1 Corinthians 12

CHAPTER XII

The Seventh Part of the Letter

The Charismatic Gifts, chapters 12–14

We readily distinguish three sections in this extensive part of Paul’s letter:

1 Corinthians 12:1

1 The Body—its constitution—just how it comes to be what it is—v. 18: “Now hath God,” etc.

1 Corinthians 12:2

2 The Members—their relation—just how this comes to be what it is—v. 24: “God tempered,” etc.

The first fact settles all envious complaint, the second all prideful disdain.

Paul thinks of the spiritual body of Christ throughout. But throughout he views this spiritual body in the mirror of the human body. This is, however, not allegorizing, for Paul nowhere identifies any one member of the spiritual body with a member of the human body. Allegory would demand this. The impossibility of meeting the requirements of an allegory appear when we come to “our uncomely parts.” Commentators who follow practical interests find an allegory in Paul’s statements. They succeed in the case of a few members and faculties, but “the smelling” upsets their scheme, to say nothing about “the feeble,” “the less honorable,” and finally “the uncomely parts.” When Paul makes his own application of his illustrative analogy in v. 27, etc., he gives no hint of allegory.

1 Corinthians 12:3

3 On this first fact rests the second fact which Paul wants the Corinthians to bear in mind when they are considering the subject of spiritual gifts. Wherefore I give you to understand that no one speaking in union with God’s Spirit declares: Accursed is Jesus! and no one is able to declare: Lord is Jesus! except in a union with the Holy Spirit.

“Wherefore” links the two facts together: “Because it is true that you were once misled and cheated by your old religion, for this very reason I want you to know that in the Christian religion everything is entirely different.” In what way? In the church the Holy Spirit is active. The Spirit is twice mentioned with emphasis. Paul intends to make no sharp distinction by first calling him “God’s Spirit” and then calling him “the Holy Spirit.”

Paul twice writes “no man,” which makes both effects of the Spirit seem to be negative. Yet the two modifiers show that the first effect is negative and the second is positive. This is evident also from what the Spirit does not make a man say and from what he does make a man say. These modifiers and these declarations are placed chiastically so as to attain a greater effect. Moreover, the two halves of the ὅτι clause are thus made of equal importance; what the Spirit never does is not to be merely a foil for what he always does.

Paul’s statement is misunderstood when it is assumed that already in this verse he is speaking about spiritual gifts, in particular about the gift of tongues. This view states that Paul is here furnishing the Corinthians a criterion by which they may distinguish the genuine speakers with tongues from the spurious. The genuine have the Spirit and call Jesus “Lord,” the spurious curse Jesus and have not the Spirit. But such a statement from the pen of Paul would be surprising. Were there members in the Corinthian congregation who cursed Jesus? And was it necessary for Paul to inform the Corinthians that such people were devoid of the Spirit? And where is there the least evidence that in Corinth or elsewhere pretending speakers with tongues had appeared who were deceiving the church?

In this preliminary, fundamental statement Paul is speaking about all believers. Whereas the Gentiles have only dumb idols and no divine personality to embrace or to repudiate, we Christians have the Holy Spirit. Paul is, however, not comparing two men, one who is without the Spirit, the other with the Spirit, one who is cursing Jesus, the other confessing Jesus. For every man who is without the Spirit does not curse Jesus; many do not even know about him. Paul is not taking in the whole world of non-Christians in contrast with all true Christians. He remains in a far narrower sphere.

In both halves of his statement he is speaking only about one man, one who is animated by the Spirit, and points out what that man never does in contradistinction to what he always does. Thus both subjects are “no man.” The first statement is expressed in the form of fact: “no man declares”; the second in the form of a possibility: “no man is able to declare” or “can declare.” And the participial modifier: “speaking in union with God’s Spirit,” in the first statement, and the conditional clause: “except in union with the Holy Spirit,” in the second statement, are only formal variations which might also be reversed.

But why does Paul make the first statement so strong: “no man speaking in union with God’s Spirit says, ‘Accursed is Jesus’”? A milder statement would seem to suffice, for instance: “no man speaking in union with God’s Spirit says anything against Jesus.” The only answer that we can give is derived from the fact that when Jesus is strongly urged upon a man by the Spirit of God through the gospel, and that man scorns to accept him as Lord, he is very apt to voice his scorn in strong language. Thus to this day the Jews spit upon Jesus, and others who repudiate his divine Lordship and his blood atonement use vicious and even blasphemous language when doing so. Paul uses the personal name “Jesus” in this connection because the incarnate person is referred to.

The participle λαλῶν, “speaking” in contradistinction to keeping silence, differs from λέγει and its aorist infinitive εἰπεῖν, “declares” and “to declare,” which always involve the thought that is spoken. “Accursed,” ἀνάθεμα, a later form of ἀνάθημα, is the translation of the Hebrew cherem, something that is removed from the possession or the use of men and set aside for God as an object of his wrath and devoted to destruction or as a gift that is dedicated to God’s acceptance. In Hellenistic Greek ἀνάθεμα is used to express the former idea and ἀνάθημα the latter idea. The later ecclesiastical anathema continues the former. Compare Rom. 9:3; Gal. 1:8. The title κύριος designates Jesus as the divine “Lord” who is full of grace, truth, and salvation, and is embraced and confessed by faith. Paul and the early Christians seem to apply this title to Jesus in conscious opposition to the Gentile appellation “lord” which was bestowed upon pagan gods.

Whoever confesses Jesus as “Lord” has the Holy Spirit in his heart. This is true of all Christians irrespective of any other gifts which they may have received from the Spirit. Paul wants the Corinthians to understand this thoroughly when they consider the subject of spiritual gifts in detail. The fundamental gift is the Holy Spirit himself, through whom we confess Jesus as Lord. In truth, if we had no other gifts, this supreme gift would be blessedness and riches enough. The Corinthians need only to compare their former state as devotees to dumb idols with their present state as confessors of the Lord through the Spirit of God, then they will be happy and satisfied, indeed.

4–6) After this necessary introduction Paul proceeds with the transitional connective to show with what an abundance of gifts the Holy Spirit enriches the church. Now there are distributions of charismata, yet the same Spirit; and there are distributions of ministrations, and the same Lord; and there are distributions of energies, yet the same God who energizes all things in all ways.

The term διαιρέσεις appears only here in the New Testament and means, not “diversities” as our versions translate (for the fact that the gifts are diverse is too obvious to require statement), but “distributions.” The gifts are parceled out so that one individual has this, another that gift. Yet these “distributions” are not so much the acts of parceling out as the result of such acts so that each one of us now has his own particular gift or gifts.

Paul considers all of the gifts together and designates them by three different names: first, “charismata” or gracious gifts; then, “ministrations,” services freely rendered by us for the benefit of others; lastly, “energies,” active forces, operations that result from the imparted spiritual energy. Viewed from one angle, they appear as charismata, from another as ministrations, and from a third as energies. Paul first bids us note their source as gracious gifts, secondly their purpose as benefiting others, thirdly their power as being full of spiritual energy.

Yet throughout, no matter how we may consider them, they are connected with God. When he is stating this connection Paul refers to the three persons of the Godhead but names the persons in inverse order since he has already mentioned the Spirit. He varies the connectives: δέ … καί … δέ but with no appreciable difference in sense. “The same Spirit” is the gracious Giver of all the charismata; “the same Lord” receives our ministrations for others; “the same God” is back of the spiritual energies we exercise through our gifts, he “who energizes all things in all ways.”

Ἐνπᾶσιν is a phrase that occurs frequently in the New Testament; it is neuter like πάντα and characterizes God as “in every way” being the active source. Some, however, regard “in all” as a masculine and translate “in all believers.” In v. 11 all of the gifts are said to be wsrought by the Spirit, and in v. 27 all of the believers and their various gifts are said to constitute the body of Christ. Hence the connection of the Spirit with the charismata, of the Lord with the ministrations, of God with the energies is not intended to be exclusive but inclusive: all three of the persons are involved in all three of the relations. Formulated dogmatically, this reads: Opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communa.

1 Corinthians 12:7

7 From the gifts and their connection with God Paul advances to the persons who are endowed with these gifts. First the comprehensive statement with the continuative connective; then in v. 8 the explanatory “for” to introduce the details. Now to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the purpose of the benefit. The emphasis rests first on the dative “to each one” at the beginning of the sentence and secondly on the phrase “for the purpose of the benefit” at the end of the sentence. Two things are thus made prominent: each believer has his gift, and every bestowal of a gift is for the common good.

“To each one” cannot apply only to each individual in the class of those who are favored with gifts as distinct from another class which has no gifts. This is placed beyond dispute by the lengthy elaboration beginning with v. 12. Nor is the πρός phrase deprived of emphasis, although it has the emphatic position at the end, because Paul does not at once elaborate this common benefit. Paul often holds an important point in reserve and in due time dwells on it more fully. He does that here, for in the detailed comparison beginning with v. 12 he shows how each member of the church benefits the entire body by rightly employing his particular gift.

Whereas in the preceding verses Paul has used the plurals charismata, etc., he now uses the singular “the manifestation of the Spirit.” This expanding of an idea by means of plurals and then concentrating it into a singular is characteristic of Paul’s mind and shows the mastery of his thinking. There is considerable dispute as to whether “of the Spirit” is an objective or a subjective genitive. The reference to 2 Cor. 4:2: “the manifestation of the truth,” the only place besides this verse where we meet φανέρωσις, is not decisive because “of the Spirit” is a person, and “of the truth” is not. We may manifest the truth (objective genitive) while the Spirit may manifest his presence in the gifts which he bestows (subjective genitive).

When the question is properly put it practically answers itself. What is it that is given to each of us? Is the gift this that we make manifest the Spirit for the common good, or this that the Spirit manifest himself in us by his gift for the common good? Certainly the latter. This answer is supported also by the analogy of Scripture which never speaks of our using the Spirit but always of his using us. One may, indeed, wonder why Paul does not write: “In each person the Spirit manifests himself for the common good” instead of saying: “To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit,” etc. The sense is practically the same and thus helps to show that the genitive in question is subjective: the Spirit does the manifesting and not we.

Yet Paul’s formulation has the advantage of introducing the significant verb “is given”: to each of us is given whatever gift we have—a point that was very necessary for the instruction of the Corinthians who liked to boast about their gifts and forgot that they were given. The question is also asked whether ἡφανέρωσις is general and includes all the charismata, etc., or only individual and refers to whatever gift an individual may have. The term combines both ideas, it is individual as well as general. For “to each one” singles out each person as an individual, and yet “to each one” also includes everyone, omitting none.

Luther translates the final phrase zum gemeinen Nutzen, which our versions adopt by translating “to profit withal,” literally, “for the benefit,” i.e., the well-known benefit for which all gifts are intended. Not we, not God, but our fellow Christians and others are to share in this benefit. The preposition πρός indicates purpose or intent. Paul employs the substantivized neuter participle τὸσυμφέρον, “that which profits,” whereas in 7:35 and 10:33 he has the substantivized adjective τὸσύμφορον although some texts have the participle in the latter passage. Because each gift is intended to benefit others Paul calls all gifts “ministrations” in v. 5. The gifts make us stewards and call for their administration; they convert us into altruists. This obligation is only too often forgotten.

1 Corinthians 12:8

8 Each person has his gift, and he has it for the benefit of others. Paul now lets the gifts pass before us in beautiful array and ushers them in with γάρ as explaining that each person does have his gift. For to one through the Spirit is given expression of wisdom while to another expression of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to someone else faith in the same Spirit while to another charismata of healings in the one Spirit, and to another energies of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another discernings of spirits; to someone else varieties of tongues while to another interpretation of tongues.

Paul himself indicates three groups: 1) ᾧμέν … ἄλλῳ; 2) ἑτέρῳ followed by four ἄλλῳ; 3) again ἑτέρῳ … ἄλλῳ. The first two gifts are a pair; so also the last two. In the middle group “faith” stands alone, and the other four gifts are two pairs that are related to “faith.” So much regarding the arrangement of the list. It does not intend to be exhaustive, for Paul presently mentions still other gifts, v. 28; see also Rom. 12:6, etc. Paul lists these gifts:

Two involving the intellect:

Expression of wisdom

Expression of knowledge.

Five involving faith:

Faith itself

Healing

Miracles

)

Deeds

Prophecy

Discerning of spirits

Speech

Two involving the tongue:

Tongues

Interpretation of tongues.

Paul varies the prepositions: διά to denote the mediation of the Spirit with regard to the first gift; κατά to indicate the norm or the determination of the Spirit with regard to the second gift; ἐν to mark the sphere of the Spirit with regard to the next two gifts. Since “in” (in union with) is used with the third and fourth, and the rest are without an introductory preposition, it seems best to suppose that “in” is to be supplied with all that follow. The three relations indicated by the three prepositions are by no means identical. They express the idea that in the act of giving (δίδοται) the Spirit acts as a mediating, a normating, and a containing agency.

Paul writes λόγος in connection with both “wisdom” and “knowledge” and thus indicates the “expression” of both in words or discourse for the benefit of others. “Wisdom” and “knowledge” are synonymous. The line that divides them is not at once apparent. This moves some to conclude that there is little or no difference between them. Yet Paul clearly intends to name two gifts. However they may be related, they are certainly distinct. It is unnecessary to search outside of the Scriptures in an effort to determine the difference. Those who have done so, even with a demonstration of great learning, have produced only rather questionable results. The Scriptures themselves say very much regarding wisdom and knowledge.

In 1:30 we have defined σοφία as consisting of all the gracious, heavenly, and efficacious thoughts of God embodied in Christ Jesus for the enlightenment of our souls. Paul clearly differentiates this divine wisdom from fleshly, worldly, and mere human wisdom, 1:20; 2:5, 6, 13; 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12; James 3:15; etc. As this wisdom is embodied in Christ Jesus, so it likewise consists in the gospel. The ability to state this wisdom to others is the best and the highest spiritual gift.

The “expression of wisdom” is thus always mediated “through the Spirit.” Through him we are enabled, not only to apprehend this wisdom in our own hearts for our own salvation, but also to convey what we have apprehended to others for their salvation. In the gift we must include also the ability to apply the divine wisdom in a practical way to our own and to other men’s lives, Rom. 16:19; Eph. 5:15, 17; James 3:13; 1 Cor. 3:18.

The distinctive feature of γνῶσις is the personal apprehension of the details of the gospel. It, too, deals with the gospel, but there is nothing in the term that includes speculation or speculative and philosophic ideas. “Knowledge” deals with the explanation, the unfolding, and the correlation of gospel facts, or we may call them doctrines. The “expression” or λόγος of knowledge is the ability to impart this personal knowledge to others. This gift is of great value to teachers, to apologists, and to many others in the church. Paul pairs it with the highest gift.

1 Corinthians 12:9

9 When it is listed as a charismatic gift “faith” or πίστις cannot be the fides salvifica but must be the fides miraculosa as described in Matt. 17:20 and its context; 21:21; the Gospel parallels, and 1 Cor. 13:2. In Matt. 7:22 it appears that this wonder-working faith may be found also in nominal Christians who are devoid of saving faith. By means of this charisma things that are otherwise impossible are actually accomplished when they become our tasks in the course of our calling. In Matt. 17:14, etc., the Lord’s disciples who had this charisma failed to get results because of their secret unbelief for which the Lord chided them. He there also tells them how to strengthen this gift so that it may be made operative when it is needed. In 13:2 Paul appropriates the Lord’s own description: “faith so that I could remove mountains,” μεθιστάνειν, transfer them to a new location when they are in the way. This description seems to be couched in proverbial language and is equal to saying: perform what seem to be not mere impossibilities but the greatest of impossibilities.

The next two gifts are designated by plurals: “charismata of healings” and “energies of miracles”; both of the genitives are appositional. Previously Paul had called all gifts both “charismata” and “energies”; he now uses both terms in a specific, we may even say a technical sense, the one with reference to healings and the other with reference to miracles. The plural of the governing noun as well as the plural of its genitive are significant and indicate that all healings and all miracles are in each separate case gifts. We should not think that healings and miracles were wrought at will by the person concerned. In each instance a specific intimation came to them from the Spirit that the act should be performed, and not until that moment did it occur, but then it always took place without fail.

It was thus when Peter and John healed the lame man at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 3:1, etc. How many times had they walked past this lame man as he sat daily begging at the gate! But on that morning the Holy Spirit conveyed the information to the apostles that they should heal him. For this reason Peter and John looked so earnestly upon the beggar and then spoke the words that healed him with such assurance.

The case of the damsel that cried after Paul in Philippi is equally plain, Acts 16:16, etc. On many days she cried, and Paul did nothing. Then Paul suddenly turned and healed her. He must have received the intimation to do so from the Spirit.

A third plain case is that of Peter at Joppa, Acts 9:36. This we may place among the energies of miracles. When the friends of Dorcas brought Peter into the death chamber, he prayed in order to learn the Lord’s intention, which in this case was to bring Dorcas back to life. We may conclude that every case of healing from sickness or of working a miracle was similar to these although the Biblical narratives do not always supply us with the details that show the Spirit’s intimation. In each instance the gift or the energy is bestowed by a communication from above for that case alone. Lacking such communication, even the apostles made no attempt to perform a miracle.

1 Corinthians 12:10

10 Note how well “energies” matches its appositional genitive “miracles” or “powers” since a work always requires the corresponding power. We may, of course, say that healing also requires power since it, too, appears as a miracle, but Paul calls healing a charisma or gracious gift and reserves δύναμις to designate acts of another type. For this is one of the outstanding Biblical terms to designate miracles, “being, as they are, outcomings of that great power of God, which was inherent in Christ, who was himself that ‘great Power of God’ which Simon blasphemously allowed himself to be named, Acts 8:9, 10; and was by him lent to those who were his witnesses and ambassadors,” Trench.

“Prophecy” is used to designate the gift or the office of a prophet. In Rom. 12:6 it is mentioned together with two other gifts. This term is used in a double sense: broadly to indicate any and all ability to communicate the saving will of God to others so that every true teacher and preacher may be called a prophet; and more narrowly to designate the receiving and the communicating of direct and specific messages from God. The apostles were prophets in both senses of the term. Their regular assistants were prophets in the former sense. Agabus, Acts 11:28; 21:10, and Philip’s daughters, Acts 21:9, were prophets in the latter sense.

Allied with this gift are “discernings of spirits.” 1 John 4:1 speaks of proving or testing the spirits and offers a simple criterion by which the test can be made. “Discernings of spirits” is again plural and denotes abilities that are developed in one or in more directions for the purpose of penetrating into what lies back of certain utterances or works in order to determine whether they truly emanate from the Holy Spirit or whether they represent pretenses of the human spirit or contain the deceptions of some spirit of evil. All Christians are to “prove the spirits, whether they are of God”; but certain difficult cases occur, for which more than common Christian discernment is necessary. False prophets love to use deceptive language. For the purpose of unmasking these prophets the Lord provides this gift and thus enables his church to turn from lying spirits to the one Spirit of truth.

So much has been written about the gift of tongues that the result is a confusion. This is in good part due to the extraneous material that is introduced. The subject is one that concerns exegesis alone. We ask: “What do the Scriptures say about this gift?” We rule out all reference to pagan manifestations, to later phenomena in the church, to the cries and shouts uttered at revivals, etc., no matter of what character any or all of these may be. And especially do we not construct in advance a theory about these tongues and then interpret the Scriptures according to this theory.

Since the promise regarding “tongues” or regarding “new tongues” (the better reading) mentioned in Mark 16:18 was first fulfilled at Pentecost in Jerusalem and shortly thereafter at Cæsarea, Acts 10:44, etc.; 15:8, and since this phenomenon did not appear in Corinth for a number of years after these first occurrences, we must ask whether a difference exists between the “tongues” spoken in Jerusalem and in Cæsarea and those spoken in Corinth. The answer is that they are the same. As the promise is one, so the fulfillment is one regardless of the place where the fulfillment occurs.

The next step is to recognize the fact that Luke’s description as given in the Acts is decisive for what Paul writes in Corinthians. This is reversed by some. They seek to determine what happened in Corinth and then either square Luke’s account with what they think occurred at Corinth or posit two different gifts of tongues. Aside from the time when Luke and when Paul wrote this method of approach is unsatisfactory. For Luke is the one who fully describes what the tongues are while Paul takes for granted that his readers know what they are and therefore offers no description. Luke writes for a reader (Theophilus) who may never have heard of this gift, at least may never have seen this gift in operation.

Paul writes for readers who have often heard members of their own congregation speak in tongues. This is decisive as to the Scriptural starting point.

Regarding the multitude at the time of Pentecost Luke reports Acts 2:6: “Every single man was hearing them speaking in his own language” (exact translation). Still more clearly Luke reports that the multitude asked in astonishment: “And how are we hearing, every man in our own language in which we were born?” Then there follows the list of nationalities who said that they heard the disciples speak the languages in which they were born. These nationalities even state the contents of what they heard: “We are hearing them speaking with our own tongues the great things of God.” Here we have the significant dative ταῖςἡμετέραιςγλώσσαις which uses the specific term γλῶσσαι (which is used in the promise recorded in Mark and regularly by Paul) and the strong possessive adjective ἡμετέραι, “our own tongues” or languages. Can we be in doubt that the γλώσσαι had never been learned by the disciples? And this fact is decisive for the gift of tongues, also for that found in Corinth.

We therefore do not accept the view of Cremer and of his latest editor, Julius Koegel, in Biblisch-theolo-gisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet that the gift of tongues that occurred at Jerusalem and elsewhere consisted in speaking die Sprache der neuen Welt, der Erloesten und Seligen (the language of the new world, of the redeemed and the blessed). This view contradicts the term “tongues” which is used throughout to designate this gift, for this term is plural and not singular: die Sprache (the language). Or are we to think that different languages are spoken by the redeemed in heaven, and that these different languages constitute “the language (singular) of heaven”? What answers Cremer and Koegel answers also all others who refer to the languages of heaven in an effort to explain the phenomena that occurred at Corinth or at Corinth and at Jerusalem and at Cæsarea. Neither Luke nor Paul refer to the language or the languages of heaven.

To explain the plural γλῶσσαι the statement is made that “tongues” denotes only the substance of what is spoken, namely in one case prayers, in another psalms, in a third blessings, etc., 1 Cor. 14:15. But in Luke’s record the contents, “the mighty works of God,” are clearly distinguished from the languages, “our own languages”; the two, contents and languages, cannot be combined into one. Moreover, a psalm may contain also a prayer or a blessing or both combined.

The expression ἕτεραιγλῶσσαι found in Acts 2:4 has been stressed and contrasted with ἄλλαι which does not occur. The point is made that Luke should have written ἄλλαι if he has in mind “other” human languages, and that his use of ἕτεραι compels us to think that he refers to non-human languages. But ἄλλος and ἕτερος are regularly used interchangeably with no difference in meaning, and they never indicate a difference as great as the one here made (human—non-human). This interchangeable use is illustrated in the very section now under consideration, v. 8–10. Only in certain pointed contrasts (and these are infrequent) is a difference indicated as in Gal. 1:6, 7. In addition λαλεῖνἑτέραιςγλώσσαις which occurs in Acts 2:4 is elucidated by 14:21. “In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues, ἐνἑτερογλώσσιος, and by lips of strangers will I speak unto this people”; to which Paul adds: “wherefore tongues, αἱγλῶσσαι, are for signs,” etc. Here the very adjective ἕτερος in the compound ἑτερογλώσσιος, which is to prove the point of non-human languages, proves the reverse.

In Mark 16:18 καιναὶγλῶσσαι is used, “new” tongues or languages. This adjective is said to mean unerhoert, “unheard of.” C.-K. regard καιναί as equivalent to ἕτεραι (correctly) but take it in the sense of a heavenly language (incorrectly). But this adjective never means “new” in the sense of unerhoert. This is the sense of νέος, an adjective which is never applied to the gift of tongues. Καινός is always “new” compared with what is “old,” as differing from the “old.” The Corinthians have their own language, which is old to them; and when they hear some of their own members speak “in new languages,” these are “new” to them because they are foreign languages, “other” than the one to which they are accustomed. Instead of proving that Paul has in mind “the language of heaven” when he uses καιναί, the term proves the opposite.

Paul writes: to someone else “varieties of tongues,” γένηγλώσσων. Because of this word “varieties” we are told that one person could not speak several of these tongues if they denote human languages. But why not? Could one person at one time not be gifted to speak in one language and at another time in another language? Where is the intimation that one person could be gifted to speak only and always in but one language?

Much labor has been spent on letting γλῶσσαι mean Sprechweisen, Ausdrucksweisen (variety of expres-pression), and the like, and this is done in order to explain the use of the plural. It has been said that the translation “language” and “languages” is inadequate throughout chapter 14 whereas the opposite is true. But the object back of regarding γλῶσσαι as “manners of speaking,” “ways of expressing,” is to maintain the view of one language which has different ways and manners of expression, i.e., the language of heaven. But “manners of speaking” and “ways of expression” do not suggest “the language of heaven.” If Paul had in mind “the language of heaven,” why does he not write γλῶσσαοὑρανοῦ just as he writes “the tongues of the angels” when he refers to the language of angels in 13:1?

Some say that the tongues were whisperings and mutterings; that they were a mixture of elements and rudiments that were taken from many languages; that they were angel languages or angel-like languages; that they consisted of archaic, extremely poetic, and odd provincialisms that were put together in a confusing fashion; that they were inarticulate cries. Those who hold such views say that, not the ego of the person spoke, but only his tongue, and that his speech consisted of incomprehensible sounds, partly sighings, partly cries, disjointed words, strange combinations, that were uttered in a highly excited state, and that for this reason the hearers thought that they heard a medley of languages. Another theory regarding the separation of the mind and the tongue has the latter speak “a language corresponding to the ecstatic vision of the mysteries of God,” which statement is not very clear.

The “tongues” are sometimes regarded as a miracle of hearing—the speakers spoke their own native language, but at the time of Pentecost the Spirit made this sound to the ears of the listeners as though they were hearing all the other languages that are enumerated by Luke. Was this the case also at Corinth? Smith, Bible Dictionary, article “Tongues,” makes the miracle of Pentecost a miracle of memory although he leaves us in the lurch regarding the phenomenon that was observed at Corinth. We are told: “It must be remembered that in all likelihood such words as they then uttered had been heard by the disciples before. At every feast which they had ever attended from their youth up they must have been brought into contact with a crowd as varied as that which was present on the day of Pentecost, the pilgrims of each nation uttering their praises and doxologies. The difference was, that, before, the Galilean peasants had stood in that crowd, neither heeding, nor understanding, nor remembering what they heard; now they had the power of speaking it clearly and fully.

The divine work would in this case take the form of supernatural exaltation of memory, not of imparting a miraculous knowledge of words never heard before. We have the authority of John 14:26 for seeing in such an exaltation one of the special works of the Divine Comforter.” But John 14:26 promises remembrance of “whatsoever I have said to you,” a matter that is far different from the miracle of tongues that occurred at Jerusalem, to say nothing about Corinth. This effort of making the miracle one of memory would still leave it a miracle and would involve the understanding as well as the memory.

The gift of tongues which the Corinthians rated as being probably the highest and most desirable Paul places next to the last and combines with “interpretation of tongues.” The understanding of this last gift is of necessity governed by the conception of the gift of tongues. The interpreter understood the language that was spoken and translated the sense of what was said so that all understood. This view does not conflict with 14:2: “no one understands.” For if “no one” is made absolute, all possibility of interpretation is excluded no matter what conception we may have of “tongues.” The only explanation possible would be that in every instance a special divine revelation was granted to some person present which enabled him to interpret and to translate. Nowhere do we, however, find a hint to that effect.

If speaking with tongues means speaking the language of heaven, then the only interpretation possible would be the result of a direct revelation. The gift of tongues was, moreover, in some cases combined with the gift of interpretation, 14:5, 11. Several gifts were sometimes granted to a single person, for instance, to Paul himself, 14:6, 19. From this combination of the gift of tongues with that of interpretation we may, perhaps, gather that the interpretation was not always a translation. The person who was moved by the Spirit to utter something in a foreign language which he had never learned might at times know and feel the general sense of what his tongue was moved to speak. Thus he could relate in the vernacular what he had uttered in the unknown tongue. In fact, Paul urges that such of the Corinthians who had the gift of tongues should pray for this additional gift.

This leaves the question as to how one who naturally knew a foreign language that was used by those who spoke with tongues and who then used his natural knowledge in giving the interpretation to the congregation can be said to possess a gift of the Spirit. We must remember that we are here on the very lowest level of the gifts, for Paul is at pains to instruct the Corinthians to this very effect. Interpretation is the last raid thus the lowest of all the gifts. It utilizes a natural ability by sanctifying it and employing it for spiritual ends.

We have analogous cases even today. The man who has a thorough knowledge of Greek and of Hebrew is greatly admired by the church and is, perhaps, even elected to a professorship in some seminary. Yet his gift is of a low order; it is only linguistic after all. Its value lies in the fact that it may serve as a medium for far higher ends. In other words, its true value lies in its sanctification for these ends. Unsanctified, its use may result to the detriment of the church. See what rationalistic and skeptical exegesis has done to the church in spite of the fact that it has been advocated by scholarly linguists.

1 Corinthians 12:11

11 After having enlarged upon the details in v. 8–10 Paul binds them all together in v. 11. Now all these the one and same Spirit produces, apportioning to each one severally even as he wills. The neuter plural πάνταταῦτα includes all of the gifts mentioned irrespective of their Greek grammatical order. The idea expressed is not that as gifts all of them are given by the Spirit but that as abilities and powers all of them are produced and operated by the energy of the Spirit. Although the gifts are many and various in their form, the energy back of them and in them is the same: “the one and same Spirit,” he “energizes” all of them. This is one of the vital points regarding the gifts which Paul would have the Corinthians know.

It will act as a strong corrective against false valuation of one gift in comparison with another—all of them flow from one and the same divine energy. What is said in v. 4–7 is thus restated pointedly and emphasized.

Yet the thought of gifts and of giving is by no means dropped (note the verb in v. 7). It is in a compact way added by the neuter participle that modifies Πνεῦμα: “apportioning to each one,” etc. The idea contained in the verb διαιρεῖν is that the Spirit separates and portions out the gifts, cf., R. 580 on the force of διά. The combination ἰδίᾳἑκάστῳ is classic, B.-D., 286, 1: “to each one severally.” We may regard ἰδίᾳ as an adverb (Liddell and Scott) or as a dative of manner (R. 530) by supplying ὁδῷ (R. 653). But we should read them together: “to each person in particular,” i.e., in a way that is suitable to that person. In his distribution the Spirit never ignores the make-up, characteristics, age, position, and other particular features of a person. The gift fits the man.

“Even as he wills” places the distribution within the discretion of the Spirit. While this shows that the Spirit is sovereign in the bestowal of his gifts it leaves no room for the thought that this sovereignty is exercised with arbitrariness or partiality after the manner of self-willed earthly sovereigns. “Even as he wills” should remove all complaint on our part and thus all envy, on the one hand, and all boasting, on the other. What a blessing it is for all of us that the distribution lies in the Spirit’s hands, and that he allots the gifts as he does!

1 Corinthians 12:12

12 The connective γάρ introduces the entire elucidation that follows in this paragraph. It consists of an illustrative analogy that is to elucidate all that is contained in v. 4–11, in particular the summary of all of it. Verse 12 introduces the illustration that is to be used and at once indicates the points on which the comparison turns. For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also Christ.

“Even as … so also” presents the comparison. On the one hand the human body, on the other hand Christ. The points of this comparison to be noted are predicated only regarding the human body yet apply equally to Christ. Read thus, the statement is complete. Verse 13 does not apply to Christ the points that are predicated regarding the human body in v. 12; v. 13 does something quite different.

Look at the human body. What do we see? Oneness in multiplicity. This is also true regarding Christ. This is the tertium comparationis. Paul then expands this most beautifully in order to bring it fully to view.

In doing this he first goes forward from the oneness to the multiplicity even as he says: “the body is one and has many members”; he then goes backward from the multiplicity to the oneness even as he says: “and all the members of the body, being many, are one body.” This procedure is chiastic in form. Its effect is to produce emphasis: each of the two points (oneness and multiplicity) is strengthened in the reader’s mind by the repetition. Regarding the human body Paul needs only to state the facts. Everybody knows them. Yet we note that in the second half of the chiasm he repeats the idea of multiplicity: “all” and “being many,” because he intends to stress the fact that MANY are one and not the reverse that ONE is many. This should be kept in mind as we read on.

We might have expected Paul to write: “so also the church.” He writes instead: “so also Christ.” We should miss Paul’s meaning if we supposed that he is here speaking of Christ as the head of the church. The idea of headship is foreign to the illustration. Christ and the church are combined as constituting a unit just as the human body is a unit. This is another and a bolder way of expressing what he writes in Gal. 3:28: “Ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.” But this combining (we may even say identifying) of Christ with the church is by no means a dissolving of Christ, making him “impersonal in a pantheistic manner” as is stated by some. The mystical union of Christ with the church, he in us, and we in him, as little dissolves his personality as it dissolves our personalities. It conserves both because it is not pantheistic (which abolishes both the personality of God and that of men) but truly spiritual, a soteriological union that is mediated by the Word and the sacraments.

1 Corinthians 12:13

13 The simple statement “so also Christ” obviously needs elucidation. For also in union with one Spirit were we all baptized unto one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free; and we all were made to drink one Spirit. The two connectives are distinct and not a unit like the Latin etenim. When Christ is compared to the human body, καί bids us add what baptism does to all of us in this regard, and γάρ indicates that this helps to explain the comparison, B.-D. 452, 3. By baptism all of us were made “one body,” and Christ is in all of us. When we see what the Spirit has done with all of us by means of our baptism, namely converted all of us into one spiritual body, we see how Christ can be compared with the human body and its many members. Christ and we are one.

This makes baptism much more than an opus operatum, the outward performance of a sacramental ceremony. Much more, too, than a symbolic sacramental rite which only pictures union with Christ, a union that is effected by some other means and not by baptism itself. For we were baptized “in” one Spirit, in union with him, in vital connection with him. This Spirit operates in baptism, works a spiritual change, produces a new spiritual life, establishes a new spiritual relation, Gal. 3:27–29. Because of its position the phrase has the fullest emphasis. Its best commentary is John 3:5: “born of water and the Spirit.” The act of baptism is, of course, necessary as an act, but the vital feature of the act is the union with the one Spirit who gives us the new birth in Christ through the act.

We ought, therefore, not speak about “being immersed in the one Spirit,” or about the one Spirit “flooding about us,” or about “the flooding wave of the Spirit,” which convert the Spirit into a fluid. Paul does not speak of a flood, wave, flooding, or immersion even with regard to the water of baptism. The New Testament does not indicate the mode that was used in administering baptism, but it does indicate in a surprising number of instances and with great clearness that one mode was not used, namely immersion. The preposition ἐν is not instrumental, for the Spirit is not something “with” which we could be baptized. He is a person and not a fluid substance.

“We all” indicates a large number in which Paul includes also himself. The specifications: Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, combine number with great variety. Paul stops with nationality and social status since these are sufficient for his purpose. Yet the greatness of the phenomenon thus briefly sketched should not escape us. Think what the Jew was and then picture the pagan Greek. Then see how these extremes of humanity were drawn into Christ and thus melted and fused together.

What was lower than a slave, a human chattel with practically no rights? Picture the free citizens, many of them lordly and high and owning slaves. And now Christ is in them, and they are one. What numbers, what individual varieties in these great classes! Since Christ is in all of them, behold, all of them are “one body” just like the many members and organs of the human body—one unit, only one that is far grander and far more wonderful than a mere physical human body.

The phrase εἰςἓνσῶμα, “unto one body” (not “into,” our versions), states the result. The aorist ἐβαπτίσθημεν states the past fact. Paul says that we were all baptized; that this was done in connection with the Spirit; and that this resulted in making us one spiritual body. But these facts pivot on the numerals: in one Spirit—we all (Jews, Greeks, etc.)—unto one body. The one Spirit takes all of us and makes us one by baptism. To be baptized in connection with the Spirit means, not that the Spirit is only in some outward way connected with this application of water, but that he is inwardly and efficaciously connected with the application.

His very nature and the regular method of his working lead to this conclusion. So also does the effect of baptism: through baptism the Spirit makes us “one body,” which means one living, spiritual organism. Outward agencies are sufficient to produce various outward organizations (not living organisms) to which men belong. Only the one Holy Spirit is by the spiritual means of baptism able to bind together our souls in the body that we are.

Paul adds the second statement: “and we all were made to drink one Spirit.” As is the case in so many instances, “and” introduces a new statement which is intended to help us to understand what the preceding statement conveys. The new verb “were made to drink” is figurative. Jesus uses this figure in John 7:37–39; also in 4:14. When we are baptized in union with the Spirit we are made to drink the Spirit; and the latter tells us what the former means. John 7 shows that this drinking is the reception of the Spirit; he himself is the drink. John 4 adds that this drink is the water of life, i.e., the reception of true spiritual life.

All who are thus baptized and are thus made to drink have spiritual life, have received the Spirit himself, so that in this manner they form one body, one living spiritual organism. For this reason both verbs, “were baptized” and “were made to drink,” are aorists that denote past acts which took place once in the case of each person concerned. John 7:38 makes plain that the Spirit, once received thus, remains a permanent possession; compare Rom. 8:9–11. The life that was once given lives on; we continue alive and need not to be made alive again daily. That, too, is why both verbs are passive. Baptism, the Spirit, and life are bestowed upon us as gifts by God.

All synergism is excluded when we are made one body with Christ. The accusative object with a passive verb is entirely regular, R. 485.

Here we again have the pivotal terms “all” and “one.” And again the two numerals are abutted for the sake of greater emphasis: first, “we all unto one body”; then, we “all one Spirit” are made to drink. “All”—not one baptized member is excluded from the body; “one” body, “one” Spirit—one unity even as the Spirit is one and makes all of us truly one. In both statements “we all” includes the baptized children, which is the reason that being “made to drink one Spirit” refers to baptism alone and not to the Lord’s Supper which is not administered to children; nor is there a reference to the three means of grace in general, Word and sacraments. Babes are able to receive the Spirit only by baptism. They, too, are members of the “one body” which is Christ and dare never be left out. And we may add that they, too, by natural birth may be either Jews or Greeks, slaves or free.

If the point be raised that this discussion deals with spiritual gifts and therefore refers only to adults and not to babes, we should remember that in the case of some gifts the Spirit utilizes inborn, natural abilities. John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb, Luke 1:41; Paul himself was chosen equally early in his existence for his gifted work in the church, Gal. 1:15. Moreover, the fundamental gift, which constitutes the basis for all charismatic gifts, is the one Spirit who is received by baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:14

14 In v. 12 “for” introduces the human body as an elucidation of the statement made in v. 11 that the Spirit produces all of the gifts and distributes them as he wills. In v. 13 “for also” adds a further elucidation that shows how there comes to be a body of Christ. Now in v. 14 Paul adds at some length the detailed elucidation in regard to the human body with its many and its various members which is so analogous to Christ’s body with its many and its various baptized members. The connection is so clear that we need to supply nothing. Paul himself makes the application to the body of Christ in v. 27–30.

A careful reading of v. 14–30 reveals that Paul is offering objective instruction. The Corinthians are to bear in mind (v. 1) what Paul here tells them. The effort to discover in this paragraph, for instance in the speeches of the different members of the body, special references to faulty conditions in Corinth has proved unsatisfactory. The fact is evident that throughout chapters 12 and 13 Paul presents general instruction on the subject of spiritual gifts. Not until we reach chapter 14, is the situation obtaining in Corinth considered. Even in this chapter the first 25 verses continue in the form of instruction and compare at some length the gift of prophecy and that of tongues.

The situation obtaining in Corinth, however, furnishes the background for these 25 verses. Not until we come to v. 26 does Paul attend to the special needs of the Corinthian congregation.

The effort has been made to show that in the use he makes of this comparison with the human body Paul is borrowing an idea from the Stoics. Both the general idea and not a few of the details are then taken from pagan sources. We are told that the state had been likened to the human body and its members; also the complex of men and of gods. A special point is made of the συμπάθεια in v. 26. The old fable with which, according to Livy and others, the orator Menenius Agrippa quieted the quarreling Roman citizens does duty in this connection. The other members of the body charged the stomach with being lazy and with allowing itself to be nourished.

Thereupon the hands refused to raise food to the mouth, the mouth to accept food, the teeth to chew it. They would bring the stomach to time. The result was that the entire body became emaciated and enfeebled. Then these members at last saw their mistake. Thus one commentator concludes: “I do not doubt that Paul borrowed from Stoic popular philosophy.” All that he grants is that in his characteristic way Paul modified what he borrowed.

A glance at the pagans and at Paul’s discourse reveals that there is a gulf between them. The fact that both used the human body and its members for the purpose of illustration is a mere coincidence. This illustrative material is about as old as the world. Priority of use establishes no ownership unless some direct quotation follows. Jesus freely used such material in his parables. Yet neither he nor Paul quote when doing so. When Paul refers to the human body he shows an insight into the relation of its different members to which no pagan mind ever attained.

But the decisive point lies in the use to which this common material is put. Here we meet the gulf. Take the earthly seed that is sown, sprouts, and produces a harvest. Anyone could use it in drawing an illustration. But who ever saw heavenly realities reflected in these qualities of earthly seed? It is Jesus and after him Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who thus glorify this earthly illustrative material.

How simple the parables of Jesus appear, and yet no human mind has ever produced comparisons that equal the parables of the Lord in any way. Paul has been in the Master’s school. He does not need to borrow from pagan philosophers—they have nothing to lend him. In his Parables, p. 12, etc., Trench points out the essential difference that underlies this exalted use of earthly illustrative material. He quotes Milton:

“What if earth

Be but the shadow of heaven, and things therein

Each to other like, more than on earth is thought?”

The earthly does not resemble the heavenly, but the heavenly is reflected in the earthly. Unless a man knows the heavenly he cannot use the earthly as Jesus and Paul use it. A conception such as that of the body of Christ never entered a pagan mind. How, then, can such a mind use the illustration of the human body as the apostle uses it? On the other hand, how can a king like Paul borrow from the beggarly mind of a Stoic?

So Paul writes καί (in order to proceed) γάρ (and to elucidate still further): For also the body is not one member but many. How obvious, yet how important in this connection! The proposition is self-evident and needs no proof. It forms the theme of all that follows. It contains the two basic facts that must be understood when spiritual gifts are considered. One of these facts deals with the body, the other with the members.

1 Corinthians 12:15

15 Paul proceeds without a connective. Suppose the foot shall say: Because I am not a hand (therefore) I am not part of the body; not for this reason is it not part of the body. Paul supposes such a foolish case, hence the condition with ἐάν: “If the foot shall say.” The preposition ἐκ is to be taken in the sense of the partitive genitive: “not of the body,” i.e., not part of it. The negative with παρὰτοῦτο negatives only this phrase: “not for this reason,” because the foot is dissatisfied with not being a hand, is it excluded from the body. The foot may grumble and talk foolishly all it pleases, it nevertheless remains a member of the body. The A.

V. translates as though this were a question; it does likewise in v. 16. But there is no indication of a question. Paul states a self-evident fact: the foot remains a member. Regarding παρά with the accusative in the sense of propter see R. 616; B.-D. 236, 5.

1 Corinthians 12:16

16 And suppose the ear shall say: Because I am not an eye (therefore) I am not part of the body; not for this reason is it not part of the body.

This duplication, like all repetitions, emphasizes the point. To be sure, we shall say that what is true regarding the complaining foot is equally true regarding the complaining ear. All of their complaining changes nothing. It is not only useless, it is foolish. For the body simply cannot be one member, it is of necessity many, v. 14. And many members have different functions.

How foolish for the foot to grasp something or to shake hands with somebody when it is needed for walking and for moving the body from place to place. Likewise the ear when the body needs it for hearing. These are wrong comparisons when the foot prefers being a hand, or the ear being an eye. These self-disparagements indicate a spurious humility, perhaps even envy, which should be eradicated. These complaints militate against the very idea of the divinely created body, which is not one member but many. All such wrong ideas are certainly futile, for the body just naturally remains a body, the foot being a part of it, and the ear likewise.

Although Paul states the proposition only in the negative form, the positive counterpart is implied. The foot should be happy that as a member of the body it is able to serve as a foot in carrying the body from place to place; the ear and all the other members should do likewise. For this makes the body: many members functioning together in a great complex of service, each attending to its part. Instead of complaining all should voice satisfaction; instead of self-disparagement there should be self-appreciation—both should be combined with gratitude. This is true also with regard to all the members of the church. Suppose a member were actually what these complainers say: not a part of the body—what would it be?

In terms of another comparison, it would be a dead branch, fit only to be burned. Thank God, then, for the place he has assigned to you and joyfully perform your part!

The foot and the hand are bodily extremities, the ear and the eye are two of the bodily senses. There is a certain relation between the two in each pair and thus a certain fitness in placing together the two in each pair. Moreover, πούς and οὗς are similar even in sound and may thus be paired.

1 Corinthians 12:17

17 Suppose, however, that the wish of the ear were granted, and, since it esteems the eye so highly, suppose that it should actually become an eye. Other members may then have the same opinion about the eye and the same privilege of becoming the eye. What would be the result? The whole body would be an eye. If the whole body is an eye, where is the hearing? If the wish of the ear were fulfilled, the hearing would be gone. The condition is one of reality, one that considers the wish of the ear as actually being carried out. And the “if” clause of reality tacitly implies that all the other members may also have their wish to become an eye granted.

Or the ear and its hearing might be so admired that the nose and the other members might desire to be an ear. If the whole body is hearing, where is the smelling? Our versions translate both conditional sentences as though they expressed present unreality. But this would necessitate the inserting of the imperfect tense of the verbs and ἄν in the apodosis. Paul omits all verbs; because he disregards them, the sentence becomes a condition of reality.

When Paul asks in the first question: “Where is the hearing?” and in the second: “Where is the smelling?” he really employs an understatement. For if the whole body is converted into an eye or into an ear, one may ask: “Where are all the other members and the functions that a body requires in order to be a body?” But in many instances understatements are psychologically more effective than complete statements. They allow the reader or the hearer to supply what is left unsaid. And when he does this, the effect made on his mind is the greater. When Paul speaks of the smelling without mention of the nose, our minds are led to think of all the other functions of the body, any one or all of which could be mentioned in this connection.

1 Corinthians 12:18

18 The cure for all such wrong and really absurd desires is a return to the great divine fact: But now God did set the members, each one of them, in the body even as he did will. The two aorists are decisive, they state the fact. This is what God did, did by his creative act when he formed the human body. He made the body to consist of many members. Each one he set into its place in the body. The plural “members” has the distributive singular “each one of them” as an apposition. Do any of us presume to find fault with what God did? Does envy, false humility, self-disparagement, or whatever else may blind us lead us to think that we can improve on God’s act? Well, the fact stands: God made the human body as it is.

1 Corinthians 12:19

19 The full implication of the absurd improvements suggested by dissatisfied members is now made evident. And if they all were one member, where were the body? If one member would become another, and if this privilege were granted to all, and if all should select what they deemed the most illustrious member, and if all became that one member (for this is the logic of the situation), where would the body be? There would be no body, and, although Paul does not add this, there would not be a single member either. This is the absurdity that results: dissatisfaction would end in self-abolishment. “Where is the hearing, where the smelling?” Verse 17 properly ends with the question: “Where is the body?” Because of the imperfect ἦν in the protasis, this is a condition of present unreality, the imperfect with ἄν in the apodosis being omitted because it is worded in the form of a question.

1 Corinthians 12:20

20 So the divine fact is once more stated, and now in its tersest form. But now there are many members but one body. This fact will ever assert itself, and we should do well to allow it to correct and to remove all false and absurd notions that may enter our minds. The first δέ is adversative, the second is a balance to μέν. The statement repeats what is contained in v. 14 as well as in v. 18.

Paul’s statements can without difficulty be applied to the spiritual body of Christ. Each member of the church has his gifts and his functions. The Spirit has assigned him to the place which he occupies in the great organism. Blessed is he who joyfully accepts what the Spirit has done and therefore rids himself of all dissatisfaction. Note that “even as he did will” in v. 18 is the counterpart to “even as he wills” in v. 11. The verbs are equivalent in meaning; the only difference is in the tenses. The creative act of producing the human body is one and lies in the historic past, hence the aorist; the work of the Spirit who forms the spiritual body of Christ still continues, hence the durative present tense.

1 Corinthians 12:21

21 Paul’s theme is: The Body—not one member but many. We who constitute the church and are individually gifted by the Spirit must ever keep this great fact in mind. A living illustration of it is ever before us in our own human body. This helps us to avoid all dissatisfaction with ourselves. The medicine to correct this fault, to which many of us are prone, is found in the first part of the great fact: the body is not one member but many. Another fault needs treatment, namely disregard of other members. The remedy for its cure lies in the second part of the great fact: The body is not one member but many. So Paul proceeds: And the eye cannot say to the hand: Need of thee I have not! or again the head to the feet: Need of you I have not.

Again the members speak as was the case in v. 15 where the first fault was presented. This time the eye and the head voice their wrong sentiments, the one disparaging the hand, the other the feet. We see that the head is named only as being one of the members and therefore cannot by way of allegory denote Christ. It is characteristic of Paul to write the singular “hand” and then the plural “feet”; he is master in combining the two numbers. There is a difference between the hands. Although both are hands, the right is supreme.

No such difference appears regarding the feet. Moreover, one hand may act independently of the other, but the feet operate together. This may seem to be a slight feature, yet it does not escape Paul. Two plurals would wipe out all distinction while the plural “hands” and the singular “foot” would be absurd.

In v. 15, 16 the foot speaks about the hand, and the ear about the eye. We are accustomed to class together the hand and the foot, the eye and the ear, and think of them as performing similar tasks although in these combinations we always name the foot and the ear last. Paul therefore very properly has the foot and the ear complain and not the hand and the eye. Again we class together the eye and the hand, the head and the feet and always use this order in each pair. There is a dissimilarity in each pair, yet there is also a sort of correspondence. The eye reaches out to the far horizon, the hand only to objects that are close by; the head is the highest, the feet are the lowest. Paul therefore very properly has the eye disdain the hand, and the head scorn the feet.

While all this indicates a wonderful understanding of the relation existing between the members of the human body, Paul, who is thinking chiefly of the spiritual body of Christ with its variously gifted members, really sees in the human body only a reflection of the relation that exists between the members of this higher body. Where is envy, and where is proud disdain most apt to occur in the body of the church? Envy, where we see corresponding similarity; disdain, where we see corresponding dissimilarity. I am inclined to envy one who is in my own class and one who, nevertheless, seems to be favored more than I am. I am inclined to disdain those who are not in my class, whose gifts and whose position seem to be much below mine. When he is speaking about this disdain Paul lets the eye and the head speak.

Because the eye is able to reach out to great distances it is the member which may scorn the hand which is able to grasp only nearby objects. Because the head is placed so high it is the member that may look down with disdain on the feet plodding away down in the dust. Those who are endowed with greater and higher gifts (ministrations, operations, v. 4, 5) may thus foolishly think that they do not need those who have lesser gifts.

In v. 15, 16 the words of the foot and of the ear come first; then follows Paul’s flat contradiction: It, nevertheless, belongs to the body! In v. 21 the contradiction comes first: The eye “cannot say”; then follow the words of the eye and of the head. The arrangement is chiastic. But in both cases the wrong thought and utterance are contradicted by means of a fact. In the first case Paul says: “It is, nevertheless, a fact that the foot and the ear belong to the body, let them think and say what they will.” In the second case Paul says: “The fact is that the eye and the head cannot say what they foolishly do think and say, i.e., they cannot truly say what they do.” “If they shall say” in v. 15, 16 is thus elucidated by “they cannot (truly) say” in v. 21. For actually to say what one cannot truly say is wrong. He ought not to say what Paul supposes him to say (first pair) and what he actually says (second pair).

In v. 15, 16 Paul first contradicts, and in v. 17–20 he then explains. Similarly he contradicts in v. 21 and then explains in v. 22–25. Both explanations present the same great fact, namely God’s creative act. Paul does not philosophize. He is a theologian of fact to his very finger tips. The foot and the ear suffer under a false conception of the body, and this raises the question: “The body—just how is it constituted?” The eye and the head suffer under a false conception of the members, and this raises the question: “The members—just how are they related?” Paul explains by simply stating the two facts: 1) ὁΘεὸςἔθετο; 2) ὁΘεὸςσυνεκέρασε. 1) The Creator set the members, each one in his proper place—this is the fact in regard to the constitution of the body.

It corrects all perverted and all absurd notions regarding the body. 2) The Creator intermingled the body, mixed the members together in complete interdependence—this is the fact regarding the relation of the members. It corrects all perverted and all harmful notions regarding the members.

1 Corinthians 12:22

22 When one member declares regarding another: “Need of thee I have not!” Paul answers ἀλλά, “On the contrary!” or we may translate, “Nay!” The very opposite is the fact. On the contrary, the members of the body seeming to be more feeble are much more necessary, or “much rather necessary.”

Paul groups the members that may be despised as being unnecessary under three classes: 1) such as are “more feeble”; 2) such as are “less honorable”; 3) such as are “uncomely.” He answers each derogation in turn. But he differentiates between the three groups of members. The seemingly weaker members seem so only to the prideful; hence δοκοῦντα in v. 22: they “seem” so but are really not so. Those less honorable are considered so by all of us, and we have a reason for considering them so; hence a ἅδοκοῦμεν, v. 23: we all consider them so and rightly. The uncomely parts are uncomely apart from anybody’s opinion: hence in v. 24 we have no modifier at all but just the designation as such.

1 Corinthians 12:23

23 Against the first type of derogation Paul enters a fiat denial: “On the contrary!” These members are wrongfully looked down upon as being “more feeble”; they are not so in fact and thus are actually decidedly necessary to the rest. The second group Paul treats differently. And those members of the body which we think are less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor. For the neuter plurals found in this verse and in the next we may supply μέλη from v. 22 as the A. V. does or leave them as they are and translate “parts” as the R. V. prefers.

The matter of more or less honor is determined by general opinion. We ourselves bestow or withhold honor for certain justifiable reasons. Paul finds no fault with us on this score, so he writes: “those members which we think are less honorable,” and he includes himself in “we.”

But what do we do with these members? Despise them? Say that we do not need them? Wish we were rid of them? Nothing of the sort: “upon these we bestow more abundant honor.” This is the fact—rather astonishing but a fact, nevertheless. We, with whom the entire question of honor rests in the first place, we, including Paul, first regard these members as “less honorable” and then reverse ourselves and heap the more honor upon them. And the undeniable fact that all of us do this once more contradicts and thus ought also to correct the arrogance of any prideful member of the body which dares to say: “Need of this or of that less honorable member I have not.”

Paul does not intimate how we make good the deficiency of honor. We shall scarcely go amiss when we think of the clothing which we put upon them. Even in society the meanest trades are those with which we can least dispense. A nation may exist without astronomers and philosophers as has been well said, but the day laborer is essential to the existence of a people. You may look down on the cook and on the washerwoman, but you do not dispense with them. Yet in society day laborers, etc., are not given honor; so this illustration illustrates only the point of their necessity.

The final type of derogation deals with the private parts, ‘pudenda, τὰαἰδοῖα, which all decent people actually hide completely, namely the seat and the sexual organs. Paul adds no modifier to this group, for these “uncomely members” are just what they are apart from anybody’s opinion. If despising any parts of the body can be justified, these are the parts which, one might think, would most deserve such treatment. All of us have them, yet all of us are ashamed of them. The more striking is Paul’s paradoxical assertion of the actual fact concerning these parts of the body: and our uncomely members have more abundant comeliness. The Greek is even stronger, for the a privativum in ἀσχήμονα declares that these members have no decency at all and then the εὑ in εὑσχημοσύνην reverses this statement and declares that these very members have excellent decency, a truth which the adjective “more abundant” even emphasizes.

How can these members be despised on the score of indecency when they abound in decency? Paul states only the fact of the case, that they so abound. That fact is enough; he does not need to add anything. The decency is usually supposed to consist in the clothing with which these parts are covered. But this would only combine groups two and three, the lack in both being made good by the same means, namely clothing. This also overlooks the verbs “we put upon” and “they have.” We ourselves supply the deficiency in natural honor of the second group by means of clothing; but the natural lack of decency of the third group is not made good by us at all—these indecent parts have their own abundant decency.

This consists in the natural feeling of shame, in the natural modesty, which they inspire. Hence these parts are not really clothed like other parts of the body; they are hidden from sight, are covered. The aprons of fig leaves mentioned in Gen. 3:7 are quite distinct from the “coats of skins” with which God “clothed” Adam and Eve, Gen. 3:21.

1 Corinthians 12:24

24 Whereas our comely members have no need refers to such a need as the uncomely ones have. We are certainly not ashamed but proud of them, and we love to display them. It seems strange that anyone, after translating “our uncomely members” in v. 23, can refuse to translate “our comely members” in v. 24 and insists that the genitive ἡμῶν be drawn to the predicate: “have no need of us.”

A derogation that is based 1) on the lack of needfulness, 2) on the lack of honor, 3) on the lack of decency is thus refuted by the corresponding fact in each case. But lack of these separate facts is the fundamental unit of God’s own creative act. Paul arrives at this all-decisive fact from one angle of approach when he makes final settlement with the complaining foot and the ear in v. 18; he now arrives at the same all-decisive fact from another angle when he makes final settlement with the supercilious eye and the head. These prideful members operate with a false conception of the relation of the members of the body to each other. The only way in which they can be finally corrected is to set forth the true relation which the Creator himself established between the members of the body.

But God did mix the body together by making a gift of more abundant honor to the member that falls short in order that there may be no schism in the body, but that the members may be anxious for each other in the same way. This God did; the aorist “mixed together” (our versions: “tempered together”) states the creative fact, the aorist participle “by making a gift” does likewise. And the strong adversative ἀλλά places this fact in contrast with all wrong notions regarding the relation here discussed.

When God made this mixture of the body, all of the different members could not be placed on the same level. When they are compared with others, some fall short, literally, “come behind.” Paul uses a comprehensive term to describe such a member: “the one that falls short.” We have seen how some come behind others: one group only apparently so, another in our general estimation, a third actually so. God was fully aware of this lack when he made the body as he did, for he himself made good the lack by granting “more abundant honor” to each of these members.

The comparative adjective “more abundant” which is repeated for the third time and made prominent by these repetitions, cannot refer to the other members: “more abundant” honor than theirs. For this, too, would destroy the balance among the members, and only reverse their order by now making the feebler, the less honorable, and the dishonorable the most honorable of all. “More abundant” refers to the lack of the member itself, which is deficient in one or the other of the three ways. “The one that falls short” and “more abundant” are significantly juxtaposed in the Greek. Thus by granting this gift a general equality is secured.

The aorist participle δούς expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the main verb, which is also an aorist συνεκέρασε (συνκεράννυμι). This is often the case when the aorist participle follows the verb although the nature of the two actions really decides this point. God grants the “honor” to all of the deficient members, i.e., by the creative act itself, by the manner in which he there intermingles the members by making some especially needful, by arranging that some should be clothed, and that some are shielded by shame.

1 Corinthians 12:25

25 The purpose which God had in mind in all of this was to forestall what some foolish members would now, after all, precipitate upon the body: “in order that there may be no schism in the body,” no disunion and disruption. To this negative side of the purpose the positive is at once added: “but that the members may be anxious for each other in the same way.” If τὰμέλη were intended to be a totality like πάντατὰμέλη in v. 26, the verb would necessarily be singular; it is plural because the sense is distributive: each member is to be concerned about the other. The positive side of God’s purpose is not the mere counterpart to the negative; it goes much farther. The opposite of schism is only unity and peace. But it is God’s purpose that the members may all have the same deep concern for each other. The verb μεριμνᾶν is more than “to have care” (our versions); it is “to be anxious”; and τὸαὑτό is emphatic—one and the same interest is to be the anxiety which all have “in behalf of,” ὑπέρ, each other.

The present subjunctives in the two purpose clauses really leave the question open as to whether the divine purpose is actually realized or not. Aorist subjunctives would imply that it is. The sense of the latter is: “that there shall be no schism … that the members shall be anxious,” etc.; of the former: “that there may be no schism … that the members may be anxious,” etc. Paul writes present subjunctives because he is thinking also of the members of the church. God’s purpose is, indeed, fulfilled in the human body, but in the church much is yet to be desired.

1 Corinthians 12:26

26 To the fact of God’s intermingling the body with the intent just stated Paul adds the fact of the result. Moreover, whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; whether one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it. Our daily experience attests these two facts. All the members suffer with the suffering member, not disjointly but as a whole, πάντατὰμέλη, since God intermingled them and made them an organism. So also when one member receives δόξα or glory which gives it joy, the whole intermingled organism rejoices. Luther expounds: “See what the whole body does when a foot is trodden on, or a finger is pinched: how the eye looks dour, the nose draws up, the mouth cries out, and all the members are ready to rescue and to help, and none can leave the other, so that it means, not the foot or a finger is trodden on and is pinched, but the entire body.

Again, when good is done to one member, that suits all the others, and the entire body rejoices therein. This is how it ought to be also in Christendom since it, too, is composed of many members in one body and has one mind and heart, for such unity naturally has the effect that one is concerned in the good and the hurt of the other as in his own.” Walch, XII, 978; compare Erlangen edition, 8, 18 and 20.

Paul says that it is a fact that when one suffers, all suffer, etc. We readily see that this is true with respect to the human body. But what about this fact in regard to the spiritual body where so many members are faulty? The very purpose of Paul’s illustrative analogy is by means of the facts concerning the human body to show, not what is true with regard to the spiritual body, but what ought to be true. He also shows how unnatural and how wrong it is when it is not thus. The foot and the ear of the human body never speak as they are represented in v. 15, 16; but members of Christ’s body both speak and act in such a way.

The eye and the head never speak as they are represented in v. 21; but members of Christ’s body both speak and act in such a way. So also all of our bodily members suffer when one member is hurt or rejoice when one member is crowned with glory and distinction; but with regard to the spiritual members of Christ this is often not the case. But this spiritual body ought to be as the human body is. Paul’s analogy vividly illustrates how unnatural, abnormal, unreasonable, outrageous it is for the members of the spiritual body of Christ to act in contravention of the very constitution of their own body.

1 Corinthians 12:27

27 The picture is complete. As Paul drew each line of the illustration, we felt and saw what he meant in regard to ourselves as members of the church—how natural and right is the proper use of our gifts in harmony with the other members of the body, and, by contrast, how unnatural and wrong are all thoughts and actions that are in conflict with that harmony. It is accordingly an easy matter for Paul to make the application, which, therefore, also needs to be but brief. Now you are Christ’s body and members each in his part. This is the fundamental fact of the great reality which Paul has illustrated.

Paul is writing to the Corinthians and therefore cannot use the article: you are “the” body of Christ, for this might make the impression that they are Christ’s entire body. Yet the absence of the article does not mean that the Corinthians are “a body” of Christ, for no plurality of bodies of Christ exists. As in so many instances, the omission of the article stresses the quality of the noun, R. 794. Just what Christ’s body is as to nature and to quality, that you Corinthians are. We now also see what Paul means when he writes in v. 12: “so also is Christ”; he means “Christ’s body,” which is composed of all of us in whom Christ dwells. The genitive “of Christ” has been called subjective and objective, both of which are untenable, for these two genitives are possible only when the governing noun contains a verbal idea.

There is no verbal idea in “body” with which a genitive in the sense of either a subject or an object could be combined. This genitive is plainly possessive: Christ’s own body, which is made his own by his indwelling.

Being a body, it has members, all of whom are, of course, true believers. They are “members” (again there is no article because their quality as such is referred to) ἐκμέρους, “severally” or “each in part,” ein jeglicher nach seinem Teil, Luther. This adverbial phrase, R. 550, 597, indicates how the Corinthians individually belong to the body. In 13:9–12 this idiomatic phrase is used to show a contrast with perfection while here there is a contrast with completeness. No one member is the complete body, each is only a part.

We may here settle the question as to whether Paul would assign certain corresponding spiritual members to the individual bodily members. Paul nowhere identifies eye, ear, smelling, hand, foot, head, even by implication, with definite members of the church. In other words, Paul is not in any sense writing an allegory. No hint appears that when Paul speaks about three groups of bodily members he has in mind definite members of the church who are analogously grouped. Who are the “feebler” members of the human body? Most commentators reply, “The eye and the ear as compared with the hand and the foot.” But in Paul’s illustration the eye spurns the hand as being utterly feeble, unable to reach as far as the eye.

This is true also regarding the ear when it is compared with the foot. Such a view regarding the members of the first group is serious enough. It becomes more serious when the eyes and the ears are referred to the preachers and the hearers of the church, for this changes the entire body of the church into mere eyes and ears, and this would be an unheard-of monstrosity.

Next comes the thought that the “less honorable” members of the human body are the arms, legs, shoulders, and hips, because they are clothed although in southern localities like Corinth arms, shoulders, and legs are often entirely bare. Others think that these bodily members denote all of the church members who have no church office. Paul has not spoken one word about arms, legs, etc. And why should the arm and the shoulder have no office in the church when the hand has such an office, for in every movement shoulder, arm, and hand act together? Hip, leg, and foot do the same.

The “uncomely” parts are taken to be the seat and the organs of elimination. Hofmann would have us think of the genital organs as “enjoying the distinction that they reproduce the race.” What distinction the seat “enjoys” he does not say. Fortunately, no commentator, not even Hofmann, has allegorized these parts and the “distinction they enjoy.” This collapse of the allegorizing view should be convincing. Paul presents nothing beyond an extended illustration, and for each feature of his illustration he carefully states the tertium comparationis. It is a law that no illustration should be stressed beyond this tertium (the point of comparison). Together with Paul we abide by that law.

1 Corinthians 12:28

28 Paul first mentions the great fact regarding the Corinthians themselves: they are Christ’s body, each is a member of it. We sense two implications: 1) each member will have some function to perform and will thus have some gift; 2) the body of Christ includes all others who, like the Corinthians, are believers. To this first great fact and its evident implications Paul now adds (καί) the second fact. And God did set some in the church: first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then charismata of healings, helps, managements, varieties of tongues.

Paul twice mentions the Creator’s act regarding the human body: in v. 18, “God did set,” etc., and in v. 24, “God did mix,” etc. So Paul now writes regarding the spiritual body: “God did set,” etc. While this seems to be a parallel only to v. 18 it in reality includes also v. 24, for the mixture in the church appears in the variety of offices and of services which God “did set in the church.” The verb is placed before the subject and is thus made emphatic: it is God’s act—see what he did. This act extends far beyond the Corinthians who are only one congregation among many, and to whom, as a congregation, many members are yet to be added. Hence Paul writes: God did set “in the church” and takes in the entire church of all places and all ages.

Some interpreters refer to the psychology of Paul to account for his writing οὓςμέν without following it with οὓςδέ, but the former is simply the demonstrative “some,” R. 696; and aside from his rapidity of thinking Paul or any other writer is always free to proceed as he desires when he introduces classes. Grammatically Paul is guilty of no irregularity that is due to his swift mind; in fact, because of this very swiftness he would know in advance what he is saying. In Eph. 4:11 he exercises the same freedom and writes τοὺςμέν and follows this with τοὺςδέ. Moreover, in our passage “some” is divided by the following specifications. Paul intends to mention only certain prominent persons and gifts in the church from the apostles downward to tongues and to omit the lesser gifts which were distributed so that each member had his gift.

Much is also made of the fact that Paul names three sets of persons and follows these with functions and abilities and no further mention of persons. In Eph. 4:11 the entire list contains persons while in Rom. 12:6, etc., two functions lead the list which are followed by individuals who exercise some gift. This shows that Paul’s lists are not stereotyped. The conclusion is, therefore, unwarranted that “apostles, prophets, and teachers” possessed permanent gifts and thus held recognized and fixed offices in the church while in the case of the other gifts such permanency does not appear and that at this time there were no regularly established offices of this type. The apostles worked as the result of a definite and even an immediate call into an office that was fixed and permanent from the beginning. But prophecy was a gift that was not dependent upon such a fixed office, it was much like healing, miracles, etc., and in its simple form was open to an indefinite number of Christians. It is Paul’s evident intention not to distinguish fixed offices from occasional functions that were exercised in the church but to call attention to the great variety of notable gifts and functions that were distributed in the church.

In connections such as this the term “apostles” is distinctive; it refers to those who were immediately called by Christ, the Twelve and Paul and Matthias, the substitute for Judas. While it is true that the term is used also in a wider sense so as to include men like Barnabas and other personal helpers of the Twelve and of Paul, yet to insist on the wider meaning in connections like the present makes the term indefinite. The one distinction of the Thirteen remains: their immediate call. So also does their supreme function in harmony with this call: the apostles constitute the foundation of the church for all time, Eph. 2:20, not, indeed, in their persons, but through the Word which they conveyed to the church. The Word in its written form governs the church until the end of time.

Regarding “prophets” see v. 10, the gift of “prophecy.” This gift is at times taken in a broad sense as in 14:1 and then refers to every ability to communicate the saving will and truth to others; again the expression is taken in a narrow sense and then refers to the fact of receiving direct communications from God and transmitting them to the persons for whom they are intended. When “prophets” are mentioned in a prominent manner in the New Testament they are ranked next to the apostles as is done in the present instance. In Eph. 2:20 they are even put in the same class with the apostles because but one Greek article is employed. The apostles themselves were the most notable New Testament prophets. All the other New Testament prophets were of a lower rank. Most of them are not named in the New Testament.

None of them had a call such as the apostles had received. Mark and Luke are two who were inspired by the Spirit and composed three of the books of the New Testament.

The third class consists of “teachers” who have the gift of conveying instruction. In Eph. 4:11 “shepherds and teachers” form one class, namely pastors of local congregations who lead or govern and instruct. Yet these two functions were often separated. In the present list “managements” appear separately; and in 1 Tim. 5:17 two classes of elders are indicated: those that rule well and those that at the same time also labor in the Word and in teaching.

Regarding δυνάμεις and “charismata of healings” see v. 10. In the Scriptures ἀντιλήψεις is used only in the sense of Hilfeleistungen, “helps,” abilities for rendering helpful services such as assisting the destitute, the sick, the persecuted, the troubled, etc. The term reminds us of διακονίαι which was used in v. 4, “ministrations” or services for the sake of the service. We at once see that an indefinite number of members may possess this valuable gift in some form because the range of service is rather wide. And we may note that Paul is not dividing the members into two great classes, one that has gifts, the other that is without them. Although he offers no complete catalog of gifts here as he does not in v. 4, etc., he, nevertheless, thinks of at least some gift that was bestowed upon each member.

A κυβερνήτης is a helmsman who steers a vessel, and thus this gift consists in managing and directing others whether officially as presbyters, pastors, or bishops or in unofficial ways. Some men and some women of the church, including even young people, have this gift to a marked degree and profit the church not a little by rightly putting it to use. “Helps” and “managements” are a significant pair. Regarding “varieties of tongues” see v. 10.

1 Corinthians 12:29

29 After this brief survey of the various gifts Paul returns to the main point of his instruction, namely to the wide and varied way in which the gifts are distributed among the many members. Some have this, some that gift as God has made apportionment to each. All cannot have the same gift. Some gifts are denied, must be denied to some of us. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all gifted with miracles? The evident and expected answer, as is indicated by the interrogative particle μή, is: “No, all are not, only some are.”

Our versions translate the last question: “Are all workers of miracles?” Something must be supplied since δυνάμεις does not mean persons but “miracles” or miracle-working powers. We might supply “have”: “Have all miracles?” The supposition that Paul would here curb the ambition that would possess all of the gifts is unwarranted.

1 Corinthians 12:30

30 The rhetorical questions continue: have all charismata of healings? do all speak ‘with tongues? do all interpret? Paul omits two of the gifts that are listed in v. 28 and adds one that is not in this list but is found in v. 10. His intention is evident: so numerous are the gifts that it makes no difference in regard to the point here stressed whether some that are mentioned in one list are omitted or others that are found in some other list or in no list are added.

1 Corinthians 12:31

31 It is plain that all cannot have the same gift. That might, however, imply that each member is simply to accept whatever gift has fallen to his lot and therewith remain content. This is true in part, but only in part. One may also seek and obtain certain other gifts. But strive zealously for the greater charismata. Compare 14:1. The injunction is general, which explains both the plural imperative and its natural counterpart, the plural object. To regard this plural object as implying that each and every member is to strive for any and for all of the greater gifts is to misunderstand Paul’s thought.

The greatest of all gifts is the apostleship with its immediate call and its wonderful work. Yet no striving on our part will bring us this gift; it was reserved for only a very few who were living at the time of the founding of the church. One of the great gifts is to be a pastor. Yet because of their sex women as a class are debarred from this gift. Thus Paul’s injunction to strive zealously for the greater gifts has its evident and its natural limitations. These limitations extend even farther. Some of even the lesser gifts call for a natural aptitude and a qualification which are markedly denied to many of us. All our striving will not bring us the gift. Paul knows all this very well; he assumes a like intelligence on the part of his readers.

“The greater gifts” are those that benefit the general body of the church more than some other gifts do. Paul himself gives us an illustration in chapter 14 when he ranks the general ability to edify the church through prophecy far above the ability to speak with tongues. This is our cue for understanding what he means by bidding us to strive for the greater gifts. To strive zealously means more than to pray; it includes effort toward cultivating and toward producing a receptivity and a fitness on our part. The Spirit bestows the gifts, but he bestows them only on those who are fit to receive them. He, too, works the fitness but does so only in those who allow him full sway in their hearts.

Many of us could have gifts that we now lack, and we could have them to a greater degree than we now have them. This is especially true with reference to some of the greater gifts such as wisdom, knowledge, acquaintance with the Word, ability to explain it to others, ability to win others for the gospel, etc.

The first point is the type of the gift desired; we are to admire, value, and seek the higher types. A second point must be taken into consideration when Paul is speaking of the acquirement and the use of any gift. This is the motive for having and for employing the gift, namely the motive of love. In this regard the Corinthians are gravely deficient as we have already seen in other connections in earlier chapters. Just what this motive of Christian love is Paul intends to tell the Corinthians at some length. He introduces this part of his instruction by saying: And besides I point out to you an exceedingly excellent way, namely for this zealous striving to which I urge you.

Blass and others would change the reading because the wording is somewhat unusual. Although the phrase καθʼ ὑπερβολήν modifies a noun, it is quite plain. Paul tells the Corinthians to seek the superior gifts and adds (ἔτι) that he will now show them a superior way for seeking them. The emphatic adjective: the “greater” gifts is thus balanced by the emphatic phrase: a way “in excess,” one that exceeds, i.e., in excellence for its purpose. The sense is, however, not that this exceedingly excellent way is to be sought in place of the gifts, as a substitute for them. The idea expressed is not that “love” is more excellent than gifts.

This introduces a false contrast and would call for an adversative connective, namely δέ or ἀλλά in place of Paul’s καί and ἔτι. Nor does Paul elaborate the thesis that love is preferable to gifts. In 14:1 he urges us to seek both. Love is to be the all-dominating motive in seeking and in using spiritual gifts.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.