Returning to "if I pray in a tongue", the word for "if" is ean and the note quoted

previously for the "though" of I Cor. 13: 1 applies to this verse also. Thus Paul is not

saying he has prayed in a tongue. He is saying what would happen if he did. If he were

to pray in a tongue, his mind (understanding) would be unfruitful. What is to be done

then? (What is it then?). Paul states that he will pray with the spirit and with the

understanding also, i.e. at the same time. Here Paul rules out praying in a tongue. It was

not to be done as it didn't involve the mind, the understanding, which was so important.

Just a few verses later Paul wrote "yet in the church I had rather speak five words with

my understanding (mind) that . . . . . I might teach others also, than then thousand words

in an unknown tongue" (I Cor. 14: 19).

In an attempt to justify the present-day practice of praying in tongue, some have

asserted that "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also" does

not imply these two are simultaneous but that they are separate and sequential. That is,

on some occasions one should pray with the spirit (in tongues) and on others one should

pray with the understanding (in everyday language). Naturally such an occasion is

nowhere described in Scripture and both singing in tongues and praying in tongues must

be rejected as neither is Biblical.

Some turn to passages such as Eph. 6: 18 in an attempt to justify praying in tongues

but that verse states "praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit". It has

nothing to with praying in tongues. It is to do with praying in the strength and the will of

the Spirit. (Jude 20 similar). Again the use of Rom. 8: 26 to justify praying in

tongues is impossible as that verse ends with the words "the Spirit itself maketh

intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered". As said above, I.Cor.xiv.14

is the only reference in Scripture to praying in a tongue.

Others turn to I Cor. 14: 18, 19 to support praying in tongues. There Paul states "I

thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all; yet in the church I had rather

speak five words with my understanding". Such people conclude that, as Paul preferred

to speak with understanding in the church, yet spoke with tongues more than any of the

Corinthians, he used tongues in private prayer, but note that Paul does not say "I pray

with tongues more than ye all". He was not referring to prayer, he was referring to

speaking in tongues, and this he did more than any of the Corinthians. Also it is wrong to

conclude that if Paul preferred ordinary speech in the church, then he spoke in tongues in

private. That would be stupid. Such would be impossible because "tongues are for a

sign . . . . . to them that believe not" (I Cor. 14: 22). They would hardly be a sign to

unbelievers if they were practiced in private. No, the opposite of "in the church" is not

"in private" but "out of the church" i.e. out and about on his travels, his missionary

journeys. A quick read through the Acts of the Apostles will reveal that Paul was an

energetic traveler and a keen witness to the truth in Christ. During the Acts period he

made journeys all over the Roman Empire but always went to the Jewish synagogue first

(e.g. Acts 13: 14, 46; 14: 1; 17: 1, 2, 10 . . . . . 28: 17). What sign would he give

to the Jews he met on his travels? How would he convince them that the nation had been

wrong to reject Christ and to refuse to believe He was their Messiah? What sign would

he give to them of their unbelief? Tongues was for that very purpose (I Cor. 14: 22), but