??? ????. The Rabbis (see Lightfoot in loc.) speak of the languages of angels. It is possible that St Paul may be referring to this notion. And he himself also speaks ( 2 Corintios 12:4) of hearing �unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter,� when he was �caught up to the third heaven.� But it is very possible that he is only using the language of rhetorical hyperbole and means no more than languages of angelic beauty and power.
?????? ?? ?? ???. Yet if I have not love. The A.V. makes ??? subjunctive here. It is doubtless indicative. And so the Revised Version takes it. The A.V. has unfortunately departed here from the earlier rendering love of Tyndale and Cranmer (which the Revised Version has restored) and has followed the Vulgate caritas. Thus the force of this eloquent panegyric on love is impaired, and the agreement between the various writers of the New Testament much obscured.
See note on ch. 1 Corintios 8:1. The aim no doubt of the Vulgate translators was to avoid the sensuous associations which the Latin word amor suggested. But the English word charity has never risen to the height of the Apostle�s argument. At best it does but signify a kindly interest in and forbearance towards others.
It is far from suggesting the ardent, active, energetic principle which the Apostle had in view. And though the English word love includes the affection which springs up between persons of different sexes, it is generally understood to denote only the higher and nobler forms of that affection, the lower being stigmatized under the name of passion. Thus it is a suitable equivalent for the Greek word here used, which (see Dean Stanley�s note) owes its existence to the Bible, since it does not appear in Classical Greek, and is first found in the Septuagint translation of the O. T. See also Mr Carr�s note on .
????. Suddenly introduced because their pretence to piety is really mocking Him. No article, because St Paul is contrasting His nature and position with those of men. Compare G�latas 2:6.
?? ????????????[163], �is not mocked,� 2 Cr�nicas 36:16; Proverbios 1:30. Cf. ???????????, Lucas 16:14; Lucas 23:35[164], in each case Christ being the object. The verb properly means �turn up the nose� (so �mock,� also = �wipe the nose�). It means �the open gesture of contempt for one who is an easy dupe� (Perowne).
[163] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament. [164] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.
? ??? ??? ( G�latas 6:17) ??????. A proverbial saying, see below, but perhaps here suggested by St Paul�s reminiscence of his recent words to the Corinthians, 2 Corintios 9:6. On the relation of this passage to the collection for the saints at Jerusalem ( 1 Corintios 16:1) see the Introduction, p. xxi. sq.
????????. Unlike G�latas 6:1, where see note.
????? ??? ???????, cf. Job 4:8. Wetstein quotes Aristotle, Rhet. III. 3 ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????????, ????? ?? ????????, and Cicero, de Orat. II. 65 ut sementem feceris, ita metes.
1 Corintios 12:31 to 1 Corintios 13:13. THE EXCELLENCIES OF LOVE
??? ??? ???' ????????? ???? ???? ????????. And moreover I shew you a way of superlative excellence. This, St Paul would have us understand, is the best gift of all. Even faith and hope come short of it. How much more then, those inferior gifts (however useful in their way) about which Christians at Corinth were wrangling. And the search after this gift of infinitely higher value will effectually prevent all jealousies about the lesser gifts by which the natural man is inclined to set store.
For ???' ????????? in the sense of the superlative see Polyb. IX. 22. 8, of Hannibal, ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ???' ?????????. Calvin complains, and not without cause, of the �inepta capitis sectio� here. The words at the head of this note belong to what follows, rather than to what goes before.
???? ?? ?????.All these will remain in the life to come. Faith, the vision of the unseen ( Hebreos 11:1), with its consequent trust in God; hope, which even in fruition remains as the desire of its continuance; and love, as the necessary condition of our dwelling in God and God in us. See note on ch.
1 Corintios 12:31. �Now� is not to be understood of time, but as equivalent to �so,� at the conclusion of the argument.
??????. �Because faith and hope are our own; love is diffused among others.� Calvin. According to Winer, Gr. Gram. � 35, the passage is to be rendered �among these love is the greater.�
??. Faith is no more than the means whereby we unite ourselves to God; hope concerns itself with what we expect from Him. But love is a part of God Himself, 1 Juan 4:16. Compare with this chapter Clement�s panegyric on love in ch. 49 of his Epistle to the Corinthian Church, written shortly after St Paul�s death. Had this chapter never been written, Clement�s praise of love would have been more famous than it is.
Información bibliográfica "Comentario sobre 1 Corinthians 13". "Comentario al Testamento Griego de Cambridge para Escuelas y Colegios". https://beta.studylight.org/commentaries/spa/cgt/1-corinthians-13.html. 1896.
Versículo 1
???. Even suppose I were to.
??? ????. The Rabbis (see Lightfoot in loc.) speak of the languages of angels. It is possible that St Paul may be referring to this notion. And he himself also speaks ( 2 Corintios 12:4) of hearing �unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter,� when he was �caught up to the third heaven.� But it is very possible that he is only using the language of rhetorical hyperbole and means no more than languages of angelic beauty and power.
?????? ?? ?? ???. Yet if I have not love. The A.V. makes ??? subjunctive here. It is doubtless indicative. And so the Revised Version takes it. The A.V. has unfortunately departed here from the earlier rendering love of Tyndale and Cranmer (which the Revised Version has restored) and has followed the Vulgate caritas. Thus the force of this eloquent panegyric on love is impaired, and the agreement between the various writers of the New Testament much obscured.
See note on ch. 1 Corintios 8:1. The aim no doubt of the Vulgate translators was to avoid the sensuous associations which the Latin word amor suggested. But the English word charity has never risen to the height of the Apostle�s argument. At best it does but signify a kindly interest in and forbearance towards others.
It is far from suggesting the ardent, active, energetic principle which the Apostle had in view. And though the English word love includes the affection which springs up between persons of different sexes, it is generally understood to denote only the higher and nobler forms of that affection, the lower being stigmatized under the name of passion. Thus it is a suitable equivalent for the Greek word here used, which (see Dean Stanley�s note) owes its existence to the Bible, since it does not appear in Classical Greek, and is first found in the Septuagint translation of the O. T. See also Mr Carr�s note on .
????. Suddenly introduced because their pretence to piety is really mocking Him. No article, because St Paul is contrasting His nature and position with those of men. Compare G�latas 2:6.
?? ????????????[163], �is not mocked,� 2 Cr�nicas 36:16; Proverbios 1:30. Cf. ???????????, Lucas 16:14; Lucas 23:35[164], in each case Christ being the object. The verb properly means �turn up the nose� (so �mock,� also = �wipe the nose�). It means �the open gesture of contempt for one who is an easy dupe� (Perowne).
[163] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.
[164] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.
? ??? ??? ( G�latas 6:17) ??????. A proverbial saying, see below, but perhaps here suggested by St Paul�s reminiscence of his recent words to the Corinthians, 2 Corintios 9:6. On the relation of this passage to the collection for the saints at Jerusalem ( 1 Corintios 16:1) see the Introduction, p. xxi. sq.
????????. Unlike G�latas 6:1, where see note.
????? ??? ???????, cf. Job 4:8. Wetstein quotes Aristotle, Rhet. III. 3 ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????????, ????? ?? ????????, and Cicero, de Orat. II. 65 ut sementem feceris, ita metes.
Versículos 1-13
1 Corintios 12:31 to 1 Corintios 13:13. THE EXCELLENCIES OF LOVE
??? ??? ???' ????????? ???? ???? ????????. And moreover I shew you a way of superlative excellence. This, St Paul would have us understand, is the best gift of all. Even faith and hope come short of it. How much more then, those inferior gifts (however useful in their way) about which Christians at Corinth were wrangling. And the search after this gift of infinitely higher value will effectually prevent all jealousies about the lesser gifts by which the natural man is inclined to set store.
For ???' ????????? in the sense of the superlative see Polyb. IX. 22. 8, of Hannibal, ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ???' ?????????. Calvin complains, and not without cause, of the �inepta capitis sectio� here. The words at the head of this note belong to what follows, rather than to what goes before.
Versículo 13
???? ?? ?????. All these will remain in the life to come. Faith, the vision of the unseen ( Hebreos 11:1), with its consequent trust in God; hope, which even in fruition remains as the desire of its continuance; and love, as the necessary condition of our dwelling in God and God in us. See note on ch.
1 Corintios 12:31. �Now� is not to be understood of time, but as equivalent to �so,� at the conclusion of the argument.
??????. �Because faith and hope are our own; love is diffused among others.� Calvin. According to Winer, Gr. Gram. � 35, the passage is to be rendered �among these love is the greater.�
??. Faith is no more than the means whereby we unite ourselves to God; hope concerns itself with what we expect from Him. But love is a part of God Himself, 1 Juan 4:16. Compare with this chapter Clement�s panegyric on love in ch. 49 of his Epistle to the Corinthian Church, written shortly after St Paul�s death. Had this chapter never been written, Clement�s praise of love would have been more famous than it is.