Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 14:27
If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
27. let it be by two, or at the most by three ] Because the long utterance in an unknown tongue would weary the Church without a sufficient corresponding benefit.
and that by course ] Literally, and in turn.
and let one interpret ] Let there be one, and only one, interpreter of each speech; for if the second interpretation were the same as the first it were unnecessary; if different, it would be perplexing.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Let it be by two, or at the most by three – That is, two, or at most three in one day, or in one meeting. So Grotius, Rosenmuller, Doddridge, Bloomfield, and Locke, understand it. It is probable that many were endowed with the gift of tongues; and it is certain that they were disposed to exercise the gift even when it could be of no real advantage, and when it was done only for ostentation. Paul had shown to them 1Co 14:22, that the main design of the gift of tongues was to convince unbelievers; he here shows them that if that gift was exercised in the church, it should be in such a way as to promote edification. They should not speak at the same time; nor should they regard it as necessary that all should speak at the same meeting. It should not be so as to produce disorder and confusion nor should it be so as to detain the people beyond a reasonable time. The speakers, therefore, in any one assembly should not exceed two or three.
And that by course – Separately; one after another. They should not all speak at the same time.
And let one interpret – One who has the gift of interpreting foreign languages, (Note, 1Co 12:10), so that they may be understood, and the church be edified.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 27. Speak in an unknown tongue] The Hebrew, as has already been conjectured.
Let it be by two; or at the most by three, and that by course] Let only two or three in one assembly act in this way, that too much time may not be taken up with one exercise; and let this be done by course, the one after the other, that two may not be speaking at the same time: and let one interpret for all that shall thus speak.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Concerning the use of their gift of tongues, he directeth three things:
1. That every one that had it should not be ambitious to show it at all times, but
two or three at most at a time.
2. That they should do it
by course, not together, confusedly.
3. Not without
one to interpret, that people might understand. For though these were extraordinary gifts, flowing from a more than ordinary influence of the Spirit of God, yet they were abiding habits, not coming upon them at some certain times, by an impulse; for then they would not have been under human government, as it is apparent this gift of tongues was, else Paul could not have so governed himself in the use of it, as he lets us know he did, 1Co 14:19.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
27. let it be by twoat eachtime, in one assembly; not more than two or three might speak withtongues at each meeting.
by coursein turns.
let one interpretonewho has the gift of interpreting tongues; and not more than one.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If any man speak in an unknown tongue,…. He begins with the gift of tongues, with speaking in an unknown tongue, as the Hebrew language, because this they were desirous of: and the rule for this he would have observed is,
let it be by two, or at most by three, and that by course. The Arabic version reads it, “let him speak to two, or at most three, and separately”; as if it respected the number of persons he was to speak to at a time, and that in a separate and private manner: but the apostle’s sense is, that two such persons as had the gift of speaking in an unknown tongue, or three at most, should be only employed at one opportunity, lest too much time should be taken up this way, and prevent a more useful and edifying exercise; and that these should speak not together, which would be a mere jargon and confusion, and make them took like madmen, and render them entirely useless indeed; but in course, one after another, that so an interpreter might be able to take their sense, and render what they said, and express it in a language the people understood: for it follows,
let one interpret what the two or three had said. This practice seems to be borrowed from the Jews, who had such an officer in the synagogue as a “Methurgeman”, or “an interpreter”. The rise of which office, and the rules to be observed in the performance of it, are as follow, delivered by Maimonides s:
“from the times of Ezra it has been customary that an interpreter should interpret to the people what the reader reads in the law, so that they may understand the nature of things; and the reader reads one verse only, and is silent until the interpreter has interpreted it; then he returns and reads a second verse: a reader may not raise his voice above the interpreter, nor the interpreter raise his voice above the reader. The interpreter may not interpret until the verse is finished out of the mouth of the reader, and the reader may not read a verse until the interpretation is finished out of the mouth of the interpreter; and the interpreter might not lean neither upon a pillar, nor a beam, but must stand in trembling, and in fear; and he may not interpret by writing, but by mouth: and the reader may not help the interpreter; and they may not say the interpretation written in the law; and a little one may interpret by the means of a grown person, but it is no honour to a grown person to interpret by the means of a little one; and two may not interpret as one, but one reads , “and one interprets” t.”
An interpreter might not interpret according to his own sense, nor according to the form of the words, or its literal sense; nor might he add of his own, but was obliged to go according to the Targum of Onkelos u, which they say was the same that was delivered on Mount Sinai. The place they stood in was just before the reader; for so it is said w,
“the interpreters stand before the wise man on the sabbath days, and hear from his mouth, and cause the multitude to hear.”
And elsewhere it is said x,
“the interpreter stands before the wise man, the preacher, and the wise man (or doctor) whispers to him in the Hebrew language, and he interprets to the multitude in a language they hear,”
or understand. And sometimes these sat at his side, and only reported what the doctor whispered privately. So
“it is said y, that when the son of R. Judah bar Ilai died, he went into the house of Midrash, or the school, and R. Chaniah ben Akabia went in and sat by his side, and he whispered to him, and he to the interpreter, and the interpreter caused the multitude to hear.”
And they never put any man into this office until he was fifty years of age z. Several of the Jewish Rabbins were interpreters, as R. Chananiah before mentioned, and R. Chutzphit, and others a.
s Hilchot Tephilla, c. 12 sect. 10. ll. t Vid. T. Bab. Roshhashana, fol. 27. 1. & Megilla, fol. 21. 2. u T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 49. 1. & Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 8. sect. 4. w T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 50. 2. Gloss. in ib. x Gloss. in T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 20. 2. y T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 21. 1. z Juchasin, fol. 44. 2. a Ib. fol. 42. 1. & 44. 1, 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
By two ( ). According to two, ratio.
Or at most ( ). Adverbial accusative, “or at the most.”
Three (). to be repeated.
And that in turn ( ). One at a time and not over three in all.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
By two, etc. That is, to the number of two or three at each meeting. 123 By course [ ] . Rev., correctly, in turn. Edwards’ explanation, antiphonally, is quite beside the mark.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “If any man speak in an unknown tongue” (eite glosse lalei) “if anyone speaks in a tongue (or language) other than his own, by charismatic gift.”
2) Let it be by two” (kata duo) “Let it be limited, to two, two persons who spoke in tongues.
3) “Or at the most by three “ (he to pleiston treis) “Or at the maximum three,” (at one meeting or public service).
4) “And that by course” (kai ana meros) “And one at a time (at that) or in turn” – not all confusedly speaking at once.
5) “And let one interpret.” (kai eis diermeneueto)
And let one (of the) assembly interpret.” The use of more than one interpreter in a service would occasion delay, confusion, or disorder.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
27. If any one speak in another tongue He now describes the order and limits the measure. “If you have a mind to speak with other tongues, let only two speak, or, at most, not more than three, and let there be at the same time an interpreter sitting by Without an interpreter, tongues are of no advantage: let them, therefore be dispensed with.” It is to be observed, however, that he does not command, but merely permits; for the Church can, without any inconvenience, dispense with tongues, except in so far as they are helps to prophecy, as the Hebrew and Greek languages are at this day. Paul, however, makes this concession, that he may not seem to deprive the assembly of believers of any gift of the Spirit.
At the same time, it might seem as if even this were not agreeable to reason, inasmuch as he said before, (1Co 14:22,) that tongues, in so far as they are for a sign, are suited to unbelievers. I answer, that, while a miracle may be performed more particularly with a view to unbelievers, it, nevertheless, does not follow, that it may not be of some advantage to believers also. If you understand, that an unknown tongue is a sign to unbelievers in the sense that Isaiah’s words (857) bear, the method of procedure, which Paul here prescribes, is different. For he allows of other tongues in such a way that, interpretation being joined with them, nothing is left obscure. He observes, therefore, a most admirable medium in correcting the fault of the Corinthians. On the one hand, he does not at all set aside any gift of God whatever, (858) in order that all his benefits may be seen among believers. On the other hand he makes a limitation — that ambition do not usurp the place that is due to the glory of God, and that no gift of inferior importance stand in the way of those that are of chief moment; and he adds the sauce (859) — that there be no mere ostentation, devoid of advantage.
(857) The words referred to are those which Paul had quoted above in 1Co 14:21. — Ed.
(858) “ Tant petit soit-il;” — “Be it ever so small.”
(859) “ Ascauoir l’interpretation;” — “Namely, the interpretation.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(27) If any man speak in an unknown tongue.Better, If any man speak in a tongue. Here is the practical application of the general rule just laid down to the exercise of the gift of tongues. Those who had that gift were not all to speak together, and so cause confusion; only two, or at the most three, were to speak in each assembly, and each of such group was to speak in turn, one at a time. There was to be with each group one who had the gift of interpretation, and he was to interpret to the listeners.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
27. By two three That is, let but two or three exercise the unknown tongue at a single meeting; and not even that unless one, either the speaker himself or another, interpret.
By course One at a time; neither two together, nor one eagerly interrupting the other.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘If any man speaks in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself, and to God.’
So if a man does come with a tongue, it should be by two, or at the most three, and should be ‘in turn’. And even then it must be interpreted. And if no interpreter is present then the person should ‘keep silence’. He should rather speak quietly and privately to himself and to God.
The restriction is quite specific. Three should be the upward limit of tongues, and this in a gathering which will last several hours. And the fact that it is to be ‘in turn’ might indicate that in practise in the past people have been speaking in tongues at the same time, conflicting with each other and causing disruption. Thus they are not to use tongues in unison.
We carefully note the grammar here. Paul begins by speaking to the individual who commences speaking in tongues. He then diverts to consider how many individuals shall be permitted to do this. He then returns to the individual and declares that his tongues must be interpreted. (Thus the interpretation directly follows the tongue). Indeed if no interpreter is present he must refrain from speaking in tongues, as must the possible other two. This demonstrates that the idea that the two or at the most three is simply referring to the number before an interpretation takes place is fallacious. It has nothing to do with when the interpretation takes place. It refers to God’s limitation on the number of times this means of revelation can be used.
‘Let one interpret.’ In a verse where numbers are in use the emphasis on ‘one’ may signify that the interpretation should be left to only one interpreter. Perhaps when people spoke in tongues interpreters had been so eager that a number had done so at the same time. Or perhaps the emphasis is on the fact that the same interpreter should interpret in each case to maintain continuity of thought and idea. Interpretation was not necessarily to be seen as word for word translation.
There was clearly a great deal of content to their gathering that is not mentioned here. We may probably see it as being occupied by prayer, the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures and exposition on the same, as in the synagogue, hearing some of the traditions of the life of Jesus from someone knowledgeable, almost certainly given word for word from memory as delivered to him (see 1Co 11:2), or even from a written source (Luk 1:1), followed possibly by an expounding of the tradition, a reading of any letters received from important sources (1Th 5:27), psalms and hymns, and then a common meal followed by, or including, the Lord’s Supper (compare 1Co 11:17-34, but the Corinthians were misusing the idea). Not necessarily of course all in this order.
This passage might suggest that a specific amount of time was to be laid aside for exercising the charismata. It was to be a blessed time, but restrained. Thus three interpreted tongues would be quite sufficient and leave room for the exercise of other gifts. And as time was precious (this would for many be the only worship gathering of the week because of their duties), they should only be exercised if they were to be interpreted and thus bring blessing to all. Otherwise they should leave room for more edifying ministry.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 14:27. If any man speak, &c. St. Paul has said in this chapter as much as conveniently could be said, to restrain their speaking in an unknown tongue in their assemblies; which seems to be that particular wherein the vanity and ostentation of the Corinthians was most forward to shew themselves. “It is not,” says he, “a gift intended for the edification of believers; however, since you will be exercising it in your meetings, let it always be so ordered that it may be for edification.” The original word should be rendered although, since it is no where used simply for if, as in our translation: nor will the sense here bear whether, which is the common signification of the word . Therefore, says Mr. Locke, I take the Apostle’s meaning to be, “You must do nothing but to edification, 1Co 14:26; and although you speak in an unknown tongue, even an unknown tongue must be made use of in your assemblies only to edification.” The rule of the synagogue was, “In the law, let one read, and one interpret; in the prophets, let one read, and two interpret.”In Esther, “ten may read, and ten interpret.”Some learned critics would connect this and the 26th verse together, thus: Hath every one a psalm? Hath he a doctrine? &c.Let all be done to edifying; or if any one speak in an unknown tongue, let it be, &c. See Luk 11:11.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 14:27 . After this general rule come now particular precepts: suppose that one wishes to speak with a tongue ; comp. , 1Co 14:26 . There is no other to correspond to this ( sive , Vulgate); but the plan of sentence first thought of and begun is so disturbed by the apodosis and 1Co 14:28 , that it is quite abandoned, and 1Co 14:29 , instead of commencing with a new , is not even continued in hypothetic form at all. See Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 194. Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 538. According to Hofmann (who writes separately), is annexive , namely, to . . . In that case would be: in like manner if (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 106 f.), which, however, would be logically suitable only on the supposition that did not already occur also in 1Co 14:26 .
. . .] sc. (comp. 1Pe 4:11 ), and this is to be taken declaratively (as in 1Co 11:16 ): let him know that they should speak by two, or at most by three ; in each assembly not more than two, or at most three, speakers with tongues should come forward. As to the supplying of ., see Khner, II. p. 603; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 65.
] adverbially. See Matthiae, p. 1000.
, and that according to order , one after the other, not several together. See Valck. ad Phoen . 481; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 380. Doubtless and this seems to have given occasion for this addition the case had often occurred in Corinth, that those who spoke with tongues had so little controlled their impulse that several came to speak togethe.
.] and let one (not several) give the interpretation , of that, namely, which the said two or three speakers with tongues have spoken in succession. Grotius puts it rightly: “unus aliquis, qui id donum habet;” and it is plain from 1Co 14:5 ; 1Co 14:13 (in opposition to Ewald) that the speaker with tongues himself might also be the interpreter. Paul will not allow several interpreters to speak, because that would have been unnecessary, and would only have shortened the time for the more useful prophetic and other addresses.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
Ver. 27. Or at the most by three ] Lest the hearers be tired out. Our infirmity will not suffer any long intention, either of body or mind. Long services can hardly maintain their vigour, as in tall bodies the spirits are diffused. Erasmus hath observed that Origen never preached above an hour, often but half an hour: Consultius iudicabat crebro docere, quam diu, saith he. He held it better to preach often, than long. (Eras. Praefat. ad Orig. Opera.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
27, 28 .] to the speaking with tongues . begins the construction, but is not carried on, 1Co 14:29 , where answers to it.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
27. ] (scil. let it take place), by two (at each time, i.e. in one assembly: not more than two or three might speak with tongues at each meeting ) or at the most three, and by turn (one after another, not together): and let one (some one who has the gift, and not more than one ) interpret (what is said in the tongue).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 14:27-28 . The maxim . . . . is applied to Tongues and Prophecy, as the two main competing gifts: “Whether any one speaks with a tongue (let them speak: sc . ) to the number of two ( ), or at the most three” (at one meeting) “fiat per binos, aut ad plurimum ternos” (Bz [2151] ). , “and in turn,” idque vicissim (Cv [2152] ) not all confusedly speaking at once. Ed [2153] ingeniously renders the and clauses “by two or at most three together, and in turns” (antiphonally), as though the Tongues could be combined in a duet “the beginning of Church music and antiphonal singing amongst Christians”: but this does not comport with the ecstatic nature of the Glossolalia; moreover, the sense thus given to the second clause would be properly expressed by , not (Hn [2154] ). “And let one person interpret”: whether one of the (1Co 14:13 ), or someone else present ( , 1Co 12:10 ); the use of several interpreters at the same meeting might occasion delay or confusion. “If however there be no interpreter (present), let him (the speaker with the Tongue) keep silence in the Church, but let him talk to himself and to God”: unless his utterance can be translated, he must refrain in public, and be content to enjoy his charism in solitude and in secret converse with God ( cf. 1Co 14:2 ff.); the instruction to “speak in his heart, noiselessly ” (so Cm [2155] , Est., Hf [2156] ) would be contrary to , and indeed to the nature of a tongue . “ for cl [2157] , sit for adsit ; cf. Luk 5:17 ; Iliad ix. 688” (Ed [2158] ).
[2151] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[2152] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[2153] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[2154] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[2155] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).
[2156] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[2157] classical.
[2158] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
any man = any one, as in 1Co 14:24.
by = according to. App-104.
by course = in turn. Greek. ana (App-104.) meros.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
27, 28.] to the speaking with tongues. begins the construction, but is not carried on, 1Co 14:29, where answers to it.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 14:27. , If) He now more particularly explains how all things may be done for edification.-, any man) Merely one person ought never to have spoken in an unknown tongue; but if one did speak, one or two should have followed to vindicate the abundance of the Spirit.-, three) may speak.- ) by a division of the times or even of the places of speaking.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 14:27
1Co 14:27
If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret:-To correct this confusion, he gives directions that if any should speak in an unknown tongue, that not more than two or three should speak at one meeting; these one at a time, and one should interpret.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Reciprocal: 1Co 12:10 – divers 1Co 14:13 – pray
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 14:27. Man in this verse and the pronoun in the next being singular, indicates the terms two and three refer to the number of words or sentences that were to be spoken in any given assembling. By course means he should utter them in turn with the interpreter. That is, he should speak one of the words or sentences and then let the other man interpret it. Next speak another word and let the other interpret, and after the third word or sentence, he should cease his speaking.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 14:27. If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two or at the most by threethat is, only so many at one meeting should exercise their gift,and that in turn; and let one interpreteven though more than one should have that gift.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle’s next advice for the church’s edification, is this, That such as had the gift of tongues should not speak all together, but two or three successively, one after another; and that one interpret what was so spoken, to the benefit and edifying of the church.
But if there were no interpreter present, let him, says the apostle, that only speaks with tongues, keep silence in the church; and let him only speak mentally to himself and to God, in prayer and thanksgiving.
The same advice he gives to them that prophesied; to wit, that only two or three of them should prophesy successively, in order to the church’s edification, and that the rest of the prophets should sit still and judge, examining their doctrines by the rule of the word: for says he, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; that is, the doctrines which the prophets deliver are apt to be judged and examined by other prophets, whether they be agreeable to the word of God or not: or the instinct by which the prophets pretend to be moved at that time to prophesy, is subject to the judgment and censure of other prophets who are endowed with the same gift.
And thus he declares, that all that are prophets, and prophetically inspired, may prophesy, provided it be done orderly and successively, without occasioning disorder and confusion in the church; and so managed as to answer the great end of the institution; namely, the instruction, edification, and consolation, of the church; For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.
Confusion is so far from being of divine inspiration, that it is hateful to God, who requires that peace and order should be kept and maintained, not only in the church of Corinth, but in all the churches of the saints.
That which breaks order, doth also break peace: for there can be no true peace without order; and God is not the author of disorder and confusion in the churches, but of peace.
Here by the way let us observe and note, That speaking and preaching in the public assemblies is limited all along, by the apostle, to the prophets. Let the prophets speak; not the common people; they were to sit by, it was no part of their business to speak, but to examine what was spoken by the rule of the word.
The authoritative preaching of the gifted brethren, at the call of a private congregation, was no more permitted by St. Paul, than his suffering of women to speak in the church; none but prophets, or persons in office, appointed for the work of preaching, were ever suffered to undertake it in the primitive times, and downwards, till very lately.
Let such as first gave, and still give, encouragement to the contrary, consider how they will answer it at the bar of God, who is not the author of such confusion and disorder, but of peace.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 14:27-28. If any man speak That is, be moved to speak; in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or, at the most, three Let not above two or three speak at one meeting; and that by course That is, one after another; and let one interpret What is said, into the vulgar tongue. It seems, the gift of tongues was an instantaneous knowledge of a tongue, till then unknown, which he that received it could afterward speak when he thought fit, without any new miracle. But if there be no interpreter present, let him The person speaking in a foreign language; be silent in the church Where he can do no manner of service by uttering what none but himself can understand; and let him speak in that tongue to himself and to God Make use of his gift in his own private devotions, if he find it profitable so to do. From its being here ordered that, if no interpreter were present, the person who spoke in a foreign language must be silent, Macknight infers that, even if the inspired person were able to interpret the foreign language in which a revelation was given to him, he was not permitted to do it; because, to have delivered the revelation first in the foreign language, and then in a known tongue, would have been an ostentation of inspiration, of which the church would not approve; not to mention that it would have wasted much time to no purpose. Whereas, when one spake a revelation in a foreign language, and another interpreted what he spake, the church was edified, not only by the things spoken, thus made known to them, but also by having an undoubted proof of the inspiration of the person who spake, given them in the inspired interpretation of what he spake.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 27, 28. If any man speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and each in his course; and let one interpret. 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
In Greek this verse begins with the word , whether, to which there should be a corresponding applied to prophecy (1Co 14:29). This form very pointedly betrays the accidental (by no means indispensable) character of glossolalia in worship.
The apostle gives three rules regarding this gift. The first relative to number: two or at most three; as if two were quite sufficient. The is distributive: two or three each meeting. Edwards thinks that what is referred to here is an antiphony, expressed by , in turn, as if a duet of glossolaletes was intended. It was this style of performance, in his view, which gave rise to the later antiphonic chants, such as those of which Pliny speaks in his letter to Trajan. How far will the imagination go! Certainly Paul would never have approved of the simultaneous utterance of several discourses, the one hindering the effect of the other. Besides, would have been required to express the sense given by Edwards (see Passow).
The second rule relates to order: , each in course, consequently: one at a time. The contrary, no doubt, sometimes happened at Corinth. The form signifies, like : in determinate order, in his turn, but not: answering one another.
The third rule fixes the mode; the tongue ought to be followed by an interpretation. The expression , one, seems to signify that one and the same interpreter ought to act for the two or three discourses in tongues; no doubt to prevent discussions as to the meaning of any one of the discourses. The apostle does not say whether this interpreter is himself one of the glossolaletes, as might be held in accordance with 1Co 14:5; 1Co 14:13, or if he is some other inspired one, as might be supposed from 1Co 14:28 and 1Co 12:10. Both cases might occur. Holsten alleges that interpretation took place only in the case of one of the three tongues, and by the same man who had spoken in it. But this meaning is contrary to 1Co 14:5; 1Co 14:28, which expressly exclude the use of a tongue without interpretation.
Vv. 28. The first words have sometimes been translated: But if he is not an interpreter. But it would be impossible to say to which of the two or three glossolaletes the words should be applied, and the position of the verb before the predicate shows that it is the idea of being which is emphasized. The simple is therefore for ; comp. Luk 5:17; and the translation must be: But if there be no interpreter. Holsten objects that it was impossible to know beforehand the absence of all interpreters, because interpretation was not an office invariably attached to this or that person. But, on the contrary, the necessary conclusion from the passage is that the gift was more or less permanent, whether it belonged as a rule to one of the glossolaletes or to some other of the members of the Church. This view is confirmed by 1Co 12:10.
If every believer known to be endowed with this faculty is absent, and the glossolalete does not himself interpret, he is to keep silence in the congregation. But the apostle would not have him to suppress the moving of the Spirit; for himself he may yield to the impulse to thanksgiving and mental prayer which has taken possession of him and raises him to God.
There follow the rules regarding the exercise of prophecy.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret:
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 27
By two, &c.; that is, only by two or three at any one meeting.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:27 {13} If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
(13) The manner how to use the gift of tongues. It may be lawful for one or two, or at the most for three, to use the gift of tongues, one after another in an assembly, so that there is someone to expound their utterances. But if there are none to expound, let him that has the gift speak to himself alone.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul laid down three guidelines for the use of tongues in public worship. First, the believers should permit only two or at the most three interpreted tongues messages. This is in harmony with the inferior contribution that tongues make compared with prophecy. Second, the speakers should give them consecutively rather than concurrently to minimize confusion. The Spirit does not overpower the speaker but is subject to the speaker, and the Spirit leads speakers to contribute in appropriate times and ways. The Spirit’s leading of the Old Testament prophets to speak at appropriate times and settings illustrates this. Third, the Christians should not allow tongues without interpretation in the church services, though Paul did permit private tongues-speaking (1Co 14:2; 1Co 14:4; 1Co 14:27). However remember that tongues were languages, and Paul valued private tongues-speaking quite low (1Co 14:2; 1Co 14:10-11; 1Co 14:13-14, et al.).