1 Corinthians 14

CHAPTER XIV

III. Prophecy and Tongues. Chapter 14

The preparation has been made. Paul has instructed the Corinthians concerning spiritual gifts in general, chapter 12; he has in addition impressed upon them the value of love and its supreme necessity in the exercise of all spiritual gifts. With all this clearly before his readers, Paul now takes up the of tongues. The Corinthians overestimated this gift and thus became unbalanced. Paul now proceeds to correct this mistake. He does it by showing at some length that prophecy is the most needful and the most fruitful gift for the church. He makes an extended comparison between prophecy and tongues and thereby brings to view the inferiority of the latter. A few needful regulations are appended at the end, v. 26–40.

1 Corinthians 14:1

1 Pursue love, yet strive zealously for the spiritual gifts, but rather that you prophesy. The transition is simple and perfect. After what has been said about the value of love only one admonition is in place: “Pursue love!” While in both the Greek and the English this verb has lost most of its figurative meaning, it has lost none of its strength. In the classics we have διώκειν with objects such as “honors,” “pleasure,” “the good,” etc., Liddell and Scott. Paul thus very properly bids the Corinthians “pursue love” in order to obtain it and through it to enrich their hearts. We pursue love when we set our hearts earnestly to practice love.

“Yet,” δέ, adds something, but something that is different. Here it is zealous striving for the spiritual gifts. Paul has already said: “Strive zealously for the greater charismata,” 12:31. He repeats that admonition by using the same verb (see the remarks on 12:31) but a different noun. For “charismata” are both “gracious gifts” and “spiritual possessions” that come from the Holy Spirit. The plural form of the verb and the plural object are explained in connection with 12:31. While Paul emphasizes the fact that love is the supreme need for the proper use of all gifts he wants love to have gifts that are of effective use in the church. Gifts are the hands through which love serves.

All such gifts are to be desired. But some are “greater,” 12:31, and thus to be preferred. Paul accordingly writes that the Corinthians are to strive zealously for the most useful of all gifts: “but rather that you prophesy.” The comparison in “rather,” which is strengthened by δέ, lies between the other gifts and this important one, prophecy. The ἵνα clause is subfinal and is here an object clause, the object of the verb “strive zealously.” In English it is translated “that you prophesy” (not “may prophesy”). On this subfinal ἵνα consult R. 991, etc. All of the older commentators and translators find a purpose in these ἵνα clauses, which is incorrect.

1 Corinthians 14:2

2 The transition has been made, and now the new subject is at once taken up: “What value is to be attached to the gift of tongues?” Very little in comparison with prophecy. The reason is advanced by γάρ. It consists in a comparison between prophecy and tongues. For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men but unto God, for no one understands, but in spirit he speaks mysteries. But he that prophesies speaks unto men edification and admonition and consolation. This states the difference with full clearness. It rests on love and thus on the benefit wrought for the church by the gift. On this score prophecy outranks tongues in a decided way.

The man who speaks in a foreign language in reality speaks not unto men but only unto God. “For no one understands” makes this plain. The people hear the speaking, but they do not comprehend the meaning of what is said. Since an individual speaks at a definite moment, the singular “in a tongue” is in place. Regarding the subject of tongues see the remarks on 12:10. “No one understands” dues not mean absolutely no one, for one who has the gift of interpretation, i.e., who is conversant with the particular foreign language used, would understand. Paul himself speaks about the possible presence of an interpreter, v. 27, 28; in fact, the speaker himself may be able to act as an interpreter, v. 5, 13. But in this opening statement these ramifications of the subject are not touched.

The audience in general does not understand the strange language. Such a speaker, therefore, speaks only unto God, for God alone understands him. The trend of Paul’s thought is left when the speaker’s intention is introduced as though he intends to address only God. Paul states only the fact: he speaks unto God as indicated.

After the negative statement that no one understands a corresponding positive statement is attached: “but in spirit he speaks mysteries,” i.e., “things mysterious” that are not understood by the audience. And these things are uttered πνεύματι, referring to the speaker’s own spirit (v. 14) and not to the Holy Spirit. When one is speaking with tongues, no discursive thinking takes place as is the case in ordinary speaking. The usual mental powers are not operative so as to govern the speaking. The human spirit is directly influenced by the Holy Spirit and finds words placed upon the tongue and is impelled to utter them aloud. The speaker may or may not understand the words which he thus utters. In either case they come to his lips without previous reflection and are due to an immediate impulse that affects his spirit.

1 Corinthians 14:3

3 As Paul thus gives us a fair impression of the gift of tongues, so, by way of contrast, he tells us quite clearly just what prophecy of the ordinary type is. The person prophesying, i.e., exercising this gift, “speaks unto men,” namely in their own language so that they can easily understand. He is fully conscious of what he speaks, and when he is speaking he uses all of his mental faculties. The substance of what he speaks is “edification, admonition, and consolation.” While these nouns designate the contents of the prophetic utterance they at the same time indicate the purpose for which the contents are intended.

“Edification” in the Biblical sense of the term is every presentation of divine truth which increases and strengthens faith and spiritual life. It thus includes all true Christian instruction which is often called indoctrination. Edification is accomplished by enlightenment, by enabling the hearers to know and inwardly to grasp the divine truth, to assimilate and to make it their own. Examples of this feature of prophecy are found in the doctrinal part of all Paul’s letters, notably in Rom. chapters 1–11; Eph. chapters 1–3; etc.

The term παράκλησις should not be translated “comfort,” for this is included in παραμυθία, but “admonition” of all kinds. This feature is well illustrated in the admonitory part of Paul’s letters, Rom. 12, etc.; Eph. 4, etc. Yet doctrinal and ethical content is often interwoven, and the former supports the latter. We cannot, however, say that edification is the genus, and admonition and consolation are the species. The three are coordinate.

“Consolation” or παραμυθία deals with the Christian’s condition in this hostile and evil world where he must endure persecution and affliction of every kind. Consolation intends to lead him to understand the nature of what he must endure and to enable him to hold out cheerfully and valiantly to the end. Examples of consolation are found in many places in the Scriptures, for instance in 1 Pet. 4:12–19; Heb. 12:1–13.

Paul’s brief description of the gift of prophecy shows that it does not deal only with special, direct revelations from God to certain chosen instruments (prophecy in the narrow sense as revelatory) but that it extends much farther and includes all of the uses that are to be made of all of the divine truth that has been revealed to us. Thus all true preachers and teachers of the gospel are prophets in the general or broader sense because they offer edification, admonition, and consolation to their hearers. All true Christians who are able to impart the gospel truth privately in a similar manner exercise the gift of prophecy to this extent. Here, too, we see how one may use zeal and more and more acquire this precious gift for fuller and more effective use in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:4

4 Speaking with tongues is restricted and offers no admonition or consolation whatever. Also when it is used independently and without interpretation, its ability to edify is restricted to the speaker himself. Paul adds this point to what he has just said. He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself while he that prophesies edifies a church. The one benefits only himself, the other benefits a church, ἐκκλησίαν, “an assembly,” no article. The value of these gifts is according.

While Paul says that both “edify,” and while he makes no distinction as to the substance of this edification, we shall see presently that in regard to the gift of tongues the range of edification is far narrower than it is with regard to prophecy. Speaking with tongues is restricted to prayer, singing, blessing, and giving thanks, v. 14, etc., and does not include the wide field of instruction, admonition, and consolation, which prophecy covers.

1 Corinthians 14:5

5 Yet this comparison between the two gifts is not to be stressed unduly so that the gift of tongues is entirely disregarded because of its inferiority when it is compared with prophecy. For I would have you all speak in tongues, yet rather that you prophesy; and greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues unless he interpret in order that the church may receive edification.

Paul writes this in explanation of the comparison which he has just made. The Corinthians might draw the conclusion that Paul does not want them to use tongues at all. “No,” Paul says, “for I want you all to speak tongues” as far as that is concerned. He wants it understood that he recognizes quite fully what real value tongues have, and by no means does he desire to rob the Corinthians of this gift. The point at issue is not that tongues are best discarded altogether but that they be not overrated and prophecy underrated. Tongues stand on a lower level than prophecy—that is the point to be remembered. So Paul’s wish is that all might speak with tongues, yet he would rather have all of them prophesy.

The sub-final ἵνα clause is an exact repetition of the one employed in v. 1. It parallels the accusative and the infinitive clause which precedes it, it is a second object clause that is dependent on the verb θέλω and thus does not express purpose.

A simple δέ adds the fact that he who prophesies is “greater” than he who speaks with tongues. The Corinthians were ambitious to attain greatness; they sought it partly in a mistaken, partly in a false way. Paul shows them what true greatness is. Why it lies in the direction of prophecy rather than of tongues has already been indicated, and Paul indicates it again: the profit to the church is greater, and love always seeks that kind of profit. When Paul writes about an individual who speaks on this or on that occasion he uses the singular: he that speaks “in a tongue”; but when he speaks about an individual in general who is endowed with this gift he properly uses the plural: he that speaks “in tongues,” for at one time one language and at another time a different language may be used by the same individual. Moreover, the gift as such seems to have been generally designated by the plural “tongues.”

“Unless he interpret” notes the exception when one and the same person has two gifts, that of tongues and that of interpretation. The other possibility that a second person might act as an interpreter is not mentioned here since Paul is comparing only the person who is prophesying with the person who is speaking with tongues.

The combination of ἐκτός with εἰμή is a pleonastic idiom, R. 640, 548. The point of this exception lies in the purpose clause: “in order that the church (ἡἐκκλησία, the local assembly) may receive edification,” i.e., at least some edification. The aorist of this clause points to actual reception in the specific instance where interpretation occurs. In a way, by adding the interpretation and thus securing the end that some edification results for the local church, the speaker with tongues rises somewhat to the level of a prophet; of course, only in a way since instruction, etc., is not conveyed by tongues but only prayer, etc.

What Paul thus says about the person who has the gift of tongues and also produces edification is really an understatement. Although he may edify he can do this only in a small way and not to the same extent that a prophet could. Yet Paul’s understatement is psychologically more effective than if he were to write down the full limitation of tongues, for the Corinthians cannot but feel that Paul could say more, and thus a tendency to contradict Paul and to defend tongues against Paul’s statement is excluded from the outset.

We often defeat our own end when we are too earnest in opposing a mistaken view or a fault and make our words a little too strong. The hearer notes this and automatically discounts all that we say and generally even more than he really should because he is induced to do this by our overstatement even though this may be ever so slight. Paul is an excellent example of how to win people away from wrong views in a psychological manner.

1 Corinthians 14:6

6 Paul speaks concretely already in v. 2–5 when instead of comparing the abstract gifts he compares the persons using the gifts. In v. 6 he speaks still more concretely by introducing his own person as speaking now with the one, now with the other gift. This explains both the introductory νῦνδέ and the personal address “brethren.” With both Paul draws as near as possible to his readers. And now, brethren, if I shall come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I shall speak to you either by way of revelation, or by way of knowledge, or by way of prophecy, or by way of teaching?

It is too narrow a view when “and now” is regarded only as a logical transition, either as introducing a positive thought after a negative one, or as introducing the reality after a statement that expresses unreality. This is an instance of the emotional use of this adverb, which is indicated by both the personal address “brethren” and the introduction of Paul’s own person: “if I shall come to you,” etc. Compare R. 1147; the true force of the Greek often appears only when the original is read aloud with the proper inflection. Paul intends to say: “And now, brethren, let me bring this matter still more closely home to you. You know that I intend to come to you. Very well; suppose I came speaking only in tongues, what would I profit you?

Evidently very little.” In order to see Paul’s point the Corinthians need only to think of his coming visit and of his speaking to them only with tongues throughout that visit. What profit would they have from that visit?

The question really ends with “what shall I profit you?” For the answer regarding Paul’s coming and his speaking to the Corinthians only with tongues must be made at this point, and that answer must be chiefly negative. In the clause “if I shall come speaking” the participle is the chief word, the action of the main verb being merely incidental to the thought. The coming to Corinth is the subordinate act, the speaking with tongues is the main act, and Paul could write simply: “If I shall speak to you with tongues.” This stress on an accompanying participle is quite usual in the Greek.

But Paul’s question is really made a double one by the next clause: “unless,” etc.; for he certainly will profit the Corinthians very much if he speaks to them in any one of these four other ways on the occasion of his coming visit. This “unless” clause parallels the “except” clause used in v. 5. As the latter shows that only by interpretation profit results for the Corinthians, so the former points out that the real profit to be derived from Paul’s visit will be only by his speaking as much as possible by way of revelation, knowledge, prophecy, and teaching. Yet Paul does not mean that these four or any one of them would furnish the interpretation or translation of such tongues as he might use. These other four are distinct gifts whether they appear in conjunction with tongues (and their interpretation) or separately from tongues. The point that is stressed is that, on the one hand, interpretation and, on the other hand, revelation, etc., use the vernacular, the language which all of the Corinthians understand.

Thus it is not really the speaker with tongues as such who profits the local church but the interpreter and still more the speaker of revelation, etc. No revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or teaching were ever couched in the strange idiom of tongues. At the time of Pentecost, after the speaking with tongues was concluded, Peter preached in the vernacular. Tongues were used only for prayers or for blessings, and they always called for interpretation.

Paul simply coordinates the four gifts: “either by way of revelation, or by way of knowledge, or by way of prophecy, or by way of teaching.” Revelation and knowledge go together since they are possessions, prophecy and teaching go together as activities. Yet again, revelation and prophecy go together since a prophet needs revelation in order to prophesy; and knowledge and teaching go together since a teacher must have knowledge in order to teach. Paul merely coordinates the four with “or,” as if to say: “Take which you will of these four.” The reason for this is the fact that, when Paul comes to Corinth and brings profit to the congregation, it will be by way of one or more of these four.

What elevates these four gifts above tongues is not so much the conscious activity which was exercised in using them, for the conscious spirit (πνεύματι, v. 2) was also deeply stirred when tongues were used. It is going too far to make the speaker with a tongue only “a physical tool” (think of Pentecost). The difference lies chiefly in the medium of language employed and thus in the resulting profit for the church. Paul is not thinking about what the respective speakers experience personally when they are speaking but about what the congregation receives, on the one hand, from him who uses an unintelligible language, on the other, from him who uses intelligible language.

“Revelation” is any portion of divine truth that is made known directly by God. Its formula of presentation is: “Thus saith the Lord.” It remains revelation whether it is uttered by him who personally receives it from God or by others who obtain it at secondhand. Revelation is fundamental, for all knowledge, prophecy, and teaching are based on revelation even to this day. “Knowledge” is the understanding of any portion of divine truth, a clear insight into what that truth contains, see 12:8. “Prophecy” in the narrow sense is the first reception of some revelation from God and its utterance unto others. In the wider sense all who use any portion of revelation for “edification, admonition, and consolation,” v. 3, are prophets. In the present connection Paul seems to be using the word in this wider sense. “Teaching” instructs in any portion of divine truth. These four gifts interlock and overlap and merge into each other.

1 Corinthians 14:7

7 In the illustrations which Paul now introduces the tertium comparationis lies in the intelligibility of the sounds produced and in the “profit” (v. 6) for those who hear the sounds. Though soulless instruments furnish a sound, be it pipe or harp, unless they furnish a distinction in the notes, how shall what is piped or what is harped be known?

Ὅμως, here and in Gal. 3:15 = “although” and is concessive. True, this is not ὁμῶς, “likewise” R. 233). But when R. 1154 makes it adversative, its position in the sentence an instance of hyperbaton (423), and in addition to this makes it modify participles (1155, 1188), we dissent. Our versions are correct; B.-P. 903, and B.-D. 450, 2 leave us uncertain; the classics do not help us. In both passages the concessive adverb is to be construed with the very next word: “though soulless things”; Gal. 3:15: “though (only) a man’s.” This is concession although we may continue with “yet.” Examine the passages and all that is offered regarding them.

A flute or a lyre may, indeed, furnish a sound, but unless this includes a distinction in tones, how will one know what is being played? The distinction of tones refers to some melody that is played.

1 Corinthians 14:8

8 Another illustration is added with καί, and γάρ makes it an explanation of the preceding one. For, moreover, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? A trumpet of war that merely sounds, although its sound be ever so loud, means nothing to the soldier. The emphasis is on “uncertain.” The proper notes of the signal must be blown, or the blowing is useless. “It is rather gratuitous to doubt the direct middle παρασκευάσεται, ‘prepare himself,’” R. 807.

1 Corinthians 14:9

9 The point of these illustrations is now stated. Thus also you, unless by the tongue you furnish speech easily understood, how shall what is spoken be known? for you will be speaking into the air.

“Thus also you” makes a comparison with the point in mind. The phrase “by the tongue” is placed before the conjunction ἐάν for the sake of emphasis. As the musical instruments referred to in the illustrations are made for the purpose of producing sounds, so the tongue is to produce speech in the assembly of the church or anywhere for that matter. Unless the tongue furnish speech that is “easily understood,” how shall we know what is spoken? The parallel is closely drawn by using δῶτε with reference to the speaking, the same verb that was used in v. 7, 8. But now instead of the negative ἄδηλον, “uncertain,” we have the positive εὕσημον, “easily understood.” We at once see what Paul means: tongues merely make a sound in the hearer’s ears, but revelation, etc., convey a meaning that is easy to understand.

“For” is elliptical: “for, unless you do so,” etc. And now the corresponding negative is expressed: “you will be speaking into the air,” speaking quite uselessly and not into the minds and the hearts of your hearers. The periphrastic future ἔσεσθελαλοῦντες (R. 353, 889) expresses linear or durative future action, for which the simple Greek future would not suffice. In these forms the present participle is timeless, R. 1115.

1 Corinthians 14:10

10 In v. 9 Paul makes the application to the Corinthians by a statement that is closely parallel to the two that were used with regard to musical instruments. One must use “speech easily understood” or he will be speaking “into the air.” But more should be said. So Paul begins again as he did in v. 7, 8, but now advances from musical instruments to human voices, φωναί, v. 10, 11. As he did in v. 9, he once more follows this with “thus also you” in v. 12. We therefore have a parallel between v. 7–9, on the one hand, and v. 10–13, on the other, and the second half of the parallel is an advance on the first.

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none voiceless. This merely states the well-known fact on which the observation (οὗν) about to be made in v. 12 rests. The world is certainly full of all kinds of human voices, and every kind has voice quality: it sounds aloud and can be heard. “So many kinds,” τοσαῦτα, is modified by εἰτύχοι (which is much like τυχόν), “it may be,” one of the few remnants of the optative still found in the Koine; 15:37 has another. Paul is certain that the kinds of voices are so many, yet with “it may be” he indicates that the number may be more or less—many either way.

While it is true that in the classics φωναί at times means “languages,” and some interpreters think that this word has that meaning here, even they pause before γένηφωνῶν, “kinds of languages.” We might be inclined to accept “languages” as the meaning in the present connection because this rendering would support the fact that “tongues” signify all kinds of foreign languages. But ἄφωνον which occurs in the next clause does not suit the idea of “languages.” This is true also regarding τὴνδύναμιντῆςφωνῆς occurring in v. 11. We are obliged to translate: “There are so many kinds of voices,” sounds made by the throat and the mouth. And not a single kind is “voiceless” or soundless so that it cannot be heard. This proposition is self-evident.

1 Corinthians 14:11

11 There now follows the observation which Paul attaches (οὗν) to this obvious fact. If, then, I do not know the meaning of the voice I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks a barbarian to me.

Plato often uses δύναμις in the sense of “significance” or “meaning.” “The voice” with its article points to the particular voice that is used in any one instance. Paul mentions but one speaker and only himself as the listener. To be sure, he hears the man’s “voice,” “language” would be out of place. But unless Paul comprehends the meaning of what this voice communicates he will be a barbarian (a foreigner) to the man who is speaking with that voice. Paul, too, on his part will consider the man a barbarian (foreigner). The verb “I shall be” simply states the fact.

And ἐνἐμοί is probably forensic: in my opinion or judgment. The Greeks classified all men as Greeks or barbarians. So Paul would quite naturally call the man who utters these strange sounds with his voice (not Greek, of course, which Paul would understand) a barbarian; and this man, finding himself unable to make Paul understand, would from his standpoint as a non-Greek reciprocate and call Paul a barbarian.

We at once see how this applies to using the voice when one is speaking with tongues. We also see that what Paul describes here refers to foreign languages. The speaker uses his “voice” when he is speaking the language that is incomprehensible to Paul. The very term “barbarian” settles the point regarding the “voice” that is used in speaking a foreign language and thus also in the analogous case when a member of the church similarly uses his voice in speaking with tongues (foreign human languages).

1 Corinthians 14:12

12 As he did in v. 9, so Paul here once more makes the application to the Corinthians by using the identical formula: “Thus also you.” But now the application reaches the final stage and therefore takes the form of admonition. Thus also you, since you are zealots for spirits, with a view to the edification of the church seek that you abound.

Paul admits in this admonition that the Corinthians are “zealots for spirits.” In their way the Corinthians obey the injunction: “Strive zealously for the spiritual gifts,” v. 1. But the chapter on love has pointed to more than the mere possession of gifts. The chief aim of these zealots must be the use of their gifts “with a view to the edification of the church.” This important phrase is therefore placed forward: “with a view to the edification of the church seek that you abound.” The ἵνα clause is subfinal, the object of the verb. The phrase, too, modifies “seek” and not “abound.”

The genitive πνευμάτων is objective because of the verbal idea contained in the noun zealots. To be “zealots for spirits” = to strive zealously for spirits. The use of “spirits” in this connection has puzzled many. The English versions escape the difficulty by the translation “spiritual gifts”; others by translating “spirit powers,” neither of which = πνεύματα. The idea that certain heavenly spirits are connected with the charismata just as evil spirits operate in the possessed is foreign to the Scriptures. The view that Paul is accommodating himself to a form of expression that was used by the Corinthians is unacceptable.

Nor does Paul now contradict what he writes in 12:11, etc., that “the one and the same Spirit” is the source of all gifts. First John 4:1, 2 aids in the solution: “Believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits … Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit,” etc. John speaks about “the Spirit of God” and yet uses “every spirit” and the plural “the spirits” when he speaks about the individual church members and about the Holy Spirit’s activity in them. In 12:7 Paul writes similarly about “the manifestation of the Spirit” as it is given to each one as though the Spirit individualizes himself in each person. Compare “the seven Spirits of God” in Rev. 1:4; 5:5; 5:6 where the symbolical plural “seven” is used. So Paul writes “spirits” in our passage and again “the spirits of the prophets” in v. 32.

This term “spirits” designates the different manifestations of the one Holy Spirit in the individual Christians. C.-K.. 950.

1 Corinthians 14:13

13 Paul makes his admonition more specific. Wherefore let him that speaks with a tongue pray that he interpret. The ἵνα clause is not final. Paul does not say that the speaker with tongues is to pray with the purpose or intention of interpreting. This ἵνα states the object of “pray,” i.e., the contents of the prayer. The point is immaterial whether this prayer is: “Lord, enable me to interpret,” namely what I now speak with a tongue, or: “Lord, grant me the gift of interpretation” for all my speaking with a tongue.

Paul mentions two actions: one with the substantivized participle “he that speaketh with a tongue,” the other with the imperative “let him pray” (whether before or after speaking with a tongue). What Paul urges upon those who are zealous for gifts is that, if they have the gift of tongues, they also pray for the gift of interpreting whatever they may be given to speak with a tongue. The reason for this has already been stated, namely that the church may receive edification, v. 12.

The more important question is how one who speaks with a tongue and prays for the ability to interpret his utterance may attain that for which he prays. If speaking with a tongue or tongues means speaking the language of heaven or some non-human language, then the prayer for interpretation could of necessity be answered only by God’s granting a special divine revelation for each separate case of speaking with a tongue. But if tongues are foreign human languages, then one may hope to have the earnest desire (ζηλωταί and ζητεῖτε, v. 12) and the prayer answered to be able to interpret without such a constantly repeated special revelation.

As has been pointed out in connection with the general subject of gifts, the Spirit uses also the natural endowments of Christians in developing and producing gifts for the service of the church. This applies to the gift of interpreting some tongue (language). Contact with those who are speaking such a tongue and the efforts to acquire it produce the ability to interpret what may be spoken in that tongue under the influence of the Spirit. Thus, in one way or another under providential leading the prayer can, indeed, be answered. Compare the remarks on 12:10, “the interpretation of tongues.”

1 Corinthians 14:14

14 Paul has a justification (γάρ) for his injunction regarding interpretation. For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is barren. This is always the case when the ability to interpret is lacking. Paul exemplifies by speaking about himself, his spirit, his mind. And he exemplifies by naming one form of utterance with tongues, that of praying, other forms will be mentioned presently. This “praying with a tongue” is different from the praying for ability to interpret mentioned in v. 13. The prayer mentioned in v. 13 is spoken in ordinary language, here in v. 14 the prayer is made in a tongue or a foreign language.

Paul differentiates between πνεῦμα and νοῦς. The possessives “my spirit” and “my understanding” are identical. “My spirit” is my own spirit, the immaterial part of my being in which my ego centers, which is able to receive impressions from God. This πνεῦμα is distinguished from the ψυχή which is the same immaterial part of my being but as being connected with the σῶμα or body and animating this body so that it lives. The νοῦς is the power that exists in the immaterial part of my being, which performs all mental operations up to and including discursive thinking. Regarding the psychological features of the distinctions compare Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, 184.

When I pray in a tongue, and thus my “spirit” prays, this is by no means an unconscious act. I know that I speak, and I know also and feel that the Holy Spirit moves my “spirit,” and that I am uttering spiritual words and thoughts. But this activity of my “spirit,” although it is conscious enough, extends no farther; my νοῦς or “understanding” is inactive and thus ἄκαρπος, “barren,” “unfruitful,” producing no distinct thoughts (which is its ordinary function) and thus producing no reception of thoughts in others who hear my utterance, v. 2. As far as spiritual benefit is concerned, my spirit alone receives that. And even this benefit is small, for my understanding is inactive. My spirit receives only dim impressions.

But all of the gifts are to profit the church, that is their real purpose. To achieve this there must be interpretation of what “my spirit prays.” Hence the previous injunction to pray for interpretation.

1 Corinthians 14:15

15 Now there follows the deduction, which is introduced by the question: Τίοὗνἐστι; literally, “What, then, is there?” What, then, follows? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also, I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. The future tenses are volitive; they state a determination on Paul’s part, R. 874. His understanding as well as his spirit shall pray and sing. He adds a second form of speaking with tongues. This means that, as far as Paul is concerned, he will not speak with tongues unless he can also interpret, for when he is interpreting, the understanding is used.

1 Corinthians 14:16

16 In v. 14, 15 the first person exemplified, and in v. 16, 17 the second person does the same. The change from the one to the other puts the exemplification beyond question and at the same time lends vivacity as if Paul would say: “Take me, for instance!” and then: “Take thyself, for instance!” After the strong affirmation which is even repeated for the sake of emphasis in v. 15 Paul considers the negative possibility. The Greek ἐπεὶἐάν is equivalent to “otherwise,” A. V. “else,” R. 965, literally, “since if.” Else if thou bless in spirit, how shall he that occupies the place of the unlearned say the amen to thy thanksgiving since he does not know what thou sayest? For thou, indeed, givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

This is undoubtedly what the listener would experience. Here a third form of utterance with tongues is introduced, εὑλογία, “blessing,” which is also called εὑχαριστία, “thanksgiving”; the former emphasizes the form of speaking (“speaking well,” i.e., good words to God for his grace, etc.), the latter emphasizes the contents (the gratitude toward God). The dative πνεύματι states that only the speaker’s “spirit” is employed in his utterance since this is made in a tongue and not in his “understanding.”

What will the result be? Why, the hearer will not know what thou art saying and thus will not be able to respond to thy unintelligible words with the amen of assent. Paul puts this truth into the form of a question: “How shall he say the amen,” etc.? He thus lets the person addressed himself furnish the answer. The subject of ἐρεῖ is placed before πῶς in order to make it emphatic: “he that occupies the place of the unlearned, how shall he,” etc.? This prolepsis of the subject is entirely natural, R. 460.

There is much discussion in regard to the term ἰδιώτης and the noun τὸντόπον, “filling or occupying the place of the ἰδιώτης.” We have the plural in v. 23 together with ἄπιστοι. We may at once say that we decline to accept the view that these were “guests” who occupied special places that were reserved for them in the meetings; or that they were catechumens who had not yet been baptized, and that Paul mentions one of these because he is concerned about missionary interests. The definite article with “he that occupies the place,” etc., does not carry such a connotation; nor does the participle “filling or occupying the place.” If a guest or a catechumen are unable to understand, would those who are not guests or not catechumens understand?

The term ἰδιώτης is quite common and describes a person who occupies a private position in contradistinction from an official of some kind, or one who lacks technical or expert knowledge in contradistinction from an expert in some special line; hence in a broad sense he is “a layman.” In the present connection this word refers to a Christian who is inexpert in the matter of tongues, “unlearned” (our versions) in this respect. Instead of merely using the term “the unlearned,” “the layman,” Paul very properly describes the man: “he that occupies the place of the unlearned.” Paul intimates to the person whom he addresses as “thou”: “Just imagine thyself in his place.” “The place” of the man who is unlearned is his general position in the assembly by virtue of his inexpertness. Many others will be in the same position. We have no evidence that there were reserved seats in the church buildings of this day. Paul has the singulars “thou” and “he” in order to make the matter more pointed. In v. 23 he has two plurals: the whole church and men unlearned, and varies this in v. 24: all (plural), and someone unlearned (singular).

This is typical of Paul who constantly varies numbers, combines positives and negatives, and turns the thought now in one, now in another direction until his purpose is completely attained. Let us recognize and admire this flexibility and this versatility.

“Amen” is the transliterated Hebrew word for “truth” or “verity” and used in the Greek as now in many languages in order to express full and decided assent. “The amen” indicates the particular assent in the case about which Paul writes. It is set like a seal of approval “upon,” ἐπί, thy giving of thanks.

In order to make perfectly plain the reason that this inexpert hearer is unable to add intelligent approval to what he hears Paul adds: “Since he does not know what thou sayest.” Here Paul himself defines what he means by “the unlearned.” This is the disadvantage connected with all speaking with tongues before unlearned people; unless intelligent interpretation is added, no one knows what is being said, no one can approve.

1 Corinthians 14:17

17 With “for” Paul adds the explanation regarding the two persons to whom he refers, the speaker and the hearer. Instead of using the contrasting particles μέν and δέ he uses the stronger μέν and ἀλλά: “For thou, indeed, givest thanks well, but the other is not edified,” receives no spiritual benefit. Thus Paul again arrives at the cardinal point of his discussion regarding gifts, namely the edification of the church members.

1 Corinthians 14:18

18 The conclusion of the entire matter is now presented in the form of a personal resolution that was made by Paul himself (θέλω, v. 19). I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all; nevertheless in church I am resolved to speak five words with my understanding in order that I may actually instruct others rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

While Paul greatly reduces the value of speaking with tongues he by no means despises this gift. He himself possesses this ability in a high degree and thanks God for it. If the Corinthians are proud of having this gift in their midst, Paul can tell them that he is able to speak with tongues more than all of them. The verb λαλῶ and its tense do not intend to indicate that Paul constantly does this kind of speaking in following his work. This verb resembles our English “I speak this or that language,” i.e., I have this ability. Nor does the plural “in tongues” mean that, whereas the Corinthians speak only a few foreign languages, Paul speaks many.

The number of the languages spoken is not stressed at any point in the discussion. “More than you all” refers to a higher degree of endowment by the Spirit. The entire spiritual equipment of the apostle, which he has received for his great office, also in regard to this gift exceeds anything that appears among the Corinthian church members, all of whom are of the ordinary class.

1 Corinthians 14:19

19 If the Corinthians were to possess this gift to such a high degree, how they would glory in it and use it excessively! Paul thinks quite otherwise: “five words,” enough to construct one pithy sentence, uttered with the understanding “at church” before the people “in order to instruct others” are preferable to “ten thousand words in a tongue” because in spite of the excessive number they convey nothing to the hearers. The emphasis is on the phrase “at church” (no article), R. 792. Paul says nothing here or elsewhere about using tongues in private devotion, and it is best not to draw a conclusion regarding this point. Regarding θέλωἥ without μᾶλλον see R. 661. The verb expresses determination. The aorist subjunctive κατηχήσω refers to instruction that is actually imparted by means of the five words.

1 Corinthians 14:20

20 Thus far Paul has shown the uselessness of tongues as far as the congregation is concerned, since without an interpretation tongues cannot address the understanding and, like prophecy, tend toward edification. With a brief preamble he now draws attention to a feature that is connected with tongues, of which the Corinthians, it seems, have not thought at all. In the case of unbelievers speaking with tongues tends only to confirm them in their unbelief.

The preamble to this part of the exposition is put into the form of a kindly admonition. Brethren, be not children in mind, on the contrary, in baseness be babes but in mind be mature. The address as well as the substance of the following indicate the beginning of a new paragraph. To be children in mind is to act as though the mind is still in the undeveloped stage of childhood. The plural of φρήν (φρένες, here the locative dative ταῖςφρεσίν), the diaphragm enclosing the nobler viscera, heart and lungs, is used by the Greeks to designate the ability of the mind to think and to judge. The apostle intimates that despite all their pride in knowledge and wisdom the Corinthians are still “children” as far as judging aright concerning the effect of tongues is concerned. Like children they delight in the gift as such and yet fail to see all that is involved in the inconsiderate use and display which they make of this gift.

With a quick turn of thought that is suggested by the idea of being children in a certain respect Paul is reminded of a field in which it would be creditable to the Corinthians to be children, yea, babes: “on the contrary, in baseness be babes,” νήπιοι, so young and inexperienced as not to know how to practice anything in the nature of κακία. This is, however, not “malice” (our versions), ill will against someone. It is good-for-nothingness (5:8), moral inferiority, for the adjective κακός describes a person or a thing as not being what he or it should be according to nature, idea, or purpose. We have no reason in the present connection to think of the superlative sense of the word Bosheit or “wickedness,” for the Greek word for this idea is πονηρία.

To be a babe is to be even less than a child; a babe can do nothing at all. Why Paul should add this remark about being babes in baseness is a puzzle to some. They think that it is a remark that just occurs to the writer when he wants to balance a previous expression. Yet this is never Paul’s way, to say no more. The puzzle is solved when we catch Paul’s meaning. It is κακόν to use a gift (here that of tongues) so that it does not serve its true purpose. To use it with a display of vanity is childish; to ignore its purpose by disregarding edification is wrong. Add to this what Paul is now about to show, a foolish use that helps to rebuff the unbelievers who might be won to faith, and we have exactly what κακία implies; and this is what Paul urges the Corinthians to avoid.

Instead of being children in mind the Corinthians are to be τέλειοι, “mature,” having reached the goal; compare the remarks on 13:10. In the present connection Paul refers to people who are fully able to use their powers of thought and of judgment. In this verse the three locative datives are used with a noun (παιδία), with a verb (νηπιάζετε), and then with an adjective (τέλειοι), R. 524, which is an interesting variation.

1 Corinthians 14:21

21 The chief trouble connected with the thoughtless and the childish use of tongues is made plain by means of a quotation from Isa. 28:11, 12. In the Law it is written: In strange tongues and by lips of strangers will I speak to this people, and not even thus will they listen to me, says the Lord. This is not quoted from the LXX but is a direct translation from the Hebrew which omits a part of v. 12 and adds “says the Lord.” The version of Aquila agrees with Paul’s translation as far as the word τουύτῳ. Regarding the perfect tense “it has been written” see 1:19. The term ὁνόμος designates the Old Testament. By using the first person “I will speak” whereas the Hebrew has the third, Paul himself indicates that he is quoting in a free manner. For his purpose the “stammering lips” of the Hebrew are of no importance, but the foreign language employed in this case is exactly the feature which he intends to stress: “In strange (foreign) tongues and by lips of strangers (foreigners) will I speak to this people.” By this paraphrase Paul thus brings out the vital thought of Isaiah’s prophetic utterance.

Jehovah threatens to send barbarians upon the kingdom of Judah, namely the Assyrians with their barbarous speech, which would sound like stammering to the Jews and be wholly foreign to their ears. They would not heed the pleading of the Lord’s prophets, he will now speak to them through the lips of these cruel, barbarous conquerors. Will God’s obdurate people listen at last? No; even this measure will be in vain: “and not even thus will they listen to me.” Isaiah’s prophecy was duly fulfilled at the time of the Assyrian invasion.

Not a few happenings of this nature, whether they are predicted or not, are in one way or in another typical of future occurrences. In some important feature a striking resemblance can be noted. That is the case here. The point in which the Old Testament type referred to by Paul agrees in a striking manner with the antitype now appearing in Corinth is the foreign, unintelligible tongue which leaves unbelieving hearts unchanged and even increases their hardness. In both instances unbelievers are involved: the unbelieving people of Judah, and in Corinth pagans who may attend the services of the church. In both instances an unintelligible language is spoken: in the case of Judah, Assyrian, and in Corinth, tongues. In both instances the effect is negative: the men of Judah remain unbelieving, the Corinthian unbelievers scoff.

1 Corinthians 14:22

22 Paul draws a conclusion from Isaiah’s prophecy, especially from the statement that the Judeans would not listen to the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not for the believing, but for the unbelievers, while prophecy, not for the unbelievers, but for the believing.

The point to be noted in regard to both the tongues and the prophecy lies in the phrase “for a sign”; and εἶναι (here εἰσί) combined with εἰς: “to be for,” etc., expresses, not the nature of tongues and of prophecy, but the effect. In the present connection Paul does not, of course, refer to the interpretation of tongues since that would be out of place. From the Old Testament prophecy he concludes that unintelligible tongues, like the unintelligible language of the Assyrians in Judea, have a certain effect upon unbelievers. The effect is that of an unintelligible sign which naturally arouses hostility. Unintelligible tongues have no such effect upon believers, could not have in the nature of the case, and hence they are not such a “sign” to them.

Regarding signs for unbelievers with this negative effect compare Luke 2:34: this child Jesus … “for a sign which is spoken against.” John 2:18–22, the Temple destroyed, and “in three days I will raise it up.” Matt. 12:39, “the sign of Jonah, the prophet,” also 16:4. The parables of Jesus had a similar effect upon unbelievers; they, too, were unintelligible to them, were even intended to be so, Matt. 13:10, etc.

“Prophecy” is the reverse. Since the two statements are exact parallels, we must supply “is for a sign” and not merely “is.” But in this case the term “sign,” because it is intended for believers and not for unbelievers, is understood as a sign of grace and not of displeasure and of judgment. Prophecy is a gracious gift of the Spirit for all believers, a precious means of salvation, its prominent feature as compared with unintelligible tongues since it is easily understood in regard to what it conveys. In the nature of the case God has no such gracious gift for unbelievers. He can do and does only one thing: he opposes their wicked unbelief. The datives are throughout regular indirect objects. So we see God using two signs: one of judgment for unbelievers and one of grace for believers.

Yet it is God who speaks objectively, on the one hand, in the Assyrian tongue and in the Corinthian tongues and, on the other hand, in all prophecy. Although God speaks objectively, subjectively the unbelievers do not hear him and thus remain what they are; only believers hear what he says and receive the blessed effect of his words. In this connection we may note that Paul’s parallel between the foreign language of the Assyrians and the tongues spoken in Corinth rests on the fact that the latter were likewise foreign human languages.

1 Corinthians 14:23

23With οὗν Paul draws out the fuller meaning concerning what he says in regard to tongues and to prophecy and to their effect as signs. Accordingly, if the whole church come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and men unlearned and unbelieving come in, will they not say that you are mad? This will assuredly be the effect.

Paul’s description is concrete and vivid. Suppose (ἐάν) that the entire church comes together in one place where it usually meets for worship. Suppose that all of the members thus assembled speak in tongues, not, of course, in a simultaneous babel but, let us say, in due order, one after the other. It is easy to see why Paul puts his supposition in this strong way: “the whole church” and “all” members speaking with tongues. It is because all of the Corinthians loved and admired tongues above all other gifts. So in his supposition Paul grants them their wish, he pictures a service in which all are assembled, and all speak with tongues. Interpretation is, of course, disregarded.

The supposition goes on. Suppose further that a number of pagans, who have in some way been attracted by the church, enter into this assembly, people who are unlearned in tongues and unbelievers. They sit down and listen to all of these church members as they are talking in tongues, an unintelligible torrent of sounds. What will, what must be the effect upon them? “Will they not say that you are mad?” Why, even in Jerusalem where tongues first appeared this was the effect upon the unbelievers: “But others mocking said: ‘They are filled with new wine,’” Acts 2:13. Is this the effect which the Corinthians desire to produce? While it is God who speaks through tongues in Corinth even as he did in Judea through the Assyrians, the Corinthians must now see that the more this unintelligible speaking is increased, the effect produced upon unbelievers must of necessity be the reverse of what they would desire.

Paul again writes ἰδιῶται. The meaning of this term is the same as it was in v. 16, laymen in regard to tongues, persons who are unable to understand them. In v. 16 the context implies that the layman spoken of there is a believer and belongs to the church while in v. 23, 24 Paul explicitly states that unbelievers and nonmembers are referred to. The combination ἰδιῶταιἣἄπιστοι, “unlearned or unbelieving,” denotes one and the same class, “or” adds only an alternative designation. “Or” is usually, however, made disjunctive so that we have two classes: 1) the unlearned (thought to be Christians or near-Christians); 2) unbelievers. These unlearned are thought to be visitors from some other congregation who are unacquainted with tongues; proselytes or catechumens who have not yet been baptized; people who are merely unacquainted with Christianity and not hostile unbelievers. “Or” is not disjunctive but conjunctive and definitive as it is in v. 24 and in Luke 20:2.

1 Corinthians 14:24

24Paul now introduces prophecy into his supposition. Behold the difference as to the effect! But if all prophesy, and one unbelieving or unlearned comes in, he is convicted by all, he is put through examination by all, the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and thus, having fallen on his face, he will worship God, declaring that truly God is among you.

There is no need again to mention the assembling of the whole church. As all of the Corinthians desire tongues, so Paul desires that all may prophesy, v. 5, instead. Now suppose that all of them do; of course, in proper order. The present subjunctive προφητεύωσιν, like λαλῶσι in v. 23, pictures the action in progress: “suppose all are engaged in prophesying.” Again the supposition proceeds: “and suppose one unbelieving or unlearned comes in” and listens to all of this prophesying, which is, of course, entirely intelligible to him. The aorist εἰσέλθῃ, like εἰσέλθωσι in v. 23, merely marks the fact of the entrance. Paul very properly now has the singular “one unbelieving or unlearned” and not the plural as he did in v. 23. Conversion is a personal and an individual matter.

The indefinite τὶς, “one,” is to be construed with both ἄπιστος and ἰδιώτης, for it designates one person only and not two, which latter would call for the wording “one unbelieving or one unlearned.” In the combination “one unbelieving or unlearned” “or” adds only an alternative term. As was the case in v. 16 and v. 23, ἰδιώτης receives its connotation from the context. In verses 16 and 23 it means one who is minus ability regarding tongues; here in v. 24, one who is minus ability in regard to prophecy. For this reason, it seems, Paul now places “unbelieving” first and “unlearned” second.

What happens in this case Paul puts into the form of facts. Since this supposition climaxes what he Paul, desires for the Corinthians (that they all prophesy), he states what he knows will happen. In v. 23, where the supposition climaxes what the Corinthians desire (that they all might speak with tongues), Paul lets the Corinthians say what they think will happen (“will they not say?” etc.). When Paul speaks about the effect of tongues as a sign he uses only one brief statement, namely the assertion of the unbelievers: “You are mad.” When he describes the effect of prophecy he dwells on it at length and reaches a climax in the declaration of the new convert: “Truly, God is among you,” v. 25.

The effect produced on this unbelieving visitor who was hitherto unacquainted with prophecy is first sketched in three statements: he is convicted—put through examination—his heart’s secrets are made manifest. These three may be combined in the thought: he is brought to repentance. Conviction works the consciousness of guilt in the unbeliever’s soul. This is the effect of prophecy in the wider sense (see v. 2), for Paul adds convicted “by all.” The conscience is touched and aroused from its sleep. The law is brought home to the sinner. “He is put through examination by all,” not κρίνειν (“judged,” our versions), nor κατακρίνειν (“condemned”), but ἀνακρίνεσθαι, put through a course of questioning as when one is questioned and examined by a judge in a court. This describes the detailed effect produced on the sinner’s heart by all of this prophesying. Question after question strikes home and reveals his sin and his guilt to him.

The statement that Paul has a hysteron proteron by placing conviction before examination is due to a misunderstanding of the second verb or of the situation. The result of this stirring of the conscience, which is intensified by the self-examination produced by this prophesying, is that “the secrets of his heart are made manifest,” i.e., to his own consciousness. These “secrets” are the motives, the impulses, and the tendencies that lie veiled and covered under the sinner’s words and his deeds such as the utter lack of fear and love to God and the absence of love to his fellow men and, coupled with these negatives, the positive enmity against God and hatred and malice against men, etc. He thus begins to see himself as he actually is. The light of prophecy which pours in upon him and uses first the law and then the gospel thus reveals to the sinner the entire inwardness of his ungodly and unrighteous life. He is brought to repentance.

1 Corinthians 14:25

25After this description of what takes place inwardly in the sinner’s heart as a result of the prophecy which reaches the conscience through the law Paul adds the outward, visible, and audible effects of the prophecy which reaches the heart through the gospel. In prophecy law and gospel are always used conjointly, and it is always the law which penetrates first, and this is followed by the blessed effect of the gospel. The sinner is brought to faith and to the confession of faith: “and thus, having fallen on his face, he will worship God,” etc. This prostration is a confession of sin and a confession of faith combined. The act is even more significant than words alone would be. Among Orientals acts are always more demonstrative than among us Occidentals. Today the head bows in crushed humility, or the knees sink to the floor when sins are confessed.

In the Greek the participle “having fallen on his face” is the accompanying action, and “he will worship God” is the main act. The verb προσκύνειν = “do obeisance,” anbeten, “worship” in the sense of submission to God, confessing, praising, and exalting him as the true God. This entails a full and an adequate confession of faith.

Thus the “unbeliever” who came in departs as a “believer,” and all of this has been accomplished through the gift of prophecy. This is an effect that all the tongues in the world could not produce. Paul adds the final touch: “declaring that truly God is among you.” Whereas tongues produce the scoffing reply: “You are mad!” prophecy produces the reply: “God is among you!” Whereas tongues are a sign to unbelievers and confirm their unbelief, prophecy is a sign to the believers which works faith by its power and, by turning the unbeliever into a believer, becomes a sign of grace also to him.

Thus the discussion ends. Tongues are of little use to believers, of no use to unbelievers. Even that little use depends on a second gift, interpretation. Prophecy is of the highest value. It edifies all believers and converts unbelievers. Tongues thus meet the great saving purpose of the church only slightly, through the medium of another gift. An excess of tongues is of no profit, it is rather a detriment. If it consumes the entire time of worship it is decidedly the latter. Prophecy meets the saving purpose of the church in the very highest degree. We can have no excess of prophecy.

1 Corinthians 14:26

26The careful and the detailed instruction given in v. 1–25 is followed by careful and detailed directions regarding procedure by telling the Corinthians just what to do in their church services so as to employ the charismata in the most beneficial way. The kindly address “brethren” asks the Corinthians to receive these directions in a brotherly spirit. The opening question is like that occurring in v. 15. What, then, follows? i.e., in regard to the way in which you should proceed with these charismata in your meetings. When you come together, each has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

We need not stress “each” unduly, for in a large assembly, where old and young and even children are present, many come only to hear. In a perfectly natural way “each” refers to those who have some gift to exercise in that special service. Paul mentions a number of gifts without employing connective particles; he simply places them side by side as they may readily occur in such a meeting. Yet we see that it is Paul’s purpose to compare especially two gifts, prophecy in general and tongues. For each one “has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation” details the functions of the gift of prophecy in the wider sense.

A “psalm” was one that was uttered in the vernacular, cf., Eph. 5:19; the utterances in tongues follow separately. “Teaching” is any piece of instruction on some appropriate point of doctrine or ethics. “Revelation” is not a direct communication from God to the speaker but some portion of the Word of God which the speaker deems it necessary to bring to the attention of the brethren.

The ordinary functions of prophecy are thus placed first for reasons already indicated. Now there follows “a tongue,” an utterance in a foreign language but with the complement “an interpretation” that translates the tongue. Bengel comments on the repetition of ἔχει, “has”: Eleganter exprimit divisam donorum copiam. The indicative merely states the fact: each one has this or that charismatic offering for the benefit of the assembly.

After thus sketching the situation that obtains when the congregation assembles for worship Paul states the principle that is to govern the proceedings: “Let all things be done unto edifying,” πρός, toward this end. First, the gifts must be of a kind to edify; secondly, what is done with them when the assembly is come together must likewise serve this great end.

1 Corinthians 14:27

27After he has placed the situation and the principle before his readers Paul tells them in detail how to proceed. Yet he reverses the order and speaks about tongues first and about prophecy second and thus produces a chiasm between v. 26 and v. 27. This has the advantage of placing the practical instructions in regard to the most important gift, that of prophecy, in the important place at the end. And if one speaks with a tongue, let it be two or at the most three and in turn, and let one person interpret. Yet if there be not an interpreter, let him be silent in church and let him speak to himself and to God.

“And if,” εἴτε, might have a second εἴτε following in v. 29, but Paul uses δέ in order to contrast prophecy with tongues. “If one speaks with a tongue” does not refer to one individual only but is a general expression: this or that person. The Greek needs no verb, but in English we add “let it be” in order to obtain a smoothness of translation. No more than two, at the most three, are to use tongues in any one gathering; κατά is used in the distributive sense: je zwei, etc. “At the most,” τὸπλεῖστον, is an adverbial accusative, R. 487, 550, and a true superlative, R. 670. Speakers with tongues are not to take up the entire time of the meeting and thus leave little or no opportunity for prophecy. Moreover, they are to speak ἀνὰμέρος, “in turn,” R. 571. This sounds as though in Corinth these speakers at times failed to restrain themselves and spoke simultaneously and created unseemly confusion.

“And let one person interpret” is to be understood ad sensum. There is no reason to stress εἷς to mean one person only for the two or the three speakers with tongues. What Paul requires is that no one speak with a tongue unless a prompt interpretation follows. Just as only one person at a time shall speak with a tongue, so one person shall follow the tongue with the interpretation. This may be the person who speaks with a tongue, for he himself may have also the ability to translate, v. 13; it may also, of course, be another person. Whether one person interprets for two or for three speakers with tongues will depend on whether the two or the three use the same foreign language, or, if they use different languages, whether the interpreter is linguist enough to translate two or three.

1 Corinthians 14:28

28However, no interpreter may be present at the meeting. In this event no one is to speak with a tongue. This implies that the speaker with a tongue can ascertain in advance whether an interpreter is present or not. How can he do this? He could not do it if tongues are the language of heaven or a mystical non-human language. Then interpretation would have to come as a special revelation for each case, for who is ready to assume that interpretation consists in the actual knowledge of the language of heaven or of the non-human language?

Yet no speaker with a tongue could possibly ascertain in advance whether the Spirit were ready to grant someone the required revelation at the time. Thus he could never determine whether he should proceed to speak or not. This again shows that tongues are not the language of heaven or non-human utterances.

Tongues are foreign human languages. Any speaker with a tongue may easily know in advance whether someone is present in the assembly who understands the particular language which the Spirit communicates to him. Previous tests and experiences place this beyond question. This applies to each of the two or the three speakers who are allowed by Paul at any one service. Each may speak a different foreign human language. Each will know the name of the particular language which the Spirit grants him to speak. A glance tells him whether an interpreter is present or not. If none is at hand, he remains silent. Such interpreters will have interpreted before and will thus be known for their ability by all.

This applies only to such speaking ἐνἐκκλησίᾳ, “in church,” in the public assembly. Outside of the assembly anyone may speak in a tongue all he desires: “and let him speak to himself and to God,” literally, “and to himself (emphasis) let him speak and to God (again emphasis).” “Let him speak to himself” does not mean silently, in his own heart, because the word “speak,” which is so regularly used with reference to tongues, means audible utterance. Paul tells this speaker “to speak” ad libitum in any private way. Yet the sense is not that he and God are to listen to this private speaking. The sense is that this speaking is between himself and God and thus for the speaker’s own edification, v. 4, in that his feelings and his desires, finding outlet in his speaking, rise unto God. So much concerning the practical regulations in regard to the use of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:29

29Now there follow the regulations in regard to prophecy. And let prophets speak two or three, and let the others discern. Paul does not need to repeat “when you come together,” v. 26; that is understood. Who the prophets are we know from v. 26: those who have a psalm, a teaching, or a revelation, namely a gift of the Spirit that enabled them to make such an offering for edification of the church.

We again have the restriction as to number: only “two or three.” Paul is not in favor of prolonging the public service. More may desire to speak, but an opportunity shall be given to only two or three. Paul does not repeat “at most” in connection with “three,” yet he does not do this in order to grant greater liberty to prophecy than to tongues. The omission is made for the sake of brevity. The Corinthians will understand that the limit is to be three. On the other hand, “two or three” does not say that “as a rule or under all circumstances” so many must speak.

Paul merely indicates that the rule that applies to tongues and that which applies to prophets are to be the same. By granting as many speakers to tongues as to prophets Paul desires to intimate that he is not unduly restricting tongues and quenching the spirit, 1 Thess. 5:19. Nothing is said about making a selection, say by the elders, as to who the two or the three are to be. Yet we may assume that such a practice was followed.

“And let the others discern” refers to the other prophets who are present and not to all the others in the assembly. “Discerning of spirits” is a special gift, one which naturally accompanies the gift of prophecy although certain other members may also have it to some degree. The article in the expression οἱἄλλοι refers to προφῆται and shows that “the others” are also “prophets.” Discerning protects the church against error, whether this is innocently and ignorantly offered to the church, as is often the case, or with conscious opposition to the truth. Luther writes: “What is meant here by ‘the others’? Is it the mob? By no means. This means the other prophets who help to preach in the church and to improve the congregation; they are to judge and to help see that preaching is rightly done.” Discernment always deals with “spirits” since these are the source from which every prophetic utterance flows; see the remarks on 12:10.

The effect is, however, always to reveal the true doctrine as being true and divine, the false as being false and devilish. When we are speaking of the latter we need not think about demonism since all lies and all deceptions emanate from Satan.

1 Corinthians 14:30

30As the number of speakers is to be limited, so also is the length of the addresses. And if to another sitting by a revelation is made, let the first be silent. The speaker, it seems, would stand. If, however, another, while he was seated and thus not speaking by the Spirit’s help (note the passive ἀποκαλυφθῇ, the Spirit being the agent back of the verb) thinks of some pertinent word of revelation and rises to utter it to the congregation, either to corroborate or to correct what has just been spoken, the speaker having the floor at the moment is to yield it. It seems that the custom which obtained in the old Jewish synagogues was thus introduced into the churches, namely an edifying discussion by two or three speakers in turn.

1 Corinthians 14:31

31Paul cuts off every objection that this regulation would quench the spirit of prophecy. For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn, and all may be admonished. Paul addresses the prophets directly, hence he employs the second person. The emphasis is not on “all” but on the verb: You can prophesy under this arrangement, do not fear that you cannot. If not at one service, you can speak at another, of course, “one by one,” and so “all” in turn. After the verb the emphasis is on the κατά phrase (the distributive use of the preposition, R. 606, 608) Paul will have no confusion.

The double ἵνα clause again emphasizes the purpose that is to be served. Paul has employed but one word and has called it edification; here he divides this concept into two parts: “that all may learn,” instruction, “and that all may be admonished,” application. The verb παρακαλεῖν means to address by urging, admonishing, encouraging, and comforting, all of these interwoven, or one of these features being especially prominent. One of the functions of prophecy is παράκλησις.

1 Corinthians 14:32

32When Paul directs that speakers with tongues are to be silent in the event that no interpreter is present he intimates that these speakers are able to control themselves. What he only intimates in their case he now states directly in the case of the prophets. And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. These are not spirits which possess the prophets; they are not distinct from the prophets and able to control the prophets as mere instruments. In other words, these are not spirits that compel the prophets to speak at their pleasure so that the prophets cannot help themselves. We have no evidence that such views were prevalent at this time.

In English we should call these spirits of the prophets their souls, the immaterial part of their being which receives impressions from the divine Spirit and from his Word. These spirits are thus subject to their owners, they speak when these will it. Hence a prophet may desire to speak and may have something important to convey which has been given him by the divine Spirit and the Word and yet for good reasons may refrain from speaking. Proper self-control is a virtue that any prophet may well cultivate even today.

1 Corinthians 14:33

33The fact that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets rests on another and an ultimate fact. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. The two genitives are possessive genitives in the predicate in place of an attribute after the copula, R. 497. Confusion, topsy-turvy doings, do not belong to God. Quite otherwise. But Paul does not add the direct opposite of confusion: God is a God “of good order.” Instead of mentioning the direct opposite he mentions the motive or purpose which underlies this opposite: he is a God “of peace,” connected with “peace” in the sense of well-being and quiet satisfaction.

Confusion is full of sinful zeal (ζῆλος) and contentions (ἔριδες). God does not want the church to be disturbed and upset by the manner in which his gifts are used; he wants it to grow and to prosper in peace.

The clause: As in all the churches of the saints, is by most of the ancients, by Luther, and by our versions connected with the preceding sentence, but nearly all modern exegetes connect it with the following sentence. The statement that God is not a God of confusion but of peace is certainly complete in itself. Why should Paul, in corroboration of this fact, desire to point the Corinthians to all the other churches, i.e., to what takes place in them? If any other church tolerates confusion that church, too, is in disharmony with God just as well as the Corinthians. But regarding the public speaking of women in Corinth, Paul may well refer the Corinthians to the established custom that obtains in all the other congregations. So we construe: “As (the practice is) in all the assemblies of the saints, let the women keep silence in the assemblies,” those in which you come together for your public worship.

The spirit of individualism which prompts one congregation to do what it prefers although it thereby contradicts its sister congregations and perhaps offends them is foreign to Paul. He ever conserves true fellowship, loving regard for others, inward and outward harmony. In this spirit he points the Corinthians to all the other churches in connection with this question.

1 Corinthians 14:34

34Paul’s prohibition of all public speaking of women in the churches is in the nature of an appendix to his directions about the public use of tongues and of prophecy. All that he says in v. 26–32 applies only to men. As in all the other assemblies of the saints, let the women keep silence in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; on the contrary, let them be in subjection even as also the Law declares.

Whether they have the gift of tongues or of prophecy makes no difference, in fact, Paul’s prohibition is intended for just such. And this prohibition is general and complete. From the little that Paul says we cannot properly infer that this question was acute in Corinth, and that women attempted to speak in the assemblies. The question may have been broached, but no more than this had occurred. Paul only rounds out his instructions and thus anticipates any movement in this direction.

He adds an explanatory γάρ. This order in regard to women does not emanate from Paul personally: “for it is not permitted to them to speak.” This right is not “turned over to them,” ἐπιτρέπεταιαὑταῖς, i.e., it is withheld from them, turned over only to the men. The Textus Receptus has the perfect tense: “has not been turned over” and thus is not now (the usual sense of this tense as including also the present), R. 1220. We are told in a moment who withholds this permission. Here the fact alone is stated.

“On the contrary,” ἀλλά, “let them be in subjection.” The A. V. translates: “They are commanded to be under obedience.” This is Paul’s own positive conclusion, but it is one which he only repeats and thus makes his own. It has a much older source. On the meaning of the verb here used, ὑποτάσσεσθαι, as well as on the corresponding noun, ὑποταγή, compare Eph. 5:21, 22; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11, and many other passages: “to be put in array under” (passive), “to put oneself under” (middle).

Paul is referring to sex and does not restrict himself to the relation of marriage; note γυνή and ἀνήρ in 1 Timothy 2:11, etc. This is placed beyond question by the clause: “even as also the Law declares.” This is the original authority which refuses to turn over to women the right of speaking in public in Christian assemblies, the authority whose dictum Paul appropriates and reports. “The Law” = the Old Testament as the will and the Word of God. The best answer to the question where and how “the Law” does what Paul says Isaiah 1 Tim. 2:13, 14: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve (the creation of man and of woman, the sexes); and Adam, was not beguiled (by the serpent), but the woman, being beguiled, hath fallen into transgression” (by emancipating herself from her concreated subjection and acting with unwarranted independence). Thus the Law, the Old Testament, subjects woman to man by the very act of creation before the fall and again because of the fall, when woman first ignored this subjection.

Paul informs the Corinthians that what is recorded concerning woman in Genesis is not a temporary arrangement but a permanent one that endures as such for the Christian Church. Any act on the part of woman which sets aside her subjection to man is in violation of “the Law,” the will of God expressed in creation and stated in his Word. An act of such a nature would be the speaking of women in the public services either in a tongue or in prophecy. Ergo, “let the women be silent in the assemblies.” Just how far this prohibition extends is shown by 1 Timothy 2:12: “But I permit not a woman to teach, not to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.” In many places woman may speak and teach even publicy, but in no place where she will exercise “dominion over a man” by her teaching.

It is unfair to charge Paul with an inferior view regarding woman because he himself was unmarried and to assert that he voices only his own personal opinion when he gives such direction to the Corinthians. Back of Paul is the divine νόμος or Word. And that binds him as well as us. Nor can one say that what Paul wrote was well enough for his time and age which assigned a different position to woman than does ours. If woman is now assigned a different position, this is done, not by God, but by man, and by man in contradiction to God. The claim that the sexes are equal collides with the simple fact that God did not make them equal, and no amount of human claiming can remove or alter the divine fact.

The various questions which are today raised in regard to the place of women in the church find their solution just where Paul found his when the question was touched regarding woman’s prophesying or speaking with tongues in public worship in Corinth, namely in the divine principle of the Law. Whatever sphere we may assign to woman in our church practice today dare not contravene her divinely ordained subjection and obedience, for this would conflict with God’s own order.*

Some texts place v. 34, 35 after v. 40. One text advances v. 36–40 ahead of v. 34. Some critics even cancel some of these verses. All such questions we leave in the hands of the textual critics who have the proper textual apparatus at their disposal.

1 Corinthians 14:35

35Women are not even to ask questions in the public assemblies and thus start discussions and in this way secure opportunity to speak publicly. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own men at home. The emphasis is on “at home.” The translation of our versions: “their own husbands,” tends to confuse the English reader, for it leaves the impression that Paul is speaking about the relation of husbands and wives as married people whereas he is speaking about the two sexes as such whether they are married or not.

Paul conceives the congregation as being composed of families in which the women have their family connections, husbands, brothers, fathers, etc. The exceptional case of a lone woman without male connections of any nature in the church is not considered in the formulation of a general directive. There is no need to add in order to meet such exceptions: “Let such inquire of the elders or of friends.” It seems that in the early church the custom prevailed to ask questions at the public services, very probably on subjects that were brought up by the prophets. It would thus be natural for the more forward women to claim the privilege of at least asking questions.

The fact that the asking of questions in the open assembly is practically equivalent to speaking publicly before the congregation and is barred for this reason we see from the reason with which Paul supports the order that women should ask at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. The point of this statement is broken off when it is taken to mean: “shameful in the general estimation of people.” Paul has no modifier with αἰσχρόν, “shameful.” The term does imply that the act mentioned is “shameful,” highly improper, in someone’s judgment. The only judge to whom Paul has appealed in this entire connection is “the Law,” the divine Word, and thus to God himself. So Paul does not mean or imply: “in my judgment, or in that of the churches, or in that of the general public.” All these could be discounted; the latter two are also variable. The Corinthians might reply to Paul: “You think so, but we do not.” And the opinions of the general public in matters of this kind, even when they are correct, are decidedly secondary as proof for the church.

1 Corinthians 14:36

36The two final questions on this subject contain a touch of irony that is intended to sting the haughty Corinthians. Or was it from you the Word of God went out? or came it to you alone? Both the “or” are alike, and there is no reason for making the first exceptional and translating it as an exclamatory “What?” as our versions do. In both questions “or” is elliptical: “Or” if this is not your idea, is it this that from you the Word of God went out? “Or” if not this, then that to you alone it came? The emphasis is as indicated. Both questions are preposterous in a way and even absurd. No congregation is expected to entertain them.

Paul once more reveals what is implied by the term ὁνόμος in v. 34, namely that God himself is the sender of his Word. The force of the first question lies in the suggestion that the Corinthians perhaps desire to take the place of God and to claim that they formed and sent out the Word. This question is not wide of the mark; people and churches do act in this way. Their actions imply that they know better than God and his Word, for they make God and his Word mean what they think they should mean.

The second question is an alternative but has the same force. Yet it does not mean that the Corinthians act as though they were “the mother congregation of Christendom” as some understand this question, and that the Corinthians may thus presume to say what is right or what is wrong conduct for women. Although Paul refers to the practice of other congregations in v. 33 he does not base his directions on the mere custom established in the mother congregation in Jerusalem and on the approval of the daughter congregations that followed. His authority is God and the Word. And his question evidently means: “Are you the only ones in the world who have God’s Word and are thus able to tell all others what it contains?” It is ridiculous that any man or any congregation should act in this way. Yet not a few act in this very way.

Although throughout all ages of the past God’s people have had the Word, these innovators presume to ignore all of them as though they had never existed and now arise to tell us what God’s Word contains. They conduct themselves as though they had just received the very first communication that God ever granted to men.

On the strength of Paul’s decided imperatives it is usually assumed that the Corinthian women were already speaking in the public assemblies. But Paul nowhere says: “I hear that your women are doing this.” Compare 1:11; 5:1; 6:7; 11:18, where Paul states what actually took place in Corinth. This section regarding women resembles 7:12–20, where Paul is warding off a danger instead of correcting an abuse that is already established. As long as Paul does not charge the Corinthian women with speaking in public, Christian ethics compels us to assume that this question had as yet only been discussed, and that no more than this had occurred.

1 Corinthians 14:37

37The discussion regarding spiritual gifts, which extends through chapters 12–14, is now concluded. All that remains is that Paul affix the seal of authority to what he has written. If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him make acknowledgment in regard to what I write that it is of the Lord. But if anyone does not acknowledge, he himself is not acknowledged. What Paul writes to the Corinthians in chapters 12–14 is “of the Lord.” On that score there is no question in Paul’s mind. He knows that he has recorded not merely the results of his own reflections and decisions, but that he has written as the interpres Christi. “Of the Lord” means under the Lord’s direction, that which was promised specifically to the apostles.

Therefore a judgment that the Corinthians may pronounce on what Paul writes is really a judgment, not on Paul, and not on his writing, but on themselves. “If anyone thinks he is a prophet,” etc., let him prove that he is not mistaken in regard to himself, “let him make acknowledgment in regard to what I write, that it is of the Lord.” If he fails to see the divine character of Paul’s words, the proof is conclusive (evidential proof) that this man is no prophet, that he really has no spiritual gift.

Paul proceeds exactly as Jesus did when he spoke with the Jews in John 8:47: “He that is of God heareth the words of God,” acknowledges and receives them as such and thus proves his claim to be of God; “for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God,” you yourselves furnish the evidence for this conclusion. The word ἐντολή, “commandment” of the Lord (some texts have the plural), should be cancelled because it is an addition to the text. The term πνευματικός is general: one who is possessed of any spiritual gift, who would thus be competent to judge what Paul writes.

1 Corinthians 14:38

38The reading ἀγνοεῖται, “he himself is not acknowledged,” is preferable to ἀγνοείτω, “let him not be acknowledged,” i.e., as a prophet and as a man who is spiritually gifted. There is little difference in substance. Between ἐπιγινωσκέτω and ἀγνοεῖται we have the same sharp contrast as in 2 Cor. 6:9. He who does not acknowledge that what Paul writes is of the Lord is himself not acknowledged as the prophet and the gifted man he pretends to be. The passive “is himself not acknowledged” should be understood according to the context. Hence it does not mean that the Lord does not acknowledge him, but that Paul and the church do not recognize him as what he claims to be.

The translation: “But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant,” loses too much of the force of the original. Paul would merely be setting him aside. Men in and out of the church still delude themselves by thinking that they are able to pronounce on the Lord’s Word whereas by every such pronouncement they pronounce only on themselves alone, either that they apprehend the Word (for which they deserve acknowledgment) or that they fail to apprehend it (for which they themselves forfeit acknowledgment).

1 Corinthians 14:39

39The entire matter is now briefly summed up. Wherefore, my brethren, strive zealously to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues. The first injunction is positive: “Get as much as possible!” The second negative: “Get some of it!” The arrangement is chiastic: verb—object; object—verb. In a masterly way the precise valuation to be placed on each of the two gifts is made plain in the fewest possible words. And these injunctions come with a brotherly appeal and ask to be heeded accordingly.

1 Corinthians 14:40

40As far as the practical directions are concerned, these are summed up in the same perfect way. But let all things be done in a seemly way and in due order. The adverb = in becoming form, in wohlgesitteter Weise, which is the opposite of egotistic disorder. The adverbial phrase = according to order, i.e., one speaking at a time, the opposite of confusion.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

• “How the granting of voice and vote to women in all congregational meetings can do anything but place women completely on a level with men in all such meetings and thus gravely interfere with their divinely ordered subjection and obedience, we are unable to see. In all cases where women now have such voice and vote they certainly are on an equality with men in these meetings.—But the matter of voice and vote is one entirely apart from the natural rights of women in the church. Thus in questions of doctrine and conscience sex cannot count in any way, and any woman concerned must be heard. Again, in undertaking important work ordinary wisdom will be enough to go and consult those women whose support should be enlisted. Even in minor matters such as providing a desired service or arranging details concerning which women may well have proper wishes of their own, good sense will meet these wishes on their part. All these things have been done for many a year in the churches without going to the length of placing women on a par with the men in giving them voice and vote in all congregational meetings, and without depriving them in the least of their favored position in the church.”—From an Opinion of the Theological Faculty of Capital University, Columbus, Ohio.