What did Paul say about speaking in tongues?

Verses 2-4. "For he that speaks in an (unknown) tongue speaks not to men," etc. To justify the prominence assigned to prophecy, it is here compared with what seems at that time to have been one of the commonest as well as the most conspicuous form of spiritual manifestation. That "tongues" had been unduly valued by these Corinthian saints, and the gift unseasonably used, may be inferred from the general tenor of this chapter, the chief aim of which is the correction of disorders arising from a free exercise of spiritual powers, without the qualifying accompaniments of soundmindedness and love. He begins, therefore, his task by a comparative definition of these very dissimilar gifts, one of which is in its exercise distinctively for God, and the other for men. He who had a "tongue" spake not to men, but to God. It is this non-communicative character that separates it so strikingly from all other spiritual manifestations. The very member which forms the active link of human intercourse and sympathy was in this case miraculously diverted from its natural use. Men spoke, but with an utterance not cognizable even by their own understanding. Their speech was addressed immediately to God, yet not in the ordinary communion of the Spirit. For neither praise, nor prayer, nor intercession could proceed intelligently while the understanding was in suspense. In his spirit the speaker was engaged with "mysteries," while his mind was inactive and out of communication with the minds of others. No one could understand him.2 He knew that he was speaking, and that he spoke to God, but he looked for no effect on others. Without a divinely gifted interpreter, the only result of such utterances was that God was really operating, but men knew not either how or why.

Assuredly the apostolic test is not always appreciated, and there are those in our day as indifferent to edification as the Corinthians. But a greater than they did not regard as a defect in spiritual tone the desire that men should be refreshed or helped in whatever way they needed. No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift, and that theirs was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle boldly maintains that the lack of speaking to men demonstrates the inferiority of speaking in a tongue to prophesying. He that so speaks is not taxed with speaking unintelligibly, or unintelligible things; on the contrary he is presumed to speak the truth, and high truth — "in spirit he speaks mysteries." But, the language being unknown, "no one hears;" he is not understood. He that prophesies speaks to men edification, encouragement, and comfort. The testimony flows in blessing to souls. The apostle was not dazzled, as the Corinthians were then and many since, in their yearnings after it, with the display of power. But he unqualifiedly sets prophesying beyond such a display, for it brings in not power merely but God, and God in His building up souls, encouraging them and consoling them. This does not cast such a halo around man; but it really brings in God in grace, and gives the consciousness of His presence.

We must remember, however, that verse 8 is not a definition of prophesying, but its contrast with speaking in a tongue. Prophesying, again, has no necessary connection with the future, as some suppose, nor is it preaching or teaching in general. It is forth-telling rather than fore-telling. It is so speaking to man as to put him in the light of God — of God's dealing with his heart and conscience. It gives His mind.

Hence the apostle proceeds to say (ver. 4) that he that speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he that prophesies edifies the assembly. Here again the mistake of the Corinthians was exposed, and the grace and wisdom of the apostle evident.

The apostle is careful to intimate that there was not the least reason on his part for jealousy of others speaking in a tongue; for he himself was gifted in this way more than them all. But in the assembly to speak five words with the understanding was to him more desirable than ever so many in a tongue; and this, because his heart was set on instructing others also. It is love which should animate, not self-pleasing; and love works with a view to edification. Hence the grave and wise exhortation that follows, not without reproof.

"Brethren, be not children in mind, but in malice be infants, but in mind be of full age. In the law it is written, By men of other tongues, and by lips of others,* will I speak to this people; and not even thus will they listen to me, says Jehovah. Wherefore the tongues are for a sign, not to those that believe, but to the unfaithful, while prophecy [is] not to the unfaithful, but to those that believe. If therefore the whole assembly come together unto the same place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in simple or unfaithful [persons], will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and some unfaithful or simple one come in, he is convicted by all, he is judged by all;† the secrets of his heart become manifest; and thus† falling on [his] face he will do homage to God, reporting that indeed God is among you." (Vers. 20-25.)

The Apostle at once proceeds to contrast the gift of prophecy with the gift of tongues, which evidently had great attractions in the estimation of the Corinthian believers, being so obviously supernatural in its origin. He does not cast any doubt upon this particular spiritual manifestation. The "tongues" to which he alluded, were the genuine manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit, and under the control of the speaker. The Apostle spoke with tongues himself in larger measure than any of the Corinthians, but he did so in a controlled and restrained way. Verses 6, 15, 18, and 19 show this. The point is, that even when the gift of tongues is at its best, it is of less profit than the gift of prophecy.

To saints alone was it given. None else could share in it, for it was an effect of receiving the Holy Ghost. He who confounded human speech at Babel, could and did empower some at Jerusalem to speak with tongues they had not previously learnt. Some, we say, because, even in apostolic days, all Christians did not share in this manifestation of the Spirit. In the Acts there are but three occasions on which this power is recorded as having been bestowed — at Pentecost (2), at Caesarea (10), and at Ephesus (19); and on each of these occasions every member of the company who received the Holy Ghost participated in that manifestation of the Spirit. At Corinth, where some shared in that power, all, it would seem, did not (1 Cor. 12:10, 30, 14:5). At Philippi, at Rome, at Thessalonica, and in Galatia we read not of its being bestowed on any of the converts. Paul himself spoke with tongues more than any of the Corinthians. He needed it for his work, and he tells us the purpose of it was to impress and to attract unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22). And as each manifestation of the Spirit had for its object the profit of others, wonderful as was the power of speaking with tongues it was not bestowed on any for mere display or self-glory.

In N.T. days, as we learn from 1 Cor. 14, men were not to speak in a tongue without the gift of interpretation. If there were no interpreter, such an one, gifted as he was, must be silent in the assembly, because all things there must be done to edifying, whereas even the man's own spirit was unfruitful. The great thing was to speak with the spirit and with the understanding also. Hence the apostle thanked God that he spoke with tongues more than any of them; but in the assembly he preferred to speak five words with his understanding that he might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. What a rebuke to the childishness which coats on the display of power! What strengthening of holy love that all might learn and be encouraged!

This of course was not inspiration, but it furnishes a principle for estimating intelligently the various forms which the Holy Spirit adopted in that work also. Nor can any right mind overlook on the one hand that, where it was God's power conspicuously and unmistakeably working in a tongue, it holds far from the highest place for the assembly; it was (without the presence of an interpretation) excluded, as having no more title in itself to be there than the performance of a miracle, a sign for unbelievers, not for the faithful. And so they and the like are classed together, the lowest in the scale of these divine gifts (1 Cor. 12, 14). Prophesying on the other hand has the highest value; for he that exercises this gift speaks to men's edification and encouragement and consolation; he edifies the church, which the speaker in a tongue cannot do, unless there be also interpretation with it. Thus God gave the better place where His Spirit brought in the distinct element of profit for others. Power, though plainly God's, is subordinate to spiritual blessing, order, and love.

Prophesying here, evidently, does not mean predicting, as some might suppose; nor, as others say, mere preaching. There is a great deal of preaching which is not prophesying. Indeed, it might well be affirmed that the preaching of the gospel is never, rightly considered, prophesying; for this last is that character of teaching which lays the conscience bare in the presence of God, and brings God and man thus close together, if I may venture so to put it, Therefore this is what the apostle contrasts with the exercise of a tongue. The tongue was forbidden, if there were no interpreter; and for the plain reason, that otherwise it would not edify the church. The object of all that is done there must be " unto edifying." Whatever therefore does not edify is not fit for the assembly of God, and ought not to be allowed there. It may be well meant; it may be by the Holy Ghost, as regards power; but whatever is not intelligible, and has not the character of building up the saints of God, is not fit for the assembly. These things might be very well out of the assembly; nay, it was their proper place, as a testimony to unbelievers. But they had no business in the assembly, if their exercise did not tend to the instruction, exhortation, or comfort of the assembly; and edify the assembly they could not, unless there was one who had the gift of the interpretation of tongues, and could, therefore, turn them to present account in the building up the saints of God in the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.

"He that speaketh with a tongue," the apostle goes on, "edifieth himself." He has not, as people strangely imagine, the thought that he might not himself understand the tongue that he was using. He edifieth himself, and we are told shortly after that the assembly cannot receive edifying except it be by the interpretation of the tongue. If there is not meaning in the tongue, it is like a mere lifeless thing, giving sound. This principle applies plainly to the possessor of the tongue, as it does to others. The apostle has no idea, as some have put it, that the mere consciousness, as it were, of speaking by a divine impulse (however ignorant one may be of what is contained in it) is that which edifies. The whole assembly might be edified on the same principle, if that were edification; but the apostle insists that there must be the intelligent apprehension of what is heard, or there is no use, no edification. Thus, he that speaketh with a tongue, but with no power to interpret (for the gift of interpretation might not necessarily accompany the gift of the tongue) edifieth himself simply, but he that prophesieth edifieth the assembly. He does not in the least desire to set aside the speaking with tongues. He would that they all spake with them, but much rather would he that they prophesied, because "greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues." It is evident that the Corinthians thought very differently as to that. The tongue, in their minds, put a man upon a much greater eminence than any prophesying could do, but how different where love rules! and that is the whole matter here. The edification of others is that which decides upon the greatness of the speaker. The one who speaks to most edification, whatever the manner of speech, is the one who is greatest. If, then, one came speaking with tongues, what would the profit be unless there was revelation or knowledge or prophesying, (which we see he makes, therefore, distinct from revelation: there might be a prophesying without that,) or doctrine, — the teaching of some truth?

He appeals to the lifeless thing even giving sound. If there were no distinctions in the sounds, if it were all unmeaning, how would anything be gathered from what was piped or harped? If the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who would prepare himself to the war? So, also, ye with a tongue, he says, except ye give a distinct word, that is, a word appreciable, — a word that shall be known in its significance by those addressed, how shall it be known what is spoken? You are just speaking, he says, into the air. Not a voice that God has given in the world but has its significance! If, therefore, tongues are to be merely a sound, the one who speaks will be simply a Barbarian to others, as those who listen are for him Barbarians. The rule, therefore, was for those who were emulous of spiritual gifts, that they might abound indeed, but for the edifying of the Church. So if a man were speaking with a tongue, he might pray that he might interpret. It may seem a strange thing that the gift of interpretation did not necessarily accompany the gift of the tongue itself; but in this way one can at least see that a gift of this showy character would be kept in more complete dependence, as was needed so much at Corinth; for the abuses which the apostle would remedy were necessarily found more or less among the people to whom he was speaking. Thus the one who seemed in their eyes so exalted by the gift of the tongue, nevertheless had to be indebted to the service of another for the interpretation of it. No doubt, where it was love that dictated, where love was in earnest for the help of men, God might add the gift of interpretation to the tongue itself, but the two things, as is plain, were distinct.

(2) The apostle goes on: "For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my mind is unfruitful." It has been thought, perhaps generally, that here his inability to understand what he was saying was necessarily supposed, but why? Is not the fruit which the apostle is teaching us everywhere to look for, the edification of the assembly? And thus if a man prayed simply with a tongue, apart from interpretation, there could be no fruitfulness; in that respect the mind was really unfruitful. "But," says the apostle, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the understanding. I will praise with the spirit and I will praise with the understanding." That is, surely, therefore, in connection with the context here, in such a way that there shall be understanding all round, for he goes on directly to argue that if you bless in the spirit only, the one who occupies the place of the unlearned cannot possibly say "amen" to the giving of thanks; for he does not know what is being said. You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. Thus even in prayer and praise the same principle obtains. 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, but the assembly as such is always in mind, and the gathering is not to be diverted into any mere field for the private exercises of the saints, whatever their character might be. Solemn it is to realize that even the giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The fact that the gift is from God does not of necessity justify the use of it. The use at any particular time must be governed by the principle which runs through all this, the principle of edification, which is sought always. The apostle was not speaking to discredit tongues, the ability to use which he had more than all, yet he deliberately chooses rather to speak five words with his understanding, to instruct others, (there he defines really what he means by five words with the understanding, which is that he may instruct others by them,) he would rather speak five words this way than ten thousand in a tongue. To think otherwise would be to be children in their minds; but he does not want them to be children in mind, although he would be happy that they were children in malice; but in their minds they were to be full grown. What, in fact, had God shown with regard to this use of tongues, unintelligible tongues, as we see? That is really the point of it. It was written in the law, in the book of Isaiah (the whole of the Old Testament is characterized as law): "With other tongues and lips of others I will speak unto this people, and not even so will they bear me, saith the Lord." But to what did this refer? In fact, to their captivity among foreigners or the dominion of foreigners over them, a thing in itself which would necessarily and notably speak to a people who could only be in this condition through their own sin and failure, and yet their sin would not be remedied by it, nor would they listen, as the Lord says, to these tongues by which He was speaking so strangely to them; so that in this case tongues were for a sign not to believers, but to unbelievers. God was speaking to them indeed, but in a strange language through their unbelief, and this only, through the hardness of their heart, shut them up the more in that unbelief, did not deliver them. Prophesying, on the other hand, was directly for believers, not for unbelievers. Now if the whole assembly come together in one place and all speak with tongues, he urges, and there come in unlearned persons or unbelievers, what will they say? What effect will it have upon them? "Will they not say that ye are mad?" It is supposed, of course, that there is no making plain the thing so as to edify; just used as strange tongues because of the wonder of such speech. They are tongues, he supposes, that are not understood. On the other hand, if all prophesied, and there came in one who was an unbeliever or unlearned, this bringing in of the mind of God, unbaring as it does the secrets of the heart, would bring conviction to the man who came. He might not indeed be converted by it, but be would find, in fact, his inmost heart searched out, and would recognize that it was God who was searching; so, falling upon his face, he would worship God, and declare that God was with them of a truth. How plainly is the character of prophesying thus seen as the bringing in of God in such a way as would speak for itself; the voice of God made audible in the speaker, with its direct power over the conscience of those who heard.

Verse 8. "Love never fails," etc. It cannot fail nor cease, since it is the very life of God which they who are born of Him will live for ever in His presence, after all obstructions to its full development are gone. It is a nature, not a gift, save only as life is itself the gift of Him who is the quickening Spirit.9 But special gifts and manifestations of the Spirit must cease with the occasion which has called them forth. "Prophesyings," which are now the Comforter's chief means of edifying the saints, will exhaust themselves in the completion of their work. No prophet's voice is heard in heaven, where love has its open vision of unending joy, and where the promises of truth are finally made good. "Tongues," also, which differ in their speech, must cease. Their diversity on earth is a judicial badge of the common distance which separates the nations from the living God. And if God now through His messengers accosts men in their native tongue, it is that He may bring them to a knowledge which shall one day find its adequate expression in a new and nobler speech. In heaven there are many voices, but one speech. Meanwhile the ear of God is accessible, through Jesus Christ, to a far divided utterance of the common faith. Even "knowledge" 1 also shall then be at an end; such knowledge, that is, as we now call by that name. But as such an assertion is a natural paradox, he devotes in what follows some space to its elucidation.

(1) The gift of prophecy is superior to that of tongues because he that prophesies speaks to men to edification and comfort and consolation, and the assembly is edified thereby. One speaking in a tongue (without interpretation) speaks not to men but to God, and edifies himself only. The apostle adds, “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied; for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying” (1 Cor. 14:1-5).

(2) If the apostle himself came to Corinth speaking with tongues, he would not profit them unless he spoke to them by way of revelation or prophesying or knowledge or teaching (ver. 6). The apostle further thanked God that he spoke with tongues more than all of them, yet in the assembly he would rather speak five words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue (verses 18, 19).

(3) Prayer which is primarily a direct address to God was not to be in a tongue unless there was interpretation. This also applied to the giving of thanks, for as others in such cases could not understand they could not say, Amen (verses 13-17). Spirit-given communications in the assembly would be intelligible to all present.