14. See 12:8–10, 28, 29–30; 13:1–3, 8; 14:6, 26.

Cf. Thiselton, “things that come from the Spirit”; on this rendering of Paul’s adjective πνευματικός, traditionally rendered “spiritual,” see . As pointed out there, this is almost always—and esp. so in the present case—an adjective referring to the activity/presence of the Holy Spirit, which in contemporary English is almost never what the lower case “spiritual” means. To continue therefore to so render it in the present passage, as most English versions do (NRSV, ESV, NAB, REB [“spiritual matters”(!)]), is an unfortunate retroversion from the NEB’s “gifts of the Spirit”; and some commentaries (e.g., Collins, “spiritual realities”), can only be labeled as misleading at best, and finally as mistranslation, if the ultimate intent of translation is properly understood as meaning for meaning, not simply word for word.

This is a nearly universal conviction, based on the recurrence of the περὶ δέ (“now about”) formula in 12:1, that began in 7:1. See the discussion in Hurd, 186–95.

When a problem is reported to him, Paul feels compelled to tell them what he knows (cf. 1:11–12; 5:1; 6:1; 11:17–22); thus we, too, have a better idea of what was going on. When responding to their letter, however, unless he quotes from it (7:1; 8:1, 4), he picks up right at that point, so the later reader is often on the “outside looking in” when it comes to the precise nature of the problem.

In NA²⁷ it covers 159 lines of Greek text; chaps. 1:10–4:21 cover 161 lines; chaps. 8–10 cover 143. Hurd, 186, was in error, therefore, when he designated this as the longest item in the letter; cf. J. W. MacGorman, “Glossolalic Error and Its Correction: 1 Corinthians 12–14,” RevExp 80 (1983), 389, who was probably indebted to Hurd.

Although a glance at the various reconstructions discussed by Hurd, 186–87, 190–91, should make one duly cautious as to what seems “straightforward.” R-P’s view (257) that the phenomena here dealt with “were to a large extent abnormal and transitory,” not being “part of the regular development of the Christian church,” probably says more about R-P and their notion of what should be “regular” than it does about either Paul or the primitive church.

Cf. W. J. Bartling, “The Congregation of Christ—a Charismatic Body: An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 12,” CTM 40 (1969), 67: “If we had only chapter 12, we would probably never have surmised that the focus of Paul’s practical concern throughout chaps. 12–14 of First Corinthians is the tongues phenomenon.”

This is the most common view, repeated in a modified form by Martin, 7–8. It is frequently assumed in this view that the Corinthians were divided among themselves on this matter. See, e.g., J. M. P. Sweet, “A Sign for Unbelievers: Paul’s Attitude to Glossolalia,” NTS 13 (1966/67), 240–57, among many others. But this is read into the text from chap. 13; nothing in the argument itself hints of such. There is a tendency among other scholars to see 12:1–3 and the problem of “testing the spirits” as the basic thrust of their letter. See the discussion in Hurd, 186–87. But overall this too makes better sense if it arises out of Paul’s own attempt to bring order into their chaos.

See on vv. 6, 18–19, 23, 33, and esp. 36–38. Failure to recognize this reality, and thus to begin one’s analysis here, has resulted in a considerable number of studies that seem to begin with the “what does it mean to us” question, without wrestling adequately with the primary issue of what might actually have been going on in Corinth, and how they presented themselves and this issue in their letter that actually called forth this considerable response.

Variously called “kinds of tongues” (12:10, 28), “to speak in/with tongues” (14:2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39), or simply “tongues” or a “tongue” (13:8; 14:22, 26). Here in particular the English language, as rich as it is, encounters difficulty in being true to Paul. The traditional language “gift” puts the emphasis on what a believer has received and thus tends to be altogether misleading; Paul’s word puts emphasis on how the Spirit finds expression through the believer. For the sake of convenience, and knowing full well that many who use this commentary will not read the footnotes, I have chosen nonetheless to refer to this charisma simply as tongues without quotes or italics.

See the introduction, , and .

In vv. 1–5 by the intelligibility/edification motif; in vv. 6–12 by analogies that require hearers; in vv. 13–17 by the inability of others to respond by saying the Amen to what is said in tongues; in vv. 26–31 by the orderly sequencing of utterances.

Although see D. L. Baker, “The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12–14,” EvQ 46 (1974), 224–34, who considered the key to lie with the Corinthians’ use of τὰ πνευματικά, by which they meant “spiritual gifts,” and of which only two were of interest to them (prophecy and tongues). Paul’s purpose in chap. 14 in this view is simply to answer their inquiries about these gifts and to give some guidelines for the use of each. But that does not seem to be an adequate analysis of the argument, esp. Paul’s strongly expressed insistence on intelligibility over against speaking in tongues in the assembly.

It is common to read this section as emphasizing once again the Corinthian need for unity, and for good reason: One has been set up for reading it this way both by the problem of quarreling in chaps. 1–4 and 11:17–34 and by Paul’s previous use of body imagery in 10:17 to make that very point, not to mention the fact that vv. 20 and 25 do suggest as much. But a careful reading of the whole indicates that diversity, not unity, is Paul’s concern; the fact of the body’s unity is the presupposition of the argument. See on 12:12–14.

See 12:8–10, 28, 29–30; 13:1–3, 8; 14:6, 26.

See G. D. Fee, “Tongues—Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12–14,” Pneuma 2 (1980), 3–14. It is of some interest that a community that lacked genuine unity should evidence concern for uniformity in the manifestation of spiritual gifts. Unity and uniformity are not the same thing, not even close. The attempts by G. S. Shogren (“The ‘Ultracharismatics’ of Corinth and the Pentecostals of Latin America as the Religion of the Disaffected,” TynB 56 [2005], 91–110) and D. B. Martin (“Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators,” JAAR 59 [1991], 547–89) to relegate the problem to “marginalized Christians” (Shogren’s language) has rightly fallen on deaf ears, as has the somewhat bizarre view of R. M. Price that chaps. 12–14 are not by Paul at all but belong to an author at the beginning of the second century (“Concerning Pneumatics: Ecclesiastical Authority vs. Spiritual Power in 1 Corinthians 12–14,” JHC 12 [2006], 132–39); this is surely a counsel of despair.

It should be noted, however, that this “discussion” on love, which puts gifts into their proper framework, also reflects the larger concerns of the letter, in which their form of spirituality is not marked by proper Christian ethical behavior.

This was the longtime standard view; cf. . Implied, indeed very often stated, was the idea that the glossolalists (enthusiasts) were after the more “showy gifts” over against others (sometimes viewed as those who preferred prophecy). This was so commonly held that a full bibliography would be tedious. See, e.g., Sweet, “Sign,” 241; Martin, 20 and throughout. Which was an esp. interesting perspective, since not a single sentence in these chapters suggests such an attitude on the part of the Corinthians.

This may be further reflected in his sudden shift to the first person singular at key points in the argument (13:1; 14:6, 14–15, 18, 37), intimating that they may have disapproved of him precisely because of his failure to “come to them speaking in tongues” (14:6). Otherwise, Grudem, 157–62, but his arguments seem to miss the overall nature of the conflict between this church and its apostle; moreover, his contention that πνευματικός basically means “spiritually mature” in the key passages in 1 Corinthians is simply wrong.

See further on 2:6–16; 6:12–20; 7:1–7, 25–40. Failure to recognize this reality has resulted in a considerable number of studies, few of which will be noted here, that seem to begin with the “what does it mean to us” question, without wrestling adequately with the primary exegetical issues as to what might actually have been going on in Corinth, and how they may have presented themselves to him in their letter that called forth this response.

Although it is not possible from this response to reconstruct what they might have said in their letter, there is much to be said for Hurd’s view, 226–28, that this is not the first interchange between them and Paul on this matter—although Hurd’s own solution is not fully satisfactory. He follows the many who have argued that the major point of contention is over the “testing” of “spirits.” Since Paul’s answer reflects little concern over this matter as such, it seems far more likely that it had to do with the value and significance of tongues for spiritual life in the assembly.

This was frequently suggested, because Paul so clearly tries to put tongues in its proper place. But nothing in the argument suggests that he is really trying to eliminate this gifting. If so, then one must allow that he argues out of both sides of his mouth. Among those who took this position see esp. D. Walker, The Gift of Tongues (Edinburgh, 1908), 72; Chadwick, “All Things,” 268–69; Hurd, 188–90; D. W. B. Robinson, “Charismata versus Pneumatika: Paul’s Method of Discussion,” RTR 31 (1972), 49–55. But see R. Banks and G. Moon, “Speaking in Tongues: A Survey of the New Testament Evidence,” Churchman 80 (1966), 285, who correctly observed: “He makes it clear, however, that the correct treatment for abuse is not disuse, but proper use,” an attitude, they go on to point out, that is “grounded in the belief that the Spirit is the source of the gift”! So also T. W. Harpur, “The Gift of Tongues and Interpretation,” CJT 12 (1966), 164–71, esp. 165. Cf. W. Richardson, “Liturgical Order and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14:26c–33a,” NTS 32 (1986), 144–53, esp. 145–46.

The combination ὅτι ὅτε has resulted in the omission of one or the other in a variety of witnesses.

Gk. ἔθνη, which at this point is almost certainly intended as a descriptive, not pejorative, noun, which makes the REB’s attempt to lessen the burden by rendering it “Gentiles” both unnecessary and misleading; they are, after all, for the most part still Gentiles(!) but were formerly unbelieving Gentiles, thus “pagans” with regard to their relationship to the one and only God.

The original NIV had rendered this “dumb”—another evidence of the ever-increasing rapidity of change in American (as well as British) English. A word that originally meant unable to speak has now come to be used in common parlance to refer to lacking everyday intelligence, i.e., not being “smart”; cf. the REB’s shift in this case to “mute.”

The original NIV rendered this, “I tell you.” In some cases that may be allowable for γνωρίζω, but not here, where it stands as the complement to ἀγνοέω (to be “not knowing,” thus “ignorant” in a nonpejorative sense) in v. 1.

The Western tradition omits λαλῶν, probably seeing it as redundant, which in this case it is not; rather, it anticipates the discussion of “speaking” in tongues by the Spirit.

On the complications of this passage for later readers, see esp. Thiselton, 911–17, and Garland, 564–73; cf. J. S. Vos, “Das Ratsel von I Kor 12:1–3,” NovT 35 (1993), 251–69.

One of the real difficulties in discussing these matters is the looseness with which many of us use terminology, the term “ecstasy” being a primary case in point. Technically, this should refer to experiential activity in which people are “beside themselves,” i.e., either out of control or out of touch with the present surroundings (e.g., a trance of some kind). Cf. T. Callan, “Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Roman Religion and 1 Corinthians,” NovT 27 (1985), 125–40. But very often it is used as a synonym of “enthusiasm” to denote any number of kinds of spiritually inspired activity or speech. In this commentary I shall use “inspired utterance” or “inspiration” for the latter kinds of spiritual activity and “ecstasy” in its more technical sense.

See ; this is now the twelfth occurrence in the letter, with nine to follow.

See, inter alios, Weiss, 294; Hurd, 194; Bruce, 116; Pearson, 47; Garland, 561–62.

For the significance of this formula see on 3:18 (cf. 8:2).

Thus Robinson, “Charismata,” has argued that τὰ πνευματικά is a Corinthian word by which they have narrowed the gifts basically to “tongues and other ecstatic utterances”; cf. Baker, “Interpretation.” But that probably narrows their usage far too much. For more complete arguments in favor of its referring to gifts of the Spirit, see Grudem, 157–62, and Martin, 8; for the inadequacy of “spiritual gifts” as a rendering for this term see .

For another view see Martin, 8, who follows J. Goldingay (The Church and the Gifts of the Spirit [Bamcote, 1972]) and J. Koenig (Charismata: God’s Gifts for God’s People [Philadelphia, 1978]) in seeing πνευματικά as the broader term while χαρίσματα refer more specifically to πνευματικά to be practiced in the context of the assembly at worship.

The present sentence offers the clearest evidence in the letter of the predominantly Gentile character of the church in Corinth (cf. 6:9–11 and 8:1–10:22). The attempt by J. D. M. Derrett, “Cursing Jesus (I Cor. XII.3): The Jews as Religious ‘Persecutors,’ ” NTS 21 (1974/75), 553, to circumvent this so as to give the problem a basically Jewish life-setting is less than convincing. Cf. the earlier, even less convincing, suggestion by J. M. Ford, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians or the First Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 38 (1966), 410.

One of the more attractive options is that suggested by WH, that ὅτε was probably originally ποτε (= “that at one time you were pagans, carried way to dumb idols, however you were being led”).

This is an attempt to give an iterative force both to the ὡς ἄν and the imperfect tense of the verb; thus perhaps “actually” or “regularly.” The alternative is to read ὡς as a resumption of ὅτι, so that the sentence reads, “You know that, when you were pagans—how you were led to dumb idols, being carried away” (cf. Barrett, 278; Conzelmann, 204). But see the objections in Findlay, 885, and Grudem, 156 n. 69. On the whole question see the discussion in Parry, 175.

As in 1 Thess. 1:9; Gal. 4:8–9. See, e.g., M. Barth, “A Chapter on the Church—the Body of Christ: Interpretation of I Corinthians 12,” Int 12 (1958), 131, who says, “A short introduction (vss. 2 and 3) reminds the readers that a miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit has freed them from service to dumb idols and makes them confess distinctly that ‘Jesus is Lord’ ”; cf. K. Maly, “1 Kor 12,1–3. Eine Regel zur Unterscheidung der Geister?” BZ 10 (1966), 82–95.

Grudem, 162–65; his argument is formulated so as to demonstrate the nonecstatic character of prophecy. He (rightly) makes a considerable point that the sentence must stand in contrast with v. 3, but he fails to show how this minimal view sustains Paul’s concern either in these three verses or in the larger argument of chaps. 12–14, which after all is trying to place “tongues” into proper perspective, not give teaching on the nature of prophecy.

See Maly, “Regel”; and Derrett, “Cursing,” 552–53.

As such it would be, as Conzelmann points out (205 n. 11), a variation on the theme of “once, but now” (see on 6:11).

The combination ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι, which is strange at best, seems emphatic, a point generally overlooked by those who take the minimalistic position. Grudem, 162–64, tries to minimize this by looking at each verb separately; but that will not do, since it is the combination that is so striking. On this question see Parry, 175; Maly, “Regel”; and J. M. Bassler, “1 Cor 12:3—Curse and Confession in Context,” JBL 101 (1982), 416–17.

Cf., e.g., Hab. 2:18–19; Ps. 115:5; 3 Macc. 4:16.

For a thorough discussion of this phenomenon in pagan antiquity, see Aune, Prophecy, 23–79. It is unlikely that Paul is also thinking of the frenzied ecstasy and mania of some of the cults (Bacchus, Dionysus, Cybele, etc.; see ) since nothing in the text seems to move in that direction. Paul’s concern is not with mania as such, but with pressing the point that “inspired utterances” in themselves are no sure guarantee that one is speaking by the Spirit; the content must conform as well.

Gk. διό (cf. 14:13); the conjunction emerges as a predominant one in 2 Corinthians.

One can only wonder at whatever possessed the REB revision committee at this point to abandon the NEB’s “under the influence of the Holy Spirit” for the nearly meaningless “except by holy spirit”; hopefully that was a misprint in typesetting!

Parry, 176, 177, following Hort, makes a point of the anarthrous use of πνεῦμα as though it implied an “intermediate sense” in which each manifestation is the work of “a holy spirit.” But that is to miss Pauline usage altogether. V. 9 alone indicates that such is not true (“by the same Spirit”; “by the one Spirit”). It is a Pauline idiosyncrasy that πνεῦμα in the dative is almost always anarthrous when referring to the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rom. 8:9, 13, 14, surrounded by arthrous uses in other cases), and is usually arthrous when it refers primarily to one’s own spirit (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 5:3; 7:34; 14:15; this stylistic feature is probably also the way forward for resolving the ambiguity in Rom. 12:11). See further on 14:2 and the unfortunate translation in the NIV.

English translators are generally divided as to whether Paul here intended an indicative (“Jesus is cursed” [REB, ESV, KJV “calleth Jesus accursed”) or an imperative (“Jesus be cursed” [NIV, NRSV, NEB, NAB, Phillips, Williams]; cf. W. C. van Unnik, “Jesus: Anathema or Kyrios (I Cor. 12:3),” in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge, 1973), 115–16, who objects to making this an imperative. See the discussion below for the alternative suggested by Bruce Winter.

Among others, see Hurd, 193; Conzelmann, 204; Bruce, 118; Pearson, 47–50; Bassler, “1 Cor 12:3”; MacGorman, “Error,” 392; Aune, Prophecy, 257.

But see Pearson, 48–50, who insists (correctly, one would think) that “it is impossible for any kind of Christian to curse Jesus, no matter how erroneous his views or how loose his behavior” (48) and concludes that “Paul’s argument is a shocking one, and was undoubtedly intended to be such” (50). Bassler, “1 Cor 12:3,” 147, has argued that it serves as an analogy by way of v. 2 to their “experience in pagan cults when the δαίμων exercised total control over their actions. Thus they should recognize that the Christian likewise does not make the confession of faith by his own will, but shows thereby the controlling presence of the Holy Spirit.” In this she is following Weiss, 296, and Conzelmann, 206.

Cf. 16:22. This word in Greek ordinarily refers to a votive offering set up in a temple (cf. Luke 21:5); but it was picked up by the LXX translators to translate ḥerem, which more often refers to what is devoted not for consecration but for cursing. Thus it often means “that which is under the ban,” or “the accursed thing” (cf. Deut. 7:26; 13:17; Josh. 6:18; etc.), referring to “something delivered up to divine wrath, dedicated to destruction and brought under a curse” (J. Behm, TDNT 1:354). This usage is known in the Greek world only from a single inscription from the first or second century A.D., in a table of curses (see Deissmann, LAE, 95–96). For Paul’s use of the term see esp. van Unnik, “Jesus,” 116–21.

However, it is possible that the language is Paul’s, while the curse itself could have been part of a pagan setting. Although there is no evidence for such oracular imprecations from pagan antiquity (at least none is noted in Aune, Prophecy), nonetheless since curses of all kinds abound, there is no good reason to doubt that they could have occurred in the “inspired utterances” of pagan religion. Cf., e.g., Lucian, Alex. 38, where Alexander begins with a “cursing” of Christians. For Christian examples, see Gal. 1:8–9; Rev. 22:18–19. Those who think that the curse is hypothetical also generally assume that it would have been spoken in some setting outside the Christian community, not within (cf. Aune, Prophecy, 257).

For overviews see Derrett, “Cursing Jesus,” 544; R. P. Martin, The Worship of God: Some Theological, Pastoral, and Practical Reflections (Grand Rapids, 1982), 175–78; and Bassler, “1 Cor 12:3,” 415–16.

Among these are (a) the suggestions by Schlatter, 333; Moffatt, 178; and Derrett, “Cursing Jesus,” who in various ways place it in the context of the Jewish synagogue; and (b) those who see it as taking place in the context of persecutions or trials (e.g., O. Cullmann, Les premières confessions de foi chrétiennes [Paris, 1948], 22–23, who suggests that those who so recanted claimed the Spirit taught them to say this; cf. V. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions [Grand Rapids, 1963], 6). All such settings are noncontextual.

(a) This is esp. true of those who see it as a gnostic formula, in which an exaltation Christology allowed them to curse the earthly Jesus, but confess (the heavenly) Christ as Lord. See W. Schmithals, 124–30; Wilckens, 121 n. 1; N. Brox, “ANATHEMA IĒSOUS (1 Cor. 12:3),” BZ 12 (1968), 103–11. See the refutation in Pearson, 47–50; cf. Conzelmann, 205 n. 10, who calls this view “fantastic.”

(b) Van Unnik, “Jesus,” offers the intriguing, but finally less than convincing, suggestion that the term anathema is intended to be more positive, in the sense of Gal. 3:13, where Jesus is seen as becoming a “curse” for us in his death. For Paul, however, this is inadequate because it emphasizes his death in such a way as to miss the significance of his resurrection.

(c) W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, “Two Texts in I Corinthians,” NTS 16 (1969/70), 271–76, suggest a textual emendation, in which the original text read Ana athe, emar maran Iēsous (“I am coming, said our Lord Jesus”), which was mistaken for anathema Iēsous.

(d) T. Holtz, “Das Kennzeichen des Geistes (1 Kor. xii.1–3),” NTS 18 (1971/72), 365–76, suggests that the confession is less a matter of utterance than it is a matter of behavior. The one who “curses Jesus” does so by living a life that rejects Jesus as Lord.

(e) Here, too, I must place Bassler’s suggestion (“1 Cor 12:3,” 417–18) that even though it is probably hypothetical, Paul “is drawing on his own personal biography to support his argument.”

For a typical presentation see Parry, 176.

H. Aust and D. Müller, NIDNTT 1:414; cf. Martin, 9–10.

Cf. Grosheide, 280–81; R. Scroggs, “The Exaltation of the Spirit by Some Early Christians,” JBL 84 (1965), 359–73.

Allo, 321–22; Barrett, 280.

See chap. 8 (164–83) in After Paul Left Corinth.

Paul’s word order is “the Lord is Jesus” and “anathema is Jesus.”

Cf. Rom. 10:9–10; Phil. 2:6–11; and Acts 2:36. See the discussions in Neufeld, Confessions, 42–68, and W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (ET, SBT 50; London, 1966), 65–107.

See esp. the motif of humiliation-exaltation and the tie to the resurrection in the passages mentioned in the preceding note.

Cf. Acts 7:54–60.

On this and its relationship to the confession in 8:6, see now the more complete discussion in Pauline Christology, 123–24.

Martin, 10–11, observes that v. 3 puts them in the orbit of the gift of the Spirit, whereby they confess Jesus as Lord and become one of his; now he will move on to talk about the gifts of the Spirit for the building up of the life of the community. The gift is one; the gifts are many.

It is perhaps of some interest to note that the literature on this passage in the scholarly journals over the past twenty-five years is almost nonexistent, which probably says something about where interests in the academy lie (or don’t lie) in comparison with the rest of 1 Corinthians.

B 1739 and the MajT add ἐστιν (at different places), a clearly secondary addition (cf. Zuntz, 187).

The majority of witnesses ( D F G 0201 Maj) conform this ἑνι to the preceding twice-repeated αὐτῷ (A B 33 81 104 630 1175 1739 1881 2464 pc lat); P⁴⁶ omits altogether. See Metzger, 497.

One cannot tell what text the NIV here translates, since this would be the appropriate translation of the text of P⁴⁶ (ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεως), with the genitive being understood as descriptive; cf. the Western tradition, ἐνέργεια δυνάμεως = “miraculous power”). Zuntz, 100, also prefers the reading of P⁴⁶, arguing that the plural δυνάμεων has been conformed to the preceding ἰαμάτων. More likely P⁴⁶ and the Westerns reflect an attempt to “improve” a difficult plural that seemed tautologous.

The original here (supported by P⁴⁶ A B Ψ Maj sy^h bo) is plural (διακρίσεις), understandably not found in any of the standard English translations. This move toward the singular had a long history in the transmission of both the Greek text ( C D F G P 0201 33 1175 pc) and the early versions (latt sy^p sa).

The NIV breaks the paragraph into subparagraphs—as part of its (commendable) attempt to be “international” (a readable translation for those for whom English is a second language). But in this case the two parts need to be seen together or too much is lost.

This enumeration follows standard Hellenistic patterns (ᾧ μέν, followed by ἄλλῳ δέ, ἄλλῳ δέ), except for two idiosyncrasies: (1) The third and eighth items (faith and kinds of tongues) are enumerated by the synonym ἑτέρῳ. This stylistic variation is not unknown (cf. Matt. 16:14; Heb. 11:35–36), but in these cases it is a simple twofold enumeration, ἄλλος δέ . . . ἕτερος δέ. (2) Although there is some textual variation in each case, what is most likely Paul’s original text also lacks the ordinary δέ in the two instances where he has ἕτερος. This may be simply variety for variety’s sake; but it is also arguable that this most unusual expression of variety has some purpose to it. Very likely this is Paul’s own clue—subtle though it might be and therefore not terribly significant—as to how the list is to be “grouped.” See the commentary; cf. Findlay, 888–89; Conzelmann, 209 (for a different, but overly simplified, view of the textual question, see Zuntz, 106).

See the preceding note.

Paul here repeats the verb ἐνεργεῖν from v. 6, but now with the Spirit as the subject.

Some have taken considerable exception to my use of this language regarding Paul. But that is to quibble over language per se. It is, after all, precisely these kinds of moments in Paul, when a lifelong monotheist speaks this way about the three-personed God, that led to the language of the later formulations by the church; see the final paragraph on v. 6 below.

Note esp. that the list begins with language (λόγος, σοφία, γνῶσις) that reflects the opening thanksgiving (1:5–7), where he thanked God that they had been enriched in all λόγος and γνῶσις, lacking no χάρισμα. Speech, wisdom, and knowledge, of course, are part of the problem in this church (see on 1:17 and 8:1); it is hardly accidental that they now head Paul’s list—in the same way that it is hardly accidental that tongues comes at the end!

Greek φανέρωσις (“manifestation,” BDAG “disclosure”), in the NT only here and in 2 Cor 4:2 (NIV “setting forth plainly,” made verbal in that instance for the sake of clarity).

This is demonstrated in two ways: (1) The fact that Paul has six other such lists in this argument (12:28, 29–30; 13:1–3, 8; 14:6, 26), each of which is also ad hoc (simply spun off at the moment for the purpose of the argument) and no two of which (even 12:28 and 29–30!) are exactly alike either in language, number, or character. (2) There is considerable flexibility in Paul’s use of language on these matters, both here and in his other letters. For example, (a) in v. 4 he speaks of the Spirit’s χαρίσματα, which in v. 7 are called a φανέρωσις (“manifestation,” BDAG “disclosure”), while χαρίσματα appears again in v. 9 (and vv. 28, 30) narrowly confined to “healings,” only to reappear in v. 31 in reference to the broader categories; (b) in v. 6 the activities of God are called ἐνεργήματα (“workings”) which God ἐνεργεῖ (“works”), yet ἐνεργήματα occurs again in v. 10 as one of the Spirit’s “manifestations,” and in v. 11 the Spirit is said to ἐνεργεῖ all these things; (c) the “workings of miracles” is simply “miracles” in vv. 28–29; (d) one finds the λόγος of “knowledge” in v. 8, “knowing all mysteries and all knowledge” in 13:2, and simply “knowledge” in 13:8 and 14:6; (e) “prophecy” is a “manifestation” in v. 10; the prophets themselves are mentioned in vv. 28–29 (cf. 14:29 and 37); but it is not at all clear that “prophecy” is the private province only of some who are called “prophets” (cf. “teachers” and “teaching” in 12:28 and 14:6, 26); (f) in v. 5 the activities associated with the Lord are called διακονίαι, a word that appears again as a χάρισμα in Rom. 12:6–7, but in a context where the Spirit (though perhaps assumed on the basis of chap. 8) is not mentioned. It is fair to say at this point that far greater confidence is often expressed on some of these matters in both the scholarly and popular literature than the evidence itself warrants, which at the same time indicates that many of our own later interests are quite unrelated to Paul’s own immediate concern.

That is, with precise identifications that seem to lie considerably beyond Paul’s own present concerns, which is simply to emphasize their great diversity, as over against the Corinthian believers’ apparent fixation on one; our later fixations have tended to be on precision. I am reminded of a former colleague’s response to a student who was all atwitter about something they had learned: “Did I really say that? I am very pleased.”

Gk. διαιρέσεις. Because of the appearance of the cognate verb διαιρέω in v. 11, where it means “apportion” or “distribute,” BDAG suggest the meaning “allotments” for these three occurrences of the noun; cf. Barrett, 283, and most commentators. But the meaning “difference” or “variety” is also well established; the context rules in favor of the latter here. Cf. Parry, 177, who would combine the ideas: “there are varieties of gifts assigned.” Martin, 12–13, makes the intriguing suggestion that διαιρέσεις might be a wordplay on the αἱρέσεις of 11:19.

I recognize that this language itself is anachronistic for Paul, and some have severely criticized me for saying so. But as is noted below, his present construction is part of the stuff out of which the later articulations and language arose. As Barth has rightly said, “Trinity is the Christian name for God.”

But see A. Bittlinger, 20–21, who sees χάρισμα as reflecting the source of the gifts (the divine χάρις), the διακονίαι as reflecting the way in which they become real in practice, and the ἐνεργήματα as indicating their results (definite effects); cf. Findlay, 887; and Dunn, Jesus, 411 n. 51.

Gk. χαρίσματα (see on 1:7; cf. 7:7). This is a distinctly Pauline word (16 of 17 NT occurrences). See Dunn, Jesus, 205–6. It does not mean “spiritual gift” as such; indeed, it picks up that connotation in Rom. 1:11 by the addition of the adj. πνευματικόν. The emphasis in this word lies with the idea of something’s being freely, graciously bestowed; such “gifts” are simply expressions of the divine favor. Thus in its broadest usage (as in Rom. 6:23) it refers to the “gift” of salvation; more narrowly (as in 1 Cor. 7:7) it refers to a “given” capacity or ability. In these chapters (at least in vv. 4 and 31), contra Grosheide, 283, it probably refers to the more concretely visible manifestations of the Spirit’s activity, such as those listed in vv. 8–10.

Gk. διακονία, the emphasis being on “service.” Paul regularly calls his own ministry in the gospel a διακονία (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:7–9; 4:1) and himself and his co-workers διάκονοι of the gospel (see on 3:5). But so, too, is the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem a διακονία to them (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1, 12–13). See further 16:15 and 2 Tim. 4:11.

Gk. ἐνεργήματα, found only here and in v. 10 in the NT, a plural emphasizing the activity of working that is difficult to put into adequate English; e.g., the NEB’s “many forms of work” was changed in the REB to “different kinds of energizings,” while the ESV’s “varieties of activities” seems to miss Paul at this point by a considerable margin, since “activity” implies “busy-ness” not “work” as such. Paul’s interest is singularly in the variety of ways in which the Spirit manifests God’s presence (= “is at work”) in the believing community.

Cf. Bruce, 118: “Gifts, service and working are not distinct categories.”

Most often it is associated with God; see, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:5–7; 7:7; Rom. 6:23; 11:29; 2 Tim. 1:6. But see Rom. 1:11, where the adj. πνευματικόν modifies the noun χάρισμα.

Thus it is quite irrelevant to suggest, as some do (e.g., Lietzmann, 61), that the sentences represent an ascending order of rank.

As usual in Paul, the term κύριος refers to Christ.

Although God is not called “Father” here, Paul regularly does so; see esp. 8:6 and the salutations (“God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ”). Yet see 2 Cor. 13:13.

Gk. τὰ πάντα; this combination in Paul generally means “the whole of everything,” depending on the context. Sometimes it refers to the whole created order (as in 8:6; 15:27–28), but other times, as here, it refers in a more limited way to the subject at hand (cf., e.g., 2:15; 11:12; 12:19). Martin, 5, prefers to take it adverbially, “in every way.”

Gk. ἐν πᾶσιν, which could mean “in every case” (TCNT), but the context seems to require “in all people” in this instance.

In Paul cf. 2 Cor. 13:13 and Eph. 4:4–6; regarding the objection to this language in Paul, see .

Barrett, 284.

It is spelled out in particular in the unusual ninefold repetition in vv. 8–10 of “to one, to another,” etc.

When Paul wants to make that point he usually says εἷς ἕκαστος (“every single one”); cf. . Grosheide, 284, made the opposite error: “Paul’s words ‘to each one is given’ must mean: to everyone who has special gifts of the Spirit is given.” This misses Paul by a considerable margin.

Especially so since in 1:5 he has already designated as charismata two words found on the following list, “speech” (logos) and “knowledge” (gnōsis).

This is so whether the genitive is subjective or objective. In favor of an objective genitive is the verb δίδοται, which has “God” as its implied subject. Thus God gives to each, i.e., to the community at large, different gifts by which the Spirit is visibly evident in their midst. In favor of a subjective genitive is v. 11, where the Spirit himself is the one who distributes to each as he wills. The former seems the more likely, since the concern is not with the gifts, but with the manifestation of the Spirit through the gifts. Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 212: “It is difficult to exclude either sense.”

Gk. πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον; cf. 6:12; 7:35; 10:23, 33.

This is not to say that the building up of the individual believer is no concern of his—to the contrary (see on 14:4). But the concern throughout this entire argument is on the effect of gifts in building up the community.

Note esp. the γάρ; cf. BDAG 1d, “the general is confirmed by the specific.”

Besides the others in these chapters (cf. ), see Rom. 12:4–8 (apparently a later reflection on some items from this chapter) and Eph. 4:11.

As one might expect, the popular literature on this passage is immense, esp. among Pentecostal and charismatic groups. Two items from this material are worth noting. The first is by the prominent British Pentecostal, Donald Gee, Concerning Spiritual Gifts (Springfield, Mo., n.d. [in an appendix dated Nov. 4, 1947, the author indicates that the present printed edition had appeared ten years earlier]). Although untrained in the “school” sense, Gee showed remarkable exegetical skills; this book is worthwhile both for its own insights and for understanding traditional Pentecostalism. The second was by George Mallone et al., Those Controversial Gifts (Downers Grove, 1983), a collection of seven essays by four pastors within the more traditional evangelical framework who had experienced in their churches the renewal of some of the more visible gifts in this list.

See .

Paul is capable of simply listing gifts; but he does not do so here. In each case there is the prior “to one,” “to another,” etc. That is part of his emphasis.

One wonders, e.g., what motivated our present verse divisions, which were created in the sixteenth century in the Greek text. Although there are a large number of unfortunate choices, by and large they make enough sense of things that one cannot believe they were done willy-nilly. In this case the clue lies in the first instance in the similarity in content of the first two (hence v. 8); the second break was probably motivated by the presence of the phrase “by the same Spirit,” which the second two share with the first two (hence v. 9). What remained was a list of five gifts with no qualifier (thus v. 10).

E.g., Bruce, 119.

E.g., J. W. MacGorman, The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of I Corinthians 12–14 (Nashville, 1974), 35, who arranges them in categories of (1) intelligible utterance (wisdom, knowledge, prophecy); (2) power (faith, healings, miracles); (3) spiritual discernment; and (4) ecstatic utterance (tongues, interpretation). Cf. the “traditional Pentecostal” view expressed by W. R. Jones, “The Nine Gifts of the Holy Spirit,” in Pentecostal Doctrine (ed. P. S. Brewster; Cheltenham, Eng.[?], 1976), 47–61, who has the divisions: (1) illumination (wisdom, knowledge, discernment); (2) action (faith, miracles, healings); (3) communication (prophecy, tongues, interpretation).

E.g., Baird, Church, 149; Martin, 12.

See .

Note that the emphasis on “the same/one Spirit” carries through the first four items; Paul surely intends that it should carry through to the end.

One is reminded of the words of J. B. Phillips, penned in the introduction to his translation of the Book of Acts (The Young Church in Action [New York, 1949], vii): “Yet we cannot help feeling disturbed as well as moved, for this surely is the Church as it was meant to be. . . . If they were uncomplicated and naive by modern standards, we have ruefully to admit that they were open on the God-ward side in a way that is almost unknown today.”

The probability that both σοφία and γνῶσις were Corinthian terms taken over by Paul only increases our difficulty in determining the specific nature of these two gifts in Paul’s own thinking. Cf. the discussion in Dunn, Jesus, 217–21.

As Martin, 13, says of these first two items: “He now rescues both terms from the Corinthian pneumatics and gives them a fresh stamp.”

The interpretation in LB, “the ability to give wise advice,” had nothing to do either with the context in Corinth or with the Greek word σοφία.

In Pentecostal and charismatic circles this “gift” is often understood to be that special word of insight given by the Spirit when the community is going through a time of difficulty or decision. See, e.g., Bittlinger, 28, who thus defines this gift: “In a difficult or dangerous situation a word of wisdom may be given which resolves the difficulty or silences the opponent.” One need not doubt that the Holy Spirit speaks so to today’s church, but it is unlikely that Paul had this in mind by this “gift.” If he were to “label” such a phenomenon, it would probably be ἀποκάλυψις (“revelation”); cf. 14:6. The same is true of the so-called word of knowledge that has become such a frequent occurrence in these communities.

Cf. Gee, Gifts, 20–26, who affirms that this is the primary meaning for Paul, although he goes on to add the possibility mentioned in the preceding note on the basis of Jesus’ word to his disciples in Luke 21:15.

See on 1:5, where these two words individually are singled out as illustrations of the Corinthians’ giftedness.

Conzelmann, 209, distinguishes between διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος and κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα as the Spirit’s being both the source and the norm; but he also allows that the distinction cannot be taken strictly. BDAG give evidence that κατά means “by way of.”

Peter’s “knowledge” of Ananias and Sapphira’s misdeed in Acts 5:1–11 is often looked upon as this gift in action. That may well be (although “revelation” would be as fitting a label); but Luke himself does not so indicate. In fact, the word “know” or “knowledge” does not occur in the narrative.

Somewhat surprisingly, this is the position argued for at some length by Gee, Gifts, 27–34 and 110–19, who insists that the list does not require this gift to be a supernatural manifestation.

Cf. Bittlinger, 30, who says it “consists of the old message spoken in the new situation in such a way that it still remains the old message.” This may be so, but it lacks an exegetical basis.

Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 218, who suggests that the “utterance” in 8:4, “an idol is nothing in the world,” may be a Corinthian “logos of knowledge.”

In any case, as Dunn (Jesus, 221) has rightly argued, “for Paul wisdom and knowledge as such are not thought of as charismata; only the actual utterance that reveals wisdom or knowledge to others is a charisma.”

On the question of the relationship of this gift to “the measure of faith” in Rom. 12:3, see Dunn, Jesus, 211–12.

The difference between αὐτῷ and ἑνί in the two prepositional phrases in this verse is purely rhetorical; cf. v. 11, where the two are joined.

Cf. also Gal. 5:22, where “faith” (= faithfulness) is listed as a “fruit” of the Spirit; cf. 1 Tim. 4:12 and 6:11.

Both Gee, Gifts, 36, and Bittlinger, 32–33, suggest the story of Elijah at Carmel (1 Kings 18) as an OT example of such a gift in operation.

Gk. χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων; both are plural, as are “workings of miracles,” “discernments of spirits,” and “kinds of tongues.”

Cf., e.g., Matthew’s use in 8:17 of Isa. 53:4 to refer to Jesus’ ministry of healing the sick. The Isaiah passage itself is ambiguous; it is clearly a metaphor for salvation, but in the prophetic tradition such salvation also included the healing of the people’s wounds incurred in their judgment. Thus in the NT this passage is understood both as a metaphor for salvation (1 Pet. 2:24) and as a promise of physical healing (Matt. 8:17).

Cf. 1 Thess. 1:5; Rom. 15:19.

Although this is also unfortunately true of many contemporary Christians, whose theology has made a severe disjunction between the “then” and “now” of God’s working. This seems to be a seriously flawed understanding of the kingdom, which according to the NT was inaugurated by Christ in the power of the Spirit, who continues the work of the kingdom until the consummation.

Otherwise Dunn, Jesus, 211.

Cf. the similar suggestion by Bittlinger, 37: “Every healing is a special gift. In this way the spiritually gifted individual stands always in new dependence upon the divine Giver.”

Gk. ἐνεργήματα; see on v. 6.

Gk. δύναμις; see on 2:4–5. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:12, where Paul claims the “signs of an apostle” were “effected” (κατειργάσθη) among them in the form of “signs [σημεῖα], wonders [τέρατα], and miracles [δυνάμεις].”

Weiss, 301, and Héring, 126, see it as referring esp. to exorcisms. It would certainly include but not be limited to these. See Dunn, Jesus, 210.

Because of the more universal nature of this gift in antiquity, it has received considerable attention among scholars. The more significant studies for understanding this phenomenon in Paul are H. Krämer, R. Rendtorff, R. Meyer, and G. Friedrich, TDNT 6:781–861; D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta, 1979); Grudem, Gift; and Aune, Prophecy. Aune includes a considerable review of both the TDNT article and Hill.

See Aune, Prophecy, 23–88.

However one is to understand the “ecstasy” of Saul and the others in 1 Sam. 19:19–24, e.g., it scarcely belongs to the canonical understanding, and the latter is what influenced Christ and the early Christians.

Thus it is not the delivery of a previously prepared sermon.

Although this may also have become a term for some who emerged as “charismatic leaders” within the communities; cf., e.g., Acts 13:1 and Eph. 2:20.

See on 14:1–5, 23–24, 29–31. This does not mean that all do (cf. 12:29), but that it is not limited strictly to “prophets,” as is so often suggested in the literature.

E.g., as Paul does in Acts 16:16–18. This position is taken, inter alios, by Bittlinger, 45; Grudem, 58–60 and 263–88; and most Pentecostal interpreters.

See, e.g., Findlay, 888–89; Moffatt, 182; Holladay, 161; Hill, Prophecy, 133; and Martin, 14. A unique view is offered by G. Dautzenberg, “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der διακρίσεις πνευμάτων (I Kor. 12.10),” BZ 15 (1971), 93–104 (cf. his Urchristliche Prophetie [Stuttgart, 1975], 122–48), who argues that it means “interpreting the utterances of the prophets.” Grudem, 263–88, has thoroughly refuted Dautzenberg, but he is less than convincing in arguing as well that the term does not have to do with “discerning” prophecies.

Similarly Barrett, 286; Dunn, Jesus, 233.

Where among those who have “charisms” (2:27) they are told to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God.” But one must not make the prior assumption that what is going on in 1 John is a well-known phenomenon by which this present passage is to be understood. Very likely that passage is to be understood in light of these chapters in Paul.

The literature here is immense, esp. after the outbreak of this phenomenon in the traditional churches in the late 1950s. Before 1960 there were basically two studies in the scholarly journals devoted solely to tongues: C. Clemens, “The ‘Speaking with Tongues’ of the Early Christians,” ExpT 10 (1898/99), 344–52; and I. J. Martin, “Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church,” JBL 63 (1944), 123–30. See also the monograph by G. B. Cutten, Speaking with Tongues (New Haven, 1927).

After the “renewal” movement of the 1960s nearly every major journal had at least one article. The following is but a selective representation of these (Eng. titles only, in chronological order): R. H. Fuller, “Tongues in the New Testament,” ACQ 3 (1963), 162–68; F. W. Beare, “Speaking with Tongues,” JBL 83 (1964), 229–46; W. G. MacDonald, “Glossolalia in the New Testament,” BETS 7 (1964), 59–68; S. D. Currie, “ ‘Speaking in Tongues’: Early Evidence outside the New Testament Bearing on ‘Glossais Lalein,’ ” Int 19 (1965), 174–94; Banks and Moon, “Tongues”; R. H. Gundry, “ ‘Ecstatic Utterance’ (N.E.B.)?” JTS 17 (1966), 299–307; Harpur, “Tongues”; E. L. Kendall, “Speaking with Tongues,” CQR 168 (1967), 11–19; Sweet, “Sign”; J. M. Ford, “Toward a Theology of ‘Speaking in Tongues,’ ” TS 32 (1971), 3–29; B. L. Smith, “Tongues in the New Testament,” Churchman 87 (1973), 183–88; S. Tugwell, “The Gift of Tongues in the New Testament,” ExpT 84 (1973), 137–40; R. A. Harrisville, “Speaking in Tongues—Proof of Transcendence?” Dialog 13 (1974), 11–18; D. M. Smith, “Glossolalia and Other Spiritual Gifts in a New Testament Perspective,” Int 28 (1974), 307–20; E. Best, “The Interpretation of Tongues,” SJT 28 (1975), 45–62; R. A. Harrisville, “Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study,” CBQ 38 (1976), 35–48; V. S. Poythress, “The Nature of Corinthian Glossolalia: Possible Options,” WTJ 40 (1977), 130–35; T. L. Wilkinson, “Tongues and Prophecy in Acts and First Corinthians,” VoxR 31 (1978), 1–20. See also an unpublished dissertation by N. I. J. Engelsen, “Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech according to 1 Corinthians 12–14” (Yale, 1970).

For further bibliography, including a helpful bibliographical essay, see W. E. Mills, Glossolalia: A Bibliography (New York, 1985).

See the introduction to chaps. 12–14 (pp. 631–36).

But it is purely prejudicial to say, as Conzelmann, e.g., “Paul indicates his criticism by the very order of the enumeration” (209); this seems to be a clear case of “in the eye of the beholder,” not in the intent of the author.

Contra Callan, “Prophecy,” and many others. Callan tried to distinguish between prophecy and tongues in terms of prophecy’s being nonecstatic and tongues’ being “accompanied by trance” (137). But he was guilty of a loose use of the idea of trance and seemed to miss the point of the evidence in 14:27–28.

Bruce, 119, taking his clue from Acts 2, suggested that this includes languages “intelligible to some hearers.” But nothing in 1 Cor. 12–14 suggests that Paul thought of it in these terms.

Cf. Bittlinger, 48–51, who discusses this gift under the heading “praying in the Spirit.”

See esp. Gundry, “Utterance,” who is followed by Ford, “Theology”; cf. also Wilkinson, “Tongues.” Dunn, Jesus, 244, concludes: “It is evident then that Paul thinks of glossolalia as language. But can we go on from that to conclude that he equates glossolalia with ‘human language foreign to the speaker’ (Gundry)? I think not”; cf. Richardson, “Order,” 148.

Cf. Barrett, 299–300; Conzelmann, 209; Dunn, Jesus, 244.

Gk. ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν; see esp. the discussion by Thiselton, “Interpretation,” 15–36.

R-P, 268, note that the πάντα is very emphatic.

The original NIV’s “gives them” lacked the precision that the English verbs “distributes” and “apportions” carry with them; the translators have also rendered Paul’s participle with a finite verb for the sake of good English style.

Gk. ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ; the addition of ἰδίᾳ emphasizes the individual nature of the Spirit’s dealings with each; cf. Barrett, “individually to each one”; Conzelmann, “to each in particular.”

Gk. βούλεται; by the koinē period it was roughly synonymous with θέλω.

Cf. Conzelmann, 209, “This denies the pneumatic any power of his own.”

This was true even of a book like R. Gaffin’s Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg, N.J., 1979). Gaffin’s exegetical skills were obvious, but he nonetheless set up the questions and went after the results in terms of his prior questions quite apart from Paul’s own interests. How desperate has often been our need at a later time to “tame Paul” just a bit so as to “help” him fit better into contemporary interests!

This is not one of the NIV’s better moments; although it is true that καί has some degree of flexibility, it can scarcely mean “though,” which in this case yields a nonsensical tautology (“even though composed of many parts, the body is one; even though composed of many parts, the body is one”), which accounts for the problem noted in below.

The Greek text reads τοῦ σώματος, to which the MajT (also D b Ambrosiaster) adds τοῦ ἑνός (= all the parts of the one body).

The NIV omits the intensive καί that goes with the γάρ (= “for indeed”). This would be acceptable here were it not for the parallel in v. 14. The original NIV totally disregarded the latter by rendering it “now,” which it cannot possibly mean, even as a loose connective in English.

A few late MSS (630 1881 2495 pc sy^h) read πῶμα for πνεῦμα, thus making this a reference to the Lord’s Supper: “We were all given one drink to drink.”

See above. This was not one of the better moments in the original NIV. Not only did they fail to see this καὶ γάρ as parallel to v. 13 and the two verses as thus alternately elaborating on the two points of v. 12, they also made v. 14 the beginning of the next subparagraph (so also NRSV, ESV, NEB [changed in the REB]). In some ways that would be acceptable, since the first application of the analogy does indeed reinforce the point of v. 14. However, that isolates vv. 12–13 to make a different point, the unity of the body (the concern of a later time), which is to miss Paul’s own argument by too much, whose emphasis here is on diversity vis-à-vis uniformity, and it totally misses the parallel καὶ γάρ’s that begin our vv. 12 and 13 (see above).

The NIV translators have chosen (correctly so, it would seem, and vis-à-vis NA²⁷) to include v. 14 with vv. 12–13 to form an inclusio with v. 12.

As the translators of the original NIV apparently wanted it to mean, and for understandable reasons. Later generations tended to go here for help in the context of a fractured church, but it is less than fair to Paul for this later concern to be the primary, and often the only, application.

Cf. Conzelmann, 212, commenting on v. 14: “Now the accent again lies (as in vv. 4–11) upon the notion of differentiation.” This stands over against both the NIV and a large number of interpreters, who, despite the structure and all the signals to the contrary, see the passage as emphasizing unity. See, e.g., C. H. Talbert, “Paul’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit: The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 12–14,” PRS 11 (1984), 98–99.

Gk. καί; see .

Gk. καὶ γάρ; see on 5:7.

On the possible “sources” or “origin” of this term in Paul, see Best, Body, 83–95. The very commonness of the imagery makes much of that discussion irrelevant. Less likely still is the suggestion that the “source” was the temple of Asclepius with its many clay replicas of “dismembered” parts of the body. See A. E. Hill, “The Temple of Asclepius: An Alternative Source for Paul’s Body Theology?” JBL 99 (1980), 437–39; and G. G. Garnier, “The Temple of Asklepius at Corinth and Paul’s Theology,” Buried History 18 (1982), 52–58.

It should be noted that in none of the other known usages is the same point made as in Paul. Thus the fable of Menenius Agrippa (ca. 494 B.C.), recorded in Livy, Hist. 2.32 (the parts are upset with the stomach and choose not to feed it, resulting in their common emaciation), stresses the interdependence of the many on one another (in his case the need for the plebs not to be seditious). Jos., War 4.406, uses the analogy in a negative way to describe the spread of sedition; his usage is comparable to 12:26 (“if one part suffers, all parts suffer together”), but his concern is radically different from Paul’s. So also with the Stoic philosophers, whose concern is that any one part is ultimately subservient to the whole, which is the greater. Cf. Marc.Aur.Ant. 2.1; 7.13; Epict. 2.10.3–4; Seneca, Ep. 95.52, whose language comes the closest to Paul’s: “All that you behold, that which comprises both god and man, is one—we are the parts of one great body.” He is also concerned that the parts are mutually interdependent.

Much of the theological discussion of the metaphor, as to whether Paul is concerned with some “mystical” truth of the church as a living organism, is quite irrelevant. For Paul it is metaphor pure and simple, whose point is not the nature of the church per se but the need for it to experience its proper diversity in unity. This, of course, stands over against the vast majority of Roman Catholic interpreters. For an assessment and challenge of that view, see Best, Body, 98–101, and B. Daines, “Paul’s Use of the Analogy of the Body of Christ, with Special Reference to 1 Corinthians 12,” EvQ 50 (1978), 71–78.

Best, Body, 96 n. 1, faults Robinson, Body, 59–60, for making this same point; but in this instance Best’s reading of the full context of chaps. 12–14 seems esp. unsatisfactory. His interest in the topic “body of Christ” seems to have gotten in the way of reading the text in light of chap. 14.

Gk. μέλος; see on 6:15.

For a discussion of the church as the body of Christ, see Best, Body, 83–159; and E. Schweizer, TDNT 7:1067–80.

Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 199–202. So also E. Käsemann, “The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ,” in Perspectives on Paul (ET, London, 1971), 104, who, however, sees the “heart” to be the sacramental aspect rather than the Spirit.

Missing this point is what mars Beasley-Murray’s—and others’—discussion of this text (Baptism, 167–71).

English translations have consistently been reluctant to go with Paul’s own emphasis here, probably out of concern for either theological or experiential ramifications. But Paul was not here dealing with the concerns and misunderstandings of later times. This is one of those places where believers on both sides (high church and low church) have had difficulty letting Paul be Paul in his own context—which has not to do with baptism per se, but with the need for diversity rather than uniformity when it comes to the Spirit’s giftings.

For this use of “we” in the middle of an argument where Paul begins to identify with the Corinthians, esp. in their common experience of life in Christ, see on 2:7; 5:7–8; 6:3; 8:8; 10:16; 11:31.

Gk. εἰς, which can either be local, indicating that into which all were baptized, or denote the goal of the action, indicating the purpose or goal of the baptismal action (= “so as to become one body”); twenty-five years later I remain ambivalent!

This is the stance of most commentaries, which for the most part do not even raise the question.

See the argument for this position in Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 167–71, whose “considerations” that seem to “demand” this view are less than convincing. In Paul’s argument it is not baptism that makes them one, but the one Spirit.

Even Beasley-Murray backs off here: “There is nothing automatic about this association of baptism and the Spirit” (Baptism, 170).

For the Corinthians, of course, the point of reference for the metaphor would be their own baptism (immersion) in water. But that is not the same thing as suggesting either that Paul intended the rite here or that they would have thought him to be referring to it.

See the assertion by R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul (ET, New York, 1964), 83: “That baptism and the reception of the Spirit are associated is not to be doubted, according to I Cor. vi.11; xii.13.” But that is precisely what is to be doubted in both cases (see the commentary on 6:11). The argument thus becomes circular.

Some (including Calvin, Luther, Käsemann, Conzelmann; for a more complete list see Schnackenburg, Baptism, 84) have suggested the Lord’s Supper, which has nothing in its favor except the verb “to drink.” Nowhere is such a metaphor used for the Table; there is not a hint that anyone in the early church ever thought of drinking the cup as imbibing the Spirit; the tense of the verb is aorist, indicating that a single action is in view. A traditional Pentecostal view sees the two clauses as referring to conversion and Spirit-baptism (see, e.g., R. E. Cottle, “All Were Baptized,” JETS 17 [1974], 75–80, defending a view put forth by R. Riggs, The Spirit Himself [Springfield, Mo., 1949]). The traditional Roman Catholic view is that it refers to confirmation (see Schnackenburg, 84; cf. J. Hanimann, “ ‘Nous avons été abreuvés d’un seul Esprit.’ Note sur 1 Co 12,13b,” NouvRT 94 [1972], 400–405). These views reflect vested interests that lie beyond the concern of Paul’s argument.

This is a common device in Paul; cf., e.g., vv. 15–16, 17, 21, 22–23 below.

Cf. the usage in the Gospel of John, where “water” is used as a symbol for the Spirit (4:10, 14; 7:37–39). An attractive option that has been gaining adherents suggests that the metaphor reflects the idea of “watering” (cf. 3:6–7), referring esp. to OT motifs of the “pouring out” of the eschatological Spirit on the land, as in Isa. 29:10. Thus, “we were all saturated with the one Spirit.” See the considerable argument in its favor by Schnackenburg, Baptism, 84–86, and Dunn, Baptism, 130–31; cf. Wendland, 97; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 170; Cottle, “All,” 79; G. J. Cuming, “ἐποτίσθησαν (I Corinthians 12.13),” NTS 27 (1981), 283–85; Martin, 24. The most crippling blow to this position is the accusative ἓν πνεῦμα; the LXX of Isa. 29:10 has the dative, which one would certainly expect here had Paul intended πνεῦμα to be instrumental. See further E. R. Rogers, “ἐποτίσθησαν Again,” NTS 29 (1983), 139–42.

There is, after all, no experience called “drinking the Spirit”!

Among others who adopt this view, see Wendland, 97; Dunn, Baptism, 127–31; Talbert, “Understanding,” 98–99.

As, e.g., H. Hunter, Spirit-Baptism: A Pentecostal Alternative (Lanham, Md., 1983), 39–42.

Which does not mean that he did not know of such. Pace Hunter (Spirit-Baptism, 30–63) whose texts are all exegeted on the prior assumption that such may be the case, there is no clear statement in Paul that speaks to such a question.

It is possible, as the NIV, to see it as instrumental, esp. in light of v. 9; cf., e.g., Moffatt, 186; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (ET, London, 1950), 30. But usage elsewhere in the NT suggests otherwise.

The usage in 6:11 that is often suggested is not parallel. See the commentary.

This is always true of “water” (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31, 33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; cf. Matt. 3:6; John 3:23;); it is likewise true in the other instances of “Spirit-baptism,” which are always set in contrast to water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16); cf. Paul’s usage in 10:2. See Dunn, Baptism, 127–28.

See, e.g., Schnackenburg, Baptism, 26. One need not doubt the general truth of such a statement. The question is whether Paul intended it here, since his question is not “How do people become believers?” but “How do the many believers become one body?”

Dunn, Baptism, 128.

Note the repetition of this qualifier from vv. 4–11 (esp. vv. 9 and 11). The basis of their unity is still the unity of God himself, expressed here in terms of the “one Spirit.”

This is one of the more difficult moments to put into contermporary English. Paul actually says “Jews or Greeks,” but he almost certainly intends by this our common English parlance “Jews or Gentiles.”

In 7:17–24 the same four groups are mentioned in the same order. Cf. Gal. 3:28, where Paul adds the final separation between people, “male and female.” For a different expression of this kind of list, see Col. 3:11.

See .

Gk. νυνί (logical “now”), read by P⁴⁶ C Ψ Maj; A B D* F G 2496 read the temporal νῦν, probably an assimilation to v. 20.

Both the passive (ὑστερουμένῳ; * A B C 048 6 33 630 1739 1881 pc) and active (ὑστεροῦντι; P⁴⁶ D F G Ψ Maj) can mean “to be in need”; but only the active can have the further meaning “to be inferior.” Zuntz, 128, favors the latter; but he seems to miss Paul’s concern here.

Some MSS ( D* F G L 323 2464 pm a) anticipate the application to the church and make this singular plural.

Cf. the imagery of the “great house” in 2 Tim. 2:20–21, where the same kind of problem exists. Cf. Fee, 1 Timothy, 210–12.

See, e.g., Martin, 19–21.

See Social Setting, 69–119.

The sentences are almost certainly statements (as NIV; cf. UBS⁴, NRSV, NASB, REB), not interrogatives (as KJV; cf. NA²⁷). What makes this certain is the fact that they are present general conditions, which do not lend themselves to being interrogatives without some internal clues; for a contrary view, however, see C. W. Jung, “Translation of Double Negatives in 1 Corinthians 12.15–16,” BibTrans (2007), 147–52.

Gk. παρὰ τοῦτο, expressing cause. The τοῦτο points to the fact of their saying it, not to their position in the body. Cf., e.g., Godet, 213, who suggests that the reason is its “inferior” status in the body. There is no hint here of inferiority/superiority.

This is an excellent translation. In the Greek there are two negatives, one before παρὰ τοῦτο and one before the verb ἐστιν. But this is not a case of double negative; the former negates παρὰ τοῦτο only (= “not by asserting this”), the latter negates the rest of the sentence.

E.g., Grosheide, 294, “They failed to appreciate the unity of the body. . . . In both cases the inferior member seems to suppose that the superior member certainly must belong to the body”; cf. Godet, 215, and many others. Neither in the analogy itself nor in Paul’s own application (vv. 17–20) is there a hint that one of these is superior to the other. That comes in the second application (and then he allows that it is only apparent), but it is totally lacking here, where the parts are of the same kind in each case (limbs, sensory organs).

The Greek repeats the ἀκοή (sense of hearing) from the preceding sentence. But the words for the sense perceptions in Greek are often used for the organ itself. See BDAG.

Gk. νυνὶ δέ. The δέ is adversative, indicating a response to the rhetorical questions of v. 17; the νυνί is “logical,” not temporal, “but now as the situation is” (BDAG). Cf. .

Gk. ἔθετο (cf. v. 28). In Hellenistic Greek this verb does not differ basically in meaning from the active (BDAG); thus it lacks the classical force of “appoint” and here (as in v. 28) means something close to “set” or “put in place.”

Only in this case it is the simple νῦν δέ; see .

Moreover, nothing inherent in a person’s having one gift of the Spirit would necessarily lead to one’s thinking that they could get along without other members of the community. They might have pride, but that does not mean eliminating the others, as the analogy in this verse specifically indicates. Indeed, the “superior proud” would need the inferior around in order that their pride may have meaning for them. But not so with regard to social status. The “haves” can get along very nicely without the “have-nots” as their equals in the same community.

Gk. ἀλλά, the strong adversative.

Gk. πολλῷ μᾶλλον . . . ἀναγκαῖα (lit. “by how much more . . . are necessary”).

Cf. Best, Body, 103, who, after suggesting “those that do the work in the background and attract no attention,” admits that “perhaps this is too fanciful; it is only a metaphor and we must not try to fit every detail into the life of the Church in Corinth.”

Gk. ἀσχήμονα (NIV, “unpresentable,” which is not bad, since discretion on the part of Paul calls for discretion in our own language). For this usage of the word to refer to sexual shame, see Deut. 24:1 (LXX).

But in this case with the more emphatic ἀλλά (“but as it is”).

Gk. συγκεράννυμι, which means to mix (together), blend, or unite. The original NIV’s “combined” tended to lean toward “mix together”; Paul’s emphasis is on God’s “uniting” the parts with one another so as to form a body, thus the present NIV’s “put together.”

On this verb see .

Gk. σχίσμα, as in 1:10 (but not 3:3) and 11:18.

Gk. μεριμνάω; see on 7:32–34. The verb is positive in this instance.

Gk. ἀλλήλων. It is remarkable that in a church where there is alleged to be so much internal strife this word appears so seldom (only here and in 11:33 in this way). Yet it is one of Paul’s favorites in the parenetic sections of his other letters, both before (1 Thessalonians) and after (Galatians, Romans) this one.

Barrett, 291–92, doubted that this part applies to the body at all. But given v. 27, which finally applies the whole of what has preceded to themselves, it seems better to hear it still as part of the metaphor—although it obviously points rather directly at them.

Gk. δοξάζεται, which, since it can mean “clothed in splendor” with regard to our heavenly existence, most likely carries that connotation here. Some part is “honored” or “praised” in some way.

In terms of application to the church, it should probably be noted that the former is usually much easier than this one.

E.g., in North American culture something akin to a back rub or full stomach.

The first edition of the NIV added “finally” here, which was at least misleading, if not also actually pejorative.

The Westerns and MajT substituted the misleading κρεί(ττ)ονα (“better”) for Paul’s clearly original μείζονα (“greater”), read by P⁴⁶ A B C 6 33 81 104 326 630 1175 1739 1881 pc co. See Zuntz, 135, who is worth quoting in full: “The ‘non-Alexandrian’ reading makes Paul end on a truism: if there are any charismata ‘better’ than others, of course they ought to be sought; it moreover credits him with a use of the word κρεῖσσον for which there is no parallel in his writings. . . . The essence of Paul’s exhortation is that some spiritual gifts are ‘greater’ than others (cf. xiv.5) because they benefit the wider community. Even so, he opposes outright the notion that any one is superior or inferior to another.” On the other side see A. Harnack, “The Apostle Paul’s Hymn of Love (1 Cor. XIII.) and Its Religious-Historical Significance,” Exp 8:3 (1912), 385–408, 481–503 (esp. 387–88), which appeared originally in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1911), 132–63.

Gk. ἔτι; the original NIV rendered this “and now,” which was esp. difficult to justify. The difficulty with this adverb is demonstrated by the reading of P⁴⁶ (and perhaps D* F G), εἴ τι (= “If there is anything beyond, I point out the way to you”). But this reading is almost certainly a corruption. Cf. the discussion in Zuntz, 90–91, who is tantalized by it but admits the difficulties.

The pronoun takes the emphatic first position.

There is no definite article in the Greek text. Paul is not trying to say something about their relationship to other churches, but about their relationship to Christ and to one another. Thus he does not mean the body, as if they were the whole, nor does he mean a body, as if they were one among many (true as that might otherwise be). Rather, he means something like “Your relationship to Christ (vv. 12–13) is that of being his body.” The genitive “of Christ” is possessive. Cf. Parry, 185. So intent is Mare, 266, on making this passage refer to the church universal that he limits his discussion to this anarthrous usage and quite disregards the emphatic ὑμεῖς δέ!

Although the concern is a good one, it is doubtful whether E. Schweizer has captured Paul’s concern here in emphasizing the “missionary” character of the church as his “body,” meaning that it is to function “as the instrument by which Christ did his continuing service to the world” (see “The Church as the Missionary Body of Christ,” NTS 8 [1961/62], 1–11). All of this is true, of course, but in this text even the enumeration of ministries points to functions within the church for building it up, not to ministry without.

Gk. ἐκ μέρους, meaning here “each for his/her part” a member. Cf. BDF 212.

The correspondence with v. 18 is esp. noteworthy. As in that verse, the emphasis here is on God’s responsibility for the diversity, for “arranging” the many parts in the body as he wished.

Although Paul’s intent seems clear enough, the grammar breaks down some, making a literal translation difficult at best.

Gk. καί, probably coordinate here, developing not “the thought of the church as an organic structure” (Barrett, 293), but that of the many kinds of parts that make up the one body.

Gk. οὓς μέν, which expects a coordinate οὓς δέ (“some of one kind, . . . others of another”; see on 7:7). Instead Paul abandons this construction for an ordinal enumeration, which creates something of an anacolouthon.

Gk. ἔθετο; see . Since this verb is identical to that in v. 18, and since the two sentences correspond so closely, it is difficult to justify the NIV’s use of a different word here.

Since this sentence is coordinate with v. 27, with its emphatic “you are,” meaning the church in Corinth, there can be little question that by this phrase Paul also primarily intends the local assembly in Corinth. Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 262–63. But its use in this kind of context seems also to prepare the way for its broader use in the Prison Epistles to refer to the church universal—esp. so since the first item “God has placed in the church” are “apostles” (plural). Cf. Martin, 31, who says this in reverse, that “what Paul had in view was the universal church of which the Corinthian Christians formed a local outgrowth.” His entire exegesis, as with most interpreters, is then predicated on the more universal nature of the ministries at the head of this list. On the other side see R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (Grand Rapids, 1980), 35–37, who would limit the term strictly to the local community.

It is common to assert, as, e.g., Parry, 187, that “a marked line is drawn . . . between the permanent functions already enumerated and the occasional manifestations of spiritual power.” Whether some functions were permanent or occasional may or may not be true, but the text itself does not make that claim. It is an assertion only, no matter how often it is repeated.

See on vv. 29–30, where Paul seems to sense the difficulty himself. He tries to keep to the “gifts” as such, but the question “Are all miracles?” makes so little sense (in Greek or in any other language) that he makes the final three personal by adding a verb. The fact that he begins by simply listing a gift suggests that the emphasis is still on the gift, rather than on the persons who express that gift.

Although that would certainly be true of “apostles.” But the question of “authority structures” is not asked here, and in terms of the argument it is altogether irrelevant. It is of some interest that those most interested in this question have relegated the first two ministries to the first century only (although some, without textual warrant, would make “prophet” equal “preacher”), so that the third, teacher, now assumes the first position (see, e.g., MacArthur, 322–24). One wonders whether a teacher first designed this hermeneutics!

Cf. Grudem, 56–57, although his term is not “precedence” but “usefulness in building up the church.” Nothing in the text supports the oft-repeated suggestion that these three are itinerant ministries, while the rest would be local. See, e.g., Martin, 32–33. On this debate in German scholarship see Conzelmann, 215.

Cf. the list in Eph. 4:11, which also begins with apostles and includes prophets and teachers, whose reason for being “given” to the church is “the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry” and the “building up of the body of Christ.”

Note esp. that in 9:1–2 the “authority” of “apostles” from Paul’s perspective was not over the church universal, but over the churches he founded. On this point see Dunn, Jesus, 274.

On the basis of 9:6, Dunn, Jesus, 275, would limit the term here to Paul and Barnabas.

See, e.g., Dunn, Jesus, 282–84, who sees their primary functions as “passing on and interpreting the traditions.” This is attractive, and may be correct, but it lies beyond our ability to demonstrate from the evidence alone.

Since the emphasis in each case is on the function of these first three terms, it is very likely that in terms of persons there was some overlap. That is, the apostle Paul, e.g., is among those in Antioch known as “prophets and teachers” (Acts 13:1). Probably the terms finally came to be attached to certain people on the basis of their own most common function in the church.

The original NIV rendered this, “those able to help others,” which added a wrinkle not inherent in Paul’s word.

Usually of divine aid, or in the papyri of help sought from a king. But it is purely gratuitous to argue on the basis of this usage, as Parry, 187, does, that “it has therefore the definite suggestion of assistance given by governing authorities.”

An observation made also by Dunn, Jesus, 252; the oft-repeated suggestion that these would be the duties of the “deacons” speaks to the concerns of a later time. Cf. the list of “good deeds” attributed to the “genuine widow” in 1 Tim. 5:10.

Gk. κυβερνήσεις; also a NT hapax legomenon. Equally gratuitous to the linking of “helps” with “deacons” (see the preceding note) is that of linking this word with “bishops”; the attempt by P. Roberts to make this word, along with “word of knowledge,” “word of wisdom,” and “interpretation of tongues,” as a subsection of the gift of prophecy, has rightly fallen on deaf ears in biblical scholarship (in “Seers or Overseers?” ExpT 108 [1997], 301–5).

Prov. 1:5; 11:14; 24:6.

Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 252, who translates, “giving counsel.”

Making it clear that this is the point of that list, not the number or rank of ministries.

Cf. also the use of the verb instead of the noun for “interpretation.”

Cf. Barrett, 296, “Paul’s sentence breaks down.” Yes and no. As noted above, it is atrocious Greek, as it is English. But it keeps the emphasis on the gifts, not on persons as such.

Gk. δέ, the most ubiquitous of the Greek particles, and often also the most difficult to put into English; it is very often a simple connective, but at the same time it can also carry a slightly contrastive sense. The difficulty can be seen in the way it has been handled in the various English versions (NEB “and now,” changed in the REB to “and yet”; NRSV and ESV have simply “and”; NAB “but”; while the original NIV’s “now” did it no justice at all).

Gk. ζηλοῦτε (cf. 14:1, 39 and ζητεῖτε in 14:12), which may very well have the full force of the present tense, “keep on eagerly desiring.” With its adj. ζῆλος (see on 3:3) it can be used either in a positive sense (as here; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2) or in a negative one (“have rivalry, be jealous,” as in 13:4).

On this as a misunderstanding of Paul’s use of μείζονα, see the quotation from Zuntz on .

(1) Paul’s own emphasis throughout the preceding argument is consistently on the need for diversity, not on ranking some gifts as “greater” than others. (2) This is confirmed by the rhetoric of vv. 29–30, which quite disregards any concern for rank, and has only to do with variety. (3) By the same reasoning that puts tongues as the least, “apostles” should be the “greater” gift, yet all are agreed that this is the one gift that none of them may properly “eagerly desire.” (4) Although prophecy is used as the primary example of intelligibility in chap. 14, its place in the two lists in chap. 12 is ambiguous—sixth on the first one, second on the other. (5) The lack of concern for ranking is manifest by Paul’s failure to include five of the nine items from the first list in the second one; and of the four he does include, the first three are in reverse order. (6) Such a view seems to run full in the face of the concern in the second application of the body imagery (vv. 21–26), where Paul stressed their mutual interdependence, no one being “superior” to others.

Harnack, “Hymn,” 388, boldly argues that by “gifts” here Paul meant the fruit of the Spirit listed in Gal. 5:22–23. The weakness of this argument, which even he sensed, lies in its total lack of support in the present passage. Harnack thus appeals: “yet every heart must feel and know what he had in mind.”

See, e.g., Baker, “Interpretation,” 226–27; following M.-A. Chevallier, Esprit de Dieu, Paroles d’Hommes (Neuchâtel, 1963), 158–63.

See, e.g., 6:12, 13; 7:1, 25; 8:1, 4.

This reading was actually offered in the margin of the original NIV. For the argument in its favor see G. Iber, “Zum Verständnis von I Cor. 12:31,” ZNW 54 (1963), 43–52. Cf. Bittlinger, 73–75, who also adopts this alternative. Martin, 34–35, combines these first two options, following Chevallier in making a considerable distinction between τὰ χαρίσματα in this verse and τὰ πνευματικά in 14:1. So also J. P. Louw, “The Function of Discourse in a Sociosemiotic Theory of Translation Illustrated by the Translation of zēloute in 1 Corinthians,” BibTrans 39 (1988), 329–35.

However, Chevallier, Baker, and Martin (see and above) make a considerable point that πνευματικά in 14:1 is a deliberate change of words on Paul’s part, reflecting the heart of the controversy between him and them. The difficulty with this view is that it makes χαρίσματα the Corinthian word, which Paul then tries to put into a new context with the use of πνευματικά. But that seems to run counter to the rest of the evidence of this letter, namely that πνευματικός was the Corinthian word, which they used vis-à-vis Paul.

Although one would also expect the emphatic pronoun ὑμεῖς δέ (“but as for you”) if this were Paul’s intent.

But as Iber points out, when it does reappear as an imperative in 14:1, it lacks what he views as the pejorative qualifier “greater.” Thus Paul is saying, “You are seeking the greater gifts; you should be simply seeking spiritual gifts in the context of love.”

Nor probably “ironic,” as suggested by J. F. M. Smit, “Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3; A Rhetorical Solution,” NTS 39 (1993), 246–64.

See esp. on 14:5, where prophecy is specifically called μεῖζον for this very reason.

W. C. van Unnik has suggested, but has had few followers, that Paul here intended his phrase καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν to be somewhat paraphrastic, and thus to be understood as an adverb meaning “excessively” (“The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 12:31,” NovT 35 [1993], 142–59).

Cf. the brief excursus on the concept of ὅδος in Conzelmann, 216; see also C. Spicq, Agape dans le Nouveau Testament (EBib; Paris, 1959), 2:64–66 (ET [but without the copious notes], Agape in the New Testament [St. Louis, 1965], 2:143). (In further notes page numbers refer to the French original; the English translation is in parentheses.)

See BDAG under κατά, II5bβ.

For a discussion of the significant literature from 1910 to 1950, howbeit with the considerable omission of Spicq’s Agape, see J. T. Sanders, “First Corinthians 13, Its Interpretation since the First World War,” Int 20 (1966), 159–87. To be sure, those who have an intense dislike of the apostle read it differently, but their judgments seem to reflect more our common human fallenness than any real understanding of Paul. In this case, see, e.g., E. Stuart, “Love Is . . . Paul” (ExpT 102 [1991], 264–66) and the appropriate rejoinder by C. J. Waters, “ ‘Love Is . . . Paul’: A Response” (ExpT 103 [1991], 75).

Apart from the three matters dealt with in chaps. 5 and 6, the only two contiguous passages in the entire letter that take up apparently otherwise unrelated issues appear in our chap. 11, and even there both of these deal with two matters regarding the gatherings for worship. This in turn suggests that perhaps one might rethink the possible internal relationship among the three matters raised in those earlier two chapters, which have at least an A-B-A relationship in that the first and third deal with two different concerns regarding sexual immorality.

Cf. the “B” section in the various A-B-A arguments in this letter (see ): 2:6–16; 7:29–35; 9:1–27—see also the B and C sections of chap. 15 (vv. 12–34 and 35–58), which only slightly depart from the earlier ones. The failure to take seriously this phenomenon, unique to this letter in the Pauline corpus, is esp. noticeable in those who have denied Pauline authorship of this passage (see ); it also relativizes the attempts by J. F. M. Smit to view Paul as trying here to downplay the gifts (despite the fact that the apostle spends so much time on either side affirming them!); see his “The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in the Light of Classical Rhetoric,” NovT 33 (1991), 193–216; and “Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3; A Rhetorical Solution,” NTS 39 (1993), 246–64; cf. J. G. Sigountos, “The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13,” NTS 40 (1994), 246–60, who tries carefully to sidestep the issue of its context in this letter, but which to the contrary should be the primary issue in any such discussion.

With unguarded enthusiasm it is often called poetry, or even a “hymn to love” (cf., e.g., Héring, 135, and many others). But only vv. 1–3 fit a poetic mold. There is no question that it “soars”; but prose can do that as well as poetry. In Paul’s letters, cf., e.g., 3:21–23; 15:51–56; Rom. 8:28–39. See also the judgment of Spicq, Agape, “The passage is not a psalm or hymn, properly speaking, but rather a parenetic exhortation” (59 [141]).

Particularly in vv. 1–3 and 4–7.

This discussion has a long history, esp. in German scholarship. See, e.g., Oda Wischmeyer, Der höchste Weg. Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (Gütersloh, 1981). Cf. the presentation in Conzelmann, 217–20, who is esp. enamored by some “parallels” that seem to him to suggest a “topos,” i.e., a common scheme used by many authors to present what they believe is the “highest good.” But the alleged parallels are of dubious value; praise of “virtue” or “eros” is not quite the same thing as an exhortation to ἀγάπη. At best they serve as “counterparallels.” Equally difficult to sustain is the notion of Sanders () that the passage in its present context is displaced, having been put here by a redactor (“First Corinthians 13,” 181–87); that is to miss Paul by simply too much.

That also raises the question as to whether it was originally by Paul or not. Most believe so; but some have questioned whether even in its present place it is by Paul; see, e.g., E. L. Titus, “Did Paul Write I Corinthians 13?” JBR 27 (1959), 299–302, who argued that it is an elaborate editorial addition; but that seems to be criticism run amok. It should perhaps be noted that this last phrase was criticized by W. O. Walker, in his attempt to justify Titus (“Is First Corinthians 13 a Non-Pauline Interpolation?” CBQ 60 [1998], 484–99); it has been rather thoroughly dismantled by J. Corley’s careful study (“The Pauline Authorship of 1 Corinthians 13,” CBQ 66 [2004], 256–74), and has otherwise apparently been treated with “benign neglect” in the more recent commentaries (Thiselton, Garland, C-R). His piece seems to reflect biblical criticism run amok; see further below.

The one thing such a view may help explain is the inclusion of a few items in vv. 3–7 that do not otherwise seem immediately to the point of the letter. On the other hand, Spicq, Agape, 55–56 (140–41), rejects it altogether.

It is often suggested that its lack of christological emphasis is unusual for Paul; cf. Conzelmann, 220. But one must be wary of circular reasoning here—that a lack of Christology suggests it is not by Paul; therefore, Paul is not its original author because it lacks Christology. In its present form it is in fact by Paul; therefore, one may rightly presuppose the thoroughly theological, christological understanding of ἀγάπη that he demonstrates everywhere. By “fully Pauline” I mean both language and grammar/syntax; forgers in antiquity generally tended to lack such skills; and in any case, why anyone would compose this in Paul’s name and then make a copy of the whole letter and insert it at this point seems to defy all historical probability. Only moderns used to the printing press could ever imagine such a thing, which is surely the result of the “publish or perish” worldview of present-day scholarship.

In any case, Conzelmann, 218, seems quite wrong, both in terms of assumptions and exegetical method, to argue, “at all events the passage must be expounded in the first instance on its own.” To the contrary, whatever one may learn from “formal” considerations, its meaning “in the first instance” is predicated strictly on its present context. Vv. 1–3 make sense only in this context, as do vv. 8–13, which under any view do not fit well as part of a self-contained unit; furthermore, the language “self-contained unit” (which even Martin, 42, is willing to use) would appropriately fit only vv. 4–7, which, however, also reflect a choice of words esp. tailored to the Corinthian situation.

Whatever else, it must be remembered that this is not a “hymn to love,” as though “love” were an abstraction, or worse, simply a beautiful sentiment. For Paul, just as in 8:2–3, this is ethical instruction, as the imperative in 14:1 makes plain. To miss the parenetic thrust of this chapter is to miss the point altogether. See .

There has been some discussion as to whether “love” in this chapter has to do with love for God or for people. Because he has abstracted the passage from its context, Conzelmann, 221, considers the question irrelevant. To the contrary, the context and parenetic nature of the whole demand that the concern be love for others. On the whole question, see Spicq, Agape, 108–11 (172–74).

Cf. M. Miguens, “1 Cor. 3:8–13 Reconsidered,” CBQ 37 (1975), 80, who also makes the point that it has ties to the letter as a whole as well as to the immediate context of chaps. 12–14.

See, e.g., R-P, 285–86: “Most of the features selected as characteristic of [love] are just those in which the Corinthians had proved defective”; and Spicq, Agape, 77 n. 3 (150 n. 123): “[These characteristics] are neither exhaustive nor arbitrary, but were chosen with reference to the virtues most neglected by the Corinthians.” Cf. the less than adequate reconstruction by I. J. Martin, “I Corinthians 13 Interpreted by Its Context,” JBR 18 (1950), 101–5, who perceives Paul as opposing glossolalists—at best a fanciful caricature—without a single linguistic tie to the context.

See the commentary on vv. 4–7 for this point of view. This feature, essential to the present context, is what should lay to rest all of the discussion noted above as to either its alleged non-Pauline character or its role at this point in the letter.

Cf. the oft-quoted words of K. Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/2:824–40: “It is love alone that counts; it is love alone that triumphs; it is love alone that endures.”

Cf. Rom. 5:6–8; 8:30–32; Eph. 5:1–2.

As will be pointed out, this is not quite the point of vv. 1–3, although such is often suggested. The “religious” activities in themselves have value and for the most part can benefit others; but for the “religious” who do these and do not also have the kind of love for others described in vv. 4–7, all is religious show, with no genuinely Christian substance.

The textual choice in this instance is one of the truly difficult ones in the NT. There are three readings:

(1) καυχήσωμαι P⁴⁶ A B 6 33 69 1739 cop Origen Jerome

(2) καυθήσωμαι K Ψ 614 1881 Maj Chrysostom Cyril Theodoret

(3) καυθήσομαι C D F G L 81 104 630 1985 latt arm

Although Zuntz, 35–37, favors 2, few others do, since it is a grammatical monstrosity (future subjunctive; otherwise unknown in the koinē period, but occurring in the Byzantine). The choice then is between a basically Western (3) or Egyptian (1) reading, with the Western reading finally having prevailed. Given the generally excellent quality of the Egyptian tradition, the external evidence favors 1. So, too, does transcriptional probability, since from any perspective it is the lectio difficilior, the primary argument regarding external probabilities, and a point that those who favor reading 3 seem never to grasp adequately; i.e., how could a scribe with this reading before him ever have either carelessly or thoughtfully turned it into the other? Copyists, after all, were primarily just that, not thinkers or exegetes. It is difficult to imagine that, in a time when martyrdom by burning was common, someone with καυθήσομαι before him would ever change it to καυχήσωμαι, either accidentally or deliberately, esp. since the basic difficulty that anyone has ever had with reading 1 is to find an adequate sense for it. But these matters are finally indecisive in themselves; in this case the question must finally be determined on the basis of intrinsic probability, regarding which see the commentary. For arguments in favor of 1 see Clark, “Textual Criticism,” 61–62; Metzger, 497–98; J. H. Petzer, “Contextual Evidence in Favour of ΚΑΥΧΗΣΩΜΑΙ in 1 Corinthians 13.3,” NTS 35 (1989), 229–53; C. Perera, “Burn or Boast? A Text Critical Analysis of 1 Cor 13:3,” FilolNT 18 (2005), 111–18; it is also favored by Thiselton. For arguments favoring 3, see J. K. Elliott, “In Favour of καυθήσομαι at I Corinthians 13:3,” ZNW 62 (1971), 297–98; R. Kieffer, “ ‘Afin que je sois brûlé’ ou bien ‘Afin que j’en orgueil’? (1 Cor. xiii.3),” NTS 22 (1975/76), 95–97 (cf. Barrett [302–3], Conzelmann [217 n. 1], Collins [476–77]); and C. C. Caragounis, “ ‘To Boast’ or ‘to Be Burned’? The Crux of 1 Cor 13:3,” SEÅ 60 (1995), 115–27, who strangely speaks of its “enormous support” in the MS tradition, which in fact is the considerably late manuscript tradition that he, and most others, otherwise generally reject.

Each is a present general (if ever the one condition prevails, so does the other). Each is carefully structured in three parts: (a) a protasis (in the second and third instances a double protasis), (b) an adversative clause, “but have not love,” and (c) an apodosis. The balance is maintained by having a longer apodosis in v. 1, where the protasis is shorter, and the briefest possible apodosis in vv. 2 and 3, where the protasis is elaborated. The whole is a work of art, with marvelous cadences and dramatic effect.

That is, Paul uses himself as the hypothetical person precisely because many of the Corinthians were like this in reality. Bringing them into the argument in this more indirect way is its own form of powerful argumentation. At the same time, as in 14:6, this use of the first person could reflect an undercurrent of their disapproval of him for not being known to speak in tongues, hence for his not being truly πνευματικός; cf. on 2:15.

The contemporary English versions that are sensitive to the issues of language and gender have found themselves in something of a quandary here. Paul obviously intends “human” or “angelic” languages; but here centuries of familiarity have led most of these versions to stay with what is well known and familiar—and probably rightly so, since its very familiarity has tended to remove it from being a gender issue for most readers.

See on 12:10. Martin, 43, along with many others, sees the two genitives as suggesting “eloquence and ecstatic speech,” with eloquence reflecting the Corinthian interest that one finds in chaps. 1–2. That is certainly possible, but it seems more likely in this context that Paul is simply describing “tongues” in two different forms.

The language is that of R. P. Spittler, “The Testament of Job,” in OTP, 1:865. For a discussion of the other possible reflections of this phenomenon see 866 n. “f.”

T. Job 48:3 (Spittler’s trans.).

See esp. on 7:1–7 and 11:2–16; cf. the rejection of future somatic existence in 15:12.

Gk. ἀγάπη, rare but not unknown in Greek literature. The LXX often uses this word to speak of God’s love, which probably became the source of its use among the early Christians. For them it designated a love differing esp. from ἔρως (“desiring love”) and also from φιλία (“natural sympathy” or “mutual affection”). See the discussion by W. Günther and H.-G. Link, NIDNTT 2:538–47; and by G. Quell and E. Stauffer, TDNT 1:221–54. See also the important monographs by J. Moffatt, Love in the New Testament (New York, 1930); A. Nygren, Agape and Eros (ET, London, 1932, 1939); and esp. Spicq, Agape (1959).

Otherwise Ellis, 52 n. 29, who argues that it “here includes the perception of mysteries”; the RSV’s “prophetic powers” (kept in the NRSV and ESV) seems to emphasize what Paul neither says nor intends. For him prophecy was not an “empowering” but a “gifting,” an enabling to speak gospel truth into the lives of others.

See 1 Thess. 4:9; Gal. 5:13, 22; Rom. 12:9; 13:8; Col. 3:14; Eph. 5:2.

Gk. χαλκὸς ἠχῶν (= lit. “echoing bronze”). Of the two items, this is the more puzzling, since there is no known evidence for its use as an “instrument.” Recently it has been suggested that it reflects the bronze “amplification” systems of the stone amphitheaters. See W. Harris, “Echoing Bronze,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 70 (1981), 1184–85; idem, “ ‘Sounding Brass’ and Hellenistic Technology,” BARev 8 (1982), 38–41; cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 76–77; cf. W. W. Klein, “Noisy Gong or Acoustic Vase? A Note on I Corinthians 13.1,” NTS 32 (1986), 286–89.

Cf. K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 3:1037–39, and Spicq, Agape, 69–70 (146), who suggest that it may reflect a commonplace scoffing at the empty sophist or rhetorician (cf. 1:10–4:21).

In particular with the cult of Cybele, where some of the more bizarre forms of “ecstasy” also occurred. See the evidence in E. Peterson, TDNT 1:227–28; and K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 3:1037–39; cf. J. Quasten, Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der heidnischen Antike und christlichen Frühzeit (Münster, 1930).

Cf. H. Riesenfeld, “Note supplémentaire sur I Cor. XIII,” Coniectanea Neotestamentica 10 (1946), 50–53.

This qualifier is another sure evidence of Paul’s acquaintance with the teaching of Jesus, reflecting a saying found variously in Mark 11:22–23 and Matt. 17:20 (cf. Luke 17:6). On this question see on 4:16; 7:10, 25; and 9:14.

This latter idea is not in the text per se, but is surely what Paul means by “nothing” in this sentence and “profit nothing” in the next. Cf. Spicq, Agape, 71 (147).

The verb εἰδῶ controls both nouns, “all mysteries” and “all knowledge.” Here it must mean “understand”; hence the NIV’s “fathom.”

See, e.g., Dan. 2:19–23, 28 where in the LXX the repeated language includes σοφία, γνῶσις, μυστήρια, and ἀνακαλύπτω; cf. also the recurring “he showed me all the mysteries of . . .” in 1 Enoch (41:1; 52:2; 61:5; 63:3; 68:5; 71:4).

See above on 4:1.

Friedrich, TDNT 6:853–54, asserts, but without textual support: “Gnosis is one of the ‘rational gifts of the Spirit.’ It is attained speculatively, by thinking about the mysteries of the faith. . . . In contrast, prophecy rests on inspiration. Knowledge is given to it by sudden revelation. The prophetic thought or image strikes the prophet from without.” This is hard to square with Paul’s own language in 12:7–11 and 14:1–6.

Spicq, Agape, 71 (147), suggests a connection with ἀντίλημψις in 12:28; this is doubtful, since the emphasis here is not on helping others as such.

Gk. ψωμίσω (cf. the reference in Rom. 12:20 to “feeding one’s enemy”). The verb literally means “to feed by putting little bits into the mouth” (LSJ); cf. Num. 11:4; T. Lev. 8:5.

Gk. τὰ ὑπάρχοντα; see the next note.

Especially so since the language τὰ ὑπάρχοντα does not appear elsewhere in Paul, but is used by Jesus in a saying very similar to this one (Matt. 19:21//Luke 12:33; cf. Luke 12:15).

Harnack, “Hymn,” 394, suggests that Paul is here reflecting on his Jewish background, in which good deeds “profit” one before God.

See esp. Dan. 3 and 4 Macc. 9:17–25.

Elliott, “In Favour,” 297–98, sees this difficulty as the reason for the change to καυχήσωμαι.

Cf., e.g., Elliott, “In Favour,” where this assumption itself underlies the rejection. The view of Harnack ( below) is simply not noted.

A passage in Clement of Rome’s letter to the church in Corinth (ca. A.D. 96) is of considerable interest: “We know of many among us who have delivered [παραδεδωκότας] themselves to bondage in order to ransom others; many have sold themselves into slavery and used the price paid for themselves to feed [ἐψώμισαν] others” (55:2 [Grant-Graham trans.; New York, 1965]). This usage of the two verbs from 13:3 in a passage shortly after his referring to 1 Corinthians and the command to love (chaps. 47–50) seems too remarkable to be accidental. If so, then the absence of καυθήσομαι (“burning”), but the giving up of oneself in other ways for the sake of others, implies that Clement knew nothing of a text that had “burn” in it.

The most frequent suggestion is the frequency of the verb καυχάομαι in Paul and the relative infrequency of καίω (e.g., Spicq, Agape, 57–58; Elliott, “In Favour,” 298). But this will not do, since scribes who would be trying to make sense of the text would be little influenced by word frequency.

For a considerable presentation of this argument, see Harnack, “Hymn,” 401–4.

Cf. Harnack, “Hymn,” 404: “Thus without love all reason for glorying, even the greatest, is profitless.”

One cannot be certain how Paul structured the beginning of this enumeration. This second ἀγάπη, which follows χρηστεύεται, could go either with that verb or with οὐ ζηλοῖ that follows. This is further complicated by the presence or absence of a third ἀγάπη between οὐ ζηλοῖ and οὐ περπερεύεται (missing in P⁴⁶ B 33 104 629 1175 2464 pc [also lat sa bo, but one cannot tell whether these represent a translational “improvement”]). Thus one has four options (besides P⁴⁶, which adds an ἀγάπη after οὐ περπερεύεται):

(1) “Love is patient; love is kind; does not envy, etc.”

(2) “Love is patient, is kind; love does not envy, does not boast; etc.”

(3) “Love is patient; love is kind; love does not envy; etc.”

(4) “Love is patient; is kind; love does not envy; love does not boast; is not proud; etc.”

Zuntz, 68, argues vigorously for (2) on the grounds of rhythmic style (one who thinks otherwise is “blind to its obvious, well-balanced structure”). Obvious or otherwise, it is also possible that Paul was not thinking rhythm, but used the noun for the first three items, then dropped it thereafter; cf. the discussion in Metzger, 498–99.

As Metzger (499) notes, “Instead of ἀσχημονεῖ, the scribe of P⁴⁶ unaccountably wrote εὐσχημονεῖ (‘[does not] behave with decorum”!).

For the τά of the rest, P^46c and B read τὸ μή, resulting in “does not seek that which is not its own.”

See . Holladay, 171–72, sees this in a slightly different way, as a continuation of the “I” formula of vv. 1–3. That is, Paul is here setting forth his own apostolic ministry, many items of which are expressed in light of the Corinthians’ attitudes toward him. Although a few items seem to be a bit forced, there is much to be said for some of this.

Cf. in this regard the clear echo of this passage in 1 Clem. 49, where in v. 5 Clement thoroughly adapts the language to fit the new situation.

Gk. μακροθυμεῖ; cf. 1 Thess. 5:14; despite the common practice in English translations (NRSV, ESV, NAB, NEB [but corrected in the REB]) to render this verb as “is patient,” it is in many ways to do Paul a considerable injustice. In English “patience” is a form of enduring lesser difficulties or evils. Paul’s word is much stronger than that, having to do with “putting up with” (= loving in spite of) the most egregious of difficulties. The KJV was moving in the right direction with its “suffereth long,” meaning “enduring hardships/difficulties of all kinds over the long haul.”

Gk. χρηστεύεται (a NT hapax legomenon); the verb is found only in Christian writings. Since it occurs twice in Clement of Rome (once in a saying of Jesus), Harnack conjectured that Paul derived it from a “Q” saying of Jesus. The noun and adjective occur regularly in the LXX to describe the character of God.

The two cognate nouns appear together also as fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22 (cf. Col. 3:12), as well as in the description of Paul’s apostolic ministry in 2 Cor. 6:6.

Cf. esp. the Pauline testimony in 1 Tim. 1:12–17 that is intended to illustrate the “sound teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.” After the litany of his own former attitudes toward God (v. 13), what receives emphasis is that to the chiefest of sinners God has shown mercy, so that in saving him the full extent of God’s forbearance might be manifest to all who would later believe in Christ (v. 16).

Gk. ζηλόω; to be distinguished from its synonym φθονέω, which is always pejorative and is the baser evil, implying not covetousness (the evil desire for what another possesses), but displeasure at another’s good fortune—indeed, begrudging such a person to the point of wishing them deprived of it. The verb ζηλόω is a “middle term,” referring to a human attitude that can either be base or noble. When noble, it “earnestly desires” something nobler for oneself; when base, it “jealously longs” for the betterment of oneself to the detriment of another.

See 12:31; 14:1, 39; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2. For the distinctions see esp. Gal. 4:17–18, where Paul’s opponents are accused of “courting the favor” of the Galatians for their own ends, so that the Galatians in turn will “court them.” Nonetheless, he goes on to say (v. 18), it is always right to be “courted” with honorable intentions.

Gk. ζῆλος; it may also be used positively, as in 2 Cor. 7:7, 11; 9:2; Col. 4:13; cf. Phil. 3:6.

Cf. 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; and Rom. 13:13.

Gk. περπερεύεται, a NT hapax legomenon, this is its first occurrence in Greek literature (cf. Marc.Aur.Ant. 5.5.4).

Cf. H. Braun, TDNT 6:94: “The immediate context puts περπερεύεσθαι in the setting of defiant conduct through the proximity of ζηλοῦν.”

Gk. φυσιόω; see on 4:6, 18–19; 5:2; 8:1. Its only other occurrence in the NT is Col. 2:18.

Gk. ἀσχημονέω; cf. 7:36.

Thus Paul describes our Lord as “not pleasing himself” but taking on the “insults” of others for their sakes (Rom. 15:1–3).

Gk. παροξύνομαι; cf. Acts 15:39; 17:16; cf. the borrowed English word “paroxysm.”

Although “anger” and “quarreling” are often closely related vices.

Bittlinger, 86, observes that with this verb the list begins to speak to how one responds to the evil in others, since the first five deal basically with the evil in oneself.

The simple verb χαίρει with the preposition ἐπί (“on the basis of” or “over”) appears in the first clause; the compound συγχαίρει in this one. It is doubtful that σύν is intended to go with “truth,” as though the latter were personified. More likely it means something like Barrett’s translation, “joins in rejoicing at (or in) the truth.”

So also Martin, 51.

This suggestion comes from Findlay, 899; it seems to make the best sense of the rhetoric.

Gk. πάντα στέγει; cf. 9:12, where Paul uses this same verb and object to mean “put up with” the kinds of hardships that have befallen him as a minister of the gospel. See . There seems to be no good reason to make it go in another direction here, although its range of meanings would allow “protect [NIV], cover [Conzelmann, in his translation, but not in the commentary], supports [Barrett].”

The REB revisers did themselves no favor by changing this to “endures all things.”

One is reminded of Shakespeare’s famous line, “Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds.”

The Westerns and MajT read the compound ἐκπίπτει; P⁴⁶ * A B C 048 243 33 1739 pc read πίπτει. The latter is almost certainly original, despite Harnack, “Hymn,” 481 n. 2. The former presupposes the meaning “come to an end” for πίπτω; see the commentary.

A few MSS ( A F G 33 365 pc a) make this plural, conforming it to the preceding plurals and thus making it clear that it refers to the “utterances of knowledge” in 12:8.

The original NIV rendered this “perfection,” plus “imperfect” for the next clause. But these words tended to be misleading, since the latter is the same phrase translated “in part” in v. 9, with the article making it a substantive.

The MajT, with no early support, adds τότε, probably under the influence of v. 12. But it misses the point of the later τότε altogether, which is not a logical “then” but a contrast between the present “now” and the eschatological “then.”

For the argument for the word order of P⁴⁶ and the MajT, “as a child I talked, etc.,” as the original, see Zuntz, 128–29, who is almost certainly correct. As he notes, Paul’s emphasis lies not on the verbs, but on the repeated ὡς νήπιος.

The MajT, with some Western support, adds a δέ, which is spurious by all counts. See Zuntz, 189 n. 8.

The close proximity of the argument in chap. 15 is esp. relevant here.

This paragraph in particular, with its concern for the “present only” nature of the gifts, hardly fits the view that the whole chapter is a self-contained unit extolling the greatness of love.

For those who take a noneschatological view of this passage, seeing it rather as dealing with immaturity and maturity, see below, .

Something like this is suggested all too frequently by scholars whose skills should serve them better. That for Paul the Spirit is the source of the gifts and that he himself holds prophecy in such high regard make this an impossible position. See also .

Gk. πίπτει, which literally means “to fall,” is used figuratively to refer to “falling” into guilt, sin, or apostasy (cf. 10:8, 12) or to “become invalid, deprived of its force” (Luke 16:17). See the discussion by W. Michaelis, TDNT 6:164–66.

Cf. Michaelis, TDNT 6:166, who suggests the former alternatives, and Barrett, 305, who prefers the latter but in contrast to Michaelis sees the sentence as the beginning of the present paragraph.

Especially (1) the repetition of the subject ἡ ἀγάπη, suggesting in the strongest way that it is no longer part of the preceding series; (2) the δέ and repeated εἴτε before the three gifts, indicating that these are intended to be in contrast to this sentence; and (3) the verb πίπτει, standing in contrast to the μένει with which the paragraph concludes.

See esp. Spicq, Agape, 93–95 (160–61).

All three appear in the original list in 12:8–10; they also reappear in the present argument in 13:1–2.

Not because it is superior to any of the others, but because it is representative of intelligible utterances, which can edify, in contrast to uninterpreted tongues, which cannot.

Gk. καταργέω (cf. 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 15:24–26; 2 Thess. 2:8), used here with both “prophecy” and “knowledge.” Some (e.g., MacArthur, 359; cf. S. D. Toussaint, “First Corinthians Thirteen and the Tongues Question,” BibSac 120 [1963], 311–16) have argued that the change of verbs (including the change of voice) with tongues (παύσονται) has independent significance, as though this meant that tongues might cease before prophecy and knowledge. But that misses Paul’s concern rather widely. The change of verbs is purely rhetorical; to make it otherwise is to elevate to significance something in which Paul shows no interest at all. Just as one can scarcely distinguish between “cease” and “pass away” when used in the same context, neither can one distinguish between καταργέω and παύω in this context (although the NIV’s choice of “be stilled” for tongues is felicitous). The middle voice came along with the change of verbs.

Cf. N. Johansson, “I Cor. xiii and 1 Cor. xiv,” NTS 10 (1964), 389, and Miguens, “Reconsidered,” 82, although they differ considerably as to the content of such gnōsis. This usage probably prevails in 2 Cor. 8:7 and 11:6 as well.

Note the return of the explanatory γάρ, last seen in 12:12–14 (cf. its frequency in chaps. 1–11), evidence that Paul is returning to his argumentative style, which will predominate throughout chap. 14.

Gk. ἐκ μέρους; cf. 12:27.

The choice of prophecy and knowledge from the preceding verse does not “mean” anything. Partly this is due to style, partly to the fact that “tongues” does not lend itself easily to the way these sentences are expressed. “We speak in tongues in part” is not particularly meaningful; but tongues, as well as all the other charismata in 12:8–10, are to be understood as included in the argument. Otherwise Miguens, “Reconsidered,” 90, and Martin, 53–54, who suggest that “knowledge,” the Corinthians’ prized gift, is basically being taken to task here. The argument of chap. 14 (esp. v. 6) refutes this.

Gk. τὸ τέλειον; cf. 2:6–7. This is the adjective of the verb τελειόω. Both mean to “bring to an end, to complete” something, although they also carry the further sense of “making” or “being perfect.” That is, the completing of something is the perfecting of it. God may thus be described as τέλειος (Matt. 5:48), which can only mean “perfect.” The meaning in the present instance is determined by its being the final goal of what is ἐκ μέρους, “partial.” Thus its root sense of “having attained the end or purpose” (BDAG), hence “complete,” seems to be the nuance here.

This has taken several forms, depending on how one understands τὸ τέλειον. (1) Some see it as referring to love itself. In this view the Corinthian desire for gifts reflects their immaturity; when they have come to the fullness of love they will put away such childish desires (e.g., Findlay, 900; Bruce, 128; Johansson, “I Cor. xiii,” 389–90; Miguens, “Reconsidered,” 87–97; Holladay, 174). (2) Others see “the perfect” as referring to the full revelation given in the NT itself, which when it would come to completion would do away with the “partial” forms of charismatic revelation. Given its classic exposition by B. B. Warfield, this view has been taken over in a variety of ways by some contemporary Reformed and all Dispensationalist theologies (more recently by R. F. White, “Richard Gaffin and Wayne Grudem on 1 Cor 13:10: A Comparison of Cessationist and Noncessationist Argumentation,” JETS 35 [1992], 173–81; R. L. Thomas, “1 Cor 13:11 Revisited: An Exegetical Update,” MSJ 4 [1993], 187–201; M. J. Houghton, “A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8–13,” BibSac 153 [1996], 344–56; D. G. McDougall, “Cessationism in 1 Cor 13:8–12,” MSJ 14 [2003], 177–213; R. B. Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8–13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” DetBapSJ 9 [2004], 97–144). Despite protests to the contrary, this is an impossible view, since Paul himself could not have articulated what did not come into existence until the nineteenth century; and it is a primary exegetical axiom that what neither Paul himself nor the Corinthians could have understood can possibly be the meaning of what Paul was writing to them. (3) Still others see it as referring to the maturing of the body, the church, which is sometimes also seen to have happened with the rise of the more regular clergy (Eph. 4:11–13 is appealed to) or the coming of Jews and Gentiles into the one body (see, e.g., J. R. McRay, “To Teleion in I Corinthians 13:10,” RestQ 14 [1971], 168–83; and R. L. Thomas, “Tongues . . . Will Cease,” JETS 17 [1974], 81–89). This view has nothing to commend it except the analogy of v. 11, which is a misguided emphasis at best.

It is perhaps an indictment of Western Christianity that we should consider as “mature” our rather totally cerebral and domesticated—but bland—brand of faith, with the concomitant absence of the Spirit in terms of God’s supernatural gifts! The Spirit, not Western rationalism, marks the turning of the ages, after all; and to deny the Spirit’s manifestations is to deny that our present existence is eschatological, belonging to the beginning of the time of the End.

Even though Paul says “we know in part,” the emphasis is not on the immaturity of the Corinthians, but on the relative nature of the gifts. This is demonstrated (1) by the γάρ that ties it to v. 8, where it is said of these gifts that they will pass away, not that the Corinthians need to grow up, and (2) by the clause “we prophesy in part,” which makes sense only as having to do with the prophecies, not with the prophets.

Such a procedure is to make “the tail wag the dog.”

With the exception of the change from the plural to the singular.

No significance can be attached to the use of the verb instead of the noun. The usage in 8:1–2 indicates that the verb here means “to have knowledge,” which in this context means to have the gift of knowledge.

Cf. Grudem, 148–49, esp. the discussion of ἐκ μέρους in his n. 59.

On the translation in the NIV see . “In part” and “imperfect” do not carry the same connotations to most English readers.

Cf. the discussion in Grudem, 210–19, which also includes a refutation of the views on ; and see esp. G. S. Shogren, “How Did They Suppose ‘the Perfect’ Would Come? 1 Corinthians 13.8 in Patristic Exegesis,” JPentTh 15 (1999), 99–121, who has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that, apart from a few sectarians (Montanists, gnostics, etc.) who used it in vain attempts to show that their knowledge was perfection itself, all the early church fathers understood it to refer to the coming of Christ.

The Resurrection of the Dead (ET, London, 1933), 86.

But now in the active. This is the only instance in the letter where it is not necessarily eschatological. It was chosen in this instance because of its use in the preceding sentences. Here it means “do away with” or, in keeping with the imagery, “set aside.”

See Conzelmann, 226 n. 84.

Gk. νήπιος, which ordinarily, as here, refers to a very young child.

But as Conzelmann, 226 n. 85, notes, that breaks down with the use of the past tense and the first person singular. After all, Paul speaks in tongues more than all of them (14:18).

Although the “childishness” is seen in their eagerness for tongues, the net result is that the very “gifts,” which for Paul are “manifestations of the Spirit,” are disparaged.

Cf. Parry, 195: “It is an illustration merely: no ref. to the metaphorical use of νήπιος and τέλειος.”

Not simply tongues, which is not taken up as such in the argument after v. 8. Tongues at this point is but one among all the Spirit-inspired gifts (note the special emphasis on the Spirit’s role in 12:7–11) that are part of the present life of the church.

These were unfortunately left untranslated in the original NIV.

Gk. ἄρτι, an adverb that in classical Greek meant “just now” (cf. Matt. 9:18), but in Hellenistic Greek took on the further connotation of “now in general,” referring esp. to “the present time.” This is the predominant usage in the NT, and can mean nothing else when set in contrast with τότε, as here.

This is a bit stilted; because of the peculiar nature of the reflection in a mirror, the Greeks thought of one as looking “through” the glass, in contrast to our looking “in” or “into” it.

This Greek word, which appears only here in the NT, literally means “in a riddle, or figurative way.” Very likely this is an echo of Num. 12:8 (LXX), where God spoke with Moses directly (“mouth to mouth”), not as to the prophets, to whom he spoke through visions or dreams (v. 6), “in figures,” implying that they received “pictures” of the truth that were not as clear as the direct words to Moses. The problem here is whether it means “indistinctly” (thus, “obscurely,” “dimly,” etc.) or “indirectly” (thus “in riddle” as over against “direct speech”), referring to the form rather than the content. The majority of interpreters have taken the former position, but cf. the critique by S. E. Bassett, “I Cor. 13:12, βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι’ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι,” JBL 47 (1928), 232–36; and esp. N. Hugedé, La métaphore du miroir dans les épîtres de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Neuchâtel, 1957); there is an English synopsis by F. W. Danker, “The Mirror Metaphor in 1 Cor. 13:12 and 2 Cor. 3:18,” CTM 31 (1960), 428–29.

The coming of Christ is implied.

A biblical idiom for direct personal communication. See Gen. 32:30; cf. Num. 12:8, “speak ‘mouth to mouth.’ ”

See, e.g., Corinth: A Brief History of the City and a Guide to the Excavations (American School of Classical Studies in Athens, 1972), 5. It is thus surely not by accident that this analogy occurs only in the Corinthian correspondence among the Pauline letters (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18); cf. in a similar way the relevance of the analogy in 9:24–27.

As, e.g., by “darkly” (KJV, REB), “we are baffled” (Montgomery); “only blurred” (Norlie); “dimly” (TCNT, NRSV, ESV); “indistinctly” (NAB). In fact the idea that their mirrors were of poor quality and therefore one did not get a true image is a purely modern idea. See Hugedé, Métaphore, 97–100.

A point that seems to have been overlooked by K. A. McElhanon, “1 Corinthians 13:8–12: Neglected Meanings of ἐκ μέρους and τὸ τέλειον,” Notes 11 (1997), 43–53.

Cf., among others, Bassett, “I Cor. 13.12”; Barth, Resurrection, 85; Hugedé, Métaphore, 145–50; Danker, “Mirror,” 429; Conzelmann, 228.

This imagery has elicited considerable discussion, with a whole range of suggestions, most of which seem quite unrelated to the context, and esp. to the point of the analogy, which is made plain in the second half of the verse. The most likely of these options is that of G. Kittel, TDNT 1:178–80, who argues that both terms, “through a mirror in riddles,” refer to “seeing in the Spirit,” meaning to “see prophetically.” See the critique of the other suggestions in Hugedé, Métaphore, 37–95.

Otherwise Miguens, “Reconsidered,” 87.

For this sudden switch to the singular see on v. 1.

The verb in this final clause is the compound ἐπιγινώσκω, which probably is intended to carry its precise nuance, “to know exactly, completely, or through and through” (BDAG); so also esp. R. E. Kritzer, “Zum Wechsel von Simplex und Kompositum in 1 Kor 13,12,” BibNotiz 124 (2005), 103–4.

Gk. καθώς; Spicq, Agape, 102 (166), notes that Paul uses this word 25 times, always with the connotation “exactly as,” i.e., “it makes an exact comparison.”

Cf. Gen. 32:30.

In keeping with their understanding of paragraphing, the NIV translators set this sentence off as a paragraph of its own; in either case it is the “wrap-up” of the whole.

Gk. νυνὶ δέ; see 12:18 and 15:20; cf. 2 Cor. 8:11, 22; Rom. 3:21; 6:22; 7:6, 17; 15:23, 25; Phlm. 9, 11; Col. 1:22; 3:8.

The debate is carried on, of course, by those who want to interpret the sentence eschatologically, i.e., that faith, hope, and love all remain forever, even into eternity. This view demands a logical force to νυνὶ δέ, since a strictly temporal sense eliminates it as a possibility. But it must be noted that adopting a “logical” sense to νυνὶ δέ does not demand an eschatological view; it merely makes it possible.

In Paul see 1 Thess. 1:3; 5:8; Gal. 5:5–6; Rom. 5:1–5; Col. 1:4–5; Eph. 4:2–5 (cf. Tit. 2:2). Beyond Paul see Heb. 6:10–12; 10:22–24; 1 Pet. 1:3–8. Beyond the NT see Barn. 1:4; 11:8; Polycarp, Phil. 3:2–3. Cf. the discussion in A. M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors (London, 1961²), 33–35, who has argued convincingly that the formula antedates Paul, and suggests that the words τὰ τρία ταῦτα might be translated “the well-known three.”

Those who interpret the passage as eschatological would not disagree with most of this; the question is whether for Paul “remain” meant “forever.” The obvious difficulty with the eschatological view—with which all who adopt it struggle in some way—is how Paul could envision “faith” and “hope” as continuing into eternity, esp. since in 2 Cor. 5:7 he contrasts faith with the final glory in the words “for we walk by faith and not by sight,” and in Rom. 8:24 he says that “hope that is seen is not hope.” Despite a variety of suggestions as to how these two virtues could still be a part of our eternal existence, I find the idea esp. incompatible with Rom. 8:24. “Hope” does not seem to be a meaningful concept once it has been realized. Among those who argue for an eschatological sense for μένει, see Parry, 196–98; R-P, 300; Barrett, 308–10; M.-F. Lacan, “Les trois qui demeurent (I Cor. xiii,13),” RSR 46 (1958), 321–43; F. Neirynck, “De grote drie. Bij een nieuwe vertaling van I Cor. XIII,13,” ETL 39 (1963), 595–615.

Gk. μείζων, as in 12:31b and 14:5; here it probably takes the place of the superlative, as it often does in Hellenistic Greek. Otherwise, R. P. Martin, “A Suggested Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:13,” ExpT 82 (1971), 119–20, who gives it its true comparative force, suggesting it should be translated “but greater than these [three] is [the] love [of God].”

See for this stylistic feature.

Contra Conzelmann, 233, whose view that chap. 13 is an editorial intrusion allows him to say of this opening: “A unified line of thought can be discovered only with difficulty.”

The original NIV here read the nearly impossible “with his spirit,” apparently under the influence of v. 14. Cf. . See the commentary.

See .

Thus:

(12:31)

Be zealous for τὰ χαρίσματα

Yet I point out the superior way

(13)

Description/exhortation on love

(14:1)

Pursue love

B′

Be zealous for τὰ πνευματικά

A′

It should be noted that the imperatives are here spoken to the whole community, not to a select group of “prophets.” One may assume, therefore, that even though not all will be “prophets” (12:29), nonetheless the gift of prophesying is as available to all as is the command to pursue love, and the wish that all may speak in tongues (v. 5); cf. Barrett, 315. Otherwise Ellis, 24–27, who argues that only “pneumatics” are in view in chap. 14.

Gk. διώκετε, lit. “pursue, strive for, seek after, aspire to” (BDAG). The word most often means to pursue in a negative sense, thus “persecute.” But in Paul it is a favorite metaphor for spiritual effort (cf. 1 Thess. 5:15; Rom. 9:30–31; 12:13; 14:19; Phil. 3:12; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22). The present imperative implies continuous action, “keep on pursuing love.”

Martin, 65–66, following Chevallier and Baker (see on 12:31), argues that these words are best understood as a quotation from the Corinthian letter. Although this option has some attractive features, it has several strikes against it: (1) The form of the verb is imperative; it is not easy to imagine why the Corinthians would have spoken to Paul in this manner, esp. in a setting where they are basically in opposition to him. (2) To make this work, Martin suggests that the following ἵνα is imperatival; but that will not do, since it is grammatically dependent on ζηλοῦτε, which means further that both verbs must be part of Paul’s exhortation. That is, one could well understand how he could quote them and then qualify their position with an imperative—but not with a ἵνα clause that is grammatically dependent on the quotation itself. (3) That the ἵνα clause is not imperatival is further demonstrated by the exact repetition of the μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε in v. 5, where it cannot be so.

See the discussion on 12:1; cf. .

Several contemporary English versions (NRSV, ESV, NAB) continue to use the term “spiritual gifts” here; but as noted earlier () in contemporary English scarcely anyone would recognize the adjective “spiritual” as referring to the Holy Spirit, which it consistently is for Paul when referring to the activity of the Spirit.

Gk. μᾶλλον δέ, which could be intensive, as implied by the NIV, “especially.” More likely, in light of the exact repetition in v. 5, Paul intends it to be slightly adversative, introducing “an expr[ession] or thought that supplements and thereby corrects what has preceded” (BDAG). The “correction” in the present case is toward specifying with greater exactness the point of the preceding imperative.

Gk. ἵνα, which in this case is probably epexegetic, functioning like a ὅτι. Thus, “Be eagerly desiring the things of the Spirit, but rather namely that you prophesy.” That is awkward Greek as well as English, but Paul’s point seems clear enough.

On the gift of prophecy, see on 12:10. It should be noted that throughout the present argument, both for prophecy and tongues, the verbs “prophesy” and “speak in tongues” predominate over the mention of the gifts (as nouns) themselves. The verb “prophesy” appears in vv. 1, 3, 4, 5 (twice), 24, 31, and 39; the noun “prophecy” in vv. 6 and 22, and “prophet” in vv. 29, 32 (twice), and 37. The combination “speak in tongues” occurs in vv. 2, 4, 5 (twice), 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, and 39; the noun “tongue(s)” in vv. 14, 19, 22, and 26.

A causal γάρ giving the reason for the final clause in v. 1.

The difficulties with gender language in some of the more recent English versions is quite astounding at this point; e.g., the REB renders 11:5 as “every woman praying or prophesying,” and here keeps Paul’s “you” in v. 1 but thereafter speaks only in the masculine singular “he who speaks . . . does not speak to men.” In what can only be described as something of a bizarre moment in translation, the ESV team chose to render the first ἀνθρώποις: “the one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit,” but then goes on, “On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding etc. . . . The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself.” This is scarcely a model of consistency! The NAB fares a bit better, using “one” for the most part, but has “whoever . . . himself” (v. 4) and then “one who . . . he” (v. 5).

Gk. γάρ, almost certainly inferential in this case.

Gk. ἀκούει; although this usage does not occur often in the NT, it is otherwise well attested. It combines the two ideas of “hearing with the understanding.”

Gk. δέ; even though there is no μέν in the previous clause, the two sets are so clearly set up in contrast that such a translation makes that point the clearer.

For understandable reasons, the NIV has rendered this “for their strengthening,” which is indeed Paul’s point. In his own sentence, however, these three nouns together function grammatically as the direct object of the verb λαλεῖ. I have retained the noun “edification” here because the gerund “strengthening” tends to empathize the verbal aspect and can thus lead in a slightly different direction from what Paul seems to have intended.

Cf. .

On the nature of the gift itself, see on 12:10.

Grosheide, 317, understands this to be a dative of advantage, but the standard usage with the verb “to speak” makes this esp. difficult to sustain.

Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 245.

Not “with his spirit,” as the NIV (cf. Godet, 266; Héring, 146; Parry, 200; Morris, 191). That is not precise even for vv. 14–15. On the absence of the article with Spirit in the dative see . It is clear from 12:7–11 that tongues is the manifestation of the Spirit of God through the human speaker. It does not seem remotely possible that in this context Paul would suddenly refer to speaking “with one’s own spirit,” rather than by the Holy Spirit. Cf. Holladay, 175.

Although it is a moot point as to whether Rom. 8:26 reflects glossolalia, the main thrust of that passage echoes what is said here.

See, e.g., O. Michel, TDNT 5:141: “It is thus wrong for the man who speaks in tongues to edify himself”; cf. Gromacki, 168. MacArthur, 372, whose biases intrude on his interpretation, considers it sarcastic here.

See Bittlinger, 100–106, for a discussion of the gift of tongues in terms of its psychological benefits; but such discussions lie quite beyond what one can say exegetically.

On this way of translating the concept of the Divine Spirit speaking through the human spirit, see on 5:3–4 (pp. 223–25).

There is some ambiguity as to whether the edifying of others is to be viewed in terms of edifying the other individuals who are present, or whether it refers to the community corporately. V. 3 implies the former; v. 4 the latter. Probably they run together in the apostle’s mind. The edification of the whole at the same time includes the edification of the various parts.

They function grammatically as the compound direct object of the verb λαλεῖ, hence the given translation. Some see the second two as defining the first (e.g., Wendland, 109; Conzelmann, 233–34; Ellis, 132 n. 13). Otherwise, Findlay, 902 (explicitly) and most commentators implicitly.

Gk. οἰκοδομή; see on 3:10; 8:10; and 10:23. One can appreciate the interest in stylistic diversity in the NIV; nonetheless the translation “strengthening” causes the English reader to miss the tie with the verb “edify” in v. 4.

Conzelmann, 233, in his desire to isolate chap. 13 from the present context, makes the curious comment: “The criterion is no longer ἀγάπη, ‘love,’ but οἰκοδομή, ‘edification, upbuilding.’ ”

Gk. παράκλησις; cf. esp. the combination of verbs in v. 31: “you can all prophesy in turn so that all may learn and all παρακαλῶνται.” Note also the collocation of the two nouns, παράκλησις and παραμυθία, probably as near synonyms, in Phil. 2:1.

So translated here by NIV, RSV, GNB, NAB, JB, Moffatt, Montgomery, and Beck. For this usage in Paul see, e.g., Rom. 15:4–5.

See the many examples in 2 Cor. 1:3–7.

So translated here by KJV and NASB. For this usage in Paul see 1 Thess. 2:3; 2 Cor. 8:17, and the cognate verb frequently.

Gk. παραμυθία; cf. the combination of the cognate verbs in 1 Thess. 2:12 and cognate adjectives in Phil. 2:1.

Cf., e.g., Findlay, 902, who sees παράκλησις as addressing duty, παραμυθία sorrow or fear; Dunn, Jesus, 229–30, implies that the two words together suggest both exhortation and encouragement/comfort. See also Hill, Prophecy, 122–32, who tries, not totally successfully, to build a case from these words that the basic function of prophecy in Paul was “pastoral teaching.”

See, e.g., H. W. House, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth,” BibSac 140 (1983), 135–50.

Gk. ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (cf. 15:2; 1 Tim. 5:19), a redundancy that belongs to the Hellenistic period (found, e.g., in Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, Lucian).

This is not in conflict with 12:30 or 14:28, as some imply, since the former verse says that not all are or do the same thing, not that anyone may do only one thing; and the latter text allows for interpretation from others than the tongues-speaker. According to 12:10, this too is a gift of the Spirit; therefore, it is potentially available to anyone, including the tongues-speaker (cf. v. 13, where the tongues-speaker is encouraged to pray for this gift, so that his tongue might edify).

Dunn, Jesus, 247–48, wants to raise the question, If this is the case, why then tongues at all? implying that “Paul is trying to rationalize a form of charismatic worship in Corinth with which he is not altogether happy.” Paul himself certainly does not suggest as much; and his assertion that he speaks in tongues more than all of them would border on bearing false witness.

Each of these nouns appears with an ἐν (= in the form of a revelation, etc.). The ἐν is missing with διδαχῇ in P⁴⁶ * D* F G 0243 630 1739 1881 pc, which then would tie it more closely with prophecy (= with a prophecy or teaching). This is not an easy textual choice. On the one hand, it is difficult to account for its omission by scribes, either accidentally or intentionally; on the other hand, it is equally difficult to account for Paul’s having omitted it in this instance when the rest of the list is so carefully balanced. On the whole it seems more likely that Paul himself omitted it, but it is unlikely that he “meant” anything by it. See the discussion in Barrett, 312 and 317.

The NIV here reflects the addition of αὐτῶν in the MajT, an addition that came about for the same reason that the NIV so translated it, smoothness.

This translation reflects the ἐμοί of P⁴⁶ D F G 0243 6 81 365 1175 1739 1881 al b vg bo. As Zuntz, 104, notes, this is almost certainly a harmonization to the preceding τῷ λαλοῦντι. The original ( B A Ψ Maj lat sy bo) has the preposition ἐν (ἐν ἐμοί = “in my view”); cf. Barrett, 312.

Paul wrote πνευμάτων (“spirits”); the change to πνευματικῶν was actually made by P 1175 pc a r sy^p co. See the commentary.

Against all the best textual evidence, and for some understandable reasons, the editors of the Greek text and almost all English translations understand this verse to begin a new paragraph. But Paul’s grammar and usage speak strongly against such an understanding. I have chosen in this instance to let Paul be Paul and to try to understand him on his terms, not ours.

Gk. νῦν δέ; the NIV’s “now” (so also NRSV, NAB, ESV) is a bit weak here. In this case, in contrast to the clearly temporal usage in 5:11 and 7:14, it seems to function in a logical sense, as in 12:20 (cf. the νυνὶ δέ in 12:18; 13:13; and 15:20). See the discussion on 13:13; the “present time” sense is never quite missing from this use of the adverb. Thus, “But [δέ] as it is [νῦν], brothers and sisters. . . .”

Cf. vv. 6, 7, 8, and 9, each of which basically follows the same form: an ἐάν clause, followed by an interrogative particle (τί, πῶς, τίς), followed by a future indicative.

Cf. Conzelmann, 235, who sees it as rhetorical, in diatribe style.

Cf. 2:1; 4:18–19, 21; 16:2, 5. Apart from 2:1 each of these refers to his anticipated next visit. The choice of this language for the hypothetical setting is striking.

Perhaps this is true of the vocative as well, since this sudden very personal address does not otherwise seem to fit with an appeal whose main content will be a series of analogies.

Gk. ὠφελέω (cf. 13:3); cf. the concern in 12:7 for “the common good.”

Cf. NAB, REB; the NRSV and ESV have the more literal “how will I benefit you?”

Gk. ἐὰν μή. Although there can be little doubt as to Paul’s point, the Greek syntax is a little awkward. This ἐὰν μή clause is probably intended as a second protasis, for both of which the τί ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω serves as the apodosis (as the NIV).

Some (e.g., Calvin, 438; R-P, 308; Ruef, 148; Grudem, 138–39, with qualification) see an “artful” arrangement in which there are two pairs, the latter two expressing the “administration” of the former two. But given Paul’s usage throughout this argument, this is a discovery that would most likely come as a surprise to him. On the basis of 13:2 ἀποκάλυψις would correspond more with γνῶσις than with prophecy. In any case the list appears to be too ad hoc for such schemes.

Cf. 12:8–10, 28, 29–30; 13:1–2, 8; 14:26.

Gk. ἀποκάλυψις (cf. v. 26). It sometimes refers to visible disclosures associated with the return of Christ (1:7; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rom. 2:5; 8:19). In other places it refers to the “revelation” of the gospel given to Paul by Christ (Gal. 1:12), or of God’s will in his life (Gal. 2:2). The latter may well be associated with the kind of charismatic utterance referred to in this passage. On the other hand, there are the “revelations” of the Lord given to Paul in the visionary experiences of 2 Cor. 12:1, 7, which he was not allowed to share with others.

Those who equate Gal. 2:1–10 with the famine visit recorded in Acts 11:27–29 see the reference in Gal. 2:2 to his going up to Jerusalem “by revelation” as related to the prophecy of Agabus in the Acts account. But that will hardly do, since the “prophecy” was about the famine, not about those who would go up to Jerusalem. Moreover, Paul’s usage implies a personal “revelation” to himself, not a prophecy about a famine.

Cf. Barrett, 317: “All these activities . . . shade too finely into one another for rigid distinctions.”

Cf. the discussion in Dunn, Jesus, 230.

Gk. διδαχή; referring to the utterance itself, not to “doctrine” (KJV).

This is supported by three pieces of evidence: (1) Its appearance here in a list of items that are otherwise unquestionably to be understood as Spirit-inspired charismata; (2) the fact that the whole section has to do with πνευματικά (v. 1) and the Corinthians’ zeal for “spirits” (v. 12); and (3) its appearance in v. 26 in a similar context of inspired utterances. Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 236–37.

The only real difficulty is with the introductory ὅμως (cf. Gal. 3:15), which ordinarily means “nevertheless.” If it means that here, the explanation is to be found in some form of displacement, where it qualifies the following clause. More likely it carries the sense of “likewise.” See BDAG; cf. J. Jeremias, “ὅμως (1 Cor 14,7; Gal 3,15),” ZNW 52 (1961), 127–28; R. Keydall, “ὅμως,” ZNW 54 (1963), 145–46.

Gk. τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα. For musical instruments as “inanimate” see Euripides, Ion 881 and Plutarch, lib.educ. 9c. The use of φωνή with musical instruments reflects common usage (cf. Plut., Mor. 713C), including the LXX (cf. Exod. 19:16; Isa. 18:3; Ps. Sol. 8:1).

These instruments were played individually, not in “orchestras,” and were used in various settings: dance, drama, pagan worship, etc. See C. Sachs, The History of Musical Instruments (ET, New York, 1940).

Lit., “how will what is being fluted or harped be known?” The point is that of the NIV.

Gk. διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις, which may refer either to pitch or the interval between notes; probably in Paul it is a nontechnical usage for hearing a melody.

Joined to the preceding by καὶ γάρ; cf. 11:9; 12:13–14.

This time ἄδηλον φωνήν (an indistinct sound, so that the battle call is not recognizable).

Gk. εἰς πόλεμον; for this use see Field, Notes, 178.

In modern culture the appropriate analogy would be the cacophony of the symphony orchestra tuning instruments and warming up just before the conductor raises the baton.

The protasis is very close to the form of v. 8; the apodosis to that in v. 7.

Gk. εὔσημον λόγον (= a clear, distinct, recognizable word).

Here referring to the organ of speech, hence διὰ τῆς γλώσσης, not the γλώσσαις of v. 6. Nonetheless, the close relationship of the two is pointed.

Lit., as in v. 7, “how will what is said be known?”

Cf. our idiom, “talking to the wind”; note also the nonpurposeful boxer in 9:26.

E.g., Gundry, “Utterance?” 306. The point of the analogy is that “tongues” functions like this. Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 244: “That which is not self-evident (the uselessness of unintelligible glossolalia in the assembly) is illuminated by that which is self-evident (the uselessness of unintelligible foreign language in the assembly).” See also the discussion on 12:10.

This is an attempt, following Conzelmann, 232, to render Paul’s εἰ τύχοι (cf. 15:37) a little more closely to his sense than the NIV’s “undoubtedly”; cf. Barrett, 319, “I don’t know how many.” Literally the idiom means, “if it should turn out that way” (BDAG); hence “perhaps” or “probably.”

Gk. τοσαῦτα γένη φωνῶν; the use of φωνή in this context is classical. It is probably chosen in place of γλώσση because the latter is used throughout this passage to refer to “speaking in tongues,” that special “utterance” inspired by the Holy Spirit. This usage, rather than supporting the idea that γλώσση also means “a foreign language” in this section, suggests the opposite. See and the discussion on 12:10.

Gk. οὐδὲν ἄφωνον (lit. “nothing is without speech”). This can mean either (1) “nothing is without its own language” (Barrett; cf. Conzelmann) or (2) “nothing is without meaning.” In context the latter seems more likely.

Gk. οὖν; NIV, “if then” (so also REB, NRSV); the “but if” of the ESV and NAB seems to not quite capture it.

Gk. δύναμιν; as our “the force of the word.” It is used only here in the NT in this sense but is a recognizable classical usage. Cf. BDAG.

Lit., “know the meaning of the language.”

Lit., “I shall be a βάρβαρος to the one speaking, and the one speaking a βάρβαρος in my view” (see ). The word βάρβαρος originally was onomatopoeic, meaning something like speaking gibberish. It came to refer to anyone who was non-Greek, hence a foreigner; it was sometimes used derogatorily (= “barbarian”), but not always (as here). Cf. Rom. 1:14.

Gk. ζηλωταί, the cognate noun of the verb ζηλόω (“eagerly desire”) in v. 1.

Gk. πνευμάτων; see the discussion on 5:3–4.

Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 234, who interprets it to mean “eager to experience inspiration, . . . particularly the inspired utterance of glossolalia.” Ellis, 31, suggests that it implies “an interest in the powers that lie behind and attend those manifestations.”

As suggested by Weiss, 326–27, who quite misses Paul’s point and the larger context.

Gk. ζητεĩτε (cf. 10:24, 33; 13:5), the more common verb for the notion of “striving for.”

Gk. ἵνα περισσεύητε, where a ἵνα clause functions as an infinitive of purpose.

Gk. διό (cf. 12:3).

This observation, plus the asyndeton in v. 14 (see ), suggests that the subparagraphs should perhaps be vv. 6–13, 14–17, and 18–19.

On the matter of the tongues-speaker also interpreting, see .

Some of the older interpreters suggest a different meaning for this sentence, viewing “prayer” as “praying in a tongue” in v. 14 and the ἵνα clause as telic (purpose). Thus, “Let him that has the gift of tongues pray with tongues, but let him do so with the purpose of interpreting his utterance afterwards” (Edwards, 365; cf. Godet, 277–78). But this breaks down both grammatically and contextually.

This verse seems to function in relationship to vv. 6–12 as v. 5b did to vv. 1–5.

But not necessarily having “the effect of converting it into prophecy, or teaching,” as Barrett, 319, suggests.

This γάρ is not found in P⁴⁶ B F G 0243 1739 1881 pc b sa, that is, the best early evidence. Although it is included also in the NRSV/ESV and in brackets in the NAB, it is by all counts not original. Its omission would be almost impossible to account for, either accidentally or deliberately—even more so independently across two early traditions (Egyptian and Western). One can easily account for the addition, given both the frequency of this conjunction in this letter and the apparent awkwardness of the asyndeton. So also Zuntz, 194, who adds the note that both here and in v. 18, where Paul suddenly brings in his own person, the text is asyndetic. See the commentary.

P⁴⁶ F G 048 and the MajT read the aorist εὐλογήσῃς here, almost certainly in error. The aorist, which is the more common nonindicative “tense” in Greek (cf. vv. 6, 7, 8, and 9), is the one toward which change most often occurs. In grammatical terms, this sentence (as in v. 14) is most likely a present general condition.

The original NIV read “with your spirit” here. Even though the original text is either πνεύματι (P⁴⁶ * A F G 0243 33 629 1739 1881) or ἐν πνεύματι (² B D P 81 365 1175 pc)—probably the former—against the τῷ πνεύματι of the MajT, Paul clearly intends the Holy Spirit, as in the present NIV (cf. on 14:2). This usage is determined by 12:3 and the context. The greater problem for the English translator is how to render the dative. Did Paul intend a form of agency (= by/with the aid of), or locative (= in, i.e., in the sphere of the Spirit’s activity in the community)?

There is no conjunction in the Greek; a ὅτι is supplied in the Latin tradition (F G lat) for the same reason the NIV has in English. The lack of a conjunction tends to heighten the significance of the second sentence. See R-P, 413.

Cf. Holladay, 180: “The movement of thought advances from the general need for clarity to the specific need for clarity in the assembly.”

See for the reasons for starting this paragraph with v. 14 rather than v. 13, as both the edited Greek text and most English versions have it.

Dunn, Jesus, 228, suggests that “praying with the mind” in v. 15 is to be equated with prophecy. This is doubtful. It may have the same effect—intelligibility—but all of vv. 14–17 deals with God-directed utterances.

As suggested on v. 6, this probably also carries an undercurrent of apologetic. He does indeed speak in tongues—more than all of them (v. 18)—despite what they may think.

This is seldom noted by interpreters; nevertheless the contextual difficulties are considerable if the γάρ is original and the intent is that the tongues-speaker should pray for the gift of interpretation for the benefit of their own understanding, a view espoused by, inter alios, Calvin, 292; Grosheide, 325–26; Morris, 194; Ruef, 150; Mare, 273. Not only does this contradict vv. 2, 4, and 15, but it places a premium on the mind as the only means whereby one may be edified personally. Furthermore, it seems out of keeping with the whole context, which has the edification of the church in view.

One way out of this difficulty has been to make ἄκαρπος “active” in meaning; thus “my mind produces no results for anyone” (Williams; cf. Goodspeed, Moffatt, Conzelmann). Although that moves the concern in the right direction, it seems unlikely that the intended contrast (Gk. δέ) between “my spirit” and “my mind” is that between “what benefits me and what benefits others.”

See .

The conditional sentence is a present general; hence, whenever I am praying in a tongue, this is the consequence.

See on 5:3–4; 12:10; and 14:12; some (e.g., C-R) have taken considerable exception to this way of putting it; at the same time, however, they seem carefully to avoid making any real attempt to suggest what τὸ πνεῦμά μου means in this instance. Indeed, one wonders, what else might it mean (I am praying internally?), since otherwise Paul could simply have said, “I am praying, to be sure, but my mind is unfruitful”—esp. so, since all of this is specifically related to Spirit utterances. It is of further interest that C-R make no attempt of any kind to suggest what “my spirit prays” could otherwise possibly mean, since the contextual implication seems to be quite clear that it refers to prayer that bypasses the cortex of the brain. It appears to be very difficult for modern intellectuals to take Paul at his word on this one. In this case one might compare the language of Acts 2:4: “They began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (NRSV). This is not far removed from, but seems to be a preferable way of stating, the alternative favored by Barrett, 320, and others, that “my spirit is the spiritual gift entrusted to me.”

Gk. τί οὖν ἐστιν (cf. 14:26); cf. also the simple τί οὖν of Rom. 3:9; 6:15; 11:7, which is the more classical form. The idiom means, “What then is the upshot of what has just been said?”

Gk. τῷ πνεύματι. If the analysis offered above () is correct, then this arthrous usage does not refer directly to the Holy Spirit, but to “my spirit” in v. 14. To the degree that it recognizes this relationship with v. 14, the NIV is correct here. But the usage in v. 16 is anarthrous and probably refers more directly to the Spirit. The English versions (understandably) have great difficulty here, esp. because of Paul’s use of the personal pronoun “my,” which in this case is probably more locative than possessive.

This future must be understood as volitive, not temporal, expressing determination.

This in itself speaks against an understanding of v. 14 that sees Paul as encouraging the tongues-speaker to pray for the gift of interpretation so that their own mind might also benefit from what is said. Obviously for Paul the latter is not always necessary.

Gk. δὲ καί; cf. 15:15.

Gk. νοῦς, as in v. 14; so also the REB. The original NIV had “mind” (cf. NRSV, ESV, NAB), but Paul’s concern is with the “understanding” involved, not the “location” as such.

Gk. ψαλῶ; cf. 14:26, ἕκαστος ψαλμὸν ἔχει.

See, e.g., G. Delling, TDNT 9:489–503; K. H. Bartels, NIDNTT 3:668–75 (who, however, quite misses the point of this text); R. P. Martin, Worship, 39–52; Dunn, Jesus, 238–39.

“Speaking to one another” (Eph. 5:19) and “teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16).

The language is Dunn’s; see his Jesus, 238.

Gk. ἐπεί, which ordinarily is causal (“since”; cf. v. 12). For the usage here cf. 5:10 and 7:14, where it functions in a similar way. For reasons that are not at all clear, the original NIV translators unaccountably chose to leave this word out altogether, either explicitly or implicitly.

This “you” is singular; for this sudden shift to the second singular in applicational or parenetic sections see on 4:1; 7:21 and 27. Probably Paul is here supposing an interlocutor, who is understood to be taking the opposite position of his own.

The sentence, like v. 14, is a present general condition: “Whenever you praise God in this way, you may expect these results.” The verb εὐλογέω is most frequently used in the LXX to translate the Heb. ḇaraḵ, “bless.” Thus it is often thought to refer here to specific kinds of prayers, such as the blessings in the Jewish synagogue. But that will not work here, of course, since it is the verb for “praising” in tongues. Most likely it covers in a more general way both activities mentioned in v. 15.

This word is not in the Greek text, but is obviously implied.

On this usage see on vv. 14–15, and .

Gk. εὐχαριστία; the cognate verb appears in v. 17. Thus the two verbs, εὐλογέω and εὐχαριστέω, are nearly interchangeable here, as in 10:16 and 11:24.

This is implied by the use of the article τό before ἀμήν. The continuation of the practice in the early church is noted by Justin, Apol. 65: “When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, the whole congregation present assents, saying, ‘Amen.’ ”

A word borrowed from the Hebrew, meaning “that which is sure and valid.” In the NT it most often appears at the conclusion of doxologies to God or Christ. See Gal. 1:5; Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Phil. 4:20; Eph. 3:21; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11; Jude 25. Cf. the magnificent scene in Rev. 5, where at the conclusion of the hymns of praise to God and to the Lamb, the four living creatures say, “Amen” (v. 14). On the use of this word in early Christian worship, see H. Schlier, TDNT 1:336–38; and R. P. Martin, Worship, 36–37.

See Dunn, Jesus, 282, who emphasizes the importance of the corporate sense of the worship, in which all joined together, both in the “ministry” of the gifts and in the response to what God was saying. The “Amen” would function as the affirmation following the “testing” of the utterances.

Gk. ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον. The verb ordinarily means to “fill up,” or “fill a gap, replace.”

See the evidence in BDAG; cf. H. Schlier, TDNT 3:215–17.

A few consider the person to be an “outsider” (NRSV, ESV) in both cases.

“As a kind of proselytes or catechumens” (BDAG). This has been the traditional stance of German scholarship in general. Cf. Schlier ( above); see also Morris, 195–96; Martin, 71.

Despite the frequency of this suggestion (among others, Goudge, 127; R-P, 313; Lenski, 594; Grosheide, 327; Héring, 151), it has almost nothing to commend it. The issue is not between those who do and don’t have this gift, but between intelligibility and this gift in the assembly. Even other tongues-speakers will be idiōtēs in the sense that Paul is using the word, since they, too, will be unable to understand what is being said by the others.

Cf. Godet, 282: “Paul thus designates all the members of the Church, because in this situation they play the part of unintelligent hearers in relation to the glossolalete.” See also Barrett, 321.

Gk. γάρ; omitted in the NIV as implicit in the context.

Gk. μέν, followed in this case by the stronger ἀλλά (= “to be sure . . . but”).

Gk. εὐχαριστεῖς. On the basis of vv. 15 and 16 this is a straightforward statement of fact: “You are giving thanks well enough.” The English subjunctive “may be” found in most English versions (NRSV, ESV, NAB; but not the REB) seems to tilt the argument just slightly; cf. Barrett, 321, who is one of the few English translators to catch this: “You indeed are giving thanks well enough.”

The English versions have a measure of difficulty here in putting Paul’s Greek into manageable English, since the illustration is in the singular, but the intent seems clearly to be more communal. The present NIV has thus gone with “no one else,” while the NRSV and ESV have “the other person,” and the NAB opted for simply “the other.”

Nor is there cause to make the καλῶς ironic here, as R-P, 314, suggest. That fails to take v. 15 seriously, as well as the language of “praise” and “thanksgiving” to God associated with this gift.

Gk. μὲν γὰρ καλῶς. The original NIV (as well as the NRSV, ESV, NAB; but not the REB) rendered this with the English subjunctive, “you may be . . . well enough,” which seems to tilt the argument slightly; cf. Barrett, 321, who is one of the few English translators to catch this: “You indeed are giving thanks well enough.”

As with v. 14, this one is asyndetic; the argument concludes on the same abrupt note with which it began.

For the lack of a conjunction here, and its significance, see .

Gk. μᾶλλον, used with the genitive of comparison, rather than the customary ἤ. One cannot tell whether the intent is primarily qualitative (Bruce, 132, “a richer endowment”) or quantitative (with greater frequency). Although it is not necessary to decide, it is probably the latter.

These passing references in the Corinthian correspondence should give us reason to pause whenever we think we know about as much about the apostle as can be known. More likely the extant correspondence is but the tip of the iceberg.

After all, one may legitimately ask how he knew, to which the answer would be that he didn’t.

This asseveration is probably to be understood in part as something of a mild oath, a way of calling on God to be witness to the absolute truthfulness of what follows (cf. his use of “I tell the truth, I am not lying” in Rom. 9:1; Gal. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:7; cf. also 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:10). At the same time it says something about his own attitude toward this gift.

There is no article in the Greek. “In church” is to be preferred to the “in the church” of the NIV as the more appropriate English idiom for the actual gathering together of God’s people; in contemporary English the addition of the article tends to move the idiom toward the concept of the place of gathering, which is totally foreign to its sense here.

Gk. τῷ νοΐ μου (“with my understanding”), exactly as in vv. 14–15.

Gk. μυρίους (cf. 4:15), the adjective for “ten thousand,” the largest word for numbers available in Greek. As an adjective it means “countless, innumerable, tens of thousands.”

This use of the singular γλώσση, following immediately on the plural γλώσσαις in v. 18, is a sure indication that there is no real significance to the singular or plural. It scarcely now means “a foreign language”; probably it implies “in any given instance of speaking in tongues.”

Gk. κατηχέω (cf. Gal. 6:6; Rom. 2:18); it is not the ordinary word for “teach”; rather, it has to do with “informing” or “instructing” another in religious matters.

Paul now shifts back to the plural from the singulars of vv. 16–17.

Gk. θέλω (cf. v. 5); here it means something close to “prefer.”

The original NIV, apparently in the interest of OT parallelism, rendered this “through men of strange tongues,” a rendering unfortunately perpetuated in the ESV (“people of strange tongues”). But that is neither what Paul said nor what he intended. His emphasis is not on “people of strange tongues” but on the phenomenon of “other tongues” (= language unintelligible to the hearers) itself. The present NIV has “with foreign lips and strange languages” for the Isaiah passage.

In place of ἑτέρων ( Α Β 0201 0243 6 33 81 326 1739 2465 pc), P⁴⁶ D F G Maj lat co have ἑτέροις, making it modify “lips” and thus equivalent to ἑτερογλώσσοις (“other tongues and other lips”). As Zuntz, 174 n. 4, points out, this is less suited to Paul’s argument, which implies by ἑτέρων “that ‘others’ (i.e., believers) will vainly speak in tongues to nonbelievers.”

Cf. Johanson, “Tongues,” 187: “The main concern of vv. 21–5 has to do with the relation of tongues to unbelievers in contrast to the relation of prophecy also to unbelievers.” In an otherwise helpful study, Roberts, “A Sign—Christian or Pagan?” ExpT 90 (1978/79), 199–203, makes a crucial leap of logic so that the concern turns out to be with the Corinthians themselves rather than with the ineffectiveness of unintelligibility in the community.

For this usage in 1 Corinthians, see on 1:10.

The NIV (cf. NAB) seems to have caught the correct nuance of the present imperative here, vis-à-vis the versions that render it “do not be” (NRSV, ESV, REB); Paul’s concern is to bring closure to what is actually taking place, not with being preventative.

Gk. παιδία, the only occurrence of this word in Paul; in 3:1–2 he uses νήπιος (there meaning “infant”; cf. 13:11).

Gk. φρεσίν (only here in the NT), referring to understanding or discernment. Cf. the similar appeal to their thinking sensibly that begins the final prohibition against idolatry in 10:15. Although this exhortation begins the present paragraph, it undoubtedly is intended also to apply to all that has been said since v. 1. In fact, some (e.g., Findlay, 908; Martin, 72) break the paragraph after v. 20.

Perpetuated, e.g., by Martin, 71.

Cf. R. Schnackenburg, “Christian Adulthood according to the Apostle Paul,” CBQ 25 (1963), 365: “Not that glossolaly itself is childish behavior, but rather it is childish to have an unreasonable preference for this gift of the Spirit.” Precisely so.

For this pattern in the larger structure of the argument, see ; for an example of this structure within a single sentence, see on 1:10.

In each case this is a dative of reference.

Gk. ἀλλά, which with the preceding μή is the indication that Paul’s contrasts lie here. Otherwise Johanson, “Tongues,” 186, who sees the second clause as parenthetical.

Gk. νηπιάζετε; probably no significance is to be attached to the differences between παιδία and νήπιος, esp. since in 13:11 Paul refers to thinking like a νήπιος (infant). The fluidity of Paul’s images is reflected in his positive use of the “infant” metaphor here, which was negative in 3:1–2 and neutral in 13:11. Here it implies the need for innocence with regard to evil.

Gk. τῇ κακίᾳ; cf. 10:6.

Because of the abrupt nature of the transition from v. 19 to v. 20, R. M. Grant suggests that Paul is here taking up another topic from Corinth, i.e., their justification for their “childish behavior” as having “the sanction of the Lord’s command,” as found in Mark 10:15 and parallels (“Like Children,” HTR 39 [1946], 71–73). The possibility that Paul is here taking on their own point of view seems viable, but more likely it is in irony than in direct refutation of an alleged use of a Jesus word.

See the introductions to chaps. 12–14 and to 14:1–25, as well as the commentary on 13:1. Thus it fits again with the overall argument of the letter. Both Johanson, “Tongues,” and Sweet, “Sign,” see this paragraph, as well as the whole of chaps. 12–14, to be dealing with internecine strife between glossolalists and prophets. This view fails at a number of significant points (see , as well as the commentary on ); this presupposition, which in both cases is integral to their analysis of the paragraph, mitigates what are otherwise helpful insights.

On the use of this formula in Paul, see on 9:9; cf. the discussion on 14:34. Citing the prophets as “in the Law” is a carry-over from his Jewish heritage (cf. Rom. 3:19; John 10:34). Cf. W. Gutbrod, TDNT 4:1036–78.

Paul follows neither the LXX nor the MT, although he is closer to the latter. Since there are some correspondences between this citation and the later (ca. 100 years) translation of Aquila (in the combined form ἑτερόγλωσσος, and in the inversion of “tongues” and “lips,” including the form ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων), it is possible that Paul and he were both dependent on an earlier form of Greek text no longer available. See the argument in Harrisville, “Study,” 42–45.

Gk. ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις; only here in the NT. The LXX has διὰ γλώσσας ἑτέρας (cf. Acts 2:4: ἑτέραις γλώσσαις).

Cf. Roberts, “Sign,” 201: “There seems to be little similarity between the situation which evoked Isaiah’s words, and the circumstances which caused Paul to quote them here, except for the strange tongues and their ineffectiveness”; and Johanson, “Tongues,” 182.

How much of the OT context Paul was consciously bringing to this citation is a matter of debate, which is not otherwise significant unless one thinks that the “sign” in v. 22 is related to the “judgment” of Israel in the Isaiah passage (e.g., R-P, 317). See also O. P. Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” WTJ 38 (1975), 45–53, who makes a number of unsupported assertions and theological judgments based on the OT texts and some parallels in Acts 2, but not on what Paul himself actually says. At best one can say that despite his several adaptations, Paul does not radically alter the sense of this text in Isaiah; but it goes quite beyond the evidence to argue that Paul also brings with the citation Isaiah’s use of this phenomenon—as evidence of Israel’s receiving the covenantal curse of Deut. 28:49 (cf. Jer. 5:15). For a full discussion of the OT passage and its possible relevance to Paul’s citation see Grudem, 185–201, which appeared earlier as “1 Corinthians 14.20–25: Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitudes,” WTJ 41 (1979), 381–96.

On this usage, see Ellis, 182–87, and Use, 107–12. He advances the (highly speculative) hypothesis that this formula may indicate the utterances of Christian prophets.

A usage LSJ seem not to have gotten quite right with their suggestion that it simply = “foreign.”

But see ; this may simply reflect the tradition he had available. So Conzelmann, 242. Even so, his choice of this tradition over against the MT would be significant.

Gk. ὥστε; see on 3:7 (incl. ). Johanson, “Tongues,” 189, considers it consecutive, but his own discussion implies otherwise.

Martin, 72, would resolve the difficulties by viewing v. 22 as a midrash on v. 21, without its pointing forward to vv. 23–25. But this seems to break down on the structural analysis presented above.

Johanson, “Tongues,” 190–91, has made the helpful distinction that the assertions express the relation of tongues and prophecy to the two groups in terms of function, whereas the OT citation and the illustrations do so in terms of effect.

This is so severe that J. B. Phillips, without textual warrant, opted for radical surgery and transposed “believer” and “unbeliever” in his translation. He noted: “This is the sole instance of the translator’s departing from the accepted text. He felt bound to conclude, from the sense of the next three verses, that we have here either a slip of the pen on the part of Paul, or, more probably, a copyist’s error” (346). Cf. Parry, 205, who would prefer to see v. 22 as a gloss. For more recent attempts to make better sense of things, see J. F. M. Smit, “Tongues and Prophecy: Deciphering 1 Cor 14,22,” Bib 75 (1994), 175–90; and M. Hietanen, “Profetian är primärt inte för de otrogna—en argumentationsanalys av 1 Kor 14:22b,” SEÅ 67 (2002), 89–104. It remains doubtful whether either of these is successful.

Gk. εἰς σημεῖον; this is a possible rendering and is favored by Grudem, 192–93, esp. n. 23. The evidence in its favor, however, is basically semitic—even the passages in Paul that are brought forward as evidence are all citations of the LXX (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:16; 15:45). On the other hand, it is possible to give the preposition its more ordinary telic force (= “tongues are meant as a sign”), as Moule, 70; Johanson, “Tongues,” 190 n. 5; cf. 1 Cor 4:3. On the whole, the latter seems preferable, although the meaning is not greatly affected.

Dative of advantage/disadvantage.

Gk. τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, a common designation for Christians in Paul’s letters (he never uses πιστός in this way); cf. 1:18; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2:10, 13; 2 Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:22; Rom. 4:24.

Gk. τοῖς ἀπίστοις (see on 6:6; 7:12; 10:27); as in those texts it can refer only to those who are outside the Christian faith. Perhaps the ἄπιστοι referred to in 7:12 are the kind Paul could envision being present at a Christian gathering, esp. if the Christian meal was being eaten at the same time. On this probability see Barrett, 325.

This has also been suggested, but with differing agenda in mind, by Sweet, “Sign,” 241; Johanson, “Tongues,” 193–94; and Roberts, “Sign,” 201. Johanson sees the whole of v. 22, including the internal antitheses in each assertion, as the point of view of the Corinthian glossolalists, which Paul is reproducing here in the form of rhetorical questions. Thus σημεῖον is positive (because it expresses their outlook); Paul’s response is found in the illustrations of vv. 23–25, which stand in opposition to the glossolalists, and in favor of those who prefer prophecy. Although this has some attractive features, it finally breaks down both grammatically (Paul’s use of ὥστε in 1 Corinthians—the alleged analogous usage in Gal. 4:16 is not similar) and contextually (there is otherwise not a hint in this chapter, nor throughout 12–14, that Paul is responding to an in-house division over this matter—not to mention that in chaps. 1–4, where there is internal division, Paul refuses to take sides).

For the argument in favor of this point of view see Dunn, Jesus, 230–32, and Grudem, 194–202 (apparently independently of Dunn, given the nature of the addendum to n. 25, 196).

See, e.g., Num. 26:10 (those who died in Korah’s rebellion became a sign); cf. Deut. 28:46. See further, Grudem, 195.

E.g., Gen. 9:12 (the rainbow); Exod. 12:13 (the blood on the doorpost).

The Greek text does not specifically say this; but the sentence is most likely an ellipsis, since the verb εἰσιν is omitted as well. This means that the two sets of antitheses are to be understood as in perfect balance. Cf. Grudem, 193–94.

The NIV reverses the order of the antithesis, for no apparently good reason.

Barrett, 324, sees prophecy as a sign of “judgment” on the Corinthian believers, since they prefer tongues to the very kind of intelligibility that can lead to salvation.

Cf. such OT passages as Isa. 29:10; Mic. 3:6; Lam. 2:9 for indications that the absence of prophecy is a sign of judgment, or the loss of God’s favor.

The illustrations are joined to v. 22 by means of an inferential οὖν, translated “so” in the NIV. As with the two assertions, the two illustrations are connected by an adversative δέ (“on the other hand”).

As in 11:20 the NIV omits the additional qualifier ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, probably as a redundancy. As noted there, this probably means “together,” although here it may mean in a single gathering over against multiple gatherings in various house churches.

See 1:2; the letter is written to the church in Corinth.

Writing from Corinth, Paul sends greetings from “Gaius, host to me and to the whole church.”

Cf. Banks, Paul’s Idea, 38, who argues that the use of ὅλη (“whole”) here implies a more regular meeting of smaller groups. Parry, 207, allows that it could refer to “the whole of any particular congregation”; but that seems doubtful in light of all the evidence.

See the introduction to 11:17–22 (p. 590).

On the issue as to how this affects one’s view of vv. 34–35, see the discussion below on this almost certainly inauthentic passage.

See on vv. 24 and 29.

So also Barrett, 324. R-P, 317, object that, since πάντες cannot mean all simultaneously in v. 24, it also cannot here. But that has Paul’s argument in reverse. This latter sentence receives its form from v. 23; it is not necessary to think that Paul would have envisioned “all prophesying” as being in disarray, which apparently he did of their speaking in tongues.

In v. 23 he has ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι; in v. 24 they are in reverse order and singular. Nothing significant is to be made of these differences (as, e.g., Findlay, 911; R-P, 318; Barrett, 325; Conzelmann, 243 n. 28). Both changes are stylistic (the transposition creates a chiasm).

Cf. Findlay, 910: “unacquainted with Christianity.” Since the term in both cases is nontechnical, there can be no objection to its referring to believers in v. 16, who are “unacquainted” with the meaning of the “tongue” and therefore cannot say the “Amen,” and to unbelievers here, who are quite “untutored” with regard to the Christian faith and would see their corporate tongues-speaking as “madness.”

So Barrett, 324, who joins the two words into one by translating “unbelieving outsiders.” Cf. Conzelmann, 243.

This makes far more sense than the NIV’s “someone who does not understand,” which seems to break down on the matter of prophecy.

See and .

Gk. μαίνεσθε; cf. John 10:20; Acts 26:24, 25. The cognate noun is μανία, which occurs in various texts reflecting the ecstasies of the mysteries. E.g., Pausanias 2.7.5: “These women they say are sacred to Dionysus and maddened by his inspiration” (Loeb, 1:285); cf. Herodotus 4.79.

This kind of language expresses the prophetic ideal that in the coming age of the Spirit all of God’s people will be “prophets” (cf. Joel 2:28–30 and esp. the citation on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:17–18).

This rendering of Paul’s πάντες as a distributive “everyone” seems to capture the sense of the passage a bit better than the collective “all” found in most English versions.

Gk. ἐλέγχεται; in Paul cf. Eph. 5:11, 13; 1 Tim. 5:20; Tit. 1:9, 13; 2:15; 2 Tim. 4:2. Cf. also John 16:8–11. For a discussion of biblical usage see F. Büchsel, TDNT 2:473–76.

Gk. ἀνακρίνω; only in 1 Corinthians (ten times) in Paul. See the discussion on 2:15.

Büchsel, 474: It means “to show someone his sin and to summon him to repentance.” Hence the basic correctness of the NIV’s “he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner.”

Cf. 4:5, where nearly identical language describes the eschatological judgment of God. Now he uses it to refer to the judgment that takes place in the present through the Spirit.

The Greek for “laid bare” is φανερός; it is the adjective of the verb “to reveal.” See for references in Paul and Judaism that the living God knows and searches the human heart.

It is characteristic of the biblical view that sin is first of all a matter of the heart. Therefore, conversion includes not only the forgiveness of one’s sins but the regenerating work of the Spirit in the heart, from whence are the issues of life.

Gk. πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον; in the LXX see, e.g., Gen. 17:3, 17; Lev. 9:24; Num. 16:22; Ezek. 11:13; and many others. In the NT see Matt. 17:6; 26:39 (of Jesus in Gethsemane); Luke 5:12; 17:16; Rev. 7:11; 11:16. See further R. B. Hayes, “The Conversion of the Imagination,” NTS 45 (1998), 391–94.

Gk. ἐν ὑμῖν; cf. on 3:16.

The thoroughly biblical language used throughout vv. 24–25 to describe the effect of prophecy on the unbeliever is further evidence that this phenomenon in Paul is to be understood in light of his Jewish heritage and not similar phenomena in Hellenism.

Cf. W. Rebell, “Gemeinde als Missionsfaktor im Urchristentum. I Kor 14,24f. als Schlüsselsituation, TZ 44 (1988), 117–34, who argued that the gift of prophecy functioned as a significant missional factor in early Christianity.

Ellis, 38, makes the improbable suggestion that Paul’s co-workers were the original subjects of these regulations and that in their present form they are applied only to a certain class of pneumatics who have spiritual gifts (26).

On this rendering of Paul’s ἁγίοις, see . In most Greek MSS, but not in the Western church, where it appears after v. 40, there follows a word of instruction about the silence and submission of women (vv. 34–35), which intrudes in the present argument like a “rock.” The questions of both transcriptional and intrinsic probability together present insurmountable difficulties as to its authenticity and esp. call into question the English versions (NRSV/ESV et al.) that include the concluding clause of the present argument (v. 33b) with the spurious material that follows. See the full discussion below.

The Westerns and MajT have the understandable, but secondary, addition of ὑμῶν. It is missing in P⁴⁶ * A B 0201 33 81 630 1175 1739 1881 pc, which as an “omission” could scarcely be accounted for.

A few MSS (D F G Ψ* 1241^s pc a b sy^p) try to alleviate the difficulty of this plural by making it singular—although in some cases this could be the result of an accidental dropping of a τά.

And thus the frequent suggestion that Paul is here “damning tongues with faint praise” seems all too contemporary and out of touch with the argument as a whole.

See .

See on v. 23. This repetition of the verb in terms of what should be happening further supports the suggestion made there that v. 23 gives a generally realistic picture of what they were doing in fact.

It is possible that some of this was already going on; but the rest of the context, including chap. 12, suggests that this is a corrective word rather than a merely descriptive one. Martin, 78, offers the possibility that the repeated “has” may be a form of reproof; however, nothing in the text itself mildly hints at disapproval here.

Reinforced in this case not by the repetition of ἕκαστος but of the verb ἔχει. Cf. 12:8–10.

The preposition πρός with οἰκοδομήν in particular indicates the purpose of all these things. The NIV’s “for the strengthening of the church” is permissible, but one wonders why so here, when this exact phrase, plus the qualifier “of the church,” appears in v. 12 and is translated “build up the church.” That will hardly help the average reader trace ideas through the chapter.

So also Conzelmann, 244; cf. R-P, 320; otherwise, Findlay, 912.

See the discussion on vv. 6 and 15.

But see Parry, 209, who says of vv. 27–28 that “these are rules for the chairman”!

The sentence begins with an εἴτε, implying that he intended to “regulate” several items: “whether it be a tongue, do it thus; whether it be prophecy, etc.” However, the first one apparently ended up longer than the εἴτε anticipated, esp. with the qualifying sentence about interpretation in v. 28. Hence the discussion of prophecy skips εἴτε and picks up with the guideline about two or three in succession.

It should also be noted that the sentence is a simple condition; as Richardson, “Order,” 148, notes, “It is not a question of contingency, but an introduction to directives; not a matter of whether, but when.”

Gk. τὸ πλεῖστον, the superlative of πολύς.

The factor of “amount of available time” that is often brought into this discussion is probably altogether too modern—and Western—to be relevant. Anyone who has sat through several hours of worship in Romania, West Africa, or Latin America will recognize such language as a Western phenomenon.

This καί, omitted in the NIV for reasons that have to do with ordinary English, indicates a second directive.

Gk. ἀνὰ μέρος; for this idiom see BDAG, under ἀνά 2. Parry, 209, suggests “share and share alike,” which sounds too modern and has no support.

Although the εἷς in this case could refer to one of the two or three tongues-speakers.

So Bittlinger, 119; Martin, 78.

Gk. διερμηνευτής, the nominal subject for the verb διερμηνεύω that appears in v. 27 (cf. 12:30), which in turn refers to the activity described by the noun ἑρμενεία γλωσσῶν (“the interpretation of tongues”) in 12:10. As with “tongues,” all of this is functional language. There was no group in Corinth known as “the interpreters of tongues”; the language of 14:5, plus the exhortation of v. 13, tells against such a possibility. See the discussion in v. 29 for how this affects our understanding of the word “prophet” in that passage.

Gk. ἑαυτῷ; cf. BDF 188 (2): dative of advantage.

Grosheide, 337, in a discussion lacking exegetical basis, argues that the “regulating” of prophecy in itself has the effect of putting it below preaching.

The verb is λαλέω, the same used throughout in conjunction with tongues. This usage tells heavily against those who have regarded this verb as a somewhat technical term for tongues, indicating its less-than-articulate nature.

See above on v. 27.

Cf. Bittlinger’s happy phrase: “The Spirit recognizes the Spirit” (121).

Cf. Grudem, 58–60, who translates “evaluating.” He also separates this activity from that of 12:10 more than seems warranted—or necessary.

But see the useful discussion in Dunn, Spirit, 293–97.

So also Cranfield, Romans, 2:621.

This has become an increasingly popular view. See, inter alios, Ellis, 139 n. 48; Hill, Prophecy, 120–21.

Gk. οἱ ἄλλοι; cf. on 12:8 and 10. This word basically means “others different from the subject.” Whereas it could mean “the rest,” had Paul intended that idea the more correct term would have been οἱ λοɩποί (cf. 9:5, οἱ λοɩποί ἀπόστολοι). To put that in another way, the use of οἱ λοɩποί would almost certainly have meant “the rest of the same class,” i.e., prophets. Paul’s word could mean that but ordinarily does not, referring simply to “someone else” or, in the plural, “the others that make up the larger group.” Cf. Barrett, 328; Grudem, 60–62.

Cf. Grosheide, 338; Lenski, 611; Friedrich, TDNT 6:855–56; H. Greeven, “Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus. Zur Frage der ‘Ämter’ im Urchristentum,” ZNW 44 (1952–53), 6; Hill, Prophecy, 133. See the refutation in Grudem, 60–62.

The lack of the definite article with προφῆται seems to clinch this argument. The sentence begins with this word—“prophets,” not the “prophets”—implying, on the basis of the structure of v. 27: “If some speak as prophets. . . .”

In English we are thus forced to use such infelicities as “glossolalist” or “tongues-speaker.”

Gk. ἀποκαλυφθῇ; lit. “it is revealed (to another).” This is the verb for the noun ἀποκάλυψις in vv. 6 and 26.

The clear implication is that the one prophesying stands while doing so; probably this would be true of the other manifestations as well. Cf. the Jewish rabbi who taught sitting down.

Gk. σιγάτω; lit. “let (the first) be silent” (cf. v. 28). See also vv. 34–35.

Gk. καθ’ ἕνα; distributive usage = one by one.

By omitting this πάντες, as well as by changing the translation from “all” to “everyone,” the NIV obscures Paul’s emphasis on “all.”

Gk. μανθάνω (see on v. 35; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11); it means to receive instruction (= to learn) as over against giving it (= to teach).

Gk. παρακαλέω; see on v. 3.

For descriptions of the Hellenistic view of prophecy involving “ecstasy,” see Plato, Phaed. 243e–245c; Philo, spec.leg. 4.49; quis rer.div. 4.265. See esp. the discussion in Aune, Prophecy, 19–22, 33–34.

See on v. 12; 14–15; cf. 5:3–4 and 12:10 on “the discerning of spirits.”

Ellis, 36–42, makes the unlikely suggestion that “spirits” here refers to “angelic spirits.” See the refutation in Grudem, 120–22 (see 120–36 for a discussion of other views as well).

The γάρ in this case is clearly explanatory.

Gk. ἀκαστασίας; cf. esp. 2 Cor. 12:20, where it occurs in the list of sins Paul fears may yet be going on in Corinth. There it may mean something closer to “disturbances,” as it seems to in the list of his apostolic hardships in 6:5 of that same letter. See also Jas. 3:16 where it stands in contrast to peace among other virtues.

Which probably says something about somber Christian worship as well, since joy is the order of the early church, indicating that God is a God of joy, who delights in the worship of his people as they delight in him.

See on 1:3 and 7:15.

This is the only occurrence of this combination in the NT, but that is not surprising in light of 1:2 (q.v.).

See, e.g., NRSV, ESV, NAB, NEB (corrected in the REB); this creates a redundancy that is so thoroughly unlike Paul that one wonders how anyone could convince themselves to go this way. The NRSV/ESV exacerbate the problem by including this phrase in the parentheses that separate vv. 34–35 from the rest of the argument. This is precisely what the textual evidence itself will not allow.

Cf. G. Clarke, “ ‘As in All the Churches of the Saints’ (1 Corinthians 14.33),” BibTrans 52 (2001), 144–47.

Cf. Chrysostom, hom. 36 and 37 in 1 Cor., who breaks these two homilies between vv. 33 and 34 and joins v. 33b to v. 33a. The idea that v. 33b goes with v. 34 seems to be a modern phenomenon altogether.

Although see Martin, 76 n. “f,” who allows that “maybe this is Paul’s emphasis as it was needed.” But one must admit that it lacks precedent.

Some suggest that the second phrase means “in every congregational meeting in Corinth”; but that runs counter to Pauline usage. See the commentary on v. 34.

Indeed the analogy with 4:17 is quite precise: “which I teach everywhere in every church.”

Grosheide, 341, objects that the words of the first clause in v. 33 “refuse to take any further qualification.” But that assertion is unsupported either theologically or grammatically in Paul.

For the spurious passage (vv. 34–35) that made its way into the MS tradition at this point in the majority of surviving witnesses, but after v. 40 in most of the Italian church, see the addendum at the end of this chapter (pp. 780–92).

The original NIV omitted this conjunction (ἤ), which ties these questions to what has preceded, which as pointed out in the discussion makes sense only as being a connective to our v. 33 rather than to the spurious intervening materal. To omit this ἤ, which in Paul’s letters is regularly, if not always, a meaningful conjunction—and in many cases serves as here to introduce a correction or contrast of some kind (in this letter cf. 4:21; 6:2, 9, 16; 7:16; 9:7, 8; 11:22)—is frankly less than responsible scholarship and would seem to be doing the apostle a considerable injustice; indeed the only possible reason for doing so is the insistence on keeping at this point the non-Pauline intrusion into the later text of the church in the West. In this case the NASB translators, who take pride in their “literal” translation, have conveniently relegated this “or” to a footnote!

The singular ἐντολή is read by P⁴⁶ () B 048 0243 33 1241^s 1739* pc vg^ms. Various attempts were made to ameliorate this difficult reading (following the plural ἅ). Some witnesses (D* F G b Ambst) omit the word altogether; the majority change it to a plural. Otherwise Zuntz, 139–40 (cf. Barrett, 314; Bruce, 136; Murphy-O’Connor, 133), who thinks the Western text best explains how the others came about; but in this case one has considerable difficulty explaining how a scribe would have created the singular ἐντολή as a “clarifying addition.” See Metzger, Textual Commentary (1st ed., 566).

The early MSS go back and forth across “party lines,” some favoring ἀγνοεῖται (* A*^vid D [F G] 048 0243 b 33 1739 pc b bo; favored by NIV^txt and Metzger, 500), and others ἀγνοείτω (P⁴⁶ ² A^c B D² Ψ Maj sy; NIV^mg and Zuntz, 107–8). The former is easily the “more difficult” reading—from any perspective—as even Zuntz, who thinks it is too difficult, acknowledges. See the commentary.

Although the μου is missing in many witnesses (P⁴⁶ B² D* F G 0243 Maj lat), Zuntz, 179, has noted that in every case in this letter where the pronoun occurs, some MSS omit it; whereas the opposite does not occur.

For a discussion of the various readings that make up this final clause, but with differing results, see Zuntz, 29–31, and Metzger (1st ed., 566–67). Zuntz makes an unconvincing attempt to derive “meaning” from what he considers to be the original form.

Cf. the usage in 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; Col. 1:25 (in Rom. 9:6 it refers to God’s former “word” spoken in Scripture); cf. “the word of the Lord” in 1 Thess. 1:8; 2 Thess. 3:1. In each case this means “God’s message” or “the message that comes from God.”

Both in style and content these questions are so thoroughly Pauline and fit the context so well that one is puzzled by Conzelmann’s including them as part of the interpolation of vv. 34–35—all the more so, since there is no textual warrant for it. Indeed, this “or” is the ultimate piece of evidence regarding the non-Pauline intrusion, since it fits perfectly following what it originally preceded (v. 33) but fits not at all after the intrusion—so much so, one might add, that it is conveniently left out of the discusson in almost all the attempts to defend the passage as Pauline.

This is the traditional view, as though the Corinthians were allowing women to speak in the assembly against Paul’s own instructions and the custom of the churches elsewhere.

As elsewhere in this letter; see, e.g., 6:2, 9, 16, 19; 9:6.

E.g., NEB, NAB, while others (KJV, REB, RSV [changed in the NRSV, but disastrously seen as concluding vv. 34–35, so also the ESV], Montgomery, TCNT) resorted to translating it “What!”