§40 The Desirability of Intelligibility (1 Cor. 14:13–19)
This is the second of Paul’s two deliberations in support of his thesis in 14:1–5. Paul explains that tongues should be interpreted and that prophecy is to be preferred over tongues, since prophecy benefits others whereas tongues edify only the person speaking.
14:13 / Paul bluntly, in an explanatory rhetorical style, introduces his ensuing argument against a sheer enthusiasm that would be indistinguishable from self-serving ecstasy. The verse functions to serve notice to the readers to listen: For this reason. Then comes the advice: tongue speakers should pray for the power to understand what they are saying. The implications of this advice are that it is possible that the one speaking in tongues does not understand what is said and that God may grant the tongue speaker the ability to interpret the otherwise unintelligible but divinely inspired speech.
14:14 / Paul backs his advice with a first argument that is essentially negative reasoning: Tongue speaking releases the mind from full control of the self so that the spirit (the spirit of the person) prays in a direct address to God that God will understand. At the same time, Paul says, this means that the mind of the one praying is unfruitful. Paul’s statement is clear, although his reference to this practice is mysterious because of the mystical disposition of the practice. To restate the matter positively, Paul assumes that in typical prayer one’s mind stays engaged, but in tongue speaking one moves to a level of religious experience closer to ecstasy where the mind is “standing outside.”
14:15 / Paul now asks about the value of such religious practice. He challenges the readers to decide the matter through a rhetorical question: So what shall I do? Then, he immediately answers to avoid a wrong conclusion: Paul will do both! He will pray and sing with his spirit, but also he will pray and sing with his mind. The believer is not confronted in Paul’s deliberation with a strict either-or decision. The matter is more complex, and so Paul continues to explain.
14:16 / In a second argument, Paul pictures an imaginary situation to make the point that the concern for others, both Christians and non-Christians, orients the practicing Christian enthusiast and grounds enthusiasm in sensible reality. Paul refers to the other person, who in his imaginary situation is not a practicing charismatic Christian, with the words, one who finds himself among those who do not understand—more literally, “the one holding the place of the uninitiated” or perhaps “the one occupying the place of the inquirers.” This designation can refer to laypersons, of undefined status, who are not a full part of the Christian worship. Paul’s point is this: such persons cannot and will not understand tongue speaking.
14:17 / Paul’s ultimate missiological attitude shines through in an unambiguous statement of concern—and the need for concern—for others. There is a certain sarcasm in his statement, You may be giving thanks well enough, which comes from the frustrating results of such spectacular practice of spiritual gifts, but the other [person] is not edified. Religious practice that serves only the self is not inherently wrong, but in certain circumstances it is not the best activity.
14:18 / In a third argument, Paul uses his own religious practice as an example and in support of his argument for the appropriate practice of tongues and prophecy. He reports his own practice of tongues in a bold way, I speak in tongues more than all of you; but he makes this statement as a backdrop for once again stating his clear preference for prophecy (v. 19). He speaks in tongues and is thankful to God for it; moreover, he is vigorous in his practice. This report might lead the reader to expect Paul to place a high value on tongues, but as he clearly indicates, he prefers the value of prophecy in the church.
14:19 / Despite the avid tongue speaking that Paul reported in verse 18, he now enters an all-important qualification: But in the church. Although Paul did engage in speaking in tongues, he says in church he preferred that which makes clear sense to others. From these statements one infers that Paul practiced glossolalia privately, though he does not impose such a restriction on the Corinthians’ speaking in tongues. Nevertheless, the degree of Paul’s preference of prophecy over tongues is clear from the numbers he articulates: five intelligible words (lit. “five words with the mind”) are better than ten thousand words in a tongue—odds of two thousand to one!
14:13 / In 14:12 Paul had admonished the Corinthians to “try to excel in gifts that build up the church.” Now he writes directly in relation to that admonition, indicating his purposefulness in explaining the ensuing specific instructions by beginning this verse, For this reason (Gk. Dio). Thus, the reader knows clearly that Paul is about to inform the Corinthians about excelling in edification. Paul gives instruction to the one speaking in tongues in a combined imperative and purpose clause, lit. “let him pray in order that he may interpret.”
14:14 / Paul’s phrase, my spirit (Gk. to pneuma mou), generates discussion among interpreters concerning his point of reference. Fee (Epistle, pp. 669–70) notes and discusses this verse as “a very difficult sentence in the middle of this argument.” As Watson (First Epistle, p. 147) observes, “The expression … is sometimes used by Paul in an inclusive sense to refer to my whole being, being equivalent to ‘me’ (see e.g. 2 Cor. 2:13; cf. Gal. 6:18). More fundamentally, however, it refers to myself as capable of relationship with God (see e.g. Rom. 1:9; 8:16).” Both observations are correct, but Paul is not likely trying to make a self-revelatory declaration. Thus, the reader should not take Paul’s example at this point in reference to himself with utter literalness. Paul can and does use references to himself in an illustrative fashion that does little more than set up an idealized or exemplary figure. The reference here is not concerned with Paul’s own practice except as it illustrates a general truth that he is attempting to teach the Corinthians.
14:15 / The reference to praying and singing is the result of Paul’s concern with worship; he is naming two prominent activities that typified the worship of early Christianity wherein one might expect to encounter a manifestation of God’s Spirit in the spirit of the worshipers. Paul’s own enthusiasm and mysticism still escape the reflection of some theologians who insist on reducing Paul’s spirituality to something more rational and less genuinely charismatic than Paul himself describes his religious experience to be: e.g., G. J. Sirks (“The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” HTR 50 [1957], pp. 77–89), nearly equates prophecy with christological exegesis of the OT. Sirks’s emphasis on the reception of the Spirit in the congregation as a whole, not merely by individuals, is itself a helpful corrective to overemphasis on individual spirituality.
14:16 / In Gk. this verse begins with the word “otherwise” (epei), which the NIV leaves untranslated. This small omission obscures the easy recognition of Paul’s logical turn back to the problem with uninterpreted tongues in order to advance the argument that the mind of the worshipers should preferably remain active for the benefit of the full congregation. There is a real danger that a worshiper lost in the Spirit/spirit may lose the capacity to communicate to others the significance of the presence and the power of the Spirit at work among them. That Paul intends to address the Corinthians as individuals at worship in this and v. 17 is clear, for he writes to you (sing. pronoun Gk. sy) and uses the second-person singular forms of the verbs.
Interpreters debate to whom Paul is referring with the word idiōtēs (NIV = who do not understand; lit. “unlearned, uninitiated, outsider, nonexpert, ordinary person”). Does he mean to name inquirers who are not Christians, or does he refer to nontongue speakers? Part of the complication is the appearance of the word in the larger phrase, one who finds himself among those who do not understand. Fortunately, the word idiōtēs occurs again in v. 23, and in the context of this overall discussion, the two uses of the word suggest that Paul means to refer to other Christians who hear the tongue speaker but do not understand the speech. Thus, the NIV wisely translates here and at v. 23 who do not understand (cf. the marginal note recognizing that “among the inquirers” may be another translation). This rendering expresses Paul’s own ambiguous usage but leans toward recognizing the other Christians at the point of reference.
14:17 / Paul continues to address the Corinthians as individuals at worship, you (sing.). The combination of Gk. words men gar … alla (“for … no doubt, but”) is cavalier in tone, slightly disdainful or sarcastic. The language confronts the Corinthians in their individualistic spiritual self-satisfaction. By contrast, Paul speaks of the edification of the other, using a representative male-singular form that would have been understood to refer to others, both men and women.
14:19 / When Paul states that he would rather speak five intelligible words, he writes, “I wish five words with my mind to speak.” This mentally aware or engaged speaking is not devoid of the Spirit, however; rather, one should understand that Paul is referring to Spirit-inspired, mindful speech such as prophecy (see 14:14–15).