by Bishop Mark Shaw

 

 

 

 

There have been numerous articles put out for public consumption that makes the claim that the office of prophet and apostle is non-existent in the Body of Christ today. In this article I will submit evidence from the word of God to prove that indeed they do exist and that the burden of proof lies upon those that would say the do not exist rather then on those that say they do. One of the more popular articles that have been sent to my attention is that of Lori Eldridge. You may point your Internet browser to the following link to read her article in its entirety.

 

http://www.users.qwest.net/~lorield/endtime_prophets/noproph.html

 

In my refutation of her presentation I will show what she says and I will also show why I believe she is wrong. My prayer for all is that you accept all that God has for His Church, and that you remove any mindsets that would stand in the way of the truth as presented by God in His Word, no matter what that truth might be.

 

For me, I am no longer so quick to accept doctrine simply on the basis of, or my respect for, the teacher. I realize and accept that this applies to my teaching as well. It only takes one or two times of being misled to cure you from just taking someone’s word without investigating the subject yourself. I now approach every subject with an open heart and prayer. Even positions that I have held for many years, I put to the scrutiny of the Word. That means that I also do not expect anyone else to just accept what I say without investigating the subject himself or herself. You must do the study yourselves, and I am confident that, as promised in the bible, the Holy Spirit will lead you and guide you into all truth. God bless you and speak to you as you read this article.

 

The reason that I say the burden of proof lies on those that say prophets and apostles do not exist today is that God has always been the One that plainly establishes all of the gifts and callings of the Church, so likewise God would also need to plainly state the cessation of such since He is the One that established them in the first place. We can agree that God is the Establisher of all callings and gifts, can we not? It is in Him that we move and breath and have our being. Jesus plainly called the twelve "apostles." He also plainly called John the Baptist a "prophet." So if these offices existed when Jesus walked this earth, and He established His acceptance of such, when and where did He state the cessation of these two ministerial offices? Before one decides to say that God changed something that God established, they must show beyond any doubt that God was indeed the One that has changed it.

 

I would encourage you to read the article by Lori Eldridge in full so that you can see that I have not taken anything out of context. That is the only reason I offer the link to her article. I think it important that all sides be given audience without being censored. Truth is a good thing, therefore we should not be afraid to show all sides to an argument. Truth has a knack for surfacing to the top. So that you will be able to clearly tell what I type from that which I have quoted, the type that you see in blue and in italics are direct quotes from the article by Lori Eldridge.

 

 

It is often claimed that there are prophets today and that we should listen to them. However, there is a difference between the "gift" of prophecy (defending and speaking forth the ESTABLISHED Word of God) and the "Office" of Prophet (speaking forth NEW revelations from God and establishing scripture). The gift of prophecy is still in effect but not the office of prophet as I will show below. The same can be said for the gift vs the office of Apostle--the later being for the purpose to lay the foundation for the Church and the former to build new churches on that foundation already established. Thus the role of Apostle and Prophet was temporary. They were eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. For this reason I believe there are no prophets today and also no apostles today.

The following shows us the requirements of the replacement for Judas:

 

Acts 1:21-26, "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION."

 

The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses:

 

Acts 5:32, Peter and the other apostles stated, "We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

 

Therefore, ALLLLLLL the apostles were eye witnesses to Christ and his Resurrection.

 

 

One of the frequent arguments used to support the position that apostles are no longer valid in the Church is the replacement qualifications given for the substitution of Judas. First I would like to submit to you the differences between the 12 apostles and those that came afterward. The Apostle Paul called the 12 “most-eminent” or “super-apostles.”

 

2 Corinthians 11:5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

 

2 Corinthians 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.

 

Why are the twelve called super-apostles? Well we have a few clues as to that reason. First, Jesus said that the twelve apostles would sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. For this reason, they must be of the House of Israel.

 

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

Secondly, when John was describing the New Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven at the end of the age, we find that the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones upon which were written the names of the twelve apostles.

 

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

 

These two honors bestowed on the 12 only, are the very reasons that the 12 apostles are singled out as being the super-apostles. Now having established this fact, is it any wonder that the qualifications for becoming one of the twelve apostles were such that they had to have been with the other eleven and Jesus from the time of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and they had to have been an eye witness of His resurrection? These are not qualifications for all apostles, but rather just for the replacement of Judas. This replacement apostle would sit upon a throne to judge a tribe of Israel. This replacement apostle would have his name written on the foundation stone of the wall of the new city Jerusalem. So it is understandable that someone would have to be picked that would have sit under the teaching of Jesus for the same length of time as the other eleven had. Also, since the whole of the Christian faith and doctrine were to issue out of these men, then it is also understandable why they also had to have been eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. 

 

No where do we see these qualifications used to qualify any of the other apostles, including Paul. Was Paul with the twelve super-apostles from the time Jesus was baptized? Lori Eldridge only draws attention to being an eyewitness of the resurrection of Jesus as being a qualification to being an apostle. Why? Because that is the only way she can transfer that qualification on to all apostles; namely, because Paul did see the Lord Jesus, but he did not become a follower of Jesus until after His resurrection. Thus Paul does not qualify according to the conditions laid out in Acts, yet the bible clearly calls him an apostle. Therefore if we were to apply the qualifications given by the eleven apostles in Acts 1:21-26 to the Apostle Paul, he would be disqualified!!

 

Neither do the twelve apostles dispute that Paul was an apostle, which is significant since they were the ones that established the qualifications in the first place! So it is obvious that not all apostles, who are named in the New Testament, were with Jesus from the time of His baptism. It is this fact alone that proves that the qualifications mentioned in Acts chapter one, are only for the replacement of Judas who was a super-apostle, not a qualification for all apostles. So her statement that ALLLLLLL apostles were eyewitnesses and that this somehow was a qualification for all apostles, falls way short of the evidence that is plainly before us.

 

Another proof that an apostle must be an eye witness:

 

1 Cor. 9:1, "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"

 

Paul was the last apostle (He witnessed Christ on the Road to Damascus):

 

1 Cor. 15:8, "Then he [Christ] appeared to James, then to ALLLLL the apostles, and LAST of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

 

Please notice Paul stated he was the LAST apostle to witness Christ.

We are instructed in 2 Peter and Jude to avoid false doctrine by RECALLING the teachings of the Apostles already established:

 

2 Peter 1:12 "So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and ARE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED in the truth YOU NOW HAVE. . . . And I will make every effort to see that after my departure [death] you will always be able to remember these things."

 

Please notice that what they had already was enough to firmly establish them in the truth and Paul wanted them to remember what he said--and he also explicitly stated there would be no other apostles after him--otherwise there wouldn't be such a great need for them to remember what he said.

 

The quote of 1 Corinthians 9:1 conveniently leaves out the very next verse that really is the statement that seals the apostleship of Paul. It wasn't seeing the Lord that sealed him as an apostle, but rather it was the converts to Christianity at the places he traveled to, and which were the results of his ministry, that sealed his apostleship. Let's read it.

 

1 Corinthians 9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

 

Paul's travel to Corinth, his teaching, and those that he converted to Christianity; that is what sealed his apostleship. If we use the qualification of seeing the resurrected Lord, then we also have to use the qualification of having been with Him from His baptism. The latter would disqualify Paul from being an Apostle, but again, the bible clearly calls him an apostle, and the twelve super-apostles did not dispute it.

 

The quote of 1 Corinthians 15:8 lacks the burden of proof needed to establish the cessation of the office of apostle. Just because Paul said he was the last to see Jesus does not necessarily indicate that, number one, Jesus has not appeared to anyone since that time, or number two, that it was THE qualification upon which his apostleship rested. As I have shown in 1 Corinthians 9:2, it was the converts from Paul's teaching that sealed his apostleship. Not to mention that there are others called “apostle” in the bible. In addition, Paul did not meet the burden of the first qualification, which is being a follower of Jesus since the baptism of Jesus. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that the qualifications laid out by the eleven were only for replacing the twelfth and was not meant to be the qualifications for all apostles that would follow them.

 

The last statement on 2 Peter 1:12 is a real stretch. First it is not verse 12  but verse 15. No where can we read into that verse that Peter was saying that he was the last apostle. That makes no sense, especially since others lived longer then he, and there were others named as apostles after him. If I were to say to someone after teaching them some things in the bible, that I would make sure that they would be able to remember what I taught after I were dead, what would you think I meant by that. To me, that simply means that the things I taught would be put in writing so as to be available after my death. That does not mean that there would be no apostles after him. You just cannot read that into the verses.

 

It also seems to me that Lori is trying to say that modern day apostles and prophets are writing new doctrine. That is categorically incorrect! If anyone calls themselves a prophet or apostle and tries to introduce new doctrine then they are false ones. Remember, it was Apostle Paul who said that if anyone delivered any other message then what he had delivered to the church, even angels, let them be accursed. Even the Apostles were not delivering new doctrine. Everything they were teaching, was already stated in the Old Testament scripture, and Jesus taught them from the Old Testament before and after His resurrection. Even the truth that Jesus taught, who was God in the flesh, was revealed in the Old Testament. It is so much easier to let scripture say what it says without trying to read new stuff into it.

 

We are warned about false teachers and prophets in the last days:

 

2 Peter 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you."

2 Peter 3:2 "I want you to recall the words spoken in the PAST by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."

2 Peter 3:16 "His [Paul's] letter contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Jude 3-4 "I felt I had to write and urge you to CONTEND [earnestly struggle] for the faith that was ****ONCE FOR ALL*** entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

Please notice that Peter and Jude did not say we are to listen to the apostles and prophets living in OUR day but rely on the apostles and prophets in THEIR DAY, and we are instead to BEWARE of the apostles and prophets of OUR day. This means we have to avoid anyone who attempts to add or take away from what the apostles and prophets and the scriptures have relayed to us and Peter and Jude called them "godless men." And you can tell they are godless men when they deny Jesus Christ, i.e., they preach a false gospel--usually one of works (i.e., you must endure the Tribulation and be purified before you are saved, etc.) which betrays a lack of understanding of Grace and thus a false Gospel. 

 

Lori’s statement that Peter and Jude were saying not to listen to modern day apostles and prophets is not supported by the text. Nor does the text say that we are to beware of apostles and prophets of our day. It does say to beware of false prophets and false teachers, which in and of it self is a statement to the validity of modern day prophets. For if there are false prophets, one must conclude that there are genuine ones too. Using Lori’s logic, I could conclude that since the Word says in Galatians 1:8 that we are to reject anyone preaching any other gospel means that all modern day preachers are false simply because they are preaching. This simply does not make sense. One of the conclusions that she mistakenly makes is that modern day apostles and prophets are adding too, or taking away from the Word already established by the first apostles and prophets. That is simply not true. Apostles and Prophets callings are not to establish new doctrine or new scripture. True modern day apostles and prophets would reject any attempt to do so. She misinterprets the reason for the office of apostle and prophet.

 

Her conclusion that modern day Apostles and Prophets are teaching that all must endure the tribulation and be purified before being saved is absurd. She may have listened to someone who is a false apostle and false prophet teaching that, but that does not disqualify those that are called into those positions and are teaching the gospel as delivered by the twelve and Paul. Just because I hear someone who calls himself or herself a teacher, teach something false, it does not mean that I can label all teachers as false. 

 

The definition given in the first paragraph of Lori’s article for the difference of the gift of prophecy and the office of prophecy are without merit. They are not even scriptural. For instance, she says that the office of prophecy is to speak forth new revelations from God and establishing scripture. Granted, the Prophet does get revelations from God, but not for the purpose of establishing new scripture. When we look at those that wrote what we call "scripture," not all were prophets. Thus, God uses whomever He chooses to write His words. God is the author, man is only the writer. There are many things that the modern day prophet can offer the Body of Christ. One of those is confirmation to the Spirit’s words to a person’s heart. Another is warning, so that a person will know what is about to befall them, either so that person can redirect himself or herself, or so they can be prepared for what is about to happen. This purpose is even demonstrated in the book of Acts.

 

Acts 21:10-11 And as we were staying there for some days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”

Here is clear evidence of the ministry of a prophet being for warning, not the establishment of new scripture. What love, that God would warn His people of events pertinent to their personal lives, to protect, and/or to comfort them. Another example of this is also in the book of Acts.

 

Acts 11:28-30 And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

 

Here is an example of the office of prophet being used to warn people of a famine to come so that preparation could be made to supply the saints with the necessary provisions. As anyone can see, this was not to establish new doctrine. Now I ask you, does the Body of Christ have any less of a need now then it did then? I think the answer to that question is obvious. Where is the clear statement of scripture that declares that the office of apostle and prophet has ceased?

 

There is a need for the prophetic gifts in today's church. Let me give you a couple personal examples. One prophetess that I know had a couple dreams of warning. The first one was early on in her life. She was dreaming that the military came to her door to announce the death of her husband who was in Vietnam. She was looking out her bedroom window as a green military car pulled up. Two Marines got out and came to the door and knocked. In her dream she could see the shiny black shoes of those two Marines as she descended the stairs. Then she was awaken by her mother who told her that there was somebody there to see her. She went to the window and she saw that same green military car. Her dream began to play out and she already knew the results. As she descended the stairs, there were the shiny shoes that she had seen. As she got down to where they were, they announced the death of her husband. What was the purpose and result of that dream? Having been warned of what was about to happen, she was comforted by God knowing that He loved her and cared for her that He would show her in such detail what was to befall her. As a result, she was able to endure the death of her husband much easier then if she were not notified before hand. See how this corresponds to the same warning that Agabus had given the Apostle Paul?

 

In the second dream, there was an image of the prophetesses brother who had a hunting shirt on riding in a car with a friend, and in the background, there was an image of her father. As she awoke she sensed that her brother was in danger. She called her mother to ask where her brother was. She was told that her brother had gone fishing with a friend. At this point she still didn't understand the dream, but she knew there was danger involved, so she began to pray for them. Later she got the word that her brother was in a bad car accident and they did not expect him to live. She also found out that her brother and his friend had been drinking heavily. That is when the dream started to make sense. The image of her father in the background of this dream was now clear. Her father was a former alcoholic. She continued to pray for her brother and against all odds, he survived. Again, this gives us a clear understanding of what the prophetic is supposed to do for us today. We are able to save lives through prayer and we get comfort from God because He is letting us know beforehand what is going to take place.

 

Lori’s definition of the gift of prophecy is just as false as the one she gave for the office of prophet. She contends that the gift of prophecy is the defending and speaking forth the established Word of God. Let’s see what the scriptures say about that. The Greek word for “Prophet” is a compound word. “Pro,” which simply means “before,” and “phemi” (fay-mee), which means “say.” It doesn’t take much consideration to see that the term means to “say before” it happens, or to prophesy. That is the meaning of the word. Now if we were to say that the gift of prophecy is to “say after” that which is already established then it can no longer be called prophecy. Also if we took her definition and applied it to the Old Testament prophecies, then you can see just how absurd that contention is. You cannot change the definition of the word "prophecy" in mid stream just to fit it to your own doctrine. That is exactly what she is doing.

 

1 Corinthians 14:3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

 

1 Corinthians 14:31-33 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

 

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

 

Here we see the purpose and the reason we still need prophecy today. You must ask the question, do we still need these things today? How can we read these things and say that prophecy does not exist or that it is only saying what is already established. It is plainly obvious to me that we still need the gift of prophecy and we still have it. Also, we still need the office of Prophet and we still have it. Then why do some people feel the need to try to write these things out of the bible? Talk about adding to or taking away! Could it be that because they do not have the Spirit moving in their midst in the demonstration of prophesies that they have to explain the absence of this demonstration of the Spirit? I ask you this question. Do you get any indication that the office of Prophet has ceased after you read the next two verses?

 

1 Corinthians 14:37-40 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:20 do not despise prophetic utterances.

 

The gospel is so plain and simple. There will always be those that try to complicate its meanings and its message. Stick to the simplicity of the message and it will confirm that which is true and that which is in error.

 

Also, the Church was built on the FOUNDATION of the Apostles and Prophets of the N.T.:

 

Eph 2:19-21 "Consequently YOU are no longer foreigners and aliens but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit"

 

In the Greek Interlinear bible the word "built" is "Having been built," it is in an aorist participle passive tense, i.e., this was an action completed in the past that occurred to the subject of the sentence, i.e., the Church, by the Apostles and Prophets of the N.T. It is saying the Church WAS built on the foundation, not that it "IS" being built. You cannot build a foundation, then build the church for 2,000 years and then suddenly decide you need more foundation under that Church because the former foundation is now inadequate. The foundation was an act completed in the past. It is done. It is finished. The same thing can be said for Ephesians 3:5.6.

Here is another common mistake that is made by those that try to write apostles and prophets out of the modern day church. First, whom was Paul speaking to? He was speaking to the church at Ephesus. Was he speaking of the Church as a whole, or was he speaking of just the local Church at Ephesus? I suppose it could be argued either way. In order to support Lori’s claim, Paul would have to have been talking about the universal Church, not the local Church. But let us consider that he was talking about the universal Church.

 

The key word here is “foundation.” We know that throughout the bible Jesus is referred to as the Chief Corner Stone, and as the Rock. So what does it mean, when Paul refers to the foundation of the prophets and apostles. Remember the scripture that I gave earlier that identified the twelve apostles as the super-apostles? Remember that the new city Jerusalem has a wall with twelve foundation stones that have the names of the twelve apostles written upon them? So does it not follow that Paul was speaking only of the twelve super-apostles in this series of scripture? To support this, Jesus also said to Peter in Matthew 16:18:

 

Matthew 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

You see, Peter was named as one of those foundation stones. So the twelve are not to be replaced for they are the foundation. But that does not preclude that the office of the apostle ceased with the death of the super-apostles. Paul already categorized them as a calling apart from his own. So no, there will be no more super-apostles, but yes, there are and will be apostles. In building a stone building, the foundation stones are the first ones laid. But they don't cease to us stones to build on top of that foundation now do they? No, they continue to use the same material. So the foundation of apostles is meant to point to the first apostles, which establish the office. The same goes for the prophets.  There are those Apostles and Prophets that established those offices. Then there are other Prophets and Apostles that are built upon that established foundation. If we were to follow Lorie's logic, they would only have a foundation with no walls built on top of that foundation, which totally destroys the purpose of a foundation.

It is also claimed that according to Ephesians 4:11-16, that because we do not currently have unity of the faith that we still need apostles and prophets as much as evangelists, pastors and teachers. But is that what the passage is really saying?

 

"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Chirst." (Eph 4:11-16)

 

First, is there really unity in the faith? Why then am I writing this article? If there were unity, Lori and I would be in total agreement. There is not unity of the faith, and we have not attained to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. To claim that is to be blind to all the different denominations that are out there. Paul denounced denominationalism by saying, "Is the body of Christ divided?" I cannot see how anyone can claim that we have attained unity with all the division that we see out there. But in reality, that passage shows us that the those qualities of unity are only a symptom of being built up, and being built up is only a symptom of being prepared for works of service. So it is the preparing for works of service that untimely result in unity.

Lori claims that the works of service is to speak forth the Word of God by writing scripture. Her reason for saying that is so she can later claim that since scripture is finished so is the office of the apostle and prophet.  But I have to ask, where does she get that as the definition for “works of service?” Again I do not see scriptural support for this claim. She just says it and expects the reader not to question her on it, otherwise she would have supported her claim with scripture. What does the Word describe as a service?

 

• Romans 12:1 speaks of submission as a service.

• 1 Corinthians 9:6-12 speaks of giving as a service.

• 2 Corinthians 11:8 speaks of preaching the gospel as a service.

• Ephesians 6:6 speaks of doing the will of God as a service.

Just to name a few. Yet nowhere do I read that service is specifically writing scripture as the office of the Prophet. If that were true then everyone that has written scripture would have to have been a prophet. The qualification for writing scripture according to the bible is that the Holy Spirit moved upon men. That’s it. If you were to just read Ephesians 4:11-16 without having any preconceived notions as to its meaning, then it would be obvious that the Body of Christ has five callings, all of which should be operating today. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to try to make the text fit your preconceived notions that prophets and apostles are not in the modern day church because we have no need of them. To me that is not only a dangerous statement to make, but a foolish one.

 SUMMARY:

Apostles and Prophets MUST BE EYEWITNESSES to the Resurrected Christ and we are instructed to remember THEIR teachings. There are also no successors to the Apostles and Prophets of N.T. times because they had to be eyewitnesses. We have been WARNED about false prophets and teachers in the future who are obviously not eyewitnesses. Therefore we are NOT instructed to believe ANY apostles or prophets in our day. Any Prophet or Apostle speaking new revelations is ADDING TO the Word of God that was already established, which scripture forbids. When people claim that we must listen to the visions and new revelations spoken by today's prophets they are telling us the Scripture is insufficient for our needs which leads us to listen to men instead of God. This is exactly what Satan wants us to do.

 

Strangely she finishes with adding that Prophets can only qualify as prophets if they were an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. How absurd! The Word of God never claimed this. Lori has presupposed a lot in her article, and she has not backed up those suppositions with facts or scripture. We must adhere to the clear understanding of scripture as it was written and we must refuse trying to read something into it that is not there. Also, we must not justify our lack of something by claiming that it no longer exists. That is the crux of the problem. When someone says that prophets don’t exist, what are they really saying? Are they saying they don’t exist because they have not had one in their service? It is the same with the gifts of the Spirit. Because there are no miracle gifts working in their service, then they are forced to justify why they are not. Rather then looking for the truth of the matter they set out to debunk the gifts and then claim they have been done away with. One of the Scriptures that are used to make the claim that the gifts have been done away with is 1 Corinthians 13.

 

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (KJV) 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. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 

The word “that” that I highlighted is the pivotal word in which defines the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. The argument is in the Greek form of that word. Greek words have genders attached to them. For instance a word can be masculine, feminine, or neuter, which is neutral or genderless. Since this word is neuter or genderless, they argue that it could not refer to Christ because He is masculine. So they contend that the only other thing that is perfect is the Word of God, the Bible. Therefore they conclude that the word “that” is referring to the bible and since we have the bible in its wholeness, then these things have been done away. Now there are two problems with that position.

 

One is the context of the verses. If we read on we see there is a flow to the paragraph, so let’s read the paragraph in its entirety and see if you can pick out the reference of the word “that.”

 

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (KJV) 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. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

Okay the key statement here is “now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face.” What is the word “then” referring too? It is the previous statement that says “but when that which is perfect is come.” So we have the tie in to what “that which is perfect” is. Because it goes on to say “face to face.” Face to face with whom? Jesus, of course! So as long as Jesus is sitting at the right hand throne of God, we are in need of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. But when He comes, we will not need those things any longer because we will know. Now we know in part, but then we will know.

 

The other problem with their position is that there are other places in the bible that use the word “that” in a genderless form that is indeed describing Jesus. If that is so, they can no longer hold to the position that the word “that” is referencing the Bible. Let’s take a look.

 

1 John 1:1-3 (KJV) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

Here we have two instances of the word “that” referring to Jesus. So if we just read the text in its context and compare it with other texts, then we can see clearly that these gifts have not been extinguished from the Body of Christ. Thank God they haven’t!! We need all the help we can get from God. The Word of God is wonderful and powerful and perfect, but it cannot warn me of seven years of famine, or an attack from a foreign power. These are all day to day things that we still have need of. When Jesus comes, we will no longer need to know those things. I think it is quite clear from Scripture that we have everything Jesus gave us still today. There are no instances of Jesus saying that these callings and gifts will cease before He returns. Let us then embrace them and cultivate them so that our lives would be fuller and enhanced by the Lover of our souls, Jesus the Christ!

 

 

All rights reserved © 1988-2002 
All photos, graphics and text are protected by copyright.