Bibie commentaries www.abiblecommentary Category:  Religion Pages: 823 Copyright: Jan 1i 2010 ISBN-13: 9780984423903 Bible commentary on First Corinthians; get a great commentary on Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians through www.abiblecommentary.com. This First Corinthians commentary has actually been taken into an adult Bible class and used to teach the book of First Corinthians. First Corinthians commentary – get an easy to use but thorough commentary on First Corinthians through www.abiblecommentary.com. This commentary is filled with charts and does not skip the hard passages in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. There is a discounted rate if you purchase more than one book, or if you purchase the First Corinthians commentary along with the Romans commentary. Excerpt 13:1a: If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, As noted in the introductory comments, this chapter can be divided into three distinct sections, and each unit of thought contains an argument to show the superiority of love over first century spiritual gifts. Paul’s first argument is in verses 1-3: Without love, spiritual gifts were useless. The second argument is found in verses 4-7: Spiritual gifts were inferior to love. Verses 8-13 affirm that spiritual gifts were temporary but love would remain. Since the Corinthians were fond of tongue speaking, this chapter opens with a reference to this gift, even though this ability was not the most valuable (see 1 Cor. 12:27-31 and the commentary on these verses). The “tongues of men” is rendered “all the languages of the earth” in The New Living Translation. If most translations read something like the “languages of men” instead of the “tongues of men,” all would immediately realize that Paul spoke about the various human languages used throughout the world. By appealing to both human and angelic speech Paul included the entire spectrum of languages. For more information on the tongues of men see the commentary on 1 Cor. 12:10b, the special study on tongue speaking at the end of the commentary on 1 Cor. 12, and the comments on 1 Cor. 14:2. Paul realized that many different languages exist in the world, but none of them “can be compared with the practice of love. The art of oratory, so highly valued at Corinth, could not surpass love” (CBL, First Corinthians, p. 427). This opening verse does not say that Paul or any other human being has or can speak with the tongues of angels. Paul said “if” he could speak these other kinds of languages (this is a hypothetical case, just as Paul said “if” he could “know all mysteries,” “if” he “had all knowledge,” and “if” he had the faith to “remove mountains,” verse 2). More hypothetical statements are found in verse 3 (“if” Paul “gave away all he owned” and “if” he “gave his body to be burned”). The point is somewhat similar to Gal. 1:8 where Paul spoke of himself or an “angel” preaching “another gospel.” In a similar way people do not actually “speak in the tongues of angels.” If this act were possible, even it would be worthless if the tongue speaker lacked love. It is not difficult to discern what Paul meant, but members of the Pentecostal movement have often appealed to this passage to justify their so-called tongue speaking. Some claim to speak in a “heavenly language” that cannot be understood by “earthly people.” Those who make this claim affirm that they speak with the “tongues of men” (their native speech) and they speak with the “tongues of angels” (some type of heavenly language that is “unknown” to others on the earth). Readers should notice that Paul did not say the “tongues of men” and the “tongues of angels.” Rather than use the word “tongues” twice in this verse, the word tongues is used only one time. This implies that human and angelic languages have something in common—both types of language are known and understandable. When the first Christians used the gift of tongues, non-Christians heard a language they understood (Acts 2:8-11). Also, in 1 Cor. 14:23 Paul specifically condemned speaking in a language that people did not know (understand). We certainly find Bible examples of angels speaking, but the heavenly language of angels was always a language that was also used and understood by men (see Lk. 1:13, 30; 2:10; Acts 12:8). We never find a single instance of angels speaking in a language humans did not understand. Thus, rather than divide languages into “known and unknown” tongues as Pentecostalism does, all tongues are known languages. The word unknown does appear in the KJV in 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 13. 14, 19, 27, but this term is in italics because it is not part of the original text. Unknown means the person hearing the language did not understand that particular tongue (if we only speak English, the Spanish language would be an unknown tongue to us). Those who now claim to speak in tongues usually say a few syllables or speak what is equivalent to 15-30 words to demonstrate their “gift.” This author has never met anyone who “spoke in tongues” for an entire month, a full week, an entire day, or even used their “gift” for a solid hour. This is one more proof that modern claims are false. True tongue speakers used known human languages (Acts 2:3-4, 8) which they had never learned, and they were able to speak at length in these tongues (compare Acts 2:40). Finally, if the apostles had the ability to speak in foreign languages they had never learned for the purpose of evangelism, but the Corinthians or people today receive some type of additional and special heavenly language—the tongues of angels, people today have a gift that was not possessed by the first century apostles. 13:1b: but have not love, The word “love” (agape) is found 116 times in the Greek New Testament. While the KJV normally translates this term “love,” there are 28 places (one of which is here) where the KJV uses the word “charity.” We use the word charity to describe the assistance given to the poor and needy and these kind acts are certainly demonstrations of love. Paul’s word for love, however, is a comprehensive term. In other parts of the New Testament this term is applied to marriage (Eph. 5:28), a Christian’s dealings with others (Jn. 15:12; 2 Pet. 1:7), and even loving one’s enemies (Mt. 5:44). This is also the type of love Jesus and the Father have for each other (Jn. 17:24). The Greeks had four words for love, one of which described the sexual love between husbands and wives. This term (eros) is the basis for the English word “erotic.” Barclay (New Testament Words, p. 17) illustrated eros in this way: “A brother does not fall in love with his sister, but somebody else falls in love with her; neither does a father fall in love with his daughter, but somebody else does, for fear of God and the law of the land are sufficient to prevent such love.” Spicq (1:9) defined eros as “a strong appetite for sexual pleasures,” “the desire of the wolf for the sheep,” and “above all unreasoning passion and desire.” Secular writers sometimes used this word to describe passionate ambition and intense patriotism. A second Greek word for love (storge) described natural affection. Writers used this term to describe the relationship between parents and children or the love for a close relative. It was even used to describe a person’s love for his nation or a national ruler. In Rom. 1:31 and 2 Tim. 3:3 Paul used the negative form of this word to say some lack “natural affection.” A third word for love (philia) described the love between friends; we might compare this term to our word “cherish.” This type of love “mainly denotes the attraction of people to one another who are close together both inside and outside the family; it includes concern, care and hospitality, also love for things in the sense of being fond of” (Brown, 2:538). This term was not only the most general term for love, its root (phil) is associated with many different Greek words. These words include: philema (kiss), philosophia (love of knowledge, philosophy), philoxenos (a love of hospitality), philoteknos (a love of children), philotheos (a love of God), and proper names like Philippos (a lover of horses, horse-lover). Most understand that humanity cannot be saved by an erotic love (eros). Natural affection (storge) is good, but it is not sufficient to justify man. The third type of love (philia) is also wonderful, but even it is not powerful enough to rescue man from sin. Man needed a love that goes beyond the heart (emotions). Humanity needed the agape love that comes from God (Jn. 3:16). This fourth type of love is what Paul described in 1 Cor. 13. The word agape “was not common before the birth of the Christian Church, but it was known” (Beacon Bible Commentary, 8:438) and Christians helped show the world what this love is like. Agape love causes someone to say, “‘No matter what any man does to me, I will never seek to do harm to him; I will never set out for revenge; I will always seek nothing but his highest good.’ That is to say, Christian love, agape, is unconquerable benevolence, invincible good will. It is not simply a wave of emotion; it is a deliberate conviction of the mind issuing in a deliberate policy of the life; it is a deliberate achievement and conquest and victory of the will. It takes all of a man to achieve Christian love; it takes not only his heart; it takes his mind and his will as well” (Barclay, New Testament Words, pp. 21-22). “In contrasting philein and agapan, we might say that the former is a love of pleasure, the latter a love of preciousness; the former a love of delight, the latter a love of esteem; the former a love called out of the heart by the apprehension of pleasurable qualities in the object loved, the latter a love called out of the heart by the apprehension of valuable qualities in the object loved; the former takes pleasure in, the latter ascribes value to; the former is a love of liking, the latter a love of prizing” (Wuest, 3:112). At the root of agape love is sacrifice. Agape love moves people to act without any hope or promise of reward. This type of love “casts aside emotions, likes and dislikes, and loves because of the worth of the object to be loved” (Jackson, Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy a Practical Handbook, p. 114). “The pagan Greeks knew nothing of the love of self-sacrifice for one’s enemy which was exhibited at Calvary. Therefore they had no word for that kind of love. They knew nothing about the divine analysis of this love which Paul gives us in I Corinthians 13. So the New Testament writers seized upon this word as one that would express these exalted conceptions” (Wuest, 3:114). Even if the unsaved struggled to understand some of the doctrinal points associated with Christianity, they could understand agape love. Spicq (1:11) described agape love as “the most rational kind” which “involves recognition and judgment of values.” He further noted (1:12) that “Unlike other loves, which can remain hidden in the heart, it is essential to charity to manifest itself, to demonstrate itself, to provide proofs, to put itself on display; so much so that in the NT it would almost always be necessary to translate agape as ‘demonstrations of love.’” This is precisely what we find with deity (Jn. 3:16). God saw a world full of souls made in His image—people who were valuable—and He took the necessary steps to save them, even though sinful man was His spiritual enemy (Rom. 5:6-8). God demonstrates His present love for man by continuing to offer forgiveness to the unsaved (2 Pet. 3:9) and by continually cleansing the saved from their sins (1 Jn. 1:7). God will demonstrate his love for man in eternity by making the redeemed His inheritance (Eph. 1:18). Gromacki (p. 159) noted how the “Greeks elevated what a man knew (his intellect), the Romans worshipped what a man could do (his power), but Paul stressed what a man is (his character). The pinnacle of spiritual development is to love.” Hay “withstands fire better than the devil survives the flame of love. Love is stronger than a city wall; it is harder than steel. And even if you should think of some material stronger than these, love’s strength exceeds them all. Neither wealth nor poverty overcomes it” (The Church’s Bible, First Corinthians, p. 216). A story is told about a young boy who was trapped inside a house that had caught fire. While bystanders looked at the blaze and wondered what could be done, one man came forward, grabbed a hot drain pipe hanging from the house, and climbed to the roof. He entered the house, rescued the child, and returned to the ground using the same metal pipe. Since the boy’s parents were killed in the fire a custody hearing was held to see who should raise him. Several people from the community came forward and explained why they should be allowed to adopt the young man. One man said he had a farm and he could be teach the boy how to farm. A local school teacher said she could provide the young man with a good education. The local banker said he could provide a good home and a good education for the orphaned boy. Finally the judge asked if anyone else would like to adopt the child. A man from the back row said he would care for the boy. He did not own a large farm and he could not guarantee the boy a good education or material wealth. He could and would, however, love this child and his proof was in his hands. He was the man who had climbed the drain pipe to save the child’s life. His scarred hands proved his love for the child (compare Jn. 20:27). True love is a beautiful and wonderful thing, but the world has often tried to pervert or redefine it. Some have taught that love is toleration (i.e. love means we accept whatever people want to do). The word love has also been used to deceive and seduce people. Many have thought they were in love with someone, but what was really being experienced was lust. Others view love as conditional – as long as someone does what another wants, he is “loved.” Love is also not a feeling or the expression of generous praise. In the following verses Paul gives many different descriptions of true love. 13:1c: I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If Christians do not possess true love they are like “sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (tinkling, KJV). “‘Brass’ (chalkos) denotes first metal, copper, and then any object made from it. Here it probably refers to a gong. ‘Sounding’ (echon) might be rendered ‘resounding.’ ‘Tinkling’ (alalazon) is rather clashing like the sound of heavy cymbals. The sound may be attractive and entertaining; it may be alluring and persuasive. But if action is not motivated by love, it is only noise, ‘sound without soul’” (CBL, First Corinthians, p. 427). “What Paul refers to here are large, empty bronze vessels placed at the back of stone amphitheaters which served as an amplification system” (The Victor Bible Background Commentary, p. 387). Tongue speakers could make a lot of noise and create attention, just like ancient gongs, but that act in and of itself was hollow, empty, and ultimately useless. Without love, spiritual gifts were like a body without a soul. The present tense of both sounding and clanging makes the point especially vivid. The imagery may involve more than chaos; Paul may have implied the Corinthians were imitating some of the things found in pagan worship. Barclay (First Corinthians, p. 131) noted how a “characteristic of heathen worship, especially the worship of Dionysus and Cybele, was the clashing and the clanging of cymbals and the braying of trumpets. Even the coveted gift of tongues was no better than the uproar of heathen worship if love was absent.” Kittel (1:228) also indicated that this is correct by saying the word translated clanging (tinkling, KJV) may be defined as “ecstatic noise.” From this verse through the end of chapter 14 the verb “speak” (laleo) is used many, many times. While this term occurs only once more in this chapter (verse 11), it is found numerous times in chapter 14 (see 14:2-6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28-29, 34-35, 39).

First Corinthians Commentary Review
"Having studied much of the pre-publication material on this First Corinthian commentary, I must conclude that it is one of the most thorough works I've encountered, and the most thorough in the Brotherhood. It would be difficult to come up with a question about the epistle that is not specifically addressed in the commentary. If you have questions about division (not all divisions are bad), tongues, the Lord's Supper, giving, baptism for the dead, the bodily resurrection, or even women's role in the assembly, they are explained, many with charts, in this commentary. I would highly recommend that every serious student and Bible teacher put this commentary on their desk and wear it out."