Original Meaning

IN CHAPTER 14 Paul climaxes his discussion of spiritual gifts by encouraging the Corinthians to prefer prophecy to tongues. But he acknowledges a place for both, and for the other gifts, if they are made intelligible (vv. 1–25) and exercised in an orderly fashion (vv. 26–40). Verses 1–25 fall into an ABBA pattern. Verses 1–6 supply reasons for preferring prophecy, verses 6–12 outline some of the problems with tongues, verses 13–19 address a solution to those problems, and verses 20–25 return to reasons for preferring prophecy.

Verse 1 resumes the thread of 12:31, picking up the two themes of that verse (love and desiring the greater gifts) in reverse order. Paul now specifies one of those “greater” gifts, namely, prophecy. Verse 2 makes it reasonably certain that the misuse of tongues was one of the Corinthians’ major problems in the exercise of their spiritual gifts during worship. Apparently they were manifesting glossolalia without interpretation. Verse 5b demonstrates that all of verses 2–5a must be understood as Paul’s criticisms of tongues when they are not interpreted. When they are interpreted, they, like prophecy, contain a fundamentally instructional and exhortational component (vv. 3, 4b, 5b). For more on the nature of prophecy and tongues, see the discussions under 12:8–10 and 27–31 (pp. 244–45, 247 above).

“Mysteries” (v. 2) simply refer to that which “no one understands.” Grammatically, the NIV footnote (“by the Spirit”) is somewhat more likely than the text (“with his spirit”), since there is no word in Greek corresponding to “his.”

Unlike uninterpreted tongues, prophecy edifies the whole assembly, not just the individual speaker (vv. 3–4). Paul thus isolates two reasons why prophecy is greater: people, not just God, are addressed, and they can be more positively affected. Verse 5 does not contradict 12:30. Paul is not clandestinely commanding all the Corinthians to seek tongues, merely admitting that it would be nice if all could speak in them. But given their abuse, he is “dramatically contrasting the importance of seeking gifts which are better suited to edification (like prophecy)” with “those which are more dramatic but less edifying (like tongues).”1

Verse 6 presents the thesis of the next paragraph (vv. 6–12), repeating the need for intelligibility. The four elements of verse 6b (“revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction”) all share this attribute, as over against uninterpreted tongues. “Word of instruction” is literally “teaching,” so it seems that Paul is lumping more and less miraculous gifts together here to stress the importance of clear communication.

Verses 7–11 then give three illustrations of this principle. In order to be understood or appreciated, musical instruments must play a discernible melody (v. 7). Trumpet calls to battle must be clear enough for soldiers to distinguish “Advance!” from “Retreat!” (v. 8). And foreign languages remain unintelligible to those who have not learned them (vv. 9–11). “Foreigner” in verse 11 is barbaros (from which we get “barbarian”), originally a scornful term for someone who was not a Greek or Roman, and it may carry a pejorative connotation here too.

Verse 12 concludes by repeating the point with which the first paragraph of this chapter ended (v. 5). The NIV misleads us here; “Excel in gifts that build up the church” reads as if some gifts do not build up the church! But the Greek merely says, “Seek that you abound towards the edification of the church.”

So what must a person do if God has given him or her the gift of tongues? Verses 13–19 address this problem. Verse 13 applies to this situation the encouragement of 12:31 on seeking certain gifts. The tongues speaker should pray for the ability to interpret his or her tongue. Verses 14–15 show that receiving the gift of interpretation benefits oneself first of all. Without it, the tongues-speaker has no way of personally knowing the meaning of the message he or she has just uttered (v. 14). Praying with one’s spirit versus praying with one’s mind (v. 15a) is probably equivalent to the distinction in verses 13–14 of speaking in tongues versus interpretation. Tongues and their interpretation might also come in song form too (v. 15b). It is also possible that praying and singing “with my mind” include more ordinary worship as well.

In verses 16–17, Paul turns to the effect on others present. Again, interpretation is crucial if the rest of the congregation is to be able to agree. “Amen” (v. 16) is a Hebrew interjection roughly equivalent to “this is most certainly true.” “Those who do not understand” translates one Greek word that refers to someone who is not an expert or not initiated into a given sphere of activity; hence, the alternate translation in the NIV footnote (“inquirer”). In some pagan circles, such a person was a “catechumen,” one being instructed in a given religion or philosophy prior to fully committing to it. But in this context, the NIV text makes more sense (cf. the REB’s “ordinary person”). Even mature Christians play the role of the uninitiated when they hear uninterpreted tongues. They have no idea what the message means.2

Verses 18–19 probably surprised Paul’s original readers, who may even have been criticizing him for not using glossolalia. If Paul refrains almost entirely from its public exercise, these verses surely substantiate his extensive private use of tongues as a “prayer language.” “Intelligible” (v. 19) is more literally “with my mind.” “Ten thousand” could also be translated “a myriad”; 5/10,000 does not represent a precise ratio! In verse 27 Paul certainly permits a few tongues in each service, which shows that he doesn’t expect every one to refrain quite as much as he does.

Verse 20 forms the transition to the last paragraph of this first section of chapter 14. A preoccupation with tongues without concern for their effect on oneself and others is childish. There are ways Christians should be childlike (e.g., being innocent of evil—cf. Matt. 10:16) but not in their use of spiritual gifts. Mature faith never stresses the noncognitive at the expense of the cognitive. “Thinking” translates a word (phren) which means “the psychological faculty of thoughtful planning, often with the implication of being wise and provident.”3

Verses 21–25 proceed further to justify Paul’s appeal to prefer prophecy to tongues. Paul begins by citing parts of Isaiah 28:11–12, a passage in which God pronounces judgment against rebellious Israel at the hands of the foreign empire of Assyria (v. 21). The verses that bracket this quotation in Isaiah use Hebrew syllables that resemble nonsense sounds (vv. 10, 13—Hebrew: sav lasav sav lasav; kav lakav kav lakav). So Paul may have been inspired by that context to apply Isaiah’s prophecy to the similar impression that glossolalia created.

To make any sense of verse 22, the sign to which Paul refers must again be a sign of judgment. Verse 23 thus explains verse 22a: tongues are a sign of judgment for unbelievers. Like the unbelieving Israelites, non-Christians in Corinth will wind up being condemned (even if inadvertently) by those who speak in undecipherable languages. They will remain lost in their sins because they will reject the gospel as the product of insane babblers.

Verses 24–25 go on to elucidate verse 22b. Prophecy is a sign of judgment for believers in the positive sense that it creates Christians by convicting unbelievers of their sins and bringing them to repentance (v. 25b echoes Isa. 45:14). Verses 23–24 again use the term that some would translate as “inquirer” (see NIV footnote), and it makes a bit more sense in this context. But in light of its use in verse 16, it is probably best to translate it consistently, as the NIV text does. Non-Christians are certainly one important class of people who do not understand tongues.4 “All” in the expressions “convinced by all” and “judged by all” (v. 24) more naturally refers to “all that is said,” not “all the people.” And verses 24–25 do not guarantee that all who hear prophecy rather than tongues will be saved. They simply stress that an intelligible proclamation of the gospel stands a far better chance of convicting unsaved people and regenerating their hearts.5

Bridging Contexts

AS IN CHAPTER 11, successful application of the more controversial parts of chapter 14 hinges in large measure on successfully defining terms and choosing from a wealth of competing interpretations. If prophecy referred only to expository preaching or only to sudden spontaneous revelation, then churches that do not regularly experience one or the other of those practices would have little to heed here. If tongues were the same phenomenon as at Pentecost, then all Paul’s talk about interpretation would be rendered superfluous. But if prophecy and tongues are the types of spiritual gifts that we have described, then contemporary applications abound.

If prophecy is the proclamation of a message given by God, irrespective of the amount of prayer or preparation preceding it, then chapter 14 applies in significant ways to both charismatic and non-charismatic circles. Those who typically preach only after extensive study and preparation should also make sure that they preach only that which God has first applied to themselves.6 Those accustomed to speaking on the sudden impulse of the Spirit should concentrate on communicating their message in the clearest possible way to benefit those present. Neither kind of preacher should assume that their words automatically constitute prophecy, unless these guidelines are followed. Both should take great pains to see that their messages “strengthen, encourage, and comfort” (v. 3).

Verse 6 supports the conclusion that Paul is concerned with intelligibility of Spirit-inspired utterances, however they are obtained. Thus he can combine supernatural “revelation” with more ordinary “teaching,” tossing in prophecy and knowledge, to span the spectrum in between. The illustrations concerning music and foreign languages in verses 7–11 reinforce this call for clarity. Indeed, many Christian speakers will attest that the boundaries are very fluid between saying what one has planned to say in advance and deviating from one’s prepared speech on the basis of the actual audience present and one’s flow of thought as one speaks.

Charismatics and noncharismatics alike can and should consider thoughtfully what God wants to say to a particular congregation at a particular time but be sensitive enough to the Spirit to say what seems most appropriate and lucid for that audience as they speak. In fact, preparation can actually function to aid spontaneity, as one chooses “on the spot” from a wealth of previously considered thoughts. Lack of preparation, conversely, can often hinder successful articulation of a message, as one simply becomes at a loss for words or a logical flow of thought and lapses into a disconnected “stream of consciousness.”

Verse 5b provides an important qualification for Paul’s disparaging of tongues. When an interpretation is given,7 then tongues plus their interpretation closely resemble prophecy in function. Why then does Paul still relativize tongues so much, particularly in his own practice, which is not limited to the troubled context of Corinth (vv. 18–19)? Presumably verse 23 answers this question. Even with an interpretation, the phenomenon of tongues seems so bizarre to some that it prevents them from giving the gospel a serious hearing. Yet even with this observation, Paul refuses to prohibit tongues, but only regulates them so that they do not get out of hand (vv. 27–28).

Verse 10 does not imply that Paul recognized glossolalia as actual foreign languages spoken by people somewhere on earth, or even that they have a comparable linguistic structure, any more than verses 7–8 imply that tongues actually sounded like or employed flutes, harps, or trumpets. Rather, in both instances, he is using an analogy to make one central point of comparison which may not be pressed to include subordinate details. Like musical instruments and human languages, glossolalia must be understandable to be effective. Various Greco-Roman religions were well-known for their outbursts of ecstatic speech and unintelligible repetition of “nonsense” syllables.8 This is precisely what Paul wanted to avoid.

As noted above (pp. 269–70), verses 14–19 highlight a key role for tongues in prayer and praise, rather than instructing the congregation in the way prophecy does. These verses do not preclude tongues communicating a more didactic message, but Paul does not emphasize that aspect of their use. Verses 18–19 stress the value of tongues as a private prayer language, in which instruction of others by definition cannot come into play. It is not clear whether Paul would distinguish this use of tongues from the “spiritual gift” of glossolalia. One suspects he might, since the gifts must be used for public edification of the church.

Yet, under whatever label, a private prayer language can prove very beneficial and therapeutic to those who use it. Indeed using tongues in this manner may provide one illustration of the way in which “the Spirit helps us in our weakness,” when “we do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express” (Rom. 8:26).9 Throughout history, and especially in the last hundred years, where Christians have spoken in tongues in prayer, they have consistently testified to the sense of a spiritual “breakthrough,” as God has overcome their growing frustration with the confines of merely cognitive worship.

Verse 20 balances this emphasis, however, by reminding believers that the cognitive aspect always must continue to play an important role in the Christian life, even if it must also be supplemented by more affective elements. One thinks of Romans 12:2 with its foundational command for Christians to “be transformed by the renewing of their mind,” and of Paul’s later words to the Corinthians that “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4c–5).

Cognitive psychology has since recovered Paul’s emphasis on the mind: dysfunctional behavior often stems from warped thinking. If one learns to think correctly, godly behavior often follows. If this is the case, then one can scarcely overestimate the value of thoughtful prayer, study, and Christian education, both formal and informal, in conversation with wise and mature believers, past and present. A lesson thus comes through this first half of chapter 14 “with startling force. Whatever the place for profound, personal experience and corporate emotional experience, the assembled church is a place for intelligibility. Our God is a thinking, speaking God; and if we will know him, we must learn to think his thoughts after him.”10

Verses 21–25 remind us that Christian worship must at least periodically relate directly to the unbeliever. This in turn presupposes that non-Christians will regularly be present at Christian worship, most commonly no doubt because Christian friends have invited them. Without denying the central scandal of the cross (1:18–2:5), worship leaders and participants must reflect on how they can best “package” their ministry and message so as to make Christianity attractive rather than repulsive to interested outsiders. Then they can expect people to come to Christ as a result of their services, though how many and how often depends entirely on the Spirit’s sovereign hand in convicting men and women and regenerating human hearts. And if tongues are signs of judgment for unbelievers (v. 22), then we cannot apply this paragraph, as some Pentecostals do, to claim that tongues-speaking is designed to convert unbelievers.

Contemporary Significance

CHRISTIANS SOMETIMES STRUGGLE to find relevant passages of Scripture that speak directly and in detail to contemporary problems. Such is the case, for example, with abortion, ecology, and nuclear war. In chapter 14, however, we find remarkably clear and detailed teaching that bears directly on one of the most divisive issues in the church today—the debate over the so-called charismatic or more supernatural gifts.

The charismatic movement is known for emphasizing the value of speaking in tongues. To many in that movement, Paul would surely say today that greater emphasis is needed on the more immediately intelligible and more cognitive gifts. Many sermons in charismatic or Pentecostal circles lack consistent, clear exposition of texts of Scripture. The recent neo-prophetic movement has heralded something of a shift away from tongues to prophecy. But it tends to conceive of the latter in a very narrow, highly supernatural sense and often does not submit its revelations from the Lord to the evaluation of a congregation and a duly recognized group of church leaders. Decision-making in the charismatic world often seems highly subjective, as people explain their actions with little more than the rationale, “The Lord told me to do such-and-such.” But how do they know for sure what they heard was from the Lord or, if it was, that they interpreted it entirely correctly? Authoritarian leaders within this movement can at times rule ruthlessly and without fear of contradiction because those under them believe everything spoken “in the name of the Lord.” It would probably be good if no Christian today ever said, “The Lord told me …” lest God get blamed for human error, but rather preface their remarks with, “I believe the Lord has told me …”11

Noncharismatic churches too are increasingly moving away from solid instructional messages based on biblical content. Many favor a more entertainment-oriented style of worship, and “seeker-sensitive” messages, often with the worthy motive of attracting the unbeliever or church-hopper who judges local congregations on the value of many services they provide other than preaching.12 Such churches recognize the need to avoid Christian “jargon,” in-house or theological language that outsiders find strange and difficult to comprehend. But if large-group worship services take this form, then it becomes crucial that the church stress that its members become involved in additional activities that provide detailed instruction in the Bible, Christian doctrine, ethics, and the like. These can take the form of Sunday School, special seminars, or small groups.

The value in both charismatic and noncharismatic circles of a clear proclamation of God’s Word over and above more unusual phenomena like tongues remains indisputable. In Paul’s world, at least the more exotic phenomena reminded people of analogous practices in other religions, so that they were not entirely foreign. In our modern day, many unbelievers seeing glossolalia for the first time will be all the more convinced that Christians are “out of their mind” (v. 23). Indeed, the excesses of the charismatic movement, especially through televangelism, are one of the major reasons all conservative Christianity has been caricatured, stereotyped, and rejected as weird and out-of-touch with reality by many contemporary Westerners, especially in the media.13

When the charismatic church experiences large numbers trusting in Christ, it is more often in spite of their more exotic phenomena than because of them, since, to its credit, this movement has done more than any other wing of the church in modern times to recover the patterns of worship and fellowship outlined in 14:26, often accompanied by sincerely warm and loving interpersonal relationships. Some of the fastest-growing charismatic churches today have caught on and play down the role of tongues to such an extent that most services do not contain them, and a majority of members have never spoken in tongues in public.

A much more positive use of tongues continues to appear in Christians discovering a private prayer language. Testimony after testimony describes how the Spirit intervened to liberate some frustrated individual from his or her fruitless quiet time, lifeless worship, or inconsistent walk with the Lord. Indeed, the winds of the charismatic movement seem to have blown freshest and most purely in the middle of dead, formal, traditional churches, where it has given to congregations such “radical” ideas, by no means distinctively charismatic, as singing choruses, using musical instruments besides piano or organ, clapping or raising hands, sharing praise items and prayer requests, and conversational prayer.