1 Corinthians 14:29,30

“As to the prophets, let them speak two or three, and let the others judge. 30. And if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.”

The εἴτε, whether, which we expect to correspond to the εἴτε of 1 Corinthians 14:27, changes into a simple δέ, but or as to, and that no doubt because, if the presence of glossolaletes is accidental and uncertain, that of prophets is a fact which does not seem doubtful.

Paul again lays down three rules: The first, as to number. By saying simply two or three, suppressing the τὸ πλεῖστον, at most (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:27), Paul shows that he accepts the number three, in the case of prophets, more easily than in the case of tongues.

The second rule relates to mode; prophecy, like tongues, has its necessary complement: discernment, that judgment by which any impure elements, which might have found their way into it, were to be described as such and removed. It should be borne in mind that as yet there was neither a written Word nor a body of doctrine strictly formulated. All was in course of formation; it belonged to prophecy itself to bring the new elements which were afterwards to be elaborated and ordered by διδασκαλία, teaching. How important, then, was it that no strange mixture should be cast, if one may so speak, into the molten mass! Hence the importance of a διάκρισις, discernment, a trial of the ideas expressed in the prophecies which were addressed to the congregation.

By whom was this judgment exercised? Some have thought that the term οἱ ἄλλοι, the others, could only designate the other prophets; but in that case should we not rather have οἱ λοιποί, the rest of the prophets? Melanchthon thought that the word applied to all the members of the Church, and the view seems to me to be in a certain measure correct. Of course in practice such an office, in which every one had the right to take part, could only be carried out by means of the most capable, especially the teachers. The passage 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, seems to confirm this wider meaning of the word the others. Meyer objects that διάκρισις was a gift (1 Corinthians 12:10), and that consequently every believer did not possess it. It is needless to say that the meaning of the others is limited by the possession of this gift. Only there is nothing to prove that the gift belonged only to the prophets themselves.

What was the standard of this judgment? It is not without reason, certainly, that the apostle began his whole exposition regarding spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-3), by indicating the precise character which distinguishes true and false inspirations, mentioning that the first have for their common characteristic and essence the cry of adoration: Jesus Lord! while the others tend to the abasement and rejection of Jesus. It was enough, then, to bring every prophecy into connection with this centre of all Christian revelation, the person of Christ, and to see what was the tendency of the prophecy that had been heard, to disparage or to glorify Him. It is no doubt to this standard that Paul's expression Romans 12:6 applies, the analogy of faith. This judgment must consequently have mainly set aside everything in a prophetic discourse which could compromise the Divine sovereignty of Jesus over the world, the Church, and the individual soul. This is in harmony with the saying of Jesus, John 16:13-14: “When the Spirit is come, He will glorify Me. ”

Vv. 30. The third rule relates to order: If, while a prophet is speaking, another receives a revelation, both should not speak simultaneously; the first should keep silence. But, it will be asked, why should not the second rather wait till the first finished? Assuredly, because the freshest revelation will also produce the purest prophecy. It is by lengthening his discourse that the prophet is in danger of mixing what is his own with the Divine communication. The apostle's injunction is well fitted to set aside empty amplifications and verbiage.

The expression: to another that sitteth by, shows that the prophet speaking was standing, and that he to whom the new revelation is addressed testifies his intention to speak by rising. There is something strange in the impersonal and passive form ἀποκαλυφθῇ, it is revealed to him; it seems as if the cloud of Divine revelation were seen passing from over the one to the other.

It might be thought that the verb σιγᾷν, to keep silence, is used here in the sense of σιωπᾷν, to become silent; but it can have its natural meaning: “Let him from that moment keep silence.”

It might seem presumptuous thus to regulate the manifestations of the prophetic spirit; hence the apostle in the following verses expressly justifies the liberty he takes of fixing a rigorous mode of procedure in such a domain, where everything seems to be given up to the incalculable breathing of the Spirit.