Not for Prophet

What is a prophet? We all know that one. It is a soothsayer, a fortune teller, a seer. Look at that word, "seer". The word is rooted in seeing, and clearly implies "the future". That's what a prophet is, right? A prophet sees the future. A "foreteller". No, no, we won't really want to classify them with "fortune tellers" and the like because they're silly and frivolous and, well, wrong. But a true prophet, in our understanding, is one who can rightly predict the future.

Is that biblical? I'm not so sure.

The Old Testament (Hebrew) word was naba'. It meant "to speak by inspiration". (Interesting that the Strong's dictionary says "speak (or sing) by inspiration", because much of the Old Testament prophets wrote in verse rather than prose.) In this form, it is not "foretelling" in view, but forth-telling. "God said it and I'm passing it on." Now, in this approach, it is entirely possible that what God said and they were forth-telling was indeed in the future ("foretelling"), but certainly not all was in the future. Thus, the prophet did not become a prophet when he told the future and not a prophet when he simply called them to repent (for instance). All of it was "prophetic", telling what God had to say to the people.

So we come across this interesting phrase in Peter's second epistle. Peter is writing about the validity of his own testimony. "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). To what was portion of majesty was Peter an eyewitness? They were actually there when a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (2 Peter 1:17). And then he takes it one step further. "And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention" (2 Peter 1:19).

Peter is arguing here a three-fold proof. First, we have the Apostolic Authority of Peter telling us the truth. But it isn't merely his position. We have the fact that he was an eyewitness. It's not clever teaching. He saw it. But that's not all. Beyond his position and his experience, we have something that he says is "more sure" -- "the prophetic word". What is that?

The reference is to the entire Old Testament. Written by "prophets" -- forth-tellers inspired by God to tell what He had to tell -- the Old Testament was more sure than the eyewitness or the Apostle. If the eyewitness Apostle's words were not "cleverly devised myths", then how much less was the prophetic word, the Old Testament? Not something to be trifled with. A certainty beyond an actual authority or eyewitness.

This is quite telling when you continue to read, because 2 Peter 2 speaks of another type of prophet -- a counter prophet. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1). In context, then, what is a false teacher? That would be the ones who disregard the Apostolic Authority, the eyewitness accounts, and the Old Testament. It would be those who argue, in effect, "Did God say ...?" Peter goes on to characterize these false teachers. They are marked by sensuality as their theme (2 Peter 2:2). They "exploit you with false words" (2 Peter 2:3). They "indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority" (2 Peter 2:10). Read on. That 2nd chapter of Second Peter is eye-opening. Compare 2:12-19 with many of today's loudest voices in Christendom and you'll see amazing parallels, beginning with an overwhelming assurance that personal pleasure is the highest good and descending from there. About these Peter says, "What the true proverb says has happened to them: 'The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire'" (2 Peter 2:22).

Prophecy is not for the prophet. Prophecy is not even about the future. Prophecy is simply a "Thus saith the Lord", a forth-telling of what God says. It is throughout the Bible, men speaking under inspiration telling what God had to say. These are not cleverly devised myths despite the overwhelming claim to the contrary by so many in the liberal churches today. Nor is God's primary concern your comfort and pleasure as opposed to those other loud voices that extol the certainty of health, wealth, and happiness. The loudest voices in the streets are not typically the voices of those sent by God with a message. It is the false prophet, the false teacher. They are marked by an emphasis on sensuality and defiling passions, boldly denying the authority of the Church or the Bible, and arguing instead for indulgence and blasphemies. It wasn't my idea. Read Peter's warnings for yourself. I'm amazed that it can be so up-to-date when it was written so long ago. I suppose that, too, says something about the author and his Source.