Thoughts On the Gifts and Prophets

A question was asked, whether some of the gifts had passed away after the founding of the church, and what relationship the Old Testament prophets were to the gifts as described by Paul. Part of the context of the question was how to view the verses in the first Corinthian letter, chapter 13. There is a description by Paul of when the perfect comes then we will need not the gifts per se. I believe and view these verses as both for the now, and for the end of all things. In the now, the Spirit is emerging into the age, revealing the reality of the New Kingdom through those who believe. For the end of all ages, we will exist in that completed state as His inheritance, as His bride, as the family of God forever. No more building will be necessary, it is done.

Now, have the gifts disappeared from this realm? On a practical level, there are many today I would bear witness of, whom by faith in the Living God, bring forth prophecy, speak in tongues, and reveal knowledge (as well as function in the other gifts). To address the Corinthian verses, clearly Paul has juxtaposed spiritual functioning with the greater motive of love. By his logic here in the verses mentioned, one would conclude that in love, the gifts are good and for perfecting the saints. As an example, we of this day and age will call someone a preacher or pastor, yet that is a gift. Our label does not bring forth the gift, nor does four years of seminary or any appointment of man. Conversely, there are men today, who in love of the body, function in the pastoral gift spiritually whether they bear that label or not.

To continue, I would ask all to ponder this regarding the foundation of the church. The founding of the church universally in time was when the foundation stone was set in place, as in when our Lord presented before God the perfect sacrifice, even His own body. To that foundation were added the apostles and prophets. At what point in time has the practical (and I do mean in the practice of building) extension of that 'foundation' so to speak become complete? Why wouldn't we need apostles today? Is the building complete? If God were to 'found' a church in some locality, today, who would He send? If these gifts (by that I mean men raised up given to the church to function in such a way) are for the perfecting of the body of Christ, do we yet need perfecting?

No one can move what has been built. The foundation stone was set, and to that were added the apostles. And built onto them were the believers next, who sought the Lord and built up the body. Among their midst were raised up ones, given as gifts, sent out to bring salvation to all. Were these added on top? Or laid alongside? Are they part of the foundation? Is it simply that those of the first generation of Christians were the foundation? Who will answer with the measure of this building?

In no way do I lessen the significance of the first apostles. Nor do I limit God by my partial understanding. Our predecessors in each age built on to this temple. These ones received the life that has penetrated the ages, and spread it in their day. Is this current generation any less? Do we have some limitation to the movement of God? Has His will changed in any way? Or His working? In each generation the Spirit pushes into the realm of man, manifesting God's glory and power according to the faith implanted in the people. We should expect to see it manifest, eagerly looking for more eternal life. Paul exhorts to all believers to run the race. Do you think the race is over for you? Have you reached completion? If not, then run!

Many will contend that Ephesians 2:20 has specific tense and implication:

"... being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;"

And certainly as completing the law, the picture of God sending the Messiah to the people of God first in the transition to the New Kingdom, twelve apostles are significant, representing access for all the tribes. But in the practical reality of the people at the time of Christ there was no clear tribal representation. The captivities hundreds of years previous had blended all into two major groups, why send twelve? That is rhetorical, but significant, in that even the physical reality of the twelve in the historic age was a manifestation of a spiritual reality.

Why after completion of the law, which He accomplished for those that believe (Rom 10:4), by which the twelve represent that completion for all Israel and Judah of that day, and the descendants of Abraham for ancient days, does the principal of raising up apostles unto each people, in each age not seem applicable? Even those twelve, beginning with the vision of Peter, go forth into all the land. With plenty of other apostles one would assume, though the record of such is faint (Rom 16:7). Who are we to proclaim the level of an office, or the stamp of approval on a man who is given as a gift? If one today functions as a apostle, though unrecognized by name, is he any less? And likewise, is it not Christ in that man working? If the life is evident, the Spirit in you bears witness to it. The labels of man have no significance, even if those labels are in the language of spiritual things.

Now, on to this idea of prophecy, which is a part of the original question I find so fascinating. What is the separation between the prophets of the OT from the gift in the spirit to perfect the saints in the New Covenant? This is interesting, as clearly we have the Holy Spirit moving within today through the baptism of such. Yet they (in the OT) were our picture of God's intention for the functioning ministry of the New Covenant. Jesus being our leader and chief prophet. Was not the Olivette prediction one of the greatest prophesies of all time? And in that, He echoed the prophets of the OT.

And prophesy itself is the speaking forth of God's living word. By any measure the word spoken by the prophets of old was living, and in all practicality equivalent to God's voice today among the saints. As to the 'office' of prophet, as a gift given to the church for the perfecting of the body, I can only compare the practical application. There was no direct equivalence as per the Pauline description in days of old, but those OT men sparated for the purpose of speaking God's word to the people are beautiful pictures of the 'official' gift. In this what strikes me as the difference is the blood of our Prophet.

Yes, that seems the closest to what is different. Consider Isaiah's vision, the Seraph took a coal from the altar and touched his lips. And declared his transgressions forgiven. In that, he took part in faith of a sacrifice, yes, one offered by God, as there were no other priests in the vision, and Isaiah did not offer his own sacrifice. He walked in faith in the coming spiritual reality for all which was realized in our High Priest, Jesus. But we have that blood now, and experience the spiritual reality of that eternal ministry and sacrifice.

The difference between the prophets of old and those in the work of the New Kingdom is then the blood, the access to God. Today a prophet may speak, and all who listen have the immediate opportunity to enter into that word experientially by faith. In ancient days, they must have laid hold of that future promise by faith as well, but walked in the practice of the law which was as yet unfulfilled.

May God open the eyes of us all to the workings in this day of His will. May we eagerly seek the function which He has prepared for us in giving life to the saints. Lord, illuminate the path of service to all who read this, that we would allow You to do your work through us in this day, in our localities. Thank You for the blood, no words can encompass how precious that gift.