What is a Prophet? (05/10/23)

We have rather a lot of ground to cover in getting through these four short verses.  It will help to recognize that these are not four unrelated bits of instruction that Paul is lumping together as the parchment runs out.  This is, in reality, one piece of instruction around the central issue of prophetic utterances.  And in order to properly receive the instruction according to Paul’s intent, it will be necessary for us to first seek that we might understand this matter of what a prophet is, what the office is or was, and in what such an utterance consists.  It is, after all, a term that never really sees a definition given it in Scripture.  We aren’t offered some parallel concept by which to apprehend what it is that’s in view, so we must try to infer details from what is said.

We likely incline to look back across the prophets of the Old Testament, who are at least clearly identified as such, and in them, we see some telling characteristics.  Many of them, certainly, had a hand in presenting us with the writings we now receive as holy Scripture.  But there were other prophets who did not write down their prophecies for us to receive in later ages, though we know of them all the same.  Elijah, for instance, while one of the more important prophets, did not leave us a written record of his visions, or of things revealed.  Indeed, there is not a great deal in his account that we could really construe as revelatory, is there?  Elijah was not holed up in his closet to receive secret counsel from God.  He was a man of action, as was Elisha, his protégé.

We have this sense of prophets being those who foretold future events, and certainly, particularly in the Old Testament records, there is that aspect to much that we have written.  Of course, much of what we have written was written because we, who live that much nearer the last day, would have need of this information.  The events they foretold were, by and large, so very far future that there could be no proving of their veracity in their own present day.  Of course, we see from each of them some nearer-term foretelling to prove their status, and we also generally find record of their calling into that office.  It was not something they chose as a vocation.  It was a vocation that chose them, as it were.

Now, someone will point me to the schools of the prophets that find occasional mention, and suggest from this that no, in fact, it was a vocation one could choose to pursue.  It wasn’t just those few whose records are preserved who were prophets, there were lots of them.  Well, perhaps so.  But then, we should have to consider the record of those manifold prophets, and if we take Scripture as our measure, we must recognize that many of them proved false prophets.  They may have pursued that ministry, but they weren’t called to it.  And others, particularly as we find them in Jeremiah’s time, were more nearly agents of antichrist, than prophets of God.  I suppose they could rightly claim the title of prophet.  It was more a matter of what spirit they were revealing, and that, it turned out, was not the spirit of the living God.

In that regard, it also seems clear enough that nothing has changed as we move into the New Testament era.  And to be fair, we do see at least occasional glimpses of prophecy in this foretelling aspect.  The chief examples would have to be the foretelling of that famine which beset Israel in the first century, and the foretelling of danger to Paul as he made his way to Jerusalem.  But I should also note these foretellings lacked something that was generally a key ingredient of the Old Covenant prophet.  There was nothing of the prosecutorial role here.  There was nothing of explaining how these events connected to sins either personal or societal.  And that was something of a constant among the old order of prophets.  What they foretold was foretold alongside a reason for what was coming.  Here is your present behavior, there is the inevitable outcome should you continue on this course.  Here is what God requires and what you have abjectly failed to pursue.  There is God’s wrath in response.  This is what you are navigating towards.  And there, over the rise, is hope.  But to reach it, there must be a change of course.

In that light, one could pretty readily look at the whole ministry of the Gospel as being a prophetic message.  Think, since I was reading it last week, of the case laid out in Romans.  Here is God.  Here are you.  He is holy, and thoroughly evident in His workmanship in and around you.  You know it.  But you deny it, most especially to yourself.  You actively seek to suppress that knowledge.  And you know this, too, though you try to convince yourself otherwise:  All have sinned.  All fall short of God’s standard.  There is none righteous, and that necessarily includes you.  But as He chooses, God calls!  There is hope.  There is good news!  The debt you could not pay, having sinned against eternal God, has been paid by Another on your behalf.  He has given this to you freely, and He did so in spite of you still being set in your opposition to God.  And God, receiving this freely given payment for your penalty, is pleased to forgive, and more than that, to adopt you into His very family!  You have now a choice of response.  You can reject that gift and seal yourself to your doom, assured of facing the full and unmitigated wrath of God – forever.  Or you can receive this gift and know His love and fellowship; know the renewing of your mind and the life, life to be enjoyed forever, together with Him, and with all who love Him.

I expect it is on this basis that many of our wiser theologians conclude that the prophetic office was closely linked with that of preaching and/or teaching.  Indeed, those three offices, though they are listed distinctly, find their distinguishing lines often blurred.  After all, to preach is rather necessarily to teach, although it may not be the teaching of anything new.  For all that, teaching in a more didactic fashion, or a classroom setting as opposed to a sermon from the pulpit is not really a matter of imparting something new.  It may be news to the students, but that teacher who supposes his role is to pronounce new ideas never before proposed is probably overstepping his bounds.  That’s not to say that the Spirit’s illumination of a text can’t possibly lead us into new understanding.  If it could not, then there could be no learning and there would be no point to teaching.  But teaching remains something distinct from preaching.  Perhaps preaching takes on more of the shepherding role.  Or perhaps it is a bit more concerned with applying the lessons of Scripture to some particular need in the body which the pastor perceives.  The teacher, on the other hand, is more concerned with imparting sound doctrine, inculcating an understanding of God’s Truth.  They work hand in hand, but there are distinctions of purpose and process.

So, where does the prophet fit in?  For he is assigned a significance greater than the pastor and the teacher, set second only to the Apostle.  This seems amazing for an office about which we know next to nothing, and find, in the course of the New Testament, almost zero specific mention.  There are a few individuals identified as having that office, but even there, we have little more to go on than their names.  The thing is, if prophetic utterance is the central issue of this portion of Scripture, we need to have some understanding of how Paul understood such utterance, and those who uttered.  We can’t just decide that here was a believer given the gift of foresight.  We’re not dealing with seers or fortune tellers here.  God forbid!  I mean, He does.  Rather vehemently.  So, that can’t really be it, can it?  Neither, can we simply take the word of the Reformers in this being just another reference to preaching.  If so, why these separate offices?

I have, I believe, considered on other occasions how those offices which Paul enumerates for the church seem to arrange in such a fashion that higher offices have to them aspects of those lower offices.  The Apostle, I think we can reasonably surmise, had all the gifts and abilities of prophet, pastor, evangelist, teacher, etc.  He had also those gifts unique to his office.  The prophet could likewise be recognized as capable of serving as pastor, evangelist, teacher, etc.  But he could not serve as Apostle, having not the requisite call.  We could work on down the line.  The pastor can teach.  But the teacher may not be suited to pastor.

I think perhaps the clearest view of this office that we have must be that which we find in 1Corinthians 14:3 – One who prophesies speaks to men for edification, exhortation, and consolation.  But isn’t that the pastor’s role?  Well, certainly there are aspects of shepherding in that, aren’t there?  So, yes, I would fully expect that a pastor likewise speaks for edification, exhortation, and consolation.  The two offices work together to more firmly establish believers in their faith.  And, in fairness, I think we can probably come up with plentiful examples of pastors preaching in what we might term the prophetic voice.  What do I mean by that?  Well, their task is to take of these ancient revelations we know as Scripture, and to both explain their meaning and significance, and to demonstrate their application to the here and now.  In so doing, there are going to be those times when what is coming from the pulpit hits you like a ton of bricks.  It’s as though the pastor knew exactly where you would be at this morning, and fashioned his message specifically for you.  Of course, there are also plenty of times where the message seems to be for somebody else, and leaves you, perhaps, a bit disinterested.

But stick with that experience of impact.  Did the pastor know what was up with you?  Highly unlikely.  Were you on his mind as he prepared his sermon?  More unlikely still, although not out of the question, I suppose.  But far more importantly, the pastor seeks his sermon from God, who most assuredly does have you on His mind, and does know what is up with you.  And He has seen fit, through the instrument of His servant, the pastor, to minister directly to your need.  Glory to God!  And now, though I get somewhat ahead of myself, the onus is on you.  You have heard.  And you have recognized that you have heard.  Now, what are you going to do with what you have heard?  But that is more a question for the next part of this study.

We are still trying to discern the distinction of this prophetic office as contrasted with the pastor’s role, or the teacher’s.  This aspect of bringing forward ancient truths to apply to current events is not sufficient to make a distinction.  Neither can we insist that the distinguishing feature was one of foretelling events.  That aspect is conspicuously absent from Paul’s description of the prophetic voice in 1Corinthians.  Now, this might give us something of a distinguishing feature.  The pastor, at least generally speaking, labors through the week to have his sermon prepared come Sunday.  He does so with an eye to the state of his flock, to be sure, but the nature of the work requires that the message has been prepared in advance.  It can’t turn on a dime, as it were, to address something that just came up last night or this morning.  The prophet, on the other hand, may indeed be drawing somewhat more directly from the store of the Spirit’s knowledge.  He may be more gifted with bringing Scripture to bear on the immediate issue.  What he is not doing is pronouncing new revelations of data never before set before the man of God.  Calvin’s take, I think, rather accords with what I perceive here, when he observes that the prophet supplies interpretation and application of Scripture to the present case.  And, we might add, he does so far more extemporaneously than does the pastor or the teacher.

The Wycliffe Translators Commentary is perhaps a bit more generous in its definition, suggesting that prophecy consists in the ‘Spirit-guided public utterances of deep truths’.  I have to say, that is rather different than the typical understanding of prophecy in Pentecostal circles.  Honestly, in my experience, the bulk of what gets delivered as prophetic utterance in that setting tends to be forgotten as rapidly as the first thoughts of the morning.  There may be a few that register, most likely because the message happened to strike a point that happened to resonate and agree with what you already thought.  But by and large, it was just an experience, and will be forgotten like yesterday’s news.  If in fact they are delivering deep truths, one would think they might deserve a bit more attention.

I did much appreciate a further point from that commentary:  Abuse of the gift does not preclude its use.  That is pretty good advice generally, where matters of the church are concerned.  If we were to put every abused gift under the ban henceforth, we should rather quickly find ourselves left with no gifts at all.  After all, sin, we are told, was able to make use of the good and perfect Law to promote sin.  Sin will take every good thing and twist it, abuse it, turn it to its own purposes.  Did that make the good thing bad?  Impossible!  That which is good is truly good.  Bad use of the good does not render the good bad.  It renders the bad more clearly exposed.

So, where are we?  We have prophets speaking for edification, exhortation, and consolation, applying the deep truths of God’s pre-existing revelation to the present day, perhaps with a greater immediacy, and more of that sense of the Holy Spirit directing their speech in that moment.  What we don’t have is new revelation.  What we don’t have is utterances granted the same infallible and inerrant status as Scripture.  If we did, I dare say we would have no reason for this call to examine.  These are indeed men speaking as from God, but they are not propounding new and binding doctrines.  They are applying doctrines of longstanding.  They are making application.  They are speaking, if I proceed in Paul’s discussion of the topic, ‘with the mind’, so as to instruct others (1Co 14:19).  They speak for the benefit of their fellow believers, calling them to account (1Co 14:22-24).  But they are to be assessed.  They are not to be simply accepted without question.  Neither are they to be rejected out of hand.  And that brings us to the problem which Paul is here addressing.

The Problem (05/11/23)

Paul does not directly state what the problem is that he is addressing, nor that there is one.  Overall, one would have to say that this is one of the more positive letters we find him writing.  There is little enough of rebuke, and quite a lot of praise to be found.  But it does seem likely that this is in fact a response to troubling notes in their development, much like the discussion of the last days was a response to some cause for concern brought back in Timothy’s report.  But we might find room to wonder, was the problem that they were so put off by the sorts of spiritual displays that Corinth found so exciting that they would reject anybody who even approached that sort of behavior?  Or was it that they were not so unlike the Corinthians after all, finding in such appeals to the Spirit cause to simply accept?  Either course leads to error.

If we are quick to reject the message because we don’t care for the manner in which it was delivered, we may just as readily find ourselves slipping into a mode wherein we reject all claims to doctrinal truth.  Calvin suggests this may find its seed in a reaction to discovering you had been deceived by some false preacher along the way.  You likely jump right into that, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me,” mindset.  You become skeptical, even suspicious.  And you spend all your time seeking reasons to dismiss what you are hearing, rather than seeking to hear what is being said.  You set yourself as judge and jury over every individual who would claim to have something of spiritual value to impart.  And you’re pretty sure everybody’s got it wrong but you.

That may sound extreme.  And it is.  But then, it is also an apt description of a fair portion of the population in which we live today.  It goes beyond rejecting Christianity.  It’s an attempt to reject religion more generally, at least anything that appears ‘organized’.  And we have watched as it slips its way into becoming a rejection of anything that claims to be true.  Everybody has joined Pilate, laughing off such claims.  Pfft.  What is truth?  It’s just your opinion, man.  And your opinion’s no more valid than mine.  My truth is this.  You go ahead and believe what you like.  We think ourselves free of this influence, but I suggest to you that we need to be all the more careful.  Societal influence is a sneaky business.  We think our awareness of post-modernist thinking somehow protects us from adopting it.  But it’s not enough to be aware.  It requires intentional effort to resist the ideas, to insist on reality-based understanding, and to insist on extrinsic truth.  And looking at the definition of that term, let me clarify that I am not talking about non-essential truth, but truth ‘originating from the outside’, truth that is more fundamental and certain than opinion.

Of course, some will hear this call not to despise the prophetic utterance, and run full-force into the opposite error, that of simply accepting every claimant to speaking spiritual truth as legitimate.  I’ve seen reactions like this, and I’ve doubtless described such occasions before.  In the average Charismatic church, you can watch it unfold on any given Sunday.  Somebody rises to make prophetic declaration, and everybody gets excited and proclaims, “Amen!  Oh, amen!”  It may be next week, it may be the very next thing, but another arises, makes his own prophetic declaration, and it conveys a message at odds with the first, and quite probably, at odds with Scripture, and those same excited voices shout once more, “Amen!  O, praise God!”  It may help if the message is first delivered in tongues, and then there’s that solemn silence waiting for translation.  See?  It must be legit.

But that’s not the measure.  No, and it doesn’t matter if they make use of certain words or phrases that strike a harmonic in our thought processes.  Maybe it’s something about rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.  Maybe it’s simply mention of David.  Maybe it’s something more along the lines of noting Daniel and Revelation themes.  Whatever it is, it’s like a switch is thrown, and we suddenly become convinced that this must be legit.  Or maybe your triggers are different.  Maybe the speaker mentioned Calvin, or Sproul, or some other famous Christian you admire, and ah!  Now you know you can trust the message.  Well, no.  Now you know that the speaker uses some of the same resources you do, shares somewhat your background, where theological matters are concerned.  But whether or not his specific message is valid has yet to be determined.

So, we have these twin errors of being overly ready to reject, and being overly ready to accept.  Calvin being who he is lays this to the case of the preacher, for to him, as with many – probably the vast majority – this business of prophetic utterance must refer to preaching.  What else could it mean?  After all, one has already decided that the office was discontinued, so that can’t be it, right?  But then, whatever has become of the office, it clearly hadn’t been discontinued yet, for Paul is constantly pointing it out in his letters, and this is but the earliest of them.  Seriously, I think we have to accept that the matter of prophetic utterance was something distinct from preaching and teaching generally.  As I have already explored, it shared much with those two offices, but it had its distinctions, and one distinction would seem to be the immediacy of inspiration involved.  Or perhaps I had best back that off to illumination.

This is part of the problem, isn’t it?  If this one claims to speak from direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit, surely, we must assign his words the same value, the same claim to inerrancy, that we would assign to that of the Apostle.  Okay, so this is an earlier time, and that which the Apostles taught had not as yet been committed to writing.  Certainly, those later epistles had not.  But even the Gospels, though perhaps written, were not widely distributed as yet.  It’s not like they had printing presses running, nor the deep pockets to pay for scribal replication on such as scale.  So, what the Apostles taught came largely by way of oral transmission.  Paul speaks of them as the traditions he had delivered (1Co 11:2).  And we react to that word.  No!  Traditions bad, Paul.  Oh, wait.  It’s Paul.  Paul good.  Now I’m confused.  But in this context it simply means he didn’t drop off a book to be reviewed as need arose.  He spoke.  He lived the example.  He preached.  Because, face it:  Preaching was the only means available.  And besides, it was the means Christ had and has chosen for His Church to grow, to prosper, to propagate.

And we see the effects of this.  Other teachers came.  They claimed divine inspiration.  And they proclaimed a body of doctrine divergent, if not entirely opposed to what the Apostles were teaching.  And if anybody pointed this out to them, they would take pains to denigrate the Apostles, to insist that their understanding was imperfect, and this new revelation was clearly a correction on that which they got wrong.  And beloved, that’s a game that continues in one form or another right down to the present, and will not cease so long as the current age continues

So, the true Apostles had to establish that by which Truth could be discerned, and the false rejected.  And that’s a matter we shall get to in due course, here.  For now, it’s sufficient to recognize the double error, and to recognize our own propensity to slip into one or the other, if not both, if we are not careful.  That path Paul lays out for us here is that which passes between those extremes, and holds us to the narrow way of Truth.

Now, there is an aspect to this matter of spiritual error, this issue of determining oneself as the final arbiter in matters of truth and doctrine, which may not be directly in view, yet remains cause for concern with us.  Barnes lays it out for us.  He writes, “A man has no more religion than he intends to have; he has no graces of the Spirit which he does not seek; he has no deadness to the world which is not the object of his sincere desire, and which he does not aim to have.”  Consider that.  This is a risk for any one of us.  This is reality for every one of us.  It applies particularly where skepticism has taken root, and is, I think, at the root of that skepticism.  We doubt because we don’t particularly wish to believe.  We are not so very far removed from those of whom Paul writes in the early stages of Romans, God’s truth is being revealed, made evident, and we’re busy seeking to suppress it (Ro 1:18-19).  Watch out!

There is a second aspect to this, which may apply more to those of us who are of a Reformed, or Calvinist mindset.  We recognize the sovereignty of God, and the irresistible nature of His grace.  We know ourselves chosen by Him, and we know our salvation and sanctification alike depend wholly upon His continued work in us.  And it can, if we are not careful, lead us to a certain spiritual laziness.  It can lead us to presumption, and presumption is never a safe space.  Never.  God is simply unwelcoming of presumption on the part of His children.  It is well, then, to be reminded of this.  We have no more religion than we intend to have.  We – we – put limits on our development.  We resist.  Or we choose to ignore.  We settle into our comfortable present and tell God, “That’s far enough.”  In a very real sense, it’s on you.  Are you going to grow or stagnate?  It’s on you.  Your salvation may be settled.  Indeed, I would argue that it is, whether indeed you are saved, or whether you aren’t.  That wasn’t up to you anyway.  That’s God’s call.  And if He has called, then we can be absolutely assured in that call.  If you’ve read these musings of mine for any length of time, you know that is my absolute conviction.

Yet, this doesn’t absolve us of responsibility.  The awareness that my sanctification rests wholly on His working in me to render me both willing and able does nothing to remove my responsibility so to will and to work.  I can no more wrest myself from His hands than can the devil wrest me from them.  But I can most assuredly limit my own growth.  I can either work alongside my Father, and seek to contribute to my eternal good, or I can be a willful child, resisting every attempt to shape my character for the better.  I shall still get in, but it may well be, as Paul writes to Corinth, as one whose works have been burned up, as one who suffers loss, though saved, having been saved, so to speak, as through fire (1Co 3:15). 

It’s on you!  Some of us hear that and think, aha!  I’m justified in my opinions at last!  You see?  Works are necessary to salvation.  But that’s not the case.  Works are a necessary evidence of salvation, but they come as confirming that which is already the case, not as its cause.  But others of us hear this with concern.  What?  How can it be on me?  God is sovereign, and He has decreed.  Surely, that settles it.  Yes.  Yes, it does.  But that doesn’t relieve you, moral agent that you are, of your obligations.  Your obligations consist in working out your own salvation, even knowing that your salvation is not in any way dependent on your successfully doing so.  Does that mean we set ourselves to seeking to exercise these spiritual gifts, such as at Corinth?  I mean, Paul urges the benefit of all God’s children prophesying, and that certainly sounds exciting, doesn’t it?  Would you like to be used of Him to deliver a message?  You should!  But it’s probably not going to be so flash as all that.  It may simply be you in the right place at the right time to hear your brother’s concern and to have the right bit of wisdom to supply his need.  Godly counsel is the best prophetic utterance, I think.  It doesn’t need to come with that power of, “God says.”  It doesn’t need pious claims of, “I feel the Spirit is telling me.”  It simply needs the God-imparted wisdom to rightly divide and apply His word, and a willingness to do so.

In the meantime, if we would see to our own spiritual well-being, far be it from us to neglect those ordinary, even mundane means of grace which He has provided to that end.  And chief among these has got to be the inestimable value of sitting weakly under the sound preaching of His word.  This, by His word, is utterly indispensable for salvation.  This is what He has ordained for the health of His body, and to despise it is to reject that which is prescribed for your own best welfare.  It’s like being thirsty to the point of dehydration, yet refusing the proffered glass of water because you’d rather have something else.  Or, it’s like refusing your medication and then complaining about not getting better.  This is something given for your health, your spiritual health, your eternal well-being.  And will you really throw it aside as nothing?

It may well be that a particular sermon, or even a particular sermon series seems more like reruns to you.  Yes, well, recall Peter’s admonition:  You need reminding, forgetful creature that you are.  Even if the message only comes as reinforcing that which you already know, that reinforcement is of great value.  I don’t think you recognize just how readily erosion can set in.  Yes, you are on firm foundation upon the Rock, Christ Jesus.  But you face an unending storm of falsehoods and opposition.  Think of those cliff faces that hem the sea.  They seem so permanent, so impervious to the power of wind and wave.  But they are not.  Wind and wave take their toll, and however slowly, however glacial the pace, yet erosion is certain.  We look at mountains and think them static features of the landscape, but they are not.  They are pushed up by pressure from below.  They are worn down by forces from above.  Being a New Englander, I can recall the shock when the Old Man of the Mountain up in New Hampshire slipped down the cliffside.  What?  That was a forever feature!  Well, forever’s up, then.  No.   These outside forces have their impact, even on the base rock of our planet.  These outside spiritual forces have their impact, even on the most devout of Christians.  And as such, even the most devout of Christians has need of a constant renewing and refurbishing of the essentials of faith. 

Even the believer of long-standing knows the need to feel that fire of the Spirit rekindled.  It’s not some sign of immaturity in the believer that it is so.  Neither is it a sign of wisdom to suggest you have advanced beyond such need.  Even Timothy needed such urging.  Several of our commentaries make note of it.  I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands (2Ti 1:6).  Timothy may have had his moments.  Put yourself in his sandals, this young man left in charge of a large ministry amidst a populace already proven rather violently opposed.  And in a society that valued the gray head, to have one so young in charge had to rankle.  No doubt there were those who were quick to dismiss him given his youth.  And that will wear on you.  We saw that a few sections back.  What minister is going to give his best to a congregation that finds him so readily dismissed?  But it’s no good giving up.  Kindle afresh the gift of God!

It’s not just the pastor, though.  It’s every one of us.  That’s where we’re at as we enter into this passage.  Don’t quench the Spirit.  Don’t put out the fire God has kindled in you!  Or, as the context urges us to hear it.  “Knock it off!  Stop pouring cold water on the Spirit.”  And with that, perhaps we should transition to the next part of this exercise.

The Question of Quenching (05/12/23)

Alright.  So, the first part of this instruction is that we not quench the Spirit.  But what does it mean to do so?  The phrase alludes to the idea of putting out a fire.  That is an image that would have been far more familiar to those in the early church than it is to us.  Fire is, for us, generally more a luxury, at least in any direct form.  We might put on a fire to set the mood on a cold winter evening.  Or we might set up a fire to gather around for times of conversation on a cooler summer night.  But it’s not really an aspect of daily life as we see it.  There are probably fires lit somewhere to help supply power to our houses, and there are fires burning in our vehicles as we drive, but they are tamed and out of sight.  They aren’t really matters for notice.  If anything, the fires we notice are those that constitute an accident or emergency, and our primary concern with those is exactly the matter of how to quickly quench them, put them out.

But fire was a necessity for earlier ages.  If one would cook, one must have fire.  If one would stay warm in winter, fire would be needful.  And in the Church specifically, if one would be a Christian, one must have the fire of the Holy Spirit.  Fire, we might observe, was also the sole means of light.  You couldn’t just go flip a switch or push a button to engage the lamp.  It needed fire, and it needed fuel.  And then, when it came time to sleep, the flame must be put out.  But in matters of faith, it is never time to sleep.  As the parable of the virgins explains to us, we should always be attentive to our fuel supply, always careful lest the lamp go out and we have no means to relight it when the time comes to do so.

What does Paul mean, then, when he tells us not to quench the Spirit?  In the most immediate sense, this is instruction firmly connected to the next verse, with its admonition against despising prophecy, or preaching more generally.  But if we take the whole of this piece of instruction, we might find the issue broadened just a bit.  I could suggest that the overall problem is one of laziness.  Despising prophecy saves one the work of studying and testing that message, the work of actually knowing God and knowing God’s word.  So, too, does simply accepting whatever the ostensible prophet may speak, or the pastor preach.  How simple it is!  We come in.  We sit down.  We listen (or not) for a half-hour, maybe forty-five minutes.  Being polite, we nod appreciatively now and then, perhaps enjoy a well-turned phrase or two, find amusement in the illustration chosen to break the tension.  And then we go home, and within the hour that which was preached lies wholly forgotten.

If I look back to the early days of coming back to church with my wife, a period which I would place well before God actually saw to it that I heard His call, that was pretty much how I viewed the whole affair.  I come.  I listen to some tolerably well played music, sing along because that’s what one does at these places, and sit through whatever the pastor had to say.  Go through the motions for an hour or so, and there you go; peace preserved in the home for another week.  It meant next to nothing, so far as my perceptions went.  Of course, God had different ideas, but that’s another story.  My point is that this same sort of attitude is common.  It’s not just me, although I would have to confess that on many occasions, it still is me.  But you can sense, to some degree, who is actually engaged with the service of worship, and who is just going through the motions, doing their time.

And that, I think, sets us right in the place of needing to hear Paul’s admonition.  Don’t neglect the means of grace!  Given the campfire imagery, don’t throw cold water on those who are speaking under the Spirit’s inspiration.  And let us accept that the preacher and the teacher do so every bit as much as those who may deliver a message in tongues, or with more prophetic immediacy.  For all that, don’t tune out when your brother or sister prays.  Don’t let differences of style and focus lead you to dismiss their perspective.  Don’t fall asleep at the wheel.  All of these things are means of grace.  All of these are ways in which the manifold members of this Christian body are able to minister and edify us, even as we would hopefully desire that we might be instruments of edification for them.  Remember why the prophet speaks, for it is really the reason for all of Christian ministry by whatever form:  To edify, to exhort, and to console (1Co 14:3).  These are the things that ought to concern us as we gather together to worship our Lord and Savior.  These are how we serve one another.  Going back just a bit in this letter, these are how we admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, and support the weak (1Th 5:14).  Yes, there may be more immediate, more tangible ways in which we come alongside, but here is the core.

So, then:  If one is thus ministering to you, how useful is it to you to reject out of hand, or to belittle their words to you?  How beneficial is it to just nod along and accept everything said to you as gospel truth, without bothering to think about it, apply that power of reason the good Lord gave you, and seeing if this advice actually aligns with God’s revealed body of instruction?  Don’t neglect the means of grace.  Neither take it on faith, as it were.  Either approach leads, as Matthew Henry observes, to a forfeit of the Spirit of grace.  Now, there’s something to strike fear in the soul.  And for many of us, the very idea that this could be is going to be an offense, and a reason to turn to Scripture and bring forth passages by which to denounce such a thought as ungodly.  If we are able to quench the Spirit, to so offend Him that we would indeed forfeit His presence in us, is this not the same as saying we could in fact lose our faith, lose our salvation?

Calvin, of course, faces exactly that question, and faces it head on.  “But what God commands by Paul’s mouth, He himself accomplishes inwardly.”  Okay, a few things to observe in that quote.  First, there is the firm upholding of the full authority of Scripture, in recognizing that what Paul writes comes not merely as good instruction, not even merely as well applied theology.  It comes with the full force and authority of God’s command, because what he is delivering is God’s command.  Now, while we are considering the inspired writings of an Apostle in this instance, I think at some level, and in proper degree, the same respect is called for when it comes to the sermon delivered from our pulpit, at least supposing that the one who fills the pulpit is indeed a godly man.  The same, again in proper degree, should apply when it comes to the prayers of our fellow believers, or the counsel they may supply as occasion arises.

Then, the more immediate aspect of that statement:  God accomplishes what God commands.  This is powerful, but it is also oftentimes a bit of a temptation.  If God’s going to do it anyway, then I can just relax and not worry about it at all, right?  Wrong.  Honestly, if that were the proper reaction, there would be no reason to have instruction like this set before us.  We could have a much simpler text which imparted nothing more than, “God’s got this.”  That truth remains perfectly true.  But the extent to which we find instruction such as this, urging us to attentiveness and action should make very clear that we are called to be far more than puppets or automatons moved about by God with no say in the matter, and no will of our own.  No!  We are moral agents.  That, too, is made abundantly clear in this Scripture we hold dear.  And as moral agents, our actions, our choices matter greatly.  We can undertake to act with this assurance that God is accomplishing His purposes in us, but at the same time, we act with the recognition, as Barnes describes it, that by our choices we may either supply fuel such that the Spirit’s fire burns more intently within, or effectively extinguish that fire.  I might suggest to you that there is no middle course here.  There is no path by which we have simply left that fire to continue at its present intensity.  We can’t just set the control and get on with life.  We are ever and always either fueling or quenching, and I don’t think any of us can lay claim to consistently operating on the side of fueling.  Neither, if indeed we are Christians, can it be that we are consistently damping down that flame, watching it sputter as it goes out.

What to do?  Well, Calvin has advice:  Ask from the Lord.  He is, after all, our source.  And He is the giver of every good and perfect gift (Jas 1:17).  And He constantly supplies us with everything needful for life and godliness (2Pe 1:3).  He promises that if we ask (in His name, according to His authority and purpose,) we shall receive (Mt 21:22).  Oh, look!  We’re back at prayer, the central nervous system of our faith.  But then, having asked, there is need to respond.  And here, we find Ironside’s perspective on this issue of quenching the Spirit.  He writes, “To quench the Spirit is to fail to respond to His guidance.”  That suits the case, doesn’t it?  I mean, it’s not as if you, in your puny humanity, can actually shut down the Spirit.  If indeed He dwells within, then He is indeed speaking in that quiet voice of conscience.  But what do we do when conscience advises a particular course?  Do we pursue that course, or do we go blithely on with the error we are currently pursuing?  One path builds the fire.  The other damps it down.  And here, let me go ahead and bring Clarke in as well.  Why not?  We’ll get the whole breadth of perspective.  He observes that the Spirit’s fire is quenched whenever we act contrary to His dictates, whether that contrariness comes in deed or in word.  This is, I think, of a piece with Ironside’s thoughts.  Neither does it stray particularly from Calvin in this instance.

So, what have we here?  Don’t throw cold water on those who are under the Spirit’s inspiration.  I am drawing from the JFB for this aspect, and I have to admit I was a bit surprised by what follows in that commentary.  For they go immediately to observe that this would include tongues, prophecy, or prayer every bit as much as preaching and teaching.  Honestly, I just don’t expect to find much support for matters of tongues and prophecy in that more Charismatic sense of the term in any commentary.  After all, Charismatics and Pentecostals are not exactly known for their deep theological writings, nor for delivering verse-by-verse exposition.  It’s too rigid, too regulated a process.  And from their view, that would in itself be throwing cold water on the Spirit’s influence.  Similar themes arise often enough when considering the work of the worship team.  If we have everything planned and scheduled, have we left the Spirit room to work?  Of course, the planner would insist that He is every bit as active in the planning, just as the preacher would insist that He has fully informed the development of the sermon, even if that preparation took place in advance.  Being Spirit-led does not require that we are ever and always extemporaneous in our pronouncements.  But I do think there is something to be said for leaving Him room to adapt to the immediate conditions.

Either way, though, our instruction remains the same, doesn’t it?   However it is that the Spirit is choosing to utilize the instruments available in this body, our part is not to reject out of hand, nor to assume.  Our part is to put in the work to test and confirm, and when a matter has been confirmed, don’t merely accept it, grab hold of it.  Cling to it.  Internalize it and make it a part of the fabric of your character.  But where the testing either rejects, or leaves things inconclusive?  Well, if it’s rejection, then reject it.  If it’s inconclusive, pray more, study more, seek to have answer that you may know how to respond.  I might note that the effort called for here should probably advise us to reduce the extent of teaching we’re imbibing.  If we are constantly seeking out new messages, tuning into this preacher and that, wandering around the myriad websites that offer ostensibly godly instruction, then it is utterly impossible that we are putting in the work necessary to test what we are hearing.   We are, of necessity, falling into one or the other of these errors, either rejecting too readily or accepting too readily.  And I dare say that either way, such a response is quenching the true work of the Spirit in us.

Lord, if there is a call for wisdom, surely it is here.  How easily we slide to one extreme or the other.  Even with effort at study, I see it.  It’s too easy to hit that sense that I know things, perhaps even better than the pastor, and I am now fit and equipped to sit in judgment on the message.  But that’s not it, is it?  No!  This is the man of God You have chosen to shepherd this flock through this season, and whether I fully appreciate this new direction or not, I need to recognize Your hand in it.  Or, if I cannot, if I must conclude that Your hand is not in fact in it, I need to alter my own course and find new pasture.  And that is no light matter, not in the least!  So, yes, I would ask for wisdom, Father, that I may shape my course aright, that I might more readily receive that instruction which is indeed from instruments You have chosen to play, and that I would not, in pursuit of this course correction, overshoot and become complacent in accepting that whatever is being preached must be right.  I have great need of Your input, that I may rightly test and rightly apply all that I hear, and not just respond in knee-jerk manner.  Too much of life pushes for that immediate, visceral response, but You don’t.  You call for considered response, so keep me mindful, remind me to consider, that I may indeed show myself a wise workman, able rightly to divide and apply Your revealed word, and Your inspiring illumination to every aspect of life and faith.

Communion of Saints (05/134/23)

One thing that might lead us to dismiss the idea that the Spirit is speaking through this person or that is familiarity.  We know the passage well enough, where Jesus comments on the point that the prophet is never really received in his own town.  A more prosaic form of the same idea might be that familiarity breeds contempt.  Those who knew you when may have significant difficulty with accepting who you are now.  They can likely cope with the idea that you’ve become a Christian, although they might write it off as you needing a crutch.  But the idea that God might speak through you?  That you might have spiritual insights to offer?  What sort of God is this?

As we develop in our faith, it’s quite likely that we find ourselves surrounded more by fellow believers than by unbelieving acquaintances of our past.  I’m not here to argue the correctness of this shift, only to observe that it tends to be the reality.  Sure, when we go to work or other such places where we have no real say in who we must associate with, the picture’s going to be much different, but as concerns associations of choice, the great likelihood is that these have become more and more choices made of fellow believers.  And yet, in that situation the same issue arises, even if the form differs slightly.  God’s given you something to say to me?  Why should He?  He can speak to me directly.  Or, we are convinced our degree of advancement is far greater, our efforts to discern and hold to sound doctrine much more developed, and rather than receive what this brother has to impart, rather than giving it an honest and discerning hearing, we dismiss out of hand the very possibility that he might have some bit of spiritual wisdom to impart, or, God forbid, some corrective to an error we’ve been holding onto as truth.

All of this plays into the need for Paul’s instruction.  And it also suggests to me an attitude correction that might well help us improve our track record.  I recall a series Jan I and listened to on marital relations, ‘Love and Respect’, and whatever one’s perspective on the overall sense of that teaching, whether perhaps it leans a tad heavily on one single verse, or whether it offers a sound and well-developed godly perspective, it does have certain bits of wisdom to offer.  One of those was the point of recognizing that even when differences of perspective burst into serious disagreement and conflict within the marriage, the one you are arguing with remains a good-hearted person.  And some of us, hearing that, will immediately denounce the unscriptural concept in its phrasing?  There is none good, after all, no not one!  Right you are.  But then, that was before our loving Father saw fit to rebirth our spirit, and begin this work of transformation in us, wasn’t it?  Surely, for that one whom He has called, whom He has justified, whom He has glorified, the change is significant enough that we might observe this new heart of flesh in him is in fact good.  It’s not perfect, no.  But it’s good.

Carry this into the matter of mutual spiritual edification.  There is something we should recognize off the bat.  If this one seeking to speak into my life is indeed one of the elect, then he is as much a son of God Most High as am I.  He is indwelt by the same Spirit that I know dwells in me.  That is a thought I explored in my first pass notes, and I am comforted to find it confirmed in what our commentaries offer on the passage.  I’ll let Clarke speak.  “Every genuine Christian is made a partaker of the Spirit of God; and he who has not the spirit of Christ is none of his.”  Now, some will hear that and, coming from a certain mindset, turn to questioning.  Are you Spirit-filled?  You say you’re a Christian, but have you known the baptism of the Spirit?  And some will go so far as to insist that a true Christian would necessarily have the gift of tongues.  I think that perspective goes off the Scriptural rails, but it’s not uncommon.  Such a one will look upon any more conservative congregation with suspicion.  Really?  You don’t allow Spirit-moved utterances in your church like tongues, and prophecy, and ecstatic utterance?  And you call yourselves Christians?  But that seems extreme.  It’s clear enough that there is no such miraculous gift that can be identified as being given to every believer.  Take that most direct addressing of the subject.  “All do not speak with tongues, do they?”  (1Co 12:30).  So, on what basis will you make of it the test of true faith?

Far better you recognize the rich variety of the Spirit’s working among your fellow believers.  Far better you recognize that Christian and Spirit-filled are in fact synonymous, but that doesn’t require that every church or every individual is going to be exercised with the same gifts or the same style.  And yet, the quietest, most straight-laced conservative believer remains Spirit-filled.  For all that, the believer in the next pew, whose politics are at odds with yours, or who is perhaps more concerned with matters of so-called social justice than you are, remains  Spirit-filled, and possessed of certain gifts by that Spirit with which he has been endowed for the very purpose of being useful to your edification.

Look.  God has set you in community for a reason.  John Donne wrote, “No man is an island,” and nowhere is that more true than in the Christian community.  You are in an isolated outpost.  You are an ambassador in foreign lands.  How greatly you need the fellowship of your countrymen, the backing of your fellow soldiers, if you prefer that perspective.  But what use is that fellowship if you will not receive that which your brother has to impart to you?  These have been set alongside you as a guard.  They will help to keep you from straying off after this novel teaching or that.  We are beset by novelty acts passing themselves off as preachers of the Christian faith.  You don’t need to review a whole lot of news to recognize that.  After all, the average newscast likes nothing more than to air some aberrant, worldly pronouncement from a self-proclaimed upholder of Christian religion.  Find a pastor who will promote the latest popular proclivities, be it homosexuality, trans-sexuality or, given a bit of time, no doubt even trans-specie beliefs, and he’s practically assured of air time.  But let one be found who sticks to the Gospel, to the hard truths and the hard work of straightforward sound doctrine, and he will be invited to keep that to himself, or at least restrict himself to his pulpit.

Now, obviously, given Paul’s discussion here, this is not a call to simply accept every bit of advice offered by any claimant to Christian faith as legitimate.  Do that, and those false occupants in the pulpit will soon have you drifting so far off course you may well fear it impossible to find your way back.  But of course, if in fact you are yourself a Christian, your Good Shepherd will not suffer you to be lost to Him.  He will haul you back from your foolishness.  But certainly, the shame, the sorrow of so much wasted time, and the necessity of reworking your beliefs to eradicate that erroneous teaching will leave plenty of room for regret, and require much more of repentance than you might have liked.

So, let us take this to heart, that our brother is a true brother, son of our same Father, filled by the same Holy Spirit.  Let us take to heart, as well, that we are at least as likely to have errors in our beliefs, to stand in need of correction as is he.  We have great need of one another, and it is great cause for thanksgiving unto our God that He has in fact supplied us with what we need.  Yes, we can pursue understanding in times of private prayer and study.  But best we do so with the recognition that even the best of intentions is no guarantee of maintaining a proper exegesis.  We are all of us too ready to read our current understanding into whatever new material may be before us, too quick to assume ourselves beyond need of correction.  We are not.  And God is gracious to correct.  Despise not the means by which He chooses to do so. 

The Solution (05/14/23-05/15/23)

I have already spent some time considering the nature of the prophetic office, and don’t want to spend too much more time on that subject, but one thing should be clear.  Whatever that office entailed, it did not establish the prophet as inerrant.  If it did, there would be no call to examine their statements.  There would not be that instruction to the Corinthians to limit their speaking, and to judge what is spoken.  I expect that at some level we must say the same of the Apostles.  Not every word they spoke was incontrovertible truth.  Witness, for example, the need Paul found to bring correction to Peter. 

The fallibility of man does nothing to alter the infallibility of God’s Word.  There is a reason why certain letters written to the various churches were not preserved while others were.  It could be simply that the matters were more personal, more specific to one situation unlikely to arise again.  However, given the very personal business in some of these epistles, and given the relatively unique situations in each of the churches addressed, that doesn’t seem a sufficient explanation.  Were they left off because they did not rise to the level of inerrancy?  Certainly, as the early councils sought to establish the canon of Scripture, there was some of that, some books whose teachings were so far deviated from the more certain body of Scripture as to be accounted dubious.  Or perhaps it was simply that the Holy Spirit, by whose supervision all of Scripture has come to be written, did not see fit to have these writings included.  He may have been every bit as much involved in their writing, but they were to a different purpose, not contrary, but not part of this master work; not needful to later generations to guard and guide the Church.

So, then, the prophet is not infallible.  What are we to do, then?  Well, we might start with the understanding that the office and the gift are for the purpose of applying God’s truth to present circumstance.  That’s not to say there can be nothing left of foretelling events in the New Testament iteration of prophecy, but it is to say we tend to overemphasize that aspect to the near exclusion of all else.  But take it back to this more fundamental purpose of telling forth God’s word, of applying His revealed truth to the current situation – which may lead to presenting certain probable outcomes if the current situation is not remedied, just as a doctor may offer certain prognostications based on current symptoms and behaviors – and perhaps we have already a hint as to Paul’s direction here.  If their assignment is to apply existing revelation, or existing truth, then by that truth are their words to be tested.

Let me just bring in Mr. Henry here, because we are too readily inclined to overcompensate when we receive instruction to avoid quenching the Spirit.  What a dreadful thought, no?  We wouldn’t want to do that!  With that, there may rise up in us the idea that we should just accept the prophet on the basis of his claim to being a prophet.  But we are reminded by Mr. Henry that nowhere in the Bible will you find basis for any such doctrine of human infallibility.  Neither will you find it supporting any conception of blind faith or blind obedience.  Far from it!  We are, as I have noted repeatedly, moral agents.  We are called to moral assessments, to weighed actions, and careful consideration.  We serve, after all, the same God Who approaches His own with the call to, “Come, let us reason together.”  So, Mr. Henry reminds us that, “Every Christian has and ought to have, the judgment of discretion, and should have his senses exercised in discerning between good and evil, truth and falsehood.”

First, let me emphasize:  Every Christian.  There is that spiritual gift of discerning spirits of which Paul speaks in correcting the Corinthians, and that is a particular grace given to some, present in the church as it is given for the benefit of the church and not the individual, but not present in all.  This is different.  This is simple, spiritual judgment.  This is the duty of a moral agent, received of the Spirit, to be guided by the Spirit’s tutelage as He brings to remembrance all our Savior said and did.  That is His office, His purpose in being present here among and within us.  It’s not about miracles and spectacle and drawing attention to us or to Himself.  As the song says, “It’s all about Jesus.”  Here, the point is that He supplies guidance to those faculties of reason our Father in His perfect wisdom incorporated into our being.  Use your head!

But it’s a balancing act, isn’t it?  Particularly as concerns these occasions when God uses another to speak to us.  Nowhere is our propensity for taking offense more inclined to show up.  Why him?  God can speak to me as well as him, and He’s no respecter of persons, right?  So, if I need to hear this, certainly, He would just speak to me.  I can discount this as pridefulness on my brother’s part.  Perhaps I should point that out.  Well, perhaps.  Or perhaps you should humble yourself before your God, and accept that He who utilized a donkey to correct a wayward prophet may well see fit to use your acquaintance to correct your own waywardness.   After all, if there is no biblical doctrine of human infallibility, that necessarily includes you.  So, we find Calvin, of all people, saying, “The abolition of prophecy is the ruin of the Church.”  Now, Calvin being Calvin, I can assure you that his idea of prophecy consists rather exclusively in the sound preaching of God’s Word, but that does not render his assessment any less valid.  Think what you may.  I bring to mind the example of Caiaphas prophesying as to the necessity of one man dying that Israel might be saved.  We can hardly account Caiaphas a prophet.  It’s hard enough to account him a legitimate priest, let alone high priest.  I mean, we know how political that office had become, how corrupted by Rome’s demands.  And we know, as well, how vehemently this man had opposed himself to God’s plan and purpose.  And still, by God’s supreme wisdom, he was used not only to further God’s plan and purpose, but even to speak forth this truth.  Now, I hardly find cause to question Calvin’s legitimacy, but some would, and not least for his outright rejection of any possibility of a continuation of such gifts as were in evidence in Corinth.  Yet, truth is true, regardless how it comes to our eyes and ears.  God speaks through whom He will.  It is well to keep that firmly in mind.  Otherwise, our propensity for setting ourselves as judge and jury over every least matter of doctrine and faith will be our undoing.

What, then?  Don’t quench, but neither assume.  Not every claimant to speaking for God is truly doing so.  And as I have just observed, not every speaker of truth claims to be speaking for God.  What to do?  Well, follow the Bereans!  Test what you are hearing or reading by the means Scripture prescribes.  And that, at base, leaves us to test by Scripture itself.  Here is a beautiful and needful reminder for us.  “Christianity does not require people to disregard their reason, or to be credulous.”  Barnes gives us this reminder, but he’s not just offering his opinion.  We find the same in James.  “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy” (Jas 4:17).  He didn’t write this stuff down to no purpose.  He didn’t give you faculties of thought and reason for you to cast them aside as vile and useless.  How dare you!  God graces you with powers of thought and reason. He indwells your spirit with His own, that from His Spirit, you may gain spiritual guidance in your thinking.  But that is not a call to jettison reason.  It’s a call to training, to giving your reason the right stuff from which to discern, to test, and to receive.

That receiving is not, I repeat not to be done on the basis of trust.  This cannot be stressed enough.  I don’t care how reliable you consider your pastor to be, or how much you respect this or that expounder of faith and doctrine, past or present.  That point about infallibility remains.  I might be tempted, for example, to take Calvin, or maybe Sproul on faith.  They are tested, tried and true, after all.  But no!  Their record may be quite good, and their reliability better than most, but they remain fallible, just like you and me.  Test!  ‘They say’ is insufficient basis for belief, and I don’t care which ‘they’ we refer that to

I’ve probably noted it before, but growing up in the era I did, whenever I am faced with that claim of authority, “They say,” my thoughts go almost invariably to giant ants cruising the storm drains of LA.  Them!  Our ant overlords have spoken!  No doubt I could be accused of a bit of excessive cynicism in making such a snap judgment, but I have to say, I have found it is generally an appropriate dismissal.  They say?  What does Scripture say?  How does this accord with what is clear and obvious in God’s Word?  Enough with esoteric readings and reading the tea leaves of current events!  Does this stuff pass the test?

What is that test?  Well, at basis, any new teaching, however plain or however grand, is to be, ‘tested by more objective revelation and especially the touchstone of Christ’s Lordship’.  I’m taking that from the Wycliffe Translators Commentary.  But it’s not like this is some vain imagination on their part, some personal rule.  No!  It’s fundamental.  We can’t be taking the more difficult and obscure passages, far more subject to being misunderstood due to inferring our own ideas as being present in them, as guiding how we receive plain and simple language elsewhere in Scripture.  The opposite course must hold.  What is plainly stated, and clear must inform how we understand that which is more obscure.  Perhaps it is simply differences in culture that render it obscure, and a bit of study as to the nature of that time and place would suffice to make the meaning obvious.  On the other hand, perhaps God intentionally left that bit vague.  Why?  Well, you’d have to ask Him.  But maybe it’s simply to keep us humble, to keep us from becoming know-it-alls so sure of ourselves as to be beyond all hope of instruction.

But hear it well:  Refusing to receive every claimed revelation without question is no way to prove faithful to God.  Questioning is not quenching.  Caution is needful whenever truth is concerned.  Time was that our scientific community understood this.  I’m not sure to what degree that still holds.  But if it is important to the scientist that every claimed theory (which is, after all, a claimed truth), must needs be testable, replicable by experimentation, how much more so where matters of eternal import are concerned?  It’s one thing to be wrong on molecular theory, or perhaps misunderstand quantum physics.  It’s quite another to be wrong on matters of faith and holiness.  One is concerned with creation.  The other is concerned with the Creator.  There’s a reason that theology used to be held the king of the sciences.  The concerns of theology have a higher place, a higher value.

So it is, believer, that you have not just the right to question, to exercise judgment.  You are under binding command to do so.  It’s right here, isn’t it?  Don’t quench, but examine!  Examine!  This isn’t some optional exercise for the advanced student.  This is fundamental!  Recall that the Bereans were acclaimed for doing just this, and doing so from day one.  To examine does not require skepticism.  To question does not necessitate rejection.  If anything, I might suggest that such examination and testing against God’s Word demonstrate a much higher regard for prophecy (however understood) than does blithe acceptance.

And I should have to stress, as we go down this road, that said examination has to include more than looking up a few verses that they may have offered in support of their pronouncements.  That, I should note, would apply as much to these missives of mine as to any other.  A speaker is, rather obviously, going to pull quotes that support his point.  It would be rather odd to do otherwise.  But proper examination would require assessing more than just the verse offered.  Perhaps examine that verse in its full context.  Better still, draw on your general body of doctrinal understanding, assuming, of course, said body is established on Scriptural grounds.  How do you suppose the canon was determined?  This text, while it may offer thoughts worth consideration by the Christian, does not bear the stamp of Apostolic authority.  Or perhaps it’s simply that while it may contain bits of truth, there is much in it that simply cannot be made to accord with what we have as more readily determined Truth.  The picture they paint of God, of Christ, of man just doesn’t line up.  It’s a different Gospel, and as such, per the tested and true body of instruction, it is to be rejected, no matter whose name it bears.

There is a quote given us from Locke which is worthwhile here.  “Those who are for laying aside reason in matters of revelation resemble one who should put out his eyes to use a telescope.”  Now, I admit, that appeals in part because it is clever.  And no doubt, it appeals in part because of my own nature and propensities.  But the point is entirely apt.  The right tool for the right job, right?  I mean, we could excise a few words and have an equally applicable truth.  “Those who are for laying aside matters of revelation also resemble one who should put out his eyes to use a telescope.”  Reason alone is insufficient.  Prophecy apart from reason is insufficient.  They are designed to work in tandem, and that is how we ought rightly to employ them.

We have to establish this in ourselves:  Scripture is the test of the prophet.  I think some in our day would like to reverse that order, and make the latest utterance from this source or that to be the test of Scripture.  After all, the canon was established by man, and man is corrupt.  Scripture was written by men such as ourselves.  The Apostles were not all that special.  Isn’t it just possible that further revelation has come, that the God who established the New Covenant to replace the Old might yet come along with a covenant that is newer still?  Does that sound far-fetched?  I wish it were!  Proposals of this sort are both as old as the Church and as current as the clock.  It used to be that the fringes were excited at the prospect of a restoration of the five-fold ministry, with a return of the Apostolic and prophetic offices.  But before long, it seemed everybody was a prophet and a fair number of them were apostles, and now we needed something else to set one apart as further progressed.  And there came to be a new teaching, that these old offices, all five, were to be done away and replaced with a new set.  And somewhere along the way, the reasonable person has got to say, “Yeah, right.”  Stuff and nonsense!  Of course, that time should have been long ago, not waiting for it to reach this point. 

Scripture is the test, not some optional set of guidance with no more value than any other teaching.  It is by this that we are to assess and assay that which is being taught, or proclaimed, or introduced as the latest theological trend.  And this is hardly something new.  Even the prophets of old understood this, and indeed, insisted upon it.  For false prophets are hardly some new, post-modernist development.  Turn to Isaiah, and what do we find?  “To the Law and to the testimony!  If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isa 8:20).  This has not changed.  This will not change, for God’s Word does not change, even as God does not change.  Now, it must be granted that God’s Word did not come in one instant deposit, nor even by one man, lest that one man be thought more than he was, or lest that word be rejected as no more than his opinion.  I mean to say that there has been distinct purpose and planning in how God chose to deliver His message every bit as much as there is in what that message proclaims.  And it was written because He determined that these things should be preserved to all ages, in order that we might have a solid basis for reason.  Here is your repeatable experiment for truth.  You can lay the claimed truth alongside this revealed Word and take its measure.  So can your brother.  So can your children, and your children’s children.  And though culture may change, and various points of reference require a bit more effort to properly recognize, yet the Truth remains – revealed and unchanged – and the same measurement will result.  If what has been said is valid, it will stand the test.  If it does not, then, as Isaiah says, “It is because they have no dawn.”  They have no understanding.  They have, in the end, nothing to say.

So, there it is.  Measure against God’s Word.  Here is the means by which we avoid rejecting things simply because we didn’t care for the way they were delivered, and yet also avoid accepting them simply because the delivery was exciting or stylish or fresh.  Freshness isn’t the test.  That’s for vegetables.  God’s Word doesn’t come with an expiration date.  There is no ‘use by’ stamped upon its pages.  There is no need in the Christian for something new, something more.  I get it.  We read of those exciting times nearer the start of the church, and there is a longing in us, that we might have been there, that we might have experienced the exhilaration of those times, sat and listened to Jesus as He taught, or perhaps seen those occasions when the mere touch of Peter’s shadow sufficed to heal the sick.  But we weren’t there, and a large part of me says, thank God we weren’t!  Those excitements didn’t come without cost.  Those who sat listening to Christ in person also experienced the shock and devastation of His arrest and crucifixion.  They got to experience the shame of running away.  Those who were so blessed with spiritual display in their churches were also blessed with the opportunity to be martyred, burnt as torches to amuse Nero, or to fight wild animals bare-handed for the entertainment of the heathens.  And nothing says these sorts of events may not come again, and indeed, they have come again in more modern form.  The darkness still hates the light, and where it cannot corrupt the light, it will seek to snuff it out.

All the more, as the world loses any sort of grip on reality, on truth even as a concept with any meaning, we need to test, to hold fast to what God has said, and accept no substitutes.  Evaluation by God’s Word, His time-tested, certified revelation of Himself, is the only accurate test.  This is the longstanding witness of the Church.  Traditions do not suffice.  Commentaries, however valued, do not rise to this standard.  Sermons, in and of themselves, do not rise to this standard.  The results of personal study do not rise to this standard.  But to the degree that they adhere to this standard, they are to be valued, not as new revelation, but as beneficial illumination, as the edifying input of a brother or sister in Christ, sent along for our benefit.  I think you should find this the united opinion of every sound believer, certainly of every teacher whose teaching has been received and met the test of both Scripture and time.  It is something so fundamental that even Calvin and Clarke would agree on it.  It is utterly fundamental.  We’ve seen Calvin already, warning us of the dire consequences of the church dismissing prophecy entirely.  But at the same time, we can hear Clarke advising that whatever you receive, whether by preaching or by prophecy, is to be, must be examined against the word of Christ.  If there is doctrine being proposed or expounded upon, the same holds, for honestly, preaching and prophecy both are but means of expounding doctrine.  Those who claim to despise doctrine, or feel it to be of a nature that divides true Christians should, to be consistent, cease from preaching, from teaching, or from even making pronouncements as to their opinions.  For to the degree they do any of these things, they are necessarily proclaiming doctrine, even if the thought of it makes them spit.

But this testing is not, as the title of this section in my outline insists, a matter of skepticism.  It is not to become an exercise in finding cause to reject.  That would get you right back to the first issue, of quenching the Spirit – denying or ignoring His influence in the matter, and despising any word that comes to you by human agency, though it be God playing the instrument of His choosing.  But measure.  Test.  Evaluate.  Don’t be a passive listener.  Engage.  And then, beloved, there comes a responsibility.  If, upon testing, you find the message that was delivered accords with the test of Scripture, and is thus shown true, then it obliges you to accept it.  This is more than a nodding acceptance, a confessing that yes, what he said is accurate enough.  This is internalizing, consuming, becoming a doer of that which you have heard.

And it is on that same basis that we are simultaneously called to ‘abstain from every form of evil’.  I’ll touch on this more in the next portion, so let me leave it as it is for now.  But  when your testing has determined that what you have been hearing is indeed accurate and Scriptural in what it instructs, then  take seriously that which is contained in its commands.  “Hold fast to that which is good.”  As the Wycliffe Translators Commentary points out, good, in this instance, means genuine.  When you have found the genuine article, prize it!  Here again is that pearl of great price.  No, it may not be salvific in its import, but it is given for your building up, for the furtherance of your sanctification.  It is part of God’s provision to you of all that is needful for life and godliness, and life, certainly, is worthy of pursuit, is it not?  And for the Christian, the pursuit of godliness is more worthy still.   If you have determined this message, this doctrine is true, as Calvin writes, ‘it is assuredly becoming in that case to give credit to it’.  And if you will give it credit, then surely, you should also give it your effort.

There is the counterbalance.  If there is doubt as to the validity of the message, do not receive it, ‘with a doubtful and perplexed conscience, as Calvin proceeds to advise.  Or, perhaps Barnes’ words will be more useful here.  “We are to receive no opinion until we are convinced that it is true.”  And that convincing, as we are seeing here, is not merely a matter of being overcome by the forceful delivery, or overly impressed with attending signs and wonders, or won over by the skillful oratory and rhetoric of the speaker.  None of these are reasons to receive.  The sole reason to receive is the testimony of the Spirit, which, while He does indeed speak to us in the voice of conscience, is in this instance to be perceived not merely in the currents of thought and opinion, but in the considered examination of that which He has already caused to be revealed, to the written, testable testimony of Scripture.

This is how you test your own opinions, your own prophecies and preachings, every bit as much as that which you hear from another.  After all, we are painfully adept at deceiving ourselves.  Our opinions may be informed by a well-founded understanding of Scripture.  On the other hand, they may be more matters of tradition.  This is what we have always been taught, and that’s as far as we’ve ever explored it.  We’re back at, ‘they say’, though we maybe drape a better fabric over it.  They may, for all that, be opinions more formed by worldly input than we care to believe.  And this is a huge problem!  We are in a world beset by insanity.  Whether the darkness has grown darker or not is debatable.  Things have been rather hideously dark in past ages.  But this being the age we are in, of course it feels darker to us than what we read in history.  But go back to the days of Roman persecution, when Christians were hiding away in the catacombs, or facing death by the hands of officialdom.  Go back to periods such as the Spanish Inquisition, when even the forces of the Church were turned out against those who sought merely to be faithful to Christ.  Or, go observe how Christians fare in Muslim countries.  There have indeed been darker times than our own.  But the insidiousness of worldview today is something else.  Everywhere you turn you are inundated with the tenets of a godless, truthless worldview.  You are trained to think as they think, and however much you resist it, its habits will become your habits unless you are intentionally, constantly testing not only what you hear, but what you think against the solid, unchanging measure of what God has declared True.

I rather hate to suggest such a thing, but it becomes needful.  Trust no one.  Certainly, that applies to any sort of media you may consume.  I think for many of us, it has long been clear that what is handed to us by the newspapers and newscasts is of dubious veracity.  Gets to the point that even what they forecast for the weather is something that needs to be questioned.  Our entertainments have become vehicles for inculcating falsehoods into our thinking.  Trust no one.  Church pulpits have been infiltrated by open proponents of unbelief.  It goes beyond vociferous support for the homosexual agenda, or social justice, or whatever the latest virtue signal may be.  It goes to outright pastoral admissions of atheism.  And yet, here they are in the pulpit, and more shocking still, there is a congregation in the pews.  Trust no one.  But beloved, that includes yourself.  Don’t settle into blithely assuming your opinions are valid, and everybody else suspect.  You are suspect.  I am suspect.  The heart, recall, is wickedly deceptive.  It is sick beyond all hope of healing – apart from Christ.  And that old man of sin yet indwells, yet seeks to reassert dominion over your mind and your soul.  You will whisper sweet lies in your own ear.  Don’t cast about for another to blame.  See to yourself!  Test yourself.  Test your views, your habits, your character against this same standard.  What proves genuine, hold fast.  But beloved, what fails the test?  Cast it away.  Reject it utterly.  Refuse to have anything further to do with it.

The Concern for Abstaining (05/16/23)

There appear to be two different ways in which the final verse of this passage is understood, and in part, I think it comes down to whether the interpreter takes it as a standalone piece of instruction, or as connected to what the rest of the passage is saying.  It also hinges on how eidous is translated.  Many translations offer its meaning as appearance, and so we read the instruction as, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.”  Taken this way, it seems almost of a piece with the foundations of the Pharisees.  They, after all, were concerned with the Law, and in hopes of avoiding any inadvertent breech of God’s Law, they undertook to set boundaries farther out.  Don’t even do that which might potentially lead to sinning.  If this is illegal, then let’s stop well before we get to that point.

In and of itself, this was a noble and wise pursuit.  In the same way, those who take this verse as giving similar advice are not giving us unbiblical ideas.  Matthew Henry would be one such case.  He looks at this and concludes that we are to abstain both from sin itself, and from that which looks like sin, suggesting that the appearance is neighbor to the reality.  In many situations this is absolutely legitimate, and something we do well to consider.  Think, for example, of how Jesus presents the Law in the Sermon on the Mount.  It’s not enough that you have not literally committed murder.  If you have so much as spoken of your brother as being worthless, a fool, or the like, you’re already on your way there.  In point of fact, He is not speaking about appearance, or approach.  He’s saying that you are already there.  The problem in this instance is not avoiding the appearance, so much as being too wooden in one’s understanding, and missing the full application of God’s Law.

Then, too, we could go to Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians, who were so confident in their Christian liberty that they would feel perfectly fine about doing things more in keeping with their old life, even up to going and participating in the feasts at the local pagan temples, and if a fellow Christian was offended by this, or led into sinning against his conscience by joining them though doubtful, well, that’s his problem.  So, yes, Ironside observing that we are called to consider the weaker brother also has its application, if not in this verse, than in general.

All that being said, if we take the verse as connected to the matter of proper response to that which claims to come by the Spirit, then this is really just the counterbalance to the instruction to hold fast to what is good and genuine.  For, what is not good and genuine is, by definition, false, and in fact evil.  And this, no matter how fine the delivery of the message, no matter what signs and wonders may accompany, no matter how illustrious the propounder of this novel doctrine, must be rejected and refused.  Abstain, we read, ‘from every form of evil’.  And this is probably the more correct understanding of that term, eidous.  It’s a term used to indicate forms, kinds, categories.  Whatever form that evil takes – even the form of a Spirit-inspired message, even the form of being delivered by an angel of light – this does not alter the nature of what is being delivered.  It is evil.  It is antichrist, for it stands opposed to what God has revealed in Him.

The JFB follows more along this line of understanding.  They make the point that oftentimes what is in fat good may appear evil to others, and shall we therefore abstain from doing what was truly good?  “Jesus healed on the Sabbath, ate with publicans – acts which wore the appearance of evil, but which were really good.”  And surely, if Jesus, our Teacher and our model, has done these things, we ought to respond likewise to the ill-advised denunciations of the world around us.  Now, I suppose we could make a distinction here, and observe that those who objected to His actions were, at least at that juncture, outside the kingdom.  The religious officialdom of the time was more focused on prestige than true holiness.  They wanted the honors, but few if any were ready to accept the rigors of living in accordance with Christian faith.  So, we might be wise to set  the specific examples the write chose aside as not really applying here.

But observe:  Nothing is said of the brother in this instance.  It is not a case of abstaining from that which your brother may perceive as violating the tenets of faith, and which might lead him to sin against conscience.  Neither is it a question of church opinion, or the teaching of this denomination or that.  It could as readily be taken to indicate that which is construed as evil by the watching world around us.  But then, we should be in serious difficulty, for the world around us has a terrifying propensity for declaring the good evil and the evil good.  I wonder if that reality has ever been more clearly seen.  But I’m sure that’s only because our experience will always seem more real than the historical record.

So, no, I don’t think we are particularly well served to construe the message as to avoid even that which somebody else might think sinful.  There is a place, certainly, for considering the conscience of our brother, for knowing his spiritual development well enough to have such awareness.  And in that case, by all means, abstain out of consideration for his well-being.  Consider others as more important than your momentary indulgence of liberty.  But in context, I think we rightly receive this instruction as the negative outcome of examination.  If it is good and genuine, cling to it, make it part of yourself.  If it is false, or dubious, reject it.  I should have to say, if it has only sunk to the level of being dubious, this is not a call to reject the one who spoke.  It may be a call for further examination of Scripture, until such time as certainty can be established. 

On the other hand, it may be one of those cases in which you can clearly see how one might reach such a conclusion on a Scriptural basis, but also how one might conclude otherwise.  This applies, for example, with understandings as to the proper application of baptism, of the full sense of what is entailed in communion, and even the interplay of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will when it comes to salvation.  We differ and differ widely in our views on such things, and whatever we may conclude, we cannot force that conclusion on our brother.  Neither can we reject our brother because his conclusions differ.  These truly are matters of conscience, and not indications of ungodliness or false confessions of faith.  In these cases, we accept our brother.  We accept our different views, and recognize that in spite of them, here in that brother we have found one who, like ourselves, desires nothing more than to please God and to abide by His rule. 

There is, then, overall, a need for balance.  There is a need for balance in how we react to preaching of the normal sort.  There is a need for balance in how we receive the myriad teachings available to us, from theologians of renown or from those whose reputation is unknown to us.  There is a need for balance in how we approach the matter of testing.  And above all, there is need for balance in how we respond to and think about those brothers who have concluded differently.  Hold fast, I think, to that which Jesus had to remind His disciples to consider.  “He who is not against you is for you” (Lk 9:50).  Do not hinder him.  More, do not hinder the work of the Spirit in him.  Don’t quench the Spirit.

The Response (05/17/23)

I don’t know as I have a great deal more to say on this passage that hasn’t already been said.  The one aspect I want to emphasize is that this application of testing requires more than just a mental acknowledging of the result.  And this applies in both the positive and the negative result.  While Paul ends on the negative, I would prefer not to, so I’ll take that part first.  We’ve already hit the point fairly well, I think, but once more:  However much the message may claim spirit-inspired sourcing, if proper testing of that message against the clear and established doctrines of Scripture shows it to be at variance – oh, let us take a stronger stance:  Shows it to be false – then we have now a duty to reject it.

This is every bit as binding upon us as is the receiving of the Gospel.  This, when presented, left us with a choice to be made.  Now, I would argue that the choice was already inevitable, the Spirit having brought to bear the working of irresistible grace.  But still that choice had to be made.  And most fearsome to consider, where there are those who have heard this same Gospel and refused it, which again I must set down to God’s decision, even though man makes the choice, that same necessity of acceptance applied.  And the consequences of rejection shall be dire indeed.  I could almost come to the conclusion that this is what the author of Hebrews has in mind when he writes of those who have tasted the heavenly gift, received enlightening, partaken of the Spirit, and yet fallen away (Heb 6:4-6).  Almost.  But then there is that notice of the impossibility of renewing them again to repentance, and doesn’t this require that there had been a real, legitimate renewing unto repentance previously?  Although I could observe that nothing is said here of salvation, only repentance.  But it certainly seems to be implied.  Okay, so back to our own passage.

Application of due diligence in rightly testing the message has binding obligation on the conscience.  I think I’ve had this verse in view already, if not on this passage, then quite recently.  But it fits here as well.  “Therefore, to the one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin” (Jas 4:17).  This applies very well to the outcome of testing.  You’ve tested.  You’ve reached conclusion.  You now know the right thing to do.  It is, then, incumbent upon you to actually do it.  If that which you know calls for rejection, then you must reject the message.

All that being said, be careful here.  Rejection of the message is not synonymous with rejecting the messenger.  Even the best of pastors, and the most devout and diligent of teachers may yet produce an error on occasion.  Perhaps it is something said in the excitement and energy of the message, and he allowed himself to be carried a step too far in his delivery.  Perhaps it’s a habitual overemphasizing of one particular point to such degree that it becomes erroneous by its extreme.  But we must leave room for honest mistake in those who accept the burden of leading us in preaching and teaching.  There are, to be sure, those who should be rejected together with their message, because the mistake is not an overstep that willingly receives correction, but rather an insistent, persistent, and likely malicious error that seeks, if possible, to mislead even the elect.  These are the false Christs and false prophets of whom Jesus warned us even before He departed (Mt 24:24).  “Behold, I have told you in advance.”  These are the ones of whom Paul writes.  “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  So, no surprise if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.  But their end shall be according to their deeds” (2Co 11:14-15).  Test!  And having tested, heed the results.  Reject that message which fails the test, and if the messenger is found false as well, then yes, even the messenger must be rejected.  Only don’t be too swift to condemn, lest you find you have dismissed a good and valued servant of Christ.

And bear in mind, always, that for all that you have tested, it remains possible that you yourself are the one in need of correction.  If there is one messenger that we are likely to receive uncritically it is ourselves.  We readily accept that our efforts and the resultant understanding to which we have attained are now certainties, unassailable in their veracity.  We forget that we ourselves are still beset by a most deceitful heart.  We ourselves remain limited as to our perceptions and our capacities of reason and spiritual apprehensions.  We daren’t become so confident of our own understanding that we make ourselves the test, rather than the Word of God.  This isn’t to say that certainty is impossible to us.  Where we have truly laid hold of God’s Truth, there should be certainty, and I dare say the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God shall establish that certainty in us.  I just caution that we have yet good reason to beware the counterfeit in our own thinking.  Beware the influence of the worldviews around us, which slips in in spite of our efforts, and must therefore be rooted out wherever it is found.

Now, let’s shift to the positive aspect of this instruction, the response as to that which is proved good, genuine, when held up to the standard of God’s Word.  You’ve tested it.  You’ve assayed it as one would that which claims to be gold.  Is it pure?  Is it legitimate, or is it fool’s gold?  Is it but paint on rock?  But you’ve held it to the Fire of God, and it has been shown legitimate.  Now, if it were gold, and given into your hand freely, there would be no question what you should do with it.  Hold it fast!  This is valuable, and it is yours.  You will do as you must to ensure that this valuable ore is not lost or stolen from you.  You will not suffer its loss.  Well, how much more the tested, Spirit-inspired message from your God, your Creator and Master?  If that message has been tested, tried, and found true, is it not now incumbent upon you to embrace it wholeheartedly?  Is it not your obligation now to hold that word fast?  Is it Scripture?  No.  That’s not what we have in view here.  But it’s scriptural.  We’ve established that.  It has about it the clear and necessary consequence of Scripture.  And that being the case, yes, it should be as binding upon conscience and character as Scripture itself.  It has, after all, passed the test.  It has been shown legitimate wisdom.  It is the provision of something needful for life and godliness, and we should be fools and worse now to reject it.

Barnes stresses this point, but not beyond reason.  Better, he suggests, that you should suffer loss than that you should abandon that which has been tested and found true.  You have a duty – a duty to God, and a duty to yourself, for your own well-being, to not only accept this which has been taught, but to internalize it.  Weave it into your character.  Render its truth inseparable from your essence, even as it is with God.  Treat it as the pure gold that it is.  Treasure it like the pure gold that it is.

Lord, this sounds so simple, so obvious.  And yet, how difficult it is in practice.  It is too easy to treat the preaching we receive as a light thing.  It is too easy, even, to take the things seen in times of study such as this, or in times of prayer, too lightly, to set them aside as done and forgotten.  And this ought not to be with us.  Yet it is.  I know it all too well, just how readily I can set aside these notes, the things shown me in these studies almost as fast as I close the file.  I know how little I retain even of that devotional with which I began my morning.  Sunday’s sermon?  I might be able to pull up the text again from which it was drawn, but as to its point and substance?  Well, no, not much retained.  Nor did I take it home and test.  You know me better than that.  That’s just not a thing I do, is it?  Am I sufficiently prepared in advance that I can apply the test of Scripture even as I sit listening?  Do I listen with sufficient attention to do so, or am I too preoccupied with other matters?  You know the answers.  I suspect I do as well, or I shouldn’t be asking You.  I must ask Your forgiveness, if indeed for all this exercise of a morning, I still treat Your truth too lightly.  And I know I do.  It’s too easy, far too easy, for me to slip into sinful patterns with a fearful immediacy.  And I would that it were not so.  How well I know that struggle, that battle of which Paul wrote.  It is my story.  But then, You are also in my story, even as You were in his.  Oh!  Blessed hope!  Thank You, Jesus, that in You I indeed have hope, and rest.  In You I have the assurance of peace, a peace that endures, a peace such as this world can never give, that abides even to all eternity.  For You have taken up my cause.  You have seen to my debt.  And You have been at work in me, renewing me day by day, improving me day by day.  Though it often seems that I make little or no progress, even seems that I regress, yet I know You remain, and because You remain, I stand.  All praise to You, Lord.  All thanks is due You, and with all that I am, I give you that thanks that is Your due.  Bring me to the place of diligence, of testing, and of responding, all in accordance with Your Word and Your will, which ever accord.  Amen.