And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
Paul is finishing a long correction of a gifted but disorderly church. Here he limits how many may speak and tells the rest to weigh it — but is the number a fixed rule, and who are "the others"?
This instruction is not aimed at every kind of Christian meeting. It belongs to the assembly gathered, where the one speaking stands as God's mouthpiece.
This direction from the apostle applies exactly then — when believers come together as an assembly. It does not cover preaching, or a talk to disciples like the ones Paul gave day by day in the school of Tyrannus. It is God's own rule for the assembly, where the Lord acts by the Spirit working in His sovereign grace. Anyone who speaks there speaks as God's mouthpiece. It is not enough that what he says is true. It must be what God would have said right then, the truth He intended for that occasion.
Prophecy was the gift Paul had just been praising. Even so, the cap falls on it too.
Here the apostle takes the prophets as his example, in contrast to tongues, because everything the prophet said was meant to build others up. So while he puts prophets in the first rank of the gifts that build up, he adds this important safeguard: precious and profitable as prophesying may be, no more than two or three were to speak on the same occasion.
The reason is not the clock. It is the weakest listener in the room.
Suppose six people spoke one after another. What would the effect be? It would be too much of a good thing. It would bewilder many, especially the simpler believers. God always thinks of the little ones. The stronger ones do not need so much of His care.
The cap on speakers guards something else: any believer might be the one God uses next.
If the prophets speak, it must also be only two or three, while others judge. Speakers and hearers each have their own responsibility... Each speaker is to leave room for another who may be given a word, for all may prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be comforted. So anything like one-man ministry in an assembly meeting is out of order.
Shutting that liberty down is no small fault.
Not to allow this when the Assembly is gathered together is to quench the Spirit. That is plain from another scripture, where the apostle says, "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good."... To despise or hinder the freedom of the prophets is to quench the Spirit.
The second half of the verse targets a habit that grows in any group: the trusted voice nobody questions. Older translations read "let the others judge."
Note that the others who listen are to "judge." Even in days when inspired messages came by direct revelation in the assembly, those who listened were to listen with discernment. They were never to take the attitude: "Oh, everything that dear brother A. says must be right!" That attitude is a direct invitation to the devil to twist what brother A. says, and so bring about the fall of many.
Commentators differ here. One reading moves outward from those with the same gift to the whole gathering.
But who is to judge the prophets? First, fellow believers with the same gift; and second, the whole assembly. Whoever has a gift should be the quickest to recognise the Spirit in someone else. But in this passage the apostle has the whole assembly in view, since what is said to all is judged by all. All who believe have the Spirit living in them and, in greater or smaller measure, the mind of Christ. So all are counted able to judge the quality of spiritual ministry.
Others insist the verse never sets up a class of officials at all:
The prophets are not considered as a distinct body of persons at all... The passage is the same as if the apostle should say, "(As to) prophets, let two or three persons speak and the rest judge."
Why those two numbers? And what does judging actually involve?
As to prophecy, though it was more valuable than tongues, only two or three were to speak at one meeting. Two were needed for a witness, and three were enough; more than that would be too much. Others in the assembly were to judge. This is not merely criticism. It is discernment of the truth and spiritual value of the message, just as Paul asked them in 1 Corinthians 10:15: "I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say."
- Setting. The rule belongs to the gathered assembly, where a speaker speaks as God's mouthpiece — not to preaching or a teaching session.
- Limit. Two or three — two make a witness, three are enough. More would overwhelm rather than build up, and God has the simplest hearer in mind.
- Liberty. The ceiling leaves room for whomever the Spirit may use; blocking that freedom is quenching the Spirit, and one-man ministry is out of order.
- Test. Every hearer weighs what is said; no speaker is so trusted that his words go unexamined.
- Spirit. Judging here means discerning the truth and value of the message, not fault-finding: test everything, hold fast what is good.
But if there be a revelation to another sitting [there], let the first be silent.
Paul is setting practical rules for a meeting where more than one person could speak. This verse settles who gives way to whom, and why a speaker moved by the Spirit can still stop.
Why would anyone in the meeting need a fresh word from God? Corinth's situation was not ours.
Remember that when Paul wrote this letter, the believers at Corinth had very little of the New Testament, if any. … It was still the clear work of the Holy Spirit to give revelations to guide God's people. … At such a time the Spirit may have seen the need for a revelation of something the Old Testament did not contain. He would signal this to someone sitting by, listening to the prophet who was speaking. In that case the prophet was to stop speaking, so that the revelation could reach the saints.
Did a revelation come to someone at home beforehand, or in the meeting itself?
Some have argued that every one of the brothers, when they gather together, should come prepared with a psalm or a doctrine… Is this what the apostle's words mean? … "A revelation" is also named, and God could give one at any time. But verse 30 says, "If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent." That is plain proof that the assembly was where the revelations came.
So does the second man simply wait his turn?
What does that mean? That the second has to wait until the first sits down? I do not think so. If the Lord gave a revelation to another prophet, he was to rise to deliver it, and the first would be silent and sit down. Now there is no revelation, and as another has said: "Order is before power. God is never the author of confusion." Subjection is the great point here… What is more profitable than to see a man subject to the Spirit? The prophet should be under the control of the Spirit's power, and in subjection to Him. This is because he might have risen to speak in the Spirit's power, and then gone on beyond his measure.
A speaker might object that he cannot stop, because what he has is from the Spirit.
The power of the Holy Spirit acts morally on the individual. "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." Think of a carriage that steam can move. The moment the steam comes on, the power is there. But it still needs someone to steer it. If the one prophet went on speaking, it was not according to the order of the Spirit, though it was by the Spirit. The gift is committed to men who are responsible for the use of it. It is not mere impulse, though there is an impulse. There must also be control over it.
If anyone present may speak, who keeps order?
Paul finds that there was disorder at the meetings. And how does he correct that disorder? Does he say to appoint a president? Not at all. But he says, "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent." At their meetings for worship, for building one another up, and so on, they are subject to one another in the Lord. A one-man ministry in the assembly gets no support from the Word.
Could a revelation still interrupt a meeting today? And if not, does this chapter still govern our meetings?
Back then there could be something that no longer exists, any more than speaking in a tongue: revelation. … The apostle was teaching these believers before Scripture was complete. God had not yet given all His truth in writing. … But to claim revelation now would clearly call the perfectness of Scripture into question. I have no doubt it would soon prove to be nothing but the fraud or folly of man, and a snare of the devil. … The great aim of all this instruction is not miraculous powers, nor any other passing signs. None of these things is the centre of these chapters. What is? The presence of the Holy Spirit.
That leaves a plain test to apply to anyone who claims otherwise.
We are bound to the written word, where everything needed in our service for God is clearly stated. Beware of anyone who tells you he has a revelation of something not found in the word of God.
- Need — Corinth had almost no New Testament, so God met the need by speaking directly to His gathered people.
- Given — The revelation came to a listener already seated in the meeting. That is where God gave it.
- Yielded — The first speaker stopped and sat down. The fresh word mattered more than the man holding the floor.
- Controlled — The man with the gift still steers the power. An impulse no one can stop is not the Spirit's order.
- Closed — Scripture is complete, so expect no new revelation. What stays is the Spirit's presence, and the yielding this verse teaches.
For ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all be encouraged.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.