Chapter 9.7

Examples of NT Prophets

No Hint of Prophetism

Table of Topics

A) Zechariah, Simeon, & Anna: Luke’s Prophets

B) Antiochan Prophets: Acts 13:1-3

C) Disciples (not Prophets) in Tyre & Caesarea:

Acts 21:4-12

D) Agabus: Acts 21:11

E) The Corinthian Prophets: 14:29-30, 36

F) Prohibition of Women Prophets: 1 Cor 14:31-38; 11:3-5

G) Peter’s Prophets: 1 Pet 4:11

H) The Prophet John: Revelation

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• In none of the examples of NT Prophets is there a hint of the second-rate prophecy of modern prophetism.
• One indication that prophetism is unbiblical is that prophetists consistently warn Christians never to heed their “prophets” in a biblical manner.
• Not surprisingly, prophetists disparage Agabus’ ministry because he presents such a clear rebuke to their second-rate gift of prophecy.
• The instruction regarding the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14 substantiates the claim that it was considered Scripture-quality revelation.
• Additional proof of the authority that came with NT prophecy was the Apostle’s prohibition of women prophesying in the public assembly.
• One is rather speechless and dismayed at the arrogance, flippancy, and consistency with which God’s clear desires are ignored and violated by a multitude of women in prophetism. Unfortunately, the Church has allowed what the Apostle described as “disgraceful.”
• What then is prophetism’s response to our concerns? One of its foremost scholars actually does cut the Apostle’s command from his Bible.
• 1 Cor 11:5 is not a contradiction to Paul’s prohibition of women prophesying in public in 1 Cor 14.
• Anyone denying that biblical Apostles and Prophets were equally authoritative and possessed new, Scripture-quality revelation, has the burden of proving that John did not write the Revelation under the influence of the gift of prophecy. Here is a mammoth store of evidence of how the real gift of prophecy works, and prophetism would have us ignore or deny it.

While the obvious equation of Christian Prophets with NT Apostles in Ephesians is perhaps the strongest biblical evidence for the divine authority of the former, there is other clear evidence as well.

A) Zechariah, Simeon, & Anna: Luke’s Prophets

Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, “prophesied” (Luke 1:27) about both Christ and John and it is clear that he spoke a direct, infallible, Scripture-quality revelation from God, that included supernatural predictions of the future (Luke 1:67-79). Likewise, Simeon was undoubtedly a Prophet, faithfully communicating divine revelation concerning Christ and predicting things concerning His future as well (cf. Luke 2:25-35). Finally, the “Prophetess Anna . . . spoke about the child” (Luke 2:36, 38) Jesus, no doubt communicating and predicting accurate divine revelation that was to be believed. In none of these NT Prophets is there a hint of the second-rate prophecy of modern prophetism.

B) Antiochan Prophets: Acts 13:1-3

In words rather identical to how Agabus prefaced his prophesying, Christian Prophet(s) spoke in the same way at Antioch. Luke records:

In the church at Antioch there were Prophets and Teachers . . . As they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said [through one of the Prophets], “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3)

The clearest understanding of the source of this direct quote of the Holy Spirit’s command is that it came from one or more of the NT Prophets present there. ^[1] We have noted elsewhere the Apostles like Paul received divinely authoritative revelation from Christian Prophets (cf. Acts 16:6-7; 20:22; 21:10-11) ^[2] In the passage above, the “Prophets” present had, no doubt, already been miraculously authenticated as Prophets and their words were quickly and unquestionably obeyed as the direct words of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, those who heard it immediately obeyed this extra-biblical revelation, accepting it as God’s specific will for Saul and Barnabas, regardless of the hardships and dangers they were sending them into.

One indication that the modern second-rate “prophecy” of prophetism is just that, is that prophetists themselves repeatedly and consistently warn Christians never to heed their “prophets” in this manner. Accordingly, we quoted Dr. Grudem above: “There is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement ^[3] that prophecy is imperfect and impure, and will contain elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted.” It seems apparent that Saul and Barnabas did not view real NT Prophets as modern prophetists do.

C) Disciples (not Prophets) in Tyre & Caesarea: Acts 21:4-12

When the Apostle and his companions reached the city of Tyre, Luke records:

Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. But when our time was up, we left and continued on our way. (Acts 21:4)

This text is among the most cited biblical evidence in prophetism for the idea that NT Prophets were not regarded with divine authority. For example, Dr. Grudem writes:

In Acts 21:4, we read of the disciples at Tyre: “Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” This seems to be a reference to prophecy directed towards Paul, but Paul disobeyed it! He never would have done this if this prophecy contained God’s very words and had authority equal to Scripture. ^[4]

According to prophetists, these “disciples” were NT Prophets that the Apostle outright disobeyed, therefore illustrating the relative lack of respect given Christian Prophets in the early Church.

Obviously, there are several problems with such an interpretation. First, Luke specifically calls them “disciples,” not Prophets. Noting his habit throughout his Gospel and Acts of clearly identifying Prophets (cf. Luke 1:67-79; 2:36-38; Acts 11:27; 13:1-3; 15:32; 21:9-10), the assumption that prophetism is making regarding these “disciples” would not seem to be a very safe one.

Secondly, prophetists would have these “Prophets” contradicting the Christian Prophet Agabus who would shortly afterwards predict that the Apostle would be going to Jerusalem such that, “the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles” (Acts 21:11), all in accordance with God’s will. Therefore, if “the disciples” in Tyre were Prophets, they were false ones. Real Prophets from God do not contradict one another.

Thirdly, the pleading done by “the disciples” (v. 4) in Tyre seems to be intended to be interpreted no differently than what Luke describes a few verses later as, “we and the people there [Caesarea] pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem” (v. 12). Those referred to as “we and the people” in verse 12 are not Prophets, and neither should “the disciples” mentioned in verse 4.

However, we note that even after the Christian Prophet Agabus supernaturally and perfectly predicted that Paul would be going to Jerusalem (v. 11), Luke records that, “we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem” (v. 12). Prophetists might again interpret this as a disparagement of Agabus’ authority. However, Agabus is not commanding Paul to go to Jerusalem here, and the response of these people demonstrates how much they trusted the predictions of Christian Prophets. The best explanation of their response is that it was merely an emotional one, prompted by the authoritative warning and prediction of Agabus. In fact, after coming to their senses, Luke records, “we said . . . ‘The Lord’s will be done’” (v. 14), agreeing with the Christian Prophet’s prediction.

Finally, an urging “through the Spirit” (Acts 21:4) could be produced by a number of spiritual gifts other than prophecy, including “exhortation (paraklēsei)” or “mercy” (Rom 12:8 NASB), the latter being especially prone to not want someone to suffer. It had already been revealed that Paul would be in danger when he went to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 20:22-23), and therefore, “the disciples” in Tyre would not have needed the gift of prophecy to know that.

All of this is in contrast to the Prophet Agabus mentioned in the same context. He is specifically identified as a Prophet and he reveals previously unknown details about Paul’s impending hardships in Jerusalem. He does not prohibit Paul from going to Jerusalem, but in fact prophetically confirms that he is going (cf. Acts 21: 10-11).

D) Agabus: Acts 21:11

We have already noted the example of Agabus above whom Luke records prefacing his statement with, “The Holy Spirit says . . .” (Acts 21:11), obviously suggesting an infallible, divinely authoritative statement that must be believed and obeyed as God’s very word. Not surprisingly, prophetists do all they can to disparage Agabus’ ministry because he presents such a clear rebuke to their second-rate version of the gift of prophecy. Accordingly, Dr. Grudem, in another attempt to lessen the divine authority of NT Prophets writes:

[T]he common Old Testament phrase, “Thus says the Lord” [is] a phrase nowhere spoken in the New Testament by any prophets in New Testament churches. ^[5]

Dr. Grudem is, of course, technically correct, but surely when Agabus says “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” (Acts 21:11 KJV) it makes the point of his statement meaningless and again exposes his obvious bias.

Dr. Grudem recognizes that Agabus’ use of such words severely discredits his attempt to redefine NT prophecy into something less than direct, reliable revelation from God. His answer follows:

It is true that Agabus uses [the] phrase (“Thus says the Holy Spirit”) in Acts 21:11, but the same words (Gk. tade legei) are used by Christian writers just after the time of the New Testament to introduce very general paraphrases or greatly expanded interpretations of what is being reported (so Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians 7:1-2 [about A. D. 108] and Epistle of Barnabas 6:8, 9:2, 5 [A. D. 70-100]). The phrase can apparently mean, “This is generally (or approximately) what the Holy Spirit is saying to us.” ^[6]

Is that what those who heard Agabus thought? That when he said, “The Holy Spirit says” it meant that what follows “is generally (or approximately) what the Holy Spirit is saying”? Did Agabus’ audience believe that the Prophet’s “approximation” of what “the Holy Spirit says” was to such a degree that Agabus’ quote of the Holy Spirit could contain, “imperfect and impure . . . elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted,” which is precisely how Dr. Grudem describes Agabus’ gift of prophecy?” ^[7] No way. And if you cannot confidently dilute and distort Agabus’ clear claim in the manner that Dr. Grudem does, then you must abandon modern prophetism for the unbiblical fraud it is. You simply cannot accept Luke’s description of the NT Prophet at face value and at the same time have any respect whatsoever for the modern prophetic movement.

NT scholars without an agenda see the obvious in Agabus. ^[8] I. Howard Marshall, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Aberdeen writes: “Thus says the Holy Spirit corresponds to ‘Thus says the Lord’ on the lips of Old Testament Prophets.” ^[9] Likewise, Robert L. Thomas, Professor of the Masters Seminary states, “The substitution of “Holy Spirit” for “Yahweh” is consistent with the theological tendency in Acts to attribute divine work to the Holy Spirit,” ^[10] not degrade it as something less that OT prophecy.

Also, Robert Gaffin notes:

In the plainest possible terms, here the words of Agabus in his identity as a prophet are the words of the Holy Spirit himself, a quote of what the Spirit says. Not only what the prophet receives [contra to Dr. Grudem ^[11]] but what he says and communicates to others is inspired formula with ‘Holy Spirit’ substituted for ‘Lord.’ . . . [T]here is no good reason to suppose that this incident is not typical or not indicative of the origin and character of New Testament prophecy. ^[12]

Indeed, when Luke records that some Christians prayed that God “spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David,” and then quotes Psalm 2 practically verbatim, we do not get the idea that the Holy Spirit speaking “through the mouth” of a human was considered by the early Church as the kind of unreliable revelation that prophetism needs to prove.

Dr. Thomas also notes that in Revelation 2-3 the phrase, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says [legei] to the churches” (Rev 2:7, cf. v. 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22) referred to direct, infallible quotes of Jesus Christ made in a NT prophecy. ^[13] Contrary to Dr. Grudem then, what Agabus said in Acts 21:11 was considered in the early Church (c. 95, date of Revelation) as something other than, “generally (or approximately)” what God is saying, such that there could even be, “imperfect and impure . . . elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted.”

The use and meaning of identical language in Revelation 2-3, and that used by Agabus, also sheds light on the real significance of ones like Bishop Ignatius quoted by Dr. Grudem. As we demonstrate in chapter 9.13, early Church history is clear that the gift of prophecy continued to operate until about 250 A. D. Therefore, it is equally obvious based on Ignatius’ time of death (c. 108), his widespread prominence and authority among several churches, and his own statement which follows to the church in Philadelphia on his way to be executed, that he was a Christian Prophet speaking direct divine revelation from God:

[W]hen I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: “Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons.” Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He [God] is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: “Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.” . . . I learned nothing of it from the mouth of any man. But the Spirit made an announcement to me . . . ^[14]

David F. Farnell offers several arguments that deny Dr. Grudem’s contention that Ignatius’s prophecy was the same second-rate prophecy of modern prophetism. ^[15] First, Ignatius claimed that he spoke with God’s voice. This assertion would hardly support Dr. Grudem’s contention that New Testament Prophets could be mistaken, especially when Ignatius equated his prophecy with “God’s own voice.” This clearly intimates that New Testament “congregational” prophecy was considered totally authoritative in the postapostolic early Church.

Second, Ignatius claimed to have supernatural knowledge of the divisions in the Philadelphian community of believers. This information did not come “from any human being” but from the Holy Spirit (7.2). He rested the accuracy and authority of his prophecies on the miraculous source of his information. For Ignatius, the Holy Spirit served as the guarantor of the accuracy of his prophesying.

Third, Dr. Grudem’s assertion that the prophecy of 7.2 is a “summary” of 7.1, which supports his contention for prophecy of “general content,” is doubtful. The prophecy of 7.2 supplies too much precise information for his argument to be valid that 7.2 summarizes 7.1. Ignatius seems to have given a separate prophecy in 7.2, which added additional explicit prophetic content to that of 7.1.

Fourth, Ignatius introduced his prophecy in 7.2 by the phrase “the Spirit proclaimed these words.” This phrase signals a conscious attempt by Ignatius to imitate biblical Prophets who were considered inspired in the very words they utilized in prophecy. In light of this, it is more likely that Ignatius considered his prophecy to be “word-for-word” inspired and fully authoritative rather than only “generally” inspired in content.

Therefore, instead of proving Dr. Grudem’s point that ones like Ignatius thought they were speaking “generally (or approximately)” what the Holy Spirit said, such that there could be, “imperfect and impure . . . elements that are not to be obeyed or trusted,” Ignatius proves that Christian Prophets spoke with the same binding authority and reliability as OT Prophets.

As for Dr. Grudem’s references in the Epistle of Barnabas, the author is merely paraphrasing quotes from OT Scripture, describing them as words of the Holy Spirit. This is a completely different context than a Prophet like Agabus speaking extra-biblical revelation that could not be authenticated for accuracy with established Scripture, and so caution should be used in making any parallels with NT prophecy. Nevertheless, the most that this extra-biblical document, deceitfully forged in Barnabas’ name can prove, is that one writer, perhaps in the first century, felt he could attribute sayings of the Holy Spirit with imprecise quotations of the OT. This hardly qualifies as any kind of evidence whatsoever of what the early Church believed about the reliability and authority of Christian Prophets.

E) The Corinthian Prophets: 14:29-30, 36

There is a great deal of instruction regarding the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14 and it substantiates the claim that it was considered Scripture-quality revelation from God. We have already noted in the previous chapter that the Apostle called upon the real Prophets in the congregation to authenticate his writing as divine revelation (cf. 14:37-8). In addition, the Apostle’s description of the gift of prophecy as “revelation” reflects its divine authority. For example, he writes:

Two or three Prophets should speak, and the others [Prophets] should weigh carefully what is said. And if a [divine] revelation [apokaluphthē] comes to someone [a Prophet] who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. (14:29-30; cf. vs. 6, 26)

Paul’s use of the Greek word apokalupsis to describe the contents of prophetic speech in the early Church helps to further define the abilities of NT Prophets. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that it is: “a compound word formed from kalypto (hide, conceal) and apo (from). [It] carries the idea of unveiling something previously hidden.” ^[16] No doubt, a word that describes new divine revelation from God. ^[17]

Such a clear statement concerning the revelatory abilities of NT Prophets is evidently so damaging to prophetism that Dr. Grudem responds, after quoting v. 30:

Here he [Paul] uses the word revelation in a broader sense than the technical way theologians [how about the NT!] have used it to speak of the words of Scripture-but the New Testament elsewhere uses the terms reveal and revelation in this broader sense of communication from God that does not result in written Scripture or words equal to written Scripture in authority (see Phil. 3:15; Rom. 1:18; Eph. 1:17; Matt. 11:27). ^[18]

A look at the texts quoted will prove Dr. Grudem’s claim is false. They all refer to reliable, authoritative revelation from God:

All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. (Phil 3:15)

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. (Rom 1:18)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Eph 1:17)

No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matt 11:27)

Paul’s use of apokaluphthē to describe the divine revelation of the Corinthian Prophets, is identical to his use of the same word when he describes Prophets in Ephesians as having, “insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed [apekaluphthē] by the Spirit to God’s holy Apostles and [NT] Prophets” (Eph. 3:5).

Contrary to Dr. Grudem’s implication, the fact that all divine revelation is not inscripturated does not make it any less divine or authoritative. Paul recognizes that even the prophetic revelations in the Corinthian congregation were not “to result in written Scriptures,” but that does not mean that such revelation was not “equal to written Scripture in authority” as Dr. Grudem claims. In the early Church, infallible, reliable, authoritative divine revelation was just that, whether it found itself recorded in Scripture or not. Accordingly, no Greek lexicon would support Dr. Grudem’s suggestion that The Apostle’s use of divine “revelation” here meant anything less than a communication from God that was to be whole-heartedly believed and obeyed. There simply is no biblical, lexical, or logical evidence to conclude that something God says, does not carry His authority.

Along the same lines, Dr. Grudem sees a disrespect for Christian Prophets in 14:30 where the Apostle writes:

Let two or three Prophets speak, and let the others [Prophets ^[19]] pass judgment.  ³⁰But if a revelation is made to another [Prophet] who is seated, the first one must keep silent.  ³¹For you can all prophesy [if you are a Prophet ^[20]] one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;  ³²and the spirits of Prophets are subject to Prophets; ³³for God is not a God of confusion [“disorder” NIV] but of peace.

Dr. Grudem interprets this passage as follows:

Paul allows one Prophet to interrupt another one . . . Again, if Prophets had been speaking God’s very words, equal in value to Scripture, it is hard to imagine that Paul would say they should be interrupted and not allowed to finish their message. ^[21]

Why would we understand the Apostle as saying that these Prophets were to interrupt each other? The love with which a real Prophet was to exercise his gift, “is not rude” (13:5). Contrary to Dr. Grudem, the clearest understanding of, “you can all prophesy one by one” is that after one Prophet was finished, a prophecy would come to another Prophet. The difference between Dr. Grudem and Paul is that the Apostle expected that when the Holy Spirit chose to communicate a divine “revelation” (v. 30) through a group of Prophets, that same Spirit would orchestrate their messages such that after speaking through one Prophet, He would then speak through another. In this way, the one, organic divine “revelation” would be completely and coherently communicated without error or “confusion” (v. 32). In fact, this kind of supernatural orchestration was intended to be yet another proof that these men were being supernaturally inspired.

Finally, Dr. Grudem’s assumption that some of the intended message is “lost” because the first Prophet stops to allow the second to speak is pure presumption. Prophets “interrupting” one another, as he puts it, may reflect what is experienced in prophetism today, but not the supernatural nature of NT prophecy.

Dr. Grudem would also seem to misinterpret The Apostle’s rhetorical, and even sarcastic question to the Corinthians: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” (14:36). Dr. Grudem’s take on this verse is that, “Paul suggests that no one at Corinth, a church that had much prophecy, was able to speak God’s very words.” ^[22] First of all, The Apostle has said that it is “revelation” from God that the Prophets are communicating (vs. 6, 30), and as pointed out above, it is rather impossible to water down this biblical term to mean “divine, but error prone suggestions” as Dr. Grudem desires.

Secondly, the Apostle’s wording here clearly includes the Corinthians as being recipients of divine revelation. He merely asks whether they think they are the “only” recipients of God’s word. And The Apostle knew that the revelation that would come through the authentic Prophets in Corinth would be in agreement with the divine revelations being granted elsewhere, because all of them had one Source. This is why later in the passage the Apostle tells them that any authentic Prophets in their congregation will be able to confirm that the revelation Paul is writing them is from God.

F) Prohibition of Women Prophets:

1 Cor 14:31-38; 11:3-5

Additional proof in I Corinthians 14 of the authority that came with NT prophecy was the Apostle Paul’s prohibition of women prophesying in the context of the public assembly of believers. The Apostle writes:

For you [Prophets] can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches [ekklēsiais: “assembly, congregation]. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church [ekklēsia]. (vs. 31-35)

Contrary to much practice in prophetism, it is clear that women were not to prophesy in the public church meetings. It is important to understand why. The most biblical answer comes from other instruction from the Apostle regarding the public speaking of women. Many years after writing the Corinthians, he wrote Timothy a letter on, “how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). In practically identical language to what he told the Corinthian women he said: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Tim 2:11-12).

The Bible is quite clear then that spiritually authoritative speech or instruction is not the place of a Christian woman in the context of a church assembly, or elsewhere when Christian men are present. This is precisely why women were not to prophesy in the Corinthian assembly. To do so would be to authoritatively “teach” and “have authority over a man” because NT prophecy was divinely authoritative speech.

The fact that the “speaking” that the Apostle prohibits for women refers specifically to tongues and prophecy is evident from the context. Accordingly, if Christian prophesying were merely for “encouragement, strengthening, and comfort” (v. 3), we might imagine that women would be allowed to prophesy in the public church setting. But because prophesying carried divine authority, it was not to be exercised in the “church,” which clearly refers to the larger, formal, public gathering apart from more informal home meetings (cf. 1 Cor 11:18-22), as it does throughout chapter 14 (cf. vs. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 26, 28).

Accordingly, the Apostle, (perhaps especially) reminds the female Prophets in Corinth just prior to his prohibition: “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (vs. 32-33). Therefore, no female Prophet could blurt out a prophecy and claim she couldn’t help herself. Nor could she claim that God had told her to violate His own principle of gender order in the congregation, therefore causing “disorder” in a church service that is ultimately supposed to be for the purpose of glorifying and pleasing God, not people, including female Prophets.

Finally, let us be clear that the female “speaking” that the Apostle prohibits certainly includes prophesying, as well as “Tongues . . . revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word[s] of instruction” (14:6; cf. v. 26), as this is the whole and immediate context of his statement in 14:34-5. His concern is not merely women asking questions, ^[23] or judging prophecies, ^[24] and certainly not confined to merely distracting “female chatter.” ^[25] Clearly, even the second-rate version of prophecy that merely encourages the congregation is included in the Apostle’s prohibition. When the Apostle makes the rather unqualified statements that, “women should remain silent in the churches,” “They are not allowed to speak,” and “it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” in a chapter correcting abuses of tongues and prophesying, it is rather impossible, if not sinful to assume that he actually excludes these things from his command.

Like female Teachers, female Prophets were expected to focus their ministry on other women, as implied by 1 Timothy 2:11-12 above, and Titus 2:3 where Paul writes that “older women” are:

to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands. (Tit 2:3-5)

One notices that even in the context of women teaching women, the Apostle does not mention the authoritative teaching of biblical doctrine, but rather moral commands.

Paul’s instruction that women Prophets are not to operate in the public worship service accords very well with all of the descriptions we have of females prophesying in Scripture. We read of Miriam:

Then Miriam the Prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. Miriam sang to them [the women]: “Sing to the LORD, for He is highly exalted. The horse and its rider He has hurled into the sea.” (Exod 15:20-21)

Instead of Miriam prophesying before the Jewish nation as a whole, she led a procession of women and directed her song to them.

Likewise, the description of Deborah’s prophetic ministry says nothing of public, authoritative meetings like those exercised by the male Jewish Prophets of the OT. We read:

Now Deborah, a Prophetess . . . was judging Israel at that time. And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah . . . and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. Now she sent and summoned Barak . . . and said [privately] to him, “Behold, the LORD, the God of Israel, has commanded, ‘Go and march to Mount Tabor.'” (Judg 4:4-6)

The description of the Prophetess Huldah also agrees with the Apostle’s instruction when we read: “Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the Prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah . . .” (2 Kgs 22:14). While Huldah obviously ministered to men here, it was not before the nation of Israel like other male Prophets.

Likewise, as we move to the NT, we read of the Prophetess Anna:

Coming up to them [Joseph and Mary] at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke [individually afterwards] about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:38).

There is no indication here that the Jewish Prophetess stood up in the Jewish temple which “she never left” (v. 37), in order to give an authoritative, public prophecy to a crowd including men. Such a thing simply would not have been accepted or respected.

Finally, we read of Phillip’s “four unmarried daughters who prophesied” (Acts 21:9). Imagine living in that house! While there is no description of the settings in which they did so, there is a rather odd description of a setting in which they did not. Immediately after mentioning Phillip’s daughters, Luke records:

After we had been there [Caesarea, where these Prophetesses lived] a number of days, a Prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:10-11)

The question that comes to mind is why didn’t God have one of Phillip’s four daughters prophesy to Paul and his missionary team, instead of having Agabus travel to Caesarea in order to deliver the prophecy? While we cannot be dogmatic in our answer, the circumstances seem conspicuous enough that something is being said here about the biblical difference between female and male Prophets.

Accordingly, we quote Origen (c. 220) in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-5, a man who exercised considerable and widespread authority throughout the early Church, and perhaps reflects the consensus at the time:

If this was the case [that no female Prophets are to prophesy in the church assembly], what are we to make of the fact that Philip had four daughters who prophesied?’ If they could do it, why can we not let our own Prophetesses speak? We may answer this question as follows. First, if our Prophetesses have spoken, show us the [authenticating] signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy, they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a Prophetess, there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. ^[26]

In light of the Apostle’s clear command for Christian women not to prophesy in the public church service, and calling such a thing “disgraceful” one is left rather speechless and dismayed at the arrogance, flippancy, and consistency with which God’s clear desires are ignored and violated by a multitude of women in prophetism. So much so, that one has to wonder how many of these disobedient “prophetesses” are even Christians.

Paul told this very congregation just two verses after prohibiting female prophetic speech in the assembly:

If anybody thinks he is a Prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you [including the prohibition of women prophesying] is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored” (vs. 37-8)

Why then are “prophets” today who do not “acknowledge” the Apostle’s words as “the Lord’s command” and “ignore” his prohibition of female Prophets speaking in the assembly, still allowed to continue to prophesy in a congregation? And the Apostle obviously implicates local church leaders in his warning as well, suggesting that if they allow women to prophesy in the public assembly, their leadership should be “ignored” as well. No doubt both women “Prophets” and church leaders are sinning against Christ when they practice and allow something that Scripture clearly prohibits.

Unfortunately, the Church has allowed precisely what the Apostle was wanting to rid the Church of: pagan feminism. Accordingly, H. Wayne House, Distinguished Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Faith Seminary writes:

Women had an important place in the [pagan] mystery cults [in Corinth at the time Paul wrote to them], especially in the emotional and vocal realm [i.e. tongues and prophecy]. This was especially true in the Dionysian cult. Livy in his History of Rome wrote that the majority of Dionysian worshipers [known for the kind of emotionalism found in charismaticism ^[27]] were women. . . . This aspect of the pagan cult could be what Paul was counteracting in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36. ^[28]

Likewise, John MacArthur writes:

We know from secular history that various movements of women’s liberation and feminism appeared in the Roman empire during New Testament times. . . . Much as in our own day, some women were demanding to be treated exactly like men . . . It is likely that some of the believers at Corinth were influenced by those movements. ^[29]

Along these lines, the heretical sect of the Montanists, condemned precisely because of its claim to a restored gift of prophecy, ^[30] was prominently led by female “prophets.” Accordingly, Arthur McGiffert, Professor of Church History at Lane Theological Seminary, has suggested that a pagan feminism “was a characteristic of the Montanists. . .” ^[31]

Likewise, pagan feminism had its impact on certain heretical cults attached to early Christianity. Along these lines, Phillip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State, relates concerning Gnostic literature that:

[W]omen characters play a vital role throughout the documents. This vision had its impact on many mainstream believers, especially feminists, who felt that they were rediscovering a whole suppressed side of the Christian tradition. ^[32]

In the same vein, it was precisely because of the Bible’s teaching regarding the roles of women in the home and Church, and the widespread disrespect for it in early prophetism that Dr. Jenkins relates, “The presence of ‘excitable females’ among the Pentecostal leadership was . . . horrifying” to the majority of Evangelicals at the time. ^[33] Part of the reason for this was:

As we have seen, women either founded or played a key role in many of the new [pagan] American religions of the last century or so, and anticult critic Walter Martin saw “the female teaching ministry” as a cult characteristic that had led to “confusion, division and strife.” Female leadership violated St. Paul’s explicit order that women were to “learn in silence with all subjection.” ^[34]

Unfortunately, this “horrifying” and unbiblical characteristic of American pagan cults in the early 20^th century, has rather perfectly coincided with the same thing in prophetism. Harvard Professor Harvey Cox, in his extensive study of this movement, explains why, from his thoroughly scholarly, rather secular, and even sympathetic view point:

It has also become evident to me that women, far more than men, have been the principal bearers of the Pentecostal gospel to the four corners of the earth. As I thought about this, two questions kept coming to mind. How do women justify the leadership roles they play in a church which seems to be controlled by men at the top and in which the “official” theology (at least where a literalist interpretation of the Bible obtains) seems to forbid them? Why are women drawn to Pentecostalism in such disproportionate numbers? . . .

I have often thought of Betty Lou’s [public, exhortative, “prophetic”] testimony. It went a long way in answering my question about how so many women win the right to preach in a church which, at least technically, forbids it. It clearly demonstrated why Pentecostals, who take the authority of the Bible very seriously but also believe in direct revelation through visions, have opened a wider space for women than most other Christian denominations have. What the Bible says is one thing, but when God speaks to you directly, that supersedes everything else. . . .

For women [“prophets”] in particular, these [visions] . . . give them access to a leadership role that is normally reserved for men . . . There can be no doubt that, for whatever reason, women have become the principal carriers of the fastest growing religious movement in the world . . . Without them, Pentecostalism would have probably died out long ago. ^[35]

Along these lines Anthony Thiselton summarizes the thoughts of Antoinette C. Wire in her book, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction Through Paul’s Rhetoric (2003). We commend her for apparently being honest about the face value meaning of the Apostle’s words, but are concerned that her feminism leads her to a disrespectful attitude toward the word of God. Dr. Thiselton writes:

Wire perceives the call to prophesy as a means by which Christian women at Corinth could achieve an otherwise unattainable freedom and leadership role. They could speak “divine mysteries in prophecy, prayer, wisdom, knowledge, revelation and tongues” and claim comprehensive “spiritual” status thereby. Wire draws attention to the opportunity which this afforded to escape the more subordinate and domestic roles imposed within the privacy of the home and family [cf. Tit 2:3-5; 1 Tim 5:14].

Paul, by contrast, is perceived by Wire as imposing a hierarchical level of a “higher” apostolic authority and a return to “order” which inhibited and compromised this new-found freedom, especially by narrowing the scope of prophecy and giving it privilege over tongues (ch. 14). ^[36]

In other words, while the Apostle Paul thought curbing feminist tendencies in the female Prophets at Corinth was necessary and God-honoring, Ms. Wire apparently thinks it was an illegitimate imposition on the freedom of Prophetesses. ^[37] The modern Church had better decide who is right, the Apostle Paul or Ms. Wire, and teach, act, and lead accordingly.

So it would seem that the same pagan feminism that was threatening the Corinthian congregation, and has been the reason for the popularity of pagan cults for centuries, has infiltrated the churches of prophetism as well, and is a major reason for its popularity. In light of the fact that the Apostle prohibited female Prophets from exercising their gift in the public church assembly, it is no wonder that this unbiblical situation has arisen when prophetism has essentially cut the Apostle’s command out of its Bible. While such a practice may be deemed as politically correct in our own radically feministic culture, one would hope that those practicing, allowing, or listening to such God-offending behavior would consider it more important to be biblically correct and please the Lord instead of men.

What then is prophetism’s response to our concerns? First of all, one of its foremost scholars, Gordon Fee, actually does cut the Apostle’s command from his Bible. In essence, he conjectures that a copyist, with evidently sexist motives, added verses 14:34-45 to the Apostle’s letter at a later time. Accordingly, after a lengthy discussion of the matter in his well regarded commentary he writes:

On the whole, therefore, the case against [the authenticity of] these verses is so strong, and finding a viable solution to their meaning so difficult, that it seems best to view them as an interpolation [human addition to the original text]. . . . Thus, in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic. If so, then it is certainly not binding on Christians. If not, the considerable doubts as to its authenticity ought to serve as a caution against using it as an eternal prohibition. ^[38]

How convenient for “Christian feminism” and the Pentecostalism Dr. Fee has become a foremost leader of! And how convenient for the multitude of female “prophets” who likewise ignore the very words of God that they claim to uniquely possess.

As for Dr. Fee’s arguments for putting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in the trash can of textual criticism, it probably will not surprise most that very, very few NT scholars agree with Dr. Fee that, “the case against [the authenticity of] these verses is so strong.” On the contrary, and with all due respect, his arguments do not even deserve a refutation here. ^[39]

The most common evidence offered for allowing female Prophets to exercise their gift in the public church assembly is 1 Corinthians 11 where the Apostle writes:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head . . . (vs. 3-5)

Many of those in and out of prophetism interpret this as the Apostle’s definitive statement regarding female prophesying, claiming that he undoubtedly approves precisely what he condemned a few verses later in chapter 14 of the same letter. In other words, they see a contradiction between the Apostle’s recognition of women exercising their gift of prophecy in this setting in chapter 11, but prohibiting it in the public assembly described in chapter 14.

If we are to honor God and His word we must accept both statements of the Apostle regarding female Prophets in the same letter as carrying divine authority, and reconcile them in some acceptable manner. ^[40] What is unacceptable is favoring 1 Corinthians 11:5 and assuming that the Apostle intended it to be the definitive statement regarding female prophesying in a public church meeting.

This unfortunate bias, apparently toward either feminism or prophetism, leads some to outright reject 14:34-5 as Scripture at all (cf. Fee, Barrett ^[41]), some to otherwise essentially ignore any modern authority for 14:34-5 (cf. Morris, Thiselton ^[42]), some to simply ignore the wider context of the Apostle’s clear prohibition of female authoritative speech in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (cf. Forbes ^[43]), or make the rather ridiculous statement that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the Apostle “does nothing to discourage the woman Prophet from speaking in the assembly; rather the reverse” (cf. Green ^[44]).

Let us compare the two statements at issue here. In 1 Corinthians 11:5 the Apostle writes: “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” Later in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 we read:

As in all the congregations of the saints, ³⁴ women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

First of all, any Christian women should be very eager and very careful to accurately understand what the Apostle is prohibiting in the church for them. Otherwise they are in danger of doing something “disgraceful . . . in the church.” This is not a minor matter. Accordingly, if we are going to accurately understand the Apostle’s warning, we must seek to reconcile these statements, for only then can we confidently claim to have the truth.

Secondly, if the Apostle clearly says in 1 Corinthians 14 that, “in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak” why would we assume that he contradicts himself in chapter 11 by referring to women prophesying? The best way to reconcile these statements is to distinguish their context. In chapter 14 this is clearly the public gathering of a local congregation. In chapter 11, there is nothing said about the context of female prophesying, so we should not assume that it refers to the congregational public gathering, especially if such an assumption makes the Apostle contradict himself. Rather, there is good reason to believe that the female prophesying Paul spoke of was occurring in more intimate home settings. Notice that in the passages preceding and following 11:5, the Apostle is discussing proper behavior during the Lord’s Supper (cf. 10:14-21 and 11:17-34). This is significant when we remember that the early Christians habityally, “broke bread in their homes” (Acts 2:46). Accordingly, there is no reason to assume, as many do, that the female prophesying was occurring in the larger, public assembly. Rather, it seems best to conclude that it was occurring in more intimate small groups, and if we interpret it this way, the Apostle does not contradict himself in any way.

Likewise, we should notice the topical context of 11:5. While there is much that is unclear about 11:5, what is clear is that the context of the Apostle’s statement regarding women prophesying, is not prophesying at all. Rather, the context is among the strongest biblical statements on the submission of women to men (cf. v. 3). This fact makes it rather alarming that so many want to use v. 5 as a definitive statement about the freedom of women to prophesy anytime they choose.

Any kind of feminist agenda must be abandoned if we are to truly understand the Apostle in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere. There is no doubt that in 11:5 the Apostle has not abandoned God’s desire for the “man” to be the authoritative “head of the woman” (1 Cor 11:3), who is to be in “full submission” (1 Tim 2:12) to the man, even though many today would abandon this divine desire. The Apostle repeats God’s will at 14:34 that Christian women in a public assembly “must be in submission as the Law says.”

Notice that it is not cultural concerns that motivate the Apostle’s thoughts in any of these biblical references to female submission, but creational concerns. Most are agreed that “the Law” which the Apostle refers to in 1 Corinthians 14:34 are passages in Genesis, particularly 3:16, which clearly teach God’s desire for woman to be under the authority of man. ^[45] Likewise in 1 Timothy 2:11-13 the Apostle says women are to be in “full submission . . . For [because] Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

Along the same lines, the Apostle certainly doesn’t care about any cultural issues when he says:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph 5:22-24)

Likewise, the Apostle’s statement to the same effect in 1 Corinthians 11:3 has to do with the makeup of the Godhead, and is a theological statement with no cultural concerns at all. All of which, again, makes it absurd and alarming how casually and carelessly so many use v. 5 as a proof text for some kind of feminist liberation in the Church. ^[46]

So what is 1 Corinthians 11:5 saying about female prophesying? First, we are not surprised to see the mention of female Prophets in the early Church, as several of them are mentioned throughout the OT and NT as noted above. Women certainly possessed and exercised the gift of prophecy, but, not in violation of biblical limitations, as is to be the case with all spiritual gifts.

Secondly, we believe female prophesying was occurring in more intimate small groups rather than the public assembly of the congregation. Thirdly, John Calvin (1509-1564) and others have offered an additional way to reconcile the Apostle on this issue. He wrote in his commentary:

It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered [11:5], while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church [14:34-5; 1 Tim 2:11-12]. It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering.

It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one [female prophesying with uncovered head in 11:5], does not commend the other [female prophesying in formal church assembly]. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14.

In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses. ^[47]

Accordingly, the Apostle simply didn’t say everything he wanted or needed to say about female prophesying in chapter 11 and clarified his prohibitions in a much fuller, but harmonious statement in chapter 14. Paul certainly is not allowing a women to prophesy, even in a more private setting, if men in particular were present, therefore violating what he had instructed elsewhere (cf. 1 Tim 2:11-12).

Illustrating the rather widespread traditional acceptance of Calvin’s first point, we can quote two of the most respected NT scholars of past generations. Accordingly, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) wrote:

It was Paul’s manner to attend to one thing at a time. He is here [11:5] speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14:34. ^[48]

Likewise, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) wrote:

[T]he fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public; 1 Cor. 14:34.

This is a legitimate view, and prophetists have offered no better argument against it except the assumption that the Apostle would not approach topics “one thing at a time” as Hodge suggested. ^[49]

Finally, Dr. MacArthur would seem to reflect our own stance on female Prophets when he writes:

The New Testament has no restrictions on a woman . . . teaching children and other women (cf. Titus 2:3-4; 1 Tim. 5:16). Women may have the gift of prophecy, as did Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), but they are normally not to prophesy in the meetings of the church where men are present.

In other words, it is only necessary to combine the relevant passages [11:5; 14:34-5] to get the composite truth. Women may pray and prophesy within the boundaries of God’s revelation, and with a proper sense of submission. And it is critical that their deportment in so doing reflects God’s order. Certainly they must not appear rebellious against God’s will. ^[50]

G) Peter’s Prophets: 1 Pet 4:11

The Apostle Peter wrote:

Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words [logia “oracles,” “sayings,”] of God. (1 Pet 4:10-11)

Remembering that the Apostle wrote this at a time in the early Church that such gifts and ministries as Apostles and Prophets were present, we can understand how Peter could expect this. While many would like to apply this instruction to modern day Teachers, “speaking the very words of God” could only mean quoting Scripture for them, and not their teaching as a whole. The Apostle no doubt had the gift of prophecy in mind here and he expected a person with this gift to utter “the oracles of God [NASB].”

The word logia is only used three other times in the NT, and elsewhere clearly and always refers to the word of God in Scripture (cf. Acts 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12). This meaning is reflected in the Greek OT (LXX) where logia is repeatedly used to refer to the words of God spoken by Prophets. Likewise, logia was habitually used in ancient Greek to refer to divine revelation directly from God in the form of oracles. ^[51]

Accordingly, NT scholar Paul J. Achtemeier comments here:

The phrase [logia theon: “words of God”] bears the meaning “oracles of God” in the overwhelming number of instances in the LXX (Greek OT) and that meaning of [logia] carries over to its use in the NT (Acts 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5: 12). What is said by those with this charismatic gift must therefore resemble [ōs: “as”] God’s own oracles.

On the one hand, [logia theon: “words of God”] can be construed as nominative, in which case the phrase would be the equivalent of “Scripture” and would mean the person speaking must speak as Scripture speaks.

On the other hand, it can be construed as accusative, in which case it means that the content of one’s speech must bear the character of God’s words and thus the divine intention, not the speaker’s own.

The latter is the more likely as its parallelism to the next phrase on service indicates: as that phrase implies an imperative “let him serve,” so this phrase implies an imperative “let him speak,” for which then “oracles of God” would have to serve as object. ^[52]

Likewise, Dr. Marshall concludes on 1 Peter 4:11 in his commentary:

What is implied for the way in which the speaker is to behave? The command may be a warning against the inclusion of the speaker’s own ideas or merely human opinions as opposed to the divine words. Or it may be a reminder of the sacred character of the utterance [because it is the “very word of God”] and, therefore, of the need for a proper sense of reverence and responsibility. Or it may be more of a promise, that if God calls a person to speak, he will provide him with the right words to speak. The parallel with the next clause, which refers to the supply of divine strength for the task of ministry, strongly suggests that the thought of divine provision of what to say may well be basic here. ^[53]

There is no doubt then that Peter has in mind Christian Prophets, possessing the gift of prophecy. He expected them to speak “the very words of God” without any human additions, such that what was spoken was to believed and obeyed as if it were Scripture.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Grudem in his commentary on 1 Peter writes:

Whoever speaks includes not just teaching or preaching, but many kinds of gifts involving speech-activity: evangelism, teaching, prophesying, and perhaps singing or sharing words of praise and testimony in the assembled congregation. In all these cases the Christian must do it as one who utters oracles of God. Oracles (logia) means ‘sayings’, but especially sayings spoken from God to man (used in Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2 of Old Testament Scripture).

Yet this cannot mean ‘as claiming that the words he speaks are God’s own words’, because that would only be true of Scripture, not of every word spoken during a church meeting. It means rather ‘with the seriousness of purpose which one would use if one were speaking God’s words.’ ^[54]

Again, Dr. Grudem’s agenda to down grade Christian “prophesying” to something less than “speaking the very words of God,” unfortunately leads him to obscure the word of God here. Contrary to his view, he would have to at least admit that Peter could have been referring to first century Apostles who certainly spoke the very words of God in a church meeting. Therefore, the only reason he shares for believing Peter was merely talking about being serious when one speaks through biblical gifts, is non-existent. ^[55]

H) The Prophet John: Revelation

Anyone denying that biblical Apostles and Prophets were equally authoritative and possessed new, Scripture-quality revelation, has the burden of proving that John did not write the Revelation under the influence of the gift of prophecy. Here is a mammoth store of evidence of how the real gift of prophecy works, and prophetism would have us ignore or deny it.

In fact, as Dr. Aune notes, the claim that John the author of Revelation did not possess the biblical gift of prophecy “forms the major thesis” of Dr. Grudem’s book, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. ^[56] The obvious intent, of course, is to avoid NT evidence that NT Prophets produced Scripture-quality revelation and predicted the future. Dr. Aune responds with what should be obvious to all: “The contrast between John and early Christian Prophets . . . cannot be substantiated.” ^[57] Accordingly, when we compare the prophetic writings of ones like Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel, it is impossible to deny that John was used as a Prophet in the way that those men were. And we have argued above that the gift of prophecy is synonymous with the ministry of Christian Prophets, who had the same attributes as their OT counterparts.

One major but weak argument presented by prophetists to support the idea that Revelation is not a product of the biblical gift of prophecy is the claim that this document is not prophecy, but in the genre of epistle and apocalypse. Even if this were true, it would be no proof that it was not produced through the gift of prophecy, as the early church believed that Christian Prophets had produced epistles such as Jude, 2 Peter, and Hebrews. The difference between apocalyptic literature and prophetic literature is practically non-existent.

Nevertheless, both John and Jesus clearly claim the Revelation is Christian prophecy. John introduces the epistle by stating, “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy” (Rev 1:3; cf. 22:6, 10, 18-19). Jesus Himself is quoted as saying, “Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book” (Rev 22:7). The book of Revelation is NT prophecy written by someone possessing the gift of prophecy, namely the Apostle John.

Accordingly, modern scholarship concedes it is Christian prophecy. Drs. Morris, Moo, and Carson write: “John certainly suggests that he stands in a prophetic role, and there is a tendency in current scholarship to view Revelation as a prophecy.” ^[58] Likewise, Donald Guthrie writes in his well-regarded New Testament Introduction, “[T]he author is presenting what he claims to be a direct revelation from God in the prophetic manner.” ^[59] More recently, Gregory Beale in his massive commentary has written: “Revelation is best seen as fitting into the genre of OT prophetic-apocalyptic works, especially that of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah.” ^[60] Clearly then, the Revelation is NT prophecy produced through someone possessing the gift of prophecy. Another commentator writes: “Plainly, it is a New Testament prophecy. Its prophetic status . . . assures its infallibility as written and brings down upon its violators the divine curse (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19).”

This introduces the second thing we can learn from Revelation regarding the nature of the gift of prophecy: It was sin against Almighty God to disbelieve or disobey what was spoken through it. Modern prophetism claims that the gift of prophecy being illustrated in Revelation is intentionally different in God’s mind from the second-rate version He has supposedly restored to them today. That is an unbiblical, unsubstantiated, and dangerous presumption. Prophetism cannot have it both ways, claiming to possess God-gifted Prophets, but claiming they do not speak with the authority of the prophecy of Revelation.

On the contrary, if they really are God-sent Prophets, then the following warnings equally apply to modern prophecy:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev 22:18)

Thank God that prophetism really has no God-sent Prophets, or we would all be in grave sin. Prophetists would be sinning because they believe their “prophets’” words are merely human suggestions of divine revelation. We would be sinning because we believe their “prophets” to be self-deceived and deceiving frauds. But if what we have written above is true, it is the modern “prophets” who are sinning because they are “lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds” (Jer 23:26). And the Teachers who obscure Scripture to protect and promote all of these false “prophets” sin as well. God, forgive them, because perhaps they do not know what they do.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1. We claim that none of the examples of NT Prophets in Scripture reflect any is hint of the second-rate prophecy of modern prophetism. Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. Why do prophetists consistently warn Christians never to heed their “prophets” in a biblical manner? What does this say about their “prophets”?
3. Why do prophetists disparage Agabus’ ministry? In what ways do they do so? What is our defense of Agabus?
4. In what ways does the instruction regarding the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14 substantiate the claim that it was considered Scripture-quality revelation?
5. We claim that the Apostle Paul prohibited women prophesying in the public assembly. Do you agree or disagree and why?
6. What are we to understand about prophecy because of Paul’s prohibition of women doing it in a public assembly?
7. What does Paul’s prohibition of women prophesying in public mean for those who consistently practice this very thing?
8. What is NT scholar Gordon Fee’s response to Paul’s prohibition of women prophesying in public in 1 Cor 14:33-35?
9. How do we reconcile Paul’s mention of women prophesying in 1 Cor 11:5 with his prohibition of women prophesying in public in 1 Cor 14:33-35? Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation and why?
10. What should we learn about the gift of prophecy from how it is demonstrated by John in the Revelation?

Publications & Particulars

1. I. H. Marshall comments on how the Spirit “spoke” here:

   The Spirit is named as the author, since it is he who appoints leaders in the church (20:28) and guides the church at crucial points. But the Spirit speaks through human agencies (4:25), and it must be assumed that one of the prophets in the church received the message. (Acts (TNTC) [Eerdmans, 1999], 216)

   F. F. Bruce concurs, stating, “the Holy Spirit made known his will to them—doubtless through an inspired utterance from one of their number.” (The Book of the Acts (NICNT) [Eerdmans, 1988], 245) ↑

2. For further on Apostles receiving revelation from Christian Prophets see section 8.3.C. ↑

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

4. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 1052. Underlining added. ↑

5. Ibid., 1055. ↑

6. Ibid., 1056. ↑

7. Ibid., 1055. ↑

8. See also William Neal, Acts, New Century Bible Commentary (Eerdmans, 1973), 217; G. H. W. Lampe, “Acts,” in Peake’s Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Thomas Nelson, 1962), 919. Bruce does not emphasize the divinity of Agabus’ prophecy (401). Neither does MacArthur (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997) in loc.) ↑

9. Marshall, 340. ↑

10. Robert L. Thomas, “Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” BSac 149 [1992], 91 ↑

11. For further on Dr. Grudem’s contention that real divine revelation comes to a Christian Prophet, but they are not able to sufficiently communicate it, see section 9.2.A. ↑

12. Robert Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (P & R, 1979), 65. ↑

13. Thomas, 91. ↑

14. Ignatius, To the Philadelphians, 7.2; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

15. David F. Farnell, “Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” Parts 1-4, BSac 150:597 (Jan 93), 72. ↑

16. Mundle, W. “Revelation” in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), IV:309 ↑

17. For confirmation of this see Archibald Robinson and Alexander Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (ICC) (T & T Clark, 1914), 267, 321-2. ↑

18. Grudem, Theology, 1056. ↑

19. For arguments that “the others” who are to evaluate the Prophets are other Prophets see section 9.10.A. ↑

20. For arguments that “you can all prophesy” refers to Prophets and not just anyone, see section 9.2.B.2. ↑

21. Ref. unknown. ↑

22. Ibid. ↑

23. Christopher Forbes concludes that Paul only means to prohibit women in the assembly from asking questions, and assumes Paul is not referring to tongues speech or prophecy at all, in spite of the fact that this is the context of the whole section (Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity And Its Hellenistic Environment [J. C. B. Mohr, 1995], 274-77). ↑

24. It is the view of both Drs. Grudem (The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians [University Press in America, 1982], 242-55) and D. A Carson (Showing the Spirit [Baker, 1987], 130) that we are to understand Paul as limiting his prohibition of women speaking in the church service to only their judging of prophesies. First of all, this approach seems to deny the good possibility that Paul envisioned other Prophets judging one another (cf. 1 Cor 14:29-30; cf. section ?), not the whole congregation in some sort of democratic fashion.

    Apart from the obvious contextual and practical difficulties with such an assumption, Samuel E. Waldron, Professor of Systematic Theology at The Midwest Center for Theological Studies writes:

    Wayne Grudem argues that 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 simply forbids women to engage in judging the Prophets (I Cor. 14:29b). Though his argument is ingenious, it is completely unconvincing. It is impossible in the present limited context to demonstrate thoroughly all the reasons why this is so. The major reason, however, is that his interpretation ignores the contextual use of both [laleō] (speak) and [sigaō] (keep silent).

    The verb (speak) used in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is used 24 times in I Corinthians 14. Eighteen times it refers to tongues-speaking, two times to prophesying (vv. 3 and 29), and 2 times (vv. 6 and 19) to general speaking or teaching. The verb [sigaō] (keep silent) is used in tandem with [laleō] in verses 28, 30, and 34. (These are its only uses in I Corinthians 14). It is used to command tongues-speakers, Prophets, and women in turn not to speak in the assemblies of the church, but to keep silent. The use of both these verbs in this context then, tend to support the view that in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, Paul is forbidding women to prophesy and to speak in tongues in the church. In contrast, these verbs are never used with reference to judging the Prophets. These facts by themselves are fatal for Grudem’s view.

    Grudem, however, rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it conflicts with I Cor. 11:5 and I Cor. 14:23-31. If I Corinthians 11:5 referred to women praying or prophesying in meetings of the church, Grudem might be right to see a conflict. The fact is, however, that there is no evidence that I Cor. 11:2-16 refers to meetings of the church. It likely has reference to less formal, public situations. The more formal, church situation is in view in I Cor. 14:33b-35–as Paul makes clear by his threefold use of the word church.

    As for I Cor. 14:23-31, the seemingly blanket permission for all to minister in the meetings of the church is clearly being qualified in verses 27-35. Furthermore, the “alls” and “eaches” of the previous verses are clearly hyperbolical. Paul clearly did not believe that all could speak in tongues (v. 23) or that all could prophesy (v. 24). He acknowledges that all did not even possess these gifts (1 Cor. 12:31 and 14:1). Finally, when Paul says in v. 31, “you can all prophesy,” he is referring to Prophets (v. 29) and not Prophetesses (Luke 2:36; Rev. 2:20; Acts 21:19). (To Be Continued? [Calvary Press, 2005], 93)

    Dr. Carson suggests two other points that can be answered on his opinion that Paul only means that women in the church cannot judge prophecies:

    First, the major objection is that it seems inconsistent for Paul to permit women to prophesy [1 Cor 11:5], and then to forbid them from weighing prophecies [which would also be exercising public and doctrinal authority over men]. But the objection carries little weight provided the view of prophecy I am outlining is understood [non-authoritative speech] to be the one with which Paul operated. It constitutes a problem only if prophecy has the same authority status that the great writing Prophets of the Old Testament enjoyed [how about Agabus?]. (130)

    We would simply offer virtually this entire chapter to suggest that while Dr. Carson is in rather full agreement with Dr. Grudem, he is in fundamental disagreement with the Scriptures in his understanding of NT Prophets. Unfortunately, his perspective leads him to make what would seem to be another unbiblical suggestion:

    In certain respects, then, it is proper for Paul to elevate teaching above prophecy [where does he do this?], especially if the teaching is considered part of the nonnegotiable apostolic deposit that serves in part as one of the touchstones enabling the congregation to weigh the prophecies granted to the church, and especially if the prophecies themselves, unlike the apostolic deposit, are subject to ecclesiastical appraisal. (Ibid.)

    It would seem Dr. Carson ignores two things. First, if anything, Paul ranked Prophets above Teachers when he wrote: “in the church God has appointed first of all Apostles, second Prophets, third teachers . . .” (1 Cor 12:28). Secondly, if the ministry of Teachers is such an essential way that the early Church was to authenticate Prophets, how would they have evaluated Agabus? As we have pointed out, real Prophets often received revelation which could not be authenticated by existing Scripture, which is why their real fundamental authentication was the ability to foretell the future. ↑

25. Anthony Thiselton seems to imply that the public “speaking” being referred to in 14:34-5 is merely female chattering (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 2000], 1157). ↑

26. Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 4.74.6-16; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

27. For further discussion of emotionalism is ancient and modern worship see chapters 4.8-11. ↑

28. H. Wayne House, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions at Corinth”, Bibliotheca Sacra, 140, [1983], 134-50. 141. ↑

29. MacArthur, 11:5. ↑

30. For further discussion of the condemnation of prophetism in 2^nd century Montanism see section 9.13.D. ↑

31. Arthur McGiffert, “Notes to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History”; online at http://www.ccel.org. It should be noted that Dr. McGiffert himself would probably object to us using his commentary on Montanism as evidence of pagan feminism. As for himself, he was positive about the rise of female prominence which he describes in Montanism. ↑

32. Philip Jenkins, Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History (Oxford University Press, 2000), 233. ↑

33. Ibid., 66. ↑

34. Ibid., 231. ↑

35. Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Addison-Wesley, 1995), 125, 131, 133, 137, 138. ↑

36. Ref unavailable. ↑

37. A sympathetic (4 stars) review of the book on Amazon gives additional insight into Ms. Wire’s approach to Scripture:

    If you have enough technical background into biblical criticism, this book is a treasure trove because Wire looks behind the text to see what the women in Corinth were up to–regardless of Paul’s judgment of their activities. Unfortunately, the general reader will quickly become lost.

    Unfortunately, by going “behind the text” to find what she is looking for, Ms. Wire becomes lost herself. ↑

38. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1987), 708 ↑

39. Fee, Corinthians, 699-705. Drs. Carson, Moo, and Morris comment:

    In I Corinthians, the view that 14:34-35 is a gloss [human addition to the divine text] was very much a minority position, until Fee defended it in his recent commentary. Fee’s stature as a textual critic has served to make this view more acceptable. The fact remains that although some [manuscripts] place verses 34-35 after verse 40, not one [manuscript] omits it; and despite Fee, convincing reasons can be given not only as to why a minority of [manuscripts] transposed this passage to the end of verse 40, but also as to how it should be understood within the context [of I Cor 14]. (Introduction to the New Testament [Zondervan, 1992], 283). ↑

40. Dr. Thiselton essentially bypasses the whole issue by asserting his second-rate view of prophecy as merely encouraging speech (826). Dr. Aune does not really reconcile these passages at all (258). ↑

41. Dr. Fee is so confident that there is a contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34-5 that he completely ignores other popular and historical possibilities altogether, and states this conviction as one of his reasons for denying that Paul could have written 14:34-5 (508-10, 702). Likewise, C. K. Barrett suggests that because of the supposed contradiction, this is “a strong argument in favor of” the view that 14:34-5 “were not a part of the original text” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) [Hendrickson, 2000], 330), a view which he prefers (333).

    Both men are paying a very high price for their unwarranted assumption that Paul must be speaking of a public worship service in 11:5. If they were only to concede the possibility (neither even discuss it) that a more informal setting is in Paul’s mind, as we suggest, the statements are completely reconciled. Instead, two of the most respected NT scholars of our generation are more confident that Paul was speaking of a public worship service in 11:5 than they are that 14:34-5 is even Scripture. ↑

42. Leon Morris also assumes that, “This verse plainly indicates that some Corinthian women prayed or prophesied in public worship.” (1 Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1999], 150). It is not plain at all. While he does not deny that 14:34-5 are Scripture like Dr. Fee and Barrett, he essentially neuters the Apostle’s command anyway by concluding, “We must exercise due caution in applying his principle to our own very different situation,” (151) suggesting that “immodesty” in the Greek culture was Paul’s only concern in 14:34-5. Apparently, therefore, if our culture does not deem it immodest for women to speak in a public assembly, we too can ignore Paul’s command. ↑

43. In spite of the fact that Christopher Forbes correctly believes that NT prophecy was, “verbal revelation, conceived of as revealed truth and offered to the community on the authority of God/Christ/the Holy Spirit” (236), he seems to ignore Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 when he accepts that such a thing was allowed by Paul in the public assembly. ↑

44. Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit ( Eerdmans, 2004), 209. ↑

45. Cf. Morris, Thiselton, 1153, Barrett, 330. Fee’s unhelpful bias seems to surface again when he claims that Genesis 3:16, “does not say what is here argued.” On the contrary, when we read God say, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” we readily see its connection to Paul’s command for women to be in submission. ↑

46. Obviously, the biblical view of men and women is a much broader topic than can be addressed here, and we do not mean to be frivolous about the many legitimate concerns people have regarding it. Let us simply state here that we deplore the selfish and cowardly abuse that occurs in even some Christian homes with the misapplication of these biblical commands. They are meant to be followed in the context of men who are sacrificially loving women and being worthy of the respect women are commanded to give them. ↑

47. John Calvin, Commentaries, in loc.; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

48. Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, in loc.; online at http://www.ccel.org. Albert Barnes suggests the same (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament; online at http://www.ccel.org.) ↑

49. In fact, most do not even mention the possibility that Paul might approach the topic of women prophesying in two steps. We have found no discussion of it in Barrett, Carson, Fee, Forbes, or Thiselton. ↑

50. MacArthur, Commentary, in loc. ↑

51. New Bible Commentary, 1382. ↑

52. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Hermeneia) (Augsburg, 1996), 298-99. ↑

53. I. H. Marshall, 1 Peter (Intervarsity, 1991), 147 ↑

54. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1999), 175-6. ↑

55. Dr. Grudem’s claim that the Greek text of 1 Peter 4:11 could merely be referring to the character of the speaker’s words, finds little support from other scholars. As noted above, Dr. Achtemeier notes that while [ōs: “as”] can mean “resemble,” the two likely options is that Peter is referring to Scripture or an oracle of God as OT Prophets spoke. “As” certainly doesn’t carry the meaning that speaking the “very words of God” could actually not be the word of God so much so that it would misrepresent God as Dr. Grudem claims Christian prophecy may do. Therefore, any intention to water down the divine authority with which Peter expected someone to speak with who possessed supernatural speaking gifts is unwarranted.

    While John Calvin, supported the sense of divine authority in 1 Peter 4:11, he confined it to the gift of teaching. Nonetheless, he wrote that Peter was expecting the speaker to “faithfully deliver to others, as from hand to hand, the doctrine received from God; for he forbids any one to go forth, except he who is instructed in God’s word, and who proclaims infallible oracles as it were from his mouth.” Comm. ↑

56. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2000). For a “defense of the representative status of John as an early Christian Prophet” as opposed to the suggestion by some that he was “a completely unique type of early Christian Prophet” see Aune, 206-08. ↑

57. Aune, 206-8. ↑

58. Morris, Moo, Carson, 479. ↑

59. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Intervarsity, 1990), 968 ↑

60. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Eerdmans, 2000), 37. ↑