Criswell Theological
Review 5.2 (1991) 259-286.
Copyright © 1991 by The
WITH STAMMERING LIPS AND
ANOTHER TONGUE: 1 COR 14:20-22
AND ISA 28:11-12
DAVID
E. LANIER
I. Introduction
The
relationship of Isa 28:11-12 to 1 Cor
14:20-22 in the writings of
Paul
has long been an interpretive stumbling block. The exact correla-
tion of the historical
setting of Isaiah’s passage to the conflict over
tongues in
bates the matter. J. B. Phillips went so far as to
rewrite 1 Cor 14:22,
changing Paul's words to the exact opposite in
four places. He ex-
plained such procedure in a
footnote: "This is the sole instance of the
translator's departing from the
accepted text. He felt bound to conclude
from the sense of the next three verses that we have
here either a slip
of the pen on the part of Paul, or, more probably,
a copyist's error.”1
This is all the more remarkable when
we reflect that it was done
with absolutely no manuscript support whatsoever;
there are no major
variants or textual problems with the NT text
itself. This paper will
attempt a historical and exegetical analysis of
1 Cor 14:21 and Its com-
panion verse in the OT to see
if historical, linguistic, or interpretive
factors can help solve the impasse.
The major problem is not with
understanding the Isaiah passage;
the context itself is relatively clear. Paul's
application of the passage
1 J. B. Phillips, The New Testament m Modern English (
1960) 552, n. 5. A good introductory
survey of the problems involved can be found in
G.
D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987)
676-85. See also R P. Martin,
The Spirit and the Congregation (
mans, 1984) 72-73.
260
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
presents the issue, for it seems to some as if he
has written in total
disregard of the context and applied the passage
in a way that contra-
dicts its NT context. For
example, Paul makes the statement "tongues
are for unbelievers" when he has just been demonstrating
how unin-
terpreted tongues in the
Corinthian church would just cause unbe-
lievers to conclude that
Christians are mad. Furthermore, he goes on
to say, "prophecy is not for
unbelievers" in a context in which he will
go on to say that prophecy is one good way for an
unbeliever to be
convicted and accept Christ.
It is hoped that by careful analysis
we might understand more
clearly what Paul is trying to say to
which he is applying Isaiah's oracle to the
Corinthian situation in
what seems to be a classic case of misunderstanding.
II. Background and Context of Isa 28:11-12
Isa
28:11-12 fits into a larger section of the first half of the Book of
Isaiah. Chapters 28-33 are widely held to be Isaianic and contain a
collection of "woes" in which Isaiah is
warning
fated alliance with
nouncements against foreign nations
(chapters 24-27) and a collection
of eschatological prophecies (chapters 34-35).2
The prophet Isaiah
opens the section with a scathing denunciation of the
drunkards of
Ephraim. He pronounces a woe upon them and
predicts the downfall
of the northern kingdom at the hands of
who see the oracle as genuine predictive prophecy
date it prior to the
fall of
There was some danger that the
rulers in
this political alliance, and Isaiah is unsparing in
his zeal to expose the
blindness and incompetence of
wavers, however, in holding out God's purposes for
which could not be thwarted even through the folly of
men and the over-
whelming destruction which would be brought on
them by Assyria.3
These
emphases belong properly to the latter days of Isaiah's ministry.
Isa 28:1-6
constitutes one oracle against the northern kingdom,
Ephraim,
and leads into an indictment of
tion with regard to vv 7-13
is whether
dressed. Whereas most commentators will begin
the oracle against
tually appear until v 14.
"This people" is being judged, but which people
is it? Not until v 14 are
2 IDB, 1962 ed., S.v.
"Isaiah," by C. R North.
3 Ibid.
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 261
The
best solution is probably to conclude that vv 1-13 are pronounced
against the northern kingdom and its capital
parallels between vv 1-4 and 14-22 suffice to show
the southern leaders
that their situation is not much different in the
sight of God.4
Verses 1-13 make it clear that
destruction is coming to Ephraim
because the people have rejected instruction. In
vv 1-6 we see the
spectacle of the drunken leaders of Ephraim.
Beginning in v 7, the
priests and prophets themselves appear-drunken,
sitting at a table
covered with filth and vomit.5 Isaiah
asks who is left to learn the les-
son of God, the infants just weaned from milk? He
then presents to
them the spectacle of extremely young children
learning their first
principles while God addresses them in baby talk.
But the wise
drunkards of Ephraim will not listen to the
tedious repetitions of the
prophet; therefore, all the people will receive
instruction from God
through the stammering tongues of Assyrians.
"This people" has re-
fused the rest and covenant relationship offered by
God; they have
mocked his prophet. Now they must endure a different
lesson from
God,
mediated through babbling masters. The message is one of utter
destruction and cruel exile: "That they might
go and stumble back-
ward, be broken, snared, and taken captive."6
The verses contained in Isa 28:11-12 constitute a prophecy of
warning which takes a mocking line (either
spoken by God to the
little infants, the last who will hear, or by the
scoffers themselves as a
taunt intended for Isaiah, according to the two most
common inter-
pretations)7 and repeats it verbatim
with a terrifying change of tone
and focus. The people who were so addressed by the
prophet would
have had little trouble making the connection in
their original Sitz im
Leben:
the cruel Assyrians are going to be God's mouthpiece to speak
to "this people" (no longer called
"his people"). They have disregarded
the paths of peace (cf. Deut 12:9 and 1 Kgs 8:56) and forged the chains
of their own slavery. O. Kaiser feels that v 12
presents a summary of
Isaiah's
basic preaching: Yahweh states explicitly that since his mes-
sage through the prophet has been rejected by the
people and their
leaders alike, the catastrophe that followed was
a consequence they
had brought upon themselves by rejecting Yahweh's
rest.8
4 J. C. Exum, "Isaiah 28-32: A Literary Approach," SBLASP 17 (1979) 124.
5 Ibid.,
136.
6 Isa.
28:1Sc. Scripture references are taken from the New American Standard
Bible
unless otherwise noted.
7 Exum, 134. I
8 O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 246,
Kaiser
does not hold the prophecy to be predictive; he sees v 12 as the work of a redac-
tor writing after the fall
of
587
B.C.
262
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Whether vv 9-10 are placed in the
mouth of God or those mock-
ing Isaiah for treating
them like infants, one thing is clear: there is a
caricaturing tone presented (which
is about to become deadly serious)
representing the prophecies of
Isaiah to Ephraim. The introductory
word of our verses, yKi, "indeed,"
''as a matter of fact," introduces a con-
trast and subtly begins to
change the content of the message. In v 10
the mocking words of the drunkards (or of God
speaking to children),
MwA
ryrez; MwA ryfez; vqAlA vqa
vqAlA vqa vgAlA vca vcAlA
vca, reduce God's prophecy ad
absurdum. Verses 11-12 represent a very fateful
link: in v 13, the same
words are heard again, this time with a deadly
finality. What began as
mocking caricature has come to devastation and
ruin. Their fate has
been sealed by the epitaph of
them the paths of peace and rest, "but they
would not listen,"9
The text of Isa
28:11-12 preserved in the Masoretic tradition is
very stable, presenting only one variant reading
noted by the Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia.10 The qal perfect third
person plural form
of hbAxA, xUbxA, "they were willing, desirous," reads hbAxA in the Great
Scroll
of Isaiah, lQIsa11 Gesenius notes that an x was sometimes ap-
pended to the end of a word with a final u, i, or o (for example, xUbxA
in Isa 28:12). He takes
it to be an early scribal error. This would, if
true, make the MT more conservative than the DSS lQIsa dating from
150-125
B.C.12 Some grammarians, however, take it
to be the last ves-
tige of "Arabic
orthography," a view Gesenius rejects. Davidson,
for
example, considers the form to be paragogic x (appended either inor-
ganically or to give emphasis or
modify the meaning of the word),
usual in the Arabic for the third person plural and
found in the He-
brew as well (cf. Josh 10:24).13 The
meanings of all the words which
9 E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (3 vols.;
10 BHS,
715.
11 Besides this variant
there are minor spelling variants, holem waw written defec-
tively three times in the MT,
and the consonant h appended to the word Mhylx in lQIsa.
Concerning
hmhylx we may have an example
of h
locale described by Gesenius as a
remnant of an early case ending appended to a
substantive to express direction towards
an object, the original force of which should be
disregarded when added to a substan-
tive with a preposition
prefixed; after l, lx,, or dfa it is easily explained.
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2d ed (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1910) p. 250. Hereafter
cited as Gesenius. Nagelsbach sees it as a note of interrogation, however. C.
W. E. Na-
gelsbach, The Prophet Isaiah Theologically and Homiletically Expounded, A Commen-
tary on the Holy Scriptures
(ed. J. P. Lange; 14 vols.;
11.303.
12 Gesenius, 81.
13 B. Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon (2d ed.;
ster and Sons, 1850; repr.,
by Young, 2:278. The other variants can be seen in
the first column of appendix 1.
David E. Lanier: WITH STAMMERING
LIPS 263
contain variants in the lQIsa
remained substantially the same from
150-124
B.C. to A.D. 1009.
The Septuagint: Isa 28:10-13.14
The major critical editions of the
LXX have the same text
throughout the passage, although there are many
minority readings
(see appendix 1 for the most significant variant readings).
The most
important deviation from the MT comes in v 11:
"He [YHWH] will
speak to this people" becomes "They [the
heathen] will speak to this
people." This has serious implications for the
reading of the passage
as a whole because it is no longer a message of
judgment for ignoring
God's
prophet but a message of valiant endurance under the persecu-
tions of the heathen.
Similarly, the message is different.
In the MT the stammering
lips came after
the people had refused to hear God's original mes-
sage, "This [is] the rest, give rest to the
weary, and this [is] the repose."
Now
the heathen themselves are speaking the message with stam-
mering lips, "This [is]
the rest to the hungering and this [is] the de-
struction." The people
bravely resist this offer and thus expose
themselves to tribulation upon tribulation and hope
upon hope. The
Lucianic MS tradition actually reads, "This
[is] the rest to the hunger-
and this [is] the syntagma." which was a Greek
battle formation.
Symmachus preserves the quotation from the MT with
h[ h]remi<a
(rest) in the second position. It is one thing for them to
turn down
offer from the Gentiles to cooperate or capitulate;
it is quite an-
to refuse Isaiah's prophecies in order to forge a
forbidden alli-
ance with those God knew
would ultimately destroy them!
The LXX also deviates in one other
minor instance in v 12. The
phrase "This is the rest [you-pl.] cause to rest
[obj.] the weary" (txzo
JyefAl,
UHybihA hH,Unm.;ha) has been simplified by
the LXX writer by the
omission of the hiphil
imperative of HaUb, and the translation of
l;
de-
noting direct object (Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v., "7") as a Greek dative:
“This
[is] the rest to the hungering" (tou?to to> a]na<pauma t&? peinw?nti).
This
does not affect the sense of the verses, but it shows paraphrastic,
14 J. Ziegler, ed., Isaias, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum (3d ed.; 18 vols.;
tion upon tribulation, hope
upon hope, yet a little yet a little 11. through
disparagement
of lips, through another language because they
will speak to this people 12. saying to it,
“This
[is] the rest to the hungering, and this [is] the destruction'; yet they were
not will-
ing to hear. 13. And the
word of the Lord God shall be to them tribulation upon tribula-
tion hope upon hope, yet a
little yet a little, in order that they might go and fall
backward and they shall be crushed and shall be
in danger, and shall be taken." The
LXX
translation is the author's except for 13b-f which is after L. C. L Brenton.
264
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
simplifying tendency on the part of the LXX
translator. Similarly, the
"inscrutable phrases" from Isaiah are translated into a
smooth Greek
form and incorporated into the flow of the text
itself in a manner that
obscures the irony of the original. The LXX
remains a translation of
the MT, but it comes to the verge of interpretive
paraphrase in sev-
eral places.15
The word gfala means
"mocking" or "derision" primarily and only
in a secondary sense "stammering (of
barbarous language)."16 So the
LXX
rendering o[
faulismo<j as "disparagement,"
"contempt" is not
etymologically far from the mark.17
The thrust of the passage is not
that the invaders sound like stammerers,
but that they are using their
native language in a mocking, derisive way against the
Hebrews.
Here
again the original force of Isaiah's passage seems to have been
reversed. In this instance the divergence is not
as serious, but taken
with the change of verb number and speaker, the LXX
rendering is
substantively different from the
back into the mouth of YHWH and the responsibility
for disobedi-
ence back upon the children
of
It
is this questionable quality of the LXX translation that led H. B.
Swete to write concerning Isa
28:11 (1 Cor 14:21): "The.
. . quotation is
probably from memory. . . , but the Apostle's
knowledge of the origi-
nal has enabled him to improve upon the faulty rendering of the
LXX.”18 (Emphasis mine.)
III. An Exegesis of
1 Cor 14:20-22
Background and Context
First Corinthians is generally
considered to have been written by
the Apostle Paul from
final verdict depends on whether his stay in
15 Cf. J. Ziegler's
verdict from Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias
(1934):
"[The translator) was not over-concerned to reproduce his original
exactly, word
for word; he had no hesitation in simply omitting
difficult or rare words if the sense of
the sentence was not thereby disturbed, or dividing
up phrases or joining them to-
gether differently if he could
not make sense of his original. Often he appears to have
been governed by a particular thought Thus in Isaiah
we meet with many translations
which can properly be described as 'free.’” Quoted in
Ernest Wurthwein, The Text of
the Old Testament (trans. E. F. Rhodes;
16 The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew
and English Lexicon, 1979 ed.,
repro 1983, S.v. "gfala."
17 LSJ,
S.V. "fauli<zw."
The verb form means to "hold cheap, worthless." The noun
form also appears as to> fauli<xma, -atoj,
but the word does not appear in the NT.
18 H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the
Old Testament in Greek (rev. ed.; ed. R R
Ottley;
David E. Lanier: WITH STAMMERING
LIPS 265
three years, the letter appears to have been composed
shortly before
his departure at Pentecost (1 Cor
16:8) either in early spring or late
winter A.D. 55. One of the crucial considerations in
dating the book is
whether the Passover festival was going on at
the time of writing (cf.
1 Cor 5:7-8). The most accepted
chronology will take Pentecost as his
departure time with the resulting time frame cited
above.19
The recipients of the letter, the
members of the church in
unity and were divided into carnal, warring factions.
Paul's epistle in
several places seems to be addressing, questions
on pressing issues
posed to him by the Corinthians themselves.20
One of these questions
is addressed in chapters 12-14. Paul's answer
revolves around the rela-
tive value of tongues and
prophecy. He begins chapter 12 by giving a
test by which to tell demonic inspiration from the
genuine activity of
God
(no person speaking by the Holy Spirit will call Jesus accursed,
1
Cor 12:3) and proceeds to demonstrate with a beautiful
metaphor of
the human body how each component part of Christ's
body needs and
is needed by the others. The varieties of gifts
and abilities are to con-
tribute to the well-being of the whole body and
are not to be used
selfishly as ends in themselves to benefit one
faction alone. Chapter 13
asserts in language unmatched by world
literature the spirit that
should underlie every endeavor in Christ's service:
none of the gifts,
abilities, or talents men may possess are of value
unless motivated by
the spirit of unconditional love. Chapter 14
represents an application
of sorts to the lofty and beautiful peak achieved
in chapter 13. We
have come back down into the valley now and will see
whether the
Corinthians have learned to apply the lesson of
love. They seem to
have been exalting tongues as the sign for
believers, a supreme gift
around which to rally the true body of Christ. Paul's
intent is to show
that such behavior is childish and produces exactly
the opposite re-
sults than those they should
desire. The Corinthians have misunder-
stood the relative value of tongues and prophecy,
have inverted them
as it were, and Paul delineates for them the
implications of what they
have been doing.
In the immediate context of the
verses we will examine (1 Cor
14:20-25),
Paul begins in vv 1-5 by telling the Corinthians to "pursue
love and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that
you may prophesy";
what he desires for them is perspective. Motivated
by love, they are to
19 IDB, 1964 ed., S.v.
“First Corinthians,” by S. M Gilmour.
20 They seem to have
included questions concerning marriage and divorce (7:1-
40),
food offered to idols (8:1-11:1), and the proper use of tongues in worship
(12:1-14:40).
J.
MacGorman, "Glossolalic
Error and its Correction: 1 Corinthians 12-14,” Rev Exp 80
(1983) 389.
266
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
esteem spiritual gifts according to their benefit for
others, not their
own selfish pursuits. Tongues do not edify men who
do not under-
stand; they may indeed edify self and glorify God,
but the one who
prophesies instructs and edifies others. Paul
concludes this introduc-
tory section by saying that
the one who prophesies is greater than the
one who speaks in a tongue (unless being
interpreted it has value as
prophecy) because he builds up the body of
Christ. (The Corinthians
in their immaturity have been virtually tearing up
Christ's body.)
Verses 6-19 illustrate the point
Paul has been making in several
ways and build up to a stronger, even more personal
metaphor from
the Apostle. If a bugle gives an uncertain call, the
soldiers will be
confused and unprepared for battle. If the
Corinthian believers are
"speaking into the air," they will remain foreigners to
those around
them; and the uninformed unbelievers among them will
not even be
able to add "amen" to their praises and
thanksgivings to God. This be-
havior is unfruitful; the
unbelievers are neither convicted nor edified.
Paul
speaks the strongest conclusion yet in vv 18-19: he himself
speaks with tongues and understands as well as they do
the benefits
they hold; indeed, he thanks God for this gift. Then
comes his verdict:
he had rather speak five words to the genuine
instruction of others
than ten thousand incomprehensible words.
The first verse of our section
represents a strong admonition to
the Corinthian Christians to be mature in their
understanding and
babes in malice, the implication being that they had
been acting in
just the opposite fashion. In selfishly exalting
unintelligible tongues
as a sign for believers, they were babes in
understanding, babbling
like selfish infants. The unbelievers were not being
convicted, and the
believers were not being edified--the Corinthians
had only been "ma-
ture in malice"--albeit
unwittingly. The argument thus far presented
runs: untranslated tongues
do no more than to confuse unbelievers
and leave the church unedified.
Prophecy, on the other hand, edifies
the church and allows the unbeliever to say his
"amen" to their giving
of thanks--he does not feel like a foreigner shut
out of God's plans.
Paul's
point is that in reversing their priorities and elevating tongues
above prophecy, they had gotten the opposite of the
desired result. Isa
28:11-12
illustrates "from the law" this exact phenomenon: untrans-
lated tongues harden
unbelievers in their unbelief, whereas clear
prophecy has always been intended to build up
those who will be-
lieve and apply it.
The use of Isa
28:11-12 in 1 Cor 14:21 constitutes one of the nine
le<gei ku<rioj quotations
of the NT (four are Paul's). All of these cita-
tions vary from both the LXX
and the MT not only in omission or ad-
dition of wording but in the
actual substance of the text itself. In six
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 267
instances (1 Cor 14:21
is one) the phrase le<gei ku<rioj is an addition to
the text of the OT. The five non-Pauline references
have the phrase or
its equivalent in the OT text.21 It
could be that in this instance Paul is
drawing upon his apostolic status and authority
to drive his point
home. Ellis says concerning these quotations:
le<gei
ku<rioj is the badge of
prophetic pronouncement in the OT. Its
presence in
the NT probably has an equivalent significance and may give
a clue to
understanding the role which the NT exegete--or better, the NT
prophet--considered
himself to fill. The gift of prophecy was highly re-
garded in the apostolic age [cf. 1 Corinthians 14];
it was a specific gift or
appointment
of the Holy Spirit; and it was not conferred upon all. Early
Christians without doubt used the
word in full light of its OT signifi-
cance, and, indeed, some of the functions most
peculiar to OT prophets,
such as
predictive utterance, appear in their NT counterpart.22
Ellis holds that his particular use
of a le<gei ku<rioj
quotation con-
cerns the judicial significance
of "tongues," and after R. Harris consid-
ers it to be one part of a testimonia collection within the "framework
of anti-Jewish polemic.”23 This may
well be so, but it is important to
note that no anti-Jewish polemic is being carried on
in 1 Corinthians
14;
rather, the emphasis seems to be upon lessening the emotional
value of tongues vis-a-vis
prophecy by citing an OT example of the
negative impact tongues have upon unbelievers and
then contrasting
it with the results mature Corinthian Christians should
desire "in
love.”24
J. Sweet feels (after Ellis) that the quotation had been used in
anti-Jewish polemic as part of a testimonia collection concerned
with
explaining the disbelief of the Jews and divine
judgment upon
(cf.
Rom 12:19 [Deut 32:35] and Rom 14:11 [Is a 45:25 and 49:18 or Deut
32:40]).
He explains that as the Corinthians' speaking in tongues
served as a sign of divine judgment against
unbelieving Jews, now
Paul
turns their own apologetic against them as a sign
against imma-
ture believers.25
It is in this context that Sweet cites J. Barr's admoni-
tion, "It seems that we
generally have to see the use of quotations not
against the context from which the quotations
were taken, which is
21 E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (n.p., 1957; repr.,
Baker, 1981) 107.
22 Ibid.,
109.
23 Ibid.,
108.
24 Sweet feels that the Corinthians have claimed that “tongues serve as a sign for
Christians," and that Paul is trying
to reverse this claim in favor of prophecy. He ex-
plains the riddle of v 22 by placing the words “tongues
are a sign for believers" in the
mouths of the Corinthians. J. P. M. Sweet, “A Sign for
Unbelievers: Paul's Attitude to
Glossolalia,"
NTS 13 (1967) 241.
25 Ibid.,
243-44.
268
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the modern literary approach, but against the
context of what the
early Christians were doing with them.”26
These points are well
taken; but until it can be proved that Paul is using Isa 28:11-12 in dis-
regard of its context, it is safer to assume that Paul
not only was
aware of its OT context but perhaps makes use of it
here to prove his
point. At any rate it is difficult to understand why
Paul would have
made an anti-Jewish polemic an integral part of this
passage which is
not .primarily addressing itself to why the Jews
are not accepting
Christ
but rather why the Corinthians are not acting as
mature believ-
ers. The point is that if
the Corinthians conduct worship as they
ought; both Jew and Gentile will be convicted and
converted and the
body of Christ will be properly edified
simultaneously.27
Paul's text-form28
differs from both the MT and the LXX al-
though it appears at first glance that is closer to
the MT.29 Paul's use
of coordinating conjunctions and prepositions
seems to correspond
more closely to the Hebrew than the LXX version.
There is however
early evidence from Origen
that points to the fact that 1 Cor 14:21 and
the text-form used by
in Philocalia 9.2. concerning 1 Cor 14:21:
But also the prophecy of Isaiah is
also called "law" by the Apostle, as he
says, "In the law it is written; 'with men of
other tongues and with other
lips I shall speak to this people, and even so they
will not hearken unto
me,' says the Lord." For I found the equivalent
of this saying in the
translation of
26 Cited in Sweet,
242-43, n. 6.
27 Cf. D. L Baker,
"The main theme of the chapter [is]: prophecy and speaking in
tongues both have a place in the lives of
Christians, but in the Church prophecy is pref-
erable because it edifies all
who are present. Speaking in tongues may also be used in
public worship if it is properly interpreted, but the
effect on unbelievers should be
borne in mind. Although it is a sign to them, they
will probably conclude that those wor-
shipping are mad, whereas the effect of prophecy
is to bring conviction and conversion."
Baker, "Interpretation of 1 Corinthians
12-14," EvQ
46 (October/December 1974) 233. If
this is so, it is difficult to fit Isa 28:11-12 into it in the primary sense of an anti-Jewish
po-
lemic. That does not fit the
NT context and does not appear to be Paul's point.
28 UBSGNT, 3d ed., 610.
29
Sweet, 243. Hering disagrees, however, with
this assessment. Jean Hering, The
First Epistle of
30 ]Alla> kai> h[ tou? ]Hsai<ou profetei<a no<moj para> t&? a]posto<l& le<getai,
fa<skonti: e]n e[teroglw<ssoij kai> e]n xei<lesin e[te<roij lalh<sw t&? la&? tou<t&,
kai> ou]d ]
ou!twj
ei]sakou<sontai< mou, le<gei ku<rioj. Eu$ron ga>r ta> i]sodunamou?nta> t^? le<cei
tau<t^ tau<t^
e]n t^? tou? ]Akou<lou e]rmhnei<q kei<mena. (Emphasis
mine.) Origen, Philocalie,
1-20
sur les ecritures et La lettre a Africanus
sur l'histoire de Suzanne
(trans. M. Harl and N. de
Lange; Paris: Cerf,
1983) 352.
This quote dates from the time of Hadrian. Hering, 152, n. 14.
David E. Lanier: WITH STAMMERING
LIPS 269
The NT text has no variants marked in
the UBSGNT, although a
few minor variants exist. [Eteroglw<ssoij
is rendered e[te<raij
glw<ssaij
in F G Vulgate (in aliis linguis)
Tertullian; and the reading EV
xei<lesin
e[te<rwn, "with lips of
strangers," in x B A 17 and other cur-
sives is rendered e]n xei<lesin e[te<roij, "with strange
lips," by P46 and
the majority text tradition including D E F G K L
P. Robertson and
Plummer
consider these to be scribal corrections, but none of them
substantively affects the reading.31
This renders Phillips' verdict on
the text quoted in the introduction extremely
problematic. We are
dealing with a solid text in 1 Cor 14:22--totally untouched by scribal
alteration in any extant manuscript.
The texts of the MT, LXX, and NT
differ so much that definite
signs of literary dependence are difficult to find. Hering concludes that
Paul
may either be quoting from memory or is dependent upon an
ancient translation of Isaiah in Greek which
H.
Conzelmann leans toward the latter possibility as a
warning
against concluding that Paul is "simply
altering the text freely."33
Michel
believes that since e[teroglw<ssoij
is found in no other Greek
translation, it must derive directly from
mann, however, rightly
observes that some originality on the part of
Paul
might be found. He feels the shift into first person, "I will speak,"
and the addition of "even so" stem from
Paul's own hand.35
When we compare the three text-forms
(see appendix 1), we see
that the most drastic deviation on the part of Paul
comes in his omis-
sion of the entirety of the
positive prophecy, " . . . unto whom he said,
“This
[is] the rest; cause the weary to rest, and this [is] the repose.' . . ."
In
keeping with this omission, Paul changes the
past tense verb-infinitive
combination ("and they were not willing to
hear" [NT]; faOmw;
xUbxA xlov
[MT];
kai>
ou]k h[qe<lhsan a]kou<ein
[LXX]) into the prophetic past kai>
oud ]
ou!twj
ei]sakou<sontai, using the future tense to express the certainty of
the rebellion.
Paul also makes a drastic departure
from the LXX in reassigning
the quotation to the mouth of YHWH. No longer are
the Assyrians
speaking in stammering tongues to brave,
resistant
31 A Robertson and A
Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the
First Epistle of
cited as Robertson and Plummer.
32 Hering, 152, n. 14.
33 H. Conzelmann,
A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (trans.
J. W. Leitch;
34 O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (
sellschaft, 1972) 65.
35 Conzelmann, 242.
270
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
YHWH
himself is speaking through the stammering tongues a judg-
ment on recalcitrant
and number is not enough, Paul underlines their
rebellion four times:
"in the law it is written. ..I will speak. ..they will not hear me, says
the Lord." The LXX lalh<sousi
has thus been brought closer in line
with the MT rBedaya, as the subject
speaking is again YHWH. The un-
derlined words and phrases above
are not in the LXX or MT and
seem to be Paul's emphasis.
Paul's word e[teroglw<ssoij
may represent a keener understanding
of the Hebrew hpAWA
ygefEla if we conceive of the masculine adjective
plural construct as "stammerers
of lip." The LXX has only the imper-
sonal faulismo>n xeile<wn, "disparagement of
lips." Paul's phrase e]n
xei<lesin
e[te<rwn, "with lips of
strangers," differs in number and modifi-
cation from the Hebrew tr,h,xa NOwlAB; "with a strange tongue," which
the LXX renders much closer to the MT with dia> glw<sshj e[te<raj. This
could well reflect a text tradition unknown today;
there does not seem
to be any reason for Paul to alter the text for
emphasis at this point. He
deviates from all known Hebrew and Greek texts--with
the possible
exception of the unknown text--form of
argument from silence. The v;, "yet," before
xUbxA may account for
Paul's
use of ou]de<, which Paul strengthens
by the addition of ou!twj.
The
addition of mou is in accord with the
shift to the first person of the
main verb, but this is merely bringing the text back
in line with its
original context, obscured by the LXX. As G. Archer
states, "The NT
wording heightens the meaning in the light of
God's Word."36 To this we might add
that Paul does not spare; he im-
plies that their rebellion against God's prophecy
through the men of
other languages amounts to a rejection of God
himself. ]Eisakou<w
means more than "hear" in a Semitic
context; it means "heed," "obey,"
"shema’." Paul's omission of the positive
prophecy cited by Isaiah
might have been for thematic reasons; we need not
infer that Paul's
text omitted it. Tentatively we may say that Paul
seems to be height-
ening the connection between
God's use of unintelligible tongues to
rebuke his people and their obstinate refusal to heed
and obey, which
has led to the catastrophe of exile. Whether Paul
sees himself as cor-
recting the faulty rendering of
the LXX (after Swete) we cannot say;
however, the result of Paul's quotation seems to
take the reader closer
to the spirit of the original prophecy. We hear
God again speaking
through stammering tongues to his stiff-necked
people; we see again
obstinate refusal leading to oppression and exile.
Though Paul's text-
36 G. L Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old
Testament Quotations in the New Tes-
tament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody, 1983) 107.
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 271
form is far from the MT, the thrust of what he says
is much closer to
the MT than the LXX; and certain factors in Paul's
use of the text
serve to heighten the notes of resistance, judgment,
and punishment
even further than the MT itself. Paul does not seem
to want his read-
ers to miss the point
through his subtlety.
stammering tongues were an unmistakable sign of
God's judgment.
Exegesis and
Interpretation
In the long and troubled history of
the interpretation of 1 Cor
14:20-25,
three factors emerge as interpretive problems. First, there is
the problem of the significance of Isa 28:11-12. Does it really fit the
Corinthian
situation, and if so how? Is it being applied with no
thought to its former context, which seems at
first glance to be totally
unrelated to the situation in
meanings of the key words shmei?on, a@pistoi, glw?ssa, and pisteu<ontej?
Do
they connote the same throughout, or do their meanings shift in
mid-passage as some commentators assert? Third, what
is the connec-
tion of v 22 to the context?
Why do the illustrations of it in vv 23-24
seem flatly to contradict it? This last problem
remains the most diffi-
cult of all for we must somehow explain why
"tongues are a sign for
unbelievers" (v 22) in a context where they
just think the Christians
are mad (vv 16, 23) and why "prophecy is . . .
not for unbelievers" in a
context in which an unbeliever is convicted and
falls on his face wor-
shipping as a result of clear prophecy (vv
24-25).37
14:20 Paul begins in v 20 by giving
an imperative to the Corin-
thians. They are not to be
children in understanding but babes in
malice. He is telling them to grow up: "In
understanding be mature."
This
command may have brought to Paul's mind the immediate con-
text of Isa 28:11-12 where
Isaiah is asking the rhetorical question of
Ephraim,
"Whom will he [YHWH] teach knowledge? And whom
will
he [YHWH] make to understand the message? Those just weaned
from milk? Those just drawn from
the breasts?" We cannot claim to
have penetrated the mind of the Apostle at this
point; we only note
that there are two links in the immediate context of
both passages: a
call for understanding
and a search for mature believers to apply
God's message. The theme of babies is
applied ironically in each con-
text. The application itself is different: Isaiah is
lamenting that no one
but perhaps the suckling infants is bothering to
listen to God's mes-
sage anymore in Ephraim; whereas Paul is ironically
telling the
Corinthians
that if they are going to be babies about anything, let it
be about evil or malice (kaki<a) but not about
spiritual understanding.
37 P.
Roberts, "A Sign-Christian or Pagan?" Exp Tim 90 (April 1979) 199.
272
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
So
we find three thematic, contextual affinities in the semantic do-
mains of knowledge, babies, and a call to a mature
hearkening to
God's word.
14:21 Paul begins the Isaiah quote
with the phrase "in the law";
he refers to the entire OT as law and seems to be
making an appeal to
divine authority.38 The word ge<graptai might take perfective
force in
the sense of "it stands written," i.e.,
that the authority is continuing
into the present and needs to be heeded; or it may
be a stock introduc-
tory phrase "it is
written," merely noting that the quotation is located
in Scripture itself. The primary questions we have
to ask at this point
are why Paul chose this particular Isaiah passage
and why he in-
cluded it here. G. Findlay
notes that Paul has been arguing the supe-
riority of prophecy over
tongues in the first 19 verses of 1 Corinthians
14
and includes the OT citation "not by way of Scriptural proof, but in
solemn asseveration of what [Paul] has intimated. . . respecting
the in-
feriority of Glossolalia.
. . . The passage of Isaiah reveals a principle
applying to all such modes of speech on God's
part."39 Conzelmann
holds that Paul is extending his train of thought as
follows:
Scripture predicts speaking in
tongues as a God-given sign, but this
sign has no
attention paid to it. Thus the tone is first of all critical, and
does not
agree with the previous train of thought. For Paul's argument so
far had
been based on the fact that men cannot understand speaking with
tongues,
whereas in the quotation it is based on1he fact that they will not
understand.
The application which follows [v 22] operates once more with
the idea of
inability, thus the quotation is made use of only for the one
thought,
that speaking with tongues is a "sign" (namely, for unbelievers).40
Conzelmann is correct that Paul is seeing tongues
as a sign of divine
judgment on unbelievers; Paul himself says as
much in v 22. But Paul
also demonstrates in v 22 that he is dealing with
the same topic he
has discussed all along: the relative value of
tongues over against
prophecy. In other words, tongues were a sign,
but in the OT context
they possessed only the negative value of rebuke
unto judgment.
38 F.
F. Bruce, I and 2 Corinthians
(London: Oliphants, 1971) 132-33. “According
to
Jewish
usage, the whole OT can be so designated." Conzelmann, 242. Paul uses o[ no<moj
to refer to Scripture at large in Rom 3:19, and
John at 10:34. G. G. Findlay, Apostles,
Romans, First
Corinthians, Expositor's Greek Testament (ed, W.
Robertson Nicoll; 5
vols.; n.p., n.d.; repr.,
Also
cf. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1953) 330.
39
40 Conzelmann, 242. Cf. Kidner,
“Paul's quotation of v 11 in 1 Cor 14.21 is thus a
re-
minder . . . that unknown tongues are not God's
greeting to a believing congregation but
His rebuke to an unbelieving one." Cited
in Grudem, 387.
David E. Lanier: WITH STAMMERING
LIPS 273
Paul's
argument proceeds further than that, as we see in his reintro-
duction of the theme of
prophecy versus tongues in v 22.
Excursus
on shmei?on. It is obvious that Paul
is citing Isa 28:11-12
to show that stammering lips and other tongues are
a "sign" (shmei?on)
for unbelievers. But what are we to understand by
"sign"? The major
divisions among commentators come over whether we
are to take
"sign" in a positive or negative sense.41 J. Ruef, for example, sees
"sign" in the NT context as referring to the positive
presence of God
at conversion,42 whereas K. Stendahl holds it had an almost com-
pletely negative connotation
for Paul--a "mere sign" that only led to
hardening and unbelief.43 Most
commentators will follow Stendahl
and affirm that "sign" in this context
applies to one of judgment (as in
Isa 20:3, Deut 28:45-49, or Luke 2:34), that it is
not a means by which
one comes to know God but a means of hardening
hearts.44 Ruef has
two problems with this approach. First, in the NT
context the people
did not have a chance to understand what the
speaker meant; in the
OT
context they had rejected the clear preaching of the prophet; and
the Israelites had not obeyed. Second, tongues were
viewed by the
Corinthians as a positive sign, a sign of the
presence of God's Spirit.
Paul
does not seem to be arguing his case in such a way as to allow
the unbelievers to be shut off in their disbelief
but rather to hold out
hope for their repentance (vv 24-25).45
Perhaps the best way to view the
concept of "sign" is to take it as
a neutral term connoting evidence of divine
activity whether for judg-
ment or blessing. In the OT
context of Deut 28:45-49, tongues of other
nations were an unmistakable sign of God's
disapproval of
their disobedience; tongues were a sign of the curse
that would follow
upon their disregarding the law as given to Moses.
"All these curses"
were to overtake them if they disobeyed:
and they
shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed
forever,
because thou servedst not the Lord thy God. . . . The
Lord shall
bring a
nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth. . . a nation
whose
tongue thou shalt-not understand. . . (KJV-emphasis mine).
John
refers to the glorious miracles of Jesus as "signs"; Luke records
how the birth of Messiah would be a sign which
would be spoken
41
Roberts, 199.
42
Ibid.
43 Stendahl, 115. Stendahl
cites 1 Cor 1:22, Rom 4:11, 2 Cor
12:12, Rom 15:19, and
2
Thess 2:9 as evidence of Paul's negative attitude
toward "mere signs.” Only in John
are miracles called "signs.n
Ibid.
44 Cf. TDNT, S.v. "shmei?on,” by K H. Rengstdorf for an illustration
of this viewpoint.
45 J.
S. Ruef, Paul's
First Letter to
274
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
against. Jesus, however, uses the word in the
negative sense when a
wicked generation keeps asking him for a sign:
"the sign of the prophet
Jonah"
is a bewildering puzzle to his audience. "Sign" like
"miracle" or
"parable" can be a vehicle for light or darkness
depending on the spiri-
tual receptivity of the
hearer. If we interpret sign in this neutral sense,
we will have no difficulty with "prophecy is
[a sign] for believers" (if
indeed those words are elliptically supplied by Paul
in v 22). In the NT
context, a "sign" of God's activity
could well be used in a positive sense,
just as in John's gospel--to lead people to Christ.
Both Paul and
the Corinthians seem to be aware of this.46
14:21 (continued) So Paul sets Isa 28:11-12 in a context in which he
seems to be asking the Corinthians to examine what
the law (Scrip-
ture itself) says about the
sign value of tongues: they were prophesied
by Isaiah as a sign of judgment on unbelievers (in
the OT context,
children of
obedience and offers of rest).47 But
what sort of tongues do we mean?
]En e[teroglw<ssoij
"by men of foreign tongues," in the Isaiah context
refers to uninterpreted
human languages that fall upon the ears of
unrepentant Hebrews as "stammering." But glw?ssa in
to unintelligible utterances spoken in the context
of Christian wor-
ship (vv 1-6). Whether they refer to human languages
(Acts 2) or mys-
terious, unintelligible tongues
of angels (1 Cor 13:1) is a matter of
debate to commentators. R. H. Gundry holds, against
what he consid-
ers to be an overwhelming
consensus, that the tongues in
were bona fide foreign languages. He notes that the
majority of NT
and Greek literary references refer to meaningful
human speech
(used in that sense 30 times in the LXX alone). Similarly,
outside of
the passages in question (Acts 2; 1 Corinthians
14), the biblical Greek
contains only two references to unintelligible
speech as glw?ssa (Isa
29:24,
32:4 [LXX]).48 In the context of our
passage, however, Paul has
already written of speaking with the tongues of
men or of angels in
13:1.
Gundry takes this reference as hypothetical, not necessarily
46 For treatments on
signs as positive or negative in Scripture see Grudem,
387-92
and Fee, 681-82.
47 Sweet feels that Isa 28:11-12 had been used by the Corinthians “to justify glosso-
lalia against Jewish
aspersions” and Paul turns the tables on them. Sweet, 244.
48 R.
H. Gundry, “’'Ecstatic Utterance’ (
view one might argue why an unbeliever, upon hearing
someone speaking in what was
obviously an unfamiliar foreign language, would
conclude that the speaker was crazy.
It
seems that what we have in
God. Cf. C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians (New York:
Crossroad, 1987) 89-91; F. F.
Bruce,
1 and 2 Corinthians, New Century Bible Commentary (
mans,
1971) 1.'33; Grosheide, 332.
For the opposite view see J. G. Davies, “Pentecost and
Glossolalia,"
JTS (1952) 228-31. Conzelmann
maintains a neutral position, 242, n. 19.
David E. Lanier: WITH STAMMERING
LIPS 275
rooted in facts as they were. But prophecy, knowledge,
faith, giving up
of possessions to feed the poor, and being
martyred (13:1-2) were
surely not hypothetical to the Corinthians. Tongues at
to have constituted a spiritual manifestation that
needed spiritual in-
terpretation and mature control. We
cannot prove conclusively from
the evidence we have that they were indeed speaking
in a heavenly
language unknown by men; neither can we prove the
reverse, but
such a singular, mysterious working of God's Spirit
would not have to
conform to the lexical norms familiar to men. It
seems more plau-
sible, judging from the
context, that tongues of men and angels were
in danger of being abused, that unbelievers
considered the Christians
mad in exercising the gift, that tongues had
meaning but only when
translated, and that Paul himself had the gift but
wanted to do the
thing which edified the believers and instructed the
unbelievers in
love: prophesy.
There are major differences between glw?ssa in the Isaiah pas-
sage and in
28
was a form of punishment for unbelief.49 The
uninterpreted (heav-
enly?) language
of Paul's day was occurring among believers in an at-
titude of worship. One
represents God speaking through the heathen
to his own unbelieving people; the other
represents the Holy Spirit
speaking through a believing Christian to edify
himself or, upon in-
terpretation, the entire church
fellowship. The common link seems to
be the impact upon unbelievers: untranslated tongues in both in-
stances effectively shut off the unbeliever in
his unbelief. In Isaiah's
day this had constituted a judgment of God, but
Paul seems to be ask-
ing the Corinthians if they
desire to use their spiritual gifts to bring
the same judgment upon the unbelievers among them.
It is obvious
from vv 25-26 which Paul prefers: "Let all
things be done for edifica-
tion."
God spoke to
not to
confirm their faith but to consummate their unbelief. The Glosso-
lalia may serve a similar melancholy purpose in the
Church. This analogy
49 Robertson and Plummer
note that the connection of the Isaiah passage in
1
Corinthians is difficult and propose the following
logic on the part of Paul: “’I have
pointed out that tongues are a blessed
experience to the individual believer, and that, if
interpreted, they may benefit the believing
congregation. Tongues have a further use,
as a sign to unbelievers; not a convincing, saving
sign, but a judicial sign. Just as the dis-
obedient Jews, who refused to listen to the clear
and intelligible language of foreign in-
vaders, so those who now fail
to believe the Gospel are chastised by hearing wonderful
sounds which they cannot understand.’ If this is
correct, we may compare Christ's use
of parables to veil His meaning from those who could
not or would not receive it.”
Robertson and Plummer, 316.
276
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
does not
support any more than that of vv. 10f the notion that the
tongues of
So we conclude that Paul either
renders the Isaiah text freely or
draws upon a now unknown Greek text-form. In so doing
he changes
the subject of the main verb from the
"he" (YHWH) of the MT and
"they" of the LXX to "I" (YHWH). He omits the
former part of Isa
28:12
and thus condenses his argument to focus on the direct disobedi-
ence to God. His additions
at the close of Isa 28:12 underscore this
point. Paul's second clause, kai> ou]d ] ou!twj ei]sakou<sontai< mou,
is based
upon the Isaiah verse but with a consideration
increase in force, sig-
naled by the addition of ou!twj and mou. His use of ei]sakou<sontai is in-
teresting: the word shares the
meaning of u[pakou<w in the language of
the LXX and classical Greek and carries the force
of "obey" or "to
hear with attention or effect.”51 Paul
seems to be rendering faOmw; in
the full OT covenantal sense. If they did not obey,
they had not
heard--and it was God, not man, they spurned. The
language of the
original has been condensed and adapted by Paul,
and the effect is
much
stronger than the LXX form ou]k h]qe<lhsan a]kou<ein.52 The point
is not that they were unwilling to listen to those
of stammering
tongue (LXX) but that even though YHWH himself made
the appeal,
they would not hearken to me, says the Lord.
14:22 This
verse represents the major problem of interpretation
in the chapter. When taken as an application to
the Corinthian situa-
tion, the illustrations seem
flatly to contradict the assertions.53 Most
commentators take the verse to
represent the Corinthian situation and
seek by grammatical or lexical means to account for
the seeming in-
consistencies. There is no consensus,
and the approaches offered seem
to be as numerous as the commentators themselves.
One approach (L. Morris, Hering, S. L. Johnson, and
gests that Paul is making a distinction between two
kinds of a!pistoi:
those who have heard the word and rejected it (v 22),
and those who
50
51
Ibid.
52
Robertson and Plummer, 316-17.
53 In other words, how do
we reconcile "tongues are a sign. ..not for
believers"
(v 22) to 14:4 where the believer is edified by tongues, and
"prophecy is not for unbe-
lievers" (v 22) to
14:24-25 where an unbeliever worships God as the result of all proph-
esying? Cf. Grudem: "Paul's instructions in 1 Cor
14:20-25 have often seemed
perplexing, primarily because he calls tongues a
sign for unbelievers (v 22), but then
seems to discourage the use of tongues when
unbelievers are present (v 23). Similarly,
he says that the use of prophecy is for believers
(v 22), but then encourages the use of
prophecy when unbelievers are present (vv 24-25).”
Grudem,
381.
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 277
are about to become believers (vv 23-25).54
Roberts takes offense at
the shift in semantic meaning; for a@pistoi and shmei?on by such ap-
proaches; for example, Barrett
takes prophecy and tongues as negative
signs of judgment and, in Roberts' view, cuts v 22
off from its context,
thus producing an even greater impasse. Ruef explains v 22 by saying
that tongues are a sign to unbelievers in that they
are participants in
God's
Spirit, which Roberts feels is a contradiction in terms.55
Sweet feels that Paul is
deliberately exploiting the ambiguity of
a@pistoj. Paul warns the
Corinthians that according to the law, tongues
are meant as a sign against (dativus incommodi)
unbelievers (see
note 55 below); therefore, for those who reject
God's simple message,
tongues are not as the Corinthians seem to
assume--a sign for the
benefit of believers, but one which will harden
the unbelievers. On
the other hand, prophecy is a sign for believers in
the effect it has on
unbelievers. Sweet concludes:
On this view he is deliberately
exploiting the ambiguity of a@pistoj
('dis-
believer',
v 22; 'unbeliever', vv 23-24) and of the dative, but such shifts of
meaning are
common enough in Paul. There is no need to suppose he gen-
uinely thinks that tongues are intended by God to
harden unbelievers.
The case in verse 23 is
hypothetical; his concern is with the Corinthians.56
B. C. Johanson
handles the problem of v 22 by taking the verse as
a rhetorical question which Paul has formulated
by inference from Isa
28:11-12.
He sees it as being placed in the mouth of an imaginary
opponent and intended by Paul to represent the
childish reasoning of
the glossolalists which
he has already disparaged in v 20. Taken thus,
w 23-25 could be seen as Paul's rebuttal to the
absurdity of their
charge (v 22).57 O. Robertson sees shmei?on as referring to Deut 28:49, a
sign of covenantal curse or blessing, and concludes
that the same sign
could then serve as a judgment on unbelievers-a
covenantal curse.58
54 Ibid.
Hering, 152-53. L Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
(Grand Rapids; InterVarsity,
1958) 195-96.
55
Roberts, 200. He reconciles the problem by following B. Anderson to say
that
shmei?on refers to "divine
or spiritual activity" that communicates that God is present
and at work (cf. Isa
7:14-the Immanuel sign). Ibid. Cf. E. B. Allo, "Ici shmei?on est simple-
ment unsigne'de
l'activite divine, prodigieux
ou non, donne en faveur ou en defaveur
de quelqu'un, avec datif commodi ou
incommodi." E. B. Allo, Premiere epitre aux Corin-
thiens (Paris:
n.p., 1934), 365. Allo
takes the Greek to refer to a dative of advantage or dis-
advantage, where toi?j could be translated
"for" or "against." Sweet, 242. Fee, 681.
56
Sweet. 242.
57 B. C. Johanson, "Tongues, A Sign for Unbelievers?: A Structural and Exegetical
Study of 1 Corinthians XIV. 20-25,"
NTS 25 (January 1979) 202.
58 O. P. Robertson,
"Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing," WTJ 38
(1975) 44, 46.
278
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
But
tongues would serve simultaneously as a sign of covenantal bless-
ing as God poured out his
spirit on all flesh. Tongues are "for unbeliev-
ers" in that they give
a divine warning to unbelieving
been true to his word in Deut 28:49 and brought the
covenantal curse
to pass. Thus the tongues give witness to God's
judgment on unrepen-
tant Israel.59
Robertson resolves the conflict in v 22 by noting that
there is a general difference between tongues and
prophecy. Tongues
are a "sign;" prophesy is not
("prophesy is for believers"--Robertson
does not supply the words "for a sign").
They are an indicator whereas
prophecy serves as a communicator; i.e., tongues
call attention to the
mighty acts of God whereas prophecy calls the
unbeliever to repen-
tance and faith.60
Barrett likewise notes that Paul uses Isa 8:14 and
28:16
in other contexts to demonstrate possible positive and negative
effects of the same gift.61 Stendahl takes issue with Barrett who under-
stands ''as a sign" from the first clause and
reads "prophecy as a sign
not for the unbelievers." Stendahl
feels that the resolution of the prob-
lem lies in the omission of
the supplied words. He holds that Paul is ar-
guing that according to the
law glossolalia is a mere sign, incapable of
leading unbelievers to faith. Of course, to the
believer glossolalia is not
such a sign for he has faith and has heard God's
word. Prophecy is to-
ward faith
(here Stendahl seems to construe the dative of
reference,
lessening the idea of personal emphasis) and not toward the harden-
ing of unbelief.62
(Emphasis mine.)
The final problem we must treat is
the relationship of the Isaiah
context (divine judgment upon the unbelieving)
to the Corinthian
59 It is to be noted here
that in the larger context of Isa 28:11-12 is found
"Behold
I
lay in
60
Robertson, 52. But he does not as adequately account for the reverse
statements
"prophecy is not for unbelievers" and "tongues are
not a sign for believers" in the con-
text and why the illustrations seem to contradict
them. Sweet holds that these phrases
we put in for rhetorical balance and that Paul's
main point is not value in general but
sign value. Sweet, 244, n. 2.
61 Cited in T. C. Smith,
D. Moody, and R B. Brown, Acts-1
Corinthians, Broadman
Bible Commentary (ed. C.]. Allen; 12 vols.;
62 Stendahl, 116, n. 9. He notes the RSV translation,
"tongues are a sign not for be-
lievers but for unbelievers," overlooks the
wording of ei]j shmei?on, "for a
sign." (Cf. BAG,
"with
the vocation, use, or end indicated... 1 Cor
14:22," S.v. "ei]j.") Stendahl reads the
first clause "Thus [according to the quotation
from Isa. 28:11] glossolalia
becomes [Elvat
ei]j] a (mere) sign not for believers but for
unbelieyers." Stendahl, 115, n. 7. This
writer
feels that the expression can best be accounted for
by Semitic influence; that is, in the
NT
we often find LXX quotes or Semitic phrases using ei]j plus the accusative in place
of the predicate noun. Blass notes that the LXX
uses it fairly consistently as a transla-
tion of 7. It would thus be
"tongues are a sign" according to older Greek idioms under
Semitic influence. A T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical
Research (Nashville:
Broadman, 1934) 457-58.
David E. Lanier: WITH STAMMERING
LIPS 279
situation in which Paul seems anxious that the
unbelievers have a
chance to convert. Those commentators who want to
emphasize Paul's
holding out of grace toward unbelievers have
trouble with the Isaiah
context and often conclude that Paul is using Isa 28:11-12 irrespective
of the context of divine judgment.63 On
the other hand, those who hold
that Paul cites the Isaiah passage for its
historical significance have
problems explaining his application in vv 23-24,
as it appears to draw
the opposite conclusions from v 22. Commentators
who take this form
of reasoning include Bruce, Rengstdorf,
Allo, and J. MacGorman. Allo
is illustrative of the attempt to make the Isaiah
quotation serve the
Corinthian context. The Corinthian
unbelievers should realize by ob-
serving tongues that they are in the same
situation as the unbelievers
of Isaiah's day--a sign that God is abandoning
unbelieving
allowing it to return to Gentile domination.64
Sweet takes issue with
this and holds it is difficult to conclude that Paul
could have expected
his hearers to be so familiar with the Isaiah
context and to read so
much out of two isolated verses. He notes that
although Paul does not
seem to be drawing the quotation "from the
blue," he does not seem to
be using it in the context with which they would
have been familiar;
and it "points to a rather different interpretation."65
We will attempt
to address this problem in the final section.
IV. The Relationship Between Isa
28:11-12 and
1
Cor 14:21-22: A Tentative Conclusion
Now that the major interpretive
issues have been examined, we
must attempt to draw our findings together in such a
way as to draw
out, not further obscure, Paul's meaning. Several
presuppositions are
made: first, this approach assumes that Paul
understood the judgment
context of Isa
28:11-12 and that in applying the passage, he is aware
that tongues were a sign of judgment upon hardened
unbelievers.
Second,
no appeal will be made to unannounced shifts in grammar
(such as from dative of advantage to disadvantage) unless
warranted
by the context. Third, if we are forced to
reinterpret a word--"unbe-
liever," for example--it
will be only because context demands it.
63
Michel, pp 167-68. Michel sees it as an example of rabbinic teaching
taken out
of original context. Robertson and Plummer argue
that tongues are not a sign but are
intended only to serve as such. Robertson and Plummer, 317. They do conclude that this
“sign by proxy” is for judgment rather than salvation.
64 Allo, 365-66.
65
Sweet, 242. A Strobel, Der erste Brief an die Korinther,
Zurcher Bibelkommen-
tare (Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1989)
220. Strobel sees Paul as writing “ungenau
nach rabbinischer
Manier.”
280
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Let us first examine the common
elements in the OT and NT con-
texts. Both passages involve a call to maturity and link the concept of
knowledge with that of babies: "Do not be children in your thinking
yet in evil be babes" (1 Cor
14:20); "Whom would he [YHWH] teach
knowledge? ...Those just weaned from milk?" (Isa 28:9; emphasis
mine.) The basic difference between the contexts is
that Isaiah's words
come ironically, implying that the people are beyond
help and only
the babies would bother to listen. Paul is
directing his admonition pri-
marily to the believers and is
trying to get them to show signs of spiri-
tual maturity. In other
words, Paul and Isaiah have different purposes
in mind, suited to their contexts. I would like to
propose that Paul is
presenting two parallel arguments: one based upon
the OT context
(1 Cor 14:21-22) and
one upon the NT context (1 Cor 14:23-24). Whereas
Isaiah's
"call to maturity" constitutes a turning of unbelievers over to
divine wrath because of disobedience, Paul's
"call to maturity" consti-
tutes a call to mature Christianity
on the part of the Corinthians with
the opposite result in mind: to bring the
unbelievers to Christ.
Another common element is
unintelligible language which in
Isaiah's
context is a human language serving as an unmistakable sign
of God's wrath or, after Robertson, a sign of a
covenantal curse. In
sign of God's presence and new covenant; it only
shut off unbelievers
in their unbelief if left uninterpreted--showing
them to be aliens and
foreigners and causing them to conclude the
Christians were mad
(14:23).
In the Isaiah context hardening as a result of unintelligible
tongues was a divine result of having rejected
God's clear message. In
the Corinthian context the hardening of unbelievers
is an undesired
result of the selfish, unloving actions of immature believers.
These
unbelievers had not had the chance to hear God's
clear message (14:1-
19)
but should be given the chance (14:23-26). The
believers in Isaiah's
day were nonexistent in Ephraim; that is why Isaiah
has God preach-
ing through him in the
nursery. Perhaps these would be the "weary"
ones of the land who would accept God's rest and
covenant terrns-
those who would hear and obey. In
Israelites
but Christians; they were those who had responded to God's
message of grace in Jesus Christ. As Vv 24-25
suggest, some of the
a@pistoi in
ers in Isaiah's day were
Israelites who had defiantly rejected God's
covenant rest in order to forge illegitimate
alliances politically and
spiritually. They were entrenched, hardened rebels
against God. In
will not hear the clear message "if all speak
in tongues" (v 23) and
will be shut off in unbelief, concluding "they
are mad." If, however,
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 281
"all prophesy," the unbeliever is converted, falls down
convicted and
worships God (v 25). We are thus forced by the
context to reinterpret
"unbeliever" in this manner. "Sign," conceived
as a neutral manifesta-
tion of God's activity, may
like "miracle" or "parable" be a blessing to
one who believes or a curse to one who rejects.
Paul cites only the
negative function of the sign from Isaiah 28 and
asks rhetorically if
that is really what the tongues faction desires to
accomplish with
these unbelievers.
Paul cites Isa
28:11-12 as an OT example of the judgmental na-
ture of uninterpreted
tongues upon the covenant people of God, the
implication being that they were under the law and
had forfeited the
grace of God through disobedience. 1 Cor 14:22 in its entirety is per-
fectly adaptable to the OT
context and can be taken as a midrash on
v 21 (the Isaiah quote) to prove the point that
tongues can have only a
damning effect when the prophecy of God goes
unheeded.66
"Tongues
are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers" explains
part of the Isaiah context: under the law uninterpreted (mere) tongues
served as a sign of God's judgment upon unbelievers
and led to judg-
ment and destruction. The
obverse is also true (of the Isaiah context):
prophecy (which had gone unheeded in Ephraim) was
intended all
along for those who would respond and live in
obedience to it. The
purpose of the positive prophecy in the Isaiah
quote had been to pro-
mote mercy and lead the weary to live in covenant
fellowship with
God. The OT quote (v 21) and midrash (v 22) do not apply to the
Corinthian
situation;--and this is precisely Paul's point--they are un-
der grace! His implied
conclusion, proved in v 22 and signaled in the
text by w!ste, can be summed up as
follows: therefore, in the OT con-
text (in the law) prophecy is superior to tongues.
Tongues in Isaiah
were just a sign of judgment unto destruction, but
prophecy was in-
tended to lead believers into the blessings of the
covenant, as indeed
it would have, had anyone in Ephraim listened to
God and obeyed
Isaiah.
Paul's immediate appeal to the
Corinthian context implies, "Now
you do not want to use tongues to destroy people,
do you?" (cf. 1 Cor
13:1).
"Therefore" (ou#n) signals a shift in
context. He cites two contem-
porary hypothetical
illustrations to the Corinthians to show that since
their situation is opposite (not preaching
condemnation but repentance
66 Cf. Roberts, “It is tempting. . . to treat the succeeding verses as an
exposition of
this quotation, rather than a further comment on the
circumstances at
are dealt with in the rest of Ch.l4. ff Roberts,
201. Fee argues well for a chiastic structure
in v 22 (ABB' A') as application for an exhortation
(v 20) backed in rabbinical fashion by
an appeal to an OT text (v 21). Seen in this
fashion, vv 23-25 serve as concluding illus-
trations. Fee,
677, 681. (See appendix 2.)
282
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
unto salvation, not law but grace), their priorities
should be opposite;
and they should therefore cease exalting tongues
over prophecy.
Seen in this way, a rhetorical
disjoint occurs between vv 22 and
23,
and Paul begins making a parallel argument in light of their
changed situation. His first illustration is:
"If all speak in [uninter-
preted] tongues," the
unbeliever will conclude "you are mad." This is
from the Corinthians' own standpoint an undesired
result. The unbe-
liever, thus hardened, has had
no chance for grace, no opportunity to
hear the gospel, as mature Christians would notice.
On the other hand, "if all
prophesy," this same unbeliever is
"convinced by all" and "judged by all" (v 24).
He falls down and wor-
ships God and bears witness that God is truly
inhabiting the praises
of his people (v 25). This is the desired result
in the new context, but
the implied conclusion reached (vv 23-25) is that prophecy is superior
to tongues in the grace context as well. Uninterpreted tongues only
isolate and alienate unbelievers while edifying
the individual be-
liever, but prophecy both
edifies the people of God and convicts unbe-
lievers. Paul's conclusion is
therefore inescapable: "For you can all
prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be encour-
aged" (v 31; emphasis mine.) If tongues are
used, they must be inter-
preted (v 28); if not, let the
would-be abusers remain silent. So Paul
has, with one argument drawn from the OT context
plus an appended
midrash for the benefit of his
non-Jewish converts, argued that
prophecy is superior to tongues.67
Then, turning right around and
drawing an example from the Corinthians' own
situation, he has
proved the same. In v 37 he seals the argument with an
appeal to ap-
ostolic authority: "If
anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiri-
tual, let him acknowledge
that the things which I write to you are the
commandments of the Lord."
Having thus spoken, he summarizes
the point he has made con-
cerning the relative value of
tongues and prophecy: "Therefore, breth-
ren, desire earnestly to
prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with
tongues. Let all things be
done decently and in order" (vv 39-40). This
is what it means to be "mature in
understanding" and "babes in malice."
67 For treatment of this
verse as midrash see Martin,
72, and Strobel, 220. Ellis
sees it as an application of the pesher method of application,
going behind the Greek to
a treatment of the Hebrew ur-text.
“[Paul's] idea of a quotation was not a worshipping of
the letter or 'parroting' of the text; neither was
it an eisegesis which arbitrarily imposed
a foreign meaning upon the text. It was rather,
in his eyes, a quotation-exposition, a
Midrash pesher, which
drew from the text the meaning originally implanted there by
the Spirit and expressed that meaning in the most
appropriate words and phrases
known to him.” Ellis, 146.
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 283
APPENDIX 1
A COMPARISON OF
TEXT-FORMS
MT -A.D. 1009 NT
-A.D. 55-56 LXX -ca.
400 B.C.
(lQIsa-150-125 B.C.)
Isa. 28:11-12 1
Cor. 14:21 Isa. 28:11-12
Because
-- --
yKi
With
With
Through
B; ]En dia<
Stammerings (of) Other
Languages Disparagement
ygefEla e[teroglw<ssoij faulismo<n
(ou)
Luc
Speech,
Lip -- -Of Lips
hpAWA xeile<wn
And
And
--
v; kai<
With
With
By
b; e]n dia<
A
Tongue Lips
A Language
NOwlA xei<lesin glw<sshj
Strange,
Alien Of Strangers
(Other) Another
(Crafty
tr,h,xA Others Deceitful)
e]te<rwn (e]te<roij) e]te<raj (do<liaj)
x, B A P46
Sah, 538
-- -- Because That? For?
o!ti (e@ti) (--)
RCBaSah, HieLuc
He
(YHWH) will speak I (YHWH) will
speak They
will speak
rBeday; lalh<sw lalh<sousi
To
this people To this people To
this people
hz,.ha
MfAhA-lx, t&?
la&? tou<t& t&?
la&? tou<t&
Unto
whom -- --
rw,xE -- --
He
(YHWH) Said -- Saying
rmaxA le<gontej
Unto
them -- Unto Him (Them)(-)
Mhe,ylexE (hmhylx ) au]t&? au]toi?j
LQ Sc R C BS*BA Luc
284
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
APPENDIX 1 (cont.)
A COMPARISON OF
TEXT-FORMS
MT-A.D.1009 NT-A.D.
55-56 LXX-ca. 400
B.C.
(lQIsa-150-125 B.C.)
Isa. 28:11-12 1
Cor. 14:21 Isa. 28:11-12 c
This
-- This (is)
txzo
(txvz ) tou?to
The
rest, quietude -- The rest
hHAUnm;.ha to>
a]na<pauma
(You-pl)
Cause to Rest -- --
UHynihA -- --
(obj.) The weary, -- To the
hungering
exhausted JyefAl, -- t&?
peinw?nti
And
this (is) -- And this (is)
txzov;
(txvzv) -- kai> tou?to
The
repose -- The Destruction
hfaGaTaha -- Battle Array Rest
to> suntri<mma RCBaTht
to> su<ntagma h[ h[remi<a
Luc s’
And
not And even so, not And
not
xlov; (xvlv) kai< ou]d ] ou!twj kai< ou]k
They
were willing -- They willed
xUbxA (vbx) -- h[qe<lhsan (h!qelan,
on)
To
hear Will
they hear To
hear
fOmw; ei]sakou<sontai< a]kou<ein (a]kou<sai)
Tht
-- Me
(YHWH) --
mou
-- Says (the) Lord (YHWH) --
le<gei
ku<rioj
Luc=
Lucianic versions S
= Sinaiticus *original
hand IVc
Sah= Sahidic version ccorrector IV/Vc
R
= Rahlfs edition Hie = Hieronymus
C
=
Ba = Bagster's edition s' = Symmachus
Q
= Marchalianus VIc
Tht =
Theodotion
N
= Sinaiticus NT A
= Alexandririus Vc
David E. Lanier: WITH
STAMMERING LIPS 285
APPENDIX 2
A CALL TO MATURITY
Thesis: "Do not be children in your thinking,
yet
in evil be babes" 1 Cor. 14:20
("Whom would He teach knowledge? . . . those
just
weaned from milk?" Isa 28:9)
OT
CONTEXT-(in the law") NT CONTEXT--(“under grace”)
1.
call to maturity: unheeded by
dience to Paul
2.
stammering lips: unintelligible human 2. glossolalia:
unintelligible (angelic?) lan-
language leading
to hardening; a sign of guage leading to
alienation, hardening
God's judgment (28:11) of unbelievers when left untranslated
(14:23). A grace gift of God's presence
3.
unbelievers: Israelites who had heard 3. unbelievers:
Corinthian Jews and Gen-
God's clear message and rejected it. Des- tiles
who had not heard the gospel
tined for judgment
(28:12-13) clearly. Able to repent and believe
(14:24-25)
4.
(believers: Israelites who would hear 4.
believers: Christians
and obey the
prophet, thus obtaining
rest)
5.
sign: evidence of God's activity (nega-
5. sign: evidence of God's
activity (negative
tive)
or positive)
Argument
I (Neg) Isa. 28:11-12
(14:21) Argument II (POS) The Contemporary
and
Midrash (14:22) Situation
(14:23-25)
A
(w!ste) Unintelligible tongues
are a sign A (ou#n) If all speak with (uninterpreted)
not for believers
but for unbelievers: tongues: the unbeliever concludes “you
they are (in
Isaiah) only a sign of God's are mad"; as a foreigner he is
hardened
judgment leading
to hardening and de- and isolated in his unbelief with no
struction (unde-sired
result in
desired result)
B.
But prophecy is for believers not unbe- B. But if all prophecy: the unbeliever
is
lievers:
Isaiah's positive prophecy was convicted by all, called to account by
all,
intended for
those who would hear and falls on face, worships God, and con-
obey it, not
spurn it as nothing. Led to cludes “God is
truly among you (de-
rest and
relationship with God (desired sired result)
result)
C.
(Implied conclusion: therefore in the OT C.
(Implied conclusion: therefore in the
context [vv.
21-22] prophecy is superior present[NTJ
context [23-25] prophecy
to tongues:
Tongues were just a negative superior
to tongues. Tongues left un-
sign unto
destruction and exile, but translated only isolate and confuse un-
prophecy was
intended to build up be- believers, but prophecy both builds up
lievers
if Ephraim had heeded) the people of God and converts unbe-
lievers)
D.
(Implied connection: You do not want to D.
Conclusion: “You can all prophesy one
destroy
unbelievers, do you? [1 Cor. 13)) by one so that
all may learn and all may
be exhorted"
(14:31)
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: