Chapter 9.2

Modern Second-rate Prophets

In Prophetism & Evangelicalism

Table of Topics

A) The Second-rate Prophets of Prophetism

B) The Second-rate Prophets of Evangelicalism

B.1) Proponents of Prophecy as “Super preaching”: A rare error by John MacArthur

B.2) Biblical responses to prophecy being merely “super teaching”: Correctly interpreting 1 Cor 14:3

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• In prophetism the only way of confidently avoiding sin is to automatically assume that a “prophet” today is going to mess up.
• Wayne Grudem, the foremost founder of prophetism wrote in 1982 about “my somewhat new definition of the nature of Christian prophecy,” claiming that his version had eluded the Church for at least 1600 years.
• Supporters of prophetism include J. I. Packer and D. A. Carson.
• Dr. Grudem says of the gift of prophecy: “[I]t was not equal to Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human-and sometimes partially mistaken-report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.”
• If the modern “gift” of prophecy is so unreliable, why in God’s name would anyone accept such a thing as the biblical gift of prophecy?
• God is never described in Scripture as ever communicating anything in such a questionable, unreliable manner as prophetism suggests.
• Since when did God’s people decide democratically whether or not the words of one of His Prophets were from God, as prophetism practices?
• Unlike modern prophetism, biblical Prophets made a sharp distinction between what God had revealed to them and what might arise from within their own heart. Their complaint against the false prophets is precisely that they speak from within their own heart
• The reason for prophetism’s popularity is its appeal to human egos.
• What the second-rate “prophets” of prophetism want is the exalted title and position of Prophet without the necessary biblical credentials. Accordingly, it has become very important for contemporary “prophets” to prove that their biblical counterparts were just as pathetic and powerless as they are.
• It has become common among many Evangelicals to dilute prophecy into some kind of “super preaching” or teaching gift.
• What gifted Teacher would say he has the “special ability to interpret and present God’s truth understandably” but not to “proclaim” it in a way that challenges, comforts, and encourages God’s people?

A) The Second-rate Prophets of Prophetism

Our view of the gift of prophecy in the previous chapter reflects the Church’s universal understanding of biblical Prophets for over 1900 years. ^[1] However, particularly in the 1980’s prophetism began to be promoted and defended, claiming that Prophets had been restored to the Church, but without the biblical attributes demonstrated above. If such a novel belief was a harmless or minority position, it would not warrant the extended refutation we offer in this book. However, the potential danger of such a claim is obvious, as well as its enormous popularity in the modern Church.

As noted above, no one is more responsible for the promotion and defense of prophetism than Wayne Grudem, former Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity. In 1982 he published The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, in which he referred to his approach as “my somewhat new definition of the nature of Christian prophecy.” ^[2] Later, in The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, Dr. Grudem admits that his understanding of the gift of prophecy had eluded the Church for at least 1600 years. He attributes this to the church’s failure to make a fine distinction between degrees of authority involved in prophetic utterances. ^[3] In the beginning of the book, Dr. Grudem succinctly describes his “somewhat new” approach to Christian prophecy:

I am asking those in the [historicist ^[4]] camp to give serious thought to the possibility that prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human-and sometimes partially mistaken-report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind. ^[5]

Likewise, not long afterwards, he wrote in his Systematic Theology regarding the gift of prophecy:

[I]t should be defined not as “predicting the future,” nor as “proclaiming a word from the Lord. . . but rather as “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.” ^[6]

Immediately, such a position might seem very questionable, and difficult to respect at all. However, the above book was given the following endorsement by none other than one of our favorite theologians, J. I. Packer, who wrote concerning it: “Careful, thorough, wise, and to my mind, convincing.” Likewise, Vern S. Poythress, Professor of New Testament at Westminster wrote, “. . . a fresh, biblically sound, readable contribution . . . its depth of scholarship, pastoral solidity, and cautions against abuses are special strengths. Highly recommended.” ^[7] Dr. Poythress obviously has a much different perspective than his colleague at Westminister, Robert B. Gaffin, Professor of Systematic Theology, and representative of the “cessationist” view in Wayne Grudem’s Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? ^[8]

Likewise, the rightly respected NT scholar D. A. Carson, Dr. Grudem’s long-time colleague at Trinity, is also implicated in modern prophetism when he writes, “Grudem’s thesis on New Testament prophecy breaks new ground. I am generally sympathetic to it.” ^[9]

Nonetheless, we see immediately that Dr. Grudem is attempting to completely separate his prophetism from any foundation in OT Prophets, or NT Prophets such as Agabus. This truly is a new kind of prophecy. A primary strategy of prophetists then is to claim that Christian Prophets were really nothing like OT Prophets, in the sense that the Christian Prophets did not speak direct divine revelation in a trustworthy manner, nor were they authenticated by predicting the future. In other words, while prophetists are quick to claim that no Prophets like Hosea exist today, a new kind of Prophet, that communicates divine suggestions rather than revelation, and need not authenticate themselves at all, does operate today with a restored gift of prophecy. Again, such a claim was virtually unheard of for over 1900 years of Church history, and obviously has significant ramifications in Church life and the issue of where divine authority and revelation are to be found today.

Also, we notice in Dr. Grudem’s introductory statement regarding his view of Christian Prophets, the great difficulty that prophetism has in explaining how something is not “proclaiming a word from the Lord” but is “telling something that God has brought to mind.” Read that last sentence again, because that is precisely what modern prophetists are claiming, and they have not, because they cannot, reconcile such a thing no matter how much they want to give a supernatural twist to their very human experiences. Because this new, second-rate version of a biblical Prophet is so untrustworthy and evidently potentially deceptive, Dr. Grudem continues:

So prophecies in the church today should be considered merely human words, not God’s words, and not equal to God’s words in authority [Even though he claims God revealed something to the Prophet?]. . . . Most charismatic teachers today would agree that contemporary prophecy is not equal to Scripture in authority [of course they do, they don’t want to be heretics]. Though some will speak of prophecy as being the “word of God” for today, there is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure, and will contain elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted.

For example, Bruce Yocum, the author of a widely used charismatic book on prophecy, writes, “Prophecy can be impure-our own thoughts or ideas can get mixed into the message we receive whether we receive the words directly [from God] or only receive a sense of the message [from God].” ^[10]

Likewise, C. Samuel Storms, former Professor of Theology at Wheaton writes:

Prophecy is the human report of a divine revelation. It is this that distinguishes prophecy from teaching. Teaching is always based on an inscripturated text, prophecy is always based on a spontaneous revelation. . . .

[The Prophet’s revelation] is altogether free from error. It is as infallible as [God] is. It contains no falsehoods, it is wholly true in all its parts. Indeed, the revelation, which is the root of every genuine prophetic utterance, is as inerrant and infallible as the written Word of God itself, the Bible. In terms of the revelation alone, the New Testament prophetic gift does not differ from the Old Testament prophetic gift.

Error enters in when the human recipient of a revelation misperceives, misinterprets, and/or misapplies what God has disclosed. The fact that God has spoken perfectly does not mean that human beings have heard perfectly. They may interpret and apply, without error, what God has revealed. But the mere existence of a divine revelation does not in itself guarantee that the interpretation or application of God’s revealed truth will share in its perfection. ^[11]

Notice how such a definition of the gift of prophecy evidently is to be applied in the Church. The Evangelical Free turned prophetist pastor Doug Bannister writes the following in order to suggest how we are to recognize and handle this second rate gift of prophecy today:

Do others agree that the prophecy is of God? Sometimes at the end of a fellowship worship service, someone will sense that he or she has been given a prophetic word. We ask the person to share the word with an elder, who prays about it and then chooses whether or not the prophecy would be appropriate to share with the entire group. . . . When people share a word in the small group, they typically will ask, “Does this seem like something the Lord would say?” Words that don’t find favor with the group are gently set aside. ^[12]

It is interesting to observe that many Pentecostal and charismatic churches have backed away from practicing the charismatic gifts in the corporate worship service and have moved this ministry into their small groups instead. This makes good sense. A small group is a safe place to make mistakes. If someone errs in mishandling a prophetic word, for example, a few are impacted, not an entire congregation. ^[13]

Several responses are in order. First, if the modern “gift” of prophecy is so unreliable and haphazard, why in God’s name would anyone accept such a thing as the biblical gift of prophecy? Here we have yet one more example of charismaticism’s ^[14] desire to claim the extraordinary gifts of the early Church, but radically gutting them of their biblical attributes and inventing their own second-rate “gifts,” because they cannot match those biblical attributes. For example, biblical miracle workers healed people of organic diseases commandingly, completely, instantly, and convincingly, but the second-rate “miracle workers” in modern super-supernaturalism cannot, and are not even expected to do any of these things. ^[15] The biblical gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak an existing human foreign language that the speaker did not know, while modern glossaism practices a second-rate meaningless gibberish found around the world since ancient times among pagan religions. ^[16]

Likewise, biblical Prophets spoke trustworthy divine revelation that accurately communicated God’s word, and therefore, had to be believed or obeyed in order to avoid serious sin against God. In addition, biblical Prophets authenticated such authority by predicting the future. In the sad tradition of charismaticism’s consistent ability to sell Christians diluted and counterfeit versions of biblical spiritual gifts, modern prophetism gives us second-rate “prophets” (probably more accurately false prophets) that merely make human suggestions, and who cannot predict the future, or need to supernaturally authenticate themselves at all. How convenient! And how deceptive, damaging, and pathetic.

Secondly, while in subsequent chapters we argue extensively that modern prophetism is unbiblical, here we would suggest its definition of prophesying is so self-contradictory that it is not even plausible. We would ask if modern Prophets are truly receiving a revelation from God as prophetists claim, then why shouldn’t the Prophet’s words be heeded as such? This is a very important question, but one which prophetists have no sufficient answer for, which is to be expected when you are trying to simultaneously promote two incompatible ideas.

The biggest challenge for prophetists is to explain how modern day “prophecy” is different from merely the thoughts and words of humans. Again, in the sad tradition of charismaticism they want to claim something extraordinary in that the revelations that contemporary “prophets” receive are from God, but in order to be accepted as orthodox Christians, they insist that such divine revelations cannot be communicated as authoritatively as Scripture. As usual, it is necessary to set aside our rationality in order to have any respect for the teachings and practices unique to charismaticism.

A third initial response to prophetism is that God is never described in Scripture as ever communicating anything in such a questionable, unreliable manner. Accordingly, Dr. R. Fowler White, former Professor of NT and Biblical Languages at Knox Theological Seminary notes just how new Dr. Grudem’s claims concerning biblical Prophets are when he writes:

Grudem’s position can be summarized this way: In the New Testament gift of prophecy (and its correlates-visions, dreams, auditions, words of knowledge, and wisdom) the church should find a source of practical, though fallible [unreliable], guidance. To adequately consider this proposition, we must notice that Grudem says very plainly that God now speaks as He has never previously spoken. Though the means through which God speaks are purportedly the same [i.e. Prophets], the words He speaks are different from everything He has said before-to the Old Testament saints, to Jesus, to the Apostles [to Agabus]. In short, the words God speaks have been redefined, for they are no longer His very words, inerrant and authoritative. ^[17]

Likewise, Sinclair B. Ferguson, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster writes:

Grudem himself suggests that the expression ‘Thus says the Lord’ should be ‘dropped’, and appears to agree with Timothy Pain that wording such as ‘I think the Lord is suggesting something like . . .’ would be more appropriate. It is right to suggest that this former language leads to a confusion of ‘second-level prophecy’ with canonical prophecy. But surely we need to go further; for no level of prophecy in Scripture is introduced by ‘I think the Lord is suggesting something like this.’ To speak thus is not to speak prophecy at all. ^[18]

Modern prophetists cannot have it both ways and be respectable. It is simply too convenient, self-serving, dangerous, and clearly unbiblical to exalt supposed prophetic utterances today as being based on a God-given revelation that is “as inerrant . . . as the written Word of God,” as Dr. Storms claims, but then to explain away the ordinary, or meaningless, or heretical nature of all these utterances by simply claiming that the person failed to accurately communicate the divine revelation they received. The NT gift of prophecy was supernatural, just like all the other Scripture and sign gifts. There is nothing supernatural about those claiming the gift of prophecy today.

Accordingly, Robert L. Saucy, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot introduces the biblical difficulties with prophetism’s description of how prophecy occurs today:

Scholarly studies on this subject [the gift of prophecy] have traditionally viewed all biblical prophecy as “inspired utterances” that came through direct revelation from God. . . . The attempt to see prophecy as having different levels, ranging from that which is totally God’s Word and therefore inerrant to that which is mixed with varying degrees of human thought including error, is difficult to support biblically. . . .

Such a separation between the revelation and its reception leads one to believe that the revelation is not given in words. . . . For if the revelation is given in words, then even if left to his own humanness, it is difficult to see how the Prophet could fail to perceive or receive such revelation and speak it faithfully unless he deliberately wanted to change the words. I am not suggesting that the Prophet is necessarily able to interpret the revelation. There are biblical Prophets who apparently did not fully understand the words that they spoke (e.g., Dan. 12:8-9; Zech. 4:5; 1 Peter 1:10-11). But they conveyed the words of the prophecy accurately and infallibly.

[Prophetism’s] definition of prophecy fails to see that the Spirit’s work of inspiration in prophecy goes all the way to the actual prophecy, that is, the words spoken or written. As Peter says concerning prophecy, “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). No matter what forms God’s revelation to the Prophet may entail (e.g.,, the visions of Ezekiel), the final revelation includes the verbal meaning, that is to say, the Prophet’s words are God’s revelation and thus his [God’s] words, not simply the human report of revelation (cf. 2 Sam. 23:2; Jer. 1:7, 9; 1 Cor. 2:13). ^[19]

We would add here that the early Church expressly believed that, “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the Prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20), which is a very good description of exactly what prophetism is claiming today. All of the divine revelation we have in Scripture came through human communication, and if that can obscure or pervert divine revelation, then not even Scripture can be trusted. ^[20]

Fourthly, (particularly considering the “advice” of Pastor Bannister above as to how modern “prophets” should be handled in the Church), since when did God’s people decide democratically whether or not the words of one of His Prophets were from God? Only since the Church has allowed such a pathetic phenomenon to be given the high and holy label of prophecy. Since when has it become wise, according to Pastor Bannister, to primarily confine biblical Prophets to small groups so that if they make a mistake, fewer people are negatively impacted? Only since God’s gift of divinely authoritative and infallible prophecy has been replaced with a dismal, deceptive, and even demonic counterfeit.

Fifthly, one is forced to wonder whether prophetists really think about the practical ramifications of their teaching. How are we to know what part of these “prophecies” are to be believed and obeyed as coming from God? For example, Dr. Green writes:

It is encouraging that this gift has been recovered in our day, and that men and women do, as the Spirit leads them, give a word direct from God to their congregation . . . Of course, a person with prophetic gifts needs to remember that it is all too easy for him to be mistaken and confuse his own message with that of the Spirit of God. ^[21]

If what Dr.’s Grudem, Carson, Storms, and Green claim is true, and if the “prophet” happens to accurately communicate what God has supposedly communicated to him, anyone listening is absolutely bound to obey what is said, and it would be rebellious sin to do otherwise. If the revelation is interpreted accurately it does indeed become the very Word of God, equal in authority and value to Scripture. And even more valuable because it is new and specifically oriented to the person or situation at hand (and these men want to claim they are not devaluing written Scripture!). In the context that prophetism has invented, the only way of confidently avoiding sin against God would be if everyone automatically assumes that a “prophet” today is going to mess up somehow and not communicate the revelation with enough accuracy that it should be heeded.

Unlike modern prophetism, biblical Prophets made a sharp distinction between what God had revealed to them and what might arise from within their own heart (Num 16:28; 24:13; 1 Kgs 12:33; Neh 6:8; Ps 41:6, 7). Their complaint against the false prophets is precisely that they speak from within their own heart (Ezek 13:2, 3, 17; Jer 14:14; 23:16, 26; Isa 59:13), without being sent (Jer 14:14; 29:9; Ezek 13:6). They are, therefore, false prophets (Jer 23:32; Isa 9:15; Jer 14:14; 20:6; 23:21, 22, 26, 31, 36; 27:14; Ezek 13:6f; Mic 2:11; Zeph 3:4; Zech 10:2) and fortune-tellers, diviners (Isa 3:2; Mic 3:5f; Zech 10:2; Jer 27:9; 29:8; Ezek 13:9, 23; 21:23, 29; Isa 44:25).

Promoters of prophetism do nothing to correct their error by insisting that all “prophecies” should be authenticated with Scripture. In other words, they essentially often claim that if the “Prophet” doesn’t say something that contradicts Scripture, they can be considered as a recipient of extra-biblical revelation from God. As discussed elsewhere, the problem, of course, is that many of the things said through supposed “prophecies” cannot be evaluated with Scripture. ^[22]

Unfortunately, what is sometimes defined today as prophetic utterances have no resemblance to the words of biblical Prophets. For someone to stand up and announce something in the first person like “I (God) love you” and then claim such an utterance to be a “fresh” and direct revelation from God is absurd. Much of what supposed Prophets say today either could have been discerned by human reason or from the knowledge that God has already revealed in the Bible. If it is more specific than that, it certainly does not have the character of direct, divine revelation from God that must be heeded to avoid sin.

Nonetheless, modern prophetists insist that such a thing is “prophecy.” Which brings up our sixth initial concern with prophetism: Its appeal to human egos. Indeed, the effect that modern second-rate “prophets” claim they desire could just as well be labeled in the traditional sense of Christian encouragement or counsel. However, in charismaticism’s tradition of appealing to the pride and ego of its followers, such otherwise traditional ministries are falsely given a super-supernatural spin resulting in such a person being crowned with the powerful position of “Prophet.”

Undoubtedly, a primary motivation behind the modern redefining of NT prophecy is obvious. Many would like to claim the honored position of speaking authoritatively for God in a way that few, if any others can. That is what a biblical Prophet did. However, none of these so-called “prophets” today will confidently claim that they can predict the future accurately, or that they are revealing direct, extra-biblical quotes from God. None of them will do this because they would easily be exposed as frauds. Certainly none of them would want to be subjected to the OT test for their authenticity at the risk of being executed (cf. Deut 18:20-22). What the second-rate “prophets” of prophetism want is the exalted title and position of Prophet without the necessary biblical credentials. Accordingly, it has become very important for contemporary “prophets” to prove that their biblical counterparts were just as pathetic and powerless as they are.

As noted above, when the modern second-rate “prophets” of prophetism are confronted with the obvious heresy involved in claiming to be receiving divine revelations apart from Scripture, the gift of prophecy is conveniently but unbiblically and irrationally redefined as merely the ability to offer divine suggestions, rather than divine revelations. Such a redefinition has nothing to do with biblical Prophets, but everything to do with the intentional degrading of such a supernatural gift just so it matches mere human experience and abilities. Real God-sent Prophets could honestly preface their statements with “Thus sayeth the Lord,” modern so-called “prophets” admit they cannot do any such thing. Even so, men and women such as these have been given the high and holy biblical label to something that isn’t biblical at all.

Unfortunately, the reason that such a view is so popular is not because the biblical arguments for it are so compelling, but rather, because such a doctrine fits the rather man-centered desires and sought after experiences of charismaticism. Accordingly, we believe that as we discuss the authority and authentication of NT Prophets in this book, that prophetism will be found to be a great and grave error. As discussed above, the divine authority of biblical Prophets has been unquestioned throughout Church history until very recently, and for good reason. This is what the Scriptures clearly teach. Nonetheless, modern prophetism has introduced a diluted man-made version of the Christian Prophet in order to fit the watered-down, non-supernatural “gift of prophecy” that it claims. Unfortunately, in the process, they have misrepresented both the Word of God and the Author Himself, and have lied to the body of Christ.

B) The Second-rate Prophets of Evangelicalism

B.1) Proponents of Prophecy as “Super preaching”: A rare error by John MacArthur

We demonstrate elsewhere that the prophetist idea that the gift of prophecy is revelation from God, but unreliably spoken, is a very recent position in the Church and would have been rather universally rejected until the 1980’s. ^[23] However, not all respected teachers have had the view that Christian Prophets in the early Church had the same attributes as their OT counterparts.

For example, commenting on Romans 12:6, John Calvin (1509–1564) wrote: “Prophecy at this day in the Christian Church is hardly anything else than the right understanding of the Scripture, and the peculiar faculty of explaining it.” ^[24] We are not sure how Calvin would have distinguished the gift of prophecy from that of teaching, which, as we will see, is a problem subsequent Evangelicals have fallen into as well. Accordingly, it is not only modern day prophetists who are wanting to claim the position and gift of Prophet without having the necessary credentials. It has become common among many Evangelicals to dilute prophecy into some kind of “super preaching” or teaching gift. ^[25]

This idea was rather prominent among the Puritans as demonstrated by William Perkins (1558-1602) when he entitled his book on preaching from Scripture, The Art of Prophesying (1592). Likewise, the popular Bible commentator Matthew Henry (1662-1714) wrote concerning 1 Thessalonians 5:20 (“do not treat prophecies with contempt”): “By prophesyings here we are to understand the preaching of the word, the interpreting and applying of the scriptures.” ^[26] Fast-forwarding to the 20^th century, the great Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) defined prophecy as “animated preaching, wherein the preacher feels himself cheered and inspired by the Holy Spirit.” ^[27]

More recently, in their very influential commentary on Romans, NT scholars Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson wrote that the gift of prophecy is:

not necessarily predicting the future but preaching the word with power. . . . This gift implies special insight into revealed truths and great faculty for making them and their consequences known to others. ^[28]

Likewise, another great Evangelical, John MacArthur writes:

Prophecy was exercised in the early church (cf. Acts 21:8–11) and continues in a nonrevelatory sense throughout this age. ^[29]

[John] White [a foremost promoter of prophetism], betrays an appalling ignorance of what Scripture says about inspired prophecy. The New Testament prophetic gift primarily has to do with declaration, not revelation. He is a preacher, not a source of ongoing revelation. . . . That is, he proclaims already revealed truth; he is not generally a conduit for new revelation. ^[30]

We’re not sure what Dr. MacArthur means by saying Prophets in the early Church were “not generally a conduit of new revelation.” Either they were or they were not, and unfortunately, it would seem that Dr. MacArthur’s accusation of “appalling ignorance” may apply equally well to himself.

He does not correct himself in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. There, in addition to continuing to define the “purpose” of prophecy as merely encouragement or “preaching,” and not revelation, he insists that some people still possess the gift today as well. ^[31] Then to confuse the issue further Dr. MacArthur says:

The text here [1 Cor. 12:28] affirms that prophets were also appointed by God as specially gifted men, and differ from those believers who have the gift of prophecy (12:10). ^[32]

Dr. MacArthur is claiming that someone called a Prophet in the early Church might not possess the gift of prophecy, and vice-versa, someone with the gift of prophecy was not considered a Prophet. We will deal with this suggestion in chapter 9.4.

Elsewhere, Dr. MacArthur writes: “The gift of prophecy is simply the gift of preaching, of proclaiming the Word of God.” ^[33] He also refers to it as “interpreting Scripture,” or sharing “exegetical, expositional, and practical insights they had gleaned from Scripture.” ^[34] Sounds a lot like the gift of teaching, doesn’t it? Dr. MacArthur addresses this by writing:

The Christian who teaches is divinely gifted with special ability to interpret and present God’s truth understandably. The primary difference between teaching and prophesying is not in content but in the distinction between the ability to proclaim and the ability to give systematic and regular instruction in God’s Word. ^[35]

On the contrary, what gifted Teacher would say he has the “special ability to interpret and present God’s truth understandably” but not to “proclaim” it in a way that challenges, comforts, and encourages God’s people? Therefore, instead of only watering down the biblical gift of prophecy, Dr. MacArthur’s view also dilutes and devalues the biblical gift of teaching. In addition, the Apostle Paul clearly said that the gift of prophecy was more valuable than the gift of teaching (cf. 1 Cor 12:28). Was this merely because Christian Prophets were better speakers?

Unfortunately, what Dr. MacArthur writes concerning NT Prophets in 1 Corinthians, is contradictory to his comments on Ephesians 2:19-20 (“God’s household [is] built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets”):

These are New Testament Prophets, as indicated by the facts that they are listed after the Apostles and are part of the building of the church of Jesus Christ (cf. 3:5; 4:11). Their unique function was to authoritatively speak the word of God to the church in the years before the New Testament canon was complete. The fact that they are identified with the foundation reveals that they were limited to that formative period. As 4:11 shows, they completed their work and gave way to “evangelists, and . . . pastors and teachers.” ^[36]

Our question is this: If the NT Prophets referred to repeatedly in Ephesians had such divine and supernatural attributes, why didn’t the NT Prophets that the same author (Paul) refers to with the same word (prophētēs), in 1 Corinthians?

There are other definitions of the gift of prophecy that we think are unbiblical. NT scholars Grant Osborne and Philip Comfort are responsible for the following in the Life Application Bible:

The gift of prophecy had not so much to do with predicting future events as it had to do with bringing some message from God under the direction of the Holy Spirit to the body of believers. ^[37]

The Evangelical confusion regarding the gift of prophecy is likewise exhibited in M. Blaine Smith, who writes in his popular book regarding divine guidance:

Unfortunately, Paul never explains what precisely the gift of prophecy is, and we can only guess at what was in his mind when he spoke of prophecy as a spiritual gift. . . .

My conclusion is that prophecy is Paul’s term for preaching. Though there are similarities between teaching and preaching, there are differences as well. While the teacher is concerned with carefully and systematically explaining the whole of Christian truth, the preacher is more concerned with applying one aspect of it at a given time in a way that evokes a response from his hearers. Given the eminence that Paul attached to preaching, and given the fact that no other word for preaching is included in these gift lists, it’s highly probable that he understood prophecy and preaching as synonymous spiritual gift terms. There is good support in the Greek usage of prophecy for this conclusion, also. ^[38]

Several responses are in order. First, Mr. Smith’s implies that the Bible does not clearly describe the attributes of NT Prophets, and then further implies that he and everyone are evidently free to make their own guess. If there is an unexpected shortage in the amount of NT Scripture describing the revelatory functions of NT Prophets, it is precisely because they were in continuity with OT Prophets, and the early Church understood that the abundant descriptions of their predecessors nullified the need to repeat it in the NT.

Secondly, anyone with the gift of teaching would be understandably offended by Mr. Smith’s suggestion that they are not preachers. Again, from this perspective, such gifted teachers become those merely concerned with the details of doctrine, and not the application of life changing truth. What Pastor with the gift of teaching would admit that he is not “concerned with applying one aspect of [Christian truth] at a given time in a way that evokes a response from his hearers”?

In fact, Mr. Smith is so convinced that the gift of teaching has nothing to do with the timely, practical, and response-provoking communication of Scriptural truths, that he concludes gifted “Teachers” (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28) cannot be how the Apostle described such a vital ministry to the Church, and therefore, “Prophets” must mean preachers in the Apostle’s mind, lest such a ministry be considered completely absent from the Apostle’s lists of gifts and ministries. In the end, Mr. Smith and others who wish to distinguish “super preaching” from the supernatural gift of teaching discredit the God-given abilities and effects that God intended for God-gifted Teachers.

Thirdly, the “good support” that Mr. Smith provides for his “conclusion” is mere references to Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-29; 14:1-6; and Ephesians 4:11, all of which of course mention the gift of prophecy, but nowhere support such a diluted view of it.

Consequently, such Evangelicals find themselves guilty of doing what charismaticism is known for: diluting the attributes of biblical miraculous gifts to something less than what God intended them to be, sometimes in order to feed egos. Accordingly, many are tempted to describe their preaching with the exalted label of “prophecy” in order to avoid what they consider the lesser gift of “teaching.”

An additional Evangelical error is found in the writings of the well known contemporary Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:

Who are prophets in this [passage]? Not only those specially designated as such in the Old Testament, not only ordained ministers, but all believers. All true Christians are to be prophets of God for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of other believers and of unbelievers. Let us refrain from placing unnecessary, non-existent distinctions between clergy and lay people, remembering that the Lord hath made all who believe “kings and priests unto God and his Father” (Rev. 1:6). ^[39]

“Kings and priests” indeed, but the verse doesn’t say “Prophets.”

Finally, the popular Baptist teacher Henry Blackaby tells the following story to illustrate his definition of the Christian Prophet:

Jenny was about ten years old [and was baptized in a church service]. She wasn’t likely to dive right into teaching Sunday school or chairing a committee. Yet, according to the Bible, she was vitally important to the body.

Only God knew the potential in this brave little girl’s life. To Connie’s dismay, however, only a handful of people lined up to greet Jenny. It had not been long since Connie herself had become a Christian and shared her decision with the church. She recalled the joy she had felt as virtually the entire church membership stood in line to welcome her.

All afternoon Connie was heartbroken over the church’s seeming indifference to Jenny’s decision. Finally, Connie called the interim pastor and asked if he would address the problem from the pulpit. He wisely counseled that, since the Spirit had laid this burden on Connie’s heart, she should be the one to express it to the rest of the body.

During that evening’s service Connie shared her burden. The Spirit affirmed her message in the hearts of those present. We were deeply convicted to realize we’d been insensitive to God’s activity in our midst.

Connie was not a preacher. She was not a Bible teacher or a worship leader, but that day she was a prophet. ^[40]

Biblically speaking, she was not. And yet this very kind of thing is accepted commonly among Christians as the biblical gift of prophecy.

B.2) Biblical responses to prophecy being merely “super teaching”: Correctly interpreting 1 Cor 14:3

Of course a foundational Scripture for the above view of NT Prophets is the Apostle’s statements in 1 Corinthians 14:3: “everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort” (cf. vs. 25, 31; cf. Acts 15:32). Yes, they sure did. But why should we interpret this one statement as the all-sufficient definition of the essence of the gift of prophecy as so many do, and exclude the biblical evidence that those who possessed it also spoke Scripture-quality revelation and perfectly predicted the future? When we read that, “Judas and Silas, who themselves were Prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers” (Acts 15:32), why would we conclude, as so many have, that the spiritual strengthening and encouragement they provided did not include new divine revelation and predictions of the future, just like the ministry of their NT counterpart Agabus?

Nonetheless, it is common to see something like what Dr. Grudem writes:

Paul defines the function of prophecy every broadly in 1 Cor. 14:3: its functions could include any kind of speech activity which would be helpful to the hearers. ^[41]

Essentially, such a perspective reduces the gift of prophecy to merely encouraging people, evidently indistinguishable from the gift of “encouraging” (cf. Rom 12:8) which the Apostle clearly does distinguish from the gift of “prophesying” (cf. Rom 12:6), and making such a thing that all Christians can and should do.

On the contrary, when the Apostle wrote that, “everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort” (1 Cor 14:3), he was simply describing one effect of a Prophet’s ministry, in order to point out its superiority over tongues. He did not intend here to define the whole essence of what prophetic ministry involved. Before writing 1 Corinthians, the Apostle himself had experienced the ministry of Christian Prophets who had miraculously predicted a famine (cf. Acts 11:25-28), and commanded him to go on his first missionary tour (13:1-2). Paul himself knew that the gift of prophecy involved considerably more than merely “strengthening, encouragement and comfort.”

Therefore, it is a mistake for some to use the Apostle’s limited description of the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians as biblical proof that Prophets in the early Church did not also speak direct, Scripture-quality revelation from God and predict the future. The Prophet’s ability to deliver direct revelation from God, and even to predict the future, would certainly result in the “strengthening, encouragement and comfort” of a congregation. There is no need to water down the gift of prophecy to merely “encouraging speech” or effective “preaching.”

If we allow 1 Corinthians 14:3 to define the essence of the gift of prophecy, why not 14:24-25 where the Apostle says:

But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Evidently, the “strengthening, encouragement and comfort” of believers was not the only effects of NT Prophets, let alone their defining characteristics.

In addition, we have already noted that the above redefinition of the gift of prophecy fails to distinguish it from the gift of teaching or encouraging. In contrast, every list of gifts in the NT clearly describe them as different things (cf. Rom 12:6-7; Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28). This is another problem with defining the gift of prophecy as merely speaking “to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort,” because other biblical gifts accomplish precisely the same thing, including teaching (Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), pastoring (Eph. 4:11), and encouragement (Rom. 12:8). Accordingly, their operation can account for any spiritually edifying and effective speaking in the Church today, and labeling such a thing as “prophesying” is not only unnecessary, but unbiblical and misleading.

Because of the great confusion regarding the biblical difference between Christian Prophets and Teachers, we will repeat that Prophets possessed the ability to receive extra-biblical divine revelation authenticated by the additional ability to predict the future. Gifted Teachers, on the other hand, are completely dependent on the revelation of Scripture for the divine revelation they preach from, and are authenticated by faithfully and accurately explaining the text, and living a life that practices what they preach.

While we have noted above several who have promoted the “super-preaching” idea of NT prophecy, others have rightly rejected such a thing. For example, and perhaps not surprisingly, the prophetist Michael Green writes:

One commonly hears it said that prophecy is the same as preaching or teaching. This could only be maintained in defiance of the whole weight of New Testament evidence. The men of the first century knew preaching and teaching when they heard it, and they knew prophecy as well. The two were quite different. Prophets and teachers are distinguished in passages such as Acts 13: 1, 1 Corinthians 12:29. It is one thing to prepare one’s address in dependence on the Spirit, and to preach it in the power of that same Spirit; it is quite another thing to find the Spirit taking over and speaking directly from Christ through you, in words that you had never intended to use at all. ^[42]

Likewise, NT scholar Anthony Thiselton in his commentary on 1 Corinthians remarks:

[I]t would be a serious mistake to read back onto Paul modern styles of pastoral preaching. Few churches appear “to test” preaching from the pulpit [as was required with Prophets], and nothing suggests that early Christian prophecy was a sustained, uninterrupted, twenty-minute monologue delivered by a “trained” speaker. ^[43]

NT scholar F. L. Godet noted in his respected commentary on 1 Corinthians:

The conclusion is often drawn from this verse (14:3), that since to prophesy is to edify, exhort, comfort, whoever edifies, exhorts, comforts, merits according to Paul the title Prophet. This reasoning is as just as it would be to say: He who runs moves his legs; therefore, whoever moves his legs, runs; or, to take a more nearly related example; He who speaks to God in a tongue, speaks to God; and therefore whoever speaks to God, is a glossalalete. No, certainly; one may edify, comfort, encourage, without deserving the title of Prophet or Prophetess. ^[44]

Also, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia entry regarding biblical Prophets points out that, unlike gifted teachers, “Prophets were not limited to known traditions and doctrines, for they received new revelations about the present and future as well as the past.” ^[45]

Likewise, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we read:

All prophecy rests on revelation, 1 Cor. 14:30. The Prophet does not declare what he has taken from tradition or what he has thought up himself. He declares what has been revealed to him. . . . Whereas teachers expound Scripture, cherish the tradition about Jesus and explain the fundamentals of the catechism, the Prophets, not bound by Scripture or tradition, speak to the congregation on the basis of revelations. ^[46]

Along the same lines, Dr. Farnell has written in Dallas Theological Seminary’s Bibliotheca Sacra Journal:

While preaching is essentially a merging of the gifts of teaching and exhortation, prophecy has the primary elements of prediction and revelation. . . . Therefore, since the preacher is not in contact with God as was the Prophet, the preacher is not the modern equivalent of a Prophet. While both preacher and Prophet proclaim, the reception of direct revelation from God is the crucial essence of the prophetic gift that qualitatively separates it from other forms of proclamation and preaching. Furthermore, while preaching includes teaching, the ministry of the Prophet was more spontaneous, being based on direct divine revelation. ^[47]

Finally, NT scholar Robert L. Thomas, in contradiction to the President of the seminary he teaches at, John MacArthur, has written regarding the gift of prophecy:

The very words of their prophecies, being based on, and inseparable from, divine revelation (cf. 1 Cor 14:29), were inspired and therefore authoritative. This was an indispensable element of prophecy. Without direct revelation from God someone who promoted edification through exhortation and comfort had to base his message on the inspired words of others and was exercising the gift of exhortation (cf. Rom 12:8), or teaching (cf. 1 Cor 12:28), not the gift of prophecy. ^[48]

In any discussion of biblical prophecy then, we should be hesitant to water it down into something less than speaking the very word of God apart from Scripture.

As with any doctrinal error, redefining the gift of prophecy as merely especially effective or encouraging teaching costs the Church in practical ways. Essentially such a perspective makes other spiritual gifts that God intended to be valued, recognized, and used as practically obsolete. As noted above, how could Teachers not be offended when everything they strive for themselves is attributed to modern Prophets? There is nothing in the Evangelical definition of prophecy that gifted Teachers cannot do, and do not desire themselves. Likewise, if the essence of Christian “prophesying” (Rom 12:6) is encouragement, would we care about the gift of “encouraging” at all?

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What do we mean by the label prophetism?
2. Why do we claim: “In prophetism the only way of confidently avoiding sin is to automatically assume that a “prophet” today is going to mess up”? Do you agree or disagree and why?
3. How does Wayne Grudem, the foremost founder of prophetism define the gift of prophecy?
4. Who are some well-respected supporters of prophetism?
5. What are the problems we see with prophetism’s definition of the gift of prophecy?
6. We suggest a major reason for prophetism’s popularity is its appeal to human egos. Why might this be the case?

1. How do we claim many non-charismatic Evangelicals dilute the gift of prophecy as well? Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. What do we see as the unfortunate result of this Evangelical error regarding “prophesying”?

Publications & Particulars

1. For further discussion on the history of the gift of prophecy see chapter 9.13. ↑

2. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Press of America, 1982), xv. ↑

3. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway, 2000), 108-9, 112, 241–42. ↑

4. By historicists we refer to those who adhere to the historical position of the Church that the gift of prophecy ceased shortly after the Apostles were extinct. ↑

5. Grudem, Today, 14–15. ↑

6. Grudem, Theology, 1049. ↑

7. Dr. Poythress unsuccessfully attempts to reconcile the prophetist and historicist positions on the gift of prophecy in a 1996 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Essentially, Dr. Poythress claims that we first must distinguish between the “teaching” and the “circumstantial” content of a modern prophecy. Then we can agree that the “teaching” content “must not add to Scripture,” and the “Circumstantial content . . . has no special claim to authority,” thus, “neither type of content threatens the sufficiency of Scripture.” Dr. Poythress concludes: “If charismatics and noncharismatics could agree on these points, I think that the debate on modern spiritual gifts would be largely over.” (JETS 39:1 [March 1996], 94-5).

   Unfortunately, Dr. Poythress seems to completely ignore the prophetist claim that modern prophecy is revelation from God. And he has not solved the problem of reconciling that claim with the suggestion that the “circumstantial content” of such a revelation “has no special claim to authority.”

   For further discussion see prophetism’s danger of degrading the authority of Scripture at section 9.3.A. ↑

8. cf. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, Wayne Grudem ed. (Zondervan, 1996) ↑

9. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker, 1987), 94.

   Dr. Carson adds: “although I have reservations at two or three critical points.” One is tempted to be encouraged by his last phrase until one gets to these “reservations.” After writing four pages in absolute and authoritatively sounding support of Grudem’s “thesis,” Dr. Carson says, “My hesitations about this thesis are two, neither of which does irreparable damage to it, but only refines it” (98). As Carson promised, these reservations do nothing to change his overall agreement with Grudem’s charismatic interpretation of Scripture, and are deemed so minor that there is no need to address them here. ↑

10. Ibid., 1055. ↑

11. Miraculous Gifts, 207-8, underlining added. ↑

12. Doug Banister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 107. ↑

13. Ibid., 89. ↑

14. By modern charismaticism we are primarily referring to what is commonly labeled the “charismatic” movement that began with the Pentecostals in the early 1900’s, spread into denominational churches in the 1960’s and 70’s, and has merged with what is referred to as the Third Wave churches today. Pentecostal churches include Assembly of God, Church of God, Open Bible, Apostolic, Foursquare Gospel, and Full Gospel. Third Wave churches include Vineyard and a variety of independent congregations.

    We thank God for all He has done through the “charismatic” movement, and for the dear Christian brothers and sisters who would claim membership in it. However, throughout Knowing Our God (KOG) we refrain from referring to this movement as “charismatic,” because this erroneously implies a uniqueness and even superiority in Christian grace (charis), and by further implication, a superior possession or experience of the Holy Spirit.

    Surely no right-minded “charismatic” would desire to claim such a superiority over their Christian brothers and sisters, especially since they cannot demonstrate one. Biblically speaking, being “led by the Spirit,” experiencing His power, and living “not under law” but by “grace [charis]” is most clearly manifested in the “fruit of the Spirit” which the Apostle Paul describes as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:4, 18, 22-3). “Charismatic” Christians in general are not superior in these virtues of love and holiness compared to other Christians, and these virtues are the real essence of Christian charisma, making all obedient Christians true “charismatics,” not just a particular sect.

    In fact, the greatest and most important uniqueness of charismatic churches over other authentic Christian churches is not their love or holiness, but rather an emphasis on, and practice of: 1) emotional worship, 2) speaking and/or praying in an incoherent tongue, 3) claims to direct divine revelation through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, and 4) claims to a greater abundance of miracles in general through the gifts of healing and miracle working.

    Therefore, throughout KOG we use the terms emotionalism (see chapters 4.8-11), glossaism (Gr. glossa: “tongue,” see Book 12: The Truth About Tongues), prophetism (see Book 9: God’s Prophets), and super-supernaturalism (see chapters 10.14-16) to refer to these distinctives respectively, while recognizing that they may exist elsewhere as well. Accordingly, we believe this allows us to address the areas of concern we have regarding the movement, and avoid speaking critically of the movement as a whole, which has many good, although not unique, attributes as well.

    Likewise, we refrain from referring to those Christians who would differ from “charismatics” as “non-charismatics,” erroneously implying again that the latter is somehow lacking in grace. Rather, those who oppose the sometimes bizarre worship of emotionalism, the obscure utterances of glossaism, the extra-biblical revelations of prophetism, and the miracle-a-minute mindset of super-supernaturalism are better labeled as historicists. This reflects the fact that for at least 1600 years of Church history, the great majority belief and practice of God’s people was opposed to all of the uniquenesses that the “charismatic” movement claims today.

    It is a historical fact that miraculous gifts such as healing, tongues, and prophecy ceased functioning in the church in the fourth century when the NT canon had been completed, recognized and sufficiently distributed. Accordingly, the very few people since then who have promoted bizarre forms of worship, obscure utterances in prayer, claims to extra-biblical revelation, and miracle working abilities, were always thought to be deceived and dangerous, and not accepted as biblical Christians. What those in charismaticism also refuse to admit, or take seriously enough, is that the modern versions of the miraculous gifts being claimed do not match the attributes of their biblical counterparts. For a great deal of discussion on these matters see the books in Volume 2 of KOG. ↑

15. For further discussion on the biblical attributes of miracle working see chapters 11.1-2. ↑

16. For further discussion on the gift of tongues see Book 12. ↑

17. R. Fowler White, “Does God Speak Today Apart From the Bible?” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed. (Moody, 1996). ↑

18. Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 1996), 231-3. ↑

19. Miraculous Gifts, 127, 230-31. ↑

20. For further discussion on the trustworthiness of human messengers to deliver divine revelation see ? ↑

21. Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 2004), 259-60. ↑

22. For further discussion of the “straw man” that modern prophecies need to be checked with Scripture see ? ↑

23. For further on historical understanding in the Church of the gift of prophecy see ? ↑

24. John Calvin, Commentaries, Rom 12:6. ↑

25. Unfortunately, “super preaching” is the view of the gift of prophecy taken by Anthony Thiselton, with hardly a discussion throughout many pages on the topic, of the fact that NT prophecy was divine revelation (cf. The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 2000], 956-65, 1087-94). Accordingly, at 14:30 he does not even address Paul’s clear description of prophecy as divine “revelation.” ↑

26. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1 Thess 5:20; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

27. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, (Eerdmans, 1946), 187). ↑

28. Alfred Robertson and Archibald Robertson Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (T. & T. Clark, 1967), 266. ↑

29. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary (Parsons, 1997), Acts 2:16. ↑

30. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan, 1992), 81. ↑

31. MacArthur, Commentary, 1 Corinthians, 303-303, 323. ↑

32. Ibid., 323. ↑

33. MacArthur, Commentary, 1 Cor 12:7. ↑

34. Ibid. ↑

35. Ibid. ↑

36. Ibid., Eph 2:20. ↑

37. Life Application Bible, Grant Osborn, Philip Comfort eds. (Tyndale, 1997), 1 Cor 12. ↑

38. M. Blaine Smith, Knowing God’s Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions (InterVarsity, 1991), 148. ↑

39. Spiros Zodhiates, Speaking in Tongues and Public Worship: An Exegetical Commentary on First Corinthians (AMG, 1998), 1 Cor 14:10 ↑

40. Ref. unknown. ↑

41. Grudem, Prophecy, 229. ↑

42. Green, 211. ↑

43. Thiselton, 960. ↑

44. F. L. Godet, The First Epistle to the Corinthians 2 vols. (T & T Clark 1886), 2:267–68. ↑

45. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), III:987-88. ↑

46. G. Friedrich, “prōphetēs” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., 10 vols.; trans. G. W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1964-76), VI:854.” ↑

47. David F. Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” Part 3, BSac 150 (July-September 1992 through April-June 1993), 184. ↑

48. Robert L. Thomas, “Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 [January-March 1992] 93–94. ↑