1 Corinthians 14:5

1Co 14:5. I would that ye all spake with tongues — In as great a variety as God hath imparted that gift to any man living; but rather that ye prophesied — For when we consider the different effects and tendencies of these different gifts, we must acknowledge that, with respect to the prospects of usefulness by which these things are to be estimated, greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues — Which those who hear him cannot understand; except he interpret — Or rather, except some one interpret; for it appears from 1Co 14:28, that what was spoken in an unknown tongue was usually interpreted by another person, and not by the person who spoke it, the interpretation of tongues being, in the first church, a distinct gift. See on 1Co 12:10. That the church may receive edifying — Which it might, it seems, equally receive if the things spoken had been delivered only in a language understood by the auditory, and not first in an unknown tongue. “How happily does the apostle here teach us to estimate the value of gifts and talents, not by their brilliancy, but usefulness. Speaking with tongues was indeed very serviceable for spreading the gospel abroad; but for those who remained at home, it was much more desirable to be able to discourse well on useful subjects in their own language, which might serve more for the improvement of the society they belonged to, and the conviction of such of their unbelieving neighbours as might, out of curiosity, happen to step into the assemblies.” — Doddridge.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 14:5. Γλώσσαις, with tongues) The Corinthians chiefly cultivated this gift; and Paul does not consider them as doing wrong, but he reduces it to order: see 1Co 14:12.—μείζων, greater) more useful, 1Co 14:6.—διερμηνεύει) διὰ elegantly expresses the position of the interpreter between him, who speaks in an unknown tongue, and the hearer. If the very same person, who speaks in an unknown tongue, also acts as interpreter, then the very same person in a manner comes in between himself and the hearer; according to the different point of view in which he is regarded.—ἠ ἐκκλησία, the Church) seeking [1Co 14:12] edification; may receive it in consonance with this [viz. with seeking].

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_14:5. Δέ] ἐπειδὴ παρʼ αὐτοῖς ἐλάλουν γλώσσαις πολλοὶ, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ διὰ φθόνον κατασμικρίνειν τὰς γλώσσας, θέλω, φησὶ, πάντας κ.τ.λ., Theophylact. Comp. the δέ, 1Co_12:31.

μᾶλλον δὲ κ.τ.λ.] rather, however, I wish that ye should speak prophetically. Note here the distinction between the accusative with the infinitive and ἵνα after θέλω (see on Luk_6:31). The former puts the thing absolutely as object; the latter, as the design of the θέλω to be fulfilled by the readers (Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 62, ed. 3); so that it approaches the imperative force (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 839).

μείζων] preferable, of more worth, 1Co_13:13, because more useful for edification, 1Co_14:6; 1Co_14:26.

ἑκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμ.] the case being excepted, if he interpret (what has been spoken with tongues). ἑκτὸς εἰ μή is a mixing up of two modes of expression, so that μή now seems pleonastic. Comp. 1Co_15:2; 1Ti_5:19. Not a Hebraism (Grotius), but found also in the later Greek writers (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 1; Soloec. 7). See Wetstein; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 459.

Regarding εἰ with the subjunctive, see on 1Co_9:11. The subject to διερμ. is not a τίς to be supplied (Flatt, comp. Ewald), but ὁ λαλῶν γλ. The passage shows (comp. 1Co_14:13) that one and the same person might be endowed with glossolalia and interpretation.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 14:5 . Notwithstanding the above drawback, the Tongues are a real and desirable charism; the better is preferred to the good : “Yet I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that you might prophesy.” μᾶλλον ἵνα προφητεύητε is repeated from 1Co 14:1 : what the Ap. bids his readers prefer, he prefers for them not to the exclusion of the Tongues, for the two gifts might be held at once (1Co 14:6 ; 1Co 14:18 ), but as looking beyond them. θέλω ἵνα occurs several times in the Gospels without any marked telic force (Mat 7:12 , Mar 6:25 ; Mar 9:30 , Joh 17:24 ), but only here in P.; its substitution for the inf [2024] ( λαλεῖν ) of the coordinate clause is significant. “Moreover he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues” attached by the part. δὲ where one expected γάρ (T.R.); P. is not justifying his own preference just stated, but giving a further reason why the Cor [2025] should covet Prophecy more than Tongues: the main reason lies in the eminent usefulness of this charism (1Co 14:2-4 ); besides that ( δέ ), its possessor is a “greater” person ( μείζων : cf. 1Co 12:31 ) “than the speaker with tongues except in the case that he interprets (his ecstatic utterance), that the Church may get edification”. The power to interpret superadded to the glossolalia (see 1Co 14:13 ; 1Co 14:26 ff., 1Co 12:10 ) puts the mystic speaker on a level with the prophet: first “uttering mysteries” (1Co 14:2 ) and then making them plain to his hearers, he accomplishes in two acts what the prophet does in one. ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ is a Pauline pleonasm (see parls.), consisting of ἐκτὸς εἰ ( except if ) and εἰ μή ( unless ) run together; “with this exception, unless he interpret” (Wr [2026] , p. 756). For εἰ with sbj [2027] , in distinction from ἐάν , see Wr [2028] , p. 368; it “represents that the event will decide the point” (El [2029] ). To supply τις with διερμην ., supposing another interpreter meant, is ungrammatical; the identity of Speaker and interpreter is the essential point. He interprets with the express intention that the Church may be edified ( ἵνα … οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ ).

[2024] infinitive mood.

[2025] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2026] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[2027] subjunctive mood.

[2028] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[2029] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_14:5

I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater (is) he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

I would that ye all spake with tongues. It was not to be inferred from what he had said, that the apostle undervalued this gift. He admitted its importance as one of the manifestations of the Spirit, and he subsequently, 1Co_14:18, gives thanks that he himself possessed it in rich measure. From this it is evident that it was something of a higher nature than modern theories would represent it. But rather that ye prophesied, (θέλω ἵνα). I would that. The same particle often follows verbs of wishing, praying, exhorting, etc. For greater is he that prophesieth, etc., i.e. he is more useful than the speaker with tongues, unless the latter interpret. Nam si accedat interpretatio, jam erit prophetia. Calvin. Speaking under the supernatural influence of the Spirit was common to both gifts; the only difference was in the language used. If the speaker interpreted, then he prophesied. That the church may receive edification. This proves that the contents of these discourses, delivered in an unknown tongue, were edifying; and therefore did not consist in mysteries in the bad sense of that term; i.e. in enigmas and dark sayings. This passage also proves that the gift of interpretation, although distinct from that of tongues, might be, and doubtless often was, possessed by the same person, and consequently, that he understood what he said. The absence of the gift of interpretation does not prove that the speaker himself in such cases was ignorant of what he uttered. It only proves that he was not inspired to communicate in another language what he had delivered. Had he done so, it would have been on his own authority, and not as an organ of the Spirit. It is conceivable that a man might speak connectedly in a foreign language under the inspiration of the Spirit, so as to be perfectly understood by those acquainted with the language, though he himself did not understand a word of what he uttered. But this hypothesis, though it would suit some passages in this chapter, is inconsistent with others, and therefore cannot be adopted.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Translate, "Now I wish you all to speak with tongues (so far am I from thus speaking through having any objection to tongues), but rather IN ORDER THAT (as my ulterior and higher wish for you) ye should prophesy." Tongues must therefore mean languages, not ecstatic, unintelligible rhapsodie (as NEANDER fancied): for Paul could never "wish" for the latter in their behalf.

greater--because more useful.

except he interpret--the unknown tongue which he speaks, "that the Church may receive edifying (building up)."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues] The word θελω does not so much imply a wish or desire, as a command or permission. As if he had said: I do not restrain you to prophesying or teaching though I prefer that; but I give you full permission to speak in Hebrew whenever it is proper, and when one is present who can interpret for the edification of the Church, provided yourselves have not that gift, though you understand the language. The apostle said tongue, in the singular number, 1Co 14:2; 1Co 14:4, because he spoke of a single man; now he says tongues, in the plural number, because he speaks of many speaking; but he has the same meaning in both places.-Lightfoot.

Greater is he that prophesieth] A useful, zealous preacher, though unskilled in learned languages, is much greater in the sight of God, and in the eye of sound common sense, than he who has the gift of those learned tongues; except he interpret: and we seldom find great scholars good preachers. This should humble the scholar, who is too apt to be proud of his attainments, and despise his less learned but more useful brother. This judgment of St. Paul is too little regarded.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. I would that ye all spake with tongues Again he declares that he does not give such a preference to prophecy, as not to leave some place for foreign tongues. This must be carefully observed. For God has conferred nothing upon his Church in vain, and languages were of some benefit. Hence, although the Corinthians, by a misdirected eagerness for show, had rendered that gift partly useless and worthless, and partly even injurious, yet Paul, nevertheless, commends the use of tongues. So far is he from wishing them abolished or thrown away. At the present day, while a knowledge of languages is more than simply necessary, and while God has at this time, in his wonderful kindness, brought them forward from darkness into light, there are at present great theologians, who declaim against them with furious zeal. As it is certain, that the Holy Spirit has here honored the use of tongues with never-dying praise, we may very readily gather, what is the kind of spirit that actuates those reformers, who level as many reproaches as they can against the pursuit of them. At the same time the cases are very different. For Paul takes in languages of any sort — such as served merely for the publication of the gospel among all nations. They, on the other hand, condemn those languages, from which, as fountains, the pure truth of scripture is to be drawn. An exception is added — that we must not be so taken up with the use of languages, as to treat with neglect prophecy, which ought to have the first place.

Unless he interpret. For if interpretation is added, there will then be prophecy. You must not, however, understand Paul to give liberty here to any one to take up the time of the Church to no profit by muttering words in a foreign tongue. For how ridiculous it were, to repeat the same thing in a variety of languages without any necessity! But it often happens, that the use of a foreign tongue is seasonable. In short, let us simply have an eye to this as our end — that edification may redound to the Church.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) I would that ye all spake with tongues.—To avoid danger of misunderstanding or misrepresentation the Apostle emphatically asserts here that the error which he is combating is the undue exaltation of the gift of tongues to the depreciation of other gifts. The teacher of religious truth to others, who thereby builds up the whole edifice of the body of Christ, is a greater one than he who is himself benefited by being possessed of profound but uncommunicable emotion.

Except he interpret.—The gift of interpreting might therefore belong to the same person who had the gift of tongues: and if he had this power of articulating for the benefit of others the emotion which he incoherently expresses in reverie, then the gift of tongues was useful to the Church at large, and so was as valuable as prophecy.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. for greater is he] Cf. ch. 1Co_12:31.

except he interpret] This passage clearly implies that a man might speak in another language without himself knowing what he was saying, see 1Co_14:14. Some, however, regard the speaking with tongues as ecstatic utterances in no human language, such as took place among the Montanists in ancient, and the Irvingites in modern times. See Stanley’s introduction to this section. Cf. note on ch. 1Co_12:10.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I would that ye all spake with tongues,.... This the apostle says, to prevent being misunderstood; for his view was not to bring the gift of tongues into contempt, or to represent it as at all times, and on all occasions, useless and insignificant; nor would he be thought to envy them this gift, or beat them off of desiring it; for, for his own part, he could wish they all had it, was it the will of God; though he must needs say, that prophesying was most desirable by him, as being most profitable;

but rather that ye prophesied; he wished them all prophets, as Moses did all the Lord's people; he was not against their speaking with tongues, but this was the most eligible, for which he gives this reason:

for greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues; that is, he is more useful and profitable to men, and so consequently more honourable, in higher esteem, and more valued, and in greater dignity, being in a more serviceable post and office, and which is more beneficial and advantageous to mankind:

except he interpret; what he said; and then he might stand upon an equal foot, and be equally useful with him that prophesieth; but this everyone could not do that spake with tongues; for speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, were two distinct gifts; see Co1 12:10 and though a man that had the gift of tongues might understand what he himself said to his own edification, yet not be able to interpret it to the understanding and edification of others; and if he could not do this, his speaking was to no purpose: hence the apostle advises such an one to pray that he might interpret, have the gift of interpretation also, in Co1 14:13.

That the church may receive edifying: which otherwise cannot be thought it should, or be expected, and then an opportunity and ordinance would be wholly lost.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Ver. 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues] Gr. "I will." He here prefers prophesying (which was most edifying) before speaking with tongues, which they most affected, because it served most ad pompam, for applause and admiration.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I would that ye all spake with tongues - “It is an important endowment, and is not, in its place, to be undervalued. It maybe of great service in the cause of truth, and if properly regulated, and not abused, I would rejoice if these extraordinary endowments were conferred on all. I have no envy against anyone who possesses it; no opposition to the endowment; but I wish that it should not be overvalued; and would wish to exalt into proper estimation the more useful but humble gift of speaking for the edification of the church.”

Greater is he that prophesieth - This gift is of more value, and he really occupies a more elevated rank in the church. He is more “useful.” The idea here is, that talents are not to he estimated by their “brilliancy,” but by their “usefulness.” The power of speaking in an unknown tongue was certainly a more striking endowment than that of speaking so as simply to be “useful,” and yet the apostle tells us that the latter is the more valuable. So it is always. A man who is useful, however humble and unknown he may be, really occupies a more elevated and venerable rank than the man of most splendid talents and dazzling eloquence, who accomplishes nothing in saving the souls of people.

Except he interpret - However important and valuable the truth might he which he uttered, it would be useless to the church, unless he should explain it in language which they could understand. In that case, the apostle does not deny that the power of speaking foreign languages was a higher endowment and more valuable than the gift of prophecy. That the man who spoke foreign languages had the power of interpreting, is evident from this verse. From 1Co 14:27, it appears that the office of interpreting was sometimes performed by others.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

St. Paul gives them further instructions how to make a right use of these gifts, of prophesying, of interpreting, and especially of speaking tongues. He is far from condemning the gift of speaking tongues, in proper circumstances, but only the indiscreet use, or the abuse of it. This is evident by the 5th verse, I would have you all to speak with tongues, but rather to prophesy. He blames those assemblies and meetings, (ver. 23.) when all present speak tongues together, by which means, the infidels that came thither, and ought to be instructed, understood nothing. He permits at their meetings two or three (ver. 27.) to speak tongues, provided some other interpret them. He also orders, that only two or three prophets speak at a meeting, and by turns, to avoid confusion, that those present may be edified, exhorted, and instructed. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

I would, in this place, signifies no more than either I could wish, or I could be content that you could all speak with tongues, if God pleased. It should seem by this speech of the apostle’s, that this speaking in unknown tongues was that extraordinary gift, which, above all others, this church, or the several members of it, were proud and ambitious of. St. Paul tells them, that if God pleased he wished they could all do it. But of the two, he rather wished them all a power to open and apply the Holy Scriptures to men’s understandings and conscience. He addeth the reason, because it was a more honourable gift and work, and made men truly greater. But he adds,

except he interpret, for then he prophesied also.

That, saith he, the church, that is, those that heard him prophesying, may receive edifying. Whence we learn:

1. That spiritual growth, and proficiency in Divine knowledge and habits of grace, ought to be the great end of all preachers; and whose doth not propound this as his end, abuseth his office, and trifles in a pulpit.

2. That whose maketh this his end, will make it his business, to the best of his skill, to use such a language, style, and method, as the generality of his hearers may best understand; for without their understanding, there can be no edifying. And this lets us see the vanity of using much Latin, or Greek, or a lofty style, or a cryptic method, not obvious to poor people in popular sermons, where the people understand not those languages; or philosophical ratiocinations before a plain people that understand none of these things. Such preaching is neither justifiable by reason, nor by the practice either of Christ or his apostles.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. I would… all spake with tongues—Not a mere concession to the prejudices of the Corinthians, but a hearty endorsement of the gift as good in its place.

But rather… prophesied—The apostle is wisely utilitarian.

He adjudges the palm of superiority to the more useful gift. Catalepsies and trances are viewed with wonder; but that very wonder is not religious or sanctifying, and may take the place of holier thought. Nor has it been found that the subjects of them are the holiest persons in the Church; just as the Corinthian Church, though most exercised by these gifts, was by no means eminent among the Churches for its holiness. And so the existence of this phenomenon in the Irvingite assemblies was no proof of superior holiness.

Except he interpret—For either the charismatic speaker may follow his utterance with an interpretation, (as in the case adduced by Dr. Bushnell,) or another person gifted with interpretation might interpret. This clause seems to imply that the utterer with tongues could not always explain his own utterance. The inspiration reached the spirit, and wakened powerful emotions, but did not quicken the understanding; so that the vocality, though expressive, was not understood as words by the subject himself.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I would that ye all spake with tongues. The language of relative disparagement which St. Paul uses throughout these chapters may lead us to regard this with surprise. Yet it is perfectly intelligible. Montanus truly said that each human spirit is like a harp, which the Holy Spirit strikes as with a plectrum, and which yields itself to the mighty hand by which the chords are swept. We have seen all along and history has in various ages confirmed the impression, on every occasion when these phenomena have been reproduced in seasons of great spiritual revival that the external symptoms may be imitated with most dangerous and objectionable results both to the speaker and to others. But when the expression is genuine, the fact that the tides of the Spirit can thus sweep through the narrow channels of individuality is in itself a sign that the spirit of the man is alive and not dead; and thus he is an evidence of God"s power both to himself and to others. Those who have heard "the tongue" have told me that its force, melody, and penetrative quality produced an impression not to be forgotten. When we see the stuffed and stopped-up hearts and lives of thousands of frivolous and worldly money worshippers, we might well echo St. Paul"s wish. Greater. Not of necessity greater absolutely or morally, but greater in the fact of his wider and deeper usefulness. Except he interpret. From this we infer that sometimes, when the passion had spent its force, the speaker in the tongue could give rational explanation of the thoughts and feelings to which he had given ecstatic utterance.

The Church"s edification the object sought in the trust of Christian gifts.

the Church may receive edifying." In classifying the Christian gifts, talents, and endowments, the first broad distinction to be made is between such as direct attention to the possessor, and such as give the possessor a gracious power of influence on others. Gifts which glorify the man who has them are not to be despised; but the apostle conceived that gifts which take men out of themselves, and only find their exercise in the help and blessing of others, are rather to be sought. The man who can speak in ecstatic language or in an unknown tongue, may seem to be supremely endowed, and men may be disposed to envy his gift; but it only draws attention to him; it only excites feeling; it bears no relation either to intellectual or moral culture. It serves its ends, and possibly these are simply to call attention to Christian preaching, and bring men into relation with the Christian teachers. The question which decides our estimate of the value of the different gifts is this How does each bear upon spiritual profit; upon the edifying of the Church? "The teacher of religious truth to others, who thereby builds up the whole edifice of the body of Christ, is a greater one than he who is himself benefited by being possessed of profound but uncommunicable emotion." Opening this point, we notice

I THE INTEREST OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE CHURCH. The Church is a body made up of units; but it is not a mere aggregation of units; every unit is related vitally with every other unit, and in mutual helpfulness a common life is maintained. Schism comes when the interest of the individual is centred in self. The useless members of a Church are those who are satisfied to get, not to give. Each member ought even to nourish his own personal piety with a view to aid the healthiness and vigour of the whole body. Illustrate by the modern discovery of the formation of living beings from germ cells. These do not lie side by side; they divide and form new cells, so that every single cell may be said to be in the whole creature, interested in the vitality of the whole.

II THE PROOF OF THAT INTEREST IN THE DEVOTION AND USE OF INDIVIDUAL GIFTS. Gifts are not personal privileges, signs of special favour to individuals; they are always trusts committed to individual members of the Church for the use and benefit of the whole. A man only looks at his gift aright when, in the presence of the Church, he says, "This gift is for you; I hold it for your use. Find me the sphere in which I may serve you best in the use of the gift." How sublime the riches and strength of Christ"s Church would be if each endowed man and woman would lay his gifts on the altar of the Church"s service!

III THE CULTURE AND PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH ARE ONLY SECURED BY SUCH DEVOTION AND USE OF GIFTS. Illustrate by taking the separate endowments and fitting them to their parts of the Church"s edifying. Take:

1. The aesthetic or artistic gift; show how it bears upon the culture of the Church"s sense of the beautiful, helping thus to worthy conceptions of one side of the Divine nature.

2. The musical gift; showing how it bears upon edifying by the relief of overcharged feeling, and aids in knitting the Church together by the common expression of common emotions.

3. The preaching and teaching gift; which stands related to mental culture, intellectual edification.

4. The literary gift; which in these days becomes the great defensive agency, by which the evils of the Church are kept off from her, so that she may duly thrive and grow. Others may be mentioned, or subdivisions of these may be taken. Press the importance of encouraging in each member full loyalty to the Church; and show that this becomes a valuable agency in spiritual edification, because it ensures the full and self denying devotement of all the members" powers to the Church"s well being. The true and full upbuilding of a Church includes many things, great and small, and so there is need for the use of what we estimate as lesser and greater gifts. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Greater - That is, more useful. By this alone are we to estimate all our gifts and talents.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

5. “I wish you all to speak with tongues, but rather that you may prophesy; but greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues unless he interpret in order that the church may receive edification.” E. g., I preach, teach and write constantly from the original Greek, making no use of the English translations. Now suppose I should read and speak the Greek; you know it would be unintelligible and of no value to the hearer. Hence in so doing I would not only forfeit my opportunities to do good, but actually grieve the Holy Spirit. Hence I do not use this unknown tongue in my ministry to the people, though I have it constantly before my eyes; but I translate it whether preaching by speech or pen, so the people receive the truth in plain English. While the use of this dead language to me is invaluable, and through me to others of infinite value; yet prophesying,.

e. g., speaking and writing to them in their own language, is infinitely more important, so they can receive it. Hence Paul gives the constant preeminence to prophecy, i. e., that spiritual gift which qualifies us to talk salvation to everybody we meet, thus “preaching with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven,” with the grand end in view “that the church may receive edification.” Oh, what a burning emphasis Paul lays on this injunction! We should constantly watch and be sure that everything is edifying to the church. I preached a funeral yesterday; the organ made so much noise and the voices were so indistinct, that the good and suitable funeral songs which they sang were not intelligently heard by the people. We have no criticism for instrumental music, if it does not destroy the intelligence of the gospel in song. In this way, religious meetings lose their interest and utterly break down. God here commands us “to sing with the spirit and the understanding.” We have no right to do anything in a religious meeting in such a way as to render it unintelligible to the people, as all such procedure is subversive of the real interest and grievous to the Holy Spirit, who uses our songs, prayers, testimonies and sermons to reach human spirits through their mental faculties, which proves a failure when unintelligible. When we worship in the spirit and the understanding, i. e., let the Holy Ghost have His way and manage the meeting, and do our part in such a manner as to be understood by the audience, you will always see the glory of God manifested in conviction, conversion, sanctification and edification. Church services are devilishly murdered by unintelligible singing, preludes, interludes and postludes, solos, so indistinct or slow and dead that they are an insult to human intelligence and a contempt of the Divine presence; prayers and testimonies too low and indistinct to be intelligently heard, and “highfalutin” sermons out of reach of the people. Consequently they resort to artistic phantasmagoria to entertain the people in the house of God, where there should be nothing whatever to attract their attention but the worship of the Most High in the songs of Zion ringing out the awful truth as revealed in God’s Word, fervent and earnest prayers, not only replete with gospel truth, but so loud and distinct that the people all hear them without an effort; testimonies fired by the Holy Ghost, full of gospel truth; and so clear and intelligent as to reach every auditor; and especially the preaching, clear, plain, distinct and irresistibly intelligible to all the people. As a rule, the people get so far from the preacher that the message loses its force before it reaches them; they miss words enough in every sentence to lose the connection and forfeit the intelligibility. Consequently the people go to meeting day after day and get nothing. No wonder they are not saved. God’s plan is to reach them through the mental faculties with which He has endued them. In this matter there is a fearful responsibility. Look out! God Almighty is going to make inquisition for blood in the Judgment Day. What will become of the preachers who so overtly violate the commandments of God in this paragraph, conducting services in their churches Sabbath after Sabbath, which are almost as unintelligible as if in an unknown language? The singing is done by Satan’s choir in an operatic, fantastical and utterly unintelligible way. The drag, humdrum routine is literally murderous to spiritual life. So fast as Satan tightens his grip on a church the services pass out of the comprehension of the people, lest they may get a little bit of gospel truth and be saved. Hence we see this problem verified in wicked, debauched Romanism, where the service is spoken in the old Latin language throughout the whole world, for people speaking a hundred different languages know not a word of this dead Latin. Even the citizens of Rome do not understand it, because a radical revolution has taken place, relegating the Latin to the archives of antiquity and giving the modern Italians an entirely different language. It is a fact patent to all and deniable by none that the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world is positively and overtly violating the plain commandments of God in this paragraph by holding their services in the Latin language.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater [because more profitable] is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Greater is he that prophesieth. Greater, because he serves the church best. Unless the tongues were interpreted, they were an unmeaning sound to the church, while he who prophesied, instructed and built it up.

Note. —Concerning this gift of tongues, there is considerable confusion among commentators. Some have held that it was a sort of rhapsody under the influence of the Spirit in no earthly language. Others have held that it was a gift of the knowledge of foreign languages to the early Christians to enable them to preach the gospel to all nations. Neither view appears to be correct. 1. Undoubtedly there was a manifestation of the gift of tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts, chapter 2). Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Greeks, Romans, heard in their own language. 2. It was not a gift of the knowledge of a foreign language, for verses 13 and 14 show that the speaker did not understand his own words. 3. It was a gift, not for exercise in the church, but a “sign to them that believe not” (verse 22). When they heard the gospel message in a tongue which the speaker did not understand, but in their own tongue (as on the Day of Pentecost), their wonder was excited, and many would confess that it was the work of God.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

The one who prophesies is greater

Paul is emphasizing that the gift of prophecy is greater than the gift of speaking in tongues. AT: "The one who prophesies has a greater gift" (See: Synecdoche)

interprets

This means to tell what someone has said in a language to others who do not understand that language. See how this is translated in 1 Corinthians 2:13.

how will I benefit you?

This can be a statement. AT: "I will not benefit you." or "I will not have done anything that helps you." (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

tongue

prophet

church

reveal

know

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5. μείζων δὲ אAB. Rec. for δέ reads γάρ with DEFG, Vetus Lat. Vulg. Peshito.

5. δέ. The first δέ here is adversative, the second continuatory. The third δέ is also continuatory. The γάρ of the rec. text (see Critical Note) would make much better sense, and was probably introduced as a correction for that purpose (though it might have been an oversight). Yet the text gives a good sense if we interpret thus: ‘I should like you to speak with tongues, and still more that you should prophesy; and he, too, who prophesies, is greater than he who speaks with tongues.’ For μείζων see ch. 1Co 12:31.

ἵνα προφητεύητε. That ye should prophesy. Here, again, it is impossible to give the telic sense to ἵνα, though with λάβῃ below that sense must be given.

ἐκτὸς εἱ μή. An instance of redundancy. Either ἐκτός or εἰ μὴ would have been sufficient.

διερμηνεύῃ. This passage clearly implies that a man might speak in another language without himself knowing what he was saying, see 1Co 14:14. Some, however, regard the speaking with tongues as ecstatic utterances in no human language, such as took place among the Montanists in ancient, and the Irvingites in modern times. See Stanley’s introduction to this section. Cf. note on ch. 1Co 12:10.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5.] He shews that it is from no antipathy to or jealousy of the gift of tongues that he thus speaks: but (force of the δέ) that he wished them all to speak with tongues, but rather that they should prophesy. The distinction between the acc. and inf. after θέλω, as the simple direct object of the wish, and ἵνα with the subj., as its higher and ulterior object, has been lost in the E. V. The second δέ is opposed to the subordinate λαλ. γλ., as in ver. 1 to τὰ πνευματικά.

μείζων δέ] δέ is transitional.

μείζων] see reff.,—superior in usefulness, and therefore in dignity.

ἐκτὸς εἰ μή is a mixture of two constructions, ἐκτὸς εἰ, and εἰ μή. It is not a Hebraism, as Grot, supposes; Wetst. gives examples from Demosth., Aristides, Lucian, Sextus Empiricus: and from Thom. Mag., φαμέν, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ τόδε, καὶ ἐκτὸς εἰ τόδε.

διερμηνεύῃ] viz. ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ, not τις, as suggested by Flatt. On the subj. with εἰ, giving a sense not distinguishable from the ind., see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 2 end, and Herm., on Soph. 706.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε. The change from the infinitive to ἵνα is perhaps meant to make the wish more intense; but this is sufficiently expressed by the μᾶλλον. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. p. 208. Nowhere else does St Paul use θέλω ἵνα, but it is not rare (Mat 7:12; Mar 6:25, Mar 6:9:30; Luk 6:31; Joh 17:24): in such cases the telic force is lost, and the ἵνα gives the object of the wish. ‘Now I wish that all of you might speak with Tongues, yet I wish still more that ye should prophesy; as (δέ as in v. 2) greater is he,’ etc. The ‘for’ of AV. is a little too pronounced, but is defensible, even without γάρ for δέ: see below. The Corinthians are exhorted ne, praepostero zelo, quod praecipuum est minoribus postponant (Calv.). As M. Aurelius (viii. 59) says, “Men are made for one another.” As for the unsatisfactory ones, “either teach them better or put up with them.”

The apodosis (τί ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσῶ;) is placed between two protases, which are co-ordinate, the second, on the negative side, being complementary to the first, on the positive side; ‘If I come speaking with Tongues, instead of speaking either in the way of revelation,’ etc.

ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ. Pleonastic combination of ἐκτὸς εἰ and εἰ μή: ‘with this exception, unless he interpret’; comp. 15:2; 1Ti 5:19. The man who spoke in a Tongue might also have the gift of interpreting Tongues, and si accedat interpretatio, jam exit prophetia (Calv.). The δια- in διερμηνεύειν may indicate either ‘being a go-between’ or ‘thoroughness.’ One who interprets his own words intervenes between unintelligible utterance and the hearers: comp. 13, 27, 12:30.

μείζων δέ (א A B P, Copt.) is to be prefered to μείζων γάρ (D F K L, Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). Nisi forte interpretetur (Vulg.), ‘unless possibly he should interpret,’ is not exact: this would require ἐάν. Omit forte: the εἰ intimates that his interpreting decides the point. It would be known that he possessed the gift of interpretation. On ἐκτὸς εἰ μή see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 118, and on εἰ with the subjunctive see J. H. Moulton, Gr. i. p. 187, and Ellicott on 1Co 9:11. where some good texts have θερίσωμεν. This is the only sure instance in the N.T., and it means that his subsequent interpretation is regarded as quite possible.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 5. “Now I would that ye all spake in tongues, and rather that ye prophesied; but greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the Church may receive edifying.”

The following is the result of 1Co 14:1-4 : the gift of tongues is a good thing; but prophecy is superior to it, unless by interpretation the discourse in a tongue be transformed into prophecy. The first δέ is progressive, now: “Now I do not reject glossolalia, I desire that it should abound; but I desire still more earnestly the development of the gift of prophecy.”

The γάρ, for, which, in the Greco-Lat. and Byz. texts, connects the second part of the verse with the first, has been substituted for the much more difficult δέ, which is the reading of the Alex. The δέ is adversative; it is well explained by Holsten: “But yet there is a case in which the man who speaks in a tongue is as great as the prophet.” The term great is used here from the standpoint of utility. The measure of this greatness is borrowed from the principle of charity.

In the form ἐκτὸς εἰ μή, unless...not, the μή, not, is a pleonasm arising from the mixing of the two following constructions: excepting if (ἐκτὸς εἰ), and: if not (εἰ μή).

The subject of except he interpret can be no other than the glossolalete himself. No doubt, failing him, some other might do it (comp. 1Co 14:27). But, as a rule, Paul expected that he should do it himself (1Co 14:13; 1Co 14:15). There was thus less room left for arbitrariness. By way of analogy, we may imagine a man coming out of a dream and explaining what he has seen and heard, and so giving account of the broken exclamations and words which the bystanders had heard without understanding them.

The διά, in the verb, indicates the detailed, discursive element of the contents of the brief and summary sayings uttered in a tongue.

The complete uselessness of tongues without interpretation is demonstrated in what follows by a series of examples, 1Co 14:6-12.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.