My prophecy posts have ended with more of a whimper than a bang, but the final curtain is lowering...
I ended my last post with the declaration that the specialness of the Old Testament prophets as specific individuals chosen to be the messengers of God has ended with the fulfillment of Joel 2 as quoted in Acts 2 at Pentecost with the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh that all may prophesy. This is seen also in 1 Corinthians 14:1,5
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy... Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.
All can prophesy, yet more than that, all should desire to prophesy. That doesn't mean all do, but prophesy is now in the domain of all.
However, that's not the entire story. Earlier on I highlighted the presence of New Testament prophets upon which the foundation of the church was laid. While all can prophesy with the arrival of the Spirit of God on all those who trust in Christ as Lord, the Old Testament line of prophets concluded not with John (though they did in one sense) but more so with the revelation of the mystery of Christ and the gospel to the Gentiles.
There is a difference between big 'P' Prophets and little 'p' prophets. Most people say that difference is Old Testament versus New Testament. I think the Biblical view is a tad more nuanced than that. The Prophets ends not with the arrival of Jesus but with the apostles and prophets who took the gospel to the Gentiles. While I'm not sure at what point the last prophet in this line died out, in my mind there is a definitive break here. Problems arise when we confuse where exactly we come into the picture. We see the similarity we have with the apostles with all prophesying in Acts 2. We could perhaps then conclude therefore our words can have the same weight and influence and divine inspiration as the apostles. It is essential we notice the cross-over (represented below in grey) between prophecy of the Old Testament few and the New Testament many. Without acknowledging the period of crossover we will unfortunately either want to add to the Bible new chapters, or else minimise the role of the Bible and overemphasise the words of Christians today.
So what do we make of the gift of prophecy continuing from Ephesians 4:11? At this point I would contend the gift of prophecy needs to be thought of like we speak of the gift of evangelism. All can do it, all should desire to, but not all will. Some will be especially good at it. These will be spoken of as having the gift of prophecy. While all can prophesy, some Prophets will be especially gifted;
This leaves us with a just the elephant in the room to address. What is prophecy? Without wishing to oversimplify. To boil it down to it's essence; prophecy is the testimony of Jesus as Lord. Actually, that does oversimplify it, but it is also the core of it's content. See Revelation 19:10;
the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Or again in 1 John 4:1-3
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
One of the observations coming out of MYC was that we came with lots of questions about the Holy Spirit and his work. We got the answers and they just weren't exciting enough. How could a topic as exciting as spiritual warfare be so bland to suggest the war is pretty much over? It's really just the last few pieces being played out in chess where the result is already decided. But I wanted to fight! It sounds so simple. We all can prophesy as we speak the message of Christ as Lord.
Are you dissatisfied with the answer? Why can't we write Scripture? We don't need to. The canon is closed, the foundation laid and the Spirit of God is in our hearts helping us to understand the truth as we meditate on God's word. We can all prophesy as we speak the message of Christ as Lord.
There it is. My elective which took 1.5 hours to run has only taken me two weeks to blog! For those with the inclination, please highlight for me the mistakes in my logic. As iron sharpens iron...
I have one more question to address in my mind, but unfortunately I've run out of time and energy again. Later this week I will offer just one more post reflecting some unfinished thoughts on "so just what is the difference between teaching, prophecy and evangelism?"
I heard prophecy defined once as - to paraphrase - bringing the word of God to bear on people's lives. I think that's a functional definition of the role pre and post Christ.
ReplyDeleteHey Izaac. Looks like you've put a lot of work into all these thoughts!
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of quick questions:
(1)From a cursory(only cursory, sorry!) reading of your thoughts, within the arguments you put forward you seem to nearly equate prophecy with the authority of Scripture at some points, and yet later talk about a different order of prophecy. By this, I mean that your argument against adding books to the bible relies on the nature of prophecy. This seems strange to me, as it appears that your view of NT prophecy is that it requires judgment by the congregation, yet is also your argument against being able to have new books added by members of that congregation. I'm probably mis-reading your argument, sorry, but I'm doing so as I'm trying to get into your thought-world regarding prophecy. Sorry if I've misrepresented your thoughts!
(2)What do you make of non-apostolic, future-telling prophecy in the NT such as Acts 21? or the particular designation of a bunch of people as prophets (Acts 15 and 21)?
(3)What do you make of Moses as the paradigmatic prophet and whether or not it is right to see a mediatorial role in prophecy?
Well, enough poking interesting questions at Nath's friends, I'll now sit and wait for some interesting answers. :)
God bless in your life and ministry,
Kutz
Hey Kutz,
ReplyDeleteThe reality is all I have written in the prophecy posts is where my thinking ended. So any questions asked are forcing me to think further, which is a good thing but may mean my thoughts are jumbled.
1. Part of the problem here is in the categories which prophecy occurs. Prophecy in the OT we now know was Scripture, thus it had and has the authority of Scripture. This creates confusion of categories. Also at some level prophecy was always weighed as there were false prophets around. The question is what has changed? I think the change is twofold:
a. Now all can prophesy. This has implications on the need for prophets for the people of God. If all can prophesy, a special messenger and interpreter of the word of God is not needed. The only mediator is Jesus, and we have the Spirit of God within us helping us understand what he has written.
b. This naturally causes a change in the nature of prophecy. But how big a change? It seems a significant one, whereby as part of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh with the proclamation of the gospel of the risen Lord Jesus going to the Gentiles the old order of writing down the words of God has been transformed. What am I trying to say? I'm not really sure. I think I'm saying now that all may prophesy the nature of prophecy has changed. Part of this change is that the foundation of the church being built has been laid, so there is no need to write more books of the Bible, we are just building on that foundation.
2. If you read one of the early prophecy posts ("The end of prophecy?") I touch on this. The Acts 15 reference is I believe the kind of prophet spoken of in Ephesians on which the church is built. The apostles in my mind always includes their band of merry men, many of whom wrote the NT. This is the particular designation of prophets.
On Agabus, I'm still thinking. He doesn't quite fit into this category, but there is something going on about Paul following in the steps of Jesus. But I am unable to further expand on that at this stage (for fear of looking like a goose). I think I had another post to write which I still havn't gotten to which was going to address the future nature of prophecy as a natural outcome of proclaiming the word of God to a specific situation. Maybe I will work on that for next week. Stay tuned...
3.Again the problem is categories. Moses was a Levite (Ex 2). He performed many roles for the people of God. He is no doubt the great prophet. This included a mediatorial role. In the OT this had to, as he was taking the word from the LORD to the people. I think the mediatorial aspect of his role was therefore linked to his being the prophet. Does this change in the NT? Probably, as the Spirit is in the heart of all who believe, the nature of approaching God has changed.
I see some holes in my logic. But I'm trying to plug them quickly. Do you have more thoughts?
Well, I guess I wonder how the mediatorial role in prophecy continues today. Or do you think it doesn't at all?
ReplyDeleteI think I need you to define what you mean by mediatorial role?
ReplyDeleteBut then again maybe I don't, because whatever your definition, if it implies needing someone or something to act as go between for you and God the answer is no. Because we have Jesus as our great high priest and the Spirit within us transforming our thoughts and prayers into pleas to God.
To clarify what I meant by confusion of categories; in the Old Testament Moses was not just a leader, or prophet, he was deliverer, he had a priestly role. So where one started and the other stopped is not always clear.
However, the mediatorial role in regards to prophecy was needed because the Spirit was not on all, so all could not approach God. I take it that the access we have through Christ to God (Hebrews 10) and the Spirit now poured out on all who trust in Jesus, the mediatorial role of the prophet is defunct. That aspect has ended.
I'm just posting this out of idle curiosity, so feel free to ignore me bro. I'm not sure if this will lead anywhere helpful.
ReplyDeleteBut... :P
Would you say that even in a 1 Peter 2:5 kinda sense?
No, that's fine. I think 1 Peter 2 is using the same concept but using different language. Here it is not using spirit language but the temple.
ReplyDeleteWho is taking the mediatorial role in 1 Peter 2:5? I'm not sure there is one. If it is, it's a corporate thing rather than an individual. The emphasis here is using the temple imagery as the place where God meets with his people, the place where people come to draw near to God. This was a holy place, for that was the only way an unholy people could approach a holy God.
There are two implications from here in 1 Peter 2;
1. They are to live lives in holiness to God
2. They are the place (as the church proclaims Christ crucified) where people draw near to God. It is so they might 1 Pet 2:9 proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness and into his glorious light.
The only way we act as mediators is in we are the place where people meet Jesus (the mediator).
ReplyDeleteIs this what you meant?