I. Philidoiiical Iiiterpretatiom of the Term.—rXuiTTa, or yXioaaa, the word employed throughout the New Test, for the gift now under consideration, is used in three senses [see Toncuk], each of which might be the starting-point for tlie application of the word to the gift of tongues, and each accordingly has found those who have maintaiiied that it is.so.
1. It primarily and literally signities the bodily organ of speech. Eichhorn and Bardili (cited by Bleek, Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 8 sq.).and to some extent Bunsen {Hippoly- (us, i, 9), starting from this signification, see in the so- called gift an inarticulate utterance, the cry as of a brute creature, in which the tongue moves while the lips refuse their office in making the sounds definite and distinct.
This interpretation, it is believed, does not meet the condition of answering any of the facts of the New Test., and errs in ignoring the more prominent meaning of the word in later (ireek.
2. Tlie term yXMTfra may stand for the use of foreign words, imported and half naturalized in Greek (Aristotle, Rhet. iii, 2, l-i), a meaning which the words "gloss" and " glossary" preserve for us. Bleek himself (iit sup. p. 33) adopts this second meaning, and gives an interesting collection of passages to prove that it was, in the time of the New Test., the received sense. He infers from tliis that to speak in tongues was to use unusual, poetic language; that the speakers were in a high-wrought excitement which showed itself in mystic, figurative terms. In this view he had been preceded by Ernesti ( Opusc. Theolog. ; see Morning Watch, iv, 101 ) and Herder {Die Gabe der Sprache, p. 47, 70), the latter of whom extends the meaning to special mystical inter- pretations of the Old Test.
This interpretation, however, though true in some of its conclusions, and able, so far as they are concerned, to support itself by the authority of Augustine (comp. De Gen. ad lit. xii, 8, " Linguam esse cum quis loquatur obscuras et mysticas significationes"), appears faulty, as failing (1) to recognise the fact that the sense of the word in the New Test, ^^'as more likely to be determined by that which it bore in the Sept. than by its meaning in Greek historians or rhetoricians, and (2) to meet the phenomena of Acts ii.
3. The word yXwaaa, in Hellenistic Greek, after the pattern of the corresponding Hebrew word ("111"?), stands for "speech" or "language" (Gen. x, 5; Dan. i, 4, etc.). The received traditional view starts from this meaning, and sees in the gift of tongues a distinctly linguistic power. It commends itself, as in this respect starting at least from the right point, and likely to lead us to the truth (comp. Olshausen, Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 538). Variations as well as objections and difficulties arising from this interpretation will be considered below.
II. /Ji.flori/ (lud Kxplanntion of the Biblical Occur- rences.— Tlie principal passages from which we have to draw our conclusion as to the nature and purpose of the gift in question are (1) Mark xvi, 17 ; (2) Acts ii, 1-13 ; X, 46; xix, 6; (3) I Cor. xii, xiv. Besides these, we maj' derive some light from later allusions incidentally made to these phenomena. We here consider them in their chronological order, with such inferences as are suggested by them.
1. The promise of a new power coming from the Di- vine Spirit, giving not only comfort and insight into truth, but fresh powers of utterance of some kind, ap- pears once and again in our Lord's teaching. The dis- ciples are to take no thought what they shall speak, for
the Spirit of their Father shall speak in them (Matt, x, 19,20; Mark xiii, 11). The lips of (ialiliean peasants are to speak freely anil boldly before kings. The only condition is that they are "not to premeditate" — to yield themselves altogether to the power that works on them. Thus they shall have given to them "a mouth and wisdom" which no adversarv shall be able " to gain- say or resist." In Mark xvi, 17 we have a more defi- nite term employed: "They shall speak with new tongues" (Kaiva\(; yKwaoani). It can hardly be ques- tioned that the obvious meaning of the promise is that the disciples should speak in new languages which they had not learned as other men learn them. The prom- ise itself, however, determines little definite as to the nature of the gift or the purpose for which it was to be employed. It was to be a " sign." It was not to be- long to a chosen few only — to apostles and evangelists. It was to " follow them that believed" — to be among the fruits of the living intense faith which raised men above the common level of their lives, and brought them within the kingdom of (Jod.
2. The wonder of the day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 1-13) is, in its broad features, familiar enough to us. The days since the ascension had been spent as in a cease- less ecstasy of worship (Luke xxiv, 53). The one hun- dred and twenty disciples were gathered together, wait- ing with eager expectation for the coming of power from on high — of the Spirit that was to give them new gift« of utterance. The day of Pentecost had come, which they, like all other Israelites, looked upon as the witness of the revelation of the Divine Will given on Sinai. Suddenly there swept over them " the sound as of a rushing mighty wind," such as Ezekiel had heard in the visions of God by Chebar (Ezek. i, 24; xliii, 2), at all times the recognised symbol of a spiritual creative power (comp. xxxvii, 1-14 ; Gen. i, 2 ; 1 Kings xix, 11 ; 2 Chron. v, 14; Psa. civ, 3, 4). With this there was another sign associated even more closely with their thoughts of the day of Pentecost. There appeared unto them " tongues like as of fire." Of old the brightness had been seen gleaming througli tlie " thick cloud" (Exod. xix, 18) or " enfolding" the divine glory (Ezek. i, 4). Now the tongues were distributed {Siafxepi- Cofiivai), lighting upon each of them. The outward syml)ol was accompanied by an inward change. They were " filled with the Holy Spirit," as the Baptist and their Lord had been (Luke i, 15; iv, 1), though they themselves had as yet no experience of a like kind. "They began to speak with otlier tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." Tlie narrative that follows leaves hardly any room for doubt that the writer meant to convej'^ the impression that the disciples were heard to speak in languages of which they had no colloquial knowledge previously. The direct statement, "The\' heard them speaking, each man in his own dialect," the long list of nations, the words put into the lips of the hearers — these can scarcely be reconciled with the theo- ries of Bleek, Herder, and Bunsen without a wilful dis- tortion of the evidence.