1 Corinthians 14:2–39

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).

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

The word means "foreigner, alien." The Romans used it for any people who did not understand Latin or Greek.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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."

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

This direction from the apostle applies exactly then — when believers come together as an assembly. It does not cover preaching, or a talk to disciples like the ones Paul gave day by day in the school of Tyrannus. It is God's own rule for the assembly, where the Lord acts by the Spirit working in His sovereign grace. Anyone who speaks there speaks as God's mouthpiece. It is not enough that what he says is true. It must be what God would have said right then, the truth He intended for that occasion.

Here the apostle takes the prophets as his example, in contrast to tongues, because everything the prophet said was meant to build others up. So while he puts prophets in the first rank of the gifts that build up, he adds this important safeguard: precious and profitable as prophesying may be, no more than two or three were to speak on the same occasion.

Suppose six people spoke one after another. What would the effect be? It would be too much of a good thing. It would bewilder many, especially the simpler believers. God always thinks of the little ones. The stronger ones do not need so much of His care.

If the prophets speak, it must also be only two or three, while others judge. Speakers and hearers each have their own responsibility... Each speaker is to leave room for another who may be given a word, for all may prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be comforted. So anything like one-man ministry in an assembly meeting is out of order.

Not to allow this when the Assembly is gathered together is to quench the Spirit. That is plain from another scripture, where the apostle says, "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good."... To despise or hinder the freedom of the prophets is to quench the Spirit.

Note that the others who listen are to "judge." Even in days when inspired messages came by direct revelation in the assembly, those who listened were to listen with discernment. They were never to take the attitude: "Oh, everything that dear brother A. says must be right!" That attitude is a direct invitation to the devil to twist what brother A. says, and so bring about the fall of many.

But who is to judge the prophets? First, fellow believers with the same gift; and second, the whole assembly. Whoever has a gift should be the quickest to recognise the Spirit in someone else. But in this passage the apostle has the whole assembly in view, since what is said to all is judged by all. All who believe have the Spirit living in them and, in greater or smaller measure, the mind of Christ. So all are counted able to judge the quality of spiritual ministry.

The prophets are not considered as a distinct body of persons at all... The passage is the same as if the apostle should say, "(As to) prophets, let two or three persons speak and the rest judge."

As to prophecy, though it was more valuable than tongues, only two or three were to speak at one meeting. Two were needed for a witness, and three were enough; more than that would be too much. Others in the assembly were to judge. This is not merely criticism. It is discernment of the truth and spiritual value of the message, just as Paul asked them in 1 Corinthians 10:15: "I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say."

Remember that when Paul wrote this letter, the believers at Corinth had very little of the New Testament, if any. … It was still the clear work of the Holy Spirit to give revelations to guide God's people. … At such a time the Spirit may have seen the need for a revelation of something the Old Testament did not contain. He would signal this to someone sitting by, listening to the prophet who was speaking. In that case the prophet was to stop speaking, so that the revelation could reach the saints.

Some have argued that every one of the brothers, when they gather together, should come prepared with a psalm or a doctrine… Is this what the apostle's words mean? … "A revelation" is also named, and God could give one at any time. But verse 30 says, "If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent." That is plain proof that the assembly was where the revelations came.

What does that mean? That the second has to wait until the first sits down? I do not think so. If the Lord gave a revelation to another prophet, he was to rise to deliver it, and the first would be silent and sit down. Now there is no revelation, and as another has said: "Order is before power. God is never the author of confusion." Subjection is the great point here… What is more profitable than to see a man subject to the Spirit? The prophet should be under the control of the Spirit's power, and in subjection to Him. This is because he might have risen to speak in the Spirit's power, and then gone on beyond his measure.

The power of the Holy Spirit acts morally on the individual. "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." Think of a carriage that steam can move. The moment the steam comes on, the power is there. But it still needs someone to steer it. If the one prophet went on speaking, it was not according to the order of the Spirit, though it was by the Spirit. The gift is committed to men who are responsible for the use of it. It is not mere impulse, though there is an impulse. There must also be control over it.

Paul finds that there was disorder at the meetings. And how does he correct that disorder? Does he say to appoint a president? Not at all. But he says, "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent." At their meetings for worship, for building one another up, and so on, they are subject to one another in the Lord. A one-man ministry in the assembly gets no support from the Word.

Back then there could be something that no longer exists, any more than speaking in a tongue: revelation. … The apostle was teaching these believers before Scripture was complete. God had not yet given all His truth in writing. … But to claim revelation now would clearly call the perfectness of Scripture into question. I have no doubt it would soon prove to be nothing but the fraud or folly of man, and a snare of the devil. … The great aim of all this instruction is not miraculous powers, nor any other passing signs. None of these things is the centre of these chapters. What is? The presence of the Holy Spirit.

We are bound to the written word, where everything needed in our service for God is clearly stated. Beware of anyone who tells you he has a revelation of something not found in the word of God.

The Holy Spirit is not meant here, and verse 32 makes that clear: "the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." No one could say that the Holy Spirit was subject to a prophet. But those readers knew the frenzied extravagances of Delphi, and they needed the reminder. Prophecy was not an uncontrollable impulse that set aside the responsibility of the one prophesying. On the contrary, the prophet's spirit was subject to him, so he was responsible to act in good order, building up and comforting the assembly.

"And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." The holder of a gift is greater than what he holds. It is a man's natural duty to rule his own spirit, and the spiritual man carries that same responsibility of self-control. Claiming you must speak is a familiar plea of pretended gift... Impulse is not enough to justify a prophet's speech. His judgment must agree with his impressions.

The power of the Holy Spirit works on the individual in a moral way. "The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." Think of a carriage that runs on steam. The moment the steam comes on, the power is there. But it still needs someone to steer. If one prophet went on speaking, that was not according to the order of the Spirit, though it was by the Spirit. The gift is committed to men who are responsible for the use of it. It is not mere impulse, though an impulse is given; but there must also be control over it.

The Spirit of God works in full partnership with the spirit of the prophet. He uses the man in full coordination with that man's own abilities, intelligence, personality, conscience and emotions. An evil spirit cannot do this. It seeks to control its victim, so that the victim has no rule over what he says. Often he does not even know what he says.

This verse simply teaches that the spirit of the prophet was under the prophet's control. No irresistible power forced him to speak. He could wait, in calm self-possession, for a fitting occasion to speak. This is a most valuable principle, and one worth thinking through carefully. If we fully understood it and acted on it, it would save us from a great deal of fanaticism and absurdity.

The order and moral rule of the Spirit outweighs mere power from Him. There may be power, but a person is not free to use it in any other way... I may have a real moving of the Spirit, and still I am to hold my tongue. If three have spoken, and I have five prophecies to tell, I must hold my tongue... The principle here is clear: power is not to guide us. The rule for my using it is that it profits those to whom I speak.

Power must not set order aside. The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; there is no uncontrollable impulse here... Excitement and uproar dishonour Him, even when the energy at work is His own gift. He is the source and giver of peace.

The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, a statement that excludes all idea of being moved by an uncontrollable impulse. With men speaking under the power of demons it would be otherwise, resulting in unholy excitement and confusion. God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace. Any scene of confusion in the assemblies of God's people is clearly not of God.

1 Corinthians 14:32 simply teaches that the spirit of the prophet was under the prophet's control — that he was not compelled, as by some irresistible force, to speak, but that he could wait, in calm self-possession, for a fitting occasion to speak. This is a most valuable principle, and one which ought to be deeply pondered. If it were fully understood and acted upon, it would preserve us from a quantity of mere fanaticism and absurdity.

A gift is not God, and the way a gift is used is not always an expression of His will. But God dwells in the assembly, and in each individual saint. This solemn and ever blessed truth lies at the bottom of all special direction as to behaviour in the Church. What God expects from His worshippers is not so much a ready awareness of gifts or powers in themselves. It is a deep and reverent sense of His immediate presence… Confusion is the fruit of human self-seeking, but grace makes us know the God of peace. When His abounding peace fills and quiets their hearts, their outward manner will show their inward state.

Strife and contention in the churches could not come from God. He is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints… These things spring from the flesh. We read: "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?" (James 4:1). The devil, the relentless enemy of God, is behind the flesh. He can work upon it; he could have no foothold among the saints of God apart from it.

The assembly at Corinth had the worst confusion and disorder. Even there, the inspired apostle never hints at such a thing as a human president, under any name at all. God was there to keep order. They were to look to Him, not to a man, under any name. To set up man to keep order in God's Assembly is sheer unbelief, and an open insult to the Divine Presence.

God led Paul to write to the Corinthian assembly to set them right about many things among them. But all through the letter we see passages that prove the apostle never treated it as an independent, self-contained unit. He saw it as a responsible and representative part of the whole church of God on earth… The same teaching, and the same principles of action that applied to them, applied to all… What applies to one applies to all.

A full stop clearly belongs after the word peace. A new sentence then begins: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches."

Paul called on the saints at Corinth to see that these instructions, with all the earlier ones he gave, were not just his own ideas of what looked proper. They were "the commandments of the Lord." So our duty is plain. It is not for us to explain them away, or to treat them as only Paul's opinion, or as rules that suited the first century but are now out of date. Rather, as far as we understand them, we are to obey them.

There is no inconsistency between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 1 Corinthians 14:34. The first applies to a woman's prophesying under any circumstances. The second is limited to the use of the gift in the Christian assembly, where it is firmly forbidden to the woman... If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Yet He has been pleased to regulate its use. The Christians had made the mistake many have fallen into since: supposing that because someone has a spiritual gift, there is unlimited freedom at all times and in all places.

The word "speak," they say, means only casual talk or chatter. This is completely untrue. It is the regular word for speaking out in public, as 1 Peter 4:10-11 shows... "whoever speaks" is to do so "as one who speaks oracles of God"; "whoever serves" is to do so "by the strength that God supplies." This is the same word for "speaking" that is forbidden to the women in this verse. It is speaking in public, not chattering.

In a previous chapter the apostle has recognised the woman's liberty to pray and to prophesy. But in the churches or assemblies her voice must not be heard. The one exception is the shared praise that should always rise to God from such gatherings. Privacy is the woman's sphere, and subjection her appointed place in relation to the man. Both law and gospel teach this equally... Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. If Miriam prophesied, it was to the women of Israel. If Deborah was raised up, it was a mark of God's judgement and dishonour on the nation that had lost its true manhood by turning from the Lord... Scripture everywhere discourages a woman taking a prominent place, as out of keeping with the original law of creation.

The instructions in this letter are not just local. They speak to all professing Christians everywhere. In the very passage under discussion the apostle speaks of women keeping silence in the "churches." He does not say "in your church," but "in the churches." ... Woman's place in the assembly is one of subjection and retirement, not of leadership. Those who take part publicly — in prayer, praise, or ministry — take a place of leadership, and that place is not given to women.

Notice that this ban on women speaking in the assembly is not just the word of the apostle Paul — a bachelor, as some would describe him. These things are "the commands of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37). So anyone who wants to be spiritual and please the Lord here must accept that these instructions are the statutes of God.

The Holy Spirit is really present with us as the infallible Guide and Director in the church of God... the whole Church, in its coming together, could be trusted to His guidance, without prayer-book, priest, or president — each man left to his own conscience before God... In the public assembly, the women were to be silent (1 Corinthians 14). The one exception shows how large the liberty for all else.

I believe sisters have a very honourable place in Scripture. They stayed close to the Lord when the disciples deserted Him. At His death and resurrection it is they, not the apostles, who are found there. In His life they cared for His needs. At the end of Romans the apostle gives them the highest praise. But the Lord never sends them out to teach or preach... Everything is beautiful in its place.

"The Church" here is not a building or a structure of any kind. It is the assembly of God's saints, His people. The expression "in the Church," or "Churches," comes five times in this chapter (verses 19, 28, 33, 34 and 35). It always means the gathering of the Christians in assembly. The place makes no difference — a building, a hall, a private house, or even the open air. What matters is not the place but the persons and purpose of the gathering.

The ingenuity of the will, however, has found a supposed loophole. The word "speak," they say, means only to talk casually or to chatter. This is wholly untrue. It is the regular word for speaking out, as 1 Peter 4:10-11 shows… It is the same word that the earlier scripture forbids to the women. It is speaking in public, not idle talk. So the ban is complete. Woman's place is a quiet, private one; she is to learn quietly and in full submission.

Even asking questions in the assembly is not permitted: they may learn at home by this means, from their husbands. Of course, if they do not have a husband, it is elementary that they are not forbidden to ask someone else in private circumstances.

Those who love to reason might have supposed that there, if anywhere, women would be allowed to speak. It is a holy setting, where man is as nothing and God makes His presence and power known. It might have seemed a fitting place for holy women to speak. They might well have gifts, even the gift of prophesying, like the four daughters of Philip the evangelist.

But we would ask those who hold that "all Scripture is breathed out by God" to read verse 37: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." That settles everything for the soul that is subject to Scripture. These are not the arbitrary orders of a mere man, biased in favour of his own sex or prejudiced against women. They are "the commandments of the Lord," so we submit to them and obey them without question.

There is no inconsistency between this text and 1 Corinthians 14:34. The first applies to a woman's prophesying under any circumstances. The last covers only the use of the gift in the Christian assembly or church, and there it is firmly forbidden to the woman… If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Yet He has been pleased to regulate how it is used. The Christians had made a mistake many have fallen into since. They supposed that because someone has a spiritual gift, he has unrestricted licence at all times and in all places.

I believe Christian women have a very honourable place in Scripture. They stayed close to the Lord when the disciples deserted Him. At His death and resurrection they, not the apostles, are found there. In His life they cared for His needs. And at the end of Romans the apostle gives them the highest testimony… Everything is beautiful in its place.

Some have scoffed at the idea of an intelligent woman asking a question of her dull husband at home. That is worldly reasoning, not the reasoning of someone who honours the Lord and His Word. Another writer answered it well: "A Christian woman taking the place assigned to her by the great Head of the Church testifies of Him and for Him by a silence more effective than eloquent speech."

There seems to be almost a touch of sarcasm in the apostle's words when he wrote, "Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?" In truth the Word of God came to us only; it never came out from us. Our place is to receive it humbly and without question, and the more spiritual we are, the more fully we will do that.

Are you the source of the word of God, or is it God who gives the word through me, to you, to teach you? Are you going to be teachers, or taught, in this question? ... Every heart that loves Christ will now have to ask itself this question: Am I keeping His commandments when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14?

The word of God comes out from no church, and it comes to no group of believers to the exclusion of others. What a principle, and how deep-reaching and important for all! ... A church may lay down its rules. It may draw up its beliefs. It may put out something for people to act on in discipline, government or doctrine. If that is not in simple subjection to the word of God, it falls into the same error the Corinthian church is warned against here.

The assembly must hold to the truth. While it bears with a lack of understanding (for we all know only in part), it must approve no error... But the assembly is taught. It cannot and should not teach. It is to accept those whom the Lord sends to teach... The word of God comes to the saints, and it comes to all of them.

The word of God comes to the church (the woman), not out from it, as the Church of Rome would teach us. The Christian woman is to learn this great principle and act on it. She is to learn from the man, and not take on the role of the man's teacher.

No doubt they reasoned that if women had gifts, why should they not use them everywhere? But only the One who gives the gift has the right to say when, how, and who may use it.

With all their gifts, the word did not come out from the Corinthians, and it had not come to them only. They ought to submit to the universal order of the Spirit in the assembly. If they claimed to be led by the Spirit, let them acknowledge — and this would prove it — that the things the apostle wrote to them were the commandments of the Lord.

The Apostle closes his directions with a firm claim: they are the commandments of the Lord. As such, they carry all the authority of the word of God. That word comes not only to the assembly at Corinth, but to all the assemblies of God's people. To ignore the Apostle's directions is to deny that the word of God applies to the whole church. The church's place is to be subject to the word of God, remembering that the word comes to the church, not from it. The assembly, as such, is taught; it cannot teach.

The instructions in the letters were always part of Scripture, nothing less. They speak straight to the heart and conscience of the people they were written to. They were commands, but they were not law. If they were law, the great apostle who taught us that we are set free from the law made a terrible mistake. He knew that the Spirit must work through the written Word for it to take effect, in sinner or saint. Yet that did not stop him from claiming complete obedience to what he wrote. We owe that obedience no less than they did.

The Spirit of God knew in advance that people would ignore or challenge these rules. Some at Corinth were already leaning that way. They might imagine themselves to be spiritual people. If they truly were spiritual, they would prove it. They would see that the rules Paul laid down were not his own ideas, but the Lord's commands given through him. The test of our spirituality today is just the same.

Someone might suppose himself to be spiritual because the Spirit had given him a great gift. But the one does not follow from the other at all, as we see at Corinth. The moral fruits of the Spirit were missing there. They were missing because the Corinthians were not walking in the Spirit. They were walking as mere men, ruled by the flesh.

We all like to think of ourselves as spiritual. Now, fellow Christians, every one of you must face this: "the commandments of the Lord" must not be despised. You cannot treat them lightly... I know some will say that all this was for the early days. It worked then, but it cannot be done now. That is sheer unbelief, and nerve as well. God has spoken. Our place is to obey. It is not our place to tell Him that we are wiser than He is, and that we know how to run things in His house better than He did Himself.

Real insight into God's mind, or the fruit of it in a spiritual life, would only deepen the sense of the Lord's authority and of how binding obedience is. We see this perfectly in Christ Himself while He was here on earth. So let the power of the Spirit be shown by recognising His commandment! Does anyone refuse to submit, saying he does not know? Then let him keep the place of ignorance, and not pretend to teach.

The Apostle closes his directions with a clear claim: they are the commandments of the Lord. As such, they carry all the authority of the word of God. That word comes not only to the assembly at Corinth, but to all the assemblies of God's people... The church's place is to be subject to the word of God, remembering that the word of God comes to the church, and not from it. The assembly is taught; it cannot teach... So the Apostle is very short and decisive with anyone who refuses to submit. With such a person he will not argue.

The apostle answers the subtle argument that very spiritual people approve of women speaking in the assembly. Who decides what is spirituality? If one thinks himself a prophet or spiritual, let him show it by a spirit of thorough subjection and obedience to the commandments of the Lord. This is the test. But if anyone was ignorant, let him be ignorant: this is not mere lack of intelligence, but ignoring of God. The assembly was not to give in to him, or listen to his contentions, but leave him to his ignorance.

I do not think there is much comfort in being ignorant. There is no credit in staying that way, when we have such plain teaching before our eyes about what the Lord wants. If I shut my eyes to the plain, distinct teaching of the Word of God, then I shall not know the truth. "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant" burns like acid, and I would rather it were not used on me. It applies to the one who will not see what God commands.

Does anyone refuse to submit, pleading ignorance? Then let him keep the place of ignorance and not pretend to teach. Those who wish to guide others should know what is, and what is not, of the Lord. In those who do not see, it is a question of will; His command has power enough to reach the conscience. To argue further would only feed that will and strengthen self-confidence, and it may harm your own soul as well. Those who will not obey are best left in the hands of the One whose words they quibble at. If they are His own, He knows how to break them down. He can make them thankful for the light they refused, since refusing it is what keeps them in ignorance.

What a mixture of tenderness, of patience, and of authority! The apostle wants the faithful to come to the truth and to order, led by their own affections. But if their good requires it, he will use an authority that cannot be appealed against, speaking straight from God... If any were ignorant that he wrote by the Spirit with the authority of God, it was ignorance indeed; leave such people to their ignorance. This would set spiritual and simple men free from such pretensions... Meanwhile the man of pretension, brought down to this place, would find the place good for him, and just what he needed.

So the apostle puts his writings on the same footing as the "commandments of the Lord." For those who cannot see it, he leaves this sorrowful comfort: "if any man be ignorant, LET HIM BE IGNORANT." Now will anyone say that the apostle, writing in that very same character... to the Romans or to the Galatians, is less inspired than when he writes to the Corinthians? Such an argument deserves no other answer than "if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

In 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 1 Corinthians 14:39, the word is ζηλόω (zeloo). It is quite different from the coveting that Scripture condemns. Revelation 3:19 translates it "be zealous," and the Corinthian passages can read the same way: "desire earnestly" the best gifts, and "desire earnestly" to prophesy.

Prophecy does not have to predict the future. Prophets do predict, but prediction is not what prophecy is. On the other hand, it is a big mistake to think that prophesying is just building people up in a general way… A man who strengthens souls by holding up Christ and making His love better known certainly builds them up. So does a man who encourages or teaches well. But none of these things is prophesying. Prophesying is the kind of truth that puts a man's conscience in the presence of God. It makes the soul certain that His mind is in what is being said. It strips and lays bare thoughts, motives, feelings, everything.

His great mission was to apply the word of God to the conscience and heart, to build people up. That is still the prophet's service in Christian times, and in that 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 display of power did not dazzle the apostle, as it dazzled the Corinthians then and many since who longed for it. He puts prophesying above such a display without reserve. Prophesying brings in more than power. It brings in God, and God at work building souls up, encouraging them and comforting them. This does not put a halo around man. It brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.

The Corinthian believers should be zealous to prophesy themselves. Meanwhile they were not to stop other people from speaking with tongues. Paul was in no way encouraging anyone at Corinth who did not have the power of tongues to long for that power. Yet some quote the verse as if that were its point.

Even here, Paul puts the matter in a negative way. Suppose someone urges another to speak in tongues, or longs to speak in tongues himself. He goes beyond Scripture, and that is not decent or orderly.

The conclusion of it all is this: "So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." We must not have any man-made rules in God's assembly to check His Spirit or lessen His Spirit's activity. The great sin of Christendom, I repeat, has been the quenching of the Holy Spirit. Men brought in rules and regulations about the assembly that are completely contrary to the Lord's commands given here.