This follows from what had been said. The speaker with tongues did not edify the church, because he was not under- stood ; he did edify himself, because he understood himself. This verse, therefore, proves that the understanding was not in abeyance, and that the speaker was not in an ecstatic state.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied : for greater (is) he that pro- phesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Iioould that ye all spaJce with tongues. It was not to be inferred from what he had said, that the apostle undervalued this gift. He admitted its im23ortance as one of the manifesta- tions of the Spirit, and he subsequently, v. 18, gives thanks that he himself possessed it in rich measure. From this it is evident that it was something of a higher nature than modern theories would represent it. But rather that ye prophesied.^ {'^eXoi Lva). J woidd that. The same particle often follows verbs of wishing, praying, exhorting, &c. For greater is he that prophesieth., &c., i. e. he is more useful than the speaker with tongues, unless the latter interpret. " Nam si accedat interpretatio, jam erit prophetia." Calvin. Speaking under the supernatural influence of the Spirit was common to both gifts ; the only difference was in the language used. If the speaker interpreted, then he prophesied. That the church may receive edification. This proves that the contents of these discourses, deUvered in an unknown tongue, were edi- fying ; and therefore did not consist in mysteries in the bad sense of that term ; i. e. in enigmas and dark sayings. This passage also proves that the gift of interpretation, although distinct from that of tongues, might be, and doubtless often was, possessed by the same person, and consequently, that he understood what he said. The absence of the gift of interpre- tation does not prove that the speaker himself in such cases was ignorant of what he uttered. It only proves that he was not inspired to communicate in another language what he had delivered. Had he done so, it would have been on his own authority, and not as an organ of the Spirit. It is conceivable that a man might speak connectedly in a foreign language under the inspiration of the Spirit, so as to be perfectly under- stood by those acquainted with the language, though he him-