I Corinthians 14:27 · Bible study
1 Corinthians 14:27 Commentary: Tongues, Order, and Interpretation
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Paul limits speaking in tongues to two or three speakers, in turn, with interpretation.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul restricts speaking in tongues to two or three speakers per meeting, speaking one at a time, with one interpreter, so the church can understand.
- Key words: γλώσσῃ (tongue/language); κατὰ δύο (by two); πλεῖστον (at the most); ἀνὰ μέρος (in turn); διερμηνευέτω (let him interpret).
- Main debate: Whether the “two or three” refers to speakers in one service (majority view) or to multiple interpreters for each utterance (minority view). Most see “two or three” as the number of speakers.
- Theological theme: God’s order and peace in worship (v.33) take priority over the exercise of any spiritual gift; love requires intelligibility.
- Best use: A key text for teaching on worship order, the purpose of spiritual gifts (edification), and the relationship between charisma and structure.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two, or at most three, should speak in turn, and someone must interpret.
WEB World English Bible 2000
If any man speaks in another language, let there be two, or at the most three, and in turn; and let one interpret.
KJV King James Version 1769
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.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret:
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
if an unknown tongue any one do speak, by two, or at the most, by three, and in turn, and let one interpret;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
If any one speak with a tongue, [let it be] two, or at the most three, and separately, and let one interpret;
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course: and let one interpret.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Si hablare alguno en lengua extraña, sea esto por dos, ó á lo más tres, y por turno; mas uno interprete.
E se alguém falar em língua estranha , sejam dois, ou no máximo três, e alternando-se, e um que interprete.
En est-il qui parlent en langue, que deux ou trois au plus parlent, chacun à son tour, et que quelqu’ un interprète;
So jemand mit Zungen redet, so seien es ihrer zwei oder aufs meiste drei, und einer um den andern; und einer lege es aus.
En zo iemand een vreemde taal spreekt, dat het door twee, of ten meeste drie geschiede, en bij beurte; en dat een het uitlegge.
Se c’è chi parla in altra lingua, siano due o tre al più, a farlo; e l’un dopo l’altro; e uno interpreti;
Jeźli kto językiem mówi, niech to będzie po dwóch albo najwięcej po trzech, i to na przemiany, a jeden niech tłumaczy.
Если кто говорит на незнакомом языке, говорите двое, или много трое, и то порознь, а один изъясняй.
若 有 說 方言的，只好 兩個人， 至多 三個人，且 要輪 流著說，也 要一 個人翻出來。
If any man makes use of a tongue, let it not be more than two, or at the most three, and in turn; and let someone give the sense:
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · I Corinthians 14:27
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Paul restricts speaking in tongues during corporate worship to a maximum of three individuals, each speaking one at a time, and only if an interpreter is present. This rule serves the same principle stated in v.26: “Let all things be done to build each other up.” Barnes, Calvin, and Clarke each note that the limit prevents disorder and ensures edification. The Greek phrase ana meros (“in turn,” as Vincent and the ASV render it) forbids simultaneous speech. Gill points to the Jewish synagogue practice of a Methurgeman (interpreter) as a possible background. The requirement that “one interpret” means a single interpreter for each utterance, not multiple interpreters per speech (Cambridge Bible). Paul does not command tongues but permits them within boundaries, as Calvin observed, so that no gift of the Spirit is suppressed, yet nothing obscures the church’s understanding.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: All Christians agree that in public worship, tongues must be limited in number, spoken in turn, and interpreted, with the overriding goal of building up the church.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Number of speakers (two or three) | All commentators understand Paul to limit the number of tongue-speakers in a single meeting to two or at most three. | Some argue this is a strict, permanent rule; others see it as a context-sensitive guideline for Corinthian excess. The text gives no exception, but the surrounding emphasis on edification suggests the principle is flexible where needed. |
| Interpretation requirement | A tongue must be interpreted in the assembly; otherwise the speaker must remain silent (v.28). All agree this prevents chaos and serves edification. | Does “one interpret” mean one interpreter per speech, or should there be multiple interpreters to verify the message? Most (Cambridge Bible, Barnes) hold that a single interpreter is sufficient. The Greek verb is singular imperative: “let one interpret.” |
| Order versus spontaneity | Paul insists on sequential speaking (“in turn”). All see this as forbidding simultaneous or overlapping utterances. | Some Pentecostal and charismatic traditions read this as applying only to formal congregational settings, not to prayer meetings or smaller gatherings. Others apply it to all corporate worship. The text itself does not define the gathering type beyond “the assembly.” |
Historical & Cultural Context
First Corinthians 14 sits within a letter addressing chaotic worship at Corinth. The congregation prized spectacular gifts, especially tongues, often exercising them without concern for order or outsiders. Paul’s grammar is careful: the opening “If” (eite) is conditional, not imperative. He allows tongues but hedges them with three constraints, number, sequence, and interpretation.
The phrase “by two, or at the most three” likely refers to the number of speakers in a single meeting (Grotius, Rosenmuller, cited by Barnes). The superlative pleiston (“at the most”) underscores that three is an absolute ceiling, not a suggestion. Paul’s surrounding contrast with prophecy (vv.24, 25) makes clear that tongues without interpretation fail to build up the church, since outsiders cannot understand.
Gill detects a borrowed practice: the first-century synagogue employed a Methurgeman, or designated interpreter, who translated the Hebrew Scripture reading into Aramaic so the congregation could follow. Paul may have adapted this model for Spirit-empowered speech. In that setting, the interpreter was not the speaker but a separate person, standing in fear and speaking only after the reader finished. The same pattern appears here: the tongue-speaker finishes, then “one interpret.”
Paul also anticipates the objection that restricting tongues might quench the Spirit. Calvin notes the apostle’s “admirable medium”: he does not forbid tongues, but ties their use to intelligibility. This is pastoral wisdom, not legalism. The goal remains v.26: mutual edification, not personal display.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for 1 Corinthians 14:27. The Greek text is stable across major manuscripts. The primary variations in English versions (e.g., “unknown tongue” in KJV vs. “tongue” in ASV) reflect translating choices for γλώσσῃ, not manuscript differences.
Reception History
Early church writers like Chrysostom and Augustine cited this passage to argue that tongues without interpretation should not be used in public worship. During the Reformation, Calvin and the Geneva Bible treated these verses as permanent regulations for the church, not temporary accommodations. John Wesley stressed the need for orderly worship and saw tongues as a sign-gift that had largely ceased. The rise of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century revived the practice of tongues and, along with it, careful attention to Paul’s rules: many Pentecostal churches require interpretation before a public tongue is accepted. Gill’s connection to the Jewish Methurgeman (synagogue interpreter) has been widely repeated, linking Paul’s instructions to existing synagogue order. Across traditions, this verse is cited as a model for balancing spiritual freedom with congregational edification.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Number matters: Paul limits tongue-speakers to two or three per meeting. This prevents domination of the service by one gift and protects time for prophecy, which is more directly edifying (v.24, 25).
- Sequence matters: “In turn” (ana meros) prohibits overlapping speech. God is not a God of confusion but of peace (v.33). Order is not the opposite of Spirit, it is the Spirit’s climate.
- Interpretation matters: Without an interpreter, tongues are useless to the church (v.28). Paul’s rule ensures that even a sign-gift serves the whole body. The interpreter works for the congregation, not the speaker.
Five-point outline
- Permission, not command, Calvin: Paul “does not command, but merely permits” tongues. The stress falls on what builds the church.
- Quantity capped, Two, at most three. Not a single speaker for the whole meeting, nor unlimited speakers.
- Order enforced, One speaker at a time. The Greek kata meros (by course) points to successive rather than antiphonal speaking (Vincent).
- Single interpreter, “Let one interpret” (Cambridge Bible: one per speech, not two). Multiple interpretations of the same utterance would confuse.
- Interpretation or silence, v.28: if no interpreter is present, the tongue-speaker must remain quiet in the assembly. This reinforces the priority of understanding.
Illustration hooks
- Team meeting: When everyone talks at once, nothing gets decided. Paul’s rules are like a chairperson giving the floor to two people, then moving on.
- Foreign language film: Watching a movie without subtitles is frustrating. Interpretation is the subtitle that lets the whole room follow the story.
- Potluck dinner: If three people each bring three casseroles, there’s too much food. Better to have two or three dishes, and let everyone eat together.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this passage mean tongues should never happen in a Sunday service unless an interpreter is present? (Yes, Paul says “if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent.”)
- How do we know if someone has the gift of interpretation, and can a tongue-speaker interpret their own utterance? (Paul suggests this is possible in v.13, but v.27 assumes a separate interpreter.)
- Is the limit of two or three still binding today, or was it only for the Corinthian situation? (Most commentators see it as a flexible principle: keep the service orderly and edifying.)
Leading a Discussion
Paul gives practical guardrails for a gift that had become a source of pride and confusion. This passage calls us to examine not just our practices but our motives: do we want worship to impress or to build up?
Discussion questions
- Read 1 Corinthians 14:26, 28. What is Paul’s overall goal for worship gatherings? How does that goal shape the specific rules in v.27?
- The Greek word diermēneuō (interpret) can mean either “translate” or “explain.” In your own words, what does the interpreter do for the congregation?
- Why do you think Paul sets the maximum at three speakers? What problem might unlimited speakers cause?
- Compare the rules for tongues (v.27) with the rules for prophecy (v.29, 31). How are they similar? How are they different? What does that tell you about each gift’s purpose?
- Calvin says Paul “permits, not commands” tongues. How does permission differ from command in the life of a church today?
- Have you ever been in a worship service where a gift was used in a way that felt confusing rather than edifying? How did that experience shape your view of Paul’s instructions?
- If someone in your church felt they had a message in tongues but no interpreter was present, what would you say to them based on this passage?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| I Corinthians 14:26 | What is it then, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has another language, or has an interpretation. Let all things be done to build each other up. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
11 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke emphasizes practical order in public worship: only two or three should speak in an unknown tongue, taking turns so no one speaks simultaneously. One interpreter then provides the meaning for the whole group, preventing confusion and keeping the service from being consumed by a single exercise.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes stresses that Paul limited speaking in tongues to two or three people in any single meeting, speaking one after another with an interpreter. This rule curbed the tendency to use the gift for show, ensuring that order and edification, not confusion or self-display, governed the assembly.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin stresses that Paul permits tongues in worship but does not command them, allowing only two or three speakers with an interpreter present. Without interpretation, tongues serve no benefit to the church. Paul's regulation balances not suppressing any genuine gift while ensuring nothing remains obscure for believers.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
Cambridge Bible Schools notes that the restriction to two or three speakers in tongues, each in turn with a single interpreter, prevents both weariness and confusion. A second interpretation of the same message would be either unnecessary or perplexing, so only one interpreter is allowed per speech.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note emphasizes strict order in worship: no more than two or three may speak in a tongue, they must take turns, and someone must interpret. No unregulated or unintelligible speech is permitted in the assembly.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill stresses that only two or three speakers should exercise the gift in a single meeting, and they must speak one after another, not all at once. He links this orderly rule directly to the Jewish synagogue office of the Methurgeman, an interpreter who would translate the Scripture reading for the people.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB stresses strict order in tongue-speaking: no more than two or three may speak in a single meeting, and only one at a time, taking turns. Additionally, only one interpreter should be allowed, not several. This preserves decency and prevents confusion in worship.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange stresses that speaking in tongues engages the spirit while the understanding remains inactive, making it a private, ecstatic form of worship rather than public teaching. He sees tongues as a sobering sign of judgment for unbelievers, not a tool for conversion, unlike prophecy which builds up the church through intelligible speech.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry sees the Corinthians' disorder as the real problem: each person eagerly displays a gift, turning worship into an uproar. His emphasis falls on the straightforward rule that every part of the service must aim at building others up, not showcasing individual abilities. The regulations he draws from Paul are practical limits that preserve peace and order.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent insists that the phrase means "in turn," not "antiphonally" as Edwards suggested. The Revised Version's rendering "in turn" is correct: each person or small group spoke one at a time, not in responsive chanting.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that the rule limits speakers to two or three at one meeting, speaking one after another, with one person interpreting for the church. He defines the gift of tongues as an instantaneous knowledge of a previously unknown language, which the speaker could then use at will without any new miracle.