Max of 2 or 3 prophecies per meeting?

[LinkH]

How many of you have read or have been taught that a church service should have no more than three prophecies per meeting? I sure can't find this in the Bible.

I think they try to get that from these verses:
I Corinthians 14
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

But unless there were only three people in the church in Corinth, then 'ye may all prophesy' allows for more than three prophecies. Let's see, I Corinthians 14 mentions Crispus, Gaius, the household of Stephanus, the house of Chloe-- that's more than two or three there. Acts tells us that many Corinthians were baptized.

Earlier in the chapter, Paul suggests a positive scenario in which 'all prophesy.'

I think part of the problem is assuming a traditional Protestant worship service as the backdrop for I Corinthians 14. At that time, John Calvin hadn't been invented yet. There is no passage that teaches us to have one long sermon by a pastor. I Corinthians 14 is the longest chapter on how to have church. The speakers in the chapter are 'every one of you' (v. 26), one who speaks in tongues and one who interprets (v. 7), prophets (v.. 29._ and 'ye...all' (v.31).

There is no mention of only one pastor speaking or one sermon. Pastors/elders/bishops aren't even mentioned in the chapter that tells us what to do in church. They fall in under 'every one of you' in verse 26 along with the rest of us.

 

[tturt]

Yeah, I think that's where they get it from. From Mounce Reverse Interlinear NT
"Two or three should speak as prophets and · others should weigh carefully what is said. But if a revelation comes to another person who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For in this way all will be able to prophesy one by one, with the result that all may learn and all be encouraged,"
Interesting.

 

[dayhiker]

We are also instructed to only have two or three speak in tongues in a service.

 

[LinkH]

We are also instructed to only have two or three speak in tongues in a service.

The Bible doesn't say that. It says that after one speaks in tongues, two or at the most three, and that by course, let one interpret. It doesn't say that can't be repeated during the same service.

 

[tturt]

This is way it reads to me - the believer speaking in tongues for interpretation should only state it at the most 3 times, if there is no interpretation, that believer stops. When there is an interpretation, there will only be 1 interpretation.

 

[Dave-W]

1 Cor 14.27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;
28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

This limits tongues to 3 messages and then MUST be intrepreted. Whether it is an absolute limit of 3 per meeting or if it resets after the intrepretations is not clear. The limit on prophecies seem to fall into the same category:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

Now we could take this as an absolute limit to 3 prophetic messages per meeting; except for what he said 2 verses later:

31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted.

Since it is in the same passage of this letter, I would take them as symetrical: 3 tongues and then intrepret, (repeat as necessary); 3 prophecies and the leaders judge, (repeat as necessary.)

 

[LinkH]

Yeah, reminds of the instructions on a bottle of shampoo, wash rinse, repeat. You could go on forever.

 

[tturt]

" but if there is no interpreter," compared to " then MUST be intrepreted." ??

 

[Biblicist]

We are also instructed to only have two or three speak in tongues in a service.

The reason that Paul (the Scriptures) only permit up to three tongues per meeting, is that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that they are always directed to the Father and not to man. Even though we all value our time when we can praise the Lord during our meetings, as the others in the congregation receive no tangible benefit or edification when someone speaks to the Father this way, then Paul understandably wants to keep our meetings as the assembly of the Saints where all are edefied and not so much "me" times.

The Scriptures certainly encourages us to audibly sing to the Lord in our native tongues where Paul also says with regard to praying in the Spirit in 1Cor 14:28, that we can "speak quietly to ourselves and to God", which removes the possibility where a cessationist or unsaved person could walk into our meetings hearing everyone speaking in tongues all at once, where they could rightfully declare (1Cor 14:23) "You are all mad!"

 

[Biblicist]

Yeah, I think that's where they get it from. From Mounce Reverse Interlinear NT
"Two or three should speak as prophets and · others should weigh carefully what is said. But if a revelation comes to another person who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For in this way all will be able to prophesy one by one, with the result that all may learn and all be encouraged,"
Interesting.

The "all" would undoubtedly be referring to the three who choose to prophecy to the congregation. It does not say "all" the congregation where Paul could have probably also said "each" of the three who desired to prophesy. Paul would also be saying that the entire congregation would be able to prophesy over a period of time within a number of subsequent meetings.

 

[Alithis]

for the most part men have so bound us up in rules that there are almost zero congregations being led by the Holy Spirit in this direct manner .

ie -if there is a word give or a tongue interpreted .. have you listened to what is said and then had the leadership submit to the leadership of the holy Spirit and immediately act on what the Spirit just said ?
interesting isn't it ...

 

[Biblicist]

for the most part men have so bound us up in rules that there are almost zero congregations being led by the Holy Spirit in this direct manner .

ie -if there is a word give or a tongue interpreted .. have you listened to what is said and then had the leadership submit to the leadership of the holy Spirit and immediately act on what the Spirit just said ?
interesting isn't it ...

That's intersting indeed!

As the rules tell us that when we pray/speak in tongues that the Spirit always directs his intercessions/praise to the Father and never to man; I would have to ask, why would we ever need to have the elders confirm such an intercessory prayer or word of praise?

Of course, when it comes to prophecy, which is always given in the language of those present, where the communication is always directed to the congregation or an individual, then this is a different matter.

 

[Alithis]

That's interesting indeed!

As the rules tell us that when we pray/speak in tongues that the Spirit always directs his intercessions/praise to the Father and never to man; I would have to ask, why would we ever need to have the elders confirm such an intercessory prayer or word of praise?

Of course, when it comes to prophecy, which is always given in the language of those present, where the communication is always directed to the congregation or an individual, then this is a different matter.

yeah well. umm i didnt mean the leadership has to confirm .. as such. but as they are mostly deemed to be in that role i find it of interest that they seldom act on prophecy ..its more like .."oh nice word " now lets break for coffee or have notices ...

 

[LinkH]

The "all" would undoubtedly be referring to the three who choose to prophecy to the congregation. It does not say "all" the congregation where Paul could have probably also said "each" of the three who desired to prophesy. Paul would also be saying that the entire congregation would be able to prophesy over a period of time within a number of subsequent meetings.

This scenario, earlier in the chapter, puts all prophesying in a positive light. This sure looks like it is happening one meeting, doesn't it?


24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

I try to interpret verse 31 consistent with verses 24-25.

Look at the wording in verse 31,
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

That doesn't sound like multiple meetings to me.

Intuitively, does it make sense? Suppose, after two or three prophets give messages during the song service at a traditional Pentecostal church, the Spirit of God moves a pastor while he is speaking, so that he is actually prophesying while he is speaking. Is that forbidden? Does he have to make sure the Spirit doesn't specifically move him to say anything or give him any revelatory insights while he's preaching, so that he can be 'in order'?

 

[LinkH]

The reason that Paul (the Scriptures) only permit up to three tongues per meeting, is that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that they are always directed to the Father and not to man. Even though we all value our time when we can praise the Lord during our meetings, as the others in the congregation receive no tangible benefit or edification when someone speaks to the Father this way, then Paul understandably wants to keep our meetings as the assembly of the Saints where all are edefied and not so much "me" times.

Prayers that are interpreted can be edifying to others. The Psalms are an example, since they are full of prayers that were set to song. This seems to imply that prayers are supposed to edify,

17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

I've head interpretations of tongues that were prayers and some that weren't.

Could this verse be suggesting various types of content that we might hear in a message in tongues?

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

The Scriptures certainly encourages us to audibly sing to the Lord in our native tongues where Paul also says with regard to praying in the Spirit in 1Cor 14:28, that we can "speak quietly to ourselves and to God", which removes the possibility where a cessationist or unsaved person could walk into our meetings hearing everyone speaking in tongues all at once,

You added the word 'quietly'. Another way to take it is to be absolutely quiet with the tongues if there is no interpreter, and to use it outside of the meeting at some other time. In churches where people kind of mumble in tongues, cessationists and unbelievers may still think they are crazy.

where they could rightfully declare (1Cor 14:23) "You are all mad!"

[/quote]

That's not a rightful declaration.

 

[LinkH]

yeah well. umm i didnt mean the leadership has to confirm .. as such. but as they are mostly deemed to be in that role i find it of interest that they seldom act on prophecy ..its more like .."oh nice word " now lets break for coffee or have notices ...

I suspect Acts 11:29 is an example of how to 'judge' prophecies, or what to do after the prophecy is judged.

28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

 

[Biblicist]

yeah well. umm i didnt mean the leadership has to confirm .. as such. but as they are mostly deemed to be in that role i find it of interest that they seldom act on prophecy ..its more like .."oh nice word " now lets break for coffee or have notices ...

Dare I confess that I was actually trying to prepare the ground for you (or someone else) to say, "what do you mean by saying that the Holy Spirit will never never never absolutely never direct a word of tongues along with interpretation to a Believer!

Which was a shame that no-one took the bait as I had all my toy tanks setup on my desk aimed directly at the screen; so here I was last night having to pack them away for another time - who knows, after this post I might be able to unpack them again.

Even with my meanderings, I still concur with your reply.

 

[Alithis]

Dare I confess that I was actually trying to prepare the ground for you (or someone else) to say, "what do you mean by saying that the Holy Spirit will never never never absolutely never direct a word of tongues along with interpretation to a Believer!

Which was a shame that no-one took the bait as I had all my toy tanks setup on my desk aimed directly at the screen; so here I was last night having to pack them away for another time - who knows, after this post I might be able to unpack them again.

Even with my meanderings, I still concur with your reply.

but ... what do you mean by saying that the Holy Spirit will neverneverneverabsolutely never direct a word of tongues along with interpretation to a Believer! ??

 

[Biblicist]

but ... what do you mean by saying that the Holy Spirit will neverneverneverabsolutely never direct a word of tongues along with interpretation to a Believer! ??

Salvo 1 - Scripture

Oops...wait a sec, I just knocked one of my toy tanks of my desk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~there we go, now I'm all set to go!

Just as I said, as the Scriptures provide us with absolutely no evidence that the Holy Spirit will ever speak to a congregation/individual through a combination of tongues and interpretation, then my case rests.

Of course, as I've said on other occassions, many will quickly point to the Day of Pentecost but, and I dooze say but, the words that the 120 were speaking were directed to the Father and not to those who were listening. Contrary to populist belief, they did not and absolutely did not (zilch, nine and forget it) present an evangelist message to the Jews.

If nothing else, their words of praise to the Father only served to confuse the Old Covenant Jews (which by the way implies that they (or most) were OT saints) and if Peter had not "saved the day" with his evangelistic message then the Jews would have walked away none the wiser.

 

[LinkH]

Just as I said, as the Scriptures provide us with absolutely no evidence that the Holy Spirit will ever speak to a congregation/individual through a combination of tongues and interpretation, then my case rests.

Unless this verse contains a list of things that could be spoke in tongues and interpreted.
I Corinthians 14
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?