John Stott - Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today
Probably at this point something needs to be said about “tongues”, the gift much emphasized by some. A question mark still stands over the contemporary phenomenon known as tongue-speaking, whether it is identical to the New Testament gift. It is clear that on the Day of Pentecost the Spirit-filled believers were speaking “in other tongues”, that is in foreign languages, “as the spirit gave them utterance” and that all these languages were intelligible to groups in the crowd (Acts 2:4-11). There is a strong theological and linguistic presumption that the phenomenon referred to in 1 Corinthians is the same. First, the Greek phrases are almost exactly the same, and one of the first rules of Biblical interpretation Is that identical expressions have an identical meaning. Second, the noun glossa has only two known meanings, namely the organ in the mouth and language. There is no linguistic warrant for the NEB rendering ecstatic utterance”. This is not a translation but an interpretation. Similarly the verb for the “interpretation of tongues” means the translation of languages. Third, the whole thrust of 1 Corinthians 14 is to discourage the cult of unintelligibility as a childish thing: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking... but in thinking be mature” (verse 20). The God of the Bible is a rational God does not delight in irrationality or unintelligibility.
This interpretation raises a few exegetical difficulties which has lead some to distinguish sharply between “tongues” in the Acts and tongues in 1 Corinthians. But the difficulties are small in comparison with the strength of the argument that the phenomenon is the same, not an unintelligible ecstatic utterance but an intelligible language - intelligible, that is to some present (as on the day of Pentecost); it would of course need to be interpreted or translated in a multilingual port like Corinth for the benefit of those who spoke another language. If the gift is essentially linguistic, one can understand better why Paul puts it at the bottom of the list, and why it is not even mentioned in the three other lists. It is true that he says ”I want you all to speak in tongues” (much as Moses said “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets” Numbers 11:29), because all God’s gifts are good and desirable, but in itself (apart, that is, from the content spoken) it does not have a particular ability to edify.
What then about the contemporary practice of private tongue speaking as an aid to personal devotion? Many are claiming to discover through it a new degree of fluency in their approach to God. Others has spoken of a kind of “psychic release,” which they have found liberating and which one would not want to deny them. On the other hand, it needs to be said (from 1 Corinthians 14) that if Paul completely forbids public tongues speaking without interpretation, he strongly discourages private tongue speaking if the speaker does not understand what he is saying. Verse 13 is often overlooked: “He who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret”. Otherwise mind will be “unfruitful” or unproductive. So what is he to do? Paul asks himself. His reply is that he will pray and sing “with the Spirit”, but he will do so “with the mind also”. It is clear that he simply cannot contemplate Christian prayer and praise in which the mind is not actively engaged.
Some readers will no doubt respond that in the early verses of 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle contrasts prophecy and tongue-speaking, stating that the prophet “edifies himself,” and therefore is actively encouraging the practice of private tongue-speaking. I confess that I question whether this is the right deduction to draw. Two reasons make me hesitate.
First, “edification” in the New Testament is invariably a ministry that builds up others. The Greek word oikodomeo mean literally “to build,” and is used of building cities, houses, synagogues, etc. Used figuratively it is applied to the church. “I will build my church,” said Jesus (Mt 16:16). “You are ...God’s building,” wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor 3:9; cf. Eph 2:20-21), and “like living stones” are being “built into a spiritual house,” added Peter (1 Pet 2:5). From this basic meaning the word came to be used of “strengthening, establishing, edifying” Christians and churches. Luke write that the Palestinian church was “being built up,” and Paul that his his apostolic authority had been given him “for your upbuilding” (Act 9:31; 2 Cor 10:8; 12:19; 13:10). In addition, Christians have a ministry of “mutual upbuilding” (Rom 14:19) in which they are to “build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11; cf. Rom 15:2; Eph 4:20; Jude 20). And if it be asked what edifies the church more than anything else, Paul would reply “truth” (Acts 20:32; cf Col 2:7) and “love” (1 Cor 8:1; cf 10:23). The same emphasis on building up others prevails in 1 Corinthians 14, in that not only does the prophet “edify” by his message (verse 3-4) but in public worship “all things” are to be “done for edification” (verse 26; cf verse 17) and all Christians are to “strive to excel in building up the church” (verse 12; cf. verse 5). Now in the light of this consistent New Testament emphasis on edification as a ministry to others and to the church, what are we to make of the one and only exception, which sat that the tongue-speaker “edifies himself”? Surely there must be at least some degree of irony in what Paul writes, for the phrase is almost a contradiction in terms. Self-edification is simply not what edification is all about in the New Testament.
Second, we have to read the expression in the light of the teaching we have already considered that all spiritual gifts are service gifts, bestowed “for the common good” for ministry to others. How, then, can this one gift be turned in upon itself and be exercised for personal good instead of the common good? Must one not say that this involves a misuse of a gift? What would one think of a believer with a teaching gift who uses it only to give himself private instruction, or of a man with a healing gift who healed no one but himself? It is hard to justify the self-directed use of a gift specifically bestowed for the benefit of others.
So for these two reasons it seems to me that there must be a note of irony, if not of sarcasm, in Paul’s voice as he writes of the tongue-speaker edifying himself. He takes it for granted that the Corinthians, to whom he had clearly explained the purpose of spiritual gifts in chapter 12, we get his meaning and not need him to spell it out any further.