Chapter 4.9

Whole-hearted Prayer

With Spirit & Mind

Overall Objective

To demonstrate the essential part that our mind plays in our relationship with God in the area of prayer, and to point out errors on this issue in the modern “tongues” movement.

Table of Topics

A) Peter’s Command to Pray With Our Reason: 1 Pet 4:7

B) The Unbiblical Nature of Modern Mindless “Tongues”

C) The King’s Command to Not “Babble Like Pagans”: Matt 6:5-9

D) Paul’s Command for “Whole-hearted” Prayer: 1 Cor 14:14-15

E) Paul’s Rebuke of Mindless Self-edification: 1 Cor 14:4

E.1) The charge of self-edification was a rebuke to the selfish Corinthians

E.2) Real spiritual gifts are for the edification of others

E.3) Edification requires understanding

Extras & Endnote

Primary Points

• The Bible commands that the mind be engaged in any form of Christian prayer.
• Praying in a tongue does not engage our understanding and is therefore pagan, half-hearted, and not Christian.
• “Praying in a tongue,” violates the Apostle’s command to “think clearly and control yourselves so you will be able to pray.”
• The modern version of “praying in a tongue” is the same thing as the pagan version practiced in the Greek mystery religions in Corinth and is practiced world-wide in religions today.
• Jesus condemned the mindless “babbling like pagans” when praying, which seems to include the tongues phenomenon.
• It is not the content of the Lord’s Prayer that distinguished it from the pagan’s prayer, but the method.
• Emotionalists too easily dismiss the significance of the Apostle’s statement that the person who prays “in a tongue” does it with “my spirit” (i.e. seat of human emotions), not the Holy Spirit.
• A major mistake emotionalists make is to assume that the Apostle is advocating two kinds of prayer, one which only engages the human “spirit” and a type of praying that only engages the mind. When the Apostle said, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind” (1 Cor 14:15) he meant simultaneously.
• Emotionalists do not consider carefully enough how derogatory the Apostle is toward those who “pray in a tongue” when he says their “mind is unfruitful [akarpos: “barren”].
• When Paul says, “One who speaks in [an “unknown”] tongue [glosse] edifies himself,” it is a rebuke, not a recommendation.
• Perhaps the clearest biblical contradiction to the emotionalists claim that they possess a Christian spiritual gift for the exclusive purpose of edifying themselves is the Apostle’s clear claim that, “to each one the manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit is given for the common good” (1 Cor 12:7).
• Edification doesn’t happen in a human apart from our understanding. Emotions will, but not real spiritual edification.
• For all the claims in modern emotionalism that their “prayer language” is so spiritually edifying, we would ask, “Do those who practice this seem more spiritually mature than those who don’t?”
• The Day is coming when all who practice the half-hearted prayer of “tongues” will know that they were actually “speaking into the air” (1 Cor 14:9) just as the Apostle said.

A) Peter’s Command to Pray With Our Reason: 1 Pet 4:7

Just as whole-hearted worship requires our faculties of understanding to be engaged, so does biblical whole-hearted prayer. The Apostle Peter speaks of the place of reason in our prayer when he writes, “be of sound judgment [sōphronēsate] and sober [nēpsate] spirit for the purpose of prayer” (1 Pet 4:7 NASB). The Apostle is clearly implying that the mind is to be engaged in any kind of prayer that is Christian. The NCV renders it, “think clearly and control yourselves so you will be able to pray.” The NIV translates the Apostle as saying, “be clear-minded so that you can pray,” and he certainly didn’t mean “empty-minded” which describes a great deal of the half-hearted kind of prayer many are advocating today when they promote “praying in a tongue.”

Again, when we understand that the human “heart” contains not only emotions, but essentially reason, we understand that it is not just a lack of emotional fervor that results in half-hearted prayer, but a neglect of our intellect as well. The Apostle Peter’s explicit instruction that our reason must be fully engaged in anything claiming to be Christian prayer is something the modern “tongues” movement has not taken seriously enough.

Pastoral Practices

• Is our prayer life whole-hearted? Do we feel the freedom to emotionally express what is in our “heart,” whether it be praise or pain? Have we ever yelled at God? Don’t worry, He can handle it. And are we being whole-hearted in our prayer life by being “clear-minded so that you can pray,” as Peter instructed? (1 Pet 4:7). Some people are helped to stay focused during prayer by praying through Scripture, through a list, or even journaling their prayers. Be whole-hearted in your prayer life and teach your church the same.

B) The Unbiblical Nature of Modern Mindless “Tongues”

When we think particularly of the popular practice of “praying in a tongue,” it would seem to be an example of half-hearted prayer, and the Apostle’s command to “think clearly and control yourselves so you will be able to pray” would therefore clearly condemn it. Our suggestion that “praying in a tongue” is half-hearted is illustrated in the description of it in the following from a foremost promoter of it, Archbishop Michael Green of the Anglican Church:

Perhaps one of the areas of profit that we may need to be reminded of in an over-cerebral age is this: [praying in an incoherent tongue] allows the human spirit to pray, even when the mind is unfruitful because it cannot understand (I Cor. 14:14).

Many people pray in tongues while driving a car or washing up – their mind can be employed elsewhere. Clearly, therefore, tongues is a valuable gift for private edification. It can bring a profound sense of the presence of God, and lead, as a result, to a release from tension and worry, and a deepening of love and trust. As the Holy Spirit leads the believer in such prayer, there is often a deep sense of being in harmony with God. ^[1]

On the contrary, NT scholar Thomas Edgar remarks:

The tongues movement presupposes that communication with the spiritual realm is more direct when it is apart from the mind. Such a concept, though found in various [pagan] religions, is contrary to biblical [and historical] Christianity. ^[2]

While we biblically evaluate the modern “tongues” movement elsewhere, ^[3] it is appropriate to discuss it in the context of the apparent disparagement of the Christian mind. Practitioners of “praying in a tongue” freely admit that it is rather mindless, in that they do not know what they are “saying” or if they are saying anything at all. In other words, it hardly requires our thinking faculties to utter incoherent sounds, and therefore, if this is a way in which the Holy Spirit edifies the Christian, it is agreed by all that He is not using the mind to do so.

Nonetheless, there are those who insist that in 1 Corinthians 14 the Apostle Paul introduced another, even more spiritual method of praying “in a tongue” that purposely leaves the “mind” “unfruitful [akarpos: “barren, useless”]” (1 Cor 14:14). Elsewhere in Knowing Our God we argue in detail that the Apostle Paul is not advocating a mindless half-hearted kind of prayer, and that the modern version of “praying in a tongue” is the same thing as the pagan, non-Christian variety that was being practiced in the Greek mystery religions in Corinth and is practiced world-wide among all kinds of non-Christian religions today. ^[4]

Accordingly, Joseph Dillow, in his book, Speaking in Tongues, summarized the religious context of Corinth and its implications on the issue at hand:

Corinth was an extremely immoral city, full of pagan superstition and idol worship. In the heathen worship there of the goddess of Diana the use of gibberish, or unintelligible language, was common. . . . [Tongue utterances] had an important place in this pagan worship. The words were believed to be revealed by a god or spirit to the priest or devotee. . . . Through this the worshiper believed that he was having a privileged, intimate contact with his god not possible when he spoke to it in his native language. . . .

Kittel [in the highly regarded Theological Dictionary of the New Testament] mentions the “muttering of words or sounds without interconnection of meaning” as part of the idol worship at Corinth, and notes that it occurred commonly in the cults of various other Greek gods and goddesses as well. . . . ^[5]

Pagan tribes all over the world have been speaking in [tongue utterances] for centuries. The similarities between their practice and that of the tongues movement is striking. At its root the movement is simply a merger of Christianity with paganism . . . the practice of the Corinthians paralleled their involvement in the Greek mystery religions prior to becoming Christians. The same battle that Paul fought in Corinth is being raised again. ^[6]

Dr. Dillow’s point that “tongue” utterances as found in modern emotionalism are found in pagan religions all over the world is an important point regarding the true nature of the contemporary phenomenon.

In the Encyclopedia of Religion under the entry “Glossolalia,” which is the technical term for tongues speaking in general we read:

Glossolalia (from the Greek glosse, “tongue, language,” and lalein, “to talk”) is a nonordinary speech behavior that is institutionalized as a religious ritual in numerous Western and non-Western religious communities. Its worldwide distribution attests to its antiquity, as does its mention in ancient documents…

There are references to it in the [Hindu] Vedas (c. 1000 BC), in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, and in Tibetan Tantric writings. Traces of it can be found in the litanies of some orders of the Islamic Sufi mystics… [Tongues speaking] occurred in some of the ancient Greek religions and in various primitive religions . . .

Paul urged restraint in the practice . . . since such a spectacular spiritual gift could be abused. Edification, as opposed to personal satisfaction, was set as the test of acceptable glossolalia. If the meaning could not be disclosed, Paul regarded it with suspicion. . . .

In the circumpolar region, many shamans [witch doctors], among the Intuit [Eskimo] . . . use their religious ritual’s secret languages that consist of a mixture of nonsense syllables. . . . [T]hese secret trance dialects are taught by the master shamans to their neophytes. . . . From Africa we have reports of a secret religious trance language used exclusively by women.

When speaking in tongues . . . if the pronouncement is in nonsense syllables, as, for instance, among Christians speaking in tongues or among the nomadic, reindeer-hunting Chukchi of Siberia, an “interpretation” may be provided. . . . In the zar cult of Ethiopia, the shamans talk to the zars [spirits] in a “secret language.” The shamans of the Semai of Malaysia use glossolalia to invite the “nephews of the gods” to a feast, and the Yanomamo Indians of Amazonia chant while in a trance to their hekura demons, calling them to come live in their chests. ^[7]

Obviously, then, it is imperative that careful discernment is exercised in evaluating modern “tongue speaking,” as the modern version of the gift is indistinguishable from the world-wide pagan variety.

Accordingly, we demonstrate elsewhere that in 1 Corinthians 12-14 the Apostle was differentiating between the real spiritual gift of tongues and the pagan counterfeit operating in the Corinthian church. The real gift was the ability to miraculously speak a real foreign human language as an authenticating sign of new divine revelation, as it is clearly described throughout Acts, and in Paul’s clear statement that the gift of “tongues . . . are a [miraculous] sign . . . for unbelievers” (14:22).

Neither the ancient nor modern pagan practice of a mindless, meaningless, self-edifying private prayer language is either miraculous, or a sign of anything to unbelievers but being “out of your mind” (i.e. “insane” 14:23). Simply put, the Bible’s description of the real gift of tongues cannot be reconciled with the modern version claimed in emotionalism, but its attributes perfectly fit the pagan counterfeit that the Apostle Paul was combating in Corinth and which is practiced in heathen and even demonic worship practices all over the world.

Those who claim the Apostle Paul is encouraging “praying in a tongue” in 1 Corinthians 14 must at least admit that its mindless nature violates the Apostle Peter’s clear command to ““think clearly and control yourselves so you will be able to pray”” (1 Pet 4:7 NCV), and contradicts everything else the Bible says about prayer, as the conscious engagement of the Christian’s mind is always either clearly commanded or presupposed. Our primary purpose here is simply to note that such a practice violates both explicit and implicit instruction in Scripture that God-pleasing whole-hearted prayer will always engage our God-given faculty of understanding.

C) The King’s Command to Not “Babble Like Pagans”: Matt 6:5-9

While the Apostle Peter’s instruction above is explicit, we would suggest that the King’s own instruction on prayer is implicit in advocating the place of the mind in prayer. For example, we read in Luke:

One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When He finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say [using your mind, of course]: “‘Father, hallowed be Your Name, Your Kingdom come. . .” (Luke 11:1-2).

It should be noticed that when Jesus taught the disciples how to communicate with God, He told them to use logically based propositional statements like, “Our Father Who is in Heaven” (Matt 6:9) which require logical and reasonable thought to formulate, understand, and express.

It is obvious that when the King was praying here, it was not in a “tongue” and when His disciples specifically asked Him to teach them how to pray He did not advocate such a practice. Accordingly, there is no mention of the King ever praying in an obscure tongue, including the very intimate and emotional prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and His “high priestly prayer” recorded in John 17. His prayers in both these cases were from God to God. It would seem if there was ever a time for the “super prayer language” that is claimed in emotionalism to be demonstrated, these events would have provided the opportunity to validate such a thing. God the Son spoke naturally to God the Father and instructed us to do the same, not in the obscure utterances that are being exalted today.

In fact, the King would seem to have condemned several practices particularly in emotionalism regarding prayer when He taught:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, Who is unseen. Then your Father, Who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling [battalogēsēte] like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many utterances [polulogia]. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. “This, then, is how you should pray: “’Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be Your name . . . ” (Matt 6:5-9)

When the King speaks of “secret” prayer He obviously is not advocating a “private prayer language.” However, it would seem possible to apply His rebuke to someone standing in a public assembly praying audibly in obscure gibberish just “to be seen by men” to a great many prayer meetings in emotionalism.

The King’s command that “when you pray, do not keep on babbling (battalogēsēte) like pagans” would also seem to condemn the modern tongues phenomenon. Obviously the King is not condemning meaningful repetition in prayer as is exemplified by His own prayers in the Garden of Gethsemene and encouraged in His parable of the unjust judge and the widow (cf. Luke 18:1-8). ^[8] In addition, Christ’s mention of the pagans praying with “many utterances” (polulogia) can be translated without the implication that the utterances have meaning as real words. ^[9]

Accordingly, the more important word to understand is “babbling” (battalogēsēte). Matthew’s use of such a rare word to reflect Christ’s meaning is very significant. Many assume that the King was merely referring to repetitive prayer such as practiced in Roman Catholicism by praying through the rosary. If this was so, other common Greek words could have been used by the Apostle to translate what Christ meant (e.g. palin: “again”; cf. 2 Cor 11:16; 13:2; “repeat” in NIV). However, Christ obviously meant to describe a kind of prayer that was much more than mere repetition, but an incoherent “babbling.”

The Greek battalogēsēte is a unique word and only used here in the NT. The well-respected Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD) defines battalogēsēte as “to speak in a way that images the kind of speech pattern of one who stammers, use the same utterances again and again, speak without thinking.” ^[10] Accordingly, the NIV “babbling,” which Webster’s defines as: “to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds” is a very good translation, and a very good description of modern tongues speaking. ^[11]

It is agreed by most that “praying in a tongue” is indeed mindless as battalogēsēte suggests. In addition, it is admitted that tongue utterances are meaningless to the speaker, an aspect that is captured in the NCV translation of battalogēsēte as “saying things that mean nothing,” and the ESV and RSV which reads, “heap up empty phrases.” The NASB translates battalogēsēte as “meaningless repetition” which linguists around the world would confirm perfectly reflects the practice of “praying in a tongue.” ^[12]

Also, as demonstrated elsewhere, praying in an incoherent “tongue” was commonly known to be a frequent practice in the Greek mystery religions right at the time when the King lived on the Earth. ^[13] We noted there that we have considerable evidence that praying publicly in meaningless, “babbling,” gibberish was thought to be a more spiritual kind of prayer practiced in the pagan mystery religion temples.

It seems quite reasonable then to interpret the King’s condemnation of “babbling (battalogēsēte) like pagans” to refer to this very thing. Accordingly, the NLT reads, “don’t babble . . . as people of other religions do.” It is suggested here then that a legitimate translation of the King’s words would simply be, “When you pray, do not make meaningless and incoherent “babble” like the pagans do in their temples, for they think they will be heard because they do this a lot. But when you pray, do it in a meaningful, coherent way like ‘Our Father . . .” ^[14]

Accordingly, NT scholar John Stott remarks regarding the King’s instruction, “when you pray, do not keep on babbling (battalogēsēte) like pagans”:

To sum up, what Jesus forbids his people is any kind of prayer with the mouth when the mind is not engaged. . . . Jesus intends our minds and hearts to be involved in what we are saying. Then prayer is seen in its true light-not as a meaningless repetition of words, nor as a means to our own glorification, but as a true communion with our heavenly Father. . . .

Thus Christian prayer is seen in contrast to its non-Christian alternatives. It is God-centered (concerned for God’s glory) in contrast to the self-centeredness of the Pharisees (preoccupied with their own glory). And it is intelligent (expressive of thoughtful dependence) in contrast to the mechanical incantations of the heathen.

Therefore when we come to God in prayer, we do not come hypocritically like play actors seeking the applause of men, nor mechanically like pagan babblers, whose mind is not in their mutterings, but thoughtfully, humbly and trustfully like little children to their father. ^[15]

While Dr. Stott does not specifically condemn “praying in a tongue,” one could hardly describe those who do, any better than those, “whose mind is not in their mutterings.”

It is clear that the King’s command to pray coherently with understandable content is clearly violated by “praying in a tongue” that is admittedly incoherent. It is not the content of the Lord’s Prayer that distinguished it from the pagan’s prayer, for surely the pagans desired many of the same things listed (e.g. daily bread, protection from evil, etc.) No, it was the method of the Lord’s Prayer that distinguished it from the pagan practice. Pagans prayed half-heartedly in mindless merely emotional gibberish (battalogēsēte). The King told us to pray whole-heartedly in coherent, meaningful, natural speech which requires our mind.

One could hardly suggest a better description of the pagan “tongue” prayer than that of Gerd Theissen, Professor of New Testament Theology at the University of Heidelberg, who refers to it as “the language of the unconscious.” ^[16] It would seem then that the practice of “praying in a tongue” resembles the ancient pagan practice and violates the King’s command because its practitioners: 1) admit that they do not understand what they are praying in a tongue, and 2) according to linguists, the prayer language consists of repeating cycles of the same meaningless syllables, and 3) It violates the King’s clear command to pray coherently and meaningfully in natural human language.

If some still doubt that the King’s words apply to praying in incoherent utterances, then it is suggested that they imagine themselves on “the Mount” that day, sitting in front of Him, when He spoke these words:

When you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans . . . Do not be like them [pagans] . . . This, then, is how you should pray: “Our Father Who is in Heaven . . . (Matt 6:7-9)

Now, imagine that immediately after personally hearing these words of the King, someone stood up in the crowd and audibly uttered a “prayer” in an incoherent “tongue.” Imagine further that afterwards the person explains to the crowd: “What He just said about not “babbling like pagans” really doesn’t include ‘praying in a tongue.’ Sure, it obviously resembles what the pagans do in their temples, but it can also be a spiritual gift from God, and in fact a special and even more spiritual way of communing with God that should be sought by all of God’s children.” Do you think the King would be nodding with approval? Neither do we think He approves of it today.

It is admitted that what is being suggested here is quite serious: praying in obscure gibberish is not just meaningless but sinful. It is also admitted that the King did not explicitly use the words “praying in a tongue” when he condemned “babbling like the pagans” and some may understandably object to the above interpretation. However, understanding the religious context of His statement, and the popularity of “babbling” in a tongue in the Greek mystery religions at the very time He said this, provides considerable support for our view. ^[17] Nonetheless, the concepts are clearly related enough that one could ask why someone would even want to come close to something our Lord seemed so passionately against?

Especially since we will be held accountable for everything we do or say. Accordingly, the following warning from Christ comes to mind in regards to the debate on praying in mindless gibberish:

[O]ut of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. [and the empty-minded man brings empty things out of the empty-mindedness in him].

But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every [argos: “useless”] word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matt 12:33-36)

It is not “careless” words that Christ is condemning here, as many translations erroneously render argos, ^[18] but rather, “unfruitful, barren” ^[19] and “unprofitable, hollow” ^[20] utterances that mean nothing. Therefore, when we read that God will hold us accountable for even meaningless utterances to Him, those who pray in a meaningless tongue should take notice. This is, no doubt, another reason that the King did not want His people to be mindlessly and meaninglessly “babbling like the pagans” customarily did when they prayed.

We are reminded here of the Lord’s rebuke to His people, “Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense [symbolic of prayer?] is detestable to Me” (Isa 1:13). How can those who “pray in a tongue” know for sure that their obscure, unintelligible utterances in a babble are not meaningless? Just because it feels good?

God says, “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind to reward a man according to his conduct” (Jer 17:10). What then does God find in the mind of those who pray in a mindless tongue? Nothing. And it is not good to come before God with empty prayers and praise, which is what empty-minded prayer and praise will automatically be. The Apostle writes, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor 5:10). Praying in a meaningless tongue is something we do “in the body” and it is “bad” because it mimics ancient and modern practices in pagan religions and offers God an empty mind, instead of a worshipful one.

While modern tongue practitioners can assume there is something meaningful in their meaningless utterances, God knows it is empty and will one day expose it as such because “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known” (Luke 10:2). “This will take place on the Day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ” (Rom 2:16). If those praying meaningless, empty things to God do not know it now, they will know it on that Day, and we will mourn their loss of reward and waste of time, mind, energy, and “prayer” with them.

D) Paul’s Command for “Whole-hearted Prayer: 1 Cor 14:14-15

The King’s and the Apostle Peter’s instruction regarding the need for our reason to be involved in authentic Christian prayer was repeated by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. He tells the Corinthians:

[A]nyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. If I pray in a tongue [glosse, “unknown utterance” ^[21]], my spirit [not Holy Spirit!] prays, but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos: “unproductive, barren”]. So what shall I do? [and what should Christians do?] I will pray with my spirit, but I will also [at the same time] pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also [at the same time] sing with my mind. (14-15)

The Apostle is simply stating something here very much like what Christ was alluding to when He said, “True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit [emotions] and truth [reason], for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. . . . His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). In the previous chapter we argued that Christ was speaking of “whole-hearted” worship in which all the functions of our “heart” are involved, including the “truth” which we process, possess, and protect in our reason, and our human “spirit” from which our desires and emotions come from. Likewise, here the Apostle is describing “whole-hearted” prayer in which both our reason (“mind”) and emotions and affections (“spirit”) are involved.

Emotionalists interpret the Apostle here as saying that there are two kinds of praying and singing, one with the mind and the other without the mind. More specifically, they claim that to “pray with my spirit” without the mind is the biblical gift of tongues and a superior way to pray. Accordingly, the Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee writes:

[The Corinthians’] error in understanding permit us to catch a glimpse of what otherwise would be unknown, namely, the Apostle’s own interior life in the Spirit. . . . [W]hat we learn here is that his “spirituality” included a continual life of praying and singing in the Spirit-in this case, with glossolalia [“tongues”]. . . . [Here] we have especially the description of his own prayer life in 1 Cor 14:14-15, that it is of two kinds: praying [only] with his mind [or] praying [only] with his S/spirit. ^[22]

There are several insurmountable problems with the idea that the Apostle is advocating a habit of mindless prayer. First, it violates the clear commands and instructions in Scripture, as discussed above, of the need to have our mind engaged in any prayer that would be pleasing to God.

Secondly, the Apostle prefaces the passage by saying, “Anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says” (v. 13). We would ask again, if praying in a mindless, meaningless way is so valuable, why would the Apostle say this? It is because he knew that it would be better even for the tongue speaker to know the meaning of what they were praying, because as we will discuss further below, there is no value in utterances that are not understood, not to the individual or others. ^[23] Remember that the authentic gift of tongues (languages) was the miraculous ability to speak in a real, but foreign human language that the speaker did not understand. Accordingly, while the speaker would be saying meaningful things, it would need to be interpreted for those who did not know the language.

Thirdly, emotionalists too easily dismiss or intentionally ignore the significance of the Apostle’s statement that the person who prays “in a tongue” does it with “my spirit” (i.e. seat of human emotions), not the Holy Spirit. In fact, while emotionalists wish to continually insert a mention of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 14, the Apostle never does, always intentionally speaking of the human seat of emotion in regards to speaking in an unknown tongue (cf. 14:2, 14, 15, 32). It would have been very easy for the Apostle to specify the involvement of the Holy Spirit here, but he intentionally does not. Accordingly, NT scholar Anthony Thiselton writes:

A disastrous move [in 1 Cor 14:14-15], however, is to confuse [“spirit” here which is] a noncognitive or “spiritual” human capacity, with Spirit as the Holy Spirit of God. . . . [T]o read this into 14:15 is to fall into the very trap to which the Corinthians and many today fall prey, namely, of associating the operation of the Holy Spirit more closely with noncognitive “spontaneous” phenomena than with a self-critical reflection upon the word of God as that which addresses the understanding and thereby transforms the heart (cf. 14:23-25).

Contrary to his usually more judicious assessments [Gordon] Fee [as in the quote above ^[24]] repeats this disastrous confusion explicitly in his commentary and in his two more recent volumes: “my S/spirit prays.” ^[25]

The Greek word used throughout 1 Corinthians 14 is the common pneuma which can either be translated with a small “s” or a capital “S” depending, again, on the context. The NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, PME, and JB translate it “spirit,” whereas what could be termed the “looser” translations (TLB, NLT, CEV, NCV, TEV) have it “Spirit.” It would seem certain that in verses 14-16 “spirit” is the most likely translation based on the Apostle’s reference to “my [mou] spirit.” The Greek text there leaves no doubt that praying or singing in a “tongue” is merely by the person’s spirit, not the Holy Spirit.

It should be recognized that the human spirit is often distinguished from the Holy Spirit in Scripture (cf. Rom 8:16; 12:11; 1 Cor 2:11; 5:3-5; 7:34; 14:14-16, 32; 16:18; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:1, 13; Gal 6:18; Eph 4:23; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Tim 4:23; Plmn 1:25). ^[26] Therefore, there is no reason to interpret the Apostle’s references to “his spirit” (1 Cor 14:2) and “my spirit” (14:14-16) as referring to the Holy Spirit. ^[27] These are references to the human spirit.

What then is meant in Scripture by the human “spirit”? While references to it can refer to various aspects of our “heart,” ^[28] Vine’s Expository Dictionary lists a primary one as “the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires,” ^[29] with some uses particularly including our emotions (cf. Matt 5:3; Luke 1:47; Acts 17:16). And this is especially the meaning of the human spirit when it is being contrasted with the mind, as it is here. Accordingly, Charles Hodge (1797–1878) reflected the common view of NT scholars when he wrote: “When spirit is to be distinguished from the understanding, it designates the affections [i.e. emotional desires].” ^[30]

The fact that the Apostle intentionally says those who utter something in a “tongue” do so merely with their human spirit instead of the Holy Spirit should be another clear indication that the Apostle is not speaking of the same supernatural gift of tongues he had earlier described as a “manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit” (12:7), and also as a “work of one and the same [Holy] Spirit” (12:11). Again, the Apostle will not, and cannot, assume that such an “unknown” utterance is a “manifestation” or “work” of the Holy Spirit and neither should we.

A fourth consideration in the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 is that emotionalists do not consider carefully enough how derogatory the Apostle is toward those who “pray in a tongue” when he says their “mind is unfruitful [akarpos: “unproductive, barren”]. When would being “unfruitful” in prayer or singing or anything else be a good, Christian thing? On the contrary, it is a bad pagan thing. As we quoted Dr. Edgar above:

The tongues movement presupposes that communication with the spiritual realm is more direct when it is apart from the mind. Such a concept, though found in various religions, is contrary to biblical Christianity. ^[31]

As is often the case, nobody says it better (or harsher sometimes) than John Calvin (1509–1564), even if it was more than 400 years ago. Commenting on this very passage (1 Cor 14:14-15), Calvin expressed the universal conviction of the Christian Church for about 1600 years when he wrote:

Let us take notice, that Paul reckons it a great fault if the mind is not occupied in prayer. And no wonder; for what else do we in prayer, but pour out our thoughts and desires before God? Farther, as prayer is the spiritual worship of God, what is more at variance with the nature of it, than that it should proceed merely from the lips, and not from the inmost soul? And these things [should] have been perfectly familiar to every mind, had not the devil besotted the world to such a degree, as to make men believe that they pray aright, when they merely make their lips move. ^[32]

Likewise, in a treatise on how to pray, Martin Luther (1483-1546) reflected the historical view of prayer when he wrote regarding those who do not think about what they are praying: “When it is all over they do not know what they have done or what they talked about,” ^[33] which describes “praying in a tongue” very well. Luther went on to write:

But, praise God, it is now clear to me [although apparently not to many today] that a person who forgets [or doesn’t even know] what he has said has not prayed well. In a good prayer one fully remembers [and understands] every word and thought from the beginning to the end of the prayer. ^[34]

More recently, other commentators on this passage have agreed with our concerns. The highly respected British NT scholar C. K. Barrett writes concerning the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:15:

The upshot of the matter is that if I pray in a tongue, part, and that a most significant part, of my nature remains out of action. This is not good for me, and it is not good for the community I ought to serve. ^[35]

Likewise, John MacArthur writes that the answer to the Apostle’s question, “What should I do?” in 14:15 is that:

there is no place for mindless ecstatic prayer. Praying and singing with the spirit must be accompanied by praying and singing with the mind also. It is obvious that edification cannot exist apart from the mind. Spirituality involves more than the mind, but it never excludes the mind (cf. Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 4:23; Col. 3:10). ^[36]

Along the same lines, NT scholar Leon Morris (1914-2006) interpreted this passage as follows:

Anyone who prays in a tongue is not using his mind (nous). The Christian life is considerably more than a mental exercise, but anyone whose mind is unfruitful is not being true to his Christian calling. This passage is very important for its insistence on the rightful place of the intellect. Notice that this is secured without any diminution of spiritual fervour. Paul is not arguing for a barren intellectualism.

There is a place for the enthusiasm so strikingly exemplified in the use of ‘tongues’. But it must be allied to the use of the mind, and this ‘tongues’ by itself does not provide. Paul singles out two activities specially appropriate in public worship: prayer and singing. Both must be done intelligently, with the mind. . . . Clearly Paul is not looking for unintelligible [mindless] prayers. . . ^[37]

Perhaps the best synopsis of what the Apostle is teaching here is found in Richard Oster’s commentary:

In 14:14-15 Paul enters into specific instruction which, in my judgment, makes the most sense when viewed against the backdrop of residual pagan thinking among certain converts. Specifically, Paul’s corrective use of the mind/spirit dichotomy seemingly assumes a situation where the tongue speakers are relying only on their “spiritual” component to the neglect of their rational self. Even though there is no such radical antithesis between mind and spirit in Pauline anthropology, there is apparently such in the thinking and practice of these Corinthian saints.

Accordingly, Paul’s observation about the unfruitfulness of the mind of the Corinthian tongue speakers during their prayers-in-tongues implies an “irrational” dimension to their spirituality and piety that Paul finds unacceptable. . . .

This type of “irrational” focus in communion with the divine was well known in Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish materials of antiquity. E. R. Dodd’s classic work entitled The Greeks and the Irrational, unfortunately neglected by most interpreters of 1 Cor 14, shows how widespread and deeply rooted the notion of the “irrational” was in the pagan concepts of prophecy, enthusiasm, and oracular possession.

This is the very reason why pagan visitors to the [Corinthian] worship service can so readily interpret this aberrant tongue speaking in light of the pagan oracular experiences and presume a deity is also in the midst of these tongue speakers in the church of God. ^[38]

Finally, a major mistake emotionalists make here is to assume that the Apostle is advocating two kinds of prayer and singing, one which only engages the human “spirit” and consequently also, a type of praying and singing that only engages the mind. There are obviously several problems with this.

First, emotionalists must be consistent, and if they are going to claim the Apostle is advocating a type of prayer or singing that only engages the “spirit” and not the mind, then they must also admit that he is equally advocating a type of prayer or singing that only engages the intellect, and not the affections. Not surprisingly, emotionalists never suggest an example of only praying or singing with the understanding and not our emotions and desires that is equally legitimate. What kind of worship would that be, and would the Apostle encourage it?

Obviously, it is hard to even conceive of authentic Christian worship that excludes the spirit of a person, and even if we could conceive of it, we certainly wouldn’t advocate it. The same is true of the idea that authentic Christian praying or singing could exclude the mind. As usual, charismaticism is separating what God has joined together. ^[39]

Nonetheless, the Apostle recognizes that one could pray and sing with only the “spirit” which would seem to be doing so with merely a great deal of subconscious emotion and very little conscious understanding. Which, of course, describes both what was occurring in the pagan mystery religion temples of the time and in the modern and unbiblical version of the gift of tongues. However, and contrary to the claims of emotionalists, the Apostle says that praying or singing with only the human spirit is “unfruitful” (14:14).

If this is the case, then what kind of prayer and singing is the Apostle advocating in 1 Corinthians 14:15? It is obvious to anyone except those needing to find biblical support for their mindless pagan prayer and worship practices. The Apostle writes:

So what shall I do [because praying and singing with only my spirit is akarpos, unfruitful]? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also [at the same time] pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also [at the same time] sing with my mind. (14-15)

We are rather perplexed again as we are reminded of Dr. Fee’s interpretation that:

[Here] we have especially the description of his [the Apostle’s] own prayer life in 1 Cor 14:14-15, that it is of two kinds: praying [only] with his mind [or] praying [only] with his S/spirit. ^[40]

Again, Dr. Fee offers no support or examples of why the Apostle would ever only pray with his mind and not his spirit.

Contrary to emotionalism, the Apostle is describing the only legitimate way for a Christian to pray, which is with both the spirit (affections, emotions, and desires) and the mind (reason, thinking, understanding) simultaneously, just as is described throughout the rest of the Bible. He is describing what we have described above as whole-hearted worship, and singing or praying with only the spirit is surely a violation of the King’s encouragement to worship “in spirit and in truth” (cf. John 4:21-24).

Accordingly, Dr. Thiselton writes in his detailed commentary of the Greek text:

Paul argues equally against uncritical “enthusiasm,” uncritical “renewal” traditions, or uncritical mysticism on one side and against gnostics, theological theorists, or any who seek to intellectualize Christian faith into a mere belief system on the other. Christians are confronted not by an either . . . or . . . but by a both . . . and. . . . Paul declares that being “spiritual,” i.e., of the Holy Spirit, occurs “when the Holy Spirit [simultaneously] controls both the spirit and the mind.” ^[41]

Additional scholarly support for the fact that the Apostle is advocating prayer and singing that simultaneously engages the human spirit and the mind is found in the authoritative Greek lexicon BAGD which interprets the Greek of the latter half of v. 15 as: “sing praise . . . in full possession of one’s mental faculties.” ^[42]

How then can any Christian find any encouragement here to pray or sing in an empty state of mind that the Apostle says is akarpos, useless and barren (1 Cor 14:14)? On the contrary, he essentially says, “I would do something better than mindlessly, emotionally, uselessly, and selfishly just pray or sing with my spirit like the pagans do, I will also pray and sing with my mind so I and others know what I’m praying and singing!”

E) Paul’s Rebuke of Mindless Self-edification: 1 Cor 14:4

E.1) The Charge of Self-edification Was a Rebuke to the Selfish Corinthians

In 1 Corinthians 14:4 the Apostle says, “One who speaks in [an “unknown”] tongue [glosse] edifies himself.” Wayne Grudem reflects the typical emotionalist interpretation of this statement when he writes:

[W]e would certainly expect that edification would follow [speaking in a tongue], even though the speaker’s mind does not understand what is being said. . . . Just as prayer and worship [which engages the mind] in general edify us as we engage in them, so this kind of prayer and worship [that disengages the mind] edifies us too, according to the Apostle. ^[43]

First, such an interpretation ignores the moral context of the Apostle’s statement which makes it very unlikely that he is advocating a self-centered practice to the selfish Corinthians. As demonstrated further in Book 12 (chapter 6), in all the NT, you will not find a more detailed description of, and a more challenging call to, a selfless love than in the verses immediately preceding the one in question.

In that description the Corinthians had been told that any kind of utterance without love is simply noise (cf. 13:1), which is why the Apostle instructed would-be tongue speakers who were not going to love others by edifying them, to “keep quiet” (14:28). They had been told that others-oriented love is the necessary attribute of anything claiming to be a work of the Holy Spirit or being valuable at all (cf. 13:1-3).

This is precisely why the Apostle says that the “one who speaks in a tongue” does so in “his spirit,” not the Holy Spirit (14:2), and that to speak unintelligible words which no one understands is uselessly “speaking into the air” (14:9), and to “pray in a tongue” is to leave the “mind” barren (14:14).

If the Corinthians doubted that Christian love is only others-oriented, the Apostle clearly stated that it is “not self-seeking” (13:5). Accordingly, you will find in 1 Corinthians the most consistent, unrelenting verbal attack on selfishness (cf. 1:10, 3:1, 3; 4:7, 16, 18; 5:6; 8:9; 9:19; 10:23-24, 31, 33; 11:1, 12:7, 12-27, 31, 14:1, 16:13-14), including the clear commands: “Let no one seek his own good” (10:24) and “Do everything in love” (16:13-14).

Unless one wishes to claim the Apostle was contradicting himself, such commands leave no room for the one who “edifies himself” to be interpreted as doing something that pleases God. Love is the essential ingredient of anything truly from the Holy Spirit, and one thing is for sure, praying in an obscure, meaningless tongue has nothing to do with love. Emotionalists can continue to presume it builds themselves up in some way, but they cannot claim with the slightest sincerity that such a practice has anything to do with Christian love.

Finally, not more than three sentences before the Apostle says, “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,” the Corinthians had read the Apostle’s summary statement on this whole issue: “Follow the way of love,” which is always others-oriented, as you “eagerly desire spiritual gifts” (14:1). Why do emotionalists seem unable to see how incompatible such a statement is with their interpretation of this passage and their practice of a tongue? The Apostle is essentially saying in 14:1 and 4: “Pursue spiritual manifestations that are loving, like prophecy. Uttering something in an unknown tongue is a spiritual manifestation that is not loving because it is self-centered.”

With all that said, it would seem presumption to assume that the Apostle thinks that when one “edifies [oikodomei] himself” that this is a good thing. Accordingly, we should notice that in this very epistle, the Apostle uses oikodomei “edify” in a negative sense. NT scholar Thomas Edgar writes:

There are two possible basic meanings for the expression “he that speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” The verb “edify,” oikodomeo, means “to build up.”‘ Although this verb normally has a beneficial meaning, in I Corinthians 8:10 the Apostle uses the same verb to refer to a negative aspect of building up. He refers to a strong brother who may lead the weaker brother to an action which violates his conscience. This building up of the weak brother’s conscience is not positive edification but a negative building up or hardening that results in sin.

The direction of the edification, positive or negative, must be derived from the context. There are several indications that to “edify oneself’ in I Corinthians 14:4 may have the negative connotation to build oneself up in the eyes of others. One of the basic problems the Apostle addresses in the letter to the Corinthians is the exaltation or building up of self. There were divisions apparently based on pride and self-glory (1:26-29; 3:3-7, 18, 21). Statements such as I Corinthians 4:6-7 make it probable that some were puffed up in regard to their gifts, particularly the gift of tongues. Thus, a negative self-exaltation was one of the problems at Corinth. ^[44]

Indeed, in the same context as 8:10 where oikodomeo is used in a negative way, the Apostle likewise tells the Corinthians, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (8:1). They obviously did have a problem with wanting to puff themselves up, which the Apostle states here is absolutely opposed to “love” which “builds up” others. And so is someone who “speaks in a tongue [and merely] edifies himself.” Both a person who “puffs up” themselves and one who “edifies himself” are violating the essence of Christian love, and therefore, we would suggest that the “edification” that the Apostle speaks of in 14:2 is synonymous with the selfish, arrogant, empty puffing up he speaks of in 8:1 and that the Corinthians were obviously grossly guilty of.

Accordingly, immediately after, and in the context of these instructions about love, it is obvious that when the Apostle says “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” that this is a rebuke, and only the self-centered Christianity that is so prevalent today would even allow it to be interpreted otherwise. It is a fact that our Christian ancestors for over 1900 years of Church history understood the Apostle’s words as a rebuke of a selfish spiritual practice, and our generation should be ashamed for not insisting the same. Instead, unlike millennia of Christian forefathers, we have allowed, and even promoted this rebuke of a self-centered practice as an apostolic encouragement to hotly pursue such a thing.

In fact, we would suggest that the difficulty of interpreting this text was an intentional sovereign act on the part of God to test His people. Would we let the devil twist this passage in our minds to claim a gift we do not have and puff ourselves up over our brethren who do not have it? Would we seek some sort of self-esteem in an experience we ourselves create, desperately wanting to believe it is God? Would we let a deception divide us from our Christian brothers? Perhaps we will know one Day that the interpretation of some Scriptures were a test of our true spirituality.

Interpreting “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” as a rebuke not only reflects the contexts (selfishness and pagan worship practices), but also a style of rebuke that the Apostle has already used in this letter. In 11:21 he tells the Corinthians “When you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.” Imagine then, that we would interpret this as a good thing that we should seek more of. This description of what they were doing is not intended to be a commendation of a selfish practice, but rather a condemnation of it and 14:4 is likewise.

If our generation does not understand this as a rebuke, it is clear that the Corinthians were to understand that authentic spiritual gifts granted by the Holy Spirit were inseparable from love for others, and diametrically opposed to self-centered edification. Modern readers may interpret the Apostle as saying that there is a legitimate and valuable spiritual gift that works privately to edify only the self, but it is absolutely certain that the Corinthians were not to understand the Apostle that way when this letter was first read to them in their congregation. One can easily imagine, in fact, that many of them no longer even dared to claim such a “gift” afterwards, for fear of embarrassment.

A private, self-centered “super prayer language” is a popular pagan and modern practice, but it is not an authentic Holy Spirit-empowered spiritual gift. The Holy Spirit gives gifts for public use, not private, and for the edification of others, not the self.

Accordingly, John MacArthur suggests that the Apostle is being “sarcastic” when he charges the tongue speaker with self-centered edification:

His sarcasm can also be seen in [1 Cor.] 4:8-10, and reaches its height in 14:16, “was it from you that the word of God first went forth?” . . . The Apostle here [in 14:4] is referring to the supposed value the Corinthians placed on their self-styled tongues-speaking. The satisfaction many of the believers experienced in their abuse of tongues was self-satisfaction, which comes from pride-induced emotion, not from spiritual edification. It is an illegitimate self-building, often building up nothing more than spiritual pride. ^[45]

Pastoral Practices

• It is rather easy to critique modern emotionalists for their selfish tongues habit, but have we monitored all that occurs in our own life and church to ensure that we “Do everything in love” (1 Cor 16:13)? Even legitimate ministries and practices in the Church can be done for selfish reasons, and we should learn from the rebuke the Apostle gives to modern emotionalists.

E.2) Real Spiritual Gifts are For the Edification of Others

Perhaps the clearest biblical contradiction to the emotionalist claim that they possess a Christian spiritual gift for the exclusive purpose of edifying themselves is the Apostle’s clear claim that, “to each one the manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit is given for the common ^[46] good” (1 Cor 12:7). Simply put, there is no such thing as an empowerment or gift of the Holy Spirit that is exclusively for the good of self, like ancient pagan and modern versions of “praying in a tongue” operate. As NT scholar Leon Morris put it: “Spiritual gifts are incompatible with spiritual selfishness.” ^[47] Likewise, Frederick Dale Bruner has written, “In the Apostle’s understanding, it appears, you cannot take a gift home with you.” ^[48]

In this very section concerning the nature and purpose of authentic gifts from the Holy Spirit, the Apostle gave his analogy of the mutually dependent and perfectly united “body of Christ” (12:12-26) which was to leave no room in the Corinthian’s mind for a self-centered spiritual gift given only for private use. Likewise, since all spiritual gifts are given by God for the benefit of others, the Apostle had told them, “since you are zealous of spiritual [pneumatikos: things], seek to abound for the edification of the church” (14:12 NASB). Clearly then, when a person “speaks in a tongue [and merely] edifies himself,” it is not a good spiritual thing to seek.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a Christian spiritual gift that is to be used “alone with God.” That’s not what they are for and the Apostle never taught such a thing. This is, of course, true for all the other descriptions of spiritual gifts in the NT as well. ^[49] The Apostle prefaces his description of spiritual gifts in Romans by again alluding to the interdependent body analogy he uses in 1 Corinthians and reminds the Roman Christians in regards to spiritual gifts that, “each member [of the body] belongs to all the others” (12:5).

In Ephesians, the Apostle explains that the gifts are given, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12), not the self. The Apostle Peter says, “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another” (1 Pet 4:10), not the self.

Although it is true that the use of one’s gift will edify them in the process, this is merely a by-product of serving God and others. There simply is no room in the NT for claiming that the sole purpose of any legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit is to edify yourself. Does the Evangelist evangelize for himself? Does the Teacher teach for himself? Does the person with the gift of serving serve for their own personal edification? If they do, their gift certainly is not motivated by love, making its use meaningless (cf. 1 Cor 13:1-3). To claim that there is a legitimate spiritual gift given only for the edification of self is absurd and unbiblical. ^[50]

Accordingly, John Calvin (1509-1564) correctly comments in reference to 1 Corinthians 14:4, and expresses the universal belief of the Christian church for over 1900 years when he writes:

He [the Apostle] accordingly shows, from principles already assumed, how perverse a thing this is, inasmuch as it does not at all contribute to the edifying of the Church. . . . The Apostle does, in effect, order away from the common society of believers those men of mere show, who look only to themselves. ^[51]

Likewise, commenting on spiritual gifts in the analogy of the body as the Apostle taught, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) states the obvious:

1 Cor. 12 teaches that the church is the body of Christ in both reality and function. It is made a reality by the presence of the Holy Spirit whose gifts are enjoyed and practiced by numerous individuals. But taken by themselves in isolation they [spiritual gifts] are without significance. They have significance only in relation to the whole fellowship. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good”. . . .

These manifestations of the Spirit are marked out for the Apostle as given (not achieved by man), as expressions of divine energy (not human potential), as acts of service which promote the common good (not for personal edification or aggrandizement). ^[52]

Even the Pentecostal seminary professor R. E. Cottle, states the obvious, but contradicts his own emotionalist position ^[53] in his entry under “Gifts of Healing” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

The charismata of 1 Cor. 12 are literally benefits or graces conferred upon certain individual members of the body of Christ for the use and benefit of the worshiping Church (v. 7). They are not the personal possession of the members who exercise them within the church community. They are, rather, manifestations of the Spirit through Christians who are serving the spiritual edification of the Church as a whole (vv. 8-11). ^[54]

Yet the modern version of the gift of tongues supported by Dr. Cottle does not match his own description of a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit.

The usually astute D. A. Carson, however, would seem to completely ignore the moral context of 1 Corinthians 14 when he says:

Some commentators find the notion of self-edification so difficult that they interpret this [such that] the Apostle is actually rebuking the tongues-speaker for edifying himself. But this scarcely fits the context, when the Apostle goes on to encourage tongues-speaking (v. 5), which here must be tongues-speaking without interpretation, and therefore in private and for self-edification. ^[55]

First of all, “the context” is not “to encourage . . . tongues-speaking without interpretation, and therefore in private and for self-edification” as Dr. Carson remarkably claims. The context is a diplomatic rebuke, promoting the public, others-oriented, and only-authentic gifts of the Holy Spirit, to the self-centered, contentious, puffed up Corinthians, in a city where “tongues-speaking without interpretation, and therefore in private and for self-edification” is a hotly pursued habit in the local temples of the Greek mystery religions. ^[56]

Finally, Dr. Carson claims that real spiritual edification could occur even though the emotionalist would not understand what they are praying. This ignores the fact that God does not beneficially edify us apart from our mind, which is precisely why the Apostle insists throughout this passage that the utterances be interpreted so that there can be edification.

E.3) Edification Requires Understanding

If some deny that the Apostle is rebuking the self-centered Corinthian emotionalist for edifying themselves, we would ask, how could meaningless utterances be spiritually edifying anyway? Dr. Fee attempts to answer when he writes:

The edifying of oneself is not self-centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through [unintelligible] private prayer and praise [they do not understand]. Although one may wonder how “mysteries” that are not understood even by the speaker can edify, the answer lies in vv. 14-15 [where the Apostle says praying in a tongue leaves the mind barren]. Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain. ^[57]

While Dr. Fee offers references to psychological studies that claim beneficial psychological effects for those who “pray in a tongue,” he does not answer the question how such a person can experience spiritual edification from the Holy Spirit without understanding, when the Apostle insists throughout 1 Corinthians 14 that nobody else can. While emotionalists can claim some sort of positive psychological or emotional effect from uttering sounds they don’t understand, the Apostle emphatically insisted that no spiritual edification could take place unless the utterances in a tongue were interpreted and therefore understood (cf. 1 Cor 14:5-17). Accordingly, never in Church history, did any orthodox branch of Christianity ever claim that spiritual edification could occur apart from our mental understanding, until modern emotionalism.

Edification simply doesn’t happen in a human apart from our understanding. Emotions and feelings will, but not real spiritual edification. Pagans believe that having bodily sensations and feelings aroused results in spiritual edification, but there’s no such thing in authentic Christianity. Christian edification is whole-hearted involving the understanding, not the half-hearted stimulation that pagans settle for, as we thoroughly discuss elsewhere as well. ^[58] That is what the Apostle believed, and that is why he insisted that no real spiritual edification could take place unless the utterances in a tongue were interpreted and therefore understood (cf. 1 Cor 14:5-17, 26-28).

Speaking considerably more reasonably, biblically, and humbly than practitioners of “praying in a tongue” often do, J. I. Packer states the obvious when he writes:

It is hard to believe that in [1 Cor 14:4] Paul can mean that glossolalists [tongue speakers] who do not know what they are saying will edify themselves, when in [the very next] verse 5 [and throughout the whole chapter!] he denies that the listening church can be edified unless it knows what they are saying . . . [The truth] that edification presupposes [requires] understanding is hard, biblically, to get round [or deny]; accepting it, however, would seem to entail the conclusion that glossolalia as practiced today cannot edify, which is a most unfashionable view to hold. ^[59]

But, we believe, a true view nonetheless. As we have demonstrated elsewhere, God does nothing to or through us except through our mind. That is how He created us. ^[60] God did not create us to be spiritually edified apart from our reason, because all spiritual edification comes from an understanding and belief of the truth. Which is why the Apostle is so repetitive and insistent on the need for teaching in the Church throughout the Pastoral Epistles. It is because truth alone edifies Christians, that the King Himself taught the truth, and that the Apostle says the edification of the Church comes through truth-giving gifts (cf. Eph 4:11-15).

Not only should we understand from Scripture that spiritual edification requires mental understanding, we can know this from experience. Once again, if in fact praying in an incoherent tongue is so spiritually edifying, why are its practitioners no more spiritually encouraged or empowered than those who do not? They may be more emotional, but everyone knows it would not only be unhistorical and inaccurate for tongue practitioners to claim any kind of practical spiritual superiority, but grossly arrogant as well. If praying in a tongue does what emotionalists claim it does, than it would show in lasting, obvious ways. But it does not.

Unfortunately, the anti-Christian and pagan idea that anything meaningful can occur without the mind is fashionable in our day. Accordingly, the very popular NIV Study Bible is unfortunately typical when commenting on 14:4:

This edification does not involve the mind since the speaker does not understand what he has said. It is a personal edification in the area of the emotions, of deepening conviction, of fuller commitment and greater love. ^[61]

This all seems to be a great deal of presumption. First, it can be immediately asked that if the gift had such wonderful self-edifying spiritual affects for Christians, why wouldn’t God grant it to all His children, because the Apostle clearly said He would not (cf. 1 Cor 12:30)? Do those who “pray in a tongue” have an avenue of intimate intercourse with our Father that He denies the rest of us? That is the unavoidable conclusion of emotionalism, and it is not only unbiblical, but arrogant and offensive.

Secondly, how can something that “does not involve the mind” result in a “deepening conviction,” “fuller commitment,” or “greater love” of anything? Do emotionalists exhibit a superiority in these things? Obviously not. Accordingly, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) stated the obvious:

There is no other way by which any means of grace whatsoever can be of any benefit, but by knowledge. . . . Men . . . receive nothing, when they understand nothing; and are not at all edified, unless some knowledge be conveyed. ^[62]

Edification simply doesn’t happen in a human apart from our understanding. Emotions and feelings will, but not edification.

Of course the practice of praying in a tongue can affect the emotions and ego of the user, just as it has for Eskimo witch doctors, Haitian voodooists, Amazonian Indians, and Corinthian-like pagans who have practiced the same thing the world over for centuries. ^[63] It becomes obvious then that just because a practice may give us good feelings, it in no way proves that it builds us in a spiritual manner, and it cannot because the mind is not engaged.

Pastoral Practices

• The fact that any real spiritual edification requires truth to be understood with the mind, should affect our ministry. Ensure that the worship music is full of truth, not just emotion. Appeal to the mind in your teaching for the Apostle said we can “be transformed by the renewing of [our] mind” (Rom 12:2).

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we consider it one of our greatest joys and privileges to worship You with our whole-heart, not only in life, but in song, prayer, and meditation as well. Search our hearts Oh God and see if there is any part of it that is not engaged when we approach You in worship or prayer. We do not worship or pray simply for our pleasure, but more importantly for Yours. “May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in Your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer” (Ps 19:14); and “I will sing to the LORD all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live. May my meditation be pleasing to Him, as I rejoice in the LORD.” (Ps104:33-34)  

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What Scriptures do we use to support our claim that whole-hearted prayer must include our reasoning faculties?
2. Why do we suggest the King condemned praying in a mindless, incoherent tongue? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. Why do we suggest a mindless, incoherent “praying in a tongue” was unacceptable to the Apostle Paul? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
4. Why do we suggest that the Emotionalist movement has prideful elements? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
5. We claim that when the Apostle says, “One who speaks in [an “unknown”] tongue [glosse] edifies himself,” it is a rebuke, not a recommendation. Do you agree or disagree and why?
6. What is a biblical argument we make to support our claim that no spiritual gift, including tongues, was ever for the purpose of self-edification?
7. What is a practical argument we make for denying that the practice of “praying in a tongue” spiritually edifies those who do it?

Recommended Reading

• Knowing Our God Book 12: The Truth About Tongues – Provides an in-depth Bible study concerning the gift of tongues.
• The Experience That Counts! by N. R. Needham (Grace Publications Trust, 1997)- Even after over 200 years, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards is still the most insightful study of distinguishing between true and false spiritual manifestations. However, for many, the length and language of the original is burdensome. Fortunately, Needham’s abridged and modernized version will allow any reader to more easily capture what happened when one of the greatest theological minds in history, put that mind to answering one of the most important and difficult questions in history.

• I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession (Routledge, 2003)- An Amazon.com reviewer notes:

States of spirit possession, in which believers feel themselves to be “possessed” by the deity and raised to a new plane of existence, are found in almost all known religions. From Dionysiac cults to Haitian voodoo, Christian and Sufi mysticism to shamanic ritual, the rapture and frenzy of ecstatic experience forms an iconic expression of faith in all its devastating power and unpredictability. Ecstatic Religion has, since its first appearance in 1971, become the classic investigative study of these puzzling phenomena.

Publications & Particulars

1. Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 2004). ↑

2. Thomas R. Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts,” Bsac 145 (1988), 384. ↑

3. For a full discussion of the modern “tongues” movement see Book 12. ↑

4. For a demonstration of the pagan roots of the modern “tongues” movement see the next chapter 4.10 sections A-B. ↑

5. Joseph Dillow, Speaking in Tongues (Zondervan, 1975), 12-13. ↑

6. Ibid., 189-90. ↑

7. Encyclopedia of Religion, “Glossolalia,” Mircea Eliade ed., 16 vols. (Macmillan, 1987), Vol. V, p. 562-565. ↑

8. Accordingly, Dr. Stott writes:

   The familiar KJV rendering, ‘Use not vain repetitions,’ is therefore misleading, unless it is clear that the emphasis is on ‘vain’ rather than on ‘repetitions.’ Jesus cannot be prohibiting all repetition, for he repeated himself in prayer, notably in Gethsemane when ‘he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words’. Perseverance and even importunity in prayer are commended by him also; rather is he condemning verbosity, especially in those who ‘speak without thinking’. So RSV ‘heap up empty phrases’ is helpful. (The Message of the Sermon on the Mount Sermon [Intervarsity, 1978], 143. ↑

9. “Much speaking” is the literal translation of polulogia (used only here in the NT) given by Vine (591) and the Greek Dictionary of the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance (Robert L. Thomas, ed. [Foundation, 1998, 1559].

   Although cognates of logos such as polulogia normally imply words with meaning, BAGD gives a literal meaning of “utterance,” apparently not necessarily an intelligible one. Accordingly, the Apostle implies in 1 Corinthians 14 that logon may not contain cognitive meaning when he writes:

   Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible [eusēmon: clear] words [logon: utterance- seeming to imply that one can speak logon that is not intelligible] with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. (1 Cor 14:7-9).

   The Apostle recognizes that “utterances” (logon) may be spoken that are not intelligible or meaningful and his statement here regarding the incoherent tongue that the Corinthians are using has a striking resemblance to Christ’s words regarding pagan characteristics of prayer. ↑

10. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD), F. W. Danker ed., 3^rd ed. (University Of Chicago Press, 2001). ↑

11. John Nolland in his entry to the New International Greek Testament Commentary notes:

    [Battalogēsēte] may be related to a Greek root used for stuttering. If so, it is likely to be a deprecatory way of speaking about the formulaic repetition of either intelligible (names of gods, petitionary formulas, etc.) or unintelligible (‘words’ of magical power or the language of the gods) elements in order to multiply effectiveness with the gods.

    Schlatter has noted that in compound verbs –logein means ‘to gather’; so the intended sense could well be something like ‘to string together [i.e., gather] stuttered elements of speech.’ The translation ‘babble on’ above is not quite precise, but catches something of this. . . .

    Others look for a Semitic derivation of the batt element and point to the Aramaic btl, meaning ’empty, ineffectual’, and the Hebrew bt’, meaning ‘speak rashly, thoughtlessly’. (The Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 2005], 284)

    W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison generally agree, noting: “In the opinion of G. Delling (TWOT 1.598) [battalogēsēte] was simply formulated on the analogy of the better known battrizō (= ‘stammer, stutter’) in connection with –logein” (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC) [T & T Clark, 1988], 588).

    Thomas Edgar relates the consensus of the Greek lexicons on the meaning of battalogeo:

    The word battalogeo does not occur in the Septuagint [Greek translation of OT] and occurs only in this passage in the New Testament. Arndt and Gingrich define it as “babble, to speak without thinking” (Lexicon, 137).

    Moulton and Milligan see a connection between battalogeo, battologeo, and battalos, the nickname of Demosthenes who was so called “because of the torrent of words at his command, which made envious rivals call him “the gabbler” (Vocabulary, 107). Liddell and Scott refer to similar words, all meaning to stammer, and define battologeo as “speak stammeringly, say the same thing over and over” (Lexicon, 311).

    Beare feels that Jesus’ meaning in this passage is that the disciples are not to “babble meaningless sounds” (“Speaking with Tongues,” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 [September 1Z4] : 229). Delling agrees that it means “babble” in this verse (“Battalogeo,” TDNT, 1:597).

    Lampe defines the term as it was used shortly after New Testament times (Patristic Greek Lexicon, 294). One example is clearly speech apart from understanding (Damasus Tropbaea 2.4.4., which states, “me epistamenos alla battologeon, not understanding, but babbling”). Another example from an early church father refers to unintelligible utterance (Gregory Nyssa). (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit [Kregel, 1996], 198-9)

    While John Stott includes the idea of real words in the meaning of battalogēsēte, he writes:

    The word describes any and every prayer which is all words and no meaning, all lips and no mind or heart. Battalogia is explained in the same verse (7) as polulogia, ‘much speaking’, that is, a torrent of mechanical and mindless words. (143-4)

    Likewise, John MacArthur sees a reference to real words in the “babbling” but then describes it in a way that could certainly apply to emotionalism:

    Use meaningless repetition is one word (from battalogeo) in the Greek and refers to idle, thoughtless chatter. It was probably onomatopoetic, mimicking the sounds of meaningless jabber. . . .

    Prayer that is thoughtless and indifferent is offensive to God, and should also be offensive to us. . . . It is not honest, properly motivated repetition of needs or praise before God that is wrong, but the mindless, indifferent recital of spiritual-sounding incantations or magical formulas over and over. Not only must our hearts be right before God will hear our prayer, but also our minds. Thoughtless prayer is almost as offensive to God as heartless prayer. In most instances they go together. (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997], Matt 6:7)

    Unfortunately, in our opinion, D. A. Carson (The Sermon on the Mount [Baker, 1978]) and emotionalist Michael Green (The Message of Matthew [Intervarsity, 2000]), both confine the meaning of battalogēsēte to speaking many words. While Christ was probably including this concept as well, it is a mistake to think this was His exclusive intention. ↑

12. Many linguists who have studied the modern phenomenon of “speaking in a tongue” have commented on the fact that its contents are made up of repeating cycles of identical syllables. The Encyclopedia of Religion concludes the following after describing extensive, world-wide research on the tongues phenomenon:

    Whatever takes place in the nervous system during [a tongue utterance] causes the utterance to break down into phrases of equal length, provided we also include the pauses. That is, using a concept taken from music rather than linguistics, it causes the phrases to be divided into bars, each of which is accented on the first syllable, and it causes the bars to pulsate, to throb rythmically in a [repeating] sequence of consonant-vowel, consonant-vowel. The trance state is responsible for the haunting intonation of glossolalia; never varying, it rises to a peak at the end of the first and third of the unit of utterance and drops to a level much lower than that at the onset as it comes to a close. (Mircea Eliade ed., 16 vols., [Macmillan, 1987], V:564). ↑

13. For evidence that the modern version of tongues mimics the worship practice of the first century Greek mystery religions see chapter the next chapter 4.10 sections A-B. ↑

14. Carl F. H. Henry adds regarding Christ’s instruction on prayer: “Whether addressing God or man, Jesus placed a premium on intelligibility. (God, Revelation and Authority, 6 Vols. [Word, 1979], 4:489). ↑

15. Stott, Sermon, 143-45; 151-2 ↑

16. Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology (T&T Clark, 1999), 79 ↑

17. For a great deal more discussion on the practice of praying in an obscure tongue in the Greek mystery religions of the 1^st and 2^nd centuries see chapter 12.7. ↑

18. For example, see NIV. Accordingly, John Nolland writes: “In the present context ‘careless’ or ‘thoughtless’ have also been suggested, but there seems to be no evidence of such a meaning for [argos] (The Gospel of Matthew NIGTC [Eerdmans, 2005], 507) ↑

19. Argos denotes “inactive, idle, unfruitful, barren (a, negative, and ergon, “work”). Vines, 316. ↑

20. William Mounce defines argos as: “unprofitable, hollow, or by impl., injurious.” (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words [Zondervan, 2006], 1096. ↑

21. We argue elsewhere that some of the keys to understanding the Apostle’s instruction concerning tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is to 1) notice that his purpose is to distinguish the real Christian gift of miraculously speaking in a foreign human language as described in Acts and 1 Cor 14:22 (“tongues are a [miraculous] sign to unbelievers”, and 2) notice that he distinguishes the real gift from the common pagan practice in Corinth by using the singular glosse instead of the plural glossais to refer to the “unknown” and possibly pagan variety. For further discussion see chapter 12.8. ↑

22. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence [Hendrickson, 1994], 270, 581. ↑

23. Dr. Fee recognizes that the critical need for mental understanding is the face-value meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:13 and comments:

    [T]he contextual difficulties are considerable if the [text] is original and the intent is that the tongues-speaker should pray for the gift of interpretation for the benefit of his or her own understanding, a view espoused by Calvin 292, Grosheide 325-26, Morris 194, Ruef 150, Mare 273. Not only does this contradict vv. 2, 4, and 15, but it places a premium on the mind as the only means whereby one may be edified personally, which also contradicts the intent of vv. 2 and 4. (Presence, 228-29)

    On the contrary, the Apostle’s intention to “place a premium on the mind” does not contradict “the intent of vv. 2 and 4” as thoroughly explained in our Book 12, chapter 11. Dr. Fee’s solution to what he perceives as a contradiction is to argue that the text of v. 13 is not original, which is unacceptable, and again, exposes the weakness of his view. ↑

24. The Pentecostal Dr. Fee, of course, insists that pneuma here refers to the Holy Spirit. His argument, based on a rule of Greek grammar regarding the complex and often uncertain subject of definite articles is unconvincing, and even he admits the rule is not consistent in the NT (1 Corinthians, NICNT [Eerdmans, 1987], 578, n. 43). Additionally, Dr. Fee ignores the contextual evidence provided by verses 14 and 15 as demonstrated above, which is surely a better guide.

    Elsewhere, Dr. Fee claims:

    All of this is to say that the small case “spiritual” probably should be eliminated from our vocabulary, when it comes to this word in the Pauline corpus. (Presence, 32)

    On the contrary, as noted here, the Apostle obviously and often distinguished between the human spirit [i.e. seat of emotions] and the Holy Spirit.

    Likewise, Dr. Thiselton wrongly claims that the major reason we would interpret pneuma here as the person’s spirit is because “Many commentators before the 1950’s were unduly influenced by a view of human personhood dominated by idealist or Cartesian dualism.” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGNT [Eerdmans, 2000], 1086). Nonsense. Even he admits that pneuma must be interpreted as the human spirit a few verses later because of the context, and this is precisely what we are basing our view on as well.

    For further discussion of what the Apostle meant by the human “spirit” see chapter 12.9. ↑

25. Thiselton, 1112-1113. ↑

26. As the NIDNTT notes, references to the human spirit “occurs nearly 40 times,” in the NT (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., [Zondervan, 1986], III:693). Although instead of seeing it as the emotional, affectional aspect of a human, it is defined here as “man in so far as he belongs to the spiritual realm and interacts with the spiritual realm.” (Ibid.). ↑

27. For a fuller discussion of “his spirit” at 1 Cor 14:2 see chapter 12.9. ↑

28. See a rather complete listing of the variety of meanings for pneuma in Vine’s, 593. ↑

29. Ibid. ↑

30. Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor 14:2; online at ccel.org. Although as discussed in chapter 12.9, Hodge believed these were references to the Holy Spirit. ↑

31. Edgar, “Cessation,” 384. ↑

32. John Calvin, Commentaries, in loc., online at ccel.org. ↑

33. Martin Luther, “A Practical Way to Pray,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy F. Lull, (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 15. ↑

34. Ibid. ↑

35. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) (Hendrickson, 2000), 320. ↑

36. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), loc. cit. ↑

37. Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1985), 190. ↑

38. Richard E. Oster, The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians, Electronic Edition STEP Files (Parsons Technology, 1997) ↑

39. In addition to separating human understanding from human affections, charismaticism separates the Holy Spirit from Scripture, as if He speaks apart from it, and they separate divine revelation from divine authentication, accepting claims to revelatory gifts without demanding miraculous authentication of those gifts. For a further discussion of these topics see the appropriate Books in our The Revelation of God series. ↑

40. Fee, Presence, 270, 581. ↑

41. Thiselton, 1111, 1113. ↑

42. Ibid. ↑

43. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1076. ↑

44. Edgar, 170. ↑

45. MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, 372-373. ↑

46. “Common” is added to the English text of 12:7, as it does not appear in the Greek. However, the addition is understandable considering the nature of spiritual gifts in general, and the immediate context of the church as an interdependent body. Not even Dr. Fee questions this interpretation. (cf. 1 Corinthians, 584, 589). ↑

47. Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1985), 187. ↑

48. Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 1970), 290. ↑

49. Some have found support for the notion that there are gifts not designed for public edification at 14:12 where the NIV has the Apostle saying, “Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts [pneumaton], try to excel in gifts that build up the church.” Such a translation gives the impression that there could be authentic spiritual gifts that do not edify the Church.

    Unfortunately, this is an example of the error concerning those who automatically translate pneumatikon (spiritual things) as authentic spiritual gifts (charismata). (see section 12.8.A) Unfortunately, the NIV inserts the word “gifts” twice, even though the Greek word for “gifts,” charisma, does not occur here.

    The RSV is the most helpful translation here rendering the Greek: “since you are eager for manifestations [not necessarily gifts] of the Spirit [pneumaton], strive to excel in building up the church.” So, essentially what the Apostle is simply saying to the Corinthians is that “Since you are so eager for spiritual manifestations, pursue the spiritual manifestations that edify the church (like prophecy) instead of the ones that puff yourselves up (like the pagan practice of praying in a tongue).” Again, the Apostle cannot conceive of an authentic spiritual gift that does not serve to build up others, like speaking in an incoherent “tongue.” ↑

50. We might question how the authentic gift of speaking in real human foreign languages was edifying to the early Church. It has already been pointed out that it authenticated divine revelation and could even contain it when interpreted (cf. 1 Cor 14:5). Dr. Dillow adds also that “tongues edified the early church by preventing the future establishment of a Jewish church versus a Samaritan church versus a Gentile church.” (35). The giving of the gift to the Jews in Acts 2, to the Samaritans in Acts 8, to the Gentiles in Acts 10, and to followers of John the Baptist in Acts 19, all served to unify these groups and underscore the fact that God was dealing with all peoples in one way so that now “Salvation is found in no one else (but Jesus Christ), for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). ↑

51. Calvin, at 1 Cor. 14:4. ↑

52. Reference unavailable. ↑

53. However, it is not only emotionalist teachers who contradict themselves on the nature of spiritual gifts. For example, the respected NT scholar C. K. Barrett recognizes that in 1 Corinthians 12 the Apostle clearly teaches that: “No member has his gift for his own private use; all are intended for the common good” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) [Hendrickson, 2000], 284). Unfortunately, however, he apparently contradicts himself, as do many commentators today, when he says concerning 1 Corinthians 14:4-5: “speaking with tongues is . . . a gift from God by which you may . . . be individually built up” (Ibid., 316).

    The venerable G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945) would seem to make the same mistake. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:7 he says:

    [T]he gift is bestowed upon the individual, not for the perfecting of his own life, but to profit withal [others]; the great fellowship is there seen. Whatever gift is bestowed upon me, upon you, it is bestowed upon us personally and individually in order that in its use we may profit withal [others]. (The Corinthian Letters of The Apostle [Revell, 1946], in loc.)

    However, he later seems to contradict himself when he writes:

    If used in public the gift of tongues demands interpretation. . . . [I]f interpretation is not there, the gift is not to be exercised in the presence of others, but is to be exercised when the recipient is alone with God [making it impossible to be edifying to others]. (Ibid., 112)

    The same contradiction can be found more recently in Dr. Thiselton, who at one point accepts the idea of a spiritual gift for self-centered “private prayer language” but at 1 Cor 12:7 writes:

    To the primary criterion of pointing to the Lordship of Christ or Christlikeness (12:3) as a mark of being authentically activated by the Spirit, Paul now adds a second criterion: the Spirit is at work where the public manifestation serves the common advantage of others, and not merely self-affirmation, self-fulfillment, or individual status. The Spirit produces visible effects for the profit of all, not for self-glorification. If the latter is prominent, suspicion is invited. (936). ↑

54. R. E. Cottle, “Gifts of Healing” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), 2: 647. At the time of writing (copyright 1982), Cottle was the Executive Vice President of the Assemblies of God Graduate School in Springfield, MO. ↑

55. Carson, Spirit, 102, n. 89. (underlining added for emphasis, italics in the original). ↑

56. For evidence that the modern version of tongues mimics the worship practice of the first century Greek mystery religions see the next chapter 4.10 sections A-B. ↑

57. Fee, Presence, 65. ↑

58. For further discussion of the mindless half-hearted worship practiced in paganism and “Christian” emotionalism today see chapters 4.10-11. ↑

59. J. I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit (Revell, 1984), 209, 280, n. 18. ↑

60. For further discussion of the importance of our mind in a relationship with God see chapters 2.4 and 6.12-14. ↑

61. The NIV Study Bible, Kenneth Barker, ed., (Zondervan, 1985), 1753, n. 14:4. ↑

62. Ibid., I:223. ↑

63. For further discussion of alarming environments in which the modern version of tongues is practiced see chapter 12.14. ↑