ZHLOUTE (I Cor 12:31)

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Nov 3 05:40:54 EST 2002


Greetings again, Jesse:

Sorry it took so long to respond. I started my response earlier in the 
day and got sidetracked.

On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 12:20 PM, Jesse Joel Bartz wrote:

> Thank you, Steve, for your quick reply.
> I have another question that touches upon the ZHLOUTE question. Is 
> there
> any particular reason that our English translations consistently 
> translate
> both PNEUMATIKA and CARISMATA (in their various forms) as "spiritual
> gifts" or "gifts"?

What you seem to be interested in here is whether TA PNEUMATIKA has a 
broader or more restricted meaning. While I think there are good 
arguments for both views, I should state at the outset that I don't 
think this particular detail in any way affects my contention that 
ZHLOUTE in 12.31 should be taken as an imperative. The reasons for this 
will become clear shortly. I should also note that the issue of whether 
TA PNEUMATIKA means specifically "spiritual gifts" or more generally 
"spiritual things" was discussed at some length on the list a while 
ago. I don't remember exactly when this was, but you can probably find 
the thread by searching the archives.

As you have noted, the English translations almost universally 
translate TA PNEUMATIKA as "spiritual gifts." The only exception among 
the 13 translations at my disposal is the rendering "the special 
abilities the Spirit gives" (NLT).

While I can't speak for the translators of any particular version, 
allow me to offer one reason why translators might render TA PNEUMATIKA 
as "spiritual gifts" in 1 Corinthians 14.1. The text reads, ZHLOUTE DE 
TA PNEUMATIKA, MALLON DE hINA PROFHTEUHTE. In the second clause we must 
understand an elliptical ZHLOUTE. Thus, "and desire TA PNEUMATIKA, but 
especially [desire] that you may prophesy." Prophecy, a spiritual gift, 
is a subset of the larger category TA PNEUMATIKA. MALLON marks the 
desire for prophecy as a special pursuit within the broader pursuit of 
TA PNEUMATIKA. So it seems natural to take TA PNEUMATIKA as the broader 
category of which prophecy is a subset. Since prophecy is a spiritual 
gift, TA PNEUMATIKA can plausibly be understood as "spiritual gifts."

> These questions have been born out of a recent study that I have done
> through the book of I Corinthians.  As I studied through chapter 12, it
> seemed to me that Paul wanted to make several thiongs clear regarding 
> the
> gifts. One thing was that the gifts were sovereignly bestowed by the 
> Holy
> Spirit for the good of the body, the church (12:7). It also seemed that
> Paul spoke against the attitude of one member wanting to have another 
> gift
> of prominence since God had placed the various members into the body 
> as He
> pleased (12:12-27). He did list the gifts seemingly in order of
> importance, but still when I got to verse 31, it didn't seem to make
> sense. Why was Paul telling them to desire certain gifts at all when 
> God
> Himself gave the gifts for the good of the body, and Paul had seemingly
> already spoke against such a desire? Also confusing to me was how the
> first sentence of 12:31 would be fused with the second if ZHLOUTE was
> indeed imperative. The two don't seem to "gel" very well.

I will refrain from answering the question about how Paul can teach 
God's sovereignty in the distribution of spiritual gifts and yet exhort 
the Corinthians to eagerly desire the greater gifts, since this 
doubtless crosses over into theological explanations that are beyond 
the scope of B-Greek. I will, though, refer you to D.A. Carson's book 
_Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14_, 
pp. 41f.

In addition, I would like to make an observation from the text that 
indicates the necessity of answering this question to your own 
satisfaction whether or not you take ZHLOUTE as indicative in 12.31. 
You still have the problem of 14.1 and 14.39. In each case the 
Corinthians are exhorted to seek prophecy:

14.1 ZHLOUTE DE TA PNEUMATIKA, MALLON DE hINA PROFHTEUHTE

14.39 ZHLOUTE TO PROFHTEUEIN

I find the efforts of those who propose the indicative in these texts 
entirely unconvincing and indeed highly subjective. So, in my opinion, 
in the end you will still have to wrestle with this problem. Taking 
ZHLOUTE as indicative in 12.31 in the end does not provide the solution.

As for the order of importance you concede, I will deal with that 
below. I will also deal below with whether or not the two clauses "gel" 
if ZHLOUTE is taken as imperative. The fact is that the indicative view 
is the more awkward of the two, which I think is recognized even by 
those who hold this view, since they are forced to posit a sense of KAI 
that is exceedingly rare.

> It seemed to me that perhaps Paul was saying to the Corinthians, "You
> desire the showy gifts for personal gain, but I will show you the more
> excellent way of using them for love."

There are two problems here. The first is the idea that TA MEIZONA 
means something like "more showy." Since you seem to concede above that 
there is a ranking of gifts in v. 28 (indeed, PRWTON ... DEUTERON ... 
TRITON ... EPEITA ... EPEITA are clearly not temporal, but mark order 
of importance), it seems much more natural in the immediate context to 
understand TA MEIZONA as "greater" or "more important." This would 
demand the imperative, since it is obvious from ch. 14 that the 
Corinthians were NOT seeking the more important gifts, but rather the 
least of those mentioned in the list. And since "kinds of tongues" 
comes last in the list in v. 28, while prophets are listed near the 
top, second only to apostles, we might well expect that if TA MEIZONA 
indeed means "more important," Paul probably has prophecy in mind as 
one of these "more important" gifts. This seems confirmed in the 
resumption of the argument in 14.1, where the Corinthians are indeed 
exhorted to especially desire prophecy, and in 14.5, where Paul wishes 
especially that they might prophesy and says that the one who 
prophesies is "greater" (MEIZWN) than the one who speaks in tongues 
(unless there is an interpreter). Since in the resumption of Paul's 
argument in ch. 14 we have a clear use of MEIZWN to mean "greater," it 
seems to me that the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of 
those who would propose the meaning "more showy" in 12.31. The uses of 
MALLON in 14.1, 5 should also not be overlooked, since they also 
function to distinguish prophecy as one of the "greater" gifts.

The second problem is in the use of "but" to translate KAI. This is, I 
think, quite revealing of the argument for the indicative as a whole, 
since an exceedingly unlikely use of KAI as a strong adversative is 
virtually required in order for this understanding to have any degree 
of credibility at all. However, this seems completely arbitrary and 
need-based, since of the over 9000 occurrences of KAI in the NT, it 
only very rarely exhibits any adversative force, and even then it seems 
to be used more for stylistic reasons than anything else. It is not 
enough to say that a word may *possibly* mean something; we must decide 
what it *most probably* means. And KAI most probably means "and." This 
fits unobtrusively with the imperative view, while the rendering "but" 
seems to indicate that even proponents of the indicative view are aware 
of the awkwardness of it. While I would never base an entire argument 
on what an author *could* have said, one has to wonder why Paul would 
not have used a clear adversative if this was what he had in mind, 
especially in light of the identical form of indicative and imperative. 
While a clear adversative would lend weight to the indicative 
interpretation (though not prove it), KAI seems to strongly favor the 
imperative. Again the burden of proof falls on those who hold to the 
indicative view. They must produce strong reasons for taking KAI in 
such an unusual sense.

> You mentioned the use of ZHLOUTE in 14:1 and the internal evidence of 
> that
> particular passage which would render the term in the imperative. You 
> also
> mentioned the correlation between the two passages (12:31 & 14:1). 
> This is
> what prompted my second inquiry into the matter. Of course, in 12:31 
> the
> term translated as "gifts" is CARISMATA. The term used in 14:1 is
> PNEUMATIKA. English translations will translate CARISMATA as "spiritual
> gifts". Yet many English translations render PNEUMATIKA as "spiritual
> gifts" with "gifts" in italics, generally denoting a word that is not 
> in
> the original but is placed in the English text for readability, among
> other things.

It has often been noted that 1 Corinthians 13 is something of a 
digression (though an important and pertinent one), and that ch. 14 
picks up the argument of ch. 12. From the end of ch. 12 to the 
beginning of ch. 14 (omitting ch. 13 for the moment) criteria is 
developed for *ranking* spiritual gifts in order of their potential for 
building up the church, while the emphasis in ch 13 *transcends* the 
spiritual gifts and puts them in perspective. The two arguments are not 
antithetical but complementary, and both were necessary in the 
historical context. The significance of this is that when we look at 
the structure of this section of the letter, it becomes apparent that 
ZHLOUTE in 14.1 is resumptive of the thought in 12.31, where we also 
find ZHLOUTE. In 12.31 the Corinthians are exhorted to eagerly desire 
the greater gifts, and when the argument is resumed, they are exhorted 
to eagerly desire TA PNEUMATIKA, of which prophecy is singled out for 
special pursuit, no doubt because it is an example of one of these 
greater gifts Paul exhorted the Corinthians to eagerly desire in 12.31. 
Indeed it is *the* example of the greater gifts that he wishes to 
contrast with glossolalia in ch. 14. So I don't think the issue of 
whether TA PNEUMATIKA means specifically "spiritual gifts" or more 
generally "spiritual things" has any bearing on the issue of whether 
ZHLOUTE in 12.31 is indicative or imperative, since one way or the 
other TA PNEUMATIKA must in this context include spiritual gifts. It's 
not as though Paul has in ch. 14 picked up an entirely different topic; 
he is still discussing the ranking of spiritual gifts. It's just that 
he has narrowed the ranking to two gifts in particular, prophecy and 
tongues, and arguing that prophecy is more important for the 
edification of the church.

I think it is also important to note that ZHLOUTE is used a third time 
in the imperative in 14.39: hWSTE, ADELFOI [MOU], ZHLOUTE TO 
PROFHTEUEIN KAI TO LALEIN MH KWLUETE GLWSSAIS. This is the conclusion 
of his discussion of the importance of prophecy vis-a-vis tongues. 
While prophesy is to be eagerly desired because of its greater 
usefulness for the edification of the church, tongues, while not 
classed as one of the greater gifts like prophecy, are nevertheless not 
to be forbidden. In light of all this, I don't think there can be any 
doubt that Paul wants the Corinthians to eagerly desire the greater 
spiritual gifts, and especially prophecy.

Some have sought to diminish the force of these observations by 
appealing to the fact that the direct objects of ZHLOUTE in 12.31 and 
14.1 are different (TA CARISMATA vs. TA PNEUMATICA). One of the 
problems here is that in 14.12, in a construction that includes a 
cognate of ZHLOUTE and is unambiguously indicative, the objective 
genitive is "spiritual things" (PNEUMATWN, cognate of PNEUMATIKA in 
14.1), not "gifts" (CHARISMATWN, used in 12.31). So arguing indicative 
or imperative on the basis of the distinctive direct objects is dubious 
at best.

Others have tried to argue that ZHLOUTE even in 14.1 should be taken as 
indicative, insisting that the first clause is an imperative from Paul 
while the second clause is a "quote" from the Corinthians. The 
arguments for this position are so utterly arbitrary and subjective, so 
dependent on semantical gymnastics, that I won't even mention them 
here. This position seems to be geared more towards shoring up the 
indicative view of ZHLOUTE in 12.31 than a straightforward reading of 
14.1. (Though appropriate in certain well-defined contexts, it seems to 
me that the "quotation" argument is a convenient escape hatch that is 
being used more and more to bolster questionable interpretations within 
this letter. If this multiplication of "quotations" keeps up, I suppose 
at some point we can expect that someone will propose that the whole 
letter is nothing more than an anthology of Corinthian quotations.)

> What I am now wondering is whether CARISMATA  refers to the actual 
> gifts,
> while PNEUMATIKA refers to the spiritual in general, of which the
> spiritual gifts would be but a part.

Is TA PNEUMATIKA a broader category than TA CARISMATA? Perhaps. But it 
just may be that one emphasizes the grace of God in the bestowal of the 
ability, while the other indicates the spiritual ability itself or the 
Spirit's role in the distribution of the ability (cf. 12.7ff. and the 
NLT translation of 14.1 mentioned earlier). I don't think this question 
has any bearing on the indicative/imperative debate, though.
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list