1Cor. 14 and corporate worship

[mshingler]

I'd like to here some thoughts on 1Cor. 14:26-33, particularly verse 26. What impact should this passage have on the way we conduct corporate worship? I'm not thinking, here, about the validity or use of gifts such as tongues, but, rather, the idea of participation from various members of the church that seems to be implied here.

 

[larryjf]

In the Corinthian church they didn't have the completed revelation of God as we have in the Scriptures...therefore revelatory gifts were practiced. The passage is on the orderly communication of God's revelation. As such, in our church today it would only refer to the preaching of Scripture.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

You may find this thread of interest: http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/1-cor-14-26-today-30026/#post365303

Also, this book may be helpful to you: The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries - Google Book Search

I believe the Scriptures indicate a much higher level of interaction and participation than is often allowed in today's church meetings. Scripturally speaking, it does not appear that one must necessarily be an elder or a deacon to share a teaching with the assembly, however, whoever shares should be examined for correction or affirmation by the rest of the brothers. The elders should be able to teach and refute unhealthy teaching, yet it does not appear that they were the only saints welcome to teach.

I think it can be said with Biblical certainty that the Corinthian church knew of no pre-planned "order of service" (as in full-service gas station?), but rather the brothers shared for the mutual edification of the assembly.

 

[mshingler]

In the Corinthian church they didn't have the completed revelation of God as we have in the Scriptures...therefore revelatory gifts were practiced. The passage is on the orderly communication of God's revelation. As such, in our church today it would only refer to the preaching of Scripture.

Agreed. My question, however, has to do with the participatory aspect. It appears that any number of people participated, in some way, in the corporate worship, per v. 26. At the same time, it appears, to me, that "prophesying" was limited to 2 or 3 prophets. What I'm trying to think through is how this kind of participation compares with what we do today. I know there is what I would consider an extreme view, that we should do away with the "sermon", as we know it, and the church meeting should be made up of sharing from everyone. I see that view as ignoring other Scriptures that emphasize the place of teaching in the congregation and the shepherding role of elders/pastors/teachers, etc. On the other hand, it does sound like there was more room for participation than what we usually have in worship today.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

It seems that the Corinthians would have been familiar with hearing several shorter sermons from brothers in the assembly, who may or may not have been elders.

I'm not sure they would have been familiar with our idea of "the sermon", nor does there need to be such a concept for elders to fulfill the apostolic direction to shepherd the flock.

 

[larryjf]

Agreed. My question, however, has to do with the participatory aspect. It appears that any number of people participated, in some way, in the corporate worship, per v. 26. At the same time, it appears, to me, that "prophesying" was limited to 2 or 3 prophets. What I'm trying to think through is how this kind of participation compares with what we do today. I know there is what I would consider an extreme view, that we should do away with the "sermon", as we know it, and the church meeting should be made up of sharing from everyone. I see that view as ignoring other Scriptures that emphasize the place of teaching in the congregation and the shepherding role of elders/pastors/teachers, etc. On the other hand, it does sound like there was more room for participation than what we usually have in worship today.

What particularly in the passage leads you to this:
"It appears that any number of people participated, in some way"
I presume you mean that some participants were not participating with revelatory gifts.

 

[mshingler]

Agreed. My question, however, has to do with the participatory aspect. It appears that any number of people participated, in some way, in the corporate worship, per v. 26. At the same time, it appears, to me, that "prophesying" was limited to 2 or 3 prophets. What I'm trying to think through is how this kind of participation compares with what we do today. I know there is what I would consider an extreme view, that we should do away with the "sermon", as we know it, and the church meeting should be made up of sharing from everyone. I see that view as ignoring other Scriptures that emphasize the place of teaching in the congregation and the shepherding role of elders/pastors/teachers, etc. On the other hand, it does sound like there was more room for participation than what we usually have in worship today.

What particularly in the passage leads you to this:
"It appears that any number of people participated, in some way"
I presume you mean that some participants were not participating with revelatory gifts.

You are correct that I mean some were participating with non revelatory gifts. Verse 26 mentions "has a psalm, has a teaching." I guess I'm assuming that these represent psalms and teachings in some sense analogous to what we know today. Also, if we were to take the principle that was applied to prophesying (2 or 3) and apply it to the preaching of the Word today, it would seem to necessitate 2 or 3 men preaching, each in turn. That also begs the question who would be gifted/qualified to be included in the 2 or 3, since Paul limited the prophesying here, as I understand it, to the prophets. In other words, it was at least somewhat clear, in the Corinthian church, that there were specific individuals with the gift of prophecy. I take the "all" of verse 31 to refer to the prophets and not everyone in the church, based on verse 29. If we are to apply the principle in our setting, would it mean that 2 or 3 men who are recognized by the church as having the gift of teaching/preaching should be permitted to do so in any one meeting?
Of course, a further issue is whether or not there is any direct application to the church today, other than the fact that worship should be orderly.
One more thing. Do you think that verse 26 is stating what is correct or simply a statement of what is happening in the Corinthian congregation, perhaps to their detriment? In other words, is Paul saying that verse 26 describes what they've been doing wrong, and 26c-40 represent the remedy to the situation?

 

[larryjf]

You are correct that I mean some were participating with non revelatory gifts. Verse 26 mentions "has a psalm, has a teaching." I guess I'm assuming that these represent psalms and teachings in some sense analogous to what we know today.

I would disagree with that interpretation, and suggest that the "psalms and teaching" were, in fact, inspired. The reason this was necessary was because they didn't have a complete canon.

Also, if we were to take the principle that was applied to prophesying (2 or 3) and apply it to the preaching of the Word today, it would seem to necessitate 2 or 3 men preaching, each in turn.

v.29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said."
This could be a reference to God's law of witness (Deut. 19:15). Since these were inspired men, it was important for them to be checked against each other as witnesses as they didn't have the complete Scripture to check them against as we do today.

That also begs the question who would be gifted/qualified to be included in the 2 or 3, since Paul limited the prophesying here, as I understand it, to the prophets. In other words, it was at least somewhat clear, in the Corinthian church, that there were specific individuals with the gift of prophecy. I take the "all" of verse 31 to refer to the prophets and not everyone in the church, based on verse 29. If we are to apply the principle in our setting, would it mean that 2 or 3 men who are recognized by the church as having the gift of teaching/preaching should be permitted to do so in any one meeting?

I think we need to look at the overarching purpose of the passage, which is order in God's Church. I don't see how a multiplicity of Elders teaching at a single meeting would give more order to the modern Church.

I would prefer something like:
The Elders sit behind the Preacher during the sermon. If the Elders were in accord with what was preached they would shake the Preacher's hand, if not they wouldn't. Then, after the service the Elders would meet together to discuss the message. Later that evening the local church would come back together for a more informal meeting where the sermon was discussed and questions were asked and answered.

One more thing. Do you think that verse 26 is stating what is correct or simply a statement of what is happening in the Corinthian congregation, perhaps to their detriment? In other words, is Paul saying that verse 26 describes what they've been doing wrong, and 26c-40 represent the remedy to the situation?

I would suggest that the first part of v.26 is simply a statement of what's happening in the Corinthian church. Paul doesn't condemn it, but he does command that it be done for the "building up" of the church. That part of the verse i would consider a command. Then he goes on to say how the "building up" should be practically worked out.

 

[mshingler]

I would disagree with that interpretation, and suggest that the "psalms and teaching" were, in fact, inspired. The reason this was necessary was because they didn't have a complete canon.

Just wondering if there is anything, other than the immediate context of prophecy, revelation and tongues that would lead you to the conclusion that the psalms and teachings, here, were also revelatory utterances? Eph. 5:19 mentions psalms, along with hymns and spiritual songs, in a context that is not about revelatory gifts but about mutual edification. I assume you are saying that the particular case of the psalm(s) in 1Cor. 14 would be immediately inspired psalms while others were not.

v.29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said."
This could be a reference to God's law of witness (Deut. 19:15). Since these were inspired men, it was important for them to be checked against each other as witnesses as they didn't have the complete Scripture to check them against as we do today.

That sounds reasonable to me, except that it would seem that the role of "checking" fell, in this case, to "the rest" rather than the 2 or 3.

I think we need to look at the overarching purpose of the passage, which is order in God's Church. I don't see how a multiplicity of Elders teaching at a single meeting would give more order to the modern Church.

I would prefer something like:
The Elders sit behind the Preacher during the sermon. If the Elders were in accord with what was preached they would shake the Preacher's hand, if not they wouldn't. Then, after the service the Elders would meet together to discuss the message. Later that evening the local church would come back together for a more informal meeting where the sermon was discussed and questions were asked and answered.

I agree that multiple elders teaching/preaching in a single meeting doesn't seem like something that is going to work for edification or to bring order.

I would suggest that the first part of v.26 is simply a statement of what's happening in the Corinthian church. Paul doesn't condemn it, but he does command that it be done for the "building up" of the church. That part of the verse i would consider a command. Then he goes on to say how the "building up" should be practically worked out.

He does not condemn it, and I'm not sure he endorses it either. It seems like what Paul is doing is putting some specific boundaries around their practices. As I look at the whole context a little more, I note the fact that he gives permission for 2 or 3 prophets to speak, as well as 2 or 3 to speak in tongues, but doesn't seem to require that many.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

While the overarching purspose of the passage is order in the Lord's day meeting, it is prescribing order within an interactive meeting where the brothers were welcome to share. There is no Biblical reason to believe that the teachers were "inspired", at least not in the sense that we are using the word.

With all due respect brother, to suggest the fulfillment of this passage could be a monologue by one man, shaking of hands, and a question and answer session with the man that night does not do a shred of justice to the Biblical text.

The plain reading of the passage shows that brothers in the assembly were welcome to share a teaching in an orderly fashion. On several occasions I have participated in meetings that were conducted in such a fashion, and it is very edifying to return to the Biblical model for the meeting of the church.

On a side note, I would suggest that, because men have been required to keep a command given to ladies (to keep silence in the church meeting), we now have an age of passive, lady-like professing men. When the brothers are welcomed and encouraged to participate in the mutual up-building of the assembly through sharing an exhortation, teaching, or psalm, I believe will see a revival of Biblical manhood.

 

[mshingler]

While the overarching purspose of the passage is order in the Lord's day meeting, it is prescribing order within an interactive meeting where the brothers were welcome to share.

Clearly, from verse 26, Paul describes an interactive meeting. However, this part of the passage is descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive.

 

[larryjf]

Just wondering if there is anything, other than the immediate context of prophecy, revelation and tongues that would lead you to the conclusion that the psalms and teachings, here, were also revelatory utterances? Eph. 5:19 mentions psalms, along with hymns and spiritual songs, in a context that is not about revelatory gifts but about mutual edification. I assume you are saying that the particular case of the psalm(s) in 1Cor. 14 would be immediately inspired psalms while others were not.

I would suggest that the "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is also a reference to the inspired Book of Psalms.
As to "teaching"...i think that could be translated as "doctrine." As far as why i believe this doctrine would be inspired...simply because it is listed with a group of inspired gifts, and doctrine should be no less inspired for a NT Church without a complete canon.

v.29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said."
This could be a reference to God's law of witness (Deut. 19:15). Since these were inspired men, it was important for them to be checked against each other as witnesses as they didn't have the complete Scripture to check them against as we do today.

That sounds reasonable to me, except that it would seem that the role of "checking" fell, in this case, to "the rest" rather than the 2 or 3.

Yes, but the "2 or 3" could be witnesses to each other.
This part i admit we are talking about "could be" rather than "has to be"

He does not condemn it, and I'm not sure he endorses it either. It seems like what Paul is doing is putting some specific boundaries around their practices. As I look at the whole context a little more, I note the fact that he gives permission for 2 or 3 prophets to speak, as well as 2 or 3 to speak in tongues, but doesn't seem to require that many.

I would agree with that.

 

[mshingler]

Do you believe, then, that the pastors/teachers of Eph. 4:11 had a revelatory gift of teaching? Was their teaching inspired in the same way as the apostles'?

 

[py3ak]

v.29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said."
This could be a reference to God's law of witness (Deut. 19:15). Since these were inspired men, it was important for them to be checked against each other as witnesses as they didn't have the complete Scripture to check them against as we do today.

Surely being inspired it would be less important for them to be checked than if they were not inspired?

 

[mshingler]

v.29: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said."
This could be a reference to God's law of witness (Deut. 19:15). Since these were inspired men, it was important for them to be checked against each other as witnesses as they didn't have the complete Scripture to check them against as we do today.

Surely being inspired it would be less important for them to be checked than if they were not inspired?

Perhaps Paul's instruction allows for the possibility of a false prophet being present.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

While the overarching purspose of the passage is order in the Lord's day meeting, it is prescribing order within an interactive meeting where the brothers were welcome to share.

Clearly, from verse 26, Paul describes an interactive meeting. However, this part of the passage is descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive.

The Lord has seen fit to give us this passage of Scripture as the clearest and most detailed account of an early church meeting and the directions for its parts. As I'm sure you would agree, this passage isn't in the Bible simply to satisfy our historical curiosity, but to give us direction for the meeting of the church.

The liberties given in this passage as to who can speak and the restrictions regarding who can not speak "are the commandments of the Lord" (verse 37).

This passage gives liberty to the brothers to share a teaching with the assembly. To deny these liberties is to break the commandments of the Lord.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

While the overarching purspose of the passage is order in the Lord's day meeting, it is prescribing order within an interactive meeting where the brothers were welcome to share.

Clearly, from verse 26, Paul describes an interactive meeting. However, this part of the passage is descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive.

The Lord has seen fit to give us this passage of Scripture as the clearest and most detailed account of an early church meeting and the directions for its parts. As I'm sure you would agree, this passage isn't in the Bible simply to satisfy our historical curiosity, but to give us direction for the meeting of the church.

The liberties given in this passage as to who can speak and the restrictions regarding who can not speak "are the commandments of the Lord" (verse 37).

This passage gives liberty to the brothers to share a teaching with the assembly. To deny these liberties is to break the commandments of the Lord.

I would caution against such polarizing language. There are other ways to read the passage, and to understand it based on the analogia scripturae. Historically, there have been those who practice spontaneous, lay preaching in the gathering of the saints on the Lord's Day, but this is not the Reformed understanding of the passage. With this "syllogism" you have accused not just a few PB members, but the history of Reformed Ecclesiology as "break(ing) the commandments of the Lord". This may be your opinion, but this is a Reformed/Presbyterian/Puritan message board. It might be more proper to pose questions, get answers to those questions, and respectfully to disagree, knowing that this view is not on the "home turf" here.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be combative, nor would I attempt to discuss your position with you publicly seeing that you have taken such a strong stand, and made such accusations, which seem to show your entrenchment in your view. I only wish to assert that the best way to discuss your position is certainly not to charge those who disagree with you of sinning against the Lord.

If you have access to Bishop Lightfoot's commentary based in the Hebraica and Talmud where he addresses this passage, I would recommend it. I'm not at home now so I can't pull it off the shelf and point you to where to look. If you're interested in further discussion, PM me and we can "take it off-line".

 

[mshingler]

While the overarching purspose of the passage is order in the Lord's day meeting, it is prescribing order within an interactive meeting where the brothers were welcome to share.

Clearly, from verse 26, Paul describes an interactive meeting. However, this part of the passage is descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive.

The Lord has seen fit to give us this passage of Scripture as the clearest and most detailed account of an early church meeting and the directions for its parts. As I'm sure you would agree, this passage isn't in the Bible simply to satisfy our historical curiosity, but to give us direction for the meeting of the church.

The liberties given in this passage as to who can speak and the restrictions regarding who can not speak "are the commandments of the Lord" (verse 37).

This passage gives liberty to the brothers to share a teaching with the assembly. To deny these liberties is to break the commandments of the Lord.

I don't think you can legitimately single out this one thing as "The commandment of the Lord" as if it had a higher degree of inspiration than other Scriptures. In verse 37, Paul is reminding some of the contentious Corinthians that he is an apostle and writes with apostolic authority. Therefore, 1Cor. 14:26-40 does not hold a higher degree of authority than any other Scripture, such as, for example, 1Tim. 5:17 or 2Tim. 4:1-2. Both of these passages regard specific individuals who are designated for the work of preaching and teaching. Eph. 4:11 also mentions pastors and teachers as specific individuals who are gifted and called for the work of teaching in the church. So, whatever we make of 1Cor. 14, it doesn't override all the rest of biblical revelation.

You wrote, "This passage gives liberty to the brothers to share a teaching with the assembly." Actually, this is kind of the question under discussion. If you equate prophesying with teaching, then verse 29 gives permission for 2 or 3 prophets (teachers?) to speak. No more than that, however, and it is only prophets who are to speak, in this context. That is easy to understand as not everyone had the gift of prophecy (cf. 12:29). If we are to apply the same principle to teaching, could we not say, "Let one or two teachers speak, and let the others pass judgment"? In other words, if prophesying was limited to prophets (those with that gift) then teaching would, on analogy, be limited to teachers (those with the gift of teaching).

Additionally, I'm not altogether convinced that the purpose in the passage is to give us detailed direction for the meeting of the church. The overall context is Paul's correction of the Corinthians' self-centered abuses of spiritual gifts, which resulted in a chaotic church meeting. The instruction he gives (26c-40) is given to bring order to the meeting. In other words, the problem was not that the Corinthians didn't allow different men to teach and Paul was saying, "Hey, you have to open up the meeting for several different men to bring a teaching." The problem was that lots of individuals were competing for "stage time" and Paul is instructing them in a way that will bring order to the meeting. He allows for 2 or 3 prophets to speak and 2 or 3 to speak in a tongue. He is telling the self-centered Corinthians that they must submit the use of their spiritual gifts to the purpose of edifying the body.
Given the context, there's nothing here that forbids a service where 2 or 3 men bring a teaching. However, which part of this text would you say requires that any man be permitted to stand up and teach, impromptu, in the meeting of the church?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

If you have access to Bishop Lightfoot's commentary based in the Hebraica and Talmud where he addresses this passage, I would recommend it. I'm not at home now so I can't pull it off the shelf and point you to where to look. If you're interested in further discussion, PM me and we can "take it off-line".

This is available online too as noted here:

Works of John Lightfoot

 

[larryjf]

Do you believe, then, that the pastors/teachers of Eph. 4:11 had a revelatory gift of teaching? Was their teaching inspired in the same way as the apostles'?

The shepherds/teachers of Eph 4:11 is a Church office. The Corinthian passage doesn't refer to a specific office of teacher/shepherd, but rather to "each one" bringing a teaching.

The Ephesian passage is speaking of God's gift to the Church for her building up. The Corinthian passage is given to correct worship that was disorderly.