King James Version
1 Corinthians 14
40 verses with commentary
Prophecy and Tongues
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
View commentary
Follow after charity (διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην, diōkete tēn agapēn—"pursue love")—Paul transitions from chapter 13's love hymn by making agapē the primary spiritual pursuit. Desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy contrasts zēloō ("be zealous for") with mallon ("more, rather")—not forbidding tongues, but establishing a hierarchy based on edification.
The imperative "pursue" (present active, continuous action) frames the entire chapter: love governs all spiritual expression. Prophēteuō (προφητεύω, "prophesy") here means Spirit-inspired, intelligible speech that builds up the church—not merely foretelling, but "forth-telling" God's truth. This sets up the chapter's central argument: intelligibility serves love.
The imperative "pursue" (present active, continuous action) frames the entire chapter: love governs all spiritual expression. Prophēteuō (προφητεύω, "prophesy") here means Spirit-inspired, intelligible speech that builds up the church—not merely foretelling, but "forth-telling" God's truth. This sets up the chapter's central argument: intelligibility serves love.
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. understandeth: Gr. heareth
View commentary
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God—the Greek simply has glōssa (γλῶσσα, "tongue/language"), with "unknown" supplied by translators. Paul's point: uninterpreted tongues are vertically directed (God-ward) but horizontally ineffective (man-ward). No man understandeth him (oudeis akouei, "no one hears/understands")—without interpretation, tongues lack communicative function in corporate worship.
In the spirit he speaketh mysteries (πνεύματι λαλεῖ μυστήρια)—pneumati could be "in spirit" (his spirit) or "by the Spirit" (Holy Spirit), likely the former given the context of private devotion. Mystēria are divine secrets, but here secrets that remain secret—unknown to hearers, thus failing to edify.
In the spirit he speaketh mysteries (πνεύματι λαλεῖ μυστήρια)—pneumati could be "in spirit" (his spirit) or "by the Spirit" (Holy Spirit), likely the former given the context of private devotion. Mystēria are divine secrets, but here secrets that remain secret—unknown to hearers, thus failing to edify.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
View commentary
He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort—Paul defines prophecy by its three-fold effect: (1) oikodomē (οἰκοδομή, "edification, building up"), (2) paraklēsis (παράκλησις, "exhortation, encouragement"), (3) paramythia (παραμυθία, "comfort, consolation"). All three require intelligible speech directed toward human need.
The contrast with verse 2 is total: prophecy is horizontal (toward men), comprehensible, and constructive. The Greek verb laleo ("speak") appears in both verses, but prophecy's speech has purpose—it builds, encourages, comforts. This is the edification principle that governs the entire chapter: whatever doesn't build up the body fails love's test.
The contrast with verse 2 is total: prophecy is horizontal (toward men), comprehensible, and constructive. The Greek verb laleo ("speak") appears in both verses, but prophecy's speech has purpose—it builds, encourages, comforts. This is the edification principle that governs the entire chapter: whatever doesn't build up the body fails love's test.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
View commentary
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself (ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ, heauton oikodomei)—Paul concedes tongues have personal devotional value. But he that prophesieth edifieth the church (ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ, ekklēsian oikodomei)—the contrast is between self-edification and corporate edification.
Paul doesn't denigrate private edification (see v. 18, he practices it himself), but in gathered worship, the church's needs trump personal blessing. The repetition of oikodomeo ("build, edify") hammers home the principle: worship's purpose is mutual upbuilding. Love seeks the other's benefit (13:5, "seeketh not her own"), so corporate worship must prioritize corporate edification.
Paul doesn't denigrate private edification (see v. 18, he practices it himself), but in gathered worship, the church's needs trump personal blessing. The repetition of oikodomeo ("build, edify") hammers home the principle: worship's purpose is mutual upbuilding. Love seeks the other's benefit (13:5, "seeketh not her own"), so corporate worship must prioritize corporate edification.
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.
View commentary
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied—Paul affirms tongues as a genuine gift (thelō, "I wish/desire") while maintaining prophecy's superiority (mallon, "more, rather"). Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues uses meizōn (μείζων, "greater") to establish a hierarchy based on edification, not authenticity.
Except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying—the critical exception: tongues plus interpretation equals prophecy in effect. The purpose clause hina hē ekklēsia oikodomēn labē ("that the church may receive edification") reveals the governing principle: edification is the goal, and intelligibility is the means. Tongues without interpretation fail this test; with interpretation, they serve love.
Except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying—the critical exception: tongues plus interpretation equals prophecy in effect. The purpose clause hina hē ekklēsia oikodomēn labē ("that the church may receive edification") reveals the governing principle: edification is the goal, and intelligibility is the means. Tongues without interpretation fail this test; with interpretation, they serve love.
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
View commentary
If I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you?—Paul uses himself as an example. The verb ōpheleō (ὠφελέω, "profit, benefit") echoes the love principle (13:3, "it profiteth me nothing"). Except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine—Paul lists four intelligible modes of Spirit-prompted instruction: (1) apokalypsis (ἀποκάλυψις, "revelation, unveiling"), (2) gnōsis (γνῶσις, "knowledge"), (3) prophēteia (προφητεία, "prophecy"), (4) didachē (διδαχή, "teaching, doctrine").
All four require intelligibility. Paul's rhetorical question expects the answer: "You gain nothing from my tongues." The fourfold list encompasses the range of edifying Spirit-speech—whether unveiling mystery, imparting knowledge, prophesying, or teaching, all must be understood to profit hearers.
All four require intelligibility. Paul's rhetorical question expects the answer: "You gain nothing from my tongues." The fourfold list encompasses the range of edifying Spirit-speech—whether unveiling mystery, imparting knowledge, prophesying, or teaching, all must be understood to profit hearers.
And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? sounds: or, tunes
View commentary
Even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp—Paul uses an analogy from musical instruments (apsycha phōnēn didonta, "lifeless things giving sound"). Except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? The Greek diastolos (διαστολή, "distinction, difference") refers to discrete, recognizable tones.
The rhetorical question drives home the point: even inanimate instruments require intelligible patterns to communicate. Random notes aren't music; they're noise. Similarly, uninterpreted tongues lack the diastolos necessary for meaningful communication. Paul's analogy appeals to common sense: communication requires distinction, pattern, intelligibility.
The rhetorical question drives home the point: even inanimate instruments require intelligible patterns to communicate. Random notes aren't music; they're noise. Similarly, uninterpreted tongues lack the diastolos necessary for meaningful communication. Paul's analogy appeals to common sense: communication requires distinction, pattern, intelligibility.
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
View commentary
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? The military analogy intensifies the argument. Greek adēlos phōnēn (ἄδηλος φωνή, "uncertain/unclear sound") from a war trumpet (salpigx, σάλπιγξ) means no one knows whether to advance, retreat, or stand.
The rhetorical question expects: "No one!" An unclear trumpet is worse than useless—it's dangerous, causing confusion in crisis. Paul's escalation from music (v. 7) to warfare (v. 8) raises the stakes: unclear communication in worship isn't merely aesthetically displeasing; it's spiritually perilous. The church at worship is the church at war (Eph 6:10-20), and soldiers need clear commands.
The rhetorical question expects: "No one!" An unclear trumpet is worse than useless—it's dangerous, causing confusion in crisis. Paul's escalation from music (v. 7) to warfare (v. 8) raises the stakes: unclear communication in worship isn't merely aesthetically displeasing; it's spiritually perilous. The church at worship is the church at war (Eph 6:10-20), and soldiers need clear commands.
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. easy: Gr. significant
View commentary
Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood—Greek eusēmos logos (εὔσημος λόγος, "intelligible word/clear speech") makes the principle explicit. How shall it be known what is spoken? The rhetorical question repeats the pattern (vv. 7, 8), driving home the point. For ye shall speak into the air—speaking eis aera (εἰς ἀέρα, "into the air") means speaking to no one, achieving nothing.
Paul's cumulative argument: music without distinction (v. 7), trumpets without clarity (v. 8), speech without intelligibility (v. 9)—all fail their purpose. The phrase "into the air" is withering: uninterpreted tongues accomplish exactly nothing in corporate worship. The edification principle demands intelligibility.
Paul's cumulative argument: music without distinction (v. 7), trumpets without clarity (v. 8), speech without intelligibility (v. 9)—all fail their purpose. The phrase "into the air" is withering: uninterpreted tongues accomplish exactly nothing in corporate worship. The edification principle demands intelligibility.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification .
View commentary
There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world—Greek tosauta genē phōnōn (τοσαῦτα γένη φωνῶν, "so many kinds of voices/languages"). Paul acknowledges the world's linguistic diversity. And none of them is without signification (aphōnon, ἄφωνον, "voiceless, meaningless")—every language has meaning to those who speak it.
The argument: every human language is meaningful within its community. The problem with uninterpreted tongues isn't that they lack meaning absolutely, but that they lack meaning to the hearers. Communication requires shared understanding. Tongues are legitimate languages (heavenly or earthly, Paul doesn't specify), but without interpretation, they're functionally meaningless in a gathering where no one understands.
The argument: every human language is meaningful within its community. The problem with uninterpreted tongues isn't that they lack meaning absolutely, but that they lack meaning to the hearers. Communication requires shared understanding. Tongues are legitimate languages (heavenly or earthly, Paul doesn't specify), but without interpretation, they're functionally meaningless in a gathering where no one understands.
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
View commentary
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian—Greek barbaros (βάρβαρος) originally meant a non-Greek speaker (from "bar-bar," the sound of incomprehensible speech). And he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me—the mutual incomprehension makes both parties "barbarians" to each other.
Paul's point: uninterpreted tongues create the same alienation as a language barrier. The term barbaros isn't ethnic slur but linguistic description—without shared language, we're foreigners to each other. In the church, called to unity (12:13, "one body"), creating linguistic barriers through uninterpreted tongues contradicts the gospel's reconciling power. Pentecost gave intelligible speech (Acts 2:6, "every man heard them speak in his own language"); Corinth's tongues without interpretation creates Babel.
Paul's point: uninterpreted tongues create the same alienation as a language barrier. The term barbaros isn't ethnic slur but linguistic description—without shared language, we're foreigners to each other. In the church, called to unity (12:13, "one body"), creating linguistic barriers through uninterpreted tongues contradicts the gospel's reconciling power. Pentecost gave intelligible speech (Acts 2:6, "every man heard them speak in his own language"); Corinth's tongues without interpretation creates Babel.
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. of spiritual gifts: Gr. of spirits
View commentary
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts—Paul acknowledges their zēlōtai (ζηλωταί, "zealots, enthusiasts") for pneumatōn (πνευμάτων, "spirits" or "spiritual gifts"). Seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church—Greek zēteite hina... perisseūēte (ζητεῖτε ἵνα... περισσεύητε, "seek that you may abound") redirects their zeal toward oikodomē tēs ekklēsias (οἰκοδομή τῆς ἐκκλησίας, "edification of the church").
Paul doesn't quench their enthusiasm ("zealous") but redirects it toward the right goal ("edifying of the church"). The verb perisseuō ("abound, excel") suggests abundance, but abundance measured by edification, not personal experience. This verse summarizes verses 1-11: pursue gifts that build up the body.
Paul doesn't quench their enthusiasm ("zealous") but redirects it toward the right goal ("edifying of the church"). The verb perisseuō ("abound, excel") suggests abundance, but abundance measured by edification, not personal experience. This verse summarizes verses 1-11: pursue gifts that build up the body.
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
View commentary
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret—Paul's practical command: the tongues-speaker should proseuchesthō hina diermēneuē (προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ, "pray that he might interpret"). This assumes (1) interpretation is a distinct gift from tongues, (2) it can be sought through prayer, (3) the same person can potentially exercise both gifts.
Paul doesn't say "stop speaking in tongues"; he says "pray for interpretation." This transforms tongues from self-edifying to church-edifying speech. The command places responsibility on the tongues-speaker: if you're going to exercise this gift publicly, ensure it edifies by seeking the interpretation gift. Love (chapter 13) compels this: don't settle for self-edification when you could serve the body.
Paul doesn't say "stop speaking in tongues"; he says "pray for interpretation." This transforms tongues from self-edifying to church-edifying speech. The command places responsibility on the tongues-speaker: if you're going to exercise this gift publicly, ensure it edifies by seeking the interpretation gift. Love (chapter 13) compels this: don't settle for self-edification when you could serve the body.
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
View commentary
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful—Paul distinguishes between to pneuma mou (τὸ πνεῦμά μου, "my spirit") and ho nous mou (ὁ νοῦς μου, "my mind/understanding"). The adjective akarpos (ἄκαρπος, "unfruitful, barren") describes his nous when praying in tongues.
This doesn't mean tongues-prayer is invalid—the spirit is engaged. But the mind (nous, rational faculty) is bypassed, producing no "fruit" (understanding, reflection, directed thought). Paul values whole-person engagement in worship: spirit and mind, emotion and intellect, experience and understanding. Tongues engage one dimension; Paul wants both.
This doesn't mean tongues-prayer is invalid—the spirit is engaged. But the mind (nous, rational faculty) is bypassed, producing no "fruit" (understanding, reflection, directed thought). Paul values whole-person engagement in worship: spirit and mind, emotion and intellect, experience and understanding. Tongues engage one dimension; Paul wants both.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
View commentary
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also—Paul resolves the tension with kai (καί, "both/and"). He'll pray tō pneumati (τῷ πνεύματι, "with the spirit") and tō noi (τῷ νοΐ, "with the mind"). I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also—the same principle applies to singing (psalō, ψάλλω, "sing psalms").
Paul's "both/and" refuses to sacrifice either dimension. True Spirit-filled worship engages the whole person—emotions, will, intellect, spirit. The four-fold "I will" (proseuxomai... proseuxomai... psalō... psalō) emphasizes determined commitment to integrated worship. Paul won't choose between Spirit and mind; he'll worship with both.
Paul's "both/and" refuses to sacrifice either dimension. True Spirit-filled worship engages the whole person—emotions, will, intellect, spirit. The four-fold "I will" (proseuxomai... proseuxomai... psalō... psalō) emphasizes determined commitment to integrated worship. Paul won't choose between Spirit and mind; he'll worship with both.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
View commentary
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen?—Paul imagines someone giving eulogia (εὐλογία, "blessing, thanksgiving") in tongues. The person anaplerou ton topon tou idiōtou (ἀναπληροῦ τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου, "filling the place of the unlearned/uninitiated") can't say Amēn (Ἀμήν, "so be it, truly").
Idiōtēs (ἰδιώτης) means a private person, layman, or here, someone ignorant of the tongue being spoken. Seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest—without understanding, the hearer can't affirm with "Amen," the congregational response of agreement (Deut 27:15-26). Uninterpreted tongues make corporate worship impossible; participants become spectators.
Idiōtēs (ἰδιώτης) means a private person, layman, or here, someone ignorant of the tongue being spoken. Seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest—without understanding, the hearer can't affirm with "Amen," the congregational response of agreement (Deut 27:15-26). Uninterpreted tongues make corporate worship impossible; participants become spectators.
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
View commentary
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified—Paul concedes the tongues-speaker gives eucharisteis (εὐχαριστεῖς, "thanksgiving") kalōs (καλῶς, "well, beautifully"). But ho heteros (ὁ ἕτερος, "the other person") is ouk oikodomeitai (οὐκ οἰκοδομεῖται, "not edified").
The concession is gracious: your tongues-thanksgiving is genuine and beautiful—before God. But in corporate worship, one person's blessing that doesn't edify others fails the love test. The contrast between "well" and "not edified" is devastating: sincerity doesn't excuse failure to serve. This echoes 13:1-3—even the most spectacular gifts without love accomplish nothing.
The concession is gracious: your tongues-thanksgiving is genuine and beautiful—before God. But in corporate worship, one person's blessing that doesn't edify others fails the love test. The contrast between "well" and "not edified" is devastating: sincerity doesn't excuse failure to serve. This echoes 13:1-3—even the most spectacular gifts without love accomplish nothing.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
View commentary
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all—Paul's surprising disclosure: eucharistō tō theō mou, pantōn hymōn mallon glōssais lalōn (εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶν, "I thank my God, speaking in tongues more than all of you"). This prevents misunderstanding: Paul isn't anti-tongues; he exercises the gift extensively—privately.
The present participle lalōn (λαλῶν, "speaking") suggests ongoing practice. Paul's comparative "more than you all" establishes authority: he's not speaking from ignorance or lack of experience. His regulation of tongues comes from one who values and exercises the gift. But notice: he thanks God for private tongues-prayer, then immediately contrasts public worship (v. 19).
The present participle lalōn (λαλῶν, "speaking") suggests ongoing practice. Paul's comparative "more than you all" establishes authority: he's not speaking from ignorance or lack of experience. His regulation of tongues comes from one who values and exercises the gift. But notice: he thanks God for private tongues-prayer, then immediately contrasts public worship (v. 19).
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
View commentary
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding—the emphatic contrast: alla en ekklēsia (ἀλλὰ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, "but in church"), Paul prefers pente logous dia tou noos mou (πέντε λόγους διὰ τοῦ νοός μου, "five words through my mind"). That by my voice I might teach others also (hina kai allous katēchēsō, "that I might instruct others also")—the purpose is katēcheō (κατηχέω, "instruct, teach," root of "catechize").
Than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue—the hyperbolic contrast (5 vs. 10,000) emphasizes the point. In corporate worship, comprehensibility so outweighs incomprehensibility that five intelligible words trump ten thousand unintelligible ones. The ratio reveals Paul's values: edification through instruction is infinitely more valuable than impressive but unintelligible speech.
Than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue—the hyperbolic contrast (5 vs. 10,000) emphasizes the point. In corporate worship, comprehensibility so outweighs incomprehensibility that five intelligible words trump ten thousand unintelligible ones. The ratio reveals Paul's values: edification through instruction is infinitely more valuable than impressive but unintelligible speech.
Orderly Worship
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. men: Gr. perfect, or, of a ripe age
View commentary
Brethren, be not children in understanding—Greek mē paidia ginesthe tais phresin (μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν, "don't be children in mind/thinking"). Phrenes (φρένες) means understanding, judgment, thought. Howbeit in malice be ye children—the positive contrast: tē kakia nēpiazete (τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, "in evil/malice be infants"). But in understanding be men (teleioi, τέλειοι, "mature, complete, adults").
Paul calls for moral innocence (childlike in evil) but intellectual maturity (adult in thinking). The Corinthians' fascination with showy tongues reveals immaturity—prioritizing spectacular experience over the hard work of understanding and teaching. True maturity discriminates between gifts based on edification, not impressiveness.
Paul calls for moral innocence (childlike in evil) but intellectual maturity (adult in thinking). The Corinthians' fascination with showy tongues reveals immaturity—prioritizing spectacular experience over the hard work of understanding and teaching. True maturity discriminates between gifts based on edification, not impressiveness.
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
View commentary
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people—Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12, a judgment oracle against unbelieving Israel. God said He'd speak through foreign invaders' languages (Assyrian), a sign of judgment for rejecting His clear prophetic word. And yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord—even judgment-tongues wouldn't produce faith.
Paul's exegesis: tongues functioned in Isaiah as a sign of judgment for unbelief, not a blessing for believers. The citation prepares for verse 22: tongues are a sign for unbelievers (a negative sign, indicating judgment), while prophecy serves believers (building them up). The OT citation grounds Paul's argument in redemptive history: God's use of incomprehensible speech signaled judgment, not favor.
Paul's exegesis: tongues functioned in Isaiah as a sign of judgment for unbelief, not a blessing for believers. The citation prepares for verse 22: tongues are a sign for unbelievers (a negative sign, indicating judgment), while prophecy serves believers (building them up). The OT citation grounds Paul's argument in redemptive history: God's use of incomprehensible speech signaled judgment, not favor.
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
View commentary
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not—Greek hōste hai glōssai eis sēmeion eisin (ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖον εἰσιν, "so tongues are for a sign"), but for tois apistois (τοῖς ἀπίστοις, "the unbelieving"), not tois pisteuousin (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, "the believing"). But prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe—the chiastic reversal.
The "sign" is ambiguous (see v. 21's judgment context): tongues serve as a sign to unbelievers—but what kind? Verse 23 clarifies: unbelievers hearing tongues think Christians are mad, hardly a positive witness. Paul's point: tongues don't convert unbelievers (they confuse them), while prophecy edifies believers. The Corinthians had it backwards, prizing tongues in believer-gatherings where prophecy should dominate.
The "sign" is ambiguous (see v. 21's judgment context): tongues serve as a sign to unbelievers—but what kind? Verse 23 clarifies: unbelievers hearing tongues think Christians are mad, hardly a positive witness. Paul's point: tongues don't convert unbelievers (they confuse them), while prophecy edifies believers. The Corinthians had it backwards, prizing tongues in believer-gatherings where prophecy should dominate.
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
View commentary
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues—Paul imagines a corporate gathering where pantes glōssais lalōsin (πάντες γλώσσαις λαλῶσιν, "all speak in tongues"). And there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers—idiōtai (ἰδιῶται, "uninitiated, outsiders") or apistoi (ἄπιστοι, "unbelievers") enter. Will they not say that ye are mad? The rhetorical question expects "Yes"—maineste (μαίνεσθε, "you are insane, raving").
This is devastating to the Corinthians' view: far from being a positive sign (v. 22), uninterpreted tongues make Christianity look like insanity to outsiders. The word mainomai describes ecstatic religious mania (Acts 26:24, Festus tells Paul "you are mad"). Pagan mystery religions featured ecstatic glossolalia; to outsiders, Christian tongues without interpretation looked identical—religious frenzy, not divine revelation.
This is devastating to the Corinthians' view: far from being a positive sign (v. 22), uninterpreted tongues make Christianity look like insanity to outsiders. The word mainomai describes ecstatic religious mania (Acts 26:24, Festus tells Paul "you are mad"). Pagan mystery religions featured ecstatic glossolalia; to outsiders, Christian tongues without interpretation looked identical—religious frenzy, not divine revelation.
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
View commentary
But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned—Paul contrasts a prophecy-dominated service with the tongues-dominated one (v. 23). He is convinced of all, he is judged of all—the unbeliever is elegchetai hypo pantōn, anakrinetai hypo pantōn (ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων, "convicted by all, examined by all").
Elegchō (ἐλέγχω) means to convict, expose, bring to light—the Spirit's work through prophecy (John 16:8). Anakrinō (ἀνακρίνω) means to examine, scrutinize, judge. Intelligible, Spirit-prompted preaching penetrates the unbeliever's conscience, exposing sin and revealing truth. This is true evangelistic power—not ecstatic display, but convicting proclamation.
Elegchō (ἐλέγχω) means to convict, expose, bring to light—the Spirit's work through prophecy (John 16:8). Anakrinō (ἀνακρίνω) means to examine, scrutinize, judge. Intelligible, Spirit-prompted preaching penetrates the unbeliever's conscience, exposing sin and revealing truth. This is true evangelistic power—not ecstatic display, but convicting proclamation.
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
View commentary
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest—Greek ta krypta tēs kardias autou phanera ginetai (τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, "the hidden things of his heart become manifest"). Prophetic preaching, illuminated by the Spirit, exposes the hearer's inner life. And so falling down on his face he will worship God—the result: pesōn epi prosōpon proskynēsei tō theō (πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον προσκυνήσει τῷ θεῷ, "falling on [his] face, he will worship God").
And report that God is in you of a truth (ontos ho theos en hymin estin, ὄντως ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν, "truly God is among you"). This echoes Isaiah 45:14 (LXX), where Gentiles recognize God's presence in Israel. True worship—intelligible, Spirit-filled proclamation—makes God's presence undeniable. Tongues impress no one; prophecy convicts and converts.
And report that God is in you of a truth (ontos ho theos en hymin estin, ὄντως ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν, "truly God is among you"). This echoes Isaiah 45:14 (LXX), where Gentiles recognize God's presence in Israel. True worship—intelligible, Spirit-filled proclamation—makes God's presence undeniable. Tongues impress no one; prophecy convicts and converts.
Orderly Worship
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
View commentary
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation—Paul describes Corinthian worship's participatory chaos. Each person brings something: psalmon (ψαλμόν, "psalm"), didachēn (διδαχήν, "teaching"), glōssan (γλῶσσαν, "tongue"), apokalypsin (ἀποκάλυψιν, "revelation"), hermēneian (ἑρμηνείαν, "interpretation").
Let all things be done unto edifying—the governing principle: panta pros oikodomēn ginesthō (πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω, "let all things be done for edification"). Paul doesn't forbid diversity or spontaneity; he subordinates all expression to the edification test. Every contribution—song, teaching, tongue, revelation, interpretation—must pass this test: does it build up the body?
Let all things be done unto edifying—the governing principle: panta pros oikodomēn ginesthō (πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω, "let all things be done for edification"). Paul doesn't forbid diversity or spontaneity; he subordinates all expression to the edification test. Every contribution—song, teaching, tongue, revelation, interpretation—must pass this test: does it build up the body?
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. two: by two or three sentences separately
View commentary
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course—Paul regulates tongues: kata dyo ē to pleiston treis (κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς, "by two or at most three"), and ana meros (ἀνὰ μέρος, "in turn, one at a time"). And let one interpret (kai heis diermēneuetō, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω, "and let one interpret").
Paul's specificity is striking: (1) limit tongues to 2-3 per service, (2) speak sequentially, not simultaneously, (3) ensure one person interprets. These rules prioritize order and intelligibility. Tongues aren't forbidden, but they're carefully regulated to serve edification. The present imperative diermēneuetō ("let him interpret") makes interpretation non-negotiable.
Paul's specificity is striking: (1) limit tongues to 2-3 per service, (2) speak sequentially, not simultaneously, (3) ensure one person interprets. These rules prioritize order and intelligibility. Tongues aren't forbidden, but they're carefully regulated to serve edification. The present imperative diermēneuetō ("let him interpret") makes interpretation non-negotiable.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
View commentary
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church—Paul's stark command: ean de mē ē diermēneutēs, sigatō en ekklēsia (ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ διερμηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, "but if there is no interpreter, let him be silent in church"). The imperative sigatō (σιγάτω, "let him be silent") is unequivocal. And let him speak to himself, and to God—private tongues-prayer remains legitimate: eatō de heautō lalein kai tō theō (ἑατῷ δὲ ἑαυτῷ λαλεῖν καὶ τῷ θεῷ, "let him speak to himself and to God").
Paul distinguishes public and private speech: without interpretation, tongues belong in private devotion, not corporate worship. This isn't suppressing the Spirit; it's channeling spiritual expression toward edification. The allowance for private prayer shows Paul values tongues—in their proper context.
Paul distinguishes public and private speech: without interpretation, tongues belong in private devotion, not corporate worship. This isn't suppressing the Spirit; it's channeling spiritual expression toward edification. The allowance for private prayer shows Paul values tongues—in their proper context.
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
View commentary
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge—Paul regulates prophecy similarly to tongues: prophētai de dyo ē treis laleitōsan (προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν, "let prophets, two or three, speak"), and hoi alloi diakrinētōsan (οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν, "let the others discern/judge").
Diakrinō (διακρίνω) means to discern, distinguish, evaluate—congregational testing of prophecy (1 Thess 5:19-21, "prove all things"). Even Spirit-prompted speech requires evaluation because human error can intrude. The limitation to 2-3 prophets prevents exhausting the congregation; the call to "judge" prevents uncritical acceptance. This is ordered freedom: prophecy is welcomed but tested.
Diakrinō (διακρίνω) means to discern, distinguish, evaluate—congregational testing of prophecy (1 Thess 5:19-21, "prove all things"). Even Spirit-prompted speech requires evaluation because human error can intrude. The limitation to 2-3 prophets prevents exhausting the congregation; the call to "judge" prevents uncritical acceptance. This is ordered freedom: prophecy is welcomed but tested.
If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
View commentary
If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace—Paul addresses overlapping prophecies. If apokalyphthē (ἀποκαλυφθῇ, "it be revealed") to allō kathēmenō (ἄλλῳ καθημένῳ, "another sitting by"), then ho prōtos sigatō (ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω, "let the first be silent").
The scenario: one prophet is speaking when another receives revelation. Paul says the first should yield to the second. This assumes (1) prophecy can come spontaneously during worship, (2) multiple people may receive revelation, (3) order requires sequential sharing, (4) the Spirit's timing matters—fresh revelation takes priority. The same Spirit who gives revelation gives grace to wait; there's no conflict between Spirit-prompting and orderly process.
The scenario: one prophet is speaking when another receives revelation. Paul says the first should yield to the second. This assumes (1) prophecy can come spontaneously during worship, (2) multiple people may receive revelation, (3) order requires sequential sharing, (4) the Spirit's timing matters—fresh revelation takes priority. The same Spirit who gives revelation gives grace to wait; there's no conflict between Spirit-prompting and orderly process.
For ye may all prophesy one by one , that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
View commentary
For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted—Paul explains the rationale: dynasthe gar kath' hena pantes prophēteuein (δύνασθε γὰρ καθ' ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, "for you can all prophesy one by one"). Purpose: hina pantes manthanōsin kai pantes parakalōntai (ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται, "that all may learn and all may be encouraged").
"All" appears four times, emphasizing inclusivity: all can prophesy, all learn, all are comforted. Paul envisions widespread participation, but ordered participation: kath' hena (καθ' ἕνα, "one by one"). Sequential sharing ensures intelligibility, maximizes learning, and multiplies encouragement. Chaos prevents edification; order facilitates it. The double purpose clause (learn, comforted) recalls verse 3's three-fold effect (edification, exhortation, comfort).
"All" appears four times, emphasizing inclusivity: all can prophesy, all learn, all are comforted. Paul envisions widespread participation, but ordered participation: kath' hena (καθ' ἕνα, "one by one"). Sequential sharing ensures intelligibility, maximizes learning, and multiplies encouragement. Chaos prevents edification; order facilitates it. The double purpose clause (learn, comforted) recalls verse 3's three-fold effect (edification, exhortation, comfort).
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
View commentary
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets—Greek kai pneumata prophētōn prophētais hypotassetai (καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται, "and spirits of prophets are subject to prophets"). Hypotassō (ὑποτάσσω) means to arrange under, subject, subordinate.
Paul's principle: genuine Spirit-inspiration doesn't override self-control. Prophets can control when and how they speak; the Spirit doesn't possess them ecstatically, forcing speech. This refutes the Corinthian assumption (borrowed from pagan religion) that ecstatic loss of control validates spiritual experience. True prophecy is subject to the prophet's will, enabling orderly, sequential sharing. The Spirit's work doesn't bypass human agency; it works through it.
Paul's principle: genuine Spirit-inspiration doesn't override self-control. Prophets can control when and how they speak; the Spirit doesn't possess them ecstatically, forcing speech. This refutes the Corinthian assumption (borrowed from pagan religion) that ecstatic loss of control validates spiritual experience. True prophecy is subject to the prophet's will, enabling orderly, sequential sharing. The Spirit's work doesn't bypass human agency; it works through it.
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. confusion: Gr. tumult, or, unquietness
View commentary
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace—Greek ou gar estin akatastasias ho theos all' eirēnēs (οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλ' εἰρήνης, "for God is not of disorder but of peace"). Akatastasia (ἀκαταστασία) means instability, disorder, confusion (used of political chaos in James 3:16). Eirēnē (εἰρήνη) means peace, harmony, order—the opposite of chaos.
As in all churches of the saints grounds this principle in universal practice: orderly worship characterizes all true churches. Paul's theological argument: God's character determines worship's character. A God of peace produces peaceful (orderly) worship; chaotic worship misrepresents God. This verse summarizes the chapter's argument: order honors God and edifies the church; chaos does neither.
As in all churches of the saints grounds this principle in universal practice: orderly worship characterizes all true churches. Paul's theological argument: God's character determines worship's character. A God of peace produces peaceful (orderly) worship; chaotic worship misrepresents God. This verse summarizes the chapter's argument: order honors God and edifies the church; chaos does neither.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
View commentary
Let your women keep silence in the churches—Greek hai gynaikes en tais ekklēsiais sigatōsan (αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, "let the women in the churches be silent"). This verse requires careful interpretation within its context. For it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law—ou gar epitrepetai autais lalein, alla hypotassesthōsan (οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, "for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject").
Context is crucial: Paul just regulated prophecy (vv. 29-33), and women prophesied in Corinth (11:5). This "silence" must be specific, not absolute. The reference to "the law" may point to Genesis 3:16 (subordination in marriage) or rabbinic practice. Most likely, Paul prohibits disruptive questioning during prophecy-evaluation (v. 29, "let the other judge"), not all female speech. Verse 35 supports this: "learn at home" suggests inappropriate public interrogation, not prophesying or teaching.
Context is crucial: Paul just regulated prophecy (vv. 29-33), and women prophesied in Corinth (11:5). This "silence" must be specific, not absolute. The reference to "the law" may point to Genesis 3:16 (subordination in marriage) or rabbinic practice. Most likely, Paul prohibits disruptive questioning during prophecy-evaluation (v. 29, "let the other judge"), not all female speech. Verse 35 supports this: "learn at home" suggests inappropriate public interrogation, not prophesying or teaching.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
View commentary
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home—Greek ei de ti mathein thelousin, en oikō tous idious andras eperōtatōsan (εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν, "if they wish to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home"). This clarifies verse 34: the issue is learning/questioning behavior, not prophecy or teaching. For it is a shame for women to speak in the church (aischron gar estin gynaiki lalein en ekklēsia, αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, "for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church").
The "shame" language reflects cultural sensitivity: in Greco-Roman culture, women publicly questioning men was scandalous. Paul applies the order principle (vv. 26-33, 40) to a culturally volatile situation. The solution—"ask at home"—suggests the issue is inappropriate public interrogation during worship, not all female participation. This interpretation coheres with Paul's affirmation of women's ministry elsewhere (Rom 16:1-7, Phil 4:2-3).
The "shame" language reflects cultural sensitivity: in Greco-Roman culture, women publicly questioning men was scandalous. Paul applies the order principle (vv. 26-33, 40) to a culturally volatile situation. The solution—"ask at home"—suggests the issue is inappropriate public interrogation during worship, not all female participation. This interpretation coheres with Paul's affirmation of women's ministry elsewhere (Rom 16:1-7, Phil 4:2-3).
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
View commentary
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?—Greek ē aph' hymōn ho logos tou theou exēlthen? ē eis hymas monous katēntēsen? (ἢ ἀφ' ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν; ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;) Paul's rhetorical questions expect "No!" The Corinthians didn't originate God's word, nor were they its sole recipients.
This rebukes Corinthian arrogance: they're not the source or sole possessors of divine truth. Paul has appealed to universal church practice (v. 33, "as in all churches of the saints"); now he challenges their presumption in ignoring it. The rhetorical force: "Who do you think you are?" The word of God came to them from apostolic teaching; it also went to other churches. Their idiosyncratic practices violate the unity and universality of apostolic tradition.
This rebukes Corinthian arrogance: they're not the source or sole possessors of divine truth. Paul has appealed to universal church practice (v. 33, "as in all churches of the saints"); now he challenges their presumption in ignoring it. The rhetorical force: "Who do you think you are?" The word of God came to them from apostolic teaching; it also went to other churches. Their idiosyncratic practices violate the unity and universality of apostolic tradition.
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
View commentary
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord—Greek ei tis dokei prophētēs einai ē pneumatikos, epiginōsketō ha graphō hymin hoti kyriou estin entolē (εἴ τις δοκεῖ προφήτης εἶναι ἢ πνευματικός, ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή, "if anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize what I write to you, that it is the Lord's command").
Paul's test of spirituality: recognizing apostolic authority. True prophets and spiritual people will acknowledge Paul's instructions as entolē kyriou ("commandment of the Lord"), not mere human opinion. The aorist imperative epiginōsketō ("let him recognize") demands immediate, full acknowledgment. This is Paul's trump card: reject his teaching, and you prove you're not spiritual, regardless of your claims or experiences.
Paul's test of spirituality: recognizing apostolic authority. True prophets and spiritual people will acknowledge Paul's instructions as entolē kyriou ("commandment of the Lord"), not mere human opinion. The aorist imperative epiginōsketō ("let him recognize") demands immediate, full acknowledgment. This is Paul's trump card: reject his teaching, and you prove you're not spiritual, regardless of your claims or experiences.
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
View commentary
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant—Greek ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitō (εἰ δέ τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοείτω). The present imperatives suggest willful ignorance: "if anyone is ignoring [this], let him continue to be ignored." Some manuscripts read agnoeitai (passive, "let him be ignored")—divine or communal ignoring of those who reject apostolic authority.
Paul's sobering warning: those who refuse to acknowledge his teaching as the Lord's command (v. 37) reveal their spiritual ignorance and will be ignored—by God or the church. This isn't harsh; it's realistic: if you reject revelation, you remain in ignorance. The terse command closes debate: Paul has argued his case (vv. 1-36), appealed to universal practice (v. 33), asserted apostolic authority (v. 37). Those still rejecting his teaching are unteachable.
Paul's sobering warning: those who refuse to acknowledge his teaching as the Lord's command (v. 37) reveal their spiritual ignorance and will be ignored—by God or the church. This isn't harsh; it's realistic: if you reject revelation, you remain in ignorance. The terse command closes debate: Paul has argued his case (vv. 1-36), appealed to universal practice (v. 33), asserted apostolic authority (v. 37). Those still rejecting his teaching are unteachable.
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
View commentary
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues—Greek hōste, adelphoi, zēloute to prophēteuein, kai to lalein mē kōluete glōssais (ὥστε, ἀδελφοί, ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν, καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις, "so, brothers, be zealous to prophesy, and don't forbid speaking in tongues"). Paul concludes by reaffirming the chapter's priorities: zēloute (ζηλοῦτε, "be zealous, earnestly desire") for prophecy; mē kōluete (μὴ κωλύετε, "don't forbid") tongues.
The summary balances emphasis and permission: pursue prophecy (it edifies), but don't suppress tongues (they're legitimate). Paul has regulated, not rejected, tongues. His pastoral wisdom: prioritize what builds up, but don't quench the Spirit by forbidding any genuine gift. The affectionate adelphoi ("brothers") softens the correction: he's not their enemy but their brother, guiding them toward mature, orderly, edifying worship.
The summary balances emphasis and permission: pursue prophecy (it edifies), but don't suppress tongues (they're legitimate). Paul has regulated, not rejected, tongues. His pastoral wisdom: prioritize what builds up, but don't quench the Spirit by forbidding any genuine gift. The affectionate adelphoi ("brothers") softens the correction: he's not their enemy but their brother, guiding them toward mature, orderly, edifying worship.
Let all things be done decently and in order.
View commentary
Let all things be done decently and in order—Greek panta de euschēmonōs kai kata taxin ginesthō (πάντα δὲ εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν γινέσθω, "let all things be done properly and in order"). Euschēmonōs (εὐσχημόνως) means becomingly, decently, properly—with propriety. Kata taxin (κατὰ τάξιν) means according to order, arrangement, system.
Paul's closing principle governs the entire chapter: decency and order should characterize all worship. This isn't stifling the Spirit; it's honoring God's character (v. 33, "God is not of confusion, but of peace"). The present imperative ginesthō ("let it be done") demands ongoing practice. "All things" includes prophecy, tongues, singing, teaching—every element of worship must be proper and orderly. This verse sums up Paul's vision: Spirit-filled worship that edifies through intelligible, orderly, decent expression.
Paul's closing principle governs the entire chapter: decency and order should characterize all worship. This isn't stifling the Spirit; it's honoring God's character (v. 33, "God is not of confusion, but of peace"). The present imperative ginesthō ("let it be done") demands ongoing practice. "All things" includes prophecy, tongues, singing, teaching—every element of worship must be proper and orderly. This verse sums up Paul's vision: Spirit-filled worship that edifies through intelligible, orderly, decent expression.