Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 14:6

"But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?" — 1 Corinthians 14:6 (ASV)

Now, brethren, if I come unto you, etc. The truth that the apostle had been illustrating in an abstract manner, he now proceeds to illustrate by applying it to himself: if he were to come among them speaking foreign languages, it would be of no use unless it was interpreted for them.

Speaking with tongues. This means speaking foreign languages; that is, speaking them only, without any interpreter. Paul had the power of speaking foreign languages (1 Corinthians 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 interprets it as "by the revelation of some gospel doctrine and mystery." Locke interprets it as meaning that you might understand the revelation, or knowledge, and so on; but says in a note that we cannot now certainly understand the difference in meaning among the four words used here. "It is sufficient," he says, "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. Instead, it stands in contrast to that which is unknown and unintelligible, just as that which is revealed (apokaluqiv) is opposed to what is unknown, concealed, hidden, or obscure. Here, therefore, it is perhaps synonymous with explained. "What will it profit, unless what I speak is brought out of the obscurity and darkness of a foreign language, and uncovered or explained?" The original sense of the word revelation is, I suppose, intended here (apokaluqiv, from apokaluptw, to uncover). It means that the sense should be uncovered—that is, explained—otherwise, what was spoken would not be of value.

Or by knowledge. This means by making it intelligible, by explaining it in such a way as to make it understood. Knowledge here stands in contrast to the ignorance and obscurity that would accompany a communication in a foreign language.

Or by prophesying. See the note on 1 Corinthians 14:1.

That is, unless it is communicated through interpretation in the way the prophetic teachers spoke—that is, made intelligible, explained, and actually adapted to the usual characteristics of communications made in their own language.

Or by doctrine? This means by teaching (didach), by instruction in the usual mode of plain and familiar instruction. The meaning of this passage, therefore, is clear. Even if Paul, who had abundant ability to do so, were to utter the most weighty and important truths among them, it would be useless to them unless he interpreted what he said. This interpretation would need to be clear from obscurity (like revelation), or intelligible so as to constitute knowledge, or delivered in the plain and intelligible manner of the prophets, or presented in the usual manner of simple and plain instruction. The perplexities of commentators on this passage can be seen in the writings of Locke, Bloomfield, and Doddridge.

Note: The term "tongues" here signifies "different languages." For "revelation," see also 1 Corinthians 14:26.