The apostle began this discussion of tongues by comparing it to the gift of prophecy that the Corinthians also appreciated (cf. 12:10, 28; 13:8). He urged the Corinthians to value prophecy above tongues because it can edify and lead to conversion since it involves intelligible"inspired"speech.
14:1 This verse sums up what Paul had just written about love, and it resumes the thought in 12:31 by restating that exhortation. In contrast to some of the milder advice he gave in this epistle, Paul urged his readers strongly to follow the way of love. This imperative then advances the thought by urging the readers to seek the gift of prophesying in particular.
"At the end of chap. 12, where he had been speaking specifically of the giftsthemselves as gracious endowments, he told them, eagerly desire the greater charismata.' Now in a context where the emphasis will be on the activity of the Spirit in the community at worship, he says, eagerly desire the things of the Spirit [ta pneumatika].'"323
14:2 Glossolalia by itself is not edifying to other people, but prophecy is. This statement again raises a question about what speaking in tongues involved.
On the day of Pentecost people spoke in tongues and other people who knew the languages spoken received edification because they heard of God's mighty deeds in their native languages (Acts 2:1-11). Interpreters were unnecessary on that occasion (cf. Acts 10:46; 19:6). Evidently what was taking place in the Corinthian church was different from what took place on the day of Pentecost. In Corinth, and perhaps in other early churches, people spoke in tongues among people who did not understand the languages. An interpreter was necessary for those present to understand and benefit from what the tongues-speaker was saying in a strange language (vv. 5, 13). Paul used "tongues"and "languages"interchangeably in this passage (cf. vv. 2, 10, 11, 13, et al.). This is an important proof that tongues were languages.
Some Christians have suggested another distinction. They have claimed that the tongues in Acts were foreign languages but the tongues in Corinthians were ecstatic utterances, not languages but unintelligible speech.324There is no basis for this distinction in the biblical text, however. The terminology used is the same, and the passages make good sense if we take tongues as languages wherever they occur.325
If someone spoke in an unknown language and no one could interpret what he was saying, the person speaking was not speaking to men. God knew what he was saying even though no one else did including the person doing the speaking. In his human spirit the speaker was uttering mysteries (Gr. mysteria, things hidden or secret from the understanding of those in the church listening). Obviously Paul's concern was the edification of the church. He did not disparage the gift of tongues itself, but he put it in its rightful place.
Note, too, that Paul described the spirit as distinct from the mind (cf. vv. 14-19).
"Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit that sometimes bypassed the mind; and in vv. 14-15 he argues that for his own edification he will have both. But in churchhe will have only what can also communicate to other believers through their minds."326
14:3 In contrast to the foreign speech uttered by tongues-speakers, those present could understand what a prophet spoke in the language of his audience. It benefited the hearers by building them up, encouraging them, and consoling them. "Edification,""exhortation,"and "consolation"set forth the primary ways in which prophecy (preaching) builds up the church. Its main purpose as a gift was not to predict events in the future but to build up believers in the present.
14:4 The person who spoke in tongues in church edified himself or herself. He or she praised God and prayed to God while speaking in a tongue. He or she also benefited from realizing that the Holy Spirit was enabling him or her to speak a language that he or she had not studied. This would have encouraged the tongues-speaker, but that one did not edify himself or herself in the sense of profiting from the message the Holy Spirit had given. He did not know what his words meant unless he also had the gift of interpretation, but in this discussion Paul left that gift out of the picture almost entirely (cf. v. 5). Had he known what he was saying he could have communicated this to those present in their language. That is what a prophet did.327Paul's point was that edifying the church is more valuable than edifying oneself. He did not deny that speaking in tongues does edify the tongues-speaker (cf. vv. 14-15, 18-19).
14:5 Paul acknowledged the value of the gift of tongues even though it also required an interpreter. Nevertheless he made it clear that the ability to prophesy was more important. The issue, again, is private versus public benefit. Since Paul depreciated speaking in tongues without interpretation so strongly, it seems very likely that this is what the Corinthians were doing in their meetings. The real issue was not a conflict between tongues and prophecy but between unintelligible and intelligible utterance.
In this whole discussion "prophecy"does not refer primarily to a prepared sermon but to an impromptu word that someone would share in a service in which congregational participation was possible.
