Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
33. for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace ] Confusion; literally, unsettlement. Cf. St Jas 3:16. Also St Luk 21:9, where the word is rendered commotion. As in the natural, so in the moral and spiritual world, God is a God of order. The forces of nature operate by laws which are implicitly obeyed. If it be otherwise in the moral and spiritual world, God is not the author of the confusion, but man, who has opposed himself to His Will.
as in all churches of the saints ] It is a question whether these words belong to what goes before or what follows. If to what goes before, it would seem as though a hint was intended that these disorders were peculiar to the Corinthian Church. If to what follows, it is a repetition of the argument in ch. 1Co 7:17, 1Co 11:16, and it would then appear that the Apostle had especial reason to fear insubordination on the question of the position of woman in the Christian assembly, and that he therefore fortifies his own authority by an appeal to the universal custom of the Church of Christ.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
God is not the author of confusion – Margin, Tumult, or unquietness. His religion cannot tend to produce disorder. He is the God of peace; and his religion will tend to promote order. It is calm, peaceful, thoughtful. It is not boisterous and disorderly.
As in all churches of the saints – As was everywhere apparent in the churches. Paul here appeals to them, and says that this was the fact wherever the true religion was spread, that it tended to produce peace and order. This is as true now as it was then. And we may learn, therefore:
(1) That where there is disorder, there is little religion. Religion does not produce it; and the tendency of tumult and confusion is to drive religion away.
(2) True religion will not lead to tumult, to outcries, or to irregularity. It will not prompt many to speak or pray at once; nor will it justify tumultuous and noisy assemblages.
(3) Christians should regard God as the author of peace. They should always in the sanctuary demean themselves in a reverent manner, and with such decorum as becomes people when they are in the presence of a holy and pure God, and engaged in his worship.
(4) All those pretended conversions, however sudden and striking they may be, which are attended with disorder, and confusion, and public outcries, are to be suspected. Such excitement may be connected with genuine piety, but it is no part of pure religion. That is calm, serious, orderly, heavenly. No person who is under its influence is disposed to engage in scenes of confusion and disorder. Grateful he may be, and he may and will express his gratitude; prayerful he will be, and he will pray; anxious for others he will be, and he will express that anxiety; but it will be with seriousness, tenderness, love; with a desire for the order of Gods house, and not with a desire to break in upon and disturb all the solemnities of public worship.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.
A God, not of confusion, but of peace
True religion teaches us to refer all questions to the highest tribunal, and to ask, not merely, What is agreeable and expedient? but what is the will of God? At Corinth many disorders had arisen, and there were many reasons why they should not be. But here is the highest. Christians are the servants of God, who is not the author of confusion, etc. This is apparent from–
I. His work as Creator. The more nature is studied the more clearly order is seen to be heavens first law. Indeed scientists affirm the universal presence of law, and to those who believe in a Lawgiver the regularity with which the processes of nature are conducted is an evidence of the working of mind, and that in accordance with the highest reason.
II. His method in revelation. The Scriptures unfold a plan gradually and regularly, according to a scheme of which the profound wisdom is apparent, although not fully, to a created mind. The truth was revealed first to a family, then to a nation, then to a race. The law was given by Moses, etc. The Bible is a marvellously organic whole; in its diversity is discernible a unity which only a Divine mind could impart.
III. The work of redemption. The whole motive of the economy of grace was to reduce the confusion which had invaded sinful humanity to order. To hush the moral discord was the purpose contemplated by the Incarnation and the Cross.
IV. The institution of civil society. Social and political life are attributed in the New Testament to God the Giver of all good. Jesus bade His disciples render to Caesar, etc., and Paul enjoined the duty of loyalty inasmuch as the powers that be are ordained of God.
V. The constitution and government of Christian Churches. Is it credible that the God in all whose ways order is so apparent should reverse His procedure in that realm which is the highest of all? Christ appointed apostles; apostles constituted churches, ordained their officers, and gave instructions for worship, business, and charity. Confusion here, therefore, is to be traced to human folly. In proportion as the Spirit of Christ lives and works in any society will subordination, co-operation, and unity prevail. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)
God the author, not of confusion, but of Peace
I. God is the author of peace. Witness His operations–
1. In nature.
2. The human heart.
3. Society.
II. Consequently confusion cannot be the work of His Spirit.
1. It may accidentally be associated with it.
2. But arises from human defect, the want of–
(1) Self-control (1Co 14:32).
(2) Intelligent piety (1Co 14:20).
(3) Profounder acquaintance with the God of peace.
III. It follows that confusion should have no place in the Church.
1. Passion should give way to peace.
2. Confusion to edification. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 33. For God is not the author of confusion] Let not the persons who act in the congregation in this disorderly manner, say, that they are under the influence of God; for he is not the author of confusion; but two, three, or more, praying or teaching in the same place, at the same time, is confusion; and God is not the author of such work; and let men beware how they attribute such disorder to the God of order and peace. The apostle calls such conduct , tumult, sedition; and such it is in the sight of God, and in the sight of all good men. How often is a work of God marred and discredited by the folly of men! for nature will always, and Satan too, mingle themselves as far as they can in the genuine work of the Spirit, in order to discredit and destroy it. Nevertheless, in great revivals of religion it is almost impossible to prevent wild-fire from getting in amongst the true fire; but it is the duty of the ministers of God to watch against and prudently check this; but if themselves encourage it, then there will be confusion and every evil work.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Here he showeth the principle upon which he said, that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets: what any prophets speak is not so certain, or at least not more certain, than this, that nothing which is
confusion can be from God. Now, for two or three to speak together in a public assembly, is a confusion, and a breach of order, of which God cannot be the author: therefore, in such a thing as that, the spirits of the prophets must be subject to other prophets; and there is a general rule which concerneth not only the church of Corinth, but all churches.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
33. In all the churches of thesaints God is a God of peace; let Him not among you be supposed to bea God of confusion [ALFORD].Compare the same argument in 1Co11:16. LACHMANN andothers put a full stop at “peace,” and connect thefollowing words thus: “As in all churches of the saints, letyour women keep silence in your churches.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For God is not the author of confusion,…. Or disorder, or “tumult”, as the Syriac renders it; wherefore he does not inspire and excite his prophets to deliver themselves in a disorderly and tumultuous manner, so as to break in one upon another; but when one speaks, the other is silent, or when one has anything revealed to him, and he signifies it in a proper manner, the other stops and gives way to him, and when he has done another succeeds, and so the rest in order, till the whole opportunity is filled up in an orderly and edifying manner; and whatever is contrary to, or breaks in upon such a method, God is not the author of: for he is the author
of peace, harmony, unity, and concord among his prophets and teachers, and so of order, for the former cannot be without the latter; where there is no order in the ministry, there can be no peace among the ministers, nor comfort in the churches; but God is the God of peace, he calls for, requires, disposes, and approves of peace and order among all his people:
as in all churches of the saints. The Vulgate Latin reads, “as I teach in all”, c. and so read some copies, and may refer to all that is said before and the sense be, that all the rules he had prescribed concerning speaking with tongues, and prophesying, were not new ones, but such as he had directed to be observed in all churches he was concerned with, and which consisted of holy and good men; or God is the author, not of confusion, but of peace in all the churches; he orders and disposes peace among them, and they attend to it: peace and order, and not confusion and tumult, prevail in all churches that deserve to be called churches of the saints, and therefore were in this to be imitated by the church at Corinth.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Not of confusion (—). God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. We need this reminder today.
As in all the churches of the saints ( ). Orderly reverence is a mark of the churches. This is a proper conclusion of his argument as in 11:16.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Confusion [] . See on commotions, Luk 21:9; and unruly, Jas 3:8. Compare 2Co 6:5.
As in all the churches of the saints. Many connect these words with let the women, etc. The old arrangement is retained by Rev. and by Westcott and Hort, though the latter regard the words and the spirits – of peace as parenthetical. I see no good reason for departing from the old arrangement.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For God is not the author of confusion. “ (ou gar estin akatastasias he theos) “For God is not the author or instigator of a tumult or confusion of chattering.” God is a God of order, not an originator or contributor to disorder.
2) “But of peace,” (alla erenes) “But he is the author, instigator, or originator of peace,” Our Lord left His peace with His saints, His church, Joh 14:27; Joh 16:33; men are admonished by Paul to pursue things that make for peace, Rom 14:19; 1Th 5:13; Heb 12:14.
3) “As in all churches of the saints.” (hos en pasais tais ekklesiais ton hagion) “As in all the assemblies, congregations, or churches of the saints.” All peace that men have comes from faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, Rom 5:1. And the greatest degree of peace in soul and life may be realized in the service of the Lord, in church-assembly fellowships of saints. Eph 3:21; Joh 20:21-22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
33. For God is not of confusion. (873) We must understand the word Author, or some term of that kind. (874) Here we have a most valuable statement, by which we are taught, that we do not serve God unless in the event of our being lovers of peace, and eager to promote it. Whenever, therefore, there is a disposition to quarrel, there, it is certain, God does not reign. And how easy it is to say this! How very generally all have it in their mouths! Yet, in the meantime, the most of persons fly into a rage about nothing, or they trouble the Church, from a desire that they may, by some means, rise into view, and may seem to be somewhat. (Gal 2:6.)
Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that, in judging as to the servants of Christ, this mark must be kept in view — whether or not they aim at peace and concord, and, by conducting themselves peaceably, avoid contentions to the utmost of their power, provided, however, we understand by this a peace of which the truth of God is the bond. For if we are called to contend against wicked doctrines, even though heaven and earth should come together, we must, nevertheless, persevere in the contest. We must, indeed, in the first place, make it our aim, that the truth of God may, without contention, maintain its ground; but if the wicked resist, we must set our face against them, and have no fear, lest the blame of the disturbances should be laid to our charge. For accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is neces sary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.
As in all the Churches. The comparison (875) does not refer merely to what was said immediately before, but to the whole of the foregoing representation. “I have hitherto enjoined upon you nothing that is not observed in all the Churches, and, in this manner, they are maintained in peace. Let it be your care, therefore, to borrow, what other Churches have found by experience to be salutary, and most profitable for maintaining peace.” His explicit mention of the term saints is emphatic — as if with the view of exempting rightly constituted Churches from a mark of disgrace. (876)
(873) “ Car Dieu n’est point Dieu de confusion;” — “For God is not a God of confusion.”
(874) Granville Penn reads the verse as follows: For they are not spirits of disorder, but of peace He thinks it probable, that “the singular, ἐστι, has caused a vitiation of this passage, by suggesting the introduction of a singular nominative to agree with it, namely ὁ Θεος, God;’ whereas in the reading of Tertullian, as early as the second or third century, ἐστι referred to the neuter plural, πνεύματα : ‘ Et spiritus prophetarum prophetis subditi sunt — non enim eversionis sunt, sed pacis.’ (And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets — for they are not of disorder but of peace.) The Greek, therefore, stood thus: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ( πνεύματα), αλλ εἰρήνης. This early external testimony, combined with the internal testimony of the context, is sufficient evidence, that Θεὸς has been unskilfully inserted by philoponists here, as Θεὸς, Κύριος, Χριστός, have been intruded into many other passages of the Sacred Text.” — Ed
(875) “ Ce mot, Comme ;” — “This word, As. ”
(876) “ Comme s’il vouloit dire qu’il n’y auroit point de propos d’auoir quelque souspecon sur les Eglises bien reformees;” — “As if he meant to say, that there was no occasion for having any suspicion as to Churches thoroughly reformed.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(33) For God is not the author of confusion.Better, For God is the God, not of confusion, but of peace. The Church is the Church of God, and should bear on it the moral image of its King: there should be order, therefore, not confusion, in their assemblies.
As in all churches of the saints.It is best to make these words read as the commencement of the next subject, thus:As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches. At Corinth one evil of neglecting the principles of order just laid down was that women spoke in the public assemblies. This was not the custom in any other churches, therefore the example of other churches was against such a practice.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. And that such claims of being moved by the divine Spirit to disorder are false, is clear from this solemn fact, that God is not the author of confusion. The Greek word for confusion often signifies the political tumults of cities, and here indicates that there had been very decided disorders in Corinthian assemblies.
As in all Churches Here, as in 1Co 11:16, Paul finishes by nailing fast his directions with the authority of the Churches of the then small Christendom. This precedent shows the incorrectness of later scholars, who, in opposition to all ancient authority, bring this clause to begin the following paragraph, making it read: “As in all the Churches of the saints let your women keep silence in the Churches.” The jingle of the double use of Churches, here, is offensive; which Dr. Hodge covers up, but does not remove, by illegitimately translating: “As is the case in all other Christian Churches, let your women keep silence in the public assemblies.” Some of the old commentators have thought necessary to insert “I teach” after as, but it is the authority of the Churches, not his own teaching in them, that Paul intends to adduce. No additional words are needed to be understood. The as, taking into its grasp 1Co 14:33, necessarily includes under one glance all the laws laid down by Paul for the Corinthian Church, under the great maxim that God is author of order alone, and places them under the sanction of the then Catholic Church. It unquestionably so lay in the apostle’s own mind.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints.’
This confirms our view of 1Co 14:30-32. It is difficult to think of anything more confusing (or unhelpful) than prophets constantly standing to prophesy, and constantly being interrupted by other prophets. This could only lead to perplexity and disharmony. And peace was to reign, not confusion, so that this was not in view. But an exception could be made for a special revelation from God. When that came, and the recipient felt that he had to interrupt the meeting to tell everyone, confusion might well have arisen had it not been for these instructions. Thus these instructions were given for the maintenance of peace in such circumstances. It prevented God being the author of confusion.
But this statement is also a finalising statement. It is not limited to this particular case. Having dealt with different aspects of ministry Paul now refers all his arguments to God. He declares that God is not the God of confusion, which is why he has said what he has. And this can in fact be seen as looking back to all he has been saying about controlling the ministry to His people, not just to the last verses. God does not want confusion at all. If tongues and their misuse, or their overuse, cause confusion then God is not their author. If anything else causes confusion in their meetings, such as too much prophecy, then God is also not its author. God is never the author of confusion, so that anything that causes confusion is not of God. Unlike in the mystery religions, which were not to be taken as a model of Christian behaviour, God’s prime concern for His people is peace. And He will not support anything that disturbs that peace. That is why Paul has instructed them in line with the behaviour of all the churches. He has not simply been attacking them. He has rather been giving them the example of the worldwide church and the instruction of the God of peace.
Note here the denial that God is the author of any manifestations that disturb peace. This was an extremely important confirmation that all should look to their gifts of grace to ensure that they were gifts of grace, and not just psychological phenomena or worse.
But this then reminds him of another thing that had been said in the letter to him, and that he feels he must briefly respond to, and that is the confusion that has been arising because women were constantly chattering and asking their husbands about anything that they did not understand, disturbing the atmosphere of the gathering and the ability of others to concentrate and hear, or to meditate. And this may even have been exacerbated by the fact that the women sat separately from the men as they did in the synagogue. (This is by no means certain, but it is possible). So he briefly turns his attention to this problem. Such chattering in church is shameful because it breaks down the atmosphere and indicates insufficient reverence. It also demonstrates lack of submission as they disrupt the words of the male public speakers, and is unnecessary because they can ask at home.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 14:33 . Establishment of 1Co 14:32 on religious grounds. “For how could God have appointed it otherwise, seeing that by Him is produced not confusion (as would be the case if every prophet had to speak on involuntarily), but peace! ” Comp. Rom 15:33 ; Rom 16:20 ; Php 4:9 ; 1Th 5:23 . The antithesis is correct, for the would bring with it a jealous and unyielding disposition.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
XXII
MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
1Co 7:1-40
It will be recalled that we have been treating 1 Corinthians topically, and hence when we take hold of a subject we take in everything bearing on that subject and pass over some things. Heretofore we have left untouched 1Co 7:1-40 ; 1Co 11:2-16 ; 1Co 14:34-40 . So that the scope of the present discussion is the three passages all of 1Co 7 ; 1Co 11:2-16 , and 1Co 14:33-40 . The general topics embraced in these parts of the first letter are Marriage, Divorce, and the Position of Women in the Public Assemblies, all exceedingly delicate questions, and therefore my reserve in treating the matter. I don’t suppose there is much help in studying this letter in the commentaries. I myself had never reached a very satisfactory conclusion on some points involved until recently.
Before we take up the serious matter of marriage, divorce, and the whole question of sexual relation, there are certain antecedent matters to consider, and the first is, that whatever is here said by the apostle Paul is an answer to a letter that the Corinthian church wrote him. He commences 1Co 7 with a reference to that letter. He says, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote.” So we see that he answers questions propounded to him. The next antecedent thing is that we must never forget the mixed, ethnic composition of this church. “Ethnic” means of many nationalities. The mixed, ethnic composition of this church and the particular distressed conditions existing at the time that he wrote, are matters of great importance. This church was composed of Greeks, Romans, and other Orientals, besides Jews.
Upon the subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, the Jews, Romans, and Greeks widely differed. Each nation had its own fixed custom or customs upon all of these points, and they were all converted in this big meeting, some from all these peoples. And they naturally wanted to know what was the bearing of the new religion upon this subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, slavery, and things of that kind.
Among the Jews divorce was granted for a very slight cause. Moses did permit divorce in this form, viz.: that no man could put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorcement; he could not put her away and leave her as goods and chattels that he was not responsible for. He must give her a bill showing that he claimed nothing from her in the future. Christ explained, that on account of the hardness of their hearts, divorce was allowed by Moses, who did ameliorate it, but didn’t give the highest law on divorce, because they were not in condition to hear it. Following that custom, Josephus tells us frankly that he put away his wife because she didn’t please him, and he assigned no other reason, and went before no court. It would be very hard to please some men, even some of the time, and very hard to please them all the time; and it wouldn’t be best to please them all the time, for much of the time they would be wrong. Among the Greeks and Romans divorce could be had for almost any reason. Moreover, the Orientals believed in the seclusion of women. They kept them in harems guarded by a eunuch; but the Romans had much broader views than the Greeks, and the Greeks were much in advance of the Orientals. A lady at Rome had great liberty without being subjected to invidious criticisms. This is the mixed ethnic condition of this church.
But another thing must be considered which is expressed in 1Co 7 . Paul says, “I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us.” There was a particular distress bearing upon the people at that time that modified the answers that he gave to some of their questions, and we can’t understand this 1Co 7 and the other paragraphs in 1Co 2 and 1Co 14 without keeping in mind that broad statement “the distress that is upon us.” That refers to the condition of the church at that time when all Christians were persecuted. No Christian knew one day what would be his financial status the next, for everything of his might be confiscated. He could not know one day whether he would be out of prison the next; he couldn’t know one day whether he would be banished the next. Day by day they were practically taking their lives in their own hands. If a man is living in a prosperous time ‘it wouldn’t be proper to answer him on the question of marriage as if he were living in unsettled conditions. In other words, what would be expedient in prosperous times, would be inexpedient in unprosperous times.
The third important antecedent thought in the understanding of those passages is the people’s misconception of the results of regeneration. Paul had said to them, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new.” They did not know how far to carry this thought. For instance, if a married man was not converted yesterday, but became a convert today, did his marriage pass away? I will show how that this is a very practical question before we get through with this discussion. A man was a slave yesterday and unconverted; he hears the gospel of freedom preached to him, that is, that if the Son makes him free he is free indeed. He hears that in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, therefore today he, being a new creature, what conclusion shall he draw from this new relation as to his slavery?
Again, the gospel was preached to them as individuals, without regard to age, sex or previous condition of servitude, and it was distinctly stated that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, Jew, nor Gentiles. If that be true, has not every Christian precisely the same privileges in the public assembly, whether man or woman? If there be neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, may not a woman preach as well as a man? If they stand on the same footing when they join the church, what effect does it have on the old commandment that a child should obey his parents, or that the wife is subject to her husband? It may seem that this is all a little overstrained, but the history of the world shows that these are intensely important questions.
Take the case of the “mad men of Munster,” who argued from the fact that Jesus had come to establish a kingdom upon the earth, and that that kingdom was to overcome all other kingdoms of the earth. They said, “Therefore, if I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus, that absolves me from my allegiance to any kingdom of this earth.” There were no subordinates in the land where they lived, as they were free from the law of the nation. They reasoned that if they had the liberty of a Christian, might they not take two or three wives? Hence the leader of the Munsterites did not stop until he got fourteen, but that was not quite so far as Brigham Young went. They went on, “Do we, being the children of Jesus Christ, have to pay tribute or taxes? If I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus Christ that absolves me from any kingdom of this earth, why not set up a purely religious kingdom?” One of these men was made king, and the whole power of the German Empire had to be invoked to put down this movement. Yet a great many people were converted people enthusiasts misconstruing the teaching of God upon the results that would follow our becoming new creatures.
Yet again, this gospel taught that the citizenship of a Christian is up yonder, not down here, and that up yonder neither marrying nor giving in marriage takes place. Upon this they reasoned thus: “Does not that obligate me to lay down the work of this world? Why talk about farming, merchandising, and the dull, heavy round of earthly occupations?” Just so the Thessalonians went wild, because they expected Christ to come “day-after-tomorrow,” and therefore there could be nothing for them to do except prepare their ascension robes. In other words, “Up there they don’t marry, and what effect does that have on me, since I am married? I have become a citizen of heaven, where they do not marry. Ought I not to abjure this marriage? Ought I not to go and live in a monastery and leave my wife and children on the care of the world? If I have never married, should I not become a sister, and enter into the nunnery?” Such were their reasonings.
The last great things that we are to consider in chapter 7 is the point that we have just presented: “If I contracted marriage before I was converted, was it dissolved when I became a new creature, and old things passed away? If I have not contracted a marriage, shall I avoid it?” The apostle answers it, first, from the viewpoint of the present distress that he refers to, i.e., in view of the present condition, when their property might be swept away in a day, when they must be silent or be in banishment. He takes the position that in this particular stress and under these conditions it was well not to marry. But we must not forget the old-time law that God instituted marriage as the only way to carry out the commandment of God to multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, Paul says, “My advice to you is to let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” It was impossible for him to take a position against the necessity of marriage, but he said that in view of that distress it might be best not to marry, but if they did marry notwithstanding the distress, they committed no sin, and if governed by the distress not to marry this was no sin, but as long as we are in this world and the sexual distinction exists, we cannot get away from that primeval law of God that marriage is honorable in all.
We know that another question was presented because of the answer given. Suppose one is already married when converted? In the middle ages this question became one of the biggest that ever occupied man’s mind. It was a common thing for a man at his conversion to say, “In view of the fact that I am now under a higher law of God, I will give up my wife and children, go from home and shut myself up in a monastery.” Hundreds and thousands of men and women took the vow never to marry. There are many cases where the men took the vows of celibacy, trying to live a life like the angels. That is the most seductive form of temptation that ever came to men, and it led to the building of monasteries and nunneries all over Europe and a greater part of Asia and North Africa, where women would seclude themselves and vow not to marry, and even married men would abandon wives and children and shut themselves up in monasteries. Paul says, “If a man is married let him not put away his wife, and let not the woman put away her husband. Your being converted does not change the law of God in regard to marriage.” So the question comes in another and different form. Under the old law of the Jews, a Jew could not marry a heathen, unless a proselyte, without the penalty of excommunication, and the ground was, that to marry a heathen puts him in danger of becoming an idolater. In Nehemiah we learn that when some of the Jews had violated that law, he put before them the alternative of either keeping the Jewish law or being excluded from the Jewish communion. Knowing what the law was on that subject, they put the question, “Here is a man who is converted and his wife is a heathen; shall the Christian put away his heathen wife?” That is very different from the original question, “Ought a Christian to marry a heathen?” which law holds now that it is best for believers to marry believers, but Paul answers that question emphatically, “No; the marriage relation is a divine institution and there is nothing in such a case to justify that man to put away his wife.”
Then the question comes in another form: “Suppose when a woman joins the church that the heathen husband makes it a ground of disfellowship and refuses to live with her, what then?” Paul said, “In such a case, if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. You have done nothing wrong and are willing to stand by your marriage contract.” But what does he mean by saying, “The husband or wife is not in bondage in such a case?” Does it mean that a voluntary separation totally abrogates the marriage tie so that the one left is at liberty to marry somebody else? That question comes up in our own civil law. Blackstone comments on it, saying, “You may grant divorce ‘ Amensa et toro,’ ” which means, “Divorce from bed and board.” In other words, people can separate; the man doesn’t have to live with that woman, and the woman doesn’t have to live with that man. But the law is emphatic that such separation is not breaking the marriage bond. It permits a possible separation. That is intensely practicable.
When I was a young preacher I was called into a council. A preacher’s wife had left him. She refused to live with him, left him, and went back to her father, and he afterwards married again, and his plea was that abandonment justified remarriage. He quoted that passage, “A husband and wife are not in bondage in such cases.” The question for that council to decide was, “Would it be a wise thing to put a man into the ministry who lived under a cloud of that kind?” One of the oldest and most distinguished Baptists that ever lived took the position that such a one was free to marry again, but I, a young preacher, dissented from him, and do still. It does not break the marriage tie so as to permit one to marry again. I quoted the declaration of Paul where he says, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives,” and he certainly couldn’t contradict himself in the same chapter. Then he says, “If her husband be dead, she shall be permitted to marry again.” That settles that question.
Paul does not discuss the only cause that does thoroughly break the marriage bond, if one is disposed to plead it, which is the case of infidelity to the marriage vow discussed by our Lord. Hence my contention is that what is here said does not discuss all of the law on the subject of marriage and divorce.
Let us take up the question, “Ought widowers and widows to remarry?” There he states that a widower under the law of Christ may marry again, though it is not mandatory. There was at one time the question raised of putting a special tax on bachelors. The Greeks and Romans had a law to that effect. It is nothing to smile at; it comes from the idea that the state is more important than the individual. They carried that law further, and forbade a bachelor to Inherit; if he remained unmarried he must turn over his property to the state.
When I was a little boy we had a kangaroo court, and a candidate for the legislature was telling what he would do if he were elected. He said, “I would change the pronoun ‘them’ for the word ‘um,’ so all the common people could say grammatically, ‘I love um,’ and I would have a law passed that would draw a tooth from an old bachelor’s head for every year he remained unmarried.”
But how does Paul answer that question? He says, “If you take this present distress into consideration, it is not favorable for contracting marriage. If you want to marry, do so, but you will have trouble in view of this distress.” But he says that it is lawful for a widow to marry again, and in the case of young widows, as in the letter to Timothy, he makes it a very urgent recommendation.
Let us take the next question: Does regeneration change the natural subordination of woman to the man, and the sphere in which each moves? The gospel preached was that in Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female. So in chapter II he answers, “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. . . . Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head; it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven [that was a sign of an infamous life]. . .. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” The angels of God were hovering round watching over the assemblies of God’s people, and it grieved them to see the law of God violated. Paul goes on; he ‘is not only arguing from that old law, but he is arguing from nature: “Is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” I once knew a young fellow who was really pretty. He had great long curls that he spent a long time each day in combing and twisting and anointing with oil, and brushing. And I took the New Testament, marked this passage, and sent it to him. It made him very indignant.
Paul’s answer is that becoming a new creature, so that “old things are passed away and all things become new,” does not mean that all old things, viz.: that God’s law of order has passed away. When we get to heaven we will live as the angels live, but while we live on earth the laws of order instituted in paradise must stand.
That question comes up in a little different form in 1Co 14:33 : “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also sayeth the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” Now they are meeting that by saying that the word of God had come to women. And it is unquestionable that the spirit of prophecy did come to women. But Paul teaches that that spirit of prophecy was subject to the person that had it; that it was not given him to violate order; and that if the spirit of prophecy did come to them, let them remember that it came to other people also.
North of the Mason and Dixon’s line we occasionally come upon a church with a woman for a pastor a Baptist church at that. I was both cheered and hissed for a statement I made when I preached in Chicago. I don’t know which was the louder, the cheering or the hissing. I started out expounding this passage of Scripture,. 1Ti 2:8 : “I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” Adam saw Eve and said, “Issha,” woman; it means that woman is derived from man; that she got her soul and her body from Adam. She is as much a descendant of Adam as we are. I read the scripture, and took the position that there are two distinct spheres, the man’s sphere and the woman’s sphere; that the man’s is more public; that the woman shall live in her children. When a worldly woman came to visit Cornelia and paraded her fine jewels that blazed on her head and arms and her ankles before her, Cornelia, drawing forward her two sons, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus (the Gracchi), said, “These are my jewels, and I am going to live in these. My sphere is my home and my boys.”
There is one other question that of the slave. They said, “If I am a freedman of Christ, shall I be a slave to man?” But Paul answers that Christianity does not propose to unsettle the established order of things. Its object is to develop the inner life: “Let each one of you abide in the law you were in when God called you.” In other words, if he was circumcised, let him not try to efface his circumcision. If he was a slave when God called him, let him be satisfied with being Christ’s freedman, and with knowing that his master if Christ’s servant, and let him in his position of slavery illustrate that the truth and the power of the Christian religion is in serving, not with eye service, but showing that Christianity can come to any form of life and glorify ‘it. In yet other words, being converted and becoming a new creature, we should not disregard the established order of things which God has appointed for this world. When we get up into the other world we can adapt ourselves to conditions there.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the scope of this chapter, and what are the several topics?
2. What is the first important antecedent matter in 1Co 7 ?
3. What is the second antecedent matter, and of whom was the church at Corinth composed?
4. What is the position of Jews, Romans, and Greeks, respectively, on marriage and divorce, and the woman question in general?
5. What is the difference between the Orientals, on the one hand, and the Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, with respect to this question?
6. What condition at the time Paul wrote this letter greatly modified his answers to some of their questions?
7. What is the third antecedent thought essential to an understanding of these scriptures?
8. How did their application of this thought affect their earthly relations? Illustrate fully.
9. What was Paul’s answer to their inquiry as to whether one who was not married should marry, and what its bearing on the primal law of marriage?
10. What question arose about those who were converted after marriage, what Paul’s answer to it, and what the results of this misconception of the Corinthians as practiced in the Middle Ages?
11. Ought a Christian to marry an unbeliever?
12. What is the Christian wife or husband to do in case the unregenerated husband or wife makes it a ground of disfellowship, and refuses to live ill the marriage relation?
13. What does Paul mean by saying, “The husband or wife is not is bondage in such a case”?
14. What illustration of the author’s interpretation from his own experience?
15. What is the only cause which breaks the marriage bond, and where do we find the statement of it?
16. What is the law of marriage in the case of widowers and widows, and what legislation against bachelors?
17. What is the bearing of this subject on the relation between man and woman in the sphere in which each moves, what Paul’s teaching on this, and what his arguments for it?
18. What is the form of this question as treated in 1Co 14 , how do some people meet Paul’s argument here, and what does Paul teach that settles the question beyond all dispute?
19. What is the author’s experience on this line in Chicago, and what is his interpretation of 1Ti 2:8-15 ? Illustrate.
20, How did this subject affect the relation, of the slave and his master, and what Paul’s answer to their reasoning on the subject?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Ver. 33. Not the author of confusion ] Nec author, nec fautor. Unquiet spirits are of the devil, who keeps ado, and fills the Church with confusion by his turbulent agents and emissaries, sowing sedition and spreading schisms.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
33. ] Reason of the above regulations . The premiss, that the church is God’s church , is suppressed. He is the God of peace, not confusion: therefore those assemblies which are His must be peacefully and orderly conducted. And this character of God is not one dependent for its truth on preconceived views of Him: we have a proof of it wherever a church of the saints has been gathered together. ‘ In all the churches of the saints , God is a God of peace: let Him not among you be supposed to be a God of confusion.’
I am compelled to depart from the majority of modern critics of note, e.g. Lachmann, Tischendorf (Exo 7 [and 8]), Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, and to adhere to the common arrangement of this latter clause. My reason is, that taken as beginning the next paragraph, it is harsh beyond example, and superfluous, as anticipating the reason about to be given . . . Besides which, it is more in accordance with St. Paul’s style, to place the main subject of a new sentence first, see 1Ti 3:8 ; 1Ti 3:11-12 ; and we have an example of reference to general usage coming in last, in aid of other considerations, ch. 1Co 11:16 ; but it seems unnatural that it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so much to say.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:33 . The apophthegm of 1Co 14:32 exemplifies the universal principle of order in God’s works; cf. the deduction drawn in 1Co 11:3 . God’s gift of the Spirit submits itself to the receiver’s will, through whose direction its exercise is brought into regulated and edifying use: “For God is not (a God) of disorder (or seditionis , Cv [2167] ), but of peace”. To suppose that God inspires His prophets to speak two or three at a time, to make a tumult in the Church and refuse control, would be to suppose Him the author of confusion, of chaos instead of cosmos. (see parls.) is a word of the LXX and later Gr [2168] , denoting civil disorder or mutiny; it recalls the and of 1Co 1:10 f., 1Co 11:18 f., to which emulation in the display of spiritual powers seems to have contributed. “As it is in all the Churches of the saints”: in evidence of the “peace” which God confers on human society, P. can point to the conduct of Church meetings in all other Christian communities a feature proper to “assemblies of the saints ”. Here is a final and solemn reason why the prophets of Cor [2169] should practise self-control and mutual deference: cf. 1Co 11:16 ; also 1Co 1:2 b , and note; 1Co 16:1 . On the connexion of the clause, see Ed [2170] or El [2171] W.H [2172] attach it to 1Co 14:31 , regarding 1Co 14:32-33 a as a parenthesis; but this breaks the continuity of 1Co 14:31-32 ; nor does it appear that “all the churches” had the superabundance of prophets that necessitated the restrictions imposed in 1Co 14:29-31 . Other leading editors (Tisch., Mr [2173] , Hn [2174] , Hf [2175] , Bt [2176] , Gd [2177] ) link this qualification to the following context; but it comes in clumsily before the impv [2178] of 1Co 14:34 , and the repetition of is particularly awkward. On the other hand, the ref [2179] to the example of the other Churches appropriately concludes the Apostle’s appeals on the weighty subject, of universal interest, which has occupied him throughout this chapter.
[2167] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[2168] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[2169]
[2170] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[2171] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[2172] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
[2173] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[2174] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[2175] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[2176] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[2177] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[2178] imperative mood.
[2179] reference.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
confusion = commotion. Greek. akatastasia. See Luk 21:9.
saints. Greek. hagios. See Act 9:13.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
33.] Reason of the above regulations. The premiss, that the church is Gods church, is suppressed. He is the God of peace, not confusion: therefore those assemblies which are His must be peacefully and orderly conducted. And this character of God is not one dependent for its truth on preconceived views of Him:-we have a proof of it wherever a church of the saints has been gathered together. In all the churches of the saints, God is a God of peace: let Him not among you be supposed to be a God of confusion.
I am compelled to depart from the majority of modern critics of note, e.g. Lachmann, Tischendorf (ed. 7 [and 8]), Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, and to adhere to the common arrangement of this latter clause. My reason is, that taken as beginning the next paragraph, it is harsh beyond example, and superfluous, as anticipating the reason about to be given … Besides which, it is more in accordance with St. Pauls style, to place the main subject of a new sentence first, see 1Ti 3:8; 1Ti 3:11-12; and we have an example of reference to general usage coming in last, in aid of other considerations, ch. 1Co 11:16; but it seems unnatural that it should be placed first in the very forefront of a matter on which he has so much to say.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:33. , as) This concluding clause is very like that of the next portion, 1Co 14:36.[129]
[129] In both alike there is an appeal to the usage of other churches.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:33
1Co 14:33
for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.-God does not give the gifts of the Spirit to produce confusion, but peace. Any feeling, impulse, or desire of the heart, however religious in its character, that leads man to disregard a command of God, is another spirit than the Spirit of God.
As in all the churches of the saints.-The majority of the best critics, including the distinguished scholars who prepared the American Revised Version, decide that according to the sense, this clause should stand connected with verse 34. So it reads: As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches. It is therefore evident that at the time Paul wrote the propriety of the prohibition was recognized and practiced by all the churches.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
confusion: Gr. tumult, or unquietness
but: 1Co 7:15, Luk 2:14, Rom 15:33, Gal 5:22, 2Th 3:16, Heb 13:20, Jam 3:17, Jam 3:18
in: 1Co 4:17, 1Co 7:17, 1Co 11:16
Reciprocal: Num 2:2 – about the Num 7:11 – General Num 7:17 – General Num 10:28 – according Jdg 6:26 – the ordered place Mar 6:39 – General 1Co 6:1 – the saints 1Co 13:5 – behave Phi 4:9 – the God 1Th 5:23 – God Jam 3:16 – there
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:33. God is not the author of confusion. This is a reason for the foregoing instructions about the proper conduct of the prophets, as well as of other men wtih spin itual gifts. As in all churches of the saints. I see no importance in the question whether this phrase belongs with the present verse, or should be attached to verse 34. The point in both verses (as it has been throughout the chapter), is to have the exercises of the assembly so conducted as to edify the church in an orderly way. The Lord desired such a result in all of the congregations but the one in Corinth seemed to be in special need of the instruction.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:33. for God is not a God of confusion, but of peacesuch as His organs therefore ought to be,as in all the churches of the saintsand so surely in yours.[1]
[1] The last clause of this verse is made the first of the following sentence by a number of critics (De Wette. Billroth. Meyer, and formerly Stanley)reading thus: As in all the churches of the saints let the women keep silence, etc., and so Lachmann and Tischendorf print it in their texts: but not Tregelles. Their grounds appear to us weak, and the proposed connection seems far from natural. All the elder interpreters adhere to the punctuation of the received text, and they are followed by Neander, Osiander, and latterly by Alford.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. [Since those who spoke with tongues were not understood, they could all speak at once without any loss. Thus confusion was fostered and encouraged, and those who came with other contributions to the service, such, as psalms, teachings, revelations, etc., were prevented from conferring any benefit upon the congregation. The apostle, therefore, orders the babel of tongues to be suppressed, that the congregation might be edified by these other contributions. Those who spoke with tongues were not to monopolize the meeting. In a large church like Corinth, where there would be plenty to take part in the exercises with psalms, teachings, interpretations of what had been said in tongues, etc., there was the opportunity for great variety. Hence Paul forbids more than three to speak with tongues in one exercise, and these must not speak all at once, but in turn, and they must pause and let some one gifted as interpreter translate what they had said for the edification of the church. If there was no such interpreter present, then the man gifted with tongues must keep silence, and worship within himself for the edification and benefit of his own soul. Moreover, not more than three prophets must speak in a meeting, and the others present must give heed, especially those competent to discern between true and false prophecies (1Th 5:20-21; 1Jo 4:1; 1Co 14:37). If a fresh revelation was given to a prophet while another prophet was speaking, the one speaking was to give place and keep silence, for the reception of a second revelation at such time would indicate authoritatively that the first revelation had been sufficiently explained. Therefore, the one speaking must desist, lest two should speak at a time, which would defeat the ends of instruction and exhortation. To enforce this rule of silence the apostle asserts the truth that prophets can control their spirits while under the prophetic influence. This guarded against the possibility that any speaker should pretend to be so carried away by the prophetic influence as to be unable to stop. God does not so overcome and entrance men as to make them produce confusion and disorder, for he is the God of order and of peace. God has not changed, and hysteria and frenzy, though they may exist in his churches as they may have done in Corinth, are not from him, nor according to his will. Even in the church at Corinth, where men were endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, all disorders were abuses of the spiritual gift and without excuse.] As in all the churches of the saints,
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. I have frequently seen great demonstrations, especially in the early period of the Holiness Movement, when God used my humble instrumentality to pioneer the work from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mexican border. Then it was new and impetuous, like a river leaping from his mountain source with awful roar, foam and demonstration; but after rolling on hundreds of miles, joined by many tributaries, he deepens and broadens into a mighty arm of the sea, bearing on his heaving bosom the commerce of many nations. So the Holiness Movement, at first impetuous and uproarious, is now broadening over the whole world, and exploring the deep mysteries of Gods Word and Spirit in the latent experiences wrought by the silent lightning in the deep interior of the subterranean regions of the fallen human spirit; thus moving on in silent majesty to conquer the world for Christ and bring back the King of Glory. Twenty years ago I frequently found it necessary to bring on the incorrigible people in my revivals these wholesome Pauline restrictions, otherwise they would shout so that my voice could not be heard, acquiescing in the conclusion that they could not help it. Under these circumstances I have frequently quoted this verse, The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. So now please keep your hallelujahs on the inside till I preach to these people, then you can turn loose again if you want to. So gospel history repeats itself. I have frequently known the showers fall so copiously during the introductory service that when the time arrived for me to preach the roar of fifty people preaching at once without stopping simply forced me to utilize this Scripture, telling them that Gods order required them to be silent while I preached to the multitude who had been attracted thither by the Pentecostal uproar and were going fast down to death, the Lord in mercy giving us and them that precious opportunity to save them from Hell. So in all the churches of the saints, let the women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted them to gabble, but let them be subordinate, as truly the law says. This is simply a continuation of the Pauline strictures on the disorders prevalent in the Corinthian church, resultant from this incorrigible enthusiasm after the deep things of God, which certainly was highly commendable within itself, but by no means out of harmony with the order necessary to mutual edification. It is a well- known fact that the heathens never did, neither do they now, educate their women. While the Greeks were at the very top of the worlds learning, it was confined to the men. The gospel, new and strange to those people so recently converted out of heathenism, and especially when so wonderfully augmented and intensified by those powerful spiritual gifts, filling the women as well as the men with a flaming zeal to catch and remember every word as enunciated by the speaker, we are not surprised that the wives, sitting by their husbands, ever and anon spoke to them, asking information about what the preacher was saying. The Greek word here used justifies this conclusion. Legein means to deliver a discourse, eipen to speak in conversation, while lalein, the word here used, is from the Greek root lal which means baby-talk, as the baby in his first efforts says, lal, lal. Hence the first meaning of this word given by the dictionary is to gabble, i. e., speak in an undertone.