1 Corinthians 14:2

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 2em; }
h3 { margin-top: 1.5em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
.greek-text { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Gentium Plus’, serif; }

An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 14:2: The Anarthrous Dative Θεῷ

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 14:2: The Anarthrous Dative Θεῷ is based on a b-greek discussion from Sun Sep 22 01:51:01 EDT 2002. The initial inquiry concerned the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:2, specifically the phrase οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει (“for no one understands/hears”). The participant’s provisional translation, “The one speaking with a (particular) tongue or language does not speak to men but to (some, a) god,” highlighted a fundamental ambiguity concerning the referent of the dative noun θεῷ.

The central exegetical issue under examination is the anarthrous nature of θεῷ (God) in 1 Corinthians 14:2. While in English, the presence or absence of the definite article (“the”) typically signals definiteness, this is not always the case in Koine Greek. The discussion explores whether θεῷ in this context should be translated as “God” (referring to the singular, definite God of Israel and Christian faith) or “a god” (suggesting an indefinite or generic deity). This determination involves careful consideration of Greek grammatical principles regarding the article, comparative passages within 1 Corinthians, and broader theological implications.

Ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια.
(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no textual differences between the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBLGNT (2010) for 1 Corinthians 14:2. Both texts present the verse identically.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The NA28 critical apparatus for 1 Corinthians 14:2 indicates no significant textual variants that impact the meaning or grammatical structure of the phrase ἀλλὰ θεῷ. The reading is consistently attested across major manuscript traditions.

Lexically, several terms are crucial for understanding the verse:

• λαλέω (BDAG, s.v.): Generally means “to make sounds, utter words, speak, talk.” In the Pauline corpus, it often refers to speaking in various contexts, including prophetic speech and speaking in tongues. KITTEL (TDNT, s.v. λαλέω) emphasizes its broad application to human speech, contrasting it with silence or non-verbal communication.
• γλώσσῃ (BDAG, s.v. γλῶσσα): The dative singular of γλῶσσα, meaning “tongue,” “language,” or “ecstatic utterance.” In 1 Corinthians 12-14, it specifically refers to the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, often perceived as an uninterpreted form of speech. KITTEL (TDNT, s.v. γλῶσσα) explores its various meanings, including its use for non-rational ecstatic speech in early Christianity.
• θεός (BDAG, s.v.): This noun, meaning “God” or “a god,” is central to the discussion. BDAG notes that in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective, θεός is predominantly used for God, sometimes with and sometimes without the article. It further specifies instances of both anarthrous and articular usage, indicating that the absence of the article does not automatically denote indefiniteness, especially in the context of proper nouns or unique entities. KITTEL (TDNT, s.v. θεός) delves into the theological significance of the term across various religious contexts, highlighting its ultimate reference to the unique God of the Bible for Christians.

Translation Variants: Grammatical and Rhetorical Analysis

The primary point of contention in translating 1 Corinthians 14:2 revolves around the anarthrous θεῷ, particularly in its contrast with the anarthrous ἀνθρώποις. Some argue that since both are anarthrous, they should be treated similarly, suggesting “a god” if “men” is treated generically. However, the nuances of the Greek definite article, as highlighted by various grammarians, caution against a direct one-to-one correspondence with English usage.

Grammar resources such as Herbert Weir Smyth’s Greek Grammar (§§1099ff, 1126-1130) and Blass-DeBrunner-Funk’s A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDF, §§254-255) provide crucial insights. Smyth notes that the article can be omitted when a word is “sufficiently definite by itself” (§1126), and that the Greek article’s function is not solely to mark definiteness in the English sense, but also to “underline” or “highlight” subjects. BDF (§254) specifically addresses θεός, stating that it, along with κύριος, often designates unique beings and frequently approximates proper nouns. For such nouns, the article appears when the specific Jewish or Christian God is meant, but it is sometimes omitted, especially after prepositions or when functioning as a predicate noun. Carl W. Conrad notes that θεός “has become a proper noun in Judaic usage,” and proper nouns can commonly appear with or without the article in ancient Greek.

The discussion also points to the contextual parallel in 1 Corinthians 14:28: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ διερμηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλείτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ (“But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God“). Here, θεῷ is articular (τῷ θεῷ), explicitly referring to the definite God. While not a direct equivalence, the parallel suggests that Paul consistently understands the referent of “God” in these contexts as the singular, definite God, regardless of the article’s presence or absence in verse 2. Steven Lo Vullo explicitly uses this parallel to argue for the definite understanding of θεῷ in verse 2, highlighting that God “understands” what humans do not.

Furthermore, Daniel B. Wallace’s *Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics* (pp. 243ff, though not directly cited in the original discussion, often referenced in such contexts) extensively covers the functions of the article, including its absence. He categorizes instances where anarthrous nouns are definite, indefinite, or qualitative/generic. For θεός, especially in a monotheistic context, the absence of the article often denotes the nature or quality of God (qualitative), or it functions as a proper noun equivalent, which is inherently definite. The contrast with ἀνθρώποις (anarthrous dative plural) also bears consideration; while ἀνθρώποις is clearly generic (“to men/people”), the theological context of speaking in tongues as communication with a divine entity strongly favors the unique God rather than “a god” or generic divinity, which would imply polytheistic possibilities antithetical to Paul’s theology.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analyses and contextual evidence, particularly the parallel in 1 Corinthians 14:28 and the understanding of θεός as a proper noun equivalent in a monotheistic framework, the anarthrous θεῷ in 1 Corinthians 14:2 should be understood as definite, referring to the one true God. The absence of the article does not render it indefinite in this context; rather, it reflects a nuanced aspect of Greek grammar where the unique and understood nature of the referent (God) makes the article unnecessary for definiteness.

Therefore, the following translations are suggested, reflecting both grammatical accuracy and theological context:

• 1. “For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God; for no one understands, but he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.” This translation maintains the direct, definite address to God.
• 2. “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to human beings but to God, for no one hears, but he speaks mysteries by the Spirit.” This variant emphasizes the generic nature of “human beings” while retaining the definite address to God.
• 3. “Indeed, the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to humanity but to God, for no one comprehends, but through the Spirit he utters mysteries.” This option highlights the qualitative aspect of “humanity” and “God,” yet still implies the singular, definite God.

“`