# 1 Cor. 14:19



## rgreen (Nov 26, 2008)

I wonder if someone could explain why all the commentaries omit the word “my” before the word “understanding” when they give their thoughts on the intent of this verse? 

It is not italicised, and the “my” seems to change the sense of it, seeing that the commentators are talking about the understanding of the hearers.

What am I missing?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2008)

Which commentators are you reading? Are you sure they are leaving something out? I wouldn't be so sure.

The comprehensibility of the words is a comprehensibility of communication.

Paul is saying he would rather speak 5 *intelligible* words (= 5 words rational TO HIM, he writes "of me"), comprehendible, words he understands, to instruct others (so their minds are enlightened), than 10,000 words in a language no one has any ability to understand.

"But in church I wish to speak five words *through my mind* [διὰ τοῦ νοός μου] in order that indeed I might teach others, as opposed to ten-thousand words in a tongue"


----------



## rgreen (Nov 26, 2008)

My understanding of Gill's opinion of vv. 14-15, is that the "unknown tongue" in question is a reference to the Hebrew language, in which, of course, he was fluent, but which many on his hearers would have been entirely unfamiliar with.
He therefore contends, that the sense of this verse is that if Paul were to pray publically in Hebrew, his heart and mind would be engaged, but his hearers, to whom the language would be no better than babble, would be unable to assent and participate in the prayer, and therefore his resolution is to pray and sing in a manner accessable to the widest audience possible.
If this is indeed Gill's interpretation, then when, (as he does), he omits the "my" before the word "understanding" in v.19, his conclusion is that he would rather preach in a local language, than any number of wise-sounding Hebrew words, which would give him a pharisee-like aura of learnedness, but avail nothing.
Mathew Henry also omits the "my".

This is not the idea that I had previously had from this passage, and I just wondered how others with more understanding would view it.

Thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2008)

First, realize that MH didn't complete the Acts/Letters volume of the MHComm. So, those thoughts aren't even his, necessarily.
Second, the way I see it in the comments (on-line version), it appears to be more of an _*elision*_ than an *omission *(the leaving off "my" in the running exposition). What I mean is that to read the sentence, with the inclusio (the verse portion), the "my" would have to be rendered "his". You can see that if you go back and read the sentence in the commentary.

Gill is even more verbose, actually adding in the sense rendering "...that *by my voice* I might teach others also..." See, there he includes the "my" you're trying to find. He doesn't exclude it at all, (although he may have offered an idiosyncratic translation, which he did occasionally, and re(mis)placed the "my").

Hope this helps.


----------



## rgreen (Nov 27, 2008)

thank you. I appreciate the time you have kindly given to respond.


----------

