Gift Of Tongues

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

 Mark 16:17;  Acts 2:1-13;  Acts 10:46;  Acts 19:6;  Acts 19:1 Corinthians 12,14. The Alexandrinus manuscript confirms  Mark 16:9-20; The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, omit it; "they shall speak with "new" ("not known before", Kainais ) tongues"; this promise is not restricted to apostles; "these signs shall follow them that believe." a proof to the unbelieving that believers were under a higher power than mere enthusiasm or imagination. The "rushing mighty wind" on Pentecost is paralleled in  Ezekiel 1:24;  Ezekiel 37:1-14;  Ezekiel 43:2;  Genesis 1:2;  1 Kings 19:11;  2 Chronicles 5:14;  Psalms 104:3-4. The "tongues like as of fire" in the establishing of the New Testament church answer to  Exodus 19:18, at the giving of the Old Testament law on Sinai, and  Ezekiel 1:4 "a fire enfolding itself"; compare  Jeremiah 23:29;  Luke 24:32.

They were "cloven" ( Diamerizomenai ), rather distributed to them severally. The disciples were "filled with the Holy Spirit"; as John the Baptist and our Lord ( Luke 1:15;  Luke 4:1). "They began to speak with "other" ( Heterais , different from their ordinary) tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Then "the multitude were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language; and they marveled saying, Behold are not all these which speak Galileans? and how hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born, the wonderful works of God?" This proves that as Babel brought as its penalty the confusion of tongues, so the Pentecostal gift of tongues symbolizes the reunion of the scattered nations. Still praise, not teaching, was the invariable use made of the gift. The places where tongues were exercised were just where there was least need of preaching in foreign tongues ( Acts 2:1-4;  Acts 10:46;  Acts 19:6;  Acts 19:1 Corinthians 14).

Tongues were not at their command whenever they pleased to teach those of different languages. The gift came, like prophesying, only in God's way and time ( Acts 2:1-18;  Acts 10:46;  Acts 19:6). No express mention is made of any apostle or evangelist preaching in any tongue save Greek or Hebrew (Aramaic). Probably Paul did so in Lycaonia ( Acts 14:11;  Acts 14:15; he says ( 1 Corinthians 14:18) "I speak with tongues (the Vaticanus manuscript, but the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus manuscripts 'with a tongue') more than ye all." Throughout his long notice of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 he never alludes to their use for making one's self intelligible to foreigners. This would have been the natural use for him to have urged their possessors to put them to, instead of interrupting church worship at home by their unmeaning display.

Papias (in Eusebius, H. E. iii. 30) says Mark accompanied Peter as an "interpreter," i.e. to express in appropriate language Peter's thought, so that the gift of tongues cannot have been in Papias' view a continuous gift with that apostle. Aramaic Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (the three languages over the cross) were the general media of converse throughout the civilised world, owing to Alexander's empire first, then the Roman. The epistles are all in Greek, not only to Corinth, but to Thessalonica, Philippi, Rome. Ephesus, and Colosse. The term used of "tongues" ( Apofthengesthai , not only Lalein ) implies a solemn utterance as of prophets or inspired musicians (Septuagint  1 Chronicles 25:1;  Ezekiel 13:9). In the first instance (Acts 2) the tongues were used in doxology; but when teaching followed it was in ordinary language, understood by the Jews, that Peter spoke.

Those who spoke with tongues seemed to beholders as if "full of new wide," namely, excited and enthusiastic ( Acts 2:13;  Acts 2:15-18), in a state raised out of themselves. Hence, Paul contrasts the being "drunk with wine" with being "filled with the Spirit, speaking in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" ( Ephesians 5:18-19). The ecstatic songs of praise in the Old Testament, poured out by the prophets and their disciples, and the inspired musicians of the sanctuary, correspond ( 1 Samuel 10:5-13;  1 Samuel 19:20-24;  1 Chronicles 25:3). In 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14 tongues are placed lowest in the scale of gifts ( 1 Corinthians 12:31;  1 Corinthians 14:5). Their three characteristics were:

(1) all ecstatic state of comparative rapt unconsciousness, the will being acted on by a power from above;

(2) words uttered, often unintelligible;

(3) languages spoken which ordinarily the speaker could not speak.

They, like prophesyings, were under control of their possessors ( 1 Corinthians 14:32), and needed to be kept in due order, else confusion in church meetings would ensue ( 1 Corinthians 14:23;  1 Corinthians 14:39). The tongues, as evidencing a divine power raising them above themselves, were valued by Paul; but they suited the childhood ( 1 Corinthians 14:20;  1 Corinthians 13:11), as prophesying or inspired preaching the manhood, of the Christian life. The possessor of the tongue "spoke mysteries," praying, blessing, and giving thanks, but no one understood him; the "spirit" ( Pneuma ) but not "understanding" ( Nous ) was active ( 1 Corinthians 14:14-19). Yet he might edify himself ( 1 Corinthians 14:4) with a tongue which to bystanders seemed a madman's ravings, but to himself was the expression of ecstatic adoration. "Five words" spoken "with the understanding" so as to "teach others" are preferable to "ten thousand in an unknown tongue."

In  Isaiah 28:9-12 God virtually says of Israel, "this people hear Me not though I speak to them in their familiar tongue, I will therefore speak to them in other tongues, namely, that of the foes whom I will send against them, yet even then they will not hearken to Me." Paul thus applies it: ye see it is a penalty to encouuter men of a strange tongue, yet this you impose on the church by abusing instead of using the tongue intelligibly. Speakers in foreign tongues speak like "children weaned from the milk, with stammering lips," ridiculous because unintelligible to the hearers ( Isaiah 28:14), or like babbling drunkards ( Acts 2:13), or madmen ( 1 Corinthians 14:20-23).

Thus, Isaiah ( Isaiah 28:9-14) shows that "tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." Tongues either awaken to spiritual attention the unconverted or, if despised, condemn (compare "sign" in a condemnatory sense,  Ezekiel 4:3-4;  Matthew 12:39-42), those who, like Israel, reject the sign and the accompanying message; compare  Acts 2:8;  Acts 2:13;  1 Corinthians 14:22; "yet, for all that will they not hear Me," even such miraculous signs fail to arouse them; therefore since they will not understand they shall not understand. "Tongues of men" and "divers kinds of tongues" ( 1 Corinthians 12:10;  1 Corinthians 12:28;  1 Corinthians 13:1) imply diversity, which applies certainly to languages, and includes also the kind of tongues which was a spiritual language unknown to man, uttered in ecstasy ( 1 Corinthians 14:2). It was only by "interpreting" that the "understanding" accompanied the tongues.

He who spoke (praying) in a tongue should pray that he might (be able to) interpret for edification of the church ( 1 Corinthians 14:13;  1 Corinthians 14:26-27). Hebrew and Aramaic words spoken in the spirit or quoted from the Old Testament often produced a more solemn effect upon Greeks than the corresponding Greek terms; Compare  1 Corinthians 16:22, Μaranatha ,  1 Corinthians 12:3; Lord of Sabaoth ,  James 5:4; Αbba , the adoption cry,  Romans 8:15;  Galatians 4:6; Alleluia,  Revelation 19:1;  Revelation 19:6; Hosannah,  Matthew 21:9;  Matthew 21:15. "Tongues of angels" ( 1 Corinthians 13:1) are such as Daniel and John in Revelation heard; and Paul, when caught up to paradise ( 2 Corinthians 12:4).

An intonation in speaking with tongues is implied in Paul's comparison to the tones of the harp and pipe, which however he insists have distinction of sounds, and therefore so ought possessors of tongues to speak intelligibly by interpreting their sense afterward, or after awakening spiritual attention by the mysterious tongue they ought then to follow with "revelation, knowledge, prophesying or doctrine" ( 1 Corinthians 14:6-11); otherwise the speaker with a tongue will be "a barbarian," i.e. a foreigner in language to the hearer. A musical tone would also be likely in uttering hymns and doxologies, which were the subject matter of the utterance by tongues ( Acts 2:11). The "groanings which cannot be uttered" ( Romans 8:26) and the "melody in the heart" ( Ephesians 5:19) show us how even inarticulate speech like the tongues may edify, though less edifying than articulate and intelligible prophesying or preaching.

Either the speaker with a tongue or a listener might have the gift of interpreting, so he might bring forth deep truths from the seemingly incoherent utterances of foreign, and Aramaic, and strange words ( 1 Corinthians 14:7;  1 Corinthians 14:11;  1 Corinthians 14:13;  1 Corinthians 14:27). When the age of miracle passed ( 1 Corinthians 13:8) the tongues ceased with it; the scaffolding was removed, when the building was complete as regards its first stage; hymns and spiritual snugs took the place of tongues, as preaching took the place of prophesying. Like all God's gifts, tongues had their counterfeit. The latter are morbid, the forerunners or results of disease. The true tongues were given to men in full vigour, preceded by no fanatic madness, and followed by no prostration as the reaction. Practical, healthy religion marked the daily walk of the churches in which the tongues were manifested. Not these, but the confession of Jesus as Lord with heart and tongue was the declared test of real discipleship ( 1 Corinthians 12:3;  1 John 4:2-3).

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Tongues, Gift Of

1. In NT we read of ‘speaking with tongues’ or ‘in a tongue’ as a remarkable sign of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; but the exact meaning of the phenomenon described has been much disputed. We may take the passages in the chronological order of writing. ( a ) The Epistles . In 1Co 12:1-31;   1 Corinthians 13:1-13;   1 Corinthians 14:1-40 , among the charismata or (spiritual) gifts are ‘divers kinds of tongues’ and ‘the interpretation of tongues’ (  1 Corinthians 12:10;   1 Corinthians 12:30 ). Yet St. Paul, who possessed the gift himself (  1 Corinthians 14:18 ), considers it to be of little importance as compared with prophecy. In itself it is addressed to God, and unless interpreted it is useless to those assembled; it is a sign to believers, but will not edify, but rather excite the ridicule of, unlearned persons or heathens (  1 Corinthians 14:23 ). Whatever the gift was, speaking with tongues was at Corinth ordinarily unintelligible to the hearers, and sometimes even to the speaker (  1 Corinthians 14:14 ), though the English reader must note that the word ‘unknown’ in AV [Note: Authorized Version.] is an interpolation. The gift was not to be forbidden, but everything was to be done decently and in order (  1 Corinthians 14:40 ). Indications of the gift are thought to be found in   1 Thessalonians 5:19 ,   Romans 8:15;   Romans 8:26 ,   Galatians 4:6 ,   Ephesians 5:19 , but not at all in the Pastoral, Petrine, or Johannine Epistles. It seems to have belonged to the infancy of the Church (  1 Corinthians 13:8 . ‘Tongues … shall cease’). [Irenæus, apparently speaking at second hand, says that the gift existed in the 2nd cent.; but this is very doubtful. Chrysostom says that it was non-existent in the 4th century.] ( b ) Acts . At Pentecost, in addition to the ‘mighty wind’ and the ‘tongues parting asunder like as of fire,’ we read that the assembled disciples spoke ‘with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance’ (  Acts 2:4 ). The multitudes from many countries, coming together, heard them speak in their tongues the mighty works of God (  Acts 2:11 ), while some thought that they were drunken (  Acts 2:13; cf.   1 Corinthians 14:23 ). We read again of the gift in the conversion of Cornelius and his household (  Acts 10:46 ) St. Peter expressly says that it was the same as at Pentecost (  Acts 11:15 ) and at Ephesus (  Acts 19:8 ); and probably the same is intended in the story of the Samaritan converts (  Acts 8:17 f.: ‘Simon saw that … the Holy Ghost was given’). ( c ) In the Appendix to Mark (which, even if Markan, is comparatively late) we have the promise that the disciples ‘shall speak with [new] tongues’ (  Acts 16:17 : ‘new’ is probably not of the best text).

2. Meaning of the gift . Relying chiefly on the passages of Acts, most of the Fathers (as Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus) understand the gift as being for purposes of evangelization, as if the disciples received a miraculous endowment of foreign languages to enable them to preach; Gregory of Nyssa and others take the gift as a miracle of hearing , the disciples speaking in their own language, but the people understanding their speech each in his own tongue. This view starts with the doubtless true idea that ‘tongue’ means ‘language’ here. But Acts says nothing, about preaching; the gift is never found in NT in connexion with evangelization; the passages in 1 Cor., where the utterances are often unintelligible even to the utterer, are clearly repugnant to this interpretation, and we have no proof that the Apostles ever preached in any language but Greek and Aramaic, even to the ‘barbarous’ heathen, such as the Lycaonians or Maltese. Indeed, Paul and Barnabas clearly did not know Lycaonian (  Acts 14:11;   Acts 14:14 ). Peter probably did not know Greek well enough to preach in it, for Mark was his ‘interpreter’ (Papias, Irenæus). We cannot, then, follow the majority of the Fathers in their interpretation. Had it been the true one, St. Paul would have encouraged the Corinthians to use the gift to the utmost.

Unfortunately, we do not know how the earlier 2nd cent. Fathers understood the matter; but Tertullian apparently judged the gift to be an ecstatic utterance of praise ( adv. Marc . v. 8). This is much more probable than the other view. At Pentecost the disciples spoke the ‘mighty works of God.’ All the NT passages either suggest or agree with the idea of worship. This does not, indeed, exhaust all our difficulties; but perhaps the following considerations may solve at least some of them. ( a ) The disciples, at a critical period of the Church, were in a state of intense excitement. But St. Paul’s words do not mean that their utterances were mere gibberish; on the contrary, they were capable of interpretation if one who had that gift were present. And at Pentecost they were, as a matter of fact, understood. ( b ) It has been suggested that we are to understand ‘tongues,’ not as ‘languages,’ but as ‘poetic or symbolic speech,’ not readily understood by the unlearned. But this view does not satisfy   Acts 2:1-47 , though in itself it may be true; in a word, this is an insufficient explanation. ( c ) The languages required by   Acts 2:1-47 are actually only two Greek and Aramaic. For those present at Pentecost were Jews; the list in   Acts 2:9 ff. is of countries, not of languages. All the Jews of these countries spoke either Greek or Aramaic. This is a difficulty in interpreting the narrative, which gives us the impression of a large number of different languages. But probably what is intended is a large number of dialects of Greek and Aramaic, especially of the latter; it would be as though a Somerset man heard one who habitually spoke broad Scots praising God in the Somerset dialect. And what would strike the pilgrim Jews present was that the speakers at Pentecost were mainly those who themselves spoke an uncouth Aramaic dialect, that of Galilee (  Matthew 26:73 ). ( d ) This consideration may lead us a step further. We may recognize in the Pentecostal wonder a stirring of memory, a recalling of utterances previously heard by the disciples at former feasts when a polyglot multitude of Jews (polyglot at least in dialects) was assembled, the speakers uttering what they had unconsciously already taken into their memories. This would account for their words being so readily understood; some of the speakers would be praising God in one dialect, some in another. ( e ) Something of this sort may have happened at Corinth, one of the most cosmopolitan of cities. Here the possession of the gift was not confined to those of Jewish birth. But naturally the resident Christian community at Corinth would ordinarily not understand the strange dialects given utterance to. The case is not the same as that of Pentecost, when many different peoples were gathered together.

To sum up, it seems probable that the gift of tongues was an ecstatic utterance of praise, not only in poetic and symbolic speech, but also in languages or dialects not ordinarily spoken by those who had the gift; a power given at a time of great enthusiasm and excitement, at a critical period of the world’s history, but not meant to be a permanent gift for the Church, and not ranking so high as other charismata , especially not so high as prophecy. That it survived the Apostolic age is hardly probable.

A. J. Maclean.

Morrish Bible Dictionary

This gift was in the early church, and was a sign 'to them that believed not,' in fulfilment of  Isaiah 28:11,12 : cf.  1 Corinthians 14:21 . The gift was exhibited in a special way on the day of Pentecost, when people of many lands heard the wonderful things of God each in his own language. In the assembly these gifts were not to be exercised unless there was present an interpreter, that the saints might be edified. Paul thanked God that he spake with tongues more than all at Corinth; but in the assembly he would rather speak five words through his understanding, that he might teach others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.  1 Corinthians 12:10,28,30;  1 Corinthians 13:1,8;  1 Corinthians 14:2-39 .

The expression 'unknown tongue' is unhappy, because it has led some to think that the gift of tongues consisted of a sort of unintelligible gibberish. The word 'unknown' has been added in the A.V., where it should read simply 'tongue.' At Pentecost it was shown that the gift of 'tongues' was in a person speaking a language which he had never learnt, but which was at once understood by those who knew it.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Acts 2:4 Mark 16:17 Acts 2:9 Joel 2:28,29

Among the gifts of the Spirit the apostle enumerates in  1 Corinthians 12:10-14:30 ,, "divers kinds of tongues" and the "interpretation of tongues." This "gift" was a different manifestation of the Spirit from that on Pentecost, although it resembled it in many particulars. Tongues were to be "a sign to them that believe not."

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

1. Basic Character of  1 Corinthians 14 :

A spiritual gift mentioned in  Acts 10:44-46;  Acts 11:15;  Acts 19:6;  Mark 16:17 , and described in  Acts 2:1-13 and at length in 1 Cor 12 through 14, especially chapter 14. In fact, 1 Cor 14 contains such a full and clear account that this passage is basic. The speaker in a tongue addressed God (  1 Corinthians 14:2 ,  1 Corinthians 14:28 ) in prayer ( 1 Corinthians 14:14 ), principally in the prayer of thanksgiving ( 1 Corinthians 14:15-17 ). The words so uttered were incomprehensible to the congregation ( 1 Corinthians 14:2 ,  1 Corinthians 14:5 ,  1 Corinthians 14:9 , etc.), and even to the speaker himself ( 1 Corinthians 14:14 ). Edification, indeed, was gained by the speaker ( 1 Corinthians 14:4 ), but this was the edification of emotional experience only ( 1 Corinthians 14:14 ). The words were spoken "in the spirit" ( 1 Corinthians 14:2 ); i.e. the ordinary faculties were suspended and the divine, specifically Christian, element in the man took control, so that a condition of ecstasy was produced. This immediate (mystical) contact with the divine enabled the utterance of "mysteries" ( 1 Corinthians 14:2 ) - things hidden from the ordinary human understanding (see Mystery ). In order to make the utterances comprehensible to the congregation, the services of an "interpreter" were needed. Such a man was one who had received from God a special gift as extraordinary as the gifts of miracles, healings, or the tongues themselves ( 1 Corinthians 12:10 ,  1 Corinthians 12:30 ); i.e. the ability to interpret did not rest at all on natural knowledge, and acquisition of it might be given in answer to prayer ( 1 Corinthians 14:13 ). Those who had this gift were known, and Paul allowed the public exercise of "tongues" only when one of the interpreters was present ( 1 Corinthians 14:28 ). As the presence of an interpreter was determined before anyone spoke, and as there was to be only one interpreter for the "two or three" speakers ( 1 Corinthians 14:28 ), any interpreter must have been competent to explain any tongue. But different interpreters did not always agree ( 1 Corinthians 14:26 ), whence the limitation to one .

2. Foreign Languages Barred out:

These characteristics of an interpreter make it clear that "speaking in a tongue" at Corinth was not normally felt to be speaking in a foreign language. In  1 Corinthians 14:10 English Versions of the Bible are misleading with "there are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world," which suggests that Paul is referring directly to the tongues. But tosaúta there should be rendered "very many," "ever so many," and the verse is as purely illustrative as is  1 Corinthians 14:7 . Hence, foreign languages are to be barred out. (Still, this need not mean that foreign phrases may not occasionally have been employed by the speakers, or that at times individuals may not have made elaborate use of foreign languages. But such cases were not normative at Corinth.) Consequently, if "tongues" means "languages," entirely new languages must be thought of. Such might have been of many kinds (  1 Corinthians 12:28 ), have been regarded as a fit creation for the conveyance of new truths, and may even at times have been thought to be celestial languages - the "tongues of angels" ( 1 Corinthians 13:1 ). On the other hand, the word for "tongue" ( glṓssa ) is of fairly common use in Greek to designate obsolete or incomprehensible words, and, specifically, for the obscure phrases uttered by an oracle. This use is closely parallel to the use in Corinth and may be its source, although then it would be more natural if the "ten thousand words in a tongue" of  1 Corinthians 14:19 had read "ten thousand glōssai ." In no case, however, can "tongue" mean simply the physical organ, for  1 Corinthians 14:18 ,  1 Corinthians 14:19 speaks of articulated words and uses the plural "tongues" for a single speaker (compare   1 Corinthians 14:5 ,  1 Corinthians 14:6 ).

3. A S tate of Ecstasy:

A complete explanation of the tongues is given by the phenomena of ecstatic utterances, especially when taken in connection with the history of New Testament times. In ecstasy the soul feels itself so suffused with the divine that the man is drawn above all natural modes of perception (the understanding becomes "unfruitful"), and the religious nature alone is felt to be active. Utterances at such times naturally become altogether abnormal. If the words remain coherent, the speaker may profess to be uttering revelations, or to be the mere organ of the divine voice. Very frequently, however, what is said is quite incomprehensible, although the speaker seems to be endeavoring to convey something. In a still more extreme case the voice will be inarticulate, uttering only groans or outcries. At the termination of the experience the subject is generally unconscious of all that has transpired.

For the state, compare Philo, Quis rerum. divin ., li-liii. 249-66: "The best (ecstasy) of all is a divinely-infused rapture and 'mania,' to which the race of the prophets is subject.... The wise man is a sounding instrument of God's voice, being struck and played upon invisibly by Him.... As long as our mind still shines (is active)...we are not possessed (by God)...but ... when the divine light shines, the human light sets.... The prophet ... is passive, and another (God) makes use of his vocal organs." Compare, further, the descriptions of Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsus , vii. 9), who describes the Christian "prophets" of his day as preaching as if God or Christ were speaking through them, closing their words with "strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words of which no rational person can find the meaning." The Greek papyri furnish us with an abundance of magical formulas couched in unintelligible terms (e.g. Pap. Lond ., 121, " Iao , eloai , marmarachada , menepho , mermai , ieor , aeio , erephie , pherephio ," etc.), which are not infrequently connected with an ecstatic state (e.g. Reitzenstein, Poimandres , 53-58).

Interpretation of the utterances in such a state would always be difficult and diversities of interpretation would be unavoidable. Still, with a fixed content, such as the Christian religion gave, and with the aid of gestures, etc., men who felt that they had an understanding of such conditions could undertake to explain them to the congregation. It is to be noted, however, that Paul apparently does not feel that the gift of interpretation is much to be relied on, for otherwise he would have appraised the utility of tongues more highly than he does. But the popularity of tongues in Corinth is easily understood. The speaker was felt to be taken into the closest of unions with God and hence, to be an especial object of God's favor. Indeed, the occurrence of the phenomenon in a neo-convert was irrefragable proof that the conversion was approved by God ( Acts 10:44-48;  Acts 11:15;  Acts 19:6 ). So in  Mark 16:17 the gift is treated as an exceptional and miraculous divine blessing (in this verse "new" is textually uncertain, and the meaning of the word, if read, is uncertain also). Moreover, for the more selfish, the gift was very showy (  1 Corinthians 13:1 suggests that it was vociferous), and its possession gratified any desire for personal prominence.

4. The Account in  Acts 2 :

The account in  Acts 2 differs from that of   1 Corinthians 14 in making the tongues foreign languages, although the ability to use such languages is not said to have become a permanent apostolic endowment. (Nor is it said that the speech of   Acts 2:14-36 was delivered in more than one language.) When the descent of the Spirit occurred, those who were assembled together were seized with ecstasy and uttered praises to God. A crowd gathered and various persons recognized words and phrases in their own tongues; nothing more than this is said. That the occasion was one where a miracle would have had unusual evidential value is evident, and those who see a pure miracle in the account have ample justification for their position. But no more than a providential control of natural forces need be postulated, for similar phenomena are abundantly evidenced in the history of religious experience. At times of intense emotional stress the memory acquires abnormal power, and persons may repeat words and even long passages in a foreign language, although they may have heard them only once. Now the situation at Jerusalem at the time of the Feast gave exactly the conditions needed, for then there were gathered pilgrims from all countries, who recited in public liturgical passages (especially the Shemōneh ‛Esreh ) in their own languages. These, in part, the apostles and the "brethren" simply reproduced. Incomprehensible words and phrases may well have been included also (  Acts 2:13 ), but for the dignity of the apostles and for the importance of Pentecost Luke naturally cared to emphasize only the more unusual side and that with the greatest evidential value. It is urged, to be sure, that this interpretation contradicts the account in 1 Cor 14. But it does so only on the assumption that the tongues were always uniform in their manifestation and appraisement everywhere - and the statement of this assumption is its own refutation. If the modern history of ecstatic utterances has any bearing on the Apostolic age, the speaking in foreign languages could not have been limited only to Pentecost. (That, however, it was as common as the speaking in new "languages" would be altogether unlikely.) But both varieties Luke may well have known in his own experience.

5. Religious Emotionalism:

Paul's treatment of the tongues in  1 Corinthians 12 through 14 is a classical passage for the evaluation of religious emotionalism. Tongues are a divine gift, the exercise is not to be forbidden (  1 Corinthians 14:39 ), and Paul himself is grateful that he has the gift in an uncommon degree ( 1 Corinthians 14:18 ). Indeed, to those who treat them simply with scorn they become a "sign" that hardening is taking place ( 1 Corinthians 14:21-23 ). Yet a love of them because they are showy is simply childish ( 1 Corinthians 14:20;  1 Corinthians 13:11 ), and the possessor of the gift is not to think that he has the only thing worth obtaining (1 Cor 12). The only gift that is utterly indispensable is love ( 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ), and without it tongues are mere noise ( 1 Corinthians 13:1 ). The public evidential value of tongues, on which perhaps the Corinthians were inclined to lay stress, Paul rates very low ( 1 Corinthians 14:21-23 ). Indeed, when exercised in public they tend to promote only the self-glorification of the speaker ( 1 Corinthians 14:4 ), and so are forbidden when there is not an interpreter, and they are limited for public use at all times ( 1 Corinthians 14:27 ,  1 Corinthians 14:28 ). But the ideal place for their exercise is in private: "Let him speak to himself, and to God" ( 1 Corinthians 14:28 ). The applicability of all this to modern conditions needs no commentary. Ultra-emotionalistic outbreaks still cause the formation of eccentric sects among us, and every evangelist knows well-meaning but slightly weak individuals who make themselves a nuisance. On the other hand, a purely intellectual and ethical religion is rather a dreary thing. A man who has never allowed his religious emotions to carry him away may well be in a high state of grace - but he has missed something, and something of very great value. See also Spiritual Gifts; Tongues Of Fire .

Literature.

Plumptre in Db is still useful. Wright, Some New Testament Problems (1898), and Walker, The Gift of Tongues and Other Essays (1906), have collections of material. Of the commentaries on 1 Corinthians those of Heinrici (latest edition, 1896), Lietzmann (1907) and J. Weiss (1910) are much the best, far surpassing Robertson and Plummer in Icc (1911). For the Greek material, see ἔκστασις , in the index of Rhode's Psyche . Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes (1888,2nd reprint in 1909), was epoch-making. For the later period, see Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Gelstes und der Geister (1899); Lake, The Earlier Epistles of Paul (London, 1911); and see Inge in The Quarterly Review (London, 1914).