The speaker in the video specifically said that when Paul said he would pray with the spirit it was not tongues. Then he goes on to try and explain his own cloudy idea of praying with the spirit as an idea that is something other than tongues and then also praying with his intellect.
Therefore the speaker has lost credibility in his ability to exegete.
At least you were honest enough to know that Paul did mean tongues here when he said pray with the spirit.
I noticed that also. The commentator quoted verses, but his own comments did not connect well with what he quoted.
However you have presented an idea here that Paul prayed in tongues and then interpreted it.
That would suggest a new line of reasoning that Paul had not presented before when he said "let another interpret".
What translation are you using? Verse 27 says in the KJV:
27 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.
Is there any reason to think that 'heis', translated 'one' here specifies that the interpreter may not be the speaker in tongues?
The idea of the speaker in tongues also interpreting tongues already shows up twice in the passage:
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than
he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
and
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue
pray that he may interpret.
Seems rather doubtful that Paul would expect the reader to think that he was telling them that they should pray in tongues and then interpret it with the gift of interpretation, and then sing with tongues and then interpret it with a song?
Praying with the understanding and singing with the understanding is just what it says.
Consider the flow of argument:
13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
Notice 'else' in these verses. Now switches between a scenario where "I" pray with the Spirit and the understanding versus just "thou" giving thanks in tongues. So the argument is not exactly parallel. He may be contrasting his orderly behavior with his readers less orderly behavior.
If you do it Paul's way, you pray with the Spirit and the understanding and others are edified. If you do it 'thou's way, then you just give thanks in tongues well, but the other is not edified. Notice the context from verse 13, for him that speaks in tongues to pray that HE may interpret. The speaker in tongues interpreting.... Then Paul's statements about praying with the spirit and with the understanding... and if you don't do it that way and just give thanks in tongues, you give thanks well but the other is not edified.
Given your own idea of order based on verse 28, you don't think someone should just stand up and give a prayer in tongues, intentionally, without interpretation, do you? Doesn't verse 16 and the verses that follow (like 19) imply that Paul is talking about praying in church in verse 15?
It is not some new way of talking about the gift of interpretation.
Forcing an idea that Paul said he prayed in tongues, and then he interpreted it is a desperate attempt to deny the plain meaning of the text because it supports the idea that one can pray in tongues and be edified. And sing in tongues also.
You will rarely hear anyone mention the singing in tongues topic. It supports the idea of worship between the singer and God and this is too much like a prayer between them and God and so supports the idea of a praying in tongues which is what they want to deny. So they just act like it is not in the text. BUT IT IS.
I suspect it would be rare that you would come across a person with this motivation for not mentioning singing in tongues. Have you ever heard an interpretation of singing in tongues?
Clare Lum wrote in the Apostolic Faith newsletter 'Sometimes one is singing in English, thus interpreting while the others are singing [in tongues[.
I've also heard an interpretation sung before.