Tuesday 21 August 2012

Is to Biblical to Pray Privately in Tongues?

Paul didn't think it was impossible to pray in tongues privately (I Cor.14).

That's interesting because some assert that the only legitimate function of speaking with tongues in Bible times was so that unbelievers could hear the Gospel preached in their own language by someone who had never learned it, as a sign.

They assert that unless unbelievers understood a tongue, then the tongue itself was not true speaking in tongues. But Paul didn't see it as an impossibility that a person could pray privately in real tongues. He actually said, "...and let him..."

This seem to imply to me that the Acts 2 scenario, in which unbelievers heard their own languages being spoken, was not repeated every time people spoke in tongues in Bible times. It was not always the case that the tongues happened to be understood by some unbelievers in the audience. Often the tongues were "new tongues" or "unknown tongues" (unknown at least to the immediate audience). And that's why the gift of "the interpretation of tongues" was needed and was "set in the church" by God Himself.

If the Acts 2 scenario was always repeated in Bible times (if it always happened that unbelievers understood tongues), then the situation which Paul needed to address at Corinth could never have arisen in the first place. There would have been no need for an interpreter, and no need for someone to keep silence if there was no interpreter, if tongues was always understood.

Paul didn't tell the Corinthians to outright and absolutely stop speaking such tongues. He simply said, "If there be no interpreter, let him pray that he may interpret, or else let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God".

Paul didn't need to add the words, "...and let him speak to himself and to God..." if Paul really wanted to discourage the practice (of privately praying in tongues) absolutely. Paul could have just said, "...or else let him keep silence..." and left it at that. But instead, he added, "...and let him speak to himself and to God..." So Paul obviously saw at least some benefit to praying in tongues.

Seeing it was possible to pray in tongues privately in the congregation, it would also be possible to pray in tongues privately at home. Paul himself said, "I speak in tongues more than ye all, yet in the church I would rather speak with my understanding..." It seems Paul meant he spent a lot of time praying privately in tongues.

In summary:

* Biblical speaking in tongues was always a real language

* but sometimes it was a "new tongue" or an "unknown tongue" (unknown at least to the immediate audience)

* The Acts 2 scenario was not always repeated in the Bible (unbelievers didn't always understand tongues every time tongues were spoken)

* Therefore when addressing a congregation in tongues, an interpretation was to be sought

* or else the speaker was to keep silence and speak to himself and to God in the tongue. Praying privately in tongues was legitimate and edifying. It was one of the Biblical uses of tongues.

And the Bible does not say that tongues have ceased!

No comments:

Post a Comment