Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 29)

A natural objection would be raised by those who were slaves (who may very well have had slaves of their own, which should probably be taken into consideration when hearing what comes next from Paul), which could be “What if our master is a believer?  Should he not be forced to free us?”  It may be the case that the church met in the very household of a believer who was also a slaveholder.  Undoubtedly, Paul would let the Spirit have its work (one could hear Paul’s words to Philemon about avoiding compulsion), with this heard in his response to the theoretical objections: “But those who have believing masters must not show them less respect because they are brothers.  Instead they are to serve all the more, because those who benefit from their service are believers and dearly loved” (1 Timothy 6:2). 

With these words there is a reminder that Paul, in general, is far more concerned with that which benefits the body as a whole, rather than that which benefits individual believers, which this being quite easy to discern from his letters to the Corinthians and the Romans (not as a source of proof texts, but as communications that reveal the heart of the Apostle).  Again, this will require love, self-sacrifice, and preferential treatment on behalf of the slave. 

This is quite the role-reversal in that day, for it would usually be the master, in the position of patron and benefactor to those that are his slaves, that were looked to as those with the opportunity to be generous and magnanimous.  Here, Paul has effectively reversed those roles, and it is now the slave that is in said position and is therefore in a position to accrue honor.  One should not look to this culturally reversing element as a justification for the extension of slavery, but as an element of the last becoming first and the first becoming last, and as something of an in-breaking of the power of the kingdom of the Creator God.    

Beginning with the sixth verse of the sixth chapter, Paul writes “Now godliness combined with contentment brings great profit.  For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either” (6:6-7).  Had this study not already revealed that Paul has dismissed Stoicism, effectively countering its philosophical stance with the hope of the Resurrection (as embodied in Jesus), one may be tempted to hear a resonance of Stoic thought in these words from the Apostle. 

One is better served, however, to hear Paul from within the honor and shame competition of the culture.  Though, as has been said before, it would not necessarily be the case that honor was equated with wealth, this would largely hold true.  So here one finds a way of thinking that militates against the valuation of honor, and the goods that become associated with an every-increasing cache of public honor, with a reminder of that which is truly valuable.  In the end, that would be working to increase the public honor of the one that was made to be Lord and Christ. 

Contentment, as opposed to Stoic apathy, runs contrary to the ceaseless competition for public honor; and as should be well known, godliness, in imitation of the Lord, not only causes one to become unconcerned with public honor, it also causes Jesus’ followers to seek out the places and people and situations and activities that will redound to the accrual of shame.  With shame being the equivalent of death, and generally to be avoided at all costs (as was the going concern of the culture), the believers’ going “down” into shame (though paradoxically it is an elevation in the eyes of the covenant God) can be looked upon as the equivalent of going down into death---going to the cross with Jesus and being crucified with Him.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 16)

So this study has gone to Acts six, talked about widows (clarifying some unhelpful mental misconceptions in the process), mentioned divisions, made its way to Galatians, back to Timothy, and then on to Corinthians, all related to the mention of “deacons.”  This process has been necessary, and it has all been connected to food, thus allowing an observer to firmly link talk of deacons in the letter to Timothy with the church’s meal table, which also allows for the placing of talk of “overseers” within a meal table context as well.  Frankly, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the meal for the church, as it is a vital component of the Jesus tradition, a defining aspect of culture, and combined with talk of food in the letters of the New Testament, a repetitive element in the conversation related to the life of the body of Christ.

Returning then to Acts, what is the response to the complaint about the way that food is being distributed at the church’s gathering?  “The twelve called the whole group of disciples together and said, ‘It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2).  Now this could be a point of contention.  With the centrality of the meal assembly for the church, and the value placed on service by Jesus Himself, can the disciples rightly insist that this is the case? 

Would it not be most appropriate, in following the example of their Lord, who came not to be served but to serve, for these disciples to do this very thing?  Could having a hand in the distribution of the food, which would mean their being the ones that served the food to the assembled church, possibly be conceived of as neglecting the word of the Creator God?  One might very well lament this response of the twelve, as its enshrinement in Scripture handily created what very well may have been a dichotomy between preaching and service that Jesus never intended, thus furthering the construction of hierarchies within the church. 

Luke opens his account in Acts by stating that “I wrote the former account,” referring to the Gospel of Luke, “Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).  Here, Jesus’ own disciples have opened up a disconnect between doing and teaching.  That divide becomes evident in what has become the standard, contemporary reading of the letter to Timothy.  It is not evident because overseers and deacons, and the qualifications for such are discussed.  Rather, it is evident because one reads “overseer” and think of an authority figure, doing the same with “deacon,” though obviously to a lesser extent.  Regardless, it is obvious that, owing to the proclamation and example of the disciples of Jesus, that the church quickly fell into these practical and hierarchical divisions, and these divisions immediately began to have honor assigned to them.  This is more than comprehensible, as humanity is certainly prone to such things.

Since, unfortunately, they were not going to be waiting on tables, as they would later make clear that their plan was to “devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (6:4), the disciples went on to say “But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task” (6:3).  One could say that here things went from bad to worse, as the disciples, prone to affectation by a culture that was almost completely dismissive of women (even though women had been charged with the initial proclamations concerning the Resurrection of Jesus), limited that which would become a hierarchical position in the church to men only. 

One could say that, or one could look at it another way, realizing that they were not intent upon creating a spiritual hierarchy, but that this was an unintended by-product brought about by a lack of faithfulness to the mission and vision of Jesus, and chose men specifically to serve at the church’s tables, giving them the responsibility of being sure that all shared equally in the food and drink on offer because this is a job that would normally have fallen to women and to slaves.  Perhaps this is the genius of the disciples, but with so many set at such a distance from the culture of the day, it is quite easy to miss what is going on here.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 15)

Now, when one considers a daily distribution of food to widows, there is probably an idea of people going house to house, delivering meals to those that are shut-in and who are too old and frail to serve themselves.  Though this may have been part of what was occurring, it is best to keep oneself culturally and historically grounded, while also keeping the regular assembly around the meal table front and center. 

One must also bear in mind that, due to much shorter life expectancies, these widows could have been relatively young.  Though this study will later be dealing with this in greater detail, it is possible to get a glimpse of the treatment of widows in the letter to Timothy (thus causing the reference to widows in Acts to have an even greater bearing on a study of Timothy), when Timothy is instructed that “no widow is to be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old” (1 Timothy 5:9a). 

As it relates to the physical capabilities of widows and to being sure that they are being viewed through an appropriate lens, Paul writes that there is a bit of a problem in widows “going around from house to house” (5:13a).  In response then, Paul’s directive is “I want younger women to marry, raise children, and manage a household, in order to give the adversary no opportunity to vilify us” (5:14).  More on this anon, but in that statement, widows are the “young women” and therefore the subject.  

So again, one must put the idea of the frail, sickly, shut-in widow, who can barely lift her head or feed herself (though there were certainly some of these attached to the church), out of mind and see these widows referenced here and in Acts as capable and perhaps vibrant members of the community, who are able to participate in the regular table gatherings of the church. 

That said, it is probable that it was at the coming together of the church around a common meal that these widows were being neglected in the distribution of food.  If so, this sounds terribly like the situation that Paul addresses in Corinth, where he writes “when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it…  Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper.  For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper.  One is hungry and another becomes drunk.  Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink?  Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:18,20-22a) 

It becomes clear that the honor-based arrangements around the meal tables to which Jesus was regularly invited, and which He regularly criticized, were alive and well and being used at the meal tables of the church in Jerusalem.  Widows, as would have been quite common owing to a lack of a living husband and therefore a lack of honor or even the ability to accrue honor (a wife’s honor was dependent on that of her husband), were being neglected---relegated to the positions in which they were served last.   

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 7)

In the same letter, however, Paul can be seen engaging in what appears to be a client-like heralding of the “churches of Macedonia” (2 Corinthians 8:1b), stressing “that during a severe ordeal of suffering, their abundant joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in the wealth of their generosity” (8:2).  On the surface, this appears to be Paul subordinating himself to this particular church, speaking of them as a client would a patron.  Of significance though, is that “they gave according to their means and beyond their means” (8:3a).  So on the contrary, this is not the act of a patron. 

In that day, a patron did not diminish his own comfort and standing to serve a client.  With that world’s ultimate patron, that being Caesar, always looming in the background as Paul continually operates in a counter-imperial mindset (as does Jesus as well-demonstrated by the Gospel-authors presentation of Him), a distinction between the patronage of Caesar and Jesus is drawn, as Paul writes “For you the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that although He was rich, He became poor for your sakes, so that you by His poverty could become rich” (8:9).  Jesus is an altogether different type of patron. 

This is precisely what Paul has described as the actions of the churches of Macedonia.  Indeed, this is the act of a community vested by the Spirit of the Creator God.  Beyond that, “They did so voluntarily, begging us with great earnestness for the blessing and fellowship of helping the saints” (8:3b-4).  Patron’s did not act voluntarily, but rather, they acted upon request, calculating how fulfilling the request and meeting a need would impact their honor standing.  Not only is this not what has occurred with the Macedonian churches, but they went to the other end, to the end of shame, begging Paul to allow them to participate.  It’s almost as if there are no definitions or culturally recognized categories for what Paul is describing.  Conceivably, this can be viewed as something entirely new in the world, and if one takes the position that the incarnation, crucifixion, and Resurrection changed everything, then it is difficult to disagree with that assessment. 

Paul did not wish to be viewed, on a human and cultural level, as either patron or client.  On a cosmic level things were different.  He had a patron (Jesus) and he was most certainly a client, and this impacted every area of life, while also going against the cultural grain of the Greco-Roman world.  This even went against the grain of his own culture, as the popular (generalized) opinion within the world of Israel was that when their God took it upon Himself to act as Messiah, that the Gentiles would then become the clients of Jews, with the Gentiles relying on Israel and Israel’s special relationship with the Creator God that they might derive the obvious benefits that had been reserved to national Israel.  Something like this attitude is on display when Paul is dealing with Jew/Gentile issues in the churches (Ephesians, Galatians and Romans particularly, and also in the record of the book of Acts). 

Paul was perfectly content with divesting all presumed honor so that he might be looked upon as a client to the cosmic King and the Creator God.  This becomes obvious as one moves forward in the first chapter of the letter to Timothy.  Paul speaks in the voice of a client, heralding his supreme patron, and can be heard to say “I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man.  But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1:12-13).  Here, it is good to be aware that the celebration of the compassion and mercy (along with the loyalty, patience, and humility) of one’s patron was a standard feature of clientele praise. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 34)

Subjection to another, that seeking and taking out of the lowest place, which was spoken of and modeled by Jesus, with the strengthening of the church and the emanation of justice as the Creator God sees it (supremely concerned for orphans and widows and lepers and children and all of those considered to be the lowest of all) that flows from one’s spirit-led activities as the measuring stick for true spirituality (not speaking in tongues or the exercise of other specific gifts in isolation, as constructed by one particular church community), is a vital and crucial element of true worship of Jesus and of the Father. 

Therefore, with the ceaseless and nearly inescapable striving for honor in mind, it is finally possible to hear Paul say “If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:38).  By now, it should be realized that the language of “recognition” is the language of the court of public opinion, of reputation, and of honor.  Again, true recognition, and therefore true honor within the body of the Christ, belongs solely to the Lord of the body.  This is displayed when the one that would sit in the place of honor in the surrounding world or in any other type of association, actively subjects himself or herself to those that would be deemed less honorable outside the body of Christ, serving them with the same type of love and compassion that was displayed by the Creator God’s action of venturing forth to join and serve His creation, and the venturing forth to the cross as the summation and climax of that service.

“So then, brother and sisters,” as Paul writes in the hopes that his message about this particular issue has been properly conveyed, received, and understood, “be eager to prophesy” (14:39a), for this, engaged in by all, will encourage, console, and strengthen the church, while convicting and calling all, even the unbeliever and uninformed, to account for failures to rightly bear the divine image.  “And,” furthermore, Paul tells them that even though it has been problematic and has created a situation that has been antithetical to the true nature of the church, now that you better understand how best to put this ancient religious practice to proper use within the church, and now that you better understand the way that believers are supposed to manifest the Spirit of the covenant God and to respond to activities that manifest the Spirit of that God among you, “do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues” (14:39b). 

Effectively, having been given their instructions by Paul, and hopefully waking away from this time of gathering with a better grasp on the world-shaking and shaping nature of the activities of the church of the Christ and of its effect on the way that the Creator God intends His world to work, Paul concludes this portion of his heavily rhetorical yet applicable dissertation with “And do everything in a decent and orderly manner” (14:40).     

Speaking In Tongues (part 33)

Closing out his treatment of the religious exercise of speaking in tongues as it was being practiced by the Corinthian church, Paul, with a strenuous focus on the need for unity, sharing, preferring of others, and service to the body, begins his conclusion with “If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command” (1 Corinthians 14:37).  Here, based on the remote possibility that his message has not been duly received, and with a precise placement in the stream of thought that has been at least partially constructed by the need for mutual subjection (14:32), Paul seems to direct his words to those that either look upon themselves or are looked upon as spiritually superior, emphasizing their subjection to him and to the Lord. 

If the idea of subjection to Paul is on offer, then it is incumbent upon an observer to see how that fits within the movement of the letter, as Paul would most certainly not go to these lengths to emphasize unity within an egalitarian assembly (no divisions, no stratifications, no authoritarian structures based on the prevalent honor code), and then at the last second turn the tables and attempt to place himself in the seat of honor.  An effective guide becomes what Paul has written about himself in the fourth chapter. 

Beginning in verse nine there Paul writes: “For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people.  We are fools for Christ, but you are wise in Christ!  We are weak, but you are strong!  You are distinguished, but we are dishonored!  To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads.  We do hard work, toiling with our own hands.  When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.  We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (4:9-13). 

With this rhetorical deployment, Paul takes up the language of a slave---of one possessive of no rights and no honor---applying it to himself.  Indeed, in an ironic twist, this is confirmed by what follows, which is “I am not writing these things to shame you, but to correct you as my dear children” (4:14).  Paul presents himself as a person that sits at the “shame” end of the honor and shame spectrum.  This then, returning to the fourteenth chapter, is the one to whom those considered by themselves to be spiritually superior (prophets or spiritual persons) are to submit. 

Naturally, Paul points beyond himself to the presumptive Lord of this church---to the One that experienced the ultimate shame as the One to whom subjection is owed.  Accepting these words from Paul is akin to hearing them from the crucified One, who not only experienced the place and act of ultimate shame in that day, but who went there willingly and purposefully, to create a people that would follow the leading example of what they understood to be true of both His manner of life and His manner of death (with the attendant honor and shame related sensibilities at play throughout). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 32)

Skipping past what appears to be an interpolation that does not seem to fit at all with the ethos of Paul’s letters (verses 33b-35, which is sometimes found in manuscripts at the conclusion of verse forty, with this fluid placement indicative of its potentially extraneous nature, not unlike the story of the woman taken in adultery of John chapter eight, which is not found in many early manuscripts and sometimes shows up after Luke 21:38), this study picks up with Paul asking the question “Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?” (1 Corinthians 14:36)  This is a rather pointed question, and seems to flow quite naturally from the statement concerning disorder and peace.  It is clear that the question is directed to the wider church, but one is forced to wonder why. 

Though dogma-level assertions are probably not possible, considering the regular competitions for honor that took place amidst the meal associations of the day, it is possible that here Paul speaks to the possibility of multiple church bodies within the same community entering into some type of similar honor competition that pitted body against body in their attempts to honor their object of worship (namely Jesus).  As it is quite easy to see churches effectively competing against each other for members, for recognition, and for the types of public honors that are available in our own time, this possibility does not seem overtly remote. 

Closer to home, an individual member of the body that was the primary recipient of this message (leaving open the possibility that this letter was directed to multiple assemblies of Christ-worshipers) could hear these words in a more personal manner, as they follow hard upon Paul’s insistence that participation within the church should be widespread, with all exercises attributed to the influence of the Spirit accorded equal value. 

This equal valuation of the Spirit’s presence and the person through whom the Spirit is active (with whether or not Jesus’ Lordship, which can be declared in any number of ways, and especially in ways that are derived from the understanding of the Jesus tradition that was then in circulation prior to the formation of the Gospels as we have them, is affirmed as the sole determiner of the activity of the Spirit of the Creator God), along with the insistence upon mutual subjection (preferring one another in humility) in the exercise of the gift that Paul most highly encouraged, provides a helpful framework in which a hearer could understand the words of verse thirty-six, making it possible to understand it as Paul’s continued encouragement for individuals to continually disavow the personal accumulation of honor. 

Hearing these words in this way could lead to seeking opportunities for community affirming mutual subjection that is based upon the desire to emulate the one to whom they look as Lord (who consistently sought out the lowest place rather than the highest place while instructing His disciples to do the same, who performed the role of a slave, and who set Himself amidst those considered to be possessive of shame or who stood completely outside the system of honor and shame, such as children) and who is deserving of all honor.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 31)

Along with these things, in an act of preferring one another and valuing all participation equally, though it will be subject to evaluation by the whole of the assembly as they mull over the words within the framework of what they have been taught by Paul and the Jesus tradition that is to shape their modeling out of the kingdom of their God, Paul adds “And if someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude” (1 Corinthians 14:30), giving no thought to their own honor or standing. 

With thoughts of selflessness and a shame-embracing love ringing in the background, one can then read “For you can all prophesy one after another” (14:31a), with the now ubiquitous and completely expected directive in regards to the exercise of spiritual gifts, “so all can learn and be encouraged” (14:31a), and presumably strengthened.         

Paul reinforces the social leveling that he desires to see happening within the church when, after putting brackets around the usage of ecstatic speech and again encouraging prophecy as something that is encouraging and strengthening, by adding “Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (14:32a).  When encountering this, it would behoove an observer to focus less on the “spirits of the prophets,” as this most likely is simply a reference to the Spirit being at work within the assembly through those engaging in body-strengthening words of prophecy, and more on the side of being “subject.”  This subjection serves as a reminder that one person is not going to vaunt themselves over or be vaunted over the community of believers. 

Any type of movement related to the activity of prophecy being used as an elevating factor within the body, as glossolalia was apparently being inappropriately used, wherein those that prophesy began to be afforded certain honors or by which a certain class of individuals within the church body began to appear, would be very much out of order.  Thus, rounding out his thought about the mutual subjection of those that engage in prophetic activity (which Paul hopes to be as widespread as reasonably possible in the assembly because of the purpose that it serves --- reminder: prophesy is NOT about predicting the future), Paul concludes with “for God is nor characterized by disorder but by peace” (14:33a). 

It cannot be repeated enough that honor competitions had no place in the church that is to be the visible representative of the One who eschewed being honored at every turn, and instead embraced suffering, shame, and the lowest places (including the lowest place ever devised, that being the cross).  These honor competitions, as can be gleaned from this letter to Corinth, were conducive of animosity and productive of factions.  This would unfortunately and decidedly militate against the order and well-being of the body of Christ, damaging its ability to engage in true fellowship for and among believers, while also damaging its ability to witness to a King and a kingdom to which all are subordinate. 

Indeed, if the members of the body of Christ are pre-occupied with participating in social systems that result in the subordinating of one believer to another, is there going to be a focus on all being completely subordinate to their Lord that subordinated Himself by going shamefully to a cross?   

Speaking In Tongues (part 30)

Paul is placing what he hopes to be effective boundaries around the particular religious exercise of speaking in tongues, as he continues his extensive and specific dealing with the issue.  He underscores the universal recognition that ecstatic speech, through all of the recorded history of the practice that preceded the Christian church, demands interpretation as part of its functionality, and for both components of the act (speaking and interpretation) to be put to good use for the strengthening of the church (its most important role). 

Without interpretation, the act most likely serves to draw attention to oneself, rather than to the god that is attempting to speak through the ecstatic speaker.  Plus, the interpreter allows for joint participation with another person (or perhaps more than one person?), thus achieving the goal of strengthening and encouraging, while not allowing for honor to accrue to just one individual through whom the god is speaking. 

Accordingly, Paul insists that “if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church.  Let him speak to himself and to God” (1 Corinthians 14:28).  Can one not see that this deals quite effectively with the issue of competition and the honoring of self?  To this, with the strengthening of the church, along with its fellowship, equality of station, and universal participation in mind (with the always ongoing competition for honor also in mind), Paul adds “Two or three prophets should speak (prophecy calling authorities to account or offering commentary about the actions of the covenant people, sometimes speaking apocalyptically) and the others should evaluate what is said” (14:29).   

Prophets, of course, are those that prophesy, which Paul encourages all to do, so this is certainly not to be hailed as a special class of people within the church.  Plus, one must catch the flow of the thought.  “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others,” presumably the rest of the assembly who also function as prophets (as Paul encourages the entire assembly to engage in speaking forth the words that attempt to reveal the Creator God’s character for the purpose of shaping the response of a people, or shaping a people into a responsive people), “should evaluate what is said.” 

Again, the entire church assembly is engaged, with speakers that come from the entire societal range of the body, and the words of those speakers subject to the entire body that also encompasses the entire range of society.  This once again devalues the honor system (though one must confess to the possibility that this analysis represents an over-reaching and over-reading of the impact of the honor and shame system and Paul’s thoughts and concerns related to that system and its unfortunate and undesirable functionality inside the church) and disregards the social standing that one may have outside of the Christian body as irrelevant to one’s standing within the body of Christ. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 29)

Fifteen thousand words of foundational material in this study allow for what comes next from Paul to be quite readily consumed, grasped, and comprehended, with proper conclusions readily drawn.  So moving along then, Paul writes “What should you do then, brothers and sisters?  When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26a). 

Here, Paul again deploys “brothers and sisters,” which feels like a way for him, as this is discerned from the contextual and textual flow of the entire letter, to produce unity of mind and of purpose within the congregation gathered at their standard assembly to hear this letter read in its entirety and as a group.  With this, one cannot escape the fact any more than the divided and possibly stratified Corinthian believers could escape the fact, that Paul emphasizes and expects an equal participation by all in the events of the assembly. 

One must not take it lightly when Paul says that “each one” should have a song, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.  This does not mean that each should have the ability to demonstrate all of these things, though this would not be problematic and could certainly be encouraged as long as it did not result in an unwarranted accrual of honor to anybody but the Creator God and His Christ, but that each one is encouraged to participate at some level, doing so, at least initially one would expect, in one of the ways that is being recognized as being influenced and directed by the covenant God through the Holy Spirit. 

Of course, the rest of verse twenty-six falls directly in line with all that Paul has said concerning tongues to this point, which is “Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church” (14:26b).  This is always the crux of the matter for Paul in his letter to Corinth.  The strengthening of the church is the matter at hand in this letter.  What they have been doing, which is what Paul is criticizing on multiple levels, apparently exacerbated with the elevation of the speech act of glossolalia, has led to, in his opinion, the weakening of the church.  One is then able to come to the conclusion that Paul sees a weakened and discouraged church through his constant exhortation that expresses the need for strengthening and encouraging. 

If the church is weakened, then by definition the kingdom of the Creator God (the bringing of heaven to earth---causing the overlap of God’s realm of existence with man’s realm of existence, manifested whenever selfless and sacrificial love that reveals the character of God that is also to be the calling card of those that are His image-bearers is being put on display) is damaged, as it is the church that functions as the ambassadorial arm of that kingdom. 

It is with such thoughts (including in these thoughts that there were problems, including the bestowal of honor in competition with other spiritual gifts or other factions within the church, being created and exacerbated through the displays of speaking in tongues) under consideration that one then goes on to hear “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27).  

Speaking In Tongues (part 28)

The assembly in which none go hungry and in which the needs of all are met, with a conscientious and attentive eye cast towards the wider community for the purpose of meeting the needs of those outside their association, and not for the purpose of gaining honor for their assembly but because of the example of their God that went to a cross and was said to have suffered on behalf of His people and to establish His kingdom, and as a component of their expressed desire to go to the lowest places and people in order to share in their suffering and shame (taking it upon themselves in a sense, as such an association would cause them to be viewed more shamefully as well), would certainly serve to bring a level of conviction. 

Such a person, witnessing the activity of the gathered church of the Christ, could very well be called to account by all, especially if that calling to account is not a condemnation of his or her sin as some tend to think of it (those things referred to as “activities of the flesh”), but rather a calling to account that causes that person to reflect on what it means to be truly human and one’s obvious failures in this area. 

The heretofore uninstructed observer would be witnessing that which the Creator God has intended for His divine image-bearers.  The true working of the Spirit, rather than being seen as something that results in a personal display of Spirit-led activity, takes place as the covenant God’s Spirit flows through the kingdom-modeling activities of His body and calls one more person to conviction and account.  As the Spirit works, gifting a man or woman to participate in the kingdom of their God, re-shaping mindsets and transforming the heart so that it stands in opposition to the values of a fallen world, while also being ready to engage in ways to effectively impact and re-shape the values of those that inhabit a fallen world, “The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and in this way he will fall down with his face to the ground and worship God, declaring ‘God is really among you.’” (1 Corinthians 14:25) 

That deep-seated knowledge of the responsibility to bear the divine image, along with the failure to do so, springs to life.  Without doing so as a means of proof-texting, one can borrow from the letter to the Romans in order to buttress the statement and the ideas that stand behind verse twenty-five to possibly understand Paul’s thinking, as there he writes “because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributed---His eternal power and divine nature---have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.  So people are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-20).  The Creator God is put on (puts Himself on?) display through His kingdom community.

As part of this same process of understanding this portion of Paul’s communication, it is possible to look to one of his speeches recorded in Acts, as he speaks about the “Unknown God” of Athens, and about His power, His presence, and His purpose of revealing Himself in the manner in which He has revealed Himself (His Christ and His church), “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).  Through the gift of His Spirit, which is meant to shape an ever-increasing portion of humanity into conformity to His own image, with this occurring by certain but not limited manifestations of that Spirit that can be referred to as individual gifts, conviction is brought about, and the Creator God receives the glory that is due to Him.  Bringing this about has always been part of the required role of His people. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 27)

Bearing in mind the way that an assembly-wide engagement in ecstatic speech would be viewed by the outsider, along with the importance attached to public speech acts (as those deemed to be most honorable are those that would be permitted to speak in the assembly of an association), and building on his statement that “Prophecy… is not for unbelievers, but for believers” (1 Corinthians 14:22b), Paul goes on to write “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or uninformed person enters, he will be convicted by all, he will be called to account by all” (14:24a). 

Does this mean that those prophesying are convicting the unbelieving or uninformed visitor to the association of their sins, of their immoral lifestyle, or of their need to “get saved”?  Perhaps, but these would most likely be secondary convictions, discussed as fellowship and relationship is established. 

As the Christian assembly is to be a lived-out model of the kingdom of the Creator God in the world (a free association of equality as a mutually beneficial fellowship of Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slave, and free that actively disavows honor and the pursuit of the world’s ideal of honor, with the only “competition” geared to taking the lowest place as others are preferred above oneself), the unbeliever or uninformed will enter upon the Christian assembly and see something with which they are entirely unfamiliar. 

They would experience that which they could experience in no other place and in no other setting (apart from other Christian assemblies), for the Christians there gathered were worshiping a Lord like no other.  This worship extended beyond the pouring out of a drink offering to their god, and beyond a performance (or multiple performances) of ecstatic speech with interpretation, but extended to the point that those that are serving and those that are sitting at the lowest places are those that the unbeliever or uninformed person would, based upon knowledge of the position of certain individuals within their community, expect to see seated at the places of honor, receiving the best food and drink, presiding over the assembly, being listened to attentively as purveyors of wisdom and knowledge through eloquent speech, speaking in tongues, and interpreting tongues.  This, however, most assuredly to their surprised eyes, would not be the case. 

The church would provide a living, breathing, counter-cultural witness to the claims that those same Christians would be making outside of their assemblies and in interaction with the members of their community.  The church body, in which all prophesy regardless of their social standing (without even getting in to what exactly constitutes prophecy), engaging in what would generally be considered to be an honor-based or honor-gathering public speech act, without distinction or division, from what would be perceived to be the lowest place to the highest place, with all given equal standing and equal attention within the community, would certainly bring conviction.  In addition, the assembly in which all share equally in food and drink, which would be the most common indicator, apart from seating position, of social status, would certainly convict an untrained onlooker.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 26)

However, as has been said, this rather commonplace religious practice, to this point, has been limited in its performance.  One simply did not see entire groups of people speaking in tongues.  Not only would this have been counter-productive, whether within Christian associations or other gathered groups, this would also have run afoul of the honor system and its embedded functionality for society. 

Now, one might try to take this particular point and argue that an entire church speaking in tongues would serve to uproot the standardized systems of honor and shame, as this was certainly a portion of the missional ideal of the church and the kingdom of the covenant God (the first becoming last and the last becoming first, willingly taking the lowest place, ascribing all honor to a man that had suffered the most shameful ordeal of that age), but Paul’s words do not allow for any such thinking. 

If this was truly a desired goal, Paul would not write things like “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, rather than then thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:18-19).  Also, since Paul also goes on to write “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27), any such argument that speaking in tongues should encompass the entire congregation falls flat. 

It is the limited performance of tongues, and the limited number of people who spoke in this way within a society accustomed to witnessing a person engage in ecstatic speech that could be the key to understanding the whole of verse twenty-three.  Though he begins with “So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues,” he quickly digresses from any sense that this is going to be a positive thing by adding “and unbelievers or uninformed people enter, will they not say that you have lost your minds?” (14:23) 

Now this is not to say that the unbeliever or the uninformed should determine how Christian gatherings are conducted, but if someone in Corinth were to walk in on such an assembly, with knowledge about glossolalia, with knowledge that interpretation is a necessary feature of the practice, with knowledge that it is a limited good, and with knowledge that speaking in tongues was a component of the never-ending competition for honor, then it is quite simple to see why Paul might say such a thing. 

Unbelievers or the uninformed, not knowing that Christ-worshipers do not compete for honor in their world or in their assemblies and association as do everyone else, would see a massive honor-competition taking place.  Along with that, since glossolalia was believed to be the way that a god sometimes chose to communicate to his worshipers, presumably through one particularly devout worshiper, the unbeliever might wonder what kind of a god would need to speak in such a way through each person in an assembly? 

This immediately leads to the idea that if there were multiple people all doing the same thing at the same time, it could be presumed that there was more than one god speaking through those people, which would then run counter to the claims of the Christians there gathered.

Speaking In Tongues (part 25)

So though tongues are a sign for unbelievers, in at least the ways that have been here discussed, it is in this context that Paul has indicated that prophecy is for believers.  How and why is this so?  It is because prophecy serves to strengthen the church, which, by definition, are those that call Jesus Lord.  It is those that call Jesus Lord who constitute the church, and therefore it is they who are the believers. 

An unbeliever is not a component of the church, so they are not necessarily going to be concerned with making the Creator God’s kingdom present, though they may be physically present in the assembly (attending a church service is distinct from being a member of the entity that is understood as the body of Christ).  The activity of prophecy however, because all are encouraged to participate without regard to position or status or honor (with no divisions at the table as befitting the messianic banquet which the church is called to model), should make a substantial impression on the unbeliever, which is something that will be addressed by Paul.   

The twenty-third verse begins with “So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:23a).  Stopping right there, it must be said that this would be quite the unusual event.  It would be well outside the normal range of religious experience to have the entire assembly of an association demonstrating glossolalia.  In the recorded history of this type of activity, the ecstatic utterances associated with the idea of being possessed by the spirit of a god, it was always a limited occurrence.  As one understands that honor was a limited good, and that honor would accrue to the individual or individuals said to be employed by the god for communication that was in need of interpretation, it is more than sensible that the activity would be a limited to a select few individuals and would not occur prolifically or haphazardly.  Such a thing would be quite novel.   

Now if speaking in tongues was being used to create a spiritual hierarchy within the kingdom of the covenant God, this makes it possible to easily comprehend why there may have been a desire on the part of each person to engage in the practice, especially if this was the very Creator God, who had inhabited physical form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, now speaking through another person by His Spirit. 

If the Creator God had taken human form in the person of His Messiah, and if that Messiah had been resurrected from the dead and was being proclaimed as having received all power and all authority as Lord of all, and if that God was now speaking through another human by means of ecstatic utterances, then it is not at all difficult to understand why an entire congregation would have wanted to be viewed as the human vessel somehow inhabited by that God.  If one thinks along these lines, and if this way of thinking represents reasonable speculations, then one is not left to wonder at the particular elevation of those that spoke in tongues.

Speaking In Tongues (part 24)

Skipping over a few verses (though the skipped verses do mention speaking in tongues), brings this study to the twenty-second verse where Paul writes “So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22a).  What does Paul mean by this?  Inevitably, this runs back to the fact that the activity of speaking in tongues, as if possessed by the spirit of a god, is not an uncommon feature of a religiously-oriented assembly and would not be an unexpected component of an association that honored a particular god, as did the Christians. 

Offering up some reasonable conjecture, one might be able to propose that those that joined in as observers or casual witnesses of the meal-based Christian assembly, and were thereby placed in a position in which they witnessed such activity, would be aided in their realization that the Christians worshiped a god by the name of Jesus (a god that was crucified and said to be resurrected).  Furthermore, in witnessing the nature of the activity around the meal table of the association that honored this god Jesus, whose story was substantially different than that of any other god of which they might be acquainted, the radically different social order (no obvious honor-based distinctions) that was to be on display in the assembly would be inescapable.  Finally, when excessive honor was not conferred upon the ecstatic speaker, the unbeliever would be curious as to this diversion from accepted social practices. 

The second half of the twenty-second verse has Paul writing “Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers, but for believers” (14:22b).  This, of course, is a speaking forth of the word of the Creator God (generally calling the covenant people or powers-that-be to account for their failures to live up to their respective obligations, and often using veiled language).  As usual, one does not approach these particular words independently of, or in isolation from the other mentions of prophecy within the same train of thought, but hears them in the context that has been created for them. 

Returning then to the first verse of the chapter, one is reminded of the instruction to “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”  In verse three: “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.”  In verse four, “the one who prophesies builds up the church.”  In verse five, with a contrast built upon what has been said about the strengthening of the church, one finds “I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more than you would prophesy,” with the attachment of verse six, which then reads “The one who prophesies is greater,” because the result is “the church may be strengthened.” 

Paul has already encouraged them to abound in manifestations of the Spirit of the Creator God for the purpose of strengthening the church (14:12), with that strengthening also encompassing the previously mentioned encouragement and consolation, clearly connected to prophecy, and all of it has been done in the context of pursuing the most-to-be-honored gift of self-sacrificial love that has been highlighted in the thirteenth chapter. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 23)

Paul then makes his now rather familiar point by writing “Otherwise, if you are praising God with your spirit, how can someone without the gift say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?  For you are certainly giving thanks well, but the other person is not strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:16-17).  It returns to this.  Paul wants to see the church strengthened through every activity that is said to be rooted in the gifting of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

Paul wants every member (taking up and employing his language from chapter twelve) to be able to participate equally, on equal footing, with nobody feeling like a foreigner, with nobody marginalized as second-class spiritual citizens of the kingdom of the covenant God, and certainly nobody being held up or looked to as a superior within the body of the Christ simply because they engage in one or more particular activities that have been honorifically pre-designated by that body as gifts of the Spirit. 

Time and again, Paul, as he deals with what is happening in this church body because of the glossolalia that is occurring there, refocuses his audience on the strengthening of the church (which can also be seen in his dealings with the problems at the church meal and the Lord’s Supper in chapter eleven).  It is the strengthening of the entire body that should be the motivation and the result of speaking in tongues.  If that motivation and result is not achieved, regardless of the gift under consideration (with this going beyond speaking in tongues), then it’s place in the assembly needs to be reconsidered and carefully examined.  To circle back around to the issue of honor, it can easily be said that if one is concerned with accumulation of honor through the exercise of what are considered to be the gifts of the Spirit, then the strengthening of the church is probably not going to be in sight. 

Bringing honor back into consideration at this point allows what comes next to dovetail quite nicely, as Paul writes “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:18-19).  Paul knew that speaking in tongues would gain him honor, but this he did not seek, so he did not engage in this publicly, which his hearers would probably think quite odd.  If there was no public display and no witnesses, then what would be the point?  Paul did not want to limit his impact within the church to only those gifted with the ability to interpret or understand, thus contributing to a division and a spiritual hierarchy of elevation and exclusion (based on honor accumulation).  If he spoke plainly in church, then no matter how much or how little he spoke, all could share equally in the instruction.     

Speaking In Tongues (part 22)

This benefit of the body is a component of Paul’s continued focus on the issue of speaking in tongues.  He continues: “There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning.  If I then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.  It is the same for you” (1 Corinthians 14:10-12a).  There might be a tendency to get hung up on these words, with an attempt to discern if Paul is indicating that the ecstatic speech is more than just a string of incomprehensible syllables. 

This mention of “languages” may prod some to compare the ecstatic speech being practiced in the Corinthian church with the events of the second chapter of Acts, in which the disciples “were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4).  This is often seen as a proof text for justification of the practice.  It is not likely that Paul had justification of the practice of speaking in tongues in mind.  After all, it was a historically accepted and understood religious practice, and it did no harm unless it caused divisions in the church.  So the nature of the speech was not Paul’s abiding concern. 

With the words quoted, it is Paul’s use of “foreigner” that should grab attention.  Because he is dealing with activities that take place within the assembly, someone being made to feel like a “foreigner” would be problematic.  An attendee may feel cut off from the proceedings, feeling as if there are components of what is there taking place of which they may be unworthy in some way.  Any feelings of isolation or distance from the fellowship of the assembled church would militate against unity.  Of course, this commentary by Paul runs back to the question asked in the sixth verse, which was “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or prophecy or teaching?” 

Once again, the issue is being helpful to the body.  This question is nicely bookended by the remainder of verse twelve, which read “Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church” (14:12b).  Indeed, if there is a desire to abound in manifestations of the Spirit, those manifestations should abound in such a manner that the church is strengthened.  It is this that is Paul’s abiding concern. 

Paul is not surprised by the ecstatic utterances, nor is he about to limit the manifestation of the Spirit to the same.  For Paul, the evidence of the presence of the Creator God’s Spirit, regardless of the activity in which one is engaged, is the strengthening of the church.  This can be accomplished in an unimaginable number of ways, which is what makes it absolutely impossible to create lists of the gifts of God’s Spirit.  To the end of strengthening the church in connection with speaking in tongues, Paul goes on to write “So then, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (14:13).  To that he adds: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive” (14:14). 

This is not new ground.  Speaking in tongues, as an accepted and widespread religious practice that was understood to be the result of a god taking over the mind of a worshiper, was looked at in this way.  So Paul asks: “What should I do?” (14:15a)  He answers his own question with “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.  I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind” (14:15b).  Paul is not devaluing speaking in tongues by contrasting mind and spirit, nor is he elevating activity that is mind oriented.  He is simply discussing speaking in tongues as it was then widely understood. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 21)

The community of the Creator God and His Christ was not going to be divided or structured based on the abilities of teachers, ethnicity, wealth, or any other societal value, so it should certainly not allow for divisions based upon those things that are perceived to be randomly distributed gifts from that God and therefore even less appropriate as a basis for divisions than other societal constructs. 

Consequently, the use of these gifts is to be modeled upon the example of their Lord, enacted on the basis of love and self-sacrifice, as demonstrated at Jesus’ meal tables, His socially flattening activities (reaching out to lepers, tax collectors, children, women, Gentiles, etc…), and His cross.  Paul is adamant that these gifts are nothing without love and that they are of no real benefit unless they are being used to build up the entire community of believers, rather than just one or two people. 

With his words that have opened the fourteenth chapter, as they build on all that has come before, Paul relativizes that which is the most prized of their spiritual expressions, emphasizing prophecy in its stead.  Again, the contrast is stark.  Not only does prophecy have an entirely different motivation and outcome, but it seeks to communicate in comprehensible language.  This prompts a reconsidering of Paul’s insistence to “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”

Moving along to the sixth verse of this chapter, Paul writes “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or with knowledge or prophecy or teaching?” (1 Corinthians 14:6)  Now, it is worthwhile to take this opportunity to point out that “prophecy” is not simply the offering up of words concerning future events.  Prophecy is simply speaking the word of the Creator God or words about that God---that which reveals His character and teaches about His nature.  In the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures, prophecy is often linked to calling powers to account and sharing what are presumed to be the thoughts of the covenant God concerning the activities of those that are in positions of power and responsibility.  

Likewise, one must not confine thinking about “revelation” to mysterious language, but must understand that the word that Paul uses is “apokalupsei,” or “apocalypse,” which basically means to “go behind the veil.”  Apocalyptic language is not restricted to the book of Revelation (officially known as “The Apocalypse”), but can be seen throughout Scripture, as it is employed to provide gravity to a subject, as the one that employs apocalyptic language attempts to communicate what he believes to be the Creator God’s perspective on events. 

Continuing with this thought, Paul writes “It is similar for lifeless things that make a sound, like a flute or harp.  Unless they make a distinction in the notes, how can what is played on the flute or harp be understood?  If, for example,” as Paul employs what would be a familiar example in his world (this is not necessarily a component of his eschatology), “the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle?  It is the same for you.  If you do not speak clearly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said?  For you will be speaking into the air” (14:7-9).  As part of his battle against divisions in the body and the improper honorific elevation of those that speak in tongues, Paul asks how, if distinct language is not used, if instructions are unclear, knowledge is not being passed along, and the ecstatic speaker is simply speaking into the air (catch the shaming that is occurring), then how is the body benefited?     

Speaking In Tongues (part 20)

Why?  The reason is at least two-fold.  Paul wants all to prophesy because it leads to the strengthening, encouragement, and consolation of the entire body of believers, whereas ecstatic speech, historically among other religions and within this early church, generally leads to the elevation of one person above the rest.  With this sensibility created, it feels as if Paul engages in a bit of shaming of those that are vaunted or vaunting themselves owing to their glossolalia, writing “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:5c).  With this, it becomes apparent that interpretation was not a regular component of the glossolalia in Corinth.  Without interpretation, there could be no strengthening of the church, only of the individual, for it is interpretation that turns the ecstatic speech into prophecy.  Commensurately, the necessity of interpretation reduces the honor of the ecstatic speaker, as the interpreter is elevated in honor as well. 

Paul’s concern is with that which is good for the body, and ultimately, with that which brings honor to Jesus as Lord of all.  A strengthened body, rooted in equality and preference of others and completely unconcerned with honor and shame competitions, would accomplish this quite well.  With what can be heard from Paul, it becomes clear that some of the members of this church had highly elevated that which they referred to and classified as the “spiritual gifts,” which is reflected in what was probably their own list recited by Paul in chapter twelve.  Owing to the extensive treatment that it is going to receive, it appears that the ability to speak in tongues was the most prominent of those abilities---affording the highest degree of honor to those engaging in the activity. 

As has been made clear throughout this study, this particular spiritual activity was in no way confined to Christian gatherings, as it was an accepted religious practice of the day and for quite some time before Pentecost or the phenomenon of the church, so this does appear to be an instance of the believers of Corinth importing the values of their society into the gathering that was supposed to reflect their life in pursuit of the Creator God’s kingdom. 

It was not the practice that was problematic, or even the issue, or even Paul’s concern.  Rather, what was of concern to the Apostle were the values (pursuit of individual honor and status) that stood behind and motivated the practice that were the cause for concern.  As was said earlier, a common feature of religious assembly was the belief that a god could possess a believer or worshiper with their spirit, leading that person to communicate directly with the god in what sounded to onlookers and gathered hearers like unintelligible speech.  Paul echoes this common understanding with “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God.” 

Unfortunately, what appears to be happening in this church is that the believers were allowing for the establishment of a new social hierarchy not unlike that with which they were familiar, and allowing for this on the basis of spiritual abilities---with those capable of speaking in tongues receiving the greatest honor.  Paul, as has been observed, takes great pains to repudiate this practice of creating social divisions on the basis of spiritual ability, while strongly emphasizing that these spiritual activities (even the limited list to which the Corinthian church seems to have confined and contented itself) are gifts from the Creator God and evidences of the presence of His individual-honor-eschewing kingdom.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 19)

With no break in continuity, Paul continues his line of thinking from chapter thirteen (which was continued from chapter twelve) into chapter fourteen and writes “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1).  Why does Paul here highlight the activity of prophecy?  It is because “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation” (14:3).  The contrast to the one who prophesies, for this church, are those that are engaging in glossolalia.  Drawing out that contrast, Paul writes “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit” (14:2). 

Because Paul is engaging in a rhetorical action here, it is not appropriate to isolate the statement here in verse two or in other verses.  It demands to be heard in context and in contrast.  So when one hears that “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God,” and that “he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit,” the proper response is not to throw up ones hands in a glorious salute to the person so speaking, but rather, to hear it in juxtaposition to what Paul says about the one who prophesies, who “speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.” 

This sufficiently directs attention away from a judgment call about the propriety of speaking in tongues, directing an observer instead to a consideration of the motivations for speaking in tongues.  With the honor accorded to public speech acts, and the honor that would be accorded to the person that is said to be possessed by the spirit of a god when engaging in the ecstatic and incomprehensible speech, the motivation of those doing so in Corinth is called into question. 

It follows then that when Paul writes “The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up” (14:4a), he is not making this assertion as if it is a good thing.  Once again, it stands in contrast to what follows, which is “but the one who prophesies builds up the church” (14:4b).  In this case, and in consideration of the honor and shame culture, and especially what has already been seen when it comes to the meal gatherings and the divisions in the church, a person building himself up needs to be viewed as a negative (this is not a positive thing).  He builds himself up because he is more concerned about his honor and demonstrating in historically acceptable ways his special relationship with his god, whereas the person that prophesies, by engaging in strengthening, encouragement, and consolation, is concerned about the church---concerned about the body. 

Paul does not rule out speaking in tongues, but he also does not make it a litmus test for the identification of one that is filled with the Spirit of the God that raised up Jesus from the dead.  He apparently sees it as a legitimate expression, but is concerned with why it is being employed and what results from its employment within the gathered church.  To that point, he writes “I wish you all spoke in tongues” (14:5a). 

Indeed, if all spoke in tongues, then there would be no opportunity for one person to gain undue honor from the practice, thus eliminating the problem as he sees it.  Here, one must be careful not to assert that Paul desires for this to be the norm among Christians.  It must be heard from within the context, which is that of the pursuit of honor in connection with speaking in tongues.  If all speak in tongues, then there will be no special awarding or assignment of honor to the speaker.  Paul understands that it is not the case, nor is it going to be the case that all speak in tongues, and concludes his statement with “but even more that you would prophesy” (14:5b).