1 Corinthians 14:36

In these verses the apostle closes his argument, 1. With a just rebuke of the Corinthians for their extravagant pride and self-conceit: they so managed with their spiritual gifts as no church did like them; they behaved in a manner by themselves, and would not easily endure control nor regulation. Now, says the apostle, to beat down this arrogant humour, "Came the gospel out from you? Or came it to you only? Co1 14:36. Did Christianity come our of Corinth? was its original among you? Or, if not, is it now limited and confined to you? are you the only church favoured with divine revelations, that you will depart from the decent usages of all other churches, and, to make ostentation of your spiritual gifts, bring confusion into Christian assemblies? How intolerably assuming is this behaviour! Pray bethink yourselves." When it was needful or proper the apostle could rebuke with all authority; and surely his rebukes, if ever, were proper here. Note, Those must be reproved and humbled whose spiritual pride and self-conceit throw Christian churches and assemblies into confusion, though such men will hardly bear even the rebukes of an apostle. 2. He lets them know that what he said to them was the command of God; nor durst any true prophet, any one really inspired, deny it (Co1 14:37): "If any man think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge, etc., nay, let him be tried by this very rule. If he will not own what I deliver on this head to be the will of Christ, he himself never had the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of Christ can never contradict itself; if it speak in me, and in them, it must speak the same things in both. If their revelations contradict mine, they do not come from the same Spirit; either I or they must be false prophets. By this therefore you may know them. If they say that my directions in this matter are no divine commandments, you may depend upon it they are not divinely inspired. But if any continue after all, through prejudice or obstinacy, uncertain or ignorant whether they or I speak by the Spirit of God, they must be left under the power of this ignorance. If their pretences to inspiration can stand in competition with the apostolical character and powers which I have, I have lost all my authority and influence; and the persons who allow of this competition against me are out of the reach of conviction, and must be left to themselves." Note, It is just with God to leave those to the blindness of their own minds who wilfully shut out the light. Those who would be ignorant in so plain a case were justly left under the power of their mistake. 3. He sums up all in two general advices: - (1.) That though they should not despise the gift of tongues, nor altogether disuse it, under the regulations mentioned, yet they should prefer prophesying. This is indeed the scope of the whole argument. It was to be preferred to the other, because it was the more useful gift. (2.) He charges them to let all things be done decently and in order (Co1 14:40), that is, that they should avoid every thing that was manifestly indecent and disorderly. Not that they should hence take occasion to bring into the Christian church and worship any thing that a vain mind might think ornamental to it, or that would help to set it off. Such indecencies and disorders as he had remarked upon were especially to be shunned. They must do nothing that was manifestly childish (Co1 14:20), or that would give occasion to say they were mad (Co1 14:23), nor must they act so as to breed confusion, Co1 14:33. This would be utterly indecent; it would make a tumult and mob of a Christian assembly. But they were to do things in order; they were to speak one after another, and not all at once; take their turns, and not interrupt one another. To do otherwise was to destroy the end of a Christians ministry, and all assemblies for Christian worship. Note, Manifest indecencies and disorders are to be carefully kept out of all Christian churches, and every part of divine worship. They should have nothing in them that is childish, absurd, ridiculous, wild, or tumultuous; but all parts of divine worship should be carried on in a manly, grave, rational, composed, and orderly manner. God is not to be dishonoured, nor his worship disgraced, by our unbecoming and disorderly performance of it and attendance at it.

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

1Co_14:36-38

What?

came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Resistance to the Divine order in the Church

I. Proceeds from the overweening opinion a man has of his own enlightenment, or of his superiority to others.

II. Will never be offered by a truly spiritual man. He acknowledges the supreme authority of Gods Word.

III. If persisted in through wilful ignorance, incurs a tremendous responsibility. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

How the gospel came to Britain

This case is cited by Paul to check the arrogance of the Corinthians, and we may very properly apply it to ours. The Word of God came unto us, and did not go out from us.

I. The affecting nature of the memento. That the Word of God should have come unto us at all, demands peculiar gratitude. Scarcely reckoned among the nations, our island seemed flung into the ocean of nature. That we should have been forgotten by the apostles would be no great wonder. We were out of their path. What was such a spot as this when churches were rising in Rome, etc.? It is probable, however, that Britain was visited before the apostles death; for in one place he rejoices that the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven. And who can say that the prophetic John heard no notes from Albion in the song of all nations which was presented before the throne? Caesar armed his galleys, and came upon us. But he was only the breaker up before a most glorious influence. With nearly the promptitude of Caesar, Christianity came, it saw, it conquered! It was, no doubt, brought to us by a missionary given wholly to the work. No marble marks his name; but we cannot help exclaiming, How beautiful upon the mountains were his feet! etc.

II. This subject gives rise to some very interesting inquiries.

1. Upon what impressions of our state did these missionaries act? Enough of our country was known to assure them that a monstrous superstition prevailed among us. Some would say, Why disturb this people? They worship God according to their long established custom; there is a mine of philosophy in their legends; they are harmless and simple, happy and content; they have the means of improvement, if they desire it; the system you would introduce is very well for us, but it is net suited to them; besides, they seek not your interference; they might as properly bring their religion to you, as you take yours to them. But there were men (and all generations shall call them blessed) who took a very different view of the state of our aborigines. However interesting a people we might be, they knew that we were idolaters: that, however the emblems of our worship might be interpreted, the majority looked to the emblems alone, and that the fire, trees, etc., were actually worshipped; that children and captives were crowded into wicker figures and burned; that the priests were vile impostors and jugglers; that the system was a sort of parricide on reason, and nature, and God; that it was the prolific source of all evil, the conjunction of all vices. Therefore they fearlessly launched on the deep to visit us, and we know that their entrance was not in vain.

2. Under what obligations were these missionaries laid? No spirit bade them go forth, nothing doubting. But a weight of responsibility pressed upon them; they had received the gospel; a commission had been given them to preach it to all. They were always ready to obey the Saviour. Some might think their labours should be confined at home; frivolity would simper; friendship would dissuade; prudence would calculate; the whole mind would shrink at the idea of danger. But a feeling of duty was paramount; and what they did, they did heartily, as unto the Lord. But, if they did what it was only their duty to do, how gross is our neglect!

3. By what feelings were these missionaries inspired? Avarice and ambition fed not their flame. It was charity in its pure sublime--a charity which never failed. Their business was not with civilisation and science; but the soul was their grand concern, because they knew its source, its danger, and its destiny.

4. With what means were these missionaries furnished? It is not very probable that they were furnished with miraculous powers. They had no red-cross banners, no pealing litany, etc.; but by them the Word of God came to us.

5. To what sufferings were these missionaries exposed? They must have had a variety of perils to encounter. From the necks of endeared friends they were torn asunder. How did the druid scowl at them and the multitude clamour for them as a sacrifice! Probably some came to a violent death. (R. W. Hamilton, D. D.)

The reason for missions

The text reminds us--

I. Of our obligations.

1. Missionaries came first to us.

2. Consider their impressions, obligations, motives, means, sufferings.

II. Of our duty.

1. To send the gospel to others, who have equal need, equal claims.

2. We have the ability to do it.

3. Are under equal obligation.

4. Possess the same motives. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.--

St. Pauls authority

History repeats itself. Modern heresies are only ancient errors. It is the fashion now, as it was at Corinth, to repudiate the apostles authority and to claim the right to criticise his teaching. The cry then was, Not Paul, but Peter or Apollos; now it is not Paul, but Christ. Consider St. Pauls authority--

I. In itself.

1. Its nature. Nothing can be plainer than that the words, The things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord, are a claim to Divine authority. His critics must therefore choose one of three theories.

(1) Imposture. But chap. 13. is sufficient to refute that.

(2) Madness. But this Epistle could not have been written by any other than a sane man--a man whose mind was as clear as his purpose was honest.

(3) Truth. No honest or intelligent man could have preferred the claim of our text had it not been true. If true, then St. Pauls words carry the same weight as the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount.

2. Its basis. He wrote the commandments of the Lord--i.e., those which came from the Lord by direct inspiration, for they are not quotations from previous revelations.

(1) Joh_14:25-26; Joh_15:12-13 are a declaration at once of the incompleteness of Christs personal teaching and a promise of fuller instruction under the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The apostles were to know more than Christ had taught them after He had gone. To compare, therefore, the apostles teaching with that of our Lords to the disparagement of the former is simply to repudiate the authority of Christ. Jesus only began to teach personally (Act_1:1). His perfected teaching was through the apostles after Pentacost.

(2) Was Paul among the number? This Epistle is a triumphant answer to that question (cf. 1Co_15:1-3 with Gal_1:1; Gal_1:11-16)

. Again, this is blasphemy, insanity, or truth. If the last, then St. Pauls teaching by the terms of his Masters declaration was on a level with his own.

3. Its independence (verse 38). The apostle felt that any denial of his claim was based upon wilful and invincible ignorance, and with that he would have no further controversy. And this scathing satire loses none of its severity in its modern application. We have no fear that St. Pauls authority, with all the precious teaching which rests upon it, will be shaken. What has been finely said of Christianity as a whole may be said of it: This anvil has been well beaten, but it has worn out many hammers.

II. As a test.

1. Of fitness to teach. If any man think himself a prophet, etc. There was no arrogance in this. St. Paul knew that he had been put in trust with the gospel, and that he had faithfully transmitted the sacred deposit. To repudiate his authority, therefore, was to claim the liberty to tamper with Divine revelation and to imperil the souls of men. Many who thought themselves prophets did this with the disastrous results recorded in this Epistle. No man is fit to play the role of prophet who is not prepared to declare all the counsel of God. But this he cannot do if he shuns to declare any of the commandments of the Lord as delivered by Paul.

2. Of spirituality. If any man think himself to be spiritual (cf. 1Co_3:1-2)

. No small amount of the carnal-mindedness of the Corinthians is due to their repudiation of Pauls teaching. Puffed up with vanity and conceit they rejected the commandments of the Lord and became a law unto themselves. Hence their divisions, contentions, laxity, error. The same test may be applied with unerring accuracy in this and every age. The spiritually minded, with rare exceptions, have been those who have acknowledged that the things which Paul wrote are the commandments of the Lord. (J. W. Burn.)

But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Abandonment to ignorance

Paul humbled himself, but magnified his office. Personally he was less than the least of all saints; officially he was not behind the chiefest apostles. But there were those in Corinth who acknowledged neither his authority nor that of any but themselves, and so the apostle knew that his judgment would not go unchallenged.

I. Opinionatedness and ignorance often go together. A little experience convinces us that those who cling the most tenaciously to their own opinions and habits are not men of the soundest judgment. To resist evidence and authority is no sign of intellectual power. Some are obstinate because blind to all but what is acceptable to their own prejudices.

II. There are those whom no evidence can convince and no authority overawe. If all men were candid and followed the light of reason, human life and society would be different. Men love darkness rather than light, etc. Young and sanguine ministers often begin with the persuasion that they have only to place the truth fairly before men in order to their conviction and conversion; but experience soon shows that there is a moral obduracy which is proof against all efforts.

III. It may be wise to abandon to their loved ignorance those who will not be enlightened. A benevolent mind will be slow to adopt this course, and never without the hope and prayer that God will use some other methods. But even He seems to act upon this principle, at all events, for a season and purpose. Ephraim is joined to his idols: let him alone.

IV. There is better employment for Christian labourers than the endeavours to enlighten the invincibly ignorant. There are the young, the candid, the earnest and prayerful, all anxious for light. Here, then, is abundant scope for effort. Why spend time in tilling the rock when there is virgin soil?

V. There is a probation and a judgment of God to which such characters must needs be left. The Christian labourer must remember that he is not the governor of the world. This reflection will not harden his heart against the unbelieving; he will leave such in the hands of the All-Wise and the All-Merciful. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)

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

1Co 14:36-38. What! came the word of God out from you? — Are ye of Corinth, the first church in the world, by whose example all others should be modelled? Or came it unto you only? — Are you the only Christian society that has received the true gospel? If not, conform herein to the custom of all the churches. These questions the apostle asks, to cut off every pretence for women’s teaching in the church. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual — Endowed with any extraordinary gift of the Spirit; let him acknowledge, &c. — Let him prove that he is indeed under the influence of the Divine Spirit, by his submission and obedience to these determinations, and confess that the things that I now write unto you are the commandments of the Lord — Dictated by inspiration from him. But if any man be ignorant — Or affect to appear uncertain about the truth of what I write; let him be ignorant — Let him remain so, and abide the consequences of his ignorance, whether real or affected.

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

e. A silencer upon all rebellion against the apostolic directions in these three chapters, 1Co_14:36-40.

36. What—The abrupt exclamation seems to aim at some surprising revolt heard of by Paul, as coming from some rebellious Corinthians against his authoritative regulations.

From you… or… unto you—Did you originate Christianity, or are you only its receivers from Jerusalem, from the universal Churches and from your founder-apostle?

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

14:36-37 Paul expected the Corinthians to take his apostolic word seriously, as a command from the Lord himself. • What I am saying probably refers to all of his teaching, especially as it relates to spiritual gifts.

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

1Co 14:36. ἢ, ἢ) Latin an—an? [which is used in the second part of a disjunctive interrogation] You, Corinthians, (likewise you, Romans) are neither first nor alone. But women are also elsewhere silent.

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

1Co_14:36. The ἤ joins on to what is immediately before prescribed, not to the previous directions in general (de Wette, Osiander, et al.). It is disgraceful for a woman to speak in public, unless, perhaps, you were the first or the only Christian church, in which cases then, doubtless, your custom would show that disgracefulness to be a mistake, and would authorize as becoming the speaking of women by way of an example for other churches! μὴ τοίνυν τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀρκείσθε, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν νομοθεσίαις ἀκολουθεῖτε, Theodoret; but the point of the expression, as against the Corinthian haughtiness, is very palpabl.

αἰσχρόν] ἐπειδὴ καλλωπίζεσθαι ἐντεῦθεν ἐνόμιζον ἐκ τοῦ φθέγγεσθαι δημοσίᾳ, πάλιν εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον περιάγει τὸν λόγον, Chrysostom. Comp. 1Co_11:5 f. Paul is decided against all undue exaltation and assumption on the part of women in religious things, and it has been the occasion of much evil in the church.

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 14:36 . The Ap. adds the authority of Christian usage to that of natural instinct ( cf. the connexion of 1Co 10:14 ; 1Co 10:16 ), in a tone of indignant protest: “Or (is it) from you (that) the word of God went out? or to you only did it reach?” i.e. , “Neque primi, neque soli estis Christiani” (Est.). The Cor [2204] acted without thinking of any but themselves, as though they were the one Church in the world, or might set the fashion to all the rest (see note on 1Co 1:2 b ; also 33 above, and 1Co 11:16 ). For the self-sufficiency of this church, cf. 1Co 4:6 ff., 1Co 5:2 . On καταντάω εἰς , see 1Co 10:11 . ἢ links this ver. with the foregoing, “Or (if what I have said is not sufficient), etc.”

[2204] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

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

Vv. 36-38. “Or, indeed, came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or inspired, let him acknowledge that what I write unto you is from the Lord. 38. But if any man be ignorant of it, let him be ignorant.”

The ἤ, or (1Co 14:36), signifies, as usual with Paul at the beginning of a question: “Or, indeed, if you will not admit what I say.” For the two following questions, the apostle returns to the idea with which he had introduced the subject of the speaking of women: As in all the Churches...(1Co 14:33 b). “Or are you the mother Church in which the preaching of the gospel took its rise, and from which it spread through the world?” In that case one could understand how the Corinthians could affect complete independence. “Or are you the only Church among the Gentiles to which it has come?” In that case the claim to follow a course alone, and at their own pleasure, would also be intelligible. These two questions are somewhat sarcastic, as happens when one wishes to bring down presumption. The same is the case with the following verses. The apostle knows that there are leaders on the spot, who, in rivalry with him, claim to derive authority only from the Lord and from the immediate inspiration of the Spirit. Hence 1Co 14:37.

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.

1Co_14:36

What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

That is, Are you the mother church? or are you the only church? The word of God here means the gospel. Paul means to ask, whether the gospel took its rise in Corinth? The disregard which the people of that church manifested for the customs of their sister churches seemed to evince an assuming and arrogant temper. They acted as though they were entitled to be independent, if not to prescribe the law to others. Paul takes the authority of the church for granted. He assumes that any thing contrary to the general sentiment and practice of the people of God is wrong. This he does because he understands by the church the body of Christ, those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, and whose character and conduct are controlled and governed by his influence.

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

A general conclusion of the treatise of the right use of spiritual gifts in assemblies: with a sharp reprehension, lest the Corinthians might alone seem to themselves to be wise.

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

What!--Greek, "Or." Are you about to obey me? Or, if you set up your judgment above that of other churches. I wish to know, do you pretend that your church is the first church FROM which the gospel word came, that you should give the law to all others? Or are you the only persons In, fro whom it has come?

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 36. Came the word of God out from you?] Was it from you that other Churches received the Gospel? Are you the mother Church? that you should have rules, and orders, and customs, different from all others; and set yourselves up for a model to be copied by all the Churches of Christ?

Or came it unto you only?] Are you the only Church of God? Are there not many others founded before you that have no such customs, and permit no such disorders?

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

36 Did the word of God come out from you? This is a somewhat sharper reproof, but nothing more than was needful for beating down the haughtiness of the Corinthians. They were, beyond measure, self-complacent. They could not endure that either themselves, or what belonged to them, should be found fault with in anything. He asks, accordingly, whether they are the only Christians in the world; nay, farther, whether they are the first, or are to be the last? “Did the word of God,” says he, “come out from you?” that is, “Did it originate with you?” “Has it ended with you?” that is, “Will it spread no farther?” The design of the admonition is this — that they may not, without having any regard to others, please themselves in their own contrivances or customs. And this is a doctrine of general application; for no Church should be taken up with itself exclusively, to the neglect of others; but on the contrary, they ought all, in their turn, to hold out the right hand to each other, in the way of cherishing mutual fellowship, and accommodating themselves to each other, in so far as a regard to harmony requires.

But here it is asked, whether every Church, according as it has had the precedence of another in the order of time, has it also in its power to bind it to observe its institutions. For Paul seems to intimate this in what he says. For example, Jerusalem was the mother of all the Churches, inasmuch as the word of the Lord had come out from it Was she then at liberty to assume to herself a superior right, so as to bind all others to follow her? I answer, that Paul here does not employ an argument of universal application, but one that was specially applicable to the Corinthians, as is frequently the case. He had, therefore, an eye to individuals, rather than to the thing itself. Hence it does not necessarily follow, that Churches that are of later origin must be bound to observe, in every point, the institutions of the earlier ones, inasmuch as even Paul himself did not bind himself by this rule, so as to obtrude upon other Churches the customs that were in use at Jerusalem. Let there be nothing of ambition — let there be nothing of obstinacy — let there be nothing of pride and contempt for other Churches — let there be, on the other hand, a desire to edify — let there be moderation and prudence; and in that case, amidst a diversity of observances, there will be nothing that is worthy of reproof.

Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that the haughtiness of the Corinthians is here reproved, who, concerned for themselves exclusively, showed no respect to the Churches of earlier origin, from which they had received the gospel, and did not endeavor to accommodate themselves to other Churches, to which the gospel had flowed out from them. Would to God that there were no Corinth in our times, in respect of this fault, as well as of others! But we see how savage men, who have never tasted the gospel, (Hebrews 6:5,) trouble the Churches of the saints by a tyrannical enforcement of their own laws.

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.

(36) What?—The church at Corinth had on some of these points acted at variance with the practice of the other churches, and in a manner which assumed an independence of St. Paul’s apostolic authority. He therefore asks them, with something of sarcastic indignation, whether they are the source from whence the word of God has come, or whether they think themselves its sole recipients, that they should set themselves above the other churches, and above him?

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

36. What? came the word of God out from you?] The self-assertion of the Corinthians was so great that they needed to be reminded that they had received the doctrine of Christ through the ministry of St Paul, and that it had not originated among themselves.

or came it unto you only?] i.e. to you alone. They owed a duty, not only to those who had preached the gospel to them, but to other Churches, whose example could not be safely neglected. See note on 1Co_14:33.

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.

But if any man be ignorant,.... Of "these" words, as the Arabic version adds, and does not know and own them to be the commandments of Christ; though he may profess himself to be a prophet, or a spiritual man, he is a very ignorant one, and has not the Spirit of God he pretends to: and if he will not be convinced, but goes on to doubt, and call in question the truth of these things, and obstinately persist in his ignorance,

let him be ignorant: let him be treated and despised as an ignorant man; and let his ignorance be no hinderance to any in receiving these rules and directions as the commandments of Christ; for no regard is to be had, or pity shown, to a man of affected ignorance, and wilful obstinacy; such a man is not to be known and owned, but shunned and rejected.

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

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Ver. 36. What? came the word, &c.] As if he should say (and he saith it with some displeasure), Are ye the first, or the only Christians? are ye too good to be admonished? take heed lest your arrogance and high spiritedness lay you low enough, even in that slimy valley, Job 21:31-32.

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.

What! came the word of God out from you? - The meaning of this is, “Is the church at Corinth the “mother church?” Was it first established; or has it been alone in sending forth the Word of God? You have adopted customs which are unusual. You have permitted women to speak in a manner unknown to other churches; see 1Co 11:16. You have admitted irregularity and confusion unknown in all the others. You have allowed many to speak at the same time, and have tolerated confusion and disorder. Have you any “right” thus to differ from others? Have you any authority, as it were, to dictate to them, to teach them, contrary to their uniform custom, to allow these disorders? Should you not rather be conformed to them, and observe the rules of the churches which are older than yours?” The “argument” here is, that the church at Corinth was “not” the first that was established; that it was one of the “last” that had been founded; and that it could, therefore, claim no right to differ from others, or to prescribe to them. The same argument is employed in 1Co 11:16; see Note.

Or came it unto you only? - As you are not the first of those who believed, neither are you the only ones. God has sent the same gospel to others, and it is traveling over the world. Others, therefore, have the same right as you to originate customs and special habits; and as this would be attended with confusion and disorder, you should all follow the same rule, and the customs which do not prevail in other churches should not be allowed in yours.

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

Did the word of God first come out from you? This he says, to check these new preachers, by putting them in mind, that they are not the first, nor the only Christians, and so must conform themselves to the discipline practised in other Churches, especially since, as their apostle, he hath delivered them the commandments of the Lord. And if any man know not, will not acknowledge, and follow these rules, he shall not be known; God will not know, nor approve his ways. The pretended reformers, from the expressions with which the apostle blames the abuse some new converts made of the gift of tongues, think they have found a plausible argument to reprehend Catholic, for using the same Latin tongue in the Mass, and in the public liturgy. They consider not, whether they have the same reasons to find fault with the present discipline of the Church, as St. Paul then had to blame the Corinthians: whether the circumstances be the same or different: they think it enough that Latin, which is used in the Mass, is a language not understood by a great many ignorant people, and therefore they can say with St. Paul, that an idiot, or an unlearned man, knows not when to say Amen to what he hears. Two things offer themselves here to the consideration of every man, who is disposed to judge impartially. 1. Whether the same reasons and motives now subsist for blaming the Catholics. 2ndly, whether the conveniences and inconveniences, duly examined, it be found more commendable to perform the public liturgy, in those, which are the most general languages, as in Latin or Greek, or to have all liturgies turned into as many tongues, as the ignorant people understand and speak in different places. As to the first, St. Paul does not absolutely forbid the use of this gift of tongues, that were not understood, even by any one (as hath been already observed). All that he blames is, that many, who valued themselves on this gift, spoke at the same time altogether strange tongues, which none understood, but those who had another gift of the Spirit, called the interpretation of speeches, on which account in these meetings there was nothing but confusion, without any profit, edification, or instruction, at a time, and in such circumstances, when instructions were absolutely necessary, both for the new converted Christians, and also for the infidels, who flocked thither as much as the Christians. The case is now quite different, when none but Catholics meet, (especially at the Mass) who have been instructed from their infancy, what they are to believe, as to the mysteries of faith, and what they ought to practise, as to the commandments, the sacraments, prayer, and other points, which they have in their catechisms, or which have been delivered to them by catechetical discourses and instructions. And if they have been happily converted, or are upon their conversion, they are always carefully instructed in the tongue which they understand, as to what they ought to believe, and in the duties of a Christian life. Besides this, all present are frequently instructed by sermons and exhortations, not only on Sundays and holidays, but daily in Advent and Lent, as it is the custom in Catholic countries. I know some of our adversaries have been persuaded, that we preach in Latin to the people; to be convinced of the contrary, let them come and hear us; it is the worst I wish them. As to the sacrifice of the Mass, which none but they who are priests, can offer for the people, of which also a great part, according to the institution of the Church, as the Council of Trent observes, (session 22. cap. 5.) is said with a low voice: it is not performed in Latin in the Western Church, or in Greek in the East, that the meaning of the words may be concealed, since the same Council has laid an express injunction upon all pastors, and upon all that have care of souls, that they frequently, and especially on Sundays, and holidays, expound to the people, what is contained in the Mass, to wit, the parts, and the ceremonies. See 22nd session, cap. 8.) And this command is again repeated, (session 24. cap. 7.) that they instruct the people in their mother tongue concerning the divine mysteries and sacraments. All that can read, may find the Mass translated into their own language, and the most ignorant are taught and instructed, that by the different parts are represented the death and sufferings of our Saviour, Christ: they are taught how to offer up at the same time their intention, their heart, and their prayers: to confess themselves sinners before God, as the priest does, how they ought to endeavour to praise, and adore Christ with the blessed spirits in heaven; how they ought to beg graces of God, by saying the Lord’s prayer; how they ought, at the same time, at least in spirit and desire, to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist, with a sincere repentance, with humility and devotion. Cannot all things, then, be done to edification, as St. Paul requires, though the words of the Mass, and public liturgy, be in a language which the ignorant do not understand, but which, of all others, is the most general! Now the second thing to be examined is, whether, all things duly considered, it be better to retain the public Church-offices in Latin, and in those ancient dead languages, as they are called, or to turn the liturgy into as many tongues, as are spoken in different places and countries! Our adversaries, by this new alteration which they have made, have good against the judgment of all Christian Churches, both in the West and East, and in all parts of the world. For as Mons. Simon takes notice, in his Critics, all other Churches (the Protestant only excepted) have judged it expedient, to stick to the words and languages of their ancient liturgies, the Grecians to the ancient Greek, which now the ignorant among them do not understand; the like is to be said of the ancient Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, &c. And it is also observed, that the Israelites continued the reading of the law and the prophets, in the ancient Hebrew, which the common people of the Jews did not understand after their return from the Babylonian captivity. It is well known that Latin in this part of the world, is more generally spread and known, than any other language whatsoever. It is taught every where in all public schools. It is learnt, not only by the ministers of the Church, but by almost all gentlemen, and by persons of all conditions, the poorer sort only excepted. There is this great convenience, that the same priest can perform all the public Church-offices, in all places and kingdoms where he travels. All the faithful, whithersoever they have occasion to go, meet with the same Mass, and liturgy in the same words abroad, which they were accustomed to hear at home. The same uniformity is every where preserved without change or confusion. But according to the method introduced by the Protestants, the liturgy must be changed into as many different tongues, as there are countries and places, and in almost every century, as we see by experience, languages are liable and subject to considerable changes and alterations. From hence arises a danger of changes, as to the doctrine and belief of the faithful: errors and heresies are the consequences, that follow such frequent changes, especially, when by another false principle of the said reformers, every private man and woman has a right to expound the hard and obscure place of the holy Scriptures, which make up the chief and greatest part of all public liturgies in all Christian Churches. I might ask of the Protestants, whether the ignorant people at lest, and idiots, as St. Paul calls them, understand the meaning of the Psalms, when they are sung in Hopkins’s rhymes; though they may perhaps know when to say Amen, with the rest. Nor yet does every ignorant man know what the word itself, Amen, signifies, and therefore knows not what he answers. I cannot but here take notice of an unfair way of proceeding, even in the best Protestant translation, by sometimes adding in this chapter the word unknown, and sometimes omitting it. All Catholics are willing to allow, that by the gift of speaking tongues, St. Paul means tongues unknown, though the word unknown is not found so much as once, neither in the Latin, nor even so much as in any one Greek manuscript. The Protestant translators, for tongues, have put unknown tongues, in all the verses, where St. Paul blames the abuse of this gift; to wit, ver. 2. 4. 13. 14. 19. 27. but they make now such addition, where St. Paul either commends, or permits the speaking in tongues not understood, as ver. 5. where he says, I would have you to speak tongues; and ver. 29. where he says, forbid not to speak tongues. It is evident, that there is the very same reason for the addition, or the omission equally in all these verses. Is this to translate faithfully? I would by no means judge rashly, even of any adversary; but it looks as if both the addition and omission was with a design of making this popular objection seem to be of greater force against this point of discipline, and practice of the Catholics, and indeed of all Christian Churches. (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).

These words look like a smart reflection upon divers members of this church of Corinth, who thought themselves wiser than all the world besides; and the apostle might foresee, that out of the high opinion they had of themselves they would much contemn and slight his directions. He therefore asks them, what they thought of themselves? Whether they thought themselves the only churches in the world, or were the first that believed in Christ, so that the gospel went out from them, and they might give law to all churches? There were churches at Jerusalem, and in several other places, before there was any church at Corinth, so as the gospel came unto them from other churches, and did not go out from them to other churches.

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

Vers. 36-40. Appeal and summary.

What? An indignant exclamation. Came the word of God out from you? Are you the authors of the Christian system, that you are to lay down rules about it? No rebuke was too strong for the pretensions of these Corinthians. Or came it unto you only? Is no one to be considered but yourselves? Have you no respect for Christian custom? end that when you were by no means the first Gentile Church in Europe? (1Th_1:8)

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

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

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

These words are looked upon by interpreters as a smart reflection upon some of the ministers and members of the church at Corinth; who from a high opinion which they had of themselves and their own management, would not submit to the foregoing precepts, canons, and rules, for order and decency in the church of God. What, says the apostle, do you think that you have all the word and will of God? Doth all knowledge of scripture, and resolution of doubts, rest in your breasts, and flow out of your lips? Consider, you are not the first church that was planted, (Jerusalem was before you,) the gospel was sent to you, it did not come out first from you.

Whence learn, That all kind of scorn is not always uncomely: men are apt to overrate themselves, and to overvalue their own abilities, as if they had engrossed all knowledge, that all must borrow from their store, and light their candle at their torch. Now in that case we may, without breach of charity, or blemish of holiness, check pride with derision; and speak them below men, who set themselves up above men.

Observe next, The apostle affirms, that these rules for order and decency which he had given them, were from the Lord; and he expected and required, that those who esteemed themselves prophets, should observe and obey them as such. But if men will be ignorant, and obstinate in their ignorance, be it at their peril, and let them look to it; do not you regard them: If any be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

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

36. “Whether did the word of God come out from you, or has it culminated unto you alone?” This verse is castigatory of their irregularities, ironically charging them with the disposition to originate and run a new order of things, and at the same time vindicatory of his apostolic authority to correct all of their irregularities.

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

What? [An exclamation of indignation] was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? [Becoming puffed up by the fullness of their spiritual gifts, the Corinthians were acting as if they were the parent church and only church. They were assuming the right to set precedent and dictate customs, when it was their duty to conform to the precedents and customs established before they came into existence. Their pretensions needed this indignant rebuke. Others were to be considered besides themselves, others who had sounded out the word which they had received-- 1Th_1:8 ].

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.

36. What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? A rebuke. The Corinthian church must receive instruction, not give it. It did not send out the word of God, but the word of God was sent to it.

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.

36. ἢ ἀφ’ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος. The emphasis is upon ἀφ’ ὑμῶν. ‘Was it from you that the Word of God originally came,’ that you take upon yourselves the task of setting an example to other Churches?

ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; Or did it reach you alone? so that you have no concern with what is the custom elsewhere. It is not to be supposed that in minor matters Christian communities had not the right of ordering their own rites as seemed to them best. As a matter of fact they soon began to do so, as the number and variety of ancient Liturgies fully prove. But there are certain matters of principle which must be laid down as fundamental. And this is one of them.

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.

36-40.] General Conclusion: the unseemliness and absurdity of their pretending to originate customs unknown to other churches, as if the word of God first went forth from them: and the enforcement of his apostolic authority. Then, a summary in a few words of the purport of what he has said on the spiritual gifts, and a repetition, in another form, of the fundamental precept, ver. 26.

36.] I cannot agree with Meyer in referring this only to the regulation concerning women which has preceded. It rather seems to refer to all the points of church custom which he has been noticing, and to be inseparably connected with what follows,—the recognition of his apostolic orders, as those of God.

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

36. Ἤ ἀφʼ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; ‘What? was it from you that the word of God came forth? or was it to you alone that it reached?’ The AV. has three inaccuracies: (1) a false accent is thrown on to the prepositions ‘from’ and ‘unto,’ as if the two questions gave two alternatives; (2) ἒξῆλθεν and κατήντησεν are both rendered ‘came’; (3) μόνους is rendered ‘only,’ which is ambiguous. The meaning is, ‘Were you the starting-point of the Gospel? or were you its only destination? Do you mean to contend that you have the right to maintain these irregularities? women discarding veils in public worship, people getting drunk at the Supper, people speaking in Tongues and no one interpreting, prophets refusing to give place to one another, women claiming to prophesy and ask questions in public worship? If you defend such scandals as these, one can only suppose that you claim to be the Α and Ω of the Gospel, the fount and reservoir of all Church teaching, the starting-point and the goal of all Church discipline.’* Compare ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ κατάντημα αὐτοῦ (Psa 19:6); and see J. A. Robinson on Eph 4:13. For Corinthian assumption of independence see 4:6, 5:2.

We cannot infer from εἰς ὑμᾶς being used rather than πρὸς ὑμᾶς that the idea of “entering as it were into them” is included; for εἰς is the regular construction after καταντάω (10:11; Eph 4:13; Php 3:2); also in the literal sense of arriving at a place (Act 16:1, Act 16:18:19, Act 16:24, etc.). In the N.T. the verb is peculiar to Acts and St Paul. Nor must we infer that, if Corinth had been the Mother-Church, the Apostle would have allowed that it had the right to sanction such things. His sarcastic argument is that they seem to be claiming a monstrous amount of authority and independence. The verse sums up his indignation.

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