1 Corinthians · Chapter 14

V. 1. Follow after love-With zeal, vigour, courage, patience; else you can neither attain nor keep it.

And-In their place, as subservient to this.

Desire spiritual gifts; but especially that ye may prophesy-The word here does not mean foretelling things to come; but rather opening and applying the scripture.

Verse 1. Follow after charity] Most earnestly labour to be put in possession of that love which beareth, believeth, hopeth, and endureth all things. It may be difficult to acquire, and difficult to retain this blessed state, but it is essential to your present peace and eternal happiness. This clause belongs to the preceding chapter.

Desire spiritual gifts] Ye are very intent on getting those splendid gifts which may add to your worldly consequence, and please your carnal minds-but labour rather to get the gifts of God’s Spirit, by which ye may grow in grace, and be useful to others-and particularly desire that ye may prophesy-that ye may be able to teach and instruct others in the things of their salvation.

Verses 1-4. Follow after love — Namely, that love, the nature, necessity, and excellence of which are shown at large in the preceding chapter; pursue this, which far exceeds all extraordinary gifts, with zeal, vigour, courage, patience, otherwise you will neither attain nor keep it. And — In their place, as subservient to this; desire spiritual gifts — With moderation, and in submission to the divine will; but rather, or especially, that ye may prophecy — The word here does not appear to mean foretelling things to come, but rather opening and applying the Scriptures, and discoursing on divine things in an edifying manner. For he that speaketh in a tongue — Unknown to the auditory, to which he addresses himself; speaketh — In effect; not unto men, but unto God — Who alone understands him. Howbeit, or although, in or by the inspiration of the Spirit, he speaketh mysteries — Such things as are full of divine and hidden wisdom. But he that prophesieth — That is, who discourses of divine things, in a language understood by the hearers; speaketh to edification — To the building up of believers in faith and holiness; and exhortation — To excite them to zeal and diligence; and comfort — Support and consolation under their trials and troubles. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself only — On the most favourable supposition. The apostle speaks thus, because a person who spoke in an unknown tongue might possibly, while he spoke, find his own good affections awakened by the truths he delivered with fervency, and he might find his faith in Christianity established by the consciousness he had of a miraculous power working in him. From this it is plain that the inspired person, who uttered, in an unknown language, a revelation made to himself, must have understood it, otherwise he could not increase his own knowledge and faith by speaking it. But he that prophesieth — While he edifies himself, edifieth the church also, the whole congregation.

Verse 1. Follow after charity: diwkete, not simply follow, but follow fervently and vehemently after this first and best endowment; for what is religion worth without “fervent charity,” which sheds a lustre on all we speak or do.

1. Follow after love—Which all are able to attain, and which is the ordinary, central, permanent grace of the Church. Desire—Be emulous for. Spiritual gifts—Which are for the few, and are transient.

Ver. 1. Pursue love: practical application of 1 Corinthians 13. It implies that love, like spiritual gifts, (1 Corinthians 12:31,) may be obtained by persistent effort; and thus only. We pursue love by watching against and resisting everything contrary to it, by prayer and by the effort to believe that what we ask God will give, by pondering God's love as manifested on the cross of Christ that thus we may experience its transforming power, and by endeavoring to (Romans 14:15) “walk according to love.” Be emulous for etc.; takes up 1 Corinthians 12:31. But especially etc.: specific matter of § 25, viz. that prophecy is better than the gift of tongues.

In 1 Corinthians 12:31, after urging us to pursue the greater gifts, instead of saying which they are, Paul shows us a way (of pursuing them) surpassing all other ways. He then unfolds the exceeding worth of love, and exhorts us to pursue it. And that this is quite consistent with pursuit of spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy, he now proves by again urging us to pursue these gifts. It is therefore evident that to pursue love is the “excellent way” of 1 Corinthians 12:31. And this we can understand. For love prompts us to seek powers which will make us useful to others, and specially those powers which are most useful, rather than such as merely attract attention to ourselves; and quickens our intelligence to distinguish the more useful gifts, and prevents our pursuit of these from degenerating into self-seeking. To cultivate love is, therefore, the best preparation for a pursuit of the various gifts with which the Spirit is ready to enrich us.

V. 2. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaks, in effect, not to men, but to God-Who alone understands him.

Verse 2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue] This chapter is crowded with difficulties. It is not likely that the Holy Spirit should, in the church, suddenly inspire a man with the knowledge of some foreign language, which none in the church understood but himself; and lead him to treat the mysteries of Christianity in that language, though none in the place could profit by his teaching.

Dr. Lightfoot’s mode of reconciling these difficulties is the most likely I have met with. He supposes that by the unknown tongue the Hebrew is meant, and that God restored the true knowledge of this language when he gave the apostles the gift of tongues. As the Scriptures of the Old Testament were contained in this language, and it has beauties, energies, and depths in it which no verbal translation can reach, it was necessary, for the proper elucidation of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the establishment of the Christian religion, that the full meaning of the words of this sacred language should be properly understood. And it is possible that the Hebrew Scriptures were sometimes read in the Christian congregations as they were in the Jewish synagogues; and if the person who read and understood them had not the power and faculty of explaining them to others, in vain did he read and understand them himself. And we know that it is possible for a man to understand a language, the force, phraseology, and idioms of which he is incapable of explaining even in his mother tongue. We shall see, in the course of these notes, how this view of the subject will apply to the illustration of the apostle’s words throughout the chapter.

Speaketh not unto men, but unto God] None present understanding the language, God alone knowing the truth and import of what he says:- In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.] Though his own mind (for so pneumati is understood here by many eminent critics) apprehends the mysteries contained in the words which he reads or utters; but if, by the spirit, we understand the Spirit of God, it only shows that it is by that Spirit that he is enabled to speak and apprehend these mysteries. See Clarke’s note on “1 Corinthians 14:19”.

Verses 1-4. Follow after love — Namely, that love, the nature, necessity, and excellence of which are shown at large in the preceding chapter; pursue this, which far exceeds all extraordinary gifts, with zeal, vigour, courage, patience, otherwise you will neither attain nor keep it. And — In their place, as subservient to this; desire spiritual gifts — With moderation, and in submission to the divine will; but rather, or especially, that ye may prophecy — The word here does not appear to mean foretelling things to come, but rather opening and applying the Scriptures, and discoursing on divine things in an edifying manner. For he that speaketh in a tongue — Unknown to the auditory, to which he addresses himself; speaketh — In effect; not unto men, but unto God — Who alone understands him. Howbeit, or although, in or by the inspiration of the Spirit, he speaketh mysteries — Such things as are full of divine and hidden wisdom. But he that prophesieth — That is, who discourses of divine things, in a language understood by the hearers; speaketh to edification — To the building up of believers in faith and holiness; and exhortation — To excite them to zeal and diligence; and comfort — Support and consolation under their trials and troubles. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself only — On the most favourable supposition. The apostle speaks thus, because a person who spoke in an unknown tongue might possibly, while he spoke, find his own good affections awakened by the truths he delivered with fervency, and he might find his faith in Christianity established by the consciousness he had of a miraculous power working in him. From this it is plain that the inspired person, who uttered, in an unknown language, a revelation made to himself, must have understood it, otherwise he could not increase his own knowledge and faith by speaking it. But he that prophesieth — While he edifies himself, edifieth the church also, the whole congregation.

Ver. 2. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, does not speak to the edification of the church. Dr. Lightfoot, to whom we pay great deference, will not allow that St. Paul means here the tongues of surrounding nations, as the Punic or Catharginian, the Egyptian, the Syrian, or the Armenian language, but rather the Hebrew, often made in large quotations. Others think that the speakers did not know the Greek language; for Corinth, opulent Corinth, was a vast resort of strangers.

2. Unknown tongue—The word unknown, though interpolated by the translator, expresses the truth. The “tongues” were unintelligible to the congregation unless interpreted. And herein they were far inferior to the pentecostal tongues, which spoke to every man in his native dialect. Perhaps we may say that the difference was, that the pentecostal Spirit brought all (save the mockers) into full spiritual communication with the speakers, so that they were all charismatic interpreters. Dr. Poor, in Schaff’s Lange, takes the ground that the Corinthian charismatic language consisted not in speaking foreign languages, but in speaking a speech, “new and clean,” formed by the Spirit himself, inasmuch as the foreign tongues of that day were defiled with paganism. But we reply, by the ordinary view the pentecostal tongues were foreign and pagan. Yet may we not unite his view with our own? Let us suppose that the true new tongue was the Spirit language heard by St. Paul near the third heaven. This language can be received only by those like St. John, (Revelation 1:10,) more or less “in the Spirit.” Yet the converse of pure spirits is not through the medium of sound, but is the pure and perfect impartation of the thought itself. When man receives it into his spirit it tends to take the form of language—sometimes of his own native language; sometimes, by diffusive sympathy, of foreign human dialects; sometimes of vocalities belonging to no known language, yet inherently expressive of the thought. In the latter case the man may lack the power of interpreting the thought into ordinary language, and yet the hearer, brought into sympathy, may perform the office of interpreter, as explained in our note on verse 5. Unto God—As his only real hearer. In the Spirit—In his own spirit. Mysteries—The mysteries of the gospel previously unknown to men. A modern resemblance to the gift of tongues was that in the church of the celebrated Edward Irving. We give the following passage from a witness of the phenomena, which we take from Stanley, p. 252:—

“As an instance of the extraordinary change in the powers of the human voice when under inspiration, I may here mention the case of an individual whose natural voice was inharmonious, and who, besides, had no ear for keeping time. Yet even the voice of this person, when singing in the spirit, could pour forth a rich strain of melody of which each note was musical, and uttered with a sweetness and power of expression that was truly astonishing; and, what is still more singular, with a gradually increasing velocity into a rapidity, yet distinctness, of utterance which is inconceivable by those who have never witnessed the like: and yet, with all his apparently breathless haste, there was not in reality the slightest agitation of body or of mind. In other instances the voice is deep and powerfully impressive. I cannot describe it better than by saying that it approaches nearly to what might be considered a perfect state of the voice, passing far beyond the energies of its natural strength, and at times so loud as not only to fill the whole house, but to be heard at a considerable distance; and though often accompanied by an apparently great mental energy and muscular exertion of the whole body, yet in truth there was not the slightest disturbance of either; on the contrary, there was present a tranquillity and composure both of body and of mind the very opposite to any, even the least degree of, excitement. “The consciousness of the presence of God in these manifestations is fraught with such a holy solemnity of thought and feeling as leave neither leisure nor inclination for curious observation. In a person alive to the presence of the Holy Ghost, and overwhelmed by his manifestations beside and around him, and deeply conscious that upon his heart, naked and exposed, rests the eye of God, one thought alone fills his soul, one wail of utterance is heard, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner.’ Nor can the eye be diverted from the only sight that is precious to it, far more precious than life itself, ‘The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.’” The following is from a subject of the influence:

“I read the fourth chapter of Malachi; as I read the power came upon me, and I was made to read with power. My voice was raised far beyond its natural pitch with a constrained repetition of parts, and with the same inward uplifting, which at the presence of the power I had always experienced. Whilst sitting at home it came upon me, but for a considerable time no impulse to utterance; presently a sentence in French was vividly set before my mind, and under the impulse to utterance was spoken. Then, in a little time, sentences in Latin were in a like manner uttered; and, with short intervals, sentences in many other languages. Judging from the sound and the different exercise of the enunciating organs, my wife, who was with me, thought some of them to be Italian or Spanish; the first she can read and translate, the second she knows but little of. Sometimes single words were given me, and sometimes sentences, though I could neither recognise the words nor sentences as any language I knew, except those which were French or Latin.… My persuasion concerning the unknown tongue, as it is called, (in which I myself was very little exercised,) is, that it is no language whatever, but a mere collection of words and sentences; and in the lengthened discourses is, most of it, a jargon of sounds; though I can conceive, when the power is very great, that it will assume much of the form of a connected oration.”—P. 254. Dr. Bushnell has, in his

“Natural and Supernatural,” a suggestive chapter on gifts. He relates that in New England, at a place designated as H., at a religious meeting, “After one of the brethren had been speaking in a strain of discouraging self-accusation, another present shortly rose with a strange, beaming look, and, fixing his eye on the confessing brother, broke out in a discourse of sounds wholly unintelligible though apparently a true language, accompanying the utterances with strange and peculiarly impressive gestures, such as he never made at any other time; coming finally to a kind of pause, and commencing again as if at the same point, to go over in English, with exactly the same gestures, what had just been said. It appeared to be an interpretation, and the matter of it was a beautifully emphatic utterance of the great principle of self-renunciation, by which the desired victory over self is to be obtained. The circle were astounded by the demonstration, not knowing what to make of it. The instinct of prudence threw them in an observing, a general, silence; and it is a curious fact that the public in H. have never to this hour been startled by so much as a rumour of a gift of tongues, neither has the name of the speaker been associated with so much as a surmise of the real or supposed fact, by which he would be, perhaps, unenviably distinguished. It has been to him a great trial, it is said, to submit himself to this demonstration, which has recurred several times.”—P. 479.

Ver. 2. Begins a proof, occupying § 25, of the just-asserted superiority of prophecy.

With a tongue: see note under 1 Corinthians 14:40. But to God; suggests that the miraculous tongues were used chiefly in prayer or praise. So 1 Corinthians 14:13-16; Acts 2:11; 10:46. For no one etc.: proof of not to men.

Hears: as in Matthew 13:15; Mark 4:33. Others hear a sound: but they no more hear what is said than if they heard no sound. As Paul is here comparing only tongues and prophecy, he leaves out of sight the separate gift of interpretation which is mentioned expressly in 1 Corinthians 14:5. His words imply clearly that, apart from this additional gift, no one understood the speaker; and thus prove that to speak with a tongue was not to speak in a foreign language. For, in that case, the possible presence of some one who understood it could not be overlooked. The word “unknown” inserted in 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27 (A.V.) is therefore altogether incorrect and misleading.

In spirit: in his own spirit, (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:14,) in that side of his being which is nearest to God and on which the Spirit of God directly acts. Cp. Romans 1:9.

Mysteries: see note, 1 Corinthians 3:4: here specially appropriate. For, in the inmost and uppermost chamber of his being, he speaks secrets understood only by those to whom God has revealed them.

Verse 3. But he that prophesieth] The person who has the gift of teaching is much more useful to the Church than he is who has only the gift of tongues, because he speaks to the profit of men: viz. to their edification, by the Scriptures he expounds; to their exhortation, by what he teaches; and to their comfort, by his revelation.-Whitby. I must here refer to my sermon on this text, intitled, “The Christian Prophet and his Work,” in which I have endeavoured to consider the whole of this subject at large.

Verses 1-4. Follow after love — Namely, that love, the nature, necessity, and excellence of which are shown at large in the preceding chapter; pursue this, which far exceeds all extraordinary gifts, with zeal, vigour, courage, patience, otherwise you will neither attain nor keep it. And — In their place, as subservient to this; desire spiritual gifts — With moderation, and in submission to the divine will; but rather, or especially, that ye may prophecy — The word here does not appear to mean foretelling things to come, but rather opening and applying the Scriptures, and discoursing on divine things in an edifying manner. For he that speaketh in a tongue — Unknown to the auditory, to which he addresses himself; speaketh — In effect; not unto men, but unto God — Who alone understands him. Howbeit, or although, in or by the inspiration of the Spirit, he speaketh mysteries — Such things as are full of divine and hidden wisdom. But he that prophesieth — That is, who discourses of divine things, in a language understood by the hearers; speaketh to edification — To the building up of believers in faith and holiness; and exhortation — To excite them to zeal and diligence; and comfort — Support and consolation under their trials and troubles. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself only — On the most favourable supposition. The apostle speaks thus, because a person who spoke in an unknown tongue might possibly, while he spoke, find his own good affections awakened by the truths he delivered with fervency, and he might find his faith in Christianity established by the consciousness he had of a miraculous power working in him. From this it is plain that the inspired person, who uttered, in an unknown language, a revelation made to himself, must have understood it, otherwise he could not increase his own knowledge and faith by speaking it. But he that prophesieth — While he edifies himself, edifieth the church also, the whole congregation.

3. Prophesieth—As the Spirit selects for its instruments the persons most qualified by nature for its special work, so the individual naturally susceptible to presentiment would be gifted with the prophetic charism.

Ver. 3. Prophecy, in contrast to the gift of tongues. To men: emphatic, in contrast to “not to men” in 1 Corinthians 14:2. Speaks edification: his words build up the spiritual structure God is erecting in their hearts. The added words and exhortation etc. limit the word edification here to spiritual instruction.

Exhortation: Romans 12:1: words prompting to action. Consolation: for the down-hearted. Same word in John 11:19, 31. Both words together in 1 Thessalonians 2:11.

V. 4. Edifieth himself-Only, on the most favourable supposition. The church-The whole congregation.

Verse 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue] In the Hebrew for instance, the knowledge of the depth and power of which he has got by a Divine revelation, edifieth himself by that knowledge. But he that prophesieth] Has the gift of preaching. Edifieth the Church.] Speaketh unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1 Corinthians 14:3.

Verses 1-4. Follow after love — Namely, that love, the nature, necessity, and excellence of which are shown at large in the preceding chapter; pursue this, which far exceeds all extraordinary gifts, with zeal, vigour, courage, patience, otherwise you will neither attain nor keep it. And — In their place, as subservient to this; desire spiritual gifts — With moderation, and in submission to the divine will; but rather, or especially, that ye may prophecy — The word here does not appear to mean foretelling things to come, but rather opening and applying the Scriptures, and discoursing on divine things in an edifying manner. For he that speaketh in a tongue — Unknown to the auditory, to which he addresses himself; speaketh — In effect; not unto men, but unto God — Who alone understands him. Howbeit, or although, in or by the inspiration of the Spirit, he speaketh mysteries — Such things as are full of divine and hidden wisdom. But he that prophesieth — That is, who discourses of divine things, in a language understood by the hearers; speaketh to edification — To the building up of believers in faith and holiness; and exhortation — To excite them to zeal and diligence; and comfort — Support and consolation under their trials and troubles. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself only — On the most favourable supposition. The apostle speaks thus, because a person who spoke in an unknown tongue might possibly, while he spoke, find his own good affections awakened by the truths he delivered with fervency, and he might find his faith in Christianity established by the consciousness he had of a miraculous power working in him. From this it is plain that the inspired person, who uttered, in an unknown language, a revelation made to himself, must have understood it, otherwise he could not increase his own knowledge and faith by speaking it. But he that prophesieth — While he edifies himself, edifieth the church also, the whole congregation.

4. Edifieth himself—The very inspiration elevates and delights his spirit, while his own utterance of divine mysteries reacts upon and edifieth himself. Though he keep silence, (verse 28,) he goes not unblest. Edifieth the Church—By clear and instructive thought, and, perhaps, supernatural prediction.

Ver. 4. Develops, and sums up in compact form, the argument of 1 Corinthians 14:2, 3.

Edifies himself: constant result of “speaking to God,” 1 Corinthians 14:2. This implies, as do 1 Corinthians 14:5, 18, that to speak with a tongue was spiritually profitable to the man himself.

A church: in superior contrast to himself. The one does good to a man; the other, to an assembly of men.

V. 5. Greater-That is, more useful. By this alone are we to estimate all our gifts and talents.

Verse 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues] The word qelw does not so much imply a wish or desire, as a command or permission. As if he had said: I do not restrain you to prophesying or teaching though I prefer that; but I give you full permission to speak in Hebrew whenever it is proper, and when one is present who can interpret for the edification of the Church, provided yourselves have not that gift, though you understand the language. The apostle said tongue, in the singular number, 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, because he spoke of a single man; now he says tongues, in the plural number, because he speaks of many speaking; but he has the same meaning in both places.-Lightfoot.

Greater is he that prophesieth] A useful, zealous preacher, though unskilled in learned languages, is much greater in the sight of God, and in the eye of sound common sense, than he who has the gift of those learned tongues; except he interpret: and we seldom find great scholars good preachers. This should humble the scholar, who is too apt to be proud of his attainments, and despise his less learned but more useful brother. This judgment of St. Paul is too little regarded.

Verse 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues — In as great a variety as God hath imparted that gift to any man living; but rather that ye prophesied — For when we consider the different effects and tendencies of these different gifts, we must acknowledge that, with respect to the prospects of usefulness by which these things are to be estimated, greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues — Which those who hear him cannot understand; except he interpret — Or rather, except some one interpret; for it appears from verse 28, that what was spoken in an unknown tongue was usually interpreted by another person, and not by the person who spoke it, the interpretation of tongues being, in the first church, a distinct gift. See on 1 Corinthians 12:10. That the church may receive edifying — Which it might, it seems, equally receive if the things spoken had been delivered only in a language understood by the auditory, and not first in an unknown tongue. “How happily does the apostle here teach us to estimate the value of gifts and talents, not by their brilliancy, but usefulness. Speaking with tongues was indeed very serviceable for spreading the gospel abroad; but for those who remained at home, it was much more desirable to be able to discourse well on useful subjects in their own language, which might serve more for the improvement of the society they belonged to, and the conviction of such of their unbelieving neighbours as might, out of curiosity, happen to step into the assemblies.” — Doddridge.

5. I would… all spake with tongues—Not a mere concession to the prejudices of the Corinthians, but a hearty endorsement of the gift as good in its place. But rather… prophesied—The apostle is wisely utilitarian. He adjudges the palm of superiority to the more useful gift. Catalepsies and trances are viewed with wonder; but that very wonder is not religious or sanctifying, and may take the place of holier thought. Nor has it been found that the subjects of them are the holiest persons in the Church; just as the Corinthian Church, though most exercised by these gifts, was by no means eminent among the Churches for its holiness. And so the existence of this phenomenon in the Irvingite assemblies was no proof of superior holiness. Except he interpret—For either the charismatic speaker may follow his utterance with an interpretation, (as in the case adduced by Dr. Bushnell,) or another person gifted with interpretation might interpret. This clause seems to imply that the utterer with tongues could not always explain his own utterance. The inspiration reached the spirit, and wakened powerful emotions, but did not quicken the understanding; so that the vocality, though expressive, was not understood as words by the subject himself.

Ver. 5. Though God in His wisdom has allotted these various gifts to various persons, yet Paul, so far as he is concerned, would like all to possess this gift which he himself possesses in so great measure and for which in 1 Corinthians 14:18 he thanks God.

That you may prophesy; is not only Paul's wish but the purpose for which he writes § 25. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:1.

And greater etc.: adds to the just expressed preference the important lesson that usefulness to others is the measure of our real greatness. This agrees exactly with 1 Corinthians 13:13: for love ever prompts us to do good to others. It also justifies 1 Corinthians 12:31a. Except he interpret; implies that sometimes but not always the same man had the gifts of tongues and of interpretation. Notice that the repeated appeals, “speaks to men edification,” “edifies a church,” the church receive edification, gain great force from 1 Corinthians 13. For, if love animate us, we shall most desire that which will make us most useful to others. Thus, to pursue love, is the best way (1 Corinthians 12:31) to obtain “the greater gifts.”

V. 6. Revelation-Of some gospel mystery.

Knowledge-Explaining the ancient types and prophecies. Prophecy-Foretelling some future event.

Doctrine-To regulate your tempers and lives. Perhaps this may be the sense of these obscure words.

Verse 6. Speaking with tongues] Without interpreting. What shall I profit you?] i.e. I shall not profit you; Except I shall speak to you either by revelation] Of some secret thing; or by knowledge, of some mystery; or by prophesying, foretelling some future event; or by doctrine, instructing you what to believe and practise.-See Whitby. These four words are taken in different acceptations by learned men. The general sense of the terms is that given above: but the peculiar meaning of the apostle is perhaps not easily discerned.

Verse 6. Now, brethren — As if he had said, I wonder whether that which you so much admire in others would please you in me: if I come unto you speaking with tongues — Supposing the next time I make you a visit at Corinth, I should address you in a variety of languages which you do not understand; what shall I profit you — Who are supposed not to understand me; except I speak to you — In a language with which you are acquainted; either by revelation — Of some gospel mystery; or by knowledge — Explaining the ancient types and prophecies; or by prophesying — Foretelling some future event; or by doctrine — For the regulation of your tempers and lives. Perhaps this may be the sense of these obscure expressions.

Ver. 6. What shall I profit you, except I speak either by revelation, the openings of divine truth on my mind by the Holy Spirit, as is stated in the thirtieth verse. — Or by knowledge, imparting divine instruction from the information I have acquired by the study of the holy scriptures. — Or by prophesying from the fulness of my own heart, replenished with wisdom from above. — Or by doctrine, by sermons or discourses, which illustrate the great doctrines of the christian religion. These four ideas comprise the principal functions which belong to the sanctuary.

6. If I—St. Paul states, as often, the disparaging supposition as of himself. He makes this supposition in order at some length to unfold the lesser utility of tongues. Either by—Some process by which intelligent thought is conveyed. Of the four, revelation means some vision or announcement from the spiritual world; knowledge, some perception by the discerner of spirits; prophesying, some prediction or supernaturally heart-searching discourse; doctrine, or teaching, some exposition of the established truths of Christianity or of the Old Testament.

Ver. 6. First proof of the uselessness of the public exercise of the gift of tongues. “Supposing I come to visit you, and in your midst do nothing but speak with tongues, what good shall I do you?” Paul's pre-eminence (1 Corinthians 14:18) in this gift, so highly prized at Corinth, justified this personal argument: and its force is overwhelming.

Come to you, profit you, speak to you: emphatic repetition, giving prominence to the chief point in 1 Corinthians 14:6. Profit; keeps before us the edification (1 Corinthians 14:3, 5) of others, as the only right aim of those who speak in church. So 1 Corinthians 14:12, 17, 19, 26, 31.

Speak with revelation: cp. 1 Corinthians 14:26: “unless I have some truth made known to me by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation,” Ephesians 1:17. Cp. Ephesians 3:3, 5.

With knowledge: with some truth acquired by ordinary methods. Probably it differs here from revelation, as in 1 Corinthians 12:8 from “wisdom,” and in 1 Corinthians 13:2 from “mysteries.” For these last three are closely connected: Ephesians 1:17; 3:3, 5. We have here two pairs, the former giving the inner source, and the latter the outer form, of two kinds of profitable speaking. In each pair the first member denotes extraordinary, the second denotes ordinary knowledge and speaking. Paul might have said “except I interpret,” as in 1 Corinthians 14:5. But he prefers words which remind us that the gift of tongues, otherwise quite valueless in public, is when accompanied by interpretation only at best equal to the gift of prophecy, or even the lesser gift of knowledge. “Unless my words are accompanied by special inward enlightenment or acquired knowledge, i.e. unless they assume the form of prophecy or teaching, what good shall I do you?”

V. 7. How shall it be known what is piped or harped-What music can be made, or what end answered?

Verse 7. And even things without life] I may, as if he had said, illustrate this farther by referring to a pipe or harp; if these were to utter mere sounds without order, harmony, or melody, though every tone of music might be in the sounds, surely no person could discern a tune in such sounds, nor receive pleasure from such discords: even so is the person who speaks in an unknown tongue, but does not interpret. His speech tends no more to edification than those discordant and unmeaning sounds do to pleasure and delight.

Verses 7-9. And even — Greek, omwv, in like manner, (the word, it seems, being here used for omoiwv, as it sometimes is by the poets, see Beza and Macknight,) things without life — Inanimate things; whether pipe or harp — Or any other instrument of music; except they give a distinction — Greek, diastolhn fqoggoiv, a difference to the notes. “Among musicians, the former word signifies the measured distance between sounds, according to certain proportions, from which the melody of a tune results.” And Raphelius has shown that the latter word, as distinguished from fwnh, voice, signifies a musical sound, a note in music. How shall it be known what is piped or harped — What music can be made, or what end answered? For — Or, moreover; in war, if — Instead of sounding those notes whose meaning is understood by the soldiers, the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle — How could soldiers know when to advance or when to retreat, unless the trumpet sounds were adjusted, and constantly adhered to? So likewise — In your religious assemblies; except ye utter words easy to be understood — Significant words, to which the ears of your auditory are accustomed; how shall it be known what is spoken — What is intended to be signified by your expressions? For ye shall speak into the air — (A proverbial expression,) you will utterly lose your labour.

7. Distinction—Into high or low, sharp or obtuse, etc.

Ver. 7.-9. A third argument.

Kinds of voices: i.e. languages.

So many, suggests that the number is great; it may be (cp. 1 Corinthians 15:37) implies that the precise number does not affect the argument.

Voiceless: without meaning, and therefore no language at all. If then: i.e. since all the innumerable languages of men have a meaning. The force of the voice: the meaning it is able to convey to those who understand it.

I shall be a barbarian: (see Romans 1:14:) words well understood by every one who has been in the company of men speaking a language unknown to him. The mixture of nationalities at Corinth would give great force to this argument. But these words do not imply that he who spoke “with a tongue” spoke in a foreign human language. The analogy of foreign languages, Paul adduces to dissuade his readers from a public exercise of the gift of tongues by reminding them that such exercise reproduces in the church the estrangement felt by men ignorant of each other's language, an estrangement increased by their consciousness that the words which are to them unmeaning have nevertheless a meaning. Just so the words spoken “with a tongue” have a meaning, but one unknown to the hearers. Therefore, he who speaks in public with a tongue sets up between himself and his brethren a barrier similar to that of nationality.

V. 8. Who will prepare himself for the battle-Unless he understand what the trumpet sounds? suppose a retreat or a march.

Verse 8. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound] If, when the soldier should prepare himself for the battle, the trumpet should give a different sound to that which is ordinarily used on such occasions, the soldier is not informed of what he should do, and therefore does not arm himself; consequently, that vague, unintelligible sound of the trumpet, is of no use.

Verses 7-9. And even — Greek, omwv, in like manner, (the word, it seems, being here used for omoiwv, as it sometimes is by the poets, see Beza and Macknight,) things without life — Inanimate things; whether pipe or harp — Or any other instrument of music; except they give a distinction — Greek, diastolhn fqoggoiv, a difference to the notes. “Among musicians, the former word signifies the measured distance between sounds, according to certain proportions, from which the melody of a tune results.” And Raphelius has shown that the latter word, as distinguished from fwnh, voice, signifies a musical sound, a note in music. How shall it be known what is piped or harped — What music can be made, or what end answered? For — Or, moreover; in war, if — Instead of sounding those notes whose meaning is understood by the soldiers, the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle — How could soldiers know when to advance or when to retreat, unless the trumpet sounds were adjusted, and constantly adhered to? So likewise — In your religious assemblies; except ye utter words easy to be understood — Significant words, to which the ears of your auditory are accustomed; how shall it be known what is spoken — What is intended to be signified by your expressions? For ye shall speak into the air — (A proverbial expression,) you will utterly lose your labour.

8. Trumpet—By different notes, or even tunes, upon the military trumpet the army was signaled either to advance, retreat, prepare for battle, go into quarters, etc. Sometimes the opposite army learned the signals and were able to use them by stratagem. Sometimes by counter stratagem the enemy was made to believe the signals, and was deceived to his own damage. Prepare… battle—If the signal should be uncertain the army would be in confusion, not knowing what movement to make.

Ver. 7.-9. A third argument.

Kinds of voices: i.e. languages.

So many, suggests that the number is great; it may be (cp. 1 Corinthians 15:37) implies that the precise number does not affect the argument.

Voiceless: without meaning, and therefore no language at all. If then: i.e. since all the innumerable languages of men have a meaning. The force of the voice: the meaning it is able to convey to those who understand it.

I shall be a barbarian: (see Romans 1:14:) words well understood by every one who has been in the company of men speaking a language unknown to him. The mixture of nationalities at Corinth would give great force to this argument. But these words do not imply that he who spoke “with a tongue” spoke in a foreign human language. The analogy of foreign languages, Paul adduces to dissuade his readers from a public exercise of the gift of tongues by reminding them that such exercise reproduces in the church the estrangement felt by men ignorant of each other's language, an estrangement increased by their consciousness that the words which are to them unmeaning have nevertheless a meaning. Just so the words spoken “with a tongue” have a meaning, but one unknown to the hearers. Therefore, he who speaks in public with a tongue sets up between himself and his brethren a barrier similar to that of nationality.

V. 9. Unless ye utter by the tongue-Which is miraculously given you. Words easy to be understood-By your hearers.

Ye will speak to the air-A proverbial expression. Will utterly lose your labour.

Verse 9. Likewise ye] If ye do not speak in the Church so as to be understood, your labour is useless; ye shall speak into the air-your speech will be lost and dissipated in the air, without conveying any meaning to any person: there will be a noise or sound, but nothing else. Gifts of that kind, thus used, are good for nothing.

Verses 7-9. And even — Greek, omwv, in like manner, (the word, it seems, being here used for omoiwv, as it sometimes is by the poets, see Beza and Macknight,) things without life — Inanimate things; whether pipe or harp — Or any other instrument of music; except they give a distinction — Greek, diastolhn fqoggoiv, a difference to the notes. “Among musicians, the former word signifies the measured distance between sounds, according to certain proportions, from which the melody of a tune results.” And Raphelius has shown that the latter word, as distinguished from fwnh, voice, signifies a musical sound, a note in music. How shall it be known what is piped or harped — What music can be made, or what end answered? For — Or, moreover; in war, if — Instead of sounding those notes whose meaning is understood by the soldiers, the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle — How could soldiers know when to advance or when to retreat, unless the trumpet sounds were adjusted, and constantly adhered to? So likewise — In your religious assemblies; except ye utter words easy to be understood — Significant words, to which the ears of your auditory are accustomed; how shall it be known what is spoken — What is intended to be signified by your expressions? For ye shall speak into the air — (A proverbial expression,) you will utterly lose your labour.

9. Words easy to be understood—The unexplained tongue is like the uncertain trumpet; it communicates no idea, and leaves the hearer no wiser than it found him. Speak into the air—Just as the unaiming athlete beateth the air. If your speech be a nothing, your proper hearer is empty space.

Ver. 7.-9. A third argument.

Kinds of voices: i.e. languages.

So many, suggests that the number is great; it may be (cp. 1 Corinthians 15:37) implies that the precise number does not affect the argument.

Voiceless: without meaning, and therefore no language at all. If then: i.e. since all the innumerable languages of men have a meaning. The force of the voice: the meaning it is able to convey to those who understand it.

I shall be a barbarian: (see Romans 1:14:) words well understood by every one who has been in the company of men speaking a language unknown to him. The mixture of nationalities at Corinth would give great force to this argument. But these words do not imply that he who spoke “with a tongue” spoke in a foreign human language. The analogy of foreign languages, Paul adduces to dissuade his readers from a public exercise of the gift of tongues by reminding them that such exercise reproduces in the church the estrangement felt by men ignorant of each other's language, an estrangement increased by their consciousness that the words which are to them unmeaning have nevertheless a meaning. Just so the words spoken “with a tongue” have a meaning, but one unknown to the hearers. Therefore, he who speaks in public with a tongue sets up between himself and his brethren a barrier similar to that of nationality.

Verse 10. There are, it may be] ei tucoi, For example.

So many kinds of voices] So many different languages, each of which has its distinct articulation, pronunciation, emphasis, and meaning; or there may be so many different nations, each possessing a different language, &c.

Verses 10-12. There are — No doubt; so many kinds of voices — Or languages; in the world — As ye speak; and none of them is without signification — To those that are acquainted with them. Therefore — Nevertheless; if I know not the meaning of the voice — The import of the particular language which is used in my hearing; I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian — What I say will appear unintelligible jargon; and he a barbarian unto me — We shall be incapable of holding any conversation with each other. “The Greeks, after the custom of the Egyptians, mentioned by Herodotus, lib. 2., called all those barbarians who did not speak their language. In process of time, however, the Romans, having subdued the Greeks, delivered themselves by force of arms from that opprobrious appellation, and joined the Greeks in calling all barbarians who did not speak either the Greek or the Latin language. Afterward, the word barbarian signified any one who spake a language which another did not understand. Thus the Scythian philosopher, Anacharsis, said, that among the Athenians, the Scythians were barbarians; and among the Scythians, the Athenians were barbarians. This is the sense of the word barbarian in this passage.” Even so, &c. — Wherefore ye also, that ye may not be barbarians to each other; forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts — And are ready to vie with each other in the exercise of them, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church — And not merely for your own honour. Strive for the greatest share of those gifts whereby you may be useful to your fellow-Christians.

Ver. 10. There are many kinds of voices in the world. Languages and dialects, which greatly change in commercial nations, so that in the space of five hundred years the language is half new, though the primitive words and roots remain. One fifth of the Greek primitives to this day are sported through Europe; the whole word, or some radical letter, still remains, as the pillars of ancient ruins.

10. So many… voices—So many speeches, dialects, or languages. The Jews customarily reckoned human languages to be seventy in number. Without signification—Literally, none of them (speeches) is speechless. They all say something; express a signification.

V. 11. I shall be a barbarian to him-Shall seem to talk unintelligible gibberish.

Verse 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice] thn dunamiv thv fwnhv, The power and signification of the language.

I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian] I shall appear to him, and he to me, as a person who had no distinct and articulate sounds which can convey any kind of meaning. This observation is very natural: when we hear persons speaking in a language of which we know nothing, we wonder how they can understand each other, as, in their speech, there appears to us no regular distinction of sounds or words. For the meaning and origin of the word barbarian, see Clarke’s note on “Acts 28:2”.

Verses 10-12. There are — No doubt; so many kinds of voices — Or languages; in the world — As ye speak; and none of them is without signification — To those that are acquainted with them. Therefore — Nevertheless; if I know not the meaning of the voice — The import of the particular language which is used in my hearing; I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian — What I say will appear unintelligible jargon; and he a barbarian unto me — We shall be incapable of holding any conversation with each other. “The Greeks, after the custom of the Egyptians, mentioned by Herodotus, lib. 2., called all those barbarians who did not speak their language. In process of time, however, the Romans, having subdued the Greeks, delivered themselves by force of arms from that opprobrious appellation, and joined the Greeks in calling all barbarians who did not speak either the Greek or the Latin language. Afterward, the word barbarian signified any one who spake a language which another did not understand. Thus the Scythian philosopher, Anacharsis, said, that among the Athenians, the Scythians were barbarians; and among the Scythians, the Athenians were barbarians. This is the sense of the word barbarian in this passage.” Even so, &c. — Wherefore ye also, that ye may not be barbarians to each other; forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts — And are ready to vie with each other in the exercise of them, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church — And not merely for your own honour. Strive for the greatest share of those gifts whereby you may be useful to your fellow-Christians.

11. Meaning of the voice—Literally, the force of the speech. A barbarian—The Greeks were proud of their own race and of their own language, and the talk of a foreigner was a mere bar bar, and so they called the foreigner a barbaros, or babbler. Hence Greek and barbarian, in Romans 1:14, is an antithesis for all the world, like Jew and Gentile. The antithesis was first founded, as here, on language; but barbarian has finally come to signify uncivilized.

Verse 12. For as much as ye are zealous] Seeing ye affect so much to have spiritual gifts, seek that ye may get those by which ye may excel in edifying the Church.

Verses 10-12. There are — No doubt; so many kinds of voices — Or languages; in the world — As ye speak; and none of them is without signification — To those that are acquainted with them. Therefore — Nevertheless; if I know not the meaning of the voice — The import of the particular language which is used in my hearing; I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian — What I say will appear unintelligible jargon; and he a barbarian unto me — We shall be incapable of holding any conversation with each other. “The Greeks, after the custom of the Egyptians, mentioned by Herodotus, lib. 2., called all those barbarians who did not speak their language. In process of time, however, the Romans, having subdued the Greeks, delivered themselves by force of arms from that opprobrious appellation, and joined the Greeks in calling all barbarians who did not speak either the Greek or the Latin language. Afterward, the word barbarian signified any one who spake a language which another did not understand. Thus the Scythian philosopher, Anacharsis, said, that among the Athenians, the Scythians were barbarians; and among the Scythians, the Athenians were barbarians. This is the sense of the word barbarian in this passage.” Even so, &c. — Wherefore ye also, that ye may not be barbarians to each other; forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts — And are ready to vie with each other in the exercise of them, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church — And not merely for your own honour. Strive for the greatest share of those gifts whereby you may be useful to your fellow-Christians.

12. Edifying—Be not by your tongue a barbarian to the Church, but an edifier, an upbuilder of it.

Ver. 12. So you also; applies the argument of 1 Corinthians 14:10, 11, (as does 1 Corinthians 14:9 the argument of 1 Corinthians 14:7, 8,) but in a form applicable to all three arguments of 1 Corinthians 14:6-11 and leading up directly to the chief argument of § 25 which is stated in 1 Corinthians 14:2-5. Although all these powers had one source viz. the One Spirit of God, yet, since they were various and each was evidently an outworking of an animating principle higher than man's own spirit, Paul could for the moment leave out of sight the oneness of the origin and speak of those who desired these powers as emulous for spirits. Similarly, the One Spirit is in Revelation 1:4; 3:1; 4:5 called “the seven Spirits which are before the throne.” The phrase is chosen here perhaps because the Corinthians, in their desire for mere supernatural inspiration, forgot sometimes that the various gifts had one source. Their aspiration was, therefore, only an emulation for spirits.

Emulous: as Paul wished them to be, 1 Corinthians 14:1; 12:31. The edification of the church; brings the foregoing subordinate argument, and arguments, to bear upon the great argument of 1 Corinthians 14:2-5. For it is quite certain that a barbarian's unknown words edify no one.

Abound: be rich in spiritual gifts. To this Paul exhorts his readers, thus sanctioning their acknowledged emulation; but bids them seek these gifts in order to help forward the spiritual life of their brethren. He is thus directing them to those “greater gifts” which are (1 Corinthians 12:31) most worthy of their emulation.

V. 13. That he may be able to interpret-Which was a distinct gift.

Verse 13. Pray that he may interpret.] Let him who speaks or reads the prophetic declarations in the Old Testament, in that tongue in which they were originally spoken and written, pray to God that he may so understand them himself, and receive the gift of interpretation, that he may be able to explain them in all their depth and latitude to others.

Verses 13, 14. Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue — Unknown to the congregation to which he would address himself; pray that he may interpret — That God would give him the gift also of expounding his discourse, in the common language of the place, a gift this distinct from the other. For if I pray, &c. — The apostle, as he did at verse 6, transfers it to himself; in an unknown tongue; without making use of any explication; my spirit indeed prayeth — By the influence of the Spirit of God, I understand the words myself; but my understanding is unfruitful — Namely, to others; the knowledge I have is of no benefit to them; and I perform an action void of that prudence and good sense which ought always to govern persons in their addresses to God, and act so childish and foolish a part that the reason of a man may seem at that time to have deserted me. “This,” says Dr. Doddridge, “I think a more natural interpretation than that which supposes the apostle to suggest a thought which the Papists urge to palliate the absurdity of offering prayers in an unknown tongue, namely, ‘there may be some general good affections working where the person praying does not particularly understand what he says.’ But this would make it almost impossible to conceive how the gift of tongues could be abused, if the person exercising it was under such an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit, as to utter sensible words which he did not himself understand; in which case a man must be, in the most extraordinary sense that can be conceived, the mere organ of the Holy Ghost himself.”

13. Pray… may interpret—This has been construed by many

commentators to mean pray in order that, or with the purpose to, interpret. This must not imply that the speaking with a tongue was always prayer. For, 1. The pentecostal tongues were rather praise than prayer, and apparently addressed to the people. 2. An interpreter would usually be more suitable for a discourse than for prayer. 3. It is not unworthy of consideration that in Mr. Bushnell’s narrative the tongue was hortatory; and, 4. We can see nothing in the nature of the “tongue” prohibiting the idea of its being used for every mode of exercise. We render it, Let him so pray that he may be enabled afterwards to interpret his prayer. By that means, as in Mr. Bushnell’s instance, he may follow the discourse with an interpretation, and the divine charism gives the discourse a divine authority.

Ver. 13. A specific direction resulting from the general direction of 1 Corinthians 14:12. It also keeps before us 1 Corinthians 14:5 which completes the chief argument, viz. 1 Corinthians 14:2-5, to which argument those of 1 Corinthians 14:6-12 are subordinate. Pray; denotes all speaking to God, and includes the blessing and thanksgiving of 1 Corinthians 14:16f. And, since 1 Corinthians 14:14 is given in proof of 1 Corinthians 14:13, the word pray must have the same reference in both verses, viz. public prayer in church-meeting. Consequently, that he may interpret is not the matter of prayer but an end kept in view while praying in public. The word pray is therefore equivalent to speak with a tongue; and reminds us that such speaking is speaking to God. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:2. Since edification of the church is the purpose of all spiritual gifts, he who in an assembly prays with a tongue must do so with a purpose of afterwards interpreting his own inspired but unintelligible prayer. If he be unable to do this, this verse enjoins him to keep silence in church, unless (1 Corinthians 14:28) an interpreter be present. This specific direction is thus a forerunner of § 26. And, that the gift of tongues needed to be supplemented by interpretation, proves its inferiority to prophecy; which is the main thesis of § 25.

V. 14. If I pray in an unknown tongue-The apostle, as he did at 1 Corinthians 14:6, transfers it to himself.

My spirit prayeth-By the power of the Spirit I understand the words myself.

But my understanding is unfruitful-The knowledge I have is no benefit to others.

Verse 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue] If my prayers are composed of sentences and sayings taken out of the prophets, &c., and in their own language-my spirit prayeth, my heart is engaged in the work, and my prayers answer all the purpose of prayers to myself; but my understanding is unfruitful to all others, because they do not understand my prayers, and I either do not or cannot interpret them. See Clarke’s note on “1 Corinthians 14:19”.

Verses 13, 14. Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue — Unknown to the congregation to which he would address himself; pray that he may interpret — That God would give him the gift also of expounding his discourse, in the common language of the place, a gift this distinct from the other. For if I pray, &c. — The apostle, as he did at verse 6, transfers it to himself; in an unknown tongue; without making use of any explication; my spirit indeed prayeth — By the influence of the Spirit of God, I understand the words myself; but my understanding is unfruitful — Namely, to others; the knowledge I have is of no benefit to them; and I perform an action void of that prudence and good sense which ought always to govern persons in their addresses to God, and act so childish and foolish a part that the reason of a man may seem at that time to have deserted me. “This,” says Dr. Doddridge, “I think a more natural interpretation than that which supposes the apostle to suggest a thought which the Papists urge to palliate the absurdity of offering prayers in an unknown tongue, namely, ‘there may be some general good affections working where the person praying does not particularly understand what he says.’ But this would make it almost impossible to conceive how the gift of tongues could be abused, if the person exercising it was under such an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit, as to utter sensible words which he did not himself understand; in which case a man must be, in the most extraordinary sense that can be conceived, the mere organ of the Holy Ghost himself.”

14. If I pray—And do not follow with an interpretation. Spirit… understanding—The former is the religious faculty by which we commune with God; the inner and higher man; the seat of sacred emotions: the latter is the intelligence by which we know and reason about matters presented to our thought. Prayer in an unknown tongue may stir the man’s own holy emotions, but no definite ideas are conveyed to the understanding of the hearers. Perhaps his own understanding does not form any distinct and expressible ideas, so that he does not, in fact, take the precise meaning of the words he utters. Unfruitful—Productive of no distinct ideas which can be remembered and carried away by myself and others.

Ver. 14.-15. Proof that speaking with a tongue must needs be followed by interpretation.

My spirit: Paul's own spirit, as in 1 Corinthians 2:11; 5:4; 16:18; 2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:13; Romans 1:9; 8:16. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:2.

Without fruit: good results which are the organic outworking of the mind. Cp. Matthew 13:22; Titus 3:14; 2 Peter 1:8. The mind is the organ of perception and reason. So Romans 1:28. The spirit is that inmost and uppermost chamber of our nature on which the Holy Spirit acts directly, sometimes, as this verse proves, exerting an influence which the mind cannot comprehend and therefore cannot transmit to others. In other words, there may be operations of the Holy Spirit which reach only the highest element of man's nature and do not permeate and enlighten his intelligence.

What then is it? “Since this partial operation is possible, how do matters stand?” This question Paul answers by saying what he himself will do. With the spirit; as in 1 Corinthians 14:14. His prayer shall be an outflow of the activity both of the highest element of his being and of his intelligence: i.e. the prayers he offers with a tongue moved by the Spirit of God, he will also interpret. In this way, both spirit and mind will be at work. And the contrast without-fruit suggests that Paul's mental activity will be useful.

A psalm: Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16: a hymn of praise to God similar to the book of Psalms; Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:33. It refers here probably to an impromptu utterance of sacred song under a special influence of the Spirit. The argument seems to be that the gift of tongues without interpretation is defective, because limited to a part of our being, a limitation which makes it not profitable to others. And this defect of the mere gift of tongues is a reason why its public exercise should always (1 Corinthians 14:13) be in view of subsequent interpretation. The first person, I will pray etc., directs our attention, as in 1 Corinthians 8:13, to Paul's own purpose which all must commend.

V. 15. I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also-I will use my own understanding, as well as the power of the Spirit. I will not act so absurdly, as to utter in a congregation what can edify none but myself.

Verses 15-17. What is it then? — What is my duty in these circumstances? What must I do when the Spirit moves me to pray in the church in an unknown tongue? Why this: I will pray with the Spirit — Under his influence, uttering the words which he suggests; and I will pray with the understanding also — So that my meaning, being interpreted into the common language, may be understood by others, verse 19. I will sing with the inspiration of the Spirit — And with my meaning interpreted also. I will use my understanding as well as the power of the Spirit. I will not act so foolishly as to utter in a congregation what can edify none but myself, and leave it uninterpreted. Else, when thou shalt bless God with the inspiration of the Spirit in an unknown language, how shall he that occupieth the room — That filleth the place; of the unlearned — That is, any private hearer; say amen at thy giving of thanks — Assent to and confirm thy words, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest — Can form no idea of thy meaning. The word idiwthv, here rendered unlearned, is used by Josephus, (Antiq., 3. c. 9,) to denote a private person, as distinguished from the priests. In like manner it here denotes those of the assembly who had not the gift of languages, and who were not teachers, but hearers only. The apostle’s question, How shall he say Amen? implies that it was the custom in the Christian church from the beginning, for all the people, in imitation of the ancient worship, to signify their assent to the public prayers by saying amen, at the conclusion of them. Of this custom in the Jewish Church we have many examples. See Deuteronomy 27:15, &c.; Nehemiah 8:6; Esd. 9:47. For thou verily givest thanks well — We will grant that there is nothing improper either in thy sentiments or expressions, if they were understood. But the other is not edified — In order to which it is absolutely necessary that he should understand what is spoken.

15. What is it then—Compare notes on Romans 3:9; 6:15. This is a question by which the general result of the argument is asked. What is the conclusion of the whole matter? With the spirit—My higher spiritual emotional nature. Understanding also—With my intellect, so that complete, active thought may be exercised and retained both by myself and others. Sing—Paul had no Quaker hostility to sacred music. Very early must the Church have formed some sort of a hymnology. One is, indeed, inclined to wonder why no psalms or hymns have formed a part of the New Testament canon. But this word does not necessarily imply the regularly formed hymn in all cases, but the lofty chant of the charismatic tongue.

Ver. 14.-15. Proof that speaking with a tongue must needs be followed by interpretation.

My spirit: Paul's own spirit, as in 1 Corinthians 2:11; 5:4; 16:18; 2 Corinthians 2:13; 7:13; Romans 1:9; 8:16. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:2.

Without fruit: good results which are the organic outworking of the mind. Cp. Matthew 13:22; Titus 3:14; 2 Peter 1:8. The mind is the organ of perception and reason. So Romans 1:28. The spirit is that inmost and uppermost chamber of our nature on which the Holy Spirit acts directly, sometimes, as this verse proves, exerting an influence which the mind cannot comprehend and therefore cannot transmit to others. In other words, there may be operations of the Holy Spirit which reach only the highest element of man's nature and do not permeate and enlighten his intelligence.

What then is it? “Since this partial operation is possible, how do matters stand?” This question Paul answers by saying what he himself will do. With the spirit; as in 1 Corinthians 14:14. His prayer shall be an outflow of the activity both of the highest element of his being and of his intelligence: i.e. the prayers he offers with a tongue moved by the Spirit of God, he will also interpret. In this way, both spirit and mind will be at work. And the contrast without-fruit suggests that Paul's mental activity will be useful.

A psalm: Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16: a hymn of praise to God similar to the book of Psalms; Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:33. It refers here probably to an impromptu utterance of sacred song under a special influence of the Spirit. The argument seems to be that the gift of tongues without interpretation is defective, because limited to a part of our being, a limitation which makes it not profitable to others. And this defect of the mere gift of tongues is a reason why its public exercise should always (1 Corinthians 14:13) be in view of subsequent interpretation. The first person, I will pray etc., directs our attention, as in 1 Corinthians 8:13, to Paul's own purpose which all must commend.

V. 16. Otherwise how shall he that filleth the place of a private person-That is, any private hearer.

Say Amen-Assenting and confirming your words, as it was even then usual for the whole congregation to do.

Verse 16. He that occupieth the room of the unlearned] One who is not acquainted with the language in which you speak, sing, or pray. Say Amen] Give his assent and ratification to what he does not understand. It was very frequent in primitive times to express their approbation in the public assemblies by Amen. This practice, soberly and piously conducted, might still be of great use in the Church of Christ. This response was of the highest authority and merit among the Jews; they even promised the remission of all sins, the annihilation of the sentence of damnation, and the opening of the gates of paradise, to those who fervently say Amen. And it is one of their maxims that “greater is he who says Amen than he who prays.” See many testimonies of this kind in Schoettgen. Now, allowing that this was of so much consequence in tho time of St. Paul, it was a very serious matter for a person to be in a congregation where prayer was offered, who could not say Amen, because the prayers were in a language which he did not understand.

Verses 15-17. What is it then? — What is my duty in these circumstances? What must I do when the Spirit moves me to pray in the church in an unknown tongue? Why this: I will pray with the Spirit — Under his influence, uttering the words which he suggests; and I will pray with the understanding also — So that my meaning, being interpreted into the common language, may be understood by others, verse 19. I will sing with the inspiration of the Spirit — And with my meaning interpreted also. I will use my understanding as well as the power of the Spirit. I will not act so foolishly as to utter in a congregation what can edify none but myself, and leave it uninterpreted. Else, when thou shalt bless God with the inspiration of the Spirit in an unknown language, how shall he that occupieth the room — That filleth the place; of the unlearned — That is, any private hearer; say amen at thy giving of thanks — Assent to and confirm thy words, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest — Can form no idea of thy meaning. The word idiwthv, here rendered unlearned, is used by Josephus, (Antiq., 3. c. 9,) to denote a private person, as distinguished from the priests. In like manner it here denotes those of the assembly who had not the gift of languages, and who were not teachers, but hearers only. The apostle’s question, How shall he say Amen? implies that it was the custom in the Christian church from the beginning, for all the people, in imitation of the ancient worship, to signify their assent to the public prayers by saying amen, at the conclusion of them. Of this custom in the Jewish Church we have many examples. See Deuteronomy 27:15, &c.; Nehemiah 8:6; Esd. 9:47. For thou verily givest thanks well — We will grant that there is nothing improper either in thy sentiments or expressions, if they were understood. But the other is not edified — In order to which it is absolutely necessary that he should understand what is spoken.

Ver. 16. Amen. See notes on Deuteronomy 27:15. Isaiah 65:16.

16. Bless—The explanation given by Stanley is here apposite: “The ‘thanksgiving’ or ‘blessing’ of which Paul speaks seems to be that which accompanied the Lord’s supper, and whence it derived its name of the ‘eucharist.’ In answer to this thanksgiving the congregation utter their ‘amen.’ ‘After the prayers,’ says Justin, (Ap., c. 65, 67,) ‘bread is offered, and wine and water, and the president offers, according to his power, prayers and thanksgivings at once, and the people shout the amen.’ The president offers praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of his Son and of the Holy Spirit, and at length returns thanks to God for having vouchsafed us to partake of these things. When he has finished the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present shout, saying, ‘Amen,’ which is the Hebrew for ‘So be it.’” The unlearned—The Greek word here (same as in Acts 4:13, where see note) signifies an unofficial or non-professional man, in antithesis with the official officiating, or professional man. In reference to a priest or clergyman, it signifies a layman; a private man instead of a public man, or a philosopher. Here it signifies the ungifted, in opposition to the gifted. But even the gifted might, while listening to another’s charismatic performance, be said to occupy the room of the ungifted. Amen—In the Greek with an article, the Amen. “The ‘amen’ thus used was borrowed from the worship of the synagogue, and hence, probably, the article is prefixed as to a well-known form. It was then regarded as the necessary ratification of the prayer or blessing. ‘He who says amen is greater than he that blesses,’ (Barashoth, 8:8.) ‘Whoever says amen, to him the gates of paradise are open,’ according to Isaiah 26:2, whence they read, ‘Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the amen may enter in.’—WETSTEIN, ad loc. An ‘amen’ if not well considered was called an ‘orphan amen.’—(LIGHTFOOT, ad loc.) ‘Whoever says an orphan amen, his children shall be orphans; whoever answers amen hastily or shortly, his days shall be shortened; whoever answers amen distinctly and at length, his days shall be lengthened.’— (Barashoth, 47:1; SCHOTTGEN, ad loc.) Compare the use of the word as uttered by the vast assembly of pilgrims at Mecca, to express their assent to the great sermon at the Kaaba.—(BURTON’S Pilgrimage, iii, p. 314.) “So in the early Christian liturgies, it was regarded as a marked point in the service, and with this agrees the great solemnity with which Justin speaks of it, as though it were on a level with the thanksgiving; ‘the president having given thanks, and the whole people having shouted their approbation.’ And in later times, the amen was only repeated once by the congregation, and always after the great thanksgiving, and with a shout like a peal of thunder.”— Stanley, p. 263.

Ver. 16.-19. Argument in support of the foregoing purpose; and a second argument (in addition to that of 1 Corinthians 14:14) in support of the direction in 1 Corinthians 14:13. Paul turns suddenly to his readers and shows the consequence if they do not follow his example. Bless: speak good of God. See under Romans 1:25. It was suggested probably by the word “psalm.” Cp. Pss. 144-150.

With the spirit: as in 1 Corinthians 14:14f: in the upmost element of their being, on which the Holy Spirit directly works.

Private-member: same word in 1 Corinthians 14:23, 24; 2 Corinthians 11:6; Acts 4:13. In Philo's Life of Moses, bk. iii. 29, it denotes Israelites generally in contrast to the priests. It is opposed both to officers and to those who have special capacity or training. Since we have in this Epistle no mention of church officers, it refers here probably to those not possessing the gifts of tongues or prophecy.

Occupies the place etc.; vivid picture of the scene, where private members have a place apart from him who is speaking with a tongue. The Amen: (see under Romans 1:25:) the well-known Amen, said by the assembly at the end of a public prayer. This is the earliest trace of something like Christian liturgical worship.

Thanksgiving: implied in bless. To bless makes prominent the good things we say about God: to give thanks tells our gratitude.

Thy: emphatic. To the thanks of others the private member may assent: to thine he cannot. For, that he knows not what thou sayest, would make the customary Amen an empty form. Thus the very saying Amen proves the need that what is said with a tongue be interpreted.

Verse 17. Thou verily givest thanks well] Because he felt gratitude, and, from a sense of his obligation, gave praise to God; but because this was in an unknown tongue, those who heard him received no edification.

Verses 15-17. What is it then? — What is my duty in these circumstances? What must I do when the Spirit moves me to pray in the church in an unknown tongue? Why this: I will pray with the Spirit — Under his influence, uttering the words which he suggests; and I will pray with the understanding also — So that my meaning, being interpreted into the common language, may be understood by others, verse 19. I will sing with the inspiration of the Spirit — And with my meaning interpreted also. I will use my understanding as well as the power of the Spirit. I will not act so foolishly as to utter in a congregation what can edify none but myself, and leave it uninterpreted. Else, when thou shalt bless God with the inspiration of the Spirit in an unknown language, how shall he that occupieth the room — That filleth the place; of the unlearned — That is, any private hearer; say amen at thy giving of thanks — Assent to and confirm thy words, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest — Can form no idea of thy meaning. The word idiwthv, here rendered unlearned, is used by Josephus, (Antiq., 3. c. 9,) to denote a private person, as distinguished from the priests. In like manner it here denotes those of the assembly who had not the gift of languages, and who were not teachers, but hearers only. The apostle’s question, How shall he say Amen? implies that it was the custom in the Christian church from the beginning, for all the people, in imitation of the ancient worship, to signify their assent to the public prayers by saying amen, at the conclusion of them. Of this custom in the Jewish Church we have many examples. See Deuteronomy 27:15, &c.; Nehemiah 8:6; Esd. 9:47. For thou verily givest thanks well — We will grant that there is nothing improper either in thy sentiments or expressions, if they were understood. But the other is not edified — In order to which it is absolutely necessary that he should understand what is spoken.

17. Not edified—Completely and conclusively does Paul’s language and reasoning forbid the Romish use of the Latin language in divine service all over the world. It is an unknown tongue, and, therefore, the people are not edified. It is useless for Rome to reply that it was only unknown charismatic tongues that were forbidden. For if even an inspired person might not speak Latin without a translation, much more the uninspired. This was often done in former times by priests who did not themselves understand Latin; and Fulke, in his “Confutation of the Rhemish Testament,” gives some amusing specimens of murdered Latin current in the Romish utterance of the ritual.

Ver. 17. An admission, in view of 1 Corinthians 14:16, of the real worth of the gift of tongues. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:2b. Gives thanks well: for he who speaks with a tongue, speaks (1 Corinthians 14:2) to God.

Edified: the purpose of public thanksgiving, as of all joint worship. For the thanks of others evokes our own gratitude to God. But the man who cannot say intelligently the customary Amen is evidently not edified. This last word, which leads up to the argument of 1 Corinthians 14:5, marks the completion of the argument of 1 Corinthians 14:6-16.

Verse 18. I speak with tongues more than ye all] He understood more languages than any of them did: and this was indispensably necessary, as he was the apostle of the Gentiles in general, and had to preach to different provinces where different dialects, if not languages, were used. In the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin, he was undoubtedly well skilled from his education; and how many he might understand by miraculous gift we cannot tell. But, even literally understood, it is very probable that he knew more languages than any man in the Church of Corinth.

Verses 18, 19. I thank my God, &c. — As if he had said, I do not speak thus of foreign languages because I myself am deficient in them, for I must say, to the glory of that Being from whom all my gifts and talents are derived, I speak with tongues more than you all — More than the whole society taken together. “The apostle had this great variety of languages given him by inspiration, that he might be able immediately to preach the gospel to all nations, without spending time in learning their languages. But it must be remembered that the knowledge of so many languages miraculously communicated, was a knowledge for common use, such as enabled the apostle to deliver the doctrines of the gospel clearly and properly; and not such a knowledge of these languages as prevented him in speaking and writing from mixing foreign idioms with them, especially the idioms of his mother tongue. An attention to such trifles was below the grandeur and importance of the work in which the apostle was engaged, and tended to no solid use; these foreign idioms being often more expressive and emphatical than the correspondent classical phrases.” — Macknight. Yet in the church, &c. — Yet so far am I from being vain of this gift, that in the church I had rather speak were it only five plain words with my understanding — In a rational manner, so as not only to understand myself, but to be understood by others; than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue — However sublime and elegant that discourse might be: yea, I had rather be entirely silent in an assembly, than take up their time, and prostitute the extraordinary gifts of God to such a vain and foolish purpose.

18. Thank… God—Paul here indicates, 1. That the charism of tongues was a gift to be thankful for; 2. Calls to mind, in a manner implying that the Corinthians would not deny, the affluence of his gifts; 3. Implies that he not only possessed, but used, the power in actual exercise; 4. That, therefore, he assigned tongues a subordinate place from no envy to those displaying them; and, 5. Prepares by all this for his decisive sentence next to be uttered against the use of tongues uninterpreted.

Ver. 18.-19. Fuller development, in reference to Paul himself, of 1 Corinthians 14:17. His thanks proves the real worth, to the possessor, of the gift of tongues, by revealing the spiritual gain derived therefrom. More than all of you: a rebuke to boasters.

In church: as in 1 Corinthians 11:18.

With my mind: words which my mind understands; and in the utterance of which therefore, my mind is active.

Others also; as well as myself receive benefit. From 1 Corinthians 14:19 we infer that in words spoken with a tongue the mind is inactive, and that such words, be they ever so many, do not (apart from interpretation) instruct others. Notice the force of Paul's frequent appeal to his own purpose and practice. Cp. 1 Corinthians 6:15; 8:13; 10:33. As he speaks, we feel the attractive power of his moral earnestness and of his pure motive.

The argument subordinate to that of 1 Corinthians 14:5, “that the church may receive edification,” is now complete. Paul has proved that to speak with a tongue cannot edify, by referring (1 Corinthians 14:6) to himself visiting the Corinthian church, to (1 Corinthians 14:7-9) musical instruments used as signals, and to (1 Corinthians 14:10-12) foreigners who know not each others' language. He therefore repeats in 1 Corinthians 14:13 the injunction implied in 1 Corinthians 14:5 that the public use of the gift of tongues be always with a view to subsequent interpretation. This injunction he further supports in 1 Corinthians 14:14, 15 by reminding us that without interpretation the gift of tongues does not permeate the entire man, and therefore cannot (1 Corinthians 14:16, 17) produce intelligent joint-worship. Consequently, in 1 Corinthians 14:18, 19, while acknowledging the worth of the gift of tongues, Paul expresses a preference which all will approve for five intelligible words rather than an infinite number which no one can understand.

Notice that, by dwelling upon and proving by argument after argument, the uselessness of a parade of the gift of tongues, Paul greatly strengthens our conviction of the folly of such parade.

V. 19. With my understanding-In a rational manner; so as not only to understand myself, but to be understood by others.

Verse 19. Yet in the church] As the grand object of public worship is the edification of those who attend, five words spoken so as to convey edification, were of much more consequence than ten thousand which, not being understood, could convey none. By the word glwssh, tongue, to which we add unknown, I suppose the apostle always means the Hebrew, for the reasons offered in Clarke’s note on “1 Corinthians 14:1”. One of the greatest difficulties, says Bishop Pearce, in this epistle is contained in the words pneuma and nouv, spirit and understanding, which are frequently used in this chapter; and fixing the true meaning of these words will solve the difficulty. In this verse the apostle explains lalein tw voi, to speak with the understanding, by ina allouv kathchsw, that I might teach others; so that the sense of nouv, understanding, seems to be, that understanding which the hearer has of what is said; and this sense will agree well with, I will sing with the spirit, and with the understanding, 1 Corinthians 14:15.

He observes also that pneuma spirit, and nouv, understanding, have a sense opposite to each other; so that if nouv is rightly rendered, the understanding which another has of what is said; then pneuma will signify a man’s own mind, i.e. his own understanding of what he himself speaks; and this sense agrees well with 1 Corinthians 14:2: In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Verses 18, 19. I thank my God, &c. — As if he had said, I do not speak thus of foreign languages because I myself am deficient in them, for I must say, to the glory of that Being from whom all my gifts and talents are derived, I speak with tongues more than you all — More than the whole society taken together. “The apostle had this great variety of languages given him by inspiration, that he might be able immediately to preach the gospel to all nations, without spending time in learning their languages. But it must be remembered that the knowledge of so many languages miraculously communicated, was a knowledge for common use, such as enabled the apostle to deliver the doctrines of the gospel clearly and properly; and not such a knowledge of these languages as prevented him in speaking and writing from mixing foreign idioms with them, especially the idioms of his mother tongue. An attention to such trifles was below the grandeur and importance of the work in which the apostle was engaged, and tended to no solid use; these foreign idioms being often more expressive and emphatical than the correspondent classical phrases.” — Macknight. Yet in the church, &c. — Yet so far am I from being vain of this gift, that in the church I had rather speak were it only five plain words with my understanding — In a rational manner, so as not only to understand myself, but to be understood by others; than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue — However sublime and elegant that discourse might be: yea, I had rather be entirely silent in an assembly, than take up their time, and prostitute the extraordinary gifts of God to such a vain and foolish purpose.

19. In the church—In the Christian assembly gathered for religious exercises, as prayer, praise, (singing,) prophecy, (preaching,) and other modes suggested by the Spirit. Five words—A definite small number designed to give sharpness to his sentence. Ten thousand—Besser, quoted by Kling, says “rather half of ten, if of the edifying sort, than a thousand times ten of the other.” So that “the edifying sort” was twenty thousand times the better.

Ver. 18.-19. Fuller development, in reference to Paul himself, of 1 Corinthians 14:17. His thanks proves the real worth, to the possessor, of the gift of tongues, by revealing the spiritual gain derived therefrom. More than all of you: a rebuke to boasters.

In church: as in 1 Corinthians 11:18.

With my mind: words which my mind understands; and in the utterance of which therefore, my mind is active.

Others also; as well as myself receive benefit. From 1 Corinthians 14:19 we infer that in words spoken with a tongue the mind is inactive, and that such words, be they ever so many, do not (apart from interpretation) instruct others. Notice the force of Paul's frequent appeal to his own purpose and practice. Cp. 1 Corinthians 6:15; 8:13; 10:33. As he speaks, we feel the attractive power of his moral earnestness and of his pure motive.

The argument subordinate to that of 1 Corinthians 14:5, “that the church may receive edification,” is now complete. Paul has proved that to speak with a tongue cannot edify, by referring (1 Corinthians 14:6) to himself visiting the Corinthian church, to (1 Corinthians 14:7-9) musical instruments used as signals, and to (1 Corinthians 14:10-12) foreigners who know not each others' language. He therefore repeats in 1 Corinthians 14:13 the injunction implied in 1 Corinthians 14:5 that the public use of the gift of tongues be always with a view to subsequent interpretation. This injunction he further supports in 1 Corinthians 14:14, 15 by reminding us that without interpretation the gift of tongues does not permeate the entire man, and therefore cannot (1 Corinthians 14:16, 17) produce intelligent joint-worship. Consequently, in 1 Corinthians 14:18, 19, while acknowledging the worth of the gift of tongues, Paul expresses a preference which all will approve for five intelligible words rather than an infinite number which no one can understand.

Notice that, by dwelling upon and proving by argument after argument, the uselessness of a parade of the gift of tongues, Paul greatly strengthens our conviction of the folly of such parade.

V. 20. Be not children in understanding-This is an admirable stroke of true oratory! to bring down the height of their spirits, by representing that wherein they prided themselves most, as mere folly and childishness. In wickedness be ye infants-Have all the innocence of that tender age. But in understanding be ye grown men-Knowing religion was not designed to destroy any of our natural faculties, but to exalt and improve them, our reason in particular.

Verse 20. Be not children in understanding] There are three words here to which we must endeavour to affix the proper sense. 1. paidia signifies children in general, but particularly such as are grown up, so as to be fit to send to school in order to receive instruction; 2. nhpiov, from nh, not, and eipw, I speak, signifies an infant; one that cannot yet speak, and is in the lowest stage of infancy; 3. teleioi, from telew, I complete or perfect, signifies those who are arrived at perfect maturity, both of growth and understanding. We shall now see the apostle’s meaning: Brethren, be not, paidia, as little children, just beginning to go to school, in order to learn the first elements of their mother tongue, and with an understanding only sufficient to apprehend those elements.

In malice] kakia, In wickedness, nhpiazete, be ye as infants, who neither speak, do, nor purpose evil.

But in understanding] teleioi ginesqe, Be ye perfect men, whose vigour of body, and energy of mind show a complete growth, and a well cultivated understanding.

Verse 20. Brethren, be not children in understanding — By exercising the gift of tongues in the manner you do, preferring the things which make a fine show and gain applause, above things more useful and solid. This is an admirable stroke of true oratory, and was a severe reproof to the Corinthians, who piqued themselves on their wisdom, to represent their speaking unknown languages, and contending about precedency, as a childishness which men of sense would be ashamed of. Howbeit in malice — Or wickedness rather, as kakia here signifies; be ye children — As much as possible like infants; have all the gentleness, sweetness, and innocency of their tender age; but in understanding be men — Teleioi, full-grown men. Conduct yourselves with the good sense and prudence of such, knowing religion was not designed to destroy any of our natural faculties, but to exalt and improve them, our reason in particular. Doddridge makes the following remark on this part of the apostle’s epistle to the Corinthians: “Had the most zealous Protestant divine endeavoured to expose the absurdity of praying and praising in an unknown tongue, as practised in the Church of Rome, it is difficult to imagine what he could have written more full to the purpose than the apostle hath done here.” He adds, for the instruction of those who preach the gospel, “that a height of composition, an abstruseness of thought, and an obscurity of phrase, which common Christians cannot understand, is really a speaking in an unknown tongue, though the language used be the language of the country.”

Ver. 20. In malice be ye children, as stated on Matthew 18:3. A masterly touch of the pen to teachers, agitating minor questions, and irregular forms of worship, while the powerful eloquence of the heart in prophesying was in danger of being overlooked. St. Paul certainly disapproves of the burdensome forms of jewish worship being too much forced on the christian church. Prayer, reading, expositions of the reading or exhortation, with singing, were the four ancient recognized forms of worship.

20. Brethren—Beginning on another key, with an affectionate confidential undertone, yet of reproof. Children—They were like children preferring profitless sound to profitable thought. Howbeit—As if suddenly recollecting that there was a point, namely, malice, in which they might well resemble infants, which the Greek for this second word children really signifies. Men—Perfect, grown up persons.

Ver. 20. A sudden and brotherly appeal, suggesting that the Corinthians indulged in a childish parade of their gifts. Paul's own previous argument against it forces him from this reproof.

Do not become: as though their folly were only beginning, but increasing. But in wickedness etc.: Not all the characteristics of childhood are inappropriate to the Christian life. Cp. Matthew 18:3. Infants: Ephesians 4:14; Hebrews 5:13: stronger term than children.

Full-grown men: as in 1 Corinthians 2:6. The repetition of the exhortation of 1 Corinthians 14:20a suggests that Paul refers to the difficult Old Testament quotation of 1 Corinthians 14:21.

V. 21. It is written in the Law-The word here, as frequently, means the Old Testament.

In foreign tongues will I speak to this people-And so he did. He spake terribly to them by the Babylonians, when they had set at nought what he had spoken by the prophets, who used their own language. These words received a farther accomplishment on the day of pentecost. Isaiah 28:11.

Verse 21. In the law it is written] But the passage quoted is in Isaiah 28:11. Here is no contradiction, for the term hryt torah, LAW, was frequently used by the Jews to express the whole Scriptures, law, prophets, and hagiographia; and they used it to distinguish these sacred writings from the words of the scribes.

With men of other tongues] Bishop Pearce paraphrases this verse as follows: “With the tongues of foreigners and with the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people; and yet, for all that, will they not hear me, saith the Lord.” To enter into the apostle’s meaning we must enter into that of the prophet. The Jewish people were under the teaching of the prophets who were sent from God; these instructed, reproved, and corrected them by this Divine authority. They however became so refractory and disobedient that God purposed to cast them off, and abandon them to the Babylonians: then, they had a people to teach, correct, and reprove them, whose language they did not understand. The discipline that they received in this way was widely different from that which they received while under the teaching of the prophets and the government of God; and yet for all this they did not humble themselves before their Maker that this affliction might be removed from them.

Verse 21. In the law it is written — The law here signifies the whole Jewish Scriptures. The passage quoted is taken from Isaiah 28:11, (where see the note.) With stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. And so he did: he spake terribly to them by the Babylonians, (whose language, strange and unintelligible to the Jews, is here referred to,) when they had set at naught what he had spoken by the prophets, who used their own language. Some critics have observed, that the Hebrew words in this passage of Isaiah, ought to be translated, in labiis irrisionis, with mocking lips; in which sense the LXX. understood the phrase, rendering it, dia faulismon ceilewn. But that translation makes no alteration in the meaning; for they who speak to others in an unknown language, seem to the persons to whom they speak, to stammer and to mock them. The same thing is predicted, Deuteronomy 28:49, and Jeremiah 5:15; where see the notes. According to Diodati the meaning is, “Because they would not attend to plain messages, God would speak to them by such as they could not understand;” and which they would hate to hear: and then the apostle’s argument will be, “Since God threatens this as a curse, do not voluntarily bring it upon the church, merely to make ostentation of your own gifts.” Isaiah’s words, however, may be considered as an intimation of the purpose God had of sending one last message to them by his servants, endued with the gift of tongues. This, according to Macknight, is the primary meaning of the prophet’s words. “Isaiah evidently foretels,” says he, “the methods which God, in future times, would use for converting the unbelieving Jews; and among others, that he would speak to them in foreign languages, that is, in the languages of the nations among whom they were dispersed. The passage, therefore, is a prediction of the gift of speaking foreign languages, to be bestowed on the first preachers of the gospel.” The prophecy thus understood had its accomplishment at the day of pentecost. Yet for all that — Though I shall do this extraordinary thing to awaken, convince, and alarm them; they will not hear me — They will not hearken and obey me. This the Lord foresaw, and foretold repeatedly by Moses and the prophets.

21. The law—The Old Testament as a whole; as in John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25. The passage alluded to by Paul is Isaiah 28:13. The Israelites had complained that Jehovah had drilled them like children, with precept upon precept and line upon line; and Jehovah retorts, with terrible sarcasm, that he would give them instructors with another tongue, namely, the Assyrian armies, and yet they will not hear. St. Paul quotes this as an impressive type, indicating that foreign tongues spoken in the Church, though intended for the conversion of unbelievers, had a fearful precedent of failing of the effect. Other tongues—Gentile tongues, like those of the charismatic Corinthians; not miraculous tongues, however, yet brought by God’s overruling providence upon Israel.

b. Illustration of the inferiority of tongues to prophecy, 22-25.

Ver. 21. Free quotation of Isaiah 28:11, suggested perhaps by “children” and “infants.”

In the Law: the Old Testament; see Romans 3:19. Other: i.e. foreign. The people complained that Isaiah spoke to them in childish words. He declares that in men of stammering lip and in another language God will speak to them: i.e. by the presence of foreign soldiers, whose speech will seem to them nonsense, God will announce His anger against them. The form of the words not even thus etc. seems to be derived from the end of Isaiah 28:12: but their real justification is the entire context, which teaches that even the warning given by the invasion of foreigners will be in vain. In other words, to people who thought themselves too wise to need God's plain and intelligible teaching, and who therefore disbelieved the prophet's words, God declares that he will speak through the unknown language of foreign soldiers; and that even this mode of divine utterance will be neglected by them.

V. 22. Tongues are intended for a sign to unbelievers-To engage their attention, and convince them the message is of God. Whereas prophecy is not so much for unbelievers, as for the confirmation of them that already believe.

Verse 22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign] The miraculous gift of tongues was never designed for the benefit of those who have already believed, but for the instruction of unbelievers, that they might see from such a miracle that this is the work of God; and so embrace the Gospel. But as, in the times of the prophet, the strange Babylonish tongues came in the way of punishment, and not in the way of mercy; take heed that it be not the case now: that, by dwelling on the gift, ye forget the Giver; and what was designed for you as a blessing, may prove to you to be a curse. For if, because ye have the gift of tongues, ye will choose for your own aggrandizement to use them in the public congregation where none understands them, God may curse your blessings.

Prophesying] Teaching the things of God in a known language is of infinitely more consequence than speaking in all the foreign tongues in the universe.

Verse 22. Wherefore — Since this was formerly threatened by God as a punishment, you should not so admire or magnify it, especially since tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe — Not to convince, edify, or comfort the faithful; but to them that believe not — To unbelievers, to whom ye speak in their own language, Acts 2:8; namely, to engage their attention to the gospel, and to convince them that what is delivered is the truth of God. But prophesying — Preaching the word, discoursing on divine things; serveth not so much for them that believe not — Who cannot know that you are inspired in prophesying, and have no proof that your doctrine is true; but for them which believe — For their confirmation in the faith, and their edification in holiness and righteousness.

22. Wherefore—In peculiar conformity with this type. Tongues… a sign… to them that believe not—Their miraculous and startling character rendered them a sign for the conviction of unbelievers; just as the Assyrian tongues were for the bringing Israel to repentance. For the conviction of unbelievers were the charismatic tongues intended, and this they would often effect if rightly exercised. The notion of some commentators, that Paul teaches that tongues are a sign of judgment upon incorrigible unbelievers, is contrary to the whole history and character of that charism and entirely unsustained by Paul’s words. The pentecostal tongues, though rejected by the mockers, were intended to convert all who heard them, and did effect the object to a glorious extent. The charism, by its very nature, points to a reception of the gospel by the nations. If they are an adumbration of the one tongue of Paradise, they are a cheerful and glorious image. By their appealing to the ear of the foreigner in his own home dialect, as well as by their thrilling, supernatural impressiveness, they were a sign most convincing to the unbeliever; just as Paul says the signs of an apostle were wrought by him for the conversion of the Corinthians themselves. Yet all happy results depended upon their proper use; otherwise unbelievers would reject those displaying them as mad; as in next verse.

Ver. 22. A general principle inferred from Isaiah 28:11. That God speaks to men in an unknown language, is meant to be a sign, a sign given not to believers but to unbelievers; and therefore a mark not of the reward which follows faith but of punishment for unbelief. The correctness of this principle to the men of Isaiah's day, is at once evident. For it was Judah's disregard of the prophet's plain words which moved God to send the foreign armies. And the stubbornness of this unbelief is seen in the people's refusal to take even this new warning. Therefore, the foreign language heard in the land was a mark, given to unbelievers, of their coming punishment. Now, with the strange talk of the Assyrian soldiers the gift of tongues at Corinth had this in common, that it was not understood by those to whom it was sent. It was therefore a mark, not of God's nearness, but of His distance; i.e. not of full favor, but of low spiritual life. Consequently, the gift of tongues unaccompanied by that of interpretation was no fit matter of boasting. It was a proof that the inward presence of the Spirit had not yet permeated their entire being. This is not inconsistent with Paul's own thankfulness for the gift of tongues. For in his case (1 Corinthians 14:15) it was accompanied by interpretation. Moreover, as he admits, it brought spiritual profit to its possessor: and all such, even in its most undeveloped forms, is matter, not for boasting, but for gratitude. And it was a proof (Acts 10:46) that its possessor was accepted by God. That Paul does not mean that the gift of tongues was designed to lead unbelievers to faith, is proved plainly by the last words of 1 Corinthians 14:21; and by the contrast of 1 Corinthians 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 14:24.

But prophecy etc.; leads us up, after abundant proof of the uselessness to others of the mere gift of tongues, to the chief matter of § 25, viz. the greater value of prophecy.

Not for the unbelievers: suggested perhaps by Isaiah 28:11, which intimates that the prophet's voice will cease, to make way for the speech of the foreign soldiers.

V. 23. Yet-Sometimes prophecy is of more use, even to unbelievers, than speaking with tongues. For instance:

If the whole church be met together-On some extraordinary occasion. It is probable, in so large a city, they ordinarily met in several places. And there come in ignorant persons-Men of learning might have understood the tongues in which they spoke. It is observable, St. Paul says here, ignorant persons or unbelievers; but in the next verse, an unbeliever or an ignorant person. Several bad men met together hinder each other by evil discourse. Single persons are more easily gained.

Verse 23. Will they not say that ye are mad?] So they well might, finding a whole assembly of people talking languages which those who had most need of instruction could not understand.

Verses 23-25. Yet sometimes prophecy is of more use even to unbelievers than speaking with tongues. For instance: if the whole church be come together — On some extraordinary occasion; (it is probable in so large a city they ordinarily met in several places;) and all — That are endowed with such a gift; speak with tongues — One in one language, and another in another; and there come in those that are unlearned — Persons ignorant of those languages; men of learning might possibly have understood the tongues in which they spake; or unbelievers — Heathen, who are strangers to these dealings of God with his church; will they not say ye are mad — When they see the confusion you make by speaking languages which no one present understands? “This is not contrary to what is said verse 22, that the speaking in foreign languages was a sign to convince unbelievers. For the unbelievers to be convinced by that sign, were such strangers as understood the language in which they were addressed; whereas the unbelievers and unlearned persons, who considered the speaking of foreign languages as an effect of madness, were those strangers who did not understand them.” — Macknight. But if all prophesy — Expound the word of God, or discourse by turns on divine things; and there come in one that believeth not — One who did not before believe; or one unlearned — Acquainted with no language but that in which the discourses are delivered; he is convinced — Rather, convicted, by all who thus speak in succession, and speak to the hearts of the hearers; he is judged of all — Every one says something to which his conscience bears witness. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest — Laid open, clearly described in a manner which to him is most astonishing and utterly unaccountable; insomuch, that although he perhaps came into your assembly out of mere curiosity, or with some ill design, he is not able to command himself under the impression which the word of God thus spoken makes upon him; and so falling down — Under the power of it; on his face — To the ground; he will worship — That one living and true God — Whose people you are, and to whose truth you thus bear witness; and report — Declare to others; that God is among you of a truth — How many instances of this kind are seen at this day, in places where the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is faithfully preached! So does God still give point and efficacy to the word of his grace!

23. If therefore—Paul now shows how a mismanagement of tongues will verify the prediction, (Isaiah 28:12,) they would not hear; and in so doing furnishes in these two verses one of the most vivid and interesting pictures of the process of conversion in a live Church of the apostolic age. We learn how improper management aggravated unbelief and brought obloquy upon religion: and how the vivid presentation of truth searched the life and soul of the hearer though and through, pierced him with conviction, and brought him down in prayer and complete self-surrender on the spot. Paul, no doubt, was familiar with such events, and many a powerful preacher since his day has witnessed the power of truth to convert the soul. All speak with tongues—Not all at once; (just as all prophesy, in the next verse, does not mean all prophesy at once;) but no performer does any thing else but speak with tongues. There is no prophesying, or teaching, or interpreting; nothing but one lofty chant of tongues from different performers through the whole meeting. It is all vox et praeterea nihil. Not one distinct idea for the stranger through the whole. Unlearned—Same word as in verse 16—ungifted persons; who neither speak, nor interpret, nor understand charismatically. Their want of share in the gift results in want of sympathy and in unbelief. Unbelievers—Pagans or Jews. Ye are mad—They will pronounce you at once unintelligent fanatics. From all this it would seem to follow that these Corinthian tongues did not express to the unsympathizing foreigner any connected discourse; and this sinking below the pentecostal standard was the reason of Paul’s just disparagement of them. From the Greek word for mad, mainesqe, come our words mania, maniac. The Greek word mantiv, a prophet, belongs to the same root, because the sacred mania by which the prophet was possessed was considered as a prophetic influence.

Ver. 23.-25. If then etc.: accepting the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul proceeds to show its practical operation. The whole church; implies that such united gatherings were usual at Corinth.

All speak with tongues: not necessarily all together. For this would cause confusion even in (1 Corinthians 14:24) the case of prophecy. Paul supposes that one after another speaks with a tongue, and no one speaks otherwise.

There come in; implies that the admission of strangers was allowed. Of this 1 Corinthians 14:25 shows a good and possible result. Private-members: as in 1 Corinthians 14:16. perhaps from other churches. For all the church-members at Corinth are supposed to be present, all speaking with tongues.

Unbelievers: heathens or Jews.

Will they not say etc.: cp. Acts 2:13. If so, the speaking with tongues would do them no good.

If all prophesy: one after another. The apparent contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14:22 suggests that the second unbeliever, like many at Corinth, had not heard in its power the word of God; whereas the first had heard and rejected it, like the Jews of Isaiah's day.

Some unbeliever; depicts the effect of prophecy in the heart of a solitary and casual stranger. In 1 Corinthians 14:23 several spectators express to each other their astonishment. There the private members are mentioned first, as noticing first the ridiculousness of a form of worship which separated them from their brethren in Christ. Here the unbeliever stands first: for the effect of the Gospel on him is specially depicted. Convicted by all: each succeeding speaker, uttering the Spirit's words, increases his consciousness of guilt, sifts his inner life, and brings before him in their true character the secret thoughts and purposes of his heart. Thus: sifted by speaker after speaker.

Announcing: to any who may be within hearing. That your words reveal the secrets of his heart, proves to him that your words come from God dwelling in you. And, that God is thus present in the hearts of men, fills him with awe of God, and moves him to worship. With such results of prophecy Paul's readers were probably familiar. Cp. Acts 2:37. And with this graphic description of the effects of prophecy even upon unbelievers, Paul concludes his proof of its superiority to the gift of tongues. Of this we have an illustration in Acts 2:13 and Acts 2:37. For the ARGUMENT of § 25 Paul prepares us by proving in 1 Corinthians

13. that we are truly great (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:5b) in proportion as love is the mainspring of our life. Now love ever prompts us to seek the good of others; and will, therefore, prompt us to seek the gift of prophecy, which enables us to instruct, exhort, and encourage others, rather than the gift of tongues which does good only to our selves. The uselessness to others of the mere gift of tongues, he proves and enforces by suggesting that he might himself speak thus to the Corinthians, and by referring to musical instruments used as signals and to men speaking a foreign and unknown language. Therefore, after placing before us the good of others as the object of all speaking in church, he urges that the gift of tongues be used in public only with a view to subsequent interpretation. This he supports by a fourth and a fifth argument, viz. that, apart from interpretation, to pray with a tongue puts into activity only a part of our immaterial nature, and that it makes intelligent joint worship impossible. Therefore, while admitting the real worth of tongues, Paul repeats in strong terms his preference for prophecy. The evident folly of preferring the gift of tongues calls forth a brotherly rebuke. And he reminds us that to speak with tongues in the midst of brethren is to play the part of the Assyrian soldiers through whom God declared His anger against ancient Judah. In contrast to the uselessness of an uninterpreted tongue, Paul depicts the value, even to heathens, of the gift of prophecy. In § 25 we learn, from Paul's frequent and emphatic repetition of the word edify, that the purpose of church meetings is not so much an approach of the individual to God as the spiritual progress of hearers by means of the voice of a speaker. Consequently, in the mode of our services we shall do well to consider the impression they will make upon the least gifted and upon unbelievers. We learn also that the various extraordinary powers with which the Spirit enriched the early church might be obtained by human effort; i.e. that they were given by the Spirit to those who diligently sought them. This is illustrated by Daniel studying the writings of Jeremiah. Cp. Daniel 9:2; Jeremiah 25:12. Therefore, among the various gifts of the Spirit men could choose which should be their chief aim. And it was important to know which gifts were the most worthy of their pursuit. Since in this choice only Christian love can guide aright, Paul interposes between 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 1 Corinthians 14:1 a proof of its supreme excellence, and points to it as the best way to a correct choice. This last lesson has, although these special gifts have passed away, an abiding and all-important bearing upon us. Now as then various powers may be obtained by human diligence; e.g. wealth, social influence, knowledge, eloquence, etc. Now as then we may choose whether we will pursue those powers which most benefit others or those which attract attention to ourselves. And the choice thus made is an almost infallible measure of spiritual stature. For both our aim and the strength of our preference and the intelligence of our selection will be determined by the degree of our Christian life, and by the brightness of that light which love sheds within and around its happy possessors.

Again, if Christian love animate us, we shall use in secret those gifts which, though useful to us, will not profit others by their public display. Otherwise we shall expose ourselves to arguments similar to those of 1 Corinthians 14:6-21. E.g., nothing is more helpful to the spiritual life than a knowledge of those languages in which God has been pleased, through the pen of the writers of the Bible, to speak to man. But we shall be kept back from parading such knowledge by remembering that to do so will make our hearers feel (1 Corinthians 14:11) like barbarians and that others (1 Corinthians 14:6) might treat us similarly. In our private communion with God we shall thankfully (1 Corinthians 14:18) use this precious gift that thus we may hear His voice as distinctly as possible. But to our brethren we shall speak in such words as they can best understand.

V. 24. He is convicted by all-who speak in their turns, and speak to the heart of the hearers.

He is judged by all-Every one says something to which his conscience bears witness.

Verse 24. But if all prophecy] If all those who teach do it in the tongue which all understand; if an unbeliever, or one who knows nothing of the sacred language, come in and hear things just suited to his own state, he is convicted by all, and he is judged by all.

Verses 23-25. Yet sometimes prophecy is of more use even to unbelievers than speaking with tongues. For instance: if the whole church be come together — On some extraordinary occasion; (it is probable in so large a city they ordinarily met in several places;) and all — That are endowed with such a gift; speak with tongues — One in one language, and another in another; and there come in those that are unlearned — Persons ignorant of those languages; men of learning might possibly have understood the tongues in which they spake; or unbelievers — Heathen, who are strangers to these dealings of God with his church; will they not say ye are mad — When they see the confusion you make by speaking languages which no one present understands? “This is not contrary to what is said verse 22, that the speaking in foreign languages was a sign to convince unbelievers. For the unbelievers to be convinced by that sign, were such strangers as understood the language in which they were addressed; whereas the unbelievers and unlearned persons, who considered the speaking of foreign languages as an effect of madness, were those strangers who did not understand them.” — Macknight. But if all prophesy — Expound the word of God, or discourse by turns on divine things; and there come in one that believeth not — One who did not before believe; or one unlearned — Acquainted with no language but that in which the discourses are delivered; he is convinced — Rather, convicted, by all who thus speak in succession, and speak to the hearts of the hearers; he is judged of all — Every one says something to which his conscience bears witness. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest — Laid open, clearly described in a manner which to him is most astonishing and utterly unaccountable; insomuch, that although he perhaps came into your assembly out of mere curiosity, or with some ill design, he is not able to command himself under the impression which the word of God thus spoken makes upon him; and so falling down — Under the power of it; on his face — To the ground; he will worship — That one living and true God — Whose people you are, and to whose truth you thus bear witness; and report — Declare to others; that God is among you of a truth — How many instances of this kind are seen at this day, in places where the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is faithfully preached! So does God still give point and efficacy to the word of his grace!

24. If all prophesy—If a strain of inspired preaching continue through the whole meeting, then intelligent thought is produced and conviction of sinners follows. Convinced—Literally, detected, or convicted. That is, he is detected to himself as a transgressor, a sinner beneath the eye of God. His sins are brought before his own view. The word for judged signifies to cross-examine, as a judge or lawyer, with probing questions. The truth searchingly questions the man as to his character before God. He is like a culprit under the inquisition of his judge. Of all—Of or by all the prophecies. Not that they directly question him in person; but the truths they deliver do compel his conscience to question himself.

Ver. 23.-25. If then etc.: accepting the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul proceeds to show its practical operation. The whole church; implies that such united gatherings were usual at Corinth.

All speak with tongues: not necessarily all together. For this would cause confusion even in (1 Corinthians 14:24) the case of prophecy. Paul supposes that one after another speaks with a tongue, and no one speaks otherwise.

There come in; implies that the admission of strangers was allowed. Of this 1 Corinthians 14:25 shows a good and possible result. Private-members: as in 1 Corinthians 14:16. perhaps from other churches. For all the church-members at Corinth are supposed to be present, all speaking with tongues.

Unbelievers: heathens or Jews.

Will they not say etc.: cp. Acts 2:13. If so, the speaking with tongues would do them no good.

If all prophesy: one after another. The apparent contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14:22 suggests that the second unbeliever, like many at Corinth, had not heard in its power the word of God; whereas the first had heard and rejected it, like the Jews of Isaiah's day.

Some unbeliever; depicts the effect of prophecy in the heart of a solitary and casual stranger. In 1 Corinthians 14:23 several spectators express to each other their astonishment. There the private members are mentioned first, as noticing first the ridiculousness of a form of worship which separated them from their brethren in Christ. Here the unbeliever stands first: for the effect of the Gospel on him is specially depicted. Convicted by all: each succeeding speaker, uttering the Spirit's words, increases his consciousness of guilt, sifts his inner life, and brings before him in their true character the secret thoughts and purposes of his heart. Thus: sifted by speaker after speaker.

Announcing: to any who may be within hearing. That your words reveal the secrets of his heart, proves to him that your words come from God dwelling in you. And, that God is thus present in the hearts of men, fills him with awe of God, and moves him to worship. With such results of prophecy Paul's readers were probably familiar. Cp. Acts 2:37. And with this graphic description of the effects of prophecy even upon unbelievers, Paul concludes his proof of its superiority to the gift of tongues. Of this we have an illustration in Acts 2:13 and Acts 2:37. For the ARGUMENT of § 25 Paul prepares us by proving in 1 Corinthians

13. that we are truly great (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:5b) in proportion as love is the mainspring of our life. Now love ever prompts us to seek the good of others; and will, therefore, prompt us to seek the gift of prophecy, which enables us to instruct, exhort, and encourage others, rather than the gift of tongues which does good only to our selves. The uselessness to others of the mere gift of tongues, he proves and enforces by suggesting that he might himself speak thus to the Corinthians, and by referring to musical instruments used as signals and to men speaking a foreign and unknown language. Therefore, after placing before us the good of others as the object of all speaking in church, he urges that the gift of tongues be used in public only with a view to subsequent interpretation. This he supports by a fourth and a fifth argument, viz. that, apart from interpretation, to pray with a tongue puts into activity only a part of our immaterial nature, and that it makes intelligent joint worship impossible. Therefore, while admitting the real worth of tongues, Paul repeats in strong terms his preference for prophecy. The evident folly of preferring the gift of tongues calls forth a brotherly rebuke. And he reminds us that to speak with tongues in the midst of brethren is to play the part of the Assyrian soldiers through whom God declared His anger against ancient Judah. In contrast to the uselessness of an uninterpreted tongue, Paul depicts the value, even to heathens, of the gift of prophecy. In § 25 we learn, from Paul's frequent and emphatic repetition of the word edify, that the purpose of church meetings is not so much an approach of the individual to God as the spiritual progress of hearers by means of the voice of a speaker. Consequently, in the mode of our services we shall do well to consider the impression they will make upon the least gifted and upon unbelievers. We learn also that the various extraordinary powers with which the Spirit enriched the early church might be obtained by human effort; i.e. that they were given by the Spirit to those who diligently sought them. This is illustrated by Daniel studying the writings of Jeremiah. Cp. Daniel 9:2; Jeremiah 25:12. Therefore, among the various gifts of the Spirit men could choose which should be their chief aim. And it was important to know which gifts were the most worthy of their pursuit. Since in this choice only Christian love can guide aright, Paul interposes between 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 1 Corinthians 14:1 a proof of its supreme excellence, and points to it as the best way to a correct choice. This last lesson has, although these special gifts have passed away, an abiding and all-important bearing upon us. Now as then various powers may be obtained by human diligence; e.g. wealth, social influence, knowledge, eloquence, etc. Now as then we may choose whether we will pursue those powers which most benefit others or those which attract attention to ourselves. And the choice thus made is an almost infallible measure of spiritual stature. For both our aim and the strength of our preference and the intelligence of our selection will be determined by the degree of our Christian life, and by the brightness of that light which love sheds within and around its happy possessors.

Again, if Christian love animate us, we shall use in secret those gifts which, though useful to us, will not profit others by their public display. Otherwise we shall expose ourselves to arguments similar to those of 1 Corinthians 14:6-21. E.g., nothing is more helpful to the spiritual life than a knowledge of those languages in which God has been pleased, through the pen of the writers of the Bible, to speak to man. But we shall be kept back from parading such knowledge by remembering that to do so will make our hearers feel (1 Corinthians 14:11) like barbarians and that others (1 Corinthians 14:6) might treat us similarly. In our private communion with God we shall thankfully (1 Corinthians 14:18) use this precious gift that thus we may hear His voice as distinctly as possible. But to our brethren we shall speak in such words as they can best understand.

V. 25. The secrets of his heart are made manifest-Laid open, clearly described; in a manner which to him is most astonishing and utterly unaccountable. How many instances of it are seen at this day! So does God still point his word.

Verse 25. And thus are the secrets of his heart] As these, who were the prophets or teachers, had often the discernment of spirits, they were able in certain cases, and probably very frequently, to tell a man the secrets of his own heart; and, where this was not directly the case, God often led his ministers to speak those things that were suitable to the case before them, though they themselves had no particular design. The sinner, therefore, convinced that God alone could uncover the secrets of his heart, would be often obliged to fall down on his face, abashed and confounded, and acknowledge that God was truly among them. This seems to be the plain meaning of the passages before us.

Verses 23-25. Yet sometimes prophecy is of more use even to unbelievers than speaking with tongues. For instance: if the whole church be come together — On some extraordinary occasion; (it is probable in so large a city they ordinarily met in several places;) and all — That are endowed with such a gift; speak with tongues — One in one language, and another in another; and there come in those that are unlearned — Persons ignorant of those languages; men of learning might possibly have understood the tongues in which they spake; or unbelievers — Heathen, who are strangers to these dealings of God with his church; will they not say ye are mad — When they see the confusion you make by speaking languages which no one present understands? “This is not contrary to what is said verse 22, that the speaking in foreign languages was a sign to convince unbelievers. For the unbelievers to be convinced by that sign, were such strangers as understood the language in which they were addressed; whereas the unbelievers and unlearned persons, who considered the speaking of foreign languages as an effect of madness, were those strangers who did not understand them.” — Macknight. But if all prophesy — Expound the word of God, or discourse by turns on divine things; and there come in one that believeth not — One who did not before believe; or one unlearned — Acquainted with no language but that in which the discourses are delivered; he is convinced — Rather, convicted, by all who thus speak in succession, and speak to the hearts of the hearers; he is judged of all — Every one says something to which his conscience bears witness. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest — Laid open, clearly described in a manner which to him is most astonishing and utterly unaccountable; insomuch, that although he perhaps came into your assembly out of mere curiosity, or with some ill design, he is not able to command himself under the impression which the word of God thus spoken makes upon him; and so falling down — Under the power of it; on his face — To the ground; he will worship — That one living and true God — Whose people you are, and to whose truth you thus bear witness; and report — Declare to others; that God is among you of a truth — How many instances of this kind are seen at this day, in places where the true gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is faithfully preached! So does God still give point and efficacy to the word of his grace!

Ver. 25. And report that God is in you of a truth. D’ Oyley, on the eloquence of the pulpit, draws a portrait of the excellence of preaching to the heart. A man enters the church, careless about salvation, and indifferent to devotion. By and bye he hears the preacher describe a character, and gives the anatomy of a depraved heart. After awhile, reflection comes, — that is my character; he is preaching to me. Some one must have told him the secrets of my heart, and all my way of life. The preacher proceeds; he brings the Lord on the clouds of heaven to judge the world; sinners are guilty and speechless at his bar; he pronounces the sentence! The hearer can contain himself no longer; he weeps, he prays, he cries for mercy, and becomes converted to the Lord.

25. Secrets of his heart—The man (as has often been the case under a searching ministry) feels as if the speaker knew him through and through, and was preaching at, and to, and through him alone. Falling… face—In complete submission, self-surrender, and worship. Report—As Dr. Hodge says, “The man who has had such an experience cannot keep it to himself.” He will joyfully declare, in substance, that he “has experienced religion;” or, if witlings will so have it, he “has got religion.” That God—No longer identified with the deities of heathen mythology. Is in you—Both among you as a Church, and in your hearts individually by his Spirit. c. Rules for the most orderly and effective exercise

of both tongues and prophecy, 26-33.

Ver. 23.-25. If then etc.: accepting the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul proceeds to show its practical operation. The whole church; implies that such united gatherings were usual at Corinth.

All speak with tongues: not necessarily all together. For this would cause confusion even in (1 Corinthians 14:24) the case of prophecy. Paul supposes that one after another speaks with a tongue, and no one speaks otherwise.

There come in; implies that the admission of strangers was allowed. Of this 1 Corinthians 14:25 shows a good and possible result. Private-members: as in 1 Corinthians 14:16. perhaps from other churches. For all the church-members at Corinth are supposed to be present, all speaking with tongues.

Unbelievers: heathens or Jews.

Will they not say etc.: cp. Acts 2:13. If so, the speaking with tongues would do them no good.

If all prophesy: one after another. The apparent contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14:22 suggests that the second unbeliever, like many at Corinth, had not heard in its power the word of God; whereas the first had heard and rejected it, like the Jews of Isaiah's day.

Some unbeliever; depicts the effect of prophecy in the heart of a solitary and casual stranger. In 1 Corinthians 14:23 several spectators express to each other their astonishment. There the private members are mentioned first, as noticing first the ridiculousness of a form of worship which separated them from their brethren in Christ. Here the unbeliever stands first: for the effect of the Gospel on him is specially depicted. Convicted by all: each succeeding speaker, uttering the Spirit's words, increases his consciousness of guilt, sifts his inner life, and brings before him in their true character the secret thoughts and purposes of his heart. Thus: sifted by speaker after speaker.

Announcing: to any who may be within hearing. That your words reveal the secrets of his heart, proves to him that your words come from God dwelling in you. And, that God is thus present in the hearts of men, fills him with awe of God, and moves him to worship. With such results of prophecy Paul's readers were probably familiar. Cp. Acts 2:37. And with this graphic description of the effects of prophecy even upon unbelievers, Paul concludes his proof of its superiority to the gift of tongues. Of this we have an illustration in Acts 2:13 and Acts 2:37. For the ARGUMENT of § 25 Paul prepares us by proving in 1 Corinthians

13. that we are truly great (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:5b) in proportion as love is the mainspring of our life. Now love ever prompts us to seek the good of others; and will, therefore, prompt us to seek the gift of prophecy, which enables us to instruct, exhort, and encourage others, rather than the gift of tongues which does good only to our selves. The uselessness to others of the mere gift of tongues, he proves and enforces by suggesting that he might himself speak thus to the Corinthians, and by referring to musical instruments used as signals and to men speaking a foreign and unknown language. Therefore, after placing before us the good of others as the object of all speaking in church, he urges that the gift of tongues be used in public only with a view to subsequent interpretation. This he supports by a fourth and a fifth argument, viz. that, apart from interpretation, to pray with a tongue puts into activity only a part of our immaterial nature, and that it makes intelligent joint worship impossible. Therefore, while admitting the real worth of tongues, Paul repeats in strong terms his preference for prophecy. The evident folly of preferring the gift of tongues calls forth a brotherly rebuke. And he reminds us that to speak with tongues in the midst of brethren is to play the part of the Assyrian soldiers through whom God declared His anger against ancient Judah. In contrast to the uselessness of an uninterpreted tongue, Paul depicts the value, even to heathens, of the gift of prophecy. In § 25 we learn, from Paul's frequent and emphatic repetition of the word edify, that the purpose of church meetings is not so much an approach of the individual to God as the spiritual progress of hearers by means of the voice of a speaker. Consequently, in the mode of our services we shall do well to consider the impression they will make upon the least gifted and upon unbelievers. We learn also that the various extraordinary powers with which the Spirit enriched the early church might be obtained by human effort; i.e. that they were given by the Spirit to those who diligently sought them. This is illustrated by Daniel studying the writings of Jeremiah. Cp. Daniel 9:2; Jeremiah 25:12. Therefore, among the various gifts of the Spirit men could choose which should be their chief aim. And it was important to know which gifts were the most worthy of their pursuit. Since in this choice only Christian love can guide aright, Paul interposes between 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 1 Corinthians 14:1 a proof of its supreme excellence, and points to it as the best way to a correct choice. This last lesson has, although these special gifts have passed away, an abiding and all-important bearing upon us. Now as then various powers may be obtained by human diligence; e.g. wealth, social influence, knowledge, eloquence, etc. Now as then we may choose whether we will pursue those powers which most benefit others or those which attract attention to ourselves. And the choice thus made is an almost infallible measure of spiritual stature. For both our aim and the strength of our preference and the intelligence of our selection will be determined by the degree of our Christian life, and by the brightness of that light which love sheds within and around its happy possessors.

Again, if Christian love animate us, we shall use in secret those gifts which, though useful to us, will not profit others by their public display. Otherwise we shall expose ourselves to arguments similar to those of 1 Corinthians 14:6-21. E.g., nothing is more helpful to the spiritual life than a knowledge of those languages in which God has been pleased, through the pen of the writers of the Bible, to speak to man. But we shall be kept back from parading such knowledge by remembering that to do so will make our hearers feel (1 Corinthians 14:11) like barbarians and that others (1 Corinthians 14:6) might treat us similarly. In our private communion with God we shall thankfully (1 Corinthians 14:18) use this precious gift that thus we may hear His voice as distinctly as possible. But to our brethren we shall speak in such words as they can best understand.

V. 26. What a thing is it, brethren-This was another disorder among them.

Every one hath a psalm-That is, at the same time one begins to sing a psalm; another to deliver a doctrine; another to speak in an unknown tongue; another to declare what has been revealed to him; another to interpret what the former is speaking; every one probably gathering a little company about him, just as they did in the schools of the philosophers. Let all be done to edification-So as to profit the hearers.

Verse 26. How is it-every one of you hath a psalm, &c.] Dr. Lightfoot understands this in the following manner: When the congregation came together, some were for spending the time in psalmody; others in explaining particular doctrines; others in reading, praying, or speaking in the Hebrew tongue; others were curious to hear of farther revelations; and others wished to spend the time in the interpretation of what had already been spoken. This may be specious, but to me it is not satisfactory. It seems more likely that, when the whole Church came together, among whom there were many persons with extraordinary gifts, each of them wished to put himself forward, and occupy the time and attention of the congregation: hence confusion must necessarily take place, and perhaps not a little contention. This was contrary to that edifying which was the intention of these gifts.

Verse 26. How is it then, (rather, what a thing is it,) brethren? — This was another disorder among them. When ye come together — For the purposes of social worship, in which all hearts should unite, each of you is desirous himself to officiate publicly in such a manner as best suits his present inclination, without any regard to decency and order: Every one of you hath a psalm, &c. — That is, at the same time, one begins to read or sing a psalm, another to inculcate a doctrine, another to speak in an unknown tongue, another to declare what had been revealed to him in explanation of some mystery, another to interpret what tie former had but just begun to speak: every one, probably, gathering a little company about him, just as they did in the schools of the philosophers. Dr. Macknight understands the passage in a somewhat different sense, paraphrasing it thus: “What is to be done, brethren, When ye are assembled, one of you, by inspiration, hath a psalm; another hath a discourse; another hath something made known to him in a foreign language; another, a revelation of some future event; another hath an interpretation of what was uttered in a foreign language. In such cases, let all these gifts be exercised to edification.” Grotius thinks the several clauses of this verse should be read interrogatively: Hath each of you a psalm? hath he a discourse? The inspired psalms of which the apostle speaks, were not metrical compositions, but compositions which were distinguished from prose by the sublimity of the sentiments, and the strength, beauty, and aptness of the expressions. Such was the inspired psalm which Mary, our Lord’s mother, uttered, Luke 1:46, and the inspired thanksgiving and prayer in which the disciples joined upon the deliverance of Peter and John from the council, recorded Acts 4:24-30. The word didach, rendered doctrine in our text, signifies not only the thing taught, but the discourse in which it is taught; and here, probably, a discourse for edification, exhortation, and consolation.

26. Every one—Rather, each one. Used not to indicate that all of them had an exercise to offer, but to signify that the gifts were distributed one to an individual, and not all to one or all to all. Hath a psalm—Some train of Christian thought expressed in rhythmical language, to be chanted or sung. Hath a doctrine… revelation—See note on verse 6. Edifying—St. Paul would again test the gift or the exercise by its results—does it profit, convert sinners, build up the Church?

I CORINTHIANS

SECTION 26 — THE EXERCISE OF GIFTS IS NO

EXCUSE FOR DISORDER CH. 14:26-40

What then is it, brothers? Whenever you are coming together each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If any one speaks with a tongue, let it be by two or at most three, and in turn; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in church. But to himself let him speak, and to God. Of prophets, let two or three speak; and let the others judge. But, if to another a revelation be given while sitting, let the first be silent. For you are able, one by one, all to prophesy, that all may learn and all may receive exhortation. And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For not a God of confusion is God, but of peace.

As in all the churches of the sayings, let the women be silent in the churches-for it is not permitted to them to speak-but let them be in subjection, according as also the Law says. And if they wish to learn something, at home let them ask their own husbands. For it is shameful to a woman to speak in church. Or, was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or, to you only did it reach?

If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or a spiritual man, let him recognize the things which I write unto you, that they are a command of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. So then, my brothers, be emulous to prophesy: and do not hinder speaking with tongues. But let all things be done becomingly, and according to order.

After asserting, and applying to the case of prophecy and the gift of tongues, the general principle that we should prefer, and in public use only, those gifts which are profitable to others, Paul gives now specific directions about the exercise of these gifts, and about another kindred matter. In view of the actual conduct of the Corinthians, he reasserts, in 1 Corinthians 14:26, the general principle; and applies it, in 1 Corinthians 14:27, 28, to the gift of tongues, and, in 1 Corinthians 14:29-33a, to prophecy. He then forbids (1 Corinthians 14:33b-36) women to speak in church. He concludes his specific directions by asserting in 1 Corinthians 14:37, 38 his apostolic authority; and in 1 Corinthians 14:39, 40 sums up 1 Corinthians 14. in two exhortations.

Ver. 26. What then is it? as in 1 Corinthians 14:15. “Admitting the foregoing, how do matters actually stand?”

Come-together: in an ordinary church gathering. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:23; 11:17, 18, 20.

Each-one: every church-member. Cp. “all … all” in 1 Corinthians 14:23f.

Psalm: a hymn which he has composed or learned and wishes to have sung in church. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:16; Ephesians 5:19. Teaching: as in 1 Corinthians 14:6: some truth acquired by ordinary means which he wishes to put before the assembly.

Revelation: 1 Corinthians 14:6; 2 Corinthians 12:1, 7: a truth unveiled to his mind by an extraordinary influence of the Spirit. A tongue: he comes into the assembly under an influence which prompts him to “speak with a tongue.”

An interpretation: 1 Corinthians 12:10, 30: he is ready to say in plain words what another has uttered with a tongue. Notice that the psalm and teaching are ordinary, the revelation, tongue, and interpretation, extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But the same principle applies to all. This description, perhaps specially (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:5) characteristic of Corinth, is a vivid picture of the free and spontaneous church life of the early Christians. The Holy Spirit given to all moved all to speak. Yet this new life must not be uncontrolled; but must be directed, according to § 25, with a view to the edification of the members of the church.

V. 27. By two or three at most-Let not above two or three speak at one meeting.

And that by course-That is, one after another.

And let one interpret-Either himself, 1 Corinthians 14:13; or, if he have not the gift, some other, into the vulgar tongue. It seems, the gift of tongues was an instantaneous knowledge of a tongue till then unknown, which he that received it could afterwards speak when he thought fit, without any new miracle.

Verse 27. Speak in an unknown tongue] The Hebrew, as has already been conjectured.

Let it be by two; or at the most by three, and that by course] Let only two or three in one assembly act in this way, that too much time may not be taken up with one exercise; and let this be done by course, the one after the other, that two may not be speaking at the same time: and let one interpret for all that shall thus speak.

Verses 27, 28. If any man speak — That is, be moved to speak; in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or, at the most, three — Let not above two or three speak at one meeting; and that by course — That is, one after another; and let one interpret — What is said, into the vulgar tongue. It seems, the gift of tongues was an instantaneous knowledge of a tongue, till then unknown, which he that received it could afterward speak when he thought fit, without any new miracle. But if there be no interpreter present, let him — The person speaking in a foreign language; be silent in the church — Where he can do no manner of service by uttering what none but himself can understand; and let him speak in that tongue to himself and to God — Make use of his gift in his own private devotions, if he find it profitable so to do. From its being here ordered that, if no interpreter were present, the person who spoke in a foreign language must be silent, Macknight infers that, even if the inspired person were able to interpret the foreign language in which a revelation was given to him, he was not permitted to do it; “because, to have delivered the revelation first in the foreign language, and then in a known tongue, would have been an ostentation of inspiration, of which the church would not approve; not to mention that it would have wasted much time to no purpose. Whereas, when one spake a revelation in a foreign language, and another interpreted what he spake, the church was edified, not only by the things spoken, thus made known to them, but also by having an undoubted proof of the inspiration of the person who spake, given them in the inspired interpretation of what he spake.’

27. By two… three—That is, let but two or three exercise the unknown tongue at a single meeting; and not even that unless one, either the speaker himself or another, interpret. By course—One at a time; neither two together, nor one eagerly interrupting the other.

Ver. 27.-28. Specific directions about speaking with a tongue. Two or at the most three: at one meeting. In turn, suggests that sometimes many together begin to speak.

One-man interpret: for all three. A new interpreter for each would cause greater confusion. Paul takes for granted that he who could interpret for one could do so for all. This suggests that the gift of interpretation was a real power, similar to that possessed by ordinary interpreters, of giving the sense of the not-understood but significant words of him who spoke with a tongue. Perhaps (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:5, 13) one of the speakers with a tongue might himself interpret. Paul does not mention the case (perhaps because unlikely) in which each who spoke with a tongue had also the gift of interpretation.

Be silent etc.: in agreement with 1 Corinthians 14:13, and with the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:26b. 1 Corinthians 14:28b is a positive injunction and a corrective to 1 Corinthians 14:28a. Even without interpretation, to speak with a tongue is profitable (1 Corinthians 14:4) to the speaker; and must therefore not be forbidden because there is no interpreter, but done in private.

V. 28. Let him speak-That tongue, if he find it profitable to himself in his private devotions.

Verse 28. But if there be no interpreter] If there be none present who can give the proper sense of this Hebrew reading and speaking, then let him keep silence, and not occupy the time of the Church, by speaking in a language which only himself can understand.

Verses 27, 28. If any man speak — That is, be moved to speak; in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or, at the most, three — Let not above two or three speak at one meeting; and that by course — That is, one after another; and let one interpret — What is said, into the vulgar tongue. It seems, the gift of tongues was an instantaneous knowledge of a tongue, till then unknown, which he that received it could afterward speak when he thought fit, without any new miracle. But if there be no interpreter present, let him — The person speaking in a foreign language; be silent in the church — Where he can do no manner of service by uttering what none but himself can understand; and let him speak in that tongue to himself and to God — Make use of his gift in his own private devotions, if he find it profitable so to do. From its being here ordered that, if no interpreter were present, the person who spoke in a foreign language must be silent, Macknight infers that, even if the inspired person were able to interpret the foreign language in which a revelation was given to him, he was not permitted to do it; “because, to have delivered the revelation first in the foreign language, and then in a known tongue, would have been an ostentation of inspiration, of which the church would not approve; not to mention that it would have wasted much time to no purpose. Whereas, when one spake a revelation in a foreign language, and another interpreted what he spake, the church was edified, not only by the things spoken, thus made known to them, but also by having an undoubted proof of the inspiration of the person who spake, given them in the inspired interpretation of what he spake.’

28. No interpreter—If there were no interpreter, neither the charismatic speaker himself, nor any other person, then the charismatic must keep silence. If the power of the Spirit was so great as not only to fill his human spirit and prompt vocal utterances, but without so pervading his understanding that he could interpret the words, it might nevertheless bring into communication with itself the understanding of some susceptible person present, so that he could interpret. The divine thought would then be given to the supernatural vocality, and both together would combine to fulfil the purpose of being a sign to them that believe not. It would then be felt by the consciences of men that the tongues were not only supernatural, but that they were holy and divine. Speak to himself—The divine thoughts wrought in the man’s spirit refused to be shaped into words of his own vernacular; and his only resources, if silenced, was to yield a mental utterance of the charismatic words to himself, and thus experience the blessed reaction described in our note on 1 Corinthians 5:2. To God— Since often the utterance would be prayer or praise.

Ver. 27.-28. Specific directions about speaking with a tongue. Two or at the most three: at one meeting. In turn, suggests that sometimes many together begin to speak.

One-man interpret: for all three. A new interpreter for each would cause greater confusion. Paul takes for granted that he who could interpret for one could do so for all. This suggests that the gift of interpretation was a real power, similar to that possessed by ordinary interpreters, of giving the sense of the not-understood but significant words of him who spoke with a tongue. Perhaps (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:5, 13) one of the speakers with a tongue might himself interpret. Paul does not mention the case (perhaps because unlikely) in which each who spoke with a tongue had also the gift of interpretation.

Be silent etc.: in agreement with 1 Corinthians 14:13, and with the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:26b. 1 Corinthians 14:28b is a positive injunction and a corrective to 1 Corinthians 14:28a. Even without interpretation, to speak with a tongue is profitable (1 Corinthians 14:4) to the speaker; and must therefore not be forbidden because there is no interpreter, but done in private.

V. 29. Let two or three of the prophets-Not more, at one meeting. Speak-One after another, expounding the scripture.

Verse 29. Let the prophets] Those who have the gift of speaking to men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort; 1 Corinthians 14:3. Two or three] As prophesying implied psalmody, teaching, and exhortation, Dr. Lightfoot thinks that the meaning of the place is this: Let one sing who has a psalm; let another teach who has a doctrine; and let a third exhort, or comfort, who has a gift of that kind.

And let the other judge.] The other prophets, or qualified persons, judge of the propriety of what had been spoken; or let them discern, diakrintwsan, how the revelation under the new covenant confirmed and illustrated the revelation granted under the Old Testament. It appears to have been taken for granted, that a man might pretend to this spirit of prophecy who was not sent of God; and therefore it was the duty of the accredited teachers to examine whether what he spoke was according to truth, and the analogy of faith. For the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; every man’s gift was to be judged of by those whose age, experience, and wisdom, gave them a right to decide. Besides, though the person who did speak might do it from an impulse of God, yet, if he was not sufficiently known, his testimony ought to be received with caution; and therefore the aged prophets should judge of his gift, lest false doctrines should slide into the Church.

But all these provisions, as Schoettgen justly observes, were in imitation of the practice in the Jewish synagogues; for there it was customary for them to object, interrogate, judge, refute, &c.

Verses 29-33. Let the prophets speak — In succession; two or three — And not more, at one meeting; and let the others judge — And compare one doctrine with another for the further improvement of all. Or, the sense may be, Let the others, who have the gift of discerning spirits, diakrinetwsan, discern whether they have spoken by inspiration or by private suggestion. If any thing be revealed to another — If to another, who sitteth by, hearing a prophet speak, any thing be revealed, let the first finish his discourse and be silent, before the other attempts to speak. For in this way ye may all prophesy — Who have that gift; one by one — That is, one after another; that all may learn — Both by speaking and by hearing; which you could not do if many were speaking at once. The apostle supposes here, that when a spiritual man was speaking in the church by inspiration, something relating to the same, or to a different subject, might be revealed to another prophet who was sitting by, hearing him. In such a case, the rule to be observed was, the first was to be silent, that is, was to finish what he had to say before the other began to speak, as is plain from the reason of the rule given in the next verse. For the spirits of the prophets — Or the spiritual gifts bestowed on them, as the word pneumata is rendered, verse 12, and ought certainly to have been rendered here; are subject to the prophets — the meaning of the apostle is, that the impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suited themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, as was the case with the heathen priests and priestesses under their diabolical possessions; whom evil spirits often threw into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like mad persons. “Few of them,” says Bishop Potter, (Antiq., 2:12,) “that pretended to inspiration, but raged after this manner, foaming and yelling, and making a strange, terrible noise, sometimes gnashing their teeth, shivering and trembling, with a thousand antic motions. In short these rapti and Deo pleni, (persons enrapt and full of the god,) were beside themselves, and absolutely mad during the time of their inspirations.” But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when and how long it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties, either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking. Let all enthusiasts consider this! For God is not the author of confusion — Greek, akatastasiav, of disorder and disturbance; but of peace — And regularity; as in all the churches of the saints — As is practised in all the churches elsewhere. “How often,” says Dr. A. Clarke, “is the work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves, as far as they can, in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion, it is almost impossible to prevent wild fire from getting in among true fire: but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.”

29. Two or three—At a single meeting, in order to secure variety. He does not add at the most, as in regard to tongues, because he would not make the limitation so positive.

Ver. 29.-30. In reference to the more valuable gift of prophecy, Paul does not add the strict limitation or “at most” three, as in 1 Corinthians 14:27.

Judge: cognate to “discernment of spirits” in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Same word in 1 Corinthians 11:29, 31. Cp. 1 John 4:1. It is quite uncertain whether the others were the other prophets, or other church-members. Power to judge was a gift quite different (1 Corinthians 12:10) from prophecy; and may or may not have been usually associated with it. These words suggest that, although as a special gift this power was possessed only by some prophets or church-members, yet in a lower degree it was possessed by all. In our ignorance of exact details in the early church we may suppose that the members generally and especially those endowed with the gift of discernment were unitedly guardians of the correctness of the utterances of each individual. That the writings of the New Testament were then only in process of composition, and that false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:13) already existed, made such guardianship very important.

Revelation: closely connected here as in 1 Corinthians 14:6 with prophecy.

While sitting; implies that while speaking they stood. It also implies a sudden impulse of the prophetic Spirit. To such impulse Paul bids that precedence be given.

Verse 30. Be revealed to another that sitteth by] Probably those who were teachers sat on a particular seat, or place, from which they might most readily address the people; and this may be the meaning of sitting by. If such a person could say, I have just received a particular revelation from God, then let him have the liberty immediately to speak it; as it might possibly relate to the circumstances of that time and place.

Verses 29-33. Let the prophets speak — In succession; two or three — And not more, at one meeting; and let the others judge — And compare one doctrine with another for the further improvement of all. Or, the sense may be, Let the others, who have the gift of discerning spirits, diakrinetwsan, discern whether they have spoken by inspiration or by private suggestion. If any thing be revealed to another — If to another, who sitteth by, hearing a prophet speak, any thing be revealed, let the first finish his discourse and be silent, before the other attempts to speak. For in this way ye may all prophesy — Who have that gift; one by one — That is, one after another; that all may learn — Both by speaking and by hearing; which you could not do if many were speaking at once. The apostle supposes here, that when a spiritual man was speaking in the church by inspiration, something relating to the same, or to a different subject, might be revealed to another prophet who was sitting by, hearing him. In such a case, the rule to be observed was, the first was to be silent, that is, was to finish what he had to say before the other began to speak, as is plain from the reason of the rule given in the next verse. For the spirits of the prophets — Or the spiritual gifts bestowed on them, as the word pneumata is rendered, verse 12, and ought certainly to have been rendered here; are subject to the prophets — the meaning of the apostle is, that the impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suited themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, as was the case with the heathen priests and priestesses under their diabolical possessions; whom evil spirits often threw into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like mad persons. “Few of them,” says Bishop Potter, (Antiq., 2:12,) “that pretended to inspiration, but raged after this manner, foaming and yelling, and making a strange, terrible noise, sometimes gnashing their teeth, shivering and trembling, with a thousand antic motions. In short these rapti and Deo pleni, (persons enrapt and full of the god,) were beside themselves, and absolutely mad during the time of their inspirations.” But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when and how long it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties, either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking. Let all enthusiasts consider this! For God is not the author of confusion — Greek, akatastasiav, of disorder and disturbance; but of peace — And regularity; as in all the churches of the saints — As is practised in all the churches elsewhere. “How often,” says Dr. A. Clarke, “is the work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves, as far as they can, in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion, it is almost impossible to prevent wild fire from getting in among true fire: but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.”

30. Revealed… sitteth by—If while one charismatic is speaking a special revelation is made to another, let the first stop and allow the latter to utter it, and not discourteously keep on talking and so create disorder. The reason why the first should promptly be silent is, that a revelation, just made, if genuine, is supposably not only more authoritative, but is given for immediate use, and should suspend, if not entirely supersede, the ordinary current of prophetic discourse.

Ver. 29.-30. In reference to the more valuable gift of prophecy, Paul does not add the strict limitation or “at most” three, as in 1 Corinthians 14:27.

Judge: cognate to “discernment of spirits” in 1 Corinthians 12:10. Same word in 1 Corinthians 11:29, 31. Cp. 1 John 4:1. It is quite uncertain whether the others were the other prophets, or other church-members. Power to judge was a gift quite different (1 Corinthians 12:10) from prophecy; and may or may not have been usually associated with it. These words suggest that, although as a special gift this power was possessed only by some prophets or church-members, yet in a lower degree it was possessed by all. In our ignorance of exact details in the early church we may suppose that the members generally and especially those endowed with the gift of discernment were unitedly guardians of the correctness of the utterances of each individual. That the writings of the New Testament were then only in process of composition, and that false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:13) already existed, made such guardianship very important.

Revelation: closely connected here as in 1 Corinthians 14:6 with prophecy.

While sitting; implies that while speaking they stood. It also implies a sudden impulse of the prophetic Spirit. To such impulse Paul bids that precedence be given.

V. 31. All-Who have that gift.

That all may learn-Both by speaking and by hearing.

Verse 31. For ye may all prophesy one by one] The gifts which God grants are given for the purpose of edification; but there can be no edification where there is confusion; therefore let them speak one by one.

Verses 29-33. Let the prophets speak — In succession; two or three — And not more, at one meeting; and let the others judge — And compare one doctrine with another for the further improvement of all. Or, the sense may be, Let the others, who have the gift of discerning spirits, diakrinetwsan, discern whether they have spoken by inspiration or by private suggestion. If any thing be revealed to another — If to another, who sitteth by, hearing a prophet speak, any thing be revealed, let the first finish his discourse and be silent, before the other attempts to speak. For in this way ye may all prophesy — Who have that gift; one by one — That is, one after another; that all may learn — Both by speaking and by hearing; which you could not do if many were speaking at once. The apostle supposes here, that when a spiritual man was speaking in the church by inspiration, something relating to the same, or to a different subject, might be revealed to another prophet who was sitting by, hearing him. In such a case, the rule to be observed was, the first was to be silent, that is, was to finish what he had to say before the other began to speak, as is plain from the reason of the rule given in the next verse. For the spirits of the prophets — Or the spiritual gifts bestowed on them, as the word pneumata is rendered, verse 12, and ought certainly to have been rendered here; are subject to the prophets — the meaning of the apostle is, that the impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suited themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, as was the case with the heathen priests and priestesses under their diabolical possessions; whom evil spirits often threw into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like mad persons. “Few of them,” says Bishop Potter, (Antiq., 2:12,) “that pretended to inspiration, but raged after this manner, foaming and yelling, and making a strange, terrible noise, sometimes gnashing their teeth, shivering and trembling, with a thousand antic motions. In short these rapti and Deo pleni, (persons enrapt and full of the god,) were beside themselves, and absolutely mad during the time of their inspirations.” But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when and how long it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties, either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking. Let all enthusiasts consider this! For God is not the author of confusion — Greek, akatastasiav, of disorder and disturbance; but of peace — And regularity; as in all the churches of the saints — As is practised in all the churches elsewhere. “How often,” says Dr. A. Clarke, “is the work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves, as far as they can, in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion, it is almost impossible to prevent wild fire from getting in among true fire: but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.”

Ver. 31. Ye may all prophesy one by one. All these sentences of Paul coincide very much with Malachi 3:16. “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.” The jews in their feasts, and in their gardens edified one another in this way of worship, and social intercourse. “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare unto you what he hath done for my soul.”

31. Ye may—Rather, ye are able. St. Paul has given the above directions for preserving order, for they thereby were able, if they took proper care, all to prophesy, who had the gift, not simultaneously, but one by one, and so all the congregation may, by hearing a variety of discourse, learn and be comforted, or instructed.

Ver. 31. Supports the last words of 1 Corinthians 14:30, by showing that they do not involve loss of what the interrupted one has to say. All to prophesy: not necessarily at the same meeting. Paul means probably that the prophetic impulse was in no case so strong as to prevent this orderly and consecutive prophesying. Consequently, there was nothing to prevent every prophet from speaking in his turn to the church. The first all is naturally limited to those who had the special gift without which none could prophesy. But no such limitation attaches to the second and third all. And the change from 2nd to 3rd person suggests a reference to all the church-members. While writing 1 Corinthians 14:29, 30, Paul thought only of prophets: but when coming to the beneficial purpose of prophecy he thinks naturally of the whole church.

May learn, receive exhortation; keeps before us the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:26b. These purposes of prophecy are mentioned because they are also motives for following Paul's direction. For certainly the consecutive preaching of all the prophets is most likely to edify all who hear.

V. 32. For the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets-But what enthusiast considers this? The impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suit themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, like the heathen priests under their diabolical possession. Evil spirits threw their prophets into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like madmen. But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when, and how long, it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking.

Verse 32. And the spirits of the prophets, &c.] Let no one interrupt another; and let all be ready to prefer others before themselves; and let each feel a spirit of subjection to his brethren. God grants no ungovernable gifts.

Verses 29-33. Let the prophets speak — In succession; two or three — And not more, at one meeting; and let the others judge — And compare one doctrine with another for the further improvement of all. Or, the sense may be, Let the others, who have the gift of discerning spirits, diakrinetwsan, discern whether they have spoken by inspiration or by private suggestion. If any thing be revealed to another — If to another, who sitteth by, hearing a prophet speak, any thing be revealed, let the first finish his discourse and be silent, before the other attempts to speak. For in this way ye may all prophesy — Who have that gift; one by one — That is, one after another; that all may learn — Both by speaking and by hearing; which you could not do if many were speaking at once. The apostle supposes here, that when a spiritual man was speaking in the church by inspiration, something relating to the same, or to a different subject, might be revealed to another prophet who was sitting by, hearing him. In such a case, the rule to be observed was, the first was to be silent, that is, was to finish what he had to say before the other began to speak, as is plain from the reason of the rule given in the next verse. For the spirits of the prophets — Or the spiritual gifts bestowed on them, as the word pneumata is rendered, verse 12, and ought certainly to have been rendered here; are subject to the prophets — the meaning of the apostle is, that the impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suited themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, as was the case with the heathen priests and priestesses under their diabolical possessions; whom evil spirits often threw into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like mad persons. “Few of them,” says Bishop Potter, (Antiq., 2:12,) “that pretended to inspiration, but raged after this manner, foaming and yelling, and making a strange, terrible noise, sometimes gnashing their teeth, shivering and trembling, with a thousand antic motions. In short these rapti and Deo pleni, (persons enrapt and full of the god,) were beside themselves, and absolutely mad during the time of their inspirations.” But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when and how long it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties, either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking. Let all enthusiasts consider this! For God is not the author of confusion — Greek, akatastasiav, of disorder and disturbance; but of peace — And regularity; as in all the churches of the saints — As is practised in all the churches elsewhere. “How often,” says Dr. A. Clarke, “is the work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves, as far as they can, in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion, it is almost impossible to prevent wild fire from getting in among true fire: but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.”

32. And—Additional to the above ability of self-control, is the fact that the human spirits of the inspired prophets are not, from their inspiration, irrepressible and disorderly, but are subject to the prophets, exercising their rational powers. This means, not that the divine Spirit should be overruled; but that the disorder of the human spirit, under divine influence, should be steadied and ruled by the rational faculty, in accord with the principles of order and becomingness. This is true of each individual prophet. It is possible to be true of the collective body. So that let no one claim that he is obliged by the powerful and uncontrollable impulses of the Spirit to overbear reason, order, or decency.

Ver. 32.-33a. To the particular assertion of 1 Corinthians 14:31, 1 Corinthians 14:32 adds a general principle on which it rests. Spirits of prophets: their own spirits, on which the Holy Spirit acts directly. Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:14, 15; and Revelation 22:6, “the God of the spirits of the prophets.” The prophet's spirit, which is the source of all his ordinary activity and the medium of the extraordinary activity of prophecy, is even while under the special influence of the Holy Spirit still under his own control. In other words, prophets were not so carried away by the supernatural influence under which they spoke as to be unable to control themselves, and thus unable to take their turn in orderly consecutive prophesying. Confusion is no attribute of God but its opposite, peace, is. Notice that peace, which is characteristic of whatever belongs to God, is secured by each man's self-control. Thus Paul completes his direction about the exercise of spiritual gifts by leading us, as usual, into the presence of God. Notice that 1 Corinthians 14:30-33a correspond with, and develop, “in turn,” 1 Corinthians 14:27. The greater importance of the gift of prophecy suggested this fuller treatment. It is an application of the general principle of 1 Corinthians 14:26b. 1 Corinthians 14:30-33a teach us not to yield blindly even to influences which we know to be divine; but, while obeying them, to use our own judgment about time and manner, ever having in view the spiritual benefit of others, for which the influence was sent. In other words a consciousness that we are moved by God to do His work is no excuse for a disorderly way of doing it, or for a disregard of the work others are doing. For God loves harmony. And this can be obtained only by the intelligent self-control of Christian co-workers.

Verse 33. For God is not the author of confusion] Let not the persons who act in the congregation in this disorderly manner, say, that they are under the influence of God; for he is not the author of confusion; but two, three, or more, praying or teaching in the same place, at the same time, is confusion; and God is not the author of such work; and let men beware how they attribute such disorder to the God of order and peace. The apostle calls such conduct akatastasia, tumult, sedition; and such it is in the sight of God, and in the sight of all good men. How often is a work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves as far as they can in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion it is almost impossible to prevent wild-fire from getting in amongst the true fire; but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.

Verses 29-33. Let the prophets speak — In succession; two or three — And not more, at one meeting; and let the others judge — And compare one doctrine with another for the further improvement of all. Or, the sense may be, Let the others, who have the gift of discerning spirits, diakrinetwsan, discern whether they have spoken by inspiration or by private suggestion. If any thing be revealed to another — If to another, who sitteth by, hearing a prophet speak, any thing be revealed, let the first finish his discourse and be silent, before the other attempts to speak. For in this way ye may all prophesy — Who have that gift; one by one — That is, one after another; that all may learn — Both by speaking and by hearing; which you could not do if many were speaking at once. The apostle supposes here, that when a spiritual man was speaking in the church by inspiration, something relating to the same, or to a different subject, might be revealed to another prophet who was sitting by, hearing him. In such a case, the rule to be observed was, the first was to be silent, that is, was to finish what he had to say before the other began to speak, as is plain from the reason of the rule given in the next verse. For the spirits of the prophets — Or the spiritual gifts bestowed on them, as the word pneumata is rendered, verse 12, and ought certainly to have been rendered here; are subject to the prophets — the meaning of the apostle is, that the impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suited themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, as was the case with the heathen priests and priestesses under their diabolical possessions; whom evil spirits often threw into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like mad persons. “Few of them,” says Bishop Potter, (Antiq., 2:12,) “that pretended to inspiration, but raged after this manner, foaming and yelling, and making a strange, terrible noise, sometimes gnashing their teeth, shivering and trembling, with a thousand antic motions. In short these rapti and Deo pleni, (persons enrapt and full of the god,) were beside themselves, and absolutely mad during the time of their inspirations.” But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when and how long it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties, either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking. Let all enthusiasts consider this! For God is not the author of confusion — Greek, akatastasiav, of disorder and disturbance; but of peace — And regularity; as in all the churches of the saints — As is practised in all the churches elsewhere. “How often,” says Dr. A. Clarke, “is the work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves, as far as they can, in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion, it is almost impossible to prevent wild fire from getting in among true fire: but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.”

33. And that such claims of being moved by the divine Spirit to disorder are false, is clear from this solemn fact, that God is not the author of confusion. The Greek word for confusion often signifies the political tumults of cities, and here indicates that there had been very decided disorders in Corinthian assemblies. As in all Churches—Here, as in 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul finishes by nailing fast his directions with the authority of the Churches of the then small Christendom. This precedent shows the incorrectness of later scholars, who, in opposition to all ancient authority, bring this clause to begin the following paragraph, making it read: “As in all the Churches of the saints let your women keep silence in the Churches.” The jingle of the double use of Churches, here, is offensive; which Dr. Hodge covers up, but does not remove, by illegitimately translating: “As is the case in all other Christian Churches, let your women keep silence in the public assemblies.” Some of the old commentators have thought necessary to insert “I teach” after as, but it is the authority of the Churches, not his own teaching in them, that Paul intends to adduce. No additional words are needed to be understood. The as, taking into its grasp verse 33, necessarily includes under one glance all the laws laid down by Paul for the Corinthian Church, under the great maxim that God is author of order alone, and places them under the sanction of the then Catholic Church. It unquestionably so lay in the apostle’s own mind.

d. This Church order must not be disturbed by the garrulity of their women, 34, 35.

“Paul,” says Calvin, (note 11:5,) “attends to one thing at a time.” Truly said; for as in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 he regulated the praying and prophesying of the gifted women, so here he prohibits the garrulity of the ungifted commonalty of the sex. It was not given to Orientalism, but to our Teutonic races, to assign to woman her higher place. The Indian brahmin, the Jewish rabbi, the Greek poet, and the Roman senator, alike spoke of her with contempt, and prescribed silence as her cardinal virtue. Their penalty was to lose the blessings that cultured womanhood does now, and can still more abundantly, confer upon man. St. Paul treats the sex with the severity accordant with its then character; but no vision is vouchsafed him of woman’s better future. The Spirit, however, in persistently bestowing upon woman the gift of prophecy, clearly indicated a gracious hope. Acts 2:18.

How the rabbins crushed woman with false exegeses of the Old Testament let the following quotation show, given by Wetstein from Kidduschim, folio 29, 2: “Whence is it proved to us that a mother may not be held to teach her own son? Because it is written in Deuteronomy 5:1, ‘Ye shall teach, and ye shall learn,’ the verbs being in the masculine. Whoever are commanded to learn are commanded to teach: whoever are not commanded to learn are not commanded to teach. That a woman is not commanded to teach herself, whence is it proved? From Deuteronomy 11:19, where it is said: ‘And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.’ Whence, also, is it proved that others should not teach a woman? Because it is said, Deuteronomy 11:19, ‘Ye shall teach them to your sons; it is not said, also your daughters.’ Megilla, fol. 23, 1. The wise men say: ‘Women should not read in the law for the sake of the honour of the synagogue.’ Bloomfield quotes Bammidhar rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, 4, “A certain matron asked Rabbi Eleazar, ‘Wherefore were the Israelites, who committed but one crime about the golden calf, punished with a threefold penalty?’ Rabbi responded: ‘Women ought to know nothing but the distaff,’ as in Proverbs 31:19. The same rabbi also spake thus: ‘May the words of the law rather be burned than placed in the hands of women!’” So the old Roman in Valerius Maximus, 3:8: “What has a woman to do with public haranguing? If our ancient customs prevail, nothing.” So the Greek Euripides: “For a woman silence, sobriety, and indoors, are a beauty.” Callistratus says, “The ornament of trees is foliage; of sheep, wool; of horses, the mane; of men, the beard; of women, silence.” A very extended anthology of such admonitions to women can be quoted from old eastern literature. The philosophy was the same as slavery taught in regard to negroes: keep them in ignorance and degradation, and then make that ignorance and degradation a ground of reproach, and a reason for still-continued ignorance and degradation.

The character of the women of Christian congregations in eastern Europe in the fourth century, under such a regimen, may be estimated by the following passages from Chrysostom: “Then, indeed, the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamour and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand that unless they are quiet they cannot learn any thing that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do them?” Of present eastern women Dr. Anderson, on Oriental Churches, gives (vol. ii, p. 277) the following specimen describing an American missionary lady’s meeting with seventy or eighty females: “The chapel was nearly full of women, all sitting on the floor, and each one crowding up to get as near her as possible. They were very much like a hive of bees. The slightest thing would set them all in commotion, and they resembled a town-meeting more than a religious gathering. When a child cried it would enlist the energies of half a dozen women, with voice and gesture, to quiet it. When some striking thought of some speaker flashed upon the mind of some woman, she would begin to explain it in no moderate tones to those about her, and this would set the whole off into a bedlam of talk, which it would require two or three minutes to quell.”

Of the Palestinian women of the present day Mr. Thomson says: “Oriental women are never regarded or treated as equals by the men. This is seen on all occasions; and it requires some firmness to secure to our own ladies proper respect, especially from menservants. They pronounce women to be weak and inferior in the most absolute terms, and in accordance with this idea is their deportment toward them. Even in polite company the gentlemen must be served first. So the husband and brothers sit down and eat, and the wife, mother, and sisters wait and take what is left. If the husband or the brothers accompany their female relatives anywhere, they walk before, and the women follow at a respectful distance. It is very common to see small boys lord it over both mother and sisters in a most insolent manner, and they are encouraged to do so by the father. The evils resulting from this are incalculable. The men, however, attempt to justify their treatment of the women by the tyrant’s plea of necessity. They are obliged to govern the wives with the utmost strictness, or they would not only ruin their husbands, but themselves also. Hence, they literally use the rod upon them, especially when they have, or imagine they have, cause to doubt the wife’s fidelity. Instances are not rare in which the husband kills the wife outright for this cause, and no legal notice is taken of the murder; and, in general, the man relies on fear to keep the wife in subjection, and to restrain her from vice. She is confined closely, watched with jealousy, and every thing valuable is kept under lock and key; necessarily so, they say, for the wife will not hesitate to rob her husband if she gets an opportunity. There are many pleasing exceptions, especially among the younger Christian families. But, on the whole, the cases are rare where the husband has not, at some time or other, resorted to the lash to enforce obedience in his rebellious household. Most sensible men readily admit that this whole system is a miserable compensation to mitigate evils flowing from the very great crime of neglecting the education of females; and, during the last few years, a change has taken place in public sentiment on this subject among the intelligent Christians in Lebanon and the cities along the coast, and a strong desire to educate the females is fast spreading among them.”—The Land and the Book, vol. i, p. 187.

What Teutonic Christianity will do for woman we do not predict. It will never cause her to cease to be woman; but as her sphere enlarges she may very possibly bring some things within the circle of gracefulness and modesty which were once rightly held a shame for women (verse 35) to attempt. Even now women in the Lyceum are able to address an admiring audience in full accordance with the sense of a most fastidious propriety. And no women in modern times present more perfectly the ideal of female modesty than the women of that sect which has always had its female preachers—the Friends.

Ver. 33b.-34. These go together. For, whereas 1 Corinthians 14:33b would add no force to the calm assertion of 1 Corinthians 14:33a, it introduces suitably, by making it valid for all churches everywhere, the strong and strongly confirmed injunction of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Similar references to other churches in 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 11:16.

Of the saints; reminds us that church-members stand in a special relation to God.

In the churches: general assemblies of men and women. Compare “over the man,” in the similar prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. Consequently, this verse is not inconsistent with 1 Corinthians 11:5 where women are tacitly permitted to “pray” and “prophesy;” but limits these exercises to more private meetings consisting chiefly or wholly of women. Notice the coincidence of 1 Corinthians 11:5. The women who were ready to speak in public would be also ready to lay aside their distinctive female head-dress.

It is not permitted etc.: supports the prohibition by an appeal to a general law of the church of Christ.

In subjection: Ephesians 5:22. The contrast implies that to speak in church is to throw off their subordination to the other sex. The Law says: probably Genesis 3:16. Paul supports his prohibition to speak in church by enjoining general subordination; and supports this by appealing to God's words to the first pair. Compare carefully 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

V. 34. Let your women be silent in the churches-Unless they are under an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit.

For, in other cases, it is not permitted them to speak-By way of teaching in public assemblies.

But to be in subjection-To the man whose proper office it is to lead and to instruct the congregation. Genesis 3:16.

Verse 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are these: לנשים wrsmy law hrwt yrbd wprvy yisrephu dibrey torah veal yimsaru lenashim, “Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the Spirit of God was to be poured out on the women as well as the men, that they might prophesy, i.e. teach. And that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11:5, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church.

But does not what the apostle says here contradict that statement, and show that the words in chap. 11 should be understood in another sense? For, here it is expressly said that they should keep silence in the church; for it was not permitted to a woman to speak. Both places seem perfectly consistent. It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, &c., in the synagogue; but this liberty was not allowed to any woman. St. Paul confirms this in reference also to the Christian Church; he orders them to keep silence; and, if they wished to learn any thing, let them inquire of their husbands at home; because it was perfectly indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies, on points of doctrine, cases of conscience, &c. But this by no means intimated that when a woman received any particular influence from God to enable her to teach, that she was not to obey that influence; on the contrary, she was to obey it, and the apostle lays down directions in chap. 11 for regulating her personal appearance when thus employed. All that the apostle opposes here is their questioning, finding fault, disputing, &c., in the Christian Church, as the Jewish men were permitted to do in their synagogues; together with the attempts to usurp any authority over the man, by setting up their judgment in opposition to them; for the apostle has in view, especially, acts of disobedience, arrogance, &c., of which no woman would be guilty who was under the influence of the Spirit of God. But-to be under obedience, as also saith the law.] This is a reference to Genesis 3:16: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view; and not any of those on whom God had poured out his Spirit.

Verses 34, 35. Let your women, &c. — The last clause of the preceding verse is by some critics, and among the rest Bishop Pearce, joined with this, so as to make this sense; as in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches, namely, of Achaia. According to this reading, by the churches of the saints, are meant the churches of Judea, in which the public worship and discipline was most perfect, because they had been planted and regulated by the apostles. The sense of this clause, let your women keep silence, &c, evidently is, that they were to be silent unless they had an extraordinary revelation to communicate, made to them by the Holy Spirit; to which revelations, chiefly predicting future events, what is said of their prophesying with their heads uncovered, (1 Corinthians 11:5,) evidently refers; and therefore implies no contradiction to what is here enjoined. For — In other cases, when no particular revelation is made to them; it is not permitted unto them to speak — By way of teaching in public assemblies; but to be under obedience — Greek, upotassesqai, to be under subjection to the superior authority of the man, whose proper office it is to lead and to instruct the congregation. As also saith the law — In recording that early sentence on Eve and her daughters for the first transgression, Genesis 3:16, To him shall be thy desire subjected, and he shall rule over thee. And if they desire to learn any thing — Still they are not to speak in public, but to ask their husbands at home — That is the place, and these the persons to inquire of. See note on 1 Timothy 2:11-14. For it is a shame — Aiscron, indecent; for a woman to speak in the church — In an assembly of people, being inconsistent with that modesty, which is the woman’s greatest ornament.

Ver. 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches. This is an injunction of the synagogue, as in Maimonides, prohibiting whispering in the time of worship. Our very learned Joseph Mede, in a sermon on prophesying, proves beyond a doubt, that St. Paul does not refer to the higher acts of prophesying by immediate inspiration, nor to the expounding of prophecy to the edification of the church. There is no reason to suppose that the women expounded the holy scriptures in the presence of so many prophets and evangelical men as were then in Corinth; he therefore refers it to the third class of prophesying, or singing the praises of God, as Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun are said to do. 1 Chronicles 25:1-3. Mede supposes that those singing women unveiled themselves, as the priestesses of idol temples, but by no means to similar indecency as the sibyls and pythonesses.

In this text there is an additional thought concerning the women asking their husbands at home. This was to avoid whispering, and asking questions during the time of worship, but cannot refer to preaching and praying, because that was edifying others, not making enquiries for their own gratification.

34. Your women—If we suppose the mind’s eye of the apostle to be “isolated” upon such a set of women as Chrysostom, Dr. Anderson, and Thomson describe, we should utter a hearty amen to his keep silence! That he does not expressly except cases like Phoebe, whom he commended to a whole Church, or the daughters of Philip, is explicable on the ground that such a class have already been provided for in chapter 11. The New Testament contains no case of public preaching more unequivocal, and scarce any more successful, than that of the woman of Samaria to her townsmen. Not permitted—Either by custom, propriety, or divine law. Speak—The verb lalein, the root of which is lal, lal, is a word like prattle, chatter, and jabber, formed from imitation of senseless or childish utterances. In the classic Greek it usually retains that import, but in New Testament Greek it signifies, as here, to talk or discourse in any mode, usually with the idea of continuance. No argument can be drawn from the word in regard to the nature of the utterances which St. Paul forbids. Under obedience—Under control both of the proper decorum of the meeting and of the regulative authority of the other sex. Saith the law— ”Thy desire [or request] shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Genesis 3:16. See note, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. The law is permanent, but the application of the law may vary from age to age. When obedience to, or concurrence with, the will of the other sex requires a lady of talent to lecture before an audience or preach before a congregation, it may be as proper as it was for Miriam, in obedience to Moses, to prophesy upon the timbrel before the camp of Israel.

Ver. 33b.-34. These go together. For, whereas 1 Corinthians 14:33b would add no force to the calm assertion of 1 Corinthians 14:33a, it introduces suitably, by making it valid for all churches everywhere, the strong and strongly confirmed injunction of 1 Corinthians 14:34. Similar references to other churches in 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 11:16.

Of the saints; reminds us that church-members stand in a special relation to God.

In the churches: general assemblies of men and women. Compare “over the man,” in the similar prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. Consequently, this verse is not inconsistent with 1 Corinthians 11:5 where women are tacitly permitted to “pray” and “prophesy;” but limits these exercises to more private meetings consisting chiefly or wholly of women. Notice the coincidence of 1 Corinthians 11:5. The women who were ready to speak in public would be also ready to lay aside their distinctive female head-dress.

It is not permitted etc.: supports the prohibition by an appeal to a general law of the church of Christ.

In subjection: Ephesians 5:22. The contrast implies that to speak in church is to throw off their subordination to the other sex. The Law says: probably Genesis 3:16. Paul supports his prohibition to speak in church by enjoining general subordination; and supports this by appealing to God's words to the first pair. Compare carefully 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

V. 35. And even if they desire to learn anything-Still they are not to speak in public, but to

ask their own husbands at home-That is the place, and those the persons to inquire of.

Verse 35. For it is a shame for women to speak in the church.] The Jews would not suffer a woman to read in the synagogue; though a servant or even a child, had this permission; but the apostle refers to irregular conduct, such conduct as proved that they were not under obedience, 1 Corinthians 14:34.

Verses 34, 35. Let your women, &c. — The last clause of the preceding verse is by some critics, and among the rest Bishop Pearce, joined with this, so as to make this sense; as in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches, namely, of Achaia. According to this reading, by the churches of the saints, are meant the churches of Judea, in which the public worship and discipline was most perfect, because they had been planted and regulated by the apostles. The sense of this clause, let your women keep silence, &c, evidently is, that they were to be silent unless they had an extraordinary revelation to communicate, made to them by the Holy Spirit; to which revelations, chiefly predicting future events, what is said of their prophesying with their heads uncovered, (1 Corinthians 11:5,) evidently refers; and therefore implies no contradiction to what is here enjoined. For — In other cases, when no particular revelation is made to them; it is not permitted unto them to speak — By way of teaching in public assemblies; but to be under obedience — Greek, upotassesqai, to be under subjection to the superior authority of the man, whose proper office it is to lead and to instruct the congregation. As also saith the law — In recording that early sentence on Eve and her daughters for the first transgression, Genesis 3:16, To him shall be thy desire subjected, and he shall rule over thee. And if they desire to learn any thing — Still they are not to speak in public, but to ask their husbands at home — That is the place, and these the persons to inquire of. See note on 1 Timothy 2:11-14. For it is a shame — Aiscron, indecent; for a woman to speak in the church — In an assembly of people, being inconsistent with that modesty, which is the woman’s greatest ornament.

Ver. 35. It is a shame for women to speak in the church. The rabbins treated the women with rigour, but the spirit of prophecy spake in milder words. Joel 2:29. Women held stations in the church, as deaconesses, and catechists to their own sex. They also prophesied, as Philip’s four daughters did, in minor assemblies.

35. Ask their husbands—With whom, according to the Jewish custom, all the education was. According to Schoettgen, women were allowed in the rabbinical schools; but only to hear, and never to speak, or ask a question. Shame—Contrary to the existing views of propriety. Just as in 1 Corinthians 11:14, (where see note,) it is a shame for a man to wear long hair. When women are so cultured that it is not a shame, but a beauty, for a woman to speak, then the prohibition ceases because the reason for it ceases, just as the prohibition of long hair to a man ceases. e. A silencer upon all rebellion against the apostolic directions in these three chapters, 36-40.

Ver. 35. A possible excuse for speaking in church.

At home: emphatic. It is not wrong to wish to ask: but they must ask in the right place, and so as not to set aside the authority of the man to whom they are socially subject. The husband might, if needful, put his wife's question to the church. Even the wives of heathen husbands could, through female friends, obtain information in the same way.

For it is shameful etc.: parallel to “for it is not permitted” in 1 Corinthians 14:34. These two general principles, of which the latter is a development of the former, make us feel the importance of the injunctions which they severally support.

Shameful: see under 1 Corinthians 11:5. A woman's position of subordination is her place of honor. To desert it is therefore a disgrace. This was probably a rebuke to some who gloried in their public speaking.

V. 36. Are ye of Corinth either the first or the only Christians? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches.

Verse 36. Came the word of God out from you?] Was it from you that other Churches received the Gospel? Are you the mother Church? that you should have rules, and orders, and customs, different from all others; and set yourselves up for a model to be copied by all the Churches of Christ? Or came it unto you only?] Are you the only Church of God? Are there not many others founded before you that have no such customs, and permit no such disorders?

Verses 36-38. What! came the word of God out from you? — Are ye of Corinth, the first church in the world, by whose example all others should be modelled? Or came it unto you only? — Are you the only Christian society that has received the true gospel? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches. These questions the apostle asks, to cut off every pretence for women’s teaching in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual — Endowed with any extraordinary gift of the Spirit; let him acknowledge, &c. — Let him prove that he is indeed under the influence of the Divine Spirit, by his submission and obedience to these determinations, and confess that the things that I now write unto you are the commandments of the Lord — Dictated by inspiration from him. But if any man be ignorant — Or affect to appear uncertain about the truth of what I write; let him be ignorant — Let him remain so, and abide the consequences of his ignorance, whether real or affected.

36. What—The abrupt exclamation seems to aim at some surprising revolt heard of by Paul, as coming from some rebellious Corinthians against his authoritative regulations. From you… or… unto you—Did you originate Christianity, or are you only its receivers from Jerusalem, from the universal Churches and from your founder-apostle?

Ver. 36. Other appeals, giving additional weight to the prohibitions. By permitting (as 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 imply) women to speak, the church of Corinth was setting aside the practice of the other churches; and was thus acting as though it were the mother church of Christendom, or the only people whom had been preached the Gospel which went forth from Jerusalem.

Went-forth: cp. 1 Thessalonians 1:8.

V. 37. Or spiritual-Endowed with any extraordinary gift of the Spirit. Let him-Prove it, by acknowledging that I now write by the Spirit.

Verse 37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, &c.] He who is really a spiritual man, under the influence of the Spirit of God, and capable of teaching the Divine will, he will acknowledge that what I now say is from the same Spirit; and that the things which I now write are the commandments of God, and must be obeyed on pain of his displeasure.

Verses 36-38. What! came the word of God out from you? — Are ye of Corinth, the first church in the world, by whose example all others should be modelled? Or came it unto you only? — Are you the only Christian society that has received the true gospel? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches. These questions the apostle asks, to cut off every pretence for women’s teaching in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual — Endowed with any extraordinary gift of the Spirit; let him acknowledge, &c. — Let him prove that he is indeed under the influence of the Divine Spirit, by his submission and obedience to these determinations, and confess that the things that I now write unto you are the commandments of the Lord — Dictated by inspiration from him. But if any man be ignorant — Or affect to appear uncertain about the truth of what I write; let him be ignorant — Let him remain so, and abide the consequences of his ignorance, whether real or affected.

Ver. 37. Let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. St. Paul claims here, as in other places, a deference to his doctrine as a divine revelation. And he knew the difference between the thoughts of his own heart, and the dictates of the Holy Ghost.

37. A prophet, or spiritual—Endowed in either case with inspiration. Let him acknowledge—As he can if his inspiration is true. That I write—In this whole section of three chapters, in which spiritual gifts according to Church order are discussed. The commandments of the Lord—Delivered not to you in his own person, but through his commissioned and inspired apostle. This is a very peremptory claim to divine inspiration. This passage confirms our view, that the canon is sustained by the double authority of the inspired apostle and the charismatic Church. See note, 1 Corinthians 4:21.

Ver. 37.-38. Prophet or spiritual-man; shows that Paul no longer refers exclusively to the women of 1 Corinthians 14:34ff. He now sets the seal of apostolic authority to DIV. VI., and specially to the injunctions of § 26.

Spiritual-man: wider term than prophet, denoting any one under a special influence of the Spirit. Paul's confidence that in writing these words he is guided by the Spirit, answers him that all others moved by the same Spirit will acknowledge the binding authority of his words.

A command of the Lord: of Christ. Thus Paul claims for his own written words absolute and divine authority over the practice of his readers. Equal authority, in doctrine, he has already, in Romans 3:19, conceded to the writers of the Old Testament. Their words, he calls “the Law;” his own, a command of the Lord. The man who does not acknowledge Paul's authority, 1 Corinthians 14:38 marks as incurably ignorant. And incurable ignorance is always culpable. On the Revisers' marginal reading, see Appendix B. Notice that, though 1 Corinthians 14:37, 38 do not refer specially to 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, yet, that Paul asserts his apostolic authority immediately after this express and emphatic prohibition, greatly increases the force of the prohibition.

V. 38. Let him be ignorant-Be it at his own peril.

Verse 38. But if any man be ignorant] If he affect to be so, or pretend that he is ignorant; let him be ignorant-let him be so at his peril.

Verses 36-38. What! came the word of God out from you? — Are ye of Corinth, the first church in the world, by whose example all others should be modelled? Or came it unto you only? — Are you the only Christian society that has received the true gospel? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches. These questions the apostle asks, to cut off every pretence for women’s teaching in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual — Endowed with any extraordinary gift of the Spirit; let him acknowledge, &c. — Let him prove that he is indeed under the influence of the Divine Spirit, by his submission and obedience to these determinations, and confess that the things that I now write unto you are the commandments of the Lord — Dictated by inspiration from him. But if any man be ignorant — Or affect to appear uncertain about the truth of what I write; let him be ignorant — Let him remain so, and abide the consequences of his ignorance, whether real or affected.

38. If—A second if antithetic to the first if of verse 37. If any man be spiritual, let him acknowledge my words; if, on the other hand, he be not spiritual, but so refractory as to ignore what I say, let him be left to his ignoring as incorrigible and unworthy further labour. Here the ignorance is held to lie in the will, and is, therefore, impervious to argument. Another, but not well-authorized reading would be, let him be ignored.

Ver. 37.-38. Prophet or spiritual-man; shows that Paul no longer refers exclusively to the women of 1 Corinthians 14:34ff. He now sets the seal of apostolic authority to DIV. VI., and specially to the injunctions of § 26.

Spiritual-man: wider term than prophet, denoting any one under a special influence of the Spirit. Paul's confidence that in writing these words he is guided by the Spirit, answers him that all others moved by the same Spirit will acknowledge the binding authority of his words.

A command of the Lord: of Christ. Thus Paul claims for his own written words absolute and divine authority over the practice of his readers. Equal authority, in doctrine, he has already, in Romans 3:19, conceded to the writers of the Old Testament. Their words, he calls “the Law;” his own, a command of the Lord. The man who does not acknowledge Paul's authority, 1 Corinthians 14:38 marks as incurably ignorant. And incurable ignorance is always culpable. On the Revisers' marginal reading, see Appendix B. Notice that, though 1 Corinthians 14:37, 38 do not refer specially to 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, yet, that Paul asserts his apostolic authority immediately after this express and emphatic prohibition, greatly increases the force of the prohibition.

V. 39. Therefore-To sum up the whole.

Verse 39. Covet to prophesy] Let it be your endeavour and prayer to be able to teach the way of God to the ignorant; this is the most valuable, because the most useful gift of the Spirit.

And forbid not to speak with tongues.] Let every gift have its own place and operation; let none envy another; nor prevent him from doing that part of the work to which God, by giving the qualification, has evidently called him.

Verses 39, 40. Wherefore, brethren — To conclude this long discourse, and sum up the whole in a few words; covet to prophesy — To discourse about divine things in a way that will edify others; and yet forbid not — Those who are willing to do it under such regulations as have now been advanced; to speak with tongues — For it is a noble endowment, which I would encourage none to slight or neglect: only take care that all things — In your religious assemblies; be done decently and in order — Let all be conducted in a regular manner, to prevent such disturbances, disputes, and scandals for the future, as in time past have had place among you, and would proceed to greater evils if not immediately reformed. The precept given by the apostle in this verse, “is sometimes applied to support the use of rites and ceremonies in the worship of God, not commanded in Scripture. But any one who considers the place which it holds in this discourse, will be sensible that it hath no relation to rites and ceremonies, but to the decent and orderly exercise of the spiritual gifts. Yet by parity of reason, it may be extended even to the rites of worship, provided they are left free to be used by every one, as he sees them expedient.” — Macknight.

Ver. 39. Covet then to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. This fully shows how Paul would have the junior ministers at Corinth cultivate the study of the holy scriptures, and to speak with grammatical accuracy and fluency the various languages that were current in the city. They required all the powers of eloquence in addressing the church, and the men of different nations who resorted to their ministry. People will not long sit under a preacher, unless they can look up to him with confidence and delight.

39. Wherefore—The net conclusion of the entire section. Covet… forbid not—The settled rank of these two gifts; one to be a chief aim, the other to be regulated and allowed.

Ver. 39.-40. Summary of 1 Corinthians 14.

Be emulous; takes up 1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1, and marks the completion of the subject there introduced.

To prophesy; for reasons given in 1 Corinthians 14:3-5, 24f. Do not hinder etc.; repeats 1 Corinthians 14:5. The contrast of be emulous and do not hinder reasserts the preference for prophecy which in § 25 Paul justified.

Becomingly: in contrast to “they will say, You are mad,” in 1 Corinthians 14:23.

According to order: in an orderly manner, as enjoined in 1 Corinthians 14:26ff; and in obedience to the authority claimed in 1 Corinthians 14:37.

It may be questioned whether Paul's absolute prohibition to women to speak in a church-meeting is binding now. It may be said that it was based on a position of woman in the ancient world which has passed away; and that the commands of the apostle, binding upon his original readers, are binding now only so far as the original circumstances remain or as the commands are expressions of great universal principles. But the solemn emphasis and the assertion of apostolic authority, (so unusual to Paul,) and the appeal to the parents of our race with which in two epistles the same prohibition sets forth a principle of universal and perpetual validity, and one resting upon the unchanging relation of the sexes. But this prohibition in no way touches the ministrations of women to women: and the gift in Paul's day of the prophetic spirit to women proved plainly that there was evangelical work for them to do. And there is abundance of such work now.

PROPHETS were men who spoke in ordinary language, under a special influence of the Spirit of God; and who were thus a mouthpiece of God to men.

For the Old Testament, see Numbers 11:24-29; 1 Samuel 10:5-13; 18:10; 19:20-24; Joel 2:28; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Jeremiah 1:4-2:2; Ezekiel 2:1-3:1; Acts 28:25; Hebrews 1:1. The prophet's words, as being a voice of God, were matter (1 Peter 1:11) for his own study. In Exodus 7:1f, Aaron was to be the mouthpiece, but Moses the real speaker. We read (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:20) of false prophets speaking in God's Name; and (1 Kings 18:19, 40) of prophets speaking in the name of false gods.

Similarly, in classic Greek, the prophet was an interpreter of the oracular voices of the gods.

In the New Testament, the Baptist, as being a “voice” of God is in Luke 1:76; 7:26 called a prophet. So also the Incarnate Word in Luke 4:24; 24:19. In the apostolic church, prophecy was (1 Corinthians 12:10f) on a special gift of the Spirit, which placed its possessors in the second rank (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11) of the servants of Christ. It was practically the same as “revelation.” Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:6, 30. Ephesians 3:5. This latter word directs our attention to the inward “unveiling,” by the Spirit, of truths before unknown: prophecy is the “speaking forth” to others the revealed truths. The Book of Revelation is called in Revelation 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18f a prophecy. It was needful for others to judge (1 Corinthians 14:29: cp. 1 John 4:1) whether the impulse under which professed prophets spoke was really divine. To what extent the impulse saved the speaker from error, and thus gave to his words authority, we cannot now determine. The New Testament prophets seem (1 Corinthians 14:24, 26, 29) to have been numerous. They are not mentioned (e.g. Philippians 1:2; 1 Timothy 3, Tit. 1.) as a regularly constituted order of church officers; but were probably an extraordinary class of men specially endowed by God for the good of the churches they belonged to or might visit. Their words were designed (1 Corinthians 14:3, 31) to teach and encourage believers, and (1 Corinthians 14:24f) to lead sinners to repentance. Some women prophesied: Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5. Cp. Luke 2:36; Judges 4:4. Since both Old and New Covenants ever point to the future, the prophets frequently spoke, especially in the old preparatory Covenant, of things to come. Of this in the New Testament Agabus (Acts 11:27f, 21:10f) is a good example. But foretelling is not implied in the meaning of the word. The Cretan poet Epimenides, as a teacher of truth, is called in Titus 1:12 a prophet. By Plato (Laws p. 642d) he is called “a divine man,” and is said to have foretold the invasion by, and defeat of, the Persians. To SPEAK WITH TONGUES was, like Prophecy, a special and

extraordinary gift of the Spirit. It is mentioned by Paul only in 1 Corinthians 12.-14.; elsewhere in the New Testament only Acts 2:4-13; 10:46, (cp. 1 Corinthians 11:15ff; 15:8,) 19:6; Mark 16:17. That it was not a miraculous faculty of speaking one or more foreign languages, is made absolutely certain by Paul's taking for granted, (1 Corinthians 14:2-5, 13, 19, 28,) when comparing the gifts of prophecy and of tongues from the point of view of their practical utility, that apart from interpretation the gift of tongues is of no use whatever to any but the speaker: whereas ability to speak in a foreign language would be an invaluable means of spreading the Gospel. Nor was it a miraculous utterance, in moments of special inspiration, of prayer or praise in a human language unknown to the speaker. Else Paul could not have left completely out of sight the possibility of the presence, especially at Corinth where many nationalities met, of some one who understood the foreign language. Words spoken “with a tongue” were evidently intelligible to others only when interpreted.

Yet the exercise of this gift was (1 Corinthians 14:4) profitable to the speaker. The possession of it by Paul himself in large measure calls forth (1 Corinthians 14:18) his gratitude to God. And even while forbidding the public use of it when no interpreter is present he urges (1 Corinthians 14:28) that it be used in private. Probably its usual form was (1 Corinthians 14:2, 14ff: Acts 2:11; 10:46) prayer or praise. Although the words spoken with a tongue were (unless interpreted with the aid of another gift) altogether unintelligible, they nevertheless had a meaning for they were capable of interpretation. That the mind (1 Corinthians 14:14) had no part in the utterance, and that the speaker was sometimes unable (1 Corinthians 14:13, 28) to interpret to others his own words implies that, unless he had also the gift of interpretation, he did not himself understand them.

Of all this the simplest explanation is that in the apostolic church there were men on whose “tongue” the Holy Spirit exerted a direct influence, moving it to speak words which were neither prompted nor understood by the speaker's own mind; and that, like (Romans 8:15, 26) the Spirit-prompted words were chiefly or wholly directed to God in prayer or praise. Such speaking might be called “with a tongue:” for only the tongue was at work, without conscious mental effort. But, since none but living tongues could thus speak, the man's own spirit, i.e. the principle of life within him, was an essential factor of the speaking: and Paul could say (1 Corinthians 14:14) correctly, “my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” Moreover, the speaker “with a tongue” would (1 Corinthians 14:2) “speak mysteries.” For his words contained the deep things of God, and truths known only by special revelation. Such speaking, though not penetrating the speaker's whole being and his consciousness, could not but be profitable, in a manner to us incomprehensible. For it came from the Spirit of God acting on man's spirit. And probably the spirit, as distinguished from the mind, is not only physiologically but morally that part of man which is nearest to the Great Source of animal and spiritual life. If interpreted, the words would give profit to others. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14:27 imply that men under this influence of the Spirit could so restrain themselves as to speak in turn, or be silent till they were alone with God. And we can also conceive different modes of speaking, under the influence of the Spirit: hence one person might have (1 Corinthians 12:10) “kinds of tongues;” and (1 Corinthians 14:5f) speak “with tongues.”

To “speak with a tongue,” implies articulate utterance. But we have no means of knowing the relation, if such existed, of the words thus spoken to the speaker's mother tongue or to other languages known or unknown to him. No safe inference can be drawn from 1 Corinthians 13:1, which is given merely as the highest conceivable grade of the gift. With the foregoing, Acts 10:46; 19:6 agree exactly. We have the same phrase, “speak with tongues,” denoting again a manifestation of the Spirit, in the form of praise to God, and associated with prophecy. Cp. Mark 16:17; where “new” is probably spurious, and Mark 16:9-20 very doubtful.

With the same agrees Acts 2:4-13 in that the Spirit (Acts 2:4) gave the utterance, in (Acts 2:11) the form of praise to God. But in Acts 2:6, 8, 11 we are told explicitly that the assembled disciples spoke in foreign languages, recognized as such by natives who were present. Consequently, the gift of tongues at Pentecost was, according to Acts 2:4-13, different from that about which Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Yet, in Acts 11:15ff, the gift mentioned in Acts 10:46 in words the same as those in this chapter is said to have been “the equal gift … as on us at the beginning.” Now, so clear are the proofs that the gift at Corinth was not a speaking in foreign languages, that the very able and godly scholars, Neander and Meyer, with others, have supposed that the tongues at Pentecost were really the same as at Corinth, but that in the confusion of the hour they were mistaken for foreign languages by those who heard but did not understand them, and that in this form the tradition had reached Luke and had been recorded in the Book of Acts. But Luke claims (Luke 1:3) to have carefully investigated the facts he narrates: and he was (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24; see Dissertation II.) a “beloved” companion and fellow-worker of Paul, who was himself a colleague of the chief actors at Pentecost. Surely it is inconceivable that Luke would fall into so great an error about so conspicuous and well-known an event, during the lifetime of the chief actors in it. On the mere ground then of simple historic evidence, without reference to the authority of Scripture, (which is, however, seriously involved,) we are compelled to accept the narrative of Acts 2:1-13 as correct. Much easier is the supposition that the “tongues” at Pentecost were a higher grade, perhaps never repeated, of the gift spoken of by Paul. Not that the power to communicate thought in foreign languages was given. But God thought fit that His Spirit, the one source of human life and thought and speech, should inaugurate the Gospel dispensation by pouring through the lips of men words in human languages before unknown to them. This highest form of the gift was limited to the founding of the church. A lower form of the same lingered probably during the lifetime of those who witnessed its founding.

The similarity of phrase suggests that the “tongues” of Acts 10:46; 19:6 were the same as in 1 Corinthians 14, and different from those of Acts 2:4-13. But in each case the significance of the gift was the same, viz. a proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit to be henceforth, in those who receive Him, the animating principle of a new life, a witness of reception into the family of God, and an earnest of an eternal inheritance. This Spirit, not the transient form of His manifestation was “the equal gift” (Acts 11:17) alike to Jews and Gentiles. Consequently, without thought of the unimportant difference of mode, Peter could correctly say in 1 Corinthians 14:15: “The Holy Spirit fell upon them, as also upon us at the beginning.” Cp. Ephesians 1:13f.

DIVISION VI. gives us the noblest ideal of a Christian church, viz. a human body, 1 Corinthians 12; the one great principle which ought to animate all church life, viz. love, 1 Corinthians 13; and a valuable glimpse (in addition to those in 1 Corinthians 11) into the actual meetings of the apostolic church, 1 Corinthians 14.

In accordance with the liberty which permitted each member to take for himself (1 Corinthians 11:21) the sacred bread and wine, we find each member ready to speak in public, and many moved by the Spirit to speak, and permitted to do in an orderly way. Even women, probably after laying aside (1 Corinthians 11:5) their distinctive head-dress, were eager to address a promiscuous assembly. And we find traces of an empty and useless parade of influences flowing from the Spirit of God. All this agrees with the spiritual childishness of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. Very remarkable, amid this confusion, is the absence of all reference, especially in 1 Corinthians 5, 11, 14, to church officers. These doubtless existed: cp. Acts 14:23; 20:17; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1, 12 &c. They are unmentioned perhaps because in a church consisting only of new converts, they were probably in knowledge or experience little above the rest; and therefore not conspicuous. The absence of all reference to them, and the complete contrast of the church life depicted here and that depicted in the earliest sub-apostolic writings and even in the later epistles in Paul, are indisputable marks of the very early date, and therefore of the genuineness, of this Epistle. The whole chapter teaches clearly that church life was earlier than church order.

V. 40. Decently-By every individual.

In order-By the whole church.

Verse 40. Let all things be done decently] eusxhmonwv. In their proper forms; with becoming reverence; according to their dignity and importance, Every thing in the Church of God should be conducted with gravity and composure, suitable to the importance of the things, the infinite dignity of the object of worship, and the necessity of the souls in behalf of which those religious ordinances are instituted.

And in order.] kata taxin. Every thing in its place, every thing in its time, and every thing suitably.

Let all things be done decently and in order, is a direction of infinite moment in all the concerns of religion, and of no small consequence in all the concerns of life. How much pain, confusion, and loss would be prevented, were this rule followed! There is scarcely an embarrassment in civil or domestic life that does not originate in a neglect of this precept. No business, trade, art, or science, can be carried on to any advantage or comfort, unless peculiar attention be paid to it. And as to religion, there can be absolutely none without it. Where decency and order are not observed in every part of the worship of God, no spiritual worship can be performed. The manner of doing a thing is always of as much consequence as the act itself. And often the act derives all its consequence and utility from the manner in which it is performed.

I CORINTHIANS

Verses 39, 40. Wherefore, brethren — To conclude this long discourse, and sum up the whole in a few words; covet to prophesy — To discourse about divine things in a way that will edify others; and yet forbid not — Those who are willing to do it under such regulations as have now been advanced; to speak with tongues — For it is a noble endowment, which I would encourage none to slight or neglect: only take care that all things — In your religious assemblies; be done decently and in order — Let all be conducted in a regular manner, to prevent such disturbances, disputes, and scandals for the future, as in time past have had place among you, and would proceed to greater evils if not immediately reformed. The precept given by the apostle in this verse, “is sometimes applied to support the use of rites and ceremonies in the worship of God, not commanded in Scripture. But any one who considers the place which it holds in this discourse, will be sensible that it hath no relation to rites and ceremonies, but to the decent and orderly exercise of the spiritual gifts. Yet by parity of reason, it may be extended even to the rites of worship, provided they are left free to be used by every one, as he sees them expedient.” — Macknight.

40. Decently—Seemlily; the reverse Greek word to unseemly in 1 Corinthians 13:5. That which accords with the sense of the becoming. Order—Each exercise single and in due succession. So Josephus is quoted by Alford as saying of the Essenes, “Neither loud voice nor tumult ever dishonours their house, but their discourses they yield to each other in order.”

Ver. 39.-40. Summary of 1 Corinthians 14.

Be emulous; takes up 1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1, and marks the completion of the subject there introduced.

To prophesy; for reasons given in 1 Corinthians 14:3-5, 24f. Do not hinder etc.; repeats 1 Corinthians 14:5. The contrast of be emulous and do not hinder reasserts the preference for prophecy which in § 25 Paul justified.

Becomingly: in contrast to “they will say, You are mad,” in 1 Corinthians 14:23.

According to order: in an orderly manner, as enjoined in 1 Corinthians 14:26ff; and in obedience to the authority claimed in 1 Corinthians 14:37.

It may be questioned whether Paul's absolute prohibition to women to speak in a church-meeting is binding now. It may be said that it was based on a position of woman in the ancient world which has passed away; and that the commands of the apostle, binding upon his original readers, are binding now only so far as the original circumstances remain or as the commands are expressions of great universal principles. But the solemn emphasis and the assertion of apostolic authority, (so unusual to Paul,) and the appeal to the parents of our race with which in two epistles the same prohibition sets forth a principle of universal and perpetual validity, and one resting upon the unchanging relation of the sexes. But this prohibition in no way touches the ministrations of women to women: and the gift in Paul's day of the prophetic spirit to women proved plainly that there was evangelical work for them to do. And there is abundance of such work now.

PROPHETS were men who spoke in ordinary language, under a special influence of the Spirit of God; and who were thus a mouthpiece of God to men.

For the Old Testament, see Numbers 11:24-29; 1 Samuel 10:5-13; 18:10; 19:20-24; Joel 2:28; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Jeremiah 1:4-2:2; Ezekiel 2:1-3:1; Acts 28:25; Hebrews 1:1. The prophet's words, as being a voice of God, were matter (1 Peter 1:11) for his own study. In Exodus 7:1f, Aaron was to be the mouthpiece, but Moses the real speaker. We read (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:20) of false prophets speaking in God's Name; and (1 Kings 18:19, 40) of prophets speaking in the name of false gods.

Similarly, in classic Greek, the prophet was an interpreter of the oracular voices of the gods.

In the New Testament, the Baptist, as being a “voice” of God is in Luke 1:76; 7:26 called a prophet. So also the Incarnate Word in Luke 4:24; 24:19. In the apostolic church, prophecy was (1 Corinthians 12:10f) on a special gift of the Spirit, which placed its possessors in the second rank (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11) of the servants of Christ. It was practically the same as “revelation.” Cp. 1 Corinthians 14:6, 30. Ephesians 3:5. This latter word directs our attention to the inward “unveiling,” by the Spirit, of truths before unknown: prophecy is the “speaking forth” to others the revealed truths. The Book of Revelation is called in Revelation 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18f a prophecy. It was needful for others to judge (1 Corinthians 14:29: cp. 1 John 4:1) whether the impulse under which professed prophets spoke was really divine. To what extent the impulse saved the speaker from error, and thus gave to his words authority, we cannot now determine. The New Testament prophets seem (1 Corinthians 14:24, 26, 29) to have been numerous. They are not mentioned (e.g. Philippians 1:2; 1 Timothy 3, Tit. 1.) as a regularly constituted order of church officers; but were probably an extraordinary class of men specially endowed by God for the good of the churches they belonged to or might visit. Their words were designed (1 Corinthians 14:3, 31) to teach and encourage believers, and (1 Corinthians 14:24f) to lead sinners to repentance. Some women prophesied: Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5. Cp. Luke 2:36; Judges 4:4. Since both Old and New Covenants ever point to the future, the prophets frequently spoke, especially in the old preparatory Covenant, of things to come. Of this in the New Testament Agabus (Acts 11:27f, 21:10f) is a good example. But foretelling is not implied in the meaning of the word. The Cretan poet Epimenides, as a teacher of truth, is called in Titus 1:12 a prophet. By Plato (Laws p. 642d) he is called “a divine man,” and is said to have foretold the invasion by, and defeat of, the Persians. To SPEAK WITH TONGUES was, like Prophecy, a special and

extraordinary gift of the Spirit. It is mentioned by Paul only in 1 Corinthians 12.-14.; elsewhere in the New Testament only Acts 2:4-13; 10:46, (cp. 1 Corinthians 11:15ff; 15:8,) 19:6; Mark 16:17. That it was not a miraculous faculty of speaking one or more foreign languages, is made absolutely certain by Paul's taking for granted, (1 Corinthians 14:2-5, 13, 19, 28,) when comparing the gifts of prophecy and of tongues from the point of view of their practical utility, that apart from interpretation the gift of tongues is of no use whatever to any but the speaker: whereas ability to speak in a foreign language would be an invaluable means of spreading the Gospel. Nor was it a miraculous utterance, in moments of special inspiration, of prayer or praise in a human language unknown to the speaker. Else Paul could not have left completely out of sight the possibility of the presence, especially at Corinth where many nationalities met, of some one who understood the foreign language. Words spoken “with a tongue” were evidently intelligible to others only when interpreted.

Yet the exercise of this gift was (1 Corinthians 14:4) profitable to the speaker. The possession of it by Paul himself in large measure calls forth (1 Corinthians 14:18) his gratitude to God. And even while forbidding the public use of it when no interpreter is present he urges (1 Corinthians 14:28) that it be used in private. Probably its usual form was (1 Corinthians 14:2, 14ff: Acts 2:11; 10:46) prayer or praise. Although the words spoken with a tongue were (unless interpreted with the aid of another gift) altogether unintelligible, they nevertheless had a meaning for they were capable of interpretation. That the mind (1 Corinthians 14:14) had no part in the utterance, and that the speaker was sometimes unable (1 Corinthians 14:13, 28) to interpret to others his own words implies that, unless he had also the gift of interpretation, he did not himself understand them.

Of all this the simplest explanation is that in the apostolic church there were men on whose “tongue” the Holy Spirit exerted a direct influence, moving it to speak words which were neither prompted nor understood by the speaker's own mind; and that, like (Romans 8:15, 26) the Spirit-prompted words were chiefly or wholly directed to God in prayer or praise. Such speaking might be called “with a tongue:” for only the tongue was at work, without conscious mental effort. But, since none but living tongues could thus speak, the man's own spirit, i.e. the principle of life within him, was an essential factor of the speaking: and Paul could say (1 Corinthians 14:14) correctly, “my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” Moreover, the speaker “with a tongue” would (1 Corinthians 14:2) “speak mysteries.” For his words contained the deep things of God, and truths known only by special revelation. Such speaking, though not penetrating the speaker's whole being and his consciousness, could not but be profitable, in a manner to us incomprehensible. For it came from the Spirit of God acting on man's spirit. And probably the spirit, as distinguished from the mind, is not only physiologically but morally that part of man which is nearest to the Great Source of animal and spiritual life. If interpreted, the words would give profit to others. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14:27 imply that men under this influence of the Spirit could so restrain themselves as to speak in turn, or be silent till they were alone with God. And we can also conceive different modes of speaking, under the influence of the Spirit: hence one person might have (1 Corinthians 12:10) “kinds of tongues;” and (1 Corinthians 14:5f) speak “with tongues.”

To “speak with a tongue,” implies articulate utterance. But we have no means of knowing the relation, if such existed, of the words thus spoken to the speaker's mother tongue or to other languages known or unknown to him. No safe inference can be drawn from 1 Corinthians 13:1, which is given merely as the highest conceivable grade of the gift. With the foregoing, Acts 10:46; 19:6 agree exactly. We have the same phrase, “speak with tongues,” denoting again a manifestation of the Spirit, in the form of praise to God, and associated with prophecy. Cp. Mark 16:17; where “new” is probably spurious, and Mark 16:9-20 very doubtful.

With the same agrees Acts 2:4-13 in that the Spirit (Acts 2:4) gave the utterance, in (Acts 2:11) the form of praise to God. But in Acts 2:6, 8, 11 we are told explicitly that the assembled disciples spoke in foreign languages, recognized as such by natives who were present. Consequently, the gift of tongues at Pentecost was, according to Acts 2:4-13, different from that about which Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Yet, in Acts 11:15ff, the gift mentioned in Acts 10:46 in words the same as those in this chapter is said to have been “the equal gift … as on us at the beginning.” Now, so clear are the proofs that the gift at Corinth was not a speaking in foreign languages, that the very able and godly scholars, Neander and Meyer, with others, have supposed that the tongues at Pentecost were really the same as at Corinth, but that in the confusion of the hour they were mistaken for foreign languages by those who heard but did not understand them, and that in this form the tradition had reached Luke and had been recorded in the Book of Acts. But Luke claims (Luke 1:3) to have carefully investigated the facts he narrates: and he was (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24; see Dissertation II.) a “beloved” companion and fellow-worker of Paul, who was himself a colleague of the chief actors at Pentecost. Surely it is inconceivable that Luke would fall into so great an error about so conspicuous and well-known an event, during the lifetime of the chief actors in it. On the mere ground then of simple historic evidence, without reference to the authority of Scripture, (which is, however, seriously involved,) we are compelled to accept the narrative of Acts 2:1-13 as correct. Much easier is the supposition that the “tongues” at Pentecost were a higher grade, perhaps never repeated, of the gift spoken of by Paul. Not that the power to communicate thought in foreign languages was given. But God thought fit that His Spirit, the one source of human life and thought and speech, should inaugurate the Gospel dispensation by pouring through the lips of men words in human languages before unknown to them. This highest form of the gift was limited to the founding of the church. A lower form of the same lingered probably during the lifetime of those who witnessed its founding.

The similarity of phrase suggests that the “tongues” of Acts 10:46; 19:6 were the same as in 1 Corinthians 14, and different from those of Acts 2:4-13. But in each case the significance of the gift was the same, viz. a proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit to be henceforth, in those who receive Him, the animating principle of a new life, a witness of reception into the family of God, and an earnest of an eternal inheritance. This Spirit, not the transient form of His manifestation was “the equal gift” (Acts 11:17) alike to Jews and Gentiles. Consequently, without thought of the unimportant difference of mode, Peter could correctly say in 1 Corinthians 14:15: “The Holy Spirit fell upon them, as also upon us at the beginning.” Cp. Ephesians 1:13f.

DIVISION VI. gives us the noblest ideal of a Christian church, viz. a human body, 1 Corinthians 12; the one great principle which ought to animate all church life, viz. love, 1 Corinthians 13; and a valuable glimpse (in addition to those in 1 Corinthians 11) into the actual meetings of the apostolic church, 1 Corinthians 14.

In accordance with the liberty which permitted each member to take for himself (1 Corinthians 11:21) the sacred bread and wine, we find each member ready to speak in public, and many moved by the Spirit to speak, and permitted to do in an orderly way. Even women, probably after laying aside (1 Corinthians 11:5) their distinctive head-dress, were eager to address a promiscuous assembly. And we find traces of an empty and useless parade of influences flowing from the Spirit of God. All this agrees with the spiritual childishness of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. Very remarkable, amid this confusion, is the absence of all reference, especially in 1 Corinthians 5, 11, 14, to church officers. These doubtless existed: cp. Acts 14:23; 20:17; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1, 12 &c. They are unmentioned perhaps because in a church consisting only of new converts, they were probably in knowledge or experience little above the rest; and therefore not conspicuous. The absence of all reference to them, and the complete contrast of the church life depicted here and that depicted in the earliest sub-apostolic writings and even in the later epistles in Paul, are indisputable marks of the very early date, and therefore of the genuineness, of this Epistle. The whole chapter teaches clearly that church life was earlier than church order.