PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 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 difficulty
revolves around the uncertainty in the meaning of the word ,
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 glossolalie utterance in Romans 8:26 is
the unlikelihood of silent prayer in antiquity. Even praying in private was

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 Ksemann (trans. M. Kohl, "The Cry for Liberty
in the Worship of the Church," in Perspectives on Paul [Mifflintown, PA: Sigler Press,
1996], 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 Approach [Springfield, 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
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 definitive vocab
ulary at his disposal, such as , which specifically 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 glossolalie 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 specific prominence given to the Spirit's func
tion.7 In verses l-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

Paul J. Achtemeier, "Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environ
ment of Late Western Antiquity," Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 3-27.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 64.
6
Ksemann, "The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church," 127-29.
The frequency of the word 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 exception is in v. 16, where it most likely means "human spirit").
8
Opposed to the old age of sin (vv. 2, 3, 10), flesh (vv. 3-9, 12, 13), and death (vv.
2, 6) is a description of the Spirit who dispenses life (vv. 2, 6, 10).

55
PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 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 glossolalie groaning coincides
with the major theme in Romans 8 that the Spirit assists believers in the
9
weaknesses associated with the present age.
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 firstly by the addition of to the words ("the Spirit
himself. . .") and secondly by the word ("he comes
to the aid of") in the phrase . The
verb means to offer support or assistance through
10
cooperation (-) and simultaneously be a representative aid (--).
Paul most often uses the word 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 ("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 ("inarticulate groaning"). The majority of
investigative research has been focused upon identifying what Paul meant
by . But is this Paul's point of emphasis? There is a strong pos
sibility that the qualifying word ("groaning") is the point of
emphasis. 13 In other words, Paul's description of the nature of the Spirit's

Ksemann, "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, -
, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1964], 376).
11
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," 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 in Romans 8:26. He writes, "It seems highly unlikely that he
[Paul] would have ever used this word () had it not been for prior usage in vv.
22 and 23" (God's Empowering Presence, 583).
56
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 () to pray (
). 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 ( ) what to pray
as we should."
The phrase ("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 specific 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
benefit 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
benefit 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
and the force of the prefix ). In other words, Paul's emphasis is

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 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
lalie speech is the only benefit 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
PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 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 benefits from the Spirit-induced glossolalie utterance that comes
forth from his or her mouth, accompanied by "groanings" (
) 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 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 (Mai. 2:13), Israel's misery under
the Egyptians (Exod. 2:24), and especially groaning in prayer (Ps. 79: ll). 1 8
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 glossolalie 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 clarification.
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

It is no coincidence that both creation and humans share in expressing intensity of

emotions ("all creation groans together [ ] and travails together
[ ] until now" [v. 22]; "we groan [] within ourselves eagerly
expecting adoption" [v. 23]; "the Spirit supplicates on our behalf with inarticulate groan
ings [] [v. 26]). This is the point of emphasis for Paul since it is consistently
mentioned in the immediate context.
17
The identification and alignment of "the Spirit" with "human spirit" is simply an
indication of familial intimacy, exemplified 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, . The prefix in the
verb "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 Literature, 778).
18 /
See Obeng, who recognizes this about the word ("The Spirit Intercession
Motif in Paul," 362).
There are sufficient 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 thefirstorder of business to be
placed in the context of "love." In 14:2ff., Paul58compares unintelligible tongues with prophecy.
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, . . . ) . 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 (
, v. 2), which is a circumlocution for praying (cf. 1 Cor. 14:14); (2)
those who speak in a tongue edify themselves (
, v. 4); and (3) Paul wished for all to speak in tongues (
, . 5). Regarding (2), one might ask how
"unintelligible" glossolalie 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 ( ), but
my mind is unfruitful ( )." The possessive
is juxtaposed with 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 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 ( )?" Here Paul makes a distinction between

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 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 benefit for his mind, can this not be in keeping with the dis
tinction between the intelligibility of "the interpretation of tongues'V'prophecy" (1 Cor.
14:4, 5, "But one who prophesies speaks to humans for edification . . . edifies 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
benefit received through human cognition ("interpretation of tongues'V'prophecy") and
benefit received through the Spirit's association with the emotive component of human
personality ("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 benefit of Paul's non-cognitive experience
of the Spirit in glossolalie speech in 1 Corinthians 14:15-15 (" 'Out of My Mind for God':
A Social Scientific Approach to Pauline Pneumatology," Journal of Pentecostal Theology
13 (1998): 80, 83, 97.
Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, 675.

59
PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 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 (, 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 benefit received
through intelligible speech, which requires human rationality and rea
soning ( , 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 finds impetus from alignment
with the Spirit of God in the experience of speaking in other tongues.
Even though it is unintelligible speech, the benefits of this contact with
the Spirit communing with God brings edification 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 glossolalie
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 significant parallels with the description of private
glossolalie speech in 1 Corinthians 14:2S-24. Both passages speak of the
Spirit's work as benefiting 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 edifies himself"]). Both describe the

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 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 self (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 [Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1980], 74).

60
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 first person plural in the words
.. . . . . . . . , 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 glossolalie 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]).
is a Jewish depiction of God25 who, contrary to
human perception, perfectly knows and is in sync with the mind of the
Spirit. The Spirit's glossolalie 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 benefits received by humans in
the experience of glossolalie 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

ZD
See 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Kgs. 8:39; 1 Chr. 28:9; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 138:1; Prov. 15:11.
' C? ' ' 7 7 7

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 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
PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 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-
solalie 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 benefits 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 Theology 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
The Experience of Glossolalia and the Spirit's Empathy

view this as mindless activity and belittle the potential benefit for the one
who experiences it. There is more to this than getting an emotional "fix"
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 qualifies the glossolalie
prayer as praying "according to (the will of) God." This means that the
experience does not simply have a fleeting 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 glossolalie 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).

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 "fulfilling" () the law but never "keeping" () the law (Rom. 8:4).
The designation "law of in the statement "the law /the Spirit of life" is simply rhetoric
that demonstrates displacement of the Torah with the new order of the Spirit.

63
PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Volume 25, No. 1, Spring 2003

Glossolalie speech is the fundamental prerogative of the children of

God exercising their right of expression through prayer; it is an acknowl
edgment of their insufficiencies 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 ("likewise") in v. 26, the apostle Paul links
vv. 23-25 to his brief discourse on glossolalie 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 firstfruits of the Spirit... in hope, we have been saved . . . " (vv. 23,
24). The idea of "firstfruits" 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 ()
with its cognate in v. 26 ( ) and concomitantly links
the future expectation of full adoption and redemption of the body with
his description of glossolalie 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 fittingly 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 confirmation 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 final 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.

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
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
 ^,

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.