Several weeks back in our featured GraceTalk we considered a question that pointed out a potential problem for people who consider the gift of prophecy to still be in operation and yet these same people consider the Canon (the collection of writings we hold as the Bible) to be closed. The question took aim at an apparent contradiction: if the Canon is closed then how can people “prophecy” since would that not be adding to God’s Word to us? If God is still speaking shouldn’t someone be writing this stuff down? Isn’t it God’s Word. While Pastor Ken took a run at this question, I would like to take it up in a more specific treatment regarding the gift of prophecy in particular.
It is a fair question that deserves a thoughtful answer. First, let’s consider the purpose of the gift of Prophecy. Paul helps us here in his first letter to the Church at Corinth. Paul is writing to address the lack of maturity in the usage of spiritual gifts and in his discourse he outlines the purpose for the spiritual gift of prophecy.
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. (I Cor. 14:1-3 – ESV, emphasis mine).
Paul considered the gift of Prophecy to involve three qualities: “Upbuilding” or “strengthening” (NIV), “encouragement” and “consolation” or “comfort” (NIV). Therefore, when a person is exercising the gift of prophecy, the fellowship should be benefiting from one if not all of these characteristics.
Upbuilding (or “edification,” Greek oikodome) means that this activity is intended to build up the church spiritually. This type of activity is seen in multiple areas of the church: acting in love builds up the church (I Cor. 8:1), church discipline builds up the church (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:9), and not causing others to sin (to “offend”) by what we eat builds others up (Rom. 14:19). As a matter of fact, the general pattern of speech in a church is meant to edify (see Eph. 4:29). The gift of prophecy is to be simply one more of these qualities that a church has to strengthen the spiritual vitality of the local church.
Encouragement (Greek paraklesis) can mean “comfort” from sorrow (Luke 2:25; 6:24; 2 Cor. 1:3-7) or encouragement to those who are discouraged (Rom. 15:4, 5; 2 Cor. 7:4,13) or it can mean “appeal” or “exhortation” to do the right thing (2 Cor. 8:17; I Thess. 2:4; Heb. 12:5; 13:22). Paul uses this last term not in the way he would a command but an appeal based on the truth:
Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you… (Phil. 8-9a – ESV, emphasis mine).
The last result of the expression of a person with the gift of prophecy would be “consolation” or “comfort.” (Greek paramuthia) Again, it is a generic word that finds its roots in a person being given a message specific enough to give them aid in a time of difficulty or, in general, to remind them of the power and presence of Jesus in their life.
Therefore, when we take each of these words and seek a unifying characteristic to identify what exactly is the gift of prophecy, we don’t get any laser-beam answers. We simply get the normal activities we see in church on a weekly basis. Every function of the gift of the gift of prophecy (upbuilding, encouragement and consolation) is also a function of several other activities in the church, such as teaching, preaching, singing, and ordinary conversation.
It is vital to note that the foretelling of future activities is seen nowhere in Paul’s scope of meaning. Paul does not in any way relate the Old Testament idea of a prophet with the New Testament outworking of the gift of prophecy. When future events are addressed by a New Testament prophet (we will address this in the coming weeks) notice that the three qualities mentioned above are valuable in the service of Paul’s description of the underlying purpose of the gift of Prophecy.
Sandra, your comments are always welcome and needed! Never feel inhibited since you may never know when your comment will really connect with someone reading our blogs. I believe your encounter is exactly what prophecy can be on one of its forms. Thanks for the input.
I hesitate to add anything to such an erudite explanation. I do believe that it’s the connotation between prophecy and foretelling that causes confusion, because we do believe that the canon is complete.
Someone once explained to me that prophecy in 1 Cor. refers to forthtelling, not foretelling, and to me that was an easy layman’s way of remembering the difference. If speaking forth God’s Word to people who are in need of upbuilding and encouragement and consolation is indeed prophecy, no wonder we are all encouraged to earnestly desire it.
And of course that doesn’t mean going around and quoting Bible verses left, right and center. When I was in a crisis a number of years ago, lots of well-meaning friends told me “God is in control” and “everything will work together for the best,” and sure, all of that is true. All of them came with wonderful words of comfort, but I was despairing more than ever. Then one friend quietly told me that the heart is wicked above all things, and that we don’t even know the depths of that wickedness. I couldn’t believe that she was laying the blame solidly on me, and accusing me of being even worse than I thought I was. Yet, it set me free. I could finally face the root of the issue and go to God with that. To me, that was a word of prophecy.
I don’t understand. Why do you think the prophecy spoken of by Paul is different? It looks to me like he is explaining the use of not the definition of the gift.
This is a topic that I have encountered with throughout my Christian walk. Ever since I was 18, I have had friends, acquaintances, and co-workers that believe that the gift of prophecy is one of foretelling the future or revealing a message from God. I even know someone who claims to be a prophet. And, on spiritual gifts assessments the gift of prophesy always comes up as one of the top 3! So, it is a topic that I am constantly grappling with.
With that in mind I shall use my gift of prophetess and prophesize…Just kidding…
In a school chapel message, a speaker (actually one who believes prophesy to be a foretelling of future events) encouraged the listeners to delve into the world of etymology. He explained that today’s definitions of some words were not the same as the original and true meaning (For example – Passion). So, I took the challenge. I went to http://www.etymonline.com and looked up prophecy.
Here’s what I found…
PROPHET: from Gk. prophetes – “an interpreter, spokesman,” OR “soothsayer”
SOOTH: O.E. soð “truth,”; Soothsayer is attested from 1340, from O.E. seðan “declare (the truth)” and cognate with O.E. synn “sin”
PROPHECY: from Gk. prophetia “gift of interpreting the will of the gods,”
While reading these excerpts can be quite “head-breaking”, it seems to me that the original Greek interpretation of the word prophet would mean “one who speaks the truth”. I also find it interesting that the word “sooth” is cognate with the word “sin”. And finally, we need to remember that we have the Bible of which those of the OT and NT would not have had. This is not to say that God can not or would not use divine intervention or visions today. But, it does mean that we are not as reliant on visions, etc. as those in the Bible because we have the Word of God in written form.
So….Since the Word of God (Bible) is the Truth, it would make sense to me that a prophet is one who declares God’s word for discipline (or for correction of sin) or encouragement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the original meaning of the word prophet would apply to both OT and NT prophets.
One other thing – If God chooses to use visions, etc. it would never contradict the Bible, and it would be 100% accurate.
Hmmm, you’ve got a point – the definition of prophecy boils down to speaking forth the truth of God’s Word in both the O.T. and the N.T. However, where the majority of prophecy refers to this “forthtelling,” there was an element of “foretelling” in the O.T. For instance, the O.T. is filled with references speaking of the coming of a Messiah. Today we are still encouraged to speak forth the truth of God’s Word for the edification of others. (And that forthtelling is always in line with the Word.)
But the canon is complete. That means that if a “prophet” rises up saying God gave him revelations about the future or God is revealing something brand new, I would view it skeptically. God is not adding to His Word today. It is complete. Hence the difference.
(And I’m not daft enough to even try and touch situations like Acts 21:8-15 – I’ll just sneak out and leave that to the theologians among us (grin))
Dan, I have so enjoyed this topic of discussion with you at home. I can be such a “feely” person when it comes to spiritual issues; it’s easy to get carried away. I do wonder, at times, where I would be doctrinally without your wisdom. Maybe those TV evangelists I abhor would be rather appealing to me. Yikes! That’s a scary thought!
For those of you out there reading this and critiquing my grammar, please extend some grace. In high school, I was the one staring out the window writing poetry, while the teacher taught. Oh how I wish I could sit in a class or two again! Homeschooling has helped (sort of).
Thank you Sandra for writing what you did. As Dan encouraged you, I will also. I am a person who can identify with your style of writing. So keep up the good work!
Alright, now on the topic of prophesy. I do think God can communicate to us today; more on a personal scale. I sometimes, in the quietness of my heart, hear him speak wisdom. He is a counselor. Now as you said, (I think it was Stella?) I do reason with myself, if it is aligned with the word of God.
I think a problem arises when we confuse hope in a situation, for the word of God. For example: A person is terminally ill. A friend walks into the hospital room and says,” God told me that he is going to heal this person”. Then the person dies. Well meaning people have done this. They “feel” hope in a situation, only to confuse it with literally what God is thinking. The hope filled person leaves that situation confused; others are frustrated at the false hope.
The best thing to do may very well be to wait out the situation, to discern what is true.
I love the example Sandra gave of speaking the word of God to others; desiring to prophesy in that way. There is so much value in proclaiming it. It does cut like a knife down into the issue; so much deeper than our words can. Those who hear it and digest it, come out refined.(Big Smile)
O’Ryan. Good question: “Why do you think the prophecy spoken of by Paul is different? It looks to me like he is explaining the use of not the definition of the gift.”
As Paul describes the purpose of the gift of prophecy to the Church at Corinth, he does so using three specific terms that do not expressly state the idea of foretelling – predicting a future event due to the determined will of God. Therefore, we find a fundamental distinction between Old Testament prophecies (which certainly did foretell events) with the New Testament idea of “prophecy.” While it is true that Paul does not give a definition per say, he does give us a definition in application. For example, if I tell you that a certain motorized machine is meant to cut various types of lawns, runs on gas, and is lubricated with oil, you would surmise that I am speaking about a lawn mower. Hence the description of what something does is a great help in defining what a thing is.
Another example in how this would work is in the area of basic math fractions. If I give you a problem and supply the total of the problem along with the numerator (top number) in the problem, you would be able to determine what the denominator (bottom number) is. How? By looking at the two elements of the problem and supplying the missing quality. I think Paul is doing the same thing in this passage. We have the problem in the church – spiritual gifts being used wrongly. We have the answer – the right use of the gift of prophecy. Now, we can supply the purpose/definition of prophecy in relation to the first two issues, the problem and the answer.
Essentially we use this type of interpretative value all through the New Testament with the “occasion” letters written to the various churches. We see the teaching and, often, have to surmise the problem or issue the church was facing at the time. We then draw-out either direct one-for-one truths to apply in our lives (i.e. “It is God’s will that you abstain from all forms of sexual sin”) or general principles that would apply to our life in less specific ways (i.e. “Greet each other with a holy kiss”). We learn about the problems facing the church by examining the answer(s) being provided. In this, we create a grid for activity and, in the area of spiritual gifts, we find definitions regarding the purpose and use of spiritual gifts within the church.
Please forgive me for such a long response, I hope it helps.
Aw’ my wife has entered the blogosphere! Honey, be careful or people will realize that you are the teacher and I am the pupil. I will be unmasked! Actually, you are a great help to me in getting in touch with my feelings. Since I have met you I cry a lot more…I don’t think that sounded the way I intended it to sound 😉
Loving You Vickaroo
Dan,
I know you said you’d get to this so maybe I’m jumping the gun but the only actual descriptions we have after Pentecost of a prophet in action are the two occasions in Acts with Agabus, who does indeed foretell the future (at least once with a ‘thus saith the Holy Spirit’). Are we headed somewhere that says what Agabus did is not what Paul was describing in I Corinthians?
Larry, yes we will look at Agabus during our run-through. You do have a nice head-start since you attended the men’s study on Wed. morning when we discussed this. I would not say that a prophetic message never involves future events, I am simply making the point that to Paul this was not its primary or only function within the church. If Paul’s understanding of the gift of Prophecy was equal with the role of an Old Testament prophet I would think that he would mention “foretelling” of future events in the context of the churches experience in I Corinthians 14.
Therefore, to Paul the gift of prophecy may have a connection with the role of an Old Testament prophet (at times deals with future events), but the connection was a very loose one.
I think it might be helpful if we didn’t tie the gift of prophecy to Scripture in such a way that we think that every word uttered by a prophet deserves “Scripture” status.
Obviously this isn’t the case. The New Covenant was to be marked by a time where “sons and daughters” will prophecy yet we see no documents in the canon which record the utterances of a “daughter” of God (except maybe Hebrews if you ascribe its authorship to Priscilla).
In other words, you can have a “thus says the Lord” outside of the canon of Scripture. One thing is guaranteed, however, the words of the prophet (when they are from God) will NEVER contradict the clear teaching of Scripture. This would include either foretelling or “forthtelling”.
I know that the church is not as reliant on prophecy & prophets today as Biblical Times.
Our God is an awesome God – Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. So, who are we to say that God would not choose to use someone as a prophet in today’s age? And if this is so… what would a true modern day prophet look like?
(Smile) I was wondering how long Pastor Ken would be able to sit on his hands before jumping in on this topic.
I think it takes a lot of pressure out of the situation to realize that not all prophetic utterances have to be elevated to Scripture status. If that were the case, then Paul might even be considered to have been disobedient not to hearken to the pleas of Agabus and the 4 sisters not to go to Jerusalem.
A distinction that makes sense to me is to consider whether the prohecy is a manifestation of the gift of the Holy Spirit (as in Cor), or whether it flows forth from the person’s office as a prophet, which is one of the 4 gift ministries (as in Agabus’ case). The former has to do with inspiration, the latter with revelation.
I wish I can find it now, but someone who has a propensity for counting Scripture references, wrote that even in the O.T. only about 25% of the prophets’ utterances was considered foretelling – can’t find the source now so take it with a grain of salt. Today, with so many of the prophecies fulfilled, and with little need for foretelling, I become even more wary of foretelling (not ruling it out, just cautious 🙂
Henry stated it well when he said: “…that which was the most eminent gift of the Spirit under the Old Testament, the foretelling of things to come, was under the New Testament quite outshone by other gifts, and was bestowed upon those that were of less note in the church.”
Ken, excellent suggestion. It is also helpful to avoid seeing a picture of Moses or Elijah in our mind when we mention the word “Prophet.” This is why I started with the basic definition first. We need to build the case from the bottom up and try to look at this from a freshly biblical perspective. I might also suggest that it would be good not to get scared that we may compromise ourselves and find people ordering others around with an array of, “Thus says the Lord” power phrases. I want us to go as far as the Bible allows us and not be swayed by extremes on either “side.”
I still don’t understand, why do you think Paul is describing what the gift is and not what the gift should be used for?
Sure he could have Said “But one who prophesies speaks of future events to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.” But if people already knew what prophecy was that would have been redundant.
What of the Revelations of John? The book is described using the same word and it tells of future events.
Just a comment on Paul’s possible “disobedience” to a prophet’s message. There’s no indication that the plea of Paul’s friends (prophets or not) not to go to Jerusalem was itself a prophetic utterance. The prophecy was Agabus’ announcement that Paul would be bound and taken prisoner. The plea of Paul’s friends was their reaction to the prophecy, not the prophecy itself. They were in effect urging Paul to take action to prevent the prophecy from coming true, which Paul refused to do.
Never mind, i withdraw my question.
O’Ryan. I am sorry that I am not able to better connect the dotes for you in this area. I hope that as this blog string develops you will be able to better understand the gift of prophecy and, in turn, better understand how the gift of prophecy does/can operate in the church.
Dan, Not your fault at all. I am finding that if I read the blog before questioning it, i am much better off. When i went back and read all the words in the original post it makes perfect sense. Good job, i look forward to the next installment.
Some questions come to mind…
If foretelling the future can in principle provide as much “upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation” as forthtelling, how can we so easily rule out foretelling from Paul’s usage of the word “prophecy”?
If OT prophets also functioned to upbuild, encourage, and console the people of God, how can these functions be the basis of drawing a distinction between OT and NT prophecy?
If Paul uses the noun “prophet” of people with the gift of prophecy (1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:29,32,37; Eph 4:11), and if “prophet” is an OT technical term nowhere redefined in the NT (as far as I know), how can we draw a distinction between a “prophet” and a person with the “gift of prophecy”?
Jason, thanks for the questions. Although we will cover your questions as we unfold this topic, let me try to answer some of your questions.
#1. Foretelling can be involved within the administration of the gift of prophecy. I hope I didn’t convey that thought. I was only trying to frame that to Paul in I Cor. the idea of foretelling is not prominent enough to mention it specifically. We will discuss how the future and the N.T. gift of prophecy relate to each other in the coming week.
#2. I hope to answer this in the coming blog entrees.
#3. Nowhere is a person told that if they disobey a N.T. prophecy that they will be killed/judged by God. However, that cannot be said of Prophets in the O.T. As a matter of fact, we are told to “weigh carefully what is said.” (I Cor. 14:29b), and “do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (I Thessalonians 5:20-21). As a matter of fact, Paul makes a strong distinction between his authority as coming from the Lord and prophecies that people were making in Corinth (see I Cor. 14:36-38). To Paul a person with the gift of prophecy could never contradict him since his apostolic authority is greater. Rationale? O.T. prophets had an authority to their prophecies that does not seem to be duplicated in the N.T. Therefore, I believe there is a fundamental difference in the role of the two. It would seem that this counsel from Paul indicates a looser connection between an O.T. Prophets’ message and the N.T. emphasis on discerning whether to give consideration to a person with the gift of prophecy. It just seems that Paul differentiates in his application in regard to O.T. prophetic messages and the N.T. gift of prophecy.
Again, as we move through this subject I am hopeful that most of these questions will be answered. If not, please bring them up again. Also, I may move to another subject without answering a specific question simply because I feel they will be addressed in the end. Please don’t think I am dodging you. My goal is to create boundary lines in which we can rightly consider this gift in light of how Paul seems to administer it. We must make sure our boundary is neither too narrow or too expansive.
We’ve mentioned a couple of times in this discussion that one indication of the difference between Old Testament and New Testament prophets is that Paul admonishes us to ‘test’ the message of the New Testament prophets, the assumption being that no such ‘testing’ was required of the Old Testament prophets. However, that’s not entirely true.
In Deuteronomy 13 the people of God are told to test prophets by their adherence to the teaching that God alone is to be worshiped. Even if the prophet’s message comes true but he tells the people to worship a false god (i.e. he contradicts God’s previous revelation to them), he is to be considered a false prophet. This seems similar to Paul’s instruction that a prophet should not contradict his Apostolic revelation. Just like the NT prophets, the OT prophets had to adhere to the authoritative teachings given by others before them in order to be considered true prophets. In other words, God’s Word never contradicted itself as revelation progressed.
In Deuteronomy 18 the people of God are told to test prophets by the accuracy of their message. If what they predict does not come true the prophet is false and is not to be listened to. This second test is a test of the message itself, just as Paul advised his original readers to test the message of those who claimed to be prophets among them.
So in either case, the prophet is to be tested with regard to their adherence to other known authoritative teaching and/or with regard to the accuracy of their message.
If there is a difference between Old and New Testament prophets, I don’t think we can support it with this argument necessarily.
It seems that the distinction is more related to the “office” of prophet under the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, authority was vested in prophets, priests, and kings. Probably the best parallel to OT prophets in the New Covenant is the office of Apostle.
I believe this is the distinction that Dan is aiming at.
In the New Covenant, prophecy is a gift that is farther reaching and therefore doesn’t ALWAYS carry with it an authoritative office. In fact, 1 Cor. 14:37 seems to imply that a prophet “proves” himself true by assuming a place of submission under the authority of an apostle.
All this just to say that there appears to be a difference in level of authority of an OT prophet and that of a NT prophet. Thus a real distinction between the two.
Larry, I agree, O.T. prophets were to be tested. However, there is a distinctioon between the two in regard to the outcome of this testing. We do not find a single case in the N.T. in which a person disregards someone (anyone) with the gift of prophecy and then being struck down by God for this act. If you disregarded a Prophet of God in the O.T. your life would be in jeopardy, however, if you disregard a person in the N.T., who employs the spiritual gift of prophecy, that is not the case. There is a striking difference between the weight of a “Prophet” and the gift of prophecy in its outworking.
Therefore, the distinction between the office of the Prophet under the Old Covenant (as Ken cited) and the spiritually gifted person in the New Covenant seem very different.
Dan – thanks for your thoughtful responses…. I appreciate the work you have obviously put into studying this issue!
Larry – much of what I say below repeats your posting, since I was writing it before I saw what you posted; I’m posting it as-is, however, because it would take too long to rework… sorry for any redundancy…
Regarding #1 above, thank you for clarifying that the NT gift of prophecy can include foretelling; I had inferred that you did not believe that the NT gift of prophecy could include foretelling from your statement “that the foretelling of future activities is seen nowhere in Paul’s scope of meaning” (original post). I would think that it would be more accurate to say that both forthtelling and foretelling are implied by the mere usage of the “prophecy” word group, so that both forthtelling and foretelling are in fact included in Paul’s “scope of meaning” whenever he uses the word “prophecy” or its derivatives. I agree with you, however, that Paul is not viewing prophecy primarily as a means to know future events; prophecy (both forthtelling and foretelling, I would suggest) is a means to the edification of the people of God.
Regarding #3 above, I am still failing to see any evidence that NT prophecies had less authority than OT prophecies, and therefore that NT prophets are distinct from OT prophets in their authority.
It may be true that nowhere is it recorded that a person would be killed/judged by God if they disobeyed a NT prophecy, but this is an argument from silence. We have very few recorded NT prophecies that were not made by an apostle in the biblical record (Agabus’ prophecies being the only example I have found so far), so it is unwise to draw conclusions from silence. Arguments from silence are persuasive only when we would expect something to be said, but it is not said.
Furthermore, when the same word is used in both the OT and the NT, the default assumption is that the word means and entails the same thing in both testaments, unless usage and/or context make it clear that the NT authors are developing or changing the meaning. So if judgment is rendered for disobedience to OT prophecies, then we would assume the same to be true of NT prophecies, unless the context indicates otherwise. I see no such indication, but maybe I am missing something.
The fact that we are to “weigh carefully” and “test everything” (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20-21) that is purportedly a prophecy does not constitute any difference from what Israel was commanded to do with those claiming to be prophets in the OT. Moses laid out principles for testing prophets so that Israel could discern between true prophets and false prophets; i.e., to discern who really had the gift of prophecy (Deut 13:1-5; 18:15-22). Prophecy is revelation from God (2 Peter 1:20-21), and since God cannot contradict Himself, neither can prophecy contradict past revelation from God. Prophecy that contradicts past revelation amounts to leading Israel away from God and must be rejected; that is the essence of Deut 13:1-5. Furthermore, since prophecy is revelation from God, prophecy about the future must come true, or else it is not true prophecy from God; that is the essence of Deut 18:21.
The OT prophets for whom we have writings seem to have an awareness of these principles, and use them to authenticate their own ministries. For example, the prophets are constantly calling Israel back to the Mosaic covenant (past revelation). Failing to apply this criterion led at least one man of God to his death (1 Kings 13:7-26). Furthermore, at least some prophets structured their works such that the first half of their book contains predictions of near-future events which would be fulfilled during or relatively soon after the prophet’s lifetime (e.g., Isa 1-39), and the second half of their book with distant-future prophecies (e.g. Isa 40-66). If the short-term prophecies came true, Israel knew that the prophet was genuine, and had grounds for trusting the distant-future prophecies.
Thus I think we have to remember that the prophecies of OT prophets at one point in history had to pass the Mosaic criteria before they would carry authority by virtue of being revelation from God. Once a prophet established himself as a true prophet on the basis of repeatedly meeting these criteria, his new prophecies would have been more readily accepted and authoritative, and his writings would have been more likely to be preserved. By the NT era, the Jews had reached a consensus on which writings were authoritatively from God, and thus a Hebrew canon was in place.
Sometimes the NT authors refer to these authoritative writings by simply saying “the Prophets,” since the second section of the Hebrew canon consisted of the prophetic writings (e.g., Luke 24:44, which mentions the three sections of the Hebrew canon). In determining the definition of “NT prophecy,” we must be careful that we are not simply comparing the time-tested authority of these canonized writings of OT prophets (the “Prophets”) with the authority of newly-spoken, untested prophecies in the church by “prophets”. That would be comparing apples and oranges. We can only compare tested and approved prophecies with tested and approved prophecies in order to compare the authority of OT prophecy to the authority of NT prophecy, since testing is required before divine origin is affirmed in both the OT and in the NT.
Getting back to Paul’s statements to “weigh carefully” and “test everything” which purports to be prophecy in the NT church, I think Paul is simply saying that not all that claims to be revelation from God is revelation from God; it must be tested before it can be considered of divine origin; only what is of divine origin is authoritative. The same was true of OT prophecies when they were first made. Once tested according to the Mosaic criteria, however, OT prophecies could be accepted as revelation and thus as authoritative, no longer needing to be questioned, but merely accepted and obeyed.
Moving on, I do not see where “Paul makes a strong distinction between his authority as coming from the Lord and prophecies that people were making in Corinth.” I think in 1 Cor 14:37, Paul of course claims more authority for his instructions regarding the practice of prophecy than the newly-spoken prophecies themselves have, since the prophecies must be tested and accepted as of divine origin before they carry any authority. I would suggest that ultimate authority exists in God, and that any message that is truly from God carries the SAME level of authority, i.e. God’s authority, whether or not that message is conveyed by means of a prophet, by an apostle, by tongues, or in the person and work of Jesus Christ. But a “prophecy” needs to pass certain criteria before it is known to be of divine origin.
Sorry for the long post; I got a bit carried away… I have not studied the issue exhaustively, so I am more than willing to be shown wrong on this issue; I just have yet to be persuaded…
Thinking about Pastor Ken’s comments…
Would 1 Cor 12:28 and Eph 4:11 suggest that NT prophets do have an “office” in the church by virtue of their gift of prophecy, analogous to the “office” of prophet in Israel?
I agree that Paul does seem to indicate that the office of apostle has a higher authority than the office of prophet in the church, but I don’t see how that leads to the conclusion that prophets, when communicating God’s revelation to the church, are communicating less authoritative revelation than the revelation communicated by apostles. If a purported revelation given by a NT prophet contradicts a revelation given by an apostle, the apostle’s revelation would trump the prophecy. However, in that case, the prophecy would not be a true revelation from God, since it contradicted what was known to be a true revelation from God (i.e., the revelation given by the apostle), and the prophet has spoken presumptuously, and should probably be removed from office, since he either does not have the gift of prophecy, or has abused his gift.
So without denying that the office of apostle is more authoritative than a person with the gift of prophecy (a NT prophet), I still do not see any difference between OT and NT prophecy…
Didn’t we see this same kind of heirarchy among the prophets in the Old Testament? We find in I Kings 18:4 that Obadiah hid 100 prophets from Jezebel. These were likely part of the ‘company of prophets’ or the ‘sons of the prophets’ mentioned elsewhere during this time.
During the time when Elijah was ‘making the rounds’ to visit the sons of the prophets before he was taken to heaven, the sons of the prophets referred to Elijah as Elisha’s ‘master’ on several occasions (for example II Kings 2:3) We see later in II Kings 2:15 that when the ‘sons of the prophets’ realized that Elisha had succeeded Elijah, they bowed down to Elisha.
This seems to me to indicate there was some kind of degree of authority among the prophets at this time as well.
Excellent point, Larry…
Perhaps we when we speak about “authority” we need to distinguish between the authority that a particular prophet is able to exercise among the people of God by virtue of his established record (and political influence?), and the authority that a message from God provided through any true prophet carries. I would suggest that there are degrees of the former kind of authority (e.g. the Elijah/Elisha example), but that all revelation via any true prophet carries the same level of authority — divine authority. So in one sense, different prophets have different levels of authority, but in another sense, every tested prophecy has the same level of authority, regardless of which prophet God used to give it.
I have also been thinking about the parallel that Pastor Ken has drawn between OT prophets and NT apostles. I think that this connection works at a certain level, in that OT prophets were the primary means by which all revelation was either communicated and/or certified between the time of Moses and the time of Christ and recorded (resulting in the Prophets and the Writings of the OT), while the Apostles were the primary means by which revelation was communicated and/or certified after the time of Christ (resulting in the NT documents).
However, it would seem to me that the parallel breaks down when you consider that there were many other OT prophets (as Larry pointed out) who did not play a role in producing the canonical documents, nor were they able to exercise much authority in Israel, despite their gift. All of the apostles, however, seemed to have a kind of automatic authority in the churches by virtue of their being chosen by Christ to be first-hand witnesses of his life and ministry.
Perhaps a more accurate parallel to draw, then, would be to compare the Apostles to Moses, in that both the Apostles and Moses were known by the people of God to have met with God “face-to-face,” i.e., to have had direct access to God, and therefore both Moses and the Apostles enjoyed a kind of de facto authority among God’s people.
The prophets, on the other hand, did not enjoy such de facto authority among the people of God, since the people of God did not know whether any given person claiming to be a prophet really had access to God’s revelation. Thus, prophets had to be tested on the basis of their prophecies before their messages would be accepted as authentic revelations from God.
Anyway, that’s where I am kind of landing on this issue, but perhaps I am still missing some dots or not connecting them correctly… I hope someone will correct me if so!