I wanted to expound some more on today’s cessationist topic. I don’t think that anyone has major issues with interpreting 1 Cor. 13 as referring to the “perfect” being the second coming of Christ. Paul is pretty clear in 1 Cor. 1:7…
Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.
…that the purpose of spiritual gifts was to edify the church as it eagerly awaits Jesus’ return. Thus it is more appropriate to interpret Paul’s teaching in chapter 13 as a continuation of this thought.
But this leaves us with the question of whether or not the gift of prophecy is still normative for the church. The first thing that must be clear is the difference between an Old Testament Prophet and the New Testament gift of prophecy. These are clearly two different manifestations of spiritual power and they have distinct differences as to the practitioner’s authority. The Old Testament Prophets were, for the most part, those who spoke with the authority of the Word of God. The best parallel for this in the New Testament is the office of Apostle. We know, for instance, that not everything an Apostle said or did was infallible or without error. Peter’s famous face-to-face with Paul over the issue of associating with gentiles is a good example. We also know that the Old Testament Prophets had their moments. Perhaps Elijah’s flight from Jezebel is another example of the human frailties of the Prophets. But when the Prophets or Apostles wrote certain documents, they received a divine “superintendance” or “inspiration” that gave their writing inerrancy. These inerrant documents were collected by the believing community and compiled into the collection which we now believe to be the canon of Scripture.
It is against this authoritative collection of documents that we must weigh the merits of any message reported to be divine in origin. This is how I believe New Testament prophecy works. It is a spontaneous bit of information that is given to the gifted person.
OK, now it’s later…
The best way for me to explain this, for those of you who might struggle with the apparent subjective nature of New Testament prophecy, is to look at the doctrine of divine illumination. Reformed Theology embraces this doctrine which states that the Holy Spirit illuminates the words of Scripture so that they are understood/recognized/respected by the individual AS the Word of God.
…the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)
Just how does this work? It is a mystery. What we do know, however, is that the illumination of the Spirit does not give us infallibility in our understanding/interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus we have two believers, both of whom are filled with the Holy Spirit, yet the disagree sharply over the interpretation of, say, End Times. They can’t both be right and they might well both be wrong (especially if they’re Premil…ha ha ha). But we believe that the Holy Spirit is actively illuminating the Scriptures for both individuals.
Perhaps it would be easier for us to accept the nature of New Testament prophecy if we viewed it in the same way. In other words, the Spirit impresses a message upon the one with the gift and then the one who receives the message has the “freedom” to communicate the message even in an incorrect manner. The best example of this is in Acts 21:10-11…
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.’ “
Agabus receives a prophecy that Paul will be bound over to the Gentiles. But Agabus apparently adds a bit of his own interpretation to it in that he predicts that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Gentiles. But if we read further, we see that the events don’t exactly unfold the way Agabus describes. Yes, Paul does get bound but it was the Romans who bound him and then released him until he later appeals to Caesar. The general idea is correct, but the details differ somewhat from the actual events…perhaps “lost in translation”.
So what does this mean for the church? It means that we need to do a whole lot more exploring into this topic. Stay tuned.
Ken,
I like the stand that Grace’s leadership has taken concerning the ‘charismatic’ variety of gifts. I myself am a long-time seceded cessationist — I don’t believe these gifts have ceased, though I do believe the need for them is not as great as in the first century.
Regarding prophecy, using your definition I can see this manifesting itself more in the hallway of the church than in the sanctuary. That is, if one receives a word from the Lord that will be an encouragement to another, I tend to doubt that he would feel compelled to stand up and announce it in the assembly. Maybe another modern-day conduit of prophecy would be the telephone.
Good job, all you guys. I LOVE GraceTalk! Even if it weren’t so darn entertaining, it’s worth it just because you’re having it. The church’s health absolutely depends upon this type of public discussion.
Thanks for opening up this blog Ken, because I do believe I have an answer for the question that was posed after the service today. The context of the question was taken from Acts 21:4 – 14, and the question was that if prophecy is still a gift, why did Paul disobey their warnings? Was it that the prophets were not speaking accurately?
I do believe the prophets did speak accurately in that they continued to warn him what was awaiting him in Jerusalem. I believe the point of prophecy was not lost on Paul who was compelled by the same Spirit to go to Jerusalem. Paul understood through their prophetic warnings that what God was already showing him was being confirmed in their concern for him, and yet he sees the point of prophecy as it was intended, to build up the church. His response was to do just that – which meant that he would continue on the path that would ultimately lead to his death but be used by God to build the church. Not only was he ready to die, but he was able to redirect the focus of his concerned brethren to understand that it is not his safety that he wanted them to pray for but God’s will. And we see that they do just that in verse 14.
From this exchange, we can learn that prophecy given to others to edify us should cause us to seek God’s perspective concerning His message. If we value what God has to say to the church through the writings of Paul, then we would take seriously Paul’s instruction given in 1 Corinthians 14:1, and remember that if He ever gives us a revelation to build up the church that our focus is on God’s priorities, not man’s. The prayer he had for the Ephesians in verse 17 of the first chapter show us the purpose of wisdom and revelation given by the Spirit: ‘so that [we] may know him better.’
The wisdom and revelation given to Paul caused him to pray continually, and a life of prayer doesn’t mean that we only talk to God but we take time to listen as well.
May our church body grow to be filled with both His Word and His Spirit, so that our lives would move us beyond our comfort zones to make an impact for Christ. Thanks to all the leadership team for taking time to answer our questions and address the issues that we face as a body of Christ.
What about the definition of prophecy as prediction of the future?
One observation that come to mind. I don’t think that Old Testament and New Testament prophecy are ‘clearly’ two different manifestations of spiritual power. Wayne Grudem certainly outlines it that way in his systematic theology but he is an exception among reformed scholars on this topic. There is certainly disagreement on the issue but it’s not crystal clear that one side or the other is correct. Richard Gaffin in his “Perspectives on Pentecost” makes the opposite case in fact (and very well in my opinion!).
As Ken said…more later! 🙂
Hey Jeffrey,
I think that the prophecy about which we are speaking are any messages from God that include predictions of the future, instructions from God, and encouragement or comfort from Him as well. But it seems that a proper non-cessationist viewpoint keeps both 1 Thess. 5:21 and 1 John 4:1 in mind. My concern with the cessationist view lies with the admonition given in 1 Thess. 5:19 and 20.
As we are diligent in the study of God’s word and remain ‘joyful always; praying continually; and giving thanks in all circumstances,’ I do not believe that we have to fear the gift of prophecy as a valid spiritual gift whether it is used to encourage, warn, direct or foretell future events.
What evidence is there for the idea that Agabus added fallible interpretation to his prediction in Acts 21? I do not see any discrepancy between his prediction and the events as they unfolded.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that the Jews laid hands on Paul, dragged him out of the Temple, and began beating him to death (Acts 21:27-32) without having bound his hands and feet in some way, as per Agabus’ prediction. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Luke would intend his readers to understand the binding of Paul with chains by the Romans (21:33) as the fulfillment of Agabus’ prediction that the Jews would bind him with a belt. Luke has a concern for accuracy and detail that would require him to explain such a discrepancy to his readers (Luke 1:1-4).
Secondly, prophets were known for communicating not just with words, but with dramatic illustrations. Prophets tried every communicative approach they could in order to get the message of God across. A memorable example is the time Isaiah went around naked for three years in order to communicate a message from the Lord (Isa 20:1-4). If Agabus’ actions in Acts 21:11 are understood as a drama intended to illustrate his prophetic point, then there is no need for the details of the drama to be fulfilled literally in history. The drama is intended to communicate a general point: The Jews will somehow be responsible for handing Paul over to the Romans. Thus even if the Jews did not actually bind Paul’s hands and feet in Acts 21:27-32 as I suggested above, the prophecy would still be understood as fulfilled without error, since the point of the drama was not to describe a minute detail of a future event, but rather simply to say that the Jews would hand Paul over to the Romans.
Well said Jason. There’s the added issue that Agabus prefaced his prophecy with ‘Thus saith the Holy Ghost'(Acts 21:11) which is very much like the Old Testament prophetic announcements which began with ‘Thus saith the Lord’. He is in effect claiming to speak the words of the Holy Ghost so attributing error to the prophecy is problematic if that’s the case.
Guys. I’m not invested enough in the argument to go back and forth. I’ll leave it at this. Agabus MIGHT be an example of what I’m talking about. Even if he is not, the principle is still true–simply from a cursory reading of the NT epistle’s accounts of the gift of prophecy.
Secondly, Jason, I NEVER said that Agabus was in error. I simply made the point that his “transmission” of the prophetic message contained some details that were different from the actual events which took place–but not enough so that it would call into question the veracity of his prophecy.
Ken – I apologize if I have misunderstood your example, but I am not sure that I have. If Agabus said that the Jews would bind Paul, and it turned out to be the Romans instead of the Jews who bound Paul (as your interpretation holds), how is this NOT an error in what was said by Agabus? True, you never said that Agabus was in error, but I am not sure how you can claim that what Agabus said was NOT in error in your interpretation of the passage. This is a pretty big “detail” to get wrong. How many (big or small) details have to be wrong before we “call into question the veracity of his prophecy” or any other prophecy?
If you do not have time to invest in this discussion, please do not feel obligated to respond; my questions were somewhat rhetorical anyway… I really appreciate the fact that this difficult subject was even addressed!
My whole point is to equate NT prophecy with what we commonly call “illumination” of the scriptures. Granted, the Agabus illustration may not be the best but my argument remains. In 1 Cor. 14:29, Paul encourages the believers to “weigh carefully” what is spoken by those with the gift of prophecy. What is your interpretation of the phrase, “weigh carefully” (I don’t have my UBS here…)?
The phrase “weigh carefully” in 1 Cor 14:29 translates the Greek verb diakrino, for which BDAG lists six possible definitions with various nuances; BDAG lists 1 Cor 14:29 under definition 3: To evaluate by paying careful attention to, evaluate, judge.
I think this definition is basically correct for 1 Cor 14:29. The same word is translated “to judge” in 1 Cor 11:29, 31.
In the Greek of 14:29 there is no expressed object of the verb, so that the NASB rendering is a bit more precise than the NIV or ESV which add the object “what was said.” The Greek text, however, leaves the object omitted, so that either “what was said” OR “the prophets” could be the implied object of the verb. Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference.
I think the point in either case is that the rest of the church is to judge (diakrino) whether or not what is spoken by the prophets is to be accepted as of divine origin and thus true and authoritative.
I do not think that the necessity of testing/judging what is spoken by the prophets is unique to NT prophecy, however. Rather, I think what Paul probably has in mind in 1 Cor 14:29 is the instructions of Moses regarding testing/judging prophets (Deut 13:1ff; 18:15-22). Paul probably also has in mind the OT historical record which includes prophets abusing their office (e.g. 1 Kings 13). The church has to evaluate NT prophets just as Israelites had to evaluate OT prophets and their messages. For this reason, I do not see a distinction between NT and OT prophecy.
As far as your comparison of NT prophecy to the Spirit’s illumination of the Scriptures, I admit that in both cases God may allow errors to go uncorrected, so that in neither case can we necessarily claim infallibility or complete authority. But I would say the same is true of OT prophets and their messages, with the exception of, for example, those messages which were recorded by OT prophets under the inspiration of the Spirit in such a way that their writings were kept from error.
In other words, I accord the recorded words of Isaiah as absolutely authoritative because of the doctrine of inspiration, NOT because I believe OT prophets or their messages inherently have a higher accuracy or authority than NT prophets. Because of inspiration, Isaiah faithfully recorded what was revealed to him without error. (And inicidently, I believe Isaiah’s writings are inspired because they successfully meet Moses’ criteria and were already judged by the people of God as authoritative, etc.)
But it does not follow that there is a difference in the level of authority of any OT prophet vs. any NT prophet, simply because of the era in which they were born. A prophet is a prophet. Otherwise, why did the NT authors not pick a different word to use for this gift? The words “prophet” and “prophecy” were too well-attested in the Septuagint for the NT authors to use them to refer to a different kind of work of the Spirit than that which was meant by these words in the OT.
I apologize for a long answer to your question about my intepretation of “weigh carefully,” but I thought it important to clarify my understanding of the issue a bit…