May Prophecy Interrupt a Sermon?

[LinkH]

I would like to open up a discussion of whether it is appropriate for prophecy to interrupt a sermon. The Bible does not directly address this issue (unless the sermon is prophecy or spoken by a prophet.) I would like to share some thoughts on the issue.

First of all, let us consider what prophecy is. Peter describes the nature of prophecy in Old Testament.

II Peter 2
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The New Testament uses the same word translated ‘prophet’ to describe New Testament and Old Testament prophets. The same words are used to describe New Testament and Old Testament prophecy. There are two accounts of a man specifically identified as a ‘prophet’ after the ascension giving a prophecy. One of them, he precedes with the words ‘Thus saith the Holy Ghost’ which is quite similar to the Old Testament expression prophets used ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ In both cases, he spoke words given him by the Holy Spirit. In these cases, as it happened, he predicted the future. Not all prophecies in the Old Testament are predictions, but many are.

It stands to reason that New Testament prophecy, like Old Testament prophecy, involves speaking as moved by the Spirit of God.

Do Preachers Prophecy?
If we look up usage of the word ‘preach’ in the KJV New Testament, we see that it is used to refer to three different Greek words. These words are almost always used in the context of evangelistic proclamation of the Gospel. The apostles ‘preached’ the good news to unbelievers, to those who had not already believed the message. Much of modern ‘preaching’ is actually teaching or exhortation.

But it is also possible that a preacher may be prophesying when he speaks. If the Spirit comes on him, and he speaks as moved by the Spirit, isn’t that prophesying? The one who prophesies speaks as the Spirit moves him, what the Spirit reveals to be spoken for that time. The teacher expounds precepts that have already been revealed. Prophecy does not have to be a prediction of the future. Nor does it have to be some concept that is completely new to the audience. The Spirit says whatever He wishes.

Prophets Yielding the Floor to Others
Many people believe that it is God’s will for a church gathering to culminate in a sermon. One man, usually the senior pastor, an associate pastor, or perhaps a guest speaker, gives a 30 to 45 minute oration. One person does the teaching, and the rest fall silent. There are some believers who think that this is something sacred that cannot be tampered with. They think there must be ‘the Sunday sermon’ and that things must be done this way.

It is ironic that the Bible never instructs us that a church must have one Sunday sermon delivered by one man. There are few passages which give instructions regarding church meetings. This passage is the one passage used to argue that believers must ‘go to church.’ Notice what it says:

Hebrews 10:24-25
24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Notice the instruction here is for the readers, not to be silent and listen to an exhortation, but to exhort one another when they assemble.

None of the passages regarding church gatherings instruct us to have one long sermon delivered by a pastor while all else are silent. In I Corinthians 14, we read the longest passage.

I Corinthians 14
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Notice that the speaker here is not one man. There is no reference to ‘the pastor’ in I Corinthians 14. It does mention prophets speaking, but not pastors. Instead of assigning all the speaking to one man, the passage gives instructions for how ‘every one of you’ can speak or sing to edify the body in an edifying manner.

Specific instructions were given for those who would speak in tongues and interpret in the gatherings.
27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

The following passage is quite fascinating. It is clearly something most Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have not mastered.

29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

In verse 29, Paul instructs that the prophets speak two or three and to let the other judge. This can be interpreted as referring to two or three prophets speaking, or prophets speaking two or three utterances. Perhaps Paul is saying that a judgment (or weighing carefully) must be made after two or three prophecies.

Some argue for a maximum of two or three prophecies in a church meeting. The passage does not say that.. If the Corinthians had more than three people in a meeting, then it could not be possible that all of them were allowed to prophesy one by one. Verse 24 also mentions the idea of all prophesying in a positive light.

Notice in verse 30, that if a prophet is speaking, he must yield the floor if someone else sitting by receives a revelation. Taken with verse 31, we see here that prophecy is revelatory. This is the mechanism by which ‘ye may all prophesy.’ It must be fascinating to be in a church where the Spirit speaks a message by one person, then His message moves to another, and then to another. No wonder an unbeliever, hearing the secrets of his heart made manifest through this group of believers, would fall on his face and declare that God is truly among them.

The Holy Spirit Doesn’t Interrupt Himself
I have heard it argued that no one should ever receive a prophecy to be given during a sermon because “The Holy Spirit does not interrupt Himself.” But is this a Biblical perspective on the issue? The preacher is not the Holy Spirit. And in I Corinthians 14:30 even a prophet speaking is to be silent if a revelation comes to another person.

I know some would argue against the idea of a prophet being silent for another prophet to share a revelation because Paul writes in verse 40 of this passage, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” But the order referred to in this verse is the order that God has revealed, not traditional notions of how a church meeting should be conducted.

After giving instructions regarding church meetings, including the instruction that the prophet should ‘hold his peace’ if another sitting by received a revelation, Paul wrote,

37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

If a prophet did not want to yield the floor and let someone who had received a revelation speak, he was the one who was out of order. He needed to acknowledge that Paul was giving God’s commands.

Prophecy Superior to Teaching
Paul lists a ranked order of ministries in I Corinthians 12. He ranks apostle as ‘first’ and ‘prophets’ as second, followed by teachers. While both of these ministries are essential, prophet is ranked higher.

I Corinthians 12
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Paul urges believers to desire to prophesy. He spoke highly of all prophesying church.
I Corinthians 14
1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
(NKJV)

If a prophet should yield the floor if someone in the congregation receives a revelation, shouldn’t a teacher do the same?

A Note on Order
I am not advocating one person ‘interrupt’ another per se. Paul wrote about a prophet speaking ‘holding his peace’ when another sitting by received a revelation. Typically, in the Jewish culture of the first century, a teacher sat. Students may have stood at times to learn. Christ sat down to teach occasions. Perhaps in the church, this was reversed. Agabus stood and prophesied about a coming famine (Acts 11:28.) Peter arose to address the Jerusalem assembly. (Acts 15:7.) Perhaps the prophet speaking in I Corinthians 14:30 was standing, and when another received a revelation, he stood. The speaking prophet was to make the choice to ‘hold his peace’. The passage does not say to interrupt him, but rather for the prophet to hold his peace. This was something the prophet had to choose to do for proper order in the church meeting.

 

[Alpine]

The first thing that came to mind for me was “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

 

[LinkH]

The first thing that came to mind for me was “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

And as the OP points out, divine order for church meetings requires that a speaking prophet 'hold his peace' if another sitting by receives a revelation.

So if a prophet prophesying has to hold his peace, shouldn't teachers, exhortors, etc. do the same?

 

[whatfor]

If the Holy Spirit gives someone a word to give during the service and the pastor is giving a sermon that is His own and not something from the Holy Spirit, what then?

 

[talitha]

Good topic. The short answer is no.
I agree with your tac here......

It must be fascinating to be in a church where the Spirit speaks a message by one person, then His message moves to another, and then to another.

It is. I miss it soooo much. This happens in my home church fairly often, sometimes followed by a sermon, sometimes not. I haven't found a similar place on the field, and this fact makes me homesick sometimes.

I have heard it argued that no one should ever receive a prophecy to be given during a sermon because “The Holy Spirit does not interrupt Himself.” But is this a Biblical perspective on the issue? The preacher is not the Holy Spirit.

Of course he's not - but if he (or she) has sought the Lord on what to speak, then is he not speaking as by the Holy Spirit?

And in I Corinthians 14:30 even a prophet speaking is to be silent if a revelation comes to another person.

To me this seems to be an instruction for one person not to hog the floor.

Paul lists a ranked order of ministries in I Corinthians 12. He ranks apostle as ‘first’ and ‘prophets’ as second, followed by teachers. While both of these ministries are essential, prophet is ranked higher.

True. And in the Kingdom of God, the higher serves the lower - all the way up to Jesus, who washed his disciples' feet. In 1 Corinthians 14:30, again, the "prophet" is supposed to yield the floor to whoever receives a revelation.

If a prophet should yield the floor if someone in the congregation receives a revelation, shouldn’t a teacher do the same?

I think there possibly MIGHT be a case in which God would do this, most likely a case in which the one teaching is deceiving and/or being deceived. However, this would be rare. If the teaching is God-given, then it should be heard out. Teachings need to be presented without interruption if the people receiving them are to receive what is intended, I would think. I am a teacher, and when someone interrupts me, it is hard to get back on track - and harder sometimes for the students.

Typically, in the Jewish culture of the first century, a teacher sat.

Hmm, I had not put that together with 14:30, but if we do, we might reach the conclusion that the one "sitting by" might be the teacher. cont'd in v.32: "...and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion...." So that prophets make the decision as to WHEN a prophetic word is released - they are not usually seized by God and impelled to give a word RIGHT NOW. This means that the prophet is able to yield the floor and keep his peace until an opportune time.

All in all, we need to maintain respect for one another in the fear of the Lord, whether in the context of a church meeting or not.

blessings
tal

 

[Simon_Templar]

And as the OP points out, divine order for church meetings requires that a speaking prophet 'hold his peace' if another sitting by receives a revelation.

So if a prophet prophesying has to hold his peace, shouldn't teachers, exhortors, etc. do the same?

Its not a popular idea, (in these circles) but historical study of the writings of Christians from the time of the apostles on shows that the Church's weekly worship service was structured. It followed the basic structure of being divided into two general parts which in turn had sub-divisions.

The first of the two main divisions was the part of the service devoted to the word. The second was devoted to communion.

The section of the service devoted to the word had scripture readings where the bible would be read allowed to all present, it also had the sermon, which was usually directly related to the scriptures which had been read aloud. there were also songs and hymns in this section

The second section centered around a long communion prayer followed by the taking of communion. Technically there were also hymns and songs in this section since following on from Jewish temple practice, many of the prayers and recitations were sung/chanted.

Relating specifically to prophecy, it should be done in order, meaning it should be an interruption. Just as prophets should not interrupt each other, they should not interrupt the teacher or the person presiding over communion etc.

 

[LinkH]

Thank you Talitha for your response to the opening post.

Of course he's not - but if he (or she) has sought the Lord on what to speak, then is he not speaking as by the Holy Spirit?

In that case, isn't he prophesying, and shouldn't he 'hold his peace' like the prophets should if someone sitting by receives a revelation.

I think there possibly MIGHT be a case in which God would do this, most likely a case in which the one teaching is deceiving and/or being deceived. However, this would be rare. If the teaching is God-given, then it should be heard out. Teachings need to be presented without interruption if the people receiving them are to receive what is intended, I would think. I am a teacher, and when someone interrupts me, it is hard to get back on track - and harder sometimes for the students.

As a teacher, I can relate to what you are saying. And one could argue that Paul doesn't give instructions for what to do when teaching is being given in this passage, only prophesying. But if prophesying is a higher ranked gift than teaching, should teaching yield for prophecy? If God has a message right now, shouldn't we hear it right now?

Hmm, I had not put that together with 14:30, but if we do, we might reach the conclusion that the one "sitting by" might be the teacher.

What teacher? I can't find that in the context, except that 'doctrine' is mentioned in verse 26 and earlier. The prophet holding his peace to allow one who receives a revelation to speak is what allows all to prophesy in verse 31.

cont'd in v.32: "...and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion...." So that prophets make the decision as to WHEN a prophetic word is released - they are not usually seized by God and impelled to give a word RIGHT NOW. This means that the prophet is able to yield the floor and keep his peace until an opportune time.

If there isn't an urgency for giving words from God (at least at times) then why would Paul instruct the prophet to hold his peace to let the one who receives the revelation speak? Why can't the one who receives the revelation just wait?

I also wonder about the content of prophecies in a church that follows this. I know there are times I'd sense the Lord showing me something, and someone else get something similar. I also know that some people get prophecies in church, but before they speak it out, someone else gives the same word. The same thing goes with interpretations of tongues. These prophets may not have been sitting on words to give later. The word might have been given to another brother to continue sharing. It also seems like one prophet will get something another hasn't got, too.

I heard a story about a brother in a church in the Maluku islands in Indonesia where there was fighting between Christians and Muslims, and jihad fighters being shipped in from various places. A man interrupted the church service with a word. The word was to get out. They obeyed. Then the place blew up. The terrorists had planted a bomb. Prophecies certainly can be urgent.

Isn't it more likely that 'the spirits of the prophets are subjects to the prophets' is an admonition to obey the previous instructions. The prophet shouldn't say, "I was unable to stop speaking when the other man sitting by received a revelation.

 

[LinkH]

Its not a popular idea, (in these circles) but historical study of the writings of Christians from the time of the apostles on shows that the Church's weekly worship service was structured. It followed the basic structure of being divided into two general parts which in turn had sub-divisions.

The first of the two main divisions was the part of the service devoted to the word. The second was devoted to communion.

Apparently, it was a bit different from a modern liturgical service. For on thing, 'every one of you' taught, sang, spoke in tongues or interpreted tongues, or shared revelations. Multiple prophets could speak. All were encouraged to prophesy. Paul seems to imply that the instructions he is giving were universal (When he asks, What, came the word of God out from you, or is it to you only that it has come?) The Jerusalem church had prophets. Some of them went to Antioch. Paul is apparently teaching an established 'order of service' in regard to prophecy practiced in other churches. The Corinthians did not have the authority to change it. Neither do we.

The communion service was apparently an actual meal, referred to as the Lord's Supper. And this is probably the same thing referred to as the love feast in scripture. I looked up the Greek word for supper and it means supper.

The synagogues were liturgical, and I would not be surprised if the style of the synagogue affected early church meetings. The Bible doesn't give us any particular instructions on having synagogue type liturgy, but it does give us some instructions on how to incorporate the gift of prophecy into church meetings.
The section of the service devoted to the word had scripture readings where the bible would be read allowed to all present, it also had the sermon, which was usually directly related to the scriptures which had been read aloud. there were also songs and hymns in this section

The second section centered around a long communion prayer followed by the taking of communion. Technically there were also hymns and songs in this section since following on from Jewish temple practice, many of the prayers and recitations were sung/chanted.

Relating specifically to prophecy, it should be done in order, meaning it should be an interruption. Just as prophets should not interrupt each other, they should not interrupt the teacher or the person presiding over communion etc.[/quote]

 

[tturt]

Good thread. Everybody's definition of decent and order will be different. We were taught that prophets shouldn't interrupt but Yahweh has a way of doing things which goes against our tradition sometimes.

I've seen a few times - very, very few - maybe 4 times in the last 10 years - when a prophetic word was given during a sermon by a different person than the pastor. As I recall, all of them had to do with the sermon being preached. One in particular was that we, the congregation, were not paying attention to the sermon which Yahweh had given to the pastor and that it was His message to us. It was true because there was definitely a change in us immediately. Another time the prophetic word was time was short for us to be about our Father's business and there were some in the congregation that needed to give their hearts to the Lord and it was important for them to do that just as the pastor had spoken those words about a minute before. Different pastors and prophets in all cases.

 

[talitha]

Thanks for your response, LinkH.
Now, do you really think that it's God's will - or even Paul's will - to have a meeting in which one person after another interrupts the previous person and no one ever gets to finish what he's saying? I don't. I think the first prophet, or the person teaching, etc., has a message that is just as vital as the second one. I mean, I didn't say that there wasn't an urgency sometimes - but that should not be the case all the time. Whenever I've seen someone interrupt someone else or the service with a "prophetic word" - I'm not sure, but I think without variation - it has been of the flesh - usually some emotionally overwrought woman acting very unbecomingly, to be honest, or trying to control the proceedings.

If there isn't an urgency for giving words from God (at least at times) then why would Paul instruct the prophet to hold his peace to let the one who receives the revelation speak? Why can't the one who receives the revelation just wait?

Honestly, I don't know, and I am not certain what exactly Paul is saying in 14:30. It doesn't make sense to me, especially not the way you are talking about it here, so I'm assuming that there is something he doesn't say that was generally understood by his first-century readers.

I am curious what you thought about this part (which to me seemed the most important) since you didn't respond to it in your post:

True. And in the Kingdom of God, the higher serves the lower - all the way up to Jesus, who washed his disciples' feet. In 1 Corinthians 14:30, again, the "prophet" is supposed to yield the floor to whoever receives a revelation.

And Simon, I am curious about this:

Relating specifically to prophecy, it should be done in order, meaning it should be an interruption. Just as prophets should not interrupt each other, they should not interrupt the teacher or the person presiding over communion etc.

You say it "should be an interruption" - what do you mean by that?

Good thread. Everybody's definition of decent and order will be different.

True that. What is "decently and in order" differs from culture to culture and even from subculture to subculture, and anyone who doesn't believe that has surely never traveled to other countries.

We were taught that prophets shouldn't interrupt but Yahweh has a way of doing things which goes against our tradition sometimes.

That's very true too.

 

[Simon_Templar]

And Simon, I am curious about this:

You say it "should be an interruption" - what do you mean by that?.

hehe, what I mean by that is I forgot to type the n't... I meant to say "it SHOULDN'T be an interruption" sorry about that, I can understand why that was confusing

 

[Simon_Templar]

Apparently, it was a bit different from a modern liturgical service. For on thing, 'every one of you' taught, sang, spoke in tongues or interpreted tongues, or shared revelations. Multiple prophets could speak. All were encouraged to prophesy. Paul seems to imply that the instructions he is giving were universal
The communion service was apparently an actual meal, referred to as the Lord's Supper. And this is probably the same thing referred to as the love feast in scripture. I looked up the Greek word for supper and it means supper.

I tend to disagree with the usual charismatic understanding of what Paul says in 1st Corinthians 14. I'll site the passage for reference


26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

Remember the context that Paul is speaking too. The Corinthian Church had essentially been taken over by "charismania" and was becoming chaotic because the people were vying with each other to prove their spirituality by spiritual gifts. So people were speaking in tongues and giving prophecies in order to draw attention to themselves etc.

Many charismatics interpet the first line above
"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up"

To mean that everyone in a service should express some utterance or some gift of the Spirit, and that is the ideal of many charismatic groups.

I think that what Paul is doing here is addressing the situation in Corinth, in which literally everyone was coming with their own teaching or their own message in tongues, or prophecy etc and the result was a chaotic service that was largely about people drawing attention to themselves.

Paul does not want to place restrictions on the spiritual gifts and simply say, "you can't do this anymore" so what he is trying to do is to say, 'make sure that when you bring a gift, it is done for the edification of the body and it is done to build up the body, not to draw attention to yourself or to prove your spirituality etc.

Its along the same lines as what Paul has said about tongues.. don't forbid it, but the practice should be limited and done in orderly manner.

He's basically doing the same thing here. Don't forbid people to prophesy, don't forbid people to sing spiritual songs etc, but rather than everyone trampling over each other to get their gift out there.. do everything to build one another up. The key being, that if you are building one another up, your focus is necessarily on the other person, not on yourself. You can't be building someone up as you are interrupting them and trampling over them etc.
Building each other up requires deference and consideration.

I think this is seen as Paul goes on to say, if people are going to speak in tongues, let it only be one or two, and it must be interpeted, or they should be quiet. If people are going to prophesy, let it only be two or three and let the rest listen and think about what those ones said.

When he says, "for you can all prophesy one by one" he is not contradicting what he just said a line before "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." Rather he is saying that prophets who speak should all prophesy one by one, rather than speaking over the top of each other, because if they speak over the top of each other, they can't be heard and everyone else suffers and doesn't benefit from the prophesy. So a prophet should hold his peace while another is speaking (ie not interrupt).


So.. I don't think it is ideal that everyone speaks out at every meeting. I don't think that is what Paul is saying here at all. I think what he is saying is don't forbid the gifts, but limit their exercise to a proper place so they don't over-run the whole service.

I think Paul's statement that those who prophesy and speak in tongues etc, should be limited in number is a good guide and it is largely about keeping the service in the order that was set for it.

It is true, of course, that most liturgical services today don't have any room for such things. There are charismatic groups that do charismatic liturgies where there is room made for prophesy etc.

I think thats fine, but I tend in my own opinion towards the idea that one of the problems we have today is that we try to do everything in one service.
Early Christians met more frequently than once a week. In fact they met almost daily if they were able(clearly in the New Testament they did).

This allowed them to do a lot more because they didn't have to try and squeeze everything into one service.

So, for example the reading of the word and the communion were the primary points of the sunday service. The sunday service could be devoted more to those things and they could still have more teaching, more singing, more prophesying etc, throughout the other gatherings during the week.

The rigidness of the liturgy in Churches today developed largely in an effort to curb abuses and to provide the best assurance that everyone was getting orthodox worship and teaching etc.

The early Church followed a very similar liturgical model, but it wasn't as standardized, so each local Church would have their own style, their own prayers etc.
There are surviving communion prayers from fairly early on which show that most of them followed the same form, but they were often dependant upon the ability or understanding of the local person who presided at the service. If that person was good, everything was good, but if they weren't so good, everything could go bad. That lead to more standardization.

The early Church had love feasts as you mention. It isn't 100% clear if this was referring to communion, or if it was referring to an additional practice.
It is possible that communion could have been followed by a communal meal.

If this is the case, then it is probably another case where the standard form we know today came into being as a result of abuse. This is perhaps suggested by Paul's writting to Corinth (1st Corinthians 10 if memory serves) in which he chastizes those people who were basically being gluttons at communion and were drinking all the wine and eating all the bread so there was none left for those who came after.

He tells them it would be better for you to eat your fill at home and just partake 'normally' in communion rather than treating it like a meal and trying to eat your fill.

As you point out, the synagogues were liturgical, but the temple was also liturgical. Both synagogue and temple worship influenced the Church's worship.. but the temple influence is actually probably more significant than the synagogue even. The communion service in particular is probably impossible to truly understand without seeing how it is related to and descended from Jewish temple worship. (edit add - when I say impossible to truly understand, I don't mean that the basic most important truth of communion can't be understood... I mean that there is much more richness, and depths, and beauty involved and a lot of this can't really be seen without setting it in the context of how it is related to and drawn from the temple worship.)

Also, you commented about Paul, in 1st Corinthians setting our universal rules which applied to all the Churches. I agree and I think that is a very important point. One of the key elements of this is that Paul is essentially telling the Corinthians that the Church as a whole follows these guidelines, or worships this way and follows these rules, and you, therefore, do not have the right to adopt your own, in contravention of what the rest of the Church does.

 

[Biblicist]

LinkH,

It can be very hard for large portions of the post-Apostolic Church to understand spiritual worship and this doesn’t only apply to the liturgical churches but also to the Evangelical and all too sadly even with those that are Full Gospel.

As to the question at hand, I do not think that it’s appropriate for a prophecy to interrupt a sermon; there is the proviso that if the Spirit told someone that a 747 was about to land on their meeting place then undoubtedly a quick word would be in order but in most situations they can wait for a more appropriate time, say during praise and worship.

Even though most Full Gospel meetings at least in the West tends to follow a similar model such as with initial praise and worship, then maybe the Lord’s Table followed by the Word and then final praise and worship; even this modelling can at times be less than friendly toward spontaneous Spirit led direction. The problem is often compounded by our larger Full Gospel congregations who seem feel that they need to plan their next Sunday meeting in advance so that their meetings can fit into an often tight time schedule. Irrespective of the modelling that our congregations utilise for Sunday meetings, if they are not structured to allow for spontaneous Spirit led ministry then we can almost ask, are they really believers meetings or merely religious gatherings.


Unlike the church of the first century which was highly Spirit-led in character with the Operations of the Spirit in common use during their meetings, we can find such Pneumatic guidance and motivation to be a bit strange particularly for those who have only known liturgical forms of worship.

To return to the question being asked, we should certainly ensure that our meetings allow enough time for the Spirit to minister within the assembly by allowing up to three prophecies and three tongues with interpretation - always one at a time and in order. The Word of God can certainly be presented be it as encouragement for the believers or as teaching though in my view the Sunday meeting is probably not all that conducive to teaching. There will be those times where the presence of the Spirit can be so great that the speaker for the meeting may simply allow praise and worship to continue right through the meeting without the Word being presented which will include prophecy and tongues.

 

[talitha]

Irrespective of the modelling that our congregations utilise for Sunday meetings, if they are not structured to allow for spontaneous Spirit led ministry then we can almost ask, are they really believers meetings or merely religious gatherings.

That'll preach!

 

[LinkH]

Thanks for your response, LinkH.
Now, do you really think that it's God's will - or even Paul's will - to have a meeting in which one person after another interrupt the previous person and no one ever gets to finish what he's saying? I don't.

Like I said in the OP, I am not advocating interruptings, even though that word is in the subject line. I see the verse telling the speaking prophet to yield to the other person who has received a revelation. Interrupting implies that the second person speaks while the other person is speaking. Paul tells the first to hold his peace. That allows the next person to speak.

As far as one person finishing what he wants to say, the issue is that the Spirit says what He wants, and He can use whatever mouthpiece he chooses to do so. In some cases, that may involve the second person continuing the same message the first person could have said had he not held his peace.

Like I implied earlier, I don't have that much experience with churches where the one speaking holds his peace when someone else receives a revelation. I went to one conference where it seemed like a group of three men were trying to follow this, in retrospect, though they did not make mention of the passage when they did so. The apparently interpreted it to refer to one of three prophets interrupting the other, rather than the one sitting by being one of the congregation who also 'may prophesy.' I think Paul is referring to anyone in the congregation as 'one who sitteth by' but I understand why some might take it to refer to prophets, especially considering how most translations render verse 29 to refer to two or three prophets, rather than describing their words as 'two or three.'

I do know that there are people who receive prophecies and interpretations and someone else gives the exact same thing before they can. I have also been in small informal gatherings where multiple people perceive the Lord as saying the same thing or get similar words, leadings, or revelations. I suspect most churches haven't experienced the fullness of the function of prophecy in the meeting because most churches don't pay that much careful attention to these verses. In the AOG, I heard the teaching of a maximum of two or three prophecies per meeting. I really don't see how anyone can get that out of these verses if they read them carefully.

It is interesting to note that at the Azusa Street revival, the believers there took turns speaking as they felt led. One would teach, another would prophesy. Someone would offer a tongue, and one would interpret (at least in some points in the revival. They had to learn a little about tongues and order over time.) It seems like the Pentecostal movement in the US moved away from these types of meetings.

I think the first prophet, or the person teaching, etc., has a message that is just as vital as the second one. I mean, I didn't say that there wasn't an urgency sometimes - but that should not be the case all the time.

As far as the teaching goes, this is something I want to offer for discussion. The speaking prophet is to hold his peace for the one sitting by who receives a revelation. If the Spirit wants him to finish, He can just not give a revelation for someone else to share during that time.

And if 'two or three' refers to what the prophets speak, rather than the number of prophets, after a maximum of three 'words' the other should judge. I suppose the process is repeatable, like applying shampoo. Wash, rinse repeat. Prophesy two or three then weigh carefully what is said. Repeat. You can use up a whole bottle of shampoo that way.

I get the idea that this is a repeatable process because it says, "For ye may all prophesy one by one."

Whenever I've seen someone interrupt someone else or the service with a "prophetic word" - I'm not sure, but I think without variation - it has been of the flesh - usually some emotionally overwrought woman acting very unbecomingly, to be honest, or trying to control the proceedings.

That reminds me of the fact that the women keeping silent verses come right after the instructions regarding prophets for some reason.

I haven't been in churches where prophecies were given in an interrupting manner. In the AOG I went to as a teen, they tended to be given during the lull between songs when the instrumental music was winding down, or right after it had stopped.

Honestly, I don't know, and I am not certain what exactly Paul is saying in 14:30. It doesn't make sense to me, especially not the way you are talking about it here, so I'm assuming that there is something he doesn't say that was generally understood by his first-century readers.

I wish there were more detail in the passage, and I wish some of the statements were less ambiguous in how they could be interpreted. Part of the difficulty we have with it may be because their meetings were conducted in a way that is different from what we see in many churches.

 

[pdudgeon]

if you stop to think about it, the Holy Spirit does not interrupt Himself. so it is only those who are not subject to the Holy Spirit but who are ruled by their own desire to speak immediately who would be interrupting while another prophet was speaking. the exception would be if there was an emergency situation, as has been noted above.

the only time i can think of when a prophet would intrude upon a sermon given by another would be if the person doing the sermon were preaching under the guidance of another spirit, or god other than the Holy Spirit, or blaspheming.

 

[Biblicist]

LinkH (# 15),

In the AOG, I heard the teaching of a maximum of two or three prophecies per meeting. I really don't see how anyone can get that out of these verses if they read them carefully.

One of the main points that Paul is making in chapter 14 is that we are strictly prohibited from allowing the corporate use of tongues during congregational meetings. Paul takes this further by saying that if everyone were to speak in tongues, that the unbelievers and uninitiated believers (probably cessationists) were to enter into the meeting that they would say that we were mad – and they would be justified in saying so, or at least that we were foolish. Having been in meetings where a number of people have sung in the Spirit without interpretation while an unbeliever was standing in the middle of them I have witnessed their concern to the point where some have walked out of the meeting.

With prophecy Paul makes the same stipulation, only three at most and one at a time. Unlike the unthinking and selfish use of corporate tongues which only serves to turn the unbeliever away, Paul does say that if everyone in the meeting were to prophesy (hypothetically speaking) that undoubtedly the unbeliever would eventually be challenged by the Spirit and turn his heart toward the Lord. This is the advantage of intelligible speech which prophecy is, unlike tongues which in intelligible and always requires interpretation – but he still limits only three prophecies per meeting.

Verse 26 is probably the lynchpin in that all things are to be done for edification. If dozens or even hundreds of people were to prophesy during a single meeting it would be hard to imagine that this would be all that edifying other than for a handful and the main outcome of such a practice would be chaos and disorder.

Paul expects that each will come to the meeting either with a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue and an interpretation. This passage tends to indicate that maybe how we usually have a 60 minute word often given by the same person could be a bit problematic but above all things he does expect to see diversity.

If I was speaking in a meeting and someone all of a sudden spoke up with a prophecy I would expect the ushers to remove the person from the meeting; if the prophet felt that it warranted an immediate response from the congregation he can easily go to one of the elders and have a word to them – otherwise they can be quiet.

 

[Beloved777]

Paul said that the spirit of a prophet is subject to the prophet, which means we can show restraint when needed. But generally speaking, prophecy has order and if someone tries to speak a word at an innapropriate time it is going to come off awkward and probably not bless anyone.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would like to open up a discussion of whether it is appropriate for prophecy to interrupt a sermon.

Maybe. It seems that other churches have very different practices to ours.
I was preaching on the gift of prophecy once and was worried that this very thing would happen. (Worried because I didn't know how to handle it.) The Minister told me that should anyone come to the front to tell me they had a word from God, it was best to ask them to write it down. I should then say that I had received what was said to be a word from God, but that as all prophecy should be tested, I was going to pass it on to the leadership team so they could pray about it. If they believed it was a prophecy from God for the church, it would be shared at a later date.
This is what happened in one of our last churches; someone received a word during a time of prayer, submitted it to the PCC, they prayed about it and later said that they felt it was from God.

I don't think this is anything to do with us being British, nor the fact that prophecy, tongues etc just don't "happen" in our churches. However charismatic the church, I don't feel it's right to have people just stand up at any point in the service and say "thus says the Lord". They could be wrong and it's their own subconscious saying that. The trouble is that once it's ben made public, people might hear, believe and act on it before even knowing if it's really from God.

 

[LinkH]

I was preaching on the gift of prophecy once and was worried that this very thing would happen. (Worried because I didn't know how to handle it.) The Minister told me that should anyone come to the front to tell me they had a word from God, it was best to ask them to write it down. I should then say that I had received what was said to be a word from God, but that as all prophecy should be tested, I was going to pass it on to the leadership team so they could pray about it. If they believed it was a prophecy from God for the church, it would be shared at a later date.
This is what happened in one of our last churches; someone received a word during a time of prayer, submitted it to the PCC, they prayed about it and later said that they felt it was from God.

I think of Paul's statement that if any man consider himself to be a prophet or spiritual to acknowledge that his instructions were commandments of the Lord. He asked if the word of God came out from the Corinthians or if it had only come to the Corinthians. The implication is that the Corinthians did not have the authority to deviate form the divinely revealed order Paul had given them in his instructions.

The commandments of the Lord regarding prophecy do not say to pass the word on to the leadership team to pray first before they share it. This practice would clearly stifle the type of prophetic flow I Corinthians 14 is designed to deal with. How could all prophesy if they had to go through that bureaucratic process?

I don't think this is anything to do with us being British, nor the fact that prophecy, tongues etc just don't "happen" in our churches. However charismatic the church, I don't feel it's right to have people just stand up at any point in the service and say "thus says the Lord".

Some of the charismatic or third wave type churches in the US have gone to submitting prophecies to elders. If the Bible says that believers have the 'right' to do such things, do leaders have the right to take it away.

Thinking of this as a 'right' to prophesy is not the right approach of course. The issue is obedience to the Lord and serving others, not our own rights.

They could be wrong and it's their own subconscious saying that. The trouble is that once it's ben made public, people might hear, believe and act on it before even knowing if it's really from God.

Is the danger that someone could speak from their own subconscious less pronounced now than int he first century? Some of the people in the church came from outright pagan backgrounds. I Corinthian 12 reminds them of this. But Paul didn't tell them to shut up, stop prophesying, and filter prophecies through a select group of leaders in the church. Paul does say 'and let the other judge.' He says elsewhere , "Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things" and to "Hold fast to that which is good."

If someone gives a false prophecy, and the leaders know it they should deal with that right there in the assembly. So should other gifted members who are able to discern that a word is false.