Forbidden Tongues

When Paul says, “do not forbid the speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14: 39) it must be read in context. The Corinthians were making too much of the gift of tongues when they came together in assembly, but Paul teaches that prophecy is inherently more suitable in such a setting (see v5). If they intended edification when they came together, then the saints ought to “desire to prophesy” (v39). There may have been, however, a danger of an over-reaction to what Paul was saying and going from making too much of tongues to banning them altogether. Thus the apostle is careful to add “do not forbid the speaking in tongues” (v39). Of course, Paul is speaking specifically of what happened “whenever ye come together” (v26), and there would always be a need to “let one interpret” (v27) if speaking in tongues took place.

   What relevance does this have today? Scripture is its own interpreter, and there is no reason to believe that the word tongues in 1 Cor. 14 means anything different from what it does elsewhere (see Gen. 10: 5; Acts 2: 4 etc.)—languages particular to existing people-groups. The purpose of the gift of speaking in tongues normally alien to the speaker is not in question either: it is “a sign … to unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14: 22; see also Mark 16: 17). That sign is specifically for the Jew (see 1 Cor. 1: 22), referred to imminent judgment on the Jew (see 1 Cor. 14: 21), and had ceased by the time the fig-tree of Israel was cut down (see Luke 13: 9). We also have no prophets today, as prophecy is foundational (see Eph. 2: 20), the revelation is complete (see Col. 1: 25) and the current danger is not of false prophets but false teachers (see 2 Pet. 2: 1). Yes, there is a sense in which we may have ‘prophetic ministry’ today—for God’s living voice can still be heard in a distinct way—but this speaking is always from the revealed Word, and there are no fresh revelations as such.

   However, although miraculous tongues have ceased, and the prophets have passed away, the danger of quenching the Spirit (see 1 Thess. 5: 19) remains. If Corinth had forbidden tongues, they would have hindered the activities of the Spirit, even if they had rightly emphasised prophecy. The point about 1 Cor. 14: 26 is the variety of spiritual manifestations on display, and Paul does not criticize this variety, but only seeks to regulate it so that the assembly might be edified. Paul desired there to be prophecy more than tongues, but he certainly does not teach a rigid uniformity in how the meeting was to be conducted. A so-called ‘open meeting’ or meeting for ‘prophetic ministry’ that is convened in the expectation that such ministry will be delivered in a particular way owes more to ecclesiastical tradition than adherence to Scripture. It is easy to say that speaking in tongues is not forbidden when those who say such things do not really think there is a chance of such a gift manifesting itself in their midst. Would such, however, perhaps through unspoken disapproval, inhibit a brother reciting a “psalm” (v26)—that is, a recounting of his experience with God, perhaps even in poetic form? The very fact that some find the idea quite novel surely only reflects the inflexibility into which they may have slipped.