1 Corinthians 14:27

“`html

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:27: The Referent of Numeric Modifiers in Glossolalia Regulation

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { margin-top: 30px; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; }
h3 { margin-top: 20px; color: #555; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
blockquote { border-left: 3px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; color: #666; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:27: The Referent of Numeric Modifiers in Glossolalia Regulation

This exegetical study of ‘1 Cor 14:27–number agreement’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Jun 16 11:37:24 EDT 1998.

The initial inquiry into 1 Corinthians 14:27 raises a fundamental question concerning the precise referent of the numeric phrase κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς (lit. “by two or at most three”). Specifically, the question is whether these numbers refer to the quantity of *utterances* or *messages* (λόγοι) delivered in tongues, or to the *number of individuals* speaking. This query was prompted by an acquaintance who, citing a Classics scholar, advocated for the interpretation that the numbers refer to λόγοι, primarily based on the singular grammatical agreement of the preceding subject τις (anyone) and verb λαλεῖ (speaks).

The central exegetical issue, therefore, revolves around the grammatical and contextual interaction between the singular subject and verb (τις λαλεῖ) and the plural numeric modifiers (δύο, τρεῖς) within the prepositional phrase κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς. This necessitates a careful examination of whether τις functions as a collective or distributive singular, thereby allowing for a plural referent for the numbers. Furthermore, the implications of the phrase ἀνὰ μέρος (in turn) and the numerical or indefinite force of εἷς (one) in the subsequent clause καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω (and one should interpret) are crucial for establishing a coherent interpretation of Paul’s instructions regarding glossolalia in the Corinthian assembly.

Εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς, καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

For 1 Corinthians 14:27, the text in Nestle 1904 is identical to the SBLGNT (2010) text. No textual variants are noted in this verse that would affect the interpretive debate regarding the referent of the numeric modifiers.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The critical apparatus of NA28 confirms the reading found in Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT for 1 Cor 14:27, indicating no significant textual variants that bear on the grammatical or semantic issues under consideration here. The interpretive debate, therefore, rests primarily on grammatical and contextual analysis rather than textual uncertainty.

τις (TIS): BDAG defines τις as “someone, anyone, a certain one.” In this context, its singular form with a plural implied outcome (two or three speakers) suggests a generalized or distributive use, often translated as “if anyone (at all) speaks.” This usage is common in both Classical and Koine Greek, allowing the singular subject to encompass a potential plurality of actions or agents under a general rule. Carl W. Conrad further supports this by referring to Smyth’s grammar (§1267), which notes that “in the singular, τις is used in a collective sense.”
λαλεῖ (LALEI): The verb “to speak” is in the third person singular, agreeing with τις. Like τις, this singular form does not necessarily restrict the subsequent regulations to a single instance or a single individual if the preceding indefinite pronoun functions distributively.
γλώσσῃ (GLOSSE): BDAG defines this as “tongue,” and in this Pauline context, it refers specifically to “the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, glossolalia.” The discussion touches on whether λόγοι (intelligible speech) could apply to glossolalia, but Paul’s use of γλώσσῃ implies a specific, spiritually endowed form of utterance that typically requires interpretation.
κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς (KATA DUO E TO PLEISTON TREIS): The preposition κατά with the accusative (δύο, τρεῖς) commonly functions distributively, meaning “by groups of” or “in units of.” The numerals δύο (two) and τρεῖς (three) are masculine/feminine forms (the neuter would be τρία), which strongly indicates that they refer to *persons* rather than inanimate objects like “messages” (λόγοι, which are masculine plural). This grammatical gender agreement is a strong argument against interpreting the numbers as referring to λόγοι.
ἀνὰ μέρος (ANA MEROS): BDAG translates this phrase as “in turn, one after another, in succession.” This adverbial phrase clearly dictates a sequential order of delivery. If the numbers referred to “messages” from a single speaker, the phrase ἀνὰ μέρος would be redundant, as a single speaker naturally delivers messages one after another. Its inclusion strongly suggests that the numbers refer to multiple *speakers* who must speak in succession.
εἷς (HEIS): BDAG notes that εἷς can mean “one, a single one.” While it can function as an indefinite article “a/an” or “someone” (Blass-Debrunner §247(2), BDAG 3), especially under Semitic influence, its usage in Paul in this sense is less common than in the Gospels or Revelation. In a context that is otherwise numerically precise (two, three), interpreting εἷς as “one” (a single, definite interpreter) maintains the emphasis on order and specificity. David L. Moore cites BDAG and BDF for this indefinite usage but acknowledges the limited Pauline examples and ultimately leans toward the numerical meaning in this context for “harmonizing” Paul’s instructions for an orderly service.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The primary exegetical debate for 1 Corinthians 14:27 centers on whether the phrase κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς refers to the number of glossolalic *messages* or the number of *speakers*. A secondary, but related, issue concerns the force of εἷς in the interpretive clause.

1. The Numbers Refer to Speakers: This interpretation aligns well with the grammatical features and the broader rhetorical context of 1 Corinthians 14.

**Grammatical Analysis:** The numerals δύο and τρεῖς are masculine/feminine, making them suitable to refer to persons. The preposition κατά with these accusative numerals is distributive, meaning “by two” or “in groups of two,” naturally applying to multiple agents. While τις λαλεῖ is singular, it functions as a protasis for a general rule (“If anyone speaks…”) allowing for a plural consequence in the apodosis. Crucially, the phrase ἀνὰ μέρος (“in turn” or “one after another”) strongly implies multiple individuals speaking sequentially, rather than a single individual producing multiple messages. Messages from one person are inherently sequential; the injunction “in turn” is only necessary if there are multiple actors.
**Rhetorical Analysis:** Paul’s overarching concern in 1 Corinthians 14 is the orderly conduct of public worship (14:26, 33, 40). Limiting the *number of speakers* and stipulating that they speak *in turn* directly addresses potential chaos from multiple simultaneous or excessive displays of glossolalia. This interpretation reinforces Paul’s desire for intelligibility and edification in the church.

2. The Numbers Refer to Messages (λόγοι): This interpretation, though proposed by some, faces significant grammatical and contextual challenges.

**Grammatical Analysis:** While Paul uses λόγοι in v. 19 (“five words with my mind”), inferring λόγοι as the referent in v. 27 for δύο and τρεῖς is problematic. Firstly, λόγοι (masculine plural) would be implied, but the existing masculine/feminine numerals already point to persons. If λόγοι were the intended referent, it would likely need to be explicitly stated for clarity, especially given the immediate context of regulating *who* speaks and *how*. Secondly, as noted above, ἀνὰ μέρος becomes redundant if applied to individual messages from a single speaker. A single speaker’s messages are by nature “in turn.”
**Rhetorical Analysis:** While Paul regulates all contributions to worship, focusing the numerical limit on messages rather than speakers seems less effective in promoting order where multiple people might still be speaking simultaneously, just delivering a limited number of “messages.” Paul’s emphasis throughout the chapter is on the *agents* of the gifts and their *manner* of exercise in the assembly.

3. The Force of εἷς in καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω:

**Grammatical Analysis:** The question here is whether εἷς means “one” (a single, specific interpreter) or “someone” (an indefinite interpreter). While Koine Greek, influenced by Semitic languages, can sometimes use εἷς indefinitely (BDF §247(2), BDAG 3), its use in Paul is less consistent than in the Gospels. In a passage preoccupied with numerical order (two, three), the most natural reading of εἷς is as a cardinal numeral “one.” The verb διερμηνευέτω (let him interpret) is singular, agreeing with εἷς.
**Rhetorical Analysis:** Specifying “one” interpreter (rather than an indefinite “someone” that might imply multiple) further contributes to the orderly structure Paul mandates for the Corinthian assembly. This ensures a single, clear interpretation, avoiding confusion or conflicting interpretations.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis of gender agreement, the distributive force of κατά, and the implications of ἀνὰ μέρος, the most compelling interpretation is that the numerals δύο and τρεῖς refer to the number of *speakers* of tongues, not the messages themselves. The singular τις λαλεῖ functions as a general condition, accommodating a plural outcome. Furthermore, εἷς is best understood numerically, indicating a single interpreter. Paul’s overarching concern for order and edification in public worship undergirds these grammatical choices, aiming to prevent chaos and ensure clarity.

“If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at most three speakers, and each in turn, and a single person should interpret.”
This translation makes explicit that the numbers refer to individuals, aligning with the masculine/feminine gender of the numerals and the implications of “in turn,” while emphasizing the singularity of the interpreter.
“Should someone speak in a tongue, it is to be by two or at most three, speaking sequentially, with one person providing the interpretation.”
This version concisely conveys the rule for the number of participants and the orderly, sequential delivery, with “speaking sequentially” encompassing the force of ἀνὰ μέρος.
“If there is to be speaking in a tongue, let it be by two or three at most, each speaking in turn, and let there be one interpreter.”
This option maintains a slightly more literal rendering of the Greek, allowing the context to strongly imply “speakers” as the referent for the numbers, while clearly stating the sequential nature of their participation and the singular role of the interpreter.

“`
“`html

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:27: The Referent of Numeric Modifiers in Glossolalia Regulation

This exegetical study of ‘1 Cor 14:27–number agreement’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Jun 16 11:37:24 EDT 1998.

The initial inquiry into 1 Corinthians 14:27 raises a fundamental question concerning the precise referent of the numeric phrase κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς (lit. “by two or at most three”). Specifically, the question is whether these numbers refer to the quantity of utterances or messages (λόγοι) delivered in tongues, or to the number of individuals speaking. This query was prompted by an acquaintance who, citing a Classics scholar, advocated for the interpretation that the numbers refer to λόγοι, primarily based on the singular grammatical agreement of the preceding subject τις (anyone) and verb λαλεῖ (speaks).

Εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς, καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

For 1 Corinthians 14:27, the text in Nestle 1904 is identical to the SBLGNT (2010) text. No textual variants are noted in this verse that would affect the interpretive debate regarding the referent of the numeric modifiers.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

τις (TIS): BDAG defines τις as “someone, anyone, a certain one.” In this context, its singular form with a plural implied outcome (two or three speakers) suggests a generalized or distributive use, often translated as “if anyone (at all) speaks.” This usage is common in both Classical and Koine Greek, allowing the singular subject to encompass a potential plurality of actions or agents under a general rule. Carl W. Conrad further supports this by referring to Smyth’s grammar (§1267), which notes that “in the singular, τις is used in a collective sense.”
λαλεῖ (LALEI): The verb “to speak” is in the third person singular, agreeing with τις. Like τις, this singular form does not necessarily restrict the subsequent regulations to a single instance or a single individual if the preceding indefinite pronoun functions distributively.
γλώσσῃ (GLOSSE): BDAG defines this as “tongue,” and in this Pauline context, it refers specifically to “the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, glossolalia.” The discussion touches on whether λόγοι (intelligible speech) could apply to glossolalia, but Paul’s use of γλώσσῃ implies a specific, spiritually endowed form of utterance that typically requires interpretation.
κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς (KATA DUO E TO PLEISTON TREIS): The preposition κατά with the accusative (δύο, τρεῖς) commonly functions distributively, meaning “by groups of” or “in units of.” The numerals δύο (two) and τρεῖς (three) are masculine/feminine forms (the neuter would be τρία), which strongly indicates that they refer to persons rather than inanimate objects like “messages” (λόγοι, which are masculine plural). This grammatical gender agreement is a strong argument against interpreting the numbers as referring to λόγοι.
ἀνὰ μέρος (ANA MEROS): BDAG translates this phrase as “in turn, one after another, in succession.” This adverbial phrase clearly dictates a sequential order of delivery. If the numbers referred to “messages” from a single speaker, the phrase ἀνὰ μέρος would be redundant, as a single speaker naturally delivers messages one after another. Its inclusion strongly suggests that the numbers refer to multiple speakers who must speak in succession.
εἷς (HEIS): BDAG notes that εἷς can mean “one, a single one.” While it can function as an indefinite article “a/an” or “someone” (Blass-Debrunner §247(2), BDAG 3), especially under Semitic influence, its usage in Paul is less consistent than in the Gospels or Revelation. In a context that is otherwise numerically precise (two, three), interpreting εἷς as “one” (a single, definite interpreter) maintains the emphasis on order and specificity. David L. Moore cites BDAG and BDF for this indefinite usage but acknowledges the limited Pauline examples and ultimately leans toward the numerical meaning in this context for “harmonizing” Paul’s instructions for an orderly service.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The primary exegetical debate for 1 Corinthians 14:27 centers on whether the phrase κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς refers to the number of glossolalic messages or the number of speakers. A secondary, but related, issue concerns the force of εἷς in the interpretive clause.

1. The Numbers Refer to Speakers: This interpretation aligns well with the grammatical features and the broader rhetorical context of 1 Corinthians 14.

Grammatical Analysis: The numerals δύο and τρεῖς are masculine/feminine, making them suitable to refer to persons. The preposition κατά with these accusative numerals is distributive, meaning “by two” or “in groups of two,” naturally applying to multiple agents. While τις λαλεῖ is singular, it functions as a protasis for a general rule (“If anyone speaks…”) allowing for a plural consequence in the apodosis. Crucially, the phrase ἀνὰ μέρος (“in turn” or “one after another”) strongly implies multiple individuals speaking sequentially, rather than a single individual producing multiple messages. Messages from one person are inherently sequential; the injunction “in turn” is only necessary if there are multiple actors.
Rhetorical Analysis: Paul’s overarching concern in 1 Corinthians 14 is the orderly conduct of public worship (14:26, 33, 40). Limiting the number of speakers and stipulating that they speak in turn directly addresses potential chaos from multiple simultaneous or excessive displays of glossolalia. This interpretation reinforces Paul’s desire for intelligibility and edification in the church.

2. The Numbers Refer to Messages (λόγοι): This interpretation, though proposed by some, faces significant grammatical and contextual challenges.

Grammatical Analysis: While Paul uses λόγοι in v. 19 (“five words with my mind”), inferring λόγοι as the referent in v. 27 for δύο and τρεῖς is problematic. Firstly, λόγοι (masculine plural) would be implied, but the existing masculine/feminine numerals already point to persons. If λόγοι were the intended referent, it would likely need to be explicitly stated for clarity, especially given the immediate context of regulating who speaks and how. Secondly, as noted above, ἀνὰ μέρος becomes redundant if applied to individual messages from a single speaker. A single speaker’s messages are by nature “in turn.”
Rhetorical Analysis: While Paul regulates all contributions to worship, focusing the numerical limit on messages rather than speakers seems less effective in promoting order where multiple people might still be speaking simultaneously, just delivering a limited number of “messages.” Paul’s emphasis throughout the chapter is on the agents of the gifts and their manner of exercise in the assembly.

3. The Force of εἷς in καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω:

Grammatical Analysis: The question here is whether εἷς means “one” (a single, specific interpreter) or “someone” (an indefinite interpreter). While Koine Greek, influenced by Semitic languages, can sometimes use εἷς indefinitely (BDF §247(2), BDAG 3), its use in Paul is less consistent than in the Gospels. In a passage preoccupied with numerical order (two, three), the most natural reading of εἷς is as a cardinal numeral “one.” The verb διερμηνευέτω (let him interpret) is singular, agreeing with εἷς.
Rhetorical Analysis: Specifying “one” interpreter (rather than an indefinite “someone” that might imply multiple) further contributes to the orderly structure Paul mandates for the Corinthian assembly. This ensures a single, clear interpretation, avoiding confusion or conflicting interpretations.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis of gender agreement, the distributive force of κατά, and the implications of ἀνὰ μέρος, the most compelling interpretation is that the numerals δύο and τρεῖς refer to the number of speakers of tongues, not the messages themselves. The singular τις λαλεῖ functions as a general condition, accommodating a plural outcome. Furthermore, εἷς is best understood numerically, indicating a single interpreter. Paul’s overarching concern for order and edification in public worship undergirds these grammatical choices, aiming to prevent chaos and ensure clarity.

“If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at most three speakers, and each in turn, and a single person should interpret.”
This translation makes explicit that the numbers refer to individuals, aligning with the masculine/feminine gender of the numerals and the implications of “in turn,” while emphasizing the singularity of the interpreter.
“Should someone speak in a tongue, it is to be by two or at most three, speaking sequentially, with one person providing the interpretation.”
This version concisely conveys the rule for the number of participants and the orderly, sequential delivery, with “speaking sequentially” encompassing the force of ἀνὰ μέρος.
“If there is to be speaking in a tongue, let it be by two or three at most, each speaking in turn, and let there be one interpreter.”
This option maintains a slightly more literal rendering of the Greek, allowing the context to strongly imply “speakers” as the referent for the numbers, while clearly stating the sequential nature of their participation and the singular role of the interpreter.

“`

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:27: The Referent of Numeric Modifiers in Glossolalia Regulation

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:27: The Referent of Numeric Modifiers in Glossolalia Regulation

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply