성경 주석서

CHAPTER 14

1 Corinthians 14:7. Τοῖς φθόγγοις] Lachm. reads τοῦ φθόγγου, with B, Clar. Germ. Tol. Ambrosiast. Too weakly attested; and after the preceding φωνὴν διδόντα (giving from itself) the change of the dative into the genitive (Vulgate, sonituum), and of the plural into the singular, was very natural. Neither ought we to read, instead of ζῷ (Elz. Lachm. Tisch.), the more weakly attested διδῷ (recommended by Griesb.), which is a repetition from the preceding διδόντα.—1 Corinthians 14:10. ἐστίν] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read εἰσίν, following A B D E F G א, min. Clem. Dam. Theophyl. The singular is an emendation, in accordance with the neuter plura.

αὐτῶν] should be deleted, with Lachm. Rück. Tisch., according to preponderating testimony. A defining addition.—1 Corinthians 14:13. Instead of διόπερ read διό, upon decisive evidence.—1 Corinthians 14:15. δέ] is wanting both times in F G, min. Vulg. It. Sahid. Syr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers; the first time also in K, the second time also in B; hence Lachm. deletes only the second δέ. Probably Paul did not write either at all, and B contains merely the insertion which was first made in the first half of the verse.—1 Corinthians 14:18. Elz. has μου after Θεῶ, which Reiche defends, in opposition to decisive evidence. Addition from 1 Corinthians 1:4; Romans 1:8, al. There is preponderating testimony for γλώσσῃ (Lachm. Rück. Tisch.) in place of γλώσσαις, as, indeed, in this chapter generally the authorities vary greatly in respect of the singular and plural designation of this charisma. In this passage the plural was inserted because they ascribed the knowledge of ever so many languages to the apostl.

λαλῶν] B D E F G א, 17, 67** Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. Oec. and Latin Fathers have λαλῶ (so Lachm. and Tisch.); of these, however, F G, Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have ὅτι before πάντων. L omits λαλῶν altogether (which Rück. prefers, as also D. Schulz and de Wette). The preponderance of attestation is manifestly in favour of λαλῶ, which is also to be regarded as the original. For the omission (A) is explained by the fact that the words from εὐχαριστῶ to γλώσσαις were viewed (in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:14-16) as belonging to each other. Other transcribers, who rightly saw in πάντων ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ. the ground of the εὐχαριστῶ, sought to help the construction, some of them by ὅτι, some by changing λαλῶ into λαλῶν. The latter was welcome also to those who saw in πάντων … λαλῶν, not the ground, but the mode of the εὐχαριστῶ, such as Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 271, who accordingly defends the Recepta.—1 Corinthians 14:19. Elz. Tisch. read διὰ τοῦ νοός, running counter, it is true, to A B D E F G א, vss. and Fathers, which have τῷ νοΐ (so Lachm. and Rück.), but still to be defended, because τῷ νοΐ has manifestly come in from 1 Corinthians 14:15. The very old transcriber’s error διὰ τὸν νόμον (without μου), which Marcion followed, tells likewise on the side of the Recepta.—1 Corinthians 14:21. ἑτέροις] Lachm. Rück. read ἑτέρων, following A B א, min. Rightly; the dative was written mechanically after ἑτερογλώσσοις and χείλεσιν.—1 Corinthians 14:25. Elz. has καὶ οὕτω before τὰ κρυπτά, in opposition to greatly preponderating evidence. The result seemed to begin at this point, hence the subsequent καὶ οὕτω was taken in here and the οὕτω following was left out (so still Chrysostom). Afterwards this second οὕτω was restored again without deleting the first καὶ οὕτω.—1 Corinthians 14:32. πνεύματα] D E F G and some min. vss. and Fathers have πνεῦμα. But πνεύματα seemed out of place, seeing that it is the Holy Spirit that impels the prophets.—1 Corinthians 14:34. ὑμῶν, which is defended by Reiche and Tisch., is wanting in A B א, min. vss. and Fathers (deleted by Lachm. and Rück.), but was very liable to be omitted from its being non-essential, and from the generality of the precept, and is to be retained on the ground of its old (as early as Syr.) and sufficient attestatio.

ἐπιτέτραπται] ἐπιτρέπεται has greatly preponderant authorities in its favour. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Rightly; the sense of the perfect (permissum est) came more readily to the mind of the transcribers, both of itself and because of the prevalent reference to the la.

ὑποτάσσεσθαι] Lachm. Rück. read ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, following A B א, and some min. Copt. Bashm. Marcion, Damasc.; an interpretation.—1 Corinthians 14:35. γυναικί] Elz. Scholz read γυναιξί, in opposition to A B א* min. and several vss. and Fathers. The plural was introduced mechanically after the foregoing.—1 Corinthians 14:37. εἰσὶν ἐντολαί] Many various readings. Among the best attested (by A B א** Copt. Aeth. Aug.) is ἐστὶν ἐντολή. So Lachm. But D* E* F G, codd. of It. Or. Hil. Ambrosiast. have simply ἐστίν; and this is the original (so Tisch.), to which ἐντολή was added, sometimes before and sometimes after, by way of supplement. The Recepta εἰσὶν ἐντολαί (defended by Reiche) arose out of the plural expression ἃ γράφω in the way of a similar gloss.—1 Corinthians 14:38. ἀγνοείτω] ἀγνοεῖται occurs in A* (apparently) D* F G א* Copt. Clar. Germ. Or. So Lachm. and Rück.; Rinck also defends it. Other vss. and Fathers have ignorabitur. But in the scriptio continua an Ω might easily be left out from ἀγνοειτΩΩστε, and then it would be all the more natural to supplement wrongly the defective ἀγνοειτ by making it ἀγνοεῖται, as it was well known that Paul is fond of a striking interchange between the active and passive of the same verb (1 Corinthians 8:2-3, 1 Corinthians 13:12). One can hardly conceive any ground for ἀγνοεῖται being changed into the imperative, especially as the imperative gives a sense which seems not to be in keeping with apostolic strictness and authority. Offence taken at this might be the very occasion of ἀγνοείτω being purposely altered into ἀγνοεῖται.

CONTENTS.—(1) Regarding the higher value of prophecy in comparison with the gift of tongues, 1 Corinthians 14:1-25. (2) Precepts regarding the application of the gifts of the Spirit in general, and of the two named in particular, 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, with an appended remark on the silence of women, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. (3) Corroboration of the precepts given, 1 Corinthians 14:36-38, and reiteration of the main practical points, 1 Corinthians 14:39-40.

1 Corinthians 14:1. Διώκετε τ. ἀγάπην] pursue after love; asyndetic, but following with all the greater emphasis upon the praise of love, chap. 13; while the figurative διώκ. (sectamini) corresponds to the conception of the way, 1 Corinthians 12:31. Comp. Php 3:12. And after Paul has thus established this normative principle as to seeking after the better gifts of the Spirit, he can now enter upon the latter themselves more in detai.

ζηλοῦτε δὲ κ.τ.λ.] With this he joins on again to 1 Corinthians 12:31, yet not so as to make the δέ resumptive,—in which case διώκ. τ. ἀγάπ. would be left standing in an isolated position,—but in such a way that he sets over against the latter the ζηλοῦν τὰ πν. as what is to take place along with it. “Let the end which you pursue be love; in connection with which, however,—and upon that I will now enter more particularly,—you are not to omit your zealous seeking after the gifts of the Spirit, but to direct it especially to prophecy.” Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylac.

τὰ πνευματικά] as in 1 Corinthians 12:1, the gifts of the Spirit generally, not merely the glossolalia (Billroth, Ewald, comp. also Rückert), which first comes in at 1 Corinthians 14:2, and that with a definite designation. Μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφ., which is not to be read as a subordinate clause (Hofmann), represents and defines more closely the phrase τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ κρείττονα, 1 Corinthians 12:31. Μᾶλλον does not simply compare the longing for prophetic gifts with that for the glossolalia,—which is only done in the following verses (in opposition to Hofmann),—but is to be explained: “in a higher degree, however, than for the other gifts of the Spirit, be zealous that ye may speak prophetically.” The ἵνα thus states the design of the ζηλοῦτε, which we must again mentally supply (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:5).

1 Corinthians 14:2-3 give the ground of the μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφ. by comparing prophecy with the glossolalia in particular, which was in such high repute among the Corinthians.

For he who speaks with the tongue (see on 1 Corinthians 12:10) speaks not to men (does not with his discourse stand in the relation of communicating to men), but to God, who understands the Holy Spirit’s deepest and most fervent movements in prayer (Romans 8:26 f.). Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:28.

οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει] for no one hears it, has an ear for it. So too Porphyr. de Abst. iii. 22; Athen. ix. p. 383 A. What is not understood is as if it were not heard. Comp. Mark 4:33; Genesis 11:7; Genesis 42:23, and see 1 Corinthians 14:16 : τί λέγεις οὐκ οἶδε.[1] Wieseler, in 1838, took advantage of ἀκούει in support of his theory of the soft and inaudible character of the speaking with tongues, against which the very expression λαλεῖν, the whole context (see especially 1 Corinthians 14:7 f.) and the analogy of the event of Pentecost, as well as Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6, are conclusive. See also on 1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 13:1. The emphatic οὐκ ἀνθρ. λαλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τ. Θεῷ militates against Fritzsche, Nov. opusc. pp. 327, 333, who takes οὐδεὶς γ. ἀκούει in a hyperbolic sense (“nam paucissimi intelligunt, cf. John 1:10-11”). No one understands it,—that is the rule, the exceptional case being only, of course, that some one gifted with the χάρισμα of interpretation is present; but in and of itself the speaking with tongues is of such a nature that no one understands it. Had Paul meant the speaking in foreign languages, he could all the less have laid down that rule, since, according to 1 Corinthians 14:23, it was a possible case that all the members of the church should speak γλώσσαις, and consequently there would always be some present who would have understood the foreign language of an addres.

πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστ.] δέ—not the German “sondern” (Rückert)—is the however or on the other hand frequent after a negative statement (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172; Baeumlein, p. 95). We are not to understand πνεύματι of the objective Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 14:14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual nature of the man (different from the ψυχή). This, the seat of his self-consciousness, is filled in the inspired man by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16), which, according to the different degrees of inspiration, may either leave the reflective activity of the understanding (νοῦς, 1 Corinthians 14:14) at work, or suspend it for the time during which this degree of inspiration continues. The latter is what is meant here, and πνεύματι λαλεῖν signifies, therefore, to speak through an activity of the higher organ of the inner life, which directly (without the medium of the νοῦς) apprehends and contemplates the divine; so that in πνεύματι is implied the exclusion of that discursive activity, which could, as in the case of prophecy, present clearly to itself in thought the movements and suggestions of the Holy Spirit, could work these out, connect them with things present, and communicate them to others in an intelligible wa.

μυστήρια] secrets, namely, for the hearers, hence what was unintelligible, the sense of which was shut up from the audience. The mysterious character of the speaking with tongues did not consist in the things themselves (for the same subjects might be treated of by other speakers also), but in the mode of expression, which, as not being brought about and determined by the intellectual activity of the νοῦς, thereby lacked the condition connecting it with the intellectual activity of the hearer, for which it was only made ready by the interpretation. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 362.

οἰκοδ. κ. παρακλ. κ. παραμ.] The first is the genus, the second and third are species of it:[2] edification (Christian perfection generally) and (and in particular) exhortation (comp. on Php 2:1) and consolation.

παραμυθία, only here in the N. T., means address in general (Heindorf, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 70 B), then comfort in particular; Plato, Ax. p. 365 A; Aeschin. Dial. Socr. ii. 3; Lucian, Mort. D. xv. 3; de Dea Syr. 22; Ael. V. H. xii. 1; Wis 19:12. Comp. on παραμύθιον, Php 2:1.

[1] Comp. also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 382.

[2] Ver. 4, where the οἰκοδομή is named alone, testifies to this relation of the three words (in opposition to Rückert). Comp. Bengel, who has noted well the edifying significance of the two latter points: “παράκλησις tollit tarditatem, παραμυθία tristitiam.”

1 Corinthians 14:4. Difference between the relations of the two in respect of the just mentioned οἰκοδομή.

ἑαυτόν] in so far, namely, as he not merely believes that he feels (Wetstein), but really does feel in himself the edifying influence of what he utters. This does not presuppose such an understanding of what he utters as could be communicated to others, but it does assume an impression on the whole of a devout and elevating, although mystical kind, experienced in his own spiri.

ἐκκλησ.] a church, without the article, an assembly.

1 Corinthians 14:5. Δέ] ἐπειδὴ παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἐλάλουν γλώσσαις πολλοὶ, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ διὰ φθόνον κατασμικρίνειν τὰς γλώσσας, θέλω, φησὶ, πάντας κ.τ.λ., Theophylact. Comp. the δέ, 1 Corinthians 12:31.

μᾶλλον δὲ κ.τ.λ.] rather, however, I wish that ye should speak prophetically. Note here the distinction between the accusative with the infinitive and ἵνα after θέλω (see on Luke 6:31). The former puts the thing absolutely as object; the latter, as the design of the θέλω to be fulfilled by the readers (Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 62, ed. 3); so that it approaches the imperative force (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 839).

μείζων] preferable, of more worth, 1 Corinthians 13:13, because more useful for edification, 1 Corinthians 14:6; 1 Corinthians 14:26.

ἑκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμ.] the case being excepted, if he interpret (what has been spoken with tongues). ἑκτὸς εἰ μή is a mixing up of two modes of expression, so that μή now seems pleonastic. Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Timothy 5:19. Not a Hebraism (Grotius), but found also in the later Greek writers (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 1; Soloec. 7). See Wetstein; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459.

Regarding εἰ with the subjunctive, see on 1 Corinthians 9:11. The subject to διερμ. is not a τίς to be supplied (Flatt, comp. Ewald), but ὁ λαλῶν γλ. The passage shows (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:13) that one and the same person might be endowed with glossolalia and interpretation.

1 Corinthians 14:6. Νυνὶ δέ] But so, i.e. but in this condition of things, since, namely, prophecy is greater than the speaking with tongues when left without edifying interpretation, I, if I came to you as a speaker with tongues, would only then be useful to you when I united with it prophetical or doctrinal discourse. Hofmann is wrong in wishing to refer νυνὶ δέ to the main thought of 1 Corinthians 14:5; in that case the second part of 1 Corinthians 14:5 is all the more arbitrarily overlooked, seeing that the ἐὰν μή in 1 Corinthians 14:6 is manifestly correlative to the ἑκτὸς εἰ μή in 1 Corinthians 14:5. Others take it otherwise. But the key to the interpretation which is in accordance with the context and logically correct lies in this, that the two uses of ἐάν are not co-ordinate (which was my own former view), so as in that way to give to the principal clause, τί ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω, two parallel subordinate clauses (comp. on Matthew 5:18); but, on the contrary, that ἐὰν μή, corresponding to the ἑκτὸς εἰ μή, 1 Corinthians 14:5, is subordinated to the first ἐάν. Paul might, forsooth, instead of ἐὰν μὴ … διδαχῇ have written simply: ἐὰν μὴ ὑμῖν διερμηνεύσω. Instead of doing so, however, he specifies the two kinds of discourse in which he might give an interpretation of his speech in tongues, and says: If I shall have come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, if I shall not have spoken to you (for the sake, namely, of expounding my speech in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14:5), either in revelation, etc. The apostle possessed the gift of glossolalia (1 Corinthians 14:18), but might also be his own διερμηνευτής, and might apply to the διερμηνεύειν the other apostolic charismata which belonged to him for teaching, prophecy, and διδαχή (1 Corinthians 13:9; Acts 13:1).

ἢ ἐν ἀποκαλ. κ.τ.λ.] not four, but two charismatic modes of teaching are here designated—prophecy and didascalia. For the former, the condition is ἀποκάλυψις; for the latter, γνῶσις. See Estius in loc. The prophet spoke in an extempore way what was unfolded and furnished to him by revelation of the Spirit; the teacher (if he did not simply deliver a λόγος σοφίας, 1 Corinthians 12:8) developed the deep knowledge which he had acquired by investigation, in which he was himself active, but yet was empowered and guided by the Spirit. This twofold division is not at variance with 1 Corinthians 13:2, from which passage, on the contrary, it is plain that there belonged to prophecy γνῶσις and ἀποκάλυψις, the latter of which was not included as a condition of the didascalia; so that the characteristic mark of distinction in prophecy is thus the ἀποκάλυψις. Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:30.

ἐν denotes the inward (ἀποκαλ., γνωσ.) and outward (προφ., διδ) form in which the λαλεῖν takes place. Comp. Matthew 13:3.

Note further the use of the first person, in which Paul comes forward himself with all the more convincing force in support of what he says.

1 Corinthians 14:7. The uselessness of a discourse remaining in this way unintelligible is now shown by the analogy of musical instrument.

ὅμως] is paroxytone, and means nothing else than tamen (Vulgate), but is put first here and in Galatians 3:15, although logically it ought to come in only before ἐὰν διαστολήν κ.τ.λ.; hence it is to be explained as if the order was: τὰ ἄψυχα, καίπερ φων. διδόντα, εἴτε αὐλός, εἴτε κιθάρα, ὅμως, ἐὰν διαστολὴν τ. φθ. μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται κ.τ.λ. It is rightly taken by Chr. F. Fritzsche, Nov. opusc. p. 329. Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, Conject. I. p 52: “instrumenta vitae expertia, etiamsi sonum edunt, tamen, nisi distincte sonent, qui dignoscas,” etc. So Winer, also, at last (ed. 6; ed. 7, p. 515 [E. T. 693]), and, in like manner, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 264 [E. T. 308]. To analyse it into τὰ ἄψυχα, καίπερ ἄψυχα, ὅμως φωνὴν διδόντα κ.τ.λ. (Winer formerly, comp. Rückert), brings out an antithetic relation which could not be calculated on from the context. For what is to be expressed is not that the instruments, although lifeless, nevertheless sound; but this, that the lifeless instruments, although they sound, nevertheless give out no intelligible melody, unless, etc. As regards the hyperbaton, common with classical writers also, by which ὅμως, instead of following the participle, goes before it,[3] see Matthiae, § 566, 3; Krüger, § lvi. 13. 3; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 D; Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 447; Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 232. That ὅμως stands for ὁμοίως, and should be accented (comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. p. 480, ed. 2) ὁμῶς (Faber, Alberti, Wetstein, Hoogeveen, and others), is as erroneous (ὅμως means: equally, together) as Kypke’s assertion that the paroxytone ὅμως means similiter.

διδόντα] giving forth, as Pind. Nem. v. 93; Jdt 14:9. Φωνή is used of the voice of musical instruments in Sir 50:16; 1Es 5:64; 1Ma 5:31, al. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 47 C; μουσικὴ φωνή, Pol. iii. p. 397 A; Plut. Mor. p. 713 C; Eur. Tro. 127.

ἐὰν διαστολὴν κ.τ.λ.] If they (the ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα) shall not have given a distinction to the sounds, if they shall have sounded without bringing out the sounds in definite, distinctive modulation. “Harmoniam autem ex intervallis sonorum nosse possumus,” Cic. Tusc. i. 18. 41. Comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 7 C D, and Stallbaum in loc.

πῶς γνωσθήσ. τὸ αὐλ. κ.τ.λ.] how shall that be recognised which is played upon the flute or upon the cithern? i.e. how can it then possibly happen that one should recognise a definite piece of music (a melody) from the sounds of the flute or the cithern? One is none the wiser from them as to what is being played. The repetition of the article is quite correct: what is being played on the flute, or again, in the other supposed case, what is played upon the cithern. Rückert takes it as meaning, How is it possible to distinguish between flute and cithern? Inappropriate, in view of the essentially different character of the two instruments, and seeing that the question in the context (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:9) is not as to distinguishing between the instruments, but as to understanding the melody.

It may be observed, further, that the analogy in 1 Corinthians 14:7 would be unsuitable, if Paul had been thinking of foreign languages, since these would not have lacked the διαστολή of the sounds. This holds also in opposition to the view of the matter which makes it an utterance of glosses, as likewise in opposition to Wieseler’s conception of a soft γένος γλωσσῶν, seeing that in 1 Corinthians 14:7 it is not the strength of the sound, but its distinctness (comp. Wieseler himself in 1860, p. 114), in virtue of which it expresses a melody, which is the point of comparison.

[3] Not always immediately before, as Hofmann opines that Paul must have written: τὰ ἄψυχα ὅμως φων. διδόντα. See Jacobs, l.c.; also Reisig, Enarr. Oed. Col. p. xlvi. Comp., too, 4Ma 13:26.

1 Corinthians 14:8. Confirmation of the negative implied in πῶς γνωσθήσεται κ.τ.λ., by another yet stronger example: for also in the case of, etc. The emphasis is upon σάλπιγξ, a trumpet, the simple sounds of which are assuredly far more easily intelligible as regards their meaning and design than those of flute and cither.

ἄδηλον] unclear, uncertain, qui dignosci nequeat, Beza. “Unius tubae cantus alius ad alia vocat milites,” Bengel. Comp. φωνάς τινας ἀσήμους, Lucian, Alex. 13.

φωνήν] comp. Il. xviii. 219.

εἰς πόλεμον] to battle, Hom. Il. i. 177, iv. 891; Pind. Ol. xii. 5; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 C; Sir 37:5; Sir 40:6; 1Ma 2:41. The signal of attack was given with the trumpet. See Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc.; Rosenmüller, Morgenl. VI. p. 110.