성경 주석서

CHAPTER 12

1 Corinthians 12:2. ὅτι ὅτε] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. (who brackets ὅτε, however), Scholz, Rück. Tisch. with A B C D E L א, min[1900] and several VSS[1901] and Fathers. The ὍΤΙ alone (Elz. with F G min[1902] Syr[1903] Erp. Clar. Germ. Oec. Ambrosiast.), and the weakly attested ὍΤΕ alone (which Billroth and Ewald prefer), are two different attempts to help out the construction, whose difficulty leads Reiche again to defend the Recept[1904].—1 Corinthians 12:3. Instead of the Recept[1905] ἸΗΣΟῦΝ and ΚΎΡΙΟΝ ἸΗΣΟῦΝ, which Reiche upholds, read ἸΗΣΟῦς and ΚΎΡΙΟς ἸΗΣΟῦς, with Lachm. Rück. and Tisch., following A B C א, min[1906] and several VSS[1907] and Fathers. The accusatives are the work of copyists altering the oratio directa, which struck them as unusual.—1 Corinthians 12:9. In place of the second αὐτῷ, A B, min[1908] Vulg. Clar. Germ. and Latin Fathers read ἑνί. So, rightly, Lachm. Rück. Tisch.; ΑὐΤῷ has crept in after the preceding.

After ΣΏΜΑΤΟς in 1 Corinthians 12:12, Elz. has ΤΟῦ ἙΝΌς, against greatly preponderating testimony. A gloss.—1 Corinthians 12:13. ΕἸς ἝΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ] Many various readings; the best accredited is ἝΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ (B C D* F G א, 17, 73, 80, with several VSS[1909] and Fathers). So Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Reiche. The insertion of the ΕἸς arose from comparing the clause with the first half of the verse. Then, according as the words were understood to refer to the Supper or not, arose the readings ΠΌΜΑ (with or without ΕἸς) instead of ΠΝΕῦΜΑ, and ἘΦΩΤΊΣΘΗΜΕΝ (said of baptism, as the Greek Fathers were accustomed to use it) instead of ἘΠΟΤ.—1 Corinthians 12:31. ΚΡΕΊΤΤΟΝΑ] A B C א, min[1910] Syr[1911] Aeth. Vulg. ms. Or. (twice) read ΜΕΊΖΟΝΑ. So Lachm. Rück. Tisch. But while ΚΡΕΊΤΤΟΝΑ might easily appear a doubtful expression in itself, and even objectionable as implying the contrast of “worse,” ΜΕΊΖΟΝΑ on the other hand, was very naturally suggested by 1 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 15:5.

[1900] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1901] SS. vss. = versions.

[1902] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1903] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1904] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1905] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1906] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1907] SS. vss. = versions.

[1908] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1909] SS. vss. = versions.

[1910] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1911] yr. Peschito Syriac

CONTENTS.

Concerning the Spirit’s gifts.[1912] The fundamental characteristic of speaking in the Spirit is the confession of Jesus as the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3); but the especial utterances of the Spirit, which are given to individuals for the welfare of the community (1 Corinthians 12:7-10). differ one from another (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). The Giver of all gifts, however, is one and the same Spirit; for Christians form an organic whole, like the limbs of one body, so that none of them ought either to judge himself in a depreciatory spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11-20), or to ignore the need and worth of those with fewer or lower gifts (1 Corinthians 12:21-30). Still there ought to be a striving after the more excellent charismata; and Paul will show his readers the best kind and mode of thus striving (1 Corinthians 12:31).

The peculiar difficulty attaching to this whole section is very truly described by Chrysostom: τοῦτο ἅπαν τὸ χωριόν σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσαφές· τὴν δὲ ἀσάφειαν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἄγνοιά τε καὶ ἔλλειψις ποιεῖ, τῶν τότε μὲν συμβαινόντων, νῦν δὲ οὐ γινομένων.

[1912] Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 646 f., holds that the abuse of the glossolalia in Corinth, which has certainly given occasion to this section of the Epistle, had arisen in the party-interest of the Petrine Christians in opposition to the Pauline. The former, he maintains, had brought the γλ. λαλ. to bear against the latter, denying to Paul the apostolic character and consequently the possession of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. But there is no trace of this whatever in the apostle’s treatment of the subject; for the word thrown out at 1 Corinthians 7:40, in connection with a totally different occasion, has no bearing at all upon this question; and 1 Corinthians 16:6; 1 Corinthians 16:18 take for granted that his readers admitted that Paul himself had the gift of the glossolalia, and that in a high degree. Räbiger, too, agrees in substance with Baur, assuming, as he does, an opposition between the Pauline προφητεύοντες and the Petrine γλώσσαις λαλοῦντες. But there is not the slightest support in the text either, in general, for connecting the subject in hand with the state of parties at Corinth, or, in particular, for ascribing the glossolalia to any one special party (Dähne, e.g., regards it as a piece of Alexandrian fanaticism among the Christ-party). Van Hengel’s conjecture, also (Gave d. talen, p. 111 f.), that Apollos had brought the glossolalia to Corinth, where it had been abused and had degenerated, lacks all definite foundation.

1 Corinthians 12:1. Δέ] leads over from the matter previously discussed to another, in connection with which also abuses had crept into the church (see on 1 Corinthians 11:18). We are warranted in assuming that the discussion of such a subject, so comprehensive and entering so much into details, was occasioned by questions put in the letter from Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Corinthians 8:1).

τῶν πνευματικῶν] is to be taken (with Chrysostom, Luther, and most expositors) as neuter, stating the theme in a quite general way: On the forms of action which proceed from the Holy Spirit and make manifest His agency in the life of the church. The speaking with tongues is specially taken up only in chap, 14, so that it is a mistake to regard πνευματ. as referring to this alone (Storr, Heydenreich, Billroth, Baur in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 644, and Wieseler in the same, p. 711, also Ewald). The πνευματικά are in their nature the same as the χαρίσματα, 1 Corinthians 12:4. Other interpreters make it masculine (Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, Locke, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller, Stolz, Heydenreich, Ewald, Hofmann, also David Schulz, d. Geistesgaben der ersten Christen, p. 163; and Hilgenfeld, die Glossolalie, 1850, p. 16): concerning the inspired, whether genuine or not; Ewald renders: “concerning the men of the Spirit” (speakers with tongues). But in 1 Corinthians 14:1 we have the theme recurring as τὰ πνευματικά.

οὐ θέλω ὑμ. ἀγνοεῖν] I will not leave you in ignorance. Comp 1 Corinthians 10:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:13. Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it aptly: ΘΈΛΩ ὙΜᾶς ΚΑῚ ΤῶΝ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚῶΝ ΧΑΡΙΣΜΆΤΩΝ ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ ΤῊΝ ΤΆΞΙΝ, ὭΣΤΕ ΒΟΎΛΟΜΑΊ ΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟΎΤΩΝ ΕἸΠΕῖΝ.

1 Corinthians 12:2. Reason (comp on ΔΙΌ, 1 Corinthians 12:3) why he wishes to instruct them concerning the ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΆ. The pneumatic condition into which they had entered as Christians was, of course, an entirely new one to men who had been heathen, entirely without precedent or analogy in the experiences of their former sad estate,—all the more, therefore, requiring to be subjected to a trustworthy and correct judgment.

The construction, when we adopt the reading ὍΤΙ, ὍΤΕ, is simply this: the object-sentence begins indeed with ὍΤΙ, but instead of ending with ἈΠΉΓΕΣΘΕ, or repeating ἮΤΕ before ἈΠΑΓΌΜ., runs off into the participle,—an anakoluthic use of the ὍΤΙ not uncommon also in classic writers, after parenthetic clauses, even when but short, have intervened. See Krüger on Thuc. iv. 37; Stallbaum, a[1915] Plat. Apol. 37 B; Heind. a[1916] Plat. Gorg. p. 481 D. Translate: Ye know that, at the time when ye were heathen, ye were led away to the dumb idols, in whatever way people led you. Buttmann (neut. Gr. p. 329 [E. T. 383]) holds that the sentence after ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε passes with Ὡς into an indirect question. But Ὡς ἊΝ ἬΓΕΣΘΕ, from its position between ΠΡῸς Τ. ΕἼΔ. Τ. ἌΦ. and ἈΠΑΓΌΜ., can only be a parenthetic clause. In that case, too, ἈΠΑΓ. would be cumbrous and dragging at the end of the verse; it must convey a weighty closing thought, to which Ὡς ἊΝ ἬΓΕΣΘΕ serves as modal definition. Hofmann, although not reading ὍΤΙ, ὍΤΕ, but simply ὍΤΙ with Elz. (which in fact does away of itself with all real difficulty), has twisted and obscured the whole passage in a very unhappy way.[1917]

ὍΤΕ ἜΘΝΗ ἮΤΕ] A reminder to his readers of their sad ΠΟΤΈ, to which Paul often turns back their eyes from their happy ΝῦΝ (Ephesians 2:2 f., 11, 13, 1 Corinthians 5:8; Colossians 1:21; Colossians 3:7; Romans 11:30).

ΠΡῸς ΤᾺ ΕἼΔΩΛΑ] namely, in order to worship them, sacrifice to them, invoke them, inquire of them, and the like.

ΤᾺ ἌΦΩΝΑ] (Plat. Pol. I. p. 336 D, and often elsewhere; Dem. 292. 6. 294. 19; 2Ma 3:24) impresses on the readers that idols, which were themselves dumb (comp Habakkuk 2:18; 3Ma 4:16), could produce no pneumatic speaking. Notice the emphatic repetition of the article.

Ὡς ἊΝ ἬΓΕΣΘΕ] as ye were at any time led. Regarding this ἄν of repetition, see Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 35; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 186 f. [E. T. 216]; comp on Acts 2:45.

ἈΠΑΓΌΜΕΝΟΙ] becoming led away. The force of the ἀπό is not that of removal from the normal condition of the natural knowledge of God (Romans 1:19 ff.), an interpretation which would need to be suggested by the context; but it serves vividly to set forth the result. The consequence of the ἄγεσθαι, namely, was the ἈΠΆΓΕΣΘΑΙ, the being involuntarily drawn away from the surroundings in which they were actually placed to the temples, statues, altars, etc. of the idols. We may take it for certain, from Paul’s views of heathenism (1 Corinthians 10:20; Ephesians 2:2), that he thought of Satan as the leading power. Hilgenfeld aptly compares the passage in Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ. p. 29, ed. Col: οἱ μὲν περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα αὐτοὺς ἕλκοντες οἱ δαίμονές εἰσιν Κ.Τ.Λ[1920] The opposite is πνεύματι ἄγεσθαι, Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:18; Matthew 4:1. Others make it: a sacerdotibus (Valckenaer, al[1921]), and the like.

We may note further both that homoioteleuta, such as οἴδατε, ὅτι ὅτε … ἦτε, occur even in the best writers, showing that the resemblances of sound were not offensive to them (Lobeck, a[1922] Aj. 61, Paral. p. 53 ff.), and also that the subject in hand is brought all the more vividly and impressively home by the adnominatio, ἤγεσθε, ἀπαγόμενοι (Bremi, a[1923] Lys. I. Exc. vi. p. 209).

[1915] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1916] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1917] Hofmann insists, namely (1st), on reading οἶδα τε instead of οἴδατε, and (2d) ὡς ἀνήγεσθε instead of us ὡς αν ἤγεσθε, and (3d) on taking ὅτι ἔθνη ητε as: because ye were heathen, and that as specifying the reason for what follows, in which, for the sake of emphasis, πρὸς … ἄφωνα is put before the ὡς. But how involved the whole general structure of the sentence becomes in that way! How wholly uncalled for, nevertheless, and inappropriate would be the investing of the quite superfluous (quite superfluous, to wit, as specifying a reason) “because ye were heathen,” with all the emphasis of being put first in a hyperbaton which is, moreover, doubled! And how strange the choice of the compound ἀνήγεσθε, since it does not (as Hofmann supposes) convey the notion of whither (which is expressed by πρός), but that of upward, as ἀνάγειν always means to lead up! The τέ, too, after οἶδα, would not be suitable even in a logical point of view (see note on ver. 3).—Laurent, in his neut. Stud. p. 132, agrees with Hofmann in so far that he also reads ὡς ἀνήγεσθε instead of ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε. For the rest, he retains οἴδατε, and neither reads ὅτι nor ὅτι, ὅτε, but simply ὅτε, which is supported by very slender evidence.

[1920] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1921] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1922] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1923] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 12:3. Διό] therefore, because the experiences of spiritually gifted men could not be known to you in your heathen state,[1924] and you have consequently all the more need of sound instruction on the subject, therefore I give you to know: the fundamental characteristic of speaking by the Spirit is, that Jesus is not execrated, but confessed as Lord. Paul expresses this in the two parallel thoughts: that the former, the execration, comes from the lips of no inspired person; and that the latter, the confession of the Lord, can only be uttered by the power of the Holy Spirit. Both the negative and the positive marks are thereby given; and it is arbitrary to lay the whole stress, as Billroth and Rückert do, upon the second half, and to regard the first as almost superfluous and a mere foil to the second. Paul must, moreover, have had his own special reasons for placing such a general guiding rule at the head of his whole discussion in answer to the question, Who in general is to be held an inspired speaker? Among all the different forms and even perversions of the gift of speaking in the Spirit at Corinth, men may have been divided upon the question, Who was properly to be regarded as speaking by the Spirit, and who not? and against all arbitrary, envious, exclusive judgments on this point the apostle strikes all the more powerfully, the more he brings out here the width of the specific field of speaking in the Spirit, and the more simply and definitely he lays down at the same time its characteristics. To find any special reference here to the speaking with tongues—and in particular to go so far in that direction as to assume (Hofmann, comp his Schriftbew. I. p. 309) that the first clause guards against anxiety in presence of the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, and the second against undervaluing the προφητεύειν—comes just to this, that Paul has expressed himself in a highly unintelligible way, and arbitrarily anticipates the elucidations in detail which follow.

ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ] so that the Holy Spirit is the element which pervades his inner life, and in which the λαλεῖν takes place. Comp on Romans 8:15; Matthew 22:43.

λαλῶν] uttering himself, speaking; λέγει, on the other hand, has reference to the object of the utterance. Comp on Romans 3:19; John 8:43; Schulz, Geistesgaben, p. 94 ff.

ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς] sc[1928] ἐστί, accursed (see on Romans 9:3; Galatians 1:8), fallen into eternal perdition is Jesus! This is the anti-Christian (especially the Jewish) confession; the Christian is: Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, Jesus is Lord! Comp Php 2:11. Why did Paul not say Χριστός? Because, from its original appellative meaning, it would not have suited the first clause (ἀνάθ.); in the second, again, its appellative meaning is contained in Κύριος; and in both it was essential to name the historical Person who was the Messiah of the Christians’ faith as exalted to be the σύνθρονος of God. It is self-evident, we may add, that Paul regarded the Κύριος Ἰησοῦς as the constant watchword of the believing heart, and the keynote of inspired speech. “Paulus loquitur de confessione perseveranti et in tota doctrina,” Melanchthon.

Regarding the confession itself, comp 1 John 4:1 f., where the proposition is of substantially the same import, only still more directly aimed against false teachers.

[1924] Similarly de Wette; comp. Bengel, and, yet earlier, Luther’s gloss. Osiander drags in a contrast between the one Lord of the Christians and the many κυρίους of heathenism. Moreover, widely differing statements as to the connection are to be found among interpreters. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact trace it back in a perfectly arbitrary way to the contrast between the unconscious mania of heathen inspiration and the conscious inspiration of Christians. Comp. Neander: “because it is now otherwise with you, and you have become free organs of the Holy Spirit.” Kling (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 486) makes it: “that you may not suffer yourselves to be again carried away to blind worship of an unintelligible phenomenon” (?). Theodoret holds that what is referred to is the contrast between the διαφωνία of heathenism and the σνμφωνία in Christianity. In like manner Räbiger: “because your heathen cultus did not rest upon a common Divine Spirit ruling in you all, I make it known to you that there is such a principle in Christianity in the πνεῦμα Θεοῦ.” But in this way the essential point on which the question hinges is only gained by abstraction out of what Paul actually says, and that in the interest of the assumption that he designs to secure for the glossolalia the respect due to it as against the opposition of the Pauline party. Paul is here making known to his readers the criterion of Christian inspiration as regards its confession, and that for this reason (διό), because they, as formerly serving dumb idols, had all the more need of this γνωρίζειν. The words before us yield no more than this. Ewald also imports too much into them: You will not surely wish back your former heathen days; … it is in the light of that old state of things that one first really comes rightly to understand and feel the value of Christianity, and so forth. Hofmann shapes the connection in accordance with his construction of the text in ver. 2 : because Paul does not wish to leave his readers in the dark περὶ π. πνευματικῶν; and because, on the other hand, he knows what their old life had been as respects divine service, therefore he gives them the following instructions. This is logically incorrect. For the second element in this case would not be one brought forward in addition to the first (τέ), but one already lying at the root of it; and Paul must therefore have written, not οἶδά τε (as Hofmann reads), but οἶδα γαρ.

[1928] c. scilicet.

1 Corinthians 12:4. Although the fundamental character of all inspired speaking is not in any case different: there are, notwithstanding, distributions of grace-gifts (“divisiones gratiarum,” Vulg.), but it is the same Spirit (from whom they proceed). Comp Hebrews 2:4, and Lünemann upon that passage. Χάρισμα,[1932] a specifically N. T. word, foreign to ordinary Greek, is used here in the narrower sense (for in the wider sense, every manifestation of divine grace—in particular, every part of the Christian possession of salvation, and every activity of the Christian life—is a Χάρισμα). It means any extraordinary faculty, which operated for the furtherance of the welfare of the Christian community, and which was itself wrought by the grace of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, in special individuals, in accordance, respectively, with the measure of their individual capacities, whether it were that the Spirit infused entirely new powers, or stimulated those already existing to higher power and activity, Romans 12:6 ff. Regarding ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙς, distribution, comp 1 Corinthians 12:11; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 55; Plat. Soph. p. 267 D, Phaedr. p. 266 B, Polit. p. 275 E; Polyb. ii. 43. 10; Sir 14:15; Jdt 9:4. The charismatic endowment is not something undivided; we do not find a unity and equality among the gifted, but there are distributiones donorum, so that one has this peculiar χάρισμα, and the other that, dealt out to him as his own appointed share. If we take ΔΙΑΙΡΈΣΕΙς to mean differences (Beza, and many others, including de Wette, Ewald), this is equally lawful so far as linguistic usage goes (Plat. Soph. p. 267 B, Prot. p. 358 A), but does not correspond to the correlative purposely chosen by the apostle in 1 Corinthians 12:11, διαιροῦν.

[1932] Comp. Krumm, De notionib. psychol. Paulin., Gissae 1858, p. 35 ff. As regards the difference between the general Christian χαρίσματα and the extraordinary, see Constitt. ap. viii. 1. 1 ff.

1 Corinthians 12:5-6. Continuation of the representation of the difference and yet relative unity of the χαρίσματα, illustrated in two characteristic forms of their action, in so far, namely, as they present themselves practically as διακονίαι and as ἐνεργήματα. These are not merely different names for the charismata (as the Greek Fathers held), nor yet distinct species of them (Estius and others), but different forms of expression in which they show themselves and appear to the observer.

And there are distributions of services, but it is the same Lord (Christ as Lord of the church) who is served thereby. To make the διακονίαι refer to the specific offices in the church, 1 Corinthians 12:28 (Beza, Grotius, Estius, Olshausen, and many others), is to narrow the meaning too much; for in accordance with the first sentence, and in accordance generally with the comprehensive scope of the whole three sentences, all charismata must be meant, in so far, namely, as all, according to the relation of their exercise to Christ, manifest themselves as services rendered.—“And there are distributions of workings (deeds of power), but it is the same God who works them all (ἐνεργήματα) in all (in all who are acting in the power of the Spirit).” Ἐνεργ. is as little to be taken in a special sense here as διακ. in the previous sentence; it is neither to be referred to the working of miracles alone (so most interpreters on the ground of 1 Corinthians 12:10, where, however, it is joined with δυνάμ.). nor to the healings of the sick (so Olshausen, quite arbitrarily). No, all charismata may manifest their operation in deeds (comp on ἘΝΕΡΓΉΜΑΤΑ, Polyb. ii. 42. 7, iv. 8. 7; Diod. iv. 51), whether these may be miraculous or not.

REMARK.

The Divine Trinity is here indicated in an ascending climax (comp on Ephesians 4:6), in such a way that we pass from the Spirit, who bestows the gifts, to the Lord, who is served by means of them, and finally to God, who, as the absolute First Cause and Possessor of all Christian powers, works the entire sum of charismatic deeds in all who are gifted. This passage has always (from Chrysostom and Theodoret onwards) been rightly adduced in opposition to anti-Trinitarian error (comp too Calovius against the Socinians); but it is to be observed also here, that with all the equality of nature and inseparable unity (2 Corinthians 13:13) of the Three, still no dogmatic canon can do away with the relation of subordination which is also manifest. Comp Gess, v. d. Person Christi, p. 158 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 206 ff.

1 Corinthians 12:7. Δέ] leading on to the like destination of all the gifts. The emphasis lies on πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον. This is the aim, which is the same in the case of every one who receives a gift. To each one is the manifestation of the Spirit (his making known the Holy Spirit to others by charismatic acts) given with a view to benefit (in order to be of use, see 1 Corinthians 14:12). The genitive is to be taken in this objective sense (with Billroth, Schulz, Geistesg. p. 164, and Hofmann), because there exists no reason here for departing from the similar meaning of φανέρ. τῆς ἄληθ. in 2 Corinthians 4:2; and we have no other instance of the use of the word except in the Fathers. Calvin, Rückert, de Wette, and most expositors understand it subjectively: the self-revelation of the Spirit. Even on the first interpretation there is not too much concession to independent human activity (in opposition to de Wette), as is plain from the very idea of the δίδοται.

1 Corinthians 12:8 ff. Now one man may receive one, and another another endowment from the same Spirit. The following nine charismata, enumerated in a preliminary way up to 1 Corinthians 12:10 (besides which, others are afterwards mentioned, 1 Corinthians 12:28), are divided into three classes, which cannot, however, correspond to the three διαιρέσεις, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, because there each sentence comprises all charismata. The external division is distinctly marked by Paul himself in this way, namely, that he notes the transition to a new category by ἑτέρῳ[1938] (while for subdivision within the classes he uses ἄλλῳ), thus: (1) 1 Corinthians 12:8, by ᾯ ΜΈΝ; (2) 1 Corinthians 12:9, by ἙΤΈΡῼ ΔΈ; (3) 1 Corinthians 12:10, by ἙΤΈΡῼ ΔΈ. The logical division again, although not rigidly carried out, presents itself without constraint as follows:

[1938] Whether after ἑτέρῳ, vv. 9 and 10, we read δέ or not (which Lachmann brackets in ver. 9 and deletes in ver. 10) makes no difference at all as regards the marking of the divisions (in opposition to Hofmann); the divisions mark themselves by the way in which the ἑτέρῳ stands out from the many repetitions of ἄλλῳ. In several cases the δέ too, after ἄλλῳ, is wanting in important witnesses.

  I.  Charismata which have reference to intellectual power:

1.  λόγος σοφίας.

2.  λόγος γνώσεως.

  II.  Charismata which depend upon special energy of faith:

1.  The πίστις itself.

2.  Its agency in deeds, namely,

a.  ἰάματα.

b.  δυνάμεις.

3.  Its agency in words, namely, the προφητεία.

4.  Its critical agency, the διάκρισις πνευμ.

  III.  Charismata which have reference to the γλῶσσαι:

1.  Speaking with tongues.

2.  Interpretation of tongues.[1939]

[1939] Other modes of division may be seen in Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 477 ff.; Englmann, von d. Charismen, 1848, who, however, divides them into official and non-official, which does not correspond with the conception and nature of the gifts; Krumm, l.c., who bases his division on the categories πνεῦμα, καρδία, νοῦς; de Wette renounces any arrangement; Hofmann divides according to the categories of the cognitive faculty (λόγ. σοφ. and λόγ. γνώσεως), of the volitional faculty (πίστις, ἰάματα, δυνάμεις), and of the power of the Holy Spirit (προφητεία κ.τ.λ.). Bengel puts it aptly: “ᾧ· ἑτέρῳ· ἑτέρῳ: huic, alteri, alteri,—genera tria.”—The distinction between II. and III. arises from the fact that the γλῶσσαι were an entirely peculiar χάρισμα, in connection with which the agency of the νοῦς was absent. In ver. 28 also the glossolalia is ranked in a class by itself.

1 Corinthians 12:8. Ὧ μέν] This is followed by ἄλλῳ δέ instead of ᾧ δέ. An unexact expression, as in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Comp Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 35; Hermes in Stob. Ecl. phys. 52, p. 1082.

λόγος σοφίας] Discourse of wisdom, discourse the contents of which are ΣΟΦΊΑ. The distinction drawn by many (including Schulz, Neander, Billroth, Olshausen, comp also Froschammer, von d. Charismen, 1850, p. 28 ff.) between this and λόγος γνώσεως, according to which the former is a more practical, the latter a more theoretical method of teaching (Bengel, Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt reverse it, comp Cornelius a Lapide), is an unlikely one, seeing that the separation between theory and practice is not in keeping with the nature of inspired discourse. The more correct view is indicated by 1 Corinthians 2:6 f. compared with 1 Corinthians 13:2; ΣΟΦΊΑ, namely, is the higher Christian wisdom (see on 1 Corinthians 2:6, comp Ephesians 1:17) in and by itself, so that discourse, which enunciates its doctrines (mysteries), elucidates, applies them, etc., is ΛΌΓΟς ΣΟΦΊΑς. This, however, does not yet imply the deep and thorough knowledge of these doctrines, the speculative insight into, and apprehension and elaboration of, their connection, of their grounds, of their deeper ideas, of their proofs, of their ends, etc., and a discourse which treats of these matters is λόγος γνώσεως.[1944] Accordingly the σοφία cannot cease at the Parousia, but the γνῶσις ceases, 1 Corinthians 13:8, because it belongs to the category of imperfect temporal things. Others interpret otherwise. Chrysostom,[1945] Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact are wrong in holding that the possession or the want of the teaching faculty makes the difference between σοφία and ΓΝῶΣΙς. See, on the contrary, 1 Corinthians 13:8; 2 Corinthians 11:6. Baur makes ΓΝῶΣΙς refer to the unfolding of the deeper meaning of Scripture chiefly through allegorical exegesis, which is totally without proof. De Wette gives no explanation: Osiander explains as we do. Hofmann makes ΣΟΦΊΑ a property of the subject (see in opposition to this, 1 Corinthians 2:6 : σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν), one, namely, which qualifies for right judgment in general; ΓΝῶΣΙς, again, a relation to an object, namely, the thorough mastery of it in the particular instance in hand. But in that case the γνῶσις would only be the application of the σοφία in concreto, and Paul would thus not be adducing two χαρίσματα distinct in character from each other.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῸ ΑὐΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ] according to the same Spirit. Comp 1 Corinthians 12:11, and the classical ΚΑΤᾺ ΘΕΌΝ, according to divine destination (Valckenaer, a[1947] Herod. iii. 153). The prepositions ΔΙΆ, ΚΑΤΆ, ἘΝ, are not equivalent in meaning (Rückert), but they so express the relation of the Spirit to the divine bestowal (ΔΊΔΟΤΑΙ), according to the different aspects of His participation therein, as to show that He is medians, normans, or continens, with respect to the different gifts in question.

[1944] According to Ewald, λόγος σοφίας embraces more the intelligent explanation and establishment of recognised truths, with a view to profit in life; λόγος γνώσεως, more the treatment of obscurer and more hidden portions of knowledge. But 1 Corinthians 2:6 ff. shows that the latter also are included under the σοφία.

[1945] Paul and John, he says, had the λόγος σοφίας; the λόγος γνώσεως was possessed by οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν πιστῶν, γνῶσιν μὲν ἔχοντες, διδάσκειν δὲ οὕτως οὐ δυνάμενοι. In like manner now Krumm asserts, “γνώσεως, proprietatem in argumentis, σοφίας, in forma positam esse.”

[1947] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.