Chapter 9.5

The Revelation & Writing of Biblical Prophets

Dictating Visions not “Inspired” Impressions or Possession

Table of Topics

A) The “Seeing” & “Hearing” of Biblical Prophets

B) The Visionless Prophets of Prophetism

C) The Dictation of Prophets

D) A Denial of the Possession of Prophets

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• While the Apostles experienced revelation in several different ways, visions are rather synonymous with how the gift of prophecy operated.
• All biblical Prophets who describe how they received their revelations, describe them as coming through visions.
• Regarding the hundreds of times the biblical Prophets prefaced their revelation with, “the Lord said to me . . .,” it is best to understand the Lord said it in a vision.
• “Prophets prophesy[ing] lies” was “A horrible and shocking thing” to God, yet this is precisely what all modern “prophets” are doing, because God has not spoken to them.
• God has never simply put thoughts in someone’s mind, and expected them to recognize those thoughts as coming from God, without some sort of miraculous authentication
• Notice then the unfortunate and even sinful presumption that prophetism has led so many into when they claim the gift of prophecy is merely: “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.”
• “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!” (Ezek 13:3). This describes the “prophets” of modern prophetism.
• There is a modern aversion to the idea that God dictated words to the Prophets, but there are several biblical examples that would seem to clearly indicate this.
• Jesus Himself described His own revelatory experience at times as dictating for the Father.
• Some suggest that biblical Prophets were at least at times rather “possessed,” spoke out in a rather out-of-control manner, and substantiated by the statement in 2 Peter that they “were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (1:21). However, this is precisely how pagan prophets in antiquity were described, and the Apostle Paul expressly distinguished Christian Prophets when he wrote: “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32).
• The experience of biblical Prophets must be distinguished from the demonic phenomenon of automatic writing.

A) The “Seeing” & “Hearing” of Biblical Prophets

God said of Moses:

When a Prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. With him I speak face to face . . . he sees the form of the LORD. (Num 12:6-8; cf. Exod 33:11; Duet 42:10)

As discussed thoroughly elsewhere, the revelation Moses received came through physically seeing and hearing the Lord. ^[1] However, as noted in the passage, God’s primary method of communicating with His Prophets was “visions” and “dreams.” Accordingly, God often asked the Prophets when He gave them revelation, “What do you see?” (cf. Jer 1:11, 13; 24:3; Amos 7:8; 8:2; Zech 4:2; 5:2). Obviously, God spoke to Prophets in such visions, perhaps even audibly, as He describes to Ezekiel, “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me” (Ezek 3:17).

Elsewhere we have written a great deal on the biblical nature of revelatory visions, ^[2] and more specifically on how they seemed to have played an important part in the divine revelation that Christ and the Apostles received, taught, and wrote. ^[3] Accordingly, while the Apostles experienced revelation in several different ways, ^[4] visions are rather synonymous with how the gift of prophecy operated. ^[5] Accordingly, God had said a long time ago: “When a Prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal Myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams” (Num 12:6). Likewise, He told the Prophet Hosea, “I spoke to the Prophets and gave them many visions” (Hos 12:10). Even “after” the Lord returns (cf. Joel 2:26-28), and the gift of prophecy is granted to the regenerated people of Israel, visions will be synonymous with the gift of prophecy as we read of that time: “Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions” (Joel 2:28).

All biblical Prophets who describe how they received their revelations, describe them as coming through visions. Accordingly, in the preface to the prophecies of Isaiah we read: “The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isa 1:1; cf. Jer 1:11; Ezek 1:1; Dan 2:19; Amos 1:1; Obad 1:1; Mic 1:1; Nah 1:1; Hab 2:1; Zech 1:8). Likewise, while the word “vision” (horasis) occurs only once in Revelation (cf. 9:17), the Christian Prophet John ^[6] says, “I saw” over thirty times, and signs off on his prophecy by saying, “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things” (John 22:8). Therefore, regarding the hundreds of times the biblical Prophets prefaced their revelation with, “the Lord said to me . . .,” it is best to understand the Lord said it in a vision. ^[7]

Accordingly, the second century Bible teacher Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236) in speaking of the biblical Prophets, wrote they, “were rightly instructed in the future by means of visions.” ^[8] Even regarding the post-biblical gift of prophecy operating into the late second century, Bishop Irenaeus (c. 180) wrote they: “have foreknowledge of things to come; they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions.” ^[9]

As noted above, we have elsewhere written a great deal on the nature of biblical visions, including the fact that they were so real, the recipient themselves could not always tell whether they were experiencing an apparition with their physical senses or God was using the sensical parts of their mind to give them a psychical vision (cf. 2 Cor 12:1-4). Nonetheless, divine visions are a powerful revelatory experience that leaves the recipient with no doubts that God has spoken to them.

B) The Visionless Prophets of Prophetism

The supernatural nature of the prophetical vision was an important part of the supernatural authentication of the revelation itself. How else would the Prophet Hosea really know that God was telling him to marry a prostitute (cf. Hos 1:2-3). God has never simply put thoughts in someone’s mind, and expected them to recognize those thoughts as coming from God, without some sort of miraculous authentication. ^[10]

This exposes a grave error in modern prophetism that will be discussed further below. In this modern movement, there are a hoard of people presuming to be Prophets, but who are merely speaking their own thoughts rather than thoughts from God. This is a serious sin and God was very angry with those who claimed to be His Prophets, but who “speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer 23:16), “who prophesy the delusions of their own minds” (Jer 23:26), and “who prophesy out of their own imagination” (Ezek 13:2). “Prophets prophesy[ing] lies” was “A horrible and shocking thing” to God (Jer 5:30-31).

Yet this is precisely what all modern “prophets” are doing, because God has not spoken to them. We know this first of all, because they cannot authenticate themselves as messengers of divine revelation, as we demonstrate in subsequent chapters. But we also know this because modern Prophets rarely, if ever, even see real visions at all. The primary mode of revelation that God used in prophecy was an undeniable vision. Notice in the texts above that even the false and presumptuous “prophets” at least claimed to have received a vision or dream. But modern “prophets” need not even do this because of how prophetism has watered down what the biblical gift of prophecy consists of. While biblical Prophets would hardly claim to possess divine revelation apart from a supernatural vision, modern prophetism has encouraged false prophecy by defining it as merely speaking thoughts from God.

Notice then the unfortunate and even sinful presumption that Dr. Grudem has led so many into when he writes in his popular Systematic Theology that the gift of prophecy is: “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.” ^[11] At least even the false “prophets” in biblical times understood that real prophecy comes through supernatural visions, not spontaneous thoughts. Accordingly, the following stern warning applies to all the poor souls who have been duped by prophetism to think they have the gift of prophecy because they’ve had moving thoughts, but have never seen a vision from God: “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!” (Ezek 13:3).

C) The Dictation of Prophets

By dictation, we mean the act of writing or speaking word-for-word exactly what another person is saying, as they are saying it. In other words, there is absolutely no influence of the speaker or the recorder in what is said or written, but only the words of the one they are speaking or writing for.

Some “fundamentalists” have been castigated for proposing that virtually all of the Scriptures were dictated to biblical writers. ^[12] However, the more common approach is the modern aversion to describing any part of the formation of Scripture as “dictation.” The slightly neoorthodox Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch is typical when he writes: “Verbal inspiration must not be confused with . . . mechanical dictation.” ^[13] Likewise, Norman Geisler writes: “With the exception of small sections such as the Ten Commandments, which were “written with the finger of God” (Exod. 31:18), the Bible was not verbally dictated. The writers were not secretaries of the Holy Spirit.” ^[14]

The reason for such a denial stems from several things: 1) As discussed elsewhere, Evangelical theologians are typically attempting to find a “one-theory-fits-all” approach to how Scripture was written; ^[15] 2) much of Scripture obviously reflects the personality of the writer and is therefore just as obviously not dictated; and 3) Liberal skeptics have made “dictation” a dirty word when it comes to divine revelation.

Nonetheless, Anglican theologian Peter Jensen writes regarding the accusations of liberals against claims that Scripture was dictated by God:

[T]he evangelical response may have been too defensive. The vehemence with which ‘dictation’ is dismissed, and the almost inveterate desire to attribute it to evangelicals (or ‘fundamentalists’), is suggestive of a problem being concealed.

After all, while it is true to say that the Bible exhibits a number of ways in which human utterances are also thought to be divine, it gives us, in the case of Moses and the Book of the Covenant at least, one example very close to ‘dictation’ (Exod. 19:6-7; 24:4; 34:27). Indeed, the Ten Commandments were originally written by God directly (Exod. 32:15-16); and if the prophets claim to be speaking the word of God by quoting him as they so often do, ‘dictation’ may not be an entirely inappropriate description of such an event.

The idea of dictation is easier to attribute to the pre-Enlightenment writers than to more modern ones [e.g. Calvin]. They were prepared to use such phrases as ‘the divine pen-men.’ Such words are now rarely heard from evangelicals, let alone from their critics. But the theories of inspiration that have emerged over the years to displace the earlier beliefs, and that emphasize genius rather than providence, reflect much less accurately the Bible’s own account of how divine words enter human language. It may well be that the pre-Enlightenment authors understood a truth that we ignore for cultural reasons. How do we see Moses at work in Exodus 24:4, if not as the divine amanuensis? ^[16]

Indeed, it is time that perhaps John Calvin’s common description of how Scripture was written is more defended by Evangelicals than dismissed with embarrassment. Theologians Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis still seemed embarrassed when they write:

Indeed, Calvin states that the biblical writers were “clerks,” (Harmony of the Gospels 1:127) “penmen,” (Psalms 3:205) “amanuenses, ” (Inst. IV.8.8-9) and “organs and instruments” (Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 87; Minor Prophets, 3:197) of the Holy Spirit. By these bold metaphors Calvin did not endorse the dictation theory; rather he sought to convey in this way his conviction that God was in sovereign control of the inscripturation of his Word and that he is its ultimate Author. ^[17]

Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til was at least willing to admit:

In prophetical inspiration, the secondary authors are often more passive than in lyrical and poetic inspiration. In all forms of inspiration, a higher personality, even a personality from above comes to and speaks through the secondary authors, but in the case of prophecy this fact is more clearly apparent than elsewhere. Jeremiah (chapter 20) and Ezekiel (chapter 3) seemed at times even to be antithetical with respect to [reflecting a human element in Scripture]. ^[18]

Webster’s defines “dictation” as: “the act or manner of uttering words to be transcribed.” ^[19] What else is happening when Isaiah says: “The LORD said to me, ‘Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz’” (Isa 8:1)?

Erwin Lutzer, longtime Teacher at Moody Bible Church has succinctly written:

[S]ome of the Bible was dictated by God word for word. Moses did not add his own style when he wrote, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” On many occasions the prophets received revelations from God, word for word, at other times they put the message in their own words. But dictation, as such, was rare; almost always the author’s style can be recognized. ^[20]

While we would agree that dictation may have been a relatively rare mode of writing and speaking the word of God, it was perhaps more common than just the Ten Commandments that most are willing to concede. Even in this context, considerably more was dictated than just the Ten Commandments. After a rather lengthy list of laws that go beyond the Ten Commandments (cf. Exod 34:10ff), we read:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments. (Exod 34:27-28)

Other instances of dictation that seem clear to us as well. God tells Jeremiah: “This is what the LORD says: ‘Stand in the courtyard of the LORD’S house and speak to all the people of the towns of Judah who come to worship in the house of the LORD. Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word.’” (Jer 26:2). These instances seem to reflect that the Prophets were going to speak immediately after receiving the revelation and were to speak it word-for-word.

Likewise, the following in Revelation seems to be an immediate, word-for-word dictation from God the Father. John writes:

Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. ⁷ He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be My son. ⁸ But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Rev 21:5-8)

In addition, one wonders if the common description of God “putting words in the mouth” of a Prophet are to be understood as dictation. God told Moses: “Go, and I, even I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say” (Exod 4:12 NASB). He tells Isaiah: “I have put My words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of My hand” (51:6). Likewise, Jeremiah records: “Then the LORD reached out His hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put My words in your mouth” (1:9). For all we know, many of the extended speeches of the Prophets may have been dictated. Only the context can make this clear as Hebrew words for speech do not make such a distinction. ^[21]

We would suggest that Jesus Himself often described His speaking in terms of dictation. First, we notice the prophecy made about Him in Deuteronomy:

The LORD said to me [Moses]: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (Deut 18:18)

We have argued elsewhere that God is referring to Jesus Christ. ^[22] God said He would, “put My words in his mouth.” Jesus Himself described this as follows:

I did not speak of My own accord, but the Father Who sent Me commanded Me what to say and how to say it. . . . So whatever I say is just what the Father has told Me to say. (John 12:49-50)

Likewise, He said to the Twelve, “The words I say to you are not just My own. Rather, it is the Father, living in Me, Who is doing His work,” (John 14:10) and to the Father, “I gave them the words You gave Me” (17:8). All of these descriptions strike us as referring to word-for-word communication of what the Father was telling Jesus to say. ^[23]

If we include within the genre of “dictation” those instances in which the biblical writer recorded the revelation rather immediately after receiving it then we would suggest that much of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and Revelation can be ascribed to this mode of revelation and writing.

D) A Denial of the Possession of Prophets:

2 Pet 1:21

By claiming that the Prophets certainly experienced dictation from God, we do not wish to imply they experienced possession in the sense of losing control over their mind and body. When the Apostle says “The spirits [mind] of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32), he debunks the idea that they were “possessed” in this manner.

Nevertheless, it has been common to suggest that particularly Prophets were possessed by the Spirit in a way that controlled both their mind and body, when they received or spoke their revelations. Accordingly, the early Church Fathers typically defined “divine inspiration” in terms of divine possession. Athenagoras (c. 177) wrote that the Spirit of God “moved the mouths of the Prophets like musical instruments.” ^[24] Likewise, Chrysostom (c. 400) taught:

The Holy Spirit took possession of them [Prophets], sometimes suppressed their personality to a certain degree, and then employed their consciousness for his purpose. . . . In the case of the prophets it was the entrance of a foreign element, a foreign power into their lives. ^[25]

Long before that, the Jewish/Greek philosopher Philo (c. 20 B.C. – 50 A.D.) had written:

[A prophet] is the vocal instrument of God, smitten and played by his invisible hand . . . The mind is evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit, but when that departs the mind returns to its tenancy. Mortal and immortal may not share the same home. And therefore the setting of reason and the darkness which surrounds it produces ecstasy and inspired frenzy . . .

The prophet, even when he seems to be speaking, really [is not], and his organs of speech, mouth and tongue, are wholly in the employ of Another, to show forth what he wills. Unseen by us that Other beats on the chords with the skill of a master-hand and makes them instruments of sweet music, laden with every harmony. ^[26]

Unfortunately, such descriptions of “possessed prophecy” or possession revelation are more reflective of pagan prophets rather than biblical ones. What all such descriptions ignore is the Apostle Paul’s clear description of biblical Prophets even when they are prophesying: “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). Accordingly, NT scholar Albert Barnes wrote concerning this verse:

The evident meaning of this is, that they were able to control their inclination to speak; they were not under a necessity of speaking, even though they might be inspired. There was no need of disorder. This verse gives confirmation to the supposition, that the extraordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit were subjected to substantially the same laws as a man’s natural endowments. They were conferred by the Holy Spirit; but they were conferred on free agents, and did not interfere with their free agency. . . .

In this the spirit of true inspiration differed essentially from the views of the pagan, who regarded themselves as driven on by a wild, controlling influence, that compelled them to speak even when they were unconscious of what they said. Universally, in the pagan world, the priests and priestesses supposed or feigned that they were under an influence which was incontrollable; which took away their powers of self-command, and which made them the mere organs or unconscious instruments of communicating the will of the gods. ^[27]

Such possession is a demonic act, not a divine one, and there are no biblical examples to prove otherwise.

It is to be admitted that biblical Prophets describe “the strong hand of the Lord” being “upon” them (cf. Isa 8:11; Ezek 1:3) and even whisking them away in a vision that comes upon them (cf. Ezek 3:14; 8:3; 37:1). But these descriptions pertain to how revelation came to them, not how they spoke or communicated the revelation. Indeed, biblical Prophets seemed to often have no control over when and how they experienced a revelatory event, but we do not see such lack of control in when and how they spoke the revelation. It is true that Jeremiah wrote the following:

But if I say, “I will not mention Him or speak any more in His name,” His word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot. (20:9)

Most preachers have experienced the same burden. However, we are still able to exercise self-control and neither we nor Jeremiah was possessed and “taken over” in the sense that he became a puppet or robot forced to communicate the revelation he had received.

Some have pointed to the description of prophetic revelation in 2 Peter 1:21 as describing some sort of event that does dispossess the Prophet. There we read: “Men spoke from God as they were carried along [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit.” Admittedly, the Greek word here is a strong one, Charles Swindoll commenting:

The Greek word here is pherō, and it literally means to be “moved along apart from one’s own power.” It’s a nautical term used for a ship without a rudder or a sail, carried along at the mercy of the waves and the wind and the current. Here the word is used for the prophets, moved not by their own power, but by the power of God as He spoke through them and revealed His will. ^[28]

As we have noted elsewhere, this suggests to some the mindless mania and uncontrolled behavior of pagan prophets. ^[29] But it needs to be reconciled with the Apostle’s clear statement in 1 Corinthians 14, distinguishing Christian Prophets from pagan ones and insisting that “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). Accordingly, Michael Green concludes in his commentary on 2 Peter:

The fact of God’s inspiration did not mean a supersession of the normal mental functions of the human author. The Holy Spirit did not use instruments; he used men. God’s way is ever one of truth through personality, as was perfectly demonstrated at the incarnation. Moreover, he did not use any men, but holy men, those who are dedicated and pledged to his service. And even with such men, he did no violence to their personalities, but cooperated with them while revealing himself through them.

“He says they were moved, not because they were out of their minds as the heathen imagine in their prophets, but because they dared nothing by themselves but only in obedience to the guidance of the spirit, who held sway over lips as in his own temple” (Calvin). . . .

Peter’s words are equally in contrast to the mechanical understanding of inspiration to be found in Philo, his Jewish contemporary. Philo sees it as a compulsive divine possession which turned man into a theophoros, ‘God bearer’ (Mut. Nom. i, p.609, de Somn. p. 689). Peter sees it as a personal and ethical cooperation between god and holy men. There’s no suggestion that the sacred authors are beside themselves like the analogy from Bacchic [pagan] frenzy cited by Philo; they are carried along the path of God’s will by their own glad and willing consent. ^[30]

Again, if one is going to interpret Paul at face value, this must be our understanding of biblical prophetic revelation. ^[31]

The idea of possession in revelation suggests another demonic phenomenon called automatic writing. The Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experiences has the following on this phenomenon:

The act of writing while in a dissociated or altered state of consciousness. Automatic writing sometimes produces astounding results that seem to be beyond the ordinary knowledge or ability of the writer. Many occultists say automatic writing is the product of communication with a discarnate being. Psychical researchers generally believe it comes from the writer’s own subconscious mind, or perhaps from information obtained through extrasensory perception (ESP).

Automatic writing is the most common form of automatism, or unconscious muscular movement often attributed to supernatural guidance. Most automatic writers want either to communicate with the dead or to contact a highly evolved discarnate [spiritual] being who will dispense wisdom.

In some cases automatic writing happens involuntarily, as in the case of Anna Windsor. In 1860 Windsor, a hysteric who suffered fits of delirium, began automatic writing with her right hand, which she derisively called “Stump.” Stump had a personality of its own, writing out verses and prose while her left hand did other things.

The writer usually is unaware of what is being written. Some people experience a tingling sensation in the arms or hands. Typically, automatic writing is far more rapid than normal writing; as a consequence many words are joined together. The script is larger and more expansive than the writer’s own script, and in some cases has duplicated the handwriting of the deceased person who has been contacted. . . .

Automatic writing was used a great deal during the height of Spiritualism [i.e. 18^th to 19^th century occultism], when mediums found it to be a better means of communicating with the dead than the laborious methods of rapping or the planchette (the precursor of the Ouija). . . .

From the mid-nineteenth century and early decades of the twentieth century, many people attempted automatic writing as a way to communicate with dead friends and relatives. Numerous literary works were produced through automatic writing from unknown discarnates who suddenly announced their appearance. . . .

Automatic writing continues to be used in modern times in attempts to reach the dead or discarnate beings. It was used in the early twentieth century in the famous “psychic excavations” of Glastonbury, England. Automatic writing has periodic upswings of popularity, influenced to a great extent by popular authors on the occult.

Critics warn of dangers in automatic writing. According to some, the writer is vulnerable to harassment or possession by demonic spirits and the evil-minded dead. ^[32] . . . .

Problems associated with motor antomatisms [like automatic writing] include compulsion, obsession, and a feeling of possession. The automatism may go out of control until a person feels taken over by it. Some people who experiment with automatic writing, inviting communication from any entity who cares to answer, say they feel possessed by demons who torment them mentally and physically, even rape them. . . . The effects usually disappear in time, or after an exorcism. ^[33]

The kind of demonic possession revelation that can come through automatic writing is illustrated in the obviously demonic literature of Helen Schuchman. In the preface to her book, A Course on Miracles, she claimed that:

[Jesus Christ] seemed to be giving me a kind of rapid, inner dictation which I took down in a shorthand notebook. It made me very uncomfortable, but it never seriously occurred to me to stop. It seemed to be a special assignment I had somehow, somewhere agreed to complete. ^[34]

The book in general describes how to perform miracles, and includes references to God, the Holy Spirit, and even occasional references to Christ. However, its contents are very unbiblical claiming that God did not create the world, the world was made as an attack on God, the body was made as a limitation on love, human nature is fundamentally good, miracles are waiting to happen, if we just recognize the fact that we have the power to perform them, death is a dream, there is no judgment, and salvation is entering into the freedom that awaits anyone who has faith in themselves.

The publisher claims that over two million copies of the book have been sold and it has been translated into several languages. The material is supported by the Unity Churches, a metaphysical cult, and has recently been promoted by Oprah Winfrey. ^[35]

The fact that automatic writing is closely associated with demonic possession, and has no biblical support, makes it particularly alarming that it was a fundamental phenomenon at the very beginning of the modern glossaist [tongues] movement. Hank Hanegraaff, who has himself adopted charismatic theology, nonetheless relates that:

Endtime restorationism [the belief that the first century gifts have been restored to the twentieth century Church] had its genesis [remarkably] in the early morning hours of the first day of the twentieth century. A twenty-seven-year-old preacher from Topeka, Kansas, named Charles Parham placed his hands on the head of his young student, Agnes Ozman.

Suddenly, a “halo seemed to surround her head and face” and Agnes began to speak in Chinese. For three solid days [according to Parham’s followers] she was utterly incapable of speaking a single word in English [out of control]. Even more incredibly, when she tried to write, only Chinese characters would emerge from her pen.

Ozman’s experience became the catalyst for other students in Parham’s class to seek the gift of tongues. It wasn’t long before many of them, like Agnes, began to speak in languages they had never studied. ^[36]

Again, the kind of possession revelation that comes through automatic writing is not biblical, but clearly demonic. ^[37] When God commanded a recipient of divine revelation to record it, there is no hint of automatic writing. Rather, it seems God deemed the human recipient sufficiently capable of accurately recording the revelation to effectively communicate it. And if mistakes were made that would obscure God’s intended message, surely He could have corrected the messenger. ^[38]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. We claim that all biblical Prophets who describe how they received their revelations, describe them as coming through visions. Can you think of any exceptions?

1. The fact that all prophecy is described in Scripture as coming through visions, what does this say about modern prophetism where such things are even rarely claimed?
2. What are some verses of Scripture that indicate how God feels about someone claiming the gift of prophecy or “a word from the Lord” when they actually have neither?
3. We claim that God has never simply put thoughts in someone’s mind, and expected them to recognize those thoughts as coming from God, without some sort of miraculous authentication. Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. What is unbiblical and even dangerous about Wayne Grudem’s definition of the gift of prophecy as “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind”?
5. Why is there a modern aversion to the idea that God dictated words to the Prophets? What biblical examples of dictation do we suggest? Do you agree or disagree?
6. What are the problems with claiming that biblical Prophets experienced a “possession” that relieved them of control? How would you reconcile 1 Corinthians 14:32 and 2 Peter 1:21?
7. What is automatic writing and why must anything to do with the Holy Spirit be distinguished from it?

Recommended Reading

• Section 10.11 concerning revelation through visions.
• Chapter 4.8 regarding “Christian ecstasy” in the experience of biblical Prophets.

Publications & Particulars

1. Regarding the revelation that Moses received, see section 10.10.B. ↑

2. Regarding divine revelation through visions see section 10.11.A. ↑

3. Regarding the visions that Christ and the Apostles experienced see chapter 8.3. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. We are not aware of any descriptions of biblical Prophets receiving revelation in a way other than visions and dreams. There is no biblical evidence for the common idea of “inspiration” involving some sort of divine/human mental telepathy. In addition, the idea that biblical Prophets were somehow possessed and uncontrollably blurted out revelation has more to do with pagan prophets than biblical ones (cf. 1 Cor 14:29-33; section 9.4.B.2). ↑

6. For further discussion of the fact that the Apostle John was also a Christian Prophet possessing the NT gift of prophecy see section 9.7.H. ↑

7. We also believe that there was a revelatory vision behind God’s statement to some Prophets, “I have put My words in your mouth” (Isa 51:16). While some, no doubt, would want to infer some sort of divine/human mental telepathy in such a statement, it only describes the result of the revelation given, not the method. Accordingly, the first time this language is used, it is in the context of how Aaron would receive revelation from Moses. God said to Moses:

   You shall speak to him [Aaron] and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. . . . your brother Aaron will be your Prophet. (Ex 4:15-16; 7:1)

   Here, the process by which Moses was to put words in Aaron’s mouth was to “speak to him.”

   Likewise, we see this statement being made in the context of a vision. We read of Balaam: “The LORD put a message in Balaam’s mouth and said [in the accompanying vision], “Go back to Balak and give him this message” (Num 23:5). Likewise, God said to Jeremiah, “I have put My words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9), and immediately asks the Prophet, “What do you see” in a vision. ↑

8. Hippolytus, Antichrist, 2.31; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

9. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 23, Book V. ch. 6.1; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

10. Accordingly, we disagree with the Westminster Theological Journal which states:

    As Robinson states, “[a Prophet] was potentially able to regard any thought, which came to him with sufficient intensity or impressiveness, as a divine word. What ultimate test he applied in any particular instance is beyond our power to examine.” WTJ 56:2 (Fall 1994), 246. ↑

11. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1049. ↑

12. C. S. Lewis wrote:

    A fundamentalist view of the Bible, such as that advanced by John R. Rice, posits divine dictation to biblical writers who functioned as secretaries of the Holy Spirit. Rice’s view of inspiration as dictation implies that God gave the very words that men wrote down in Holy Scripture. “A secretary is not ashamed to take dictation from man. Why would a prophet be ashamed to take dictation from God?”

    Rice seeks to safeguard the human element in Scripture by maintaining that God pre­pared the writers in advance so that their style, vocabulary, and personality are included in the writing in accord with God’s plan. What he wishes to avoid is that the biblical writers engaged in historical research, utilized oral tradi­tions, or acquired information from eye witnesses. All Scripture came in a straight line from God to the human writers. Rice’s theory of dictation bor­ders on the docetic: “The Scriptures are fundamentally the Word of God, not the word of men, except in some in­cidental and controlled and limited sense. (M. J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture [Word, 1979], 135) ↑

13. Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vols. 1 & 2 (Harper & Row, 1978), 55. ↑

14. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Baker, 1999). ↑

15. For a critique of the popular Evangelical attempt to find a “one-theory-fits-all” approach to how Scripture was written see chapter 8.8. ↑

16. David Jensen, The Revelation of God (Intervarsity, 2002), 158-9. ↑

17. Bruce Demarest & Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 Vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), I.137. ↑

18. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Unpublished syllabus, 1955), 160. ↑

19. Webster’s Dictionary online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/dictation. ↑

20. Erwin Lutzer, Seven Convincing Miracles (Moody, 1999), 22-3. ↑

21. D. A. Carson suggests the attractive claim that the Hebrew words imrâ and dābar [both generally meaning “speech” or “word”] can be significantly differentiated and imrâ “places emphasis on the actual words spoken or written as opposed to the general content of a message.” (Scripture and Truth [Baker, 1992], 30). This would be helpful in distinguishing instances of dictation in the OT, but the TWOT does not mention anything of this distinction, defining the two words as virtual synonyms (54-55; 170). ↑

22. Regarding the claim that the prediction in Deuteronomy 18:18 is referring to Christ see section 8.3.B.2. ↑

23. Other promises of the Holy Spirit giving the Apostles words to say when confronted by authorities (cf. Matt 10:19-20; Luke 12:11-12) may be instances of dictation as well and are discussed in section 7.16.C.4. ↑

24. Athenagoras, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: A Plea for the Christians, vol. 2 (Eerdmans, 1989), 132. ↑

25. Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Corinthians, 2Cor. 13:2b, 3; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

26. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Westminster Press, 1975), 305. ↑

27. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the NT, 1 Cor 14:32; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

28. Charles Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will (Word, 1999), 32. ↑

29. Regarding the mindless mania and uncontrolled behavior of pagan prophets in distinction to Christian Prophets and behavior see chapter 4.8. ↑

30. Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1987), 103. ↑

31. Unfortunately, neither David Aune (Prophecy in Early Christianity & the Ancient Mediterranean World), nor the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology provide any commentary on 2 Peter 1:21. ↑

32. Rosemary E. Guiley, Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (Harper Collins, 1991), 45-6. ↑

33. Ibid., 48. ↑

34. Helen Schuchman, A Course in Miracles (Foundation for Inner Peace, 1992), viii. ↑

35. References include: Hank Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture (State University of New York Press, 1996), 37–38; Lutzer, 76; and www.Wikipedia.com. ↑

36. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Word, 1997), 125. ↑

37. Accordingly, the influential twentieth century French Reformed theologian Auguste Lucerf is rather wrong to claim:

    It is possible, however, to be too exclusive in condemning the automatic, process en bloc. God is free, absolutely free, as regards the modes of inspiration which it may please Him to adopt. His wisdom is infinitely varied. We must take inspiration as it is given. It would be absurd to deny the intervention of the writer’s personality in an epistle like that of Paul to the Galatians. But it is by no means certain that cases of automatism do not exist elsewhere (cf. Exodus 34: 27, 28). I think again of certain passages in Ezekiel and in the Apocalypse. (An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics [Lutterworth, 1949], 310. ↑

38. For more on how Scripture was written see chapters 8.8-8.10. ↑