e2€œeach in turne2€9d which seems to imply that each tongue sapeker needs to wait for the previous tongue sapeker to finish. With prophecy, a prophet could, in effect, interrupt another prophet. Ie2€™m not sure why there is this difference. I done2€™t think (and I suspect you and Alan would agree) that ite2€™s for the sake of spontaneity. My guess is that the newer revelation might supersede the revelation of the current sapeker (in this case, newer is better).I would not say that Paul's instructions are not for us because wee2€™re so orderly.When was the last time you were listening to a sermon, and something was revealed to you, and you stood up to interrupt, and the one preaching graciously yielded the floor to you?What happens in our churches if someone tries to do that? (And I have seen situations where this has happened.) The one who interrupts is silenced, either by the preacher yelling over top of them, and/or by someone forcefully removing them from the meeting place.This seems to assume that Paul would say the same thing about formal teaching that he does about prophecy. Though it is very rare, this has happened to me when I was preaching. In both cases (thate2€™s how rare) I yielded (so to speak) and no harm came of it. If, after yielding, it seemed to me that the new sapeker was not edifying the congregation, I would have needed to take some action. As I said, this didne2€™t happen.
|