Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue ] The word unknown is not in the original. The word translated tongue signifies a human language in ch. 1Co 13:1. Cf. Rev 13:7; Rev 14:6; Rev 17:15.
speaketh not unto men, but unto God ] Because the language is not the language of those to whom he is speaking, and therefore what he says is hidden from them. For mysteries, see ch. 1Co 4:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue – This verse is designed to show that the faculty of speaking intelligibly, and to the edification of the church, is of more value than the power of speaking a foreign language. The reason is, that however valuable may be the endowment in itself, and however important the truth which he may utter, yet it is as if he spoke to God only. No one could understand him.
Speaketh not unto men – Does not speak so that people can understand him. His address is really not made to people, that is, to the church. He might have this faculty without being able to speak to the edification of the church. It is possible that the power of speaking foreign languages and of prophesying were sometimes united in the same person; but it is evident that the apostle speaks of them as different endowments, and they probably were found usually in different individuals.
But unto God – It is as if he spoke to God. No one could understand him but God. This must evidently refer to the addresses in the church, when Christians only were present, or when those only were present who spoke the same language, and who were unacquainted with foreign tongues. Paul says that there that faculty would be valueless compared with the power of speaking in a manner that should edify the church. He did not undervalue the power of speaking foreign languages when foreigners were present, or when they went to preach to foreigners; see 1Co 14:22. It was only when it was needless, when all present spoke one language, that he speaks of it as of comparatively little value.
For no man understandeth him – That is, no man in the church, since they all spoke the same language, and that language was different from what was spoken by him who was endowed with the gift of tongues. As God only could know the import of what he said, it would be lost upon the church, and would be useless.
Howbeit in the Spirit – Although, by the aid of the Spirit, he should, in fact, deliver the most important and sublime truths. This would doubtless be the case, that those who were thus endowed would deliver most important truths, but they would be lost upon those who heard them, because they could not understand them. The phrase in the Spirit, evidently means by the Holy Spirit, that is, by his aid and influence. Though he should be really under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and though the important truth which he delivers should be imparted by his aid, yet all would be valueless unless it were understood by the church.
He speaketh mysteries – For the meaning of the word mystery, see Note, 1Co 2:7. The word here seems to be synonymous with sublime and elevated truth; truth that was not before known, and that might be of the utmost importance.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue] This chapter is crowded with difficulties. It is not likely that the Holy Spirit should, in the church, suddenly inspire a man with the knowledge of some foreign language, which none in the church understood but himself; and lead him to treat the mysteries of Christianity in that language, though none in the place could profit by his teaching.
Dr. Lightfoot’s mode of reconciling these difficulties is the most likely I have met with. He supposes that by the unknown tongue the Hebrew is meant, and that God restored the true knowledge of this language when he gave the apostles the gift of tongues. As the Scriptures of the Old Testament were contained in this language, and it has beauties, energies, and depths in it which no verbal translation can reach, it was necessary, for the proper elucidation of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the establishment of the Christian religion, that the full meaning of the words of this sacred language should be properly understood. And it is possible that the Hebrew Scriptures were sometimes read in the Christian congregations as they were in the Jewish synagogues; and if the person who read and understood them had not the power and faculty of explaining them to others, in vain did he read and understand them himself. And we know that it is possible for a man to understand a language, the force, phraseology, and idioms of which he is incapable of explaining even in his mother tongue. We shall see, in the course of these notes, how this view of the subject will apply to the illustration of the apostle’s words throughout the chapter.
Speaketh not unto men, but unto God] None present understanding the language, God alone knowing the truth and import of what he says:-
In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.] Though his own mind (for so is understood here by many eminent critics) apprehends the mysteries contained in the words which he reads or utters; but if, by the spirit, we understand the Spirit of God, it only shows that it is by that Spirit that he is enabled to speak and apprehend these mysteries. See the note on 1Co 14:19.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue; by a tongue (for unkown is not in the Greek, but necessarily added by our translators, for he speaketh of such a language) he meaneth a language not known to all, or at least not to the most of them that hear him. It may be asked, what unknown language the apostle here meaneth? Shall we think that any pastors or teachers in the church of Corinth were so vain, as to preach in the Arabic, Scythian, or Parthian language to a people who understood only the Greek? Our learned Lightfoot thinks this not probable, and that if any had been so vain for ostentation, the apostle would rather have chid them for suffering such an abuse, and have forbidden such further practice, than have given direction, than if any so spake he should interpret, as he doth, 1Co 14:5. He rather thinks, therefore, that the apostle meaneth the Hebrew tongue; the use of which, though it was by this time much lost through the Jews mixture with other nations, yet was restored in a great measure to the guides of churches, for their better understanding the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and continued amongst the Jews in their reading of the law in the synagogues. Now there being many Jews in this church, and the service of God being ordinarily in the Jewish synagogues performed in that language, it is very probable, that some of these Jews that were Christianized (to show their skill) might, when they spake to the whole church of Corinth, use to speak in Hebrew, though few or none understood that language. The apostle saith, he that did so, spake
not unto men, that is, not to those men who did not understand that language, not to the generality of his hearers, though possibly here and there some might understand him,
but unto God, who being the Author of all languages, must necessarily know the significancy of all words in them: for (he saith) scarce any man understood him.
Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries; howbeit he may speak mysterious things to himself, and to the understanding of his own soul and spirit. Others think that it was possible, that some who thus spake, being but the instruments of the Holy Spirit, might not themselves understand all which they said; but that is hardly probable.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. speaketh . . . unto Godwhoalone understands all languages.
no manunderstandethgenerally speaking; the few who have the gift ofinterpreting tongues are the exception.
in the spiritasopposed to “the understanding” (1Co14:14).
mysteriesunintelligibleto the hearers, exciting their wonder, rather than instructing them.Corinth, being a mart resorted to by merchants from Asia, Africa, andEurope, would give scope amidst its mixed population for the exerciseof the gift of tongues; but its legitimate use was in an audienceunderstanding the tongue of the speaker, not, as the Corinthiansabused it, in mere display.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue,…. Or with tongues, as some copies and the Ethiopic version read: Dr. Lightfoot thinks, that the Hebrew tongue, which was become a dead language, and understood but by few, is here meant, and that not without reason; seeing the public prayers, preaching, and singing of psalms among the Jews, were in this languages x; in imitation of whom, such ministers, who had the gift of speaking this language, read the Scriptures, preached, prayed, and sung psalms in it, which were no ways to the edification of the people, who understood it not; upon which account the apostle recommends prophesying, praying, and singing, in a language that was understood: otherwise he
speaketh not unto men; to the understanding, profit, and edification of men: but unto God: to his praise and glory, and he only knowing, who knows all languages, and every word in the tongue what is said; excepting himself, unless there should be any present capable of interpreting:
for no man understandeth him: or “heareth him”: that is, hears him, so as to understand him; he may hear a sound, but he cannot tell the meaning of it, and so it is of no use and advantage to him:
howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries; though under the influence and by the extraordinary gift of the Spirit he has, and to his own Spirit and understanding, and with great affection and devotion within himself, he speaks of the deep things of God, and the mysteries of his grace, the most glorious truths of the Gospel, yet the meaning of his voice and words not being known, he is a barbarian to them that hear him; and though what he delivers are truths of the greatest importance, they are a mere jargon to others, being unintelligible.
x Vid. Gloss. in T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 3. 1. & in Yoma, fol. 20. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For no man understandeth ( ). Literally, hears, gets the sense, understands. Verb used either of hearing the sound only or getting the idea (cf. Acts 9:7; Acts 22:9).
Mysteries (). Unexplained mysteries (1Co 2:7).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue,” (ho gar lalon glosse) “For the one speaking in a tongue (language).” This is the charismatic language, an intelligible language, other than the language or languages that he knows. The term “unknown” is not in the original language. The gift of “tongues” was not senseless “gibberish.”
2) “Speaketh not unto men, but unto God:” (anthropois lalei ouk alla theo) “He speaks not to men, but to God.” The person speaking in the charismatic gift of tongues spoke not to the masses of men (anthropois), not for the benefit of the masses, but God who hears the language understandingly. If only he and God knew the language, let him speak to God in this language privately, not publicly.
3) “For no man understandeth him;” (ouders gar akouer) “For not one (intelligibly) hears.” People understood the sound, but there was no sense or immediate comprehension or profit, except there was an interpreter present, a believer who had the charismatic gift of interpretation of tongues, 1Co 14:23; 1Co 14:28.
4) “Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(pneumati de lalei musteria) “Yet in spirit he speaks mysteries or matters of hazy understanding.” Quivering lips of men or angels, if they speak unclearly, indistinctly, short of intelligent disclosure, only tantalize the hearers, to no profit. To covet such a gift for the glory of it was selfish, unprofitable. This was Paul’s premise in contending that the gift of prophecy should have precedent priority in Corinth church members’ lives for the profit or edification of the church, one another, and winning the lost.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. For he that speaketh in another (808) tongue, speaketh, etc. He now shows from the effect, why it was that he preferred prophecy to other gifts, and he compares it with the gift of tongues, in which it is probable the Corinthians exercised themselves the more, because it had more of show connected with it, for when persons hear a man speaking in a foreign tongue, their admiration is commonly excited. He accordingly shows, from principles already assumed, how perverse a thing this is, inasmuch as it does not at all contribute to the edifying of the Church. He says in the outset — He that speaketh in another tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: that is, according to the proverb, “He sings to himself and to the Muses.” (809) In the use of the word tongue, there is not a pleonasm, (810) as in those expressions — “She spake thus with her mouth,” and “I caught the sound with these ears.” The term denotes a foreign language. The reason why he does not speak to men is — because no one heareth, that is, as an articulate voice. For all hear a sound, but they do not understand what is said.
He speaketh in the Spirit — that is, “ by a spiritual gift, (for in this way I interpret it along with Chrysostom.) He speaketh mysteries and hidden things, and things, therefore, that are of no profit.” Chrysostom understands mysteries here in a good sense, as meaning — special revelations from God. I understand the term, however, in a bad sense, as meaning — dark sayings, that are obscure and involved, as if he had said, “He speaks what no one understands.”
(808) It is remarked by Granville Penn, that “the context shows that the Apostle means, a language foreign to that of the auditors, and, therefore, not known to them” — as “we learn from verse 21 that we are to supply ἑτερᾳ — ‘ other, ’ not αγνωστὟ — ‘unknown.’ We have,” he adds, “had lamentable proof of the abuse to which the latter injudicious rendering can be perverted in the hands of ignorant or insidious enthusiasm, by assuming the term to mean, ‘a tongue unknown to all mankind; ’ and from thence, by an impious inference, supernatural and divine; instead of relatively, ‘ unknown to another people. ’ And yet, after all, ‘ unknown ’ is not the Apostle’s word, but only an Italic supplement suggested by the English revisers of the seventeenth century.” — Ed
(809) “ Comme on dit en prouerbe — I1 presche a soy-mesme et aux murailles;” — “As they say proverbially — He preaches to himself and the bare walls.” The proverb, “Sibi canit et Musis” — (“He sings to himself and the Muses,”) is believed to have originated in a saying of Antigenides, a celebrated musician of Thebes, who, when his scholar Ismenias sung with good taste, but not so as to gain the applause of the people, exclaimed — “ Mihi cane et Musis;” — (“Sing to me and the Muses”) — meaning that it was enough, if he pleased good judges. — Ed.
(810) A pleonasm is a figure of speech — involving a redundancy of expression. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue.Better, For he that speaketh in a tongue. The word unknown is not in the original, but it has been inserted in connection with the word tongue all through this chapter, so as to make the various passages seem to be consistent with the theory that the gift of tongues was a gift of languages. This is not the place to enter into the question of what particular external manifestation of this gift was evidenced on the Day of Pentecost. (See Act. 2:1-13.) Still, believing that the gift of tongues here spoken of is identical with the gift of tongues which was first bestowed at Pentecost, I would say that the phenomena described as occurring then must be explained by the fuller and more elaborate account of the nature of the gift which is given to us here. Against the theory that the gift was one of a capacity to speak various languages we have three considerations. (1) The word dialectos, which is repeatedly used to express languages (Act. 1:19; Act. 2:6; Act. 2:8; Act. 21:40; Act. 22:2; Act. 26:14), is never used by St. Paul or by the author of the Acts in reference to the utterances of those who possessed the gift of tongues, but the other word, glossa, which is, literally, the physical organ of speechas if the utterances were simply sounds that proceeded from it. (2) There is no trace whatever of this knowledge of languages having been ever used for the purpose of preaching to those who spoke foreign languages. The language of the Lycaonians was evidently not understood by the Apostles when they were addressed in it (see Act. 14:11), and they did not speak in it. That the hearers at Pentecost said they heard those who were filled with the Spirit speak in our own language would only imply, either that the outpouring on Pentecost had for the moment a miraculous effect, which immediately ceased, or that all the various elements of Aramaic and Hellenistic speech, latent in the usual language of the time, were quickened, under the power of this gift, into a new life, sometimes intelligible, sometimes unintelligible to those who heard it, but always expressive of the vitality and energy of the Spirit by which it was animated. (3) The description of the gift in this chapter is utterly inconsistent with it being a gift of languages. The gift was the result of a quickened spiritual power by the action of the Holy Ghost (see also Act. 2:4; Act. 10:44-46; Act. 19:6); it poured itself forth in wild, impassioned utterances, which were sometimes mistaken for delirium (1Co. 14:23); and these were the expressions, not of thoughts, but of feelings, unintelligible always, if uninterpreted, to the listener, and sometimes to the utterer himself.
It is to be observed that very notable spiritual phenomena, not unlike what are recorded here, accompanied many periods of great spiritual revival. The histories of the early work of Wesley and Whitfield, and of Irvingto take examples in England aloneafford some very remarkable illustrations. The general subject of the first part of this chapter (1Co. 14:1-25) is the Gift of Tongues, and is thus dealt with:
I.
PROPHECY IS SUPERIOR TO THE GIFT OF TONGUES (1Co. 14:2-11)
Because
(1)
Tongues are the means of communion between the individual and God, whereas prophecy is communion with other men (1Co. 14:2-3).
(2)
Tongues do yourself good; prophecy does good to others (1Co. 14:4-6).
This truth is illustrated (a) by the variety of musical instruments (1Co. 14:7); (b) by the distinction of musical notes (1Co. 14:8-9); (c) by the varieties of human language (1Co. 14:10-11).
II.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING (1Co. 14:11-19).
(1)
What the aim and object of the Christians should be (1Co. 14:12-13).
(2)
His own example (1Co. 14:14-19).
III.
FURTHER APPEAL TO THEIR INTELLIGENCE AS TO THIS TRUTH (1Co. 14:21-25).
(1)
The Old Testament teaches the same principle (1Co. 14:21-22).
(2)
The gift of prophecy is a means of spreading Christianity, and the gift of tongues is not (1Co. 14:23-25).
In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.The utterances come, not from his mind, but from his spirit, stirred by the Holy Spirit; and he speaks mysteries unintelligible to others.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Unknown tongue The word unknown, though interpolated by the translator, expresses the truth. The “tongues” were unintelligible to the congregation unless interpreted. And herein they were far inferior to the pentecostal tongues, which spoke to every man in his native dialect. Perhaps we may say that the difference was, that the pentecostal Spirit brought all (save the mockers) into full spiritual communication with the speakers, so that they were all charismatic interpreters.
Dr. Poor, in Schaff’s Lange, takes the ground that the Corinthian charismatic language consisted not in speaking foreign languages, but in speaking a speech, “new and clean,” formed by the Spirit himself, inasmuch as the foreign tongues of that day were defiled with paganism. But we reply, by the ordinary view the pentecostal tongues were foreign and pagan. Yet may we not unite his view with our own? Let us suppose that the true new tongue was the Spirit language heard by St. Paul near the third heaven. This language can be received only by those like St. John, (Rev 1:10,) more or less “in the Spirit.” Yet the converse of pure spirits is not through the medium of sound, but is the pure and perfect impartation of the thought itself. When man receives it into his spirit it tends to take the form of language sometimes of his own native language; sometimes, by diffusive sympathy, of foreign human dialects; sometimes of vocalities belonging to no known language, yet inherently expressive of the thought. In the latter case the man may lack the power of interpreting the thought into ordinary language, and yet the hearer, brought into sympathy, may perform the office of interpreter, as explained in our note on 1Co 14:5.
Unto God As his only real hearer.
In the Spirit In his own spirit.
Mysteries The mysteries of the gospel previously unknown to men.
A modern resemblance to the gift of tongues was that in the church of the celebrated Edward Irving. We give the following passage from a witness of the phenomena, which we take from Stanley, p. 252: “As an instance of the extraordinary change in the powers of the human voice when under inspiration, I may here mention the case of an individual whose natural voice was inharmonious, and who, besides, had no ear for keeping time. Yet even the voice of this person, when singing in the spirit, could pour forth a rich strain of melody of which each note was musical, and uttered with a sweetness and power of expression that was truly astonishing; and, what is still more singular, with a gradually increasing velocity into a rapidity, yet distinctness, of utterance which is inconceivable by those who have never witnessed the like: and yet, with all his apparently breathless haste, there was not in reality the slightest agitation of body or of mind. In other instances the voice is deep and powerfully impressive. I cannot describe it better than by saying that it approaches nearly to what might be considered a perfect state of the voice, passing far beyond the energies of its natural strength, and at times so loud as not only to fill the whole house, but to be heard at a considerable distance; and though often accompanied by an apparently great mental energy and muscular exertion of the whole body, yet in truth there was not the slightest disturbance of either; on the contrary, there was present a tranquillity and composure both of body and of mind the very opposite to any, even the least degree of, excitement.
“The consciousness of the presence of God in these manifestations is fraught with such a holy solemnity of thought and feeling as leave neither leisure nor inclination for curious observation. In a person alive to the presence of the Holy Ghost, and overwhelmed by his manifestations beside and around him, and deeply conscious that upon his heart, naked and exposed, rests the eye of God, one thought alone fills his soul, one wail of utterance is heard, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner.’ Nor can the eye be diverted from the only sight that is precious to it, far more precious than life itself, ‘The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.’”
The following is from a subject of the influence:
“I read the fourth chapter of Malachi; as I read the power came upon me, and I was made to read with power. My voice was raised far beyond its natural pitch with a constrained repetition of parts, and with the same inward uplifting, which at the presence of the power I had always experienced. Whilst sitting at home it came upon me, but for a considerable time no impulse to utterance; presently a sentence in French was vividly set before my mind, and under the impulse to utterance was spoken. Then, in a little time, sentences in Latin were in a like manner uttered; and, with short intervals, sentences in many other languages. Judging from the sound and the different exercise of the enunciating organs, my wife, who was with me, thought some of them to be Italian or Spanish; the first she can read and translate, the second she knows but little of. Sometimes single words were given me, and sometimes sentences, though I could neither recognise the words nor sentences as any language I knew, except those which were French or Latin. My persuasion concerning the unknown tongue, as it is called, (in which I myself was very little exercised,) is, that it is no language whatever, but a mere collection of words and sentences; and in the lengthened discourses is, most of it, a jargon of sounds; though I can conceive, when the power is very great, that it will assume much of the form of a connected oration.” P. 254.
Dr. Bushnell has, in his “Natural and Supernatural,” a suggestive chapter on gifts. He relates that in New England, at a place designated as H., at a religious meeting, “After one of the brethren had been speaking in a strain of discouraging self-accusation, another present shortly rose with a strange, beaming look, and, fixing his eye on the confessing brother, broke out in a discourse of sounds wholly unintelligible though apparently a true language, accompanying the utterances with strange and peculiarly impressive gestures, such as he never made at any other time; coming finally to a kind of pause, and commencing again as if at the same point, to go over in English, with exactly the same gestures, what had just been said. It appeared to be an interpretation, and the matter of it was a beautifully emphatic utterance of the great principle of self-renunciation, by which the desired victory over self is to be obtained. The circle were astounded by the demonstration, not knowing what to make of it. The instinct of prudence threw them in an observing, a general, silence; and it is a curious fact that the public in H. have never to this hour been startled by so much as a rumour of a gift of tongues, neither has the name of the speaker been associated with so much as a surmise of the real or supposed fact, by which he would be, perhaps, unenviably distinguished. It has been to him a great trial, it is said, to submit himself to this demonstration, which has recurred several times.” P. 479.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, but to God. For no man understands, but in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks to men edification, and exhortation, and consolation.’
This is because the man who speaks with tongues, which has been their favourite test of spirituality, does not speak to men at all. He speaks to God. For no one understands him (note that Paul assumes that the tongues will not be understandable. (Unlike at Pentecost, that is not the point of these tongues). He may be speaking in the Spirit but he is speaking mysteries. It is of benefit to none but himself.
The gift of tongues is a gift by which men can speak in unknown languages to God. Paul describes speaking in tongues as ‘speaking words’ so that they would seem to be some form of language. But neither speaker nor hearer understand them. They are a means by which men speak to God, and as described here clearly contain an element of thanksgiving, although, unless the tongues are interpreted, only God knows about it. Yet their use brings private blessing to the heart. They provide some kind of spiritual relief and assistance in private worship whereby the heart is drawn to God. This is thus mainly a gift for private use and that is the question that Paul will deal with, for some of the Corinthians were making a great show of tongues in public.
Tongues which could actually be described as known languages have (rarely) been known in the present day, and have been evidenced, but it is not usual for them to be recognised, and it is not their purpose. And even so they did not have the purpose of edifying. The recognition of the language was usually purely ‘accidental’ because say a missionary was present who recognised the language. Pentecost was an exception. Sadly many who have enthusiastically sought to set them forth as real commonly known languages have in their ignorance often made fools of themselves. We need to beware of over enthusiasm not backed up by solid evidence.
But today so many are artificially worked up that it is doubtful whether they are genuine tongues at all, simply babbling. Whether that was so in Paul’s time we do not know.
On the other hand the one who prophesies in love speaks to men, edifying, exhorting, consoling. Rather than him speaking to God for his own private blessing, God is speaking through him for the blessing of all. And the whole church is blessed. By ‘edifying’ is meant benefiting spiritually or improving morally, building up the inner man. Exhortation (parakaleo) encourages, and spurs on, and strengthens and comforts. Consolation comforts and nurtures and encourages. Prophecy of this type was not intended to produce new revelation.
Prophecy was an especially important gift in the early church because as the church spread it had to depend on only partly trained men. The special inspiration of men by the Holy Spirit was, next to the Scriptures and the Tradition of Jesus, the life-blood of the church. Today we are better trained. But we would do well to seek to prophesy by the Spirit as we preach.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 14:2. For he that speaketh, &c. “He that speaks in a tongue unknown in the auditory which he addresses, speaks in effect not to men, but to God; and as God alone knows the truth and importance of what he says, it is all lost on the audience, though he speaks in the Spirit the most sublime mysteries.” Dr. Whitby thinks that the gifts of languages and prophesy were always to be found in the same person, but that the first was permanent, the other transient; yet surely it isvery conceivable that either might be without the other. The miraculous instamping, as it were, in a man’s mind a new language, would, indeed, enable him to speak all he knew in it; but his fitness to discourse in public, as well as hiscapacity of predicting future events, were matters quite of another nature. He who attentively reads this chapter, says Mr. Locke, about spiritual men, and their gifts, may find reason to imagine that it was those who had the gift of tongues that caused the disorder in the church of Corinth, by their forwardness to speak, and striving to be heard first; and so taking up too much of their time in the assemblies. For remedying this disorder; and better regulating this matter, amongst other things, they had recourse to St. Paul. This opinion will be confirmed, if we consider, 1st, that the first gift which St. Paul compares with love, ch. 13 and extremely undervalues in comparison of that divine virtue, is the gift of tongues; as if that were the gift which they most affected to shew, and most valued themselves upon; as indeed it was in itself most fitted for ostentation, in their assemblies, of any other, if any one were inclined that way; and that the Corinthians, in their present state, were not exempt from emulation and vanity, is very evident. 2nd, If we consider, that when in this chapter St. Paul compares their spiritual gifts one with another, the first, nay, the only one which he depreciates, in comparison of others, is the gift of tongues; of which he discourses for above twenty verses together, in a way proper to abate a too high esteem, and a too excessive use of it in their assemblies; which we cannot suppose he would have done had they not been guilty of some such miscarriage in the case as seems to be intimated in 1Co 14:24. 3rdly, When he comes to give directions about the exercise of their gifts in their meetings, that of tongues is the only one which he restrains and limits, 1Co 14:27-28.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 14:2-3 give the ground of the . by comparing prophecy with the glossolalia in particular, which was in such high repute among the Corinthians.
For he who speaks with the tongue (see on 1Co 12:10 ) speaks not to men (does not with his discourse stand in the relation of communicating to men), but to God , who understands the Holy Spirit’s deepest and most fervent movements in prayer (Rom 8:26 f.). Comp. 1Co 14:28 .
] for no one hears it , has an ear for it. So too Porphyr. de Abst. iii. 22; Athen. ix. p. 383 A. What is not understood is as if it were not heard . Comp. Mar 4:33 ; Gen 11:7 ; Gen 42:23 , and see 1Co 14:16 : . [1] Wieseler, in 1838, took advantage of in support of his theory of the soft and inaudible character of the speaking with tongues, against which the very expression , the whole context (see especially 1Co 14:7 f.) and the analogy of the event of Pentecost, as well as Act 10:46 ; Act 19:6 , are conclusive. See also on 1Co 12:10 , 1Co 13:1 . The emphatic . , . militates against Fritzsche, Nov. opusc. pp. 327, 333, who takes . in a hyperbolic sense (“nam paucissimi intelligunt, cf. Joh 1:10-11 ”). No one understands it, that is the rule, the exceptional case being only, of course, that some one gifted with the of interpretation is present; but in and of itself the speaking with tongues is of such a nature that no one understands it. Had Paul meant the speaking in foreign languages , he could all the less have laid down that rule, since, according to 1Co 14:23 , it was a possible case that all the members of the church should speak , and consequently there would always be some present who would have understood the foreign language of an addres.
.] not the German “ sondern ” (Rckert) is the however or on the other hand frequent after a negative statement (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172; Baeumlein, p. 95). We are not to understand of the objective Holy Spirit, 1Co 14:14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual nature of the man (different from the ). This, the seat of his self-consciousness, is filled in the inspired man by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:16 ), which, according to the different degrees of inspiration, may either leave the reflective activity of the understanding ( , 1Co 14:14 ) at work, or suspend it for the time during which this degree of inspiration continues. The latter is what is meant here, and signifies, therefore, to speak through an activity of the higher organ of the inner life, which directly (without the medium of the ) apprehends and contemplates the divine; so that in is implied the exclusion of that discursive activity, which could, as in the case of prophecy, present clearly to itself in thought the movements and suggestions of the Holy Spirit, could work these out, connect them with things present, and communicate them to others in an intelligible wa.
] secrets , namely, for the hearers, hence what was unintelligible , the sense of which was shut up from the audience. The mysterious character of the speaking with tongues did not consist in the things themselves (for the same subjects might be treated of by other speakers also), but in the mode of expression, which, as not being brought about and determined by the intellectual activity of the , thereby lacked the condition connecting it with the intellectual activity of the hearer, for which it was only made ready by the interpretation. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362.
. . . . .] The first is the genus , the second and third are species of it: [2] edification (Christian perfection generally) and (and in particular) exhortation (comp. on Phi 2:1 ) and consolation .
, only here in the N. T., means address in general (Heindorf, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 70 B), then comfort in particular; Plato, Ax. p. 365 A; Aeschin. Dial. Socr. ii. 3; Lucian, Mort. D. xv. 3; de Dea Syr. 22; Ael. V. H. xii. 1; Wis 19:12 . Comp. on , Phi 2:1 .
[1] Comp. also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 382.
[2] Ver. 4, where the is named alone , testifies to this relation of the three words (in opposition to Rckert). Comp. Bengel, who has noted well the edifying significance of the two latter points: “ tollit tarditatem, tristitiam.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him ; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Ver. 2. In an unknown tongue ] So they that preach in a kind of a Roman English, and not in a low language to the people’s capacity.
But unto God ] Canit sibi et Musis, as the proverb is; and as good he may hold his tongue, for God needs him not.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 20. ] Prophecy edifies the BRETHREN more than speaking with tongues .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2. ] For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (so in reff. and Athen [62] ix. p. 382, , i.e. as a general rule , the assembly do not understand him; some, who have the gift of interpretation of tongues, may, but they are the exception), but (opposed to ) in the spirit (in his spirit, as opposed to in his understanding: his spirit is the organ of the Holy Ghost, but his understanding is unfruitful, see 1Co 14:14-15 ) he speaks mysteries (things which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from himself):
[62] Athenagoras of Athens, 177
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:2-3 . The reason for preferring Prophecy, on the principles laid down, is that one’s fellows receive no benefit from the Tongues: except God , “no one hears” the latter i.e. hears understandingly ( cf. Eph 1:13 ; Eph 4:29 , etc.). There was sound enough in the glossolalia (1Co 13:1 ), but no sense (1Co 14:23 ). . . ., “but in spirit he is speaking mysteries”; points a contrast to the : there is something worth hearing deep things muttered by those quivering lips, that should be rationally spoken. For , see note on 1Co 2:7 , and Cr [2020] s.v .: mystery in Scripture is the correlate of revelation ; here it stops short of disclosure, tantalizing the Church, which hears and hears not. , dat [2021] of manner or instr., “with the spirit,” but without the “understanding” ( : 1Co 14:14 ff.; cf. note to 1Co 12:8 ). “But he who prophesies does speak to men edification and exhortation and comfort.” and are distinct from : prophetic speech serves for ( a ) “the further upbuilding of the Christian life, ( b ) the stimulation of the Christian will, ( c ) the strengthening of the Christian spirit” (Hf [2022] ). has ref [2023] to sorrow or fear (see parls.); (far commoner) to duty; , in the widest sense, to knowledge and character and the progress of the Church: this last stands alone in the sequel.
[2020] Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans.).
[2021] dative case.
[2022] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[2023] reference.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
speaketh. Greek. laleo. App-121.
in. No preposition. Dative case.
an unknown = a.
unto = to.
men. Greek. anthropos. App-123.
God. App-98.
no man = no one. Greek. oudeis.
understandeth. Greek. akouo. Occurs over 420 times. Translated hear, except in this and six or seven other passages. See Act 9:7.
howbeit = but.
spirit. App-101. There is no article.
mysteries. App-193.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2-20.] Prophecy edifies the BRETHREN more than speaking with tongues.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:2. , to God) alone, who understands all tongues.-, hears) i.e. understands.-, in spirit) 1Co 14:14.-, mysteries) which others may rather admire, than learn. The article is not added.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:2
1Co 14:2
For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God;-Speaking in unknown tongues was the most striking of these gifts, and from Pauls repeating its inferiority to other gifts, it must have been sought after to the exclusion of the higher and the more helpful gifts.
for no man understandeth;-He that speaks in a tongue unknown to his hearers does not speak to them, since they do not understand him, but he speaks to God.
but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.-He speaks mysteries, things unknown to the people who cannot understand him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
an unknown
Or, a tongue; and so in 1Co 14:4; 1Co 14:13-14; 1Co 14:19; 1Co 14:27.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
he that: 1Co 14:9-11, 1Co 14:16, 1Co 14:21, 1Co 14:22, Gen 11:7, Gen 42:23, Deu 28:49, 2Ki 18:26, Act 2:4-11, Act 10:46, Act 19:6
understandeth: Gr. heareth, Act 22:9
howbeit: 1Co 2:7, 1Co 2:10, 1Co 13:2, 1Co 15:51, Psa 49:3, Psa 49:4, Psa 78:2, Mat 13:11, Mar 4:11, Rom 16:25, Eph 3:3-9, Eph 6:19, Col 1:26, Col 1:27, Col 2:2, 1Ti 3:9, 1Ti 3:16, Rev 10:7
Reciprocal: 1Co 2:13 – but 1Co 12:10 – divers 1Co 14:14 – my spirit
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:2. Speaking with tongues
manifests miraculous power, but it does not contribute as much benefit to the brethren as does the gift of prophesying, when the latter is done after
the manner described in the next verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:2. For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not onto men, but unto Godthe Giver of that gift;for no man (in the absence of an interpreter) understandeth him; but in the spirit (as distinct from his conscious understanding) he speaketh mysteries (see 1Co 14:14-15). By mysteries is meant truths which, under the ancient economy, were but partially understood, but now fully disclosed (see on 1Co 2:7).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here observe, 1. That the gift of tongues, or speaking divers languages, was greatly valued and much desired by some in the church at that time; probably for this reason, because the apostles were very eminently endowed with this gift, the Holy Ghost descending upon them in the shape of cloven tongues; but yet the gift of prophecy, that is, of understanding in intrepreting God’s will, was clearly the more valuable and desirable accomplishment; for though speaking with tongues created more admiration, and conciliated greater veneration to the speaker, yet prophesying was by far the most excellent gift, and tended most to the edification of the church: it is far better to do good, than to appear great; that is most valuable and excelling which is most advantageous and edifying.
Observe, 2. How the apostle enters upon a comparison between the gift of speaking in an unknown tongue, and prophesying or speaking plainly to the church’s benefit and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, that is, in a language not understood, not explained or interpreted, he speaketh not unto men; that is, not to the understanding of men, for none understand him; but to God only, he alone understands him; and though in the Spirit he speaks mysteries, or the deep things of God, yet all this is not to edification, because not understood by the church.
Whereas, he that prophesieth, that is, he that intelligibly openeth and applieth the word of God to his auditors in the congregation, what he speaks conduces exceedingly to their edification and consolation,
Here note, That the apostle not only dislikes, but plainly forbids, preaching, praying, and all other offices being performed in the church in a language not understood.
So that the practice of the church of Rome in their Latin prayers is a flat contradiction to this whole chapter, and to the practice of the primitive church, Act 4:24; who lifted up their voice with one accord, and offered up a reasonable service to God.
The prayers of the Jewish church were made in the Hebrew tongue; and God gave the gift of tongues to the Christian church, that the apostles might establish the worship of God in every nation in their own language.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 2, 3. For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, exhortation, and comfort.
Paul here describes the mode in which the two gifts act. The glossolalete addresses God, and that in a language which no man understands, so that what he says remains a mystery to all who hear him; speaking in a tongue is a sort of spiritual soliloquy. It is impossible here to apply the meaning given by Meyer, Holsten, etc., to the word tongue, which according to them denotes the material organ of speech. What could the apostle mean by saying that he who speaks by moving the tongue speaks to God? The word denotes the ecstatic language which flourished at Corinth. The singular applies to each particular case; the plural ( ) to the gift in general. When a man speaks in ordinary language, his thought is addressed to those around him; but when he speaks in this particular tongue, his thought is turned to God only. And the proof is, that nobody understands this kind of manifestation. Wieseler has taken the word , hear, in the physical sense, and concluded from the term that the glossolaletes spoke only in a low voice. But, 1Co 13:1, Paul compares them to sounding brass and the clanging cymbal, and in 1Co 14:8 to the startling sound of the trumpet giving the signal for battle. , hear, has therefore in this place, as so frequently, the meaning of understand; comp. Gen 11:7 (LXX.): That they should not hear each the voice of his neighbour (Mat 13:13, etc.).
This passage is equally incompatible with the idea of really existing foreign tongues; for there might easily have been found at Corinth some one who understood the foreign tongue used by a glossolalete.
The , at the end of 1Co 14:2, is adversative: But, far from being understood, he speaks mysteries. The term mystery is here used in a derivative sense. It usually denotes the Divine plans which remain a secret to men, so long as God does not reveal them; it refers to the secrets of a man in relation to other men. What the speaker in a tongue says remains between God and him, and is a mystery to the hearers.
It is possible to explain the dative in the sense by the spirit,which would then be the Divine Spirit as guiding the man’s spirit,or it may be translated: in spirit; then it is the spirit of the glossolalete himself, who is carried away in an ecstasy, and in a manner raised for the time above the exercise of the understanding; comp. Rev 1:1. This second meaning is the more natural, seeing there is no article nor preposition before the substantive. It is evident that the state of the glossolalete was that of an ineffable conversation with God. Our passage has been justly compared with Rom 8:26-27, where the apostle speaks of the unutterable groanings whereby the Holy Spirit intercedes in the believer’s heart; only we may not conclude from this comparison, with Holsten, that glossolalia consisted only of confused groanings. Our whole chapter shows that there was language properly so called.
Vv. 3. It is otherwise with the man who prophesies; he addresses men to communicate to them from God some new grace, light, force. There is not only in him an involuntary expression of a personal state of mind, there is conscious will to act on the hearers by the communication of an immediately revealed Divine thought (1Co 14:30).
The apostle says, not: the prophet, but: he that prophesieth, because he conceives him in full activity in the midst of the assembly. In indicating the contents of his speaking: edification, exhortation, comfort, the apostle identifies the declaration itself with its effect.
There is no reason for subordinating the two last terms, as Meyer does, to the first, or to make the first, as de Wette does, the effect of the two following. They are all three co-ordinate. Edification denotes a new development and a confirmation of faith, by some new view fitted to strengthen the soul. The second term denotes an encouragement addressed to the will, an energetic impulse capable of effecting an awakening or advancement in Christian fidelity. If the first term relates mainly to faith, the second refers rather to love. The third, comfort, points rather to hope; , to soothe the ear with a sweet myth, putting pain to sleep or reviving hope.
In our times the conclusion has often been drawn from this verse, that since to prophesy is to edify, exhort, comfort, whoever edifies, exhorts, comforts, merits, according to Paul, the title prophet. This reasoning is as just as it would be to say: He who runs, moves his legs; therefore whoever moves his legs, runs; or, to take a more nearly related example: He who speaks in a tongue, speaks to God; therefore whoever speaks to God, is a glossolalete. No, certainly; one may edify, comfort, encourage, without deserving the title of prophet or prophetess. The absurd reasoning which I have pointed out has been dictated by the desire of being able to proclaim certain women prophetesses who think themselves called to speak in public, in order to give them the benefit of the implicit authorization contained in 1Co 11:5. From this contrast in the intrinsic nature of the two gifts, the apostle passes to the difference of results obtained by them.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 2
No man understandeth him. It would appear, from the statements in this chapter, that those upon whom were conferred the miraculous power of speaking in languages not their own, were accustomed to pervert the trust by making a parade of it, where no useful end could result, as a means of self-glorification. Why such a miraculous power should be bestowed in cases where its exercise would not seem to be needed, and why so special a mark and token of divine inspiration should be granted and continued to men who were habitually guilty of a perversion of it, which one would suppose would bring all the evidences of divine authentication into discredit are mysteries which we cannot solve.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:2 {2} For he that speaketh in an [unknown] {b} tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the {c} spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(2) He reprehends their perverse judgment concerning the gift of tongues. For why was it given? The answer: so that the mysteries of God might be the better known to a greater number. By this it is evident that prophecy, which the gift of tongues ought to serve, is better than this: and therefore the Corinthians judged incorrectly, in that they made more account of the gift of tongues than of prophesying: because no doubt the gift of tongues was a thing more to be bragged of. And hereupon followed another abuse of the gift of tongues, in that the Corinthians used tongues in the congregation without an interpreter. And although this thing might be done to some profit of him that spoke them, yet he corrupted the right use of that gift because there came by it no profit to the hearers. And common assemblies were instituted and appointed not for any private man’s commodity, but for the profit of the whole company.
(b) A strange language, which no man can understand without an interpreter.
(c) By that inspiration which he has received of the Spirit, which nonetheless he abuses, when he speaks mysteries which none of the company can understand.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) by itself is not edifying to other people, but prophecy is. This statement again raises a question about what speaking in tongues involved.
On the day of Pentecost people spoke in tongues and other people who knew the languages spoken received edification because they heard of God’s mighty deeds in their native languages (Act 2:1-11). Interpreters were unnecessary on that occasion (cf. Act 10:46; Act 19:6). Evidently what was taking place in the Corinthian church was different from what took place on the day of Pentecost. In Corinth, and perhaps in other early churches, people spoke in tongues among people who did not understand the languages. An interpreter was necessary for those present to understand and benefit from what the tongues-speaker was saying in a strange language (1Co 14:5; 1Co 14:13). Paul used "tongues" and "languages" interchangeably in this passage (cf. 1Co 14:2; 1Co 14:10-11; 1Co 14:13, et al.). This is an important proof that tongues were languages.
Some Christians have suggested another distinction. They have claimed that the tongues in Acts were foreign languages but the tongues in Corinthians were ecstatic utterances, not languages but unintelligible speech. [Note: E.g., Robertson and Plummer, pp. 301, 306.] There is no basis for this distinction in the Greek text, however. The terminology used is the same, and the passages make good sense if we take tongues as languages wherever they occur. In 1Co 13:1 Paul wrote "of the tongues of men and of angels," evidently two types of languages. [Note: See Keener, pp. 112-13, and S. Lewis Johnson Jr., "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):310-11.]
If someone spoke in an unknown language and no one could interpret what he was saying, the person speaking was not speaking to men. God knew what he was saying even though no one else did, including the person doing the speaking. In his human spirit the speaker was uttering mysteries (Gr. mysteria, things hidden or secret from the understanding of those in the church who were listening). Obviously Paul’s concern was the edification of the church. He did not disparage the gift of tongues itself, but he put it in its rightful place.
Paul described the spirit as distinct from the mind (cf. 1Co 14:14-19).
"Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit that sometimes bypassed the mind; and in 1Co 14:14-15 he argues that for his own edification he will have both. But in church he will have only what can also communicate to other believers through their minds." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 657.]