GLOSSOLALIA AND PROPHETEIALALIA: A STUDY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 14

Charles D. Isbell

Assistant Professor of Classics

University of Massachusetts

There are two methods of speaking with which Paul is concerned throughout 1 Corinthians 14. One method is "speaking in tongues" or glossolalia, the other is "speaking prophetically" or Propheteialalia. It is necessary to examine carefully these two types of speech before attempting an interpretation of the chapter.

It is a thesis of this paper that a proper understanding of the terms propheteuo and lalein glossais will pave the way for an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 which fits harmoniously into the general structure of the entire Corinthian Epistle, which does no violence to the language of the Greek text, and which provides a possible reason for what appear to be contradictions in the argument of Paul concerning ''gifts."1

Propheteialalia

It can be shown that the term propheteuo and its cognate nominal forms are used to depict description and definition far more than prediction.2 It is also clear that Paul's use of this root in 1 Corinthians refers, not to prediction and those who can predict, but to describers and apologists.3 Thus when Paul enjoined the Corinthians to seek the pneumatika, especially the ability to "prophesy" (14:1), it was not because he believed it was possible for every member of the congregation to predict the future, but because he thought that everyone could proclaim the gospel and so produce learning and comfort or exhortation (14:3). Accordingly, it is more proper to translate Greek propheteuo by English proclaim or preach than by prophesy or predict. The importance of such a translation will be seen below.

Glossolalia

No phrase has received more attention in recent New Testament scholarship than the expression lalein glossais or lalein glosse. For purposes of translation, the simple English phrase "to speak in (a) tongue(s)" may be accepted as accurate, if uninspired. And let it be noted that although the adjective "unknown" does not appear in the Greek text, it is not at all out of place in the context of the chapter.

Paul's use of the phrase Lalein glossais here in 1 Corinthians 14 must be sharply distinguished from Luke's use of the same phrase in Acts 2. For Luke tells his readers that he is describing the speaking in various languages or dialects (Acts 2:6, 8), which the presence of a multilingual audience made necessary; but Paul explains that glossolalia in Corinth involved the utterance of mysteria which "no one understands" (14:2). [Scripture quotations throughout are the author's personal translations.] The reason why no one can understand such utterance is that "the person who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people" (ho gar lalon glosse ouk anthropois lalei). Thus it is clear that Paul wanted to make a distinction between understandable propheteialalia and nonunderstandable glossolalia. Other points distinguish the one type of speech from the other, but the main difference between the two is understandability.

Toward an Interpretation of l Corinthians 14

An examination of the seven paragraphs which comprise 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that six of them specifically mention both of the types of speech defined above, propheteialalia and glossolalia.4

In paragraph one (14:1-5), Paul gives the following definitions of the two types of speech which he was considering. Glossolalia is nonunderstandable, mysterious, self-edifying, and inferior to preaching. Propheteialalia is especially desirable, understandable, upbuilding, encouraging, consoling, edifying, and superior to glossolalia.

But even while he is busy writing such definitions, Paul makes the unusual statement: "I want all of you to speak in tongues" (14:5a). Given the definition which Paul had just listed for glossolalia, is it at all strange that he quickly adds a condition? "But even more [I want you] to prophesy" (14:5b). Indeed, in the light of the way in which the apostle himself defined the two types of speech, one might well wonder how far Paul's own "tongue" was from his cheek when he told his Corinthian readers that he wanted them to do something which he calls nonunderstandable, mysterious, self-edifying, and inferior.

Paragraph two (14:6-12) contains the Pauline assertion that glossolalia is of no benefit unless it is either apocalyptic, gnostic, prophetic, or didactic (14:6). In other words, Paul apparently felt that benefit could come only from that type of speaking which produced visions, knowledge, gospel proclamation, or teaching. It is noteworthy that in the preceding paragraph Paul had specifically labelled glossolalia as none of the above.

Paul begins paragraph three (14:13-19) by stating that the person who speaks in a tongue (ho lalon glosse) should pray for the ability to "interpret" (14:13). This is not, as commonly supposed, a Pauline assertion that glossolalia is acceptable if someone, anyone, "interprets." Rather, Paul's idea is that the glossolalist himself should become an interpreter of his glossolalia.

The Greek verb diermeneuo may mean either to "translate," to "explain," or to "interpret." 5 It is also used often to convey the idea of making something understandable or clear.6 Now it is obvious, according to Paul's previous statements, that the moment glossolalia becomes understandable, it ceases to be glossolalia by definition, for glossolalia is something which "no one understands" (14:2). In other words, Paul, by telling his readers to exchange their ability at glossolalia for powers of interpretation, has very clearly told them to choose that other way of speaking, the way which produces understandability.7

Once again in this paragraph, as in paragraph one, Paul makes a statement which the context simply will not allow to be taken in a straightforward manner. "I thank God. I speak in tongues more than all of you" (14:18). Some have contended that Paul means by this assertion that he speaks more languages than any Corinthian Christian. 8 But such a contention requires one to define Pauline glossolalia as something different from Corinthian glossolalia, which is manifestly nonunderstandable, as shown above.

It is not unlikely that Paul here makes a statement which is so absurd in the context which he has just created that no reader could mistake his meaning. Phrased as a question, one might ask: Can it be believed by serious-minded interpreters that the pragmatic Paul would actually be thankful to God for the ability to do something which he has so vigorously deprecated? Perhaps a Pauline answer should be given: Me genoito! Rather, Paul preferred 5 mentally stimulating, instructive words to 10,000 glossolalia words (14:19).

Thus while it is true that Paul made two statements like "I want all of you to speak in tongues" and "I speak in tongues more than all of you," it is equally true that Jesus told certain would-be disciples that they should "hate" their families as well as their own lives (Luke 14:26). It is the contention of the author that one should no more argue that Paul spoke in tongues and encouraged others to do so than he should argue that Jesus hated His own family and His own life and wanted His disciples to follow that example. In both cases, the context drastically alters the meaning of apparently straightforward statements.9

Paragraph four (14:20-25) involves two seemingly unrelated ideas. First, there is Paul's citation of Isa. 28:11 (14:21). Then there is the discussion of what glossolalia and propheteialalia respectively do in the ministry of the Church (14:22-25).

Paul's quotation of Isaiah may be included in this place because he wanted to explain an Old Testament passage which the Corinthians misunderstood and misapplied to their own situation.l0 But whatever Paul's reason for including the quotation in this passage, modern interpreters can understand the Isaianic passage with little difficulty. Isaiah was telling his nation of God's method in teaching them lessons about sin and pride. To use John Bright's very appropriate words, "If they will not hear the lesson spelled out in plain Hebrew, then God will be forced to teach it to them in Assyrian!" 11 Far from qualifying as glossolalia, this babbling which sounds like a child's silly prattle is the Assyrian language falling on ears accustomed to understandable Hebrew. sav lasav sav lasav qav laqav qav laqav (Isa. 28:10). This is an example of what Paul had stated earlier in the chapter: "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning; but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" (14:10-11). Accordingly, this quotation of the prophet could not properly be used by the glossolalist to support his babbling. "The strange tongues were indicative of God's displeasure and judgment, not of His pleasure and blessing.''l2

Verse 22 of the fourth paragraph contains a statement which many modern interpreters have failed to understand properly. "Glossolalia is a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while propheteialalia is not for unbelievers but for believers." This statement must be understood as a straw man which Paul sets up for the purpose of knocking it down. Evidently it had been the contention of the Corinthians that they practiced glossolalia in order to bring unbelievers to conversion. But Paul's own opinion on the matter was exactly the opposite. Outsiders or unbelievers who hear glossolalia will certainly say, "You are crazy" (14:23). By contrast, an outsider or unbeliever who hears propheteialalia will be "convicted by everyone, called to account [for his unbelief] by everyone, the secrets of his heart will be revealed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is certainly among you" (14:24-25).

Once again, the context of the chapter warns against citation of any one statement standing alone. It is entirely incorrect to assert on the basis of verse 22 that glossolalia affects unbelievers 13 and propheteialalia affects believers, for it was precisely this error that Paul's illustrations sought to correct in the thinking of the Corinthians. The modern interpreter can safely assume that Paul accurately described the fruits produced by both types of speech. While glossolalia produces accusations of insanity, propheteialalia produces conviction and conversion.

Paragraph five (14:26-33a) has often been explained in terms of restrictions which Paul placed upon glossolalia. 14 It is interesting to note the following facts about the differences which Paul saw between glossolalia and propheteialalia. First, he warned that no more than two or three people should speak in tongues. By contrast, he assured his readers that all of them should proclaim the gospel in understandable speech (14:27, 31). Second, he repeated his admonition to the would-be glossolalist that an interpreter, the glossolalist himself, is necessary for his gift, an interpreter whose presence means that glossolalia loses its most essential characteristic of nonunderstandability (14:27c). By contrast, he specified the propheteialalist as one whose work would be properly balanced by the other people who were also preaching the gospel along with him. There would be no confusion in such a situation and no interpreter was necessary (14:32-33a).

Paragraph six (14:33b-36) is the only paragraph in the chapter which does not set glossolalia and propheteialalia in contrast to each other. 15 But paragraph seven (14:37-40) contains some extremely interesting information. After having asserted the authority of his opinions in no uncertain terms (14:37-38), Paul drew two conclusions from this chapter on "speaking."

Verse 39 is his first conclusion. But, unfortunately, there has been widespread agreement (sic!) about the proper way to translate the Greek text of the verse. Without fail, translators have assumed a version very similar to the Revised Standard Version: 16 "So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.''l7

There are several problems which such a translation does not solve. First, there is the seemingly unrecognized fact that the Greek text does not contain a simple, uninterrupted phrase such as lalein glossais. Rather, there is a complete grammatical unit which appears between the two words so naturally spoken and written close together. The entire phrase is to lalein me koluete glossais. Thus a normally simple phrase, lalein glossais, is broken by a negative partical and an imperative. 18

Second, there is the matter of the meaning of the Greek verb koluo. Translators have steadfastly assumed that it means "to forbid" in this verse. But koluo does not always mean "forbid" and it is not always so translated elsewhere in the New Testament.l9 Of the many passages which could be cited in this regard, perhaps Acts 11:17 furnishes the clearest example of another meaning which the word may carry: "If then God gave the same gift to them [the Gentiles] as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could kolusai God?" Now Peter, the speaker in this verse, certainly was not capable of "forbidding" God to offer salvation to the Gentiles, but he could have hindered or impeded God's efforts by refusing to cooperate. This verse thus shows that koluo does not always mean "forbid." And since it does not always carry that meaning, it is fair to question whether that is its meaning in 1 Cor. 14:39. 20

Third, translators have failed to acknowledge the nominal quality of the articular infinitive to lalein. It is noteworthy that of the 16 times where the phrase lalein glossais/glosse occurs in the New Testament, only here is the articular infinitive attested.21 This would seem to argue strongly in favor of reading substantively. More important is the fact that the counterpart of to lalein in the first half of the verse is to propheteuein. Both infinitives are direct objects, each of the main verb in the clause, and both should be read as substantives. However, the substantival character of the infinitive does not depend upon the absence or presence of the article in koine Greek. As A. T. Robertson notes, "One naturally feels that the articular inf. is more substantival than the anarthrous . . . but that is not correct. The subject-inf. occurs freely both with and without the article in the N.T."22 Thus the substantival quality of lalein in this passage is assured, regardless of one's text-critical judgment concerning the article.23 Given the substanvital quality of to lalein, and given the fact that lalein elsewhere in the chapter refers explicitly to propheteialalia,24 it is certainly not incongruous to argue that to lalein in verse 39 refers, not to glossolalia, but to propheteialalia.

Given these three objections to the traditional or standard translation of the verse, it does not seem improper to suggest the following version for consideration: "So, my brothers, earnestly desire propheteialalia, and do not impede propheteialalia with glossolalia. " Add to the three objections stated above the obvious fact that no one at Corinth was trying to forbid glossolalia and it should be clear that this translation of the text would make verse 39 a fitting first conclusion to everything else which Paul had argued throughout the chapter.

There are two types of speech. They differ in understandability. They differ in purpose. They differ in what they produce in unbelievers. They differ in the benefits which they bring to their adherents. One is confusion and insanity; the other is peace and conversion to God. One is restricted and restrictive; the other is unlimited and expansive.

Accordingly, when Paul drew a second conclusion from the debate over the ways in which one should speak, he believed it was enough to say this: "Everything should be done properly and in an orderly fashion" (14:40). Can his Corinthian readers have had any doubts about which type of speaking would contribute to such propriety and order? Certainly they should not have misunderstood the thrust of Paul's plea to them. It would have been highly improper to allow glossolalia to impede or hinder propheteialalia.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. I wish to thank my four responders-Professors Finley (Nazarene Theological Seminary), Thompson (Marion College), McNeil (Asbury College), and Burgess (Bethel College)-for their criticism of my paper at the annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society, November 1, 1974. Some of the help which I received from them will be apparent from the citation of their comments in several notes below.

2. Cf. Titus 1:12 for a classic example in New Testament literature. Another indication of this idea is the appellation "prophetic" which is given to such historical books as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings in the Hebrew Bible. The Semitic terms which lie behind the Greek ones (Akkadian nabu, Hebrew nabi') indicate the same idea. See in this regard W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., Anchor Books, 5th ed., 1959), p. 23, and the references there. Albright has argued that a nabi' was "one who is called [by God]" in a "transforming experience, as a result of which he was under special commission from Yahweh to preach to his people." See also the important article by Herbert B. Huffmon, "Prophecy in the Mari Letters," Biblical Archaeologist 31, no. 4 (Dec., 1968): 101-24.

3. See especially 1 Cor. 13:9, where Paul has described "prophecy" as ek merous, i.e. "imperfect" or "partial." Other verses which are important in this connection inciude 1 Cor. 14:24-25, where Paul argues that "prophecy" or proclamation produces conviction, confession, and conversion of the unbeliever.

4. Dividing with the Revised Standard Version. Note that paragraph six (14:33b-36) mentions only "speaking" (lalein) without distinguishing either glossolalia or propheteialalia.

5. Arndt and Gingrich, A Creek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 193.

6. See particularly Luke 24:27, where Jesus explains or interprets the Hebrew Scriptures to the disciples.

7. In this regard Professor McNeil asked whether one could distinguish between "interpreted" glossolalia and propheteialalia. I would argue as follows: For Paul, any kind of speaking should be understandable to be of value in the church. Propheteialalia aims at understandability as part of its raison d'etre. Glossolalia, however, has to be "interpreted" to be understood, at which time it ceases by definition to be glossolalia. If the end product, understandability, may finally be achieved by either process, one wonders why the Corinthians would not choose the direct and straightforward method of propheteialalia from the beginning. Again, it should be remembered that the glossolalist and the interpreter are to be the same person, so the understandability is achieved by one person going a longer, two-step route. Paul's point seems to be that during the glossolalia stage of this process much misunderstanding of the message of the gospel will result. That is why Paul prefers the direct route of propheteialalia.

8. For example, Harvey J. S. Blaney, "St. Paul's Posture on Speaking in Unknown Tongues," Wesleyan Theological Journal 8 (spring, 1973):57. W. T. Purkiser also takes a similar position. "I Corinthians 14 is clearly designed to limit if not to forbid speaking in languages not locally understood [italics mine] unless the speaking be accompanied by interpretation" (Is There a Prayer Language? Kansas City: Nazarene Publishing House, reprinted from the Nazarene Preacher, September, 1971).

9. Dr. Finley brought to my attention an event in the career of Micaiah ben Imlah which bears out the practice in Semitic literature of saying precisely the opposite of what is meant. Micaiah, famed for his negative oracles and hated by King Ahaz because "he never prophesies good" (1 Kings 22:8), said the opposite of what he meant to Ahaz in an attempt to highlight the ridiculous nature of the battle planned jointly by Ahaz and Jehoshaphat (see 1 Kings 22:15). I would like to add two examples from the Book of Job. Job's wife told him to "bless" (sic!) God and die, barekh 'elohim vamut (Job 2:9), although what she really meant was that he should curse God for his misfortune. That Job did not lack the ability to utter curses about his fate may be seen in Job 3:2-26. Later in the book, Job "compliments" his friends with these words: "Indeed you are the people and with you wisdom will die" (Job 12:2). But his rebuttal of virtually everything they said shows how little confidence he actually had in their wisdom.

10. Professor McNeil made the following observation in reference to this part of my paper: "Do you not first need to establish what the apparent spiritual state of the Corinthian readers is (cf. 1:2, 5, 10, 3:1, 3; 6:11; 14:20; e.g.) before you can identify them with the 'unbelievers' (or anyone else) of Isa. 28:10-11?" This question does not apply to my argument concerning the Corinthians. I am not identifying the Corinthians with anyone in Isaiah's day, but am arguing that the reason for Paul's citation of the Isaianic passage must be to show his readers that the prophet's words describing the strange sounds of the Assyrian language cannot apply to their glossolalia utterances.

11. John Bright, The Kingdom of God (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), p. 84.

12. Blaney, Wesleyan Theological Journal 8:58.

13. Indeed, glossolalia might be said to affect unbelievers, but adversely.

14. Blaney, Wesleyan Theological Journal 8:57. See also Merrill F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1971), pp. 119-34.

15. Dr. Thompson stated his opinion that this paragraph should have been discussed more fully. I did not give it much space because, as I have stated, it does not offer any information about the contrasting nature of glossolalia and propheteialalia.

16. Blaney, Wesleyan Theological Journal 8:58, does offer a different suggestion, but his idea, obtained from the writer of this paper in a private conversation, is more a paraphrase than a translation. Be it noted here that the author has discussed this particular verse with and received assistance from Rev. Sherrill Munn and Professor Robert D. Branson.

17. Among the Engllsh versions which translate similarly are: Wiclif (1380), Tyndale (1525), Cranmer (1539), The Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops' Bible (1568), Authorized Version (1611), Revised Version (1881), Revised Standard Version (1946) and New American Standard Bible (1960). In addition, Segond's La Sainte Bible (1963); El Nueuo Testamento, published by Gideons International (n.d.); and Luther's Die Bibel translate similarly in French, Spanish, and German respectively.

18. Professor McNeil noted that laleo and glossa appear together 16 times in the New Testament (excluding Mark 16:17). Twelve times the phrase is used by Paul, 10 in 1 Corinthians 14. Of some importance is his comment that the two words are separated "in four other instances (Acts 2:4, 11; 1 Cor. 13:1; 14:27) by adjectives, pronouns, and/or nouns, but in no other instance by so weighty a unit as the verb." McNeil concludes from this information that "the separation [in 1 Cor. 14:39] may or may not be significant. Context will have to be the final authority, and much hinges on the interpretation of earlier portions of the chapter." Dr. Thorlpson also felt that I was "too bothered" by this interruption of the phrase. In response to their criticism, I call attention to the problems which some ancient scribes had with the phrase, particularly the fact that several manuscripts (D* G it[d,e,g] syr[p,h,pal] K 88 104 181, etc.) moved me koluete from its position between lalein and glossais, apparently because their copyists, too, were bothered by the interruption. The strength of the present reading is based upon two early uncials (Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) and, omitting to, the second-century Chester Beatty Papyrus. It was my friend Professor Hal Cauthron who advised me to investigate the manuscript evidence on this verse in support of my contention that me koluete occupies an unusual position.

19 Dr. Thompson called to my attention the numerous places where the RSV has rendered koluo other than "forbid," notably Heb. 7:23.

20. For this translation of koluo, though not of the entire phrase, see Expositor's Greek Testament, 2:917.

21. Professor McNeil called this fact to my attention.

22. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 4th ed., 1934), p. 1058.

23. See note 18 above.

24. See verses 3 and 19.