Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s
Empathy: Romans 8:26 Revisited
John Bertone
Romans 8:26 has been the subject of protracted scholarly debate. It is a text to which Pentecostals have appealed as scriptural support for the practice of speaking in tongues.
1
This interpretation, however, goes against the majority view. Representative of the protesters is James D.G. Dunn, who states, “ Had he [Paul] wished his readers to think of glossolalia he would have written with greater care.”2 The reason for the divided opin- ion is that Romans 8:26 is notorious for its ambiguity; much of the difŽ culty revolves around the uncertainty in the meaning of the word Žl‹lhtow, which occurs only here in biblical Greek. Does it mean that which is “ wordless” in the sense of not being vocalized and without sound, an inner sigh for which there is no words, and therefore does it refer to silent praying?3 Does it mean that which is “ wordless,” not necessarily imply- ing without sound or vocalization but in the sense of being inarticulate, unable to speak distinctly in sounds that conform to a recognizable lan- guage, which is comparable to glossolalia?
In support of a reference to glossolalic utterance in Romans 8:26 is the unlikelihood of silent prayer in antiquity. Even praying in private was
1
Gordon D. Fee is the most prominent of the New Testament Pentecostal scholars who promote this position. After much deliberation he concludes that he must interpret this against the majority of scholars and read Romans 8:26 as a reference to glossolalia (God’ s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 577, n. 311). The Pentecostal interpretation of Romans 8:26 has found surprising support in the person of Ernst Kä semann (trans. M. Kohl, “ The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church,” in Perspectives on Paul [Mif intown, PA: Sigler Press, 1996], 2 130).
James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), 479. Perhaps some might also put the question to Dunn, “ If in Romans 8:26, Paul had silent prayer in mind (Dunn’ s claim, p. 478), then why did he not use greater care in using more explicit vocabulary?” Some Pentecostal scholars also take the major- ity opinion and reject the view that here Paul refers to glossolalia (D. Lim, Spiritual Gifts: A Fresh 3 Approach [SpringŽ eld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1991], 140, n. 3).
“ Unexpressed, wordless, sighs too deep for words” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 2d ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 34. Douglas Moo states, “ It is preferable to understand these groanings as the Spirit’ s own ‘ language of prayer,’ a ministry of intercession that takes place in our hearts” ( Romans 1-8 The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1991], 562).
© 2003 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden
pp. 54-65
1
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s Empathy
accomplished by mouthing words and praying aloud.
4
This is attested in the narrative of Daniel 6:10-13, in which Daniel was heard praying to God instead of to King Darius. It is implied that the contents of the prayers of both the Pharisee and the tax collector were spoken aloud when Jesus quotes them in Luke 18:9-14. Besides this, Paul had more deŽ nitive vocab- ulary at his disposal, such as Ž nekl‹ lhtow, which speciŽ cally means “ inex- pressible”5 in the sense of “ wordless/indescribable,” and is used as such in 1 Peter 1:8, Polycarp to the Philippians 1:3, Ignatius to the Ephesians 19:2. Also in Romans 8:26, Paul does not appear to be making comments about praying in general, particularly when he claims that “ we do not know what to pray for as we should.” The entire New Testament, includ- ing Paul himself, assumes some knowledge of what to pray, whether it is intercession, thanksgiving, or adoration in prayer. This verse stands unique in the New Testament, because what Paul communicates is a complete incapacity for even Christians to express the right type of prayer in these circumstances. To claim that this is a reference to “ silent praying” is to do an injustice to the unprecedented nature of the experience of the Spirit praying on behalf of the believer. Consequently, this verse suits the unique phenomenon of glossolalic experience better than a general silent groan- ing that could hypothetically accompany all types of praying.
6
Ultimately, contextual matters should be the determinants. Romans 8:26 is set within the context of the dialectic of Christian life between the present and future, with speciŽ c prominence given to the Spirit’ s func- tion.7 In verses 1-17a, Paul uses triumphant language to describe the future age realized in the present.
8
In verses 17b-27, however, the triumphant language is tempered by the realities of the present age of suffering (v. 17b,18), futility (v. 20), corruption (v. 21), and weakness (v. 26). Romans 8:26 is descriptive of the sustaining function of the Spirit, which is concurrent with God’ s redemptive plan enacted but not yet culmi- nated. Within this context Paul describes the paradoxical reality of the experience of glossolalia as “ groanings.” Even though glossolalia is an expression of the eschatological Spirit and the Pauline churches consider
4
Paul J. Achtemeier, “Omne verbum sonat : The New Testament and the Oral Environ- ment 5 of Late Western Antiquity,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 3-27.
6
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament , 64.
7
Kä semann, “ The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church,” 127-29.
The frequency of the word pneèma in Romans 8 is telling. It is used only six times in chapters 1-7 and eight times in chapters 9-16. In Romans 8, it is used twenty one times (an 8exception is in v. 16, where it most likely means “ human spirit” ).
Opposed to the old age of sin (vv. 2, 3, 10), esh (vv. 3-9, 12, 13), and death (vv. 2, 6) is a description of the Spirit who dispenses life (vv. 2, 6, 10).
55
2
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003
them as “ heavenly tongues” (1 Cor. 13:1), here Paul associates them with the “ groanings” of creation on earth (Rom. 8:22) and the “ groanings” of Christian believers for the realization of their adoption and redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23). This paradox of glossolalic groaning coincides with the major theme in Romans 8 that the Spirit assists believers in the weaknesses associated with the present age.
9
In Romans 8:26, the Spirit comes to the aid of the believer by offer- ing support or assistance through cooperation in prayer. This is empha- sized Ž rstly by the addition of aétñ to the words tò pneèma (“ the Spirit himself . . .” ) and secondly by the word sunantilamb‹ netai (“he comes to the aid of ” ) in the phrase sunantilamb‹ netai t Ž syeneÛ & ² mÇ n . The verb sunantilamb‹ netai means to offer support or assistance through cooperation ( sun-) and simultaneously be a representative aid (- anti-).10 Paul most often uses the word Žsy¡neia in connection with suffering or illness in the present physical existence that is subjected to decay.
11
This is the case in this context since Paul speaks of physical limitations and decay: “ we suffer with him” (v. 17), “ the sufferings of the present time” (v. 18), “ eagerly expecting the redemption of our body” (v. 23).
The idea of ê perentugx‹ nei (“ he supplicates for us” ) is attributed by Paul to the Spirit only here in the New Testament.
12
The nature of the Spirit’ s intercession and key to unlocking this conundrum is found in the words stenagmoÝ w Ž lal® toiw (“ inarticulate groaning” ). The majority of investigative research has been focused upon identifying what Paul meant by Žl‹lhtow. But is this Paul’ s point of emphasis? There is a strong pos- sibility that the qualifying word stenagmñw (“ groaning” ) is the point of emphasis.13 In other words, Paul’ s description of the nature of the Spirit’ s
9
10
Kä semann, “ The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church,” 132.
The verb is used in Luke 10:40, where Mary is requested to help her sister Martha with serving (Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993], 298; G. Delling, sunantil- amb‹nomai, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 11 1964], 376).
12
See Rom. 6:19 cf. 6:23; 1 Cor. 2:3; 15:43; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5, 9, 10; 13:4; Gal. 4:13.
It may be that Paul’ s idea of the Spirit as intercessor developed from pre-Christian Jewish writings. The idea of a heavenly being as intercessor appears in Job 33:23-26; Tob. 12:15; 1 Enoch 9:3; 15:2; 99:3; 104:1. Since the New Testament presents the Spirit as a heavenly being (Matt. 3:16, 17; John 14:26; 15:26; Acts 2:2) and heaven was the Spirit’ s dwelling place prior to Pentecost, it would have been easy for Paul to make the connec- tion of Spirit, a heavenly being, to intercession (E.A. Obeng, “ The Spirit Intercession Motif in Paul,”13 The Expository Times 95 [1983-84]: 361).
Gordon D. Fee is no exception to this. Most of his focus is on explaining the mean- ing of the word Žl‹lhtow in Romans 8:26. He writes, “ It seems highly unlikely that he [Paul] would have ever used this word ( stenagmñw) had it not been for prior usage in vv. 22 and 23” ( God’ s Empowering Presence , 583).
56
3
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s Empathy
intercession is not content-oriented but rather focuses upon the emotive experience in the prayer. Part of the problem is that Paul writes that believ- ers do not know what (tÛ) to pray ( tò gŒ r tÛ proseujÅ meya kayò deÝ oé k oàdamen). The assumption is then made that Paul is emphasizing the descrip- tion of the actual communication of ideas within the prayer. Paul negates this, however, by saying that “we do not know (oé k oà damen ) what to pray as we should.”
The phrase katŒ yeò n ¤ ntugx‹ nei (“ according to God[’ s will] he sup- plicates” [v. 27]) has also contributed to this mistaken assumption.
14 Previous to this in the verse, Paul claims exclusivity of communication between God and the Spirit: “ The one who searches hearts knows the mind of the Spirit.” In this statement Paul makes it clear that the content of the prayer is not the main point of emphasis, since humans do not know what is being communicated in the prayer between the Spirit and God. In sum, Paul speaks in this manner to demonstrate that since it is the Spirit speaking through believers, then he can say with full assurance that the Spirit’ s intention in the prayer coincides with the purposes of God. This need not imply that Paul thought the Spirit would communi- cate speciŽ c intelligible ideas. It simply conveys the idea that Paul trusts that the prayer itself is suitable since the Spirit induces it. If the point of beneŽ t is not the content of the prayer, there has to be another unique characteristic involved in the experience of this type of praying that would beneŽ t the individual.
In the context, Paul’ s point is simply the emotional alignment of the Spirit15 praying through the believer in his or her “ weakness,” which is characteristic of the present age and is also expressive of the Spirit who “ comes to our aid” (cf. above explanation of the word sunantilamb‹ ne- tai and the force of the preŽ x sun). In other words, Paul’ s emphasis is
14
Joseph A. Fitzmyer sees the Spirit’ s intercessory prayer as that of petition, doxology in adoration, blessing, praise, etc. ( Romans: A New Translation With Introduction and Com- mentary, The Anchor Bible 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 481). However, it is futile to discern 15 the content of the prayer, since Paul says that it is not known to humans (vv. 26b, 27a).
This is not to say that the emotive alignment of the Spirit with humans in glosso- lalic speech is the only beneŽ t for humans. Paul was simply focusing on this aspect because it was the main point of concern in Romans 8:26 (believers caught between the here but not-yet of eschatological existence). R.P. Spittler claims that precedence for New Testament glossolalia appears in the tradition of ecstatic prophetism in the Old Testament. Later on, regarding this tradition he states, “ What is striking is the nearly universal voice effects coupled with emotive experience [my emphasis].” (“ Glossolalia,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], 338).
57
4
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003
on the “ groanings”16 expressed through the inarticulate language in the prayer. It is the experience of the Spirit’ s empathetic alignment with the believer, whereby he or she accepts the fact that the Spirit fully appreci- ates the inherent weaknesses associated with present circumstances.
17
The believer beneŽ ts from the Spirit-induced glossolalic utterance that comes forth from his or her mouth, accompanied by “ groanings” ( stenagmoÝw Žlal®toiw) as communication to God. The whole experience functions as a sustaining force in the life of the believer, who is caught between the here and not-yet of God’ s redemptive plan.
The idea of stenagmñw is always used to express intense emotion, whether it be the pain of childbirth (Gen. 3:16; Jer. 4:31), personal suf- fering or sorrow (Exod. 2:24; 6:5; Job 3:24), grief for the dead (John 14:16), sorrow as a sign of penitence (Mal. 2:13), Israel’ s misery under the Egyptians (Exod. 2:24), and especially groaning in prayer (Ps. 79:11).
18 An emotive component is an inherent characteristic of the phenomenon of glossolalia described more explicitly in Pauline literature elsewhere. Paul does not elaborate extensively on the phenomenon of the Spirit’ s intercession expressed through glossolalic speech because it was not an issue for the Roman Christians and because it was a recognizable expe- rience of early Christian believers that did not need further clariŽ cation. One can turn, however, to the description of glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14:2-24, where more comprehensive information on the subject is given since it was a point of concern at Corinth.
19
16
It is no coincidence that both creation and humans share in expressing intensity of emotions (“ all creation groans together [ p sa ² ktÛ siw susten‹ zei ] and travails together [kaÜ sunvdÛ nei ] until now” [v. 22]; “ we groan [ sten‹jomen] within ourselves eagerly expecting adoption” [v. 23]; “ the Spirit supplicates on our behalf with inarticulate groan- ings [stenagmoÝw] [v. 26]). This is the point of emphasis for Paul since it is consistently mentioned 17 in the immediate context.
The identiŽ cation and alignment of “ the Spirit” with “ human spirit” is simply an indication of familial intimacy, exempliŽ ed earlier in Romans 8:16. It is alignment between the Spirit and human spirit that results in strengthening the believer. In Romans 8:16, Paul writes, aé tñ tò pneè ma tÒ pneæ mati ² mÇ n ÷ ti ¤ sm¢ n t¡ kna yeoè. The preŽ x sun in the verb sunmartur¡ v “ has in the highest degree the effect of strengthening” (see Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian 18 Literature , 778).
See Obeng, who recognizes this about the word stenagmñw (“ The Spirit Intercession Motif 19 in Paul,” 362).
There are sufŽ cient pointers that identify the problem at Corinth as a misuse of the gift of tongues. It is no coincidence that when Paul lists the charismata in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 he lists “ kinds of tongues” and “ interpretation of tongues” last in order to broaden the horizon of the Corinthians, who overemphasized glossolalia at the expense of the variety of other manifestations of charismata. In 13:1, “ tongues” is the Ž rst order of business to be placed in the context of “ love.” In 14:2ff., Paul compares unintelligible tongues with prophecy.
58
5
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s Empathy
Paul distinguishes between uninterpreted tongues in private prayer (1 Cor. 14:18) and that which is public and therefore needs interpretation (14:19, Ž llŒ ¤ n ¤ kklhsÛ & . . .). Private praying in tongues requires no inter- pretation (vv. 2, 28). Paul states three positive characteristics of uninter- preted glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14: (1) it is speaking to God ( ŽllŒ yeÒ, v. 2), which is a circumlocution for praying (cf. 1 Cor. 14:14); (2) those who speak in a tongue edify themselves ( õ lalÇ n glÅ ssú ¤ autò n oÞkodomeÝ, v. 4); and (3) Paul wished for all to speak in tongues ( y¡lv d¢ p‹ ntaw ê m w laleÝ n glÅ ssaiw , v. 5). Regarding (2), one might ask how “ unintelligible” glossolalic utterance might be edifying to the speaker. Paul answers this in 1 Corinthians 14:14: “ For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays ( ¤ Œ n gŒ r proseæ xvmai glÅ ssú tò pneè m‹ mou proseæ xetai ), but my mind is unfruitful ( õ d¢ noè w mou karpñ w ¤ stin ).” The possessive tò pneèm‹ mou is juxtaposed with õ noèw mou and indicates that he is here referring to his own human “ spirit” at prayer, particularly as the center of human emotion.
20
It is as if Paul were saying, “ When I pray in a tongue, the very depths of my emotions are stirred but my cognition is unaffected.”21
The word pneèma can refer to the source and seat of feeling, insight, and will.22 In fact, Paul himself previously uses it as the source of feel- ing in the same letter. In 1 Corinthians 4:21, he writes, “ What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a staff, or in love and a spirit of gentle- ness (pneæ matÛ te pra#€thtow)?” Here Paul makes a distinction between
20
Gordon D. Fee claims that the words “ my S/spirit prays” mean “ his [Paul’ s] own Spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance,” which is comparable to Acts 2:4, “ They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (RSV) ( The First Epistle to the Corinthians NICNT [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987], 670; n. 9). But this interpretation is unlikely, since Paul never explicitly uses tò pneè m‹ mou as a reference to God’ s Spirit (i.e., the combination of God’ s “ Spirit” and the possessive pro- noun “ my” ). In light of Paul’ s description here in 1 Corinthians 14:14 that prayer with “ my spirit” results in fruitless beneŽ t for his mind, can this not be in keeping with the dis- tinction between the intelligibility of “ the interpretation of tongues” /“ prophecy” (1 Cor. 14:4, 5, “ But one who prophesies speaks to humans for ediŽ cation . . . ediŽ es the church, 14:9, “ So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken” ) and the unintelligibility of “ tongues” (“ my mind is unfruitful,” cf. 1 Cor. 14:2, “ no one understands” )? In other words, Paul is making a distinction between beneŽ t received through human cognition (“ interpretation of tongues” /“ prophecy” ) and beneŽ t received through the Spirit’ s association with the emotive component of human personality 21 (“ If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14)).
See Steve Summers, who points out the beneŽ t of Paul’ s non-cognitive experience of the Spirit in glossolalic speech in 1 Corinthians 14:15-15 (“ ‘ Out of My Mind for God’ : A Social ScientiŽ c Approach to Pauline Pneumatology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13 (1998): 22 80, 83, 97.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 675.
59
6
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003
the harshness of “ a staff” ( , the particle is used and translated as “ or” ) and the sensitivity of “ love” and ( te, the enclitic particle is used and trans- lated as “ and” ) “ a spirit of gentleness.” This also indicates that he sees a qualitative parallelism between “ love” and “ a spirit of gentleness.” “ Love” is an emotion that is parallel to the human “ spirit” from which comes forth “ gentleness.”23 Therefore, this use of “ spirit” to denote the “ seat of human emotion” was familiar to Paul.
The result of this phenomenon of glossolalia is not beneŽ t received through intelligible speech, which requires human rationality and rea- soning (õ noè w mou karpñ w ¤ stin , 1 Cor. 14:14). Therefore, it must be the experience of the Spirit connecting with the human spirit, where the indi- vidual senses emotional alignment between himself or herself and the Spirit in communication with God.
24
In our present age cognitive learn- ing takes precedence over the nurturing of the emotive side of the human personality. Fostering and expressing emotions is part of healthy human experience, however, especially when it Ž nds impetus from alignment with the Spirit of God in the experience of speaking in other tongues. Even though it is unintelligible speech, the beneŽ ts of this contact with the Spirit communing with God brings ediŽ cation to the speaker.
Regarding (3), in the hypothetical assertions of 1 Corinthians 14:23, 24, Paul envisions the possibility that “ all” believers may speak in tongues and that “ all” may prophesy in the Corinthian church. This must remain a true possibility for Paul’ s argument to be valid. He views glossolalic experience to be the universal privilege of all believers. It is hypotheti- cally possible that all may experience the phenomenon of glossolalia.
Romans 8:26 has signiŽ cant parallels with the description of private glossolalic speech in 1 Corinthians 14:2S-24. Both passages speak of the Spirit’ s work as beneŽ ting the individual (Rom. 8:26 [“ he comes to aid us in our weaknesses” /“ he supplicates on our behalf” ]; cf. 1 Cor. 14:4 [“ The one speaking in a tongue ediŽ es himself ” ]). Both describe the
23
See also Gal. 6:1, where “ spirit of gentleness” is used with similar connotation; 2 Cor. 2:13, “ I had no rest for my spirit,” cf. V.P. Furnish, who rewords this as “ my anx- iety was unrelieved” (II Corinthians, Anchor Bible 32A [New York: Doubleday, 1989], 169). Likewise 1 Pet. 3:4, where “ spirit” is used in conjunction with “ heart.” This is not to say that the description tò pneè m‹ mou always refers to the emotive side of human per- sonality; it is sometimes used as designation more generally of a person’ s inner being or very 24self (Rom. 1:9; Gal. 6:18). The context will determine the precise meaning.
“ It [glossolalia] can readily be conceived of as a quite logical outcome from an intense fullness of emotion, and a perfectly reasonable cause for such a fullness of spirit- ual feeling is provided in the gift of the Holy Ghost . . . The same principle of deep spirit- ual emotion appears to be inherent in this manifestation of the Spirit . . .” (Donald Gee, Concerning Spiritual Gifts [SpringŽ eld, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1980], 74).
60
7
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s Empathy
phenomenon as “ praying” (Rom. 8:26 [“ For what we may pray . . .” ] cf. 1 Cor. 14:14 [“ For if I pray in a tongue . . .” ]). Both passages mention that it is potentially the prerogative of all believers to pray by the Spirit in this fashion (Rom. 8:26 [the use of the Ž rst person plural in the words t Ž syeneÛ & ² mÇ n . . . proseujÅ meya . . . oàdamen . . . ê perentugx‹ nei, implies this]; cf. 1 Cor. 14:5 [“ Now I wish that all would speak in tongues” ]).
In a circumlocutory manner, Paul characterizes the unintelligibility inherent in the phenomenon of glossolalia in the immediate context of Romans 8:26. In v. 27, he elaborates further on the glossolalic groanings of the Spirit and describes this as communication exclusively known by God. Paul contrasts the idea of humans not knowing what to pray (“ For what we should pray we do not know” [v. 26]) with the Spirit supplying the lack and God exclusively knowing the mind of the Spirit (“ The one who searches hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is” [v. 27]). õ ¤ raunÇ n tŒ w kardÛ aw is a Jewish depiction of God
25
who, contrary to human perception, perfectly knows and is in sync with the mind of the Spirit. The Spirit’ s glossolalic groanings that are unintelligible to humans are perfectly intelligible to God.
26
This corresponds decisively with the unintelligible nature of glossolalia, which is Spirit-induced and is under- stood exclusively by God. First Corinthians 14:2 reads, “ For the one speak- ing in a tongue does not speak to humans but to God; for no one understands, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries .” It can be stated with a high degree of certainty that all the inherent characteristics of glossolalia in 1 Cor 14:2-24 are paralleled in Rom 8:26 and its context.
Speaking from the viewpoint of the beneŽ ts received by humans in the experience of glossolalic groaning, Paul understands the major empha- sis not to be the actual utterance itself but the human experience of the Spirit speaking through the individual, aligning himself with human predica- ment. For the individual praying in tongues, the meaning of the experi- ence of glossolalia does not lie in the semantic content of the speech but in the value it has for the one experiencing the Spirit who prompts the speech and the assurance that God understands the intentions of the human heart.27 This is a major point of difference with the statements made in
25
26
See 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kgs. 8:39; 1 Chr. 28:9; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 138:1; Prov. 15:11.
Since glossolalia is a language that is intelligible exclusively to God, it need not imply that it is translatable. This is the common erroneous deduction of some who think that just because it is often used in conjunction with the gift of “ interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10), the contents are translatable phrase by phrase. See Obeng and M. de Goedt who both make this assumption (Obeng, “ The Spirit Intercession Motif in Paul,” 362; M. de Goedt, “ The Intercession 27 of the Spirit in Christian Prayer [Rom 8:26-27],” Concilium 79 [1972]: 32).
On this basis even a non-Pentecostal acknowledges that Romans 8:26 may refer to
61
8
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003
the Acts of the Apostles. For Luke, it is the external sign of glossolalia itself that functions as the criterion and indication of Spirit inspiration (Acts 2:4, 22, 33; 10:45, 46). Paul, on the other hand, has a comprehen- sive view of the experience of glossolalia, particularly of the empathetic emotional alignment of the Spirit with the believer’ s existence in this world, with all of its faults and limitations.
Glossolalia has always been one of the distinctive beliefs of the Pen- tecostal/Charismatic movements. When biblical precedence is sought for the understanding of this phenomenon, however, the tendency is to look to the Acts of the Apostles, which functions as the “ canon within the canon,” particularly for Classical Pentecostals. Truth be told, non- Pentecostals have been criticized by Pentecostals for interpreting Lukan pneumatology through Pauline spectacles,
28
but have not Pentecostals been guilty of reading Pauline pneumatology through Lukan spectacles? The process is one of reducing Pauline pneumatology, particularly the phenomenon of glossolalia, by way of acutely focusing most of the atten- tion on Lukan pneumatological distinctives and reading the evidence through a Lukan pneumatological grid. Has not most of the evidence for the experience of glossolalia been sought in the Acts of the Apostles? Even when the Pauline description of glossolalia is examined, the charism takes on a subsidiary role to the gift of interpretation of tongues or to prophecy, read through Paul’ s explication in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In prac- tice, the experience of glossolalia acts simply as a precursor to the charisms of interpretation of tongues/prophecy in worship service. Little is offered concerning Paul’ s statements on the advantage of the private experience of glossolalia. When Paul writes from experience, “ I thank God, I speak in tongues more than all of you” (1 Cor. 14:18), he most likely conceives of something more to the experience rather than just the hearing of glos- solalic speech itself. When the charism functions alone in private wor- ship, the dynamics of the experience as a whole is what Paul most likely includes when he promotes this gift even though it was the source of con- tention at Corinth. Romans 8:26 and the context in which it is written give us an indication of other beneŽ ts of the experience of glossolalia.
When speaking of an emotive component in glossolalia, we should not
glossolalia (A.J.M. Wedderburn, “ Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?” Scottish Journal of Theology28 28 [1975]: 374-75).
Clark Pinnock cautions against this when he writes, “ St. Luke speaks of a baptism of power for service which is not oriented to the soteriological work of the Spirit, which Paul often addresses . . . Luke must not be imprisoned in one room of the Pauline house,” forward to The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke , by Roger Stronstad [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984], vii.
62
9
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s Empathy
view this as mindless activity and belittle the potential beneŽ t for the one who experiences it. There is more to this than getting an emotional “ Ž x” from God. The experience of glossolalia accomplishes more than simply, “ it makes me feel good.” Likewise, the liberation that accompanies the feeling of elation does not give one license to exhibit behavior that is inappropriate for believers. In fact, according to Paul and the context of Romans 8, quite the opposite situation is the case. In the context of Romans 8, the experience of glossolalia must be explained within the realm of relational worship. Speaking by the Spirit is the prerogative of familial intimacy (vv. 14-17) and is instrumental in the manner in which we relate to God in reverence and adoration. This means that the experience itself should have the after effects of giving impetus to fortify the bond of re- lationship and subsequently prompt one to act responsibly within the contours of that relationship. The Spirit’ s presence in believers’ lives, and particularly the Spirit’ s manifestations (glossolalia), have a present ethical function that coincides with the Spirit’ s active role in actualizing the redemptive plan of God: “ The law of the Spirit of life ”29 (v. 2), “ if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live ” (v. 13), “ he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son . . .” (v. 29). It is no coincidence that in v. 27, Paul qualiŽ es the glossolalic prayer as praying “ according to (the will of) God.” This means that the experience does not simply have a eeting purpose of relieving suffering by making us feel good at the moment. On the contrary, it is an indica- tion of God’ s empathy and emotional alignment with the believer who is in the predicament of being caught within the transition of the inaugura- tion of God’ s redemptive plan and its full realization at the eschaton. The experience of the infusion of God’ s Spirit within the believer expressed through glossolalic speech has the long-range potential of positive trans- formative power; it has the intended goal of encouraging believers to act responsibly within their relationship to God in the wake of their circum- stances. It is part of the ongoing cooperative effort of the believer and the Spirit that leads to proper behavior: “ But if by the Spirit , you [believer] put to death the practices of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13b).
29
Paul distinguishes “ the law of the Spirit of life” from “ the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2) to demonstrate that for the believer the Spirit has displaced Torah as the locus of Christian morality (see my article, “ The Function of the Spirit in the Dialectic between God’ s Soteriological Plan Enacted But Not Yet Culminated: Romans 8:1-27, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15 [1999]: 79-80). Paul is careful to say that the Spirit is instru- mental in “ fulŽ lling” ( plhrñv) the law but never “ keeping” ( poi¡v) the law (Rom. 8:4). The designation “law of” in the statement “ the law of the Spirit of life” is simply rhetoric that demonstrates displacement of the Torah with the new order of the Spirit.
63
10
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003
Glossolalic speech is the fundamental prerogative of the children of God exercising their right of expression through prayer; it is an acknowl- edgment of their insufŽ ciencies and need for reliance upon God, who in turn understands their situation and meets their need by praying with them and for them. In essence, when believers turn to God for assistance, God responds in the supernatural by actually taking part in the weakness itself and praying on behalf of the believer (“ the Spirit himself takes share in our weaknesses . . .” [v. 26]). This is part of the continuum of empathy begun with the Incarnation, in which Christ himself took part in human weakness, God taking the initiative to associate himself with, understand, experience, and sustain believers in their predicament in the world.
With the word Ésaætvw (“ likewise” ) in v. 26, the apostle Paul links vv. 23-25 to his brief discourse on glossolalic prayer. The experience of prayer in this manner functions as a basis of hope in the present for the full realization of God’ s redemption at the eschaton: “ we ourselves, having the Ž rstfruits of the Spirit . . . in hope, we have been saved . . .” (vv. 23, 24). The idea of “ Ž rstfruits” indicates that the manifestations of the Spirit in a believer’ s life in the present serve as the basis for expecting the full implementation of God’ s redemptive work to be completed in the future. It is no coincidence that Paul links the act of “ groaning” in v. 23 ( sten‹zv) with its cognate in v. 26 ( stenagmoÝ w Ž lal® toiw ) and concomitantly links the future expectation of full adoption and redemption of the body with his description of glossolalic prayer. Paul is conveying the idea that the experience of glossolalia has a forward-looking effect to the redemptive culmination. There is a sense of assurance that God will bring the divine plan to its intended goal through the experience of the Spirit praying through the believer. This is why Paul Ž ttingly writes in v. 28, “ And we know that God works for the good of those who love him . . .” The expe- rience of God’ s empathetic prayer that precedes the statement in v. 28 serves as conŽ rmation of the future perfection of the redemptive process.
30
What does this mean for Pentecostals and Charismatics who empha- size the experience of “ speaking in tongues” ? It means that Luke does not have the Ž nal word on glossolalia, and that it is more than an initia- tory sign of “ Spirit baptism.” The ongoing experience of glossolalia is to be comprehensively understood as the rightful prerogative of believers.
30
It is no coincidence that Romans 8:26 and 1 Corinthians 13:8 are written in the same frame of reference. Paul promotes the charism of glossolalia in the interim period between Christ’ s resurrection and his Second Coming. This is an indication that glossolalia is foremost in his mind and is vitally important for sustaining believers who live in between the times of God’ s redemptive plan, which is inaugurated but yet to be culminated.
64
11
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit’ s Empathy
First and foremost, its function is to fortify familial intimacy with God, and second, to prompt one to live a morally responsible life in the face of the limitations one faces in the present circumstances. The experience itself indicates that God empathizes with our weaknesses and gives us hope for the full realization of the divine redemptive plan that was inau- gurated in Christ through his life, death, and resurrection.
65
12
