Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 14:32

"and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;" — 1 Corinthians 14:32 (ASV)

And the spirits of the prophets. (See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 14:1 for the meaning of the word "prophets".)

The evident meaning of this is that they were able to control their inclination to speak; they were not under a necessity of speaking, even though they might be inspired. There was no need for disorder. This verse confirms the supposition that the extraordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit were subject to substantially the same laws as a person's natural endowments.

They were conferred by the Holy Ghost, but they were conferred on free agents and did not interfere with their free agency. And just as a person, though possessing the most splendid talents and commanding eloquence, has control over their own mind and is not compelled to speak, so it was with those who are here called prophets.

The immediate reference of this passage is to those who are called prophets in the New Testament, and the interpretation should be confined to them. It is not improbable, however, that the same thing was true of the prophets of the Old Testament, and that it is really true as a general declaration concerning all the prophets whom God has inspired: that they had control over their own minds and could speak or be silent as they pleased.

In this, the spirit of true inspiration differed essentially from the views of the heathen, who regarded themselves as driven by a wild, controlling influence that compelled them to speak even when they were unconscious of what they said. Universally, in the heathen world, the priests and priestesses supposed or feigned that they were under an influence that was uncontrollable, which took away their powers of self-command, and made them the mere organs or unconscious instruments for communicating the will of the gods.

The scriptural account of inspiration is, however, very different. In whatever way the mind was influenced, or whatever the mode in which the truth was conveyed, it was not such as to destroy the conscious powers of free agency, nor to destroy the individuality of the inspired person, or to annihilate what was peculiar in their mode of thinking, style, or customary manner of expression.