Chapter XIV
of the gift of to thai, of tongues. Vs. 1-25.
The superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues is founded, 1. On the consideration that he who speaks with tongues speaks to God, whereas, he who prophesies, speaks to men, vs. 2. 3. 2. That he who speaks with tongues edifies only himself, whereas, he who prophesies edifies the chm-ch, vs, i, 5. That this must be so, is proved, 1. By an appeal to their own judgment and experience. If Paul came to thetn speaking in a way which they could not understand, ivlisitgoiid could it do them? But if, aa a prophet, he brought them a revelation from God, or as a teacher, set before them a doctrine, they would be edified, v. 6. 2. From the analogy of mastcjil instruments. It is only when the sounds are understood, that they produce the desired eifect. If a man does not iinow that a given note of the trumpet is a signal for battie, he will not prepare himself for the conflict, vs. 7-9. 8. From their experience in intercourse with strangers. If a man comes to me spealdng a language which I cannot understand, no matter how polished or signiflcant that language may be, he is a barbarian to me, and I to him, vs. 10. 11. In their zeal, therefore, for spiritual gifts, they should have reg-ardtothe edification of the church, v. 13. Hence, he who had the gift of tongues should pray for the gift of interpreta tion; as without the latter gift, however devotional he might he, Lis prayers could not profit others, vs. 13. 14. It was not enough that the prayers and praises should be spiritual, they must be intelligible; otherwise those who were unlearned could not join in them, vs. 15-17. For liimselij the apostle says, although more richly endowed with the gift of tongues than any of his readers, he would rather speak five words so aa to bo understood, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, vs. 18. 19. It was mere childishness in the Corinthians to be BO delighted with a gift which they could not turn to any practical account, v. 20. They should learn wisdom fi’om the experience of the Hebrews, It was as a judgment that God sent among them teachers whom they could not understand. So long as they were obedient, or there was hope of bringing them to repentance, he sent them prophets speaking their own language, vs. 21. 22. Their experience would not be dissimilar. If they came together, each speaking in an unknown tongue, the effect would be only evil. But if, when they assembled, all the speakers spoke so as to be understood, and under the influence of the Spirit, then men would be convinced and converted, and God glorified, vs. 23-25.
In the comment on 12, 10, reasons have already been presented for adhering to the common view, that the gift of tongues, of which the apostle here speaks, was the gift miraculously conferred, of speaking in foreign languages. Every one must feel, however, the ttuth of the remark of Chrysostom in his oommentaiy on this chapter:” This whole pas-
2T8 I. CORINTHIAN’S U, 1,
sage is very obscure; but the obscurity arises from our ignorance of the facts desciibcd, which, though familiar to those lo whom the apostle wrote, have ceased to occur.” That this gift should be specially eoanected with prophesying, as in Acts 19, 6, “they spake with tongues and prophesied,” and elsewhere, is to be explained from the fe«t that all speaking under divine, supernatui’Ed influence, was included under the head of prophesying; and aa all who spake with tongues “spake as the Spirit gave them utterance,” in the wide sense of the word they all prophesied. But it is not so easy to understand why this gift should have been so common, nor why it should so often attend on conversion; see Acts 10, 46. 19, 6. There are many things also in this chapter which it is not easy to understand on any theory of the nature of the gift. Under these circumstances it is necessary to hold fest what is clear, and to make the certain our guide in explaining what is obscure. It is clear, 1, That the word tongues in this connection, as already proved, means languages. 2, That the speaker with tongues was in a state of cwm self-fiontrot. He could speak, or be silent, 14, 28, 3. That what he said was intelligible to himself and could be interpreted to others. 4. That the unintelligibleness of what was said, arose not from the sounds uttered being inarticulate, but from the ignorance of the hearer. The interpretation of particular passages must, therefore, be controlled by these facts.
1. PoUow after charity, and desire spiritual (gifts), but rather that ye may prophesy.
In the preceding chapters Paul had taught, 1. That ali the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were proper objects of desire. 2. That they were of different relative importance, 3. That love was of greater value than any gift. In accordance with these principles, the apostle exhorts his readers to follow after lane; i. e, to press foi-ward towards it, as men do towai-ds the goal in a race, Phil. 3, 12.14. Pursue it earnestly as the great- t good. But at the same time, desire spiritual giits. Because love is more important than miraculous ^fts, it does not follow that the latter were not to be sought. The same word is used here as in 12, 81. Bm( rather that ye may prophesy. The two gifts specially in the apostle’s mind were the gift of speaking with tongues, and that of prophecy, i, e. the gift of speaking as the organ of the Spirit in a manner adapted to instraot and edify the hearer. Of these two gifts, he says, the latter ia to he preferred. The reason for this preference ig given in what follows.
3. For he that spcaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth (him); howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
What is here taught is, First, that he who speaks with tongues speaks not to men, but to God. Second, that this means that men do not understand him. Thirdly, that the rea son of his not heing understood is in the medium of communication, not in the things communicated. Speaketh not imto men, but unto Qod; or, speaks not for men, but for God. Sibi canit et mueis, aoeording to the latin proverb, Calvijt. His communion is with God, and not with man. For no man understandeth him. Literally, no man hears, i. e. hears any articulate sounds. He hears the sound, but does not distinguish the words. This, however, does not imply that the sounds uttered were in themselves unintellible, so that no man living (aniess inspu’ed) could mideratand them. When the apostles spake with tongues on the day of Pentecost, what they said was understood. The meaning is, not that no man living, but that no man present, could understand. It is not the use of the gift of tongues that he censures, but the use of that gift when no one was present who imderstood the language employed. JTowbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. /Spirit does not mean the man’s own spirit as distinguished from his underatanding. The Scriptures do not distmguish between the vdus and iryeviLo. as distinct faculties of the human intelligence. The latter is not the higher spiritual powers of our nature, but the Holy Spirit; comp. 2, 14. In favour of this iiiterpi’etation is, I. The prevailing use of the word spirit in reference to the Holy Ghost in all Paul’s epistles, and especially in this whole connection, 2. That the expression to speak in or by the Spirit, is an established Scriptural phrase, meaning to speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 3. When spirit is to be distinguished irom the tmderstanding, it designates the affections; a sense which would not at all suit this passage. 4. The meaning arrived at by this intei-pretation is natural, and suitable to the connection. ‘Although he who speaks with tongues is not understood, yet, guided by the Spirit, he speaks myateiies. Myate-ries mean divine truths; tilings whidi God has revealed. In Acta 2, 11, they are called “the wonderful things (™ /leyaktia) of God.” To make tho word mean, things not understood by the hearer, is contrary to the usage of the word. A secret disclosed, is no longer a secret; and a mystery revealed ceases to be a mystery, for a mystery is something hidden, Beaidea, Paul would then say, ‘No man understands him, yet he ^eaks what is not understood.’* The meaning obvioosly is, that although not understood, yet what he utters oontsnns divine truth. The difficulty was in the langua,ge used, not in the absence of meaning, or in the fact that inarticulate sounda were employed. This verse, therefore, contaiua nothing inconsistent with the commonly received view of the nature of the gift in question. ‘He who speaks with tonguea, speaks to God and not to men, for no one {in the case supposed) understand a him, although what he says is replete with the highest meaniiig.’ The miplication is that these tongues were foreign to the hearers; and therefore it is said, ‘no man understand a
3. But lie that prophesictli speaketh unto men (to) edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
The prophet spoke in the native language of his hearers; the speaker with tongues in a foreign language. This made the ifference between the cases. The one was understood and the other was not. The prophet spoke with a view to edification. This is a ^neral term inoludmg the sense ot the two following. He edifled the church either by exhoitation or comfort; either by arousing believers to do oi suifei, oi by pouring into their hearts the consolations of the bpiiit
4. He that epeaketh in an (unknown) tongue edi
fieth himself; but he that prophcslcth edifeth the
church.
‘Calvis sajE, Mytena et ras occnltaa, idooque tiullms utllitnlls. Mysteliii hio ChryaoBtomns accepit honorifice, pro esimiis Dei revelalionibus; ego vero in molam partem pro aenigmatibus obscuris et involulis, qnasi dioerct, loqaitur quod nemo percipiat, Calvin’s view of the gift of tongnes fiSBma to bavB been veiy little higher than that of soma of Uia modamB.
This follows from what tad been said. The speater mth tongues did not edify the chui-oh, because he was not anderstood; he did edify himseltj because he understood himself. Tliia verse, therefore, proves that the understanding was not in abeyance, and that the speaker was not in an ecstatic state.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but riither that ye prophesied: for greater (is) he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
I would that ye oM spake with tongites. It was not to bo inferred from what he had said, that the apostle undervalued tills gift. He admitted its impoi-tance as one of the manifestations of the Spirit, and he subsequently, v. 18, gives thanks that he himself possessed it in rich measure. From this it is evident that it was something of a higher nature than modern theories would represent it. But rather that ye pr<^hesied, {5«Ajo tm). J would that. The same particle often follows verbs of wishing, praying, exhorting, &c, For greater is he that propheaieth, &c., i, e. he is mora useful than the speaker with tongues, unless the latter interpret. “Nam si accedatintei-pretatio, jam erit prophetia.” Calvin. Speaking under the supernatural influence of the Spirit was common to both gifts; the only difference was in the language used. If the speaker intei-pveted, then he prophesied. Thai the church may receive edi/ication. This proves that the contents of these discourses, delivered in an unknown tongue, were edifying; and therefore did not consist in mystenes in the bad sense of that term; i. e, in enigmas and lurk sayings. This passage also proves that the gift of interpretation, although distinct from that of tongues, might be, and doubtless often was, possessed by the same person, and consequently, that lie undei-stood what he said. The absence of the gift of interpretation does not prove that the speaker himself in such cases was ignorant of what he uttered. It only proves that he was not inspired to communicate in another language what ho had delivered. Had he done so, it would have been on his own authority, and not as an organ of the Spirit. It is conceivable that a man might speak connectedly in a foreign language under the inspiration of the Spirit, so as to be perfectly understood by those acquainted with the language, though he himself did not understand a word of what he uttered. But this bypotliesis, though it would suit some passages io this chapter, is inconsistent with others, and therefore cannot bo adopted.
6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you! with tongues, what shall I profit ‘you, except I shoTl Bpeak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
Now (vvvl Si), since things are so, i, e. since speaking with tongues without interpreting is unedifying, what shall I profit
C)u, asks the apostle, if I Siould come to you speaking in a ttguage which you do not understand? He then varies the question, ‘What shall I profit you unless I speak to you as a prophet, by (or rather MsiA, ep) a revelation, or as a teacher, ■n’ith a doctrine.’ There ai-e not four, but only two modes of address contemplated in this verse. Revelation and prophecy belong to one; and knowledge and doctrine to the other. He who received revelations was a prophet, he who had “the word of knowledge” was a teacher.
7. And even things without life giving sound,
whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in
the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or
i?
This verse in Greek begins with the word o/iuis, yet, which is variously explained. The most natui-ai interpretation is to assume that the word here, as in Gal, 3, 15, is out of its logical place, and that the sentence should read thus: ‘Things without life giving sound, yef, unless they give a distinction, of sound, how shall it be known,” &c. The obvious design of the illustration ia to show the uselessness of making sounds iphich are not understood. But what is the point of the analogy? According to some it is this, as musical instruments emit a more jargon of sounds, unless the regular intei-vals be observed, so the speakers with tongues utter a mere jargon. The sounds which they utter arc not articulate words, but a confused noise.* From this it is inferred that the spoaldng with tongues was not the gift of apealdng foreign languages. This would make Paul wish (v. 5) that all the Corinthians would utter nnmeaning sounds, and sive thanks that he produced more such jargon than any of them! It is plain from what follows, as well as from the drift of the whole discourse, that the simple point of the analogy is, that as we cannot know what is piped or harped, or te benefited by it, unless we can discriminate the sounds emitted; so we cannot be benefited by listemng to one who speaks a language which we do not nndei-stand. It is not the nature of the gift, but the folly of the use made of it, which is the pouit which the
8. I’or if the tTiirapet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
This is a oonfii-matioD of the last claase of the preceding verse. The sound emitted does not produce its proper efiect ii’ it be unintelligible or nncertain. This teaches us the point of the whole illustration. The trumpet may sound the battle call, but if that call is not understood, who will heed it? So the speaker with tongues maj announce the most important truths, he may unfold mysteries, or pour forth praises as from a harp of gold, what can it profit those who do not understand him?
9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue
words easy to be understood, how shall it be known
what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
This is the application of the preceding illustration, and affords another proof of what the apostle intended to illustrate. It was not the nature of the sounds ottered, but theii- unintelligibleness to the hearer, which was to be considered, y the io!ii;fMe,i. cbymeansofthe tongue as the organ of speech. Wbrds easi, to be understood, or i-ather, an inteUigibh die-
* Aosi diceret: Kon potest homo dare dthara nut tibian animam! vooeratnmen affingit ita tampavatom, nt disoerni queat; quam itnr absurdum est homines ipsos intclligentiae praadilos oonfusum iioscio quid sonars? — Calvin, Tliia would, seem to mean that the speaker wit tongues uttared a confused roise, with no moce meaning in it than thrnmming on a harp.
course. This docs not imply, as is contendecl by the advocates of the modera theories, that those who spoke with tongues Tittered inartieiilate sounds. The opposite of tucn;;uos, is not inarticulate, but uniutelUgible, i. e. what is not in fact understood. Te skaU ^ak into the air, i. e, m vain. Tour words are lost in the air, no ear receives them. In 9, 26, the man who struck in vain is said to smite the air.
10. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them (is) without signification.
There are, U may le, so many kinds of voices. The word a (ei riij(oty, properly rendered, it may be, are often used to render a statement indefinite, where precision is impossible or unimportant. It was no matter, so far as the apostle’s object was concerned, whether the “kinds of sound” in the world were more or less. There are so many, or, as we should say, ‘There are ever so mtny, it may be, laneaages in the world.’ JUnda of voices. Calvin understands tnia of the voices or natural cries of animals. All animated nature is vocal; no living oreatm’e is mate or utters unintelligible sounds: tota igitur natursB series quEe est a Deo ordinata, nos ad diatinctionem invitat. The context, however, shows that the reference is to human ^eech, therrfore the words (yenj ^asuStv) should be translated kinds of languages. Gen. 1, 11. AJid no one of them is without signification, i. e. inarticulate. The phrase is {Aaivii S^uji’os), a language which is no language, that is, without significancy, which is the essence of a language. The illustration contained in this verse goes to prove that speaking with tongues was to speak in foreign languages. The very point is that as all languages are significant, so the languages used by those who spoke with tongues were significant. The difficulty was not in the langtiage used, but in the ignorance of the heai’er. This is still painer from what follows.
11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, 1 shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh (shall be) a barbarian unto me.
Therefore, i. e. because the sounds uttered are significant; because the man does not make a mere senseless noise, bat epcatg a real language, therefore, it’ I know not the meaning of the voice (i. e. the language), I shall stand in the relation of a foreigner to him and he to me. Otherwise it would not he eo. If a man utters incoherent, inarticulate sounds, which no man living could understand, that would not make him a foreigner. It might prove him to he deranged, but not a stranger. The word barbarutn means simply one of another country. All other people, whether civilized or not, wore harharians to the Greeks, or to the Romans. As ancient civilization came to be confined to those nations, not to be a Greek or Roman, was to be uncivihzed, Mid hence barbarian or foreier came to mean without civilization. Just as the true religion being confined to the Jews, Gentile (one not a .Tew) came to be synonomoua with heathen. In. this passage, however, barbarian means simply foreigner. Comp. Rom. 1, 14, Acts 28, 24. Col. 3, 11.
13. Even so yo, forasmuch as ye are! spiritual (gifts), seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
Sven so ye. That is, as the man who speaks a language which I do not understand, is a foreigner to me and I to him, so are ye. You too ai’e foreigners to those who do not understand the language which you use. As idi such unintelUgihle speaking is worthless, the apostle exhorts’them to seek to edify the church. Aa ye are eealotis of spiritual gifts; hterally, of spirits. The most probable explanation of this expression is to be sought from 12, 1, where it is said that “to everyone is given a manifestation of the Spirit,” One and the same Sphit manifests himself in different ways in different persons; and these different manifestations ai-e called spirits. Somewhat analogous ai-e the expressions, “spirits of the prophets,” v. 32; “discernment of spirits,” 12, II; “try the spirits,” 1 John 4, 1; and “the seven Spirits of God,” spoken of in the Apocalypse. In all these cases spirits mean manifestations of the Spirit, or forms under which the Spirit manifests himself. It is not an unusual metonomy when the effect receives the name of its cause, Comp. Gal, 5, 17, “The spirit lusteth against the flesh,” where spiHi may mean the renewed principle produced by the Spirit.
Seek- that ye may exod {or abound)^ to the edifying of the church. This is the common explanation of this dause. But
taking the words in their order the passage reads, ‘Seet (these gifts) with a view to the edification of the church, in order that ye may excel.’ The foi”nier explanation is the more natural. The end or object to be sought is not iA«i they might excel; that is not the ultimate object, but the edification of the church. The words ti)T«T€ ha., kt., therefore, naturally go together. ‘Seek that ye may abound unto the edification of me church,’ i. e. that ye may possess in rich abundance those gifts which are useful.
13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue pray that he may interpret.
This is an inference not only from the preceding verse bat from the whole preceding argument, which was designed to show how useless it is to speak in a language which no one
firesent nnderstands. The verse admits of two interpretations, t may mean that the speaker with tongues ehonld jpray for the gift of interpretation; or, that he’should prav with the purpose (tva) of interpreting what he said. The pnnoipal reason for tliia latter interpretation is the assumption that the gift of tongues was exercised only in prayer and praise; in other words, that it consisted in an ecstatic but uninteUible and unintelligent poming out of the heart to God. It is therefore inferred that “to speak with a tongue,” v. 1!), and “to pray with a tongue,” v. 14, mean exactly the same thing; the former being no more comprehensive than the latter. But this whole assumption is not only gratuitous but contrary to Scripture. The gift of tongues was, according to Acts 2, 5-11, exercised in detdai-ing the “wonderful works of God.” It is also apparent from what is said in this chapter, vs. 22-25, and V. 27, that the gift in question was not confined to acts of devotion. The former interpretation is therefore to be preferred. ‘Let him pray that (“va) he may interpret.’ For this use of ‘iva after verbs of entreating, &c., see Robinson’s Greek Lex. p. 352.
14. Por if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my
sphit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
This is the reason why the speaker with tongues should pray for the gift of interpretation. Unless he interprets his prayer can do no good; or, as the aamo idea is expressed in vs. 16, 1 7, those who are unlearned cannot join in it. Praying mth a tongue is specified, by way of example, as one mode of speaking with tonguea. Though the general mefmiiig of this verse is thus plain, it is the most difficult verse in the whole chapter. What does Paul mean by saying, His spirit prays? There are three answers given to this question. 1. That sjnrit (my spirit) here means the higher intellectual powers of the soul, as mstinguished from the understandmg. This verso and those which immediately follow, are the p’moipal foundation of the theory that the speaker with tongues was in a state of ecstatic excitement in which hia Huderstanding ‘wae not exercised, so that he knew not what he said or did. How inconsistent tMs theory is with the feots of the case has ah-eady been shown. This view of the passage, therefore, cannot be admitted. Besides, it has already been remarked, that the Scriptures know nothing of this distinction between the reosoji and the understanding. 2. Othei-s say that spirii here means the affections. ‘My leelings find utterance in prayer, hut my understanding is unfruitful.’ This would give a good sense; but this meaning of the word spirit is of rai’e occurrence. In most of the passages quoted by lexicographers as examples of this use of the term, it really means the Holy Spirit, And in this whole discussion, spirii is not once used for the feelings. 3, Mt, spirit may mean the Holy Spirit in me; that is, my spiritual gift; or, my spirit as the organ of the Spirit of God. Each man has his own spirit, (comp, y, 12) i, e. lus own spiritual gift. And Paul- means to say, that when a man prays in an unknown tongue, his spiritual gift is indeed exercised; in other words, the Holy Spirit is active in him, but others are not profited. The speaker with tongues is not to be set down as an enthusiast, or as a man in a frenzy, or, as the mockers said, as a man full of new wine. He is really the organ of the Holy Ghost, But as the influence of the Spirit under which he acts, is not irresistible, he should not exercise his gift where it can do no good to others. He may pray in silence, v. 28, This interpretation aeema much more in accordance with the use of the word and with the whole drift of the chapter.
What is meant by saying, my understanding is unfruitful? It may mean. My undei-standing is not profited, gains no fruit; that is, I do not understand what I say, Though the words in themselves may have this meaning, this interpretation contradicts all those passages which teach that the
I. CORINTHIAITS 14, U.
iker mth tongues did understand himself. The words, ■efore, must be understood to mean, ’ my understanding produces no frmt,’ i. e. it does not benefit others. This is in accordance with all that precedes, and with the uniforn use of the word, Eph. 5, 11. Tit. 3, 14. 2 Pet. 1, 8. Matt. 13, 22. Paul had, from the beginning, been wiping his readers to have regard to the edification of the churoh, and he here says, that if he prayed in an unknown tongue, though he acted under the guidance of the Spirit, his prayer could not profit others,* This interpretation is conflrmed by vs. 16. 17, as remarked above, where the same idea is expressed by saying, the unlearned could not say Amen to such a prayer. By his understanding being unfruitful is therefore meant, that othei-s did not understand what he said.
The great objection to the preceding interpretation is, that mjr spirit and my understanding must be explained in the same way. If the latter means my own understanding, the former must mean my own spirit. The Holy Ghost, it is said, never is, and cannot be called my spirit, for the very reason that it is distinct from the spu-it of man. The interpretation given above, however, does not suppose that my spirit means the Holy Spirit as a person, but the Holy Spirit as a manifestation; it is the way m which the Spirit manifests himself in me. In other words, it is ray spiritual gift. The objection, if it have any force, bears as much against the conceded meaning of the phrase, “the spirits of the prophets,” as it does against the explanation just given of the expression, “my
Calvin says, Sensna plmius est. Si ergo idiomnte mihi Ignofo preoeseoncipiam, ao epiritus mihi verba suppeditet! ipse quidem apiritns qui liaguQm aiBam gnbecnat ortt; Bed mens maa vel alibi vagabitur, vel ailtem uon erit ocadonia partioeps. This implies, that the gift of tongnea, at lesLst whan dioined fbom Hie gilt of iuterpcetatlon, was the power to speak in a ianguage wliiob the speaker liimEelf md not at the time uudsrstand. Accordingly just l)eforo he had aalted, Si donum liDguas ab inteliigeiitia Beparetnr, ita ut qai pronundat, sit ipse sibi barborns, quid proficiet sio ijalbutiBndo? Yet Calvin himself regariiod this as ridioulons. Quam ridiouluin fuiaset, linguam hominis Bomani formarl Dei Spiiitu ad pronuntieiidas vooes Graecas, qnaeloquentl essent prorsns ignotae: quaiiter psittaci, et picae, et corvi humauas voces fingere doeentar? It ia veiy certn, however, that the gift of tongues was possessed by those who had not the gift of intarpretafion, and yet, even in those casoSf it was ediijing to tho apaalEer. It therefore fdliows, that this view of the nature of the gift must lie erroneous. Tlioae spealdngmth tongues werB not parrots or ravens. The espression in the text, my imdmlandin is imfFuilfiil, ooEscquently cannot mean. “I do not myself understand, what I aay.” spirit.” The spii-its of tho prophets means the Holy Ghost as manifested in the prophets, or the spiritual influence of which they were the subjects. And that is juat the meaning of my spirit in this passage.
1 5. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
What is it then? i. e. what is the practical conclusioa from what has been said? That conclusion is expressed by Paul’s avowal of his own purpose. The interpretation of this verse of course depends on that of the preceding. Accordingly, some say, the meaning is, I will pray not only with the reason, but with the understanding also, i. e. not only with the higher powers of my nature in exercise, but also with such a command of the understanding as to be able to comprehend and to interpret what I say.* 2, Others say the passage moans, ‘I will pray with the heart and with the understanding; my mind and feelings shall unite in the exercise.’ A very good sense, hut entirely foreign t the nt t. The sentiment is correct in itself, but it is n t wl at Paul h re says. 3. According to the third interpretat o the s is ‘I will not only pray in the exercise of my spu al gift but so as to be understood by others;’ i. e. not only sj t allyb t intelligibly. If tS pol, with the understand j m y n an, as the moderns say it does, ’ with a view to nt “p t (Mbteb); it certainly may mean, ’ with a view to be understood. That is, this is what is imphed and intended in what the apostle says. When a man spoke t ■jrveijuni,, with the Spirit, the Spirit was the principium movens, the moving principle, determining him to speak, and what to say. When he spake with t£ voi, with the understanding, the understanding was that controlling principle. These two could be combined. The man could so speak under the guidance of the Spirit as to be intelligible to others.
* This view of the Bubjsot snpposes lie apaakers with Wngnes to have heea ia 0. stntc »)mewhs.t saalogoua to that of sammtmbulists; whose spiritual nature is in activity, but thsir ordinEij intellectatd oouaoiousnesa is suspended, so that wlion they are recovered, they do not remember any thing they said or did when in their soranambuliatio condition. 13 IwiU sing. The word (^aAAetv) means to touch; then to t<mch the, cords of a Btringed instrument, i. e. to play upon it; then to sing or chant in harmony with such instroment; and then to sing or chant. This last is its New Testament meaning. It appears from this as well as fi’om other pasaes, that singing was from the beginning a part of Christian worship. Pliny, about forty years later, says, Chriatianos solitos fuissecaaere anteluoanoa hymnos Chiisto,
16. 17. Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he nnderetandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, hut the other is not edified.
JElse, i. e. since in that case. That is, in case you do not speak inteEigibly (r vot as well as ™ wcufian). If thou ehalt Ness with the spirit. That is, bless God, including praise and thanksgiving. The word ti’anslated to give thanks, in the last clause of the verse expresses the same idea. £y the Spirit i, e. under the infiueaee of the Spirit, or in the exercise of your spiritual gift., as in the preceding verse. Sow shall he thai occupieth the place of the unlearned,!, e. (iSuurov) ofaprivote person. Tho word is used to designate one out of ofBce in opposition to officers; iuid in general, one who does not possess the distinguishing characteristic of the class to which it is opposed. It here designates the ungifted in opposition to those who had the gift of tongues; or rather, it is applicable to any one who was ignorant of the language used by the speaker. Comp. vs. 23. 24. Acts 4, 13. 2Cor. 11, 6. The contest shows tnat Paul does not refer to laymen in opposition to church officers; for the officers were just as likely to be (iSwirai,) unlearned as to the language used as others. To Jill the place means to occupy the position; not a particular part oftheplaceof assembly assigned to laymen, but to sustain the relation to the speaker of one unacqusunted with, the tongue which he uses. iSay Amen at thy giving of thanks, i. e. assent or respond to it. Amen is a Hebrew ai ective signifying true or faithful, often used adverbially at the end of a sentence to express assent to what is said, ia the sense oiso let it be. In the Jewish synagogue it was the custom for the people to respond to the prayers by audibly saying Amen, by which they signifled their assent and participation in the petitions wJiich had been offered. Sitxtorf’s Talm. Lexicon, VitHnga de Synag. Great importance waa attached by the Jews to eaying Amen. Schoettgen quotes numerous passages to show to what a superstitious extreme this was carried. “He who says Amen is greater than he that blesses.” “Whoever says Amen, to him the gates of Paradise are opened.” “Whoever says Amen shoi’fly, his days shall be shoi-tened; whoever answers Amen distinctly and at length, his days shall he lengthened.” According to Justin Martyr, Apolog. ii. 97, the custom passed over to the Christian church. This seems also intimated in this passage; the expression is, “Say the Amen,” i. e. otter the iamihar formula of assent. The unlearned cannot thus assent, since he knotos not what thou sayest. Men cannot assent to what they do not understand, because assent implies the affirmation of the truth of that to which we assent. It is impossible, therefore, to join in prayers uttered in an unknown tongue. The ilomish church persists in the use of the Latin langue in her public services not only in opposition to the vorj idea and intent of worship, bat also to the express prohibition of the Scriptures. For the veiy thing here prohibited is praying in public in a language which the people do not understand. It is indeed said that words may touch the feelings which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say Amen to such words, aoy more than we can to a flute. Such blind, emotional worship, if each it can be called, stands at a gi’eat remove from the intelligent service demanded by the apostle. Thou veriiy giveat thanks well, i. e. in a way acceptable to God and profitable to yourself This proves that the speaker must have understood what he said. For if the unintelngible is useless, it must be so to the speaker as well as to the hearer. If it was necessary that they should understand in order to be edified, it was no less necessary that he should understand vrhat he said in order to be benefited. This verse is therefore decisive against all theories of the gift of
tongues which assume that those who used them did not understand theii’ own words. The Scriptures recognize no iinintelligent worship of God, or any spiritn edification (in the case of adults) disconnected from the truth; whether that edification be sought by sounds or signs, whether by prayers or sacraments.
18. 19, I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the cliuTcli I had rather speak five words with my underetanding, that (by my voice) I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an (unknown) tongue.
That Paul should give thanks to God that lie was more abiindantiy endowed with the gift of tongues, if thit gift con- sted in the ability to speak in languages which he himself did not understsmd, and the use of which, on thit assumption, could according to his principle benefit neither himself nor others, is not to foe believed. Equally cleai is it fiom this verse that to speak with tongues was not to speak m a state of mental unconsciousness. The common dootiine as to the nature of the gift, ia the only one consistent with this passage. Paul says that although he could speak in foreign languages more than the Corinthians, he would rather speak five words leith his understanding, i. e. so as to be intelligible, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. In the church, i. e. in the assembly. That I might teach others also, (Kanjxau) to insti-uct orally, Gal. 6, 6. This shows what is meant by speaking with the understanding. It is speaking in such a way as to convey instruction.
30, Brethren, he not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
There are two characteiistics of children; the one a disposition to be pleased with trifles, or to put a false estimate on things; the other, comparative innocence. There is a gi-eat difference as to eveiy thing evil between a little child and a filil-grown man. The former of these characteristics the apostle wished the Corinthians to lay aside. The latter he ■B-ished them to cultivate. They had displayed a childish disposition in estimating the gift of tongues above more useful ‘fts, and in using it when it could answer no good purpose. little child, however, is some thing so lovely, and is so often held up in Scripture for imitation, that he could not say, without qualification. Be not children. He therefore says. Be not children as to wnderstanding / but as to malice, a comprehensive word for evil dispositions, be yc children. So our Lord said. Except ye be converted, and become aa little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matt, 18, 8.
I. COIIINTIIIANS li, 21, 293
21, In the law it is written, With (men of) other tongues and other hpa will I speak unto this people; iind yet for aH that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
In the law. The word law signifies that which binds; eapocially that which binds the conscience as a role of faith and practice. That rule may be revealed in our hearts, in the whole Scriptures, in the Pentateuch, or in the moral law; and hence the word as used in Scripture may refer to any one of these forms in which the will of God is made known; or it may include them all. The context must decade its meaning in each particular case. Here, aa in John 10, 3i. Rom. 3, 20, and elsewhere, the reference is not to the Pentateuch, but to the Old Testament. The passage quoted ia Is. 28, 11. 12, M’hich in our version stands thus, “For with stammei-ing lips, and another tongue, will be speak to this people. To whom he ssud. This ia the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not beai’.” The apostle gives the 11th verae in a free translation, and the concluding words of the 12th. He does not quote the passage as having any prophetic reference to the events in Coi’inth; ranch less does he give an allegorical interpretation of it in order to make it a condemnation of speaking with tongues. It is a simple reference to a signal event in the Jewish history from which the Corinthians might derive a useful lesson. The Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking their own language, and God threatened to bring upon them a people whose language they coald not understand. This was a judgment; a mark of displeasure deiugned as a punishment and not for their conversion. From this the Corinthians might learn that it was no mark of the divine iavour to have teachers whose language they could not understand. They wore taming a blessing into a curse. The gift of tongues was designed, among other things, to facilitate uie propagation of the gospel, by enabling Christians to address people of various nations each in his ovn language. Used for this purpose it was a blessing; bat to employ it for the sake of display, in addressing those who could not understand the language employed, was to make it a curse. The Spirit of God often confers gifts on men, and then holds them respondble for tho way in which they exercise them.
33. “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying (serveth) not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
There are two inaccuracies in this version which obscure the sense. The first ia the introduction of the word serveth after prophesying. The clauses are parallel. Tongues are for a sign to one class, and prophesying to another. Nothing need be supplied; what ia implied ia, that prophesying «a for a sign, llie introduction of the word serveth is not only unnecessary, but contrary to the context. The second inaccuracy is expressing the force of the datives (jrwreuouo-i and Ajthtrots) by to in the first member of the verse, and by /or in the second member. There is no reason for this change. The relation expressed is the same in both cases. ‘Tongues are for the one, prophesying are for the other; ’ or, ‘Tongues are for a sign to the one, and prophesying to the other.’ The connection between this vei-se and what precedes is indicated by the word wherefore, or so that. The inference may be drawn either from the immediately preceding clause, viz., “For all that they will not hear me, saith the Lord;” or from the historical fact referred to in the whole verse. If the former, then the design of the apostle is to show that as teaehmg the Hebrews by men of other tongues did not render them obedient; so speaking in other tongues would not profit the Corinthians. If the latter, then the design is to show, that as sending foreigners among the Hebrews was a mark of God’s displeasure, so speaking in the Christian assemblies in foreign langaages would be a curse and not a blessing. The latter view is demanded by the whole context.
The inference from the preceding verse is that tongues are a sign not to the believing but to the unbelieving, and prophesying just the reverse. This diffioidt verse is variously explained. 1. The word sjpTi is taken in the sense of r/iar or proof, as when it is said, “the signs of an apostle,” 2 Cor. 12, 12, ttiat is, the tokens by which an apostle may be known, Oomp. Luke 2, 12. 3 Thess. 3, 17. The meaning of the passage would then be, ‘Tongues are a proof that those among whom they are used are not believera, but unbelievers; and prophesying is a proof that they are believers, and not unbelievers.’ But when the word is used in this sense, the thing of which it is a sign is put in the genitive. It is a sign of. not to or for. 2. It may mean a prodigy or wonder. This y a veiy common sease of the word, as in the familiar phrase, “signs and wonders.” The meaning is then commonly made to be, ‘Tongues are a wonder designed not for the benefit of believers, but for nnbelieyers; and on the other hand, prophesy ia a wonder designed not for the benefit of nnbehevers, but for the benefit of believers.’ But this is neither true nor in accordance with v. 24. It is not true that the gift of tongues was designed exclusiveljr for the conversion of unbelievers. “Why should not that gift be exercised for the edification, as well as for the conversion of men? Their conversion would not enable them to understand the native language of the
Sostles. Much less is it true that prophecy was designed exisively for the edification of believers. The prophets and apostles were sent forth for the converrfon of the world. And in V. 24 the conversion of nnbelievera is specified as the very effect to be anticipated from the use of this gift. A stil! more decisive objection to this interpretation is, that it does not give the true conclusion from the preceding verse. The nature of the premises must decide the nature of the inference. It is not a Mr inference from the fact that although God sent foreigners to teach the Hebrews they still continued disobedient, that foreign tongues were designed for the conversion of unbelievers. The very opposite conclusion would naturally follow from that fact. 3. fiign may here mean a warning or sign of punishment. ‘Tongue are a warning, designed not for believers, but for unbelievers,’ who are understood to be, not those merely without faith, but positive infidels, or obstinate rejectors of the truth. To this, however, it may be obr jected, that the word unbefiever (liiricrro!) is used in v. 24 for those without fsnth, and that to assume a change of meaning in the same context is most unnatural. A still more serious objection is, that this interpretation cannot be cari-ied out. It cannot be said that prophecy is a warning designed for believers. The two members of the sentence are so related that whatever is said of the gift of tongues, must be true, mutandis mutatis, of prophecy. If the one be a punishment designed for nnbehevers, the other must he a punishment designed for believers. 4, The most satisfectory explanation is to take sign in the general sense of any indication of the divine presence, ‘Tongues are a manifestation of God, having reference, not to believers, but to unbelievers; and prophecy is a similar manifestation, having reference, not to
20a I. CORINTHIAHS 14, 22.23.
niilielievers, “but to ‘believers.’ By tongues, however, is not to he understood the gilt of tongues, but, as v. 21 requires, foreign hmguages, 1. e. languages unknown to the hearers. The meaning is, that when a people are disobedient, God sends them teaehors whom they cannot understand; when they are obedient, he sends them propheta speaking their own language. This ia the natural conclusion from the premises contained in v. 21. When the Hebrews were disobedient God sent foreigners among them; when obedient, he sent them prophets. Wherefctre, i. e. hence it follows, that unintelligible teachers are for the unbelieving; those who can b*i understood are for the believing. This view is also consistent with what follows, which is designed to show that speaking in a language which those who heai- cannot nndei-stand ia the cause of evil; whereaa speaking intellibly is the source of good. It must be remembered that it is not the gift of tongues of which the apostle speaks, but speaking to people in a language which they do not understand. And therefore this interpretation does not imply any disparagement of the giit in question. When used aright, that is, when employed in addressing those to whom the bnguage used was intelligible, it was prophecy. The obscurity of the passage arises in a great measure from the ambiguity of the expresdon to speak with tonffues. It means to speak m foreign or unknown languages. But a language may be said to be imknown either m reference to the speaker or to the hearer. It is said to be unknown to the speaker, if not previously acqnii’ed; and it ia said to be unknown to the hearers if they do not understand it. The apostle uses the expression sometimes in one sense and sometimea in the other. When it is said that the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, spake with tongues, it means that they used languages which they had never learned; but when Paul says he would rather speak five words mtelligibly than ten thousand words with a tongue, he means in a langue unknown to the hearers. Speaking with tongues in the one sense, was a grace and a blessing; in the other sense, it was a folly and a curse. It was of speaking with tongues in the latter sense the apostle treats in these verses.
33. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in (those that are) unlearned, or nnbehevers, will they not say that ye are mad?
If tJierefore. The inference from tte pi’ecedJDg reprcsontation is, that speaking in languages not understood by the people ia underfrable aad useless. To show the justness of this conclusion the apostle supposes the case which follows. If the whole chvvch be come together in one place. That is, if all the Christiane of the phice, or the whole congregation, be assembled. This is one of the conditions of the hypothecs. Another ia, that all should speak with tongues. This does not necessarily imply either that all present had the gift of tongues, 01’ that all who possessed the gift spoke at one and the same time, although from vs, 27 and 30 it may be inferred that this was sometimes done. All that the words here require is that all who spoke used foreisii languages. To ^eah with tongues must mean to speak in languages unknown to the hearers. The third condition of the case supposed is, that unlearned and unbelievers should come into the meeting. Wko are the ((Scuirai), the Unlearned here intended? 1. Some say they were Christians ignorant of the gift of tongues, because they are distinguished ftom unbelievers, or those not Christians. 2. Others say that the unlearned ai-e those who were ignorant of Christianity, and the ^airwroi) tmbeliemng, are those who knew and rejected it, i. e. infidels. This is giving to the word a force which it has not in itself and which the context does not give it. 8. The simplest explanation is that the unlearned were those ignorant of the language spoken, and the unbelieving those not Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. Such persons were doubtless often led, from ouriorfty or other motives, to attend the Christian assemblies. The two classes (the unlearned and the unbelieving) are not so distinguished that the same person might not belong to both classes. The same persons were either tSuDrat or aTrwrroi, according to the aspect under which they were viewed. Viewed in relation to the languages spoken, they were unlearned; viewed in relation to Chnstianity, they were unhdieixas. The apostle asks what impression such persons, in the case supposed, would receive? Would they not say !/e are ma(? John 12, 20. Acts 13, 15. 26,24.
34. 25. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that belieYetli not, or (one) unlearned, lie is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on (his)
Z98 I. CORINTHIANS 14, 24.25.
face lie will worsMp God, and report that God ia in you of a truth.
This is another part of the inference from what was aaid in v3. 31. 22. Speaking in languages unknown to the hearers is not adapted to do good; speaking intelligibly is suited to produce the happiest effects. If ail prophesy, i. e. if all the speakers speak under the guidance of the Spirit in a language which the hearers can understand, Jf one that believeth not, or one unlearned. From these words it is manift that the unlearned wei’e not Christians as distinguished from Jews or Gtentiles here called unbelievers, for the same effect is said to lie produced on both. The unlearned were therefore as much the subjects of conversion as the unbelieving. The meaning is, if any person, either ignorant or destitute of laith, should come in, he would be convinced Iry all. That is, what he heard from all would carry conviction to his mind. He would be convinced of the truth of what he heard; convinced of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, John 18, 8; convinced that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Acts 9, 20. 22; and that it is a feithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesns Ohi-iet is come into the world to save dnners, 1 Tim, 1, 15. Se is judged of ail, i. e. examined, searched into
SraKptvErai); for the word of God is a-discemer (Kfunicds) of e thoughts and intents of the heai-t, Heb. i, 12. The result of this searching examination is, that the secrets of his heart are made manfest,’ that is, they are revealed to himself. IQs real character and moral state, with regard to which he was before ignoi’ant, are made known to him. The effect of this is humility, contiition, sell-condemnation, and taming unto God. This is expressed by saying, so i. e. in this condition of a convinced sinner who has been brought to the knowledge of luxnse£, falling down on his face, he vsiU worship God. The first step in religion is entire self-abasement; such a conviction of sin, i. e. of guilt and pollution, as shall lead to self-condemnation and selfabhorrence, and to a com plete renunciation of all dependence on our own righteousness and strength. When the soul is thus humbled God reveals himself sooner or later, in mercy, manifesting himself as reconciled in Jesus Christ; and then we worship Mm. This expresses reverence, love and confidence. It is the retnm of the soul to the favour and fellowship of God. One who has had Buch an experience cannot keep it to himself The apostle therefore describea the convert as declarinff, i. e. proclaiming aloud that God is in y<m of a truth. “With the heart man believeth unto righteoosness, and with tho month confession is made unto salvation,” Rom. 10, 10. It is not enough to believe the truth, it must be publicly prof essed; because confession is the natural fruit of feith. When there ia a proper apprelienon of the value of the truth, and a sincere appropriation of the promises of God to ourselves, there will be the desire to aoloiowledge his goodness and to proclaim the truth to others. The thing aolmowledged is, that God is in you, i, e. that Christianity is divine; that Christiana are not deluded fanatics, but the true children of God, in whom he dwells by his Spuit. The convert therefore joins himself to them to share their fate, to take part in whatever of reproach or persecution fells to their lot. This confesdon is made with confidence. Declaring that God is in you of a truth. It is not a mere conjecture, but a firm conviction, founded on experience, i. e. on the demonstration of the Spirit, 2, 4.
Special directions as to the mode of conducting their publlo ass&mblies, vs. 23 — 40.
The apostle concludes this chapter with certain practical directions derived from the principles which he had laid down. He neither denied the reality of the extraordinary gifts with which the Corinthians were so liohly endowed, nor forbade thdr exercise. He only enjoined that mutual edification should be the end snmed at, v. 26. With regard to those having the gift of tongues, he directed that not more than two, or at most three, should speak, and that in succession, while one interpreted. But in case no interpreter was present, there was to be no speaking with tongues, vs. 27, 28. Of the prophets also only two or three were to speak, and the rest were to sit in judgment on what was said. In case a new revelation was made to one of the prophets, he was not to interrupt the speaker, but wait until he had concluded; or the one was to give way to the other. Both were not to speak at tho same time, for God did not approve of confusion. As the influence of which the prophets were the subjects did not destroy their self-control, there could be no difficulty in obeying this injunction, vs. 2&-33. Women were not to speak in public; but to seek instruction at home. This prohibition rests on the divinely established subordination of the women, and on the instinct of propriety, ts. 34. 3S. The Corinthians were not to a«t in this matter aa though they vere the oldest or the only church, v. S6. The apostle requiies all classes, no matter how highly gifted, to regard his directions aa the commands of Christ, vs. 37.38. He sums op the chapter in two sentences. 1. Earnestly to seek the gift of prophecy, and not to prohibit the exerdse of the gift of tongues, 2. To do all tHnga with decency and order.
26. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things he done unto edifying.
Sow is it then? i. e, aa in v, 15, What is the conclusion from what has been said? AVhat is tho condition of thbgs among you? How, in point of fact, do you conduct your public woihip? When ye come together. That is, as often aa ye como together, M;ery one of you hath, &c. M>efey one is used distributively; one has this and another that, A psahn, a song of praiao to God. This can hardly mean one of the Psalms of the Old Testament; but something prepared or suggested for the occasion. One was impelled by the Spiiit to pour forth his heart in a song of pi-aise. Comp. v. 15. Math a doctrine, L e. comes prepare a to expound some doctrine. Math a tongue, i. o. is able and impelled to deliver an addi-ess or to pray in an unknown tongue. Math a revelation, i. e. as a prophet he has received a revelation from God which he desires to oommunicate. Sath an interpretation, i, e. is prepared to give the interpretation of some discourse previously delivered in an unknown tongue. Thia passage, and indeed the whole chapter, presents a lively image of an early Christian assembly. Although there were officers in every church, appointed to conduct the sei-vices and especially to teach, yet as the extraordinary ^fts of the Spirit were not confined to them or to any particular class, any member present who experienced the working of the Spirit in any of its extraordinary manifestations, was authorized to use and exercise his gift. Under such circumstances confusion could hardly fail to ensue. That such disorder did prevail in the public assemblies in Corinth is clear enough from this chapter. To con-ect this evil is the apostle’s design in this whole passage. It was only so long as the gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of miracles, and others of a like kind continued in the church that the state of things here described prevailed. Since those ^fts have ceased, no one has the right to rise in the church under the impulse of his own mind to take part in its services. The general rule which the apostle lays down, applicable to all gifts alike, is that every thing should be done unto edifi/ing. That is, that the ediScation of the church should be the object aimed at in the exercise of these gifts. It was not enough that a man felt himself the subject of & divine influence; or that acting under it would be agreeable or even proStablo to himself, he must sit Ju silence unless the exercise of his gift jvould benefit the brethren as a worshipping assembly.
27- If any man speak in an (uiiTcnown) tongue, (let it be) by two, or at the most (by) three, and (that) by coarse; and let one interpret.
As to the use of the gift of tongues, the dii’ections ii-ere that only two or three having that gift should speak; that tiicy were not to speak together, but In succession; and that one should interpret what the others said.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let hira speak to himself, and to God.
If neither the speaker himself, nor any other person present, have the gift; of interpretation, the former was to beep silence in the church, i. e. in the public assembly, nd let him speak to himself, and to God, or, for himselii and for God. That is, let him commune silently with God in the exercise of his gift. As, according to Paul, all true worship is intelligent, it IS evident that if in the exercise of the gift of tongues, there was communion with God, the understanding could not have been in abeyance. la that gift, not only the words, but also the thoughts and the accompanying emotion were communicated or excited by the Spiiit. Those having that gift spake as the Spirit gave them utterance, Acts 2, i,
29. 30. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. If (any thing) be revealed to
another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. The number of prophets who were to speak at any one meeting was also limited to two or three. The others ‘wore (0 judge, 1. e. exercise the gift of “the tliscerning of spirits,” 12, 10. From this passage it may be inferred that this latter gift was a concomitant of the gift of prophecy; for the other prophets, i. e. those who did not speak were to sit InjndeDt on what was sd, in order to decide whether those clauning to be prophets were really inspired. The ease, however, might oocui- that a communication from the Spirit might be made to one prophet while another was speaking. What was to be done then? As it was contrary to order for two to speak at the same time, the one speaking must either at once stop, or the receiver of the new revelation must WMt until hia predecessor had concluded his discoarae, ITie imperative form of the expression (5 vpStros avyaTio), let the first be sileni,i&in fevonr of the former view. This would suppose that the fact of a new communication being made, indicated that it was entitled to be heard at once. There are two reasons, however, which may be urged for the second view. The interraption of a speaker was itself disorderly, and therefore contrary to the whole drift of the apostle’s dii’ectiona; and secondly, what follows is most naturally understood as assign-: ing the reason why the receiver of the new revelation should wait. The meaning may be, ‘Let the first be silent before the other hegins.’’
31. For yc may all prophesy one by one, that all
may learn, and all may be comfoiied.
This verse assigns the reason why two prophets should not speak at the sam.e time. They could all nave the opportunity of speaking one by one. Not indeed at the same meet)- ing, for he had before limited the number of speakers to two or three for any one occasion. That all may learn, and all may be comforted. This is the end to be attained by their all speaking. The discourse of one might suit the wants of some hearers; and that of another might be adapted to the case of others. Thus all hearers would receive instruction and consolation. The latter word (consolation), however, is not so comprehensive as the original, which means not only to comfort, but also to exhort and to admonish.
33. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to
the prophets.
This verae is conoectea by and to the preceding as contiuning an additional reason for the injunction in v. 31. ‘You need not spealt together, because you can all have the opportunity of speaking Hueceasiyelj’, and yon are not compelled to ^eak by any irresistible impulse.’ 2/ie spirits of the prophets. The word spirit ia used here (eomp. vs. 12, 14, 15) for the divine influence under which the prophets spoke. That inflaenoe was not of such a nature as to destroy the seif-control of those who were ita subjects. It did not throw them into a state of frenzy analogous to that of a heathen pythoness. The prophets of God were calm and self-possessed. This being the case, there was no necessity why one should interrupt another, or why more than one ahoidd speak at the same time. The one speaking could stop when he pleased; and the one who received a revelation could waitas long as he pleased. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, i, e. under their control. According to another interpretation the spirits of the prophets means their own spirits (or minds), considered as the organs of the Holy Spirit. But this is contrary to the nse of the word in the context; and moreover it is inconsistent with the sense assigned to the word by the advocates of this intei-pretation. They say that ^irit means the higher powers of the mind in distinction from the understanding. In this sense every man, whether the subject of divine influence or not, has a spirit. In other words, according to their theory it is not beoanse the higher powers of the mind are the organs of the Spiiit of God that they are called spirits. It is therefore inconsistent to assign that reason for the use of the word here. The interpretation above given of this verae is the one commonly adopted. Many commentators, however, understand the apostle to say, that the spirits of the prophets ai-e subject to one another, i. e. to other prophets; and therefore if one ia speaking he should yield to another who wishes to speak. This idea is not suited to the context. It would suggest merely a reason why one ought to yield to the other. What the apostle says and wishes to prove is, that one can yield to the other, A prophet was not forced to speak by the spirit which he had received.
33. For God ia not (the author) of confusion, but
of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
This is the reason why the spirits of the prophets must be t to the prophets. They are from God; but God 13 not a Gtod of disorder or of commotion, tut of peace. Therefore every spirit which ia from him, m.ust Ije capable of control. He never impels men to act contrary to the principles which he has ordained. If he wills order to prevail in the church, he never impels men to be disorderly. This is a truth of wide application. When men pretend to be in6uenced by the Spirit of God in doing what God forbids, whether in disturbing the peace and order of the church, by insubordination, violence or abuse, or in any other way, we may be sure that they are either deluded or impostors.
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not pei-mitted unto them to speak; but (they are commanded) to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
The words as in all the churches of the saints if connected with verse 33, contain a proof of what had just been said. ‘I may appeal to all the oharches of the saints in proof that God is the God not of commotion, bat of peace.’ Most commentators, however, connect them with v. 34. ‘As in ail the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak; but iAey arc commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.’ The reasons for preferring this connection are, I. That verse 33 has an appropriate conclusion in the words “God is not a God of contusion bat of peace,” 2. The words as in all the c/nirches of the saints, if connected with v. 33, do not give a peitiuent sense. The apostle would be made to prove a conceded and undeniable ti-uth by an appeal to the authority or experience of the church, 3. If connected with v. 34, this passage is partdlel to 11, 16, where the custom of the churches m reference to the deportment of women in public is appealed to as authoritative. The sense is thus pertment and good. ‘As is the case in all other Christian churches, let your women keep silence in the public assemblies.’ The fact that in no ChiTstian church was public speaking pennitted to women was itself a strong proof that it was unchristian, i, e. contrary tn the spirit of Christianity. Paul, however, adds to the prohibition the weight of apostolic authority, and not of that only but also the authority of reason and of Scripture. Jl is not permitted to them to speak. The speaking intended is public speaking, and cspeciaUy in the church. In the Old Testament it had been predicted that “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;” a prediction which the apostle Peter quotes a3 verified on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2, 17; and In Acts 21, 9 mention ia made of four- daughters of Philip who prophesied. The apostle himself seems to take for granted, in II, 5, that women might receive and exercise the gift of prophecy. It is therefore only the public exercise of the gift that is prohibited. The rational ground for this prohibition is that it is contrary to the relation of subordination in which the woman stands to the man that she appear as a public teacher. Both the Jews and Greeks adopted the same rule; and therefore the custom, which the Corinthians seemed disposed to introduce, was contrary to established usage. The scriptural ground ia expressed in the words as also saith the law, i. e. the will of God as made known in the Old Testament, There, as well as in the New Testament, the doctrine that women should be in subjection is oiearfy revealed.
35. And if they wUl learn any tiling, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
The desire for knowledge in women is not to be repressed, and the facilities for its acquisition are not to be denied them. The refinement and delicacy of their sex, however, should be oarefally preserved. They may learn all they wish to Icnow without appearing before the public. For it is a shams for women to speak in the church. The word used is aiods, which properly means uglp, deformed. It is spoken of any thing which excites disgust. As the peculiar power and usefulness of women depend on their being the objects of admiration and affection, any thing which tends to excite the oppo- ’ site sentiments should for that reason be avoided.
36. What! came the word of God out from you?
or came it unto you only?
That is, Are you the mother church? or are you the only The disregard ‘which the people of that church manifested for the customs of their sister churches seemed to evince an aseuraiog and arrogant temper. They acted as though thoy were entitled to be independent, if not to prescribe the law to others. Paul takes the authority of the church for granted. He aumea that any thing contrary to the general sentiment and practice of the people of God is wi-ong. This he does because he understands by the church the body of Christ, those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, and whose character and conduct are controlled and governed by his influence.
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
If any man tMnk, &c. That is, If any man, with or without just reason, assnmes to be a prophet, i. e, inspired; or spiritual, i. e. the poessor of any gift of the Spirit, let him prove himself what he claims to be by submitting to my authority. Here, as in 1 John 4, 6, (“He that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God, beai-eth not us,”) submission to the inMlible authority of the apostles is made the test of a divine mission and even of conversion. This must be so. If the apostles were the inMlible organs of the Holy Ghost, to disobey them in any matter of fdth or practice is to refuse to obey God, The inference which Romanists draw from this fact is, that as the apostleship is a permanent office in the church, and as the prelates are the bearers of that office, therefore to refuse submission in matters of faith or practice to the bishops is a clear proof that we are not of God. This is the chain with which Rome Hnds the nations to her car which she drives whithei-soever she wills. The inference which Protestants draw from the fact in question is, that as we have the infeUible teaching of the prophets and apostles in the Bible, therefore any man who does not conform in faith and practice to the Scriptures cannot be of God, This is the rule by which Protestants try all who claim to have a divine commission. It is nothing to them what their ecclesiastical descent may be. He that heareth not the Scriptures, is not of God. The things which I write. There is not only no reason for confining these words, as some do, to the preceding verse, but eveiy reason against it. It is not merely for the prohibition against women speaking in the church for which the apostle claima divine authority. The specification of prophets and spiritual persons shows that the reference is primarily to tho whole contents of thia chapter. All the directions which he had given with respect to the exercise of spiiitual gifts were of divine authority. What is true, however, of this chapter, is no less true of all apostolical instructions; because they all rest on the same foundation. Are the commandmits of the Lord, i, e, of Christ, because he is the peraon known in the Christian church as Lord. The continued influence of Christ by the Spirit over tho minds of his apostles, which is a divino prerogative, is here assumed or asserted.
38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
That is, if any man be ignorant or refuses to acknowledge the divine authority of my instructions, let him be ignorant. Paul would neither attempt to convince him, nor waste time in disputing the point. Where the evidence of any truth is abundant and has been clearly presented, those who reject it should be left to act on their own responsibihty, Further disputation can do no good.
39. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and
forbid not to speak with tongues.
Pi-ophecy and the gift of tongues are the two gifts of which this chapter treats. ITie fbiTner is to be preferred to the latter. The one is to be coveted, i. e. earnestly desired and sought after; the exercise of the other, even in Christian aaseinblies, was not to be prohibited; provided, as stated above, any one be present who possessed the gift of interpretation.
40. Let all things be done decently and in order. Decently, i, e, in such a way as not to offend against propriety. The adjective, the adverbial form of which is here used, means weU-formed, comely; that which excites the pleasing emotion of beauty. The exhortation therefore is, so to conduct their worship that it may be beautiful; in other words, so as to make a pleasing impression on all who are right-minded. And in order .{ko.t<i. tu|ivy, not tumultuously as in a mob, but as in a well-ordered army, where every one
308 I. CORIlfTHIANS 14,40. 15.
keeps his place, and acts at the proper time and in the proper way. So far as external mattera are concerned, these are the two principles which should regulate the conduct of public worship. The apostle not only condemns any church acting independently of other churches, but also any member of a pai-ticu!ar church acting fi-om his own impulses, without regard to othei’s. The church as a whole, and in every separate congregation, should be a harmonious, well-organized body.