Chapter 14.13

The Apostles & Mega Mysticism

 

Table of Topics

A) Christ’s Promises of Revelation For Apostles Do Not Prescribe the Same For Us

B) The Promise of an Advocate, Not a Counselor:

John 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:7-8

C) The Promise to Write Scripture, Not Receive Extra-biblical Revelation: John 14:25-26

D) Another Promise to Write Scripture, Not Provide Extra-biblical Truth: John 16:12-15

E) Apostolic Revelation, Not Mega Mystical Community:

1 Cor 2:1-16

F) “The Holy Spirit Said” through NT Prophets: Acts

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Luther: “It is not enough simply to look and see whether this is God’s word, whether God has spoken it; rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us. That makes all the difference between night and day.”
• The historical view of the Church would be that modern mega mysticism is taking apostolic promises of divine revelation for the purpose of writing Scripture, out of their intended context and misapplying them to themselves.
• The best translation of paraklēte is as an advocate speaking for someone, therefore negating the idea of a “counselor continually speaking to us.”
• The Gospels of Matthew and John are the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would enable them to remember all that He had said (cf. John 14:25-26). If we claim this promise for ourselves as mega mystics do, we lose a vital promise of the Apostle’s ability to write inerrant Gospels.
• Eldredge: “The implication [in historical Christianity is] that God has said all he has to say to us in the Bible. Period. It sounds orthodox. Except that’s not what the Bible says [quoting John 16:12-13].
• Carson: “[John 16:12-15] “has nothing to do with privileged information pertaining to one’s choice of vocation or mate.”
• The Revelation of John is itself the clearest fulfillment of the promise in John 16:12-15 and if so, then its use is excluded from being a proof text for mega mysticism.
• In 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 Paul is in the process of defending the divine authority of his revelatory ministry to the Corinthians, and the descriptions of himself receiving divine revelation cannot be claimed by mega mystics.
• References to the Holy Spirit speaking in Acts refer to the ministry of Christian Prophets that no longer exist today.

A) Christ’s Promises of Revelation For Apostles Do Not Prescribe the Same For Us

It is not only the experiences of biblical Apostles that mega mysticism claims as biblical support for its view. It also claims promises that would seem to have been made uniquely to the Apostles as well. Here we are reminded of a critically important rule for interpreting the Scriptures, described by Martin Luther (1483-1546) long ago when he wrote:

One must deal cleanly with the Scriptures. . . . It is not enough simply to look and see whether this is God’s word, whether God has spoken it; rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us. That makes all the difference between night and day. ^[1]

And this is why many Christians are left in the dark when they ignore this critical perspective. We have had occasion throughout Knowing Our God to remind the reader of it, and its importance is illustrated abundantly in regards to super-supernaturalism’s claim to the miracle working abilities of Apostles and Prophets as discussed elsewhere, ^[2] and mega mysticism’s claim to extra-biblical divine revelation as we will demonstrate here. Along these lines, Samuel Waldron writes:

This tendency among evangelicals not to recognize the centrality and distinctiveness of the apostolate in the New Testament (and rather to universalize, spiritualize, and devotionalize language that refers specifically to Apostles) has contributed significantly to the appeal of Charismatic and Continuationist arguments to evangelicals. ^[3]

The historical view of the Church would be that modern mega mysticism is taking apostolic promises of divine revelation for the purpose of writing Scripture, out of their intended context and misapplying them to themselves. These are critically important texts relating to the exclusive authority of the Apostles, and therefore, Scripture, and to apply them generally to all Christians negates their original intention and greatest value. But that his precisely what mega mysticism does to them.

B) The Promise of an Advocate, Not a Counselor: John 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:7-8

In Christ’s farewell discourse to His disciples He promised:

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor [paraclēton] to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

This would seem to be among the best candidates for biblical support of an expectation that the Holy Spirit will be directly, continually and personally guiding the Christian. What else would a supernatural “Counselor” Who will be with us and live in us “forever” do? Even if we remember that the context of this promise is an intimate discourse with the Twelve Apostles, it is difficult to not see some application for the Christian, as we too possess the Holy Spirit forever.

The primary difficulty with giving this statement a mega mystical interpretation, however, is not its context, but the Greek text. More specifically, the NIV (and NLT, RSV) translation of “paraklēton” as “Counselor” is inaccurate and misleading. Literally, the word means, “one called along side to help,” making the NASB (and ESV, NKJV, NCV, GNB) rendering of “Helper” a better translation. ^[4] The question, however, is what kind of helper is implied in the noun paraklētos? Is it the kind that counsels and instructs, speaking to the individual, or an advocate and intercessor who speaks on behalf of a person, not to them? The best translation of paraklētos is as an advocate speaking for someone, therefore negating the idea of a “counselor continually speaking to us.”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) gives the original Greek meanings for paraklētos which include: “helper,” “intercessor,” “advocate,” and “paraclete,” (representative). The common ideas “counselor” or “comforter” are not given as possible meanings of paraklētos. Accordingly, NT scholar D. A. Carson notes, “NIV’s ‘Counselor’ is not wrong, so long as ‘legal counselor’ [representative] is understood, not ‘camp counselor’ or ‘marriage counselor.’” ^[5]

Unfortunately, both the KJV and TLB translate paraklētos as “Comforter,” perhaps because of the misguided historical usage of this word as described by NT scholar Leon Morris:

Strangely, the Greek Fathers [e.g. Origen], seem normally to have used the word in the active sense, “consoler,” “comforter.” No reason appears to be given for this, and, though one must always pay respect to the Greek Fathers in their interpretation of a Greek word, in this particular case it is hard to escape the impression that they are not correct. Neither Greek use in general, nor that in the Greek Bible supports them. . . .

What then are we to say is the fundamental idea in paraklētos? There is fairly general agreement that “Comforter” is not the idea . . . which we owe in the English translation to Wycliffe” ^[6]

Likewise, McClintock and Strong note that both Luther and Erasmus adopted the meaning of “Comforter” for paraklēton as well, but respond, “the signification cannot be grammatically established, for no admissible instance can be adduced where the passive paraklēton is used in an active sense for paraklētōr.” ^[7] Accordingly, Carson says, “In today’s ears, ‘Comforter’ sounds either like a quilt or like a do-gooder at a wake, and for most speakers of English should be abandoned.” ^[8]

The best understanding of the Greek word paraklētos is “one who represents another in court.” Accordingly, the NIDNTT states:

It is first found in a legal context in the court of justice, meaning legal assistant (Demosthenes, 19, 1; cf. Lycurgus, Frag. 102). . . . The use of paraklētos for representative is to be understood in the light of legal assistance in court, the pleading of another’s case” ^[9]

Likewise, Carson writes:

In secular Greek, paraklētos primarily ^[10] means ‘legal assistant, advocate’ (Liddel, Scott, s.v.) i.e. someone who helps another in court, whether as an advocate, a witness, or a representative. With this legal force it was transliterated into Hebrew and Aramaic. ^[11]

Finally, we quote Bernard Ramm who writes:

In an essay unique in the literature of the Holy Spirit, Preiss calls attention to the juridical terminology behind so much New Testament vocabulary about the Holy Spirit. “The fact has been singularly neglected, as much in exegesis as in dogmatics,” he writes, “that almost all the terminology which is used to speak of the Spirit is in origin and in flavor more juridical than mystical or intellectual. The Spirit is before all things a witness.” ^[12]

Therefore, while paraklētos literally means “helper,” it had the more specific meaning of intercessor or advocate in court, which Webster’s defines as “one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court.” ^[13]

While this grammatical data would be enough to make our case, the Apostle John himself makes it clear what he meant by paraklēton. In its only other occurrence outside of the “farewell discourse” in John 14-16, John writes in his first letter: “If anybody does sin, we have One Who speaks to the Father in our defense [paraklēton “Advocate” NASB]—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1). Here, the idea of legal advocate is unmistakable, suggesting that in John’s other uses of it, the same idea was in his mind. Thus the NRSV translators render paraklētos as “Advocate” the other four times it is used in John 14-16. (cf. 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7)

Additional support for such a translation is the fact that later Rabbinic Judaism came to use paraklētos for “advocate,” or “defender,” especially of man before God. ^[14] Also, many early Church Fathers translated it this way including the author of the ancient Epistle of Barnabas, ^[15] Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, and Augustine, and such Reformers and Greek experts as Calvin, Beza, and Bengel did as well. ^[16] Finally, if John meant to render Christ’s words specifically as “counselor” or “helper” other Greek words in the NT were available (cf. hupēretēs, “helper” in Acts 13:5; boēthos, “helper” in Heb. 13:6; and sumboulos “counselor” in Rom 11:34).

Accordingly, after a detailed discussion, Dr. Morris translates paraklēton as, “The one who stands for us as the Friend at the heavenly court.” ^[17] Likewise, Max Turner, Director of Research at London Bible College concludes after a lengthy and very helpful study of the use of paraklēton: “’Advocate’ is probably the most secure rendering (and re-adopted by NRSV).” ^[18]

Using the NRSV rendering, we can see how the idea of an advocate fits the work of the Holy Spirit in the farewell discourse and elsewhere. For example, Paul in Romans 8 describes this intercessory ministry of the Spirit when he writes:

[T[he Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes [entugchanō] for us with groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will. (Rom 8:26-27)

Here we see the same idea we are suggesting Christ primarily means by paraklēton in John 14:16. Not someone who speaks to you to give you guidance, but one who speaks for you, as a friendly intermediary to God. Again, this is precisely how the word is used by John in his first letter when he writes: “[I]f anybody does sin, we have One who speaks to the Father in our defense [paraklēton “Advocate” NASB]—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”

This meaning fits John 14:16 well because of what Jesus says immediately before it: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever” (John 14:15-16 NRSV). It would be understandable in a context where Christ repeatedly reminds them to obey His commandments, that He would remind them that they will have an Advocate before God. Accordingly, Dr. Morris wrote:

It may be relevant to notice the frequent references to keeping the commandments in the context, at any rate of the first sayings (14:15, 21, 23, and 24). This is to be understood in the light of the fact that judgment is one of the great themes of this Gospel. A high standard is set before Christians, one that they do not meet. Precisely because of the standard expected and the certainty of judgment, they need a paraklēton. ^[19]

Notice too that in a context where many suggest Christ is promising mystical guidance, He is telling them to obey His commandments. Would anyone confidently claim that those commandments are communicated anywhere and in any way apart from Scripture?

In addition, most commentators notice that Christ says the paraklēton will be “another” (allos) Advocate, meaning like Him. The popular assumption is that this applies to Christ’s office as a teacher. However, paraklēton means advocate, not teacher. In other words, Christ is saying that He will give the disciples another advocate with God like He is their advocate before God. We notice then in this very discourse that Christ is an advocate for the disciples in His “high priestly prayer” in John 17 in which He asks things of the Father on their behalf (cf. vs. 9, 11, 15). This is in line with Christ’s continuing function as Advocate described in Hebrews: “Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (7:25). Therefore, if the meaning of paraklēton in John 14:16 is “advocate” there is certainly considerable evidence that both the Holy Spirit and Christ are this very thing.

In two other instances of paraklēton in the farewell discourse, the idea of advocate, instead of counselor, is clear. However, the context has changed from the advocate speaking for the disciples, to more specifically the Spirit’s mission to continue to speak for Christ in His absence. Accordingly, Jesus says:

When the Advocate [paraklēton] comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who comes from the Father, He will testify [martureō] on My behalf. You also are to testify [martureō] because you have been with Me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27 NRSV)

Here, the function of the paraclēte is to be an advocate, testifier to the world on Christ’s behalf, just as the Twelve would defend His claims as well. The idea of a “counselor” simply does not fit the context of witnessing here as “advocate” does. And if paraklēton clearly means “advocate” here in John 15, then we suggest that is its meaning in John 14.

The same idea of “witnessing” is found in another passage in the farewell discourse using paraklēton. There, Jesus says:

I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And when He comes, He will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:7-8 NRSV)

Once again, the function of the paraclēte here is not to communicate direct revelation to Christians, but to do the necessary work of conviction that must accompany the preaching of the Gospel for it to have a saving effect. ^[20]

Accordingly, R. C. Sproul summarizes our view of these passages concerning the Paraclete when he writes:

[T]he Spirit works to defend us, He works to convict the world of sin. He is our defense attorney, while at the same time exercising the role of prosecuting attorney against the world. . . . We see then that in His role as Paraclete the primary task of the Holy Spirit is forensic or legal [not mystical]. ^[21]

NT scholar R. V. G. Tasker brings out the meaning and context of Christ’s advocacy for His disciples in detail:

While Jesus has been with them, He Himself has been their Advocate. He has stood beside them like counsel for the defence summoned to the side of a prisoner to plead his cause and strengthen him in the hour of trial. He has prayed for Peter that his faith may not utterly fail (Lk. xxii, 32). He has defended the disciples against the charge brought against them by the Pharisees of breaking the sabbath (Mk. ii. 23ff.). He has befriended the blind man, upon whom He bestowed sight, after his excommunication from the synagogue (ix, 35). And at His forthcoming arrest He will plead with His adversaries to allow His followers to go free, so that the whole weight of the enemy’s attack may fall upon Himself (see xviii. 8). After Jesus has returned to the Father, the Holy Spirit which is His Spirit will continue to perform, in a manner unrecognizable by and unintelligible to the world, the same office He has Himself discharged for them so lovingly while He has been with them on earth. ^[22]

If indeed then the translation of paraklēton in John 14-17 as “Counselor” is incorrect and misleading as argued here, then popular literature on mega mysticism has lost perhaps its most repeated proof text for its claims.

C) The Promise to Write Scripture, Not Receive Extra-biblical Revelation: John 14:25-26

In a final use of the word paraklete, in a private meeting with the Twelve, just before He died, Jesus told them:

 

All this I have spoken while still with you [the Twelve].  [T]he Advocate [paraklēton ^[23]], the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you [the Twelve] all things [concerning the Christian life] and will remind you [the Twelve] of everything I have said to you [the Twelve].” (John 14:25-26)

This promise Christ originally gave to the Twelve is routinely used to support the mega mystical idea that the Holy Spirit will be continually “speaking” to us. Accordingly, Dr. Blackaby writes:

As Jesus was preparing the disciples for his imminent departure, he assured them that the coming of the Holy Spirit would be greatly to their benefit. Not only would the Holy Spirit be their teacher and counselor after Jesus ascended to heaven, but he would also bring to the disciples’ remembrance everything Jesus had said to them.

Some Bible commentators claim this promise was only meant for the eleven disciples in order to enable them to write Scripture. However, it would seem that just as Jesus’ Great Commission was for the succeeding generations of disciples, so this promise of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the lives of disciples pertains to contemporary followers of Jesus as well. ^[24]

We would respectfully disagree. Admittedly, we have a description here of the Holy Spirit as an “Advocate” teaching the disciples. While this was surely a role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the Apostles, we have demonstrated above that the word paraklete itself does not contain this idea.

Nonetheless, in this promise to the Twelve, do we have a promise for ourselves that the Holy Spirit will “teach” us “all things” and “remind” us of “everything” Christ said to the Apostles? Obviously, the mega mystical interpretation promises too much and becomes ludicrous. Can we say that the Holy Spirit is our personal teacher of “all things” (v. 25) a Christian needs to know? If He is then what do we need Scripture for? Or even medical and accounting books to learn such trades? Likewise, would anyone ever claim that the Holy Spirit has reminded them of everything Jesus ever said? Obviously not, therefore severely limiting, if not eliminating the mega mystical twist on this promise from the start.

However, there are several other indications that this promise was intended exclusively for the Apostles Jesus originally spoke it to. We notice that the promise was initially only directed to the Twelve Apostles and careful hermeneutics dictates that we not automatically assume it applies to others. Dr. Blackaby is right to point out that the Great Commission was apparently a private instruction to the Eleven (cf. Matt 28:16-10; Mark 16:14-18), but applicable to all Christians. Likewise, even in the intimate discourse recorded throughout John chapters 13-17 there are certainly a number of things that are just as applicable for Christians today as they were for the Twelve.

Nonetheless, there are elements in this passage that suggest it only applies to the Apostles. Christ uses the personal pronoun “you” (i.e. the Twelve) four times, and states that the promise specifically applies to “reminding” them of the things He had specifically taught them in person. This would not seem to include others, as no one else heard Jesus teach personally and privately as the Tweleve had. Therefore, it must be admitted that the wording most clearly points to a promise exclusive to the Twelve.

And the reason for such a promise is obvious. Apostles such a Matthew and John were going to write inerrant Gospels that would record what Christ said, and therefore they would need the Spirit to supernaturally “remind” them of “everything” (v. 26) Christ had said to them. In other words, a fulfillment of this promise was the Gospels of Matthew and John to whom the promise was personally and origninally given. To expand its application beyond the ability to write inerrant Gospels is wrong.

Accordingly, Dr. Morris writes concerning John 14:26: “This does not mean that He [the Spirit] will make new revelations; rather he will bring back to the [Twelve] disciples’ memory all the things that Jesus had told them.” ^[25] R. V. G. Tasker confirms that the fulfillment of this promise resulted in: “The very existence of this Gospel of John, and indeed of the entire New Testament,” ^[26] not in some subsequent extra-biblical revelations to Christians.

Similarly, we read in the New Dictionary of the Bible that John 14:26 is “a promise often perverted by extending its primary reference beyond the Apostles.” ^[27] Likewise, Dr. Carson comments:

Indeed, the Evangelist [John] himself draws attention to some things that were remembered and understood only after the resurrection (2:19-22; 12:16; cf. 20:9). Granted the prominence of this theme, the promise of v. 26 has in view the Spirit’s role to the first generation of disciples, not to all subsequent Christians.

John’s purpose in including this theme and this verse is not to explain how readers at the end of the first century may be taught by the Spirit, but to explain to readers at the end of the first century how the first witnesses, the first disciples, came to an accurate and full understanding of the truth of Jesus Christ. The Spirit’s ministry in this respect was not to bring qualitatively new revelation, but to complete, to fill out, the revelation brought by Jesus himself. ^[28]

Finally, it should be noted that if we accept a mega mystical interpretation of this promise we lose a lot. In the Church it has historically provided a critical promise concerning the unique authority of the Apostles as sources of the words of Christ. Many years ago, the influential Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) reflected the historical understanding of this promise when he wrote:

St. John, the most beloved among the twelve, testifies that the Lord Jesus gave them as Apostles a rare promise saying, “He shall guide you into all truth,” a word that may not be applied to others, but to the Apostles exclusively. And again “The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14.26); which promise was not intended for all, but for the Apostles only, securing them a gift evidently distinct from illumination. . . .

Care should be taken, therefore, in the choice of texts, proofs, and quotations from the Scripture, to ascertain not only what is said, but also to whom it was said. And thus the error concerning the apostolate will soon be overcome; and believers will see that the Apostles occupy a different position from other Christians, that the promises quoted bear an exceptional character. ^[29]

D) Another Promise to Write Scripture, Not Provide Extra-biblical Truth: John 16:12-15

The same can be said of Christ’s statement in the same discourse recorded in John 16:

I have much more to say to you [the Twelve], more than you [the Twelve] can now bear.  ¹³But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you [the Twelve] into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you [the Twelve] what is yet to come.  ¹⁴He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and making it known to you [the Twelve].  ¹⁵All that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is Mine and make it known to you [the Twelve]. (John 16:12-15)

A mega mystical interpretation is given by the popular Christian author John Eldredge who writes:

An old hymn celebrating the wonderful Scriptures has a line that goes something like this: “What more can he say, than to you he has said?” The implication being that God has said all he has to say to us in the Bible. Period. It sounds orthodox. Except that’s not what the Bible says: “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12-13). There’s more that Jesus wants to say to you, much more, and now that his Spirit resides in your heart, the conversation can continue. ^[30]

Likewise, Dr. Blackaby would seem to ignore the original meaning of Christ’s words when he interprets them as promising personal divine revelation about our personal future and writes:

Life is a mystery. Who knows what triumph or tragedy lies on the horizon? God does. God is not bound by time as we are. He is in the future, just as he is in the present. He knows your personal future. He is the only one who can guide you safely and securely through your life. ^[31]

Dr. Blackaby’s statement is true, but he is wrong to use John 16:12-15 to support it. Again, our insertion of “the Twelve” Apostles is based on the context of this intimate farewell discourse, and we should not readily assume these words apply to all Christians. Secondly, like the promise of being taught “all things” in John 14:16 discussed above, the promise here in John 16:13 of being guided “into all truth,” is a promise of the Apostles’ ability to receive by divine revelation “all truth” needed to know the ways and will of God in the New Covenant. Accordingly, and contrary to the mega mysticism, D. A. Carson comments that John 16:12-15, “has nothing to do with privileged information pertaining to one’s choice of vocation or mate.” ^[32]

Christ goes on to describe the unique divine revelation the Apostles would receive when He says the Spirit “will tell you what is yet to come” (v. 13). Such a promise did not, as Dr. Blackaby suggests, refer to the Twelve receiving revelation about their personal futures, but rather revelation regarding the future of the Church and the world as uniquely recorded in Scripture. Therefore, the Revelation of John is itself the clearest fulfillment of this promise in John 16:12-15 and if so, then its use is excluded from being a proof text for mega mysticism.

Accordingly, few commentators interpret this passage in a mega mystical way. For example, Herman Ridderbos says in his well regarded commentary on John:

[O]ne cannot simply characterize this discourse as a general address to the coming [Church] community (cf. 17:20). The reference here is above all to the apostolic witness effected by the Spirit, which forms the foundation of the coming church’s faith [and Scripture] (20:30, 31 [cf. Eph 2:20]). ^[33]

Along the same lines, the entry in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary concerning John 16:12-15 states: “In this promise lies the germinal authority of the apostolic writings, which transmit the revelation of Christ through his disciples by the work of the Holy Spirit.” ^[34]

Finally, concerning both of these apostolic promises of revelation for the production of Scripture, Sinclair Ferguson, former Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster writes:

The significance of these words is also commonly short-circuited as though they had immediate application to contemporary Christians. But in fact they constituted a specific promise to the Apostles which found its fulfillment in their writing of the New Testament Scriptures. The Gospels contain what they were reminded that Jesus had said and taught; in the letters we find the further illumination they received through the Holy Spirit.

Thus, when Jesus spoke later of their joint testimony with the Spirit (‘the Counselor . . . will testify about me. And you also must testify . . .’, Jn. 15:26-27), the standing example of this joint activity is found in the pages of the New Testament, which are the work of the Spirit and also, simultaneously, the testimony of the Apostles.

Further, in John 16:13-14, the promise that the Spirit ‘will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you’ encompasses the giving of the New Testament Scriptures in both their prophetic aspect and their Christological fullness.

No doubt these words have a continuing significance for Christians today, but not in the direct way in which they are often understood (the Spirit will lead me into all truth in an unmediated way). Rather, they indicate that it is by means of the apostolic witness (now inscripturated in the New Testament), not by direct revelation of the Spirit to individual believers or by corporate revelation to teaching officers (the claim which was to be developed in the Roman Catholic magisterium), that Christ’s person, his teaching and his future purposes are made known. ^[35]

 

E) Apostolic Revelation, Not Mega Mystical Community: 1 Cor 2:1-16

Another passage of Scripture that both speaks of revelation from the Spirit, and would most clearly and specifically apply to the first century Apostles, is 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. Again, it is important to notice the context. Paul is in the process of defending the divine authority of his revelatory ministry to the Corinthians. As Gordon Fee notes, “the entire paragraph has a strong apologetic overtone. By its results, his own ministry has been justified before them.” ^[36] In other words, the Corinthians were comparing Paul to the Greek philosophers and orators of worldy wisdom who spoke “with eloquence” (v. 1; cf. 1:18-25).

In fact, an overriding theme of the whole letter is Paul’s attempt to prove to the Corinthians that he possesses direct divine revelation from God that should be obeyed. ^[37] This defense is seen from chapter 2 where he claims uniquely authoritative revelation from God, to chapter 15 where he claims to have personally seen the risen Lord (cf. v. 8). This defense of his apostolic authority continued in 2 Corinthians where he writes:

I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. (2 Cor 13:2)

So, when we interpret 1 Corinthians chapter 2 we need to read it in light of Paul’s desire to show the Corinthians that what separates his teaching and authority from others is that he and his companions uniquely possess divinely authoritative revelation from God.

Another reason we believe the divine revelation spoken of in this passage refers specifically to the Apostles is that the content of the revelation is apostolic doctrine. It was not the normal Christian who had received a direct revelation of “God’s secret wisdom . . . that has been hidden” (v. 7), or a supernatural revelation of what, “no mind has conceived” (v. 9). The content was nothing less than the attributes of Heaven (“what God has prepared for those who love Him” [v. 9]) and the essence of the New Covenant Gospel (“what God has freely given us” [v. 12]). Of course this revelation was to be eventually known by all Christians, but through the Apostles who first received it supernaturally, which is the topic of the passage.

Another thing to notice in this passage is Paul’s use of “we” and “us” to refer to himself and others who were communicating “God’s secret wisdom” (v. 7). This surely does not apply to the Corinthian Christians in general, and may refer to Apollos and Peter who had ministered in Corinth as well (cf. 1:12; 9:5). As the Expositor’s Bible Commentary notes:

Paul says, God has revealed “to us”; that is, to Paul, to the other Apostles, and their associates, the spiritual wisdom that the unsaved rulers of this world did not understand. . . . Note also that throughout vv. 10-16 Paul speaks mostly in the first person plural, “we” (not “you”), strengthening the interpretation that he is referring primarily to divine revelation given to Apostles. Later in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 Paul returns to addressing the Corinthians as “you.” ^[38]

These two contexts then can be applied to the passage making its meaning clear. For example, Paul writes in verses 9-10:

However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him”— but God has revealed it to us [Apostles] by His Spirit. 

Paul is obviously speaking of divine revelation of things that “no mind has conceived.” It is his possession of this type of unique and sought after revelation that authorizes his ministry to the Corinthians and sets him apart from others. And Paul is certainly not saying that God had revealed these things directly to all the Corinthian Christians “by His Spirit” as He had for the Apostles.

Likewise, Paul writes in verses 12-13:

We [Apostles] have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we [Apostles] may understand what [the revelation] God has freely given us. This is what we [Apostles] speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. (1 Cor 2:12-13; cf. Eph 3:2-9)

 

Paul’s words again seem to be applicable specifically to revelatory Apostles. A simple explanation of Paul’s reference to “we” is that the criticism must have spread to other Apostles as well. Accordingly, it required divine revelation to “understand what God has freely given us” in His plan of salvation. This knowledge makes up a great deal of what the Apostles write in Scripture. In fact, all that we need to understand concerning our salvation is in Scripture and there is no need for further revelation regarding it. And it is these very doctrines that the Apostles “speak,” but their speaking is not the more natural speech of a Teacher explaining the revelation contained in Scripture, but rather we have here one of the clearest descriptions of the divine revelation that made both Apostles and their writings the most authoritative source of divine instruction in the world.

How better to defend his authority than to claim such a unique gift of divine revelation? As Calvin comments on verse 13, “He speaks of himself, for he is still employed in commending his ministry.” ^[39] Therefore, Paul is not speaking of a spiritual gift that all the Corinthians have, but rather one that he and other Apostles uniquely have, thereby distinguishing him as having the authority to command the things he does in this very letter.

Even if someone wanted to say that such descriptions applied to the Corinthians then, and to Christians today in general, there is still no clear support for the idea of constant, personal, supernatural interaction between God and His people. Rather, the revelation Paul is speaking of concerns the meaning of Christ, not individual revelation for daily decisions. Even the Pentecostal NT scholar Dr. Fee comments, “It is not esoteric wisdom that has been revealed by the Spirit, but the content of the gospel, God’s “mystery.” ^[40]

Finally, Paul says, “we have the mind of Christ” (v. 16). Was he including the Corinthian Christians in general in this statement? Not likely when a few verses later he tells them, “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual, but as worldly—mere infants in Christ” (3:1). And if Paul did not mean to include the Corinthian Christians in such a claim, then no Christian today should either. It was the Apostles who possessed “the mind of Christ,” the very thing He had uniquely promised them in John 14:25-26 and 16:12-15 as discussed above, and which gave them their superior ability and authority to represent Christ through their writings in Scripture. ^[41]

Accordingly, the revelatory uniqueness of the Apostle Paul is illustrated when he was told: “The God of our fathers has [uniquely] chosen you to know His will and to [uniquely] see the Righteous One and to hear words from His mouth. You will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard” (Acts 22:14-15). Obviously, seeing the resurrected Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 15:8), seeing Heaven (cf. 2 Cor 12:1-4), and receiving the Gospel by direct revelation (Gal 1:11), were all extremely unique revelatory experiences and anyone claiming the same today simply isn’t believable.

Therefore, we appreciate the conclusion of Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee regarding 1 Corinthians 2:1-16:

This paragraph has endured a most unfortunate history of application in the church. Paul’s own point has been almost totally lost in favor of an interpretation nearly 180 degrees the opposite of his intent. Almost every form of spiritual elitism, “deeper life” movement, and “second blessing” doctrine has appealed to this text. To receive the Spirit according to their special expression paves the way for people to know “deeper truths” about God. One special brand of this elitism surfaces among some who have pushed the possibilities of “faith” to the extreme, and regularly make a “special revelation” from the Spirit their final court of appeal. Other “lesser” brothers and sisters are simply living below their full privileges in Christ.

Indeed, some advocates of this form of spirituality bid fair to repeat the Corinthian error in its totality. What is painful about so much of this is not simply the improper use of this passage, but that so often it is accompanied by a toning down of the message of the cross. In fact one is hard-pressed to hear the content of “God’s wisdom” ever expounded as the paradigm for truly Christian living.

Paul’s concern needs to be resurrected throughout the church.The gift of the Spirit does not lead to special status among believers; rather, it leads to special status vis-a-vis the world. But it should do so always in terms of the centrality of the message of our crucified/risen Savior. The Spirit should identify God’s people in such a way that their values and worldview are radically different from the wisdom of this age. They do know what God is about in Christ; they do live out the life of the future in the present age that is passing away; they are marked by the cross forever. As such they are the people of the Spirit, who stand in bold contrast to those who are merely human and do not understand the scandal of the cross. Being spiritual does not lead to elitism; it leads to a deeper understanding of God’s profound mystery-redemption through a crucified Messiah. ^[42]

F) “The Holy Spirit Said” through NT Prophets: Acts

There were times that Apostles received revelation through Prophets. We read of the clearest example as follows:

After we had been there 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)

Here, the Holy Spirit communicated extra-biblical revelation to Paul and did it through a NT Christian Prophet.

We believe the same thing occurred in the following event where we are told NT Prophets were present:

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. ^[43] 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. ^[44] 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.

We would also suggest the following revelation to Paul came through a prophetic ministry as well. He writes:

Compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. (Acts 20:22)

Note that Paul says these divine warnings came when he visited “every city” on his way to Jerusalem. More specifically, he was no doubt visiting a church in each of those cities, and characteristic of the time, the local churches had Prophets. What Paul is describing here probably occurred in much the way he experienced the Prophet Agabus’ warning, which was also during the same trip.

Likewise, the Apostle wrote: “The Spirit clearly says [legei: to express oneself orally or in written form, utter in words, say, tell, give expression to ^[45]] that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Tim 4:1; cf. 1 Tim 1:7; 2 Tim 2:7). Once again, the use of legei here excludes the idea of some sort of direct mental telepathy. The Spirit uttered something audible. However, it is most likely that this is another instance of the Spirit giving this prediction through a Christian Prophet. ^[46] While there is little NT Scripture from NT Prophets (Jude may be an example), here is at least a probable instance of a prophetic revelation recorded in apostolic writing.

We would offer a similar explanation for the following event as well:

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. (Acts 16:6-7)

We would suggest that at least one of Paul’s “companions” was a Prophet as well, and through him, the Holy Spirit provided this specific direction. In fact, we know that Silas was both accompanying Paul at this point in his journey (cf. Acts 15:40) and he was known as a Christian Prophet (cf. Acts 15:32). If this explanation is unconvincing, we note that Paul has a vision immediately after this incident instructing him to go to Macedonia. No doubt the Spirit could have provided such warnings in the same way.

The same explanation is best for Acts 15:28 where we read that after the “Jerusalem Council” the Apostles wrote the churches: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements.” How did the Apostles and Elders present know that their decision “seemed good to the Holy Spirit”? Because there were Christian Prophets present who were able to receive direct divine Scripture-quality revelation from God. The Council sent “Judas and Silas” (v. 22) to deliver the letter to “the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia” (v. 23). These two men were no doubt present at the Council and are specifically and intentionally described by Luke as follows: “Judas and Silas . . . were Prophets” (v. 32). And considering the pivotal and new nature of the doctrine coming from the “Jerusalem Council” it is understandable that God would authenticate it with the authority of authenticated Prophets. Some sort of feeling or mere thought that these divine directions “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” might be sufficient for modern mega mystics but not for first century Christians.

Nevertheless, such biblical data gives no support to the mega mystical claim that God normally guides us through mental impressions. Paul never was. ^[47]

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1) What do we claim is the proper translation of paraklēte in the NT? What ramifications does our translation have for interpreting the Scriptures that use it? Do you agree or disagree with this translation and these ramifications and why?

2) What is our interpretation of John 14:25-26 and the ramifications for mega mysticism? Do you agree or disagree?

3) What is our interpretation of John 16:12-15 and the ramifications for mega mysticism? Do you agree or disagree?

4) What is our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 and the ramifications for mega mysticism? Do you agree or disagree?

Publications & Particulars

1. Martin Luther, “How Christians Should Regard Moses,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 124. Underlining added. ↑

2. Regarding the unbiblical nature of modern super-supernaturalism concerning miracle working see Book 11. ↑

3. Samuel Waldron, To Be Continued? (Calvary, 2005), 23. ↑

4. However, “Helper” would not seem the best translation of paraklēte. Dr. Carson writes, “’Helper’ (GNB) is not bad, but has overtones of being subordinate or inferior, overtones clearly absent from John 14-16” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1991], 499). Likewise, Leon Morris comments, “’Helper’ is better [than “Comforter”], but it does not really face the fact that the word is not active in meaning.” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1995], 589). ↑

5. Carson, 499. ↑

6. Morris, 588-89. ↑

7. John McClintock and James Strong, “paraklēte,” in Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (M&S) CD-ROM (Ages Software, 2000) ↑

8. Carson, 499. ↑

9. G. Braumann, “Advocate,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), I:88-89. ↑

10. Dr. Carson states that, “In secular Greek, paraklētos primarily means ‘legal assistant, advocate” (499). This would seem somewhat of an understatement. As noted below, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BDAG) can only find one instance where the word is used as “advisor.” This is in the writings of Philo, who, as also noted below, used it to mean otherwise at all other times. The BDAG states:

    παράκλητος, ου, ὁ (παρακαλέω) originally meant in the passive sense ‘one who is called to someone’s aid’. Accordingly Latin writers commonly rendered it, in its NT occurrences, with ‘advocatus’; i.e. the role of the ‘patronus’ in legal proceedings, but the technical meaning ‘lawyer’, ‘attorney’ is rare. In the few places where the word is found in pre-Christian and extra-Christian lit. as well it has for the most part a more general sense: one who appears in another’s behalf, mediator, intercessor, helper. . . .

    The passive idea of παρακεκλῆσθαι retreated into the backgound, and the active idea of παρακαλεῖν took its place. In Philo our word sometimes means ‘intercessor’ (De Jos. 239, Vi. Mos. 2, 134, Spec. Leg. 1, 237, Exsecr. 166, Adv. Flacc. 13; 22), sometimes ‘adviser [rather “guide”]’, ‘helper’ (Op. M. 23; 165).

    The Greek interpreters of John’s gospel understood it in the active sense=παρακαλῶν or παρακλήτωρ (s. Lampe παράκλητο, esp. Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ammonius; also Ephraem the Syrian in RHarris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syr. 1895, 86). In our lit. the active sense helper, intercessor is suitable in all occurrences of the word (so Goodspeed Probs. 110f). (F. W. Danker, ed., 3^rd ed. [University Of Chicago Press, 2001]). ↑

11. Carson, 499. ↑

12. Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit (Eerdmans, 1959), 72. For the article quoted by Ramm see “The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit,” Interpretation, VII (1953). ↑

13. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Merriam-Webster, 1986), 59-60. ↑

14. Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (Hendrickson, 1998), 77. See also NIDNTT, I:89. ↑

15. Cf. Morris, 588. ↑

16. See extended discussion of “paraclete” in McClintock and Strong where they conclude the meaning “advocate.” ↑

17. Morris, 591. Dr. Morris adds that the Greek expert, B. F. Westcott, “points out that the form of the word is “unquestionably passive” and that the classical use “is equally clear. The word is used technically for the ‘advocates’ of a party in a cause, and specially for advocates for the defence.” He finds a similar usage in rabbinic writers and in early Christian writings like the Epistle of Barnabas (588).

    All of which makes Herman Ridderbos’ comments inexplicable:

    As to the first of these questions, the consensus is that in John 14-16 [paraklēton]; does not have the meaning in Greek and Hellenistic usage of “advocate, professional legal adviser, defender, or representative before a court. In I Jn. 2:1 Jesus himself is very clearly called “an advocate with the Father,” and this function is attributed to the Spirit elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Ro. 8:27), though without the title [paraklēton]. But in John 14-16 no such function of the Spirit as advocate of the disciples and defender before God is mentioned (500). ↑

18. Turner, 79. ↑

19. Morris, 590. ↑

20. Along these lines, Dr. Turner writes:

    He [the Holy Spirit] is the chief ‘advocate’ of the case with which the disciples have become identified. The impending removal of Jesus through cross and exaltation cannot be allowed to leave the disciples ‘as orphans’ (v. 29) i.e. without an advocate for their case. (In Judaism, children (and women, usually) could not give evidence in court, their fathers represented them; so an orphan is powerless – unless, that is, he or she has some other advocate, which is precisely the point here.)

    Furthermore, neither may the case God has commenced through the advocate Jesus be lost by being reduced to silence through his departure. Rather, the disciples are now ‘sent’ as Jesus was ‘sent’ (20:21; cf. 17:17,18), and the Spirit from the heavenly Lord is given to them to take over the earthly Jesus’ advocacy of the case (15:26,27; 16:7b-11). . . .

    The forensic [legal] thrust of the Spirit’s function as ‘advocate’ is most explicitly brought out in 16:8-11. 16:8 affirms that when the Paraclete comes he will ‘expose’, or’convict’ the world with respect to sin, righteousness (86). ↑

21. R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Christian Focus, 2009), 187. See support for our view here at pp. 182-7. ↑

22. Tasker, 166-7. ↑

23. For arguments against understanding the role of the Holy Spirit as a “Counselor” and translating the Greek word paraklete in that way see above section. ↑

24. Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 83. See also Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 275-6, who applies these verses to all believers. John MacArthur writes:

    During the Upper Room discourse, shortly before His betrayal and arrest, Jesus told the apostles, “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:25-26). That promise had special significance for the apostles, who would become Christ’s uniquely authoritative witnesses to His truth after His ascension back to heaven. But the promise also applies in a general way to all believers after Pentecost. From that time on, every believer has been indwelt by Christ’s own Holy Spirit, whose ministry to us includes that of shedding divine light on scriptural truths that otherwise are beyond our comprehension. (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997], Rom 8:14.

    While we would agree with Dr. MacArthur’s application of this passage to the Apostles, we would disagree with his view of what is known as the theory of “the illumination of the Spirit.” For further discussion see chapter 3.5. ↑

25. Morris, 583. ↑

26. Tasker, 168. ↑

27. A. F. Walls, “Apostle,” New Bible Dictionary (NBD), J. I. Packer, et al. eds., 3rd ed., (Intervarsity, 1996), 58. ↑

28. Carson, 505. ↑

29. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. by Henri De Vries, (Eerdmans, 1946), 154-5. ↑

30. John Eldredge, Waking the Dead (Nelson, 2003), 102. ↑

31. Blackaby, 75. ↑

32. Carson, 540. ↑

33. Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1997), 536. ↑

34. Merrill C. Tenney in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.) ↑

35. Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 1996), 70-71 ↑

36. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1987), 89. ↑

37. Concerning the background of 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee writes:

    The key issue here is their calling his authority into question. What right does he have to speak to them as he did in the Previous Letter, since there is considerable doubt, based on their own criteria, whether he is truly pneumatikos (spiritual) or a prophet (cf. 14:37)? (8).

    Unfortunately, Dr. Fee and many other commentators seem to completely ignore this context when interpreting 1 Corinthians 2, applying the revelatory language to the Corinthians themselves, and negating any defense Paul may be making of his unique divine knowledge and authority. ↑

38. W. Harold Mare in the EBC. See also John MacArthur, 1 Cor 2:12-13 and Charles Hodge, 1 Cor 2:12-13. ↑

39. John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, (Ages Software, 1998), 1 Cor 2:13. ↑

40. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Hendrickson, 1994), 851. ↑

41. In our opinion, we are not able to find very many good commentators on this passage. Most modern ones claim that 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 refers to some revelation or illumination given to all Christians. We argue against this and present evidence that the Apostle is defending his apostleship in this passage and is primarily only referring to the supernatural revelation of Apostles.

    There is an absence of good discussions on specifically 1 Corinthians 2:16 as well. Most modern commentators simply don’t discuss it at length. Dr. MacArthur applies it to the idea of the illumination of the believer to understand the Scriptures, a teaching we have altogether argued against elsewhere (see chapter 3.5). An older commentator like Dr. Barnes (1798–1870) thought “the mind of Christ” refers to His “views, feelings, and temper [character].”

    However, for an excellent interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 see Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, online at ccel.org. Dr. Hodge writes concerning v. 6: “The Lord had revealed certain doctrines” to the Apostles.

    Anthony Thiselton argues that the “we” in v. 6 expands the following statements to describe, “a common activity within the community” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 2000], 229). Accordingly, he completely ignores the context of the Apostle defending his ministry by claiming a unique revelatory experience and authority.

    In support of his view, Dr. Thiselton quotes Schrage, “Without doubt [ēmōn] in 7b and we in v. 12 signify all Christians (ibid.). Admittedly, he is right on the first point, the Apostle writing: “No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our [ēmōn: i.e. all Christians] glory before time began” (v. 7). However, if our case that Paul is defending the ministry of himself and his companions is correct, then the following need not be interpreted as referring to all Christians: “We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us” (v. 12). The Apostle is not speaking of illumination here, but revelation.

    It is interesting to note that even the Charismatic theologian Wayne Grudem applies John 14:26; 16:13-14; and 1 Cor 2:9-16 specifically to the divine revelation of the NT Apostles (Systematic Theology [Zondervan, 1994], 60). ↑

42. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 120. ↑

43. 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) ↑

44. 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 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. For further discussion on the biblical nature of the gift of prophecy see Book 9. ↑

45. BAGD. ↑

46. Opinions vary as to how the Spirit spoke this revelation referred to in 1 Tim 4:1. G. W. Knight thinks Paul is referring to the warnings recorded in the Gospels (i.e. Matt 24:10) (Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [Eerdmans, 1992], 188), and Stott suggests the possibility of His messages in Revelation (The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus [Intervarsity, 1996]). However, I. H. Marshall points out: “But this is improbable here, since elsewhere [Christ’s] teaching is attributed to him personally as the Lord [not the Spirit] (The Pastoral Epistles [T & T Clark, 1999], 537). Gordon Fee and Dr. Stott suggest the possibility of “the Spirit speaking to Paul as he writes [inspiration?],” apparently based on the present tense of legei (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus [Hendricksen, 1988], 98). But again, Marshall points out:

    Legei (pres. tense) introduces a statement which remains valid though spoken in the past [cf. 1 Tim 5:18; Rom 4:3, 6; 9:15 etc.]. There is, therefore, no need for the explanation that the author means that the Spirit is speaking to him even as he is writing (Ibid.).

    Dr. Marshall offers support for the idea that the Spirit’s utterance here had come through a Christian Prophet, referring to Rev 2:7; 14:13; 22:17 and C. K. Barrett (537). Gordon Fee suggests this as well in his commentary, but more strongly argues for it in his God’s Empowering Presence (Hendricksen, 1994, 769). MacArthur does not comment on this. ↑

47. Dr. Barnes commented on the guidance of the Spirit described in Acts 16:6-7 as “Probably by a direct revelation.” Nonetheless, most commentators put a mega mystical spin on this passage. John Stott writes:

    [H]ow the Holy Spirit did his preventive work on these two occasions we can only guess. It may have been through giving the missionaries a strong, united inward impression, or through some outward circumstance like illness, Jewish opposition or a legal ban, or through the utterance of a Christian prophet, perhaps Silas himself (15:32). (Acts, in loc)

    “[S]trong, united inward impression,” or interpreting “some outward circumstance like illness” or “Jewish opposition” is the language of mega mysticism and has no biblical support whatsoever. How in the world would these men know that a mere “inward impression” was the Holy Spirit’s prohibition to go somewhere? It just as well could have been heartburn from what they had eaten for lunch. “The utterance of a Christian prophet” is the only suggestion with biblical merit.

    Likewise, I. H. Marshall writes: “Presumably some inner compulsion is meant, or perhaps a prophetic utterance by one of the party” (Acts, 262).

    Along the same lines, F. F. Bruce commented:

    Paul’s missionary journeys display an extraordinary combination of strategic planning and keen sensitiveness to the guidance of the Spirit of God, however that guidance was conveyed—by prophetic utterance, inward prompting, or the overruling of external circumstances. (Acts, 307).

    On the contrary, God ensures that His commands do not require “keen sensitiveness,” to notice them, but will be readily perceived.

    Dr. MacArthur is hardly better in this regard, commenting: “The missionary team’s experience illustrates a basic principle of knowing God’s will: to move ahead and allow Him to close doors until the right opportunity is reached.” Discerning open and closed doors in our circumstances in an attempt to decipher a divine command that must be obeyed is again, mega mystical language and not biblical.

    For further discussion regarding mega mysticism see Book 14. For further discussion on how Paul was led by reason in his decision making see section 4.4.A. ↑