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 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 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 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.