iii. Interpretation of the Evidence. — (o) St. Paul, in common with all to whom the Chris- tian religion is a revelation from God, assumes that the gift of tongues is an energy of the Holy Spirit. No doubt he places it lower in value than any other spiritual gilt enumerated by him. No doubt, also, like other gifts of the Spirit, it was capable of being simulated by phenomena not due to genuine inspiration. There was room here for Sid^piffis (1 Co 12'"). But the main criterion to be applied by the discerner of spirits was the sub- stance of what was said (1 Co 2*, cf. 1 Jn 4', the apostle luis no sympathy with the heathenish idea that an utterance, apart from its intrinsic value, could be accredited by its abnormal circum- stances). Now, in the case of an unintelligible utterance, like that of ^x yXwiraji, no such criterion was ajiplicable. The apostle therefore assumes, in the case of tongues, tliat he has to do in each instance with the spiritual reality, not with a merely natural phenomenon (14*- '"). We must be content with the same assumption, however mind- ful that where there is the need of self-control (14-*) there is the possibility of self-will. The Spirit is doubtless really at work, even upon a psychical background of obscure, easily perversible, mental exaltation.
(6) If the phenomena of the NT are essentially homogeneous, we may safely reject some explana- tions which are applicable at most to a limited
TONGUES, GIFT OF
TONGUES, GIFT OF
79j
number of the passages under review. First among those may be set aside that based upon the strictly literal and phj'sical sense of vXiiaira, understooJ of ' the tongue ' or organ of speech (Eichhorn, Meyer, etc.). This mi"ht at first sight be thought applicable to Ac 2. The di.sciples, as the liery tongues appear to settle upon each of them, begin to speak iripait y\uaaait (compare the prolmbly spurious Koivais of Mk 16"), i.e. with (literal) tongues other than tlieir own, identilied with, or symbolized by, tlie tongues of llanie. But it cannot be seriously argued that the 'tongues' of this passage are diflerent from the 'dialects' of vv.*- " ; this identification is quite clear in v." rah rineTcpais y\wcr<Tais. And this carries with it (by Ac II") the interpretation of Ac lo" 19", where XaXeiv yXJijaaa is equivalent to X. Mpait y. in Ac 2. The literal sense claimed for y\. in these latter passages has no support in I's 38* LXX iXiXticra ii> yXuxrffjj fiov, where the use of the posses.sive indicates the literal sense. Hut it is argued that the literal sense is applicable in 1 Co 12. 14 (but 13"), where (14'^') 7rpo«i'Xfo9<u yXuxxffrj is contrasted with irp. ti? vot, the tongue (so it is urjjed) being conceived as the passive instru- ment ot the Vffvua, and the plural yXQaaai (surely a rcductio ad absurdum) referring ' to tlie various motions of the tongue ' (so Thayer-Grimra, s.v. ; see also Meyer-Heinrici on 12'"). rXiia-o-a must mean an utterance, not merely the moving tongue ; this latter sense breaks down in the pi. yXHaaaa, and still more conspicuously in the phrivse yifri yXuiaaCif, which clearly (loints to various kinds of utterance, whether foreign languages or not.
(c) Another sense of yXCiaaa which fails of general ai)plicability is that (exemplified in Aris- totle, Puct. il f.) of ' unusual word,' e.g. expressions borrowed from the Aramaic, like ' Amen, ' Maran Atlia,' or 'Abba' (Ernesti, Uleek, etc.). The use of such expressions would not be improbable in a state of high spiritual tension, and in fact the last- named word was regarded by St. Paul as si)ecially characteristic of the Spirit (Ro 8", Gal 4'') ; but there is nothing in his language to connect it specifically with ' tongues,' which possibly may be referred to, though even this is uncertain, in the vTtvayiJLoi dXdXijToi of Ro 8"°. Moreover, this sense of yXCxraa fits ill with the data of Ac 2, and still worse with those of 1 Co 14 ; for these occasional borrowed words had a well-recognized meaning, and in their use the vots was not dKapwos.
{d) The same principle, to .say nothing of other considerations, absolutely excludes the idea, which has some traditional support in Christian oiiinion from Origen {in Mom. 1") downwards, that the apostles, at any rate, if not all those present, received at Pentecost the more or less permanent power of preaching in foreign languages. To Begin \vith (above, § ii.), the speaking with tongues is an utterance of worship, not of instruction. It has been argued that we never read of the apostles needing the services of an interpreter. But neither do we read of their 'speaking with tongues' on any cy:casion subsequent to Pentecost. St. Paul, it IS true, claims to possess the gift, but in a con- text (I Co 14") which excludes any reference to preaching. With one exception, incleed, wo do not read of any apostolic preaching in lands whore Greek or Aramaic would not be a sullicient medium. The partial exception is in the bilingual district of Lystia (Ac M), and here the apostles clearly do not follow what is said Ai/<cooj'i<rT/, Ocular evidence at last enables them to realize that they are regarded as gods. But though the sacred text says nothing oi preaching, permanently or even temporarily, in foreign tongues, it cer- tainly suggests at lirst sight that a great number of foreign languages were superuaturally spoken.