Minor No.11 Prophecy

For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. I was amused some while ago to hear about a prophetic witness meeting being advertised, but unfortunately it had to be cancelled. And the rider was given to the notice, due to unforeseen circumstances, the prophetic witness meeting has been postponed.

Very often when we think in terms of prophecy, we think of the future. Are you aware that over 300 words in the authorised version of our Bible have utterly changed their meaning since the Bible was written, the A.V. translation was written so many years ago now? Some have completely reversed their meaning. And that's one of the reasons why, if you love the A.V., it's good also to have a more modern translation alongside, in case you are thinking of words which meant something a couple of hundred years ago that they don't mean now.

Now prophecy in one sense is an illustration of that, because since the turn of the century, popularly understood prophecy refers to predicting the future. Popularly understood, not by Bible-trained evangelicals, but to the man in the street. Actually, the main idea of prophecy, far from looking into the future, is to communicate a word, to bring a word on behalf of another.

I'll go into the definition in a moment or so. But it's prophecy in that sense, and not just in terms of what's going to happen when the Lord Jesus Christ comes back again. It's prophecy in the sense of a gift of communication that we're going to be looking into this evening.

Now it's good that we are looking into it, because there's a great deal of confusion, a great deal of controversy. I was given the tape some while ago by a dear brother, a very educated man, who believes that the Lord has called him to be a prophet in our country, in a very biblical sense of the use of the word. He really believes that he is, as Amos was in the 8th century to Israel, in the 20th century to the United Kingdom.

And as I was listening to this very erudite man speak, he indicated that next year in Jerusalem, at least near Jerusalem, there's going to be a conference of prophets called, prophets with a ministry that bears that designation operating around the world. The conference, I think, is being judiciously centered, because it's in some conference hall, some building that overlooks the valley or the plain of Armageddon. Well, it should be very interesting to hear what these brethren have to say after they've been together in conference for some while.

But there's an illustration of things being claimed that were certainly not claimed at the beginning of the century, of the 20th century. And then we need to look at it, not only to make some evaluation of that sort of thing, the claim to be a prophet today in the biblical sense of the word, but there is, and notice what I'm saying on the fringe, the fringe of the charismatic movement, by no means mainstream, those who are saying that God's prophetic word today is the most important thing over against his word of yesterday. And by his word of yesterday is meant scripture.

His word today is the prophetic word. So there is a distinction being drawn, it's subtle, and I don't think that they mean it in the threatening overtones that I think that ultimately it could have, but there is this distinction being drawn between the revelatory gift today and scripture which was given yesterday, and I think that that has some very, very basic dangers indeed. And then there are those who are saying, with the renewed interest in the prophetic gift and the claims of prophecies being valid coming straight from heaven in the 1980s, that all this really is a nonsense.

The charismatic gifts, prophecy being one of them, were brought to a halt when scripture was completed, the canon was made up, and you had an Old Testament and a New Testament in circulation, and at the end of that point in time there was no need for any further revelatory gifts. Well, you can see from those three little examples, at least those three little starting points, that we are really in for to look at something that is quite interesting and should be of value and of help, I trust, to everyone here gathered in our lounge tonight. So let me, having introduced it, give you what I hold to be a biblical perspective in dealing with this subject.

In the Old Testament, if you're taking notes, then I'm afraid my headings are a bit at random this evening, that will be another reason for you to go through the tape, but my major starting point at the moment is to try to set up how I understand the prophetic ministry from scripture, and I'll do that within just two or three minutes before introducing further things as a consequence from what I'm explaining now. In the Old Testament there were three basic ministries. There was the ministry of the king, there was the ministry of the priest, and there was the ministry of the prophet.

You're all aware of this and could cite numerous examples under these categories. Now, in one sense, those ministries were exclusive. You can recognize who fits under which particular department.

Now and again there was a tendency, perhaps, for one group to move into another compartment. For instance, when King Saul began to prophesy, before actually he was proclaimed king, and they said, is Saul really amongst the prophets? But when Saul took the role of Samuel, a priest, he got into trouble, and Samuel said, no way can you do this because that's not your function. Now, when our Lord Jesus Christ comes on the scene, what do we find? Well, the main ministries of the Old Testament converge in his one person.

I mean by that he is the prophet, he is the priest, he is the king. I hardly need to stop to outline that and bring Scripture to bear. The Lord Jesus Christ, a man of God, mighty, able to do miracles, a prophet.

You remember when he was speaking, confirming what the ordinary folk were saying about him in the bazaars. When our Lord was speaking, he makes reference to Jonah, and he says, a greater than Jonah is here. He makes reference to Solomon, a greater than Solomon is here.

You see, he's greater than any of the other prophets. He's greater than any of the other kings. And what's more, in his ministry, as he offers his body on the cross of Calvary, he fulfills the function of a priest.

So all those major ministries of the Old Testament converge in our Lord Jesus. Well, you say, what's that got to do with us today? Simply this. We are part of the body of Christ.

Our Lord Jesus works out his purposes through us, through his children. And in one sense, we endeavor by the gift of the Holy Spirit to reproduce our Lord Jesus on earth. Remember how our Savior once used the analogy of the vine, and he said, I am the vine and you are the branches.

And the branch is an identical copy of the vine, of the main stem. It's not the main stem, but it's a copy of. And in that respect, we reproduce or should be reproducing those virtues, those graces, those gifts in degree that are found in the ministry of our Lord Jesus.

Now, this was something, and I think you can all follow me at this point, made very, very clear at the Reformation, wasn't it? The idea of the priesthood of all believers. The absurdity of one group saying that they were priests and the rest were just ordinary people. No, says John Calvin, beaten to it by Martin Luther.

That's not true. We are all priests. And you recall that statement in 1 Peter 2.9 that we are, or actually it's not 1. Yes, it is 1 Peter 2.9. You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God.

We are priests if we are followers of the Lord Jesus. Not only are we priests, but we are at least potentially kings. Revelation 1.6 says that one day we will reign with our Lord Jesus.

The idea comes out particularly in the authorized translation. The Apostle Paul, you remember, tells us that one day we will be judging the world. And the idea there is the kingly reign of the church of Jesus Christ.

Well, we are all priests. Potentially we are all kings. It also seems to become reasonably plain when you read Scripture that basic to the body of Christ, shared amongst the people who belong to him, is the gift of prophecy.

Even the conservative, emphasis on the word conservative, New Bible Dictionary essay on prophecy concludes every Christian is potentially a prophet. Every Christian is potentially a prophet. Here is Joel and he says it will come to pass, on the last days I will pour out my spirit on all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.

And Paul here in 1 Corinthians 14 encourages people to prophesy, to strive after this particular gift. Well then, that's my biblical perspective. Our Lord Jesus is prophet, priest, and king.

And amongst ourselves, in some degree, there should be a reproduction of those offices. We're all priests unto our God. We are all potentially, at any rate, kings.

And in one sense, we're not just potentially kings, we're actually kings. Because we are the sons and daughters of God on planet Earth at this moment. And one day we will reign with our Lord Jesus.

But moreover, for our purposes this evening, we are prophets, or we should be prophets. Have you ever noticed the difference that there is, those of you who read up Bible commentaries, the difference there is amongst the commentators when they come to 1 Corinthians? It all depends, I'm talking about modern commentators now, people who've been writing, say, from 1950 onwards. It all depends on how they judge, or it seems to me, the gifts of the Spirit, and whether they are available today or not, as to how they give the Corinthian Christians a wigging or applaud them.

For instance, I was reading a book by a man, a very brilliant preacher in the state called John MacArthur. And he's written a book on the charismatics, in which he says some very strong things against them. And he lumps together all the most unfortunate aspects of the church at Corinth.

And by the time you finish with his list, and I've heard him preach it as well as read his book, but by the time you finish listening to Brother MacArthur speak about 1 Corinthians, you would think that these were the most terrible people on God's Earth. No, they were very sinful. They allowed certain things in the Christian community that should not have been allowed.

But, you know, there's an expression, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and many of us in our Christian communities today have transgressed, perhaps not in the same degree, but certainly we have broken God's commands as far as fellowship together is concerned, and we've entertained sin, and it's not been exposed and dealt with. So the Corinthians have a lot to teach us, even through their misdemeanors. But it's not all negative that Paul has to say about the Corinthians.

Not again, he throws out a bouquet. And those commentators, those writers who are particularly pro-charismatic gifts, they emphasize the bouquets. Well, let's take out one of these bouquets for a moment, shall we, for our purposes this evening.

1 Corinthians 1. No need to turn to all the verses that I'm going to quote during this Bible study, but I think this one's rather important. 1 Corinthians 1 and verse 4. Set up the context, and we'll move down a little as you're finding the place. I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus.

For in him you have been enriched in every way, in all your speaking and in all your knowledge, because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. That's the context. Now here's the specific point.

Therefore, you do not like any spiritual gift, any charismatic gift, to put it more directly from the original, as you eagerly wait for the Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. Again, to interpret that so you understand it, as you eagerly wait for the second coming of Jesus. You don't come behind in any charismatic gift as you wait for the second coming of the Lord Jesus.

Now my argument simply from that verse is this. How could it conceivably be said that it's within the purposes of God to lift the charismatic gifts or some of those gifts from the church for a period of time until the Lord returns? Rather, it seems to me that this verse is congratulating the Corinthians because of their spiritual prowess in some areas, and it seems to be implying that those gifts that they have been attracted to and are using sometimes wisely, sometimes unwisely, are available in the body of Christ until the Lord returns. The charismata is linked to the parousia, the gift to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, I don't know if you've ever thought that through from that verse of Scripture, but that's something that seems to me to be a logical conclusion. Now, I want to ask something else. Having tried to indicate my biblical perspective that we should be reproducing the categories of our Lord Jesus Christ in some degree in our lives, having given you one Scripture, I could have given you other examples to indicate that the gifts are with us or should be with the church of Christ until his return.

Let me ask another question. What is prophecy and what is preaching? What is prophecy and what is preaching? Now, if I had a lot of time, I would spend ten minutes at this point making some distinguishing comments and then showing you where there is an area of overlap. But one, there isn't time, and two, it's a rather complex argument, and three, you probably wouldn't follow it all.

So let me simplify it and to say this, that prophecy could well be defined in terms as speaking on behalf of another. Speaking on behalf of another. Not just predicting the future, but bringing the words of another to a person or a group of people.

Now, if that's a reasonable definition, I could give you justification for the definition, then you will see immediately that there is at least a measure of overlap between prophecy and preaching because what does the preacher do? Well, he's a herald. He's a herald who declares a message that he has from another. Actually, I prefer another concept about a preacher which is new to my understanding.

I got it from Dr. Jim Packer, in whose company I was two or three days ago, and he says that the preacher is not so much like a herald, he's more like a flunky. Now, I didn't really know what a flunky was, but I worked it out, and perhaps the best illustration is of the law court. The man who comes in and says, be upstanding.

Why? The judge is coming. And the preacher is a man who proclaims the presence of God, who doesn't just talk, but he introduces you to a person. But in both prophecy and preaching, there is communication, and what is communicated is on behalf of the judge, so to speak, on behalf of God.

So there's a measure of overlap. I'm not arguing they're identical, but I'm saying that there is a very basic common denominator. The prophet and the preacher convey a burden from the Lord.

One more thing I want to offer to you, at least several more things, but they're a little disjointed. I'll bring them all together, if you can concentrate as the evening goes by. The Bible is a prophetical book.

What do I mean by that? Well, close it, lift it up, what do you have? Neat prophecy all the way through, from Genesis right through to Revelation. It's a unique book. It's unique inasmuch as it is inspired, and by that word, inspired, at the moment, though not always in using this word, I am suggesting that it equals inerrant.

It is free from all error. The Bible is a prophetical book. Here is concentrated prophecy.

And it's such an amazing book that by its own testimony, when everything else has passed away, this will remain. Heaven and earth shall pass away, says the Lord Jesus, but my word will never pass away, Matthew 24, verse 35. 1 Peter 1.25, the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.

The word of God is historic. It speaks to the past. It's futuristic.

It speaks to the future. But it's always contemporary. It's always up to date.

It is the prophetic, abiding word of the Lord. It seems to me very interesting that when the New Testament writer of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament, he never does it, at least he rarely does it, in the past tense. For instance, if you were to look in Hebrews 3 later on, you don't need to turn to it now, he's quoting the incident where God's people provoked him as they moved from Egypt to the promised land, or the borders of the promised land.

And when he quotes the Old Testament, he says, the Holy Spirit says, is saying, and he makes an application, because he's not only referring historically to the disobedience of the Israelites yesteryear, but he's speaking contemporary to people in his day. Because the word of God abides forever. It's enduring.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And that same quality is embedded within his word. You can't stress that sufficiently today.

Now if you agree to that, and I don't really see how you can disagree, you are brought to the conclusion immediately that it's a nonsense, a dangerous nonsense to refer to the Bible as God's word yesterday. It's not. It's God's word today.

As someone has quit generally speaking, God is always generally speaking. Where does he speak? He speaks in his word, through his word, as his prophetic word is applied to us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, how was this word produced? Well, without giving you what I think would be a very interesting lecture in the composition of the Scriptures, you are aware that a body of men over the centuries wrote at the prompting of the Holy Spirit the various books that bear their name.

What gift did these men have? Now, I'm not arguing for the authority of Scripture this evening. I'm taking it for granted. I'm not trying to demonstrate it.

I'm assuming that you believe it. Now, what gift did the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament have? Not just the gift of inspiration. I think you would need a stronger word.

They had something that includes inspiration, but it goes beyond inspiration. They had the gift of infallibility. You see, you can be inspired, but not necessarily infallible.

If you are infallible, then you've been inspired. But the way that I understand the use of the term infallible, it's just that bit stronger. You can hear somebody preach today, can't you? You say, my, he was inspired.

You don't mean that every word was inerrant. But you do when you come to the Bible. It is an inerrant word.

It is free of error, historical, scientific, geographical, free of error. That I believe. And the more I study it, the more I'm convinced.

So, the men who wrote the Bible, they were men who were given that gift of infallibility. Thus saith the Lord. There was no argument.

I say, do you think this? Can you imagine Amos coming along and saying, you fellows, I've got a little idea. I'd like you to just give me your thinking, and then we'll work out our conclusion. Not a bit.

Amos bursts into the country like a meteorite, and what is released is God's word. His unadulterated, inerrant word. And that comes through in the New Testament.

The Lord Jesus never says, thus saith the Lord. He says, verily I say unto you. Because he speaks in the person of God, as he is God.

And what he has to say is therefore inerrant. And when you move into the epistles, what do you discover? Well, examples like this. The apostle giving his teaching on the Lord's Supper.

You remember in 1 Corinthians. For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. And when he's writing to the Thessalonians, he says, congratulating them, you received what we had to say, not as the word of men, but as the word of God.

Now those are just three examples. Once more, there could be numerous ones quoted, but time isn't exactly on my side. The reason for these examples is just to show you that the uniqueness of this book.

Now remember I've argued it is a prophetic book. A prophetical book. A timeless book.

And it necessitated for its composition the gift of infallibility on the part of the men who wrote it. That doesn't mean to say they were always infallible. There were times when they were anything but infallible.

When Peter writes his epistles, he's infallible. When Peter is denying the Lord Jesus, denying that he knows the Lord Jesus, he's far from showing the gift of spiritual insight and what have you. So I'm arguing that the Bible is a prophetical book.

A timeless book. Always up to date. I don't believe that the gift of infallibility is still with us.

And that's really what I want to come on to now. When the word of God was completed, I mean by that when the early church in the third century had got together all the Old, the New Testament, and the Old Testament, then they had, as we've just been mentioning, an infallible source of truth. It's very difficult for us, isn't it, to sort of imagine what it must have been like in the first century.

I mean, here you are with your brand new copy of the NIV or King James Version or what have you. You've never really known in your Christian life any time when you didn't have the whole Bible. Remember when I was preaching in Nepal some years ago, I quoted from, I think it was the book of Job.

A lady missionary came to me afterwards and said, Brother, before you speak an illustration or use an illustration from Job again, do remember that the Nepalese haven't got the Old Testament. You have to be very careful. Well, in New Testament times, they only had sight of certain of the letters.

But after the third century, the whole Bible is available as the whole Bible is available to you. And thank God for it. If you're grateful for anything, you should be grateful for your copy of Scripture.

Now, according to some people, the completion of the canon of Scripture had quite an effect on the church. And I think that you can overstate the effect and you can understate the effect. You overstate the effect by saying that since the canon has been completed, there is therefore no further need for any charismatic verbal gift in terms of God laying a message on the heart of a person and him or her speaking it out.

Why? Well, because we've got Scripture. So we don't need that form of gift anymore. The understatement, I think, is to say, well, the completion of the canon of Scripture makes absolutely no difference to the revelatory gifts at all.

This, to me, shows a little bit of dullness in thought. Of course it must have made a difference. Because now, as I've repeated almost ad nauseam during the last three or four minutes, now the Christian church from the third, fourth century has God's prophetical word, and anything that is said, anything that is spoken can be checked from that word.

Now, what I am arguing is this, that simply because there is no further revelation in terms of doctrine, God has already spoken and there's no further word, revelatory gifts are affected. But it's unwarrantable, I'm arguing, that they're therefore withdrawn. A change of significance does not mean an emptying of value.

A change of significance. Why a change of significance? Well, we've got the New Testament and the Old Testament Scripture. Change of significance because, well, everyone now has the opportunity of checking all that is said from the word of God, but not necessarily a change of value inasmuch as these gifts could still be used within the sovereignty of God to sharpen his word to a particular situation.

But the word that is given must always be in harmony with the word that has been revealed through Scripture because this is the test of a valid or an invalid utterance. So what am I arguing? Well, that the prophetic ministry can, should, has, and must continue. And contrary to a lot of arguments that have been put up, I have reason to suggest and to bring to you that there's an abundant evidence to say that this has been the case down the centuries and that this is still the case today and should be sought after with the same enthusiasm as Paul enjoined the Corinthians to seek after the ability to prophesy.

Now what am I saying by making that argument? Well, in one sense I'm denying what some people are claiming today under the head of what is known as restorationist theology. You say, there you go again with your long words. Well, it's not my fault.

I didn't make them up. And I'm not particularly wanting to use them, but you've got to use words to get across somehow what you mean, so let me tell you what is being referred to. Restorationists.

There have always been restorationists in the church. The recovery of a specific truth. As though everything from, shall we say, the first century to whenever it was rediscovered, 15th century, 17th century, 19th century, 20th century, everything in the meantime was low-key and perhaps without value, but then the restorationists got going.

They discovered what had been missing. That's been reinserted by the Holy Spirit, they would claim, and therefore you're back in alignment with apostolic times. And that is being said today increasingly with regard to, shall we say, the gift of prophecy, and indeed other gifts.

Now, I'm rejecting that. I'm not rejecting the use of the gift of prophecy, I've made that clear, but I'm rejecting the notion that there has never been any evidence of that gift for many, many centuries. Remember what my definition of prophecy was, and indeed is, speaking on behalf of another.

Let's be specific, speaking on behalf of God, declaring his power, his holiness, his justice, exposing the willfulness of man, uncovering sin, causing man to fall down trembling, and confessing within a Christian community, God is with you of a truth. That's a paraphrase of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 14, as many of you will know. Dr. Packer comments, since, however, prophesying is in principle a universal Christian activity, so far from expecting to find it confined to the apostolic age, we should not expect to find it absent in any age, and therefore we should be somewhat suspicious of theories that assume that it has been absent for most of the church's life.

One of my great complaints about modern evangelicals, and include myself, obviously, because I'm reasonably modern, is that friends don't read sufficiently. Now, I guess in some ways I'm a 17th and 18th century man, inasmuch as I often read in that area of literature. I've also taken in a bit of Spurgeon from time to time, you probably didn't know that, but just occasionally I imbibe.

You know what they say, an apple a day keeps the doctor away, Spurgeon's sermon a day keeps the devil at bay, I think is a sort of evangelical equivalent. Sometimes I'm amazed by what these men were preaching centuries or decades ago. A great man of God by the name of Savonarola, probably never heard of him, sounds more like part of the menu on an Italian restaurant, a great preacher in Florence, a man used by God.

Think of the great Augustine, a man charged with a mighty intellect who knew the power of God resting upon him. I think of men of Whitefield's day and Wesley's day, John Senec and Howell Harrison, men like that, and contemporary men too. And sometimes when you read what these men have said, your mind is almost amazed that they can conceivably have expressed the truth that they did.

One wonders that words could bear the weight of meaning that were being carried. And I have no explanation for the spiritual insight and erudition, clarity of teaching of these men, but that a gift of remarkable prophetic utterance at times rested upon them. And quite frankly, though this isn't a knock of what is happening today necessarily in evangelical circles, quite frankly sometimes when I read these men and I'm amazed, although I can only read them, I can't hear them, I'm amazed at what they have to say, when I contrast that with some of the prophecies that are being claimed today, well, forgive me for saying, but occasionally the latter do seem a little bit banal, sometimes a little bit childish, not all, but sometimes.

Let's not exaggerate claims for what is happening. I'm not quite sure that you can make out a case for restorationist theology. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be with his church until the end of the age.

If the Spirit was withdrawn totally for any centuries, for any lengthy period throughout the world, then one wonders what happened to the promise of our Lord Jesus. Now, you may have made the conclusion, because I whipped back into my sort of Spurgeon circle of friends, that I'm arguing, therefore, that prophecy is preaching, and here I am as a sort of not very adequate, but nonetheless modern equivalent of a preacher, saying that, therefore, the prophetic gift is harnessed by the ministry, by the clergy, so-called, not a word that I really accept as a description of myself, and the poor old laity have got nothing to do with this sort of gift. No, I don't believe that at all.

I don't believe it at all. Some years ago I came across a book, it was never published in this country, it was written by a very great man, some of you may have known him, called Donald Gee. Donald Gee was a man before his years, he was never recognized during his lifetime, not to any great measure at any rate, apart from in Assemblies of God, where his ministry was continued in this country up to his death, which would be about 15 years ago.

Now, Gee wrote a book, which was published in the States, of which I have a copy, and he argued in his book that the verbal gifts of the Spirit, and by that he was referring to the word of wisdom the word of knowledge, and prophecy, and what have you, are generally to be discovered within the proclamation of Scripture. The insights of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit conveys to the preacher as he's in full flight. Now, you must have experienced that, if you've not, in terms of you being the preacher, you must have experienced it at times when you've listened to a man.

You know, suddenly there he is, he's just ordinary in the pulpit, and well, it might be interesting or not interesting, as the case may be, but he's within the bounds of his normal limitations. And what he has to say, because he's a godly man, if you listen to him, has got some value. But occasionally, and perhaps more frequently, depending on the man, he's lifted out of himself, and he has an eloquence, he has an ability to move around, he's like a jet plane in full flight.

And you wonder, where is this power coming from? And why is it that occasionally, when he zooms down towards you, he's exposing the thinking of your heart, or he's sending an arrow that goes direct to something in your life that you know was wrong. How do you explain that? Well, G said, well, G reckoned, as a Pentecostal pioneer, that within that style of ministry are to be discovered, not exclusively, but often, some of these little-known, little-understood gifts of the Spirit. Now, it may seem to you that I've skated very loosely over 1 Corinthians 14, but I'm handling quite a heavy subject this evening, and there's so much that one would really like to share, but obviously, one doesn't want to go on ad infinitum.

Here in 1 Corinthians 14, we're not just thinking in terms of the preacher, or the preachers, but we are thinking in terms of ordinary folk in a congregation. And it does seem that in apostolic times, at any rate, there's a jolly sight more participation than is encouraged in most denominations or non-denominational churches today. And within this chapter, there seems to be the implication, particularly as Paul is speaking about prophecy, that the prophetical gift should be very much to the forefront of the worship pattern in the churches, certainly in his day, and I believe by extension today.

Congregations should be made aware of their prophetical ability. Now, my claim is that to some degree, they have been, but perhaps the emphasis hasn't been placed as heavily as it ought to have been. I'm not daring to engage in a neat little bit of footwork now to Shanghai the claim of the charismatic movement with regard to the gifts of the spirit.

I repeat that I encourage that we ought to, or that I'm happy to encourage people to grasp more of their prophetic potential, the handling of scripture, and the revealing of the mind of the Lord. And I am very happy indeed to take the corrective that so often within our churches, the worship pattern has very largely been more of a monologue than a sharing thing. I do believe that a lot of congregations want the monologue, incidentally, and I do believe, notwithstanding Paul's statement here about a more democratic style of worship, that there are regular times when from a regular teacher, the scriptures are to be expounded.

And this is what Paul was doing at Ephesus, was it not? For how many years? Three years? And sometimes he went on so long that they fell asleep. Well, we're certainly apostolic in that area in the tabernacle. So I'm arguing that, along with the expository ministry, which sometimes is studded with prophetic ability and gifts of word, or gifts of the word of wisdom and knowledge, I'm arguing that also at a general level within the congregation, there is a possibility, and indeed there should be more than a possibility.

There should be the practice of people sharing their understanding of the mind of God, the heart of God. And a more charismatic church. Perhaps you've been to some meetings and someone has got up and they have spoken and what they have said has been recognized by the people there, far more than in any other church, and indeed there may not be anything that equals that in your estimate in any other church, that it's recognized as a word from the Lord.

What am I to say about that? What do I feel about that? Well, two things I want to comment on. And the first has regard to the structure, and the second has regard to the substance of what goes on. Now, with regard to the structure, invariably I think this is unwarranted.

Now you say, what on earth do you mean? Well, if someone comes along and they speak in the first person singular about God, as though God is speaking directly, dynamically, without qualification to that congregation or conference or assembly or whatever, then I would argue the structure is invalid and has no biblical warrant at all. If it's what the Latin language calls the epissima verba, a claim to reproduce God in the first person singular as though he is speaking directly and dynamically, then I have great reservations about the structure in which the prophecy is given. For what reason? Well, think it through.

Here we are in Corinth, and there are a number of prophecies that are given. One prophet can, or one person with a prophetical gift can sit down and let someone else get up and take over, submit to them. And then when the whole thing is through, it's all checked.

We are to judge the prophets, to judge the prophecies. Now, how can you judge something that is given dynamically, or so it would seem, from the throne room of heaven? Let me illustrate from an example that's local. Here is a man, and he's conducting worship, and the worship's been, shall we say, somewhat jubilant, somewhat extravagant, and he wants to quieten things down.

And so rightfully, because he's exercising pastoral authority and control, he asks the people to be a little bit more contemplative. Suddenly, somebody gets up, I the Lord say unto you, etc., etc. And the man says, but I've said everyone has to be quiet.

Now immediately, you've got a conflict, haven't you? A very, very grievous conflict. Now, it seems to me that this tendency to speak, not always, not always by any means, but the tendency that's rife in some circles today to speak as though God is directly speaking to the people, first of all, is biblically unwarranted, and secondly, it makes judgment very, very difficult. It makes judgment very difficult.

If someone gets up in a meeting, and they say, I believe that the Lord has put this word upon my heart, and speaks in terms of that, in that frame, what they believe that the Lord is saying, and what they believe the Lord would have the people to do, and they put it in less elevated language, it seems to me to be far more understandable when one thinks in terms of Paul saying, judge the prophets. See, the prophets, and the gift of prophecy, as Paul works it out in 1 Corinthians, has a measure of inspiration, but not the measure of infallibility. If it had the measure of infallibility, then you wouldn't judge it.

You can't judge something that's infallible, can you? That's illogical. It's daft. You can't do it.

If it's infallible, then it must be accepted. But when Paul says, well, judge the prophecies, then he is allowing for the fact that there's something less than infallible within these prophecies. It doesn't mean to say that they're all nonsense.

Neither, indeed, am I saying that the person today who gets up and speaks in the first person singular is not of necessity failing to communicate anything that could have worth to that group of people who are listening. All I'm saying is that he would do better to use less extravagant language in sharing what he feels the Lord has put on his heart. Now, this is nothing new that I'm adding as a corrective.

Again, go back to Donald G. or go back to the old Pentecostal theologians. There weren't many of them, but there were some, and some were underrated, and they're coming into their own today. Thank God that often people's value is more recognized when they are dead, and if they wrote, then their words live on after them.

Listen to an old Pentecostal. We hear to a point of weariness the phrase, I, the Lord, say unto you. This admittedly carries the root idea of prophesying, but it is not essential.

The message can be given in less elevated language than a modern commentator, David Atkinson. The common use of the first person singular in charismatic congregational prophecy today would not seem to be of the essence of prophecy, but rather to a behavioral habit developed within the subculture. The authority of the prophetic message is not in its form, but in its content, and to use a form like that makes the weighing of the content much harder.

See the point?