n Naruse, anar-
q See xii. 30.
Cf. xv. 32; Rom. iii.
u See i. 5. v See xii: 10.
4. ὃ "λαλῶν |
* προφητεύων " ἐκκλησίαν
ὁ Ἱπροφητεύων ἢ ὁ "λαλῶν
m See viii. 1.
w νετ. 26; cf. xii. 29. διδαχη., Rom. vi. 17, xvi. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. 1. 9; Heb. vi. 2, xiii. 9; 2 Jo. 9, 10; thrice in Rev.; 4 times in Acts; 11 in GG. }
1δε, NABP, cop. yap, DGKL, etc. Cf. xii. 18,
2 yvy all pre-Syrian uncc. 3 Om. η (first) δν, 17, 67**, cop.
4 Om. εν (last) SDer.-Get So Tisch.
to the good: ‘Yet I would have you all speak with tongues,—but rather that you might prophesy.” μᾶλλον ἵνα προφη- τεύητε is repeated from ver. 1: what the Ap. bids his readers prefer, he prefers for them—not to the exclusion of the Tongues, for the two gifts might be held at once (6, 18), but as looking beyond them.—6édw ἵνα occurs several times in the Gospels without any marked telic force (Matt. vii. 12, Mark vi. 25, ix. 30, John xvii. 24), but only here in P.; its substitution for the inf. (λαλεῖν) of the co- Ordinate clause is significant.—‘‘ More- over he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues ’’—attached by the part. δὲ where one expected γάρ (T.R.); P. is not justifying his own pre- ference just stated, but giving a further reason why the Cor. should covet Pro- phecy more than Tongues: the main reason lies in the eminent usefulness of this charism (2-4); besides that (δέ), its possessor is a ‘‘ greater’’ person (μείζων: cf. xii. 31) ‘ than the speaker with tongues —except in the case that he interprets (his ecstatic utterance), that the Church may get edification”. The power to interpret superadded to the glossolalia (see 13, 26 Π., xii. το) puts the mystic speaker on a level with the prophet: first ‘uttering mysteries” (2) and then making them plain to his hearers, he accomplishes in two acts what the pro- phet doesin one. ἐκτὸς ei μὴ is a Pauline pleonasm (see parls.), consisting of ἐκτὸς εἰ (except if) and εἰ µή (unless) run together; “with this exception,—unless
, latt. vg. syrr. (Western and Syrian).
; Tr. brackets.
he interpret ” (Wr., p. 756). For et with sbj., in distinction from ἐάν, see Wr., p. 368; it ‘“‘represents that the event will decide the point” (El.). To supply τις with διερµην., supposing another inter- preter meant, is ungrammatical; the identity of speaker and interpreter is the essential point. He interprets with the express intention that the Church may be edified (ἵνα . . . οἰκοδομὴν AdBy).
Ver. 6. What the Ap. has said touch- ing the criterion of edification, he applies to his own approaching visit (iv. 18 ff., xvi. 5 ff.): ‘But at the present time, brothers,”—vtv δέ, temporal, as in ν. 11, etc.; not logical, as in vii. 14, xiii. 13, etc. (see Hf., against most interpreters). It is the situation at Cor. which gives point to this ref.: what help could the Ap. bring to his readers in their troubled state, if he were to offer them nothing but confused mutterings and ravings? (cf. 7-11)—an appeal to common sense. —The hypotheses are parl. (expressing by ἐὰν actual possibility, cf. 18; not mere conceivability) the second the negative of the first: “if I should come to you speaking with tongues, wherein shall I profit you—if I do not speak in (the way of) revelation or knowledge, or prophesying or teaching?” In the four ἢ clauses, the second pair matches the first: revelation comes through the pro- phet, knowledge through the teacher (cf. xii. 8, 10, 28, etc.). For ἔρχομαι with ptp. of the character or capacity in which one comes—‘‘a (mere) speaker with tongues,” unable to interpret (see 5)
904
x Gal. iii. 15; Jo. ii