Prophets- Should Reformed Preachers Be Stoned?

[Wordkeeper]

Wordkeeper,
About building wood, hay, and stuble on the foundation, I hav enever heard anyone say that wood, hay, and stubble are sin. The context is about building on the foundation of CHrist, after discussing Paul and Apollos' ministry. But the Old Testament prescribed a death penalty for prophesying falsely in the name of the Lord, so wouldn't that be a sin as well?

It was you who suggested a link between the Bema judgment and the testing through fire:

LinkH wrote:
The New Testament talks about what is built on the foundation of Christ enduring or being burnt up. Most of us take that as a metaphor of what may occur at the bema seat (or in this life) not as something literal.

The Bema judgment is for deeds. Testing through fire, Scripture, is for prophesy. In turn testing of the message is through confirmation by signs and wonders:

Acts 17
30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

 

[Wordkeeper]

May I ask that we not turn this thread into a death penalty discussion.

That is not the point of the OP. the point has to do with the understanding of 'prophet' and 'prophesy' in scripture. It also has to do with the inconsistency of certain folks in Reformed and other movements who treat 'prophesy' as a reference to real prophesying in one case, and preaching or teaching in another case, inconsistently. I suppose some Reformed people who think this way would be in favor of literally stoning false prophets, but some may be in favor of metaphorically 'stoning' by disfellowshipping. If 'prophesying' applies to pulpit preaching, then the same principles should apply to pulpit preaching.

Also, if one considers prophesying to be adding to the book of Revelation and he considers preaching to be prophesying, he should consider preaching to be adding to the book of Revelation.

Doesn't follow. A prophet will express God's will, command, in contemporary ways:

Luke 3
10And the crowds were questioning him, saying, “Then what shall we do?”11And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

Accompanied by a sign and wonder act, revelation of God's ways and plan:

Luke 3
15Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17“His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

This, revelation of God's Scripture, plan, confirming the truth of his message about God's command:

Deuteronomy 18
21“You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'
22“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

 

[LinkH]

It was you who suggested a link between the Bema judgment and the testing through fire:
[

LinkH wrote:
The New Testament talks about what is built on the foundation of Christ enduring or being burnt up. Most of us take that as a metaphor of what may occur at the bema seat (or in this life) not as something literal.

The Bema judgment is for deeds. Testing through fire, Scripture, is for prophesy. In turn testing of the message is through confirmation by signs and wonders:

The passage doesn't mention the Bema seat. It doesn't say when our works will be tested by fire. We might interpret it to mean they will be tested over time in this age, or that they will be tested in some way at some eschatological point in time. The passage is not specifically about prophecies being burnt up. Paul planted. Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. They had labored. Paul laid the foundation of Jesus Christ. Others who labored built upon this foundation, gold silver, precious stones, wood hay or stubble. This would be tested by fire.

I suppose one could 'build' through prophesying, or other gifts in addition to preaching, teaching and evangelism. It is more likely that Paul and Barnabas' building work was more in the area of evangelism and teaching. But they may have prophesied. Who knows?

There is nothing in the passage that indicates that the reference to gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble is specifically about prophesying. The Gospel, of course, had been supernaturally revealed.

 

[LinkH]

Wordkeeper, I understand the words on the page, but I don't understand what your point is with your comments in the last post or how your comments are connected to the verses you quote. I am not sure what you mean 'doesn't follow' either. I was presenting the problem with a faulty argument, so I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The passage doesn't mention the Bema seat. It doesn't say when our works will be tested by fire. We might interpret it to mean they will be tested over time in this age, or that they will be tested in some way at some eschatological point in time. The passage is not specifically about prophecies being burnt up. Paul planted. Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. They had labored. Paul laid the foundation of Jesus Christ. Others who labored built upon this foundation, gold silver, precious stones, wood hay or stubble. This would be tested by fire.

I suppose one could 'build' through prophesying, or other gifts in addition to preaching, teaching and evangelism. It is more likely that Paul and Barnabas' building work was more in the area of evangelism and teaching. But they may have prophesied. Who knows?

There is nothing in the passage that indicates that the reference to gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble is specifically about prophesying. The Gospel, of course, had been supernaturally revealed.

Then why did you bring up the topic of the Bema judgment?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Wordkeeper, I understand the words on the page, but I don't understand what your point is with your comments in the last post or how your comments are connected to the verses you quote. I am not sure what you mean 'doesn't follow' either. I was presenting the problem with a faulty argument, so I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

It doesn't follow that modern prophesy must be added to Canon. Modern prophesy is modern applications of the eternal law, to love God with all our being, and others as ourselves.

When Israel lived in the countryside, the law is expressed as returning the farm which the borrower had kept as collateral back to him, even without repayment. When Israel lived in cities, love is expressed in caring for your fellow Israelite.

Quite different from how the Pharisees interpreted God's plan to use Israel as His image to show light to the world.

 

[stephen583]

Read Acts 5 to see how two that lied before God fell dead at Peter's feet.

I am familiar with the story of Ananias and his wife in Acts 5 and what happened. Ananias and his wife decided to become Christians and join those who were gathered outside Jerusalem. Being quite rich, Ananias made a considerably large and generous donation to the community, but hedging his bets, just in case the Christianity thing didn't work out.. he and his wife agreed to stash a little coin in secret.

Peter was made aware of the deception in a dream (vision), and confronted Ananias. Both Ananias and his wife were given the opportunity to confess and repent, but instead they chose to stick to their ruse and called Peter a liar... At which point, the Holy Spirit instantly struck them both stone dead.

The short version of the story is that no one in the community stoned Ananias or his wife. They were judged by God and punished by God alone... "Vengeance is mine, I will repay; saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19).. and not by Peter.

You are confusing judgment with vengeance.

 

[LinkH]

It doesn't follow that modern prophesy must be added to Canon. Modern prophesy is modern applications of the eternal law, to love God with all our being, and others as ourselves.

How does this fit your explanation of what prophesying is:
Acts 21:11
And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”
(ESV)

Does telling Paul about being bound tell Paul how to love God with all our being, or tell us to do so? What about the scenario in I Corinthians 14, where the unbeliever or unlearned man comes in, all prophesy, and he falls down on his face and says that God is truly among you.

Maybe we could say that Agabus was loving God by telling Paul this, or that the prophecies lead the man in the scenario to love God. But your description doesn't really capture what prophesying is. Sure, the greatest commandment in the law deals with loving God. But your description of prophecy doesn't do much to explain what it is exactly.

We could also say that teachers explain divine law, and encourage others to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. If we say that is what a teacher is in the body of Christ, while that may be an important part of the role, it doesn't exactly explain what teachers do.

Honestly, you comments seem to cloud the issue even more than some of the issues I raised from the Reformed tradition.

 

[Wordkeeper]

How does this fit your explanation of what prophesying is:
Acts 21:11
And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”
(ESV)

Does telling Paul about being bound tell Paul how to love God with all our being, or tell us to do so? What about the scenario in I Corinthians 14, where the unbeliever or unlearned man comes in, all prophesy, and he falls down on his face and says that God is truly among you.

Maybe we could say that Agabus was loving God by telling Paul this, or that the prophecies lead the man in the scenario to love God. But your description doesn't really capture what prophesying is. Sure, the greatest commandment in the law deals with loving God. But your description of prophecy doesn't do much to explain what it is exactly.

We could also say that teachers explain divine law, and encourage others to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. If we say that is what a teacher is in the body of Christ, while that may be an important part of the role, it doesn't exactly explain what teachers do.

Honestly, you comments seem to cloud the issue even more than some of the issues I raised from the Reformed tradition.

Prophesy carries out two functions. It interprets God's eternal law to love others to express a modern situation.

It confirms this interpretation with a supernatural act.

Did John interpret the eternal law with respect to city dwellers in Jerusalem?

Yes he did.

Did John confirm his teachings with predictions about the sending of Christ in the near future?

Yes he did.

Should John's interpretation of law be added to the commandments of God?

No it need not. It applied to his times. The principle never changed. His message was an expression of that principle.

That's why modern day prophecy need not be added to the Canon.

Agabus and the other prophets only proved that God was with them and their message could be believed.

Agabus loved his fellow believers and wanted to save Paul from suffering. Paul loved his nation and wanted to suffer for their sakes. When two good works are to be chosen, the one that leads to the greater good is picked. Observing Sabbath is a good work. Saving your sheep from a well is also a good work. The latter is allowed by Torah to be done even on a Sabbath.

Similarly, David fed his men from the shew bread. Jesus healed on a Sabbath.

 

[LinkH]

Prophesy carries out two functions. It interprets God's eternal law to love others to express a modern situation.

Where do you get this definition or description of prophesying from the Bible?

It confirms this interpretation with a supernatural act.

Again, they said, 'John did no miracle.' But he was still a prophet. Lots of prophets di dmiracles. But we do not know if a lot of the Old Testament prophets ever did any miracles.

God doesn't owe us miracles. He confirms His word if He chooses. If He sends a prophet without confirming through a sign, that is up to Him. Jesus refused to give a sign to a wicked and adulterous generation except for the sign of the prophet Jonah. He wasn't obligated to give them a sign.

They were probably wanting the fulfilled prediction type sign, mentioned in Deuteronomy, as opposed to the signs Jesus was doing left and right of healing, multiplying food, etc.

Did John interpret the eternal law with respect to city dwellers in Jerusalem?

John preached in some remote areas. John may have interpreted law for city dwellers. Okay. But so do plenty of judges who live in the city or who started working in cities when American society became more rural. t hat doesn't make them prophets. Priests in John's day who judged cases related to the temple may have applied the law for city-dwellers. That does not mean they were all prophets.

John the Baptist drank water. Does that mean everyone who drinks water is a prophet? Is anyone who eats locust a prophet?

Did John confirm his teachings with predictions about the sending of Christ in the near future?

Yes he did.

Many in His audience may not have recognized this. Many prophets predicted future events.

That's why modern day prophecy need not be added to the Canon.

You don't have to try so hard. The Bible alludes to a large number of prophecies and revelations that were not included in the canon.

Agabus and the other prophets only proved that God was with them and their message could be believed.

Agabus loved his fellow believers and wanted to save Paul from suffering. Paul loved his nation and wanted to suffer for their sakes.

It's great that they loved people. But that didn't make them prophets.

 

[dqhall]

That's certainly true but of course the Apostles-of-Christ stood by on two occassions where they commanded that both Ananias and Sapphira should die; but your right in that they did not cast any stones.

I also quoted the verses about God can kill people. Jesus emphasized not getting angry and not killing people. He taught that when someone slaps your cheek, turn and offer the other one, etc. Everyone who is born of the flesh is likely to die. One in a thousand might live past 100 years. Those born of the spirit obey God and are kept.

It seems God does not frequently kill people, else the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus would have been killed. The chief priests who pled for Jesus' execution would have been killed. They were destined to die anyway. Judas had to commit suicide for what he did and no one could have talked him out of it. God will save a few who are not as cruel as those who conspired to kill Jesus.

 

[Colter]

This is not a thread on the death penalty. Please read the opening post before responding. Please do not post on the topic of the death penalty in this thread.

Should Reformed preachers be stoned if they make a mistake while preaching? If the preacher is talking and he accidentally calls Elisah Elijah, should we pick up stones to throw at him?

That question is tongue in cheek. What I would like to talk about is the way so many in the Reformed movement, following in the footsteps of John Calvin, have redefined the words 'prophesy', 'prophecy', and 'prophet'.

If we look at how the words are used in scripture, they prophesying involves receiving a revelatory message from the Spirit and communicating it, usually through speech. (There may also have been prophecy through song. There is one reference to prophesying on musical instruments, and there were prophetic sign acts like walking around naked, burning hair, or wearing a dirty belt in the Old Testament.) Peter describes the prophesying of the Old Testament as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'

Propheciess in the Old Testament typically started with 'Thus saith the LORD.' Agabus, a church prophet from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts began his prophecy with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost.' Should we think that the prophecies of other prophets in the early church were Bible teaching sermons?

Paul tells us about the revelatory nature of prophecy when he gives instructions on church meetings, which include instructions on how 'every one of you' may teach, sing, speak in tongues, share revelations, and interpret in an edifying and orderly manner. If, while the prophets are speaking two or three, he says 'if a revelation comes to one sitting by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy....'

Prophesying is revelatory in nature. But many in the Reformed movement redefine the term to refer to preaching and teaching from the pulpit, or to particularly good preaching and teaching.

This goes back at least to John Calvin, who wrote, in his commentary on I Corinthians 12.


And here, where he shows he is not dogmatic about it.


(Quote taken from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/12.htm)

There are those who will argue regarding more 'Charismatic' forms of prophesying that if anyone prophesies falsely, he should be stone. But then the same individuals will define prophesying as pulpit preaching and teaching (probably the type of thinking Calvin disagreed with in the second quote, but still similar to Calvin's view.) If preaching from behind the pulpit is prophesying, then wouldn't a preacher who makes some small mistake, mispeaks, or especially teaches the wrong interpretation be guilty of falsely prophesying? Let's say one preacher preaches an amil interpretation for example, and another preaches historic premilinealism, and another preaches pre-trib. Wouldn't one who believes that preaching and teaching is prophesying have to conclude that a preacher who errs in such a matter in his preaching is a false prophet?

Didn't Jesus say 'the theology lawyers will always be with us' no? well he should have. Most all of the prophets were mistreated by clueless religious 'experts' while the common man heard them gladly.

Spiritual truth, revelations, great and small, happen all the time through cracked vestal's. Those truths are conditioned by the limitations of finite man. They are gifts of the spirit to be taken as instruction, not precise formulas hanging on each letter. Preachers are just men giving their onion about a topic which may or may not contain inspiration.

"When theology masters religion, religion dies; it becomes a doctrine instead of a life."

 

[Wordkeeper]

Where do you get this definition or description of prophesying from the Bible?

Every one who claimed he was a prophet, a person speaking in place of God, needed to prove he was a prophet by doing a miraculous sign or have his prediction become true:

Exodus 4
4But the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail”—so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand— 5“that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has reappeared to you.”

Deuteronomy 18
22“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken.

Every prophet had to have a message which did not lead Israel away from obeying God's law to prove he was acceptable.

Deuteronomy 13
1“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Again, they said, 'John did no miracle.' But he was still a prophet. Lots of prophets di d miracles. But we do not know if a lot of the Old Testament prophets ever did any miracles.

The test of a prophet is not to have unfulfilled prophesies. John did no miracles but everything he said about Jesus was fulfilled:

John 10
41Many came to him and began to say, “John performed no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man was true!” 42Many believed in Him there.

God doesn't owe us miracles. He confirms His word if He chooses. If He sends a prophet without confirming through a sign, that is up to Him. Jesus refused to give a sign to a wicked and adulterous generation except for the sign of the prophet Jonah. He wasn't obligated to give them a sign.

If good men are willing to give proof that they are able to help you, is God not as good? He readily gave Moses the ability to do miracles:

Exodus 4
1Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.’” 2The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” And he said, “A staff.” 3Then He said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent;

The Jews wanted to trip Jesus, which is why he refused to give them any more signs. The sign of Jonah did two things. It was for an adulterous Israel, which was chasing after foreign Gods. It raised up the Gentile, who defeated and took Israel out of Jerusalem, removing her position as the people of God. They could not function, could not sing the Lord's song in a strange land. 'Jew' means one who praises God.

They were probably wanting the fulfilled prediction type sign, mentioned in Deuteronomy, as opposed to the signs Jesus was doing left and right of healing, multiplying food, etc.

Quote
But Moses was given another sign--when he and the people returned to Mount Sinai after the exodus they would worship at the mountain. That was a sign that would confirm that God had done it, but it was not a sign to convince them to go to the mountain to worship. Once they got there they would be assured that God had done just as He had promised.

These Pharisees and teachers clearly wanted the former type, a sign to convince them to believe. But they were dishonest and Jesus saw right through them. They had just seen a spectacular sign, the casting out of the demon so that the man regained his abilities, and instead of believing they accused Him of doing it by Beelzebub. They were not interested in a sign, only in trying to discredit Jesus.

https://bible.org/seriespage/19-sign-jonah-matthew-1238-45

Here you are right. They wanted a commitment from Jesus, a prediction, that they would be confirmed as God's people, probably by a statement saying Rome would be evicted and Jews would worship freely in the Temple. Instead the sign of Jonah predicted the scattering of Israel.

John preached in some remote areas. John may have interpreted law for city dwellers. Okay. But so do plenty of judges who live in the city or who started working in cities when American society became more rural. t hat doesn't make them prophets. Priests in John's day who judged cases related to the temple may have applied the law for city-dwellers. That does not mean they were all prophets.

John the Baptist drank water. Does that mean everyone who drinks water is a prophet? Is anyone who eats locust a prophet?

My point is that prophecy need not be added to Canon.

Many in His audience may not have recognized this. Many prophets predicted future events.

The point is that John's predictions came true. That is why people decided to take his advice and followed Jesus.

You don't have to try so hard. The Bible alludes to a large number of prophecies and revelations that were not included in the canon.

Then why do you see a problem in the fact that modern prophecies are not added after the book of revelations?

It's great that they loved people. But that didn't make them prophets.

Yup. Paul should have just told Agabus that he was Satan and that he needed to get behind him.

That was sarcasm.

 

[rockytopva]

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. -Deuteronomy 18:22

Presumptuously... In error... In the flesh... Out of the spirit of arrogance...zadown in the Hebrew... Or out of pride.

There are a lot of people speaking this way... Including Calvinist.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Apparently a third option, being led into all truth by God, is best:

Acts 4
13Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

Acts 4:13: “The Jewish elders and rulers observe that Peter and John were uneducated and unlearned.” Many have concluded that intellectual emphasis has no place for the life of the believer. Is this right? It is important to understand that the Jewish leaders did not mean that Peter and John were irrational or intellectually unskilled. They meant that they had not undergone the proper rabbinical training. https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/why-dont-christians-think-2/

 

[Basil the Great]

I find it hard to believe that any poster on Christian Forums would start a thread like this. If Jesus effectively broke faith with the Mosaic Law and it's command to stone a woman caught in adultery, then it seems very unlikely that He would have favored stoning for any reason. I also wish to protest your intentional separation of this thread from a discussion of the death Penalty. I will honor your request, but I am protesting your stated limitation on the thread, as I do not believe you can rightfully leave the death penalty out of the discussion.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

There were no teachers in the New Testament church, in obedience to the instruction of Christ to abolish the function of teachers, rabbis.

Instead, men and women would gather in homes. Each one would have something to contribute, a psalm, a prophecy or tongues.

Two members would speak and the message would be interpreted by one or more interpreters.

Each one would build on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, of which Christ is the chief cornerstone, with wood, straw and hay or gold, silver and precious stones. If any person's message was destroyed, he or she would not be stoned, would survive, but as through fire.

Because those who tested the message would use Scripture, and Scripture is like a fire, a hammer that can break even rocks.

This is actually not true; that there were teachers of the faith, catechists, is attested to by sacred scripture, the pastoral epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, in which he states, "...I do not permit a woman to teach..."

The rest of what you say is refuted by the archaeological evidence of a first century church, still in use, in Kerala, India, established by St. Thomas, by the Didache, a first century book of Church order, and by the first century epistles of Sts. Clement and Ignatius, which were written roughly around the same time as the orthodox dating of Revelations, and of course by the book of Acts itself, in which we see the ordination of St. Matthias to replace Judas, and the seven deacons to assist the Apostles (one of whom, St. Stephen, was the first martyr for the Christian faith; another of whom, Nicolas, not to be confused with the fourth century St. Nicholas of Myrna, formed the despised sect of the Nicolaitans).

The extreme anti-clericalism you propose is further refuted by the epistles to Timothy, wherein St. Paul outlines the qualifications for ordination as a bishop.

~

That said, there were in ancient times sects that functioned like you describe, which are discussed by St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, and in further detail by St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion, both of which attempted to catalogue all heretical sects. These sects can be said to be per se heretical on a universl basis, and I readily admit this is strong language, because of the very specific manner in which they reject the instructions of St. Paul in the Epistles to Timothy; indeed the specific Syriac sect I have in mind, the Encratites, which descended from the Tatianists and was responsible for the spurious Gnostic Acts of Thomas, John and Andrew, rejected St. Paul altogether as a drunkard.

Also there is some reason to suspect the Montanists and Phrygians operated in the manner you describe, as well as certain other tiny sects, some of which were very unpleasant.

~

The Catholic and Apostolic Church we confess in the Nicene Creed certainly for a time did use house churches, and in fact Orthodox, Catholics and mainline Protestants still resort to these where there is persecution. But the great preference in Christendom has been for dedicated church buildings.

 

[BobRyan]

Didn't Jesus say 'the theology lawyers will always be with us' no? well he should have.

Your quotes of you -- always a refreshing change

 

[LinkH]

Wordkeeper,

This is a passage from Ezekiel 36 which illustrates what it means to prophesy several times in a short passage. The emphasis, in bold, is mine.


Ezekiel 36
1 Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord:
2 Thus saith the Lord God; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession:

3 Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people:

4 Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord God; Thus saith the Lord God to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about;

5 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.

6 Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen:

Notice the characteristics of the typical prophecy in the Old Testament.
1. The prophet is actually speaking a message from Yahweh.
2. The prophet says 'Thus saith the Lord'
3. The prophet quotes Yahweh.

Notice here that Yahweh tells Ezekiel to prophesy, and then gives him the message he wants to say. Ezekiel quotes what the LORD tells him to say.

It is not about Ezekiel using the wisdom in his mind to interpret the law rightly for his listeners. No, Ezekiel is actually prophesying, quoting the message God gives Him.

Prophets can receive and share revelation in other ways, too. Like we read in Deuteronomy, God can communicate to prophets through visions, dreams, and 'dark sayings.' Typically, though, prophets prophesy. They give a message from God.

Agabus said, "Thus saith the Holy Ghost" and then gave his message. So we should not expect new Testament prophesying to be a totally different thing from Old Testament prophesying.

As far as the content of what prophets say prophetically, goes Agabus predicted a famine that would come. I Corinthians 14 gives a hypothetical scenario in which all prophesy and an uninstructed or unbelieving individual hears the secrets of his heart made manifest and falls down on his face declaring that God is truly in/among the church.

 

[LinkH]

Wordkeeper,

I consider the argument that anyone who receives a prophecy now must be violating that passage about not adding to 'this book of prophecy' to be a foolish argument. When I brought it up, I was pointing out the inconsistency of equating prophecy with pulpit preaching only when convenient.

If one receives a prophecy from God, he only adds it to the book of Revelation if he actually adds it to the book of Revelation. If he says "This prophecy should be added to the book of Revelation. I'll do that and write a new version of the book that includes this prophecy' and does so, then he adds to the book of Revelation.

Since the Bible shows us that there are numerous prophecies not included in the Bible (e.g. whatever Saul prophesied, whatever Samuel prophesied between that first one as a child and the time of Saul, the prophecies of the prophets around Elijah and Elisha, the prophecies of Micaiah that Ahab did not like before the one prophecy we read from Micaiah), it is silly to argue that every prophecy must be added to the Bible if it is legitimate.