I love you like something somebody loves

Love is vague. The Beatles famously chanted 'All we need is love', but what exactly is it? Some confusion comes from 'love's large semantic range. What kind of love are you talking about? What is love? (Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.) 

Christians love to talk about love. Now this is hardly surprising as we are told in 1 John 4 that God is love. Yet I have been increasingly noticing anyone who boils down an aspect of Christianity to 'love' is almost always skewed in their focus. Which is to say, they abuse the vagueness of love for their ends. This is not to say the things they engage in are not loving. Quite the opposite. But the love of social justice they are usually talking about is detached from the greatest definition of love found in Romans 5:8;

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

As we 'just love' apart from the greatest definition of it in Christ's death for sinners, we may save the planet from Greenhouse gases, we may make poverty history, we may abolish child labour, but we may love people just enough to send them well cared for to hell.

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Romans

Ben has the Monday Quiz.

Nathan has YouTube Tuesday.

Introducing (drum roll please) "Bible Book in a Sentence Sundays".

I admit, it's not quite as snappy but hopefully just as descriptive. Each Sunday I will post a suggested one sentence summary of a book of the Bible. I will also post my favourite suggestion or mash-up of ideas from the previous weeks nominated book.

Simone stole a bit of my thunder here. But I forgive her because;

a. She linked to me which means it isn't really stealing,

b. I technically stole the idea from Tracey

c. I unknowingly used the same layout as Simone for my blog

d. She wrote the lyrics to Never Alone which is S's favourite song at the moment.

Yesterday's challenge was Exodus and here is my favourite mash up of ideas;

"Out of Egyptian slavery and into a nation."

Next week's challenge: Romans

"Until I hope to see you on my way to Spain, remember justification is through faith."

Can you do better?

Also I am on holidays for the next week starting tomorrow and so will be taking my first break from the blog. I hope to find lots of suggestions for a one sentence Romans summary to post Sunday week on my return to the blogosphere. I will then resume blogging six out of seven days.

Explaining Exodus

A few years ago my beloved co-worker in the gospel Tracey suggested to her female ministry trainees to come up with a one sentence summary of each book of the Bible. Like most things that come out of Tracey's mouth this suggestion was dripping with years of ministry experience. Perhaps I will attempt this at some stage. 

The problem with a single sentence summary, or sermons that wish to communicate just one big idea is the implication that God is only operating on one plane at a time. This we know to be false. And even though it is just a teaching device, we justify our "one big idea" by saying that when you teach that book again in ten years time you can emphasise a different "one big idea."

This semester we are studying Exodus in Bible Study groups. In trying to come up with the metanarrative of Exodus, I've realised your overall theme effects what you will emphasise as you go through each section.

For example, there are two options so far in my mind for the big idea of Exodus;

1. Fulfillment of promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (especially becoming a great nation)

2. The glory of the Lord dwelling with his people.

I see both of these threads introduced in the opening chapters and referenced throughout, but will likely end up highlighting one more than the other. So far I've gone with promise fulfillment as we have been studying Genesis at our larger public meetings.

So what's your one sentence summary of Exodus?

From confrontation to conversation

To get you up to speed, some atheists posted some confronting posters at uni. Deciding this would help people actually talk about God rather than dismiss Him, with your help I decided to respond in kind.

This is what I was going for;

wit·ty  (wt)

adj. wit·ti·er, wit·ti·est

1. Possessing or demonstrating wit in speech or writing; very clever and humorous.

2. Characterized by or having the nature of wit; funny or jocular: a witty saying.

3. Quick to discern and express amusing insights or relationships.

4. Entertainingly and strikingly clever or original in concept, design, or performance: a witty sculpture; witty choreography.

Some people claim this is what was achieved;

child·ish  (chldsh)

 adj.

1. Of, relating to, or suitable for a child or childhood: a high, childish voice; childish nightmares.

2.

a. Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile: tired of your childish pranks.

b. Not complicated; simple.

c. Affected mentally by old age; senile.

So here are the final posters as they currently appear at uni.

Unfortunately one of the posters "BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME" had been removed by someone. Nevertheless here was our response;

Some people avoid confrontation at all costs. This is sinful. My mother always taught me if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. However, when it comes to refuting error one must speak, even if it's not very nice.

Many people dismiss Jesus without thought. My hope and prayer is that these posters will not stop people from hearing about Jesus, but rather assist them in thinking further about the claims he makes.

That said, where do the posters fail?

Anonymous commenting

I have now disabled anonymous comments again after briefly reopening them to allow as many people as possible to suggest slogans.

No, you're an oxymoron!

Here is my first quick poster mock up with before and after. I still have to do some tweaks and I'd have preferred a slightly taller font, but close enough. What do you think?

Thanks for everyone's quick replies and great suggestions. I will be able to get these up tomorrow for maximum impact. I'll post some photo's tomorrow night with the final posters. But for now keep those suggestions coming...

Chicken Little and the AUA

Poor old chicken little. He thought the sky was falling in. And unfortunately so did some of the students at uni today as the Australian University Atheists (AUA) began a postering campaign on campus. However, I'm as excited as an [insert simile]. Being a health science campus of predominantly 'nice' people our biggest concern is another AUA; Australian University Apathy. And there's nothing like a little public tension between atheists and Christians to get people talking. Hopefully this will include the students friends noticing the posters and talking to them about God and Jesus.

Although the posters are mildly passive aggressive I have decided to post some Christian replies in identical font and size beside them. Touché. But I need your help.

Here are the slogans;

1. INFINITE BEING IS AN OXYMORON

2. WE'RE A NON-PROPHET ORGANISATION

3. BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME

4. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE THEN WHO CREATED GOD?

5. WE JUST BELIEVE IN ONE LESS GOD THAN YOU

Got a witty reply which answers the question? I'd love your help now. My aim is not necessarily to convert the (probably sole) atheist who placed the posters, but rather to answer the objections in the hope it will get students talking.

A matter of conscience?

Adrian Russell made an interesting observation at MTS training last Thursday. We were talking about how in grey areas of Christian living, Christian's love to use the phrase "It's a matter of conscience" to explain why they should or shouldn't engage in a particular activity.

Adrian commented,

Is conscience ever used in the Bible to make something okay? In Romans 14 our conscience can make something not okay, but does conscience ever condone an action?

What a great question. One which I don't know the answer to. But I have definitely seen the concept abused to approve all manner of what I see to be sin.

My gut reaction is that Adrian's right. However when Paul makes the statement in Romans 14:14;

I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself.

When Paul says this, is he appealing to his own conscience? "I know and am persuaded" seems to indicate a personal conviction. But that conviction is "in the Lord Jesus". So at that point he is appealing not to himself, but to the gospel as his basis. This takes the acceptability of the action first from the gospel and then into his mind. Whereas the way people speak of a 'matter of conscience' is usually something that starts as a conviction in their own mind and then is understood in light of the gospel.

Maybe a diagram would help.

The gospel informs us what is lawful and what isn't which then informs my decision making (conscience.)

The alternative is to begin with conscience. Most people that appeal to conscience say if it's lawful in mind then it's okay. However if our conscience approves something we must then go to the gospel to decide if the action is acceptable or not. However, if an action is unlawful in my mind, I need not necessarily go to the gospel in order to confirm it's unlawfulness (though I may choose to). However, if my conscience says something is unlawful and I have not then understood that activity in light of the gospel I must not insist on my way to others.

An example might also help illustrate. You might think buying Bratz dolls for your daughter is not a right thing for a Christian parent to do. They are after all a bit trampy. However, someone else says they think it's okay. For the parent who says it is fine, they should then go to the gospel to see if there are principles which would inform them in the purchase of trampy dolls. I would contend the Bible is unclear at the point.

The parent who thinks it would be sinful to buy Bratz dolls, must not buy the dolls (or is it Dollz?). Even if they go to the Bible and believe it is not a clear command, they must still refrain.

I don't know if any of this has made the concept of conscience clearer to you. But I've certainly enjoyed writing about Bratz dolls.

Do you have a better way of explaining it?

The Five Constipated Men in the Bible

Occasionally an opportunity comes along to post something that will define your blog. This is it. What will I stand and fight for? What will I let go through to the keeper? This is that blogpost.

There is a lot of unwholesome content on the web. Much of it is related to humour. Jokes are driven from creating an expectation and then breaking it. As the moral degradation of society continues, the level of shock and surprise needed for impact increases, to the point where I find it almost impossible to go and watch stand-up comedy. So what?

I've been sitting on this post (no pun intended) for a few weeks now. I recently went to add a heap more 'BLOGS I READ' to the main page, but decided to wait for a few more weeks. This reconsideration was because on one of the Christian blogs I was going to add, the author dropped an f-bomb. What will define my blog? How far is too far? What would stop people from reading and linking to me, if I posted it?

The five constipated men in the Bible.

I found these guys through a weird series of events. And actually, since then I've discovered five more. And for all those egalitarians a woman is included as well (though only one, which is more evidence the Bible is sexist just like that chauvinist Paul). Plus there's one I made up myself.

For those whose consciences might be seared by such vulgarity I have included the first two in the post, and the rest in the comments (feed readers need to click here).

For your enjoyment;

The Constipated Men (and Woman) in the Bible;

Cain, "he wasn't Abel"

Moses, he took two tablets...

Surely temple

As those in my Bible Study are blatantly aware, I'm still working out how to best move from the Old Testament to the New. However this failure to work it out for myself hasn't stopped me from trying to teach it to my student leaders on campus as we look at Exodus this semester. One of the problems is the options open to us.

Where should we go in the New Testament when we are studying the laws given in Exodus 24-31, regarding the making of the house of the LORD. I can think of six different options off the top of my head.

1. John 1:14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (lit. tabernacled)

2. Ephesians 2:21 where the body of Christ is being built into the temple of Lord, which is often associated here and elsewhere with holiness

3. Revelation with the place of the temple in the new creation

4. Hebrews 10:19ff which discusses the access to God (confidence to enter the holy places) through Jesus.

5. Acts 7 and Stephen's speech encouraging the people that God could never be contained in a house and therefore the centre of Christianity was not the temple.

6. The Gospels and Jesus speaking of his body as the temple which would be destroyed and raised again.

So to which of these should we go? I'm still not certain.

My conclusion to the student leaders was there are some NT passages which more accurately reflect the emphasis in Exodus. For example with Exodus 24-31, my preference would be to take people to Hebrews, because the distance and barriers that need to be set up to enable God to dwell with his people is very thematically strong in both passages. Whereas when these laws are reiterated and restated as the commands are followed in Exodus 35-40 and God's glory fills the tabernacle, I would go to John 1. While there is much room for freedom of choice, if we ask first what is the emphasis within Exodus, we are less likely to go to our hobby horses. That is, for anyone with a temple hobby horse.

In your anger

This Sunday I'm preaching on Ephesians 4:25-5:2, the passage which says;

In your anger, do not sin

The command helped slightly when this awaited me as I arrived at my car after uni on Tuesday;

Proverbs for the 21st Century #3

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:3

Christians don't gossip, they just share "prayer points"

Does Jesus hate religion?

Following on from yesterday's post, another ignored suggestion of mine for a mission theme, this time at uni, was 'Jesus hates religion'. It's brash, it's controversial, it creates discussion, but is it true? Does Jesus really hate religion?

I guess it depends how you want to define religion. The passage I had in mind is Mark 7, where Jesus attacks the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their traditions which make void the word of God. Religion as understood by most people is about 'doing' things to be right with God. Christianity is not about doing but about what God has done through Jesus death and resurrection for forgiveness of sins. Being a follower of Jesus is not about what you do but what Jesus has done. So does Jesus hate this kind of religion? Yes.

But what of James 1:7;

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Here is religion that before God is pure. Does Jesus hate this definition of religion? No.

Seeing the answer to the question 'does Jesus hate religion?' is both yes and no, is it helpful to use the phrase as a mission theme? My tentative answer is yes. But mainly because I suggested it in the first place and I hate to be wrong. Perhaps in hindsight arrogance isn't a good enough reason.

Fully

Living in one of the highest density areas of Muslims in Australia, our church has many people who have a heart for Muslim evangelism.

No one here seems too keen to adopt it, so please feel free to use my idea for a mission to Lebanese Muslims;

Jesus: Fully God. Fully man. Fully sick.

Proverbs for the 21st Century #2

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:2

When asked "How have you been?", he who replies "Busy" is wearing his sin as a badge of honour.

Ben Pfahlert asked me today "How you been, mate?" I replied, "Like every other gospel worker, busy." Ben countered with "Congratulations, you're absolutely normal."

But really, I'm a workaholic.

Proverbs for the 21st Century #1

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:1,

Christians don't say heresy, they sing it.

Worst example in recent memory;

Crucified, laid behind a stone

You lived to die rejected and alone

So far so good...

Like a rose trampled to the ground

You took the fall

Faltering...

And thought of me

Tumbling...

Above all

Bah-bow (The Family Feud wrong answer sound effect)

What's in a name?

One of the big questions in Bible translation is how to translate the names. This is especially of significance in many parts of the Old Testament where the name of a person or place is derived from a significant event. For example in Genesis 41:52;

The name of the second he called Ephraim, "For God has made me fruitful in the land of my afflication."

At this point the English translators have added a footnote (which would not be needed for those who understood Hebrew) which says;

Ephraim sounds like the Hebrew for making fruitful

From my understanding the majority of names as they appear in our English Bibles are transliterations. Whatever the name sounds like in the original is maintained in English.

There are however many times where if an English attempt at the name was made we would be better informed. One well-known example is in Matthew 16:18. Here Jesus tells Peter, that on this rock he will build his church. Peter and rock sound similar in the Greek. How much better would it be if the English translators had called Peter, Rocky? We would get to study the books of 1 and 2 Rocky. Which are so much better than their movie equivalents.

In case this practice of maintaining the meaning is ever adopted I also wish to put in an early suggestion for Moses, who we find in Exodus 2:10 is named thus because Moses sounds like 'draw out' because he was 'drawn out' of the water. I think in future translations Moses should be called Drew.

Any other suggestions or examples?

Boring old prophecy?

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?"

To the eight people who read my blog. [UPDATE]

Okay, so having experienced a severe public spanking via the comments section of yesterday's post, with the lynching rope at the ready, and yet to have any soul offer a positive comment, I am left with little option but to recant my previous statements and return to the cesspool with my tail firmly between my legs.

Having experienced the full force of online rebuke from merely a few loose comments arising from the simple observation that two books written to refute the other were advertised side by side I'm quite taken aback. It was never my intention to begin or engage in an in-depth discussion on the merits or dangers of the New Perspective.

Those closest to me have suggested I quit the blogosphere and in future talk only to "real" people who will see the twinkle in my eye and the wry grin as I deliver my at best mildly amusing anecdotes. I have given this option serious consideration but have decided to delay a decision for a week or two.

In the meantime, I will continue my musings on subjects I actually know about, and only jump on less controversial and more frequented bandwagons such as bagging the Prosperity gospel.

[UPDATE] Thanks for your messages of support. I hope my threatening to leave the blogosphere was not perceived as some spineless twerp who couldn't take a little (rightly given) criticism. It was more out of the fears of some friends who expressed privately to me that people would build their view of me, based upon the blog, which in the case of "Two koorongs" is not really a balanced or accurate view.

As a result, good friend Nathan has been thinking deeply recently on what it means to blog, with his conclusion the responsibility lies both with the blogger (I need to watch what I say) as well as the reader (who must understand the medium.)

Consequently I hereby return from the cesspool to continue speaking with my virtual friends.

Two koorongs

Many have lamented the seemingly endless takeovers of independent Christian bookstores by Koorong. Koorong is kind of like the Christian K-mart. Full of bargains, the occasional good buy, but mostly junk. I guess one should rightly resent all these takeovers. Because two Koorong's don't make a right.

Okay, I repent of that joke. It was lame. However it really does capture an aspect of truth, because they really do sell lots of heresy. Many will no doubt come to their defence. "Hey, I know someone who works there" or "There's lots of good books too", "They're cheap" (always appeal to frugality with Christians), or "If people didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it." It's true. Many Christians work there, there are lots of good books, they're cheap and people do buy the dodgy books and bric-a-brac (mind you if they didn't sell it, they couldn't buy it - it's circular logic.)

The problem with Koorong has always been discernment. But it's one thing to sell books that will lead people astray. It's quite another to actively promote them. Consider this description from the latest Koorong catalogue describing a book from world-renowned distorter of justification by faith NT (Tom) Wright;

Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and leading New Testament scholar, is one of today's foremost experts on the theology of the Apostle Paul. In this book, Wright draws on his extensive knowledge to provide a fresh presentation of Paul's teaching on justification. Surprising and inspiring! 192 pages. $29.95

This fresh presentation is essentially Roman Catholicism. Paul's justification which is really Jesus justification somehow freshly presented and redefined all of a sudden needs to be written in inverted commas. There is now Paul's justification as understood for 2000 years and then there's the fresh presentation of Paul's "justification". Freshly presented and redefined to rob you of salvation! (And available for sale today just $29.95).

Making up for my lame "two Koorongs" joke earlier is an even better one from Koorong themselves. Whether deliberate, ironically accidental or merely hilariously providential, found advertised directly below the NT Wright book in that same catalogue, is John Piper's similarly well recommended book "The Future of Justification" which could be subtitled "Why Tom Wright may be a nice bloke, but is also seriously wrong and undermining the very foundation of Jesus saving work on the cross".

For your viewing pleasure.

Literals

Nathan asks;

Why is it that as a Christian I am suspicious of anybody who forms their entire worldview - scientific, political and eschatological - on the basis of Genesis, Daniel and Revelation?

While understanding I would look like a goose for answering a rhetorical question. I went on boldly anyway.

It's because you're a cynic. And rightly so.

However, as I said to Nathan, I've often put down my Southern American brothers as simpletons. As ill-informed as it is to read the Bible so literally, it is also admirable. Their mistake is the failure to read the Bible as the Bible indicates it should be read. Yet more and more I am softening in my stance towards them because they are coming from a right mindset of approaching the Bible. They see the Scriptures as the inerrant word of God and we would all be much better off if we held God's word in such high regard. I would rather literals than liberals.

James Warren said something on this a few months back.

In Sydney, if we don't believe in literal seven-day creation and aren't willing to go to the stake for our view of Revelation, we're Bible-believing evangelicals. In the US we'd be called liberals.

Sabbath

Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed that I only blog once each day and have Sunday off. As Sunday isn't my rest day in hindsight that arrangement was a bit silly. Therefore as of next week I will begin blogging on Sundays and have Friday or Saturday as my day of living completely in the real world.

The end and beginning of prophecy

No matter how hard you try you cannot add extra chapters to the Bible. I cannot supplement the Bible with the book of Izaac. I could use some tape to paste a few thoughts on scrap paper into the back of my Bible, but it just wouldn't count. Some have tried to add to add their own books, yet they are ultimately unsuccessful (regardless of whether you mistakenly introduce technology yet to be invented into the historical account.) Why can't we write Scripture? The answer is all tied up in the Spirit and prophecy.

Let me summarise my argument thus far. Prophecy exists. As we study the Old Testament, we discover prophecy was given by God to a specific few, known as prophets, for the purposes of both representing the people to God and primarily to bring the word of God to bear on the lives of the people, in order to bring them to God. The prophet, to enable them to prophesy, required special relationship with God through God giving them his Spirit. Prophecy exists. But for how long does it continue?

The line of specific individuals chosen by God as messengers continues throughout the Old Testament. With the arrival of Jesus, God's big plan of salvation is revealed. The mystery hidden for ages, is now revealed; namely that the promises of God were for both the Jew and the Gentile. Through his substitutionary death, resurrection and exultation, Jesus ushered in the new age. Yet there was something lacking in Jesus work. There was one aspect of Jesus work which was insufficient. Now before you start dusting off your lynching accessories, look at what Jesus says in John 14:12;

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

How can we who believe in Jesus do greater works than Jesus? When Jesus says greater, he doesn't mean more. He doesn't mean we will walk on water more, or we will feed 50,000 with a few loaves and fish. The work that we are able to do that is greater than Jesus is the proclamation of the gospel. Jesus can't do it, because he has gone to be with the Father to prepare a place for us. We however, are able to go about doing the work of proclaiming forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. Jesus is unable to do this as he has gone to be with the the Father. And it is a greater work because as people repent and believe they are taken out of hell and into heaven. That is why John who is the greatest prophet, is least in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 11:9,11;

What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet... Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

It would be convenient at this point if this was the end of prophecy. What a way to finish! We have the prophets searching and enquiring about the Christ and his sufferings and what they mean, when John arrives on the scene as the greatest prophet who prepares the way for the Lord, and then Jesus is glorified. This line of thinking would be captured well by Hebrews 1:1-2;

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.

It's even got the definitive tense (can you tell I never studied grammar?) That is, God 'spoke' seems to be past tense but open, and now he has 'spoken', definitively and finally. What a nicely tied bow. Wouldn't it be great if the line of prophecy ended here? But prophecy continues as evidenced in Acts 13:1 and 15:32. So while there is a sense in which the line of prophets ends with John, and God speaks finally in Jesus, prophecy continues. Does it continue in it's existing form? The specific selection of individual messengers of God finishes with the laying of the foundation of the church. Ephesians 2:19-20;

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

The prophets here being the New Testament prophets who were the ones sent out and working with the apostles in establishing the church. Prophecy ends. Jesus is glorified, the gospel mystery has been revealed and all are now building on this foundation.

Prophecy has ended. But only in the selection of the few, because prophecy has really on just begun. The great future longed for in Joel 2:28, when God's Spirit would be poured out on all flesh has arrived;

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.

This great future has arrived as Joel 2 is the passage Peter quotes in Acts 2 for people to understand the events of Pentecost. With the coming of the Holy Spirit, there is no need for prophets. Men and women, young and old, slave and free. All who know that Jesus Christ is Lord and repent and believe are given the Spirit of God. We don't need prophets to give us a word from the Lord. We each are able to understand and comprehend the oracles of God ourselves. For the author of Scripture resides within us, teaching us to understand the truth, and convicting us of sin, righteousness and judgment. As the Spirit of God is on all, the role of the prophet is defunct.

This raises some questions. Such as what do we make of the gift of prophecy continuing from Ephesians 4:11? Is this a distinguishing of big 'P' Prophets from little 'p' prophets? What is this prophecy which all Christians can engage in? Why can't we write Scripture? Do we still need the Bible?

What great questions to ask. However, as I am out of time and energy the answers will have to wait until Monday which should be my final prophecy post, and normal programming will resume.