New Testament Prophets

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back to the Tree.
Over the past week, we have examined prophets, their humanity, their messages, and the danger of false prophecy. We have asked whether people can speak in God's name while telling others what they want to hear.

Today, we move into the New Testament. But I want us to begin with a question that may be more uncomfortable than it first appears.
What if we have spent so much time defending the gift of prophecy that we have not spent enough time examining what God intended the gift to accomplish?
Think about that.

We know the names. We know the stories. We know the doctrines associated with prophecy. In our church, the subject carries particular significance. But familiarity with a teaching is not necessarily the same as understanding it.
So let us put our denominational assumptions aside for a moment—not to abandon them, but to examine them against Scripture.

The New Testament presents us with an interesting picture. Prophets appear in the early church, but they do not all perform the same tasks. Some bring messages to particular congregations. Some warn of coming difficulties. Some strengthen and encourage believers. Paul teaches that spiritual gifts differ, yet the same Spirit gives them.
That raises questions worth exploring.

• Was a prophet primarily someone who predicted the future, or someone through whom God addressed the needs of His people?
• Were prophets and apostles interchangeable?
• Why does Paul place prophecy among the gifts given to the church?
• If the Holy Spirit is the source of the gift, what should happen when someone claiming that gift speaks a message we find uncomfortable, or one that challenges what we have always believed?
• Can a church correctly teach that the gift of prophecy exists and still misunderstand how that gift is meant to function?

These are not questions intended to weaken our faith. They are questions intended to move our faith beyond familiarity and into understanding.

Our memory text reminds us that there are different gifts, ministries, and activities, but the same God works through them all. The emphasis is not simply on the existence of spiritual gifts. It is on their divine source and their place in God's work.

This week, we will examine the New Testament evidence. We will meet the people who functioned as prophets, consider what they actually did, explore their relationship to the apostles, and confront the danger of false prophets.

But let us agree on one thing before we begin: We must not decide what the Bible says before we have allowed ourselves to hear what it says.

Welcome to our new lesson, New Testament Prophets.

Good morning, everyone.
What if the greatest danger is not failing to recognize a prophet, but believing we understand God's message while resisting what He is saying?

That question takes us directly to Jesus. The Scriptures pointed to Him, yet many who knew those Scriptures failed to recognize their fulfillment.

Moses foretold a Prophet whom God's people must hear (Deuteronomy 18:15). Jesus fulfilled that prophetic promise. He proclaimed God's kingdom, called people to repentance, exposed religious hypocrisy, warned of judgment, and revealed the Father's character. He also explained how the Scriptures pointed to His suffering, death, and resurrection.
But Jesus was no ordinary prophet. John identifies Him as the divine Word through whom all things were created (John 1:1–3).

Our lesson therefore presents a truth we must not reduce to a simple doctrinal statement: the Creator entered His creation, spoke God's truth to humanity, and gave His life to save us.
Let us examine what that means.

In Matthew 16:13–16, people had different opinions about Jesus. Some considered Him a prophet, while Peter confessed Him as the Christ. Why did people who witnessed the same ministry reach such different conclusions?

Because people can encounter truth and still resist its implications. Many expected a Messiah who would fulfil their political and national ambitions. Jesus came proclaiming God's kingdom and confronting the very attitudes that shaped their expectations.
They were prepared for a Messiah who would meet their demands, but not necessarily one who would challenge their hearts.

Then religious knowledge can actually become an obstacle. We know the prophecies about Jesus, but perhaps we also develop expectations about how God must act. When He does something that challenges those expectations, we may fail to recognize His work.

Precisely. That is why we must distinguish between knowing Scripture and understanding it correctly. The disciples themselves misunderstood aspects of Jesus' mission until He opened the Scriptures to them (Luke 24:13–35).
We can possess biblical knowledge and still misunderstand what God is revealing.

2 Peter 1:19 describes prophecy as a light shining in a dark place. If we possess that light, why do religious people sometimes remain blind to their own faults?

Because truth can be acknowledged intellectually without being obeyed personally. Jesus repeatedly confronted people who took pride in their religious knowledge while neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
Prophecy is not given merely to make us knowledgeable about God's plans. It directs us toward His purposes and calls us to respond faithfully.

But we are often more comfortable exposing the errors of other churches than examining our own. We can defend our doctrines with conviction, yet become defensive when someone questions our interpretation.
Could a church teach important biblical truths and still misunderstand aspects of them?

Of course. No church's confidence in its doctrines makes every interpretation infallible. We must not confuse the authority of Scripture with the authority of our conclusions about Scripture.
That does not mean every alternative interpretation is correct. It means every claim must be examined carefully, honestly, and in the light of God's Word.
The people most confident that they possess the truth may be the least willing to discover where their understanding is incomplete.

There is something even more astonishing in this lesson. John says Jesus created all things, yet this same Jesus submitted to crucifixion. Why would the Creator allow His own creatures to put Him to death?

Because the cross reveals the character of divine love. Jesus did not remain distant from human suffering. The One through whom life came into existence entered our world, bore rejection, and gave Himself for sinners.
At Calvary, God's love was not merely declared; it was demonstrated through sacrifice.

Then the cross must expose us, too. How can we celebrate the love of Christ while treating people who disagree with us as enemies? How can we preach grace and use our religious knowledge to make ourselves feel superior?

We cannot justify that contradiction. Defending truth does not require contempt for those who disagree with us. Christlike conviction must be accompanied by humility, fairness, and compassion.

Our beliefs should not merely equip us to argue more effectively. They should shape the kind of people we become.
Let us take one question away from this discussion:

If Jesus stood before us today and challenged an interpretation, a tradition, or an attitude we had defended for years, would we examine His words—or defend ourselves against Him?

Jesus was the Prophet promised by Moses, the revealer of the Father, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the Creator who died for His creation.

The decisive question is not whether we claim to know His truth, but whether we are willing to submit to it when it challenges us.

Today, we examine the relationship between apostles, prophets, and Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:20 describes the church as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone.

Notice the distinction. The messengers have an essential role, but Christ occupies a position no messenger can replace.

I thought apostles were simply the twelve disciples Jesus chose. How did Paul become an apostle when he was not one of the original twelve?

The word apostle means one who is sent. The twelve had a unique calling, but the New Testament also identifies others as apostles. Paul defended his apostleship because his authority was questioned. He did not claim to have appointed himself. He understood his calling as coming through the will of God.
His ministry was distinctive: he was commissioned especially to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

The important point is: God's calling, not human appointment or family inheritance, determines who would serve as an apostle or prophet.

But if apostles and prophets were both appointed by God, does that mean they had exactly the same function?

No. Shared divine authority does not mean identical responsibilities. Apostles were commissioned witnesses of Christ and foundational proclaimers of the gospel. Prophets communicated messages through the prophetic gift. Their ministries could overlap, but the terms were not interchangeable.

Ephesians 5 says that the mystery of Christ was revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. God used both in communicating His revealed truth.
And remember Acts 15:32: Judas and Silas are described as prophets who encouraged and strengthened the believers. The prophetic gift did not disappear simply because apostles were present.

Then why do we sometimes speak as though prophets belonged to the Old Testament and apostles replaced them in the New Testament? That sounds tidier than the biblical evidence.

That distinction can help us understand the broad historical pattern, but it becomes misleading when treated as an absolute rule. Prophets appeared in the New Testament church too.
The question is not which group deserves greater prestige. The question is how God used different people to communicate His will and establish His church.

Now consider something even more important. Ephesians 2:20 calls Christ the chief cornerstone. The apostles and prophets belong to the foundation, but Christ determines the building's alignment.

So, even though apostles and prophets were inspired, their importance must never overshadow Jesus?

Exactly. The messengers were important because of the message they carried. Their ministry pointed beyond themselves.
Read the New Testament. The apostles continually return to Jesus—His life, His death, His resurrection, His ministry for us, and His promised return. Paul did not build his ministry around making people admire Paul. He proclaimed Christ crucified and risen.

A messenger who draws attention away from Christ has lost sight of the heart of the message.

Question. If the apostles and prophets were foundational, and their writings carry divine authority, can a church's later interpretations automatically claim that same authority?

No. We must distinguish between the authority of God's revelation and our interpretation of it. A church may sincerely defend a teaching and still misunderstand a biblical passage. Sincerity, tradition, and institutional confidence do not make every interpretation infallible.
That is why we must return to Scripture—not merely to find verses that support what we already believe, but to allow God's Word to examine what we believe.

But if the Bible is our final authority, what happens when our cherished understanding of Jesus is challenged by what we actually read there?

Then we face a choice: defend our familiar understanding at all costs, or allow Scripture to correct us.
The Bible is the authoritative written testimony through which we receive the apostolic and prophetic witness to Christ. We must not place later claims, traditions, or personal convictions above that witness.

And this matters profoundly when we consider Jesus' death for us. We cannot allow human theories, religious traditions, or our own assumptions to redefine the cross. We must ask what Scripture actually reveals about His sacrifice, His saving work, and God's character.

Then perhaps the danger is not only rejecting the Bible. We can also claim to defend it while refusing to let it challenge us.

That is precisely the danger.
A church can honour the apostles, celebrate the prophets, and defend the Bible while quietly placing its own interpretations beyond examination.
The foundation matters. The messengers matter. But Christ remains the cornerstone, and our faith must continually be tested against the Word that bears witness to Him.

Here is an uncomfortable possibility: We may defend the gift of prophecy, honour its messengers, and still resist what God gave the gift to accomplish.
We welcome warnings about others' failures, appreciate encouragement during hardship, and praise messages that confirm our beliefs. But when a message exposes our hypocrisy or demands change, do we remain equally receptive?

Believing in prophecy is not the same as understanding its work.

1 Corinthians 14:3 identifies three functions of prophetic speech: edification, exhortation, and comfort. Ephesians 4:11–13 explains its contribution to the church, while Revelation 22:6 affirms the faithfulness of God's words.

Why does Paul distinguish between edification, exhortation, and comfort? Aren't they essentially the same thing?

No. Each addresses a different need.
Edification builds faith. It strengthens believers' understanding and spiritual foundations, equipping them to live more faithfully as followers of Jesus.

Exhortation demands action. It confronts compromise, challenges disobedience, and urges believers to do what faithfulness requires, even when obedience is costly. It moves us from knowing the truth to acting on it.

Comfort sustains the weary. It brings courage to those facing sorrow, persecution, fear, or exhaustion. It reminds them that suffering does not mean God has abandoned them.
These functions are related but distinct: one strengthens faith, another demands change, and the third helps people endure.

Then why are we sometimes more impressed by a prophet's predictions than by these functions?

Because predictions can excite us without requiring anything of us.
Edification asks whether our faith is growing. Exhortation confronts our unwillingness to change. Comfort meets us when faithfulness becomes painful.
The spectacular attracts attention; the practical reveals whether we have taken the message seriously.

Ephesians 4:11–13 lists prophets alongside apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Paul says these ministries equip believers for service and build up the body of Christ. What does that add?

It shifts our attention from individual messages to the life of the whole church.
These ministries are not meant to create permanent spectators dependent on gifted individuals. They equip believers to serve and grow in their knowledge of the Son of God.

A prophetic ministry that makes its messenger indispensable while leaving believers unequipped has missed an essential part of its responsibility.
The church needs members who practise their faith and serve others, not merely people who repeat what a respected messenger has said.

But what happens when a message challenges what most people in the church believe? Doesn't that threaten unity?

Unity does not require every established belief to remain beyond examination. A message exposing error may cause discomfort. But neither popularity nor opposition proves a message true. What is said in God's name must be consistent with His revealed Word. Paul describes a church united in faith, not one held together by fear of difficult questions.

Acts 15:32 says Judas and Silas, who were prophets, encouraged and strengthened the believers with many words. What does their example teach us?

That God's people need more than correction. They also need strength to endure.
Believers facing persecution, uncertainty, or hardship may need courage and hope rather than another rebuke.
Yet comfort must not conceal wrongdoing. A message that only condemns can crush the weary; one that only reassures can leave people trapped in error.

Jesus provides the pattern. He confronted hypocrisy, called people to repentance, welcomed the burdened, and strengthened the fearful. Prophetic ministry must reflect His truth and compassion.

Revelation 22:6 describes the words of the Lord God of the holy prophets as faithful and true. How should that shape our confidence?

Our confidence rests in God's faithfulness, not in the assumption that every human messenger is infallible.
Sincerity does not guarantee accuracy, and religious standing does not place anyone beyond examination. We must take God's Word seriously without confusing His reliability with human fallibility.

So prophecy is not simply about revealing information. It addresses what people and churches actually need.

Precisely. It strengthens faith, calls for action, sustains the suffering, and equips the church for service. Through it all, Jesus remains central—not merely as a subject of prophetic messages, but as the One whose character His followers are called to reflect.

Let us end with this question:

If we defend prophecy and honour its messengers, yet resist correction, neglect the suffering, and fail to reflect Jesus, have we understood the gift—or merely learned to defend it?

Our belief must amount to more than correct explanations. It must be visible in how we live.

It is easier to honour a woman God used centuries ago than to trust a gifted woman sitting in our congregation today. The biblical woman cannot challenge our arrangements. The woman before us might.

We celebrate Anna, acknowledge Philip’s four daughters, and affirm that God gives spiritual gifts. But what happens when a woman’s abilities challenge our expectations? Do we examine her contribution fairly, or have we already decided how far she should be allowed to go?

Today’s lesson also examines young pastoral associates. Together, these examples challenge us to consider whether we are nurturing the people God calls or expecting them to fit the roles we have already assigned.

We celebrate Anna and Philip’s daughters. But do women receive the same respect when their gifts challenge our expectations today?

Luke 2:36–38 describes Anna as a prophetess who worshipped faithfully and spoke about Jesus. Acts 21:9 tells us that Philip had four daughters who prophesied.
These passages do not settle every question about church office or ordination.
They do establish that women exercised prophetic gifts in the New Testament. We cannot honestly acknowledge that biblical evidence and then dismiss a woman’s spiritual contribution simply because she is a woman.

Then why can a church affirm women prophets in Scripture yet become uncomfortable when a gifted woman speaks with conviction today? Is every objection biblical, or can tradition influence what we are willing to accept?

That is a question worth examining honestly. We must neither accept every claim to spiritual gifting uncritically nor reject someone because she is female. Contributions must be tested against Scripture, character, and sound judgment.

But a woman should not have to overcome prejudice before her ideas receive a fair hearing. If we claim to value truth, we must be willing to examine it even when the messenger challenges our expectations.

Philip’s daughters prophesied, but their messages were not preserved in the Bible. Does that make their ministry less important?

No. The Bible mentions prophetic ministries without recording every message those prophets delivered. Being included in the biblical canon is not the measure of every faithful person's usefulness to God.

Consider women who teach, counsel, encourage, and strengthen congregations without receiving much recognition. We should not assume that every overlooked person has been treated unfairly, but neither should we assume that limited recognition means limited ability.

Could a church become so concerned with preserving established arrangements that it fails to recognize what God is Good among its own members?

Yes. Order and accountability are necessary, but neither should become an excuse for refusing honest examination. A church can defend spiritual gifts in its statements while failing to nurture those who possess them.

Now consider Timothy and Titus. Paul did not merely praise these young men. He instructed them, entrusted them with responsibility, and expected them to exercise sound judgment. Titus was charged with appointing leaders in Crete, a demanding responsibility.

Young people are often told that they are the future of the church. When do they become trusted with its present?

Paul told Timothy not to let anyone despise his youth, but to be an example in conduct, love, faith, and purity (1 Timothy 4:12). Youth did not excuse immaturity, but neither did it disqualify him from meaningful service.

Mentorship must do more than offer advice. It must prepare emerging leaders for real responsibility, correct them without humiliating them, and help them develop judgment rather than merely imitate their mentors.

Do we mentor people who think independently, or only those who repeat what we say? When a gifted woman questions an established opinion, do we examine her reasoning—or question whether she should be speaking at all?

A healthy church must be able to distinguish disagreement from rebellion and independent thought from spiritual maturity. Neither the established leader nor the emerging voice is beyond correction. Everyone must remain accountable to Scripture.

But accountability must work both ways. Young leaders should accept correction, and experienced leaders should be humble enough to recognize that they do not possess all wisdom.

Mentorship should prepare people to serve faithfully, not make them dependent on the approval of one person.

So let us examine ourselves.

Have you dismissed a woman’s insight because it challenged your expectations? Have you kept a younger person on the margins because sharing responsibility felt uncomfortable? Have you praised biblical examples of gifted people while overlooking those serving beside you?

The church does not honour God merely by acknowledging the gifts He gives. It honours Him by discerning those gifts fairly, nurturing them faithfully, and preparing people to use them in His service.

The most dangerous wolf may be the one everyone trusts.
Jesus warned that false christs and false prophets would perform great signs and wonders, seeking to mislead even the elect (Matthew 24:23–24). The danger is not merely that people will openly oppose God. Some will claim to represent Him while leading His followers astray.

For Seventh-day Adventists, this warning strikes close to home. We believe God has entrusted us with an end-time message. But can a church be confident in its calling and still develop blind spots that leave it vulnerable to error?

Surely we would recognize a false prophet who openly denied the Bible. What would one look like in practice?

Jesus described false prophets as wolves in sheep’s clothing and said we would know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15–20).
Imagine a preacher who claims special revelations to demand unquestioning loyalty. Another promises healing in God’s name, then blames sick people when they remain ill. Someone else preaches holiness publicly while exploiting those who trust him.

Their religious appearance does not settle the matter. We must examine their message, conduct, and influence.

But what if the person is sincere, teaches familiar doctrines, and is admired throughout the congregation? Surely those things count for something.

They may tell us something about the person, but they do not establish divine approval. Jesus warned that people could claim to prophesy and perform mighty works in His name yet still fail to do the Father’s will (Matthew 7:21–23).

Religious activity can look impressive while concealing spiritual corruption. Even miracles cannot replace faithfulness to God.

Then what protects us from being impressed by appearances?

Jesus must remain our centre. Does the message agree with Scripture and reflect His character? Does the ministry produce integrity and faithful discipleship, or manipulation and dependence on a human leader? Does it direct people towards Christ or make the messenger seem indispensable?

These are not grounds for careless accusations. They are reasons to examine claims rather than surrender our judgment to appearances.

How does this apply to our belief that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is God’s remnant?

We may scrutinize other churches while assuming our own is safer. When someone challenges an established SDA interpretation, that person may be treated as spiritually dangerous before anyone seriously considers the biblical argument.

That is the blind spot we must face. Our pioneers deserve respect, but their conclusions cannot replace Scripture. Believing that God called our church does not mean every interpretation we inherited is beyond correction.
John instructs believers to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). Paul says not to quench the Spirit or despise prophecies, but to examine everything and hold fast to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:19–21)

EG White says: "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed...”
Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37.

The New Testament requires discernment in both directions: we must not accept every new claim, but neither should we reject an idea merely because it unsettles our established understanding.

If we believe the Holy Spirit guided our pioneers, do we sometimes act as though He has nothing further to teach us? When someone reaches a different conclusion, do we examine the evidence—or assume the person must be following a false spirit?

We must never confuse openness with gullibility. But if we automatically dismiss every challenge to our inherited understanding, we risk treating our conclusions as though they were beyond the Spirit’s further guidance.

Our remnant identity should deepen our responsibility to follow truth, not convince us that we are incapable of error. The question is whether we are protecting Scripture or protecting ourselves from having to reconsider what we believe.

Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:10–18 that we need truth, righteousness, faith, God’s Word, and prayer.

Our protection is not denominational pride, but a living relationship with Christ and a willingness to stand under the authority of His Word.

So when someone claims to speak for God, what should we examine?

Three things.
The message: Does it agree with Scripture and Christ’s teaching?
The fruit: Does it produce integrity and faithful discipleship, or manipulation and exploitation?
The allegiance: Does it lead people to Christ, or demand a loyalty that belongs to God alone?

No title, miracle, reputation, or church membership exempts anyone from these questions.

We may defend our doctrines, honour our pioneers, and sincerely believe we belong to God’s remnant. But none of these guarantees that we cannot be mistaken.
When a respected leader contradicts Christ, will you follow the leader or Jesus? When Scripture challenges an interpretation you have defended for decades, will you submit to its authority?

The remnant is not proved faithful by insisting that it cannot be wrong. Its faithfulness is revealed when it chooses Christ and His Word over its own pride, reputation, and cherished assumptions.

One of the greatest dangers in religion is becoming so certain that we possess the truth that we stop asking whether the truth is correcting us.
This danger is especially serious for those of us who believe we belong to God's remnant church. We know our prophecies, defend the Sabbath, understand the state of the dead, proclaim the Second Coming, and believe in the gift of prophecy. We know why we are Adventists.
But does knowing why we believe we are God's remnant mean we understand everything God still wants to teach us?

Remnant identity can become a spiritual blind spot. We begin by believing God has given us special light. Gradually, we begin acting as though possessing that light makes us less likely to be wrong. We become skilled at identifying errors outside the church but uncomfortable examining it within ourselves.
Could we be defending the truth while resisting its power to correct us?

Jesus warned that false prophets would deceive many—even, if possible, the elect. Why warn people who already believe they have the truth?
Because religious confidence does not make us immune to deception. Sincerity is not proof of accuracy, and belonging to a church that teaches truth does not make every member, leader, or interpretation infallible.

This week's lesson places Jesus at the centre of prophecy. Prophets and apostles serve God's church, but Christ remains its foundation. Prophetic gifts are given to strengthen, encourage, correct, and build up believers.
Yet do we welcome prophetic counsel only when it comforts us, confirms our positions, or exposes somebody else's failures?

What happens when it challenges our favourite interpretation, our treatment of others, or our assumptions about whom God can use?

Consider the women prophets in Scripture. We honour Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and Philip's four daughters because their ministries are recorded in the Bible. But are we equally willing to recognize God's gifts when the messenger challenges our expectations? We can praise what God did through women centuries ago while resisting what He may be doing through women today.

Believing in spiritual gifts is one thing. Allowing those gifts to challenge our preferences is another.

Then there is Ellen G. White.

The Church recognizes her prophetic ministry. Her writings have profoundly influenced Adventist belief and practice, and she directed readers to Christ and the Bible, describing her writings as the “lesser light” leading to the “greater light.”
Her ministry deserves serious consideration, not automatic dismissal. But does honouring her mean we should be afraid to examine our understanding of her counsel?

If her writings direct us to Scripture, are we allowing Scripture to have the final authority or sometimes using her writings to settle questions we have not carefully studied for ourselves?

Consider another uncomfortable question: When a sincere Adventist studies Scripture prayerfully and reaches a conclusion different from an accepted church interpretation, do we examine the person's reasoning or assume that disagreement proves spiritual error? We must be careful.

Personal conviction is not automatically the voice of the Holy Spirit, and disagreement does not automatically make someone right. But disagreement alone does not prove that the Holy Spirit has abandoned someone either. Claims must be tested with humility, discernment, and a willingness to be corrected.

Ellen White wrote in Counsels to Writers and Editors: “The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light. ”
If truth advances, are we prepared to move with it? Or have we mistaken our present understanding for the limit of what God can teach us?
The real test of prophetic ministry is not simply whether we defend a prophet's authority. It is whether we accept the correction that prophetic messages bring.

A church can teach that the gift of prophecy exists and still misunderstand how that gift should function. A member can honour a prophet while resisting the very correction the prophet's message demands.
I am not suggesting that we abandon our convictions or accept every new idea as additional light. I am asking whether we are willing to test our convictions under God's Word, even when the examination becomes uncomfortable.

Before we congratulate ourselves on being God's remnant, let us face some harder questions.

• Have we become better at defending our identity than examining our character?
• Are we more troubled by teachings that threaten our doctrines than by attitudes that contradict the spirit of Christ?
• If God exposed a weakness in our understanding, would we welcome correction or protect our cherished position because admitting we were wrong would cost us too much?

Being part of a movement that proclaims truth is a privilege, not a guarantee that we have understood all truth, applied it faithfully, or become incapable of deception.
The remnant must never confuse its calling with an exemption from self-examination.

The question is not merely whether we believe God has given us light. It is whether we are still willing to walk in that light when it reveals something about ourselves we would rather not see.