Question about Gift of Prophecy

[PrettyboyAndy]

I see many people divided on this issue, I would say nearly all who post on here are born again believers, I don't see how so many people could be led astray if it is not real. I do not have the gift myself, but I would say focus should be on the giver of the gift.

I am still unsure great points on both sides

 

[JAL]

So out of 50+ bible translations only 1 supports that interpretation. Wow. (ASV & ERV are essentially the same bible, and very antiquated it is too). The rest render it as "the whole building" or "the whole structure". But I'm glad to see that you finally recognise that the 'holy temple' is the universal church.

Here is a better commentary of that section. (again the Greek is messed up).

Harold Hoehner - Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (2002)
Commentary: 2:21. év ő röoto oi Koöopú, "in whom the whole building." The prepositional phrase év () refers back to Christ who is the cornerstone. The preposition év denotes the locale or sphere of the action; thus it is in Christ that the whole structure rests or has its ground." The adjective Idioc without the article has caused discussion. Generally, when it is anarthrous it is rendered "every, each," and thus it is translated "each several building" in the RV and ASV and "every structure" in the JB and NJB. However, it is translated "all the building" in the AV and "the whole building/structure" in the RSV, NASB, NEB, TEV, NIV, NRSV. Is this rendering justifiable? It is for the following reasons. First, the context is talking about one structure on one foundation and as opposed to many structures. Second, in the NT there are instances when the anarthrous constructions are rendered "all" or "whole." For example, such cases are abstract nouns, as "with all insight/wisdom" (1:8), "all authority" (Matt 28:18), and in the case of geographical proper names as "all Jerusalem" (Matt 2:3) or "all Israel" (Rom 11:26). Other instances such as "all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26), "all creation" (Col 1:15), "all flesh" (Acts 2:17; Rom 3:20), and "all the house of Israel" (Acts 2:36) are sufficient examples to indicate that the anarthrous Tỡg can be translated "all, whole, entire." Hence, this rendering is entirely fitting in this context.

Thanks for the citation as it strengthens my case. Earlier I had already suspected Hoehner of a bit of legerdemain in support of his agenda, and this citation only confirms it. Note he says there are INSTANCES where omission of the article is accepted in Greek (such as abstract nouns) - but this scenario is NOT one of those instances! As the other commentary attested! Notice he never actually explicitly PLACES this scenario in a NAMED CATEGORY of the acknowledged instances because it is NOT. I mean, if you were trying to prove a point, wouldn't you explicitly assign it to one of the well-known and named categories? This is legerdemain, and the other commentary practically called it unconscionable. His REAL basis for the conclusion is a THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT - the structural argument preceding the grammatical remarks. Ok, well if we go that route, in my mind the structural discussion only serves to raise another doubt. Note verse 22:
"And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."
If Paul was referring to one global building in the preceding verse, why mention here that you too are a dwelling - a building? The passage makes more sense if:
(1) Verse 21 defines the church as a set of local buidings and then:
(2) Verse 22 identifies Ephesus as one of those buildings.
Sorry but you've only confirmed my case. Yes you can cite 50 Bible translations that disagree with me, but how many of those scholars support apostolic continuation? There might be some bias in their conclusions.

 

[JAL]

I see many people divided on this issue, I would say nearly all who post on here are born again believers, I don't see how so many people could be led astray if it is not real. I do not have the gift myself, but I would say focus should be on the giver of the gift.

I am still unsure great points on both sides

The way I look at it, even if I'm wrong I'm still right. Let me explain. Scripture SEEMS to suggest that prophecy is important. Therefore, with a total of 100 billion souls at stake historically, the church really shouldn't risk proceeding without it until she is 100% sure whether we need it. So even if we DON'T need it, we still need to wait on God to give us 100% certainty that we DON'T need it - which ultimately means that we DO need it in some sense. At least that's my take.

I'm not saying that argument is decisive - but it's worth adding to the mix.

 

[swordsman1]

You're right, I must be missing your point, because I don't really see why this dual role sounds more unnatural to you than six roles at once (Psalm 18:2). If I had to hazard a guess, however, I would conjecture that it sounds unnatural to you in virtue of 2,000 years of immaterialistic theology whereas I myself concur with the church father Tertullian (who invented the word Trinity) that even God Himself is physical. On my assumptions it is only natural for God to play multiple physical roles at once. I'll provide just three examples (but I'm not really going to try offer any apodictic proof because it would be way off topic).
(1) In my view, at the last supper, God assumed the forms of bread, wine - and even the CUP containing the wine. (Please don't mistake my view for the converse process called transubstantiaton where ordinary elements supposedly become God).
(2) "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that ACCOMPANIED them, and that rock was Christ" (1Cor 10:3-4). They all drank Christ (12:13). He was both the Rock and the drink (in my opinion).
(3) In my opinion, God is all of the following: a figure seated on a throne, the Fire emanating from the throne, the radiant Face whose Light illuminates the heavenly city, the clothing garbing the figure - and even the throne itself! Relevant verses here include Ex 24:9, Isaiah 6:1, Ezek 1:26-27, Dan 7:9-11, Rev 1:14-16.

You are still missing the point. Nobody is denying that Christ can take on multiple roles (prophet, priest and king being the obvious one you missed). The point is your suggestion that Christ is also the foundation in Eph 2:20 renders Paul's statement as nonsense. It only makes sense if the rest of the foundation is something other than Christ. Something like 'the apostles and prophets' like he actually said it was.

Then Paul chose a very misleading metaphor, and it's our job to pretty much ignore it.

Yep, that just about sums up the Pentecostal/charismatic attitude towards scripture that opposes their theology.

 

[swordsman1]

Thanks for the citation as it strengthens my case. Earlier I had already suspected Hoehner of a bit of legerdemain in support of his agenda, and this citation only confirms it. Note he says there are INSTANCES where omission of the article is accepted in Greek (such as abstract nouns) - but this scenario is NOT one of those instances! As the other commentary attested! Notice he never actually explicitly PLACES this scenario in a NAMED CATEGORY of the acknowledged instances because it is NOT. I mean, if you were trying to prove a point, wouldn't you explicitly assign it to one of the well-known and named categories? This is legerdemain, and the other commentary practically called it unconscionable. His REAL basis for the conclusion is a THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT - the structural argument preceding the grammatical remarks. Ok, well if we go that route, in my mind the structural discussion only serves to raise another doubt. Note verse 22:
"And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."
If Paul was referring to one global building in the preceding verse, why mention here that you too are a dwelling - a building? The passage makes more sense if:
(1) Verse 21 defines the church as a set of local buidings and then:
(2) Verse 22 identifies Ephesus as one of those buildings.
Sorry but you've only confirmed my case. Yes you can cite 50 Bible translations that disagree with me, but how many of those scholars support apostolic continuation? There might be some bias in their conclusions.

Oh well, I guess you'd better write to the translation committees of the NASB, ESV, NIV, RSV, NKJV and the other 99% of bible versions who disagree with you and tell their Greek scholars they have all got their translations wrong. Until a few more start updating their translations then I think we can safely dismiss this suggestion along with your other bizarre interpretations that virtually no scholars agree with.

 

[JAL]

(A) wouldn't make sense if you built the house alone.

Perhaps I should have clarified further. Nobody learns everything on their own, generally speaking. A senior carpenter and contractor learned by watching, or reading, the works of other contractors. And chances are he also taught some of them a trick or two during those years. In other words it's a shared expertise (it's something held in common). Thus even if you built the house alone (this time), it makes perfect sense to say:
"Yours is a house built on the expertise of carpenters and contractors".
Using this concept of a shared platform or shared methodology, we could make many similar statements:
"Yours is a house built on the toolset of carpenters and contractors"
"Yours is a house built on the building material of carpenters and contractors"
All the apostles and prophets were using the same building material as their foundation. Therefore:
"You are a church built on the foundation of apostles and prophets."

That argument would only work if Paul was making a general statement, and wasn't specifically addressing the Ephesians. But he was: "So then YOU are no longer strangers and aliens, but YOU are fellow citizens with the saints,"

See above.

It is unlikely Apollos was an apostle, let alone one at Ephasus.

Irrelevant. All I wanted to establish is POSSIBLE holes in your argument. Regardless whether you think it was unlikely, it is possible.

Apollos could not have seen the risen Lord Jesus, not being in Israel at the time.

This is one of the weirdest statements I've ever heard. Jesus lacks the ability to appear outside of Israel?

Nor is there evidence of any divine commissioning as there was for Barnabas. The internet article you linked to relies too heavily on "us apostles" in 1 Cor 4:9. Paul is more likely be said "us apostles" as a reference to himself and all the other apostles being a "spectacle to the world", not as a reference to him and Apollos.

His argument is pretty reasonable actually. His conclusion is very much POSSIBLE.

Although Apollos first appeared in Ephesus he was not the founding apostle there. Whilst there he was a naive Christian making mistakes which Priscilla & Aquila had to correct - hardly characteristic of an apostle. As soon as he was put right, he departed Ephesus, never to to return, long before Paul arrived there to establish the church in his 3 year ministry there.

Your assessment of Apollos isn't very charitable, considering the positive statements made of him by Luke. Apostle and prophets aren't infallible - except when actually prophesying or acting upon a specific infallible revelation. Even Jesus underwent a learning process, moreover, which is really the only 'negative' thing that Luke said of Apollos. Paul had to correct Peter at one point (gal 2:11) - so Peter is not an apostle?

But it is not a purely didactic text intended for the wider church. Paul was directly addressing the Ephesians. That's my whole point. If Paul was referring to himself (and supposedly others) as their apostles, he wouldn't naturally say "THE apostles". That is a far too generalized expression and would be naturally understood to mean all the apostles. The 40 or so instances of the term "the apostles" in scripture are invariably referencing the whole group of apostles. If he was just referencing the Ephesians founding apostles he would have said something more personal like "your apostles", or if it did have a didactic slant meant to apply to other churches then simply "apostles".

Shared platform, shared methodology, shared building material - shared by ALL the apostles. See comments above.

 

[JAL]

Oh well, I guess you'd better write to the translation committees of the NASB, ESV, NIV, RSV, NKJV and the other 99% of bible versions who disagree with you and tell their Greek scholars they have all got their translations wrong. Until a few more start updating their translations then I think we can safely dismiss this suggestion along with your other bizarre interpretations that virtually no scholars agree with.

Calling my conclusions bizarre isn't very professional. Disproving them decisively, point-by-point, is what professionalism entails.

 

[JAL]

You are still missing the point. Nobody is denying that Christ can take on multiple roles (prophet, priest and king being the obvious one you missed). The point is your suggestion that Christ is also the foundation in Eph 2:20 renders Paul's statement as nonsense. It only makes sense if the rest of the foundation is something other than Christ. Something like 'the apostles and prophets' like he actually said it was.

Ok feel free to clarify what I missed. I thought you were objecting to Christ playing two physical roles in the same physical structure. I then gave you several examples from Scripture where He seems to do precisely that. And then you call my conclusion nonsense, without any reference to the scripture cited. Either you didn't read my post, or we're talking past each other. So maybe I am not realizing what your actual objection was.

 

[JAL]

You are still missing the point. Nobody is denying that Christ can take on multiple roles (prophet, priest and king being the obvious one you missed). The point is your suggestion that Christ is also the foundation in Eph 2:20 renders Paul's statement as nonsense. It only makes sense if the rest of the foundation is something other than Christ. Something like 'the apostles and prophets' like he actually said it was.

Why did Paul mention the cornerstone at all (assuming that we're translating the word correctly, as you continue to ignore the fact that this word is too infrequent and ambiguous in the literature for us to build any doctrine on).

Your claim is that he mentioned it to clearly distinguish the apostles from Christ. That's an understandable concern. However, there's another possible reason for mentioning it. The term foundation, by itself, is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily convey, in a given context, the foundation of a BUILDING. In my view, Paul's way of solidifying his metaphor was to mention the cornerstone. And since Christ is the foundation (my view), it wouldn't make much sense to elevate something OTHER than Christ to the (higher) status of cornerstone. Therefore Paul has Him playing both roles.

 

[JAL]

Yep, that just about sums up the Pentecostal/charismatic attitude towards scripture that opposes their theology.

Israel concocted all kinds of man-made religion over the centuries. Cessationist scholars are asking of me a huge leap of faith, they are asking me to reject Paul's explicit definition of a church in preference for the theological constructs of men.

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (1Cor 12:28).

For the moment, I'll stick with Paul's definition.

 

[JAL]

Oh well, I guess you'd better write to the translation committees of the NASB, ESV, NIV, RSV, NKJV and the other 99% of bible versions who disagree with you and tell their Greek scholars they have all got their translations wrong. Until a few more start updating their translations then I think we can safely dismiss this suggestion along with your other bizarre interpretations that virtually no scholars agree with.

Here's what Vincent's Word Studies says:

"All the building (πᾶσα οικοδομὴ)
Lit., every building. Rev., each several building. But the reference is evidently to one building, and the rendering of A.V. should be retained though the article is wanting."

See what he just did? He admitted that the literal rendering of the Greek is 'every building' but based his final conclusion on a THEOLGICAL CONSTRUCT.

- Next is the Meyer's NT Commentary. Flatly agrees with my reading.
πᾶσα οἰκοδομή] not: the whole building (Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek), which would be at variance with linguistic usage, and would absolutely require the reading (on that account preferred by Matthies, Winer, and others) πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή (see the critical remarks), but: every building. The former interpretation, moreover, the opposition of which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Reiche,[162] is by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged to proceed from the conception of the whole body of Christians to the community of the readers (Ephesians 2:22).

- Robertson's Word Pictures.
Each several building (pasa oikodomh). So without article Aleph B D G K L. Oikodomh is a late word from oiko and demw, to build for building up (edification) as in Ephesians 4:29 , then for the building itself as here ( Mark 13:1 ). Ordinary Greek idiom here calls for "every building," not for "all the building" (Robertson, Grammar, p. 772), though it is not perfectly clear what that means. Each believer is called a nao qeou ( 1 Corinthians 3:16 ). One may note the plural in Mark 13:1 (oikodomai) of the various parts of the temple. Perhaps that is the idea here without precise definition of each oikodomh. But there are examples of pa without the article where "all" is the idea as in pash ktisew (all creation) in Colossians 1:15 .

- Not sure why you think my conclusion supported by noted scholars is 'bizarre'. Paul omitted the article 'the'. Had he included it, the text would decisively say 'the whole building.' Once again, your issue is with Paul, not with me.

 

[Episaw]

No sir, no nerve hit here with me. Just a fact that I have seen with your posts on this thread. It leaves me with a thought of how, if ever, you convince anyone to your position on any matter, regardless of right or wrong. It is not very Christ-like to bash people over the head so to speak. Which is why I replied so to you.

Looks like I hit a nerve again.

So when Jesus "bashed people over the head" he was not being very Christ-like?

As far as convincing people of my position I must have had some success because I was invited to lecture at a Bible College.

 

[Episaw]

As far as the "paternalistic response" part, I am left scratching my head. How do you suppose I have done so? Do you know how to use the word to the situation I wonder? If I have done this, then most everyone here has done this including you. I merely have stated facts, examples, and scripture. This is normal when trying to get someone to understand something. I don't push it on you, but only mention to you. You are free to decide whatever.

That comment is paternalistic. But don't scratch your head for too long as you will get splinters.

 

[Episaw]

As far as that member of church and their child, that is not a miracle. There are physical and spiritual blessings. These are not miracles. One example is prayer. It is a spiritual blessing for those who are in Christ (ref. Eph 1:3). This is why I said that I believe you have a hard time discerning between miracle and not miracle. This was not meant as an insult by the way.

The one that is having a hard time discerning a miracle is you.

You won't convince the barren that produce children after prayer that it is not a miracle.

Your comment is cynicism at its worst.

 

[Episaw]

2 Timothy 3:16-17, is proof that scripture is flawless and correct. The whole "man can misinterpret" I agree with, which is why I discuss this matter with you. 1 Corinthians 13:8-9 is quite crystal clear in that the gifts will cease. When? When "that which is perfect" comes right? Well, the bible IS "that which is perfect". James 1:25 what is the perfect law of liberty?

I have read this passage in English and Greek and neither say the perfect is the canon of scripture.

 

[Episaw]

Pull back to the end of 1 Corinthians 12. Paul is writing to say there is something better than these miraculous gifts. Love (charity). The other gifts will cease.

1Co 12:22 In fact, we cannot get along without the parts of the body that seem to be the weakest.

1Co 12:25 He did this to make all parts of the body work together smoothly, with each part caring about the others.

1Co 12:31 I want you to DESIRE the best gifts. So I will show you a much better way.

Nowhere does it say the gifts will cease. he said to DESIRE the best gifts. he did not say "DESIRE the best gifts until the canon of scripture is complete."

And you have conveniently ignored this verse....

1Co 14:1 Love should be your guide. Be eager to have the gifts that come from the Holy Spirit, especially the gift of prophecy.

Note that love is a guide, not a replacement.

 

[Episaw]

This verse 20, indeed says "prophecy OF scripture". What is that prophecy? James 1:25 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the book of Hebrews, and much, much more. The point to mentioning 2 Peter 1:20-21, is that the gospel is perfect. I am assuming you missed that point, correct me if I am wrong.

Wrong again. He was referring to the prophecies of the Old Testament as those verses you quoted had not been written when he said that and distributed to the churches.

 

[Episaw]

That is an absolutely insane argument. God is good and always is good and never needed evil in order to be good. "you can't have prophets that are not false if you do not have prophets that are false" is an incredibly stupid argument.

Only to those who are stupid.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Here's what Vincent's Word Studies says:

"All the building (πᾶσα οικοδομὴ)
Lit., every building. Rev., each several building. But the reference is evidently to one building, and the rendering of A.V. should be retained though the article is wanting."

See what he just did? He admitted that the literal rendering of the Greek is 'every building' but based his final conclusion on a THEOLGICAL CONSTRUCT.

- Next is the Meyer's NT Commentary. Flatly agrees with my reading.
πᾶσα οἰκοδομή] not: the whole building (Oecumenius, Harless, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek), which would be at variance with linguistic usage, and would absolutely require the reading (on that account preferred by Matthies, Winer, and others) πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή (see the critical remarks), but: every building. The former interpretation, moreover, the opposition of which to linguistic usage is rightly urged also by Reiche,[162] is by no means logically necessary, since Paul was not obliged to proceed from the conception of the whole body of Christians to the community of the readers (Ephesians 2:22).

- Robertson's Word Pictures.
Each several building (pasa oikodomh). So without article Aleph B D G K L. Oikodomh is a late word from oiko and demw, to build for building up (edification) as in Ephesians 4:29 , then for the building itself as here ( Mark 13:1 ). Ordinary Greek idiom here calls for "every building," not for "all the building" (Robertson, Grammar, p. 772), though it is not perfectly clear what that means. Each believer is called a nao qeou ( 1 Corinthians 3:16 ). One may note the plural in Mark 13:1 (oikodomai) of the various parts of the temple. Perhaps that is the idea here without precise definition of each oikodomh. But there are examples of pa without the article where "all" is the idea as in pash ktisew (all creation) in Colossians 1:15 .

- Not sure why you think my conclusion supported by noted scholars is 'bizarre'. Paul omitted the article 'the'. Had he included it, the text would decisively say 'the whole building.' Once again, your issue is with Paul, not with me.

I noticed this in the quote from Robertson's word pictures:

Quote
Each believer is called a nao qeou ( 1 Corinthians 3:16 ).

The Corinthian church was a local Temple:

1 Corinthians 3:10-17
10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.


Each individual believer is a local Temple:

Ephesians 4:25
25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.

Every person who builds with straw and hay will find that his individual Temple and the corporate Temple will have less and less of his mark, less and less of his “stones”, because they would have been destroyed by the hammer of God, although he himself will survive, only his Temple, what the corporates call organizational knowledge, their "knowledge pool", will be bearing the contribution of those who built with precious materials.

Is my word not like a fire, a hammer that breaks even stones? Jeremiah 23:29

 

[GingerBeer]

Only to those who are stupid.

I see.

Okay