1 Corinthians 12:10

The miraculous operations, ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, have a very natural connection with the two previous gifts. Paul has in view the power of working all sorts of miracles other than simple cures, corresponding to the wants of the different situations in which the servant of Christ may be placed: resurrections from the dead, the driving out of demons, judgments inflicted on unfaithful Christians or adversaries, such as Ananias or Elymas, deliverances like that of Paul at Malta.

The reading δυνάμεως, of power, has no probability.

The MSS. A B read ἐν τῷ ἑνί, in the one Spirit, instead of ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ, in the same Spirit; this reading more forcibly contrasts the unity of the power with the diversity of the effects. But in French we cannot say the one without adding the same.

The place here occupied by the gift of prophecy seems at the first glance somewhat strange. As a gift of speech, it seems as if it should rather be joined to the first group (1 Corinthians 12:8); but it is only so in appearance. The prophet, according to 1 Corinthians 14:3, effects by his utterances “edification, comfort, consolation.” This gift therefore belongs to the group of gifts which have the will as their agent, and make use of it to put forth a power. It is miracle in the form of speech. As Hofmann says, “Prophecy does not proceed from a resolution or reflection of the prophet's own, but from a power independent of him, which masters his mind and makes him speak in order to act on others.” It proceeds from a revelation regarding the present state, course, and future of the kingdom of God. In transmitting this revelation to the Church, the prophet endeavours to stimulate it and to raise it to the height of his theme. It is in the spiritual domain an effect analogous to that which is produced on the sick man by the: “Rise and walk,” pronounced by him who has the gift of healing.

But vanity may easily become master of the exercise of this gift, and the prophet allow himself to mingle elements drawn from his own stock with the contents of the revelation received; he may even, without suspecting it, yield to an inspiration of diabolic origin. Hence the exercise of this gift ought to be subjected to control, and to come under the judgment of other persons capable of distinguishing, if need be, the human from the Divine. This judgment, which the apostle calls διάκρισις πνευμάτων, discernment of spirits, seems to have been usually exercised, according to 1 Corinthians 14:29, by other prophets. It is attributed, 1 John 4:1, to the Church in general. St. Paul has given the fundamental direction to guide this judgment in 1 Corinthians 12:3. The criterion which John gives, 1 Corinthians 12:2-3, is at bottom identical with that of Paul.

The plural διακρίσεις, discernments, in five Mjj., may be accepted; it is the most difficult reading. It is to be regarded as referring to all the particular cases. By the plural πνευμάτων, of spirits, Paul would indicate the breathings of the Spirit, which take effect suddenly on the prophets of the Church.

Vv. 10 b. It is certainly not without reason that the pronoun ἑτέρῳ reappears here. The gift of tongues and that of their interpretation form, in the apostle's eyes, a new category. And the character of this third group is easily distinguished. If in the first we find the influence of the Spirit on the powers of the understanding, in the second on the forces of the will, it is very clear that in the third we have the influence of the same Spirit on the feelings. The passage 1 Corinthians 14:14-16 proves that he who speaks in tongues addresses God under the overpowering influence of profound emotion, which causes him to pray, sing, or give thanks in an ecstatic language unintelligible to every one who does not share the same emotion, and to which his own understanding, his νοῦς, remains a stranger. It is then his feelings, and his feelings only, which are in activity, to the exclusion of his understanding and will, which are inactive. The man who speaks thus has indeed no intention whatever of acting on those who hear him. The sounds he gives forth are the immediate expression of what he feels: “He speaks to God, and not to men” (chap. 1 Corinthians 14:2).

From the third century down to modern times, the prevalent idea in the Church has been that the gift of tongues was the power of preaching the gospel to different peoples, to each in its own tongue, without having learned it. This gift, it was thought, explained the rapid propagation of the gospel. Irenaeus, who, in the second century, speaks of this gift, and speaks of it as a phenomenon still existing in his time, does not express himself very clearly about its nature. He says (Adv. Hoer. 5:6. 1), “that he has heard many brethren in the churches possessing prophetical gifts and speaking in tongues of all sorts by the Spirit (παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος γλώσσαις), bringing to the light the hidden things of men, and expounding the mysteries of God.” This expression: tongues of all sorts, does not enlighten us sufficiently as to his view. But the opinion of Origen (ad Romans 1:13) and his school is evident. The following, for example, is how Chrysostom, giving himself up to his imagination, describes the fact: “Immediately one made his voice be heard in the language of the Persians, another in that of the Romans; another in that of the Indians; another in some other tongue.” Similarly Theodoret: “Often a man who knew only the Greek tongue, after another had spoken in the language of the Scythians or Thracians, gave the hearers the translation of his discourse” (see Meyer). The narrative of Pentecost (Acts 2) seemed to point in this direction. Certainly we are not sufficiently acquainted with the hidden powers of the human soul, nor the mysterious relation of external language to inward speaking, to affirm the impossibility of such a phenomenon arising from the influence of the Holy Spirit in the depths of the soul. But with what view would a gift so extraordinary have been bestowed? With Greek and Latin, two languages which it was not so difficult to learn, one could make himself understood everywhere. And supposing the gift were intended to help mission work, of what use could it be in a Church like that of Corinth? Is it possible to conceive behaviour more strange on the part of a Greek of this Church than his setting himself to speak all at once in Arabic, or Chinese, or Hindustani, to express the lively emotions with which the gospel filled his heart? In Mark 16:9-20, a passage which, though unauthentic, undoubtedly contains authentic materials, we find the oldest name of this gift uttered by Jesus Himself, and the simplicity of which seems to guarantee its exactness. It is the expression: to speak in new tongues (γλώσσαις καιναῖς λαλεῖν). This expression does not suit the nature of the gift, as it was afterwards understood in the Church. Tongues really existing among other peoples would not be new tongues: instead of καιναῖς we ought to have had ξέναις or ἀλλοτρίαις. Finally, in this sense, how is it possible to explain the term γένη γλωσσῶν, kinds or species of tongues? It is impossible to suppose that the apostle is thinking of the distinction of human tongues into Semitic, Turanian, Indo-Germanic families! Besides, this interpretation is now generally abandoned. As to the account of the second chapter of the Acts which gave rise to it, it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 12:11 allows another explanation of the mysterious phenomenon related in that chapter.

After Ernesti, Bleek substituted the following for the old interpretation. The term γλῶσσα, tongue, is frequently employed by Greek grammarians to denote certain expressions rarely or anciently used, archaisms or provincial idioms. Accordingly, Bleek thinks that speaking in a tongue denotes discourses mixed with expressions of this kind. He also compares the relation between the Christian who spoke in a tongue and his interpreter to the relation of the προφήτης to the μάντις, in consulting the oracles. The prophet was the translator of the enigmatical answer (lingua secreta) which the god put into the mouth of the latter (the inspired). Heinrici appropriates this explanation, and supports it by new and important examples, taken not only from the literary, but also from the religious language of the Greeks. He mentions, in particular, that according to Diodorus, the act of rendering oracles in an obscure and Sibylline style was called ἐνθεάζειν κατὰ γλῶσσαν, to speak inspiredly in a tongue.

But it is impossible to imagine why, in a community composed of traders, artisans, sailors, etc., the most profound emotions of the saved soul should have found expression either in ancient and unusual words, or by means of compositions formed of wholly new terms. It is still less intelligible how this labour of reminiscence or creation could have taken place in a state wherein the influence of feeling controlled that of the understanding (1 Corinthians 14:14).

A third explanation takes the word tongue in the phrase γλώσσαις λαλεῖν in its literal sense: to speak while moving the tongue so as to utter sounds of which the speaker is neither master, nor conscious. Such, with certain shades of difference, is the meaning adopted by Eichhorn, Baur, Meyer. With the term tongue thus understood there have been compared the expressions of St. Paul in the Romans; “the Spirit who prays in us with unutterable groanings,” or who cries by the mouth of the child of God: “ Abba, Father! ” (Romans 8:26; Romans 8:15). Some sentences of chap. 14 of our Epistle might suit this meaning. But others are absolutely opposed to it. How in this sense are we to explain the plural γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, to speak in tongues, especially when only one person is in question, as in 1 Corinthians 12:6 ? Even in our passage the term γένη γλωσσῶν, kinds of tongues, cannot be so explained naturally. A speaking by a motion of the tongue divided into several categories! And can it be supposed that the apostle himself rejoiced and thanked God because he possessed such a faculty more than any of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 14:18-19)?

The gift of speaking in tongues must therefore have been something more elevated. Paul seems to compare it, 1 Corinthians 13:1, to the language of angels. As the bird by its song expresses the full joy of life in the absolute freedom of existence, so the transport to which the new experiences of the Christian life, of the peace of salvation, of the contemplation of the God of love, of the hope of glory, at times lifted the hearts of believers, was sometimes manifested of a sudden in an extraordinary language of which we can no longer form an idea. Sometimes it was an ardent supplication (the unutterable groanings of the Spirit), asking of God the full realization of His purposes of love (Romans 8:26); sometimes it was the cry of the spirit of adoption: “Abba, Father!” (Romans 8:14), finding vent in the form of joyful thanksgiving; sometimes it was a Psalmsinging, celebrating the ineffable gift of salvation in tones inspired with heavenly sweetness, music rather than language properly so called (1 Corinthians 14:7). To explain such a phenomenon it is not necessary to have recourse, as Holsten has, to the contrast between the gospel and the miseries of the time, the tyranny of the emperors, the avarice of the proconsuls, the chains of slavery, the despair of poverty, the satiety of wealth. The contrast which thus created new tongues within the Church was more of a spiritual and moral nature; it was the contrast between peace and remorse, holiness and impurity, the hope of perfect life and the fear of annihilation, the possession of God and life without God.

Such emotions, expressed in this mysterious language, the immediate creation of the Spirit, could only be understood by the man whom the Spirit put in communion with those who experienced them. And as such a man, while sharing those emotions, was nevertheless not wholly controlled by them, he preserved the power of giving account of the Divine object which gave rise to them, and so of expounding the same feelings in distinct words. This is what the apostle calls interpretation, ἑρμηνεία, which also depended on a special gift. Is there here an allusion to the technical use made of the word ἑρμηνεία in religious language, to denote the interpretation of the oracles of the Pythia (comp. Heinrici)? This is neither impossible nor necessary. As prophecy had for its auxiliary διάκρισις, discernment, because its contents fell into the category of the true or the false, so speaking in a tongue was accompanied by interpretation, which simply made its contents intelligible to the Church, the danger of error not existing, so to speak, in a form of utterance which was only the unreflecting manifestation of a feeling.

It cannot be by accident that the apostle here gives the last place to the gifts of tongues and of interpretation. Throughout this whole passage he speaks from the standpoint of the common advantage (1 Corinthians 12:7). If therefore he puts first the word of wisdom and of knowledge, it is because he regards them as the best fitted to impart to the Church solid and lasting edification. If he places after them gifts capable of producing a powerful effect, whether in the way of healing or comfort, it is because after the former they are the most useful; finally, in the last rank comes the gift which is only a matter of emotion without positive result.

On the relation between the gift of tongues as it existed at Corinth, and its first manifestation on the day of Pentecost, we shall not be able to pronounce till after the study of chap. 14; see at the end of that chapter.

Such was the wealth of gifts which the Holy Spirit had produced in the Church of Corinth in the days of its first love. But what Paul wished to bring out here was their unity controlling all this diversity; he had mentioned it after each gift; and now once again he enunciates it more expressly at the close of the complete enumeration, 1 Corinthians 12:11.