New Covenant Gift of Prophecy

Doran · Feb 15, 2023

Recently in Sunday school, a teacher made the distinction between OT prophets and the "gift of prophecy" with NT prophets (such as Agabus). Because Agabus' prophecy (Act 21:11) wasn't "literally" fulfilled (my term which the teacher meticulously avoided using) he claimed that a NT prophet (other than apostles), wouldn't be "proclaiming an infallible word from the Lord" per se -- that in fact "the gift of prophecy in the NT may be somewhat distorted and impure" (the teacher's words). In his mind Agabus' prophecy fits the bill because the Jews did not [literally] bind Paul's hands, nor did they [literally] deliver Paul over to the Roman soldiers (Act 21:27-33).

The teacher is clearly implying that the NT gift of prophecy is inferior to the prophetic utterances of the OT prophets and the prophecies of NT apostles. But I have a problem with this on two counts: All true prophecy comes by the Holy Spirit -- the same Spirit who inspired the OT prophets and the apostles and presumbably NT saints gifted with prophecy. Moses provided two tests which Israelites were supposed to apply to all prophecies (Deut 13:1-4; 18:21-22). Since Agabus' prophecy was "distorted and impure" (according to the teacher), how can we not conclude that the prophet spoke "presumptuously" and that the message he spoke was not of the Lord, according to the latter passage? Huge problem. Did not the NT church receive the same Spirit as the OT prophets and the NT apostles?

Moreover, it certainly seems that the vast majority of the OT prophets did far more forthtelling (admonishing, exhorting, rebuking, warning, moral/spiritual instruction) than foretelling (making future predictions). Therefore, Deut 13:1-4 would apply. But also in the NT, Paul's instruction about the gift of prophecy seems to have more to do with forthtelling, as well (1Cor 14:3, 6, 18-19). I'm wondering, then, how the early Church would have "tested" such forthtelling. Would they have used Deut 13:1-4 as a test? If so, when a NT prophet (other than an apostle) predicted something, I'm thinking the Church would have used Deuteronomy 18 as the litmus test.

I personally view Agabus' prophecy as being fulfilled in principle -- fulfilled fundamentally, since the Jews were the ones who rioted and caused the great commotion that led to the Roman soldiers intervening. If it weren't for murderous Jews who wanted to kill Paul, the soldiers would not have intervened and bound the apostle, nor would they have come to Paul's rescue (an unintended consequence of the Jews' action), which could be viewed as their "delivering" Paul to the soldiers. The Jews, therefore, were DIRECTLY responsible for both acts -- Paul being bound and winding up in the hands of the soldiers. In a real sense, one could say Agabus' prophecy was fulfilled in "spirit" as opposed to "the letter". But...is there any precedent for this type of fulfillment with the OT prophets or the NT apostles?

I'm personally convinced that not all prophecy has been literally fulfilled, e.g. Daniel's 70 weeks, even the 70 years captivity (but I do not want to debate these here). But these prophecies have to do with numbers being used figuratively; but I can't think of any along the lines of the Agabus' prophecy. So, my question to this forum is this: Does anyone know of any prophecy in scripture by any OT prophet or NT apostle that wasn't fulfilled literally but "in principle"? Of course, typological fulfillments or eschatological fulfillments wouldn't count.

BobRyan · Feb 15, 2023

Doran said:
Recently in Sunday school, a teacher made the distinction between OT prophets and the "gift of prophecy" with NT prophets (such as Agabus). Because Agabus' prophecy (Act 21:11) wasn't "literally" fulfilled (my term which the teacher meticulously avoided using) he claimed that a NT prophet (other than apostles), wouldn't be "proclaiming an infallible word from the Lord" per se -- that in fact "the gift of prophecy in the NT may be somewhat distorted and impure" (the teacher's words).

he sounds very creative.

I prefer scripture as it reads.

Doran said:
In his mind Agabus' prophecy fits the bill because the Jews did not [literally] bind Paul's hands, nor did they [literally] deliver Paul over to the Roman soldiers (Act 21:27-33).

Paul was bound in Jerusalem and beaten because of the Jews.

Acts 22:22 And they (the Jews) listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!” 23 Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air, 24 the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, and said that he should be examined under scourging, so that he might know why they shouted so against him. 25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?”

The the Jews caused Paul to be bound and beaten -- even though they did it via the Romans.

Notice how you see this in Acts 4:

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health.

In Acts 4 Peter says the Jews crucified Jesus - even though they did through the Romans (where Pilate said "I find no fault in this man")

Notice how the Jews complain about the disciples - In Acts 5

Acts 5:28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us.”

It is clear that what the Jews cause the Romans to do - is considered by NT writers and God Himself -- as the Jews doing it.

Doran said:
The teacher is clearly implying that the NT gift of prophecy is inferior to the prophetic utterances of the OT prophets and the prophecies of NT apostles.

True that appears to be what he/she is trying to do and as I show above - the logic they use to undermine the gift - is not very sound from a biblical perspective.

Doran said:
But I have a problem with this on two counts: All true prophecy comes by the Holy Spirit -- the same Spirit who inspired the OT prophets and the apostles and presumbably NT saints gifted with prophecy.

You are spot on!

Doran said:
Did not the NT church receive the same Spirit as the OT prophets and the NT apostles?

Indeed they did!

Doran said:
Moreover, it certainly seems that the vast majority of the OT prophets did far more forthtelling (admonishing, exhorting, rebuking, warning, moral/spiritual instruction) than foretelling (making future predictions). Therefore, Deut 13:1-4 would apply. But also in the NT, Paul's instruction about the gift of prophecy seems to have more to do with forthtelling, as well (1Cor 14:3, 6, 18-19). I'm wondering, then, how the early Church would have "tested" such forthtelling. Would they have used Deut 13:1-4 as a test? If so, when a NT prophet (other than an apostle) predicted something, I'm thinking the Church would have used Deuteronomy 18 as the litmus test.

True - they would use scripture to test anyone who claimed to have new doctrine or be inspired etc.

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

scripture was the test of everything

Doran said:
I'm personally convinced that not all prophecy has been literally fulfilled, e.g. Daniel's 70 weeks, even the 70 years captivity (but I do not want to debate these here). But these prophecies have to do with numbers being used figuratively; but I can't think of any along the lines of the Agabus' prophecy. So, my question to this forum is this: Does anyone know of any prophecy in scripture by any OT prophet or NT apostle that wasn't fulfilled literally but "in principle"? Of course, typological fulfillments or eschatological fulfillments wouldn't count.

John provides tons of prophecy in the book of Revelation that is fulfilled as in the case of Daniel - in symbols. It is apocalyptic writing.

Daniel predicts the literal coming of Christ (His ministry and death) in Dan 9 - with its 490 year timeline -- the accurately points to the first coming of Christ. (All apocalyptic timelines use day-for-year just as does Dan 9)

(BTW -- all Bible timelines are contiguous. So that 1250 year timeline in Dan 7, and in Rev 11, and in Rev 12, and in Rev 13) is one block of 1260 solar years using day-for-year just as in Dan 9.

Same is true for the 2300 year timeline of Dan 8.

swordsman1 · Feb 15, 2023

Doran said:
Recently in Sunday school, a teacher made the distinction between OT prophets and the "gift of prophecy" with NT prophets (such as Agabus). Because Agabus' prophecy (Act 21:11) wasn't "literally" fulfilled (my term which the teacher meticulously avoided using) he claimed that a NT prophet (other than apostles), wouldn't be "proclaiming an infallible word from the Lord" per se -- that in fact "the gift of prophecy in the NT may be somewhat distorted and impure" (the teacher's words). In his mind Agabus' prophecy fits the bill because the Jews did not [literally] bind Paul's hands, nor did they [literally] deliver Paul over to the Roman soldiers (Act 21:27-33).

The teacher is clearly implying that the NT gift of prophecy is inferior to the prophetic utterances of the OT prophets and the prophecies of NT apostles. But I have a problem with this on two counts: All true prophecy comes by the Holy Spirit -- the same Spirit who inspired the OT prophets and the apostles and presumbably NT saints gifted with prophecy. Moses provided two tests which Israelites were supposed to apply to all prophecies (Deut 13:1-4; 18:21-22). Since Agabus' prophecy was "distorted and impure" (according to the teacher), how can we not conclude that the prophet spoke "presumptuously" and that the message he spoke was not of the Lord, according to the latter passage? Huge problem. Did not the NT church receive the same Spirit as the OT prophets and the NT apostles?

Moreover, it certainly seems that the vast majority of the OT prophets did far more forthtelling (admonishing, exhorting, rebuking, warning, moral/spiritual instruction) than foretelling (making future predictions). Therefore, Deut 13:1-4 would apply. But also in the NT, Paul's instruction about the gift of prophecy seems to have more to do with forthtelling, as well (1Cor 14:3, 6, 18-19). I'm wondering, then, how the early Church would have "tested" such forthtelling. Would they have used Deut 13:1-4 as a test? If so, when a NT prophet (other than an apostle) predicted something, I'm thinking the Church would have used Deuteronomy 18 as the litmus test.

I personally view Agabus' prophecy as being fulfilled in principle -- fulfilled fundamentally, since the Jews were the ones who rioted and caused the great commotion that led to the Roman soldiers intervening. If it weren't for murderous Jews who wanted to kill Paul, the soldiers would not have intervened and bound the apostle, nor would they have come to Paul's rescue (an unintended consequence of the Jews' action), which could be viewed as their "delivering" Paul to the soldiers. The Jews, therefore, were DIRECTLY responsible for both acts -- Paul being bound and winding up in the hands of the soldiers. In a real sense, one could say Agabus' prophecy was fulfilled in "spirit" as opposed to "the letter". But...is there any precedent for this type of fulfillment with the OT prophets or the NT apostles?

I'm personally convinced that not all prophecy has been literally fulfilled, e.g. Daniel's 70 weeks, even the 70 years captivity (but I do not want to debate these here). But these prophecies have to do with numbers being used figuratively; but I can't think of any along the lines of the Agabus' prophecy. So, my question to this forum is this: Does anyone know of any prophecy in scripture by any OT prophet or NT apostle that wasn't fulfilled literally but "in principle"? Of course, typological fulfillments or eschatological fulfillments wouldn't count.

I would say that Agabus's prophecy was fulfilled to the letter.

The prophecy states that Paul would be bound by the Jews and handed over to the gentiles, and although it doesn't specifically say that is what happened in the subsequent events of Acts 21, it doesn't say that didn't happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And in fact later in Acts Paul says he was "handed over" to the Romans...

Acts 28:17 "I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans"

And he was almost certainly bound by the Jews. You don’t normally arrest someone without binding them in some way.

ViaCrucis · Feb 16, 2023

While I do believe a distinction should be made between the Old Testament vocation of prophet from what we see in the New Testament, and that the age of the Prophets ended with St. John the Baptist. I think it is important to understand that the central importance of prophecy, in the Bible, isn't foretelling, but forth-telling.

The words we translate as "prophet" both from Hebrew and Greek mean something like "spokesperson", prophecy is "speaking on behalf of".

I believe the gift of prophecy, as a charism of the Holy Spirit, is the gift of preaching. Whenever a pastor preaches the word, such as giving a sermon/homily, that is the gift of prophecy in action under the ordinary good order of the Church.

I do believe some people, in the history of the Church, can be said to be "prophets", at least in a sense. I regard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to have been a prophet, in speaking truth to power. While I am hesitant to call Martin Luther (the Reformer) a "prophet", because of common misconceptions of what a prophet is; I do believe that Luther's work in proclaiming the central importance of the Gospel was a prophetic work to call the Church to remember her first love. Among the Eastern Orthodox there is a tradition of "holy fools", a famous example being Basil of Moscow who, by his eccentricities, was able to preach against opulence and power.

The gift of prophecy, and the prophetic in general, has always been within the Church. But I simply don't believe it looks like what is, especially in modern times, what is often called "prophecy". Prophecy doesn't look like a fancy teacher claiming to have the gift of prophecy and gaining followers and teaching strange doctrines and claiming strange things as being of the Holy Spirit--that is not the gift of prophecy, but the doctrines of demons.

Rather prophecy looks like faithful preaching of God's word, and being a voice calling people to faithfulness, speaking truth to power. Ordinarily, it is simply and purely the office of the keys, the pastoral vocation of ministering with Word and Sacrament as Christ's steward to the flock.

-CryptoLutheran

Doran · Feb 16, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
While I do believe a distinction should be made between the Old Testament vocation of prophet from what we see in the New Testament, and that the age of the Prophets ended with St. John the Baptist. I think it is important to understand that the central importance of prophecy, in the Bible, isn't foretelling, but forth-telling.

The words we translate as "prophet" both from Hebrew and Greek mean something like "spokesperson", prophecy is "speaking on behalf of".

I believe the gift of prophecy, as a charism of the Holy Spirit, is the gift of preaching. Whenever a pastor preaches the word, such as giving a sermon/homily, that is the gift of prophecy in action under the ordinary good order of the Church.

I do believe some people, in the history of the Church, can be said to be "prophets", at least in a sense. I regard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to have been a prophet, in speaking truth to power. While I am hesitant to call Martin Luther (the Reformer) a "prophet", because of common misconceptions of what a prophet is; I do believe that Luther's work in proclaiming the central importance of the Gospel was a prophetic work to call the Church to remember her first love. Among the Eastern Orthodox there is a tradition of "holy fools", a famous example being Basil of Moscow who, by his eccentricities, was able to preach against opulence and power.

The gift of prophecy, and the prophetic in general, has always been within the Church. But I simply don't believe it looks like what is, especially in modern times, what is often called "prophecy". Prophecy doesn't look like a fancy teacher claiming to have the gift of prophecy and gaining followers and teaching strange doctrines and claiming strange things as being of the Holy Spirit--that is not the gift of prophecy, but the doctrines of demons.

Rather prophecy looks like faithful preaching of God's word, and being a voice calling people to faithfulness, speaking truth to power. Ordinarily, it is simply and purely the office of the keys, the pastoral vocation of ministering with Word and Sacrament as Christ's steward to the flock.

-CryptoLutheran

CL, thank you for your response. Appreciate it. Eph 4:11, though, seems to make a distinction between pastors and prophets, teachers and evangelists. The problem text I cited specifically in Acts 21 re Agabus is that he certainly was making a prediction about Paul. But since the prediction wasn't "literally" fulfilled (i.e. according to the "letter" of the prophecy) this Sunday school teacher seems to be implying that the New Covenant gift of prophecy is not on equal footing with prophecies made by OT prophets or NT apostles. And this troubles me, especially since the teacher inferred that Agabus' prophecy was "impure and distorted". In fact, the teacher said specifically (reading off his handout) "The gift of prophecy in the NT may be somewhat distorted and impure". Such a conclusion seems to imply that the Holy Spirit is a slacker when it comes to NT gifts. If so, this is a troublesome conclusion to me.

ViaCrucis · Feb 16, 2023

Doran said:
CL, thank you for your response. Appreciate it. Eph 4:11, though, seems to make a distinction between pastors and prophets, teachers and evangelists.

I'd invite you to look at St. Paul's pastoral letter to Timothy, where he encourages the young bishop (pastor) to carry on the work of an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5).

I don't believe the Apostle in Ephesians 4:11 is speaking of distinct "offices", but gifts and aspects of the Church's singular sacred ministry which is given to her by Christ. In this, while there hasn't been any apostles since the death of St. John, the Church continues the apostolic gifts and power through the exercising of the keys, through calling and ordaining pastors. The apostles were, themselves, the first pastors of the Church, and they left other pastors to keep charge over the the flock in their stead, so the Church through her bishops and presbyters always retained the apostolic gifts through this singular sacred ministry of the Church.

I believe that this is what we see both biblically and historically. As we certainly don't see any apostles in the Church after the death of the apostles, and the evangelical mission of the Church was carried on by both ordained ministers (bishops and presbyters) as well as lay persons. So these aren't hard lines, but different aspects of the singular ministry of the Church, which has for the sake of good order been exercised through certain historical models.

Doran said:
The problem text I cited specifically in Acts 21 re Agabus is that he certainly was making a prediction about Paul. But since the prediction wasn't "literally" fulfilled (i.e. according to the "letter" of the prophecy) this Sunday school teacher seems to be implying that the New Covenant gift of prophecy is not on equal footing with prophecies made by OT prophets or NT apostles. And this troubles me, especially since the teacher inferred that Agabus' prophecy was "impure and distorted". In fact, the teacher said specifically (reading off his handout) "The gift of prophecy in the NT may be somewhat distorted and impure". Such a conclusion seems to imply that the Holy Spirit is a slacker when it comes to NT gifts. If so, this is a troublesome conclusion to me.

I agree that this Sunday School teacher seems, based on what you're saying, to be saying something troubling. Saying it is "distorted and impure" seems strange.

I think it sufficient to simply recognize that the Old Testament "office" of prophet served a specific purpose, a purpose that ceased once it was fulfilled with Christ. Hence we haven't seen that type of prophet since St. John the Baptist. That doesn't mean that prophecy in the New Testament is "distorted and impure", it simply means that prophecy in the context of the Church serves a different purpose. The ancient prophets of Israel looked forward to Christ. Prophecy, in the New Testament, points back to Christ. Because Christ is the center of history.

-CryptoLutheran

BobRyan · Feb 16, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
While I do believe a distinction should be made between the Old Testament vocation of prophet from what we see in the New Testament, and that the age of the Prophets ended with St. John the Baptist. I think it is important to understand that the central importance of prophecy, in the Bible, isn't foretelling, but forth-telling.

In both NT and OT scripture it is never "forth telling" rather it is a direct message from God and it can be by way of rebuke or exhortation or prediction or warning etc. Often it is in the form of doctrinal statements as we see in many NT letters.

BobRyan · Feb 16, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
I'd invite you to look at St. Paul's pastoral letter to Timothy, where he encourages the young bishop (pastor) to carry on the work of an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5).

Telling Timothy to carry on his existing ministry is not what makes Paul an inspired writer, or a prophet.

Anyone can tell someone else to "carry on with your current ministry" and though it may be a good statement for them to make - it does not make them a prophet according to the Bible.

1Cor 14 we see that one with "a tongue" is required to keep silent if there is no interpretation but in the case of a prophet one who is standing and giving a revelation from God - must be silent if someone else who is seated gets a message from God. That would be total chaos in church if all we were talking about is "forth telling".

What is more - there could never be a "false prophet" or penalty for such - since at the worst it is "a mistake in forthtelling" - if we were to use your suggestion.

ViaCrucis · Feb 16, 2023

BobRyan said:
In both NT and OT scripture it is never "forth telling" rather it is a direct message from God and it can be by way of rebuke or exhortation or prediction or warning etc. Often it is in the form of doctrinal statements as we see in many NT letters.

Well, that's literally what the Greek word means. Prophecy (προφητεία propheteia), literally "to speak forth", "to forth-tell". From προφήτης (prophetes), "prophet", "one who speaks forth" from pro "forward", "forth", "before" (as as in relation to distance) and phemi, "to assert", "to bring to light" as in to bring information, to assert and bring forth an idea, etc. Thus a prophet as one who "speaks for [another]". The prophets were those who spoke on God's behalf, who declare and assert God's word.

The Hebrew word naba, "prophecy" means to bring forth by speaking. The nabi'im, "prophets" are "speakers", those who spoke what God told them to speak. God's spokes-persons.

These things are literally what the words in your Bible mean.

-CryptoLutheran

Doran · Feb 17, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
Well, that's literally what the Greek word means. Prophecy (προφητεία propheteia), literally "to speak forth", "to forth-tell". From προφήτης (prophetes), "prophet", "one who speaks forth" from pro "forward", "forth", "before" (as as in relation to distance) and phemi, "to assert", "to bring to light" as in to bring information, to assert and bring forth an idea, etc. Thus a prophet as one who "speaks for [another]". The prophets were those who spoke on God's behalf, who declare and assert God's word.

The Hebrew word naba, "prophecy" means to bring forth by speaking. The nabi'im, "prophets" are "speakers", those who spoke what God told them to speak. God's spokes-persons.

These things are literally what the words in your Bible mean.

-CryptoLutheran

And this is precisely what troubles me about the Sunday school teacher's remarks about how NT prophets' messages (other than apostles) can be "impure or distorted". Agabus clearly spoke in the name of the Lord: "....The Holy Spirit says, 'In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles (Act 21:11b).'" Since this is the case, then it seems to me that one of the "prophet litmus tests" of the OT applies: "You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?'" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deut 18:21-22)

Interestingly, v.22 is an unqualified statement! The text does not tell us how or in what manner or in what sense a prophecy must "take place or come true". And this is understandable since prophecy can have literal fulfillments, spiritual fulfillments, eschatological fulfillments, dual fulfillments, split fulfillments or typological fulfillments.

This teacher did acknowledge, however, that some will argue on the basis of 1Thes 2:14-15, as one example, of the "common Jewish dictum in Judasim that applies to the crucifixion of Christ...'he who does something by the hands of another does it himself.'" However, the teacher, rather glibly I think, claims the dictum doesn't apply to Agabus because "It seems that we are led to expect that the Jews will bind Paul, not the Romans. Agabus seems clearly wrong on both aspects of his prophecy." What he meant by "both aspects" is that Agabus was also wrong about the Jews delivering up Paul to the Gentiles. But I don't understand what expectation has to do with anything since Jesus clearly taught that the Jews would kill him AND that the Jews would hand him over to the Gentiles to be killed. In the Gospels we are "led to expect" that the Jews will kill Jesus on one hadn and that the Gentiles would kill him on the other. Yet, even so, it seems that scripture makes the Jews more culpable for their part in Christ's crucifixion than the Romans; for Jesus himself said, "...Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin (Jn 19:11b)."

I see Agabus' prophecy as being substantially and essentially fulfilled, even though it was not literally fulfilled. There are 3 essential components to the prophecy: a) Opposition of Jews to Paul; b) a binding of Paul; c) Gentile custody of Paul. All three "took place" or "came true" per the test in Deut 18:21-22.

The teacher makes a big deal about the "content" of NT prophecies. He seems to be implying that the content of OT prophecies and the content of apostolic prophecies differ qualitatively from "rank and file layperson" NT prophecies (. He uses 1Thes 5:20-22 and 1Cor 14:29 where he makes the conclusion that the NT prophets were not judged per se but the content of their messages were. He seems to imply, that NT prophets, in spite of bad content for example, were not excommunicated from an assembly, etc.

BobRyan · Feb 17, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
Well, that's literally what the Greek word means. Prophecy (προφητεία propheteia), literally "to speak forth", "to forth-tell". From προφήτης (prophetes), "prophet", "one who speaks forth" from pro "forward", "forth",

The devil is on record as "speaking forth" lies but that does not make him a prophet.
Pagan kings in the Bible are recorded as "speaking forth" commands -- that did not make them Bible prophets either.

ViaCrucis said:
"before" (as as in relation to distance) and phemi, "to assert", "to bring to light" as in to bring information, to assert and bring forth an idea,

In the Bible false prophets were killed in the OT - but that is not applied to guy on the street asserting some idea that turned out to be a mistake.

I prefer the actual Bible definition of a prophet.

Doran · Feb 18, 2023

BobRyan said:
The devil is on record as "speaking forth" lies but that does not make him a prophet.
Pagan kings in the Bible are recorded as "speaking forth" commands -- that did not make them Bible prophets either.

In the Bible false prophets were killed in the OT - but that is not applied to guy on the street asserting some idea that turned out to be a mistake.

I prefer the actual Bible definition of a prophet.

What would that definition be?

HIM · Feb 18, 2023

Doran said:
Recently in Sunday school, a teacher made the distinction between OT prophets and the "gift of prophecy" with NT prophets (such as Agabus). Because Agabus' prophecy (Act 21:11) wasn't "literally" fulfilled (my term which the teacher meticulously avoided using) he claimed that a NT prophet (other than apostles), wouldn't be "proclaiming an infallible word from the Lord" per se -- that in fact "the gift of prophecy in the NT may be somewhat distorted and impure" (the teacher's words). In his mind Agabus' prophecy fits the bill because the Jews did not [literally] bind Paul's hands, nor did they [literally] deliver Paul over to the Roman soldiers (Act 21:27-33).

The teacher is clearly implying that the NT gift of prophecy is inferior to the prophetic utterances of the OT prophets and the prophecies of NT apostles. But I have a problem with this on two counts: All true prophecy comes by the Holy Spirit -- the same Spirit who inspired the OT prophets and the apostles and presumbably NT saints gifted with prophecy. Moses provided two tests which Israelites were supposed to apply to all prophecies (Deut 13:1-4; 18:21-22). Since Agabus' prophecy was "distorted and impure" (according to the teacher), how can we not conclude that the prophet spoke "presumptuously" and that the message he spoke was not of the Lord, according to the latter passage? Huge problem. Did not the NT church receive the same Spirit as the OT prophets and the NT apostles?

Moreover, it certainly seems that the vast majority of the OT prophets did far more forthtelling (admonishing, exhorting, rebuking, warning, moral/spiritual instruction) than foretelling (making future predictions). Therefore, Deut 13:1-4 would apply. But also in the NT, Paul's instruction about the gift of prophecy seems to have more to do with forthtelling, as well (1Cor 14:3, 6, 18-19). I'm wondering, then, how the early Church would have "tested" such forthtelling. Would they have used Deut 13:1-4 as a test? If so, when a NT prophet (other than an apostle) predicted something, I'm thinking the Church would have used Deuteronomy 18 as the litmus test.

I personally view Agabus' prophecy as being fulfilled in principle -- fulfilled fundamentally, since the Jews were the ones who rioted and caused the great commotion that led to the Roman soldiers intervening. If it weren't for murderous Jews who wanted to kill Paul, the soldiers would not have intervened and bound the apostle, nor would they have come to Paul's rescue (an unintended consequence of the Jews' action), which could be viewed as their "delivering" Paul to the soldiers. The Jews, therefore, were DIRECTLY responsible for both acts -- Paul being bound and winding up in the hands of the soldiers. In a real sense, one could say Agabus' prophecy was fulfilled in "spirit" as opposed to "the letter". But...is there any precedent for this type of fulfillment with the OT prophets or the NT apostles?

I'm personally convinced that not all prophecy has been literally fulfilled, e.g. Daniel's 70 weeks, even the 70 years captivity (but I do not want to debate these here). But these prophecies have to do with numbers being used figuratively; but I can't think of any along the lines of the Agabus' prophecy. So, my question to this forum is this: Does anyone know of any prophecy in scripture by any OT prophet or NT apostle that wasn't fulfilled literally but "in principle"? Of course, typological fulfillments or eschatological fulfillments wouldn't count.

The Lord would have us to be His prophets. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. This is how we keep the commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus which is the Spirit of prophecy.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 26, 2023

HIM said:
The Lord would have us to be His prophets. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. This is how we keep the commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus which is the Spirit of prophecy.

The only way we are ever going to hear the voice of God speaking to us is when we spend time in prayer and waiting on God until we can distinguish between HIs voice and our own thoughts. And that doesn't take five minutes. It can take hours, days, weeks, months or even years before we can get a word that we know beyond all shadow of doubt that it is the Lord speaking to us. The trouble is that very few of us have the perseverance and patience to wait for God and not to rush in presuming that God has spoken to us when He hasn't. That's how Saul lost his kingdom. He didn't have the patience to wait for Samuel to turn up to tell him what to do next. This is why most prophetic words that we hear are dreamed up out of the person's mind instead of coming from the Holy Spirit.

Postvieww · Mar 4, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
While I do believe a distinction should be made between the Old Testament vocation of prophet from what we see in the New Testament, and that the age of the Prophets ended with St. John the Baptist. I think it is important to understand that the central importance of prophecy, in the Bible, isn't foretelling, but forth-telling.

The words we translate as "prophet" both from Hebrew and Greek mean something like "spokesperson", prophecy is "speaking on behalf of".

I believe the gift of prophecy, as a charism of the Holy Spirit, is the gift of preaching. Whenever a pastor preaches the word, such as giving a sermon/homily, that is the gift of prophecy in action under the ordinary good order of the Church.

I do believe some people, in the history of the Church, can be said to be "prophets", at least in a sense. I regard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to have been a prophet, in speaking truth to power. While I am hesitant to call Martin Luther (the Reformer) a "prophet", because of common misconceptions of what a prophet is; I do believe that Luther's work in proclaiming the central importance of the Gospel was a prophetic work to call the Church to remember her first love. Among the Eastern Orthodox there is a tradition of "holy fools", a famous example being Basil of Moscow who, by his eccentricities, was able to preach against opulence and power.

The gift of prophecy, and the prophetic in general, has always been within the Church. But I simply don't believe it looks like what is, especially in modern times, what is often called "prophecy". Prophecy doesn't look like a fancy teacher claiming to have the gift of prophecy and gaining followers and teaching strange doctrines and claiming strange things as being of the Holy Spirit--that is not the gift of prophecy, but the doctrines of demons.

Rather prophecy looks like faithful preaching of God's word, and being a voice calling people to faithfulness, speaking truth to power. Ordinarily, it is simply and purely the office of the keys, the pastoral vocation of ministering with Word and Sacrament as Christ's steward to the flock.

-CryptoLutheran

IMO your idea of a prophet is far too general. If it is just simply one who preaches the word, why are there different offices? Apostle, prophet, pastor, evangelist and teacher. All of these proclaims the word of God. Not to mention the doctrinal problem many have with women preaching the Word, while scripture clearly speaks of prophetesses. Then we have the problem of interpreting and judging prophetic statements. Unless a NT prophet gives an exact date for the prophecy we may be too hasty to judge it false . It just may not happen in our life time or in a time frame we think it should. Many OT prophecies did not come true in the lifetime of the prophet. This subject is far more complicated than just saying anyone who preaches the Word is a prophet.

Doran · Mar 4, 2023

Postvieww said:
IMO your idea of a prophet is far too general. If it is just simply one who preaches the word, why are there different offices? Apostle, prophet, pastor, evangelist and teacher. All of these proclaims the word of God. Not to mention the doctrinal problem many have with women preaching the Word, while scripture clearly speaks of prophetesses. Then we have the problem of interpreting and judging prophetic statements. Unless a NT prophet gives an exact date for the prophecy we may be too hasty to judge it false . It just may not happen in our life time or in a time frame we think it should. Many OT prophecies did not come true in the lifetime of the prophet. This subject is far more complicated than just saying anyone who preaches the Word is a prophet.

I think Via Crusis' post was pretty much on the mark. Even in the OT the prophets did far more forthtelling than foretelling.

Also, there was only one office under the New Covenant: Apostle and that office ceased after all those eyewitnesses to the resurrectedf Christ died. The other positions you mentioned are gifts to the Church, not offices.

Postvieww · Mar 4, 2023

Doran said:
Also, there was only one office under the New Covenant: Apostle

Disagree ,Romans 12:4-8 One can have the "gift" of prophecy and be in the "office" of a prophet, but it matters not so much what we call it, calling, office , position, gift, the tilte we give it changes little.

Doran said:
Apostle and that office ceased after all those eyewitnesses to the resurrectedf Christ died.

Disagree, no scripture states that.

1 Corinthians 9:1-2 Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

Paul does mention seeing the Lord , although not in the same way as the 12, he also said his converts were the seal for his Apostleship.I don't believe you can prove Paul was an eyewitness.

Acts 14:14
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Barnabas was an Apostle, did he witness the resurrection? I don't know do you?

1 Corinthians 12

God set Apostle in the church, what scripture say clearly that He ever removed them?

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

No mention of removal here until we are perfected as saints, the work of the ministry is still ongoing, we are not yet all in the unity of the faith, and the body stills needs edifying. The office, calling, position of Apostle is still with us according to scripture.

Now I agree that many doctrines of men have in their own minds have removed it, but that cannot be found in scripture.

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

What do we do with these two? Shall we discuss Junia? here are even more in the NT

Doran · Mar 4, 2023

Postvieww said:
Disagree ,Romans 12:4-8 One can have the "gift" of prophecy and be in the "office" of a prophet, but it matters not so much what we call it, calling, office , position, gift, the tilte we give it changes little.

Disagree, no scripture states that.

1 Corinthians 9:1-2 Am I am not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

Paul does mention seeing the Lord , although not in the same way as the 12, he also said his converts were the seal for his Apostleship.I don't believe you can prove Paul was an eyewitness.

Click to expand...

Paul says he saw Christ. As to when this occurred, scripture doesn't say. Here's a link that explains the possibilities:

Did Paul ever meet Jesus in person? | GotQuestions.org

Did Paul ever meet Jesus in person? Had Paul ever seen or heard Jesus before the encounter on the road to Damascus?

www.gotquestions.org

Postvieww said:
Acts 14:14
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Barnabas was an Apostle, did he witness the resurrection? I don't know do you?

1 Corinthians 12

God set Apostle in the church, what scripture say clearly that He ever removed them?

Click to expand...

Peter established the very specific criteria for the office of Apostle in Acts 1:

Acts 1:21-26
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
NIV

Now, Paul might have been an exception to this specific rule, yet, again, Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Christ. Of course, Paul was also an exception to the other 12 apostles in that the 12 ministered to the Jews for the most part, whereas God called Paul to minister primarily to the Gentiles.

So...if we take the above Acts 1 passage as the qualifications for the OFFICE of apostleship (not to be conflated or confused with with a general call of "being sent" by God into a mission field, for example), then obviously after all the apostles died, the office of apostleship ceased. Don't forget: The term "apostle" simply means "sent one". So, in this very broad sense all missionaries (domestic or foreign-based), for example could be considered to be "apostles" -- sent ones by the Lord.

We should not forget either that the Old Covenant offices of kings, priests and prophets has ceased because they were all temporary in nature pointing to the One who ULTIMATELY fulfills all three in this New Covenant dispensation: Jesus Christ! Likewise, Jesus is also an Apostle thereby fulfilling the office of Apostleship (Heb 3:1).

Postvieww said:
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

No mention of removal here until we are perfected as saints, the work of the ministry is still ongoing, we are not yet all in the unity of the faith, and the body stills needs edifying. The office, calling, position of Apostle is still with us according to scripture.

Now I agree that many doctrines of men have in their own minds have removed it, but that cannot be found in scripture.

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

What do we do with these two? Shall we discuss Junia? here are even more in the

Click to expand...

With these two and Barnabas, we should understand them as being "apostles" in the broad sense of that term. In fact, ALL of us, if we take to heart Jesus' Great Commission, are "apostles" because we're all "sent out" to teach and preach the Gospel to one degree or another and to the best of our ability to lost souls, as opportunities present themselves.

Also, the abolishment of the Office of Apostle has nothing at all to do with the "perfection of the saints". It has to do with the qualifications Peter set forth in Acts 1. And even with the Office of Apostle, to which Paul clearly was called, I find it more than interesting that even though Paul was the 13th apostle, that the "wall of the city that had twelve foundations...on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:14). Seems one or more apostles are getting gypped.

To sum up, then., the Office of Apostleship, under this New Covenant, was as temporary as the offices of kings, prophets and priests under the Old Covenant. Now, under the New Covenant, all believers are priests and serve under our High Priest Jesus Christ. And I believe the gift of prophecy is still valid and will continue to the end of this age; however not all have been gifted with this specific gift. However, all believers are in the broad sense "apostles" because the Great Commission, even though commanded only to the apostles applies to all New Covenant believers by extension. We're all "sent out" to this dark, forlorn world to be lights and salt in it, and quite often that entails gospel preaching or teaching.

Postvieww · Mar 5, 2023

Doran said:
Paul was the 13th apostle, that the "wall of the city that had twelve foundations...on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev 21:14). Seems one or more apostles are getting gypped.

The twelve are obviously in a different position. calling , office or how ever you want to describe it. All of the rest and there many more in scripture are still called Apostles. Lets no not mix up the two. There will be no more like the twelve, but that does not negate the fact that there were others and are others and scripture is clear that office , calling , position or whatever you want to call it is still in effect and will be until Jesus returns.

Doran · Mar 5, 2023

Postvieww said:
The twelve are obviously in a different position. calling , office or how ever you want to describe it. All of the rest and there many more in scripture are still called Apostles. Lets no not mix up the two. There will be no more like the twelve, but that does not negate the fact that there were others and are others and scripture is clear that office , calling , position or whatever you want to call it is still in effect and will be until Jesus returns.

The Office of Apostleship is only in existence to the degree that people still exist today who meet the qualifications Peter set forth in Acts 1.

New Covenant Gift of Prophecy

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Junior Member

Junior Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Friend

Senior Veteran

Believer

Well-Known Member

Believer

Well-Known Member

Believer

Well-Known Member

Similar threads