Thus also *ye* with the tongue, unless ye give a distinct speech, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking to the air.
Paul has been telling the Corinthians that a gift used in the meeting must reach the people who hear it. Here he sums that up: sound with no meaning goes nowhere. The question reaches far past tongues. What makes speech useful, and what turns it into wasted breath?
Note: some writers below quote an older translation. Where the ESV has "speech that is not intelligible", it reads "words easy to be understood."
Paul reaches this verse by way of a pipe and a harp. One writer follows that picture to the exact demand the verse makes: not a simple subject, but a clear sound.
Next he brings in musical instruments to confirm the point. The hearer must be able to tell the sounds apart and understand them, or nothing follows. "Even lifeless things that give sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give no distinction to the notes, how will anyone know what is being played?" Now we do not distinguish the sounds of a language we do not know. The truths conveyed may be ever so weighty, but an unknown language is only a confused jargon. Distinctness, so as to be understood, is the point pressed. Not exactly "easy to be understood", but distinct speech, so that people can grasp it. Otherwise the hearers lose it all.
The Corinthians misused tongues, but the rule does not stop there. It reaches every speaker, even one using his hearers' own language.
The point of these verses is that bare sounds have no value. The voice must carry meaning to those who listen. It must be intelligible. Is that only important in connection with the gift of tongues? Not at all. It applies universally. In our meetings it is not enough that the speaker talks in English. He may slip into a display of his learning. He may use crowds of long, uncommon words that leave his learners a complete blank as to his meaning. Or he may speak so fast, or so obscurely, that no one can follow him. In all such cases people merely "speak into the air," and there is no profit.
Some hearers mistake fog for depth. One writer answers that, and draws a second lesson from the trumpet: a message needs certainty as well as clarity.
Obscurity is not spirituality. If the trumpet's sound is "uncertain", it will have no effect on the hearers. So ministry may come out so confused that it conveys no meaning. Or it may sound so uncertain that it has no effect on the hearers. If ministry is to build others up, it needs words "easy to be understood" and the certainty of the oracles of God.
The test is not the speaker's gift. It is what the hearers gain. That standard exposes the motive under the Corinthian love of tongues.
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. The matter carried by the unknown language may be excellent. Even so, it has no place in the assembly unless someone interprets it properly... If they really wanted the Spirit's power among them, why did they not seek to abound in building one another up? This would be divine love, not vain display, but worthy of Christ and His saints. It is flesh that likes distinction for itself. It is not the service of the Lord for the good of others, where God is pleased to deal with souls.
Clear delivery is not the whole test. The speaker's own mind is part of it.
The apostle wants the understanding to be at work — and that remark matters greatly when judging men's claims to the Spirit... The individual speaking did not himself enjoy, as from God, what he communicated to others. If others did not understand it either, it was child's play to utter words without meaning to the hearers.
One writer points to three steps in an earlier public reading of God's book. Paul's rule was already there.
First, the book was read distinctly... Second, they gave the sense... Third, they made certain that the hearers really did understand the reading. That account anticipates the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 about what is said in the Christian assembly. The one who gives thanks, or prays, or ministers the word must be sure of two things. He must know what he is saying. He must also say it so that people understand it, take it in, and endorse it with an "Amen". The speaker may say, "I knew quite well what I wanted to say." We have to reply, "Yes, but did you speak clearly and simply enough for your hearers to get the sense and grasp your message?"
- Distinct — speak so the hearer can tell what you said. Weighty truth in an unknown language is still a confused jargon.
- Universal — the rule is not just about tongues. Long words, speed, or fog turn any speaker into a man speaking into the air.
- Understood — obscurity is not spirituality. Speak clearly and with certainty, like a trumpet call people can act on.
- Edifying — clear speech builds up the assembly. Love wants that; display does not.
- Amen — the last test is simple. Can the hearers take in the sense and say "Amen"? Ask not "did I know my meaning?" but "did they?"
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of undistinguishable sound.
Paul is arguing about unknown languages in the church at Corinth. He grants that every language means something to someone, but asks a sharper question: does it mean anything to the listener?
Older versions read "voices" here where the ESV reads "languages." One writer explains the difference between hearing the words and hearing the voice.
It is clear, then, that we may hear the words and miss the voice. In 1 Corinthians 14:10 we read there are "so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without meaning." The voice, then, is the true meaning of the words — the message that the words contain.
The tongues at Corinth were not gibberish. Each one was a real language, spoken somewhere in the world.
Verses 10 and 11 show that whatever tongue God gave a man, it was a genuine language. There were many kinds of language in the world, and each meant something to someone, but not to everyone. For if one did not know the meaning of my voice, I would be a barbarian to him, and he to me. There is no fellowship, because there is no understanding.
One dictionary traces that word "barbarian" back to Roman usage.
The word means "foreigner, alien." The Romans used it for any people who did not understand Latin or Greek.
Paul now presses the point on the speaker himself.
after-note: DELETE not used
So also you with a tongue, he says. Unless you give a distinct word — a word your hearers can grasp and know the meaning of — how will anyone know what you said? You are just speaking, he says, into the air. There is not a voice God has given in the world that does not have its meaning! If tongues are only a sound, the one who speaks is a foreigner to others, and those who listen are foreigners to him.
Fine content does not rescue speech no one can follow. What belongs in the gathering is what builds others up.
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. However excellent the content of the unknown language, it has no claim to a place in the assembly unless someone properly interprets it. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a conversation with a foreigner… Why did they not seek to build one another up? That would be divine love, not vain display, but worthy of Christ and His saints. It is flesh that likes distinction for itself, not the service of the Lord for the good of others.
The same test applies to ordinary preaching and teaching.
Obscurity is not spirituality… Every voice in nature has a special meaning, and so words have a special meaning. If we use words that convey no meaning to the hearers, we are in effect foreigners speaking in some strange jargon.
Another writer applies this to preachers who speak above their hearers.
This is a rebuke too to those who like to use university language when speaking to ordinary people. They choose unusual words and tangled sentences. Such a person might as well be silent unless he explains simply what he means.
One writer follows an older reading of the second half: "nothing is without voice."
"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and nothing is without voice" (1 Cor. 14:10, Revised Version margin). Nothing is without voice to us if we have ears to hear. "Does not even nature itself teach you?" he also says in another connection to the same people (1 Cor. 11:14), showing that "nothing is without voice" is a fact for Christian people to take into account.
- Voice — a voice is the meaning inside the words, not the noise. You can hear the words and still miss it.
- Meaning — every language in the world carries meaning to someone, but not to everyone.
- Foreigner — when the hearer misses the meaning, speaker and hearer are foreigners to each other. Fellowship stops because understanding stopped.
- Building up — however good the content, speech no one can follow has no place in the assembly unless someone interprets it.
- Plainness — the same rule judges unclear preaching today. Obscurity is not spirituality, and speaking into the air helps no one.
If therefore I do not know the power of the sound, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks a barbarian for me.
At Corinth, people were speaking in languages the rest of the room could not follow. Verse 11 is Paul's test case, and it raises the question behind the whole chapter: what is speech for among God's people?
Older versions render Paul's word here as "barbarian." It marked a person by language:
The word barbaros means "foreigner, alien." The Romans used it for any people who did not understand Latin or Greek. In Romans 1:14 such people stand in contrast to the Greeks. In 1 Corinthians 14:11, a person hears another speak in a language he does not understand. He would count that speaker a foreigner, and be counted one himself.
Paul's test is whether the hearer knows the meaning. Older translations use "voice" where the ESV has "language," and one writer explains what that "voice" is:
It is clear that we may hear the words and miss the voice. Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:10 we read that there are so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without meaning. The voice, then, is the true meaning of the words — the message that the words contain.
The loss runs both ways. Neither side gains, and what goes missing is more than information:
Verses 10 and 11 show that whatever tongue God gifted a man with, it was a genuine language. There were many kinds of language in the world, and all of them meant something to someone, but not to everyone. For if one did not know the meaning of my voice, I should be to him like a foreigner, and he to me. There is no fellowship, because there is no understanding.
The worth of what is said is not the issue. The question is whether the room can take it in — and what drives the speaker:
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. The content carried by the unknown language may be excellent. Even so, it has no claim to be spoken in the assembly unless someone interprets it properly. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a conversation with a foreigner. If they were really in earnest about the power of the Spirit among them, why did they not seek to abound in building one another up? That would be divine love, not empty display, and worthy of Christ and His saints. It is the flesh that likes distinction for itself, not the service of the Lord for the good of others.
The many languages of the world go back to God's judgment at Babel. The gift of tongues crossed that divide:
At Babel, man had once had one speech and one language. There God confounded their pride, and men were shut up in a divided condition. God used that for His own purposes, but it set up barriers that prevented common communication... When Christianity came in, power was not yet going to set the world right. But grace was overstepping these barriers. The overflowing love of God was greeting the nations where they were, in their darkness and misery, without forcing them to bend their necks under the harsh yoke of Judaism. What could express this better than speaking to every one of them in his own language?
Used inside the assembly without interpretation, the gift rebuilt the very wall it was given to cross.
The test does not only apply to foreign languages. A man can speak your own language and still leave you a foreigner:
The immediate point of these verses is that mere vocal sounds are of no value. What is spoken must have some meaning to those who listen. It must be intelligible. Is that only important in connection with the gift of tongues? Not at all. It applies everywhere. In our meetings it will not be enough that the speaker talks in English. He may be tempted into a display of his learning. He may use crowds of long, uncommon words that leave his hearers' minds a complete blank as to his meaning. Or he may speak so fast, or so obscurely, as to be unintelligible. In all such cases people merely "speak into the air," and there is no profit.
- Foreigner. Paul's word meant an outsider by language, and in verse 11 each man becomes that to the other. The barrier is meaning itself.
- Voice. You can catch every word and still miss the voice, because the voice is the message the words carry.
- Fellowship. Where understanding fails, fellowship fails with it. Sound without sense joins nobody to anybody.
- Edification. Being understood is the condition of building others up. Content no one can follow has no claim on the meeting. The appetite for display is flesh, not love.
- Reach. The gift was grace stepping over the barriers Babel raised. Used where no one can follow, it rebuilds them. The same test falls on long words, fast speech, and obscure preaching today.
Thus *ye* also, since ye are desirous of spirits, seek that ye may abound for the edification of the assembly.
Speech no one can understand leaves the speaker and the hearer like two foreigners. So Paul turns to the Corinthians themselves. Their eagerness for spiritual power was real. But it needed an aim outside themselves: the building up of the church.
Paul does not tell them to want less. He shows them where real distinction lies.
He praises their desire to stand out spiritually, and shows them how real greatness is reached. Building up the Church, which is the Spirit's temple, should be the aim of those who seek His gifts. God's dwelling should also be His rest. But He can rest only where His truth is honoured and obeyed.
Two motives can drive the same desire for gifts: love, or display.
If they really wanted the Spirit's power among them, why did they not seek to overflow in building one another up? That would be divine love, not empty display, and worthy of Christ and His saints. It is the flesh that likes distinction for itself. It does not want the Lord's service for the good of others, where God stoops to deal with souls.
One word runs through the whole chapter, and it gives every speaker a standard to measure himself by.
There is one word that marks this chapter. The keynote of 1 Cor. 14 is one word, "edification." What will edify? That will always be a serious question to everyone who has any gift. I may think I am edifying the Assembly, and be mistaken. If I do not edify, I think you ought to tell me... The great point is, what will edify. What takes place in the Assembly must have that character, and love would stop ministry that fails to edify... Often in our meetings a good deal is not edifying, simply because it is not heard. How can you say "Amen" to a brother's prayers if you do not hear them?
The Spirit's aim in the meeting is the whole company, not one person.
Every work of the Spirit of God in the assembly aims at building up the saints together as one body. This must be the test of every word spoken in the assembly.
The verse allows ambition and then defines it. To excel is not to rise above the others present.
So if we are eager for spiritual gifts, let it not be to exalt ourselves and rise above other believers. Let it be to excel in building up the assembly. Nothing that sets aside this great principle of edification can be of the Spirit. Where nothing hinders the Holy Spirit, love rules, and where love rules every word spoken will build people up.
The same principle tests why I want to serve at all.
Verse 12 gives an excellent guiding principle for all gifts. If we eagerly desire spiritual gifts, let our honest aim be the true building up of the assembly. My own blessing, joy, or prominence are very unworthy motives. Others are in need, and I should care that their need is truly met.
Verses 10 and 11 lead straight into this appeal, and they settle a practical matter: speech that is not grasped cannot build.
To be understood, then, is essential to edification. However excellent the content carried by an unknown language, it has no claim to be spoken in the assembly unless someone interprets it properly. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a conversation with a foreigner.
A gift can be real while self drives how it is used. The Corinthians show the danger.
The gift of tongues was what seemed to man the most wonderful, and the Corinthians delighted in displaying it. Instead of love seeking the edification of all, it was vanity seeking to display its gifts. They were real gifts — gifts of the Spirit. And here is the solemn thing for us to weigh. A person may have the Spirit's power for service without the Spirit's living guidance in using it. That guidance comes only where self is crucified and Christ is everything to the soul. The object of the Holy Spirit is not to glorify the poor earthen vessel which contains His gifts.
- Zeal — approved. Paul does not scold their eagerness for gifts. He aims it: real greatness is building the church, not personal display.
- Zeal — measured. Edification is the keynote of the chapter. It is the test of every word spoken when believers meet.
- Zeal — understood. Speech no one can follow cannot build, however good its content. To be understood is essential.
- Zeal — turned outward. My own blessing, joy, or prominence are unworthy motives. The real question is whether others' needs are met.
- Zeal — governed. Self can still use a real gift. So the Spirit's power must go with the Spirit's guidance, where self is crucified and Christ is everything.
Wherefore let him that speaks with a tongue pray that he may interpret.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Paul has just told the Corinthians that anyone speaking in a language nobody present knows should pray for the power to interpret it. Two questions follow: what is "my spirit," as against "my mind" — and what fails to bear fruit?
Paul draws a line between the inner self and the thinking mind. One writer traces the word "spirit" through the New Testament and stops at this verse.
See 1 Thessalonians 5:23, where the word "spirit" plainly means the spirit of a man, in contrast with mere soul and body. See 1 Corinthians 14:14 and the verses after it. There we have the man's spirit as distinct from his intelligence. The spirit is the vessel of the action, or power, of the Holy Spirit.
One reading is that the speaker himself did not follow his own words. He felt God at work in him, yet the meaning never reached his own thinking.
Perhaps he did not understand himself. He was the unknowing instrument of the Spirit. Yet he had a powerful sense that God was speaking through him. So in the Spirit he felt he was in communication with God, although his understanding was unfruitful.
Another writer rejects that reading. For him, "unfruitful" means producing nothing, not failing to understand.
If Paul prayed in an actual tongue, his spirit prayed. If his spirit prayed, then he knew what he was praying, for "who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?" (1 Cor. 2:11). But his understanding was unfruitful. Some have said this means he did not understand; but this is plainly wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. So suppose I pray in the assembly in a tongue the assembly does not know. I understand myself, but my understanding bears no fruit in the understanding of others.
Someone might object that prayer is a special case. It goes up to God, not out to people. Paul's own example shuts that door.
Praying in a tongue is ruled out on this principle just as firmly as any other kind of speaking in a tongue. And it is clearly the strongest case. It is an address to God, who of course understood it all. So it settles the question against prayer in any unknown tongue. Communion is the joy of the assembly; at the very least edification is essential. If the assembly as a whole cannot understand it, it has no claim to be heard there — unless someone interprets it, directly or indirectly.
Everything spoken aloud when believers gather goes in one of two directions. Both need words others can follow.
"But," says the apostle, "I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also." … He argues at once that if you bless in the spirit only, the one who is in the place of an outsider cannot say "Amen" to the thanksgiving. He does not know what is being said. You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. So even in prayer and praise the same principle holds. In the assembly everything is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly. It is solemn to realise that even giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The gift comes from God, but that does not by itself justify using it.
A prayer can be in the hearers' own language and still leave them unable to join in. That puts this verse to work in any ordinary meeting.
I must know what to pray about. And I must pray so that others can understand me — in a language they know, and loud enough to hear. I once said to a brother, "I never say Amen to your prayers." He said, "Don't you? Why not?" "Because I never hear what you say," I replied. He was a mumbler. There should be no such thing in public. The point is what is profitable.
- Spirit — the verse separates a person's spirit from his mind. The spirit is the vessel the Holy Spirit works through. Paul wants both spirit and mind engaged.
- Unfruitful — commentators differ on whose mind is barren. Some hold that the speaker did not grasp his own words. Others say it simply means his prayer produced nothing in the hearers.
- Fruit — the gift was real, but Paul measures it by fruit, not by power. A prayer can be genuine in spirit and still yield nothing.
- Amen — the test is whether the outsider can say "Amen." If he cannot follow the words, the thanksgiving may be excellent and still leave him with nothing.
- Assembly — in a meeting the speaker is either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly. So speaking clearly, and loud enough to be heard, is part of the service.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.
Paul has just raised a problem: someone prays in a language nobody else in the room can follow. His answer refuses to choose between spiritual power and plain sense — he will have both, in prayer and in song. (Where older translations read "understanding," the ESV reads "mind.")
One writer insists the problem was never that the speaker failed to grasp his own words:
Verse 14 has often been wrongly interpreted through inattention to what the verse actually says. If Paul prayed in an actual tongue, his spirit prayed. If his spirit prayed, then he knew what he was praying... But his understanding was unfruitful. Some have said this means he did not understand; but this is transparently wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. So suppose I pray in the assembly in a language the assembly does not know. I understand myself, but my understanding bears no fruit in the understanding of others.
Paul does not throw away what he has; he adds to it. The setting decides what fits — alone with God, or with others:
He will have his private blessings, and shared ones too. All that God gave he would use thankfully, but in the spirit of a sound mind. What he said to God alone, others need not know. What he prayed and sang with others must make sense to himself and to them.
Prayer and singing are not stray examples. One writer treats both as marks of the assembly — the church gathered together — and answers those who doubt that singing is spiritual at all:
In the assembly the Spirit should control every motion... God's assembly is marked by prayer — the expression of dependence — and singing, which is the outlet of the heart's joy. Some people think it is not spiritual to sing — I do not think they have the Spirit's mind... What a lovely picture of the assembly in action — ministry that profits, and prayer, singing, and worship. That is what God's assembly is put together for: to turn to Him in prayer, song, and worship.
The verse names two requirements. One makes praise possible at all. The other makes it shared:
The apostle brings singing forward along with praying and blessing. He does this to show what marks the true working of the Spirit of God in the assembly: the saints joining in together with understanding. Singing in this corporate way is the expression of the hearts of all to God as one. Without a spiritual nature the saints cannot sing to God at all. Without spiritual understanding they cannot sing in communion with one another. So when we are gathered together, let us sing with both the spirit and the understanding also.
In public the two do not count equally. What reaches the mind carries the greater weight with Paul, and the person who understands least sets the standard:
But we see also that prayer, singing, blessing, thanksgiving, as well as prophesying, had their full place in the assembly. They are all to edification... Power on its own is not enough, however clearly divine it is. What comes with the understanding, and so speaks to the understanding, carries the greatest weight with the apostle. He counts it as speaking with the Lord's authority. That is as true of prayers and hymns as it is of teaching. The least in the assembly is presumed to go intelligently with the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God.
If a hymn is meant to voice everyone, then personal enjoyment of it is not enough reason to announce it:
Suppose someone has found great joy in a certain hymn. It is a completely false principle for him to think he must at once take it to the assembly and ask everyone there to sing it with him. It is no doubt very natural to assume that what I find to be good, I should ask others to share. But it goes against the truth of 1 Corinthians 14... the hymn should be the expression of the minds and hearts of the saints at that particular time, and this shuts us up to the Spirit of God.
The same rule reaches the person who is only singing along:
We may sing a hymn of praise tunefully with our lips, but if our spirit is not with it, it is not acceptable worship to God. I must sing with the spirit and with the understanding. My heart must be right before my lips.
- Unfruitful — the word does not describe a confused speaker. It means his understanding bore no fruit in anyone else.
- Both — Paul keeps the spirit and adds the mind. What he says to God alone can stay private. What he brings to others must make sense to them all.
- Shared — a spiritual nature makes praise to God possible. Spiritual understanding makes it praise offered together.
- Measured — even the quietest person there should be able to follow the thanksgiving rising to God. So what reaches the mind carries the greatest weight.
- Costly — choosing a hymn is serious work, and singing one is honest work. The heart must be right before the lips.
Since otherwise, if thou blessest with [the] spirit, how shall he who fills the place of the simple [Christian] say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, since he does not know what thou sayest?
In Corinth spiritual power was never in doubt; the trouble was that gifted speakers left everyone else behind. Paul's test is simple: if a listener cannot follow you, he cannot say "Amen" to your thanksgiving.
The ESV reads "if you give thanks with your spirit." Older translations read "if you bless with the spirit." This verse settles whether the two are the same.
1 Cor. 14:16 gives clear proof of what other passages already make plain — that "blessing" means giving thanks. Elsewhere Scripture uses the two words for the same act. (Compare Matthew 14, Matthew 15, Luke 9, John 6) Here it identifies them as one.
The ESV speaks of "anyone in the position of an outsider." Older translations call him the "unlearned." The Greek word is idiotes.
idiotes (from idios, 'one's own')... is used of private persons, as distinct from officials or professionals, and so of simple or untaught people. The apostle asks how such a person could say Amen to the giving of thanks by someone speaking in a tongue, when he does not understand what was said (1 Cor. 14:16). In 1 Cor. 14:23-24 Paul classes him with unbelievers.
He is not a bystander. What he can follow sets the limit for what is said aloud.
The striking thing here is the clear recognition of the "unlearned," and his place as a true worshipper in the assembly of God. The apostle's thoughts rest mainly on him. God's assemblies are not set up for the empty display of gift. They are a means of building up His saints together... In a gathering of worshippers, anything the weakest member of Christ's body cannot understand builds nobody up, though it may interest a few.
Paul had just said his understanding was "unfruitful" when he prayed in a tongue. The word does not describe confusion in the speaker. It describes a result that bears no fruit.
Some have said this means he did not understand, but that is plainly wrong. Unfruitful means not bearing fruit. Suppose I pray in the assembly in a tongue the assembly does not know. I understand myself, but my understanding bears no fruit in the understanding of others.
Thanksgiving spoken aloud is not private business between one believer and God while the rest listen in.
So the same principle applies even in prayer and praise. In the assembly all is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly. The assembly as such is always in mind. The gathering is not to be turned into a field for the private exercises of the saints, whatever their character might be. It is solemn to see that even giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. That the gift is from God does not by itself justify using it. Its use at any moment must be governed by the principle running through all this: building others up.
That is why the humblest listener is the measure of what is fitting.
Power is not enough, however clearly divine. What comes with understanding, and so speaks to the understanding, carries the greatest weight with the apostle... Even the least in the assembly is meant to follow, with understanding, the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God.
"Amen" means "so be it." By saying it, listeners take another person's words on their own lips before God. That is only honest if they followed the words.
So the speaker must carry the assembly with him. They understand and follow what he says. They confirm his words before God and make them their own by saying "Amen" (meaning "So be it") at the end. They cannot say "Amen" with sense or honesty if they have no idea what it was all about.
The Amen is also meant to be heard, not just felt. One writer presses this on prayer meetings today.
Note that verse 16 assumes that everyone in the assembly, even the unlearned and the insignificant, does say "Amen." They say it; they do not just think it... If someone praying truly puts our own desires into words, let us confirm what he has said with a good, clear "Amen." If he has not, honesty makes us hold it back.
- Blessing. In this verse "bless" and "give thanks" describe one and the same act — praise addressed to God.
- Hearer. The "unlearned" is the plain, untrained person. He is a real worshipper, and the one Paul keeps in view.
- Fruit. A speaker can understand himself and still be unfruitful. Fruit here means understanding in the people listening.
- Voice. Whoever speaks aloud is either the assembly's voice to God or God's voice to the assembly. The meeting is not a place for private exercises.
- Amen. The listener's spoken "Amen" makes another's words his own. So it must be honest, audible, and based on what he understood.
For *thou* indeed givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Paul does not dismiss the man speaking in a tongue. He grants that the thanksgiving is good, then adds one word that undoes its usefulness: but. Can something truly offered to God still have no place in the gathering?
God accepts the thanks. The hearer still gains nothing.
One may give thanks well, with both he and God understanding what he says, but "the other person is not being built up."
Nothing is wrong with the thanks. The problem is the distance between the man's mouth and his neighbour's mind.
So one test decides what belongs in the assembly. Even a display of power must meet it.
Building others up, then, is the absolute rule for what is said in the assembly. However astonishing the display of divine power in answer to the name of Jesus, if it does not build up, it has no rightful place there. For love builds up, as knowledge puffs up, and power startles or stuns. God is love, so the assembly is the fitting place to exercise love, the energy of His own nature.
So what carries weight when the assembly meets? Not the power behind the words.
Power is not enough, however clearly divine. What is done with the understanding, and so speaks to the understanding, carries the most weight with the apostle, since it speaks with authority for the Lord. This is as true of prayers and hymns as of teaching. Even the least person in the assembly should be able to follow the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God. To be understood, and so to build others up, is required in the assembly.
after_note: DELETE
The weakest person present is the one the rule protects.
One person prays aloud, but he is not praying only for himself.
You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. So even in prayer and praise the same principle holds. In the assembly everything is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God, or the voice of God to the assembly. The assembly itself is always in mind. The gathering must not be turned into a mere field for the private exercises of believers, whatever their character may be. Even giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The fact that the gift is from God does not automatically justify the use of it.
The hearers have one word to say, and it is how they take the prayer as their own.
If anyone speaks to God in the assembly, in prayer or in thanksgiving, he must remember one thing. He is voicing the desires or the praises of the assembly. He is not speaking merely on his own behalf. So he must carry the assembly with him. They understand and follow what he says. Then they confirm it before God and make it their own by saying "Amen" (meaning "So be it") at the end. They cannot intelligibly and honestly say "Amen" at the end if they have no idea what it was all about.
A strange language is not the only way to lose the room. Plain words help nobody if nobody can hear them.
If I sing, if I pray, if I speak, what is the good of doing so unless the rest are edified? I once said to a friend of mine, "I never say 'Amen' to your prayers." He looked surprised and asked, "Why?" "Because," I replied, "I never hear what you say. You mumble so much in your prayers that I cannot hear you. And I am not going to say 'Amen' to a random string of words that I do not hear."
- Well. The thanks are real, and God understands them. Paul never questions the man's sincerity.
- But. The verse turns on one person: "the other." What reached God has still not reached him.
- Rule. Edification decides what belongs in the assembly. If it does not build up, no amount of power earns it a place.
- Voice. The one who prays aloud speaks for everyone present, not just for himself.
- Amen. The hearer's "Amen" is the proof the words arrived. A prayer nobody can follow is a prayer nobody can own.
I thank God I speak in a tongue more than all of you
Through this chapter Paul urges the Corinthians to value what builds others up, not what dazzles them. Here he claims more of that same gift than anyone — so why does he prefer five clear words to ten thousand?
Before hearing his preference, it helps to know why Paul brings up his own record at all. One commentator reads it as removing the easiest excuse for ignoring him.
He takes great care to show that he did not feel this way out of jealousy. It was not because he had fewer gifts than they had. He had no reason of his own to run down the gifts he was speaking about. In verse 18 he says, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." But what he wanted was edification, that is, the building up of the saints.
Paul's calling took him to the nations, and the gift matched that calling. Inside the assembly the rule was different.
The Corinthians had certainly overrated tongues. They lacked spiritual discernment and had prized the gift too highly. So, to avoid seeming to undervalue it, he solemnly thanks God for the fuller display of that same power in his own case. God had chosen him as a messenger to the nations. So besides the mysterious gift of speech no one could understand, he could speak without limit, as his calling required. But in the Church (at Corinth, or anywhere else), he would be heard only in the spoken language of the place.
Another writer explains what a tongue was, and where it was useful.
The tongue here is a real language, as we see in Acts 2:6, but one the speaker did not normally understand. The wonder of the gift was that God gave him the ability to speak his own thoughts in this foreign language, by the power of the Spirit, while he stayed in full control of his words. This had clear value when speaking to a foreigner whose own language it was. In this respect Paul spoke with tongues more than others. But in the assembly, where everyone understood Greek, other tongues were unnecessary.
Paul does not announce an achievement; he thanks God. One writer sees self-forgetting humility in that.
How beautiful is this self-renunciation in Paul! He had every gift. Yet with a single heart he sought not to display his gifts, but to exalt his Lord and build up the saints... Coming from such a man, these words of the Holy Spirit carry great force: "Let all things be done for building up."
Paul prefers five words for a reason. He wanted his own mind engaged, and other minds engaged with his.
He spoke more foreign languages, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, than they all. But his soul loved the things of God. He loved to receive truth from Him with his mind engaged. He loved fellowship with others where minds truly met. So he would rather say five words with his understanding than ten thousand without it in a language no one knew.
Corinth shows that impressive gifts and a healthy church are two different things.
There was the fullest proof in that city that it is no question of power. The Spirit of God worked among those saints openly and powerfully. They spoke with tongues, we are told; but they were worldly. In their ways they were a spectacle of shame, instead of being a practical witness to the grace of the Lord Jesus. Is not this a solemn lesson to us?
One writer reads the whole set of rules as permission rather than encouragement.
All these rules and statements teach us one thing. The churches were allowed to use this gift rather than encouraged to use it (see verse 39). It got in the way of what was really needed, which is building up in love, instead of helping it. Furthermore, tongues were for a sign to unbelievers. Prophesying is for believers.
- Credentials. Paul had more of the very gift he is limiting. So no one could brush off his correction as jealousy.
- Given. He thanks God for it. He received the gift; he did not earn it. So he reports it as praise, not a boast.
- Reach. The languages served his calling to the nations. But in the assembly he spoke only the language of the room.
- Understanding. He wanted his own mind in what he said, and other minds in what they heard. Five words people grasp outweigh ten thousand that reach no one.
- Result. Corinth proves that visible power and spiritual health are not the same thing. The test of anything said among God's people is whether it builds them up.
but in [the] assembly I desire to speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, [rather] than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Paul has just said that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in Corinth. Then he weighs five words against ten thousand, and two small phrases settle it: "in church" and "with my mind."
One writer states the rule that governs all speaking when believers meet:
The great aim of speaking in the assembly is to build people up. That aim is only reached when people understand what is said. It is impossible for a man to build me up if I cannot understand what he says. He must speak in a language I understand, and loudly enough to hear, or I receive nothing that builds me up. This is plain, and worth the serious attention of all who speak in public.
Paul's preference could sound like envy from a man who lacked the gift. He removes that suspicion first.
The apostle is careful to show that he had no reason at all to be jealous of others speaking in a tongue. He himself had this gift more than all of them. But in the assembly he would rather speak five words with the understanding than any number in a tongue. He said this because his heart was set on instructing others as well. It is love that should move us, not self-pleasing; and love works with a view to edification.
The phrase covers more than clear delivery. It means the speaker himself takes in from God what he passes on.
He wants the mind to be at work. This remark is of the highest importance when we judge men's claims to the Spirit. He does not deny that they might speak with tongues without the mind being in it at all — and that had clear power and use when people were present who understood no other language, or whose own language it was. But in general it was a lower thing when the Spirit did not act on the mind of the speaker, and so work through it. When the speaker did not understand his own words, there was no communion between souls in a common subject through the unity of the Spirit. The one speaking did not himself enjoy, as from God, what he communicated to others.
So the requirement runs at both ends of the line — in the mind of the speaker and in the ears of the hearers.
He desired to speak of things that he intelligently grasped, in such a way that they were thoroughly intelligible to his listeners.
Paul is not dismissing the gift. He is correcting their taste for display.
The apostle plainly grieves over the Corinthians because they failed with the gifts of God. They loved to make a display before the world, instead of enjoying God Himself in His word and building up His saints, and that grieved him. So he tries to convince them of their mistake, showing them that tongues are one of the lowest forms of the Spirit's working, and prophesying one of the highest... Refreshment, comfort, the lifting up of the heart — the building up of the saints — should be the one great aim of the Christian teacher. The man who ministers Christ and His work to the soul, out of the fullness of his own heart, is the minister who always builds up and never disappoints.
Commentators differ on what this says about the gift itself. One writer weighs the rules Paul lays down in this chapter and concludes:
The use of tongues was tolerated rather than commended, because it was a hindrance rather than a help to the thing that was needed, which is building up in love.
The verse cuts in two directions. It restrains the man who talks past his supply:
Our only warrant for standing up to speak in the assembly is that the Lord Himself has given us something to say. If it is only "five words," let us say the five and sit down. Nothing is more foolish than for a man to try to speak "ten thousand words" when God has only given him "five."... An earnest heart is better than a clever head. A fervent spirit is better than an eloquent tongue.
And it encourages the man who fears he has too little:
It is a waste of time for any of us to go on with what does not profit. You might not be able to say much, but if God's Spirit gives you something to say to His assembly, say it — you have that liberty in God's free church, and the "five words" might help greatly.
- Place. "In church" is the setting — the gathered saints. No one is built up by words he cannot understand.
- Motive. Paul had more of the gift than anyone, so his choice comes from love, not envy. Love builds others up; self-pleasing puts on a show.
- Meaning. "With my mind" reaches both ways: the speaker himself receives from God what he says, and the hearers can follow it.
- Measure. Say the five words God gave, and sit down. Trying for ten thousand when He gave five is folly, not spirituality.
- Result. Five words that are understood teach others. Ten thousand no one can follow leave the room just as it was.
Brethren, be not children in [your] minds, but in malice be babes; but in [your] minds be grown [men].
Paul has just said he would rather speak five intelligible words in the assembly than ten thousand in a tongue, and now he turns from argument to appeal. He calls them "brothers" and asks them to grow up in one area while staying small in another.
The problem at Corinth was not that the gifts were false. The Corinthians used them for display. Paul himself spoke in tongues more than any of them, so this is not envy on his part:
In condemning the abuse of tongues, the Apostle was not moved by jealousy. He himself spoke with tongues more than they all. But he used the gift in the right place, before the right audience, and for a right purpose. In the assembly, five words spoken with the understanding, so that others might be taught, were better than "ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." In their fondness for tongues, the Corinthians were acting like children, who delight in anything that makes a show.
The word "malice" may look out of place in a chapter about speaking. But a gift used to impress rather than to help is already turning against the people it was meant to serve:
Their misuse of tongues was childish. Paul urges them not to be children in understanding; yet in malice he tells them to be children. Notice the warning here. Misusing gifts, instead of showing love for others, will tend toward malice, which undermines true unity and love. A little child has no such attitude. In my attitude then let me have the simplicity of a child, but in understanding be "perfect," or mature. And this understanding is not only personal. It is the kind that builds understanding among God's people.
The danger is not confined to spectacular gifts. Hamilton Smith warns that the flesh "can, but for the grace of God, use prayer or ministry to work off a bit of malice against a brother."
The verse asks for two opposite things at once. One writer marks the difference by a single change of word, and points to the Lord Himself as the pattern:
In 1 Corinthians 14:20 we find a truly impressive appeal: "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature." He had no desire that his readers should be childish, but he longed that they might be childlike. "I am among you as He that serves," said the Lord to His self-important followers (Luke 22:27). Did He not wash their feet that very night? (John 13).
Older versions read "be men" here. One writer points to their margin notes, which give the sense of full growth:
"Perfection" is also used for the mature Christian condition, as a glance at the margin of Heb. 5:14 will show. The term there — "of full age" — is rendered in the margin as "perfect." In the same way, "be men" in 1 Cor. 14:20 is rendered in the margin as "be perfect," or "of a ripe age." … among Christians there are those perfect, or mature, in contrast with being babes.
So the call is not to cleverness but to growth.
Paul does not tell them to acquire something new. He points to what was already theirs, and asks them to develop it:
They should remember, also, that these special gifts were not their chief endowment as believers. "The mind of Christ" belonged to them as a part of their divine birthright. Let them try to cultivate it to full manhood. Let them be babes in the harmlessness of their lives, and in their willing ignorance of the world and its corruptions. But let them show themselves grown men in their knowledge of God and their keeping of His ways.
- Two ages, one person. Paul asks for an infant's innocence and an adult's understanding in the same believer. Corinth had them the wrong way round.
- Childish, not childlike. The Corinthians were not too simple. They were too eager for attention. Paul did not want them childish; he longed for them to be childlike.
- Show breeds malice. A gift used for display, instead of love for others, drifts toward malice. Malice undermines unity, so innocence is the thing to keep.
- Mature means full-grown. The word behind "be men" carries the idea of ripe age or full growth, the opposite of remaining a babe.
- Cultivate what you own. The mind of Christ was already theirs by birthright. Growing up means developing it, while staying willingly ignorant of the world's corruptions.