After having studied some of the past and recent literature on the ministry and gifts of the Holy Spirit in the church, I would like to offer some thoughts and observations of my own on the subject.

I have long been uncomfortable with the position commonly considered "cessationism," which states that all or some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased at the end of the first century. I am not denying that there were some radical changes in both Christianity and Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, but I wish to explore the nature of those changes as shown in the ministry within the early church.

The gifts today are categorized into branches such as "ministry" gifts, "revelatory" gifts and other such divisions. According to the cessationist position, the gifts that are considered "revelatory" ceased when the canon of Scriptures was completed in the first century. Consequently, we do not receive revelation from God in the form of prophecies or words of knowledge today because all revelation that is needed for the proper functioning of the gospel church has been received and recorded in the canon of Scriptures, especially the New Testament.

I must say that I have been equally (perhaps more) uncomfortable with the current trend in certain groups which are proclaiming "prophecies" and "words of knowledge" on a regular basis. The fantastic nature of some of these revelations would make good grounds for argument on the cessation of these revelatory gifts. However, the truth of a doctrine must be based upon a sound examination of the Scriptures rather than the abuses of extremists. Hence, the question we must ask regarding the use of spiritual gifts in the church is, "What does the Bible say?"

I will focus on a very limited scope as this is meant to be a position paper rather than a full treatise. I would attempt this by first of all affirming certain doctrines to be established and not opened to reexamination. The chief of those doctrines is the closing of the New Testament canon and the cessation of revelation beyond what we already have in the Scriptures regarding issues of theology, christology, soteriology and so forth.

That is to say, all that we need to know about God, Christ and the way of salvation as proclaimed in the gospel has already been given in its completed form. If there are scriptural grounds for believing in revelatory gifts such as prophecy, we must reject any thought that they would add anything new or change anything already revealed as to God's redemptive plan.

Hebrews 1:12 is significant in this respect. “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” God had, in the last days (the last days of the Old Covenant system), made clear that His speaking to us was limited in coming through His Son.

This reveals a truth and begs a question. The truth is that the ministry of the prophet that took place "long ago" (in Old Covenant times) became obsolete with the coming of Jesus Christ. The question is, "If the voice of God is limited in this day to Jesus Christ (as revealed in His word), why was there given to the New Testament church prophets and the gift of prophecy?

Is there a possibility of harmony between the finality of doctrinal revelation through Jesus Christ (as recorded by the New Testament writers), and the ongoing divine disclosure of edificational revelation through the gift of prophecy administered by the Holy Spirit to the New Covenant church?"

There was a theme that encapsulated all of the words of prophecy made by the prophets under the Old Covenant. This theme, which was also the focus of the Law, was the coming of God's Deliverer, Jesus Christ. The Old Testament bore witness to Christ (John 5:39, 46).

There are several passages of Scripture that point this out. “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures....Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’" (Luke 24:27, 44).

The point of interest in this passage is that Christ took the writings of the prophets (and all the Scriptures) and expounded on "the things concerning Himself" and said that the Old Testament writings were "written about Me."

Later in the unfolding of the New Covenant Church, Paul echos the same beliefs: “And so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:2223).

The crux of all gospel preaching was Jesus Christ as He had been revealed in the writings of the Old Testament. The Old Testament writers pointed ahead to an event that was to be the pinnacle of God's unfolding of redemptive history: the work of Jesus Christ for sinners. Obviously, this preChrist revelation involves sublime themes such as His birth, teachings, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

The key thought here is that the Old Testament writers looked ahead to this event. Still looking from a watchtower centuries before the actual event, the Old Testament prophets were thoroughly Christcentered in their proclamations.

New Covenant prophets were to be no less Christcentered in their preaching. The obvious difference between them and the Old Covenant prophets was one of chronology: the Old Covenant prophets pointed to a Christ who was, for them, yet to come, while the New Covenant prophets pointed back to a Christ already revealed. Hence, the tradition of the prophets was carried on in that Christ was always the center of every prophet's ministry, whether Old or New Covenant.

I believe that one error that cessationist theologians have made is defining the gift of prophecy and the ministry of the prophet in the New Testament in the same terms as the Old Testament prophet. It involved "forthtelling" and prediction of the future. These are legitimate definitions as applied to the prophet under the Old Covenant, but to what extent are they proper when applied to the "newness" of the church under the New Covenant? Should the definitions and limitations applied to a ministry in a time when the old things were fading (2 Cor. 3), be equally applied to an era which has an exceeding glory and newness to it?

If the covenant is new with better promises and better sacrifices (Heb. 8:6; 9:23), shouldn't there also be a newness in the administration of that covenant? There was a new covenant, new laws and commandments given (the "law of Christ"); why should we not also be open to a new paradigm of ministry? I believe that any examination of prophecy and prophets (and gifts of the Spirit in general) must include a consideration of the distinctions between the Old and New Covenants.

What was the purpose of prophecy and the ministry of prophets in the New Covenant church (and for all the gifts)? There is a plain statement of Scripture which speaks to this issue: “But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:34). There is no mention here of prophecy given for the revelation of doctrine.

Prophecy was not a ministry given for the revelation of new truth or Scriptures. The New Covenant church received this through the Christocentric interpretation of the Old Testament and the apostles' teachings. The ministry of the prophet in the New Covenant church, however, was for edification of the body of Christ (see also 1 Cor. 14:12).

Another example worth noting is in Acts 15:32, “And Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message.” The context of this verse is the dispute within the church about circumcision and the inclusion of Gentiles into the church. There was "great dissension and debate" (v. 2) on the issue but it wasn't resolved by revelation given to New Covenant prophets. The appeal to prophets for doctrinal authority was made to the Old Testament prophets (v. 15) and interpreted under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

It was submitted to the apostles and elders who heard detailed testimony and debated the matter at length before issuing an authoritative statement that was to become the "essentials" (v. 28). Judas and Silas, who were prophets, did not speak to reveal doctrinal authority since this was contained in the letter they delivered to the Gentile congregations. Their ministry as prophets is said to have encouraged and strengthened the brethren, while the ministry of the apostles and elders established doctrinal authority based on the study of the Old Covenant writings as well as the teaching of the apostles.

If the New Covenant ministry of the prophet was to give revelation of a scripturally authoritative nature to the church, then why didn't the Holy Spirit see fit to record for us the "lengthy message" preached by Judas and Silas? If New Covenant prophecies were meant to give authoritative revelation as did the Old Covenant prophecies, then why do we not have any New Testament books written by Judas, Silas or Agabus? I believe that the answer is that the New Covenant gift of prophecy was not meant for that purpose.

There are scriptural grounds for defining New Covenant prophecy in a revelatory sense, while maintaining a closed canon of Scripture. This is to consider New Covenant prophecies to be limited to revelations that, negatively, reveal nothing new of already established doctrines regarding theology, christology, soteriology, etc.

Positively, New Covenant prophecies do reveal localized, temporal matters whose end is the ministry to and edification of the body of Christ. This is best illustrated by two clear examples of prophecy we have in the New Testament, those being the prophecies of Agabus.

In the first instance, a group of prophets came to Antioch from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27). The Scriptures tell us, “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” (Acts 11:28). We note that this prophecy was indeed, "by the Spirit," and it was delivered with a conviction of certainty and was fulfilled.

That is to say, it was truly a supernaturallygiven word from the Lord that historically proved correct. This was not a "forthtelling" in the sense of preaching a sermon since there was no Old Testament Scripture as a text. We also note that this prophecy did nothing to add to, take away or change anything that the church believed regarding the truth of God, Christ, or the gospel. The prophecy had no doctrinal content to it, it merely spoke of a future, historic famine that was to come upon the world.

We might ask, "If this was the case, what good was the prophecy? If it doesn't reveal any new doctrinal truth, what was its value to the church?" The answer is that it led to an opportunity for the brethren at Antioch to minister to the brethren in Judea. “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” (Acts 11:29).

Here we see the purpose of the gift of prophecy at work; the prophecy given by Agabus was for encouragement, edification and consolation. Nothing new was added to the corpus of church knowledge concerning God, Christ or salvation. The result of the prophecy: a collection was received and sent to a church in need. The body of Christ was edified and built up.

The second instance, again involving Agabus, is found in Acts 21:1014. There is an interesting prelude to this passage found in verse 4: “And after looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.”

We are not told specifically that the statement by the disciples were "prophecies," but it is clear that these warnings were "through the Spirit." Here again, the ministry of the Spirit is not revealing new things of doctrine. The word given by the disciples was to a particular man in a particular time facing a particular situation. This does not lessen the miraculous nature of this revelation, but it does keep these Spiritgiven words a limitation confining its use to the given locality rather than the transmission of authoritative Scripture.

Agabus acted in a manner that reflects back on some of the mannerisms of the Old Covenant prophets. “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.'" (Acts 21:11).

Here again, we note that there is no new doctrine offered by Agabus' prophecy. It remains localized in time and geography, applicable only to Paul himself. In other words, the prophecy was given for his own personal edification, not for the churches throughout the centuries.

It must be admitted that Paul's response to this word brings up some interesting questions. Remembering that the disciples in Tyre had been telling him "not to set foot in Jerusalem," we now come to the response of Paul to the message of the prophet Agabus: “And when we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, ‘What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.’ And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, ‘The will of the Lord be done!’" (Acts 21:1214).

Paul was unquestionably committed to walking in the doctrinal, alreadyrevealed word of God and the teachings of Christ; he was even ready to suffer for those truths. But it seems that these prophetic words of warning were a matter of option for the will of Paul. The edificational, local revelation foretold of suffering for Paul; the final, doctrinal revelation for all times was weighed against these sufferings and Paul had grace to be willing to suffer these things for the sake of Christ.

Obviously, I have not exhausted the biblical record with respect to the place and ministry of the New Covenant prophet. Rather than having to adopt an extreme view of either cessationism or unbridled charismania, the position that I have adopted is one of placing the gift of prophecy (and the other spiritual gifts) into its proper New Covenant setting.