Introduction
Benny Hinn represents a case study in what happens to believers when they put too much focus on the gifts of the Spirit. Hinn proved that he understood the dangerous ground he walked when he wrote, “When people start to seek the manifestation rather than the Master, it is then that the presence of God lifts” (1995). Some people might question whether Mr. Hinn took his own advice. However, the apostle Paul would have agreed with Hinn in principle. This paper presents an analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:20–22, a passage that has presented difficulties for exegetes over the years because of an apparent contradiction between the proposition in 14:22 and the illustration in 14:23–25. This paper will examine Paul’s view of the spiritual gifts presented in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 to help understand the puzzling passage. The result of this analysis will show that Paul wanted the Corinthians to use spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues, to honor God and to proclaim the love of Christ. Paul would want modern Christians to use the full cadre of spiritual gifts in the same manner.
Interpretation of Isaiah 28:11–12
In 1 Corinthians 14:20–22, Paul alluded to Isaiah 28:11–12. Paul wrote, “In the Law it is written, ‘By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord’” (1 Cor. 14:21 ESV). Understanding Isaiah 28:11–12 in its original context elucidates Paul’s purpose in alluding to the prophet’s words.
The literary and historical contexts contribute to a correct interpretation of Isaiah’s meaning. Paul’s quote originates from the literary context of Isaiah 28:1–13. Isaiah prophesied to Ephraim about their impending judgment due to their unteachable, unrepentant mindsets (Henry n.d.). In 28:9–10, Isaiah quoted God, scolding the people regarding their drunkenness. Isaiah utilized the literary device of sarcasm to deliver his rebuke, claiming that God would have more success teaching children (Chester 2005, 443). Scholars have disagreed about the specific nature of the Ephraimites’ rebellion to which Isaiah referred. Some have posited an unholy alliance with Egypt in response to the Assyrian threat around 700 BC (Hays 2010, 230). Others suggested an alliance with Assyria against Egypt, claiming that Isaiah, speaking for God, had directed the people not to ally with Assyria (Hibbard 2018, 36). Perhaps, God planned to execute judgment on Israel as a result of their inebriation (Isaiah 28:7–8). It is difficult to determine with certainty exactly what actions led to Isaiah’s rebuke; however, regardless of the specific nature of their rebellion, the evidence supports the imminence of the invasion. Into this context of imminent invasion, Isaiah delivered the words in 28:11–12.
When Isaiah mentioned “strange lips” and a “foreign tongue” as the way “the LORD will speak to this people” (28:11), he referred to God’s punishment of Israel by foreign invaders (Sandnes 1997, 7). This interpretation fits within the literary and historical contexts. Isaiah attempted to speak to the people as he would adults. When that did not provoke change, he simplified his language to “precept upon precept, line upon line” (28:10), yet they still would not listen. Thus, God would send in a foreign army to show them the results of disobedience (Henry n.d.). Hence, Isaiah meant for 28:11–12 to signify the people’s imminent destruction by foreign invaders.
Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:20–22
Paul understood the context and meaning of Isaiah 28:11–12 when he quoted the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:21. Some scholars proposed that Paul’s allusion to Isaiah represents a sensus plenior, meaning Paul changed Isaiah’s meaning. They suggested that although Isaiah meant the foreign tongues as a sign of Israel’s judgment, Paul meant the foreign tongues as a sign of God’s favor (Chester 2005, 438). Others surmised that Paul did not actually change Isaiah’s meaning but merely quoted him out of context to make his own point (Sandnes 1997, 7; Smit 1994, 186). Actually, Paul did not extend or change the meaning of Isaiah 28:11–12 but established a parallel between the subject matter in Isaiah and the meaning in his own letter. Although Isaiah meant in 28:11–12 that foreigners would soon invade Ephraim, the subject is “people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue” (28:11), which the Ephraimites associated with foreigners. Paul quoted Isaiah to establish the claim that the outsiders with respect to the Corinthian Church (Paul’s parallel to the Ephraimites) would associate glossolalia (the gift of tongues—Paul’s parallel to the people with a foreign tongue) with non-Christian worshipers. In other words, to both the Ephraimites and the outsiders with respect to the Corinthian church, foreign tongues represented something other than the Judeo-Christian religion.
The surrounding literary context also clarifies Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 14:20–22. Paul’s discourse in 14:20–22 fell within the broader context of his exposition on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Ackerman 2005, 349). Paul began the exposition with the phrase, “now concerning spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 12:1), which implies that he was either answering the Corinthians’ question about spiritual gifts or possibly chastising them for their misuse of spiritual gifts (Fee 1980, 2). Upon examination of the rest of the letter, Paul’s tone supports the interpretation that Paul intended to admonish the Corinthians; thus, he included 1 Corinthians 12–14 to correct their use of spiritual gifts (Fee 1980, 6). Specifically, Paul composed 1 Corinthians 14:20–22 to elucidate the effect Corinthian glossolalia might have on outsiders (Sandnes 1997, 5). In the manner that the Corinthians were using glossolalia, they were acting like the culture around them and causing people to equate Christianity with paganism, an abuse that Paul intended to cease (Chester 2005, 435).
First-century Corinthians possessed certain pagan presuppositions regarding glossolalia. At the Oracle of Delphi, fifty miles from Corinth, pagan prophetesses would engage in ecstatic speech supposedly under the influence of the Greek god Apollo. Worshippers would travel to witness these oracles (Ackerman 2005, 354). Moreover, many Corinthians believed in the Dionysus cult’s divine madness whereby the Greek god Dionysus would supposedly overshadow them and cause them to engage in ecstatic speech (Ackerman 2005, 355). Thus, many Corinthian unbelievers held presuppositions that equated ecstatic speech, similar to Christian glossolalia, with pagan worship. In their view, when a worshiper engaged in ecstatic speech, it meant that Apollo or Dionysus had blessed that worshipper. This cultural milieu probably infected the Corinthian believers’ view of tongues as well. Although they correctly understood that glossolalia came from the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues represented social status, in like manner to the pagans (Ackerman 2005, 357). They gloried in their ability to speak in tongues and liked to flaunt the gift (Ackerman 2005, 350). Into this cultural situation, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 14:20–22, which supports the idea that the Corinthians’ glossolalia represented something foreign to Christianity in this context.
The exegetical issue with 1 Corinthians 14:20–22 lies in the apparent contradiction between 14:22 and 14:23–25. In 14:22, Paul wrote, “Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.” Ostensibly, Paul utilized the illustration in vv. 23–25 to support his point:
If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. (1 Cor. 14:23–25)
However, Paul seemingly associated tongues with unbelievers and prophecy with believers in 14:22 then reversed course, claiming that unbelievers would equate tongues with madness and that prophecy, not tongues, would result in their conversion. This apparent contradiction has plagued exegetes for centuries, and the literature reflects myriad theories for solving the puzzle.
Matthew Henry postulated that tongues are for conversion, while prophecy is for discipleship (n.d.), which seems valid but does nothing to solve the puzzle. Another exegete claimed that tongues are a sign for unbelievers but do not have a propitious effect on believers. In that view, prophecy results in discipleship and is good, but tongues have fulfilled their role and have no further function in the church (Robertson 1975, 53). However, this interpretation contradicts 1 Corinthians 14:4 in which Paul actually encouraged speaking in tongues and 14:18 where Paul himself claimed to speak in tongues. The correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:20–22 must resolve the apparent conflict between Paul’s statement in 14:22 and his statements in 14:23–25 while remaining consistent with the rest of Paul’s teaching.
The correct interpretation ensues from understanding the Corinthian culture and their view of glossolalia. In 1 Corinthians 14:20, Paul changed the topic of discourse from the perspective of the Corinthian church to the perspective of the Corinthian unbelievers or church visitors (Sandnes 1997, 5). In 14:20, Paul introduced the new topic, and in 14:21–25, he developed the new argument from the perspective of the outsiders (Smit 1994, 178). In 14:20, Paul compared the Corinthians to naïve children (Ackerman 2005, 352). The Corinthian believers viewed spiritual gifts as signs of God’s favor to be flaunted, but Paul wanted them to view spiritual gifts as tools used to display God’s love. Hence Paul referred to their immature thinking. He quoted Isaiah in 14:21 to introduce the outsiders’ perception of the gift of tongues. According to Paul, when the Corinthians engaged in glossolalia in their worship services, they, in their specific cultural context, resembled pagans or the foreigners of Isaiah 28:11. Although God gave them gifts both of prophecy and tongues, in their context their misuse of tongues resembled something pagan, hence Paul’s association of tongues with pagan unbelievers and prophecy with Christian believers in 14:22. In other words, Paul might have written 14:22 something like this, “When you speak in tongues in your services in such a chaotic manner, outsiders will associate you with pagans; however, when you speak prophecies in your services, outsiders will perceive that you are Christians.” This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:22 eliminates the contradiction with 14:23–25 and remains consistent with the rest of Paul’s teaching. Ergo, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 14:20–22 to urge the Corinthians to exercise spiritual gifts in an orderly, God-honoring manner, rather than in a manner reminiscent of pagan worship.
Contextualization of 1 Corinthians 14:20–22
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 14:20–22 to point out the Corinthians’ specific misuse of the gift of tongues. Did Paul also establish a universal principle that applies to the modern church? Interpreters who seek to find the answer to contextualization contingent upon the Bible should strive to identify the transcendent principle the author, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, wanted to communicate (Hirsch 1967, 80). If the Spirit inspired Paul to write to the twenty-first-century church in America, what would he have said?
First, Paul’s advice to the Corinthians reflects a timeless principle that the church should adopt in this age. As Gordon Fee observed, Paul does not say that tongues are inferior to prophecy but that “in church only what edifies the whole church must be manifested” (1980, 14). David Ackerman agreed, “The gifts of the Spirit are only means to an end and not the end itself” (2005, 362). Spiritually mature Christians will utilize spiritual gifts in such a way that demonstrates the love of Christ (Ackerman 2005, 360). That principle of using the gifts to proclaim the gospel aligns with Paul’s teaching throughout his epistles and letters and reflects the spirit of his communication in 1 Corinthians 14:20–22.
How does one know when a manifestation of the gift of tongues might edify their specific church gathering? It depends on the gathering. If the group of people understands the purpose and the source of glossolalia, a manifestation of glossolalia, interpreted by another spiritually mature Christian would edify the church. However, due to misunderstanding, some well-meaning Christians have become hostile to glossolalia. In such groups, if a speaker burst out in tongues, he congregation probably would not listen to anything else that minister taught them. In such a situation, glossolalia would not edify the church. In fact, it would divide the church. The answer, then, is that in some situations, the ministers must teach their congregations about the gift of tongues before they utilize the gift in their message. Otherwise, what was meant to edify the church will instead harm the fellowship.
If you enjoyed this article, click below to subscribe to God’s Honest Truth and get all articles sent directly to your email. If you subscribe and don’t get an email, check your spam/promotions folder.
Reference List
Ackerman, David A. 2005. “Fighting Fire with Fire: Community Formation in 1 Corinthians 12–14.” Evangelical Review of Theology. 29, no. 4 (October): 347–362. https://web.a. ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=16&sid=ead4359a-ff45-4a14-8f80-e927774c55bf%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Chester, Stephen J. 2005. “Divine madness? Speaking in Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14.23.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27, no. 4 (June): 417–446. https:// web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=28&sid=142e12ea-b561-43b2-a0f0-56d113fdacd2%40sdc-v-sessmgr02.
Fee, Gordon D. 1980. “Tongues—Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12–14.” Pneuma 2, no. 2 (Fall): 3–14. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&sid=802c2eaa-6ff0-4903-9464-3f686d7bb81d%40sessionmgr4007 .
Hays, Christopher B. 2010. “The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–22.” Vetus Testamentum 60, no. 2: 212–240. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853310X486857.
Henry, Matthew. n.d. “Matthew Henry’s Commentary.” BibleGateway. Accessed September 23, 2020. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry.
Hibbard, Tyler. 2018. “To Err Is Human, Unless You’re a Prophet: Isaiah and Micah on Prophetic Opposition.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130, no. 1: 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaw-2018-1003.
Hinn, Benny. 1995. Welcome, Holy Spirit: How You Can Experience the Dynamic Work of the Holy Spirit in Your Life. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. 1967. “Validity in Interpretation.” In Hermeneutics: God’s Message and Its Meaning Readings and Resource Materials. 2nd ed., edited by Global University. 43–84. Springfield, MO: Global University.
Robertson, O. Palmer. 1975. “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing.” The Westminster Theological Journal 38, no. 1 (Fall): 43–53. https://web.a. ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=7fb2c7e0-9480-4ede-b20a-75625a880c0a%40sdc-v-sessmgr03.
Sandnes, Karl Olav. 1996. “Prophecy—A Sign for Believers.” Biblica 77, no. 1: 1–15. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=802c2eaa-6ff0-4903-9464-3f686d7bb81d%40sessionmgr4007.
Smit, Joop F. M. 1994. “Tongues and Prophecy: Deciphering 1 Cor. 14:22.” Biblica 75, no. 2: 175–190. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid= 802c2eaa-6ff0-4903-9464-3f686d7bb81d%40sessionmgr4007.