When discussing the spiritual gift of Prophecy, it is easy to consider the term “prophet” to be used interchangeable between the Testaments. But do we see the same level of authority attached to a “Prophet” of the O.T. as a person with the spiritual gift of prophecy in the N.T.? It seems there is a corresponding figure of an O.T. prophet, but it is not with the spiritual gift of prophecy; it is with the role or office of an Apostle.
It is interesting to note that when we read the New Testament we find times in which the Apostles are connected with O.T. prophets, but N.T. prophets are never connected with O.T. prophets in the same way.
Example #1. This usage is seen in the Letter of Hebrews , “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things through whom he also created the world” (1:1-2, ESV). Later, in Hebrews 3:1, the author writes: “Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in the heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.” So, God spoke through prophets in the O.T. and through Jesus the apostle in the N.T. As a matter of fact, this is the only time Jesus is called an “apostle” and it seems to be done in direct connection or extension with the Jesus being a prophet.
Example #2. The Apostle Peter writes that, “you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.” (3:2). Again, it seems an O.T. prophet finds its counterpart in the role of N.T. apostle in the mind of Peter.
Example #3. In Luke 11:49 we read, “Therefore, also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles.’” Although we don’t have the source of Jesus’ quotation, it is clear, according to Dr. Wayne Grudem that, “the context must use prophets to refer to Old Testament prophets.” The point being that to put these two offices together draws a sharp focus toward one being connected specifically with the other. And, since Apostles are the N.T. covenant messengers (see Jn.20:21), it would make sense that the Apostles were, in authority and function, an extension of O.T. prophets.
The most compelling argument that O.T. prophets functioned seminally as N.T. apostles would be in the area of perceived and claimed authority from God. To write the very words of God or to be empowered directly by God speaks to the function of O.T. prophets. There are scores of examples regarding this, but I will only cite directly three examples to make the point:
#1. The apostle Paul adamantly insists that his message did not come from men but from Christ himself: The Gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11-12).
#2. Jesus promised an empowering to his disciples (who were sent as apostles in Matt. 10:1-2; and formally charged as apostles after the resurrection) in John 14:26: “But the Counselor, 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 have said to you” (see also John 16:13-14).
#3. In I Cor. 14:37-38, Paul writes to a church that had prophets who were active and yet he demands authority over them in speaking the revelation of God: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.. if anyone does not acknowledge this, he is not to be recognized.” To Paul the role of a N.T. Apostle trumped any prophetic message. I believe this is a strong evidence of O.T. Prophet corresponding more with N.T. Apostle regardless of the similarity in the word “prophet” being used in both the Old and New Testament.
See more examples of the authority of an Apostle as spokesmen of God (again, as an extension or greater fulfillment of O.T. prophets) in: 2 Peter 3:2; I Cor. 2:9; I Cor. 2:13; 2 Cor. 13:3; Gal.1:8-9; I Thess. 2:13; 4:8, 15; 5:27; 2 Thess. 3:6,14; I Peter 3:15-16.
Now the obvious question is “why use the designation spiritual gift of “prophecy” if O.T. “prophets” have more in common with N.T. Apostles? We will tackle this sticky issue next.
Pastor Dan – thanks for all of your study and wisdom on this issue! I am curious to know what you think of the following line of reasoning.
It would seem to me that there is a continuity in the meaning of the term “prophet” (and its derivatives) across the Testaments, even if there is a discontinuity in the overall authority level attached to the role of prophets. The authority level invested in the office of prophets is independent of the meaning of the word “prophet.” The term “prophet” seems to be used across the canon to signify someone who receives spontaneous revelation from God and communicates that revelation on behalf of God.
Let me illustrate with a more familiar word:
Jesus Christ was a teacher.
Pastor Dan is a teacher.
Jesus Christ has more authority than Pastor Dan, yet they are both “teachers.” How can this be? The word “teacher” signifies someone who gives instruction; the authority level of the individual is irrelevant. The meaning of the word “teacher” has not changed between these two sentences, even if the former has more authority than the latter.
Similarly, it seems to me that the meaning of the word “prophet” has not changed between the Testaments, even if the OT prophets had more authority than the NT prophets (or “persons with the gift of prophecy”). The authority level of the individual is not determinative of whether or not the Spirit can prophetically speak revelation through them.
Jason—this whole thread springs from the discussion of the authority of those with the New Covenant gift of prophecy. The question was raised, “why do we have a closed canon if there are those with the gift of prophecy who might have (“latter day”) revelation to add to it?”
I think it was you who wisely addressed the point of the canon in an earlier thread.
Ultimately, this is a question of cessation. Do we have enough evidence to make the claim that the New Covenant gift of prophecy has ceased? I think not. Should we therefore afford the utterances of these people the same status as Scripture? Again, I think not. I believe the New Testament canon is closed because of the cessation of the office of apostle, not because of the cessation of the gift of prophecy.
Ken – thanks for clarifying the question(s) at hand. I very much value our interaction on this issue, because it is helping me to think more clearly about the issue.
I do agree that the basic answer to the question “Why do we have a closed canon…?” is that the office of apostle has ceased. The apostles were the ones commissioned by Christ to be witnesses to the revelation of the Son; therein lies their authority. Once the commissioned witnesses to the revelation of Christ died, the canon was closed.
However, I think that we have to be more precise when we ask whether post-Pentecost prophetic utterances have the same “status” as Scripture. On the one hand, Christ did not commission those with the NT gift of prophecy to be his witnesses, so that their utterances do not have Scripture “status.” On the other hand, I think the evidence indicates that those with the gift of prophecy were still providing actual inerrant revelation in the early church. The basic meaning of the term “prophecy” did not suddenly change at Pentecost. Thus in a different sense, these prophetic utterances did have the same “status” as Scripture in that they were both inerrant revelation.
What, then, is the difference? I would suggest that the apostles were commissioned not only to provide inerrant revelation, but furthermore to provide inerrant revelation that would be normative for churches everywhere in every subsequent generation, and that is why what was revealed to them was written down, was shared among the churches in different locales, and was passed down through the centuries. Those with the gift of prophecy in the early church also provided inerrant revelation, but the content of these revelations was not of such a nature that it was normative for God’s people in all places and times. For example, the universal church has no need to know the secret sins of an unconverted Corinthian living in the 1st century, but that is at least one of the inerrant revelations given by the NT gift of prophecy (1 Cor 14:24-25). Such a revelation would not have been recorded and preserved as Scripture.
At this point, I agree that there is not enough evidence to make the claim that the NT gift of prophecy has ceased beyond all shadow of a doubt (Zech 13:1-6 comes close), but neither is there enough evidence to make the claim that the NT gift of prophecy necessarily continues uninterrupted until the return of Christ. Therefore, I think that we should address the issue on a case-by-case basis, just as Paul instructs in 1 Cor 14:29, keeping open the possibility that no one has the gift today and that no one today can meet the biblical criteria which are to be used for confirming prophecy as true revelation.
My main concern is that if we say that the “gift of prophecy” results in something less than inerrant revelation, we are calling things “prophecy” which are not “prophecy” in the NT sense. This practice can then lead us to give inordinate, unwarranted attention to what are in fact just general, fallible impressions (rather than true prophecy) in our decision-making.
Jason–good points. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that New Covenant prophets were/are without authority. And I know you weren’t suggesting that I did.
I do think prophecy has authority. It just doesn’t, as you point out, meet the criteria for canonical status and thus serve as a normative guide for all believers in all locations.
All we are trying to do at GF is, as you described, take each “occurrance” of prophecy on a case-by-case basis. We will weigh the supposed prophecy against the normative teachings of Scripture. If we determine that the utterances are indeed prophetic in nature, We must accept them as authoritative–indeed as the words of God.
This is a very uncomfortable position…
Jason, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I will try and reply ASAP.
Jason, sorry for taking so long to reengage on this issue; now where were we…. The point you made …”I think the evidence indicates that those with the gift of prophecy were still providing actual inerrant revelation in the early church. The basic meaning of the term “prophecy” did not suddenly change at Pentecost. Thus in a different sense, these prophetic utterances did have the same “status” as Scripture in that they were both inerrant revelation” is confusing to me. Also, I think this is the crux of the issue for which I began to discuss the issue of the gift of prophecy. If “prophecy” is on-par with Scripture then it must be treated as such, but it would seem that it was open to being accepted or rejected by those listening. As a matter of fact, evaluation of a prophetic utterance was encouraged. I don’t see how this type of admonition to evaluate prophecy can NOT lead one to believe that there must be a fundamental difference in “Scriptural prophecy” vs. the personal gift of prophecy.
Dan – you raise a very good question…
Before I address your objection, let me try to clarify the statement that you found confusing.
First, I assume that IF the “gift of prophecy” refers to a phenomenon distinct from OT prophecy, the earliest point in history at which the “gift of prophecy” could have manifested itself would have been at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). All occurrences of prophecy after Pentecost are presumbably manifestations of this “gift of prophecy.” Prophecy occurring before Pentecost (Zacharias, Caiaphas, John the Bapt, etc.) are presumably a resumption of OT-type prophecy, and seem to be treated as such by the NT authors.
Second, I think that if you study all of the instances of the “prophecy” word group (= prophecy, prophet, prophetess, prophesy, etc.) in the NT which refer to prophecy occurring before Pentecost and compare those instances to prophecy occurring after Pentecost, in both cases the NT authors use “prophecy” to refer to revelation given by God. This is why I say that the term “prophecy” did not suddenly change in meaning at Pentecost.
Third, I assume that a revelation given by God is necessarily without error, since it is God who gave the revelation. The term “prophecy” as used throughout Scripture seems to refer to the entire process of God’s revelation of information to the prophet, as well as to the prophet’s speech. This is especially clear when the verb “prophesy” is used to introduce a prophetic utterance, as well as whenever the content of a prophetic utterance is explicitly attributed to God by the prophet (e.g., “Thus saith the Lord…”). There is no such thing as fallible revelation. If (true) prophecy is revelation, it must be infallible.
Fourth, if both Scripture and NT prophecy (including the “gift of prophecy”) are inerrant revelation, I think it is fair to say that they have the same “status” at the local church level, even if the NT prophets are not given authority to write Scripture which is normative for all churches everywhere.
I hope that discussion clarifies previous post; perhaps you can indicate at which point(s) my argument remains unconvincing or remains unclear.
Now to the objection you raise: “it would seem that [post-Pentecost prophecy] was open to being accepted or rejected by those listening … evaluation of a prophetic utterance was encouraged.” My response would be that this objection fails to distinguish between a purported prophecy and an actual prophecy. Suppose someone stood up in the church and said, “Thus saith the Holy Spirit… XYZ.” I would say that XYZ has the status of “purported prophecy” and is open to being accepted or rejected. If rejected, I would say that XYZ was not a prophecy at all. If accepted, however, I would say that XYZ is an actual prophecy, and should therefore be treated as divine revelation.
The word “prophecy” can be used of both purported prophecies and actual prophecies; context determines which is intended in any given passage. I would suggest that when Paul requires the “testing” of prophecies (1 Cor 14:29 and 1 Thess 5:21a), he is referring to the testing of purported prophecies. These are “hot-off-the-press” claims to prophecy in the church which may or may not have been inspired by God; the church must carefully discern whether or not these utterances are genuine prophecy, i.e., divine revelation. Paul requires the full acceptance of those purported prophecies which are subsequently recognized by the church as actual prophecies (1 Thess 5:21b), and Paul requires rejection of those purported prophecies which are subsequently recognized by the church as false prophecies (5:22).
Excellent point Jason. I think its problematic to try to separate prophecy (the utterance) from the prophet. A person whose ‘prophecies’ do not stand up to scrutiny is not a prophet who was wrong, he is not a prophet at all. We should reject both the message and the messenger.
I don’t think Paul’s admonition to evaluate prophecy indicates some kind of in between position where a prophet can be right sometimes and wrong others (something certainly unknown in the O.T.). There are false prophets and true prophets. We are to test their messages to determine which type of prophet they are, not just to know how to handle the message itself.