Recent Cessationist Arguments: Has the Storm Center Moved?
Yarnell thinks that the type of glossolalia practiced by the Corinthians was not “biblical.” By denying it a proper pedigree he seems to be saying not just that the Corinthians practiced it out of line with sound principles (which is the obvious point of 1 Corinthians 12-14) but that the very spirit inspiring those utterances was not of God. It should be noted, however, that Yarnell’s evidence for the possibility of pagan influences is based on an outmoded understanding of the inspiration of the Apolline oracle at Delphi. The idea that the Delphic oracle spoke in nonsensical syllables that were subsequently interpreted was decisively overturned by Joseph Fontenrose (1978: 204-12; see Forbes 1995: 103-19), and hardly anyone working with the Delphic material today assumes such a view. But Yarnell does, and he uses it to paint the Corinthians with a broad brush as former pagan glossolalists. He also uses the idea of a type of glossolalia connected with the worship of Dionysius and Cybele to explain why things went awry with the Corinthians’ approach to tongues, but again, as Christopher Forbes has shown, the evidence that such a thing ever existed has been decidedly overstated (1995: 124-48). Yarnell’s dismissal of “Corinthian glossolalia” as non-Christian in its inspiration is based on a construct whose day is mostly past.
The “Private Prayer Language” in 1 Corinthians 14
The point of Yarnell’s arguments is the specific one of denying that there is scriptural backing for a private prayer language. We should therefore observe how he handles those verses that refer most directly to private glossolalic prayer. We read in 1 Cor 14:14-16:
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive.
15 What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the understanding also.
16 Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying? [adapted from NRSV]
Proponents of the idea of a private prayer language have typically taken v. 15 to refer to Paul’s praying in two different ways, rather than to a single way—“with the spirit” (that is, glossolalically) and “with the understanding” (that is, not glossolalically)—but Yarnell (and other cessationists) take Paul to be referring to a single mode of prayer, viz. praying with the spirit in intelligible words. As Yarnell interprets v. 15, “Paul concludes that the idea of unintelligible speech is extremely odd, for the human spirit must not be disconnected from the human understanding in prayer or in song” (2006: 6). Emir Caner (2006: 7-8) argues that the verse in question “actually argues against [the] practice” of a private prayer language:
Paul affirms that he will pray both in the Spirit and in understanding. But a prayer language cannot accomplish the latter. One would have to claim that Paul was discussing two different types of prayer in the passage, an argument from silence at best, and an argument which has no confirmation in any other New Testament passage.
The problem with that, of course, is that v. 16 seems to contradict the cessationists’ understanding of “in the Spirit”, as it shows quite clearly that, for Paul, to speak “with the spirit” is to speak in a way that others cannot understand. As far as I can see, cessationists do not address the fact that their interpretation of v. 15 comes to wreck upon reading the next verse. Caner thinks that the continualist reading of v. 15 is based on an “argument from silence”, but the cessationist silence about v. 16 is more deafening.
Category: Spirit, Winter 2008
Followers
Fans
