Prophecy IV / Why?

(The Rebuilding of the Temple / Gustave Dore)

When addressing the question of "Why is the prophetic important?" I feel it is important to offer the rejoinder, "Why wouldn't it be?"

When Scripture so clearly states such things as...

"...earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." [1 Cor. 14:]

and

"... I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy." [1 Cor. 14:5]

and

"... Do not despise prophecies." [1 Thes. 5:20]

... it seems like it would be incumbent upon believers to answer question like, "What does this mean?" and "How do I apply this to my life?"

Let's consider Ephesians 4:11-12.

"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ."

I would assume most Christians wouldn't demand an explanation of "why" regarding all of these roles of leadership in the church. (E.g. few Christians would have suspicions or misgiving about why the church needs teaching or teachers.) Since they are all commonly referenced in the NT, one would think that the basis of such confidence would simply be founded in Scripture. But why then would we ask "why" of the prophet and not of the teacher or shepherd?

I suspect this inconsistency results from one or both of the following:

1. Lack of first hand experience with the prophetic (or confusion regarding our experiences with it)
2. The natural equivalents of the other roles (i.e., we are more able to comprehend these other roles from a natural point of view)

Thus our receptiveness to the prophetic has more to do with our experience and natural reasoning than with the counsel of Scripture. But this shouldn't be the way Christians operate.

My first post on the prophetic was titled De-/Re-Mystifying the Prophetic. To re-mystify the prophetic, is to restore it to it's supernatural power. To de-mystify it is to restore it to it's understandable place in Christian life.

Prophecy III / What?

(Belshazzar's Feast / Rembrandt)

In Daniel chapter 5 we find a vivid image of the prophetic; one which has become an idiomatic phrase in our own language.

King Belshazzar of Babylon had become haughty, and during a feast he had the sacred golden vessels from the Jewish temple brought to him that he and his guests might drink wine from them. Suddenly the "fingers of a human hand" appeared and wrote something on the wall, which was undecipherable for the king and any in his court.

After some time, Belshazzar's wife reminded him about Daniel, and that, in the days of Belshazzar's father, "light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him."

Daniel comes and is able to read the writing on the wall.

What is a prophet? One who can read the writing on the wall. That is, one who comprehends and verbalizes the meaning of things before others.

Prophecy II / Fear of the Unknown

During the process of canonization, church father Tertullian irksomely quipped, "The Holy Spirit has been chased into a book!" (One can picture him saying just that in the above rendering!)

The broader context is this. An itinerant preacher named Montanus had been proclaiming deep levels of Christian devotion and consecration. He brought with him two supposed prophetesses named Prisca and Maximilla, whose ecstatic utterings he purported to be on par with Scripture.

Terullian supported Montanus. But as he and his companions veered further away from Orthodoxy, the church labeled the movement heretical.

I think all Christians should empathize with Tertullian's bitterness and sorrow. It was Jesus, after all, who assured us, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." [Jn. 16:9] The Presence of the Holy Spirit is said to be preferable to Jesus' own Presence, yet we've been conditioned to expect so little of Him.

Can He speak to us as individuals still? Can He speak through us still?

True the line was blurred in Tertullian's day, yet I do believe that most of our misgivings about the prophetic arise from a certain erroneous way of thinking, viz. that prophecy and Scripture are synonymous.

De-/Re-Mystifying the Prophetic

(Being a bald individual, I felt obliged to use this particular image, the title of which I'm sure is, "You don't mess with a bald prophet!")

In an interview, Noam Chomsky was asked whether he read the prophets. He responded:

"The word 'prophet' is a very bad translation of an obscure Hebrew word, navi. Nobody knows what it means. But today they'd be called dissident intellectuals. They were giving geopolitical analysis, arguing that the acts of the rulers were going to destroy society. And they condemned the acts of evil kings. They called for justice and mercy to orphans and widows and so on."

To a great degree he is right, and the view of this atheistic philosopher may be more reflective of the Scriptural notion of the prophet than that of many in the church--and certainly is more informed.

The idea of prophesy and prophets is obscure. However, Scripture uses the term/idea liberally throughout--from Genesis to Revelation--and with ease. A reader of Scripture would likely assume that one ought to have great familiarity with such people--a working category! Do we?