http://biblebitbybit.blogspot.com/2016/01/1-corinthians-14.html
Posted by 1 Corinthians on Wednesday, 13 January 2016
(3) Priority of prophecy to tongues (14:1-25).
Chapter 13 is one of the most sublime digressions in any letter in any language. But it was nonetheless a deviation from the central theme of gifts and their use by the church which Paul began in chapter 12 and then concluded in chapter 14. Paul had intimated in chapter 12 that the Corinthians were perverting the purpose of gifts from a unifying influence on the church to one fostering fragmentation and discord (esp. 12:21-25). A contributing factor to their factious spirit was the Corinthian pursuit of individual freedom and personal enhancement at the expense of other members of the body whose needs may have been trampled or ignored along the way. Manifestations of this self-centeredness affected each of the problem issues taken up since chapter 8.
The focal problem in the matter of the use and abuse of gifts seemed to be the Corinthian fascination with tongues, a gift which apparently lent itself most readily to perversion from something intended “for the common good” (12:7) to something employed for personal enhancement (14:4). Paul’s corrective was not to stifle the use of gifts (14:39; cf. 1 Thes. 5:19-20) but to urge that their use be regulated by love. The gifts of the Spirit should be controlled by the fruit of the Spirit, chief among which was love (Gal. 5:22). This would lead to exercising the gifts so they would benefit the church body as a whole (14:5) and also honor God (14:25, 33, 40). By way of illustration and correction, Paul compared and contrasted the Corinthians’ preoccupation with tongues with their apparent disinterest in prophecy.
14:1. That chapter 13 was something of a digression, however sublime, may be seen by the way Paul wove together the two strands which concluded chapter 12 (v. 31) and which began chapter 14 (v. 1). He did this in a chiasmus, a common literary style that connected a series of related words, phrases, or ideas by reversing their order of discussion in the second instance, for example, a1, b1, b2, a2. As a final note to his discussion on the unity and diversity of the gifts, Paul had exhorted the Corinthians to desire (a1) exercising the gifts which were of greatest benefit to the church as a whole (cf. 12:31). He then affirmed (b1) that, however splendid and profitable the gifts were, there was a greater way of life (chap. 13). Chapter 14 picked up on this note as Paul urged (b2) his readers to make this way of love (14:1) the definitive characteristic of their own course of life (cf. John 13:34-35). This in turn would lead them to “desire (a2) the greater gifts,” among which was prophecy (cf. 1 Cor. 12:31).
14:2. What Paul meant by speaking in a tongue is a matter of considerable debate. One common view is to see Paul’s use of the word “tongue” (glossa) against the background of first-century pagan religions and thus define it as ecstatic speech similar to that expressed by the sibylla, or female prophetesses. The Cumaen sibyl (cf. Virgil Aeneid 6. 77-102) was the most famous of the 10 female prophetesses claimed by various regions. Others see the tongues-speaking in 1 Corinthians as ecstatic speech similar to that of Pythia, the female oracle at Delphi (Plutarch Moralia 5. 409e) or similar to the maenads of Dionysus in their ecstatic frenzy (Ovid Metamorphoses 3. 534, 710-30; cf. Euripides Bacchae). That the Corinthians may have thought of this gift as analogous to the pagan ecstatics is certainly possible, but to suggest that Paul used the term with reference to this pagan background is hardly enlightened scholarship. In fact the seedbed for most of Paul’s theological concepts and the usual source of his terms was the Old Testament. This is evident by Paul’s use of glossa outside of these three Corinthian chapters. He used the word 21 times in 1 Corinthians 12-14 but only 3 other times in his other letters. Each of Paul’s other uses was either in a quotation from the Old Testament (Ps. 5:9 in Rom. 3:13; Isa. 45:23 in Rom. 14:11) or in an allusion to it (Isa. 45:23 in Phil. 2:11). In all three instances he used the word “tongue” as a figure of speech for the statement or confession made. Whether good (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11) or bad (Rom. 3:13) the statement was clearly intelligible.
The same may be said of the meaning of the word glossa elsewhere in the New Testament. Whether it was used literally of the physical organ (e.g., Mark 7:33; James 3:5; Rev. 16:10) or figuratively of human languages (e.g., Acts 2:11; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15), it nowhere referred to ecstatic speech. If it is reasonable to interpret the unknown with the help of the known, the obscure by the clear, then the burden of proof rests with those who find in this term a meaning other than human language.
The context of this verse is the assembled congregation in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:2-14:40, esp. 14:4-5) in which utterance in a tongue was given without the benefit of interpretation (cf. vv. 13, 19). Apparently no native speaker of the tongue was present in the assembly (cf. vv. 10-11), and no one was given supernatural enablement to interpret it. The utterances therefore were mysteries, truths requiring a supernatural disclosure which God had not provided the Corinthians in this particular instance. As a result, the expression of tongues became an exercise in futility for the assembly as a whole, with only the speaker deriving some benefit (v. 4) in his spirit (cf. v. 14), the sentient aspect of his being (pneuma; cf. Matt. 5:3; Acts 17:16; 2 Cor. 2:13).
14:3. One with the gift of prophecy (cf. 12:10), on the other hand, spoke in the tongue of his listeners, in this case Greek, and edified them by proclaiming God’s Word in such a way that it gave them strengthening, (oikodomen, “edification”), encouragement, (paraklesin), and comfort (paramythian, “consolation,” used only here in the NT).
14:4. A person with the gift of tongues (cf. 12:10) who spoke without the benefit of the gift of interpretation (cf. 12:10) could edify himself but not others in the church. The edification resulted from the fact that the user of a gift experienced the confirmation that he was the individual object of God’s grace (cf. 12:18, 28) and able to offer praise to God (14:16). Though he himself would not comprehend the content of that praise, his feelings and emotions would be enlivened, leading to a general exhilaration and euphoria. This was not a bad thing. Paul certainly was no advocate of cold, dispassionate worship. The gifts were not given for personal enrichment, however, but for the benefit of others (12:7; cf. 10:24; 1 Peter 4:10). Personal edification and exhilaration were often natural by-products of the legitimate exercise of one’s gift, but they were not the main reasons for its exercise.
14:5. Paul had no intention of depreciating the gift of tongues; he was simply interested in appreciating the gift of prophecy. There was nothing wrong with the gift of tongues; in fact Paul thought it would be good if everyone had the gift. Of course he had said the same thing about celibacy (7:7), but in neither instance did he expect universal compliance with his statement. Since both were gifts from God, neither should be despised. In a church gathering, however, the gift of prophecy and its exercise was greatly to be preferred to uninterpreted tongues simply because the former built up others. As already stated, the tongues gift was confirmatory and thus temporary (see comments on 13:8). Thus those instructions, specifically directed to the Corinthians’ misuse of tongues, are not directives for the use of tongues today (cf. comments on 14:21-22).
14:6. Two illustrations (in v. 6 and vv. 7-9) made this plain. In the first, Paul used himself with a possible glance back to his initial ministry in Corinth. He could have come proclaiming his message in the tongue of a language which they did not know (cf. v. 18), but it would have produced only disinterest at best (v. 11) or at worst, derision (v. 23). As it was, he brought them a revelation from God (cf. 2:10) by his ministry of prophecy (12:29), or he brought them a word of knowledge (cf. 2:12) by his ministry of instruction (12:29; cf. 14:26) which they would understand and to which they could respond (cf. vv. 24-25).
14:7-9. The same was true in a musical tune or a call to battle. To be profitable for others the notes of a flute or harp or trumpet needed to be clear and intelligible; otherwise they amounted to no more than the venting of air with consequences which, besides being annoying (v. 7), might be devastating (v. 8).
14:10-12. Human communication operated on the same principles as instrumental communication. The word languages in verse 10 is phonon, the plural of the same word phonen, rendered “sounds” of the harp (v. 7) and “call” of the trumpet (v. 8). Human sounds, apart from a shared understanding of their meanings, were worthless. So was the Corinthian preoccupation with uninter preted tongues. That was why Paul did not discourage their interest in spiritual gifts but did encourage them to pursue those gifts that benefited all in the church (v. 12; cf. 12:31; 14:1).
14:13. Interpreted tongues, like prophecy, could benefit the assembly (cf. Acts 19:6). Therefore the gift of interpretation should be requested of God. If no one was present who was able to inter pret, the tongues-speaker was to keep silent (1 Cor. 14:28).
14:14-15. It was also true that however beneficial the gift of tongues might be to its recipient (cf. v. 4), when coupled with the gift of interpretation it had much more value because it involved not only the feeling aspects of a person, but his mental faculties as well.
14:16-17. If it were true that one who possessed the gift of tongues would find his worship enhanced by the possession and use of the gift of interpretation (v. 15), it was certainly true that anyone listening to him who did not have the same gift could not empathize with the tongues-speaker. At least another person with the gift of tongues could identify with the exhilaration experienced in the exercise of the gift. However, a Christian with a different gift required intelligible communication if he were to gain any benefit from what was said and so have a basis for affirming his agreement by saying an Amen. But such comprehension did not exist if the tongue were not interpreted and so the brother was not edified.
14:18-19. Paul’s concern to harness the enthusiasm for the gift of tongues in Corinth was not motivated by sour grapes. When it came to the gift of tongues, he could outtalk them all. But Paul was not primarily interested in self-fulfillment. Instead he was concerned with ministering to others and thereby glorifying God (cf. 10:31-33). For that reason he did not use his gift of tongues with the assembled church but he did exercise his gift of prophecy (14:6). That, in fact, was in accord with God’s purpose. Where then did tongues fit into God’s purpose? Paul discussed that next.
14:20. The Corinthian infatuation with tongues was for Paul another manifestation of their immaturity and worldliness (cf. 3:1-3). This he hoped would change, especially in regard to an enhanced appraisal of prophecy and a recognition of the importance of this gift for the assembled church. His final words, contrasting prophecy and tongues (14:21-25), were intended to conclude the exhortation begun in verse 1.
14:21-22. This summary argument in verses 21-25 began with the citation of a portion of Isaiah’s prophecy against Israel (Isa. 28:11-12). Because Israel refused to listen to God’s message proclaimed by His prophets, Isaiah predicted that another message would come. This one would be delivered in a foreign tongue unintelligible to the Israelites, yet unambiguous (cf. 2 Kings 17:23). The foreign tongue symbolized God’s rejection (cf. Deut. 28:49; Isa. 33:19), His disciplinary response to Israel’s stiff-necked rebellion against Him (cf. 2 Kings 17:14; Acts 7:51). Foreigners instead of Israel became the temporary servants of God (cf. Isa. 5:26; Hab. 1:6; Matt. 21:43; Rom. 10:19-21), and their foreign tongue was a punitive sign to Israel of what had taken place.
That seems to be the significance which Paul attached to tongues. As such, the primary arena for its exercise was not the company of believers but . . . unbelievers (cf. Matt. 13:10-15, on parables). Uninterpreted tongues had their place but not in the church where prophecy benefited believers (1 Cor. 14:3).
14:23-25. Tongues were of benefit in an assembly of believers only if they were interpreted. But this seems not to have been the Corinthians’ practice. Instead they apparently poured forth their gift of tongues in unrestrained fashion. As a result believers with some other gifts were nonplussed by the behavior of the tongues-speakers (v. 16). Furthermore, newcomers (idiotai, those who attended but were not believers) and other unbelievers (apistoi) who were aware of but as yet unconvinced by the gospel message (unlike those of vv. 21-22 who had forthrightly rejected it) would find their behavior positively ridiculous. Will they not say that you are out of your mind? This, Paul suggested, would certainly not advance the cause of Christ in Corinth. But prophecy was desirable because it would not only benefit believers (v. 3) but would also expose unbelievers not to a scene of chaos but to one of conviction (cf. John 16:8) and judgment (1 Cor. 2:15)—which would lead to personal disclosure (the secrets of his heart will be laid bare) and the worship of God.
(4) Propriety in the use of gifts (14:26-40).
In this section Paul drew to a conclusion his discussion of gifts (chaps. 12-14). He also concluded the whole section dealing with Christian liberty in relation to worship (11:2-14:40). What is most striking to a modern reader is the apparent lack of any fixed order of service and the absence of any reference to particular individuals being responsible for specific ministries. The whole church seemed to exercise their gifts by spontaneously ministering to one another.
14:26. As he had done throughout the letter, Paul addressed the Christian community in Corinth as brothers, a general term including both sexes (e.g., 1:10; cf. 1 Peter 5:9). When the church met, anyone was free to participate by contributing a hymn, or a word of instruction (cf. 1 Cor. 14:6; probably a lesson based on the OT), a revelation from one gifted in prophecy (cf. vv. 6, 29-32), or a word from one gifted in a tongue followed by an interpretation of what was said. The controlling principle in this free participation was the rule of love. All that was said and done was to have as its goal the need of strengthening (pros oikodomen, “edifying”) others (cf. vv. 4-5).
14:27-28. Though there was no established order for a service, it was to be conducted in an orderly way (v. 40). The services were to have balanced participation on the parts of gifted members. Those gifted with a tongue who wanted to contribute to a service could do so but only two or three at any one service and then only if individuals gifted in interpretation were present who could translate the language. If no interpreter were present, the tongues-speaker was to keep quiet. Though his gift was without benefit to the church if uninterpreted, it did have some other benefits (cf. vv. 4, 14-15, 22).
14:29. The directions for those exercising the gift of prophecy did not differ from those for tongues. Two or three prophets could speak at each service and what they said was to be carefully considered. Since they would speak in Greek the others in the congregation would understand and evaluate their messages. (Or perhaps “the others” referred to those with the gift to distinguish between spirits.) The words weigh carefully translate the verb diakrinetosan, related to the noun diakriseis in 12:10, which speaks of distinguishing “between spirits.” It was their responsibility to ascertain if the message delivered was indeed from God (cf. 1 John 4:1).
14:30. A prophet might have received a revelation, probably in a vision or dream, sometime prior to the meeting of the church at which he subsequently related it. However, a prophet might also experience a revelation during the service. If such occurred, a prophet in the midst of speaking should draw his message to a close to let the other gifted member speak. Whatever the Corinthian services were, they were not dull.
14:31. The principle which regulated the exercise of tongues applied similarly to prophets. What was said was to benefit everyone by way of instruction or encouragement in the Christian life (cf. v. 3).
14:32-33a. Paul apparently did not believe the prophets were any more restrained than their fellow members gifted in tongues. So he gave the prophets an instruction that was similar to what he gave the tongues-speakers (v. 28). The spirits referred to a prophet’s spiritual gift, which did not control the gifted member, but he controlled it (cf. v. 30). If two or three prophets spoke in a particular service, others gifted and with something to say could do so on another occasion. The church was not a forum for personal pontification or self-glorification; it was a place where people were to be built up and God was to be honored (cf. 10:31-33). The service and those who took part in it should reflect the character of God. He is a God . . . of peace, not disorder, and His Spirit worked to produce the same fruit (Gal. 5:22) in believers’ lives.
14:33b-36. Some of the verses in this section (vv. 34-35) were felt by some early copyists to be out of place at this point in the letter and so were transposed to the end of the chapter. A more drastic approach taken by some recent commentators is to regard these verses as spurious and unworthy of comment. Though the exact meaning of these verses is difficult to determine, neither expedient has much to commend it. In fact it seems that the guiding thread which prompted these comments by Paul about women was the same theme developed in the preceding verses addressed to those gifted in tongues and prophecy. The church members needed to exercise self-control on occasion, a self-control expressed by silence (vv. 28, 30, 34) in order that the assembly might be characterized by peace.
Apparently certain women in the Corinthian assembly needed to hear this refrain. More than uncovered heads were amiss in regard to their participation in worship services (11:2-16), and Paul was not about to dodge the problem.
Whether the admonition for silence was directed to all women (cf. 11:2-16) or only to those who were married may be debated. The word translated women (gynaikes) was used to refer to women generally (as in all 11 occurrences in 11:3-15), or to unmarried women (e.g., 7:34), or to married women (e.g., 5:1; 9:5; and all 14 occurrences in chap. 7 except once in 7:34). The context alone aided the readers in distinguishing between the alternative meanings.
Two indications strongly suggest that married women were in view in this passage. The first is the word submission (hypotassesthosan, v. 34). When it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with specific reference to a woman, it always refers to a married woman who was to be subject to her husband (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5).
The second indication is the phrase their own husbands (1 Cor. 14:35), whom the inquisitive women were to consult if they had questions. This would obviously be a difficult assignment for single women (e.g., 7:34) or those with unbelieving husbands (e.g., 7:13).
First Timothy 2:11-15, which enjoins women to be quiet in worship, is frequently cited as a parallel to this passage. But there too, married women were probably in view, as verse 15 would not apply to an unmarried woman. Also, when Eve is named in the Old Testament, it is as Adam’s wife (Gen. 3:20; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2-3, the only other NT passage besides 1 Tim. 2:13-14 that names Eve), and her submission is rooted in that relationship (Gen. 3:16, the text Paul probably referred to in 1 Cor. 14:34). In addition, the noun hesychia in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 means “quietness, absence of disorder,” whereas the verb sigao in 1 Corinthians 14:28, 34 means “remain silent.” (See comments on 1 Tim. 2:11-14 and 2 Thes. 3:12).
Paul then wanted silence on the parts of married women whose husbands were present in the assembly, but he permitted the participation of other women when properly adorned (1 Cor. 11:2-16). Such silence would express their subordinate (but not inferior) relationship to their husbands. This contrasts with a disturbance caused by their talking to their husbands during the service.
The Corinthian believers were not to think of themselves as exclusive, independent interpreters or recipients of the Word of God. (14:36). They, like those in all the congregations (v. 33b), were to submit to God’s truth by conforming to this standard of conduct.
14:37-40. These verses were Paul’s conclusion not only to the immediately preceding directives (vv. 33b-36) but also to all his discussion about Corinthian irregularities in worship and the needed correctives (11:2-14:36). He expected some opposition (cf. 11:16; 14:36), but warned that those who opposed him did so at their own peril (cf. 4:18-21). Anyone who ignores the Lord’s commands would find himself . . . ignored by Him at the last day (cf. 3:17; Gen. 9:6; Matt. 10:32-33), because his actions would show that he never knew the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 8:3; Matt. 7:22-23; 1 John 4:6).
The conclusion was that the Corinthians should give special attention to the gifts which were most beneficial to the church as a whole (12:31; 14:1) without denigrating the other gifts. They should see that their services were conducted in a fitting (cf. 11:2-16; 14:34-36) and orderly (cf. 11:17-34; 14:26-33) way.
Excerpt from:
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
