Does Prophecy Continue?
Did all the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, such as tongues and prophecy, cease with the completion of the New Testament? If we take the position that prophecy continues in some form, is such a view compatible with the conviction that God has given us all the authoritative revelation He intended to give (that the the canon of Scripture is closed)?
Last January, Dr. Bruce Compton (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) presented a paper on these questions at the Preserving the Truth Conference. What follows is a summary reflecting my understanding of Compton’s analysis. The full paper is available at the PTC resources page.1
The two levels of prophecy view
Since Dr. Wayne Grudem’s work has been foundational for many who believe in a continuing gift of prophecy, Compton’s paper focuses on Grudem’s view2 that the NT speaks of two levels of prophecy: apostolic and non-apostolic. Grudem maintains that apostolic prophecy was authoritative and inerrant in the same way that Old Testament prophecy was and that this form of prophecy ceased when the NT Scriptures were completed.
But Grudem holds that a second level of prophecy—also a gift of the Spirit—existed simultaneously in NT times. This second level of prophecy is subject to error and not divinely authoritative. Consequently, it continues among believers to the present day.
Compton’s central question should be ours as well: does Grudem’s exegetical work truly support the idea of two levels of prophecy? Grudem’s case rests primarily on three arguments and three texts.
Ephesians 2:20
Grudem’s first argument3 is that the NT refers to two kinds of prophecy and distinguishes between them. His primary text is Ephesians 2:20: “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (NKJV).
Grudem understands “apostles and prophets” here to mean “apostolic prophets,” and bases his conclusion on a grammatical principle known among Greek students as Granville Sharp. Grudem’s conclusion is that only this foundational apostolic prophecy was uniquely inerrant and authoritative and that ordinary prophecy did not possess these qualities.
1 Corinthians 14:29
Grudem’s second argument4 is based on NT instructions to test the messages of prophets. His reasoning is that if prophecies had to be tested, this must mean believers had to sort out what was accurate from what was in error. And since OT prophecy and apostolic prophecy was inerrant, these verses must be referring to a different kind of prophecy, a second level of prophecy.
The primary text involved in this argument is 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.”
Grudem acknowledges that the NT passages referring to testing prophecy are similar to OT passages aimed at distinguishing true prophets from false ones, but argues that the NT passages are also different in important ways. For example, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that these were already-approved prophets and that the “judging” refers to the contents of their prophecies. He argues further that diakrino (“judge”) here has the idea of “making distinctions” and not so much to judging the individual.
Grudem also sees support in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21: “Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
Acts 21:10-11
Thirdly, Grudem argues5 that there must be two levels of prophecy because the NT records at least one example of a true prophet prophesying in error. The clearest case of this is the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21:10-11.
…a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”
In Grudem’s view, Agabus’ prediction does not match what actually occurred in Acts 21:27-35. Rather than the Jews binding Paul and delivering him to the Gentiles, Gentiles bind him and he is taken forcefully by the Romans. Since Agabus was a true prophet, yet fell short of the OT standards for true prophets, his prophecy must have been of a different type.
Grudem argues further that though Agabus’ formula, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” is very similar to the phrase “Thus says the Lord” in the Greek version of the OT, it is not identical. It is possible that Agabus was attributing the basic content of his prophecy to the Spirit but not claiming the particular words. Apparently, Grudem’s view is that Agabus received a general prophecy but misunderstood—and then misspoke—the particulars.
Problems with Grudem’s view
In Compton’s analysis, Grudem fails to make an adequate exegetical case for two levels of prophecy in the NT.
“Apostles and prophets”
Grudem’s Granville Sharp argument has some weaknesses.6 Though it is possible to interpret a plural Granville Sharp construction in the sense of “apostolic prophets,” the NT offers no examples of a plural Granville Sharp construction working this way. NT examples suggest that the phrase “apostles and prophets” either denotes two distinct groups (equivalent to the English “apostles and prophets”) or indicates that the first group is a subset of the second (something like “apostles and other prophets”).
On the whole, the NT evidence favors seeing two distinct groups in Ephesians 2:20, both of which form the inerrant and authoritative foundation of the church.
Grudem attempts to insure his view against Ephesians 2:20 problems by saying that even if the passage refers to two groups, he’d argue for a third non-authoritative congregational type of prophet. Compton counters that the context of Ephesians 2:20 refers to the apostles and prophets of churches in general, so what is true of them in Ephesians 2:20 is true of them elsewhere.
My own observation: even if the Ephesians passage means “apostolic prophets,” the statement does not prove that that there were non-apostolic prophets or that, if this category existed, their prophecy was any different in character from that of the apostolic prophets.
“Let the others judge”
The argument from prophet-testing is similarly inconclusive.7 Grudem grants that the non-apostolic prophets would have been tested at some point to determine whether they were true prophets and that the content of their prophecies would be the basis for testing. But if that was the case, how could an approved prophet later utter untrue prophecy? The criteria used to identify him as true initially would be violated. Wouldn’t this require him to be re-classed as a false prophet?
In addition, the verb diakrino in 1 Corinthians 14:29 is more flexible than Grudem suggests. The word can mean something close to “judge” (1 Cor. 4:7, “makes you to differ”; 11:29, “discerning”). And the verb in 1 Thess 5:20-21 (“test all things”) is the same one John uses in 1 John 4:1.
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
All of the prophet-testing passages should be taken in the same sense as 1 John 4:11 and in the same sense that the OT prophets were tested.
Bound by the Jews and handed over
Was Agabus’ prediction that Paul would be bound by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles inaccurate? It is possible to interpret his prophecy in a way that is consistent with what later occurred, and evidence elsewhere in Acts supports such an interpretation.8 The Jews in Jerusalem were certainly the ultimate cause of Paul’s imprisonment. Furthermore, in Acts 24:5-8, the Jewish lawyer Tertullus describes Paul’s case to governor Felix using the phrase, “we [the Jews] arrested him” (Acts 24:5-8). Later, Paul describes his initial arrest to Agrippa and Felix: “some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death” (Acts 26:21).
Agabus’ introductory phrase, “Thus says the Holy Spirit” is also not so easily dismissed. The formula differs only from “Thus says the Lord” in identifying the Lord as the Holy Spirit. Grudem fails to demonstrate that Agabus only meant that the gist came from God but not the words.
Conclusions
Grudem’s goal has been to safeguard the doctrine of the closed canon and simultaneously allow for ongoing prophecy. To do this, he proposes a view of continuing prophecy that is both subject to error and non-authoritative.
But in Compton’s analysis, Grudem fails to show that any legitimate NT prophecy was subject to error and non-authoritative. What’s more, the idea of non-authoritative prophecy is a problem in itself. When God truly reveals something to a prophet, how can that special revelation be anything less than authoritative? Whenever such a prophet delivers a true prophecy, it must be as binding as everything else God has revealed.
In Compton’s words, “either New Testament prophecy ceased with the writing of the New Testament and the canon is closed or New Testament prophecy continues and the canon is open. There is simply no middle ground.”9
Notes
1 The presentation and paper are entitled “A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Two Levels of Prophecy.”
2 Grudem’s primary work on the subject is The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, Revised Ed., Crossway, 2000.
3 Compton, p. 2-4.
4 Compton, p. 5-7.
5 Compton, 8-10.
6 Compton, 3-5.
7 Compton, 6-7.
8 Compton, 9-10.
9 Compton, 11-12.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 20 views
Grudem’s horse died in the gate. His arguments were an attempt to give some credence to the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement so we can embrace them a La CJ Mahany et. al. The problem is that no one has ever produced verified legitimate tongues or prophecy as presently occurring. Where, what, and when has, or are, these so called prophecies of errors occurring? Is it Pat Robertson? Pat’s prophecies and “words of knowledge” are so full of errors and foolishness that one dare not attribute any part of them to God. The same for all such that has or is occurring elsewhere. Whenever you find someone giving any worthwhile prophecy that can be attributed as having God as its source let me know. Until then Grudem’s theory is like arguing whether UFO’s are Red or Brown, or both. Much ado about nothing using an argument that even the Greeks probably didn’t know about. Oh no it’s the double dare Granville Sharp rule! It’s the coup de gras of all Greek slams.
Oh wait, that prophecy was wrong. Oh well, it doesn’t matter. We just add them up and get an average. 300 is a good average in baseball. Perhaps God plays baseball with prophecy?
Perhaps God changed his mind and started to allow Prophecies with errors because in some parts of the world they are short of stones?
As far as I know, Grudem has not argued for the continuation of tongues, but with a plausible exegetical case for prophecy, others have felt more comfortable doing that.
It’s really an an idea with very serious implications. More evangelicals are warming to Mormonism. Maybe a factor is the fact that they share a belief in continuing revelation… or share an emphasis on some kind of subjective inner light vs. a reliance on Scripture. The whole emergent trend is also keen on personal insight allegedly from God in addition to—or even having no relationship to—Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
I’m not sure Grudem is correct in all his exegesis, but I don’t find the cessationist case all that convincing either. What exactly is happening in 1 Cor. 14 with the judging and 1 Thess. 5???
Have you read Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Power of the Spirit? Or what about Sam Storms, Convergence: The Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist? If this is really a case of show me the examples and facts, these books should convince. It usually ends up that you want a disinterested third party there, an affidavit and signatures in blood by ten witnesses or something.
I read these books and see men in good conscience explaining what’s happened to them and their careful desire to conform to Scripture and also be true to their newfound experiences.
Is this really all that different, though, from some of the Revival stories that are told? The Welsh revival is full of quite unbelievable tales, yet most fundamentalists accept them. We’re also fine with stories of exorcisms and miracles in darkest Africa. That’s fine, but when someone wants to explain some story of a wondrous healing done on Western soil, he’s disbelieved until the medical reports are provided.
The whole argument includes quite a bit of silence in Scripture. The Biblical arguments as opposed to the experiential ones, are very weak or inconclusive. I find the argument that allowing for non-Scriptural (so in some sense definitely “secondary”) prophecy is opening the door for wholesale error and additional books added to the canon and the like, I find that argument unsound.
Yes, there have been abuses, and there still are. But a knee jerk reaction that solidifies the status quo of Western churches as universally normative for this age, is an unwise overreaction in my opinion.
Plus it comes down to semantics sometimes. Impressions, being led by the Lord, feelings prompted by the Spirit, conviction — these are cessationist terms of describing the Spirit’s work in believers. Prophecies, visions, word from the Lord, word of knowldege — these are non-cessationist ways of speaking of the same experiences often.
Unless clearly contrary to Scripture teachings and practices are practiced (such as tongues speaking is a requirement for salvation, etc. etc.) we should be reticent to condemn those who are not as non-cessationist as we are, I believe. There are enough varieties with varying beliefs on “baptism of the Spirit”, Keswickian theology and etc between the varying cessationist camps for us not to draw a hard and fast line excluding everyone who differs with cessationism from being true to Scripture.
These are my current ramblings on the topic and what I saw of Compton’s article didn’t help me. Thanks for reproducing it though, Aaron. It’s definitely worth discussing.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
A whole lot of people have found Grudem to be pretty persuasive, as some of Compton’s footnotes show. It might not be an overstatement to say that the modern non-cessationist trend (post-Charismatic movement and maybe even post Third Wave) is built on Grudem’s view of prophecy.The modern Charismatic movement easily pre dates Grudem’s position being published and those involved in it do not appear to often refer to Grudem. Their theology does not need his view at all. In other words I do not see them being influenced by Grudem’s position. His influence appears to be among non Charismatic Evangelicals. His assertions were made in his books at the beginning of the 1990s. Grudem’s Systematic theology came out in 1994. His other books on this prior if my memory is right. However, Grudem has given a basis for many non Charismatic Evangelicals to embrace the movement and be more comfortable with it. In his Systematic Theology Grudem refers to “the large main stream of Evangelicals that are neither Charismatic or cessationist.” I remember reading Grudem position and laughing at it. In his Systematic Theology he states:
Although several definitions have been given for the gift of prophecy, a fresh examination of the New Testament teaching on this gift will show that it should be defined not as “predicting the future,” nor as “proclaiming a word from the Lord,” nor as a “powerful preaching” - but rather as “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.” (p.1049).This definition makes every thought we think a possible prophecy from God. Perhaps we are all prophets? I thought his assertion and reasoning ridiculous and beyond common sense. Then that summer we were visiting out of state and at the home of a very close ministry friend and he told me he thought the Grudem position good and he endorsed it. He was a graduate of Talbot Seminary and a member of the IFCA which took the cessationist position in their doctrinal statement. However, I felt he was looking for a reason to abandon the cessationist position prior and this gave him his final reason. He now pastors a church that endorses the Charismatic movement though he himself has not professed speaking in tongues or having prophecy. He is like many Evangelicals who think the cessationist position too narrow and too dogmatic. They do not want to condemn so many “good Christians” who are Charismatics as being heretics. My experience in and among the Charismatics, and in studying the Biblical and external empirical evidence, compels me to advocate the cessationist position dogmatically. Good, nice, and zealous people can be deluded and embrace heresy.
Aaron is right. A whole lot of people have embraced the Grudem position. But IMO they would not be cessationist even if Grudem had not asserted his position of continuation of prophecy. Almost everyone at Fuller Seminary were continuationists in the Seventies. This was when the third wave movement began along with the Vineyard Church movement. Grudem’s position later brought justification for many who endorsed Reformed theology to embrace the Charismatic movement and be backed by a Reformed scholar. Today we even have some who want to call themselves Fundamentalists who are mushy on this subject. Of course the emergence of true Historic Fundamentalism pre dated the popular Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Pentecostalism was just emerging out of the Azusa Street meetings and was soundly and completely condemned by those labeled as Fundamentalists. Most who have been soft on the Charismatic heresies have been honest and left the Fundamentalist label behind.
[Bob Hayton] What if someone did tell you and provide examples of this secondary level of prophecy happening? Would you believe them? I think not. You’d find some hole or some way to disprove it.Thank you for your thoughts.
From my understanding, experience is not proof of anything per se, as experience requires interpretation, and as such is open to misunderstanding (or multiple, contradicting interpretations). If some claim “secondary prophecy,” what can be used to prove that such is the case?
I would offer that experience can only potentially illustrate truth, but not prove it.
As an example I offer the Acts 15 intercourse:
- The Antioch church sends Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to resolve the requirement about circumcision and the keeping of the law - particularly circumcision accompanying conversion to be saved) a Jew to be saved - Acts 15:5. (Interesting that there was no appeal to or use of Paul’s apostolic prophecy at Antioch to resolve this.)
- The apostles and elders of Jerusalem gather (with the greater assembly seemingly looking on), and hear of the experiences of Paul and Barnabas regarding the conversion of the Gentiles - Acts 15:4,6.
- In Acts 15:7-11, Peter chimes in with his experience regarding the conversion of the Gentiles with Cornelius, and summarizes of the foundational Scriptural truth of salvation by faith (Acts 15:9) through grace (Acts 15:11).
- Paul and Barnabas follow with more a detailed description of their experiences in Acts 15:12.
- Following these, James affirms what Peter said (ignoring all the experiences) by confirming it through direct revelation, quoting from the Old Testament (Acts 15:13-17). His conclusion is based upon what was revealed, not what was experienced (and there were many experience to draw upon).
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Totally agree with you about experience. It can’t be the sole basis of our beliefs and we are so open as fallen human beings, to misinterpret our experiences and over- or under-read them. When it comes to this particular issue, however, the clear cut teaching that the gifts have ceased is not readily apparent in Scripture and the argument that they have ceased is actually based once again on experience, oddly enough.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] Kevin,I know that 1 Cor 13:8 has some opposing interpretations, but I still consider that an argument for cessation which is not based upon experience. It may have its shortcomings, but I think it to be stronger than arguments for continuing revelatory gifts.
Totally agree with you about experience. It can’t be the sole basis of our beliefs and we are so open as fallen human beings, to misinterpret our experiences and over- or under-read them. When it comes to this particular issue, however, the clear cut teaching that the gifts have ceased is not readily apparent in Scripture and the argument that they have ceased is actually based once again on experience, oddly enough.
It seems from my own “experience,” that Charismatics base their “why” largely on what they experience. I guess I’m not versed well enough in cessationism arguments.
I appreciate the interaction.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
@Bob,
by your last phrase, do you mean the argument for cessation is experience-based because it is based the lack of experience?
Thanks.
SamH
Grudem attempts to insure his view against Ephesians 2:20 problems by saying that even if the passage refers to two groups, he’d argue for a third non-authoritative congregational type of prophet. Compton counters that the context of Ephesians 2:20 refers to the apostles and prophets of churches in general, so what is true of them in Ephesians 2:20 is true of them elsewhere.The most natural understanding of Eph. 2:20, IMO, is that the church is built upon the prophets (i.e., OT prophets) and apostles (i.e., New Testament apostles). I would argue that this is the first impression most of us would take of Eph. 2:20, esp. in light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 with its assertion that we need all Scripture to become mature people of God in the Christian era.
Grudem also argues that in the NT, the AUTHORITY is seen not in the NT prophets, but the apostles. Thus there is an equivalency in authority between OT prophets and NT apostles, but not OT prophets and NT prophets. This is an important point in establishing a secondary sort of prophecy.
Because we distinguish between false teachers and true teachers (even in our day), we are not saying that true teachers never teach anything false. So Grudem would say that this non-authoritative gift of NT prophecy should not be confused with its OT counterpart, because the NT prophet is not the final word. The final word rested in the apostles, and, afterwards, in their writings (the Scriptures). Sola Scriptura is not about authority, but FINAL authority. Just because we believe we need no more revelation since we have the Scripture, the question remains “need for WHAT?” It is true that we need no more FINAL AUTHORITY, but we certainly need a secondary sort of authority (which is why we have elders and pastors and doctrinal statements and train counselors, etc.), even if fallible. We would argue that the fallible authorities must be checked against the infallible, but often fallible authorities address what is not directly addressed in Scripture.
If we view NT prophecy as a non-authoritative sharing of what people believe the Spirit is leading them to say, we approximate a common belief that transcends the “gifts” issue. If we choose to label that a “leading” or “sensitivity to God’s Spirit,” that would smell just as sweet.
Paul’s desire that all would prophesy and suggesting that all should prophesy is an important factor to consider in this equation. In I Corinthians 14:39, Paul allows speaking in tongues if interpreted, but he ENCOURAGES all believers to prophesy:
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.However we understand that, I think we can conclude that this is very different from the OT gift of Prophecy or the office of Prophet.
I am not saying Grudem is right, but I am saying that he could have some valid points.
"The Midrash Detective"
I don’t think there’s much silence involved. In this particular piece we’re assuming the burden is on someone to prove two levels of prophecy and then basically show that the case for that is weak.
So this piece doesn’t make a case for one level of prophecy. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done and hasn’t been done.
Just to suggest roughly how the case might go…
1) We already have a gift of prophecy in the OT. Reformed folks are big on continuity right? ;) Is it really an argument from silence to point out that the gift is not specifically redefined anywhere in the NT? Not really, because the OT is not silent.
2) We know what prophecy was for in the OT: revealing to men the infallible words of God.
3) We know from Eph.2:20 and other passages that NT prophecy also has this purpose or at least has this among its purposes.
4) We know that the category of “false prophets” still existed in NT times, another clear similarity to OT prophecy.
5) We believe that the 66 books of the Bible fully accomplish the purpose of OT prophecy and accomplish the purpose of some NT prophecy.
So really, framing the question with a bias toward meaningful silence is seems justified. That is, the non-silent data seems to require us to ask, what evidence is there that NT prophecy is different?
Arguments from silence are not always weak arguments.
(e.g., if you’re pounding a nail in with a hammer and I don’t hear you cry in pain, it’s pretty strong evidence that you didn’t hit your thumb.)
Ed, I can see how a case could be made that the NT office of apostle basically replaces the OT office of prophet. And even apostles weren’t infallible (Gal. 2, either Paul was right or Peter was… I’m with Paul), but when they claimed to be speaking for God, they were.
Anyway, if you’re right that Eph.2.20 “prophets” should be understood to mean the OT prophets, the further raises the standard of evidence required to see “prophet” in the NT elsewhere mean something different.
That is, if people thought of “prophet” in the OT sense, you’d think Paul or Peter or John or someone would have to explicitly communicate: “these prophets are not like the OT ones.” There is nothing like that.
Some tension, yes, but nothing like a redefining.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
BUT, (my opinion) it seem that the burden of the debate is on the cessationist side. I tend to side with Grudem. Not because his Biblical arguments are compleatly solid, but because they seem more plausible than the cessationist proof texts.
I mean, lets be honest here - if one examines the cessationist side it’s pretty easy to poke holes in it pretty quick.
_______________ www.SutterSaga.com
[Bob Hayton]This is a rather odd statement seeing that Compton’s arguments do not come from experience but are exegetical/theological.
When it comes to this particular issue, however, the clear cut teaching that the gifts have ceased is not readily apparent in Scripture and the argument that they have ceased is actually based once again on experience, oddly enough.
Discussion