What does it mean that tongues are a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22)?

Isaiah 28:11,12 is quoted in verse 21, referring to Israel's being humbled by the domination of foreign nations over them, on account of their proud rebellion against God. God would use foreign tongues to humble them, not to exalt them: He sought by this means to awaken them from their unbelief; yet they would not hear. Now God had given Israel a fresh sign as to speaking in tongues, Gentile languages being used in the proclamation of the gospel of grace, indicating that the gospel was not merely for Israel, but for all the world. It was a sign therefore specially for Jews (Cf. ch. 1:22), given for the time being, for the establishing of Christianity as being of God. And unbelieving Israel still would not hear.

How clear an illustration is this of the fact that tongues are a sign, not for believers, as verse 22 declares. But prophesying is as manifestly not for unbelievers, but for believers.

Every manifestation of the Spirit - thus also speaking in tongues - is given for profit (12:7). Not all spoke in tongues, but the Spirit gave this to some (12:8-11, 28-30). Speaking in tongues is at the very bottom of God's Word's order of rank (12:8-10, 28-30). That this is truly an order of rank becomes evident in the reading of these sections. Both in verses 28 and 29 the apostles are mentioned first. One should in no wise conclude from this that speaking in tongues would be a lasting gift, for the apostles, who are mentioned first, also were only for the beginning. According to 1 Corinthians 9:1 (see also Acts 1:21, 22) it was necessary for an apostle to have seen the Lord. Thus no new apostles could arise. But besides this 1 Corinthians 3 and Ephesians 2 and 3 tell us that the apostles laid the foundation of the assembly. Now it is evident that this happens only once, and that at the beginning. The gift of tongues was not given to be exercised in the assembly, but rather as a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:19-25). And not for unbelievers, either, who would not be able to understand it (14:23), but on the contrary for such who could understand it, where it would truly be a sign of the power of God. This is thus in full accord with that which we have seen in Acts 2.

(4) The apostle quotes a passage from Isaiah (Isa. 28:11-12) to show how they were overrating the spiritual value of tongues. Because of the apostasy of the people of Israel God would not speak to them in the language they could understand: “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak to this people; and not even thus will they hear Me, says the Lord.” Thus, hearing they would hear but not understand, as the same prophet said in another place (Isa. 6:9). Why should the Corinthians be so proud of the tongues which were given to attract the attention of unbelievers to what they did not understand, rather than to convince them of its truth? “Wherefore,” the apostle concludes, “tongues are for a sign not to those that believe, but to them that believe not” (ver. 22).

Before going farther, let it be remarked, that the gifts are of two kinds: first, such as serve to awaken souls, and to gather the Church; and, secondly, such as are signs to the world, signs of the presence of God in the Person of the Spirit in the Church. The Epistle to the Ephesians speaks to us only of the former; the Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of both. The word of God itself makes the above distinction, when it says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, and prophesyings are for believers (1 Cor. 14:22). This distinction is important, because it is impossible that anything should fail which is necessary for the conversion of souls, and for the building up of saints; whereas it is easy enough to conceive that God should withdraw that which was an ornament to the Church, and a token of its acceptability, when the Church is unfaithful, and when, instead of honouring God, she has grieved the Spirit. Nevertheless this external testimony remained, according to the wisdom of God in the Church, so long as it was needed, in order to confirm the preaching of the truths of the gospel.

"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.)

Thus the apostle as a father again admonishes his beloved children that they should eschew the trifling natural to the young, the disposition to be occupied with some new thing of slight moment in itself, but apt to tend to mischief, as their fondness for and misuse of tongues in the assembly hindered a due estimate of prophesying, the weightiest of all gifts for such an occasion. But he would nave them to cherish with the artlessness of a babe the understanding of riper years. And he cites freely from Isaiah 28:11-12, so as to convoy a wholesome inference for the Corinthian saints. For God is there warning the Jews, dull to hearken 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, for the saints in Corinth to turn from God, speaking in prophecy for their edification, to tongues which they could not understand! to find their pleasure as Christians in what was God's solemn threat to His ancient people because of their unheeding refractoriness! The apostle, neither here nor anywhere, despises a tongue in its own place and season, used as a sign for unbelievers as God intended it. The unintelligent and unloving mistake was introducing it among believers, who could not profit by it. Divine gift as it was, its possession constituted no license to exercise it apart from the end of the Lord, who gave it in His grace and for His glory, and with His will now expressed to control its use.

The common English version needlessly introduces "serves" in the latter half of verse 22. I think, however, that it is justified in not understanding "sign" with prophesying, which essentially differs from those powers correctly falling under that designation, like a tongue or a miracle. It was this, no doubt, which influenced them in changing the "to" of the former clause into the "for" of the latter, which reads more smoothly in English. But the change seems scarcely called for, and is not here adopted. We could equally well say tongues are as a sign for the unbelieving, prophesying for those that believe.

But the apostle is not content with this withering application of the Jewish prophet; he both exposes the folly of their conduct, and lays down the right aim in the assembly. On the one hand he puts the case of their all speaking with tongues in full assembly, and this in presence of simple persons or unbelievers. What must be the impression produced? That the saints were mad. On the other hand, if all were to prophesy, how would such an one feel if he came in and heard? In the discovery to himself of his heart's secrets, divinely dealt with by them all, the profoundest conviction that God is truly among the saints. So, when the woman of Samaria had her life set out in a few words by One who had never met her before, she confessed, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." By His words she could not but feel and own that all was out, and God was speaking to her conscience.

Verses 21, 22. "In the law it is written," etc. This appeal to the law7 is made (like the earlier one in chap. 9:9) to corroborate his foregoing reasoning. He had appealed to natural usage and experiences; he now makes this general reference to the former testimony of the Spirit, not to establish any analogy of a historical kind, but to show yet more conclusively, that the gift of tongues is one in its nature incompatible with practical fellowship in the Spirit. It was God, indeed, who by this gift both wrought and spoke; but strangely, even as, in judgment upon Israel, He had filled their ears with the barbarous speech of the appointed scourges of His land. 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 intended to operate by force of contrast — to awaken by their strangeness attention to truth, either previously unknown, or unfaithfully forgotten. But prophecy is not a sign, but rather an expected provision of the God of all grace, for the supply of his children's spiritual needs. It is not, therefore, for unbelievers, though its faithful exercise may, as afterwards described, so operate indirectly even upon them as to prepare the way for their conversion to the Lord. But its proper object is God's people, and its just effect the edifying of the Church.

The apostle comes now to another fact (ver. 21). He draws attention to the scriptures in the Old Testament that speak of foreign tongues. Whenever God's people came in contact with these tongues, they had got all wrong. If Israel had remained in their integrity, such strange sounds would have been kept far away. They were let loose on them when they departed from their true place. The Corinthians would do well to ponder, that foreign tongues in Israel's case had not a good connection; they might remind them of their folly and evil, being in no way an honour to the Jews.

Besides, for whom were the tongues meant? "Wherefore" (ver. 22), "tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." The Corinthians were using them for a display among believers — most wrong and unintelligent. "But prophesying" — that which they really slighted — "serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe." This is its direct use. But now he shows another thing, that although prophesying is not in its direct use addressed to unbelievers, it may have a mighty effect on them, and in a way too that tongues could not have. This he puts in a pungent form (verse 23). "If, therefore, the whole church be come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" Such would be the effect, supposing they were all speaking with tongues (and if it was good for one, it was for all). But (ver. 24) "if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all; and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest." The result is that he is constrained to say "God is there."

(Vv. 21-25). The Apostle gives a free quotation from Isaiah 28:11-12 to show that, in the day of Israel's failure, when the prophets had erred, God spake to them in the tongues of foreigners, as a sign of the unbelief of those who would not hear the plain word of God. So the exercise of the gift of tongues at the introduction of Christianity was a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers, and left the hearer without excuse.

In contrast to tongues, the gift of prophecy serves not only for the unbeliever but for the believer. When the saints are come together in one place, the exercise of tongues without an interpreter would lead an unbeliever, or an unlearned person, to conclude that the assembly was mad. Prophesying, on the other hand, would convict the conscience of an unbeliever, make manifest the secrets of his heart, and convince him of being in the presence of God.

This also gave rise to a distinction in the gifts, of those suited to the world, and those meant for the profit of the incumbent of the Church. Thus "tongues" were a sign to unbelievers, not to the Church; this was their use. One gifted with tongues was not therefore to speak in them, unless there was an interpreter; for the Church would not be edified: it would by the subject matter, if there was an interpreter. So "signs," or "miracles," confirmed the word.

Verse 23 therefore insists that in a gathering of the assembly, if one should come in who was untaught or an unbeliever, and heard the saints speaking in tongues unknown to the assembly, he would consider them mentally unbalanced. Of course, if he knew the language spoken, there would be value in this; but when it is evident that all know one language, then it is vain to use a language some do not know. If a tongue were used outside the assembly, where a foreigner may hear in his own language, this was certainly a sign that would have some effect upon unbelievers.