Brethren, be not children in [your] minds, but in malice be babes; but in [your] minds be grown [men].
Paul has just said he would rather speak five intelligible words in the assembly than ten thousand in a tongue, and now he turns from argument to appeal. He calls them "brothers" and asks them to grow up in one area while staying small in another.
The problem at Corinth was not that the gifts were false. The Corinthians used them for display. Paul himself spoke in tongues more than any of them, so this is not envy on his part:
In condemning the abuse of tongues, the Apostle was not moved by jealousy. He himself spoke with tongues more than they all. But he used the gift in the right place, before the right audience, and for a right purpose. In the assembly, five words spoken with the understanding, so that others might be taught, were better than "ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." In their fondness for tongues, the Corinthians were acting like children, who delight in anything that makes a show.
The word "malice" may look out of place in a chapter about speaking. But a gift used to impress rather than to help is already turning against the people it was meant to serve:
Their misuse of tongues was childish. Paul urges them not to be children in understanding; yet in malice he tells them to be children. Notice the warning here. Misusing gifts, instead of showing love for others, will tend toward malice, which undermines true unity and love. A little child has no such attitude. In my attitude then let me have the simplicity of a child, but in understanding be "perfect," or mature. And this understanding is not only personal. It is the kind that builds understanding among God's people.
The danger is not confined to spectacular gifts. Hamilton Smith warns that the flesh "can, but for the grace of God, use prayer or ministry to work off a bit of malice against a brother."
The verse asks for two opposite things at once. One writer marks the difference by a single change of word, and points to the Lord Himself as the pattern:
In 1 Corinthians 14:20 we find a truly impressive appeal: "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature." He had no desire that his readers should be childish, but he longed that they might be childlike. "I am among you as He that serves," said the Lord to His self-important followers (Luke 22:27). Did He not wash their feet that very night? (John 13).
Older versions read "be men" here. One writer points to their margin notes, which give the sense of full growth:
"Perfection" is also used for the mature Christian condition, as a glance at the margin of Heb. 5:14 will show. The term there — "of full age" — is rendered in the margin as "perfect." In the same way, "be men" in 1 Cor. 14:20 is rendered in the margin as "be perfect," or "of a ripe age." … among Christians there are those perfect, or mature, in contrast with being babes.
So the call is not to cleverness but to growth.
Paul does not tell them to acquire something new. He points to what was already theirs, and asks them to develop it:
They should remember, also, that these special gifts were not their chief endowment as believers. "The mind of Christ" belonged to them as a part of their divine birthright. Let them try to cultivate it to full manhood. Let them be babes in the harmlessness of their lives, and in their willing ignorance of the world and its corruptions. But let them show themselves grown men in their knowledge of God and their keeping of His ways.
- Two ages, one person. Paul asks for an infant's innocence and an adult's understanding in the same believer. Corinth had them the wrong way round.
- Childish, not childlike. The Corinthians were not too simple. They were too eager for attention. Paul did not want them childish; he longed for them to be childlike.
- Show breeds malice. A gift used for display, instead of love for others, drifts toward malice. Malice undermines unity, so innocence is the thing to keep.
- Mature means full-grown. The word behind "be men" carries the idea of ripe age or full growth, the opposite of remaining a babe.
- Cultivate what you own. The mind of Christ was already theirs by birthright. Growing up means developing it, while staying willingly ignorant of the world's corruptions.
It is written in the law, By people of other tongues, and by strange lips, will I speak to this people; and neither thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
Paul has just told the Corinthians to stop thinking like children. He now backs that rebuke with a line from Israel's own scriptures. The words are not a promise but a threat. That changes how the Corinthians should value tongues.
The quotation comes from the prophet Isaiah. Yet Paul introduces it as written in the law. That is not unusual.
The term "law" is sometimes used in the New Testament as a name for other parts of the Old Testament besides the first five books. The Lord said, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?" when the quotation was from the Psalms. John 10:34: similarly 1 Corinthians 14:21.
The appeal is made to strengthen an argument he has already been making on other grounds.
"In the law it is written," and so on. This appeal to the law is made (like the earlier one in chapter 9:9) to support his previous reasoning. He had appealed to natural usage and experience; he now makes this general reference to the earlier testimony of the Spirit — not to set up a historical parallel, but to show still more conclusively that the gift of tongues is by its nature unsuited to practical fellowship in the Spirit.
In Isaiah the strange speech was the speech of invaders. God had taught His people in plain words, and they refused it. So He would speak to them another way.
He would punish them, not with the childlike instruction they had despised, but with the foreign tones of enemies. They would not have His words of rest for the weary; they had to have a nation they did not understand. It was a judgment on their unbelief.
A foreign tongue in Israel's ears was therefore never a mark of favour.
Whenever God's people came into contact with foreign tongues, they had gone all wrong. If Israel had stayed faithful, such strange sounds would have stayed far away. They were let loose on them when they left their true place. The Corinthians would do well to consider this. For Israel, foreign tongues had no good connection. They might remind them of their folly and evil. They were in no way an honour to the Jews.
The verse ends with a refusal. God speaks in this startling way, and still the people close their ears. The same thing happened in the days of the apostles.
Verse 21 quotes Isaiah 28:11-12. Those words describe how foreign nations ruled over Israel and humbled them, because of their proud rebellion against God. God would use foreign tongues to humble them, not to exalt them. By this means He sought to wake them from their unbelief, yet they would not hear. Now God had given Israel a fresh sign in the speaking with tongues. Gentile languages now carried the gospel of grace. This showed that the gospel was not only for Israel, but for the whole world. So it was a sign for Jews above all. God gave it for the time being, to establish Christianity as being of God. And unbelieving Israel still would not hear.
Even where the sign did not convert, it settled the hearer's responsibility.
In the day of Israel's failure, when the prophets had erred, God spoke to them in the tongues of foreigners. It was a sign of the unbelief of those who would not hear the plain word of God. So the use of the gift of tongues at the beginning of Christianity was a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. It left the hearer without excuse.
The Corinthians were treating as a delight the very thing God had used as a warning to a rebellious nation.
What perversity, then, in the saints at Corinth! God was speaking in prophecy to build them up. They turned away from that to tongues they could not understand! As Christians, they took pleasure in what had been God's solemn threat to His ancient people for their stubborn refusal! The apostle never despises a tongue in its own place and season, here or anywhere. God intended it as a sign for unbelievers. The mistake was to bring it in among believers, who could not profit by it. That was both unintelligent and unloving.
God Himself was the speaker behind these strange sounds. That settles who the sign was for.
It was God who both worked and spoke by this gift. But He did it strangely — just as, in judgment on Israel, He had filled their ears with the foreign speech of the invaders He appointed to punish His land. Tongues, then, were for a sign. But believers need no sign. The truth is in them, and by grace they know the Lord on whom they call. Signs are meant to work by contrast. Their strangeness wakes up attention to truth that was either never known before, or forgotten through unfaithfulness. But prophecy is not a sign. It is instead an expected provision of the God of all grace, to supply His children's spiritual needs.
- Sign in the law. Paul calls Isaiah's words "the law." The New Testament uses that title for other parts of the Old Testament as well, not only the first five books.
- Sign of judgment. In Isaiah, foreign speech meant enemy armies. God's people had refused His plain teaching, so He punished them with strange tongues.
- Sign refused. The quotation ends in failure. Israel would not hear then. Unbelieving Israel still would not hear when tongues came again, and the hearer had no excuse.
- Sign misplaced. God had used tongues as a threat to unbelievers. The Corinthians prized them among believers, and so lost the profit of prophecy.
- Sign for outsiders. Believers need no sign, because they already know the Lord. Signs wake up those outside. Prophecy feeds those inside.
So that tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy, not to unbelievers, but to those who believe.
Paul has just quoted Isaiah's warning: God would speak to His people through foreign lips. Now he sorts the two gifts Corinth argued over by their audience — and that decides how a meeting should run.
Commentators see here Scripture's own dividing line. Some gifts build up; others are signs. That difference explains why one kind could be withdrawn and the other never.
Before I go on, note that the gifts are of two kinds. The first kind serves to awaken souls and to gather the Church. The second kind is a sign to the world — a sign that God is present in the Person of the Spirit in the Church... This distinction is important. Nothing needed for the conversion of souls and the building up of the saints can ever fail. But it is easy to see how God might withdraw what was an ornament to the Church, and a sign that she was acceptable to Him, when the Church is unfaithful.
The word "Thus" ties the verse back to Isaiah 28. There, strange speech was no compliment to Israel.
He quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 loosely, to draw a healthy lesson for the Corinthian saints. In that passage God warns the Jews, who were slow to listen to His prophets, that He would speak to them with the stammering lips of foreigners. Such a tongue speaking to Israel was a sign of their humiliation, and of God's judgment. What perversity, then, in the saints at Corinth! They turned away from God speaking in prophecy to build them up, and turned to tongues they could not understand. As Christians they took pleasure in what had been God's solemn threat to His ancient people for their stubborn refusal.
God gave the sign again in a new setting. Israel answered the same way.
Now God had given Israel a fresh sign in speaking with tongues. Gentile languages were used to preach the gospel of grace, showing that the gospel was not only for Israel, but for all the world. So it was a sign for the Jews in particular, given for a time, to establish Christianity as being of God. And unbelieving Israel still would not hear.
Why does the verse rule believers out as the audience for a sign?
Tongues then were for a sign. But believers need no sign. The truth is in them, and they know, through grace, the Lord on whom they call. Signs are meant to work by contrast. Their strangeness wakes up attention to truth that was never known before, or that has been forgotten through unfaithfulness. But prophecy is not a sign. It is what the God of all grace is expected to provide, to supply His children's spiritual needs.
The verse is a rebuke as much as a definition. Corinth used the outward gift on the wrong audience, and slighted the gift meant for them.
The Corinthians were using them for display among believers — completely wrong and unintelligent. "But prophesying" — the very thing they really slighted — "does not serve unbelievers but believers." This is its direct use.
Put a stranger in the room, and the two gifts do opposite things.
In contrast to tongues, the gift of prophecy serves not only the unbeliever but the believer. When the saints come together in one place, tongues used without an interpreter would lead an unbeliever, or an untaught person, to conclude that the assembly was mad. Prophesying does the opposite. It would convict the conscience of an unbeliever, bring the secrets of his heart into the open, and convince him that he was in the presence of God.
Translations differ in the second half of the verse. Kelly calls the added verb needless, though he thinks the translators were right not to call prophecy a sign:
The common English version needlessly introduces "serves" in the second half of verse 22. Still, I think it is right not to read "sign" together with prophesying. Prophesying differs in its very nature from the powers that truly bear that name, like a tongue or a miracle... We could just as well say tongues are a sign for the unbelieving, and prophesying for those who believe.
- Two audiences. Scripture splits the gifts in two: signs aimed at the world, and gifts that build up the saints. This verse is the dividing line.
- A sign of judgment. In Isaiah, foreign speech meant humiliation and judgment for Israel. Corinth was taking pleasure in what had been a threat.
- A sign reaches outward. A sign works by strangeness. It wakes up someone who is not listening. Believers already know the Lord they call on.
- Prophecy reaches inward — and further. Its direct object is God's people, yet it can also lay bare an outsider's heart and convince him God is present.
- Misplaced, a gift looks like madness. Tongues used among believers made the assembly look insane. The sign meant for outsiders was wasted on the wrong room.
If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and simple [persons] enter in, or unbelievers, will not they say ye are mad?
Paul has just contrasted tongues with prophecy. Now he tests both. He pictures the whole church meeting together, everyone speaking in tongues, and a visitor walking in. That guest would leave sure the Christians had lost their minds.
Paul is not photographing a meeting at Corinth. He sets up a case and asks what would follow.
It is surprising that anyone should fail to see this. The apostle is not describing facts as they were or ought to be. He only supposes a case where "the whole assembly" should meet "together," and by implication that would be in one place. If all were to speak with tongues, it would expose them to the charge of madness. If all were to prophesy, it would force even the unbeliever or the simple man who came in to be convinced that God was indeed among them. It is put here only as a supposition, to correct the lack of spirituality in the Corinthian saints. They preferred the showier sign-gifts to that far higher exercise of divine power which sets the soul morally in God's presence under His grace and truth.
Commentators differ over "the whole church." One writer takes it as a truth that should still shape how God's people gather.
Note those words — "the whole Assembly." Here was God's Assembly in one place. You may say you cannot get that now. Suppose I could not get the whole. I would still seek to be one of those who act on the truth that should bind them all, if they were subject to God's Word.
The ESV speaks of "outsiders or unbelievers." Older translations say "unlearned." That word marks off two different guests.
The "unlearned" persons in verse 23 are those not taught in the word. This is true of an unbeliever, but the text names the unbelievers as well. The word is "idiotes." It described someone with no training in a skill — a private person. It makes two classes: the untaught in the things of God, and the actual unbeliever.
The problem is not the gift itself but its setting.
Verse 23 therefore insists on this. Someone might come into a gathering of the assembly who was untaught or an unbeliever. If he heard the saints speaking in tongues unknown to the assembly, he would think them mentally unbalanced. Of course, if he knew the language spoken, there would be value in this. But when it is clear that all know one language, it is pointless to use a language some do not know. A tongue might be used outside the assembly, where a foreigner could hear his own language. That was certainly a sign, and it would have some effect on unbelievers.
Corinth had the gift, but used it on the wrong audience.
The Corinthians were using them for display among believers. That was most wrong and unintelligent. In verse 23 he puts the case in a pointed form. Such would be the effect, supposing they were all speaking with tongues; and if it was good for one, it was good for all.
Paul's picture assumes an open meeting. Anyone there may have something to give. Freedom like that calls for discretion.
God's Spirit has His home in the assembly, so each of those present is likely to have some gift. Are they, then, to use them without restraint? Or should they show godly discernment and discretion? That is what this passage implies. If they all spoke with tongues, an ungifted worshipper would suspect they were mad — and an unbeliever still more. It would stumble the ignorant and stir unbelief into contempt.
The warning is not a museum piece. Where meetings produce noise and confusion, the outsider's judgement stands.
In the meetings of the modern advocates of the gift of tongues, the greatest disorder often prevails. That is a fact. Men and women have fallen down in convulsions. Hysterical laughter, unpleasant shrieks and other displays have not been uncommon. An unbeliever would be perfectly right to give the verdict "they are mad."
- Supposed — Paul sets up a case; he is not reporting one. He asks how a room full of tongues would strike a visitor, and answers it himself.
- Outsider — two guests are in view: the person untaught in God's word, and the unbeliever. Neither can follow a word.
- Misplaced — the fault lies in the setting, not the gift. A tongue is a sign only where someone knows the language. Among people who all share one language, it achieves nothing.
- Display — a gift meant for unbelievers became a show among believers. Having a gift never gave the right to use it at will.
- Verdict — the outsider's reaction is the test. Where he cannot follow a word, he calls it madness. Where God's word is spoken clearly, he is convinced God is among them.
But if all prophesy, and some unbeliever or simple [person] come in, he is convicted of all, he is judged of all;
Paul has just pictured a room where everyone speaks in unknown languages, and a visitor walks out calling them mad. Now that same visitor walks in on a room where everyone prophesies, and everything changes.
One reference work starts from the word itself, then defines the gift by its effect:
The word comes from a verb meaning "to speak forth," so we can describe a prophet as a spokesman of God. Prophecy of this kind is a gift in the church for the building up of the saints, bringing God's word with power upon their consciences and hearts. It is the gift of most importance in the church.
It also sets prophesying apart from evangelizing and teaching. Kelly adds that Paul is supposing a case, not reporting one:
This is what marks prophesying. It is not the announcement of the good news, as in evangelizing. It is not the unfolding of doctrine, as in teaching. It is God using His word to deal with the soul, so that the soul is conscious of it. … Paul does not describe this as a fact that ever took place. He describes the natural effect under such circumstances.
Kelly sets the two outcomes side by side, then points to a woman who met a stranger able to tell her own life story:
Suppose they all speak in tongues in full assembly, in front of simple people or unbelievers. What impression will that make? That the saints were mad. Now suppose they all prophesy. How would such a person feel when he came in and heard? His heart's secrets are uncovered to him, and God deals with them through all of the speakers. He is left with the deepest conviction that God is truly among the saints. The woman of Samaria met One who had never seen her before, and He set out her life in a few words. She confessed, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet." His words made her feel and admit that everything was out, and that God was speaking to her conscience.
Being "convicted" and "called to account" is not a public interrogation. Nobody in the room learns anything about the visitor:
Such a one, convicted and judged, will "worship." He worships because he finds God working in this way, and he falls down and owns Him. The presence of God acts on his spirit and bows it, and reaches his conscience. He hears the secrets of his own heart told out to him. God's presence brings it all to light for him, without his saying a word to anyone. It is the power of the Spirit of God on a man's conscience.
This ministry was never designed for the outsider. Believers were speaking to believers, and he happened to be there:
Truth given honestly, and pressed home with sober reality to believers, can bring the secrets of an unbeliever's heart to light before him. It reaches his conscience, though the Word is not aimed at him.
Darby points out where the visitor's conclusion lands, and where it does not:
The passage assumes that the whole body could act in this way, in the most public and obvious gifts. The unbeliever does not fall down and confess that God is in this or that gifted person. Still less does he admire or look up to the spiritual attainments of one individual. He confesses that God is in the assembly, among the Christians. And is this to be lost, and not even sought, and individual attainment put in the place of the presence of God in the assembly?
Kelly separates two senses of the word, and keeps only one of them for today:
Prophesying is not predicting something you must wait for, to see whether it comes to pass. I do not believe that a person predicting things now would fit the way the Holy Spirit acts, for the simple reason that the predictions that matter for God and for man are already given in the written word. But there remains the other sense of it — bringing out the truth of God so as to deal with man's conscience, and give him the full conviction that it is God who is speaking to him through a man. I see no reason to doubt that God still grants this — in feeble measure perhaps, and in rare cases; but still, I cannot doubt that the principle is true, and that it will not fail as long as God has work and testimony on the earth.
- Speak forth. Prophesying is speaking for God so that His word lands on the conscience. It is not foretelling, evangelizing, or lecturing.
- All, not one. Paul supposes a whole company able to speak, so no single gifted person gets the credit.
- Conscience, not argument. No one argues the visitor down. His own hidden secrets come out to him, and he bows.
- Overheard, not targeted. The ministry was for believers. Truth meant for them convicts the outsider anyway.
- God, not the speakers. The verdict he leaves with is about who was present in the room, not about who was impressive in it.
the secrets of his heart are manifested; and thus, falling upon [his] face, he will do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you.
A stranger with no faith walks into a gathering of Christians. He hears the word of God spoken plainly, and he ends up on his face, worshipping. This verse shows what that word did inside him, and what he then said about the people he had walked in on.
The whole result turns on the kind of speaking described in verse 24. One commentator draws a sharp line between it and other useful ministry:
Prophesying is the spiritual application of God's word to the conscience. It puts the soul in His presence. It shows the mind of God to the hearer, clear as light. Much valuable teaching, encouragement, and application has no such character. It is all very true, but it does not put the soul in the presence of God.
Nobody in the room knows this visitor's history. The disclosure runs one way — inward.
Such a one, convinced and judged, will "worship," because he finds God working like this, and falls down and owns Him. The presence of God acts upon his spirit and bows it, and his conscience is reached. The secrets of his heart are told out to himself. God's presence finds it all out to himself, without his speaking to others. It is the power of the Spirit of God on a man's conscience.
The believers were not preaching to him at all. They were speaking to each other.
The truth itself (not necessarily the simple gospel) would convict the man's conscience. That is even more so when believers press the truth home to one another's hearts and consciences — not at all with the unbeliever in mind. Truth given honestly, and applied to believers with sober reality, may show an unbeliever the secrets of his own heart. His conscience is reached, though the Word is not directed at him.
The same thing had already happened to one woman, face to face:
One who had never met the woman of Samaria before set out her whole life in a few words. She confessed, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet." His words made her feel and admit that everything was out, and that God was speaking to her conscience.
His verdict is not about a gifted speaker. It points at the company as a whole. Older translations read "God is in you" here:
In verse 25 "God is in you" is collective. The Greek preposition covers both "among" and "in" when the noun is collective. "In you" is perhaps better, because it looks at the assembly as a whole.
What he found there, he found nowhere else in the city:
Detected and exposed by the prophetic ministry, the man's heart is reached. He worships God. He has proved that God had a temple at Corinth, and he met God in His temple there. Suppose we all walked in the truth of this and were gathered like this today. A worldly man coming in would find such power that he would say, "There were a lot of Christians there, but God was there too."
Paul writes the verse as a supposition, not a report. Commentators differ over how far the gift behind it continues. One says it belonged to the time before Scripture was complete:
Some of the prophetic gift in reaching the conscience may still survive. But when God's Word was completed, everything He meant to reveal through prophecy had already been brought out. So the foundation part of the prophetic gift had to disappear.
Others expect the same result wherever God is present among gathered believers:
In this supposed case, all the prophesying would bring the conviction home to him, and he could not resist it. It would also produce the report he makes and the homage he pays at that moment. This effect is not meant to come from one man preaching in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. It comes from God's presence in His saints as they prophesy like this in the assembly. The apostle does not describe it as a fact that ever did take place, but as the natural effect under the circumstances.
- Presence, not performance — prophesying is more than good teaching; it applies God's word to the conscience and sets a soul in front of God.
- Presence exposes — the visitor's hidden things surface. God tells them to him, and to no one else.
- Presence convicts without aiming — believers spoke the truth to each other, not at the visitor. His conscience was reached anyway.
- Presence is collective — his verdict is about the whole company, not a speaker: God is among you.
- Presence produces worship — the outcome is not applause but a man on his face, who met God and says so afterwards.
What is it then, brethren? whenever ye come together, each [of you] has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edification.
Paul asks a plain question about the Corinthian meetings. His question shows a room full of people, each with something to give — and his answer is not to silence them, but to give them one test.
At Corinth the meetings had gone wrong. One writer names the cause, then names the cure Paul refused to use.
It is clear there was a keen competition, if not rivalry, among them for the display of their gifts. As a result the meeting became disorderly and the believers were not built up. Paul's advice in this situation was, "Let all things be done for building up." He did not say: appoint a president, or make one man responsible for the order of your meeting, so that it will be clear who is to blame.
Paul does not fault the Corinthians for having liberty. He faults how they used it. Curing the abuse by removing the freedom costs the church the freedom itself.
They were taking full advantage of their liberty, for "every one" was ready to take part. Still, they abused that liberty by not acting "decently and in order". They turned the liberty of the Spirit into licence for the flesh. Correcting this abuse does not mean that one-man ministry should replace the liberty that belongs to every man. Christendom has done this, and in trying to correct the abuse it lost the liberty.
Another writer makes the same point, then shows what keeps that liberty in order.
Still, no one can deny the assembly the fullest liberty: otherwise it could not have been abused like this. Modern arrangements shut out not only the abuse but also the liberty that ought to be there. And in fact, where the Spirit of the Lord is, liberty marks His presence, whether in one person or in the whole gathering... So power stays under the Lord's authority. The person through whom God's power works has to feel his responsibility in using it. And the vital principle of obedience is kept whole.
Paul does not sort the list item by item. He leaves one rule instead, and it needs no training to use.
He neither praises nor condemns this in any sweeping way. The Corinthians, no doubt, were ready enough, and their meetings would not lack variety. The apostle's simple rule is that all things are to be done for building up. That is the one practical direction, and it is so simple that any Christian can understand it. Anyone is able to say what feeds him and helps him.
The test also reaches the motive of the person who speaks.
Could they say that? Could the man who had a psalm say his motive was to build others up? Could the man who had a teaching, or anyone else? Let them search and see. There is One who knows the truth, and He is the One who chooses to act in the church of God. So it is a kind of challenge to God when someone dares, in His presence, to act out of his own will and liking. Can anything be more solemn than to take part in the assembly without self-searching, without judging yourself again and again to see whether your motive comes from simple obedience to the will of God?
One word in the list shows when these gifts were received.
First, "an interpretation" is included in the list (v. 26). That shows the words point not to a time before the believers were in the assembly, but to the time when they were actually gathered. How could a brother receive at home, for example, the interpretation of something that had not yet been spoken?... Remember that when the apostle wrote this letter there were very few New Testament Scriptures in existence. So God, in His care for His people, met their need by direct and inspired messages when they were gathered... There is no foundation for the thought that each brother is to bring something with him for the common good. Everyone who does receive something from the Lord is to be governed in giving it out by the directions here given.
Commentators differ over the first two items — a "psalm" and a "doctrine" in older versions, "a hymn" and "a lesson" in the ESV. Was the psalm given on the spot by inspiration, or already known? One writer argues both continue:
"Each one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine (a teaching)." The teaching has certainly not ceased; and neither has the psalm, for there is no ground for supposing it was an inspired or even freshly prompted utterance. What was to guide the bringing out of all this in the assembly was the principle, "Let all things be done for building up."
- Liberty. Every believer present may have something to bring. Corinth could only abuse this freedom because the freedom was real.
- Not licence. Their fault was turning the Spirit's liberty into licence for the flesh. Many were ready to speak; few were ready to keep order.
- Not a president. Paul's cure for disorder was never to put one man over the meeting. Christendom tried that and lost the liberty.
- Edification. The one test is whether believers are built up. The rule is plain enough that any Christian can tell what helps him.
- Self-judgment. The test reaches the motive. To speak without judging why you are speaking is a solemn thing in God's presence.
If any one speak with a tongue, [let it be] two, or at the most three, and separately, and let one interpret;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in [the] assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God.
The rule here is short and practical. A person may have the gift of speaking in a tongue. If nobody present can translate it, the meeting is not the place to use it. Behind that rule sits a bigger question. Who is a meeting for, and what makes something fit to say aloud in it?
The rule is not arbitrary. It follows from one test that covers everything said when believers gather.
The tongue was forbidden if there was no interpreter, and for the plain reason that otherwise it would not build up the church. The object of everything done there must be "for building up." So whatever does not build up is not fit for the assembly of God, and ought not to be allowed there. It may be well meant. The power behind it may really be the Holy Spirit. But if something cannot be understood, and does not build up the saints of God, it is not fit for the assembly. These things might be quite in place outside the assembly; indeed, that was where they belonged, as a testimony to unbelievers.
Genuine power is not enough. Something can come from God and still be out of place, because no one can understand it. Outside the meeting, the same gift had its use.
Tongues impressed people, and that was part of the problem at Corinth.
He begins with what the vain Greek mind was most drawn to, speaking with a tongue, because it was such an open and surprising witness of divine power. It electrified people. But in an assembly, on its own, it did not build anyone up. So if the man who had "a tongue" could not interpret, or no interpreter was there, he had to be silent. He had to be content with speaking to himself and to God. That was an excellent lesson, where there was a desire to show off that gift.
Without translation, the others cannot follow. That leaves only the speaker's own motive for speaking.
Without interpretation, the assembly could not join with him in the use of his gift. So he was to stay quiet. He was not to make a mere display of his tongue out of the vanity of his own heart.
The verse does not ban the gift. It redirects it. Commentators differ on where that speech happens. One takes it as private speech inside the meeting:
If there was no interpreter, then whatever message a man had in a tongue, he was to keep silent. He could only speak under his breath to himself and to God. Only he and God could understand.
Another puts that speech outside the meeting. He draws a sharp line between private feeling and public conduct:
If a man wants to be carried away in ecstasy, let it be in his own room, alone with God. But in the assembly of God he must be sober. In that assembly the Lord is the one who directs, and God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Some assume that no one can hold back a real work of the Spirit. The command to keep silent says otherwise.
In 1 Corinthians 12 you have gifts in power. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. So in the case of the gift of a tongue, one may have to hold his tongue. That is power.
The man who holds the gift is answerable for how he uses it.
The holder of a gift is greater than what he holds. Ruling his own spirit is man's natural duty. In the same way, the spiritual man is trusted with the responsibility of self-control. Claiming he had no choice is a common excuse where the gift is only pretended.
This limit sits next to an order for others to speak. So it does not make a rule of general silence.
If what he has to say cannot be made understandable to others, it is of no use — it is excluded. The next verse tells the prophets to speak, two or three, and the others to judge. Not to allow this when the assembly is gathered together is to quench the Spirit.
- Edifying — building others up is the test for everything said in the meeting. What no one understands cannot build, so it stays out.
- Interpretation — without a translator, the rest cannot follow, and the gift loses the one thing that made it useful there.
- Silence — the speaker keeps his gift. He uses it between himself and God, and that shows whether he only wanted to display it.
- Self-control — the ability to hold back is proof of power, not loss of it; the one who holds a gift answers for its use.
- Liberty — the same chapter that limits the tongue also tells the prophets to speak. Silencing one voice must never become silencing the Spirit.
And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
Paul is finishing a long correction of a gifted but disorderly church. Here he limits how many may speak and tells the rest to weigh it — but is the number a fixed rule, and who are "the others"?
This instruction is not aimed at every kind of Christian meeting. It belongs to the assembly gathered, where the one speaking stands as God's mouthpiece.
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.
Prophecy was the gift Paul had just been praising. Even so, the cap falls on it too.
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.
The reason is not the clock. It is the weakest listener in the room.
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.
The cap on speakers guards something else: any believer might be the one God uses next.
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.
Shutting that liberty down is no small fault.
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.
The second half of the verse targets a habit that grows in any group: the trusted voice nobody questions. Older translations read "let the others judge."
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.
Commentators differ here. One reading moves outward from those with the same gift to the whole gathering.
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.
Others insist the verse never sets up a class of officials at all:
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."
Why those two numbers? And what does judging actually involve?
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."
- Setting. The rule belongs to the gathered assembly, where a speaker speaks as God's mouthpiece — not to preaching or a teaching session.
- Limit. Two or three — two make a witness, three are enough. More would overwhelm rather than build up, and God has the simplest hearer in mind.
- Liberty. The ceiling leaves room for whomever the Spirit may use; blocking that freedom is quenching the Spirit, and one-man ministry is out of order.
- Test. Every hearer weighs what is said; no speaker is so trusted that his words go unexamined.
- Spirit. Judging here means discerning the truth and value of the message, not fault-finding: test everything, hold fast what is good.
But if there be a revelation to another sitting [there], let the first be silent.
Paul is setting practical rules for a meeting where more than one person could speak. This verse settles who gives way to whom, and why a speaker moved by the Spirit can still stop.
Why would anyone in the meeting need a fresh word from God? Corinth's situation was not ours.
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.
Did a revelation come to someone at home beforehand, or in the meeting itself?
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.
So does the second man simply wait his turn?
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.
A speaker might object that he cannot stop, because what he has is from the Spirit.
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.
If anyone present may speak, who keeps order?
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.
Could a revelation still interrupt a meeting today? And if not, does this chapter still govern our meetings?
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.
That leaves a plain test to apply to anyone who claims otherwise.
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.
- Need — Corinth had almost no New Testament, so God met the need by speaking directly to His gathered people.
- Given — The revelation came to a listener already seated in the meeting. That is where God gave it.
- Yielded — The first speaker stopped and sat down. The fresh word mattered more than the man holding the floor.
- Controlled — The man with the gift still steers the power. An impulse no one can stop is not the Spirit's order.
- Closed — Scripture is complete, so expect no new revelation. What stays is the Spirit's presence, and the yielding this verse teaches.
For ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all be encouraged.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
Paul is setting the order for a meeting where several people may speak, and here he removes the excuse that would wreck it. Nobody can claim he was swept along and could not stop, because this verse puts the speaker in charge of his own gift.
The word "spirits" here does not point to the Holy Spirit. It points to the man's own renewed spirit — the capacity that lets him take in the things of God. The verse proves it: the Holy Spirit is not subject to anyone.
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.
Delphi was a Greek shrine famous for its frenzied prophets.
A gift is something a person holds, not something that holds him. That places an ordinary human duty — self-control — on the spiritual man.
"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.
Real power still needs a hand on the wheel.
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.
Can a speaker claim the Spirit left him no choice? The two powers differ in how they treat the person they use.
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.
So waiting is always open to him.
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.
Because the speaker can stop, silence can be the spiritual choice. Having something true to say is not the same as being free to say it now.
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.
The reason lies in the character of God Himself.
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.
- Whose spirit — "Spirits" means the prophets' own spirits, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is never subject to a man.
- Who steers — The power is real, but the man holds the wheel: he controls the gift; the gift does not control him.
- Who is excused — Nobody. "I couldn't help it" is the mark of an evil spirit, not of the Holy Spirit, who uses a man's mind, conscience and emotions.
- When to stop — Since he can stop, he sometimes must. A real impulse still yields to order. The test of speaking is whether it helps the hearers.
- What results — Calm self-possession instead of fanaticism. Peace instead of uproar, because that is the character of the God who is present.
For God is not [a God] of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.
Paul orders the meetings at Corinth by one rule: the character of God Himself. A gathering should look like the God it worships. So two questions follow. Where does confusion come from, and who keeps order when believers meet? (Older translations render the first phrase "God is not the author of confusion.")
The verse comes right after the words about the spirits of the prophets. Read together, they show what a scene of confusion really means.
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.
The practical value of this is that it removes a standard excuse. A speaker is never at the mercy of his gift.
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.
If peace belongs to God, disorder must come from somewhere else.
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.
The same principle reaches beyond the meeting into every quarrel among believers.
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.
Because God Himself is the God of peace, one question presses: who presides when believers gather?
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.
The closing phrase widens the verse past Corinth. What Paul writes to one assembly holds for all.
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.
Commentators differ on where the phrase belongs. Some join it to the words before it; others to the sentence after it.
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."
These directions carry the weight of a command, so no one may shelve them as out of date.
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.
- Character — Peace describes God Himself. So confusion in a meeting shows that something other than God is at work.
- Control — The prophets' spirits are subject to them. No speaker can plead an impulse he cannot resist, and wild excitement is not the mark of God's Spirit.
- Cause — Confusion grows out of self-seeking and the flesh. Strife between believers starts in the same place.
- Chairman — God Himself is present to keep order. Setting up a man to preside in His assembly counts as unbelief, not good management.
- Compass — "As in all the churches" makes this the pattern everywhere. And these are the Lord's commandments, not Paul's preference.