It may be well that we should state a few reasons which show that Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, does not intend, in speaking of [———], to represent speech in foreign languages. In the very outset of his dissertation on the subject (xiv. 2), Paul very distinctly declares as the principal reason for preferring prophecy to the gift of tongues: "For he that speaketh with a tongue [———] speaketh not unto men but unto God: for no one understandeth(2) [———]." How could this be said if [———] meant merely speaking a foreign language? The presence of a single person versed in the language spoken would in such a case vitiate the whole of Paul's argument. The statement made is general, it will be observed, and not limited, to one community, but applied to a place like Corinth, one of the greatest commercial cities, in which merchants, seamen, and visitors of all countries were to be found, it would have been unreasonable to have characterized a foreign tongue as absolutely unintelligible. In xiv. 9, Paul says: "So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue [———] words
easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into air." How could Paul use the expression "by the tongue" if he meant a foreign language in v. 2 and elsewhere? He is comparing [———] in the preceding verses with the sounds of musical instruments, and the point reached in v. 9 clearly brings home the application of his argument: the [———] is unintelligible, like the pipe or harp, and unless the tongue utter words which have an understood meaning, it is mere speaking into air. Is it possible that Paul would call speech in a language, foreign to him, perhaps, but which nevertheless was the mother tongue of some nation, "speaking into air"? In such a case, he must have qualified his statement by obvious explanations, of which not a word appears throughout his remarks. That he does not speak of foreign languages is made still more clear by the next two verses, v. 10: in which, continuing his argument from analogy, he actually compares [———] with speech in foreign languages, and ends, v. 11: "If, therefore, I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) and he that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) in my judgment."' Paul's logic is certainly not always beyond reproach, but he cannot be accused of perpetrating such an antithesis as contrasting a thing with itself. He, therefore, explicitly distinguishes (v. 10) [———] "kinds of languages"(2) from (xii. 10, 28, &c.) [———] "kinds of tongues." In xiv. 6, Paul says: "If I come unto you speaking with tongues [———] what shall I profit you, unless I shall
speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching?" [———]; and then he goes on to compare such unintelligible speech with musical instruments. Now it is obvious that revelation, knowledge, prophecy and teaching might equally be expressed in foreign languages, and, therefore, in "speaking with tongues" it is no mere difficulty of expression which makes it unprofitable, but that general unintelligibility which is the ground of the whole of Paul's objections. Paul exclaims (v. 18): "I thank God I speak with a tongue [———](1) more than ye all, (19) but in a church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue [———]."(2) We have already pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Paul could speak many languages. So far as we have any information, he only made use of Greek and Aramaic, and never even preached where those languages were not current. He always employed the former in his Epistles, whether addressed to Corinth, Galatia, or Rome, and his knowledge even of that language was certainly not perfect. Speaking "with a tongue" cannot, for reasons previously given, mean a foreign language; and this is still more obvious from what he says in v. 19, just quoted, in which he distinguishes speaking with a tongue from speaking with his understanding. Five words so spoken are better than ten thousand in a tongue, because he speaks
with the understanding in the one case and without it in the second. It is clear that a man speaks with his understanding as much in one language as another, but it is the main characteristic of the speech we are discussing that it is throughout opposed to understanding: cf. vv. 14, 15. It would be inconceivable that, if this gift really signified power to speak foreign languages, Paul could on the one hand use the expressions in this letter with regard to it, and on the other that he could have failed to add remarks consistent with such an interpretation. For instance is it possible that the Apostle in repressing the exercise of the Charisma, as he does, could have neglected to point out some other use for it than mere personal edification? Could he have omitted to tell some of these speakers with tongues that, instead of wasting their languages in a church where no one understood them, it would be well for them to employ them in the instruction of the nations whose tongues had been supernaturally imparted to them? As it is, Paul checks the use of a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit, and reduces its operation to the smallest limits, without once indicating so obvious a sphere of usefulness for the miraculous power. We need not, however, proceed to further arguments upon this branch of the subject; although, in treating other points, additional evidence will constantly present itself. For the reasons we have stated, and many others, the great majority of critics are agreed that the gift of tongues, according to Paul, was not the power of speaking foreign languages previously unknown.(1) But for the narrative in Acts ii. no one would ever have thought of such an interpretation.
Coming now to consider the two Charismata, "kinds of tongues" and "the interpretation of tongues," more immediately in connection with our inquiry, as so-called miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, we shall first endeavour to ascertain some of their principal characteristics. The theory of foreign languages supernaturally imparted without previous study may be definitively laid aside. The interpretation of tongues may go with it, but requires a few observations. It is clear from Paul's words throughout this dissertation that the interpretation of tongues not only was not invariably attached to the gift of tongues(1) (1 Cor. xiv. 13, 27, 28), but was at least often a separate gift possessed without the kinds of tongues (cf. xii. 10, 28, xiv. 26, 28). Nothing can be more specific than xii. 10"... to another kinds of tongues; and to another interpretation of tongues;" and again, v. 30: "do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" This is indeed presaged by the "diversities of gifts," &c, of xii. 4 ff. Upon the hypothesis of foreign languages, this would presuppose that some spoke languages which they could not interpret, and consequently could not understand, and that others understood languages which they could not speak. The latter point is common enough in ordinary life; but, in this instance, the miracle of supernaturally receiving a perfect knowledge of
