Prophets- Should Reformed Preachers Be Stoned?

[LinkH]

This is not a thread on the death penalty. Please read the opening post before responding. Please do not post on the topic of the death penalty in this thread.

Should Reformed preachers be stoned if they make a mistake while preaching? If the preacher is talking and he accidentally calls Elisah Elijah, should we pick up stones to throw at him?

That question is tongue in cheek. What I would like to talk about is the way so many in the Reformed movement, following in the footsteps of John Calvin, have redefined the words 'prophesy', 'prophecy', and 'prophet'.

If we look at how the words are used in scripture, they prophesying involves receiving a revelatory message from the Spirit and communicating it, usually through speech. (There may also have been prophecy through song. There is one reference to prophesying on musical instruments, and there were prophetic sign acts like walking around naked, burning hair, or wearing a dirty belt in the Old Testament.) Peter describes the prophesying of the Old Testament as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'

Propheciess in the Old Testament typically started with 'Thus saith the LORD.' Agabus, a church prophet from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts began his prophecy with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost.' Should we think that the prophecies of other prophets in the early church were Bible teaching sermons?

Paul tells us about the revelatory nature of prophecy when he gives instructions on church meetings, which include instructions on how 'every one of you' may teach, sing, speak in tongues, share revelations, and interpret in an edifying and orderly manner. If, while the prophets are speaking two or three, he says 'if a revelation comes to one sitting by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy....'

Prophesying is revelatory in nature. But many in the Reformed movement redefine the term to refer to preaching and teaching from the pulpit, or to particularly good preaching and teaching.

This goes back at least to John Calvin, who wrote, in his commentary on I Corinthians 12.

By this term he means, (in my opinion,) not those who were endowed with the gift of prophesying, but those who were endowed with a peculiar gift, not merely for interpreting Scripture, but also for applying it wisely for present use. [768] My reason for thinking so is this, that he prefers prophecy to all other gifts, on the ground of its yielding more edification -- a commendation that would not be applicable to the predicting of future events. Farther, when he describes the office of Prophet, or at least treats of what he ought principally to do, he says that he must devote himself to consolation, exhortation, and doctrine. Now these are things that are distinct from prophesyings. [769] Let us, then, by Prophets in this passage understand, first of all, eminent interpreters of Scripture, and farther, persons who are endowed with no common wisdom and dexterity in taking a right view of the present necessity of the Church, that they may speak suitably to it, and in this way be, in a manner, ambassadors to communicate the divine will.

And here, where he shows he is not dogmatic about it.

My reason for not agreeing with those who make the whole of the office of Prophet consist in the interpretation of Scripture, is this -- that Paul restricts the number of those who ought to speak, to two or three; (1 Corinthians 14:29,) which would not accord with a bare interpretation of Scripture. In fine, my opinion is this -- that the Prophets here spoken of are those who make known the will of God, by applying with dexterity and skill prophecies, threatenings, promises, and the whole doctrine of Scripture, to the present use of the Church. If any one is of a different opinion, I have no objection to his being so, and will not raise any quarrel on that account. For it is difficult to form a judgment as to gifts and offices of which the Church has been so long deprived, excepting only that there are some traces, or shadows of them still to be seen.

(Quote taken from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/12.htm)

There are those who will argue regarding more 'Charismatic' forms of prophesying that if anyone prophesies falsely, he should be stone. But then the same individuals will define prophesying as pulpit preaching and teaching (probably the type of thinking Calvin disagreed with in the second quote, but still similar to Calvin's view.) If preaching from behind the pulpit is prophesying, then wouldn't a preacher who makes some small mistake, mispeaks, or especially teaches the wrong interpretation be guilty of falsely prophesying? Let's say one preacher preaches an amil interpretation for example, and another preaches historic premilinealism, and another preaches pre-trib. Wouldn't one who believes that preaching and teaching is prophesying have to conclude that a preacher who errs in such a matter in his preaching is a false prophet?

 

[stephen583]

I thought Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear, no one should be stoned for any reason.

 

[Dave-W]

If the preacher is talking and he accidentally calls Elisah Elijah, should we pick up stones to throw at him?

If you would throw stones for mispronouncing the name, the translators of the bible should be stoned because they changed every name in there.

Elijah is actually pronounced Elee-ya-hoo And Elisha Elee-shah.

And why are you limiting it to calvinist/reformed clergy? The charismatics and pentecostals you mention are predominantly Wesleyan and Arminian.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think it's OK if they get stoned on their own time, but not while they're preaching.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think it's OK if they get stoned on their own time, but not while they're preaching.

 

[Greg J.]

Why just focus on making mistakes while preaching?

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:20-24, 1984 NIV)

I'm not sure there was a statute of limitations on these sins, either.

Fortunately, a covenant based on God's love through Jesus Christ instead of the Law is available today—in case you prefer that, but you can be judged according to the Law if you prefer (Matthew 7:2, Romans 2:12).

 

[talitha]

LinkH, it appears that people are misunderstanding your point. That's the problem with click-bait titles. They're distracting.
I think your last sentence is your actual point:
"Wouldn't one who believes that preaching and teaching is prophesying have to conclude that a preacher who errs in such a matter in his preaching is a false prophet?"
I have been annoyed by the fact that seemingly every so-called spiritual gifts inventory has been written by non-Charismatics in an attempt to de-spiritualize the gifts, and not only "reformed" but also Baptist and Presbyterian and other churches teach that prophesying in the church is preaching. You are challenging this notion and at the same time asking what these people consider to be false prophecy.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Should Reformed preachers be stoned if they make a mistake while preaching? If the preacher is talking and he accidentally calls Elisah Elijah, should we pick up stones to throw at him?

That question is tongue in cheek. What I would like to talk about is the way so many in the Reformed movement, following in the footsteps of John Calvin, have redefined the words 'prophesy', 'prophecy', and 'prophet'.

If we look at how the words are used in scripture, they prophesying involves receiving a revelatory message from the Spirit and communicating it, usually through speech. (There may also have been prophecy through song. There is one reference to prophesying on musical instruments, and there were prophetic sign acts like walking around naked, burning hair, or wearing a dirty belt in the Old Testament.) Peter describes the prophesying of the Old Testament as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'

Propheciess in the Old Testament typically started with 'Thus saith the LORD.' Agabus, a church prophet from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts began his prophecy with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost.' Should we think that the prophecies of other prophets in the early church were Bible teaching sermons?

Paul tells us about the revelatory nature of prophecy when he gives instructions on church meetings, which include instructions on how 'every one of you' may teach, sing, speak in tongues, share revelations, and interpret in an edifying and orderly manner. If, while the prophets are speaking two or three, he says 'if a revelation comes to one sitting by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy....'

Prophesying is revelatory in nature. But many in the Reformed movement redefine the term to refer to preaching and teaching from the pulpit, or to particularly good preaching and teaching.

This goes back at least to John Calvin, who wrote, in his commentary on I Corinthians 12.


And here, where he shows he is not dogmatic about it.


(Quote taken from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/12.htm)

There are those who will argue regarding more 'Charismatic' forms of prophesying that if anyone prophesies falsely, he should be stone. But then the same individuals will define prophesying as pulpit preaching and teaching (probably the type of thinking Calvin disagreed with in the second quote, but still similar to Calvin's view.) If preaching from behind the pulpit is prophesying, then wouldn't a preacher who makes some small mistake, mispeaks, or especially teaches the wrong interpretation be guilty of falsely prophesying? Let's say one preacher preaches an amil interpretation for example, and another preaches historic premilinealism, and another preaches pre-trib. Wouldn't one who believes that preaching and teaching is prophesying have to conclude that a preacher who errs in such a matter in his preaching is a false prophet?

There were no teachers in the New Testament church, in obedience to the instruction of Christ to abolish the function of teachers, rabbis.

Instead, men and women would gather in homes. Each one would have something to contribute, a psalm, a prophecy or tongues.

Two members would speak and the message would be interpreted by one or more interpreters.

Each one would build on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, of which Christ is the chief cornerstone, with wood, straw and hay or gold, silver and precious stones. If any person's message was destroyed, he or she would not be stoned, would survive, but as through fire.

Because those who tested the message would use Scripture, and Scripture is like a fire, a hammer that can break even rocks.

 

[BobRyan]

Should Reformed preachers be stoned if they make a mistake while preaching? If the preacher is talking and he accidentally calls Elisah Elijah, should we pick up stones to throw at him?

That question is tongue in cheek. What I would like to talk about is the way so many in the Reformed movement, following in the footsteps of John Calvin, have redefined the words 'prophesy', 'prophecy', and 'prophet'.

Pretty funny!

Great point!

 

[Biblicist]

I have been annoyed by the fact that seemingly every so-called spiritual gifts inventory has been written by non-Charismatics in an attempt to de-spiritualize the gifts, and not only "reformed" but also Baptist and Presbyterian and other churches teach that prophesying in the church is preaching. You are challenging this notion and at the same time asking what these people consider to be false prophecy.

I would be inclined to add in most Pentecostals and charismatics as well! Of any Biblical subject, I would deem the subject of the so called spiritual gifts as being one that most probably base their hunderstanding/opinions not so much on serious theological reflection but on guesswork.

But I do like the tongue-and-cheek approach that LinkH has taken with this particular thread.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I would be inclined to add in most Pentecostals and charismatics as well! Of any Biblical subject, I would deem the subject of the so called spiritual gifts as being one that most probably base their hunderstanding/opinions not so much on serious theological reflection but on guesswork.

But I do like the tongue-and-cheek approach that LinkH has taken with this particular thread.

Apparently a third option, being led into all truth by God, is best:

Acts 4
13Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

 

[Biblicist]

Apparently a third option, being led into all truth by God, is best:

Acts 4
13Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

Even though the Twelve had walked with Jesus for over three years, as they were rustic and unsophisticated Galileans, the Father had to raise up a Roman Jew who was also an academic as the Twelve were simply not up to the task of producing a systematic Theology.

It's one thing to be led by the Holy Spirit, but if the basic foundations have not been established probably from birth, then it can be very difficult for many to understand a lot of what has been written for us within the New Testament.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Should Reformed preachers be stoned if they make a mistake while preaching? If the preacher is talking and he accidentally calls Elisah Elijah, should we pick up stones to throw at him?

That question is tongue in cheek. What I would like to talk about is the way so many in the Reformed movement, following in the footsteps of John Calvin, have redefined the words 'prophesy', 'prophecy', and 'prophet'.

If we look at how the words are used in scripture, they prophesying involves receiving a revelatory message from the Spirit and communicating it, usually through speech. (There may also have been prophecy through song. There is one reference to prophesying on musical instruments, and there were prophetic sign acts like walking around naked, burning hair, or wearing a dirty belt in the Old Testament.) Peter describes the prophesying of the Old Testament as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'

Propheciess in the Old Testament typically started with 'Thus saith the LORD.' Agabus, a church prophet from Jerusalem mentioned in Acts began his prophecy with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost.' Should we think that the prophecies of other prophets in the early church were Bible teaching sermons?

Paul tells us about the revelatory nature of prophecy when he gives instructions on church meetings, which include instructions on how 'every one of you' may teach, sing, speak in tongues, share revelations, and interpret in an edifying and orderly manner. If, while the prophets are speaking two or three, he says 'if a revelation comes to one sitting by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy....'

Prophesying is revelatory in nature. But many in the Reformed movement redefine the term to refer to preaching and teaching from the pulpit, or to particularly good preaching and teaching.

This goes back at least to John Calvin, who wrote, in his commentary on I Corinthians 12.


And here, where he shows he is not dogmatic about it.


(Quote taken from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/12.htm)

There are those who will argue regarding more 'Charismatic' forms of prophesying that if anyone prophesies falsely, he should be stone. But then the same individuals will define prophesying as pulpit preaching and teaching (probably the type of thinking Calvin disagreed with in the second quote, but still similar to Calvin's view.) If preaching from behind the pulpit is prophesying, then wouldn't a preacher who makes some small mistake, mispeaks, or especially teaches the wrong interpretation be guilty of falsely prophesying? Let's say one preacher preaches an amil interpretation for example, and another preaches historic premilinealism, and another preaches pre-trib. Wouldn't one who believes that preaching and teaching is prophesying have to conclude that a preacher who errs in such a matter in his preaching is a false prophet?

I thought the modern Christian usually associates prophecy with sort of like seeing the future or soothsaying, even though the OT clearly shows it is more than that.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Even though the Twelve had walked with Jesus for over three years, as they were rustic and unsophisticated Galileans, the Father had to raise up a Roman Jew who was also an academic as the Twelve were simply not up to the task of producing a systematic Theology.

It's one thing to be led by the Holy Spirit, but if the basic foundations have not been established probably from birth, then it can be very difficult for many to understand a lot of what has been written for us within the New Testament.

That's strange. I thought the New Testament was the explanation of the OT:

Luke 24
25And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26“Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

It would be problematic if the explanations themselves are hard to understand, yes?

Are systematic theologies revealed by the Holy Spirit? Does God lead into the truth that is found in the information conveyed by systematic theologies?

 

[Wordkeeper]

I thought the modern Christian usually associates prophecy with sort of like seeing the future or soothsaying, even though the OT clearly shows it is more than that.

Deuteronomy 13 instructed Israel to destroy those who taught about turning to idolatry, whether prophets, family members or captured cities .

Prophets taught HOW to follow God, the instruction being confirmed for correctness by signs and wonders:

Deuteronomy 18
17“The LORD said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’21“You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ 22“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

If the prophet teaches that serving God is by a certain method, and his message is accompanied by signs and wonders, the Israel had to obey the teaching.

Repeat
1. The message must teach avoiding idolatry.
2. The message must teach how to serve God.
3. The message must be accompanied by signs and wonders.

This is how Paul demolishes the ministry of the presumptuous prophets in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 15
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

2 Timothy 2
14Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.16But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,17and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.19Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.”
20Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. 22Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.

2 Corinthians 11
4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 5For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.6But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.

 

[LinkH]

If the prophet teaches that serving God is by a certain method, and his message is accompanied by signs and wonders, the Israel had to obey the teaching.

Repeat
1. The message must teach avoiding idolatry.
2. The message must teach how to serve God.
3. The message must be accompanied by signs and wonders.

There are prophets who appear briefly on the scene in the Old Testament to give a prophecy, and the words of the prophecy do not always address the issue of idolatry. So there is a problem with insisting on this specifically as the test of a prophet. There is a warning about false prophets leading others into idolatry.

Also, Jesus called John a prophet, but the people said that John did no miralce. Some prophets did signs and wonders.

Teachers teach people how to serve God. Priests in the Old Testament were supposed to teach. Teaching and prophecy aren't quite the same thing. Prophets would receiving messages from God and tell those messages to the people, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost to do so. A typical message might start with 'Thus saith the Lord...'

This is how Paul demolishes the ministry of the presumptuous prophets in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 15
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Paul does not say whether those who claimed to be prophets were teaching against the resurrection of the dead. In modern times, those who teach similar doctrines (e.g. full preterists, extreme liberals) would be more likely to call themselves teachers, pastors, vicors, or priests than prophets.

 

[Wordkeeper]

There are prophets who appear briefly on the scene in the Old Testament to give a prophecy, and the words of the prophecy do not always address the issue of idolatry. So there is a problem with insisting on this specifically as the test of a prophet. There is a warning about false prophets leading others into idolatry.

Deuteronomy 13
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4“You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5“But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORDyour God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

The best definition of idolatry is serving the world for the purpose of advancing selfish interest. Israel was asked to destroy people who tried to teach idolatry, whether prophets, family members or conquered nations. Maybe you can be specific about which prophets do not warn against idolatry.

Colossians 3
5Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

Also, Jesus called John a prophet, but the people said that John did no miralce. Some prophets did signs and wonders.

Signs and wonders are acts that demonstrate that God is the source, not the person, in order to convey to people that God is able to deliver. Opponents should stay out of the way and God's people should gain confidence. These acts could be either miracles or startling explanations of Scripture. John predicted Jesus was coming soon.

Exodus 4:1Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.’”

Exodus 8:19
Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Luke 11:20
But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, carrying out His work.

Acts 5:38“So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

Teachers teach people how to serve God. Priests in the Old Testament were supposed to teach. Teaching and prophecy aren't quite the same thing. Prophets would receiving messages from God and tell those messages to the people, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost to do so. A typical message might start with 'Thus saith the Lord...'

The only teaching prophets taught was to avoid the temptation of depending on the world, idolatry and to depend on God, who was able and who was good. Jesus equates the work of prophets to the work of God:

Matthew 23:37
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Paul does not say whether those who claimed to be prophets were teaching against the resurrection of the dead. In modern times, those who teach similar doctrines (e.g. full preterists, extreme liberals) would be more likely to call themselves teachers, pastors, vicors, or priests than prophets.

You have to link the promises of God to His promise to Abraham, that through him the world would be blessed.

The world is blessed by taking away it's sins, which is why the announcement of the gospel was that Jesus would take away the sins of the world. There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.

What Israel would not do, Jesus did. Shed his blood.

Those who are in Christ share in what remains of his afflictions, so that they can participate in his death, and so gain resurrection from the dead. The false apostles were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place, so that there was no need to be unblemished sacrifices.

Quote
Here are words NT Wright uses to describe how Paul revised the worldview of Judaism.



The replacement of Temple with Jesus and, secondarily and derivatively, with his people remains one of Paul’s central worldview-revisions, unnoticed in an earlier generation that chose to forget the significance of the Temple within Paul’s ancestral symbolic universe. He developed it further: the Messiah’s people, and the tasks they perform ‘in the Messiah’, are described in terms which reflect the people at the centre of Jerusalem and the Temple and the tasks they performed there. They were priests, offering sacrifices, indeed offering themselves as sacrifices, or, in Paul’s case, bringing the gentiles themselves as a quasi-sacrificial offering, with a kind of heavy irony, to Jerusalem.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesusc...he-supersessionism-question-what-did-paul-do/

 

[LinkH]

The best definition of idolatry is serving the world for the purpose of advancing selfish interest.

When it comes to idolatry and a lot of other things, IMO, it makes a lot more sense to start with the more 'literal' definition and work our way out to the more abstract stuff. We have a lot of people who teach that putting anything before God is 'idolatry', and then get off into speculative areas, calling things idolatry that may not be. Several years ago, on the married couples forum, someone was accused of idolatry for expressing her desire to honor, respect, and submit to her husband.

Then we have people who learned that idolatry is not putting God first who think nothing of buying a Hindu or Buddhist statue, made by adherants of those religions, and putting it on the shelf. When the Hindu or Buddhist visits, what kind of witness is that? That's the problem of teaching people abstract, nonliteral definitions first. Let's understand first about bowing down to graven images and then get on to the topic of greed being idolatry. Even with greed, when someone loves gold and silver in this way, he has undue reverence for physical objects, which is similar to the 'literal idolatry' of those who worship statues. It is not merely selfishness.

Israel was asked to destroy people who tried to teach idolatry, whether prophets, family members or conquered nations.

So do you think Israel was supposed to stone people who were selfish? If one man did not want to share his bread with his neighbor, was he to be stoned to death for being an idolator?

Maybe you can be specific about which prophets do not warn against idolatry.

I can't do that because we don't have that information. The reason is, warning against idolatry is not what being a prophet is about.

I suspect a lot, if not all, of prophets in Old Testament times, warned against idolatry. But I suspect all or most prophets honored their father and mother, too. But I wouldn't say that a prophet is someone who honors his father and mother. One could be a non-prophet who honors his father and mother. And if a prophet sinned by neglecting to honor his father and mother or by dishonoring them in some way, that wouldn't mean he wasn't a prophet. But we don't have details about prophets honoring father and mother.

There are certain things godly people should do, like warn against idolatry, honor father and mother. Prophets should do these things, but these aren't the defining characteristics of prophets.

Since Israel did often fall into idolatry, a lot of prophets did warn against idolatry. But we can't say that there weren't prophets who spent little or no time warning against idolatry. There may have been some prophets during the time of Joshua who did not. We do not know if John the Baptist warned against idolatry. True prophets said what God wanted them to say. In the case of Israel in the Old Testament, that often included prophetic warnings against idolatry.

But the prophets role was to prophecy. If the content of the prophecy God gave warned against idolatry, then the prophet warned against idolatry. The prophet gave the message God wanted them to say. The message came from God. It was not solely a matter at looking at scripture and seeing what God gave past prophets and expounding on it so that listeners may understand it better, consider it more deeply, and take it to heart. That is what teachers do.

You quote a lot of scripture in your recent posts, which is good, but your own comments don't seem very tightly to the text.

The only teaching prophets taught was to avoid the temptation of depending on the world, idolatry and to depend on God, who was able and who was good.

Defining 'idolatry' as 'depending on the world', as with defining it as selfishness is a loosey goosey interpretation. Is that the 'only teaching' prophets did? That's not accurate either. I suppose you could try to define any prophecy or teaching as 'not depending on the world', but that would be a stretch, and that type of description of a prophet's ministry is rather vague and not too helpful for the readers' understanding, IMO.

Jesus equates the work of prophets to the work of God:

Matthew 23:37
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

The verse you quote doesn't exactly prove your statement. Prophets did _some of_ the work of God.

The false apostles were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place, so that there was no need to be unblemished sacrifices.

I like to stick more closely to the text. You are making assumptions here. Paul asked those in the Corinthian church why some of them said there was no resurrection of the dead. In II Corinthians, he warned about false apostles. These could have been itinerant visitors, not the same people, who were apparently part of the congregation in Corinth, who said there was no resurrection. That's the only link I can think of in the text that associates the 'false apostles' with Corinth. Where are Hymenaeus and Philetus referred to as 'false apostles'. We do not know that they were claiming to be apostles.

 

[LinkH]

There were no teachers in the New Testament church, in obedience to the instruction of Christ to abolish the function of teachers, rabbis.

Instead, men and women would gather in homes. Each one would have something to contribute, a psalm, a prophecy or tongues.

Two members would speak and the message would be interpreted by one or more interpreters.

I have the same general idea of what meetings looked like, though there were some specific rules for order. Paul does not require that every individual had to say something, but apparently that was what was going on at Corinth, and that was the general type of meeting assumed in Paul's teachings on the subject (athe 'commandments of the Lord' which He was passing on to the congregation.)

What do you mean by 'the message'? tongues were to be interpreted. Paul said 'let one interpret.' Why do you say 'one or more interpreters'? The words of prophets were to be judged/weighed carefully. Paul does not give such detailed instructions for how the teaching was to be conducted.

Each one would build on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, of which Christ is the chief cornerstone, with wood, straw and hay or gold, silver and precious stones. If any person's message was destroyed, he or she would not be stoned, would survive, but as through fire.

I'm losing you here. In the Old Testament, certain people were to literally be stoned for certain crimes. The New Testament talks about what is built on the foundation of Christ enduring or being burnt up. Most of us take that as a metaphor of what may occur at the bema seat (or in this life) not as something literal. So I don't quite get your use of mixed metaphors here.

Because those who tested the message would use Scripture, and Scripture is like a fire, a hammer that can break even rocks.[/QUOTE]

 

[Wordkeeper]

When it comes to idolatry and a lot of other things, IMO, it makes a lot more sense to start with the more 'literal' definition and work our way out to the more abstract stuff. We have a lot of people who teach that putting anything before God is 'idolatry', and then get off into speculative areas, calling things idolatry that may not be. Several years ago, on the married couples forum, someone was accused of idolatry for expressing her desire to honor, respect, and submit to her husband.

Then we have people who learned that idolatry is not putting God first who think nothing of buying a Hindu or Buddhist statue, made by adherants of those religions, and putting it on the shelf. When the Hindu or Buddhist visits, what kind of witness is that? That's the problem of teaching people abstract, nonliteral definitions first. Let's understand first about bowing down to graven images and then get on to the topic of greed being idolatry. Even with greed, when someone loves gold and silver in this way, he has undue reverence for physical objects, which is similar to the 'literal idolatry' of those who worship statues. It is not merely selfishness.

So do you think Israel was supposed to stone people who were selfish? If one man did not want to share his bread with his neighbor, was he to be stoned to death for being an idolator?

If a person tried to campaign for selfishness , tried to convert all of Israel to live selfishly, he would definitely be destroyed, as Moses taught that the covenant with God was summed up in loving God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself.

I can't do that because we don't have that information. The reason is, warning against idolatry is not what being a prophet is about.

You were very confident that some prophets never taught against selfishness. So you should give examples.

All prophets cried out against selfishness, because it was against the covenant with God.

I suspect a lot, if not all, of prophets in Old Testament times, warned against idolatry. But I suspect all or most prophets honored their father and mother, too. But I wouldn't say that a prophet is someone who honors his father and mother. One could be a non-prophet who honors his father and mother. And if a prophet sinned by neglecting to honor his father and mother or by dishonoring them in some way, that wouldn't mean he wasn't a prophet. But we don't have details about prophets honoring father and mother.

There are certain things godly people should do, like warn against idolatry, honor father and mother. Prophets should do these things, but these aren't the defining characteristics of prophets.

How did they dishonor their parents? By being selfish, not looking after them in their old age. They used their wealth for themselves. This is a manifestation of idolatry.

Since Israel did often fall into idolatry, a lot of prophets did warn against idolatry. But we can't say that there weren't prophets who spent little or no time warning against idolatry. There may have been some prophets during the time of Joshua who did not. We do not know if John the Baptist warned against idolatry. True prophets said what God wanted them to say. In the case of Israel in the Old Testament, that often included prophetic warnings against idolatry.

John the Baptist said Israel could escape the wrath of God by sharing their food and clothes with poor Jews. Israel was supposed to be a light to the Gentiles through observing Torah, covenant.

But the prophets role was to prophecy. If the content of the prophecy God gave warned against idolatry, then the prophet warned against idolatry. The prophet gave the message God wanted them to say. The message came from God. It was not solely a matter at looking at scripture and seeing what God gave past prophets and expounding on it so that listeners may understand it better, consider it more deeply, and take it to heart. That is what teachers do.

Israel searched hard through Scripture to find out how to observe the covenant, because they did not believe the interpretation of the prophets God sent. He never received the proper 'rent' from his tenants. Israel thought that they would have an elevated place in the world by observing Torah ceremonially, that all the nations would rush to become Jews when they saw God blessing her with wealth and power. They refused to believe the prophets, even though they were given signs and wonders to confirm the truth of the message. Their hearts were hardened.

You quote a lot of scripture in your recent posts, which is good, but your own comments don't seem very tightly to the text.

Defining 'idolatry' as 'depending on the world', as with defining it as selfishness is a loosey goosey interpretation. Is that the 'only teaching' prophets did? That's not accurate either. I suppose you could try to define any prophecy or teaching as 'not depending on the world', but that would be a stretch, and that type of description of a prophet's ministry is rather vague and not too helpful for the readers' understanding, IMO.

God sent all his prophets to collect the same rent, manifestations of loving neighbours as yourself. The Promised Land was given as a means to show this love to the world, the love that existed in the kingdom of God.

Land was taken as collateral, and RETURNED after seven years! Israel disbelieved all the prophets, looking at them as competitors for God's blessings. Finally when they saw the Son who was sent to personally collect the 'rent', they decided to kill Him, so that the inheritance would fall into their hands.

The verse you quote doesn't exactly prove your statement. Prophets did _some of_ the work of God.

The work of God is to gather in His lost sheep. Prophets urged Israel to help gather, but since they did not obey, they were scattering.

I like to stick more closely to the text. You are making assumptions here. Paul asked those in the Corinthian church why some of them said there was no resurrection of the dead. In II Corinthians, he warned about false apostles. These could have been itinerant visitors, not the same people, who were apparently part of the congregation in Corinth, who said there was no resurrection. That's the only link I can think of in the text that associates the 'false apostles' with Corinth. Where are Hymenaeus and Philetus referred to as 'false apostles'. We do not know that they were claiming to be apostles.

Quote
The Greek word appearing in Philippians 3:11, erroneously translated “resurrection” in most English versions of Scripture, is exanastasis. This word is made up of three parts (ex-ana-stasis). The latter two parts of the word (ana-stasis), as has been shown, mean “to rise up,” or “to stand up.” But the preposition ex (from ek) prefixed to anastasis adds a new dimension. The first part, ex (the form that “ek” takes when prefixed to words beginning with a vowel) means “out of,” making exanastasis mean “to stand up out of [out-resurrection].”

The resurrection (anastasis) of Christians will be a separation of “the dead in Christ” from the remainder of the dead, whether Old Testament saints or the unsaved dead. The out-resurrection (exanastasis) will be a further separation beyond this point. It is the “standing up” of a particular group “out of” those previously raised from among the dead.

At the time of the resurrection (anastasis), Christians will be separated from non-Christians; but at the time of the out-resurrection (exanastasis), certain Christians will be separated from other Christians. A smaller group will be separated from the one large group. The called out will be removed from the called.

Understanding exanastasis in the light of its context in Philippians 3:11 will clearly reveal that a resurrection per se (a rising from the dead) is not what is in view at all. The subject at hand is “overcoming,” “winning a prize in a conflict”; and these things are associated with the issues of the judgment seat and the coming kingdom. The word exanastasis has to do with certain Christians (the overcomers) being elevated to a status above — “a standing up out of” — the status occupied by the remaining Christians (the non-overcomers)

http://www.bibleone.net/BF15.htm


Scripture is more complex than you think. The NT church already had the correct context. We are far away from them, both culturally and chronologically.

Everybody is searching for the correct way to understand God's will.

Most preachers don't know the truth, blind leading the blind.

Some preachers know, but the church hall would empty if they taught what the prophets taught. Especially lessons like the above. These lessons aren't literal understandings. You have to understand the 'spirit' of the text. Paul wants to be a sin offering, to complete what remained of Christ's afflictions, to share in his death, so that he could attain a better resurrection, a resurrection before others were resurrected, to enjoy his treasure in Heaven, the company of those who were his fruit...