Ver. 33. The apophthegm of ver. 32 exemplifies the universal principle of order in God’s works; cf. the deduction: drawn in xi. 3. God’s gift of the Spirit submits itself to the receiver’s will, through whose direction its exercise is brought into regulated and edifying use: ‘‘ For God is not (a God) of disorder (or seditionis, Cv.), but of peace”. To suppose that God inspires His prophets:
νο th 58
914
y xv. 27 f., xvi. 16. 15 times 3 ὃς ANN? besides in Qeas ἀλλ P.; thrice in Lk.
“elpyvns, as ἐν ὃ
Ἱπροφήταις * ὑποτάσσεται' 33. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν " ἀκαταστασίας ὁ , a_b2 Xi , ety ee 1 πάσαις ταῖς exkAnotats "τῶν "ἁγίων.
ec - ay 9 A aK Al γυναικες ὑμῶν ὃ ἐν ταις ἐκκλησίαις "σιγάτωσαν ' οὐ γὰρ
πιασαἃ.- 2 ς 5 (rvevuara 4 €perétpamtar* αὐταῖς λαλεῖν ἀλλὰ " ὑποτάσσεσθαι,) καθὼς καὶ
υΌποτασσ.,
four exx. in Heb.; one in Jas.; six in 1 Pet. Prov. xxi. 8; Tob. iv. 13. -τος, Jas. i. 8.
z 2 Cor. vi. 5, xii. 20; Lk. xxi. 9; Jas. iii. 16;
iv. a 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; Phil. iv. 9: 1 Th. v. 23; Heb. xiii. 20; 2 Th. iii. 16 (0 κυρ. 7. ειρ.). & oe
b See vii. 17. c See vi. 1. d Impers.
pass., Acts xxvi. 1, xxviii. 16. See also xvi. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 12, Acts xxi. 39.
1 SQ by its punctuation distinctly attaches ως . . « αγιων to ver. 33.
So Chr. and
Ff. ; so also the crit. edd., exc. Tisch., Weiss, W.H. marg. See note below. 2 DG and several Latin authorities read vv. 34, 35 after 4o.
3 Om. υµων SAB, 17, vg. cop., Or., Mcion., ΟΥΡ.
temuitpewerat, all uncc. but KL.
δνποτασσεσθωσαν: NAB, 17, 73, syrsch. cop. basm., Mcion. υνποτασσεσθαι: DGKL, latt. vg.—a Western emendation,
to speak two or three at a time, to make a tumult in the Church and refuse con- trol, would be to suppose Him the author of confusion, of chaos instead of cosmos. ---ἀκαταστασία (see paris.) is a word of the LXX and later Gr., denoting civil disorder or mutiny; it recalls the σχίσ- para and ἔριδες of i. 1ο f., xi. 18 f., to which emulation in the display of spiritual powers seems to have contributed.—‘‘ As it is in all the Churches of the saints”: in evidence of the ‘‘ peace”” which God confers on human society, P. can point to the conduct of Church meetings in all other Christian communities—a feature proper to ‘assemblies of the saints”’. Here is a final and solemn reason why the prophets of Cor. should practise self-control and mutual deference: ¢f. xi. 16; also i. 2b, and note; xvi. 1.— On the connexion of the ὡς clause, see Ed. or El. W.H. attach it to ver. 31, re- garding vv. 32, 334 as a parenthesis; but this breaks the continuity of vv. 31, 32; nor does it appear that ‘‘all the churches” had the superabundance of prophets that necessitated the restrictions imposed in vv. 29-31. Other leading editors (Tisch., Mr., Hn., Hf., Bt., Gd.) link this qualification to the following con- text; but it comes in clumsily before the impv. of ver. 34, and the repetition of év ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις is particularly awkward. On the other hand, the ref. to the example of the other Churches appropriately con- cludes the Apostle’s appeals on the weighty subject, of universal interest, which has occupied him throughout this chapter.
§ 49. FinaL INSTRUCTIONS ON CHURCH ORDER, xiv. 34-40. In vv. 34 ff. P. re-
turns to the matter which he first touched upon in reproving the disorderly Church life at Cor., viz., the irregular behaviour of certain Christian women (xi. 2-16): there it was their dress, now it is their tongue that he briefly reproves. Vv. 37 f., glancing over the injunctions of Div. IV. at large, commend their recognition as a test of the high pretensions to spiritual insight made at Cor. Ver. 39 recapitulates Paul’s deliverance on the vexed question of Tongues versus Pro- phecy. Ver. 40 adds the final maxim of propriety and order,—a tule of adminis- tration as comprehensive and important as the πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν of ver. 26. Ver. 34. At γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλη- σίαις σιγάτωσαν: “Let women (Gr. generic art.) keep silence in the church assemblies, for it is not allowed them to speak’’; cf. x Tim. ii. 12, where the ‘speaking ” of this passage is defined as ‘‘teaching, or using authority over a man”. The contradiction between this veto and the language of xi. 5, which assumes that women “‘ pray’ and “ pro- phesy”’ in gatherings of Christians and forbids their doing so ‘‘ with uncovered head,” is relieved by supposing (a) that in xi. 5 P. refers to private gatherings (so Ον., Bg., Μτ., Bt., Ev., El.), or means specifically at home (Hf.), while here speaking ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ is forbidden (35) ; but there is nothing in ch. xi. to indicate this distinction, which ex hyp. is vital to the matter ; moreover, at this early date, the distinction between public and private Christian meetings—in church or house —was very imperfectly developed. Or (4), the instances admitted in xi. 5 were exceptional, ‘‘ou la femme se sentirait