c. On Women Remaining Silent (14:34–35)
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
With a series of fifteen verbs (some with objects) Paul proceeds to describe the love that he has just insisted is the sine qua non of Christian behavior. Although some think this listing is the giveaway that the whole chapter had prior existence as a self-contained unit, in its present form (esp. the list of negatives in vv. 4b–5) it is so tailored to the Corinthian situation that it would be quite impossible in any case to reconstruct an earlier expression of it. Nonetheless, as is often true of such lyrical moments (as, e.g., 3:21–23; Rom. 8:31–39), this passage easily transcends their immediate situation as well, which is what gives it such universal appeal (if not universal obedience!).
The enumeration is basically in three parts: It begins with two positive expressions of love (forbearance and kindness); these are followed by eight verbs expressing what love is not like or does not do, the last of which is balanced by its positive counterpart (v. 6); finally, there is a staccato of four verbs, each with the object “all things,” two of which pick up the other two cardinal Christian virtues, “faith and hope,” while the last recalls the first item (forbearance) by means of its synonym, endurance.
4a These first two clauses, “Love is patient [= forbearing], love is kind,” represent respectively love’s necessary passive and active responses toward others or difficulties in general. The first verb pictures long forbearance toward them—indeed, it is difficult to improve on the KJV’s “suffereth long” (without the archaic verb); the second verb pictures active goodness in their behalf. In Pauline theology they represent the two sides of the divine attitude toward humankind (cf. Rom. 2:4). On the one hand, God’s loving forbearance is demonstrated by his holding back divine wrath toward human rebellion; on the other hand, God’s kindness is found in the thousandfold expressions of divine mercy. Thus Paul’s description of love begins with this twofold description of God, who through Christ has been shown to be forbearing and kind toward those who deserve divine judgment. The obvious implication, of course, is that this is how God’s people (i.e., the Corinthians themselves, not to mention all others who would claim to belong to Christ) through Christ and the Spirit are to be toward others.
4b–5 The two positive expressions are followed by seven verbs that indicate how love does not behave, the first five of which are taken right out of the Corinthian file. It is as though Paul were saying, “You must have love; without it you are simply not behaving as Christians. And what is love? It is to behave in ways opposite to many of you!” Paul, of course, says it with a variety of verbs, thus having to do with behavior, not with descriptive nominal synonyms about one’s “feelings.”
(a) Love does not envy. This verb is regularly used by Paul in a positive sense; but its cognate adjective appeared earlier in conjunction with “strife” (3:3) to denote the “rivalry” expressed in the Corinthians’ divisions over their teachers that was being carried on in the name of wisdom. More pointedly, it probably reflects those who stand against Paul as his “rivals” for the affection of the community (see on 4:18). Love does not allow fellow believers to be in rivalry or competition, either for “vaunted positions” or to curry people’s favor in order to gain adherents. Indeed, love seeks quite the opposite: How best do I serve these for whom Christ died, whatever my own desires?
(b) Does not boast. This rare word means literally to “behave as a braggart,” or “be a windbag.” It suggests self-centered actions in which there is an inordinate desire to call attention to oneself. Although Paul’s use of this word is often viewed as his being critical of the desire on the part of some Corinthians to have the more “showy gifts,” more likely it again reflects those in the community who are especially Paul’s “rivals” or “opponents,” who in effect are leading the whole church down the wrong paths. Over against Paul, they think of themselves as having superior “wisdom” (3:18) and “knowledge” (8:2), and especially as being “gifted by the Spirit” (14:37). It is simply not possible to “boast” and love at the same time. The one action wants others to think highly of oneself, whether deserving or not; the other cares for none of that, but only for the good of the community as a whole.
(c) Is not proud. This verb literally means to be “puffed up,” carrying with it overtones of arrogance. It is used exclusively in this letter to describe the Corinthians themselves, especially in contexts where they stand over against the apostle. For Paul this is their greater sin, to be arrogant in the face of so much among them that is unholy and unloving, and therefore unchristian.
(d) Is not rude. If the KJV was a bit stilted here (“doth not behave itself unseemly”), it did seem to capture Paul’s sense better than does the English word “rude.” The verb means to “behave shamefully or disgracefully.” In this letter it recalls (i) the activities of the women who are bringing shame on their “heads” by attiring themselves so as to disregard the distinctions between the sexes (11:2–16), or (ii) the actions of the “haves” at the Lord’s Table, who are humiliating (shaming) “those who have nothing” (11:22). Christian love cares too much for the rest of the community to behave in such “unseemly” ways.
(e) Is not self-seeking. This is the fifth consecutive item that specifically echoes earlier parts of the letter, this time from the issue of eating food sold in the market (10:24, 33). In a context where he will urge freedom to eat whatever one wants, because the earth and everything in it are the Lord’s, Paul prefaces that discussion as he concludes it, that the prior consideration is not what’s right, or even all right, but rather that they should not seek their own good but that of others. In some ways this is the fullest expression of what Christian love is all about. It does not seek its own; it does not believe that “finding oneself” is the highest good; it is not enamored with self-gain, self-justification, self-worth. To the contrary, it seeks the good of one’s neighbor—or enemy (cf. Phil. 2:4).
(f) Is not easily angered. With this verb Paul begins to move beyond the immediate situation in Corinth, at least as it is reflected in the present letter. In the active voice the verb means to arouse someone to anger, to provoke. In the passive, as here, it suggests that the one who loves is not easily provoked to anger by others, especially those close to oneself. This is a further expression of the forbearance with which the list began.
(g) Keeps no record of wrongs. Literally this says that love “does not reckon the evil.” Since the language is very close to the LXX of a prophetic injunction in Zechariah (8:17), it is possible, as the KJV did (“thinketh no evil”), to understand this to mean “love does not devise evil against someone else.” More likely, however, the object, “the evil,” refers to that done to one by another person. The verb then could mean, “does not think on it (i.e., take notice of it).” Since in Paul this verb very often means to “put to one’s account,” it seems probable that the nuance suggested by the NIV moves in the right direction. Just as God in Christ does not “reckon our sins against us” (2 Cor. 5:19), so the one who loves does not take notice of the evil done against them in the sense that no records are kept, waiting for God or humans to settle the score (in American parlance, “get even with”). Here Paul reflects the tradition of Jesus’ word on the cross as found in Luke’s gospel (23:34), where the Savior extends forgiveness to those crucifying him.
6 After the series of verbs describing how love responds to evildoing, Paul now concludes with a set of verbal opposites. The first clause in this case is actually the final item in the preceding list, “does not delight in evil”; however, since it is balanced by its opposite, “but rejoices with the truth,” it is probable that they are to be understood together, as two sides of the same reality. Evil and truth, therefore, are probably thought of here in their larger sense of the gospel and all that is opposed to it. Here again by his use of agapē Paul is especially reflecting the character of God, which is now to be displayed by God’s people. The person full of divine love joins in rejoicing on the side of behavior that reflects the gospel—for every victory gained, every forgiveness offered, every act of kindness.
Such a person at the same time refuses to take delight in evil, either in its more global forms—war, the suppression of the poor—or in those close to home—the fall of a brother or sister, a child’s misdeed. Love absolutely rejects that most pernicious form of rejoicing over evil, gossiping about the misdeeds of others; it is not gladdened when someone else falls, especially someone who “deserves” it. In many ways this is the most difficult of all; how glad we often are when someone who “deserves” it, “gets” it. But for the apostle, love stands on the side of the gospel and looks for redemptive mercy and justice for all, including those with whom one disagrees. Indeed, how hard it is to be truly Christian (= Christlike), which is almost surely what accounts for this tribute to love as the “filling” of the “sandwich,” which on either side is about Spirit gifting for the sake of others, the community as a whole, not for the sake of one’s own good feelings or false “spirituality.”
7 This final staccato of verbs brings the present description to a summary and conclusion. In each case the verb is accompanied by the object “all things,” a rhetorical repetition which here comes very close to an adverbial use (“in everything,” or “always”). Most likely the set of four form a chiasm, the first and fourth dealing with present circumstances, the second and third looking to the future. Thus it is the character of love to “put up with everything,” the sense captured nicely by the NEB: “there is nothing love cannot face.” So too the final verb, “love always perseveres.” Love has a tenacity in the present, buoyed by its absolute confidence in the future, that enables one to live in every kind of circumstance and continually to pour oneself out in behalf of others. Paul’s own ministry was a perfect example of such love.
The enclosed verbs reflect the other two members of the triad found at the end (v. 13). In saying “love always trusts” and “hopes,” Paul does not mean that love always believes the best about everything and everyone, but that love never ceases to trust God and thus leave justice in God’s hands; it is in this sense that it never loses hope—that God’s justice in the context of God’s goodness will yet prevail where there is human fallenness, even grotesque fallenness. This is why it can endure. The life that is so touched by the never-ceasing love of God in Christ (cf. Rom. 8:39) is in turn enabled by the Spirit to love others in the same way. It trusts God in behalf of the one loved, hopes to the end that God will show mercy in that person’s behalf.
With these final rhetorical phrases Paul has rhapsodized somewhat beyond his immediate concern, both in this section on the Spirit’s gifting and in the letter at large. But not totally so. The passage has some affinities with a previous moment in the letter (3:21–23), where the earlier items are especially to the point, but the later ones lift their horizons to take in a much larger picture. Paul has not lost sight of his argument, however, so with the next paragraph he brings this description of love into focus in terms of its permanence, over against the gifts of the Spirit that belong only to the present age. And in so doing he leads the Corinthians back to the concern at hand, that they should above all “make love their aim” and at the same time in that context “eagerly desire the gifts of the Spirit”—but always with a view toward their benefiting others.
It is often pointed out that in this paragraph Paul seems best to capture the life and ministry of Jesus. So much so that one could substitute his name for the noun “love” and thereby describe love in a more personal way: “Jesus is kind, is not easily angered, etc.” After doing so, however, one does not want to miss Paul’s point, which ultimately is description for the purpose of exhortation. Perhaps that point could best be captured by putting one’s own name in place of the noun “love” (Gordon is patient and kind—really?) and not neglecting thereafter to find a proper place for repentance and forgiveness. Indeed, rereading this section for a final edit came home once more as a bombshell from heaven, regarding the ease with which one falls into unloving behavior.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Paul’s concern in this interlude on Christian love is twofold: (1) to redirect the Corinthians’ thinking regarding the true nature of being people of the Spirit, on which he and they are at such odds (see ); and (2) to place even their emphasis on tongues within the framework of the primacy of love in Christian ethics, so that their eagerness for “the gifts of the Spirit” (14:12) will be redirected toward edifying the community rather than directed toward a false “spirituality” as such.
Thus the argument began with a set of contrasts in which Paul insisted that charismata and good works benefit the speaker or doer not at all if they are not also motivated by divine love. Now, following the preceding lyrical description of agapē, he brings the present argument to its conclusion with another set of contrasts: Love is the “way that is beyond comparison” because, in contrast to the charismata, which function within the framework of our present eschatological existence only, agapē characterizes our existence both now and forever. Thus its primacy, not because what is only for now (charismata) is lesser, but because what is both for now and forever (agapē) must dictate how Spirit gifting functions in the present life of the church.
The greater urgency of this present argument, however, is with the “only-for-the-present” nature of the Spirit’s giftings, not with the permanence of love—although that is always lingering near the surface. Love is scarcely mentioned (vv. 8a, 13 only); the fact that the Spirit’s manifestations/gifts will pass away forms the heart of the entire argument (vv. 8b–12). The clue to this emphasis lies with the Corinthians’ understanding of speaking in tongues as evidence of their being people of the Spirit. The problem is with an “overspiritualized” eschatology, as if speaking in tongues, the language of the angels, meant that they were already partakers of the ultimate state of spiritual existence. Hence the underlying polemical tone of the apostle’s words here. He is not here condemning the gifts; he is relativizing them, putting them into eschatological perspective. In his opening thanksgiving in the letter Paul had already stated his own perspective: “You do not lack any spiritual gift [charisma] as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed” (1:7). Now he urges over and again that the “gifts” themselves do not belong to the future, but only to the present. On this they are deluded: The irony is that these manifestations/gifts, the evidence of their own belonging to the life of the future, will pass away (v. 8a); they are “in part” (v. 9; “partial” NEB); they are as childhood in comparison with adulthood (v. 11); they are like seeing a reflection in a mirror (in a later day, like looking at a photograph) in comparison with seeing someone face to face (v. 12).
One must not, however, mistake this emphasis as a devaluation of the Spirit manifestations themselves. The fact is that we are still in the present, where gifts are one of the ways the Spirit builds up the community; but love must prevail as the reason for all such manifestations. Paul will therefore go on next not only to correct an imbalance with regard to the gifts, but to urge their proper use. Pursue love (14:1), he says, because that alone is forever (13:8, 13); but that also means that in the present they should eagerly desire manifestations of the Spirit that build up the community (14:1–5).
8 This paragraph begins with the well-known line “Love never fails,” but it is not immediately clear what Paul actually intended. On the one hand, the combination of the adverb “never” and the present tense of the verb suggests that it stands in continuity with the preceding list, bringing the whole to its conclusion. In that case it would mean something like “Love is never defeated, is never brought to the ground; it persists even when rebuffed.” On the other hand, several items indicate that it serves as the beginning of the present paragraph and is intended to be set in contrast both to the verb “remain” at the end (v. 13) and the verbs “pass away” and “cease” in this sentence. If so, then it would mean something like “never comes to an end, becomes invalid,” and thus extends the sense of the preceding final verb, “always endures.” Perhaps Paul’s intent is to be found in the very ambiguity of such figurative language, so that both are in view. There is a sense in which love is never brought down; it reflects God’s character, after all, and cannot fluctuate from what it is. Yet that very reality is what also gives it eternal character, so that it “remains” even after all other things have come to their proper end.
Despite the majestic description of love that has just preceded, Paul has not lost sight of his overall argument. Thus he sets forth three charismata which, by way of contrast to the nonfailing character of love, are destined “to come to an end.” If there is any significance to this choice of gifts, it lies with the fact that the first, “prophecies,” is his own preference for the edification of the community, while the other two are Corinthian favorites. In both cases, and therefore in all cases, these are manifestations of the Spirit for the church’s present eschatological existence, in which God’s newly formed people live “between the times”—between the inauguration of the End through the death and resurrection of Jesus with the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit and the final consummation when God will be “all in all” (see 15:20–28). Thus the basic verb chosen to describe the temporal, transitory nature of the charismata is an eschatological one, used elsewhere in the letter to refer to the “passing away” of what belongs merely to the present age. This choice of verbs, which recurs in the following sentence, is already the indicator that the contrasts in the passage have to do with eschatology, not with maturity of some kind.
It needs only be noted further that “knowledge” in this passage does not mean ordinary human knowing or learning, but refers rather to that special manifestation of the Spirit, the “utterance of knowledge” (12:8), which understands revealed “mysteries” (13:2). It has especially to do with “knowing” the ways of God in the present age. This is made certain by two sentences that follow (vv. 9 and 12b), where this form of “knowledge” is referred to as “partial,” in contrast to a “face-to-face” knowing at the Eschaton that is “complete,” that is, of the same character as God’s knowledge of us.
9–10 Paul now sets out to explain what has just been asserted. He does so by using the language “in part” to describe the “for now only” nature of the gifts (repeating the verb “pass away” [v. 8] to indicate what happens to them) and “the perfect/complete” to describe the time when what is “in part” will come to an end. The use of the substantive “the perfect/complete,” which sometimes can mean “mature,” plus the ambiguity of the first analogy (childhood and adulthood), has led some to think that the contrast is between “immaturity” and “maturity.” But that will hardly do, since the contrast has to do with the Spirit’s giftings being “partial,” not the believers themselves. Furthermore, that is to give the analogy, which is ambiguous at best, precedence over the argument as a whole and the plain statement that follows (v. 12b), where Paul repeats verbatim the first clause of the present sentence, “we know in part,” in a context that can only be eschatological. Convoluted as the argument may appear, Paul’s distinctions are between “now” and “then,” between what is incomplete (though perfectly appropriate to the church’s present existence) and what is complete (when its final destiny in Christ has been reached and “we see face to face” and “know as we are fully known”).
That means that the phrase “in part” refers to what is not complete, or at least not complete in itself. The phrase on its own does not carry the connotation of “temporary” or “relative”; that comes from the context and the later language “now . . . then” (v. 12). But the implication is there. It is “partial” because it belongs only to this age, which is but the beginning, not the completion, of the End. These giftings have to do with the edification of the church as it “eagerly awaits our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed” (1:7). The nature of the eschatological language used a bit later (v. 12) further implies that the term “completeness” has to do with the Eschaton itself, not some form of “perfection” in the present age. It is not so much that the End itself is “completeness,” language that does not make tolerably good sense; rather, it is what happens at the End, when the goal has been reached (see ). At the coming of Christ the final purpose of God’s saving work in Christ will have been reached; at that point those gifts now necessary for the building up of the church in the present age will disappear, because “completeness” will have come. To cite Barth’s marvelous imagery: “Because the sun rises all lights are extinguished.”
11 Picking up the themes of “in part” and “completeness,” plus the present verb “pass away,” Paul proceeds to express the point just made now by way of analogy. The analogy itself is commonplace. The adult does not continue to “talk” or “think” or “reason” like a child. Because of the use of the verb “talk,” which elsewhere in this section is used with tongues, plus the later contrast between thinking like children and adults (14:20), it is common to see this analogy as referring to speaking in tongues, which is then also considered “childish” behavior that the Corinthians are now being urged to set aside in favor of love. Such a view flies full in the face of the argument itself, both here and in what has preceded (12:4–11) and is yet to come (14:1–40).
Paul’s point in context does not have to do with “childishness” and “growing up,” but with the difference between the present and the future. He is illustrating that there will come a time when present Spirit manifestations will pass away. The analogy, therefore, says that behavior from one period in one’s life is not appropriate to the other; the one is “done away with” when the other comes. So shall it be at the Eschaton. The behavior of the child is in fact appropriate to childhood. The Spirit’s giftings, by analogy, are appropriate to the present life of the church, especially so, since from Paul’s point of view they are the active work of the Spirit in the church’s corporate life. On the other hand, such “gifts” are equally inappropriate to the church’s final existence because then, as he will go on to argue, “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (v. 12). Hence the implicit contrast with love, which will never come to an end. Love does not eliminate the gifts in the present; rather, it is absolutely essential to Christian life both now and forever. The gifts/manifestations, on the other hand, are not forever; they are to help build up the body in the gathered assembly of God’s people—but only in the present, when such edification is needed.
12 Paul now proceeds to another analogy, to which he appends an immediate application. With their repeated “now, but then” language, these sentences bring out more sharply the contrast between the Corinthians’ present existence and that of the future. The fact that they are tied to the preceding sentence by an explanatory “for” further indicates, as has been argued, that the preceding analogy has basically to do with two modes of existence, not with “growing up” and thus putting away childish behavior.
The first sentence, which literally reads “For at the present time we look through a looking-glass en ainigmati, but then face to face,” is particularly relevant to their setting, since Corinth was famous as the producer of some of the finest bronze mirrors in antiquity. This suggests that the puzzling phrase en ainigmati is probably not as pejorative as many English translations imply. More likely the emphasis is not on the quality of seeing that one experiences in looking into a mirror—that would surely have been an affront to native Corinthians—but on the indirect nature of looking into a mirror as opposed to seeing someone face to face. The analogy, of course, breaks down a bit, since one sees one’s own face in a mirror, and Paul’s point is that in our present existence one “sees” God (presumably), or understands the “mysteries,” only indirectly. It is not a distorted image that we have in Christ through the Spirit; but it is as yet indirect, not complete. To put all this in another way, but keeping the imagery, “Our present ‘vision’ of God, as great as it is [on the basis of the incarnation], is as nothing when compared to the real thing that is yet to be; it is like the difference between seeing a reflected image in a mirror and seeing a person face to face.” In our own culture the comparable metaphor would be the difference between looking at a photograph and seeing someone in person. As good, and often as helpful, as a photograph is, it is simply not the real thing—one may indeed kiss the picture of a spouse, but only in hopes of the reality.
With the next set of sentences Paul brings into focus all that has been argued up to now in this paragraph. Picking up the preceding words of contrast (“at the present time,” “then”) but the content of an earlier sentence (v. 9), he concludes, “Now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” By this Paul intends to delineate the difference between the “knowing” that is available through the gift of the Spirit and the final eschatological knowing that is complete. What is not quite clear is the exact nuance of the final clause that expresses the nature of that final knowing, “even as I am fully known.” It is often suggested that Paul’s passive, “as I am fully known,” “contains the idea of electing grace.” Attractive as that is theologically, more likely Paul is simply referring to God’s own way of knowing. God’s knowledge of us is immediate—full and direct, “face to face,” as it were; at the Eschaton, Paul seems to be saying, we too shall know in this way, with no more need for the kinds of mediation that the mirror illustrates or that “prophecy” and the “utterance of knowledge” exemplify in reality.
Thus Paul’s point with all of this is now made. He began (v. 8) by arguing that love, in contrast to the charismata, never comes to an end. Precisely because the gifts have an end point, which love does not, they are of a different order altogether. This does not make them imperfect, although in a sense that too is true; it makes them relative. Paul’s concern throughout this paragraph has been to demonstrate the strictly “present age” nature of these gifts. They will pass away (v. 8); they are “in part” (v. 9); they belong to this present existence only (vv. 10–12). Most likely the purpose of all this is simply to reinforce what was said at the beginning (vv. 1–3), that the Corinthians’ emphasis on tongues as evidence for being people of the Spirit is wrong because it is wrongheaded, especially from people who do not otherwise exhibit the one truly essential expression of the Spirit’s presence, self-giving love. As good as the Spirit’s giftings are, they are nonetheless only for the present; sacrificial love, which the Corinthians currently lack, is the “more excellent way” in part because it belongs to eternity as well as to the present.
13 This sentence, which is related to the presenting sentence (v. 8) through its use of the verb “remain,” is at once both the best known and most difficult text in the passage. There can be little question that it is intended to bring the argument of the present paragraph to a conclusion, and probably the entire chapter as well. But how? There are five interrelated problems: (1) Whether the words “and now” carry a temporal or logical force; (2) in conjunction with that, whether “remain” has to do with the present or the future; (3) the sudden appearance of “faith and hope” in an argument that heretofore has had to nothing to do with these virtues, but with love and Spirit gifting; (4) how love is “greater than” these other two; and (5) how, then, this sentence concludes the paragraph.
Despite the long debate over the temporal or logical force of the combination “and now,” it is difficult under any circumstances to divest the adverb “now” of some temporal sense. That is, even if its basic thrust is logical (= “but as it is”), it carries the force “as it is in the present state of things,” thus with a degree of temporal force. This seems to be all the more so here, given the present tense of the verb “remain” and the fact that these three opening words stand in immediate conjunction to the eschatological words that have just preceded. Thus, however we finally translate them, these opening words seem to imply some kind of present situation over against what is yet to be, when “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
The real issue, then, has to do with the sudden appearance of “faith and hope” with love, and in what sense these three “abide.” First, there is good evidence to suggest that this was a familiar triad in early Christian preaching, and therefore that it would have been familiar to the Corinthians. Together these words embrace the whole of Christian existence, as believers live out the life of the Spirit in the present age, awaiting the consummation. They have “faith” toward God, that is, they trust God to forgive and accept them through Christ. Even though now they do not see God (or see, as it were, “a reflection in a mirror”), they trust in God’s goodness and mercies. They also have “hope” for the future, which has been guaranteed for them through Christ. Through his resurrection and the gift of the Spirit, they have become a thoroughly future-oriented people; the present age is on its way out, therefore they live in the present “as if not” (cf. 7:29–31), not conditioned by the present with its hardships or suffering. They are on their way “home,” destined for an existence in the presence of God that is “face to face.” And they have “love” for one another as they live this life of faith and hope in the context of a community of brothers and sisters of similar faith and hope. In the present life of the church “these three remain (or continue): faith, hope, and love.”
But why this triad in the present context where the contrast has been between Spirit gifting and love? The answer probably lies with Paul’s concern to emphasize that love is not like present manifestations of the Spirit, in that it is both for now and forever. The preceding argument might leave the impression that, since the “gifts” are only for the present, love is basically for the future. But not so. Love never comes to an end; it always remains. So now he concludes the argument by emphasizing the presentness of love as well. In so doing, since he is trying to emphasize the nature of their present life in Christ, he adds faith and hope to love somewhat automatically, since for him these are what accompany love, not Spirit gifting. They simply belong to different categories.
That also, then, explains why he adds at the end, “But the greatest of these is love.” Even though love “continues” in the present, along with its companions faith and hope, love is the greatest of these three because it “continues” on into the final glory, which the other two by their very nature do not.
Thus with this sentence Paul is basically bringing the present argument to its conclusion. His concern throughout has been over the “only for now” aspect of the gifts, which stands in contrast to love. The gifts are “in part”; they belong to the “now,” which will be brought to an end with the “then” that is to be. Love, on the other hand, is not so. It never fails, in the sense that it will never come to an end. Along with its companions, faith and hope, it abides in the present. But it is greater, at least as the point of this present argument, because it abides on into eternity.
It is not difficult to bring the final sentence of this paragraph into the contemporary church; these are still the “three imperishables” for those who would live a truly Christian life in the present age. Nor is it difficult to emphasize the eschatological dimension of the paragraph, that our present existence, for all its blessings, is but a foretaste of the future. This present partial existence shall someday give way to that which is final and complete. What is more difficult is the way the emphasis on the “present only” aspect of the gifts has been treated. Most have simply yielded to historical reality and have tried to make a virtue out of that reality, that for the most part these extraordinary gifts have already ceased for so many. The irony, of course, is that our present view is almost the precise opposite of that of the Corinthians, who thought of these things as eternal and therefore needed to have that view corrected. One wonders how Paul would have responded to present-day cerebral Christianity, which has generally implied that we can get along quite well without the Spirit in the present age, now that the church has achieved its maturity in orthodoxy. It seems likely that he would not be pleased to see this text used to support such a view of things.
With this section (vv. 1–25) and the next (vv. 26–40) Paul proceeds at last to offer specific correctives to the Corinthians’ apparently unbridled expression of “tongues” in the community gatherings for worship. He opened his argument with them by setting forth the broader theological framework in which these specifics are to be understood. Thus he began with a long, sometimes repetitive, argument of diversity (chap. 12), with speaking in tongues included as only one among many manifestations given to each for the common good, as the Spirit wills (vv. 7–11). Then, reflecting on the theme of “the common good,” the apostle insisted that no one, including both himself and them, counts for anything, no matter how “spiritual” a person is, if they are neither motivated nor characterized by love (chap. 13). Now he puts these together by insisting that in the gathered assembly the single goal of their zeal for the Spirit’s manifestations must be love (v. 1); as earlier (8:1) this is expressed in terms of “building up” the community as a whole (vv. 3–5, 12, 17, 26). This latter theme is developed in two ways: by insisting on intelligibility in the gathered assembly, and by giving guidelines for order.
In this first section (vv. 1–25) Paul takes up the issue of intelligibility. The presentation is in two parts: He begins (vv. 1–19) with an argument for intelligibility for the sake of fellow believers—that they might be edified; the application that follows (vv. 20–25) makes the same point for the sake of unbelievers—that they might hear the word of the Lord and be converted. To express this concern Paul’s argument develops in two different but related ways: (1) At the beginning and the end (vv. 1–5 and 20–25) he urges that in the gathered assembly they seek prophecy vis-à-vis tongues because, being understandable, a prophetic word can both edify believers and lead to the conversion of others. However, both the brief list of gifts at the beginning (v. 6) and the argument that follows (vv. 7–19) indicate that the real issue is not with tongues and prophecy as such, but with the building up of the community; and this can be effected only by means of understandable utterances, prophecy being the primary representative.
(2) In what follows (vv. 6–19) Paul directly addresses the issue of speaking in tongues, as to its unintelligibility and therefore inability to edify the community. After a series of analogies illustrating the basic lack of benefit from what is unintelligible (vv. 7–12), he applies this point to their situation, arguing that prayer and praise must be intelligible if the community is to be edified (vv. 13–17). This section begins (v. 6) and ends (vv. 18–19) on personal notes that suggest that Paul is perhaps also offering an apologetic for his not comporting with their standard for Spirituality. For him to come to them speaking in tongues would not benefit them; thus, even though he speaks in tongues more than all of them, in church he will do only what edifies, thus only what is intelligible.
1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
Or in another language; also in vv. 4, 13, 14, 19, 26, and 27
This opening paragraph sets forth the basic contrasts and the central themes of what follows. The concern is edification (vv. 3–5), the issue intelligibility. What is spoken in tongues is not understandable (v. 2), hence it cannot edify the church (v. 4). Prophecy is addressed to people precisely for their edification (v. 3), and in that sense is the greater gift (12:31).
Although there can be little question that Paul prefers prophecy to speaking in tongues in the gathered assembly, the final sentence (v. 5) indicates that the real issue is not the gift of tongues per se but uninterpreted tongues (cf. v. 13), since an interpreted tongue can also edify. That means, therefore, as the first two explanatory sentences (vv. 2–3) imply, that the real issue is intelligibility in the assembly. Furthermore, it is clear from the ensuing explanation (vv. 2–5) that Paul is not “damning tongues with faint praise.” In both cases the contrasts between tongues and prophecy have not to do with their inherent value, but with the direction of their edification. The edifying of oneself is not a bad thing; it simply is not the point of the community’s gathering for worship.
1 These opening two imperatives have a single purpose: to serve as a transition from both parts of what has just preceded (our chaps. 12 and 13) to the issue at hand, namely their abuse of tongues in the gathered assembly. Thus in chiastic order Paul says, “Follow the way of love” just set out, and in that context “eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit,” resuming the argument (from 12:31a) that was momentarily put on hold by the crucial exhortation as to why one should be doing any of this—love for others, in this case by “building” up the body. At the end of the opening presentation he had exhorted that they “eagerly desire the greater gifts” (12:31a); now he indicates (v. 5) that by the “greater gifts” he meant specifically those that edify the community. Thus his choice to represent the latter is “especially that you may prophesy.” A further word about each of these clauses.
The command to “Follow the way of love” puts into imperative form what was implied throughout the preceding description of what love is and how it behaves. In the present context the “love” that they are to pursue, of course, is that described above (13:4–7), since without it the “spiritual” person amounts to zero (vv. 1–3); furthermore (vv. 8–13), it is the great imperishable: love alone—not the many gifts (the various ways the Spirit uses someone to edify others)—will abide into eternity.
Although the imperative “eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit” resumes the earlier argument (from 12:31), it is nonetheless not a precise repetition. The verb remains the same, but the object is no longer “the greater charismata,” but ta pneumatika, which probably means something like “utterances inspired by the Spirit” (see on 12:1). Some have argued for more significant differences between these two words; more likely it is a matter of emphasis. At the end of the opening argument, where he had been speaking specifically of the gifts themselves as gracious endowments, he told them, “now eagerly desire the greater charismata.” Now in a context where the emphasis will be on the activity of the Spirit in the community at worship, and thus returning to the language with which this all began (12:1), he says, “eagerly desire the things/matters of the Spirit,” which the NIV translators appropriately identified with a term Paul used earlier, “the gifts of the Spirit.”
What must be emphasized is that this imperative is now to be understood singularly in light of the exhortation to love that has preceded it. If these two imperatives are not kept together, the point of everything that follows is missed. Thus he immediately qualifies the imperative with a clause that literally says, “but rather that you prophesy.” In the following sentences Paul will give the reasons for this qualification.
2–4 The present explanation may best be analyzed in light of its structure. With two balanced pairs (vv. 2–3) Paul first contrasts tongues and prophecy as to who is addressed (in bold) and therefore as to the basic purpose of each (in italics); the second pair (v. 4) then interprets the first pair in terms of who is being edified. Thus:
For
a) Anyone who speaks in a tongue
speaks
not
to people,
but
to God.
Indeed, no one understands them;
they
utter
mysteries by the Spirit.
On the other hand,
speaks
to people,
edification
encouragement
comfort.
a) Anyone who speaks in a tongue
edifies oneself;
on the other hand,
b) The one who prophesies
edifies the church.
Paul’s emphasis—and concern—is unmistakable: the edification (= strengthening, building up) of God’s people. The one activity, speaking in tongues, edifies only the speaker, not the church, because it is addressed to God and “no one understands” what is said. The other activity, prophecy, edifies the community of faith because it is addressed to people and speaks “edification, encouragement and comfort” to them.
Although trying to cool the Corinthian believers’ ardor for congregational tongues-speaking, Paul does not disparage the gift itself; rather, he seeks to put it in its rightful place. Positively, he says three things about speaking in tongues, which are best understood in light of the further discussion on prayer and praise (vv. 13–17): (1) Such a person is “speaking to God,” that is, they are communing with God by the Spirit. Although it is quite common in Pentecostal groups to refer to a “message in tongues,” there seems to be no evidence in Paul for such terminology. In this passage, the only one of its kind in the Pauline corpus, the tongues-speaker is never perceived as addressing fellow believers but God (cf. vv. 13–14, 28), meaning therefore that Paul understands the phenomenon basically to be prayer and praise.
(2) The content of such utterances is “mysteries” spoken “by the Spirit.” It is possible that “mysteries” means something similar to its earlier usage (13:2); more likely it carries here the sense of that which lies outside the understanding, both for the speaker and for the hearer. After all, the earlier usage referred to the ways of God that are being revealed by the Spirit to God’s people; such “mysteries” would scarcely need to be spoken back to God.
(3) Such speech by the Spirit is further described as being edifying to the speaker (v. 4). This has sometimes been called “self-edification” and therefore understood as something pejorative. But Paul intended no such thing. The edifying of oneself is not self-centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise. Although one may here wonder how “mysteries” that are not understood even by the speaker can edify, the answer lies in what is said later (vv. 14–15). Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit that sometimes bypassed the mind; it is only at a later period in history, conditioned by the so-called Enlightenment, that people in the Western world would think otherwise. Indeed in the later passage Paul will affirm that for his own edification he will have both. But he is currently dealing with the gathered assembly, where what is needed is only what can also be communicated to other believers through their minds.
Despite these favorable words about speaking in tongues, however, Paul’s present concern is not with private devotion but with corporate worship. Therefore, he urges by implication that they not speak in tongues in communal worship (unless it be interpreted, vv. 5, 13, 27), but rather that they seek to prophesy (or in light of v. 6 bring forth any form of intelligible utterance). The reason for prophecy is that it speaks “edification, exhortation and comfort” to the rest of the people. These three words set forth the parameters of the divine intent of prophecy, and probably indicate that in Paul’s view the primary focus of a prophetic utterance is not the future, but the present situations of the people of God.
The first word, “edification,” controls the thought of the entire chapter. Much earlier Paul had said, “love builds up” (8:1); now the sequence runs, “Pursue love, and in that framework seek the things of the Spirit, especially prophecy, because prophecy builds up.” Thus the reason for the preceding “interlude” chapter: Since love builds up, in their zeal for gifts they are to seek prophecy because it is intelligible and thus builds up the whole body. The second word is more ambiguous, meaning alternatively “encouragement,” “comfort,” or “exhortation (appeal).” It is joined in this instance by its companion “comfort.” The question is whether these two words are, as in other instances, near synonyms meaning to encourage or comfort, or whether they embrace the broader categories of exhorting and comforting. In either case, the aim of prophecy is the growth of the church corporately, the people as a community of believers, which also involves the growth of its individual members.
5 These two sentences summarize what has preceded by making explicit Paul’s preference for prophecy over speaking in tongues in the assembly. As before (vv. 2–4), he begins with tongues: “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.” This sentence is often viewed as “merely conciliatory,” especially in light of what was said earlier (12:28–30) where he noted that not all will speak in tongues. But that is not quite precise. Paul has already indicated that speaking in tongues has value for the individual, meaning in private, personal prayer (cf. vv. 14–15 and 18–19). Now he says of that dimension of spiritual life that he could wish all believers to experience the edification that came from such a gift of the Spirit. But that of course is not his present point; thus he quickly qualifies that “wish” by repeating the opening language, “but rather that you prophesy” (v. 1).
After such a summary one would expect that it might be followed by an explanatory “for” and a reason given. In this case, however, he concludes with the proposition, “the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues.” With these words two items from the preceding argument are brought into focus. First, this defines the meaning of “greater gift” in the earlier exhortation (12:31); second, the reason why prophecy is greater is related to the edification of the community, as the preceding argument makes clear. Thus it is not inherently greater, since all gifts come from the Spirit and are beneficial. It is greater precisely because it is intelligible and therefore can edify others.
This last point is made certain by the final qualifying clause added to speaking in tongues: “unless [the speaker] interprets, so that the church may be edified.” The problem is not speaking in tongues per se but speaking in tongues without interpretation—which from the context seems very likely what the Corinthians were doing. The interpretation of the tongue brings it within the framework of intelligibility, which in turn means that it too can edify the community. This does not imply that such a tongue is to be understood as directed toward the community, but that what the person has been speaking to God has now been made intelligible, so that others may benefit from the Spirit’s utterance.
Thus, even though from Paul’s perspective prophecy is clearly preferable, it seems equally clear that the real urgency is not with tongues and prophecy per se, but with intelligible utterances in the gathered assembly, so that all may be edified.
At a time in history when there is a broad range of opinion about speaking in tongues in the church, both its validity and its usefulness, the point of this text needs to be heard again—on both sides of that question. It is sheer prejudice to view Paul here as “demoting” tongues as such. Uninterpreted tongues in the assembly, yes; but for the edification of the believer in private, no. Anyone who would argue that what is spoken to God by the Spirit for the edification of a believer is of little value is hardly reading the apostle from Paul’s own point of view. On the other hand, there is a tendency on the part of some Pentecostals and charismatics to fall full into the Corinthian error, where a “message in tongues,” interpreted of course, is often seen as the surest evidence of the continuing work of the Spirit in a given community. Paul would scarcely agree with such an assessment. He allows tongues and interpretation; he prefers prophecy.
At the same time Paul’s clear preference for prophetic utterances is often neglected throughout the church. By prophecy of course, as the full evidence of this chapter makes clear, he does not mean a prepared sermon, but the spontaneous word given to God’s people for the edification of the whole. Most contemporary churches would have to be radically reconstructed in terms of their self-understanding for such to take place. Again, Pentecostal and charismatic groups, where such utterances are more often in evidence, continually need to “test” the spirits (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21) in terms of their capability to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the community (v. 3).
6Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church. 13For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.
The argument of this present paragraph extends through the next one as well. It is an elaboration of the concern over the unintelligible, and therefore nonedifying, character of uninterpreted tongues in the assembly. This first paragraph makes that point with the use of analogies. The opening rhetorical question (v. 6) sets the agenda: Hearers do not benefit at all from what they cannot understand. This is followed by a series of examples from musical instruments (vv. 7–9) and foreign languages (vv. 10–12), each of which is applied to the Corinthians with a similar, “So it is with you” (vv. 9 and 12). The final application concludes on the same note with which the paragraph began—the edification of the church, which should rule their zeal for Spirit gifting.
At the same time one perceives an undercurrent of apologetic between Paul and the Corinthians. If our reconstruction is correct—that “tongues” held high court for them as evidence of Spirit gifting alongside a negative toward Paul for his shortcomings at this point—then the form of the opening sentence is especially relevant: “If I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will that be to you?” This motif seems to carry through the next paragraphs as well. Paul has not lost his primary focus of putting their gift into proper perspective, especially as the community gathers for worship. At the same time he takes the opportunity to put his own practice into perspective for them. Even though he speaks in tongues more than all of them (v. 18), and determines to pray and sing both in the Spirit and with his mind (v. 15), he likewise refuses to “come to them” as they might prefer, speaking in tongues, because that will not benefit them.
6 A turn in the argument is indicated both by the vocative “brothers and sisters” and by the conjunctive combination “but as it is.” This opening sentence functions as a transition: It carries forward the preceding argument (vv. 1–5); at the same time it sets the stylistic pattern for the first set of analogies (“If . . . , how shall . . . ?”), which argue vigorously against unintelligibility (= tongues), since in the gathered community of worshipers it has no usefulness for the hearers.
Even though the sentence is probably intended to present a hypothetical setting for the argument, both the combination “but as it is” and the language “if I come to you” support the suggestion made above that this is more than merely hypothetical; probably it also indicates the way things presently are between them and him, implying his rejection of their criterion for being pneumatikos (= a person of the Spirit). Paul in effect refuses to “come to [them] and speak in tongues.” The reason for this echoes the preceding motif of edification (vv. 3–5). By following their criterion, he would not “benefit” or “profit” them, which is what is intended by the NIV’s more colloquial “what good will I be to you?”
The alternative is for him to come speaking some form of intelligible utterance, which he illustrates with yet another list of charismata. This list is both illuminating and intriguing. On the one hand, the appearance of prophecy in the third position intimates, as has been argued above (vv. 1–5), that the real issue is not tongues and prophecy as such, but tongues and intelligibility, for which prophecy serves as the representative gift. On the other hand, as with the other lists in this argument, this one is also especially ad hoc. His concern is to specify various kinds of Spirit-inspired utterances that have intelligibility as their common denominator. Thus he includes two items from previous lists, “knowledge” and “prophecy” (see 12:8–10; 13:2, 8). The other two call for additional comment.
Paul uses the word “revelation” in a variety of ways, but only in the present argument to suggest some kind of utterance given by the Spirit for the benefit of the gathered community. Precisely what its content might be and how it would differ from “knowledge” or “prophecy” is not at all clear. For example, along with “teaching” it appears in the final list (v. 26), a list that includes neither “prophecy” nor “knowledge.” Yet in the subsequent discussion of the ordering of utterances (vv. 27–33), Paul takes up tongues and prophecy, not “revelation,” although its cognate verb does appear in the discussion of prophecy (v. 30). This latter passage in particular suggests that there is a general lack of precision in Paul with regard to these various ways of identifying intelligible speech in the assembly. Perhaps in the final list (v. 26) the word “revelation” covers both prophecy and knowledge as the more inclusive term. In any case, it implies the disclosure of divine “mysteries,” either about the nature of the gospel itself (cf. 2:10) or perhaps about things otherwise hidden to the “everyday person.”
Equally intriguing is the appearance of “teaching,” which corresponds to “the teacher” in the earlier list (12:28) as prophecy does to the prophet. Probably this has to do with a Spirit-inspired utterance that took the form of instruction, rather than with the more common usage that implies formal teaching of some kind. Again, how this differs in terms of content from the other items on this list is a matter of speculation, since the data are so meager. See further the previous discussion (on 12:28).
Despite our lack of certainty about the precise nature and content of these various forms of utterance, however, their common denominator is their intelligibility, and to that question Paul now turns in the form of analogies.
7–8 The analogies seem self-evident. The first (v. 7) is taken from “lifeless things that give sounds,” that is, from musical instruments. The two instruments, flute and harp, are commonplace in the Hellenistic world. Paul’s point is to be found in the “how” clause: “How will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes?” This example further calls to mind another use of a musical instrument: “If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”
The analogy is clear. Speaking in tongues in the community at worship, Paul is arguing, is like the harpist running fingers over all the strings, making musical sounds but not playing a pleasing melody, or like a bugler who blows the bugle without sounding the battle cry. In both cases sounds come from the instrument, but there is no tune or melody; thus having no purpose, they do not benefit the listener. So it is with tongues. Again one should not miss the corporate concern here. “Speech” in the gathered community must be for the benefit of all, not simply a display of personal ecstacy expressed by the speaker.
9 The application (“so it is with you”) to their situation follows the form of the two preceding examples. Referring specifically to speaking in tongues, he asks, “Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?” To which he adds the biting words, echoing the irresponsible bugler, “You will just be speaking into the air.” All of this, of course, assumes the perspective of the hearer in the community at worship.
10–11 This third analogy, the phenomenon of different languages, would also have been commonplace in a cosmopolitan center such as Corinth. It is also the one most closely related to the immediate problem. The analogy is not that the tongues-speaker is also speaking a foreign language, as some have suggested, but that those who are listening cannot understand the one speaking in tongues any more than they can the one who speaks a foreign language.
The form of the analogy differs from the preceding ones. It begins with the simple statement of fact, that there are who-knows-how-many different languages in the world, none of which is without meaning to those for whom it is the “common tongue” (e.g., Spanish to the Spaniard). This analogy also emphasizes the perspective of the hearer. It is not that the different languages do not have meaning to their speakers; rather, they do not have meaning to the hearers.
This latter point is then pressed (v. 11) by means of the inferential conjunction “therefore.” That is, the inference to be drawn from the reality just stated is that “If I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying,” then we are as foreigners to one another. Again, the application to their setting and “speaking in tongues” is obvious. Just as the hearer of one speaking in a foreign language cannot understand what is said, even though in that case it would be intelligible to the one speaking, so the other worshipers in the community cannot understand what is spoken “in tongues” (which as language in this case would not be understandable to the speaker as well); thus it is of no value in the setting of the community at worship. It would be much like the expressed “Hallelujah!” in a pentecostal/charismatic setting, which would be untranslatable to either speaker or hearer.
12 This final application begins exactly as before (v. 9): “So it is with you.” But in this instance instead of applying the obvious point of the preceding analogy, Paul ties all this together by picking up two motifs from the opening paragraph. First, (lit.) “since you are zealots for spirits.” As many have seen, this clause probably holds the key to much. Whatever else it means, it explicitly indicates that zeal for the things being talked about in these chapters is a Corinthian trademark. This has caused some, therefore, to read the two earlier imperatives (12:31 and 14:1) as quotations from the Corinthian letter. But that is an unnecessary expedient. Paul was not commanding them in those cases to do what they were already doing. Rather, just as in this final sentence, he was urging them to direct that zeal toward Spirit-inspired utterances that edify (14:5).
The more difficult concept is their zeal for “spirits.” On the basis of how this argument began, this is almost universally understood, as in the NIV, to refer to their alleged zeal for “gifts of the Spirit” in general. But that seems unlikely, both in terms of this choice of words and of the historical context as a whole. More likely this refers especially to their desire for one particular manifestation of the Spirit, the gift of speaking in tongues, which was for them the sure evidence of their being pneumatikos (a person of the Spirit, hence “spiritual”). This plural does not mean that the “one and the same Spirit” mentioned earlier (12:7–11) is now to be understood as a multiplicity of spirits. Rather, this is Paul’s way of speaking about the Spirit being manifested through their individual “spirits.” The clue lies in the usage later on in that discussion (v. 32), where the “spirits of the prophets” refers to the Holy Spirit’s speaking prophetic utterances through the one who is prophesying. Likewise in the sentence that will begin the next paragraph (vv. 14–15), Paul chooses also to pray with “my spirit,” meaning “by means of the Holy Spirit through my spirit.” Hence they have great zeal for their own spirits, through speaking in tongues, to be the mouthpiece of the Spirit.
Paul’s present concern is to capitalize on their zeal, or more accurately, as before, to redirect their zeal. Thus the concluding imperative picks up the second motif from the introductory paragraph, and the point of everything: “Try to excel in building up the church.” This was the explicit concern at the beginning (vv. 1–5); it has been the implicit concern in the several analogies of this paragraph. Utterances that are not understood, even if they come from the Spirit, are of no benefit to (i.e, edification of) the hearer. Thus, since they have such zeal for manifestations of the Spirit, the Corinthian believers should direct that zeal in corporate worship away from being “foreigners” to one another toward the edification of one another in Christ.
13 The strong inferential conjunction “for this reason” indicates the close relationship between this sentence and the preceding one. It functions both to conclude what has preceded (vv. 6–12) and to apply the principle of “building up the church.” Its content, therefore, comes as something of a surprise. In light of the total argument to this point, one might have expected, “For this reason let the one who speaks in tongues seek rather to prophesy.” But prophecy is not Paul’s concern, intelligibility is; thus he moves toward that concern by urging that “the person who speaks in a tongue should pray that “they may interpret what they say.” The point is that made above (v. 5). The interpretation of what is spoken in tongues makes it an intelligible utterance; therefore it can satisfy the preceding concern, the edification of the church. As before, the Corinthians’ practice of uninterpreted tongues is what is being challenged, not tongues as such. This is further confirmed a bit later (vv. 27–28), where again Paul disallows uninterpreted tongues, but otherwise regulates the expression of the gift when there is interpretation.
In times when charismatic utterances experience something of a revival in the church, this paragraph is especially important to those in such a renewal. The point of everything in corporate worship is not personal experience in the Spirit, but building up the church itself. Much that comes under the banner of charismatic or pentecostal worship seems very often to fail right at this point. However, it is not so much that what goes on is not understood by the others, but that it fails to have Paul’s concluding sentence (v. 12) as its basic urgency. The building up of the community is the basic reason for corporate settings of worship; they should probably not be turned into a corporate gathering for a thousand individual experiences of worship, although the end result will include that as well.
14[For] if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
The Greek word for inquirer is a technical term for someone not fully initiated into a religion; also in vv. 23 and 24
In continuing the present argument, Paul now applies the point of the preceding analogies to their corporate worship by indicating the specific effect speech that is unintelligible has on gathered worshipers. Having urged the one who speaks in tongues to pray for the gift of interpretation (v. 13), Paul begins this new turn in the argument the same way he did the preceding one, by way of the first person “I.” Thus he argues first (vv. 14–15), on the basis of his own experience, that, since praying in the Spirit means that the understanding is unfruitful, he will do both—pray in the Spirit and with the mind—adding that he will do the same in praise (in this case, singing). As his negative “otherwise” demonstrates (vv. 16–17), this latter item is his basic concern: praising God with the mind (= intelligibly) for the sake of others, who cannot thus say the corporate “Amen” to what they hear. Paul then concludes (vv. 18–19) on another personal, and probably apologetic, note (cf. v. 6), putting the whole into perspective: Only what is intelligible in church; thus no speaking in tongues in the assembly without interpretation, for the sake of the body as a whole.
The entire section deals with speaking in tongues; prophecy is not mentioned, although perhaps it is alluded to at the end (v. 19). “Tongues” become intelligible through interpretation, as already suggested earlier (v. 5). Here in particular it is evident that for Paul speaking in tongues is an expression of prayer and praise, not a word directed primarily toward the community. As far as the one speaking is concerned, everything said here about “tongues” is quite positive; nonetheless, as before, the purpose of the whole is to check the unbridled use of uninterpreted tongues in the assembly.
14 With this sentence Paul begins the specific application of the preceding argument against unintelligibility. He does so, as he will again at the end (v. 18), by referring to his own experience of speaking in tongues. But the specific concern of this sentence is less than certain. Probably he is using his own experience to point up a basic principle, which will be elaborated in the following question and response (v. 15) and then applied specifically to their community at worship (vv. 16–17).
This seems to make the best sense of what is otherwise a very difficult sentence in the middle of this argument, made the more so by the addition of the explanatory “for” found in the majority of, and thus later, witnesses. Paul is not arguing that the tongues-speaker should also interpret for the benefit of one’s own understanding. That would be a considerable “rock” in the middle of this argument for the edification of others through intelligibility. It would also tend to contradict what has been said earlier (vv. 2 and 4) and intimated in the following question and answer (v. 15), that the one who speaks in tongues is edified by their own communion with God through the Spirit, without the need of perceptual understanding. Paul’s point is a simple one, and one that they themselves should fully recognize: When I pray in tongues I pray in the Spirit, but it does not benefit my mind—the implication being, as he will go on to argue (vv. 16–17), that neither does it benefit the minds of others.
As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.” On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of three other passages (12:7–11; 14:2 and 16), that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration. The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. Hence, “my S/spirit prays.”
As the following elaboration (v. 15) makes certain, Paul does not mean that praying in the Spirit is a bad thing because it does not benefit his understanding; rather, this states the way things are. What he does go on to say is that he will do two things, one apparently for his own sake, the other for the sake of others.
15 Paul now elaborates the preceding principle with an eye toward turning it into the application to follow (vv. 16–17). In light of the simple reality just stated, he asks rhetorically, “So what shall I do?” His answer is that he will do both. On the one hand, “I will pray with my S/spirit,” meaning, as the preceding sentence and one to follow (v. 19) make certain, “I will pray in tongues.” Although this is obviously not Paul’s present concern, it joins with Paul’s own personal thanksgiving regarding speaking in tongues (v. 18) in suggesting that such was his regular practice and that he was edified thereby, even if his mind (= understanding) did not enter into such praying. On the other hand, the combination “but also” indicates that the emphasis now lies here, “I will also pray with my understanding,” meaning “I will also pray and praise in Greek for the sake of others.”
Although it is not explicitly stated here, this contrast between praying and singing with my S/spirit and my mind ultimately aims at relegating the former to the setting of private praying, while only the latter is to be exercised in the assembly. This is implied both in the sentences that follow (vv. 16–17), where he allows that the tongues-speaker is praising God all right but to no one else’s benefit, and especially at the end (v. 19), where this distinction is made explicitly.
To “praying” Paul adds “singing with the S/spirit” and “with the understanding.” Singing was a common part of worship in Judaism and was carried over as an integral part of early Christian worship as well, as the coming description (v. 26) and Col. 3:16//Eph. 5:19 illustrate. The evidence from Colossians and Ephesians suggests that some of the singing was corporate; the language of these passages further indicates that besides being addressed as praise to God, such hymns served as vehicles of instruction in the gathered community. Furthermore, both passages, as well as this one, indicate that some of the singing might best be called “a kind of charismatic hymnody,” in which spontaneous hymns of praise were offered to God in the congregation, although some may have been known beforehand. The present passage, as well as the later one (v. 26), indicates that some of this kind of singing was “solo.” This text also adds a dimension to our understanding of “speaking in tongues.” Not only did one pray in this way, but one also praised God in song in this way. Hence the verbs in the next sentences (vv. 16–17) that pick up this theme are “bless” and “give thanks.”
16 With this introductory “otherwise” Paul makes the transition from his own determination to praise in both ways—in tongues to be sure, but also with his understanding—to their need to do especially the latter in the assembly: “Otherwise when you are praising God by the Spirit [meaning here, praising God in tongues in the assembly], how can someone else say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?” Saying the (customary) “Amen” assumes the setting of corporate worship, where this word, also taken over from the Jewish synagogue, indicated wholehearted response to and endorsement of the words of another. Paul’s point, the same one he has been making throughout, is clear enough: Praising God (or praying) in tongues, even though it is by the Spirit, does not build up anyone else in the assembly (v. 17), since what is said is unintelligible—and in the assembly the worship must be corporate, not individualistic.
Paul’s description of the person who cannot say the “Amen,” however, is puzzling: (lit.) “the one who fills the place of the idiōtēs.” The problem is twofold: (1) whether the expression “fills the place of” is to be taken literally or figuratively; and (2) what idiōtēs itself means here. The latter problem is complicated by two further factors: (a) Although this word ordinarily means “nonexpert,” hence “an ordinary person” in contrast to one who is skilled, there is also evidence that it was a technical term in religious life for nonmembers who still participated in the pagan sacrifices. (b) In the present context this same person will be referred to as being “built up” (v. 17), which in Paul has to do with believers; however, a bit later the word idiōtēs reappears in close connection with unbelievers (v. 23).
Those who presuppose that the word refers to the same person both here and later (v. 23) most often consider the idiōtēs to be a person who stands somewhere between nonbelievers and “full-fledged Christians.” Hence the rendering “inquirer” has now been lifted from a footnote in the original NIV and put in the text itself. Very often this person is also viewed as having a special place reserved for them in the Christian assembly. But there are considerable difficulties with these positions. First, even though such language was used at a later time for catechumens, it is almost certainly an anachronism to assume that there were already “nonbaptized converts” who had special “places” reserved for them in the early house churches. Second, the context as a whole seems to be against it. The concern to this point has been the edification of the church. In the next sentence (v. 17) this idiōtēs is referred to as “the other person” who “is not edified” by hearing praise in tongues. Elsewhere in this argument such language refers specifically to a believer. Moreover, Paul says this person is unable to say the customary “Amen” to your thanksgiving, which implies wholehearted endorsement by one who regularly affirms the praise of the living God, and thus seems to exclude nonbelievers.
The alternative is to take the word in the figurative sense of “someone else,” whether believer or unbeliever (probably the former), “who is now put in the position of an inquirer,” understanding idiōtēs as being used in its nontechnical sense to refer to such a person’s inability to comprehend the tongues-speaker. This does not mean, as is often suggested, that such people do not have Spirit gifting, so that they are also being “put down” by the one speaking in tongues. Rather, it refers to any and all in the community who become idiōtai to the tongues-speaker—perhaps in the further sense of being “untrained” (cf. Acts 4:13) in the “language” being spoken—precisely because they do not understand what is being said. The reason for the singular is that it corresponds to the second person singular of the person being addressed. Thus, rather than speak to all in the second plural, Paul’s point is better made in the singular, with the person addressed representing those speaking in tongues in the community and the person “now put in the position of an inquirer” representing the rest in the community who at any time must listen to the uninterpreted tongues without understanding. This, after all, is Paul’s concern throughout the argument, and is further supported by his own follow-up explanation that comes next.
17 This sentence, which begins with an explanatory “for,” spells out why the preceding situation is unacceptable. The contrasts are emphatic. Still keeping to the singulars, Paul says (lit.): “You, to be sure, are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being edified.” The “you” and the “other person” are the two mentioned in the preceding sentence, the one praising God in tongues and the one who takes the place of the “unlearned/untrained” because they do not understand. Thus, as earlier (vv. 1–5 and 6–12) intelligibility and edification are tied together. In the assembly the latter cannot happen without the former.
Paul’s final sentence has regularly been treated in English as a quasi subjunctive, “You may be giving thanks well enough.” Paul, however, is simply affirming what he has already said in the preceding question and answer and application: “To be sure, you are giving thanks.” But that is not adequate in the assembly, he is telling them. What is needed is to give thanks intelligibly, so that others may benefit as well.
18 Paul concludes the argument on yet another personal note, which in itself is not surprising, since both the larger section (beginning with v. 6) and the more immediate subparagraph (beginning with v. 14) begin on such a note. What is surprising is its content: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” Indeed, one wonders who is more greatly surprised, the Corinthians themselves or the contemporary reader.
It has been common to treat the earlier personal references as rhetorical and therefore hypothetical; this one, however, indicates that those references do indeed reflect Paul’s own life in the Spirit (S/spirituality). Along with what is said above (vv. 14–15) and later in the next letter (2 Cor. 12:1–10), this assertion lets us in on aspects of Paul’s personal piety for which we otherwise would have been quite unprepared. Apparently his life of personal devotion was regularly given to praying, singing, and praising in tongues. Granted that this is perhaps somewhat hyperbolic; it thereby only makes the reality more emphatic. The fact that he can say it at all, and say it as a matter for which he can thank God, and do so without fear of contradiction to some believers who are quite taken by this Spirit gifting, must be taken seriously.
If our suggestion has been correct, that there is an undercurrent of apologetic in these references, where Paul is both defending his own status with regard to their criterion—the gift of tongues—and rejecting their use of it, then these sentences are intended to fall like something of a bombshell in Corinth. Despite what they may think, he can assert—with thanksgiving to God!—“I speak in tongues more than all of you.” His concern throughout has been with uninterpreted tongues in the assembly, because what is said cannot edify the church. With this sentence he outmaneuvers the Corinthians altogether. He herewith affirms their gift in the strongest of terms; but he does so in order to reorder their own thinking about what should be happening in the gathering for worship.
Thus this sentence corresponds to the first clause in the preceding sentence (v. 17). “When praising in tongues, you are thanking God well enough. Indeed, I do this more than all of you. But what goes on among Christ’s assembled people is another story altogether.” Hence what comes next will be his own personal response to what is said here, which in turn corresponds to the second clause of the preceding sentence (v. 17)—the edification of others when they assemble together for worship.
19 Having set them up with the preceding surprising words, he now drops the other shoe. When it comes to speaking in tongues as such, he has just asserted, I surpass all of you. But so what? The crucial question is not whether one speaks in tongues or not, but what is appropriate in the assembly. Heretofore one may only have suspected that Paul was making distinctions between private devotion and public worship; this sentence makes it explicit.
The contrasts, which return in part to the language used above (v. 15), are stark. In church “five intelligible words” are to be preferred to “ten thousand words in a tongue.” Only the language for edification has changed: “to instruct others.” This language suggests that “the intelligible words” in this sentence are moving away from the prayer and singing (praising) at the beginning of this paragraph (vv. 15–16), including the interpretation of such praise, back toward the other intelligible gifts mentioned earlier (v. 6).
Thus the present part of the argument has come full circle. If Paul were to come to them as they wished, speaking in tongues, it would not benefit them; for that he must speak in intelligible ways. Now he affirms that he does indeed speak in tongues—more than all of them; but in church, so that others might be instructed, he would rather speak just five words that could be understood than countless words in a tongue. The obvious implication is that they should wish to do the same.
As with the preceding paragraph, this one needs to be heard well by those on both sides of the “tongues issue.” Those who tend to discount it as meaningful because of Paul’s strong words against it in the assembly need to pay closer attention to his own determination to pray and praise in this way—and his thanksgiving for it. On the other side, those who have rediscovered this gift as a meaningful expression in their personal lives of devotion need to be especially conscious of the greater concern of this paragraph that the gathered assembly be a time for the building up of others individually and the body as well.
20Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
22Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
Isaiah 28:11–12; Deut. 28:49
Or some inquirers
Or or some inquirer
Having challenged the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for—if not exclusive use of—tongues as incapable of edifying the church, Paul now concludes by noting the effect of this gift on unbelievers as well. The structure of the present argument is plain, despite some considerable difficulties from our distance involving the application itself (v. 22):
20
Exhortation:
Redirect your thinking (about the function of tongues)
21
OT text:
Tongues do not lead people to obedience
22
Application:
So then—
Assertion 1—
Tongues
a sign
not for
believers
A
but for
unbelievers
B
Assertion 2—
Prophecy
[a sign]
not for
unbelievers
B
but for
believers
A
Illustration 1—Effect of tongues
(1) on unbelievers
(B)
24–25
Illustration 2—Effect of prophecy
(2) on unbelievers
(B)
Although one is led to expect something else from the two assertions, Paul’s basic concern is easily discernible, both from the flow of thought and from the fact that the two illustrations deal with unbelievers only. As in the preceding section, it has to do with the effect of unintelligibility in the corporate setting. Just as uninterpreted tongues do not edify believers (vv. 6–12), neither do they benefit unbelievers who may be present in their coming together for worship. Indeed, the effect would be quite the opposite. As the illustration points out (v. 23), instead of leading to conviction of sin and thus to repentance, the Corinthian believers’ speaking in tongues in the assembly turns out to fulfill the prophetic word of Isaiah (28:11–12; cited in v. 21), that “even then [by speaking in tongues] they will not listen to me.” But that is not the final word. As with its usefulness to believers, prophecy on the other hand will have the opposite effect; it can lead to the conversion of an unbeliever.
Thus even though in the application Paul will speak of the effect of both tongues and prophecy on believers, he has already dealt with that, so in this paragraph he addresses only how each affects nonbelievers. Although this analysis does not resolve all the difficulties with the language of the application to come, it does hopefully point out the direction in which the resolution must be understood to lie.
20 Another turn in the argument is marked by the vocative (cf. v. 6) and the rather abrupt appearance of this exhortation to stop being children in their thinking. Although some have seen this as related to the earlier analogy in the rhapsody about love (13:10–11) and have thus argued that Paul considered speaking in tongues itself as childish behavior to be outgrown, both the preceding argument—especially the two preceding very strong applications (vv. 15 and 18)—and the structure of this sentence indicate otherwise. With the familiar A-B-A pattern of argument, Paul uses this imagery to appeal in two directions: that they cease being like children in their thinking (the two “A” lines); and that they be as innocent as infants in their behavior (the “B” line). In Paul’s sentence this is the basic contrast, brought out in the first two clauses, while the third balances the first as its opposite. Thus (lit.):
Do not
be children
in your thinking;
A
but
be infants
in evil;
B
rather
(de)
in your thinking be adults.
A
As in the usage of this same imagery earlier in the letter (3:1–2), a degree of irony is probably intended. The Corinthians’ childishness consists of thinking improperly that tongues serves as evidence of their new transcendent “spirituality” and thus demonstrates the evidence of the Spirit’s presence in their gathering, while in fact many within the believing community evidence all kinds of ethical/behavioral aberrations that stand over against life in the Spirit.
In the context of the OT passage Paul is about to cite, the prophet Isaiah prefaced the cited words with this rhetorical question: “To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk?” In Isaiah this was probably spoken disparagingly to the prophet by his mockers. It seems likely that the apostle has this context in mind; for him the Corinthians are in danger of playing the role of those “children,” in that case fellow Israelites who rejected the word of the Lord. Thus Paul’s exhortation serves both to push them to reconsider their own evaluation of tongues and at the same time to prepare the way for his final argument against unintelligibility in the community.
21 Paul begins redirecting their thinking by adapting a passage from Isaiah (28:11–12), which he introduces as a citation from “the Law.” The citation itself is not precise; it seems to have been chosen for two interrelated reasons: the occurrence of the language ‘other tongues’ and the fact that in the context of Isaiah this “speaking in tongues” by foreigners did not effect belief in Israel—indeed, it both led to and was part of their judgment. To bring out his own concerns Paul does four things with the Isaiah passage. (1) He inverts the order of “lips of foreigners” and “other tongues” to put his interest, “other tongues,” in first position. (2) In keeping with the Masoretic text (MT), but against the Septuagint (LXX), Paul changes “they will speak” to “I will speak” and concludes with the formula “says the Lord,” probably to increase its impact on the Corinthians. (3) He changes the Septuagint’s disparaging “coarse lips” to “the lips of others,” the “others” now being the Corinthian believers, whose speaking in tongues would have a deleterious effect on unbelievers. (4) Most significantly, he skips a considerable section in the Isaiah passage, picking up at the end (v. 12), where he changes “and they would not hear [akouō],” referring to the intelligible words of the Lord, to “and even so [referring now to the ‘other tongues’] they will not listen to [eisakouō = obey] me.” In the Isaianic oracle the prophet is anticipating the foreign invaders of Israel; in the present context Paul is referring to the “outsiders” (inquirers or unbelievers) whom he is about to mention (v. 23), and who on hearing the Corinthians’ speaking in tongues would declare them to be “out of your minds.” His point seems to be that such a reaction would be a “fulfillment” of this “word of the Lord” to the effect that “tongues” do not lead sinners to obedience.
22 With the strong inferential conjunction “so then,” Paul deduces two antithetical assertions from the prophetic word of Isaiah just quoted. But what he says has become a notorious crux. The problem is twofold: (1) the meaning of “sign,” including whether he intended it to be repeated for the second assertion regarding prophecy, and if so, what it would also mean there; and (2) how to square what is said here with the illustrations that follow, especially the second assertion with the second illustration (in v. 24). As noted above, the solution to this lies primarily in the recognition that Paul’s concern in the paragraph is expressed in the following application (vv. 23–25) and especially in the way what is said in the first sentence of the application (v. 23) “fulfills” the prophet’s word. This means further that the present sentence (v. 22), contrary to the understanding of many, needs to be understood in light of what follows, not the other way about.
The first assertion flows directly from the quotation itself: “Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.” Although it cannot be finally proven, the flow of the argument from the opening exhortation (v. 20), including the strong “so then” of this sentence, suggests that Paul is setting up this antithesis with the Corinthians’ own point of view in mind. That is, “In contrast to what you think, this word of the Lord from Isaiah indicates that tongues are not meant as a sign for believers. They are not, as you make them, the divine evidence of being pneumatikos, nor of the presence of God in your assembly. To the contrary, in the public gathering uninterpreted tongues function as a sign for unbelievers.” The question then is, What kind of sign? In light of the citation from Isaiah (v. 21), for which this is the inferential deduction, “sign” in this first sentence can only function in a negative way. That is, it is a “sign” that functions to the disadvantage of unbelievers, not to their advantage.
Most likely Paul is using the word in a way that is quite in keeping with his Judaic background, where “sign” functions as an expression of God’s attitude; something “signifies” to Israel either God’s disapproval or pleasure. In this case, it is divine disapproval that is in view, but not in the sense that God intends unbelievers during this time of grace to receive divine judgment. To the contrary, “tongues” function that way as the result of their effect on outsiders, as the illustration that follows (v. 23) will clarify. Because what is spoken in tongues is unintelligible, unbelievers receive no revelation from God; they cannot thereby be brought to faith. Thus by their response of seeing the work of the Spirit as madness, they are destined for divine judgment—just as in the word from Isaiah Paul has quoted. This, of course, is not the divine intent for such people; hence Paul’s urgency is that the Corinthians cease thinking like children, and thus stop the public use of tongues, since it serves to drive the unbeliever away rather than to lead someone to faith.
With a balancing antithetical clause Paul adds that “prophecy, however,” also functions as a sign, but “not for unbelievers, but for believers.” With this sentence he once again picks up the contrast between tongues and prophecy with which the present instruction began (vv. 1–6)—although it is alluded to earlier on (v. 19) in anticipation of this argument. This is also the clause in which most of the difficulties have arisen, since in the illustration that corresponds to this assertion (vv. 24–25) he does not so much as mention believers but indicates only how prophecy affects unbelievers, and does so in a way that would make one think that it is really a sign for them, that is, to their advantage.
The solution would again seem to lie first of all in the nature of the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians. Over against their preference for tongues, he asserts that it is prophecy, with its intelligibility and revelatory character, that functions as the sign of God’s approval, of God’s presence, in their midst. The evidence of this is to be found in the very way that it affects unbelievers. By the revelatory word of prophecy they are convicted of their sins, and falling on their faces before God they will exclaim, “God is really among you!” That exclamation as a response to prophecy is a “sign” for believers, the indication of God’s favor resting upon them.
Thus, tongues and prophecy function as “signs” in two different ways, precisely in accord with the effect each will have on an unbeliever who is present when the Corinthians have come together for worship.
23 With this sentence and the next Paul proceeds to illustrate the two preceding assertions in terms of the effect of each on unbelievers. Both sentences take the same form: a present general condition in which the protasis expresses the hypothetical situation of the gathered church into which unbelievers enter, and the apodosis expresses their response—first to tongues, then to prophecy. Although hypothetical, and probably somewhat overstated, the protases must nonetheless be taken seriously as real possibilities; otherwise the argument is to no avail. Thus these illustrations also give later readers several insights into an early Christian gathering for worship.
(1) The language for their assembling together is nearly identical to that found in his correcting their abuse of the poor at the Lord’s Table (11:20): “the whole church comes together at the same place.” Along with the salutation and the evidence from a concluding word of greeting at the end of Romans (16:23), this seems to imply that all the believers from all the house churches at times met together in some way. Given the limitations of size in even the most commodious of well-to-do homes, does this imply that the church was somewhat smaller than we might tend to think? Or is it possible that one of the houses was considerably larger than archeology has uncovered in Corinth to this point? We simply do not know.
(2) Both this text and the sentence that begins the following instruction (v. 26), as well as the preceding long discussion regarding “head-coverings” in worship (11:2–16), where women are described as praying and prophesying in the assembly, indicate that at least one expression of their worship was “charismatic,” in the twofold sense that there was general participation by all the members, including the women, and that there was considerable expression of the more spontaneous gifts of utterance.
Two things should be noted in regard to the language “and all speak in tongues.” (a) Even though this is very likely overstated, one can hardly escape the implication that all of the believers could potentially do so. This means that Paul’s point in the earlier correction-instruction (12:29–30), as we noted there, was to discourage “all” from doing so at the same time; in light of what he says here, it is altogether unlikely that he thought that only a few could be so gifted (cf. v. 5). The same is now also true of prophecy. (b) Again, even though it appears to be overstatement for effect, this is probably a generally realistic description of the current scene in Corinth. Not that all were necessarily speaking in tongues at the same time; nonetheless the guidelines to come (vv. 27–33) seem to imply that many were doing so on a regular basis. If so, then not only did the unintelligibility lead to the exclamation of “madness,” but so also would the general chaos of so much individualized worship with no concern for the general edification of the body as a whole.
(3) These gatherings of the “whole church” were also accessible to unbelievers. The term “unbeliever” is the same as in the preceding sentence (v. 22), making it certain that these qualifications serve as illustrations for those assertions. Added to “unbeliever” in both instances is the word idiōtēs used earlier (v. 16). The close ties of this word with “unbeliever” and the nature of their response to tongues and prophecy indicate that such people are not believers. It is also doubtful for the same reasons that it is a technical term for an “inquirer,” someone who stands in some kind of halfway position. Most likely, as before, it carries the nontechnical sense of anyone who is “unlearned,” in this case “untutored” with regard to the Christian faith. Indeed, it is possible that Paul did not intend to designate a second kind of person at all; rather, he simply begins his description of unbelievers in general with this word. Thus, the visiting “unbeliever” is also “untutored” in the faith. As noted earlier, Paul may very well have in mind an unbelieving spouse accompanying the believer to their place of worship. Such a person is both outside of Christ and as yet uninstructed in Christ.
(4) The response of the unbeliever to the community’s collective speaking in tongues is to equate the Christian gathering with the mania that attended some of the mystery cults. “Madness,” they will say. For Paul such a response is totally unworthy of the gospel of Christ. Hence tongues without interpretation fulfills the prophetic word of Isaiah, that with “other tongues” God will speak to “this people,” yet even so they will not obey.
This is Paul’s final word about uninterpreted tongues in the assembly; with it he is once more urging them to stop such activity. Not only do uninterpreted tongues not edify; they are also not the “evidence” the Corinthians think they are. To the contrary, this response by outsiders would be sure evidence that they have quite missed what it means to be God’s “Spirit people” in the new era that has dawned with Christ.
24–25 Once more prophecy is set forth as the alternative to the unintelligibility of uninterpreted tongues. In this case it is viewed as leading directly to the conversion of the visiting unbeliever. This passage in particular implies that prophesying is potentially available to all believers, since all are Spirit people. That is, Paul does not say, “If the prophets all prophesy . . . ,” but, “If everyone prophesies . . . the unbeliever will be convicted by all [not all the prophets] . . . and he will be judged by all.” Both the nature and language of this argumentation seem to exclude the option that this gift was limited to a group of authoritative people who were known in the community as “the prophets.” Again, as with tongues, it probably does not mean that Paul actually expects “everyone” to prophesy; it does imply the extensive involvement of the whole community in worship, especially in the manifestation of the gifts of inspired utterance.
In contrast to the negative response to tongues (v. 23), here Paul offers a considerable description of the unbeliever’s response to such prophesying. One cannot tell from what is said whether these prophecies would be similar to those mentioned above (v. 3) that edified believers, or whether some of the prophetic words would be more specifically directed toward the unbeliever as such. In either case, quite in keeping with the OT view of prophecy, Paul views the inspired word as penetrating deeply into the moral consciousness of the hearers. There are several dimensions to this.
First, the unbeliever is “convicted by all, is called to account by all.” These two verbs together imply the deep probing work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives, exposing their sins and thus calling them to account before the living God. Lying behind the word “convicted” is the OT view that one is exposed before God through the prophetic word; inherent in such “exposure” is the call to repentance, the summons to have one’s exposed sins confessed and forgiven by a merciful God.
The second word appeared previously in this letter to describe the Corinthians’ “examination” of Paul and his apostleship (4:3–4; 9:3); it is also used in an earlier argument (2:14–15) to describe the proper sphere of activity of the “Spiritual person,” meaning something like “discern.” Perhaps there is an intended deflection by the use of this word here. Instead of “examining” Paul on their grounds/understanding of Spirit activity, they should seek to prophesy in the assembly so that the proper “examining” might take place, that of the Spirit in the heart of the unbeliever, bringing such a person to a place of repentance.
The result of this convicting process begins as an internal work in the sinner: “the secrets of their hearts are laid bare.” The emphasis here is on the revelatory aspect of the prophetic utterance. The Genesis account of the fall suggests that one of its first effects on humanity is their great sense of need to hide from the living God; it is the folly of our sinfulness that allows us to think we can. Thus, one of the sure signs of the presence of God in the believing community is this deep plowing work of the Spirit, whereby through prophetic revelation the secrets of the heart are laid bare. No wonder the Corinthians preferred tongues; it not only gave them a sense of being more truly people of the Spirit but it was safer!
The final result of such exposure before God is conversion, which is what Paul’s language unmistakably intends. His language is thoroughly steeped in the OT. First (lit.), “they will fall on their face and worship God.” This is biblical language for obeisance and worship. That Paul intends this to mean conversion is indicated by the final exclamation, which is a conscious reflection of a prophetic word in Isaiah (45:14; cf. Zech. 8:23): God, speaking through the prophet, says that the Egyptians will come over to you, and “will worship” before you, and say, “Surely God is with you.” Paul simply changes the singular “with you,” referring to Israel, into a plural, “among you,” referring to the gathered community. This final confession of the unbeliever is thus the “sign” that prophecy is for “believers”; it is sure evidence of God’s favor resting on his people.
With these powerful words Paul brings to a conclusion his argument against both the use of uninterpreted tongues in the assembly and the thinking that lay behind it. He insists that in the gathered community only what is intelligible is permissible—because what is intelligible, especially prophecy, both edifies God’s people and leads to the conversion of others. But this is only part of the problem. Their use of tongues was apparently also disorderly, so to that question he now turns before concluding the argument with a direct confrontation with the Corinthians over his right so to order them and over who in fact is truly pneumatikos.
Along with the great need for local communities to be edified, the reason set forth in this paragraph ought to be sufficient to lead the church to pray for the renewal of the prophetic gift in its ongoing life. It is not simply the presence of prophecy itself that signifies God’s presence among his gathered people, but the powerful revealing work of the Spirit that convicts of sin and leads to repentance. Perhaps in our domestication of the Spirit we have also settled for a “safer” expression of worship, one in which very few are ever led to exclaim that “Surely God is among you.” Seeing that actually take place leads to prayer that Paul’s opening exhortation (v. 1) might be the church’s ongoing portion: love, Spirit gifting, especially prophecy.
The basic problem Paul has with the Corinthians’ singular zeal for the gift of tongues has now been addressed (vv. 1–25). Because the gift without interpretation is unintelligible, it neither edifies saints nor converts sinners. But that is not the only concern. What was hinted at in the earlier moment of reproof (v. 23) is implied more strongly in what comes next (vv. 27–28). Apparently there was a degree of disorderliness to their speaking in tongues as well. Although the evidence is not conclusive, Paul’s way of arguing in this section suggests that more than one of them was accustomed to speaking out at the same time. This in turn appears also to have resulted in a high degree of individualized worship in their corporate gatherings. Paul, however, does not himself press this latter theme here, so one must be duly cautious. His antidote is to offer guidelines for regulation that, taken together, suggest orderliness, self-control, and concern for others.
Thus, the opening paragraphs of this section bring the argument of the chapter to its conclusion. Paul begins with a descriptive exhortation (v. 26): Each one has something to contribute, and everything must be done to edify. This is followed by guidelines, first for tongues and interpretation (vv. 27–28) and then for prophecy and discernment (vv. 29–31). The concluding word on prophecies (vv. 32–33) probably functions as a concluding word for the whole section. Christian inspiration is not out of control, for the one and only God who lies behind it all is not like that; and in a somewhat rare moment he argues that this holds true for all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
As noted throughout, the issue right along has been not only their incorrect assessment of the gift of tongues and what it means to be people of the Spirit, but also their rejection of his authority because (probably) he failed to pass their test on this point (see on vv. 6, 14–15, 18). Thus before bringing the whole of this discussion/correction (chaps. 12–14) to a summary conclusion (vv. 39–40), Paul turns ad hominem one more time. With a series of rhetorical questions that flow directly from the mention of all the churches, he asks how it is that they consider themselves alone to have the word of God on these matters, and concludes with a direct confrontation with them over his own status as apostle and pneumatikos (vv. 36–38).
26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
If this material were in a nonpolemical letter, it would look very much like instruction on the regulation of Spirit utterances. Its appearance here, however, indicates that, even though instructional, it is primarily correctional, especially in light of the argument that has preceded and the rhetoric that follows (vv. 36–38). The section is in four parts: an opening exhortation (v. 26) and final admonition (vv. 32–33) surround the regulation of tongues (vv. 27–28) and prophecy (vv. 29–31). The two regulatory sections are quite similar, both in structure and in content: Paul begins with a word about the number of speakers (two or three at the most); they must speak “one at a time”; what is spoken in tongues must be interpreted and prophecy “discerned”; under certain conditions silence is enjoined; and each section concludes with words similar to the instruction at the beginning (vv. 2–4: without interpretation the tongues-speaker must speak privately to God; if properly regulated prophecies will bring instruction and encouragement).
What is said here about “tongues” is precisely in keeping with what Paul has argued throughout; it serves as further evidence that he has not been weighing in against this particular gifting as such, but against uninterpreted tongues in the assembly. Thus he here regulates the use of speaking in tongues accompanied by interpretation.
26 The combination of the formula “What then is the upshot of all this?” and the vocative “brothers and sisters” signals a shift in the argument, but in this case one that seems intended to tie together several loose ends. The verb “you come together,” spoken now in the second person plural (as in 11:18, 20, 33–34), picks up the preceding argument (vv. 23–25). The first sentence, which offers a description of what should be happening at their gatherings, echoes his earlier concerns (chap. 12) that each one has opportunity to participate in the corporate ministry of the body. The second sentence, the exhortation that all of the various expressions of ministry described in the first sentence be for edification, echoes the basic concern of the preceding argument—as well as the interlude on the primacy of love (chap. 13). Thus these concluding guidelines bring both sections of the preceding argument into focus.
Like all the former lists in these chapters, this final one is ad hoc; it is intended neither to give the “order” of service nor to be exhaustive of what “each one has” to offer by way of ministry. Given the fact that neither prayer nor prophecy and “discernment” is listed (but cf. 11:4–5), yet in the following sentences the latter two are “regulated,” this list in particular seems capable of yielding to an et al. at the end. Each of these items has appeared in the previous discussion; most likely they represent various types of verbal manifestations of the Spirit that should occur in their assembly. Since the latter three are Spirit-inspired utterances, and are therefore spontaneous, it is probable that the first two are to be understood in that way as well, although one cannot be certain.
Regarding the “hymn,” see the discussion above (v. 15); very likely this word stands for “prayer” as well, although the interpreted tongue could also fit that category. For “word of instruction” and “revelation” see above (v. 6). As suggested there, the latter could very easily be a cover word for all other forms of intelligible inspired speech, including the “prophecies” that come next (vv. 29–32), especially since in that passage (v. 30) the verb “revealed” occurs in the context of prophecy and discernment. For “tongue” and “interpretation” see the earlier discussion (12:10). On the “charismatic” nature of this worship, see above (v. 23). What is striking in this entire discussion is the absence of any mention of leadership or of anyone who would be responsible for seeing that these guidelines were generally adhered to. The community appears to be left to itself and the Holy Spirit. What is mandatory is that everything aim at edification.
27 Having commanded that “all things (i.e., the various ministries in the preceding list) be done for the edification of the church,” Paul proceeds to show how this may be accomplished for speaking in tongues and prophecy, the two gifts that have been at the forefront of the preceding discussion. He begins with the problem child, “tongues.” Three guidelines are given.
First, “two—or at the most three—should speak.” One cannot be sure whether this means “at any one gathering” or “before there is an interpretation.” In favor of the former is the phrase “at the most,” plus the overall concern of the chapter that “tongues” not dominate the assembly; therefore in this guideline Paul is suggesting that such manifestations be limited in any given meeting. In favor of the latter is the similar recommendation for prophecies in what follows (vv. 29–32), which on the basis of what is said later (v. 31) is intended to limit the number of speakers in sequence, not the number of prophecies at any given gathering for worship. On the whole, this is not easy to decide, but probably the word “at the most,” which is missing in the guidelines for prophecies, tips the balance in favor of the former.
Second, “and one at a time.” Two observations are in order. (a) There seems to be no good reason for such a word unless it is intended to be corrective. Along with what has preceded (v. 23), the implication is that the Corinthians were doing otherwise. Not only did they have a singular passion for this gift, but apparently they had allowed it to dominate their gatherings in a way that reflected pagan ecstasy far more than the gospel of Christ. (b) This guideline at the same time clearly removes “tongues” from all forms of pagan ecstasy, as far as Paul’s understanding is concerned. The admonition to come (v. 31), to take turns, as it were, is probably intended as much for this gift as for prophecy. Whatever else, Christian inspiration, including both tongues and prophecy, is not “out of control.” The Spirit does not “possess” or “overpower” the speaker; rather the Spirit is subject to the prophet or tongues-speaker, in the sense that what the Spirit has to say will be said in an orderly and intelligible way. It is indeed the Spirit who speaks, but what is spoken comes through the controlled instrumentality of the believer’s own mind and tongue. In this regard it is no different from the inspired utterances of the OT prophets, which were spoken at the appropriate times and settings.
Third, “and someone must interpret.” This simply repeats what has already been said twice earlier (vv. 5 and 13), except that in those two passages it is assumed that the tongues-speaker will also receive the interpretation; whereas here and in what has preceded (12:10) and follows (vv. 28–30), it is assumed that the interpretation will be given to someone else. What cannot be decided is whether “someone” is to interpret after each utterance in tongues or whether both of the first guidelines are also intended to limit the number of expressions in tongues before there is an interpretation. Probably the latter, but there is no way for the later reader to have certainty. This guideline receives further qualification in the sentence that follows.
28 This qualification serves to underscore what has been said throughout the preceding argument for intelligibility in the assembly (vv. 1–25). First, “If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the assembly.” This puts into the form of a regulation what was said in different ways earlier (vv. 5, 6–13, and 14–19). It also accounts for the conclusion (v. 13) of the presenting discussion (vv. 6–12) that urges the tongues-speaker to pray that they might also interpret. If they have not themselves experienced the gift of interpretation, and if no one is present who is known to have this gift, then they are to remain silent.
But as before, Paul does not forbid the gift itself. Repeating the ideas given at the outset (vv. 2 and 4), he admonishes that the tongues-speaker “speak to oneself and to God.” Speaking “to oneself” stands in contrast to “in the assembly” in the preceding instruction (v. 27), meaning that they should pray “to God” in this way in private.
Apart from the final concluding admonition (v. 39), this is the final word about tongues in this argument. Paul has been consistent throughout. It is the language of prayer and praise, directed toward God, but because it is unintelligible and therefore cannot edify, it should remain in the setting of personal prayer and devotion. Only when someone known to be gifted with interpretation is present may it be exercised in the assembly.
29 Paul now turns to give similar guidelines for the exercise of the gift of prophecy. Because of the similarities with what was said about tongues, some have suggested that there were difficulties with this gift in Corinth as well. More likely, however, he advances these guidelines because this is the Spirit gifting he has been arguing for throughout vis-à-vis tongues; since he has just “regulated” their gift, he goes on to do the same for the one he has been plumping for in its place. Hence the similarities.
He begins with the same ordering as above (v. 27): “Two or three prophets should speak.” This does not mean that in any given gathering there must be a limit of two or three prophecies. Even though that is commonly suggested, it lies quite beyond Paul’s concern and makes little sense at all of what was said above (“when you come together and all prophesy” [v. 24]), nor of the later concern (v. 31) that all have opportunity to participate. Rather, it means that there should be no more than three at a time before “the others weigh carefully what is said.” This latter item is the verb for “distinguishing between spirits” used earlier (12:10, q.v.). As noted there, this is probably to be understood as a form of “testing the S/spirits,” but not so much in the sense of whether “the prophet” is speaking by a foreign spirit but whether the prophecy itself truly conforms to the Spirit of God, who is also indwelling the other believers. Other than what was said before (12:3), no criterion is here given as to what goes into the “discerning” process, although in a later letter (Rom. 12:6) we are told that prophecies are to be “according to the analogy of faith,” which probably means “that which is compatible with their believing in Christ.” Nor is there any suggestion as to how it proceeds. At best one can argue that prophecies did not have independent authority in the church, but must always be the province of the corporate body, who in the Spirit were to determine the sense or perhaps viability of what had been said.
Some have argued, on the basis of an earlier moment (12:28), that “prophets” refers to the special group of authoritative persons in the community who have been given this gift. “The others” in this case would mean “the other prophets,” so that the whole text is intended to regulate the activities of the prophets, vis-à-vis regulating “prophecies” per se. But nearly everything else in the argument stands over against such a view. (a) The argument from the outset (v. 1) has been in the second plural, addressing the entire community. He urges all of them “eagerly [to] desire gifts of the Spirit, especially that you prophesy,” without a hint that this gift is limited to the “prophets.” (b) So with the rest of the argument; for example, later (v. 12) he exhorts, “Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit [referring to their collective enthusiasm for tongues], try to excel in those that build up the church [meaning esp. the gift of prophecy].” (c) The evidence in the preceding paragraph (v. 24), even though hypothetical, is especially telling. As before (v. 23), Paul implies a situation that could conceivably occur, namely that “all prophesy,” so that the unbeliever is convicted by all and judged by all. (d) So also in the coming final sentence (v. 31) he urges orderliness, “for you may all prophesy in turn so that all may learn and all be encouraged/exhorted.” It is completely gratuitous to suggest that the first “all” means “all the prophets” while the next two refer to the whole community.
This does not mean, of course, that all will or do prophesy. It is simply to note that Paul’s concern here is not with a group of prophets, but with the functioning of prophecy in the assembly. The noun “prophets,” therefore, is to be understood as functional language, similar to the use of “interpreter” above (v. 28), and means, as at the beginning (v. 3), “the one who is prophesying.” Although he uses a noun in this case, which he does not do with “the one who speaks in a tongue,” the structure of the two sentences (vv. 27 and 29) calls for a similar understanding in both cases and does not imply that he is now speaking about a special group of persons.
30–31 These two sentences offer a further guideline for the prophetic gift, so that everything will be “done in a fitting and orderly way” (v. 40). The requirement seems to be aimed at those who might tend to dominate the meeting, although that is not certain. In any case, Paul presupposes that while one is speaking, “a revelation [may come] to someone who is sitting down.” The use of the verb “reveal” in this context suggests that for Paul this was the essential character of what was spoken in a prophecy (see on vv. 6, 24–25, and 26). When this happens then “the first speaker,” meaning the one already speaking, “should stop.” The grounds for such a regulation will be given next (v. 32); neither the tongues-speaker nor the prophet is out of control.
The “for” that begins the second sentence (v. 31) may be either explanatory, offering an elucidation of what has just been said, or causal, giving its reason. In either case, Paul now offers a justification for the preceding regulation: “you can all prophesy in turn.” As noted above, (1) “all” does not mean that everyone has this gift; the implication is that it is potentially available to everyone; and (2) this language makes almost no sense at all if he is referring to what should take place over several different meetings; the concern throughout, beginning with the verb “you assemble” (v. 26), is with what takes place in any given gathering.
The appeal is both to self-control and to deference. It is difficult to imagine two people prophesying simultaneously. But since they apparently were doing so with tongues, this at least anticipates their also doing so with prophecy—as well perhaps as keeping it in the category of “controlled” speech in contrast to pagan varieties.
The reason for such orderliness is given in a final purpose clause. Paul is emphatic: “All may prophesy, so that all may be instructed and all may be encouraged.” As earlier (chap. 12), and again in the instruction with which this paragraph began (v. 26), this reflects a concern for edification in which everyone contributes. Since the whole of the divine revelation is not given to just one or a few—or in simply one kind of manifestation—the concern is that all, including those who speak prophetically, should learn from and be encouraged or exhorted by what the Spirit has given to others. The result of such orderliness, therefore, is that the opening exhortation is fulfilled, that “everything be done for the edification of the church” (v. 26).
32 With this crucial sentence Paul offers his justification for the preceding regulations of the activities of both speaking in tongues and prophesying. Along with its theological basis given in the next sentence (v. 33), these two sentences bring this section to a fitting conclusion. With these words Paul lifts Christian “inspired speech” out of the category of “ecstasy” as such and offers it as a radically different thing from the mania of the pagan cults. There is no seizure here, no loss of control; the speaker is neither frenzied nor a babbler. If tongues is not intelligible, it is nonetheless inspired utterance and completely under the control of the speaker. So too with prophecy.
As noted earlier, the phrase “spirits of prophets” means “the prophetic Spirit” by which each of them speaks through their own spirit. Paul’s point is that the utterances are subject to the speakers in terms of timing; the content is understood to be the product of the divine Spirit who inspires such utterances. Thus he justifies their speaking one at a time, being silent with regard to tongues when no interpreter is present, and ceasing for the sake of another when a prophetic revelation is given to someone else. All of this is possible because “the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of [the] prophets.”
33 To conclude Paul adds a significant theological justification for the foregoing guidelines. Everything has to do with the character of God and what God has already established to be true of divine activity in the rest of the churches. First, “for God is not a God of disorder but of peace.” This sentence, along with the final appeal (v. 40), seems to corroborate the suggestion made above (v. 23) that the Corinthian assembly had become unruly in its expression of tongues. Now Paul is arguing that the basis of all these instructions is ultimately theological. It has to do with the character of God, probably vis-à-vis the deities of the cults, whose worship was characterized by frenzy and disorder. The theological point is crucial: the character of one’s deity is reflected in the character of one’s worship. The Corinthians must therefore cease worship that reflects the pagan deities more than the God whom they have come to know through the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 12:2–3). God is neither characterized by disorder nor the cause of it in the assembly.
The interesting opposite of “disorder,” however, is not quietness or propriety, or even “order,” but “peace.” Minimally this refers to the sense of harmony that will obtain in a Christian assembly when everyone is truly in the Spirit and the aim of everything is the edification of the whole (v. 26). It is tempting once again, as in an earlier moment (7:15, q.v.), to see here a reflection of Paul’s Jewish background, in which God’s people are called to live, in this case worship, “for the sake of peace,” that is, in such a way as to win the favor of others.
Second, what is true of God in terms of Christian worship is so “in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” Because of some apparent awkwardness in speaking of God in this way, the original NIV followed a number of scholars and English translations, including the editors of the most commonly used Greek text (NA27), who preferred to take this final phrase as introducing what follows (vv. 34–35). But there are several considerable reasons for taking it as the concluding word to these instructions on “order.” (a) As will be noted later, there is substantial evidence that these clearly intruding, and thoroughly un-Pauline, sentences (vv. 34–35) are not authentic, and therefore that Paul could not have intended it to go with what he did not write. Furthermore, the very early textual evidence in the Western church indicates that this phrase was not considered to be part of those sentences. (b) The two rhetorical questions that follow (v. 36), both of which begin with “or,” make best sense when understood as referring directly to this statement. That is, “All the churches of the saints are intended to be orderly as we have just described, or did the word of God originate with you?” This seems to be the proper understanding of the rhetoric to come (v. 36), even if the intruding sentences were authentic, which seems altogether unlikely. (c) To take this phrase with the intruding text creates an even clumsier sentence: “As in all the churches of the Lord’s people the women should remain silent in the churches.” That is a redundancy that is both nearly intolerable and altogether unlike Paul—so much so that even the NIV tries to alleviate it with a different translation for the two clauses. (d) This is now the fourth appeal of this kind in the letter (see 4:17; 7:17; 11:16); in each of the earlier instances the appeal concludes its sentence, and in two cases (4:17; 11:16) it functions as an addendum just as it does here. (e) Finally, and most important, this concern that they be like the other churches is more fitting at the conclusion of the major concern of this argument, as in two major earlier passages (chaps. 1–4 and 11:2–16), than with something that, even if it were authentic, would in the present argument be merely an aside at best.
Thus, this final appeal continues the theological word with which the sentence began. God is not only like this, but things have been so ordered that God’s own character is to be appropriately displayed in worship in all the churches. This particular appeal, which in this letter began with the opening words of salutation (see 1:2), is an indication to the Corinthians that their view of tongues and Spirit gifting that has allowed this kind of disorderly conduct is out of keeping with what God is doing elsewhere through the gospel. They are marching to their own drum; Paul is urging them not only to conform to the character of God, but also to get in step with the rest of God’s people, the church.
By and large the history of the church points to the fact that in worship we do not greatly trust the diversity of the body. Edification must always be the rule, and that carries with it orderliness so that all may learn and all be encouraged. But it is no great credit to the historical church that in opting for “order” it also opted for a silencing of the ministry of the many. That, it would seem, is at least the minimal point of the paragraph.
The most important word in this paragraph is the final one. Some Pentecostal and charismatic assemblies would do well to heed these directives; confusion and disorder is simply not in keeping with the character of God. On the other hand, what is said at the outset (v. 26) makes it clear that the “peace” and “order” at the end (v. 33) do not necessarily mean somber ritual, as though God were really something of a “stuffed shirt.” If our understanding of God’s character is revealed in our worship, then it must be admitted that in the contemporary church God is not often thought of in terms of allowing spontaneity or of joy.
36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Paul’s long response to the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for tongues is now brought to conclusion. The basic issue is over what it means to be pneumatikos (“a person of the Spirit”), and on this issue Paul and they are deeply divided. They think it has to do with speaking in tongues, the language(s) of the angels, the sure evidence that they are already living the pneumatic existence of the future. For this reason they have great zeal for this gift (cf. v. 12), including an insistence on its practice in the gathered assembly. Apparently in their letter they have not only defended this practice but, by the same criterion, have chided Paul for his lack of “spirituality.” Hence the undercurrent of apologetic for his own speaking in tongues in three earlier passages (vv. 6, 15, and 18).
Paul’s response to all this has been twofold. First, they are to broaden their perspective to recognize that being Spirit people by its very nature means a great variety of gifts and ministries in the church (chap. 12). Second, the whole point of the gathered people of God is edification, the true expression of love for the saints. Whatever they do in the assembly must be both intelligible and orderly so that the whole community may be built up; thus it must reflect the character of God, which is how it is (or is to be) in all the congregations of the Lord’s people (v. 33).
Paul is now about to wrap all this up, which he eventually does with a final summation of the argument (vv. 39–40), reaffirming the priority of prophecy without forbidding speaking in tongues (vv. 1–25), yet insisting that all must be done in a fitting and orderly way (vv. 26–33). But before that, the mention of how things are in “all the congregations of the Lord’s people” spins off into a moment of ad hominem rhetoric in which he not only dresses the Corinthians down for “marching to their own drum” (v. 36) but also confronts them directly on the matter of who is truly pneumatikos, they or he (v. 37), concluding with a prophetic judgment on any who reject the corrections given in this response (v. 38). All of this is reminiscent of an earlier final parting shot (4:18–21), as well as the long defense in chapter 9 (through v. 23).
36 The two questions with which he begins are a direct confrontation with the Corinthians over their attitude toward Paul on some issue, in which he tries to give them perspective by reminding them of their own place in the history of “the word of God” (i.e., the gospel of Christ). Thus picking up and responding to the immediately preceding rhetoric (v. 33), that “God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” he bursts out with an introductory “or” and asks with sarcasm, “Did the message about Christ originate with you?” That is to say, “Are you the fountainhead from which all Christian truth springs that you can act so in this matter?” “Are you the only ones to whom it has come,” he asks further, “so that you can carry on in your own individualistic way, as if there were no other believers in the world?” This is biting rhetoric, which flows directly from the immediately preceding clause, “as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people” (v. 33). Who do they think they are anyway? is the implication; has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul’s instructions, on the one hand, and be so out of touch with the other communities of believers, on the other?
But to what does this rhetoric refer? Most certainly not to the intruding words about women keeping silent (vv. 34–35), which, as pointed out in the addendum (pp. 780–92), are altogether unlikely to be authentic. Indeed, the content of these rhetorical questions makes it quite clear that Paul is concluding the present argument having to do with their and his disagreements over the nature of being pneumatikos and the place of speaking in tongues in the assembly. Both questions begin with the conjunction “or,” implying that the first question flows directly from the immediately preceding sentence, that God is not a God of disorder but of peace. This conjunction in fact goes so poorly with the sentence about its being disgraceful for a woman to speak in the assembly (v. 35) that one wonders how the ordinary reader can make any sense of it at all, which is why it is conveniently left out of several English versions. But it makes perfectly good sense following what has immediately preceded (v. 33): “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” The Corinthian pneumatics are dead wrong on this matter; this rhetoric, therefore, is not only an attempt to get them to see that they are out of step with the other churches, but also leads directly to the two conditional sentences that follow (vv. 37–38).
37 This is now the third instance in this letter where Paul attacks their own position head-on with the formula “If anyone thinks they are . . .” (see on 3:18 and 8:2). Each occurs in one of the three major sections of the letter (chaps. 1–4; 8–10; 12–14); and the argument in each case indicates that by this formula Paul is zeroing in on the Corinthians’ own perspective (some of them at least) as to what it means to be people of the Spirit. They do indeed think of themselves as “the wise” (3:18) and as “having knowledge” (8:2), probably in both cases because they also think of themselves as being pneumatikoi (see on 2:15 and 3:1).
In this case, however, it is probably not the Corinthians as a whole whom he is taking on, although they are certainly in view as well; more likely, as twice before (4:18 and 9:3), he is speaking directly to those who have been leading the church in its anti-Pauline sentiments. These people consider themselves to be “prophets” and “gifted by the Spirit.” These two Greek words (prophētoi/pneumatikoi) are probably to be understood as closely linked. In contrast to the functional use of “prophet” in the immediately preceding argument, the word “prophet” here reverts back to an earlier usage (12:28), where it refers to those who had something of a “ranked” position of ministry in the local assembly. Crucial here is the addition “or pneumatikos” (= “spiritual,” meaning “a person of the Spirit”). As argued throughout the commentary, this is almost certainly the central issue. There seems to be no other good reason for Paul to have spoken to them in this way if they did not in fact consider themselves to be pneumatikoi, the primary evidence of which was the gift of tongues. Indeed, they were sure that they themselves were Spirit people; they were less sure of the apostle.
But in an earlier moment (12:28) Paul has already anticipated what he says here. God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets. He is not denying that those who oppose him are prophets, nor that the Corinthians as a whole are pneumatikoi. He seems to be arguing that he himself, the one whom the Lord used to found the church in Corinth, is first of all an apostle, that he is therefore also a prophet, and that thus he is “writing to you the Lord’s command.” The emphasis in Paul’s word order is on “the Lord” (referring of course to Christ) as the source of what he has been writing. The word “command” therefore is most likely a collective singular referring to all that he has written on this present matter, especially their need for intelligibility and order in the assembly so that all may be edified. Since both he and they have the Spirit, the true “person of the Spirit” will thus “acknowledge” that what Paul writes is from the Lord—indeed it is “the Lord’s command.”
38 With the authority of the same Lord from whom he received the “command,” Paul pronounces sentence on those who do not recognize the Spirit in what he writes: “If anyone [i.e., the one who thinks they are a Spirit person] ignores this, they themselves will be ignored.”
Paul’s point is clear; the precise meaning of the repeated verb is slightly less so. He seems to be making a double play on words. The verb “to ignore” is here the antonym of “acknowledge” in the preceding sentence. Thus, a person of the Spirit should “recognize” what Paul writes as “from the Lord”; if anyone “fails to acknowledge” it as such, that person will in turn not be “recognized/acknowledged.” Although it is possible that Paul meant the subject of this last clause to be himself or the church (= “not recognized to be a prophet or gifted by the Spirit”), more likely “God” is the intended grammatical subject. That is, failure to recognize the Spirit as speaking to them through Paul’s letter will lead to that person’s failure to be “recognized” by God (cf. 8:2–3). Hence it is a prophetic sentence of judgment on those who fail to heed this letter, “they will themselves be ignored,” meaning of course, ignored by God.
39 Since the preceding rhetorical confrontation (vv. 36–38) is something of an aside—although in Paul never irrelevant!—he now brings the present argument to a conclusion by way of a three-part summation. It is signaled by the strong inferential conjunction “therefore” (= so then), common to this letter, and yet another vocative. After the rhetoric of much that has preceded, in this case he adds the personal possessive, “my brothers and sisters.”
The first clause repeats the imperative with which the now long instruction began (v. 1): “Be eager to prophesy.” The second speaks to their favorite: “and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” As in the argument itself, he is not to be understood as forbidding their speaking in tongues, nor will he allow anyone else to take the preceding correction as prohibition. Tongues are permissible in the assembly when accompanied by interpretation, and may be experienced as much as one wishes in private. These two clauses together thus summarize the first half of the argument (vv. 1–25).
40 This third clause in the conclusion summarizes the second half of the argument (vv. 26–33): “Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” The word “fitting” argues again for propriety in the assembly (cf. 11:13); the word “orderly” echoes its opposite, “disorder” (from v. 33), and along with that concluding word strongly implies that the gathering for worship in Corinth was in some degree of disarray. The implication of the argument throughout has been that their fascination with speaking in tongues is the problem. With these words, therefore, the argument is brought to a fitting conclusion.
But the letter itself is not finished. Lying behind their view of “spirituality” is not simply a false view of Spirit gifting but a false theology of life in/of/by the Spirit as such. Since their view of “spirituality” had also, understandably so, brought them to deny a future resurrection of the body, it is fitting that this matter be taken up next. The result is the grand climax of the letter as a whole, at least in terms of its argument, and a passage to which the historic Christian church has been forever indebted.
It is of some interest that people who believe so strongly in the Bible as the Word of God should at the same time spend so much energy getting around the plain sense of the concluding words of this passage (vv. 39–40). Surely there is irony in that. What Paul writes in these chapters he claims to be the command of the Lord; one wonders how he might have applied the preceding argument (v. 38) to those who completely reject his command that they be eager to prophesy and not forbid speaking in tongues. All of which would seem to serve as further evidence of our common fallenness.
The treatment of these verses is deliberately placed following v. 40 in this commentary for reasons that I will explain here. Most manuscripts (including P46A B K Ψ 0243 33 81 1739 Maj) include these verses here; they are found after v. 40 in D F G 88* a b d f g Ambrosiaster Sedulius-Scotus, thus in the entire Western tradition (i.e., west of Greece). If in fact these sentences originated with Paul in this letter, then one is faced with the only displacement of this magnitude in the roughly twelve-century copying tradition of the entire NT; there is simply nothing else even remotely like it anywhere else in that history of transmission, either in Greek or in versions. Indeed the only other “displacement” of any such kind in the entire NT is the reversal in some early MSS of the first two beatitudes of Matthew 5:4–5. This reality in itself should cause any NT scholar to have serious doubts as to its authenticity, even more so when one adds to this the considerably un-Pauline way of saying things that occurs in this passage. Along with the discussion below, see especially the thorough and balanced presentation of this matter in P. B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, 2009), 217–67, which, as E. J. Epp has noted, “is meticulously formulated, cogently argued, and of lasting significance” (1). Those who hold a different view will now need to respond in kind, ceasing the often defensive and dismissive posturing on their part.
This view of things, understandably so, precipitated more discussion/challenges than anything else in the original edition of the commentary, most often with a rather loaded challenge that it was somehow theologically driven. To the contrary, the issue for me has consistently been singular: that NT textual criticism is my first field of expertise, and this matter has only and always been a text-critical issue. What others appear not to wish to come to terms with is the ultimate text-critical question—the “how” question, meaning, How does one explain this singular displacement of Paul’s text by scribes, who were primarily copyists, not thinkers, and who would be copying from a manuscript that was all in Greek capital letters, without breaks between words and most often without “logical” line endings (i.e., the endings of written lines were dictated almost altogether on the basis of space, not content or meaning)? As yet no one has spoken helpfully, if at all, to this fundamental question, whereas a marginal gloss later inserted at two different places can be rather easily accounted for. Thus the primary rule for all text-critical decisions: the reading that best explains the existence of all the others most likely represents the original text. It should be noted finally that all those who have expressed vigorous disagreement here have consistently and conveniently avoided asking and answering the ultimate text-critical questions of the “how” and “why”—that material which appears to be in no way related to the surrounding context should find its way into two significantly different places in the manuscript tradition. As always the textual question must precede all discussions of “meaning.” When one adds to this the equally difficult matters of content and (especially) context, the matter for wonder is that anyone should continue to argue for its authenticity. Even more puzzling are the Greek editions (NA27, UBS4) and the English versions (e.g., the original NIV, ESV, NRSV [which put it all in parentheses(!), as does the REB, but with brackets]) that include the final clause of v. 33 with this material and thus make it a paragraph of its own, since that circumvents not only the primary textual issue but the contextual issue as well. One can only wonder with amazement as to what would have possessed a scribe to insert these words at this point in the argument, whereas the Western tradition at least makes some sense.
Finally it should be noted that the considerable bibliography on this passage has not been included in this case because almost none of it deals with the text-critical question, and the few publications that mention it do so in a dismissive way, as if it were of very little importance. The perhaps most notable example of this is the piece by C. Niccum (“The Voice of the Manuscripts: On the Silence of Women; The External Evidence for 1 Cor 14.34–5,” NTS 43 [1997], 242–55), who simply avoids the essential text-critical question by assuming that, since it is found in one of the two locations in all the known manuscripts, it must therefore be authentic. That essential text-critical question has to do with how a scribe, who is basically a copyist, could ever have created such an otherwise unheard of dislocation of a major portion of text, which in this case would necessarily have happened in the process of copying. At this point the copyist ceases to be a scribe and chooses to be an editor—of otherwise unknown dimensions in antiquity. It therefore remains very difficult to interact with those who simply avoid or downplay the absolutely primary text-critical issue for this passage, especially since there is not a single analogy of any kind elsewhere in the entire history of the transmission of the NT (the transposition of the first two beatitudes in some manuscripts of Matthew is no way comparable, since the scribe there simply corrected himself by including the first beatitude after he had mistakenly started with the second). Scribes were simply scribes, and what little “editing” they ever did was local, and almost always under the rubric of “trying to assist the author” in terms of either clarity or something he was not certain about. The three or four quite non-Pauline moments in this passage, plus the fact that it is otherwise unrelated to anything else in the context, should thus probably settle this issue as a historical phenomenon.
34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Although these three sentences are found in all known manuscripts, either here or at the end of the chapter, the two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast rather conclusive doubt as to their authenticity.
First, on the matter of transcriptional probability, Bengel’s first principle must rule: That form of the text is more likely original which best explains the emergence of all the others. In this case there are three options: Either (1) Paul wrote these words at this place and they were deliberately transposed to a position at the end of the entire passage (after v. 40); or (2) the reverse of this, they were written originally at the end and someone moved them forward to the position they have in most of the Greek copying tradition; or (3) they were not part of the original text but were a very early marginal gloss that was subsequently placed in the text at two different places. Of these options, the third is easily the one that best fits Bengel’s first principle. One can give historical reasons both for the later gloss itself and for its dual position in the text; but one is especially hard pressed to account for either options 1 or 2, had the other been original, especially so, since there is nothing even close to being similar to it in the entire copying or translational tradition of either any part or the whole of the entire NT.
Although the majority of interpreters assume that option 1 is original, they generally do so without asking the crucial historical question as to how the Western text came into existence. The solution that is sometimes offered—that someone in the early second century “edited” the text in this fashion “to find a more appropriate location”—seems to be something of a “shot in the dark,” and thus altogether unhistorical, on two grounds: (a) displacements of this kind do not occur elsewhere in the NT; and (b) no adequate reason can be found for such a displacement were these words originally in the text at either of these places, and especially so after Paul’s clause “as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people” (v. 33). It is simply a modern invention that someone in the early church would have been troubled by the placement of these words in the text, since all who do comment on it never speak to its placement as a difficulty. It is therefore most highly improbable that, with this text before him, it would ever have occurred to a copyist to take such an unprecedented step as to rearrange Paul’s argument—especially so, since in this case one can scarcely demonstrate that the “displacement” makes better sense! In this instance especially the Western text may not legitimately be shunted aside. All the surviving evidence indicates that this was the only way this letter appeared in the Latin-speaking church for over three hundred years. Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul himself had written them originally at this point in this particular argument, since there is no corresponding example of such a phenomenon in the entire transmission of the NT documents; and for at least three centuries or more this is the only way they were known in the West.
Second, once one recognizes the improbability of authenticity on transcriptional grounds, then several questions of intrinsic probability are more easily answered: (1) One can make much better sense of the structure of Paul’s argument without these intruding sentences. As noted above, the balanced guidelines for tongues with interpretation and prophecy with discernment are fittingly brought to a conclusion on the twin notes that the “spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets” (v. 32) and that orderly worship fits the character of God, being what is found (or laid down) in “all the congregations of the Lord’s people” (v. 33). Then, in typical fashion, the mention of “all the ekklēsiai [congregations/churches]” sends Paul off on an ad hominem argument against those in the community who in the name of being pneumatikos (“S/spiritual”) are leading this ekklēsia in another direction. Thus, in light of the “other churches,” he asks rhetorically, “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” This rhetorical aside (vv. 36–38), which at the same time is a direct confrontation between him and them over the crucial matters that divide them, is then followed (vv. 39–40) by a concluding wrap-up of this whole matter (chaps. 12–14).
This reading of the text makes so much sense of all the data that, even if one were to conclude that the intruding sentences were authentic, they would appear at best to be understood as something of an intruding afterthought to the present argument. This in turn would also seem to require some sort of reconciliation with its standing in absolute contradiction to what Paul has affirmed earlier (11:5) regarding “every woman who prays or prophesies” in the gathered assembly—the two words Paul regularly uses regarding what is verbalized in the community toward God and other people.
Furthermore, almost nothing in these intruding sentences fits into the present argument, which to this point has only to do with manifestations of the Spirit in the community. Any mention of people as such throughout the entire passage (e.g., “the one speaking in tongues”) has both been expressed in general terms and is quite subordinate to the larger concerns of intelligibility and edification in the community through prophecy and related gifts, which by the same token disallows uninterpreted tongues. This interruption, on the other hand, has to do with people only—women in this case—and not at all with Spirit gifting, and with no corresponding word to men as earlier in the letter (7:1–35 and 11:4–15). Moreover, there is not a single internal hint that these sentences deal with gifts or manifestations of the Spirit in any way. The linguistic ties that do exist (“speaking, silence, submission”) are used in such completely different ways from what has preceded as to make them suspect in any case. For example, there is not a single absolute use of the verb “to speak” in its other twenty-one occurrences in the present discussion (chap. 14), yet it is twice so used here; and the enjoined “silence” in its two earlier instances (vv. 28 and 30) is of an otherwise legitimate activity that in some circumstances is being curtailed; whereas here the injunction to silence is absolute. Thus, this intrusion simply lacks any genuine correspondence with either the larger context (chaps. 12–14) or the immediate argument (vv. 26–40).
(2) Of even greater difficulty is the fact that these sentences stand in such obvious contradiction to what Paul has said plainly earlier (11:2–16), where it is assumed without reproof that women pray and prophesy in the assembly—both of which are audible verbal expressions and which can only refer to all the gathered believers, not to mention that such is also assumed in the present passage with the earlier somewhat rhythmically repeated “all” (vv. 23–24 and 31) and the “each one” at the beginning of the preceding paragraph (v. 26). This problem is so manifest that it is little wonder that most interpretations that consider the present words authentic engage much of their energy in “getting around” their plain meaning so as to allow these interrupting sentences to exist side by side with the preceding sentences, not to mention the earlier admonitions, in the same letter.
(3) Finally, as will be noted in the commentary on the individual sentences that follow, some usages in this passage seem altogether foreign to the Paul we know from both this letter and the rest of the Pauline corpus.
Taken together, these data are more than sufficient reasons for considering these sentences inauthentic. Nonetheless, since they are missing from no known manuscripts and are found in the majority of witnesses at this point, there have been several attempts to make sense of them in this context, none of which, however, is free of difficulties.
Historically, the passage was taken as part of a long series of instructions on “order” in the churches. After some “rules” for tongues and prophecy, Paul laid down a further rule about women because they, too, were apparently out of order. The earlier argument (11:2–16) was usually dismissed as not really permitting women to prophesy, but as insisting on submission to their husbands by wearing the traditional head covering, or as referring to “private” meetings over against “official services” of the church, all of which sounds very much like a counsel of despair. As already noted, the extreme difficulty of reconciling these two passages has led to other options, of which there are three major types.
(1) The most commonly held view is that which sees the problem as some form of disruptive speech. Support is found in the concluding sentence, that if the women wish to learn anything, they should ask their own husbands at home. Various scenarios are proposed: that the setting was something like the Jewish synagogue, with women on one side and men on the other and the women shouting out disruptive questions about what was being said in a prophecy or tongue; or that they were asking questions of men other than their own husbands; or that they were simply “chattering” so loudly that it had a disruptive effect.
The biggest difficulty with this view is that it assumes a “church service” of a more “orderly” sort than the rest of this argument presupposes, and certainly does not seem to fit the house-church setting of all such early gatherings for worship—especially so in a vigorous, boisterous “city” like first-century Corinth. Indeed, a visit to the remains either of a Roman villa or the upstairs level of a “house” with the “shop” on the ground level on any ordinary street in such a city should lay this view permanently to rest. If the basic problem is with their “all speaking in tongues” in some way, one may assume on the basis of what is asserted earlier (11:5) that this also included the women; furthermore, in such disarray how can mere “chatter” have a disruptive effect? The suggestion that the early house churches in the Gentile world assumed a synagogue pattern is altogether speculation; it seems remote at best and historically quite unlikely.
(2) Others consider the passage to be a prohibition of some form of inspired speech other than prophecy. This has taken one of two forms: (a) Some have suggested that the ban is on the “discerning” of prophecies mentioned earlier (v. 29). It is assumed in this model that women did prophesy, but they are now being excluded from the weighing (= discerning) of prophecies because that could possibly put them in the “unbiblical” position of sitting in authority over their own husbands. This has against it (i) the extreme difficulty of being so far removed from the earlier sentence, and having so little in common with it, that one wonders how the Corinthians themselves could have so understood it; (ii) the fact that nothing in the passage itself even remotely hints of such a thing; and (iii) the form of the provision in the final sentence, “if they wish to learn anything” (v. 35), which implies not “judging” their husbands’ prophecies but failing to understand what is going on at all. Furthermore, despite arguments to the contrary, it is less than convincing that “discerning” the prophetic utterance of a husband is to sit in authority over him in a greater way than by a prophetic utterance. That seems to make the dependent, and therefore lesser, item (discerning prophecies) more significant than prophecy itself, not to mention a rather thoroughgoing misunderstanding of Paul on this matter.
(b) Others have argued that the “speaking” here being banned is “tongues” itself, the implication being that it is the eschatological women who are primarily responsible for the disorder brought about by this gift in the church. In this view the verb “to speak” assumes its regular role in this chapter; and “to be in submission” means, as earlier (v. 32), that their “spirits” are to be kept in submission. This view has the attraction of trying to place the passage within the larger historical problem and to see the answer as within the context of the present argument. But it also seems to face insuperable difficulties: the verb “speak” is invariably accompanied by “tongues” in the present argument when that is what Paul intended. The prohibition takes a more absolute form here than this view allows, and in any case the resolution in the concluding clauses (v. 35) implies the asking of questions for the sake of learning, not the alleged thrusting on the congregation of their own revelations.
(3) Because of the very Jewish nature of this passage, others have argued that it does not represent Paul’s point of view at all, but rather is a quotation or restatement of the view of some Corinthians who were imposing it on the community. Usually this is associated with the “Cephas party” (1:12). What follows (vv. 36–38) is then viewed as Paul’s own response to this imposition of “the Law” on the church. This is attractive in that it removes the difficulties of the previous views, which must consistently find ways to “get around” what is said if Paul is the author. On the other hand, it also has considerable difficulties: There is no hint of any kind in the first sentence (v. 34) that Paul has suddenly taken to quoting them; there is no precedent for such a long quotation that is also full of argumentation (two explanatory “for’s”); it presupposes the unlikely scenario that some in the church were forbidding women to speak—and especially that the quotation would come from the same Corinthian letter that otherwise appears to have been quite pro-women (see on 7:1–7; 11:2–16).
On the whole, therefore, the case against these verses is so thoroughgoing, and finding a viable solution to their meaning so difficult, that it seems best to view them as an interpolation. If so, then one must assume that the words were first written as a gloss in the margin by someone who, perhaps (probably?) in light of what is said in a later letter (1 Tim. 2:9–15), felt the need to qualify Paul’s instructions even further. Since the phenomenon of glosses making their way into the biblical text is well documented elsewhere in the NT (e.g., John 5:3b–4; 1 John 5:7), there is no good historical reason to reject the probability here. The fact that it occurs in all extant witnesses only means that the double interpolation had taken place before the time of our present textual tradition, and could easily have happened around the turn of the first century. In the commentary that follows, this is the assumed point of view, based solely on text-critical principles; but other options are noted as well.
34 These three sentences (our vv. 33–34) together have a singular concern, that women “remain silent” in the congregational meetings, which is further defined as “not being permitted to speak” (v. 34) because it is “shameful” for them to do so (v. 35). The structure of the argument bears this out. It begins with “a sentence of holy law,” the absolute nature of which is very difficult to get around. Two reasons are then given for such a proscription, which are intended to be two sides of the same reality. On the one hand, “they are not allowed to speak”; on the other hand, they “must be in submission.” To this final reason there is added the further justification, “as the Law says.” This is followed by the allowance that they should learn at home by asking questions of their own husbands, for which the concluding and thoroughly un-Pauline reason is that “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Thus:
The rule
The women must be silent
in the churches
The reasons:
For
(1)
It is not permitted them to speak;
(2)
But let them be in submission,
even as the Law says.
The provision:
If
they wish to learn,
let them ask their own husbands at home.
The reason:
For
It is disgraceful for a woman to speak
in the assembly.
Despite some protests to the contrary, the “rule” itself is expressed absolutely. That is, it is given without any form of qualification. Given the unqualified nature of the further prohibition that “the women” are not permitted to speak, it is very difficult to interpret this as meaning anything else than all forms of speaking out in public. Someone apparently was concerned to note by way of a gloss that all the previous directions given by the apostle, including the inclusive “each one” (v. 26) and the “all” (v. 31), were not to be understood as including women.
The problems with seeing this as authentic are obvious. If Paul himself is responsible for such a “corrective,” it is surprising that he should add it here, yet earlier both acknowledge and affirm that women should both pray and prophesy (11:5 and 13) in the gathered assembly. What is also surprising is the sudden shift from the problem of disorder in the congregation in Corinth to a rule that is to be understood as universal for all the churches. The problem is not so much with Paul’s setting forth such a rule as with his suddenly doing so here in the present argument, with its unique (for Paul) using the plural (churches) regarding something now addressed only to this church. Some, who have also taken the preceding concluding clause (v. 33b) as the beginning of this sentence, have argued that “in the churches” means “in all the congregational meetings of the Corinthian church.” But that will not work at all. Paul invariably says “in assembly” (singular) when that is what he means; in this case both the plural and the definite article indicate that the author intended this to be a rule for all Christian churches. As noted above, this rule of unqualified silence stands in a considerably different category from the two expressions of “silence” that have preceded (vv. 28 and 30); and it is quite unlike Paul to put in the plural what for him is always in the singular when addressed to a local community of believers.
The first reason for the rule comes in the form of a prohibition: “They are not permitted to speak.” What kind of speaking is intended depends on one’s view, both of authorship and, if authentic, of its place in the present argument. The only internal suggestion is that, toward the end, that they should ask questions at home if they wish to learn. If authentic, this unqualified use of the verb seems to tell against the probability that only a single form of speech is being prohibited. Elsewhere Paul has said “speak in tongues” when that is in view, and when he means “discern” he says “discern,” not “speak.” Again, as with the opening “rule,” the plain sense of the sentence is the absolute prohibition of all speaking in the assembly. This again makes sense as the glossator’s concern, but very little as Paul’s, especially in light of the strong affirmation earlier, that women both prayed and prophesied aloud in their gatherings for worship (11:5).
More difficult yet is the flip side of the reason, namely that they “must be in submission, as the Law says.” Some have argued that “let them be in submission” refers to an earlier phrase, that their “spirit of prophecy” is to be in submission (v. 3). But that plays havoc with the grammar of the present sentence, which points to the women themselves as being in subjection, not to their having control over their own “prophetic spirit.” What is not clear is whether the women are to be subject to their own husbands or to the church as a whole in its worship. More likely it is the latter.
But the ultimate problem for Pauline authorship lies with the phrase “even as the Law says.” First, when Paul elsewhere appeals to “the Law,” he regularly cites the text (e.g., 9:8; 14:21), usually to support a point he himself is making. Nowhere else in the entire corpus does he appeal to the Law in this general, but absolute, way as binding on Christian behavior. More difficult yet is the fact that the Law does not say any such thing. An early passage in Genesis (3:16) is often appealed to, but that text does not say what is argued by this glossator. If that were the case, then one must admit that Paul is appealing not to the written Torah itself but to an oral understanding of Torah such as is found in rabbinic Judaism. A similar usage is reflected in Josephus, who says, “The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive.” This usage suggests that the provenance of the glossator was Jewish Christianity. Under any view this is nearly impossible to reconcile with Paul.
The author of this piece seems intent on keeping women from joining in the vocal worship of the churches. The rule he wishes to apply he sees as universal and supported by the Law. It is difficult to fit this into any kind of Pauline context, and especially in light of his preceding affirmations and of the historical reality that people regularly read aloud even when reading alone (cf. Acts 8:30, where Philip “heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet”).
35 But the author of these words is not against women finding their “proper place,” as he understands it, within the Christian community. The implication of this provision is twofold: First, he assumes that the women would not understand what is being said in the community, probably with regard to the Spirit-inspired utterances being addressed in this chapter. Second, he wants them to learn, but they are to do so at home from their own husbands. It is certainly possible that for the glossator some form of asking questions was going on in the church that he wanted to stop. But that is not a necessary implication from what is said. It is also possible that this is simply a proviso: “If their wanting to learn is the reason for them to speak out, then. . . .”
The final reason given for their being silent in the assembly is that a woman’s speaking out in church, apparently for the given reasons, is “disgraceful” (v. 34), in the sense of being inconsistent with accepted standards of modesty. Again, as with the preceding rule and prohibition, the statement is unqualified: It is shameful for a woman to speak in church, not simply to speak in a certain way. This is the sure giveaway that Paul could not have authored these considerably contradictory qualifications, which stand in absolute contradiction to the earlier affirmation about “every woman who prays or prophesies” (11:5).
Thus, in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic, especially since so much of it stands against what Paul has been arguing for in the larger context! If so, then it is certainly not binding for later Christians. If not, the considerable doubts as to its authenticity ought to serve as a caution against using it as an eternal prohibition in a culture where such speaking by women in the assembly would not be a shameful thing, all the more so in light of the matter-of-fact earlier assertion regarding “every woman who prays or prophesies” (11:5)—which can only mean “aloud” and in the context of the gathered people of God.
What seems hermeneutically questionable, yet is the unspoken subtext in so much of the literature, is the implicit denial of all the surrounding matter about prophesying and speaking in tongues as applicable to the contemporary (usually Western) church on prior hermeneutical grounds, while selecting this single and probably inauthentic passage as a word for all time in all settings. Spontaneous praying or prophesying aloud is rather totally forbidden in most churches in “polite” Western culture. Such things all of us, fallen human beings that we are, are easily prone to do.