1 Corinthians 14:13-25

Butler's Comments

SECTION 2

Proving by Tongues (1 Corinthians 14:13-25)

13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the Amen to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. 21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord. 22Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

1 Corinthians 14:13-19 Intelligibility Abdicated: Those Corinthian Christians who clamored for the gift of tongues because it was spectacular were abdicating the only means of building Christ's churchintelligible communication. The Greek word here for tongues is glossa; the Greek word for speaking is lalon. Modern charismatics have combined the two words into one, glossolalia, to denote modern, alleged, tongues-speaking. But, we repeat, the word glossolalia is not found in the New Testament. There is a distinct difference, literally, between the Greek New Testament words ho lalon glosse and the modern word glossolalia, and there is also a difference in the connotations implied. Needless to say, then, there is a distinct difference between what was practiced in the first century and today.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, or LXX), the word glossa is used for (a) the human organ known as the tongue, and; (b) the language of a known people, but never for some ecstatic, esoteric babble. The same is true of the New Testament. In Acts 2:8, when Peter and the other apostles spoke in other glossa, men from all over the world heard in their own dialect (the Greek word dialekto is used in Acts 2:8).

The Greek word gene refers to a family or genre (genealogy) of glossa, (see 1 Corinthians 14:10). This indicates that the tongues being spoken by the Corinthians were clearly distinguishable one from another and, were not unknowable, but one family or genre of human language or another.

The Greek word hermeneuo (1 Corinthians 14:5; 1 Corinthians 14:13; 1 Corinthians 14:26-27, etc.) is not used in the Bible to mean the interpretation of an unknowable language into a known language. The word hermeneuo always means to translate words from one knowable language into another knowable language (cf. John 1:38; John 1:42; John 9:7; see also Ezra 4:7) so that there may be an understanding; (see also Matthew 1:23; Mark 5:41; Mark 15:22; Mark 15:34; Acts 9:36; Acts 13:8; Hebrews 7:2; 2 Peter 1:20). When hermeneuo is translated, translate, we see clearly that Paul is talking about knowable languages being translated into other knowable languages, and not about unknown and unknowable gibberish. Paul warns, Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to translate.

Reasons the modern phenomenon called glossolalia is not the miraculous speaking in tongues of the first century Church:

a.

Scriptural reasons cited above.

b.

Today's phenomenon is not received by the laying on of the hands of an apostle.

c.

Ecstatic, esoteric glossolalia similar to Christian glossolalia has been practiced, and is being practiced, by pagans in ancient and modern times (Hittites, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, East Africans, Islamics, American Indians, Caribbean voodoo practitioners, and many others).

d.

Ecstatic gibberish has been practiced by a multitude of different religious groups who have fundamental doctrinal abberations when compared with the Bible (Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, cultists of all varieties). The Spirit of God would not contradict his apostolic word, nor would he give credence by miraculous manifestations to these apostate religious groups.

e.

Writings of the early church fathers (immediately after the first century) indicate Biblical tongues were not manifested in their time (Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo; see Kildahl, op. cit., pp. 14-15).

f.

In the history of modern, so-called, tongues there are no scientifically confirmed recordings of anyone speaking in a foreign language which he had never learned (Kildahl, p. 39).

g.

Dr. Kildahl, in order to investigate interpretations played a taped example of tongues-speech privately for several different interpreters. In no instance was there any similarity in the several interpretations (Kildahl, p. 63).

h.

Kildahl writes of a man raised in Africa, of missionary parents, who decided to test the interpretation of tongues. He attended a tongues-speaking meeting where he was a complete stranger. At the appropriate moment, he rose and spoke the Lord's Prayer in the African dialect he had learned in his youth. When he sat down, an interpreter of tongues at once offered the meaning of what he had said. He interpreted it as a message about the imminent second coming of Christ (Kildahl, p. 63).

i.

Personal friends of mine, of the so-called charismatic persuasion, and books in my personal library from charismatic practitioners, offer instruction on how one may learn, by human means, the act of tongues-speaking. How does one learn that which is miraculous?

j.

Much modern, so-called, tongues-speaking is allegedly not under conscious control of the person who allegedly speaks and yet this very chapter (1 Corinthians 14:1-40) says it must be (1 Corinthians 14:26-33), so that they can determine who is to speak and when they are to speak.

k.

According to one former member of a tongues-speaking denomination, 85% of modern, so-called tongues-speaking is done in the public assemblies, by women. Yet, Paul directs (1 Corinthians 14:33-36) that women should be silent in the public assemblies.

Paul explains that even the bona fide speaking in tongues by miraculous gift is unfruitful as far as intelligent communication is concerned, unless there is a translator present. When a Corinthian Christian prayed in a foreign language he did not know, his spirit might receive some emotional, subjective, excitation, but there would be nothing by which his mental, spiritual growth (edification) could proceed. Speaking in a tongue without a translator did not bring the mind into play, and anything said would bear no edifying fruit to the congregation. The same principle is true of all singing in congregational worship. Singing is a means of instructing the congregation unto edification (see Ephesians 5:19). If the singing is unintelligible, for any reason, it is foolish to say, Amen, because no instruction or edification has taken place. Edification cannot take place without instruction!

Although Paul was probably writing about singing done in Corinth by Christians with the miraculous gift of tonguesand therefore, singing in a foreign languagea great amount of today's so-called religious music is neither Christian nor intelligible. In some cases, the words of today's songs, when distinguishable, are actually anti-scriptural. The twentieth century church needs to restore the New Testament teaching about music. Too many Christian musicians have succumbed to the performer mentality, and, at the same time, many congregations have adopted the audience-mentality toward music. The New Testament concept of music in the worship assembly gives no credence to the modern mania for the beat, performance-mentality, and unintelligible, imprecise, vague generalizations. The desire to show-off as a performer is precisely the attitude that was destroying the Corinthian congregation. It is the issue to which the apostle Paul addresses as much as half of this epistle! It is still relevant!
Speaking, praying or singing in a foreign language (tongue) had to be translated and made understandable if done at all in the worship services, otherwise the outsider could not be edified. The Greek word idiotes (1 Corinthians 14:16; 1 Corinthians 14:23-24) (from which the English word idiot comes) meant someone excluded, for one reason or another, from any specific group of people, e.g. the civilian as opposed to the soldier, the uneducated man as opposed to the scholar, the private citizen as opposed to the public official. Paul is clearly using the word idiotes to denominate those in attendance at Christian worship services at Corinth who were unskilled in foreign languages, and had no miraculous way of translating the tongues. They could neither speak in foreign languages or translate. Thus they were the same as foreigners or outsiders. Some commentators classify the outsider as one who is neither an unbeliever or a Christian, but a proselyte or a catechumen (learner). But the outsider is expected to be able to say Amen to any translated speech in a foreign tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16). Thus, it would appear, the outsider is a Christian, not ignorant, but outside the select group of Christians in the Corinthian congregation who had received special, miraculous gifts.

Any use of gifts that did not produce understanding for the whole congregation, might serve some selfish purpose for the gifted person but others are not edified. It would appear Paul disapproved of private use of speaking in tongues for the Corinthians. Such private use was selfish, childish, and, if indiscriminately used, produced the aura of insanity and foolishness. Speaking miraculously in a foreign language must communicate to the minds (Gr. nous, mind) of all present in the assembly, including the speaker, both the ungifted and the unbeliever. The tongues were to be translated into the languages of those present in the service.

The apostle had the miraculous gift of tongues in greater capacity than all the Corinthians together, but his counsel was (and his counsel would be apostolic doctrine) that five words spoken in a language all hearers could understand with their minds were worth more than ten thousand words unintelligible to the hearers, although spoken by direct miracle from God. The Greek word katecheso is translated instruct and is the word from which we get the English word catechism; it generally means instruction in the fundamentals of a subject. God gave the infant church gifts for the sole purpose of instruction and edification (Ephesians 4:11-16).

1 Corinthians 14:20-25 Immaturity Accentuated: Not only did the obsession for the spectacular gift of tongues-speaking (untranslated) show these Corinthians would abdicate intelligent communication, it also accentuated their spiritual immaturity (see 1 Corinthians 3:1 ff.). To speak in a language without translating, only for the speaker's glory, and to elevate egotism over line upon line, precept upon precept processes of instruction is not only immature, it is a sign of unbelief.

So Paul starts this paragraph with an admonition for the Corinthian Christians to grow up! They were not to have a child's show-off mentality. He did want them to be infant-like (Gr. nepiazete) in evil, but he wanted them at the same time, to be mature (Gr. teleioi, perfected, complete, matured, reach the goal) in phresin, mentality.

It is interesting that Paul quotes from the prophet Isaiah (1 Corinthians 14:21) and calls it the law. He is emphasizing that prophecy in the Old Testament was just as authoritative as the law of Moses. But the significance of Isaiah's prophecy here is the context from which this prophecy came. Isaiah 28:11-12 comes from the prophet's reproach of his Hebrew contemporaries (750-700 B.C.) who kept asking for miraculous signs that Jehovah was going to deal with them in judgment as the prophets kept insisting he was. They were unbelievers. The covenant people would not (except for a small remnant) accept the line upon line, precept upon precept teaching of the prophets. They scoffed at that kind of instruction as fit for babies. And they were angry that the prophets inferred they were babies. They considered themselves sophisticated and mature. God said, however, You are wrong; line upon line, precept upon precept is not for babies, but for the mature. The spectacular is for babies, and I am going to show you something spectacular since that is the only way some of you will believe. I am going to deliver you into captivity and you will hear foreign languages. Your hearing foreign language will be evidence that the teachings of the prophets were for spiritual maturation. Isaiah was talking to inside unbelievers when he wrote to the Jews and that is precisely why Paul quotes Isaiah here. Isaiah was talking about spiritual maturity as opposed to childish unbelief, and that is the very purpose Paul had in quoting it here to these childish, unbelieving Corinthian Christians.

There were two kinds of people in the Corinthian church. There were the believers who welcomed line upon line teaching. They believed the messages of the prophets and did not need continual miracles to remain steadfast in the faith. Then there were the unbelievers who had to have miracles at every public worship or they did not think they could maintain their faith. God was displeased even with the Old Dispensation people who put him to the test beyond what they should have (see 1 Corinthians 10:9 and Exodus 17:7). Jesus called the Jews who kept on asking for miraculous signs, an evil and adulterous generation (see Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4). So, tongues were a sign for the immature, the unbelievers, even the unbelievers within the membership of the church, as well as for unbelievers outside the membership. Tongues served as signs that there was a divine presence, that the one, true God was speaking to the world through the apostle's doctrine and the messengers of Christ's church.

But, if the whole church did nothing but speak in tongues, that would be as far as outsiders and unbelievers would get. They would not be instructedonly amazed. And, if the whole church did nothing but speak in tongues the outsider and unbeliever would probably say the tongues-speakers were all out of their minds (Gr. mainesthe, insane, out of control mentally). The outsiders and unbelievers would not be caused to worship God if the whole assembly spoke in tongues. Not even the miraculous really converts unbelievers without extensive, logical, direct, communication of the teachings of God. Prophecy makes believers out of unbelievers and edifies immature believers. Tongues were merely to signal the divine presence; prophecy (teaching) was for outsiders and unbelievers to convict them and cause them to humbly worship God and acknowledge God's presence in the church. The Corinthian church needed a lot less of the tongues (and these were miraculous tongues), and a lot more of the prophecy.