article46

§41 The Effect of Intelligibility (1 Cor. 14:20–25)

Paul advances the discussion of the value and liability of the practice of tongues, marshaling a consistent case for the Corinthians to cultivate and consummate the gift of prophecy in the life of the church. The language and concerns in verses 20–25 are reminiscent of those in 2:6 and 3:1. Readers of the letter and expert interpreters alike find this portion of chapter 14 difficult to follow, however, and various scholars have offered a variety of interpretive suggestions concerning the logic of these lines.

There are two basic schools of thought on how best to interpret verses 20–25. C. H. Talbert (Reading, pp. 87–91) is at the forefront of those commentators who have argued that Paul begins these lines by referring to a statement by the Corinthians. He explains this first in their own terms and then refutes it in his own language. According to this solution, Paul first cites an assertion in verses 21–22 that the Corinthians themselves are making. The Corinthians have cited selected verses from Isaiah in defense of their practice of tongues; then, they have interpreted the OT text to mean that tongues are a sign (i.e., something meant to convince them) for unbelievers, not believers, whereas prophecy is a sign for believers, not unbelievers. Paul himself responds to this Corinthian argument in verses 23–25, where he reverses their logic: Tongues in the assembly will not point unbelievers to God but will baffle them. It is prophecy that will convince them of the presence of God.

This solution is based on observations and hypotheses about Paul’s rhetoric, which at best is not fully clear. Talbert’s reading of this problematic passage is both attractive and useful, but it presupposes a mental and rhetorical dexterity of which many readers (including the present one) would be incapable, especially given that the text does not contain clear rhetorical signals.

Thus, while Talbert’s reading is possible, the following commentary takes another interpretive line and focuses on the meaning of “sign.” The understanding or misunderstanding of this word in verse 22—“sign” (Gk. sēmeion)—determines the sense of this section. Readers of the NT are familiar with the references to “signs” in the Synoptic Gospels as well as the Gospel according to John and perhaps with other uses also. In John in particular, there is a significant positive meaning for this word: Jesus did signs, and through those signs his disciples came to believe in him. Other uses of the word “sign” are not so purely positive—Mark 8:11 states that “the Pharisees came and … asked for a sign from heaven” to test Jesus, not necessarily a noble cause. In Mark 8:12 a rather disgusted Jesus sighs and says, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to this generation.”

Paul himself seldom uses the word “sign.” The readers of Paul’s letters encounter the word only at Romans 4:11; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 1:22; 14:22; 2 Corinthians 12:12; and 2 Thessalonians 2:9; 3:17. In every place other than this passage, Paul’s use of the word “sign” seems neutral. It refers to a clear indication of God’s presence, power, and will. Nevertheless, exactly what such a “sign” means is determined only in context. One can find “signs” (NIV: “distinguishing mark”) or indicators of God’s approval and disapproval, of salvation and wrath—as one would expect in Paul’s apocalyptic-eschatological point of view. Thus, it is best to allow the text of 1 Corinthians 14 to inform us of the meaning of the word “sign.” According to the line that Paul cites from Isaiah, God speaks “in other tongues … of other ones … to this people, and even so they do not hear.…” Paul says this line explains the sign: Speech in other tongues produces no hearing or comprehension! The sign is the failure to hear—an odd notion, but no odder than Jesus’ words in Mark 4:12, also citing Isaiah, “… so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mark 4:12 from Isa. 6:9–10). The conclusion is that in the context, Paul means for “sign” to name a clear indication of God’s power at work through the failure to comprehend what is spoken through tongues.

14:20 / Paul calls the Corinthians away from childishness—perhaps meaning a fascination with things that dazzle—to maturity. The reader can recall Paul’s own idealized first-person statement in 13:11. Here he literally calls for them to “become perfect” or “complete ones,” although the plain sense of the admonition is “Grow up!” Moreover, in an aside that may be an indirect comment concerning his opinion of what all the problems in Corinth amount to, Paul expresses his desire that they be naive in terms of evil.

14:21 / Paul refers to “the law” (Gk. nomos), a designation most often applied to the books of Moses, and then quotes Isaiah 28:11–12 LXX as a text on the topic of tongues. The citation is a very loose paraphrase that alters vocabulary, word order, subjects, and verbs alike, since the original passage in Isaiah referred to foreign languages, not to glossolalia. The alterations are typical of the way Paul cites Scripture on occasion, probably from memory, and the slight changes are sensible tailoring of the text to the Corinthians’ context. Above all, one should see that Paul finds in Isaiah a scriptural precedent for his position, and the citation leads into his next statements. In Isaiah the strange tongues were a sign of God’s judgment against the people because of their disobedience in ignoring Isaiah’s own intelligible words; for Paul the problem with tongues is that they are unintelligible and so obscure God’s clear message. The text of Isaiah becomes the groundwork for Paul’s comments, which are offered as exegesis of the text, but more, an explanation of the situation in Corinth.

14:22 / Verses 22–25 are difficult, as noted above. The wording and grammar of Paul’s lines are clear, but many readers find that the content of the statements is itself hard to follow. Verse 22 states a principle and claims to exegete the cited biblical passage by beginning with the explanatory word then (Gk. hōste, lit. “so then”), which the NIV obscures by placing it as the second word in the sentence. Working from the citation Paul concludes that tongues … are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; whereas prophecy … is for believers, not for unbelievers. The way forward in this application is clear only when one recognizes that the sign or the indication of God’s work here is the negative effect of the people’s not hearing God’s message (since it is hidden in the strange tongues), just as they did not hear God’s message in the passage from Isaiah. The sign shows that God’s message was not heard: the people are baffled. It is not necessary, and Paul does not understand, that a true sign must produce some purely positive effect. In Isaiah God declared that people would speak in strange tongues and those hearing would not listen to or understand the tongues. For Paul, when the Corinthians spoke in tongues, it produced a sign consistent with the words of Isaiah. In both instances people heard others talking and did not understand and were not persuaded. Paul’s argument seems odd only if one takes sign in the sense of a positive outcome where those hearing understand and believe.

14:23 / Paul develops the picture he is painting by building on the lead he established in verse 22. Now, he says, given that the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues and the uninitiated or unbelievers enter, what should one expect to occur? In keeping with the sense Paul made of Isaiah, he explains that the uninitiated will say that the tongue speaking believers are raving mad.

14:24 / In turn, he takes the imaginary scenario even further. Introducing a shift of focus with the words but if, Paul begins to recount a new and different development. This scene and the results of what takes place are not the direct outworkings of the text of Isaiah, but Paul uses his imagination in relationship to the circumstances in Corinth to show how the converse situation would appear. He proposes that all the Corinthian believers are prophesying and the uninitiated enter. Then the uninitiated will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all (lit. “is convicted by all and held accountable by all”).

14:25 / Paul elaborates the result of this hypothetical turn of events in dramatic, energetic, descriptive phrases. The unbeliever who is moved by the practice of prophecy among the believers will, first, be stripped of all pretense and shame (the secrets of his heart will be laid bare) and, second, will worship God and say that God is really among the believers.

In seeking to understand 14:20–25, readers have to make a decision between the line of reasoning offered by Talbert and the understanding of the passage suggested in the commentary above. (It is even possible to conclude that Paul misstated his thinking or that his secretary misheard him.) While either reading makes plausible sense of the text, my contention is that the difference between the straightforward sense of verse 22b (read without my proposed interpretation of v. 22a) and verses 24–25 is problematic. If one reads the passage in line with my suggestions—that for Paul, “sign” in verse 22a means “that which is (positive or negative) evidence of the power, will, and work of God”—one sees some sense emerge from this strange sequence of statements. In any case, however, the general sense of Paul’s remarks in the letter makes it clear that at this point he is marshaling still another argument for the preferable nature of prophecy in comparison with tongues in the context of worship.