Follow after love, and be emulous of spiritual [manifestations], but rather that ye may prophesy.
Paul has just shown that love gives up self. Now he turns to the question the Corinthians argued over: which gifts should a church want in its meetings? The verse gives an order — love first, gifts wanted, and prophecy above the rest.
The call to pursue love comes before the instructions about gifts. It comes first because it settles the motive.
If love had been at work in the assembly at Corinth, it would have escaped many serious disorders, even though it had not been taught God's order. Love, as the Apostle has shown, leads a person to give up self. So the call to follow love comes before the call to desire spiritual gifts and before the instructions about using them. Love keeps the motive pure, both in wanting a spiritual gift and in using it. Love thinks not of self but of the good of others. Because they lacked love, the believers at Corinth had been using the sign gifts of healing and tongues to exalt themselves.
Putting love first does not belittle the gifts. It sets them in their right place, where they are worth wanting.
Setting the gifts of the Spirit in this right relation to their purpose does not run them down; it proves their worth. So they are not to be despised, but wanted. Those who know God in His ways will always want what He gives. And if love is followed first, gifts will be sought with love as well as with eagerness. Then they will be in the Church not for show, but to serve the needs of love, each in its own way.
Another writer turns the second half of the verse into a question for the reader:
Who thinks of seeking spiritual gifts? If God has given them, their use may be allowed (within certain limits, sadly); but who thinks of asking God for gifts he does not have? If we seek them to glorify ourselves with them, then we are bound to seek in vain. So the two things are joined together — following after love, and desiring spiritual gifts.
Most translations add the word "gifts" after "spiritual" in this verse. One writer says that addition is too narrow.
The Authorized Version, like almost all others, adds "gifts" after "spiritual" in the first verse. But that is not broad enough. It leaves out the presence of the Spirit Himself, who matters far more than any gift and who is distinct from the gifts: they depend on Him, not He on them... The meaning is the whole range of what belongs to the Spirit.
Prophecy is not mainly the announcing of future events. One writer defines it by what it does to the hearer's conscience.
Prophecy is not necessarily predictive. Prophets do predict, but that is not what makes prophecy. It is also a great mistake to think that prophesying is just building people up in a general way. Prophesying does build people up in the most important way... A man builds others up when he strengthens souls by holding up Christ and making His love better known, and so does the man who exhorts or teaches well. But none of these things is prophesying. Prophesying is that kind of truth which puts a person's conscience in the presence of God. It gives the soul the certainty that God's mind is in what is spoken, and it strips and lays bare thoughts, motives, feelings, everything.
One writer sums up what such ministry does:
"Edification" builds up. "Exhortation" stirs up. "Comfort" binds up. If the ministry is truly prophetic, it will build up and strengthen the Assembly.
A tongue put God's power on open display. That display is not what makes a gift most useful in a meeting.
Even where God's power was working in a tongue in a way no one could mistake, that gift is far from the highest place for the assembly... Prophesying, on the other hand, has the highest value. The one who uses this gift speaks to build up, encourage and comfort people. He builds up the church, which the speaker in a tongue cannot do unless someone also interprets. So God gave the better place to what His Spirit used for the profit of others. Power, though it is plainly God's, ranks below spiritual blessing, order, and love.
- Pursue — love comes first, because love keeps the motive pure both in wanting a gift and in using it.
- Desire — the same verse also tells believers to want gifts. What God gives is worth asking for.
- Prophesy — not mainly foretelling. It is truth that sets a person's conscience in God's presence and lays motives bare.
- Profit — prophecy outranks tongues because power ranks below what helps others. It builds up, stirs up, binds up.
- Order — love, then gifts, then prophecy above the rest. That order would have spared Corinth its disorders, and it still spares a church today.
For he that speaks with a tongue does not speak to men but to God for no one hears; but in spirit he speaks mysteries.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
But he that prophesies speaks to men [in] edification, and encouragement, and consolation.
Paul is comparing two gifts: speaking in a tongue nobody understood, and prophesying. His test is not display but the good done to the hearer, which raises a question — what does "prophesying" mean?
The verse is often read as a dictionary entry for prophecy. One writer says it is doing something narrower. It describes how the gift works next to a tongue no one could understand.
Verse 3 is the way in which prophecy works, rather than a definition of prophecy. It is speaking to people for their building up, encouragement and comfort. It can be that way now, of course. Knowledge and doctrine remain. But no one gives out fresh revelation now, because God has already revealed everything (that is, in the word).
The distinction also guards against a common mistake.
Many people take this to mean that anyone who speaks encouragement and comfort is prophesying. That is to mistake him. You could not turn the sentence around and still have the truth. What the apostle means is this. The man who only speaks in a tongue does not build up, or encourage, or comfort. The man who prophesies does.
The popular picture of a prophet is someone predicting the future. One writer points out that prediction was only part of a prophet's work.
Much of an Old Testament prophet's work was bringing the mind of God to bear on the state of the people. He called them to repentance. It was not only foretelling but also forth-telling. So it was with the New Testament prophets. Special revelation has completely passed away with them. But we still have the prophetic character of their ministry.
So what is prophesying, if not prediction? One writer answers with a scene from the Gospels.
It is not a question of opening up the future, but of bringing God and the soul together. We may see an example of it in the case of the woman of Samaria. What Christ said to her clearly brought God Himself home to her conscience, and she woke up at once to the conviction that the One speaking was a prophet. Prophecy is therefore the most intimate and direct communication of God in dealing with the soul. It gives a person the certainty that God is expressing His mind.
The verse names three results. One writer gives each a picture.
"Edification" builds up. "Exhortation" stirs up. "Comfort" binds up. If the ministry is truly prophetic, it will build up and strengthen the church. And there is more than that — "exhortation," which stirs us up. I ask anyone who looks over the scene today, do you not think the people of God need stirring up? I know I do, and I am always thankful to the man who stirs me up.
No amount of effort or cleverness can produce this kind of service.
This is a challenge to each of us. Zeal in our own strength and human wisdom could never achieve it. So we ourselves need to be enjoying the "comfort of the Scriptures." We need to know, in reality and power, the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, the Comforter. Then any service we give will encourage those we serve.
Those who spoke in tongues had an argument for themselves. Paul answers it.
No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift. Theirs, they said, was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle boldly maintains that the failure to speak to men proves speaking in a tongue inferior to prophesying... He sets prophesying far above such a display, without reservation. It brings in not merely power but God — God at work building souls up, encouraging them and consoling them. This does not cast such a halo around man; but it really brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.
The same writer names what was missing underneath it all.
There is no love in it; and so, as he shows here, there is no comfort, nor anything that works on the soul to build it up. This is the effect of divine love. There can never be real edification without divine love in some way being what acts on the soul.
- Contrast, not definition. The verse shows how prophecy works next to a tongue no one understands. It does not make every comforting word prophecy.
- Toward men. The weight falls on speaking to people. A tongue no one understood gave the hearer nothing.
- Conscience reached. Prophesying is not about unveiling the future. It brings God and the soul together, as Christ did with the woman of Samaria.
- Three needs met. Building up, stirring up, binding up — one ministry strengthens the church, wakes the sleepy and binds up the hurting.
- Love at the root. Without divine love acting on the soul, no one is built up. That is why Paul ranked display of power below this.
He that speaks with a tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies [the] assembly.
Paul weighs two gifts by one test: what does the meeting gain? One speaker helps only himself; the other builds up everyone, and that decides which gift belongs when believers gather.
First, what was this gift?
The phrase "unknown tongue" is unfortunate. It has led some people to think that the gift of tongues was a kind of meaningless gibberish. The King James translators added the word "unknown," where the text should read simply "tongue." Pentecost showed what the gift of "tongues" was: a person speaking a language he had never learnt, which those who knew it understood at once.
The trouble at Corinth was not meaningless sound. It was a foreign language in a room where everyone already shared one.
Someone who spoke in a tongue built himself up, because he understood; but he did not build up the assembly, because the assembly did not understand. The tongue here is a real language, as Acts 2:6 shows, but one the speaker did not normally understand. The wonder of the gift was that God gave him the ability to speak his own thoughts in this foreign language by the power of the Spirit, and he stayed in full control of his words. But in the assembly, where everyone understood Greek, other tongues were not needed.
Commentators differ. Some hold that the speaker did not always follow his own words.
In certain cases there was a kind of split. For example, people spoke in tongues, and the speaker did not always understand what he said. When that happened, the apostle says that this working of the Holy Spirit was of a lower order.
Others read it the other way round. They hold that the speaker understood his own words, and that Paul's test is what other people gain.
"The one who speaks in a tongue," the apostle goes on, "builds up himself." He does not, as people strangely imagine, have the idea that the speaker might not understand the tongue he was using... The apostle insists that there must be an intelligent grasp of what is heard, or there is no use and no building up... He has no wish at all to set aside speaking with tongues... The building up of others is what decides the greatness of the speaker.
Prophecy here is wider than predicting the future.
When we think of the prophets of the Old Testament, we may want to limit prophecy to foretelling future events. But even in Old Testament days that was only a small part of the prophet's work. His great mission was to apply the word of God to the conscience and heart, and so build people up. That is still the prophet's service in Christian times, and in this sense the gift remains. From the place the apostle gives this gift here, we may gather that it is the greatest of all the gifts left to the church, and the one to desire most.
The tongues-speakers had an argument ready: theirs was the Godward side.
No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift, and that theirs was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle holds firmly that speaking in a tongue is lower than prophesying, because it does not speak to people... He sets prophesying above any display of power without reserve, because it brings in not merely power but God — God building up souls, encouraging them and comforting them. This does not throw the same glow around the man; but it truly brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.
The Corinthian gifts were real. That is what makes the chapter so searching.
The gift of tongues seemed to people the most wonderful of all, and the Corinthians loved to show it off. Instead of love seeking to build up everyone, it was vanity seeking to display its gifts. They were real gifts — gifts of the Spirit. And here is the solemn thing for us to weigh: a person may have the power of the Spirit for service, and yet not have the living guidance of the Spirit in using it.
The same test still applies to anyone who speaks when believers gather.
Can anything be more solemn than for someone to take part in the assembly without any searching of heart, without judging himself again and again to see whether his motive comes from simple obedience to the will of God?
- Real gift. A "tongue" was a real language the speaker had never learnt, not gibberish. The added word "unknown" has misled readers.
- Real limit. The gift did build the speaker up. But words the room cannot follow build up no one else.
- Wider reach. Prophecy applies God's word to the conscience and heart, so it reaches the whole room — the greatest gift left to the church.
- Higher aim. Prophecy ranks higher because it brings in God Himself rather than a display of power, building up, encouraging and comforting souls.
- Sober test. A person can have real spiritual power and still miss the Spirit's guidance. Before speaking, ask one question: obedience, or display?
Now I desire that ye should all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy. But greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, unless he interpret, that the assembly may receive edification.
Paul sets two gifts of the Spirit side by side and ranks them. The ranking is not about which one impresses more. It turns on what happens to the people listening: did anyone go home built up?
The comparison starts with a wish, not a rebuke. Paul would have been glad for every one of them to have the gift. So the comparison is between two good things.
The Apostle at once contrasts the gift of prophecy with the gift of tongues. Tongues clearly attracted the Corinthian believers, because the gift was so plainly supernatural in origin. He does not cast any doubt on it. The "tongues" he referred to were a genuine sign of the power of the Holy Spirit, and under the control of the speaker. The Apostle spoke with tongues himself in larger measure than any of the Corinthians, but he did so in a controlled and restrained way. The point is that even when the gift of tongues is at its best, it is of less profit than the gift of prophecy.
Many people assume prophecy means predicting the future.
We must remember that the earlier verse is not a definition of prophesying, but its contrast with speaking in a tongue. Prophesying has no necessary connection with the future, as some suppose. Nor is it preaching or teaching in general. It is forth-telling rather than fore-telling. It is speaking to a person so as to put him in the light of God — of God's dealing with his heart and conscience. It gives His mind.
Paul gives his own reason in the verse: "so that the church may be built up." That makes building up a working rule anyone taking part can apply to themselves.
Edification is to be the ruling principle. The keynote of God's Assembly is what will profit, what will help. If ministry is profitable, all right; if not, it is not to be allowed, it is condemned by the Spirit of God. The Assembly will soon know what profits it. If my ministry is not profitable, the kindest thing my brothers can do is to tell me so. It is a waste of time for any of us to go on with what does not profit. You might not be able to say much. But if God's Spirit gives you something to say to His Assembly, say it. You have that liberty in God's free Church, and the "five words" might help greatly.
Paul's exception is not a footnote. Understanding is what lifts the tongue up to the level of prophecy — and its absence decides where the gift may be used at all.
He would be glad for each one to be built up on his own. But he would rather they rejoiced together in the Lord. A matching power of interpretation would place the "tongue" on a moral par with prophecy. Otherwise the gift was good and precious, but its place of use was not the assembly of the saints. The profit of many is better than the benefit of one. By that measure the speaker with tongues stood below the prophet in the honour that belongs to true service in the Church.
Where no interpreter was present, the instruction was not to press on regardless.
He begins with what the vain Greek mind was most taken with, speaking with a tongue, because it was so open and surprising a witness of divine power. It electrified people. But in an assembly, on its own, it did not build up. So if the man who had "a tongue" could not interpret, or no interpreter was there, he had to be silent and content with speaking to himself and to God: an excellent lesson, where there was a desire to display that gift.
Behind the ranking lies a difference in what each gift leaves behind in the room.
The apostle was not dazzled, as the Corinthians were then and many have been since, by the display of power. He puts prophesying above such a display without any reserve. It brings in not power only but God — God building up souls, encouraging them and comforting them. This does not surround man with such a halo. But it truly brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.
Prophecy works by its effect on heart and conscience, not by predictions. So does the gift still have a place?
When we think of Old Testament prophets, we may limit prophecy to foretelling future events. This, however, was a limited part of the prophet's work, even in Old Testament days. His great mission was to apply the word of God to the conscience and heart for edification. This still applies as the service of the prophet in Christian times; and in this sense the gift remains. See the place the Apostle gives it in this passage. From that we may gather it is the greatest of all the gifts that remain to the church, and the one to desire most.
- Building up decides. The whole comparison rests on one measure — what profits the gathering. If it edifies, it has a place; if not, it does not.
- Building up defines prophecy. It is forth-telling, not fore-telling. It puts a person in the light of God and reaches heart and conscience.
- Building up needs understanding. Interpretation raises a tongue to the level of prophecy. Without it the gift was still good, but its place was not the gathering.
- Building up outranks display. The apostle was not dazzled by power on show. Prophecy brings in God Himself, present and at work in grace.
- Building up still applies. Paul wanted them all to speak in tongues. He wanted prophecy for them even more, and commentators call it the greatest gift the church still has.
And now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I shall speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching?
Paul puts himself in the picture. Suppose he came to Corinth and spoke in tongues. What would the Corinthians gain? His question tests what they prized, and his four alternatives show what a Christian gathering is for.
Paul does not measure a gift by how impressive it sounds, but by what the hearers take home. One writer traces this standard back through Paul to Christ Himself.
This is the test he applies again and again. It was close to the faithful servant's heart, as it was to his Master's. To the spiritual mind, what astonishes matters far less than what builds up.
The same test governs every gift in the chapter.
These gifts are to be used for the good of others. The test the Apostle applies is whether they build up everyone. If the use of the gift builds up, it is of profit. If it does not build up, it is of no profit.
The verse is a comparison, not a condemnation.
He does not cast any doubt on this particular work of the Spirit. The "tongues" he spoke of were a genuine display of the power of the Holy Spirit, and they were under the control of the speaker. The Apostle spoke with tongues himself more than any of the Corinthians, but he did so in a controlled and restrained way. The point is that even when the gift of tongues is at its best, it is of less profit than the gift of prophecy.
Why must a tongue be interpreted before it is used in the meeting?
The assembly is the sphere for the Spirit of God, not for human ability. So interpretation must be a gift, not a human power, if it is to be available there.
Paul lists four ways of speaking that people can follow. Each has its own job.
The assembly is built up only when someone speaks in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching... Knowledge means passing on to believers what has already been revealed. Prophesying applies the truth to the conscience, while doctrine, or teaching, gives instruction in a particular truth.
Another writer defines each of the four in turn.
Revelation is what the Spirit of God makes clearly known to the person He uses at the time. It is not a mystery, but the opposite, because it is made known. Knowledge is truth learned earlier and passed on with understanding. Prophesying is the ministry of the truth that appeals to the heart and conscience, rather than mainly to the mind. Doctrine, or teaching, lays a solid foundation of truth, and it needs understanding.
One writer separates prophecy from new revelation, and shows who each gift reaches.
There could be "prophecy" that was not a new revelation, though it held more than knowledge. It might apply the thoughts of God. It might be God speaking to the soul and the conscience. That is more than knowledge, but it is not a new revelation... When anyone teaches, the spiritual person gains by it. When someone prophesies, even the person who is not spiritual may feel it; he is reached and judged.
The Bible is now complete. That changes one of the four and leaves the others.
Knowledge and doctrine remain, though the giving of revelation does not, because everything has been revealed (that is, in the word). We speak of revelation in a lesser sense when someone gets something he did not have before. But even then it is only what is already in the word.
Paul's question becomes a prayer for our own meetings.
There would be no building up, nothing to stir love, holiness, wisdom or knowledge... Are you often on your knees asking God to speak through His servants to bring home His word in power to your souls? Are you asking Him to speak to you through the mouths of others? It may be through an ordinary believer, for the Lord can speak to your soul through anyone.
- Profit — every contribution must answer Paul's question: how does this benefit you? What astonishes counts for less than what builds up.
- Profit, not scorn — tongues were a real work of the Spirit. Paul spoke in them more than the Corinthians did. He still ranks them lower by the profit test.
- Profit's four forms — revelation makes truth known. Knowledge passes it on. Prophecy applies it to the conscience. Teaching lays the foundation.
- Profit's reach — teaching feeds the spiritual; prophecy can reach and judge even the person who is not.
- Profit today — all revelation now stands in the written Word. Knowledge, prophecy and teaching remain. So pray that God speaks through whoever He chooses.
Even lifeless things giving a sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give not distinction to the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For also, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for war?
Paul is writing to a church where people spoke in languages their hearers did not know. He answers with two everyday sounds: a musical instrument and a battle trumpet.
Paul argues from sounds anyone can test.
We do not distinguish the sounds of a language we do not know. The truths it carries may be very weighty, but an unknown language is only a confused jargon... In short, the trumpet-call must be understood... The point pressed is distinctness, so that people understand. It need not be easy to understand, but the speech must be distinct enough to make sense. Otherwise all is lost for the hearers.
A tune played badly spoils the music. A trumpet blown badly leaves soldiers unready. Older translations call it an "uncertain sound", the wording used in the quotes below.
Here a comparison from nature confirms pure spiritual teaching. This is the frequent habit of Him who is Lord both of nature and of grace. The illustration is of the simplest kind, yet it carries a powerful moral lesson. There is a war to be fought by those whose calling is to fight the fight of faith. Those who would prove themselves good soldiers of Jesus Christ must listen to the tones of that trumpet. To the watchful believer it gives no uncertain sound.
One writer traces the picture back to the trumpets that guided Israel, alongside the cloud and the fire:
We have seen in the cloud and the fire the providential guidance of God over His people. Yet we are not left to depend only on this. The trumpets speak of the plainly declared word of God, as 1 Corinthians 14:8 reminds us... So the trumpets had to be sounded just as the Lord instructed, so that no one would mistake their message.
The verse names one fault; verse 7 names another. Muddled speech and hesitant speech both leave the hearer standing still.
Obscurity is not spirituality. If there were no "distinction in the sounds", music would convey no melodious meaning. If the sound is "uncertain", the trumpet will produce no effect upon the hearers. In the same way, ministry may be so confused that it conveys no meaning. Or it may be so uncertain that it has no effect on the hearers. If ministry is to build people up, it must use words "easy to be understood", and it must carry the certainty of the oracles of God.
Nobody today is tempted to preach in a language they never learned. The principle survives the gift.
The immediate point of these verses is that mere vocal sounds are of no value. Whatever the voice utters must mean something to those who listen. It must make sense. Is that only important in connection with the gift of tongues? By no means. It applies universally. In our meetings it will not be enough that the speaker talks in English. He may be drawn into a display of his learning. He may use crowds of long, unusual words that leave the minds of his hearers a complete blank as to his meaning. Or he may speak so fast, or with such mystic obscurity, as to be unintelligible. In all such cases people are merely "speaking into the air," and there is no profit.
Clear delivery is one half. Saying something definite is the other. One writer applies the trumpet to what a servant actually says, not just to how plainly he says it.
Paul did not beat around the bush. He did not say ambiguous things that people could read to suit their own wishes. If things were wrong, he spoke out clearly and plainly. He named them, so that people could face them and put themselves right in the light of God.
One writer sets Paul's words beside the public reading of the Law in Nehemiah:
"They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading"... Eloquence is not needed, nor finely polished sentences. Yet these two passages show that the servant is responsible to speak distinctly and simply. The truth he ministers may be very precious. Even so, it cannot build anyone up if those he ministers to can neither hear nor understand what is said.
- Sound. An instrument must give distinct notes, or nothing gets through. A language nobody knows is only noise.
- Sense. Two failures are in view: speech so confused it carries no meaning, and speech so hesitant it carries no weight.
- Signal. The trumpet was never decoration. It carried the plainly declared word of God, blown just as the Lord instructed so no one could mistake it.
- Scope. The rule outlives the gift of tongues — long words, speed, and mystic vagueness are all just speaking into the air.
- Soldiers. The test of the blast is whether anyone gets ready. Clear speech arms believers for the fight of faith; an uncertain note leaves them standing still.
Thus also *ye* with the tongue, unless ye give a distinct speech, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking to the air.
Paul has been telling the Corinthians that a gift used in the meeting must reach the people who hear it. Here he sums that up: sound with no meaning goes nowhere. The question reaches far past tongues. What makes speech useful, and what turns it into wasted breath?
Note: some writers below quote an older translation. Where the ESV has "speech that is not intelligible", it reads "words easy to be understood."
Paul reaches this verse by way of a pipe and a harp. One writer follows that picture to the exact demand the verse makes: not a simple subject, but a clear sound.
Next he brings in musical instruments to confirm the point. The hearer must be able to tell the sounds apart and understand them, or nothing follows. "Even lifeless things that give sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give no distinction to the notes, how will anyone know what is being played?" Now we do not distinguish the sounds of a language we do not know. The truths conveyed may be ever so weighty, but an unknown language is only a confused jargon. Distinctness, so as to be understood, is the point pressed. Not exactly "easy to be understood", but distinct speech, so that people can grasp it. Otherwise the hearers lose it all.
The Corinthians misused tongues, but the rule does not stop there. It reaches every speaker, even one using his hearers' own language.
The point of these verses is that bare sounds have no value. The voice must carry meaning to those who listen. It must be intelligible. Is that only important in connection with the gift of tongues? Not at all. It applies universally. In our meetings it is not enough that the speaker talks in English. He may slip into a display of his learning. He may use crowds of long, uncommon words that leave his learners a complete blank as to his meaning. Or he may speak so fast, or so obscurely, that no one can follow him. In all such cases people merely "speak into the air," and there is no profit.
Some hearers mistake fog for depth. One writer answers that, and draws a second lesson from the trumpet: a message needs certainty as well as clarity.
Obscurity is not spirituality. If the trumpet's sound is "uncertain", it will have no effect on the hearers. So ministry may come out so confused that it conveys no meaning. Or it may sound so uncertain that it has no effect on the hearers. If ministry is to build others up, it needs words "easy to be understood" and the certainty of the oracles of God.
The test is not the speaker's gift. It is what the hearers gain. That standard exposes the motive under the Corinthian love of tongues.
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. The matter carried by the unknown language may be excellent. Even so, it has no place in the assembly unless someone interprets it properly... If they really wanted the Spirit's power among them, why did they not seek to abound in building one another up? This would be divine love, not vain display, but worthy of Christ and His saints. It is flesh that likes distinction for itself. It is not the service of the Lord for the good of others, where God is pleased to deal with souls.
Clear delivery is not the whole test. The speaker's own mind is part of it.
The apostle wants the understanding to be at work — and that remark matters greatly when judging men's claims to the Spirit... The individual speaking did not himself enjoy, as from God, what he communicated to others. If others did not understand it either, it was child's play to utter words without meaning to the hearers.
One writer points to three steps in an earlier public reading of God's book. Paul's rule was already there.
First, the book was read distinctly... Second, they gave the sense... Third, they made certain that the hearers really did understand the reading. That account anticipates the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 about what is said in the Christian assembly. The one who gives thanks, or prays, or ministers the word must be sure of two things. He must know what he is saying. He must also say it so that people understand it, take it in, and endorse it with an "Amen". The speaker may say, "I knew quite well what I wanted to say." We have to reply, "Yes, but did you speak clearly and simply enough for your hearers to get the sense and grasp your message?"
- Distinct — speak so the hearer can tell what you said. Weighty truth in an unknown language is still a confused jargon.
- Universal — the rule is not just about tongues. Long words, speed, or fog turn any speaker into a man speaking into the air.
- Understood — obscurity is not spirituality. Speak clearly and with certainty, like a trumpet call people can act on.
- Edifying — clear speech builds up the assembly. Love wants that; display does not.
- Amen — the last test is simple. Can the hearers take in the sense and say "Amen"? Ask not "did I know my meaning?" but "did they?"
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of undistinguishable sound.
Paul is arguing about unknown languages in the church at Corinth. He grants that every language means something to someone, but asks a sharper question: does it mean anything to the listener?
Older versions read "voices" here where the ESV reads "languages." One writer explains the difference between hearing the words and hearing the voice.
It is clear, then, that we may hear the words and miss the voice. In 1 Corinthians 14:10 we read there are "so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without meaning." The voice, then, is the true meaning of the words — the message that the words contain.
The tongues at Corinth were not gibberish. Each one was a real language, spoken somewhere in the world.
Verses 10 and 11 show that whatever tongue God gave a man, it was a genuine language. There were many kinds of language in the world, and each meant something to someone, but not to everyone. For if one did not know the meaning of my voice, I would be a barbarian to him, and he to me. There is no fellowship, because there is no understanding.
One dictionary traces that word "barbarian" back to Roman usage.
The word means "foreigner, alien." The Romans used it for any people who did not understand Latin or Greek.
Paul now presses the point on the speaker himself.
after-note: DELETE not used
So also you with a tongue, he says. Unless you give a distinct word — a word your hearers can grasp and know the meaning of — how will anyone know what you said? You are just speaking, he says, into the air. There is not a voice God has given in the world that does not have its meaning! If tongues are only a sound, the one who speaks is a foreigner to others, and those who listen are foreigners to him.
Fine content does not rescue speech no one can follow. What belongs in the gathering is what builds others up.
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. However excellent the content of the unknown language, it has no claim to a place in the assembly unless someone properly interprets it. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a conversation with a foreigner… Why did they not seek to build one another up? That would be divine love, not vain display, but worthy of Christ and His saints. It is flesh that likes distinction for itself, not the service of the Lord for the good of others.
The same test applies to ordinary preaching and teaching.
Obscurity is not spirituality… Every voice in nature has a special meaning, and so words have a special meaning. If we use words that convey no meaning to the hearers, we are in effect foreigners speaking in some strange jargon.
Another writer applies this to preachers who speak above their hearers.
This is a rebuke too to those who like to use university language when speaking to ordinary people. They choose unusual words and tangled sentences. Such a person might as well be silent unless he explains simply what he means.
One writer follows an older reading of the second half: "nothing is without voice."
"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and nothing is without voice" (1 Cor. 14:10, Revised Version margin). Nothing is without voice to us if we have ears to hear. "Does not even nature itself teach you?" he also says in another connection to the same people (1 Cor. 11:14), showing that "nothing is without voice" is a fact for Christian people to take into account.
- Voice — a voice is the meaning inside the words, not the noise. You can hear the words and still miss it.
- Meaning — every language in the world carries meaning to someone, but not to everyone.
- Foreigner — when the hearer misses the meaning, speaker and hearer are foreigners to each other. Fellowship stops because understanding stopped.
- Building up — however good the content, speech no one can follow has no place in the assembly unless someone interprets it.
- Plainness — the same rule judges unclear preaching today. Obscurity is not spirituality, and speaking into the air helps no one.
If therefore I do not know the power of the sound, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks a barbarian for me.
At Corinth, people were speaking in languages the rest of the room could not follow. Verse 11 is Paul's test case, and it raises the question behind the whole chapter: what is speech for among God's people?
Older versions render Paul's word here as "barbarian." It marked a person by language:
The word barbaros means "foreigner, alien." The Romans used it for any people who did not understand Latin or Greek. In Romans 1:14 such people stand in contrast to the Greeks. In 1 Corinthians 14:11, a person hears another speak in a language he does not understand. He would count that speaker a foreigner, and be counted one himself.
Paul's test is whether the hearer knows the meaning. Older translations use "voice" where the ESV has "language," and one writer explains what that "voice" is:
It is clear that we may hear the words and miss the voice. Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:10 we read that there are so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without meaning. The voice, then, is the true meaning of the words — the message that the words contain.
The loss runs both ways. Neither side gains, and what goes missing is more than information:
Verses 10 and 11 show that whatever tongue God gifted a man with, it was a genuine language. There were many kinds of language in the world, and all of them meant something to someone, but not to everyone. For if one did not know the meaning of my voice, I should be to him like a foreigner, and he to me. There is no fellowship, because there is no understanding.
The worth of what is said is not the issue. The question is whether the room can take it in — and what drives the speaker:
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. The content carried by the unknown language may be excellent. Even so, it has no claim to be spoken in the assembly unless someone interprets it properly. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a conversation with a foreigner. If they were really in earnest about the power of the Spirit among them, why did they not seek to abound in building one another up? That would be divine love, not empty display, and worthy of Christ and His saints. It is the flesh that likes distinction for itself, not the service of the Lord for the good of others.
The many languages of the world go back to God's judgment at Babel. The gift of tongues crossed that divide:
At Babel, man had once had one speech and one language. There God confounded their pride, and men were shut up in a divided condition. God used that for His own purposes, but it set up barriers that prevented common communication... When Christianity came in, power was not yet going to set the world right. But grace was overstepping these barriers. The overflowing love of God was greeting the nations where they were, in their darkness and misery, without forcing them to bend their necks under the harsh yoke of Judaism. What could express this better than speaking to every one of them in his own language?
Used inside the assembly without interpretation, the gift rebuilt the very wall it was given to cross.
The test does not only apply to foreign languages. A man can speak your own language and still leave you a foreigner:
The immediate point of these verses is that mere vocal sounds are of no value. What is spoken must have some meaning to those who listen. It must be intelligible. Is that only important in connection with the gift of tongues? Not at all. It applies everywhere. In our meetings it will not be enough that the speaker talks in English. He may be tempted into a display of his learning. He may use crowds of long, uncommon words that leave his hearers' minds a complete blank as to his meaning. Or he may speak so fast, or so obscurely, as to be unintelligible. In all such cases people merely "speak into the air," and there is no profit.
- Foreigner. Paul's word meant an outsider by language, and in verse 11 each man becomes that to the other. The barrier is meaning itself.
- Voice. You can catch every word and still miss the voice, because the voice is the message the words carry.
- Fellowship. Where understanding fails, fellowship fails with it. Sound without sense joins nobody to anybody.
- Edification. Being understood is the condition of building others up. Content no one can follow has no claim on the meeting. The appetite for display is flesh, not love.
- Reach. The gift was grace stepping over the barriers Babel raised. Used where no one can follow, it rebuilds them. The same test falls on long words, fast speech, and obscure preaching today.
Thus *ye* also, since ye are desirous of spirits, seek that ye may abound for the edification of the assembly.
Speech no one can understand leaves the speaker and the hearer like two foreigners. So Paul turns to the Corinthians themselves. Their eagerness for spiritual power was real. But it needed an aim outside themselves: the building up of the church.
Paul does not tell them to want less. He shows them where real distinction lies.
He praises their desire to stand out spiritually, and shows them how real greatness is reached. Building up the Church, which is the Spirit's temple, should be the aim of those who seek His gifts. God's dwelling should also be His rest. But He can rest only where His truth is honoured and obeyed.
Two motives can drive the same desire for gifts: love, or display.
If they really wanted the Spirit's power among them, why did they not seek to overflow in building one another up? That would be divine love, not empty display, and worthy of Christ and His saints. It is the flesh that likes distinction for itself. It does not want the Lord's service for the good of others, where God stoops to deal with souls.
One word runs through the whole chapter, and it gives every speaker a standard to measure himself by.
There is one word that marks this chapter. The keynote of 1 Cor. 14 is one word, "edification." What will edify? That will always be a serious question to everyone who has any gift. I may think I am edifying the Assembly, and be mistaken. If I do not edify, I think you ought to tell me... The great point is, what will edify. What takes place in the Assembly must have that character, and love would stop ministry that fails to edify... Often in our meetings a good deal is not edifying, simply because it is not heard. How can you say "Amen" to a brother's prayers if you do not hear them?
The Spirit's aim in the meeting is the whole company, not one person.
Every work of the Spirit of God in the assembly aims at building up the saints together as one body. This must be the test of every word spoken in the assembly.
The verse allows ambition and then defines it. To excel is not to rise above the others present.
So if we are eager for spiritual gifts, let it not be to exalt ourselves and rise above other believers. Let it be to excel in building up the assembly. Nothing that sets aside this great principle of edification can be of the Spirit. Where nothing hinders the Holy Spirit, love rules, and where love rules every word spoken will build people up.
The same principle tests why I want to serve at all.
Verse 12 gives an excellent guiding principle for all gifts. If we eagerly desire spiritual gifts, let our honest aim be the true building up of the assembly. My own blessing, joy, or prominence are very unworthy motives. Others are in need, and I should care that their need is truly met.
Verses 10 and 11 lead straight into this appeal, and they settle a practical matter: speech that is not grasped cannot build.
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. However excellent the content carried by an unknown language, it has no claim to be spoken in the assembly unless someone interprets it properly. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a conversation with a foreigner.
A gift can be real while self drives how it is used. The Corinthians show the danger.
The gift of tongues was what seemed to man the most wonderful, and the Corinthians delighted in displaying it. Instead of love seeking the edification of all, it was vanity seeking to display its gifts. They were real gifts — gifts of the Spirit. And here is the solemn thing for us to weigh. A person may have the Spirit's power for service without the Spirit's living guidance in using it. That guidance comes only where self is crucified and Christ is everything to the soul. The object of the Holy Spirit is not to glorify the poor earthen vessel which contains His gifts.
- Zeal — approved. Paul does not scold their eagerness for gifts. He aims it: real greatness is building the church, not personal display.
- Zeal — measured. Edification is the keynote of the chapter. It is the test of every word spoken when believers meet.
- Zeal — understood. Speech no one can follow cannot build, however good its content. To be understood is essential.
- Zeal — turned outward. My own blessing, joy, or prominence are unworthy motives. The real question is whether others' needs are met.
- Zeal — governed. Self can still use a real gift. So the Spirit's power must go with the Spirit's guidance, where self is crucified and Christ is everything.
Wherefore let him that speaks with a tongue pray that he may interpret.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Paul has just told the Corinthians that anyone speaking in a language nobody present knows should pray for the power to interpret it. Two questions follow: what is "my spirit," as against "my mind" — and what fails to bear fruit?
Paul draws a line between the inner self and the thinking mind. One writer traces the word "spirit" through the New Testament and stops at this verse.
See 1 Thessalonians 5:23, where the word "spirit" plainly means the spirit of a man, in contrast with mere soul and body. See 1 Corinthians 14:14 and the verses after it. There we have the man's spirit as distinct from his intelligence. The spirit is the vessel of the action, or power, of the Holy Spirit.
One reading is that the speaker himself did not follow his own words. He felt God at work in him, yet the meaning never reached his own thinking.
Perhaps he did not understand himself. He was the unknowing instrument of the Spirit. Yet he had a powerful sense that God was speaking through him. So in the Spirit he felt he was in communication with God, although his understanding was unfruitful.
Another writer rejects that reading. For him, "unfruitful" means producing nothing, not failing to understand.
If Paul prayed in an actual tongue, his spirit prayed. If his spirit prayed, then he knew what he was praying, for "who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?" (1 Cor. 2:11). But his understanding was unfruitful. Some have said this means he did not understand; but this is plainly wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. So suppose I pray in the assembly in a tongue the assembly does not know. I understand myself, but my understanding bears no fruit in the understanding of others.
Someone might object that prayer is a special case. It goes up to God, not out to people. Paul's own example shuts that door.
Praying in a tongue is ruled out on this principle just as firmly as any other kind of speaking in a tongue. And it is clearly the strongest case. It is an address to God, who of course understood it all. So it settles the question against prayer in any unknown tongue. Communion is the joy of the assembly; at the very least edification is essential. If the assembly as a whole cannot understand it, it has no claim to be heard there — unless someone interprets it, directly or indirectly.
Everything spoken aloud when believers gather goes in one of two directions. Both need words others can follow.
"But," says the apostle, "I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also." … He argues at once that if you bless in the spirit only, the one who is in the place of an outsider cannot say "Amen" to the thanksgiving. He does not know what is being said. You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. So even in prayer and praise the same principle holds. In the assembly everything is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly. It is solemn to realise that even giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The gift comes from God, but that does not by itself justify using it.
A prayer can be in the hearers' own language and still leave them unable to join in. That puts this verse to work in any ordinary meeting.
I must know what to pray about. And I must pray so that others can understand me — in a language they know, and loud enough to hear. I once said to a brother, "I never say Amen to your prayers." He said, "Don't you? Why not?" "Because I never hear what you say," I replied. He was a mumbler. There should be no such thing in public. The point is what is profitable.
- Spirit — the verse separates a person's spirit from his mind. The spirit is the vessel the Holy Spirit works through. Paul wants both spirit and mind engaged.
- Unfruitful — commentators differ on whose mind is barren. Some hold that the speaker did not grasp his own words. Others say it simply means his prayer produced nothing in the hearers.
- Fruit — the gift was real, but Paul measures it by fruit, not by power. A prayer can be genuine in spirit and still yield nothing.
- Amen — the test is whether the outsider can say "Amen." If he cannot follow the words, the thanksgiving may be excellent and still leave him with nothing.
- Assembly — in a meeting the speaker is either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly. So speaking clearly, and loud enough to be heard, is part of the service.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.
Paul has just raised a problem: someone prays in a language nobody else in the room can follow. His answer refuses to choose between spiritual power and plain sense — he will have both, in prayer and in song. (Where older translations read "understanding," the ESV reads "mind.")
One writer insists the problem was never that the speaker failed to grasp his own words:
Verse 14 has often been wrongly interpreted through inattention to what the verse actually says. If Paul prayed in an actual tongue, his spirit prayed. If his spirit prayed, then he knew what he was praying... But his understanding was unfruitful. Some have said this means he did not understand; but this is transparently wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. So suppose I pray in the assembly in a language the assembly does not know. I understand myself, but my understanding bears no fruit in the understanding of others.
Paul does not throw away what he has; he adds to it. The setting decides what fits — alone with God, or with others:
He will have his private blessings, and shared ones too. All that God gave he would use thankfully, but in the spirit of a sound mind. What he said to God alone, others need not know. What he prayed and sang with others must make sense to himself and to them.
Prayer and singing are not stray examples. One writer treats both as marks of the assembly — the church gathered together — and answers those who doubt that singing is spiritual at all:
In the assembly the Spirit should control every motion... God's assembly is marked by prayer — the expression of dependence — and singing, which is the outlet of the heart's joy. Some people think it is not spiritual to sing — I do not think they have the Spirit's mind... What a lovely picture of the assembly in action — ministry that profits, and prayer, singing, and worship. That is what God's assembly is put together for: to turn to Him in prayer, song, and worship.
The verse names two requirements. One makes praise possible at all. The other makes it shared:
The apostle brings singing forward along with praying and blessing. He does this to show what marks the true working of the Spirit of God in the assembly: the saints joining in together with understanding. Singing in this corporate way is the expression of the hearts of all to God as one. Without a spiritual nature the saints cannot sing to God at all. Without spiritual understanding they cannot sing in communion with one another. So when we are gathered together, let us sing with both the spirit and the understanding also.
In public the two do not count equally. What reaches the mind carries the greater weight with Paul, and the person who understands least sets the standard:
But we see also that prayer, singing, blessing, thanksgiving, as well as prophesying, had their full place in the assembly. They are all to edification... Power on its own is not enough, however clearly divine it is. What comes with the understanding, and so speaks to the understanding, carries the greatest weight with the apostle. He counts it as speaking with the Lord's authority. That is as true of prayers and hymns as it is of teaching. The least in the assembly is presumed to go intelligently with the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God.
If a hymn is meant to voice everyone, then personal enjoyment of it is not enough reason to announce it:
Suppose someone has found great joy in a certain hymn. It is a completely false principle for him to think he must at once take it to the assembly and ask everyone there to sing it with him. It is no doubt very natural to assume that what I find to be good, I should ask others to share. But it goes against the truth of 1 Corinthians 14... the hymn should be the expression of the minds and hearts of the saints at that particular time, and this shuts us up to the Spirit of God.
The same rule reaches the person who is only singing along:
We may sing a hymn of praise tunefully with our lips, but if our spirit is not with it, it is not acceptable worship to God. I must sing with the spirit and with the understanding. My heart must be right before my lips.
- Unfruitful — the word does not describe a confused speaker. It means his understanding bore no fruit in anyone else.
- Both — Paul keeps the spirit and adds the mind. What he says to God alone can stay private. What he brings to others must make sense to them all.
- Shared — a spiritual nature makes praise to God possible. Spiritual understanding makes it praise offered together.
- Measured — even the quietest person there should be able to follow the thanksgiving rising to God. So what reaches the mind carries the greatest weight.
- Costly — choosing a hymn is serious work, and singing one is honest work. The heart must be right before the lips.
Since otherwise, if thou blessest with [the] spirit, how shall he who fills the place of the simple [Christian] say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, since he does not know what thou sayest?
In Corinth spiritual power was never in doubt; the trouble was that gifted speakers left everyone else behind. Paul's test is simple: if a listener cannot follow you, he cannot say "Amen" to your thanksgiving.
The ESV reads "if you give thanks with your spirit." Older translations read "if you bless with the spirit." This verse settles whether the two are the same.
1 Cor. 14:16 gives clear proof of what other passages already make plain — that "blessing" means giving thanks. Elsewhere Scripture uses the two words for the same act. (Compare Matthew 14, Matthew 15, Luke 9, John 6) Here it identifies them as one.
The ESV speaks of "anyone in the position of an outsider." Older translations call him the "unlearned." The Greek word is idiotes.
idiotes (from idios, 'one's own')... is used of private persons, as distinct from officials or professionals, and so of simple or untaught people. The apostle asks how such a person could say Amen to the giving of thanks by someone speaking in a tongue, when he does not understand what was said (1 Cor. 14:16). In 1 Cor. 14:23-24 Paul classes him with unbelievers.
He is not a bystander. What he can follow sets the limit for what is said aloud.
The striking thing here is the clear recognition of the "unlearned," and his place as a true worshipper in the assembly of God. The apostle's thoughts rest mainly on him. God's assemblies are not set up for the empty display of gift. They are a means of building up His saints together... In a gathering of worshippers, anything the weakest member of Christ's body cannot understand builds nobody up, though it may interest a few.
Paul had just said his understanding was "unfruitful" when he prayed in a tongue. The word does not describe confusion in the speaker. It describes a result that bears no fruit.
Some have said this means he did not understand, but that is plainly wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. Suppose I pray in the assembly in a tongue the assembly does not know. I understand myself, but my understanding bears no fruit in the understanding of others.
Thanksgiving spoken aloud is not private business between one believer and God while the rest listen in.
So the same principle applies even in prayer and praise. In the assembly all is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly. The assembly as such is always in mind. The gathering is not to be turned into a field for the private exercises of the saints, whatever their character might be. It is solemn to see that even giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. That the gift is from God does not by itself justify using it. Its use at any moment must be governed by the principle running through all this: building others up.
That is why the humblest listener is the measure of what is fitting.
Power is not enough, however clearly divine. What comes with understanding, and so speaks to the understanding, carries the greatest weight with the apostle... Even the least in the assembly is meant to follow, with understanding, the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God.
"Amen" means "so be it." By saying it, listeners take another person's words on their own lips before God. That is only honest if they followed the words.
So the speaker must carry the assembly with him. They understand and follow what he says. They confirm his words before God and make them their own by saying "Amen" (meaning "So be it") at the end. They cannot say "Amen" with sense or honesty if they have no idea what it was all about.
The Amen is also meant to be heard, not just felt. One writer presses this on prayer meetings today.
Note that verse 16 assumes that everyone in the assembly, even the unlearned and the insignificant, does say "Amen." They say it; they do not just think it... If someone praying truly puts our own desires into words, let us confirm what he has said with a good, clear "Amen." If he has not, honesty makes us hold it back.
- Blessing. In this verse "bless" and "give thanks" describe one and the same act — praise addressed to God.
- Hearer. The "unlearned" is the plain, untrained person. He is a real worshipper, and the one Paul keeps in view.
- Fruit. A speaker can understand himself and still be unfruitful. Fruit here means understanding in the people listening.
- Voice. Whoever speaks aloud is either the assembly's voice to God or God's voice to the assembly. The meeting is not a place for private exercises.
- Amen. The listener's spoken "Amen" makes another's words his own. So it must be honest, audible, and based on what he understood.
For *thou* indeed givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Paul does not dismiss the man speaking in a tongue. He grants that the thanksgiving is good, then adds one word that undoes its usefulness: but. Can something truly offered to God still have no place in the gathering?
God accepts the thanks. The hearer still gains nothing.
One may give thanks well, with both he and God understanding what he says, but "the other person is not being built up."
Nothing is wrong with the thanks. The problem is the distance between the man's mouth and his neighbour's mind.
So one test decides what belongs in the assembly. Even a display of power must meet it.
Building others up, then, is the absolute rule for what is said in the assembly. However astonishing the display of divine power in answer to the name of Jesus, if it does not build up, it has no rightful place there. For love builds up, as knowledge puffs up, and power startles or stuns. God is love, so the assembly is the fitting place to exercise love, the energy of His own nature.
So what carries weight when the assembly meets? Not the power behind the words.
Power is not enough, however clearly divine. What is done with the understanding, and so speaks to the understanding, carries the most weight with the apostle, since it speaks with authority for the Lord. This is as true of prayers and hymns as of teaching. Even the least person in the assembly should be able to follow the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God. To be understood, and so to build others up, is required in the assembly.
after_note: DELETE
The weakest person present is the one the rule protects.
One person prays aloud, but he is not praying only for himself.
You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. So even in prayer and praise the same principle holds. In the assembly everything is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God, or the voice of God to the assembly. The assembly itself is always in mind. The gathering must not be turned into a mere field for the private exercises of believers, whatever their character may be. Even giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The fact that the gift is from God does not automatically justify the use of it.
The hearers have one word to say, and it is how they take the prayer as their own.
If anyone speaks to God in the assembly, in prayer or in thanksgiving, he must remember one thing. He is voicing the desires or the praises of the assembly. He is not speaking merely on his own behalf. So he must carry the assembly with him. They understand and follow what he says. Then they confirm it before God and make it their own by saying "Amen" (meaning "So be it") at the end. They cannot intelligibly and honestly say "Amen" at the end if they have no idea what it was all about.
A strange language is not the only way to lose the room. Plain words help nobody if nobody can hear them.
If I sing, if I pray, if I speak, what is the good of doing so unless the rest are edified? I once said to a friend of mine, "I never say 'Amen' to your prayers." He looked surprised and asked, "Why?" "Because," I replied, "I never hear what you say. You mumble so much in your prayers that I cannot hear you. And I am not going to say 'Amen' to a random string of words that I do not hear."
- Well. The thanks are real, and God understands them. Paul never questions the man's sincerity.
- But. The verse turns on one person: "the other." What reached God has still not reached him.
- Rule. Edification decides what belongs in the assembly. If it does not build up, no amount of power earns it a place.
- Voice. The one who prays aloud speaks for everyone present, not just for himself.
- Amen. The hearer's "Amen" is the proof the words arrived. A prayer nobody can follow is a prayer nobody can own.
I thank God I speak in a tongue more than all of you
Through this chapter Paul urges the Corinthians to value what builds others up, not what dazzles them. Here he claims more of that same gift than anyone — so why does he prefer five clear words to ten thousand?
Before hearing his preference, it helps to know why Paul brings up his own record at all. One commentator reads it as removing the easiest excuse for ignoring him.
He takes great care to show that he did not feel this way out of jealousy. It was not because he had fewer gifts than they had. He had no reason of his own to run down the gifts he was speaking about. In verse 18 he says, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." But what he wanted was edification, that is, the building up of the saints.
Paul's calling took him to the nations, and the gift matched that calling. Inside the assembly the rule was different.
The Corinthians had certainly overrated tongues. They lacked spiritual discernment and had prized the gift too highly. So, to avoid seeming to undervalue it, he solemnly thanks God for the fuller display of that same power in his own case. God had chosen him as a messenger to the nations. So besides the mysterious gift of speech no one could understand, he could speak without limit, as his calling required. But in the Church (at Corinth, or anywhere else), he would be heard only in the spoken language of the place.
Another writer explains what a tongue was, and where it was useful.
The tongue here is a real language, as we see in Acts 2:6, but one the speaker did not normally understand. The wonder of the gift was that God gave him the ability to speak his own thoughts in this foreign language, by the power of the Spirit, while he stayed in full control of his words. This had clear value when speaking to a foreigner whose own language it was. In this respect Paul spoke with tongues more than others. But in the assembly, where everyone understood Greek, other tongues were unnecessary.
Paul does not announce an achievement; he thanks God. One writer sees self-forgetting humility in that.
How beautiful is this self-renunciation in Paul! He had every gift. Yet with a single heart he sought not to display his gifts, but to exalt his Lord and build up the saints... Coming from such a man, these words of the Holy Spirit carry great force: "Let all things be done for building up."
Paul prefers five words for a reason. He wanted his own mind engaged, and other minds engaged with his.
He spoke more foreign languages, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, than they all. But his soul loved the things of God. He loved to receive truth from Him with his mind engaged. He loved fellowship with others where minds truly met. So he would rather say five words with his understanding than ten thousand without it in a language no one knew.
Corinth shows that impressive gifts and a healthy church are two different things.
There was the fullest proof in that city that it is no question of power. The Spirit of God worked among those saints openly and powerfully. They spoke with tongues, we are told; but they were worldly. In their ways they were a spectacle of shame, instead of being a practical witness to the grace of the Lord Jesus. Is not this a solemn lesson to us?
One writer reads the whole set of rules as permission rather than encouragement.
All these rules and statements teach us one thing. The churches were allowed to use this gift rather than encouraged to use it (see verse 39). It got in the way of what was really needed, which is building up in love, instead of helping it. Furthermore, tongues were for a sign to unbelievers. Prophesying is for believers.
- Credentials. Paul had more of the very gift he is limiting. So no one could brush off his correction as jealousy.
- Given. He thanks God for it. He received the gift; he did not earn it. So he reports it as praise, not a boast.
- Reach. The languages served his calling to the nations. But in the assembly he spoke only the language of the room.
- Understanding. He wanted his own mind in what he said, and other minds in what they heard. Five words people grasp outweigh ten thousand that reach no one.
- Result. Corinth proves that visible power and spiritual health are not the same thing. The test of anything said among God's people is whether it builds them up.
but in [the] assembly I desire to speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, [rather] than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Paul has just said that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in Corinth. Then he weighs five words against ten thousand, and two small phrases settle it: "in church" and "with my mind."
One writer states the rule that governs all speaking when believers meet:
The great aim of speaking in the assembly is to build people up. That aim is only reached when people understand what is said. It is impossible for a man to build me up if I cannot understand what he says. He must speak in a language I understand, and loudly enough to hear, or I receive nothing that builds me up. This is plain, and worth the serious attention of all who speak in public.
Paul's preference could sound like envy from a man who lacked the gift. He removes that suspicion first.
The apostle is careful to show that he had no reason at all to be jealous of others speaking in a tongue. He himself had this gift more than all of them. But in the assembly he would rather speak five words with the understanding than any number in a tongue. He said this because his heart was set on instructing others as well. It is love that should move us, not self-pleasing; and love works with a view to edification.
The phrase covers more than clear delivery. It means the speaker himself takes in from God what he passes on.
He wants the mind to be at work. This remark is of the highest importance when we judge men's claims to the Spirit. He does not deny that they might speak with tongues without the mind being in it at all — and that had clear power and use when people were present who understood no other language, or whose own language it was. But in general it was a lower thing when the Spirit did not act on the mind of the speaker, and so work through it. When the speaker did not understand his own words, there was no communion between souls in a common subject through the unity of the Spirit. The one speaking did not himself enjoy, as from God, what he communicated to others.
So the requirement runs at both ends of the line — in the mind of the speaker and in the ears of the hearers.
He desired to speak of things that he intelligently grasped, in such a way that they were thoroughly intelligible to his listeners.
Paul is not dismissing the gift. He is correcting their taste for display.
The apostle plainly grieves over the Corinthians because they failed with the gifts of God. They loved to make a display before the world, instead of enjoying God Himself in His word and building up His saints, and that grieved him. So he tries to convince them of their mistake, showing them that tongues are one of the lowest forms of the Spirit's working, and prophesying one of the highest... Refreshment, comfort, the lifting up of the heart — the building up of the saints — should be the one great aim of the Christian teacher. The man who ministers Christ and His work to the soul, out of the fullness of his own heart, is the minister who always builds up and never disappoints.
Commentators differ on what this says about the gift itself. One writer weighs the rules Paul lays down in this chapter and concludes:
The use of tongues was tolerated rather than commended, because it was a hindrance rather than a help to the thing that was needed, which is building up in love.
The verse cuts in two directions. It restrains the man who talks past his supply:
Our only warrant for standing up to speak in the assembly is that the Lord Himself has given us something to say. If it is only "five words," let us say the five and sit down. Nothing is more foolish than for a man to try to speak "ten thousand words" when God has only given him "five."... An earnest heart is better than a clever head. A fervent spirit is better than an eloquent tongue.
And it encourages the man who fears he has too little:
It is a waste of time for any of us to go on with what does not profit. You might not be able to say much, but if God's Spirit gives you something to say to His assembly, say it — you have that liberty in God's free church, and the "five words" might help greatly.
- Place. "In church" is the setting — the gathered saints. No one is built up by words he cannot understand.
- Motive. Paul had more of the gift than anyone, so his choice comes from love, not envy. Love builds others up; self-pleasing puts on a show.
- Meaning. "With my mind" reaches both ways: the speaker himself receives from God what he says, and the hearers can follow it.
- Measure. Say the five words God gave, and sit down. Trying for ten thousand when He gave five is folly, not spirituality.
- Result. Five words that are understood teach others. Ten thousand no one can follow leave the room just as it was.
Brethren, be not children in [your] minds, but in malice be babes; but in [your] minds be grown [men].
Paul has just said he would rather speak five intelligible words in the assembly than ten thousand in a tongue, and now he turns from argument to appeal. He calls them "brothers" and asks them to grow up in one area while staying small in another.
The problem at Corinth was not that the gifts were false. The Corinthians used them for display. Paul himself spoke in tongues more than any of them, so this is not envy on his part:
In condemning the abuse of tongues, the Apostle was not moved by jealousy. He himself spoke with tongues more than they all. But he used the gift in the right place, before the right audience, and for a right purpose. In the assembly, five words spoken with the understanding, so that others might be taught, were better than "ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." In their fondness for tongues, the Corinthians were acting like children, who delight in anything that makes a show.
The word "malice" may look out of place in a chapter about speaking. But a gift used to impress rather than to help is already turning against the people it was meant to serve:
Their misuse of tongues was childish. Paul urges them not to be children in understanding; yet in malice he tells them to be children. Notice the warning here. Misusing gifts, instead of showing love for others, will tend toward malice, which undermines true unity and love. A little child has no such attitude. In my attitude then let me have the simplicity of a child, but in understanding be "perfect," or mature. And this understanding is not only personal. It is the kind that builds understanding among God's people.
The danger is not confined to spectacular gifts. Hamilton Smith warns that the flesh "can, but for the grace of God, use prayer or ministry to work off a bit of malice against a brother."
The verse asks for two opposite things at once. One writer marks the difference by a single change of word, and points to the Lord Himself as the pattern:
In 1 Corinthians 14:20 we find a truly impressive appeal: "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature." He had no desire that his readers should be childish, but he longed that they might be childlike. "I am among you as He that serves," said the Lord to His self-important followers (Luke 22:27). Did He not wash their feet that very night? (John 13).
Older versions read "be men" here. One writer points to their margin notes, which give the sense of full growth:
"Perfection" is also used for the mature Christian condition, as a glance at the margin of Heb. 5:14 will show. The term there — "of full age" — is rendered in the margin as "perfect." In the same way, "be men" in 1 Cor. 14:20 is rendered in the margin as "be perfect," or "of a ripe age." … among Christians there are those perfect, or mature, in contrast with being babes.
So the call is not to cleverness but to growth.
Paul does not tell them to acquire something new. He points to what was already theirs, and asks them to develop it:
They should remember, also, that these special gifts were not their chief endowment as believers. "The mind of Christ" belonged to them as a part of their divine birthright. Let them try to cultivate it to full manhood. Let them be babes in the harmlessness of their lives, and in their willing ignorance of the world and its corruptions. But let them show themselves grown men in their knowledge of God and their keeping of His ways.
- Two ages, one person. Paul asks for an infant's innocence and an adult's understanding in the same believer. Corinth had them the wrong way round.
- Childish, not childlike. The Corinthians were not too simple. They were too eager for attention. Paul did not want them childish; he longed for them to be childlike.
- Show breeds malice. A gift used for display, instead of love for others, drifts toward malice. Malice undermines unity, so innocence is the thing to keep.
- Mature means full-grown. The word behind "be men" carries the idea of ripe age or full growth, the opposite of remaining a babe.
- Cultivate what you own. The mind of Christ was already theirs by birthright. Growing up means developing it, while staying willingly ignorant of the world's corruptions.
It is written in the law, By people of other tongues, and by strange lips, will I speak to this people; and neither thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
Paul has just told the Corinthians to stop thinking like children. He now backs that rebuke with a line from Israel's own scriptures. The words are not a promise but a threat. That changes how the Corinthians should value tongues.
The quotation comes from the prophet Isaiah. Yet Paul introduces it as written in the law. That is not unusual.
The term "law" is sometimes used in the New Testament as a name for other parts of the Old Testament besides the first five books. The Lord said, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" when the quotation was from the Psalms. John 10:34: similarly 1 Corinthians 14:21.
The appeal is made to strengthen an argument he has already been making on other grounds.
"In the law it is written," and so on. This appeal to the law is made (like the earlier one in chapter 9:9) to support his previous reasoning. He had appealed to natural usage and experience; he now makes this general reference to the earlier testimony of the Spirit — not to set up a historical parallel, but to show still more conclusively that the gift of tongues is by its nature unsuited to practical fellowship in the Spirit.
In Isaiah the strange speech was the speech of invaders. God had taught His people in plain words, and they refused it. So He would speak to them another way.
He would punish them, not with the childlike instruction they had despised, but with the foreign tones of enemies. They would not have His words of rest for the weary; they had to have a nation they did not understand. It was a judgment on their unbelief.
A foreign tongue in Israel's ears was therefore never a mark of favour.
Whenever God's people came into contact with foreign tongues, they had gone all wrong. If Israel had stayed faithful, such strange sounds would have stayed far away. They were let loose on them when they left their true place. The Corinthians would do well to consider this. For Israel, foreign tongues had no good connection. They might remind them of their folly and evil. They were in no way an honour to the Jews.
The verse ends with a refusal. God speaks in this startling way, and still the people close their ears. The same thing happened in the days of the apostles.
Verse 21 quotes Isaiah 28:11-12. Those words describe how foreign nations ruled over Israel and humbled them, because of their proud rebellion against God. God would use foreign tongues to humble them, not to exalt them. By this means He sought to wake them from their unbelief, yet they would not hear. Now God had given Israel a fresh sign in the speaking with tongues. Gentile languages now carried the gospel of grace. This showed that the gospel was not only for Israel, but for the whole world. So it was a sign for Jews above all. God gave it for the time being, to establish Christianity as being of God. And unbelieving Israel still would not hear.
Even where the sign did not convert, it settled the hearer's responsibility.
In the day of Israel's failure, when the prophets had erred, God spoke to them in the tongues of foreigners. It was a sign of the unbelief of those who would not hear the plain word of God. So the use of the gift of tongues at the beginning of Christianity was a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. It left the hearer without excuse.
The Corinthians were treating as a delight the very thing God had used as a warning to a rebellious nation.
What perversity, then, in the saints at Corinth! God was speaking in prophecy to build them up. They turned away from that to tongues they could not understand! As Christians, they took pleasure in what had been God's solemn threat to His ancient people for their stubborn refusal! The apostle never despises a tongue in its own place and season, here or anywhere. God intended it as a sign for unbelievers. The mistake was to bring it in among believers, who could not profit by it. That was both unintelligent and unloving.
God Himself was the speaker behind these strange sounds. That settles who the sign was for.
It was God who both worked and spoke by this gift. But He did it strangely — just as, in judgment on Israel, He had filled their ears with the foreign speech of the invaders He appointed to punish His land. Tongues, then, were for a sign. But believers need no sign. The truth is in them, and by grace they know the Lord on whom they call. Signs are meant to work by contrast. Their strangeness wakes up attention to truth that was either never known before, or forgotten through unfaithfulness. But prophecy is not a sign. It is instead an expected provision of the God of all grace, to supply His children's spiritual needs.
- Sign in the law. Paul calls Isaiah's words "the law." The New Testament uses that title for other parts of the Old Testament as well, not only the first five books.
- Sign of judgment. In Isaiah, foreign speech meant enemy armies. God's people had refused His plain teaching, so He punished them with strange tongues.
- Sign refused. The quotation ends in failure. Israel would not hear then. Unbelieving Israel still would not hear when tongues came again, and the hearer had no excuse.
- Sign misplaced. God had used tongues as a threat to unbelievers. The Corinthians prized them among believers, and so lost the profit of prophecy.
- Sign for outsiders. Believers need no sign, because they already know the Lord. Signs wake up those outside. Prophecy feeds those inside.
So that tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe.
Paul has just quoted Isaiah's warning: God would speak to His people through foreign lips. Now he sorts the two gifts Corinth argued over by their audience — and that decides how a meeting should run.
Commentators see here Scripture's own dividing line. Some gifts build up; others are signs. That difference explains why one kind could be withdrawn and the other never.
Before I go on, note that the gifts are of two kinds. The first kind serves to awaken souls and to gather the Church. The second kind is a sign to the world — a sign that God is present in the Person of the Spirit in the Church... This distinction is important. Nothing needed for the conversion of souls and the building up of the saints can ever fail. But it is easy to see how God might withdraw what was an ornament to the Church, and a sign that she was acceptable to Him, when the Church is unfaithful.
The word "Thus" ties the verse back to Isaiah 28. There, strange speech was no compliment to Israel.
He quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 loosely, to draw a healthy lesson for the Corinthian saints. In that passage God warns the Jews, who were slow to listen to His prophets, that He would speak to them with the stammering lips of foreigners. Such a tongue speaking to Israel was a sign of their humiliation, and of God's judgment. What perversity, then, in the saints at Corinth! They turned away from God speaking in prophecy to build them up, and turned to tongues they could not understand. As Christians they took pleasure in what had been God's solemn threat to His ancient people for their stubborn refusal.
God gave the sign again in a new setting. Israel answered the same way.
Now God had given Israel a fresh sign in speaking with tongues. Gentile languages were used to preach the gospel of grace, showing that the gospel was not only for Israel, but for all the world. So it was a sign for the Jews in particular, given for a time, to establish Christianity as being of God. And unbelieving Israel still would not hear.
Why does the verse rule believers out as the audience for a sign?
Tongues then were for a sign. But believers need no sign. The truth is in them, and they know, through grace, the Lord on whom they call. Signs are meant to work by contrast. Their strangeness wakes up attention to truth that was never known before, or that has been forgotten through unfaithfulness. But prophecy is not a sign. It is what the God of all grace is expected to provide, to supply His children's spiritual needs.
The verse is a rebuke as much as a definition. Corinth used the outward gift on the wrong audience, and slighted the gift meant for them.
The Corinthians were using them for display among believers — completely wrong and unintelligent. "But prophesying" — the very thing they really slighted — "does not serve unbelievers but believers." This is its direct use.
Put a stranger in the room, and the two gifts do opposite things.
In contrast to tongues, the gift of prophecy serves not only the unbeliever but the believer. When the saints come together in one place, tongues used without an interpreter would lead an unbeliever, or an untaught person, to conclude that the assembly was mad. Prophesying does the opposite. It would convict the conscience of an unbeliever, bring the secrets of his heart into the open, and convince him that he was in the presence of God.
Translations differ in the second half of the verse. Kelly calls the added verb needless, though he thinks the translators were right not to call prophecy a sign:
The common English version needlessly introduces "serves" in the second half of verse 22. Still, I think it is right not to read "sign" together with prophesying. Prophesying differs in its very nature from the powers that truly bear that name, like a tongue or a miracle... We could just as well say tongues are a sign for the unbelieving, and prophesying for those who believe.
- Two audiences. Scripture splits the gifts in two: signs aimed at the world, and gifts that build up the saints. This verse is the dividing line.
- A sign of judgment. In Isaiah, foreign speech meant humiliation and judgment for Israel. Corinth was taking pleasure in what had been a threat.
- A sign reaches outward. A sign works by strangeness. It wakes up someone who is not listening. Believers already know the Lord they call on.
- Prophecy reaches inward — and further. Its direct object is God's people, yet it can also lay bare an outsider's heart and convince him God is present.
- Misplaced, a gift looks like madness. Tongues used among believers made the assembly look insane. The sign meant for outsiders was wasted on the wrong room.
If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and simple [persons] enter in, or unbelievers, will not they say ye are mad?
Paul has just contrasted tongues with prophecy. Now he tests both. He pictures the whole church meeting together, everyone speaking in tongues, and a visitor walking in. That guest would leave sure the Christians had lost their minds.
Paul is not photographing a meeting at Corinth. He sets up a case and asks what would follow.
It is surprising that anyone should fail to see this. The apostle is not describing facts as they were or ought to be. He only supposes a case where "the whole assembly" should meet "together," and by implication that would be in one place. If all were to speak with tongues, it would expose them to the charge of madness. If all were to prophesy, it would force even the unbeliever or the simple man who came in to be convinced that God was indeed among them. It is put here only as a supposition, to correct the lack of spirituality in the Corinthian saints. They preferred the showier sign-gifts to that far higher exercise of divine power which sets the soul morally in God's presence under His grace and truth.
Commentators differ over "the whole church." One writer takes it as a truth that should still shape how God's people gather.
Note those words — "the whole Assembly." Here was God's Assembly in one place. You may say you cannot get that now. Suppose I could not get the whole. I would still seek to be one of those who act on the truth that should bind them all, if they were subject to God's Word.
The ESV speaks of "outsiders or unbelievers." Older translations say "unlearned." That word marks off two different guests.
The "unlearned" persons in verse 23 are those not taught in the word. This is true of an unbeliever, but the text names the unbelievers as well. The word is "idiotes." It described someone with no training in a skill — a private person. It makes two classes: the untaught in the things of God, and the actual unbeliever.
The problem is not the gift itself but its setting.
Verse 23 therefore insists on this. Someone might come into a gathering of the assembly who was untaught or an unbeliever. If he heard the saints speaking in tongues unknown to the assembly, he would think them mentally unbalanced. Of course, if he knew the language spoken, there would be value in this. But when it is clear that all know one language, it is pointless to use a language some do not know. A tongue might be used outside the assembly, where a foreigner could hear his own language. That was certainly a sign, and it would have some effect on unbelievers.
Corinth had the gift, but used it on the wrong audience.
The Corinthians were using them for display among believers. That was most wrong and unintelligent. In verse 23 he puts the case in a pointed form. Such would be the effect, supposing they were all speaking with tongues; and if it was good for one, it was good for all.
Paul's picture assumes an open meeting. Anyone there may have something to give. Freedom like that calls for discretion.
God's Spirit has His home in the assembly, so each of those present is likely to have some gift. Are they, then, to use them without restraint? Or should they show godly discernment and discretion? That is what this passage implies. If they all spoke with tongues, an ungifted worshipper would suspect they were mad — and an unbeliever still more. It would stumble the ignorant and stir unbelief into contempt.
The warning is not a museum piece. Where meetings produce noise and confusion, the outsider's judgement stands.
In the meetings of the modern advocates of the gift of tongues, the greatest disorder often prevails. That is a fact. Men and women have fallen down in convulsions. Hysterical laughter, unpleasant shrieks and other displays have not been uncommon. An unbeliever would be perfectly right to give the verdict "they are mad."
- Supposed — Paul sets up a case; he is not reporting one. He asks how a room full of tongues would strike a visitor, and answers it himself.
- Outsider — two guests are in view: the person untaught in God's word, and the unbeliever. Neither can follow a word.
- Misplaced — the fault lies in the setting, not the gift. A tongue is a sign only where someone knows the language. Among people who all share one language, it achieves nothing.
- Display — a gift meant for unbelievers became a show among believers. Having a gift never gave the right to use it at will.
- Verdict — the outsider's reaction is the test. Where he cannot follow a word, he calls it madness. Where God's word is spoken clearly, he is convinced God is among them.
But if all prophesy, and some unbeliever or simple [person] come in, he is convicted of all, he is judged of all;
Paul has just pictured a room where everyone speaks in unknown languages, and a visitor walks out calling them mad. Now that same visitor walks in on a room where everyone prophesies, and everything changes.
One reference work starts from the word itself, then defines the gift by its effect:
The word comes from a verb meaning "to speak forth," so we can describe a prophet as a spokesman of God. Prophecy of this kind is a gift in the church for the building up of the saints, bringing God's word with power upon their consciences and hearts. It is the gift of most importance in the church.
It also sets prophesying apart from evangelizing and teaching. Kelly adds that Paul is supposing a case, not reporting one:
This is what marks prophesying. It is not the announcement of the good news, as in evangelizing. It is not the unfolding of doctrine, as in teaching. It is God using His word to deal with the soul, so that the soul is conscious of it. … Paul does not describe this as a fact that ever took place. He describes the natural effect under such circumstances.
Kelly sets the two outcomes side by side, then points to a woman who met a stranger able to tell her own life story:
Suppose they all speak in tongues in full assembly, in front of simple people or unbelievers. What impression will that make? That the saints were mad. Now suppose they all prophesy. How would such a person feel when he came in and heard? His heart's secrets are uncovered to him, and God deals with them through all of the speakers. He is left with the deepest conviction that God is truly among the saints. The woman of Samaria met One who had never seen her before, and He set out her life in a few words. She confessed, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet." His words made her feel and admit that everything was out, and that God was speaking to her conscience.
Being "convicted" and "called to account" is not a public interrogation. Nobody in the room learns anything about the visitor:
Such a one, convicted and judged, will "worship." He worships because he finds God working in this way, and he falls down and owns Him. The presence of God acts on his spirit and bows it, and reaches his conscience. He hears the secrets of his own heart told out to him. God's presence brings it all to light for him, without his saying a word to anyone. It is the power of the Spirit of God on a man's conscience.
This ministry was never designed for the outsider. Believers were speaking to believers, and he happened to be there:
Truth given honestly, and pressed home with sober reality to believers, can bring the secrets of an unbeliever's heart to light before him. It reaches his conscience, though the Word is not aimed at him.
Darby points out where the visitor's conclusion lands, and where it does not:
The passage assumes that the whole body could act in this way, in the most public and obvious gifts. The unbeliever does not fall down and confess that God is in this or that gifted person. Still less does he admire or look up to the spiritual attainments of one individual. He confesses that God is in the assembly, among the Christians. And is this to be lost, and not even sought, and individual attainment put in the place of the presence of God in the assembly?
Kelly separates two senses of the word, and keeps only one of them for today:
Prophesying is not predicting something you must wait for, to see whether it comes to pass. I do not believe that a person predicting things now would fit the way the Holy Spirit acts, for the simple reason that the predictions that matter for God and for man are already given in the written word. But there remains the other sense of it — bringing out the truth of God so as to deal with man's conscience, and give him the full conviction that it is God who is speaking to him through a man. I see no reason to doubt that God still grants this — in feeble measure perhaps, and in rare cases; but still, I cannot doubt that the principle is true, and that it will not fail as long as God has work and testimony on the earth.
- Speak forth. Prophesying is speaking for God so that His word lands on the conscience. It is not foretelling, evangelizing, or lecturing.
- All, not one. Paul supposes a whole company able to speak, so no single gifted person gets the credit.
- Conscience, not argument. No one argues the visitor down. His own hidden secrets come out to him, and he bows.
- Overheard, not targeted. The ministry was for believers. Truth meant for them convicts the outsider anyway.
- God, not the speakers. The verdict he leaves with is about who was present in the room, not about who was impressive in it.
the secrets of his heart are manifested; and thus, falling upon [his] face, he will do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you.
A stranger with no faith walks into a gathering of Christians. He hears the word of God spoken plainly, and he ends up on his face, worshipping. This verse shows what that word did inside him, and what he then said about the people he had walked in on.
The whole result turns on the kind of speaking described in verse 24. One commentator draws a sharp line between it and other useful ministry:
Prophesying is the spiritual application of God's word to the conscience. It puts the soul in His presence. It shows the mind of God to the hearer, clear as light. Much valuable teaching, encouragement, and application has no such character. It is all very true, but it does not put the soul in the presence of God.
Nobody in the room knows this visitor's history. The disclosure runs one way — inward.
Such a one, convinced and judged, will "worship," because he finds God working like this, and falls down and owns Him. The presence of God acts upon his spirit and bows it, and his conscience is reached. The secrets of his heart are told out to himself. God's presence finds it all out to himself, without his speaking to others. It is the power of the Spirit of God on a man's conscience.
The believers were not preaching to him at all. They were speaking to each other.
The truth itself (not necessarily the simple gospel) would convict the man's conscience. That is even more so when believers press the truth home to one another's hearts and consciences — not at all with the unbeliever in mind. Truth given honestly, and applied to believers with sober reality, may show an unbeliever the secrets of his own heart. His conscience is reached, though the Word is not directed at him.
The same thing had already happened to one woman, face to face:
One who had never met the woman of Samaria before set out her whole life in a few words. She confessed, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet." His words made her feel and admit that everything was out, and that God was speaking to her conscience.
His verdict is not about a gifted speaker. It points at the company as a whole. Older translations read "God is in you" here:
In verse 25 "God is in you" is collective. The Greek preposition covers both "among" and "in" when the noun is collective. "In you" is perhaps better, because it looks at the assembly as a whole.
What he found there, he found nowhere else in the city:
Detected and exposed by the prophetic ministry, the man's heart is reached. He worships God. He has proved that God had a temple at Corinth, and he met God in His temple there. Suppose we all walked in the truth of this and were gathered like this today. A worldly man coming in would find such power that he would say, "There were a lot of Christians there, but God was there too."
Paul writes the verse as a supposition, not a report. Commentators differ over how far the gift behind it continues. One says it belonged to the time before Scripture was complete:
Some of the prophetic gift in reaching the conscience may still survive. But when God's Word was completed, everything He meant to reveal through prophecy had already been brought out. So the foundation part of the prophetic gift had to disappear.
Others expect the same result wherever God is present among gathered believers:
In this supposed case, all the prophesying would bring the conviction home to him, and he could not resist it. It would also produce the report he makes and the homage he pays at that moment. This effect is not meant to come from one man preaching in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. It comes from God's presence in His saints as they prophesy like this in the assembly. The apostle does not describe it as a fact that ever did take place, but as the natural effect under the circumstances.
- Presence, not performance — prophesying is more than good teaching; it applies God's word to the conscience and sets a soul in front of God.
- Presence exposes — the visitor's hidden things surface. God tells them to him, and to no one else.
- Presence convicts without aiming — believers spoke the truth to each other, not at the visitor. His conscience was reached anyway.
- Presence is collective — his verdict is about the whole company, not a speaker: God is among you.
- Presence produces worship — the outcome is not applause but a man on his face, who met God and says so afterwards.
What is it then, brethren? whenever ye come together, each [of you] has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edification.
Paul asks a plain question about the Corinthian meetings. His question shows a room full of people, each with something to give — and his answer is not to silence them, but to give them one test.
At Corinth the meetings had gone wrong. One writer names the cause, then names the cure Paul refused to use.
It is clear there was a keen competition, if not rivalry, among them for the display of their gifts. As a result the meeting became disorderly and the believers were not built up. Paul's advice in this situation was, "Let all things be done for building up." He did not say: appoint a president, or make one man responsible for the order of your meeting, so that it will be clear who is to blame.
Paul does not fault the Corinthians for having liberty. He faults how they used it. Curing the abuse by removing the freedom costs the church the freedom itself.
They were taking full advantage of their liberty, for "every one" was ready to take part. Still, they abused that liberty by not acting "decently and in order". They turned the liberty of the Spirit into licence for the flesh. Correcting this abuse does not mean that one-man ministry should replace the liberty that belongs to every man. Christendom has done this, and in trying to correct the abuse it lost the liberty.
Another writer makes the same point, then shows what keeps that liberty in order.
Still, no one can deny the assembly the fullest liberty: otherwise it could not have been abused like this. Modern arrangements shut out not only the abuse but also the liberty that ought to be there. And in fact, where the Spirit of the Lord is, liberty marks His presence, whether in one person or in the whole gathering... So power stays under the Lord's authority. The person through whom God's power works has to feel his responsibility in using it. And the vital principle of obedience is kept whole.
Paul does not sort the list item by item. He leaves one rule instead, and it needs no training to use.
He neither praises nor condemns this in any sweeping way. The Corinthians, no doubt, were ready enough, and their meetings would not lack variety. The apostle's simple rule is that all things are to be done for building up. That is the one practical direction, and it is so simple that any Christian can understand it. Anyone is able to say what feeds him and helps him.
The test also reaches the motive of the person who speaks.
Could they say that? Could the man who had a psalm say his motive was to build others up? Could the man who had a teaching, or anyone else? Let them search and see. There is One who knows the truth, and He is the One who chooses to act in the church of God. So it is a kind of challenge to God when someone dares, in His presence, to act out of his own will and liking. Can anything be more solemn than to take part in the assembly without self-searching, without judging yourself again and again to see whether your motive comes from simple obedience to the will of God?
One word in the list shows when these gifts were received.
First, "an interpretation" is included in the list (v. 26). That shows the words point not to a time before the believers were in the assembly, but to the time when they were actually gathered. How could a brother receive at home, for example, the interpretation of something that had not yet been spoken?... Remember that when the apostle wrote this letter there were very few New Testament Scriptures in existence. So God, in His care for His people, met their need by direct and inspired messages when they were gathered... There is no foundation for the thought that each brother is to bring something with him for the common good. Everyone who does receive something from the Lord is to be governed in giving it out by the directions here given.
Commentators differ over the first two items — a "psalm" and a "doctrine" in older versions, "a hymn" and "a lesson" in the ESV. Was the psalm given on the spot by inspiration, or already known? One writer argues both continue:
"Each one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine (a teaching)." The teaching has certainly not ceased; and neither has the psalm, for there is no ground for supposing it was an inspired or even freshly prompted utterance. What was to guide the bringing out of all this in the assembly was the principle, "Let all things be done for building up."
- Liberty. Every believer present may have something to bring. Corinth could only abuse this freedom because the freedom was real.
- Not licence. Their fault was turning the Spirit's liberty into licence for the flesh. Many were ready to speak; few were ready to keep order.
- Not a president. Paul's cure for disorder was never to put one man over the meeting. Christendom tried that and lost the liberty.
- Edification. The one test is whether believers are built up. The rule is plain enough that any Christian can tell what helps him.
- Self-judgment. The test reaches the motive. To speak without judging why you are speaking is a solemn thing in God's presence.
If any one speak with a tongue, [let it be] two, or at the most three, and separately, and let one interpret;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in [the] assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God.
The rule here is short and practical. A person may have the gift of speaking in a tongue. If nobody present can translate it, the meeting is not the place to use it. Behind that rule sits a bigger question. Who is a meeting for, and what makes something fit to say aloud in it?
The rule is not arbitrary. It follows from one test that covers everything said when believers gather.
The tongue was forbidden if there was no interpreter, and for the plain reason that otherwise it would not build up the church. The object of everything done there must be "for building up." So whatever does not build up is not fit for the assembly of God, and ought not to be allowed there. It may be well meant. The power behind it may really be the Holy Spirit. But if something cannot be understood, and does not build up the saints of God, it is not fit for the assembly. These things might be quite in place outside the assembly; indeed, that was where they belonged, as a testimony to unbelievers.
Genuine power is not enough. Something can come from God and still be out of place, because no one can understand it. Outside the meeting, the same gift had its use.
Tongues impressed people, and that was part of the problem at Corinth.
He begins with what the vain Greek mind was most drawn to, speaking with a tongue, because it was such an open and surprising witness of divine power. It electrified people. But in an assembly, on its own, it did not build anyone up. So if the man who had "a tongue" could not interpret, or no interpreter was there, he had to be silent. He had to be content with speaking to himself and to God. That was an excellent lesson, where there was a desire to show off that gift.
Without translation, the others cannot follow. That leaves only the speaker's own motive for speaking.
Without interpretation, the assembly could not join with him in the use of his gift. So he was to stay quiet. He was not to make a mere display of his tongue out of the vanity of his own heart.
The verse does not ban the gift. It redirects it. Commentators differ on where that speech happens. One takes it as private speech inside the meeting:
If there was no interpreter, then whatever message a man had in a tongue, he was to keep silent. He could only speak under his breath to himself and to God. Only he and God could understand.
Another puts that speech outside the meeting. He draws a sharp line between private feeling and public conduct:
If a man wants to be carried away in ecstasy, let it be in his own room, alone with God. But in the assembly of God he must be sober. In that assembly the Lord is the one who directs, and God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Some assume that no one can hold back a real work of the Spirit. The command to keep silent says otherwise.
In 1 Corinthians 12 you have gifts in power. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. So in the case of the gift of a tongue, one may have to hold his tongue. That is power.
The man who holds the gift is answerable for how he uses it.
The holder of a gift is greater than what he holds. Ruling his own spirit is man's natural duty. In the same way, the spiritual man is trusted with the responsibility of self-control. Claiming he had no choice is a common excuse where the gift is only pretended.
This limit sits next to an order for others to speak. So it does not make a rule of general silence.
If what he has to say cannot be made understandable to others, it is of no use — it is excluded. The next verse tells the prophets to speak, two or three, and the others to judge. Not to allow this when the assembly is gathered together is to quench the Spirit.
- Edifying — building others up is the test for everything said in the meeting. What no one understands cannot build, so it stays out.
- Interpretation — without a translator, the rest cannot follow, and the gift loses the one thing that made it useful there.
- Silence — the speaker keeps his gift. He uses it between himself and God, and that shows whether he only wanted to display it.
- Self-control — the ability to hold back is proof of power, not loss of it; the one who holds a gift answers for its use.
- Liberty — the same chapter that limits the tongue also tells the prophets to speak. Silencing one voice must never become silencing the Spirit.