- May 16, 2021
- 7,845
- 5,331
One more time I will ask , why did you leave out the words that were in the verse ?
These words .
whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;”
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
I don't trust dreams
- Thread starter Alfred Persson
- Start date
These words .
whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;”
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,490
- 6,471
It was but it wasn't. Here is the issue. The context of Deut. 13 begins in 12:29, and from there to the end of chapter 13, it is all warnings against idolatry.
Deu 12:29 “When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land,
Deu 12:30 take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’
Deu 12:31 You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Deu 12:32 “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.
Deu 13:1 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’
Deu 13:3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Deu 13:6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known,
Deu 13:7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
Deu 13:8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him.
Deu 13:9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
Deu 13:10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Deu 13:11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.
etc.
(ESV)
What you stated was:
Deuteronomy 13:1–3
"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true... you shall not listen to the words of that prophet... for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul."
However, that makes it look as though God's test is based on "a prophet or a dreamer of dreams" giving "a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true." But, you completely left out the most important bit, the bit that is what the context of the entire chapter is about, namely, "and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them'."
You left out the bit about idolatry to make it appear that the injunction was merely about prophecy or dreams. But the entire point is to not be led astray after other gods by a false prophet or dreamer, who "has taught rebellion against the LORD your God." And, how did he teach rebellion? By actually saying "Let us go after other gods . . . and let us serve them."
All that to say, you left out context to make the passage say something it doesn't say.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,852
- 5,050
The trouble with the Cessationist position is that they make it prohibitive, and no text teaches that.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,490
- 6,471
Yet, there is no text that teaches what Paul (or Peter) experienced is to be normative. I just don't see how there can be any other doctrine. All the doctrine we need is what we have in Scripture. If we are to accept other doctrine that isn't in the Bible, then all sorts of errors come in. This is one of the central issues with Word of Faith and why they're so heretical. They're constantly having "new" revelations, which has led to numerous false doctrines.
Maybe the Holy Spirit would bring some clearer teaching to someone in a dream, although even that is suspect, but it cannot be a new teaching. The problem is that dream interpretation is highly subjective, not to mention that it seems reasonable to believe our dreams aren't only open to God's influence; they are open to our own, fleshly influences, as well as Satan's.
Doctrine comes through prayerful, diligent study of the Bible, taking into consideration what the Church as a whole teaches and has taught. Things that aren't doctrine can come through dreams, but must always be approached and understood with an abundance of caution.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,490
- 6,471
I'm not saying you don't know your Bible; you do know it very well. I'm actually quite perplexed that you can't see that you initially left out the central context in verse 2, which made the passage say something it didn't. It isn't about prophets or dreamers per se, which your initial quoting made it seem like it is. It's entirely about those who then say "Let us go after other gods . . . and let us serve them."
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,490
- 6,471
It's a good thing then that I'm not in it for popularity. God calls us to speak truth regardless. But, there are things we can legitimately disagree on and still remain in fellowship.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
Just to clarify--yes, you can speak the truth here. But if I had worded it the way you just did toward another member, it likely would’ve been seen as divisive.
Late here and our president is in trouble with your president.
Johann.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,852
- 5,050
I think my trouble is that I don’t come from those backgrounds. I don’t even know what goes on enough to comment intelligently on it. Yet it’s hard to not get labeled and confused with them. I’m far more word-based than I am anything having to do with gifts or Christian experience, and I don’t look to dreams and visions for doctrine. I never have. But I find them informative prophetically.
Maybe the argument is that there can be no new prophecy. But that to me is a different question, I don’t think the Lord would have made it so the only prophecies (including personal ones for people who would live thousands of years later) would all have to be uttered and then written down 2,000 years ago. That would not have been feasible. So it leaves us with two conclusions: Either the Lord did not want anyone receiving prophetic insight until He returns, or He did but we would have to accept that receiving such things would depend upon walking in discernment. I have to believe the latter is the case because I’ve seen too much in my own life not to.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
Yes it is---
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 (Hebrew versification sometimes listed as 13:2–6) is explicitly about false prophets (נָבִיא, navi) and dreamers of dreams (חֹלֵם חֲלוֹםוֹת, ḥolem ḥalomot) who attempt to lead the people of Israel away from exclusive covenantal faithfulness to YHWH by means of signs and wonders--even if those signs actually come to pass.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 NASB (1995)
(1) “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,
(2) and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us follow other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’
(3) you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
(4) You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.
(5) But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.”
The primary warning is against any prophetic or visionary figure whose message leads away from loyalty to YHWH, even if accompanied by seemingly miraculous confirmation (v. 2).
The presence of a fulfilled sign is not a reliable test of truth unless the message aligns with God's revealed word and commandments (cf. Isaiah 8:20).
The purpose of the test, permitted by God, is to reveal whether the people truly love Him with all their heart and soul (v. 3).
The penalty for such deception is death under Mosaic Law, as the person is considered a subversive voice against the covenant.
So yes, the passage deals directly with dreamers and prophets who try to sway Israel with signs, and teaches discernment based not on the supernatural act, but on the faithfulness of the message to YHWH and His Torah.
BACKGROUND STUDY
This is a difficult passage of Scripture to interpret and understand. It is not a passage one would use to describe the love of God.
This chapter is a polemic against idolatry at all levels of religious, as well as, civic life.
Deut. 13:1-5 speak about false prophets (cf. Deut. 18:20).
Deut. 13:6-11 speak about family members who try to draw other family members into idolatry.
Deut. 13:12-18 talk about the entire city or community which embraces idolatry (cf. Deut. 29:18).
There seems to be a distinction in the OT between a prophet and a dreamer of dreams. A vision is experienced by a person who is awake and in control of his mental faculties. Ezekiel, by the River Kebar, is an example of a vision. Joseph and Daniel are examples of those who interpreted dreams. Both are revelations from God. The normative way for God to speak to people today is not through visions nor dreams, yet He has the power to do either.
Johann.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
---probably gonna get into trouble for pushing too hard here.
The core of your argument hinges on the assumption that God must continue giving personal prophetic insight post-canon in order to remain relational and relevant across generations. But this presumes a model of revelation inconsistent with how Scripture presents God's completed communication in Christ and through the inspired apostolic record.
Hebrews 1:1–2 states plainly:
“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…”
This passage presents a contrast--not a continuation. The many "portions" and "ways" of former revelation culminate finally in the person of Christ. The verb ἐλάλησεν ("has spoken") is aorist active-denoting completed action. Thus, the New Testament regards the revelation in Christ and through the apostles as final and sufficient.
Jude 1:3 reinforces this:
“...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
The phrase “once for all” (Greek: ἅπαξ) is decisive. The body of apostolic truth is not unfolding gradually across time, but was delivered in its entirety to the early church.
Now, the question of ongoing subjective impressions, dreams, or impressions of the Spirit is different from authoritative prophetic utterance. Scripture does not forbid the Lord from personally guiding His people in providential ways, but it does warn against elevating personal experiences to prophetic status, especially when such experiences are unverifiable or contradict the written Word.
2 Peter 1:19 says:
“We have the prophetic word more sure, to which you do well to pay attention…”
Peter places the written Word as more certain than even the audible voice he heard at the Transfiguration (v.17). If personal experience--no matter how vivid--were sufficient ground for doctrine, then Scripture would cease to be the final authority.
So then, we are not left to a dilemma between silence or continued prophecy. The correct third option is:
God has given us all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3) through the finished, Spirit-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16–17), and His Spirit continues to lead believers into truth—not by new revelation, but by illumination of the Word already given.
This protects the church from subjectivism and false prophecy, which Deuteronomy 13 and Matthew 24:24 repeatedly warn about.
Finally, your claim “I’ve seen too much in my own life not to” is understandable emotionally, but not sufficient theologically. Personal experience, no matter how sincere, is not self-authenticating. Even miracles (Deut 13:1–3; 2 Thess 2:9) can be used as tests or deceptions. The true test is:
Does it point us to obey the written Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture alone?
If not, we are commanded not to listen (Deut 13:3).
Let me know if I'm welcome here after this -H.
J.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,852
- 5,050
No. Aorist participle active simply means it is a simple action rather than a continuous action. It does not mean the action being performed will never happen again.
Again, you are presupposing too much here, Johann. Only on rare occasions was ἅπαξ used of finality. The common meaning was simply "once." For instance, it was often used in the expression "more than once" (one of its more common uses). If you translate this to read "more than once for all," the expression makes no sense.
No. This is a common interpretation, Johann, but it is in error. It does not take into account what either the letter as a whole or that specific passage was actually addressing. I have a study I can share with you that more accurately defines what Peter was actually referring to here.
End-Time Prophecies, And Satan's Endless Attempts To Discredit Them
As covered in the last study, knowing that the Gnostics were the heretics Peter was specifically refuting in this letter is crucial to understanding what he was saying, and that goes for our next passage as well. There were two kinds of prophecy now going forth in the churches; one that taught the prophecies of the Old Testament were true and that the wrath of God was still coming, and another that said the literal interpretation was false, and that "the Day of the Lord" had already come. This was...
As covered in the last study, knowing that the Gnostics were the heretics Peter was specifically refuting in this letter is crucial to understanding what he was saying, and that goes for our next passage as well. There were two kinds of prophecy now going forth in the churches; one that taught the prophecies of the Old Testament were true and that the wrath of God was still coming, and another that said the literal interpretation was false, and that "the Day of the Lord" had already come. This was...
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,852
- 5,050
Btw, I'm not superficial, Johann. I truly have no problem batting doctrinal differences around in a good Spirit, in fact I quite enjoy it. So long as people post in the sort of kindness and respect we encourage from all members, they are always welcome. I find your posts interesting, even if we should disagree.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
I agree to disagree, brother--as long as we’re both standing firm on the essentials: the gospel of Jesus Christ, His crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.Btw, I'm not superficial, Johann. I truly have no problem batting doctrinal differences around in a good Spirit, in fact I quite enjoy it. So long as people post in the sort of kindness and respect we encourage from all members, they are always welcome. I find your posts interesting, even if we should disagree.
Glad to hear you find my posts interesting. As long as they stay in line with Scripture, I have no issue at all.
This time around, I’ve come a bit more prepared and can push a little deeper into the grammar, morphology, and context. But truth be told, I don’t post here often--it’s been pretty quiet on this forum.
Stay strong and keep the faith.
Johann.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,852
- 5,050
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
All glory to our Lord Jesus Christ--who saved a wretch like me and, by His grace, gave me a keen sense of discernment.Good for you. The more, the merrier.
Johann.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
Depends on the context--
Aorist tense is somewhat difficult to grasp, so don't be frustrated if you don't receive any glowing practical insights initially. If you continue to perform Word Studies (including verb tense, voice and mood) as an integral part of your Bible study, you will begin to appreciate the meaning of the aorist tense and you will begin to receive insights from this understanding.
One writer adds "strictly speaking, the aorist denotes past time only in the indicative; in the other moods the aorist is not confined exclusively to action in the past. Unlike the imperfect, the aorist is used to express an action that is not continuous or habitual." (Learning the Basics of New Testament Greek. AMG Publishers)
See also informative note on Aorist Tense by Gary Hill in the Discovery Bible.
PROLEPTIC AORIST - In certain contexts, this variant of the aorist tense describes a future event that is so certain to occur that it is spoken of as if it has already taken place (past tense). It is as good as done. even though it is still in the future! E.g., Ro 8:30+ speaking of believers says "He also glorified" (or "He has glorified" = past tense) Our glorification is clearly a future event but it is so certain of fulfillment (because God is sovereign!) that Paul speaks of it as if it had already been accomplished! In other words, this is not a "hope so" but a "hope sure!" The best is yet to come! Hold fast beloved! Persevere! He is coming quickly (Rev 22:7+). This tense is also sometimes called the "prophetic aorist" (see explanation) especially in apocalyptic literature (e.g., "fallen, fallen is Babylon the great" even though she does not actually fall until Rev 16:19+.)
➡ 1. Constative (Complexive, Punctiliar, Comprehensive, Global) Aorist . 241
➡ 2. Ingressive (Inceptive, Inchoative) Aorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
➡ 3. Consummative (Culminative, Ecbatic, Effective) Aorist . . . . . . . . . . . 241
4. Epistolary Aorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5. Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
6. Immediate Past Aorist/Dramatic Aorist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Hmm--I prefer Proleptic Aorist.
But now I'm really tired.
God bless.
J.
Last edited:
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,852
- 5,050
Yes. It's also called the "prophetic past." Very unique thing about some scriptural references, cuz you don't see this used in modern English these days.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 204
What sources are you using?Yes. It's also called the "prophetic past." Very unique thing about some scriptural references, cuz you don't see this used in modern English these days.
J.
