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.
And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
Paul is setting the order for a meeting where several people may speak, and here he removes the excuse that would wreck it. Nobody can claim he was swept along and could not stop, because this verse puts the speaker in charge of his own gift.
The word "spirits" here does not point to the Holy Spirit. It points to the man's own renewed spirit — the capacity that lets him take in the things of God. The verse proves it: the Holy Spirit is not subject to anyone.
The Holy Spirit is not meant here, and verse 32 makes that clear: "the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." No one could say that the Holy Spirit was subject to a prophet. But those readers knew the frenzied extravagances of Delphi, and they needed the reminder. Prophecy was not an uncontrollable impulse that set aside the responsibility of the one prophesying. On the contrary, the prophet's spirit was subject to him, so he was responsible to act in good order, building up and comforting the assembly.
Delphi was a Greek shrine famous for its frenzied prophets.
A gift is something a person holds, not something that holds him. That places an ordinary human duty — self-control — on the spiritual man.
"And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." The holder of a gift is greater than what he holds. It is a man's natural duty to rule his own spirit, and the spiritual man carries that same responsibility of self-control. Claiming you must speak is a familiar plea of pretended gift... Impulse is not enough to justify a prophet's speech. His judgment must agree with his impressions.
Real power still needs a hand on the wheel.
The power of the Holy Spirit works on the individual in a moral way. "The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." Think of a carriage that runs on steam. The moment the steam comes on, the power is there. But it still needs someone to steer. If one prophet went on speaking, that 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 an impulse is given; but there must also be control over it.
Can a speaker claim the Spirit left him no choice? The two powers differ in how they treat the person they use.
The Spirit of God works in full partnership with the spirit of the prophet. He uses the man in full coordination with that man's own abilities, intelligence, personality, conscience and emotions. An evil spirit cannot do this. It seeks to control its victim, so that the victim has no rule over what he says. Often he does not even know what he says.
So waiting is always open to him.
This verse simply teaches that the spirit of the prophet was under the prophet's control. No irresistible power forced him to speak. He could wait, in calm self-possession, for a fitting occasion to speak. This is a most valuable principle, and one worth thinking through carefully. If we fully understood it and acted on it, it would save us from a great deal of fanaticism and absurdity.
Because the speaker can stop, silence can be the spiritual choice. Having something true to say is not the same as being free to say it now.
The order and moral rule of the Spirit outweighs mere power from Him. There may be power, but a person is not free to use it in any other way... I may have a real moving of the Spirit, and still I am to hold my tongue. If three have spoken, and I have five prophecies to tell, I must hold my tongue... The principle here is clear: power is not to guide us. The rule for my using it is that it profits those to whom I speak.
The reason lies in the character of God Himself.
Power must not set order aside. The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; there is no uncontrollable impulse here... Excitement and uproar dishonour Him, even when the energy at work is His own gift. He is the source and giver of peace.
- Whose spirit — "Spirits" means the prophets' own spirits, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is never subject to a man.
- Who steers — The power is real, but the man holds the wheel: he controls the gift; the gift does not control him.
- Who is excused — Nobody. "I couldn't help it" is the mark of an evil spirit, not of the Holy Spirit, who uses a man's mind, conscience and emotions.
- When to stop — Since he can stop, he sometimes must. A real impulse still yields to order. The test of speaking is whether it helps the hearers.
- What results — Calm self-possession instead of fanaticism. Peace instead of uproar, because that is the character of the God who is present.
For God is not [a God] of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.
Paul orders the meetings at Corinth by one rule: the character of God Himself. A gathering should look like the God it worships. So two questions follow. Where does confusion come from, and who keeps order when believers meet? (Older translations render the first phrase "God is not the author of confusion.")
The verse comes right after the words about the spirits of the prophets. Read together, they show what a scene of confusion really means.
The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, a statement that excludes all idea of being moved by an uncontrollable impulse. With men speaking under the power of demons it would be otherwise, resulting in unholy excitement and confusion. God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace. Any scene of confusion in the assemblies of God's people is clearly not of God.
The practical value of this is that it removes a standard excuse. A speaker is never at the mercy of his gift.
1 Corinthians 14:32 simply teaches that the spirit of the prophet was under the prophet's control — that he was not compelled, as by some irresistible force, to speak, but that he could wait, in calm self-possession, for a fitting occasion to speak. This is a most valuable principle, and one which ought to be deeply pondered. If it were fully understood and acted upon, it would preserve us from a quantity of mere fanaticism and absurdity.
If peace belongs to God, disorder must come from somewhere else.
A gift is not God, and the way a gift is used is not always an expression of His will. But God dwells in the assembly, and in each individual saint. This solemn and ever blessed truth lies at the bottom of all special direction as to behaviour in the Church. What God expects from His worshippers is not so much a ready awareness of gifts or powers in themselves. It is a deep and reverent sense of His immediate presence… Confusion is the fruit of human self-seeking, but grace makes us know the God of peace. When His abounding peace fills and quiets their hearts, their outward manner will show their inward state.
The same principle reaches beyond the meeting into every quarrel among believers.
Strife and contention in the churches could not come from God. He is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints… These things spring from the flesh. We read: "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?" (James 4:1). The devil, the relentless enemy of God, is behind the flesh. He can work upon it; he could have no foothold among the saints of God apart from it.
Because God Himself is the God of peace, one question presses: who presides when believers gather?
The assembly at Corinth had the worst confusion and disorder. Even there, the inspired apostle never hints at such a thing as a human president, under any name at all. God was there to keep order. They were to look to Him, not to a man, under any name. To set up man to keep order in God's Assembly is sheer unbelief, and an open insult to the Divine Presence.
The closing phrase widens the verse past Corinth. What Paul writes to one assembly holds for all.
God led Paul to write to the Corinthian assembly to set them right about many things among them. But all through the letter we see passages that prove the apostle never treated it as an independent, self-contained unit. He saw it as a responsible and representative part of the whole church of God on earth… The same teaching, and the same principles of action that applied to them, applied to all… What applies to one applies to all.
Commentators differ on where the phrase belongs. Some join it to the words before it; others to the sentence after it.
A full stop clearly belongs after the word peace. A new sentence then begins: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches."
These directions carry the weight of a command, so no one may shelve them as out of date.
Paul called on the saints at Corinth to see that these instructions, with all the earlier ones he gave, were not just his own ideas of what looked proper. They were "the commandments of the Lord." So our duty is plain. It is not for us to explain them away, or to treat them as only Paul's opinion, or as rules that suited the first century but are now out of date. Rather, as far as we understand them, we are to obey them.
- Character — Peace describes God Himself. So confusion in a meeting shows that something other than God is at work.
- Control — The prophets' spirits are subject to them. No speaker can plead an impulse he cannot resist, and wild excitement is not the mark of God's Spirit.
- Cause — Confusion grows out of self-seeking and the flesh. Strife between believers starts in the same place.
- Chairman — God Himself is present to keep order. Setting up a man to preside in His assembly counts as unbelief, not good management.
- Compass — "As in all the churches" makes this the pattern everywhere. And these are the Lord's commandments, not Paul's preference.
Let [your] women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; but to be in subjection, as the law also says.
Paul is telling a church how to behave when it meets: who may speak, in what order, and why. This verse puts one limit inside that freedom. Two questions follow. What does "in the churches" mean? And how does it fit with the same letter's earlier words about women praying and prophesying?
Commentators tie the restriction to a place, not to a woman's gift. Once the setting is fixed, the apparent clash with 1 Corinthians 11:5 disappears.
There is no inconsistency between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 1 Corinthians 14:34. The first applies to a woman's prophesying under any circumstances. The second is limited to the use of the gift in the Christian assembly, where it is firmly forbidden to the woman... If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Yet He has been pleased to regulate its use. The Christians had made the mistake many have fallen into since: supposing that because someone has a spiritual gift, there is unlimited freedom at all times and in all places.
Some argue the word means idle chatter, so that only disruptive talking is banned. Kelly answers them from another passage that uses the same word.
The word "speak," they say, means only casual talk or chatter. This is completely untrue. It is the regular word for speaking out in public, as 1 Peter 4:10-11 shows... "whoever speaks" is to do so "as one who speaks oracles of God"; "whoever serves" is to do so "by the strength that God supplies." This is the same word for "speaking" that is forbidden to the women in this verse. It is speaking in public, not chattering.
Paul appeals to the Law, not to local custom. One writer follows that appeal back through the Old Testament, and asks where the women who prophesied actually spoke.
In a previous chapter the apostle has recognised the woman's liberty to pray and to prophesy. But in the churches or assemblies her voice must not be heard. The one exception is the shared praise that should always rise to God from such gatherings. Privacy is the woman's sphere, and subjection her appointed place in relation to the man. Both law and gospel teach this equally... Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. If Miriam prophesied, it was to the women of Israel. If Deborah was raised up, it was a mark of God's judgement and dishonour on the nation that had lost its true manhood by turning from the Lord... Scripture everywhere discourages a woman taking a prominent place, as out of keeping with the original law of creation.
Was this a one-off correction for one troubled city? Two things in the text answer that: the plural "churches," and Paul's own words in verse 37.
The instructions in this letter are not just local. They speak to all professing Christians everywhere. In the very passage under discussion the apostle speaks of women keeping silence in the "churches." He does not say "in your church," but "in the churches." ... Woman's place in the assembly is one of subjection and retirement, not of leadership. Those who take part publicly — in prayer, praise, or ministry — take a place of leadership, and that place is not given to women.
Notice that this ban on women speaking in the assembly is not just the word of the apostle Paul — a bachelor, as some would describe him. These things are "the commands of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37). So anyone who wants to be spiritual and please the Lord here must accept that these instructions are the statutes of God.
Set against the rest of the chapter, this limit is narrow. Grant describes a gathering with no fixed leader, led by the Spirit Himself.
The Holy Spirit is really present with us as the infallible Guide and Director in the church of God... the whole Church, in its coming together, could be trusted to His guidance, without prayer-book, priest, or president — each man left to his own conscience before God... In the public assembly, the women were to be silent (1 Corinthians 14). The one exception shows how large the liberty for all else.
Silence in the assembly is not a verdict on a woman's worth. Scripture speaks of women with high honour elsewhere.
I believe sisters have a very honourable place in Scripture. They stayed close to the Lord when the disciples deserted Him. At His death and resurrection it is they, not the apostles, who are found there. In His life they cared for His needs. At the end of Romans the apostle gives them the highest praise. But the Lord never sends them out to teach or preach... Everything is beautiful in its place.
- Place, not person. The limit belongs to the assembly when it gathers. The same letter allows a woman to pray and prophesy elsewhere.
- Speak, not chatter. The word is the ordinary one for public speaking, the same word used in 1 Peter 4:10-11.
- Law, not culture. Paul grounds it in what the Law says, a subjection that both law and gospel teach.
- Churches, not Corinth. The plural "churches" and Paul's words in verse 37 make it a command of the Lord for all, not a local fix.
- Liberty, not silencing. The gathering has no prayer-book, priest, or president. This one exception shows how wide that freedom is, and the place it leaves the woman is honourable.
But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in assembly.
This verse sets a rule for the Christian meeting. Two words decide what it means: "church" and "speak".
Knapp settles the sense of the word from how it runs through the chapter.
"The Church" here is not a building or a structure of any kind. It is the assembly of God's saints, His people. The expression "in the Church," or "Churches," comes five times in this chapter (verses 19, 28, 33, 34 and 35). It always means the gathering of the Christians in assembly. The place makes no difference — a building, a hall, a private house, or even the open air. What matters is not the place but the persons and purpose of the gathering.
Some soften the verse by saying the word means idle chatter. Kelly tests that against how the same word works elsewhere.
The ingenuity of the will, however, has found a supposed loophole. The word "speak," they say, means only to talk casually or to chatter. This is wholly untrue. It is the regular word for speaking out, as 1 Peter 4:10-11 shows… It is the same word that the earlier scripture forbids to the women. It is speaking in public, not idle talk. So the ban is complete. Woman's place is a quiet, private one; she is to learn quietly and in full submission.
The verse does not stop a woman from learning. It tells her where to ask.
Even asking questions in the assembly is not permitted: they may learn at home by this means, from their husbands. Of course, if they do not have a husband, it is elementary that they are not forbidden to ask someone else in private circumstances.
Kelly notes that the assembly is the one place where reason would expect the rule to lift.
Those who love to reason might have supposed that there, if anywhere, women would be allowed to speak. It is a holy setting, where man is as nothing and God makes His presence and power known. It might have seemed a fitting place for holy women to speak. They might well have gifts, even the gift of prophesying, like the four daughters of Philip the evangelist.
Some treat the rule as Paul's personal bias. Knapp answers by pointing two verses further on.
But we would ask those who hold that "all Scripture is breathed out by God" to read verse 37: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." That settles everything for the soul that is subject to Scripture. These are not the arbitrary orders of a mere man, biased in favour of his own sex or prejudiced against women. They are "the commandments of the Lord," so we submit to them and obey them without question.
Some women in the New Testament did prophesy, as Philip's four daughters did. Kelly resolves the tension by asking where, not whether.
There is no inconsistency between this text and 1 Corinthians 14:34. The first applies to a woman's prophesying under any circumstances. The last covers only the use of the gift in the Christian assembly or church, and there it is firmly forbidden to the woman… If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Yet He has been pleased to regulate how it is used. The Christians had made a mistake many have fallen into since. They supposed that because someone has a spiritual gift, he has unrestricted licence at all times and in all places.
Darby ranked the place of women in Scripture very high.
I believe Christian women have a very honourable place in Scripture. They stayed close to the Lord when the disciples deserted Him. At His death and resurrection they, not the apostles, are found there. In His life they cared for His needs. And at the end of Romans the apostle gives them the highest testimony… Everything is beautiful in its place.
Knapp answers those who scoff at the idea of a woman asking her husband at home.
Some have scoffed at the idea of an intelligent woman asking a question of her dull husband at home. That is worldly reasoning, not the reasoning of someone who honours the Lord and His Word. Another writer answered it well: "A Christian woman taking the place assigned to her by the great Head of the Church testifies of Him and for Him by a silence more effective than eloquent speech."
- Where. "In church" means the gathered assembly, not a building. The rule follows the meeting, wherever it meets.
- What. "Speak" is the ordinary word for speaking in public, not chatter. The ban even covers asking a question.
- Instead. Learning still goes on. The question moves home, to a husband, or to someone in private if there is none.
- Why. Verse 37 calls this a command of the Lord, not one man's preference.
- Worth. God does not deny the gift; He sets where it is used. The place He gives is honourable — a testimony more effective than eloquent speech.
Did the word of God go out from you, or did it come to you only?
Paul has just set out how the church at Corinth should behave when it meets. He closes that section with two questions that are really a rebuke. Behind them is a question every church still faces: does the church produce the word of God, or only receive it?
These are not requests for information. One writer hears sarcasm in them, and answers the question for us as well as for Corinth.
There seems to be almost a touch of sarcasm in the apostle's words when he wrote, "Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?" In truth the Word of God came to us only; it never came out from us. Our place is to receive it humbly and without question, and the more spiritual we are, the more fully we will do that.
The first question asks where the word starts. Wolston turns that into a choice each reader has to make.
Are you the source of the word of God, or is it God who gives the word through me, to you, to teach you? Are you going to be teachers, or taught, in this question? ... Every heart that loves Christ will now have to ask itself this question: Am I keeping His commandments when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14?
If no church is the source of the word, no church can make its own rules. Kelly turns that into a test reaching far beyond Corinth.
The word of God comes out from no church, and it comes to no group of believers to the exclusion of others. What a principle, and how deep-reaching and important for all! ... A church may lay down its rules. It may draw up its beliefs. It may put out something for people to act on in discipline, government or doctrine. If that is not in simple subjection to the word of God, it falls into the same error the Corinthian church is warned against here.
The second question asks whether the word reached them alone. It did not, so Corinth was no special case. That also settles what the church may and may not do.
The assembly must hold to the truth. While it bears with a lack of understanding (for we all know only in part), it must approve no error... But the assembly is taught. It cannot and should not teach. It is to accept those whom the Lord sends to teach... The word of God comes to the saints, and it comes to all of them.
The verse follows Paul's direction about women keeping silence in the assemblies. Fereday reads it as a further reason for that instruction, not as a new subject.
The word of God comes to the church (the woman), not out from it, as the Church of Rome would teach us. The Christian woman is to learn this great principle and act on it. She is to learn from the man, and not take on the role of the man's teacher.
Kelly answers a further objection. Having a gift is not the same as the right to use it anywhere.
No doubt they reasoned that if women had gifts, why should they not use them everywhere? But only the One who gives the gift has the right to say when, how, and who may use it.
The next verse supplies the proof Paul is after. He tests a claim to be spiritual by what a person does with what he has written.
With all their gifts, the word did not come out from the Corinthians, and it had not come to them only. They ought to submit to the universal order of the Spirit in the assembly. If they claimed to be led by the Spirit, let them acknowledge — and this would prove it — that the things the apostle wrote to them were the commandments of the Lord.
- Received, not produced — the word never came out from the Corinthians; it came to them. That single fact settles the whole argument.
- Received by all — the word did not reach them only, so no church is an exception to what binds every other.
- Received, so taught — a church that receives is a learner. It accepts the teachers the Lord sends, and never appoints itself teacher.
- Received, so no rule-making — when a church makes rules that Scripture has not given, it repeats Corinth's mistake.
- Received, so proved — you show you are spiritual by bowing to what is written as the Lord's commandment, not by claiming to be led.
If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is [the] Lord's commandment.
Paul has just set out how believers should behave when they meet: who may speak, in what order, and why. Now he turns to the gifted people at Corinth who might push back. What he writes is not one man's preference. It is a command from the Lord, and a spiritual person will be the first to admit it.
This verse seals everything Paul has said. His claim reaches far beyond one city's problems. The quotes below use an older wording of the verse, "the commandments of the Lord":
The Apostle closes his directions with a firm claim: they are the commandments of the Lord. As such, they carry all the authority of the word of God. That word comes not only to the assembly at Corinth, but to all the assemblies of God's people. To ignore the Apostle's directions is to deny that the word of God applies to the whole church. The church's place is to be subject to the word of God, remembering that the word comes to the church, not from it. The assembly, as such, is taught; it cannot teach.
Calling Paul's letters a "commandment" raises a worry. Is this a slide back into rule-keeping? One writer answers that the letters were always Scripture, and time has not weakened them:
The instructions in the letters were always part of Scripture, nothing less. They speak straight to the heart and conscience of the people they were written to. They were commands, but they were not law. If they were law, the great apostle who taught us that we are set free from the law made a terrible mistake. He knew that the Spirit must work through the written Word for it to take effect, in sinner or saint. Yet that did not stop him from claiming complete obedience to what he wrote. We owe that obedience no less than they did.
Paul does not argue about whether the Corinthians are spiritual. He gives them a way to prove it, and the same test still applies:
The Spirit of God knew in advance that people would ignore or challenge these rules. Some at Corinth were already leaning that way. They might imagine themselves to be spiritual people. If they truly were spiritual, they would prove it. They would see that the rules Paul laid down were not his own ideas, but the Lord's commands given through him. The test of our spirituality today is just the same.
The word "thinks" points to where the Corinthians went wrong. A great gift felt like proof that they were spiritual, and it was not:
Someone might suppose himself to be spiritual because the Spirit had given him a great gift. But the one does not follow from the other at all, as we see at Corinth. The moral fruits of the Spirit were missing there. They were missing because the Corinthians were not walking in the Spirit. They were walking as mere men, ruled by the flesh.
Most people who escape this verse today do not deny it. They date it, treating these instructions as fit only for the church's early days. One writer meets that head on:
We all like to think of ourselves as spiritual. Now, fellow Christians, every one of you must face this: "the commandments of the Lord" must not be despised. You cannot treat them lightly... I know some will say that all this was for the early days. It worked then, but it cannot be done now. That is sheer unbelief, and nerve as well. God has spoken. Our place is to obey. It is not our place to tell Him that we are wiser than He is, and that we know how to run things in His house better than He did Himself.
Gift and obedience are not rivals. The more real the gift, the deeper the obedience:
Real insight into God's mind, or the fruit of it in a spiritual life, would only deepen the sense of the Lord's authority and of how binding obedience is. We see this perfectly in Christ Himself while He was here on earth. So let the power of the Spirit be shown by recognising His commandment! Does anyone refuse to submit, saying he does not know? Then let him keep the place of ignorance, and not pretend to teach.
- Commandment claimed. Paul calls his directions the Lord's commandments. They carry the authority of God's word — not for Corinth only, but for all the assemblies of God's people.
- Commandment, not law. These commands were never a return to law. Yet Paul claimed complete obedience to what he wrote, and we owe him that obedience just as Corinth did.
- Commandment as test. Anyone can think himself spiritual. The proof is seeing that these rules are not Paul's ideas but the Lord's commands. The test is the same today.
- Commandment above gift. Corinth shows that a great gift proves nothing. The moral fruits of the Spirit were missing there, because they walked as mere men.
- Commandment refused. Saying "that was only for the early days" is unbelief. God has spoken. Whoever refuses to obey by claiming ignorance should stay in that place, and not pretend to teach.