(2) The criterion of order (14:26-40)
If edification and intelligibility are to be achieved when Christians gather, everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way (14:40). This arises from the character of God (v.33a).
The unifying concern of 14:26-38 is orderly worship. The solution to the problems with spiritual gifts in Corinth is not the exclusion of one of the gifts or of those who practice it, but regulation of its use by means of the criteria of order and intelligibility in worship. The five components of Corinthian worship that Paul mentions in 14:26 include the singing of hymns (see 14:15), giving words of instruction (see 12:28-29; 14:6), sharing revelations (14:6), tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. Is it significant or purely coincidental that he does not mention prophecy in the list (see v.37)? Paul offers no correction for the Corinthians' broadly based participation in one component or another of worship. He merely reminds them that everything done when they gather is to be directed toward the building up of the church.
Since Paul’s instructions presume that tongues-speakers may choose to speak or be silent at their discretion, he must assume that tongues are not spoken in a state of ecstasy, overcome by the Spirit. Rather, it seems to be a gift granting its recipients the ability subsequently to speak in tongues at will (Wesley, Notes on 14:27). Here, as in 12:10 and 14:28-30 (unlike 14:6, 13), Paul assumes that the interpreter is a different person from the tonguesspeaker. The gift of interpretation must similarly enable its recipients to interpret at will. If it were an endowment given only for a particular occasion, compliance with Paul’s instructions in 14:28 would be impossible. A tongues-speaker could never know whether an interpreter was present.
As with tongues-speakers, Paul presumes that the prophet is not in an ecstatic state when he/she speaks (v.32). A prophet is one already known to possess the gift of prophecy and who, as such, requires no immediate revelation to speak. Thus, for someone (whether known to be a prophet or not) to receive some kind of special revelation, determining the content of his/her prophecy (v.30) may be the exception rather than the rule. When this does take place, the prophet who has the floor is to control himself and defer to the other speaker.
The operative theological principle throughout 14:26-40 is that God is not a God of disorder but of peace (v.33a; see v.40). Paul assumes that the character of the Christian God (see Ro 15:33; 1Th 5:23) should determine the character of Christian worship. God’s people are to worship in this peaceful way so as to win the favor of others (see 7:15; 14:22-25; 1Th 4:11-12). This is what he expects of all of his churches.
Paul urges the Corinthians to demonstrate their spiritual insight by recognizing the divine authority of his instructions ordering corporate worship in 14:26-35. His opening rhetorical questions confront them with the reality that they are not the source or sole beneficiaries of the word of God. Paul’s questions seem intended to challenge Corinthian arrogance (cf. 4:7, 18).
What is speaking in tongues? It seems certain that it was the problem gift in Corinth. But contrary to the opinion of many interpreters, we cannot be certain that it was a problem because it was overvalued and abused. We should be cautious about assuming that the modern practice of tongues in charismatic circles and in Corinth are essentially similar—or different. The two nearly contemporary phenomena by the same name in Ac 2 and 1Co 12-14 appear to be quite different.
The evidence of 1Co 12-14 allows several safe conclusions about the phenomenon of tongues. It appears to have been some sort of noncognitive communion/communication with God, which neither the speakers nor their hearers could understand. The gift seems to have involved an endowment by the Spirit, which gave its recipients the ability subsequently to pray in this audible and inarticulate/unintelligible manner at will. Those who possessed the gift were benefited by using it, but those who heard it in a congregational setting not only received no benefit but were repulsed by it. Those with the gift of interpretation were able to transform the apparent cacophony of tongues into a meaningful and helpful message.
Yet a number of uncertainties remain concerning the phenomenon. What are we to make of the apparent contradiction between Paul’s call for diversity of gifts and his wish that all the Corinthians might have the same gifts—the ability to speak in tongues and to prophesy? Or of his refusal to exclude tongues from corporate worship settings despite his obvious reservations about its appropriateness there? Did one faction in Corinth reject the gift while another was preoccupied with it?
Such uncertainties should make us less dogmatic about taking sides in the contemporary debate. Because Scripture nowhere presents tongues as the necessary evidence of the Spirit-filled life, it is wrong for charismatics to pressure those who already enjoy the experience of the Spirit to seek the gift of tongues. Those who are dissatisfied with their experience of the Spirit should seek the Giver, not any one of his gifts. When he is with us, we excel in building up the church, not only ourselves. But if the sovereign Spirit allegedly endows another with the gift of tongues, who are we to dictate to the Spirit what he may or may not do? Who are we to forbid another from speaking in tongues when Scripture plainly teaches we must not? Who are we to exclude from the body of Christ one whose gift we do not possess (or understand) as if we have no need of him when Scripture plainly teaches that we must not?