cheenc03a.pdf

~~~~~
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
the sense of a tongue-speech we cannot tell. The
more one was disposed to rest satisfied with general
renderings, the easier was it to supply them. The tone
of the voice, the gestures, the recurrence of particular
words or rounds certainly oh'ered cluer.1 Further help
was ~zined from observation of the habits of the tonguespeakers.
We can hardly imagine otherwise than that
their rpeecher readily ass"med stereotyped character.
If, however, at any time a tongue-speaker brought
forth something unaccustomed, a knowledge of what
experiences he had recently been having would certainly
not be useless towards an understandine - of his soeech.
(c) It murr be erprerrly noted thar the things enumerated in
146 illon:, with tonwc-spcsch-revelaf~of, knowledgz, prophesying,
reaching40 nc: constitute the inrerpretation of tonguespeech
in rome rush rrnx thhr the melnlng will be 'when I
come unto you -king with tonwu what shsll I proh you if
I d.1 ,lot forthwith interpret there tongue-sp?echer 1" the for,"
of reuelztion' efs. Thlr mirandernanding 8s fro~ll the outset
precluded b this, that in v. 26 'inierprctstion' stands /" coodinrtion
dke with 'revelarion,'etc., and with 'tongue. On
th~ other hmd, it is possible thar intcrprslntian O! !ongue.r eech
is intended in w. rg : 'I will pry w~th ths Spmt and P will
prny with !he underrtilndingalro, thar is to ray wkle I repert
m intelhglble Innpage the ~ ~ b ?f ! the t ~ prayer ~ ~ I have ~
originally urtered in ec;lnry. Th8ivlew IS resommcnded by the
act that, immediat.ly hefore (0. ~j), the tongue-rpeaker is
admonished to aim ar being able to interpret hu own tongusspeeches.
On the subject of the diffusion of the tongue-charism
our information is very defective. (a) We are not
spread snd aware that tongue-speech (xnd the
end of, ongu e- allied charisms) had any considerable
speech, snp diffusion within the Jewish-Christian
area; hut neither is there adequate
.prophecy
ground for denying to the Jewish
chsrisma.
Christians all aptitude for ruch
charisms, or for accusing the author of Acts of having
as a Paulinist arbitrarily introduced it into his account
of the primitive Christian world. If he had not found
them in the sources on which he drew for 21-13 10+61:
196, but merely drew won his imaeination. we mnv be
pretty confident that he would hive brought in. the
same elements at other points as well. Of course, the
mere fact that they were present in his sources doer not
of itself give any security thnt their picture of the
dih'urion of the charirmr is historically correct.
(b) In exact proportion to the intensity with which
the charism of tongue-speech war exercised in Corinth
in Paul's time does the complete silence of the Epistle
to the Romans on the same suhiect invite remark. In
r Thenr. 519 ('quench not the spirit') it may perhaps
be intended, or at least included. In any eae
it onnot have lone - survived its most flourishins -
period. The author of Acts certainly can never have
heard it exercised, otherwise he could not possibly have
fallen into the mistake of sllpporing that it was speech
in the language of foreign nations, or into the confusion
of identifying with this foreign speech the sming with
tongues which occurred at the conversion of Cornelius
(Acts 1046 f. 11 15 11). It is a significant fact that
Justin foi his own period (about 155 A.D.) mentions
only prophetic gifts (rrpohrma xoplo~ra) but no
speaking with tongues (Dial. 81, begin.). lrenzeus
(about r85 AD.), in his detailed treatment of the
charisms of which numberless instances happened every
day (Her. ii. 493 [=32,]: also op. Eur. HE-. 7>s).
speaks only of exorcisms of demons, prophetic virions
and utterances, healingr, and rome cares of raising of
the dead. In another place (v. 61 ; also ap. Eus.
HE v. 76) he mrntionr tongue-speech alro, but only as
something with regard to which he hcnri thnt it
happens in the case of many brethren in the Church
1 The mort familiar erampb, by which it bar been attempted
to cxplilin the process, is rhe following: a tongue-speaker
babbled diuonncctedly the syllahlcr d and ha: the interpreter
b~lieved himself to have discovered the Aamaic word &ha.
Posrihly the maltsr often fell out so. It murr not. however, be
!houqhr that recirely this word was known only to certain
mler~refcrs. k Paul em lays if in Roln. 8x5 Grl.46 ir must
bare heen known to ~="tiPc chrirtirnr
4771
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
and without letting us know whether by it he understands
the phrnomena met with in I Cor 14, or what
is described in Acts 2. 1reniear ravr :
(c) For the ecstatical form of utterance did not
disappear so quickly as did tongue-speech. On the
contrary it became merged in the exercise of 'prophecy.'
This was favoured in the highest demee by the cirellmstance
that already the OT prophecy waronceived
of as whollv ecstatical (above. . 8 " 861. , This form of
~~
utterance war mort rtrollgly prevalent in Montanirm.
This may be the reason why sirerr is laid upon it by
Terfullian ; but as Montanisn altogether was nothing
new, but only a strong revival of a tendency which had
once before had prevalence within the church although
subsequently repressed, so alro its view of prophecy
was. even if not exactly what might be called the
primitive Christian one, then at least the post-apostolicchurchly
one (Weinel, 78-96). It was only by way of
reaction against the exaggerations of this and against
the dangers for ecclesiastical office which grew out of it
that brought churchmen at last to the view which finds
expression in the title of the treatise of Miltivdes (Ens.
HE v. 17.). 'On the necessity of a prophet's not
speaking in ecstasy' (repi roc p? driv spocpiliqu du
dxrrdsa hahriv). As to how it came abut that
'prophecy' alro in its turn had to recede into the
background and glve place to the ecclesiastical office.
see MINISTRY. 5 38.
If, finally, we proceed to inquire into the value which
the charisms possessed for primitive Christianity, we
Popular shall find that judger differ. (a) In the
view
the church of Corinth (which is almost the
only authority to which we can refer) they
charisms,
were valued very highly. They were regarded,
and quite naturally, as evidences of special grace
and favour, and were therefore zealously striven after
(14ra). This real, if a right zeal, was manifested in
prayer (1413 does not mean that he who speaks in
tongue-speech is to pronounce this ecstatic pmyer
of his with the purpose of interpreting it afterwards:
the meaning is that when not exercising his charism of
tongue-speech he is to pray for the gift of being able
himself to interpret any tongue-speeches he may subsequently
receive). But we shall hardly k doing the
Corinthians an injustice if we suppose that many of them
sought to secure for themselves those 'gifts' by other
means also-by imitation, or by anificially working
themselves up into a condition of excitement. by efforts
constantly repeated. Vanity. it would seem, war not
altogether without its part in the matter; othenvise the
gift most prized and coveted would hardly have k n
that of tongue-speech, the most conrpicuour indeed of
them all, but at the same time the least fruitful. In the
mouth of the Cunnthian Christians the tongue-speaker
alone war the 'spiritual' prrron (rur~l&a7tdr: 1437.
4772