When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church. 14:27 If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said. 14:30 And if someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude. 14:31 For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:26-31, NET Bible)
As a matter of practice, I have never heard more than three tongues and interpretations in the course of a service. This passage is usually cited to explain why. But does a proper interpretation of this passage limit the number of tongues-interpretations in a service, or does it merely limit the number of tongues-interpretations that can be given prior to an evaluation (judgment) of what was said by the body? The latter seems more probable given the context, and given common sense.
While Paul does not specifically mention a time for judging the interpreted tongues, he does mention a time for judging prophecies. Since Paul equated prophecy and interpreted tongues (1 Cor 14:1-5), and since both are revelatory speeches from God, and since Paul spoke of both in the same context, it stands to reason that the body must judge the content of both. Once the body has judged the content of the interpretations, however, why couldn’t more be given?
Logically speaking I don’t see why interpretations would be limited to a particular service. It seems rather arbitrary. If God provided us three tongues-interpretations, and we break for ½ lunch, and then return for more church, does the clock start over? Given the traditional interpretation of this verse, the answer would be yes. But that seems silly. Paul’s emphasis is not on how many interpretations can be given per se, but how many interpretations can be given before somebody evaluates their revelatory worth. After such an evaluation has been made, more could follow.
If you disagree with me, I’d be interested to hear your reasoning.
Thinking to Believe 
January 11, 2008 at 6:15 am
Jason,
I agree with your interpretation. It comes from a simple, clear reading of the passage, and I think it’s correct. The point, it seems, has to do with evaluating the message to the church contained in the tongues/interpretation and being careful and discerning. The same goes for prophesying. A sort of maximum number of possible tongues/interpretation in a service, like a technical rule in a game, doesn’t make much sense. If the Spirit wishes to speak then so be it, may the will of the Lord be done, but the church must be careful to hear what’s truly being said for only then is it edifying and purposeful.
LikeLike
January 11, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Jason, like Chad, I agree with your interpretation as well. I have a question which relates to this topic. One thing I hear people say, particularly those who do not speak in tongues, they claim that their disdain with with the practice is that no one should be speaking in tongues “in church” unless there is interpretation. If there is no interpretation, then speaking in tongues is out of order. So basically, if one walks into a service and sees everyone (or even a couple people) speaking in tongues during praise and worship or during prayer or whenever, yet there is no interpretation, then it is out of order. Or if a soloist in the choir may speak/sing in tongues in between singing in the language known to all, yet there is no interpretation to follow, once again, out of order. What would be your response to all of this? (I have my thoughts on it and have explained my reasoning to tothers, but I am very interested in knowing yours)
Michael
LikeLike
January 11, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Michael,
I have heard that argument before as well. I don’t find it persuasive. If uninterpreted tongues being spoken in a church assembly were out of order, that would preclude people from receiving the Spirit during a church assemply. That is ridiculous.
More importantly, I think this idea stems from taking Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 14 out of context. Paul’s concern was for both order and corporate edification. Some practices involving tongues were out of order, and got in the way of corporate edification. Those are what Paul opposed. It seems to me that the Corinthians were giving large parts of their meetings over to speaking in tongues, which profited the unconverted nothing. But I don’t think we should go to the extreme of saying one should never be heard speaking in tongues in a service without an interpretation. Paul only seemed to be opposed to those whose uninterpreted tongues-speaking commanded the attention of everyone. That’s why he told the person who spoke in tongues, but without an interpretation following, to be “silent…speak[ing] to himself and to God.” Notice that Paul did not demand that he quit speaking in tongues, but that he do so “silently” to himself and to God. I take that to mean “keep your volume down.” Given that, I oppose the practice of some people of yelling out in tongues that they know are not for interpretation. It wrongly commands the attention of the whole assemply.
I also oppose the person with the mic speaking in tongues. Why? Because everything he says commands the attention of the assembly. I don’t have a problem with a short burst of tongues being spoken from the pulpit, but if they go on and on, that seems to violate what Paul was teaching. At all times, that which commands the attention of the hearers should be something that edifies, whether it be the common language, or interpreted tongues. But so long as that requirement is satisfied, I think people can speak in tongues quietly to themselves and God during a service (e.g. during song service when the song leader is leading the assembly in the song, but some individuals are worshipping God in tongues).
Jason
LikeLike
January 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Jason,
I ABSOLUTELY agree! Thanks for the clarification…glory to Christ…
Michael
LikeLike
January 3, 2023 at 8:08 pm
I also speak in tongue and sing a song in spirit my heart want to dance …which I do…it give peace to my heart and mind….i love it
LikeLike