b. Prophets
[11/12/20]
We may as well move to the next, somewhat controversial office of the church. To be sure there are plentiful claimants to the label of prophet today. There are also competing understandings of just what was intended with this office, let alone whether it continues. This, I think, is a far more challenging matter than that of the Apostles, in all fairness. It would be tempting to take the Apostolic office as paralleling the Old Testament office of prophet, and in many ways I think that is in fact how we should view things, but not entirely so. And furthermore, we have the Apostolic Word setting forth the New Testament prophets as something distinct from the Apostles.
Let me touch on that first point. Insomuch as they are spokesmen for God, and, I would say, insomuch as they are charged with delivering God’s Word to the ages, indeed, the Apostles parallel the OT prophetic office. Yet at another level I would suggest they excel that office. Apart from Moses, I would say you do not find an OT prophet tasked with promulgating new doctrine. If the prophet is properly viewed as prosecuting attorney for God, then he cannot be the originator of commandment, but must be the reminder of commandment. That is to say, the doctrines these prophets put forward are direct echoes of the originating doctrines put forward by Moses. They may expand. They may provide fresh context, fresh application for their present day. They may perceive developments that lie ahead. But it is no new doctrine that comes forth. To take the most glaring example, Joel did not in fact proclaim a new covenant, but he did see the necessary coming of such covenant. He saw it, in simplest terms, because God showed him it must come, and tasked him with advising the people of this reality. But I think he saw it also as a necessary development of Mosaic doctrine. It was the same revelation, if you will, only become a bit clearer in certain of its implications.
Comes the New Testament, and this new covenant which Joel saw must come has arrived, and its terms been declared. This was, after all, a shocking thing: All that had been types and shadows for centuries beyond counting was suddenly, in the course of a very few short years, fulfilled. All that the temple and its organizing principles and tenets and rites had supplied in partial, fleeting fashion was now rendered complete. That temple had managed temporary atonement, temporary forgiveness. Perhaps it could suffice for a day, perhaps for a year, but it would need a renewal. Now comes the Christ with perfect, eternal atonement. Forgiveness has been obtained for sins past, present, and future. The accuser of the brethren, to pick up on yesterday’s discursion, has been cast out of heaven; no longer has access to level charges against the elect. (I thank this morning’s Table Talk for that reminder. God is good.)
He comes and proclaims a new covenant in His blood. It has new rites, new signs, new realities, really. And, it should I think be clear, when this new covenant has taken effect, the terms of the old one have been superseded. This new covenant is a continuation, and in that degree, shares with the prophetic messages of old. But it has declared the terms of that old covenant met in full. “I did not come to nullify, but to fulfill.” That’s the news! I’m not sure I have properly grasped that point before this very moment. The Old Covenant is superseded because it has been completed. It is done. All its demands have been met and all its promises fulfilled in Christ. You know, we speak in these terms, but I’m not sure I’ve ever managed to connect the two ideas properly. The Old Covenant isn’t just gone because the New has come. It is gone because it is done, satisfied, completed, fulfilled. Now comes the New. Now comes that covenant Joel wrote of, but did not know its terms. New doctrines have arrived, a new system of worship. It is not a rejection of the old, but has so far surpassed the old as to render it a pointless exercise, and if not idolatry outright, then as near as becomes indistinguishable. The god worshiped by those who would cling to the old is no longer the God who is, but a god of their own imagining, having rejected Him rather forcefully when He revealed Himself so fully.
[11/13/20]
Okay, so what has this to do with prophets? That’s a great question! But let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the prophetic office hasn’t changed so very much. Here is the new covenant, and here are the Apostles; not perhaps the parallel to Moses, for that falls to Christ, but let us set them as those elders who came alongside Moses to aid in instituting that Law. Even then, the parallel is not precise, and we’ll have to be okay with that. But the role of the prophet in that old order was one of recalling God’s people to the Law, reminding them of their covenant responsibilities and, as prosecuting attorneys, pointing out to them the myriad ways in which they stood in violation of that covenant. They were indeed spokesmen of God; inspired of God and revealing in some ways His Truth. But now we have a problem, perhaps. Do we see any evidence that the New Testament prophet has any such role? The answer to that, I think, must rather depend on how we see that office.
The fact of the matter is that from a scriptural standpoint we don’t really see it much at all. We see a few examples of those whom Scripture identifies as prophets. We have, for instance, Agabus who, together with some other prophets, came out to Antioch from Jerusalem to meet Paul. And this Agabus, Scripture tells us, spoke of a famine to come as the Spirit indicated to him would transpire (Ac 11:27-28). And we further have it confirmed in that same passage that said famine did in fact come to pass during the reign of Claudius. What’s happening here? This is not revelation of doctrine, certainly. I suppose it could be viewed as continuing the role of prosecuting attorney. But it does not come with direction for the Church or even for any individual. It simply presents the fact. This is coming. Okay. The Church responded, and the response was to prepare a relief fund for the believers in Judea. It is not explained why it was felt that this particular subset of believers would be the ones in need, but we might suppose the Spirit was involved in the response every bit as much as the message. Preparation of relief, though, hardly seems in keeping with a prosecutorial pronouncement. If this is judgment, ought not we to support justice upheld? I grant that there is an urge for mercy, and this is quite right and proper, but it must have its bounds.
The next prophets we meet, if indeed we meet them, are mixed together with the list of teachers in Antioch. The list is presented as both prophets and teachers (Ac 13:1), and we’re not really told which is which. Interestingly, Saul is found among them, and it is in fact for his inclusion there that the list is given. They had several who filled these two offices and two were selected to go on a mission to Cyprus. Perhaps we are to understand that each of those listed fulfilled both offices. I see no rule against such an understanding. But then, I see no specific cause to insist upon such an understanding. I might accept that Saul and Barnabas are more by way of prophet than teacher at that juncture. At any rate, they go off to Cyprus and encounter a false prophet, also identified as a magician, whose name is Bar-Jesus (Ac 13:6), and they quite handily put paid to his ostensible powers.
This encounter is really the primary cause I find for supposing Saul and / or Barnabas might be construed as prophets in that setting. The connection of magician to prophet in the person of Bar-Jesus raises another interesting question as to the place of the prophet in the NT church. Is it that connection with a capacity for supernatural signs? Look at Saul’s response. “Filled with the Holy Spirit, [he] fixed his gaze upon him, and said, ‘You who are full of deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.’ And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand” (Ac 13:9-11). There’s the prosecutorial aspect. There are the signs. There’s not a promulgation of new doctrine. It’s not the Apostolic role in place, exactly. It sure looks like the prophetic role.
Still later, we have those who came back from Jerusalem with Paul to deliver the letter that resulted from the council held there. These two, Judas and Silas, are identified as ‘being prophets themselves’, which phrase rather suggests that Paul and Barnabas were in fact held to share that same office (Ac 15:32a). Now, let us observe these visiting prophets in the very brief notice we have of their activities. They ‘encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message’ (Ac 15:32b). That’s it. That’s the sum total expression we have of their office. There is no mention of prosecution in any regard. There is no mention of signs and wonders. There is preaching, which we might have thought was more the pastoral office. They are not serving the role of evangelist, so far as I can see, for it’s not an effort to reach the unreached. It is an act of mercy, more than anything, speaking at length to encourage and strengthen faith. This, too, I might note, informed the work of the Old Testament prophet. They were not merely declaring judgments against. For the people of God, there was ever and always the notice of mercy to follow. Yes, this must come about, and we might reasonably say, as a discipline, but the discipline will come to an end, and God’s gracious outlook upon you shall be restored. You will come out the end in better shape than you were.
And then, towards the end of the book of Acts, we meet Agabus again, at least I am inclined to say it’s the same Agabus we saw earlier, for he has come from Judea (Ac 21:10-14). He comes this time with symbolic deeds reminiscent of Ezekiel and others among the OT prophets. He binds his feet and hands and informs Paul by the Spirit that this is what awaits him in Jerusalem. Again, I would note: No doctrine laid out. No action demanded. Just a laying out of the facts as the Spirit saw fit to reveal them. Those with Paul were quite reasonably alarmed. Agabus was, we might suppose, something of a known quantity to them. His word would carry weight. We could add the detail that where Paul was staying in Caesarea, Philip the evangelist, whose house it was, had four daughters who were themselves prophetesses. But observe: While those with Paul saw this as cause to refrain from going to Jerusalem, Paul did not. He effectively said, “Thank you for the heads up,” and then declared he would proceed as planned. What Paul had concluded in so many words was then echoed by those with him. “The will of the Lord be done!”
Okay. That’s it. That is, so far as I can tell, the complete list of examples we have for the New Testament prophetic office. Here are things I can observe based on that brief evidence. First, and this is going to be somewhat unsettling for some, it gives evidence that this send-ranked office by Paul’s estimation (which we must accept is he Spirit’s estimation) includes women in its number, unless we are to suppose Philip’s daughters were in fact false prophetesses, but if that were the case, I have little doubt that this would have been made rather explicit. The only observation made of them is that they were virgins, unmarried and sexually pure. I don’t know that this is meant to be taken as guidance for what sort of woman is permitted office, i.e. that married women and widows are excluded. I don’t think that’s the point. It may just be Luke’s observation of their youthfulness as well as their femininity. The good doctor shows a marked propensity for emphasizing the role of women in the foundations of Christianity, and we do well to take careful note of it. If they are permitted this office which, again referring to Paul’s list in 1 Corinthians, is second only to that of the Apostle, it must bring into question the validity of excluding them from the office of pastor or teacher. Or do we suppose that prophets never teach? What, then, were Judas and Silas doing in that lengthy discourse of theirs? How were they encouraging and strengthening, if not by the Word preached?
Here is another observation we can make as to the prophets. We see no appointing to office, nor confirming in office. Here, too, we might suggest, the appointing is rather more directly by God, if not explicitly by the Incarnate Christ. We don’t have the prerequisite of learning doctrine from Christ directly, for doctrine really isn’t the central feature of this office, but rather an informing of the body for her strengthening and encouragement. This accords with what Paul tells us of that office. “The one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation” (1Co 14:3), whereas, I might note, the one speaking in tongues only edifies himself (1Co 14:4). The point here is that the prophetic office, even if it must take up the prosecutorial role again, does so in pursuit of this threefold goal of building up, correcting, and comforting. It is disciplinary, not summary judgment.
But again, there’s no sense that arrangements were made either for the initiation of this office or its continuation. This sets it apart, I think, from the Apostolic office. The Apostolic office has clear initiation in the selecting of officers by Jesus Himself, and given that requirement, we can see as well a clear limit to the office as those who had known Jesus and could be eye-witnesses to His risen being left the stage of this life. But the prophetic office, I would say, precedes that new office and continues, at least so long as it does continue, as it had been before; which is to say it is not up to man to appoint, and as such, there really is no reason to expect arrangements to have been made for its continuation. No arrangements were necessary.
I’ll offer one further observation, then. If there is no arrangement needed to continue the office, and if the office comes not by the appointing of man but by the call of God, then frankly, any idea of a school for prophets, or training folks in the arts of prophecy would seem a bit misguided. Yes, we have mention of a school of the prophets way back around the time of Elijah. What we don’t have is any record of a functioning graduate of that school. I don’t believe Elisha counts. We have clumps of ecstatics, identified as prophesying, and even find king Saul momentarily in their number. But that’s not an office exercised, nor was it training in the arts. In plain point of fact, there’s no particular condoning of the whole business. It just is what it is. To train in prophetic arts feels to me more like the way of the magician creeping into the holy office, as if one can work himself into that position. But, so far as I can discern, that’s not how it works. God appoints. God gives word and direction. End of story.
Neither is it to be an uncontrollable exercise of spiritual domineering. That was an issue in Corinth, or a symptom of their underlying issue. No, ‘the spirits of the prophets are subject to prophets’ (1Co 14:32). That doesn’t mean, or at least not solely, that other prophets ought to assay and pass judgment on the words of another prophet, but the contextual point is clear: “You can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted” (1Co 14:31). It’s not a competition, and it’s not your opportunity to show off your super-spiritual chops. Wait your turn. “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1Co 14:33). You know, there’s a message to take to heart! If your church practice is producing bedlam, perhaps it’s time to rethink. If you think noisy, pushy display is the mark of the spiritual super-hero, perhaps you need to reconsider. It’s a fine check to put on any action or verbalization you might consider: Is this aiding peace or causing confusion? I honestly don’t care how good it makes you feel to do your spiritual thing, because at least in the congregational setting, that’s not the point. You can do that at home in your private place. Here, the call is to act and speak so as to edify the whole, and promote the peace of the whole. End of minor rant.
[11/14/20]
We have still to consider the arguments for and against the idea of this office continuing into the present day. The first argument against the idea is one I have already looked at; the lack of evidence for any effort at providing for the continuance of the office. As I noted, there has never been any such provision made, whether in the Old or the New Covenant. That being the case, this does not seem to me a great concern. A second, and stronger argument concerns the completeness of God’s Word. If the prophet speaks as from God, does he not claim an authority to his words that is on par with Scripture? I would maintain the answer is no. When I look across those examples drawn from the book of Acts, I do not see claims being made to any such thing. I see specific news of coming events afforded the Church. I see a gift for preaching of a form, but not so much that form that belongs more to pastors and teachers.
Observe once more what was happening when Judas and Silas came to Antioch. They encouraged and strengthened (Ac 15:32). They edify, exhort, console (1Co 14:3). They may expound upon application of doctrine. They almost certainly would bring doctrine and Scripture to bear in their exhortations and the consolations alike. It is devoutly to be hoped they would, for otherwise what have you got beyond the opinions of man, however well founded? They are not delivering Scripture or anything on par with Scripture. The only place you see something close to that is in the abuse of gifts in Corinth. But that, it must be said, is an abuse of gifts, not an office filled. That being the case, I suppose I ought to question whether the qualities described there belong to gift, office, or both. I think I come down to this: It is quite possible to have the gift quite apart from the office, but I do not suppose one could hold the office apart from the gift.
This leads me to a side thought, since we really don’t have all that much to go on as regards the office. If, as its opponents suggest, the issue is promulgation of something with the force of Scripture, then perhaps the office is better understood as applying to those trusted deputies of the Apostles, who were themselves sent on mission by the appointing authority of the Apostles. That would at least make sense in the chain of authority that Paul puts forward, and would make a reasonable argument as to their being discontinued on much the same basis that the Apostolic office is discontinued: The possibility of appointment ceased with the Apostles, ergo the possibility of office ceased with the Apostles. But this does not in fact concord with the few examples of identified, New Covenant prophets that we are given. Those we see are not, so far as we can discern, appointees of the Apostles, nor even close companions of the Apostles – at least not in all cases. The four daughters of Simon were not so, nor Agabus and company. Judas and Silas we might account as such, and they had certainly gone out on appointment by the Apostles in Jerusalem, but this doesn’t appear to me to be a defining feature.
I have seen it suggested in some articles that the office of prophet was more related to a significant gift for prayer, but I cannot arrive at any sort of basis for this understanding from what I see in the New Testament depiction of the office, such as it is. Neither could I find in any such view a reason to suppose the office discontinued. For all that it is downplayed in many parts of the Church, I do think the New Testament office bears much in common with the Old. Where it comes up short, perhaps, is in the enscripturation of the prophets’ words. But then, not every Old Testament prophet was an author of Scripture, was he? Elijah’s activities are certainly well covered by the text, but not by his hand. So, also, Elisha. I will grant that most of the non-authoring prophets we encounter are of the false type, but not all. I don’t know that we can rule out that there were other prophets whose words being more focused on a specific time and place were not preserved as useful to the people of God through the ages. That, it seems to me, would be in keeping with those letters of the Apostles of which we have some notice given, but no record preserved. Nor do we have record of their every conversation. We have what God desired us to have.
So, certainly, let us insist that the office of the prophet does not entail an authority equal to the Apostolic authority, let alone Scripture. That, so far as I can tell, does not give cause to suppose the office closed. It does, I think, inform us as to the bounds of the office, but we were already informed of that: First apostles, then prophets, then pastors and teachers. That is the order given us by Scripture which, being God-breathed, is our final authority in this life. That is the measure against which the grandest of proclamations must be tested. That includes such ostensible sources as dreams and visions, voices in the head, or whatever other, supernatural or super-spiritual claims may be given for origin. To those who insist that every thought and action is undertaken at God’s rather immediate direction, or at least viscerally experienced affirmation, I would have to ask: Does it concur with Scripture? Because if it does not, your source is suspect, whatever authority may be claimed or supposed.
But that’s not where I see the New Testament prophets functioning. I see them functioning, as Paul describes, by way of strengthening, comforting, exhorting, consoling. They bring news, perhaps, of coming events – generally, so far as I see, near term events. They do so not as pronouncing judgment or pronouncing anything, really, other than, “This is about to happen.” Okay. Forewarned is forearmed. Well and good. Does it, should it, shift our course? That’s a different matter, and not one, honestly, for the prophet to address. That is for the man of God to discern for himself, albeit he is certainly welcome to avail himself to sound, godly counsel, and the prophet would be as welcome in that regard as any other. But the prophet, apart from these rare pronouncements, appear to me to expound from Scripture in a way aimed at addressing the present need of their hearers. It is far nearer the pastoral office than the apostolic, in that regard. But I cannot see reducing it to being just another way of denoting pastors in their preaching role.
This being said, I find no particular cause to suppose the office has been eliminated from the Church. I do think that much that goes on in the Church that calls itself prophecy, or comes from those who lay claim to the title or office of prophet is very questionable. But then, I think that was also the case in the Old Testament. Certainly, in Jeremiah’s day there was something of a plague of false prophets in the Church, in the service of God’s people. I could readily argue that part of the Corinthian problem was a similar issue of false prophets. I don’t know why we should suppose it would be different in our own day.
But if it is wrong to accept that there are those appointed by God to speak to His people with particular strength for edification, for consolation, for exhortation – perhaps sharing somewhat with the evangelist, but rather aimed at lifting God’s people amidst trial rather than increasing the number of God’s people – I have to ask why that would be? And why would that not have been so all along? Is it because, “the perfect has come” (1Co 13:10)? That can hardly be the case, for the Perfect would be the coming of Christ and the consummation of the Kingdom, which I don’t suppose we would suggest has come to pass and we missed it. Given Paul’s setting in speaking of that time, it remained future for him, and for those whose gifts were in use in Corinth. The present situation as he describes it still applies. “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part” (1Co 13:9). If you wish to tell me our knowledge is now full and complete, I dare say we have some doctrinal depths to delve together, for I would have firm and unquestionable answer! But that’s not the case. We still know in part. If it were not so, there would be no cause for denominational distinctions. There would be no heresies to plague the Church, and for that matter, no persecutions. Satan would be done away, and we would be already enjoying the new heavens and the new earth. But whatever one imagines those to be, this certainly isn’t it! We can’t even foresee the results of an election in which we’ve already voted.
What you can find is plenty of prophets making pronouncements as to the outcome, and who knows? They may even be found right so far as that goes. That doesn’t render the pronouncement, or any other pronouncement from that source equal to Scripture. It may or may not affirm their proper claim to office as a prophet. The most one will be able to say, if in fact the pronouncement proves accurate, is that they have not thereby been disqualified. But there is a pollution of that office, if office it is, that pertains in our day, which is the idea that the prophet is granted a few mulligans while they are training. The thought is put forward that even the Old Testament prophets had to learn their gift. Umm. Best as I can tell, there’s absolutely no evidence of that. If you are speaking for God, and God is God, then there really isn’t much reason for training wheels, is there? It’s either Him commanding and you delivering, or its vain imagination. And God has never taken well to those who would claim His authority to speak where in fact it was not given, or who claimed His authority for their own ideas.
Yet even this is insufficient in my view to suggest any end to the office. That problem was there all along, as I have said. If heresy and error do not nullify the entire structure of the Church where the Church has held true, why would the abuses and false claims of prophetic office nullify the validity of a true and proper prophet? Is he laying claim to Godly authority to alter Scripture? Well, then, already we have his measure, don’t we? Is he observing coming events that we might be forewarned and not taken by surprise? Then we shall see, shan’t we? That doesn’t require that we alter course unless God otherwise makes plain to us that we ought. Again, the examples we have go both ways. On the one hand, news of coming trial led to compassionate preparation (but I would note, for others, not for self-preservation). On the other, news of coming trial had no particular impact, other than to let the forewarned be aware and unsurprised when things turned out as God had already indicated. One can see how it would be helpful to Paul to know beforehand that imprisonment would result, not from his crimes, but from offended unbelief amongst his fellow Jews. Being tossed into prison by his own people might otherwise have come as a bit of a discouragement. But knowing God knew rendered it part of God’s plan and purpose. All to the good, then. Let’s get after it.
Where do I come down on this? I have to say that while I have known many a claimant to the gift of prophecy, and have, in some small way, felt that gift on occasion myself, I don’t know that I’ve ever known one I would say had made legitimate claim to office. That may speak more of my innate skepticism than their falsity. But I think we do well to remain a tad skeptical without going so far as to despise the prophetic word (1Th 5:20). Note the full instruction there. Do not despise, but examine carefully. Hold onto what is good, and abstain from what is evil (1Th 5:21-22). That doesn’t mean we’ll accept the prophets, but only for good news. It means we test against God’s Word, and that which accords we can accept. That, I have to say, does not set the prophet on par with Scripture, but most distinctly subservient to Scripture.
If there is yet a place for this office, it is not such that we ought
to expect it in every church and every place. It’s not so much a part
of the governance of the Church, in my view, as a gift given the
Church for her benefit, and for her necessity, where it is given and
for the period for which it is given. There is this idea that gifts
are permanent possessions; that one once given the gift of prophecy is
thenceforth a prophet evermore. I don’t buy it. Gifts are given for
purpose, and if purpose changes, I see no reason to suppose the gift
would remain. If the need for a prophet in office arise, I would
expect God is able to assign His man to office. If that need is met
and over, I don’t know why He would continue to maintain the office.
Sorry, that’s the best I can do. I don’t see it necessarily
terminated as an office. Neither do I see it in the capacity of man
to appoint, or even train up for this office. That certainly makes it
challenging, but as I say, best I can do.
