1 Corinthians 14:2

(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 speech—as 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 Irving—to take examples in England alone—afford 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14:2-4 The problem with the gift of speaking in tongues is that hearers cannot readily understand the message; the gift of prophecy, however, is immediately intelligible and beneficial as a word from God that strengthens . . . encourages . . . and comforts those who hear.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 14:2. Τῷ Θεῷ, to God) alone, who understands all tongues.—ἀκούει, hears) i.e. understands.—πνεύματι, in spirit) 1Co 14:14.—μυστήρια, mysteries) which others may rather admire, than learn. The article is not added.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_14:2-3 give the ground of the μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφ. 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 Spirits deepest and most fervent movements in prayer (Rom_8:26 f.). Comp. 1Co_14:28.

οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει] 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 : τί λέγεις οὐκ οἶδε.[1] Wieseler, in 1838, took advantage of ἀκούει in support of his theory of the soft and inaudible character of the speaking with tongues, against which the very expression λαλεῖν, 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 οὐκ ἀνθρ. λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τ. Θεῷ militates against Fritzsche, Nov. opusc. pp. 327, 333, who takes οὐδεὶς γ. ἀκούει 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 χάρισμα 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 γλώσσαις, and consequently there would always be some present who would have understood the foreign language of an addres.

πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστ.] δέnot the German sondern (Rückert)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 πνεύματι of the objective Holy Spirit, 1Co_14:14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual nature of the man (different from the ψυχή). 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 (νοῦς, 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 πνεύματι λαλεῖν signifies, therefore, to speak through an activity of the higher organ of the inner life, which directly (without the medium of the νοῦς) apprehends and contemplates the divine; so that in πνεύματι 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.

μυστήρια] 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 νοῦς, 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.

οἰκοδ. κ. παρακλ. κ. παραμ.] 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 Php_2:1) and consolation.

παραμυθία, 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 παραμύθιον, Php_2:1.

[1] Comp. also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 382.

[2] Ver. 4, where the οἰκοδομή is named alone, testifies to this relation of the three words (in opposition to Rückert). Comp. Bengel, who has noted well the edifying significance of the two latter points: παράκλησις tollit tarditatem, παραμυθία tristitiam.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ). πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ κ . τ . λ ., “but in spirit he is speaking mysteries”; δὲ points a contrast to the οὐδεὶς … ἀκούει : there is something worth hearing deep things muttered by those quivering lips, that should be rationally spoken. For μυστήριον , 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. πνεύματι , dat [2021] of manner or instr., “with the spirit,” but without the “understanding” ( νοῦς : 1Co 14:14 ff.; cf. note to 1Co 12:8 ). “But he who prophesies does speak to men edification and exhortation and comfort.” παράκλησις and παραμυθία are distinct from οἰκοδομή : 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] ). παραμυθία has ref [2023] to sorrow or fear (see parls.); παράκλησις (far commoner) to duty; οἰκοδομή , 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (γλώσσαις λαλεῖν) 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 ἀκούειν, 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. ᾿Ακούειν, 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 δέ, 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 πνεύματι 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; παραμυθεῖν, 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.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_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.

What is here taught is, First, that he who speaks with tongues speaks not to men, but to God. Second, that this means that men do not understand him. Thirdly, that the reason of his not being understood is in the medium of communication, not in the things communicated. Speaketh not unto men, but unto God; or, speaks not for men, but for God. Sibi canit et musis, according to the Latin proverb, Calvin. His communion is with God, and not with man. For no man understandeth him. Literally, no man hears, i.e. hears any articulate sounds. He hears the sound, but does not distinguish the words. This, however, does not imply that the sounds uttered were in themselves unintelligible, so that no man living (unless inspired) could understand them. When the apostles spake with tongues on the day of Pentecost, what they said was understood. The meaning is, not that no man living, but that no man present, could understand. It is not the use of the gift of tongues that he censures, but the use of that gift when no one was present who understood the language employed. Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Spirit does not mean the mans own spirit as distinguished from his understanding. The Scriptures do not distinguish between the νοῦϚ and πνεῦμα as distinct faculties of the human intelligence. The latter is not the higher spiritual powers of our nature, but the Holy Spirit; comp. 1Co_2:14. In favor of this interpretation is,

1. The prevailing use of the word spirit in reference to the Holy Ghost in all Pauls epistles, and especially in this whole connection.

2. That the expression to speak in or by the Spirit, is an established Scriptural phrase, meaning to speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

3. When spirit is to be distinguished from the understanding, it designates the affections; a sense which would not at all suit this passage.

4. The meaning arrived at by this interpretation is natural, and suitable to the connection. Although he who speaks with tongues is not understood, yet, guided by the Spirit, he speaks mysteries. Mysteries mean divine truths; things which God has revealed.

In Act_2:11, they are called the wonderful things (τὰ μεγαλεῖα) of God. To make the word mean, things not understood by the hearer, is contrary to the usage of the word. A secret disclosed, is no longer a secret; and a mystery revealed ceases to be a mystery, for a mystery is something hidden. Besides, Paul would then say, No man understands him, yet he speaks what is not understood.‹24› The meaning obviously is, that although not understood, yet what he utters contains divine truth. The difficulty was in the language used, not in the absence of meaning, or in the fact that inarticulate sounds were employed. This verse, therefore, contains nothing inconsistent with the commonly received view of the nature of the gift in question. He who speaks with tongues, speaks to God and not to men, for no one (in the case supposed) understands him, although what he says is replete with the highest meaning. The implication is that these tongues were foreign to the hearers; and therefore it is said, no man understands him.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

By that inspiration which he has received of the Spirit, which notwithstanding he abuseth, when he speaketh mysteries which none of the company can understand.

He reprehendeth their perverse judgment touching the gift of tongues. For why was it given? to wit, to the intent that the mysteries of God might be the better known to a greater sort. Thereby it is evident that Prophecy, whereunto the gift of tongues ought to serve, is better than this: and therefore the Corinthians did judge amiss, in that they made more account of the gift of tongues, than of prophesying: because forsooth 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. Which thing although it might be done to some profit of him, that spake them, yet he corrupted the right use of that gift, because there came thereby 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.

A strange language, which no man can understand without an interpreter.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

speaketh . . . unto God--who alone understands all languages.

no man understandeth--generally speaking; the few who have the gift of interpreting tongues are the exception.

in the spirit--as opposed to "the understanding" (Co1 14:14).

mysteries--unintelligible to the hearers, exciting their wonder, rather than instructing them. Corinth, being a mart resorted to by merchants from Asia, Africa, and Europe, would give scope amidst its mixed population for the exercise of the gift of tongues; but its legitimate use was in an audience understanding the tongue of the speaker, not, as the Corinthians abused it, in mere display.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 πνευματι 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

2. For he that speaketh in another 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.” In the use of the word tongue, there is not a pleonasm, 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.”

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He that speaketh in a tongue, which others at least understand not: nay, which sometimes, perhaps, by the 14th and 15th verse, he himself that spoke tongues, did not understand, can only be said to speak to God. In spirit he speaketh mysteries, edifies himself, because in his spirit he is piously and devoutly affected; but he must endeavour that the Church, or people present, may be also edified. Let him then pray for the other gift of interpreting, what he speaks, or let another interpret. (Witham) --- Not to men. Viz. so as to be heard, that is, so as to be understood by them. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In an unknown tongue. The interpolation of the word "unknown" in our Authorized Version is quite unjustifiable, and shows the danger of giving way to the bias of mere conjectures. Probably it is this word, not found in the original, which has given rise to the perplexing, unhistoric, and unwarranted theory that "the gift of tongues" was a power of speaking in foreign languages. Speaketh not unto men. Because, as a rule, no one understands anything that he says. The word literally means "hears." It may, perhaps, imply that no special attention was given to those who gave way to these impulses of utterance. The whole of this chapter proves in a most striking way the close analogy between "the tongue" and the impassioned soliloquies of inarticulate utterance which were poured forth in tones of thrilling power among the Montanists, and in modern times among the Irvingites. In the spirit. It is uncertain whether this means "in his own spirit," or "in the Spirit of God," i.e. as a result of inspiration. Probably the former (Joh_4:24; Rom_8:13, etc.) Perhaps, however, the two imply the same thing. The spirit is the one Divine part of our human being, and when a man is a true Christian his spirit is in union with, is as it were lost in, the Spirit of God. St. Paul recognizes the true tongue for it might be simulated by hysteria and even by mere physical imposture as a result of inspiration, that is, of the overpowering dominance of the human spirit by a supernatural power. Nevertheless, he points out the extreme peril of yielding to or self inducing these emotions public, or in leaving them uncontrolled. Mysteries. Secrets revealed possibly to him, but unrevealed by this strange "tongue" to others.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaks, in effect, not to men, but to God - Who alone understands him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

an unknown

Or, a tongue; and so in 1Co 14:4; 1Co 14:13-14; 1Co 14:19; 1Co 14:27.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

2. For he that speaketh in a tongue. Hath the gift of tongues. The tenor of Paul's remarks shows that the Corinthians placed too high a comparative estimate on this gift. Speaketh mysteries. Things that are unknown and mysterious to his hearers. Men do not understand him.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

2. γλώσσῃ. The context shews the necessity of the ‘unknown’ of the A.V.

οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ. Because the language is not the language of those to whom he is speaking, and therefore what he says is hidden from them.

ἀκούει. Here in the sense of understanding, a sense which is by some suggested as the explanation of the apparent discrepancy between Act 9:7; Act 22:9.

πνεύματι δέ. It is a question here whether δέ is simply the introduction of an additional but distinct proposition or whether it is to be taken in the adversative sense. We have instances of δέ in the adversative sense after a negative in Act 12:9; Jas 5:12. Rom 3:4, cited by Winer as another instance, is not quite certain, but there, as here, the adversative gives the best sense. It is also a question whether πνεύματι refers (1) to the Holy Spirit, or (2) to the spirit of the man himself. But as λαλεῖ refers to the man in the first part of the sentence, and as he is especially said to be speaking to God, (2) is preferable. For μυστήρια see ch. 1Co 4:1.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2-20.] Prophecy edifies the brethren more than speaking with tongues.

2.] For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (so ἀκούω in reff. and ix. p. 382, ἔλεγεν ῥήματα ἃ οὐδὲ εἷς ἤκουσεν ἄν, 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 οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει) 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 vv. 14, 15) he speaks mysteries (things which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from himself):

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. ‘For he who speaketh in a Tongue, not to men doth he speak, but to God, for no man heareth him (to any purpose). This meaning of ἀκούειν comes out clearly in comparing Act 9:7 and 22:9. In the one place the men hear the voice; in the other they did not hear the voice of Him who was speaking to Saul, i.e. they heard a sound but did not hear it as words addressed to any one. Also in the story of Babel; Συγχέωμεν ἐκεῖ αὐτῶν τὴν γλῶσσαν, ἵνα μὴ ἀκούσωσιν ἕκαστος τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ πλησίον (Gen 11:7; comp. 42:23). Verse after verse shows that speaking in foreign languages cannot be meant. Tongues were used in communing with God, and of course this was good for those who did so (v. 4). Tongues were a sort of spiritual soliloquy addressed partly to self, partly to Heaven. Compare the proverb, Sibi canit et Musis. It is equally clear that οὐδεὶς ἀκούει does not mean that Tongues were inaudible, or that no one listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible. One might as well have heard nothing.

πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια. ‘As it is in the spirit that he speaketh what are in effect mysteries.’ Explanatory use of δέ; not uncommon after a negative, but in v. 4 without a negative. ‘In the spirit,’ but not ‘with the understanding’ (v. 14), and therefore unintelligible to others. Μυστήριον in the N.T. commonly means ‘truth about God, once hidden, but now revealed.’ In this sense it is very common in St Paul: see Lightfoot on Col 1:26 and Swete on Mar 4:2; Beet on 1Co 3:4, p. 40. Mysteries must be revealed to be profitable; but in the case of Tongues without an interpreter there was no revelation, and therefore no advantage to the hearers. See Hatch, Essays in Bibl. Grk. pp. 57 f.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.