The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
The case is different with the Lord’s Prayer, which every one ought to learn and intelligently use in the vernacular, that he may know exactly what he should ask of God, as has been often laid down in synods. Cajetan, on the other hand, gathers from this passage that it is better for organs, and musical instruments generally, to be excluded from church services, in order that the Hours and the Masses may be sung so as to be understood, and so that the people may be able to answer " Amen! ” But the practice of the Church is against this, which makes use of organs and other musical instruments in Divine service, as David did, to stir up the devotion of the people, who just as little understand the Latin language. The Church does this for three reasons : (1.) as we join in praising God, not only in spirit but also in body, so we should praise Him, not only with the best music of the voice, but also of instruments ; for every spirit, every creature, every instrument ought to praise Him whose due never can be reached. (2.) To arouse the listeners, and especially the uneducated, to religious fervour, as David and Elisha were enkindled by psalms and harps, and as Saul was stirred up by music to give God praise. (3.) That the beauty, solemnity, and majesty of Divine service may be the greater. Prudentius, in his Apotheosis , written against the Jews, and the Faculty of Paris, in its decree (tit xix. prop. 6), explain this verse thus : When St. Paul says that in the church he would rather speak five words with his understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, he is speaking of sermons addressed to the people, in which a flow of words void of thought is useless. He says nothing about Church canticles, which are governed by another law.”
Nevertheless, we must in these matters guard against lightness, as the Council of Trent bids. Hence S. Augustine (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii.) says that pipes and organs used in theatres had been rejected by the Church, because the heathen used them then for lust in the theatres, and for banquets, and at their sacrifices. But, following the example and injunctions of David, we may use organs and other musical instruments , if it be done with piety, soberness, and gravity (cf. Ps. cl.). S. John, too (Rev. v. 8, and xiv. 2), heard in heaven, where all are perfected, harps, though of course more solemn and Divine than ours on earth.
Amen. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodoret have translated this faithfully or truly ; the Septuagint, so be it. “Amen ” signifies truly or even firmly. It is not the expression of an oath, but of one who affirms or confirms. It is used as an affirmation when it is put at the beginning of a sentence, as, e.g., “Amen, Amen, I say unto you.” And in this sense S. Augustine (in Joan, Tract . 41) calls “ Amen ” the oath of Christ, because Christ’s oath was not strictly an oath but a simple affirmation. It is a mark of confirmation when put at the end of a prayer, or it signifies the consent of the hearer ; it sometimes marks an assertion and agreement, sometimes a wish. It stands for agreement in Deut xxvii., where the people are bidden to answer “Amen” in token that they were willing to accept the blessings for keeping the law and the curses for breaking it. But in a prayer, as, e.g., in the Lord’s Prayer, it merely denotes a wish that what is sought for in the prayer may be obtained. The Rabbinical writers say that there are two “ Amens,” one perfect and the other imperfect in three ways : (1.) that of a pupil, when “Amen” is said, not as though the prayer is understood, but it is left to the direction of another to dictate it, as it were ; (2.) when the “ Amen ” is said before the end of the prayer it is called “surreptitious,” (3.) and “divided” when the answer is given by one who is not thinking of the prayer, because he is occupied with something else.
Ver. 18. — I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all. The Latin rendering is, " I speak with the tongues of you all,” which suggests the question, What could be S. Paul’s meaning in this, since there was but one tongue in Greece, and at Corinth in particular, viz., Greek ? Haymo’s answer is that he refers to the different dialects of Greek. A better answer would be, that foreigners and merchants of all nations flocked to Corinth as a great emporium, just as to-day, at Antwerp, Venice, or Paris, we find the commerce and language of the French, Italians, and English, and other nations, and that S. Paul is therefore referring to the different languages to be heard in the streets of Corinth. But Ephrem, Chrysostom, Jerome (ad Hedibiam) and others support the rendering of the text. All the tongues that you speak and more I speak : I do not extol, I do not condemn the gift of tongues, for I use it myself, but I do not use it, as you do, for ostentation, but to edification.
Ver. 19. — Yet in the church I had rather speak, &c. A very few words spoken so as to be understood are better than a multitude of foreign words not understood by the hearer.
Notice (1.) that understanding is to be taken here passively, and denotes the meaning by which I and my speech are understood; hence he adds, “that I might teach others also.” For there is a contrast between the meaning, and the foreign tongue understood by no one. See note to ver. 14. But (2.) Anselm takes it of the active understanding, that by which I myself understand what I say, and so can better explain it to others. (3.) Chrysostom says that it means with judgment — that he would rather speak and teach with tact and judgment, so that the hearers, no matter how rude and uncultured they might be, might take in and retain what he said. But the first sense is the best, and most to the point.
Ver. 20. — Brethren, be not children in understanding. Understanding here is not the same word in the Greek as in the preceding verse. It can, with Chrysostom and Ephrem, be rendered “mind.” Do not become children in mind, judgment, and reason, so as to display your gift of tongues as children might.
Howbeit in malice be ye children . Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ephrem render this: “Let malice be as unknown to you as to infants.” So, too, S. Augustine (qu. lxi. lib. 83) says : “ Be, like infants, free from malice.” As “infant” is derived from in, “not,” and fans, “ speaking,” and as a child who cannot speak knows still less of malice or anything else, so too the Christian is to be an infant in evil, not to know it nor to be able to speak of it, e.g., not to know what emulation, defilement, fornication are. So Theophylact, following S. Chrysostom. Tertullian ( contra Valent lib. ii.) beautifully says : “ The Apostle bids us after God be children again, that we may be infants in malice through our simplicity , and at last wise in understanding .” Clement of Alexandria (Paed. lib. i. c. 5) has pointed out that “children” here is not synonymous with “fools.” The whole of his chapter, in which he points out how all Christians should be children, may be studied with advantage.
Ver. 21. — In the law. Viz., Isa. xxviii. 11. As Chrysostom remarks, the law is sometimes used to denote, not merely the Pentateuch, but also the Prophets and the whole of the Old Testament.
It is written , With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people . This is a difficult passage, and to understand it we must explain the passage in Isaiah cited by the Apostle. The prophet’s meaning in vers. 9 and 10 is, that God is wont to teach knowledge and wisdom to those who have left childish delights and an immature age, and are men with the capacity for knowledge; but these Jews, who (ver. 7) take delight in the pleasures of wine and in drunkenness, are like children — do not take solid food — and are consequently unfitted for doctrine and true wisdom. Filled with wine, they scoff at me and at other prophets who denounce to them punishments from heaven for their drunkenness and other sins, and they say: “Precept must be upon precept, line upon line . . . here a little and there a little.”
S. Jerome and Haymo point out that in this passage there is an ironical play upon words. Isaiah and other prophets were often saying , “Thus saith,” or, “Thus ordereth the Lord.” Hence the Jews, when drunken over their cups, would repeat in derision, “ Order and order again ” (precept upon precept), “ Expect and expect again” (line upon line). It was as if they had said : “The prophets are always dinning into our ears, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ and are always threatening or promising things which never come to pass, bidding us expect here a little and there a little, and nothing comes of it all.” The same is oftentimes the experience of preachers, that the wicked ridicule, repeat, and sneer at their sermons and threatenings. Rabbi David, Rabbi Abraham, and after them Vatablus, Isidorus, Clarius, Pagninus, and Forterius give a very cold rendering to this verse (10) — “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.” The meaning then is : “ These Jews are taught roughly and gradually line upon line, just as boys are taught their alphabet.” But the following verses show that the prophet had in his mind scoffers and mockers, not untaught boys, for the punishments threatened are against scorners. S. Paul renders the sense of Isaiah and not the exact words : he applies the passage of Isaiah to the gift of tongues bestowed on the Apostles, who spoke with other tongues, not to scoff but to edify.