A number of times I have found myself in Christian gatherings where
someone has begun to speak in a language other than the language of the
congregation (in my experience, English). Often, they will say their piece and
their speech or prayer goes untranslated. This leaves that sense of
uncomfortability and uncertainty—what did that person just say? Was it
biblical?
I believe 1 Corinthians 14:1–25 has a lot to say about this issue. In
short, the principles Paul espouses in this passage instruct us as Christians
to ensure that whatever is said in church is to be interpreted or translated so
that the majority of the people gathered can understand what has been said in
their language.
1 Corinthians 14:1–25 is set in the context of 1 Corinthians and the
unit Ch. 12–14. The church was a product of its culture, enamored with rhetoric
and rhetoricians. Their love for speech and wisdom is reflected in their divisions
over their favorite speakers (1 Cor 1:12). They appear to have had a fondness
for tongues, seeing them as angelic tongues or lost human languages (1 Cor
13:1). It seems they elevated tongues above other gifts, pursuing them, and
seeing the gift as a mark of truly being Christian imbued with the Spirit.
Their gatherings appear to have been chaotic, frequented by ecstatic worship in
tongues, without a concern for the hearers’ understanding. Indeed, some even think
they are nuts as they babble away. The whole chapter calls them to account.
Paul says a lot about tongues in 1 Cor 12–14. The Greek term itself, glossa,
simply means in this context, a language. He repudiates any notion tongues are
the primary mark of the Spirit; rather, where a person would never deign to
curse Christ but rather exalts him as Lord, there the Spirit is (12:3). Tongues
are merely one spiritual gift among many, given by the whim our Triune God
through the Spirit for the common good (1 Cor 12:4–11). The gift is partnered
by the gift of interpretation (hermēneia, from which we get hermeneutics). This
adjoining gift in essence means to translate or interpret that message in
tongues. Just as God gives the gift of tongues or languages, in public
gatherings, he gives the gift of interpretation or translation so that hearers
can understand what is being said.
In 1 Cor 12:12–27 Paul emphasizes the diversity of God’s gifts and
giftedness given to the one unified body of Christ. All gifts and all the
gifted are to be cherished. No gift or person stands apart or above the others.
He emphasizes our interdependence as God’s people. Further, those who are least
gifted, or gifted with the least of the gifts, are not to be despised, but to
be cherished by the strong—the strong caring for the weak is a basic Pauline
axiom (cf. 1 Cor 8:1–13; Rom 14:1–15:7).
In 1 Cor 12:28, Paul unambiguously states that not all have the various
gifts God gives. Using a question form beginning with the Greek mē and therefore
expecting the answer, “no,” Paul asks, “not all speak in tongues, do they?” Here
we see that just as not all are apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers,
and so on, not all speak in tongues. Some simply don’t and
will never speak in tongues. Their
inability to do so says nothing about their weakness of faith or lack of
openness to the Spirit. God hasn’t given it to them, presumably, because he
does not want them to have it and/or they don’t need it. In that gifts edify
the speaker, if they have not received it, they are edified enough by God in
other ways and do not need it. Hence, one might flippantly argue that the one
without the gift could be argued to be stronger than the one with it!
Anyway, 1 Corinthians 12:31–13:13 is the center of the unit 1 Cor 12–14 and
endorses that whatever gifts we have, what matters is that we express them in
and through love. Love is the most excellent way by which we walk whoever we
are and however gifted we are.
Tongues are again mentioned in 1 Cor 13:1 where Paul speaks of the
tongues of people and angels. This suggests that the Corinthians, Paul himself,
or perhaps all of the early church, considered tongues in this light—human
languages, lost or otherwise, or those gifted to angels. The idea of tongues
sometimes being known languages fits with Acts 2 where the gifts of tongues
given were in the languages of the crowds of pilgrims gathered from the diaspora.
Incidentally, in my teaching at Laidlaw College I have had two students who
have testified to their gift of tongues while mysteries to their own ears, were
recognized as known languages in worship settings—one was Arabic, the other high
Fijian.
Whatever the origin and nature of the tongues, unless exercised in love,
they are nothing more than the resounding clanging of a noisy gong or cymbal
(which were made in Corinth at the time) (1 Cor 13:2). So, think of an
out-of-control drummer smashing cymbals—that is the worth of tongues without
love. This anticipates 1 Cor 14 where Paul will explicate further what tongues
expressed in love looks like in the public gathering—translated tongues so
people can know what is being said and answer, “amen.”
In Chapter 14, Paul turns the matter at hand in earnest. If the
Corinthians are to pursue gifts of speaking, which is hardly a bad thing, instead
of tongues, the one they really want is the ability to prophesy; for, to
prophesy is to articulate the truth of God that builds people up, encourages
and comforts them (1 Cor 14:3). He defines tongues in this setting as words
uttered in prayer to God which are not understandable. Rather, they are
mysteries in the Spirit which the Spirit can interpret but others have no
capacity to do so. Hence, they are not known languages here, but mysterious
spiritual speech to edify the speaker. It translated or interpreted, they become
prophecy edifying the group gathered.
Not that Paul is demeaning tongues. No, they are a gift from God so by
definition, they are great and important. Yet, their function is to build up
the speaker not the hearers. Prophetic revelations and teachings, by contrast,
builds up others so that they can grow to maturity. He endorses the speaking of
tongues. Yet, without interpretation they are about as effective in building up
as instruments played without clarity, out of tune, in a discordant manner, or
with no clear melody (1 Cor 14:7–8). The trumpet was used to call people to
war. Christians are a part of the great war with corruption. If we speak in
tongues, they will not rise up for the battle any more than if the trumpet is
sounded without clarity for the army, and they remain asleep in their tents.
In 1 Cor 14:9–12, Paul is more direct. If people in the church speak out
in tongues that others cannot understand, others cannot know what is being
said. They may as well speak into the ether for all the good it will do. Everyone
in the room is alien to the speaker, and no one is built up.
In 1 Cor 14:13–18 Paul is even more explicit. If someone prays a message
in tongues, that person must him/herself pray for the spiritual ability to
interpret their own message (v. 13). Even the speaker him/herself does not know
what is said, their mind is unfruitful. So, Paul urges them to pray and sing in
the Spirit, i.e., in tongues. Yet, they must also engage their minds and
translate or interpret. If not, then an outsider visiting the church will have
no idea what is being said. They cannot agree to it or give thanks for it. They
are not built up. Paul ends the section delighting that he speaks in tongues
more than the Corinthians, speaking of his extraordinary apostolic gifting. Yet,
he then states that he would rather say only five intelligible instructive
words in church rather than speak in 10,000 words in a tongue. Five words
understood is worth more than 10,000 is a foreign language. One can muse that a
message from God clearly spoken is 2000 times more valuable than a tongues
message that leaves people uncertain of what is said.
In vv. 20–25 Paul brings his argument home. He urges the Corinthians to
grow up in their thinking in this matter. He cites Isa 28:11–12 of the day when
people will speak to God’s people in strange and foreign languages. Yet, they
will not be listened to.
Verses 22 confuses until one grasps what is going on. Tongues are a sign
to unbelievers. How?—they are a sign of their madness (my interpretation).
Conversely, prophesying is a sign of the presence of God to grow his people.
Finally, Paul finishes his argument in vv. 23–25. If the Corinthians
persist in their tongue’s chaos, outsiders will write them off as mad as pagans
who embrace orgiastic ecstatic behaviors found in pagan religion. Conversely,
if the tongues are translated, they become prophecy and prophecy has the power
to cause an unbeliever or outsider to hear God’s word, understand it, be
convicted by the Spirit, and fall in worship before God acknowledging his
reality.
What has this got to do with multiculturalism? One on level, one can say
nothing. The tongues in 1 Cor 14 are not the known languages of Acts 2, as
evidenced by them being mysteries in the Spirit that not even the speaker
understands. They require the gift of interpretation.
Yet, at another level they say a lot about multiculturalism. The
principles are these. Where a church gathers there must be an agreed primary
language. In the ancient church at the time it was Greek. It was likely Aramaic
in some of the Judean churches. It was surely Syriac and Coptic elsewhere, and
more and more languages as the gospel extended.
In my context in NZ, it is English in most churches. In the gatherings
of Koreans in South Korea it is Korean, as it is in many first-generation
Koreans in Auckland, NZ (or Chinese, Tagalog, etc.).
Yet, when a speaker brings a message in another language whether
supernaturally by tongues or simply to speak in another known language in these
settings, their words must be translated or interpreted. If in tongues, the
gift of interpretation must accompany the speaking so that people can understand
what has been said and can be edified. If someone speaks in Tagalog in an English-speaking
service, another Filipino or the speaker must translate.
In NZ, this gets complex in a bi-cultural setting. Biculturalism in NZ
acknowledges that the native language of NZ is Māori, even if English is the
lingua franca. This is further complicated in that English is not one of NZs
official language; Māori and sign language are the two official languages. This
seems farcical when English is the lingua franca. As a result of all this, some
Māori refuse to translate their messages in an English service arguing that it
is the indigenous language. I respect that view, but I think it would be better
if they spoke in their native tongue, and then translated or gave a summary of
what has been said.
In my view, if the dominant language is English (or Korean, Mandarin,
etc.), then all other languages should be translated/interpreted when used in
those church settings. Even if there is injustice here in that Māori is NZs
first language, the interests of the gospel call us to ensure that everyone in
the room understands what is being said.
As such, each regular congregational gathering has to assess what its
lingua franca is. Then, when someone comes to speak at the context in another
language, whether spontaneously through a message in unknown spiritual languages
or through their own known human language, it should be translated so people
can know what is said.
Paul endorse a multiculturalism that honors cultural diversity with all believers
welcome to participate fully without prejudice (similarly gender and social
status). Yet, he was also pragmatic and passionate that all present in a
gathering can grow through what is said. Hence, messages in languages foreign
to those gathered are to be translated or interpreted for them. While there are
some complex discussions to be had about colonial domination, the destruction and
oppression of indigenous languages, and so on, and while we may agree that
Christians should do all they can to encourage indigenous languages where colonialism
has dominated them, the needs of the gospel call for translations of any
language foreign to the speakers within communities of faith. In this way, the
hearers understand and in their faith to greater maturity. Similarly, unbelievers
and outsiders can hear the message clearly and can perhaps be saved.
Comments