03.08. Chapter 14
CHAPTER 14 The statements made in Chapter 14 bring us to the heart of the matter. From Paul’s statements in this section it becomes apparent that the Sunday meeting must have been some sort of a vocal melee.
· Tongues speakers were exercising this gift in the meeting without interpretation · Given Paul’s statements at the close of Chapter 12 and the entire argument of Chapter 13, we can only conclude that there was controversy over the hierarchy of gifts. Pride was rampant.
· There was general disorder in the meeting. More than one person was speaking at the same time: prophets prophesying, tongues speakers praying out loud, a general noise without any edification of the general body taking place.
· Some were trying to silence the tongues speakers, fearing that they might be blaspheming God
56 Paul consistently made the point that he did not choose to function as an apostle, but that such was God’s sovereign choice, 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God…
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God…
Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, 2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus,31 The point of this chapter is that all things done in the meeting should be for the edification of the gathered body, not for the edification of the individual exercising his gift.
Verse 1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. The imperatives in this verse serve as a transition from the previous arguments to the matter at hand, which is the abuse of tongues. They should seek to be vessels of love, yet they also should seek to function in a manner that benefits the body. For that reason they are exhorted to desire, earnestly, spiritual gifts. The term translated, spiritual gifts, is the same word that Paul used in the beginning of this section in 1 Corinthians 12:1, pneumatikos. Here, since it clearly is referring to the topic of gifts, as is seen in the following verses, it is neuter in gender, and refers to things, rather than, men. Given the context, spiritual gifts is the best rendering. A second question: is the exhortation distributive or collective? If it is distributive, Paul urged each individual believer to earnestly desire to prophesy. If it is collective, he is urging the Church to desire that prophesy be fluent in their gathering. Nothing in the Greek leans one way or the other. However, since the balance of the chapter addresses the performance of individuals, it is best to understand this as an exhortation to individual believers to desire to receive gifts that bless the gathered church, of which prophesy is the prime example. Chapter 12 always must be in the forefront of their desire: the Holy Spirit will distribute manifestations as He wills.
Verses 2-5 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
These verses set forth the basic contrasts and the central themes of what follows.
· The concern is for edification (vv. 3-5) · The issue is intelligibility.
Uninterpreted tongues (v. 5) is not understandable (v. 2) hence it cannot edify the church (v. 4).
Prophecy is addressed to people precisely for their edification (v. 3) and in that sense it is the greater gift.
57
57 Fee, op.cit. page 65332 Notice the contrast displayed in these verses, · The one who speaks in tongues speaks not to people, but to God He speaks mysteries by the Spirit · The one who prophesies speaks to people (he speaks) edification (he speaks) encouragement (he speaks) comfort · The one who speaks in tongues edifies himself (because he is praying) · The one who prophesies edifies the church (because he brings the word of God) 58 Even though Paul seeks to decrease their zeal for congregational tongues speaking/praying, he is not demeaning the gift itself. He states three positive things about tongues.
· The tongues speaker is communing with God. Paul understands the phenomena to be a form of prayer and/or praise · The content of the tongues can be mysteries. The Greek term translated, mysteries, is the term, musterion (musth>rion). This term refers to something that God has revealed and it could only be known by revelation. So, the one praying in tongues may be speaking truths that could only be revealed by the Spirit.
· Tongues speech (prayer) is edifying to the one manifesting the tongue. This is not a negative thing, it is just not the purpose of manifestations in the meeting. This is appropriate for one’s private devotions, but not for a public gathering. The edifying benefit of prophecy is in the flow of Chapter 13. Love is expressed by our serving one another through those things that build each other up. The two words translated exhortation and comfort, are quite synonymous. The first of the two, paraklesis (para>klnsiv) can be rendered, encouragement, comfort, exhortation, or appeal. The second term, paramuthia (paramuqi>a) may be rendered, comfort or consolation. So, by using these three terms in this fashion (edification, encouragement, comfort), Paul describes prophecy as a rather full-orbed love gift from God. When Paul states that the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, this is because of the intelligibility of prophecy in the language of the audience. When one prays in a tongue and it is interpreted, then the congregation can say, “Amen.” So, it would seem that this would refer to a public prayer in tongues that is a prayer on behalf of the congregation (much as the public prayer offered in a traditional service today), and it then is interpreted so that the congregation can affirm what has been spoken in the prayer. The next paragraph expands this thought.
58 Adaptation of Fee, page 65533 Verses 6-12 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?
Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.
If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
Much could be noted here concerning how this paragraph relates to the Corinthians’ attitude toward Paul, but this is not the goal of our study. The only thing to note here is Paul’s emphasizing the importance of intelligibility in verbal elements of a meeting. We also could involve ourselves in seeking to determine the meaning of revelation and how it differs from prophecy, but whatever conclusion we reached could only be speculation.
Since Paul continually presents tongues speaking as communication between the believer and God, we must conclude that his comment about coming to them with revelation, prophecy, or teaching in tongues is an hypothetical statement, an argument by analogy. He uses this common debating technique to advance his point concerning intelligibility. To decide otherwise would force us to go against everything else he has said in this section concerning the use of tongues. The point of the paragraph is that unintelligible speech/prayer is of no profit to the Church.
Throughout this section Paul keeps emphasizing the purpose of a gathering of believers. It is to edify one another. This emphasis is presented strongly in Hebrews 10:23-26 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins… The meeting is not convened so that people can exercise their gifts, but rather so that saints can edify one another. Exercise of the gifts is one way that this is done, but it is a means, rather than an end in itself.
Verse 13-19 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? 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.
Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say 34 the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. This paragraph continues the argument of the previous one. Here, Paul becomes more specific concerning corporate worship. Several things catch our attention.
· This is the first time that we are advised of the possibility that one who speaks/prays in a tongue also may interpret – should the Holy Spirit grant that charismata. The reason for a tongues speaker to pray for the ability to interpret is so that he can bless his fellow believers in the corporate meeting. Otherwise, he is out of the loop as far as public ministry is concerned.
· The particular faculties that are in operation when one is praying in a tongue or in one’s known language are the spirit of the one praying or the mind of the one praying. So, when one is praying in tongues he is praying with his human spirit. When one is praying in his known language, he is praying with his human mind. This is not the same thing as saying that one is praying in the Holy Spirit. The difference between these concepts is seen in the following passages, For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I shall sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also. (I Corinthians 14:1416.) Paul speaks here of the human spirit and the human mind (i.e, my spirit, my mind). He states that when he prays in a tongue, his human spirit is praying. When he prays in a language that his mind understands, his mind is involved in the prayer. He makes the same statement about singing. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit in these verses. The key term is, “with.” The next verse [16], speaks of blessing “in spirit.” Since the definite article is missing, and this is in the context of the previous two verses, it is obvious that Paul is speaking of a prayer of blessing in tongues.
…”In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. (Jude 1:17-21) After reminding the believers that there is a world full of those who are devoid of the Holy Spirit, Jude highlights the blessing of praying in the Holy Spirit; he states that this is one of the activities related to our remaining strong and faithful in the faith. This reminder clearly refers to “praying in the Holy Spirit.” As contrasted with 1 Corinthians 14:14-16, the human spirit is not referenced by Jude.35 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, (Ephesians 6:18) Paul states that all prayer and petition (all kinds of prayer) are to be prayed in the Spirit. This clearly refers to the Holy Spirit, because of the use of the definite article and the preposition, in (consistent with the exhortation of Jude). Thus, we conclude that all prayer at all times is to be prayed in the Holy Spirit, whether it is with the human spirit (tongues) or with the human mind (known language). It also is possible to pray in tongues or to pray with the human mind and not be, “in the Spirit.”
Whether one is praying with his mind or his spirit, all prayer should be in the Holy Spirit.
Failure to recognize this has resulted in an inappropriate elevation of tongues. Paul does not present such an hierarchy.
· Paul continues to present tongues as being addressed to God, but in this paragraph he also presents praise, in addition to prayer, as something that can be done in tongues. This is seen in his mention of singing, and blessing. Yet, he restricts his singing in tongues to a private activity, not something to be done in a gathering of the Church – unless interpreted.
· Paul continues to emphasize that uninterpreted tongues, of any type, is inappropriate in a church meeting unless interpreted. What takes place in the gathering of the church should be intelligible.
Verse 20-25 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. This paragraph is one of the most misunderstood sections of Scripture. There seems to be a contradiction between the statement tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers and the following warning on the impact on unbelievers who enter a meeting in which uninterpreted tongues are being manifested, will they not say that you are mad? How can tongues on one hand be a sign to unbelievers and on the other hand be something that will drive 36 unbelievers away? The question is answered clearly and easily when we take note of the passage that Paul quotes in his argument. The passage is Isaiah 28:11-12. These verses are in a section of Isaiah in which there are many Messianic promises and glowing words about the future remnant. However, woven among these glorious promises are gloomy scenes of judgment. In Isaiah 28:1-13, Yahweh condemns the drunken excesses of the rulers and religious leaders of Judah. They reel and stagger about like men at their wits end. They befoul the tables of Yahweh with their vomit and then wallow in their filth. They make sport of the prophet whom God has sent to rebuke their sin. In the Hebrew their drunken song has an insulting lilt. The Smith-Goodspeed translation tries to convey the mocking of God in the drunkards’ insulting song, To whom would he impart knowledge, To whom would he explain the message?
Babes just weaned from milk, Just drawn from the breasts? For it is rule by rule, rule by rule, Line by line, line by line, A little here and a little there.
Yahweh had sent them clear, pleading words by the prophet, but they did not listen. Therefore, God declared that he would send different words to them. These would be the words spoken in languages that they did not understand. These tongues would be spoken by the nations that would conquer them. When they heard these tongues, they would know that they were under judgment. As a part of his argument for the restriction of uninterpreted tongues, Paul employs this judgmental promise to Israel. In essence, he states that the only time that God will send messages in a language that cannot be understood is when He is judging those among whom He sends these tongues. If God Himself sent a flurry of tongues activity into the Corinthians’ midst and withheld interpretation, that would be a sign that He considered the Corinthians to be unbelievers. It would be a sign of judgment. To conclude anything other than this is to ignore the message of his quote from Isaiah 28:1-29. Intelligible prophecy, on the other hand, is something that God sends to believers (following the figure of Isaiah 28:1-29).
Therefore, there is no contradiction between this declaration and Paul’s next argument for banning uninterpreted tongues from the meeting, i.e, the impact uninterpreted tongues will have on strangers who might enter their meeting. Those who are uninformed about manifestations of the Holy Spirit, or unbelievers, will be repulsed by uninterpreted tongues – they will say that you are insane.
59 In contrast, prophecy understood by the hearers might be a word bringing them under conviction.
59 The term Paul employs in verse 23, mainomai (mai>nomai), is a term used to describe the ecstatic state of various pagan oracles when they delivered their sayings, as well as the ecstatic state of worshippers of various pagan gods. That being true, Paul seems to be urging them to avoid behavior that was the same as worshippers of pagan gods. For comment on this term, see H. Preisker, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Rerdmans Publishing Company 1967) Volume IV, page 36037 Verse 26-33 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation.
Let all things be done for edification.
If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
What is the outcome then, indicates that Paul is tying up all that has been said thus far. The emphasis of this paragraph are two, · Everything should be done in a manner that edifies the church · A God approved meeting will be one that reflects God’s orderly character There is the implication that some may come to the meeting with a song, a prophecy, etc, already received or prepared, planning to present it in the meeting.
Paul does not instruct them to speak in a tongue and then wait to see if someone can interpret, a common practice today. His instruction is that if a known interpreter is not present in the meeting, then tongues speakers/prayers should remain silent.
Neither tongues nor prophecy should dominate the meeting. The usual understanding of Paul’s guideline is that only two or three of each should be allowed to speak in a meeting, and they should speak only one at a time. However, some hold that Paul is saying that two or three should speak, then some discernment should be pronounced on what has been spoken thus far, then two or more can speak, etc.
Although Paul used the term, prophets, in the expression, let the prophets speak (verse 29), he probably wasn’t referring to the Ephesians 4:11 category of prophet. He probably was referring to those members of the church through whom prophecy was manifested in a given meeting. This seems apparent from the fact that throughout this section he continually uses the term, all, referring to the entire church.
There should be a careful weighing of what has been said prophetically. Note that this is not required of interpreted tongues, because tongues are used for prayer and not prophetic messages. The verb used here is the same one used in 1 Corinthians 12:10, distinguishing of spirits. There are scant guidelines as to how this to be done. A view that has become quite popular is that prophets are to be the one’s doing this discerning. If that is the case, then the term, prophets (verse 29),38 would refer to Ephesians 4:11 prophets, not to the general membership through whom prophecy was manifested in a given meeting. As stated above, such a conclusion is outside of the flow of Paul’s earlier statements, which refer to the general congregation and the manifestation of gifts through the general membership. The phrase, for you can all prophesy one by one, in the context of the rest of the chapter and the points made in Chapter 12, could not mean that all will or do prophesy. It refers to Paul’s focus on the church as a whole, not just on a group of prophets, and that an orderly conduct of the meeting will allow members to move in the manifestation of the gift, in their proper turn. The sense is that all who have a prophetic word, if they conduct themselves in an orderly fashion, will have opportunity to deliver their word. There is no need for many to be speaking at once.
Three other points stand out in this paragraph, · Those who receive a manifestation are not possessed by it and unable to restrain themselves, i.e, they are not in an ecstatic state, they have their wits about them.
· Just because a prophecy is received, doesn’t mean that it has to be delivered.
· God is a God of order and a meeting of the Church should reflect that order. Corinthian disorder was an aberration, since order characterized the meetings of all other churches.
Verses 34-35 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
Because of the controversy surrounding these verses, and because we have given them extensive treatment in an earlier conclave paper, we will not comment on these verses here. To do so would draw us away from the focus of the paper. However, these verses cannot mean that women cannot prophesy. Otherwise, Paul’s comments on female attire when prophesying would be meaningless (1 Corinthians 11:5).
Verses 36-40 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.
Paul’s long response to their letter concerning spiritual things now draws to a close. The basic issue was the Corinthian’s view that to be spiritual was to speak in tongues. For this reason, they had great zeal for this gift. They insisted that it be practiced in the assembly. Paul informed them that he was a frequent tongues speaker, so he was not opposed to tongues because there were benefits attached to the exercise of this gift. He was opposed to prayer and praise in tongues in a congregational setting, unless it were accompanied by interpretation.39 In Chapter 12 he had urged them to realize that being spiritual recognized a great variety of gifts and ministries in the church. In Chapter 14 he pointed out that the purpose of having church gatherings is for the edification of the congregation. Doing this is an expression of love. In these verses (36-40), he used some very strong language. First, he hit them with a verbal putdown, a bit of sarcasm, Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? In other words, “Who are you to tell the rest of us how it should be done? Is Corinth an exception to the rules that govern all of the other churches?”
Then, he declared that the instructions that he gave are not his, but that they are God’s command, given through Paul. This is followed by a prophetic sentence of judgment, But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (the thought is very close to his statement in 1 Corinthians 8:2-3).
Paul is not going to try to convince them, or waste time arguing the point. He is going to ignore them. If they don’t recognize his commandment as being from God, they will deal with God, not Paul. The closing exhortation is to conduct an orderly service, and to not forbid spiritual manifestations. These two verses (39-40) hit both the groups that want no spiritual manifestations in their midst and those who want nothing but these manifestations without guidelines.
So, we return to our two unaddressed questions, 1. Is 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 a description of a normal church service in the First Century, or was this just a “Corinthian” service and not the norm for all First Century churches? This question cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. The only description that we have of such a service is in the Corinthian letter and the Corinthian Church certainly was not a model church. A very telling item is the fact that the rather complete description of a church service given by Justin Martyr (c140 AD), and passing accounts by the other early Second Century writers, make no mention of such manifestations in their meetings (this is treated more fully in the paper, The Meeting, from the 1999 conclave).
Yet, even though there is no record of charismata in any other New Testament Church, or in the very earliest of the post-biblical writings (prior to 185 AD), this proves nothing.
If the Corinthian Church had been handling things properly, we would not have Paul’s extensive discussion of the charismata in I Corinthians. Paul clearly stated that all of the other churches practiced order in their services. With the exception of Justin Martyr’s detailed description (which presents itself as a very detailed record of all that went on in a church meeting), it could be argued that the reason there is no mention of charismata in the earliest post-biblical writing is because there was no need to bring any correction in this area.40 We are led to ask, “Why did the Holy Spirit and the early Church choose to preserve Paul’s comments on the charismata?” The most obvious answer is because the churches of that age needed and the Church in all ages will need these guidelines.
2. If the manifestations are for every age, should church leaders seek to do what they can to promote the type of meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, or are Paul’s instructions more in the vein of, “if you do have these things, here is how to manage them in a Godhonoring manner”?
Frequently, we hear leaders in Charismatic churches stating something to the effect that we need to, “stir up the gifts.” There is no exhortation anywhere in the New Testament to that effect. Timothy was urged to kindle afresh (KJV – stir up) the gift that was in him (2 Timothy 1:6) and to not neglect the spiritual gift that was in him (1 Timothy 4:14).
However, the context of these exhortations makes it clear that Paul is referring to the gifts (and calling) that were given to Timothy for the special ministry to which he had been called, especially that of preaching and teaching. Paul’s exhortation to Timothy is closer to the functional gifts referred to in Romans 12:1-21, where Paul urges diligence in the fulfilling of these spiritual enablements. This is not the same thing as stirring up the charismata in a corporate gathering of the Church.
Two extremes are possible, neither of which fits Paul’s guidelines, · a meeting that is so ordered and controlled that there is no opportunity for the charismata to function, should the Holy Spirit desire to manifest Himself. This certainly is far from the picture that Paul paints of a meeting in which the Holy Spirit is present and active.
· a meeting in which there is little of substantive value, but a weekly parade of folks popping up and speaking whatever comes to their mind, and calling it prophecy, or “a word.” This cheapens the entire concept of prophecy, etc.