preferable to thousands that are unintelligible”) and 28 (to the one speaking in tongues, “if there is no one to interpret remain silent in church and speak to God by yourself”).
4. That leads us to note further — and to isolate specifically for the sake of our theological reflections that follow — that the reason for “silence” in church with regard to uninterpreted glossolalia vis-à-vis prophecy is that in both cases Paul’s concern is with edification. What happens in the gathered community must be intelligible, precisely so that it can edify the rest of the community. Thus, in the case of uninterpreted glossolalia, the one speaking in tongues “thanks God” to be sure, but the rest of the community cannot be edified and thus say the “Amen” (1 Cor 14:16-17), because they are unable to understand what is being said to God.
But the opposite prevails for the individual believer who prays in tongues in the private place. Such a person “speaks mysteries to God,” and even though the mind is at rest and thus unfruitful, it is not detached or out of control. On the contrary, such prayer is a means of edification for the one so praying (1 Cor 14:4) — despite the “unfruitfulness” regarding one’s own understanding of what is being said.
While such an understanding runs counter to the heavily Enlightenment-influenced self-understanding of Western Christendom, Romans 8:27 offers the theological key to such edification. It is a matter of trusting God that the One to whom we thus pray by the Spirit “knows the mind of the Spirit, that the Spirit is praying on behalf of the saints what is according to God” [= in keeping with his purposes]. Paul is obviously at rest much more than later Christendom with the Spirit’s edifying one’s spirit, without such edification needing to be processed in the cortex of the brain. And it is at this point where our final, more theological, reflection emerges, as an attempt to tie parts 1 and 3 of this paper together.
5. The Pauline context for “praying in the Spirit,” and thus for glossolalia, is his thoroughgoing eschatological framework, in which he understands the Spirit as the certain evidence that the future has already made its appearance in the present73 and the sure guarantee of its final consummation.74 Within this framework glossolalia for Paul serves the believer not as evidence that the future is already present (vis-à-vis Corinth), but that the future is “not yet” consummated.75 It is because of our “between the times” existence that we desperately need the Spirit’s help in our present frailty. This is quite the point of Romans 8:26-27. The Spirit comes alongside, prays through us with “inarticulate groanings,” as our help in this present time of weakness. At the same time glossolalia serves as a constant reminder that we, along with the whole of creation, continue to anticipate our final redemption.
This is why tongues, as well as prophecy and all other Spirit charismata, are for the present time only (1 Cor 13:8-13). Tongues — and prophecy and knowledge — belong to this time of present weakness, when we “know in part” and need the Spirit’s help. The believers’ praying in tongues echoes the “groaning” of the whole creation, while together we await the final consummation of the future that God has already ushered in by the Resurrection and the gift of the Spirit.
The theological implications of such an understanding are large. In contrast to what is often implied in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, for Paul one does not “pray in tongues” from a position of “strength,” as though being filled with the Spirit put one in a position of power before God. Rather, one prays in tongues from a position of weakness, because we “do not know how to pray as we ought.” At such times we desperately need the Spirit to help us, for the Spirit to pray through us what is in keeping with God’s purposes. And we need especially to learn the kind of trust that such praying inherently demands, namely that God does indeed know the mind of the Spirit, that his intercession for us is right on in terms of God’s own purposes in our lives and in the world.
Such an understanding of glossolalia implies weakness in yet another way. Although the one speaking in tongues is not “out of control” in the ecstatic sense of such phenomena, one is not “in control” in the more biblical sense: of giving up control of one’s life and agendas, so as to put one’s whole self — especially that most unruly part of oneself, the mind and the tongue — at God’s disposal,76 be-lieving that his love for us is absolutely pure, totally “without dissimulation” (to use an old King James phrase), and that he purposes only good for “the saints.” This is why Paul insists that he will do both: that he will pray and sing with his mind (for the sake of others), and that he will pray and sing in the Spirit (for his own sake).
At the same time, by thus praying out of a stance of weakness, Paul also affirms our utter dependence upon God for all things; and here is where the “power in weakness” comes in. By praying through us in tongues, the Spirit is the way whereby God’s strength is made perfect in the midst of our weakness — which is where the ultimate strength lies for the believer. Thus our praying in tongues, while evidence for us that we have entered the new, eschatological age ushered in by the Spirit, serves especially as evidence that we are still “not yet” regarding the consummation of that age. Because we have not yet arrived, and await with the whole of creation our final redemption, we thus pray in the Spirit out of weakness, implicitly trusting the Spirit to pray in keeping with God’s purposes. Such praying is thus freedom and power, God’s power being perfected in the midst of our weakness.
I note finally that if the view presented here is in fact faithful to Paul, one can also understand why, on the one hand, he speaks so little of it, but speaks so positively of it, on the other; and why also he himself was given to it in his private praying far more than any of the Corinthians who appeared to prize it so highly. Paul’s entire understanding of present existence in Christ by the Spirit is one in which God’s power and wisdom are best exhibited through human weakness and frailty. This is why he refused to know anything among the Corinthians except “Christ and him crucified”; this is why he argues with them as he does in 2 Corinthians 11-12; and this is why he can speak so confidently of the Spirit’s empowering even while he himself knows weakness, suffering, imprisonment, scoffing.
In sum, understood from Paul’s perspective, speaking in tongues fits the whole of his theological outlook. Here is our opportunity to express our deepest selves to God — in praise, thanksgiving, prayer, and intercession. And this is so especially when we do not ourselves know what to pray in the midst of present weakness; but what we do know, Paul goes on, is that by thus praying on our behalf in our present weakness, “the Spirit works all things together for good, for us who love God and are called in keeping with God’s purposes” (Rom 8:28).77