by Missionary David R. Cox
We need to go beyond the surface of this problem and examine the deep roots of the problem. First of all, tongues speaking is an experience oriented thing, and that being the case, emotional people gravity naturally to it. The Pentecostals preach tongues as an answer to the cold formalism in traditional Christianity. This point is where they win over us. The fact of the matter is that most "traditional" (Fundamental Baptists) just have no zeal or excitement for their Lord. They are dull, and dead spiritually. The Pentecostals present an alternative that "hits the mark."
So the problems which you have to be careful about in the issue is to not squelch any emotionalism or excite over the things of God. This is not good. But at the same time, the key issue of tongues speaking is authority. We (Fundamental, Bible believers) must orientate our spiritual lives around the authority of the Word of God, and not our experiences or emotions.
I earnestly believe that the same problem (emotionalism) has been cleaned up and brought into the church by many Baptist groups. To them a "good church" is one where a half dozen people have to shout "Amen, preach it brother!" all through a sermon for it to be good. If the preacher does not work the crowd up into an emotional frenzy, it wasn't a good service. These churches look at a church without an altar call, and many dozens coming down the aisle kneeling, praying, crying, and expressing a high degree of emotionalism, well, they just see any other kind of church as apostate.
Somewhere there is a scripture line which we must find and maintain. To me, that line is that God always appeals to our mind and intellect in and through the Scriptures. If you do not catch this balance, you are pretty much lost in the storm of all of this. Your church will grow into a cold formalism, or into a hot fire of emotionalism, and neither will be what God wants.
Some time back I was a member of an email forum for pastors. I posted something making mention of my disagreement with speaking in tongues. Unknown to me, a large number of those receiving and participating were Pentecostals. They bashed me. One asked if he could publicly (on that forum) debate me over the issue. I agreed. I asked to law down the guidelines. I said that I will debate him, but our authority has to be first and foremost the Scriptures, and whatever emotional experiences he has had, fine, but they mean nothing to me. He refused to go any further in the debate.
I have also talked long and hard with many a tongues-speaker, and it is the same. At the end of the talk, I place them in a situation where they cannot accept anything but that modern tongues speaking is demonic, and once there, their answer is always the same. They tell me, "Brother David, I don't know how to answer that, but I do know one thing, what I have is good (of God/biblical/etc), and I am going to pray for you that you speak in tongues and so that you know it is good too."
Why the fall back on this position? They have no answer to Scripture, so they resort to the authority of what they have experienced.
Tongues speaking is a great problem among our churches because it promotes a Christianity that is guided and oriented without following the letter of God's word, but following the emotions that happen at the moment. Fundamentalism is plagued by emotionalism that is baseless. We should be emotional some times when we sin Christ on the cross for our sins. But the roller coaster of spiritual highs and lows, and fomenting of these highs is exactly where modern (Fundamental) Christianity has gone.
Another issue here is that for tongues speakers, you are nothing if you have not spoken in tongues. This is an old trick of only the initiated being really of authority. This makes a class Christianity, with the experts and wise (read authorities) being only those who have had the experience. We will deal more with this later on.
In dealing with a person who speaks in tongues, you need to lay a good foundation for the talk. Only by agreeing before things get rough will you have any chance of truly making the biblical point with them.
The first thing you need to affirm with the person is that both you and he only have the Bible as an authority in rules of faith and practice. Here they will try to drag you over a barrel. They say "yes, exactly." They are biblical and you are not because they follow Acts 2 (speaking in tongues) and you do not. Okay, agree with them for the moment and tell them that you will deal with that later on. If they insist, then simply ask them if they follow everything anybody in the Bible did? Is fornication okay because King David did it? Is murder okay because King David did it? No. So we must take the events of the Bible in light of the whole teaching of the Bible on the situation.
So the first point which you have to make with the person is that our authority is the Scriptures. Once he agrees with you here, then ask him if our experiences are authoritative for ourselves and others? Simply they are not, and although you go to a local church and have a bad experience, that doesn't mean all churches are bad. I use the example of going to a doctor that prescribes something that makes you sickness worse. You don't write off doctors because one was very good or very bad.
Rule: Always interpret and put importance on the clear passages over the obscure passages.
The second point you need to affirm with the person is a point of hermeneutics, which is we always interpret the clear passages of Scripture first, putting more importance and authority on what God clearly teaches than on somebody's interpretation and explanation on a passage that is just unclear.
There is also another point that we need to touch on. It is typical of sects and false religion, religious doctrinal error, to take a word or concept found in the Bible and to redefine to mean something else that the Bible never really refers to. This happens in the dealings of tongues speakers. Tongues is not what you personally want it to be. We are under the rule of follow 2 Peter 1:20 which says Scripture is not of private interpretation.
Speaking in tongues has been redefined from what we find in the Bible to mean something else which is unbiblical. We cannot allow ourselves to follow this unbiblical practice that Pentecostals say is biblical tongues without a fight for defending the true biblical teaching.
Here let's start putting things into perspective. Let's study what the Bible says about tongues. Okay, for a moment, let's just say, all Fundamental Baptists are wrong, and all Pentecostal tongues speakers are right. Just for the sake of argument. Let's see what the Bible really teaches about tongues speaking, and let's clarify what and where our information is.
First of all, where are all the passages, especially the principal passages that teach on tongues. Ask the person what is the first and foremost passage on tongues. He should answer Acts 2. If he doesn't then he doesn't have a clue about what he is arguing. The next principle passage is 1 Corinthian 14 where it is mention 15x, and it is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 (12:10, 28, 30) and 13 (13:1, 13:8) as part of the discussion of the issue there. Outside of that it is mentioned in Mark 16:17. I know this passage is in a disputed part that there is a shorter ending of Mark which excludes it. That is another issue and it is best not to get sidetracked in that. After all the argument about including or excluding it, Mark 16:17 is not as clear and forceful as Acts 2 about which there is no dispute. So just don't go there. You will never finish the discussion about tongues if you do.
In Acts we have tongues occurring in Acts only in chapter 2, and two other places, 10:46, and 19:6. But we note that in both places, these passages do not say a whole lot about tongues, and are not as important as Acts 2 or 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Tongues are also mentioned in Revelation 11:9, and 13:7 in between the words "kindreds, and tongues, and nations" which is not speaking in tongues like we are discussing, but is simply a way of talking about foreign languages.
So the principle NT passages are basically Acts 2 as the first and most important passage to understand, and then 1 Corinthians 12-14 as a the second most important passage. Note that the Old Testament uses the words "tongue" and "tongues" a good bit, but almost all of those passages use them referring to a foreign language of the Syrians or Egyptians or whomever, or it refers to our use of our tongue in a good or bad sense, as in slandering our neighbor or praising God.
Isaiah 33:19 Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a stammering tongue, that thou canst not understand.
This passage is probably the only passage in the Old Testament that could be construed as referring to tongues as we are discussing the issue. But we will also mention three other Old Testament passages related to an Old Testament citation in 1 Corinthians 14:21 (in Paul's explanation of the matter).
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Deuteronomy 28:49 The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
Jeremiah 5:15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.
Note that first of all Paul refers to God's judgment on Israel by foreigners, whose language that they naturally speak is and will be unknown to them as they invade Israel and execute the judgment of God against Israel's rebellion. Part of the curse or judgment on Israel will be the language barrier. Here although it doesn't mention miraculous tongues, Genesis 11:1,7 does mention a curse of God on mankind by dividing mankind into cultures and different languages. So we have two Old Testament groups of passages where language differences as seen as the judgment of God on sin.
Moreover we need to note that in the fulfillment of this judgment in the Old Testament, all of the invaders into Palestine where the tongues were different and not understood by the Israelites were all normal, common foreign languages. We have absolutely no record of a foreign nation coming in speaking in gibberish or celestial speech, or anything but the normal foreign language of their nation. The fulfillment of this prophecy in Old Testament history of Israel does not show any miraculous tongues speaking, just foreign languages.
Let's start with the prophecy of tongues that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:22 to lay the background of why God allowed or used or sent tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:20-22 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Here we see in Paul's teaching on tongues an explanation of why tongues came about in the first place. We will deal more with this below in that section. But Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelieving Israel, and tongues were never given for believers. Here I would note that you can take that as not being for the believers in the church age. All true believers in Old Testament dispensation accepted Christ and joined the New Testament local churches. These are the disciples and apostles obviously. But all of them are believers, so tongues is not for them according to what Paul clearly says.
Okay, so our primary, most important passage on tongues simply is Acts 2. This is the centerpiece around which everything else has to fit. You cannot take positions on tongues that is in disagreement with what Acts 2 teaches. The day of Pentecost is the most important event in tongues speaking. (Most Pentecostals will fully agree with you here.)
Before we go to Acts 2, let's clarify a few more things. First of all, there are two views of speaking in tongues. The first is that it was foreign languages (the Bible position), and the second is that it was ecstatic speech (most Pentecostals hold to this position). What is ecstatic speech? This is speaking in a language which nobody on earth knows, something like the language of heaven, the language of angels. The reason the Pentecostals always take this position is because linguists (experts in the study of languages) have recorded Pentecostals speaking in tongues, and their conclusions are always the same. Either the linguists say that it is not any language on earth, and they defend their position by showing that there is not enough different sounds to make a language (most tongues is a few, half dozen or dozen sounds repeated over and over again), or that the tongues are an actual language (like Chinese, Japanese, etc). When the language can be identified, the linguists get experts in that language to check what they find and it is always the same. What was said was the most foulest and blasphemous cursing of God one has ever heard.
So for safety sake, they will always take the position of ecstatic speech.
So what does Acts 2 teach?
Acts 2:1-18 1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Here Peter mentions by name about 15 languages or language groups. So we have to take the obvious as the rule. If in the first and most important event of speaking in tongues, the tongues were normal foreign languages, then the burden of proof is on the Pentecostals to show it is something else somewhere else. Where is the clear passage overturning this? There isn't any. So we must define tongues as speaking in another foreign language.
Why do Pentecostals not like to concede this point? Because simple foreign languages does not build up an emotional event (or "spiritual high") in their churches and services. There is no impact in having a person come and speak in Latin like a miraculous, celestial language.
Here we deal with the miraculous of tongues. Where was it, in the speakers or the hearers? This is hard to say, but in the end, one thing is for sure. What was spoken on that day was a normal foreign language that everybody present understand to be a foreign language. This the Pentecostal will not like and will argue the point.
A second observation here is that the obvious purpose of tongues is different from all modern tongues speakers. Tongues in Acts 2 was so that the disciples could preach to the foreigners in their midst. These were Jews probably that had come for the feast of Pentecost, and perhaps had heard of Jesus. God used tongues speaking in order to preach "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (2:11). So then the point of tongues is to preach or teach doctrine to foreigners. This is simply a gravely missed point for all modern tongues speakers. Their tongues speaking is to build up the faith of people already saved, and that all speak in the same language as the normal church service and preachers. The point of tongues, the necessity of a tongues speaking miracle is simply missing in the modern context.
On this point, we note that God raised up foreigners who accepted Christ, and disciples who learned (as a normal person would learn a foreign language) to take the message of God to the world of the New Testament. Tongues was not the instrument chose for carrying the gospel to the nations, but normal people who studied the language of where they are going to minister. When I came to Mexico to learn Spanish, I met a Pentecostal couple in the language school I was studying in. It was a secular school for businessmen normally. In one of the breaks, they started a conversation, and when they found out I was Baptist, they started with their remarks about my deficiency in the teaching of the gifts of God. Frankly it irritated me, but I didn't say anything. When I had had enough, I asked them if they spoke in tongues. "Oh, yes, we have the gift of tongues and the filling of the Holy Spirit." I asked them why they were in language school then? Why didn't they just stand up in the street and preach in Spanish through the gift of tongues? They said that that is not how it works, because tongues speaking is ecstatic speech, not foreign languages. I then commented "how strange!? Because in Acts 2, Peter gave a complete list of the foreign languages that were spoken in the Day of Pentecost."
Study the passage well. There is no hint of speaking in ecstatic speech. What they did was perfectly understood by the foreigners present. We do not know that one person and only one person stood and spoke in tongues, nor do we know that a bunch spoke in tongues. The passage is not clear on this. But we do know that apparently Peter stood up and preached. At verse 14, Peter and the Apostles apparently started preaching, and it would seem that a possibility is that the sermon of Peter was what was spoken in tongues (foreign languages).
A key point here is verses 7-8 and 12. The accusation by the crowd was that these people were drunk. It is very clear that they spoke in intelligible speech, because of the comment, "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (2:11). So the question is how does a drunk person act, and out of all the possible conduct of a drunk person, which of them would fit what the disciples speaking in tongues were doing? A drunk person falls down, passes out, stumbles about, and throws up. I do not think any of those things would fit what the disciples speaking in tongues were doing. Drunk people at times also slur their speech so that it is hard to understand. This is a possibility, that they could not understand them. But it is not much of a possibility because obviously the people (foreigners) say that they understood the teaching of the tongues speakers which explained to them the wonderful works of God. So if slurred speech doesn't fit the context, how were they like drunk people?
Christ gives us a hint about this in Acts 1:8,
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Obviously what God had envisioned for the disciples and the coming of the Holy Spirit over them was power. This power is not miracles, but power to do the work of God. So to return to Acts 2:7-8 and 12, what was the comment about when the crowd accused them of being drunk? One other thing drunk people do is that alcohol typically lowers the barriers of property and reservation of the people. Drunk people do things and say things that non-drunk people do not do. I think of the drunk who when he gets really good and drunk will make a pass at the waitress.
These disciples who were speaking in tongues spoke boldly the gospel of Christ. Again we turn to a passage on down in the sermon of Peter, and we find Peter boldly accusing the Jews of having provoked and executed the death of the Son of God. Remember that only days before, the Jews were so boldly opposing the movement which Christ headed that they killed him. Now the movement having had the leader killed because of their teachings, is in the street boldly proclaiming that these same murderous Jews were guilty of Christ's death, who is God incarnate. The effect is one of two: (1) these same Jews will raise up and now slay the apostles and disciples, or (2) they will repent.
The miracle of Pentecost then is the power and boldness to preach the Word of God (doing the work of God), preaching the sinfulness of man, and the only viable solution, salvation in Jesus Christ. This is the only thing that fits the passage. Speaking in a foreign language is not a mark of a drunk person. This is especially so when you speak that foreign language and perfectly understand everything that they say. The passage does not say that these disciples or people who spoke in tongues did not know them beforehand. That is a possibly, although it is equally possible that God temporarily gave them the gift of speaking in another language to witness to this crowd.
So from this passage, the clearest and most important passage there is on tongues, what do we take away?
One of the principle points of understanding 1 Corinthians 14 is setting it in its proper context. If speaking in tongues is a special manifestation of God's Holy Spirit on a specially holy Christian, then we are to assume that tongues is limited to those who are specially spiritual, specially close to God, or at least during the miraculous speaking in tongues God's Holy Spirit comes and takes over and makes the person specially spiritual. But this is a grave problem.
Where would you rate the spirituality of the church at Corinth? Most all of the NT epistles are written to churches or groups that have spiritual problems and are fighting or falling for heresies. But compare for example the Corinthians with the Philippians. Corinth was the most carnal, ungodly, and unspiritual of all the NT churches. They even rejected Paul which started or founded their church. Paul's letters to the Corinthians are double what any other NT author wrote to a church. The problems were extreme and the lack of maturity and spirituality in their church was extreme. So how does that check with tongues speaking being a manifestation of the Holy Spirit in their lives? It doesn't.
What's more this problem goes deeper. Speaking in tongues is not limited to "good spiritual churches" but a lot of other people speak in tongues. Mormons, Catholics, and others all speak in tongues. How can it be possible that God would cause this special gift of the Holy Spirit among unbelievers? What's more, even Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions that would flat out ignore or refuse anything to do with Jesus Christ being the only Savior, they all speak in tongues or have within their religious experiences the speaking in tongues.
We go even further, anthropologists have documents the very exact same tongues speaking (ecstatic speech) experience among animist tribes, and people of little or nothing of Christian orientation. Moreover, it is clinically observed in medical literature than speaking in ecstatic speech is very common among the dementia and mentally deranged people in mental hospitals. How exactly is what God's Holy Spirit filling a person like crazy people and witch doctors? The thought has to make a person stop and reexamine his understanding on the issue.
The whole epistle to the Corinthians addresses their lack of spirituality, and not their superiority over the rest of Christianity. Read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians several times. It is obvious that the tone of Paul's words is that tongues speaking was a great problem among them, and was nothing which Paul was praising them for. He was rebuking them for what they were doing wrong, not praising them for speaking in tongues. Moreover, Paul nowhere commands all churches everywhere to learn from the Corinthians and imitate them, but 1 Corinthians (and 2 Corinthians) are presenting the unspiritual nature of this church.
While we are on the subject, let's ask a related question. Who was the most spiritual of all the New Testament? Wasn't it Jesus Christ? Didn't he have the Holy Spirit poured out on him without measure? Where and when does it say that Jesus spoke with tongues? It doesn't. This is lacking completely in the most spiritual man that ever walked the face of earth. Think about the proposition of all Pentecostals, "Those who speak in tongues have more of the Holy Spirit than the rest, and are the most spiritual Christians among us." It just is not so. It is illogical and against the evidence of Scripture.
Between 1 Corinthians 12 to Chapter 14, the word tongues is used some 22 times. If for no other reason, the sheer use of the word "tongue" or "tongues" makes us examine this passage with great care, putting a great amount of importance on what it teaches us.
Starting in chapter 12, Paul starts teaching on spiritual gifts. The whole issue is the theme of 1 Corinthians, the carnal attitudes, actions, and words of these people who were fighting among themselves, each boasting of being better (more spiritual) than the rest. From chapter 1, Paul rebukes the Corinthians because they were separating one from another on the basis of issues, people, gifts, ministries, just anything they could find to fight over, they were using to fight each other.
Paul's whole point in this passage is NOT TO TEACH ON TONGUES. Paul is not giving us the command to speak in tongues, nor is he teaching us what tongues is (Acts 2 does this), etc. Paul's issue is the personal problems between brethren in this church, that was destroying any possibility of love and spiritual care like God has commanded to exist in a local church.
In 12:10 we have the first two mentions of tongues, the idea here is that "tongues" are foreign languages. The phrase, "to another divers kinds of tongues" (divers is not in the original Greek), gives us the idea that tongues is being considered as a foreign language. Here we also run into a great problem. In Acts 2, our most important passage of the whole Bible on tongues, there is no interpreters mentions, simply people speaking in tongues, and people understanding what is spoken.
If we hold firmly to the teaching of Acts 2 that tongues is preaching the gospel or the Word of God in a foreign language, then all this makes perfect sense. There are different foreign languages, and some people have the gift of preaching in a language that is not their mother tongue. Other people have the gift of interpreting for other peoples (in their foreign language). Being bilingual myself, I admit that the two are extremely separated. I can preach in Spanish fairly well, but I cannot translate for other English speakers into Spanish very well at all. That just is not my "gift".
In verse 28 of Chapter 12 we have our next mention of tongues. Notice here that Paul uses "diversities of tongues". Again the term "genos" or race, offspring, family, stock, nation, nationality, etc. is used with tongues as a spiritual gift. The idea here is that God gives the ability of some to communicate well in a foreign language (foreign to them in that they do not have that language as their "mother tongue").
Having spent years studying Spanish in order to ministry in a Spanish speaking country, it is irritating to me that people want to make this gift a gift of pure miracles. I consider myself as a pastor-teacher to also have a gift of teaching, and the gift of preaching. In both of those cases, I never stand in my pulpit without spending hours of preparation for that particular pulpit speaking event. Moreover I have spent some 7 years in Bible college and seminary preparing for this ministry, and I consider all the extra time every week in reading, brushing up on Greek grammar, church history, etc. as being all what is necessary to prepare me to do my ministry. To say that God is not in anything I am doing because I work and prepare is ridiculous. When Peter stood up to preach on the day of Pentecost, he probably studied the night before under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Standing up on that day, it might well have been that Peter preached in his native tongue (Aramaic or Greek), and that someone else who had the gift of interpretation interpreted his words for the foreigners present. There is no reason to exclude this as a possibility of the events of Acts 2, because they coincide with the details we find in 1 Corinthians about tongues.
In 1 Corinthians 12:30, the two (we suppose speaking in tongues and interpreting in a foreign language) are lumped together in the simple "do all speak with tongues?"
Next in 1 Corinthians 13:1, the word "tongues" here is simply foreign languages. I would note that the word "angels" really is the word messenger, and we interpret it as "angel" or "messenger" based on the context. Whereas in English, we see this word "angel" as a spirit being, both Hebrew and Greek treat it as a messenger, human or celestial spirit, both included, and neither one in particular specifically indicated. Therefore the idea here is that Paul says, although I speak in common languages or the languages of messengers, if I have no love... The point being that in the world of their day, the hearers would understand this as being in the common Greek of the common people and business, or in the Latin, the language of government.
Now we come to 1 Corinthians 13:8.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Here we note that "Charity" means simply "love." There is a lot of debate about this verse, and the issue is call the cessation position of tongues. But the bottom line here is that Scripture says tongues will cease. This is stated in 1 Corinthians, one of the first epistles written of the New Testament. Did tongues cease or not? We have to just answer "yes, tongues ceased." The position here should not be based on just interpreting the verse which is not clear in its comparison of tongues ceasing with prophesying ceasing, and knowledge ceasing. I would note that there is a gift of knowledge given by the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:8, and this speaks of a special spiritual gift ceasing, not that we will stopping knowing things, like one day we all become vegetables.
My point is very simple, in church history, tongues ceased in New Testament times, and it was not until 1800 with the Irvingites in Scotland that tongues began to be practiced once again, and this was not biblical tongues (preaching in foreign languages in some kind of miraculous way, but was ecstatic speech). But before we leave the point, let's point out that if you order the NT epistles to the churches by date (Acts is a historical book that recounts events, so it should be taken in account what is said about tongues chapter by chapter as the events unfold), 1 Corinthians is one of the first books, and shortly there after tongues is never again mentioned by any sacred writer. Not even Paul writing to the Corinthians in their second epistle did he mention tongues again. It is unbelievable that there were no questions about what speaking in tongues is, or its misuse in the worship services if it was common and wide spread throughout all the New Testament churches. Corinth was a multi-cultural city with many different cultural and language groups which explains part of their tongues problem.
But the bottom line here is that tongues ceased, and throughout the years after first Corinthians was written, the only comments about tongues was wonder about how it was when they did speak in tongues. There were no observations of tongues speaking in the history of the church until 1800.
There is one single exception, that of Montanus. Montanus lived about 150 after Christ, and so he was about 50-70 years after the apostles. He was a priest in the Mystery Religions and supposedly was born again and put his faith in Christ. He started a church and called two women to leave their husbands and be his priestesses. They did, and he began what is typical in the Pentecostal churches today. He would enter into a trance like state, roll around on the ground, and speak in tongues. His priestesses would interpret his "prophecies" for the group. The other neighboring churches gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while, but in the end, all Christian churches rejected the entire group as heretics and forbid them at the Lord's Table. Their observation was very astute. They said that Montanus acted like he was demon possessed, rolling around on the ground, and making unintelligible sounds. They identified this as demon possession and treated it as such. The conclusion of the story is that Montanus upon receiving the news of their declarations against him, went out and hung himself, and one of his priestesses did likewise, the other fled. Between 1 Corinthians 14 and 1800, this is the only singular case of someone in a Christian church speaking in tongues.
We should be very quick to also add that tongues speaking is not unique to Christianity, but most or at least a good number of the ancient religions had some kind of tongues speaking in their religion. The mystery religions had tongues speaking, and this went back to 200 years before Christ. All of these religions were distinct and different from the Bible's tongues speaking because they had referred to ecstatic utterances that nobody really understood, and the Bible has a clear cut difference in that it was foreign languages for the purpose of teaching and evangelism.
There is one important passage we must look at here before going on. This is Isaiah 8:11, 18-20.
Isaiah 8:11 For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,
Isaiah 8:18-20 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Isaiah identified the false prophets as supposed ministers of God that "peep and that mutter". This phrase means to chatter and to growl or moan. The idea is that they made sounds that were not identified as speech, intelligible words. This is the same as ecstatic speech. The growling idea is exactly what the Pentecostals now teach as the Spirit of God. Isaiah called Israel to avoid and reject these false prophets who are consulting with "spirits", uttering things that is just ecstatic speech. Isaiah called them to return to the Word of God.
Before we further exposit 1 Corinthians, let's do a little background work of Corinth to understand their history and background. Around 200 before Christ there was a religion at Corinth which was the religion of love, based around Aphrodite. This goddess of love religion exalted sex. The love that they promoted was free sex, and specifically they "preached" against sins like marriage, commitment between a couple, living together as man and wife in sexual fidelity, etc. Some of their ideas were that if a couple wanted to get married (which was against their ideology) at least don't go into the wedding as virgins. They advised that both lose their virginity (to someone else) before the wedding.
All in all, it was a religion that even Rome rejected. The Roman senate debated banning the religion altogether in 200 BC, and about 100 years later, they sent troops into Corinth, destroyed the city, and carried off or ran off all the inhabitants of Corinth. On a hill overseeing the bay, was the temple. They would use a gong (same words used by Paul in 1 Cor 13:1 "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal") to call the faithful to worship each evening, and this meant that those who wanted could come to their temple and worship with their beautiful females (i.e. have free sex with them). Mention of 1,000 such priestesses were available at one time. Male prostitutes were also available, which were mainly for the homosexuals. Of course there was a monetary "offering" expected after "worship."
Since Corinth was situated on a narrow strip of land between two large land masses, those traversing the Mediterranean Sea would take this short cut and avoid the bad weather going the long way around. So the city was famous for sailors. Moreover several caravan routes passed through there so everybody in the region wanted their soldiers there to prevent taxation by others. Political concerns entered and Corinth became a hot bed of different cultures, languages, and interests.
After the break up of this religion by the Romans, in time the same people moved back to Corinth, and restarted their religions. But this time they changed their religion so as not to anger the Roman government again. This renewed religion was now called a Mystery Religion (like they are not going to make their secrets public any more). At first there were four or more, but with time, they copied among themselves and eventually all became identical and merged together.
What is important at this point is to realize that all of this mystery religion had a certain belief system and practice system, and that the actual names of their gods became unimportant. For our study of tongues is it best to focus on how this system was the precursor of the modern holiness-Charismatic-Pentecostal movement.
The basic tenets of the Mystery Religions were four:
(1) The most important thing is to feel good and an mystical emotional religious experience.
For these religions, there was a slight chance from the Aphrodite religion. Instead of sexual intercourse as the maximum thing in their thinking and religion, now it is the good feeling (not specifically defined). This allowed the to follow the same course as the Aphrodite religion but avoid the ire of Roman Centurions. The point is that feelings is what this religion is all about. It is not facts and doctrine, but about what makes you feel good. This is an exact and accurate description of the modern Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement exactly.
In ancient Corinth they arranged a "praise service" or "worship service" around provoking certain feelings in the people present. There were plays, parades, nude women, wine, and drugs. The important thing to understand is not that modern Pentecostals have these things, but that the entire environment of the service was orchestrated to produce a good feeling.
One of the great causes of defections from Fundamental churches to Pentecostal churches has been this excuse, "I attended the Baptist church for years, and every time I leave a service, I feel bad. They preach at me telling me I am a sinner and need to change. I just got fed up and decided to find something else. I go to my new church, and every time I leave I feel good about myself."
The issue here is sin and repentance from sin, in order that first we may be saved, and secondly, once saved, we may live holy lives. This is at cross purposes with this movement. Modern Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement (which seeks to remove the denominational lines from the same teaching and take the same to Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) both stand on the Mystery Religion foundation of feel good emotionalism.
Very often in debating with Pentecostals about the biblical or unbiblical nature of tongues, the excuse or defense comes up, "You have to try it to know it. Don't condemn something that you have never tried." I have never tried taking poison, but I will take others' word for it that it will make me very sick and kill me. I do not need to try something to know it is wrong for me.
(2) Prominent Use of Women.
Another key aspect of the Mystery Religions was their new use of women within the administration and leadership of their religion. In this time of the world, women were often considered in many cults to not have souls, and women were bought and treated like cattle. Men would take a woman (marry in our use of the concept is a little different from the ancient world's view of things), and divorce (separate from) her pretty much as a race horse farm owner in Kentucky today would buy and sell a fine race horse. There are some expectations, and nobody wants to see even an animal deal with cruelly. But in the end analysis, the ancient world deal horribly with women. If you study it out, only in Judaism and Christianity were women elevated to a rank above men. They are to be protected from the rough stuff of the work and the world of secular employment.
But even in Judaism and Christianity, women had a subservient place in religion.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Paul, as part of his teaching on the requirements of a pastor (administrative leader and religious knowledge teacher), set forth the prohibition of women taking authority over men. This is not Paul's macho attitude showing through here. This is the commandment of God. There is a dealing with sin in the issue, and Paul in the following verses lays that out. Eve was given to Adam with the purpose of being his "helpmate", not his lord. Adam was not free in his lording over Eve, but God laid it out as each had different responsibilities in the home and work world. Adam had to submit to God, Eve had to submit to Adam. Sarah is praised because she submitted to Abraham (who at times did not act very godly or honest).
The Mystery Religions had a new approach to things in that women were "used" prominently in the worship services. Remember we are working on a feel good basis here, and beautiful women, especially announcers and program leaders that beautiful nude women are the most pleasing to the unsaved and unregenerate heart.
The issue here is not that Christianity is anti-woman. The Mystery Religions "used" women to manipulate their members and enslave them in a feel good, sensual cult. Television in general has made extensive use of women because men want sexy women to look at. There is nothing noble in being used this way.
While they gather and retain vast crowds by the sexy women on the platform, we put an old ugly pastor up there to talk to us. We have to listen to what he says, because we surely aren't coming to look at him! There is psychology in all of this. God removes this element because it is not visually pleasing to watch an old cranky man talk. No distraction. The Pentecostal churches even those with male pastors still want a "praise" section of their services with sexy or good looking women.
The constant return to these external forms is very important to understand. Pentecostalism is a return to the old Mystery Religion, and there is an unknown, and invisible tendency to go back to their roots! Who is guiding this except the devil and his demons?
(3) Excessive preoccupation with the devil and demons.
Speaking of the demons, the Mystery Religions had a preoccupation with them. It is interesting to observe that many times Satan uses a tactic of direct revelation of what he really is, and then accusing that very same thing. In other words, Satan accuses and preaches against demons by means of demons. It is brilliant. It is so obvious that nobody even sees it.
Let's just analyze for a moment. What is the singular mark of demon possession? A person loses his own faculties to take on the personality, actions, and attitudes (and foul mouth) of the demon. The father of the demon possessed lad mentions that the demon throws him into the fire and into the water often. The loss of control is in view here, and this loss of control because the demon is controlling the person is demonism 100%.
What do modern Pentecostals promote? (1) Speaking in tongues, where they define it as you losing control to God's Spirit, which moves your physical tongue in your head without you doing it. They severely rebuke the false speaking in tongues when somebody makes noise under control of himself just to fit in with the crowd. (2) slain in the spirit - here the spirit enters your body and throws you to the ground against your control where you roll around as sick demon possessed person, at times making sounds of animals. The common element in all of this is the total loss of control of one's own self. We will return to this later on this page.
Are demons and Satan real? Yes. But read carefully Matthew 16:23. Jesus rebukes directly Satan who had taken possession of Peter, and was prompting Peter to stop Jesus from arriving at Calvary. This is satanic by any measure. But Jesus rebuked what Peter was suggesting, but Jesus never exorcised a demon from him. He rebuked him at the point of what the influence was suggesting to the person to do wrong. The idea of casting out a demon out of a child of God generates a great conflict because who owns and occupies the house? The Spirit of God, not the demon. He may poke his head in the door, but they cannot enter, because the Holy Spirit is already there.
The Pentecostals have developed a whole area of practice and doctrine called liberation which hinges on casting out demons from their people. But at the same time they are promoting what is demonic influence and control in their services.
God's manner of dealing with demonic influence, which is originally where all sin has come from, is different. Notice that throughout the Bible, the guiding principle that we have is that God appeals to the soul (what wants within us) through the mind. God gives us his word, and then waits for us to want to obey it. God does not take control over our lives, and cause us to do things we do not willingly want to do.
When was the last time God's order of witnessing overtook you, and you grabbed some tracts, walked out in a street and started handing them out without you controlling your body? God does not take control over a person's body, but comes in by invitation and personal desire.
Galatians 5:22-23, the fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control. Simply put demons work on a single invitation to come in then they take control and you lose control. God works on the basis of showing you His will in His Word, and afterwards helping you with power and understanding to comply with that will and Word. The manner in working is starkly different one from the other.
(4) A manner of working which deemphasizes doctrine in order to exalt experiences and feelings.
Here we must understand that these religions were not without their doctrines and teachings, yes they had them. But the main working instrument in promoting their religion was not their teachings but their practices. What hooked people on their religion was the practices which caused people great problems in abandoning.
Image a church where free sex with beautiful women, all you want, every service, and no guilt! This was your church, your religious institution promoting this! Of course it became additive in a heartbeat. That is the whole point. The emotional appeal of what they were offering dominated their members such that it was extremely difficult to "just walk away".
One of the particular points here that is extremely important is that they spoke of an encounter with god. Up to this point, most pagan religions had leaders which had some kind of vision or encounter with God (think Abraham, Joseph's dream, Jacob's ladder, the transfiguration, etc). But the common people were out of that loop.
The Mystery Religions were extremely different and new in that they held that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER (initiated correctly into their group) had an encounter with God. In fact they invented a word, "enthusiastic" which in Greek means, God in you. Whereas we consider a person to be initiated into Christianity when they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, they considered a person a member when they had this encounter with God. Another word they invented was "ecstasis" or you being out of yourself (body).
You leave your body and god enters your body to control it. This is pure demonism with a pretty face.
It is important to understand that modern Pentecostalism works on this very same foundation. Talk to Pentecostals and their first concern is if you have had this encounter with God. Some use the terminology "baptism in the Spirit," others "slain in the Spirit", and others speak of "speaking in tongues", but all are the same. It is a spiritual, supernatural encounter whereby a person loses control to the Spirit which comes in and controls against your will.
If I (Baptist Pastor) say "God's Spirit moved me to knee and pray for 6 hours straight." They will make fun of me, saying "that is good but is not what we are about." Why? Because God shows me the need of prayer so I pray? If I say "I felt led of the Spirit to preach a sermon on such and such a topic." No. The point and issue here is that you did not lose control. But if I say like the early Pentecostal preachers, a woman preacher in Los Angeles who started preaching on Sunday morning, went into a trance and spoke in tongues until Monday morning and didn't even know what she had done or that it was Monday when it was all over, then they say that is what we are about. "They are about" the supernatural loss of control to the controlling spirit (which they assume is the Holy Spirit even though the person may be involved with sin, like a woman preaching and teaching). When you begin to see how this foundation of the Mystery Religions fits in perfectly with what the modern Pentecostal movement is doing, you understand how dangerous this movement is.
The first thing we have to understand is what 1 Corinthians 14 is all about. Paul is not teaching us what we don't know about tongues. Furthermore Paul is also not teaching these Corinthians and us some new doctrine or practice that all should practice. The very fact that only two passages in the Bible really speak anything definitive about tongues should make the wise exegete cautious. What Paul is doing is throwing cold water on the entire Corinthian tongues speaking experience. Paul wanted to correct an incorrect and problematic practice in the Corinthian church.
I have studied many books which explain this passage and explain speaking in tongues as a biblical practice, and I cannot see where the majority of them make any sense of the passage at all. If we want to twist and turn and produce new doctrine and practice that was never in the Bible, then the majority of these books do just that.
Tongues according to Acts 2 is God's servants preaching and teaching and giving the gospel to foreign unsaved people so that they can understand and be saved or grow spiritually, clarify their understanding of Christ as Savior. You just cannot read Acts 2 honestly without accepting that.
If we take that one fact to 1 Corinthians 14, we unlock the meaning of the entire passage. The Corinthian situation was that there were Bible teachers who came to the church to preach, and they needed an interpreter. The Corinthian church was made up of different ethnic and language groups, and there was a "room of the unlearned" (people who needed an interpreter to put the preaching into their own language). If we read 1 Corinthians with this in mind, it makes a lot of sense. Being a missionary on the mission field, the words are very to the point of some situations we find ourselves in.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Here we see exactly what the Roman Catholic did for years, they had mass in Latin when nobody except the priest himself understood what was being said. When a foreign preacher comes, he needs an interpreter. Preaching in a foreign language that nobody present understands is not any great and wonderful thing. Period.
1 Corinthians 14:3-4 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
Paul gives the purposes of public speaking in the church's services: edification, exhortation, and comfort. When a foreign preacher speaking a "tongue" (foreign language) preaches, he may be saying wonderful things, but he only edifies himself and nobody else.
1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Paul lays down the rule that there is to be no speaking in a language that those present cannot understand. Why? Without everybody being edified, it is not of God, it does not please God.
Verses 6-11 is an elaboration on why we are not to have speeches in the church in languages that we (the people in the audience) do not understand. If a foreigner comes, there must be an interpreter, otherwise he is not to be given the opportunity to speak publicly.
1 Corinthians 14:13-15 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Here we see this Roman Catholic practice again of saying prayers in say Latin or some other language that we do not know. It would seem to be of value and fruitful because of the awesomeness of praying in a foreign language, but Paul clarifies that without you understanding what you are praying, it is worthless. You must preach, teach, pray, and sing all in languages that you and the congregation understand, or insist on an interpreter, or be quiet and not participate.
1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Here Paul locates the Acts 2 event in relation to tongues speaking. The tongues of Acts 2 which the day of Pentecost basically as a whole on that year is a rejection of Israel by God. This is in response to their killing Jesus, the Son of God. It is unthinkable that God would let such an important event pass by without a major prophetical event which would clarify to the Jews the consequences of their actions. Acts 2 does this. Moreover since the Jews of Palestine looked down on the Gentiles as a whole, this whole rejection by God of the Jews and Israel, and God's opening up to the Gentiles is exactly what is called for. Every time the foreigners came into the Jews' life it was for judgment. This time is no different.
The acceptance of foreigners and the public preaching in foreign languages is a sign of the fall of the Jewish nation from the Grace of God. Paul's point here is exactly that, believers speaking of tongues (foreign languages) is a testimony to the failure of the Jews to fulfill that mission of God to them to reach the world with their God, Jehovah. At this point in time (1 Corinthians 14), the sign aspect of tongues was over and another aspect of this speaking in foreign languages was fully underway. This new aspect was non-Jews (Gentiles) who had accepted the Lord, and now were in the principle positions of teaching, preaching, and leading the new thing God invented to replace the Jewish nation, and that is the local church.
Here we have a brief glimpse of a New Testament church with these foreign speakers coming and going. This is basically the situation, and it was accepted by all Christians and the Jewish believing community and the Apostles. But the Corinthians had a background in the Mystery Religions, and some of their people had twisted this situation into a rerun from their old religion, a supernatural experience or encounter with God.
Paul corrects this by stating that ecstatic speech or foreign language preaching or anything else that does not put the teaching or the words being said into the common dialect of the people present just is not of God.
Here we need to understand what Paul is doing. Paul understood the Mystery Religions and their history in these people. Paul is giving these people spiritual criteria so that they can judge when something is truly of God, and when the red alarm lights should come on that it is not of God.
(1) If it does not edify, exhort, or comfort, or if the rank and file membership doesn't understand it, it is wrong.
Our verses up to now basically establish this point.
1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
Let's define edifying a little bit. The concept of something that edifies is not that it feels good, or it makes me feel good, but rather is something that is spiritually good for me. The different is like the difference between cotton candy and peas. Any kid will choose cotton candy over peas, because he likes the feeling of eating cotton candy. But peas are good for him.
Here we have to reject the general Pentecostal working principle that everything has to make the congregation feel good, feel "up" or on high spiritually and emotionally. The bottom line is that this is exactly the opposite of what we see in Scripture. John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, etc. all preached against sin, essentially making those people "feel" bad for their sins. Peter on the day of Pentecost pushed the blood and homicide of Jesus into the bloody hands of the Jews present. That surely wouldn't have felt good to any real believer.
The harsh preaching against sin is a common element in the Scriptures, from Old Testament to New Testament, and we cannot see how this can be removed from the mix without doing grave injustice to God.
(2) Foreign preachers are limited to two or three, and those by turn.
(3) Without an interpreter, a foreign language speaking preacher cannot speak publicly.
1 Corinthians 14:27-28 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
The rule which God lays down is that in any one service (we would assume that this is one service or on a given Sunday) that the limit of foreign speakers is three. Always the rule being that with each one, they must have somebody else who has the gift of interpretation to translate their foreign language sermon into the language of the people present.
Here we have to lock ourselves into tongues speaking being simple foreign languages. One key point here is that in Acts 2, we read of no interpreters, and here the one speaking in tongues is unable to make his speech known to those present without an interpreter. Either Acts 2 had interpreters meaning that it was a less miraculous situation than many want to take it as, or they were not needed then, but in 1 Corinthians 14 they were needed. These all speaks highly of just being a regular foreigner preaching, and Acts 2 of something more miraculous perhaps. If these are our clearest texts on tongues speaking and these are not that clear what was happening, it is difficult to see how people today twist this to get whatever they want out of it.
(4) Total preaching or teaching allowed is 3, and everyone is to judge the sermon or teaching.
1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
Here I would take prophets speaking as a specific kind of teaching. Prophetic utterances are generally misunderstood today. They were not primarily direct revelations of God. That is not what makes them so important. What made them so important is that they were rebukes of the sins of the people present via a direct revelation of God to the prophet who communicated this burden to the people. It is not necessarily miraculous as we see the prophets studying those inspired writers who walked before them or were contemporaries with them.
Here prophetic teaching is a teaching which is a pointed attack against the sins of the people, in which the will of God is clearly declared to them. In this sense prophecy is still with us today in some sermons in some churches. It is not always a direction NEW revelation, but it is the burden of the Lord pressed upon a sinning people. Here think of Nathan the Prophet who rebuked King David with "Thou art the man!" This is biblical prophecy in its true sense, and it is naive to think that the only prophets in all history through the end of the New Testament were those mentioned in Scriptures. They were not alone. Elijah complained of being alone in the cave and God revealed that he had a great host of servants just like him but unknown to him.
(5) Ministers are always, 100% under control of their own wills.
1 Corinthians 14:30-32 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Where exactly do you find in the Bible men of God losing control of themselves under the direction of God? This is a common concept in Pentecostal circles (tongues, slain in the spirit, holy laughter, etc), but it is extremely alien to the Scriptures presentation of things.
(6) God only allows orderly conduct, and God is not in any kind of confusion or turmoil.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Here let's just consider for a moment when a church full of people begin to all speak in tongues at the same time. Is this of God? God is not in confusion, an endless stream of speakers, speakers who talk and the congregation does not understand, nor people losing control. This is exactly what the Pentecostal churches seek in their services, this confusion.
(7) Only men are allowed to speak, preach, teach, or lead in the services and ministry of a church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Paul gives us a good criteria here for knowing something is of God. This criteria is that it absolutely must be given by males if men are present. Women speaking or "having the word" is a slam in the faces of all men present. This is a sign that what is going on is not of God.
Paul ends this section with the following verses:
1 Corinthians 14:37-40 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Here Paul says that if you think you are spiritual, then acknowledge these things Paul is presenting is of God. If you refuse to acknowledge them, then just be ignorant. In other words, you are self-righteous and arrogant, and far from God.
Paul puts in a final exhortation here, desire to prophesy and forbid not to speak in tongues. Here we must see prophesying as basically preaching, which Paul exalted as a really good thing for you and the church. Paul also says not to forbid the foreign preachers to come and preach. This would be a natural extreme reaction to being rebuked for the wrong practices that they were being rebuked for. It is not wrong for foreign preachers to come speak (under the rules and conditions that Paul sets out) but this is not really something that we are to seek. We are to seek out good preaching period.