TONGUES,
GIFT
OF
It
had
originally
been
designed
as
a
means
to
scale
heaven.
Two
such
towers,
or
ziqqurats,
were
the
temple
of
Merodach
(or
Marduk)
in
Babylon
(supposed
to
be
beneath
the
mound
of
Babil),
and
the
temple
of
Nebo
in
Borsippa
(the
ruins
of
which
form
the
mound
of
Bits
Nimroud);
and
knowledge
of
one
or
other
of
these
may
have
helped
to
shape
the
narrative.
The
character
of
the
narrative
makes
it
Impossible
to
con-sider
it
as
real
history:
it
bears
on
its
surface
manifest
evidence
that
it
Is
a
creation
of
primitive
fancy.
The
question
whether
the
various
languages
of
mankind
have
really
been
derived
from
one
common
tongue
cannot
be
separated
from
the
question
(into
which
it
is
unnecessary
to
enter
here)
whether
the
various
races
of
men
have
sprung
from
a
single
stock,
i.e.
'whether
man
appeared
originally
on
the
globe
at
one
centre
or
at
many
centres."
It
may
be
said,
however,
that
philological
research
has
proved
that
the
numerous
existing
languages
are
members
of
a
comparatively
small
number
of
families
of
speech
(such
as
the
Indo-European,
the
Semitic,
etc.);
but
that
between
these
families
of
speech
there
is
so
great
a
difference
of
structure,
that
their
descent
from
one
original
tongue
seems
highly
improbable.
At
the
same
time,
all
languages
must
have
arisen
from
certain
faculties
and
instincts
common
to
human
nature;
and
the
presence,
in
languages
belonging
to
distinct
families,
of
onomatopoetic,
or
imita-tive,
words
serves
to
illustrate
the
essential
similarity
of
human
tendencies
in
the
sphere
of
speech
all
the
world
over.
G.
W.
Wade.
TONGUES,
GIFT
OP.—
1
.
In
NT
we
read
of
'
speaking
with
tongues
'
or
'
in
a
tongue
'
as
a
remarkable
sign
of
the
outpouring
of
the
Holy
Spirit;
but
the
exact
mean-ing
of
the
phenomenon
described
heis
been
much
disputed.
We
may
take
the
passages
in
the
chronological
order
of
writing.
—
(a)
The
Epistles.
In
1
Co
12-14,
among
the
charismata
or
(spiritual)
gifts
are
'divers
kinds
of
tongues'
and
"the
interpretation
of
tongues'
(12><i-
">).
Yet
St.
Paul,
who
possessed
the
gift
himself
(14'*),
considers
it
to
be
of
little
importance
as
compared
with
prophecy.
In
itself
it
is
addressed
to
God,
and
unless
interpreted
it
is
useless
to
those
assembled;
it
is
a
sign
to
believers,
but
will
not
edify,
but
rather
excite
the
ridicule
of,
unlearned
persons
or
heathens
(1423).
what-ever
the
gift
was,
speaking
with
tongues
was
at
Corinth
ordinarily
unintelligible
to
the
hearers,
and
sometimes
even
to
the
speaker
(14»),
though
the
English
reader
must
note
that
the
word
'unknown'
in
AV
is
an
inter-polation.
The
gift
was
not
to
be
forbidden,
but
every-thing
was
to
be
done
decently
and
in
order
(14").
—
Indications
of
the
gift
are
thought
to
be
found
in
1
Th
6",
Ro
8"-
»,
Gal
4',
Eph
5",
but.
not
at
all
in
the
Pastoral,
Petrine,
or
Johannine
Epistles.
It
seems
to
have
belonged
to
the
infancy
of
the
Church
(1
Co
13«:
'Tongues
.
.
.
shall
cease').
[Iren^us,
apparently
speaking
at
second
hand,
says
that
the
gift
existed
in
the
2nd
cent.;
but
this
is
very
doubtful.
Chrysostom
says
that
it
was
non-existent
in
the
4th
century.]
—
(6)
Acts.
At
Pentecost,
in
addition
to
the
'mighty
wind'
and
the
"'tongues
parting
asunder
like
as
of
flre,"
we
read
that
the
assembled
disciples
spoke
'with
other
tongues
as
the
Spirit
gave
them
utterance"
(2<).
The
multitudes
from
many
countries,
coming
together,
heard
them
speak
in
their
tongues
the
mighty
works
of
God
(2").
while
some
thought
that
they
were
drunken
(2";
cf.
1
Co
1423).
We
read
again
of
the
gift
in
the
conversion
of
Cornelius
and
his
household
(10")
—
St.
Peter
expressly
says
that
it
was
the
same
as
at
Pentecost
(1116)
—
and
at
Ephesus
(198);
and
probably
the
same
Is
intended
in
the
story
of
the
Samaritan
converts
(8"
f.:
'Simon
saw
that
...
the
Holy
Ghost
was
given").
—
(c)
In
the
Appendix
to
Mark
(which,
even
if
Markan,
is
comparatively
late)
we
have
the
promise
that
the
disciples
"shall
speak
with
[new]
tongues"
(16":
"new"
is
probably
not
of
the
best
text).
TONGUES,
GIFT
OF
2.
Meaning
of
the
gift.
—
Relying
chiefly
on
the
passages
of
Acts,
most
of
the
Fathers
(as
Origen,
Chrysostom,
Theodoret,
Gregory
of
Nyssa,
Gregory
of
Nazianzus)
understand
the
gift
as
being
for
purposes
of
evangeliza-tion,
as
if
the
disciples
received
a
miraculous
endow-ment
of
foreign
languages
to
enable
them
to
preach;
Gregory
of
Nyssa
and
others
take
the
gift
as
a
miracle
of
hearing,
the
disciples
speaking
in
their
own
language,
but
the
people
understanding
their
speech
each
in
his
own
tongue.
This
view
starts
with
the
doubtless
true
idea
that
"tongue"
means
"language"
here.
But
Acts
says
nothing,
about
preaching;
the
gift
is
never
found
in
NT
in
connexion
with
evangelization;
the
passages
in
1
Cor.,
where
the
utterances
are
often
un-intelligible
even
to
the
utterer,
are
clearly
repugnant
to
this
interpretation,
and
we
have
no
proof
that
the
Apostles
ever
preached
in
any
language
but
Greek
and
Aramaic,
even
to
the
'barbarous"
heathen,
such
as
the
Lycaonians
or
Maltese.
Indeed,
Paul
and
Barnabas
clearly
did
not
know
Lycaonian
(Ac
14"-
").
Peter
probably
did
not
know
Greek
well
enough
to
preach
in
it,
for
Mark
was
his
'interpreter'
(Papias,
Irenaeus).
We
cannot,
then,
follow
the
majority
of
the
Fathers
in
their
interpretation.
Had
it
been
the
true
one,
St.
Paul
would
have
encouraged
the
Corinthians
to
use
the
gift
to
the
utmost.
Unfortunately,
we
do
not
know
how
the
earlier
2nd
cent.
Fathers
understood
the
matter;
but
Ter-tuUian
apparently
judged
the
gift
to
be
an
ecstatic
utterance
of
praise
(adv.
Marc.
v.
8).
This
is
much
more
probable
than
the
other
view.
At
Pentecost
the
disciples
spoke
the
'mighty
works
of
God."
All
the
NT
passages
either
suggest
or
agree
with
the
idea
of
worship.
This
does
not,
indeed,
exhaust
all
our
difficulties;
but
perhaps
the
following
considerations
may
solve
at
least
some
of
them.
—
(a)
The
disciples,
at
a
critical
period
of
the
Church,
were
in
a
state
of
intense
excitement.
But
St.
Paul's
words
do
not
mean
that
their
utterances
were
mere
gibberish;
on
the
contrary,
they
were
capable
of
interpretation
if
one
who
had
that
gift
were
present.
And
at
Pentecost
they
were,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
understood.
—
(&)
It
has
been
suggested
that
we
are
to
understand
"tongues,"
not
as
'languages,"
but
as
'poetic
or
symbolic
speech,"
not
readily
understood
by
the
unlearned.
But
this
view
does
not
satisfy
Ac
2,
though
in
itself
it
may
be
true;
in
a
word,
this
is
an
insufficient
explanation.
—
(c)
The
languages
required
by
Ac
2
are
actually
only
two
—
Greek
and
Aramaic.
For
those
present
at
Pente-cost
were
Jews;
the
list
in
v.'^-
is
of
countries,
not
of
languages.
All
the
Jews
of
these
countries
spoke
either
Greek
or
Aramstic.
This
is
a
difficulty
in
inter-preting
the
narrative,
which
gives
us
the
impression
of
a
large
number
of
different
languages.
But
probably
what
is
intended
is
a
large
number
of
dialects
of
Greek
and
Aramaic,
especially
of
the
latter;
it
would
be
as
though
a
Somerset
man
heard
one
who
habitually
spoke
broad
Scots
praising
God
in
the
Somerset
dialect.
And
what
would
strike
the
pilgrim
Jews
present
was
that
the
speakers
at
Pentecost
were
mainly
those
who
themselves
spoke
an
uncouth
Aramaic
dialect,
that
of
Galilee
(Mt
26'=).
—
(d)
This
consideration
may
lead
us
a
step
further.
We
may
recognize
in
the
Pentecostal
wonder
a
stirring
of
memory,
a
recalling
of
utterances
previously
heard
by
the
disciples
at
former
feasts
when
a
polyglot
multitude
of
Jews
(polyglot
at
least
in
dialects)
was
assembled,
the
speakers
uttering
what
they
had
unconsciously
already
taken
into
their
memories.
This
would
account
for
their
words
being
so
readily
understood;
some
of
the
speakers
would
be
praising
God
in
one
dialect,
some
in
another.
—
(e)
Something
of
this
sort
may
have
happened
at
Corinth,
one
of
the
most
cosmopolitan
of
cities.
Here
the
possession
of
the
gift
was
not
confined
to
those
of
Jewish
birth.
But
naturally
the
resident
Christian
community
at
Corinth
would
ordinarily
not
understand
the
strange
