§44 Confrontation and Advice (1 Cor. 14:37–40)
Paul concludes his discussion of the problems in worship in Corinth with a direct challenge in verses 37–40. Paul states his point of view through the rhetoric of conditional sentences: “If this … then that.” His language is mildly insulting both in the choice of words and in the tone. Thus, there is a confrontational character to the statements in verses 37–38, although Paul’s concluding admonitions (vv. 39–40) are more neutral in expression.
14:37 / In the first conditional statement, If anybody thinks he is a prophet …, Paul states a criterion that puts the burden of proof on anyone wishing to disagree with him: let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. Agreement, by contrast, would verify one as a prophet or a spiritual one. It is not clear how Paul relates his teaching to a command of the Lord, but it is clear that the point of discussion is the issue of prophecy and spiritual gifts, not the immediately preceding matter of wives speaking in church (see v. 39).
Paul’s declaration that what he is teaching is the Lord’s command is a bold claim. Readers should recall that in chapter 7 and in other places in his letters Paul does not hesitate to distinguish his own words from those of the Lord, even when he is facing very difficult circumstances. It is unlikely that Paul claims this authority for his teaching on prophecy and the use of spiritual gifts lightly. Thus, the readers in Corinth would understand the seriousness of Paul’s point and would be forced to make a decision about the appropriateness of certain behaviors that had cropped up among them. Paul’s conditional challenge forces the readers to practice spiritual discernment and recognize the validity or invalidity of particular practices of and teachings about spiritual gifts in the life of the congregation.
14:38 / In this verse, as in the preceding one, Paul issues a conditional challenge to certain members of the Corinthian congregation. His method of formulating the confronting statement is telling. He writes to an indistinct imaginary individual: “If anybody …” (v. 37); If he … (v. 38). The Corinthian congregation was not large, and Paul had spoken with Chloe’s people and with the persons who brought the letter from the Corinthians to him. Paul could easily have ascertained the name of the person or persons who were causing problems or who were likely to resist his directions. Nevertheless, Paul writes obliquely of “anybody” and “he,” not calling specific names. The effect is threefold: (1) By not singling out any one person explicitly, Paul avoids forcing anyone toward a position of shame; (2) by refusing to cite anyone specifically, Paul is also using a typical rhetorical tool employed by ancient speakers to show disdain; and (3) the passive form, will be ignored, suggests God’s involvement in the life of the church. In other words, should someone resist or deny Paul’s teaching as coming from the Lord, that person is in danger of being ignored by God because it is God whom that one is ignoring!
14:39 / Ultimately, tongues are permissible but prophecy is preferable. There is no new information here, although the way Paul explicitly forbids the forbidding of tongues may indicate his desire to preclude any further misunderstanding. Paul does not oppose tongues; rather, he wants them used in a constructive fashion. Although such religious practice was apparently highly prized by the Corinthians, Paul states and encourages a preference for prophecy because of the immediately edifying potential of such sensible communication. The good of the whole congregation sets Paul’s overall priorities and causes him to see the value of one spiritual gift or another. Implicit in this value system is a profound theological truth: God is not merely redeeming the world by blessing individuals. God is at work to redeem the world by calling individuals into a new humanity, where persons find their special places as God sees fit among those whom God is calling into a new relationship with himself and with other persons.
14:40 / Thus, Paul finally states the point that he has made repeatedly and in several different ways: Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. A pedestrian reiteration of Paul’s point would be: contributions to worship fit as they are complementary and edify the whole congregation; they are orderly as they bring order, not disorder, and contribute to the patterned upbuilding of the church. Such are God’s ways and such is God’s will (see 14:4–5, 12, 19, 26, 31, 33a).
14:37 / Paul’s claim is significant; he insists that should one regard oneself as a prophet or a spiritual person, then that person should recognize that Paul’s message is the Lord’s command. The gift of prophecy has been discussed throughout the chapter, and here Paul apparently has in mind a prophet’s power of spiritual discernment, which he mentioned in vv. 30–31. Moreover, the word translated spiritually gifted in this verse is the same basic word that occurred at v. 1 in the neuter plural form, “spiritual gifts.” Inherent in Paul’s forthright challenge is another level of confrontation. The special spiritual gifts that are being sought by some Corinthians are evinced by the recognition that what Paul is saying is from the Lord. According to Paul’s declaration, to differ with Paul would be proof that one was not a prophet or spiritually gifted. Paul places potential opponents who might claim special spiritual powers in a double bind—to disagree would be to call one’s gifts into question, and to agree would be to take Paul’s position as inspired and correct. This assertion is a rhetorical trap, designed to win a full hearing and compliance with the directions given, although the challenges fall in line with the directions he gave in 14:29.
Saying that his directions are the Lord’s command seems clear on the surface, but what Paul means, where he received the decree, and how, are all open questions. Watson (First Epistle, p. 155) states that “Paul now claims for himself the right to speak for God,” but that is wrong. Paul may demonstrate a sense of authority here, but he claims no rights. The exercise of a genuine responsibility is not the same as the assertion of a right. Moreover, the form of this statement by Paul is much firmer in tone and grammar than is his more modest claim at 7:40b; and one should not confuse the character of the two remarks. Perhaps Watson is correct, however, when he writes, “Although there is no explicit appeal to apostolic authority here, such a claim is probably implicit (cf. 12:28).” Unfortunately, Watson’s additional comments on Paul’s authority go beyond the boundaries of exegesis.
14:38 / This is disdainful dismissal of anyone who might disagree with Paul: “But if anyone fails to acknowledge [what Paul has delivered as the Lord’s command], let that one fail to be acknowledged.” By whom the one resisting Paul’s teaching will be unacknowledged is open to speculation. The congregation? Paul? God? All of these? The comment is too cryptic to allow one to infer an answer to this intriguing question.
14:39 / This verse is a final piece of rhetorical summary. The first word of Paul’s statement, Therefore (Gk. Hōste; lit. “So then” or “So as”), indicates a significant conclusion, and the accompanying direct address, brothers (adelphoi), would summon the attention of the members of the congregation. The language of this verse echoes 12:31a, and even more the language and theme of 14:1. Through such repetitious rhetoric Paul creates continuity in his lengthy and complicated argumentation and brings clear emphasis to his primary position.
14:40 / Paul concludes this discussion by appending another summary slogan, probably to the whole discussion: “But all things [the first word of the Corinthians’ own slogan from 6:12] well-fittingly and according to order let it be!” The comment applies directly to prophecy, tongues, and the other spiritual contributions to worship. Unfortunately, the phraseology of the NIV softens the mettle of Paul’s pronouncement.