<p>14:30 <i>But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence- </i>This may seem to contradict the idea that the spirits of the prophets were subject to them <i>(</i>:32). Prophecy was not a gift which could not be controlled and which led to interrupting another inspired speaker. And we have just read that the prophets were to speak by turn (:29). So why then does Paul appear to contradict the spirit of these principles by saying that if a prophet has a revelation, then the first speaker should fall silent? I would suggest that he is again making concession to their weakness, despite having established the true principles; and is answering ahead of time their likely objections. In this case, the objection would be that as inspired speakers they could not help but speak forth. Paul is saying that OK, in that case, the other inspired speaker, who likewise 'can't help but speak', should fall silent The contradiction and tension is&nbsp; purposeful. Because Paul has chosen to deal with their apostacy by indirect and subtle argument, pointing out the contradictory nature of their positions- rather than by direct confrontation.</p>