1 Corinthians 14:1

The apostle, in the foregoing chapter, had himself preferred, and advised the Corinthians to prefer, Christian charity to all spiritual gifts. Here he teaches them, among spiritual gifts, which they should prefer, and by what rules they should make comparison. He begins the chapter,

I. With an exhortation to charity (Co1 14:1): Follow after charity, pursue it. The original, diōkete, when spoken of a thing, signifies a singular concern to obtain it; and is commonly taken in a good and laudable sense. It is an exhortation to obtain charity, to get this excellent disposition of mind upon any terms, whatever pains or prayers it may cost: as if he had said, "In whatever you fail, see you do not miss of this; the principal of all graces is worth your getting at any rate."

II. He directs them which spiritual gift to prefer, from a principle of charity: "Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may prophesy, or chiefly that you may prophesy." While they were in close pursuit of charity, and made this Christian disposition their chief scope, they might be zealous of spiritual gifts, be ambitious of them in some measure, but especially of prophesying, that is, of interpreting scripture. This preference would most plainly discover that they were indeed upon such pursuit, that they had a due value for Christian charity, and were intent upon it. Note, Gifts are fit objects of our desire and pursuit, in subordination to grace and charity. That should be sought first and with the greatest earnestness which is most worth.

III. He assigns the reasons of this preference. And it is remarkable here that he only compares prophesying with speaking with tongues. It seems, this was the gift on which the Corinthians principally valued themselves. This was more ostentatious than the plain interpretation of scripture, more fit to gratify pride, but less fit to pursue the purposes of Christian charity; it would not equally edify nor do good to the souls of men. For, 1. He that spoke with tongues must wholly speak between God and himself; for, whatever mysteries might be communicated in his language, none of his own countrymen could understand them, because they did not understand the language, Co1 14:2. Note, What cannot be understood can never edify. No advantage can be reaped from the most excellent discourses, if delivered in unintelligible language, such as the audience can neither speak nor understand: but he that prophesies speaks to the advantage of his hearers; they may profit by his gift. Interpretation of scripture will be for their edification; they may be exhorted and comforted by it, Co1 14:3. And indeed these two must go together. Duty is the proper way to comfort; and those that would be comforted must bear being exhorted. 2. He that speaks with tongues may edify himself, Co1 14:4. He may understand and be affected with what he speaks; and so every minister should; and he that is most edified himself is in the disposition and fitness to do good to others by what he speaks; but he that speaks with tongues, or language unknown, can only edify himself; others can reap no benefit from his speech. Whereas the end of speaking in the church is to edify the church (Co1 14:4), to which prophesying, or interpreting scripture by inspiration or otherwise, is immediately adapted. Note, That is the best and most eligible gift which best answers the purposes of charity and does most good; not that which can edify ourselves only, but that which will edify the church. Such is prophesying, or preaching, and interpreting scripture, compared with speaking in an unknown tongue. 3. Indeed, no gift is to be despised, but the best gifts are to be preferred. I could wish, says the apostle, that you all spoke with tongues, but rather that you prophesied, Co1 14:5. Every gift of God is a favour from God, and may be improved for his glory, and as such is to be valued and thankfully received; but then those are to be most valued that are most useful. Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, unless he interpret, that the church may receive edifying, Co1 14:5. Benevolence makes a man truly great. It is more blessed to give than to receive. And it is true magnanimity to study and seek to be useful to others, rather than to raise their admiration and draw their esteem. Such a man has a large soul, copious and diffused in proportion to his benevolence and bent of mind for public good. Greater is he who interprets scripture to edify the church than he who speaks tongues to recommend himself. And what other end he who spoke with tongues could have, unless he interpreted what he spoke, is not easy to say, Note, That makes most for the honour of a minister which is most for the church's edification, not that which shows his gifts to most advantage. He acts in a narrow sphere, while he aims at himself; but his spirit and character increase in proportion to his usefulness, I mean his own intention and endeavours to be useful.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ch. 1Co_14:1-25. The superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues

1. desire] Literally, be zealous for, envious of. See note on ch. 1Co_12:31. The best gifts (see note there) were those that were within the reach of all. Still there was no reason why a Christian should not seek other special gifts from God by prayer. See 1Co_14:13, and St Jas_1:5.

but rather that ye may prophesy] The gift of prophecy, as is abundantly evident from the whole of this section, was not confined to the prediction of future events. As Kingsley remarks, the prophet was “not only a fore-teller but a forth-teller,” one who communicates the moral and spiritual truths which he has received by direct revelation from God.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_14:1-24

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts.

Following after love

You could see Gerald had been running fast a long way, for as he came up the garden path to his mother his face was very red and his hair quite damp with the perspiration on his forehead. What have you been doing, my little boy? his mother asked him. Oh, mother, he said, almost ready to cry, I have been running after the rainbow, trying to catch it, but when I got to the top of the hill it was just as far away as before, and the little boy threw himself down with a sob at his mothers feet. Poor little fellow, she said, tenderly, patting his head, mother is sorry for you. She really was sorry, so she said, Gerald, dear, if you can wait to-day and to-morrow, on the next morning when you wake up you will see a rainbow that you can catch. Really, mother; shall I really see one and catch it? and the boy looked up with a happy and eager face. Yes, dear; and what is more, you can go on catching and keeping it day by day all through your life. With this Gerald was obliged to be content for the present, although he was very impatient until the happy morning arrived. He woke early, and eagerly gazed round the room, and over the mantelpiece saw a lovely rainbow. It was a beautiful, large kind of text in a great number of bright and lovely colours. He jumped out of bed and stood close under it with his hands folded. On the sky-blue colour was printed in letters of lovely dark blue, Patience. On the red, in letters of white, was Love. On the black, in silver letters, was Peace. On the cream was Kindliness, in letters of gold. Gentleness was printed in prettiest pink, the word on cardinal, and Charity was blended in all the colours on white. While Gerald was standing admiring with delight, his mother came quietly in. Well, dear, she said, smiling, how do you like your rainbow? Oh, I like it so much, mother; and is it my very own? but what do you mean by catching it, mother? … Well, suppose you begin to-day, and let the first thing you try to catch and keep be Love. Oh, I see now, said the little boy, and the thought sank into his heart, so that he really tried to be as loving as he could to his little playfellows and to everybody. And every morning he looked up to his rainbow to see what he would try and catch that day, and then he knelt to ask God to help him. So little Gerald grew up to be a splendid man, and the rainbow still shines over his mantelpiece as one of his greatest treasures. (Great Thoughts.)

The prompting of love

When Payson was dying he exclaimed, I long to hand a full Cup of happiness to every human being. This was the language of a heart thoroughly purged of all selfish affection, and filled with the spirit of that love which led our adorable Jesus to give His life for human redemption. If every Christian would go out daily among men filled with such longing for human happiness, what marvellous changes would soon be wrought in human society! The selfish element would be eliminated from the dealings of the Christian business man. Not justice merely, but benevolence, would enter into his every act of trade. The same spirit would rule his home and Church life. He would become an incarnation of goodwill toward all, and would so preach the gospel by his deeds that men would see his good works and glorify his heavenly Father. The spirit of Payson is worthy of every mans imitation. Happy he who can truthfully say, I long to hand a cup of happiness to every human being.

Love lessening misery

The remark of the Rev. John Newton below deserves to be written on the tablet of every heart. I see in this world, he observes, two heaps--one of human happiness and one of misery; now, if I can take but the smallest bit from the second heap and add to the first, I carry a point. If, as I go home, a child has dropped a halfpenny, and if by giving it another I can wipe away its tears, I feel that I have doom something. I should be glad, indeed, to do great things, but I will not neglect such little ones as this.

Choosing love

Had I my choice of all things that might tend to my present felicity, I would pitch upon this; to have my heart possessed with the greatest kindness and affection toward all men in the world. I am sure this would make me partake in all the happiness of others. Certainly, next to the love and enjoyment of God, that ardent charity and affection wherewith blessed souls do embrace one another is justly to be reckoned as the greatest felicity of regions above; and, did it universally prevail in the world, it would anticipate that blessedness, and make us taste of the joys of heaven upon earth. (Scougal.)

Universal benevolence

I. The several considerations and motives which should determine us to universal love.

1. Goodwill and friendship to mankind are natural to us, which we are led to by the original propensions and inclinations of our hearts. We are plainly made for the exercise of goodness and charity, and in the very constitution of our beings it is marked out to us as the course of life which we are to follow.

2. The circumstances in which we are placed render it necessary for us to exercise benevolence towards mankind. Men are a sort of creatures who have a natural and necessary dependence upon one another, and it is impossible for them to subsist--at least, to enjoy any comfort in life--without mutual succour and an exchange of all good offices.

3. Another motive to engage us to the love of mankind may be brought from the consideration of its excellency.

4. The exercise of humanity and kindness towards mankind is essential to religion, without which it is only an empty name, and all pretences to it are most vain and impertinent.

5. The last argument to engage us to the exercise of charity may be brought from the advantages which will from thence accrue to ourselves. It may be justly expected that it will have a happy influence even on our external fortune or estate in the world; for charity is the most engaging quality that we can be possessed of, which will not fail to procure us the esteem of others, and make them, in any cases of difficulty and danger in which we may be, to contribute to our assistance. But a much more considerable instance of happiness than any relating to our external interest, which proceeds from the exercise of charity, is that inward joy and pleasure which it always affords us. And besides all this, if we consider the other world, it is certain that the practice of charity will procure us the greatest advantages that can be in it.

II. Some rules for raising and improving a temper of sincere and universal benevolence in us.

1. In order to this, let us represent mankind in the most favourable light that we justly can to ourselves. We must have some esteem of those for whose advantage we exert ourselves with any high degree of zeal; and when we sincerely esteem any persons we shall be always ready to promote their interest as we have opportunity.

2. Another method of raising and improving a benevolent temper in us is to accustom ourselves to frequent thoughts and meditations on the goodness of God.

3. Further, let us guard not only against all contempt of others and unfair suspicions of evil in them, but against an indulgence of all immoderately selfish passions, and of all angry, peevish, discontented dispositions, and endeavour, as much as we can, to preserve ourselves in a serene state of mind.

4. It will likewise be of great use for forming and increasing a temper of benevolence in us to have an habitual recollection and a lively conviction of its great excellence and importance. (J. Orr, D. D.)

Spiritual gifts

By gifts we understand those natural or acquired endowments which may be used for the interest and edification of others: by graces those internal emotions which result from a Divine influence upon the heart. Gifts are valuable, but graces are essential. View Christian character as an edifice; gifts constitute its ornamental and useful parts, but graces are the foundation, without which it would soon crumble to the dust. They are not always found in close or corresponding connection. Graces may exist where there are scarcely any gifts, and vice versa. Note--

I. A few of those gifts winch form appropriate objects of the Christians desire and pursuit.

1. An ability for the edifying and acceptable discharge of ministerial duty.

2. A facility of acceptably engaging in social and public prayer.

3. A readiness for joining, or, if necessary, of leading the exercise of social and public praise.

4. An aptness in turning to some profitable account the ordinary and social intercourse of life.

5. A readiness in administering to others appropriate admonition, advice, or encouragement.

II. The nature and appropriate exercise of the desire recommended in the text.

1. It should be operative and practical in its character. We are not to sit down and be satisfied in wishing these gifts were possessed, but to make an effort to attain them.

2. This desire should be regulated, not by personal inclination, but by an anxiety for usefulness.

III. Suggestions to excite and direct in pursuing the attainment of these gifts. We should--

1. Cherish a deeper sense of the privilege and honour of being in any way serviceable to the Church of Christ.

2. Diligently and conscientiously use the gifts we already possess. They, like our bodily or mental faculties, are ever improved by appropriate exercise.

3. More assiduously cultivate the graces of religion in the soul. These, by inflaming the heart more with a Saviours love, would constrain us to attempt honouring and serving Him in every possible way. (Essex Congregational Remembrancer.)

Spiritual gifts and public worship

I. The comparative value of the two chief spiritual gifts.

1. Prophesying is speaking for God, whether the utterance regards present or future matters. The function of the prophet is indicated in verse 3. and in verses 24-25 the results of prophesying are described in terms precisely such as we should use to describe the results of efficacious preaching.

2. The gift of tongues, from Act_2:1-47., would seem to have been the gift of speaking in foreign languages, and was communicated, not as a permanent acquisition, but only as the Spirit gave utterance. It served the same purpose as other miracles; it called attention to the entrance of new powers into human nature; it was for them that believe not, not for them that believe. It produced conviction that among the followers of Christ new powers were at work. The evidence of this took a shape which seemed to intimate that the religion of Christ was suitable for every race of mankind.

3. Comparing these two gifts, Paul gives the preference to the former, and this mainly on the score of its greater utility. Apart from interpretation speaking with tongues was like the blare of a trumpet, mere unintelligible sound. Prophesying, however, all could understand, and profit by it.

4. From this preference for the less showy but more useful gift, we may gather that to make public worship the occasion of self-display or sensational exhibitions is to degrade it. Preachers must resist the temptation to make a sensation, to produce fine sermons; and worshippers must resist the temptation to merely exhibit a good voice or find greater pleasure in what is sensational in worship than in what is simple and intelligible.

5. Worship in which the understanding bears no part receives no countenance from Paul (verse 15). Where the prayers of the Church are in Latin the worshipper may indeed pray with the spirit and be edified, but his worship would be better did he pray with the understanding also. Music unaccompanied by words induces a devoutness which is apt to be either hazy or sentimental, or both, unless by the help of words the understanding goes hand in hand with feeling.

6. No countenance can be found in this chapter to the idea that worship should exclude preaching. Some temperaments incline towards worship, but resent being preached to or instructed. St. Paul, however, puts prophesying in the forefront. But St. Paul puts--

II. the manner in which the public services should be conducted.

1. The services at Corinth were characterised by great freedom (verse 26). Each member of the congregation had something to contribute for the edification of the Church. One with a natural aptitude for poetry threw his devotional feeling into a metrical form, and furnished the Church with her earliest hymns. Another set forth some important aspect of Christian truth. Another, fresh from contact with the world, entered the meeting with the glow of conflict on his face, and had eager words of exhortation to utter. And so passed the hours of meeting, without any fixed order, appointed ministry, or uniformity of service. And certainly the freshness and variety of such services is greatly to be desired. We lose much by a silent membership.

2. And yet, as Paul observes, there was much to be desired in those Corinthian services. To appeal to this or any part of this letter in proof that there should be no distinction between clergy and laity would be a very bad policy. True there were no rulers of any kind, but then the want of them had given rise to disorder. The ideal condition, however, would be one in which authority should be lodged in certain office-bearers, while the faculty and gift of each member in some way contributed to the good of the whole Church.

3. While Paul abstains from appointing Church officers, he is careful to lay down two principles which should regulate their procedure.

(1) Let everything be done decently and in order. This advice was greatly needed in a Church in which the public services were sometimes filmed into tumults.

(2) Let all things be done unto edifying. Keep the great end of your meetings in view, and you need no formal rubrics.

4. It might be difficult to say whether the somewhat selfish ambition of those Corinthians to secure the surprising gifts of the Spirit or our own torpid indifference and lack of expectation is less to be commended. Certainly every one who attaches himself to Christ ought to indulge in great expectations. From Him we may expect at least His own Spirit. And in this least there is promise of all. But lack of expectation is fatal to the Christian. (M. Dods, D. D.)

The girls of prophecy and tongues

Just as the hunter follows the chase with the determination to gain what he pursues, so are we to follow after charity; but we are only to desire spiritual gifts. The Corinthians were to be filled with the spirit of love at any cost, and when they loved they were to desire all other gifts, but especially the gift of prophecy. Now it was just the reverse of this with them. The gift they valued the most was the gift of tongues; it was this they followed after, and so, when the Church met for public worship, a babel existed (verses 23-26).

I. The gift of prophecy was not simply the power to predict future events. The Old Testament prophets predicted, but they had also to expostulate and comfort. Here are three marks of a prophet.

1. He speaketh unto man (verse 3)--face-to-face conversation.

2. He speaketh to edification, exhortation, and comfort.

3. He speaketh so that souls are converted (verse 24).

II. The gift of tongues was the power imparted to speak foreign languages, which is plainly the teaching of Act_2:1-47. One of the great reasons for the bestowal of the gift was that the disciples might preach Christ to all without undergoing the usual tedious instruction in the language of the hearer.

III. The gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of tongues.

1. It is better to be definite than learned (verses 7-12). Speak with as many tongues as you can, but take care that whatever is spoken is understood.

2. It is better to appeal to the understanding than to the emotions (verse 16). I do not undervalue the emotional in religions worship, but it is better for a man to understand what he feels than to feel what he does not understand. If an unlearned man go into a Roman Catholic chapel, e.g., everything appeals to the emotions--the paintings, the music, the incense; you have a sense of the beautiful, but you dont know why. Better be in the poorest meetinghouse listening to the rudest preacher, for then you may learn what you can understand and apply what your own soul can interpret.

3. It is better to be useful than brilliant (verse 19).

4. It is better to honour God by winning souls than to excite ridicule and contempt (verses 23, 24). Conclusion:

1. Preaching should be plain, but not vulgar.

2. Worship should be intelligent, not mystical.

3. It should be orderly, not confused. (A. F. Barfield.)

Prophecy and tongues

Verse 1 contains a resume of chaps. 12-13. Charity holds the first place, and then spiritual gifts follow, and prophecy is preferable to others.

1. Note the difference between a grace and a gift. It is not that the former is from God and the latter from nature, for both are from God; but grace is that which has in it some moral quality. A man may be fluent, learned, skillful, etc., and yet be a bad man. Now this distinction explains at once why graces are preferable. Graces are what the man is, gifts what he has. He is loving, he has eloquence, etc. You only have to cut out his tongue, or to impair his memory, and the gift is gone But you must destroy his very being before he ceases to be a loving man. Yet while the Corinthians are to follow after charity they are not to undervalue gifts.

2. Many religious persons go into the contrary extreme; they call gifts dangerous and worldly. No, says the apostle, desire them; not as the highest goods, but still desirable. Only remember you are not worthy or good because of them. And remember other people are not bound to honour you for them. Admire a Napoleons genius, but do not let your admiration of that induce you to give honour to the man. Let there be no mere hero-worship.

3. The apostle states the principle on which one gift is preferable to another. Rather that ye may prophesy. He prefers those which are useful to those that are showy (see verse 12).

I. What was prophecy? A prophet was commissioned to declare the will of God either as to the future or as to the present.

1. In verse 3 is the essence of the prophets office, but there is not one word spoken of prediction. In order fully to expound a spiritual principle, or a principle of Divine politics, it was necessary to foretell the result or transgression against it; as when the Captivity, or the fate of Babylon and Nineveh was predicted: but this was not the essence of the prophets duty: that was to reveal truth.

2. In verse 24 the exercise of this gift is spoken of as one specially instrumental in conversion, with which prediction has nothing to do, for before a prediction could be fulfilled the unbeliever falls down, acknowledges God, etc. Moreover, the prophecy was something which touched his conscience.

II. What is meant by the gift of tongues. From Acts

2. it is generally taken for granted that it was a miraculous gift of speaking foreign languages, and that the object of such a gift was the conversion of the heathen world; but I believe that the gift was a far higher one than that of the linguist.

1. St. Paul prefers prophecy to the gift of tongues as more useful, since prophecy edified others, and tongues did not. Now could he have said this had the gift been the power of speaking foreign languages?

2. The tongues were inarticulate or incoherent (verse 2). The man spoke not unto men, but unto God, did not try to make himself logically clear to men, but poured out his soul to God.

3. This gift was something internal, a kind of inspired soliloquy (verse 4). There was an unconscious need of expressing audibly the feelings arising within, but; when so uttered they merely ended in edifying the person who uttered them; like the broken murmur of a poet full of deep thought in solitude.

4. The apostle compares the gift with the unworried sounds of musical instruments (verses 7, 8), which have a meaning, but one which is felt rather than measured by the intellect. The mathematician would ask, What does that prove? the historian, What information or fact does it communicate? Have you ever heard the low moanings of hopelessness? or those, to us, unmelodious airs which to the Swiss mountaineer tell of home in a language clearer than the tongue? or have you ever listened to the unmeaning shouts of boyhood? Well, in all these you have dim illustrations of the way in which new, deep, irrepressible feelings found for themselves utterance in sounds which were called tongues.

5. These utterances, weakly allowed full vent, were like the ravings of insanity (verse 23). So, indeed, men on the day of Pentecost said, These men are full of new wine. The apostle reminds the Corinthians that they were bound to control this power, lest it should degenerate into imbecility or fanaticism.

6. The gift is compared to a barbarian tongue (verse 11), therefore not a barbarian tongue itself.

7. It could be interpreted (verse 13). And without this interpretation the tongues were obviously useless (verse 14). And this power of interpretation is reckoned a spiritual gift as much as tongues, a gift granted in answer to prayer. Now this we shall best understand by analogies. It is a great principle that sympathy is the only condition for interpretation of feeling. The apostle compares the gift of tongues to music. Now music needs an interpreter, and the interpretation must be given, not in words, but in corresponding feelings. There must be music in the soul. To him who has not this the language of music is simply unintelligible. Again, a child is often the subject of feelings which he does not understand. Observe how he is affected by the reading of a tale or a moving hymn. He will not say, How touching, how well imagined! but he will hide his face, or he hums, or laughs, or becomes peevish, because he does not know what is the matter with him. He has no words like a man to express his new feelings. But the grown man can interpret them, and, sympathising with the child, he says, The child cannot contain his feelings. Or, take the instance of a physician finding words for physical feelings, because he understands them better than the patient who is unable to express them. In the same way the early Christians, being the subjects of new, deep, and spiritual feeling, declared their joy in inarticulate utterances. But the explaining what they felt was the office of the interpreter, e.g., a stranger might have been at a loss to know what was really meant. Are you happy or miserable, O Christian, by those wild utterances? Is it madness, or new wine, or inspiration? And none but a person in the same mood of mind, or one who had passed through it, could say to the stranger, This is the overflow of gratefulness; he is blessing in the Spirit; it is a hymn of joy that his heart is singing to itself; or, It is a burst of prayer (verses 15-17). (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

Grace and gifts

I. The grace of charity is superior to all endowments. Whatever other endowments you may possess or desire, do not neglect the cultivation of charity.

II. Some endowments are superior to others (verse 5). The didactic faculty is greater than the linguistic. Sense is better than sound, ideas are better than words. It often happens that the man who has the most aptitude in acquiring languages has the least capacity either for attaining or communicating great ideas. But the language of which the apostle here speaks seems to have been the inarticulate voice of new and strong emotions. Tender emotions often choke us. If expressed at all they can only be in the quivering lip, and the gleaming eye, and the convulsive chest. Such have been manifested in all great revivals of religion. I have heard such untranslatable sounds under the mighty sermons of Welsh preachers. These tongues are valuable. Because--

1. They are symptomatic of a new spiritual life. You can talk about history, science, theology, but not about the deepest and divinest things of the heart. They only come out in groanings that cannot be uttered.

2. In them the soul expresses its devotions (verses 2, 4, 14). It is delightful to think of the human soul generally so immersed in the selfish and the sensuous, bathing itself in the rising tides of spiritual emotions.

3. By them the religious sympathy of the unbelieving is often excited (verse 22). Sound expressive of human emotion often strikes potently on the heart of the listener. Take the most thoughtless man into some vast congregation in Wales, when all the people are singing their plaintive hymns in strains of weird music, and he will not be long, even if he understands not the language, before he feels the influence. Unsyllabled speech is often the mightiest. There are melodies that carry into the soul that which no word can express.

III. The highest endowment is the ability for spiritual teaching (verses 12, 18). Teaching is not the mere impartation of the acts of the gospel but the indoctrinating of the soul with its primary elements and spirit. Note--

1. That the gospel gives to its genuine disciples intelligent convictions that should be communicated to others. He who has accepted the gospel in reality becomes instinct with mighty and irrepressible ideas; ideas which he cannot but speak, for necessity is laid upon him. They are given to him to communicate, not to monopolise, and on their communication the spiritual life, growth, and perfection of mankind depend.

2. That these intelligent convictions can only be conveyed to others by intelligible language (verses 6-7 etc.). Mere sound is not worth much. Things without life, such as the pipe and the harp, produce sound. Nay, more, unless the sound gives out clear and distinct ideas, it is not only useless, but injurious (verse 8). If in battle the trumpet does not sound clearly the advance or retreat when intended, it is worse than useless. So whatever might be the unintelligible utterances, whether an unvernacular language or the unsyllabled expressions of emotions. Paul indicates their inadequacy without interpretation to convey to the hearer intelligent convictions of gospel truth (verse 9).

3. That the use of a language which the listener cannot understand should not be indulged in.

(1) Not in public devotion (verses 14-16). Unintelligible utterances in public devotion fail to excite in the assembly a spirit of united worship. So far as the individual himself is concerned, it does not matter with what tongue he speaks, or whether he speaks at all.

(2) Not in public ministration. Alas! it is to be feared the language of many a sermon is an unknown tongue. Such language gratifies the vanity of the speaker, but wastes the time and tries the patience of the hearer (verses 18, 19). The apostle goes on to indicate that such unintelligible utterances in the Church are--

(a) Childish (verse 20).

(b) Useless (verse 21).

(c) Confounding (verse 23).

(d) To be of any service must be interpreted (verse 28). (D. Thomas, D. D.)

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue.--

Speaking in a tongue

is a sort of spiritual soliloquy, and may be compared with the unutterable groanings (Rom_8:26-27), whereby the Holy Spirit intercedes in the believers heart. (Prof. Godet.)

The gift of tongues

may be considered as--

1. A demonstration of Divine power.

2. An evidence of Divine truth.

3. A gift of Divine grace. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.--

True preaching

I. Its design. Edification, etc.

II. Its requisites. It must be intelligible, Scriptural, etc.

III. The source of its power. It is a gift of the Spirit who qualifies the instrument, and applies the truth. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Edification, exhortation and comfort

are co-ordinate.

I. Edification denotes a new development and a confirmation of the faith by some new view fitted to strengthen the soul.

II. Exhortation denotes an encouragement addressed to the will, an energetic impulse capable of effecting an awakening or advancement in Christian fidelity, relating to love as the former relates to faith.

III. Comfort points rather to hope, παραμυθείν, to soothe the ear with a sweet myth, putting pain to sleep, or reviving hope. (Prof. Godet.)

Unedifying preaching

In the town of Goslar, in the Hartz mountains, there is a fountain in the principal square. It is evidently very ancient, and it is very beautiful. There is, however, one defect in it. Both the jets and the basin into which the water falls are above the reach of any one. The way the people have to get the water from the fountain is for each one to bring a long spout or pipe with him. This he puts up to a jet and the water runs through it into his pitcher. It seems never to have occurred to the townspeople that it would be a good thing to attach a pipe permanently to the fountain for general use. Some preachers talk in so lofty a style that their hearers need to bring a dictionary with them if they are to get any of the water of life from the sermon. They do not seek to find acceptable words, hence their preaching fails to edify.

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself.--

Private and public edification

Observe--

1. What may edify one does not always edify another.

2. Public worship contemplates general edification.

3. What, therefore, only ministers to private edification must give way for the benefit of all. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall it profit you?--

A lesson for preachers

I. The object of preaching. Not display, but profit.

II. The mode of preaching.

1. It supposes the plain exposition of Divine truth--the communication of Divine knowledge.

2. Aims at edification (verse 3)--at instruction in righteousness. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The gifts of the Spirit must be wisely employed

Observe--

I. How they may be abused.

1. By display (verse 6).

2. By using them to no purpose (verses 7-9).

3. By employing them under improper circumstances (verses 10, 11).

II. How they may be improved--by using them for the edification of others (verse 12)--which must be done intelligently (verses 13, 14), wisely (verses 15-17), in the spirit of love (verses 18, 19). (J. Lyth, D. D.)

And even things without life giving sound … except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known.--

Three modes of preaching

I. Preaching to the air--sound without, sense.

II. Preaching to the head--sense without life.

III. Preaching to the heart--sense and life: the thoughts of the Spirit in easy words. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Ineffective preaching

I. Its forms. When the preacher--

1. Surpasses the understanding of his audience.

2. Is indefinite in his statement of truth.

3. Is pointless and unimpressive.

II. Its folly.

1. It is a waste of energy.

2. Profits nobody.

3. Occasions a fearful responsibility. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 14:1-4. 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

a. Tongues inferior to prophecy, as less building-up the Church, 1Co_14:1-21.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

1Co_14:1. Follow after.—Taking up the thought of a “way,” 1Co_12:31; as this whole verse resumes the theme of 12, after the digression or episode of 13 “Pursue” love; righteousness (Rom_9:30, etc.; 1Ti_6:11; 2Ti_2:22; cf. Php_3:14); peace with all men (Heb_12:14; 1Pe_3:11; Rom_14:19); good (1Th_5:15); hospitality (Rom_12:13). “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 endeavouring to (Rom_14:15) ‘walk according to love’ ” (Beet). Note, “gifts” is (as in 1Co_12:1) supplementary, but rightly so. Also note “yet” (R.V.); there should be no exaggeration, even of love, at the expense of other things in the spiritual life. “ ‘Follow’ marks the persistence, ‘desire earnestly’ the energy and earnestness of the search” (Ellicott). Rather.—“Seek any gift, all gifts, only in the path of love; and, in so seeking them, seek the useful rather than the showy.”

1Co_14:2.—Observe throughout that “unknown” (A.V.) is inserted erroneously; it is no question merely of foreign languages. To God.—As in Act_2:11; Act_10:46; Act_10:13-16, the matter spoken “in a tongue” was ecstatic [prayer (1Co_14:14) or] praise. The man was, so to speak, closeted with God in the shrine of his spirit [regarded as influenced and filled by the Spirit]; his experience is analogous to that of 2Co_12:1-4, only here he speaks, not hears, “unspeakable things,” and no quasi-local transference is suggested. He is speaking “mysteries,” i.e. things which, as a matter of fact, are concealed, but, given the qualified interpreter, may be readily communicated to the listeners around. But the “interpreter” must also be a man with a charism, himself therefore, for the time being, moving in, or at least in communication with, that inmost world of spiritual things where his fellow-worshipper is thus ecstatically holding converse with God. Without such a helper the listeners “hear”, yet “do not hear.” (See margin, and cf. Act_9:7; Act_12:9.)

1Co_14:3.—Notice the more exact, “speaketh edification,” etc. “He builds up the inward life, … gives counsel to the mind, and comfort to the heart” (Ellicott). Good verse as casting light upon “comfort,” “comforter,” etc. Here are παράκλησις and “comfort” together, in clear, if not wide, distinction. Stanley notes that “Barnabas,” lit. “Son of Prophecy,” is in Act_4:36 rendered “Son of παράκλησις.” Beet (like Ellicott and Evans) keeps “exhortation,” words prompting “to action” (Rom_12:1).

1Co_14:5. All.—Then the gift was a desirable thing to possess. He interpret.—I.e. the speaker in a tongue himself. The same person might enjoy both gifts.

1Co_14:6.—Notice the “but” i.e. “since there is no edification without interpretation.” Also “by way of,” as in 1Co_7:6, etc. Evidently, too, the sense is “unless I also speak,” etc. “Revelation” and “prophesying” are extraordinary, “knowledge” and “teaching” are ordinary, methods of gaining and of communicating knowledge respectively.

1Co_14:8. Uncertain.—Not making distinguishable the special “bugle-call” intended.

1Co_14:9.—The physical organ, the tongue, is here meant, as shown by the analogy with musical instruments here traced out, and by the grammatical form of the phrase, “by the tongue”; there is really no “with” in, e.g., 1Co_14:6. The air.—Cf. 1Co_9:26.

1Co_14:10. So many.—“Fill up the number according as you think, or as you may know the fact happens to be. No matter exactly how many.” The “tongue” was a true language, but not spoken or understood in this world of men. From the inarticulate though significant sounds of instruments, which all convey their meaning, he now passes to all articulate sounds of human languages, not one of which is of course really meaningless. Yet it can say nothing to the man who does not happen to understand it or use it as his native dialect. Quâ that particular language he is a “barbarian.”

1Co_14:13.—Choose between

(1) “that he may interpret” during his ecstasy, or

(2) after his ecstatic condition. Both find support. [Both cases might surely be actually exemplified; why “choose”?]

1Co_14:14.—“Take prayer as a particular case, illustrating my general principle.” “Sing” another (1Co_14:15), “bless” (1Co_14:16).

1Co_14:15. Spirit … understanding.—The latter word, with its strong contrast to the former, and both read in the light of the chapter, fix “spirit” as meaning the human “spirit,” though under the influence of the Spirit of God, as nearly always with Paul. Observe “spirits,” the literal, marginal rendering in 1Co_14:12. The “I” is not necessarily so precisely personal, as that this should express “Paul’s resolve.” As to singing, see Eph_5:19; Jas_5:13.

1Co_14:16. Bless.—Not to be restricted to the special “blessing” or “thanksgiving” [“but little distinction can here be drawn” (Ellicott)] at the Eucharistic Supper. (But see Appended Note.) Filleth the … unlearned—Dean Alford amusingly protests that this has nothing to do with the parish clerk of the old order in English Churches! Obviously is meant: Any person in the congregation who has no “gift,” or not these special gifts; who is, in regard to those who are exercising them, an outsider and “unlearned.” [“Unlearned” in the old sense, now become a vulgarism for “untaught.”] No distinction suggested between officials and private members. Such “sharply marked distinctions … do not seem to belong to this period” (Ellicott).

1Co_14:19. In the Church.—“Whatever I do in private.”

1Co_14:20. Understanding.—Not the word used in, e.g., 1Co_14:15. See Men.—Lit. “perfect,” as 1Co_2:6, well expounding that frequently used word. Malice.—Wider in meaning then than now.

1Co_14:21.—Quoted (freely) from the LXX. of Isa_28:9-12, so freely that it is scarcely more, as Paul uses it, than a happy parallel case; for his purpose “happy” in two particulars above all:

(1) the barbarian language of the Assyrian invaders was, like the “tongue” in Corinth, unintelligible jargon to the ordinary listener;

(2) and of more importance, each was a sign, not a mere wonder, but a significant wonder, to “an unbelieving” age. The presence of men who should speak strange talk in the land of Israel would in itself be a token, a real message, of the will, the displeasure, of God to His unbelieving people, who had scoffed at the simple, plain talk of Israel to them [“line upon line,” etc., “as if he were talking to little children”; cf. 1Co_14:20]. So the unintelligibleness of the “tongues was a mark rather of the aloofness than of the nearness of God; rather of their low spiritual tone than of His full favour. Good as it was (1Co_14:39), “tongues” was a gift lower than the best. Ellicott would not supply in the case of prophecy the italicised words of the, preferring the A.V. Rightly.

1Co_14:23. All.—Supposing an extreme case. Unlearned.—As above, “outsiders,” though more literally still here; persons, casually or from curiosity, “dropping in whether simply “outsiders” or distinct and pronounced “unbelievers.”

1Co_14:24. Convinced.—Add the and its margin. [So Joh_16:8, which is well expounded by the facts of the Day of Pentecost, the first, earliest example of this particular operation of the Spirit.] All.—As each prophet in turn speaks. Judged.—Cf. 1Co_2:14; 1 Corinthians 15; 1Co_9:3; 1Co_10:25; 1Co_10:27. The familiar experience: “That preacher knows all about me.” See this graphically given in Heb_4:13. See also how Saul fell prostrate before Samuel’s prophesying (1Sa_19:24).

1Co_14:25. God.—Not Christ. The more natural first step for a Jew or a heathen would be to “worship God.”

1Co_14:27. By course.—I.e. in turn, not all springing to their feet at once. And if not on that particular occasion, then he may get his “turn” at another time.

1Co_14:29. Judge.—Different word, of the same family, to that in 1Co_14:23. Here meaning, using the gift of “discerning of spirits” (1Co_12:10); and judging whether the “prophecy” be really that of the Holy Spirit, and not the Devil’s counterfeit (1Co_12:3).

1Co_14:30.—Not necessarily breaking off abruptly, but finishing, and then giving “silent” hearing to the next.

1Co_14:31. Comforted.—With the fuller meaning, as before in 1Co_14:3.

1Co_14:32. Subject.—To their own control. No man was so “carried away” by the Spirit (2Pe_1:21) as to lose the power to stop himself and be silent when “order” required it. [Evans sees an implied, contrasted thought,—that the spirits of the men “speaking with tongues” were not thus under their control.]

1Co_14:33.—General, governing principle derived from the very nature of God Himself. Seen, e.g., in Nature, where the judgment, equally with the moral sense, says that the disorder, the dislocation of a manifestly designed order, is certainly not from the Creator. The governing principle is one recognised, and its practical application urged in this chapter is acted upon, in “all the Churches.”

1Co_14:34.—In chap. 11, re the laying aside of their veil, there seems another trace of the tendency of the Corinthian women to over-use the equality with man which was so novel and important a point in their Charter, the Gospel, which said “neither male nor female” (Gal_3:28). The Law.—Used for “the Old Testament,” as in 1Co_14:21. “In the larger and public assemblies of the Church, which alone are under consideration in this chapter.… It is probable that the Apostle had here especially in his thoughts the office of teaching in public, 1Ti_2:12” (Ellicott). “And as to merely asking for information or instruction, let them do that at home.” And Beet, very wisely: “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 women 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 is supported, seem to imply that the 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 [N.B.] 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.”

1Co_14:36.—Same appeal as in 1Co_14:33; 1Co_11:16. “Word of God,” the Old Testament phrase so frequently connected with the gift of prophecy: “The word of the Lord came unto us,” etc. “Are you Corinthians the fountain of all law or custom for the Churches? Or have you been exclusively favoured with the communication of the Divine will. I also—to go no further—claim the inspired authority to speak and determine” (cf. 1Th_5:27). Another test of the nature and origin of the Spirit at work in a man, in far-off parallelism to that of 1Co_12:3. Almost: “Let any man who is really a prophet not only say, ‘Jesus I acknowledge,’ but let him also say, ‘Paul I know’;” like the evil spirits which just about this time were so confessing both in Ephesus (Act_19:15).

1Co_14:37.—“The Lord” Christ, to whom Paul stands in this matter in the relation of Aaron to Moses, and (higher) Moses to God (Exo_4:15, and, particularly, 16). This and 1Co_14:28 have many various readings, important, but not greatly affecting the homiletic use of the verses.

1Co_14:38.—Moral causes are supposed under the “ignorance.” Cf. the tone of Rev_22:11. If the marginal be adopted, then cf. Gal_4:9; 1Co_13:12; and the solemn Mat_25:12.

1Co_14:39.—Resumes verbally 1Co_14:1, but with still further abatement of value set upon “tongues”

1Co_14:40. Decently.—Cognate forms of the word are in 1Co_7:35; Rom_13:13; 1Th_4:12, etc.

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—Whole Chapter

Public Worship in the Christian Church.

1. Public, united worship is an instinct in the devout heart.—The Church at Corinth assembled for worship (1Co_14:26). There may be a “Church in a house,” many such. The worship there may be of the most spiritual, precious, acceptable; it is the prerogative, the honour, of a father to be the priest in his home; the patriarchal order lives on in the household life of the people of God. Two or three met in Christ’s name form a quorum for constituting a true assembly having the prerogatives and privileges—particularly “There am I in the midst”—of the largest Church (Mat_18:20). Many a solitary soul, cut off from fellowship and the sanctuary, offers a true worship in the sanctuary of the heart. But “the Lord loveth the gates of Zion”—the place of public resort, the very centre and focus of all the city’s life—“more than” even “the dwellings of Jacob” (Psa_87:2), dear as every one of these and its little “Church” is to Him. And the people of God so love them too. The “citizen” (Php_3:20) of the new Zion, where Christ is “Lord,” should need a very good reason for being absent when his fellow-citizens “come together” (1Co_14:23) “unto one place.” [Or “unto the same thing,” i.e. with the same object of central purpose. E.g. in very exact translation, “unto the name of Christ” (Mat_18:20).]

2. The Christian “sanctifies Christ as Lord” in the temple and worship of his heart (1Pe_3:15, correct reading). Yet Christian worship is the “worship of God” (1Co_14:25), differentiated, indeed, from Jewish, or Mahometan, or “Theistic” worship of that same God by its founding upon the intermediation of Christ. The “convicted” outsider, who falls prostrate in the assembly under the power of the “prophetic” word (1Co_14:24-25), naturally does not go definitely beyond the general recognition that “God,” as a Supernatural Power and Presence, is “amongst them.” The Christian worshipper also, whilst taking his “Lord” into direct account, is “worshipping God” too. His appearance in the place of assembly for common worship is in itself “worship.” It is a confession of God; in the face of the world which says, “No God” (Psa_14:1), he openly professes his belief in a God and his sense of grateful dependence upon Him. All public worship means this; it is of the very essence of the act. Christian worship has specially its grateful recognition of the One Supreme Mercy, the “Unspeakable Gift.”

3. In this chapter also is manifest the very early and very natural use of the opportunity afforded by the presence of so large a company, to “edify” the new or elementary life by instruction; in the case before us by “prophecy,” which should embody a “revelation” given to the “prophet,” or by a “doctrine” which should be the “teacher’s” exposition of what he had learned by his special “charism” of “knowledge,” an unusually direct and deep, Spirit-guided, insight into the new disclosures of truth belonging to the stage of Revelation reached in the Gospel days (1Co_14:6). This may be—ought to be—on the part both of the speaker and hearers an act of most real “worship.” It is such, when the act of teaching and that of listening are, in the intention of each, distinctly directed to the glory of Christ. There is no more really Godward act of the spiritual life than to listen, waiting to hear “the word of God” (1Co_14:36).

4. If in 1Co_14:16 we find at the least a reminiscence of the Eucharistic blessing and the popular response, we have the cycle of the elements of Christian worship—praise (1Co_14:15), prayer (ib.), teaching (1Co_14:6), Lord’s Supper (1Co_14:16)—completed.

5. And the chapter is an instructive, typical case of the regulative, legislative method of “the Lord” of the Church. “The things which” Paul here “writes are the commandments of the Lord,” in regard to the public worship, not only of Corinth, but of “all the Churches of the saints.” It is conceivable that He might have “drawn up” a code of rules and regulations for the Worship of His Church, which, unlike human legislation, should in no part have, sooner or later, become inapplicable, or impracticable, or obsolete, by reason of altered circumstances or change of age, or of personal or national peculiarities or needs. Conceivable, inasmuch as to Him nothing is impossible. But it would be unlike His method. This chapter is, informally but very really, a code of regulations, or rather of principles, embodied in the special facts of Corinth and the comments of St. Paul. “Within the four corners” of these leading instances in this chapter must the arrangements of Christian worship be found, or be made, to lie. Four points fix the lines which limit the area of liberty. Nothing must violate or sin against:

1. Salutary Christian custom;

2. Seemly “order”;

3. The demand for intelligent worship;

4. Above all, “edification.”

I. Salutary Christian custom, particularly such as is based on Apostolic injunction (1Co_14:33; 1Co_14:37). (Cf. on this topic the material supplied under 1Co_11:16.) There is a comity amongst Christian Churches which should not lightly be set aside. None knew so surely as did the Head of His Church how hopeless was uniformity of ritual or even of creed. It is only by speaking and acting in very broad generalities that agreement can be supposed feasible or be realised. Yet there will be a family likeness in the types of worship in the various sections of the Church, national and confessional. Distinctively “Christian” worship will everywhere be one in type. The diversities will be family diversities only. One such distinguishing line is the exclusion of women from the office of public teaching (1Co_14:34-35). Such points of family likeness can be very few, but they should in all ordinary cases be respected. Paramount demands of “edification” may override everything else. But no one Church should set itself up as an independent source of authority, and least of all as having over other Churches (1Co_14:38) any prescriptive power to insist upon its local speciality, or its “fad” of exaggerated individualism, as if it were a sine quâ non of Church order.

II. Seemly order.—The Church has a character which is at stake before angels (chap. 11) and the world. Each Church, each member, is responsible for the keeping of its character.

1. What is reverent and orderly in Divine worship is a matter incapable of any rigid, of any à priori, absolute and universally applicable, definition. Demonstrative races, as, for example, the negro in the States or the West Indian Islands, will feel no impropriety or extravagance in what the self-repression of culture would revolt against as even socially “bad form,” not to say religious irreverence. The Salvation Army congregation is not to be judged of by the same standard as the élite gathered in the choir of an ancient English cathedral, nor will they appreciate “reverence” and “irreverence” at the same estimation. Both sides need to be broad in sympathy in the matter. The peril of all culture in any direction is fastidiousness; whilst the less-cultured “heart” is not infrequently unfair to, and impatient with, the less-demonstrative character, and the form of service in Christian worship which it demands. Our section reminds us that where a fulness of the new life of the Spirit is suddenly given, there is often the appearance, and always the danger, of disorder. In the first outburst of the “tongues” at Pentecost, there seemed disorder enough. Peter’s voice soon subdued all into listening attention, no doubt; yet during his “many words” of “testimony and exhortation” [Act_2:40, a very notable summation of Pentecostal preaching in all time], occupying as they did many hours of the day, his congregation would be continually changing, “many coming and going,” the courtyard of the house filled over and over again with new faces; surely not without confusion. And when the appeals “cut to the heart,” Eastern demonstrativeness and outcry would certainly beget no small tumult, as the inquirers eagerly ask from this apostle or that believer, “What must we do?” There is a disorder which is unseemly and may grieve the Spirit; there is a criticism of the “disorder,” which grieves Him too. A modern analogue is often found in some time of revival, such as thirty years ago swept over the north of Ireland. A self-repressed observer, a keen critic of his own emotional tendencies, might stand in the midst of some large hall or sanctuary, in every part of which were little groups, in perfect independence of those nearest them, engaged in prayer, or conversation, or now and again stirred by fervent exclamations of thanksgiving or even a snatch of song. The place full of sound; now and again “a Babel” of tumult. No central conduct of the proceedings at all. Yet a little inquiry would discover that it was an orderly disorder. The “penitent” who would be the centre of one group knew well what he needed and was pleading for with God; they who helped him by their prayers or instruction were intelligently enough endeavouring to supply his need. The outburst of song or thanksgiving from another little knot was not an incoherent disturbance of the quiet or a meaningless addition to the sounds which filled the place. There was no “confusion,” except such as in a soul or in a Church over which the life-giving Holy Ghost has been “brooding” (Gen_1:2), will always mark the transition from chaos and darkness and death, to cosmos and light and life.

2. Yet such scenes and conditions must always be exceptional, and the accompaniments of the creative crises of the life, whether of the Church or the soul. They are for the sovereignty of the Spirit to originate and to rule. Their permanent and abundant fruitfulness will justify them. They are not to be cultivated or “worked up.” There is no necessary “heartiness” in disorder or noise, or in leaving the conduct of religious worship to the impulse of the moment or the (not always too wise or spiritual) man; as, on the other hand, a fixed order of worship, and quiet, undemonstrative, self-repressed bearing in the assembly of the Church at worship, need not be “formality” or “stiffness,” or check the fulness of the Spirit’s grace in the approach of each heart to God, or in the communication of blessing to each. Usually the “New Wine” is best put into the “bottles” of order and seemly arrangement. The exaggeration of orderliness is when the “bottles” are regarded—whether “new” or “old”—as too sacred for even the “New Wine” Himself to be allowed to stretch or burst.

3. Especially is this true of the “teaching” element in Christian worship.—Paul is not contemplating what in modern phrase would be called a “testimony meeting,” or a prayer meeting. (Especially is this true in regard to the silence of women.) The raising of the dead soul is a sovereign exercise of Divine power, which may well be allowed to choose its own methods, and to have its accompaniments exempt from unspiritual criticism, if not from “spiritual men’s” control. But next follows “giving something to the raised one to eat” (Mar_5:43), which lies within the fair range of human ordering, according to the best available judgment, though this of course not apart from the prayerfully sought aid of the Spirit of God. In Corinth the teachers—the very “prophets”—were found starting up, several at once. Each man had come full of his “psalm” or his “doctrine” or his “revelation,” or these seemed given him at the time with an overmastering fulness of urgency of importance. Neither will the “prophet” who starts up whilst another is yet speaking wait, nor will the other give way to him and draw his own “prophesying” to a close (1Co_14:29-30). The very purpose of the Inspiring Spirit was frustrated by such an overlapping of teachers, two or three delivering their message together. “One by one,” says Paul, with Apostolic authority. Even the very “tongues” are to be “by course,” i.e. in orderly turn. “Two or three tongues” “two or three prophecies” in each assembly—no more—are sufficient for each “diet” of worship. “Let that prophet sit down; this other wants to speak” (1Co_14:30). “But you are sinning against the liberty of the Spirit. You with your stiff, formal propriety, you are grieving Him! Who are you to close the mouth of a ‘prophet,’ so long as he believes that the Spirit has something to communicate or reveal through him? If you cut him short like that, or give ‘only two or three’ opportunity to deliver themselves, whilst the rest, as much ‘prophets’ as they are, must ‘bottle up’ their prophecy and carry it home again, you are restraining the Holy Ghost; the hearers will lose some truth, perhaps some truth they needed!” There is sufficient approximation to truth in this ever-recurring protest, to keep the “orderly” temper on its guard against the dangers of its very excellence. The “prophetic” grace which made Paul able, with inspired authority and wisdom (1Co_14:37), to “put his foot down” and definitely and finally to repress or regulate a gift as extraordinary as his own, belongs to an order which is past. But the whole matter is lifted up to and set upon a permanent basis, when Paul appeals to the very character and known manner of the “God not of confusion, but of peace” (1Co_14:33). The teaching work of the Church demands, in the very nature of things, order, propriety, attention, quiet.

4. In the ordering of the programme of public, Christian worship, nothing should be admitted, nothing forbidden, but as subject to His sanction or revision, Who, in every sense and in every way, works for “peace.” This will not lead to any uniformity of practice, it never has done, never can do; but it will be the guiding, testing principle to which practice should be ever adjusted. Nor is the truth of practice hard in that way to arrive at—particularly in the way of love (1Co_12:31)—in any given type of local or national Church. Especially when

3. and

4. are kept paramount.

III. The demand for intelligent worship and teaching (1Co_14:15; 1Co_14:19).—

1. Paul’s Example. “I speak with tongues more than ye all;—I thank God for it” gives us an interesting, seldom-regarded, side-light upon Paul’s character and work; it is a touch in the portrait of him too often omitted. But it is a perpetually recurring trait in his self-revelation in his letters, that he should go on to say, “I had rather, in the Church, speak,” etc. It might be his “glory” (2 Corinthians 12) to hear the language of “the third heaven.” But he lived very much and very practically on earth. He might draw support under his “thorn” from such “revelations of the Lord,” and in the ecstasy of the “tongue,” with its deep communings of his adoring “spirit” with God, he no doubt found strength and (in our looser modern sense) “inspiration” for his work; but to men he spoke with the “tongue of men” (1Co_13:1). [True, by a not unfair accommodation, of all men of spiritual power. Jacob has “power with God” first, and then “power with men” (Gen_32:28). Of Richard Lynch Cotton it was said, “His mind was always engaged in prayer.” The Rev. R. Wright said of him, “I was much impressed by his standing up in the carriage and offering up silent prayer before we started.” His servant found that he must needs pause before entering his master’s library; he might very probably otherwise find him upon his knees (Burgon, Twelve Good Men). A Sheffield woman, speaking the vernacular, described Rev. Joseph Entwisle, “Yon mon’s thick wi’ God.” Of S. H. Smith, a Sheffield manufacturer, it was said (Memoir, by W. H. Tindall) that whoever heard him speak in any meeting of Christian people felt that he dwelt habitually with God, and came forth on such occasions to speak to men.]

2. A contrast and a combination.—The true meaning of 1Co_14:15 sets aside a good deal of the customary and very devout exposition of the force of the contrast, “with the spirit and with the understanding also.” There can hardly now be any doubt that the “spirit” is the human “spirit,” and that here, as usual, Paul’s vocabulary is moulded upon the trichotomic scheme of 1Th_5:23. (For homiletic purposes it will be sufficient, and all that is practicable, to make pictorial the relation between the “spirit” and the “understanding.”) Regard redeemed manhood as a grand Temple, one of God’s own building, in whose “inner man God in Christ may dwell” (Eph_3:17). The body and the lower faculties, the sensuous ones, of the natural life are its outer court, its Court of the Gentiles. Then within, court within court, lie successively the nobler and yet nobler ranges of faculties, which more and more differentiate man from the noblest of the creatures round him. At last is reached the Holy Place, the “Understanding,” the intellectual part, perhaps the personal, where—grace apart—man most closely images, and approaches to, God. If the very animal creation share with him, and may tread, the great outer court of man’s complex nature, they go no further; and at the inmost, within even the holy place of the “understanding,” there is another, most sacred, spot, where not even the natural man, of understanding and intellect cultured to their highest of capacity, may tread. It is the Holy of Holies of manhood, the “spirit”; the inmost shrine, where God Who “is a Spirit” dwells and reveals Himself in glory, and where the spiritual man holds a fellowship with God, of worship on the one side, and of revelation and blessing on the other, which is a holy secret between them.

3. In that innermost secrecy, in the holy privacy of this Holy of Holies, the man “speaking in a tongue” is for the time closeted with God. In a holy outpouring of prayer and praise, and even of song, he is a high priest standing before God within the central shrine of His personality. The bystanders in the assembly may hear his voice, as it were through the thick, dulling veil of the physical organs, but their ear catches nothing of the sense of the ecstatic words of holy communion between him and God. The man with the gift of “interpretation of tongues” can hear, and can even report to his fellows; but without that gift he and they are only in some outer court of their fellow-worshipper’s manhood.

4. The man so favoured of God may well “covet” to enjoy “tongues”; he may well hesitate to “forbid” any man to make use of His gift; [to the cautious, cooler temperaments at Thessalonica, inclined to regulate very strictly, to discourage or suppress, the “tongues” because of the disorder and extravagance which were their ever-present danger, Paul says: “Do not ‘throw cold water, upon,’ quench not, the Spirit, in any manifestation of His firelike presence and work.” To the men who had “tongues” or coveted them, who were liable to depreciate such a gift as “prophecy,”—“only the intelligible utterance of Divine truth in plain language!”—he says, “Despise not prophesyings” (1Th_5:19-20);] in the fulness of his own blessing and privilege he may well desire that “all might speak with tongues” (1Co_14:5). Yet it is a grace for the man himself alone; a gift for the man only; his face is set Godward in its exercise; he speaks “to himself and to God” (1Co_14:28).

5. True it has an indirect use.—It is “a sign” to the outside world (1Co_14:22). The “unbelief” of the world is something far deeper and more subtle than mere disbelief of any primal propositions about God or the things of God. It is a habit, not an act, of the mind and will and heart. As truly as it is said of “faith” or of “religion,” so unbelief is “not merely a set of opinions, but a life.” It becomes a dull, crass ignorance of, or a dead-set, apathetic indifference to, the unseen and the spiritual, which goes its way, and seeks its aims, leaving altogether out of the reckoning—and not desiring to include—anything higher than man, or beyond the narrow horizon of man’s earthly sojourn, with its interests and consequences. The first, greatest difficulty in the recovery of lost man—le premier pas qui coûte—is the awakening of the soul from its indifference and death. In conviction of sin, the unseen and spiritual for the first time to any practical effect breaks in upon, and through, the hard, narrowing, incrusting “unbelief”; this high-raised and all but impassable barrier built around the understanding and the heart. God has many “signs” which should arouse attention, and waken the drowsy sense, to the fact and near presence of this environing, real world of spiritual things—God, the soul, sin, eternity, judgment; He has many occasions and instrumentalities and methods, of thus bringing close to the mind and heart in their unbelieving insensibility, Himself and the works of the Eternal and the Spiritual. Sometimes a Paul in his course meets a Felix in the course of a life of successful, high-placed, wicked worldliness, and for once Felix hears of “righteousness and temperance and judgment,” and is aroused and trembles; strange providences—earthquakes that shake jailers of Philippi out of their sleep—do it; miracle did it [“If I … then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mat_12:28)]; the “tongues” did it in Corinth. A Jewish or heathen passer-by turns in to the little gathering, the former perhaps definitely hostile in his “unbelief,” the latter simply “unlearned,” with a quasi-neutral unacquaintance with all these matters (1Co_14:23). It may happen that such a visitor turns in at a very disorderly time, when many are uttering the strange “tongues,” and all at once. It is a Babel of sound. There is a strange language being talked—if indeed it be a language at all, and not mere incoherent raving, which he hears. It may be that he turns away with a contemptuous laugh as he leaves the room: “They are a pack of madmen together in there!” But if it be a seemly and orderly occasion, when only “two or three” are exercising their gift, and those “in turn,” first one and then another rising, and delivering themselves of what—though he can “hear” no speech—fills every hearer with awe; his unaccustomed heart is filled with awe too, as though the room were filled with a Presence, and as though another world, ordinarily a “mystery” were suddenly unveiled. If that be all, he may not become a believer, but at least indifference is gone; the “sign” has spoken to his understanding; indifference is stirred by the new fear. The way of the Lord is perhaps prepared. A breach is made in the high wall of utter, careless secularity, and through it something more may enter, to the saving of the man. [To the children growing up in the congregation, to the heathen just coming within the range of the message of the Christian Gospel, the very ritual of the service may sometimes be in its degree a “sign,” appealing to the attention through eye or ear, and impressing the thought with the idea of a supersensuous world.]

6. But more, much more, is needed. For the man’s own worship this inner, God directed communing may be enough, but for common worship intelligent speech is required. And, above all, if worship is to be a “fruitful” thing (1Co_14:14), if the Church are all to “learn” or to be “comforted” (1Co_14:31), and if the unbeliever is to be “judged” and “convinced” (1Co_14:24), then the “understanding” must be joined with “the spirit,” or even a Paul will do little or no good. The high priest must come out from the holy of holies of the “spirit”; what he has seen and heard and gained he must bring out through the course of the “understanding”; there he may meet his fellows on more equal terms. And, lastly, his very physical organs must translate what is published in the understanding.

7. He who is to be of use to his fellows, the leader of their worship, the instructor of their life, the awakener of their conscience, must be a real mediator going in for men to God, coming forth from God, and for God, to men. He who has not first learned something in the secret place of the communing of the “spirit,” he who has himself gone no further within than the “understanding,” will be only an imperfect instructor of men. He will never lead their worship any further inward, any nearer to God, than he has gone himself. Above all, he will never carry the supreme credential of a “prophet,”—that his words reveal men to themselves, in all their sin and guilt and spiritual need (1Co_14:24-25). Yet many a man’s work is marred because, “prophet” as he is, his understanding does not translate his message into clearly stated truth, nor does he find a way for it to the understanding, or commend it to the judgment, of his fellow-worshippers. There is “an art of preaching” which needs to be learnt. A native “gift” of formal speech, of public address, underlies all pulpit success; it is the natural basis of fitness upon which grace does its work in equipping a preacher. But this needs cultivation and training. The greatest natural powers need furnishing; and whilst it is in the inner, secret place alone that a true message for God may be gained, yet the “understanding,” at its very best of training and fulness of acquired knowledge, must pass the message through its own mint, and put its own form and stamp upon it. He who, under ordinary circumstances, cries down the office, or practically disregards the use, of the “understanding,” in the man who leads the worship of the congregation, or is its “prophet” for instruction or conviction, is repeating the mistake of the Thessalonian or Corinthian who valued and gloried in the unintelligible “tongue” and, in comparison, rated low the less showy gift of “prophecy.”

8. Worship in an unknown tongue.—Naturally, and properly, the Reformers of the sixteenth century strengthened their protest against the conduct of worship for (sometimes unlettered) German or English people in Latin, by appeal to this passage of St. Paul. Rome is not alone in having clung to a language which once was the vulgar tongue, but which has become unintelligible through change of circumstance. In the Syrian Churches the language of the Liturgy is the once ordinary, but now antiquated, Syriac. The very Brahmin does not now understand the language of the mantras he chants through life. The Parsee priest cannot translate the old Zend of the invocations he uses. It is the vice of heathen worship to be veiled, to the point of being unintelligible to the people. All ordered worship should be on a level with the understanding of those of whose devotions it professes to be the vehicle, or to whom it professes to offer a message of instruction. The devotional part of the order of worship should at least be intelligible to the worshipper, “else how shall he say Amen?” (1Co_14:16). So the very music should help the intelligence of the worship. The didactic, or hortatory, or convincing should be intelligent in matter and in form, on its human side, as fit as “understanding” can make it, to accomplish its work with the heart and will, and to commend the message to the intelligence, of the hearer. It may be—it must be, or it is “unfruitful” and useless—“plain preaching.” The great themes of the Gospel are worthy that the highest intelligence should match and measure itself against them. “Wisdom is plain to him that understandeth.” But it is the noblest function of the noblest mind to bring these themes into a shape apprehensible by the humblest and narrowest. “Unfruitful” preaching is either

(1) passing the understanding of the hearer, or

(2) indefinite in statement, or

(3) pointless and unimpressive in application [J. L.].

9. Interpreters sometimes needed.—There are true seers who get real messages from God, but cannot “interpret” them (1Co_14:18). They may print their message, or may speak to a select few who can understand them. But there are many, a much larger company, whose gift, and whose call and function, it is to popularise the truth given to the inner circle of these illuminated ones. The “interpretation of tongues” has its modern analogue to-day, as also has the office of the “prophet.” When the man who dwells in the holy of holies is also the man who comes out into the outer court direct from God’s presence, and is the interpreter or the forthteller of the things he has seen and heard within, then the worshippers are led nearest to God, and the whole order of the service fulfils Paul’s fourth requirement:—

IV. Edification (1Co_14:1-3; 1Co_14:6; 1Co_14:12).—

1. The reiterated emphasis upon this point shows how predominant in importance this ranked in the thought of St. Paul. It manifestly takes precedence of every other consideration. [Love is not so much a “gift” as the very life in which the “gifts” should root themselves, and from which they should draw an all-pervasive character. Everything should be full of love. But next to love] Paul ranks prophecy above every gift. It “edifies” as does no other, and what will do this is his primary care. No doubt this plea has sometimes been made to cover some very wide departures from Christian reverence and sobriety, to say nothing of the comity of Christian custom. It has been said in their defence, “But you see that good is being done!” What has only roused the emotions and even the senses, unintelligent appeal to the feelings, a religious life built only upon the foundation of those feelings, have sheltered themselves under the same plea. The feelings have their place; “disorder” is sometimes an accompaniment of a true Pentecost, and justifies itself in its issues; but, under ordinary circumstances, prudent order, seemly custom, intelligent devotions and instructions, best promote edification.

2. None of them is worth anything if it do not.—Better, e.g., that customary, beautiful order be swept away before the “rushing wind” of a real Pentecost, than that “the breath” of the Spirit should never breathe upon dead souls. Order must not become a fetish, a tyranny. Any innovation upon the established order in a Christian Church will need good vindication; but it can, and does, vindicate itself, if it bring men to the Foundation and build them up upon it. Paul reminds his readers (1Co_2:1-5, etc.) how the intellectual gifts and the graces of oratory may become a snare to the preachers and a difficulty to the hearers. In neither order nor custom is there anything so sacred but that real “edification” may justify anything.

3. Edification demands a clear, definite, intelligible message.—“If the trumpet,” etc. Most hearers want from the “prophet” who stands in their midst, what is profitable, helpful, true. But often the week has been a time of ceaseless conflict, and in weariness they are ready to give all up. Just then does the speaker in the public service need to be “a leader and a commander to the people” (Isa_55:4). They want a man who can order their life for them. They will follow his “trumpet-call” if they find that he knows his own mind and gives no “uncertain sound.” He may put heart into the faint by his “certain” sound, e.g., of confident proclamation of an Almighty Helper and Friend by their side in the conflict. [If it be the “joyful sound” of the Jubilee trumpet proclaiming that the lost heritage is to be had once more by its rightful owner, then also does its blast need to accompany a clear, plain, heartening declaration of the Atonement and its redeeming effect, and of the conditions on which this effect becomes available. An “uncertain sound” on this point may mean an eternally lost heritage, to some soul that hears and yet hears nothing.] The man who has nothing, or nothing definite, to blow upon his trumpet, had better stand aside for some other leader.

4. Paul suggests one remarkable piece of “edification”—the sudden arrest and conviction of a casual hearer (1Co_14:24-25). He is the Jew or the heathen who came in during the “madness” of the “tongues” (1Co_14:23). This time the prophets are exercising their gift—“all are prophesying.” Their words are “with the understanding.” They are a message to his conscience. There is the “sign” once more, but there is sense too. He is laid bare to himself. Sin which he never saw and never suspected; a self which he never knew and never suspected; are disclosed to him. [The man known least to many a man is himself.] “The secrets of his heart are made manifest” to himself, and perhaps by open confession are made manifest to the assembled congregation also. [“The word cleaves asunder the soul and spirit, and discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb_4:12).] In the presence of God he “falls prostrate” in awe and guilty shame. “The speaker might know all about me,” many a modern hearer has said, in the presence of the searching Spirit of God. He confesses that of a truth he has found God amongst this people. If the Supper be the embodiment par excellence of the element of orderly, seemly, sacred, formal arrangement in worship, so also is such a “conviction” the chief glory of the teaching. No prophet should long exercise his gift without this conviction following the word he utters. If it be really the word of the Spirit through his lips, then awakening will be one of its constant credentials. Intelligent, plain, profitable, edifying words for the believer; arousing, alarming, convincing words for the “ignorant” and the “unbeliever.” There are preachers who will not learn; as there are hearers who will not listen. Paul might, but we dare not, anticipate the final judgment, and say, “If he be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”

SEPARATE HOMILY

1Co_14:34-35. Woman’s Place and Woman’s Work.

I. How far Paul’s words are binding.—

1. Paul’s pronouncements upon the position of woman in Christendom and her relation to man are not to be reckoned as simply remainders of “Oriental” or “Israelite” preconceptions, from which even he, who wrote Gal_3:28, had not worked himself free. Nor are they to be regarded as merely intended to apply to a temporary phase of social life which found its typical exemplifications in Corinth or Ephesus in Paul’s day; and as therefore without force for English or American life today. As to the former point,—whilst the human element in Revelation is to be recognised, the Divine is not to be minimised. The abundant literary and historical material in whose light (say) the Epistles of Paul can to-day be studied, and that development of the historic sense in the students, which they share with the writers and readers of all history to-day, tend to obscure the fact,—ascertainable and verifiable on other lines of approach to and examination of the topic of Inspiration,—that the Spirit of God makes Himself responsible for the Book which is the product of the historical, or epistolary, or other activity of Paul and the other contributors to it. The judgments on this topic are Paul’s; but not those of a Jew, only half-emancipated from the prejudices of his early education and training, on whom more enlightened or advanced readers may sit in judgment in their turn, and with fresher light review or revise his pronouncements. To assume this takes all finality, all authority, from Revelation on this topic or any other. As does the alternative suggestion. Is anything merely and only temporary put upon permanent record in the Bible at all? Rather, everything is of permanent value and authority, if even indirectly. If the temporary and “accidental” is put upon record, it is because in it is embodied some truth of abiding value. The temporary and accidental form carries a principle which is part of the universally applicable and binding Revelation of the mind and will of God.

2. Here Paul, in point of fact, does most pointedly claim for his dicta on our topic an absolute, Divine authority. He claims to speak as a prophet. Every true prophet will recognise the prophet in him. “The word of the Lord has come” to him; the words which he utters and bids his amanuensis write are “the commandments of the Lord.” [The assertion is made in regard to this one topic, indeed, or to the group of topics dealt with in this chapter. But it would hardly be denied that this is a test case, a sample case, and, that when coupled with Col_4:16 and 1Th_5:27, it extends its applicability to all his Epistles and their instructions.] He also lifts the case, both here and in the two other places where the topic is formerly dealt with (chap. 11, and 1 Timothy 2), above the level of the temporary and local. He traces the relation of woman to man up to the primal ordering of Creation. It is no novelty; it is no Oriental peculiarity; it is no wrong done to women by the men of the ancient world. Abused the principle may have been,—shamefully and cruelly,—until woman has become the slave, or at best the plaything, of man, the drudge of his idle, selfish, masterful will, or the vehicle of his sensuality. But the relation of subordination of woman to man is shown to be rooted in the physical characteristics and the creation-history of both.

3. Hence, then, the only “dispensing power” which can relax these positive injunctions and modify the force of these pronouncements, is His Who through Paul uttered them. He is Lord of His Revelation. In His sovereignty He may manifestly overrule, override, set aside, His usual, and to us peremptory, command. But the “dispensing power” should never be assumed by man, and very assured credentials should be presented by the “woman suffered to teach.” [So conservative a man as John Wesley, e.g., wrote to a Mrs. Crosby, who had been led into a modified public activity: “I think the strength of the cause rests … on your having an extraordinary call.… It is plain to me that the whole work of God termed Methodism is an extraordinary dispensation of His providence. Therefore I do not wonder if several things occur therein which do not fall under ordinary rules of discipline. St. Paul’s ordinary rule was: ‘I permit not a woman to speak in the congregation.’ Yet, in extraordinary cases, he made a few exceptions; at Corinth in particular.” (For this he offers no proof. See 1Co_11:5.) Works, xii. 339, Anno 1771.]

II. What the Gospel did for woman.—Every woman who sits by her husband “in the Church” is a standing witness to its elevating, vindicating work on behalf of her sex. The Mahometan woman practically never goes to public worship at all. In ancient and modern synagogues of Judaism the Jewess is always present indeed, but in the women’s galley, and takes no open part in the worship. [She is not permitted to adapt to her sex, as in other cases, the thanksgiving: “I thank Thee who hast made me a man.” For her it must be: “I thank Thee who hast made me according to Thy will.”] Woman is prominent enough in religious ceremonial and worship in some well-known Asiatic and even in African forms of idolatry. But it is matter of common knowledge that outside Christendom, even at its most nearly nominal, woman has no such position as is the natural and necessary consequence of the teaching of the New Testament. She is at man’s side in the home, an equal sharer of its responsibilities, its happiness, its honours. Chivalry caught the inspiration of its Ideal of Womanhood—confined in practice as this often was to women of gentle birth—from the Church. The Gospel began by declaring that in the new, the Christian, form of the Abrahamic covenant (Gal_3:15-18) the woman had an equal status before God. In contradistinction to the old practice of Judaism, the woman was baptized as the men were. [That she might have her share thus publicly acknowledged and ratified was a reason, subsidiary but real, for the change in the sign and seal of the covenant.] She drew near to God with equal right of approach through Christ. Every woman in the Churches of Corinth, or Rome, or Ephesus, or elsewhere, knew by many daily proofs that the Gospel of Christ was on her side. See how Luke notes, “with the women” (Act_1:14); their equal presence in the prayer of the upper room was a revolutionary novelty. Let the prohibition of these verses be as stern as it may, and be pressed as absolutely as it may, it is a very small abatement from a freedom such as never was hers until the Gospel became the Great Charter of womanhood and its rights. Let her be prohibited most absolutely from eating the—not always pleasant—“fruit” of the office of public teacher, yet she dwells in an assured possession and enjoyment of a garden of happiness and of abundant “fruit,” such as never was nor is hers until the Gospel of Christ has borne its message and done its work. Women owe much to the Gospel.

III. It has opened to them many forms of activity.—

1. It may well be questioned whether Rom_16:1 calls Phœbe a “deaconess” in any precise or quasi-official sense. Almost certainly not; the date is too early. In the Pastoral Epistles there is more appearance of a definite “order,” that of “widows.” Pliny’s letter to Trajan speaks of some “ministrœ” whom he had put to the question. Lucian’s keen wit is directed against some aged Christian women who carried food to their co-religionists in prison. Organised, systematic work for the poor was very early part of the duty of the deaconess. Romans 16 is a very early documentary evidence of the many-sided activities of Christian women. They could “labour,” and “labour much” they could “succour” Paul and “many besides,” and “bestow much labour” on him. Priscilla, equally with her husband, could risk her life—“lay down her neck”—to save Paul’s life. All the martyrologies of the Churches give evidence of the noble share the women took in the work of witnessing for Christ even to death.

2. It is manifest in how many ways the woman is better adapted than man for much work which needs doing to-day at home and abroad. There is much work for women—“rescue work,” for example—which women can do best. The woman’s heart and sympathetic nature often give her a power over degraded men which men can never wield. The children are naturally the woman’s care, and, more than even woman herself, does the child owe much to the Gospel of that Christ Who was once the Babe of Bethlehem. Temperance work lies as fitly to their hand as it lies near to the heart of many of the noblest of the sex. “It is little grief to the Christian woman that she is excluded from the great offices in the Church, since it is hers to exercise the most glorious and effectual of all ministries,” that of love (Pressense, Life and Practice, 73). Woman has her primacy in the Church in all works of charity and beneficence.

3. The Spirit of “prophecy” made no distinction of sex. Pentecost began to fulfil Joel’s word in a point which perhaps even Peter hardly appreciated as he quoted it [Act_2:17-18 (Joe_2:28-32)]; the “daughters” should prophesy as well as the “sons”; the very “handmaidens” [i.e. be it noted, the female slaves; station should matter as little as sex] should share with the “servants” the outpouring of the Spirit. If 1Co_11:5 stood alone, it might be unfair to make it evidence of anything more than that some Corinthian women were actually “prophesying” and “praying” in the assembly, and that Paul for the moment expresses no opinion as to the right or wrong of the practice, but passes on to the immediately urgent matter that they were doing it with unveiled heads. But he says here, “Ye may all prophesy,” which, coupled with the equal treatment accorded to women by the endowing Spirit, seems still further to narrow his absolute prohibition, to “teaching” (1Ti_2:12), an office which once at least he distinguishes from “prophesying” (Eph_4:11; cf. Act_13:1). As was said above, the extraordinary charism was above ordinary prudential regulations; the Spirit is sovereign. Very early in the Church, accordingly, we find the deaconess occasionally “in apt and holy speech” teaching the women who were preparing for baptism. (Quoted in Pressensé, Life and Practice, 72, note.) The “apt” speech can hardly be forbidden to exercise itself amongst women in almost every possible or needful way, whether in the cottage-meeting handful, or the [cottage-meeting handfuls aggregated into the great] “congregation.” The line of division between the public “speaking in the Church” which is forbidden, and the “Bible lesson” given by a lady to a class of big lads or men in a Sunday school, which everybody sanctions, becomes a very fine one, and is indeed nearly at the vanishing-point. If it do not altogether disappear, it is manifestly rather retained, and, by Apostolic authority, absolutely retained, lest the sex should be unsexed, and because also of a primacy of man which is part of the original and abiding order of the God “not of confusion, but of” order and “peace.” As always, the “commandment of God” has the woman’s interest at heart. It is for her sex’s sake. [John Wesley may again be quoted as typical of a Scriptural conservatism and caution in dealing with this matter. He is writing two years earlier, to the same correspondent as above: “I advise you, as I did Grace Walton formerly,

1. Pray in private or public, as much as you Song of Solomon 2. Even in public, you may properly enough intermix short exhortations with prayer, but keep as far from what is called preaching as you can: Therefore, never take a text; never speak in a continued discourse, without some break, about four or five minutes” (Works, xiii. 339).] There are also traces in the early Church of a distinct duty laid upon the “widows” to keep up a perpetual intercession on behalf of the active, busy, younger Church. The prayer meeting is a field for a grand activity for woman which none will rebuke. Her testimony in a meeting for witness-bearing or praise is help which must not be refused; nor should she withhold it, if, as part of her consecration of herself to Christ, she may, by doing violence to her temperament and her modest reticence, honour Him, or may help seeking or battling and oppressed souls, in telling “how great things the Lord hath done for” her. [Note how Christ would not allow the woman with “the issue” to steal away in silence with her blessing, but will have her testimony borne, there in the street, before all the crowd (Luk_8:45-47).] Women who often enter into the Holy of Holies of the “spirit,” and there commune with God, are not idlers in the Church.

IV. The one reserved thing is “teaching.”—[Woman has never publicly given the bread and the wine of the Supper. There is no masculine “priestism” in this, however, or in the restraining of the woman from the office of the public teacher.] “But they are often better qualified to teach than the man who stands up to teach them.” Perhaps, but such “hard cases” make “bad law.” The salutary, seemly, general, binding rule gives the man the conduct of the worship in the congregation, [and, as shown in the Homiletic Analysis, the “worship” includes the teaching and the Supper].

APPENDED NOTE

“The Amen” of 1Co_14:16. From Stanley.—“After the prayers,” says Justin (Apol., c. 65, 67), “bread is offered, and wine and water, and the president offers up 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, and 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 “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 there regarded as the necessary ratification of the prayer or blessing (cf. 2Co_1:20).… 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. 314).

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. A comparison of the gifts of prophecy arid of speaking with tongues, in respect to their worth for the edification of the Church. Rules for the right regulation of their use according to their end, and according to the benefit they render to the Church

1 Corinthians 14

1     Follow after charity [love, τὴν ἀγάπην], and [but, δὲ] desire [the, τὰ] spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2For he that speaketh in an unknown, tongue [a tongue] speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [hear eth, ἀκούει] him; howbeit in the spirit [Spirit] he speaketh mysteries. 3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to [om. to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [a tongue] edifieth himself; but he that Proverbs 5 phesiethedifieth the church (congregation, ἐκκλ̓ησίαν]. I would that ye all spake [Now I wish you all to speak, θέλω δὲ πἀντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν] with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied [might prophesy, προφητεύητε]: for [but, δὲ]1 greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church 6[congregation, ἐκκλησία] may receive edifying. [But, δὲ] Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine [teaching, 7διδαχῇ]? And [om. And] even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, [yet ὅμες ἐὰν] except they give2 a distinction in the sounds,3 how shall it be 8known what is piped or harped? For [also, καὶ] if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words [a word] easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? 10for ye shall speak into the air. There are,4 it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them5 is [none are] without signification. 11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian [foreigner, βάρβαρος], and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian [foreigner] unto me. 12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts [spirits, πνευμάτων], seek that ye may excel [abound, περισσεύητε] to the edifying of the church [congregation]. 13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue [a tongue] pray that [in order that, ἵνα] he may interpret. 14For if I pray in an unknown tongue [a tongue], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and6 [but, δὲ] I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, 16and7 I will sing with the understanding also. Else, when thou shalt bless8 with the spirit [shalt have blessed in spirit, εὐλογῆ πνεύματι], how shall he that occupieth the room [place] of the unlearned [one not so gifted, ἰδιωτου] say [the, τὸ] Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17For thou verily givest thanks well [verily thou doest well to give thanks, σὺ μὲν γὰρ καλῶς εὐχαριστεῖς], but the other is not edified. 18I thank my [om. my]9 God, I speak10 with tongues 19[a tongue, γλὠσσῃ]11 more than ye all: Yet in the church [congregation] I had rather speak five words with my understanding,12 that by my voice [orally, κατηχήσω] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue [in a tongue]. 20Brethren, be not children in understanding [minds, ταῖς φρεσίν]: howbeit in malice [wickedness, κακίᾳ] be ye children [babes], but in understanding [minds] be men [full grown, τέλειοι], 21In the law it is [has been, γέγραπται] written, With [in, ἐν] men of other tongues and other13 lips [in lips of others, ἐν χείλεσιν ξτέροις] will I speak unto this 22people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore [the, αἱ] tongues are for a sign, not to [for] them that believe, but to [for] them that believe not: but prophesying serveth [the prophesying is] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 23If therefore the whole church [congregation] be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues,14 and there come in those that are unlearned [not specially gifted, ἰδιῶται], or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned [not miraculously endowed], he is convinced of [by, ὑπὸ] all, he is judged of 25[by] all: And thus15 are [om. And thus are] the secrets of his heart [are] made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth [in truth is in you]. 26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you [each one, ἕκαστος, om. of you]16 hath a psalm, hath a doctrine [a teaching, διδαχὴν], hath a tongue, hath a revelation [hath a revelation, hath a tongue],17 hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27If any man speak in an unknown tongue [a tongue, γλώσσῃ], let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church [congregation]; and let him speak to himself, and 29to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30[But, δὲ] If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31For ye may [can, δύνασθε] all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32And the spirits18 of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For God is not the author of confusion [tumult, ἀκαταστασίας], but of peace, as [peace. 34As], in all churches [the congregations, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις] of the saints.19 Let your [saints, let, om. your]20 women keep silence in the churches [congregations]: for it is not permitted21 unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience 35[in subjection, ὑποτασσέσθωσαν]22 as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their [own, ἰδίους] husbands at home: for it is a shame for women 36[a woman, γυναικι]23 to speak in the church. [congregation]24 What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments [a commandment, ἐστὶν ἐντολή] of the Lord.25 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.26 39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. [But, δὲ] 40Let all things be done decently and in order.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co_14:1-5. [He now turns from his digression to the main topic on hand, viz., the proper management of spiritual gifts. Before entering on this, however, he presses a final exhortation in regard to that which he had been so warmly eulogizing].—Pursue love,—i.e., use all diligence in obtaining and cultivating it; chase it as a hunter pursues his game; press towards it as your chief good, as men make for the goal in a race; such is the force of διώκειν here (Rom_9:30; Rom_12:13 f., 19; Php_3:12; Php_3:14). The omission of all inferential particles like οὖν adds to the energy of the injunction.—but be zealous for the spiritual gifts,—the same language as is used in 1Co_12:31. But it is not simply to resume what was there said, as though all that intervened was but a parenthesis [so Stanley]. Rather, the δέ, but, is designed to set the second clause over against the first, by way of showing that though they were to pursue love, still this was not to prevent their seeking for spiritual gifts also. In urging the former he was not intending to disparage the latter, as they might be disposed to infer. Hence we may render δέ by meantime, however, or nevertheless. Neander takes the second injunction in the light of a permission, rather than of a positive command, and supposes that Paul chose the stronger word in the first instance in order to teach his readers that a Christian’s main endeavor should be to become quickened by love. [“He observes, therefore, an admirable medium by disapproving of nothing that was useful, without at the same time preferring, by an absurd zeal, things of less consequence to what was of primary importance.” Calvin].—In regard to spiritual gifts see on 1Co_12:1. A more restricted application of the term here, to denote simply ‘the gift of tongues,’ might, indeed, be favored by the contrast implied in the “rather” directly following, and by 1Co_14:2, and also by 1Co_14:14 ff., inasmuch as the gift of tongues, because it was a speaking and praying in the spirit, might well be called by way of preeminence ‘spiritual.’ But the plural form, as well as the more extended connection had with the foregoing chapter, declare for the broader interpretation of: gifts in general.—but rather—μᾶλλον is to be construed comparatively and not as=μάλιστα, q. d., ‘more than all the other gifts.’—that ye may prophesy.—Instead of using the noun ‘prophecy,’ he employs the verb with the ἵνα as the object of ζηλοῦτε, be zealous for. In this there was undoubtedly a design; but not such as to warrant Meyer’s rendering, ‘in order that ye may prophesy.’ [Stanley says, that ἵνα is here passing into the Romaic sense, in which it is used as a substitute for the infinitive. Comp. for this use, 1Co_14:12; Mat_7:12 : Mar_6:8; Mar_6:25. See also Winer, P. 1, 11. § 63:2, 1], The reason of the preference he next assigns.—For he that speaks with a tongue,—i.e., in some strange language prompted by the spirit. [Bloomfield takes the “speaking” (λάλῶν) to signify preaching, exhorting, and says, ‘the context requires this;’ but it must be the context only as read in the light of a certain theory. There is nothing in the language to warrant it, and to construe it thus would be to make this the only passage where the gift of tongues must be supposed to have been used in addressing others directly].—speaketh not to men,—i.e., not with the design of imparting anything that the hearers can understand and profit by.—but to God:—It is with God that he is in communication, [“according to the proverb: ‘He sings to Himself and the muses’ ”.—Calvin], Of this the proof—first, negatively.—for no one heareth.—By this he does not mean literally ‘heareth not,’ as though the words were inaudible, like those muttered by Hannah, 1Sa_1:13; since this would neither suit the expression ‘speaketh;’ nor yet the context, especially of 1Co_14:7; nor yet the corresponding passage in Act_2:10; Act_2:19. The word ἀκούειν rather denotes here the inward hearing, the mental appreciation of what was uttered. [So the word is used in Act_22:9, where the attendants of Paul are said not to have ‘heard the voice’ which in Act_9:7 they were said to have heard—an ambiguity which can be explained only by taking the word in the former instance to mean ‘understand.’ See also Mar_4:33. “He spake as they were able to hear;” also Gen_11:7; Gen_42:23; Isa_36:11 where for ‘understand’ the LXX. has ἀκούειν]. The negative “no one” is not hyperbolical as if signifying ‘very few,’ but absolute; the exception arising from the assistance of some interpreter will of course be understood.—but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.—The ‘but’ is not designed to express a contrast, as though equivalent to sondern (Rückert); but it is explicative, introducing a further specification, viz., “in the spirit;” while the remaining words alone state the antithesis to what is asserted in the previous clause. The word “mysteries” is not to be understood as in 1Co_4:1; 1Co_13:2. [As Stanley, “Here, as elsewhere, it means ‘God’s secrets;’ here, however, not as elsewhere in the sense of secrets revealed, but in the sense (nearly approaching to the modern word mystery) of secrets concealed. The only other instance is Rev_17:5.” And Alford: “Things which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from the speaker himself”]. So understood, the statement would, as related to the previous one, appear tautological; hence the words “in the spirit” must here be so taken as intended to bring out more fully the characteristic of the gift in question. Accordingly they must be interpreted not simply of the inward man, q. d., ‘he speaks to himself in his own thoughts’ (Le Clerc, Locke, Semler). Still less can πνεύματι be the objective dative either to λαλεῖ, or to μυστήρια. q. d, ‘he speaks things which are mysteries for the spirit of others.’ Rather the expression is used here as in 1Co_14:14, of the activity of the higher religious consciousness, uninfluenced by reflection (Meyer), [“of the spirit as opposed to the understanding, his spirit as the organ of the Holy Ghost while the understanding is unfruitful” (Alford)], of the inner life as abstracted from the outer world (Beek), “of a state of inspiration only through the medium of the intuitional side of the human spirit directed God-ward—a state in which the self-consciousness is, as it were, suppressed or overpowered by the divine influence completely taking possession of the human soul; in short, of a state of mystic ecstasy which, when partaking of the character of a gift, creates for itself a form of speech in which the soul breaks forth, as it were in holy dithyrambics” (Delitzsch v. § 5).27 [So also De Wette; πνεύματι he explains by “through the spirit,” i.e., his higher unconscious spiritual faculty which is filled by the Holy Spirit, and is without the νοῦς. Bloom-field and Hodge, however, follow the Greek commentators, and most early modern ones, in taking the word “spirit” to mean, not the higher spiritual powers of our nature, but the Holy Ghost as in 1 Co 8:14. “In favor of this interpretation is: 1. The prevailing use of the word Spirit in reference to the Holy Ghost in all Paul’s epistles and especially in this whole connection. 2. That the expression to “speak in” or “by the Spirit,” is an established Scriptural phrase, meaning to speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 3. When spirit is to be distinguished from the understanding, it designates the affections; a sense which would not at all suit this passage. 4. The meaning arrived at by this interpretation is natural and suitable to the connection. “Although he who speaks with tongues is not understood yet guided by the Spirit, he speaks mysteries.” Hodge. To this it may be replied in order 1. That πνεῦμα when used without any qualifying term in Paul’s writings, more commonly denotes the higher nature of man, especially as quickened by the Holy Ghost. 2. In every instance where the idea of speaking “in the Holy Ghost” is intended, it is indicated by the use of the prep. ἐν in, and usually with the addition of the article (as in Rom_1:9; Rom_8:9; Rom_15:16; 1Co_6:11). Wherever the simple anarthrous dative πνεύματι is found as here, to denote that in reference to which a thing is done, it stands for the spirit of man, as might be expected (Joh_4:24; Rom_8:13; 1Co_4:21; 1Co_7:34; Gal_5:5; Gal_5:16). It is in this broader sense that the word is here to be understood. It means not simply the intellect, but the higher nature of man in all its emotions as stirred by the Holy Spirit. 4. While the meaning “in the Holy Spirit” gives good sense even here, still the other meaning is more in accordance both with the usus loquendi, and with the train of argument, and should therefore be adhered to as it is by all English versions, and by nearly all commentators].—The case is otherwise with the prophet.—He that prophesies speaks unto men—In the prophet who is called to be the mediator of divine mysteries in behalf of others, there is united with the state of ecstasy (which however is not the exclusive mode of revelation with him), the ability of reproducing that which he has seen in the spirit, by the aid of his understanding and psychical faculties in adequate and intelligible language (Delitzsch § 5). What the prophet imparts is threefold,—edification, and exhortation, and comfort.—The first of these terms (οἰκοδομή), properly implying a building up of the Christian life in its successive stages, may be taken as expressing the genus of which the other two express the species, though not all the species. By παράκλησις, exhortation, we understand that by which the will is aroused to greater earnestness in self-culture and to greater Christian activity and to more zealous endeavors. [Stanley who unites with exhortation the meaning of consoling or strengthening as in the word παράκλητος, Comforter, says: “how closely connected this gift was with prophesying may be seen in the fact that the name of ‘Barnabas,’ ‘the son of prophesy,’ is rendered in Act_4:36 υἱὸς παρακλήσεως, ‘the son of consolation.’ ” By παραμυθέα we understand that by which the spirit is quieted and cheered. Though sharing with the former, the sense of consolation, it implies something more tender and soothing. As to the conjunctions και-και, the first may be taken as annexing to the chief word something further explanatory, like and indeed; or they may be taken as distributive particles, both and. Osiander follows the earlier commentators in coordinating the three particulars, and gives to the first a relation to faith as implying the furtherance and strengthening of the Christian life therein; to the second, a relation to love as implying a stimulus to the cultivation of it, as in the more active duties of Christianity; and to the third, a relation to hope, as the source and effect of all comfort; furthermore, he subordinates the two last to the first as their root.—That a subordination here is intended is sustained by the fact that the word “edification” returns again alone in 1Co_14:4.—But he that speaks with a tongue edifies himself;—He here refers to the effect of those inward excitements and elevating impressions which a person experiences in this intercourse with God—in this state of prayer and praise, or of mystic ecstasy wherein the operations of the Holy Spirit reach their culminating point (comp. Delitzsch, as above). “This does not imply a benefit derived through a distinct understanding of that which he speaks; but there is left upon the spirit of the speaker an impression made by the whole experience, of a quickening and elevating though mystical kind.” Meyer. And in like manner Osiander: “He could allow the total impression and feeling of his discourse to work on in him.” [“This view is necessary on account of what is said in 1Co_14:5, that if he can interpret, he can edify not only himself, but the church.” Alford. Hodge, on the contrary, ignoring the fact that any benefit could be derived excepting through a distinct intelligence of what was uttered, says, “this verse proves that the understanding was not in abeyance, and that the speaker was not in an ecstatic state.” But this is a mere assumption, against which might be put the following counter testimony: “The gift might and did contribute to the building up of a man’s own life (1Co_14:4). This might be the only way in which some natures could be roused out of the apathy of a sensual life, or the dulness of a formal ritual. The ecstasy of adoration which seemed to men madness, might be a refreshment unspeakable to one who was weary with the subtle questionings of the intellect, to whom all familiar and intelligible words were fraught with recollections of controversial bitterness or the wanderings of doubt. (Comp. a passage of wonderful power as to this use of the gift by Edw. Irwing. ‘Morning Watch,’ 5. p. 78.”) See Smith’s Bib. Dict. p. 1558].—but he that prophesies edifies the church.—The article before ἐκκλησιόαν is unnecessary. The church as a collection of individuals is here brought forward in contrast with the speaker himself. [Not so however Alford. “The article,” as he says, “being often omitted, when a noun in government has an emphatic place before the verb; accordingly in 1Co_14:5 the article reappears”].—Lest any should think that he was here seeking to set aside all speaking with tongues as calculated to provoke envy, he proceeds—I would that ye all spake with tongues,—This must be regarded as a hearty wish and not an unworthy concession to the Corinthians, on the score of their partiality for this gift. This is evident from the fact that he goes on at once to adduce prophecy as the higher and worthier gift which he still more earnestly desires that they should have and exercise.—but rather that ye prophesied.—He here passes over into the telic construction with ἴνα, “indicating a stronger intention towards the higher object” (Osiander). According to the common reading μείζων γάν, for greater, he adds a reason for what has just been said. But if with some good authority we read δέ, but, instead of γαρ, we must regard him as simply continuing his discourse.—but greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues,—The greatness here consists in usefulness, and hence also in dignity. This however is qualified by the exception,—except—ἐκτὸς εἰ μή. The μή here appears pleonastic (1Co_15:2; 1Ti_5:19). [This redundant expression arises from the blending of two constructions, ἐκτὸς εἰ and εἰ μή, instances of which are found also in the classics. Hence, not a Hebraism. Winer 3. § 65 3 c.].—he interpret.—The subject of the verb is not any other person, but the speaker himself who could unite the two gifts of speaking with tongues and interpretation in himself. By the exercise of the latter gift for the purpose of edifying the church, he put himself on a par with him that prophesied. In regard to the subjunctive form after εἰ comp. on 1Co_9:11, (respectum comprehendit experientiae. Meyer). [Hodge says: “this passage proves that the contents of these discourses delivered in an unknown, tongue were edifying; and therefore did not consist in mysteries in the bad sense of that term, i.e., in enigmas and dark sayings. The absence of the gift of interpretation does not prove that the speaker himself in such cases was ignorant of what he uttered. It only proves that he was not inspired to communicate in another language what he had delivered.” The reasoning is not conclusive. It is grounded on the assumption that no benefit could be derived from any experiences that were not distinctly intelligible and capable of being communicated under the ordinary forms of thought and language. And it may be asked if that which was spoken in the unknown tongue was distinctly intelligible to the speaker, what need was there of a special gift of interpretation to enable him to communicate it to the church? The understanding (νοῦς) is the parent of language; and what a person understood he surely could utter. Would this not be in violation of a well known rule, ‘not to introduce a divinity upon the stage unless the occasion required it’]?

1Co_14:6-11. But now,—νυνὶ δέ here also as in 1Co_13:13 in a logical sense, q. d., ‘since in speaking with tongues the edification of the church depends altogether upon the interpretation which followed, then without this,’—if I come unto you speaking with tongues,—he uses himself as an illustration without laying stress upon his personality, [as Chrys.], in which case αὐτὸς ἐγώ, I myself, would be required; or it is a mode of individualizing the case as is found in 1Co_14:11; 1Co_14:14; 1Co_13:1; 1Co_13:12.—what shall I profit you,—This question here forms the main proposition which (as often happens in the classics) is inserted between the two hypothetical clauses, the second of which stands in contrast with the first, or is its negative parallel (not its subordinate so as to indicate how the speaking with tongues must take place; nor yet does it stand in any closer internal relation to the main proposition).—unless I shall speak unto you either by revelation,—The ἐν in, or, by, denotes as in Mat_13:3 the form which his discourse might take, or the sphere in which it would move.—or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?—The four things specified may be referred back to two gifts: first, to prophecy, whose ground and contents is revelation; and secondly to doctrine which rests upon knowledge and furnishes its fruit; [as Hodge says, “there are not four, but only two modes of address contemplated in this verse. Revelation and prophecy belong to one, and knowledge and doctrine to the other. He who received revelations, was a prophet; he who had the word of knowledge, was a teacher.” So like wise Calvin. This construction is derived from the sense, and not from the grammar of the text. There the four items stand coördinate as though distinct and independent]. Revelation is to be understood as in 1Co_14:26, subjectively (otherwise in 1Co_1:7). It signifies occasional disclosures respecting anything which concerns the kingdom of God, or an unveiling of mysteries. As what is thus disclosed is uttered in the ardent and rapt discourse of the prophet, so, that which an enlightened inquiry affords for furthering our insight into divine things, is expressed in the calmer diction of the teacher, and is termed doctrine. As Bengel says: “prophecy relates to particular facts, not well understood before, to mysteries to be known only by revelation.” Doctrine and knowledge are brought from the common storehouse of believers, and refer to obvious things in the matter of our salvation.—He next proceeds to illustrate his point by various analogies; and first from musical instruments. Some difficulty arises as to the proper rendering of what follows, in consequence of the unnatural position of ὄμως. Some take this as equivalent to ὁμοίως, in like manner; but this would be unsuitable and unnecessary. The signification, nevertheless, yet even, would fit better. But still it is questionable whether the word mainly affects or gives prominence to τὰ ἄψυχα, lifeless things, as its position appears to indicate; so that this drawn out in full would be τὰ ἄψυχα καίπερ ἄψυχα, ὄμως ‘lifeless instruments, though lifeless, yet give sound’ (Winer); or whether by it the thing introduced in proof is set up as absolutely valid against all objection, q. d., ‘one cannot yet understand,’ i.e., ‘this must at any rate be conceded, that we cannot understand’ (de Wette); or, whether, by virtue of a transposition which appears also in Gal_3:15, and elsewhere in the classics, the word is placed first, while it properly belongs before ἐάν, so that the concessive protasis is formed by the words φωνὴν διδόντα, which then would be equivalent to καίπερ φωνήν διδόντα The last construction is the correct one, being the only one which corresponds to the use of language, and to the course of thought.—Things without life, although yielding sound, whether flute or harp, yet if they do not—Respecting the various positions occupied by ὄμως, how the word or clause limited by it sometimes precedes and sometimes follows it as here, comp. Passow ii. 1 p. 77. By being put first it carries an emphasis. “There is an inference drawn from the less to the greater,” q. d., if, indeed, such is the case with lifeless objects, how much more must it be with men?—give a distinction to the tones,—i.e., by various distinct modulations of high and low, strong and weak.—how shall it be known what is piped or harped?—This refers to the significance of that which is played on each instrument (comp. 1Co_14:8 ff.): i.e., ‘a person will, in that case, not be able to discern or perceive what tune is played.’ [The article is here repeated to show that two distinct instances are contemplated, not necessarily one tune either piped or harped. Meyer regards this passage as decisive against the opinion that the tongues used in the gift in question were distinctly articulated foreign languages, and that the utterance in this case was a confused jargon of sounds, such as that which would be made through the instruments without observing their proper modulations. But this is pressing the analogy too far. The point made is simply with reference to the unintelligibleness of the things played, unless the well-known laws of the instrument and of the music were observed]. The argument is confirmed by another example of the same kind, which sets the case in a still clearer light.—For also,—[The “for” serves for a climax, the higher confirming the lower].—if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound,—The trumpet, so strong in its tones, and unmistakable in its character, even this requires a certain definite modulation when giving its various signals, if it is to be known whether the signal is one for battle or not. The adjective “uncertain” expresses the antithesis to the previous expression, “give a distinction to the sounds.” [Different sounds of the same trumpet summoned soldiers to different duties, one succession of notes giving the signal for attack, and another for retreat. Hence the question],—who shall prepare himself for the battle?—The application to the point in question he next proceeds to make.—So likewise ye, through the tongue,—These words are put first by way of emphasis, as contrasting the Corinthians in the exercise of their divine gift with the lifeless things which he has just been speaking of.—unless ye give a word easy to be understood,—This clause unquestionably stands opposed to the assumption that inarticulate sounds are implied in the gift, if for no other reason than on account of the use of the term “word,” which denotes a rational, articulate utterance, even though we would wish to take the qualifying expression in with it. Nor is it favored by the other expression “through the tongue,” as though this meant the simple organ of speech; for in that case it would only be used as in contrast with the musical instruments specified.—how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall be (ἒσεσθε so long as ye speak) a speaking into the air.—εἰς ἀέρα λαλοῦντες; the phrase denotes the uselessness of an unintelligible discourse. It dies away into the atmosphere, reaching not the mind of the hearer.—He next pushes his range of analogy still farther, so as to include the various human languages which can furnish no means of intercourse between man and man, so long as their meaning is not understood.—There are, it may be,—εἰ τύχοι, a phrase commonly found with numerical nouns, and never means for example; it only states the number as problematical, or denotes uncertainty in the more definite statement.—so many—τοσαῦτα. [“The word here has the force of a definite number. If men could ever have counted the number, Paul would have set it down here; but he leaves it indefinite.” Bengel].—kinds of voices in the world,—φωνή, voice , here signifies ‘speech,’ or ‘language,’ (as also in Gen_11:1; Gen_11:7; and in the classics often, and γένη φωνῶν denotes the ‘various languages,’ of which each one forms a γένος, genus. He does not use the word γλῶσσα, tongue, because in this whole paragraph this is employed to denote the special gift which is under consideration.—and none—οὐδὲν refers to γένη. It does not mean ‘no rational creature;’ but the right relation is expressed by the αὐτῶν of them, of the Rec. which, however, is not original.—is without signification.—ἄφωνον, literally speechless (like βίος ἀβίατος), i.e., ‘without that which is the essential thing in speech,’ ‘unsuited for the purpose of intelligible communication.’ “The Apostle intends to say that every language has its definite signification; inasmuch as it is designed to be the vehicle for communicating thought.” Neander. [Hodge says, “The illustration contained in this verse goes to prove that speaking with tongues was to speak in foreign languages.” If by “foreign languages” is meant languages of other countries on the globe, then spoken, the inference is too broad. It supposes that no other language was possible, save such as were then in vogue. If language is God’s gift, and not a mechanical contrivance of man, why could not the Spirit inspire men to utter their new experiences in a new and “clean speech,” which, though used by none others, was fully entitled to be called a language? And may it not have been one intent of the Spirit in the production of this new language to furnish a sign that the things it reveals were such “as eye had not seen, nor ear heard, nor had entered into the heart of man” to conceive, and such therefore as required to be expressed in forms corresponding? To understand these “tongues” to denote foreign pagan languages, most of which were but the defiled vessels of impurity and falsehood and idolatry, and utterly inadequate to convey spiritual truth, is to miss the import of this remarkable phenomenon].—From the fact that none of the various languages of earth lacked the character of language, viz., the power of communicating thought, he goes on to infer that where one person was incapable of understanding another, there was reason to believe that they stood in the relation of foreigners to each other. This would not be inferred were the “speech” “without speech” (ἄφωνος), i.e., in itself unintelligible, since the speaker in this case could be understood by no one. He might be looked upon as one deranged, but not as a foreigner. The very force (δύναηις) of the language, its sense, its significance, viz., is precisely that thing which would be excluded by its being “without speech” (ἄφωνος).—Therefore, if I know not the force of the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian,—Βάρβαρος, the common term to designate one not a Greek, one who stood outside the sphere of the Greek language and culture. Here it is used in no bad sense, but simply to denote a stranger.—and he that speaketh a barbarian in me.—As in the former clause, τᾷ λαλοῦντι is the dative of judgment, meaning, ‘in the estimation of him that speaketh;’ so ἐν ἐμοὶ , in me, must be construed ‘in my eyes,’ or ‘according to my judgment,’ (comp. Passow i. 2, p. 909.)

1Co_14:10-19. The connection with the previous verse is more correctly determined by making the conditional clause here refer to what was perverse in their desires and efforts as corresponding with the relation set forth in the previous verse, where it was shown that by reason of not understanding the language spoken, one appeared to the other as a foreigner; and by regarding the injunction which follows as urging them to the adoption of a contrary course,—first, in an indefinite general way; from which he at once proceeds in 1Co_14:13 to draw the inference in relation-to the matter in question, viz., speaking with tongues.—So also ye,—This expression is used as in 1Co_14:9; the “so” indicates that which corresponds to the analogy previously introduced, and for this reason it stands at the beginning of the clause to which it belongs, as there. It is as if he had said: ‘in this way, as ye are foreigners to each other from not understanding each other’s language, and no intercourse can take place between you—a condition of things which is palpably wrong,’ etc. So Meyer. Proceeding from this interpretation of the word “so,” some insert a colon or period after “ye,” making the clause mean ‘such barbarians are ye who speak with tongues without interpreting; but this would be to separate unnecessarily matters belonging together. Others construe the clause “so also ye” as an apodosis, implying that the Apostle meant to have them entirely avoid, making each other as barbarians. But in such a construction not only would there be no suitable relation to form the ground of a parallel, but a contrast would be introduced. We should have to insert that in thought to which the “so” should refer, somehow after this fashion—‘in order to avoid coming into the relation of barbarians, it will be necessary to introduce an interpreter, so also should ye endeavor to make yourself plain.’ But where is the necessity of such a subaudition, if another explanation offers itself which is sustained by the analogy in 1Co_14:9? [Alford and Bloomfield in accordance with the great majority of commentators from Chrys. interpret the connection more simply. They give οὔτως the sense of therefore, i.e., ‘after the lesson conveyed by this example,’ or, ‘to apply this to your case,’ which has the advantage of simplicity].—since ye are zealots of spirits—ζηλωταί πνενμάτων i.e., ‘are ardently devoted to them and admire them;’ so the objective genitive often occurs in classical writers. “Of spirits” is a bold expression, adopted in accordance with the diversity which appeared in the operations of the Spirit. The principle at work is itself spoken of as manifold. As Osiander says: “the individual gifts are designated as active powers, existing independently in those endowed with them.” Or as Meyer: “what were in reality diversities of gifts, and therefore only different manifestations of the Spirit, presented themselves to the popular apprehension as diversities of spirits.” That Paul himself actually believed in a plurality of spirits (Hilgenfeld) is at variance with 1Co_12:4; 1Co_12:7. Some, arbitrarily, limit the word to denote simply the gift of tongues. It is here, however, to be taken in its broadest sense as standing by metonymy for spiritual gifts in general.—He now comes for the first time to the practical application of his argument. The duty he urges upon them corresponds to the object for which spiritual gifts were given.—for the edification of the Church,—The end to be aimed at is put first by way of emphasis. But the words are not to be joined simply with the following imperative,—seek,—as though this was to be construed absolutely, and the words after it,—that ye may abound,—were to be construed as a final clause (Meyer), as though the meaning were: strive for the edification of the Church in order that ye may abound!—for the verb ζητεῖν, seek, can hardly be used without an object. This object is rather to be found in the verb following it, which is introduced in accordance with a later lax usage by ἵνα, that,28—‘Seek that ye may abound,’ or, ‘seek to abound.’ Then the words,—for the edification of the Church,—would belong to the combined phrase ‘seek that ye may abound,’ and not to the latter verb exclusively, although this conveys the chief idea; at least not so that πρὸς should be made equivalent to εἰς and the sense this, ‘that the blessings of their gifts may be poured out more and more abundantly upon the Church for its edification.’—Next comes the application of this fundamental principle to the matter of speaking with tongues.—Wherefore, let him that speaketh with a tongue, pray that he may interpret.—προσευχέσθω, ἵνα διερ μενεύῃ. [This passage, simple as it seems, has caused no little perplexity among commentators. The mode of interpreting it has a decided bearing upon the theory a person may form in regard to the nature of the “gift of tongues;” and it in turn has been determined largely by whatever theory has already been formed. There are three ways of explaining it. 1. To take ἵνα in its laxer sense, and construe the verb διερμενεύῃ with it as the object of προσευχέσθω, q. d., ‘let him pray that he may be able to interpret,’ i.e., for the gift of interpretation. This is the sense given it by all the Greek commentators, and is adopted by most of the modern ones. Among these Grot., Beza, Hamm., and Hodge. Adopting this view, we are at liberty to suppose that the person speaking with a tongue was not necessarily engaged in worship, but was addressing the assembly; and so to infer that this gift was used not only for the purposes of prayer and praise, but also for popular discourse. The objection to this view is, that in the subsequent argument in support of the injunction here given, the act of praying is spoken of absolutely; and standing, as the next verse does, in close logical connection with this by means of the “for,” we are constrained to interpret the praying spoken of in both verses in the same absolute or general sense, and that the use of the gift was in the act of prayer. Hence it will not do to limit the praying in this verse to the object specified in the final words, as though the Apostle meant that the person who was employing the gift, should pray that he might interpret. Besides, it assumes a purely ecbatic signification in ἵνα, which it is questionable whether it ever has in the New Testament. (See Winer, p. III. § 53. 10. 6). 2. To take ἵνα in the sense of ὢστε, so that, q. d., ‘let him so pray, that he may interpret,’ i.e., let him not pray unless he can interpret. So Luther, Rosen., and others. But the propriety of giving this sense to ἲνα is very doubtful. The only way left us then Isaiah 3.] to construe ἵνα διερμενεύῃ, that he may interpret, as a final clause. [So Meyer, Winer, Alford, and others]. This would give to the whole injunction a meaning of this sort, ‘In the outgushing of his emotions in prayer and praise let the person who speaks with a tongue, make it a point to edify the Church through interpretation.’ In other words, ‘let him pray, not in order to make a display of his gift, but with the intention of interpreting his prayer.’ This, of course, implies that the person alluded to has already the gift of interpretation, and very rightly, for otherwise he was not at liberty to allow himself to be heard in Church meeting at all (1Co_14:28).—The reason for this injunction is next more clearly set forth in 1Co_14:14, where the Apostle, agreeably to the hint already given in 1Co_14:2, enters more fully upon the inward character of this gift, and from what he says there it is clear that the mere speaking or praying with tongues without interpretation excluded all relation to the external world, and in this case, to the congregation.—For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.—Here the νοῦς denotes that faculty of the soul by which we have to deal with the outer world, [that which reasons, conceives and begets the thought that is coined into words] (Beek, Bibl. Seelenlehre, p. 49). This is said to be unfruitful in that it confers no benefit on others (comp. Eph_5:11; Tit_3:14; Mat_13:22). The passive interpretation, ‘experiences no benefit,’ does not suit the connection. As the words “my understanding,” so must also the words “my spirit” be interpreted of that which belongs to our nature, and not be understood as meaning ‘the spirit of God in me’ [as Hodge]. On the other hand the antithesis with “my spirit” does not allow of our interpreting the word νοῦς to mean sense, that is, of the words. Bengel has already presented the essentially correct view: “The πνεῦμα spirit, is the power of the soul, when it sweetly suffers the Holy Spirit’s operations; but the νοῦς, understanding, is the power of the soul, when it goes abroad, and acts with our neighbor: as also when it attends to external objects, to other things and persons, although its reasonings maybe concealed.” [The distinction is more thoroughly given by Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, iv. § 5. In explaining this passage he says: “The exercise of self-consciousness is here suppressed by the divine influence which entirely takes captive the person speaking with tongues. The thinking power of the νοῦς, as it brings forth fruit in words and thoughts profiting both itself and others without any further intervention, ceases, and the divine influence goes on exercising itself in the human sphere of direct feeling and intuition, and expresses itself also in a language that corresponds to this directness, and is not pervaded by the understanding (νοῦς) of the speaker, and is therefore unintelligible to the understanding (νοῦς) of the hearers. This sphere of direct feeling and intuition the Apostle calls the spirit (πνεῦμα) in distinction from the understanding (νοῦς). It is the spirit in the narrower sense distinguished from the spirit in a wider sense (1Co_5:3; 1Co_7:34; 2Co_7:1), as feeling and especially as directly beholding—a copy as it were of the divine Holy Spirit”].—He next proceeds to draw an inference for the regulation of the conduct of the Corinthians in this matter.—What then is it?—Some supply πρακτέον to be done, which is unnecessary. [He means, ‘what is the practical conclusion at which we arrive?’ This he gives in what follows].—I will pray in the spirit,—[On the reading προσεύξωμαι (subjunctive instead of Ind. fut.) which is strongly attested by A. D. B. F. G. and the Cod. Sin., Alford remarks: that “the use of the subjunctive in this as well as in other places grew out of a tendency in those who transcribed some of our MSS. to give such assertions a hortatory, or where interrrogative a deliberative form.” Meyer calls it “schlechte Besserung.” It is note-worthy that the important Codex Sinaiticus has the subjunctive form here, while in the next clause it has the indicative future. In this case we should take the first as conditional, ‘let me pray,’ or, ‘if I am to pray with my spirit, I will pray also with my understanding.’ The propriety of this is seen in the fact that praying in the spirit was not always optional with the individual, nor a matter of resolve. It came by gift, was the inspiration of the spirit who distributed unto each as He would; whereas the use of the understanding (νοῦς), which combined in itself both intelligence and will, was voluntary. It seems to be with the perception of this fact that Winner, who adopts the future form, says: “this sentence expresses not a resolution, but a Christian maxim which the believer intends to follow.”]—and I will pray with the understanding also;—By this is meant praying with the use of “interpretation” which would make the contents of the prayer intelligible to others, and so edifying. It will be seen from the antithesis that the “understanding” alluded to is that of the person praying and not that of others,—as though the dative were that of the remote object, q. d., ‘to the understanding of others.’—I will sing with

the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.—A proof that the prayer was accompanied with song and harp also (comp. Osiander). “We see here two forms of Glossolaly—prayer and praise; it mounted therefore into the poetic mood; and there was involved in it that which resembled what appeared later in Christian poesy. Neander.—[That these were the main, if not the only forms in which this gift was exercised, and very rarely, if ever, in discourses to the church-assembly, is here pretty clearly proven. Had it been otherwise, as Hodge and others maintain,—had the person ‘who spoke with a tongue’ undertaken, to address the audience in his unintelligible language, how much more pertinent to Paul’s argument would it have been to show the uselessness and absurdity of speaking to others in words unknown, than to instance only the cases of praying and singing in a foreign tongue. Here the words uttered affected the audience only indirectly, and the speaker might plead that he was engaged with God; but in the other case he would profess to be communicating what he could not hope to have reach the hearer’s mind and heart without interpretation. Here therefore was the point where speaking with tongues without interpretation would touch the extreme of inappropriateness, and which in the case supposed Paul would most likely have alluded to. As to the distinction between worshiping “in the spirit” and worshiping “in the understanding,” we must abide by the views already given. The former denotes the state into which the Holy Spirit lifts the person inspired—a state wherein ho sees and feels things which it is impossible for him to utter, inasmuch as they transcend the scope of his understanding; and which break forth in a language that the spirit forms, suited to give them utterance; and which none can understand and interpret save he to whom it is given,—whether it be the person himself or some other one].’—The resolve expressed in 1Co_14:15, which partakes at the same time of the nature of an exhortation, is next corroborated by a reference to the indecorum that would be occasioned by pursuing the opposite course.—Else,—ἐπεὶ, for then, in that case; [such is the meaning the word takes before questions implying a negative (see Rob. Lex.)]. Here the conditional clause, which in the use of ἐπεὶ is usually omitted (comp. v. 10), is fully stated.—if thou shalt have blessed,—εὐλο γεῖν, to bless, (1Co_10:16) is essentially the same as εὐχαριστεῖν, to give thanks, (v. 17); only here the idea of praise is more prominent.—in spirit,—as in 1Co_14:15, here with the exclusion of the understanding. [Hodge, to maintain his consistency, interprets this of the Holy Spirit where of all places such an interpretation would appear least appropriate, since the word is evidently used to express an abnormal condition].—how shall he who occupies the place of the private,—τοῦ ἰδιώτου; some commentators interpret this word as expressing simply an antithesis to him ‘who speaks with a tongue,’ as denoting one who did not come within the sphere of this gift;—just as in other connections, e. g., one not a physician is termed an ἰδιώτης, idiot, in comparison with one who is; or one unacquainted with art in comparison with an artist; or any unskilled ignoramus in comparison with a learned person. If now, with Meyer, we interpret the word “place” in a local sense, then the person in question would be one of the congregation who sits anywhere except in the seat of the speaker. But as the phrase, ‘to fill the place of a friend’ (φίλου τόπον ἔχειν) is a common one, it is questionable whether the idea of locality can be well insisted on. More correct perhaps would it be to say that the word was expressive of a distinction quite current at the time, between the active members of the church who engaged in speaking and praying, and the silent recipient members; and that it here stands for the whole multitude of those who did not understand the person who was speaking with a tongue. [So Alford, Stanley, and Hodge who adds, “The context shows that Paul does not refer to laymen in opposition to church officers; for the officers were just as likely to be ἰδιώται, unlearned, as to the language used as others.”]—how shall he say—The question implies the impossibility of the thing.—the Amen,—τὸ ἀμήν; [the article here is specific and points to a customary use of the word in the church at that time]. “Amen” is a Hebrew adjective, meaning true or faithful, and was employed in the synagogue by the whole assembly in concert to express its ratification of what was said by one in the name of all, or its confidence in being heard if that thing spoken was a prayer. The formula thus used was equivalent to ‘so let it be,’ or ‘so it is.’ [In illustration of the importance attached to it, Stanley gives the following citations from the Rabbins: “He who says Amen is greater than he who blesses.” (Berashoth viii. 8). Whoever says “Amen,” to him the gates of paradise open, according to Isa_26:2, ‘open ye the gates that the righteous nation, that which keepeth the Amen, may enter in’ (Wetstein ad. loc.). An “Amen” if not well considered was an ‘Orphan Amen’ (Light-foot 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 (Berashoth, 47, 1; Schöttgen ad. loc.). 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”].—upon this your thanksgiving,—ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστία; the ἐπί here denotes immediate sequence. [“Thy” would seem to be emphatic, to make prominent the peculiar manner in which the thanksgiving was pronounced by the one who spoke in an unknown tongue, or perhaps still better, to distinguish between the prayer offered by such a speaker and the regular thanksgiving which was pronounced at the institution of the Supper. If the latter, it would go to show that whatever prayer was offered by those who employed the gift of tongues and interpreted, was responded to by the congregation as offered also in their behalf; or that the Apostle intended to assert that this ought to be the case and that in consequence no one should utter a prayer in presence of the congregation which they could not be made to understand and could not intelligently respond to. It is a question whether with this precedent before us amounting almost to an authoritative precept, so large a portion of the Christian church have not done wrong in entirely omitting so important apart of the public service].—since he knows not what thou sayest?—[Men cannot assent to what they do not understand, because assent implies the affirmation of the truth of that to which we assent. “It is impossible, therefore, to join in prayers uttered in an unknown tongue. The Romish church persists in the use of the Latin language in her public services not only in opposition to the very idea and intent of worship, but also to express prohibition of the Scriptures. For the very thing here prohibited is praying in public in a language which the people do not understand. It is indeed said that words may touch the feelings which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say “Amen” to such words, any more than we can to a flute. Such blind, emotional worship, if such it can be called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent service demanded by the Apostle.” Hodge].—The question thus asked is still further explained and that too with a concession in reference to the character of the thanksgiving.—For thou indeed givest thanks well,—The καλῶς, well, is not to be taken ironically, but is earnestly meant; since he regards the act as truly an operation of the divine Spirit. The only difficulty in regard to it is expressed in the next clause.—but—Instead of δέ as the antithesis to μέν, we have ἀλλά, which expresses a more emphatic contrast.—the other—i.e., the private person just spoken of,—is not edified.—The thanksgiving not being understood can never promote devotion, nor lift the soul to God; and therefore it cannot prompt to the right utterance of the Amen. The declaration just made he goes on to confirm by his own example; and in so doing he first recognizes the worth of the gift in itself, and magnifies his own distinguished endowment with it. In this way he obviates all misconception as to his own estimate of the gift, or as to any personal jealousy which might be supposed to move him to speak as he did.—I thank God,—He thus renounces all claim to merit in reference to what he is about to assert of himself. The verb here is followed by an objective clause which, according to the original reading, has no conjunction to unite it, as is often the case in the classics. ‘That’ is to be supplied. The readings ὅτι λαλῶ and λαλῶν are merely different attempts to conform the text to grammatical rules. The omission of λαλῶ in Cod. A. is to be explained on the ground that the copyist thought it necessary to continue the use of εὐχαριστῶ in the same absolute sense in which it stands in 1Co_14:17, [i.e., ‘I utter thanksgiving’ just as the person before spoken of; and in this independent sense some commentators construe the word]. But if this sense had been intended, the Apostle would not have added the word “God.”—I speak with a tongue more than you all:—[It is worthy of note that, according to the correct reading—“a tongue” and not ‘tongues’—both, here and elsewhere, when an individual is spoken of as endowed with this gift, he is said to speak only with a single tongue. This shows that the gift in question did not signify a faculty for speaking in various languages as some suppose—not even in the case of a Paul; but that each one had his own language which constituted his specialty. Have we not here a significant hint in confirmation of the theory that the gift denoted an ability conferred by the Spirit to utter thoughts and feelings awakened by His inspiration in forms peculiar to the individual himself, which might be termed his tongue? Hodge, it must be observed, utterly ignores the more authenticated reading here, and tacitly adopts the received text in proof of the theory that the speaking with tongues meant speaking in foreign languages, in which respect Paul asserts that he surpassed all others. If this were really so, it is very strange that we find not a particle of evidence to prove that he really used any of these languages in his preaching tours, but every-where seems to have spoken and written either in Aramaic or in Greek. The gift appears to have stood him in no service in proclaiming the Gospel. If he spoke with these many tongues at all, it must have been not to man, but to God—where they were the least necessary. For the Apostle’s power of speaking with a tongue compare the description of his visions and revelations in 2Co_12:1-2].—But—whatever I may do in private—in church I prefer to speak five words—The ‘five’ stands tropically for “a few” (comp. Isa_17:6; Isa_30:17).—with my understanding,—The reading διὰ τοῦ νοός μον may with Meyer be considered as an interpretation of the more strongly attested τῶ νοΐ μον. On the contrary de Wette deduced it from 1Co_14:16.—in order that I might teach others also,—κατέχειν, whence our word ‘catechism,’ means to instruct orally, and shows what is meant by ‘speaking with the understanding,’ and what most contributes to edification.—than ten thousand words in a tongue.—As Besser says: “rather half of ten, if of the edifying sort, than a thousand times ten of the other.”

1Co_14:20-25. In winning style he introduces an earnest admonition in reference to their own estimate of the gift of tongues,—Brethren,—and their high valuation of a gift so fitted to excite great astonishment, but yet so profitless for the church as a whole, he denounces as something childish, as a mark of immature judgment—become not little children in your minds.—ταῖς φρεσίν, [the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament]. φρένες means the outgoings of the mind, the inward movements of thoughts and feelings in their most diversified aspects. Regarded as a whole, the word is nearly synonymous with νοῦς; hence φρένας ἔχειν, to have insight. He here intimates to them that by their conduct they were virtually setting aside that superior intelligence in which they so much gloried, and were descending to the level of childhood; since they were estimating the worth of a thing not by its ends and uses, but by its outward show. The childlike state belonged to the Christian, only in another respect.—howbeit in wickedness,—κακίᾳ is the direct opposite of love, that fountain of all good; and in respect to it babes may be considered most innocent.—be babes,—νηπιάζετε is from νήπιος which denotes a more infantile state than παίδιον, and is used to denote an advance upon the previous expression “children.” Burger explains the whole to mean: “know nothing of the moral corruption that is in the world, to say nothing of an experimental acquaintance with it.”—but in understanding become mature.—τέλειοι, i.e., full-grown men. “To plant and propagate childlike innocence and maturity of understanding both in one—this is the great problem of Christianity. (Comp. Rom_16:19; Mat_10:6).” Neander.—He next appeals to Scripture by way of teaching them how they ought to regard the gift of tongues.—In the law it is written,—γέγραπται, [lit. has been written, but inasmuch as what has been written is supposed to abide permanently the perfect, is here equivalent to the present]. The term “law” is here to be taken in a broader sense than in Joh_10:34; Rom_3:19, as including also the prophecies. This use is grounded on the fact that prophecy was but the development of the fundamental revelation both of law and of promise given in Pentateuch.—With (men) of other tongues and with the lips of others will I speak to this people; and neither so will they hearken unto me saith the Lord.—The citation is from Isa_28:11; but it accords precisely neither with the LXX. nor with the original text. The original passage is a threatening pronounced upon the children of Israel for their unbelieving and contemptuous treatment of God’s messengers. They had asked derisively, whether it was thought they ought to be treated like little children in that they were perpetually dinned with line upon line and precept upon precept after the fashion in which little children were instructed. In reply God threatens that because they had despised this simple teaching, He would hereafter instruct them through persons of a different language and foreign utterance. The persons here meant were Gentile nations especially the Assyrians, by whom they were to be treated just as contemptuously as they had treated God’s Word.—But how are we to understand the application made by the Apostle to the case in hand? Meyer, in his 2 Ed., assumes that the Apostle here disregarded the historical and empirical sense of the word ἐτερόγλωσσος, and applied it to those who spake with tongues, since they spake as if they used other tongues than their own, and the lips of others, so that their utterances were strange. But this is a very hazardous assumption. In his 3d Ed. he takes the historic sense of the original typically, as though the phenomenon of the Apostle’s time was foreshadowed in the prophet’s language:—1. as to the essential fact, that in both cases “other tongues” were employed; 2. as to the effect, since in neither instance “would the people hear.” The analogy between the type and the antitype is founded on the extraordinary phenomenon of God’s speaking to His people in a foreign tongue—formerly it was through the Assyrian language; now it was through the gift of speaking in a manner at variance with the ordinary intelligible language. [Hodge on the contrary, and apparently for the purpose of obviating an inference fatal to his theory, says: “Paul does not quote the passage as having any prophetic reference to the events in Corinth”—which certainly it has not—“much less does he give an allegorical interpretation of it in order to make it a condemnation of speaking with tongues.” But why not? The whole drift of the argument goes to show that he is here appealing to the law for the purpose of sustaining his own disapproval, not indeed of the gift of tongues, in itself, but certainly of their use of it without interpretation; and he is here showing that as they employed it they were virtually carrying out that divine threatening in relation to the church, which was pronounced upon the unbelieving Jews of old. There was, therefore, great pertinency in this citation]. From the analogy, thus understood, Paul proceeds to draw his conclusion applicable to the case in hand.—so that—[ὤςτε serves to connect more closely than ὡς a following clause with the preceding, expressing an event, result, consequence, whether real or supposed. It here shows that the following clause is to be construed in harmony with what precedes, and is an inference from it. This is important to be observed, for in the interpretations given of 1Co_14:22, commentators seem to have felt at perfect liberty to deviate from the fair implication of the prophecy used in the argument].—tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers;—[For a sign, in what sense? Here interpretations greatly vary. De Wette, and Alford, and others insist that no emphasis is to be laid on the word, and that the meaning is much the same as if it were omitted, and still further that in not seeing this commentators have differed widely about the meaning]. Others construe it to mean a token by which not believers, but unbelievers were to be recognized. Here the correct view is aimed at, but the error lies in the subjective reference, as though the persons speaking with tongues were branded as unbelievers. In this case the genitive would have been used instead of the dative (ἀπίστοις). The same is true of that explanation which regards the “sign” as a penal token; here a meaning is foisted into the word which can hold good only as it stands connected with unbelievers as a whole. [It cannot be maintained in the following clause where “a sign” is to be supplied, and the word is used in connection with “believers.” Hodge says: “the most satisfactory explanation is to take ‘sign’ in the general sense of any indication of the divine presence. ‘Tongues are a manifestation of God, having reference not to believers but to unbelievers.’ ” And by interpreting the word “tongues” as denoting not ‘the gift of tongues, ‘but’ foreign languages,’ he draws from the whole the meaning, “that when a people are disobedient, God sends them teachers whom they cannot understand.” This approaches the correct view. But if by “unbelievers” we are to understand the world at large, it would seem as if the tongues, i.e., the foreign languages which he supposes the gift to imply, were especially designed for these, and that not in the way of judgment, but in the way of instruction. And, so understanding it, we destroy the force of the analogy. Hence it will be necessary to restrict the meaning of the word “unbelievers” as denoting those who, having known, refuse to believe—to the incorrigible, and to the hardened]. The meaning, then, is this, that when God speaks unintelligibly, He exhibits Himself not as one that is opening His thoughts to His faithful ones, but as one who is shutting Himself up from those who will not believe. The speaking is indeed a powerful one, but nothing is accomplished by it; the ear and mind are not directed to Him; “neither so will they hearken unto me.” So was it formerly in the speaking of God to His people by men of other tongues. They, indeed, called themselves His, but in this very circumstance they showed that they had incurred His judgment. In like manner it also appeared here, if a person spake unintelligibly to the church; he made it appear as if God had withdrawn from His people—as if they, by reason of unbelief, had incurred His judgment—as if they were persons for whom the most powerful divine manifestations—such as speaking with tongues—were useless, and who could not be brought by them to reflection. [Such would be the effect of employing the gift of tongues in the church with out interpretation. And here the force of the passage would be all the same whether we interpreted the gift of tongues as an ability to speak in foreign languages, or as the endowment of some heretofore unknown formal speech. The main thing here, which stands as a sign, is the use of language unintelligible to the hearers. And this may exist in either case].—but prophecy (is for a sign) not to unbelievers, but to believers.—[The E. V. overlooking the fact that the two clauses of this verse were alike in structure, and stood antithetically, has supplied the ellipsis by the word “serveth,” therein following the earlier versions of Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva. This somewhat embarrasses the interpretation. The two clauses should be rendered alike as above. Here “prophecy” stands in contrast with the gift of tongues as denoting intelligible communications. Hence, if what was spoken by a tongue were only interpreted, it too would stand on a par with prophecy. This served as a sign not for unbelievers, but for believers. But in what sense are we to understand this? Observing the analogy furnished in the previous clause, we must say that prophecy was a means of divine communication to those who either did believe, or were disposed to believe, and was to them a token of favor, and a source of blessing, while it was withheld from those hardened in unbelief. By such interpretation we both preserve the antithesis, and carry out the signification of the prophecy in Isa., which is here applied],—If, then, the whole church should come together in one place, and all should speak with tongues, and there should come in common people, or unbelievers, would they not say, ye were mad?—[The οὖν may be taken either as strictly inferential, or as simply transitional. The latter most accords with the course of thought]. It would be a mistake to suppose that what is stated in 1Co_14:22, is still further enlarged upon, and explained in this and the following verse, by showing the different effects of speaking with tongues, and of prophecy upon unbelievers and the believing, as though these had been already intimated there in a concise way; as if he had said: ‘tongues are for a sign not to believers for the purpose of producing faith, but for unbelievers for the purpose of strengthening them in their unbelief.’ There is a severity of meaning here which ought not to be concluded upon,

if in any way avoidable. So also is it a mistake to suppose that the Apostle meant to say that the gift of tongues was intended to be used for the conversion of unbelievers, i.e., those not Christians, and that this result was hindered by such a use of the gift as was contrary to its original intent, it being employed by Christians collectively (all speaking together, and not one by one) and for Christians merely, in a style fitted only to be for a sign to those who are not Christians, so that in this case an effect would be produced upon the minds of casual observers directly contrary to that intended, and the whole phenomenon would be made to appear to those common persons and unbelievers who might come in to witness this abuse, as something exceedingly absurd, and in fact a most crazy piece of business (Meyer).—The assumption that the gift of tongues was designed to lead to the conversion of those who were not Christians, [whether it be as Hodge says, through the use of foreign languages which the various nations of unbelievers could understand, or, as others think, through the remarkable character of the phenomenon itself as an ecstatic utterance], is wholly groundless. It is neither probable in itself (Acts 2, furnishing no proof of this opinion); nor can it be inferred from 1Co_14:21, except by a most arbitrary interpretation. That passage from Isa. is the announcement of a judgment; the prophet there asserts that the most powerful speaking on the part of God would effect no change upon the people hardened in unbelief. So the Apostle argued that in his day the speaking with tongues was a sign from God to unbelievers, of a like sort—an instrumentality in the form of a judgment which, however cogent in itself, would produce no salutary results. The supposition, therefore, that the gift in question was intended as a means of conversion, is contrary to the line of the Apostle’s argument.—Still, in all this no condemnation is at all implied of the gift in question, viewed by itself; nor are the recipients of the gift in any way disparaged. Paul is only speaking of the relation which the gift sustained to the church, and of the absurdity of their using it there without an accompanying interpretation. Employed in this way, no gracious communication came through it from God, as was the case in prophecy; but, rather, God appeared as one who shut Himself from their apprehension, just as He was wont to exhibit Himself towards unbelievers. Accordingly, we are not to regard the passage before us (1Co_14:23) as designed to show how a gift, which was intended to convert unbelievers, had failed of its intended effect by a wrong use; but what the Apostle aims at here, is to exhibit the picture of a church abundantly endowed with the gift of tongues, even to the fullest extent its admirers would deem desirable, and putting it in fullest exercise in its assembly; and then to show the impression which such a scene would make on casual observers. He imagines ‘the whole church convened in one place’—“a rare occurrence in so large a city,” as Bengel observes, yet one calculated to produce a strong impression of the solemnity of the occasion), and ‘all speaking with tongues’—not necessarily simultaneously [as Stanley supposes] any more than in the next verse they are to be regarded as prophesying together, but one after another—and then the coming in of private persons (ἰδιῶται) and unbelievers (ἄπιστι) to watch the proceedings. What the impression on them must be, he leaves for his readers to decide in answering the question, “would they not say ye were mad?”—an assembly of crazy people rather than a church possessed by the Spirit of God? On this point there could be no doubt. And here he finds a fresh argument for their not employing this gift of tongues without interpretation.—μαίνεσθαι is not to be interpreted as sometimes in the old classic Greek, to be possessed by a god, with the additional implication that no one was present to explain what those thus possessed were saying; but it means, as above, to be mad, as in Act_26:24.—But who are intended by the ἰδιῶται and ἄπιστοι who come in to observe and take the impression? As to the second word ἄπιστοι, unbelievers, we are not to understand it in this and the following verse in the same sense which it bears in the one preceding, where its meaning is determined by the connection with 1Co_14:21, and by the antithesis with “those who believe.” Here the import of the verse must govern. Such variations in the signification of the same word in passages closely connected are not without a parallel. A similar one occurs in 1Co_15:1; 1Co_15:3, in the use of παραλαβεῖν. In the previous case (1Co_14:22) the word carried a strongly ethical force denoting those who would not believe; but here, as is evident from its being associated with ἰδιώτης, and especially from the import of the next verse where it is used in the same sense and connection, we must understand by it simply those not Christians, heathen, it may be, who out of curiosity, or from a desire to learn, or by reason of a mysterious longing after truth, might have been induced to enter the church. But ἰδιῶται cannot in like manner be taken to denote those not Christians (whether as Jews, or as persons approaching near to Christianity, or as those who are perfect strangers to it, nor yet that class who were in a transitional state (such as catechumens and neophytes); but simple laymen or common people in distinction from those who spoke with tongues or prophesied; or even perhaps Christians from abroad since it is presupposed that the whole church belonging to that locality were in the assembly. [The meaning here given to ἰδιώτης is its primary one, implied in the root ἴδιος; but the rendering unlearned is in accordance with its secondary signification, and is adopted by all who hold to the theory that “the tongues” employed were foreign languages. Hence Hodge says in reference to the distinction between the words in question:—“The two classes (the unlearned and the unbelieving) are not so distinguished that the same person might not belong to both classes. The same persons were either ἰδιῶται or ἄπιστοι, according to the aspect under which they were viewed. Viewed in relation to the languages, they were unlearned; viewed in relation to Christianity, they were unbelievers.” This is consistent with the general theory, but can hardly be admitted.—The superiority and so the greater desirableness of prophecy is next shown by way of contrast in the effect it would be likely to produce under the same circumstances.—But if all prophesy,—Here let it be remembered that “prophecy” not only implies the use of the vernacular and the exercise of the νοῦς, the understanding, but was also a disclosure of the hidden things of the spiritual world whether in God or man—not simply a prediction of future events].—and there should come in some unbeliever or private person,—As in the former case, a full meeting of the church is here presupposed to enhance the impression made. Observe also a change in the order of the words and of the number in which they are introduced. As Meyer says: 1. “In the former instance common persons are mentioned first, and unbelievers afterwards, since the common persons being Christians and supposed to be acquainted with the object of the gift, naturally step into the foreground, and the opinion expressed would fall from them first; on the contrary here “the unbeliever” appears first, because he is speaking of conversion, and therefore he is the one principally intended; the other party is added by the way, inasmuch as his case is not altogether dissimilar.” Bengel: 2. “In the former case we have the plural, where the aim is to set forth a general impression which was to be made and expressed—one speaking to another; with equal suitableness the singular appears in. the second case, where the aim is to exhibit a converting effect in its progress, which can best be shown in the instance of a particular individual.”—he is convicted by all,—ἐλέγχεται, is made conscious of his sin and unbelief. The secret movements of his heart—concealed more or less from the subject himself—are exposed in so striking a manner by the speakers as one after another goes on prophesying and deepening the impression, that the individual feels himself to be one pointed at, is compelled to see himself in his true light, and at last, is forced to confess the correctness of the delineation.—is judged by all:—ἀνακρίνεται, is examined and searched into; this is closely connected with the preceding. The conviction brings with it a judgment on the man’s moral character. He hears it already pronounced in the speeches he listens to, and conscience compels him to accord therewith, and acknowledge its propriety;—the secret things of his heart become manifest;—There is no further chance for disguise. The revelation scatters all darkness and solves all doubt. The three verbs and their relation to each other are more fully explained by Osiander: ἐλέγςειν expresses the inner conviction, and reproof—this is the whole work; ἀνακρίνεται the more searching investigation, as it were the inward trial—this is the chief instrumentality; φανερὰ γίν., the disclosure of what is within that sets all at rest,—this is the result. Or we have here coördination and gradation: 1. the first strong, but yet general impression of the truth, the sentence passed through it; 2. its development,—the investigation and judgment of the individual, or besides, the refutation of his reply to the charge; 3. the advance to the interior, the centre of the moral life, where each particular is set in full light and the trial reaches its consummation. All is as one inward revelation, designed especially to overcome the person’s unbelief; mediated by the power of divine truth which spoke inspiringly through the mouth of the prophets, and by the force of his own moral consciousness as apprehended by the truth and strengthened through the depth of his own inward experience and through the abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is doubtful whether there may not also have been searching glances, as of a seer, into significant circumstances of the inward moral life of the unsatisfied one (Grot.)—and so—i.e., in consequence of this conviction,—falling upon his face, he will worship God,—[“Comp. the effect of Samuel’s prophesying on Saul, “He lay down all that day and night. 1Sa_19:24.” Stanley].—reporting.—ἀπαγγὲλλων, a plain emphatic avowal, suitable to the mighty impression made; and what is reported is directly the reverse of their being mad.—that God is in you—[not, ‘among you,’ but in your minds working there “this inward illumination and spiritual power,—a most conclusive argument in favor of religion from the divine operations.” Bengel, “It is through this in-dwelling of God in the individuals through His Spirit, that He dwells in the church as a whole, which thereby becomes His Temple.” Meyer]. See for a like effect the confession of the woman of Samaria, Joh_4:19.—of a truth.—ὄντως appears also in Mar_11:32.

1Co_14:26-33. From what has been said he proceeds to draw some practical lessons for regulating the use of spiritual gifts in the church.—What is it, then, brethren?—τί οὖν ἐστιν, as in 1Co_14:15. [“It is a conclusive phrase, introduced at the end of discussion, the sense of which is always nearly the same, but which requires to be accommodated to the context.” Bloomfield. Its meaning here, then, is not, “what is then the condition of things among you? How, in point of fact, do you conduct your public worship?” (Hodge), as though about to introduce a description of a state of things he was about to disapprove. But it means ‘what, then, is the inference to be drawn from what I have said? What, then, is to be done?—The clauses which follow have been variously interpreted. Some like Locke, Doddr., Stanley, Hodge, regard Paul as here exposing a state of things which needed to be corrected. They lay stress upon the use of the present tense, as though intended to exhibit the eager haste of the parties endowed with gifts to exercise these gifts in unseemly haste and forwardness. This, however, would be to foist into the words a meaning or a force which does not readily appear, and which seems unnecessary. All we can fairly find there is] a statement of the case in a protasis and apodosis, [in view of which he lays down the rule he wished to enforce].—when ye come together,—[i.e., ‘as often as ye come together’ (Meyer, Hodge)].—every one of you—The ἔκαστος must be understood of those endowed With spiritual gifts, and be interpreted distributively—not that every one has all the gifts about to be enumerated, but that each one has something—one this and another that.—has—as ready for communication. [Locke adds: “so that he is not able to endure any delay.” But this is an unnecessary intensification of the present].—a psalm,—[not one taken from the book of Psalms, as though none other were allowed to be used in public worship, as some of our Scotch brethren imagine], nor one previously composed and committed for the occasion; but the meaning is, that he comes to church in a state of mind inspired by the Spirit, to produce and pour forth some song of praise [after the manner of Miriam, Deborah, Simeon]. Inasmuch as having a tongue is particularly mentioned afterwards, we are not here to understand a song in the spirit, i.e., with a tongue, as in 1Co_14:15.—has a doctrine,—i, e., is ready to give an exposition of some particular portion of Christian truth.—has a revelation,—i.e., some disclosure from the unseen world, which forms a basis of prophecy which some take as synonymous with this.—has a tongue,—i.e., has the inspiration on him to speak with a tongue.—has an interpretation.—i.e., the qualification to interpret what is spoken with a tongue. [Some would end the apodosis here; but, as De Wette well says: “The reader cannot well stop here, but is forced on by the opening question to the concluding thought which follows, and which forms, as it were, a second apodosis”]. Let all things happen to edification.—[i.e., ‘let all these gifts be so employed and timed that the whole church shall be built up and perfected thereby; and let no one seek to employ them either for his own private edification, or for his own glory.’ This is a general rule which he lays down for the regulation of all their public services], and which he now goes on to apply more particularly in relation to glossolaly, and to prophecy.—Whether any one speaks with a tongue,—The εἴτε, whether, which introduces the first instance, has no “or” corresponding to it in the second—an anacoluthon which arises from the manner in which he carries out his instructions in regard to the former.—by twos, or, at most, by threes,—The plural refers back to what is implied in the previous clause, i.e., ‘if there are any speakers with tongues.’ Hence we are to supply the verb, ‘let them speak.’ We can also take this as declarative (with de Wette and Meyer): ‘In case a person wishes to speak with a tongue, let him know that two or three ought to speak, i.e., not more than two to three in one and the same assembly.’ [“This limitation implies that there had been a danger lest the whole assembly should be engrossed by them,” Stanley; and thus the time be spent in the use of this the least useful of all the gifts].—and in turn;—This is the second direction instructing them not to speak at once—a thing they might be disposed to do in the glow of their inspiration—but one after the other. A third direction is,—and let one interpret.—Not ‘one after the other,’ for this is contrary to the usage of the language; but one who has the gift of interpretation, whether it be one of those who speak with a tongue, or some other person. By the employment of only one person to interpret the discourses of the successive speakers, time would be gained for other discourses. According to Osiander, this direction may have been grounded in the fact that the fulness and manifoldness of the creative power of the Spirit manifested itself in this productive charism in a rich variety of forms, and in an inspiration that wrought in many individuals; while the reproductive charism of interpretation referred back the variety of form to the unity of the Spirit, and the fundamental contents of that spoken; and also in the fact that the gift of the Spirit made itself known much more powerfully if one person interpreted several tongues. Whether the composition of the verb διερμηεν́ειν is to be pressed, as Osiander thinks, so as to make it mean an exact interpretation extending to all points, is doubtful.—But if there be not an interpreter,—i.e., either in the person of him who speaks with tongues, or of any other,—let him keep silence in church;—Here there is a change of subject. It is not the interpreter that is to keep silence, but the person who has a tongue; as is evident from the context. If we assume that the latter person is meant in both clauses, as though the first read, ‘but if he be not an interpreter,’ then it would be supposed that interpretation was exclusively the gift of one who spake with tongues, which is contrary to 1Co_12:10. [“The gift of tongues and the interpretation of them appear to have been usually imparted to separate persons, for thereby the power of the Spirit was more conspicuously manifested; but it seems too much to say that these gifts were invariably distinct.” Quoted from Slade by Bloomfield, who goes on to say: “Certainly the present passage does not compel us to suppose they were distinct. For the Apostle’s injunction might only be given on the supposition that the person had, as in ordinary cases, the gift of tongues without the power of interpretation. But the phrase in question no more precludes the possibility of a person being his own interpreter, than the phrases in 1Co_14:5; 1Co_14:13 preclude the possibility of interpretation by others”].—But though compelled to keep silence in church, his gift need not be wholly suppressed.—but let him speak to himself and to God.—That this cannot be explained of an inaudible, or altogether mental communication, is refuted by the verb λαλεῖν, which always denotes loud utterance. The thing here meant must therefore be private devotion at home. The datives here ἐαυτῷ—τῷ θεῷ are not dat. commodi, as though they meant ‘for his own improvement, and for the glory of God;’ but they are to be rendered either ‘to himself,’ and ‘to God,’ or ‘for himself, and ‘for God.’ The whole injunction presupposes that the person who spoke with a tongue was master of himself, and not entirely overruled by an irresistible impulse; also, that he knew for himself what he felt and uttered (comp. on 1Co_14:2; 1Co_14:14).—[But if “the tongue” was some foreign language, why should he speak “to himself, and to God” in it, when in all probability it was not half so suitable a vehicle for uttering religious thought as the Hebrew or Greek? and not reserve it till he found some foreigner who could readily understand him without an interpreter? On the condition supposed, the latter would be the more natural course to be pursued].—An analogous direction he gives in regard to the prophets.—And let the prophets speak two or three,—i.e., in one meeting. Opportunity would thus be given for other edifying discourses, such as doctrine.—[He does not add “at most,” because he does not wish to appear as if limiting this most edifying of the gifts. Alford]—And as in the former case interpretation was to be used, so here judgment.—and let the others discern.—i.e., judge what in the discourse proceeds from the Spirit of God, or from a foreign spirit (Neander and Burger). By “the others” we most naturally understand the rest of those possessed of the gift of prophecy who are not discoursing, who possessed also the gift of discernment; not members of the church generally, since all could not be regarded as qualified for this; nor yet such as possessed the gift of judgment without that of prophecy, although there must have been persons of this class likewise. [The original subject “prophets” here runs through the whole sentence].—In what follows the duty of speaking in turn is still further insisted upon. And first we have the precept itself.—And if anything be revealed to another sitting by,—and thereupon his spirit was moved to prophesy, then—let the first be silent—and sit down; for the speaker stood (comp. Luk_4:17). “The fact that the Spirit impelled another to speak was a hint to the first speaker that it was time for him to be done.” Burger. [“It was of more importance to catch the first burst of a prophecy than to listen to the completion of one already begun.” Stanley. But this would imply that an inspired discourse reversed the order of ordinary discourse where the peroration is generally the most eloquent part]. By this injunction the Apostle does not intend that the second speaker should wait until the first had finished [Hodge29], but that in case he gives some token, perhaps by rising, that he has received a revelation and wishes to speak immediately, the first should not then prolong his speech, but should give way to the first gush of inspiration in the other, although perhaps not so as to break off too abruptly.30 Besides, the revelation is not to be regarded precisely in the light of a new disclosure occasioned by the speech just heard; although, as a general thing, a susceptibility for further revelations would be awakened and furthered by the prophetic discourse of another. The injunction just given is next sustained by offsetting to the disinclination to restrain the impulse to speak the thought that, while avoiding the confusion occasioned by several speaking at once, the opportunity might thus be afforded for all to exercise their gift; and he encourages them to the exercise of self-denial in this respect by pointing them to the result which would thereby be attained.—For one by one—He here takes up again the import of the injunction just given, laying a stress thereupon, as well as upon the word “all” which follows.—ye can all prophesy,—The possibility here implied is simply an outward one, that of an opportunity to express themselves if not in one meeting yet, at least, in several subsequent ones (and also, perhaps, to finish out what was left unsaid when they were compelled to be silent). A simpler explanation than this which properly sub-audits προφητεύονες after καθ̓ ἔνα, is that which emphasizes δύνασθe and κα, θἔνα, q. d., ‘you can indeed all individually prophesy; there is nothing to withhold you from it forcibly.’ [So Alford, who explains it, “you have power to bring about this result—you can be silent if you please, and so prophesy one by one.”]—The result of thus bringing the prophetic gift into full exercise would be that all the members of the church would find nourishment and satisfaction for all their intellectual and moral wants—a result that could not be obtained in case several spoke at once.—that all may learn, and all may be exhorted (or comforted).—According to the first of the interpretations given above, this result would be reached by the fact that all had had the opportunity of speaking. [“The discourse of one might suit the wants of some hearers; and that of another might be adapted to the case of others. Thus all hearers would receive instruction and consolation.” Hodge]. Besides, the second πάντες, all, may possibly include also those prophets not precisely active. [Was their comfort to consist in the chance for speaking, or in the opportunity of hearing others?] To think of these exclusively is inconsistent with the change of persons, ‘ye may prophesy,’ ‘all may learn’ (μανθάνωσιν).—In 1Co_14:32 he proceeds to show that the nature of prophetic inspiration did not hinder the maintenance of such order, but rather promoted it. His meaning Isaiah 1. ‘ye are able to do this;’ 2. ‘it becometh you also as prophets to do this by virtue of the character of your gift.’ This character is thus set forth,—And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.—The “and” connects this verse to the preceding as containing an additional reason for the injunction given above. In regard to the expression “the spirits of the prophets,” it is a question whether he means the inspiring Spirit, in the variety of its manifestations [Hodge, de Wette and others], or, the inspired spirits of prophets themselves which, because he is here speaking of prophets in general, are naturally put in the plural [Meyer, Alford, Stanley]. The latter interpretation is the more probable as is seen by the drift of the argument since the statement that the spirits are subject to the prophets would hardly be suitable on such a construction. The meaning ‘inward motions,’ ‘excitements,’ ‘inspirations’ [Wordsworth] cannot be admitted. But who are the prophets to whom the spirits are subject? Some understand by these other prophets, and interpret the verb ὑποτάσσεται of that mutual subordination which is implied in the silencing of the one by the rising of another; or, according to Bengel, in the learning of the person silenced; or, according to others, in the subjection to the ‘discernment’ exercised over them by others—which however is too far fetched. Others understand by these prophets the individuals to whom the spirits belonged; so that the expression “to the prophets” would be equivalent ‘to themselves,’ only being more emphatic and pointing, as it were, to the circumstance that this subjection was grounded in the very essence of the gift itself. The ‘subjection’ he speaks of is that which is involved in a sound Christian disposition and accords with the true prophetic spirit.—In the first explanation, viz, that which supposes the subjection to be to other prophets, the reference to the injunction “let him be silent,” as that about which he is treating, is the only correct one, q. d., ‘let him be silent inasmuch as the spirit of one prophet is subject to that of another;’ neither can we say with Meyer, that that injunction would have been superfluous in this case; since indeed it is only confirmed by pointing to that, which is becoming to the Christian prophet as such. But the second interpretation deserves the preference as the finer one, q. d., “ye are able all of you, by restraining your impulse to speak, to prophesy one after another; and such control over the spirit, however powerfully excited, belongs to the prophets themselves who are no mere enthusiasts obeying their own impulses involuntarily, but voluntary agents.” [“In this way he distinguishes these impulses from those of the heathen pythonesses and sibyls.” Stanley]. The absence of the article before πνεύματα προφητῶν προφταις is accounted for by the fact that these words are used qualitatively. [It generalizes the assertion mating it applicable to all Christian prophets].—The position thus taken is still further substantiated theologically by a reference to God whose Spirit is the active principle of prophecy.—For God is not of confusion, but of peace.—By not maintaining this control over their spirits, they would appear as not true prophets moved by the Spirit of God; since by allowing their impulse to speak in an unbridled way, there would arise a state of things that could not possibly come from God, viz., disorder; that peace which is essentially God’s work would be broken up. ἀκαταστασία (3 Cor. 1Co_12:20; Jam_3:16; Luk_21:9) is disorder, confusion, which also involves disunion; hence the antithesis εἰρήνη in which order and subordination are implied. These are put in the genitive, as indicating both what belongs to God as an attribute, and what proceeds from Him as an effect. God is not a being who either has in Himself or produces confusion; but who both has and produces peace (comp. the genitives Heb_10:39 and the expression “the God of Peace” Rom_15:33).—Here some commentators directly annex the clause—as in all the churches of the saints.—[So likewise the E. V.]. In this case something must be supplied in order to put it in relation to the altogether general proposition just laid down. For example, ‘God is such a being among you as in all the churches of the saints.’ ‘This His character must show itself among you, just as in all the churches, through this subjection I am speaking of.’ But whether we effect the connection in this or in some other way, there will nevertheless always remain in it something peculiar and harsh. Whereas, on the contrary, what is said in opposition to uniting it with what follows, viz., that Paul elsewhere does not use a protasis with ὡς, without following it with a οὔτως, and that the word ‘churches’ would occur close together with diverse significations, ought to be of little weight; to this it may be added that afterward, in 1Co_14:36, there occurs a reprimand founded thereupon. [“I am compelled,” says Alford, “to depart from the majority of modern critics of note, e. g., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Billroth, Meyer, de Wette, and to adhere to the common arrangement of this latter clause. My reason is, that taken as beginning the next paragraph, it is harsh beyond example, and superfluous, as anticipating the reason about to be given οὐ γὰρ κ. τ. λ. Besides which, it is more in accordance with St. Paul’s style, to place the main subject of a new sentence first, see 1Ti_3:8; 1Ti_3:11-12; and we have an example of reference to general usage coming in last, in aid of other considerations, 1Co_11:16; but it seems unnatural that it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so much to say.” To this it may be added that the clause standing where it does in the E. V., as connected with what precedes, seems to furnish a demonstration of the general position assumed and especially of the concluding assertion. The peace and the order which belongs to God and comes from God, might be seen manifested in all the churches of the saints, and ought therefore to have been manifest at Corinth in like manner. Hodge and Wordsworth follow the old punctuation without comment. So likewise does Bloomfield who however takes the words, “for God is not, etc.,” as parenthetical; and in the words, “as in all, etc.,” he would understand the law, viz., “for the prophets to have in subjection the spiritual influence for good.” As to the new punctuation, he adds: “it occasions a very offensive tautology, and derogates much from the weight and gravity with which the direction is brought forward.” But see below.]

1Co_14:34-36. This little paragraph, prohibiting women from speaking in public assemblies, forms an adjunct to the precepts in 1Co_14:26-33, and its connection with these would be still closer, if we suppose Paul to have had in mind such women as had the gift of prophecy (comp. Act_21:9), or of tongues. Both Greek and Roman as well as Jewish custom forbade the public appearance of women (comp. Grot. and Wests. i h. 1). Christian church order attached itself to this custom (1Ti_2:11), suitably to the old divine order (νόμος, Gen_3:16) which strictly imposed upon woman subjection to man, since she, by her voluntary act, had involved him in apostasy. To this belongs the duty of keeping silence in public assemblies; while public speaking, whether in the way of holding discourse, or of asking questions, appeared, on the contrary, as an effort at independence calculated to foster woman’s vanity, and to take her out of the subordinate position appointed her by God. Even in the matter of putting questions, this was the more true in proportion as the question was keen and pert. Aside from this, also, it involved a sort of intercourse with men on the part of the women, and a renunciation of their dependence upon their husbands, from whom, or through whose aid they ought to obtain the knowledge they were in quest of—a matter important for preserving the integrity of the marriage relation; while, on the other hand, this holding direct communication with other men in public assemblies, even on spiritual subjects, might serve to disturb it.—Unmarried women are here not taken into the account. That these had more freedom than the married, cannot be inferred from Act_21:2, since nothing is there said of public prophesying. In them a modest less-restraint is naturally presupposed. Their desire for knowledge might also be gratified in other quiet ways, e.g., through their fathers, relatives, friends, teachers, deaconesses, etc. The same held good of the converted wives of the heathen.—As in all churches of the saints.—[On the connection of this clause see above. As Stanley: “Though in the older texts joined to the preceding, it has since the time of Cajetan, and rightly, been joined to the following, the connection being the same as in 1Co_11:16”]. These words stand first by way of emphasis, in order to cut off all objections in advance. Nothing here needs to be supplied, since from the context we readily understand it to be meant ‘as the women keep silence in the churches.’ [The early Greek fathers, the Vulgate, Wickliffe, Cranmer, and the Rheims’ version, who all connect this clause with the preceding, subaudit ‘I teach,’ apparently, to obviate the otherwise natural, but hardly allowable inference, that the Apostle was appealing to the condition of things in other churches to prove a conceded and undeniable truth, that God was a God of peace and of order. The necessity felt for supplying some such expression to render the sense pertinent in such a connection, is a strong argument in favor of the other punctuation here advocated]. The τῶν ἁγίων belongs to ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις (comp. ἄγιοι 1Co_1:2) and serves to add force to the reference. That which obtains in the churches of persons consecrated to God, i.e., of the saints, is more than an ordinary human custom; it is a higher divine ordinance which must be ascribed to the Spirit of God ruling in them.—let the women keep silence in the churches;—To connect τῶν ἀγίων, as Lachmann does with what follows, omitting ὑμῶν as though it were ‘let the wives of the saints,’ etc., is too forced, and is not demanded by the somewhat emphatic expression “their own husbands,” in 1Co_14:35. If we maintain the reading ὑμῶν, your, an antithesis would be implied therein between the special designation of “women,” and the more general mention of “all the churches.” This, however, does not well suit, since the emphasis lies upon the word “women.” Paul does not intend to say that their women, in distinction from all others, were to keep silence in the churches; but the point made is in reference to women in general.—It is a question, however, whether “your” may not be put in relation to “churches,” and then, also, the word “churches” in the protasis be understood only of the assemblies.—The prohibition is confirmed by a reference to the established order in this respect.—for it is not permitted unto them to speak:—of course it is public speaking that is here intended as the context implies. [“In the O. T. it had been predicted that ‘your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;’ a prediction which the Apostle Peter quotes as verified on the day of Pentecost, Act_2:17; and in Act_21:9 mention is made of four daughters of Philip who prophesied. The Apostle himself seems to take for granted in 11. 5, that women might receive and exercise the gift of prophecy. It is therefore only the public exercise of the gift that is prohibited.” Hodge]. Inasmuch as in such public speaking there would be manifested a certain degree of social independence, we see the propriety of his putting in contrast with this,—but to be under obedience,—We here have an instance of brachylogy. Comp. 1Ti_4:3. Instead of “it is not permitted,” we must here supply some expression corresponding with the second clause, such as ‘it is commanded them,’ or ‘it is incumbent on them.’ The variation ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, let them keep silence, though apparently well sustained, was no doubt intended as a grammatical correction through ignorance of the above construction.—as also saith the law. [See Gen_3:16, “and he shall rule over thee;” also Num_30:3-12. The speaking of women was also strictly forbidden in the Synagogues].—But if they wish to learn anything,—[a thing most certainly to be anticipated in quick, sensitive, eager natures; and which, to repress altogether, would be both injurious and painful, and was therefore to be provided for, yet, in consistency with that refinement and delicacy which is the beauty and the glory of the sex].—let them ask their own husbands at home;—“This is on the supposition that their husbands were Christians,” Burger; [and were able to answer them. Their incapacity in this respect is either passed over as not to be supposed, or as an evil which was remediless]. The verb ἐπερωτᾷν generally means to enquire, and is not to be taken as expressing a “desire to hear yet more in addition to that which they had heard in the church.” Osiander. [“Their own” (ἰδίους) is emphatic, confining them to their own husbands to the exclusion of other men]. The teachings of the law he shows to be sustained by the public sense of propriety.—for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.—[“The word used is αἰσχρός, which properly means ugly, deformed. It is the predicate of anything which excites disgust. As the peculiar power and usefulness of women depend on their being the objects of admiration and affection, anything which tends to excite the opposite sentiments should, for that reason, be avoided.” Hodge]. Any objection that might possibly be raised against what was thus founded upon the general custom and order of the churches, he encounters with a question.—Or went the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?—i.e., ‘are you the original church, so that your wisdom is to set the standard of propriety; or are you the only church, so that you are at liberty to stand alone by yourselves and your own conceits?’ This question which so plainly exhibits the impertinence of any opposition on the part of the Corinthians, cannot be put in relation to the foregoing precepts (1Co_14:26 ff.), but only to the shamefulness of the conduct in question just spoken of. This is required by the close grammatical connection, q. d., ‘this public speaking is in violation of the public sense of decency; or, are you the original or the only church of Christ?’ i.e., you can oppose this only on the ground that you are such, so that either all the other churches must conform their regulations to yours as the mother-church, or you, as the sole depositaries of the revelation of God, are at liberty to set yourselves up as the only rule of what is becoming. Now, since this was not the case, it was incumbent on them, as a part of a community of churches of Christ, to put themselves in agreement with the rest in regard to their rules of divine worship.—In respect to the language of the text comp. Isa_2:3; Mic_4:2.—“The word of God” here means Christian doctrine as being preëminently the revelation of God (2Co_2:17; 1Th_1:8).

1Co_14:37-40. These verses form the conclusion to the whole discussion concerning spiritual gifts and their use. He here sets himself against all such spiritual presumption as would exalt the impulse of the free spirit above apostolic precepts, and affirms that the person who recognizes what has just been written to be a precept resting upon the authority of Christ, indicates thereby the reality of his own inspiration, so that in the opposite case all claim to such inspiration would prove itself to be but a vain fancy. This is what the word δοκεῖ points to in what follows, which here, as in 11. 12, does not mean ‘appear,’ but think, involving a possibility of self-deception.—If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,—In consequence of the disjunctive “or,” many take the word “spiritual” in a restricted sense as denoting one speaking with tongues. [So Stanley]; but ἥ, or, is equivalent both to and, as well as to vel., i. e., it serves to separate ideas which might be taken for one another as well as those which exclude one another (Passow. I 1320). Accordingly the term “spiritual” might designate the genus, under which “the prophet” might be included, denoting any one endowed with the spirit, and implying therefore the possession of any other gift which together with prophecy belongs to this class, and certainly not the gift of tongues exclusively.—let him acknowledge what things I write to you, that—ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἂ γράφω—ὅτι, a case of well known attraction for ὅτι ἅ γράφω, i.e., ‘let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you.’ [But what are the prescripts referred to? those in the verses just preceding? or to the whole contents of this chapter? Plainly the latter, as may be seen from the characters specified—‘prophet’ and ‘spiritual person’ which show that he had in mind all the regulations given in relation to the exercise of spiritual gifts].—they are the (commandments) of the Lord.—There are various readings here; the most probable is κυρίου ἐστίν, ‘are of the Lord.’ To this there was then added as a gloss ἐντολή, ‘commandment,’ which then crept into the text, and was there changed into the plural with a verb to correspond, εἰσίν ἐντολαί to accord with the antecedent ä, ‘what things.’ The meaning however is all the same. The Apostle here gives them to understand that the regulations prescribed by him came from the Lord and were His; yet not as though Christ (for He is the one meant, not God) had in person ordained the rules in this matter, but that he in enjoining them had spoken as one who “had the mind of Christ” (1Co_2:16; comp. 1Co_7:40), and so acted upon the authority of Christ (comp. Osiander and Meyer). [“The continued influence of Christ by the spirit over the minds of the apostles, which is a divine prerogative, is here assumed or asserted,” Hodge]. It was precisely of such as claimed to be spiritual that Paul could fairly demand that they should acknowledge the ordinances laid down by him to be the dictates of the Spirit of Christ—the expressions of His mind and will. [“Here, as in 1Jn_4:6, (“He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God, heareth not us”) submission to the infallible authority of the apostles is made the test of a divine mission and even of conversion. This must be so. If the apostles were the infallible organs of the Holy Ghost, to disobey them in any matter of faith or practice is to disobey God.” Hodge. “No more direct assertion of inspiration can be uttered than this.” Alford.]—The requirement just made he next enforces with severity.—But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.—The ignorance here may be taken absolutely, as denoting the possession of erroneous views; or it may be a simple lack of knowledge or intelligence; in which case then it must be understood as a guilty ignorance, since the words “let him be ignorant” clearly express a penalty.—Some (Beza) interpret this verse as simply a contrast to the preceding, and so put the clauses in counterbalance. “The ‘ignorant persons’ here would thus be the opposite of the ‘spiritual’ spoken of in 1Co_14:37, who is, in this case regarded as one possessed only of an ordinary illumination; and then the phrase ‘let him be ignorant’ stands antithetic to ‘let him acknowledge.’ The whole would then mean: ‘But if a person is unintelligent, being neither a prophet nor a spiritual person,—then will he not be able to perceive that these injunctions are from the Lord and authorized by Him, and for this (?) let him have his ignorance as his punishment’ ” (Osiander). The artificiality of this interpretation is not to be mistaken. It is better to take ἀγνοεῖ transitively, and put it in relation to the second clause of 1Co_14:37, q. d., ‘if any one is ignorant and so does not acknowledge that the things which I write are of the Lord, then the state of ignorance to which he is given over must be regarded as his punishment;’ ‘let him remain ignorant at his peril.’ As Bengel says: “let him keep it to himself; we cannot cast away all things for such a man. Those who are thus left to themselves, repent more readily than if you were to teach them against their will.” The Apostle here expresses his despair of further instructing a person whose ignorance he is constrained to regard as a refusal to learn. A similar use of the imperative we have in Rev_22:11 : “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still, he which is filthy, let him be filthy still,—and he that is holy, let him be holy still.”—Instead of the imperative a number of authorities, some of them important, have the indicative form ἀγνοεῖται, he is ignored. This reading may be explained on the ground of offence taken at the imperative; or that in the succession of ως (ἀγνοείτω ὥστε) one was dropped out and then ἀγνοεῖται was adopted, so as to obtain a sort of relation between the active and the passive, such as is found in 1Co_8:2; Gal. iv. 9. If this reading be adopted, it may be interpreted either: ‘so he becomes ignored, disregarded, abandoned to his own self-will,’ or: ‘he will be ignored by the Lord in the day of judgment’ (Mat_7:23; Mat_10:33).—Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.—And here again the old preference for prophecy is expressed. This gift is to be decidedly preferred and sought for, the other is only not to be hindered. “We recognize here an advance in the development of thought. At the start Paul said: ‘covet earnestly spiritual gifts,’ and planting himself on the stand-point of the Corinthians, he had included among these the gift of tongues. But after having explained how prophecy subserved the welfare of the church far more, he here gives this preference and only expresses the wish that no obstacle be put in the way of the other.” Neander. For the proper order of the text see critical notes. 1Co_14:40 sums up the whole of what is stated in 1Co_14:26 and onward.—But let all things be done decently and in order.—In the term ‘decently’ he does not refer exclusively to the duty of women’s keeping silence in the churches, 1Co_14:34. To decency in church there belongs also the preservation of order enjoined in 1Co_14:26 ff. which is more pointedly expressed in the words following: “in order” (κατὰ τάξιν), which refer to what is suitable as to time and measure, i.e., [‘not tumultuously as in a mob, but as in a well ordered army where every one keeps his place and acts at the proper time and in the proper way.’ Hodge].—“It might seem as if the instruction given with such minuteness by Paul in these chapters was of little importance, and had but little practical bearing for us, now that the gifts alluded to are no more dispensed. A high value is nevertheless to be attached to it: 1. because it affords us a glimpse into the condition of the first Christian congregations, their rich endowments, as well as the dangers connected with them; 2. because it is easy for us to draw practical inferences from it suitable to our existing states and relations; and much that is said is still pertinent to the present time; 3. because it furnishes us, as in a mirror, a picture of that we have lost, and thus serves as a spur to urge us on to recover it again by earnest prayer. Moreover, it contains a warning that we should not in our prayers put what is nonessential on a par with that which is essential, to say nothing of preferring the former to the latter.” Burger.

excursis on the gift of tongues.—In chap. 14 we have exhibited to us the essential character of this remarkable gift. We see that it is preëminently a form of worship, a mode of speaking, praying, and offering thanks, which goes on in spirit (ἐν πνεύματι), and not in the understanding (τῷ νοΐ); and that it is unintelligible without interpretation, consequently contributes nothing towards the edification of the church, but is simply a means of self-edification in communion with God (1Co_14:2-4; 1Co_14:5-19). We must now consider the question which of the theories broached in relation to this gift is best sustained, or whether we must pass beyond these in order to hit the truth in the matter.—In the observations already made (comp. on 1Co_12:10; 1Co_13:1), the hypotheses of Eichhorn and Wieseler may be regarded as having been already disproved and set aside. The view of Bleek, even as modified by Baur, [that the word “tongue” (γλῶσσα) stands for a foreign word imported and half naturalized in the Greek], is opposed not only by its being a use of language both rare and altogether foreign to the New Testament, but also by such expressions as divers kinds of tongues, “tongues of angels,” and the like; and Baur contradicts himself when in one place he takes “tongues” to mean “organs of speech,” and in another “the utterances of those organs,” i.e., forms of language. Meyer’s theory (also that of Schultz and others), which starts from the signification “organ of speech,” is sustained by no inconsiderable arguments. His view is, that the tongue, set in motion involuntarily and independently of the understanding by the power of the Holy Spirit, spoke apparently of its own accord. It was not the person, but the tongue itself which spoke,—such was the aspect of the affair, and hence its designation. And because this mode of praying manifested itself with various characteristic modifications (which certainly cannot be explained, owing to our lack of experience), and because the same speaker was obliged to vary his manner of speaking according to the ever-changing degrees, impulses, and tendencies of his ecstasy, so that he seemed to be speaking with different tongues, there arose such expressions as: “to speak with tongues,” “divers kinds of tongues.” The unintelligibleness of a speech thus disconnected and mysterious is readily conceivable. But aside from the particular modes of expression which refuse to accord with this view, such as “he hath a tongue,” 1Co_14:26, it is opposed by the fact that it compels us to regard the narrative of what took place on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as a traditional perversion of what actually occurred: since its advocates cannot—with propriety, at any rate—undertake to deny the essential identity or similiarity of the Pentecostal miracle with the gift of speaking with tongues at Corinth.—[The theory that the gift of tongues was an ability to speak in foreign languages, and was conferred to assist in propagating the Gospel in foreign parts (Chrys., Calvin, Hodge, and others) is encountered by difficulties sufficient to render it untenable. 1. There is not the slightest evidence that it was ever used for this purpose. 2. So far as it bore on unbelievers, it was a sign of reprobation. 3. Its only use seems to have been in worship—in prayer, and praise, and thanksgiving. If there was no interpreter, its possessor was to speak in it to himself or to God. 4. There was needed a special gift for its interpretation, which would not have been the case were any foreigner present who understood the language. 5. It seems strange that the Spirit should have bestowed a gift designed for use in foreign parts so abundantly upon a church where it does not seem to have been specially needed. 6. Wherever an individual is spoken of as endowed with this gift, he is said to have “a tongue”—even in the case of Paul (according to the right reading) which clearly implies that this manifestation of the Spirit was in accordance more with individual peculiarities than with external demands. 7. On this theory the gift wouldbe quite on a par with the natural ability of multitudes in the city of Corinth, who, from their commercial intercourse with foreign nations, must be supposed to have learned many foreign languages. Hence in that city would this gift have been least needed, and have in it nothing striking. 8. Paul desired that all had this gift. Why so, if it was not for personal edification, but for the sake of preaching the Gospel? Did he want all to become missionaries?]—If, now, we proceed from the earlier phenomenon, then we get as the full expression of it, “to speak with other tongues,” to which there corresponds that in Mar_16:17, “to speak with new tongues.” A more abbreviated expression occurs in Acts (which we maintain to be the work of the Pauline Luke) Act_10:46, “to speak with tongues” with unmistakable reference to the first outpouring of the Spirit, with the effect it produced (comp. 1Co_11:15). The same expression occurs Act_19:6. But here it will be impossible to avoid taking the word “tongue” to denote a form of speech, and the “speaking with tongues” to mean speaking in languages, viz., in other than the ordinary ones (ἑτέραις γλώσσαις), or in so far as they were something before unheard in that place—“new tongues,” (καιναῖς γλώσσαις). Neither can we maintain the supposition that one person and another, while struggling for expression under the overwhelming stress of feeling, wove in words and forms of speech taken from some foreign language to him otherwise unknown. Rather we feel constrained to recognize in this church of heathen converts the reverberations of the great miracle of Pentecost; in which the power of Christianity, overcoming the distinctions of nationality in language, made itself known as the absolute religion which was to lead mankind out of their apostasy from God, and out of their mutual alienations, into their primitive unity. It was, however, no such speaking in any particular foreign language as would furnish to a person acquainted with it at once an intelligible meaning (comp. 1Co_14:2, “no one understands him”); but it was something entirely aloof from the reach of the understanding (while in the phenomenon of Pentecost we may assume an operation of the Spirit which ensured at once the interpretation, whether in the speakers or in the hearers); and it was unintelligible for this reason, because those powers of reflection which condition the intelligibility of speech, and unfold the subject matter to others, were suspended in their action, and the ordinary consciousness of self and of the world was kept in abeyance. In so far as this consciousness was always exercised within a particular national peculiarity and form of speech, the suppression of it involved the possibility of being lifted out of this particular sphere into a higher and broader one. The Spirit of Christ, which embraced humanity in all its various nationalities and languages, and possessed the power of uniting them all in one, effected a momentary dissolution of all these limitations in the inmost depths of the individual spirit and so let it forth in various degrees and measures into this unity which made itself known in the ability to produce signs of thought or forms of speech out of other spheres of language, and to express in these the spiritual feelings and views which had been awakened. This, nevertheless, was done in a constrained manner, corresponding to the nature of the estacy, or in forms and connections so new and foreign to the ordinary modes of thought and speaking that no one could obtain from it any clear connected sense, unless specially qualified for the work by the Holy Spirit.—Something akin to this we see in clairvoyance; which, indeed, even in its highest form is essentially distinguishable from these spiritual states in the fact that the gift of the Spirit was conditioned upon no physical peculiarity, that no cataleptic states were connected with it, and that its possessor was perpetually master of himself (1Co_14:18 ff., 1Co_14:28); to which may be added, that he was in no communion with the outward world, but was wholly absorbed in communion with God (Delitzsch, p. 317 ff.). If we assume that the various languages of earth are but the disjecta membra of the original speech of humanity, then was this gift of tongues a symbolic anticipation of the unity which is to be restored when humanity is perfected—a unity which will include in itself a boundless diversity in the most perfect harmony.—At any rate we are not to regard the utterances made through this gift as a promiscuous medley, a mere mish-mash of sounds. The individual inspired either took his parts of speech out of one language, as is shown in the sphere of clairvoyance; or, if he took them out of several languages, he took them in such a way as not to make them appear a crude amalgam of words, but a harmonious combination of terms most expressive of deep spiritual emotions all wrought together with a plastic skill and creative power that removed their separating peculiarities.—[And so far as its practical use was concerned, may we not take these tongues in their unintelligibility to have been a sign that in the kingdom of God, and under the mightier influences of the Spirit, there was a sphere of thought and feeling transcending the ordinary one, into which the saints would one day be brought, and which now could only be imperfectly interpreted to our common apprehension by means of earthly analogies, and the common forms of speech? as a convincing token that a new and marvellous power had come down on men to lift them into direct communion with God, and impart to them the experiences and mysteries of a higher life for the expression of which no existing human language was adequate? And was it not to give assurance of this that persons immediately, on their conversion, began to speak with new tongues?]—With such an understanding of the phenomenon, it cannot surprise us if, in relation to the unintelligibility of what was uttered, a reference should be made to human language as not understood by foreigners (1Co_14:10 ff.); and, as contrasted with musical instruments, the tongue as the organ for exercising this gift, should be mentioned in its most direct signification (1Co_14:9). Besides, the various expressions used in respect to this gift suit very well with this view—even the one “he has a tongue”—which would thus mean, ‘he has a speech in readiness,’ i.e., is prepared to hold discourse in a language which, as is evident from what has hitherto been said, was unintelligible to the hearers.

[The whole subject is one of peculiar interest. One can hardly avoid the supposition that it stands in some way related to the remarkable phenomena witnessed in clairvoyance and animal magnetism, or to those ecstatic states observable in times of deep religious excitement. There is nothing disparaging to “the gift of tougues” in such a supposition. The Spirit of God, we know, employs the various susceptibilities and faculties of our nature for accomplishing its own ends, and moulds its operations on human conditions. He communicated His will through dreams and visions, and, as in the case of Peter (Act_10:10, compared with 13), even shaped the form of instruction to the bodily state of the person acted upon; yet what is more illusory than a dream? And why should not these, as yet so little understood powers of our nature, be made the vehicle of these supernatural gifts? Why should the fact that they are so wild and strange, so often partake of the animal passions, are so often perverted to bad ends, serve for an objection to the supposition that they were so employed? Indeed, does not the power of “discerning,” associated with these spiritual gifts, clearly imply that there was danger of confounding the natural with the supernatural by reason of this very thing, and that there was need of a sharpened critical faculty to discriminate between what was from the Spirit, and what was not? We need, therefore, have no hesitation in looking in this direction for some explanation of this remarkable phenomenon of the early church, as though by so doing we should invalidate its divine character. Certain it is that there is something about it more mysterious and awe-inspiring than the simple ability to speak in one or more unacquired languages. We can in no way bring the Apostle’s method of dealing with it, and speaking of it, into harmony with the idea that this was all that was meant by “the gift of tongues.” Whether a recurrence of this gift can be looked for, is another question, not to be here discussed].

Aside from the commentaries, comp. also Heubner p. 310 ff.; E. F. Fritzsche: Nov. Opusc. p. 102 ff.; Kling: Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 487 ff.; Bleck: ibid. 1829, p. 17; Baur and Steudel: Tüb. Zeitschrift 1830, 2; Baur: Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1838, p. 628 ff.; Wieseler: ibid. 1838, p. 378; Schultz 1839, p. 765 ff.; ibid. Spiritual Gifts, p. 57 ff.; Zeller: Theol. Jahrb. 1849; Neander; Hist. of planting and training of the Christian church, 1:14 ff., 240 ff. (4 Ed.); Hilgenfeld: Glossolaly in the primitive church, 1850; Rossteuscher: The Gift of Tongues in the apostolic times, 1850; Steinbeck: The Poet a Seer, p. 547 ff.; Pabst: A word about Ecstasy 1834, p. 29; Delitzsch: Psychol. p. 314 ff., 143 ff.; Fabri.: The Rise of Heathenism, etc. 1859, p. 18 ff., 60 ff.; Kahnis: The Doctrine of the Holy Ghost, 1:61–68; who like Delitzsch assumes a double form of charism in Acts 2, a speaking in actually existing languages; in 1 Corinthians 12-14, in newly formed languages. [Owen’s Works, Vol. 4. p. 472 ff.; Smith’s Dict. of Bib. Ant. “Tongues”; E. Irving’s Works Vol. 5. p. 509 ff.; “Gifts of the Holy Ghost called supernatural.” Herzog’s Ency. Vol. 1Co 18: “Zungenreden”].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Language is the articulate expression of man’s thought and feeling; in it there is concentrated that whole spiritual life which lifts him above the brutes. Hence, it is a gift conferred on him directly, in his primitive condition, in and with his spirit itself; it is, as

it were, an innate organ or faculty—“no mechanical product of his own ingenuity, but a spontaneous emanation of the spirit” (W. v. Humboldt). In the beginning man possessed the word, and this word was from God; and from the vital power which was bestowed on him in and with this word, there streamed forth the light of his existence” (Fr. von Schlegel).31 In the original unity of men’s convictions respecting God and the world, was grounded also the unity of language. With the rupture of that unity by reason of man’s hostility to God, in which mankind, before united, went their several ways and strove by their own power to bring Heaven down to themselves (Genesis 11), the unity of language was also lost. A criminal pride—the root of heathenism,—was also the cause of divergence both in nations and languages. It was a divine judgment by which the historical development of the race was revolutionized in its fundamental principles.—Only by a new and wonderful condescension on the part of God could the salvation promised to man be still brought to pass in the earth. In Christ alone does man wake again to a universal divine human consciousness. A reunion of man with God can only be perfected in and with the reunion of men among themselves—a union which is to take place first morally and spiritually, and then really, in vivid outward manifestation, so that the end shall refer back to the beginning.—On the day of Pentecost, after Christ’s mediatorial work was finished, the heavens descended in a plentitude of spiritual influences upon mankind already prepared for it, knitting together the ruptured bond.—Pentecost was Babel reversed. The mighty baptism of the Spirit wrought at once a powerful convulsion. The consciousness of those on whom it fell was for a while overwhelmed and swallowed up by the power of the divine Spirit, so that all particularism vanished, and the most perfect unity of spirit combined them all in one. As the result of this real unity of the God-consciousness—in other words of experience and conviction in regard to God—the one primitive language again disclosed itself, and in this they all with one mouth proclaimed the wonderful works of God; Parthians, Medes, Elamites and the rest hear the proclamation each in his own language. They hear it; for even in their ruptured state the several languages are but the torn, and as such mutually unintelligible members, of the one primitive language; yet however, in such a way, that where this primitive language as the common mother of them all sounds forth again, even the stiffened members are, as it were, breathed into and made resonant by the original Spirit.—Hence, even the hearers, though speaking the most diverse languages, understand, each one in his own language, what the apostles proclaim. But at the same time the unity is not yet perfected into something real and permanent. We have here not the beginning of the consummation, but only the dawn of a new day for the kingdom of God upon earth. Speaking with other tongues is, as it were, only a powerful gust of the Spirit, heralding what is to come,—a prophecy or a pledge that, according to the divine purpose, mankind, though now rent asunder, must be and would be restored to a perfect union by means of that redemption which was made manifest through Christ. (According to Fabri and others).

2. The kind of address suited to a Christian assembly. The value of any disclosure in a Christian assembly is to be estimated according to its general intelligibility and the impression which it makes upon the hearts of those present. Mere rhapsody of a mystic theosophic kind, all attempts to enwrap men to the heights or to take them down to the depths of knowledge and learning and subtle exposition, all flights of poetry and rhetoric, all dazzling display of fine talking and the like, which make the listeners stare, or may attract people of merely secular culture and imaginative tastes, or which go to foster intellectual curiosity, or which pay court to that folly which delights in what is dark—all things of this kind have no place in a Christian church. To the enquiry of a young and gifted preacher who was just entering upon his ministry at the Capital of the nation as to how he could best insure success, an old experienced clergyman replied: “So preach that even the servant girls can understand,—that will be good for all.” This is a thing which a preacher must lay to heart; and it will impress itself upon him, the more he enters into the spirit of the Holy Scriptures and their style as set forth in Luther’s version [and we may add the English version too,] and the more he studies the works of this great master of popular speech and preaching.—Another thing to be considered and striven after is what may be called the prophetic element of discourse—that which touches the heart so as to lay open its mysterious ongoings, its innermost impulses and feelings, its hidden movements and propensities so that the hearers shall be constrained to ask, ‘Has he then seen through us? through our secret thoughts and purposes and acts? Has he, while withdrawn from observation, been spying out our sayings and doings? or had any one been informing him respecting us? To the attainment of this skill there is required above all things a spiritual endowment and illumination. But this can be acquired only by a more and more searching self-scrutiny and by a more thorough acquaintance with men in their various conditions and relations; these things are obtained in the light of that Divine Word which reveals to us both the ways of God and man, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And in order to make his speech still more impressive, the preacher must go to school to the prophets, and make himself acquainted with their style and language, and so become qualified to use it according to his measure and existing necessities.

3. The public speaking of women is not to be easily reconciled with a truly feminine character, and with woman’s position in a divinely constituted social state. Particular exigencies and extraordinary endowments may here and there go to form an exception; but, as a general rule, such an independent forth-putting of the female sex in public is unseemly, as all ecclesiastical discipline has maintained ever since the times of the apostles. Even in domestic worship it indicates a bad state of things, if the woman takes the lead, whether it be from the fact that she assumes it to herself from the love of ruling, or is constrained to do it by reason of the unchristian character of her husband, or of some other incapacity on his part. And still more must it be regarded as indecorous for women to pray and exhort in those social meetings which occupy a middle ground between domestic and public worship,—presupposing, however, that these meetings are of a promiscuous character, and not wholly confined to women and children. At all events it is important for women, in case there should be any occasion for their thus taking part in public services, to watch over themselves with care, lest they lose their modesty and expose themselves to perilous temptations.—On the other hand, it greatly enhances the beauty of a Christian home, when there exists between the husband and the wife a confidential intercourse in respect to the important questions and problems of Christian experience, such as are discussed in the public assembly; when the woman asks her husband for further explanations respecting any point which has struck her mind and awakened her thought, and exchanges views with him in regard to the topic. In such a case, that which was spoken in public will be the more deeply impressed on the heart; Christian knowledge will be promoted in the family; and the wife also will gain in that independence which belongs to her as a mother within the domestic circle, and become the more capable of contributing her part towards the edification of the whole.

4. A Test. The distinction between men truly enlightened and spiritual, and those who, with all their gifts and attainments, are still carnally minded or mere fanatics and sectarian, is seen in this—whether they modestly recognize and respect the divine order, as laid down by Christ and His Apostles, or as established throughout the Church in the mind and Spirit of Christ; or whether they, under the pretext of being impelled by the Spirit, proudly disdain it. With the latter, when once they have become stiff in their opinions, it is in vain to dispute; since they pay no regard to reason and set up their own will in opposition to the general order, as though their will were the mind of the Spirit. Such persons must be given over to the blinding of their own spiritual pride.

[4. Primitive Christian Worship. Of this, as observed at Corinth, we have a vivid picture afforded us in this chapter. Indeed, it is the only one extant of the kind, giving us a clear and instructive glimpse into the nature and workings of Church life in those early times. The first thing that strikes us is the absence of all fixed order. No hint is given of the super intendence of any individual or class of persons regulating the services in the Church assemblies—even where the mention of such would most naturally be made—as in the case of the disorders spoken of in 1Co_14:26-34. The exercises seem to have gone on spontaneously

Very much as is now the case in many social gatherings where “the meeting,” as the saying is, “is thrown open.” Individuals employed their gifts under the promptings of the Spirit, as seemed to them best, governed only by considerations of mutual regard and general utility. All enjoyed the right, yea, felt it a duty, to contribute something toward the public edification according to the ability conferred on them severally. The idea that a special priesthood was necessary to mediate between the worshipping assembly and God, is not for a moment entertained. Indeed, it is altogether ignored and excluded on the supposition that all were now made priests unto God by the unction of the Spirit, and had an equal right to speak the truth that was in them, and to offer prayer. The disorders arising from the fullest concession of this right, were not regarded an evil so great as would have arisen from the repression of the Spirit that wrought in all the members “severally as He would.” The Spirit was not to be quenched; prophesyings were not to be despised; and whatever there was of the carnal and selfish element mingling with what was spiritual and divine, was to be separated and rejected by the critical faculty of the more discerning. The hearers were expected “to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.” This fact should be commended to the attention of those who in their excessive regard for having “all things done decently and in order,” proceed to the extreme of repressing the spontaneous life and activity of the Church as a whole, by putting the meeting entirely under the control of a special order of individuals.

The exercises consisted of prayer, praise, thanksgiving, prophesying, and speaking with tongues, accompanied by interpretation,—together with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper at stated seasons. The several parts of the service seem to have followed one another without settled plan. The only rules to be observed here were non-interference, so as to prevent confusion, and a regard for the edification of the Church as a whole, rather than for that of the individual. The latter necessarily excluded all that was unintelligible to the majority of the assembly. No language was to be employed which could not be understood by all alike. It is a rule which by implication condemned in advance the practice of the Romish church in using a liturgy composed in a language wholly unknown to the great mass of the people, and thus precluding them from participating intelligently in the service. Hence, in this anti-Christian church worship the necessity of a little bell to notify the congregation when to give their responses, instead of that free intelligence which having understood what was spoken, expresses its hearty assent in the loud “Amen,” with which the early Christians were wont to ratify the prayer and the thanksgiving, thus making it the act of the whole assembly].

[5. In all true Christian worship, that is honorable to God, or beneficial to man, the Holy Spirit is the efficient agent. It is only so far as He helps our infirmities, and teaches us how to pray, only so far as He enlightens our understandings, and gives us an insight into divine truth, only so far as He inspires our songs and praises, that our worship is truly spiritual and edifying. Hence, the prime and indispensable necessity of preparing for these services by seeking His presence and aid. No amount of learning, no natural gifts, no acquired skill, no refinements of art can compensate for that unction of the Holy One which is promised the believer to teach him all things].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Starke:—Our lack of love measures our lack of true Christianity (1Jn_4:7).—The Holy Spirit indeed imparts to us spiritual gifts, yet it is on the condition of our striving after them in the use of suitable means, such as prayer, reading, meditation.

1Co_14:3. The preacher must aim chiefly at improvement in life and doctrine, and, to this end, he must sometimes exhort and sometimes warn, and sometimes comfort.

Hed:

1Co_14:6 f. God reveals Himself in various ways; rejoice in Him and learn to recognize Him who thus seeks to make Himself known to thee; thy salvation consists in this.—A preacher should so preach as to be understood. What does all your art avail for rustics?—the chaff of human wisdom for souls hungering after the Bread of life? Step down from your artificial heights and do not be ashamed of simplicity in the presence of a thousand illiterate persons, because of a few whose hearts seek after wisdom, and whose ears itch for novelty.

1Co_14:8. The reason why many do not strive against their spiritual foes, is that they are not urged to it by their teachers.

1Co_14:13. So to sing and pray that all who are present may understand, and be able to sing and pray with you—this is the best kind of singing and praying (Col_3:16).

1Co_14:16. O, the wretched, sapless worship, when the poor laity comprehend nothing, and see nothing besides ridiculous gestures and all sorts of attitudinizing! Let us recognize it as a high and noble gift of God, that we have His Word presented to us intelligibly in our mother tongue.

1Co_14:20. To lust for things which are void of meaning, is childish.—Well is it for those who in reference to sins remain simple-minded, yet daily grow in the living knowledge of God (2Ti_3:7; Col_1:9).

1Co_14:21. Unknown tongues may become also a token of God’s wrath, when God lets a person come among a people whose speech they understand not.

1Co_14:22. The Church of God, being already planted and established, no longer stands in need of tokens and wonders, but rather requires the exposition of Scripture for its edification.

1Co_14:23. A Christian must nowhere allow himself to be the subject of mockery,—least of all, in a public assembly; he must strive to conduct himself wisely in all things. To direct all discourses to an unbeliever, would rather embitter than benefit him; but the Holy Spirit does not allow himself to be without a witness, and brings believers to so testify of Him that the unbeliever shall be rebuked and judged.

1Co_14:25. Praised be God, who gives power to His Word, and reveals His true teachers before many consciences (2Co_4:2).

Ibid:

1Co_14:26. Observe what should be the aim of all Christians—teachers, counsellors, fathers—in their labors, viz., edification.

1Co_14:27. All things are not given to all; one must tolerate another at his side, and one must be ready to follow another, and all things be directed to the edification of the Church.

1Co_14:28. If we see that we can be of no use to our neighbor, then it is best for us to be silent, to be by ourselves, and to pray and to be content with our own edification, and deal with God in behalf of our neighbor.

1Co_14:29. Divine worship allows of no disorder. To speak without gifts and calling, is improper.

1Co_14:30. Let a person have what gift he may, yet he should be willing to let others speak, and be content to hear (Job_18:2).

1Co_14:31. He who has failed in the exposition of Scripture, should allow himself to be corrected, and if he hears something better, accept the true in place of the false.

Luther:

1Co_14:32. Some think that, because they have understandings and gifts of the Spirit, they should yield to no one, nor be silent. But, since the gifts of the Spirit are in their own power, they certainly should not use them to disturb harmony, and then urge as a pretext that the Spirit constrained them.

1Co_14:33. An irresistible impulse should be regarded as impure, since a carnal passion is mixed with it which ought to be restrained by grace. God designs that we show ourselves peaceful in all our conduct, and especially in divine service; otherwise we give offence, and allow place for the evil spirit.

1Co_14:34. To teach in public, is an exercise of a certain kind of lordship in the place of Christ; and it is so much the less suitable for women, since there is in men much to be rebuked. At home, they may instruct their own, as far as they know and can.

1Co_14:35. The man is the bishop of his family. Men ought to surpass their wives in divine knowledge, and be prepared to assist them therein; and the wives ought themselves to be willing to receive instruction, and to this end make inquiry on points which they do not understand (1Ti_2:11).

1Co_14:36. Art thou adorned with gifts, think not thou hadst them of thyself, and possessest them alone; they are God’s, and are still more abundant with others. Be humble, and use them rightly. He who stiffly opposes the truth, has not the Spirit of Christ, however much he may make pretension to it.

Hedinger:

1Co_14:38. Go hence, thou who refusest to learn! Do not grieve, my friend, on this account. It is with many obstinacy, stupidity also, and is for the most part a judgment of God upon them.

1Co_14:40. Both in and out of the assemblies everything should be done decorously, out of respect to the presence of God, and the holy angels, and the sanctity of the things themselves; and orderly, with a becoming regard to time and place and other circumstances, so that no offence may arise.

Berlenburger Bibel:

1Co_14:1. “Pursue after love!” We must urge ourselves to it, that we may pray ourselves into a fight of love. For it will always appear to us as if the others were not striving for the same thing. Therefore our love will naturally shrink back; hence, the necessity of pursuing after it. And by this, there is indicated the true vessel wherein spiritual gifts should lie, viz., love. Among these the best is the possession of the prophetic word, and an ability to investigate further in reference to its meaning. He who means to be diligent, will find spiritual work enough; but begin with yourself.

1Co_14:3. The Scripture calls all proclamation of the truth, prophesying; since God has revealed to us in his word both how it will be with us, if we obey, and how, if we disobey, all those who speak to others in the name of God, are virtually prophets.

1Co_14:4. Thou sayest well: ‘I edify myself for myself;’ but where is thy neighbor? Love seeks not its own.—Gifts should always flow into the Church.

1Co_14:6. We can impart something to others for their edification: 1. when we remove the covering which hangs over the inmost recesses of their hearts, and show the substratum, and disclose the things hidden there (revelation); 2. if we produce what we have experienced of divine truth, and the mysteries of faith in our hearts (knowledge—a result of the former); 3. if we open up the prophetic word and the promises of the future world, and seize the continuous thread of all prophecies, even the pathway of God; from which it can be inferred whether a person is in the right way, both in teaching and hearing; 4. by instruction in the catechism, or by doctrine also which is gathered out of all the foregoing points.

1Co_14:12. Zealots have need to take care that in seeking light they do not, like the devil, fall into the fire.

1Co_14:17. “Not edified”—a defect which Christianity has suffered from, far and wide, in empty teaching.

1Co_14:18 f. The teaching should be such that others can apply it to themselves, and it should be as simple and hearty as if it proceeded from a father to his children, for which no miraculous gifts are needed.

1Co_14:20. Spiritual childhood consists in that simplicity, innocence, and uprightness which makes a man perfectly guileless; and with all this there may exist the perfection of wisdom, which is able to answer everything, and to assign reasons for all things.—Ere we can become children possessed of this divine simplicity, qualified to receive the kingdom of God, all ambitious desires to display our piety must be exterminated, and all heights be laid low.

1Co_14:21. The most fundamental truths are, to most Christians, a foreign language.—Since for a long time there has existed but little love for the truth (2Th_2:10), God has in judgment suffered teachers, without number, to arise, whose speech has departed heaven-wide from the simplicity of the apostles (2Ti_4:1-3).

1Co_14:22. Believers must not boast of that which is appointed of God, because of unbelief.

1Co_14:24. The Word of God carries a convincing power among those who give heed to it. It must go to the heart. It pierces very deep. The Word of God shows its power when it discloses the hidden things of the heart.—If ye will be a church of God, then prove by the spirit and power of your word that God’s Spirit quickens you, so that others also may be convicted by it.

1Co_14:26-33. To judging there belongs the spirit of proving in suitable measure. But this faculty all the sheep of Christ ought to have who, by this means, can detect the voice of strangers. Sheep can also distinguish one herb from another.—All have need of edification and instruction; and this one person can obtain better through this one, and another, through that one, and the process is assisted by inquiry.—Let each one guard his own impulses; where peace reigns not, there God is not present with His gracious rule.

1Co_14:34. As a general rule, women should be silent in church, provided God Himself has not pointed out a different course, as He sometimes has done in the instance of some heroic women whom He has awakened to act for the public good. Apart from these instances, the rule holds good.

1Co_14:35. But where do you find such husbands? If their wives are to inquire of them, they must first have learned something.—According to the real mind of the Spirit, many men must also learn to keep silent. They, indeed, are called men, but they are not able to testify of the truth as it is in Jesus, and know nothing of the new birth, because they have experienced nothing of it, neither have they the will or the courage to go to the death in a manly spirit.—In Christ there is neither man nor woman, but all are one in Him, in whom the Word of life itself testifies, as the right man.

1Co_14:40. Prudence is an important part of piety.

Rieger:—1Co_14:1-11. Spiritual gifts stand, for the most part, in the freedom of the Spirit who imparts to each one as He will. Yet much depends upon the spirit in which they are exercised.—Prophesying in its broader sense is the gift of explaining the wonders and mysteries lying in God’s word, for general use, so that others can derive from it, partly, growth in grace and knowledge, partly, incentive to the cultivation of Christian virtues, and, partly, strength to endure under manifold temptations; and this can be awakened by diligence, prayer, practice in God’s Word, and watchfulness over one’s own heart. The gift of speaking in foreign tongues serves as a beautiful reminder of the fact that the distinctions introduced among the nations by diversity of speech, has been removed by the blessing of the Gospel, and all have been brought to praise God with one heart and mouth.—1Co_14:12-22. Special regard must be paid to the larger, and commonly the weaker portion of the Church. In church matters it is God’s ordinance that everything shall be so constituted as to make the stronger and more gifted lowly, and to raise the weak. Nevertheless, there must not be such a concession to weakness as to hinder growth; nor yet must the lead be so rapid that the weaker shall not be able to respond Amen! Many a one may have too little knowledge of anything to express himself suitably in regard to it, who yet may be able to assent to the testimony of another, observe that it is true, and that the seed of faith already so far exists in his heart that he can join in prayers and wishes for the success of the truth. A man of sound understanding accords to everything its value, according to the use which may be had of it.—1Co_14:23-40. Public testimonials and confession respecting the power of the Divine Word upon the heart, have become, at this day, very rare. In the early churches the contributions made in this direction, were richer than would be the case now, were any to undertake to edify others in this way. Yet, still much may be done in aid of the truth.—He who casts off all regard for others, and insists on pushing everything according to his own views, falls into a temptation to become; more and more ensnared by this habit (30 ff.).—Much may be done without speaking, through the exercise of love, by quietness, obedience, modesty. This is often loud preaching enough. Women also can be employed in the kingdom of heaven, in carrying glad messages, in awakening and confirming faith (see the Hist. of the resurrection); and we should use their aid in the education of children, in caring for the sick, etc.—He who will not yield, had better be left a while; to go on in his own self-conceit, than be perpetually contended with.

W. F. Besser:

1Co_14:1. Love is so precious that to hunt after it is the chief thing in the Christian life; and even he who has attained to love, must still follow after it, since there is no one who does not daily have to put off the old man with his lovelessness, and to put on the new man with his love. We must continue the pursuit (Heb_12:4), until we rest in simple love. If we follow after love, we are on the way to spiritual gifts (1Co_12:31)

1Co_14:3. Edification has for its particular end, faith; exhortation, love; consolation, hope.—1Co_14:10-11. Speech serves not to conceal, but to express thoughts.—The tongues at Pentecost were given as a sign that God had sanctified the languages of all nations for the accordant confession of the one right faith; and the speaking with tongues (which, in order to be intelligible languages, needed exposition), serve for a sign that in the future world there awaits us a language which stands in the relation to all present speech, as the utterance of a man to the prattling of a child.—1Co_14:25-26. Nothing is more powerful and quick than the Word of God; and that sermon is a true miracle of grace which has the effect to make the hearer feel that he was addressed by one cognizant of the hidden things of his own heart, even as Nathaniel felt (Joh_1:48).

1Co_14:37. What serves for peace and good order, will be maintained for the sake of the Lord, even though resting on human authority. The love of the Spirit teaches us both to find out the regulations which are profitable for every season, and to maintain them in obedience to the God of peace.

1Co_14:40. Because faith works in love, so does it work also in order.

Heubner:

1Co_14:1. Admonition is most needed where the spirit of ambition has place.—1Co_14:15; 1Co_14:19. Both prayer and sermon must be intelligible, and serve for edification. It is better to be understood than to be wondered at.

1Co_14:20. To be incapable for wickedness is a blessed incapacity.

1Co_14:34. The grounds for this: 1. It lies in the nature of the woman; her softer nature renders her more fit for receiving than for giving; 2. her weakness forbids her teaching; a. sin came into the world by woman; 4. there is danger of being captivated.

1Co_14:37. A true prophet is shown by his attention to God’s Word.

1Co_14:38. A stiff-necked person deserves to be left to his own ignorance. Chief practical thoughts of this chapter: 1. Shun all parade in the use of spiritual gifts, especially in public worship. 2. Seek after and promote simple edification in divine service. 3. For this, there is heeded above all things that simplicity of heart which seeks not its own. [See on these points Hare’s Miss. Com. p. 950.] 4. Such divine worship makes an impression also upon unbelievers, touches and awakens their hearts, and makes them feel the sanctity of a Christian assembly, and the presence of God. 5. In divine service, outward order and decorum must be maintained in order that disturbance may be avoided.

Footnotes:

[1]1Co_14:5.—Rec. has γὰρ, and it has many MSS. in its favor, but the oldest (A. B.) read δὲ. [To these must now be added Sinait., a cursive of the 11th century, and the Copt. version. On the other hand, D. E. (F. G., the Ital. and Vulg., and some others, have γὰρ έστιν, or est enim) K. L. Sinait., (3d hand), many cursives and versions, with Chrys., Theodt., Jerome and Ambrst., favor γὰρ.—C. P. W.].

[2]1Co_14:7.—Rec. has δῷ, Tischendorf has διδῷ: and this has strong but not decisive support. The δῷ might very naturally be an attempt to conform to the δῷ in 1Co_14:8. [Lachmann and Alford receive δῷ on the authority of A. B. D. (1st hand), Sinait., many cursives, Orig., Cyrys., Œcum.—C. P. W.].

[3]1Co_14:7.—Lachm. has τοῦ φθόγγου, but it is not sufficiently sustained. [His principal evidence is B. (which, however, shows its uncertainty by omitting the τοῦ), and some Italic and Vulgate copies (which, with Pelag. and Bede, give sonituum, or ex phthongis). Alter the preceding φωνὴν διδόντα the change of this dative into the genitive, and of the plural into the singular, was very natural (Meyer).—C. P. W.].

[4]1Co_14:10.—Tischendorf edits εἰσίν after the best MSS. The ἐστίν of the Rec. was probably a grammatical correction. Meyer, on the other hand, reasons that the singular verb is an amendment to suit the neuter plural noun. [See also Alford. In behalf of the plural we have certainly the predominance of documentary proof: A. B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., seven cursives, with Clem., Damasc. and Theophyl.—C. P. W.].

[5]1Co_14:10.—The αὐτῶν of the Rec. has against it the best MSS. [A. B. D. F. G. Sinait., eleven cursives, Vulg., the Lat. version of E., with Clem., Damasc., Ambst., Bede.—C. P. W.].

[6]1Co_14:13.—Rec. has Διόπερ instead of Διὸ, which is edited by Alford. The evidence in favor of Διὸ (A. B. D. E. F, G., Sinait., 17, Damasc.), is, on the whole, decisive, though the ancient Greek expositors are nearly all for δίοπερ.—C. P. W.].

[7]1Co_14:15.—The δὲ is left out in both instances before καὶ by many and excellent MSS. But there appear to be no satisfactory reasons for the omission. [The former is inserted by A. B. D. E. L., Sinait., many cursives, the Peschito, Copt., and several Greek Fathers; and the latter by A. D. E. K. L., Sinait., the later Syr., Copt., and the same Greek Fathers. Alford inserts both, and Lach, cancels only the second.—A. D. E. F. G., Sin., and three cursives have προσεύζωμαι before τῷ πνεύμ but B. K. L., many cursives, the Vulg., and many Fathers have προσεύζωμαι—C. P. W.].

[8]1Co_14:16.—Lachm. has εὐλογῇς. The evidence for εὐλογήσης is by no means convincing. [It has F. G. K. L., many cursives, Chrys., Theodt., Œcum.,Theophyl., but εὐλογῇς has A. B. D., Sinait. and Damasc.—C. P. W.].

[9]1Co_14:18.—Rec. inserts μου after θεε͂ͅ, but in opposition to the most decisive authorities. It was probably taken from 1Co_1:4 and Rom_1:8. [It is omitted in A. B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., nine cursives, several Latin and Vulgate versions, the later Syr., Copt., Aeth., Chrys., Theodt. (codex), Jerome, Sedulius and Bede, but it is given in K. L., many cursives, Peschito, Ital., Vulg., Copt., and many Latin Fathers.—C. P. W.].

[10]1Co_14:18.—Rec. has λαλῶν, but it is feebly sustained. Others have ὅτι λαλῶ. [The principal witnesses for the Rec. are K. L., a number of cursives, Chrys., Theodt., Damasc. Reiche defends it. But B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., 17, 67 (2d hand), the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Syr. (both), Œcum., Orig. and the Latin Fathers are decisive against it. A. omits both words. The insertion of ὅτι and the change into the participle are intelligible, if the original had been the difficult present, whereas the contrary change would have been without motive.—C. P. W.].

[11]1Co_14:18.—Many and excellent MSS. have γλώσσααις with the Rec., but Meyer thinks it “probably a change to favor a previous prejudice.” [It has for it B. K. L., many cursives, Syr. (both), Copt., Chrys., Theodt., and Orig.; but against it A. D. E. F. G., Sinait., Damasc., Ambst., Pelag., Bede. The Vulg. has quod omnium vestrum lingua loquor.—C. P. W.].

[12]1Co_14:19.—Rec. with Tischendorf has διὰ τοῦ νοός μου, but the evidence is stronger in favor of τῷ νοῖ̓ μου, [It must be conceded that the documentary evidence preponderates in favor of the dative (A. B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., 12 cursives, with, the Vulg., Syr. (later), Copt. versions, and Œcum., Orig., and the Latin Fathers), and that the harshness of saying that the understanding was the instrument of speaking supplied a strong motive for a change. And yet Tisch., Meyer and Bloomfield think it more likely that the dative was an attempt to conform to 1Co_14:15, and that Marcion’s reading (διὰ τὸν μόνον without μου) shows that the copyist must have had before him διὰ τοῦ νοός.

[13]1Co_14:21.—Rec. has ἑτέροίς, but it was probably occasioned by the preceding datives.

[14]1Co_14:23.—There are various positions of the words πάντες γλώσσαις λαλῶσιν, but the sense of the passage is not affected by them. [A. B. F. G., Sinait., Boern., Basil, Theophy., have πάντες λαλ. γλώσ.—C. P. W.].

[15]1Co_14:25.—Rec. has καὶ οὕτω τὰ καυπτὰ (taken from the following καὶ οὕτω), but with inferior evidence of the MSS. (comp. Meyer). [Meyer thinks that “the result or consequence of which the Apostle was about to speak was thought by many most properly to commence here; and hence the subsequent καὶ οὕτω was anticipated here and left out in its proper place (as it is by Chrys.). Afterwards this second οὕτω would be in some cases reinserted without the removal of the first καὶ οὕτω. The MSS. which are against the words (καὶ οὕτω) in the beginning of the sentence are A. B.D. E. F. G. Sinait., twelve cursives, the Lat., Syr. (Peach.), Copt., Aeth., Arm. versions, Basil, Chrys., Cyr., and the Latin Fathers.—C. P.W.].

[16]1Co_14:26.—Rec. has ὑμῶν after ἕκαστος, but it remains quite uncertain. [It is omitted in A. B. Sinait. (1st hand), 74, and Copt., but is inserted by D. E. F. G. K. L., Sinait. (3d hand), almost all the versions and cursives, with Chrys., Theodt., Damasc. and the Latin Fathers.—C. P. W.].

[17]1Co_14:26.—Rec. has γλῶσσαν ἔχει ἀποκ. ἔχει, but this order of the words is feebly supported. [A. B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., cursives, Vulg., Copt., Syr. (both), Aeth. (both), Arab., Bas., Œcum., Theophyl. and Lat. Fathers have ἀποκ. ἔχει, γλῶσσαν ἔχει.—C. P. W.].

[18]1Co_14:32.—Rec. gives as a Var. Reading, πνεῦμα instead of πνεύματα. This was a correction, because the plural seemed strange. [Alford says: “As one Spirit inspired all the prophets, πνεύματα was not understood. A. B. K. L., Sinait., many cursives, Vulg., Copt. Syr. (later)., Orig., Epiph., Chrys., Theodt., Damasc., Œcum., Theophyl, Tert., Didym., have the plural.—C. P. W.].

[19]1Co_14:33.—The words ὡς ἐν πάσαις τ. ἐκκλ. τ.ἁγίων are joined with 1Co_14:34, and a period is put at εἰρήνης by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Stanley, Conybeare, Hodge, Kling, and most of the later commentators. (Lachm. puts a comma after ἐκκλησ so that ἁγίων becomes emphatic, and αἰ γυναῖκες, without ὑμῶν belongs to it). Osiander, Neander, Bloomfield, Alford and Wordsworth adhere to the punctuation of the Fathers and of all modern Comm. until Cajetan, according to which these words are joined to the preceding. Some MSS. (F. G. Vulg., Syr. (later), Arm. and Chrys.) add διδάσκω after εἰρήνησ. It was probably taken from 1Co_4:17.—C. P. W.].

[20]1Co_14:34.—Here, as in 1Co_14:26, ὑμῶν is very doubtful. Neither here nor there are the MSS. decisive against the word. [Tischendorf and Reiche defend it, with D. E. F. G. K. L., cursives, Syr. (both), Arab., Slav., Chrys., Theodt., Theophyl., Œcum., Amb., Ambst.; but it is left out by Lachm. and Alford, with A. B., Sinait., Vulg., Copt., Aeth., Arm. and some Fathers. It seemed superfluous, but its antiquity, especially in the East, makes it probable.—C. P. W.].

[21]1Co_14:31.—Rec. and Tischendorf have ἐπιτέτραπται, but it is not so well sustained as the present ἐπιτρέπεται, [It had become common to regard the law as of only former validity, and yet in this matter it was natural for the Apostle in his time to speak of its present signification. The authority of the oldest and best uncials (A. B. D. E. F. G. Sinait.), the Vulg., Ital., Basm. versions, all the Latin and some of the Greek writers, is in favor of the verb in the present.—C. P. W.].

[22]1Co_14:34.—Lachmann, on the authority of some good MSS., edits ὑποτασσέσθωσαν. Meyer, however, considers it a gloss. [It has for it A. (adds τοῖς ἀνδράσιν), B., Sinait., seven cursives, Copt., Basm., Marc., Epiph., Damasc. The infinitive has for it the weight of the cursives, the versions, and the Fathers.—C. P. W.].

[23]1Co_14:35.—Rec. with many MSS. has γυναιξίν for γυναικὶ, but it was probably a correction to make the word conform to the preceding plurals.

[24]1Co_14:34-35.—These two verses are placed after 1Co_14:40 by D. E. F. G., Ital., Ambst. and Sedul.—C. P. W.].

[25]1Co_14:37.—Rec. has τοῦ κυρίου εἰσὶν ἐντολαί Lachmann has more authority for ἐστίν ἐντολή. But both are probably glosses. Some MSS. have θεοῦ instead of κυρίου, but their authority is very feeble.

[26]1Co_14:38.—Lachmann, after many Greek and Latin MSS., has ἀγνοεῖται, instead of ἀγνοείτω. It was probably an oversight of transcribers. See Meyer and exeg. notes. [In favor of the indicative is: A. (1st hand—the present—αι seems to be a rescript for a former—ω of the 1st hand), D. (1st hand), F. G., Sinait., Orig. and the Latin writers. Some versions (including the Vulg.) and fathers have ignorabitur, and Hilar. has non cognoscetur. The ω might easily have fallen out, as ἀγνοείτε and the following ὥστε were anciently written continuously and without punctuation, and then the αι could be supplied. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine a sufficient motive for changing the indicative into the imperative. The sense of the indic. would also have been quite ambiguous, while that of the imper. was very much in Paul’s spirit and manner.—C. P. W.].

[27][This work of Delitzsch presents a masterly analysis of Biblical doctrine on this and all kindred subjects, and deserves a better translation than that it has suffered from the hands of Dr. Wallis. It cannot be understood in that English dress].

[28][This would hardly comport with the theory that ἵνα always has to a greater or less degree a telic force, and so Bloomfeld subaudits ταῦτα, referring to πνέυμάτων the object of ζμτεῖτε q. d., ‘seek these things that ye may abound.’ This corresponds better with its use in the following clause].

[29][“Two reasons may be urged for this view. The interruption of a speaker was itself disorderly, and therefore contrary to the whole drift of the Apostle’s directions; and secondly, what follows is most naturally understood as assigning the reason why the receiver of the first revelation should wait.” Hodge. The strongest objection to these reasons is the force of the imperative σιγάτω, let him be, not become, silent.]

[30][Did not the Apostle also intend here to suggest a convenient way by which tedious and long-winded speakers could have a period put to their too protacted harangues ?]

[31][“The four or five hundred roots which remain as the constituent elements in different families of language, are not interjections, nor are they imitations. They are phonetic types produced by a power inherent in human nature. They exist as Plato would say, by nature; though with Plato we should add that when we say by nature, we mean by the hand of God. There is a law which runs through nearly the whole of nature, that everything which is struck rings. Each substance has its peculiar ring. We can tell the more or less perfect structure of metals by their vibrations, by the answer which they give. Gold rings differently from tin, wood rings differently from stone, and different sounds are produced according to the nature of each percussion. It was the same with man, the most highly organized of Nature’s works. Man in his primitive and perfect state was not only endowed like the brute with the power of expressing his sensations by interjections, ‘and his perceptions by onomatopoieia. He possessed likewise the faculty of giving more articulate expression to the rational conceptions of his mind. That faculty was not of his own making. It was an instinct, an instinct of the mind as irresistible as any other instinct. So far as language is the production of that instinct, it belongs the to realm of nature.” Max Müller. “The origin of language is shrouded in the same impenetrable mystery that conceals the secrets of our primary mental and physical being. We cannot say with some, that it is of itself an organism, but we regard it as a necessary and therefore natural product of intelligent self-conscious organization.—But though the facility of articulate speech may be considered natural to man, it, differs from most other human powers, whether organic or incorporeal, in this: that it is a faculty belonging to the race, not to the individual, and that the social condition is essential, not to its cultivation, but to its existence.” G. P. Marsh. If such be the nature and origin of language, how absurd to suppose that this which was the product of the Spirit’s inspiration which was to be the sign of a new power bestowed on men, could be any other than a clear distinct, articulated utterance worthy the name of language and corresponding to the dignity of the Being from whom it emanated].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

rather

The subject is still the pneumatika. Chapter 12, described the gifts and the Body; Chapter 13. the love which alone gives ministry of gift any value; Chapter 14. regulates the ministry of gift in the primitive, apostolic assembly of saints.

(1) The important gift is that of prophecy (1Co 1:1). The N.T. prophet was not merely a preacher, but an inspired preacher, through whom, until the N.T. was written, new revelations suited to the new dispensation were given 1Co 14:29; 1Co 14:30.

(2) Tongues and the sign gifts are to cease, and meantime must be used with restraint, and only if an interpreter be present 1Co 14:1-19; 1Co 14:27; 1Co 14:28.

(3) In the primitive church there was liberty for the ministry of all the gifts which might be present, but for prophecy more especially 1Co 14:23-26; 1Co 14:31; 1Co 14:39.

(4) In such meetings, when "the whole church" came together "in one place," women were required to keep silence 1Co 14:34; 1Co 14:35; 1Co 11:3-16; 1Ti 2:11-14.

(5) These injunctions are declared to be "the commandments of the Lord" 1Co 14:36; 1Co 14:37.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Prophecy and Speaking with a Tongue.

CHAPTER 14

1. Prophecy the better gift. (1Co 14:1-13.)

2. Intelligibility demanded. (1Co 14:14-25.)

3. Practical instructions for the public use of these gifts. (1Co 14:26-40.)

It is evident from the contents of this chapter that the Corinthians had unduly magnified the gift of speaking in a strange tongue. It had a spectacular aspect which they enjoyed. He therefore shows them that the gift of prophecy is more to be coveted than speaking in an unknown tongue. The speaking in an unknown tongue is intelligible to God, but he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, exhortation and comfort. While the Apostle does not deny the value of speaking with tongues, he would rather that they prophesied “for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues.” Speaking with tongues edifies the speaker alone but prophecy edifies the church. What is the profit in speaking with an unknown tongue to believers unless the tongue has a real meaning. Musical instruments, which give forth sound, like a pipe or an harp, have no meaning whatever unless there be distinction in the tunes. Thus he shows the uselessness of the gift of tongues for edification unless the tongue is intelligible to all. “Even so ye, for as much as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.”

What the speaking in tongues really was we do not know positively. It was probably an ecstatic form of speech, or some foreign language. As a distinctive gift it has passed away, notwithstanding the fact that from time to time the restoration of this sign-gift has been claimed. (During the middle ages; at the time of the Wesley’s; during the days of Edward Irving, when it was proven to emanate from evil spirits; and in our own days, thousands claim to possess it.) But what is prophesying?, In the Old Testament prophecy, it was foretelling coming events. In the New Testament, it has a different meaning. It is not foretelling, but forthtelling. it is one who is speaking as from God and for God; the one who possesses this gift must therefore be in communication with God through the Spirit so as to be able to communicate to others His mind and His will. The exercise of this gift necessitates a close walk with God. This gift the Apostle desired the Corinthians to have. Instead the Corinthians had the inferior gift, which they valued on account of the display and perhaps the mysteriousness of it.

(The people in our own times who profess to have received this sign-gift claim that it is an evidence of having received the “baptism” of the Spirit, which, as we have already pointed out, is in itself unscriptural. They are on ground on which they are open to the subtle influences of Satan’s power.)

The Apostle also states that he spoke with tongues more than they did. “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” From all these regulations and statements we learn that the use of this gift was rather tolerated than commended (see (1Co 14:39) to the churches because it was a hindrance rather than a help to the needed thing, which is edification in love. Furthermore, tongues were for a sign to the unbelievers. Prophesying is for the believers. “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place and all speak with tongues and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that you are mad?”

It is a fact that in the meetings of the modern advocates of the gift of tongues often the greatest disorder prevails. Men and women falling down in convulsions, hysterical laughter, unpleasant shrieks and other demonstrations have not been uncommon, so that an unbeliever would be perfectly right to pass the verdict “they are mad.” It is different With prophesying. “But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or are unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, declaring that God is truly among you.”

The meetings of the Saints of God coming together in His Name and gathered to that name must be characterized by quietness and order. “For God is not the author of confusion (tumult, unquietness), but of peace, as in all churches of the Saints.” All things must be done decently and in order ((1Co 14:40). Another important instruction is given in (1Co 14:34-35. “let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is shame for women to speak in the church.” Some have said that this demand of the Apostle was given solely to the Corinthians, because women were forward in the church and that it does not apply to our days. This is a serious mistake. Nor are these words merely the words of the Apostle Paul, as some have claimed. It is God’s Word and the command is the command of the Holy Spirit. The public ministry of women is not permitted by the Spirit of God. The Word of God discountenances a prominent public ministry of women as inconsistent with the original law of creation, and with the modesty and meekness which are the woman’s chief adorning in the sight of God. What mischief, confusion and worse things have resulted from disobeying this divine command. Woman leaving the sphere assigned to her by the Creator and the Redeemer is stepping on dangerous ground. In connection with the statement, “A woman suffer not to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence,” the Apostle calls attention to the fact “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression” (1Ti 2:12-13). The originators and leaders of the most damnable heresies of the latter times such as Christian Science, Theosophy and Spiritism are women. But woman has a ministry and can exercise her gifts as a member of the body of Christ.

(Again we call attention to the modern gift of tongues, the Pentecostal movements. Women are prominent among them. The divine command “let your women keep silence in the churches” is disregarded by them, while they claim obedience to the Word and a return to apostolic faith and practice.)

“The woman’s sphere of liberty, and, one may say, sovereignty, is at home; that is to say, it is private and not public. It must not be thought that this does not give ample scope for the exercise of gifts of whatever kind. If there were only more of the cultivation on the woman’s part of that which belongs really to her sphere, how fruitful would be the exercise of the gift with which God has endowed her and how many places would be open to her which men, by reason of their being men, could not in the same way fill! This in relation to children, it is at once evident; with the younger children, the woman is still the best and the nature-ordained teacher. God has placed the babe in its mother’s arms and not its father’s; and this does not mean that the woman’s sphere is only in her own family. There are countless families to which her sex will introduce her, and where she may find herself fully at home and abundant profit and recompense of her work. So, through the wives, women have access in this way to an indefinite sphere of occupation for varied blessing. The wife is the heart-center of the household, and the ability thus to reach the wife in a way that women certainly can do far beyond others is an immense privilege and responsibility entrusted to her. Would that there were more realization of this!” (Numerical Bible.)

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EDIFICATION THE END IN VIEW

1Co 14:1-19

1. “Follow after the Divine love, and seek earnestly the spiritual gifts but that you prophecy.” The love parenthesis having been interjected in the middle of the grand exposition of spiritual gifts, as a profitable reminder of the transcendent importance of the graces, even surpassing that of the gifts, he now resumes the disquisition on the gifts, exhorting us to run after the Divine love, because we are bound to have it or lose our own soul, but at the same time to “covet earnestly” the spiritual gifts, that we may be able to stand on the battlefield victoriously, and at the same time win others for God; and not only make sure of Heaven, but when we get there not be empty handed. You see that while he makes the graces a sine que non, and exhorts us imperatively to seek and appropriate all of the gifts, at the same time he gives the preeminence to prophecy, as this gift qualifies us to preach the gospel, which is God’s appointed method to save the world.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14:1-25 Having emphasized the supreme importance of love (ch 13), Paul returns to the subject of spiritual gifts. Their relative value is defined by the benefit they give to others, which is characteristic of love (ch 13). In that light, Paul contrasts the over-valued gift of tongues with the more beneficial gift of prophecy.

14:1 Of all the special abilities the Spirit gives (see study note on 12:1–14:40), Paul encourages the Corinthians to seek the ability to prophesy (see 12:10) because of its greater benefit to the church.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 14:1. Διώκετε, follow after) This word implies more than ζηλοῦτε, emulously desire, here, and in 1Co 14:12; 1Co 14:39; 1Co 12:31.—μᾶλλον, rather) in preference to tongues. Paul here does not now any longer speak expressly of knowledge, for it, in respect of the other gifts, coincides with prophecy, 1Co 14:6.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_14:1. Διώκετε τ. ἀγάπην] pursue after love; asyndetic, but following with all the greater emphasis upon the praise of love, chap. 13; while the figurative διώκ. (sectamini) corresponds to the conception of the way, 1Co_12:31. Comp. Php_3:12. And after Paul has thus established this normative principle as to seeking after the better gifts of the Spirit, he can now enter upon the latter themselves more in detai.

ζηλοῦτε δὲ κ.τ.λ.] With this he joins on again to 1Co_12:31, yet not so as to make the δέ resumptive,in which case διώκ. τ. ἀγάπ. would be left standing in an isolated position,but in such a way that he sets over against the latter the ζηλοῦν τὰ πν. as what is to take place along with it. Let the end which you pursue be love; in connection with which, however,and upon that I will now enter more particularly,you are not to omit your zealous seeking after the gifts of the Spirit, but to direct it especially to prophecy. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylac.

τὰ πνευματικά] as in 1Co_12:1, the gifts of the Spirit generally, not merely the glossolalia (Billroth, Ewald, comp. also Rückert), which first comes in at 1Co_14:2, and that with a definite designation. Μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφ., which is not to be read as a subordinate clause (Hofmann), represents and defines more closely the phrase τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ κρείττονα, 1Co_12:31. Μᾶλλον does not simply compare the longing for prophetic gifts with that for the glossolalia,which is only done in the following verses (in opposition to Hofmann),but is to be explained: in a higher degree, however, than for the other gifts of the Spirit, be zealous that ye may speak prophetically. The ἵνα thus states the design of the ζηλοῦτε, which we must again mentally supply (comp. 1Co_14:5).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 14:1-6 . § 44. THE GIFTS OF TONGUES AND OF PROPHECY. The digression upon ἡ ἀγάπη has not diverted us from the subject of this Div.; Love has shown the way (1Co 12:31 b ) in which all τὰ πνευματικά (1Co 12:1 , 1Co 14:1 ) are to be sought, the animating principle and ulterior aim that should govern their exercise. But the principle of Love supplies, further, a criterion by which the charisms are to be relatively estimated their use in edification (1Co 14:3 ff., 1Co 14:12 ; 1Co 14:19 ; 1Co 14:26 ). Thus P. at length answers the question addressed to him from Cor [2015] as to the worth of the several “spiritual powers,” and in particular as to the relative value of Tongues and Prophesying. He has led up to this answer by his exposition of the general Christian truths bearing upon the matter viz . the office of the Holy Spirit as the distributor of God’s gifts (1Co 12:3-11 ), the organic nature of the Church (1Co 14:12-31 ), and the sovereignty of love in the Christian life (1Co 14:13 ).

[2015] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

1Co 14:1 . “Pursue love” follow intently this f1καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδόν (1Co 12:31 b : see note): διώκω (see parls.: pr [2016] impr.) signifies to prosecute to its goal (1Co 13:13 ) a course on which one has entered. ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά , “but (continue to) covet the spiritual (gifts)”: P. resumes 1Co 12:31 (see note, also on 1Co 12:1 ). Love is exalted in the interest of the charisms, not to their disparagement; it is not to be pursued by forgetting everything else, but opens the true way to everything else: “Sectamini charitatem, affectate spiritualia” (Cv [2017] ). “But rather (in preference to other gifts) that you may prophesy”: this is chief amongst “the greater charisms” of 1Co 12:31 . Perhaps the Cor [2018] had asked specifically which of the two, Tongues or Prophecy, was to be preferred. ἵνα προφητεύητε ( cf. θέλω … μᾶλλον ἵνα , 5) differs from τὸ προφητεύειν by making the object distinctly an aim : in striving after the charisms, Prophecy is to be set highest and to control the rest. For the use of ἴνα , cf. note on 1Co 1:10 , also Bm [2019] , pp. 235 ff.

[2016] present tense.

[2017] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .

[2018] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2019] A. Buttmann’s Grammar of the N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans., 1873).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 14:1-25. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE GIFT OF PROPHECY OVER THAT OF TONGUES

1. διώκετε. Pursue love, as the main object of your lives. Be anxious for other spiritual gifts as desirable, if it be God’s will to grant them. For ζηλοῦτε see 1Co 12:31. The best gifts (see note there) were those that were within the reach of all. Still there was no reason why a Christian should not seek other special gifts from God by prayer. See 1Co 14:13, and Jas 1:5.

ἵνα προφητεύητε. The gift of prophecy, as is abundantly evident from the whole of this section, was not confined to the prediction of future events. As Kingsley remarks, the prophet was ‘not only a fore-teller but a forth-teller,’ one who communicates the moral and spiritual truths which he has received by direct revelation from God. ἴνα cannot be in order that here. It is almost equivalent to the infinitive. ‘Seek that ye may prophesy,’ i.e. make it your main desire to prophesy.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

14:1-25.] Demonstration of the superiority of the gift of prophecy over that of speaking with tongues.

1.] Transition from the parenthetical matter of the last chapter to the subject about to be resumed. Pursue after Love (let it be your great aim,—important and enduring as that grace has been shewn to be): meantime however (during that pursuit; making that the first thing, take up this as a second) strive for spiritual gifts [see note on ch. 12:1], but more (more than πν. in general: i.e. more for this than for others[; chiefly]) that ye may prophesy (sc. ζηλοῦτε, ἵνα … as the aim of your ζῆλος).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14:1-40. THE SUBJECT OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS CONCLUDED

In ch. 12 the human body was given as an instructive illustration of a Christian Church. In 13 it was shown that the principle which ought to quicken and regulate every member of the Church is love. In 14 the influence of this principle is traced in the selection of the gifts that are most useful to the whole body, and also in the manner of employing them. Following after love does not impede the desire for special gifts, but it regulates it. The love which seeks not its own advantage must prefer a gift which benefits all to one which is a delight and a help to no one but its possessor. Not that the latter is to be despised; God does not bestow worthless gifts: but it is possible to mar any gift by misusing it.

The chapter has four divisions: (1) Prophesying or inspired preaching is superior to Tongues, both in reference to believers and to unbelievers, 1-25. (a) Regulations for the orderly exercise of these two gifts in Christian assemblies, 26-33. (3) Regulations respecting women, 34-36. (4) Conclusion of the subject, 37-40.

In the first and main portion of the chapter the superiority of inspired preaching to Tongues is stated at once (2-5); and this is supported by two series of arguments (6-11 and 14-19) connected with two exhortations (12, 13). The whole chapter shows that ‘prophesying’ is not the gift of prediction, but that of preaching; and that ‘Tongues’ are not foreign languages, but a mode of utterance different from all human language.

The main result of the chapter is that, just as it is love which gives value to character and conduct (13.), so it is love which teaches the true value and proper use of the charismata. See Zahn, Introd. to N.T. 1. p. 280.

You are right in desiring these supernatural gifts, but take care that you do so from the right motive; and the right motive is love. Those gifts which benefit others are to be preferred to those which glorify ourselves; hence inspired preaching is more to be desired than Tongues. In the congregation, Tongues (unless interpreted at once) are a hindrance to worship. Even the experienced cannot join in devotions which they do not understand, while the inexperienced or the unbelievers, if any be present, are lost in contemptuous amazement. But inspired preaching is a great help to all who hear it, whether believing or unbelieving.

Unless an interpreter is present, Tongues should be exercised in private. In public worship, all who are inspired to preach may do so in turn, and the whole Church, including themselves, will be the gainer.

This does not apply to women. So far from preaching, they ought not even to ask questions.

In all matters of public worship decorum and order must be studied.

1 What you have to do, therefore, is persistently to strive to make this love your own, while you continue to long to have the gifts of the Spirit, and especially to be inspired to preach. 2 For he who speaks in a Tongue is speaking, not to men, but to God, for no man can understand one who in a state of rapture is speaking mystic secrets. 3 It is otherwise with one who is inspired to preach: he does speak to men, and to good purpose,—words of faith to build them up, words of hope to quicken them, words of love to hearten and console. 4 Not that Tongues are useless; one who exercises this gift may build up his own spiritual life by it: but the inspired preacher builds up the spiritual life of the Church. 5 Now I could wish that you should all have the gift of Tongues; but I would greatly prefer that you should be inspired to preach, this being far more important, unless, of course, the Tongues should at once be interpreted, so that the Church may thereby receive spiritual advantage. 6 But, Brethren, seeing that Tongues without explanation are useless, suppose that, when next I visit you, I speak with Tongues, what good shall I do you, if I shall fail to explain to you some glimpse of the unseen or some knowledge of truth, the one to inspire you, the other to instruct you? 7 Why, there are instruments which, although lifeless, make a sound,—a pipe, for instance, or a harp; yet if they make no distinction in the notes, how is one to know the tune which the pipe or the harp is playing? 8 A trumpet-blast is a still stronger instance: if that gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 It is just the same with you: if with your tongue you do not make intelligible speech, how is one to know what you are saying? For you might as well be saying it to the winds. 11 Well, then, if I show that I do not understand the meaning of the language used, the person who speaks to me will conclude that I talk gibberish, just as from my point of view he is talking gibberish to me; and we both wish that we could talk to some advantage. 12 It is just the same with you: seeing that you are so enthusiastic for inspirations, let it be for the spiritual advantage of the Church that you seek to abound in them. 13 Therefore he that speaks in a Tongue should pray that he may be able to interpret what he utters. 14 For if I am praying in a Tongue, it is quite true that my spirit is praying, but my understanding is doing no good. 15 What does that imply? I must go on praying with the spirit, that, of course, for my own sake: but for the sake of others I must pray with the understanding also. I must sing with the spirit, but I must sing with the understanding also. 16 Else, suppose that you are blessing God in ecstasy, how is he who has no experience of such things to say the Amen at your giving of thanks, seeing that he does not know what you are saying? 17 For although you are giving thanks beautifully, yet the other is getting no spiritual advantage. 18 I thank God I have the gift of Tongues in a higher degree than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in public worship I would rather speak five words with my understanding, and thereby give others also some solid instruction, than thousands and thousands of words in an ecstatic Tongue.

20 My brethren, do not behave as if you were still children in mind: and it is childish to prefer what glitters to what does good. Of course, in jealousy and ill-will be children, nay, be very babes; but in mind behave as full-grown men. 21 In the great Prophet of the old Covenant it stands written that, because Israel would not obey God’s word spoken in language which they could understand, thay would be punished in being conquered by Assyrians whose language they could not understand, and that even this sign would fail to teach them obedience. 22 This shows us that unintelligible Tongues are a sign, not of course to those who believe, but to those who fail to do so; while inspired preaching is for the benefit, not of those who do not believe, but of those who do. 23 Consequently, if, when you all meet together in one place for public worship, you one after another do nothing but speak with Tongues, and there come in those who have no experience of such things,—and still more so if unbelievers come in,—will they not say that you must be mad? 24 Whereas, if one after another you utter inspired teaching, and there comes in an unbeliever,—and still more so if an inexperienced brother comes in,—by preacher after preacher he is convinced of his sinfulness, his heart is searched, 25 its secret evils are revealed to him, and the blessed result will be that he humbles himself before God and man, and from that moment proclaims that, little as he thought so till then, it is God who is with you.

26 How then does the matter stand, Brethren? Whenever you meet together for worship, each of you is ready to manifest some gift,—to sing a song of praise, to give instruction, to reveal a truth, to utter a Tongue, or to interpret one. By all means exercise the gifts with which you have been endowed, always provided that they are exercised to build up the spiritual life of others and not to glorify yourselves. 27 If those who speak with Tongues are preferred, let only two, or at most three, speak in any one meeting, and one at a time, and let one interpreter serve for each. 28 But if no interpreter be present, let whoever has this gift be silent in public worship, and exercise it in private between himself and God. 29 And of those who are inspired to preach, let two or three speak in each meeting, and let the rest of them exercise the gift of discernment as to what is being spoken. 30 But if a revelation be made to one of those who thus sit listening, let the preacher give place to him. 31 For he can stop and be silent, and in this way it will be in the power of all of the inspired to preach one by one, so that all, whether inspired or not, may learn something and be quickened. 32 Yes, he can stop: an inspired man’s spirit is under the inspired man’s control, for the God who inspires him is a God, not of turbulence, but of peace. This holds good of all the assemblies of His people.

34 When I say that all in turn may preach, I do not include your wives. They must keep silence in the assemblies. Utterance, whether in a Tongue or in preaching, is not allowed to them, for this would violate the rule of subjection which has been imposed upon them since the Fall. 35 Even their asking questions, which might seem to be compatible with subjection, cannot be allowed in the assemblies. Let them ask their own husbands at home, and the husbands can ask in the assembly. It is shameful for a woman to speak there. 36 Perhaps you think that you have the right to do as you please in such matters. What? are you the Mother-Church, or the only Church, that you make such claims?

37 If any one claims to be inspired as a preacher or in any other way, let him give evidence of his inspiration by recognizing that what I am writing to you is inspired; it is the Lord’s command. 38 But it any one fails to recognize this, I have no more to say. God deals with such. 39 So then, my Brethren, the sum of the whole discussion is this. Long earnestly to be inspired to preach, and if any one has the gift of Tongues, do not forbid him to use it. But let everything be done in accordance with natural feelings of propriety as well as established rule.

1. Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην, ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά. This verse looks back to 12:31, and sums up the two preceding chapters. The Corinthians are to follow with persistence (Rom 9:30, Rom 9:31, Rom 9:14:19; 1Th 5:15, etc.) ‘the more excellent way,’ and to desire with intensity (12:31, 14:39; 2Co 11:2; Gal 4:17) supernatural gifts; but (more than all the rest) that they may be inspired to preach. The ἵνα is definitive, not telic. For the other meaning of ζηλοῦν, ‘boil with envy and hatred,’ comp. 13:4. Love is a grace, which all Christians by earnest endeavour can attain. Prophesying, Tongues, etc. are gifts, which may be eagerly desired, but which no amount of effort can secure. Those alone receive them to whom they are given (12:11). The Apostle assures them that his praise of love does not mean that the gifts are to be despised. But no man is made morally the better by a gift, for character depends upon personal effort. Yet the gifts may be instruments of personal improvement, as well as of service to others, although the latter is of higher importance: hence μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε. For ζηλοῦτε see Mayor on Jas 4:2, p. 128.*

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter XIV

Superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues, vv. 1-25. Special directions for the conduct of public worship, 1Co_14:26-40.

Superiority of the Gift of Prophecy to that of Tongues 1 Corinthians 14:1-25

The superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues is founded,

1. On the consideration that he who speaks with tongues speaks to God, whereas, he who prophesies, speaks to men, 1Co_14:2, 1Co_14:3.

2. That he who speaks with tongues edifies only himself, whereas, he who prophesies edifies the church, 1Co_14:4, 1Co_14:5.

That this must be so, is proved,

1. By an appeal to their own judgment and experience. If Paul came to them speaking in a way which they could not understand, what good could it do them? But if, as a prophet, he brought them a revelation from God, or as a teacher, set before them a doctrine, they would be edified, 1Co_14:6.

2. From the analogy of musical instruments. It is only when the sounds, are understood, that they produce the desired effect. If a man does not know that a given note of the trumpet is a signal for battle, he will not prepare himself for the conflict, 1Co_14:7-9.

3. From their experience in intercourse with strangers. If a man comes to the speaking a language which I cannot understand, no matter how polished or significant that language may be, he is a barbarian to me, and I to him, 1Co_14:10, 1Co_14:11. In their zeal, therefore, for spiritual gifts, they should have regard to the edification of the church, 1Co_14:12. Hence, he who had the gift of tongues should pray for the gift of interpretation; as without the latter gift, however devotional he might be, his prayers could not profit others, 1Co_14:13, 1Co_14:14. It was not enough that the prayers and praises should be spiritual, they must be intelligible; otherwise those who were unlearned could not join in them, 1Co_14:15-17.

For himself, the apostle says, although more richly endowed with the gift of tongues than any of his readers, he would rather speak five words so as to be understood, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, 1Co_14:18, 1Co_14:19. It was mere childishness in the Corinthians to be so delighted with a gift which they could not turn to any practical account, 1Co_14:20. They should learn wisdom from the experience of the Hebrews. It was as a judgment that God sent among them teachers whom they could not understand. So long as they were obedient, or there was hope of bringing them to repentance, he sent them prophets speaking their own language, 1Co_14:21, 1Co_14:22. Their experience would not be dissimilar. If they came together, each speaking in an unknown tongue, the effect would be only evil. But if, when they assembled, all the speakers spoke so as to be understood, and under the influence of the Spirit, then men would be convinced and converted, and God glorified, 1Co_14:23-25.

In the comment on 1Co_12:10, reasons have already been presented for adhering to the common view, that the gift of tongues, of which the apostle here speaks, was the gift miraculously conferred, of speaking in foreign languages. Every one must feel, however, the truth of the remark of Chrysostom in his commentary on this chapter: This whole passage is very obscure; but the obscurity arises from our ignorance of the facts described, which, though familiar to those to whom the apostle wrote, have ceased to occur. That this gift should be specially connected with prophesying, as in Act_19:6, they spake with tongues and prophesied, and elsewhere, is to be explained from the fact that all speaking under divine, supernatural influence, was included under the head of prophesying; and as all who spake with tongues spake as the Spirit gave them utterance, in the wide sense of the word they all prophesied. But it is not so easy to understand why this gift should have been so common, nor why it should so often attend on conversion; see Act_10:46; Act_19:6. There are many things also in this chapter which it is not easy to understand on any theory of the nature of the gift. Under these circumstances it is necessary to hold fast what is clear, and to make the certain our guide in explaining what is obscure. It is clear,

1. That the word tongues in this connection, as already proved, means languages.

2. That the speaker with tongues was in a state of calm self-control. He could speak, or be silent, 1Co_14:28.

3. That what he said was intelligible to himself, and could be interpreted to others.

4. That the unintelligibleness of what was said, arose not from the sounds uttered being inarticulate, but from the ignorance of the hearer.

The interpretation of particular passages must, therefore, be controlled by these facts.

1Co_14:1

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual (gifts), but rather that ye may prophesy.

In the preceding chapters Paul had taught,

1. That all the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were proper objects of desire.

2. That they were of different relative importance.

3. That love was of greater value than any gift.

In accordance with these principles, the apostle exhorts his readers to follow after love; i.e. to press towards it, as men do towards the goal in a race, Phi_3:12, Phi_3:14. Pursue it earnestly as the greatest good. But at the same time, desire spiritual gifts. Because love is more important than miraculous gifts, it does not follow that the latter were not to be sought. The same word is used here as in 1Co_12:31. But rather that ye may prophesy. The two gifts specially in the apostles mind were the gift of speaking with tongues, and that of prophecy, i.e. the gift of speaking as the organ of the Spirit in a manner adapted to instruct and edify the hearer. Of these two gifts, he says, the latter is to be preferred. The reason for this preference is given in what follows.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He inferreth now that, that he spake before: Therefore seeing charity is the chiefest of all, before all things set it before you as chief and principal: and so esteem those things as most excellent: which profit the greater part of men: (as prophecy that is to say, the gifts of teaching and applying the doctrine, which was contemned in respect of other gifts, although it be chiefest and most necessary for the Church) and not those which for a show seem to be marvelous as the gifts of tongues, when a man was suddenly endued with the knowledge of many tongues, which made men greatly amazed, and yet of itself was not greatly to any use, unless there were an interpreter.

What prophecy is, he showeth in the third verse.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER XIV.

We should earnestly desire spiritual gifts; but prophesying

is to be preferred, because it is superior to the gift of

tongues, 1, 2.

Prophesying defined, 3.

How to regulate this supernatural gift of tongues, in teaching

for the edification of the Church, 4-13.

In praying and giving thanks, 14-17.

Those who speak with tongues should interpret that others may

be edified, 18-22

What benefit may accrue from this in the public assemblies,

23-28.

How the prophets or teachers should act in the Church, 29-33.

Women should keep silence in the church, 34, 35.

All should be humble, and every thing should be done in love,

36-40.

NOTES ON CHAP. XIV.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

As he had previously exhorted them to follow after the more excellent gifts, (1 Corinthians 12:31,) so he exhorts them now to follow after love, for that was the distinguished excellence, which he had promised that he would show them. They will, therefore, regulate themselves with propriety in the use of gifts, if love prevails among them. For he tacitly reproves the want of love, as appearing in this — that they had hitherto abused their gifts, and, inferring from what goes before, that where they do not assign to love the chief place, they do not take the right road to the attainment of true excellence, he shows them how foolish their ambition is, which frustrates their hopes and desires.

1. Covet spiritual gifts. Lest the Corinthians should object that they wronged God, if they despised his gifts, the Apostle anticipates this objection by declaring, that it was not his design to draw them away even from those gifts that they had abused — nay rather he commends the pursuit of them, and wishes them to have a place in the Church. And assuredly, as they had been conferred for the advantage of the Church, man’s abuse of them ought not to give occasion for their being thrown away as useless or injurious, but in the meantime he commends prophecy above all other gifts, as it was the most useful of them all. He observes, therefore, an admirable medium, by disapproving of nothing that was useful, while at the same time he exhorts them not to prefer, by an absurd zeal, things of less consequence to what was of primary importance. Now he assigns the first place to prophecy. Covet, therefore, spiritual gifts — that is, “Neglect no gift, for I exhort you to seek after them all, provided only prophecy holds the first place.”

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

XIV.

(1) Follow after charity.—Better, Follow after love. The preceding chapter is parenthetical, and the Apostle here returns to the subject with which he had been immediately occupied before he branched off into that great Psalm of Love. He has spoken enthusiastically in praise of the superiority of love as the greatest amongst graces, and of all graces as superior to all gifts; but still, though we are to “do this,” we are not to leave the other undone. Spiritual gifts are to be “earnestly striven for.” As there was a priority in graces, so there is in gifts. To prophesy is the greatest gift; it is so, as we see afterwards, because it makes us useful to our brethren; therefore it is to be striven for rather than any other gift.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Follow after charity,.... The apostle having so highly commended charity, or love, in the preceding chapter, presses here to an eager pursuit after it; that is, to an exercise of it, and after those things which make for it, and will serve to maintain and increase it: and everything he has said in praise of it before serves as an argument, or reason, to follow hard after it, with an eagerness used in hunting, and with such violence as persecutors express in pursuing and laying hold on those they seek after, to which there is an allusion in the word here used:

and desire spiritual gifts: for though he had given charity the preference to them, he did not mean that they should despise and neglect them, or treat them with indifference, and be unconcerned about them; but, on the other hand, that they should be very zealous for them, ambitious of them, and earnestly covet them; since being rightly used and kept in their proper place, they were greatly beneficial and profitable to the churches of Christ, and the glory of God:

but rather that ye may prophesy: of all the gifts of the Spirit, the apostle prefers prophesying, and recommends this to the Corinthians, as what they should be chiefly desirous of, and more desirous of than of speaking with tongues, which many among them were so very fond of: by which he means, not so much the gift of foretelling future events, though there was such a gift bestowed on some persons in those times, and, in certain cases, was very profitable to the churches; but a gift of preaching the word, or explaining the prophecies of the Old Testament, and of praying and singing of psalms, all which, as appears from some following parts of this chapter, were included in it; and that not in an ordinary, but in an extraordinary way; a person possessed of this gift could at once, without the use of means, or help of study, preach the word, and open the more difficult parts of Scripture; he had an extraordinary gift of prayer, which he could make use of when he pleased, and at once compose and deliver out a psalm, or hymn, in the public congregation.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Ver. 1. Follow after charity] Διωκετε, follow it hot-foot, as they say; pursue and practise it. It is more than to desire or to be zealous of a thing, as it follows in the next words, Ζηλουτε, "Be zealous of spiritual gifts." Follow charity close, as the hunter doth his prey, or as the persecutor doth the martyr, that will hide or escape if he can. Charity may be fitly compared to the precious stone Pantarb, spoken of by Philostratus; a stone of great beauty and of strange property; so bright it is and radiant, that it gives light in the darkest midnight; and that light is of that admirable virtue, that it brings together the stones that it reacheth into heaps, as if they were so many hives of bees; but nature, lest so precious a gift should be undervalued, hath not only hid this stone in the secret bowels of the earth, but hath also put into it a property of slipping out of the hands of those that hold it, Nisi provida ratione teneatur, unless they hold it fast indeed.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Follow after charity - Pursue love 1Co 13:1; that is, earnestly desire it; strive to possess it; make it the object of your anxious and constant solicitude to obtain it, and to be influenced by it always. Cultivate it in your own hearts, as the richest and best endowment of the Holy Spirit, and endeavor to diffuse its happy influence on all around you.

And desire spiritual gifts - I do not forbid you, while you make the possession of love your great object, and while you do not make the desire of spiritual gifts the occasion of envy or strife, to desire the miraculous endowments of the Spirit and to seek to excel in those endowments which he imparts; see the note at 1Co 12:31. The main thing was to cultivate a spirit of love. Yet it was not improper also to desire to be so endowed as to promote their highest usefulness in the church. On the phrase “spiritual gifts,” see the note at 1Co 12:1.

But rather that ye may prophesy - But especially, or particularly desire to be qualified for the office of prophesying. The apostle does not mean to say that prophecy is to be preferred to love or charity; but that, of the spiritual gifts which it was proper for them to desire and seek, prophecy was the most valuable. That is, they were not most earnestly and especially to desire to be able to speak foreign languages or to work miracles; but they were to desire to be qualified to speak in a manner that would be edifying to the church. They would naturally, perhaps, most highly prize the power of working miracles and of speaking foreign languages. The object of this chapter is to show them that the ability to speak in a plain, clear, instructive manner, so as to edify the church and convince sinners, was a more valuable endowment than the power of working miracles, or the power of speaking foreign languages.

On the meaning of the word “prophesy,” see the note at Rom 11:6. To what is said there on the nature of this office, it seems necessary only to add an idea suggested by Prof. Robinson (Greek and English Lexicon, under the article, Προφήτης Prophētēs), that the prophets were distinguished from the teachers (διδάσκαλοι didaskaloi), “in that, while the latter spoke in a calm, connected, didactic discourse adapted to instruct and enlighten the hearers, the prophet spoke more from the impulse of sudden inspiration, from the light of a sudden revelation at the moment (1Co 14:30, ἀποκάλυφθη apokalupthē), and his discourse was probably more adapted, by means of powerful exhortation, to awaken the feelings and conscience of the hearers.” The idea of speaking from “revelation,” he adds, seems to be fundamental to the correct idea of the nature of the prophecy here referred to. Yet the communications of the prophets were always in the vernacular tongue, and were always in intelligible language, and in this respect different from the endowments of those who spoke foreign languages.

The same truth might be spoken by both; the influence of the Spirit was equally necessary in both; both were inspired; and both answered important ends in the establishment and edification of the church. The gift of tongues, however, as it was the most striking and remarkable, and probably the most rare, was most highly prized and coveted. The object of Paul here is, to show that it was really an endowment of less value, and should be less desired by Christians than the gift of prophetic instruction, or the ability to edify the church in language intelligible and understood by all, under the immediate influences of the Holy Spirit.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But rather that you may prophesy. That is, declare or expound the mysteries of faith. (Challoner) --- To prophesy, in its proper signification, is to foretell things to come: it sometimes is to expound the obscure places in other prophets; and sometimes it is to preach the word of God. Here it is chiefly taken in this last sense. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Follow after charity; that love to God and your brethren, concerning which I have been speaking so much, as preferable to all common gifts, follow that with your utmost diligence, as the persecutors follow you; for it is the same word that is ordinarily used to signify the violent prosecution of persecutors, though it be applied also to things which we ought eagerly to follow, Rom 9:31; 14:19.

But rather that ye may prophesy; but rather, or principally that you may be able to reveal the mind and will of God unto others. Some think, by foretelling things to come; but that is not very probable, such an ability of prophesying being given but to few under the New Testament: it is therefore more probable, that he speaketh of an ability to open the Scriptures, either by immediate revelation, (as to which they could use no means but prayer and a holy life), or by ordinary meditation, and study of the Scriptures. For though the former species of prophesying, by prediction of future things, when the truth of it was justified by such prophecies’ accomplishment, was of great use to confirm the doctrine of the gospel; yet the latter was of greater and more general use for the good of others, which makes the apostle put them upon the coveting and earnest desire of that faculty or ability, because, of all others, it made them most eminently and generally useful to others, as well those within the church, as those without; and this the apostle expoundeth himself, 1Co 14:3.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(e) Spiritual Gifts

(iii) The Gift of Tongues subordinate to Prophecy

The Apostle in this chapter deals with the abuse of the gift of tongues which characterised the Corinthians, and declares that it is inferior to the gift of prophecy, though valuable enough in itself if kept in proper control. Speaking with tongues is a phenomenon we meet with in the NT. only here and in the Acts of the Apostles. The gift as recorded in Acts 2 seems to have been the power to speak in foreign languages. We are told that Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, as well as dwellers in Asia Minor, Egypt, Rome, Crete, and Arabia heard their own languages spoken by the disciples on the day of Pentecost. In the Corinthian Church the gift of tongues seems to have been manifested in a different way. It took the form of ecstatic utterance. Those who possessed it often burst forth during public worship in a rhapsody of words, unintelligible to others and often to themselves. There were others who had the gift of interpreting these utterances and explaining them to the congregation. But often there was no interpreter present; and the unedifying spectacle was witnessed of several worshippers speaking at once, and no one understanding a syllable of what was said. This gift, too, as it attracted attention and appealed to the Greek belief in prophetic ecstasy and love of display, was held in high estimation and anxiously sought after: but as the results proved, it was capable of grievous abuse.

The Apostle here points out that the gift of tongues while it is of value to the person who possesses it (1Co_14:4), and of importance as-attracting the notice of unbelievers (1Co_14:22), is of no benefit to the Church, because it provides no edification (1Co_14:2, 1Co_14:5, 1Co_14:11-12). On the other hand, the gift of prophecy is a benefit to others, for by it the Church receives edifying; because the speaker declares the secrets of God's dealing with men and reveals to men their need of God's grace, speaking so that all can understand him. Therefore the Apostle, though himself possessed of the gift of tongues in a high degree (1Co_14:18) and desiring that others should have it also (1Co_14:5), declares that prophecy is a far higher gift, because far more useful to the Church (1Co_14:5, 1Co_14:22, 1Co_14:24-25).

1-19. The gift of prophecy is better than that of tongues, because it edifies believers.

1. Follow after charity] Seek a loving spirit before all things. And desire] RV 'yet desire earnestly' (cp. 1Co_12:31); do not neglect other gifts. But rather that] and more especially that. Prophesy] inspired preaching; declaring God's mind. A prophet in Scripture does not simply foretell the future; he tells forth the mil of God, and speaks for God as His mouthpiece.

Paraphrase. '(2-4) One who has the gift of tongues speaks only to God; he does not communicate to others the mysterious truths of which he is conscious; he cultivates only his own spiritual life. But a prophet builds up the spiritual life of the Church by his words of exhortation and encouragement. (5) I do not disparage tongues; I should like you all to possess that gift; but it is inferior to prophecy unless the speaker can interpret and so build up the Church. (6) I myself could do you no good by speaking in a tongue, unless I added interpretation and teaching. (7) The melody played upon a musical instrument cannot be recognised unless the notes are distinct; (8) the bugle-call must be clear if it is to bring men to battle. (9) Similarly, unless it is possible to understand what you say, of what value are your words? (10, 11) Every language in the world has a meaning; but the hearer must understand the speaker's language, if they are to communicate with one another. (12) Seek then for the spiritual gifts which are most useful in edifying the Church. (13) Let him who has the gift of tongues seek also the gift of interpretation, (14, 15) so that his understanding may have its part in his prayer and praise, as well as his spirit. (16, 17) How can the ordinary worshipper say “Amen” when you give thanks, if he does not understand what you say? Your thanksgiving may be earnest and heartfelt, but it is valueless for his comfort and encouragement. (18, 19) I am thankful that I am highly endowed with this gift; but I would rather in your gatherings for worship say five words that would be helpful to your spiritual life than ten thousand which no one could understand.'

2. An unknown tongue] RV omits 'unknown': so throughout the chapter In AV it is in italics, merely added as an explanation or interpretation.

4. Edifieth (RM 'buildeth up') himself] by conscious communion with God.

6. Except I shall speak to you] i.e. in addition to (or instead of) speaking with tongues. A rhapsody of praise imparts little truth to others.

9. By the tongue] i.e. with your tongue, the instrument of speech.

10, 11. Kinds of voices] i.e. languages. Barbarian] i.e. foreigner.

12. Excel] RV 'abound,' i.e. in these gifts.

13. Pray that he may interpret] i.e. pray for the ability to make known to others the meaning of the impassioned words in which he has poured out his spirit.

14. Is unfruitful] is of no use to myself or to any one else.

16. Bless.. giving of thanks] Probably no special reference to the Eucharist. It is clear that public worship was largely at least extempore. Every member who was moved to do so, contributed to the edification of the congregation, by psalm, or prayer, or exhortation, or explanation: cp. 1Co_14:26.

Occupieth the room (RV 'filleth the place') of the unlearned] RM 'him that is without gifts'; probably here, 'any one not understanding your “tongue.” The (RV) Amen] the close of prayers and thanksgivings among both Jews and Christians, expressing the assent of the congregation (Neh_8:6; Psa_106:48.)

19. In the church] i.e. at a Church assembly. St. Paul insists upon Church worship being really 'common prayer,' each worshipper joining intelligently in what is said.

20-25. Prophecy is better than 'tongues' for convincing unbelievers.

Paraphrase. '(20) Do not reason like children, but like grown men: it is only in regard to knowledge of evil that I wish you to be childlike. So do not overestimate the more pretentious gift. (21) The histoiy of God's dealings with Israel suggests a lesson regarding the use of unintelligible speech. The warning of impending judgment was brought home to the people of Judah when they heard the strange accents of the Assyrians among them. (22) And what is suggested to us is that the utterances of those who have received this gift are a sign to attract the attention of unbelievers and warn them of the presence of the Spirit: whereas, on the other hand, prophecy makes its appeal rather to believers. (23) But if an unbeliever comes into your assembly and hears only words uttered in ecstasy without interpretation, will he not suspect you all of madness? (24, 25) Whereas if he comes in and finds you prophesying, he is likely to be impressed and converted.'

20. Be not children] who seek the showy rather than the useful: cp. Mat_10:16; Rom_16:19.

21. In the law] i.e. the OT. (Isa_28:11-12). As God confounded the unbelieving Jews who rejected Isaiah's plain warnings as folly, by bringing upon them invaders (Assyrians) of unintelligible speech, so tongues are meant to impress unbelievers, as a sign of the existence of spiritual influences; but, as of old, many will be confirmed by them in their unbelief.

22. Tongues] were valuable to unbelievers as a sign of the Spirit's presence, but not for believers, who already were convinced of it, and who could appreciate prophecy.

23. All speak with tongues] Not necessarily all at once, but one after another, leaving space for nothing else. Unlearned] cp. 1Co_14:16 any one not understanding this gift.

24. He is convinced of all] 'His conscience is aroused and awed by this united testimony to truth' (Massie).

25. In you of a truth] 'among you indeed.'

26-33. Regulations for the exercise of the various gifts.

Paraphrase. '(26) Now, brethren, I hear that there is much disorder in your worship, each of you being eager to utter his psalm, or lesson, or rhapsody, or interpretation, or exhortation, and apt to interrupt the other. Let this disorder cease, and everything be done with a view to strengthening your faith and deepening your spiritual life. (27, 28) Let no more than two or three speak with tongues at any meeting, and let them speak in succession, what they say being interpreted. But if there be no one present to interpret, let them engage in silent prayer and worship. (29-31) So also with the prophets: let two or three speak in succession; and if some one be moved to speak at any time, let him who is addressing you make way. In this way, you will all get an opportunity of edifying and being edified by one another. (32, 33) The prophet who is truly inspired is to be recognised by his self-restraint; for God does not inspire men to bring disorder into the Church, but prompts them to do the things that make for peace.'

26. Every one of you] The right of taking the lead in public worship was practically unrestrained at Corinth; and the need of regulation is here made very manifest. Hath a psalm] i.e. to sing (cp. Eph_5:19); either from the OT., or else impromptu: cp. the Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis. Doctrine, revelation] cp. 1Co_14:6, 1Co_12:28.

27. By two] i.e. two or, at most, three may speak in succession, if there is an interpreter.

28. Speak to himself, and to God] i.e. use this gift at home, not in public worship.

29. Let the other (RV 'others') judge] whether the speakers have a message from God: cp. 1Co_12:10.

30. Be revealed to another] The speaker is to conclude if he perceive another has received a sudden revelation.

31. Comforted] i.e. encouraged, exhorted.

32. The spirits of the prophet, etc.] So let none maintain he must speak, or cannot stop. 33. The author] RV 'a God.' Not confusion, but peace, is to His mind: cp. Rom_15:33. As in all churches of the saints] i.e. all Christian communities. This clause belongs to the whole preceding paragraph, 'Such arrangements are in force elsewhere, and you also ought to adopt them': cp. 1Co_11:16; 1Co_4:17 note.

34-36. Women are not to speak in Church assemblies: cp. 1Co_11:3-16; 1Ti_2:11-15. In 1Co_11:5; St. Paul seems to allow, provided the head be covered, what he forbids here. Either (a) on second thoughts he now forbids it altogether; or, (b) here he is thinking of public services; there, of more private gatherings: cp. Act_18:26, where Priscilla is associated with Aquila in the teaching of Apollos See also 1Co_16:19.

34. As also saith the law] Gen_3:16 : cp. 1Ti_2:13-14;

35. If they will learn any thing] Perhaps some had expressed their own opinions under cover of seeking information. Their husbands] Most would be married; speaking would be still more unsuitable for the unmarried.

36. Came the word of God out from you?] RV 'Was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?'; i.e. you are neither the original nor the only Church; what are you that you diverge from the general practice and set up a standard of your own? The Apostle here falls back again on the weapon of sarcasm.

37-40. Conclusion of subject.

Paraphrase. '(37) To sum up, then, let those who claim to have these spiritual gifts attend to these regulations, for they express the will of the Lord. (38) But if any one, refuse to learn, let him just abide in his ignorance. (39) Do not forbid the exercise of ecstatic utterance; but encourage prophecy. (40) See that aboye all you have all orderly and seemly worship.'

37. Spiritual] i.e. possessing spiritual gifts.

Let him acknowledge] If their claim to have the Spirit is true, they will recognise the authority of these regulations. The commandments of the Lord] cp. 1Co_7:10 contrast 1Co_7:25, 1Co_7:40.

38. Let him be ignorant] RM 'If any man knoweth not, he is not known,' i.e. God does not recognise him. But perhaps the Apostle means, 'If any man will not learn, then he must just abide in his ignorance, with all its inevitable loss': cp. Rev_22:11.

39. Covet to prophesy] This is to be 'earnestly desired' (RV); tongues are merely allowed.

40. Decently] i. e. in a becoming and proper way.

The principles St. Paul keeps steadily in view are, (1) Public worship must be edifying to all; (2) it must be conducted in good order.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-25. The gift of preaching superior to the gift tongues.

Follow after charity; literally, chase; pursue. The word is one of which St. Paul is fond (Rom_9:30, 31 13:13 14:19; Php_3:12, 14; 1Ti_6:11, etc.) And desire; rather, yet be zealous for. But rather that ye may prophesy; and yet more strive after the gift of sacred preaching.

Vers. 1-28, 34-40.

Grace and gifts.

after charity," etc. There are many separate verses in this chapter implying or suggesting thoughts capable of being wrought out into sermonic sketches, but my purpose now is to take a homiletical glance at the whole. The following general propositions will bring all the parts into a logical connection:

I THE GRACE OF CHARITY IS SUPERIOR TO ALL ENDOWMENTS. I say "charity, for I prefer the word to the word "love," which the New Version gives as the substitute. "Charity" implies the highest forms of love compassion, sympathy, benevolence. "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts." Whatever other endowments you may possess or desire, do not neglect the cultivation of charity. The remarks of the illustrious F. W. Robertson are so admirable on this point that I transcribe them here. In showing the difference between a grace and a gift, he says, "A grace does not differ from a gift in this, that the former is from God and the latter from nature. As a creative power, there is no such thing as nature; all is God"s. A grace is that which has in it some moral quality, whereas a gift does not necessarily share in this. Charity implies a certain character, but a gift, as for instance that of tongues, does not. A man may he fluent, learned, skilful, and be a good man; likewise, another may have the same powers, and yet be a bad man proud, mean, or obstinate, Now, this distinction explains at once why graces are preferable. Graces are what the man is: but enumerate his gifts, and you will only know what he has. He is loving; he has eloquence, or medical skill, or legal knowledge, or the gift of acquiring languages, or that of healing. You only have to cut out his tongue or to impair his memory, and the gift is gone. But, on the contrary, you must destroy his very being, change him into another man, and obliterate his identity, before he ceases to be a loving man. Therefore you may contemplate the gift separate from the man, and, whilst you admire it, you may despise him. As many a gifted man is contemptible through being a slave to low vices or to his own high gifts. But you cannot contemplate the grace separate from the man he is lovable or admirable according as he has charity, faith, or self control. And hence the apostle bids the Corinthians undervalue gifts in comparison with graces. "Follow after charity." But as to gifts, they are not ourselves, but our accidents, like property, after charity. But as ancestors, birth, or position in the world. But hence, also, on the other hand, arises the reason of our due admiration of gifts: "Desire spiritual gifts." Many religious persons go into the contrary extreme: they call gifts dangerous, ignore them, sneer at them, and say they are of the world. No, says the apostle, "desire " them, look them in the face as goods; not the highest goods, but still desirable, like wealth or health. Only remember, you are not wealthy or good because of them. And remember, other people are not bound to honour you for them. Admire a Napoleon"s genius, do not despise it, but do not let your admiration of that induce you to give honour to the man. Let there be no mere hero-worship, that false modern spirit which recognizes the force that is in a man as the only thing worthy of homage. The subject of this chapter is, not the principle on which graces are preferable as gifts, but the principle on which one gift is preferable to another: "Rather that ye may prophesy." Now, the principle of this preference is very briefly stated. Of gifts, Paul prefers those which are useful to those that are showy. The gift of prophecy was useful to others, whilst that of tongues was only a luxury for self. The principle of this preference is stated generally in the twelfth verse: "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church.

II SOME ENDOWMENTS ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHERS. In the fifth verse the apostle says, "Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues." In this chapter it is taught that the didactic faculty is greater than the linguistic. Sense is better than sound, ideas are better than words. Ideas are the seed of character and the soul of history. Of all classes of ideas, religious ideas, ideas in relation to God, are the most salutary and sublime. A man may pronounce "sun," "universe," "God," in fifty different languages, and he is not necessarily richer in ideas concerning these than the man who can only speak them in his own vernacular. It often happens that the man who has the most aptitude in acquiring languages, and the most fluency in pronouncing them, has the least capacity either for attaining or communicating great ideas. But the language of which the apostle is here speaking seems to have been of a very peculiar sort an unintelligible vocal utterance. It was, perhaps, the inarticulate voice of new and strong emotions an emotional language. It is not necessary to consider this gift as miraculous. We are so constituted that when there rises up in our souls a strong rush of tender emotions, we feel utterly incapable to put them into words. Sometimes they choke us. If expressed at all, they can only be in the quivering lip and the gleaming eye and the convulsive chest. No stranger or stronger emotions can enter a man"s soul than those which Christianity awakens when it first takes possession of him. The groans, the sighs, the rapturous shouts, cannot be interpreted. Albeit they are a "gift, a gift of a high type, inasmuch as they are the expression of the most priceless states of soul. Such have been manifested in all great revivals of religion. In my younger days I have heard such untranslatable sounds under the mighty sermons of grand old Welsh preachers. The words imply that these "tongues," unintelligible vocal sounds, are valuable. "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied." They are valuable:

1. Because they are symptomatic of a new spiritual life. You can talk about the facts of history, the principles of science, and the doctrines of theology, but not about the deepest and divinest things of the heart. They only come out in "groanings that cannot be uttered.

2. Because in them the soul expresses its devotions. "If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." It is delightful to think of the human soul, generally so immersed in the selfish and the sensuous, bathing itself in the rising tides of spiritual emotions.

3. Because by them the religious sympathy of the unbelieving is often excited. "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." Sounds expressive of human emotion often strike potently on the heart of the listener. The emotions of others, revealed either in sounds or "signs," groans, sighs, or tears, seldom fail to strike the deepest chords in the hearts of others. Take the most thoughtless man into some vast congregation in Wales, when all the people are singing their plaintive hymns in strains of weird music, and he will not be long, even if he understands not the language, before he feels the influence. Deep emotion often speaks in the "unknown tongue." Unsyllabled speech is often the mightiest. There are melodies that carry into the soul that which no word can express.

III The highest endowment is the ABILITY FOR SPIRITUAL TEACHING. "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church." "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all." What do I mean by "teaching "? Not the mere impartation of the facts of the gospel, but rather the indoctrinating of the soul with its primary elements and spirit taking the spirit of the truth out of the letter and transfusing it into the souls of men. On this subject the apostle"s language suggests three remarks.

1. That the gospel gives to its genuine disciples intelligent convictions that should be communicated to others. This is certainly implied in the words, "Forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church." He who has accepted the gospel in reality becomes instinct with mighty and irrepressible ideas ideas which he "cannot but speak," for "necessity is laid" upon him to do so. They are given to him to communicate, not to monopolize, and on their communication the spiritual life, growth, and perfection of mankind depend. Paul assumes in the whole of these verses, not only that the members of the Corinthian Church ought to do so, but that they did so. "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

2. That these intelligent convictions can only be conveyed to others by intelligible language. "Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" The apostle proceeds to say that mere "sound" is not worth much. "Things without life," such as the "pipe" and the "harp," produce sound. Nay, more, unless the sound gives out clear and distinct ideas, it is not only useless, but injurious. "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" If in battle the trumpet does not sound clearly the "advance" or "retreat" when intended, it is worse than useless. "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Whatever might be the unintelligible utterances, whether an unvernacular language or the unsyllabled expressions of emotion, he indicates their inadequacy without interpretation to convey to the hearer intelligent convictions of gospel truth.

3. That the use of a language which the listener cannot understand should not be indulged in.

(1) Not in public devotion. "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful," etc. (vers. 14-16). Unintelligible utterances in public devotion fail to excite in the assembly a spirit of united worship. "How," in such a case, "shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" So far as the individual himself is concerned, it does not matter with what tongue he speaks, or whether he speaks at all. "For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

(2) Not in public ministration. Alas! it is to be feared the language of many a sermon is an "unknown tongue to illiterate audiences, many syllabled, strangely compounded, high-sounding, technical language. Such language gratifies the vanity of the speaker, but wastes the time and tires the patience of the hearer. "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." The apostle goes on to indicate that such unintelligible utterances in the Church are:

(a) Childish. "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." They who prize such utterances are infants in knowledge.

(b) Useless. "In the Law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people." As if the apostle had said, "Remember, there was a time in Jewish history when unintelligible language was a sign sent by God, but it proved unavailing so far as concerned the conversion of Israel.

(c) Confounding. "If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

(d) To be of any service, they must be interpreted. "If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB.

Vers. 1-5.

Love controls zeal in behalf of spiritual gifts.

In the opening verse we have three ideas, viz. love as a virtue to be diligently sought and practised, spiritual gifts as objects worthy of desire, and prophesying as a gift among gifts to be especially prized. "Rather that ye may prophesy" is the formative thought of this chapter, and it must be kept in view by the reader, since it is explicit or implicit in every associated idea. But this leading thought is closely connected with the twelfth and thirteenth chapters, and this also must be considered by the reader. To understand the reasoning of the apostle in the fourteenth chapter and sympathize with the fervour of his exhortation in the "rather that ye may prophesy," remember that he is contemplating prophecy from the standpoint of love. How else, forsooth, could he regard it, either in the logic as bearing on intellect, or in the appeal as applied to experience, or in their united effect on Christian character? Prophecy, in the light here presented, is not simply a revelation of God"s will and wisdom to others, but likewise a revelation of love as a conscious influence pervading, inspiring, controlling the soul of the prophet or teacher. It is a voice from God himself by the Spirit. It is a Divine voice, moreover, in tones and accents most truly, most thoroughly, human, became of tender sympathy with the needs of its fellow men and their dependence on it for guidance, help, furtherance, in the salvation of their souls. One of the aspects of love as the instantly comes before the eye Prophecy, in the case of the man so gifted, is an organ of his love, so that he teaches, not to enjoy the activity and brilliance of his intellect, or make in any way a demonstration of himself, but solely to benefit his fellows. Actuated wholly by brotherly sentiment, he comes down from the pedestal of complacent self regard, and values his endowment in the degree that he is able to take the common level, and thereby instruct and console his brethren. Why, then, should the argument in this chapter follow the eulogy on love so closely? One reason the chief reason we may suppose to be that the gift of "tongues" was overvalued, and, as a consequence, the capacity to teach was depreciated. Without disparaging the "tongues" when rightly used, St. Paul lays a very proper stress on teaching, and gives it the preference, on the ground that it allows a fuller, freer, more effective manifestation of love. "Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. And so, too, now abide the "spiritual gifts," the gifts in general, "tongues" and "prophecy" m particular, but the "greatest of these" is "prophecy." The parallelism is complete. And how easily St. Paul glides from the chapter on love as the greatest among virtues to the chapter on teaching as the greatest among gifts! One would have supposed that, after such an effort of analytic and descriptive intellect and its interblending with emotional outgoings, there would be a rebound, a pause for nature to recover from an intense exertion; but this is not apparent. The strong man is still strong, the eye beams as brightly and the hand moves as firmly as before, and the eulogist of love passes into the eulogist of prophecy with no change other than that which the nature of the new topic necessitates. The argument in ver. 2 takes an antithetic form. There is speaking in an unknown tongue. The speech is not a communication of wisdom to others, but a mysterious activity that exalts the speaker above the ordinary sphere of self consciousness and is ecstatic. "No man understandeth him." There is the outward hearing on man"s part, but no inward hearing. God is the only listener who comprehends him: "He speaketh... unto God;" "In the spirit he seeketh mysteries." The mysteries are things "which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from the speaker himself" (Alford). Was language a sublimer function than we have comprehended? Are there uses of expressional power of which we know nothing? Are there utterances of intuition beyond our power to grasp? Is there some one vast generalization of speech as interiorily related to pure reason, under which, as fragmentary forms of embodied thought and as representations of the functional energies of the mental faculties, all the utilities of speech are classified? We cannot tell.

1. All we know is that the speaker here under notice speaks from his "spirit;" intellect, emotion, the entire nature, are simultaneously excited. Barriers between the faculties are broken down; speech is no longer merely philosophic, or poetic, or impassioned, but it is in some occult way the articulation of the spirit in its wholeness. No man ever said anything that he could look upon as the complete expression of himself. Before he utters his greatest thoughts, he is very hopeful of doing full justice to them; afterwards he is half abashed, deplores his shortcoming, and gazes with a feeling somewhat reproachful on the ideal that retreated afar. Now, in the instance St. Paul has in view, the speaker is under the perfected sway of his spirit, and he transcends the limits of habitual consciousness.

2. All we know is that this exceptional speaker utters "mysteries." And the "mysteries," out of whose deep solitudes the voice comes, remain mysteries; neither word nor tone, neither look nor gesture, gives any solution of the meaning. The secrets have taken on sound, but the sense is concealed, and the very sound is a deeper silence. And has not such silence its uses? Is it a mere image to the fancy that Milton gives when he so finely personifies Silence in paradise as pleased with the song of the "wakeful nightingale"? Or when Thomson breathes the invocation: "Come, then, expressive Silence, muse his praise"? And, in the present case, the sound falls back into silence, but, nevertheless, the "unknown tongue" is among "spiritual gifts," and fills its sphere in the spiritual economy of Christ"s universe. What, then, is the object of St. Paul"s argument? It is a question of, comparative worth, that he discusses. These Corinthians are fascinated by the tongues, and, in their passion for high excitements, have been led to exaggerate beyond bounds the ecstatic singularity of the "unknown tongue." This unhappy craving for morbid and tumultuous agitation, this delight in sensations and emotions, threatened the decay, ay, the destruction of spirituality. It was the spirit of man, indeed, but the spirit borrowing the impulses of the lower man, instead of holding itself aloof from a depraving alliance with ungoverned blood and nerves. The remedy of the evil was in a proper estimate of the gifts as relative to brotherhood and helpfulness of others. Therefore, "desire rather that ye may prophesy." And wherefore? That ye may "speak unto men" with three ends in view, namely, edification, exhortation, comfort. To edify is to build up the whole framework of Christian character; to exhort is to incite to duty by timely, appropriate, and effectual motives; to comfort is to show tenderness of fellow feeling and be partners of the cares, burdens, and sorrows of others. What a blessed prerogative, to go forth from the isolations of intellect and from the selfish exclusiveness that our own anxieties and sufferings not infrequently bind upon us, and impart ourselves in large sympathies to such as in their weakness need our strength! "Himself;" there the benefit lies. Lifted to a lofty height, borne upward from one sublimity to another, rapt and entranced, it is still himself that is the party concerned. There may be quickening and ennobling; the immense realm within the soul, where the surprises of possible consciousness are dormant, may suddenly yield their resources and give the soul a new and astonishing sense of itself; yet, despite of all such results, it is himself, first and last. But he "that prophesieth edifieth the Church." A community gets the benefit, not the mere man "himself." Is St. Paul depreciating the speaking with tongues? Hear his hearty wish: "I would that ye all spake with tongues." In perfect consistency with this testimony to the worth of the tongues, he adds that he desires for them more ardently the gift of prophecy. Why this more fervent wish? Because the prophet or teacher is greater than the speaker with tongues not interpreted greater because he builds up and inspirits and cheers his brethren more than the mystical speaker with "an unknown tongue;" greater because "it is more blessed to give than to receive L.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL Vers. 1-19.

Usefulness.

I THE DESIRE FOR SPIRITUAL GIFTS IS LEGITIMATE AND PRAISEWORTHY.

1. We must not rest content even with the possession of love. We must seek qualification for making that love effective. Inactive love is both suspicious and useless. If we have a true love for men, we shall seek to be helpful to them, especially in their spiritual life, and to this end we shall seek all possible means for conveying to them the knowledge of the love of God and. the truth as it is in Jesus. Spiritual endowments will aid us in this. The miraculous gifts in tile early Church were bestowed with this object in view; and so are modern gifts.

2. Spiritual gifts are to be most earnestly sought. Whilst pointing out abuses to which gifts in the early Church were liable, Paul nevertheless commends these gifts as worthy of the keenest desire, for if rightly used they were productive of the most valuable results. So now, in every way, we should seek qualifications for the service of Christ in the world. Some of these must be natural to us, but not a few may be acquired; and by diligence the small gift may be made great. Prayer, study, earnestness, are channels through which spiritual endowment and spiritual power ever tend to flow. Not to desire spiritual endowment is to show that we are unspiritual and lazy. A master desire of our soul should be to be equipped for service. God can do this thing for us. He can sharpen the bluntest instrument, and give strength to the weakest.

II WHAT GIFTS WE SHOULD MOST EARNESTLY DESIRE. Not

(1) the most brilliant,

(2) the most remarkable,

(3) the most rare,

(4) the most praised,

(5) the most mysterious,

(6) those which are only enough to serve our own ends and supply our own needs; but

(7) the most useful (ver. 19).

To win applause or to excite wonder is but the poorest of poor ends to attain. We should long to effect something for others. To lay out ourselves for ourselves is not to serve our fellows or our Master at all. That which startles most may be least valuable; that which calls forth most remark may be most barren. The apostle had to rebuke the childish Corinthians who were captivated by the strange gift of speaking in foreign languages a gift most precious when foreigners speaking these languages were addressed, but valueless when they were absent. Yet the Corinthians, forgetting that the gift was bestowed for its special usefulness, exercised the gift and gloried in it when its usefulness was impossible! Here were selfishness and pride conjoined to supernatural endowment! What penetrating power has evil! It seems to touch everything, even the holiest, most God like things, that man touches! Here is the touchstone which tries our work Is it truly useful?

III MARKS OF USEFUL GIFTS.

1. Plainness. We want to make men understand Divine truths; we should then assuredly use "great plainness of speech." Our speech should be "easy to be understood" (ver. 9). What a mass of preaching and praying has been lost because it was too ornate, or high flown, or expressed in incomprehensible language! The ability to speak so that no one can understand us is a gift which should be earnestly desired by fools only. Some men are so profound that they are quite unfathomable, even to themselves. They dig the well so deep that they drown themselves in it. Possibly some avoid plainness intentionally, because they want no one to perceive the poverty of the portion which they are dealing out. They place nothing in many wrappers, with the fond expectation that it may pass for something amongst the ignorant. But such trickery is unworthy of the servants of the Most High, and would be called knavery if it were practised by a pedlar. The Romish Church is greatly censurable for continuing the use of Latin in her services, which is a "tongue unknown" of the people.

2. Clearness. No mean endowment is required so as to speak with lucidity upon scriptural topics. We need to think clearly ourselves. Hearers often do not understand because preachers do not. We may expect to be useful according to the measure in which we make clear to others Divine truths; and we must never forget how peculiarly prone men are to misapprehend these. A clear statement is like a piece of music played correctly; an involved and obscure one is like music in which the notes are all jumbled together without reference to order or time. Both may have exactly the same notes, but what a contrast!

3. Force. Like the sound of the trumpet when well blown (ver. 8). Life and vigour are needed in our utterances. We mast not weaken the message which we deliver. If we would lead men heavenwards there must be power in our appeals. Our aim should be, not to tickle men, but to incite them. Force may be quiet; often is. But there is much quietness in which them is no force, Noise is not force, but earnestness and passion are generally its accompaniments.

4. Certainty. The trumpet blast which directs must not waver. A halting, uncertain testimony is generally worse than useless. Some are so "gifted" that they are certain of nothing. One should not desire such gifts. Notwithstanding all boast about them, they carry much more folly than wisdom, and the devil"s hand is more manifest in them than God"s. We have truth which is not an uncertain thing; one of the most precious and most useful gifts is a certain grasp upon that which is of the very essence of certainty. H.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Use of Spiritual Gifts in Public Worship.

The gift of prophesying greater than that of tongues:

v. 1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

v. 2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

v. 3. But he that prophesies speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort.

v. 4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the church.

v. 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied; for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

v. 6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

In continuing his admonitions, Paul here refers back once more to his great psalm in praise of love: Pursue love! That should be their chief concern, for, as one commentator has it: Love is the mistress; all the spiritual gifts are servants, handmaids. While, therefore, continuing to be intently engaged in following after love, the Corinthians should diligently strive after spiritual gifts, the use of them all in the edification of the congregation being regulated by the standard set by love. And in this respect the gift of prophecy stands above the others, for its chief purpose was to teach and instruct others in the things of their salvation. This gift they should covet more than all the other gifts, also more than that of tongues, which naturally made a deep impression upon the Corinthians and was considered especially desirable.

The apostle gives the reasons for his preference: For he that speaks with a tongue, in some strange language prompted by the Spirit, especially if this be done in public worship, not to men speaks he, but to God; men have no benefit of his speaking, because they cannot understand him. They hear the sounds of his voice, but they have no conception of the meaning of his utterances, since in spirit he is speaking mysteries, the secrets of God are continuing concealed, hidden from the hearers, and probably from the speaker as well. The prophesier, on the other hand, the man that has the gift of prophecy, does speak to men; his speech, being understood by them, serves as a means of communication; he conveys ideas to them, edification and exhortation and comfort. The speech of the prophesier serves to have the Christians grow in knowledge, thus aiding the progress of the Church; it admonishes them, it stimulates them to apply themselves more earnestly to their Christian duty; it gives them spiritual strength and comfort when they are in danger of being overwhelmed by fear. That, then, is the chief purpose of public worship, that the Word of God be preached and applied, that men may understand the speaking and be edified, admonished, and comforted This purpose is not realized in the case of him that speaks with a tongue. He edifies himself at best, while he that prophesies edifies the church assembly. It was true enough that the one that spoke with tongues was confirmed in his faith, since he must have felt the power of the Spirit, that used his mouth as an instrument for His utterance. But he was the only one thus affected, whereas in the case of him that prophesied the assembled congregation received the benefit.

In making this statement, Paul does not want to be misunderstood as though he underrated the worth of the gift of tongues: Yet I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that you might prophesy. So he makes no weak concessions to the Corinthians, he is well aware of the fact that the gift of tongues might make a deep impression upon an unbeliever coming into their meetings and pave the way for his conversion; but for actual, practical use he knows that the gift of prophecy is to be preferred. Greater, moreover, is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues; he occupies a position of greater usefulness and therefore also of greater dignity, unless, indeed, he that speaks with tongues has, at the same time, the gift and the ability to interpret his ecstatic utterances, so that all the people may understand him and the congregation thus receive edification.

In a question directed to them all, Paul appeals to their judgment in this matter: But now, brethren, the situation at Corinth at the present time being such, if I should come to you speaking with tongues, of what use, of what help would I be to you, if I do not speak to you in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophesying, or in teaching? If Paul had been only a speaker of tongues, and unable to interpret the mysteries which the Holy Ghost was uttering through his mouth, his work would evidently have had no value, unless, indeed, he could make himself understood in intelligible speech, in revelation and prophecy, by teaching the great mysteries which he understood, by bringing knowledge and doctrine together. Prophecy relates to particular facts, for whose understanding further light was needed, to mysteries that could be known by revelation only; doctrine and knowledge were drawn from the creed of the Christians and were used to confirm the believers in the matter of their salvation. This appeal to the common sense of the Corinthians could not fail to convince them of the truth of Paul’s argument, since they knew that he had always sought their spiritual welfare, and not his own spiritual enjoyment and edification.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 14:15

I. Christian teaching and Christian prayer and Christian praise are to be intelligible to the people, yea, to the meanest among them. To conduct any of these in a foreign tongue, which the people do not understand, is an absurdity so monstrous that nothing but the fact of its having been done, and now being done in the Church of Rome, could ever reconcile us to the mention of such a thing. For what is prayer? The expression of the heart to God, the breathings of man’s inner spirit to the Father of his spirit, the Abba Father of the reconciled and adopted son in God’s family. Surely, if anything should be hearty and earnest, this should! Some tell us of holy places on earth, and men have lavished cost to represent by stately form and gorgeous colour and dim religious light the presence of God, and have erected altars before which men should bow in reverence, and shrines which they should pass with soft and trembling steps; but I would have you know but one holy place in this world, and that place is the footstool of the throne of grace, when a Christian’s heart is lifted in prayer. The liturgy of the sanctuary is the universal utterance of mankind; it speaks in the lisp of infant, in the falter of the aged, in the silent assent when the voice has failed. There the true Cross of Jesus is uplifted before the eye of faith. There is the mercy seat, and the mild and reconciled presence of Him who once dwelt awful and unapproachable between the cherubim. And there every believer, at every time, has boldness to enter by the blood of Jesus.

II. A distinction must be made between public and private prayer. Men’s private prayers represent their individual wants, and are necessarily tinged by their individual constitutions. Not so with the Christian congregation. Public prayer in that expresses the great and invariable cry of human weakness for Divine strength which every believer, at all times, is ready to utter; that constant sacrifice of humble thankfulness for mercies bestowed which, amidst all chances and changes, forms the reality of the Christian’s life. It seems to follow, from the very nature of public prayer, that it must consist of set forms of words. The important point is, that our use of those forms should not become a mere formality.

H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. i., p. 34.

References: 1Co 14:15.—Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. iv., p. 208; E. Blencowe, Plain Sermons to a Country Congregation, p. 115; J. Stalker, The New Song, p. 194; R. L. Browne, Sussex Sermons, p. 181; H. P. Liddon, Church of England Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 98; Ibid., Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 129. 1Co 14:20.—J. Oswald Dykes, Sermons, p. 51; Saturday Evening, p. 187; Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 357. 1Co 14:25.—W. T. Bull, Ibid., vol. xi., p. 332. 1Co 14:25-40.—F. W. Robertson, Lectures on Corinthians, p. 195. 1Co 14:26.—E. Paxton Hood, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 216; T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 258; Christian World Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 187. 1Co 14:34.—H. P. Liddon, Church of England Pulpit, vol. x., p. 1. 1Co 14:34, 1Co 14:35.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 289. 1Co 15:1.—Homilist, 3rd series, vol. ii., p. 224; Church of England Pulpit, vol. xx., p. 169.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. The apostle propounds to the Corinthians a threefold object: charity, spiritual gifts, and prophecy. Charity has the precedency and pre-eminency; the apostle not only prefers it before all other gifts, but before the most useful and excellent graces, even faith and hope; for service and benefit to the church of God, it exceeds them all. Next he mentions spiritual gifts: such were the gift of tongues, the gift of miracles, the gift of healing, and lastly, prophecy, by which we are to understand an ordinary set course of preaching, interpreting and opening the holy scriptures, which contain a revelation of God’s mind and will.

Observe, 2. A threefold act recommended, answerable to a threefold object propounded. An act of prosecution; diokhete, prosecute and follow after charity as close as your prosecutors pursue and follow after you. It imports a most earnest, vigorous, and vehement pursuit. An act of emulation; dzeyldte, Desire earnestly spiritual gifts. An act of election and choice: Choose rather that ye may prophesy, or clearly understand the mind of God yourselves, and have an ability to expound and explain it to others; this will bring most glory to God, most profit to his church, and most comfort to yourselves.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Follow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy . [From the discussion of spiritual gifts Paul turned aside in the last chapter to show that love is superior to all gifts. Having finished his digression, he now resumes the subject of gifts, and proceeds to show that the pursuit of love, as of supreme importance, does not exclude the desire of gifts, as of secondary importance. Having thus brought the subject of gifts again into discussion, he asserts that prophecy is superior to the gift of tongues, and proves his assertion by showing that it is the more useful in the edification of the church. Incidentally his argument shows that though the Spirit gave the gift of tongues to men, that men abused the gift; and so the Spirit, through Paul as its instrument, reproves and corrects this abuse. Prophecy, as here discussed, means preaching under divine guidance, and the gift of tongues was not a gift of the knowledge of, but of the use of, foreign languages. The one having it could declare God's will in a foreign tongue, and could sometimes even interpret what he had declared; but he could not use the language for business conversation, or any personal or worldly purpose.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1 Corinthians Chapter 14

Two verses in this chapter 14 demand a little attention-the 3rd and the 6th.1Co 14:3 is the effect, or rather the quality, of that which a prophet says, and not a definition. He edifies, he encourages, he comforts, by speaking. Nevertheless these words shew the character of what he said. Prophecy is in no wise simply the revelation of future events, although prophets as such have revealed them. A prophet is one who is so in communication with God as to be able to communicate His mind. A teacher instructs according to that which is already written, and so explains its import. But, in communicating the mind of God to souls under grace, the prophet encouraged and edified them. With regard to1 Corinthians 14:6, it is plain that coming with tongues (by the use of which the Corinthians like children, loved to shine in the assembly) he that so spoke, edified no one, for he was not understood. Perhaps he did not understand himself, but was the unintelligent instrument of the Spirit, whilst having the powerful impression of the fact that God spoke by his means, so that in the Spirit he felt that he was in communication with God, although his understanding was unfruitful. In any case no one could speak for the edification of the assembly unless he communicated the mind of God.

Of such communication the apostle distinguishes two kinds-revelation and knowledge. The latter supposes a revelation already given, of which some one availed himself by the Holy Ghost for the good of the flock. He then points out the gifts which were respectively the means of edifying in these two ways. It is not that the two latter terms (1Co 14:6) are the equivalents of the two former; but the two things here spoken of as edifying the church were accomplished by means of these two gifts. There might be”prophecy” without its being absolutely a new revelation, although there was more in it than knowledge. It might contain an application of the thoughts of God, an address on the part of God to the soul, to the conscience, which would be more than knowledge, but which would not be a new revelation. God acts therein without revealing a new truth, or a new fact. “Knowledge,” or “doctrine,” teaches truths, or explains the word, a thing very useful to the assembly; but in it there is not the direct action of the Spirit in application, and thus not the direct manifestation of the presence of God to men in their own conscience and heart. When any one teaches, he who is spiritual profits by it; when one prophesies, even he who is not spiritual may feel it, he is reached and judged; and it is the same thing with the Christian’s conscience. Revelation, or knowledge, is a perfect division and embraces everything. Prophecy, and doctrine, are in intimate connection with the two; but prophecy embraces other ideas, so that this division does not exactly answer to the first two terms.

The apostle insists largely on the necessity for making oneself understood, whether one speaks, or sings, or prays. He desires-and the remark is of all importance in judging men’s pretensions to the Spirit-that the understanding be in exercise. He does not deny that they might speak with tongues without the understanding being at all in it-a thing of evident power and utility when persons were present who understood no other language, or whose natural language it was. But, in general, it was an inferior thing when the Spirit did not act upon, and therefore by means of, the understanding in him who spoke. Communion between souls in a common subject, through the unity of the Spirit, did not exist when he who spoke did not understand what he said. The individual speaking did not himself enjoy, as from God, what he communicated to others. If others did not understand it either, it was child’s play to utter words without meaning to the hearers. But the apostle desired to understand himself that which he said, although he spoke in many tongues; so that it was not jealousy on his part. He spoke more foreign tongues, by the gift of the Holy Ghost, than they all. But his soul loved the things of God-loved to receive truth intelligently from Him-loved to hold intelligent intercourse with others; and he would rather say five words with his understanding, than ten thousand without it in an unknown tongue.

What a marvellous power, what a manifestation of the presence of God-a thing worthy of the deepest attention-and, at the same time, what superiority to all carnal vanity, to the lustre reflected upon the individual by means of gifts-what moral power of the Spirit of God, where love saw nothing in these manifestations of power in gift but instruments to be used for the good of the assembly and of souls! It was the practical force of that love, to the exercise of which, as being superior to gifts, he exhorted the faithful. It was the love and the wisdom of God directing the exercise of His power for the good of those whom He loved. What a position for a man! What simplicity is imparted by the grace of God to one who forgets self in humility and love, and what power in that humility! The apostle confirms his argument by the effect that would be produced on strangers who might come into the assembly, or on unenlightened Christians, if they heard languages spoken which no one understood: they would think them mad. Prophecy, reaching their conscience, would make them feel that God was there-was present in the assembly of God.

Gifts were abundant in Corinth. Having regulated that which concerned moral questions, the apostle in the second place regulates the exercise of those gifts. Every one came with some manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost, of which they evidently thought more than of conformity to Christ. Nevertheless the apostle acknowledges in it the power of the Spirit of God, and gives rules for its exercise. Two or three might speak with tongues, provided there was an interpreter, so that the assembly might be edified. And this was to be done one at a time, for it appears they even spoke several at once. In the same way as to the prophets: two or three might speak, the others would judge if it really came from God. For, if it were given to them of God, all might prophesy; but only one at a time, that all might learn-a dependence always good for the most gifted prophets-and that all might be comforted. The spirits of the prophets (that is to say, the impulse of the power in the exercise of gifts) were subject to the guidance of the moral intelligence which the Spirit bestowed on the prophets. They were, on God’s part, masters of themselves in the use of these gifts, in the exercise of this marvellous power which wrought in them. It was not a divine fury, as the pagans said of their diabolical inspiration, which carried them away; for God could not be the author of confusion in the assembly, but of peace. In a word we see that this power was committed to man in his moral responsibility; an important principle, which is invariable in the ways of God. God saved man by grace, when he had failed in his responsibility; but all that He has committed to man, whatever may be the divine energy of the gift, man holds as responsible to use it for the glory of God, and consequently for the good of others and especially for the assembly.

Women were to be silent in the assembly: it was not permitted to them to speak. They were to remain in obedience and not to direct others. The law moreover held the same language. It would be a shame to hear them speak in public. If they had had questions to ask, they might inquire of their husbands at home.

With all their gifts, the word did not come out from the Corinthians, nor had it come unto them only; they ought to submit to the universal order of the Spirit in the assembly. If they pretended to be led by the Spirit, let them acknowledge (and this would prove it,) that the things which the apostle wrote to them were the commandments of the Lord: a very important assertion; a responsible and serious position of this wonderful servant of God.

What a mixture of tenderness, of patience, and of authority! The apostle desires that the faithful should come to the truth and to order, conducted by their own affections; not fearing, if necessary for their good, to avail himself of an authority without appeal, as speaking directly from God-an authority which God would justify if the apostle was forced unwillingly to use it. If any were ignorant that he wrote by the Spirit with the authority of God, it was ignorance indeed; let such be given up to their ignorance. Spiritual and simple men would be delivered from such pretensions. Those who were really filled with the Spirit would acknowledge that what the apostle wrote came immediately from God, and was the expression of His wisdom, of that which became Him: for often there may be the recognition of divine or even human wisdom when it is found, where there was not the ability to find it, nor, if it were perceived in part, the power to set it forth with authority. Meanwhile the man of pretension, reduced to this place, would find the place profitable, and that which he needed.

We shall also observe here the importance of this assertion of the apostle’s with regard to the inspiration of the epistles. That which he taught for the details even of the order of the assembly, was so really given of God, came so entirely from God, that they were the commandments of the Lord. For doctrine we have, at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, the same declaration that it was by means of prophetic writings that the gospel was disseminated among the nations.

The apostle resumes his instructions by saying, that they should desire to prophesy, not forbid to speak with tongues, and that all should be done with order and propriety.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–5. Desire earnestly spiritual gifts. Though love is to be a supreme pursuit, yet this is not intended to disparage spiritual gifts. Let them be sought, but in seeking, desire above all the gift of prophecy.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul wants them to know that though teaching is more important because it instructs people, it must be done with love.

Pursue love

Paul speaks of love as if it were a person. "Follow after love" or "Work hard to love people" (See: First, Second, or Third Person)

especially that you may prophesy

"and work especially hard to be able to prophesy"

to build them up

Building people up represents helping them become mature and strong in their faith. See how you translated "builds up" in 1 Corinthians 8:1. AT: "to strengthen them" (See: Metaphor)

builds up

Building people up represents helping them become mature and strong in their faith. See how you translated "builds up" in 1 Corinthians 8:1. AT: "strengthens people" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

love

zeal

spirit

gift

prophet

tongue

Holy Spirit

courage

comfort

church

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Vv. 1. “Follow after charity; but desire spiritual gifts, and especially to prophesy.”

The general rule is this: Every one should seek, above all, the gifts most fitted to contribute to the common good. Such is the principle Paul applies first of all to the valuation of the two gifts which seem at that time to have played the most considerable part in the life of the Church of Corinth, glossolalia and prophecy. And as what is intelligible is evidently superior, with a view to edification, to what is not so, he concludes without hesitation for the superiority of prophecy, and even for the exclusion of glossolalia, unless there be some way of rendering it intelligible.

There is a contrast between the terms διώκειν, to follow, and ζηλοῦν, to desire. The former refers to something indispensable, the latter to a faculty which is simply desirable; see on 1Co 12:31. The evident relation between our verse and that does not allow us to restrict the meaning of πνευματικά (spiritual gifts), as Rückert, Ewald, etc., have done, to glossolalia. Prophecy cannot be put outside of the pneumatica, as if it was to be sought more than they. It is comprehended in this expression, which denotes spiritual gifts in general (1Co 12:31); the apostle has particularly in view, no doubt, glossolalia, prophecy, and teaching. The word μᾶλλον, rather, does not therefore exclude the pursuit of these two last gifts; on the contrary, it implies it.

Instead of ἵνα, that, Paul might have put simply: “Especially desire prophecy.” But his thought is strictly speaking this: “Seek states of inspiration, and that especially with the view of attaining to the possession of the best of gifts, prophecy.”

Why among these gifts, all desirable, does prophecy occupy the first rank? This is what the following passage explains, in which Paul shows the inferiority of the gift of tongues as compared with prophecy; and that first as to the edification of the Church (1Co 14:2-20), then as to the conversion of persons outside of the Church (1Co 14:21-25).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.