Is Deuteronomy 18 the Test for Modern Prophets?

Deuteronomy 18 is the traditional chapter people reach for to test a prophet. But is Deut 18 the right test for the modern church? Or is it more nuanced for the New Covenant? Does modern prophecy in the local church operate the same?

Josh, Michael, and Michael will examine Deut 18 together and explore whether this passage operates the same in the modern church as it did with Moses and a theocratic nation.

0:00 – Introduction
0:41 – Cessationist Video Response
4:30 – Reading Deuteronomy 18:15-22
8:02 – Christ Exclusive View
10:43 – Early Church Fathers Quotes
15:04 – Combined View Explained
19:25 – Meaning of Presumptuously
24:20 – Deuteronomy 13 vs 18
32:03 – Nathan Misses Prophecy
43:56 – Acts 21:4 Analysis
1:13:05 – True vs False Prophets
1:18:33 – Accountability and Closing

Subscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com.

Transcript

SPEAKER_04 0:38

Hey guys, welcome back to the wonderful world of Remnant Radio. In this program, we're talking about Deuteronomy 18 and modern day prophets. It's gonna be an exciting program. Stay tuned. Hey guys, thank you so much for joining us here at the Rimnite Radio. Today we are tackling uh this subject about Deuteronomy 18. Many people say, uh, hey, uh can a person miss a prophetic word and still be considered uh a true prophet? Most people say, no, of course not, because there's this passage in Deuteronomy 18 that says, If a prophet prophesies and his words do not come to pass, you shouldn't fear him. And it seems as if they're being put to death. So today we're gonna be tackling that subject. Uh we love having you. Miller sent over a video from uh the uh dial-in ministries. And here we have uh Johnny, who is gonna give a quick teaching on uh what the cessationist position typically is as it relates to Deuteronomy 18. And I'll I'll tell you, it's probably the predominant view. We'll call it the mainstream view. Literally any cessationist clip would have done. We have no ill intention towards dial in ministries. In fact, they seem to be very uh careful and studious. I like what they're doing. It seems cool. I don't know a ton about their stuff, but I really enjoyed it. So I'm only picking this just for the sheer fact that Miller sent it to me earlier this week. Uh, so we're gonna jump into this uh and watch it. Uh also throughout the video, one thing that Roundtree didn't mention is we're gonna be tackling a whole bunch of stuff in church history. Lots of citations that are gonna be coming up from uh modern scholars, old church history scholars, that kind of thing. So let's dive into this first clip and set up the discussion.

SPEAKER_01 2:11

First of all, their prophecies always had to come true. Deuteronomy 18, God says, The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. So if you say things that you're speaking on behalf of God about what's going to come to pass, and it doesn't come to pass, you shall die. When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him. So one of the initial criteria to qualify someone as a prophet is does what he says come true? Says does what he says happening. So and God says, if it doesn't, he is no he is not a prophet. Yeah, and stone him. You know, Jeremiah 28, nine, the true prophet is the one whose prediction comes true. Now, what's interesting is that you have those in the charismatic camp that talk about the gift of prophecy. Uh uh so Rick Joyner, a prominent charismatic leader, who would say that certain prophets, he says some are only about 10% accurate. A very few of the most mature prophets are approaching 85 to 95 percent accuracy. He says prophecy is increasing in purity, but there is still a long way to go for those who walk in this ministry. That's Rick Joyner. So how does he reconcile this with Deuteronomy 18? Well, he doesn't. He says it's the wrong interpretation of Deuteronomy 18. So, but that's hard to believe with just the reading of the text. Joyner says again, no one would ever be able, no prophet, no prophet who has that gift from God could ever step out in faith required to walk in his calling if he knew that a single mistake would ruin him for life. But God says, listen, if he says something that God says is going to happen, it doesn't happen, then you know he's not speaking for me. Jack Deere, who was a professor at Dallas Seminary and then heard the teaching of the charismatic leader, John Wimber, and then pastored a Vineyard Church, he says this. Prophets are really messy. Prophets make mistakes. And sometimes when a prophet makes a mistake, it's a serious mistake. I mean, he says, I know prophets just last year that cost people millions of dollars with a mistake they made. I talked to people who made the wrong investments, actually moved their homes, spent tons of money. So they would say, hey, prophets are messy, they can be wrong. But biblically speaking, no. You knew it was a true prophet if their prophecies came true. So this is in contrast to Benny Hinn saying that I think in the 90s that God was going to destroy all of the homosexuals or other Kansas City prophets that said that Southern California was going to sink into the heart of the Pacific Ocean. It never happened, right? So that would be the first one. Do their prophecies come true.

SPEAKER_04 4:41

No, uh it's fair to say this video goes on. He gives other steps. Uh, I think he gives doctrinal and moral standards, which we would uh wholeheartedly agree with. What is a true prophet and a false prophet? But one of the criteria that he sets up here in this video uh is that if a prophet ever misses a prophetic word, they are therefore no longer a prophet. Uh Miller, if you would maybe walk us through Deuteronomy 18, 15 through 22, kind of read it a longer section of the passage than uh what our uh brother in Christ had just read there. And then we're gonna kind of walk through the uh potential uh interpretive keys of that. Some people are arguing that this text is referring exclusively to Christ. Others argue that it is a uh composite picture of a succession of prophets and of Christ that ultimately terminates on him. Uh Miller, would you uh pick up for us on Deuteronomy 18, 15 through 22?

SPEAKER_02 5:33

Yeah, Josh, do you mind if I make a quick caveat just in comment of the dial-in ministry things? Um, we're not in this podcast trying to defend guys like Rick Joyner. In fact, even the stuff that Jack Deer said, my mentor, uh, I probably kind of disagree with Jack about the cost that prophets are just messy. Uh, I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. And so there's a lot that I agree with with these dial-in guys, which is why I wanted to respond to the clip. I do wish they had given another position on Deuteronomy 18, which they did not provide. Like when they mentioned Rick Joyner's position, how that's not what the text means, but they never presented what the text might mean or how it's also being interpreted. So hopefully we'll do that in this episode. Yeah, I'll go ahead and read though. Um this is Deuteronomy 18, verse 15 through 22. It says the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers. It is to him you shall listen, just as you desired of the Lord your God at Mount Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, Let me not hear again the voice of my Lord, uh the Lord my God, or see the great fire any more, lest I die. And the Lord said to me, They are right in what they have spoken, I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I have commanded him. And whoever will not listen to the words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, how may we know the word the Lord has not spoken? Well, when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you need not be afraid of him. So first glance, and I understand why that they would they would go with this position. At first glance, it looks as though if a prophet gets a word wrong, you know, presumes to speak in the name of the Lord, something God has not spoken, they've acted presumptuously. Well, that makes a person a false prophet, and therefore the penalty for that is the death penalty. Um, but is that all that this text is saying? Or are they pulling from this text more than what the author intends? Um, and maybe he might intend something else entirely. So there's been a couple of other theories on this, uh, two main views. One that this has to do with an end-time eschatological figure that's supposed to come that's going to be like Moses. Moses was a covenant bringer, he brought in the old covenant. They expected a prophet to come in likewise fashion that would bring in the old covenant. And if you deny the words of that prophet, you're going to be judged very severely for this. Um another view is that this is speaking to a prophetic line of leaders that are coming after Moses. So you've got Moses, and the next thing you got is Joshua, then after that you're gonna have Caleb, and then the judges, and uh, then so on and so forth down the line of the various uh prophetic people that would be uh in the lineage after Moses. Um and then some would even take a third view where they would combine the two of those. They actually think there's a fulfillment in both views. Um so I'll maybe Michael, you can explain the first view if you'd like.

SPEAKER_03 8:55

Uh the Christ exclusive view. Uh well, the the key phrase there is that God will raise up a prophet like me. And so Moses was a unique prophet, he was a covenant mediator. Numbers chapter 12, uh verses four through eight talk about the uniqueness of Moses as a prophet. That, like, hey, other prophets they hear in riddles and dark sayings, they hear in dreams and visions, uh, but not so with Moses. With Moses, I speak to him face to face. So Moses is a standout prophet among the prophets. And then Deuteronom, the book of Deuteronomy ends with uh in it's talking about Joshua succeeding Moses, but it also says uh there was not yet a prophet like Moses that had arisen. And so uh and so there's definitely a messianic context to that, and that is how they understood it, for instance, in Acts chapter three, and I think John chapter one, uh when they're asking, you know, is this the prophet that's to come into the world? And Peter says this is the prophet, and Paul will say the same thing. So uh it's definitely messianic, but the thing is, both of these interpretations are messianic. Jesus is the ultimate one who fulfills this. Uh, but you have one position, and this is Jack Deere's position, and he says, Well, hey, Deuteronomy 18 is giving you the test for determining is this basically the Messiah prophet? Is this the greater Moses who was to come? If he misses his prophecy, no, and if he makes it, maybe, right? So that's kind of how Jack and and a lot of interpreters uh understand it. And to be fair, that's how Jack understood it while he was a cessationist at Dallas uh Theological Seminary. It wasn't just like he uh he's like, oh, I gotta, I'm a charismatic, I gotta figure out a way around this. No, that's that's what he already thought. And uh he was an old testament scholar and expert in those languages. So um anyway, so you have the Christ exclusive view on a parti that focuses on a particular prophet. Josh, do you want us to read the church history quotes here that reinforce that, or should we go straight to the other one? What do you think?

SPEAKER_04 10:59

I I've got a few in here. We can play them. Uh I've got Origin, Tertullian, and Augustine.

SPEAKER_02 11:05

Um, it's worth doing because yeah, people will think that somehow like modern scholars are creating some sort of novelty, as if they just created this out of the ether. This isn't some novelty that Jack Deere was latching on to, that this is speaking of some end time eschatological prophet. Um, so I I think it does, I think we should play that because it added some validity to that position.

SPEAKER_04 11:27

Yeah, and these are uh early church guys. I'm guys, I apologize if audio doesn't work. Please let me know quickly so that I can pull out of it. We can just read the quotes because we have them in the show notes as a fail safe. We've never had technical problems on here like this before, so uh we shall see. But I'm gonna click over to this first one, it's gonna be origin. You'll see if you're watching on a screen, uh, when the the different quotes pop up, they're gonna be listed. Unfortunately, it's not until about clip five or six that I actually have the audio reading the name of the person who is speaking. So if you're listening on an audio podcast, I will try to announce the speaker before the next video.

SPEAKER_00 12:00

Origin. There was therefore an expectation of one particular prophet having a resemblance to Moses and mediating between God and the people, and receiving a new covenant from God to give to those who accepted his teaching. And in the case of each of the prophets, the people of Israel recognized that he was not the person of whom Moses spoke. But unsuitable in one who is amenable to the retort. Can you indeed have a right to say, This is my son, concerning whom you have given us no previous information, any more than you have favoured us with a revelation about your own prior existence? Hear him, therefore, who from the beginning of the Creator had declared entitled to be heard in the name of a prophet, since it was as a prophet that he had to be regarded by the people. A prophet, says Moses, shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your sons, that is, of course, after a carnal descent. Unto him shall you hearken as unto me. Deuteronomy 1815. Everyone who will not hearken unto him, his soul shall be cut off from among his people. Deuteronomy 1819. She accounted the Lord a prophet, and a prophet indeed he was. Luke 4, 24 again. Of him it was said to Moses, a prophet will I raise up to them of their brethren like you. Deuteronomy 18, 18.4.

SPEAKER_04 12:56

Okay, so we have those three accounts. You've got Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine, and all three accounts. You're gonna see them making the claim that Jesus is the uh essential subject of Deuteronomy 18. And we're gonna see that in the New Testament as well. The New Testament authors are going to speak to Jesus as that prophet. I think of uh John's gospel, the woman at the well, are you the prophet? Uh, when he arrives, you know, we'll know this. Um, and she speaks of the Messiah as well. Well, that's not entirely true. She says you're a prophet. Augustine makes the argumentation that she got it right, that he is the prophet and the messiah, since the Samaritans believed that the Messiah and the prophet were one and the same, whereas people in the um uh more orthodox Jewish position actually got this wrong, thinking that the Messiah and the prophet were two separate figures. Now, other Greek scholars, uh more modern Greek scholars, look at her language for the prophet or a prophet and just says, hey, she's saying a prophet, not the prophet. So Augustine might be making a mountain out of a molehill with the woman at the well, but I remember that from preaching through the Gospel of John. So Origen here claims it's about Jesus, uh the Moses spoke about. Tertullian said, How are we supposed to believe in Jesus who is to come, that he's really God's son? Well, God told us he was coming, and quotes Deuteronomy 18. And then Augustine quotes here the woman at the well, speaking of Jesus being that prophet, that prophet of Deuteronomy 18. Okay. You've also got to email.

SPEAKER_02 14:22

John, well, I was just gonna say there's one other quotation that we didn't put in the show notes that's worth mentioning, and it's the fact that when John the Baptist show up on the scene, people are asking him who he is. They say, you know, are you Elijah? And he says, No, I'm not Elijah. And they say, Are you the Messiah? And he says, No, I'm not the Messiah. And they say, Are you the prophet? And so right then and there, they're referencing this belief that uh Deuteronomy 18 was not just about any old prophet, but there was going to be coming, there was going to come another prophet in the likeness of Moses, one who knew God face to face, one who was a covenant mediator. And uh John the Baptist says, Nope, but that's not me either. And then he goes on to explain who he is. And so later on, after Jesus has come, you know, Peter will affirm it, and so will Paul in Hebrews. Uh, they will both reference Deuteronomy 18 as the fulfillment. Jesus fulfilled that role as the end time uh covenant mediator that fulfills Deuteronomy 18.

SPEAKER_03 15:15

Right. Yeah, and one more thing that I think is important to clarify is that the reason that this argument is important as it relates to the modern charismatic movement is if you take, for instance, Jack Deere and his argument and surprised by the voice of God, it's that, hey, Deuteronomy 18, that was about the Messiah. That's not for us testing prophets today. That's not really so relevant for us now. That's essentially the argument that he makes. That's actually not the argument anyone on this show would make. We actually do think Deuteronomy 18 is relevant uh as it relates to modern prophecy, but we'll uh we're not yet ready to explore how. Uh should we talk about the combined view now? Do you want you guys want to do that, one of you? Okay, I can do it. Uh the combined view still believes, just like the first view that we talked about, the Christ-exclusive view, still believes that Christ is the one who fulfills the old covenant. Uh, well, and actually fulfills what I meant to say was uh fulfills the prophetic office spoken of in Deuteronomy chapter 18. So both of them see a fulfillment in Christ, whereas the Christ-exclusive view sees it exclusively on Christ, that it telescopes toward the new covenant age. Uh, what this second view, the combined view, would say is that there's actually a combined line that what Moses was doing was establishing a prophetic office. Uh, and that office would culminate in Christ, but that there would be a line of prophets. There would be a Samuel, and there would be an Elijah and an Elisha and a Jeremiah, etc., all the way up until Christ, and so that this prophetic office is who Israel would go to rather than consulting diviners, which is also referenced in uh in Deuteronomy chapter 18. We'll we'll look a little bit at that word presumptuously, it's really relevant here, uh, as well as the companion passage, Deuteronomy 13. Israel was to go to Yahweh, and they were to hear the word of Yahweh through his prophets. And so the second view once again says, uh, hey, it's not it is about Christ, but it's not just about Christ. It's about all the prophets that lead up to Christ, and Moses is establishing that prophetic office. We have a few quotes from uh various scholars, old and uh modern, so uh you want to start with the Pereira quote, Josh?

SPEAKER_00 17:33

Yes, sir. We got Pereira and Calvin. Though Deuteronomy 1815 certainly does have regard for the office of prophet in the history of Israel, as seen especially in 1820 twenty-two, the expectation of an ultimate prophet is indicated by these verses. This ultimate prophet is not like Moses just because he receives God's words, but because he will exercise the role of covenant mediatorship and speak with God face to face, as 34 to 10 indicates. No other prophet in OT history did this. Deuteronomy 34 to 1012 confirms that the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18 is not merely a line of prophets, but especially and ultimately the prophet who works wonders and speaks with God face to face. For he saw that which all men ought to grant, that this testimony doth so appertain unto the other prophets, that yet, notwithstanding it, it doth chiefly commend Christ. Not only because that he is the prince and chief of all the prophets, but because all other former prophecies were directed toward him, and because God did at length speak absolutely by his mouth. Therefore, Peter did not rest this place or abuse the same through ignorance, but he took that doctrine which all men had received for a principle, that God had promised to teach his people at the first by his prophets as by means as intermediate, but at length principally by Christ, at whose hands they were to hope for the perfect manifestation and laying open of all things.

SPEAKER_04 18:30

Well, wait, here we go. Sorry that you guys are hearing dings from phones. Roundtree is old and doesn't know how to turn silent on.

SPEAKER_03 18:37

I have I have airplane mode and do not disturb. I don't know what else to do.

SPEAKER_04 18:41

Okay, well, so here's the thing. I just love throwing him under the bus. Uh here's the thing. Uh these quotes both show that uh Calvin and Pereira both believe that yes, Jesus is the prophet, but also sets up a consecutive line of prophets. This reke uh uh this reading accounts for both of these passages and Deuteronomy 34, 10, after Moses' death, there was not arisen a prophet since Moses, as Browntree uh quoted a moment ago at the end of his life. So there was this expectation, yes, there were gonna be prophets to come, but especially one prophet who is coming later. Uh two really important things to think about through both of these views. Uh, there are some charismatic folks who say, look, we don't need uh uh to use Deuteronomy 18 uh about false prophets, because here what we have is we have a prophecy about Jesus who's coming, a new covenant maker who's gonna bring the new covenant. He's gonna be like the prophet like Moses, he's gonna speak to God face to face as Numbers 12, uh, because Moses is a specie unique prophet. Here comes a new one. And this is entirely about that prophet. And anyone who comes and claims to be that prophet and isn't, that one will be put to death. Uh, then you have the other view, which is going to say, hey, uh actually there's a line of prophets that is clearly seen here. It's the view that the three of us hold. If if you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the three of us hold this view that it is a line of prophets culminating in uh in the fulfillment of Jesus as the prophet at the end. So we would typically agree, I think, with the traditional view of this and who it's referring to up into this point, but now we need to dive into the language of presumptuously. Uh Round Tree, I know I keep punting it over to you. I think you've done the most work on this and might have it off the cuff and be able to do it. I I obviously have it in the show notes, but if you want to take us away with that, feel free to.

SPEAKER_03 20:27

Oh, sure. Well, uh, presumptuously, I mean, one of my favorite, I actually have it down here by my foot, but uh favorite Old Testament kind of just word reference books. It's the theological word book of the Old Testament. Uh, Bruce Waltke, uh, I think was the editor. And uh anyway, so I've yes, I've done deep dive on this word presumptuously. Uh, and it basically means rebelliously. It can uh it doesn't, it's not talking about like an honest miss. It's not talking about someone who passionately loves Yahweh and missed a prophetic word. This is talking about somebody who is arrogant, who is defiant, uh, who is insolent. Uh, it's uh it's related to high-handed rebellion. So in the Old Testament, they you know, there would be like two categories of sin actually carries over the New Testament too, if you read the book of Hebrews. But uh take for instance Psalm 19, 12 to 13. It talks about uh presumptuous sins versus hidden sins. And so uh and so hidden sins, that's kind of like uh I think it was on Desiring God that I uh that I saw this, and that's why I'll give them a shout out. But they talked about uh trapdoor sins versus double door sins. So trapdoor sins or hidden sin, or basically like hidden sins, it's like oops, I got trapped, I fell into it. Uh you're just kind of going along and oops, I send, right? That's one kind of sin. Uh, but then a double door sin or a presumptuous sin uh or a high-handed sin would be not a trapdoor I slipped into, but a double door I sprint through. And so that is the kind of language that's used here in Deuteronomy 18. So this isn't somebody who uh, like I said, is passionately loving the Lord and misses a word. This is somebody fomenting rebellion against the most high God. Deuteronomy 143 uses the same root word for Israel's willful, god-defying uh march into the hill country right after God told them not to go. And so uh and so that's kind of the nature of the language here. And so when you go back to Deuteronomy 18 and you see, like if a prophet prophesies presumptuously, he said, that's the prophet that shall die. Uh so this is this is again not just the prophet that misses. Now, it is relevant if a prophet misses, and it does talk about a prophet missing. We're gonna talk about that when we get to application, but we just wanna, before we get to application. Application, we want to focus on the interpretation and how this would have been understood at the time and what it is talking about and how it would have been received is this is a rebellious Yahweh-hating rebel who's going through a double door of high-handed sin and trying to pull all Israel after him. That's what it's picturing. And I actually do agree with uh, you know, where the Christ exclusive view tends to emphasize uh the messianic pretender idea that this person's a messianic pretender. I do think that's present inside this text, given the language of a prophet.

SPEAKER_04 23:27

Yeah, Michael, your audio just cut out, buddy. It's like you're going in and out. I don't know what's going on with that. You're back. You're back. Okay, so sorry. Uh you you said uh it it is a messianic pretender. Um it is an emphasis there, but it might not be the entire focus. And just kind of finish your thought there. Your audio seemed to cut out there at the end. So um I think we need to talk about who this is actually uh is sentencing this person because some are gonna argue it is actually God who puts to death. Where in Deuteronomy 13, it seems like there's a corporate stoning. We're gonna look at that possible interpretation. But before I do, I want to remind you guys about the remnant conference coming up real soon. You've got an early bird discount up into August 16th that's going to end. So you guys need to check out information over at therumnitradio.com. I hope that you understand that prophecy and hearing God's voice is not like Christian superpowers.

unknown 24:21

Right?

SPEAKER_04 24:22

Like we're not the hero of the story. The aim of this is to glorify what Christ has done for us. But Jesus comes and does more. He brings the kingdom of God with him. It's not only that we get to be forgiven, but he invites us as sons and daughters into that kingdom and to demonstrate that kingdom. So that's October 1st through the third, there in the woodlands, which is right next to Houston, Texas. You can come out and hang out with us. It's myself, Michael Miller, uh, Michael Roundtree, John Mark Baker. It's gonna be a great time talking about the gift of prophecy. Lord willing, there will be demonstrations uh because we are flying out people to do those demonstrations. Uh, if the Lord uh chooses to speak, we'll have a great time of demonstrations as well. So uh uh Miller, do you want to kind of pick up where we left off going through Deuteronomy 18? Because there there is some argumentation and textual evidence that actually we are to put to death those false prophets in Deuteronomy 13, whereas Deuteronomy 18, God is the one who's putting people to death.

SPEAKER_02 25:25

Well, and I don't know if I I think I think it might be assumed that they were to put those that person to death. I mean, a covenant mediator pretender would is probably somebody they should put to death, especially if they're counseling rebellion against God. So I do think it's implied in the text, though it's not uh as explicit as it is in Deuteronomy 13. So just a recap, okay? So you've got over here on one side the person who uh the view that if a uh this is talking about an end-time mediator, uh, another view that this is talking about a lineage of prophets, but one thing it's not saying is any old prophet here that gets something wrong is the bad guy. That's very clear that that's not what this text is about. What Michael clarified is that the word presumptuously means speaking in such a way that you're knowingly leading people astray. And you do see that happen all throughout the Old Testament. In fact, Jeremiah is going to confront a number of different guys like Hananiah, Ahab, and Zedekiah. All of them end up doing this. And so um, you've got over here, Deuteronomy 13, you've got a person who's actually performing signs and wonders, and he's predicting things that come to pass, and yet he's leading people away from Yahweh and away from the covenant. That person is the one who's to be killed. Deuteronomy 18 is certainly speaking about uh, I would think both a lineage of prophets coming after Moses and an end-time eschatological figure, but this is not a person who's uh who's necessarily trying to uh serve the Lord with all this heart and speak something that might actually not be true, though that wasn't his intention. His intention was to accurately represent what God was sharing. And so then you see how does this actually play out in history? How do the authors of scripture themselves, uh the prophets, and or Israel, when faithful to God, carry out this law? Well, you don't actually see them carry it out. It seems like God himself does this, and which is the point that Joshua was trying to make in Jeremiah chapter 28. Now, the context here is you've got Hananiah and Jeremiah. Jeremiah comes and he's saying, Hey, look, uh, God is going to take this country, we're gonna we're gonna be taken away into captivity. But then Hananiah comes and he's like, you know, it's only gonna be two years. Uh and so uh, you know, Jeremiah has this yoke, Hananiah breaks it and says, God's gonna deliver us in a matter of two different years or in two years. Let me read Jeremiah 28, 12 through 17. Sometime after the prophet Hananiah had broken the yoke bars from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah. Go tell Hananiah, thus says the Lord, you have broken wooden bars, but you have made in their place bars of iron. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I have put upon the neck of all of these nations an iron yoke to serve Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and they shall serve him, for I have given him in uh given to him even the beast of the field. And Jeremiah the prophet said to the prophet Hananiah, Listen now, Hananiah, the Lord has not sent you, and you've made this people trust in a lie. Therefore, thus says the Lord, behold, I will remove you from the face of the earth. This year you shall die, because you have uttered rebellion against the Lord. And the same year in the seventh month, the prophet Hananiah died. Now that little last bit about the timing of it, the same year in the seventh month, realize uh Hananiah had prophesied it would only be two years of captivity to Babylon. And so here's Hananiah dying two months later, showing who is the true prophet here. And this is actually what the dialed-in guys are making reference to. They're saying, hey, look, the guy who prophesied peace and it didn't come to pass, now you know who's the false prophet. But I would argue that's not exactly what's happening here. What you have is a person intentionally counseling rebellion, a person who's gonna cause the Israelites not to look at their own sin. Uh he's prophesying peace to a people who are doing wickedness with the result that they're not gonna stop the wickedness they're doing because they don't see that they've actually broken the covenant. Hananiah was doing this for his own gain. He fits that category of presumption to the point where it looks more like open rebellion.

SPEAKER_04 29:26

Um we don't necessarily take that view, that's right.

SPEAKER_03 29:30

I don't. I I some people will use that as an example of like, hey, Deuteronomy 18 isn't prescribing capital punishment, it's simply saying the Lord will deal with him. Uh, don't be afraid of him, and that prophet shall die, perhaps by God's sovereign hand, as we see with Hananiah. I don't think that's what it means. I agree with Miller. I think somebody counseling rebellion against the Lord is likely to get capital punishment when you look at some of the other laws uh in the Mosaic uh covenant. And then number two, uh, when you pair it with Deuteronomy chapter 13, which also talks about uh rebellion against Yahweh, and it does uh prescribe Deuteronomy or it does prescribe capital punishment. Uh I mean, just in reading the scripture enough, and you see those kind of parallels, sometimes those parallels, like one kind of fills in some of the gaps on the other. I think it is capital punishment, personally. That's how I would interpret it. Uh and and I do, and I want to emphasize once again, it's it's gonna be, even though we don't do capital punishment in New under the New Covenant uh in church matters, but uh I do want to say that the severity of this uh sin is definitely relevant to how we uh interpret uh apply it to modern prophecy. We're going to get to that. I just want to warn people sometimes, guys. I'm just gonna be honest with you, like I feel uncomfortable with the fact that we're making the case that prophecy can be missed without necessarily making you a blaspheming false prophet worthy of, say, excommunication or something like that. Uh we're saying we're what we're trying to say is we we don't think Deuteronomy chapter 18 is talking about a good-hearted Jesus, you know, Yahweh-loving believer who missed a detail on a prophecy. We don't think it's talking about that. At the same time, we do think it's relevant when prophets miss prophecies. And we'll talk about that in a little bit.

SPEAKER_04 31:22

Yeah, and we will argue, and we can kind of maybe uh flashpoint this in some degree. If uh high-handed sexual immorality had death penalty behind it in Israel and in the new covenant, they excommunicate folks. We would say that that same kind of application translates over to issues like this. If someone is high-handing blasphemy and someone is saying, hey, we're in a counsel against Jesus, counsel against Yahweh in this account, uh, we would say, hey, look, this is bad. Uh and and it is disciplined uh in the local context through excommunication. But one of the things I want to bring up is, okay, well, where do we go from here? If you're arguing, and I think the the the death penalty thing um is again not something that we necessarily hold, and we would say, yes, we should excommunicate, but we just want you to have an understanding of all of the positions here. Uh what we've set up until this point, uh Deuteronomy 18, is about those who counsel sin against God. Uh, we do believe it is about a secession a concession of prophets, uh a continuous line of prophets leading up to Christ. But now the it begs the question, I think, from the viewer, okay, what examples do we have of people in the Bible who were legitimate, God-fearing individuals who missed a prophecy, believed they were prophesying, and got that prophetic word wrong, uh, not presumptuously in the sense that they were uh count uh counseling rebellion against Yahweh, but were mistaken as to what the Lord was actually saying. We've got an Old Testament verse, we've got a New Testament verse. Um, let's hang out with this Old Testament one in 2 Samuel 7.3. Now I'm gonna unpack this one, and I think I'm gonna hear some folks kind of in the background think to themselves, well, you guys just found this novel interpretation of this verse. We actually found some uh, man, church history folks like Gregory the Great, uh, we've got uh Thomas Aquinas, uh, we've got a French theologian whose name I will not even attempt to pronounce. Uh, and uh of them, they would say, Hey, look, and it's a really early French theologian at that, that said, Hey, look, uh, this is clearly Nathan missing it in 2 Samuel. Uh so I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you this is not a charismatic invention that we're just kind of making up, that we're trying to look for a place in the text where this is happening. I think it does behoove anyone if they have a theological position to try to find evidence of that in the text. So I think that is a right thing to do. Uh but here what we have is an account where Nathan and David are chilling. Uh, David calls for Nathan. It says that he was speaking to him, it doesn't necessarily record that he called him. Uh, but he is saying, hey, look, the Lord's house. Uh we don't have a house. He lives in a tent. I live in a house. It's wrong that I should live in a house and the Lord only live in a tent. I want to build him a house. And Nathan replies that the Lord is with you. We'll read that passage in detail here in a moment. But before I do so, I want to give you a little bit of context of what a court prophet was. Court prophets all throughout the ancient Near Eastern world were given to kings. There were kings who ruled over the ancient Near East, and they would want to divine the spirits and ask of the gods if there were certain battles that were favorable, what they should do with economic policies, et cetera, et cetera. The oracles of Delphi in the New Testament would be a nice correspondence to that. In Acts 16, there's a woman with a python spirit. Uh, that would have been likely going to the oracle of Delphi, just as many kings and uh wealthy people would go asking for uh the the divines, the spirits to give them counsel on given issues. But we also have this in the Old Testament. If you think about guys like Nebuchadnezzar, you think of guys like Xerxes or Artixerxes, uh, who are pulling in David and the wise men and the sorcerers. Uh, Pharaoh has his magicians. This is a very common practice in the ancient Near East. If you want to study more on it, I would encourage you to go see Jesus the Seer by Ben Witherington, who writes about the ancient Near Eastern context of court prophets. The reason I bring this up is that court prophets, their job was to counsel the Lord according to the spirit that filled them, right? So we have an account in 1 Kings 22, 6, where Ahab, the king of Israel, gathers the prophets together, about 400 men, and said to them, Shall I go up in battle against Ramath Gilead, or shall I refrain? And they said, Go up, the Lord will give you into the hand of the king. Uh, will give it into the hand of the king. So not Ahab will win. Uh is what they're prophesying. What's interesting here is the text does not say that they said, Thus say the Lord. The text doesn't say that they prophesied. What you see is the language that they are confirming to the king uh uh the Lord will give uh give you this battle, you're gonna be victory, you're going to uh, you know, uh get on top from this uh interchange. Uh what I think is really interesting about this is later on in the text, what we actually see is Micaiah saying that God sent a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets. So King Ahab isn't going to the prophets asking for strategy, he's not asking for military insight. He wants to know if the spirits are with him, if if if God is with him. I guess Ahab is pseudo-a Yahweh follower here, slash Baal slash Asherah, up until this point. Uh, but a similar thing is happening, and I think that it's important that we see that context. Just because Nathan doesn't say, thus says the Lord in 2 Samuel 7, 1 through 5, doesn't mean he doesn't think he's prophesying. In fact, his very job actually gives us the context. So that's what's happening. When David asks him, hey, uh temple, should we do this temple thing? Nathan isn't being asked as an interior decorator. He's not being asked as someone who does landscaping, he's being asked as the court prophet to speak on behalf of Yahweh. So in 2 Samuel 7, I've got verses 2 through 3 here. Uh the king said to Nathan the prophet, see, now I dwell in the house of Cedar, uh, but the ark of God dwells in a tent. And Nathan said to the king, Go do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you. A very similar construction to that which we saw in 1 Kings 22, 6. Uh so here in 2 Samuel 7, 4 through 5, he says, Go, you know, do what's in your hand. But then in verse 4, uh it happened that that night that the word of the Lord came to Nathan saying, Go and tell my servant David, thus says the Lord, uh uh uh, shall you build me a house? That is not the correct reference, is it? There um the Lord corrects Nathan in the middle of the night and says, Nope, this is not for David. He's got blood on his hands. So Nathan goes back and corrects his record. And it seems as if there is at least some church history that agrees with us on this that Nathan got it wrong. Anything you guys want to add to that? I know I monologued quite a bit.

SPEAKER_02 37:45

I mean, no, I mean, I I do think it's pretty presumptuous. If you're a king and you're wanting to find out if something that's really significant, like building a house for the Lord, is something the Lord actually wants you to do, who are you gonna consult? We're gonna go straight to the prophet to find out if the kind of resources that you're going to expend and ask all Israel to support is justifiable by God, if God is in this idea that David has. And so for Nathan, then to give that word and say, go and do all that is in your heart, O King, the Lord your God is with you, and then attach those words specifically, the Lord your God is with you, when in fact the Lord wasn't with him in this. Um that would tell you that that Nathan clearly got something wrong. He spoke presumptuously, but not the kind of presumption that we are talking about in Deuteronomy 18, which is where I think most people who comment on Deuteronomy 18 from uh tend to fail to recognize. Um, you definitely don't want to go to this passage and say Nathan was wrong. Um yet it was pretty clear he was wrong.

SPEAKER_03 38:43

I mean, so I think there is a fair debate as to whether Nathan was prophesying. I think I I don't think the other side can ardently say that without beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was that he wasn't, uh, and I don't think that we can say 100% that he was, but I do think we can say, at least our uh our opinion is that the evidence seems weighed in that direction. The reason is, uh, and I'm just gonna say kind of the same thing, but in my own way, in my own words, uh, when a king is making the biggest decision of his reign, whether or not to build a house, the highest man, biggest decision of his reign, and he calls forth a court prophet. I mean, if President Trump is making the biggest, if he's making a decision about whether to uh, I don't know, drop put troops on the ground in Iran, that would be a massive decision. And he calls his secretary of war and that's his opinion, like that that's a big he's asking for official feedback, but now we're talking in a spiritual context in a theocratic nation. Like in Trump's context, that's not just spitballing. I I want what you're I I want, like with your expertise and your position, I want to know. Same idea, Nathan. You are the court prophet appointed by me and by Yahweh to tell me the word of the Lord, and I want you to give me uh Yahweh's counsel on the most important decision that I've ever made in my life. Do I build a house of the Lord or not? And then Nathan responds by citing Yahweh's name. Yahweh is with you. Uh, I think that's pretty strong evidence that this was intended as uh maybe a prophetic prophetic utterance of some kind. Okay. Now, some will say, well, but he didn't say thus says the Lord. But I mean, if you read through the Old Testament, there are a lot of times people prophesy without using the exact language of thus says the Lord. There are a lot of times they do that. So uh to me, this seems like one of those times. Uh so it's not just us who thinks this, like Josh said. Uh Gregory the Great thinks this. So we uh we agree with the great Gregory. The great Gregory.

SPEAKER_04 40:59

Yeah, I'll play some of them. Just so you know, Thomas Aquinas is gonna quote Gregory, and I think that our French theologian is pulling on that same theological thread, even if he's not using the exact words. Uh so here is Gregory the Great.

SPEAKER_00 41:11

Gregory the Great, it should also be known that sometimes holy prophets, when consulted, speak from long habit of prophesying, offering things from their own mind while believing they speak from the spirit of prophecy. But because they are holy, the Holy Spirit corrects them quickly, and they hear the truth and admit their own words were wrong. No one doubts Nathan was a holy prophet. He openly rebuked King David for his sin and foretold its consequences. Yet when David asked him whether he should build a temple to God, Nathan immediately answered, Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you. 2 Sam 7 to 3. But the text continues at once. That same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David, thus says the Lord God, shall you build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought the sons of Israel out of Egypt to this day. 2 Sam 7, 4-5. And shortly after, when your days are done, and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 2 Sam 712-13. So Nathan, who had first told the king to go and do it, was afterward taught by the Spirit of prophecy that this could not be done, and had to contradict both the king's plan and his own earlier words, once he realized what he had said from his own mind had been wrong. Here lies the difference between true and false prophets. True prophets, when they occasionally speak from their own mind, are quickly corrected, being taught the truth by the Holy Spirit to the minds of those who hear them. False prophets, by contrast, both proclaim falsehoods and cut off from the Holy Spirit, persist in their error. Thomas Aquinas. On the other hand, when a prophet knows something by divine prompting, he may not always be able to tell clearly whether the thought comes from God or from his own spirit. Not everything known by divine prompting comes with a full certainty of prophecy, because this kind of prompting is an imperfect form of prophetic knowledge. This is how we should understand Gregory. Yet God does not allow this uncertainty to lead the prophet permanently into error. The Holy Spirit quickly corrects them, teaches them the truth, and causes them to acknowledge that what they had said was untrue, as Gregory says. Nathan is an example of this in 2 Samuel 7 to 3, and the following. The objections mentioned above concern those cases where something is given by clear prophetic revelation, and so the answer to them is evident. Translation emphasis mine. Angelomus of Lucia. Now it happened when the king was sitting in his house, and the Lord had given him rest, that he said to Nathan the prophet, Do you see that I dwell in a house of cedar, while the ark of God is placed amid curtains? And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in your heart, because the Lord is with you, etc. For Nathan said this from himself, not from the word of the Lord, and therefore he erred, presuming on his own understanding, he ought first to have asked God. Here, therefore, it is shown that the spirit of prophecy does not always illuminate the minds of the prophets, because, as it is written concerning the Holy Spirit, he blows where he wills. Hence also Elisha, when he saw the woman weeping and did not know the cause, said to his servant who was preventing her, let her alone, for her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord has hidden it from me, and has not told me. Almighty God arranges this by a great dispensation of his mercy. Because while he sometimes gives the spirit of prophecy, and sometimes withdraws it, he both raises the minds of those who prophesy to a height and preserves them in humility, so that, when they receive the spirit, they discover what they are from God. And again, when they do not have the spirit of prophecy, they recognize what they are from themselves. Therefore, the prophet, because of his accustomed practice of prophecy, believed that what he had said from himself, he had spoken by the Spirit. And so what follows, he spoke from the word of the Lord.

SPEAKER_04 43:57

Okay, so you have those three accounts. Uh again, uh Thomas is going to be quoting Gregory. You'll notice that I wrote Emphasis Mine. Uh you can go read Thomas Aquinas in his ancient fancy Greek Volutan language, uh, but it's really hard to understand. So I uh massaged it ever so slightly so it could be interpreted. But you'll see the footnote there uh on screen. And if you want to go check the footnote, you can go check it in our show notes, which are quite exhaustive. In fact, I have got, oh boy, 19 pages of church father quotes on the subject because we didn't have time to quote everybody. So you can feel free to go and check those out over on Patreon if you so desire. Uh one of you guys want to pick up on the next option in Acts 21 4.

SPEAKER_03 44:46

Acts 21 4. Yeah, we can talk about that. Uh so Acts 21 4 uh comes in a sequence. Where uh beginning in Acts chapter 19, verse I think it's 21, Paul said it says Paul resolved in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem. So the Holy Spirit is involved in a decision for Paul to go to Jerusalem. And then in Acts 20, it's around 22 to 24, uh, verses 22 to 24, it says that Paul was constrained by the Spirit, a word that can uh could be like arrested, like Holy Spirit's taking handcuffs and dragging Paul. In other words, the language starts getting stronger as the Holy Spirit is warning him, talking to him uh about that he's going to Jerusalem and that persecution's coming. And so Paul is like, nothing's gonna stop him. So he's on the way uh to Jerusalem and uh and he's just outside of it, and this is what happens uh on the way there. It says, and when he had parted from them and said sail, he came. Uh I'm gonna kind of skip some of the uh geographical details and come straight to the key one. Uh this is after he lands in uh Tyre, T Y R E Tyre. And having sought out the disciples, the disciples at Tyre, we stayed there for seven days, and through the spirit they were telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Okay, so we had uh the Holy Spirit saying, Go to Jerusalem, and then getting really strong more and more saying go to Jerusalem, and then these disciples at Tyre saying through the Spirit, uh, don't go to Jerusalem. And uh and so then it continues through verse six. So um so that's kind of the setup. Does one of you guys want to talk through some of the uh arguments there, Miller?

SPEAKER_04 46:33

Yeah, I've talked a lot. Miller, go for it.

SPEAKER_02 46:36

Um sure. Um so uh gosh, I don't know the cessationist arguments well enough to articulate them. I do know that uh I made a mistake in thinking that Agamemnus was wrong once. Actually, the Agamist was right.

SPEAKER_04 46:51

You made it into a documentary.

SPEAKER_03 46:53

Well, yeah, I know I did make it into a documentary. Yeah. Um so I mean I'll just I I can articulate it. So yeah, the cessationist arguments the cessationist arguments are essentially our arguments with different vocabulary. That's what it like pretty much every commentary that I looked at, because I preached through the book of Acts, and I looked up a whole bunch of commentaries, and pretty much everyone's agreed. Cessationist, charismatic, because the riddle that we're trying to solve is how could the Holy Spirit on one hand be saying repeatedly go to Jerusalem, and then through the Spirit, somebody's saying, Don't go to Jerusalem. And so where pretty much everybody lands is well, they had an accurate revelation that uh that there's danger in Jerusalem, but they allowed their heartstrings to tug at them, and therefore they told Paul not to go to Jerusalem. And so Acts 21:4 is sort of a condensed way of saying, uh, like they said through the Spirit, don't go to Jerusalem, but there was a some human mixture in what was a clear and perfect divine revelation. And uh, and so that's the way pretty much all commentators say it. But uh the cessationists say, like, for instance, Tom Shriner, the way he says it was uh he says, Well, there uh I think he says it about this verse, uh, but but I will say this about Shriner. He says that there's such a thing as an impression, even though he doesn't believe in modern prophecy, there's such a thing as an impression, which can be a divine revelation about things. We're like, oh, that's that revelation is a big that's a part of prophecy. And uh so there's a little bit of vocabulary difference there. But uh what we would say as charismatics is we would say the revelation, the interpretation, the application, all of that forms the prophecy. What God communicates, the revelation is always perfect and infallible, but sometimes we can mess it up, and that's exactly what happened in Acts 21.4. But the cessationists, in my opinion, because their theology won't allow them to say this, they don't want to say, well, that was a prophecy. They just want to say maybe it was an impression, they want to make up a word to describe it. So that's kind of how it goes. Now, I could I could unpack the uh exegesis as to why I think it should be called a prophecy if y'all want. But anyway, I've talked for a bit.

SPEAKER_02 49:16

Well, I think it'd be worth doing that, Michael. But I'll I'll just on the front end, it might be helpful for those who come from more of the skeptical lens or cessationist side or grappling with where to land on this whole topic. Um what many people don't talk about is that oftentimes when God speaks, it's not always in a clear uh word-for-word sentence. Now, we often talk to each other in sentences, and that's because we're limited in capacity and ability. We can't uh uh communicate directly to the mind, and we certainly can't communicate uh to the mind in an image. So when a person is getting a prophetic word from God that's coming in the form of a vision, which is exactly how Numbers talks about God revealing himself to prophets in a vision and a dream uh and riddles shrouded in mystery, um that prophet then has to take that communication, that revelation, and put it into human words. And so the human words that they give, that is the prophecy that they give. So for a cessationist to then say, well, they just misinterpreted it or misapplied, I go, but that's the thing. That's the word they gave. Um we we all agree that there is a revelation that God gives that's perfect and unstained. But the problem is, is when it comes into human fallible minds, that's where things get muddled. Um, and I think that's exactly what's happening here in Acts. I don't think these prophets are false prophets because they uh what they communicated, what did they put into human words after having been revealed certain things was wrong. Um, I I just think they were prophets that missed it. Uh and it was a mess that didn't really create a mess. It all went just fine after that.

SPEAKER_04 51:00

Yeah, if you're wanting to check out uh the sumo theological quote that I gave you guys from um Thomas Aquinas, you you have larger citations from him in the second tab of our notes where he starts talking about imaginations and he talks about varying degrees of communication that God speaks to people. Um we make this a big point of our show. We mentioned Numbers 12 a moment ago. God spoke to Moses face to face, but with the other prophets, he spoke in riddles. Things are hard to understand. Daniel, who receives these revelations over and over, has to pray and fast because he doesn't know what they mean. Peter wakes up and acts from his vision, visionary trance of the unclean food coming down in a blanket or unclean animals coming down in a blanket, rise, kill, and eat. He wakes up perplexed as to its meaning. So there there clearly are times where God speaks through the prophets and they hear clearly what is being said. Moses would be a good example of that. Samuel, it says none of his words fell to the ground, which, you know, maybe we can tangent there for a moment, would suggest that some other prophets' words fell to the ground, which is interesting. Why even say it if prophets' words can't fall to the ground if they're truly prophets? Anyway. Um but but regardless, it it is time after time proven true that the scriptures are God-breathed, they're profitable for teaching and correction and reproof and training in righteousness. Um so when we say God's revelation is pure and true, uh, but humans are fallible, what we're not saying is that God did not protect the scriptures in the way that he protected that revelation as he was giving it to Moses or Samuel or Jesus. Um we we can we can say that there are times where under God's sovereign choice, he he speaks with a level of perspicuity, and at other times God speaks with a level of um uh head scratching. I can't think of a theological word to fit in there, uh, where it's hard to make sense of what God is saying. So, Michael, I'll let you pick up where we left off. There was something that you wanted to explain back into that.

SPEAKER_03 52:59

Sure. Well, so I think the cessationist argument fails on a few accounts. One, there's definitionally, a prophecy is not a prophecy until a human is communicating it. Uh a prophecy, it's a revelation. Like when in John chapter 12, when the Lord speaks from heaven, that's that is a revelation, but it's not a prophecy. When the heavens declare the glory of God, that is a revelation that's happening, but it's not a prophecy. Uh, and what makes it a prophecy is that a human is communicating it. And so that's why we have the language of a prophet, because that human has communicated. Even prophecies of scripture are inscribed, written by humans. While it was still in the person's mind, it was not yet a prophecy, it was just a revelation. And this is why we as charismatics say the word prophecy definitionally is more than the revelation. It is the interpretation and application as well. It's what the prophet communicates is the prophecy. And so there is a false sort of bifurcation here that cessationists are making when they say, oh, just the revelation is the prophecy. Because in their theology, the revelation uh the the a true prophet can't miss. And so they they separate it out to make sure, well, the the prophecy is perfectly accurate. They they have no space for a missed prophecy from a godly person. And these are godly people because they're disciples of Tyre who were showing hospitality to Paul on a mission trip. So they're godly. And uh, and so I think definitionally it's off. Uh, the word prophecy must include what is communicated, number one. Number two, exegetically, I think it's off. And uh I don't think we can just uh kind of wipe our hands of this and say, it's not a prophecy, so this doesn't apply. Continuation is you don't have an argument here, it's not a prophecy uh at all. It's just uh, you know, it's you know, these guys just kind of messed up on their own and and it not part of a prophetic word. The reason you can't say that uh exegetically is the context. And uh you have the context of the passage. The context is prophecy. Luke is teaching us in Acts 21 through narrative in verses 1 through 11, he's teaching us about prophecy and how it operates. And uh, and so you have a prophetic incident in verse four. Now, or at least I'll say uh tentatively, maybe a prophetic incident. Uh, let's evaluate that. Next, in I think it's uh verse uh was it seven or eight, where you have the four daughters of Philip who prophesy. And then uh a few verses later in verse 10, I believe it is, when Agabus prophesies, and then in verse 11, they uh it's really verses 10 and 11 where that kind of sequence happens with Agabus and then people trying to appeal to Paul not to go. Uh, what's my point? The second, so so in a story about the Apostle Paul and his trip to Jerusalem, two of three are inac inarguably, absolutely about prophecy. Therefore, it suggests that the first one, when it says through the spirit, they said, Don't go to Jerusalem, that that is also a prophecy. So the immediate context of the passage suggests that it's prophecy. When we add Acts chapter 11 to not just the context of the passage, but the context of the book of Acts, um, Acts chapter 11, I think, is the nail in the coffin. I think it is actually not possible to argue, or at least not to argue well. In Acts 11, 28, it says that Agabas stood up and foretold by the Spirit. It's the same construction of Greek words as we see in Acts 21:4, where through the Spirit they said, Don't go to Jerusalem. By the Spirit, Agabas said, A great famine is coming over the entire Roman world. Now, that comes on the heels of verse 27, saying prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And so, in a context where Jerusalem sent prophets to Antioch to prophesy, a prophet named Agabas prophesied, foretold, quote, by the spirit, there's a famine coming. So if in Acts chapter 11, the language of through or by the spirit means prophesied, how can we argue that in Acts 21, 4 that that exact same language means didn't prophesy? I'm sorry, I don't buy it, especially when you say, when you see that the rest of the context in Acts 21 is all about prophecy. And so I think the best explanation is it's like Luke is trying to show us Agabas was a good, wise, careful prophet, and the disciples of Tyre should have taken a page from his playbook. Agabas, when he says, Thus says the Holy Spirit, uh, you know, this is gonna happen to you in Jerusalem, he's very careful not to say, Therefore do this, therefore don't do that, because the Lord didn't speak those things. Luke gives like he's quoting him and saying, Thus says the Holy Spirit, because it's like these are the exact words of the Holy Spirit. And then in the expanded, it's like Luke expands it like an accordion so that we can observe the other people allow this to pull at their heartstrings and say, Oh, Paul, don't go, don't go, don't go. And so what happens in those two verses, the perfect revelation from the Lord, which was there's danger, and then the heartstrings being pulled of the people and the appeal not to go. And Paul says, Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? Which is also an interesting thing. What it shows that in the context of prophecies, that there's uh we actually get to weigh them. We don't have to like, quote, do what the prophet said necessarily. Anyway, that's a side note. But that whole story there is uh is showing us what happens in condensed form in Acts 21, 4. So all that to say, I don't think the cessationist argument holds up that this is not prophecy. And what does that mean? That means it is prophecy, it means it is a missed prophecy, it means it is a missed prophecy by godly people, and nothing in the narrative suggests that they're excommunicated or receive any kind of discipline for it. I do still think it matters, and I do still think it can be a big deal when somebody misses a prophecy, and we gotta clean that up, and we've got to talk about that here soon. But all that to say, this false cessationist idea that a true prophet can never, ever, ever, ever, ever miss, or you're a blasphemer. Um, I don't buy it. Acts 21, 4 just proves it.

SPEAKER_04 59:05

Yeah, and we haven't been pulling quotes from the most charismatic people to defend this. Uh, Michael, what he just unpacked is not a novel interpretation. Uh, this is a historical interpretation that we can pull from church history as well. We've got quotes from the Geneva Bible, Matthew Poole, and John Christostom that check this out, to say, hey, this is uh, you know, our understanding of this passage. And again, to Michael's point, when you read all the commentaries, they all virtually say something pretty similar uh of those modern commentaries. Um we didn't quote the most charismatic of our guys that would make this case for us. We're trying to quote uh older uh sources that are pre-charismatic or non-charismatic sources uh to make our best case tier. Uh Miller, um, did you have something you wanted to say, or did I say what you were going to say?

SPEAKER_02 59:52

Uh I mean, that was it. I just I want people to understand that we're not inventing something out of the ether. We're not the ones twisting scripture to make it say what we want it to say. We're pulling on church history and as best as we can trying to interpret what the text says. I think those who are cessationists are trying to create a uh a category that's just simply not there. Um while while I because of the idea that a prophet could miss it, it threatens so much for them. Um and I I understand why that's a problem. I think when we get to the end of this podcast, and maybe we'll have to reserve it for another podcast, we do think there are consequences for missing prophecy. Um both it, I we do think it can cause damage. I think there's a reason why Paul said, don't despise prophecy. Um, and and it's because that people would despise it because it often was misinterpreted or misapplied, uh, or there was harm done by people missing it. Um so he tells you what to do. He says, Hold fast to what is good, abstain from what is evil. So Paul himself recognizes that this was a problem and he creates a solution that we should all also follow. But the solution most cessationists would have us follow is don't prophesy, or immediately assume that person is just a false prophet. I just don't think that's what the scripture is telling us to do.

SPEAKER_04 1:01:11

Yeah, and here's the thing you know, uh there is a few folks in the comments that are like, hey, congratulations, you've made it safe for prophets to falsely prophesy. Um before I read these quotes from church history, I want the audience to recognize we have done plenty to expose false prophecy and people who don't repent of their public prophetic words. We have done tons uh talking about their ethic and their doctrine. Um, and the scriptures, you know, here's the thing someone can teach falsely, right? They can get up, they can teach something, get the wrong application, do a moral therapeutic sermon, uh, not make the law gospel distinction. They can completely miss it entirely, placing on people burden. Uh, they can point to the the scriptures and think that there's some kind of self-made righteousness and obedience that gets you into heaven. They're teaching the scriptures incorrectly, and I can tell that they're a false teacher by doctrine and by ethic. Um there's nothing different here with the gift of prophecy. We're doing the exact same thing. Where if a teacher gets up and says something wrong, we want to correct them. Um, and if they will not receive correction, then they are to be removed. And in the same way, we've done plenty of that. So for people who are jumping online saying, okay, well, you guys are just totally cool with people just, you know, prophesying constantly and missing every prophetic word, it's not what we're arguing for. What we're arguing for is there is a biblical precedent for individuals in the scriptures who seem to be prophesying. You know, Michael says he's not positive about Nathan. I'll tell you, I go 70-30 on it. I I feel pretty confident that the contextual clues on that passage make it really clear. And I think when I look at Acts, man, I might be high 80s or 90s. Um, and I know 100% that the Trinity's a thing and that Jesus is the Son of God, the third person, the second person of the Trinity, uh, you know, is the same homoousias as the Father. Like I have very few theological issues that I hold with 100% certainty, and I'm willing to debate and negotiate and and and argue uh various theological points. Um so I want to make sure that this is all cleared down. We do think there are false prophets. We do think they need to be exposed, but it's not necessarily using the Matthew 18 or the Matthew 18, the Deuteronomy 18 standard alone. But here, let's pull from John Christossen and Poole in Geneva. Uh Michael, do you want to dive in before I click those clothes? I heard you speak up.

SPEAKER_03 1:03:27

Oh, yeah, I was just gonna say that I think that just the context of the prophetic word matters. And this is where I I'm just gonna speak in the Deuteronomy 18, because we keep saying, like, we're gonna get there in the modern uh application. The modern application of Deuteronomy 18, it's talking about somebody leading a nation astray. This is like big stage prophetic. The closest I can think of in a modern equivalent would be somebody delivering YouTube prophecies to millions uh and saying this is gonna happen in this nation and those kinds of things. That's a pretty close equivalent to the Deuteronomy 18, in which case I would say that if somebody misses that level of a prophecy, uh, that they need to be disciplined by their church unless they repent. And if they repent, uh, then that's handled differently, uh, but it still needs to be addressed and there has to be accountability. Uh, but take the disciples' attire, talking about like dudes hanging out and they just prophesy to Paul. Well, that's real different on a on there. There's no stage and microphone and video camera. There's no like nation national following. They're not millions of people. It's a personal prophecy, which is real similar uh to uh well, anyway, I'll just I'll just leave it at that. So I I think context matters. Like there's a very big difference between one person saying to another, hey, I was praying today, and uh, and while I was praying, I I for you I saw I I had a sense that dot dot dot and they share a prophetic word. That is a very different scenario than prophesying to millions that this is gonna happen and it's gonna infect your or affect your investments and all of this. That's what I didn't like in our video. I didn't like about apparently Jack Deere some at some point said that you know prophecy is is messy and you know some somebody prophesied and people lost millions of dollars of investments. Man, I hope there was accountability uh for that. So uh I I have a lot of problem with you know, and Bickle used to say, like, well, you know, prophecy is kind of like hamburger helper, and you're just a lot of bad mixed in there, but at least there's a little bit of good. Or I heard him say once, like, you know, 90% of it's not even good. Uh Rick Joyner had some kind of big percentage like that, and I'm just like, that's not cool either. I mean, I heard a prophet uh prophetic trainer one time say, like, you know what, just make stuff up and uh trust that it's the Lord. I'm like, whoa, whoa. Uh like because I actually like when I see Chris Roseboro, for instance, say things like, hey, you're representing the Lord and you're bearing the Lord's name in vain when you prophesy falsely, I actually agree with that. Uh, I think, particularly if you're like in that stage, kind of big, big setting and there's no accountability. Uh so I I do think that that is a real danger to bear the Lord's name in vain uh through missed prophecy and especially unaccountable missed prophecy. So anyway, I just wanted to share those thoughts.

SPEAKER_04 1:06:15

Yeah, I've got more thoughts. I want to play these clips so they don't get too far from your memory. These are on Acts chapter uh twenty-one, verse four. These are commentaries starting with John Christostom. John Christostom.

SPEAKER_00 1:06:26

And yet it is not merely they predicted the dangers, but said by the Spirit. If then the Spirit bade, why did he gainsay by the Spirit? That is, they knowing by the Spirit, what would be the consequences said to him? For of course it does not mean that the exhortation they made was by the Spirit, for they did not simply foretell to him the dangers through the Spirit, but added of themselves that it behooved him not to go up sparing him. But after we had accomplished the days, that is, had fulfilled the appointed days, we separated and went on our way. They all bringing us on our way with wives and children. five. See how great was the entreaty. Matthew Poole, through the Spirit, by the Spirit of Prophecy they foretold his sufferings at Jerusalem, which afterward accordingly befell unto him. And they, being ignorant of his undertaking that journey at God's command, out of commiseration and pity dissuade Saint Paul from going to such a place, where they foresaw that he should suffer so much, and this it is said they did through the Spirit, because they had that foreknowledge of all his sufferings from the Spirit, and knowing that in part, being ignorant of that special command Paul had had to go to Jerusalem, they did, according to what they knew, dissuade Paul from that journey. But knowing that their prophecy about Saint Paul's sufferings must be fulfilled, and the spirit by which they spake could not err or be mistaken, how came they to dissuade Saint Paul from going to Jerusalem? It may be answered that they might think this prediction of his sufferings to be only conditional, in case he went to Jerusalem. As David was told that the men of Caleb would deliver him to Saul, 1 Samuel 23 to 1112, that is, in case he had trusted himself amongst them, Geneva Bible footnote. They foretold through the Spirit what dangers were about to befall Paul, and this they did as prophets. But they misdirected him away from Jerusalem because of a fleshly affection.

SPEAKER_04 1:07:44

So you can see in all those accounts what we're essentially seeing is that this revelation did in fact come from God and yet they assumed either it was a their own motive their own love for Paul that caused them to urge, well, if God's warning me about danger, then the interpretation must be don't go. So there's this this possibility that it's an automatic thing. Others have argued that 1 Samuel 23 11 and 12 where Samuel goes down to the temple, puts on the ephod, goes, Lord, is Saul and his men going to come? People of the city going to give me over to Saul and his men, and will they kill us all? And God says yes that will happen. So David takes off the ephod and bounces, which means that at least in some part that prophetic word was conditional on David's actions. If he stayed, this is what would have happened. So David left. So you know Matthew Poole suggests well maybe this was a they thought it was a conditional prophecy and that's why they shared this. And then you have the Geneva Bible making the same kind of argumentation. There's some kind of fleshly addition to the prophetic word. I hope what people hear us saying in this account is that if a person gets up and they teach something incorrectly and you correct them, they humbly repent and then they keep on teaching that false thing over and over that's probably a false teacher and you need to get them out of there. Then you have another account where someone is teaching falsely and they repent of what, hey, you hey look you did this wrong they repent and then they keep teaching wrong things and you keep correcting them. They're probably not a good teacher. They shouldn't be teaching at all. They might have a good heart. They just don't have the faculties or the training or the equipment to rightly teach the word of God. And then you have a third category which is a person who loves the Lord, can teach the Bible and then repents when they err. You know, that happens from time to time for all of us. We're just saying that same standard for teaching which the Bible says don't let many of you be teachers, if that doesn't make them a false teacher by making one error, then why are we holding a higher standard for prophecy, which God wants all of God's people to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially to prophesy. So and if this is the sign of the new covenant poured out in Acts 2 and Joel 2 that your sons and daughters will prophesy, and this is to be more of a normative kind of activity amongst God's people, would it not suggest that they should be held to a similar standard that is not as great as teaching, especially when prophetic ministry is to be weighed and tested, it's to be discerned, there's supposed to be some kind of confirmation that this is the Lord before you act on this within the church community to test and weigh these things. I think it's much safer than the the exercise of teaching ministry because we're not to add beyond what is written in the scriptures according to first Corinthians 4 6, not to go beyond what is written. Man, I don't think that we're just inventing new doctrines.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:28

I think it's for comfort, exhortation um it's for guidance and leading in areas where the scriptures do not okay so who who wants to pick up well I'm just gonna comment because I I do think that the the concern that I'm seeing in the chat about it making it safer for people out there to give false prophecies words that don't come to pass or words that just aren't God. I actually do think we want to make a safe place for people to grow in gifts and that means it has to be safe for them to make mistakes. We're not potty training people at gunpoint here. However I don't think that every missed prophecy or missed prophetic word is necessarily dangerous in and of itself. I think we have the example that we just mentioned in the Acts where these guys give a prophetic word to Paul and they're wrong. And it doesn't create any kind of natural consequence or hiccup for Paul and the Bible doesn't call them false prophets. And so there are a number of words out there that really even though those prophetic words may be wrong have little to no consequence. However there are times where prophetic words have great and dire consequence and we think those kinds of words especially need to be held to a higher uh level of accountability or I guess you could say they deserve a far greater consequence for those kind of prophetic words. It's part of the reason we do the prophetic reviews at the end of the year because what we're seeing are people giving prophetic words to the nation or nations as a whole with little to no accountability when those words don't come to pass, when stadiums weren't filled in 2020 or when Trump wasn't elected president in 2020 or when the great transference of wealth that was supposed to happen in 2020 didn't happen. There's a reason why we got up on the YouTube and said don't follow these people because we actually think the consequences of those kinds of prophecies create much more dire consequences for those who listen and follow those prophecies. And it's also why Jack or why Michael and I disagree with the I would say moral latitude that that our mentor Jack Deere gave the person who prophesied something that was wrong and cost somebody millions of dollars. I actually think that person needs to be held accountable and the consequences of that wrong or missed prophecy were massive. Therefore the consequences for that person giving that prophecy should also be massive. So we're just saying the punishment needs to fit the crime so to speak. Hopefully and again I actually think that is a biblical way of going about it.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:18

Yeah and to be fair my guess would be that Jack would agree with us on that today. I think we're always talking about Jack had a massive falling out with Rick Joyner when he was Jack was appointed to oversee Todd Bentley's restoration and it got about 15 minutes into it and he was like whoa this is a freaking train wreck and uh they had a they kind of came to blows and felt had a falling out over that uh because Jack was like you have to actually choose righteousness and repent. And uh and so yeah so I I think on accountability Jack would have a different position. Uh but anyway we need to I think move toward how do we uh what what actually marks a true versus false prophet and I'm just gonna say I I think the biggest I I do think if if somebody misses a million prophecies, yeah or million. I mean what's the number? I don't know the Bible doesn't tell us but uh but I will say accuracy is relevant. It's definitely relevant but it's just not the only and it's actually not the most relevant since in Deuteronomy 13 you can perform signs and wonders or prophesy and get something right and it's uh you're still leading people away from Yahweh. The most important uh thing is what is their character those are the things that we especially need to be paying attention to and that's what we see throughout church history whether it's in the uh shepherd of Hermes or the Didike or against heresy heresy some of these ancient documents you can see those same kinds of tests the biggest one are character and doctrine. For doctrine you can look at first Corinthians or sorry first John four um really all one through ten is all good but uh for that and then uh for character Matthew chapter seven uh beware of false prophets and they come to you as wolves in sheep's clothing etc so uh so those are really the two big tests and which really raises a question and if you see a prophet on YouTube what do you know about his character oh you don't you don't know anything about his character that's why we say make prophecy local again that's what we say so uh prophecy in the local church uh I think is much better not saying that it's impossible for it to go outside of that uh Acts chapter 11 Paul uh Agabus does prophecy prophesy about a famine coming over the whole Roman world and the churches gathered a collection uh as a result of it so I'm not saying it can't go beyond one local church but um we certainly have no business going beyond a single local church if we're not even getting accurate prophecies in our local church. So I'll say that. Make prophecy local again. Guys uh anything else we need to add to kind of round this out we're about a half hour over here today.

SPEAKER_04 1:15:56

There's a couple things that uh were mentioned in the podcast again trying to address some of the comments in the comment section. I talk about like hey what is this about growing in the gift and and what does that even mean? The Bible seems to speak about this sort of thing a lot. In 1 Tim or sorry 2 Timothy 1 6 fan into flame the gift of God that was given to you through the laying out of my hands that is referring to a spiritual gift, fan into flames uh don't lack in any spiritual gifts but praying that they abound in every spiritual gifts until the appearing of our Lord 1 Corinthians 1 7. So not just to have gifts but to abound in those gifts uh 1 Corinthians 1 7 earnestly desire spiritual gifts over and over to desire something that maybe is something that you do not have Paul the whole letter of 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and 14, what is he doing? He's instructing them how to do spiritual gifts in a better way. What is that not but growing in the gifts if the purpose of the gift is to build someone up and you're not using it for that purpose and you're now being trained on how to use that gift in a way that edifies, then you are training and growing in that spiritual gift. You then also have the extensive experience of the prophet's training in prophetic communities in 1 Samuel and 2 Kings we also have Paul telling Timothy to devote himself to the teaching and 1 Timothy chapter 4 14 through 17 to continue to progress in them. How do you progress in a spiritual gift of teaching? Well you're trained you fan that thing into flame as it were prophet speaks while others weigh what is being said. So I I think that all throughout the text of scripture we have opportunities to grow uh when we get prophetic words wrong and those words are being tested and they're incorrect we learn that's not God uh that's a good thing to do and we would encourage people to go learn about spiritual gifts we think the best place to do that is in your local church. There's tons of folks who don't have access to that sort of thing. So we encourage you if you're interested check out the introduction to spiritual gifts course miller or round tree just signed off so it's just me and Miller. But that uh registration ends August 9th so or not not ends it opens August 9th so if you're interested in checking that out it's 10 weeks of discipleship.

SPEAKER_03 1:17:58

Josh I'm not off but that's it's 19th.

SPEAKER_04 1:18:01

Oh it's because I programmed your old camera and you jumped back on with a different camera. Now you're Roundtree.

SPEAKER_03 1:18:07

No that's Miller's me twice come on come on boomer have you ever seen a computer?

SPEAKER_04 1:18:13

Listen guys I'm sorry I have a harder time reading than I actually have using technology. It is August 19th if you're listening online I I'm so sorry that I've given you like three different dates. August 19th is when registration opens. So what we do here is we don't teach you spiritual gifts. We're not like hey repeat after me bucket of bo show now you can speak in tongues. That's dumb. What we do is we teach what the Bible says about that spiritual gift and that's how we're training you in that gift. When it talks about prophecy we're going to talk about the different ways that God speaks and then we're gonna ask God to speak to us and if he does we'll test and weigh what's being said. So you go online you watch your online videos we teach on prophecy and healing and deliverance and all these various subjects then on the weekend you break out with your small group leader and actually now we have it throughout the week depending on uh what's available for you and you uh do small group training and then you jump on a live QA with Michael Michael and myself so uh we'd encourage you go check that out uh lots of really cool opportunities for folks who don't have access to a local church that can train them in spiritual gifts uh it's a great place go to the remnant radio.com and check that out well I'm done I don't have anything left Miller uh I think you talked to the least today so I'm punting it over to you if you've got anything else to say uh no I mean I think I think what we're seeing by and large is there is a a I do have something to say um I think people despise prophecy and it's because of all the hoopla we see out there where there are no consequences.

SPEAKER_02 1:19:41

And we're we're actually trying to bring some correction to that we do believe in the ongoing practice of the gift. We do believe in that the gift should be encouraged as the scriptures encourage it. And we do believe you can grow in the gift. We also think that's biblical but we also so so then the question becomes is how do you create a safe place for that to be practiced where when people make mistakes with the gift of prophecy the consequences don't cost those who are on the receiving end of it millions of dollars. We actually do think there should be some level of accountability but how we play that out is very different than what the cessationist wants us to do which is just write them off as a false prophet and that we can't do because we just don't think it's biblical.

SPEAKER_03 1:20:21

Here's the thing lots of people have a lot of interesting too oh go ahead well sure it's kind of interesting too that when we uh talk about prophetic accountability in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and uh it's like one prophet speaks and then the others are to weigh what is said. So there is accountability it is to be weighed but Paul doesn't go into like excommunicate the person that's missed and he will talk he talks about excommunication just a few chapters early in 1 Corinthians 5 but he doesn't say excommunicate the person uh who missed a prophecy just says weigh what is said. So there is accountability but it it all kind of depends the the way that accountability looks I think depends on the context. You've got a Deuteronomy 18 national level huge deal uh you've got local church level you've got somebody just sharing on a roadside of prophecy with somebody like there's a lot different I think the context matters and we see those various contexts in the Bible. Josh, what were you trying to say?

SPEAKER_04 1:21:20

Oh I was just gonna say look I I understand why people are upset by this. I don't think it's because on the grounds of strictly doctrine I think that they're upset. I just got a ding uh I think that they're upset not because of just strict doctrine. I think they're upset because of the abuses they've seen and we want to lock arms with them and fight those things. But what I'm not going to do is rob the body of Christ of a good gift that glorifies God and builds up his people for the sake of um complete sterile protection. I think the reason we have all of these false prophets that people are fighting against is because there's been no standard. No one's tested and weighed these prophecies. People blindly follow them without testing and submitting to their local churches. That's been the the sole problem of all of these issues is that people have gotten celebrity status and prophesied to millions and never being held accountable. I think what happens is if you have a local assembly who exercises the gift of prophecy and those who prophesy in that local assembly are those who have a tested gift that has been put on display over and over and is very consistent and they're used in prophetic ministry and even when they're used those prophetic words are tested and weighed it creates a safe environment that allows for what? Encouragement, exhortation edification. And where's the danger? Well if it's being tested correctly if it's being weighed if it's being protected well there's no reason to despise this thing. If prophecy is so dangerous why did it exist in the first century when the scripture had not even fully been canonized when the Bible wasn't even being written this argument that the the gifts of the Spirit especially that of prophecy is dangerous is just a lie of the enemy the enemy doesn't want the church practicing prophecy. He wants them to sit down and shut up and not ask God what he thinks he doesn't want the prophets to can uh counsel the Lord and ask for his direction. I I think that's bad. I think prophecy is a good gift builds up the church glorifies God and if we have no rules yes it's crazy town uh but when we have those rules all of those all of those pain points are mitigated so I think when people hear us you know defending the idea that someone can miss it and not be a false prophet what they're hearing is all false prophecy is okay. It's not what we're saying. What we're saying is we're trying to train folks who are who understand the framework that we're already using. Okay guys this is it thank you so much for tuning in this episode of Remnant Radio if you're interested in follow-up episodes like this make sure to subscribe to the channel man the newsletter's just the best place to stay in touch with all of us for all the things that we're doing with conferences and courses discount codes on everything that we're doing I very much encourage you if you're interested in all the various things we're doing here at Remnant Radio updates on content make sure to subscribe to the newsletter link in the description roundtree what's what are you chuckling about dude just laughing people still talking about my my phone dinging I don't know why I've got that was Josh bro that wasn't yours every form of trying to stop it short of throwing my phone in a pool so I don't know what it is man but um gonna have to get techie josh to figure it out sorry for all the problems if you if you really loved our audience you would throw your phone in a pool uh I'm gonna consider that is that a is that a uh prophetic oracle it is it is not but if you Miller decides now's a good time to eat beef jerky what in the world like who are you why are you eating beef jerky right now all of this conversation built up an email 10 seconds we literally are trying to end this episode and you're beef jerky I'm just gonna sign off in shame