The Role of a New Testament Prophet

[Jeffrey]

Meanwhile, back to the topic of NT Prophets. Sorry guys.

[Sabby]

How does this definition of NT prophet sound as far as "forthtelling" or speaking for "someone else":
As the Bible is given to man to discover Jesus Christ, a prophet is one (as the apostles) that understands Jesus' complete fulfilment of every prophetic utterance in the OT and expounds to believers and unbelievers alike the Kingdom of God.

You might say, "Well, duh", but we have all heard people that prophesy about some incredible stuff...
"9/11 an inside job", "your wife will have blond hair", etc.

How about some NT examples of directional or confirmational prophecy!

[Sam]

Right now the only people I can think of in the New Testament who are called prophets are:
Anna (Luke2:36)
John the Baptist (Luke 7:28)
Agabus (Acts 11:27-28, Acts 21:10) and unnamed others (Acts 11:27-28)
Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32)

note that the Acts 13:1 Saul, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen are called prophets and teachers. I don't know if they all were both prophets and teachers or if some of them were prophets and some of them were teachers.

[stephenroehm]

Originally Posted by Sam

Right now the only people I can think of in the New Testament who are called prophets are:
Anna (Luke2:36)
John the Baptist (Luke 7:28)
Agabus (Acts 11:27-28, Acts 21:10) and unnamed others (Acts 11:27-28)
Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32)

note that the Acts 13:1 Saul, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen are called prophets and teachers. I don't know if they all were both prophets and teachers or if some of them were prophets and some of them were teachers.

Jesus was called a prophet by the Samarian woman at the well.

[Sister Alvear]

I personally believe there is a huge difference between an Old Testament and a New Testament prophet...however that is just my personal opinion...I am no Bible teacher...

[Godsdrummer]

11/12/2010

The ministry of Prophet


I have had much debate in my mind about the ministry and just how much authority they should wield, and if they have any authority at all.

Right now the subject of a prophet is the center of my mind, in discussions in the recent past I have found that the idea that a prophet is one that tells of future events and only tells future events has become a pill that I refuse to swallow.

Some one ask me a few days ago why could I now accept bible examples to broaden my knowledge? The question came as I quoted Paul's definition of a prophet, given in Corithians.

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Let me look at the Hebrew and Greek definitions. I am just going to use Strongs at this time. G4396
προφήτης
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

H5030
נביא
nâbı̂y'
naw-bee'
From H5012; a prophet or (generally) inspired man: - prophecy, that prophesy, prophet.

Why we can't get away from the Websters definition I can only imagine. I think it is we are so worked up about future events as at least half the church world believes in a catalistic end of the world.

Not helping the situation has been the doctrine of "end time teaching" in the last 200 years. More commonly known as dispensationalist, or futurist.

The fact is the primary bible definition of the word prophet is a inspired speaker. All this simply means is that God inspires the words he speaks. Maybe the examples we have in OT times are of the man of God comming with warnings of comming judgment.

Funny thing is we have many that fulfill the actions and examples of a prophet today, we just don't call them prophets, we call them preachers. There is only one true prophecy in OT given by men, those are the prophecys concerning the comming of Christ, the Messiah. All the rest of the messages to the people are just that. Messages of comming punishment for disobedience. These in my mind cannot be prophecys by our definition for the simple reason that God already told the people that he would bring these exact judgments on the people if they disobeyed his law. Further the warnings came in plenty of time for them to repent and by example and God's word lets us know had they repented God would have stayed the judgment.

Now in my understanding prophecy of future events cannot and will not be changed. Or else they would not be prophecy.

The question then is what is prophecy today? Or ever has been. We attend a church that calls many by the title prophet, they are simply those that speak to edification, exhortation, and comfort, when the spirit moves there may be several that speak a word to the congregation, on occasion there may be a word to an individual. This happened to me on two occasions, on the first occasion, there was a change in my life that came that I have never experience in all my years of being in church.

The only thing I can say is experience along with study of God's word has confirmed to me the change in the way I see scripture. I know this goes against the teachings and traditions I have always preached and taught, but I have to go with the truth of the word over traditions and teachings of man. Am I wrong? I have been before and I will be again, I just ask before one dismisses these ideas as false doctrine on principle, to honestly ask the hard questions I have ask myself in the last ten years. Just because a teaching has been accepted and been around for a generation or two does not make it true.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

11/12/2010

The ministry of Prophet


I have had much debate in my mind about the ministry and just how much authority they should wield, and if they have any authority at all.

Right now the subject of a prophet is the center of my mind, in discussions in the recent past I have found that the idea that a prophet is one that tells of future events and only tells future events has become a pill that I refuse to swallow.

Some one ask me a few days ago why could I now accept bible examples to broaden my knowledge? The question came as I quoted Paul's definition of a prophet, given in Corithians.

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Let me look at the Hebrew and Greek definitions. I am just going to use Strongs at this time. G4396
προφήτης
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

H5030
נביא
nâbı̂y'
naw-bee'
From H5012; a prophet or (generally) inspired man: - prophecy, that prophesy, prophet.

Why we can't get away from the Websters definition I can only imagine. I think it is we are so worked up about future events as at least half the church world believes in a catalistic end of the world.

Not helping the situation has been the doctrine of "end time teaching" in the last 200 years. More commonly known as dispensationalist, or futurist.

The fact is the primary bible definition of the word prophet is a inspired speaker. All this simply means is that God inspires the words he speaks. Maybe the examples we have in OT times are of the man of God comming with warnings of comming judgment.

Funny thing is we have many that fulfill the actions and examples of a prophet today, we just don't call them prophets, we call them preachers. There is only one true prophecy in OT given by men, those are the prophecys concerning the comming of Christ, the Messiah. All the rest of the messages to the people are just that. Messages of comming punishment for disobedience. These in my mind cannot be prophecys by our definition for the simple reason that God already told the people that he would bring these exact judgments on the people if they disobeyed his law. Further the warnings came in plenty of time for them to repent and by example and God's word lets us know had they repented God would have stayed the judgment.

Now in my understanding prophecy of future events cannot and will not be changed. Or else they would not be prophecy.

The question then is what is prophecy today? Or ever has been. We attend a church that calls many by the title prophet, they are simply those that speak to edification, exhortation, and comfort, when the spirit moves there may be several that speak a word to the congregation, on occasion there may be a word to an individual. This happened to me on two occasions, on the first occasion, there was a change in my life that came that I have never experience in all my years of being in church.

The only thing I can say is experience along with study of God's word has confirmed to me the change in the way I see scripture. I know this goes against the teachings and traditions I have always preached and taught, but I have to go with the truth of the word over traditions and teachings of man. Am I wrong? I have been before and I will be again, I just ask before one dismisses these ideas as false doctrine on principle, to honestly ask the hard questions I have ask myself in the last ten years. Just because a teaching has been accepted and been around for a generation or two does not make it true.

This is why in my view that NT prophecies revolve around the fulfilled promises and prophesies of Jesus Christ hidden in the OT. It "works" because the sole reason God provided fallen man with the Bible was to discover Jesus Christ.
There's another thread along the lines of what if we didn't have the OT and some posters said we'd be better off. I understand what they are saying in all the legalisms borrowed from the OT that some are prone to apply to the New. In that regard, the OT becomes a weight "too grievous to be borne".
That is not the Old Testament understanding (I believe) that God desired for His church in the first century or today.
It is understood the first century prophets preached with inspiration. What did they preach? It was NOT 1 Thessalonians and the future coming of the Lord, since THAT author said he preached nothing but "Christ and him crucified". The Old Testament provided "proof texts" if you will, testimony, veracity and in some cases witness (martyrdom) of the Lord Jesus. We can't fully understand who He is without it. It takes more than flesh and blood to reveal it: it takes the inspiration of God.

Mt..16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.Mt..16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And anyone that preaches (with inspiration) Christ and Him crucified/the gospel-is according to the definition, a NT prophet.

Anyone willing to expand on this?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Sabby

This is why in my view that NT prophecies revolve around the fulfilled promises and prophesies of Jesus Christ hidden in the OT. It "works" because the sole reason God provided fallen man with the Bible was to discover Jesus Christ.
There's another thread along the lines of what if we didn't have the OT and some posters said we'd be better off. I understand what they are saying in all the legalisms borrowed from the OT that some are prone to apply to the New. In that regard, the OT becomes a weight "too grievous to be borne".
That is not the Old Testament understanding (I believe) that God desired for His church in the first century or today.
It is understood the first century prophets preached with inspiration. What did they preach? It was NOT 1 Thessalonians and the future coming of the Lord, since THAT author said he preached nothing but "Christ and him crucified". The Old Testament provided "proof texts" if you will, testimony, veracity and in some cases witness (martyrdom) of the Lord Jesus. We can't fully understand who He is without it. It takes more than flesh and blood to reveal it: it takes the inspiration of God.

Mt..16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.Mt..16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And anyone that preaches (with inspiration) Christ and Him crucified/the gospel-is according to the definition, a NT prophet.

Anyone willing to expand on this?

If I am unerstanding what you are saying we are not far from the way we each are thinking. As there was a time when I hardly use the OT I find that today I am in it ever more. As I do not view in the same light I did in the early years of my ministry.

I no longer see in the OT God as a God of supreime judgment sitting in heaven wating for man to fall so he can come judge us. I instead think of he years God would allow man to his own ways before bringing judgment down. Of the time between Noah and the flood to Abraham. As God looked till he found jst the right man that would become a "friend of God".

As his word says "he is the same yesterday today and forever" if the mind of God was for relationship with him, and he would let mankind go his way for several hundred years before he found in Abraham some one he could call friend. What does that say for those living today? That God is sitting waiting to judge us and send us to hell? Or just the opposite, that God came to earth to redeme us by his own blood, and having made the perfect way, we can come boldly to the throne and in him find true friendship.

The question is will you be his friend?

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Sabby

Mt..16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.Mt..16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I believe it of significant importance to also note that which Christ Jesus stated concerning the revelation of His identity as being the "rock" (that is to say, the very foundation) upon which His church would exist. In other words, unless, and until one has been granted this revelation then they have no basis upon which they might gain entrance into and become an adopted citizen of the kingdom of heaven (IMO, of course).

I base this personal belief upon the words of Acts 8:36-37, for there we find that, in response to the eunuch's inquiry concerning what might prevent him from obeying the commandment to be immersed in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," Phillip informed him that there was something which he MUST believe with his whole heart. And what was it that the eunuch was required to believe? None other than Christ Jesus was the Son of God (or, in other words, the human being "in" whom the eternal invisible Spirit of God dwelled).

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Originally Posted by Sabby

And anyone that preaches (with inspiration) Christ and Him crucified/the gospel-is according to the definition, a NT prophet.

Anyone willing to expand on this?

We find it written in Luke 16:16 that Christ Jesus said:
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

I've heard it often stated that this statement of our Lord implies/infers that He was saying that one must "press" themselves into the kingdom of God (that is to say, exert some effort... I think the common phrase is "to pray through"). I do not subscribe to such an interpretation, and here is why.....

Through the writings of the OT we find that God's dealings with mankind was restricted to the teachings of the law through the inspired words of His chosen prophets. This relationship continued until the appearance of John the Baptist, whose teachings which served, in effect, as the introduction of God's "new" covenant relationship with mankind (see the words of Peter, as written in Acts 10:34-37)

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;


Therefore, IMO, I believe that whenever Peter said that beginning with the preaching/teachings of John the Baptist, that "peace" (literal meaning "salvation") began "after" baptism "for the remission of sins," then "every man" that has heeded and obeyed the gospel, and therein become an "adopted" citizen of the kingdom of heaven, is "pressed" into the business of propagating that gospel. In effect, Peter's statement serves as a witness to our Lord's words of Luke 16:16.

Accordingly, each person who takes the writings of the sacred Scriptures and employs its contents in an effort to persuade another to embrace a particular belief, or through its use to influence the fundamental beliefs of another, is serving as a "prophet" of God (that is to say, they are acting as God's "mouthpiece").

Just some personal thoughts on what a "prophet" is today, and which by this understanding causes me, by publication of these words, to also be such a "prophet."

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Lafon

I believe it of significant importance to also note that which Christ Jesus stated concerning the revelation of His identity as being the "rock" (that is to say, the very foundation) upon which His church would exist. In other words, unless, and until one has been granted this revelation then they have no basis upon which they might gain entrance into and become an adopted citizen of the kingdom of heaven (IMO, of course).

I base this personal belief upon the words of Acts 8:36-37, for there we find that, in response to the eunuch's inquiry concerning what might prevent him from obeying the commandment to be immersed in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," Phillip informed him that there was something which he MUST believe with his whole heart. And what was it that the eunuch was required to believe? None other than Christ Jesus was the Son of God (or, in other words, the human being "in" whom the eternal invisible Spirit of God dwelled).

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.






We find it written in Luke 16:16 that Christ Jesus said:
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

I've heard it often stated that this statement of our Lord implies/infers that He was saying that one must "press" themselves into the kingdom of God (that is to say, exert some effort... I think the common phrase is "to pray through"). I do not subscribe to such an interpretation, and here is why.....

Through the writings of the OT we find that God's dealings with mankind was restricted to the teachings of the law through the inspired words of His chosen prophets. This relationship continued until the appearance of John the Baptist, whose teachings which served, in effect, as the introduction of God's "new" covenant relationship with mankind (see the words of Peter, as written in Acts 10:34-37)

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;


Therefore, IMO, I believe that whenever Peter said that beginning with the preaching/teachings of John the Baptist, that "peace" (literal meaning "salvation") began "after" baptism "for the remission of sins," then "every man" that has heeded and obeyed the gospel, and therein become an "adopted" citizen of the kingdom of heaven, is "pressed" into the business of propagating that gospel. In effect, Peter's statement serves as a witness to our Lord's words of Luke 16:16.

Accordingly, each person who takes the writings of the sacred Scriptures and employs its contents in an effort to persuade another to embrace a particular belief, or through its use to influence the fundamental beliefs of another, is serving as a "prophet" of God (that is to say, they are acting as God's "mouthpiece").

Just some personal thoughts on what a "prophet" is today, and which by this understanding causes me, by publication of these words, to also be such a "prophet."

I understand what you are saying.
Further, a NT prophet does not differ much from an OT one. When the OT prophets preached, prophecied, exhorted of a coming deliverer, judge, priest, King, Prophet, Branch, and Messiah, they were inspired by the Spirit of God.
This same Spirit of God provides inspiration for NT prophets to preach the bulls eye, big middle, and focal point of the entire Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have many prophetic "topics" today that imo, are way off the mark that Paul called the high calling of God in CHRIST JESUS. There are far too many people claiming the role of an apostolic prophet that use C.I. Scofield, John Maxwell, John McArthur, 7th Day Adventist power point presentations or Hagee for their eschatalogical references.

The role of a NT prophet is to preach the same Jesus that those in the OT did, imo. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He walked with Adam, spoke through the bush to Moses, provided a sacrifice for Abraham, anointed David and caused Zechariah to prophesy of that One who would enter Jerusalem on the foal of an ass.

We spend so much time chasing "signs" that we've forgotten that Jesus said the only sign that would be given would be the sign of the prophet Jonah, which was fulfilled completely in the death, burial and resurrection.
The gift of a prophet is not about preaching world events confirming Matthew 24, imo, but about the seed of Judah,

Ge..49:10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be