Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 14

Having stated that love surpasses the other gifts, the Apostle then compares the other gifts to each other, showing the excellence of prophecy over the gift of tongues. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows that prophecy surpasses the gift of tongues; second, he explains how the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be used (see verse 26). Concerning the first point, he does two things: first, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues with reasons from the perspective of unbelievers; second, from the perspective of believers (see verse 20). The first part is divided into two: first, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues in its use in exhortations or sermons; second, in the use of tongues in praying. For the use of the tongue is ordained for these two purposes (see verse 13).

In regard to the first point, he does two things. First, he mentions one thing by which he connects what came before to what follows. This is what he says: It has been stated that love surpasses all the gifts; if that is so, then make love your aim, for it is a sweet and healthy bond of minds. Above all, hold unfailing your love for one another (1 Peter 4:8); Above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection (Colossians 3:14).

Second, he adds the point through which he connects to what follows, saying: earnestly desire the spiritual gifts. It is as if to say: Although love is greater than all gifts, the others are nevertheless not to be despised. But earnestly desire, that is, fervently love the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit: Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right? (1 Peter 3:13).

Although the phrase “earnestly desire” is sometimes taken to mean fervent love and sometimes envy, this is not an equivocation; indeed, one proceeds from the other. For to be zealous and to be earnestly desirous both signify a fervent love for something. It happens, however, that the thing loved is loved so fervently by someone that he does not allow another to share in it, but wants it for himself alone. This is zeal, which, according to some, is an intense love that does not allow participation in the one loved.

Yet this does not occur in spiritual things, which can be shared most perfectly by others, but only in those things which cannot be shared by many. Therefore, in love there is not this sort of zeal which disallows participation in the one loved. This kind of zeal exists only in regard to physical things, where it happens that if someone else has that for which I am zealous, I become sad. From this arises the earnest desire which is envy. For instance, if I love dignity or riches, I grieve if someone else has them; therefore, I envy him. And so it is clear that envy arises from zeal. Therefore, when it is said, earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, it is not to be understood as envy, because spiritual things can be possessed by many. Rather, he says to desire them in order to induce them to love God fervently.

And because there is a hierarchy among spiritual things, for prophecy surpasses the gift of tongues, he says: especially that you may prophesy. It is as if to say: Among spiritual gifts, be more zealous for the gift of prophecy. Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophesying (1 Thessalonians 5:19–20).

To explain the entire chapter, three things must be established beforehand: what prophecy is, the different ways prophecy is mentioned in Scripture, and what it means to speak in tongues. In regard to the first, it should be noted that prophecy is said to be “seeing from afar.” According to some, it is named after “speaking afar,” but it is better to say that it is from pharos, which means “to see.” Thus in 1 Samuel 9:9: He who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.

Prophecy, therefore, is the sight or manifestation of future contingents or of things that transcend human understanding. For such a sight, four things are required. Since our knowledge comes through physical things and phantasms received from things perceived by the senses, it is necessary that:

1. The physical likeness of the things being shown is formed in the imagination. As Dionysius says, it is impossible for the divine ray to shine in us otherwise, unless it is surrounded by the variety of sacred veils.
2. An intellectual light is present, enlightening the intellect to know things shown that are beyond our natural knowledge. For unless an intellectual light is present to understand the sensible likenesses formed in the imagination, the one to whom these likenesses are shown is not called a prophet but a dreamer. Thus, Pharaoh, who saw ears of corn and cattle that indicated future events but did not understand what he saw, is not called a prophet. Rather, Joseph, who interpreted it, is. The same is true of Nebuchadnezzar, who saw a statue but did not understand it; therefore, he is not a prophet, but Daniel is. For this reason it says in Daniel 10:1: Understanding is needed in a vision.
3. The courage to proclaim the things revealed is present. For God reveals things so that they may be proclaimed to others: Behold, I have put my words in your mouth (Jeremiah 1:9).
4. The working of miracles is present, which gives certainty to the prophecy. For unless prophets did things that exceed the works of nature, they would not be believed in matters that transcend natural knowledge.

Therefore, according to these aspects of prophecy, some are called prophets in various ways. Sometimes one is called a prophet because he possesses all four attributes: he sees imaginary visions, has an understanding of them, boldly proclaims them to others, and works miracles. Concerning such a one it says in Numbers 12:6: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will appear to him in a dream, or will speak to him by means of a dream.

But sometimes one who has solely imaginary visions is called a prophet, though in an improper and very remote sense. Again, one is called a prophet if he has the intellectual light to explain imaginary visions made to himself or someone else, or for explaining the sayings of the prophets or the Scriptures of the apostles. In this sense, a prophet is anyone who discerns the writings of the Doctors of the Church, because they have been interpreted in the same spirit in which they were written. In this way, Solomon and David can be called prophets, in that they had the intellectual light to understand clearly and subtly. For the vision of David was intellectual only.

Someone is even called a prophet merely because he proclaims the statements of prophets, explains them, or sings them in the church. This is how Saul was counted among the prophets, that is, among those singing the words of the prophets (1 Samuel 19:24). Someone is also called a prophet from working miracles, as it says in Sirach 48:14 that the dead body of Elijah prophesied, that is, worked a miracle. Therefore, what the Apostle says about prophets throughout this chapter must be understood in the second sense: that one is said to prophesy who, through a divine intellectual light, explains visions made to him and to others. According to this, what is said here about prophets will be clear.

In regard to the second point, it should be noted that because there were few in the early Church assigned to preach the faith of Christ throughout the world, the Lord enabled them to proclaim the word to more people by giving them the gift of tongues, by which they could all preach to all. This was not, as some say, that they spoke in one language and were understood by all, but that they spoke the languages of different nations—indeed, of all of them. Hence the Apostle says, I thank God that I speak in the languages of all of you, and in Acts 2:4 it says: they began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Furthermore, many in the early church received this gift from God. But the Corinthians, being inquisitive, were more desirous of this gift than the gift of prophecy. Therefore, when the Apostle here mentions speaking in a tongue, he means an unknown language that is not interpreted, as when one might speak German to a Frenchman without an interpreter. Hence, any speech that is not understood or explained, no matter what it is, is properly called speaking in a tongue.

Having established these things, let us return to the text, which is now clear. In it, he does two things: first, he proves that the gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of tongues; second, he excludes an objection (see verse 5b).

He proves that the gift of prophecy is superior to the gift of tongues with two reasons: the first is based on the relationship of God with the Church; the second on the relationship of men with the Church.

The first reason is this: That through which a person does things that are not only for the glory of God but also for the benefit of his neighbors is better than that which is done only for the glory of God. But prophecy is not only for the honor of God but is also useful to our neighbor, whereas by the gift of tongues something is done solely for the honor of God. He presents the middle term of this reasoning, first by saying that one who speaks in a tongue only honors God. This is what he says: One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, that is, not to the human intellect, but to God, that is, only for the honor of God. Or he speaks to God because God alone understands: The zealous ear of God hears all things . That he does not speak to man is indicated when he says: For no one hears him, that is, understands him. For it often happens that “not to hear” means “not to understand”: He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 13:9). He indicates why he speaks only to God when he says that God Himself is speaking; hence he says: But he utters mysteries in the Spirit, that is, hidden things: For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father (Matthew 10:20); No one understands the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11).

Second, he proves his statement that prophecy is for the honor of God and the benefit of our neighbors. Hence he says, He who prophesies, that is, explains visions or Scriptures, speaks to men, that is, to the human intellect for the edification of beginners, the encouragement of the proficient, and the consolation of the desolate. Comfort the fainthearted (1 Thessalonians 5:14); Speak and persuade (Titus 2:15), for the consolation of the desolate. Or, edification pertains to spiritual affection, because one’s spiritual edifice first begins there: In whom you are also built into it (Ephesians 2:22). But exhortation pertains to inducement to good acts, because if the will is good, then the act is good: Declare and exhort these things (Titus 2:15). Consolation, on the other hand, induces one to tolerate evils: Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction (Romans 15:4). Those who preach the divine scriptures induce people to these three things.

The second reason is this: that which is useful only to the doer is less than that which also profits others. But to speak in tongues is useful only to the speaker, whereas to prophesy benefits others. He presents the middle term of this reasoning, first, in regard to its first part, saying: he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: My heart became hot within me (Psalms 39:3).

Second, in regard to the second part, he says: But he who prophesies edifies the church, that is, the believers, by instructing them: Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20).

Here the Apostle addresses a potential objection or misunderstanding that could arise from what he just said. Some might believe that since the Apostle prefers prophecy over the gift of tongues, the gift of tongues should be scorned. Therefore, to prevent this misunderstanding, he says, "Now I want you," first showing what he intends to convey, and secondly, giving the reason for it (verse 5b).

He says, therefore, "I said the things stated above not because I wish to reject the gift of tongues, but because I want you all to speak in tongues, and even more to prophesy." As Moses said, Would that the Lord’s people were prophets (Numbers 11:29).

He gives the reason for this when he says, "He who prophesies is greater." It is as if he is saying, "The reason I wish you would prophesy more is that prophecy is greater." The reason for this is that people are sometimes moved by the Holy Spirit to speak something mystical that they do not understand. This is the gift of tongues. But sometimes they not only speak in tongues but also interpret what they say. Therefore, he says, "unless someone interprets." For the gift of tongues with interpretation is better than prophecy because, as has been said, the interpretation of anything difficult pertains to prophecy. Therefore, one who speaks and interprets is a prophet who has the gift of tongues, and he interprets in order to edify the Church. Therefore he says, "that the Church may be edified," meaning that he should not only understand himself but also edify the Church. As it is written, Let us pursue what makes for mutual edification (Romans 14:19); and, Let each of you please his neighbor for his good to edify him (Romans 15:2).

Then, when he says, "Now, brethren," he proves with examples that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues. He does this in three ways:

1. By giving an example from his own experience;
2. By an example from inanimate objects (verse 7);
3. By an example from people speaking different languages (verse 10).

Using himself as an example, he argues this way: "Consequently, it is clear that I do not have the gift of tongues any less than you do. But if I were to speak to you only in tongues and did not interpret, you would not profit at all. Therefore, you would not profit from one another either." And this is what he says: "Now brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues." This can be understood in two ways: either as speaking an unknown language, or literally, as using any sign that is not understood.

How shall I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? It should be noted that these four things—revelation, knowledge, prophecy, and teaching—can be distinguished in two ways. First, they can be distinguished according to the things they concern.

In this way, the illumination of the mind for understanding concerns four areas. If it is about divine things, this illumination pertains to the gift of wisdom. For, as was stated above, revelation is concerned with divine things, because the things of God no one knows except the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Therefore, he says "in revelation," by which the mind is enlightened to know divine things.

Or, the illumination may be about earthly things—not just any earthly things, but only those that pertain to building up the faith. This pertains to the gift of knowledge. Therefore he says "in knowledge"—not geometry or astronomy, because these do not pertain to building up the faith, but knowledge of holy things: He gave them knowledge of holy things .

Or, it may be about future events, which pertains to the gift of prophecy. Hence he says, "or in prophecy": She has foreknowledge of signs and wonders and of the outcome of seasons and of times . It should be noted that "prophecy" is not used here in its general sense as explained above, but in a special sense, as a manifestation of future events only. In this sense, it is defined by Cassiodorus: "Prophecy is divine inspiration announcing with infallible truth the future of things." As it is written, I will again pour out teaching like prophecy .

Finally, it may be about moral acts, which pertains to teaching. Therefore he says, "or teaching": He that teaches, on teaching (Romans 12:7); Good teaching wins favor (Proverbs 13:15).

They can also be distinguished according to their source: whether the knowledge comes from a supernatural source (God) or from a natural one (the natural light of the intellect). If it comes from a supernatural source—that is, by a divinely infused light—it can happen in two ways. It can be infused as sudden knowledge, which is revelation, or it can be infused successively, which is prophecy. The prophets did not receive their knowledge suddenly but progressively and in parts, as their writings show. But if the knowledge is acquired by natural means, it is either through one's own study, which pertains to knowledge, or it is presented by someone else, which pertains to teaching.

If even lifeless instruments. Here he shows the same thing with examples from inanimate objects—namely, instruments that seem to have a voice. He does this first with instruments of joy, and second, with instruments of battle (verse 8).

He says, therefore, that speaking in tongues does not benefit others. This is shown not only by what has been said before but also by the example of lifeless things that seem to make a sound. One might object that a voice is a sound uttered from the mouth of an animal, and therefore, lifeless things do not produce a voice. The answer is that although a voice is found only in animals, by way of analogy it can be said that certain things, like musical instruments, have a definite harmony and melody. That is why he mentions them: the harp, which produces a sound through touch, and the flute, through blowing. If even lifeless instruments do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? For since a person intends to express something through musical instruments—namely, songs directed toward sorrow, joy, or even revelry—one cannot tell what the flute or the harp is playing if the sound is confused and not distinct. As it is written: You shall have a song in the night, when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the LORD (Isaiah 30:29). In the same way, if a person speaks in tongues and does not interpret, no one knows what they want to say.

If the bugle gives an indistinct sound. Here he shows the same thing with another lifeless object: an instrument intended for battle. This analogy is taken from Numbers 10:1–10, where it says that the Lord commanded Moses to make two silver trumpets to be used for summoning all the people, for moving their camps, and for battle. For each of these three purposes, there was a different way of sounding the trumpet: it sounded one way when they moved their camps, another when they were to assemble, and still another when they were to go into battle. And so the Apostle argues that just as no one knows whether to prepare for battle if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, so also with you: if you only speak in tongues, no one will know what you are saying unless you make your speech clear by interpreting or explaining it. The "bugle" can also be understood to represent preachers: Lift up your voice like a trumpet (Isaiah 58:1). But the reason no one can know what you are saying is that you will be speaking into the air—that is, uselessly: I do not box as one beating the air (1 Corinthians 9:26).

There are doubtless many. Here he uses the example of various human languages. In this regard, he does three things:

1. He points out the diversity of languages.
2. He shows that it is useless for one person to speak to another in a language they do not understand (verse 11).
3. He concludes with his main point (verse 12).

First, therefore, he says that the languages of the world are many and diverse, and anyone can speak in whichever one he wants. But if he does not speak with clarity, he is not understood. And this is what he says: There are doubtless many languages in the world. This can be explained in two ways. It can be connected with the preceding statement, as if to say: "You will be speaking uselessly in all languages, because you speak without understanding, whereas words in every language have a definite meaning in order to be understood." Alternatively, it can be punctuated this way: "You will be speaking into the air. So many, for example, are the kinds of languages"—that is, the individual languages.

But if I do not know the meaning of the language. Here he shows the uselessness of uninterpreted speech. And this is what he says: "If I have spoken in all tongues but did not know the meaning of the words, I will be a foreigner (barbarian) to the speaker, and the speaker a foreigner (barbarian) to me." Note that according to some, "barbarians" are those whose language is completely different from Latin. Others say that any foreigner is a "barbarian" to any other foreigner when they cannot understand each other. But this is not true, because according to Isidore, "Barbaria" is a specific nation: In Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian (Colossians 3:11). But it is closer to the truth to say that "barbarian" is the name for those who are strong in body but weak in reasoning, and who exist, as it were, outside the law and without its rule. Aristotle seems to agree with this in his Politics.

Then, when he says, "So with yourselves," he draws his intended conclusion. This can be understood in two ways. First, it can be punctuated as if he were saying: "Therefore, I will be a barbarian to you if I speak without meaning and interpretation, just as you will be barbarians to one another. Therefore, seek to abound." This is because you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit. Alternatively, the entire phrase can be read as a single thought, as if to say: "Therefore, do not be barbarians. But because you are eager for the manifestations of the Spirit—that is, for the gifts of the Holy Spirit—do as I do and seek them from God, so that you may abound." As it is written: In abundant justice is the greatest virtue (Proverbs 12:5). This justice consists in edifying others: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you (Matthew 7:7).

Having shown that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues for reasons related to exhortation, the Apostle now demonstrates the same point for reasons related to prayer, for we perform both of these with the tongue. In this regard, he does two things: first, he proves that prophecy excels the gift of tongues with reasons; second, he does so with examples (verse 18). Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he shows the necessity of prayer; second, he shows how in prayer the gift of prophecy is more powerful than the gift of tongues (verse 14).

Therefore, he first says that the gift of tongues has no value without the gift of prophecy, because interpretation is an act of prophecy, which is more excellent than speaking in a tongue. One who speaks hidden mysteries in an unknown or foreign tongue should pray to God for the power to interpret—that is, that the grace to interpret be given to him. As Paul says, Praying that God may open to us a door (Colossians 4:3). A gloss interprets “pray” differently, for “to pray” is said to have a twofold meaning: either to beseech God or to prevail upon Him. It is as if he says: let the one who speaks in a tongue pray—that is, let him prevail upon God—so that he may interpret. And so the gloss understands “to pray” in this way for the whole chapter. But this is not the Apostle's meaning; rather, it is “to beseech God.”

For if I pray in a tongue. Here he shows that in prayer, prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues in two ways: first, with a reason based on the one praying; second, with a reason based on the one hearing (verse 16). Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he presents a reason showing the truth of his proposition; second, he addresses an objection (verse 15).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that prayer is of two kinds. One is private, when a person prays by himself and for himself; the other is public, when a person prays before the people and for others. In both cases, one can use the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy. Hence, he wants to show that in both cases the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues.

First, consider private prayer. If someone says their own prayer, such as a Psalm or the “Our Father,” but does not understand what they are saying, they pray with the tongue. It does not matter whether they are praying with words granted by the Holy Spirit or with someone else's words. But if another person prays and understands what they are saying, they are, in fact, both praying and prophesying. It is evident that one who prays and understands accomplishes more than one who prays only in a tongue—that is, one who does not understand what they are saying. For the one who understands is refreshed in both intellect and affections, but the mind of one who does not understand receives no fruit of refreshment. Therefore, since it is better to be refreshed in mind and affections than in affections only, it is obvious that in prayer the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues.

And this is what he says: I say that one should pray for the power to interpret, for if I pray in a tongue—that is, if I use the gift of tongues in praying, so that I utter what I do not understand—then my spirit prays. “My spirit” can mean the Holy Spirit given to me, who inclines and moves me to pray. Nevertheless, I gain merit in that prayer, because the very fact that I am moved by the Spirit is meritorious for me: We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes us ask (Romans 8:26). Alternatively, “my spirit” could mean my reason, which prays by telling me that I should ask for good things, either in my own words or in the words of other saints. Or “my spirit” could mean the imagination, which prays in the sense that the words are only images of physical things in the imagination, without being understood by the intellect. Therefore, he adds, but my mind is unfruitful—that is, my intellect is unfruitful—because it does not understand. For this reason, prophecy or interpretation is better in prayer than the gift of tongues.

But is it true that whenever anyone prays without understanding what they are saying, they obtain no fruit? The answer is that the fruit of prayer is twofold: one fruit is the merit the person obtains; the other is the spiritual consolation and devotion produced by the prayer. Regarding the fruit of spiritual devotion, a person is deprived of it if they do not pay attention to what they are praying or do not understand it. But regarding the fruit of merit, a person is not necessarily deprived of it. For if this were not so, many prayers would be without merit, since a person can scarcely say the “Our Father” without their mind wandering to other things.

Therefore, it must be said that a person does not lose the basis for merit when their attention is sometimes diverted from what they are saying. Likewise, when a person is engaged in a meritorious work, they do not lose merit if they are not continually thinking at each step that they are doing it for God. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts directed toward the right end, it is not required that the performer's intention be united to that end in every single action. Instead, the initial impulse that moves the intention remains throughout the entire work, even if the person is distracted in some particular detail. This initial impulse makes the entire work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection that turns one away from the original end and toward an opposing one.

But it should be noted that attention is threefold:

1. Attention to the words the person is saying. This is sometimes harmful, inasmuch as it can impede devotion.
2. Attention to the sense of the words. This is also harmful, but not very much.
3. Attention to the end of the prayer. This is better and, as it were, necessary.

Nevertheless, when the Apostle says that the mind is unfruitful, this should be understood as referring to the fruit of spiritual refreshment.

What am I to do? Someone might object: since prayer in a tongue is without fruit for the mind, even though the spirit prays, should one then avoid praying in the spirit? The Apostle answers this objection by saying that one should pray in both ways—in the spirit and in the mind—because a person should serve God with all that they have from God. And from God, a person has both spirit and mind; therefore, they should pray with both. As it is written, With all his heart he will praise God . Therefore, he says, I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. And so he says that he will both pray and sing. Prayer is the beseeching of God, which is why he says, I will pray; it is also the praising of Him, which is why he says, I will sing. Concerning these two, James says: Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing (James 5:13). And the Psalmist says, Sing praises to the Lord (Psalms 9:11). I will pray, therefore, in the spirit (that is, the imagination) and with the mind (that is, the will).

Otherwise if you bless. Here, second, he shows that the gift of prophecy is more valuable than the gift of tongues even in public prayer. This occurs when a priest prays in public, where he sometimes says things he does not understand and sometimes things he does understand. In this regard, he does three things: first, he presents a reason; second, he explains it; and third, he proves what he had presupposed.

He says, therefore: I have said that the gift of prophecy is more beneficial in private prayer, and it is also more beneficial in public prayer. This is because if you bless—that is, if you give a blessing in the spirit (in a tongue that is not understood, or with the imagination), moved by the Holy Spirit—what about the one who occupies the place of the uninstructed person (who knows only the language in which they were born)? It is as if to say: how will the uninstructed person say what they are supposed to say, which is “Amen”?

Therefore, he asks, how can he say Amen to your blessing? A gloss on this asks, that is, how shall he consent to the blessing given by you in the name of the Church? He that is blessed on the earth will be blessed in God. Amen (Isaiah 65:16). “Amen” means “let it be done” or “it is so.” It is as if to say: if he does not know what you are saying, how can he conform himself to your words? He could conform, even if he does not understand, but only in a general way. He cannot understand the specific good thing you are saying, but only that you are giving a blessing.

But why are blessings not given in the vernacular, so that they will be understood by the people and they can conform to them more fully? The answer is that this probably happened in the early Church. Later, however, the faithful were instructed and came to know what they hear in the common office, where blessings are given in Latin.

Then he proves why the person cannot say, “Amen,” when he says: For you may give thanks well enough to God, since you understand, but the other man, who hears and does not understand, is not edified. He is not edified because he does not understand in detail, even if he understands in a general way and is edified to some extent. Let no evil thought come out of your mouth, but only such as is good for edifying (Ephesians 4:29). Consequently, it is better not only to bless in a tongue but also to interpret and explain, although you who give thanks do well.

Here the Apostle shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues, using reasons from his own experience. In this regard, he does two things: first, he gives thanks for the gift of tongues God gave him; secondly, he presents himself to them as an example (verse 19).

He says, therefore, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all. It is as if he is saying: I do not belittle the gift of tongues when I say that the gift of prophecy is more excellent; rather, it ought to be cherished. For this reason, I also thank God. Therefore, thanks should be given for all things: In all things give thanks (1 Thessalonians 5:18). Or, "I thank God," as if to say: I do not belittle the gift of tongues as though I lack it; on the contrary, I have it. Therefore, he says, "I thank God." But so that it is not understood that all speak in one tongue, he says that he speaks in tongues more than them: They spoke in various tongues (Acts 2:4).

Then he says, "But in the church." Here he presents himself as an example. It is as if he is saying: If I have the gift of tongues just as you do, you should do as I do. But I would rather speak five words in the church—that is, a few words—with my mind, so that I both understand and am understood, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words—that is, any number of words—in a tongue. As explained above, speaking in a tongue is not, in any way, speaking to the mind.

Some say that he says "five" because the Apostle seems to prefer to offer one prayer with understanding over many prayers without it. However, according to the grammarians, for a statement to have perfect sense, it must have five things: a subject, a predicate, a verbal copula, a modifier of the subject, and a modifier of the predicate.

To others, it seems better to say that he mentions "five" because we speak with the intellect in order to teach others, and a teacher should teach five things:

1. Things to be believed: Declare and exhort these things (Titus 2:11).
2. Things to be done: Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you (Mark 16:15).
3. Things to be avoided (that is, sins): Flee from sin as from a snake ; Declare to my people their transgressions, to the house of Jacob their sins (Isaiah 58:1).
4. Things to be hoped for (that is, the eternal reward): They searched and inquired about this salvation (1 Peter 1:10).
5. Things to be feared (that is, eternal punishments): Depart, you accursed into everlasting fire (Matthew 25:21).

Then he says, Brethren, do not be children in your thinking. Here he shows that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues, using reasons related to unbelievers. In this regard, he does two things: first, he gets their attention and makes them attentive; secondly, he argues his point (verse 21).

Regarding the first point, the Apostle seems to remove the excuse from those who teach certain crude and superficial things, as if to show that they wish to live in simplicity, not caring about subtleties they cannot actually attain. For this, they appeal to the Lord’s words in Matthew 18:3: Unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. But the Apostle rejects this when he says, "Do not be children in your thinking"—that is, do not speak and teach childish, useless, and foolish things: When I was a child, I spoke as a child (1 Corinthians 13:11).

But how should you become children? In affection, not in understanding. Therefore, he says, "But in evil." Here it should be noted that children are not accustomed to think evil, and for this reason he says, "in evil be children." They are also not accustomed to think of the good. In this sense, we should not become children but mature men. Therefore, he says, "but in thinking be mature"—that is, be perfect in discerning good and evil. Hence it says in Hebrews 5:14: Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained to distinguish good from evil. Therefore, what is praised in you is not the simplicity that is opposed to prudence, but the simplicity that is opposed to craftiness: Be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16); I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil (Romans 16:19).

Then, when he says, it is written in the law, he argues for his proposition. Here it should be noted that this argument, as is clear from a Gloss, is distinguished in many ways; but according to the Apostle’s intent, it seems that in this place, attention is paid to only one reason. The argument proving that the gift of prophecy excels the gift of tongues is this: Whatever contributes more to the primary purpose for which something else is ordained is better than that other thing. Both the gift of prophecy and the gift of tongues are ordained for the conversion of unbelievers, although the gift of prophecy contributes more to this than the gift of tongues does. Therefore, prophecy is better.

Regarding this reason, he does two things: first, he shows the purpose for which the gift of tongues is ordained and the purpose for which the gift of prophecy is ordained; secondly, he shows that the gift of prophecy contributes more (verse 22).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the phrase "What is written in the law" can be taken as a question, as if he were saying: You should not be children in your thinking but mature, and this means to see and know the Law. Therefore, if you are mature in your thinking, you should know the Law and what has been written in it about tongues, which are at times useless for their ordained purpose, because although I might speak in various tongues to the Jewish people, they still do not hear. It can also be taken in a directive sense, as if he were saying: Do not be enticed like children to desire something without discerning whether you are being attracted to good or evil, or preferring the good over the better. Instead, be mature in your thinking—that is, distinguish between the good and the better—and be attracted accordingly.

This happens if you reflect on what has been written in the Law: by men of strange tongues will I speak to this people. As it says, To fix one’s thought on her is perfect understanding . He says, "in the law," not taking "law" to mean exclusively the five books of Moses, as it is used in Luke 24:44 (Everything written about me in the law of Moses must be fulfilled), but for the entire Old Testament, as it is used in John 15:25: It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without cause,’ which was written in Psalm 25:19. This, therefore, was written: "in strange tongues" (that is, in various kinds of tongues) "and by the lips of foreigners" (that is, in various idioms and modes of pronunciation) "I will speak to this people" (namely, the Jews), because this sign was specially given for the conversion of the people of Israel. And even then they will not listen to me, because although they saw the sign, they did not believe: Blind the heart of this people and make their ears heavy (Isaiah 6:10).

But why would God give them signs if they were not going to be converted? To this there are two answers. One is that although not all were converted, some were, for God did not reject His people. The other is so that their damnation might appear more just, while their guilt appears more clearly: If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin (John 15:22).

Then, when he says, Therefore, tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers, he argues for his conclusion by using the authority he quoted. It is as if he is saying: From this it is clearly evident that the gift of tongues was given not for believers to bring them to faith (because they already believe: It is no longer because of your words that we believe (John 4:42)), but for unbelievers to be converted.

A Gloss on this passage presents two non-literal explanations from Ambrose. One of these says: Just as in the Old Testament I spoke to the Jewish people "in tongues" (that is, through figures) and "with lips" (that is, by promising temporal goods), so also in the New Testament I will speak to this people "in other tongues" (that is, openly and clearly) and "with other lips" (that is, spiritual things); yet they will not listen to me, meaning the majority of them. Therefore, tongues were given not for believers but for unbelievers, namely, to make their unbelief manifest.

The other explanation is: "in other tongues" means I will speak dimly and in parables because they are unworthy. "They will not listen" means they will not understand. Then he shows the purpose for which prophecy is ordained: for the instruction of believers, because they already understand. Therefore, prophecies are not for unbelievers, who do not believe (Lord, who has believed our hearing? (Isaiah 53:1)), but for believers, so that they may believe and be instructed: Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel (Ezekiel 3:17); Where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint (Proverbs 29:18).

A gloss suggests that another argument proving the Apostle's proposition begins here. But in light of what has been said, there is only one proposition, which has already been proved. Here, he clarifies the central point of that argument: that prophecy contributes more to the very purpose for which the gift of tongues is especially intended. In this regard, he does two things:

1. He shows what undesirable effects follow from the gift of tongues concerning unbelievers.
2. He shows the good that follows from the gift of prophecy, even concerning unbelievers (verse 24).

The undesirable effect that follows from the gift of tongues without prophecy, even concerning unbelievers, is that those who speak only in tongues are considered mad. This is a problem because the gift of tongues should be intended for the conversion of unbelievers, as is already clear. This is what the Apostle says when he asks what happens if you speak in tongues.

As if to say: It is clear that tongues are not preferable to prophecy from the fact that if the whole assembly—that is, all the faithful—gathers in one place, not only in body but also in mind (Now the company of believers were of one heart and soul, Acts 4:22), and all speak in tongues (that is, in strange languages, or speaking unknown and obscure things), and while they are speaking in this confusing way, an outsider who understands only his own language or an unbeliever for whose benefit tongues were given enters, will they not say that you are mad? For what is not understood is considered madness.

Furthermore, if a tongue is understood and yet the things said are secret, it is evil if they are not explained. This is because people could believe the same thing about you (if you speak secret things) that they believe about the Gentiles, who kept their rites secret because they were so base. This, too, is a form of madness.

On the other hand, to those who do not know the language, it is the same to speak in tongues as it is to speak in the formal liturgical language. Therefore, since everything in the church is spoken in Latin, it seems that there is madness here, too. I answer that this might have seemed like madness in the early Church because the people were uninstructed in the Church’s rite, since they did not know what was happening unless it was explained to them. But now, all are instructed; therefore, although everything is said in Latin, they nevertheless know what is being done in the Church.

Then, when he says, But if all prophesy, he shows that good follows from the gift of prophecy. In this regard, he does three things:

1. He shows the good that comes from prophecy concerning unbelievers.
2. He shows how this happens (verse 25).
3. He infers the effect that arises from this (verse 25b).

He says, therefore, that it is clear unbelievers are not convinced by the gift of tongues. But if all who assemble prophesy—that is, if all speak the revelations made to them to the intellect (and I mean “all” not at once, but one after another)—then if an outsider who knows only his native language enters the church, the result is good. This is because he is convicted by all of his error, which is pointed out to him: After I was instructed, I was ashamed (Jeremiah 31:19).

He is called to account by all who are prophesying. As if to say, he is shown to be condemnable for his evil morals and vices: The spiritual man judges all things (1 Corinthians 2:15). For prophecy is useful for these two things: strengthening the faith and teaching morals.

How this good follows from the gift of prophecy is mentioned when the Apostle refers to “the secrets of his heart.” This can be understood in three ways:

1. In the first, literal sense, some in the early Church had the grace to know the secrets of the heart and the sins of men. Hence, it is said of Peter (Acts 5:1 and following) that he condemned Ananias for fraud regarding the price of a field. According to this interpretation, the text says, for the secrets of his heart are disclosed. This means he is convinced because the secrets—that is, his secret sins—were disclosed by those who revealed them.
2. In a second way, it can be understood from the fact that a preacher sometimes touches on many things that people carry in their hearts. This is clear from the books of Gregory, where one can find almost all the movements of the heart described. According to this view, they are convicted because the “secrets of their heart”—that is, things they carry in their heart (As in water face answers to face, so the mind of man reflects the man, Proverbs 27:19)—are disclosed, meaning they are touched upon by the preachers.
3. In a third way, the “secret of the heart” can sometimes refer to something a person doubts and cannot become certain of by himself. According to this interpretation, the secrets of his heart are disclosed means that things he doubted in his heart and did not believe are made clear to him by frequently going to church. Augustine says this about himself: he went to church only for the chant, and yet many things he doubted, and for which he had not come, were clarified for him there.

From this conviction followed reverence, because, being convinced, he revered God.

This is what the Apostle says next: and so, falling on his face, he will worship God . This means that because he was convinced in this way and the secrets of his heart were revealed, he will fall on his face and worship God, which is a sign of reverence. Of the reprobate, however, it is said that they fall backward: The way of the wicked is deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble (Proverbs 4:19). But the elect fall on their face because they see where they should prostrate themselves, which is a sign of reverence (They praised God and fell on their faces, Leviticus 9:24; May all kings fall down before him, Psalms 72:11).

He will show reverence not only to God but also to the Church, because he will declare that God is really among you who prophesy in the church (We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you, Zechariah 8:23). It appears, therefore, that the gift of prophecy is more useful concerning unbelievers.

What then, brethren? Here the Apostle tells them how to use these gifts. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows how they should act in using these gifts; second, he concludes with his main proposition (verse 39). Concerning the first point, he does two things: first, he shows how orderly they should behave when using these gifts; second, he addresses their presumption (verse 36). And concerning that first point on orderly behavior, he does three things:

1. He shows in general how they should behave with all gifts.
2. He gives instructions concerning the gift of tongues (verse 27).
3. He gives instructions concerning the gift of prophecy (verse 29).

He says, therefore, that to prophesy is better than to speak in tongues. So what is to be done, brothers? This is what is to be done. When you come together, it is obvious that no single person has all the gifts. Therefore, none of you should try to use all the gifts, but each should use the particular gift he has received from God that is best for edification. For each one has some special gift:

• One has a psalm, that is, a song to praise the Lord’s name, or an explanation of the psalms (He makes me tread upon my high places, Habakkuk 3:19).
• Another has a teaching, that is, a sermon to instruct them in morals, or an explanation with a spiritual sense (A man is known by his teaching, Proverbs 12:8).
• Another has a revelation obtained either in dreams or in a vision (God is in heaven revealing mysteries, Daniel 2:28).
• Another has a tongue, that is, the gift of tongues or he reads prophecies (And they began to speak in tongues, Acts 2:4).
• Another has an interpretation (To another the interpretation of tongues, 1 Corinthians 12:10).

These gifts are arranged this way because they derive either from human talent or from God alone. If they are from human talent alone, they are either for the praise of God (and so he says, “one has a psalm”) or for the instruction of a neighbor (and so he says, “one has a teaching”). If they are from God alone, they concern either inward secrets (and so he says, “one has a revelation”) or things outwardly hidden (and so he says, “one has a tongue”). To make these manifest, there is a third element: interpretation. And, of course, all things should be done for edification: Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him (Romans 15:2).