4

1 Corinthians 14:22:

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. [KJV]

22 so that the tongues are for a sign, not to the believing, but to the unbelieving; and the prophesy [is] not for the unbelieving, but for the believing, [YLT]

22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. [NASB]

In what sense is speaking in tongues a "sign" to unbelievers?

A sign of what?

Why would an unbeliever see it as a sign?

Related:

  • It would only be a ‘sign’ if their natural mind could comprehend what was spoken. So the ‘tongues’ in this case would need to be a ‘known’ language that the speaker was not trained in, but the hearer understood. – Dave Dec 23 '21 at 22:56
  • @Dave - but the question is: does the 'sign' come from the content of what the speaker is saying, or from the fact that the hearer knows that the speaker is speaking miraculously in an unlearned language? In other words, is the hearer aware of the fact that a miracle is taking place? –  Dec 23 '21 at 23:00
  • 2
    The ‘key’ term is ‘sign’. Biblically a ‘sign’ is some un-natural [supernatural] event that is ‘seen’ via natural senses [seen, heard, felt] but for which there is no ‘natural’ explanation. So “is the hearer aware”? Yes, or else it wouldn’t be a ‘sign’. – Dave Dec 24 '21 at 00:22

1 Answers1

3

The word σημεῖον (sémeion) is used in the NT in two senses (BDAG):

  1. a sign or distinguishing mark whereby something is known, sign, token indication, eg, Luke 2:12, 2 Thess 3:17, etc.

  2. an event that is an indication of confirmation of intervention by transcendent powers, miracle, portent, Matt 12:38, 16:1, 4, Mark 8:11, 12, 16:17, John 2:11, 18, 23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 14, 26, 30, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12:18, Acts 4:16:22, 8:6, 1 Cor 1:22, Rom 15:19, Heb 2:4, 2 Cor 12:12, etc.

I would argue that is in this latter sense that σημεῖον (sémeion) is used in 1 Cor 14:22, thus we would have:

So then, tongues are for a miracle, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe.

That is, the spiritual gift of tongues is for the purpose of reaching unbelievers when they cannot speak the same language, not for showing off in church services. That is, if an apostle find unbelievers who do not speak the same langues, then the Spirit might elect to enable the apostle to speak their language in order to evangelize them.

This is confirmed by other statements in the same chapter of 1 Cor 14:

  • V4 - but the one who prophesies edifies the church.
  • V5 - I wish that all of you could speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be edified.
  • V9 - So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
  • V14, 15 - For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What then shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
  • V19 - But in the church, I would rather speak five coherent words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
  • V23-25 - So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who are uninstructed or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if an unbeliever or uninstructed person comes in while everyone is prophesying, he will be convicted and called to account by all, and the secrets of his heart will be made known. So he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is truly among you!”
Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • Very fine answer. +1 Do you make a distinction between the speaker being enabled to speak a language he does not know and the hearer being enabled to understand a language he does not know. I ask because Acts 2 sounds like lots of different people groups (and languages) understanding single individuals speaking and it seems unlikely that they were speaking multiple languages at the same time. – Mike Borden Dec 23 '21 at 22:03
  • I fail to see how verses 23-25 serve as a confirmation. Those verses seem to suggest that prophecy is more effective for converting unbelievers than tongues. –  Dec 23 '21 at 22:03
  • @MikeBorden - I think Acts 2 is a case of both gift of tongues (on the believers) and gift of interpretation of tongues (on the unbelievers). –  Dec 23 '21 at 22:05
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - that is the point - all communication must be in a language that both speaker and listener understand. Both V22 and V23-25 are true - when the apostle speaks to unbelievers who do not speak his language, by the gift of tongues he speaks their language. But in church, if everyone is speaking in an unknown language, then unbelievers will thing that are all "out of their mind". – Dottard Dec 23 '21 at 23:13
  • @MikeBorden - see my answer to your question here >> https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/45222/in-acts-26-was-the-miracle-in-the-speaking-or-the-hearing-at-pentecost/45226#45226 – Dottard Dec 23 '21 at 23:16
  • @Dottard - I think your answer could be improved if you were to actually answer the question, which in what sense it is a 'sign'. How is it a sign? Sure, unbelievers are hearing something spoken in their native language, but ... so what? They always hear things in their native language, why would that be a sign to them? It's just a normal event. It's like someone approaching you and speaking to you in English (your native language). Well, you always hear stuff in English. Why would that be a sign to you? –  Dec 24 '21 at 01:24
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - it is a "sign" or miracle if a person who could speak no English at all preached to you in perfect English about the love of God and His desire that you be saved. Alternatively, it would be a "sin" or miracle if a person speaking some unknown language (to you) but you heard them in perfect English - that might be convincing for an unbeliever. – Dottard Dec 24 '21 at 01:31
  • @Dottard - it would only work as a 'sign' to me if I already knew beforehand that the speaker does not speak my native language. Otherwise, I might just take it as a native speaker speaking -- an ordinary event. I would need know that this person has never learned my native language in order to be shocked at the fact that they are speaking my language fluently. Some minimal prior knowledge about the speaker is required. –  Dec 24 '21 at 01:43
  • @Dottard - by the way, do you know concrete examples of this kind of tongue-speaking taking place in real life? –  Dec 24 '21 at 01:45
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - perhaps. However, if the speaker went to an are where they spoke a language not known to him, then he preached in that language, empowered by the Spirit - conviction is sure to follow. Recall that the other side of this is also true - if people in a church service are speaking lots of unknown languages and and a non-believer walks in - he would think they were all mad! It is only when he understands what is being said that any impression can be made! – Dottard Dec 24 '21 at 01:47
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - Yes - I personally know a preacher who went to Vanuatu to preach - most of the crowd could speak (and preferred) English so he preached in English. At the back of this crowd were a group of older women who spoke no English but only French Creole - they heard the entire series of meetings in perfect creole and were mightily moved by the Spirit. – Dottard Dec 24 '21 at 01:50
  • @Dottard - Impressive, but that sounds more like a miracle of hearing (gift of interpretation) than a case of the gift of tongues. –  Dec 24 '21 at 01:53
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - probably - but that was part of the gift of tongues at Pentecost as this answer tries to show - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/45222/in-acts-26-was-the-miracle-in-the-speaking-or-the-hearing-at-pentecost/45226#45226 – Dottard Dec 24 '21 at 01:58
  • @Dottard - if the interpretation is part of the gift of tongues, then why is the gift of interpretation of tongues explicitly enumerated as a separate gift in 1 Corinthians 12, 14? –  Dec 24 '21 at 02:11
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - I depends on whether the Spirit elects to have the speaker speak in a different language or the listener hear in a different language. In the former case, it requires an interpreter, the latter does not. – Dottard Dec 24 '21 at 02:36
  • @Dottard - I would rather say that in the latter the listener himself is the interpreter, the listener is given (temporarily) the gift of interpretation so they can understand what is being said in another language. –  Dec 24 '21 at 02:42
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator - OK, fair enough. But I think it goes further than that - as Acts 2 shows, people heard the preaching of Peter in their own dialect, or accent. – Dottard Dec 24 '21 at 02:45
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator I think Paul's instructions about an interpretation are given more to try to impose some order on the babbling madness of Corinth. Apparently folks were speaking unknown languages and not even knowing what they themselves were saying (1 Cor. 14:13-15). Paul says such a thing is personally and corporately unfruitful. – Mike Borden Dec 24 '21 at 14:15
  • @MikeBorden - the gift of interpretation of tongues is not about madness, it is a valid and genuine supernatural spiritual gift among many other gifts given by the Holy Spirit at His discretion to the body of Christ (1 Cor 12). And if a person speaks in a tongue but lacks the gift of interpretation, I agree that their mind would be unfruitful but their spirit would still be edified nonetheless. See How is speaking in tongues a practice edifying for the own individual? –  Dec 24 '21 at 14:57
  • @SpiritRealmInvestigator "madness" was a poor word choice and I apologize. I was referring to the disorderly behavior in the Corinthian church and not the mental stability of the individuals. – Mike Borden Dec 25 '21 at 13:15