Do we execute ministers/pastors when they get their sermons wrong?
not nearly enough ;)
Here’s an alarming thought. In a church I know well, some of the young people (late teens/early twenties) have been heard to say, “Well, if our pastor says/approves/condones it, then it must be right.”
I thought that no human pastor was perfect, and to blindly assume that he has it right every single time is, in my estimation, an unsafe move.
While we wait for Enkidu’s response to Gordon, let’s chew on this.
1. The difference between revealed knowledge in Acts 21:4 and Acts 21:11 is not minimal. Verse 4 says nothing of binding, nor of handing over, nor of arrest. It is a warning not to procede up to Jerusalem, but without details. Therefore to claim that nothing is revelatory is misleading.
2. Agabus accurately foretold that Paul would have problems (a) with the Jews, (b) in Jerusalem, (c) that it involved being bound, (d) that he would be in Gentile custody, not dealt with solely by the Jews. These are accurate.
I don’t want to be too down on poor old Agabus, as it is clear that he got the important bits right. However your summary of what he did get right is generous.
On 2 a. : There were quite a lot of Jews in Jerusalem in those days, I’m led to believe. Is this really an advance on the information in 21:4? Looks like a sensible deduction to me, especially given Paul’s track record of dealing with the Jews. Indeed, given that 21:4 is a summary statement, it may not even be a deduction, but rather a restatement with embellishment. Note also Acts 20:23, where Paul has already received indication that imprisonment and afflictions await. Given this, the likely involvement of both Jews and Gentiles (the information that Agabus may, on one reading, be adding) in ‘imprisonment and affliction’ in Jerusalem seems unexceptional.
On 2 b. : That is what he has essentially been told in 21:4. But in any case, it is the same sort of unexceptional deduction as the one in 2.a
On 2 c. : This is only accurate when you assume the details about hands and feet are true (given that Luke doesn’t confirm them) and skate lightly over questions about chains and being bound to be flogged (which Agabus doesn’t mention but Luke does). But let’s allow that it is indeed accurate, while remaining curious as to why so much is omitted that is relevant both to Paul’s physical situations and to any sense that Agabus has picked up more than any careful observer of the situation might reasonably have guessed. Even when we do allow this, it is one of those things that in the flow of the narrative, and theologically speaking, is trivial.
(If Agabus knew anything of how prisoners were normally bound, it may not even be prophetic but merely descriptive—I confess I speculate here).
On 2 d. : The thing that is striking about Agabus’ prophecy is that he completely reverses the order of what happens. The Gentiles are meant to hand him over to the Jews. Instead, they end up rescuing him from the Jews, and more than once. So no, I don’t agree with you that this is accurate.
Agabus’s prophecy may, in the circumstances, have been a striking crystallization and application of information already known. That is not to be sneered at, and fits with other ways of looking at prophecy (including the one from Claire’s article linked earlier). But it also fits well with the warnings by Paul in 1 Co 14:29 that the words of prophets should be weighed and not just blindly accepted as true in every respect.
I’m still wondering about 1 Corinthians 14’s directives.
1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For those who speak in a tongue [a] do not speak to other people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But those who prophesy speak to people for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 Those who speak in a tongue edify themselves, but those who prophesy edify the church.
then later…
26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church; let them speak to themselves and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
What is prophecy here? Is there a specific biblical theology thing happening here because God’s sufficient word was not finished yet? Do we really KNOW what prophecy is here? Is 26-28 (a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue with interpretation) all subsets of the one category, “prophecy”? If so, why is “a revelation” a distinct sub-set of “general prophecy”?
And what does “a revelation” mean in the Greek anyway?
I don’t see ANYTHING like this passage happening in conservative evangelical churches or out there “cutting edge” charismatic churches either. The charismatic churches I’ve visited might sing in “tongues” for 4 minutes, and then someone “interprets” for 20 seconds. What’s up with tongues, does it have a lot of syllables or something?
LET’S EVALUATE THE WORLD’S TONGUES AND INTERPRETERS
In evaluating “tongues” and the “interpretation” are we allowed to record the tongues? We could then line up the top few tongues speakers and record them, and then play their “tongues” to the top 10 “interpreters” in a church. We’d record these interpreters as they did their thang, play back, and see if anything matched. With modern technology and the internet and You-tube we could arrange committees to “evaluate” whole denominations, and quickly check whether there was a single “tongues/interpretation” thing happening on the planet. Seems biblical to me. We’re told to evaluate it.
I’ve asked my parents if they would consider doing this, but for some reason their AOG church doesn’t want to implement verse 29. I suspect no AOG church will… it’s just too threatening to their whole experience thang. Imagine if their “miraculous tongues” just turned out to be some psychological experience they were having? I once saw a young bloke at Epping Boys lose his faith when he figured out that the tongues thing was just him. His faith was grounded in his experience, and weepingly he kept saying “But it’s just me… there’s nothing in it. So if this is a dud, what else is?” He hadn’t really been taught to rely on God’s word, and as his “faith in tongues” wavered his worldview and Christianity collapsed.
Gordon,
I am shocked that you are so severe in having such a literalistic view of judging prophecy. Shall we dance through the Old testament prophets with such a fine tooth comb.
Let’s see, which one ... Jeremiah or Ezekiel… hmmm one has to be declared not a prophet because much of what one prophesied is contained in the other.
But then again, as Old Testament prophets they had such an “annoying” habit of applying the promises & curses of God delivered through Moses. Most of what they say was already known in the Pentateuch. Every Israelite who knew the Pentateuch knew that God would destroy the nation if they stayed unfaithful. They also knew that he would bring them back after a certain period of time. They knew the consequences of getting into the land, getting fat & getting lazy & not remaining faithful. They knew the consequences of ripping off the poor Israelites. So there is nothing really new or revelatory in the OT prophets, so let’s discount them as being prophets hey Gordon! They failed to live up to any of the standards that you have set for the New Testament ones, so either they were wrong, or maybe, just maybe, you have got your sights set a bit high.
But then again, as Old Testament prophets they had such an “annoying” habit of applying the promises & curses of God delivered through Moses. Most of what they say was already known in the Pentateuch. Every Israelite who knew the Pentateuch knew that God would destroy the nation if they stayed unfaithful. They also knew that he would bring them back after a certain period of time. They knew the consequences of getting into the land, getting fat & getting lazy & not remaining faithful. They knew the consequences of ripping off the poor Israelites. So there is nothing really new or revelatory in the OT prophets, so let’s discount them as being prophets hey Gordon! They failed to live up to any of the standards that you have set for the New Testament ones, so either they were wrong, or maybe, just maybe, you have got your sights set a bit high.
This is what I’ve been arguing… that the 1 Corinthians 14 passage seems to indicate that prophecy has a very broad description of things and now you’ve highlighted just how broad a mandate OT prophets were.
It looks like I really am a prophet when I tell someone the gospel and warn them what will happen if they ignore it.
But Dave, we don’t want to big note ourselves or call ourselves fancy names do we?!
I still think there is a difference between doing the work of an evangelist, and bringing a prophecy. In the follow on to Gordon’s earlier comment (& I now realise my silly mistake… just as Gordon was mistaken thinking I am still in the West, instead of being north of the north shore in Hornsby… which I often call “the western suburbs of the north shore") I did not point out that each of the OT prophets also had a direct satellite link to the heavenly telecast of receiving a direct revelation from God… It’s just that their message from God was consistent with what was previously revealed.
just as Gordon was mistaken thinking I am still in the West, instead of being north of the north shore in Hornsby… which I often call “the western suburbs of the north shore")
It is, it is indeed, and this of course is why I called you the prophet of the West...in much the same way that I am sensing right now that there is someone out there reading this right now named Sarah...or who possibly has someone close to them named Sarah… who is suffering from lower back pain… or a herniated appendix...and I’m getting a very strong impression that this person, or their friend, has a church association or something spiritual going on…
Once again Gordon you have picked up some of the worst features of people trying to put into action what the Bible says.
I certainly am not into the gimmicky side of prophecy.
I have read enough of the unusual to a bit odd, which certainly have been weighed & found wanting. I have both witnessed & been told of some that have been very revelatory & used mightily by God, even if it was simply a drawing which evoked a massive response in someone else & helped them deal with a major issue in their life. We don’t then elevate the person & send them on the circuit. Some of the most gifted people I have met, with extra-ordinary abilities which would make most people’s hair stand on end at how surprising they are, keep on meeting week after week in very conservative churches, not wanting to make a fuss, simply praising God that occasionally they can be of assistance to others.
As I have stated often, I don’t want to limit God from doing what he has already promised will happen in the Scriptures.
Craig, that is why I don’t actively hype up Christians to try prophesying. That tends to breed false prophets. If however, having been taught that God does gift his people even with some of the more extra-ordinary gifts (or even if they haven’t been taught), God may still give a prophecy.
He has told us to seek them. He has told us how to deal with an abundance of them in the church “gathering”, and he has told us how to test them....
are we ready to allow God to act in accordance to his word? or do we react to abuses & say He will never do what he promised, & then try to find ways of circumcising his word?
I have just re-read 1 Corinthians 14. I still cannot fathom why you have problems with it Dave, unless maybe they come from the traumas of your past experience with abuses of prophecy & the power it creates in the prophetic people’s lives, so you have clung to those who say it means preaching because that is somehow safer. I don’t know. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I am often wrong. If I have overstepped the mark, forgive me. I am a preacher, not a prophet.
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Twas Enkers who argued that what the prophet said had to be revelatory.
Actually it was Wayne Grudem and Don Carson, and I just agreed with them…
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]In what sense does this definition include the example of Agabus in Acts 21:11? here the bits that are revelatory are not new either to us or to the original intended hearer (compare v 4, where the essence of Agabus’s warning has already been revealed by the Spirit) and the bits that are new are not revelatory (that is, they are wrong when compared to the events subsequently recorded in Acts 21).
Or are you saying that the content of the prophecy need not be new in order to be revelatory?
Can God reveal the same information in two different ways? Or could specific details have varied in different circumstances so that, although the general details were similar, the precise messasge differed?
Gordon, you’ve claimed that the information Agabus conveyed was already generally available, although perhaps equating what we can divine from the narrative (where we benefit from the narrator’s omniscient viewpoint) and what individuals in contact with Paul could have ascertained and subsequently related to him is somewhat presumptuous. I think the best you can argue is that the revelatory nature of Agabus’ message was ambiguous if determined purely from the content recorded in Acts. This means that the detail we are looking for lies elsewhere either within the text or in the tacit knowledge of the reader and author. Here there are at least two clues: (1) Agabus’ words “the Holy Spirit says this” (Acts 21:11; cf. Acts 13:2; and note the similarity to Isa 7:7; 10:24; 22:15; and many other places introducing prophecy in the LXX); and (2) the description of Agabus as a prophet. One could easily argue that Isaiah’s words amounted to little more than a condensation of information generally available, but they are presented as specific divine words spoken anew into a particular historical context.
Ignoring (2) is akin to suggesting that in understanding the nature of prophecy we overlook the meaning of the term and seek to build a case based on the ambiguities of the text (given that the audience assumed a specific meaning for the term and they used that to fill in the gaps that you exploit in order to redefine “prophecy").
I think Grudem has a good analysis of NT prophecy, such that the distinctive feature of NT prophecy (in contrast to OT canonical prophecy—there are, of course, prophets in the OT whose words are not recorded) is not its revelatory nature, but rather the authority of the pronouncements.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]It looks like I really am a prophet when I tell someone the gospel and warn them what will happen if they ignore it.
Except that this understanding empties the term “prophecy” of any meaning! OTOH, if you announced that disaster would fall upon Sydney if it did not repent (ala Jonah and Ninevah), then I would consider you a prophet (albeit perhaps a false prophet).
Except that yet again we come back to 1 Cor 14 because there a subtleties here that just are not being acknowledged.
20 Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21 In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,
says the Lord.” [e]
22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church; let them speak to themselves and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
Point 1.
22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
Isn’t God’s word contradicting itself here? On the one hand tongues are a sign for unbelievers, on the other hand unbelievers are going to be flummoxed when they encounter it. What is happening?
Point 2.
Once we are clearer on tongues it will help tie back into prophecy, but let’s note that in this passage which compares and contrasts prophecy and tongues that right in thick of this comparison we have verses 26-28 which seem to include a variety of commendable activities as “prophecy” in contrast to tongues. Indeed, even interpreted tongues seems to be “prophetic” — but is not necessarily even revelatory — yet is still in the “good prophetic” category.
So it seems to me that prophecy must apply God’s word to a specific situation, but not all prophecy must be “revelatory”.
22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
Isn’t God’s word contradicting itself here? On the one hand tongues are a sign for unbelievers, on the other hand unbelievers are going to be flummoxed when they encounter it. What is happening?
See Carson, Showing the Spirit (and others) who argue convincingly that “sign” here is a sign of judgment.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Point 2.
Once we are clearer on tongues it will help tie back into prophecy, but let’s note that in this passage which compares and contrasts prophecy and tongues that right in thick of this comparison we have verses 26-28 which seem to include a variety of commendable activities as “prophecy” in contrast to tongues. Indeed, even interpreted tongues seems to be “prophetic” — but is not necessarily even revelatory — yet is still in the “good prophetic” category.
So it seems to me that prophecy must apply God’s word to a specific situation, but not all prophecy must be “revelatory”.
Your link didn’t work for me, so I cannot respond to it. I can’t see how you can argue that vv. 26-28 include a number of activities under the rubric of “prophecy” which is treated separately. Paul does generally equate prophecy with tongues + interpretation, but not these other items.
Nor do I see anything that supports your claim about the revelatory nature of prophecy, you’ll need to elaborate on your thinking here.
Point 2.
Once we are clearer on tongues it will help tie back into prophecy, but let’s note that in this passage which compares and contrasts prophecy and tongues that right in thick of this comparison we have verses 26-28 which seem to include a variety of commendable activities as “prophecy” in contrast to tongues.
Why do you think that the activities of
a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.
are included under the umbrella of “prophecy”. I don’t think it follows at all. I am convinced that “a revelation” is (because of v29 & 30), but not the rest. Paul is describing what has been reported to him as occuring in their congregation. He then gives the over-riding principle which is the need for edification.
He then instructs how the tongue speakers are to be organised in the congregation. & then instructs how the prophets are to be organised. The logic flow is simple.
I read Paul is giving 2 sets of 2-3 speakers (one being the tongue speakers & another being the prophets). I do not equate the two, and see no reason why we should equate the two. I think that when the two are equated, then you get the proposition that prophecy need not be related to a revelatory nature. Separating the two also prevents hymn singing being counted as prophetic.
Martin (Enkidu) Shields - 29 January 2008 01:14 AM
One could easily argue that Isaiah’s words amounted to little more than a condensation of information generally available, but they are presented as specific divine words spoken anew into a particular historical context.
It’s possible that ‘little more’ is understatement on your part, yes?
But I wonder if there is some shifting ground here. Do you think that revelation need not reveal something new?
If so, our mutual definitions of what prophecy means is likely to be a lot closer than I originally thought.
And I will have a follow-up question! Perhaps you can guess what it is!
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
