1:10† ^Paul means due to the good reputation of Mĕssiah, or that the good name of Mĕssiah should be upheld and not tarnished by divisions among the faithful. Later this concept was abused by the Church, wherein those with the most perceived authority, or who claimed authority they did not have urged everyone to agree with them, making it a sin on to agree with them even when they were wrong. Thus agreement with the authority was put above the truth, and agreement made an end in itself. Therefore, beware of those who call for unity when their real plan in the end is to excommunicate the truth.
1:30¹ ^Or “righteousness,” i.e. the example of righteousness, and the source of it, and the same for “justice.” In a substitutionary sense, Mĕssiah’s suffering and death is the Almĭghty’s punitive justice or punitive righteousness against our sins. But he is also the source of actual righteousness imparted to us by the divine power of his resurrection life in cooperation with our faithfulness. So it will be true in the end that he is Yăhwēh Tzidkē̱nū, Yăhwēh our Justice, Yăhwēh our Righteousness.
1:30† ^But by him, you are in Mĕssiah Yĕshua, who is become wisdom to us from the Almĭghty, and also ¹justice, holiness, and redemption,† See note 1:30¹ on justice, which also means righteousness. Paul does not teach, “Christ kept the law for you, so that I don’t have to theology,” also known as
And righteousness - By whom we become righteous in the sight of God. This declaration simply affirms that we become righteous through him, as it is affirmed that we become wise, sanctified, and redeemed through him. But neither of the expressions determine anything as to the mode by which it is done. The leading idea of the apostle, which should never be lost sight of, is that the Greeks by their philosophy did not become truly wise, righteous, sanctified, and redeemed; but that this was accomplished through Jesus Christ. But "in what way" this was done, or by what process or mode, is not here stated; and it should be no more assumed from this text that we became righteous by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, than it should be that we became wise by the imputation of his wisdom, and sanctified by the imputation of his holiness. If this passage would prove one of these points, it would prove all. But as it is absurd to say that we became wise by the imputation of the personal wisdom of Christ, so this passage should not be brought to prove that we became righteous by the imputation of his righteousness. Whatever may be the truth of that doctrine, this passage does not prove it.
Barnes means that it does not prove one becomes righteous by a purely legal reckoning, i.e. being “declared righteous” without works. For if that was the case, then the idea that Christ kept the law for us so that we don’t have to would be true. See notes on Rom. 3:28. The unstated means by which we become righteous is through our faithfulness in cooperation with his faithfulness. Barnes was tried for heresy by the Presbyterian Church for his ideas and called unwise in his remarks, but otherwise he was acquitted of the charge of heresy. But he did reject the reformed idea of imputed righteousness, as do I.
The time has come in the Messianic Faith to take a hard stand against the false doctrine that says “the law was legally kept for you.” The purpose of said doctrine is truly to excuse the faithful from having to obey Mĕssiah’s commandments in order to be righteous. As such it is part of the mystery of iniquity. The doctrine makes a mockery of forgiveness or pardon by turning it into an acquittal.
The doctrine of acquittal derives from Luther’s perversion of the meaning of “justify,” which he claimed meant to declare righteous. But in Paul’s Greek, as well as Josephus, and Koine in general, the verb δικαιοω meant “to do justice,” or “have justice done.” In English we can take the noun justice, and render it as a verb: justiced. Thus: a man is justiced by the faithfulness of Mĕssiah (not justified). Being justiced, means that a punitive penalty was paid. In the case of the cross, Mĕssiah was faithful to pay the penalty in our place. What constitutes justice or righteousness in terms of the punitive penalty assigned by the Almĭghty for the faithful was taken care of by Mĕssiah. This is what it means to be
I know I have rendered the term δικαιοω rather literally. As a dynamic it means that justice is satisfied, or that justice is fulfilled on our behalf. It means specifically the required penalty is paid. It does not mean, and never meant in connection to the cross that we are acquitted (proved innocent) or justified (proved in the right). Such a sense turns forgiveness and justice on its head. Yet this is what the theologians that run the bulk of the Church believe, or they believe it means a person is made inwardly righteous, and thereby acquitted on the basis of such an inward imputed righteousness. Some even argue that acquittal is based on a righteousness that we will have in the future. The point is that there is no acquittal. Every form of acquittal is a false doctrine opposed to admitting guilt and being forgiven. Yet, this doctrine is dominating the Church, and from it the Messianic Faith needs a complete and total break. Once that is done, having seen the dark side of the false doctrine, we should be vigilant to see to it that it has no place in the ministry.
Barnes explains Rom. 3:28 justified as “treated as righteous.” What he means is that the pardoned sinner is treated in the same way after a guilty verdict as a righteous person would be treated in terms that the guilty person is set free and not punished. This idea is not incorrect in terms of theology, and is not objectionable if fully explained. But as a phrase “treated as righteous” it could be misunderstood to say the person is righteous who is being treated as righteous, or that the person is being legally considered righteous. Barnes clearly does not mean that, for in Rom. 3:28 he states also, “They are sinners; and as such can have no claim to be treated as righteous.”
The idea “treated as righteous” as the sense of justify is to be faulted on philological grounds. Δικαιοω in fact means that “justice is done” in terms of required punishment. The closest we can get in English is “justiced,” meaning that justice was administered, or justice is administered. A person who is justiced by a volunteer who pays the penalty is indeed
2:1¹ ^Dynamic equivalent: ὑπεροχὴν λόγου, superior speech, better speaking skill.
2:1² ^Dynamic equivalent. The high flying wisdom of intellectual sophisticates.
2:14¹ ^Dynamic for “natural,” “physical” (ψυχικὸς). The English word natural lacks the negative connotation that must be supplied by worldly.
2:14† ^The word spiritual has attained a connotation of being beyond the intellect, promoted largely by anti-intellectual Charasmatics rejecting the mind and seeking irrational experiences. The sense of spiritual here is better understood as careful and disciplined thought combined with prayers to the Almĭghty for guidance, and a willingness to accept the conclusions thereof. This is to be contrasted with wordly thinking which is based on the emotional needs of the moment which are not truly submitted to logic or right and wrong. It is not really possible to supply a dynamic for spiritual to give this sense. The actual incorrect definition of the Charasmatics simply has to be corrected.
2:14† ^See Barnes Notes. The worldly person does not discern the inner motives of the spiritual person.
2:16† ^Paul is making an analogy. If the mind of Yăhwēh is not known to the point of being able to instruct him, then the mind of the spiritual person is not known by the worldly person to either instruct him or know him.
2:16‡ ^Or “the mind of Mĕssiah,” that is the Holy Spĭrit, who guides our thinking into the truth. The pseudo intellectualism of the world is worldly thinking, but the careful thoughts of the faithful founded on Scripture, prayer, and proper reasoning are the spiritual thinking nurtured by the Holy Spĭrit. Paul does not mean the rejection of thought altogether promoted by the Charasmatics in favor of unreasoning experiences.
3:1¹ ^Literally: flesh, an idiom for worldliness.
3:3¹ ^Literally: fleshly, an idiom for worldly.
3:8¹ ^or are “the same,” or are “united,” in terms of the same goal, or having the same importance.
3:13¹ ^A day of testing, i.e. a time of testing.
4:6† ^That in us you might learn not to exceed what is written. It is written, “All the word which I am making be commanded you, it you shall guard to do! Thou shall not add upon it, and thou shall not diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32 [13:1]). This includes all the words of the Almĭghty up through the book of Revelation. It does not include the traditions of men, whether through the Rabbis or the Church. The arrogant add traditions, thinking them more spiritual than the word of the Almĭghty.
The Rabbis believe in something called “oral torah,” which they believe that was given them besides the written Torah from mount Si̱nai̱. Therefore, the danger is that some who come into the Messianic Faith will learn the traditions of Judaism, and teach them as the superior pattern of the Faith. And many have done just this, because they have not understood the written word, or obeyed the commandment prohibiting men from adding or taking away from the words of A’dŏnai̱.
The Church also has its traditions, which they admit are not written in Scripture. Pastors should beware of placing burdens on men not written in Scripture. And many of them are united with false doctrines. Everyone who receives a tradition says their fathers observed it, and their fathers fathers. Yet when we carefully examine the words and acts of these fathers we discover that they crucified the Mĕssiah, or they rejected his law. And then they tried to revise history to cover up the fact, and have caused the children to inherit lies.
5:8‡ ^ Mĕssiah our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the
Leaven represents sin in biblical symbolism, or false teaching, or error. The old leaven is the sinful nature, and so Paul identifies malice or ill will, which is hate as leaven. He identifies wickedness as leaven. Bread without leaven is equated to sincerity and truth. Sincerity does not hate, but loves one’s neighbor.
Paul is making the comparison to Passover and leaven, with the situation he has heard of in the Corinthian Assembly, because immorality was being permitted among the brothers. He is saying that they have to take care of such sins if they are going to keep Passover properly.
6:9¹ ^μαλακοὶ, effeminate. Meaning: any man acting like a female, either in a same-sex sense, or as a transvestite.
6:11† ^But you have been administered justice in the name of Adŏnai Yĕshua the Mĕssiah, and by the Spĭrit of our Almĭghty.†ἐδικαιώθητε = justiced, or corrected. The correction is in two senses, first in that punitive correction was administered to the faithful by the substitutionary suffering and death of Mĕssiah, and second that their life was corrected by initial repentance in cooperation with the Holy Spĭrit.
The term can also be translated, “administered righteousness,” and the idea is that the righteousness required by the Almĭghty pertaining to the payment of the penalty was administered through Mĕssiah, and that righteousness was administered via initial repentance in their turning from unrighteous idolatry and immorality to a righteous life.
What the term does not mean is “you were justified,” in the sense of acquittal. An acquittal means that one is declared innocent of all wrong doing. Justified means someone is declared to be in the right. And the term has been completely hijacked by false theology. None of the faithful are made perfectly righteous or declared perfectly righteous. Such righteousness is eschatological. It is for the age to come, beginning at the resurrection of the dead and the transformation of the faithful, when Mĕssiah returns. And such righteousness as we wait for by faithfulness is not the basis of our forgiveness. For we have received a pardon, and not an acquittal. The initial sanctifying power of the Spĭrit upon initial repentance is sufficient to release the former pagan from slavery to their mortal sins when they truly affirm faithfulness to Mĕssiah. It is not an infusion of perfect righteousness, nor a legal reckoning of perfection.
Such terms as writers regularly state, “salvation is by grace alone through faith alone,” are completely overloaded with erring theology, when it is not explained that faith is truly fidelity, or an affirmation of fidelity (faithfulness) to Mĕssiah, and the fact that the faithful must cooperate with grace by abiding in Mĕssiah’s commandments. What is usually meant is that salvation is by belief without works, and that even in believing the convert does nothing, but is actually predestined, or caused by the Almĭghty to believe.
The point of saying “by faith alone” to say that the believer does not have to do anything to be saved except to be lucky enough to be chosen, or simply give mental assent that Yĕshūa̒ is the Almĭghty Sŏn and certain facts pertaining to his death and resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins. “Faith alone” only occurs one place in the Scripture, and in that place it is only to deny the concept. Yet a multitude of teachers who have come into the Messianic Faith, thinking they have left all the errors of Christian Theologians behind, have merely brought it with them.
It must be stressed that salvation requires a true affirmation of faithfulness to Yĕshūa̒, a true pledge of loyalty, and this will manifest in the keeping of his commandments. And further that one is not “declared righteous by faith (believing),” but only when being faithful and keeping the commandments. The act of believing itself is a righteous act, and that itself is considered righteousness before the Almĭghty, however, it is not perfection, nor is it ALL righteousness, nor is a one time decision ALL righteousness. Such assertions that a person is counted perfectly righteous in a legal sense, as taught by Luther, have the effect of turning the divine pardon into a divine acquittal. It also has the effect of redefining righteousness so that one does not have to obey the commandments to be righteous. Both sides of this coin are the mystery of iniquity. So those coming into the Messianic Faith will do well to take courage and repudiate it. Perfection is only required when an acquittal is sought. It is not necessary in light of the divine pardon, which is really forgiveness. Acquittal is not forgiveness, but simply legalism. Being justified is legalism. Admitting guilt and being forgiven is the good news.
6:12† ^A significant number of translators have recognized that the saying “All things are permitted for me,” was a slogan or saying of some of the Corinthians, probably from one of their factions that was rejecting Paul, and it was being reported to Paul. CJB, ERV, NLT, EHSV, NIVUK, NIV “you say”; CEV, NIRV “Some of you say”; EXB: “probably a slogan the Corinthians were using”; GW, “Someone may say”; GNT, “Someone will say”.
If Paul were writing in modern times, he would put the statement in quotation marks, at the very least, in its own paragraph, since he is going to respond to it. Many have taken the statement to be Paul’s own thought, which it is not, and have sought to justify lawlessness or the Carnal Christian theory by it. This theory teaches that once a person is saved, it does not matter what they do afterward. They are saved no matter what they do. So everything is permitted. This theory is the same as the Gnostic doctrines.
6:16‡ ^Clearly some of the converts in Corinth were joining the faith without being truly repentant. They justified themselves to the other faithful with slogans like, “all things are permitted,” and the other faithful were being tempted by their reasonings, just as many are tempted by “grace only” reasonings in the modern Church, perverting the truth that salvation is without our works of compensation into an idea that one can abide in salvation without works, or that one can remain in Mĕssiah without obeying his commandments.
7:5† ^Paul assumes the need for intimacy is a lack of self control. Since Paul was never married one has to disagree with him. Being in a relationship produces the need. Several times Paul says he is giving his opinion in this passage. It is a good thing he said that because his opinion is wrong! (vs. 6, 25, 35, 40).
7:10-11‡ ^But to the married I give instructions, not I, but Yăhweh, that the wife should not be separated from her husband 11 (but if she is separated, let her remain unmarried to any other, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away.‡
This leaves one other case I should mention, 1Cor. 7:10-11. “A wife from her husband should not separate.” A believing wife should not separate from a believing husband. Paul is correcting something he had probably said to them before, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1Cor. 7:1). Now he expands on it, because some where taking his words the wrong way. They were denying their spouses their rights because they thought it was the spiritual thing to do (cf. 1Cor. 7:3). Therefore a wife should not deny her husband because she heard that Paul said. “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1Cor. 7:1). Now a woman might be so inclined anyway to separate, perhaps because she has really fallen under some ascetic gnostic teaching of spirituality. Paul says, “Let her remain unmarried” (μενέτω ἄγαμος). Does this mean that she was divorced, and is in an unmarried state? There is another possible translation here, “Let her abide without wedding.” Αγαμος is the opposite of γαμος. The latter word means wedding (see Friberg, BDAG). Thus the negative means “without wedding.” This means that if she insists on being separated, she cannot wed someone else. Because then, it would be adultery. And the husband should not “send her away.” But if someone is unbound from a marriage by divorce, then “Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Have you been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1Cor 7:27-28). Paul is clear: a man who was loosed from a wife (by divorce) does not sin by marrying another. The opposite would also be the case, because a wife is normally bound (by default) to the husband while he lives (cf. Rom. 7:2), but is unbound from the husband by a writ of divorce also. If the husband is loosed from a wife, then the same wife is loosed from the husband. It does not make sense for a husband to be loosed from a wife and the wife not to be at the same time loosed from the husband. Some one loosed becomes unbound, and is not bound. The terms binding לֶאֱסֹר lee̕sōr and loosing לְהַתִּיר lehati̱r are Hebrew idioms used to mean legally bound, and legally loosed. Paul uses both terms in tandem in 1Cor. 7:27: “Have you been (legally) bound to a wife? Do not seek to be (legally) loosed. Have you been (legally) loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. Yet if also you should marry, then you will not have sinned.” Therefore, it is possible to be legally loosed from a wife, which is opposite of being bound to one. If the man is unbound, then the wife is unbound.
7:13† ^Consent includes an agreement not to interfere with the faithfulness of the spouse to Messiah. The unbelieving spouse must not bring idolatry into the home or otherwise make it impossible for the faithful spouse to obey Messiah.
7:15† ^Existing mixed marriages with new converts in the exile are permitted to remain. The children are regarded as holy. If the faithful willingly enter into one, a severe reprimand is first given (Nehemiah). If violations increase to threaten the community of Israel then they have to be forceably ended because the children are unholy, i.e. an existential threat to Israel (Ezra).
7:18‡ ^The prohibition was only temporary, but it stands without qualification because the prohibition had to be lifted with the proper instruction, which Paul judged wiser to deliver on an oral basis. And the severity of the prohibition would encourage the seeking of the reason for it. It was necessary because the meaning and function of circumcision had been redefined by emerging Judaism, and thus there needed to be a prohibition until this redefinition was corrected.
A similar problem attends baptism in certain situations. The Roman Church redefined baptism in such a way that it negates the good news of Mĕssiah. For the Catholics teach that the grace of justification is infused at baptism, or in a Lutheran confession, faith is created at baptism in the heart of the infant! This doctrine completely negates the need for the convert to affirm faithfulness to Yĕshūa̒, since it has already been created in the heart without their conscious participation. So the proper response to these doctrines would be to say, “Don’t get baptized!” That is, the missionary would have to say this until the convert was long enough in confirming their faithfulness to Mĕssiah to be able to understand immersion according to Scripture without getting confused by the Catholics or Lutherans.
The strictest parties of Judaism, at the time taught that circumcision made a person a Jew, and that being Jewish was necessary for salvation. The Rabbis defined repentance in such terms that if someone keeps one commandment, then they are reckoned to have kept them all. Thus the keeping of one commandment is accounted as the merit of keeping them all. The philosophical basis of this doctrine is remarkably similar to what Catholics believe about baptism, and what Protestants believe about faith. Only the Rabbis loaded the philosophy onto circumcision. Paul countered this by saying transgression undoes circumcision (cf. Rom. 2:25). In any case, circumcision as taught by the Rabbis, generally was to be avoided. The Jewish converts, of course, were better acquainted with their own theological controversies. Therefore, Paul told them not to be uncircumcised. The non-Jews, on the other hand, were often new to the Torah and the Prophets. Enforcing circumcision too soon was likely to lead to infiltration of the false Rabbinic doctrine. So Paul prohibited it until the false definition was exposed and the true one put in place.
The temptation was to be circumcised to obtain “Jewish status”, so that by the act of obtaining it, the seeker secures salvation by virtue of the status. This is what Paul is prohibiting. Due to the salvation status involved among Jews in being Jewish, it is best that the non-Jew who wants to be “circumcised” keep quiet about it and not claim Jewish status so as to be secure in salvation; or if the non-Jew does not understand the difference, then he should not be circumcised at all. A Jewish circumcision to secure salvation status is counter to faithfulness and is in fact not biblical (in the same way as Catholic and Lutheran baptisms). The convert should continue as Abraham until they understand faithfulness enough not to be seduced by investing security in it. Circumcision is only a sign of the covenant. It does not join one to Israel. Faithfulness alone joins the convert to Israel—and immersion makes it official. Circumcision may come later, and it may be debated how much later. Paul said this because Rabbinic circumcision was in fact uncircumcision. And I would say that people who do not understand the place of faithfulness in the good news will simply not understand this. People who do understand faithfulness will not be harmed by obeying the commandment. People who are deceived out of their initial faithfulness into a doctrine of perfection will fall from grace when they put their hope in the instrument of perfection: i.e. circumcision, baptism, or any other commandment twisted by cults like Rome down those lines.
7:19-20† ^It might be helpful to understand Paul’s negation in terms of Catholic Baptism: being baptized is nothing (because it cannot save you), and being unbaptized is nothing (because it cannot damm you). But keeping the commandments by faithfulness working through love is what matters. See notes on Gal. 5:6 and 6:15.
7:23† ^In the context this has to deal with slavery. If a person is a slave, and Yăhwēh has not made a way out of it, then that is one’s calling (cf. vs. 22).
7:26† ^And only in terms of the distress at that time of which we are not told the details.
7:28† ^They will probably have less trouble than Paul did. The unmarried are more willing to be voluntary martyrs and to go into dangerous places.
7:29† ^This too was Paul’s opinion. It is really his opinion that is the basis for his opinion of remaining unmarried. Paul may have been right in the local circumstance that he was writing about. We do not know the exact circumstances. But even if the circumstances are hard and persecution is to be soon, he has no prohibition.
7:31† ^A wise attitude to take even at the present time.
7:32‡ ^This is Paul’s opinion again.
7:34† ^
7:36‡ ^
7:38† ^This is Paul’s opinion under the then current distressful circumstances. There will come such a time again.
7:39† ^
7:40‡ ^Paul had his calling. Evidently some close to him disagreed with his opinions.
8:6† ^one Almĭghty, the Făther... Barnes’ Notes say that Făther here does not refer to the 1st person of the Almĭghty, but to the Almĭghty as a whole, and this includes Făther, Sŏn, and Spĭrit. I believe it is helpful to realize at times that Gŏd may be adressed as Făther as a whole, i.e. “Făther in Heaven,” rather than simply as the 1st person of the Almĭghty, as Yĕshūa̒ necesarily addressed His Făther. This understanding eliminates the Arian interpretation that the “one Almĭghty” is only the 1st person in distinction from Yĕshūa̒, whom they say is not Almĭghty. Barnes’ reasons are worth repeating:
“(1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term "Son" when he comes to speak of the "one Lord Jesus Christ;" and, (2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father "to his creatures." He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name "Father" is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psalm 103:13; Jeremiah 31:9; Malachi 1:6; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative "Son" is used, Luke 10:22; Luke 22:42; John 1:18; John 3:35; John 5:19-23, John 5:26, John 5:30, John 5:36; Hebrews 1:5; 2 Peter 1:17, etc.”
One A̕dŏnai̱ refers specifically to Yĕshūa̒, and the usage of the term “one” is justifed because the sentence is qualified by “through whom are all things.” This means that only the Sŏn is the agent of creation. The Almĭghty as a whole is the cause and source of creation, but the Sŏn is the one A̕dŏnai̱ who is the 2nd person of the Almĭghty, who is the one agent through whom creation was implemented. So Paul is saying there is one overall Almĭghty, and one Lŏrd who is part of the Almĭghty who is the agent of the Almĭghty’s creation.
8:8† ^Paul refers to food in general here, and not to an idol sacrifice. He is merely conceding to his opposition that food has no power to recommend a person as godly or to demerit a person as ungodly.
8:12† ^Paul is showing by reasoning that eating meat offered to an idol could cause a weak brother to eat meat sacrificed to an idol as an act of worship or honor to the idol, and thus the weak brother will have committed a mortal transgression. Paul does not mention the commandment to refrain from idol offerings at this point, because those opposing, apparently were not convinced they had to obey that commandment. They thought their taking note that food was food was sufficient to render the food non-idolatrous. However, the command was given because one cannot tell who is being an idolator by eating food offered to idols, and who is not, and also because of the weaker brother. Since they will not be convinced by the command not to do it, Paul appeals to the greater principle, which is love for the weaker brother.
It is alleged that because Paul says, “This liberty of yours” that the liberty is legitimate. But he is only conceding liberty they have taken themselves, and not liberty that has been granted by Yăhwēh’s Law. It may be that some eat idol food without worshiping the idol, and that this is not a mortal sin, but simply a sin because they are ignorant of the divine Law, and are using human reasoning to justify it. If one is actually rebelling against the commandment and the Holy Spĭrit, however, then it is a mortal sin, and repentance is necessary.
Paul is not speaking here about meat eating vs. being a vegetarian, as if meat ifself is a sin, but about meat in relation to idols. Some of the faithful were vegetarians because the meat in their market had a small chance that it was sacrificed to an idol before coming to the market. Paul means not to eat meat in such a way as to cause them to stumble.
9:5¹ ^The Cambridge Bible Commentary outlines the views, “These have been regarded (1) as the children of Joseph and Mary, (2) the children of Joseph by a former wife, (3) as the kinsmen of our Lord, the word brother having been used in Hebrew to denote any near relation. See Genesis 13:8; Genesis 29:12; Leviticus 10:4. The question has been hotly debated. (1) or (2) seem the more obvious interpretation of the words; but in support of (3) we find from Scripture and ecclesiastical history that the names of our Lord’s brethren James and Joses and Simon and Judas were also the names of the sons of Alphæus, who were our Lord’s cousins. See St Matthew 13:55; Matthew 27:56; St Luke 24:10; St John 19:25. Also St Matthew 10:3; St Mark 3:18; St Luke 6:16; and Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. iii. 11, 32. See Professor Lightfoot on the Epistle to the Galatians. Also Professor Plumptre on St James, in the present series.”
9:10† ^The form of argument is a case of light to heavy (qal-w’ḥōmer). It means if something is true in a lesser (lighter) case, then it should be true in the greater (heavier) case. The argument is really common to logic, and is called in Latin
The Greek text literally reads in vs. 9, “Oxen are not a conern (care) for the Almĭghty.” The negative is used with reference to a specific case of application. Paul means “in this case”, concerning ministry, the text is not because of concern for oxen, but for ministers. The same idea is produced as in English with a more qualified statement. Paul’s readers had to tell from the context that he was not denying application to the ox under the appropriate circumstances.
Many translations have eliminated the negative statement altogether because they know modern English will not admit the ancient logic. The problem with this is that the form of the ancient logic is kept in cases where people want to misunderstand Paul, and re-written where they want to believe Paul.
This language observation can also be applied to other negative statements, such as “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of the Almĭghty.” Paul only means this in the context of salvation (cf. 7:19-20), just as he means the ox is not a concern in the context of ministry, but that the minister should benefit from the product of his ministry is the concern. Both the ox and circumcision have their legitimate concern in the right context.
9:20‡ ^To those subject to a custom, as subject to the custom, though not being myself subject to the custom, that I might win those subject to tradition. The principle meaning of νομος is some kind of norm or custom, usually regarded to have some legal force. See BDAG, 3rd edition, BAGD, LSJ, Thayer, and other actual Lexicons like TDNT. Strong’s dictionary is insufficient. Strong’s dictionary was invented to illustrate the choices made by the King James translators in their English translations. Strong’s dictionary was not made to give all the possibilities of a word, nor in this case does it give the primary meaning of the word
In modern terms the usage of a term like law implies legitimacy. But in ancient Greek usage of a term like nomos implied a
The failure to recognize that
Paul’s desire to accommodate the traditions and customs of the peoples he announced the good news to was because many of these customs were simply traditions, which are neither good nor evil. But he did keep the Law of Mĕssiah, which is the same as the Law of Yăhwēh. Paul wanted, above all, the good news to be preached, so he did not argue over people’s traditions and customs. He simply respected them as much as he could, and preached the good news.
10:16† ^Paul speaks here of the third Seder cup at the end of the Passover Seder meal, and also the unleavened bread taken at the end of the meal.
11:21† ^The potluck or the orderly feast was not part of the culture, but the culture of Corinth was that of disorderly feasting, or a wild party, in which everyone looked to their own pleasures and did not seek the welfare of anyone else. The orderly pot luck that we have in the assembly of the saints, which today we take for granted, was not then part of the tradition.
Clearly in the Spĭrit some could discern that the culture of Corinth should not be continued in the assembly of Mĕssiah, and therefore there were two main factions. However, it is likely that the conservative faction, itself was divided into factions.
11:22† ^What he means is that if they want to eat for the sake of eating or in an undisciplined fashion, then they should do it at home. A Passover Seder is a feast, but it is also an orderly and solemn meal, “And this day will have become a remembrance† for you, and you will have feasted on it a feast to Yăhwēh. For your generations you will feast on it as an everlasting statute” (Exodus 12:14). † or “memorial” ( לְזִכָּרוֹן). Since it is a feast to Yăhwēh it cannot be conducted in the wild way that the pagans were used to in their parties for their gods. And this is just what was done in Corinth for the gods. For a feast to the gods was idol sacrifice plus drunkenness plus fornication with the temple prostitutes. Having repented of these things, the faithful were still prone to have a feast in a disorderly fashion. Paul’s immediate directive is to put a stop to any sort of behavior resembling their previous habits in the assembly gathering.
11:24‡ ^See Exodus 12:14. Paul very likely received the words, “Do this for the my memorial” from Peter. For the words do not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John, and in Luke the text has been interpolated and scrambled. See Luke 22:17-19 notes for the correction, and the proof of it. The translators have done their utmost (perhaps unwittingly) to weaken the connection between the phrase εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν “for the my memorial” and the Passover. The word ἀνάμνησιν means “memorial” (cf. Friberg, BAGD, BDAG (3rd edition). And it has specific usage in the LXX in the sense of “memorial sacrifice” (cf. Psalm 38:1; Psalm 70:1) and is connected to Numbers 10:10, where instructions occur to blow the trumpets at the appointed times and over the offerings. The Hebrew term is לזִכָּרוֹן, “for a memorial.” Exodus 12:14 states for the Passover that, “And this day will have been for you a memorial. And you will have feasted it a feast for Yăhwēh.” A general study of the term “memorial” or “remembrance” in the Torah will show that it is almost always connected to specific commandments to be made a memorial at one of the appointed times.
The words “for my memorial” could be translated, “at” or “in” my memorial. For example, “in the remembrance (memorial) of me.” The sense connects to Exodus 12:14, “And this day will have been for you for a memorial.” The Passover sacrifice is specifically a “memorial” and not just of the Passover in Egypt, but clearly as a type of Messiah, it is the sacrifice that causes the wrath of the Almĭghty to pass over us, seeing that Mĕssiah died at the same time as the Passover lambs. The whole appointed time is also for a memorial.
The Passover was clearly intended to be a memorial of Mĕssiah’s death and resurrection. In fact Paul mentions the connection in 1Cor. 5:7-8, and he is writing about the time of Passover, as he has both that feast in view, and the coming Shavuot (Pentecost). See 1Cor. 16:8. He is considering the reports that he has heard either from the Seder that year, or the one before it. The point is that the context clearly shows that the word memorial or remembrance is not a vague instruction to remember. Rather it has specific connection with the Passover memorial.
The words, “Do this for my Memorial” go with two things in Exodus 12:14. Firstly the Passover is a memorial feast. Secondly it is a memorial feast for Yăhwēh. Thus the two ideas are combined to say, “My memorial.” It would be impossible to translate the words εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν indefinitely, so as to make it say, “for a memorial of me” with no particular connection to the definite occasion of Passover. Literally the text is, “for the me memorial,” and has the sense of “for the memorial of me” (cf. YLT). Yet, almost every translation has done just that, “as a memorial to me” (CJB), or the equivalent to achieve an indefinite sense, such as “in remembrance of me,” which should be “in THE remembrance of me” if one is to follow the actual text!
The words, “in the me memorial” are key to sorting out the time the commandment was given from the time of its actual application. For the last supper was a Seder meal held in advance of the actual time. In fact it was one of two times each year a Seder could be held, as the exilic Jews doubled up the days that year (AD 34), having Seders on the 14th and 15th of Nisan. By having a night early, yet in sympathy with the dispersion, the point is made that either of the doubled days is o.k., but also that it is meant for the memorial, i.e. the official time. Supposing it meant any other time would be for men to add to the Law, which is forbidden (cf. Deut. 12:32 [13:1]). As the Almĭghty Sŏn Yĕshūa̒ had the right to make the addition. So if someone does not know the day the new moon is supposed to be, then either of the two possible days is permitted. But if one knows when the new moon day is, then it should be done at the official Seder, but doing it at a demonstration Seder one day before the official day is permitted. Anything beyond this only achieves a disconnection from the Passover, and was not Mĕssiah’s intent.
Anytime an ordinance is sanctified and made holy it should be done in the proper way, and at the proper time. Anyone who regards it as holy or sanctified at other than an appointed time of Yăhwēh is in error. And anyone who follows the instructions of another person who sanctifies it as a commandment at a non-appointed time is participating in the error.
It should be noted that participating in a symbolic only Protestant version is a minor infraction, and those doing it that way are simply ignorant. It is still an infraction. Participating in the Lutheran “real presence” version is a serious problem, and very close to idolatry. The Catholic mass IS idolatry, because it involves actual sacrifice and images.
We would not have any of these versions if the law of the Passover had not been rejected. For in that case the texts would not have been corrupted to justify it, both by translation, and interpretation.
1Cor. 11:25
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν
This do ye as oft ever ye can drink for the (my) memorial
at
in
Exodus 12:14 LXX
καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμῖν αὕτη μνημόσυνον
and will be the day to you itself a memorial
καὶ ἑορτάσετε αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν κυρίω
and you will feast it a feast to Yăhwēh
εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἑορτάσετε αὐτήν
for all the generations of ye lawfully forever you shall feast it
Exodus 12:14 Hebrew Text
וְהָיָה And will have been
הַיּוֹם (the) day
הַזֶּה (the) this
לָכֶם for ye
לזִכָּרוֹן for a memorial
וְחַגֹּתֶם and ye will have feasted
אֹתוֹ it
חַג a feast
ליַהוֶה to Yăhwēh
לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם for your generations
חֻקַּת a statute
עוֹלָם forever
תְּחָגֻּהוּ ye shall feast
Deut 13:1 (or 12:32)
אֵת כָּל all
הַדָּבָר the word
אֲשֶׁר which
אנֹכִי I am
מְצַוֶּה making be commanded
אֶתְכֶם ye
אֹתוֹ it
תִשְׁמְרוּ ye shall keep
לעֲשׂוֹת to do
לֹא not
תֹסֵף you may add
עָלָיו upon it
וְלֹא and not
תִגְרַע you may diminish
מִמֶּנּוּ from it.
It is forbidden for men to make modifications of Gŏd’s commandments, either taking away or adding. Paul shows that his understanding of the commandment of Yĕshūa̒ was specifically for Passover because in vs. 26 he says “this bread”; This is unleavened bread at Passover. The cup was only on the first day of unleavened bread, and it is clear he means the specific cup. The commandment is valid for the first two Seder Nights, the 14th and 15th if Adar was 30 days, and the 15th and 16 if Adar was 29 days. Only during the days of unleavened bread (including the head day) should unleavened bread be treated as bread of the memorial. This appears to be the case by precept and example (cf. Luke 24:35). The cup should be confined to the first two days. Anything beyond this almost certainly exceeds the intention of the commandment and should be avoided, if for no other reason than that the Church has slid down the slippery slope of traditional modifications into the perversion of the transubstantiation or real presence doctrines.
What is the difference between a custom or human tradition that simply reflects a variety of human preferences vs. a tradition perverting the commandment of Gŏd? See 1Cor. 9:20-22. If the observance is represented as Gŏd’s command rather than this is just the way we like to do things, or this is just our custom, or socially agreed on mode of expression, then it falls under the ban of adding to the Law. For example the Recabites did not drink or live in houses, but they also did not claim it was Gŏd’s commandment. Some observances are ambiguous. Lots of people like to like Sabbath lights, but some say it is a commandment to light Sabbath lights. Since lighting lights is an ordinary thing, it is only a violation when it is made clear it is a commandment. Otherwise it is just a custom. On the other hand some traditions are implicitly justified by appeal to divine commandment, and are not just ordinary things, and so these are always violations, e.g. modified Church communions outside of Passover. Modified baptisms not involving immersion. Also implicit violations are traditions based on false teaching or lies, because this is actually adding and taking away from Scripture teaching. Included in this are traditions historically tied to pagan festivities. Even if they are acknowledged to be traditions and not commandments of Gŏd, they are still forbidden. There are Christians who will never touch wine or strong drink because that is their personal conviction, but neither do they claim it is a commandment. There are others who claim it is a commandment. Since avoiding drink is an ordinary thing, it is not a violation to avoid drink among those who think it is a commandment. One has to use good judgment and prayer to decide some cases.
11:25† ^The words ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, “as often soever you can drink” do not mean any random time, or man made time. But they are an admission that the faithful might not be able to make the time of the Passover every year, since they are in exile. The Torah also had an allowance for missing the Passover, i.e. that it be done in the second month. So there is not just one set time. On account of not knowing when the new moon was, it could be on the 14th and 15th, or the 15th and 16th of the month. And the same is true for the second month in the exile. And of course, if one was in prison or in some other sort of suffering for the kingdom, then one might be prevented. Success in following the commandment therefore is not a salvation matter. However, failure to avoid an observance corrupted as an actual sacrifice could well be a threat to salvation.
With the emergent Church movement running wild among evangelical Christians, it would be no surprise to see Catholic like explanations of the communion creeping into Protestant Churches.
11:26† ^Note that it says “this” bread, which is to say the unleavened bread eaten on the first day of Passover at the Seder at the end of the meal. Some texts add “this” before cup also. Even without it the sense of “this” applies to both bread and cup, which were both taken at the end of the meal by Yĕshūa̒’s example. This bread, then is specific bread on a specific appointed time, and not just bread in general.
11:27‡ ^Unworthily refers to the disrespectful manner they were doing their Seders. It involved a large number of non-Jews freshly converted from paganism who still even without the idolatry had some poor feasting habits. The factions arose because some did have some notion as to how it was supposed to be done, although not perfectly, and so division arose.
Readers should not presume that all the converts had a lot of Scripture knowledge. They did not have personal Bibles, and were dependent on attending a reading on the Sabbath to hear the word. And there were some converted Jews causing divisions as well as unconverted ones which they had to resort to for more detailed knowledge and questions. And these did not always direct them rightly.
11:34‡ ^What are the rest of the things? Paul’s purpose was to put a stop to the abuse. A fuller explanation would come when he arrived. The rest of the things here has to refer to other parts of the Seder, the telling of the story, the bitter herbs, and the feast of unleavened bread. The Passover is a “formal” meal. It is to be an orderly one, where everyone stays, and hears, and everyone participates together.
12:2¹ ^Greek: ἔθνη. This word is typically translated “nations” or “Gentiles.” I tend to avoid the latter sense because Christians too easily call themselves Gentiles, when in fact they are only “gentile” in origin, having been grafted or re-grafted into Israel as the case may be. A case may be made here for the sense “when you were Gentiles/nations” in the sense of outside the covenants of Israel. Paul is implying that they no longer have that status, which is equivalent to “pagans.” What the word “pagans” obscures, though, is the implication that they have transferred from identifying with the nations to identifying with Israel, as there are only two categories here. Someone might thing they went from paganism to being another kind of gentile outside of Israel. This is not Paul’s meaning.
The positive usages of “nations” in applications to saved non-Jews can be ascribed to a status of dual-citizenship. By being saved, those of the nations, take their primary citizenship in Israel, but they still have a dual citizenship in the nations, so long as the nations can recognize the dual citizenship. When the nations, however, come to hate Israel enough, then the saved non-Jews will have to choose their citizenship in Israel over their dual citizenship in the nations they come from.
13:2¹ ^The sense here would be “steadfast determination,” or “courage.” The ideal is faithfulness to reaching the goal of getting the mountain moved.
14:1† ^The word
The Rŭaḥ HaQōdēsh (Holy Spĭrit) convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Therefore, by repenting, we are heeding the Rŭaḥ. By learning to obey the commandments we are desiring spiritual things. By teaching the commandments we are choosing the spiritual. For the mind of the flesh is focused on sin, but the mind of the Spĭrit dwells on the will of Yăhwēh.
14:2† ^The word “tongue” is used in Scripture for
But the Charasmatic Movement introduced a new definition of “tongue,” by redefining the term to mean use of the tongue to speak sounds that nobody understands, not even the speaker himself in his own mind. It is claimed that the Holy Spirit is controlling the tongue and the meaning of the words which are mysteries to everyone, including the speaker himself. Further, ability to speak this kind of tongue is widely considered a sign of salvation, and those who don’t have it are somehow made to feel second class, less chosen, or less blessed!
The influence of this new definition of the word has clearly corrupted the minds of some NT Bible translators. For example the ESV uses “languages” for all of the Revelation passages listed above, but then it switches to the literal term “tongues” in 1Cor. 14:5, 6, 18, 21, 22, 23, 39. Mark 16:17; Acts 2:3, 4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; 1Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1, 8, and Rom. 3:13 and Rev. 16:10 where the term simply means the literal tongue. But in 1Cor 14:10, and the Revelation passages, where it is impossible to get away from the fact that ordinary languages are in view, the ESV uses the term languages. In all those places where the new Charasmatic definition of the term can be applied, they have translated, “tongues.” So you see, a modern technical definition of the word, based on a religious movement, has found its way into Scripture and culture, so that people no longer think of languages when they hear the word “tongues.” And if you read the biased translations, the reader only gets positive reinforcement for that definition. It is simply Pavlovian Psychology. Use the redefined term where the text or speaking phenomenon is to be interpreted according to Charasmatic theology, and use the word “languages” elsewhere. And it is no wonder that that culture and readers of Scripture are conditioned to that definition. The faithful need to keep in mind that false definitions can be absorbed by the mind in the blink of an eye by hearing a word applied to an observed phenomenon, or even by hearing a preacher use Scripture words in the wrong way due to lawless theology. We all know how they redefine sin so that it means anything to them except breaking Gŏd’s Law. The same thing has happened with the word “tongues.”
Corinth was a trade center since it lay at the narrow point on an isthmus between the Aegean and Ionian Sea. It was a stopover for sea traffic and land traffic. A 6000 meter canal has been cut through it today. In ancient times if you lived in a trade center, speaking Greek and one other language could get you a job doing business with traders speaking the other language.
So what happened in the Corinthian congregation? Probably this: during prayer time, or in composing a song, or Psalm, or poem, someone decided to show off and use some other language than Greek, and some elders or leader promoted the idea as culturally spiritual as a way to get the curious into the assembly. Listening to a composition directed in praise or worship in a foreign language is often fun and enjoyable. With youtube today, one can literally listen to the faithful use hundreds of languages in worship. If one even slightly favors the experience over the substance, then making a habit of it can be quite attractive. Promoting languages in a congregation, in an international city, such as Corinth, gives the congregation an international status, and encourages superficial attendance.
Or on a more sinister note, there was actually someone promoting the Charasmatic notion of tongues. The context tends to favor the first view, as we shall see. However, Paul’s discourse prophetically or presciently addresses the later situation also!
Paul’s basic approach to the problem, whatever its exact nature, was common sense. He begins by pointing out the obvious problems. The one who “speaks in a foreign language does not speak to men,” and this is obvious because the words do not make sense to most people except someone learned in the language. When Paul uses the word “speak” he means speak as in “to communicate.” It is assumed that speaking means communication, i.e. “For one who speaks in a foreign language does not communicate to men, but to the Almĭghty, because no one understands, but in his spirit he communicates mysteries.” Ancient language did not employ all the refined and sophisticated words we do in modern English. Common everyday words carried almost every technical usage. So really, only context can sort it out.
Paul may have been addressing an ancient problem, but also I think that the Holy Spĭrit knew what was coming down the road in the future. So Paul, perhaps, unknowingly, is writing that that situation. Thus, he uses the word’s, “in his spirit” instead of “in his mind.” The two words really mean the same thing, and that is in the center of a person’s conscious thought.
But Charasmatics have evolved a rather strange theology to adjust to Paul’s language. The spirit of a person, they say, is something apart from his mind. Some even go so far as to say that the unbeliever has no spirit, but only a mind, and that the spirit is re-created at conversion! This taxonomy of the person is called three-part, 1. body, 2. soul (mind), 3. spirit. By this measure, they are able to explain away the fact that even a “tongues” speaker does not understand what he or she is saying. We will see, however, that this speculative anthropology does not fit the context.
Note from GNM, 3rd edition: The context here makes it clear that the one praying in a foreign language knows in his heart what he or she is saying. The mystery is to the bystander who does not understand the words and speaks only the common language of the assembly. There may have been some charismatic pseudo-babble hiding in Corinth. Paul does not hit it head on, but rather describes how to deal with a proper foreign language that the speaker himself knows. This is probably because a babble speaker would probably not admit (in Paul's time) that he did not know what he was saying himself.
14:3† ^i.e. “one who prophesies
14:4† ^Edifies means “to build up,” and clearly hearing language that one does not understand does not build up a person in terms of knowledge, comfort, or moral understanding. One can be entertained by foreign sounds up to a point, but it is nothing more than an experience. Paul is now using the term
14:5† ^Paul is all fired up for the proper use of languages, which is to enable one to communicate the knowledge of Yăhwēh far and wide. Knowing a language is not much compared to knowing how to explain and teach Scripture. And using a foreign language, or permitting one, to be used in the assembly, accomplishes little unless it is translated. The word “interprets” has been redefined by Charasmatics so that it refers to “tongues interpretation,” which is not translation of recognized language, so for that reason, it might be preferable to use the term translate. I have been made aware that in professional definitions translation refers to written translation and interpretation refers to oral translation. However, in at least American English, at the popular level the terms are synonymous, with perhaps translation referring to something more accurate or precise than interpretation which might allow a paraphrase. Interpretation goes for oral only, but translation appears to have expanded from written to refer to oral interpretation also. I have retained interpretation in the text, bu the commentary uses translation freely for the same idea.
The Greek term does not make the modern professional distinction between interpretation for oral transmission and translation for written transmission. Friberg defines the term διερμηνευέτω “translate, interpret, explain,” and BAGD provides the same glosses. BDAG (3rd edition) defines, “1. to translate from one language to another, translate, 2. to clarify something so as to make it understandable, explain interpret” (pg. 244).
The Charasmatics teach that interpretation of tongues is a gift given to one person that allows them to supernaturally interpret (i.e. translate) the meaning of someone (or themselves) who speaks the “tongue.” This is a theory that has removed itself from examination. It is not self-attesting. Let me explain. In ordinary translation, there is a back and forth. A Spanish speaker says something. A bilingual person translates it into English for an English speaker. The English person asks a question and the translator translates it to Spanish, and the Spanish person answers the question. It is translated back, and the answer makes sense to the English person. In other words, there is an obvious back and forth between the Spanish person, the translator, and the English person which verifies that meaning or communication is really objectively being passed back and forth. But this self validation of communication never happens when someone who is supposed to have the “gift” of “interpretation” translates the “tongue” of another Charasmatic, or himself. In fact, they, or they and another person could totally be faking the whole experience, and no one would be able to tell unless they did some testing.
The test that needs to be applied here is that of two or three witnesses. Three witnesses are called for in the most important cases (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Mat. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19). No one is compelled to believe a prophet because he prophesies, but only if he makes no errors, agrees with the Torah and Prophets, and when his prophecy is validated by fulfillment.
The message the Charasmatics are trying to teach by speaking in tongues and interpreting them is that they have the power of Holy Spĭrit. Should we believe this message? Not at all, because of one huge sin. It is combined with the sin of pride, or self exaltation. You see, the one who does these things, and convinces others of its validity, immediately gains an undeserved spiritual prestige. They only deserve the spiritual prestige if they pass the tests. Are they willing to submit to the tests? That in itself is a test question, because if they will not submit to the test before taking the honors of passing the tests, then their exalted spiritual position cannot be distinguished from the sin of spiritual pride! And pride is one of the seven deadly sins. We have all seen one Charasmatic after another rise and fall into gross sin.
So here are the tests they should pass. If they speak a tongue, then it ought to be translated the same way by three people claiming to have the gift of interpretation, in a double blind test. This means that the the translators do not get to listen to each other’s results before submitting their translations. And collusion also has to be prevented. I suggest that long before they get to the point of submitting to this sort of test that it will be obvious from the other
So the Charasmatic that wants to take the more spiritual path (short of being tested) can 1. forsake what cannot be validated, 2. keep it private, and 3. If they still believe in their ability, refuse to promote themselves as having a spiritual advantage. And finally, 4. They can learn to be really spiritual by obeying the commandments and becoming experts at communicating the good news of Mĕssiah.
14:9‡ ^Paul’s sarcasm here is prescient. For this is exactly what “tonguges” speakers do when a Charasmatic Church is let loose to babble. Probably Paul only meant the babble of actual foreign languages, but his words do apply well to the present situation. And we all know where babble comes from: Babylon.
14:10† ^Paul is perhaps amazed at the variety of languages in Corith, but he knows that all of them ought to have meaning. Sensible people use sound to communicate. Those who babble away are acting like children, but then children have a reason for their babble. They are practicing sounds they will need later.
14:11† ^A barbarian was someone who did not know Greek. The term was synonymous among the Greeks to our term
14:13‡ ^Therefore let one who speaks in a language pray so that one may translate.‡ The usual English translation is botched by the translators, in this case by the accident of incompetence. They have put, “one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret,” which implies that he is to interpret his own language, which accident fits the Charasmatic paradigm. One does not normally speak Spanish to a crowd then translate it into English. One just speaks English. If one speaks Spanish and translates it to English, then one is just being a show off. But if you are a Charasmatic, you need the tongue to be spoken to appear spirit filled, and then you translate it only if someone nails you with being obedient to Paul’s rule. Many of them simply do not believe in Paul and do not follow the rule.
This verse must be interpreted by vs. 27, and vs. 28. The translator is someone else who knows both languages. It is never assumed that someone will speak a foreign language and then self translate it. That is a waste of time. They will just speak the common language for the good of all. The key phrase here is, “προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ:” let he himself pray so that one may translate. The last verb here is 3rd person masculine singular. But don't be fooled into thinking that it must mean “he may translate.” The 3rd mas. sing. in Greek also covers the senses of “it may translate,” and “one may translate.” And in any case the pronoun is not required to refer to the foreign language speaker. We know that it does not from vs. 27-28, and from the common sense that no one, as a matter of course, translates their own tongue.
The one who must pray in a foreign language will wait for the translator. That is, he will not say so much at once that the translator cannot keep up.
I would say that the only exceptions to the translation rule are, 1. commonly understood Hebrew phrases, and 2. An expositor on a text may speak and self translate a Hebrew verse for instructive or learning purposes. But this is not praying.
14:14‡ ^For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.‡ Paul means his mind prays. He is using the word prayer here to indicate communication to Gŏd, and then in parallelism he lines up “understanding” with “my spirit prays.” That is to say, his own spirit understands the language. Then he says “is unfruitful,” which means it does not help anyone else.
Almost every modern translator has been crushed under the Charasmatic tradition. They translate “my mind is unfruitful” (ESV, NAS, NIV, ISV, NET, GWT). I will list the exceptions which put “understanding” as it should be: NLT, KJV, HCSB, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Jubilee Bible 2000, American KJV, ASV, Darby, English Revised Version, Webster, WEB, YLT. Most of these exceptions are older versions. The big three: ESV, NAS, NIV, and even the NET have incorrectly put “mind.” There is no doubt that the Greek word νοῦς covers the concept of understanding or intelligence. What the translators have done is simply allow the Charasmatic assumptions to control their translational choice.
The Charasmatics would have us believe that the spirit (united with the Holy Spirit), as a separate part of man, from the mind, prays in the unknown language, and that the mind which does not understand the language is not benefited. This just so story does not correspond to Paul’s meaning at all.
14:15‡ ^I will pray in the spirit and I will pray for the understanding also. I will sing in the spirit and I will sing for the understanding also.‡ Paul repeats the same idea as in vs. 14 here. He has just expanded on it. The NIV well illustrates the biased translation under the spell of Charasmatic anthropology: “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.” The Greek runs as follows: προσεύξομαι
So Paul is saying that he will pray and sing in such a way that not only is his own spirit benefited, but he will pray and sing for the understanding of others also.
14:16† ^By bless, of course, Paul means a blessing that can be understood as a blessing. The use of the term “unlearned” (ἰδιώτου), here, which is the root of our English word “idiot” implies that the speaker of the language has “learned” their language in the natural course of events, by growing up as a child and learning it, or by studying it, or by being immersed later in life in an environment where they learned it.
The ESV translation of this term as “outsider” is reprehensible. The KJV properly has “unlearned,” but this of course, was before the later translators were indoctrinated with Charasmatic thinking. The NAS is equally unforgivable, having put “ungifted”! The NIV inserts its theology into the text, “inquirer”! The HSCB puts “uninformed.” But what does a Greek dictionary say? Friberg: (1) undeducated, unlearned. Some of the dictionaries have Charasmatic influenced definitions in them, but even so, the translators are making the wrong choices based on an alien modern context, and have contradicted Paul’s context. There is a method to their madness, and that is lawlessness. They want Paul to say what they want Paul to say.
14:18† ^Paul did not go around speaking in Charasmatic “tongues” all the time or more than anyone else. He went around announcing the good news of Mĕssiah in as many languages as he knew: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and who knows what other languages he knew.
14:19† ^Because of my understanding. The texts are divided on the exact Greek here. The translation follows the reading, “διὰ τοῦ νοός μου.” Because he understands the truth, Paul would rather communicate it than to speak in a foreign language.
However, some ancient mss, older than the two principle variants, date back to the time of Marcion cited by Epiphanius and also a text by Ambrosiaster. This reading goes, “because of the Law,” (δια τον νομον). The usual explanation for this is that the words νοΐ μου were collapsed by bad copying to νομον. What we expect to find in the text, however is τῷ νοΐ without the μου based on vs. 14-15. We therefore cannot be absolutely certain of the text here. However it is hard to see a motive for Marcion’s version to have been created by Marcion. He is probably just reporting the text as he received it, which predates every other source. The variant reading could be understood as “via the custom;” i.e. the common language. If it was taken to mean “Law” then Marcion would likely have deleted it or changed it. All we know for certain is that the text is questionable here.
14:21‡ ^Isa. 28:11-12. The prophecy refers to the Chaldean language Aramaic. When Judah was exiled Jews had to learn this language, and even parts of the book of Daniel and Ezra are in Aramaic. Jews who returned to Judea after the exile quickly learned Hebrew, retaining only some common borrowed words from Aramaic. Jews who stayed behind generally did not learn Hebrew and had to have the word translated to them in Aramaic. These translations or interpretations were called Targums.
14:22† ^The curse of mixed up languages came upon Babel because of their unfaithfulness to the divine commandment to scatter and fill the earth. The languages were the sign of Gŏd’s judgment. Yăhwēh chose Yisra’ēl and the Hebrew language to convey the story of redemption, but when Yisra’ēl sinned, they were scattered to other nations and forgot Hebrew. Therefore, foreign languages are a sign of the Almĭghty’s curse. But hearing the prophesy of Scripture in one’s own language, or learning the original languages to hear it is a blessing.
In what cases then were languages part of a sign of the Rūaḥ HaQōdēsh? Only in those cases where the languages were being used to communicate the truth of the good news of Mĕssiah. In all cases, the tongues were being used to declare the Word of Yăhwēh. But where languages are not understood, they are not serving that purpose, and when none can understand what is being said, none can verify what is being said.
14:23‡ ^Unlearned (ἰδιῶται). Again Paul is prescient. Holy rollers are the butt of many jokes inside and outside the Church for their “mad” behavior.
Pentecostals are supposed to demonstrate holiness. But they are no where near a true observance of Pentecost. How can one have the Feast of Weeks without celebrating it or obeying the commandments that go with it? One is not sanctified by speaking in tongues. One is sanctified by obeying the commandments. Yĕshūa̒ said if we loved him, we would keep his commandments (John 15:10), and that he would love us in return. So the one seeking is approval should not seek tongues as a sign. For and evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and none will be given to it except the sign of Jonah, which is the sign of the good news of Mĕssiah.
14:25† ^And this can only happen where the true good news is proclaimed, and people are called to repentance. And the reason that there are not many prophetic gifts in the assemblies these days are because the people look for false signs.
14:26¹ ^Or, “explanation.” A different Greek word is used here, which may, but does not have to refer to translation. It may refer to an interpretation of a text or an attempt to make clear a Scripture text which is unclear.
14:27-28‡ ^If anyone speaks in a language, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one translate, 28 but if there is no translator, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself and to the Almĭghty.‡ In ethnocentric America it is not often that different languages groups have to mix. But in the cosmopolitan trade city of Corinth the early faithful did not have the numbers or organization to have an assembly for every language group of faithful. Part of the babble problem was that various factions of the assembly were competing for time for self expression in the worship service. Translations were being skipped for the sake of time. Also the ministries of the new assemblies were not yet segregated according to languages.
This time Paul says, “let one translate” in vs. 27 (καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω), which makes explicit that a speaker of a foreign language is to have their language translated by another person who is bilingual. Further Paul specifies a limit of two or three, and in strict order. So if someone has a song, a Psalm, or other creative form of worship, it may be presented with translation. But if there are so many whose needs are not being met, then the assembly should divide into different language groups. In the meantime, if neither time permits, nor there is a translator, then the one who speaks a foreign language has to keep silent and try the best they can to understand the service.
14:29† ^The prophets are the preachers who know the word. These are they who have memorized Scripture, or who can read, and have access to Scripture texts, and the others who are to judge are their peers, who also know the Scriptures, and they are to make sure that their brother are treating the Scripture with accuracy and explaining it correctly.
14:30‡ ^Often the case is that someone is explaining a Scripture or a whole series of Scriptures, and someone else knowing Scripture realizes something has to be said. This is especially the case where many do not read, and many have not memorized completely, and many do not have access to all the texts. For some may have only some books, and not others, and books were circulated from person to person, and copied. So someone may have to arise to add something important or to correct something misremembered, or someone may also be adept as the word, and may deserve their turn. Therefore, if something is revealed to another, then the first should give them space to expound what they know.
This was before the days of professional studies, or men who dedicated themselves to nothing but becoming experts at the word. Most leaders were part time students and part time preachers. There was no infrastructure for anything more. Men like Paul, with formal rabbinic training in Jerusalem, were as rare as diamonds, and many of these did not accept Mĕssiah because the Pharisees had corrupted them.
14:33† ^For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, because the Almĭghty is not an Almĭghty of confusion but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the holy ones.† What does it mean for the spirits of the prophets to be subject to the prophets? As we will find out, the answer to this question completely destroys the foundations of Charasmatic paradigm of revelation. But first we must explain the process by which true prophets in the assembly obtain and reveal revelation.
The first step is that the Rūăḥ (Spĭrit) reveals a matter to one of the faithful either by way of dream, vision, or thought processes guided to the discovery of an important truth. It may be as simple as a faithful person meditating on Scripture until the Spĭrit joggles the mind for with the answer. Often the case is that a person has to read enough scripture, and steadfastly seek after enough factual information in the quest to discover a truth, and then add to this prayer for success in seeking. And then at the key point the Spĭrit will direct the thoughts to the answer. It is like the wind coming and going. The only thing you know in the end is that you have the answer, and you can verify the answer, and you can’t imagine how you would have gotten it on your own power.
I would say that this last way is the way the Spĭrit likes to work best. For it is the way that prevents men from prideful spiritual exaltation. The prophet therefore, who has received the revelation has to confirm the truth by the word of Yăhwēh and witnesses that can verify the truth.
The next step is the most important, and applies to all prophets, even those who wrote the scripture and reported what Yăhwēh said. They all take the word of Yăhwēh into the heart and then memorize it, or remember the point they have discovered, and then under their own control they deliver the message. Therefore, the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet when he prophesies to the faithful what he knows. But this is not so with the pagan ancient world. I think Barnes’s Notes on the Bible explain this well:
And the spirits of the prophets - See in 1 Corinthians 14:1 for the meaning of the word prophets. The evident meaning of this is, that they were able to control their inclination to speak; they were not under a necessity of speaking, even though they might be inspired. There was no need of disorder. This verse gives confirmation to the supposition, that the extraordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit were subjected to substantially the same laws as a man's natural endowments. They were conferred by the Holy Spirit; but they were conferred on free agents, and did not interfere with their free agency. And as a man, though of the most splendid talents and commanding eloquence, has "control" over his own mind, and is not "compelled" to speak, so it was with those who are here called prophets.
It is not improbable, however, that the same thing was true of the prophets of the Old Testament; and that it is really true as a general declaration of all the prophets whom God has inspired, that they had control over their own minds, and could speak or be silent at pleasure. In this the spirit of true inspiration differed essentially from the views of the pagan, who regarded themselves as driven on by a wild, controlling influence, that compelled them to speak even when they were unconscious of what they said. Universally, in the pagan world, the priests and priestesses supposed or feigned that they were under an influence which was incontrollable; which took away their powers of self-command, and which made them the mere organs or unconscious instruments of communicating the will of the gods. The Scripture account of inspiration is, however, a very different thing. In whatever way the mind was influenced, or whatever was the mode in which the truth was conveyed, yet it was not such as to destroy the conscious powers of free agency, nor such as to destroy the individuality of the inspired person, or to annihilate what was special in his mode of thinking, his style, or his customary manner of expression.
What then does the Charasmatic speaker in “tongues” claim? He or she claims that the Spirit of God is controlling their tongue to speak the words of God. But this is contrary to the manner in which the Holy Spĭrit delivers revelation. The Holy Spĭrit does not control the prophet. Rather the Spĭrit of truth reveals his message to the ear or eye of the faithful person who is listening, or the Spĭrit adds a thought to the thought processes of the faithful person by way of prompting or reminder, but in no way does the Spĭrit seize control of the person. And in those cases, where seizing control has happened, it is because the Spĭrit wishes to make a fool of the person, because they are under his judgment (cf. 1Sam. 19:20-24).
Even when the Spĭrit rushes on the person, it is merely to enhance their thinking and speaking abilities, and to give and to enable them to absorb lots of information at once. However the person is still in control of their tongue, their eyes, and their ears, and their own thought processes (cf. 1Sam. 10:5-12).
Clearly in one case Saul was in control of himself, and in the other case after he sinned and wanted to murder David, he was out of control.
We may therefore conclude that if someone claims they are being controlled, then it is 1. a false claim, and they are a liar, self deceived, or deceived, 2. true, and an evil spirit controls them, or 3. true and very rarely the Spĭrit controls them to make a fool out of them, as in the case of King Saul. And for the sake of that person, I really hope that they are simply deceived, and no worse. For charasmatic tongues are no sign of santification or obeying of Yĕshūa̒’s commandments, nor are they a sign that anyone is spiritual. The real evidence is the fruit of the Spĭrit.
So Paul has laid down the Scripturally logical canon (rule): the spirits of the prophets must be subject to the prophets. If anyone comes and speaks a tongue, therefore, and says that the Spirit has control of their tongue, then they are not allowed to prophesy. In fact, the speaking should not even be interpreted. The person should simply be ordered to silence and told that the Spĭrit does not properly reveal things to the assembly by controlling the prophet’s tongue. That is the way of the ancient pagan world.
I am quite aware that a good deal of the Messianic movement has been swept away by the Charasmatic heresy. Insofar as many are simply deceived about the nature of what they are doing, and “speaking in tongues” is psychological, they are only in great danger of becoming worse if they do not guide their lives by the Word and obey the commandments. And we do not have to accept their evidence that it is anything spiritual, because it has not passed the test.
14:34† ^The original here has the sense of “babble” or “carry on” (λαλεῖν). Liddel’s Lexicon has the definition, “to talk, chat, prattle, babble” (BW 8.0). Paul is not prohibiting participation. He is banning idle interruption and background chatter. Women might sit in a different section and might tend to chatter on the side, if they did not follow the teaching well. Of course, men can be disruptive too.
15:4† ^Paul says that the Scriptures teach the “third day”, and indeed it does. He means the Law and prophets. The third day theme is a constant Messianic type in the Scriptures before the NT.
15:7† ^Death is consistently compared to sleep in the Scripture. A person needs an awake body for conscious experience.
15:23† ^This was the 16th of Nisan, the same as the third day from Yeshua’s crucifixion. In AD 34, first fruits overlapped the weekly Sabbath after Passover when Yeshua was raised. The day of the wave sheaf sacrifices is reckoned in common with all other offerings on a dawn to dawn basis (cf. Lev. 6:9-10; 7:15; 23:11-14). The weekly Sabbath is reckoned on a sunset to sunset basis. The wave sheaf day was Friday dawn to Sabbath dawn, and the Sabbath was Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. The resurrection was just before dawn on the Sabbath, just as the wave sheaf offerings finished ascending from the altar. This chart shows how it happened.
15:27† ^Psa. 8:7 [6].
15:28† ^Paul is continuing his defense of the resurrection here. The Son needs to be raised to be subject to the Father, and to bring everything else into subjection to the Father.
15:32† ^Isa. 22:13.
15:51† ^Death is compared to sleep, because in the first death only the body is destroyed, but not the soul, so from Gŏd’s point of view the soul sleeps. In the second death, both the body and the soul are destroyed in the lake of fire.
15:52‡ ^The “last” trumpet is that which announces the year of Jubilee. This trumpet is blown on the 10th day of the 7th month. See Lev. 25:9. We don’t know which Jubilee it will be.
15:55† ^Isa. 25:8 and Hosea 13:14.
15:56† ^
16:2† ^Down through the first of the Sabbaths. κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων. On κατὰ see Thayer, “1. of place; a. of the place through which anything is done or is extended (properly, down through; opposed to ἀνὰ, up through):” and “2. of Time (cf. Winer's Grammar, 401 (374)); during, about;” The sense is not “on the first Sabbath,” as the obvious word to use would be εν. But it is “down about,” or “down through.” If one is really saving up during the 50 days to Shav̱ū‘ōt, the the obvious time to start is on the wave sheaf day, but the first of the Sabbaths is mentioned here because it is more connected to the resurrection day, in that it is invariantly a weekly Sabbath than the day of the wave sheaf which moves about the week. The wave sheaf day overlapped the weekly Sabbath in the year of the resurrection (AD 34), falling between Friday dawn and Saturday dawn. The coincidence is only a periodic circumstance of the calendar about every seven years or so.
It should be noted that the ISV version tries to take some note of the Sabbath, “After the Sabbath ends, each of you should set aside...”, but of course, it must add “after” to the text. Some texts put arrogantly, “Every Sunday each of you should set aside some of your money...” (GWT). The Jubilee Bible 2000 is refreshingly more accurate, “Each first sabbath let each one of you set aside in store...” but the translation “each” is highly doubtful, and is why most translators try to put “on.”
16:8† ^But I will remain in Ephesus until Shav̱ū‘ōt. The Greek name of this feast was Pentecost, from the Greek πεντηκοστῆς, which means The “fiftieth one,” i.e. fiftieth day. The fiftieth day is a Biblical feast day. See Lev. 23:16ff. The feast is called Shav̱ū‘ōt in Hebrew, or “Weeks,” based on the number seven. Paul noted the observance of Passover in 1Cor. 5:8, and the first of the Sabbaths in 1Cor. 16:2. And now here he notes another Scriptural Holy Day, the feast of weeks: Hag Shav̱ū‘ōt. If Christians are not supposed to be observing these days, it is strange that Paul seems to keep time using them.
The mention of the feast of weeks following on the first of the Sabbaths is because in the seven weeks between Passover and Shav̱ū‘ōt there are seven Sabbaths that are counted in succession (Lev. 23:15). Wherever the first of the Sabbaths is mentioned it is always associated with the first Sabbath after Passover. It was the resurrection day of Mĕssiah, yet the Church was unwilling to acknowledge the resurrection on the Sabbath because they did not want to observe the Sabbath. Instead they invented the Sunday resurrection, and changed their interpretation of “first of the Sabbaths” to “first day of the week.” Sabbath observers suffer greatly from the Sunday traditions, and because they are a minority with less power to fight traditional lies, or more likely because when Sabbath observance has been revived many times over by converts from the Sunday Church, the erring beliefs of Sunday Christian are often continued even by Sabbath observers. We may regard this as a kind of victim syndrome, like when a kidnap victim has unexpected sympathy for the perpetrator of the crime. So it is with many escaping from Sunday to discover the blessings of the real Sabbath.
So it should not be a surprise to find the majority of Sabbath observers still tricked into thinking the resurrection was on Sunday, or that “first day of the week” is a defensible translation. But we must realize that Satan sets out to corrupt every divine institution and truth, and he often succeeds in making people think his corrupt version of Christianity is the Scriptural form of it.
Several things can result from discovering the neglected truth and that the Church unwittingly perpetuates serious lies in its traditions. The first is bitter anger at the institution practicing the false tradition without good discernment how not to be angry at the poor deceived by the traditions. Another thing that results is the anger and attack of the relatives who immediately go on the attack with salvation issues or refusal to accommodate the truth. The more superficial the Christianity of the relative, the worse it is, or the more fundamentalist they are, having believed a false gospel with zero tolerance for the divine Law. Sometimes it takes one years to get over this, and sometimes it takes years to learn again how to love those continuing the deceitful traditions.
In some sense, the new convert to Sabbath observance, or other Biblical Laws, will be a weaker brother, even if they were strong before discovering this part of the truth. And they may be a little upset with some of us who have gotten over the anger enough to love other Christians, realizing that they are not able to handle much truth, and therefore we do not confront them just to be confrontational, but we confront them in much more subtle ways, and the condemning approach is not one we take, though some recently introduced to the truth take this track, having forgotten where they came from.
I have a word to the wise, there is a time and place to present the unvarnished truth. About the weaker brothers, we should affirm the truth of what they are trying to get noticed, and at the same time showing them why the Sunday Christians are not listening to the message. This commentary is part of that effort, to show that just discovering the Sabbath or feast days is not enough. In fact it is really superficial in view of the deadly disease and illness of theology that has infected the Church. A whole worldview has to change.
16:22† ^Aramaic for “A’dŏnai̱ Come!” (מָרַן אֵתָא). The Greek transliteration is Μαρὰν ἀθα. This phrase is no more evidence of an Aramaic original than “Maranatha” in English translations is evidence that the English translation was made from Aramaic. The Phrase is a catch phrase that has been borrowed into many languages, including Greek, and its meaning learned.
