[Thankful Jane]

My thinking is in line with what ZNP has presented.

Originally Posted by OBW

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 don't feel attacked or belittled. The topic is some verses in the Bible, not me. I think you said something like this earlier concerning your postings.

In the future (which means please don't leave) if you quote something from a post by me, I’d like it better if you just said so, rather than saying something like, “there is no mystery who wrote this." That way of making a reference to me made me feel a bit strange.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am trying to point to what seems to me to be straightforward reading. 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.

I didn't purposely leave out v. 29. I could have included it and also have included v. 27 which says let those who speak in tongues be two or three at the most. Here is how I see these verses: Paul mentioned two or three in v 27 with the purpose of limiting those who were speaking in tongues. Then in v. 29 he again mentioned two or three, but this time, instead of limiting prophesying, he encourages others sitting by and listening to speak up if they have something to say.

In chapters 12 to 14, the overall context is Paul’s advocating that when they come together people should speak words that can be understood and that comfort and edify (one of the meanings of prophesy is to speak inspirational words. ZNP made good points regarding this meaning). In my opinion, Paul said that “all” could prophesy in order to encourage more to do what they were capable of doing, instead of letting the meetings be overrun by tongue speaking which would cause people to say the Corinthian believers were mad.

I hear you saying that v 29 means there are only a few who are gifted as prophets and only they should speak. In my view, this doesn’t fit well in the overall context. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying others should sit silently and just think about what is said. I am not insisting that all must speak, but just pointing out that the Bible says all “can,” and this indicates that there should be the possibility for them to do so.

Paul also says that the Corinthians should covet earnestly the best gifts (12:31) and that they should covet to prophesy (14:39). Why would Paul tell them to covet something they weren’t supposed to have or use?

Also, the two or three in v 29 might not necessarily refer to the same two or three people in every meeting. It could mean that two or three speak in one gathering and the next time they gather, two or three different ones speak. As you said, there are other ways these verses can be read. It just seems too much to go so far in interpretation that you leave no place for verses like 24 and 26 which clearly talk about “all” and “every one” and which do fit well in the overall context of Paul’s message.

Thankful Jane

P. S. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not promoting or defending the LC form of meeting or Lee/Nee's teaching about it (or any form or way of meeting for that matter). I have had a variety of meeting experiences since leaving. I have been in situations where 2 or three speak (more like 1 or 2) and in situations where all can participate. I’ve been in these long enough to see their fruit. We were in a Bible church for multiple years. (And, for the record, while there, we weren’t looking down on anyone; we were being loved and cared for by them. I was actually looking up to them from a very low place.) Over time, however, we watched things deteriorate as the leadership became focused on making everyone into leaders. Everything they spoke headed this way. The repitition of the words “leaders” and “leadership” coming from the 1 or 2 was reminiscent for me of the many times I heard the words “God’s economy” in the LC. (I started missing hearing that wonderful name above all names ...) Everyone sat silently as the 1 or 2 rode the leadership teaching horse into the ground. No one seemed to believe they had the right to say “whoa” to that horse. I think Paul would have said they had not only the right but the responsibility. I learned a lot from both experiences, but, as you might guess, I prefer the participatory one.