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.
DOES ALL PROPHECY = SCRIPTURE?
The reasoning goes as follows: since all Scripture is prophesy [2 Pet. 1:20, 21] then all prophesy is Scripture.
Is this right?
No. This reasoning isn't sound. All BLTs are sandwiches, but not all sandwiches are BLTs. This is the logical fallacy of commutation of conditionals.
Scripture allows for a broader picture.
We recall bands of prophets moving about during the times of David and Saul, yet we have no record of their utterances. [1 Sam. 10 & 19] (On two occasions we're told that Saul "prophesied", but have no record of what was said.)
We see a number of references to prophets in 1 & 2 Kings, yet no record of their writings.
Many kings seemed to have a court prophet/seer (Saul had Samuel, David had Nathan and Gad). While we have a few instances of their words, it is clear that we do not have all of them.
Even Elijah--the seminal OT prophet--has no book of Scripture to his credit!
The book of Acts is filled with matter-of-fact references to prophets, yet contains very few accounts of their words.
Timothy's ministry was initiated by prophetic utterances. (Something even Paul refers to as a source of Timothy's authority and calling.)
Other references are mentioned in my previous post.
Clearly there is allowance for prophesy--a word from God--without it necessitating Scriptural canonization, so we must part ways with that aversion.
JUST SPEAKING TRUTH?
I heard a sermon the other day in which prophesy was defined as "speaking truth". The example given was that when we recite the creeds we are all prophesying.
Apart from the fact that prophesy isn't essentially "speaking truth"--which has its own NT word alētheuō-- this is a classic case of reductionism.
Yes prophesy is truth-telling, but not merely that.
Scripture is very clear that this is a gift to be sought. If saying creeds were at its core, this would not be the case.
My sense is that this, too, results from an unwarranted fear--namely that prophesy is too unpredictable and will lead to chaos!
Nevertheless, this fear robs the church of this essential element! Just as OT kings sought the counsel of gifted prophets, shouldn't the NT church leaders be recognizing and involving those who possess this gift?
Considering the NT teaching, there are those who have words of "upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" whose words are not being given proper weight--if they are being heard at all! Yet, "the one who prophesies builds up the church." [1 Cor. 14:4]
This is important stuff. Should we be governed by fears, discomfort or shaky reasoning? How about Scripture?
The reality is that the NT contains as many instructions on prophet involvement as it does on any other ecclesiastical topic! We're not left to guess.
So what if we confronted our fears, removing our shoes to tread carefully onto this holy ground?
More to come.
2 comments:
Interesting stuff. I think a lot of my own misgivings toward prophecy, or at least present-day prophecy, come from a fear that we won't really know when a person is prophecying or when they're not, if that makes sense. It's probably, to some extent, a fear of the unknown, as you say. In my head a discussion with someone who is prophecying kind of goes along these lines: Prophet: issues prophecy. Me: "Shoot, how do I know if that's really prophecy or not?!" Perhaps that's where testing of prophecy via the scripture comes in to play.
Good point, Levi. That's kind of where I'm going, but it's mysterious to a degree. I think the preponderance of references to this topic in Scripture make it one of those things that is worth sorting out despite the mystery of it.
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment