And I will pick a little on this "all" reading one more time before I leave. While there is no mystery who wrote this, I am not attacking or belittling. I am trying to point to what seems to me to be straightforward reading.
Quote:
Co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Verse 31 leaves the door open for all to participate. It seems verse 30 makes provision for someone, other than the one speaking, to have something revealed to them, something which might add to, or maybe even correct, what the first one says. In that case, the first one needs to give way to the other. Again, the reason for these interactions is plainly stated: so that all may learn and be comforted.
V 32 says to me that we all need to be in control of ourselves and that God has made us in such a way that we have the capacity to do that.
|
What is missing is that v 29 says "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." Then comes the portion quoted above.
But does verse 31 really leave the door open for all to participate? Do we intend to presume that a "prophet" and "prophesying" are general things? Do we not consider that if Paul meant for all, then he wouldn't have used a term that only 2 chapters earlier he has defined as applying to only some.
Chapter 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"
Have we not understood the answer to each of these questions to be "no"? Why then do we come to the portion of the letter in which Paul is toning-down their meetings and assume that on this one thing 12:29 really should have been answered "yes"?
Paul is busy telling them to limit the tongues-speaking. He starts the section with "when you come together, each of you has. . . ." Then he follows that with restrictions. Only two or three speak in tongues and only if there is an interpreter. 2 or 3 should prophesy. The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophet. Women should keep silence (not saying we should necessarily follow this now). Do it in order. Be orderly.
And our conclusion is that "prophet" suddenly is everyone. If you are not a prophet, you cannot prophesy. And if everyone does not have the gift of prophecy, then everyone cannot prophesy.
But I guess we are too taken with the freedom that was provided in the LRC for non-prophets like me to do it anyway. We want it to be true so badly. We almost seem to be taking the position that since it is "freedom" (since we are so sincere) then it just must be true. I need more than a desire for the context, grammar, etc., to be wrong. I need a reason that is there. A sound reading that arrives at the conclusion without first assuming it is true. And that is the only way I can get there — to have concluded that it is true and be trying to make it fit
despite the context and grammar.
I honestly think that we need to overcome the context and structure of Paul's letter to arrive at a general declaration that all of the assembly can prophesy. And while it is not impossible that it is what he meant, there is way too much going against it to simply declare that it is so (in my opinion).