Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

That usage is clearly revelatory.

The KJV is awkward here. The NASB is much clearer: "according to the prophecies concerning you". Those would be revelatory in nature.

Again, revelatory, not mere preaching.

Peter's use is clearly revelatory in nature.

Again, we disagree. Almost all of Revelation is foretelling then-future events. All of it is revelatory... as the English name implies.

Revelatory. Clearly.

Revelatory, clearly.

Frankly, you have not made your case at all. Not even close.

This was your post responding to my assertion that "I don't see any support for the non-revelatory kind of prophecy...." I think you responded to a claim I didn't make. I still hold that preaching is not prophesying.

It's my view that people who claim that prophecy has ceased, but then call preaching "prophesying", are being two-faced. It can't be both.

Nope......The literal Word of God and therein lies why you can not accept what has been pointed out to you.

1 Cort. 13:8-9.........
"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Read the chapter in Isaiah. Isaiah has a visionary experience, hears a word from God and writes it down.

The words 'prophecy' and 'prophesy' are used when the Spirit of God moves a prophet to speak. Often it is spoken in the first person for God. God speaks through the prophet. Sometimes it is preceded by 'Thus saith the Lord.' In Acts, one statement clearly identified as spoken by someone called a prophet begins 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost.'

Look at a big of context here from Isaiah 6.
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Isaiah is quoting God here. The New Testament calls this a prophecy.

Often 'prophesy' is used of future events in the Old Testament. But this is not always the case. Predicting the future is not the defining characteristic of prophecy. Peter described prophecies of the old as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' Literally it could be translated 'carried along by the Holy Ghost.' Prophetic speech is Spirit-moved speech. The Holy Spirit gives the individual words to speak. Prophecy is revelatory.

Prophecy is revelatory in nature, as we see from these commandments of the Lord for church gatherings in I Corinthians 14.

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Let's look at how Paul used the word, in other Epistles, to see if we can get a better understanding of how he intended the word to be understood:

1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which led the way to thee, that by them thou mayest war the good warfare; Paul was not talking about some Divinely inspired revelation here but the general type of things said by others in various churches that led to Timothy being considered for a higher position.

Click to expand...

No, I interpret 'prophecies' here to mean what the word means throughout scripture. Why would the definition change just for this verse? Reading your idea into the verse... with no evidence at all...is just circular reasoning.

Compare these words here with the opening verses of Acts 13. The Spirit spoke to prophets and teachers to 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.' This could have come through a prophecy, especially since prophets were present. In Acts 14:4 and 14, for the first time in Acts, these two men were called apostles. Paul, Silas and Timothy wrote I Thessalonians, and in 2:6, they say they could have been burdensome as 'apostles of Christ.'

We do not know what the prophecy the Spirit moved one or more individuals to speak over prophecy were, but they could have been similar to the message from the Spirit spoken in the first person over Barnabas and Saul when they were sent out on an apostolic ministry together.

In any case, there is no need to strip the word 'prophecy' of the supernatural aspect in this verse since the normal understanding of the word found throughout scripture should apply in I Timothy 1:18 as well.

Albert Barnes has this observation: "...It is, that Paul was committing to him an important trust, and one that required great wisdom and fidelity; and that in doing it he was acting in conformity with the hopes which had been cherished respecting Timothy, and with certain expressed anticipations about his influence in the church. From early life the hope had been entertained that he would be a man to whom important trusts might be committed."

Click to expand...

I am not sure what this commentary means. But some 1800's commentator could not change what first century Greek meant if he tried. But I don't see him coming down on either side of this issue. Divinely communicated messages can communicate 'expressed anticipations about his influence in the church'-- although that is a rather unexciting way to describe prophesying.
Also, we do not know that the prophecy was about his influence in the church, as opposed to his evangelistic work. Btw, what is a rather drab, unhelpful bit of commentary. Is there rest of his stuff like that? I do not get why you would think this was some kind of evidence for your view.

[quote
1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. The gift, was the gift of the ministry mentioned back in 1 Tim. 1:18 and here by the laying on of hands, a common tradition. Again Albert Barnes made these observations: [/quote]

Notice that the separation of Barnabas and Saul happened after a message from the Spirit in the first-person. Why would Timothy's experience be different from that patter?

(1) It was the gift of God; 2Ti_1:6. He was to be recognized as its source; and it was not therefore conferred merely by human hands. The call to the ministry, the qualifications for the office, and the whole arrangement by which one is endowed for the work, are primarily to be traced to him as the source.
(2) It was given to Timothy in accordance with certain observations which had existed in regard to him - the expectations of those who had observed his qualifications for such an office, and who had expressed the hope that he would one day be permitted to serve the Lord in it.

Click to expand...

Yawn! The commentator takes something supernatural and powerful and makes it seem mundane, boring, and maybe evn of human origin. Point 1 gives glory to God as the source, but point 2 describes it as 'the expectations of those who had observed his qualifications for such an office.' Maybe he was imagining his own experiences in American Presbyterianism were exactly the same as what was practiced in the first century. Be that as it may, the commentator does not come right out and contradict the scripture and say that no divine message was given. He does add to the scripture since the passage says nothing about those who had observed Timothy's 'qualifications for such an office.'

The Greek word ""προφητεια" was used twice by Peter, in the defense of the origins of Old Testament prophecies:

2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. So once again this particular Greek word is not used in the predictive sense by Peter; rather he was writing about the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament Prophets. The OT prophets did not speak from their own ideas but that all of what they said and warned about was from God, being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We begin to see the pattern emerging now. A pattern where either the user is speaking of a predictive event from the Old Testament or ones ministerial gift to be able "to speak forth" the Word and edify the listener.

Click to expand...

'Speak forth' falls short of describing the meaning based on usage. Words are quite often more than their etymological and morphological component parts. In Sanskrit the word for elephant is the 'one handed one.' 'Sinister' comes from the Latin meaning 'left handed.' But I digress.

The issue here is not whether prophesy means 'to predict the future.' That is a secular definition. Prophesying involves speaking (or otherwise communicating, such as on musical instruments or through sign acts) as one is moved by the Holy Ghost. The Spirit gives the individual the words and message to speak.

An atheist can speak forth all kinds of vitriol about the church. That does not mean that he is prophesying by the Spirit of God.

False prophets in the Old Testament could prophesy if evil spirits moved them to speak.

This is a pretty normal straighforward use, consistent with the idea that prophecy is revelatory. John received the book in a visionary experience. It contains 'first person' messages from Christ. 'Prophecy' can refer to a written down revelation of this nature. I do not think anyone would disagree.

John was not just to speak forth a message that he had studied and learn from someone else. Prophesying involves the Spirit moving him and giving him the words to speak.

The Bible uses different words for 'preach,' 'teach' and 'prophecy.' Words translated 'preach' are typically associated with evangelistic situations. Also, prophet, evangelist, and pastor and teacher are three separate categories in Ephesians 4:11. Prophets and teachers are two gifts/ministries in I Corinthians 12:28. Paul lists prophecy, teaching, and exhortation as distinct gits in Romans 12. The two witnesses are not to just preach. They are to prophesy-- speak a divinely revealed message according to the moving of the Spirit of God.

We agree that it is used to refer to Old Testament prophecies. Regarding the first sentence in this quote, it is not all proclaiming of the word of God. Prophesying involves being moved by the Spirit to communicate a message revealed by the Spirit to the one doing the prophesying. One can evangelize or teach without this same time of more direct revelation. One can teach prophecies received by someone else.


Did you mean to leave the word 'not' out? The word is used to refer to one of the gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12.

While I agree with this latter statement, I suspect it is for different reasons than yours. 'Prophecy' means here what it did throughout scripture. It does not suddenly change to mean preaching a regular sermon.

Btw, does anyone you are arguing your case with think that prophesying is only about the future? The two views are to see 'prophesy' in one verse to mean something revelatory and...when one wants it... just to mean 'preach.' The other view is that the word refers to revelatory speech consistently throughout scripture. The idea of 'prophesy' as predicting the future is a secular definition in the dictionary, but not a good description that captures what the word means throughout scripture.

What words do you have in mind, other than noun versus verbs, etc. Homeric literature had a different word that contained 'theo' in it, but my understanding is the New Testament is consistent in its use of terminology on this point.

Who decides which interpretation is right? You or everyone else?

A joke about Calvinists?? Oh, i didn't know that. So here is one for you..

A group of Christians are tasked with changing a lightbulb.
The Charismatic changes it easily; his hands are already up.

The Roman Catholic refuses; he prefers candles.

The Pentecostal changes it while his friends pray against the Lord of Darkness.

The Christian Scientist can't, but he prays for the light to turn back on.

The Calvinist refuses; God has predestined when the light will be on.

The Mormon tries to change it as five wives tell him how to do it right.

The Baptist changes the lightbulb, gets it approved by three committees, and then they all eat some casserole.

The Lutheran refuses: he doesn't believe in change.

Do I?

Is that mean no prophecy?

You already stated that you will not be sitting on any of the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Have you now changed your mind?

I wonder when that which is perfect came after Paul's letter to the Corinthians? Would any bible teacher claim that they know God as well as He knows them? For Paul says that tongues, prophecy and signs will cease when we know even as we are known. Don't deny the wonderful experiences of believers because you cannot understand it. Remember, "The Just shall live by faith." and not super knowledge.

It means that the "Prophecy" as written in the Word of God is what needs to be taught and preached.

Prophets were foundational to the church (Ephesisans 2:20).

The prophet proclaimed a message from the Lord to the early believers. Sometimes a prophet’s message was revelatory (new revelation and truth from God) and sometimes a prophet’s message was predictive.

The key to understanding is that The early Christians did not have the complete Bible. Some early Christians did not have access to any of the books of the New Testament. The New Testament prophets “filled the gap” by proclaiming God’s message to the people who would not have access to it otherwise. The last book of the New Testament (Revelation) was not completed until late in the first century. So, the Lord sent prophets to proclaim God’s Word to His people.

Once the Bible was completed, there is now NO NEED for a prophet today. The need today is for people who can TEACH what God has already said in HIs Bible.

I am nothing more than an old country boy my friend.

The Holy Spirit leads all of us into truth.

John 17:17.....
"Sanctify them with truth, thy Word is truth".

The Holy Spirit only speaks that which He has received from the Father.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

no biblical proof for that statement. error.

You and Dino246 continue your objections while ignoring good solid word study. No real surprise though. Most who have preconceived ideas are guilty of that. I prefer to let the word study speak to me as to the truth of any matter. Without good solid word study, even the translators would not know how to translate a Greek word into any other language. It is how they and any student of Scripture arrive at a true meaning.

As I said before, there are other Greek words that mean a direct revelation or predictive nature but they were not used in the epistle to the Corinthian church. While the word under study can mean a future event being foretold, it was always used retrospectively in the NT, looking back at an OT prophecy. It was not employed in a predictive present reality, except perhaps in the Corinthian letter but if it was being used in this manner, it would be the only place in the NT where it was. Therefore I reject this type of interpretation unless one can show, within the context, that it is to be understood in this way.

The rejection of how this word was to be understood in the letter to Timothy and how it was used in Revelation, which was clearly defined, shows just how little those opposed to the possibility of them being wrong, are. Give me solid evidence of this word being used in a direct revelatory sense and I will have to rethink my position.

I will add this for what good it will do, since you show know real interest. Let's break down the compound word "προφητεια" to it's roots. This word is made up of "πρό", (Which means: "Fore, In front or Prior") and "φημί", (Which means: "Speak or Say" - what is on ones mind). Therefore, this compound Greek word literally means: "To speak afore" or "to speak of prior things". In both cases it means to speak of things either previously thought or to speak of things which came before in time, importance or category.

To call Albert Barnes commentary, "rather drab", or "yawn", is a terrible thing to say. We should be so blessed, to be used by the Lord, to create a mammoth work such as his and/or a work the size of John Gills. A life time of dedication to the Scriptures you see as boring. Shame on you.

The Bible does not teach this. The church still needs edification, exhortation, and comfort. It can also still have an impact on sinners when a prophecy makes manifest the secret things of their hearts.

Your "word study" completely missed the mark. It did not even begin to support the concept of non-revelatory prophesying. You have not dealt with cases that don't conform to your ideas, but rather have ignored them. Most who have preconceived ideas are guilty of that.

Next time, leave the ad hominem comments unwritten, lest they come back to bite you... again.

I have done extensive word studies on the Greek and Hebrew words for 'prophecy.' I think it is obvious to other readers that you are the one with preconceived notions. None of your examples showed 'prophecy' being used in a nonrevelatory sense. It is very clear that your first quote from Isaiah was Revelatory-- the LORD speaking to Isaiah in his visionary experience.

None of your examples proved contrary to Peter's description that involved speaking 'as moved by the Holy Ghost.' (Though playing on instruments, writing, and possibly acting out sign acts could be considered prophesying as well.) Also, prophesying is equated with or associated with a revelation to one that sitteth by in I Corinthians 14:29-31.

You were arguing against a straw man idea that prophesying must be predictive in nature, btw, and I am not sure if Dino246 ever argued in favor of that, but you will not find a post from me along those lines. I will say that in Old Testament examples, a large number of uses of 'prophesy' are in the context of predicted prophecy.

Again, look at your own examples.

What Greek words are you referring to? Is one of them used in reference to prophecy in I Corinthians 14:30?

Btw, your line of reasoning isn't really valid either. I've seen this argument before. "If Paul wanted to mean X, he could have been more explicit and used word Y, but he used word A" where A is ambiguous between two meanings.

'Prophecy' is already a word that always means revelatory communiction (whether on the spot or old records of such revelatory communication which was 'on the spot' when it was initially delivered). It is one of those words.

The word is used as a spiritual gift in Romans and I Corinthians 12. I Corinthians 14 goes on speaks of 'prophesy'ing the secrets of the hearts of an unbeliever or unlearned/uninstructed individual.

Prophecy is a message spoken (sung, etc.) under the moving of the Holy Spirit. If it was written down as in the case of the Old Testament prophecies, a thousand years later, those words are still 'prophecy.' None of this challenges a straightforward, context-derived understanding of the word.

No, it is used consistently to refer to revelatory communication. This is very clear. The word 'prophecy' is used to refer to the revelatory communications of the Old Testament, which, at the time they were given, were 'on the spot' words spoken or written under the moving of the Holy Spirit. The archetypical prophecy starts with 'Thus saith the Lord' and quotes God in the first person. Not all fit that format, but many do, especially in the Old Testament.

Acts 21 does not specifically call the utterances of the prophet Agabus a 'prophecy', but it does mention it in the context of individuals who 'did prophesy' and it calls him a 'prophet' in the context.

9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

The word in Revelation is used in reference to revelatory communication. John received the 'book of prophecy' in a visionary experience or set of experiences.

If we understand 'prophecy' to refer to the same sort of thing called 'prophecy' in the Old Testament and assume the word is consistent in meaning across usages, then we should accept that it refers to revelatory speech (writing, etc.)

Here is another example from Matthew that has a similar reference in use, showing even Gentiles understood the term.

Matthew 26:68
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

A number of examples that demonstrate this have been presented. None of the other cases you presented are a bad fit for this meaning of a word. We should assume the meaning is the same across usages, and not assume it arbitrarily changes in meaning.

Neither of those references gave any evidence whatsoever for your position. Both of those examples are perfectly consistent with revelatory speech. Individuals spoke actual prophecies about Timothy--messages from God spoken under the moving of the Spirit. Compare it to other men being commissioned to ministry in Acts 13 in which the Spirit spoke.

In Revelation, yes again, he was to speak messages under the moving of the Spirit to 'peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings'.

I would like to clarify that by 'revelatory', I mean the Spirit reveals the message. That is the sense in which it is revelatory. It could reveal other things-- such as the secrets of men's hearts, the future, or whatever else. The message does nto have to contain completely knew doctrine, but it is revealed what the Lord is speaking to specific individuals or situations. But the defining element is the divine communication... for genuine prophecy from God as opposed to false prophecy from the flesh or demonic varieties.

Your Isaiah 6 quote, where you quoted Jesus saying that Isaiah 'prophesied' of His audience-- where Isaiah quotes what God said while having a visionary experience--- is a very clear example. The soldiers hitting Jesus while blindfolded and demanding He prophesy-- speak by revelation-- of who hit Him is another example that shows the usage of the term. In I Corinthians 14, prophecy includes telling the secrets of an individual's heart.

Show me one example from scripture that does not fit the definition/understanding of the word that I described.

And again, it is clear that ALL the genuine prophecy of the Old Testament fits this understanding of prophecy.
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The New Testament, even this verse as an example, uses 'prophecy' to refer to this Old Testament phenomenon of speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost. There is no reason to think the definition of the word changes. The apostles used the term for prophetic utterances of the New Testament.

The morphemes/etymology of the word is not inconsistent with what I have described either. In English, when we say 'fireman' that does not mean a stunt man in a suit that is caught on fire or a fire juggler or some kind of fire-spouting superhero. It has a specific meeting which we know because of how it is used. The same is true with 'prophesy' in the New Testament.

I was referring to that quote, which took something supernatural from God and made it sound mundane. Were the rest of his works like that. Many Reformed and Presbyterian commentators have a blind spot when it comes to the definition of 'prophecy', going back to John Calvin, though even he did not exactly equate prophesying with preaching and teaching. (Barnes was tried by his denomination for advocating the idea of free will, if I understand correctly.) The commentary I read from Gills, he really doesn't come down on either side of the issue. Barnes did not either, just that his terminology made prophecy sound like it might be of mere human origin.

But if there is a poor line in a commentary that does not properly communicate what a passage says, the commentary is not proof that the passage does not say what it says. Do not let your loyalty to a commentator blind you to what the scriptures say.

Ellicott's commentary from https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/1-18.htm says the following,
Notice he sees this as 'prophetic utterances' and connects it to examples like Agabus' prophecies of the famine, Agabus' prophecy about Paul's calling, and the Spirit speaking when Barnabas and Saul were sent out.[/quote]

From the same site, Benson's commentary says:
Whether there was some official receiving of Timothy as an evangelist, I do not know, but notice that Benson has some understanding of the word 'prophecies' when he describes them as 'special revelations.'