But the error is corrected. That's different. In the case of untranslated tongues, how do you suggest being able to correct error, if it occurs?
What I notice is that Paul says nothing about checking to see if the interpreter is correct. I can show you evidence from scripture that the speaker in tongues did not understand (or may not have understood) the language. Even Chrysostom, who apparently didn't have any first-hand experience with tongues came to the same conclusions that people who have experienced it do from his reading of the text, and so have many other scholars who have read the passage. I can't really show that the interpreter does not 'naturally' understand the language so that he can sparse it out word by word, but the experience of those who interpret tongues that I've interacted with is that it comes like a prophecy, a message of interpretation of the tongue, rather than an ability to translate like one might do naturally with his mind.
Paul says nothing about testing the interpreter with one's natural mind and abilities to verify the interpretation. But I have known a couple of people who have gotten the same interpretation of tongues as someone else, but the other person spoke it out. One of them was my college roommate. I also know someone who said the same thing happens with prophecies, someone else gives the same prophecy first. With prophecy, that's something you might expect. The 'one sitting by' might get the continuation of the exact same words the prophet is speaking or maybe he gets something else to continue it.
Again, this isn't about making mistakes. This is about actually being an interpreter, not about failing in your interpretation. For instance, the prophet Agabus was arguably mistaken in minor parts of the prophecy he gave. But there is no question he was a prophet.
If Jews having Romans bind hands, or if the Roman officer were commanding Jewish soldiers, the passage with Agabus is not so difficult. It's possible Paul was bound by Jews at some point during his ordeal.
The question of tongues, however, is different because to understand tongues, one must be able to interpret. Tongues are by definition unintelligible, otherwise one would not need an interpretation. However, to test the interpretation, one would need another interpretor to independently decide what the tongues meant.
If you really wanted to test it somehow, you could find situations of two people getting the same interpretation at the same time. But Paul does not say to do this. Verses 27 through 28 would indicate that just one person interpreting would be good enough.
Practically, if a message in tongues alone without interpretation does not edify others, then it does not make sense that a message in tongues would hurt others either if it weren't genuine. Also, let's say someone thinks he's interpreting, but he's so green he doesn't realize he is giving a prophecy after someone else gave an uninterpreted tongue. If his message is edifying, why would you want to shut him down? Who would know what is going on? Maybe someone would be gifted in discerning these things enough to know what is going on, but would you want to stop the flow of the meeting over such things, as opposed to discussing it with the speaker in tongues and interpreter in private?
I think this is why Paul downplays tongues so much in relation to the other gifts - the level of edification one can get from the practice in a church meeting is not particularly greater than prophecy or even teaching, but requires more testing and translation to achieve. Hence why he argues tongues are primarily a thing of personal edification.
He spend a lot of the chapter building up to the instructions regarding interpreting tongues. The Spirit gives tongues and interpretation as gifts. We might say that's complicated, why not just prophecy, but if the Spirit chooses to give these as gifts, we should accept them. Reading the chapter, I do get the impression that prophecy is better, certainly better for the congregation than just tongues without interpretation.
Asa side note, would you advocate inviting someone to teach in your church if they have previously given a teaching that is clearly not from God? Or a prophecy that is clearly not from God? If no, then how do you go about applying the same thinking to tongues?
Titus talks about stopping the mouths of certain people who teach false doctrine and I would think the same should apply to people who prophesy. I wouldn't advocate permanently shutting the mouth of a teacher who made some error on a minor point of doctrine, or even just a minor error about a fact of the Bible. People who err can also be restored. When it comes to tongues, I see instructions on stopping the mouths of those who teach false things, but no instructions along those lines about tongues. Instructions about tongues are about when and where to use them and instructions about interpreting them. There is nothing in the New Testament about false tongues or a need to judge tongues.
Depends on what you mean by prophecy. Certainly, I would say any prophetic word that contradicts Scripture is immediately in error. Now, it might be trickier than teaching (again, depending on what you define prophecy as), but its surely less tricky than tongues, by definition.
A prophecy that says the church needs to prepare for a coming famine is a little more tricky. If you don't know the prophet, how do you deal with that. Do you take up an offering for the poor saints in a nearby church, or just wait and see if the prophecy comes to pass? What if someone prophecies that there is adultery in the church, or that God is going to start blessing people with children, or that someone is going to be used in a certain ministry? Do you open the Bible and show where Jim-Bob is called to evangelize?
On this point, I would simply question what, then, the substantive difference is between teaching, prophecy and tongues. If all that matters is simply edification, why do I need someone to speak in tongues? Why not just stand up and say something encouraging?
The Spirit gives gifts for a reason. We are to 'let all things be done unto edifying'? We shouldn't try to find fault with which gifts the Spirit has given and ask why He didn't give us something we like better. Nor should we prevent the gifts from operating in church as intended and taught in scripture.
