The Gift of Prophecy In the New Testament and Today, Wayne Grudem (1988) pp. 171-82
Prophecy as a Sign of God’s Blessing
in a Church
(1 Cor 14:20-25)
Introduction
In the middle of Paul’s instructions about the use of prophecy and tongues in the church he includes a six-verse admonition to the Corinthians (1 Cor 14:20-25), in which he says that they should not think in childish ways but should be mature, and then concludes by saying that they should seek to prophesy, because unbelievers will be driven away by tongues (without interpretation), but they will be convicted by prophecy. To that extent the passage is clear.
The problem comes in the middle of the passage, where Paul quotes an Old Testament passage (Is 28:11-12) and then says that tongues are a ‘sign’ to unbelievers but prophecy is (a ‘sign’) for believers. Yet why does he then go on to say they should use prophecy, not tongues, when unbelievers are present 1 Cor 14:23-25)?
The passage begins as follows
Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. In the law it is written, ‘With other tongues and with lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord. So tongues are a sign not to believers but to unbelievers, but prophecy is (a sign) not to un- believers but to believers (1 Cor 14:20-22).
p.172
The meaning of the Old Testament quotation (Is 28:11- 12)
The context of Paul’s quotation from Isaiah 28:11-12 is one of judgement on unbelievers in Israel. The Lord had repeatedly warned his people but they had refused to listen. So he was warning them now that he would send on them foreign invaders (the Assyrians) whose speech they would not understand:
For with stammering lips and with other tongues he will speak to this people, to whom he said, ‘This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose’; but they were not willing to hear.
In the past the Lord had spoken clear and comforting words to the people. But they had stubbornly resisted his word. So as a result, Isaiah says that in the future the Lord will speak unclear words ‘with stammering lips and other tongues’, as a punishment for their hardness of heart. The ‘stammering lips’ and ‘other tongues’ are the lips and tongues of foreign (Assyrian) invaders, whom the people will not understand.
Paul’s use of Isaiah 28:11-12
Paul’s quotation of this verse is quite free, but not foreign to the context. ‘ “With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people, and not even then will they obey me,” says the Lord.’ Paul understands very well that when God speaks to people in a language they cannot understand, it is a form of punishment for unbelief. Incomprehensible speech will not guide but confuse and lead to destruction. And it is one of the last in a series of divine rebukes, none of which have produced the desired repentance and obedience (‘and not even then will they obey me’). So Derek Kidner, commenting on Isaiah 28, can say, ‘Paul’s quotation of verse 11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21 is thus a reminder, true to this context, that unknown tongues are not God’s greeting to a believing congregation but his rebuke to an unbelieving one.’
p.173
Are both prophecy and tongues called ‘signs’?
What conclusion does Paul draw from this quotation? He says, ‘Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers...’ (1 Cor 14:22, rsv). It is simply a misunderstanding of the grammatical construction used here when some translations render this as ‘tongues are for a sign’ (Authorized Version and New American Standard Bible), or even tongues are ‘intended as a sign’ (New English Bible), because this construction (Greek eis + accusative with the verb ‘to be’) often can replace a predicate nominative with no real change in meaning.68 Paul simply says, ‘Tongues are a sign.’
But then what does he say about prophecy? Quite literally, he says, ‘But prophecy not for believers but for unbelievers.’ There is no verb in this half of the sentence, and the idea must be supplied by the reader.
Several translations make this read, ‘But prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.’
This is certainly a legitimate option grammatically, for Greek sentences frequently leave out the verb ‘to be’ and expect it to be understood by the reader. But just putting the verb ‘is’ in this sentence changes the focus slightly from Paul’s concern in the first half of the sentence. This makes the second half of the sentence concerned with benefit: prophecy gives benefit for believers, or is intended to be used for believers.
Yet Paul is not talking about benefit in the first half of the verse, he is talking about what is a ‘sign’. If the context allows it, it is much better to retain this same subject in the second half of the sentence. This gives a more satisfactory contrast and doesn’t import a new idea (the idea of who benefits from prophecy). If we retain the idea of ‘sign’ in the second half, Paul’s sentence means: ‘Therefore, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers ... but prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.’
In addition to the fact that this translation allows the same
p.174
subject to continue through the sentence, there is another reason why this sense seems the best. To say (with the Authorized Version and New English Bible) that prophecy is designed for believers but not for unbelievers does not adequately explain the ‘therefore’, with which Paul introduces verses 23-25. In those verses Paul argues specifically that prophecy
does have a positive function for unbelievers. But on the translation that says prophecy is not for unbelievers, we have this strange reasoning:
(a) Prophecy is intended
not for unbelievers but for believers;
(b) therefore, you should prophesy
to unbelievers.
Such reasoning simply does not make sense, and a better solution is required.
We can conclude that, if an appropriate sense can be found for this translation, it is best to translate verse 22: ‘Therefore, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers . . . but prophecy
is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.’
The key to understanding this passage: ‘Signs’ can be positive or negative
Much confusion about this passage has resulted from an assumption that a ‘sign’ in Scripture must always function in the same way, usually in a positive way, as something that indicates God’s approval or blessing. If this is so, it is hard to understand why tongues are a ‘sign’ for unbelievers but then Paul says tongues will drive unbelievers away.
This problem can be solved, however, by realizing that ‘signs’ in Scripture can be either positive or negative, and sometimes both. If we trace the Greek term used for ‘sign’ (Greek
semeion) back into the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), we find many examples to show this.
In the Septuagint, the word ‘sign’ (Greek
semeion) can often mean ‘an indication of God’s attitude’. These indications are either positive or negative: positive towards those who believe
p.175
and obey God, but negative towards those who disbelieve and disobey him. Many signs are entirely positive: the rainbow (Gen 9:12-14) the blood on the doorpost (Ex 12:13) the invitation from the Philistines to Jonathan (1 Sam 14:10) the mark on the forehead (Ezek 9:4, 6) or any other signs sought by people who feel forsaken by God (Ps 74:9; 86:17)
Other signs are entirely negative, since they show God’s disapproval and warn of judgement unless repentance is quickly forthcoming:
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 26:10)
the bronze censers of these men (Num 16:38; cf. v. 40)
Aaron’s rod (Num 17:10)
the fulfilled curses (Deut 28:46)
the defeat of Pharaoh Hophra (Jer 44:29)
Ezekiel’s iron wall (Ezek 4:3; cf. also Ps 65:8, Is 20:3,2 Macc 15:35)
But sometimes the term can be used of signs which are both positive and negative, indicating God’s approval and blessing on his people and his disapproval and warning of judgement towards those who are disobeying him. This is especially true of the events of the Exodus: when God sent a plague of flies on the Egyptians but kept the flies out of the land of Goshen, it was a
sign of blessing to Israel but disapproval and warning to the Egyptians (Ex 8:23). The same signs and wonders can be negative signs to Pharaoh (Ex 10:1-2; 11:9-10; Deut 6:22,11:3; Neh 9:10) but positive signs to Israel (Deut 4:34-35; 6:22; 7:19; 26:8).69
In conclusion, ‘sign’, when used to mean ‘an indication of God’s attitude’, can take either a positive sense (indicating God’s approval and blessing) or a negative sense (indicating God’s disapproval and imminent judgement).
Also in the New Testament, ‘sign’ (
semeion) can mean ‘an
p.176
indication of God’s approval and blessing’ (Acts 2:22,43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 15:12; Lk 2:34; Jn 2:11; 4:54; 9:16; the word is also used this way outside the New Testament: compare Epistle of Barnabas ΑΛΑ, 1 Clement 51.5). It can also mean ‘an indication of God’s disapproval and a warning of judgement’ (Lk 11:30; 21:11, 25; Acts 2:19; perhaps Mt 12:39 [cf. 12:41]; 16:4; com- pare the use in a.d.95 in 1 Clement 11.2).
Summary of Paul’s meaning
The preceding information indicates that when Paul says ‘Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers’ (1 Cor 14:22), he is using ‘sign’ in a familiar and well-established sense. Towards those who disbelieve, signs as indications of God’s attitude in the Old Testament are always negative. They indicate God’s disapproval and carry a warning of judgement. This was precisely the function of the ‘other tongues’ in Isaiah 28:11 and Paul quite naturally applies the term ‘sign’ to them.
But ‘signs’ for those who believe and obey God in the Old Testament are generally positive. They indicate God’s presence and power among his people to bless them. Thus Paul can quite easily apply the term to prophecy in a positive sense. Prophecy is an indication of God’s approval and blessing on the congregation because it shows that God is actively present in the assembled church.70
This means that the word ‘therefore’, in 1 Corinthians 14:23 is quite natural. We can paraphrase Paul’s thought as follows:
When God speaks to people in a language they cannot understand, it signifies his anger and results in their turning farther away from him. Therefore (v. 23), if outsiders or unbelievers come in and you speak in a language they cannot understand, you will simply drive them away—this is the inevitable result of incomprehensible speech. Furthermore, in your childish way of acting (v. 20) you will be giving a ‘sign’ to the unbelievers which is entirely wrong, because their hardness of heart has not reached the point where they deserve that severe sign of judgement. So when you come
p.177
together (v. 26), if anyone speaks in a tongue, be sure someone interprets (v. 27); otherwise, the tongue-speaker should be quiet in the church (v. 29).
Similarly with prophecy, verses 24-25 follow quite easily from the statement in verse 22 that prophecy is a sign to believers. Once again we paraphrase Paul’s thought:
Prophecy is an indication of God’s presence among the congregation to bless it (v. 22). Therefore (v. 23), if an outsider comes in and everyone prophesies (v. 24), you will be speaking about the secrets of the outsider’s heart which he thought no one knew. He will realize that these prophecies must be the result of God’s working, and he will fall on his face and declare, ‘Truly God is among you’ (v. 25). In this way prophecy will be a sure sign to you that God really is at work in your midst.
Implications for the gift of speaking in tongues
It should be noted in connection with this passage that Paul’s reaction to this recognition of the sign function of tongues is not to forbid tongues in public worship, but to regulate the use of tongues so that they will always be interpreted when spoken in public (1 Cor 14:27-28). This seems to be a very appropriate response, for it is only incomprehensible tongues which have this negative function towards unbelievers, both in Isaiah 28:11 and in 1 Corinthians 14:23. But when a speech in tongues is interpreted, it is no longer incomprehensible and it no longer retains this ominous sign function.
Therefore, it is important to realize that in 1 Corinthians 14:20-23 Paul is not talking about the function of tongues in general, but only about the negative result of one particular abuse of tongues, namely, the abuse of speaking in public with- out an interpreter (and probably speaking more than one at a time [cf. 1 Cor 14:23, 27]) so that it all became a scene of unedifying confusion.
Concerning the proper public function of the use of tongues
p.178
plus interpretation, or the proper private function of speaking in tongues, Paul is elsewhere quite positive (1 Cor 12:10-11, 21-22,14:4, 5,18,26-28, 39). So to use Paul’s discussion of an
abuse of tongues in 14:20-23 as the basis for a general polemic against all other (acceptable) uses of tongues is quite contrary to the entire context in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
This crucial point, essential to understanding Paul’s meaning here, is completely overlooked by some Reformed and dispensational interpreters of this passage. For example, the fact that Paul is talking not about tongues with interpretation but about
uninterpreted tongues (which were
not able to be understood by the hearers) is overlooked by O. Palmer Robertson,71 and also by Zane Hodges.72 Neither Robertson nor Hodges adequately takes account of the fact that at Corinth any unbeliever who entered, whether Jew or Gentile, would not understand what was spoken in tongues. Paul repeatedly says that uninterpreted tongues could not be understood by the hearers at Corinth (see 1 Cor 14:2, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28). In fact, Paul’s main concern in 1 Corinthians 14 is to contrast intelligible with unintelligible speech.
In this connection, Robertson argues that tongues were a ‘sign’ of the transition between God’s dealing with Israel and his dealing with all nations.73 That might possibly be true in some contexts (such as Acts 22), but it is totally foreign to the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14, where Paul makes no mention of the Gentile inclusion or of judgement on the Jews—he contrasts not ‘Jews’ and ‘Gentiles’ but ‘believers’ and ‘unbelievers’. And because he does not specify
Jewish unbelievers, while there were certainly Gentile unbelievers visiting the church at Corinth as well, we must understand ‘unbeliever’ here as referring to unbelievers generally
(both Jewish unbelievers and Gentile unbelievers). Paul is using Isaiah 28:11-12 not as a prediction about Jewish unbelievers, but as an example or illustration (with reference to unbelievers generally). Realizing this, Carson is right to conclude that Paul cannot be speaking here of tongues as a sign of a covenantal curse on unbelieving Jews.74
p.179
Moreover, neither Robertson, nor Gaffin, nor Macarthur, all of whom use this ‘covenantal curse’ interpretation to argue against tongues today, take enough account of the fact that Paul’s solution in this passage is
not to forbid the use of tongues altogether, but to direct that tongues be used with interpretation (1 Cor 14:27-28). Since Paul approves tongues
with interpretation, they cannot be a judgement sign on unbelieving Jews.
Conclusion: How is prophecy a sign of God’s blessing?
Returning now to a consideration of prophecy, we are in a position to understand 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 more clearly. ‘If you all prophesy’ in verse 24 is probably to be understood as a hypothetical situation which Paul need not have thought would ever actually occur (note 1 Cor 12:29, ‘not all prophesy, do they?’).
Nevertheless, if several people prophesy, the outsider is ‘convicted’ of sin and ‘called to account’ by several different people (1 Cor 14:24), presumably in different ways or with respect to different matters. In this way the secret sins of his heart are ‘disclosed’ (1 Cor 14:25).
But does this passage mean that
specific sins of a
specific individual are mentioned in the prophecies? Might it not mean rather that there is some general preaching about sin, and the Holy Spirit applies it specifically to an individual’s heart, giving a sense of conviction of sin?
Although verse 24 might simply mean that the outsider hears some general prophecy or preaching and is inwardly convicted of his sin, this cannot be true of verse 25. Verse 25 must mean that specific mention of one or more of his particular, individual sins is made in the prophecies.75
This is true because of the meaning of the word used and because of the context. The word for ‘disclosed’ or ‘become manifest’ is the Greek term
phaneros. Both this word (eighteen times in the New Testament) and its related verb,
phaneroo,
p.180
(forty-nine times in the New Testament) always refer to a pub- lie, external manifestation, and are never used of private or secret communication of information, or of the internal working of God in a person’s mind or heart.
With regard to the context, the reaction of the outsider— ‘falling on his face he will worship God, declaring, ‘Truly God is among you’—is not normally one that accompanies even good preaching, but Paul seems quite sure that it will happen. Now Paul might have thought this would happen occasionally with a mention of general kinds of sins, but the statement as it applies to every situation like this is more understandable if he thought the prophecies would contain something very striking and unusual, such as specific mention of the visitor’s sins. The visitor will think that these Christians know things that could only have been revealed to them by God; they know the secrets of his heart! It seems to be the fact of knowledge acquired by ‘supernatural’ means, not merely the conviction of sin, which effectively convinces the outsider of God’s presence.
I have heard a report of this happening in a clearly non- charismatic Baptist church in the United States. A missionary speaker paused in the middle of his message and said some- thing like this: I didn’t plan to say this but it seems the Lord is indicating that someone in this church has just walked out on his wife and family. If that is so, let me tell you that God wants you to return to them and learn to follow God’s pattern for family life.’ The missionary did not know it, but in the unlit balcony sat a man who had entered the church moments before for the first time in his life. The description fitted him exactly and he came forward and acknowledged his sin and began to seek God.
This is why it is prophecy (rather than some other gift) which Paul calls a ‘sign to believers’. The distinctiveness of prophecy is that it must be based on revelation, and revelation as it functions in prophecy is always something which, Paul thinks, comes spontaneously and comes only from God (see Chapter 5). Where there is prophecy, then, it is an unmistakable sign or
p.181
indication of God’s presence and blessing on the congregation —it is a ‘sign for believers’—and even an outsider who visits will be able to recognize this.
We can now summarize the function of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25.
(i) Prophecy functions in evangelism to reveal the secrets of an unbeliever’s heart and thereby to amaze him with the power of God at work and to convict him of his sins.
(ii) In doing this, prophecy also serves as a certain indication (sign) that God is present and at work in the congregation to bless it and cause it to grow.
By implication from Paul’s example of the outsider we can further conclude that prophecy would also function from time to time to reveal the secrets of some believer’s heart, convicting him of sin and calling him to repentance. Although Paul does not cite this explicitly as a function of prophecy, it is certainly consistent with the picture of prophecy which we have found in these verses, and would fit perfectly well with Paul’s view of prophecy as resulting in edification and exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:3-5. Furthermore, it would allow prophecy to function in this way as a sign for believers not just when an out- sider comes in, but at any time. Thus Paul’s statement ‘but prophecy is a sign for believers’ could be understood as a more general statement, not restricted to the specific application to which Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25.
Application for today
We should heed Paul’s warning to the Corinthians and not be childish or immature when we think about our congregational worship. Specifically, we should not speak in tongues without interpretation, for that would be giving an inappropriate ‘sign’ of God’s judgement on the unbeliever, driving him or her away. (Those churches which do allow speaking in tongues should do it in the orderly way described in 1 Corinthians 14:27, and always with interpretation, as in verse 28.)
p.182
Mature thinking about prophecy would see it as something to be encouraged in the congregation, even when unbelievers are present. If prophecy is encouraged and allowed to function, it will convict both unbelievers and believers of sin, and will bring to the congregation a much more vivid sense that God is truly among them. It will be a ‘sign’ of God’s approval, of his presence, of his blessing on his people. We ought to see it as this and give thanks for it.
The Gift of Prophecy In the New Testament and Today, Wayne Grudem (1988) pp. 171-82
