1 Corinthians 14

David Lipscomb Commentary On 1 Corinthians 14 OF TO THE GIFT OF TONGUES AS EVINCED BY THEIR UTILITY1 Corinthians 14:1-19 1 Follow after love;—With eager efforts they were to seek to realize this wonderful grace of love by resisting temptations to any course of conduct that would hinder it and by using every opportunity to further it. yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts,—He now shows that there is no incompatibility between seeking after love and the help of spiritual gifts while they remained. Indeed, they were given to help forward the attainment of love. but rather that ye may prophesy.—He exhorts them that they should earnestly desire these gifts of the Spirit, but rather that they might prophesy. Prophesying after the apostolic was the highest gift. It enabled them to foretell things to come, and to teach the word of God to the people. When they sought this gift, they qualified themselves to receive and practice its teachings.

2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God;—Speaking in unknown tongues was the most striking of these gifts, and from Paul’ s repeating its inferiority to other gifts, it must have been sought after to the exclusion of the higher and the more helpful gifts. for no man understandeth;—He that speaks in a tongue unknown to his hearers does not speak to them, since they do not understand him, but he speaks to God. but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.— He speaks mysteries, things unknown to the people who cannot understand him.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation.—He who, by the gift of prophecy, makes known the will of God instructs, strengthens, builds up, and comforts Christians in their temptations, troubles, and distresses.

4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself;—He speaks the truths of God that will build up and strengthen himself. but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.—The church can understand him, and he instructs and strengthens it.

5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues,—Since it helps him who speaks in an unknown tongue, he would be glad for all to do so. but rather that ye should prophesy:—Prophesying helps both the prophet and the church, and for that reason he would rather they prophesied. and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues,—He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, because he does more good than he who speaks in tongues. except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.— This is the only way to instruct and build up those who hear those who speak in an unknown tongue.

6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation,—Paul now transfers the matter to himself— that if even he, though he was an apostle, came speaking with a tongue, they would receive no profit unless he interpreted the words of the tongue as conveying some revelation received from God. or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?— Knowledge, as here conceived, is the matter ordinarily communicated by teaching. Some who spoke in tongues could not interpret what they spoke.

7 Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?—[Even the lifeless instruments, if they are to speak in the language of music, and affect the feelings and passions of those who hear them, must give a distinction in sounds. That is, be subject to the laws of tone and rhythm, to the interval of scale and measure. This illustration is to show the uselessness of making sounds which are not understood. And it is plain from what follows, as well as from the whole context, that the point of analogy is that as we cannot know what is piped or harped, or be benefited by it unless we can discriminate the sounds emitted, so we cannot be benefited by listening to one who speaks in a language which we do not understand. The point is, not the folly of the gift, but the use made of it.]

8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?—Since in all ages the advance and retreat of armies have been directed by the sound of a trumpet, it is indispensable that the notes expressing each should be sufficiently distinct, the one from the other, and easily understood. Otherwise they would never know when to make ready for battle or for other duties.

9 So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air.—So also unless the teachers spoke in words easy to be understood, the hearers cannot know what is said, such will be speaking into the air [without conveying any meaning to any person. There will be noise, but nothing else. Gifts of that kind, used without interpretation, are good for nothing. It may well be observed that there is much of this same kind of speaking now, where unintelligible terms are used, or words are employed that are above the comprehension of the people. All preaching should be plain, simple, and adapted to the capacity of the hearers.]

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification.-—[All languages are significant, so the languages used by those who spoke with tongues were significant. The difficulty was not in the language used, but the ignorance of the hearers. The argument is that as all the languages that are in the world are for utility, and none are used for the sake of mere display, so it should be with those who had the power of speaking them in the church. They should speak them only when they would be understood.]

11 If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian,—If he who hears does not know the meaning of the language spoken, the hearer will be a barbarian to the speaker. and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me.—The speaker will be a barbarian to the hearer. Neither will be profited by the other in speaking or hearing the language that is not understood. The Greeks used the word barbarian of any foreigner ignorant of the Greek language and the Greek culture.

12 So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church.—Since they were zealous of spiritual things, let them seek above all else those who would abound to the edification of the church.

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.—Let him pray that he may have the gift of interpreting what he says in the tongue, else he will not profit those who hear.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.—[If he uses words in a tongue unknown to the congregation in a prayer to God, he realizes in his own spirit what he says to God, but his understanding is not fruitful because he has not the benefit which he ought to have from every spiritual exercise.]

15 What is it then?— What shall I do then? 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.—Here the same thought is presented and the idioms of the Greek and the English languages require a change of expression to bring out the thought. Neither the Authorized Version nor the American Revised Version does this as the connections show. The thought evidently is : “ I will sing as the Spirit directs or inspires, and I will sing in a language that those who hear can understand.” This expression is often quoted in connection with song service in a sense in which it was not used. The following verse shows clearly that Paul’ s meaning is: “ I will pray and sing by the inspiration of the Spirit, and in a language that they will understand to their profit.”

16 Else if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the Amen at thy giving of thanks,—It was customary in prayer and thanksgiving for the hearer to approve and adopt the spoken prayer as his own, by saying, Amen. seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest?—But if it is not spoken in language that he can understand, how could he say, Amen ?

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.—As it was expressed in a tongue which he did not understand, he was not edified. [It is impossible to join in prayers uttered in an unknown tongue. This proves that the speaker must have understood what he said. For if the unintelligible is useless, it must be so to the speaker as well as to the hearers. If it was necessary that they should understand in order to be edified, it was no less necessary that he should understand what he said in order to be benefited.]

18 I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all:— Paul as an apostle spoke more languages than all the Corinthians. His travels and labors among so many different peoples made this necessary, and it was with him a subject of thanksgiving that this power had been bestowed upon him.

19 howbeit in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.—In the assembly of the church Paul would not speak in foreign languages, where its only use would have been display; but he chose to speak in such a way as to convey instruction that would benefit others. As the object of public worship is the edification of the church, five words spoken so as to edify were of far greater value than ten thousand, not being understood, which could convey none. No higher estimate than this was ever put on practical wisdom. The best and profoundest utilitarian is the man who advocates utility on this high ground. Paul argued so warmly in behalf of the understanding because he felt so deeply the importance of benefiting others.

OF AND THE GIFT OF TONGUES IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECT OF EACH1 Corinthians 14:20-25 20 Brethren,—It seems that strife had arisen over these gifts, as to which was the greater and the more honorable. He pleads with them as brethren, insisting that it was the part of wisdom to desire to so speak that others would be profited, and that there should be no strife or bitterness over these questions. So he turns aside to reprove them. be not children in mind:—Be not weak and attracted by the sound and show of tongues like children who are pleased with anything that will amuse, and at little things that afford them play and pastime. The Corinthians had displayed a childish disposition in estimating the gift of tongues above the more useful and important gifts, and in using it when it could an¬swer no good purpose. yet in malice be ye babes,—In malice and bitterness, be free from all malicious thoughts and actions as little children who cannot cherish such. but in mind be men.—[As to judgment in approving those things which are excellent, be full-grown persons, by attaining of the maturity of the calling in Christ Jesus.]

21 In the law it is written,—The whole of the Old Testament Scripture is called the law, because it was written during the reign of the law, and was intended to uphold and enforce it. [This we might naturally expect from Paul’ s manner of regarding the whole Mosaic dispensation as a progressive order of things having its completion in Christ (Romans 3:19; Galatians 3:23-24.) John uses the word in the same manner. (John 10:34 John 12:34 John 15:25.)] By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people;—Here Paul shows that the gift of tongues had little or no value except as an evidence of unbelievers, and illustrates it by this quotation from Isaiah (Isaiah 28:11-12.) In that passage Isaiah tells the drunken priests, who scornfully imitated his style, that since they derided God’ s message so delivered to them, God would address them in a very different way by the Assyrians, whose language they did not understand. and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.—Since the Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking their own language, God threatened to bring upon them a people whose language they could not undertand. This was a mark of displeasure designed as a punishment, and not for their conversion. [From this it was intended to teach the Corinthians that it was no mark of the divine favor for them to have teachers whose language they could not understand. They were turning a blessing into a curse. The gift of tongues was designed, among other things, to aid Christians in proclaiming the gospel to the various peoples in their own language. When used for this purpose it was a blessing; but to employ it for the sake of vain display, in addressing those who could not understand the language employed, was to make it a curse.]

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving:—Speaking in unknown languages was to reach the unbelieving nations and thus teach them the gospel. For people to hear strangers speak in their own tongue, never having learned it, as was done on Pentecost, attracted attention, convinced the people that the power of God was with them, and prepared them to hear and believe the truth. but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.—This was instructing them in the truths of the gospel, in a language they understood, which would help and profit the believers; but would not profit those who believed not.

23 If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad?—If unbelievers who do not understand the languages come into the assembly, it will seem like senseless jargon. They will be as barbarians to each other (verse 11). The difference between these and those in the preceding verse is that the unbelievers understood the language spoken, in this they do not.

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all,—If all prophesy or teach by the Spirit and use the gift in a language all understand, and one comes in that understands, but believes not, and by the spiritual gift his thoughts are laid bare, he is convinced that God is with them, he is convicted or condemned as a sinner. he is judged by all;— Some think this means that he was ex¬amined by those who discerned spirits and that the things he needed were taught him; but it is more in harmony with the context and scope of the passage to say that he was made to know his true condition.

25 the secrets of his heart are made manifest;—As he heard the prophets, one by one, he would be reproved by all, and his real character and moral state would be made known to him. His conscience would be awakened, and he would see that it was evil. And it is possible that he would suppose that the speakers were aiming directly at him, and revealing his feelings to others; for such an effect is often produced. Prophetic preaching must have had great power to make men feel that they stood face to face with God, for even faithful preaching today lays bare the sinner’ s heart, and often causes him to feel that the preacher particularly intends him, and wonders that he has such acquaintance with his feelings and his life.] and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed.—Being thus smitten with their divine knowledge and mission, he would fall down and worship God, and report that God was in them enabling them to know the secrets of the heart. [This description of the effect of prophecy upon the unbeliever is in no way contrary to the assertion in verse 22. There the apostle is speak¬ing of a sign to attract the attention of the unbeliever; here his attention is already attracted. He has come to the assembly of the church, and is listening to the words spoken there in the name of Jesus Christ. And as faith comes by hearing there will be no need of signs to induce him to become a believer.]

THE USE OF GIFTS AND THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC WORSHIP1 Corinthians 14:26-40 26 What is it then, brethren? When ye come together,— [How are these gifts to be exercised? The principle governing their exercise is edification. This principle is now applied to the orderly exercise, particularly of the gift of tongues and prophecy. A graphic picture is given of the assembled church, eager to contribute, each his part, to the services.] each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation–The directions which follow, with the statements made in verses 32, 33, indicate that they attempted all these things at once and created discord and confusion in the services. Let all things be done unto edifying.—The edification of the church should be the object aimed at in the exercise of these gifts. It was not enough that a man felt himself a subject of spiritual influence; or that acting under it would be agreeable or even profitable to himself, he must remain silent unless the exercise of his gift would benefit the church as a worshiping assembly.

27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret:—To correct this confusion, he gives directions that if any should speak in an unknown tongue, that not more than two or three should speak at one meeting; these one at a time, and one should interpret.

28 but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.—If there were none present who could interpret, those who spoke in tongues were to keep silent. It is useless to speak in an assembly in a language unknown to all. The profit of what is spoken depends on its being understood. He and God could understand, and so he might be profited to speak to God, not to others.

29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern.—The prophets or teachers likewise should speak not more than two or three at a meeting and the other inspired men including him who speaks in a tongue judge of what is spoken.

30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence.—If while one is speaking an important truth is revealed to another, let him make it known, and let him that was speaking conclude his discourse, so that there be no confusion arising from two persons speaking at the same time.

31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted;—All having gifts may prophesy, one at a time, so that all might know what had been revealed to each and all. The same things were not revealed to the different prophets. This was true of the apostles. Some things were revealed to one, other things revealed to another. A conference of all was needful that the full revelation of God might be known. So of these prophets or gifted persons, each should hear what was revealed to the others. So that each would learn all that was revealed to all and to be comforted thereby.

32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;—This no doubt was said in view of the claim frequently made that, as they were under the guidance of the Spirit, they could not restrain themselves; but the influence was not of such a nature as to destroy the self-control of those who were its subjects. The prophets of God were calm and self-possessed. This being the case there was no necessity why one should interrupt another, or why more than one should speak at the same time. The one speaking could stop when he pleased; and the one who had received the revelation could wait as long as he pleased.

33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.—God does not give the gifts of the Spirit to produce confusion, but peace. Any feeling, impluse, or desire of the heart, however religious in its character, that leads man to disregard a com¬mand of God, is another spirit than the Spirit of God. As in all the churches of the saints.—The majority of the best critics, including the distinguished scholars who prepared the American Revised Version, decide that according to the sense, this clause should stand connected with verse 34. So it reads: “ As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches.” It is therefore evident that at the time Paul wrote the propriety of the prohibition was recognized and practiced by all the churches.

34 let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak;—[No instruction in the New Testament is more positive than this; it is positive, explicit, and universal; and however plausible may be the reasons which are urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take an active part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the inspired apostle remains positive and his meaning cannot be misunderstood. He looks at it from every viewpoint, forbids it altogether, and shows that from every consideration it was to be regarded as improper for them to take any active part in conducting the public service.] but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.—This was ordained by God in the beginning when he said unto the woman: “ Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16.) It was required all through the Pa¬triarchal and Jewish dispensations. Sarah was subject to Abraham calling him lord. (1 Peter 3:5-6.) Rebekah veiled her face when she approached Isaac, and during the whole ministry of Christ and the apostles, no record is given of a woman leading in public service, although some of them were spiritually endowed and required to teach in private. (Titus 2:3-4.)

The following command to Timothy was given to guide him in setting in order the churches of Christ: “ Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14.) Here are two reasons given: (1) Adam was first created, and the prece¬dence, the right to rule and lead, was given him; (2) the woman was deceived and led into the transgression. Both reasons are universal in their bearing, showing clearly that the rule is universal. I do not see how God could have made it clearer and more certain than he has done. The reasons given for this command apply to every woman in the world alike.

There is not the least difficulty in explaining all the passages in harmony with these, if we will recognize what is true— that God intended the great burden of praying, teach¬ing, exhorting, and admonishing to be done in private, not in public. Woman has free access to this great field. We have perverted this; we do our preaching, teaching, exhorting, and, I fear, praying often in public; so interpret the Scriptures by our practices, and not by the will of God.

The truth of the whole matter is that many of the churches are infected more or less with a spirit of modernistic infidelity that does not hesitate to set aside any order of God when’ it stands in the way of their fancies. The habit of women preaching originated in the same hotbed with easy divorce, free love, birth control, repugnance to childbearing and child rearing.

35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home:—She should not ask questions as leading to the teaching. She should ask her own husband concerning the things she would learn. for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.—It is shameful because it does not comport with propriety and her womanly modesty, which in all nations is her shield and power. It is contended that, since there is no specific law for¬bidding women taking public part in the service under the law of Moses, Paul is wrong in forbidding her doing so in the church. But to assign all duties to men and none to women is to prohibit their performing such duties. It shows that such a thing as their taking active part was never considered. This epistle was not addressed to the Corinthians exclusively, but “ unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours” (1: 2), showing clearly that it was writ¬ten for the guidance of all Christians in every place and for all time.

This cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is improper for women to speak or to pray in meetings of their own sex, assembled for prayer or Bible study.

36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?—[They had acted in the matter of allowing women to preach as if they were the authors of Christianity—as if, because of their manifold spiritual gifts, the word of God had gone forth from Corinth, instead of from Jerusalem. He reminds them that instead of such being the case the word of God was brought to them by himself. They had received all from him.]

37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.—Having given these rules regulating the use of the spiritual gifts showing that they were liable to be misused and abused, he lays down this rule by which all claims to prophetic or spiritual powers were to be tested. Doing this he will, of course, be regulated by these rules. If he refused to do this he might know, and others too, that he had no gift of the Spirit.

To accept and obey the commandments of God as revealed in the Scriptures is the rule for all at this day by which to test their claims to spirituality. Men are probably more liable to deceive themselves as to whether they are spiritual in the sense of being led by the Spirit than they were in reference to miraculous gifts of the Spirit. The rule is good for all ages.

38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.—Since Paul wrote under the direction of the Spirit, any one filled with the Spirit would be guided to recognize his words as of divine authority, for the Spirit would not say one thing to Paul and a different thing to another. Therefore if any one denies Paul’ s claims to inspiration, he does it willfully and let him remain in his ignorance and suffer the consequences.

39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.—In consideration of all the matters written, let all earnestly desire to prophesy— teach, exhort, strengthen, and comfort one another. While recognizing this as the highest and best gift, do not despise the lower and humble gifts.

40 But let all things be done decently and in order.—Let all things be done in an appropriate and becoming manner; regularly, without confusion, discord, or tumult as becomes the worship of God.

Verse 1 1 Corinthians 14 In this the third chapter of Paul’s writings specifically related to tongue speaking and other spiritual gifts, the full thrust of his purpose is revealed. It is the conviction of this writer that nothing in the history of the church has been any more misunderstood than this chapter. One can only be amazed at the near-universal acceptance of the idea that what those Corinthians were doing was actually CAUSED by the Holy Spirit! This is viewed as totally wrong with regard to all of the conduct which demanded Paul’s attention. THE GENUINE GIFT OF TONGUESIt may not be denied that there was a REAL gift of tongues belonging to some in Corinth, although this chapter does not give us much information on how that genuine gift operated. Many commentators believe that theL gift of tongues at Corinth was no different from what it was on Pentecost; and there is a considerable weight of evidence to support this. Paul and Luke were friends; and the use of the same word to describe God’s gift is used here which is used in Acts 2; and, since Acts was written by Luke at a time after Paul wrote the Corinthians, “It would seem logical that Luke would have noted the distinction between the two phenomena, if any existed."[1]However, Paul taught that there was a genuine gift of “interpretation of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:10): and this has the effect of denying the gift at Corinth any identity with the miracle of Pentecost, where no interpreter was needed. Furthermore, Paul allowed that when an interpreter was present, along with other prescribed conditions, the gift at Corinth might properly be used (1 Corinthians 14:27). From this, it seems mandatory to view the genuine gift at Corinth as different from that of Pentecost, and also of far less importance, even that genuine gift (at Corinth) being by Paul ranked last among spiritual gifts. The genuine gift (at Corinth) was never exercised by Paul, who surely had the gift (1 Corinthians 14:18), in public assemblies of the church, at least as far as the record goes, and based upon his stated refusal to use it at Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:6 ff). Paul’s use of the gift, it is generally agreed, was either privately or in some missionary effort, there being utterly no word of either in the New Testament. Certainly, he didn’t do it in church assemblies. The question persists regarding the authenticity of those Corinthian tongues. Can it be supposed that the Holy Spirit which led Paul to hide his gift and never use it publicly - can we suppose that the same Holy Spirit was moving in those Corinthians? No! Whatever the genuine gift was (at Corinth), there is simply no glimpse whatever of it in this chapter. The genuine gift had to be either identical with that of Pentecost, or a far lesser thing given for the encouragement of individuals and to be used privately (1 Corinthians 14:4). It is the conviction here that the genuine gift to the Corinthians was precisely that, a demonstration of tongues for personal edification, not in the sense of learning anything, but as proof that he who had it enjoyed possession of the Holy Spirit. The need for an interpreter of the true gift proves that the possessor of it would not have known what he said, unless, of course, he also had the gift of interpreting tongues. Does this true gift come into view in the Corinthian assemblies? Yes, but only to the extent that it had been perverted by dragging it into the public worship. However, the overwhelming certainty presses upon us that the visible tongues of Corinth were totally sinful and contrary to the will of God, being either: (1) a prostitution of a private gift for public glory in the case of the true gift, or (2) a sensational orgiastic counterfeit demonstration having no connection whatever with the Holy Spirit. This mingling of the true (even though perverted as to purpose and use) tongues with the false is evidently the reason for Paul’s tenderness in dealing with this sin. He simply did not wish to say anything that would discourage those souls who had indeed received of God the private gift of tongues for their encouragement. Since we today are dealing with a far different situation, it is proper to speak much more plainly of those bastard tongues at Corinth. THE FALSE GIFT OF TONGUESBy the above title is meant the counterfeit, faked and pretended gift of tongues. As Billy Graham said of tongues in the United States at this present time (March 26,1976), “There is much that is counterfeit … tongues are no evidence that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit."[2] It is clearly evident that the genuine gift of tongues, whether like those at Pentecost or at Corinth, perished with the age of miracles, and that all of the tongue-speaking of this generation is spurious. Graham was correct about the “counterfeit” aspect of it. Barclay also observed this and suggested how it comes about: It (the true gift) was a dangerous gift … greatly admired, and the possessor was very liable to develop a certain spiritual pride in his gift … The very desire to possess it produced, at least in some, a kind of self-hypnotism and a kind of deliberately induced hysteria which issued in a completely false and deluded and synthetic speaking in tongues.[3]The phenomenon called tongue-speaking can be faked; this writer has seen it faked; and the simple truth is that anybody can fake it. Such a thing, of course, can also be produced through the influence of a kind of mob psychology which is sometimes evidenced in religious groups. There is no understanding of this chapter without taking into account the falsity of those Corinthians tongues, but at the same time not denying a legitimate gift as then existing and having been prostituted to unholy ends. This indeed posed a delicate problem. How could the darnel be pulled up without rooting up the wheat?

Paul’s method of doing so was a marvel. He simply issued apostolic orders that would inevitably, if followed, diminish and destroy the bastard gift, while at the same time cautioning “not to forbid to speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39). Metz said, “It was difficult to distinguish the valid gift (of tongues) … from an invalid expression of personal exultation."[4] It should be remembered, however, that the disappearance of apostolic miracles has removed the necessity of confusion with regard to tongue-speaking. The only kind that has ever existed since the age of the apostles has been the kind Billy Graham called “counterfeit.” Why has the phenomenon of counterfeit tongues persisted? It has been produced by people who earnestly desire to do it, and who have been led to believe it is Scriptural because of the inaccurate and misleading words in many of the “translations” of the New Testament in vogue today. For the prime example of this, see under Mark 16:18 in the Gospel of Mark, and comment in my Commentary on Mark, pp. 363-367. Such persons are sincere, to be sure, but sincerely wrong. However, there is another force operative in the tongue-speakings of post-apostolic times, and that is satanic instigation. The pride, vainglory, envy, strife, factionalism, etc., which marked the original outbreak of counterfeit tongues was of Satan; and it may not be doubted that the evil one is still active in such things as the recurring appearance of tongue-speaking throughout Christian history. [1] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 634. [2] Billy Graham, as quoted in Christianity Today (Washington, D.C.: Today’s Publications, Inc., 1976), Vol. XX, Number 13. [3] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 142. [4] Donald S. Metz, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 447. Follow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (1 Corinthians 14:1) Follow after love … seems to connect with what was said in 1 Corinthians 13. “This clause belongs to the preceding chapter."[5]Desire spiritual gifts … prophesy … The spiritual gift of prophecy was largely a teaching gift (1 Corinthians 14:3), but also included, at least in some cases, the ability to foretell future events. It was the teaching phase Paul stressed here, indicating that teaching was a much more desirable activity than tongue-speaking. This gift, like all the infancy-age miracles, ceased. There are no miraculously endowed teachers today, despite Satan’s having induced a few to fake even this. ENDNOTE: [5] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1831), Vol. VI, p. 273. Verse 2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.Speaketh not unto men … This refers to the true gift of tongues as manifested in Corinth and has the information that it was utilized. Any other, besides the possessor, was never to hear it done. God of course could hear. No man understandeth … This probably means that, even if another heard it, he would not be able to understand it; and it appears that the speaker also could not understand it, unless he had the gift of interpretation. If there was an interpreter, then others might be permitted to hear both the tongue and the interpretation. In view here is the almost total uselessness of this gift in the area of instructing the church, even the true gift. Verse 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation.Even the utility of the gift of prophecy was here said to perform the same services usually associated with ordinary teaching. This shows how unspectacular it was as compared with tongues. Verse 4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.Edifieth himself … The true gift of tongues benefited not others but the tongue-speaker himself. Since not even he understood what was said (“no man understandeth”), the nature of that edification would appear to have been the confirmation to him (by the gift) of his having received the Holy Spirit. No man today could need any such confirmation because the New Testament makes it clear that all believers who repent and are baptized into Christ enjoy the promise of the sacred Scriptures that they will in consequence of their obedience and subsequently to their obedience receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 ff); and that word is all the confirmation that any true believer really needs. He that prophesieth edifieth the church … The word from which the Pauline expression “edifieth” is translated is related to the building up of an edifice; and Paul demanded that (“all things, 1 Corinthians 14:26) be done unto edification of the church. This requirement alone demanded the omission of tongues from all church services. Verse 5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edification.I would have you all speak with tongues … The true gift was referred to here; but even of it the apostle said that teaching and edifying the church constituted a far better thing. Except he interpret … Despite Paul’s mention of the interpretation of tongues as a genuine gift, the possibility in view here that even the tongue-speaker himself might possess it, it does not appear in this chapter that any of the Corinthians were said to have this gift. Only the possibility that they might have it is indicated. Greater is he that prophesieth … The teacher did more good and was therefore greater than the tongue-speaker. Verse 6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching.What shall I profit you … means “I shall not profit you in any manner at all,” if I come to you speaking in tongues. This was Paul’s refusal to speak in tongues in the Christian assembly at Corinth; and it is safe to assume that he never did so anywhere else. The only way that even an apostle could benefit his hearers was by preaching to them. By way of revelation … refers to what was revealed in Scripture. “Or of knowledge” refers to the spiritual gift of knowledge which Paul assuredly had. Or of prophesying … refers to intelligible teachings given by the Holy Spirit to Paul as a spiritual gift. Or of teaching … refers to ordinary teaching of what was learned from others, orally or through study of their writings. Here again the essentially private nature of the true gift of tongues is implicit and demanded by the context. Verse 7 Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?If such an illustration as this has any meaning, it has to be that uninterpreted tongues are as noisy, disagreeable, useless, cacophonous and worthless as a kitten on the keys of a piano. Paul, of course, made the comparison with instruments known in his day. Verse 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?The meaning of this is exactly the same as in 1 Corinthians 14:7, the repetition of the thought using another illustration was for emphasis. Uninterpreted tongues were as disastrous as the efforts of a military bugler whose unintelligible blasts could not be distinguished either as a call to charge, a call to retreat, or a call to go to bed! Verse 9 So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air.The force of 1 Corinthians 14:7-9 is that the false tongues of Corinth were unintelligible nonsense, having no meaning whatever, being nothing more than jabberings of orgiastic demonstrators; and here was the delicate part of the whole situation, the manifestations of the genuine gift itself resembled the false tongues so perfectly that no one on earth could have told any difference! It was a master stroke of the devil that he had prevailed upon some who had the true gift to bring it into the public worship; and therefore, when Paul condemned the false, his care not to discourage the true variety of tongues resulted in an occasion of misunderstanding of this subject for centuries afterward. What Paul said here is applicable to both varieties of tongues, both kinds being forbidden in public worship, the true kind because it was not interpreted and had no business in the public worship to start with, and the false kind because it was nothing but pure nonsense anyway. The essential thing to see is the close likeness in appearance of the two kinds of tongues; and this is paramount as an indication that the true tongues of Corinth were unlike those of Pentecost. Verse 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me.These verses are a recapitulation of the argument in 1 Corinthians 14:7-9, the conclusion being that any kind of jargon or gobbledegook, such as tongues, which cannot be understood by the hearers, is condemned. Barbarian … in ancient times meant merely one who did not speak Greek. Paul encountered some of these “barbarians” on his mission tours, namely, at Malta and at Lycaonia (Acts 14:11); and significantly Paul did not understand the dialect of the Lycaonians, this being another reason to suppose that Paul’s gift of tongues did not include the gift of speaking in languages he had never learned, but was rather for private encouragement. Verse 12 So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church.The teacher of the word of God is the true hero, not the tongue-speaker. It is simply incredible that the people affecting to speak in tongues could really imagine that they are doing any good. One humble teacher of the word of God does more good than a thousand tongue-speakers, even if their alleged “gift” should be accepted as genuine. Why then should intelligent people bother with it, or be impressed with it, or make any excuses whatever for it? This whole section of this chapter (1 Corinthians 14:1-12), if it had any purpose at all, was to get rid of tongue-speaking in the assemblies of the church in Corinth, with the delicate purpose of Paul, always in view, not to discourage any real gift that might have existed there. Verse 13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.That he may interpret … Again, no certainty that any interpreters existed at Corinth appears here. Paul’s admonition that they should pray to be able to interpret is, on the contrary, a declaration that they could not interpret. Verse 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.As Lipscomb said with reference to this and 1 Corinthians 14:15 : Neither the KJV nor the English Revised Version (1885) is correct here. The thought evidently is, “I will sing as the Spirit directs or inspires, and I will sing in a language that those who hear can understand.”… The following verse shows clearly that Paul’s meaning is: “I will pray and sing by the inspiration of the Spirit, and in a language that they will understand to their profit."[6]The inference that must be made from this and the next verses is that the tongue-speakers had even taken over the songs and prayers of the public worship! Of course, Paul would not countenance anything of that kind. The quotation of these verses in the sense of people singing and praying in the public services “with the spirit and the understanding” is based upon an incorrect discernment of their meaning. It is not the subjective understanding of the participant that is meant, but the objective purpose of conveying understanding to others. ENDNOTE: [6] David Lipscomb, Commentary on First Corinthians (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1935), p. 208. Verse 15 What is it then? 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.What is it then? … McGarvey understood this is idiomatic for “What is the conclusion of the argument?"[7]We might state the argument as this: “Therefore, let’s have no more of this tongue business in the songs and prayers; let everything be done in a language everybody can understand.” ENDNOTE: [7] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on First Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 137. Verse 16 Else if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the Amen at the giving of thy thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.Say the Amen … It was customary from the earliest times for Christians to say Amen to the public prayers and thanksgivings of the church. Any use of a tongue in such prayers contravened the purpose of congregational participation in the public prayers; and it is an error, therefore, to suppose that the Holy Spirit was guiding those tongue-speakers to do anything of that kind. The Blessed Spirit never operated against the will of God. Therefore, we view Paul’s words, “Verily givest thanks well? as absolutely sarcastic, meaning that no matter how “well” they thought they were giving thanks, the Holy Spirit was opposed to what they were doing, on the simple grounds that the rest of the congregation would not know “what thou sayest.” It is the failure to see the essential sin of that whole tongue-speaking outburst (of both kinds) which has blinded people to the teaching of this chapter. To suppose that the Holy Spirit was actually guiding those ostentatious leaders of the public prayers, or songs, so that they were doing so in tongues, is absolutely an impossibility. Verse 18 I thank God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.This is the verse, beyond all others, that is supposed to take the lid off tongue-speaking and to legitimatize it for all generations; but this cannot be. We have already noted that Paul never used the gift in the presence of others, or in church assemblies. Furthermore, Paul’s speaking in tongues “more than ye all” is tremendously significant. His speaking in tongues was genuine, a true gift, to edify himself; the “gifts” he was correcting were (1) either the misused genuine gifts, or (2) the affectations of the tongue counterfeiters; well, actually both of these were condemned. What then was the apostle’s purpose in bringing up the fact that he himself spoke in tongues? Bruce gave the probable explanation thus: His speaking with tongues belonged to the sphere of his private devotions. We should not have known of his possessing this gift (even in this passage) were it not that his possessing it in an exceptional degree gave him the undeniable right to put it in its place in relation to other spiritual gifts.[8]If Paul had not possessed the gift, some of his critics would have responded merely by saying, “Well, you know nothing about it.” As it was, Paul’s possession of the gift superlatively enabled him to pour a pitcher of ice water over the whole practice. Bruce further commented on what Paul did here, saying, “(This was) a master-touch which leaves the enthusiasts completely outclassed and out-maneuvered on their own ground."[9]The tongue-speaking fraternity cannot claim Paul as an advocate of their practices, there being no record whatever that he ever did it in the presence of another human being; and, besides, his gift was the real thing! [8] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 99. [9] Ibid. Verse 19 Howbeit in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.Well, there it is! Anyone in possession of God’s Spirit would have exactly the same attitude; but no, the tongue-speakers would rather speak ten thousand words in tongues than five words that anybody could understand! In the church … “This of course refers to the Christian assembly."[10] All of Paul’s tongue-speaking was apparently done in private devotions. ENDNOTE: [10] Leon Morris, Tyndale Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), p. 196. Verse 20 Brethren, be not children in mind: yet in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men.No new paragraph begins here, such a division being arbitrary and incorrect. There is a continuation of the thought of the foolishness of tongue-speaking. The three phases of mortal life: babies, children, and men were intended to explain the whole matter of spiritual gifts, belonging as they did to the infancy and childhood age of the church, and not to its maturity. This is therefore a call for the Corinthians to stop chasing after tongues and to grow up spiritually. As McGarvey said it: All Christians who mistakenly yearn for a renewal of those spiritual gifts, should note the clear import of these words of the apostle, which show that their presence in the church would be an evidence of weakness and immaturity, rather than of fully developed power and seasoned strength.[11]In this connection, see also 1 Corinthians 13:8-11, above. ENDNOTE: [11] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 132. Verse 21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.Paul here quoted Isaiah 28:11, where strange tongues were a chastisement for the unbelief of God’s people, in that they were made to hear God’s voice speaking to them in the unknown tongue uttering harsh commands given by the foreign invader. As Metz said: Paul now introduces an extremely sober note. Whereas the Corinthians regarded speaking in tongues as something to be desired, Paul pointed out that it might be a sign of God’s displeasure and punishment.[12]ENDNOTE: [12] Donald S. Metz, op. cit., p. 450. Verse 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.Tongues in a church are not a sign of God’s blessing at all, any more than the foreign tongue of the invader was a blessing of God in Jerusalem, but just the opposite! Tongues in a church? Not as long as there is a single believer in it! The notion that speaking in tongues is to convert unbelievers is foreign to this text. It does just the opposite of converting unbelievers, with the result that they turn aside in disgust, as Paul stated in the very next verse. Prophesying a sign … to them that believe … The fact of Paul’s calling it a “sign” for believers instead of saying that it was merely for the benefit of believers indicates that the miraculous endowment of certain teachers in the primitive church is in view. It must have been of great value to have such directly inspired teachers in that age of the church (the infancy age); and the foolishness of the Corinthians is seen in their astounding preference for the showy gift of tongues, instead of honoring and preferring a gift that could have blessed and benefited. Verse 23 If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad?Far from being an instrument of converting unbelievers, or being some kind of sign that would help unbelievers to believe, tongues in a public assembly were a positive hindrance, resulting not in the conversion of any but in the judgment against Christians to the effect that they were all crazy. It should be carefully noted that what was true of the counterfeit tongues in this respect was also true of any genuine tongues exercised without an interpreter’s presence to tell what was said. And if this was true in those days, how much more is it true today, generations and centuries after the true gift disappeared altogether. Incidentally, it is quite obvious that the assemblies of the early Christians were open meetings, free to be attended by any who might wish to do so. Verse 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged by all.If all prophesy … This answers to “if all speak with tongues” in the preceding verse; but what is meant in both cases is a reference to “all who participate publicly,” instead of being an affirmation that all were speaking at one time. However, despite the absence of that thought from this particular verse, it was true of the tongue-speakers that they were all speaking at once. This is a mandatory conclusion based on Paul’s order that the speakers should speak “one at a time,” or “in turn” (1 Corinthians 14:27). Reproved by all, … judged by all … has reference to the power of a decently ordered service featuring intelligible speakers to move the unregenerated to accept the gospel, as stated in the next verse. Verse 25 The secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you.Many in all ages have prostrated themselves before God in worship and in prayers, and the admissibility of this as legitimate is plain enough in this verse. There is no rule, however, that this must always be done. Fall down on his face and worship God … “Power to make unbelieving visitors fall down on their faces and worship God, O for such today, instead of dead formalism on one hand and irreverent monkey business on the other!"[13]ENDNOTE: [13] Henry H. Halley, Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1927), p. 549. Verse 26 What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.The spontaneous, informal nature of the early church services is clearly visible. There could have been no set program in advance, with even the words that people would say written down a week ahead. There cannot be any doubt that formalism, which is the current religious style, and which certainly corrected the shameful disorders like those at Corinth, has nevertheless left many a congregation in a state of abiosis. Psalm … probably refers to a song, or hymn composed by the worshiper during the previous week, or at least one he had learned. There were no hymn books or congregational singing, except tunes sung in unison; and four-part harmony had not been invented. A very early description of Christian worship stated that “they sang by turns a hymn to Christ as God”;[14] and there can hardly be any doubt that this was true. Teaching … would refer to the instruction of ordinary, uninspired teachers; and in this, it corresponds roughly to preaching in the present time. Revelation … is a reference to the words of an inspired, miraculously endowed teacher who had “the gift of prophecy” as used in this chapter. Tongue … would mean, not the counterfeited non-sensical “utterings” of the fakers, but the real gift (with the great big IF stated in 1 Corinthians 14:29, IF there was an interpreter). The frequency in this chapter of that condition coming into view, always with the uncertainty of “may” or “if” connected with it, strongly suggests that there might not have been very many interpreters at Corinth. Interpretation … This was mentioned along with “tongue” to bind the two inseparably together; and it seems plausible that by this inclusion Paul did not mean to certify the fact of there actually being interpreters of tongues in Corinth, but rather as a device of eliminating tongues altogether UNLESS this condition was fulfilled (having an interpreter). Certainly the fact is plain enough that there was a of no such interpreter being present; and therefore Paul gave the order that if none indeed was present, tongues were not to be used under any circumstances (1 Corinthians 14:28-28). Let all things be done unto edifying … This has the weight of “no tongues in any case,” except, of course, if such might have been duly interpreted by an inspired interpreter. ENDNOTE: [14] Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 6. Verse 27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret: but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.There are a number of rules in these two verses which must be observed whenever tongues may be used. These are:

1. No more than three may speak in a tongue on any given occasion.
2. All tongue-speaking must be done “in turn,” that is, by persons speaking one at a time.
3. On no occasion may tongues be used unless an interpreter is standing by to tell the audience every word that was spoken. To these prohibitions, there must be added a number of others which are given in this chapter, including these:
4. Everything must be done unto edifying, and tongues do not edify.
5. Love is a better thing to practice than speaking in tongues.
6. Five intelligible words are to be preferred to ten thousand in an uninterpreted tongue.
7. Under no circumstances let the women do it (1 Corinthians 14:34), interpreter or no interpreter.
8. Greater is the teacher than the tongue-speaker.
9. Uninterpreted tongues will cause outsiders to say, “Ye are mad.” An analysis of the above apostolic rules on tongue-speaking will emphasize the importance of the inspired interpreter, the gift of interpretation itself being one of the miraculous gifts; and Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:28 that, “If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church,” still leaves the possibility that there were not any in Corinth who had that gift. This might very well have been Paul’s way of putting the terminator on tongues without discouraging any who might really have had the genuine gift. Certainly, the lack of authentic interpretation in the present times raises the most serious questions and goes far to prove the invalid nature of that which passes for tongue-speaking today. Has any revelation been delivered to mankind since the days of the apostles by means of the gift of tongues duly interpreted? If so, where is it? Has there ever been preserved any of this supernatural wisdom that is said to be imparted to people by means of tongues?

If so, who has ever heard a single word of it? If it is a fact that God is speaking in such a manner to people today, and that there are interpreters who might tell what is spoken, why has it not been published, in order for all people to be able to share in it? The things spoken by alleged interpreters who are conveying present-day messages received through tongues are nothing new, being for the most part garbled and confused bits of teaching gleaned piecemeal from smatterings of religious texts, being in no sense whatever any such thing as a coherent and enlightening communication from Almighty God. In a word, all the post-apostolic tongue-speakings for nineteen centuries have not contributed one authentic sentence to the revealed will of God, like that in the New Testament. If this does not condemn the whole monstrous aberration, then how on earth could it be condemned? The blunt, dogmatic apostolic answer to tongue-speakings is just this: “but if there be no interpreter!” We know there are no authenticated holders of this gift today; and the strong suggestion persists in this whole chapter that there were none of that class in Corinth. Speak to himself and to God … This stresses the private nature of the true gift; and the apostolic order for it not to be used in church (without an interpreter) removed the only possible reason why the counterfeiters were faking it, making it impossible for them to accumulate any flattery or “glory” from the display of their “abilities” publicly. Verse 29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.In a word, these four verses lay down practically the same rules for the prophets as those applying to those having the tongues (of either kind). There were not to be over three on any one occasion; two may not speak at once; and if one prophet was interrupted by another, that was the end of the first prophet’s message! This would have made for shorter services, since the probable result was that they could run through the maximum number of three rather quickly under those rules! The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets … means that any true prophet could control his speaking; there was not any such thing as an irresistible compulsion for any TRUE prophet to speak. Rules like these carry the strong implication that some at Corinth had claimed otherwise. Putting together all of Paul’s regulations, the conclusion persists that there were also false prophets engaging in the free-for-all orgiastic demonstrations going on in Corinth. Certainly, in the case of the tongue speakers: (1) they were all speaking at once, (2) perhaps dozens were participating every Sunday, and (3) such a thing as interpreting what was spoken in tongues had been ignored altogether. Verse 33 For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.This adds another dimension to Paul’s picture of the Corinthian assembles: they were scandalous examples of utter and complete confusion. Was God the author of it? Certainly not! Is he the author of similar confusion in our own times? Certainly not! Who is the author of such confusion? Both then and now the author is Satan. Verse 34 As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.Before dealing with this as it may be applied in all generations, it should first be observed that the primary meaning has to be, “Do not let the women speak in tongues under any circumstances.” This command comes right in the middle of an extensive treatise on tongue-speaking; and to blow this up to a universal law that no woman might open her mouth in a church service is simply contrary to all reason. As Glenn Wallace once paraphrased this: “As for tongue-speaking, don’t let the gals do it at all!” This applied even if an interpreter was present. It is not permitted unto them to speak … That is, it was not permitted for them to speak in tongues, that having been the subject Paul was discussing. Significantly, even in these times of the alleged reappearance of this gift, it is almost invariably the women who catch on to it first, and later their husbands. Thus Pat gets it from Shirley, Tom gets it from Mabel, etc., just like Adam took the forbidden fruit from the hands of Eve. But let them be in subjection, as also saith the law … This prohibition was directed against the arrogant leadership of some of the Corinthian women in the promotion of a fad, that of speaking in tongues. Their vigorous advocacy of it had cast them in a role of immodesty and rebellion even against their husbands, hence Paul’s rule as stated here. It was this sinful usurpation of their husbands’ status as head of the family which was the essence of their wrongdoing. Not so much their voices being heard in a Christian assembly, but the rejection of lawful authority, is the thing suggested by Paul’s statement that the Law of Moses forbade it. The impossibility of reconciling the radically opposed views of scholars and commentators on this passage has the effect of sending us back to the Old Testament, to which Paul appealed in this verse. Upon the occasion of the creation and fall, God said to Eve, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Even prior to that, Eve was designated as a “help” suitable for man (Genesis 2:18). Thus, from the very beginning the authority of the family was vested in the man. The Corinthian women had violated that intention and Paul immediately assigned two reasons for forbidding the action (speaking in tongues publicly) which frustrated God’s purpose. These reasons were: (1) The Old Testament gave man the authority over the family, as in verses cited above, and (2) the customs of the age made it shameful for a woman to speak in public. The first of these reasons, of course, is the greater, the other having been removed by the customs of subsequent ages. Some would do away with these rules altogether on the grounds that there is “neither male nor female” in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28); but, as McGarvey declared, “This is unwarranted; for while the gospel emancipated woman, it did not change her natural relation”[15] in the hierarchy of the family. From this, it is to be inferred that rule (1) is still operative in the sense in which it is applied in the Old Testament. Paul’s appeal here to the Old Testament proves this. What then was the force of the rule under the old covenant?

1. Many exceptions to the rule were allowed and approved by God. (a) Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her (Exodus 15:20). (b) And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time … and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment (Judges 4:4-5). (c) So Hilkiah the priest … went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum … and they communed with her (2 Kings 22:14). Clearly, the prophetesses of the Old Testament exercised their gift publicly, even the priests and the king being subject to what they said. Is it any different in the New Testament? Note the following: (a) And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel … which departed not from the temple … and spake of him (Christ) to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem (Luke 2:36-38). (b) The apostle Peter, on Pentecost, cited the Old Testament Scriptures which prophesied that in the times of the new covenant, “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17). From these passages from both testaments, it is clear that the total exclusion of women from any public speaking did not occur, nor was the action of such women construed as “usurping authority” over a man. Anna spoke openly in the temple to everybody; and all Israel went “up to Deborah” for judgment. The whole tenor of the Bible, therefore, forbids the arbitrary enforcement of Paul’s “Let your women keep silent” beyond the theater of its first application. Again from McGarvey: The powers of woman have become so developed, and her privileges have been so extended in gospel lands, that it is no longer shameful for her to speak in public; but the failing of one reason is not the cessation of both. The Christian conscience has therefore interpreted Paul’s rule rightly when it applies it generally and admits of exceptions.[16]Of course, the gift of prophecy is no longer found in the church; but again to quote McGarvey: The gift of prophecy no longer exists; but, by the law of analogy, those women who have a marked ability, either for exhortation or instruction, are permitted to speak in the churches. … The law is permanent, but the application of it may vary. If man universally gives woman permission to speak, she is free from the law in this respect.[17]McGarvey’s comment written during the previous century cannot be set aside as a mere catering to current trends. In this context, it is not amiss to point out that the appearances of prophetesses in both Old Testament and New Testament seem to have been simultaneous with periods of decadence and spiritual lethargy. George W. DeHoff, a current church leader and a scholar of great discernment, vigorously supported McGarvey’s position on this question, saying: No verse in the Bible teaches that women must teach God’s word at home, or in private, those limitations having been added by false teachers. Any teaching that does not usurp authority over a man does not violate this passage.[18]Some things, however, are forbidden to women in the Christian religion. By Scriptural definition, a woman may not be an elder of the church, nor a deacon, nor an evangelist. Phoebe (Romans 16:1) was not a deacon in any official sense. See comment on this in my Commentary on Romans, pp. 508-510. Churches presuming to appoint deaconesses do so without Scriptural authority, and without any guidelines as to the needful qualifications. Women may not be appointed to the eldership of a church, because, like most men, they are unqualified. None of them may be “the husband of one wife,” etc. Moreover the essential authority of the eldership is such that a woman’s place in it would violate the primal law regarding her lawful subordination to her husband. To make a woman an elder would indeed “usurp authority over a man,” in fact all the men of her congregation. The idea of “teaching a man” as a violation of that law is, however, far-fetched. Did Priscilla usurp authority over Apollos when she (and her husband) taught him the word of God (Acts 18:24 ff)? Women may not be evangelists. The notable violations of this during our own times have in no sense cast any reflections upon the wisdom of this rule, but rather have confirmed it as divine. The office of the evangelist is one of authority in the name of God; and as DeHoff expressed it: She cannot be an evangelist for the reason that an evangelist must rebuke with all authority, the very thing the inspired apostle Paul has forbidden her to do (1 Timothy 2:11-12); but women who are faithful Christians may certainly teach God’s word in Bible classes, at home or in the meeting house.[19]What is said of women being elders, deacons or evangelists is also true of their being “preachers” in any sense whatever; because it is the duty of all preachers to be evangelists, even if their preaching sometimes gives little evidence of respecting their commission. Every preacher or evangelist is commanded to “Reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (1 Timothy 4:2). [15] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on First Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 143. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] George W. DeHoff, Sermons on First Corinthians (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: The Christian Press, 1947), p. 99. [19] Ibid., p. 100. Verse 35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.The women under consideration in this order were married, nothing whatever being said of widows, spinsters or the unmarried; and they were also ignorant, as indicated by “if they would learn anything.” To make this a universal rule for all women is to ignore the limitations evident in the passage. As McGarvey said, “To understand the passage we should know the ignorance, garrulity and degradation of Oriental women."[20]This was addressed to abuses of the formal worship by women of a certain class in an ancient culture. See under 1 Corinthians 14:34, above. What about the woman whose husband is an ignoramus, an unbeliever, or an open enemy of God and all religion; should she comply with this rule? Until it is affirmed that she should, it is a sin to make this rule universal. ENDNOTE: [20] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 143. Verse 36 What, was it from you that the word of God sent forth? or came it from you alone?This was Paul’s sarcastic denunciation of the pretensions of the Corinthians, having the impact of “Surely, you people could not believe that you are some kind of Mother Church!” Verse 37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.All Christians of all ages should heed this verse. Difficult as some of Paul’s intentions may be for people to discern, the unqualified inspiration of this chapter, and the entire epistle, must be received. Tongue speakers may not set aside the rules designed to control and eliminate tongues; but it is equally true that churches may not set aside the limitations imposed upon women in the realm of authority, in evangelism, and in holding offices of authority in the church. Verse 38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.As Kelcy pointed out, “There is good textual authority for rendering this verse as the RSV does: “If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."[21]ENDNOTE: [21] Raymond C. Kelcy, First Corinthians (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Co., Inc., 1967), p. 69. Verse 39 Wherefore my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. But let all things be done decently and in order.To prophesy … While still refusing to forbid tongues categorically, for fear of wounding some with the real gift, Paul again stressed the superiority of teaching, commanding here that the brethren should desire to teach, not to speak in tongues. Forbid not to speak with tongues … Throughout this chapter, it has been stressed that the existence of actual gifts of tongue-speaking and interpretation made it impossible to declare all such things out of order. Despite this forbearance, there never was a church anywhere which could practice tongue-speakings while observing Paul’s rules, which inevitably diminished them to the vanishing point; and which, after the cessation of miraculous gifts, eliminated them altogether. Let all things be done decently and in order … This is the golden rule for organizing and conducting public worship services of the church in all ages. The first announcement of it came in a situation where it was drastically needed; and, despite the fact that over-formalization may occur from an over-zealous enforcement of it, it is the failure to enforce it at all which distinguishes many so-called “free” religious groups today.

“THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE "

Chapter Fourteen IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To understand the proper use of tongues, especially their use in the assembly

2. To understand the principles which are to govern the assembly of the church

SUMMARY In this chapter Paul concludes his discussion of spiritual gifts. In comparing the gift of prophesying with that of speaking in tongues, he points out that prophesying excels when it comes to the edification of the church (1 Corinthians 14:1-5). In fact, unless the speaking of tongues provides a new revelation or teaching, and is properly interpreted, it does little good (1 Corinthians 14:6-19). Designed to convince unbelievers, improper use of speaking in tongues in the assembly can even bring reproach on the church (1 Corinthians 14:20-25). Therefore Paul regulates the proper use of spiritual gifts in the assembly with a series of instructions, including commandments from the Lord about the place of women (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).

OUTLINE I. GIFTS: AND IN TONGUES (1 Corinthians 14:1-25) A. VERSUS IN TONGUES (1 Corinthians 14:1-5)1. A call to love, but also spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1) 2. Speaking in tongues (as done at Corinth) is speaking to God and is speaking mysteries (1 Corinthians 14:2) 3. Whereas prophesying edifies, exhorts, and comforts others (1 Corinthians 14:3) 4. Speaking in tongues (as done at Corinth) was not edifying the church, thus the desire that they had the gift of prophecy more than the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:4-5)

B. USING TONGUES IN A WAY (1 Corinthians 14:6-19)1. Without a revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or teaching, speaking in tongues profit nothing (1 Corinthians 14:6) 2. Like playing an instrument without giving any distinction in the sounds (1 Corinthians 14:7-9) 3. Without interpretation, it is no better than a foreigner speaking to you (1 Corinthians 14:10-11) 4. Therefore the admonitions: a. To excel in the area of edifying the church (1 Corinthians 14:12) b. For those who speak in tongues to pray that they may be able to interpret (1 Corinthians 14:13) c. To be able to pray and sing with both the spirit and the understanding, that all might be edified (1 Corinthians 14:14-19)

C. ANOTHER BETWEEN TONGUES AND (1 Corinthians 14:20-25)1. Tongues are a sign for unbelievers, while prophesying is for believers (1 Corinthians 14:20-22) 2. Tongues in the assembly (without interpreters) will give people the wrong impression (1 Corinthians 14:23) 3. But prophesying in the assembly can bless even the unbeliever and uninformed person (1 Corinthians 14:24-25)

II. GIFTS: THEIR USE (1 Corinthians 14:26-40) A. LET ALL THINGS BE DONE FOR (1 Corinthians 14:26) B. THE USE OF TONGUES (1 Corinthians 14:27-28)1. Two or three may speak, in turn, and let one interpret (1 Corinthians 14:27) 2. If there is no interpreter, keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:28)

C. THE USE OF (1 Corinthians 14:29-33)1. Two or three prophets may speak, and others may discern (1 Corinthians 14:29) 2. To be done in turn, that all may learn, for the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Corinthians 14:30-32) 3. God is not the author of confusion but of peace, in all the churches (1 Corinthians 14:33)

D. THE PLACE OF WOMEN IN THE (1 Corinthians 14:34-38)1. They are to keep silent in the assemblies (1 Corinthians 14:34) 2. Let them ask husbands at home if they have questions (1 Corinthians 14:35 a) 3. For it is shameful for women to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:35 b) 4. These are commandments of the Lord which must be recognized as such (1 Corinthians 14:36-38)

E. FINAL (1 Corinthians 14:39-40)1. Desire to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39) 2. Let all things be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40)

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. List the main points of this chapter- Spiritual Gifts: Prophesying And Speaking In Tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-25)

• Spiritual Gifts: Regulating Their Use (1 Corinthians 14:26-40)

2. As being practiced at Corinth, what did speaking in tongues accomplish? (1 Corinthians 14:2 1 Corinthians 14:4)- Edifying only the speaker

3. What is the value of prophesying? (1 Corinthians 14:3)- Provides edification, exhortation and comfort

4. What is necessary for speaking in tongues to be of value in the assembly? (1 Corinthians 14:6)- It must provide a revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or teaching

5. What is the purpose of speaking in tongues? (1 Corinthians 14:22)- To serve as a sign to unbelievers

6. What restrictions does Paul place on speaking in tongues in the assembly? (1 Corinthians 14:27-28)- Must be two, no more than three

• Must have an interpreter, or remain silent

7. What restrictions does Paul place on women in the assemblies? (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)- To be silent

8. What two basic principles are to govern the assembly of the church? (1 Corinthians 14:26 1 Corinthians 14:40)- Let all things done for edification

• Let all things done decently and in order

Questions by E.M. Zerr On 1st Corinthians 14Follow after what ? Desire what the most? 3. State the advantage of this gift. 4. Point out Paul’ s definition of prophesying. 5. Who is edified by the unknown tongue ? 6. And who by prophesying ? 7. Which gift does Paul prefer they would have ? 8. How many of them might have this gift ? 9. What is necessary in connection with tongues ? 10. How may tongues be made profitable? 11. Does verse 7 justify instrumental music? 12. Indicate the argument in verse 8. 13. When does one merely speak into the air ? 14. Do all voices signify the same thing? 15. If meaning is unknown what situation is created ? 16. What should be general object of all gifts? 17. What use were the Corinthians making of them? 18. What part of man prays when using unknown tongue ? 19. State what part is unfruitful. 20. Is it the speaker or hearer who is to understand ? 21. What gift is necessary to sing with the spirit? 22. Do we have that gift today? 23. Must we have it to “ sing with the spirit” ? 24. When we pray what is the hearer supposed to do ? 25. What must the hearer know before saying this ? 26. Who is to be edified by the prayer? 27. For what did Paul thank God? 28. Yet what would he prefer? 29. To whom does “ understanding” apply verse 19? 30. In what should we be children and what in men ? 31. What law is referred to in 21st verse? 32. To what does “ other tongues” refer? 33. For what are tongues ? 34. To what class are they so ? 35. Compare this with Mark 16: 17, 20 and Heb. 2: 4. 36. Who will be profited by prophesying? 37. If all used tongues know about the unlearned? 38. State the advantage if all prophesy. 39. What will the unlearned one manifest? 40. State what he will be led to do. 41. What might they have when they come together? 42. Should they all be exercised at once ? 43. To what end should all things be done? 44. What is meant by being edified ? 45. State the limit in use of unknown tongue. 46. And these should be spoken by what method ? 47. What should come between each exhibit of tongues? 48. Was man ever told to keep silence ? 49. When was his instruction to be observed ? 50. To whom might such an one speak ? 51. How many prophets were sufficient for a meeting? 52. What were others to do in connection with them? 53. When should a man hold his peace ? 54. How many prophets might speak at once ? 55. To what end is this regulation? 56. To whom are spirits of prophets subject ? 57. Of what is God the author? 58. Does this agree with Matt. 10: 34? 59. Compare all this with James 3: 17. 60. What women were told to keep silence? 61. Does this apply to all women? 62. If a woman sings is she speaking? 63. On what matter are women forbidden to speak ? 64. How may she learn about the subject? 65. If she speaks in this meeting what is it to her? 66. Did the Word- proceed from, or unto, the Corinthians ? 67. How would this affect their authority ? 68. State an evidence here of a spiritual man. 69. Should an ignorant man become an informed one ? 70. On what matter may he remain ignorant? 71. What gift should they desire? 72. How must all things be done ?

1 Corinthians 14:1

1 Corinthians 14:1. The reader should keep in mind that the subject of the preceding two chapters and the present one, is the spiritual gifts that were possessed by disciples in the first years of the church. Paul is showing the proper purpose and use of the gifts, and is trying to correct the many abuses that had crept into the church in Corinth in the exercise of them. This chapter, therefore, was not written for information concerning “the duties and privileges of women in the church,” as it is so frequently claimed. Such a use of the chapter is a perversion of it, for it has no connection with that subject. Instead, it has to do with the conduct of the church when assembled, showing the proper procedure in the exercise of spiritual gifts.

Follow after charity is in line with the preceding chapter which shows that charity is the greatest of all graces. If it had been in effect through all of their proceedings, the abuses would not have occurred which the apostle is trying to correct. Rather . . . prophesy, because it is “more serviceable” as was stated in chapter 12:31.

1 Corinthians 14:2

1 Corinthians 14:2. Speaking with tongues manifests miraculous power, but it does not contribute as much benefit to the brethren as does the gift of prophesying, when the latter is done after the manner described in the next verse.

1 Corinthians 14:3

1 Corinthians 14:3. This verse gives the practical form of prophesying, that w hich edifies, exhorts and comforts men.

1 Corinthians 14:4

1 Corinthians 14:4. Being the possessor of the gift of tongues, this man will be benefited by its use, but the church as a whole would not be benefited as it is by prophesying. 1 Corinthians 14:51 Co 14:5. Paul did not begrudge any man his possession of the gift of tongues, and he was not conducting the present discussion from that motive. He had a practical reason, however, for preferring the gift of prophesying, namely, it edifies the church (verse 4). Except he interpret. I believe this is correctly translated, and hence that at least some men were given two gifts, that of speaking in a foreign tongue, and also of interpreting it; otherwise he could not “edify himself” (verse 4). Verses 13, 14 also indicates that the same man may possess both gifts.

1 Corinthians 14:6

1 Corinthians 14:6. If I come. The apostle uses himself only as an example as if he said, “suppose I come,” etc. To speak with tongues would not profit the church unless they were so used as to bestow upon it some of the following results. Revelation means a communication of some new truth; knowledge denotes the super natural kind that had not been previously recorded; prophesying refers to the kind described in verse 3; doctrine means teaching in general.

1 Corinthians 14:7

1 Corinthians 14:7. Without life, giving sound, means things that do not have life yet that give off sounds, such as the pipe or harp. Give a distinction. These instruments should be so used as to conform to some accepted code, else they would mean nothing to a hearer. The blasts of a locomotive would mean nothing to railroad men, if they were not made according to the code in use by the company.

1 Corinthians 14:8

1 Corinthians 14:8. The same illustration is used in Numbers 10:1-9, where a nonliving trumpet is used as a signal device. Certain blasts were to indicate a corresponding action. If the “code” was ignored, the soldier would not know whether to line up for action or remain in his tent.

1 Corinthians 14:9

1 Corinthians 14:9. Paul makes the application of his illustration in this verse. He means for them to make such a use of their gift of tongues as will contribute beneficial information to the hearers.

1 Corinthians 14:10

1 Corinthians 14:10. Voices is from the Greek word PHONE. and Thayer defines it at this place, “speech, 1. e., a language tongue.” It is true that several different forms of language are in use in the world, and each has its own significance according to the vocabulary of the people speaking with it.

1 Corinthians 14:11

1 Corinthians 14:11. But unless the hearer knows the meaning of the word when it is spoken to him, he will receive no exchange of thought from the speaker. Barbarian is from , and Thayer’s definition in this passage is as follows: “One who speaks a foreign or strange language which is not understood by another.” Hence the word does not necessarily mean a term of reproach in the New Testament. But when used with regard to language between different people, it does always mean they are barbarians to each other, if there is not a mutual understanding of the speech that it uttered.

1 Corinthians 14:12

1 Corinthians 14:12. The desire to excel merely from the motive of rivalry over others is wrong. The word in this verse is in the intransitive form, and is defined by Thayer “to abound in.” The thought is that each member of the congregation should wish to abound in that gift that would best edify the church.

1 Corinthians 14:13

1 Corinthians 14:13. Wherefore means a conclusion in line with the exhortation in the preceding verse. Pray that he may interpret is commented upon at verse 5, regarding the possession of two gifts by the same man.

1 Corinthians 14:14

1 Corinthians 14:14. My spirit refers to the spiritual gift possessed by the one who is praying, while my understanding pertains to the one hearing the prayer. If a man prays with an unknown tongue, the hearer who does not understand that tongue will not get any benefit from the prayer.

1 Corinthians 14:15

1 Corinthians 14:15. The first half of this verse is explained in the preceding one. The second half is generally misapplied today. A song leader will arise before the congregation and try to get it in condition for some good singing. He will probably tell the people to wake up and sing as if they meant it, then remind them that Paul said to “sing with the spirit and with the understanding,” as if he was conducting a “pep meeting.” He may continue his erroneous use of the passage by telling them to study the words of the song so as to understand what they are singing, else they could not “sing with the understanding as Paul commands.” The passage as it reads and is quoted did not apply to congregational singing in Paul’s day even, much less does it so apply today. It was a part of the exercise of miraculous gifts, and the spirit that is named is the Holy Spirit, given to Christians in such measure that they could speak and sing with words that had not yet been revealed to others. In selecting his words, the singer was instructed to use those that the audience (not himself only) could understand. The term “my understanding” has reference to the ability of the hearer to understand what he hears.

1 Corinthians 14:16

1 Corinthians 14:16. To bless means to praise the Lord for his blessings. One man may be expressing thanks in the audience of disciples, which is supposed to represent the sentiments of the hearers. Occupieth the room is a figurative expression that means one who is unlearned, or not educated in the various languages. It is also defined in the lexicons as a private person in contrast with one who is in public life. Say amen.

The manner of Paul’s question implies that it was taken for granted the audience would use this word after the public prayer of one speaker, thus making his sentiments their own. Doubtless the Lord expects the disciples to do the same thing after a public prayer today. No one can pray with a spiritual gift now, but all should express their prayers in such a manner that the congregation may hear and understand them. If a man mumbles a prayer in an undertone, or drops his chin upon his chest, it will make it impossible for others to know what he says, and hence an “amen” after such a prayer would be as unscriptural as the prayer. I never say amen to a prayer unless I have heard every word of it, and also believe it was a scriptural prayer.

1 Corinthians 14:17

1 Corinthians 14:17. A prayer uttered in a foreign tongue could be well formed, but it would not edify the unlearned man.

1 Corinthians 14:18

1 Corinthians 14:18. Being an apostle, Paul could speak in a multitude of tongues, which was a necessary qualification for one who was to preach the Gospel in various parts of the world. He was grateful for the gift, but also was considerate of the church in the exercise of it in any established congregation.

1 Corinthians 14:19

1 Corinthians 14:19. My understanding means the hearers could understand his words (verse 14). Paul’s motive for preferring a few of these words to ten thousand of the others was an unselfish one; it was because it would give more teaching to others.

1 Corinthians 14:20

1 Corinthians 14:20. The brethren at Corinth had behaved so foolishly over their spiritual gifts, the apostle likened them to children. He was willing for them to be as free from malice as children, but in understanding (activities of the mind) he wished them to be as men. They certainly had shown malice toward each other, when they had be- come contentious among themselves over their spiritual gifts. It was like children quarrelling with each other over whose mechanical toy would do the best performances. No wonder Paul thought it necessary to give this subject three whole chapters, and parts of some others.

1 Corinthians 14:21

1 Corinthians 14:21. The quotation is from Isaiah 28:11-12, which shows that the term the law includes the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. The connection shows that Isaiah was writing about conditions just previous to the captivity of Israel by the heathen. Israel had refused to listen to the law of the Lord even when it was spoken to them in their own tongue. Hence He said he would cast them into the midst of a nation speaking a tongue foreign to the people of Israel. Therefore, the use of tongues was not primarily for the purpose of instruction to believers, but as an evidence to unbelievers, to convince them of the existence of supernatural power. In view of this truth, Paul makes the point that the brethren made a mistake in trying to impose their gift of tongues onto the whole church to the extent they were doing.

1 Corinthians 14:22

1 Corinthians 14:22. On the basis of the preceding verse, the brethren should give the use of tongues a comparatively small consideration in the assembly, and make greater use of prophesying since it would edify the church.

1 Corinthians 14:23

1 Corinthians 14:23. We are sure the Bible does not contradict itself; but when the language seems that it does so, there is always a reasonable explanation possible. Verse 22 says tongues are a sign for the benefit of unbelievers, while the present verse says that tongues will cause them to regard the church as a group of madmen. The word unlearned is from IDIOTES, and Thayer’s definition in this verse is one who is “not a prophet; destitute of the gift of tongues.” The key to the question is in the word all, for an unbeliever would not require that a whole group in an assembly be able to speak in a foreign tongue to be convinced of the presence of supernatural power; one or two would be sufficient. Therefore. if the whole group did so, it would naturally seem to this “outsider” that the crowd was beside itself.

1 Corinthians 14:24

1 Corinthians 14:24. All is the key word again, for it is applied to prophesying which was the gift that imparted the most edification or instruction. Convinced and judged are used in viritually the same sense, meaning that the informa tion imparted by this general display of the gift of prophecy, would have a beneficial influence upon this man who was previously an unbeliever.

1 Corinthians 14:25

1 Corinthians 14:25. Secrets of his heart are the thoughts produced by the edifying prophesying just heard. See the note at Matthew 2:2 for the meaning of worship.

1 Corinthians 14:26

1 Corinthians 14:26. How is it then is an introductory expression, as if the apostle had said, “How about it, brethren?” Every one of you means “each one of you has something to contribute to the services.” The general program was approved, with the stipulation that it be so conducted as to edify the church. The items named were to be in the line of spiritual gifts. Psalm as used here is defined by Thayer, “a pious song.” Doctrine is defined, “teaching, instruction.” Tongue is from the Greek word GLOSSA, which occurs 50 times in the New Testament, and is always translated by this one word. It means the language of any people that is expressed by the natural tongue. Revelation is from a word that means a making known some truth that was hitherto not known. Interpretation denotes an explaining of a foreign word or sentence that has been spoken by some other person.

1 Corinthians 14:27

1 Corinthians 14:27. Man in this verse and the pronoun in the next being singular, indicates the terms two and three refer to the number of words or sentences that were to be spoken in any given assembling. By course means he should utter them in turn with the interpreter. That is, he should speak one of the words or sentences and then let the other man interpret it. Next speak another word and let the other interpret, and after the third word or sentence, he should cease his speaking.

1 Corinthians 14:28

1 Corinthians 14:28. The speaker in tongues was subject to a further restriction, namely, that there be an interpreter present. If none were in the assembly then he was to keep silence, and the word is from the very same Greek original as the one in verse 34. So here is an instance where even a man was to keep silence, a truth that is ignored by the extremists on the “woman question.”

1 Corinthians 14:29

1 Corinthians 14:29. The prophets were a preference as to the gifted men (verses 1, 2), hence the apostle is not as specific in his restrictions on them as he is about the speaker with tongues, where he adds the words at the most (verse 27). Two or three would be sufficient for any one gathering, and others were to judge or discern the meaning of their words.

1 Corinthians 14:30

1 Corinthians 14:30. Verse 26 shows that certain ones might come into an assembly with a communication to be offered to the church. After coming together, however, the Lord might see fit to make a special revelation to another. In that case the first one was to give way to the one receiving the later revelation.

1 Corinthians 14:31

1 Corinthians 14:31. All of the men who had the gift of prophecy were to be given opportunity to speak in their turn, since prophesying was so highly esteemed (verses 1, 2), so that all might be comforted.

1 Corinthians 14:32

1 Corinthians 14:32. Spirits of the prophets means the spiritual gifts that they possessed. These men were not compelled to speak unless they so willed, hence there would be no excuse for their being disorderly in the exercise of the gift.

1 Corinthians 14:33

1 Corinthians 14:33. God is not the author of confusion. This is a reason for the foregoing instructions about the proper conduct of the prophets, as well as of other men wtih spin itual gifts. As in all churches of the saints. I see no importance in the question whether this phrase belongs with the present verse, or should be attached to verse 34. The point in both verses (as it has been throughout the chapter), is to have the exercises of the assembly so conducted as to edify the church in an orderly way. The Lord desired such a result in all of the congregations but the one in Corinth seemed to be in special need of the instruction.

1 Corinthians 14:34

1 Corinthians 14:34. If the reader has carefully followed the teaching that has been offered from chapter 12:1 down to this verse, he will see that it has nothing to do with the subject of “woman’s duties and privileges in the church,” as that is considered today. The extremists on that question will ignore all of the context, and settle upon this one passage, because they think it justifies their unholy restrictions against a part of the body of Christ. Such a use of the verse is as gross a perversion as any sectarian ever committed against Acts 2:38. This verse is just another item in the attempt of Paul to restore order in the public assembly when exercising the spiritual gifts. Notice it says your women, which shows it was not said to women in general, but to the wives of the gifted men. The perversionists try to dodge this by saying the pronoun refers to the church as a whole. That will not do for the next verse shows these women had husbands, so the attempt at perversion fails again. To say this verse is of general application and in force today, makes it contradict Ephesians 5:19, where the word “speak” is from the same Greek term as the one in our verse. Yet no one denies that the women have the right to sing, and when they do they are “speaking” according to the apostle’s command.

Obedience is from a word that denotes “subjection,” and it does not always require that any specific command has been given. The wives of the gifted men were to be in subjection in that they remain quiet while their husbands were performing their spiritual gifts.

1 Corinthians 14:35

1 Corinthians 14:35. Since it is the wives of gifted men who were commanded to keep silence, it follows that the things they might wish to learn about are those pertaining to the gifts of their husbands; wish to know n.ore details about them. Otherwise they could not hope to obtain such information even at home. Furthermore, we know it does not pertain to information in general, for that was supposed to b€ obtained in the assembly (verses 3, 5 12, 19).

1 Corinthians 14:36

1 Corinthians 14:36. The Corinthians were so puffed up over their spiritual gifts, that it made them vain enough to regard themselves as a source cf divine knowledge. The key to this verse is in the words from and unto. The word of God had not come out from them–had not originated with them. Instead, all the knowledge they possessed had been bestowed by the Lord, hence they had no ground for boasting.

1 Corinthians 14:37

1 Corinthians 14:37. No spiritual gift is more important nor based on any more authority than the writings of an apostle. If the claimants for spiritual gifts were genuine, they would acknowledge the writings of Paul to be divine commandments. Furthermore, if they go that far, they will be required by the rule of consistency to bring. their conduct under the teaching of the same.

1 Corinthians 14:38

1 Corinthians 14:38. No one is ever asked to acknowledge anything that he does not profess to know. The evidences in support of Paul’s claim for his writings were so weighty, that everyone should have been in position to recognize them. Therefore, if some man claimed that he knew noth:ng about what Paul was saying–had nothing to acknowledge, it would be prompted by stubborn indifference. In that case the apostle said let him be ignorant, which means that he was not worthy of further attention.

1 Corinthians 14:39

1 Corinthians 14:39. Covet is from ZELOO, and Thayer defines it, “to desire earnestly.” Among the different spiritual gifts, that of prophesying was the one which Paul preferred because it was the more serviceable (verses 3, 19), hence he advised the brethren to desire it. At the same time he instructed them not to slight the other gifts.

1 Corinthians 14:40

1 Corinthians 14:40. This verse is the grand conclusion of the reasoning that Paul has been offering throughout the chapter. Decently is from a word that Thayer defines, “in a seemly [becoming] manner.” In order means for the various items of their services to be done at the proper time, or in a systematic manner so as not to create confusion. (See verse 33.)