Month: July 2022 (Page 4 of 4)

Verse 2 – And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

A second conditional statement is added (καὶ, “And”) to the first of a series of such clauses (vv.1-3). Again, the class three condition presents matters as hypothetical for the sake of consideration (ἐὰν + subjunctive verb). Three far-ranging extremes of spiritual insight are imagined.

The first that is imagined is “I have prophetic powers” (ἔχω προφητείαν). The noun (προφητεία) can designate the spiritual gift of prophecy (Rom. 12:6), an utterance so spoken (1 Cor. 14:6), predicting future events (Matt. 13:14), or the work of doing so (Rev. 11:6).[1] The translators following the lead of the RSV and NRSV have expanded that interpretively to “prophetic powers” (emphasis added). Others translate as “the gift of prophecy” (NASB, NASU, NKJV, NLT, emphasis added). But it is simply “prophecy” (NET, YLT). It designates “declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events.”[2] Paul pictures a state of affairs where “I have” (ἔχω) such a prophecy. The present tense and the subjunctive mood point to a hypothetical situation considered as a present reality. It is the same verb and form as in verse 1: “have [ἔχω] not love” and that will show up again at the end of this verse and the next. A situation in which one possesses loveless prophecy is in view.

Paul nowhere here directly claims the gift of prophecy, though that seems to be his point in 1 Corinthians 14:19. He views prophecy as the highest of the greater gifts (14:1). He desires it above all other spiritual gifts for the sake of Christ’s body, the church. His reticence to directly claim the gift is in line with his use of the language group. He uses the noun (προφήτης) six times in this letter (12:28, 29; 14:29, 32 [2x], 37). He uses the verb (προφητεύω), however, eleven times (11:4, 5; 13:9; 14:1, 3, 4, 5 [2x], 24, 31, 39). Paul is almost twice as likely to refer to the act of prophesying than he is to designate anyone a prophet. The only place in the NT where someone directly takes to themselves the title is the wicked Jezebel “who calls herself a prophetess” (Rev. 2:20). The point seems, then, to be that one should speak as the Lord leads him to speak, letting the words stand and leaving it to God to prove them true and thus confirm him as a prophet. The imagined point, then, is of an individual who thus speaks from God, apparently genuinely and truly inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

To this is added (καὶ, “and”) a second possibility, that one can “understand all mysteries and all knowledge” (εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν). Paul had already told his readers, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries [μυστηρίων] of God” (4:1). He later will announce, “Behold! I tell you a mystery [μυστήριον]” (15:51a). He can say,

We impart a secret [μυστηρίῳ] and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”– these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows [οἶδεν] a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand [εἰδῶμεν] the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (2:7-13)

That which the Apostle supposes is the comprehension of “all mysteries” (τὰ μυστήρια πάντα). Note the definite article. Perhaps it could, thus, be rendered, “all the mysteries.” He is thinking of the whole of all actually existing “mysteries,” things actual, but which reside beyond our understanding. And it is “all” (πάντα) such mysteries that he has in mind. While it is true that Paul and the other apostles were the stewards of God’s mysteries and proclaimed them for the upbuilding of God’s people, and while Paul would later disclose his experience “visions and revelations of the Lord” so profound that they “cannot be told” and which “man may not utter” (2 Cor. 12:1, 4), he would not have claimed to have understood “all” mysteries that lie within the purview of God alone.

To this he adds (καὶ, “and”) the notion of possessing “all knowledge” (πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν). Note, that here again we have a definite article. Paul is imagining someone knowing all that is capable of being known. By the way, note that these expressions imply that not all things are able to be known at this present time and in the present configuration of things (cf. Deut. 29:29). But suppose someone was able to possess full and comprehensive understanding of everything in both categories. What if you encountered an omniscient, but loveless person?

Paul has had a thing or two to say about knowledge throughout this letter. He told his readers that “you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge [γνώσει]” (1:5). He tells them “we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge [γνῶσιν]’ when it comes to “food offered to idols” (8:1a). But, he insists, “This ‘knowledge’ [γνῶσις] puffs up, but love builds up” (v.1b). So, before ever getting to chapter 13 Paul has already set up the notion of knowledge without love. In fact, what happens in such a scenario is that when “not all possess this knowledge [γνῶσις]” “some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled” (8:7). Then he lowers the boom, “And so by your knowledge [γνώσει] this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died” (8:11). This is an example of how loveless knowledge operates. In consequence, they must submit every Spirit-given “utterance of knowledge” (λόγος γνώσεως, 12:8) to the discipline of love.

The Apostles stretches us yet further, adding (καὶ, “and”) to the first two possibilities a third. Suppose that “I have all faith” (ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν). The context tells us that Paul is here thinking not of the saving faith that all must exercise (2:5), but the special gifting of some within the body of Christ which distributes to some “faith by the same Spirit” (12:9). The definite article (τὴν) stresses the particularity of this faith and might be rendered “I have all the faith.” It designates, then, not the fullness of all possible faith, but all the faith required for whatever great thing God demands of you in the moment. It is faith great enough “so as to remove mountains” (ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάναι) if they stand in the way of God’s will. Surely Jesus’ statements about the power of faith to move mountains are in view here (Matt. 17:20; 21:21). Paul paints a portrait of one who never comes up against an obstacle so big that he does not possess the faith to overcome it in Jesus’ Name.

Line up the suppositions here in verse 2. Imagine someone who possesses not only penetrating insight into every mystery and is able to tap into the infinite storehouses of God’s knowledge and has the ability to articulate it in terms simple enough for any child of God to understand and, along with it, a limitless supply of faith to act wisely upon that insight so as to bring about that which is beyond all human capability. Yet, picture this super-human being as lacking love.

This is precisely what Paul does as he imagines a state of affirms where you have these three superpowers “but have not love” (ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω). This is precisely the same expression as at the end of verse 1 (see our comments there). This time, however, the outcome of the imagined situation is different: “I am nothing” (οὐθέν εἰμι). The first hypothetical results in having “become” (NASU, NKJV, YLT) nothing meaningful. This second states what one then is (εἰμι, “I am”). The present tense here stands in contrast the perfect tense in verse 1. The first declares a state of being (“I have become”), the second a present identity (“I am”).

Paul will later gather up these supernatural realities and inform us that both knowledge and prophecies as presently experienced, even at their best, are incomplete (v.9) and “will pass away” (v.10). Tongues (v.1) along with prophecies and knowledge (v.2) all have a terminus point, but “Love never ends” (v.8).

[1] Friberg, 23632.

[2] Thayer, 4547.

Verse 1 – If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

Paul begins his extended discourse on love by using a series of conditional statements, running through verse three. Each is a class three condition (ἐὰν + subjunctive verb), presenting the matters as supposals. That which is pictured is presented for consideration, not fact.[1] “The fourfold condition is used in a very broad way.

Paul imagines here experiences (v.1), insights (v.2), and sacrifices (v.3) of the highest order or of the most extreme kind.

The first conditional statement is, “If I speak” (Ἐὰν . . . λαλῶ). The present tense of the verb simply sets forth something that may happen, without emphasizing the duration of the action. It is, however, a particular kind of speaking that is in view: “in the tongues of men and of angels” (ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων . . . καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων). The noun (ταῖς γλώσσαις) translated “in the tongues” can refer literally to the human organ of speech, the tongue. But it frequently stands for that which that organ produces, actual spoken communication or language. The plural thus here refers to various kinds of languages that can be spoken. Two are especially in view here.

The first is “of men” (τῶν ἀνθρώπων). This refers to whatever earthly, human languages may be spoken. Originally “the whole earth had one language and the same words” (Gen. 11:1). But as a protection for the spreading rebellion of mankind, God confused “their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech” (v.7). Over 7,100 languages are spoken across the world in our day. Some from history have fallen away and others grow more marginalized and obscure every year. But all would be included here in Paul’s supposition.

To these earthly, human languages Paul adds (καὶ, “and”) that “of angels” (τῶν ἀγγέλων). Is he here building his argument, as he does in verse 2, from that which is actual to that which hypothetical? Paul does have prophetic powers (v.2a), but surely he does not claim to understand all mysteries nor to have all knowledge, for otherwise, he be claiming omniscience (v.2b).[2] It is doubtful he claims to have literally given away ever last thing he ever possessed to help the poor (v.3a). But he may not be literally taking inventory in that sense. Truly, Paul did give up everything he had. It would be difficult to read what he will recount to these same believers in another letter and conclude Paul had not given everything to the fulfillment of God’s purpose in them (2 Cor. 11:23-29). So again, he is speaking of that which is actual (v.3a) to set up that which is hypothetical, for Paul could not claim to have actually died as a martyr by fire (v.3b). So this appears to be his pattern throughout the first three verses of this chapter—an argument from the actual to the hypothetical. So in this opening verse it is true that Paul could speak in the tongues of human beings, probably several of them. But it is unlikely that he is claiming to actually be able to speak “in the tongues . . . of angels.” True, he will later tell his readers, “I speak in tongues more than all of you” (14:18). But the question is whether what he refers to here as “the tongues of . . . angels” is the same as the gift of speaking in tongues, with which the Corinthians were so enamored and which he spends so much time addressing here (12:10, 28, 30; 14:5, 6, 18, 21-23, 39). It would seem, then, that this opening verse “offers no comfort for those who view tongues as a heavenly language.”[3]

It seems thus that Paul is arguing from extremes, if we were able to speak every human language known to mankind or even those languages which are not known on earth, but which only the angles speak between one another in heaven. Neither are actually the case. There are polyglots who make most of us marvel with their facility and relative ease in learning human languages. Some become fluent in dozens of human, earthly languages. But no one has ever been able to speak them all. Still less has anyone mastered that form of communication that allows angels to relate and cooperate in the service of God in heaven.

What Paul sets up is a scenario in which these realities were to become true in some individual “but” (δὲ) but they be devoid of love (“have not love,” ἀγάπην . . . μὴ ἔχω). The subjunctive form of the verb (ἔχω, “have”) continues to support Paul’s hypothetical case. The particle (μὴ, “not”) negates the matter “technically, indirectly, hypothetically, subjectively.”[4] That which in Paul’s imaginary case is missing is “love” (ἀγάπην). A great deal is to be made of this ἀγάπη-love. But it is not at all always clear just what that is. Much ink has been spilt in marking the distinctions between various Greek words for love, including ἔρος, στοργή, φιλαδελφία, and ἀγάπη.[5] The first two do not appear in the NT and the latter two sometimes overlap with one another. Though it is true that distinctions between the words do exist, they often appear in graded fashion rather than with clear boundaries and distinctions. The context of each must inform us as to just what the author has in mind in any given usage. Thus far Paul has only used the noun twice in this letter. But in these instances “love” is set out as the opposite of “the rod” and as a partner with “gentleness” (1 Cor. 4:21). This kind of “love” is the opposite of self-promotion and pride and the epitome of the selflessness that seeks the other’s good (8:1).

Imagine, the Apostle asks us, a person in whom unparalleled linguistic skills exist—both on the earthly and heavenly planes—and yet the person is devoid of the love that seeks the highest good of those with whom he is thus able to communicate. He would have nothing of value to communicate. He may have much to say (mostly about himself, his experiences, what he knows, but also the failing and shortcomings of the other), but nothing to communicate. If this imagined scenario were to be true, the best one could claim is “I am a noisy gong or clanging cymbal” (γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον).

The verb (γέγονα, “I am”) has left behind the hypothetical world of the first two subjunctive verbs and sets forth reality through the indicative mood. The prefect tense points to a state of being, this happened in the past and its result continues in the present. It describes what is. The verb emphasizes becoming, “to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition.”[6] Living eloquent, but loveless makes one nothing more than “a noisy gong” (χαλκὸς ἠχῶν). Similarly (ἢ, “or”), facility in language (of whatever earthly or heavenly realm) without love renders one nothing more than “a clanging cymbal” (κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον).

It seems likely that the Apostle is calling upon his readers’ background in the mystery religions of pagan Greek culture. Many of the mystery religions (Dionysus, Cybele, Bacchus) used gongs, cymbals, and the like as a part of their passionate, even ecstatic, but empty expressions of worship. His readers would have immediately understood his reference. They knew from experience that all such prayer and worship is just “noise,” of no particular value, just clamoring static projected into thin air. With such instruments there is no distinction of sound, no message communicated, just a lot of attention drawn.

Both eloquence nor ecstasies without love are just so much noise. In fact, they are worse than just worthless noise. All such is reduced to the level of pagan religion.

And notice again, Paul says, literally, “I have already become” just as these loud, arresting, but uncommunicative instruments. He is not saying, “my gift has become noise,” but, “I have become nothing more than noise.”

God says such eloquence and ecstasies do not matter! Paul earlier reminded them, “I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom . . . my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit . . .” (1 Cor. 2:1, 4). A “demonstration of the Spirit” is all that matters, and the first thing listed in the “fruit of the Spirit” is love (Gal. 5:22-23).

[1] Rienecker, 431; Robertson, Word Pictures, 4:176.

[2] Wallace, 698.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Thayer, 408.

[5] Cf. C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves.

[6] BDAG, 1646.5.

I am setting out to preach through 1 Corinthians 13. In the past I have does so as part of an exposition of the entire letter, which is ideal. But presently I am unable to give myself to that lengthy process. I am undertaking a fresh study of the text in preparation for these expositions. I project a series of three messages, dividing the text as follows: verses 1-3, verses 4-7, and verses 8-13.

One of the challenges of dipping into the midst of a letter is making sure one properly accounts for the context. 1 Corinthians 13 is especially vulnerable to bring plucked out and used in contemporary contexts (e.g., weddings, plaques, greeting cards) without accounting for the original context.

In 1 Corinthians 7-16 the Apostle Paul finds himself addressing a series of questions put to him by the congregation. These seem to be marked out by the repeated formula “Now concerning” (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). Answering their questions required not only Spirit-given insight and Apostolic authority, but pastoral savvy, for two realities intensified the challenge. On the one hand the congregation in Corinth appeared to be not entirely taken with Paul (e.g., 2:1-4). On the other hand, they are a divided congregation (e.g., 1:10-13; 3:1-4) and it seems likely these questions were at the heart of their divisions.

The thirteenth chapter, then, comes as part of his answer to their question about “spiritual gifts” (12:1). The form used here (τῶν πνευματικῶν) can be read either as a neuter form (thus “spiritual gifts”) or as a masculine form, pointing to “spiritual persons.” Throughout chapters 12 and 14 Paul deals with spiritual gifts, to be sure. The neuter plural form of the word in 14:1 (τὰ πνευματικά, “the spiritual gifts”) would lend credence to reading it here in 12:1 as also referring to the gifts of the Spirit. But the letter as a whole raises the larger question of how to identify who in the midst of this divided, carnal, selfish church is truly spiritual. They seem to think that the answer is found in who has facility in certain spiritual gifts. To them “spiritual gifts” = “spiritual persons.” But Paul says, “I will show you a still more excellent way” (12:31b). So, yes, he takes up their question about “spiritual gifts” (12:1) but does so in such a way to reveal their relationship to the larger question of being truly Spirit-filled people.

Having begun his answer about “spiritual gifts” in chapter 12, Paul will return to the matter in chapter 14. But for the present (chapter 13) he will set before them that which is the true test of authentic spirituality.

My plan is to set out commentary on each verse, one at a time. Then to pause at the natural breaks in the text to give you the outline of the message preached from those verses. My prayer is that this will prove edifying for you.