The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Ver. 1. — Follow after charity. Pursue it eagerly so as to obtain it, just as a huntsman pursues a wild animal.
Desire spiritual gifts . These are, S. Chrysostom says, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, not His graces, as, e.g., the gift of tongues or of healing , and the others referred to in chap. xii. S. Paul bids them desire these, try to obtain them, especially by prayer, not from any desire for superiority but from charity, that they may profit others and the Church at large by means of those gifts.
But rather that ye may prophesy . Viz., that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ye may teach, say, or sing such things as may stir up the devotion of others. This has just been seen to be the force of “ prophecy.”
Ver. 2. — He that speaheth in a tongue , &c. S. Augustine (de Gen. ad Litt. lib. xii.), Primasius, and Cajetan read the nominative in the last clause of this verse, “Howbeit the Spirit speaketh mysteries.” The meaning then would be : The Holy Spirit speaks of hidden mysteries in the Holy Scriptures, which cannot be understood, except some prophet or doctor interpret them. But this meaning is foreign to the context, and this reading is not supported by the Greek or Latin copies.
Ver. 3. — But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to . . . comfort. This is what I said before, that to prophesy means here to speak words which edify, exhort, and comfort others. Hence, to prophesy is better than to speak in unknown tongues, which no one understands , and from which no one can receive instruction, edification, or comfort.
Ver. 6 . — Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues ... or by doctrine ? His tongues would profit them nothing unless he added to them a revelation , that is an explanation of the revelation given him; or knowledge , that is a declaration of what he knew, whether infused by God or acquired by study; or prophecy , that is a statement of what he knew, either by prophecy properly so called or improperly, in the way of explanation of hidden and difficult things, especially of Holy Scripture ; or doctrine, that is an accommodation of his discourse to their capacity. Such is pretty nearly the explanation given by S. Thomas and Theophylact. To complete the sense of the verse we must supply : But I shall do nothing of this sort if I merely speak with tongues and do not interpret, so that you may understand me; therefore it is better to prophesy than to speak with tongues, unless some one interpret.
But in the second place we can understand the Apostle’s meaning still better if we join knowledge with doctrine, and revelation with prophecy. For, as it was from their stores of knowledge that learned men drew the teaching that they gave others, so was it from revelation that they prophesied. Prophecy is distinguished from doctrine in that it is received by revelation, doctrine from knowledge ; for what we teach has been acquired by intellectual study. So Toletus and Jansenius, in the place quoted above, say that S. Paul’s meaning is, “ Though I speak in unknown tongues, but do not teach you, whether by knowledge gained by study or by prophecy received by revelation, I shall profit you nothing.”
Thirdly, Cassianus (Collat. iv. 8) sees here the four senses of Holy Scripture: in the doctrine the literal sense, in the revelation the allegorical, in the knowledge the tropological, in the prophecy the anagogical. But this is a mystical and symbolic interpretation.
Ver. 7. — And even things without life, &c. That tongues profit nothing unless they are understood can be seen, even from a comparison drawn from inanimate things ; for a pipe or harp are of no use unless they give a distinct sound. Unless a man knows what is played he will take no pleasure in the sounds, nor will he be induced to dance to the music.
Ver. 9. — So likewise ye . . . how shall it be known what is spoken? For the tongue is the stamp, the image, the index, and messenger of the mind. As Aristotle says (Peri Hermen . lib. ii.), “ words are signs of the feelings which lie concealed in the soul.” Hence Socrates used to determine the mind and character of any one from his voice, and would say, “Speak, young man, that I may see you.” But this cannot be if the language of the speaker is unknown to the hearer.
Ver. 10. — There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification . As a matter of fact, or for example, there are many different languages : no nation is without its language, no language without its meaning. Others, as Œcumenius, refer the none to the instrument, and say that no pipe or harp but has its proper sound ; others, more generally, no object is without its voice. As Ausonius sings to Paulinus : —
“No creature silent is, nor winged bird,
Nor beast that walks the earth, nor hissing snake;
The cymbals smitten sound, the stage when struck
By dancers’ feet, the drum its echo gives. ”
The best meaning, however, is that no tongue is void of meaning.
Ver. 11. — I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian. As Ovid says: —
“ A barbarian here am I, and understood by none.”
The word “ barbarian ” is onomatopoetic, and was first applied by the Greeks to any one who spoke another language than Greek; then by the Romans to one who spoke neither Greek nor Latin ; afterwards it denoted any one who spoke any other tongue but that of his native country. Hence Anacharsis the Scythian, when ridiculed as a barbarian by the Athenians, well replied, “The Scythians are barbarians to the Athenians, the Athenians just as much barbarians to the Scythians."
Ver. 12. — Forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts. Since ye desire to have the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit enumerated in chap, xii, seek them from God abundantly, that ye may use them, not for ostentation, but for the perfecting of the Church.
Ver. 13. — Let him that speaketh . . . pray that he may interpret. S. Paul is here speaking of public prayer, in which one man, even though a layman, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would offer up prayer in an audible voice before all, the others listening, and joining their prayers to his. This is the meaning, as appears from the following verses. But Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Anselm explain it thus: Let him pray that he may receive the gift of the interpretation of tongues, so as to make his own prayer intelligible to others.
Ver. 14. — For if I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth. (1.) My spirit is refreshed; (2.) according to S. Chrysostom, the gift of the Holy Spirit which is in me prayeth, makes me pray and utter my prayer in public. (3.) Theophylact and Erasmus, following S. Basil, understand breath by spirit ; in other words, My voice, produced by the vital and vocal breath, prays ; but my mind is unfruitful, because it does not understand the meaning of the words uttered. Primasius, too, says that the word “ spirit ” here is to be understood of prayers uttered sometimes while the mind is thinking of something else. But the first is the true sense, and best fits in with what follows. S. Thomas, commenting on this clause, gives three other meanings, but they are not those in the Apostle’s mind.
But my understanding is unfruitful S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, S. Thomas, and Cajetan think that the Apostle is speaking here of those who had received the gift of tongues, but who, like Balaam’s ass, did not understand what they said, or at all events did not enter into the mysteries contained in their words. S. Augustine says the same (de Gen . ad Litt. lib. xii. c. 8 and 9), and it is gathered from ver. 28. For these prayed without fruit in such tongues; for, though their spirit fed on God in pious devotion, yet their mind was not fed on any understanding of the words of the prayer.
But I say that the Greek νoῦς here is the same as “ meaning.” It is so rendered in the Latin in ver. 19, and in chap. ii. 16, and in Rev. xvii. 9, where we read, “Here is the meaning ” (of the vision of the beast) “which hath wisdom.” S. Paul makes the same distinction between the tongue and the mind, or the letter and the spirit, which is so common amongst rhetoricians. “ Sense ” or meaning here is passive understanding, that by which I am understood by all — not active, by which I understand things. This “mind,” or signification of tongues, is without fruit, because no one takes it in, and no one is aroused to devotion. This is the natural meaning, and S. Basil seems to hold it (in Reg. Brev. Interrog. 278).
Secondly, Œcumenius and Theodoret give an explanation which is not improbable: My mind, or my aim and object, is without fruit, not on the part of the speaker but the hearer, whom the speaker strives to excite to piety. It is certain, from vers. 14, 16, and 19, that S. Paul is speaking of fruit on the side of the hearers ; for he is speaking of the prayers and spiritual songs which some of the laity composed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and uttered in public, or sang in the church at the time of their spiritual feasts, for the comfort, instruction, or exhortation of the people. He wishes them to be said in the vulgar tongue, so as to be understood by all ; otherwise, he says, they would be fruitless.