WE HAVE SEEN repeatedly that the gift of tongues may be exercised in the corporate gathering of the local church only if it is followed by interpretation. Paul based this restriction on his belief that for a word spoken in public to be edifying, it must be intelligible. So we turn now to this somewhat enigmatic spiritual gift referred to as the interpretation of tongues.
16. What is the gift of interpretation of tongues?
As Paul delineates nine of the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:8–10, the last on his list is “the interpretation of tongues.” Later in that chapter he again refers to interpretation in his denial that any one gift is granted to all Christians (v. 30). In his instruction on how believers are to arrive at any particular corporate assembly, he says that whereas one may come with a hymn, another with a word of instruction, another with a revelation from God, another with a tongue, one may also come with “an interpretation” (1 Cor. 14:26).
Paul envisions that in any meeting of God’s people “two or at most three” may speak in tongues, “each in turn,” which is to say, not simultaneously but one after the other. Once they have concluded, he insists that “someone interpret” (1 Cor. 14:27). Although the apostle doesn’t say so explicitly, it may be that he envisions only one person to provide the interpretation of all three utterances in tongues. It is entirely possible, on the other hand, that each utterance in tongues will have its own individual interpreter. If no one is present to interpret at any particular corporate assembly, no one should speak in tongues.
We have previously taken note of Paul’s exhortation to the person who wishes to speak in tongues in public, to the effect that he “should pray that he may interpret” (1 Cor. 14:13). There is no indication in what Paul says that this person had ever interpreted an utterance in tongues before. He or she may have, but it is just as likely that this would be their first experience with this spiritual gift. Paul doesn’t tell us when the prayer should be uttered, but it seems likely this should occur before the utterance in tongues is given. After all, if there is no interpretation, there should never have been a word in tongues in the first place. It seems only reasonable, then, that the person who is feeling led to speak aloud in tongues should first pray for God to grant him or her the interpretation. If God does not respond to such a prayer by giving the interpretation, the person should then refrain from speaking in tongues altogether.
This procedure appears clear enough, even though the apostle does not give explicit answers to all our questions. What remains for us to do is to determine as best we can precisely how the gift of interpretation functions. What sort of information does it yield? What is the relationship of an interpretation to the utterance in tongues? To those questions we now turn our attention. 1
WHAT THE GIFT OF INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES IS NOT
We should never confuse this spiritual gift with a person’s ability to interpret divine revelation on a broad scale. The person with this gift would not necessarily be extraordinarily capable or skilled in interpreting biblical texts. There are principles of interpretation in the science we call hermeneutics that anyone who has the time and commitment to study them can easily learn. But educating oneself in the rules that govern how to make sense, for example, of John 3:16 is not what Paul had in mind when he spoke of the gift of interpretation. This gift is the Spirit-empowered ability to interpret what is spoken in tongues. There is no indication in Scripture that someone who has this charisma would be able to interpret dreams, visions, or other revelatory phenomena.
Although not mentioned in the New Testament, there may well be a spiritual gift of interpretation, broadly conceived. I say this because of what we see in the experience of both Joseph and Daniel in the Old Testament. When Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer was imprisoned with Joseph, both he and the chief baker had a dream “with its own interpretation” (Gen. 41:11). The cupbearer reported this to Pharaoh and said:
A young Hebrew was there with us, a servant of the captain of the guard. When we told him, he interpreted our dreams to us, giving an interpretation to each man according to his dream.
—GENESIS 41:12
Pharaoh summoned Joseph and told him a dream he had recently experienced. “And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I have had a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.’ Joseph answered Pharaoh, ‘It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer’” (Gen. 41:15–16). We know, of course, that Joseph proceeded to interpret the dream with perfect accuracy, resulting in his promotion in Pharaoh’s court. Pharaoh attributed Joseph’s skill in dream interpretation to the fact that “the Spirit of God” was in him (Gen. 41:38).
Likewise, Daniel was uniquely enabled by God to interpret revelatory dreams. (See Daniel 2:22–23, 28; 4:4–33; and especially 5:14–16.) However, the gift Paul has in mind functions only in relation to the gift of tongues. This gift of interpretation does not stand alone, as do the other gifts, but is inextricably tied up with tongues.
This gift must also be distinguished from the learned ability to translate a foreign language. I can translate Greek and a good bit of Hebrew and Latin into English, but that is not what Paul has in view. All of us are familiar with scenes at the United Nations or an international political conference where translators are employed to interpret speeches for the representatives of various countries. This is an impressive skill, but it is a natural, learned human ability. The interpreters gained this skill through extensive education and practice. The gift Paul describes, on the other hand, is supernatural, unlearned, and no less a “manifestation” (1 Cor. 12:7) of the Holy Spirit than the gift of miracles or prophecy.
There is a somewhat related phenomenon described in Daniel 5, where a “hand” supernaturally inscribed a message to King Belshazzar that none of his attendants could interpret. He summons Daniel, who proceeds to interpret the meaning. Whereas the inscription was revelatory, the interpretation was not. It was more akin to translation insofar as it was written in Aramaic, a language in which Daniel already had great facility. If the interpretation of tongues were merely the ability to translate a language one previously knew, this would be the only spiritual gift that required no input from or activity of the Holy Spirit.
It would almost appear that theologian Anthony Thiselton’s understanding of tongues is a function of his conclusion concerning the nature of interpretation. In an earlier study 2 and again in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Thiselton argues that the noun interpretation in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and the verb to interpret in 1 Corinthians 14:5 and 13 refer to the ability to put something otherwise unformed and unspoken into articulate speech. He appeals to the use of these terms in the writings of both Philo and Josephus where they denote “the capacity to express in words or articulate speech wonders which had otherwise left a person speechless, or able to react only emotively with awe or joy.” 3 Tongues, says Thiselton, are therefore utterances that “well up, in experiences of wonder and praise as the Holy Spirit releases inhibitions and censors, in ways which reflect pre-conscious, pre-cognitive yearnings, sighings, or ‘building up’ which evade cognitive objectification and formulation.” 4 These inarticulate longings and impulses of praise prompted by the Holy Spirit’s activity (Rom. 8:26) are “as yet ‘raw’ and in need of communicative, intelligible, conscious communication.” 5 It is the latter that the gift of interpretation purportedly supplies.
This would seem to entail the conclusion that no one has the gift of interpretation alone. Rather, some have tongues while others have both tongues and interpretation. In other words, claims Thiselton, “this . . . is why some have the gift of tongues (which liberate and release innermost sighs to God), and others [in addition to their gift of tongues] have a further gift of enabling which allows them to reflect and to put the content of the experience which had generated the inarticulate sign of the Spirit at work into an articulate communicative signal from which all could benefit. Presumably only those who were not content to use tongues only in private were those whom Paul specifically enjoined to pray for this further gift [see 1 Corinthians 14:13], or otherwise to remain self-disciplined in public worship.” 6
It may well be that the model of tongues (and the accompanying gift of interpretation) for which Thiselton argues is, to use his own terminology, one of several species or kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10) Paul envisioned to be operative in the church. A careful and detailed response to his exegesis is beyond the scope of this book, but at this point I see nothing in his understanding that necessarily precludes the species of tongues and interpretation for which I have argued or suggests that tongues was restricted to the apostolic age. In other words, should Thiselton’s understanding prove correct, it would have no bearing on the extended question of the perpetuity of either gift.
WHAT THE GIFT OF INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES IS
So if the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues is not the same thing as interpreting Scripture or making sense of dreams, what is it? I would define it as the Spirit-empowered ability to understand and communicate an otherwise unintelligible public utterance of tongues for the spiritual benefit of the congregation as a whole. I’m hesitant to use the word translate to describe this gift, given the fact that this term may lead people to conclude there will always be a one-for-one or word-for-word rendering of the tongues utterance into the vernacular of the people. But there is a spectrum from literal translation at one end to broad summation at the other end whenever the gift of interpretation is exercised. Interpreting a tongues utterance may take any one of several forms.
For example, someone with this gift may provide a literal, word-for-word rendering that corresponds in every conceivable way to the content of the tongue. It would be the same in length and emphasis. If the tongue was delivered in what appear to be five sentences that last forty-five seconds, so too would the interpretation.
There may also be a somewhat looser, more fluid rendering that captures the essence of the utterance. Those who engage in the translation of the original text of Scripture into other languages, such as English, often refer to this as “dynamic equivalence.” The totality of what was spoken in tongues is brought over into the words of the interpreter, but it may not be in a word-for-word form.
At other times something of a commentary is provided in which the interpreter explains (perhaps even exegetes) the tongues utterance. After all, what is said in tongues may be enigmatic, parabolic, or symbolic and thus needs an explanation. This is somewhat similar to what happens in an art museum when a scholar or historian “interprets” a painting. He or she may provide comment on the artist’s mood, background, and even his or her perceived intent in crafting the painting or sculpture.
Then, of course, the interpretation may be closer to what we call a paraphrase of what the tongues utterance means. If I may again appeal to the discipline of Bible translation, I here have in mind what the Living Bible provides us as over against the New American Standard Bible. The latter is an essentially wooden and quite literal rendering of each word, as much as is possible, while the former is the translator’s own effort to bring the original text into the world of the reader in such a way that the latter can make better sense of what the text is saying.
Finally, I suppose someone may interpret an utterance in tongues by giving us a summation of the gist of what was said. No attempt is made to supply a word in the interpretation that corresponds to a precise word in the tongue. Rather, the interpreter takes the utterance in a tongue and reduces it to a much briefer and summarized statement.
There is nothing in what Paul says about the gift of interpretation to preclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit might enable someone to interpret a tongues utterance anywhere along this spectrum. For example, the person with the gift of tongues might speak for five minutes while the interpreter speaks for only three. There is nothing to prevent a single utterance in tongues from being interpreted by two people whose “translations” differ in terms of length and focus. One person might provide a somewhat lengthy, seemingly word-for-word interpretation while another summarizes its basic content or provides a more practical application of what was spoken in tongues. In any case, the movement is always from the obscurity and unintelligibility of the tongues utterance to clarity and intelligibility of the interpretation, such that everyone in the church can say amen to what was said (1 Cor. 14:16). In this way the entire body is edified.
Think of it this way. If I were to read aloud John 3:16 in the course of a corporate church service and then ask for others to interpret its meaning and apply its truths to our lives, the responses might be noticeably different. One person might lay hold of the word loved and unpack the dynamics of God’s affection for us that prompted Him to send us His Son. Another may choose to talk about the world and its need for a Savior. One more could be led to talk about what it means to believe in Jesus or perhaps what John meant by eternal life. Finally, another may choose to talk about how this verse might be used in sharing the gospel with an unbelieving friend. In each and every case, however, truth is communicated intelligibly based on something in the text of John 3:16. Likewise, when there is an utterance in tongues, differing individuals with the gift of interpretation might conceivably fix their attention on one particular element, word, or phrase while another is led to make practical application to the lives of those in attendance.
Although Paul does not himself say this in 1 Corinthians, it seems reasonable to think an interpretation of a tongue should be subject to judgment by the rest of those present in much the same way a prophetic utterance is to be weighed or evaluated. (See 1 Corinthians 14:29.)
THE CONTENT OF INTERPRETATION
It would seem reasonable to conclude that the content of the interpretation would depend entirely on the content of the tongues utterance. Therefore, we must ask another question first: What is said when one speaks in tongues? Earlier we noted that tongues can be
• prayer (1 Cor. 14:2; whether supplication, petition, intercession, etc.);
• praise (1 Cor. 14:16; see also Acts 2:11; 10:46); or • thanksgiving (1 Cor. 14:16).
If the interpretation must correspond to the utterance, the former will come forth in the form of prayers, praise, and expressions of gratitude to God. The interpretation will be a Godward utterance, no less than is the tongues utterance on which it is based.
Earlier, in response to question ten in chapter 6, I addressed the controversial issue of whether there is any such thing as a message in tongues, i.e., a message directed horizontally to people rather than vertically to God. The standard view among most Charismatic believers is that when an utterance in tongues is interpreted, it becomes the equivalent of prophecy. As such, it is horizontal in its orientation, which is to say it is directed to other individuals in the church. But if tongues is always prayer, praise, or thanksgiving, would not its interpretation be the same?
As I said in chapter 6, I may be mistaken in placing this sort of restriction on the content of tongues-speech. Although Paul clearly envisions it as a form of prayer and as a way in which we both praise God and express our gratitude to Him, does this mean tongues can never function in any other way? Must we necessarily limit tongues-speech to these three Godward expressions and rule out any and all manward utterances? In other words, was Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 providing us with an exhaustive portrayal of what might be communicated when one speaks in tongues? Or might it serve other purposes or functions? That question remains to be answered.
17. Why is tongues-speech often so rapid?
People often are bothered by what they hear when someone speaks or prays or praises God in tongues. The sounds that come from a person’s mouth are more rapid and quickly spoken than would be the case in ordinary speech in one’s native language, and people wonder why. I must say that I have no explicit biblical evidence for the answer I’m going to provide. Paul appears to be utterly unconcerned about how tongues-speech actually sounds to others, unless of course it is spoken in the public gathering of the church, in which case he demands an intelligible interpretation.
That being said, some argue that the rapidity of tongues-speech is due to the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who is praying through us. But this is only partly true. The Holy Spirit does not speak in tongues—you and I do. Of course, when we exercise our gift, it is by virtue of the power and sustaining energy of the Spirit. We must not forget how tongues was portrayed on the day of Pentecost. There Luke says it is the Spirit who “gives utterance” (Acts 2:4; cf. 1 Cor. 14:14–15). This may be the reason prayer in tongues entails a higher level of spiritual energy. In addition, since it is the Holy Spirit who is empowering our prayers, there is no hesitation over which words to speak, no stammering or wondering what to say and how to say it, no uhs punctuating our speech, none of the fear or self-consciousness that characterizes and thus retards normal speaking. When praying in tongues, one need never “wait” until she can think of something to say. There may be other equally valid explanations for the speed of tongues-speech. But I can’t think of what they would be.
18. Why do some say speaking in tongues is the least important spiritual gift? Is it?
I had a friend who once pushed back against my teaching on the gift of tongues by pointing out that when Paul enumerated the many spiritual gifts, tongues was near the bottom of the list. “Surely,” he said, “this indicates that tongues is something of a minor gift of the Spirit, a secondary gift, at least in comparison with all the others. That being the case,” he concluded, “should we even be talking about it, much less writing a book defending it and urging people to prayerfully pursue it?”
I’m not one to dismiss a question like this. After all, it is true that Paul places both tongues and interpretation last in the listings. In 1 Corinthians 12:8–10 nine gifts are mentioned, tongues and interpretation being the last two. Again in 1 Corinthians 12:28 the apostle lists eight gifts, with tongues coming in last. When he then, in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30, asks his series of rhetorical questions, tongues and interpretation bring up the rear. Now, that last comment may sound prejudicial, but it isn’t. If I thought tongues was a second-rate and dispensable gift, I most assuredly would not have devoted my time and energy to writing this book! So what explanation can be given for “ranking” these gifts in this way? Even the word ranking is pejorative, for it suggests that some gifts are more important than others.
In the first place, nothing can be made of the fact that in 1 Corinthians 12:8–10 tongues and interpretation are listed last, for the simple fact that Paul doesn’t use the adverbs first, second, and third as he does in 1 Corinthians 12:28–30. Furthermore, in Romans 12 Paul again provides a list of representative spiritual gifts but with no particular emphasis on their comparative importance. There he mentions, in order, prophecy, serving, teaching, exhorting, giving, leading, and showing mercy (vv. 6–8). I doubt if anyone would want to argue that serving is more important than teaching or that exhorting is more valuable than leading and showing mercy. But what about 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, where Paul does employ the adverbs first, second, and third? What does he mean to suggest by listing the gifts in this way?
Paul labors throughout 1 Corinthians, and especially in chapters 12–14, to make the point that no individual Christian is superior or inferior to any other, especially based on the spiritual gift that he or she may possess. He eloquently pushes back in 1 Corinthians 12:14–26 against any suggestion that because one believer has a particular gift, he does not need or cannot benefit from the contribution of another. No “member” or “part” of the body of Christ is “any less a part of the body” simply because of the person’s spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12:22–25). In fact, it is precisely the diversity of the many members and the different ways in which they serve one another that make the body effective in ministry. Equal honor must be given to everyone.
We should also note that only the first three gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28 are ranked by numbers, and this “could possibly be Paul’s way of emphasizing the initial and continuing foundational ministry of the word without which the church could not long survive.” 7 It may also be that whereas no distinction is to be made between the value of persons in the church, their spiritual gifts function in differing ways and are not all equally capable of building up others. This, I believe, is what is in Paul’s mind when he encourages the Corinthians to “earnestly desire the higher [or, “greater”] gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31). These gifts more readily serve to instruct, encourage, and edify other believers. The one who prophesies, says Paul, “is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,” because prophecy doesn’t require interpretation (1 Cor. 14:5). Everyone understands instantly what is being said, and thus everyone is more readily built up than if they were to hear uninterpreted tongues. However, as we’ve noted before, if the tongues-speech is followed by interpretation, it can just as easily and effectively build up others as does prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5).
New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, on the other hand, believes the enumeration of these first three gifts points to their chronological priority. He explains:
To establish a local congregation requires a church-planter. Then the regular proclamation of God’s Word must ensue. Next teachers must supplement evangelism with discipleship and the passing on of the cardinal truths of the faith. Only at this point does a viable Christian fellowship exist to enable all the other gifts to come into play. 8
Pushback against this view comes from the observation that the gift of tongues was in point of fact the “first” gift chronologically to be given to the people of God. (See Acts 2.) And yet the tongues described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is designed for use in private devotional prayer or, when followed by interpretation, in the corporate assembly so others can be built up. Tongues in Acts 2, 10, and 19, on the other hand, functioned in an entirely different way (as previously argued).
Another argument against the idea that Paul is ranking gifts in accordance with their importance or value is the fact that he lists “prophets” ahead of “teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28). This is odd given the fact that teachers who were skilled and well taught in the Word of God were probably expected to be the first to pass judgment on the accuracy of anything a prophet might say. And as helpful as the prophetic gift assuredly is, are we really being asked to believe it is more effective than teaching in building up other believers?
Whatever decision one embraces, it is undeniably the case that no spiritual gift is more important than another and certainly no individual is more valuable than another in the body of Christ based simply on the nature of the gift that God has given. If anything, Paul’s relegating of tongues to the bottom of these many gifts may simply have been his not-so-subtle way of rebuking those in the Corinthian church who believed themselves spiritually superior to others based solely on the fact that they spoke in a heavenly language.
19. Is the fact that tongues is mentioned only in Acts and 1 Corinthians an indication that New Testament authors regarded it as comparatively unimportant in the Christian life?
A not uncommon argument among cessationists is that tongues is not explicitly mentioned in other instances of conversion in Acts aside from the three we noted in chapter 2. This, they argue, signifies its lack of importance as an ongoing ministry in the life of the church. This sort of argument from silence proves little, if anything at all. How many times is it necessary for a gift to be mentioned for it to be a valid expression of spiritual life? Outside of 1 Corinthians the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is never mentioned in Paul’s Epistles. Would the cessationist want us to conclude from this that Communion is therefore unimportant? I suspect that any number of other examples could also be cited. The simple fact is that tongues is mentioned three times in Acts and numerous times in 1 Corinthians 12–14. That it is not the most important gift or ministry is obvious. Who would suggest it is? But that doesn’t give us grounds for ignoring, marginalizing, or neglecting it altogether.
In a related vein the argument is made that speaking in tongues was not a major factor in the spread of the gospel or in the practice of the apostolic church. But as noted previously, in the twenty-two books of the New Testament that follow Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions the Lord’s Supper. What are we to conclude from that? Nothing, aside from the fact that since Paul’s instruction on the Lord’s table was so clear and decisive in 1 Corinthians, there was no need to mention it repeatedly in his other letters. Are we not warranted in concluding from the lack of reference to tongues in his other Epistles that this gift was not a problem in those churches and that Paul’s guidelines for its exercise as given in 1 Corinthians were sufficient for the life and ministry of believers in other congregations? I think so.
Others think it is highly significant that Paul did not mention tongues in his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4. They argue from this that the gift of tongues was either not a matter of importance or that it was not practiced by the Christians in Rome, Ephesus, and elsewhere. But virtually all New Testament scholars acknowledge that no New Testament Epistle contains an exhaustive list of all spiritual gifts. Whether 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, or 1 Peter 4, what we have are representative lists, not comprehensive ones. In Romans 12 Paul only mentions seven spiritual gifts, yet all acknowledge that there is a minimum of nineteen gifts listed in the New Testament. So would the cessationist have us believe these twelve gifts that Paul doesn’t mention were unimportant or, worse still, nonexistent in the church at Rome? In Ephesians 4 only five gifts are mentioned (some scholars believe it is only four). So I suppose on the cessationist’s logic that fifteen spiritual gifts were absent from the church in Ephesus or were deemed unimportant by the apostle.
I’ve also heard it said that preoccupation with tongues-speaking is childish (1 Cor. 14:20). Again, this is misleading. Tongues-speaking per se isn’t childish. It’s a good and glorious gift of God. Nor is a desire to possess this gift a sign of immaturity. What Paul characterizes as childish and immature is (a) the belief that tongues (above and beyond other gifts) was a sign of heightened spirituality and (b) the determination on the part of some in Corinth to dominate the meeting with uninterpreted tongues-speech.
Some also find problematic the argument among Charismatics, such as myself, that one can “develop” the gift of tongues or be taught how to exercise it with greater facility. If what they mean by this is that no one can do anything to induce or persuade God to grant a gift contrary to His sovereign will, of course I agree. But I want to make sure no one means to suggest that once a gift is bestowed, we cannot develop, grow, improve, and be instructed on how to use it more effectively. This would apply to virtually all gifts, such as the gift of teaching, evangelism, leadership, giving, or any and every spiritual gift. If Christians can’t be “taught” how to exercise a gift, what are we doing offering courses in homiletics (preaching) in our colleges and seminaries? What are we doing offering seminars on how to more effectively share our faith with non-Christians? And the list could go on.
Along these lines it may prove helpful to take note of what Paul said in Romans 12:6. There he encourages the exercise of prophecy “in proportion to our faith.” This translation is slightly misleading, as the possessive pronoun our is not in the original text. It more literally reads, “according to the proportion of the faith.” Some argue that “the faith” here mentioned refers to the objective truths of Christianity embodied in the gospel tradition. But I think it more likely that Paul is saying that people operate in this particular gift with greater and/or lesser degrees of ability and accuracy, and with greater and/or lesser degrees of confidence or assurance that what they have prophesied is truly from God.
My point is that people who are given the gift of prophecy can and should grow in their facility in its exercise. The same is true of virtually every other spiritual gift. I trust that I am a better and more persuasive teacher today than I was when I started out in pastoral ministry forty-five years ago. I suspect that Billy Graham would have contended that his gift of evangelism increased in power and effectiveness the longer he ministered. And we could go down the line with virtually every other spiritual gift. As we make use of our spiritual gift(s) over time, we learn from our mistakes. We become more discerning. We have increased opportunities to receive feedback from others on ways that we might improve. We observe how the same spiritual gift operates in other believers and thus learn from them how we might make better and more effective use of whatever manifestation of the Spirit that God has granted us.