When you come together
Talk 9 Paul’s Teaching on Interpretation of Tongues
The gift of interpretation of tongues is a gift imparted by the Holy Spirit that enables Christians to understand what is said when someone speaks in tongues. It is given to individual Christians, as determined by the Holy Spirit, with the specific purpose of edifying the church.
Paul’s entire teaching on this gift is found in 1 Corinthians, chapters 12 and 14. In chapter 12 it is mentioned twice, first in verse 10 where it is mentioned among the list of supernatural gifts given to individual Christians as the Holy Spirit determines, and then in verse 30 where Paul asks the rhetorical question, Do all interpret? clearly implying that all do not. This means that apart from Paul’s overall teaching on supernatural gifts, some of which we have outlined in Talk 2, our main source of material for understanding this gift is found in 1 Corinthians 14. In this talk I will:
· Examine the references to interpretation of tongues
· Discuss certain practical issues that arise from this
· Share a personal testimony.
References to interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14
These are found in verses 5, 13, and 26-28. We will examine each of these in turn.
Verse 5
The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless they interpret so that the church may be edified.
This verse makes clear the purpose of the gift – the edification of the church. We have already seen that in verses 1-5 Paul is arguing that prophecy is preferable to tongues because prophecy edifies the church whereas speaking in tongues does not, because no one can understand it (2).
Here, however, he acknowledges that if speaking in tongues is interpreted it can edify the church, in which case it is as valuable as prophecy. But this need not mean that it’s necessarily the same as prophecy. We will discuss this later when we consider the form the gift should take.
Verse 13
In verse 12 Paul underlines his teaching that the main purpose of spiritual gifts is to build up the church by telling the Corinthians to try to excel in gifts that build up the church. This gives the reason for what he says in verse 13.
Anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.
He says this because the only way that speaking in tongues will edify other Christians is if it is interpreted. This does not mean, however, that all interpretation should be given by the person who has spoken in tongues. Far from it. The interpretation may very well be given by someone else. And to allow someone other than the speaker in tongues to interpret means that more people are participating in the meeting, something Paul is keen to encourage, as the next passage makes clear.
Verses 26-28
26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at the most three – should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
Verse 26 is the key verse upon which this series is based. It gives clear guidance on the sort of things we should expect in our meetings, and it’s noteworthy that tongues and interpretation are included in what Paul is recommending. But note the use of the word if in verse 27:
If anyone speaks in a tongue…
This shows us that Paul does not automatically assume that there will be speaking in tongues in the meeting. The things mentioned in verse 26 are not obligatory ingredients for every meeting. They are the kind of things to expect, but not necessarily in every meeting. The manifestation of spiritual gifts will vary from meeting to meeting as the Spirit leads. The main point is that whatever is taking place, everything must be done for the strengthening of the church.
So, if anyone speaks in tongues, what should happen next? Paul is quite clear on this as the following literal translation shows:
If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be by two or at the most three people. And let one person interpret (my translation).
At first sight the first part of the verse is reasonably clear. Paul seems to be saying that during the course of a meeting, no more than three people should speak in tongues. But this clearly applies to the use of tongues for the purpose of interpretation, because he says, Let one person interpret. However, he does allow for the private use of tongues in church, provided that this is done quietly, speaking to oneself and to God (28) and this need not be limited to three people because it is done privately.
Furthermore, even with regard to the use of tongues for interpretation, bearing in mind the flexibility of starting and finishing times that would have been current in Corinth, it’s possible that Paul meant no more than two or three people should speak in tongues before moving on to other things. We will consider this further when we discuss practical issues that arise from Paul’s teaching.
Another practical issue that we will need to consider in due course is how to understand and apply the final part of verse 27, which NIV translates as, Someone must interpret, but which KJV translates this as,
Let one interpret (my emphasis),
which is the literal translation of the Greek word that Paul uses here. The word is heis and students of Greek will know that this is used for the numeral 1. (The Greek for 1, 2, 3, is heis, duo, treis). It occurs 20 times in 1 Corinthians and everywhere else it can only mean one. That’s why, in the translation I offered earlier I translated it as
Let one person interpret.
But does this mean that Paul is saying that if there are two or three utterances in tongues, the same person should give the interpretation for all of them, as some have suggested? I think not, and I will give my reasons for saying so later.
Finally, we have already commented on verse 28 in the last talk with regard to speaking in tongues, but Paul’s use of the word interpreter is interesting. He says:
If there is no interpreter, the speaker (in tongues) should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
The term interpreter clearly indicates that those who exercised the gift of interpretation were seen as permanently possessing the gift. If that were not so, how could the speaker in tongues know whether there was an interpreter present or not? Supernatural gifts are not something which God gives and then takes away. They are given to individual Christians (12:8-11) for the benefit of the church. A person who has interpreted once can be expected to do so again. Obviously this places a heavy responsibility on the interpreter, as I know from my own experience, which I will share I the last part of this talk.
Practical issues arising from Paul’s teaching
The form the gift should take
We saw in the last talk that Paul describes speaking in tongues as speaking with our spirit as distinct from speaking with our mind (14:14). This may take any one of several different forms – prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and speaking mysteries, which, we said, could well be connected with declaring the wonders of God revealed in the truths of the gospel. Now, if the gift of interpretation enables us to understand what is being said when someone speaks in tongues, it follows that the interpretation should take the same form as the tongue, whether prayer, or praise, or thanksgiving etc.
It’s my view that interpretation can take any of these forms and it would be wrong to limit its expression to just one of them. However, in some churches interpretation almost always takes the form of a prophecy and in others it tends to take the form of praise. Those who take the view that interpretation should take the form of a prophecy base their argument on 14:5 where Paul says:
The person who prophesies is greater than the person who speaks in tongues, unless they interpret so that the church may be edified.
The argument goes like this. Prophecy edifies the church. Interpretation edifies the church. Therefore, the interpretation of tongues equals prophecy. But there is a logical flaw in this argument. It’s like saying,
Tea is a drink. Coffee is a drink.
Therefore, tea is the same as coffee!
Paul says that both prophecy and interpretation edify the church, but that does not necessarily mean that they do so in the same way. If, for example, interpretation were to take the form of praise, rather than prophecy, would it not edify the church? And who is not edified by the psalms of praise? I have personally been greatly edified by both forms of interpretation.
Those who insist on praise interpretations base their argument on the NIV translation of 14:2, which reads:
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him…
So, it is argued, if the tongue is to God, the interpretation must be to God, in the form of either praise or prayer. However, as I explained in the last talk, a more literal translation would be:
For the person speaking in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him, but he is speaking mysteries with his spirit (my translation).
This makes clear that the reason for saying that speaking in tongues is to God is that no one can understand it. When the disciples spoke in tongues at Pentecost, did it not speak to men? And why was this? Because they understood what was being said. It follows, therefore, that if tongues in church can be understood through the use of the gift of interpretation, it can most certainly speak to us.
I have said more on this in the chapter on interpretation of tongues in Body Builders, but I hope that I have said enough here to show that both praise and prophecy style interpretations are legitimate manifestations of the gift and we should accept and encourage both.
Two or at the most three…
I suggested earlier that, bearing in mind the flexibility of starting and finishing times that would have been current in Corinth, Paul may have meant that no more than two or three people should speak in tongues before moving on to other aspects of worship. However, I am not convinced that this would be helpful for most of our meetings today, but during protracted meetings like days or nights of prayer it would make room for further expressions of the gift. For meetings of normal length, it would, in my view, be wise to apply quite strictly the limitations Paul imposes in this verse. But that raises the question, What should we do if someone brings a fourth utterance in tongues? Should it be interpreted?
The first thing to say in response to this is that it’s unlikely to happen if the church has been taught how spiritual gifts should be operated in our meetings. However, on the rare occasion when it might happen, my own view is that it should be interpreted on the grounds that the overriding principle in Paul’s teaching in this chapter is edification, and interpreted tongues are more edifying than tongues that are not interpreted.
However, to avoid repetition of this, I would gently point out to the congregation that the scriptural limit is two, or at the most three. But this is something about which the leaders of the church should decide in advance their interpretation of Paul’s teaching and how it should be applied locally.
Let one person interpret
I said earlier that the Greek in verse 27 is best translated as, Let one person interpret. This in fact reflects how the Authorised Version translates it and, as a result of this, some churches have taught that, if there are two or three utterances in tongues, the same person should give the interpretation for all of them.
However, although this is a valid application of what Paul is saying, I think it more likely that his intention is to say that each utterance in tongues needs only one person to interpret it – an instruction that may well have been needful for the unruly members of the Corinthian church.
A personal testimony
I said earlier, when talking about Paul’s use of the word interpreter (28), that a person who has interpreted once can be expected to do so again. Paul’s teaching implies that, if we want to speak in tongues publicly, we need to check that there’s an interpreter present. And if there is, we are free to go ahead. That places a heavy responsibility on the interpreter to be ready to interpret at any time, because we do not know when someone is going to speak in tongues..
I confess that I have sometimes found this difficult and am often tempted to doubt, wondering how I can be sure that any interpretation I might bring will be correct. But I have also discovered that, as we overcome our doubts by trusting the Lord, he does not let us down, as the testimony I’m about to share confirms.
I first started interpreting tongues as a student at Oxford, shortly after I was baptised in the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal church I was attending in Oxford was a good church and the gifts of the Spirit were in evidence during most Sunday morning services. However, there were one or two occasions when speaking in tongues was not interpreted, and I was quite concerned because I knew that this was not in line with Scripture.
I shared my concern with a friend who was an evangelist and he said that the solution was simple. I should interpret it. But the problem was that I didn’t have the gift of interpretation. To which he replied, Then ask for it. As I knew that this was in line with 1 Corinthians 14:13, I began to pray that God would give me the gift, and a few weeks later the opportunity came. Someone spoke in tongues, and I was expecting, and hoping, that someone else would interpret it! But when no one else did so, I began to speak out in faith, believing that God would not let me down, yet wondering all the time if I was saying the right thing!
For months I wondered if the gift I had received was genuine, or whether it was ‘just me’. Then, one day, at the close of a meeting in which I had interpreted, someone came up to me and told me that they had received word for word the interpretation which I had given. I had exercised the gift in faith for months, but finally I had God’s confirmation that it was real. Similar confirmation has come dozens of times since. The following testimony is the most outstanding example.
In November 1977 I was serving as Acting Principal of Mattersey Hall Bible College prior to becoming Principal in 1978. One Saturday evening we took a bus-load of about 45 students to Bethshan Tabernacle in Manchester. There were several hundred people in the meeting during which the students sang and testified, and I preached. As soon as I had finished preaching, a woman near to the back of the meeting began to speak in tongues. As I was still at the microphone, it seemed appropriate for me to interpret so that everyone present would hear and be edified. As usual I spoke out in faith what I felt the Lord had put on my heart. When I had finished, we sang a hymn and the pastor closed the meeting in prayer.
As soon as the meeting was over, one of our students, Guetawende Roamba from Burkina Faso rushed up to me. He was clearly very excited, and when I asked him what was the matter, he told me that the woman who had spoken in tongues had been speaking his native language. Now in Burkina Faso they speak French, and because I also speak French fairly fluently, I knew that she had not been speaking French. So I wondered what language it might be.
‘What language?’ I asked. Moré, he replied. Frankly, at that time I had never heard of it – and we found out later that the Irish lady who had spoken in tongues had never heard of it either! But I was excited that I had been present when speaking in tongues had been recognised as a real language.
At the same time I was not a little concerned because I was the one who had given the interpretation! I had been interpreting tongues since I was a student at Oxford in 1960, but it had always been (as it always must be) ‘by faith ’. I had simply trusted the promise of Jesus that God gives good gifts to those who ask him (Matthew 7:11). Of course, I had no need to fear, but it’s easy to imagine how embarrassed I would have been if I had ‘got it wrong’ in the presence of one of my Bible College students!
I hardly dared ask the question, but I knew I had to.
And what about the interpretation, Gueta? Was it accurate?
Of course, you know the answer, because I wouldn’t be telling this story if the interpretation had been wrong!
What an amazing thing! The Holy Spirit inspired an Irish woman to speak an African language which she had never heard, or even heard of, and then gave the interpretation to an English man who had never heard of it either! God is faithful. His word is true. And his Spirit is still at work distributing his gifts as he himself determines.