What is praying in tongues? Is praying in tongues a prayer language between a believer and God?

Verses 2-4. "For he that speaks in an (unknown) tongue speaks not to men," etc. To justify the prominence assigned to prophecy, it is here compared with what seems at that time to have been one of the commonest as well as the most conspicuous form of spiritual manifestation. That "tongues" had been unduly valued by these Corinthian saints, and the gift unseasonably used, may be inferred from the general tenor of this chapter, the chief aim of which is the correction of disorders arising from a free exercise of spiritual powers, without the qualifying accompaniments of soundmindedness and love. He begins, therefore, his task by a comparative definition of these very dissimilar gifts, one of which is in its exercise distinctively for God, and the other for men. He who had a "tongue" spake not to men, but to God. It is this non-communicative character that separates it so strikingly from all other spiritual manifestations. The very member which forms the active link of human intercourse and sympathy was in this case miraculously diverted from its natural use. Men spoke, but with an utterance not cognizable even by their own understanding. Their speech was addressed immediately to God, yet not in the ordinary communion of the Spirit. For neither praise, nor prayer, nor intercession could proceed intelligently while the understanding was in suspense. In his spirit the speaker was engaged with "mysteries," while his mind was inactive and out of communication with the minds of others. No one could understand him.2 He knew that he was speaking, and that he spoke to God, but he looked for no effect on others. Without a divinely gifted interpreter, the only result of such utterances was that God was really operating, but men knew not either how or why.

Verse 2 is by no means a doctrinal statement of what is properly true in God's giving the gift of tongues; but speaks of the case of one speaking in the assembly, where the Corinthians were all of one language (Greek). If one should use the gift of tongues there, no one would understand him. He would be speaking to God, no doubt, and to himself, for only God and himself would understand. Compare verse 28. In the Spirit he would be speaking mysteries - not mysteries to himself or to God, but to the assembly. And I must seriously remember that gift is not given merely for my own blessing, but for the help of others. We shall understand much better the force of this chapter if we keep in mind that we are here considering the gathering of the assembly, and that which is becoming as regards ministry for the sake of all.

How much more valuable then was prophecy, which brings edification (building up), exhortation (stirring up), and comfort (binding up), all of which are so necessary for the assembly. For one who spoke in a tongue edified himself because he understood, but did not edify the assembly, because the assembly did not understand. The tongue here is a genuine language, just as is seen in Acts 2:6, but one which the speaker did not normally understand. The wonder of the gift was that God gave him ability to speak his own thoughts, by the power of the Spirit, in this foreign language, he himself being in thorough control of his words. The value of this in speaking to a foreigner whose language this was, is evident, as Acts 2 shows; and in this respect Paul spoke with tongues more than others; but in the assembly, where aIl understood Greek, other tongues were unnecessary (vv. 18,19).

Pursue love, but earnestly desire the spiritual things, yet rather that ye may prophesy. 2 For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one hears; yet in spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he that prophesies speaks to men edification, and encouragement, and comfort. 4 He that speaks with a tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the assembly. 5 But I desire that ye all should speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy. And greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, in order that the assembly may receive edification. 6 And now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I shall speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching? 7 Nevertheless lifeless things giving sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give not distinction to the notes, how shall be known what is piped or what is harped? 8 For also if a trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for war? 9 So also ye through the tongue, unless ye give a distinct speech, how shall what is spoken be known, for ye will be speaking into air? 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none insignificant. 11 If therefore I do not know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks a barbarian in my case. 12 So also ye, since ye are zealous after spirits, seek that ye may abound for the edification of the assembly. 13 Wherefore let him that speaks with a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding. 16 Since if thou bless in spirit, how shall he that fills the place of the private [person] say Amen at thy thanksgiving, since he knows not what thou sayest? 17 For thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in a tongue more than ye all; 19 but in an assembly I desire to speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Verse 13 shows clearly that one might have the gift of tongues while not having the gift of interpretation. But he could pray for this. Some have insisted that if he could not interpret, then he could not have understood what he was saying. But this is totally wrong. There are many who understand two languages, and yet have no ability to exactly translate from one language into the other. So these two gifts were distinct, though one might possibly have both. If one had spoken his own thoughts in a foreign tongue, by the power of the Spirit, he would very likely find himself completely unable to express the thoroughly identical things in his own language, unless he was gifted by the Spirit of God to interpret. No doubt God used this means to humble the vessel, for the Corinthians illustrate man's tendency to use such gifts to exalt self.

Verse 14 has often been wrongly interpreted through inattention to what the verse actually says. If Paul prayed in an actual tongue, his spirit prayed. If his spirit prayed, then he knew what he was praying, for "what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him?" (I Cor. 2:11). But his understanding was unfruitful. Some have said this means he did not understand; but this is transparently wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. So if in the assembly I pray in a tongue unknown to the assembly, though I understand myself, yet my understanding is not bearing fruit in the understanding of others.

The force of this is emphasized in the following verses. Praying and singing with the understanding has reference to using words that others can understand, so that the unlearned can say Amen when another gives thanks. If he does not understand, he cannot do this. It will be noted that praying, blessing, and giving of thanks are practically synonymous here. One may give thanks well, with both he and God understanding what he says, but "the other is not edified."

Paul spoke with tongues more than did all the Corinthians. No doubt in his journeys to foreign lands, God gave him ability to speak to foreigners so as to be understood. The value of the gift of tongues in this case is evident. Yet in the assembly ten thousand words in a tongue would be of less value in his eyes than five words spoken with his understanding. This he explains immediately as that which is teaching understandable to others. It is using his understanding in the bearing of fruit.

It is alleged that this independent action of the Spirit belongs only to the Old Testament, as Saul, Balaam etc. This is a mistake: Caiaphas prophesied. It will be said that this was in Judaism. But Paul teaches it doctrinally (1 Cor. 13) "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am … nothing." The very fact of tongues is an independent action of the Spirit, for they did not understand what they said, and if there was not an interpreter were to remain silent. Tell me that this is lost - I understand you, but then do not deny that the Holy Ghost so acted. But there is a difference to be made between 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. In the former the Holy Ghost down here acts with divine authority and power, but it is simply giving power (in gifts) to whom He will; but "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets," not more than "two or at the most three" were to speak. The word of God, the authority of Christ in the church, ordered the exercise of the power. If a man spoke with tongues, and - it was so completely the Holy Ghost - he did not understand what he said (a case supposed) he was to be silent, unless he or another could interpret. The apostle preferred to speak with his understanding, and edify the assembly, to which end all was to be directed. In the latter case (Eph. 4), it is Christ ascended on high, who, having received the Holy Ghost from the Father, gives for the spiritual need of the church (and here there are no gifts which are miraculous, in the ordinary sense, but) "apostles and prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers," and the promise that these will continue to the end, and then (ver. 16) what every joint supplies in the measure of every part.

Yet there were cases where the human element was wholly inoperative. A man spoke with a tongue and spoke mysteries (which others could enjoy if they knew the tongue), and did not know what he said himself, though he knew the Spirit was working in him, connecting his soul with divine things in God; but his understanding was unfruitful, and if he spoke with his understanding, it was also a revelation to himself; and then, if an inspired instrument of communication to others, he spoke in words which the Holy Ghost taught, communicating things given by the Spirit, by words given by the Spirit too (πνευματιχοῖς πνευματιχά).

"He that speaketh with a tongue," the apostle goes on, "edifieth himself." He has not, as people strangely imagine, the thought that he might not himself understand the tongue that he was using. He edifieth himself, and we are told shortly after that the assembly cannot receive edifying except it be by the interpretation of the tongue. If there is not meaning in the tongue, it is like a mere lifeless thing, giving sound. This principle applies plainly to the possessor of the tongue, as it does to others. The apostle has no idea, as some have put it, that the mere consciousness, as it were, of speaking by a divine impulse (however ignorant one may be of what is contained in it) is that which edifies. The whole assembly might be edified on the same principle, if that were edification; but the apostle insists that there must be the intelligent apprehension of what is heard, or there is no use, no edification. Thus, he that speaketh with a tongue, but with no power to interpret (for the gift of interpretation might not necessarily accompany the gift of the tongue) edifieth himself simply, but he that prophesieth edifieth the assembly. He does not in the least desire to set aside the speaking with tongues. He would that they all spake with them, but much rather would he that they prophesied, because "greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues." It is evident that the Corinthians thought very differently as to that. The tongue, in their minds, put a man upon a much greater eminence than any prophesying could do, but how different where love rules! and that is the whole matter here. The edification of others is that which decides upon the greatness of the speaker. The one who speaks to most edification, whatever the manner of speech, is the one who is greatest. If, then, one came speaking with tongues, what would the profit be unless there was revelation or knowledge or prophesying, (which we see he makes, therefore, distinct from revelation: there might be a prophesying without that,) or doctrine, — the teaching of some truth?

He appeals to the lifeless thing even giving sound. If there were no distinctions in the sounds, if it were all unmeaning, how would anything be gathered from what was piped or harped? If the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who would prepare himself to the war? So, also, ye with a tongue, he says, except ye give a distinct word, that is, a word appreciable, — a word that shall be known in its significance by those addressed, how shall it be known what is spoken? You are just speaking, he says, into the air. Not a voice that God has given in the world but has its significance! If, therefore, tongues are to be merely a sound, the one who speaks will be simply a Barbarian to others, as those who listen are for him Barbarians. The rule, therefore, was for those who were emulous of spiritual gifts, that they might abound indeed, but for the edifying of the Church. So if a man were speaking with a tongue, he might pray that he might interpret. It may seem a strange thing that the gift of interpretation did not necessarily accompany the gift of the tongue itself; but in this way one can at least see that a gift of this showy character would be kept in more complete dependence, as was needed so much at Corinth; for the abuses which the apostle would remedy were necessarily found more or less among the people to whom he was speaking. Thus the one who seemed in their eyes so exalted by the gift of the tongue, nevertheless had to be indebted to the service of another for the interpretation of it. No doubt, where it was love that dictated, where love was in earnest for the help of men, God might add the gift of interpretation to the tongue itself, but the two things, as is plain, were distinct.

(2) The apostle goes on: "For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my mind is unfruitful." It has been thought, perhaps generally, that here his inability to understand what he was saying was necessarily supposed, but why? Is not the fruit which the apostle is teaching us everywhere to look for, the edification of the assembly? And thus if a man prayed simply with a tongue, apart from interpretation, there could be no fruitfulness; in that respect the mind was really unfruitful. "But," says the apostle, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the understanding. I will praise with the spirit and I will praise with the understanding." That is, surely, therefore, in connection with the context here, in such a way that there shall be understanding all round, for he goes on directly to argue that if you bless in the spirit only, the one who occupies the place of the unlearned cannot possibly say "amen" to the giving of thanks; for he does not know what is being said. You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. Thus even in prayer and praise the same principle obtains. In the assembly all is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly, but the assembly as such is always in mind, and the gathering is not to be diverted into any mere field for the private exercises of the saints, whatever their character might be. Solemn it is to realize that even the giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The fact that the gift is from God does not of necessity justify the use of it. The use at any particular time must be governed by the principle which runs through all this, the principle of edification, which is sought always. The apostle was not speaking to discredit tongues, the ability to use which he had more than all, yet he deliberately chooses rather to speak five words with his understanding, to instruct others, (there he defines really what he means by five words with the understanding, which is that he may instruct others by them,) he would rather speak five words this way than ten thousand in a tongue. To think otherwise would be to be children in their minds; but he does not want them to be children in mind, although he would be happy that they were children in malice; but in their minds they were to be full grown. What, in fact, had God shown with regard to this use of tongues, unintelligible tongues, as we see? That is really the point of it. It was written in the law, in the book of Isaiah (the whole of the Old Testament is characterized as law): "With other tongues and lips of others I will speak unto this people, and not even so will they bear me, saith the Lord." But to what did this refer? In fact, to their captivity among foreigners or the dominion of foreigners over them, a thing in itself which would necessarily and notably speak to a people who could only be in this condition through their own sin and failure, and yet their sin would not be remedied by it, nor would they listen, as the Lord says, to these tongues by which He was speaking so strangely to them; so that in this case tongues were for a sign not to believers, but to unbelievers. God was speaking to them indeed, but in a strange language through their unbelief, and this only, through the hardness of their heart, shut them up the more in that unbelief, did not deliver them. Prophesying, on the other hand, was directly for believers, not for unbelievers. Now if the whole assembly come together in one place and all speak with tongues, he urges, and there come in unlearned persons or unbelievers, what will they say? What effect will it have upon them? "Will they not say that ye are mad?" It is supposed, of course, that there is no making plain the thing so as to edify; just used as strange tongues because of the wonder of such speech. They are tongues, he supposes, that are not understood. On the other hand, if all prophesied, and there came in one who was an unbeliever or unlearned, this bringing in of the mind of God, unbaring as it does the secrets of the heart, would bring conviction to the man who came. He might not indeed be converted by it, but be would find, in fact, his inmost heart searched out, and would recognize that it was God who was searching; so, falling upon his face, he would worship God, and declare that God was with them of a truth. How plainly is the character of prophesying thus seen as the bringing in of God in such a way as would speak for itself; the voice of God made audible in the speaker, with its direct power over the conscience of those who heard.

Assuredly the apostolic test is not always appreciated, and there are those in our day as indifferent to edification as the Corinthians. But a greater than they did not regard as a defect in spiritual tone the desire that men should be refreshed or helped in whatever way they needed. No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift, and that theirs was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle boldly maintains that the lack of speaking to men demonstrates the inferiority of speaking in a tongue to prophesying. He that so speaks is not taxed with speaking unintelligibly, or unintelligible things; on the contrary he is presumed to speak the truth, and high truth — "in spirit he speaks mysteries." But, the language being unknown, "no one hears;" he is not understood. He that prophesies speaks to men edification, encouragement, and comfort. The testimony flows in blessing to souls. The apostle was not dazzled, as the Corinthians were then and many since, in their yearnings after it, with the display of power. But he unqualifiedly sets prophesying beyond such a display, for it brings in not power merely but God, and God in His building up souls, encouraging them and consoling them. This does not cast such a halo around man; but it really brings in God in grace, and gives the consciousness of His presence.

The speaker in a tongue "edifies himself," the prophet edifies the Church. And this last must be the aim of those who desire truly to be fellow-workers with God. To what end, then, it may perhaps be asked, was the former gift? To such an enquiry there is a double answer; first, particular self-edification, and the power of mysterious converse with God, are not an unimportant benefit to the holder of such a gift. But, secondly, these tongues were, with other gifts of a visibly miraculous kind, an emphatic corroboration of a testimony which declared, not the name only and the Gospel of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, but that He dwelt personally, by His Spirit, in all who called in faith upon that name. While, therefore, the believer needed not such gifts for the confirmation of his own faith, the indwelling Spirit being Himself the seal and witness of each child of God, they had, in the wisdom of God, their place and efficacy as the fitting accompaniments of a doctrine then so new, as well as naturally incredible, to mortal ears.5 Tongues, therefore, were, like other gifts, fit objects of desire, and to be honoured in their place. And so he proceeds:

Verse 5. "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied," etc. He would that each might be severally edified, but rather that they might rejoice together in the Lord. A concurrent power of interpretation would place the "tongue" on a moral par with prophecy. If otherwise, the gift indeed was good and precious, but its place of exercise was not the assembly of the saints. And by how much the profiting of many is to be preferred to the benefit of one, by so much did the speaker with tongues stand below the prophet in the honour which attends true service in the Church.