Much of the mainstream teaching on tongues has been unduly influenced by cessationism. That’s why it gets contradictory, confusing, and discouraging: Cessationists don’t want you to pick up the practice of speaking in tongues. They don’t want you to learn the difference between one type of tongue or another. It’s like a teeotaler explaining the differences between a syrah and a pinot: If he mixes up his facts completely, he doesn’t entirely care: “It’s all wine, and you shouldn’t be drinking it anyway!”
So their interpretation of 1 Corinthians is biased, from the start, against tongues. They read the letter with a view of restricting, limiting, or stopping tongues altogether. If they mix up prayer tongues with prophecy tongues, so what? Whatever gets people to stop it.
This is why they imply, or sometimes outright state, there are “bad tongues” and “good tongues.” Prophecy tongues are the good kind, and prayer tongues are the bad. So when we hear tongues in church (even though they kinda believe we shouldn’t hear any), they’re adamant that whatever we do hear ought to be prophetic tongues. If they’re not, we’re not acting “decently and in order.” It’s chaos.
The point of Paul and Sosthenes’ correction in 1 Corinthians was indeed to encourage prophecy—and, since Corinth was so fond of tongues, prophecy tongues—in a group worship setting. But it wasn’t to ban tongues-speaking altogether, nor even to ban prayer tongues within the group. Paul only wanted Corinth to recognize group worship means we gotta think about what builds up the group, and not only ourselves. Why worship together if you’re not gonna work together?
And one of the ways we worship together is we prophesy to one another: We share what God’s told us. We spread his vision, remind people of his love and grace, and… and I’ll just quote Paul and Sosthenes’ letter. That’s easier.
The group needs prophecy. Not so much your tongues.
Pursue love. Be zealous for the supernatural. Most of all, so you can prophesy.
For tongues-speakers speak to God, not people. Nobody else understands them, and they speak secrets in the Spirit. Prophecy-speakers speak to people: They build up, help out, and persuade. Tongues-speakers build up themselves. Prophecy-speakers build up a church. I want all of you to speak in tongues; most of all so you can prophesy. Prophecy-speakers are more
valuable than tongues-speakers—unlessthe tongues-speakers interpretthemselves so the church can be built up.—Paul and Sosthenes,
The apostles made a distinction between o lalón glóssi/“the tongues-speaker” and o profitévon/“the prophecy-speaker.” Likewise he made a distinction between a profítis/“prophet,” someone who has the role of regularly sharing God’s messages, and a “prophecy-speaker” who only has the one message for this one time. Prophecy tongues don’t make you a prophet. Prophecy does.
As I said, non-prophetic tongues tend to be taught as “the bad kind of speaking in tongues,” for commentators choose to read 1 Corinthians as if the apostles condemned every kind of tongues but the prophetic. So their distinction is turned into a contrast: “Tongues-speakers do this, but prophecy-speakers do that, which is way better.” Yeah, way better for group worship. If you’re in church, and a tongue-speaker is praying something no one but God can understand, it helps the group not at all. Just like if it’s cold out, and I’m the only one in the group wearing socks, it helps the group not at all either. But then again… I have socks. Which isn’t bad for me. (Now, if I can just find a way to supernaturally multiply the socks…)
It’s for the sake of the group the apostles declared prophecy-speakers more valuable than tongues-speakers. An unknown tongue does nothing for the group, though plenty for the individual. A known tongue, an interpreted tongue, does plenty for the group. And if you’re a tongues-speaker, and can interpret your tongues, you’ll now know what the Spirit was saying, and can share that with the church. In so doing, we can likewise have a prophetic ministry to others.
Tongues, and interpretation of tongues.
When the Spirit gives his church a message, but it’s in tongues, it needs interpreting. Not translating: As I’ve written elsewhere, the syllables which come out of a tongues-speaker’s mouth have no standardized meaning. They must be interpreted, as the Spirit assigns meaning to them. Hence, in charismatic churches, when a message is given in tongues, the Spirit will inform one or more of the people in the church what he meant by that. Hopefully one of them will have the courage to get up and share that interpretation. Sometimes they lack the courage, and say nothing. But when another interpreter stands up and says the very same thing the Spirit told them, that’s one of the ways they become encouraged: “So it is the Holy Spirit giving me the interpretation!” And maybe next time they’ll stand up.
Now, what also happens in charismatic churches, is the people who are only praying in tongues, tend to get a little loud from time to time. (They shouldn’t, but they do: They lack self-control. They’re immature. It happens.) This can confuse non-charismatics, who’ve been taught all tongues need interpreting—and they don’t understand why no one seems to be interpreting these people! But what they’re seeing are overzealous Christians praying in tongues, who need to be reminded to chill out: They have no business showing off their prayers.
When someone is actually sharing a prophetic tongue, the apostles had guidelines:
When someone speaks in tongues—or two, three at most, and one at a time—one must interpret them. When there’s no interpreter, they must be quiet in the church; they must speak to themselves, or to God.
—Paul and Sosthenes,
One must interpret them. If there’s no interpreter, they need to be quiet.
From time to time (’cause they’re immature—but cut ’em some slack; they’re learning) a tongues-speaker will get really riled up, really emotional, figure, “It’s gotta be the Holy Spirit prompting me to prophesy!” and just belt out whatever tongues they have, nice and loud, for all to hear, and for the interpreters to interpret. Here’s the problem: In their case the Spirit actually wasn’t telling them to prophesy in tongues. They psyched themselves into doing this.
One of three things will happen as a result. Often (because the Spirit is so very kind), he’ll speak to one of his prophets, and give an “interpretation” anyway. The Spirit is always speaking to his churches, and always has a message for us. So he’ll take advantage of the confusion of an overzealous tongues-speaker, and use it to remind us of what he’s been already telling us. If you go to a church where just about every message in tongues winds up with pretty much the same interpretation every week, that’s usually what’s happening. That prophet should take the tongues-speaker aside after the service, and get ’em to calm down: Zeal is not the Holy Spirit’s prompting. It’s just zeal.
The other two scenarios are a bit more embarrassing. One is no one will give any interpretation, leaving the tongues-speaker (and the rest of the church) confused. Or, in the worst case, the tongues-speaker will try to interpret their own message, but since the Holy Spirit didn’t give any interpretation, it’ll be a fake prophecy. That, we don’t want.
Non-charismatics teach—and frequently insist—the interpreter not be the same person who gave the prophecy in tongues. They demand tongues and interpretation be done by two different Christians. They get downright legalistic about it: “She interpreted herself. She can’t do that. That just goes to show this church isn’t of God.” Now, while two people are implied in verses 27-28, one person is implied in verse 5. Literally, it’s, “The prophecy-speaker is more than the tongues-speaker unless he”—i.e. the tongues-speaker—“interprets,” and since Paul and Sosthenes were really only writing about one hypothetical prophecy-speaker and one hypothetical tongues-speaker, who else is the tongues-speaker gonna interpret?
But yeah, ideally the interpreter is a different person, for many reasons. It makes it less likely (especially when the tongues-speaker and interpreter don’t really know one another) that fakery is going on. It implies this message is from God, and isn’t just the quick invention of one overzealous tongues-speaker. It shows faith and humility on the tongues-speaker’s part, who trusts God enough to provide another interpreter. It shows patience: The tongues-speaker is willing to wait for an interpreter to speak up, and not just take things in hand.
It especially demonstrates how more than one person in your church is trying to tune in to the Holy Spirit. In too many churches, there’s only one person, or one couple, who does all the tongues and interpretation, or prophecies. And even in a really small church, that’s too few. If there’s only one prophet, or pair of prophets, for the whole church, they need to start duplicating themselves! Like Paul said, he wanted everyone to speak in tongues and prophesy, and if not everyone in your church can do it, you’ve come up short.