Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

1 Corinthians 12-14

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    1 Corinthians 14:30-31

    Text: (NA27):
    ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ, ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω. δύνασθε γὰρ καθ᾿ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται.

    Transliteration (Accordance):
    ean de allō̧ apokalyphthȩ̄ kathēmenō̧, ho prōtos sigatō. dynasthe gar kath’ hena pantes prophēteuein, hina pantes manthanōsin kai pantes parakalōntai.

    Translation (RSV):
    If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged

    Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
    ἀποκαλυφθῇ : a revelation is made, aorist passive subjunctive of ἀποκαλύπτω reveal.
    καθημένῳ : participle of κάθημαι sit, ἄλλῳ καθημένῳ to another sitting by.
    καθ᾿ ἕνα : one by one.
    προφητεύειν : infinitive of προφητεύω prophesy.
    μανθάνωσιν : subjunctive of μανθάνω learn.
    παρακαλῶνται : passive subjunctive of παρακαλέω encourage.

    Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
    30-31 These two sentences offer a further guideline for this gift, so that everything will be “done in a fitting and orderly way” (verse 40). The requirement seems to be aimed at those who might tend to dominate the meeting, although that is not certain. In any case, Paul presupposes that while one is speaking, “a revelation [may come] to someone who is sitting down.” The use of the verb “reveal” in this context suggests that for Paul this was the essential character of what was spoken in a prophecy. See on verses 6, 24–25, and 26. When this happens then “the first speaker,” meaning the one already speaking, “should stop.” The grounds for such a regulation will be given in verse 32; neither the tongues-speaker nor the prophet is out of control.

    The “for” that begins verse 31 may be either explanatory, offering an elucidation of what has just been said, or causal, giving its reason. In either case, Paul now offers a justification for the preceding regulation: “you can all prophesy in turn.” As noted above, (1) “all” does not mean that everyone has this gift; the implication is that it is potentially available to everyone; and (2) this language makes almost no sense at all if he is referring to what should take place over several different meetings; the concern throughout, beginning with the verb “you assemble” in verse 26, is with what takes place in a given gathering.

    The appeal is both to self-control and to deference. It is difficult to imagine two people prophesying simultaneously. But since they apparently were doing so with tongues, this at least anticipates their also doing so with prophecy as well perhaps as keeping it in the category of “controlled” speech in contrast to pagan varieties.

    The reason for such orderliness is given in a final purpose clause. Paul is emphatic: “All may prophesy, so that all may be instructed and all may be encouraged.” As in chapter 12, and again in verse 26 with which this paragraph began, this reflects a concern for edification in which everyone contributes. Since the whole of the divine revelation is not given to just one or a few or in simply one kind of manifestation the concern is that all, including those who speak prophetically, should learn from and be encouraged or exhorted by what the Spirit has given to others. The result of such orderliness, therefore, is that the opening exhortation is fulfilled, that “everything be done for the edification of the church” (verse 26).

    Comment


    • #77
      1 Corinthians 14:32

      Text: (NA27):
      καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται.

      Transliteration (Accordance):
      καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται.

      Translation (RSV):
      and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

      Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
      πνεύματα : plural of πνεῦμα spirit.
      ὑποτάσσεται : passive of ὑποτάσσω subject ; passive be under the control of (dative).

      Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
      32 With this crucial sentence Paul offers his justification for the preceding regulations of the activities of both speaking in tongues and prophesying. Along with its theological basis given in the next verse, these two sentences bring this section to a fitting conclusion. With these words Paul lifts Christian “inspired speech” out of the category of “ecstasy” as such and offers it as a radically different thing from the mania of the pagan cults. There is no seizure here, no loss of control; the speaker is neither frenzied nor a babbler. If tongues is not intelligible, it is nonetheless inspired utterance and completely under the control of the speaker. So too with prophecy.

      As noted earlier, the phrase “spirits of prophets” means “the prophetic Spirit” by which each of them speaks through his or her own spirit. Paul’s point is that the utterances are subject to the speakers in terms of timing; the content is understood to be the product of the Divine Spirit who inspires such utterances. Thus he justifies their speaking one at a time, being silent with regard to tongues when no interpreter [see below -JR] is present, and ceasing for the sake of another when a prophetic revelation is given to someone else. All of this is possible because “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.”

      Apparently, Fee is unaware of, or disagrees with, or decided not to mention, Thiselton's exegesis of the terms ἑρμηνευτής ("interpreter" [Fee] or "one who gives articulate expression to what is spoken in tongues" [Thiselton]) and ἑρμηνεία ("interpretation" [Fee] or "articulate expression of what is spoken in tongues" [Thiselton]). Fee's comment in his original/first edition (above) is unchanged in the 2014 second edition. I am inclined to accept Thiselton's exegesis.

      Comment


      • #78
        1 Corinthians 14:33

        Text: (NA27):
        οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης.

        Transliteration (Accordance):
        ou gar estin akatastasias ho theos alla eirēnēs.

        Translation (RSV):
        For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

        Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
        ἀκαταστασία : disorder, unruliness, confusion..

        Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
        33 To conclude Paul adds a significant theological justification for the foregoing guidelines. Everything has to do with the character of God and what God has already established to be true of his divine activity in the rest of the churches. First, “for God is not a God of disorder but of peace.” This sentence, along with the final appeal in verse 40, seems to corroborate the suggestion made on verse 23 that the Corinthian assembly had become unruly in its expression of tongues. Now Paul is arguing that the basis of all these instructions is ultimately theological. It has to do with the character of God, probably vis-à-vis the deities of the cults, whose worship was characterized by frenzy and disorder. The theological point is crucial: the character of one’s deity is reflected in the character of one’s worship. The Corinthians must therefore cease worship that reflects the pagan deities more than the God whom they have come to know through the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 12:2–3). God is neither characterized by disorder nor the cause of it in the assembly.

        The interesting opposite of “disorder,” however, is not quietness or propriety, or even “order,” but “peace.” Minimally this refers to the sense of harmony that will obtain in a Christian assembly when everyone is truly in the Spirit and the aim of everything is the edification of the whole (verse 26). It is tempting once again, as in 7:15 (q.v.), to see here a reflection of Paul’s Jewish background, in which God’s people are called to live, in this case worship, “for the sake of peace,” that is, in such a way as to win the favor of others.

        Second, what is true of God in terms of Christian worship is so “in all the congregations of the saints.” Because of some apparent awkwardness in speaking of God in this way, the NIV follows a number of scholars who prefer to take this final phrase with verses 34–35. But there are a number of reasons for taking it as the concluding word to these instructions on “order.” (a) As will be noted in the next section, there is substantial evidence that verses 34–35 are not authentic, and therefore that Paul could not have intended it to go with what he did not write. In any case, the very early textual evidence in the Western church indicates that this phrase was not considered to be part of verses 34–35. (b) The two rhetorical questions in verse 36, both of which begin with “or,” make best sense when understood as referring directly to this statement. That is, “All the churches of the saints are intended to be orderly as we have just described, or did the word of God originate with you?” This seems to be the proper understanding of the rhetoric of verse 36, even if verses 34–35 are authentic. (c) To take this phrase with verse 34 creates an even clumsier sentence: “As in all the churches of the saints women should remain silent in the churches.” That is a redundancy that is nearly intolerable even the NIV tries to alleviate it with a different translation for the two clauses. (d) This is now the fourth appeal of this kind in the letter (see 4:17; 7:17; 11:16); in each of the other instances this appeal concludes its sentence, and in two cases (4:17; 11:16 it functions as an addendum just as it does here. (e) Finally, and most importantly, this concern that they be like the other churches is more fitting at the conclusion of the major concern of this argument, as in chapters 1–4 and 11:2–16, than with something that if authentic is an aside at best.

        Thus, this final appeal continues the theological word with which the sentence began. God is not only like this, but he has so ordered that his character be appropriately displayed in worship in all the churches. This particular appeal, which in this letter began with the opening words of salutation (see 1:2), is an indication to the Corinthians that their view of tongues and spirituality that has allowed this kind of disorderly conduct is out of keeping with what God is doing elsewhere through the gospel. They are marching to their own drum; Paul is urging them not only to conform to the character of God, but also to get in step with the rest of his church.

        By and large the history of the church points to the fact that in worship we do not greatly trust the diversity of the body. Edification must always be the rule, and that carries with it orderliness so that all may learn and all be encouraged. But it is no great credit to the historical church that in opting for “order” it also opted for a silencing of the ministry of the many. That, it would seem, is at least the minimal point of the paragraph.

        The most important word in this paragraph is the final one. Some Pentecostal and charismatic assemblies would do well to heed these directives; confusion and disorder is simply not in keeping with the character of God. On the other hand, verse 26 makes it clear that the “peace” and “order” of verse 33 do not necessarily mean somber ritual, as though God were really something of a “stuffed shirt.” If our understanding of God’s character is revealed in our worship, then it must be admitted that God is not often thought of in terms of allowing spontaneity or of joy.

        Comment


        • #79
          1 Corinthians 14:34

          Text: (NA27):
          αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

          Transliteration (Accordance):
          hai gynaikes en tais ekklēsiais sigatōsan; ou gar epitrepetai autais lalein, alla hypotassesthōsan, kathōs kai ho nomos legei.

          Translation (RSV):
          the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

          Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
          σιγάτωσαν : 3rd plural of σιγάω say nothing, keep still, keep silent.
          ἐπιτρέπεται : passive of ἐπιτρέπω (τινί) with infinitive allow (one to)...
          λαλεῖν : infinitive of λαλέω to speak.
          ὑποτασσέσθωσαν : passive imperative of ὑποτάσσω to cause to be in a submissive relationship, to subject, to subordinate.

          Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
          34 These two verses together have a singular concern, that women “remain silent” in the congregational meetings, which is further defined as “not being permitted to speak” (verse 34) because it is “shameful” for them to do so (verse 35). The structure of the argument bears this out. It begins with “a sentence of holy law,” the absolute nature of which is very difficult to get around. Two reasons are then given for such a proscription, which are intended to be two sides of the same reality. On the one hand, “it is not permitted for them to speak”; on the other hand, “let them be in submission.” To this final reason there is added the further justification, “even as the Law says.” This is followed by the allowance that they should learn at home by asking questions of their own husbands, for which the concluding reason is that “it is shameful for them to speak in the church.” Thus:
          The rule: The women must be silent
          in the churches.
          The reasons: For
          1) It is not permitted them to speak;
          2) But let them be in submission,
          even as the Law says.
          The provision: If they wish to learn,
          let them ask their own husbands at home.
          The reasons: For
          It is shameful for a woman to speak
          in the assembly.

          Despite protests to the contrary, the “rule” itself is expressed absolutely. That is, it is given without any form of qualification. Given the unqualified nature of the further prohibition that “the women” are not permitted to speak, it is very difficult to interpret this as meaning anything else than all forms of speaking out in public. Someone apparently was concerned to note by way of a gloss that all the previous directions given by the apostle, including the inclusive “each one” of verse 26 and the “all” of verse 31, were not to be understood as including women.

          The problems with seeing this as authentic are obvious. If Paul himself is responsible for such a “corrective,” it is surprising that he should add it here, yet allow them to pray and prophesy in 11:5 and 13. What is also surprising is the sudden shift from the problem of disorder in the congregation in Corinth to a rule that is to be understood as universal for all the churches. The problem is not so much with Paul’s setting forth such a rule as with his suddenly doing so here in the present argument. Some, who have also taken verse 33b as the beginning of this sentence, have argued that “in the churches” means “in all the congregational meetings of the Corinthian church.” But that will not work. Paul invariably says “in assembly” when that is what he means; both the plural and the definite article indicate that the author (whether Paul or an interpolator) intended this to be a rule for all Christian churches. We have already noted above that this rule of unqualified silence stands in a considerably different category from the two expressions of “silence” in verses 28 and 30.

          The first reason for the rule comes in the form of a prohibition: “They are not permitted to speak.” What kind of speaking is intended depends on one’s view, both of authorship and, if authentic, of its place in the present argument. The only internal suggestion is that of verse 35, that they should ask questions at home if they wish to learn. If authentic, this unqualified use of the verb seems to tell against the probability that only a single form of speech is being prohibited. Elsewhere Paul has said “speak in tongues” when that is in view, and when he means “discern” he says “discern,” not “speak.” Again, as with the opening “rule,” the plain sense of the sentence is an absolute prohibition of all speaking in the assembly. This again makes sense as the glossator’s concern, but very little as Paul’s.

          More difficult yet is the flip side of the reason, namely that they “must be in submission, as the Law says.” Some have argued that “let them be in submission” refers to verse 32, that their “spirit of prophecy” is to be in submission. But that plays havoc with the grammar, which points to the women themselves as being in subjection, not to their having control over their own “prophetic spirit.” What is not clear is whether the women are to be subject to their own husbands or to the church as a whole in its worship. More likely it is the latter.

          Real problems for Pauline authorship lie with the phrase “even as the Law says.” First, when Paul elsewhere appeals to “the Law,” he always cites the text (e.g., 9:8; 14:21), usually to support a point he himself is making. Nowhere else does he appeal to the Law in this absolute way as binding on Christian behavior. More difficult yet is the fact that the Law does not say any such thing. Gen. 3:16 is often appealed to, but that text does not say what is here argued. If that were the case, then one must admit that Paul is appealing not to the written Torah itself but to an oral understanding of Torah such as is found in rabbinic Judaism. A similar usage is reflected in Josephus, who says, “The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive.” This usage suggests that the provenance of the glossator was Jewish Christianity. Under any view this is difficult to reconcile with Paul.

          The author of this piece seems intent on keeping women from joining in the vocal worship of the churches. The rule he wishes to apply he sees as universal and supported by the Law. It is difficult to fit this into any kind of Pauline context.

          Comment


          • #80
            1 Corinthians 14:35

            Text: (NA27):
            εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν· αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

            Transliteration (Accordance):
            ei de ti mathein thelousin, en oikō̧ tous idious andras eperōtatōsan; aischron gar estin gynaiki lalein en ekklēsia̧.

            Translation (RSV):
            If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

            Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
            μαθεῖν : aorist infinitive of μανθάνω learn.
            ἐν οἴκῳ : at home.
            ἴδιος : pertaining to belonging or being related to oneself, one’s own ; in Hellenistic Greek often = his, her, their.
            ἐπερωτάτωσαν : imperative of ἐπερωτάω ask one a question.
            αἰσχρός : disgrace.

            Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
            35 But the author is not against women finding their “proper place,” as he understands it, within the Christian community. The implication of this provision is twofold: First, the author assumes that the women would not understand what is being said in the community, probably with regard to the spiritual utterances being addressed in this chapter. Second, he wants them to learn, but they are to do so at home from their own husbands. It is certainly possible that for the glossator some form of asking questions was going on in the church that he wanted to stop. But that is not a necessary implication from what is said. It is also possible that this is simply a proviso: “If their wanting to learn is the reason for them to speak out, then.…”

            On the other hand, if Paul is the author, this seems yet to be the best of all the options, that some form of disruptive speaking out was going on, which then qualifies the apparent absolutes of verse 34. Nonetheless, as noted above, such a view is loaded with its own set of difficulties.

            The final reason given for their being silent in the assembly is that speaking in church, apparently for the reasons given in verse 34, is “shameful,” in the sense of being inconsistent with accepted standards of modesty. Again, as with the rule and prohibition in verse 34, the statement is unqualified: It is shameful for a woman to speak in church, not simply to speak in a certain way.

            Thus, in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic. If so, then it is certainly not binding for Christians. If not, the considerable doubts as to its authenticity ought to serve as a caution against using it as an eternal prohibition in a culture where such speaking by women in the assembly would not be a shameful thing. What seems hermeneutically questionable is the denial of all the surrounding matter as applicable to the church on prior hermeneutical grounds while selecting this single and probably inauthentic passage as a word for all time in all settings.

            Note: In Fee's second (2014) edition, he excises the entirety of verses 34-35 from the text, and places these two verses at the end of his exegesis of 1 Cor 12-14 ― at the head of a two-page small-print excursus titled On women remaining silent (14:34-35), explaining the rationale for treating the unit (14:34-35) as an inauthentic, i.e. non-Pauline, interpolation into Paul's letter. Fee notes that his first field of expertise is text-criticism, and that this matter has always been for him a text-critical issue.

            Comment


            • #81
              1 Corinthians 14:36

              Text: (NA27):
              ἢ ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;

              Transliteration (Accordance):
              ē aph’ hymōn ho logos tou theou exēlthen, ē eis hymas monous katēntēsen?

              Translation (RSV):
              What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

              Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
              : or.
              ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν : emphatic position, was it from you that?
              κατήντησεν : aorist of καταντάω come down or to.

              Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
              36 These two questions are a direct confrontation with the Corinthians over their attitude toward Paul on some issue, in which he tries to give them perspective by reminding them of their own place in the history of “the word of God” (i.e., the gospel of Christ). “Did the message of Christ originate with you?” he asks with sarcasm. “Are you the fountainhead from which all Christian truth derives that you can act so in this matter?” “Are you the only ones to whom it has come,” he asks further, “so that you can carry on in your own individualistic way, as if there were no other believers in the world?” This is biting rhetoric, which flows directly from the (probably immediately) preceding clause, “as in all the churches of the saints.” Who do they think they are anyway? is the implication; has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul’s instructions, on the one hand, and be so out of touch with the other churches, on the other?

              But to what does this rhetoric refer? Probably not to verses 34–35, which are unlikely to be authentic; in any case, one can make far better sense of the argument by seeing this as referring to the larger matter at hand, namely to their and his disagreements over the nature of being pneumatikos and the place of tongues in the assembly. Both questions begin with the conjunction “or,” implying that the first question flows directly from the immediately preceding sentence. This conjunction in fact goes very poorly with verse 35, but makes excellent sense following verse 33: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints; or did the word of God originate from you? Or are you the only people it reached?” They are dead wrong on this matter; this rhetoric, therefore, is not only an attempt to get them to see that they are out of step with the other churches, but also leads directly to the two conditional sentences that follow.

              Comment


              • #82
                1 Corinthians 14:37

                Text: (NA27):
                Εἴ τις δοκεῖ προφήτης εἶναι ἢ πνευματικός, ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή

                Transliteration (Accordance):
                Ei tis dokei prophētēs einai ē pneumatikos, epiginōsketō ha graphō hymin hoti kyriou estin entolē

                Translation (RSV):
                If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.

                Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
                εἰ : if.
                δοκέω : to consider as probable, think, believe, suppose, consider.
                πνευματικός : spiritual.
                ἐπιγινωσκέτω : imperative of ἐπιγινώσκω recognize.

                Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
                37 This is now the third instance in this letter where Paul attacks their own position head-on with the formula “If anyone thinks he is …” (see on 3:18 and 8:2). Each occurs in one of the three major sections of the letter (chaps. 1–4; 8–10; 12–14); and the argument in each case indicates that by this formula Paul is zeroing in on the Corinthians’ perspective as to their own spirituality. They do indeed think of themselves as “the wise” (3:18) and as “having knowledge” (8:2), probably in both cases because they also think of themselves as being pneumatikoi (see on 2:15 and 3:1).

                In this case, however, it is probably not the Corinthians as a whole whom he is taking on, although they are certainly in view as well; more likely, as in 4:18 and 9:3, he is speaking directly to those who have been leading the church in its anti-Pauline sentiments. These people consider themselves to be “prophets” and “Spirit people.” These two words are probably to be understood as closely linked. In contrast to the functional use of “prophet” in the immediately preceding argument, the word “prophet” here reverts back to the usage in 12:28, where it refers to those who had a “ranked” position of ministry in the local assembly. Crucial here is the addition “or pneumatikos” (=”spiritual” or “a person of the Spirit”). As argued throughout the commentary, this is the central issue. There seems to be no other good reason for Paul to have spoken to them in this way if they did not consider themselves to be “spiritual,” the primary evidence of which was the gift of tongues. They were sure that they themselves were Spirit people; they were less sure of the apostle.

                But in 12:28 Paul has already anticipated what he says here. God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets. He is not denying that those who oppose him are prophets, nor that the Corinthians as a whole are pneumatikoi. He seems to be arguing that he is first of all an apostle, that he is therefore also a prophet, and that thus he is “writing to you the Lord’s command.” The emphasis in Paul’s word order is on “the Lord” (referring of course to Christ) as the source of what he has been writing. The word “command” therefore is most likely a collective singular referring to all that he has written on this present matter, especially their need for intelligibility and order in the assembly so that all may be edified. Since both he and they have the Spirit, the true “person of the Spirit” will thus “acknowledge” that what Paul writes is from the Lord.

                Comment


                • #83
                  1 Corinthians 14:38

                  Text: (NA27):
                  εἰ δέ τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοεῖται.

                  Transliteration (Accordance):
                  ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitai.

                  Translation (RSV):
                  Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized.

                  Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
                  ἀγνοέω : not to know, here not to acknowledge God's precepts ; passive he is not...

                  Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
                  38 With the authority of the same Lord from whom he received the “command,” Paul pronounces sentence on those who do not recognize the Spirit in what he writes: “If anyone (i.e., the one who thinks he is a Spirit person) ignores this, he himself will be ignored.”

                  Paul’s point is clear; the precise meaning of the repeated verb is slightly less so. He seems to be making a double play on words. The verb “to ignore” is here the antonym of “acknowledge” in verse 37. Thus, a spiritual person should “recognize” what Paul writes as “from the Lord”; if anyone “fails to acknowledge” it as such, that person will in turn not be “recognized/acknowledged.” Although it is possible that Paul meant the subject of this last clause to be himself or the church (= “not recognized to be a prophet or spiritual”), more likely “God” is intended. That is, failure to recognize the Spirit in Paul’s letter will lead to that person’s failure to be “recognized” by God (cf. 8:2–3). Hence it is a prophetic sentence of judgment on those who fail to heed this letter.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    1 Corinthians 14:39-40

                    Text: (NA27):
                    Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί [μου], ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις· πάντα δὲ εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν γινέσθω.

                    Transliteration (Accordance):
                    hŌste, adelphoi [mou], zēloute to prophēteuein kai to lalein mē kōlyete glōssais; panta de euschēmonōs kai kata taxin ginesthō.

                    Translation (RSV):
                    So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order.

                    Grammatical Analysis (Zerwick/BDAG, meanings in this context):
                    ὥστε : for this reason, therefore, so.
                    ζηλοῦτε : imperative of ζηλόω (τι) be zealous for (something).
                    κωλύετε : imperative of κωλύω hinder, discourage ; sometimes a present imperative in a prohibition retains the durative character of the present, not "stop..." but never.
                    εὐσχημόνως : pertaining to being appropriate, correctly.
                    κατὰ τάξιν : in order.

                    Commentary from the first edition of The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT: Eerdmans, 1987), by Gordon D. Fee (via Accordance; footnotes and introductory paragraphs omitted):
                    39-40 Since the rhetorical confrontation in verses 36–38 is something of an aside although in Paul never irrelevant! he brings the preceding argument to a conclusion by way of a three-part summation. It is signaled by the strong inferential conjunction “so then,” common to this letter, and yet another vocative. After the rhetoric of the preceding verses, in this case he adds the personal possessive, “my brothers [and sisters]” (see on 1:10).

                    The first clause repeats the imperative with which Paul began in verse 1: “eagerly desire to prophesy.” The second speaks to their favorite: “and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” As in the argument itself, he is not to be understood as forbidding tongues, nor will he allow anyone else to take the preceding correction as prohibition. Tongues are permissible in the assembly when accompanied by interpretation, and may be experienced as much as one wishes in private. These two clauses together thus summarize verses 1–25.

                    The third clause (verse 40) summarizes the argument of verses 26–33: “Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” The word “fitting” argues again for propriety in the assembly (cf. 11:13); the word “orderly” echoes its opposite, “disorder,” from verse 33, and along with that verse strongly implies that the assembly in Corinth was in disarray. The implication of the argument throughout has been that speaking in tongues is the guilty party. With these words, therefore, the argument is brought to a fitting conclusion.

                    But the letter itself is not finished. Lying behind their view of spirituality is not simply a false view of spiritual gifts, but a false theology of spiritual existence as such. Since their view of “spirituality” had also brought them to deny a future resurrection of the body, it is fitting that this matter be taken up next. The result is the grand climax of the letter as a whole, at least in terms of its argument.

                    It is of some interest that people who believe so strongly in the Bible as the Word of God should at the same time spend so much energy getting around the plain sense of verses 39–40. Surely there is irony in that. What Paul writes in these chapters he claims to be the command of the Lord; one wonders how he might have applied verse 38 to those who completely reject this command.

                    Comment

                    widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                    Working...
                    X