14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also…

I Corinthians 14:14-15 (KJV)

One objection that has been voiced to me over the years regarding other tongues has been that the term “prayer language” is never used in Scripture. The argument is that consequently there is no such thing as a supernatural “prayer language.” One author even opined that since Paul was multilingual (he would have been fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin at least), he simply referred in this passage to his practice of praying in the various languages in which he was naturally conversant. If that were the case, however, why would Paul contrast praying in several known languages with praying “with the understanding?” No, it is clear from the context that, to Paul, praying “with the spirit” is different than praying “with the understanding.” In verse 14, Paul equates praying “with the spirit” with praying “in a tongue.” You will notice that the word “unknown” is in italics in the KJV, indicating that it does not appear in the Greek text but was added by the translators for explanatory purposes. The language one speaks when one prays “with the spirit” is indeed “unknown” by natural means to the one speaking.

Even though the term “prayer language” never appears in the pages of the Bible, Paul does indeed say, “If I pray in a tongue.” Therefore, it is certainly not inconsistent to refer to the supernatural language in which Paul prays “with the spirit” as a “prayer language.” Similarly, the term “Trinity” never appears in the Bible, but according to most accounts, was coined by Tertullian in the Second Century to describe the decidedly Scriptural principle of the threefold-ness of God’s Being. The practice of “coining” human terms to refer to Biblical principles is not a new thing. Because of Paul’s language, we are definitely on firm Biblical ground to refer to our Holy Spirit furnished language as a “prayer language.” This supernatural language enables us to pray into realms beyond the limitations of our human intellect, beyond the limitations of our human knowledge or wisdom, and even beyond the limitations of our present “measure” (level) of faith.

Another objection to speaking with other tongues is based on the claim that, to be valid and genuine, tongues (though not understood by the speaker) must of necessity be naturally understood by someone present. The term generally used for speaking in tongues when someone present naturally understands the utterance is “xenoglossalalia.” It is interesting to me that, of all the Scriptural references to the practice of speaking with other tongues, only one qualifies as “xenoglossalalic.” The initial Pentecost event is the only incident recorded in Scripture where people present understood naturally (by human means) the supernatural languages being spoken by the followers of Jesus (Acts 2:8-11). In no other Biblical mention of the practice of speaking in tongues is it recorded that anybody understood naturally what was being said. Why should we then take what is clearly a Biblical exception and try to force it into becoming our practical “norm?” Besides, Paul does not question the validity of tongues but merely corrects abuses of their operation in public worship settings. He insists on the need for someone to “interpret” (slightly different than “translate,” but that’s for another article), evidently recognizing that the tongue would likely not be naturally understood by the congregation. Of course, we can read into Paul’s statement about tongues being a “sign” (I Cor. 14:22) an implication that the xenoglossalalic phenomenon did continue to occasionally occur.

In the ministry entrusted to us by the Lord, the xenoglossalalic miracle has occurred on several occasions. On each of these occasions I did not realize at the moment what God was doing until someone came to me and testified after the fact. As far as I was concerned, I was simply praying and worshipping in tongues, without any knowledge that somebody was understanding the language I spoke.

In one instance, two ladies testified after a meeting that I had stopped in front of them while preaching and had spoken in Cajun French, giving the precise answer to a specific question that one lady had asked the other in the car on the way to church. While I have a smattering of Cajun phrases (or at least did at one time), I certainly would not have been able to have put a sentence together, especially one that answered their specific question.

In another instance, an unsaved man testified later after having been born again, to having heard me speak in two distinct languages in which he was fluent. Although I would like to know exactly what was said (he never told me and perhaps its none of my business), the fact that this man knew (he asked someone who knew me) that I did not speak these languages naturally, demonstrated to him the reality of the Gospel I preached that evening. To him, tongues were a “sign,” and as a result, he answered the altar call and received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

So, although xenoglossalalia may occasionally occur as the Lord wills, it was the exception in Bible days and it will still be the exception today. We praise God when it happens, but we cannot afford to take an exception and try to make it the rule. Paul said, “I WILL pray with the spirit.” Therefore, let us by faith, as an act of our will, pray often in the supernatural “prayer language” that God has given. Be Blessed!