Chapter 9.6

The Divine Authority of Biblical Prophets

Equal to Apostles

Table of Topics

A) The Divine Authority of Biblical Prophets

B) OT Evidence for the Authority of Biblical Prophets

C) Christian Prophets Were Equal to Apostles in Authority

C.1) Christian Prophets & Apostles Were the Foundation of the Church: Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11

C.2) Christian Prophets Authenticated Apostles: 1 Cor 14:37-38

C.3) Why are Apostles First?: 1 Cor 12:28

C.4) Ignoring & Testing Prophets Does Not Diminish Their Authority 1 Thess 5:19-21

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• In the OT, if a would-be “prophet” spoke something other than what God had “commanded” them “to say,” they were to be more than exhorted or even excommunicated, but they were to be exterminated.
• God ensured that those with the gift of prophecy infallibly spoke so that the people who refused such a prophecy could justly be held accountable.
• Because God wanted the Prophets words to be His words, He enabled and therefore expected Prophets to speak infallibly. God told Jeremiah, “Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word”
• To disbelieve or disobey a real Prophet of God was to disbelieve or disobey God Himself.
• Therefore, it becomes apparent that we had better know who really is a Prophet of God, lest we sin against Him as well.
• Perhaps the clearest indication of the authority of NT Prophets was their equality with NT Apostles.
• Both Apostles and Christian Prophets were the foundations of the New Covenant revelation and the Church.
• The superiority of Apostles does not involve a greater reliability or amount of authority, but rather, the greater scope of their authority. While an Apostle’s ministry normally included whole regions of churches, the Prophets primarily confined themselves to a local congregation. This may explain why there were female Prophets in the early Church, but not female Apostles.
• The fact that the NT implies that Christians might ignore or test a NT Prophet says nothing negative about their perceived authority. OT Prophets and NT Apostles were ignored and tested as well.

A) The Divine Authority of Biblical Prophets

In a classic biblical description of God-sent Prophets, God told the people that:

If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My name, I Myself will call him to account. But a Prophet who presumes to speak in My name anything I have not commanded him to say . . . must be put to death. (Deut 18:19-20)

Having the gift of prophecy is very serious business. Obviously, because God said the Prophet’s words were “My words,” biblical Prophets possessed nothing less than divine authority. And it was because of the very serious claim to speak for God to His people, that if a would-be “prophet” merely presumed to have a word from the Lord, but it was not what God had “commanded” them “to say” they were to be more than exhorted or even excommunicated, but they were to be exterminated.

Because those with the real gift of prophecy speak God’s words, they commonly prefaced their statements with, “This is what the Lord says . . .” (80 times in Jeremiah alone). Likewise, the Christian Prophet Agabus prefaced his revelation with, “The Holy Spirit says” (Acts 21:11). The Prophets words were not their words, but God’s words.

In contrast, modern prophetism has redefined the Christian Prophet. For example, Dr. Wayne Grudem has written that the words of Christian Prophets in the early Church were: “not equal to Scripture in authority and [were] simply a very human-and sometimes partially mistaken-report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.” ^[1] Contrary to modern prophetism, the Church’s historical belief has been that, “no prophecy of Scripture [which derived from the same gift of prophecy possessed by Christian Prophets ^[2]] came about by the Prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20). But Dr. Grudem is saying that modern prophecy is precisely the “prophet’s” own interpretation/understanding of what God is supposedly saying to him.

The reason that God ensured that those with the gift of prophecy infallibly spoke what He commanded them to say, was to ensure that the people who refused such a prophecy could justly be held accountable for disobeying the Prophet and therefore disobeying God.

Christian scholars who reflect the historical view of the Church regarding the gift of prophecy and reject the popular view of modern prophetism include the following. Dr. Robert L. Thomas of the Master’s Seminary notes, “Prophecy would have been an exercise in futility if recipients of its messages had the choice of accepting or not accepting its stipulations.” ^[3]

Robert L. Saucy, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology writes:

Prophecy in the biblical sense [is] speech which is inspired by the Spirit and therefore totally true and authoritative. . . . Since the source of genuine biblical prophecy is the Holy Spirit, attempts at arguing for different levels of prophetic authority are tenuous. . . . We have seen nothing sufficient to overturn the traditional understanding of all genuine prophecy as speech directly inspired by the Spirit of God and therefore fully authoritative” ^[4]

Finally, David Aune,, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in the Department of Theology at Loyola University, and a recognized foremost expert on the topic of Christian prophecy has written:

The Prophet was unique among early Christian leaders in that, unlike other functionaries, he claimed no personal part in the communication which he conveyed. Prophets acted as leaders in many early Christian communities because they were regarded by themselves and others as inspired spokesmen for ultimate authority, God (or Jesus, or the Spirit of God, or even an angelic mediator). ^[5]

B) OT Evidence for the Authority of Biblical Prophets

Because God wanted the Prophets words to be His words, He enabled and therefore expected Prophets to speak infallibly. Accordingly, in the first description of biblical prophecy, it is characterized as putting words in another’s mouth. 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)

Accordingly, prophecy was often described as God putting His words into the Prophet’s mouth (cf. Num 23:5; Isa 51:16; Jer 1:9). Along the same lines, God told Jeremiah, “Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word” (Jer 26:2). Accordingly, the words of biblical Prophets are synonymous with Scripture (cf. Luke 1:70; 24:27; Rom 1:1; 3:21), possessing every bit of its authority.

To disbelieve or disobey a real Prophet of God was to disbelieve or disobey God Himself (cf. Num 23:5, 12, 16; Jer 1:9; 5:14; 11:6; Isa 51:16; Ezek 3:4; Zech 7:12; Luke 1:70; Heb 1:1; 2 Pet 1:21). Accordingly, the Scriptures teach that disobeying God’s Prophets resulted in exile (cf. Neh 9:30), rebelling against God and being cursed (cf. Dan 9:9-11), and making “the Lord Almighty . . . very angry” (Zech 7:12). Therefore, it becomes apparent that we had better know who really is a Prophet of God, lest we sin against Him as well.

The influential Evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003) summarizes the historical view of the Church regarding OT Prophets when he writes:

In both speech and writing the OT Prophets are marked off by their unswerving assurance that they were spokesmen for the living God. They believed that the truths they uttered about the Most High and his works and will, and the commands and exhortations they voiced in his name, derived their origin from him and carried his authority.

The constantly repeated formula “thus saith the Lord” is so characteristic of the Prophets as to leave no doubt that they considered themselves chosen agents of the divine self-communication. Whoever impugns the confidence of the Prophets that they were instruments of the one true God in their disclosure of truths about his nature and dealings with man is driven, consistently if not necessarily, to the only possible alternative of their delusion. ^[6]

The divine authority of the OT Prophets is especially important in the modern debate regarding the authority of the biblical gift of prophecy, because as argued in section 9.4.A, a Christian Prophet with the NT gift of prophecy like Agabus had the same authority as an OT Prophet

C) Christian Prophets Were Equal to Apostles in Authority

C.1) Christian Prophets & Apostles Were the Foundation of the Church: Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11

While the divine authority of OT prophesying is obvious and widely recognized, it is apparent in the NT as well, although ardently attacked by modern prophetists. Perhaps the clearest indication of the authority of NT Prophets was their equality with NT Apostles. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul said of Christian Prophets:

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy Apostles and [NT Christian] Prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 3:4-5)

In terms of speaking direct revelation from God, Christian Prophets in the early Church possessed the same ability as the revelatory Apostles. ^[7] This is why the Apostle Paul makes the rather remarkable statement that the Church was “built on the foundation of the Apostles and [NT] Prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Both revelatory Apostles and Christian Prophets uniquely possessed the New Covenant revelation upon which the Church was founded, and because all divine revelation is absolutely and equally authoritative, Apostles and Prophets were equally authoritative.

More than this, because revelatory Apostles possessed the same authority as Christ, so then did Christian Prophets. Christ is the revelatory “cornerstone” not because He possessed more trustworthy divine revelation than the Apostles or Christian Prophets, but because as the “cornerstone” of a building, Christ provided His revelation first.

Let us note that the Apostle is referring to Christian “Prophets” in Ephesians 2:20, not OT Prophets. First, we notice the order, “[NT] Apostles and Prophets,” suggesting that if OT Prophets were meant, they might have been listed first. Secondly, the only other references to Prophets being coupled with Apostles (or references to Prophets at all) in Ephesians clearly refer to Christian Prophets (cf. 3:5; 4:11).

In 3:5 the Apostle writes with almost identical wording to 2:20, that, “the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men [i.e. OT Prophets] in other generations . . . has now [in the apostolic age] been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy Apostles and [Christian] Prophets.” Because the “Prophets” coupled with the “Apostles” in 3:5 are clearly Christian Prophets, common sense would lead us to believe that when the same coupling is expressed 6 verses earlier in 2:20 that Christian Prophets are meant as well. In fact, it was the divine revelation concerning “the mystery of Christ” (3:5) that was the essence of the foundational revelation of the Christian Prophets referred to in 2:20. ^[8]

Thirdly, as Dr. Farnell writes:

The context of Ephesians 2:20 also favors the view that New Testament Prophets are meant. If Old Testament Prophets were meant, it is difficult to account for Christ being the Cornerstone, that is, the first stone laid in the foundation. Christ, as the New Covenant Mediator, is in view in verses 14–18, and He came in that role long after the Old Testament Prophets. The fact that a cornerstone of a building is laid before any other stones suggests the chronological order of first, Jesus, then the Apostles, and then New Testament Prophets. ^[9]

The biblical fact that Christian Prophets possessing the gift of prophecy possessed the same divine revelation as the revelatory Apostles, clearly argues against the second-rate counterfeit prophecy claimed in prophetism. Indeed, Dr. Grudem admits:

Now if New Testament congregational prophecy was like . . . New Testament apostolic words in its authority, then [historicism ^[10]] would indeed be true. ^[11]

More specifically concerning the above verses in Ephesians, Dr. Grudem admits:

If [Eph 2:20 is] referring to all the [Christian] Prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with [historicists and] would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete. ^[12]

Not surprisingly, then, prophetists such as Dr. Grudem have attempted to creatively, although unconvincingly, reinterpret the above passages in Ephesians, claiming that they are referring to “Apostles who prophesy,” with no reference to Christian Prophets at all. Accordingly, Dr. Grudem, in an 18 page discussion concludes:

[It] seems best to conclude that Ephesians 2:20 means that the church is ‘built upon the foundation of the Apostles who are also Prophets’.” ^[13]

Likewise, in a footnote of his Systematic Theology he writes:

I have a long discussion of Eph. 2:20 in The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, pp. 45-63, in which I argue that Paul says that the church is “built up on the foundation of the Apostle-Prophets” (or “Apostles who are also Prophets”). This is a grammatically acceptable translation of the phrase tōn apostolōn kai Prophetōn. As such, the passage refers [only] to the Apostles [and not Christian Prophets at all], to whom the mystery of Gentile inclusion in the church was revealed (see Eph. 3:5, which specifies that this mystery “has now been revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets, or “Apostle-Prophets” or, “Apostles who are also Prophets” by the Spirit”). ^[14]

Unfortunately, even the very respected NT scholar D. A. Carson, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School writes:

[Grudem’s] lengthy discussion demonstrates, at the least, how complex is the detailed exegesis of that verse, and how cautious our deductions should be under any interpretation of it. If we conclude, against Grudem, that the “prophets” in question here enjoy a role with the Apostles in providing the revelatory foundation for Christianity (although that is not quite what is said [on the contrary it is expressly implied]), we must hasten to admit that this is an anomalous [unusual] use of “Prophets” in the New Testament.

It is as illegitimate for [historicists] to use this verse as the controlling factor in his understanding of the New Testament gift of prophecy as it would be to conclude from Titus 1:12 (“Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons'”) that New Testament prophets were pagan poets from Crete. ^[15]

Several responses to Dr. Carson are in order. First, it seems rather convenient to suggest that the grammatical construction of the clearest statements regarding NT Prophets are too “complex” to make confident “deductions” about their interpretation. In one fell swoop, Dr. Carson has essentially dismissed these Ephesian passages from the discussion of the nature of NT prophecy. And note that neither he nor Dr. Grudem must clearly prove their position, but merely placing these passages in the trash can of “obscured by complexity” is enough. Nevertheless, another Greek scholar, Thomas R. Edgar, Professor of New Testament at Capital Seminary remarks:

Carson’s assertion that the exegesis of this verse [Eph. 2:20] is so complex that any deductions from it should be used with caution is incorrect. . . . Ephesians 2:20 could not be more clear. The verse contains no difficult words, nor any difficult or unusual grammatical constructions. ^[16]

Secondly, even if we admit the relative rarity of NT statements referring to Christian Prophets as a, “revelatory foundation for Christianity,” this is no argument against the fact that this is precisely what is being stated three times in Ephesians (cf. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). As noted above, 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.

Thirdly, Dr. Carson’s bias against the clarity of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 seems exposed when he claims that their value and clearness regarding Christian Prophets is no better than an off hand remark regarding pagan prophets in Titus 1:12. The Apostle Paul is not teaching about Christian Prophets in Titus 1:12, but he is in the Ephesians passages.

Let us understand, then, what proponents of the enormously popular prophetism need to agree to in order to claim that their position is biblical and acceptable to God. In essence, when we read the following passages, we are to conclude that the Apostle is only referring to Apostles and not Christian Prophets at all:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the Apostles and [kai] Prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph 2:19-20)

In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations [OT Prophets] as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy Apostles and [kai] Prophets. (Eph. 3:4-5)

We trust most will not be able to agree with the prophetist interpretation of this text, and if so, then most should also reject prophetism all together, because, as Dr. Grudem himself admits, “if New Testament congregational prophecy was like . . . New Testament apostolic words in its authority, then [historicism] would indeed be true” ^[17] and prophetism would indeed be a monumental fraud.

As summarized by both Dr.’s Grudem and Carson, the foundation of the prophetists’ reinterpretation of the Apostle’s references to Christian Prophets in Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 is based on what even they admit to be an inconsistent rule of Greek grammar. The Greek text of 2:20 reads simply “tōn apostolōn kai prophētōn” (lit. “the Apostles and Prophets”). The rule of Greek grammar concerns the use of kai (“and”) between the two nouns apostolōn and prophētōn, prefaced with one definite article, tōn (“the”). Greek grammarians admit that in such a construction there is a slight possibility that the “and” in the text does not have its normal meaning of distinguishing two different things. However, even Dr. Carson admits that the rule is inconclusive, and that only the context, which any careful reader can ascertain, will determine the correct translation of such constructions. ^[18]

If the context is to be the determining factor of the meaning of Ephesians 2:20, than the prophetist’s interpretation of it is, as Robert Gaffin, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster wrote several years ago, “unlikely, even forced.” ^[19] Dr. R. Fowler White, Professor of New Testament and Biblical Languages at Knox Seminary summarizes Dr. Gaffin’s view concerning the context of Ephesians 2:20:

First, in Eph 4:11 the Apostle plainly distinguishes Apostles and Prophets as separate groups. Second, in 1 Cor 12:28, the only NT text outside Ephesians where Apostles and Prophets are mentioned together, Paul again clearly distinguishes between them. Third, Paul nowhere else designates the Apostles, either individually or collectively, as “Prophets,” thus casting doubt on any proposal that he did so in Eph 2:20. Fourth and finally, since Paul nowhere else identifies Apostles as Prophets, an attempt on his part to do so in Eph 2:20 would have been lost on his readers “without at least some word of explanation, especially since he goes on in the same context (4:11) to reinforce the conventional usage.” ^[20]

Neither Dr. Carson nor Dr. Grudem seem to acknowledge that the immediate context of Ephesians (cf. 4:11) and the broader NT context (cf. 1 Cor 12:28) of Ephesians 2:20, which Dr. Carson deems so important to understanding it, clearly describe Apostles and NT Prophets as two different ministries.

The rather desperate lengths that prophetists are willing to take would seem illustrated in Dr. Grudem’s admission that Ephesians 4:11 is a reference to Christian Prophets, distinct from Apostles, but he contends the Apostle is referring to a different type of Christian Prophet than the ones in 2:20. ^[21] Again, this is a convenient interpretation for prophetism, just not a convincing or very honest one. Nothing in the intervening verses reflects a shift in meaning to a second group of Prophets in the Apostle’s mind. It can be added that it is just this type of textual manipulation that Dr. Grudem engages in, in the name of “Greek rules of grammar,” that gives seminary scholars the same kind of reputation for some in the Church, that lawyers have in society in general.

Seemingly less biased NT scholars have rejected the prophetist’s view of Ephesians 2:20. For example, the eminent NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) wrote:

These Prophets [in Eph. 2:20], as elsewhere in this epistle where they are conjoined with Apostles (Eph. 3:5; 4:11), are Christian Prophets. The fact that the definite article is not repeated before “Prophets” does not imply that the Prophets and Apostles are identical. ^[22]

Indeed, Greek scholar Daniel Wallace has demonstrated that the construction that Dr. Grudem proposes is found nowhere else in the NT. ^[23]

After a relatively detailed analysis of Dr. Grudem’s thesis, Harold Hoehner (1935-2009), former Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary concluded: “In the present context the church’s foundation consists of apostles and [Christian] prophets” ^[24]

Regarding the “prophets” in Eph 2:20 John Stott concludes as well:

The reference must again be to a small group of inspired teachers, associated with the apostles, who together bore witness to Christ and whose teaching was derived from revelation (cf. Eph 3:5) and was foundational. In practical terms this means that the church is built on the New Testament Scriptures. ^[25]

Noted NT scholar Peter O’Brien concludes regarding the “Prophets” in Eph 2:20:

The prophets are New Testament prophets, not Old Testament ones. . . . Together with the apostles, [Christian] prophets were the first authoritative recipients and proclaimers of God’s revelation in Christ. . . . ‘The apostles and Christian prophets are both seen as those whom God made known the revelation of the gospel’, and who were the first proclaimers of it. To assert then, that these Gentile believers were built upon the apostles and [Christian] prophets is to state that their membership in God’s people rests on the normative teaching that arises from divine revelation. ^[26]

Likewise, NT scholar Andrew T. Lincoln writes of these “Prophets”:

The prophets are NT prophets. . . . The apostles and [NT] prophets are foundational in the sense of being primary and authoritative recipients and proclaimers of revelation. ^[27]

Even the Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee states: “the evidence of [Eph] 4:11 and I Cor 12:28 seems determinative here that the Apostle intends two different kinds of establishing ministry . . .” ^[28]

Therefore, the clear meaning of Ephesians regarding the revelatory equality of Christian Prophets and Apostles stands, and a critical argument supporting prophetism is non-existent. It is perhaps because of the scholarly refutations that Dr. Grudem’s approach has received, ^[29] that more recently he has said the issue that he has devoted multiple pages in defending, turns out to be unimportant:

I do not think that Eph. 2:20 has much relevance to the entire discussion of the nature of the gift of prophecy. Whether we see one group here as I do (Apostle-Prophets) or two groups, as [historicists] do (Apostles and Prophets), we all agree that these Prophets are ones who provided the foundation of the church, and therefore these are Prophets who spoke infallible words of God.

Where we disagree is on the question of whether this verse describes the character of all who had the gift of prophecy in the New Testament churches. I see no convincing evidence that it describes all who prophesied in the early church. Rather, the context clearly indicates a very limited group of Prophets who were (a) part of the very foundation of the church, (b) closely connected with the Apostles, and (c) recipients of the revelation from God that the Gentiles were equal members with Jews in the church (Eph. 3:5). Whether we say this group was only the Apostles, or was a small group of Prophets closely associated with the Apostles who spoke Scripture-quality words, we are still left with a picture of a very small and unique group of people who provide this foundation for the church universal. ^[30]

Likewise, a foremost promoter of prophetism and former associate Professor of Theology at Wheaton, C. Samuel Storms has written regarding Ephesians 2:20:

Paul is describing a limited group of Prophets who were closely connected to the Apostles, both of which groups spoke Scripture-quality words essential to the foundation of the church universal. ^[31]

Now, evidently, Dr. Grudem and other prophetists are more willing to concede that Ephesians 2:20 is indeed speaking of Christian Prophets. But in order to maintain biblical support for prophetism they attempt another strategy: simply stating what cannot be proven. We heartily agree with Dr. Grudem’s and Storms’ concession to the divine, apostolic-like authority that these Prophets mentioned in Eph 2:20 and 3:5 had, but there is no biblical evidence in Ephesians that the Apostle distinguished them from others with the gift of prophecy as listed in 4:11, nor is there any evidence in the NT that they were “a very small,” “unique,” or “limited” group that is to be distinguished from other Christian Prophets in the early Church. Once again, a fundamental argument for modern prophetism is false, and proponents of it would do well to take heed of this and stop misrepresenting God on this issue.

C.2) Christian Prophets Authenticated Apostles:

1 Cor 14:37-38

We find additional proof that the authority of Christian Prophets was equal to that of Apostles in 1 Corinthians. Because authentic NT prophecy was direct “revelation from the Lord” (14:30) the Apostle said, “If anybody thinks he is a Prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge [i.e. confirm, authenticate] that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (14:37). The Apostle is asking those with the gift of prophecy in the Corinthian congregation to authenticate the Apostle’s authority as an Apostle. How could the Apostle expect a NT Prophet to confidently confirm that his apostolic statements were infallible, extra-biblical divine revelation if they did not also possess the same thing? The Apostle wanted to use the revelatory abilities and recognized divine authority of the authentic Christian Prophets in Corinth to strengthen his position on the issues he is discussing as their Apostle. If the Corinthian Prophets confirmed that what the Apostle was saying was a command from God, it was to be obeyed as such. Therefore, the Apostle knew that the true Prophets could authenticate him.

Which makes Dr. Grudem’s claim that in these verses the Apostle, “claims authority far greater than any Prophet at Corinth” ^[32] unlikely. ^[33] On the contrary, the Apostle is not attempting to put authentic NT Prophets under his thumb, but rather work with them to instruct and correct the Corinthian church.

On the other hand, a true Apostle can expose false prophets. Paul goes on to state that if “anyone,” (obviously not a real Christian Prophet) did not agree that the Apostle’s words were divinely authoritative, that person was to be rejected as having any authority at all (cf. 14:38). ^[34] Evidently, several people were claiming that they spoke directly for God (sound familiar?). How were the Corinthians to know if they were authentic? An additional test that the Apostle suggests is that they would know and agree that the instruction that the Apostle was writing was divine revelation from God. If they did recognize it, they were to be heeded with the authority that authentic NT Prophets had. If they refused to recognize this they were fake prophets. Such a rejection was not because the dissenting person was some sort of second-rate prophet who did not have the kind of divine revelation or authority of Apostles, but because they were not a Prophet at all. And he hoped that the fake prophets who would refuse his instruction would be “ignored.”

C.3) Why are Apostles First?: 1 Cor 12:28

While the rightly respected NT scholar John Stott agrees with our interpretation of the “Prophets” in Ephesians 2:20 as discussed above, and contrary to prophetism, he agrees with several other perspectives of the modern prophet movement. Accordingly, he writes in his excellent commentary on Romans:

So that reference [Eph 2:20] to foundation-prophets is likely to be to the biblical prophets, including those New Testament authors who were prophets as well as apostles, such as Paul and John.

In two lists of charismata, however, prophets are placed in a secondary position to the apostles, suggesting that there was a lesser prophetic gift, subsidiary to that of the biblical prophets. Words spoken by such prophets were to be ‘weighed’ and ‘tested’, whereas the apostles were to be believed and obeyed, and no sifting process was deemed appropriate or necessary in their case. ^[35]

For Dr. Stott, then, these perspectives suggest that Christian Prophets possessed less divine authority than Apostles. Our next two points explain why we would disagree.

While we claim Christian Prophets possessed the same revelatory abilities and authority as Christian Apostles, the Bible does seem to rank Apostles above Prophets when these gifts are listed. Paul says, “And in the church God has appointed first of all Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers. . .” (1 Cor 12:28; cp. Eph. 2:20; 3:4-5; 4:11). We have established elsewhere that Paul intends to prioritize these gifts in order of importance to the Church. ^[36] So again, why would Apostles be more important than Prophets? ^[37]

Elsewhere we have written in regard to the kind of divine revelation given to Apostles and Prophets:

It would seem the clearest difference in these gifts is that those of the Apostles operated in a more abiding way with a more general application to the universal Church, while prophetic revelation came in a more spontaneous way with a more specific application to an individual or local church. By abiding revelation we mean that the gifts of divine wisdom and knowledge gave the Apostles a store or depository of divine knowledge to write from, rather than being directly, spontaneously, and continuously “inspired” as they wrote.

Accordingly, the Apostle seems to distinguish the gift of “knowledge” from a “revelation” or a “prophecy” in 1 Corinthians 14:6, suggesting that the latter two may be a more spontaneous, immediately given revelation, while “knowledge” may suggest a one time deposit of divine revelation and knowledge which numerous subsequent “words” or messages of divine wisdom and knowledge were based upon. . . .

As noted above, we would suggest that the gift of prophecy operated on a more spontaneous, circumstantially driven nature, most often applying to specific needs of the moment. This distinction cannot be pressed too dogmatically as NT Prophets were also recipients of new extra-biblical doctrine authoritative and applicable to the universal Church (cf. Eph 2:20; 3:5). Nonetheless, the abiding and more general supernatural knowledge of NT Apostles has historically been distinguished from the more spontaneous and specific revelation of Prophets.

This may be the best explanation of why Paul considers the gift of Apostleship “first” and Christian “Prophets second” “in the church” (1 Cor 12:28), and always lists Apostles before NT Prophets (cf. Eph 2:20; 4:11). Both possessed absolutely authoritative revelation from God, but the revelation of Apostles was more important as it more often dictated what the universal Church was to obey and believe. Perhaps it was the more local and specific revelation of the Prophets that made them “second” in the Church.

Accordingly, Dr. Hodge wrote concerning Paul’s mention of the gift of “prophecy” in Romans 12:6:

From these and numerous similar passages, it appears that the prophets in the Christian church were men who spoke under the immediate influence of the Spirit of God, and delivered some divine communication relating to doctrinal truths, to present duty, to future events, etc., as the case might be.

The point of distinction between them and the Apostles, considered as religious teachers, appears to have been that the inspiration of the Apostles was abiding, they were the infallible and authoritative messengers of Christ; whereas the inspiration of the Prophets was occasional and transient. The latter differed from the teachers, inasmuch as these were not necessarily inspired, but taught to others what they themselves had learned from the Scriptures, or from inspired men. ^[38]

For example, the prophecies in chapters 2-3 of Revelation illustrate the more temporal and specific nature of prophetic revelation. These prophetic utterances were customized to the strengths and needs of individual churches. This is similar to the specificity of Nathan’s prophecy to King David concerning his “private” sin (cf. 2 Sam 12:1ff), or Agabus’ personal prophecy to the Apostle Paul. Accordingly, it would seem the revelation that Christian Prophets received was especially characterized by the needs of a particular people at a particular time and did not normally have the enduring or universal authority of the revelations of Apostles. This is perhaps why Apostles wrote the great majority of NT Scripture, rather than Christian Prophets. ^[39]

Of course, prophetism would use such a ranking to insist that the authority of NT Apostles was greater than NT Prophets because the latter were prone to errors in their revelation. However, the superiority of Apostles does not involve a greater reliability or amount of authority, but rather, the greater scope of their authority. This would seem to be illustrated in a couple of general ways, none of which contradict the additional NT data that Prophets were recipients of the foundational NT revelation (cf. Eph 2:20; 3:4-5).

First, it may be suggested that while an Apostle’s ministry normally included whole regions of churches, the Prophets primarily confined themselves to a local congregation. In fact, it may be suggested that in general, Apostles were on the move, visiting many congregations, while Christian Prophets were more stationary. Indeed, we read in the influential early Church document the Didache (c. 70):

Now concerning the apostles and prophets, deal with them as follows in accordance with the rule of the gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is a need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. . . .

But every genuine prophet who wishes to settle among you “is worthy of his food.” Likewise, every genuine teacher is, like “the worker, worthy of his food.” Take, therefore, all the firstfruits of the produce of the wine press and threshing floor, and of the cattle and sheep, and give these firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests. ^[40]

Accordingly, John MacArthur writes:

It seems that the office of Prophet was exclusively for work within a local congregation, whereas that of Apostleship was a much broader ministry, not confined to any area, as implied in the word apostolos (“one who is sent on a mission”). Paul, for example, is referred to as a Prophet when he ministered locally in the Antioch church (Acts 13:1), but elsewhere is always called an Apostle. ^[41]

Again, we would state this as a generality, as Agabus obviously operated outside of “a local congregation.”

Likewise, another commentator writes:

Another distinction between Apostles and Prophets is in their sphere of responsibility. Whereas the Apostles’ responsibility was to minister to the church at large and to extend its borders, those who were Prophets only, while they may have been generally available, usually served in settled situations, being attached to a single local church (Acts 13:1; 15:32 ). ^[42]

Because prophetic ministries were generally focused on more specific locales, most believe their revelations had a corresponding specificity in their application as well. For example, we recognize this very difference in the scope of the divine revelation the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians, and the personal prophecy given to the Apostle by Agabus (cf. Acts 21:10-11). The former was for the universal Church for all time, while the latter was for one person regarding a specific event. Along these lines, Anthony Thiselton shares, “virtually all studies of the subject [NT prophecy] agree that it addressed issues of the moment.” ^[43] Likewise, Dr. MacArthur writes:

Another distinction between the two offices may have been that the apostolic message was more general and doctrinal, whereas that of the Prophets was more personal and practical. ^[44]

This may explain why the NT Church had female Prophets, but not female Apostles. The biblical limitations placed on female authority over congregations and men would prohibit them in exercising the greater scope of apostolic authority. However, because a Prophetess’ revelations and authority would be more confined to other females in the congregation, so would the scope of her revelations and authority. ^[45]

In summary, then, Paul ranked Apostles above Prophets because of their greater scope of ministry, not because of some deficiency in the divinity or reliability of a Prophet’s authority. And, as noted, the distinctions suggested above must not be pressed too far, such that the revelatory equality between Apostles and NT Prophets reflected in Ephesians is dismissed.

While the distinction above can be suggested generally, the balance in all this data may best be reflected in Revelation. As illustrated in the next chapter, this is the best example of what the NT gift of prophecy was like. Accordingly, it is interesting to note that this NT prophecy included both specific, localized, rather temporarily applicable revelation “to the seven churches” (Rev 1:11; cf. chs. 2-3) of Asia Minor c. 95 A. D, and revelation universally applicable to the entire Church and the Church age. Both kinds of revelation were absolutely authoritative, and products of the NT gift of prophecy, but with a difference in scope.

C.4) Ignoring & Testing Prophets Does Not Diminish Their Authority 1 Thess 5:19-21

The Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good” (1 Thess 5:19-21). Here, prophetists find a couple of reasons to claim that Christians did not think NT Prophets reliably spoke the word of God. What prophetists sometimes imply is that the gift of prophecy was viewed as such an unreliable medium of revelation in the early Church, that “contempt” for Christian Prophets was rather widespread, prompting Paul to address it.

Even if that was true, since when are God’s Prophets blamed for the disrespectful response of people? If there was any “contempt” toward the real gift of prophecy in the early Church, it was not because Christians believed the words of real God-sent prophecies were mixed with error. Accordingly, we do not interpret the contempt the Apostle Paul received from the Corinthian church ^[46] as a reflection on the questionable value of apostolic revelation. Likewise, Christians today show contempt for Scripture itself, but this is not a reflection on the reliability and authority of Scripture, but on the heart of the Christian. Accordingly, it was precisely because real Christian Prophets were a source of reliable divine revelation, that Paul told the Thessalonians, “do not treat prophecies with contempt.”

Neither does Paul’s instruction to “test everything,” apparently including prophecies, suggest a diminished authority for Christian Prophets. Nevertheless, the rightly respected Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee writes regarding the Apostle Paul’s understanding of Christian Prophets:

Although the prophetic tradition of the OT probably lay behind Pauline understanding [e.g. OT Prophets possessed absolute divine authority], at no point does he understand the prophet to be speaking anything other than an ad hoc [impromptu, unprepared] word. This is evidenced by the fact that for Paul it must be “weighed” or “tested.” Thus, there is never any sense that a prophetic word was to be raised to the level of “inspired text.” ^[47]

Likewise, in his excellent commentary on 1 Thessalonians, John Stott writes:

[The Apostle Paul] gave the Thessalonians no command to test his teaching, as they were to test the words of the prophets, in order to sift the wheat from the chaff, the good from the evil, the genuine from the spurious. They were to weigh prophetic utterances, because not all of them were from God; but they were to listen to everything the Apostle wrote, and were expected to believe and obey it all. Thus Paul unequivocally put his authority as an apostle above that of the prophets. ^[48]

In chapter 9.10, we argue against Dr. Stott’s suggestion that the Apostle thought each individual utterance of a Prophet was to be sifted through to find what was true and false. On the contrary, it was the Prophet themselves who were to be tested, and once a Prophet was authenticated, they were to be believed and obeyed.

Secondly, it is wrong to interpret Paul’s command to “test” prophecy as an indication of its lack of authority, when in reality this illustrates just the opposite. For example, when Luke commends the Bereans because they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:1 1), he did not mean to communicate that Paul’s words were unreliable divine revelation as prophetism would suggest. In fact, because Apostles and Prophets did speak divine revelation, it was all the more imperative that false Apostles and Prophets were exposed in the Church through testing.

Finally, it would seem that prophetist theologians would have us assume that OT Prophets were not tested, therefore making them more authoritative than their NT counterparts. However, we can be sure that not only were authentic OT Prophets ignored many times, they were also tested as God had commanded the Israelite community to do (cf. Deut 18:22). None of this, however, changed the fact that they were speaking direct revelation from God and that there were severe consequences for not listening to, and obeying what they said.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What was the instruction in the OT if a would-be “prophet” spoke something other than what God had “commanded” them “to say”?
2. Why did God ensure that those with the gift of prophecy spoke infallibly?
3. How would you describe the authority of a biblical Prophet?
4. What biblical evidence do we give to claim that the authority of NT Prophets was equal with NT Apostles? Do you agree or disagree and why?
5. What is our suggestion as to why Paul ranked Apostles “first” and Prophets “second” (1 Cor 12:28) in the Church?
6. Why do we claim that the fact that the NT implies that Christians might ignore or test a NT Prophet says nothing negative about their perceived authority? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway Books, 1988), 14–15 ↑

2. For arguments that the gift of prophecy is synonymous with the ministry of a biblical Prophet see section 9.4.B. ↑

3. Robert L. Thomas, “Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 [January-March 1992]: 92. ↑

4. Robert L. Saucy, “Prophecy Today? An Initial Response,” Sundoulos [Spring 1990]. ↑

5. David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Mediterranean World (Eerdmans, 1983), 204). ↑

6. C. F. H. Henry, “Bible, Inspiration of”, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell ed. (Baker, 1984), 146. ↑

7. To see definition of revelatory Apostle see 8.1.A. ↑

8. Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee writes concerning the “Prophets” mentioned in Eph 2:20:

   Many interpreters in an earlier day [e.g. Barnes] were prone to see here a reference to the OT Prophets, but absolutely nothing favors such a view and everything is against it. See the refutations in the older commentaries (e.g., Meyer 143-44, Eadie 193–95). (God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Hendrickson, 1994], 687, n. 98)

   For support of our claim that the “Prophets” mentioned in Ephesians 2:20 do not refer to OT Prophets see Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.Com, 2003); Francis Foulkes, Ephesians (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1999), 94; John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997); Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Eerdmans, 1999), 214. ↑

9. David F. Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” Parts 1-4 in Bibliotheca Sacra 149, 150 (July-September 1992 through April-June 1993), 73-79 ↑

10. Historicism is our word for the view that recognizes the fact that the Scripture & sign gifts being claimed today in charismaticism ceased in the 4^th century and were considered to be nonexistent until being claimed almost 1600 years later in early Pentacostalism. ↑

11. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1039. ↑

12. Grudem, Prophecy, 46. ↑

13. Ibid. 62. ↑

14. Grudem, Theology, 1051, n. 4. ↑

15. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 97 (Baker, 1987). ↑

16. Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Kregel, 1996), 78 ↑

17. Grudem, Theology, 1039. ↑

18. Carson, 96, n. 73. ↑

19. R. B. Gaffin, Jr., “The New Testament as Canon,” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate, ed. H. M. Conn (Baker, 1988), 175. ↑

20. R. Fowler White, “Gaffin and Grudem on Eph. 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin’s Cessationist Exegesis” WTJ 54 (Fall 1992) 321-330. Online at http://www.the-highway.com/cessation_White.html. Dr. Fowler is summarizing Dr. Gaffin’s landmark study Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 94-95. ↑

21. Grudem, Prophecy, 59. ↑

22. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1984), 304. ↑

23. Daniel B. Wallace, “Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-kai-Noun Plural Construction,” Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983), 82. ↑

24. Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Baker, 2002), 404. See full discussion, pp. 397-404 ↑

25. John Stott, The Message of Ephesians (Intervarsity, 1979), 107. ↑

26. O’Brien, 216. ↑

27. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC) (Dallas, 1990), 153. ↑

28. Fee, Presence, 687, n. 97. ↑

29. For responses to Dr. Grudem’s interpretation of Ephesians 2:20 see the sources noted above. Including an excellent article by Bruce R. Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8–13 and The Cessation Of Miraculous Gifts” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004): 97–144.

    Thomas Edgar gives a rather simple rebuttal to Grudem’s thoughts when he writes:

    Let us look at a construction similar to Ephesians 2:20 in which the same term Apostle is used together with the term elders. The same construction-one article before two plural nouns joined by “and” is used in Acts 15:2 where it refers to the “Apostles and elders.”

    If we apply the same principle as Grudem does in interpreting Ephesians 2:20, we will have a new group of individuals called, “Apostle-elders,” which will exclude those at Jerusalem who are normally called “elders.” However, this interpretation is incorrect. There were elders in Jerusalem. The “Apostles and elders” are mentioned in Acts 15:4 where the grammatical construction clearly indicates that the Apostles and elders are two separate groups. Also, the article appears before each group in Acts 15:6, 22-23. Yet in Acts 16:4, referring to the same incident, the two groups are once again preceded by only one article. Thus, in Acts 15:2 and 16:4 the same groups are referred to with one article, as in Ephesians 2:20; and in Acts 15:6, 22-23 they are also referred to with two articles, indicating that the author has in mind two separate groups.

    The instances that have only one article merely group the two separate groups, “Apostles and elders,” due to something the author views as common to both. For example, as Wallace points out in Matthew 3:7, only one article precedes the “Sadducees and Pharisees,” yet they are two distinct entities.”‘ Therefore, the idea that Ephesians 2:20 refers only to one group is both grammatically and logically untenable. (78)

    Perhaps a more complex discussion is provided by Dr. Fowler who summarizes some of the main points of Wallace’s study:

    Despite his claims to the contrary, Grudem’s exegesis is not at all compelling from a grammatical point of view. For one thing, Grudem interprets the syntax of tōn apostolōn kai prophētōn without due regard for the fact that this construction involves plural nouns. As odd as it may sound, with the exception of Eph 4:11 (on which I shall comment below), Grudem fails to cite a single example of the construction in question in Eph 2:20: every one of the texts he adduces in favor of his exegesis is an example of a construction involving something other than two plural nouns.

    Even if Grudem were to correct this problem, his case would have another serious obstacle to overcome. The obstacle is that Grudem interprets the syntax of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a way which, as D. B. Wallace has demonstrated, has neither clear nor ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) has been widely misunderstood because few exegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldly challenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphatically insisting “that such a view has no grammatical basis” in NT usage. According to Wallace’s findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11 is that it means “the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are also teachers”; more likely, it means “the pastors and other teachers.” . . .

    Wallace’s study confirms that, while Grudem’s exegesis is a theoretically possible meaning of the construction in question, it is nevertheless, statistically speaking, the least likely meaning of that construction. To be sure, non-statistical factors are relevant to this discussion and we shall consider them in the headings that follow. At this juncture, however, let us observe that the syntactical evidence is decidedly against Grudem’s exegesis of Eph 2:20 statistically speaking, the most likely meaning of the text is that it represents Apostles and Prophets as two distinct groups united by their function as foundation stones, that is, as two distinct gifts united in foundational, revelatory witness to Christ and the mystery revealed in him. ↑

30. Grudem, Theology, 1051, n. 4. ↑

31. C. Samuel Storms in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Wayne Grudem, ed., (Zondervan, 1996), 81 ↑

32. Grudem, Theology, 1054. ↑

33. Unfortunately, John MacArthur suggests the same when he comments: “The Prophets were second to the Apostles, and their message was to be judged by that of the Apostles (1 Cor. 14:37). MacArthur, 1 Cor 12:28. ↑

34. Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC) (Eerdmans, 2000), is not very helpful here. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1987) does not address the issue either. ↑

35. John Stott, The Message of Romans (Intervarsity, 1994), 327. ↑

36. For the devaluation of the gift of tongues see section 12.4.A.1. ↑

37. On the ranking of Apostles over Prophets in 1 Cor 12:28 Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1985) has no comment.

    C. K. Barrett writes: “Perhaps their only really distinctive feature in the present list is that they [the Prophets] were itinerant.” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) [Hendrickson, 2000], 295.

    Dr. Fee suggests, “one has precedence over the other in the founding and building up of the local assembly” (Corinthians, 620).

    Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer perceive Apostles as “the first order in the Church,” since elsewhere in Paul and in Acts it is an essential qualification for the apostolate to have seen the raised Lord (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians [T. & T. Clark, 1967], in loc.).

    J. D. G. Dunn concedes that Apostles represent in Paul a wider circle than the Twelve, but believes that they still constitute a special group of “founder members” who are personally commissioned on the basis of such passages as Rom 1:5; 11: 13; 1 Cor 3:5- 10; 9:1, 2; 15:7-11; Gal 1: 1 and t: 11, 15-17). (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], 1015-16.

    F. W. Grosheide argues that Prophets are second to Apostles because, although both proclaim the gospel, “their office is not … as universal as that of the Apostles” (Thiselton, 1015).

    R. Schnackenburg supports this thesis. (“Apostles”, Apostolic History and the Gospel, 295). ↑

38. Excerpt from section 8.2.D. Likewise, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) had written:

    Now the prophetic light is not in the prophet’s intellect by way of an abiding form, else a prophet would always be able to prophesy, which is clearly false. For Gregory says (Hom. on Ezek.): “Sometimes the spirit of prophecy is lacking to the prophet, nor is it always within the call of his mind, yet so that in its absence he knows that its presence is due to a gift.” (online at http://www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/ Aquinas-Corinthians.pdf) ↑

39. Other than Revelation, Jude is probably the best candidate for Scripture written by a Christian Prophet. ↑

40. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (The Didache), 11.3-5; 13.1-3; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑

41. MacArthur, 1 Cor 12:28. ↑

42. Reference unavailable. ↑

43. Thiselton, 960. ↑

44. MacArthur, 1 Cor 12:28. ↑

45. For further on female Prophets see section 9.7.F. ↑

46. For further discussion on the contempt that the Apostle Paul received from the Corinthian church see 12.5.D. ↑

47. Fee, Presence, 170 ↑

48. John Stott, The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Intervarsity, 1991), 130. ↑