(//) The gift, of tongues, the ecstatic burst of praise, is definitely asserted to be a fulfilment of the prediction of .Joel ii, 28. The twice-repeated bunlcn of that pre- diction is, " I will pour out my Spirit," and the efTect ou those who receive it is that " they shall prophesy." We may see, therefore, in this special gift that which is analogous to one element at least of the Trpo(pi]Tti<i of the Old Test.; but the element of teaching is, as we have seen, not prominent. In 1 Cor. xiv the gift of tongues and 7rpo0/)7fin (in this the New-Test, sense of the word) are placed in direct contrast. We are led, therefore, to look for that which more peculiarly an- swers to the gift of tongues in the other element of prophecy which is included in the Old-Test, use of the word ; and this is found in the ecstatic praise, the burst of song, which appears under that name in the two histories of Saul (1 Sam. x, 5-13; xix, 20-24), and in the services of the Temple (1 Chron. xxv, 3).
(/i) The other instances in the .\cts offer essentially the same phenomena. By implication in xiv, 15-19, by express statement in x, 47; xi, 15, 17; xix, 6, it be- longs to special critical epochs, at which faith is at its highest, and the imposition of the apostles' hands brought men into the same state, imparted to them the same gift, as they had themselves experienced. In this
TONGUES, GIFT OF
483
TONGUES, GIFT OF
case, too, the exercise of the gift is at once connected with, and distinguished from, " prophecy" in its New- Test, sense.
3. The tirst epistle to the Corinthians supplies fuller data. The spiritual gifts are classified and compared, arranged, apparentl_y, accoriling to tlieir worth, ]ilaced under regulation. This fact is in itself siguiliuant. Though recognised as coming from the one Divine Spirit, they are not therefore exempted from the con- trol of man's reason and conscience. The Spirit acts tlirough the calm judgment of the apostle or the Churcli, not less, but more, authoritatively than in the most rapturous and wonderful utterances. The facts which may be gathered in tliis case are briefly these:
(I.) The phenomena of the gift of tongues were not confined to one Church or section of a Church. If we lind them at Jerusalem, Ephesus, Coriuth, by implica- tion at Thessalonica also (1 Thess. v, 19), we may well believe that they were frequently recurring wherever the spirits of men were passing through the same stages of experience.
(■2.) The comparison of gifts in both the lists given by Paul (1 Cor. xii, 8-10, 28-30) places that of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, lowest in the scale. They are not among the greater gifts which men are to ''covet earnestly" (ver. 31 ; xiv, 5). As signs of a life quickened into expression where before it had been dead and dumb, the apostle could wish that "they all spake with tongues" (ibid.), could rejoice that he him- self "spake with tongues more than they all" (ver. 18). It was good to have known the working of a power raising them above the common level of their conscious- ness. They belonged, however, to the childhood of the Christian life, not to its maturity (ver. 20). They brought with them the risk of disturbance (ver. 23). The only safe rule for the Church was not to "forbid them" (ver. 3'J), not to "quench" tliem (1 Thess. v, 19), lest in so doing the spiritual life of which this was the tirst utterance should be crushed and extinguished too ; but not in any way to covet or excite them.
(3.) The main characteristic of the " tongue" (now used, as it were, technically, without the epithet " new" or "other") is that it is unintelligible unless "inter- preted" {Supiirji'evofiai, to transltite in course). Tiie man "speaks mysteries," prays, blesses, gives thanks, in the tongue (u' Trrevjiari as equivalent to tv yXwarry, 1 Cor. xiv, 15, 16), but no one understands him {('ikovh). lie can hardly be said, indeed, to mulerstand himself. The TTViVfia in him is acting without the co-operation of the vovQ (ver. 14). He speaks not to men, but to himself and to God (comp. Chrysost. //om. 35, wt I Cor.). lu spite of this, however, the gift might, and did, con- tribute to the building-up of a man's own life (1 Cor. xiv, 4). This might be the only way in which some natures could be roused out of the apathy of a sensual life or the dulness of a formal ritual. The ecstasy of adoration which seemed to men madness might be a re- freshment unspeakable to one who was weary with the subtle ((uestioniiigs of the intellect, to whom all famil- iar and intelligible words were frauglit with recollec- tions of controversial bitterness or the wanderings of doubt (comp. a passage of wonderful power as to this use of tiie gift by Irving, Morninrj Watch, v, 78).
(4.) Tlie peculiar nature of the gift leads the apostle into what appears at first a contradiction. "Tongues are for a sign," not to believers, but to those who do not believe; yet the effect on unbelievers is not that of at- tractiug, but repelling. A meeting in which the gift of tongues was exercised without restraint would seem to a iieathen visitor, or even to the plain common-sense Christian (the loiwTijg, the man without a ■)(^apirr/.ta), to be an assembly of madmen. The history of the day of Pentecost may help us to explain the paradox. The tongues rn-e a sign. They witness that the daily ex- perience of men is not the limit of their spiritual pow- ers. They disturb, startle, awaken, are given si'i; tu iKTrXljTTsa'iai (Chrysost. Ilom. 3(3, in 1 Cor.), but they