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.