Verse 1 – If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
Paul begins his extended discourse on love by using a series of conditional statements, running through verse three. Each is a class three condition (ἐὰν + subjunctive verb), presenting the matters as supposals. That which is pictured is presented for consideration, not fact.[1] “The fourfold condition is used in a very broad way.
Paul imagines here experiences (v.1), insights (v.2), and sacrifices (v.3) of the highest order or of the most extreme kind.
The first conditional statement is, “If I speak” (Ἐὰν . . . λαλῶ). The present tense of the verb simply sets forth something that may happen, without emphasizing the duration of the action. It is, however, a particular kind of speaking that is in view: “in the tongues of men and of angels” (ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων . . . καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων). The noun (ταῖς γλώσσαις) translated “in the tongues” can refer literally to the human organ of speech, the tongue. But it frequently stands for that which that organ produces, actual spoken communication or language. The plural thus here refers to various kinds of languages that can be spoken. Two are especially in view here.
The first is “of men” (τῶν ἀνθρώπων). This refers to whatever earthly, human languages may be spoken. Originally “the whole earth had one language and the same words” (Gen. 11:1). But as a protection for the spreading rebellion of mankind, God confused “their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech” (v.7). Over 7,100 languages are spoken across the world in our day. Some from history have fallen away and others grow more marginalized and obscure every year. But all would be included here in Paul’s supposition.
To these earthly, human languages Paul adds (καὶ, “and”) that “of angels” (τῶν ἀγγέλων). Is he here building his argument, as he does in verse 2, from that which is actual to that which hypothetical? Paul does have prophetic powers (v.2a), but surely he does not claim to understand all mysteries nor to have all knowledge, for otherwise, he be claiming omniscience (v.2b).[2] It is doubtful he claims to have literally given away ever last thing he ever possessed to help the poor (v.3a). But he may not be literally taking inventory in that sense. Truly, Paul did give up everything he had. It would be difficult to read what he will recount to these same believers in another letter and conclude Paul had not given everything to the fulfillment of God’s purpose in them (2 Cor. 11:23-29). So again, he is speaking of that which is actual (v.3a) to set up that which is hypothetical, for Paul could not claim to have actually died as a martyr by fire (v.3b). So this appears to be his pattern throughout the first three verses of this chapter—an argument from the actual to the hypothetical. So in this opening verse it is true that Paul could speak in the tongues of human beings, probably several of them. But it is unlikely that he is claiming to actually be able to speak “in the tongues . . . of angels.” True, he will later tell his readers, “I speak in tongues more than all of you” (14:18). But the question is whether what he refers to here as “the tongues of . . . angels” is the same as the gift of speaking in tongues, with which the Corinthians were so enamored and which he spends so much time addressing here (12:10, 28, 30; 14:5, 6, 18, 21-23, 39). It would seem, then, that this opening verse “offers no comfort for those who view tongues as a heavenly language.”[3]
It seems thus that Paul is arguing from extremes, if we were able to speak every human language known to mankind or even those languages which are not known on earth, but which only the angles speak between one another in heaven. Neither are actually the case. There are polyglots who make most of us marvel with their facility and relative ease in learning human languages. Some become fluent in dozens of human, earthly languages. But no one has ever been able to speak them all. Still less has anyone mastered that form of communication that allows angels to relate and cooperate in the service of God in heaven.
What Paul sets up is a scenario in which these realities were to become true in some individual “but” (δὲ) but they be devoid of love (“have not love,” ἀγάπην . . . μὴ ἔχω). The subjunctive form of the verb (ἔχω, “have”) continues to support Paul’s hypothetical case. The particle (μὴ, “not”) negates the matter “technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively.”[4] That which in Paul’s imaginary case is missing is “love” (ἀγάπην). A great deal is to be made of this ἀγάπη-love. But it is not at all always clear just what that is. Much ink has been spilt in marking the distinctions between various Greek words for love, including ἔρος, στοργή, φιλαδελφία, and ἀγάπη.[5] The first two do not appear in the NT and the latter two sometimes overlap with one another. Though it is true that distinctions between the words do exist, they often appear in graded fashion rather than with clear boundaries and distinctions. The context of each must inform us as to just what the author has in mind in any given usage. Thus far Paul has only used the noun twice in this letter. But in these instances “love” is set out as the opposite of “the rod” and as a partner with “gentleness” (1 Cor. 4:21). This kind of “love” is the opposite of self-promotion and pride and the epitome of the selflessness that seeks the other’s good (8:1).
Imagine, the Apostle asks us, a person in whom unparalleled linguistic skills exist—both on the earthly and heavenly planes—and yet the person is devoid of the love that seeks the highest good of those with whom he is thus able to communicate. He would have nothing of value to communicate. He may have much to say (mostly about himself, his experiences, what he knows, but also the failing and shortcomings of the other), but nothing to communicate. If this imagined scenario were to be true, the best one could claim is “I am a noisy gong or clanging cymbal” (γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον).
The verb (γέγονα, “I am”) has left behind the hypothetical world of the first two subjunctive verbs and sets forth reality through the indicative mood. The prefect tense points to a state of being, this happened in the past and its result continues in the present. It describes what is. The verb emphasizes becoming, “to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition.”[6] Living eloquent, but loveless makes one nothing more than “a noisy gong” (χαλκὸς ἠχῶν). Similarly (ἢ, “or”), facility in language (of whatever earthly or heavenly realm) without love renders one nothing more than “a clanging cymbal” (κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον).
It seems likely that the Apostle is calling upon his readers’ background in the mystery religions of pagan Greek culture. Many of the mystery religions (Dionysus, Cybele, Bacchus) used gongs, cymbals, and the like as a part of their passionate, even ecstatic, but empty expressions of worship. His readers would have immediately understood his reference. They knew from experience that all such prayer and worship is just “noise,” of no particular value, just clamoring static projected into thin air. With such instruments there is no distinction of sound, no message communicated, just a lot of attention drawn.
Both eloquence nor ecstasies without love are just so much noise. In fact, they are worse than just worthless noise. All such is reduced to the level of pagan religion.
And notice again, Paul says, literally, “I have already become” just as these loud, arresting, but uncommunicative instruments. He is not saying, “my gift has become noise,” but, “I have become nothing more than noise.”
God says such eloquence and ecstasies do not matter! Paul earlier reminded them, “I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom . . . my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit . . .” (1 Cor. 2:1, 4). A “demonstration of the Spirit” is all that matters, and the first thing listed in the “fruit of the Spirit” is love (Gal. 5:22-23).
[1] Rienecker, 431; Robertson, Word Pictures, 4:176.
[2] Wallace, 698.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Thayer, 408.
[5] Cf. C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves.
[6] BDAG, 1646.5.
