a. The Necessity of Love (13:1–3)
For a considerable time now (since chap. 8) Paul has been dealing with matters related to worship. In the opening argument (8:1–10:22), despite their protests to the contrary, he has absolutely forbidden the Corinthian believers to participate in temple meals—partly on the basis of their own sacred meal. That is followed by three issues involving their own gatherings for worship. The present section is the third of these. It is also probably the most important from Paul’s point of view because here in particular the differences between him and them come to a head, especially over what it means to be people of the Spirit. That seems also to be the reason for the close relationship between these chapters and the final issue—the future bodily resurrection of believers (chap. 15). Together these two final matters bring the letter, with all of its preceding arguments, to a fitting climax. Being “people of the Spirit” in the present means to edify the community in worship (chaps. 12–14), for the perfect has not yet come (13:8–13); and when it does come, it will include the resurrection of the body, albeit as a “ ‘spiritual’ body” (chap. 15), that is, the same body adapted to the realities of eternity.
Most likely the present issue was raised in the Corinthians’ letter; nonetheless, both the length and the nature of Paul’s response allow for a fairly straightforward reconstruction of the problem. What is more difficult is to determine what they might have said in their letter that called for this response. On the basis of the opening discussion alone (chap. 12), one might think that they were asking questions about the Spirit’s giftings; but the long concluding argument on intelligibility and good order in worship (chap. 14) indicates that, as throughout the letter, Paul’s answer is intended primarily to be corrective, not instructional or informational. Thus, even if they presented themselves to Paul with a question (or questions), his response seems to take exception to their viewpoint, not simply to inform them in areas where they lack understanding.
The problem is almost certainly an abuse of the charisma of tongues. This is made clear first of all by the structure of the argument itself, which is basically in three parts, following the A-B-A pattern noted in previous sections (and basically corresponding to our current chapter divisions). Thus the argument begins with a more general, descriptive presentation (chap. 12), which is followed by a theological interlude (chap. 13) and concludes with a very specific response to the matter in hand (chap. 14).
Since on the basis of this structural pattern the whole argument aims at the specific correctives to come (chap. 14), it is appropriate to begin our analysis there. These concluding words are presented in two parts: (1) In the opening material (vv. 1–25), using a running contrast between tongues (unintelligible inspired speech) and prophecy (intelligible inspired speech), Paul will argue for the absolute need for intelligibility in the assembly. This is so both for the sake of fellow believers (vv. 1–19), since only what is intelligible can build them up, and for the sake of unbelievers (vv. 20–25), since only what is intelligible can lead to their conversion. (2) In what follows (vv. 26–40), offering some specific guidelines, beginning with tongues, he argues for the absolute need for order in the assembly.
Two related concerns also emerge in this presentation. First, as before (in 11:2–16 and 17–34), Paul is dealing with matters of corporate worship. This is specifically indicated by the language “in the church” and “when the whole church comes together” (vv. 18–19, 23, 26); it is otherwise implied throughout. Second, the correctives are all aimed at the abuse of tongues in the assembly, which seems to have been both singular in its emphasis and disorderly in its expression (cf. 14:12, 23, 33, 40).
Since this is unquestionably the focus at the end (chap. 14), it is reasonable to assume that what precedes (chaps. 12 and 13) leads to these correctives. Thus, after setting forth the basic criterion for distinguishing between what belongs to the Spirit and what does not (12:1–3), Paul begins (12:4–30) by emphasizing the need for diversity of gifts and manifestations in the unity of the one Spirit. That is the clear concern at the beginning (vv. 4–11), as well as the major note struck both in the analogy of the body that follows (vv. 12–26) and in the concluding reiteration (vv. 27–30). This emphasis is best understood vis-à-vis the Corinthians’ apparently singular enthusiasm for tongues.
It should be noted at this point that only tongues is included in every list of “gifts” in these three chapters. Its place at the conclusion of each list in the presenting argument (chap. 12), but at the beginning in two later passages (13:1 and 14:6), suggests that the problem lies here. It is listed last, however, not because it is “least,” but because it is where the problem lies. Paul always includes it, but in each case only after the greater concern for diversity has been heard.
This view of the problem also makes sense of the interlude (chap. 13), which in this case is especially unexpected, but at the same time is probably the best-known passage in this letter—but the one that is also seldom read in its present context(!). The Corinthian believers’ passion for tongues in the assembly was further indication of their failure to love one another (cf. 8:2–3). Love, however, is not set forth in contrast to tongues, but as the necessary ingredient for the expression of all Spirit gifting. The reason for all such charismata is the edification of the church, which is precisely what love aims at, but uninterpreted tongues does not, because being unintelligible, on its own it is unable to do so. Thus Paul concludes this argument, and therewith begins the final one, by saying (14:1): “Aim at love, which will have as its concomitant that you be zealous for the Spirit’s giftings, especially the intelligible ones, so that the church may be edified.”
All of this seems clear enough. Less clear are the reasons for the problem at all on the part of the Corinthians and what they communicated to Paul. Although this matter is more speculative, very likely what is going on here between Paul and the Corinthians is the key to much of the rest of the letter. First, there is not a single suggestion in Paul’s response that the believers in Corinth were themselves divided on this issue or that they were politely asking his advice. More likely, therefore, the crucial issue is their decided position over against him as to what it means to be pneumatikos (“Spiritual” = “people of the Spirit”). Their view apparently not only denied the material/physical side of Christian existence (hence the reason why chap. 15 follows hard on the heels of this section), but had an element of “spiritualized (or overrealized) eschatology” as well.
The key probably lies with an unusual moment at the beginning of chapter 13 (v. 1), where tongues is associated with angels. As noted elsewhere (7:1–7; 11:2–16), some of the Corinthians seem to have considered themselves to be already like the angels, thus truly “spiritual” in the secondary sense of that word, needing neither sexual relations in the present (7:1–7) nor a body in the future (15:1–58). Speaking angelic dialects by the Spirit was evidence enough for them of their participation in the new “spirituality,” hence their singular enthusiasm for this gift.
But Paul had a different view of life in the Spirit. For him it did not so much remove one from present existence as enable one to live in the present simultaneously in weakness and power (see, e.g., 2:1–5; 4:9–13). Life in the present is to be conditioned by the life of the future that has already begun with Christ’s death and resurrection (cf. 4:1–5; 7:29–31); but that life has only begun, it is not yet consummated. Thus in the present they must cultivate loving, responsible relationships in the body of Christ; and their times of public worship must be for mutual edification, not for heightened individualistic spirituality, which in their case had become a false “spirituality” altogether.
In so doing Paul does not herewith “damn tongues with faint praise.” Rather, he is concerned to put that gifting into a broader context, where such Spirit activity may be expressed privately as much as one pleases, but in the community only for the purpose of the edification of others, which thus requires intelligibility. Hence in the community gatherings for worship “tongues” must always be accompanied by interpretation; those who speak in tongues must do so in orderly sequence; and in any case, in the assembly prophecy is to be preferred.
1Now about matters of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
At first reading this opening paragraph seems quite unrelated to the topic at hand; nonetheless, Paul is here setting the stage for much that follows. Despite some notorious difficulties for later readers in the second and third sentences (vv. 2 and 3), one thing seems certain: His initial concern is to set their former experience as idolaters in contrast with their present experience as Christians, who speak “by the Spirit of God.” The structure of the argument verifies this. He begins by telling them “I do not want you to be ignorant” (v. 1), which is followed by a reminder of something about which they are not ignorant, namely what it was like to be pagans (v. 2; led astray to mute idols). In light of that experience, therefore, he now (v. 3) makes known to them the proper criterion for what is genuinely the work of the Spirit of God.
What is not certain is (1) the meaning of the adjective-turned-noun (pneumatikos) in the plural that introduces the matter at hand (whether “gifts of the Spirit” or “people of the Spirit”); (2) the significance of the reference to their former idolatry (whether it refers simply to idolatry as such or to “ecstatic” experiences, which Paul thought to be inspired by demonic spirits; cf. 10:20–21); and (3) the meaning of the words of contrast, “Jesus be cursed” (v. 3).
When all of that has been sorted out, and especially in light of their special zeal for tongues, it seems most likely that Paul’s concern at the outset is singular: To insist that “inspired utterance” in itself does not mark what is truly “of the Spirit”; rather it is the intelligible content of such an utterance that does so, content that is ultimately tested by the basic Christian confession of the lordship of Jesus Christ.
1 The new topic is marked both by the repeated “now about” (see on 7:1) and the vocative “brothers and sisters.” The difficulty lies with the content of the topic, which may be either masculine (= “those who have the Spirit”) or neuter (= “Spirit giftings”). What favors the former is Paul’s usage earlier (2:15; 3:1), and especially later (14:37), where he says rhetorically, “If anyone thinks they are pneumatikos [a person of the Spirit].” It would also fit well with the problem in Corinth as it has been reconstructed above, where the conflict with Paul is not simply over Spirit giftings as such but over the significance of the gift of tongues for “spiritual” life. On the other hand, the certain use of the neuter plural in the later imperative “Be zealous for ta pneumatika” (14:1), where it refers at least to prophecy and tongues, plus the overall argument that deals primarily with the manifestation of gifts in the church, not with individual spirituality, has caused most translations and commentators to opt for “gifts of the Spirit.”
One wonders, however, whether in this instance the options have not been narrowed too rigidly. Most likely the word here is neuter, as elsewhere (9:11 and 14:1); but the evidence from earlier in this letter (2:13–3:1) and from later letters (Gal. 6:1, Rom. 1:11), suggests that for Paul the primary focus of this adjective is on the Spirit. Paul’s immediate—and overall—concern has to do with what comes from “the Spirit of God” (v. 3). Moreover, later in the present passage he uses charismata for the specific manifestations of the Spirit’s activity. It seems likely, therefore, that even though at points the two words are nearly interchangeable (as 12:31a and 14:1 would imply), the emphasis in each case reflects the root word (pneuma, Spirit; charis, grace). When the emphasis is on the manifestation, the “gift” as such, Paul speaks of charismata; when the emphasis is on the Spirit, he speaks of pneumatika. If so, then both here and later (14:1) the better translation might be “the things of the Spirit,” which would refer primarily to Spirit manifestations, from the perspective of the Spirit’s endowment; at the same time it would point toward those who are so endowed.
On the formula “I do not want you to be ignorant,” see at the beginning of chapter 10 (v. 1). As there Paul almost certainly does not intend to give new information, but an additional slant, or at times a corrective, to their understanding of the topic at hand.
2 Paul begins his correction of their “ignorance” by reminding them of something from their pagan past of which they were well aware. The sentence itself is an anacoluthon (it doesn’t follow grammatically), since the “when” clause has no main verb. Either something dropped out in the transmission of the text, or else Paul himself intended his readers to supply a second “you were” at some point in the sentence. Literally it reads, “You know that when you were pagans, to mute idols whenever (or however) you would be led, being carried away.” The best solution is to repeat the verb “you were” with the final participle “carried away,” so that the sentence reads, “When you were pagans, you were carried away, as you used to be led about to mute idols.”
The greater difficulty is to determine the reason for this sentence in the argument. There are basically two options: (1) Some have argued for a minimal view, that Paul intends only to contrast their former life as idolaters with their new life as Christians (i.e., pagans are led to idols; Christians are led by the Spirit). A modification of this position sees Paul as contrasting their former experience with idols either (a) as a way to remind them of their “sheer lack of experience with true ‘inspired’ speech” (thus implying that they have no basis from which to make judgments about speech inspired of the Spirit), or (b) to contrast Christian prophets and their Spirit-inspired utterances with their former experience with totally mute idols. While this view in one of its several forms is certainly possible, the difficulty of finding an adequate reason for making this point in this introductory paragraph has caused most scholars to look elsewhere for an answer.
(2) Others see Paul’s larger concern to be setting forth a pagan example against which they are to understand both “inspired utterances” and the significance of “tongues.” If so, then it seems probable that what is in view is their former experience of “ecstasy” or “inspired utterances” as pagans. Although neither verb on its own necessarily implies this, the unusual compounding of the verbs, with emphasis on the Corinthians’ being acted upon by others (implied in the two passive verbs), seems to lead in this direction.
In keeping with his Jewish heritage, Paul scorns the idols as mute because they cannot hear and answer prayer; nor can they speak—in contrast to the Spirit of God who can and does. But he has also argued earlier that the mute idols represent demons (10:20–21)—who can and do speak through their devotees. Most likely, therefore, he is reminding them of what they well know, that in some of the cults “inspired utterances” were part of the worship, despite the “mute idols.” If so, then his concern is to establish early on, as the next sentence seems to corroborate, that it is not “inspired speech” as such that is evidence of the Spirit. Many of them had already known a similar phenomenon as pagans. Rather, what counts is the intelligible and Christian content of such utterances.
3 With an emphatic “therefore,” Paul brings this opening argument to a conclusion. The verb “I make known to you” recalls the opening words “I do not want you to be ignorant,” but now by way of what he has just reminded them. “Therefore,” he says, “since I do not want you to be ignorant about the things of the Spirit, and since you have already known about inspired utterances as pagans, I make known to you what follows.” But what follows turns out to be one of the more difficult moments in the letter. In two nearly balanced clauses Paul indicates what one who is speaking by the Spirit cannot say, and contrariwise that only by the Spirit can one utter the primary Christian confession. The difficulty lies primarily with the first clause, “No one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed.’ ” But it also has to do with the point of all this for the argument that follows. However one finally responds to the first matter, which is probably “past finding out,” such a response must make sense of two things: (a) how the clause functions in relationship to its preceding sentence (v. 2), and (b) how it relates to the larger issue of their apparently inordinate enthusiasm for the gift of tongues.
The problem itself is especially perplexing—in two ways: First, it is difficult for us to imagine either that anyone actually cursed Jesus in a Christian gathering for worship, or that, if they did, Paul would take it so casually as to speak to it only here and in this totally noncombative way. Second, how is it possible that Paul would have to “make known to them” that no one speaking in the Spirit would say such a thing as “Jesus be cursed”? The solutions have been many and varied, none of which is totally without difficulties, although some seem to be considerably more difficult than others.
(1) A somewhat popular option was that no one in the Christian assembly actually said such a thing; rather, this is a hypothetical alternative, framed in light of what was just said (v. 2), to the real issue—that “inspired utterances” or true Spirit-possession will be recognized by the criterion of the primitive confession “Jesus is Lord” (cf. Rom. 10:9). The problem with this view, however, if indeed this was intended by Paul to be a curse formula, was the equal difficulty of imagining that the Jewish-Christian Paul would have created such a blasphemous alternative had it never actually occurred.
(2) A second alternative was that this is exactly the kind of thing that those who are “inspired” by demonic spirits may have said in the pagan settings that Paul was just alluding to (v. 2). This is an attractive option, since it would help us better to understand the reason for that affirmation. Furthermore, it would be precisely the kind of contrast between their pagan past and Christian present that would help them to see the difference between “spirits” and the Spirit, between “inspired utterance” as such and that which is truly of the Spirit of God. Hence it is not tongues-speaking per se that is evidence of the Spirit’s activity, but the intelligible, Christ-exalting content of such activity. The difficulty with this option lies in the language anathema, which seems to reflect a Jewish usage not frequently found among Greeks.
(3) Given the way Paul has set up these contrasts, one should perhaps also be open to the possibility that someone had actually uttered such words in the Christian assembly. But if so, the problem is to determine how it could have happened, and how it is that Paul is so little taken aback by it.
Of the several suggestions that had sometimes been offered, the least likely were those that place the utterance in a context other than pagan temples or Christian worship, which the context seems absolutely to demand. Still other options seem more ingenious than realistic. Of the suggestions that seem even remotely viable, the two most common are: (a) That the real issue is a matter of “testing the spirits” because some believers have actually been uttering this curse; for Paul such an utterance means that these people “have become the mouth and instrument of demonic powers” and he is here giving them the criterion by which to judge the authentic from the inauthentic. (b) That some who think of themselves as inspired of the Spirit are making such an utterance, either being carried away by the freedom of the Spirit or else attempting to resist the onset of an ecstatic experience. But the difficulties with these still remain: How could a believer under any circumstances say such a thing in the Christian assembly, and how is it that anyone would need such instruction? Morever, if this were actually happening in the Corinthian assembly, one is hard pressed to explain both how this introduces the rest of the argument and why Paul does not pursue such blasphemy with his usual vigor.
More recently, Bruce Winter has presented evidence that points in a quite different direction. On the basis of a considerable number of recently discovered Corinthian curse tablets, he suggests that Paul here intended to pick up on what was actually occurring in their meetings, where some were using such a formula to curse or diminish others. In this case “Jesus” is the grammatical subject of the verb, and the intent would be an imprecation, indicating that the one allegedly speaking by the Spirit was wishing harm on someone else. If this were in fact the case, Paul would be herewith forbidding it as any genuine activity of the Holy Spirit, who would not try to diminish others who might yet become believers. But the difficulty with this view, and the probable reason it has found so few followers despite its attractiveness, is the word order in Paul’s sentence. If Winter were on the right track here, one would expect the reverse word order in Greek, Iesous anathema rather than anathema Iesous.
In any case, and however one is finally to resolve the inherent difficulty of what Paul has written, his present concern in context does not appear to be an attempt to establish a means of “testing the spirits,” but rather to remind them that “inspired utterance” as such is not a sure evidence of being “led by the Spirit,” especially so if it were to have a negative impact on others.
Paul’s further insistence that “no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” has also troubled later readers, since it would seem possible for anyone to say these words at will. But that misses the radical nature of this confession for the earliest Christians; and in a very important sense, the tendency of most English translations to render it as does the NIV (“Jesus is Lord”) too often leads the reader to miss what Paul is actually asserting. He did not in fact say “Jesus is Lord,” but as also in its two other occurrences in his letters (Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11) he affirms, “The Lord is Jesus.” The significance of this is that in Paul’s and the Corinthians’ bibles, the anarthrous kyrios was used almost exclusively as a way of rendering the tetragrammaton YHWH. In turn this had become the earliest Christian confession, tied in particular to Jesus’ having been raised from the dead and therefore having become the Exalted One. Such an affirmation meant absolute allegiance to Jesus as one’s deity and thus set believers apart both from Jews, for whom such a confession was blasphemy, and from pagans, especially those in the cults, whose deities were called “lords.” Paul’s point is that, just as formerly the Corinthians had been influenced and led astray to/by mute idols, so now one who is indwelt by the Spirit of the living God is led to the ultimate Christian confession: “The Lord (of all the universe) is (by his resurrection) none other than Jesus (the crucified and risen one).” As in an earlier affirmation (2:10–13), only one who has the Spirit can truly make such a confession because only the Spirit can make its reality known to others. It has unfortunately been all too easy for the contemporary reader in English to miss the especially “high Christology” that is presupposed by such a remarkable (in one sense “off-the-charts”) affirmation.
Because of its less than clear relationship to the rest of this passage (chaps. 12–14), especially for those whose chief interest in this section is in learning about the gifts of the Spirit, this paragraph is generally passed over quickly. But if our interpretation is correct, then it continues to stand as a particularly important word for a local church in which any of these Spirit phenomena are recurring. The presence of the Spirit in power and gifts makes it easy for God’s people to think of the power and gifts as the real evidence of the Spirit’s presence. Not so for Paul. The ultimate criterion of the Spirit’s activity is the exaltation of Jesus as Lord, which in turn expresses itself in loving concern for others. Whatever takes away from that, even if they be legitimate expressions of the Spirit, begins to move away from Christ to a more pagan fascination with spiritual activity as an end in itself.
Paul began the present argument with the Corinthians by placing the phenomenon of “inspired utterances” in the broader context of the Spirit’s role in their confession of Jesus as Lord. Now he proceeds to focus on the specific problem in Corinth by emphasizing the need for a wide variety of manifestations of the one Spirit within the church. The argument is in three parts, each emphasizing the need and value of diversity within unity.
He begins the discussion by putting the whole question in its ultimate theological context—diversity within unity belongs to the character of the eternal God (vv. 4–11). Although there is but one Spirit, one Lord, and one God, a great variety of gifts and ministries characterizes each of the divine persons (vv. 4–6). Such diversity in God manifests itself, Paul argues further, by the one God’s distributing to the many of them different manifestations of the Spirit for the common good (v. 7). Several of these are then put forth as illustrations (vv. 8–11).
As a way of reinforcing all this, Paul then follows up (vv. 12–26) by way of a common political-philosophical analogy—the “body” politic now viewed as the “body” of Christ. He begins the analogy by highlighting the two essentials, unity and diversity (one body, with many parts; vv. 12, 14), and by focusing on their common experience of the Spirit in conversion as the key to unity (v. 13). But the common denominator of the twofold elaboration of the analogy (vv. 15–20 and 21–26) is the need for diversity if there is to be a true body so as not to become a monstrosity. By its very nature the analogy shifts focus momentarily from the gifts per se (vv. 15–20) to the diversity of people who make up the community (vv. 21–26).
Finally, all of this is replayed once more by means of yet another list (given twice, though not precisely the same) that combines both gifts and persons (vv. 27–31a). The point of emphasis once again is that “not all” are the same, nor are all “gifted” in the same way.
Paul’s point seems clear: Not uniformity (their model) but diversity in the context of unity (God’s model) is essential for a healthy church. At the same time he urges that all of this is God’s doing and part of the divine purposes, a point he repeats throughout (vv. 6, 7, 11, 18, 24, 28). The eternal God who is characterized by diversity within unity has decreed the same for the people who are to bear God’s likeness, the church. Very likely this emphatic theological framework is part of the corrective. Had their emphasis on a misguided “spirituality,” manifested by tongues-speaking, become an end in itself, so that they were focusing more on these things than on the one God who alone is to be worshiped? In any case, the opening paragraph (vv. 1–3) put the work of the Spirit into a proper christological perspective; this section puts it into a proper theological one. Everything, absolutely everything—gifts, persons, church—owes its origin to the one God who works all things in all of God’s people (v. 6).
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
Or languages; also in v. 28
Everything in this opening paragraph revolves around the two ideas expressed in the opening sentence: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.” This can best be seen by means of a structural display of the whole, given in a very literal rendering (the emphasis on “diversity” is CAPITALIZED; the emphasis on “the same Spirit” italicized):
4 DIVERSITIES of gifts
there are, but the same Spirit;
5 DIVERSITIES of services
there are, but the same Lord;
6 DIVERSITIES of workings
there are, but the same God;
who works ALL THINGS IN ALL PEOPLE.
7 TO EACH is given the manifestation
of the Spirit
for the common good.
for
8 TO ONE is given
a message of wisdom,
through the Spirit;
TO ANOTHER
a message of knowledge,
by the same Spirit;
9 TO ANOTHER
faith,
by the same Spirit;
TO ANOTHER
gifts of healings,
by the same Spirit;
10 TO ANOTHER
workings of miracles;
TO ANOTHER
prophecy;
TO ANOTHER
discernments of spirits;
TO ANOTHER
kinds of tongues;
TO ANOTHER
interpretation of tongues;
11 ALL THESE THINGS
works
the one and the same Spirit,
DISTRIBUTING to EACH ONE,
even as the Spirit wills/determines.
The emphasis and flow of the argument are easy to see. Diversity has its roots in the triune God (vv. 4–6), whose diverse activities are expressed by way of three different verbal nouns (and thus without verbs): the “diversities of gracious giftings [charismata]” are attributed to the (one and the) same Spirit [pneuma],” the “diversities of services [diakoniai]” to the (one and the) same Lord [kyrios (= Christ)], and the “diversities of workings [energēmata]” to the (one and the) same God [theos], who in turn by the Spirit has given diverse manifestations to different people for the common good of the community (v. 7). This point is then illustrated (vv. 8–10), while the final sentence (v. 11) concludes by repeating, and thereby reinforcing, all the prior themes. At the same time, and without theological intent, Paul’s latent Trinitarianism especially manifests itself in this paragraph, not only with the triadic formula with which the whole begins (“one Spirit, one Lord, one God”), but at the end in the subtle form of an inclusio whereby the same verb “is working” used earlier (v. 6), where “God” is the grammatical subject of the sentence, is used at the conclusion (v. 11) with “the Spirit” as the grammatical subject. It is the matter-of-fact way that Paul does this that should catch the reader’s attention, but interestingly seldom does. Paul is not here trying to say something about the nature of God, but his language indicates that he now thinks of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit.
Since later interests in these texts have often been related to the actual listing of “gifts/manifestations” per se (vv. 8–10), having to do with the what and how these are in evidence, some preliminary observations are in order here: First, Paul’s argument is entirely ad hoc, reflecting the Corinthian situation itself. Therefore his own concern is not with instruction about “Spirit gifting” as such, their number and kinds; that is the fascination of a later time. Indeed, the list of nine items is neither carefully worked out nor exhaustive; it is merely representative of the Spirit’s diverse ways of being present among them—which Paul calls “a manifestation”—so that the Corinthian believers will stop being singular in their own emphasis.
All of this suggests not only that we do not have here a systematic presentation of “Spirit gifting,” but also that there is some doubt as to whether the apostle himself had precise and identifiably different manifestations (“gifts”) in mind when he wrote these words. In any case, he would almost certainly not recognize some of the schematizing that later interpreters have brought to these texts, whose interests often tend to lie elsewhere.
4–6 These opening sentences seem intended to give the theological context within which all that follows is to be understood. Each begins with “different kinds of,” making clear where Paul’s emphasis lies; and each is followed by a noun that characterizes the activity of one person of the Trinity. The repetition of “same” with each divine person seems to emphasize that the one Spirit/Lord/God is manifested in a great variety of gifts and ministries. Thus the unity of God does not imply uniformity in gifts; rather, the one and only God is responsible for the variety itself.
Given the flexibility of language noted above (see ), one should probably not make too much of the different words used to describe the individual activities of the divine persons: “gifts,” “ministries” or “services,” “workings.” Most likely they are simply three different ways of looking at what Paul calls a “manifestation” of the Spirit “for the common good” (v. 7). This is supported by the fact (1) that both “gifts” and “workings” occur again in the list itself (associated with “healings” and “miracles” respectively) and (2) that both “God” and the “one and the same Spirit” are respectively the subjects of the same verb (“works”) at the end of each paragraph (vv. 6 and 11). In any case, the word charisma is probably too narrow to embrace the great variety of divine activities mentioned in this argument. Apostles and prophets, for example, would better be described as “ministries,” whereas “prophecy” itself is a charisma. But all such distinctions belong to our interests, not Paul’s, for whom the emphasis is simultaneously on their great variety and their divine origin.
At the same time, however, the three nouns probably do reflect what for Paul would be a primary aspect of the three divine persons—Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus, even though elsewhere the word charisma is not ordinarily associated with the Spirit, the central concern of the present argument (chaps. 12–14) is with the Spirit and the ways the Spirit is at “work” in and among God’s people. Hence it is appropriate that the argument begin with this association. Likewise, the correlation of “kinds of service” (or “ministries”) with “the same Lord” is especially appropriate, since this word group is used everywhere in the NT to describe the “servant” ministry of both Christ and his “ministers.” The triad climaxes with the sentence about God the Father. The noun used in his case is somewhat rare; but its cognate verb, which appears in the qualifying clause, usually carries the connotation of “effective” or “effectual” working. Something is accomplished by the effort put forth. Thus it is probably not so much individual “gifts” or “manifestations” that the apostle had in mind with this noun, but the fact that all things done in the church are ultimately effected by the powerful working of God. This is further suggested by the final qualifying clause, “who works [or effects] all of them [meaning the ‘gifts’ and ‘ministries’ as well] in all people.” With this final clause Paul redirects the focus from the statements about God to the diverse ways (“all of them”) and the many different people (“in all people”) God uses to minister in the church, which will now be spelled out in detail (vv. 7–11).
In passing, one must note the clear Trinitarian implications in this set of sentences, the earliest of such texts in the NT. Here, “the Trinitarian formula is the more impressive because it seems to be artless and unconscious.” It is not in fact a Trinitarian construct as such; that is, Paul’s interest is not in the unity of the persons of the Godhead: the relationships are not spoken to at all, nor does he say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. Nonetheless, such passages as this are the stuff from which the later theological constructs are correctly derived. Paul’s use of language is somewhat fluid. On the one hand, in these sentences, as elsewhere in this letter (e.g., 3:22–23; 11:3; 15:23–28), the unity of God dominates his thinking in such a way that the Son and Spirit are subsumed under that unity, and their own activities are seen as functionally subordinate (e.g., God gives gifts “through the Spirit,” vv. 8–9). On the other hand, there can be little question that Paul thinks of Christ and the Spirit in terms of their full deity. For Christ see, for example, the opening “grace” (1:3) and the later bold affirmation of Christ’s role in both creation and redemption (8:6), plus the title “Lord” in the same verse. For the Spirit the present twofold interchange of grammatical subjects at the beginning and end of the listing of “manifestations (vv. 7 and 11) is the strongest kind of evidence. The combination of texts like this one plus the full attributions of divine activities and attributes to the Son and Spirit serve as Paul’s contribution to the later formulations.
7 Having grounded his appeal for diversity in the “three-personed God,” Paul proceeds to articulate how that diversity is worked out in the life of the church. This sentence states his thesis, which is then illustrated by the representative examples (vv. 8–10) and concluded (v. 11) by a restatement of the concern of this sentence, but with a slightly different emphasis.
This thesis sentence is simply stated; Paul’s emphasis is to be found in holding together its three leading ideas. First, “each one,” standing in the emphatic first position as it does, is his way of stressing diversity; indeed, this is how that diversity will be emphasized throughout the rest of the paragraph. He does not intend by this to stress that every last person in the community has their own gift. That may or may not be true, depending on how broadly or narrowly one defines the word charisma. But that is simply not Paul’s concern. This pronoun is the distributive (stressing the individualized instances) of the immediately preceding collective (“in all people”), which emphasizes the many who make up the community as a whole.
Second, what “each one” is given in this case is not a “gift,” but a “manifestation of the Spirit.” One should not make too much of this change of words, as if the following items would be wrongly called “gifts” because they are now called “manifestations.” Most likely the change reflects Paul’s own emphasis throughout these chapters, which is singularly on the divine Spirit, not on the “gifts” as such. Thus each “gift” is a “manifestation,” a disclosure of the Spirit’s activity in their midst. These first two items together, therefore, are Paul’s way of repeating the theme of diversity from the preceding affirmations (vv. 4–6). His urgency, as what follows makes clear (vv. 8–10), is not that each believer is “gifted,” but that the Spirit is manifested in a great variety of ways. His way of saying that is, “to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given.”
Third, probably to give a proper balance to “each one,” Paul concludes with the reason for this great diversity: “for the common good.” By so doing, he anticipates the concern to follow (chaps. 13 and 14), namely that “the different kinds of gifts” are for the building up of the community as a whole (= the outflow of love), not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer through whom the charisma is given expression, which unfortunately all too often becomes the emphasis or interest of a later time.
8–10 To illustrate his thesis statement (v. 7) Paul proceeds to offer a sizable list of ways in which the Spirit is manifested when the Lord’s people are assembled together for worship. Because this is the first of several such listings of “gifts” in the Pauline corpus, considerable interest has been generated over this passage in terms of the nature and meaning of the various gifts/manifestations themselves. But as noted above, that lies quite outside Paul’s own interest, which is simply to illustrate the diversity of the Spirit’s activities/manifestations in the church.
Attempts to classify the several items are numerous and varied. Some have suggested that they reflect a descending order of value, while others have rearranged the items conceptually. A popular grouping is (1) gifts of instruction (wisdom and knowledge); (2) gifts of supernatural power (faith, healings, miracles); and (3) gifts of inspired utterance (prophecy, discerning prophecies, tongues, interpretation of tongues). The seventh item (distinguishing between spirits) is the one that tends to give trouble to most of these arrangements. If grouping is legitimate at all, it is most likely to be found in some clues Paul himself has given, by starting the third and eighth items (faith and tongues) with a different word for “another.” If so, then the first two are chosen for very specific ad hoc purposes; “wisdom” and “knowledge” held high court in Corinth. He then adds a random list of five items that have as their common denominator a supernatural endowment of some kind, and concludes with the “problem child” and its companion, tongues and interpretation.
What distinguishes this listing is their concretely visible nature, especially of the last seven. These, after all, are not only “gifts”; they are above all manifestations of the Spirit’s presence in their midst, most likely chosen because they are, like tongues itself, extraordinary phenomena. It would scarcely do for Paul at this point to attempt to broaden their perspective by listing less visible workings of the Spirit. That will come in time (esp. through the analogy of the body and in the lists in vv. 28–30); but for now the emphasis is on the supernatural. Indeed, the truly remarkable feature of this catalogue is the attribution to “each one” of a whole gamut of supernatural activities—in the same matter-of-fact way that contemporary church leaders would list positions on an organizational chart! How, then, are the individual items to be understood?
(1) The message (logos) of wisdom (sophia). This language clearly harks back to the problem addressed at the beginning of the letter (1:17–2:16), where on the basis of “wisdom” the Corinthians were rejecting both Paul and his gospel. Indeed, in contrast to their own criterion for “spiritual” excellence, Paul says he deliberately rejected coming to them either in “wisdom characterized by word (rhetoric)” (1:17) or “with excellence of word or wisdom” (2:1, 5). With a considerable stroke of inspiration Paul now does two things: (a) He uses one of their own terms to begin his list of “manifestations” in the assembly that demonstrate the great diversity inherent in the one Spirit’s activities; and (b) he reshapes that term in light of the work of the Spirit so as to give it a significantly different content from their own.
The phrase means either “a message/utterance full of wisdom” or “an utterance characterized by wisdom.” In either case its content is probably to be understood in light of Paul’s own argument much earlier (2:6–16). There the “message of wisdom,” revealed by the Spirit, is not some special understanding of the “deeper things” or “mysteries” of God. Rather, it is the recognition that the message of Christ crucified is God’s true wisdom, a recognition that comes only to those who have received the Spirit. For only the Spirit, Paul says, whom we have received, understands the mind of God and reveals what God accomplished in Christ (2:10–13). Thus in the present case the “utterance of wisdom” comes “through the Spirit,” and in Corinth it is almost certainly to be found among those who give Spirit-inspired utterances that proclaim Christ crucified in this highly “wisdom”-conscious community. It is therefore of some interest—and clear evidence of the ad hoc nature of the passage as a whole—that this particular “gift” does not appear again in any further list or discussion in any of Paul’s letters.
(2) The message (logos) of knowledge (gnōsis). As with the first item, this is first of all Paul’s way of rescuing this Spirit gifting from their own fascination with “knowledge” and its concomitant pride (see on 8:1–3, 7). In this case, however, Paul’s own understanding of the gift as a “manifestation” of the Spirit is more difficult to determine, especially so since “knowledge” as gift recurs in the ensuing discussion in three significant texts (13:2, 8–12 and 14:6), which also display some ambiguities. Some have suggested that Paul here has in mind a supernatural endowment of knowledge, factual information that could not otherwise have been known without the Spirit’s aid, such as frequently occurs in the prophetic tradition and is assumed to be true in the pagan prophetic oracles. But since it is here a descriptive genitive with the word logos, others see it as referring to something more akin to inspired teaching, perhaps related to receiving Christian insight into the meaning of Scripture.
Since this word has also been taken over from the Corinthians and is so closely tied to the preceding “utterance of wisdom,” the two should probably be understood as parallel in some way. Most likely, therefore, it is a “Spirit-given utterance” of some revelatory kind. This is suggested by its place late between “revelation” and “prophecy” (14:6) and by the fact that, along with prophecy and tongues, it will cease at the Eschaton (13:8). How the content of such an utterance makes it gnōsis as distinguished from “wisdom” or “revelation” is perhaps forever lost to us.
(3) Faith. With this word Paul moves on to include several more clearly supernatural manifestations of the Spirit. While it is true that Paul considers the “faith” that leads to salvation to be the work of the Spirit in the believer’s life, what he almost certainly has in mind here is the special gift of supernatural faith that can “move mountains,” which will be picked up again later (13:2). It probably refers to a supernatural conviction that God will reveal divine power or mercy in a special way in a specific instance. Although it is listed separately, as given “to another,” there is a sense in which this and the following two items belong together—and indeed would at times seem not quite possible to differentiate. Faith that “moved a mountain” could also rightly be called the working of a miracle.
(4) Gifts of healings. What this refers to needs little comment. Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the early church lived in regular expectation that God could and would heal people’s physical bodies. This expectation was based in part on the OT promises that in the messianic age God would “heal” his people. According to Acts, such healings accompanied Paul’s own ministry; and Paul himself probably referred to them in his next letter as among “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). Only among the intellectuals and in a “scientific age” is it thought to be too hard for God to heal the sick, and to do so through divinely empowered human agency.
What is of interest here is the language “gifts of healings,” which recurs in the next two lists (vv. 28 and 30). Probably this language reflects two things: (a) The use of charisma itself suggests that the “manifestation” is given not to the person who is healed, but to the person God uses for the healing of another; (b) the plural charismata probably suggests not a permanent “gift,” as it were, but that each occurrence is a “gift” in its own right. So also with the plurals in the next item.
(5) Miraculous powers (lit. “workings of miracles”). Although Paul would probably include gifts of healings under “workings of miracles,” this manifestation most likely covers all other kinds of supernatural activities beyond the healing of the sick. The word translated “miracles” is the ordinary one for “power,” and as was pointed out earlier (2:4–5), it is especially associated in Jewish antiquity with the Spirit of God. The present context suggests that it covers a broad range of supernatural events that ordinary parlance would call miraculous. In the later duplicated list (vv. 28–30), the word appears by itself in the plural.
(6) Prophecy. With this word Paul returns to verbal manifestations. In light of the running contrast to come between this gift and tongues (chap. 14), he is probably also consciously moving toward the conclusion of this list with its mention of tongues. Also because of that running contrast, we have a fairly good idea as to how Paul himself understood this phenomenon. Several things should be noted: First, although prophecy was an especially widespread phenomenon in the religions of antiquity, Paul’s understanding—as well as that of the other NT writers—was thoroughly conditioned by his own history in Judaism. The prophet was a person who spoke to God’s people under the inspiration of the Spirit. The “inspired utterance” came by revelation and announced judgment (usually) or salvation. Although the prophets often performed symbolic acts, which they then interpreted, the mainstream of prophetic activity, at least as it came to be canonized, had very little to do with “ecstasy,” especially “frenzy” or “mania.” For the most part, the prophets were understood only too well! Often the word spoken had a futuristic element, so in that sense they also came to be seen as “predicters”; but that was only one element, and not necessarily the crucial one.
Second, with the outpouring of the Spirit at “the end of the ages,” the early Christians understood the prophetic word of Joel (2:28–30) to have been fulfilled, so that “prophecy” not only became a renewed phenomenon but was also potentially available to all, since all now possessed the Spirit in fullness (cf. Acts 2:17–18). This seems especially to fit what we learn elsewhere in Paul’s letters. It seems to have been a widespread phenomenon (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; Rom. 12:6); the later evidence in the letter (chap. 14) indicates that it consisted of spontaneous, Spirit-inspired, intelligible messages, orally delivered in the gathered assembly, intended for the edification or encouragement of the people. And those who prophesied were clearly understood to be “in control” (see 14:29–33). Although some people are called “prophets,” probably because they were frequent speakers of “prophecies,” the implication of his later instruction is that it is a gift potentially available to all.
(7) Distinguishing between spirits (lit. “discernments of spirits”). This is language over which scholars have engaged in considerable debate, but with little agreement. The question is, To what does it refer? To the phenomenon associated with “testing the spirits, to see whether they be of God” (1 John 4:1), meaning the ability to discern what is truly of the Spirit of God and what comes from other spirits? Or to the phenomenon noted later (14:29), “and let the others weigh carefully (i.e., discern or judge rightly) what is said,” in which the cognate verb of this noun appears?
Most likely, given Paul’s own use of language in the later discussion/correction (chap. 14), it refers to both, but particularly to the phenomenon described as “discerning, differentiating, or properly judging” prophecies (14:29). There are several reasons for taking this position: (a) In both of the earlier places where Paul mentions the functioning of prophecy in the church (1 Thess. 5:20–21 and 1 Cor. 14:29), he calls for a “testing” or “discerning” of prophetic utterances; it therefore seems likely, given that the noun used in this passage is the cognate of the verb there, that the same is true here, since it immediately follows “prophecy.” (b) That seems all the more likely in this case, since these two are followed immediately by “tongues” and “interpretation.” This same pattern of tongues plus interpretation and prophecy plus discernment is found again in the later instructions on order (14:26–29). (c) The real difficulty lies with the word “spirits.” The probable key to understanding lies not in a Johannine passage (1 John 4:1), but with Paul’s own later usage (14:12, 14, and esp. 32), where he tends to use the term in a much more flexible way than is comfortable for most later readers. The Spirit who speaks through the prophets is understood to be speaking through “the spirit” of the prophet; when Paul is praying in the Spirit, he speaks of “my spirit” praying (cf. on 5:3–4). The Corinthian zeal for “spirits” (14:12), therefore, is zeal for manifestations of the Spirit (esp. tongues), as the Spirit quickens their spirits to pray.
Thus in this present listing, it seems most likely that Paul is referring to the same phenomenon as in the later instruction (14:29), but is using the language of “spirits” to refer to the prophetic utterances that need to be “differentiated” by the others in the community who also have the Spirit and can so discern what is truly of the Spirit.
(8) Different kinds of tongues. This is obviously the “controversial gift,” both then and in later times. If our interpretation of what Paul will expound later (chap. 14) is correct, then the Corinthians’ singular preference for this manifestation is what lies behind this entire argument. Thus, after listing several equally visible and extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit, Paul concludes by including their favorite as well, along with its companion, “interpretation.” As with prophecy, enough is said in what follows (chaps. 13–14) to give us a fairly good idea as to how Paul understood it. The following seem certain: (a) It is Spirit-inspired utterance; that is made explicit both in the present listing (vv. 7 and 11) and later (14:2). (b) The coming regulations for its use (14:27–28) make it clear that the speaker is not in “ecstasy” or “out of control.” Quite the opposite; the speakers must speak in turn, and they must remain silent if there is no one to interpret. (c) It is speech essentially unintelligible both to the speaker (14:14) and to other hearers (14:16). (d) It is speech directed basically toward God (14:2, 14–15, 28); one may assume, therefore, that what is “interpreted” is not speech directed toward others, but the “mysteries” spoken to God.
What is less certain is whether Paul also understood the phenomenon to be an actual language. In favor of such a view are (a) the term itself, (b) the need for “interpretation,” and (c) the evidence from the early narrative in Acts (2:5–11). In the final analysis, however, this question seems irrelevant. Paul’s whole argument is predicated on its unintelligibility to both speaker and hearer; he certainly does not envisage someone’s being present who would be able to understand it because it was also an earthly language. Moreover, his later use of earthly languages as an analogy (14:10–12) implies that it is not a known earthly language, since a thing is not usually identical with that to which it is analogous. Most likely, therefore, the key to Paul’s—and their—understanding lies in the term “the language of angels” to come (13:1, q.v.). On its usefulness or lack thereof to the community and the individual, see Paul’s own later elaborations (14:1–5, 13–19).
(9) The interpretation of tongues. This is the obvious companion to “tongues,” precisely because of the unintelligibility of the latter. Although Paul’s term could mean something close to “translation,” it can also mean “to put into words”; in this context it probably means to articulate for the benefit of the community what the tongues-speaker has said. The evidence from the ensuing discussion (14:5, 13, and 27–28) indicates (a) that this, too, is a “Spirit-inspired” gift of utterance, and (b) that it may be given either to the tongues-speaker or to another.
11 After the considerable list of manifestations illustrating the thesis at the beginning (v. 7, “to each one”), Paul closes this section of the argument by summing up what has been said thus far. The language “one and the same Spirit” echoes both the opening triad (vv. 4–6) and part of the listing that follows (vv. 8–9), again emphasizing that the diversity is the product of the one God, who by the Spirit “works” (the same verb that was used with “God” in v. 6) “all these,” referring to the preceding list of manifestations. The participial phrase “distributing to each person” is a cognate of the noun thrice rendered “different kinds of” at the beginning (vv. 4–6), emphasizing here both the variety and the active work of the Spirit in apportioning out to the many these manifestations. Only the final clause is new: “just as he determines,” which in this context might best be translated, “just as the Spirit sees fit [or pleases].” The emphasis is less on deliberation in action as on the Spirit’s sovereignty in distributing the gifts, or perhaps on the divine manifestion itself. Thus the gifts, even though they are “given” to “each person,” are ultimately expressions of the Spirit’s own sovereign action in the life of the believer and the community as a whole. This is the Pauline version of “the wind/Spirit blows where it/the Spirit wills” (John 3:8).
Thus, from beginning to end the single emphasis of the paragraph is on the great diversity of gifts that the one God distributes/manifests through the one Spirit for the sake of the believing community. The reason for such emphasis is not immediately clear from what is said here, but before Paul finishes, the Corinthians should have no doubt about Paul’s concern, and the corrective nature of this present argument.
Apart from the traditional Pentecostal movement, the church at large showed very little interest in this paragraph until the outbreak of some of these phenomena both in Roman Catholic and in traditional Protestant circles in the late 1950s. This in turn resulted in a considerable body of literature, both scholarly and popular, on the gifts enumerated early on (vv. 8–10). Most of this literature assumed that such gifts were available to Christians in all ages of the church. Although some took a dim view of the phenomena, most were moderately cautious, suggesting openness to what the Spirit might do, but usually offering correctives or guidelines as well. However, there was also a spate of literature whose singular urgency was to justify the limiting of these gifts to the first-century church. It is fair to say of most of this literature that its authors found what they were looking for and thereby continued to reject such manifestations in the church. It can also be fairly said that such rejection is not exegetically based but results in every case from a prior hermeneutical and theological commitment.
Perhaps the greater tragedy for the church is that it should have lost such touch with the Spirit of God in its ongoing life that it would settle for what is only ordinary and thus feel the urgency to justify itself in this way. The hope, of course, lies with what is said at the end, that the one and same Spirit will do as the Spirit pleases, despite the boxes provided by those on both sides of this issue. As those in my own Pentecostal heritage were often wont to pray, “Come, Holy Spirit.”
12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
Or with; or in
In order to press the point made in the previous paragraph, the need for diversity within unity vis-à-vis uniformity, Paul adopts a common analogy from antiquity and applies it to the Corinthian situation. In so doing, as often happens with such rich metaphors, he also makes further points about attitudes that need correcting in Corinth. Since good analogies by their very nature are open to independent application, and since this one is so well known in the church, one must be especially careful in this case to read the text with Paul’s own concerns in view, rather than looking for ways to make personal applications.
The argument is in three parts (vv. 12–14, 15–20, 21–26). In this first paragraph Paul presents the basic presupposition of the imagery (the body is one) and its urgency (but has many parts), which stand on either side of its theological/experiential basis (one Spirit creating one body in the context of diversity). This is then followed by a twofold elaboration of the metaphor, the first (vv. 15–20) emphasizing diversity, the second (vv. 21–26) emphasizing unity. Paul’s primary concern with this imagery is not that the body is one, even though it has many members, thus arguing for their need for unity despite their diversity. This will indeed become the concern of a later time in the church, but Paul’s own concern is expressed at the end of the paragraph (v. 14), that, even though the body is indeed one, it does not in fact consist of one member but of many, thus arguing for their need for diversity, since they are in fact one body. The structure of the present argument bears this out. The opening sentence somewhat redundantly strikes both notes with equal force.
For just as
the body is one,
A
yet
has many parts
B
and
all the parts though many
B′
are one body,
A′
So also is
Christ.
Thus the first clause (AB) strikes the note of diversity; the second (B′A′) the note of unity.
The two following sentences (vv. 13 and 14) both begin with the identical, but unusual, “for indeed,” suggesting that in turn they are intended to elaborate (or explain) what has just been said. Thus the first takes up the presuppositional statement (the body is one) and explains how the many of them became one body: They were all immersed in and made to drink the same reality—the Spirit. The following sentence (v. 14) then picks up the second theme, but rephrases it so as to emphasize the actual urgency of the analogy: The one body is not one member but many.
12 The “for” with which Paul’s sentence begins indicates that what follows is intended to offer further explanation of the point just made (vv. 4–11). The explanation returns to the imagery of the church as the “body of Christ,” first used in the context of the Lord’s Supper (10:17) and picked up again in the second instance (11:29). The imagery itself was common in the ancient world, and was therefore probably well known to the Corinthians. It suits Paul’s present concern perfectly.
In its first instance (10:17) Paul’s point was that the many are one body, a point made on the basis of the many of them eating of the one loaf at the Lord’s Table. That note is struck again here, but now as the presupposition; this is not what Paul will now argue for, but argue from. As noted above, the emphasis in the present passage now shifts to the many who make up the one body. Nonetheless, in this opening sentence both points are made: The body is one, yet the body has many members. In saying that it is one, his concern is for its essential unity. But that does not mean uniformity. That was the Corinthian error, to think that uniformity was a value, or that it represented true spirituality. Paul’s concern is for their unity, to be sure; but there is no such thing as true unity without the presupposition of diversity. Hence the need now to strike that note so strongly.
In saying “So it is with Christ,” Paul is probably using metonymy. Thus “Christ” is here a shortened way of referring to the church as the “body of Christ.” Clear evidence for this is found a bit later (v. 27): “Now you [plural] are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it,” followed by “And in the church God has appointed . . .” (v. 28).
13 This sentence and the next (v. 14) pick up the two parts of the previous sentence by way of explanation/elaboration. The present sentence further explains the presupposition “the body is one.” In keeping with the preceding argument, as well as with the section as a whole, the explanation is given in terms of the Spirit. But one suspects that this is not simply an ad hoc theological construct, but rather is inserted precisely because it reflects the heart of Pauline theology. In Paul’s view what makes the Corinthians one is not just their common article of faith, but especially their common experience of the Spirit, the very Spirit responsible for and manifested in the great diversity just set before them (vv. 4–11). For Paul the reception of the Spirit is the sine qua non of Christian life. The Spirit is what essentially distinguishes the believer from the nonbeliever (2:10–14); the Spirit is what especially marks the beginning of Christian life (Gal. 3:2–3); the Spirit above all is what makes a person a child of God (Rom. 8:14–17). Thus it is natural for Paul to refer to their unity in the body in terms of the Spirit. Indeed, despite the considerable literature on this text suggesting otherwise, Paul’s present concern is not to delineate how an individual becomes a believer, but to explain how the Corinthian believers, though many, are one body. The answer: The Spirit, whom all alike have received, and in whom all alike have been baptized.
To make that point Paul refers to their common reception of the Spirit at the beginning of their Christian experience by means of parallel sentences:
“We
all were baptized in the one Spirit,”
and
“We
all
were caused to drink one Spirit.”
The first clause is further qualified by the prepositional phrase “unto/into one body,” which in turn is modified by the parenthetical addition “whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free.”
But there is considerable difference of opinion as to what experience(s) this language refers to. Because of the verb “baptize,” it is often assumed that Paul is referring to the sacrament of water baptism, and it is then often argued further that this text supports the close tie of the reception of the Spirit with baptism itself. But that assumes more than is actually said. While it is true that early on this verb became the technical term for the Christian initiatory rite, one may not thereby assume that Paul intended its technical sense here. In fact he does not here use “baptized” absolutely, which by itself would imply “with water,” but specifically says, “baptized in the Spirit.” Moreover, it is not baptism but the one Spirit, repeated in both clauses, that in Paul’s present argument is the basis for unity (cf. vv. 4–11). In any case, one is hard pressed to find an equation between baptism and the reception of the Spirit in Paul’s letters. Both are assumed to be at the beginning of Christian experience, to be sure, but the two are never specifically tied together in such a way that the Spirit is received at baptism. This text supports such a view only on the unsupported grounds that Paul himself makes such an assumption.
But the greater difficulty for this view lies with the second clause, “and we were all given one Spirit to drink.” Some have argued that this clause points to a second experience of some kind, but the lack of such usage elsewhere in Christian literature strongly militates against it. Rather, as indicated above, this is most likely a piece of Semitic parallelism, where both clauses make essentially the same point. It is the clearly metaphorical sense of this parallel clause that argues most strongly for a metaphorical, rather than literal, meaning for “baptism” in the first clause.
If so, then to what do the two clauses refer? For what Christian experience do they serve as metaphors? Some have argued for “Spirit-baptism,” by which they mean a separate and distinguishable experience from conversion. But this has against it both Pauline usage (he does not elsewhere use this term or clearly ever point to such a second experience) and the emphasis in this context, which is not on a special experience in the Spirit beyond conversion but on the Corinthian believers’ common reception of the Spirit.
Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit. Such expressive metaphors (immersion in the Spirit and drinking to the fill of the Spirit), it needs to be added, do imply a much greater experiential and visibly manifest reception of the Spirit than many have tended to experience in subsequent church history (see on 2:4–5)—which is also, it should be pointed out, why so many biblical scholars find themselves ill at ease with the Paul of this passage.
If this is the correct understanding of these two clauses, and the full context seems to demand such, then the prepositional phrase “in the Spirit” is most likely locative, expressing the “element” in which they have all been immersed, just as the Spirit is that which they have all been given to drink. Such usage is also in keeping with the rest of the NT. Nowhere else does this dative with the verb “baptize” imply agency (i.e., that the Spirit does the baptizing); rather, it always refers to the element “in which” one is baptized.
In this sentence the goal of their common “immersion” in the one Spirit is “into/unto one body.” The precise nuance of this preposition is not certain. It is often given a local sense, suggesting that all are baptized “into” the same reality, namely the body of Christ, the implication being that there is a prior entity called the body of Christ, of which one becomes part by being immersed in the Spirit. But with verbs of motion like “baptize” this preposition most often has the sense of “movement toward so as to be in.” In the present case the idea of “goal” seems more prominent. That is, the purpose of our common experience of the Spirit is that all believers be formed into one body. Hence, “we all were immersed in the one Spirit, so as to become one body.” This phrase, of course, expresses the reason for this sentence in the first place. How did the many of them all become one body? By their common, lavish experience of the Spirit.
To emphasize that the many (“we all”) have become one through the Spirit, Paul adds parenthetically, “whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free.” As earlier (7:17–24), these terms express the two basic distinctions that separated people in that culture—race/religion and social status. In Christ these old distinctions have been obliterated, not in the sense that one is no longer Jew or Greek, etc., but in the sense of their having significance, so as to put emphasis on what makes people differ from each other. And, of course, having significance is what gives them value as distinctives. So in effect their common life in the Spirit had eliminated the significance of the old distinctions, hence they had become one body.
14 With another “for indeed” Paul proceeds to elaborate the second motif of the thesis statement (v. 12), that even though they are one body, made so by their common experience of the Spirit (v. 13), the body itself, though one, is not composed of one part but many. Even though this picks up that theme from the thesis statement, this is not simply reiteration. There it is stated matter-of-factly: “The body is one; the one body has many members.” Here Paul mixes the two themes with a negative contrast: “The one body is not one member; rather, it is composed of many constituent parts.” This negative way of reiterating the thesis statement is surely the point of the whole; otherwise why say it at all, especially in this sentence which intends to elaborate the former one? And in context the later reader needs to remember that this analogy exists here only as a means of curbing the Corinthians’ singular enthusiasm for speaking in tongues.
From here Paul proceeds to develop the imagery of the “body” (referring always to the church) in two slightly different directions (vv. 15–20, 21–26), which will apply both parts of the figure (one body, many members) to their situation; but the primary concern here, as this verse indicates, is with the “many parts.”
It is easy to understand how in the later church the emphasis of this text shifted from Paul’s concern over diversity to the concern over unity. It should be noted, of course, that our later concern really is there, especially in the elaboration (v. 13). What is disconcerting, however, is that what for Paul is the basis of unity, namely their common life in the Spirit, has in later times become the point of so much tension. Two things perhaps need to be emphasized: (1) If the work of the Spirit appears to be the cause of disunity among some, it is certainly not the Spirit’s fault. Our common fallenness unfortunately often causes both pride and suspicion or distrust to prevail when it comes to the work of the Spirit. (2) Nonetheless, unity is the result of our common life in the Spirit, not of our human machinations. Is it our lack of the Spirit that has forced us to attempt unity on other grounds? Paul saw the Spirit as the key to everything in the Christian life. It seems mandatory that such prevail again if there is to be effective Christianity in our day. But let the one who says that not force their own brand of “spiritual unity” on the church as simply another human machination. Our desperate need is surely for a sovereign work of the Spirit to do among us what all our “programmed unity” cannot.
15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
By further extending the imagery of the body, these two paragraphs illustrate the two concerns of the preceding paragraph, diversity in unity. The first takes up the point of the concluding sentence but concludes by once more stressing unity (v. 20), which point is then taken up in the second illustration. These elaborations, it should be noted, become analogies in their own right, and are capable of independent application (as often happens to them). However, even though in Paul’s hands analogies are often less than precise—the analogy seems to make one point while Paul’s own application makes another—nonetheless we must go with Paul, not with the imagery as such.
Part of the key to understanding these analogies lies in their structure. In each case Paul begins with a personification of some of the parts of the body, in which they are disallowed to say things either about themselves (vv. 15–16) or about others (v. 21) because what is said is absurd in terms of the body. The absurdity is pressed in the first instance with rhetorical questions (v. 17) and in the second with observations about how certain parts of the body are treated (vv. 22–24a). Paul then “applies” these pictures to the body itself (vv. 18–20, 24b–26), thus keeping the imagery alive. But in each case one recognizes that they are also intended now to be applied to the situation in Corinth, that they are the “body” being spoken about. The ultimate exegetical concern is to determine how the Corinthians were expected to hear and apply these pictures, and thus to see the place of this imagery in the total argument.
Thus in the first picture Paul makes his point not in the imagery itself, that is, in what the foot and ear say (theoretically) to the hand and eye, but in the set of rhetorical questions that follow (vv. 17 and 19): that all members are necessary if there is to be a body and not a monstrosity. The two companion sentences (vv. 18 and 20) respond to the rhetoric by indicating the true nature of the body as it was divinely ordained: one body with many parts. Thus Paul intends this first elaboration of the analogy to illustrate the point of the previous concluding sentence, “the body is not one member [= the whole body is not to assemble and only speak in tongues], but many [= the other gifts mentioned in vv. 8–10].” The language of the initial companion sentence (v. 18) in particular indicates that the “application” to their situation harks back to the initial listings of Spirit manifestations (vv. 7–11) and the insistence on diversity with regard to gifts and manifestations of the Spirit, not to kinds of persons within the Corinthian community.
In the second instance, however, the apostle picks up and drives home a point not made previously in this argument, but somewhat intrinsic to the metaphor. Probably this slight digression, which many interpreters see as the point of everything, is a direct reflection of the divided situation in Corinth—especially so if Theissen is correct that much of the tension in the community is the result of social status. Paul begins this argument (v. 21) with three of the members from the initial personification (vv. 15–16), but now with clear implications of alleged superiority. His point here is found in the imagery itself: the apparently superior cannot say to the apparently inferior, “We can get along without you.” This is demonstrated by the further elaborations that follow (vv. 22–24a), which emphasize the strictly apparent nature of such “hierarchy.” He argues that the apparently weaker, the internal organs, are the more necessary, and that the apparently less seemly, the sexual organs, are accorded the higher honor (of clothing being implied). Next (vv. 24b–26), and still keeping the metaphor intact, he seems clearly to be pursuing the problem of their internal divisions. In this case, therefore, the conclusion drawn is less the need for diversity than the need for unity and mutual concern, with a decided emphasis on God’s own care for the one who lacks. This in effect moves the analogy from gifts to people, a concern that will spill over into the final set of listings (vv. 27–31).
15–16 Paul begins his elaboration of the analogy by personifying some parts of the body, in this case the extremities of the two limbs (foot/hand) and two of the sensory organs (ear/eye). In both cases the two parts mentioned carry on comparable functions in the body; there is not even a hint that one is superior to the other. In two virtually identical sentences he disallows that some parts can deny their own place in the body. Thus: “If the foot/ear should say, ‘Because I am not a hand/eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.” That is obviously absurd.
The question, of course, is the intent of this picture. As noted above, this becomes an analogy in its own right and thereby can have independent force. For example, there can be little question that the disquieting desire on the part of many to be something in the body other than what they are can be a plague on our house. But what the analogy does not suggest is that some believers envy what they are not because they feel inferior. It is precisely this kind of application, based on the metaphor alone, that seems to do injustice to Paul’s own concern, which will be made by the following rhetorical questions (vv. 17 and 19) and their enclosed affirmation (v. 18).
17 With a set of parallel rhetorical questions, Paul begins to apply the analogy, but does so by keeping the analogy itself alive. Taking up the two members of the preceding sentence (eye/ear), he asks: “If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?” Then, keeping to the sensory organs, he adds: “If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?” This interchange of the sense organs makes it clear that Paul’s point is not the “inferiority” of one to the other. The point is the need for all members; otherwise some function of the body would be missing.
18 In this and the following sentences (vv. 19–20) Paul makes his own application of the opening personifications (vv. 15–16), but he does so still in terms of the imagery of the body. This first sentence brings the analogy itself to a conclusion with its beginning words “but in fact,” implying that Paul is responding to his own preceding rhetorical questions (v. 17). The sentence also reminds the reader that Paul is still carrying on the argument that began with the primary affirmation (v. 4, differing gifts, same Spirit), since it repeats so much of the language and ideas from the way that passage concluded (v. 11).
The diversity in the body, Paul says, is by God’s own design. “God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.” That could sound like an argument for the orderly arrangement of the body; but not so. The emphasis is on the fact that each member is there by divine placement. In the Corinthian context, this probably refers back to the first catalogue of Spirit giftings (vv. 7–11), where these various manifestations are given to “each person, just as [the Spirit] determines.” As in that opening paragraph, and as he will do again later (vv. 24 and 28), Paul emphasizes that the diversity, the “many parts of the one body,” is God’s design.
19 This rhetorical question functions in relationship to the preceding affirmation in the same way as those that preceded (v. 17) do to the first set of questions (vv. 15–16). The form is identical to what preceded, except that his point is spelled out in plain Greek, so that there can be no missing it. There he asked, still within the boundaries of the analogy itself, “If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?” That suggests that if all were one part, other functions would be lacking. Now Paul presses his concern even further, especially in light of their singular enthusiasm over tongues: “If all the parts were of one kind, there would be no body at all, only a monstrosity!” The concern for diversity can scarcely be missed.
20 With another logical “but now,” nicely rendered “as it is” in the NIV, Paul brings this first application of the analogy to its conclusion by repeating the themes of his presenting analogy (one body, many parts [vv. 12 and 14]). Since he has been stressing the “many parts,” he begins with that motif; but since diversity is not an end in itself, but is to function within their essential unity, he concludes with that reminder. Thus reality is that “there are many parts, but one body.”
21 With this sentence Paul returns to the personification of the parts of the body, but now to make a considerably different point. The thought probably flows out of the preceding final statement, the repetition of the theme of “one body,” although the emphasis on the need for diversity is certainly not lost. The parts of the body personified include three from the opening metaphor (vv. 15–16 [eye/hand, feet]), but in a new mix that has one of the sensory organs (the eye) speaking to one of the external limbs (the hand), while the ear has been replaced by the “head,” which speaks to the feet. Both the direction and content of what is said imply a view “from above,” where those who consider themselves at the top of the “hierarchy” of persons in the community suggest that they can get along without some others, who do not have their allegedly superior rank. That this is the thrust of the present analogy is made certain by the rest of the paragraph. At the same time, of course, in its own way this new analogy continues the theme of the need for variety. Indeed, in what follows (v. 22) the absolute necessity of parts that others would scorn is specifically asserted.
It is common to see in this analogy a reference to those who speak in tongues as considering themselves superior to those in the community who do not. If so, then this is the only hint of such in the entire argument. Nothing in the concluding argument itself (chap. 14) suggests as much. That guess, therefore, as common as it is, is probably considerably off the mark in terms of Paul’s own concerns. Since the implication of the analogy as Paul proceeds with it is that some people consider themselves superior to others, not that some gifts are superior, it seems more likely that one is to find the historical situation here addressed in a broader context within the church. But that context is not the problem addressed at the beginning of the letter (chaps. 1–4), since no hierarchy of persons is implied in those divisions and disputations. The most obvious setting, therefore, is that which immediately preceded the present one (11:17–34), where exactly this kind of problem is in view. In that passage the “haves” are abusing the “have-nots” at the Lord’s Table and thereby despising the church itself. This suggestion seems all the more probable in light of (1) Paul’s own use of “body” imagery in that passage (11:29) to call into question their abuse of others in the church, and (2) the inclusion of “whether slave or free” in the earlier affirmation (v. 13) about their common experience of Spirit as what makes them one body. The stench, it should be noted, is not simply in their pride. One can sometimes tolerate that in the “aristocracy.” Rather, it is both in their self-sufficiency and in their demeaning of others to the point of saying, “I have no need of you.”
22 With a considerable change of metaphors, but still using bodily parts, Paul proceeds to pursue the immediately preceding point, that some people of allegedly superior rank think they can get along without some others in the community. “On the contrary,” says Paul, “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are the more indispensable.” In terms of the analogy Paul almost certainly has in mind the internal organs, which are full of “weakness,” but are indispensable to there being any bodily functions at all. Crucial to this argument is the fact that they only “seem” to be weaker. There is a sense, of course, in which that is true; they are weak and thus protected internally. Paul’s point seems to be that such apparent weakness has no relationship to their real value and necessity to the body. One must be careful at this point not to allegorize and try to find people who are like this. This is not allegory but analogy. Appearances deceive, Paul is saying. If one removed an organ because it appeared weak, the body would cease to be whole. So with the church. All the parts are necessary, no matter what some may think.
23–24a In typical fashion, while on this theme Paul adds a parallel metaphor, with which he appears to be making a point similar to what was just said. Both of these points together are then intended to respond to the preceding absurdity (v. 21). He mentions some parts of the body as appearing “less honorable” and “shameful,” saying of the former that we bestow on them the “greater honor,” and of the latter that they have “greater decorum.” It is nearly impossible to transfer Paul’s play on words into good English. Literally he says:
And what parts of the body we esteem less honorable (atimotera),
on these greater honor (timēn) we bestow;
And our shameful parts (aschēmona)
greater decorum (euschēmosynē) have;
But our decorous parts (ta euschēmona) do not have need.
Paul is undoubtedly referring to the sexual organs, on which we bestow greater honor, and which therefore have greater decorum, because we cover them, while the more decorous parts (e.g., the face) do not have such need. Although the analogy with the preceding sentence is not precise, Paul’s point seems to be similar. Bodily appearances are deceiving; all the parts are necessary, which is reflected in this case by the very way we treat some parts of our bodies that seem “lesser” to us, at least in public.
24b As earlier (vv. 18–20), Paul now proceeds to apply the preceding observations to the physical body, keeping the imagery intact to the end, but at the same time intending the Corinthians to apply it to their own situation (as v. 27 makes clear). In this case the concluding application is in three parts: a sentence (v. 24b) that affirms God’s role in so ordaining the body; a purpose clause in two parts (v. 25) that tells them why the body is so composed; and a concluding illustration (v. 26) of the positive half of the purpose clause, that all the parts may have mutual concern for one another.
This opening sentence, which has obvious similarities to what was affirmed earlier (v. 18), attributes the preceding observations (vv. 22–24a) to the way God has “composed” the body, by having “given greater honor to the parts that lacked it.” This latter verb, which in the active means not to be “inferior” but “in need,” seems to pick up both kinds of bodily parts from the preceding sentences. Both the “weak” and the “less honorable” are in their own way “in need.” It is less clear, however, precisely what Paul had in mind by “greater honor.” Most likely he means that the parts that appear to be weak and less worthy are in fact accorded the greater honor of having important functions or receiving special attention. In any case, this point is not pressed. It is sufficient for Paul that the body has been so composed by God. His intended application of all this to the situation in Corinth is found in the purpose clause that follows (v. 25).
25 This sentence expresses the reason for God’s having composed the body as just illustrated. The clause is in two parts, in the form of a “not . . . but” contrast. In a sense both parts come as something of a surprise, partly because the preceding metaphor did not seem to be leading in this direction, and partly because the contrast between “division” and “equal concern for each other” does not seem immediately appropriate to the present context. The logic itself, however, is not too difficult to follow, especially if one thinks of the body as such, and does not allegorize it in terms of the church. Not only can some parts not say that they can get along without others (v. 21), but even parts that appear to be “lesser” get special treatment, since all are so vital to one another (vv. 22–24a). God has arranged things (v. 24b) in such a way that there should be no strife among the members of the body, who mutually need each other in order to function as a body (v. 25).
The contrast between “division” and “equal concern for one another” is especially appropriate to the situation of the Lord’s Table described earlier (11:17–34), where the “division” is precisely in terms of some abusing others by not caring for their needs. On the other hand, it has almost no significance for the matter of their high estimate of the gift of tongues. Not only does this context suggest that persons, not gifts, are in view, but the second A part of the A-B-A argument (our chap. 14), where Paul corrects their position with regard to tongues, says nothing to indicate, or even to hint, that this gift was causing internal strife of any kind. Nor is there any suggestion that the Corinthians who spoke in tongues had an elitist view or considered themselves superior to others. That is read into the text on the basis of this analogy; for one then to read this analogy on the basis of that (surely incorrect) reading of chap. 14 is an altogether circular argument that in the end comes up wanting.
26 Paul rounds off the application by elaborating the positive side of the preceding sentence, namely “that its parts should have equal concern for each other.” The analogy is easily understood, especially the way it begins. After all, it is difficult to study when one has a toothache; the whole body suffers with the part that is aching. More difficult is the way Paul concludes, that “if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” Does this suggest that the adulation of some part of one’s body (eyes, face, physique, etc.) causes momentary forgetfulness of other difficulties, even bodily ones? Or does it refer to a part receiving special care? In any case, one can see the net drawing closer around the Corinthians. This is how they are to be toward one another, precisely because, as Paul will spell out clearly in what follows (v. 27), they are the one body of Christ and individually members of it, and therefore members of one another.
Paul has now come a long way from where all this began as illustrations of the affirmation that the body is not made up of one part but of many (v. 14). But his present concern is not irrelevant. The Corinthian believers’ lack of unity, demonstrated most clearly at their supper, is scarcely commendable, all the less so in light of the arrogance of some in the name of wisdom and knowledge. Yet in their eagerness for gifts of the Spirit (14:12), they have focused singularly on speaking in tongues. They need both unity and diversity. But they cannot have the one without the other. Thus this present concern for unity; the rest of the chapter is devoted to diversity, to which he will now return in the next paragraph.
This is one of the sections of the letter that is ready-made for present-day application. The caution that must be raised, however, is that one not neglect altogether Paul’s own concerns in favor of those kinds of easy, independent ones that are so quickly available from such rich metaphors. Paul’s concern is for diversity, on the one hand, and for mutual concern in the body, on the other. According to the analogies themselves, that means (1) that there must be a greater acceptance of a variety of gifts in the church. The singular focus on one gift, be it tongues, prophecy, or healing in charismatic churches or strictly cerebral gifts in others, destroys the diversity God intended for the body. But it also means (2) that, in terms of people, we must stop negating others as less important than ourselves. That is to destroy unity.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
And yet I will show you the most excellent way.
Or other languages
This paragraph brings to a conclusion the argument that began a good while back (v. 4), by tying together its two parts (vv. 4–11 and 12–26) and thus returning to the emphasis with which it all began. The paragraph begins (v. 27) with an application of the preceding imagery of the body (vv. 12–26) specifically to the church in Corinth, again with emphasis on the many who make it up. In what follows (vv. 28–30), now by way of the opening sentence, Paul returns one more time to his primary concern (vv. 4–11)—the need for diversity, not uniformity, in gifts and ministries.
He makes this point by means of another ad hoc list, which this time includes persons and their ministries, as well as some of the charismata from the first list (vv. 8–10). As in that passage, his concern is neither with instruction about gifts and ministries nor with ranking them. Rather, the preceding illustrations implied that the body has both different kinds of parts and differences within the same kind. The former dealt with gifts (vv. 15–20), the latter with persons (vv. 21–26). Now he simply combines them all, beginning with “persons” and ending again with “tongues.” But he has not lost sight of his goal, which comes out forcefully in the concluding rhetoric (vv. 29–30): “Are all one thing?” “Do all have the same gifts?” “Of course not,” is the intended reply. This is simply the rhetoric of an earlier question (v. 19) being applied directly to the situation of the church. Diversity within unity is Paul’s concern; and diversity includes tongues, but it will not allow tongues to be exclusive.
27 This sentence, which ties all the preceding pieces together, spells out what the Corinthians must have known right along, that the foregoing analogies were all about them. Earlier (v. 12) Paul asserted that the body, with its diversity in unity, is like Christ. Now he says plainly, “you are the body of Christ,” meaning that collectively in their common relationship to Christ through the Spirit they are his one body (vv. 12–13). At the same time “each one of you is a part of it,” meaning that individually they make up the many parts (v. 14). As what follows make plain, this means that individually they are members with a variety of “assigned” parts. As before, the emphasis lies on the many who give the one body its necessary diversity.
28 With this sentence Paul proceeds to give substance to the preceding application, that individually they are parts of the one body of Christ. In so doing he reiterates two points from the preceding argument: First, he reasserts that God is responsible for the diversity that makes up the one body (cf. vv. 4–6, 11, 18, 24b). The sentence begins on this emphatic note (lit.): “And those whom God has placed in the church [are].”
Second, he illustrates that diversity by means of another considerable list (cf. vv. 8–10), which has several remarkable features: (1) He begins with a list of persons (apostles, prophets, teachers), whom he ranks in the order of first, second, third. (2) With the fourth and fifth items (lit. “miracles” and “gifts of healings”) he reverts to charismata, taking two from the first list (vv. 8–10). These are both prefaced by the word “then,” as though he intended the ranking scheme to continue. (3) The sixth and seventh items (lit. “helps” and “guidances”), which are deeds of service, are noteworthy in three ways: (a) they are the only two not mentioned again in the rhetoric that follows (vv. 29–30); (b) they are not mentioned again in the NT; (c) they do not appear to be of the same kind, that is, supernatural endowments, as those on either side (miracles, healings, tongues).
Thus, whether intended or not, this list has been presented so as to include personal ministries, charismata, and deeds of service, concluding with tongues. These represent a whole range of “ministries” in the church and were probably chosen for that reason. What one is to make of this mix is not certain. At best we can say that the first three emphasize the persons who exercise these ministries, while the final five emphasize the ministry itself. The NIV has tried to overcome this by making the entire list personal: “miracles” becomes “workers of miracles,” and “helps,” “those who help others.” This may be justifiable in light of the conclusion (vv. 29–30), where the nature of those questions demands a more personal expression. But in fact he lists gifts and deeds, not persons. That probably suggests that the first three items are not to be thought of as “offices” held by certain “persons” in the local church, but rather as “ministries” that find expression in various persons; likewise the following “gifts” are not expressed in the church apart from persons, but are first of all gracious endowments of the Spirit, given to various persons in the church for its mutual upbuilding.
That leads to the further question, Does Paul intend that all of these be “ranked” as to their role or significance in the church? To which the answer seems to be No. He certainly intends the first three to be ranked. One might argue also for the rest on the basis of the “then . . . then” that prefaces the next two. But that seems unlikely, since (1) he drops the enumeration with the sixth item, (2) the fourth and fifth items are in reverse order from their earlier listing, and (3) there seems to be no special significance as to whether miracles precedes healings or vice versa, or whether these precede or follow helpful deeds and acts of guidance. The gift of tongues, as noted earlier, is not listed last because it is least but precisely because it is the issue currently being addressed. As before, Paul includes it because it is a part of the necessary diversity; but he includes it at the end so that the emphasis on diversity will be heard first.
Why, then, does Paul rank the first three? That is more difficult to answer; but it is almost certainly related to his own conviction as to the role these three ministries play in the church. It is not so much that one is more important than the other, nor that this is necessarily their order of authority, but that one has precedence over the other in the founding and building up of the local assembly. In light of what is said later (14:17) and the probability that those who have taken the lead against Paul are considered “prophets,” one is tempted to see here a subordinating of such people to the apostle, who is giving them “the Lord’s command” (14:37) over against their “prophets.” It is perhaps noteworthy that none of these “ranked persons” is addressed in this letter, nor are they assumed to be “in charge” of the worship, which according to these texts is still under the sovereign authority of the Spirit.
As to the individual items:
(1) First apostles. On this term see on two preceding passages (1:1 and 9:1–2). It is no surprise that Paul should list “apostles” first. The surprise is that they should be on this list at all, and that he should list them in the plural. As noted at the beginning (1:1), for Paul this is both a “functional” and “positional/official” term. In keeping with the other members on this list, it is primarily “functional” here, probably anticipating the concern for the “building up” of the body that he has already hinted at earlier (v. 7) and will stress at the end (chap. 14). Most likely with this word he is reflecting on his own ministry in this church; the plural is in deference to others who have had the same ministry in other churches. In any case, there is no other evidence that Paul thought of a local church as having some among it called “apostles,” who were responsible for its affairs.
(2) Second prophets. On this term see what was said above (v. 10). The question is whether Paul is here thinking of a specific group of people known as “prophets” vis-à-vis “apostles” and other members of the community, or whether this is a purely functional term for him, referring to any and all who would exercise the gift of prophecy. The answer is probably Yes and No. As noted earlier, the evidence of the present argument suggests that all “Spirit people” were potentially “prophets,” in the sense that they could prophesy. But this list, as well as the similar kind of language in a later letter (Eph. 2:20 and 4:11), suggests that for Paul, as for Luke, there were some who, because they regularly functioned in this way, were known as “prophets.” The term here is probably a designation for the latter, although the emphasis would still be on their function, namely to build up the community.
(3) Third teachers. This is the first mention of this ministry in the extant Pauline letters. All attempts to define this ministry from the Pauline perspective are less than convincing, since the evidence is so meager. As with prophecy, the noun “teaching” will appear again as a gift (14:6, 26; q.v.) without concern for the person of the teacher. Probably the same relationship obtains between teaching (as an inspired utterance) and the teacher as between prophecy and the prophet. There were some who regularly gave a “teaching” in the communities, and thus came to be known as teachers. But again, as the conclusion of the argument (chap. 14) indicates, the concern here is with their function, not their office.
(4, 5) Then miracles; then gifts of healing. On these gifts see what has been noted above (vv. 8–10). It is of interest that these two appear in reverse order from before, thus indicating the irrelevance of any ranking of the gifts from here on. As noted above, the emphasis is not on the people who have these gifts, but simply on the presence of the gifts themselves in the community.
(6) Helping. This word occurs only here in the NT, although it is known in the LXX, where it functions as a verbal noun meaning to help, assist, or aid someone. Perhaps it is similar to the final three items in the list in a later letter (Rom. 12:8; service, giving to the needs of others, doing acts of mercy). In any case, it implies that some minister to the physical and spiritual needs of others in the community.
(7) Guidance. Although the cognate personal noun of this word occurs elsewhere in the NT (Acts 27:11; Rev. 18:17) where it means “steersman” or “pilot,” this noun occurs three times in the LXX, where it carries the verbal idea of giving “guidance” to someone. The original NIV rendered this (unfortunately so) “gifts of administration,” but since this noun in contemporary English conjures up the idea of “administrative skills,” that rendering was a far cry from Paul’s concerns. Probably he intended something like “acts of guidance,” although it most likely refers to giving wise counsel to the community as a whole, not simply to other individuals.
(8) Different kinds of tongues. On this gift see what has been said above (on v. 10). As noted there, it is no surprise that it is listed last; what is unusual is that it stands rather by itself at the end of this list as a gift of utterance. It surely seems out of place after the preceding four items. This increases the probability that our interpretation is correct, that it is not at the bottom of a descending list but is purposely included at the conclusion of a truly heterogeneous listing of gifts and ministries in the church.
29–30 Paul now concludes the argument of this chapter with a crescendo of rhetorical questions. His concern throughout has been the need for diversity, which of course must function in unity. With these questions that is made plain. “Are all one thing? Do all function with the same ministry?” The intended answer is, “Of course not.” Paul’s point, then, is: “Correct; so why don’t you apply this to yourselves and your singular zeal for the gift of tongues?” Tongues are fine, he will go on to affirm, provided they are interpreted. But not everyone should speak in tongues when the church assembles for worship. That makes everyone the same, which is like a body with only one part.
The list itself repeats the items from before (v. 28), with the omission of “helpful deeds” and “acts of guidance,” and the addition of the “interpretation of tongues” at the end. Nothing should be made of these differences, since the rhetoric itself indicates the point Paul is trying to make. The addition of the verbs “have” and “speak” with “gifts of healing” and “tongues” is simply a way of avoiding the awkwardness that began with the fourth question, “Are all miracles?” The next three questions make it certain that he intended, “Do all work miracles?”
The tension that some feel between this rhetoric and the question as to whether anyone is therefore excluded from any of these gifts is again related to our own concerns for precision. The later “wish” (14:5) that all speak in tongues (apparently “privately” is intended) and the imperative that preceded it (14:1, “eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially that you may prophesy”), plus the later statement (14:31) that “all may prophesy in turn,” suggest that such gifts are potentially available to all. But that is not Paul’s point or concern here. His rhetoric does not mean, “May all do this?” to which the answer would probably be, “Of course.” Rather, it means, “Are all? Do all?” to which the answer is, “Of course not.” The singular concern of this argument has led to this rhetoric, which concludes in a resounding fashion as a plea for diversity, almost certainly over against their apparent passion for speaking in tongues.
31 After the argument that has preceded (vv. 4–30) and especially after the immediately preceding rhetoric, the imperative which comes next, “Now eagerly desire the greater gifts,” is a puzzle. It is not so for many, of course, since it is common to read what was said above (v. 28) as ranking the various ministries and gifts, so that Paul might place tongues as the last and least of the gifts. This imperative is then read as urging them to seek the gifts at the top of the list as opposed to those at the bottom, which the concluding argument (chap. 14) is seen to support (prophecy as the “greater” and tongues as the “least”). The difficulties with this view, however, are simply too many to make it viable; indeed, it must finally be rejected as contradictory both to the spirit and the intent of the preceding argument. But if so, then what does one do with this imperative, which likewise seems contradictory to what has preceded? Three alternatives have been offered.
(1) Some have suggested that this is a citation from the Corinthian letter, as though Paul were saying, “But ‘earnestly desire the greater gifts,’ you say; well, I will show you a way far superior to that.” This is supported not only by the fact that in previous places Paul seems to cite their letter, but by some of the following language as well (14:12): “Since you are [lit.] zealots for ‘spirits.’ ” The difficulty with this option is the lack of signals at this point in the argument that would suggest either that Paul is quoting them or that what follows is a qualification of the kind found, for example, in several earlier moments (6:13–14; 7:2; 8:2–3).
(2) It is possible to read the verb as an indicative. Thus Paul, after arguing for diversity against their own singular enthusiasm for tongues as the premier evidence of being “a person of the Spirit,” has remonstrated, “But you are seeking the so-called greater gifts. Rather, I will show you a ‘more excellent way.’ ” He then proceeds to urge the pursuit of love, and that in that context they eagerly desire not “greater gifts” but simply “gifts of the Spirit.” And when one does both—pursues love and desires Spirit gifting—one will seek an intelligible gift such as prophecy (or others listed in 14:6), for only what is intelligible will edify the community. This is supported further, as with the prior option, by Paul’s later statement to this effect (14:12). What basically stands against this option is the twofold later appearance of the same verb form (14:1 and 39), where it can be only an imperative and not an indicative.
(3) Despite some attractive features to this second option, the more likely alternative is that the verb is an imperative (as in 14:1), but that it is not intended to be in contrast to what has preceded (vv. 4–30) or to the preceding listings of gifts. Rather, the preceding argument has concluded with the preceding rhetorical questions (vv. 29–30). With these words Paul is about to launch on his next argument (14:1–25), with its passion regarding the need for intelligibility in the community; and in the community all the intelligible gifts are “greater” than tongues because they can edify, while tongues without interpretation cannot. But before he gets to that point, Paul interrupts himself to give the proper framework in which the “greater gifts” are to function—love. In this view the imperative to come (14:1) is resumptive. “Pursue love,” he commands, “and in that context eagerly desire the things of the Spirit, especially those gifts that are intelligible and will thus edify the community.”
If this is the correct view of things, then the final words “and yet I will show you the most excellent way” serve to interrupt the argument in order to put the entire discussion into a different framework altogether. It is often suggested that Paul is setting forth love as the greatest of all the gifts, and therefore the “greater gift” that all should pursue. But this is not quite precise. Not only does Paul never call love a gift, either here or elsewhere, but this clause stands in contrast to the immediately preceding imperative, not as its proper complement. What Paul is about to embark on is a description of what he calls “a way that is beyond comparison.” The way they are going is basically destructive to the church as a community; the way they are being called to is one that seeks the good of others before oneself. It is the way of edifying the church (14:1–5), of seeking the common good (12:7). In that context one will still earnestly desire the things of the Spirit (14:1), but precisely so that others will be edified. Thus it is not “love versus gifts” that Paul has in mind, but “love as the only context for gifts”; for without the former, the latter have no usefulness at all—but then neither does much of anything else in the Christian life.
This is one of the greatly loved passages in the NT, and for good reason. It is indeed one of the apostle’s finest moments; so let the interpreter beware lest too much analysis detract from its sheer beauty and power. Unfortunately, however, the love affair with this love chapter has also allowed it to be read regularly apart from its context, which does not make it less true but causes one to miss too much regarding Paul’s own concerns about the situation in Corinth. Even worse is that all too frequent reading of it in its present context which sees it as set over against “the gifts of the Spirit.” Surely Paul would wince.
Both the imperative that concluded the introduction to this larger passage (chaps. 12–14), “now eagerly desire the greater gifts” (12:31a), and the resumptive nature of the imperatives that begin its final phase (14:1) indicate that the present passage functions as the crucial interlude between the presenting matters (chap. 12) and the concluding twofold resolution (chap. 14) regarding Paul’s concern over Spirit manifestations at the Corinthian believers’ gatherings for worship. In so doing, it becomes the fourth (or fifth, depending on how one views chaps. 5 and 6) of the ABA (sometimes ABC) structure that dominates the argumentation of this letter. But as with all of these “interlude” moments, it is fully relevant to the context, and without it the succeeding argument loses much of its force. Because of the exalted nature of its prose, however, along with some obvious changes in style, many have questioned whether it was in fact composed for the first time to moderate the concerns for Spirit manifestations. Some have argued that it had independent existence before having been adapted and inserted here. Although that is certainly possible, one must note finally that in its present form it is not only fully Pauline, but also has been so thoroughly adapted to the context that such questions would seem to be ultimately irrelevant.
What is relevant is its structure and place in the present correctives regarding Spirit manifestations. In a series of three paragraphs, Paul sets out to put their zeal for tongues-speaking within a broader ethical context that will ultimately disallow uninterpreted tongues in the assembly. That context is love for others over against self-interest; in what follows (chap. 14) such love will be specified in terms of “building up” the church.
At the same time, however, much of the language suggests that Paul is picking up on some of the differences between himself and them that have emerged throughout the letter. Thus the structure of the argument, lyrical as it is, also reflects his continuing engagement with them. At issue have been opposing views of what it means to be people of the Spirit. They speak in tongues, to be sure, which Paul will not question as a legitimate activity of the Spirit. But at the same time they at least tolerate, if not endorse, illicit sexuality, greed, and idolatry (5:9–10; illustrated in 5:1–5; 6:1–11; 6:12–20; 8:1–10:22). They spout “wisdom” and “knowledge,” but in the former they stand boldly against Paul and his gospel of a crucified Messiah (1:18–31), and in the latter they are willing to “build up” weaker brothers or sisters by destroying them (8:10–11). In short, they have a “spirituality” that has religious trappings (asceticism, knowledge, tongues-speaking) but have rather generally abandoned truly Christian ethics, with its supremacy of love—which manifests itself in terms of concern for others that they be “built up” in Christ.
Thus Paul begins by setting forth several “religious/spiritual” activities, all in the first person singular and many of them from the initial catalogue in the present discussion (12:8–10), as not benefiting the person doing them if that person’s life is not also characterized by love (vv. 1–3). He follows that with a description of love that seems to have been especially adapted to the Corinthian situation and their differences with Paul (vv. 4–7). This in turn leads him to contrast love with three selected charismata, including tongues (as the middle item), in terms of the absolute, eternal nature of the one and the relative, temporal nature of the others, placed within the context of both his and their “already/but not yet” eschatological existence (vv. 8–13). This does not make charismata less valuable for life in the present as one awaits the consummation, but it posits against their “overrealized spirituality” that these things have a relative life span (for the “already” only), while love is both for now and forever. Thus in the opening rhetoric (vv. 1–3), and using himself as a hypothetical negative example, the apostle urges the absolute necessity of love; the second paragraph (vv. 4–7) describes the character of love; and in the last, now alternating between first person singular and plural pronouns (vv. 8–13), he illustrates the permanence of love—all to the one end that they eagerly desire “gifts of the Spirit” (14:1) for the sake of the common good (12:7).
Two further points need to be made: First, because of the lyrical nature of this section, it is easy to think of love as an abstract quality, or worse yet, as a “feeling” toward someone. That is precisely to miss Paul’s concern. Love is primary for him because it has already been given concrete expression in the coming of the Lord Jesus to die for the sins of the world. Love is not an idea for Paul, not even a “motivating factor” for behavior. It is behavior. To love is to act; anything short of action is not love at all. Second, love is not set over against the gifts, precisely because it belongs in a different category altogether. For Paul it is not “gifts to be sure, but better yet love”; rather, love is to be the primary motivation lying behind everything they are and do—including Spirit manifestations (= “gifts”) in the gathered assembly. An eager desire for expressions of the Spirit that will build up the community is how love acts in this context. Indeed, from the apostle’s perspective this is the essential ”ingredient,” the one that seems to be missing to a large degree among his friends in Corinth.
1If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Or languages
Some manuscripts body to the flames
Paul begins his description of “the most excellent way” (= “the way that is beyond comparison”) with a series of three conditional sentences whose powerful cadences, and order of appearance, should have had a sobering effect on the Corinthians—and on all subsequent people of the Spirit. He begins with “speaking in tongues” because that is where the problem lay; and for that reason it also gets individual treatment. He then expands the horizon by including a variety of the charismata from the preceding presentation, where he had argued somewhat vigorously on behalf of the need for diversity. Finally, he includes examples of self-sacrificial deeds. In each case the conditional clause presupposes that both he and they are agreed that the activity has value. Thus what is at stake is not the activity without love, but the person doing the activity. All of these are good things; what is not good is religious performance, gifts on display by one who is not otherwise acting as described in the next paragraph (vv. 4–7). It is not a matter of these things or love, or even these things motivated by love, but these things by a person whose whole life is otherwise also given to love, which begins, as someone well noted, when another person’s need is more important than one’s own. Otherwise, the speaker’s ethical life adds up to zero.
It is hard to escape the implication that what is involved here are two opposing views as to what it means to be people of the Spirit. For the Corinthians it meant “speaking in tongues” and having wisdom and knowledge—in their case = pride—and thus without a commensurate concern for truly Christian behavior. For Paul it meant first of all to be full of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which therefore meant to behave as those “sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people” (1:2), of which the ultimate expression always is to “walk in love.” Thus, even though these sentences reflect the immediate context, Paul’s concern is not simply with their over-enthusiasm about tongues but with the larger issue of the letter as a whole, where their view of being people of the Spirit has caused them to miss rather widely both the gospel itself and its ethics.
1 This opening sentence is the reason for the entire argument: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels.” One may be quite sure that the Corinthians believed they did the latter; indeed, this best accounts for the sudden shift to the first person singular (cf. 14:14–15). On its own this could mean nothing more than “speak eloquently,” as some have argued and as it is popularly understood. But since it is not on its own, but follows directly from the preceding rhetoric (12:28–30) and anticipates the argument for intelligibility to come (14:1–25), most likely this is either Paul’s or their (or both) understanding of “speaking in tongues.” “Tongues of men” would then refer to human speech, inspired by the Spirit but unknown to the speaker; “tongues of angels” would reflect an understanding that the tongues-speaker was communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven.
That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely—for two reasons: (1) There is some evidence from Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly language (or dialects) and that by means of the “Spirit” one could speak these dialects. Thus in the Testament of Job 48–50 Job’s three daughters are given “charismatic sashes”; when these were put on they allowed Hemera, for example, to speak “ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment.” Such an understanding of heavenly speech may also lie behind the language Paul will use a bit later (1 Cor. 14:2; “speak mysteries by the Spirit”). (2) As has been argued elsewhere, one can make a good deal of sense of the Corinthian view of being people of the Spirit if they believed that they had already entered into some expression of angelic existence. This would explain the rejection by some of sexual life and sexual roles (cf. 7:1–7; 11:2–16) and would also partly explain their denial of a future bodily existence (15:12, 35). It might also lie behind their special interest in “wisdom” and “knowledge.” For them the evidence of having “arrived” at such a state of “spirituality” would be in their speaking the “tongues of angels.” Hence the high value placed on this gift.
But Paul’s concern lay elsewhere. Their “spirituality” showed evidence of all kinds of behavioral flaws. Their “knowledge” led to pride and the “destruction of a brother or sister for whom Christ died” (8:2, 11). Their “wisdom” led to quarrels and rivalry (1:10; 3:4). Their “tongues” were neither edifying the community nor allowing outsiders to respond to the prophetic word (14:1–25). In short, theirs was a kind of “spirituality” that lacked the primary evidence of the Spirit: behavior that could be described as “having love.”
In saying “but do have not love,” Paul does not mean to suggest that love is a possession of some kind. The language has been formed by the elevated style of the prose. To “have love” means to “act in a way that is loving,” just as to “have prophecy” (v. 2) means “to speak with the prophetic gift”; and to act in a loving way means, as in the case of Christ, actively to seek the benefit of someone else. For Paul it is a word whose primary definition is found in God’s activity in behalf of God’s enemies (Rom. 5:6–8), which was visibly manifested in the life and death of Christ himself. To “have love,” therefore, means to be toward others the way God in Christ has been toward us. Thus, in the Pauline parenesis, for those who “walk in the Spirit” the primary ethical imperative is “love one another.” This is found at the heart of every section of ethical instruction, and all other exhortations are but the explication of it.
The final coup in this sentence is the language “resounding gong” and “clanging cymbal.” Although what the former designates is uncertain, at least it is a metaphor for an empty, hollow sound. The latter in fact was an “instrument” expressly associated with the pagan cults. Perhaps, then, this is an allusion to what he had said earlier (12:2) regarding their former associations with such cults. To speak in tongues as they were doing, thinking that they were “Spirit people” but with no concern for building up the community, is not merely to speak unintelligible words; it makes one sound like the empty, hollow noises of pagan worship.
2 In this second sentence Paul widens the perspective to include three of the charismata from before (12:8–10), a list which in that argument came from Paul himself as his way of expanding their own horizons as to the work of the Spirit. Thus he includes prophecy, the gift he regularly considers to be of primary significance for the community (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–20; 1 Cor. 14:1–25); knowledge, which was another of the Corinthian favorites (cf. 1:5; 8:1); and faith, which, together with its qualifier, “that can move mountains,” means the gift of special faith for mighty works (see on 12:9). In order to make this point as emphatic as possible, Paul thrice emphasizes the totally inclusive “all”: all mysteries, all knowledge, all faith. If one person could embrace the whole range of charismata and the full measure of any one of them but at the same time would fail to act in love toward someone else, such a person would amount to nothing in the sight of God.
But what did Paul intend by the second item, “fathom all mysteries and all knowledge”? These terms appear together as a regular feature of Jewish apocalyptic, especially with regard to the unfolding of God’s final eschatological drama. Paul now uses this language to refer to God’s present revelation of the divine ways, especially in the form of special revelations by means of the eschatological Spirit whom Christians have received (cf. 14:6). This is most likely how we are also to understand both the “message of knowledge” mentioned earlier (12:8) and the “knowledge” that accompanies tongues and prophecy in the redirecting words that follow (vv. 8–13).
Given the longer protasis, Paul concludes with a shorter apodosis, “I am nothing.” That speaks eloquently for itself. As before, possession of charismata is not the sign of the Spirit; loving others as Christ loved us is.
3 Enlarging his perspective yet further, this time quite beyond charismata, Paul next offers examples of great personal sacrifice. The first item literally says, “If I parcel out all my property for food,” to feed “the poor” being implied. In light of the preceding word about “faith” (v. 2), Paul is probably once again reflecting on the teaching of Jesus. How, then, can he say that such a “loving deed” gains nothing? Here in particular Paul’s own point comes to the fore. As with the charismata, the deed in itself is a good thing, commanded by Jesus of his would-be followers, and surely of benefit for the recipients. Paul’s point is that such an action by one who is not otherwise characterized by the love he will describe next (vv. 4–7) is of no benefit whatever to the giver.
The final item, which is undoubtedly intended to climax the series, also presents us with the greatest difficulties in understanding. Some form of self-sacrifice seems to be in view, but because of the difficult textual variation (see ), one cannot be sure which. The majority of interpreters prefer the reading “to burn,” and view it either as martyrdom or an extreme example of giving oneself up to the most painful of deaths for some great cause. But there are several difficulties with this option: (1) Even though martyrdom by fire was not unknown among the Jews, this had not yet become a Christian phenomenon; the fiery persecutions of Nero are still at least a decade away. It seems unlikely, therefore, that Paul had martyrdom in mind—although it is equally easy to see how later scribes could have read it this way by hindsight. (2) This is made even less likely by the language itself. One does not “give over one’s body” to martyrdom; rather, such is taken from one. Moreover, the language “if I give over my body, so that I might be burned” is highly unusual under any circumstances. One would expect rather “that it might be burned.” (3) The basic reason for adopting this reading is not its own intrinsic merit; rather, it tends to win by default, in light of what is perceived to be the still greater difficulty of making good sense of “that I may boast.” It is regularly assumed that this latter is pejorative language and, therefore, that such an action is already so unloving that Paul’s apodosis becomes redundant. (4) Given the difficulty with this alternative and the frequency of Christian martyrdom in the early church after Paul, one can well understand why a scribe would have changed “boast” to “burn”; whereas under the same circumstances it is nearly impossible to account for the opposite change.
What that means, therefore, is that Paul most likely wrote, “if I hand over my body that I might boast.” The question for the later reader is, What could that mean? If we were limited only to a pejorative sense for “boast,” then despite all the above arguments we would probably have to assume that Paul wrote “burned” and try to find an adequate meaning for it. But in fact we are not so limited in Paul. As noted in the previous discussions of this word (1:29–31 and 9:15), for Paul this can be a positive idea, as long as it is brought under the gift of grace. That is, Paul will boast in the very things that are his own personal weaknesses so that the gospel might be the more glorified. For him this usage had eschatological overtones; he expected to have a legitimate “boast on the day of the Lord” (2 Cor. 1:14; cf. Rom. 5:2–3). If that is the meaning here, then this final item is most likely a genuine reflection on his own ministry, in which he is referring to the kinds of bodily sufferings of which he “boasts” in his next (preserved) letter to them (2 Cor. 11:23–30 and 12:10), which also help to bring about his greater “boast,” their salvation. Hence the current NIV probably has it right in adding “to hardship” as a way of making some sense of the clause. But if he does not also have love, even these reasons for boasting, Paul says, “profit me nothing.”
The inclusion of the final examples (v. 3) makes it clear that love is not being set in contrast to Spirit giftings as such; rather, the apostle is presenting the absolute supremacy and necessity of love if one is to be a follower of Christ at all. Paul will continue to “give his body so that he might boast”; he will especially urge the Corinthians to desire prophetic utterances; and he will encourage tongues in their life of personal prayer. But these things must be brought forth in lives that above all “have [= express themselves in] love,” for without love one quite misses the point of being one of Christ’s people in the first place. The easiest way to move this paragraph from their situation to ours is simply to give it a new ad hoc expression, in terms of how one thinks of their own life to have “spiritual” significance. For example, “If I preach with the brilliance of Paul or Chrysostom, but have not love . . .”; or perhaps, “If I write a commentary on 1 Corinthians 13, but have not love . . . ,” etc.