Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
1 Corinthians 14:22 – Tongues as a Sign to Unbelieving Israel, Not Private Prayer Language
Modern interpretations of the gift of tongues—especially within charismatic and Pentecostal movements—often depart radically from the biblical record. The New Testament presents tongues as known human languages, miraculously spoken without prior learning, and never as a form of ecstatic or private prayer speech. Paul’s corrective in 1 Corinthians 14:22 offers a precise definition and a clear purpose: tongues were a judicial sign to unbelieving Israel, not a means of personal spiritual communication.
Tongues as a Sign of Judgment
“So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 14:22)
The Apostle Paul grounds his assertion in Old Testament precedent, particularly Isaiah 28:11–12, which he had cited in the previous verse. In that passage, Isaiah warns Israel that God will speak to them through foreign lips and a strange tongue—not to instruct, but to judge. Because they rejected the clear message of His prophets, Jehovah declared that they would hear unintelligible speech as a consequence of their unbelief. This foreign-language judgment came to pass in the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions and formed a precedent for what tongues would later symbolize in the early church: divine rebuke to an unbelieving nation.
Thus, tongues were not a spiritual gift intended for internal edification or emotional experience, but rather a sign-act of judgment, demonstrating that Israel’s rejection of the Messiah had real covenantal consequences (cf. Acts 2:4–11). The presence of Gentile languages in the mouths of Jewish and non-Jewish believers stood as a reversal of Babel for the redeemed, and a warning of dispersion and disinheritance for the hard-hearted among Israel.
 |
 |
 |
Not a Private Prayer Language
Charismatics often appeal to verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:2 (“one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God”) to justify personal prayer languages—unintelligible utterances said to edify the individual. However, this reading ignores Paul’s larger context and contradicts the very argument he makes.
When Paul writes that the tongue-speaker “does not speak to men but to God,” he is not prescribing a practice but rebuking a misuse. If no one understands the tongue, the speaker isn’t communicating anything to the congregation, only uttering sounds that, though perhaps well-intentioned, have no edifying value. As verse 9 clarifies, “if you utter by the tongue speech that is not clear, how will it be known what is spoken?”
Paul never praises unintelligible speech. He consistently corrects it. When he says in 14:4 that “the one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,” the point is not commendation but contrast. Spiritual gifts were given “for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7). Any use of a gift that terminates on the individual violates its designed purpose.
Further, Paul insists in verse 13 that if someone speaks in a tongue, he should pray that he may interpret—not to gain a private experience, but to ensure the assembly understands. This undercuts any notion that private tongues are endorsed. Verse 19 clinches it: “in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.” Paul sees intelligibility as the non-negotiable standard for all spiritual expression in the congregation.
 |
 |
 |
Prophecy for the Believing Assembly
In contrast, Paul states that prophecy is for those who believe. That is, prophecy—which in the apostolic era included both foretelling and forthtelling—was aimed at building up, encouraging, and consoling the believers (1 Corinthians 14:3). It was intelligible, direct, and verifiable. Unlike tongues, it contributed directly to the life and maturity of the church.
With the cessation of prophecy following the completion of the canon (1 Corinthians 13:8–10), teaching the written Word now serves this prophetic function. The church no longer needs fresh revelations or divine speech acts; the finalized Scriptures are sufficient for all doctrine and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
 |
 |
 |
Conclusion: A Correction to Charismatic Confusion
Charismatic theology’s redefinition of tongues as ecstatic prayer speech—often unregulated, emotionally driven, and unverifiable—is unscriptural, unhistorical, and unedifying. Paul’s message is explicit: tongues were a limited, covenantal sign to unbelievers, particularly to the Jewish nation rejecting their Messiah. They were never intended as personal devotional practices, and Paul gives no indication that such a use is legitimate, let alone encouraged.
What Paul desires—and commands—is order, clarity, and edification. These principles eliminate modern charismatic expressions of tongues as doctrinally invalid and spiritually immature. The true gift, as used in Acts and 1 Corinthians, was intelligible, purposeful, and temporary—no longer operative once its function in redemptive history was fulfilled.
 |
 |
 |
You May Also Enjoy
No Clergy-Laity Divide: All Members Are Ministers – 1 Corinthians 12:27–31; 1 Thessalonians 5:12–14
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
