Skip to main content
Biblical Hermeneutics

Return to Answer

added the 4 last lines
Source Link
Alesja Lavrinovica
Alesja Lavrinovica
  • 71
  • 1
  • 3

To my opinion, the whole discussion about the absence or presence of the article before God, cannot be decided grammatically. The rationale that God is an indirect object in 1 Cor 14:2 and therefore it is not God but god, is far too stretched and uninformed. What does verse 2 talk about - structurally, provided that the two clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction ALLA (but)? "The one who speaks in a tongue, speaks NOT to people, BUT to ..." ? What sense that would make for Paul to contrast people and some god in the chapter on how to operate spiritual gifts in an orderly way? Verse 2 contrasts speaking to people (tangible speech) and speaking to God (intangible speech, because noone understands the mysteries that are being said, and for most part, not even the tongue speaker himself or herself). The basic question to ask about verse 2 is - what are the contrasts when the 2 clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction "but". P? P.S. The clause "but to God" is an elliptic clause, meaning, that it takes the verb "speaks" from the previous clause. Another thing is just to ponder the simple, primitive question - why on earth we have chapter 14? Paul could just have written one sentence after 1 Cor 14:1 - "I forbid speaking in tongues". Why the pain of the entire chapter, which ends with Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν, καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις·

To my opinion, the whole discussion about the absence or presence of the article before God, cannot be decided grammatically. The rationale that God is an indirect object in 1 Cor 14:2 and therefore it is not God but god, is far too stretched and uninformed. What does verse 2 talk about - structurally, provided that the two clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction ALLA (but)? "The one who speaks in a tongue, speaks NOT to people, BUT to ..." ? What sense that would make for Paul to contrast people and some god in the chapter on how to operate spiritual gifts in an orderly way? Verse 2 contrasts speaking to people (tangible speech) and speaking to God (intangible speech, because noone understands the mysteries that are being said, and for most part, not even the tongue speaker himself or herself). The basic question to ask about verse 2 is - what are the contrasts when the 2 clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction "but". P.S. The clause "but to God" is an elliptic clause, meaning, that it takes the verb "speaks" from the previous clause.

To my opinion, the whole discussion about the absence or presence of the article before God, cannot be decided grammatically. The rationale that God is an indirect object in 1 Cor 14:2 and therefore it is not God but god, is far too stretched and uninformed. What does verse 2 talk about - structurally, provided that the two clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction ALLA (but)? "The one who speaks in a tongue, speaks NOT to people, BUT to ..." ? What sense that would make for Paul to contrast people and some god in the chapter on how to operate spiritual gifts in an orderly way? Verse 2 contrasts speaking to people (tangible speech) and speaking to God (intangible speech, because noone understands the mysteries that are being said, and for most part, not even the tongue speaker himself or herself). The basic question to ask about verse 2 is - what are the contrasts when the 2 clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction "but"? P.S. The clause "but to God" is an elliptic clause, meaning, that it takes the verb "speaks" from the previous clause. Another thing is just to ponder the simple, primitive question - why on earth we have chapter 14? Paul could just have written one sentence after 1 Cor 14:1 - "I forbid speaking in tongues". Why the pain of the entire chapter, which ends with Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν, καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις·

Source Link
Alesja Lavrinovica
Alesja Lavrinovica
  • 71
  • 1
  • 3

To my opinion, the whole discussion about the absence or presence of the article before God, cannot be decided grammatically. The rationale that God is an indirect object in 1 Cor 14:2 and therefore it is not God but god, is far too stretched and uninformed. What does verse 2 talk about - structurally, provided that the two clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction ALLA (but)? "The one who speaks in a tongue, speaks NOT to people, BUT to ..." ? What sense that would make for Paul to contrast people and some god in the chapter on how to operate spiritual gifts in an orderly way? Verse 2 contrasts speaking to people (tangible speech) and speaking to God (intangible speech, because noone understands the mysteries that are being said, and for most part, not even the tongue speaker himself or herself). The basic question to ask about verse 2 is - what are the contrasts when the 2 clauses are connected with the adversative conjunction "but". P.S. The clause "but to God" is an elliptic clause, meaning, that it takes the verb "speaks" from the previous clause.