Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 12
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After ΣΏΜΑΤΟς in 1Co_12:12, Elz. has ΤΟῦ ἙΝΌς , against greatly preponderating testimony. A gloss.—1Co_12:13. ΕἸς ἝΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ] Many various readings; the best accredited is ἝΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ (B C D* F G à , 17, 73, 80, with several VSS[1909] and Fathers). So Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Reiche. The insertion of the ΕἸς arose from comparing the clause with the first half of the verse. Then, according as the words were understood to refer to the Supper or not, arose the readings ΠΌΜΑ (with or without ΕἸς ) instead of ΠΝΕῦΜΑ , and ἘΦΩΤΊΣΘΗΜΕΝ (said of baptism, as the Greek Fathers were accustomed to use it) instead of ἘΠΟΤ .—1Co_12:31. ΚΡΕΊΤΤΟΝΑ ] A B C à , min[1910] Syr[1911] Aeth. Vulg. ms. Or. (twice) read ΜΕΊΖΟΝΑ . So Lachm. Rück. Tisch. But while ΚΡΕΊΤΤΟΝΑ might easily appear a doubtful expression in itself, and even objectionable as implying the contrast of “worse,” ΜΕΊΖΟΝΑ on the other hand, was very naturally suggested by 1Co_13:13, 1Co_15:5.
[1900] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1901] SS. vss. = versions.
[1902] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1903] yr. Peschito Syriac
[1904] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1905] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1906] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1907] SS. vss. = versions.
[1908] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1909] SS. vss. = versions.
[1910] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[1911] yr. Peschito Syriac
CONTENTS.
Concerning the Spirit’s gifts.[1912] The fundamental characteristic of speaking in the Spirit is the confession of Jesus as the Lord (1Co_12:3); but the especial utterances of the Spirit, which are given to individuals for the welfare of the community (1Co_12:7-10). differ one from another (1Co_12:4-6). The Giver of all gifts, however, is one and the same Spirit; for Christians form an organic whole, like the limbs of one body, so that none of them ought either to judge himself in a depreciatory spirit (1Co_12:11-20), or to ignore the need and worth of those with fewer or lower gifts (1Co_12:21-30). Still there ought to be a striving after the more excellent charismata; and Paul will show his readers the best kind and mode of thus striving (1Co_12:31).
The peculiar difficulty attaching to this whole section is very truly described by Chrysostom: τοῦτο ἅπαν τὸ χωριόν σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσαφές · τὴν δὲ ἀσάφειαν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἄγνοιά τε καὶ ἔλλειψις ποιεῖ , τῶν τότε μὲν συμβαινόντων , νῦν δὲ οὐ γινομένων .
[1912] Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 646 f., holds that the abuse of the glossolalia in Corinth, which has certainly given occasion to this section of the Epistle, had arisen in the party-interest of the Petrine Christians in opposition to the Pauline. The former, he maintains, had brought the γλ . λαλ . to bear against the latter, denying to Paul the apostolic character and consequently the possession of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον . But there is no trace of this whatever in the apostle’s treatment of the subject; for the word thrown out at 1Co_7:40, in connection with a totally different occasion, has no bearing at all upon this question; and 1Co_16:6; 1Co_16:18 take for granted that his readers admitted that Paul himself had the gift of the glossolalia, and that in a high degree. Räbiger, too, agrees in substance with Baur, assuming, as he does, an opposition between the Pauline προφητεύοντες and the Petrine γλώσσαις λαλοῦντες . But there is not the slightest support in the text either, in general, for connecting the subject in hand with the state of parties at Corinth, or, in particular, for ascribing the glossolalia to any one special party (Dähne, e.g., regards it as a piece of Alexandrian fanaticism among the Christ-party). Van Hengel’s conjecture, also (Gave d. talen, p. 111 f.), that Apollos had brought the glossolalia to Corinth, where it had been abused and had degenerated, lacks all definite foundation.