- 1 Corinthians
- <
- 14
- >

14
Prophecy is better than Tongues
1 Pursue love, and desire the spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 Because he who speaks in a ‘language’ is not speaking to people but to God, since no one understands; in spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to people.* Prophecy is not only for foretelling the future, but all true prophecy comes directly from God. Many churches today give ‘prophesy/prophecy’ an unbiblical meaning, wherein the people tell each other all the good things they hope will happen to them. That is just wishful thinking, not true prophecy. 4 The one speaking in a ‘language’ edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the congregation. 5 I could wish† The verb here is ambiguous as to mode; it could be either Indicative or Subjunctive. Since Paul has already stated that not everyone receives ‘languages’, and that the Holy Spirit distributes as He chooses, the Subjunctive is the correct choice. that you all spoke in ‘languages’, but even more that you might prophesy; because the one prophesying is greater than the one speaking in ‘languages’‡ For someone to argue that he is being humble in seeking and using the lesser gift will not pass muster, because in 12:31 we are commanded to seek the best gifts. (unless he interprets),§ According to verse 27 below, only one interpreter should perform his function during a given meeting. So if someone says he is going to interpret his own language, he must have the genuine gift and be able to interpret any other languages. (I have witnessed no end of people faking a language and then faking its interpretation.) so that the congregation may receive edification.
Messages need to be intelligible
6 Now then, brothers, what good will I do you if I come to you speaking in ‘languages’ instead of addressing you with revelation, or with knowledge, or with prophecy, or with teaching? 7 Take lifeless things like a flute or a harp; if they make no distinction in the notes when they produce sound, how will it be known what is being piped or harped? 8 Also a trumpet; if it gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So it is with you: if you do not deliver an intelligible message with the ‘language’, how will it be known what is being said? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 There are probably a great many kinds of sounds in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 But if I do not know the force of the sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and he will be a foreigner to me.
12 And you too: since you are zealous for spiritual things, aim at the edification of the congregation, that you may all grow. 13 Therefore the one speaking in a ‘language’ should pray that he may interpret.* I do not understand this, since someone with the gift of interpretation does not need to ask. If no interpreter is present, perhaps the speaker could ask God to give him the interpretation. 14 For if I pray in a ‘language’, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind; I will sing with the spirit, but I will also sing with the mind. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the outsider say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 You, of course, give thanks quite well, but the other is not edified.
Paul's example
18 I thank my God speaking in ‘languages’ more than you all,† Since Paul obviously would not use a ‘language’ in public, he made heavy use of them when alone with God. People who follow Paul's example have told me that it recharges their spiritual ‘battery’ in short order. No wonder Paul did it! 19 but in the congregation I would rather speak five words with my understanding, precisely so as to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a ‘language’.
20 Brothers, stop thinking like children—well, in malice be ‘infants’, but in thinking be adults. 21 In the law it stands written:
“I will speak to this people in foreign languages
and with different ‘lips’,
but not even then will they listen to me,”‡ See Isaiah 28:11-12 and Deuteronomy 28:49. says the Lord.
22 Therefore the ‘languages’ are for a sign, not to believers but to unbelievers;§ Like on the day of Pentecost, to be a ‘sign’ a ‘language’ would have to be one that the unbeliever knew, but that the speaker would have no way of knowing. If the unbeliever thinks you are raving (verse 23), where is the ‘sign’? To argue that ‘tongues’ is the sign that you have been ‘baptized in the Spirit’ does not follow from this verse, since that would be for believers. while prophesying* The term here can mean either ‘prophecy’ or ‘prophesying’; the context calls for the second option. God normally speaks through believers, not unbelievers. is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole congregation comes together and all are speaking in ‘languages’, but outsiders or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are raving? 24 But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or outsider comes in, he is reproved by all, he is examined by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are exposed, and so, falling on his face he will worship God, affirming, “Truly God is among you!”
There are limits
26 So what goes on, brothers? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a ‘language’, has a revelation, has an interpretation.† Can it be that there was a little competition going on? Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a ‘language’, let it be two—at the most three—and in turn, and let one interpret.‡ Since someone with the gift of interpreting can interpret any and all such utterances, there should be only one interpreter at work during a particular session. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church; let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others evaluate.§ Prophecy must always be evaluated. 30 But if another who is sitting by receives a revelation, the first should stop speaking. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 Yes, spirits of prophets are subordinate to prophets.* A prophet cannot control what messages he receives from God, but he can control when and how he delivers them (and may even decide not to). 33 Further, God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
Wives are not to speak
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 your wives† The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘your’ (following some 3% of the Greek manuscripts), which allows the translation ‘women’ rather than ‘wives’, as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc. Since ‘wives’ excludes single women, the difference is significant. should keep silent in the assemblies, for they are not permitted to speak, but to be in subordination, as the law also says. 35 If they want to learn about something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church.‡ The crucial factor here is authority, and the underlying need is to protect the structure of the home, the foundational unit of society, including the church. If a woman teaches her husband in church, crossing the street to their house will not make her want to submit to him; the human being just does not work that way. That is why the Text does not allow for female pastors or teachers, since to teach is to exercise authority. But here in verses 34 and 35 Paul goes even further; to protect the husbands' authority, wives should not publicly request an explanation from pastor or teacher, since that could allow a wife to play the teacher against her husband in the home. If a wife requests an explanation from her husband, and he does not know the answer, he can consult the pastor and then transmit the explanation—this preserves the authority structure in the home (which goes back to Genesis 3:16). 36 Or was it from you that the Word of God went forth? Or was it only to you that it came?§ Either of these situations would constitute a special privilege, which could give rise to a little spiritual pride.
Paul gets ‘authoritative’
37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the Lord's commands.* Was Paul on an ego trip, or was he aware that he was writing under inspiration? Since he says something similar in a number of his letters, it is clear that he believed he was writing Scripture. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him remain so.† I do not understand this. If the definition of “ignorant” here is one who does not do the acknowledging required in verse 37, then Paul may be saying that such a person is not worth arguing with.
39 So then, brothers, seek to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in ‘languages’.‡ Here is the inspired conclusion to the extended discussion of the charismatic gifts. Isn't it strange that most churches disobey this verse, in one way or another? ‘Traditional’ churches tend to forbid not only tongues but also prophecy (to ‘seek’ it is totally out of the question). ‘Pentecostal’ churches generally elevate tongues above prophecy, which is plainly contrary to the Text. 40 Let all things be done properly and in order.

- 1 Corinthians
- <
- 14
- >

*14:3 Prophecy is not only for foretelling the future, but all true prophecy comes directly from God. Many churches today give ‘prophesy/prophecy’ an unbiblical meaning, wherein the people tell each other all the good things they hope will happen to them. That is just wishful thinking, not true prophecy.

†14:5 The verb here is ambiguous as to mode; it could be either Indicative or Subjunctive. Since Paul has already stated that not everyone receives ‘languages’, and that the Holy Spirit distributes as He chooses, the Subjunctive is the correct choice.

‡14:5 For someone to argue that he is being humble in seeking and using the lesser gift will not pass muster, because in 12:31 we are commanded to seek the best gifts.

§14:5 According to verse 27 below, only one interpreter should perform his function during a given meeting. So if someone says he is going to interpret his own language, he must have the genuine gift and be able to interpret any other languages. (I have witnessed no end of people faking a language and then faking its interpretation.)

*14:13 I do not understand this, since someone with the gift of interpretation does not need to ask. If no interpreter is present, perhaps the speaker could ask God to give him the interpretation.

†14:18 Since Paul obviously would not use a ‘language’ in public, he made heavy use of them when alone with God. People who follow Paul's example have told me that it recharges their spiritual ‘battery’ in short order. No wonder Paul did it!

‡14:21 See Isaiah 28:11-12 and Deuteronomy 28:49.

§14:22 Like on the day of Pentecost, to be a ‘sign’ a ‘language’ would have to be one that the unbeliever knew, but that the speaker would have no way of knowing. If the unbeliever thinks you are raving (verse 23), where is the ‘sign’? To argue that ‘tongues’ is the sign that you have been ‘baptized in the Spirit’ does not follow from this verse, since that would be for believers.

*14:22 The term here can mean either ‘prophecy’ or ‘prophesying’; the context calls for the second option. God normally speaks through believers, not unbelievers.

†14:26 Can it be that there was a little competition going on?

‡14:27 Since someone with the gift of interpreting can interpret any and all such utterances, there should be only one interpreter at work during a particular session.

§14:29 Prophecy must always be evaluated.

*14:32 A prophet cannot control what messages he receives from God, but he can control when and how he delivers them (and may even decide not to).

†14:34 The eclectic Greek text currently in vogue omits ‘your’ (following some 3% of the Greek manuscripts), which allows the translation ‘women’ rather than ‘wives’, as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc. Since ‘wives’ excludes single women, the difference is significant.

‡14:35 The crucial factor here is authority, and the underlying need is to protect the structure of the home, the foundational unit of society, including the church. If a woman teaches her husband in church, crossing the street to their house will not make her want to submit to him; the human being just does not work that way. That is why the Text does not allow for female pastors or teachers, since to teach is to exercise authority. But here in verses 34 and 35 Paul goes even further; to protect the husbands' authority, wives should not publicly request an explanation from pastor or teacher, since that could allow a wife to play the teacher against her husband in the home. If a wife requests an explanation from her husband, and he does not know the answer, he can consult the pastor and then transmit the explanation—this preserves the authority structure in the home (which goes back to Genesis 3:16).

§14:36 Either of these situations would constitute a special privilege, which could give rise to a little spiritual pride.

*14:37 Was Paul on an ego trip, or was he aware that he was writing under inspiration? Since he says something similar in a number of his letters, it is clear that he believed he was writing Scripture.

†14:38 I do not understand this. If the definition of “ignorant” here is one who does not do the acknowledging required in verse 37, then Paul may be saying that such a person is not worth arguing with.

‡14:39 Here is the inspired conclusion to the extended discussion of the charismatic gifts. Isn't it strange that most churches disobey this verse, in one way or another? ‘Traditional’ churches tend to forbid not only tongues but also prophecy (to ‘seek’ it is totally out of the question). ‘Pentecostal’ churches generally elevate tongues above prophecy, which is plainly contrary to the Text.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD