Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 14:26-40

You can read the text here.

Paul wraps up his discussion of spiritual gifts and the building of the body in worship in this section. God gives different members gifts which they may use to build the body during corporate worship.[1] Tongues are not a mandatory part of a service, but if they occur it should be at most two or three and always accompanied by interpretation.[2] Prophecy seems to be more core to the service and should also be limited to two or three speakers at most, and those assembled should evaluate its content for fidelity. All speech must be orderly and people must take turns that way there is no chaos and the body can actually be built up.

Paul wants women to be guarded in their interactions, especially married women. In Greco-Roman culture it was considered scandalous for a married woman to converse with a man who was not her husband. Paul wants to adhere to cultural norms and requires women to refrain from asking questions of others and ask their own husbands. If we piece the data together from chapters 11-14, it seems that women were encouraged to be involved in what we would call liturgical speech where they could lead the congregation in some aspect of worship but not ask questions or interact interpersonally. Again, Paul's concern is to avoid bringing shame on the congregation.[3]

Paul concludes with a direct challenge. His authority and the content of his message comes from the Lord, so anyone who has heard from the Lord will not oppose him. Opposition is a sign that one has not heard from God and risks his judgment. He wants the Corinthians to about in all of the gifts (especially prophecy) but they need to be executed in a way that builds the church rather than the individual.

-----------------------------------
[1] Thiselton's comment that most of these are not spontaneous gifts but resulted from prior preparation makes sense to me.

[2] I think a middle ground between Thiselton and Ciampa and Rosner is likely correct. Thiselton overplays the extent to which the interpretation should come from the tongue utterer, however, I do find it likely that the one who speaks in tongues would be the best candidate to interpret.

[3] Ciampa and Rosner are very helpful on the background for these verses. I think it goes without saying that this brief statement has no applicability today.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…