It has already been explained to you on numerous occasions that Paul did not speak in the language of angels. Paul uses five conditional IF statements in 1 Cor 13:1-3 which were both hypothetical (they were imagined scenarios, not things he actually did) AND hyperbole (the imagined scenarios were wildly exaggerated examples of each gift) - to make the point that even having spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree would be worthless without love:
- tongues, even to the degree of speaking the language of angels...
- the gift of prophecy even to the degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie becoming omniscient)...
- the gift of faith even to the degree of removing mountains...
- the gift of giving even to the degree of giving up ALL your possessions...
....would all be to no avail without love.
None of those exaggerated hypothetical examples represent the normal operation of those gifts.
The 'tongues of men' are not the languages that Paul had learnt as you suppose. The context is spiritual gifts so the tongues he is referring to is the gift of tongues - miraculously speaking in foreign human languages. Even Pentecostalism's Gordon Fee admits that.
The following commentaries show that the vast majority of scholars (cessationist and continuist alike) reject the idea that tongues is speaking the language of angels (a few more added since I last posted this list including a clarification from your beloved Thiselton):
Conflict and Community in Corinth
Ben Witherington
To some extent, Paul's hyperbole, especially in vv. 1-3, is a mocking of the Sophistic boasting going on among the inspired and eloquent ones in Corinth. The hyperbole recasts the self-portrait so that each item is stretched to the limit of incredibility because it is recast with the assumptions of the Corinthian enthusiasts. That is, even if he were to allow his apostolic work to be shaped by the assumptions of those Corinthians who are not content with speaking, but insist the aposde must speak with eloquence surpassing human capabilities . . . , yet . . . unmotivated by άγπάπη it would be for nought. 27 Paul ultimately believes that love, not freedom or knowledge, is the final watchword for Christians, both as a key to understanding the mysteries of the faith and as a guide to behavior.
A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Hans Conzelmann
The wording does not in itself require the equating of angels’ language and speaking with tongues. Moreover the expression can also be understood as a mere hyperbole: and if I had at my command every linguistic possibility even to the language of God. Yet Paul is presumably after all thinking realistically of the language of angels, cf. 2 Cor 12:4*, and further Asc. Is. 7.15–37; Test. Job 48–50
Thiselton on Hermeneutics
Some of our six arguments may also apply to the question of whether the Corinthians might have thought of tongues as a heavenly' language, of the kind discussed by Lietzmann. The suggestion is purely speculative, since with the possible exception of 13:1, there seem to be no traces in these chapters of any explicit claim by the Corinthians that they were actually speaking the language of heaven itself. Since appeal cannot now be made to Acts 2 for support of this view, it tends to fall between two stools, and although Ellis has recently urged that it remains a possibility, scholarly opinion does not in general favour it.' Moreover, some of the six arguments brought forward above still need an answer. For example, in what sense, if any, could the use of the language of heaven be described as childish? All the same, our argument does not necessarily depend on the rejection of this theory. Conzelmann, we may note, rejects this view on the ground that "if the speaker with tongues speaks the language of heaven, then the angels speak "natural" languages'. This objection may seem to require an undue degree of sophistication in linguistic theory from Paul and the Corinthians. However, in another respect it underlines the point that even if this improbable view of glossolalia were accepted, it is hardly the kind of 'speech' that can be 'translated". It would still remain a matter of "putting it into words'.
...
Here in our view Paul begins with the notion of tongues as that which gives expression to the secret yearnings and praise of the depths of the human heart, and escalates to a hypothesis considered at Corinth but not necessarily endorsed by Paul that tongues is the angelic language of heaven.
First--Second Corinthians
By Craig S. Keener
Some have argued that Paul or the Corinthians believed their tongues-speech angelic (cf. T. Job 48-50), hence perhaps a sign of realized eschatology, or of participation in the heavenly liturgy (cf. 2 Cor 12:4; Col 2:18; Rev. 4:2-3,8;7:11; 4Q403 frg. 1, 1.1-6). But would angelic tongues pass away at Jesus's return (13:8-12; indeed, some, at least, expected angels to speak Hebrew among themselves)? More likely, angelic speech merely reinforces the hyperbole of one able to speak “all” tongues (like one who knows everything or removes mountains, 13:2).
Showing the Spirit
D A Carson
The construction of the first clause 22 probably signals intensity toward the end: "If I speak in the tongues of men and even of angels. . . ." It is not clear whether either Paul or his readers thought their gifts of tongues were the dialects of angels. A few interesting Jewish parallels make this possible;23 but Paul may be writing hyperbolically to draw as sharp a contrast as possible with love. I suppose a pedant might argue that they cannot be the tongues of angels, because in that case it would be silly for tongues to cease when perfection comes since that is precisely when we are more likely to encounter angels! But I shall leave the question as to what language or languages we shall speak in the new heaven and on the new earth to those more gifted in speculation than I. Paul's point is relatively simple. No matter how exalted my gift of tongues, without love I am nothing more than a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
...
Certainly verse 2 finds Paul playing with hypothetical superlatives. He himself does not think that any prophet "can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge," since he goes on to say that at present "we know in part and we prophesy in part" (13:9). If there is a difference between"mysteries" and "knowledge" in this context, the former refers to the eschatological situation and the latter to the entire redemptive purpose of God; but Paul may not be making nice distinctions. 126 The point is that even the gift of prophecy, no matter how much reliable information comes from it, is intrinsically valueless if it operates without love. So also the gift of faith—as in 12:9, this refers not to saving faith but to something more specialized, such as the faith that can move mountains—has no intrinsic value. Again, however, Paul's conclusion is even more shattering: not only are the spiritual gifts exercised without love of no value, but, says Paul, "I am nothing"—"spiritually a cipher"127 But Paul is not content to draw examples only from the more spectacular or "miraculous" of the you o foucato (charismata). In verse 3 he goes on to incredibly self-sacrificing philanthropy 28 and even personal martyrdom by fiery ordeal (if that reading is adopted as correct), 29 like the martyrdom of Maccabean Jews130 or the three heroes of Daniel 3:28. The result is the same: without love, gain nothing. My deeds of philanthropy and my resolute determination to remain loyal to the truth even in the face of martyrdom cannot in themselves attest my high spiritual position or the superiority of my experiences with the Holy Spirit. In all of this, if there is no love, gain nothing.
Commentary on the New Testament
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer
The meaning is: Supposing that I am a speaker with tongues, from whom all possible kinds of articulate tongues might be heard, not simply those of men, but also - far more wonderful and exalted still - those of the angels. Paul thus describes the very loftiest of all conceivable cases of glossolalia. The tongues of angels here spoken of are certainly only an abstract conception, but one in keeping with the poetic character of the passage, as must be admitted also with respect to the old interpretation of angelic languages,.
First, Second Corinthians
By Robert E. Picirilli
Verse 1 apparently refers to the gift of speaking with tongues, a gift possessed by Paul (14:18) "but not valued as highly by him as it appears to have been by his readers" (Barrett 299). The "tongues languages of men" refers to the gift; the "and of angels" is an addition to heighten further Paul's point. (In the Greek order, the two do not stand side by side as in English.) The sense seems to be this: If I exercise the gift of speaking in the languages of men, even if I speak in the languages of angels. That pattern occurs in all three verses: to the normal gift is added something beyond the normal as an even more startling possibility.
Commentary on First Corinthians
Robert Gundry
He has doled out his possessions, perhaps all of them, but hasn't given over his very body to the point of actually dying. This part of his statement is a suppose-so. Similarly, he has some faith, but not all faith. He hasn't removed a mountain (compare Mark 11:23; Matthew 17:20; 21:21). He has a prophetic gift and therefore understands some secrets and some knowledge, but he isn't omniscient (see Romans 11:33–35). By the same token, he speaks with the tongues of human beings (14:18), but not with the tongues of angels, which falls into the suppose-so category along with omniscience, mountain-moving faith, and body-giving. But without love, even speaking in angelic as well as unlearned human languages would grate on the ears. Without love, even omniscience and mountain-moving faith would count for nothing. And without love, even investing in other people not only all one's possessions but also one's very own body would give grounds for boasting but not bring any profit at the final judgment bar. Love must imbue all these activities, and those associated with the remaining Spiritual gifts; for only love makes speaking in tongues musical, prophecy and understanding helpful, and self-sacrifice profitable.
Holman New Testament Commentary - 1 & 2 Corinthians
By Richard L., Jr. Pratt
13:1. First, Paul touched on speaking in tongues. This issue topped his list because of the overemphasis some Corinthians had placed on this gift of the Spirit. He described the gift here as tongues of men and of angels. The grammatical construction of the original language does not indicate that Paul was claiming to have done this. He spoke entirely hypothetically, without reference to whether he had done any of these things. Obviously he had not surrendered his “body to the flames” (13:3) as he said later. Further, neither he nor anyone else but the omniscient God ever had, could, or would “fathom all mysteries and all knowledge” (13:2). On the other hand, he did have the “gift of prophecy” (13:2), and he did “speak in tongues” (14:18). Grammatically, no evidence exists that Paul believed it was possible to speak in the tongues … of angels. Nowhere else does the Bible provide evidence of such a possibility.
Even so, such an extraordinary gift would profit nothing without love. Paul puts the matter in striking terms, confessing that without love accompanying such an extraordinary gift, he would amount to nothing but a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. His special gift, devoid of love, would amount to meaningless clamor. This must have shocked the Corinthian readers. Those who exalted themselves because of their gift of tongues must have looked like fools.
13:2. Second, Paul spoke of prophecy. Paul held this gift in high esteem. But he imagined the gift in a greater form than it had ever appeared in human history. Suppose he were to have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he could fathom all mysteries and all knowledge. Prophets know things that are hidden from others because they receive revelation from God, but no prophet has ever had such omniscience. Yet, without love he would be nothing, even if he knew every divine secret.
Third, Paul raised the gift of faith. In this case, he did not have in mind saving faith that every believer exercises. Instead, he spoke of a special ability to trust and believe God to do great miracles. Paul described this faith as the ability to move mountains. The allusion to Jesus’ words is evident (Mark 11:23). It would be astonishing for Paul to have had the ability to move mountains through his faith. Nevertheless, even this dramatic ability would amount to nothing without love for other
13:3. Fourth, Paul imagined himself giving all he possessed to the poor. This may allude to Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21), or it may refer to the early church’s practice of selling their possessions to feed the church (Acts 2:44–45). Paul, however, was not wealthy. He had also demonstrated his willingness to go hungry and homeless. In all likelihood, Paul focused more on the benefit to others that such an act would produce, not on the sacrifice. Even such a beneficial act would profit him nothing if he did not do it out of love.
Fifth, Paul imagined that he might surrender his body to the flames. Some textual evidence supports an alternative reading followed by the NRSV: “hand over my body so that I may boast.” It seems most likely that he imagined a situation of religious persecution in which he would be called upon to die. Or, Paul may have thought of his own trials and persecutions short of death. The words, I gain nothing, may apply to one situation as well as to the other.
Throughout this portion of the chapter, Paul addressed several hypothetical situations in which he might do the most remarkable things imaginable. It seems commonsensical that these experiences should have value in themselves. But Paul responded that without Christian love these experiences amount to nothing, just like the person who performs them.
Paul followed Jesus, who placed “love your neighbor as yourself” second only to “love the Lord your God” (Matt. 22:37–40). The command to love one another is the second most important law of Scripture. It is no wonder Paul argued that without love for others all spiritual gifts are worthless.
Abingdon New Testament Commentaries | 1 Corinthians
By Richard A. Horsley
In verses 1-3, presenting himself as a hypothetical example, Paul first mockingly exaggerates both the Corinthians' favorite spiritual gifts and his own central values and commitment, and then suddenly deflates them. Perhaps by rehearing the words and phrases stacked one upon another, we may sense the exaggeration and excess (in italics): "If I speak with the tongues of men, and even of angels . . . ; if I possess prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains' and “if I give away all my possessions and if I hand over my own body' (AT). Moreover, angels always have a hyperbolic function in Paul's letters (cf. 4:9; Gal 1:8; 4:14), and “to remove mountains' is a grotesque metaphor, and actually giving over one's body in martyrdom did not come into prominence until several generations later. Paul's own tongue is squarely in his cheek as he dictates.
The textual variants in verse 3 may signal yet another aspect of Paul's irony. "Boast' is the oldest and most difficult reading. But the meaning? A possible way of reading the NRSV's primary translation is to understand Paul as mocking his own practice of devoting his whole life and energy to his mission. Another possibility is to read it as an aside: "let me boast just for once.” In that case, Paul would be distancing himself from his suddenly high-blown "genre,' poking fun at his temporarily grandiloquent style and pretentious offering of sublime ideas.
On the other side of the deflation, “but do not have love,' he is clearly mocking his own emphasis on faith and his own poverty and refusal to accept support (see on 9:15) as well as the Corinthians' excitement over tongues and their passion for gnosis. Even if one had all knowledge she or he would be nothing (cf. 1:26-29). Even if he sacrifices his own life he gains nothing.
Fanning the Flame: Probing the Issues in Acts
By Mark E. Moore
The second key passage is 1 Corinthians 13:1. Here Paul mentions angelic tongues. If Paul spoke in angelic tongues, should we not also expect to? There’s the catch -- Paul never claimed to speak in an angelic tongue.[17] 1 Corinthians 13:1 is both hypothetical and hyperbolic. In other words, Paul is exaggerating to make a point. This hypothetical angelic tongue begins a series of statements contrasting the value of super-miraculous stuff with the superior value of love. The fact is, Paul never "knew all mysteries,” "moved mountains,” "gave all his possessions to the poor,” or "offered his body to be burned.” If he did not do anything else in his hypothetical/hyperbolic list, why should we assume he spoke in the language of an angel? Is it possible that he did? Certainly. Is it certain that he did? Hardly. To base the dominant exercise of glossolalia on such a nebulous statement is tenuous.
First Corinthians
By Raymond F. Collins, Daniel J. Harrington
Along with the rhetorical devices of gradation Paul's argument profits from the use of metaphor, including hyperbole, which is a kind of metaphor (cf. Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric 3.11.15), and comparison. Verse 1 uses the striking metaphors of angelic speech and sounding brass to speak of the gift of tongues, a charism Paul himself enjoyed.
...
1. If I speak in the tongues of humans and even of angels, and do not have love: Paul begins his digression on love with a reference to ordinary speech and speaking in tongues. Speaking (cf. ch. 14) is the counterpoint of what he will have to say about love. The gift of speaking in tongues was quite visible and highly esteemed among the Corinthians. Paul claimed that he had the ability to speak in tongues even more than the Corinthians did (14:6, 18). J. G. Sigountos ("Genre," 252) takes "and of angels" as a hyperbolic expression, but Paul's phrase appears to designate the phenomenon of speaking in tongues. Parallels in the Testament of Job confirm that this is the connotation of Paul's phrase. His mode of expression follows a kind of "from the lesser to the greater" rhetorical construction in the form of gradation. His use of the rhetorical device of klimax emphasizes the gift of speaking in tongues.
1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary)
Mark Taylor
The first unit, 13:1-3, opens with three parallel conditional clauses' and a threefold assertion that apart from love spiritual gifts amount to nothing. Paul affirms that though he could speak with languages, both human and divine, possess prophetic powers, fathom all mysteries and knowledge, have mountain moving faith, benevolently give to the poor, and give his body in sacrifice, he is nothing if he does not have love. Whereas the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues occur last in the previous list of gifts, here tongues occurs first. The reason may be linked to Paul's rhetorical strategy, a progression from the lesser to the greater (cf. 12:31, "eagerly desire the greater gifts).
Tongues is mentioned first here because it is the least beneficial when uninterpreted. The repetition of the phrase "but have not love" elevates love above all gifts as "the most excellent Way" (12:31b).
13:1. Paul begins by hypothetically claiming that if he could speak with the tongues of men and of angels he is nothing if he does not have love. While it is possible that the phrase "tongues of men" refers to human eloquence' and "tongues of angels" refers to the gift of tongues, it is more likely in context that Paul refers only to the spiritual gift of tongues (languages) and heightens the rhetorical impact by referring to "tongues of angels" by way of hyperbole. This is not to say that there is no such thing as a "heavenly tongue," or to deny that the Corinthians themselves may have thought of the gift of tongues in this way. The point of Paul's statement is not to establish different kinds of tongues' but rather to emphasize that the gift, if exercised apart from love, is meaningless noise.' The ambiguity of Paul's reference to the "resounding gong" or "clanging cymbal" has resulted in a number of possible interpretations. However, even if the reference is somewhat ambiguous, the essential meaning of the hypothetical example is clear. The term translated "gong" by the NIV was used of various kinds of metals but mainly bronze or brass. Based on a few references in Greco-Roman literature, Harris and Klein suggest that Paul refers to the acoustic vase used in the theaters in order to project and amplify sound. Portier-Young has recently challenged this interpretation by suggesting that both the resounding brass (gong) and the clanging cymbal describe the same thing. The clanging cymbal simply clarifies what is intended by the resounding gong. In the biblical tradition the cymbal was never played solo but always in conjunction with other instruments. By using the metaphor Paul is urging the tongues-speakers to use their gifts for the edification of the church.' Still others suggest that Paul intends comparison instead of disjunction so that the text should read, "I have become as sounding brass rather than a resounding cymbal."' Some see in the mention of the "clanging cymbal" a reference to pagan worship.'
13:2. From tongues Paul moves on to prophecy, knowledge, and faith. Knowing all mysteries may be a separate gift from prophecy, but it could also be coordinate with it. In others words, prophecy includes insight into the mysteries of God. Paul, of course, does not know all mysteries nor does he possess all knowledge (13:9). He clearly exaggerates to make a point and presents a hypothetical scenario. Paul did have the gift of prophecy, he did have insight into the mysteries disclosed in the gospel, and he did possess great faith, even to the point of effecting miracles (Acts 14:3; 16:16–24; 19:11; 28:3–6; Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12). In 14:6 Paul hypothetically describes himself as bringing teaching, revelation, knowledge, and prophecy to the Corinthians in assembly (cf. 14:37–38). In his mission to Corinth Paul announced the "mystery of God" (2:1). He, along with other apostles and gifted prophets (teachers), taught God's hidden wisdom (2:7) and were stewards (administrators) of the mysteries of God (4:1). Even in the letter itself, Paul makes known a "mystery" regarding the transformation of believer's mortal bodies (15:51; see also Rom 11:25; 16:25; 2 Thess 2:7). The reference to a faith that could remove mountains, an idiom for great faith, resonates with the teaching of Jesus and may be derived from it (see Matt 17:1920; 21:21; Mark 1:22-24; Luke 17:6). Even though Paul possessed these gifts, the repetition of the word "all" functions as hyperbole to make a point.' Paul is saying that even if he possessed these gifts in perfection, without love he would be nothing.
13:3. In the third and final hypothetical example Paul asserts that even the ultimate in self-sacrifice profits nothing apart from love. The giving away of one's possessions, even the offering of one's very life apart from love ultimately profits nothing. This Verse Contains One of the most difficult textual Variants in the New Testament. The NIV reads, "and surrender my body to the flames" (cf. NASB, "surrender my body to be burned"). The more recent NIV2011 (cf. also the NRSV, HCSB) follows the editors of the Greek New Testament and adopts a variant reading, "and give over my body to hardship, that I may boast."
The Greek terms for "burn" and "boast" are very close in the Greek.' Many agree that "boast" is the more likely reading, although there are significant detractors.' If "boasting" is the correct reading, what does Paul mean, especially in a letter where boasting is one of the key problems in Corinth? Although Paul often refers to boasting disparagingly, he also uses the term on occasion with reference to his ministry (2 Cor 8:24; Phill 2:16; 1 Thess 2:19; also Rom 5:2-3; 1 Cor 1:29-31; 9:15; 2 Cor 2:14). Fee, who is a proponent of this interpretation, suggests that in 13:3 "this final item is most likely a genuine reflection on his own ministry, in which he is referring to the kinds of bodily sufferings of which he "boasts' in 2 Cor 11:23-29 and 12:10, which also help to bring about his greater "boast,' their salvation." Another intriguing aspect of this passage is the mention of giving possessions and giving oneself, either in martyrdom or for the cause of the gospel, alongside the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy, knowledge, and faith. Does Paul consider extreme sacrifice to be a gift of the Spirit? Ciampa and Rosner think so, "The Context makes clear that the actions mentioned here are understood to reflect the practice of spiritual gifts ... not as clear whether or not they are embodiments of one or two of the gifts mentioned in 12:8-10 or 12:28-30." Whether or not 13:3 should be understood as a "gift" in the traditional sense, I would submit that such actions are most certainly a "manifestation of the Spirit." We may sometimes think too narrowly in restricting a "spiritual gift" to something possessed.
A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles
By Mal Couch
It has been suggested that Paul allows for a second kind of tongues when he speaks of the "tongues of angels," that is, ecstatic utterances (1 Cor. 13:1). However, the word glossa is not used to speak of ecstatic utterances in any other place, and such a definition here would be against the established meaning of the word. Even if glossa were used of ecstatic utterances, that does not establish the fact that this is what is meant by the tongues of angels. That would be a rather large leap in logic because we do not know if angels speak in a language that is significantly different from human languages. Could it be that they speak in one of our human languages?
Anytime angels speak in the Bible it is in a language that is known to the human hearers, even in the case of the apostle John, who heard them speak in heaven in the book of Revelation. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the apostle Paul is using hyperbole (hypothetical exaggeration) in 1 Corinthians 13. In that chapter, he is simply emphasizing the essential place of love in the use of spiritual gifts. He states that, even if he knew everything or gave his body to be burned and he did it without love, then such matters would be without value.
The fact of the matter is that Paul did not know everything, did not give his body to be burned, and did not speakin an angelic language. It is unwise to build a doctrinal position on hypothetical exaggeration, particularly when it makes one go against the established meaning of words. It is best to conclude that the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in known human languages which are unknown to the speaker and to avoid the inclusion of ecstatic utterances in the definition.
Keep in Step with the Spirit
By J I Packer
Of a piece with Kuyper's guess is the view, often met, that Paul saw Christian glossolalia as "tongues of angels" (1 Cor. 13:1), angelic as distinct from human language. But while this, like so much else that is proposed in the discussion of 1 Corinthians 12–14, is not absolutely impossible, Paul's words in 13:1 are sufficiently explained as a rhetorical hyperbole meaning simply "no matter how wonderful a performance my glossolalia may be."
Ecstatic Utterances
R Gundry
Even more to the point, if one reads further it becomes apparent that the speaking in tongues of angels does not at all have to indicate factual reality in Paul’s mind (Paul uses ean . with the subjunctive throughout verses 1-3) and indeed probably does not: "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, ... if I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned ... ( Cor xiii.2f., italics mine). As matters of fact, Paul does not claim to possess all prophetic insight and knowledge or to have all faith or to have given up all his possessions or to have delivered his body to be burned (obviously not, since he is writing a letter!). These are "suppose-so" statements only partially true of Paul's experience. By the same token, although Paul claims to speak in tongues, it is not necessary to infer that he claims to speak in the tongues of angels. In fact, the analogy of the following parallel expressions indicates that he does not here claim to do so. Speaking with the tongues of angels corresponds to the unreal "all's" in the succeeding statements. In other words, just as Paul lays claim to some prophetic insight (so chapter xiv) but not all, so also he writes that he miraculously speaks in some foreign languages (tongues of men) but not in all (for he does not speak in angelic tongues). His argumentative point is that even if the latter were true, it would still be profitless without love.'
First Corinthians (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament)
By Pheme Perkins
The phrase could be poetic hyperbole on Paul’s part, a way of saying that no speech, human or heavenly, counts for anything without love (Fitzmyer 2008, 492). Or it could be an allusion to Jewish mystical traditions in which a visionary ascends into the heavens and hears or participates in angelic Worship. Paul claims a comparable experience but refuses to (or cannot) disclose its content in 2 Cor. 12:1-4: “I heard the unutterable words that human beings are not permitted to utter" (12:4). The comparison of speech without love to a chalkos echon (noisy bronze) is not necessarily referring to a particular instrument (often translated "gong,” so NRSV). Bronze plates often served as sounding boards or amplification for various instruments in theaters (Vitruvius, De architectura 5.3.8; Fitzmyer 2008, 492).
Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today?
By Thomas R. Edgar
A careful reading of the passage shows that Paul does not state that he or anyone else speaks or has ever spoken the languages of angels. He says, "If I speak the tongues of men and angels." This is the first in a series of three parallel statements (verses 1-3) all of which begin with "if" (Ean, if, verse 1; kai eam, and if, verse 2; kan, and is, verse 3). The "if" presents:
... mere objective possibility connected with the future, "If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels," not "Though I speak" (AV). . . . "Supposing that I had all the powers of earthly and heavenly utterance."
Each of the parallel statements begins with "if" and ends with the expression "but I do not have love. . . ." The first part of each is a hyperbole (exaggeration) referring to a spiritual gift or quality and to an extreme or theoretical example of its application. The statement, therefore, points out that not only exercise of the gift or spiritual quality apart from love is profitless to the exerciser, but even using it to such exaggerated or extreme (theoretical) use is also profitless. This argument is clearest in the second example (verse 2), where Paul says, "If I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." The first part of the statement, "If I have prophecy," refers to something (prophecy) which Paul and others actually had.
However, the second part, "and if I know all mysteries and all knowledge" refers to that which no one exercises or will exercise. In this very passage (verse 9) Paul states that now (in this life) we only have partial prophecy and partial knowledge. No one knows all mysteries and all knowledge. This second part of the hyperbole continues with the statement, "if I have all faith so that I move mountains." This also is a theoretical extreme which no one possesses or exercises. Prophecy is the basic gift; "knowing all mysteries and all knowledge" and "having all faith" are the hypothetical, unobtainable extremes or exaggerations which Paul uses to convey his point that even such exaggerated cases would profit nothing apart from love. The basic gift is first; the extremes are then connected by "and." In effect Paul says, "If I have prophecy and even if I could go all the way to the extreme of knowing all mysteries and knowledge, and having all faith so that I could move mountains, and did not have love, I am nothing." The third example (verse 3) functions in the same way, thereby supporting this interpretation. Paul states, "If I donate all of my possessions (Paul may have done this-cf. Philippians 3:8)" and I hand over my body to be burned (Paul had not actually done so), but I do not have love . . . ." While it is not impossible to do so, Paul had not performed the more extreme of these examples (handing over his body to be burned). The first action is probable; the second is connected to the first by "and;" it is an extreme action even if a possibility.' This same structure functions in Paul's first example: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels." "Tongues of men" refers to the basic gift or quality. Connected to this by "and," the expression "tongues of angels" refers to the exaggeration or hypothetical extreme which is impossible to do, or at least which Paul has not done. Paul says, "If I exercise the gift of tongues and, in fact, could even go to such an extreme as to speak angel language, it means nothing (it is mere noise) apart from love." Each of these three examples is parallel in structure and in thought. The second is very clear. The fact that the three fit the same pattern is definite evidence that they are all, in fact, examples of hyperbole. Each of the three begins with "if" and an example of a probable spiritual activity. In each case this is followed by an extreme or hypothetical spiritual activity (connected to the first statement by "and"). Each of the examples closes with the statement "but I do not have love." Paul uses these three examples to prove his point that even if he could go to such unusual extremes, apart from love, there would be no profit to him. The extremes are: "speaking in angel languages"; "knowing all mysteries and all knowledge and having all faith"; and "giving the body to be burned." The second item, as we have seen, is impossible. The third is very rare, and Paul himself had not done so. Paul refers to the first item (speaking in the tongues of angels) in the same way as the others-i.e., as a theoretical possibility or at the least something he had not practiced. This is the obvious sense of Paul's discussion in I Corinthians 13: 1-3.
As matters of fact, Paul does not claim to possess all prophetic insight and knowledge or to have all faith or to have given up all his possessions or to have delivered his body to be burned (obviously not, since he is writing a letter!). These are "suppose-so" statements only partially true of Paul's experience. By the same token, although Paul claims to speak in tongues, it is not necessary to infer that he claims to speak in the tongues of angels. In fact, the analogy of the following parallel expressions indicates that he does not here claim to do so. Speaking with the tongues of angels corresponds to the unreal "all's" in the succeeding statements. In other words, just as Paul lays claim to some prophetic insight (so chapter xiv) but not all, so also he writes that he miraculously speaks in some foreign languages (tongues of men) but not in all (for he does not speak in angelic tongues). His argumentative point is that even if the latter were true, it would still be profitless without love.' Rather than proof that Paul spoke in "angel" or "heavenly" languages, this passage is evidence that he spoke in the "tongues (languages of men."
Speaking in Tongues
Gerhard Hasel
We must recognize that Paul spoke hypothetically in 1 Cor 13:1 as the Greek conditional clause indicates. Paul uses the conditional participle ean followed by the subjunctive. This type of conditional clause in the Greek language is one that does not speak about reality. Paul seems to say with hyperbole that if all linguistic possibilities including angelic speech were at his disposal and yet he lacked love it would mean nothing. The supposition is that Paul does not speak in the tongue of angels
Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse-by-verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14
by Robert L. Thomas
13:1 - Futility of tongues Without love. First, attention in combating overemphasis on spiritual gifts naturally goes to what the Corinthians had misconstrued the most, the gift of tongues. Paul uses himself to illustrate and create a hypothetical case, one that had not and could not become actual. He pictures a situation of personally possessing the gift of tongues to the extent of being able to speak the languages of all men everywhere. He even goes beyond this and conceives of an ability to communicate in celestial languages of angels as Well, whatever these languages might be (see 2 Cor. 12:4 and Rev. 14:2-3 for possible examples). Here is a case of ultimate linguistic ability that was never realized by Paul or anyone else (though Paul was richly endowed along this line, 1 Cor. 14:18). This is clearly beyond any claim the readers could make about their own facility with tongues.
Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity
Christopher Forbes
The following contentions are advanced in favour of (a): the parallel with Luke suggests a priori that a miraculous gift of language is intended, as does the closely related terminology. The Greek y\Gooa, like the English "tongue", can mean little else in this context, and the related gift, "interpretation" (1 Corinthians 12.30, 14.5, 13, etc.), is most naturally understood in its primary sense of (inspired) "translation". Paul's explicit statement, "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels" (13.1) is clearly central here. Likewise important is his argument that "If I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner (Bdipfbapos) to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me" (14.11). It is further urged that the plain meaning of Paul's quotation from Isaiah 28. 11-12, in ch. 14.20ff, has to do with foreign languages.
Clearly the case in favour of angelic languages also appeals to several of these passages, though 1 Corinthians 13.1a, "the tongues of men", is something of a puzzle, unless it is understood only as a parallel to ch. 14 vv. 7-8, "even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp", and the language metaphor is de-emphasised. This case is usually urged with reference to the belief in divine languages in the Hellenistic world (for which see Chapter 7), or the belief in angelic languages expressed in some Jewish intertestamental works (for which see the Appendix). Those who wish to argue that only angelic languages (not some unspecified mixture of angelic and human languages) are what Paul intends his readers to understand are compelled to ignore 1 Corinthians 13.1a, "the tongues of men", or avoid its force by arguing it means non-glossolalic speech. Those who wish to argue in favour of human languages only must argue that 13.1b, "and angels", is hyperbole, in parallel with understanding "all mysteries and all knowledge", and surrendering one's body to the flames, in vv. 2-3.
It would seem to me that the widely held view that Paul must primarily mean heavenly languages is implausible, being as it is based heavily on the phrase "and angels" in 1 Corinthians 13.1, which does look like a rhetorical flourish. "Or even those of angels" may well be the sense Paul intended here: clearly his is not really claiming "all mysteries and all knowledge", or to have sold all that he has. The Jewish parallels for the concept of angelic languages are interesting but not finally convincing (see the Appendix for further discussion), and the theory puts altogether too much weight on one flimsy exegetical peg." Dunn's supporting argument, that "the analogy Paul uses in 14.10f between glossolalia and foreign language cannot be taken as evidence that Paul thought of glossolalia as foreign language" (a very similar suggestion is made by C.G. Williams, Tongues of the Spirit, Cardiff, 1981, p. 31) seems to me entirely false. Foreign languages, or, more precisely, the miraculous ability to speak foreign languages otherwise unknown to the speaker (the analogy, pace Williams, is not mere redundancy) is precisely what it suggests. It is true that one does not draw analogies between like phenomena, but between unlike; Paul is comparing naturally known languages with what he sees as special gifts of languages. Our two main contenders are unlearned human languages, as in Luke (and perhaps angelic languages as well), and inarticulate speech. Here I think the weight of argument inclines to the side of the "languages" interpretation. The common "inarticulate speech" view may be able to explain Paul's reference to speakers in different languages as being foreigners one to another as mere metaphor, like the reference to musical instruments. But the reference to "tongues of men" in 1 Corinthians 13.1 can hardly be so explained, and if it is allowed to remain, the presumption must be strong that Paul's reference to speakers of mutually foreign languages implies that foreign languages were what he thought glossolalists spoke. The point of the comparison with unclear bugle calls then becomes their failure to communicate, rather than simply their lack of clarity. Further, this interpretation is quite capable of taking up the positive points made in favour of the "inarticulate speech" view. Glossolalic languages spoken without love - that is, in an inconsiderate and arrogant fashion, as proof of spiritual achievement - might as well be just noise for all the good they do to the community.41
First Corinthians
By George T. Montague
By human and angelic tongues Paul is probably using hyperbole, intentional exaggeration, and the order of the Greek words even suggests that "if I speak with all the languages known to humanity, and even all the languages used by angels.” Angels praise God (Pss 103:20; 148:2), and a Jewish tradition held that they had their own languages. But angels were also bearers of heavenly messages. Thus the Corinthians might think that it is angelic language they are speaking when speaking in tongues, either to praise God or to convey a heavenly message. Interpretation, then (see 14:5), would be a rendering of the angelic prayer or message in understandable human language. In any case, the point is how useless such tongues would be without love.
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans
J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton
[The apostle first compares love with that gift of tongues in which the Corinthians took so much [127] pride. The comparison shows that speaking with tongues, even if it were exercised in an unexampled manner, is utter emptiness unless accompanied by love. The gift of tongues, even when it attained its highest conceivable development, is inferior to the language of angels; but even if one spoke with all the gifts of language human or divine, his word, if loveless, would be but a vainglorious noise, or sounds without soul or feeling; such as come from pounding on some brazen gong or basin, or from cymbals, which are the lowest, most monotonous, least expressive of all musical instruments.
Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism - Apologetics Press
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One final point on the matter of the “tongues of angels” merits mention. Even if the expression actually refers to angelic tongues that are nonhuman, it still is likely that tongue-speakers were incapable of speaking such languages. Why? Paul was speaking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No human being (with the exception of perhaps Jesus) has ever been able to speak in all human languages. For Paul to suggest such was to pose a hypothetical situation. It was to exaggerate the facts. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking all human languages—which I’m not.” Likewise, no human being has ever been able to speak the tongues of angels. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking the languages of angels—which I’m not.” This conclusion is supported further by the verse that follows the reference to the “tongues of angels.” There, Paul used two additional hypothetical events when he said, “if I…know all mysteries and all knowledge” and “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains” (1 Corinthians 13:2). But no one on the planet (with the exception of deity) has understood all mysteries and all knowledge, nor has had faith that could literally remove mountains. Again, Paul was merely saying, “even if I could do such things—which I can’t.”
First Corinthians
B Ward Powers
If ἐάν (ean), the Greek hypothetical if which, as Alford's commentary explains, supposes a case which never has been exemplified. The tongues of men (ἄνθρωπος, anthropon) mean the actual languages spoken by human beings; and similarly and of angels would indicate speaking the language of angels. And note that certainly this is not something which Paul is claiming he can do.
The Problem Tongues in 1 Cor 14: A Reexamination
By B Zerhusen
First, careful examination of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals no references to "heaven" or "angels." We would expect some reference to such a fantastic ability of it were being practiced by the Corinthian language-speakers. All we have, however-and we shall examine it shortly-is a reference to angelic languages in 1 Corinthians 13:1.
...
Fourth, proponents of this view may appeal to Judean sources such as the Testament of Job as evidence that the problem languages of Corinth were angelic languages. Forbes observes that this work may have been redacted by Montanists, Christians, or Gnostics (183-87). There is another problem with appeals to Judean tradition and belief about angelic language. In Judean tradition there is also a belief that as the "holy tongue," Hebrew is the language (singular) of heaven. Harry M. Orlinsky provides an example of this mentality:
The idea that God and the angels spoke Hebrew is, of course, biblically derived ... what other language was employed in the Garden of Eden, and before the Fall and Dispersion of Man? ... and reference to this fact is found also, e.g., in the book of Jubilees, one of the oldest books in the Jewish 144 apocryphal literature. So that we should not be surprised when we learn that an l lth-century monk, who was getting old enough to realize that his days on earth were numbered, began hurriedly to study Hebrew, for he knew that after he died and went to heaven, he would have to speak and understand Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew, if he wanted to converse with the angels and with the notable worthies who had preceded him from this earth [426].
Why should the Testament of Job be determinative rather than the Hebrew as the language of heaven tradition ?
…
Careful examination of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 indicates a clear pattern found in all three verses. Paul beings with an actual ability or action ("speaking in the languages of men," " "prophesying," "having faith," "giving possessions"), which he then takes to the extreme ("speaking the languages of angels," "knowing all mysteries and having all knowledge," "moving mountains," "giving my body to be burned") to make the rhetorical and practical point that even at the zenith of the spectrum, without love these things are profitless. If this is a valid analysis of the Greek construction of 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, we also have a major clue about the gift of languages and translation (1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30): these were abilities that involved human languages.
1 Corinthians
Simon J. Kistemaker
a. “If I speak in the tongues of men, even those of angels.” With this conditional statement, Paul indicates that he himself does not engage in tongue-speaking in public worship (14:19). He appears to be saying, “Suppose that I as the Lord’s apostle have the highest possible gift of tongues, those that men use, and those even that angels use—how you Corinthians would admire, even envy me and desire to have an equal gift!”2
The word tongues can be understood to mean known languages; but in context it appears to mean tongue-speech, which some Corinthians regarded as heavenly speech. We do not know what supernatural language angels speak (compare II Cor. 12:4; Rev. 14:1—3) or whether angels are able to understand human speech.3 Conversely, angels communicate with people in human terms that are frequently recorded in both the Old and New Testaments.
Glossolalia: The Gift of Tongues
By Dr. Nathan Ogan
If the expression "tongues of men and angels" (1 Corinthians 13:1) be appealed to, it is sufficient to note that the first three verses of the chapter have a pronounced hyperbolic character. While angels no doubt have languages of their own, the apostle no more implies that he expects the readers to use them than that he expects them to give their bodies to be burned (verse 3).'
Speaking in Tongues
Watson E. Mills
As regards the "tongues of angels" in this context, Paul does speak of the tongues of men as well. Further, ean with subjunctive, "if I speak in the tongues of angels," would not necessarily suggest factual reality; the supposition is that Paul does not speak in the tongue of angels, just as he has not all the powers to prophesy etc.
Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary
By John Phillips
Paul begins here with the need for love (1 Cor. 13:1-3). He raises two problems. First, there is the possibility one might possess great gifts-without love (13:1-2). For instance, one might possess great gifts of communication (13:1a). He might possess the ability to speak different tongues: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (v. 1). The case is only supposed. The word though (if) is followed by the subjunctive mood, and it expresses a hypothetical but possible condition. The future will prove whether or not such was the case. The languages are known languages (Acts 2:7-8), human languages. We have no way of knowing whether or not angels speak a heavenly language, of their own. There is no reason why they should not do so. Paul is simply saying that although he were able to speak such a lofty language that in itself would prove nothing. The acid test of genuine Christianity is not language but love.
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
By Daniel B. Wallace
The fourfold condition is used in a broad way. Paul builds his argument from the actual (he does have prophetic powers) to the hypothetical (he does not understand all mysteries or have all knowledge [otherwise, he would be omniscient!]). This is his pattern for the first three verses of 1 Cor 13: to argue from the actual to the hypothetical. It is therefore probable that Paul could speak in the tongues of human beings, but not in the tongues of angels (v1). 1 Cor 13:1 then, offers no comfort for those who view tongues as a heavenly language.
1 Corinthians, 2010
Ciampa & Rosner
13: 1 This verse has played a remarkable role in some modern discussions of the viewpoints of the Corinthians and their theological problems. Those who conclude that the Corinthians were suffering from an overrealized eschatology have found in this verse a hint that they may have thought that by speaking in tongues they were already participating in angelic experience as all believers would upon the resurrection from the dead. This thought, that some Corinthians aspired to or imagined themselves to be participating in angelic life and experience, is also considered to be related to their abstinence from sexual relationships (7:1), among other things.22 We find the texts employed in support of such interpretations to have more convincing interpretations that do not depend on overrealized eschatology as the key background issue.
Some interpreters have suggested that by speaking in human or angelic tongues Paul refers to "sublime oratory," picking up on the theme of wise and lofty speech from the first two chapters. 23
There does not seem to be any reason to think we are restricted to just one or the other [human or angelic languages], although the rhetorical pattern would suggest that speaking in tongues would most frequently entail speaking of (unknown) human languages, with the ability to speak angelic languages seen as an even more wonderful version or extension of the same gift.
Many of the better contemporary commentaries on Acts (see Keener) and First Corinthians should point out that the words of praise that the 120 were speaking were being directed to the Father, which means that they were not providing the crowd with a supposed evangelistic message, which is an important point to understand as it completely derails any cessationist attempt to say that tongues were intended to evangelise the lost.
You misunderstand. When cessationists say that tongues were used to evangelize the lost they don't mean the gospel is presented in tongues. Rather the gift of tongues (miraculously speaking a foreign language), like the gifts of healing and miracles, was used as a sign to attract unbeleivers (Mark 16:17-18,20), the same as it was at Pentecost. It was a tool to aid evangelism.
Yo bro. 
