Something on "Tongues" (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 14)

Luke has a question about the miraculous gift of “tongues” and why there was no need for an interpreter in Acts 2 while it's clear enough that there is a need for an interpreter per the 1 Corinthians 14 context.

Here's what's happening . . .

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is (obviously) dealing with an “assembly context.” He uses a word (sunerchesthe) that translates to “assemble” or “come together” a number of times (cf. 11:17,18,20,33,34; 14:23,26). In the context of 1 Corinthians, he's seeking to promote “edification” (oikodome), which is the “key word” of the chapter, as best as I can tell (cf. 14:3,4[x2],5,12,17,26). So, when he writes to Corinth about the need for “edification” in the “assembly,” he's wanting to 1) reduce the chaos and 2) promote orderliness; as a result, both will end with an “edifying” or “upbuilding” or “productive” assembly (worship service).

Here's the problem . . . Corinth is wanting to “show off” with the flashiest gifts. For them, “tongue speaking” was a real piece of impressiveness. So, the “tongue speakers” were of the crew that was “puffed up” or “arrogant” and wanted to “hog the show” at “church” at the expense of the others. Naturally, as a result, folks leading the service were speaking in languages (“tongues”) that nobody understood. So, it was a waste of time . . . German? French? Spanish? Imagine going to church to hear an entire hour of service that was in a “tongue” (language) that you didn't understand?! “Hmph . . .” said Paul, “That business is NOT for edification.” “It is chaotic and disorderly” is what Paul said (14:33,40).

So, to go back to entire purpose of “tongues,” we should hear Paul's earlier word . . . He explicitly insists that “tongue speaking” is NOT for the assembly use, meaning, that it is NOT geared for that environment. (A saw isn't “geared” for hammering nails; a hammer isn't “geared” for cutting wood. And, “tongue speaking” – that is, speaking in a foreign tongue/language – isn't “geared” for an edifying assembly.) Paul said, “If you want to edify – which is the primary focus of the assembly (14:12) – then use “prophesying” (public speaking/preaching/proclamation).” See 14:3 especially. On the other hand, Paul says, “Are you intending to speak in tongues?! Well, then do it to God – it's “geared” for speaking to God, who can understand the language! – but it's not for public use; it's not “geared” for edification or assembly; it's not for/to men. See 14:2 especially.

So, here's what we have . . . Paul says, “A hammer is for nailing nails. A saw is for cutting wood. Tongue speaking is for private devotion and speech to God (14:2). Public speaking is for edification and assembly use (14:3).

Now, the question comes in, “Is there a way, perhaps, that 'tongue-speaking' might actually, somehow, be edifying and therefore be for public use in the assembly?” And, the answer is, “Yes. If an interpreter can make the speech intelligible, then the tongue-speaking can be productive, orderly, communicative, understandable, edifying, etc., etc., etc. So, Paul insists that there needs to be an interpreter (which, as an aside, PROVES that the “tongue” is a “language” and not some mystical jargon that nobody can actually understand – more on this in a minute). See 14:13,27,28 on the need for the interpreter.

BUT, since Paul is clear enough that an interpreter is needed for tongue-speaking IN ASSEMBLY, this raises the question why there were no interpreters present for the apostles in Acts 2.

Here's the best that I can tell . . .

In Acts 2, they're NOT in an ASSEMBLY context. It looks like, to me, that the apostles are engaged in private devotion to God, just as 1 Corinthians 14:2 insists that the “tongue-speaking” gift IS “geared” for. They're not leading the assembly in worship to God in a foreign tongue/language; they are having PRIVATE (NOT PUBLIC) devotion. Now, as it happens, there are some who start to hear their PRIVATE devotions and start realizing that something strange is afoot, that is, that several different listeners are each able to “make sense” of what is being said (Acts 2:8) in spite of the singular mouthpiece. Give Acts 2:1-13 another read and see if it doesn't look like the apostles are having their own private devotion to God (as set against the idea that they are leading an assembly).

So, there are several similarities that push me to think that “tongue-speaking” gift of Acts 2 IS the same spiritual gift as in 1 Corinthians 14. (Some think they're different, but this won't bear looking at, I think.) Notice that both of the contexts share these things . . .

First, both contexts speak of a “tongue” (glossai) or “language.” Acts 2:4,11 and 1 Corinthians 14:2,4,etc. both use the word. And, if it's not enough – lest someone think that “tongue” (glossai) refer to some gibberish – well, Acts 2:6,8 uses the word “dialect” (dialektos) as a synonym. Yes, it is a “language” that is in view – a foreign language, that is – in both contexts.

Second, both contexts insist that the “tongue” is a gift from God (cf. Mark 16:17-20; Acts 2:10; 10:43ff.; 19:1ff.; 1 Cor. 14:22 [esp. 12-14 as an entire unit in 1 Corinthians]).

Third, both contexts make the “tongue” a “sign” to non-saints (cf. Mark 16; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 14:21,22).

So, here's what I think is going on . . .

We have a major CONTEXT DIFFERENCE between Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. Acts 2 is in the context of a PRIVATE DEVOTION while 1 Corinthians 14 is discussing the context of the PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. Here, 1 Corinthians 14:2,3 helps us sort out the differences and also make sense of why Acts 2's events are a little different. Acts 2 presents a use of the “tongue” gift exactly as it is intended; 1 Corinthians 14 presents a case where the private gift – with an interpreter – might become productive and edifying in a public scenario, but this, of course, requires the modification of having the interpreter present.

Does this make sense? If not, pursue me on it.