1Cor 14:6-11 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you , etc. The truth which the apostle had been illustrating in an abstract manner, he proceeds to illustrate by applying it to himself, If he should come among them speaking foreign languages, it could be of no use unless it were interpreted to them. Speaking with tongues . Speaking foreign languages; that is, speaking them only, without any interpreter. Paul had the power of speaking foreign languages, ( ); but he did not use this power for ostentation or display, but merely to communicate the gospel to those who did not understand his native tongue. Either by revelation . Macknight renders this, "speak INTELLIGIBLY;" that is, as he explains it, "by the revelation peculiar to an apostle." Doddridge, "by the revelation of some gospel doctrine re and mystery." Locke interprets it, that you might understand the revelation, or knowledge," etc.; but says in a note, that we cannot now certainly understand the difference between the meaning of the four words here used. "It is sufficient," says he, "to know that these terms stand for some intelligible discourse tending to the edification of the church." Rosenmuller supposes the word revelation stands for some "clear and open knowledge of any truth arising from meditation." It is probable that the word here does not refer to Divine inspiration, as it usually does, but that it stands opposed to that which is unknown and unintelligible, as that which is revealed αποκαλυψις stands opposed to what is unknown, concealed, hidden , obscure. Here, therefore, it is synonymous, perhaps, with explained . "What shall it profit, unless that which I speak be brought out of the obscurity and darkness of a foreign language, and uncovered or explained?" The original sense of the word revelation here is, I suppose, intended, (αποκαλυψις, from αποκαλυπτω, to uncover ;) and means, that the sense should be uncovered, i.e., explained, or what was spoken could not be of value. Or by knowledge . By making it intelligible. By so explaining it as to make it understood. Knowledge here stands opposed to the ignorance and obscurity which would attend a communication in a foreign language. Or by prophesying . . That is, unless it be communicated, through interpretation, in the manner in which the prophetic teachers spoke; that is, made intelligible, and explained, and actually brought down to the usual characteristics of communications made in their own language. Or by doctrine ? By teaching, (διδαχη.) By instruction; in the usual mode of plain and familiar instruction. The sense of this passage, therefore, is clear. Though Paul should utter among them, as he had abundant ability to do, the most weighty and important truths, yet, unless he interpreted what he said in a manner clear from obscurity, like revelation ; or intelligibly, and so as to constitute knowledge; or in the manner that the prophets spoke, in a plain and intelligible manner; or in the manner usual in simple and plain instruction , it would be useless to them. The perplexities of commentators may be seen stated in Locke, Bloomfield, and Doddridge. (+) "tongues" "different languages" (b) "revelation"

1 Corinthians 14:6-11

Verse 6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you, etc. The truth which the apostle had been illustrating in an abstract manner, he proceeds to illustrate by applying it to himself, If he should come among them speaking foreign languages, it could be of no use unless it were interpreted to them.

Speaking with tongues. Speaking foreign languages; that is, speaking them only, without any interpreter. Paul had the power of speaking foreign languages, (1Cor 14:18); but he did not use this power for ostentation or display, but merely to communicate the gospel to those who did not understand his native tongue.

Either by revelation. Macknight renders this, "speak INTELLIGIBLY;" that is, as he explains it, "by the revelation peculiar to an apostle." Doddridge, "by the revelation of some gospel doctrine re and mystery." Locke interprets it, that you might understand the revelation, or knowledge," etc.; but says in a note, that we cannot now certainly understand the difference between the meaning of the four words here used. "It is sufficient," says he, "to know that these terms stand for some intelligible discourse tending to the edification of the church." Rosenmuller supposes the word revelation stands for some "clear and open knowledge of any truth arising from meditation." It is probable that the word here does not refer to Divine inspiration, as it usually does, but that it stands opposed to that which is unknown and unintelligible, as that which is revealed αποκαλυψις stands opposed to what is unknown, concealed, hidden, obscure. Here, therefore, it is synonymous, perhaps, with explained. "What shall it profit, unless that which I speak be brought out of the obscurity and darkness of a foreign language, and uncovered or explained?" The original sense of the word revelation here is, I suppose, intended, (αποκαλυψις, from αποκαλυπτω, to uncover;) and means, that the sense should be uncovered, i.e., explained, or what was spoken could not be of value.

Or by knowledge. By making it intelligible. By so explaining it as to make it understood. Knowledge here stands opposed to the ignorance and obscurity which would attend a communication in a foreign language.

Or by prophesying. 1Cor 14:1. That is, unless it be communicated, through interpretation, in the manner in which the prophetic teachers spoke; that is, made intelligible, and explained, and actually brought down to the usual characteristics of communications made in their own language.

Or by doctrine? By teaching, (διδαχη.) By instruction; in the usual mode of plain and familiar instruction. The sense of this passage, therefore, is clear. Though Paul should utter among them, as he had abundant ability to do, the most weighty and important truths, yet, unless he interpreted what he said in a manner clear from obscurity, like revelation; or intelligibly, and so as to constitute knowledge; or in the manner that the prophets spoke, in a plain and intelligible manner; or in the manner usual in simple and plain instruction, it would be useless to them. The perplexities of commentators may be seen stated in Locke, Bloomfield, and Doddridge.

(+) "tongues" "different languages" (b) "revelation" 1Cor 14:26 Verse 7. Things without life. Instruments of music.

Whether pipe. This instrument (αυλος) was usually made of reeds, and probably had a resemblance to a flageolet.

Or harp. This instrument (κιθαρα) was a stringed instrument, and was made in the same way as a modern harp. It usually had ten strings, and was struck with the plectrum, or with a key. It was commonly employed in praise.

Except they give a distinction in the sounds. Unless they give a difference in the tones, such as are indicated in the gamut for music.

How shall it be known, etc. That is, there would be no time, no music. Nothing would be indicated by it. It would not be fitted to excite the emotions of sorrow or of joy. All music is designed to excite emotions; but if there be no difference in the tones, no emotion would be produced. So it would be in words uttered. Unless there was something that was fitted to excite thought or emotion; unless what was spoken was made intelligible, no matter how important in itself it might be, yet it would be useless.

(1) "sounds" "tunes" Verse 8. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound. The trumpet was used commonly in war. It is a well-known wind instrument, and was made of brass, silver, etc. It was used for various purposes in war--to summon the soldiers; to animate them in their march; to call them forth to battle; to sound a retreat; and to signify to them what they were to do in battle, whether to charge, advance, or retreat, etc. It therefore employed a language which was intelligible to an army. An uncertain sound was one in which none of these things were indicated, or in which it could not be determined what was required.

Who shall prepare himself, etc. The apostle selects a single instance of what was indicated by the trumpet, as an illustration of what he meant. The idea is, that foreign tongues spoken in their assembly would be just as useless in regard to their duty, their comfort, and edification, as would be the sound of a trumpet when it gave one of the usual and intelligible sounds by which it was known what the soldiers were required to do. Just as we would say, that the mere beating on a drum would be useless, unless some tune was played by which it was known that the soldiers were summoned to the parade, to advance, or to retreat.

(c) "trumpet" Nu 10:9 Verse 9. So likewise ye, etc. To apply the case. If you use a foreign language, how shall it be known what is said, or of what use will it be, unless it is made intelligible by interpretation?

Utter by the tongue. Unless you speak.

Words easy to be understood. Significant words, (margin;) words to which your auditors are accustomed.

For ye shall speak into the air. You will not speak so as to be understood; and it will be just the same as if no one was present, and you spoke to the air. We have a proverb that resembles this: "You may as well speak to the winds; that is, you speak where it would not be understood, or where the words would have no effect. It may be observed here, that the practice of the papists accords with what the apostle here condemns, where worship is conducted in a language not understood by the people; and that there is much of this same kind of speaking now, where unintelligible terms are used, or words are employed that are above the comprehension of the people; or where doctrines are discussed which are unintelligible, and which are regarded by them without interest. All preaching should be plain, simple, perspicuous, and adapted to the capacity of the hearers.

(1) "words easy to be understood" "significant" Verse 10. There are, it may be, etc. There has been considerable variety in the interpretation of this expression. Rosenmuller renders it, "For the sake of example." Grotius supposes that Paul meant to indicate that there were, perhaps, or might be, as many languages as the Jews supposed, to wit, seventy. Beza and others suppose it means, that there may be as many languages as there are nations of men. Bloomfield renders it, "Let there be as many kinds of languages as you choose." Macknight, "There are, no doubt, as many kinds of languages in the world as ye speak." Robinson (Lex.) renders it, "If so happen, it may be; perchance, perhaps;" and says the phrase is equivalent to "for example." The sense is, "There are perhaps, or for example, very many kinds of voices in the world; and all are significant. None are used by those who speak them without meaning; none speak them without designing to convey some intelligible idea to their hearers." The argument is, that as all the languages that are in the world, however numerous they are, are for utility, and as none are used for the sake of mere display, so it should be with those who had the power of speaking them in the Christian church. They should speak them only when and where they would be understood.

Voices. Languages.

(*) "voices" "Languages" Verse 11. The meaning of the voice. Of the language that is uttered, or the sounds that are made.

I shall be unto him, etc. What I say will be unintelligible to him, and what he says will be unintelligible to me. We cannot understand one another any more than people can who speak different languages.

A barbarian. Rom 1:14. The word means one who speaks a different or a foreign language.

(+) "voice" "language" (a) "barbarian" Rom 1:14