1 Corinthians 14:15–24

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One may give thanks well, with both he and God understanding what he says, but "the other person is not being built up."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

He desired to speak of things that he intelligently grasped, in such a way that they were thoroughly intelligible to his listeners.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 "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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.