Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 12:10

To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

10. the working of miracles ] Literally, effects produced by the active exercise of powers, as in Act 5:1-11; Act 9:40; Act 13:11; Act 16:18.

prophecy ] See note on ch. 1Co 14:1.

discerning of spirits ] Wiclif, knowynge. Tyndale, judgement. This word is derived from the verb translated discern in ch. 1Co 11:29, where see note. Here it signifies the faculty of forming a correct judgment on the utterances of spirits. Cf. 1Jn 4:1. The word only occurs here and in Rom 14:1 and Heb 5:14. In the former place, it is rendered by an adjective, ‘doubtful’; literally, discerning of disputations; in the latter by a verb.

divers kinds of tongues ] These were either (1) outpourings of prayer and praise in a language unknown to the speaker or (2) (as Dean Alford in loc.) in a language not ordinarily intelligible to any man. The gift of tongues may possibly have included both (see notes on ch. 14). But it is impossible with Act 2:9-11 before us, and bearing in mind the fact adduced by Bishop Wordsworth in his commentary on that passage, that we never hear of any one of the Apostles sitting down to learn a foreign language, whereas with all other missionaries this is generally the first thing of which we are told to exclude the idea of foreign languages here. “Qui multis gentibus annunciaturus erat, multarum linguarum acceperat gratiam.” Jerome.

to another the interpretation of tongues ] See ch. 1Co 14:5; 1Co 14:13; 1Co 14:26-27.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

To another the working of miracles – Commentators have felt some perplexity in distinguishing this from what is mentioned in 1Co 12:9, of the gift of healing. it is evident that the apostle there refers to the power of working miracles in healing inveterate and violent diseases. The expression used here, working of miracles ( energemata dunameon) refers probably to the more extraordinary and unusual kinds of miracles; to those which were regarded as in advance of the power of healing diseases. It is possible that it may denote what the Saviour had reference to in Mar 16:18, where he said they should take up serpents, and if they drank any deadly thing it should not hurt them; and possibly also to the power of raising up the dead. That this power was possessed by the apostles is well known; and it is possible that it was possessed by others also of the early Christians. It is clear from all this that there was a difference even among those who had the power of working miracles, and that this power was conferred in a more eminent degree on some than on others. Indeed, the extraordinary endowments conferred on the apostles and the early Christians, seem to have been regulated to a remarkable degree in accordance with the rule by which ordinary endowments are conferred upon people. Though all people have understanding, memory, imagination, bodily strength, etc., yet one has these in a more eminent degree than others; and one is characterized for the possession of one of those qualities more than for another. Yet all are bestowed by the same God. So it was in regard to the extraordinary endowments conferred on the early Christians; compare 1 Cor. 14, especially 1Co 14:32.

To another prophecy; – See the note at Rom 12:6.

To another discerning of spirits – compare 1Jo 4:1. This must refer to some power of searching into the secrets of the heart; of knowing what were a mans purposes. views, and feelings. It may relate either to the power of determining by what spirit a man spoke who pretended to be inspired, whether he was truly inspired or whether he was an impostor; or it may refer to the power of seeing whether a man was sincere or not in his Christian profession That the apostles had this power, is apparent from the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Act 5:1-10, and from the case of Elymas, Act 13:9-11. It is evident that where the gift of prophecy and inspiration was possessed, and where it would confer such advantages on those who possessed it, there would be many pretenders to it; and that it would be of vast importance to the infant church, in order to prevent imposition, that there should be a power in the church of detecting the imposture.

To another divers kinds of tongues – The power of speaking various languages; see Act 2:4, Act 2:7-11. This passage also seems to imply that the extraordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit were not conferred on all alike.

To another the interpretation of tongues – The power of interpreting foreign languages; or of interpreting the language which might be used by the prophets in their communications; see the note at 1Co 14:27. This was evidently a faculty different from the power of speaking a foreign language; and yet it might be equally useful. It would appear possible that some might have had the power of speaking foreign languages who were not themselves apprized of the meaning, and that interpreters were needful in order to express the sense to the hearers. Or it may have been that in a promiscuous assembly, or in an assembly made up of those who spoke different languages, a part might have understood what was uttered, and it was needful that an interpreter should explain it to the other portion; see the notes on 1Co 14:28.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

To another the working of miracles, of other sorts, such as the inflicting punishments on sinners, casting out devils, &c.

To another prophecy, which in the general signifieth the revelation of the will of God, whether by the foretelling future contingencies, or opening the Scriptures by preaching or teaching.

To another discerning of spirits; a power wherein God, for the further authority and credit of his gospel in the primitive times, communicated to some men something of his own prerogative to discern mens inward thoughts and hearts, and to make up a judgment of their truth and sincerity, or contrariwise of their falsehood and hypocrisy.

To another divers kinds of tongues, that is, a power to discourse with men in their several languages, as we read in Act 2:8.

To another the interpretation of tongues: this is made a diverse gift from an ability to speak with divers tongues; possibly some of those that spake with divers tongues could not interpret what they said.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

10. working of miraclesAs”healings” are miracles, those here meant must refer tomiracles of special and extraordinary POWER(so the Greek for “miracles” means); for example,healings might be effected by human skill in course of time; but theraising of the dead, the infliction of death by a word, the innocuoususe of poisons, c., are miracles of special power. CompareMar 6:5 Act 19:11.

prophecyHere,probably, not in the wider sense of public teaching by the Spirit(1Co 11:4; 1Co 11:5;1Co 14:1-5; 1Co 14:22-39);but, as its position between “miracles” and a “discerningof spirits” implies, the inspired disclosure of the future(Act 11:27; Act 11:28;Act 21:11; 1Ti 1:18),[HENDERSON]. It depends on”faith” (1Co 12:9;Rom 12:6). The prophetsranked next to the apostles (1Co 12:28;Eph 3:5; Eph 4:11).As prophecy is part of the whole scheme of redemption, aninspired insight into the obscurer parts of the existing Scriptures,was the necessary preparation for the miraculous foresight of thefuture.

discerning ofspiritsdiscerning between the operation of God’s Spirit, andthe evil spirit, or unaided human spirit (1Co14:29; compare 1Ti 4:1;1Jn 4:1).

kinds of tonguesthepower of speaking various languages: also a spirituallanguage unknown to man, uttered in ecstasy (1Co14:2-12). This is marked as a distinct genus in the Greek,“To another and a different class.”

interpretation of tongues(1Co 14:13; 1Co 14:26;1Co 14:27).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

To another the working of miracles,…. Or “powers”: mighty deeds, wonderful works, such as are apparently above, and out of the reach of nature, and beyond the compass of human power and skill; such as raising the dead, causing the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, the lame to walk, and the like; of which, see some instances in Ac 3:6. Though others understand by these the extraordinary powers the apostles had of punishing offenders; of which the striking Ananias and Sapphira dead, by Peter, the smiting Elymas the sorcerer with blindness, by Paul, and the delivering the incestuous person, and Hymenaeus, and Alexander, to Satan, by the same apostle, are instances.

To another prophecy: either foretelling of future events, as was given to Agabus, and the four daughters of Philip, and others, Ac 11:27 or a gift of understanding the prophecies of the Old Testament, and of preaching the Gospel, which is in this epistle frequently called “prophesying”, particularly in the two following chapters; and those endowed with it are called prophets, Ac 13:1.

To another discerning of spirits; by which gift such that were possessed of it could, in some measure, discern the hearts of men, their thoughts, purposes, and designs, their secret dissimulation and hypocrisy; as Peter, by this gift, discerned the dissimulation and lying of Ananias and Sapphira; and by it they could also tell whether a man that made a profession of religion had the truth of grace in him, or not; so Peter knew hereby that Simon Magus was in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity, notwithstanding his specious pretences to faith and holiness, whereby he imposed upon Philip the evangelist, who might not have this gift of discerning spirits; by which also they could distinguish the Spirit of God from the lying spirits in men; of which there is an instance, Ac 15:17.

To another divers kinds of tongues; whereby such could speak all manner of languages, which they had never learned, understood, and been used to: this Christ promised his disciples, when he sent them into all the world to preach the Gospel, Mr 16:16 and so anticipates an objection they otherwise might have made, how they should be able to preach it to all, so as to be understood, when they were not acquainted with the languages of all nations; an instance of which we have in the apostles on the day of Pentecost, Ac 2:4 and which continued many years after with them, and other persons in the churches; see 1Co 13:2.

To another the interpretation of tongues; one that had this gift, when a discourse was delivered in an unknown tongue, used to stand up and interpret it to the people, without which it could be of no use to them; and sometimes a person was gifted to speak in an unknown tongue, and yet was not capable of interpreting his discourse truly and distinctly in that the people understood: see

1Co 14:13. The rules to be observed in such cases, and by such persons, see in 1Co 14:27.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Workings of miracles ( ). Workings of powers. Cf. in Gal 3:5; Heb 2:4 where all three words are used (, signs, , wonders, , powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer.

Prophecy (). Late word from and , to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter 1Co 14). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God’s message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Discernings of spirits ( ). is old word from (see 11:29) and in N.T. only here; Rom 14:1; Heb 5:14. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called “gifts” today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Tim 4:1; 1John 4:1).

Divers kinds of tongues ( ). No word for “divers” in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, ) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4) and was intelligible to God (1Cor 14:2; 1Cor 14:28). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern “tongues,” but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on Acts 2:13-21; Acts 10:44-46; Acts 19:6.

The interpretation of tongues ( ). Old word, here only and 14:26 in N.T., from from H (the god of speech). Cf. on in Luke 24:27; Acts 9:36. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Prophecy. Not mere foretelling of the future. Quite probably very little of this element is contemplated; but utterance under immediate divine inspiration : delivering inspired exhortations, instructions, or warnings. See on prophet, Luk 7:26. The fact of direct inspiration distinguished prophecy from “teaching.”

Discerning of spirits. Rev., correctly, discernings. Distinguishing between the different prophetic utterances, whether they proceed from true or false spirits. See 1Ti 4:1; 1Jo 4:1, 2.

Divers kinds of tongues [ ] .

PASSAGES RELATING TO THE GIFT OF TONGUES. Mr 16:17; Act 2:3 – 21; Act 10:46; Act 19:6; 1Co 12:10, 28; 1Co 13:1; 14. Possibly Eph 5:18; 1Pe 4:11.

TERMS EMPLOYED. New tongues (Mr 16:17) : other or different tongues (eterai, Act 2:4) : kinds [] of tongues (1Co 12:10) : simply tongues or tongue (glwssai glwssa, 1 Corinthians

1Co 12:14to speak with tongues or a tongue (glwssaiv or glwssh lalein, Act 2:4; Act 10:46; Act 19:6; 1Co 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27) : to pray in a tongue (proseucesqai glwssh, 1Co 14:14, 15), equivalent to praying in the spirit as distinguished from praying with the understanding : tongues of men and angels (1Co 13:1).

III. RECORDED FACTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

(1.) The first recorded bestowment of the gift was at Pentecost (Acts 2.). The question arises whether the speakers were miraculously endowed to speak with other tongues, or whether the Spirit interpreted the apostle ‘s words to each in his own tongue.

Probably the latter was the case, since there is no subsequent notice of the apostles preaching in foreign tongues; there is no allusion to foreign tongues by Peter, nor by Joel, whom he quotes. This fact, moreover, would go to explain the opposite effects on the hearers.

(2.) Under the power of the Spirit, the company addressed by Peter in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea spake with tongues. Act 10:44 – 46.

(3.) Certain disciples at Ephesus, who received the Holy Spirit in the laying on of Paul ‘s hands, spake with tongues and prophesied, Act 19:6.

MEANING OF THE TERM “TONGUE.” The various explanations are : the tongue alone, inarticulately : rare, provincial, poetic, or archaic words : language or dialect. The last is the correct definition. It does not necessarily mean any of the known languages of men, but may mean the speaker’s own tongue, shaped in a peculiar manner by the Spirit’s influence; or an entirely new spiritual language.

NATURE OF THE GIFT IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH.

(1.) The gift itself was identical with that at Pentecost, at Caesarea, and at Ephesus, but differed in its manifestations, in that it required an interpreter. 1Co 12:10, 30; 1Co 14:5, 13, 26, 27. (2.) It was closely connected with prophesying : 1Co 14:1 – 6, 22, 25; Act 2:16 – 18; Act 19:6. Compare 1Th 5:19, 20. It was distinguished from prophesying as an inferior gift, 1Co 14:4, 5; and as consisting in expressions of praise or devotion rather than of exhortation, warning, or prediction, 1Co 14:14 – 16.

(3.) It was an ecstatic utterance, unintelligible to the hearers, and requiring interpretation, or a corresponding ecstatic condition on the part of the hearer in order to understand it. It was not for the edification of the hearer but of the speaker, and even the speaker did not always understand it, 1Co 14:2, 19. It therefore impressed unchristian bystanders as a barbarous utterance, the effect of madness or drunkenness, Act 2:13, 15; 1Co 14:11, 23. Hence it is distinguished from the utterance of the understanding, 1Co 14:4, 14 – 16, 19, 27.

PAUL?ESTIMATE OF THE GIFT. He himself was a master of the gift (1Co 14:18), but he assigned it an inferior position (1Co 14:4, 5), and distinctly gave prophesying and speaking with the understanding the preference (1Co 14:2, 3, 5, 19, 22). VII. RESULTS AND PERMANENCE. Being recognized distinctly as a gift of the Spirit, it must be inferred that it contributed in some way to the edification of the Church; but it led to occasional disorderly outbreaks (1Co 14:9, 11, 17, 20 – 23, 26 – 28, 3 3, 40). As a fact it soon passed away from the Church. It is not mentioned in the Catholic or Pastoral Epistles. A few allusions to it occur in the writings of the fathers of the second century. Ecstatic conditions and manifestations marked the Montanists at the close of the second century, and an account of such a case, in which a woman was the subject, is given by Tertullian. Similar phenomena have emerged at intervals in various sects, at times of great religious excitement, as among the Camisards in France, the early Quakers and Methodists, and especially the Irvingites. 121

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “To another the working of miracles,” (allo de energemata dunameon) “And to another operations of powers.” Translated the “working of miracles,” this phrase indicates energetic acts of dynamic nature, wrought by members of the church, to the edifying of the assembly.

2) “To another prophecy;” (allo [de] propheteia) “And to another prophecy.” The gift of prophecy intelligibly speaking forth the word of God, was another of the numerous charismatic gifts distributed to the Corinth members, by the Holy Spirit. This gift was more of forth-telling than foretelling.

3) “To another discerning of spirits:” (allo de diakriseis pneumaton) “And to another discernings or comprehensions of Spirits” – spirits of good and evil nature, based on the Word of God, 1Jn 4:1; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 1:14.

4) “To another divers kinds of tongues;” (hetero gene glosson) “To another (of different order) various languages,” or the charismatic capacity to speak in another language, for the profit or benefit of the church membership, as occurred on Pentecost, Act 2:4; Act 2:6; Act 2:8; Act 2:11.

5) “To another the interpretation of tongues;” (allo de eremeneia glosson) “And to another the interpretation of tongues or languages.” This was a special charismatic empowering gift that enabled one to understand and interpret or translate tongues or languages to the profit or help of hearers.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(10) Prophecy.Not in its modern and limited sense of foretelling the future, but forthtelling truth generally.

Discerning of spiritsi.e., the power to distinguish between the workings of the Holy Spirit and of evil and misleading spirits (see 1Ti. 4:1; 1Jn. 4:1). On the gifts of tongues and interpretations of tongues, see 1 Corinthians 14.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

10. Working of miracles Literally, the in-working (by God in the man) of powers, that is, supernatural or miraculous powers.

Prophecy Inspired preaching; either predicting the future, unfolding mysterious truth, or searching the secrets of men’s hearts and characters, 1Co 14:24-25.

Discerning of spirits The power of detecting the hypocrite, as Peter did Ananias; of distinguishing true and false gifts; of recognising genuine inspiration. Traces of this power, more or less active, by spiritual sympathy with true inspiration pervading the body of the Church, enabled it to select the right books for the New Testament canon. The pretensions of modern criticism to decide whether one or another book belongs to the canon are often arrogant. On the original pentecostal miracle of tongues, see our note Act 2:4. In that primal miracle we suppose every individual heard the self-same word each in his own language. But later, as indicated in that note, by decline, only those understanding the one language miraculously spoken took the meaning; later still, a specially inspired interpreter was necessary; and finally, perhaps, the utterance lost all language form, was unintelligible to the utterer himself, being only the emotional vocal outflow of fervent religious emotion. See notes on 1Co 14:1-19. Thus there were various kinds of tongues.

Interpretation of tongues. See notes 1Co 14:27.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Co 12:10. Prophesy. This plainly signifies, foretelling the future fortunes of the church, to the comfort and edification of the assembly, as St. Paul expresses it, ch. 1Co 14:3 and the effects generally attending the act of prophesy in a little time assumed its name. But the proper sense of prophesy, and that in which it is here to be understood, is the foretelling things to come. See on Rom 12:6. The next gift is the discerning of Spirits. The reputation attending the exercise of these extraordinary endowments would be a strong temptation to impostors to mimic and bely their powers, as we see it was in the case of Simon the magician. It graciously pleased the HolySpirit, therefore, amid the bounty of these gifts, to bestow one, whose property it was to bring all the others to the test, by the virtue which the possessor of it had of distinguishing between true and false inspiration, where accidental ambiguity, or designed imposture, had made the matter doubtful or suspected. See Barrington, Benson, and on ch. 1Co 14:28.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 12:10 . .] workings (1Co 12:6 ) which consist in acts of power . It is a purely arbitrary assumption that by this is meant merely the “ potestas puniendi sontes , qualis exercita in Ananiam, etc.” (Grotius, following Chrysostom and Theophylact, comp also David Schulz). They are in general excluding, however, the cures already assigned to a special gift miraculous works (comp Act 4:30 ), which, as the effects of a will endowed with miraculous power, may be very various according to the different occasions which determined its action (2Co 12:12 ; Heb 2:4 ; also Rom 15:19 ). Instances of raising the dead belonged likewise to this division. [1955]

] prophetic speech, i.e. address flowing from revelation and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, without being bound for that matter to a specific office, suddenly (1Co 14:30 ) unveils the depths of the human heart (1Co 14:25 ) and of the divine counsels (1Co 3:10 ; Eph 3:5 ), and thereby works with peculiar power for the enlightenment, admonition, and comforting of the faithful (1Co 14:3 ), and so as to win over the unbelieving (1Co 14:24 ). As respects the substance of what he utters, the prophet is distinguished from the speaker with tongues by this, that the latter utters prayers only (see below); and as respects form, by the fact that the prophet speaks intelligibly, not in an ecstatic way, consequently not without the exercise of reflective thought; he differs from the thus: , Chrysostom on 1Co 12:28 . Comp generally on Act 11:27 . Lcke, Einl. in d. Offenb. Joh. p. 29. Gder in Herzog’s Encyklop. XII. p. 210 f.

.] judgments of spirits, i.e. judgments which avail, and that immediately on hearing the utterances, for the preservation of the church from misleading influences, by informing it from what spirits the utterances proceeded, and by whom they were carried on in the different cases (hence the plural ), whether consequently the Holy Spirit, or the human spirit merely, or even demoniac spirits (1Ti 4:1 ; 1Jn 4:1 ) were at work; , , Chrysostom. Respecting , comp on Rom 14:1 .

] The in Corinth was identical with that mentioned in Act 10:46 ; Act 19:6 , identical also with the speaking at Pentecost, Act 2 , according to its historical substance (see on Acts, loc. cit. ), although not according to the form preserved by tradition in Luke’s account, which had made it a speaking in foreign languages, and so a miracle of a quite peculiar kind. Most commentators, indeed, following Origen and the Fathers generally (with exceptions, however, as early as Irenaeus and Tertullian), have taken in this passage also as meaning foreign languages (so Storr, Flatt, Heydenreich, Schulthess, Schrader, Rckert, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Maier), and that, too, in the view of the majority, unacquired languages; [1958] only a few (among the most recent of whom are Schulthess, de charismatib. Sp. St. , Lips. 1818, and Schrader, also Ch. F. Fritzsche in his Nov. Opusc. p. 302 ff.) regarding them as acquired by learning . [1959] The former view is held also by Rckert (“the faculty, in isolated moments of high inspiration, of praising God in languages which they had not previously learned”) and Bumlein in the Stud. d. evangelischen Geistlichkeit Wrtemb. VI. 2, 1834, pp. 30 123; Osiander; Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 487 ff.; to some extent Olshausen and Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 658 ff.; 1844, p. 708 ff. See, in opposition to it, especially Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 17 f.; Bauer in the Tbing. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 104 ff.; Schulz, Geistesgaben , p. 57 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 89 ff.; van Hengel, de Gave der talen , Leiden 1864, p. 90 ff. Even putting out of account the singular expression , which is supposed to refer to a foreign language, and the psychological impossibility [1960] of speaking languages which had not been learned , the following considerations tell decidedly against the view of foreign languages: (1) It would make 1Co 14:2 untrue in all cases in which persons were found among the audience who understood the languages spoken. (2) In 1Co 14:10-11 we have the ( languages ) expressly distinguished from (see unfounded objections to this in Bumlein, p. 92, and in Hofmann), and the former adduced as an analogue of the latter. (3) What is contrasted with the glossolalia is not speaking in one’s native tongue, but speaking with employment of the understanding (1Co 14:15 ); and the glossolalia itself is characterized as . (4) In 1Co 14:6 there is contrasted with the . the speaking , . . [1961] , which could all, of course, be done in any language; hence the unintelligibleness of the glossolalia is not to be sought in the idiom , but in the fact that what was spoken contained neither nor , etc. (5) Upon this theory, the case supposed in 1Co 14:28 could not have occurred at all, since every speaker would have been able also to interpret. (6) In 1Co 14:18 Paul states that he himself possessed the glossolalia in a high degree, but adds that he did not exercise it in the church, from which it would follow that Paul was in the habit of praying in private, before God, in foreign languages! (7) In 1Co 14:9 , plainly means by the tongue , which, however, would be a quite superfluous addition if the point were not one concerning speaking with tongues (not with languages ). (8) Paul would have discussed the whole subject of the in question from quite another point of view, namely, according to the presence or non-presence of those who understood foreign languages. Billroth therefore is right in opposing, as we do, the hypothesis of foreign languages; but he still holds fast the signification language , and maintains that the glossolalia was “ the speaking of a mixed language, which comprised the elements or rudiments of actual historic languages of the most widely different kinds, and was the type of the universal character of Christianity .” But to say nothing of the Quixotic arbitrariness of the conception of such a medley, to say nothing also of the fact that the first rudiments of languages must have been only very imperfect, unadapted for supersensuous themes, and wholly unsuitable as a means of expression for ecstatic inspiration this view is opposed by almost all the considerations adduced against the hypothesis of foreign languages applied with the requisite modifications, and in addition by the phrase without the article; for the mixed language would surely not have been indefinitely a language , but the language , the primeval speech. Rossteuscher, too ( Gabe d. Sprachen im apost. Zeitalter , 1850), explains it as languages , and infers from 1Co 13:1 that the glossolalia in 1 Cor. was the speaking in angelic languages (Acts 2 : in human languages), the designation being formed with reference to the characteristic of this mysterious language, that it betokened a converse alone with God, such as the angels have. So also, in substance, Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt . p. 67 f. But this whole conception is shown to be erroneous when we consider that, if the specific characteristic of the phenomenon had been its angelic nature, the latter would have found its expression in the very name of the thing, and would also have been made mention of by Paul in his certainly pretty minute discussion of the subject; whereas, on the contrary, in 1Co 13:1 a speaking is only supposed as an imaginary case to heighten the contrast. Generally, however, the explanations which make it a speaking in a language or languages , are incompatible with the whole account of it which follows, even if we try to represent to ourselves the phenomenon and the designation as Hofmann does. According to him, the question is regarding languages spoken by the speaker only in virtue of his being carried away by the Holy Spirit, the distinctions between which, however, were not to be considered as differences between the language of one nation and another, but arose out of this, that the Holy Spirit gave impulse and power to the speaker to make his language for himself for what he had to utter at that very moment, so that the language moulded itself specially in the mouth of each individual respectively for that which had to be uttered. Those expositors who departed from the signification language entered on the right path. [1962] But that by itself was not enough to bring them to what was positively the right meaning. For Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, pp. 3 79, 1830, p. 43 ff., explains it as glosses , i.e. antique, highly poetic words and formulae, to some extent consisting of provincialisms . This view is equally opposed by most of the considerations which tell against the foreign languages, as well as by 1Co 13:1 ; and further, it has against it the fact that . in the above sense is a terminus technicus which occurs, indeed, after Aristotle, although for the most part in grammarians, but which the New Testament writers probably did not so much as know; and also the consideration that the singular , , , as well as the expression , would be quite absurd. See further, Baur, loc. cit. p. 85 ff. (who, however, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff., has come over in substance to Bleek’s view); Schulz, loc. cit. p. 20 ff., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 752 ff.; Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 723 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie , 1850, p. 28 ff. The result of all this is, that there is only the signification tongue remaining for , so that expresses an uttering oneself with tongues . This is not, however, to be taken as justifying the extreme view of Bardili ( significatus primitiv. vocis ., etc., Gott. 1786) and Eichhorn ( Biblioth. I. pp. 91 ff., 775 ff.; II. p. 755 ff.; III. p. 322 ff.), according to which what is meant is a lisping of inarticulate tones ; [1963] for such a strange form of expression for inspiration, for which Paul would hardly have given thanks to God, such a play of spiritual utterance as would hardly have made any certain charismatic exposition possible, must have been clearly presented by the text, in order, despite these considerations, to warrant its assumption. Comp on Act 2 . But the text characterizes the speaking in tongues as utterance of prayer (1Co 14:13-17 ) in which the falls into the background, and therefore unintelligible without interpretation. There must thus, certainly, have been a want of connection, since the reflective faculty was absent which regulates and presents clearly the conceptions; there may even have been inarticulateness in it, sometimes in a greater, sometimes in a less degree; but must it on this account have been a mere babbling? May it not have been a speaking in ecstatic ejaculations, abrupt ascriptions of praise to God, and other mysterious outbursts in prayer of the highest strain of inspiration? Baur, too, loc. cit. , agrees in substance with this; [1965] as also Steudel in the Tb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 135 ff.; Neander; Kuntze in the theol. Mitarb. 1840, p. 119 ff.; Olshausen (who, however, takes . as languages , and holds himself obliged, on the ground of Act 2 , to include also the use of foreign languages); de Wette; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362 f.; Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 1, p. 43, and Apostelgesch. p. 111. Comp too, Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 270 ff., who, however, derives from the speaking with tongues the , which is in itself so intelligible, and which does not presuppose any high inspiration, and the unutterable sighings, Rom 8:26 , which do not belong to the sphere of the . Similarly van Hengel, p. 105, who, again, conceives the original glossolalia (“ open-hearted and loud speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ ,” see on Act 2 ) to have become so degenerate and abused by the Corinthians, that it was now “ a spiritless counterfeit, a product of pride and vanity ,” and so no longer to the glory of God in Christ, an assumption which leaves it unexplained why Paul should not have denounced an abuse of this kind in the severest way, and how he could even place his own speaking with tongues upon the same level with that of the Corinthians. Hilgenfeld, who understands it to mean language of immediate divine suggestion (“ divine tongues, spirit-voices from a higher world”), is not disposed to keep distinct from each other the two meanings of , tongue and language (so also Zeller, Delitzsch, and others), although Paul himself keeps them distinct in 1Co 14:10 f. Schulz limits the conception too narrowly to ascriptions of praise to God, [1967] since, in fact, 1Co 14:13-17 shows that it included prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. We are accordingly to understand by such an outburst of prayer in petition, praise, and thanksgiving, as was so ecstatic that in connection with it the speaker’s own conscious intellectual activity was suspended, while the tongue did not serve as the instrument for the utterance of self-active reflection, but, independently of it, was involuntarily set in motion by the Holy Spirit, by whom the man in his deepest nature was seized and borne away . [1968] As regards this matter, it is conceivable (1) that the abeyance of the made this so disconnected and mysterious for hearers who were bound to the conditions of the , that it could not be understood by them without . Incomprehensible sounds, partly sighing, partly jubilant cries, broken words, expressions new in their form and connection, in which the deepest emotion struggled to express itself, and in whatever other ways the tongue might give utterance to the highest surgings and heavings of the Spirit, it remained unfruitful for others, if no interpretation was added, like a foreign language not understood. Equally conceivable is it (2) that in such utterances of prayer, the tongue, because speaking independently of the , apparently spoke of itself , [1969] although it was in reality the organ of the Holy Spirit. It was not the I of the man that spoke, but the tongue , so the case seemed to be, and so arose its designation . But (3) because that ecstatic kind of prayer showed itself under very different characteristic modifications (which we doubtless, from want of experience of them, are not in a position to establish), and the same speaker with tongues must, according to the varying degrees, impulses, and tendencies of his ecstasy, have expressed himself in manifold ways which could be easily distinguished from each other, so that he appeared to speak with different tongues, there arose both the plural expression and the mode of view which led men to distinguish . [1970]

.] Interpretation of tongues , i.e. a making of tongues intelligible in speaking , a presentation of the sense of what they say. [1971] The condition for this was the capacity of the , produced by the Spirit, to receive what was prayed for in glossolalia . The man speaking with tongues might himself (1Co 14:5-13 ) have the of the interpreter (comp the classical ), but did not always have it himself alone, as Wieseler also now admits ( Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 117) in opposition to his own earlier view.

[1955] But not instances of the casting out of demons (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 410), which are to be placed under the category of the (comp. Mat 15:28 ; Luk 6:17 ; Luk 9:42 ; Act 10:38 ).

[1958] So, too, Zinsler, de charism. . , Aug. Vind. 1847, a Roman Catholic prize-essay which obtained the prize, but is destitute of all scientific worth. Of a much more thorough description is another successful prize-essay (also Roman Catholic), by Englmann, von den Charismen , etc., Mainz 1848, who explains it in the same way of foreign languages; as also Froschammer, Charismen , 1850; and Maier, Die Glossolalie des apost. Zeitalt. 1855.

[1959] Ch. F. Fritzsche’s view is: At Corinth, as in seaport towns generally, there were labourers, fishers, etc., who, from their intercourse with foreign sailors, had become so far acquainted with different languages as to be able to converse about matters of ordinary life. Many of these people had become Christians, and having now learned that it had been predicted by the prophets that in the Messianic times the Holy Spirit would bring about a speaking concerning divine things in strange tongues (Isa 28:11 f.; Joe 3 ), they had accordingly applied this oracle to themselves, “quos pro sua, licet tenui, exterarum linguarum peritia prae ceteris idoneos putassent, quos Spiritus s. barbaris linguis de rebus divinis disserere juberet.” Since, however, most of the Christians did not understand this speaking in strange tongues, there had to be an interpretation into Greek, and the interpreters in their turn, not less than the speakers, regarded their ability as flowing from the Holy Spirit. So it all resolves itself into naive self-deception and imagination!

[1960] This is made only the more evident, if we suppose (comp. e.g. Kling) that one speaking with tongues could perhaps even take elements from very different languages and join them creatively together in a harmonious combination.

[1961] . . . .

[1962] Luther too, up to 1528, had “tongues,” but from that date onwards has “languages.” In chap. 14, however, he has still “tongues” in 1545.

[1963] Wieseler approached nearest to this view, understanding “ an ecstatic speaking in unintelligible expressions , i.e. in soft, scarcely audible, inarticulate words, tones, and sounds, in which inspired pious feeling found vent ” ( Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 738). The same writer, however, has more recently (see Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 113 ff.) modified his view to this extent, that he now explains the ecstatic soft praying as being only one special , no longer making it the universal form of all speaking with tongues, and in other respects agreeing in substance with our interpretation. But there is nothing in the whole section to lead to the idea of even a soft kind of glossolalia ; on the contrary, the comparisons, in particular, with the flute, lyre, trumpet, and cymbal, as well as with foreign languages, are decidedly against this. A soft lisping might run along with it, but was assuredly no special .

[1965] Comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 410.

[1967] The result of his investigation is presented by Schulz, p. 160, as follows: “The extraordinary excitement of mind, which at times possessed believers in Christ in the primitive church at the thought of the salvation now manifested in Christ, of the blessedness of God’s chosen children now realized after the fulfilment of his earlier promises, and which, under certain circumstances, rose even to ecstasy, was itself regarded as a special gracious gift of the Godhead, and since no nearer means of explanation offered itself, as an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit. Every one therefore willingly yielded himself to such an exaltation of spirit, and had no scruple in giving vent to his joy of soul by joyous and jubilant tones, shouting aloud the praises of God in song, partly in old and familiar strains, partly in newly formed ones, without any concern for the fact that in this way he might easily fall into boundless extravagances, improprieties, and troubles. This singing of praise to God, arising in and from that condition of ecstasy, these triumphant, loud-sounding strains of jubilation (not the condition of ecstasy itself), are in our judgment what is denoted by the formulas and .”

[1968] In the ancient church we have, as analogies to the glossolalia , to some extent (Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 473 ff.) the Montanistic ecstasies (see Schwegler, Montanism . p. 83 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie , p. 115 ff.; comp. Lcke, Einl. in d. Apokal. I. p. 324, Exo 2 ); in modern times, the ecstatic discourses of the French and German inspired ones (Goebel in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1854, p. 287 ff.), as well as the Irvingite speaking with tongues (Hohl, Bruchstcke aus d. Leben Irv. , St. Gallen 1839, evangel. Kirchenzeit. 1839, No. 54 f.; 1839, No. 88 f.; Reich in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 195 ff.), and ecstatic incidents at Revivals and among the American Methodists (Fabri, d. neuesten Erweckungen in America , etc., 1860); as likewisc glossolalie phenomena, which are narrated of clairvoyants (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 364 f.). But earlier still we have another analogue in Philo’s conception of the divinely inspired speaking of the prophets; the prophet only seems to speak himself, , ( quis rer. div. haer. I. p. 510, Mang.). Regarding the essential difference of somnambulist phenomena, which may be compared with the speaking with tongues, see Delitzsch, Psychol. loc. cit. There is not the remotest ground for thinking of an ecclesiastical secret language (Redslob, Apokal. I. 1859).

[1969] The tongue was not , Plut. Mor. p. 90 B.

[1970] Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 628 ff., professes himself, so far as the plural expression is concerned, an adherent of Bleek’s theory, which in other respects he impugns, with two limitations, however (see p. 636): (1) that we are not to connect with the conception of a poetic, inspired mode of speech; and (2) that Bleek’s explanation is not to be applied to the passages in the Acts. According to Baur, it is “ a speaking in strange, unusual phrases which deviate from the prevailing usage of the language .” The pressure of the overpowering feeling, which strove for expression, called to its aid these forms of speech, which were partly borrowed from foreign languages, partly at least not in use in the ordinary language of common life. These forms of speech were, according to him, the , and the was an intensified . But if , both in its singular and plural form, is to mean tongue (see p. 622), then (the plural) cannot at the same time mean utterances of the tongue, peculiarities of language (see p. 634 f.). The different explanations of . may be easily known from the different views of the nature of the in itself. Those interpreters, e.g. , who understand of foreign languages, think of the variety of languages (Chrysostom on ver. 1 : , , , ); Eichhorn: “all sorts of unintelligible tones;” Schulz: “many various strains of divinely inspired songs of praise;” Wieseler (1838): the inarticulate lisping itself, with and without its interpretation; Rossteuscher: “human and angelic languages,” 1Co 13:1 ; Hilgenfeld: different kinds of divinely suggested speech; Hofmann: all the different sorts of peculiar forms of the language in the mouth of each individual.

[1971] How the ancient interpreters conceived of this , may be seen, e.g. , in Theodoret: , , .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Ver. 10. Discerning of spirits ] They discerned not men’s hearts of themselves (for to God only), but by a special work of God’s Spirit discovering them to their eyes, as Peter discerned Ananias, and afterwards Simon Magus, whom Philip mistook and baptized. (Rolloc. de Vocatione.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

10. . .] operations of miraculous powers (in general).

] speaking in the Spirit . Meyer gives an excellent definition of it: “discourse flowing from the revelation and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, not being attached to any particular office in the church, but improvised, disclosed the depths of the human heart and of the divine counsel, and thus was exceedingly effectual for the enlightening, exhortation, and consolation of believers, and the winning of unbelievers. The prophet differs from the speaker with tongues . in that he speaks with the understanding , not ecstatically: from the , thus: , as Chrys. on 1Co 12:28 .” (Hom. xxxii. p. 286.)

.] discernings of spirits: i.e. the power of distinguishing between the operation of the Spirit of God and the evil spirit, or the unassisted human spirit: see 1Jn 4:1 , and compare , 1Ti 4:1 . The exercise of this power is alluded to ch. 1Co 14:29 .

] kinds of tongues , i.e. the power of uttering, in ecstasy, as the mouthpiece of the Spirit, prayer and praise in languages unknown to the utterer , or even in a spiritual language unknown to man . See this subject dealt with in the note on Act 2:4 , and ch. 1Co 14:2 ff.

] the power of giving a meaning to what was thus ecstatically spoken . This was not always resident in the speaker himself: see ch. 1Co 14:13 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

working. See 1Co 12:6.

miracles. App-172and App-176:1.

discerning. Greek. diakrisis. See Rom 14:1. Heb 5:14. Compare App-122.

spirits. App-101.

kinds. Greek. genos, as in 1Co 14:10.

interpretation. Greek. hermeneia. Only here and 1Co 14:26.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

10. . .] operations of miraculous powers (in general).

] speaking in the Spirit. Meyer gives an excellent definition of it: discourse flowing from the revelation and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, not being attached to any particular office in the church, but improvised,-disclosed the depths of the human heart and of the divine counsel, and thus was exceedingly effectual for the enlightening, exhortation, and consolation of believers, and the winning of unbelievers. The prophet differs from the speaker with tongues. in that he speaks with the understanding, not ecstatically: from the , thus:- , as Chrys. on 1Co 12:28. (Hom. xxxii. p. 286.)

.] discernings of spirits: i.e. the power of distinguishing between the operation of the Spirit of God and the evil spirit, or the unassisted human spirit: see 1Jn 4:1, and compare , 1Ti 4:1. The exercise of this power is alluded to ch. 1Co 14:29.

] kinds of tongues, i.e. the power of uttering, in ecstasy, as the mouthpiece of the Spirit, prayer and praise in languages unknown to the utterer,-or even in a spiritual language unknown to man. See this subject dealt with in the note on Act 2:4, and ch. 1Co 14:2 ff.

] the power of giving a meaning to what was thus ecstatically spoken. This was not always resident in the speaker himself: see ch. 1Co 14:13.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 12:10. , prophecy) See at Rom 12:6.- , discerning of spirits) so that he can show to others, what sort of a spirit each prophet possesses, ch. 1Co 14:29.- -, kinds of tongues-interpretation) 1Co 12:30; 1Co 14:5; 1Co 14:26-27.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 12:10

1Co 12:10

and to another workings of miracles;-All the gifts here enumerated enabled them to work miracles as we use the term. To know all things without learning, to heal diseases, to speak with tongues, to discern spirits are all miracles. Why, then, among these should one special gift be called the working of miracles? The word here translated working literally means the inworking of powers. That is, the bestowing on persons the ability to impart the power of working miracles to others. Simon Magus offered Peter money for this power. (Act 8:18-19).

Macknight says: The word energius does not signify to work simply, but to work in another. Thus verse 11: All these (gifts) the one and the same Spirit (energei) inworketh, namely, in the spiritual men. One and the same Spirit inworks all the different powers into the gifted persons, distributing to each severally as he will. It is generally contended that none save the apostles could impart the power to work miracles. That they possessed it in common with all Spiritual powers is not doubted. The apostles were endowed with all the power and gifts of the Spirit. But to others these gifts were distributed. All other gifts of the Spirit were distributed to one or another person, why not this also? Ananias, having been instructed by the Lord to go to the house where Saul abode, departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (Act 9:17-18). While it is not said that the Holy Spirit was imparted by the imposition of his hands, it is certain that he was to be filled with the Holy Spirit by the coming of Ananias, and that Ananias laid his hands on him, and he did receive his sight and a gift of the Spirit that enabled him at once to proclaim Jesus, that he is the Son of God.

And when Simon the sorcerer proposed to purchase the power to bestow miracle working power on others, Peter did not tell him that no one but an apostle could have such power. But he said to him: Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter. (Act 8:21). This implies that it might have been possible for him to have part or lot in the matter had his heart been right in the sight of God.

Once more, I quote from Macknight: Though the inworking of powers be the spiritual gift which most forcibly struck the minds of mankind, and raised the apostles highest in their estimation, the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, and faith, are placed before it in the catalogue. The reason is, by these gifts the gospel was communicated to the world; whereas it was only confirmed by the inworking of powers. Those placed before the inworking are greater than this. If the apostles bestowed the greater gifts, why not this less one?

and to another prophecy;-[This was the speaking of the message of God under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whether with reference to the past, the present, or future. The purpose of this ministry was to edify, to comfort, and to encourage the believers (1Co 14:3), while its effect upon unbelievers was to show that the secrets of mans heart are known to God, to convict of sin, and constrain to the worship of God (1Co 14:24-25). With the completion of the canon of Scripture this gift passed away. (1Co 13:8-9). In his measure the teacher has taken the place of the prophet. The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the message of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation contained in the Scriptures.]

and to another discernings of spirits:-The power bestowed on certain persons by the Spirit to discern the secret dispositions of men. It was one of the gifts peculiar to that age, and was especially necessary at a time when Gods revelation was not fully established or generally understood, and when many deceivers were abroad. (2Jn 1:7). This seemed to have been exercised chiefly upon those who came forward as teachers of others, and whose real designs it was important that the church should know.

to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues:-The ability to speak different tongues. Some spoke in tongues they did not understand and could not interpret, and so Paul commanded them to be silent, unless they or some one else present could interpret. (1Co 14:28).

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

prophecy

The N.T. prophet is not ordinarily a foreteller, but rather a forth-teller, one whose gift enabled him to speak “to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” 1Co 14:3.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

the working: 1Co 12:28, 1Co 12:29, Mar 16:17, Mar 16:20, Luk 24:49, Joh 14:12, Act 1:8, Rom 15:19, Gal 3:5, Heb 2:4

prophecy: 1Co 13:2, 1Co 14:1, 1Co 14:3, 1Co 14:5, 1Co 14:24, 1Co 14:31, 1Co 14:32, 1Co 14:39, Num 11:25-29, 1Sa 10:10-13, 1Sa 19:20-24, 2Sa 23:1, 2Sa 23:2, Joe 2:28, Joh 16:13, Act 2:17, Act 2:18, Act 2:29, Act 2:30, Act 11:28, Act 21:9, Act 21:10, Rom 12:6, 1Th 5:20, 2Pe 1:20, 2Pe 1:21

discerning: 1Co 14:29, Act 5:3, 1Jo 4:1, Rev 2:2

divers: 1Co 12:28-30, 1Co 13:1, 1Co 14:2-4, 1Co 14:23, 1Co 14:27, 1Co 14:39, Mar 16:17, Act 2:4-12, Act 10:46, Act 10:47, Act 19:6

to another the: 1Co 12:30, 1Co 14:26-28

Reciprocal: Gen 40:8 – Do not Neh 6:12 – I perceived Act 2:11 – wonderful 1Co 1:5 – in all 1Co 11:4 – or 1Co 13:8 – tongues 1Co 14:13 – pray

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 12:10. Working of miracles is seek to cover them as not being comely more general, referring to any situation coming before the possessor of the gift that gives an opportunity for demonstration of spiritual power. This prophecy is the kind that enables the possessor to make predictions, not that described in chapter 14:3. Without the complete Word it was not always possible to detect an evil spirit claiming to be of God, hence this discerning of spirits was possible through the gift. One man could speak in a foreign tongue, perhaps, but would not kno its interpretation. Another man had

the gift of interpreting such tongues.(See chapter 14:27, 28.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 12:10-11. To another, the working of miracles That is, miracles of a different kind; such as taking up serpents, drinking any deadly draught without hurt, and especially casting out devils. But it may not be improper to observe here, that the original expression, , here rendered the working of miracles, is translated by Dr. Macknight, the inworkings of powers, the former word being derived from , signifying not to work simply, but to work in another. And he thinks it is here intended to express the power which the apostles had of conferring the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost on those on whom they laid their hands: a power which was peculiar to the apostles, by which they were raised above all the other spiritual men, and by which they spread the gospel everywhere with the greatest success. To another, prophecy The foretelling of things to come. To another, the discerning of spirits That is, ability to discern whether professors of Christianity were of an upright spirit, or not; whether they had natural or supernatural gifts for offices in the church; and whether they who professed to speak by inspiration spoke from a divine, a natural, or diabolical spirit; and consequently to distinguish, with certainty, true doctrine from false. For, as there appeared very early among the professed disciples of Christ, false teachers, who, to gain credit to their errors, pretended to deliver them by inspiration, a gift of this kind was very necessary for preventing the faithful from being led away by them, especially in the first age, before the writings of the apostles and evangelists were generally spread abroad. Hence the caution, 1Jn 4:1, Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are from God, because many false prophets are gone forth into the world. Again, the gift of discerning spirits was bestowed on some, to enable them, on certain occasions, to discover what passed in the minds of their enemies, that they might make it known for the benefit of the church; 1Co 14:25. Thus Peter knew the fraudulent purpose of Ananias and Sapphira, and Paul the malice of Elymas. But here it is to be observed, that neither the knowledge of what passed in the minds of enemies, nor the knowledge of the characters of private Christians, or of the qualifications of those who aspired after sacred offices, was bestowed as a habit. On most occasions, it seems, the rulers were left in these matters to guide themselves by their own sagacity, or by that ordinary illumination which they received from the Spirit of wisdom.

To another, divers kinds of tongues Ability to speak languages which they had not learned. This gift was one of the primary causes of the rapid growth of Christianity. For by it the preachers of the gospel were able, immediately on their coming into any country, to declare the wonderful things of God, without waiting till, in the ordinary course, they learned the language of the country. The persons who were endowed with this faculty, had not the knowledge of all languages communicated to them, but of such only as they had occasion for. This appears from 1Co 14:18, where the apostle told the Corinthians that he spake more foreign tongues than they all did. And even the languages which were given them, may not have been communicated to them all at once, but only as they had occasion for them. To another, the interpretation of tongues Ability to interpret into a language known, suppose into the common language of the place, that which others, suppose foreigners, or those to whom a language was given by inspiration, delivered in a tongue with which the hearers were not acquainted. From this being mentioned as a distinct gift from that of speaking foreign languages, Macknight infers, that not every one who understood the foreign language, in which an inspired teacher spake, was allowed to interpret what he spake. The only person, he thinks, permitted to do this, was the interpreter, endowed with an especial inspiration for that end. Because, the doctrines of the gospel, being entirely different from all the ideas which the heathen had been accustomed to entertain on religious subjects, any interpretation of what was delivered by the Spirit in a foreign language, made without a supernatural direction, might have led the church into errror. Further, the faculty of interpreting foreign languages by inspiration was, in another respect, a gift very necessary in the first age; for the books of the Old Testament being written in Hebrew, a language not then understood by the vulgar, even in Judea, and the writings of the apostles and evangelists being all in the Greek tongue, on account of its emphasis and precision; and that tongue being nowhere spoken by the common people, except in Greece and some cities of the Lesser Asia, if there had not been in every church inspired interpreters, who could translate these divinely-inspired writings into the common language, they would have been, in a great measure, useless; especially at the beginning, when the knowledge of them was most wanted. Whereas every church having inspired interpreters of foreign languages commonly present in their religious assemblies, to translate the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures into the language of the country, the common people, everywhere, had an opportunity of deriving from these writings all the knowledge and comfort they are fitted to yield. Such were the supernatural gifts with which the first preachers and ministers of the gospel were endowed; and by which they effectually and speedily established the gospel in the most populous and civilized provinces of the Roman empire. And all these Diversities of gifts, the apostle adds, worketh that one and the self-same Spirit They all flow from one and the same fountain; dividing to every man severally, , as he willeth An expression which does not so much imply arbitrary pleasure, as a determination founded on wise counsel.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 10. The miraculous operations, , 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 , of power, has no probability.

The MSS. A B read , in the one Spirit, instead of , 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 (1Co 12:8); but it is only so in appearance. The prophet, according to 1Co 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 , discernment of spirits, seems to have been usually exercised, according to 1Co 14:29, by other prophets. It is attributed, 1Jn 4:1, to the Church in general. St. Paul has given the fundamental direction to guide this judgment in 1Co 12:3. The criterion which John gives, 1Co 12:2-3, is at bottom identical with that of Paul.

The plural , 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 , of spirits, Paul would indicate the breathings of the Spirit, which take effect suddenly on the prophets of the Church.

Vv. 10b. It is certainly not without reason that the pronoun 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 1Co 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 , 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. 1Co 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 ( ), 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 Rom 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 Mar 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 ( ). 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 we ought to have had or . Finally, in this sense, how is it possible to explain the term , 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 1Co 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 , 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 to the , 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 , 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 (1Co 14:14).

A third explanation takes the word tongue in the phrase 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! (Rom 8:26; Rom 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 , to speak in tongues, especially when only one person is in question, as in 1Co 12:6? Even in our passage the term , 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 (1Co 14:18-19)?

The gift of speaking in tongues must therefore have been something more elevated. Paul seems to compare it, 1Co 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 (Rom 8:26); sometimes it was the cry of the spirit of adoption: Abba, Father! (Rom 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 (1Co 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, , which also depended on a special gift. Is there here an allusion to the technical use made of the word 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 , 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 (1Co 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, 1Co 12:11.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits: to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues:

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

THE OPERATIONS OF DYNAMITES

10. This gift, in E.V. translated the working of miracles, is energeemata, which means inward workings, i. e., the mighty works of God in the human spirit, hidden from mortal vision by the fleshy veil. Hence it means the inward workings, operations, manipulations, wrought by the Holy Ghost in the invisible human spirit. The word translated miracles in E.V. is dunameoon, the genitive plural of dunamis, dynamite, so frequently used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament. It is the definition of gospel (Rom 1:16). Hence instead of meaning the working of physical miracles, as one might think, it means the inward operations of the real gospel work wrought by the Holy Ghost alone. Then in what sense can I have this wonderful gift? Why, it means that I can be in such attitude toward the Holy Ghost that He will use me as an efficient instrument in His own mighty works. Both of these nouns are in the plural number, i. e., the inward workings of dynamites, setting forth the fact that there is a diversity of these operations according to the end in view, and a corresponding diversity of execution. Dynamite is in the plural number because there is a dynamite of conviction, exploding the impenitent sinner and filling him with intolerable agony; and a dynamite of regeneration, blowing away from the heart-broken penitent all the mountains of guilt which are dragging him into Hell, and giving him a cloudless sky; also a dynamite of sanctification, disrupting all the deep old strata of inbred sin, and blowing them out of the heart, giving you complete victory in Jesus and glorious triumph in God. Now, of course, there is a diversity of these inward workings, e. g., using the gospel drills to perforate the deep interior of the heart, and put down the dynamite of conviction in the impenitent, regeneration in the penitent, and sanctification in the believer. Oh, the infinite value of this truth of spiritual gift! It is what you need to give you power of melting exhortation, calculated to reach the impenitent and bring them down at the altar. It is the very thing you need to make you a red-hot altar worker, and give you real efficiency in leading souls to the Savior, whether for pardon or unity. It is Gods glorious remedy for indifferentism in all lines and in all environments. It puts you where the Holy Ghost can use you efficiently in His mighty works. This gift abounded in the apostolic age and the following centuries so long as martyrs blood and fire kept the Church true. But when the accession of Constantine suddenly promoted the poor persecuted Church from the lions mouth and the burning stake to Caesars palace, this wonderful gift, with the other members of the immortal Nine, evanesced away, and was relegated to the age of miracles. Praise the Lord! We live in the age of miracles, for Jesus is the miracle worker, and He says: Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Mat 28:20). However, this gift has not been without its exemplars in all the bygone centuries. Doctor Finney was a wonderful exemplar of this gift. This was the secret of whole congregations falling under his preaching, and losing the power to stand on their feet or walk away. On one occasion, going into a cotton mill, entering the loom-room, the dynamite flashing from his countenance before he said a word, so confused the spinning girls that losing the threads they got into such a confusion that the boss had to be called in. Behold! He got his eyes on the face of Gods prophet, the lightning of conviction darting through him like a thunderbolt, and rendering him like the girls incompetent to regulate the confusion in the looms. Then he ordered the engineer to shut off the steam and all the machinery to stop, and all the mill hands to come, saying outright: It is no time to run a cotton mill, but it is time for salvation, and I must have it. So there the. man of God found himself surrounded by an audience of seven hundred, already convicted and crying for mercy before he had spoken a word. The memory of the wonderful Cain Ridge revivals in Bourbon County, Kentucky, in 1800 and 1801 is still rife in all that country, memorable for the people having the jerks, falling, losing their power to get away, and really most miraculous physical phenomena. I give you a brief sketch by memory from the life of James B. Finley, a celebrated pioneer preacher in Ohio. The news of these wonders having pervaded the Ohio Valley far and wide, startling the people by the paradoxical reports of Gods mighty works in the Cain Ridge camp-meeting, this man, a stalwart youth, awfully wicked, boasting of his bullyhood, swore that they couldnt knock him down. Mounting his horse, he rides a hundred miles defying the power of God, of which he had so many startling reports. Reaching the ground, he looks out upon an audience of five thousand people, the pioneers, like himself, moved by curiosity, having gathered from every point of the compass; the little auditorium originally prepared for the camp- meeting overrun and lost sight of. He sees twenty preachers at the same time standing in different parts of the vast multitude, on rocks, stumps and logs, preaching with a power and demonstration such as he had never seen before; people falling on all sides, lying like they were dead; others leaping into the air with tremendous shouts; many jerking as if they would be torn to pieces; women with long, disheveled hair cracking like wagon whips amid the contortions. A strange trembling takes hold of the Satanic champion; realizing that he is bound to fall, he runs away. Then he soliloquizes: I have boasted to all my comrades that I am more than a match for that knock-down power; I will go back, and, by the help of the devil, will show them there is one man they cant knock down. He returns to the paradoxical scene. Behold! The power has increased, and it is wonderfully intensified. The multitudes are moved as by the mighty and irresistible waves of the sea. The same strange feeling comes on him more potently than the first time. His knees are already knocking together; he realizes that he will fall immediately if he does not get away from there. So he runs again, this time going away a mile to a tavern, and getting some brandy, which he thought would help his trembling nerves. Again he assumes the defiant: I will show all the people that there is one young man they cant knock down. So the third time he returns to the scene of conflict, only to see the tide ostensibly much higher and stronger than ever.

Looking out, he sees a group of five hundred people fall simultaneously, as suddenly as if a battery of a thousand cannons had been turned upon them at once; meanwhile on all sides he sees the fallen lying prostrate as if they were dead, jerking with terrific contortions, and others leaping into the air like angels. On all sides cries, shrieks, groans and moans commingle with uproarious shouts of victory. The same paralyzing power comes on him; he trembles from head to foot, his teeth chattering and his knees knocking together; he feels that he can not possibly stand on his feet; so he runs away once more. With difficulty mounting his horse and holding on to keep from falling, he rides a dozen miles homeward bound, and falls from his horse like a dead man. The neighbors gather around him, afraid to draw nigh lest he may have some dangerous disease. An old Dutchman, who had been to the camp-meeting and understood the phenomena, taking command of the scene, reconciling his neighbors, prevails on them to help him carry him to his house, where he spends the night praying for him and instructing him, the morning light proving the glorious dawn of Heavens daybreak into his soul. So he mounts his horse, and goes on his way rejoicing to tell the glorious news to his home folks and neighbors that he is wonderfully saved and called to preach. So he became one of the mighty men whom God honored in pioneer Methodism. We have grand manifestations of this spiritual gift in many instances at the present day. I have repeatedly attended meetings in the great South which were like Heaven in the fact that congregations neer break up. Numbers of people were physically unable to get away, hence they remained all night, some of the saints staying with them for their comfort. I have seen this in my own ministry on hundreds of occasions. We have it now in certain localities. We need not relegate this paradoxical work of the Spirit to the apostolic age. Our Lord is still with us, moving Heaven, earth and Hell by His mighty works. Oh, what a glorious privilege thus to be armed with Heavens dynamite I do praise the Lord for permitting me in my pilgrimage to witness so many of His mighty works.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 10

The working of miracles; that is, miraculous power in general; one form of such power having been specified before.–Discerning of spirits. This expression seems to refer to a power of discerning the designs and motives of men, which the apostles sometimes exercised. (Acts 5:1-10,13:9-11.)–Tongues; languages.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

12:10 To another the {i} working of miracles; to another {k} prophecy; to another {l} discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

(i) By “working” he means those great workings of God’s mighty power, which pass and excel among his miracles, as the delivery of his people by the hand of Moses: that which he did by Elijah against the priests of Baal, in sending down fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice: and that which he did by Peter, in the matter of Ananias and Sapphira.

(k) Foretelling of things to come.

(l) By which false prophets are know from true, in which Peter surpassed Philip in exposing Simon Magus; Act 8:20 .

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Miracles are mighty works (Gr. dynameis) that alter the natural course of events. Probably all types of miracles beside healings are in view. God gave the ability to do miracles to His Son and to some Christians in the early church to signify that He was with them and empowering them (cf. Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:50; Gal 3:5; Heb 2:4). Luke’s Gospel, in particular, presents Jesus as teaching and then validating His teaching by doing miracles. Acts shows the apostles doing the same thing.

Prophecy has a four-fold meaning in the New Testament. Prophets foretold future events. They also declared things known only by special new revelation from God. Third, they uttered under the Spirit’s prompting some lofty statement or message in praise of God, or a word of instruction, refutation, reproof, admonition, or comfort for others (cf. 1Co 11:4; 1Co 13:9; 1Co 14:1; 1Co 14:3-5; 1Co 14:24; 1Co 14:31; 1Co 14:39). Fourth, they led in worship (Exo 15:20-21; 1Ch 25:1). Evidently the first and second of these abilities passed out of existence with the composition of the last New Testament books. The last of the New Testament books that God inspired was probably Revelation, which most likely dates from about A.D. 95. [Note: See Mark L. Hitchcock, "A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation" (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary), 2005.]

"First, although prophecy was an especially widespread phenomenon in the religions of antiquity, Paul’s understanding-as well as that of the other NT writers-was thoroughly conditioned by his own history in Judaism. The prophet was a person who spoke to God’s people under the inspiration of the Spirit. The ’inspired utterance’ came by revelation and announced judgment (usually) or salvation. Although the prophets often performed symbolic acts, which they then interpreted, the mainstream of prophetic activity, at least as it came to be canonized, had very little to do with ’ecstasy,’ especially ’frenzy’ or ’mania.’ For the most part the prophets were understood only too well! Often the word spoken had a futuristic element, so in that sense they also came to be seen as ’predicters’; but that was only one element, and not necessarily the crucial one." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 595.]

The ability to distinguish between spirits was apparently a gift of discernment. It enabled a person to tell whether a propounded prophecy was genuine or counterfeit, namely, from the Holy Spirit or a false spirit (cf. 1Co 14:29; 1Th 5:20-21). Thus it had a relationship to prophecy similar to that between interpretation and tongues. [Note: Keener, p. 101.]

The gift of tongues, about which Paul would say much more in chapter 14, was the ability to speak in one or more languages that the speaker had not learned. However the languages do not seem limited to human languages (cf. 1Co 13:1). Nevertheless they were intelligible with interpretation (1Co 14:10-14). They were not just gibberish. The New Testament writers did not consider the ecstatic utterances of pagans or Christians that were other than languages to be manifestations of the Spirit’s gift of tongues.

It should be noted . . . that only tongues is included in every list of ’gifts’ in these three chapters [1Co 12:8-10; 1Co 12:28-30; 1Co 13:1-3; 1Co 13:8; 1Co 14:6; 1Co 14:26]. Its place at the conclusion of each list in chap. 12, but at the beginning in 1Co 13:1 and 1Co 14:6, suggests that the problem lies here. It is listed last not because it is ’least,’ but because it is the problem. He always includes it, but at the end, after the greater concern for diversity has been heard." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 572. Cf. idem, "Tongues-Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14," Pneuma 2 (1980):3-14.]

The person with the ability to interpret tongues (languages) could translate what a tongues-speaker said accurately so others present could know the meaning of what he or she said. Presumably some Christians with the gift of tongues also had the gift of interpreting tongues so they could explain what they had said.

"With the possible exception of faith, all these gifts seem to have been confirmatory and foundational gifts for the establishment of the church (cf. Heb 2:4; Eph 2:20) and were therefore temporary." [Note: Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 533.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)