Chapter 9.10

The Nature of Testing Modern Prophets

Testing Prophets Not Prophecies

Table of Topics

A) Judging Prophets, Not Prophecies: 1 Cor 14:29

B) All Tests Need to be Applied: Deut 13:1-5

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• In 1 Corinthians 14:29 Paul suggests that other Prophets could supernaturally authenticate other Prophets as well.
• Prophetists are willing to deny everything else the Bible teaches regarding biblical Prophets on two rather weak and dangerous assumptions. First, is the unlikely idea that “the others” who are to “pass judgment” on a prophetic utterance in the Corinthian church, are all of those in the congregation, not other Prophets. Dr. Grudem himself points out the absurdity of a congregation critiquing the words of a biblical Prophet such as Isaiah. So why would we interpret Paul’s writing to contradict Isaiah’s example instead of concur with it? If we interpret Paul’s instruction to agree with the rest of the Bible, we will conclude that real God-sent Prophets did speak extra-biblical divine revelation authoritatively and accurately, and only could be critiqued on the spot by another real Prophet
• Prophetists would have us completely redefine biblical prophecy such that the Apostle Paul actually expected the average believer to sift through a prophetic utterance and pick out what phrases were divine commands and what was merely human suggestions or even error. This is such an absurd attitude toward the biblical teaching regarding God’s Prophets that its popular acceptance seems to be yet one more piece of evidence for the lack of discernment and common sense in the Church today. Perhaps more so, such a huge presumption based on a contorted application of one statement is an illustration of how far modern prophetism is willing to go in order to protect its false claims to the biblical gift of prophecy.
• Prophetists have done to biblical prophecy what liberal “Bible scholars” have done to Scripture, giving permission to God’s people to pick and choose what statements of His word they will randomly accept or reject.
• There is no such thing as an authentic Prophet of God whose prophesying is at times authoritative and accurate and at other times is not, as prophetism suggests. Inconsistency always reveals a false “prophet.”
• Deuteronomy 13 warns us of a miracle working and accurately predicting false “prophet.” This is where supernatural virtue must be the final authentication.

A) Judging Prophets, Not Prophecies: 1 Cor 14:29

We have already noted the early Church’s concern regarding false claims to the gift of prophecy. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul instructed the Corinthians:

Let two or three Prophets speak, and let the others [other Prophets] pass judgment [diakrinetōsan: “distinguish,” “judge”]. But if a revelation is made to another [Prophet] who is seated, the first one [a Prophet] must keep silent. For you [Prophets] can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of Prophets are subject to Prophets . . . (1 Cor 14:29-32 NASB)

We have discussed elsewhere the fact that the Apostle Paul was concerned that some in the Corinthian church were pretending to have certain revelatory gifts they did not have. ^[1] The Corinthians themselves had asked how to distinguish legitimate spiritual gifts from those faking them. Accordingly, the Apostle had begun this section by reminding them that:

[W]hen you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:2-3).

Distinguishing who really was “speaking by the Spirit of God” was especially a concern in such a context when apostolic NT Scripture was not available in order to communicate and authenticate the NT revelation. At this point in Church history, that new revelation was coming exclusively from Apostles and Christian Prophets, both of whom were the revelatory “foundation” of the Church (Eph 2:20) because, “the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations [had] now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy Apostles and [Christian] Prophets” (Eph 3:4-5). Therefore, because Christian Prophets spoke divinely authoritative extra-biblical revelation that God expected to be believed or obeyed, it was important to know who these Prophets were.

Accordingly, we have demonstrated in chapter 9.4 that the gift of prophecy in both the OT and NT was synonymous with the ministry of Prophet, such that they were recognized by God’s people and called such just like Apostles. In other words, the early Church knew whom “in the church God [had] appointed first of all Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers” (1 Cor 12:28). As we also demonstrated in chapter 8.6, these ministries did not flit around like a virus as prophetism claims, such that no one really knew at any one moment who was going to be an apostle, Prophet, or teacher.

How was one recognized as having the gift, ministry, appointment, and authority of a NT Prophet? Essentially by recognizing the biblical attributes discussed in the next two chapters (9.11-12). However, in the passage above from 1 Corinthians 14, Paul suggests that other Prophets could supernaturally authenticate other Prophets as well. Evidently, Paul expected God to confirm a message through another Prophet because it would probably be other authentic Prophets that would have the ability to immediately know if what the professed “Prophet” said was the word of God. This is precisely why Paul had even appealed to other Prophets to confirm his authenticity (cf. 1 Cor 14:37).

Because Paul expected other Prophets to be authenticating fellow Prophets, he expected them to minister in groups. That is clearly the case in the passage above where Paul expects “two or three Prophets [to] speak, and . . . the others [Prophets to] pass judgment,” authenticating whether or not the person claiming to be a Prophet really was one. This reflects the fact that in the NT Prophets are often mentioned in the plural (cf. Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9). The reason that NT Prophets ministered in plurality was to authenticate one another and hold one another accountable. Accordingly, David Aune, a recognized foremost expert on the ministry of Prophets in the early Church, writes:

It is noteworthy that the occurrences of the noun prophētēs are almost always in the plural in the NT. . . . In Acts prophets ordinarily prophesy within the setting of a prophetic group (11:27-28; 13:1-3; cf. 15:32). . . . This suggests that prophets were primarily active in groups in the NT era. . . . This passage [1 Cor 14:29] seems to imply that when they [the Prophets] are not prophesying they are expected to participate in the evaluation of the prophetic utterances of others. ^[2]

Likewise, we read in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “The prophets were exhorted to examine one another’s works to make sure that no false teaching would arise (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20-22; 1 Jn. 4: 1).” ^[3]

Paul’s expectation of authenticated Prophets having a responsibility to authenticate others who claimed prophecy is illustrated in the OT. In Jeremiah 28 a false prophet named Hananiah prophesied:

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will break the yoke of the King of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the LORD’S house that Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. (vs. 2-3)

However, the true Prophet Jeremiah responded in light of a foundational biblical test for true prophecy: “[T]he Prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true” (v. 9). Because Hananiah’s prediction was to occur sometime within two years, it would have taken that long for the people to know who was the true Prophet of God, Hananiah or Jeremiah. However, because God wanted them to know sooner, He sent another message by Jeremiah with a more immediate authenticating sign:

Then the Prophet Jeremiah said to Hananiah the Prophet, “Listen, Hananiah! The LORD has not sent you, yet you have persuaded this nation to trust in lies. Therefore, this is what the LORD says: ‘I am about to remove you from the face of the Earth. This very year you are going to die, because you have preached rebellion against the LORD.’ ” In the seventh month of that same year [2 months after giving the false prophecy], Hananiah the Prophet died. (vs. 15-17)

First, we see again God’s attitude toward those who falsely presume to speak for Him. Secondly, we see God’s desire to expose the false prophet. Thirdly, we see how another true Prophet can expose a false prophet. Fourthly, it is obvious that the people themselves could not have immediately distinguished Hananiah as a false prophet apart from seeing whether or not his prediction came true within two years.

Likewise, in 1 Kings 22 Micaiah the true Prophet was able to confront the false prophets and make a prediction of Ahab’s soon death that would expose the latter. Once again, it required a real Prophet to expose a false one in the more immediate future, and God showed His desire to indeed expose false prophecy.

Unfortunately, modern prophetism has attempted to completely alter the biblical method of authenticating Prophets by reading modern prophetism into 1 Corinthians 14:29. For example, Dr. Grudem writes:

When Paul says, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said,” he suggests that they [the congregation] should listen carefully and sift the good [statements] from the bad [statements], accepting some and rejecting the rest (for this is the implication of the Greek word diakrinō, here translated “weigh what is said”).

We cannot imagine that an Old Testament prophet like Isaiah would have said, “Listen to what I say and weigh what is said—sort the good from the bad, what you accept from what you should not accept”! If [NT] prophecy had absolute divine authority, it would be sin to do this. But here Paul commands that it be done [by the congregation], suggesting that New Testament prophecy did not have the authority of God’s very words. ^[4]

Dr. Grudem is willing to deny everything else the Bible teaches regarding biblical Prophets on two rather weak and dangerous assumptions. First, is the unlikely idea that “the others” who are to “pass judgment” on a prophetic utterance in the Corinthian church, are all of those in the congregation, not other Prophets. Dr. Grudem himself points out the absurdity of a congregation critiquing the words of a biblical Prophet such as Isaiah. So why would we interpret Paul’s writing to contradict Isaiah’s example instead of concur with it? If we interpret Paul’s instruction to agree with the rest of the Bible, we will conclude that real God-sent Prophets did speak extra-biblical divine revelation authoritatively and accurately, and only could be critiqued on the spot by another real Prophet. Accordingly, the simple statement “the others” in the context of how “two or three Prophets” are to minister, most clearly refers to other Prophets. If Paul had meant otherwise, it would seem he would have said, “the church,” or “everybody else” was to pass judgment on the divinity of a prophetic utterance.

There would be nothing unbiblical about claiming that God’s people are to discern true from false Prophets. They are, in fact, commanded to (cf. Deut 18:17-22; Matt 7:15-23). However, the reason that it is an issue here is that the assumption that Paul does not mean other Prophets were to judge other Prophets, is foundational to Dr. Grudem’s second assumption regarding 1 Corinthians 14:29.

Dr. Grudem would have us completely redefine biblical prophecy such that the Apostle Paul actually expected the average believer to sift through a prophetic utterance and pick out what phrases were divine commands and what was merely human suggestions or even error. There is no biblical precedent for such a thing. Read God’s instruction on testing a prophet in the OT and ask if He expected His people to reject an individual prophecy, but still accept the Prophet:

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims [foretells ^[5]] in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut 18:18-22)

We will discuss further the importance of prediction in the authentication of a Prophet in the next chapter. Here we simply want to notice that in this biblical instruction regarding the testing of Prophets, it was the prophet themselves who were to be tested, not the prophecies.

Dr. Grudem’s position on testing prophets is such an absurd attitude toward the biblical teaching regarding God’s Prophets, that its popular acceptance seems to be yet one more piece of evidence for the lack of discernment and common sense in the Church today. ^[6] Perhaps more so, such a huge presumption based on a contorted application of one statement is an illustration of how far modern prophetism is willing to go in order to protect its false claims to the biblical gift of prophecy.

Once again, leaders of charismaticism ^[7] do not seem to think through the logical consequences of their false teachings. What prophetists are admitting is a person with the real biblical gift of prophecy could speak a few sentences and some of the statements would be false and misleading and some of them would be the authoritative word of God that must be believed and obeyed. And such a person is still to be considered as possessing the gift of prophecy? Once again, charismaticism’s dilution and perversion of biblical gifts for the purpose of defending their false claims to them is inexcusable. They have done to biblical prophecy what liberal “Bible scholars” have done to Scripture, giving permission to God’s people to pick and choose what statements of His word they will randomly accept or reject.

Before moving on, let us note how rather bizarre the actual implementation of prophetism’s view on testing “prophets” is in real life. Accordingly, a foremost leader of charismaticism, Dr. Michael Green, writes:

Sometimes one part of the [“Prophet’s”] message is seen at once to be appropriate, and the rest not so. I recall one such incident when the Archbishop of Canterbury was present and a prophetic word was brought forward. The two of us who were leading the service went over to the Archbishop, and all three of us were clear that the first half of the message was really a word from God and should be read to the people, while the other part, though worthy enough in itself, was not what was needed at that time.^[8]

Is that how the Lord of these men intended them to understand the ministry of one of His Prophets? Are we so eager for extra-biblical revelation that we will accept “prophets” who in the same utterance speak something that is “really a word from God” and something which, “probably proceeded from the speaker and not from God”? And if the statement truly is extra-biblical, then how could anyone tell if it is from God without the miraculous authentications God Himself prescribed? Or if the “prophetic” statement is simply a biblical statement that can be accepted, then why call it “prophecy” at all? What if some of the statements the “prophet” said were “good” and some were “bad”? Was the person still to be considered a Prophet?

Dr. Gordon Fee, one of the most respected Pentecostal NT scholars in the world, suggests that “we cannot be certain as to how Paul would have understood the . . . source” of such a false utterance. ^[9] Really? Even though Dr. Fee admits repeatedly that Paul’s view of Prophets stemmed from his OT background? ^[10] It seems that prophetism hardly even attempts to answer the important questions its view produces.

What of Dr. Grudem’s suggestion that Paul’s mere use of diakrinetōsan [“distinguish,” “judge”] means that the Corinthian Christians in general were to “sift the good [statements of a Christian “prophet”] from the bad [statements], accepting some and rejecting the rest.” That is not at all a necessary interpretation of Paul’s words. First of all, there is no biblical precedent for such an idea, let alone a historical one in the Church. On the other hand, our interpretation that Prophets were to be protecting the church from false “prophets” has both. And there are no biblical or practical arguments against our interpretation except prophetism’s passion to find biblical support for their second-rate Prophets.

Secondly, the Bible is clear that the testing of Prophets was in order to distinguish between false “prophets” and real ones, which are the only two kinds of Prophets there are. There is no such thing as an authentic Prophet of God whose prophesying is at times authoritative and accurate and at other times is not, as prophetism suggests. Inconsistency always reveals a false “prophet.” And prophetism’s only evidence against this clear biblical teaching is to read into one Greek word the idea that the actual statements of the “prophets” are being sifted by the congregation, rather than people being distinguished as false or true Prophets by other authenticated Prophets.

This leads to our third point that diakrinō simply does not carry the rather complex meaning Dr. Grudem and other prophetists want to give it. ^[11] Paul intended the prophetic utterance to be evaluated as a whole in order to expose a person as falsely claiming to speak for God in the congregation. Dr. Grudem reads his prophetism into the statement when he suggests Paul intended the prophetic utterance to be evaluated piecemeal, accepting parts and rejecting others, but still, in general, accepting the person as possessing the gift of prophecy.

Our claim that Paul intended prophetic utterances to be evaluated as a whole instead of piecemeal is supported by his use of the word group krinō earlier in the passage when he writes of the spiritual gift of “distinguishingG1253 [diakriseis] of spirits” [not individual and intermixed statements] (12:10). The purpose of this gift was obviously to distinguish between utterances made by the Holy Spirit and those that were made merely by the human’s “spirit” or even a demonic one. There was no dangerous grey area for the Apostle as there is in prophetism for people to make error filled utterances in the name of “prophecy” but still be considered a Prophet. ^[12]

Accordingly, it was not merely individual prophecies that were to be evaluated for their own sake as if a true Prophet could at one time speak a true prophecy and at another speak a false one. It is even more absurd to believe as prophetists do that a true and false statement could be in the same prophetic utterance. On the contrary, Christian Prophets were thoroughly and miraculously authenticated in the midst of those they were to exercise authority over, just like their OT counterparts; and then their prophetic utterances were to be believed and obeyed as the word of God, just like their OT counterparts.

Accordingly, Dr. Aune points to the early Christian document the Didache (c. A. D. 70) for evidence that early Christian communities first certified Prophets but did not judge them while prophesying. ^[13] In this first century Christian document containing apostolic instructions for church life, and which many in the ancient church considered to be Scripture, we read:

Also, do not test or evaluate any Prophet who speaks in the spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. However, not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a Prophet, but only if he exhibits the Lord’s ways. By his conduct, therefore, will the false Prophet and the Prophet be recognized.

Furthermore, any Prophet who orders a meal in the spirit shall not partake of it; if he does, he is a false Prophet. If any Prophet teaches the truth, yet does not practice what he teaches, he is a false Prophet. But any Prophet proven to be genuine who does something with a view to portraying in a worldly manner the symbolic meaning of the church” (provided that he does not teach you to do all that he himself does) is not to be judged by you, for his judgment is with God. Besides, the ancient Prophets also acted in a similar manner.

But if anyone should say in the spirit, “Give me money,” or anything else, do not listen to him. But if he tells you to give on behalf of others who are in need, let no one judge him. . . . But every genuine Prophet who wishes to settle among you “is worthy of his food.” ^[14]

Dr. Grudem has admitted that the teaching of the Didache disagrees with his own interpretation of the NT regarding Christian Prophets, and has dismissed it as being in error. On the contrary, the Didache, which multitudes of first and second century Christian churches used as a manual for early Church life, is in perfect agreement with the NT. ^[15]

As we have noted above, the biblical view is that those with the NT gift of prophecy like Agabus, Judas, and Silas, were recognized as having the ongoing ministry of Prophet because they had been miraculously authenticated as such. After such authentication according to the biblical guidelines discussed in the next chapters, it was sin to sift through the Prophet’s statements privately determining what one was going to believe and obey and what one was going to reject.

Accordingly, both the Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140 A. D.) speak extensively about testing those claiming the gift of prophecy, but never of sifting through prophecies to determine good and bad elements, but rather to use the biblical attributes of this gift to discern between real and false Prophets. ^[16] Accordingly, Dr. David Farnell of Dallas Theological Seminary concludes after a study of this evidence: “While Prophets were to be examined, that examination need not be continued after an individual had been approved by the community as a genuine Prophet.” ^[17]

Likewise, Professors Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis from Denver Seminary write:

The crucial issue for the people was not deciding what to accept and reject from among the Prophets’ teachings, but whether the alleged Prophets communicated truth from God or spoke presumptuously. . . . Once the credentials of Moses, for example, were verified, his teaching was to be received as true on his authority and obeyed as God’s teaching. The Prophet’s teaching was not merely a fallible witness to a noncognitive divine act, encounter, or relationship. What an accredited Prophet taught was the normative Word of God. It ought to be received as true and obeyed. ^[18]

Finally, Dr. Robert Thomas of the Master’s Seminary concludes in his study of the subject:

Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 14:29 and 1 Thess 5:20-22 are manifestly consistent with the broader context of NT teaching on the subject of judging prophecies. According to that teaching, the churches judged prophecies in order to distinguish between true and false Prophets (1 John 4:1-6; cf. Matt 7:15-20 with Matt 12:32-37 and 24:23-26). . . .

In the light of these factors, I would contend that for Paul, as for the rest of the NT, the judging of prophecies was a process of evaluating the Prophets’ words in order to pass judgment on the Prophets themselves. Significantly, when interpreted in this way, the judging of NT Prophets looks quite similar to the judging of OT Prophets [cf. Deut 18:17-22].

The “others” of 1 Corinthians 14:29 who were called on to discern the validity of prophecies were the other Prophets. “Others” does not refer to the entire congregation who were left to form subjective opinions about the prophecies. Nor does the evaluation of prophecies by others imply the presence of both true and false elements in the prophecy. ^[19]

Dr. Thomas’ mention of the “judging of OT Prophets” is worth noticing. Read how God wanted prophets tested and see

B) All Tests Need to be Applied: Deut 13:1-5

Deuteronomy 13 introduces us to the complexity of authenticating Prophets. God said:

If a Prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that Prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul. . . . That Prophet or dreamer must be put to death . . . You must purge the evil from among you. (vs. 1-3, 5)

Several points can be made. First, the reason that such miraculous and predictive powers would be so deceiving is that they were precisely what God Himself had prescribed as the authenticating signs of one of His Prophets (cf. Deut 18:21-22). Secondly, God is speaking of real miracles, not fake ones. ^[20] Thirdly, we see that God suggests an additional test of authentication in such a circumstance. Miracle working or supernatural prediction is not enough, because as we have discussed at length elsewhere, the devil can do miracles in order to deceive God’s people. ^[21]

It is because of this that all of the biblical authenticating criteria for divine Prophets must be applied in order to confidently accept someone as such a Prophet. If it is not enough that they even predict and perform a miracle, then it certainly isn’t enough that they are just nice or seem conforming to Christian doctrine. Accordingly, while all of the criteria discussed in the next two chapters for authenticating someone claiming the gift of prophecy are biblical and critical, each of them, in isolation, have their limitations, as will be discussed as we go along. ^[22]

Fourthly, we notice again the importance God places on diligently authenticating anyone claiming to be a Prophet. A failure to do so is to fail the divine test of whether “you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul.” Failing to discern, reject, and confront a false “prophet” does not only display spiritual laziness or selfish ambition, but a lack of love for the Lord.

Finally, we see the seriousness of falsely claiming to be a Prophet of the Lord or to give instruction in His name that is different than He would want. In OT times, such a, “Prophet or dreamer must be put to death” in order to “purge the evil from among you” (v. 5)

In terms of authenticating real Prophets and exposing false ones, there are two general levels of criteria. The first level is physical miracles such as miracle working or prediction. Applying this biblical criteria exposes virtually every single “prophet” in modern prophetism as a fraud. They do not work miracles and they do not accurately predict the future as biblical Prophets did.

However, Deuteronomy 13 warns us of a miracle working and accurately predicting false “prophet.” This is where supernatural virtue must be the final authentication, as we conclude in chapter 9.12. ^[23]

Accordingly, we see again how prophetism has perverted prophetic authentication such that false “prophets” are allowed to abound in their midst. While the first line of defense should be miracle-working and/or accurate prediction, modern prophetism does not even require this of their second-rate “prophets.” Nor do they often apply the second line of defense which is real, proven, Christ-likeness. Instead, just about any person with a “charismatic” personality in public that sounds Christian is allowed to speak in God’s name to God’s people. And it makes the devil laugh.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. We claim that “the others” who were to evaluate a Prophet according to 1 Corinthians 14:29 were other Prophets. What biblical support do we give for this? Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. We claim that the evaluation that Paul is calling for was to distinguish between false and true Prophets, not false and true individual and mixed statements that a Prophet could make. What biblical support do we give for our view? Do you agree or disagree and why? Paul suggests that other Prophets could supernaturally authenticate other Prophets as well.
3. What are the dangerous and silly ramifications of prophetism’s method of testing its “prophets”?
4. What are the ramifications of Deuteronomy 13:1-5 on the testing of Prophets?

Publications & Particulars

1. We have discussed elsewhere the fact that the Apostle Paul was concerned that some in the Corinthian church were pretending to have certain revelatory gifts they did not have. See section12.5.B-C. ↑

2. David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Mediterranean World (Eerdmans, 1983), 196-97. ↑

3. G. V. Smith, “Prophets” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), III: 987-88. ↑

4. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1054. ↑

5. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch confirm that the “proclamation” being described here refers to prediction:

   The false prophet was to be discovered by the fact, that the word proclaimed by him did not follow or come to pass, i.e., that his prophecy was not fulfilled. Of him they were not to be afraid. By this injunction the occurrence of what had been predicted is made the criterion of true prophecy, and not signs and wonders, which false prophets could also perform (cf. Deut 13:2ff.). (Commentary on the Old Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.com, 2000), Deut 18:18) ↑

6. The popularity of the view that the Apostle Paul intended the Corinthian congregation to sift through prophetic utterances, is evidenced by its acceptance in virtually all of the most respected modern commentaries on 1 Corinthians including: Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1987); C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) (Hendrickson, 2000); D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Baker, 1987); and Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 2000). ↑

7. For a definition of charismaticism see endnote in chapter 8.2. ↑

8. Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 2004), 261. ↑

9. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Hendrickson, 1994), 62. ↑

10. For Dr. Fee’s belief that Paul’s understanding of the gift of prophecy stemmed from OT Prophets see section 9.4.A. ↑

11. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Friedrich Büchsel in the entry for “diakrinō” states: “In the NT it does not occur in its original spatial sense, only in the fig. ‘To make a distinction between persons’” (G. Kittel and G. Friedrich eds., 10 vols.; trans. G. W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1964-76], 3:946). In this category with the active voice, he includes Acts 11:12 (assuming the active voice is read); 15:9; 1 Cor 4:7; 11:29; and 14:29.

    Likewise, Bruce Compton of Detroit Baptist Seminary comments on Dr. Grudem’s interpretation of 1 Cor 14:29:

    The verb Paul employs has a wide semantic range, as Grudem recognizes. While it can carry the sense that Grudem gives it in 1 Corinthians 14:29, that of examining something where there are several options, it can also have the sense of examining something where only two options are in view. Paul uses it in the latter sense in 1 Corinthians 4:7 of judging one person superior to another, and in 11:29 of a failure to distinguish the proper use or purpose of the Lord’s Supper from an improper one.

    Thus, the verb in 1 Corinthians 14:29 could easily refer to distinguishing a true prophet from a false prophet by weighing the accuracy of each prophecy. This is precisely how the cognate noun is used in 1 Corinthians 12:10, where the idea is that of discerning between true and false prophets based on the content of their prophecies. . .

    Grudem points to 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21, “Do not despise prophetic utterances, but examine everything carefully,” as the key parallel in support of his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:29. Yet the verb used in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 is the same verb used in 1 John 4:1 where John says, “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” And, Grudem places this latter passage in the category of testing the prophets to judge the true from the false. (“1 Corinthians 13:8–13 And The Cessation Of Miraculous Gifts” DBSJ 9 (2004), 114-15) ↑

12. Along these lines, NT scholar Thomas Edgar writes:

    Another argument, that the word “discern” (Gk. diakrinō) means that the hearers are to sift out the good from the bad in a prophecy, thus indicating that it may contain both good and bad, is based on an untenable meaning for the word. The word diakrinō does not imply that there is both good and bad to be sifted out. It is often used in a context such as this in reference to rendering judgment between two people, that is, determining which one is right and which one is wrong. In contrast to the assertions [of prophetists] that it [diakrinō] differs from krinō, “to judge,” is the fact that it [diakrinō] is used thirteen times in this way [synonymous with krinō] in the Septuagint, and in nine of these passages it is explicitly equated with either krinō or krīsis. Thus, Carson’s and Grudem’s statements about the meaning of diakrinō here have little basis in fact.

    In the New Testament it can also mean to judge or evaluate people. In fact, it is used earlier in this epistle (I Cor. 6:5) in the same way as in the Septuagint (see, e.g., Exod. 18:16; 1 Kings 3:9; Zech. 3:7 and many other passages in the Old Testament). If there is any sifting out, it is only in order to pass judgment regarding the persons being judged. Carson’s statement that “discern” refers to judging the prophecy itself, if correct, would mean to judge whether the entire prophecy were true or false [in order to discern whether the “Prophet” were true or false]. It would not mean to sift out the good from the bad and consider the good parts as from God and the Prophet as a genuine Prophet. This is contrary to biblical practice.

    The normal use of diakrinō in this kind of context would mean to render a judgment in regard to people. It would fit well with the admonitions to test the spirits and with Paul’s statement at the beginning of this section that speakers can communicate from different sources of revelation. (“The Cessation of the Sign Gifts” Bsac 145 (1988), 80-81) ↑

13. Aune, 226. ↑

14. The Teaching of the Twelve (Didache), 11.7-12, 13.1; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

15. Dr. David Farnell of Dallas Theological Seminary has written the following in the BSac Journal:

    Dr. Grudem also acknowledges that the Didache contains statements contradictory to his hypothesis. Didache 11 is directly contrary to his view that the authority of New Testament “congregational” prophecy does not extend to the words spoken by the Prophets. Grudem admits that according to Didache 11.7, postapostolic church Prophets “were speaking with a divine authority that extended to their actual words.” [The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 107].

    In 11.7, the Didache notes that “you must neither make trial of nor pass judgment on any Prophet who speaks forth in the spirit. For every (other) sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven” (cf. Matt 12:31). Here the thrust of the passage emphasizes that the authority of the New Testament Prophet extended to the words of the prophecy uttered.

    Grudem tries to counter this manifest contradiction to his hypothesis by stating that Didache 11.7 “almost directly contradicts Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:29” regarding the evaluation of Prophets. Because of this, he hastily dismisses the data on New Testament Prophets and prophecy supplied by the Didache in this verse and throughout the entire work. . . . (BSac 150:597 [Jan 93], 67)

    Because of the value of the Didache regarding the early Church’s understanding of the NT gift of prophecy, and its disagreement with Dr. Grudem’s view, he argues at length that many other sections of this early Christian document are at odds with the NT as well. However, Dr. Farnell writes a rather lengthy response to these attacks on the biblical nature of the Didache and concludes:

    Grudem’s unwarranted dismissal of the Didache cannot be overly stressed. He cites additional passages that he alleges are contradictory to New Testament teaching (Didache 1.6; 4.14; 6.3; 7.1-4; 8.1, 3; 9.1-5; 10.7; 11.5; 16.2). On this basis he refuses to accept the data on New Testament Prophets and prophecy supplied by the Didache. However, none of the examples he cites are actual contradictions to the New Testament. (Ibid., 68) ↑

16. Dr. Thiselton recognizes this in the Didache and comments: “It is essential to note how rapidly the early church [reflected in the Didache] came to hold a different view from that of Paul, at least in some circles” (1141). Why not rather see the early Church as in agreement with Paul that false Prophets were to be distinguished from true ones rather than false statements by true Prophets? ↑

17. Farnell, 286. However, Dr. Farnell seems to contradict himself elsewhere when he writes:

    1 Kings 13 also reveals an important phenomenon of prophetic conflict, namely, that testing must extend to prophetic words, even the words of Prophets who have already proven themselves as servants of Yahweh. . . . [A] lesson of the narrative is that all prophecies must be examined; and even if a word comes from an established Prophet, it must be rejected if it contradicts the commands of Yahweh. (253)

    Dr. Farnell’s error is his assumption that the man called a “Prophet” in 1 Kings 13 was a Prophet of God like the “man of God” he intentionally deceived. Jesus said we will know false prophets from their virtue, and this man was accordingly no Prophet of God. For further discussion of 1 Kings 13 see section 9.12.D.

    Dr. Farnell goes on to write:

    Even respected Prophets encouraged the ongoing examination of their words. For example, Isaiah offered both to Ahaz and to Hezekiah a confirmatory sign of specific oracles (Isa 7:11; 38:7, 22; 2 Kgs 20:8–11). It is understandable that Isaiah might validate his word in the presence of Ahaz, the unbeliever. However, in the service of Hezekiah, Isaiah was accepted as a true Prophet. Therefore, why did Hezekiah require of Isaiah an authenticating test, unless the testing of specific oracles (i.e., words) was as valid as testing the Prophet’s personal status? In a similar way, Elisha offered an authenticating sign in spite of the fact that he had already been acknowledged by Jehoshaphat to be a true Prophet (2 Kgs 3:17–20).

    Unfortunately, Dr. Farnell is making sweeping statements based on very little evidence. As for Isaiah 7:11, God Himself offered the sign, it was not asked for. The same is true of Elisha’s “authenticating sign” in 2 Kings 3:17-20. In addition, Dr. Farnell’s reference to this incident is misleading because the “authenticating sign” was providing the Israelites with water of which they were out of (cf. v. 9), not simply to authenticate Elisha. The only real example that Dr. Farnell has to support his claim that judging the prophecies of previously authenticated Prophets was the norm is the one time in which Hezekiah asked for an authenticating sign that Isaiah’s prophecy of his healing would come to pass. On one hand, there was nothing wrong with Hezekiah’s request. However, it is wrong to claim from this example, as Dr. Farnell does, that this was a common place occurrence and that God’s Prophets were often prone to deception and error. ↑

18. Bruce Demarest & Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 Vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), 113-14 ↑

19. Robert Thomas, “Prophecy Rediscovered?” Bsac 149 (Jan-Mar) 1992, 92. Elsewhere, Dr. Thomas notes that several highly respected sources agree with our view, and disagree with Dr. Grudem’s prophetism view. These include: (G. Friedrich, “Prophētēs” (TDNT), 855; David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (John Knox Press), 133; and Aune, 196. ↑

20. Regarding demonic miracle working see section 10.6.A. ↑

21. Regarding demonic miracle working see section 10.6.A and chapters 11.11-13. ↑

22. For further discussion of the complexity of authenticating Prophets see Aune, 87-88. ↑

23. For a fuller discussion of the fact that supernatural virtue is the ultimate test for those claiming to speak for God, see section 9.12.D. ↑