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, (1 Co 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 apokaluqiv 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, (apokaluqiv, from apokaluptw, 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. See Barnes "1 Co 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, (didach.) 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 Co 14:26