Superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues, vs. 1–25, Special directions for the conduct of public worship, vs. 26–40.
Superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues. Vs. 1–25
THE superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues is founded, 1. On the consideration that he who speaks with tongues speaks to God, whereas, he who prophesies, speaks to men, vs. 2, 3. 2. That he who speaks with tongues edifies only himself, whereas, he who prophesies edifies the church, vs. 4, 5. That this must be so, is proved, 1. By an appeal to their own judgment and experience. If Paul came to them speaking in a way which they could not understand, what good could it do them? But if, as a prophet, he brought them a revelation from God, or as a teacher, set before them a doctrine, they would be edified, v. 6. 2. From the analogy of musical instruments. It is only when the sounds are understood, that they produce the desired effect. If a man does not know that a given note of the trumpet is a signal for battle, he will not prepare himself for the conflict, vs. 7–9. 3. From their experience in intercourse with strangers. If a man comes to me speaking a language which I cannot understand, no matter how polished or significant that language may be, he is a barbarian to me, and I to him, vs. 10, 11. In their zeal, therefore, for spiritual gifts, they should have regard to the edification of the church, v. 12. Hence, he who had the gift of tongues should pray for the gift of interpretation; as without the latter gift, however devotional he might be, his prayers could not profit others, vs. 13, 14. It was not enough that the prayers and praises should be spiritual, they must be intelligible; otherwise those who were unlearned could not join in them, vs. 15–17. For himself, the apostle says, although more richly endowed with the gift of tongues than any of his readers, he would rather speak five words so as to be understood, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, vs. 18, 19. It was mere childishness in the Corinthians to be so delighted with a gift which they could not turn to any practical account, v. 20. They should learn wisdom from the experience of the Hebrews. It was as a judgment that God sent among them teachers whom they could not understand. So long as they were obedient, or there was hope of bringing them to repentance, he sent them prophets speaking their own language, vs. 21, 22. Their experience would not be dissimilar. If they came together, each speaking in an unknown tongue, the effect would be only evil. But if, when they assembled, all the speakers spoke so as to be understood, and under the influence of the Spirit, then men would be convinced and converted, and God glorified, vs. 23–25.
In the comment on 12:10, reasons have already been presented for adhering to the common view, that the gift of tongues, of which the apostle here speaks, was the gift miraculously conferred, of speaking in foreign languages. Every one must feel, however, the truth of the remark of Chrysostom in his commentary on this chapter: “This whole passage is very obscure; but the obscurity arises from our ignorance of the facts described, which, though familiar to those to whom the apostle wrote, have ceased to occur.” That this gift should be specially connected with prophesying, as in Acts 19:6, “they spake with tongues and prophesied,” and elsewhere, is to be explained from the fact that all speaking under divine, supernatural influence, was included under the head of prophesying; and as all who spake with tongues “spake as the Spirit gave them utterance,” in the wide sense of the word they all prophesied. But it is not so easy to understand why this gift should have been so common, nor why it should so often attend on conversion; see Acts 10:46, 19:6. There are many things also in this chapter which it is not easy to understand on any theory of the nature of the gift. Under these circumstances it is necessary to hold fast what is clear, and to make the certain our guide in explaining what is obscure. It is clear, 1. That the word tongues in this connection, as already proved, means languages. 2. That the speaker with tongues was in a state of calm self-control. He could speak, or be silent, 14:28. 3. That what he said was intelligible to himself, and could be interpreted to others. 4. That the unintelligibleness of what was said, arose not from the sounds uttered being inarticulate, but from the ignorance of the hearer. The interpretation of particular passages must, therefore, be controlled by these facts.
1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual (gifts), but rather that ye may prophesy.