TONGUE-SPEAKING: CONGREGATIONAL (I CORINTHIANS 14)

Of course, the most complete discussion in the Bible on this subject is found in I Corinthians 14, and I have alluded to that chapter in other posts on tongue-speaking. I have heard it said that Paul's generally negative comments on the subject were colored by the fact that especially in such a city as Corinth, tongue-speaking was widely practiced as part of pagan rituals. I would personally have to reject such a position, but that certainly does not mean that I would go to the opposite extreme and accept church practices such as rolling in the aisles, barking like a dog, or general chaos resulting from everyone talking at once as valid signs of Holy Spirit possession.

From Paul's comments on the proper place of tongue-speaking in a congregational setting, I think we can deduce the following principles:

    It is to be considered a “lower” gift than others such as prophesying. (vv. 1, 5)

    No more than three people are to speak in tongues at a congregational meeting. (v. 27a)

    They are to speak only one at a time. (v. 27b)

    They are only to speak if there is someone present to interpret their words. (v. 28)

    Tongue-speakers are to pray for the power to interpret their own words. (v. 13)

    Emphasis on tongue-speaking is a mark of childish thinking. (v. 20)

    Tongue-speaking alone does not build up anyone else but yourself. (v. 4)

I have only witnessed tongue-speaking one time in my life, but I was very impressed with the manner in which it was handled by the charismatic Catholic group who hosted the meeting. The whole service appeared to follow the pattern Paul laid out in I Corinthians 14:26 in that it was very informal with people getting up one at a time with a song, teaching, revelation or tongue. One would think that this procedure would lead to total chaos, but it was in fact as orderly as any standard church service I have ever attended. At that particular two-hour meeting, there was only one person who gave a brief message in tongues. But since no one followed it up with an interpretation, the message was not considered any further.

I subsequently learned that when a prophecy or two-part prophecy (by way of a tongue and its interpretation) was given to the group, it was carefully written down by the leaders of the group. They would only consider it to be a genuine revelation from God if they received further confirmation over the course of about a year. I feel that Paul would have been very comfortable attending such a meeting.

There is one puzzling verse in I Corinthians that warrants some explanation: I Corinthians 14:22. At this point in Paul's argument, one would certainly expect him to say that tongues are a sign for believers and not a sign for unbelievers. Instead he says just the opposite. The apparent problem is so great that J.B. Phillips in his paraphrase of this verse, actually reversed the wording so as to indicate what is expected. Rather than resorting to this drastic measure, others have approached the difficulty in different ways. Gordon Fee's solution is best understood by his diagram of verses 21-24:

OT quote showing that tongues do not lead others to obedience (v. 21)

    Application: So then-

        Assertion 1 (v. 22a) – Tongues are a sign not for believers      A

                                                                          but for unbelievers         B

        Assertion 2 (v. 22b) – Prophecy is [a sign] not for unbelievers      B'

                                                                          but for believers       A

        Illustration 1 (v. 23) – Effect of tongues (1) on unbelievers (B)

        Illustration 2 (v. 24) – Effect of prophecy (2) on unbelievers (B)

According to this reasoning, the “sign” for unbelievers does not refer to a sign from God that will convert them, but is only a sign to them that the Christians have lost their minds. Thus, one needs to refer down to v. 23 as an illustration of v. 22a. A similar explanation is given by Orr and Walther.

Grosheide, on the other hand, invokes the two instances in Acts where he says that new converts speak in tongues as a sign for them of God's grace in reaching them. Thus, he feels that v. 22 refers to what happens when they begin speaking in tongues for the first time, either in a congregational or private setting. The problems with this reasoning are (a) he has to reach way outside of the immediate context to make that leap of logic and (b) as explained in another post, those two unique cases in Acts were probably more of a sign for the believers present at the time, not for the new converts themselves.

And W. E. Vine uses I Corinthians 1:22, with its negative comment regarding unbelieving Jews demanding an outward sign, as the verse that explains 14:22. Thus, he implies that unbelievers will somehow be convinced of the reality of the gospel only when they begin to speak in tongues themselves. That explanation is hardly likely.

Hillyer offers yet another interpretation, echoed by Marsh and Lowery, which is based a little more closely on the previous quote in v. 21. In both cases, tongues which they cannot understand serve as a means of judgment on unbelievers. Celter and Brown offer a major variation on this judgment theme by stating that when the Corinthian believers continue to concentrate on tongue speaking in public they are being so childish that they God is treating them as unbelievers.

Meier and Putman seem to feel that signs such as tongue-speaking can cause unbelieving observers to be convinced of the truth of the gospel. This is a position that is hard to maintain in light of I Corinthians 14:23, unless those negative comments only apply to the chaos resulting when the whole congregation is speaking in tongues simultaneously.

One final comment relating to tongues in a congregational setting. In I Corinthians 14:15, Paul makes an intriguing allusion in passing to “singing praise with the spirit.” He appears to treat it as a lower form of worship than singing with both his mind and spirit, whatever exactly that may refer to. At the same charismatic Catholic meeting described above, there was one occasion when a person began singing very melodically with sounds that made no recognizable sense. Then, more and more people began to join in, and the whole song swelled to a crescendo before fading away. I have heard wordless songs composed by Ravel, Stravinsky and others performed by professional choirs, but none of them was as spiritually moving as what I heard that day. I would certainly prefer such inspired singing to sentimental songs from my grandfather's era or praise songs with their simplistic lyrics repeated endlessly to mind-numbing unmelodic accompaniment. But that is just my opinion (and that of my wife).