Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:22
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.
22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not ] The passage here quoted has been regarded as a prophecy either (1) of the Day of Pentecost, or (2) of the Babylonish captivity. The latter is more probable, and in that case it becomes not an argument, but an illustration. The occupation of Juda by the Assyrian and Babylonian troops had been a sign to God’s people of their unbelief and its punishment, and the unwonted speech they had been doomed to hear was to them a call to repentance, especially when viewed in the light of the prophecy of Moses in Deu 28:49. In a similar manner the miraculous gift of tongues was still (see next verse), as at the Day of Pentecost, a call to the outside world to examine and inquire into this new thing which had come to pass, to acknowledge in it the finger of God, and to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” Cf. Act 2:7-12; Act 2:41.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Wherefore – Thus, ( Hoste), or wherefore. The apostle does not mean to say that what he was about to state was a direct conclusion from the passage of Scripture which he had quoted, but that it followed from all that he had said, and from the whole view of the subject. The true statement or doctrine is, that tongues are for a sign, etc.
Tongues – The power of speaking foreign languages.
Are for a sign – An indication, an evidence, or a proof that God has imparted this power, and that he attends the preaching of the gospel with his approbation. It is a sign, or a miracle, which, like all other miracles, may be designed to convince the unbelieving world that the religion is from God.
Not to them that believe – Not to Christians. They are already convinced of the truth of religion, and they would not be benefited by that which was spoken in a language which they could not understand,
But to them that believe not – It is a miracle designed to convince them of the truth of the Christian religion. God alone could confer the power of thus speaking; and as it was conferred expressly to aid in the propagation of the gospel, it proved that it was from God; see the note on Act 2:1-15.
But prophesying – Speaking in a calm, connected, didactic manner, in language intelligible to all under the influence of inspiration; see notes on 1Co 14:1.
For them that believe not – Is not particularly intended for them; but is intended mainly for the edifying of the church. It is not so striking, so replete with proofs of the divine presence and power as the gift of tongues. Though it may be really under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and may be really by inspiration, yet it is not so evidently such as is the power of speaking foreign languages. It was, therefore, better adapted to edify the church than to convince gainsayers. At the same time the truths conveyed by it, and the consolations administered by it, might be as clear evidence to the church of the attending power, and presence, and goodness of God, as the power of speaking foreign languages might be to infidels.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign] The miraculous gift of tongues was never designed for the benefit of those who have already believed, but for the instruction of unbelievers, that they might see from such a miracle that this is the work of God; and so embrace the Gospel. But as, in the times of the prophet, the strange Babylonish tongues came in the way of punishment, and not in the way of mercy; take heed that it be not the case now: that, by dwelling on the gift, ye forget the Giver; and what was designed for you as a blessing, may prove to you to be a curse. For if, because ye have the gift of tongues, ye will choose for your own aggrandizement to use them in the public congregation where none understands them, God may curse your blessings.
Prophesying] Teaching the things of God in a known language is of infinitely more consequence than speaking in all the foreign tongues in the universe.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, &c.; that is, an eminent product of Divine providence for the confirmation of the truth of the doctrine of the gospel; signifying that the doctrine which was so delivered in every nations language, must be from heaven, from whence the first ministers must have their power so to speak; yet, doubtless, they were not only for a sign, being also a means, by which the knowledge of the gospel was conveyed unto those who could not have understood what the apostles and first ministers of the gospel said, had they not spoken to them in the language of the hearers. When he saith,
prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, the meaning is, not only for them that believe not; for prophesying is certainly of use to them that believe not, for their conversion, as well as
for them that believe, for their edification.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. Thus from Isaiah it appears,reasons Paul, that “tongues” (unknown and uninterpreted)are not a sign mainly intended for believers (though at theconversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles with him, tongues werevouchsafed to him and them to confirm their faith), but mainly to bea condemnation to those, the majority, who, like Israel inIsaiah’s day, reject the sign and the accompanying message. Compare”yet . . . will they not hear Me” (1Co14:21). “Sign” is often used for a condemnatorysign (Eze 4:3; Eze 4:4;Mat 12:39-42). Since theywill not understand, they shall not understand.
prophesying . . . not forthem that believe not, but . . . believethat is, prophesyinghas no effect on them that are radically and obstinately like Israel(Isa 28:11; Isa 28:12),unbelievers, but on them that are either in receptivity or in factbelievers; it makes believers of those not wilfully unbelievers(1Co 14:24; 1Co 14:25;Rom 10:17), and spirituallynourishes those that already believe.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore tongues are for a sign,…. Of wrath and punishment inflicted on a rebellious and unbelieving people, and not of grace and kindness, as prophesying, or speaking to them by the prophets, was; and so this is an inference from what is said in the preceding verse, and shows, that there was no reason why believers should be so very desirous of them. But if these words refer to all that is said before on this subject, the word “sign” may be taken for a miracle; and so a new argument is formed against an over fondness for divers tongues, and the use of them in public worship, showing the preferableness of prophecy to them; for speaking with divers tongues was used in a miraculous way,
not to them that believe; who have no need of miracles to raise their attention to what is said, and that it may gain credit with them, or to confirm their faith in it:
but to them that believe not; to prepare them to listen to what might be suggested to them, when they see the persons speaking were endued with miraculous powers, and to engage their assent to it, and belief of it; and so with such persons, and for such purposes, was the gift of speaking with divers tongues used by the apostles, Ac 2:4 but inasmuch as the Corinthian church consisted of believers, there was no need of such a sign or miracle among them; wherefore, if they desired such gifts, and to make use of them, they should choose to do it, not in the church, but among unbelievers:
but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not; that is, not for them only; for prophesying or explaining the prophetic writings, or preaching the word, may be, and often is, the means of converting unbelievers; yet this is not the only use, nor does it serve for, or administer comfort to unbelievers as such; but is profitable to, and serves
for them which believe: it is for their edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1Co 14:4 it is the means of building them up on their most holy faith; of quickening and stirring them up to the exercise of grace, and performance of duty; of comforting them under various distresses, inward and outward; and of establishing, strengthening, and settling them, and therefore much more eligible to be used in a church of Christ, than speaking with tongues.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For a sign ( ). Like the Hebrew and occasional Koine idiom also.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Wherefore tongues are for a sign,.” (hoste hai glossai eis semeion eisin) “So the tongues are as a sign.” In the context of Old Testament prophecies tongues were a verification of judgment upon those who had rejected prophetic modes of instruction clearly given in their own language.
2) “Not to them that believe. (ou’ tois pisteususin) “Not to the ones believing.” These Israelites had often been given over to captivities of the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Greeks, yet for all these judgments that came upon them under people of other tongues, they rejected Jesus.
3) “But to them that believe not;” (alla tois apistois) “But (in contrast they are a sign) to the ones not trusting or unbelievers.” Wicked and adulterous people of Israel demanded signs, yet they in unbelief rejected the Christ in life and He spoke to them in another tongue or other tongues, charismatically at Pentecost, Mat 16:4; Act 2:11.
4) “But prophesying serveth not for them that believeth not. (he de propheteia ou tois apistois) “But the gift of prophecy (is) not directed to or for the unbelievers.” This gift of prophecy was helpful to the believer in witnessing and strengthening brethren of the church, because each had the spirit.
5) “But for them which believe.” (alla tois pisteuosin) “But to or for the edifying of the believers.” 1Co 2:12-14. The sum of the matter appears to be that the charismatic gift of tongues was ordained primarily as a “sign” to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Those to whom the witnessing was done in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, appear to have been primarily Jews of the dispersion, from seventeen different nations and four continents, in addition to the stiff-necked of Israel in Judea and Galilee. Yet, in spite of the gift of tongues, the witnessing of the one hundred and twenty and the sermon of Peter, Act 2:1 to Act 3:26, most of Israel rejected the Christ.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. Therefore tongues are for a sign This passage may be explained in two ways, by considering the word therefore as referring merely to the preceding sentence, or as having a bearing generally on the whole of the foregoing discussion. If it is a particular inference, the meaning will be — “ You see, brethren, that what you so eagerly desire is not a blessing bestowed by God upon believers, but a punishment, by which he inflicts vengeance upon unbelievers.” In this way, Paul would not be viewed as taking in the use of tongues under all circumstances, but simply as touching upon what had in one instance occurred. Should any one, however, prefer to extend it to the whole discussion, I have no objection, though I do not dislike the former interpretation.
Taking it in a general way, the meaning will be “Tongues, in so far as they are given for a sign — that is, for a miracle — are appointed not properly for believers, but for unbelievers.” The advantages derived from tongues were various. They provided against necessity — that diversity of tongues might not prevent the Apostles from disseminating the gospel over the whole world: there was, consequently, no nation with which they could not hold fellowship. They served also to move or terrify unbelievers by the sight of a miracle — for the design of this miracle, equally with others, was to prepare those who were as yet at a distance from Christ for rendering obedience to him. Believers, who had already devoted themselves to his doctrine, did not stand so much in need of such preparation. Hence, the Corinthians brought forward that gift improperly and out of its right place, allowing prophecy in the meantime to be neglected, which was peculiarly and specially set apart for believers, and ought, therefore, to be familiar to them, for in tongues they looked to nothing farther than the miracle.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe.This is not an interpretation of the prophecy alluded to in the previous verse, but St. Paul now returns to the gift of tongues as existing in the Church, and introduces a thought regarding this gift suggested by the fact mentioned, viz., that in Israel unintelligible tongues, uttered in their hearing, were for a sign to unbelieving Jews. Tongues should not be exalted in estimation above prophecyinasmuch as the function of the latter is really grander than that of the former. Tongues were useful to arrest the attention of unbelievers, and, if rightly used, to arouse their convictions; but prophecy is in the highest sense useful for believers.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
b. Illustration of the inferiority of tongues to prophecy, 1Co 14:22-25 .
22. Wherefore In peculiar conformity with this type.
Tongues a sign to them that believe not Their miraculous and startling character rendered them a sign for the conviction of unbelievers; just as the Assyrian tongues were for the bringing Israel to repentance. For the conviction of unbelievers were the charismatic tongues intended, and this they would often effect if rightly exercised. The notion of some commentators, that Paul teaches that tongues are a sign of judgment upon incorrigible unbelievers, is contrary to the whole history and character of that charism and entirely unsustained by Paul’s words. The pentecostal tongues, though rejected by the mockers, were intended to convert all who heard them, and did effect the object to a glorious extent. The charism, by its very nature, points to a reception of the gospel by the nations. If they are an adumbration of the one tongue of Paradise, they are a cheerful and glorious image. By their appealing to the ear of the foreigner in his own home dialect, as well as by their thrilling, supernatural impressiveness, they were a sign most convincing to the unbeliever; just as Paul says the signs of an apostle were wrought by him for the conversion of the Corinthians themselves. Yet all happy results depended upon their proper use, otherwise unbelievers would reject those displaying them as mad; as in next verse.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Wherefore (‘so that’) tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to the unbelieving. But prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to those who believe.’
The ‘wherefore’ (so that) connects back to the previous verse. In the same way, he says, if you speak to the unbelieving in indecipherable tongues you will simply be confirming to them that God has no message for them, that judgment is at the gates. They will infer that they must be under judgment and that this God to Whom they have come to listen has nothing to say to them. Having come in to hear words from God it will be apparent to them that God is deliberately keeping His mysteries from them. And so their unbelief will be confirmed. Such will go away unbelieving. They will go away empty.
On the other hand, he says, if you prophesy then it will indicate that there is a real message from God for them and that it is for those willing to believe, and they will respond accordingly. Hope is offered. Belief will be the response. So tongues will only turn men away, while prophecy will draw them to belief.
‘To those who believe.’ That is, those who subsequently believe as a result of hearing the prophecy, those who are ready to believe, those who are potential believers, in direct contrast with those who go away confirmed in unbelief because of tongues. We can compare here those in Act 17:32. Some mocked (strange tongues would have been good enough for them), others said, ‘we will hear you again on this matter’. As potential believers they must be spoken to in an understandable way.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 14:22 . ] Accordingly , namely, in accordance with this . .
. . .] The phenomenon of the speaking with tongues is destined for a (divine) sign, not for the believers, but for the unbelievers , i.e. to make those to whom the glossolalia goes forth be recognised as unbelievers . This view alone corresponds to the express . from which the inference is drawn, as well as to what is further inferred in 1Co 14:23 . At variance, on the other hand, with both stands the interpretation which has been the ordinary one since Chrysostom (and which has hitherto been my own), that the speaking with tongues is called a sign for the unbelievers, because it was intended to arrest and move them so that they should reflect and become believers . Equally unsuitable is it that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, including Hofmann, only half carry out this traditional interpretation, and stop short at the impression of something astounding and amazing , whereby the are to be a to the unbelievers, which, moreover, in presence of the notion of a divine , could only appear as a means to an ulterior end. We must keep the . sharply before us in order to determine accurately the notion of the . . . Billroth, moreover (comp. Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), is in error in holding that is a penal sign , or a sign of divine judgment ; comp. also Hilgenfeld, p. 21; Rossteuscher, p. 77. This, in fact, is not at all implied in 1Co 14:21 , where, on the contrary, the glossolalia appears as a last extraordinary measure remaining likewise without result , which will at length make full exposure of the disobedience of the persons in question, but not as a sign of wrath. And had Paul thought of irae signum , he must have expressed the irae too, and, in fact, brought it emphatically forward. [13] Again Storr, Flatt, Baur, and Dav. Schulz ( Geistesg . pp. 78, 176) are wrong in saying that the prevalence of the glossolalia in the church was a sign of their unbelief . This is unsuitable for this reason, that according to 1Co 14:21 ; 1Co 14:23 we are to conceive as the not those who speak , but those who are spoken to in .
] Dative of the reference in view, as is also . The conception of the , however, is, by virtue of this very antithesis (and see also 1Co 14:23-24 ), simply the non-believing , the unbelievers , a conception which is neither to be softened down to that of non-genuine Christians or the like (Flatt, David Schulz), nor intensified to that of obstinate unbelievers, those wholly unsusceptible of faith, infideles privative (Neander, Billroth, Rckert). Hirzel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 120 ff. (who is followed in substance by de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Engelmann, and see Bengel’s hints of earlier date), understands by the those who do not wish to believe , and by the those who wish to believe . [14] Comp. de Wette: “They are not heard by such as let themselves be moved thereby to believe , but by such as remain unbelieving .” This is conclusively negatived by the prevailing use of and , to which any such artificial pregnancy of meaning is quite alien (see immediately, 1Co 14:23-24 ).
. . .] a contrast, which is not intended to be inferred from that passage of Scripture, which in truth says nothing whatever about the , but the truth of which was self-evident to the readers in virtue of an argumentum e contrario . We are not, however, to supply the simple , so that the meaning would be: not to the unbelievers, but to the believers, is the prophetic address to be directed (my own view hitherto), but rather , for Paul has not written at all, and therefore leaves the predicate of the first half of the verse to operate still in virtue of the antithesis. Consequently: prophecy is designed to be a sign not for the unbelievers, but for the believers , i.e. in order to make those to whom the prophetic address is directed known as believers ; see 1Co 14:24 , where this statement of the apostle is verified by the fact that such as come into the Christian assembly as unbelievers, being won over by the overpowering impression of the prophetic addresses, submit themselves to Christianity and declare themselves believers. Erasmus, Grotius, and Bleek are wrong in holding that means non tantum . The negation is absolute, as in the preceding clause. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 784. According to Hirzel (de Wette and Osiander), the meaning here also is alleged to be: prophecy is given not for such as do not wish to believe, but for such as wish to believe.
[13] According to Billroth’s view, namely, Paul warns the Corinthians that they should not thoughtlessly foster among themselves a thing which is called in the O. T. a sign of punishment . Comp. Beza and Cornelius a Lapide, also Calovius. Upon this view, Paul must have absolutely disapproved of the glossolalia. It would have been a tempting of God by the abuse of a divine sign of curse.
[14] Hofmann also understands by those indisposed to believe . As if Paul would not have known how to express this conception! Hofmann even conceives two classes to be comprehended under , namely, those already standing in faith and those who are becoming believers, and holds that on this account Paul did not write . As if were not with the apostle quite the usual expression for the believers (1Co 1:21 ; Rom 1:16 ; Rom 3:22 ; Rom 10:4 ; Gal 3:22 ; Eph 1:19 , al. ), who are such, but not for those, or so as to include those, who are only becoming such. The are not at all different from the (2Co 6:15 ; Eph 1:1 ; Col 1:2 ).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 22. But for them which believe ] To confirm and comfort believers; this is the chief end of preaching. Let this comfort those that cannot say they have converted any by their ministry.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22. ] , viz. according to the words of the foregoing prophetic passage.
.] the tongues , in the then acceptation of the term. He is not interpreting the prophecy, nor alluding to the tongues there spoken of, but returns back to the subject in hand the tongues about which his argument was concerned.
. ] are for a sign : but there is no emphasis on the words, the meaning being much the same as if were omitted, and it stood . . Not seeing this, Commentators have differed widely about the meaning of . So Chrys. (Hom. xxxvi. p. 335): , , : Bengel: ‘quo allecti auscultare debebant:’ Calvin: ‘lingu, quatenus in signum dat sunt:’ &c. &c. All dwelling on the word would introduce an element foreign to the argument, which is, that tongues are (a sign) for the unbelieving, not for the believing .
. .] not to men who believe, but to unbelievers , i.e. ‘men who do not believe:’ not, as Neander, Billroth, Rckert, and in substance De Wette, ‘men who will not believe:’ must be kept to the same sense through this whole passage, and plainly by 1Co 14:23 it is not one who will not believe , but an unbeliever open to conviction . The mistake has been occasioned by regarding those to whom the prophecy was directed , and interpreting Paul by Isaiah, instead of by himself.
.] scil. , as Meyer, or . , as De Wette: it seems to me to import little which we supply, seeing that . is of so very slight weight in the preceding clause. If emphatic meaning had been attached to as belonging to ., we must not have supplied it here: but if it be a mere indifferent word, to be interpreted according to the sense in which . and . were , there can be no objection to it here: and the uniformity of construction seems to require it.
Both here and above, . and the other are datives commodi for , not ‘ to ,’ the unbelieving . was a sign to the unbelieving, see 1Co 14:24-25 .
Prophecy, i.e. inspired and intelligent exposition of the word and doctrine , was eminently for believers, but, as below, would be also profitable to unbelievers, furnishing a token that God was truly among his assembled servants.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:22 . The real point of the above citation from Isaiah comes out in . . ., “And so the tongues are for a sign not to the believing, but to the unbelievers” sc . to “those who will not hear,” who having rejected other modes of instruction find their unbelief confirmed, and even justified (1Co 14:23 b ), by this phenomenon. This interpretation ( cf. Mat 16:4 ; and for in the judicial sense, Isa 8:18 ) is dictated by the logical connexion of 1Co 14:21-22 , which forbids the thought of a convincing and saving sign , read into this passage by Cm [2130] and many others. P. desires to quench rather than stimulate the Cor [2131] ardour for Tongues. . . ., “while prophecy on the other hand” ( ) serves the opposite purpose it “(is for a sign) not to the unbelievers, but to the believing”. implies the act continued into a habit ( cf. 1Co 1:21 ); , the determinate character. For with ind [2132] , see note on 1Co 3:7 .
[2130] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).
[2131] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[2132] indicative mood.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
sign. App-176.
believe. App-150.
believe not = are unbelieving. Greek. apistos. See App-150.
serveth = is.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22.] ,-viz. according to the words of the foregoing prophetic passage.
.] the tongues, in the then acceptation of the term. He is not interpreting the prophecy, nor alluding to the tongues there spoken of, but returns back to the subject in hand-the tongues about which his argument was concerned.
. ] are for a sign: but there is no emphasis on the words,-the meaning being much the same as if were omitted, and it stood . . Not seeing this, Commentators have differed widely about the meaning of . So Chrys. (Hom. xxxvi. p. 335): , , :-Bengel: quo allecti auscultare debebant:-Calvin: lingu, quatenus in signum dat sunt: &c. &c. All dwelling on the word would introduce an element foreign to the argument, which is, that tongues are (a sign) for the unbelieving, not for the believing.
. .] not to men who believe, but to unbelievers, i.e. men who do not believe: not, as Neander, Billroth, Rckert, and in substance De Wette, men who will not believe: must be kept to the same sense through this whole passage, and plainly by 1Co 14:23 it is not one who will not believe, but an unbeliever open to conviction. The mistake has been occasioned by regarding those to whom the prophecy was directed, and interpreting Paul by Isaiah, instead of by himself.
.] scil. , as Meyer, or . , as De Wette: it seems to me to import little which we supply, seeing that . is of so very slight weight in the preceding clause. If emphatic meaning had been attached to as belonging to ., we must not have supplied it here: but if it be a mere indifferent word, to be interpreted according to the sense in which . and . were , there can be no objection to it here: and the uniformity of construction seems to require it.
Both here and above, . and the other are datives commodi-for, not to, the unbelieving. was a sign to the unbelieving, see 1Co 14:24-25.
Prophecy, i.e. inspired and intelligent exposition of the word and doctrine, was eminently for believers, but, as below, would be also profitable to unbelievers, furnishing a token that God was truly among his assembled servants.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:22. ) for a sign, by which unbelievers may be allured and hear [give ear to] the word; but , not even thus do they hear [alluding to Isa 28:12, see last note].-, have their existence) The accent has the effect of making the word emphatic.- , but prophecy) namely, is for a sign, or simply is; comp. 1Co 6:3.- , to them that believe) This must be taken as an instance of the figure Amplificatio;[126] inasmuch as prophecy makes believers of unbelievers; the speaking tongue leaves the unbeliever to himself [still an unbeliever]. The expression of Paul is indefinite. Unbelievers, generally, when tongues fall upon them, continue to be unbelievers, but prophecy makes believers of unbelievers, and gives spiritual nourishment to them, that believe.
[126] See Append. The taking of the denomination of a thing, not so much from what it now is, as from what it is about to be. As here, Prophecy is a sign to those who thereby are made believers. This seems Bengels meaning.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:22
1Co 14:22
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving:-Speaking in unknown languages was to reach the unbelieving nations and thus teach them the gospel. For people to hear strangers speak in their own tongue, never having learned it, as was done on Pentecost, attracted attention, convinced the people that the power of God was with them, and prepared them to hear and believe the truth.
but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.-This was instructing them in the truths of the gospel, in a language they understood, which would help and profit the believers; but would not profit those who believed not.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
for a: Mar 16:17, Act 2:6-12, Act 2:32-36
not to: 1Ti 1:9
but for: 1Co 14:3
Reciprocal: Psa 81:5 – where 1Co 12:7 – General 1Co 14:2 – he that 1Co 14:19 – in the 1Th 5:20 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:22. On the basis of the preceding verse, the brethren should give the use of tongues a comparatively small consideration in the assembly, and make greater use of prophesying since it would edify the church.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelievingwho, on hearing their own language spoken by those who themselves understood it not, would be filled with awe,but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1Co 14:22. Wherefore Since this was formerly threatened by God as a punishment, you should not so admire or magnify it, especially since tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe Not to convince, edify, or comfort the faithful; but to them that believe not To unbelievers, to whom ye speak in their own language, Act 2:8; namely, to engage their attention to the gospel, and to convince them that what is delivered is the truth of God. But prophesying Preaching the word, discoursing on divine things; serveth not so much for them that believe not Who cannot know that you are inspired in prophesying, and have no proof that your doctrine is true; but for them which believe For their confirmation in the faith, and their edification in holiness and righteousness.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 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.
At the first glance one might be disposed to take the former part of the verse as indicating the salutary effect which glossolalia should produce in those who hitherto had not been able to believe (), through the wonder and amazement which such a gift will cause them (Chrysostom, Calvin hesitatingly, Grotius, Meyer in his first editions). But this meaning would be contrary to the words: And yet for all that will they not hear; and the example quoted in 1Co 14:23, instead of justifying, would belie this affirmation. Others, on the contrary, have thought that the language points to a sign announcing to unbelievers their near judgment, irae signum (Beza, Billroth). This is also Edwards’ view: The ecstatic cries in the midst of the assembled Church were intended by God to show unbelievers (the heathen of Corinth) that the day of the Lord was near. In this sense, the are not merely people who have not yet believed; they are confirmed unbelievers. Without saying precisely that judgment is announced, we think that tongues are a testimony of unbelief made to the people to whom God thus speaks. God speaks to them unintelligibly only because they are deaf to His clear revelation. We find an analogous fact, Matthew 13, at the date when Jesus adopts speaking in parables as His habitual method of teaching (1Co 14:11-12). After seeking in vain to awake the conscience of the people by His previous teaching (Sermon on the Mount, for example), when Jesus comes to the time when He must reveal to His own the nature and laws of the kingdom which they are to labour to found, He uses the language of parable, which they alone can understand. It is a sign of His growing breach with the mass of the nation. So it is with tongues. Glossolalia is neither a means of conversion, nor a sign of approaching judgment on unbelievers. It is a demonstration given to their own conscience of the state of unbelief which God sees them to have reached. Would a God of light manifest Himself in the midst of His own by unintelligible sounds? Here there is a sign of severance which is gradually carried out.
It is wholly otherwise with prophetic exhortations. These are a sign of faith or of the disposition to believe which already exists in those to whom God thus speaks. It should be remarked that in opposition to , unbelievers, the apostle does not here say , believers, as would seem natural, but , those who at this moment are in the act of believing. This present participle denotes equally the state of a man who has just reached faith, and the state of him who already possesses it. Hence the general principle laid down here agrees with the result described in 1Co 14:24, where an is brought to faith by prophecy. The man is so called only as not yet believing, and because of his state when he came; he is nevertheless a in respect of what takes place in him, in the course of the meeting.
Critics discuss the question whether the words , in sign of, used in the former clause, should be understood in the latter. It matters very little for the sense. Grammatically the ellipsis seems natural. But the meaning of the word sign is modified of course in passing from the one clause of the sentence to the other. In the former, the sign is one of displeasure, implying a charge of unbelief; in the latter, it is one of pity, powerfully calling the man to repentance and faith. Such an appeal is not directed to one already confirmed in unbelief (the of 1Co 14:22); but it is made to men such as the of 1Co 14:23. Erasmus and Bleek have tried to resolve the difficulties of this verse by taking , not, both times in the sense of , not only. But why not say , if this had been his thought?
The apostle now supposes two cases fitted to impress by way of extreme examples the truth of the law which he has just stated:
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe. [The Old Testament generally is often called the Law by New Testament writers (Joh 10:34; Joh 12:34; Rom 3:20). Therefore the reference here is not to the Pentateuch, but to Isa 28:11-12 . There the prophet tells how Israel murmured at the quality of the teaching which God gave them, and states that as a consequence God would soon teach them by the tongue of foreigners; i. e., the Assyrians would lead them away captive and they should be instructed by the hardships of captivity. When the captivity came, the necessity to understand and speak a strange tongue was a sign that God was teaching them, and yet a sign which they did not heed. From this incident Paul apparently draws several conclusions. 1. It was no especial mark of divine favor to have teachers who spoke an unknown tongue. 2. Tongues were for unbelievers and prophecy for believers. 3. Tongues were a sign that God was teaching, but the teaching itself was better than the sign. 4. Tongues, unless understood, had never been profitable; i. e., had not produced conversion. It must be remembered that Paul has in mind the abuse rather than the proper use of tongues. He illustrates his meaning by a hypothetical case.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
A NORMAL GOSPEL MEETING
22-25. So tongues are for a sign, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers, and prophecy is not for the unbelievers, but for the believers. These spiritual gifts are quite latitudinous in their signification and sphere of operation. Limitation is the prevailing error in Biblical interpretation, arising from the fact that we are so apt to expound the Bible like other books which finite men have made, forgetting that the illimitable and incomprehensible God is the Author of the Scriptures. Hence it is a great mistake to lay upon the Bible the restrictions and disabilities peculiar to human productions.
Here we see, evidently, a phase of this gift of tongues, peculiar to the normal gospel meetings under the leadership of the Holy Ghost in the apostolic ministry. New experiences invariably confer new language. When the sinner passes through the crucible of regeneration and sweeps triumphantly into the kingdom of God, if the work is genuinely wrought by the Holy Ghost, and not simply by human manipulation, he at once begins to speak a new language never before heard nor used. It is the language currently spoken by the members of Gods family, and utterly novel to the man who has spent all his life among the children of the devil and speaking the shibboleth of Hell. When the Canaan-bound pilgrim passes through the retreating floods of the divided Jordan into Beulah land he immediately adopts the language of Canaan, which to him is utterly new, as he never heard it in the howling wilderness. I have a thousand times seen this Scripture verified in revival work. A lot of people get blessed and all begin to shout and speak vociferously in the new languages of their newly found joy; every sinner that hears the uproarious shouts not only runs to the scene of conflict, but brings with him all his neighbors, crowding the house to overflowing. Therefore if the whole church may come together and all may speak with tongues, and the idiots or infidels may come in, will they not say, that you are gone mad? When the power falls and the people all get happy and shout aloud, speaking the newly received language of their newly found joy, that is the very thing to arouse and attract the idiots, i. e., the poor, lost people who are utterly idiotic to the mysteries of Christian experience, whether regeneration or sanctification, and the infidels, i. e., the people who do not believe in any Christian profession, hear them, they all come running, actuated by sheer curiosity. When they arrive at the scene of sweeping revival power, and see sinners who have been gloriously converted leaping, and hear them speaking words and phrases to them utterly new and strange, and using a language they had never before heard, and Christians, flooded with the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, shouting uproariously the language of Canaan, so unlike that of old Ashdod, the effect of their new experiences and their shouting testimonies in their new languages, and perhaps foreign languages then conferred on them to qualify them to preach the gospel in the regions beyond; even though the idiots and infidels pronounce them crazy, yet these new tongues and uproarious shouts have brought them together where the people of God can have access to them with the message of truth. But if all may prophesy, [i. e., preach, exhort and testify] and some idiot or infidel may come in, he is convicted by all, he is discerned by all,
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 22
For a sign, not to them that believe, &c. The meaning is, that foreign tongues are spoken of in the passage quoted above, as a token and symbol of God’s displeasure against the disobedient and unbelieving, which the apostle adduces as a consideration calculated to diminish the undue interest which the Corinthian Christians had manifested in the exercise of this gift, and to lead them to regard prophesying as more appropriate religious exercise for a church of believers.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:22 {10} 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.
(10) The conclusion: therefore the gift of tongues serves to punish the unfaithful and unbelievers, unless it is referred to prophecy (that is to say, to the interpretation of scripture) and that what is spoken is by the means of prophecy is understood by the hearers.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The "then" in this verse anticipates what is to come rather than drawing a conclusion from what has preceded. Tongues-speaking in the church signified to visiting unbelievers that the Christians were mad (1Co 14:23). [Note: See Zane C. Hodges, "The Purpose of Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September 1963):226-33; J. Lanier Burns, "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49; and Harold W. Hoehner, "The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25," in Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 53-66.] Prophecy signified to the believers that God was present and speaking.