Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
13. pray that he may interpret ] Cf. 1Co 14:1 ; 1Co 14:5. This passage may mean (1) pray that he may receive the faculty of interpretation, or (2) pray in such a language as he has the power of interpreting.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Pray that he may interpret – Let him ask of God ability that he may explain it clearly to the church. It would seem probable that the power of speaking foreign languages, and the power of conveying truth in a clear and distinct manner, were not always found in the same person, and that the one did not of necessity imply the other. The truth seems to have been, that these extraordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit were bestowed upon people in some such way as ordinary talents and mental powers are now conferred; and that they became in a similar sense the characteristic mental endowments of the individual, and of course were subject to the same laws, and liable to the same kinds of abuse, as mental endowments are now. And as it now happens that one man may have a special faculty for acquiring and expressing himself in a foreign language who may not be by any means distinguished for clear enunciation, or capable of conveying his ideas in an interesting manner to a congregation, so it was then.
The apostle, therefore, directs such, if any there were, instead of priding themselves on their endowments, and instead of always speaking in an unknown tongue, which would he useless to the church, to pray for the more useful gift of being able to convey their thoughts in a clear and intelligible manner in their vernacular tongue. This would be useful. The truths, therefore, that they had the power of speaking with eminent ability in a foreign language, they ought to desire to be able to interpret so that they would be intelligible to the people whom they addressed in the church. This seems to me to be the plain meaning of this passage, which has given so much perplexity to commentators. Macknight renders it, however, Let him who prayeth in a foreign language, pray so as some one may interpret; meaning that he who prayed in a foreign language was to do it by two or three sentences at a time, so that he might be followed by an interpreter. But this is evidently forced. In order to this, it is needful to suppose that the phrase ho lalon , that speaketh, should be rendered, contrary to its obvious and usual meaning, who prays, and to supply tis, someone, in the close of the verse. The obvious interpretation is that which is given above; and this proceeds only on the supposition that the power of speaking foreign languages and the power of interpreting were not always united in the same person – a supposition that is evidently true, as appears from 1Co 12:10.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. Pray that he may interpret.] Let him who speaks or reads the prophetic declarations in the Old Testament, in that tongue in which they were originally spoken and written, pray to God that he may so understand them himself, and receive the gift of interpretation, that he may be able to explain them in all their depth and latitude to others.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To interpret here signifieth no more, than to render that intelligible to people, which he first uttereth in an unknown tongue. But what need he pray for that? Hath not every man that can speak a power to speak his native language, as well as a foreign language? Some say, therefore, that in this place signifies also, let him pray and also interpret; but this seemeth hard: nor can I think those that had a faculty to speak in an unknown tongue, might some of them not themselves understand what they said, and so had need to pray that they might interpret: but they might be puffed up with their gift, and think it beneath them to interpret, and then they had need to pray that they might have humility enough to interpret. Others think, that by interpreting in this place, is meant something more than bare translating, or turning the words into the common language of the place, viz. the opelling and applying of the Scriptures, an ability to which was a distinct gift; which they who would have, had need pray that God would open their eyes to understand the mysteries of his law.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. Explain, “Let him whospeaketh with a tongue [unknown] in his prayer (or, whenpraying) strive that he may interpret” [ALFORD].This explanation of “pray” is needed by its logicalconnection with “prayer in an unknown tongue” (1Co14:14). Though his words be unintelligible to his hearers, lethim in them pray that he may obtain the gift of interpreting, whichwill make them “edifying” to “the church” (1Co14:12).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue,…. The Hebrew, or any other, the gift of speaking with which is bestowed upon him:
pray that he may interpret; that he may have also the gift of interpretation of tongues; for as has been before hinted, these two gifts were distinct; and a man might have the one, and not the other; a man might speak in an unknown tongue, so as to understand himself, what he said, and be edified, and yet not be capable of translating it at once into the common language of the people; and if he could not do this, he would not excel in his gift to the edification of the church; whereas if he could interpret he would, and therefore, above all things, he should pray to the Father of lights, the giver of every good and perfect gift, that he might be furnished with this also.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Let him pray that he may interpret ( ). Else he had better cease talking in a tongue.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Pray that he may interpret [ ] . Not, pray for the gift of interpretation, but use his unknown tongue in prayer, which, above all other spiritual gifts, would minister to the power of interpreting.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue,” (dio ho lalon glosse) “Wherefore the one speaking in a tongue.” Note: the term “unknown” is not in the original language of the Bible. The term “tongue” as a charismatic gift simply referred to one’s having a gift to speak in one of the languages he had never learned, but one usually understood by some of his acquaintances.
2) “Pray that he may interpret.” (proseuchestho hina diermeneue) “Let him pray in order that or for the purpose of interpreting.” To speak in another language had limited profit, except the speaker himself could then also interpret what he had said, so that all who heard might understand the thing spoken. The ideal in tongue speaking was to be able thereafter to rationally interpret the message so that all who heard might understand.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in another tongue This is an anticipation, by way of reply to a question which might very readily be proposed to him. “If any one, therefore, is able to speak a foreign language, will the gift be useless? Why should that be kept back, which might be brought out to light, to the glory of God?” He shows the remedy. “Let him,” says he, “ask from God the gift of interpretation also. If he is without this, let him abstain in the meantime from ostentation.” (826)
(826) “ De parler a ostentation;” — “From speaking for ostentation’s sake.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Butlers Comments
SECTION 2
Proving by Tongues (1Co. 14:13-25)
13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the Amen to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. 21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord. 22Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
1Co. 14:13-19 Intelligibility Abdicated: Those Corinthian Christians who clamored for the gift of tongues because it was spectacular were abdicating the only means of building Christs churchintelligible communication. The Greek word here for tongues is glossa; the Greek word for speaking is lalon. Modern charismatics have combined the two words into one, glossolalia, to denote modern, alleged, tongues-speaking. But, we repeat, the word glossolalia is not found in the New Testament. There is a distinct difference, literally, between the Greek New Testament words ho lalon glosse and the modern word glossolalia, and there is also a difference in the connotations implied. Needless to say, then, there is a distinct difference between what was practiced in the first century and today.
In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, or LXX), the word glossa is used for (a) the human organ known as the tongue, and; (b) the language of a known people, but never for some ecstatic, esoteric babble. The same is true of the New Testament. In Act. 2:8, when Peter and the other apostles spoke in other glossa, men from all over the world heard in their own dialect (the Greek word dialekto is used in Act. 2:8).
The Greek word gene refers to a family or genre (genealogy) of glossa, (see 1Co. 14:10). This indicates that the tongues being spoken by the Corinthians were clearly distinguishable one from another and, were not unknowable, but one family or genre of human language or another.
The Greek word hermeneuo (1Co. 14:5; 1Co. 14:13; 1Co. 14:26-27, etc.) is not used in the Bible to mean the interpretation of an unknowable language into a known language. The word hermeneuo always means to translate words from one knowable language into another knowable language (cf. Joh. 1:38; Joh. 1:42; Joh. 9:7; see also Ezr. 4:7) so that there may be an understanding; (see also Mat. 1:23; Mar. 5:41; Mar. 15:22; Mar. 15:34; Act. 9:36; Act. 13:8; Heb. 7:2; 2Pe. 1:20). When hermeneuo is translated, translate, we see clearly that Paul is talking about knowable languages being translated into other knowable languages, and not about unknown and unknowable gibberish. Paul warns, Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to translate.
Reasons the modern phenomenon called glossolalia is not the miraculous speaking in tongues of the first century Church:
a.
Scriptural reasons cited above.
b.
Todays phenomenon is not received by the laying on of the hands of an apostle.
c.
Ecstatic, esoteric glossolalia similar to Christian glossolalia has been practiced, and is being practiced, by pagans in ancient and modern times (Hittites, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, East Africans, Islamics, American Indians, Caribbean voodoo practitioners, and many others).
d.
Ecstatic gibberish has been practiced by a multitude of different religious groups who have fundamental doctrinal abberations when compared with the Bible (Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, cultists of all varieties). The Spirit of God would not contradict his apostolic word, nor would he give credence by miraculous manifestations to these apostate religious groups.
e.
Writings of the early church fathers (immediately after the first century) indicate Biblical tongues were not manifested in their time (Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo; see Kildahl, op. cit., pp. 1415).
f.
In the history of modern, so-called, tongues there are no scientifically confirmed recordings of anyone speaking in a foreign language which he had never learned (Kildahl, p. 39).
g.
Dr. Kildahl, in order to investigate interpretations played a taped example of tongues-speech privately for several different interpreters. In no instance was there any similarity in the several interpretations (Kildahl, p. 63).
h.
Kildahl writes of a man raised in Africa, of missionary parents, who decided to test the interpretation of tongues. He attended a tongues-speaking meeting where he was a complete stranger. At the appropriate moment, he rose and spoke the Lords Prayer in the African dialect he had learned in his youth. When he sat down, an interpreter of tongues at once offered the meaning of what he had said. He interpreted it as a message about the imminent second coming of Christ (Kildahl, p. 63).
i.
Personal friends of mine, of the so-called charismatic persuasion, and books in my personal library from charismatic practitioners, offer instruction on how one may learn, by human means, the act of tongues-speaking. How does one learn that which is miraculous?
j.
Much modern, so-called, tongues-speaking is allegedly not under conscious control of the person who allegedly speaks and yet this very chapter (1Co. 14:1-40) says it must be (1Co. 14:26-33), so that they can determine who is to speak and when they are to speak.
k.
According to one former member of a tongues-speaking denomination, 85% of modern, so-called tongues-speaking is done in the public assemblies, by women. Yet, Paul directs (1Co. 14:33-36) that women should be silent in the public assemblies.
Paul explains that even the bona fide speaking in tongues by miraculous gift is unfruitful as far as intelligent communication is concerned, unless there is a translator present. When a Corinthian Christian prayed in a foreign language he did not know, his spirit might receive some emotional, subjective, excitation, but there would be nothing by which his mental, spiritual growth (edification) could proceed. Speaking in a tongue without a translator did not bring the mind into play, and anything said would bear no edifying fruit to the congregation. The same principle is true of all singing in congregational worship. Singing is a means of instructing the congregation unto edification (see Eph. 5:19). If the singing is unintelligible, for any reason, it is foolish to say, Amen, because no instruction or edification has taken place. Edification cannot take place without instruction!
Although Paul was probably writing about singing done in Corinth by Christians with the miraculous gift of tonguesand therefore, singing in a foreign languagea great amount of todays so-called religious music is neither Christian nor intelligible. In some cases, the words of todays songs, when distinguishable, are actually anti-scriptural. The twentieth century church needs to restore the New Testament teaching about music. Too many Christian musicians have succumbed to the performer mentality, and, at the same time, many congregations have adopted the audience-mentality toward music. The New Testament concept of music in the worship assembly gives no credence to the modern mania for the beat, performance-mentality, and unintelligible, imprecise, vague generalizations. The desire to show-off as a performer is precisely the attitude that was destroying the Corinthian congregation. It is the issue to which the apostle Paul addresses as much as half of this epistle! It is still relevant!
Speaking, praying or singing in a foreign language (tongue) had to be translated and made understandable if done at all in the worship services, otherwise the outsider could not be edified. The Greek word idiotes (1Co. 14:16; 1Co. 14:23-24) (from which the English word idiot comes) meant someone excluded, for one reason or another, from any specific group of people, e.g. the civilian as opposed to the soldier, the uneducated man as opposed to the scholar, the private citizen as opposed to the public official. Paul is clearly using the word idiotes to denominate those in attendance at Christian worship services at Corinth who were unskilled in foreign languages, and had no miraculous way of translating the tongues. They could neither speak in foreign languages or translate. Thus they were the same as foreigners or outsiders. Some commentators classify the outsider as one who is neither an unbeliever or a Christian, but a proselyte or a catechumen (learner). But the outsider is expected to be able to say Amen to any translated speech in a foreign tongue (1Co. 14:16). Thus, it would appear, the outsider is a Christian, not ignorant, but outside the select group of Christians in the Corinthian congregation who had received special, miraculous gifts.
Any use of gifts that did not produce understanding for the whole congregation, might serve some selfish purpose for the gifted person but others are not edified. It would appear Paul disapproved of private use of speaking in tongues for the Corinthians. Such private use was selfish, childish, and, if indiscriminately used, produced the aura of insanity and foolishness. Speaking miraculously in a foreign language must communicate to the minds (Gr. nous, mind) of all present in the assembly, including the speaker, both the ungifted and the unbeliever. The tongues were to be translated into the languages of those present in the service.
The apostle had the miraculous gift of tongues in greater capacity than all the Corinthians together, but his counsel was (and his counsel would be apostolic doctrine) that five words spoken in a language all hearers could understand with their minds were worth more than ten thousand words unintelligible to the hearers, although spoken by direct miracle from God. The Greek word katecheso is translated instruct and is the word from which we get the English word catechism; it generally means instruction in the fundamentals of a subject. God gave the infant church gifts for the sole purpose of instruction and edification (Eph. 4:11-16).
1Co. 14:20-25 Immaturity Accentuated: Not only did the obsession for the spectacular gift of tongues-speaking (untranslated) show these Corinthians would abdicate intelligent communication, it also accentuated their spiritual immaturity (see 1Co. 3:1 ff.). To speak in a language without translating, only for the speakers glory, and to elevate egotism over line upon line, precept upon precept processes of instruction is not only immature, it is a sign of unbelief.
So Paul starts this paragraph with an admonition for the Corinthian Christians to grow up! They were not to have a childs show-off mentality. He did want them to be infant-like (Gr. nepiazete) in evil, but he wanted them at the same time, to be mature (Gr. teleioi, perfected, complete, matured, reach the goal) in phresin, mentality.
It is interesting that Paul quotes from the prophet Isaiah (1Co. 14:21) and calls it the law. He is emphasizing that prophecy in the Old Testament was just as authoritative as the law of Moses. But the significance of Isaiahs prophecy here is the context from which this prophecy came. Isa. 28:11-12 comes from the prophets reproach of his Hebrew contemporaries (750700 B.C.) who kept asking for miraculous signs that Jehovah was going to deal with them in judgment as the prophets kept insisting he was. They were unbelievers. The covenant people would not (except for a small remnant) accept the line upon line, precept upon precept teaching of the prophets. They scoffed at that kind of instruction as fit for babies. And they were angry that the prophets inferred they were babies. They considered themselves sophisticated and mature. God said, however, You are wrong; line upon line, precept upon precept is not for babies, but for the mature. The spectacular is for babies, and I am going to show you something spectacular since that is the only way some of you will believe. I am going to deliver you into captivity and you will hear foreign languages. Your hearing foreign language will be evidence that the teachings of the prophets were for spiritual maturation. Isaiah was talking to inside unbelievers when he wrote to the Jews and that is precisely why Paul quotes Isaiah here. Isaiah was talking about spiritual maturity as opposed to childish unbelief, and that is the very purpose Paul had in quoting it here to these childish, unbelieving Corinthian Christians.
There were two kinds of people in the Corinthian church. There were the believers who welcomed line upon line teaching. They believed the messages of the prophets and did not need continual miracles to remain steadfast in the faith. Then there were the unbelievers who had to have miracles at every public worship or they did not think they could maintain their faith. God was displeased even with the Old Dispensation people who put him to the test beyond what they should have (see 1Co. 10:9 and Exo. 17:7). Jesus called the Jews who kept on asking for miraculous signs, an evil and adulterous generation (see Mat. 12:39; Mat. 16:4). So, tongues were a sign for the immature, the unbelievers, even the unbelievers within the membership of the church, as well as for unbelievers outside the membership. Tongues served as signs that there was a divine presence, that the one, true God was speaking to the world through the apostles doctrine and the messengers of Christs church.
But, if the whole church did nothing but speak in tongues, that would be as far as outsiders and unbelievers would get. They would not be instructedonly amazed. And, if the whole church did nothing but speak in tongues the outsider and unbeliever would probably say the tongues-speakers were all out of their minds (Gr. mainesthe, insane, out of control mentally). The outsiders and unbelievers would not be caused to worship God if the whole assembly spoke in tongues. Not even the miraculous really converts unbelievers without extensive, logical, direct, communication of the teachings of God. Prophecy makes believers out of unbelievers and edifies immature believers. Tongues were merely to signal the divine presence; prophecy (teaching) was for outsiders and unbelievers to convict them and cause them to humbly worship God and acknowledge Gods presence in the church. The Corinthian church needed a lot less of the tongues (and these were miraculous tongues), and a lot more of the prophecy.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(13) In an unknown tongue.Better, in a tongue. The gift of interpretation would make the gift of tongues useful for the edifying of the Church. This would be an object of unselfish prayer, which God would indeed answer. In the Greek it is suggested that the gift of interpretation is not only to be the object of his prayer, but that it will be the result; and this leads on to the thought in the next verse.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13. Pray may interpret This has been construed by many commentators to mean pray in order that, or with the purpose to, interpret. This must not imply that the speaking with a tongue was always prayer. For, 1. The pentecostal tongues were rather praise than prayer, and apparently addressed to the people. 2. An interpreter would usually be more suitable for a discourse than for prayer. 3. It is not unworthy of consideration that in Mr. Bushnell’s narrative the tongue was hortatory, and, 4. We can see nothing in the nature of the “tongue” prohibiting the idea of its being used for every mode of exercise. We render it, Let him so pray that he may be enabled afterwards to interpret his prayer. By that means, as in Mr. Bushnell’s instance, he may follow the discourse with an interpretation, and the divine charism gives the discourse a divine authority.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Wherefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.’
So if someone does pray in a tongue in the church publicly he should pray that he might interpret, that all may benefit. Otherwise he should keep silent.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 14:13. Wherefore let him that speaketh, &c. If therefore any of you be fond of speaking languages, by a miraculous power, which he himself was before a stranger to, and which those who have not learnt it can make nothing of; let him beg of God, that, when he comes among such people, he may also be enabled to interpret what he says in their vulgar tongue, that it may not be a heap of unintelligible words to them; but that they may be profited by the discourse.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 14:13 . .] is taken by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bleek, Rckert, Olshausen, Neander, Hofmann, in the sense of: let him pray for the gift of interpretation . But against this 1Co 14:14 is decisive, where the , linked by to what precedes, must have the same reference with our in 1Co 14:13 . Bleek’s objection, that we find in 1Co 14:18 standing in a different reference than previously, does not hold good, since 1Co 14:17-18 do not stand in direct logical connection (as 1Co 14:12 ; 1Co 14:14 do), but, on the contrary, with 1Co 14:18 there begins a section of the discourse distinct from the preceding. Without taking , with Luther, Vorstius, Wolf, Rosenmller (comp. already Photius in Oecumenius), as meaning so that , the right translation is: let him pray in the design, in order to interpret (afterwards what has been prayed ). Comp. Billroth, David Schulz, Winer, de Wette, Osiander, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Ewald, Maier. The previous general is thus represented here by , i.e. more precisely described as what it was , as address in prayer , see 1Co 14:14-17 . It is objected that 1Co 14:27 militates against this view (see Rckert); that the person praying could not have had that design, because he did not know whether the interpretation would be given to him (Hofmann). But our explanation does not in fact assume that every man who spoke with tongues was capable of interpreting; but, on the contrary, that Paul, in 1Co 14:13 , was thinking only of such speakers with tongues as possessed also the gift of interpretation (1Co 14:5 ). The apostle still leaves out of view the case in which the speaker was not also interpreter (1Co 14:28 ); hence we are not to take it with Ewald: “that people may interpret it.” The subject is the speaker himself (1Co 14:14 ff.), as in 1Co 14:5 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
Ver. 13. Pray that he may interpret ] Pope Innocent III never prayed thus; for he said, that the Church decreed the service in an unknown tongue, Ne sacrosaneta verba vilescerent, lest the holy words should be underprized. But public prayers in an unknown tongue, saith Erasmus, must be attributed to the change of time itself in Italy, France, and Spain, for there a long time the Latin was understood by all. But when afterwards their speeches degenerated into those common tongues now there used, then the language, not of the service, but of the people, was altered.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
13. ] Hortatory inference from the foregoing examples . There is some difficulty in the construction of this verse. . . is rendered by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Estius, Wetst., Bleek, Rckert, Olsh., al., ‘ pray that he may interpret .’ But the next verse shews that this is untenable. For the act of is there introduced in strict logical connexion with this verse, so as to shew that the here must have the same meaning as there, viz., that of praying in a tongue , openly in the church. Seeing this, Luther, Rosenm., al., render it, ‘let. so pray, that he may interpret :’ i.e. ‘not pray, unless he can interpret.’ But this rendering of is hardly allowable even where is expressed, see note on ch. 1Co 9:24 . The knot of the difficulty lies in the relation of to verbs of this kind. It may be doubted whether in such expressions as (see reff.), the conj. ever represents the mere purport of the prayer, as in our “to pray, that.” The idea of purpose is inseparably bound up in this particle, and can be traced wherever it is used. Thus . seems always to convey the meaning, “to pray, in order that .” At the same time, prayer being a direct seeking of the fulfilment of the purpose on account of which we pray, not, like many other actions, indirectly connected with it, the purport and purpose become compounded in the expression . This will be illustrated by . , : where it is plain enough that represents the ulterior object of and, now that it is joined with , of ; but had it been merely , . . ., the above confusion would have occurred. Now this confusion it is, which makes the words so difficult. Obviously, the is not merely used to express a seeking by prayer of the gift of interpretation, on account of the sense in the next verse: but as plainly, there is in a sense which passes on to . The rendering of Meyer and De Wette, ‘ pray, with a view to interpret (what he has spoken in a tongue),’ is unobjectionable, but does not give any reason for the choice of , any more than , or the like. I believe the true rendering to be pointed out by the distinction in the next verse. If a man prays in a tongue , his spirit prays , but his understanding is barren . This prayer of his spirit is, the intense direction of his will and affections to God, accompanied by the utterance of sounds to him unintelligible. ‘ Let then him who speaks with a tongue, pray , when he does pray, with an earnest striving (in this prayer of his spirit) after the gift of interpretation .’ The meaning might be more strictly given thus in English: wherefore let him who speaketh with a tongue, in his prayer (or, when praying), strive that he may interpret .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:13 . “Wherefore (since thus only can the edify the church) let him who speaks with a tongue pray that he may interpret”: cf. 1Co 14:5 . It appears that the speaker with Tongues in some instances could recall, on recovery, what he had uttered in his trance-ecstasy, so as to render it into rational speech. The three vbs. are pr ., regulating current procedure. The clause, after , gives the purport of the prayer, as in Phi 1:9 ; cf. Phi 1:10 above, 1Co 16:12 ; Luk 9:40 , etc. Mr [2075] , El [2076] , and others, prefer to borrow from the next ver., and render thus: “Let him that speaks (with a tongue) pray (therewith), in order that he may interpret”; but this strains the construction, and appears to be added in 1Co 14:14 just because the vb [2077] had not been so understood before.
[2075] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[2076] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[2077] verb
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 14:13-19
13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
1Co 14:13 In context this implies that communicating the gospel to all is preferable to personal ecstacy (cf. 1Co 14:15). Does this verse imply that believers receive one gift at salvation (cf. 1Co 12:11), but can later ask for another? This question must remain unanswered. It is certain that some had several gifts (cf. Act 13:1; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:11).
1Co 14:14 “if” This is another third class conditional, like 1Co 14:6-8; 1Co 14:11; 1Co 14:23-24; 1Co 14:28-29.
“my spirit prays” This refers to the human spirit. It was a literary metaphor for personhood.
“my mind is unfruitful” Paul was playing on the Corinthian’s love for wisdom. He was also reaffirming that tongues alone do not communicate, even to the speaker.
1Co 14:15
NASB”What is the outcome then”
NKJV”What is the result then”
NRSV, TEV”What should I do then”
NJB”What then”
This is an idiom (cf. 1Co 14:26; Act 21:22). Paul wants to draw a conclusion to his discussion.
“I will sing with the spirit” Does this imply another spiritual gift (cf. 1Co 14:26; Col 3:16; Eph 5:19)?
1Co 14:16 “if” This is another third class conditional sentence, like 1Co 14:6-8; 1Co 14:11; 1Co 14:14.
NASB”the one who fills the place of the ungifted”
NKJV”he who occupies the place of the uninformed”
NRSV”how can anyone in the position of an outsider”
TEV”how can ordinary people taking part in the meeting”
NJB”the uninitiated person”
This term was used of someone who was uninformed or untrained in a certain area, therefore, an unprofessional or lay person (cf. Act 4:13; 2Co 11:6). The usage here and in 1Co 14:23-24 can have one of two possible meanings.
1. a regular visitor to a Christian meeting while in 1Co 14:23 possibly a first time visitor
2. possibly a new Christian, but one without the gifts of tongues or interpretation
The phrase “the place of” is referring either to (1) visitors or possibly new Christians who had designated seats where they could hear clearly or (2) an idiom for one who is uninformed.
“say the ‘Amen'” See Special Topic below.
It is surely possible that the above term could relate to an ungifted believer (see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 98). If it is true then Paul wanted the believers to “check” or “pass judgment on” the prophetic words spoken in gathered worship (cf. 1Co 2:12; 1Co 2:15; 1Co 14:29; 1Co 14:37; 1Th 5:20-21; also note 1Jn 4:1). No one could say “amen” unless
1. they understood what was being said
2. they had a way (i.e., the Spirit) to evaluate what was said
SPECIAL TOPIC: AMEN
1Co 14:16-17 “at your giving thanks” This phrase may refer to the Lord’s Supper, which was called the Eucharist from the Greek term “give thanks.” 1Co 14:17, however, implies that it refers to prayer.
“the other person” See note at 1Co 6:1.
1Co 14:18 “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all” Paul knew what he was talking about. This verse, combined with 1Co 14:39, should make modern Christians think twice before criticizing the concept of tongues in our day. It should also make those who emphasize it to think twice. Paul admits to it so as to depreciate it.
It is interesting how this chapter switches between the singular, 1Co 14:2; 1Co 14:4; 1Co 14:9; 1Co 14:13-14; 1Co 14:19; 1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:17, and the plural, 1Co 14:5-6; 1Co 14:18; 1Co 14:22-23; 1Co 14:39.
The tension in this church was (1) between social classes and (2) between individual giftedness and corporate edification. In the church the individual always serves the corporate (cf. 1Co 12:7)!
This is another example of Paul trying to identify, at least in some measure, with the over-zealous believers at Corinth. As he affirmed knowledge, but emphasized love, he now affirms tongues, but emphasizes edification.
1Co 14:19 “however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind. . .rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” The literary unit of chapters 11-14 is dealing with public, gathered worship (cf. 1Co 14:23; 1Co 14:28; 1Co 14:34). In this setting personal worship in tongues is less desirable because no one else is taught and thereby converted (cf. 1Co 14:24-25) or edified (“so that I may instruct others also,” cf. 1Co 14:3-5; 1Co 14:12; 1Co 14:1; 1Co 14:19; 1Co 14:26).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Wherefore. See 1Co 8:13.
pray. App-134.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
13.] Hortatory inference from the foregoing examples. There is some difficulty in the construction of this verse. . . is rendered by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Estius, Wetst., Bleek, Rckert, Olsh., al., pray that he may interpret. But the next verse shews that this is untenable. For the act of is there introduced in strict logical connexion with this verse, so as to shew that the here must have the same meaning as there, viz., that of praying in a tongue, openly in the church. Seeing this, Luther, Rosenm., al., render it, let. so pray, that he may interpret: i.e. not pray, unless he can interpret. But this rendering of is hardly allowable even where is expressed, see note on ch. 1Co 9:24. The knot of the difficulty lies in the relation of to verbs of this kind. It may be doubted whether in such expressions as (see reff.), the conj. ever represents the mere purport of the prayer, as in our to pray, that. The idea of purpose is inseparably bound up in this particle, and can be traced wherever it is used. Thus . seems always to convey the meaning, to pray, in order that. At the same time, prayer being a direct seeking of the fulfilment of the purpose on account of which we pray,-not, like many other actions, indirectly connected with it,-the purport and purpose become compounded in the expression. This will be illustrated by . , : where it is plain enough that represents the ulterior object of and, now that it is joined with , of ; but had it been merely, …, the above confusion would have occurred. Now this confusion it is, which makes the words so difficult. Obviously, the is not merely used to express a seeking by prayer of the gift of interpretation, on account of the sense in the next verse: but as plainly, there is in a sense which passes on to . The rendering of Meyer and De Wette, pray, with a view to interpret (what he has spoken in a tongue), is unobjectionable, but does not give any reason for the choice of , any more than , or the like. I believe the true rendering to be pointed out by the distinction in the next verse. If a man prays in a tongue, his spirit prays, but his understanding is barren. This prayer of his spirit is, the intense direction of his will and affections to God, accompanied by the utterance of sounds to him unintelligible. Let then him who speaks with a tongue, pray, when he does pray, with an earnest striving (in this prayer of his spirit) after the gift of interpretation. The meaning might be more strictly given thus in English: wherefore let him who speaketh with a tongue, in his prayer (or, when praying), strive that he may interpret.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:13. ) let him pray; and he will do this with such fruit and effect, that the interpretation shall be added to the unknown tongue; see the following verse. It is implied that this will be obtained by prayers.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:13
1Co 14:13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.-Let him pray that he may have the gift of interpreting what he says in the tongue, else he will not profit those who hear.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Understanding Promotes Edifying
1Co 14:13-25
The Apostle here gives two practical directions, in order to restore the rule of the understanding above the babble of incoherent sounds, which was confusing the Corinthian church.
The first was that worship should be conducted in a form that the assembled congregation could understand. To utter prayer or thanksgiving to which the audience could give no assent; to utter sounds which were meaningless, was inconsistent with the true nature of Christian worship. It was therefore from this chapter that the Reformers drew their arguments against the practice of conducting the services of the Church in Latin. The second was that instruction was a most necessary part of worship, 1Co 14:19.
The effect of prophesying, that is, preaching, is set forth very forcibly and beautifully in the closing verses of our reading. We must always have in mind the unbelieving and the unlearned. If he hears the solemn voice of God speaking through human lips to his conscience, stirring its depths, moving it to repentance and faith, he will bear speedy testimony to the truth of what he has heard. We must seek to have in our assemblies the convincing power of Gods Word, accompanied by the corroborating witness of the unhindered Spirit.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
pray: 1Co 14:27, 1Co 14:28, 1Co 12:10, 1Co 12:30, Mar 11:24, Joh 14:13, Joh 14:14, Act 1:14, Act 4:29-31, Act 8:15
Reciprocal: 1Co 14:5 – except
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:13. Wherefore means a conclusion in line with the exhortation in the preceding verse. Pray that he may interpret is commented upon at verse 5, regarding the possession of two gifts by the same man.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue prayi.e. pray in the spirit,that he may interpretnot pray for the gift of interpretation (as most of the old interpreters understood it), but so pray in the unknown tongue as having in view the need of interpretation to give the sense of his prayer. What follows shews this to be the meaning (and so in substance Bengel, De Wette, Osiander, Meyer, and Alford understand it).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, How strongly the apostle pleads the necessity for all public worship, particularly preaching or prophesying, praying and singing, to be performed in a language known and understood by all the congregation: Let him that speaketh, preacheth, or teacheth, in an unknown tongue, in which he cannot edify others, pray for the edifying gift of interpretation, that others may be edified as well as himself; otherwise when we pray in an unknown tongue, our spirit prayeth, that is, our own gifts are exercised; but our understanding is unfruitful, that is, unto others. If we satisfy ourselves, we cannot deify them.
Learn from hence, Both the impiety and absurdity of the church of Rome, in appointing their public offices to be performed in Latin; a language which the common people in France, Spain, Germany, yea, in Italy itself, do not undertand; for the Latin tongue in not now the mother tongue of any nation under heaven: and the council of Trent thunders out an anathema against those that say the mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar tongue.
Lord! what is it, if this be not, to offer the sacrifice of fools? How can this be a reasonable service, which is no better than a sinful taking God’s name in vain. How can their hearts and tongues go along together, who understand nothing which their tongues utter. They neither know the God they pray to, nor yet the mercies which they pray for. Lord, pity the miserable souls in their communion, who erect an altar, and offer up unknown prayers to an unknown God.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 14:13-14. Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue Unknown to the congregation to which he would address himself; pray that he may interpret That God would give him the gift also of expounding his discourse, in the common language of the place, a gift this distinct from the other. For if I pray, &c. The apostle, as he did at 1Co 14:6, transfers it to himself; in an unknown tongue; without making use of any explication; my spirit indeed prayeth By the influence of the Spirit of God, I understand the words myself; but my understanding is unfruitful Namely, to others; the knowledge I have is of no benefit to them; and I perform an action void of that prudence and good sense which ought always to govern persons in their addresses to God, and act so childish and foolish a part that the reason of a man may seem at that time to have deserted me. This, says Dr. Doddridge, I think a more natural interpretation than that which supposes the apostle to suggest a thought which the Papists urge to palliate the absurdity of offering prayers in an unknown tongue, namely, there may be some general good affections working where the person praying does not particularly understand what he says. But this would make it almost impossible to conceive how the gift of tongues could be abused, if the person exercising it was under such an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit, as to utter sensible words which he did not himself understand; in which case a man must be, in the most extraordinary sense that can be conceived, the mere organ of the Holy Ghost himself.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 13-15. Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15. What is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the Spirit, but I will sing with the understanding also.
There are two readings: , wherefore, and , wherefore indeed; the second is perhaps taken from 1Co 8:13 and 1Co 10:14, where Paul also states the conclusions of a discussion.
The ancient Greek interpreters and many moderns, Erasmus, Calvin, Rckert, Hofmann, etc., make the words: that he may interpret, the logical object of the word: let him pray: Let him ask of God the power to interpret. But the terms or would perhaps suit better a positive position than , which rather denotes the state of prayer; and the use Paul makes of this same term in the following verses, specially to denote ecstatic prayer, hardly admits of our taking it in 1Co 14:13 in another sense. The words: let him pray (in tongues) that he may interpret, therefore signify: In giving himself up to the Spirit who leads him to pray in a tongue, let him do so with the intention and with the settled aim beforehand to reproduce the contents of his prayer afterwards in intelligible language. So Meyer, Edwards, etc. It does not therefore follow that is here taken, as has been thought, in the sense of ita ut, so that. Heinrici rightly observes, that in the exercise of every (gift) the intention of the will remains in force.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue {h} pray that he may interpret.
(h) Pray for the gift of interpretation.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Application in view of believers 14:13-19
Paul continued his argument by clarifying the effect that unintelligible speech has on believers gathered for worship.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Corinthian who already had the gift of tongues should ask the Lord for the ability to interpret his or her utterances so the whole church could benefit from them (cf. 1Co 14:5). Note that Paul did not say that they should abandon this gift, but their practice of it needed correcting.