12-13 in a more general and theological way lead to the correctives of ch. 1-4 and 8-10, where Paul begins by addressing the larger theological issue raised by the Corinthian position before he moves to a specific response to the problem at hand, so here, chs. The structure of Paul’s argument seems to support this assessment. Bartling, “The Congregation of Christ – Charismatic Body: An Exegetical Study of I Corinthians 12, Concordia Theological Monthly 40 (1969): 68.
Moody Smith agrees that “the appearance of the premium put upon glossolalia in the Corinthian church to a considerable degree governs Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts in I Corinthians 12-14.” See his “Glossolalia and Other Spiritual Gifts in a New Testament Perspective,” Interpretation 28 (1974): 309 cf. 193 Hurd believes that this “single rather simple question may have produced the whole of I Cor. The Origin of I Corinthians, (London: SPCK 1965) p.
In general, only those Christians who have this gift are to be classed as spiritual. If an apostle, for example, speaks in tongues, then he can be known to be spiritual. They had maintained that glossolalia is the main (or only) evidence of possession by the Spirit. Bruce, I & II Corinthians, New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Bruce observes that the Corinthians’ question “had been framed in such a way as to imply that the surest sign of the presence and power of the Spirit was glossolalia.” F. It seems to have been regarded as the gift par excellence, the indisputable evidence of possession of the Spirit, the authentic mark of superior spirituality.
Evidently some members of the congregation who experienced this gift made exaggerated claims for it. The exact nature of these questions is not known, but it can be reasonably inferred that, among other things, they raised a question about speaking in tongues (glossolalia). Paul’s most detailed discussion of spiritual gifts is a response to questions addressed to him in a letter from members of the Corinthian church (12:1 cf.
0 kommentar(er)
