A Biblical Definition and View of Prophecy
January 13th, 2006 by Steve Sensenig
n my most recent post, I blogged my introductory comments regarding Cessationism and Continuationism. Libbie and Ray have both weighed in with good responses, and in this post, I would like to try to lay out a biblical definition and view of prophecy. I think that perhaps this can help us put some of this debate into perspective and shape the direction of it.
Now, many people have mentioned what Ray and I have both observed: namely, it seems from Scripture that there are two types of prophecies. To use the familiar terms, there is foretelling (telling the future, which is most commonly associated with the word “prophecy”) and there is forthtelling, or speaking the mind of God.
Biblically speaking, how do I arrive at the conclusion of these two aspects of prophecy? Moses is referred to as a prophet in Deut 18:18. And yet what he was speaking to Israel was the word of God for their present tense, not a predictive statement of the future. To be sure, there were predictive statements (such as what would happen when they got in the land, etc.), but through Moses came the entire Law, a “forthtelling” for their day.
Additionally, many of the prophets recorded in the OT are speaking the words of God, just as Deut 18:18 predicted. While Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others told about things to come (most notably the arrival of Jesus), they also were speaking to the people about the present conditions of idolatry, spiritual adultery, etc. They were speaking appeals to repent and turn back to God. They were the very mouthpiece of God.
Now, as Ray pointed out in another discussion, we know that Hebrews 1:1,2 shows us that Christ was a very key figure in that line of prophets. But He was much greater than a mere prophet. Consider this:
- The prophets spoke the word of God, but Jesus is the Word of God.
- The prophets said, “Thus saith the Lord”, but Jesus said, “Verily, verily I say unto you.”
- The prophets were men representing God, but Jesus is a man and God.
To underestimate the importance of Jesus in the subject of prophecy is to overlook a major element. But, we must look, then at the relationship of prophecy to Christians in the New Testament. If Hebrews 1:1,2 means that prophecy ceased with the coming of Jesus, then we have a bit of a difficulty. 1 Corinthians 14:29-32, which outlines the way in which prophecy should function in the church gathering, would be completely unnecessary if there were no prophecy after Christ. Hebrews 1, itself, would be unnecessary. In fact, most of the New Testament (other than the Gospels and Acts, which are mostly historical records and testimonies) would be unnecessary because we would have everything we needed from the words of Jesus.
Now, don’t think that I’m heading off into heresy by implying that we need “Jesus plus…” for salvation. Absolutely not! But we are given instructions regarding prophecy within the New Testament, after the ascension of Christ, and so we must examine what that prophecy is. Is it foretelling and forthtelling? Or is it one or the other? Or is it something else entirely?
I think I’ll pause at this point and see if anyone wants to interact so far. I’ll post more later with regard to examples of prophecy in the New Testament, and then we’ll get into whether it was limited to the “Apostolic Age”. We’ll also talk about what we can determine it means to “weigh” a prophecy and how to handle false prophecy.
I’ll show my hand a little bit here in advance to say that I don’t think anything has changed over time with regard to how we should view prophecy, how we weigh it, and what we do with false prophecies/prophets (although I’m not going to advocate literal stoning!). And one final point I hope to touch on in this discussion is how the idea of “speaking the mind of God” today relates to sola Scriptura, and whether this is a true conflict or a false dichotomy. Everybody still with me?! 
Until next time,
steve 
Posted in General | 
Print This Post
|
Fabulous start! Well-done and clear: now, let’s dig in!
Ray: Easy now. Don’t give me too much to feel good about. I expect some solid critique from you, sir!
Seriously, taking the time to think through these posts is really getting me excited about this topic now because it’s firming some ideas up for me.
I hope to be able to post again later today, but it may be tomorrow before I get it together.
Maybe by the time I get around to posting again, Libbie will be back (not sure how many hours ahead of us she is). I know her blog indicates that this topic is important to her with regard to the sufficiency of Scripture (at least I hope I’m paraphrasing that accurately). So, I’m anxious to get to that part of it.
steve
I do plan on providing an honest critique; but it was a very good start — No hobby horse out of the gate; give us all a chance to contemplate and prayerfully respond…
It’s Saturday Morning here, and with three kids and shopping to do, I shall leave rational comment to this evening. see you then.
I hope you don’t mind a “stranger” speaking into this dialog. However, I am preparing to undertake a doctorate, God willing, and I will be dealing with the subject that you are addressing.
Are you certain that you have not over reached a little on this first post? We know that Hebrews 1:1-2 was written well after 1 and 2 Corinthians, as well as 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and, indeed, all of the Pauline writings. Thus, it would not have rendered 1 Corinthians, chapters 12-14 in particular, un-necessary. Paul is writing to the infant church in his epistles, as they mature and solidify. Thus, he is giving them instruction. Corinth, in particularly, was an unruly and proud church prone to excess. Thus, he regulates their use of the “sign gifts,” going so far as to warn them that tongues are a sign to the unbeliever, rather than for the believers.
Many say that Hebrews two speaks to the miraculous gifts, foretelling included, as belonging to those who sat under Christ’s teachings directly.
Hebrews 2:1-4 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, 3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.
Thus, some point to “After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will…” as indicating that those who heard Christ preach, or who were among those 70 appointed by Him were those who were the prophets…
I’m not advocating that position. However, when you write:
“If Hebrews 1:1,2 means that prophecy ceased with the coming of Jesus, then we have a bit of a difficulty. 1 Corinthians 14:29-32, which outlines the way in which prophecy should function in the church gathering, would be completely unnecessary if there were no prophecy after Christ. Hebrews 1, itself, would be unnecessary. In fact, most of the New Testament (other than the Gospels and Acts, which are mostly historical records and testimonies) would be unnecessary because we would have everything we needed from the words of Jesus.”
…you may be taking a rather large and in some ways indefensible leap. I write in the spirit of encouragement, not to criticize. This is an important topic and I look forward, as time permits, to reading more of what you have to say.
In most cases few believe that prophecy ceased with Christ–even cessationists…
Keith, I’m sorry for taking so long to respond to you here. Welcome to my blog, and in no way do I mind a “stranger” joining in the conversation.
This is an extremely old post (over two years old, to be exact!) so the conversation is rather dusty in my mind.
However, going back and re-reading what I wrote, and what has been said, I’m not sure I understand what it is you feel I’m “over reaching” on.
The part you quoted was not a position I was advocating, but rather using that logic to say that “prophecy” in the bulk of the New Testament must not be referring to the same thing as Hebrews 1:1-2.
Care to clarify?