Posted by deangonzales on April 6, 2009
I have tried to demonstrate that the Biblical evidence weighs in the favor of the cessationist position. I have argued that pre-parousia special revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament. I also have argued that NT prophecy and tongues are modes of pre-parousia special revelation. If these two premises are true, then, I believe, we have compelling reason to conclude that the prophecy and tongues of the NT have ceased (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8). The various objections raised by continuationists have not proven conclusive enough to overturn that conclusion (see Part 9, Part 10). I would like to close this series by offering some commendation, caution, and exhortation, which will apply to those on both sides of this debate.
Commendation
One of the aims of this series is to highlight what I believe to be some weaknesses and dangers of the continuationist position. In doing so, I do not want to convey a lack of appreciation for some of the legitimate concerns and emphases of our continuationist brothers. For example, many continuationists, like Dr. Grudem, are concerned to uphold the supernaturalism of Scripture. They firmly believe in the reality of divine miracles and God’s extraordinary providences. They are wary of a rationalistic tendency among modern scholars to explain away the miraculous. I want to commend them for upholding the supernaturalism of Scripture, and we who are cessationists do well to share their concern.
Furthermore, my continuationist brothers seek to give a proper emphasis to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. They take seriously the many NT references to the Spirit’s work of empowering the people of God for ministry. We who are cessationists should also strive to give appropriate emphasis to the Holy Spirit in our church worship and life. We should beware of developing a self-sufficient attitude that relies merely upon intellect, eloquence, or human resourcefulness. On the contrary, we desperately need the Spirit’s ongoing ministry in our lives as individuals and our life as a church. Borrowing from Luther’s language regarding the important place of the doctrine of justification, George Smeaton (whom I believe was a cessationist) aptly remarked,
Wherever Christianity has become a living power, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has uniformly been regarded, equally with the atonement and justification by faith, as the article of a standing or falling Church. The distinctive feature of Christianity, as it addresses itself to man’s experience, is the world of the Spirit, which not only elevates it far above all philosophical speculation, but also above every other form of religion.[1]
I think cessationists should share Smeaton’s zeal for the doctrine and ministry of God’s Spirit. Indeed, in this respect, we all should be “continuationists” and affirm a “pneumatic” Christianity.[2]
There are other areas of concern and emphasis among some of our continuationist brothers that also deserve our commendation, in my opinion.[3] In these areas, I believe those of us who are cessationists can and should learn from our continuationist brothers. Notwithstanding their commendable concerns and emphases, however, we must also be aware of some of the weaknesses and dangers of their position.
Cautions
In particular, I believe there are at least three areas of weakness and potential danger connected with the continuationist position on the subject of NT prophecy and tongues.[4]
(1) The authority and sufficiency of Scripture may, in some cases, be subtly undermined.
Continuationists like Grudem insist that the gift of prophecy must remain subordinate to Scripture and the official teaching of the church.[5] I certainly admire Grudem’s zeal to protect the final authority of Scripture. When Grudem and others begin labeling certain NT prophecies as “fallible,” however, it seems to me they open the door to allow for the same assessment of other prophecies in the Bible.
For example, in Matthew 10:23, Jesus tells His disciples, “You will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” If we apply Grudem’s criteria for prophecy to Jesus’ prediction, we would have to conclude that it did not literally come true and therefore was at least partially fallible. Grudem himself would resist that conclusion, but many critical scholars do not share his reserve. They would agree with Grudem that the NT contains examples of fallible prophecy, and they would not hesitate to apply his hermeneutic to Jesus’ predictions and label some of His prophecy as fallible. In fact, some would take Grudem’s argument a step further and apply it to the entire Bible.
The point I am underscoring is that it’s not a huge step from a Grudem’s view of NT prophecy to a neo-orthodox view of Scripture, which ultimately denies Scripture’s unique authority.[6] Once again, I’m certain Grudem himself would resist taking that step. I fear that for weaker souls, however, Grudem’s category of potentially fallible NT prophecy could sow the seeds of doubt that later develop into a full-blown skepticism towards the inspiration of Scripture. Furthermore, in a day when many professing Christians are discontent living by the general principles of Scripture, the promise of direct revelation from God that addresses specific situations on the spot is very appealing. The sad result, as O. Palmer Robertson notes, is that the specific word-for-the-moment takes precedence over the general principles of God’s Word.[7] In this way, Grudem’s view of NT prophecy and tongues can undermine the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.[8]
(2) The worship and order of the church can, in some cases, be disrupted.
In his book entitled, The Charismatics and the Word of God, Victor Budgen gives an account of one charismatic leader who assured his audience that his prophecy was not fallible and that he wasn’t afraid of making mistakes. According to Budgen, the man then tells of an incident when he wrongly accused a brother of immorality and later found he was wrong. Rather than deploring his action, he laughingly said that he normally was not so insensitive.[9]
This raises some important questions: how should God’s people respond when a church leader or member stands up in the midst of the assembly, proclaims, “Thus says the Lord,” and then utters a prophecy? How much of that prophecy should they regard as true? Ninety-percent? Eighty-percent? Sixty-percent? Who decides? And what happens if it is determined that the prophecy contains error? Should the church leader or member be allowed to prophecy again? How many mistakes can he make before he is disqualified? How serious of an error does he need to make before he is treated as a false prophet and put out of the church?
Grudem tries to offer some guidelines for the practice of prophecy in the church. He argues that NT prophecies should be evaluated according to Scripture and they should remain subordinate to the teaching ministry of the elders.[10] But I did not find any detailed guidelines for dealing with leaders and members who utter false prophecies. I suspect, based on his own distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy, that Grudem would advocate a much more tolerant approach to false prophecy today than was tolerated in Moses’ day. However, the NT warnings to the church against false prophets and false prophecy seem to carry a far greater weight of consequence and urgency than Grudem’s view would allow (cf. Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 12, 24; Mark 13:22; Acts 13:6-11; 1 John 4:1-3; Rev. 19:20).
For this reason, I believe Grudem’s view increases the potential for disruption in the worship and order of the church. Granted, the potential for disorder existed in the first-century church, and Paul did not necessarily forbid prophecy (1 Cor. 14:39). However, we no longer have living apostles to regulate our worship and to help us assess prophecy. Furthermore, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, Paul and the other Apostles had a different view than Grudem of the nature of NT prophecy. And I believe their view of NT prophecy as full-blown authoritative special revelation calls for a far more serious approach to “regulating” NT prophecy than many continuationists seem to practice today.[11]
(3) The minds of believers can be confused regarding true spirituality.
Whether intentional or not the impression is sometimes given that possession of the extra-ordinary is indicative of greater spirituality. Consequently, believers are encouraged to seek the gifts of tongues or prophecy as a means to draw closer to God. Sometimes the reception of these gifts is portrayed as a “second work” of grace. But the Bible makes abundantly clear that the possession of spiritual gifts by itself is no sure sign of spirituality. Thus, in Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus declares:
On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (ESV).
Clearly, the great criteria for the Day of Judgment will not be the possession of spiritual gifts but the evidence of spiritual grace. As Walt Chantry appropriately observes, “Inward graces or fruits of the Spirit, not outward displays of gift, are the signs of spirituality.”[12] I believe this is the point Paul stresses in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, where he’s addressing the subject of revelatory gifts:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (ESV).
According to Paul, the possession of revelatory gifts may or may not have anything to do with one’s spirituality. What really matters is whether one possesses and manifests true Christian love. Unfortunately, that’s not always the impression given in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles today.[13] The impression is sometimes given that spiritual gifts are the key to greater holiness and victory over sin. As a result, the minds of believers become confused about the true nature of spirituality.
Exhortation
These are some of the potential dangers that may result from a continuationist position.[14] Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that there have been and are today continuationist teachers who have not fallen into these errors, but they have maintained a reverence for Scripture, have sought to promote a God-centered worship, and have provided sound teaching for believers.[15] Furthermore, I do not believe we should view or portray all versions of continuationism equally. Some of the more radical forms are heretical. Many continuationists, however, are serious-minded, God-fearing, Christ-loving, and gospel-preaching evangelicals. Indeed, some of them even share with us an appreciation for the doctrines of grace. Therefore, let both sides remember Paul’s exhortation to be charitable and humble when discussing the question of revelatory gifts.[16] To use a phrase that I believe was coined by the continuationist Joshua Harris, senior pastor of Covenant Life and successor to C. J. Mahaney, let all sides strive for a “humble orthodoxy.”[17]
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (1882; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1974), 1.
[2] This call is issued by several authors who contribute essays in a book recently edited by Daniel Wallace and M. James Sawyer entitled Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), which includes forewords by Josh McDowell and Wayne :Grudem. To learn more about the book, click here.
[3] I also appreciate the emphasis upon the emotions that is present in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles. Personally, I find that the Reformed tradition sometimes overemphasizes the importance of the intellect (usually in the form of “the primacy of the intellect”) and underemphasizes the emotions or, worse yet, assigns the emotions to the “carnal” or “sensual” nature of man. The result is to cast undue suspicion upon what may be, biblically speaking, legitimate expressions of emotion in worship.
[4] I agree with Grudem that the mere potential for danger does not necessarily provide an argument for or against a doctrine or practice. As he points out, “Some things that are right are dangerous, at least in some sense” (Systematic Theology, 1046). Nevertheless, it must also be added that everything wrong is, in some sense, dangerous. And the Scripture writers do not hesitate to warn believers against the dangers and weaknesses of certain positions. Thus, having already provided the arguments against the continuationist position, I feel justified to warn God’s people of its potential dangers.
[5] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1039-40, 60-61.
[6] Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Bible itself is not divine revelation but bears witness to divine revelation through the fallible words of man. Thus, there is no substantial difference between Grudem’s view of NT prophecy and a neo-orthodox view of Scripture.
[7] Robertson, The Final Word, 128.
[8] It’s notable that some continuationist theologians, like Donald Gee, admit this danger. Writes Gee, “[There are] grave problems raised by the habit of giving and receiving personal ‘messages’ of guidance through the gifts of the Spirit…. Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for ‘messages’ through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries …. The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.” Spiritual Gifts in the Work of Ministry Today (Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 51-52.
[9] The Charismatics and the Word of God, 2nd edition (Evangelical Press, 1989), 282.
[10] Systematic Theology, 1058, 60-61. See also the guidelines provided by Jeff Purswell of Sovereign Grace Ministries here.
[11] Budgen cites Herbert Carlson, a continuationist who does seem to advocate more serious consequences for false prophecy, such as suspension or excommunication (pp. 285-86). But I question whether such disciplinary actions are consistently carried out in Pentecostal and charismatic circles today.
[12] Chantry, Signs of the Apostles, 64.
[13] Thankfully, Grudem does not give this impression. He rightly asserts that spiritual gifts are “tools for ministry and not necessarily related to Christian maturity.” Systematic Theology, 1030f.
[14] For a more extended account of these errors and dangers, see Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God, and John F. MacArthur Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
[15] I am thinking of men like Martin Lloyd-Jones, Donald A. Carson, and John Piper. I would also include Wayne Grudem, whose Systematic Theology I have found overall sound, edifying, and helpful.
[16] I am willing to admit that the evidence for the cessation of tongues and prophecy may not be as clear and conclusive as the evidence for justification by faith or salvation by grace or the bodily resurrection of Christ. In fact, I believe that the very fact well-meaning Christians disagree over doctrinal issues like this one may be partly due to the fact that our present knowledge in this age is in some sense partial and fragmentary—even with the Scriptures. This is not to deny the sufficiency and clarity of the Scriptures in matters pertaining to our salvation. It is simply to allow for the fact that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (LBCF 1.7; cf. 2 Pet 3:16). This reality should make us long for the day when our partial knowledge shall be replaced by complete knowledge. Until that day, we must argue our convictions with charity and humility (Eph 4:15).
[17] This has been one of the dominant themes of the New Attitude Conferences founded by Harris. For more information, click here. This charitable and humble spirit is also exemplified in a message preached by continuationist Craig Cabaniss entitled, “Watch the Spirit Work: Serving Cessationists in Their Pursuit of the Spirit,” which can be downloaded here. One wonders whether cessationists might dare to return the gracious gesture and consider how we might serve continuationists (beyond mere debate). Any ideas?
Posted by deangonzales on March 17, 2009
In Part 6, we noted that continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative. Grudem’s arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets. Only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation. (2) the NT seems to contain examples of fallible prophecy uttered by NT believers or prophets. (3) NT prophecy was subject to evaluation and criticism, which seems to imply fallibility and lesser authority. These are Grudem’s three primary arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy.[1]
What shall we think about this distinction? In the previous post (Part 7), I sought to demonstrate (1) that OT prophets spoke the very words of God (Exod. 7:1-2; Deut. 18:15-19; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), (2) that the Bible assumes an essential continuity between OT and NT prophecy (compare Acts 2:4-18 with Joel 2:28-32), and (3) that several NT passages treat NT prophecy as inspired and on a level with OT prophecy as canonical revelation (Acts 13:1-4; Eph. 2:20; 3:1-5; 1 Cor. 13:2; 14:1-3; Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10; 18-19). If the observations I highlighted above are valid, then Grudem’s first point, namely, that the NT apostles alone (and not the NT prophets) are the counterparts to the OT prophets is without biblical support.
In this present post, I’d like to address Grudem’s remaining two arguments.
Grudem’s examples of so-called fallible prophecy are inconclusive.
Let’s look again at Acts 21:4. We’ll read the verse in its context, beginning with verse one of the chapter:
Now it came to pass, that when we had departed from them and set sail, running a straight course we came to Cos, the following day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail. When we had sighted Cyprus, we passed it on the left, sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unload her cargo. And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem.
The key sentence for Grudem’s thesis comes at the end of verse 4: “[the disciples] told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem” (emphasis added). According to Grudem, the disciples uttered a prophecy which Paul disobeyed. Since Paul disobeyed this prophecy, he must not have viewed it as absolutely authoritative and equal with Scripture.[2]
Did Paul disobey canonical (fully inspired) prophecy? Or was this NT prophecy non-canonical (i.e., semi-inspired)? J. A. Alexander offers a third alternative: “This was not a divine command to Paul, but an inference of the disciples from the fact, which was revealed to them, that Paul would there be in great danger.”[3] In other words, the phrase “though the Spirit” may simply be shorthand for “because of or in connection with the Spirit’s prophecy.”[4] Even Grudem seems to allow for this when he offers the following conjecture:
Suppose that some of the Christians at Tyre had some kind of “revelation” or indication from God about the suffering which Paul would face at Jerusalem. Then it would have been very natural for them to couple their subsequent prophecy (their own report of this revelation) with their own (erroneous) interpretation, and thus warn Paul not to go. (emphasis added).[5]
In other words, Paul recognized the difference between the inspired revelation given by the Holy Spirit and the fallible interpretation placed upon the prophecy by his brethren. Consequently, he rejected their advice. The interchange probably went something like this: the Spirit revealed to the disciples, as He had to Paul and others, that Paul faced great danger and suffering in Jerusalem. The disciples then inferred from that inspired prophecy that Paul should refrain from going to Jerusalem (cf. vv. 10-12). However, Paul had already received direct revelation from the Spirit and from the Lord Jesus Christ that he should go Jerusalem as Christ’s witness despite the danger of persecution. The reader should note, for example, the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. Christ has revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus. Paul has been smitten with blindness. Christ calls a disciple named Ananias to take the gospel to Paul and to lay his hands upon Paul’s eyes. Ananias at first objects because he has heard of Paul’s reputation as a persecutor of the church. But notice Christ’s response in verses 15 and 16:
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
And in Acts 20:22-23, we may have an instance of the Spirit confirming Christ’s words:
And now, behold, bound in spirit [better: ‘constrained by the Spirit,’ ESV], I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
Now we’re ready to turn to Acts 21:10-11. Let me quote Grudem’s argument once more:
Then in Acts 21:10-11, Agabus prophesied that the Jews at Jerusalem would bind Paul and “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles,” a prediction that was nearly correct but not quite: the Romans, not the Jews, bound Paul (v. 33; also 22:29), and the Jews, rather than delivering him voluntarily tried to kill him and he had to be rescued by force (v. 32).[6]
We may offer the following responses to Grudem’s argument: first, it’s possible that when the Jews seized Paul, they bound him, perhaps with his own belt! (vv. 27-30). Second, prophetic predictions need not be interpreted in a hyper-literal fashion—as if every detail must be fulfilled. For example, in Acts 2:16ff “all mankind” did not prophesy, only the handful of disciples at Pentecost. To be more technical, they did not “prophesy” but spoke in tongues. And it’s clear that at that time the sun was not literally darkened nor the moon literally turned to blood![7] Third, Paul himself seemed to view Agabus’ prophecy as fulfilled:
After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans” (NAS).
Finally, as one commentator has pointed out, “It is common to speak of the responsible party or parties as performing an act even though he or they may not have been the immediate agent(s).”[8] For instance, in Acts 2:23 Peter says that the Jews crucified Christ whereas the Romans actually did it.
In summary, Grudem’s examples of so-called fallible prophecy cannot withstand close scrutiny. But what about the examples of Paul directing the NT church to evaluate NT prophecy?
The fact that NT prophecy was subject to evaluation does not demand the view that true prophecy could be fallible.
Paul tells the Corinthians, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” (1 Cor. 14:29). According to Grudem, these exhortations assume that true NT prophecy could be fallible.[9] In response, O. Palmer Robertson suggests, the Greek word translated “pass judgment” (diakrinetosan) may simply refer to the process of discriminating whose turn it was to speak (cf. vv. 27-29a).[10] There are good reasons, however, for interpreting Paul’s exhortation as a command to evaluate the prophet and his message. To begin with, most lexicons assign the meaning of careful evaluation to the word as it is used in this passage.[11] Thus, when Paul refers to passing judgment, he’s not telling them to decide whose turn it is to speak; he’s exhorting them to evaluate the prophet who is speaking. It might be argued that Paul was not commanding them to evaluate the prophecy itself but rather the interpretation that accompanied the prophecy (cf. Acts 21:4, 12). But the overall context suggests that Paul had the prophet and the prophecy in view as the object of their evaluation.[12]
Furthermore, Paul uses a cognate form of the verb “to pass judgment” in 1 Corinthians 12:10, where he refers to individuals who have been endowed with the gift of “discerning of spirits.” Most commentators agree that the gift in view is the ability to distinguish a false prophet from a true prophet.[13] And this interpretation finds a parallel in 1 John 4:1, where the Apostle John exhorts believers, “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” In other words, the process of evaluating prophecy is not a process of sifting out some true words from among false words but rather a process of determining whether the prophet’s claim to be a genuine reliable spokesman for God is valid or invalid. It would be analogous to the process of distinguishing counterfeit currency from genuine currency. The object is not to determine whether portions of the currency are genuine. The point is to determine whether the whole currency is the real thing or whether the whole currency is counterfeit. The evaluation has an all-or-nothing objective. I believe that’s how we should understand Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:29.
I also believe that’s how we should interpret Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” Paul is not telling the Thessalonians to sift good words from bad words in any given prophetic utterance. Rather he is calling them to discern the true prophecies from the false, to embrace the former and to reject completely the latter. And this is precisely the way the people of Israel were to assess OT prophets and prophecy. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 are key passages in this regard. Let’s read these two passages and note their bearing upon the NT injunctions to evaluate prophecy:
If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods” — which you have not known — “and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst (Deut. 13:1-5).
But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?” — when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:20-22).
Most OT scholars find at least three major criteria for validating a genuine prophet of Yahweh given in the Old Testament. First of all, was the prophet an agent of miraculous signs and wonders? God’s performing mighty and miraculous acts through Moses certainly had the effect of validating Moses’ as God’s spokesman (Exod. 4:1-9; 7:3; 10:1-2). This was also true of Christ who was the Greater Moses (John 2:11, 23; 3:2; 6:2, 26; 9:16; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30). But as Deuteronomy 13 makes clear, the ability to perform “signs or wonders” was not to be the chief criterion in judging a prophet (vv. 1-2). Indeed, God sometimes granted false prophets the ability to perform signs and wonders as a test to see whether His people would adhere to the truth (v. 3; Matt. 24:24).
Second, there was the question of whether the prophet’s predictions about future events came true? This seems to be the major criterion in the second passage where Moses says in verse 22, “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pas, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (cf. Num. 16:29; 1 Kings. 22:23-28; 2 Kings. 1:10, 12; Isa. 44:26; Jer. 28:8-9).
The third and most important criterion was whether the prophet’s message conformed to already-established canonical revelation. Note especially the point of focus in Deuteronomy 13 is whether the prophet is speaking any message to draw God’s people away from Jehovah and His revealed will, verse 5, “to entice you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk.” In the words of Isaiah 8:20, if he did not speak in conformity with “the law and the testimony,” there is no light in him. This was the most crucial test for distinguishing a true prophet from a false prophet. And this was the very test to which the Jews in Berea subjected the Apostle Paul when he came preaching the gospel in their synagogue. We’re told in Acts 17:11, “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” They were trying to discern whether Paul were a true spokesman for God or not. And Paul did not object to this kind of scrutiny. In fact, he tells the Galatians, “if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (1:8).
The point I’m trying to make is that there seems to be a parallel between the commands to evaluate Old Testament prophecy and the commands to evaluate New Testament prophecy. In both cases, the objective is not merely to sift the good words from the bad words in any given message. This cannot be the case in those OT passages since in both cases, God demands the false prophet be put to death (Deut. 13:5; 18:20). While the NT passages do not demand the death sentence for false prophets, they do demand the church refuse to allow false prophets to become members and to excommunicate them if they are members (Rom. 16:17-18; Gal. 1:8, 9; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10; 2 John 1:10). Thus, the man who claimed to be a prophetic agent of New Covenant revelation had better be telling the truth. If his words did not conform to the earlier revelation of the Old Testament and the inspired witness of the chosen Apostles, he would not only be censured for speaking falsehood, but he would likely have been put out of the church as a false prophet.
Grudem’s arguments for two levels of prophecy do not have the support of Scripture. Paul’s commands to evaluate NT prophecy do not distinguish New Testament prophecy from Old Testament prophecy. On the contrary, they serve to highlight the continuity between both institutions. Both OT prophecy and NT prophecy—if true—are to be viewed in their entirety as the inspired, infallible, authoritative word of God. Anything less, does not deserve to be called “prophecy” at all, at least in the biblical sense of that term.
It’s time to bring our argument to a conclusion. After introducing this series in Part 1, we attempted to demonstrate, as our major premise, that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). This point is affirmed by most continuationists like Grudem (Part 5).Nevertheless, Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative (Part 6). But in our two last posts (Part 7, Part 8), we have found Grudem’s arguments flawed and inadequate to support his thesis. On the contrary, the biblical data portrays NT prophecy and tongues as forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation, which is our minor premise. Accordingly, it is difficult to resist the following conclusion: if pre-parousia special revelation has been completed and has ceased (major premise) and if NT prophecy and tongues are forms of that pre-parousia special revelation that has ceased (minor premise), we must conclude that NT tongues and prophecy fulfilled their function and have ceased (conclusion). This appears to be the conclusion reached by the majority of our Puritan forefathers:
Therefore, it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased [emphasis added] (LBCF 1.1; cf. WCF 1.1).
Of course, I recognize that other biblical texts and theological considerations are sometimes raised in order to resist or refute the cessationist conclusion reached above. Therefore, to be fair to my continuationist brothers, I’ll attempt to address these objections in the posts that follow (Part 9, Part 10). Finally, I’ll end the series with a few lines of practical application (Part 11).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1996), 1039-58.
[2] Systematic Theology, 1052.
[3] A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1984), 260.
[4] The Greek preposition dia with the genitive may indicate cause (Rom. 12:1) or attendant circumstances (Acts 14:22).
[5] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway, 1988), 94.
[6] Systematic Theology, 1052.
[7] The prophecy of Isaiah may furnish us with an OT example. Isaiah 45:13 prophecies that Cyrus would decree not only the rebuilding of the temple, but also the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. In the unfolding of history, it was actually Artaxerxes I who gave the specific decree regarding the city (Neh 2:1-8; cf. Dan 9:25). This fact does not invalidate Isaiah’s prophecy since it was Cyrus’ decree that provided the favorable context for Artaxerxes’ later decree. In any case, we have an example of inspired prophecy with a “loose” but infallible fulfillment.
[8] Robert Thomas, “Prophesy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (1992), 91.
[9] Systematic Theology, 1054-55.
[10] The Final Word (Banner of Truth, 1993), 101.
[11] Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 1979, 1981), 138; Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 185; Louw & Nida, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd edition (United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:364 [30.109].
[12] The whole chapter is mainly about prophecy; the verse itself identifies the speakers as prophets; and there is no clear reference to interpretations being added to the message.
[13] Charles Hodge, for example, writes, “It was therefore of importance to have a class of men with the gift of discernment, who could determine whether a man was really inspired, or spoke only from the impulse of his own mind, or from the dictation of some evil spirit.” 1 & 2 Corinthians (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1988), 248.
Posted by deangonzales on March 16, 2009
In our previous post, we noted that continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative. Grudem’s arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets. Only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation. (2) the NT seems to contain examples of fallible prophecy uttered by NT believers or prophets. (3) NT prophecy was subject to evaluation and criticism, which seems to imply fallibility and lesser authority. These are Grudem’s three primary arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy.[1]
What shall we think about this distinction? I have five lines of response to Grudem’s arguments by which I want to argue that the Scriptures do not support Grudem’s distinction between OT canonical prophecy (infallible) and NT congregational prophecy (potentially fallible). In contrast, the data of Scripture seems to place NT prophecy in the same divine and authoritative category as OT prophecy. We’ll consider the first three below and the final two in our subsequent post.
OT prophets spoke the very words of God.
The nature of OT prophecy is highlighted in three key passages.
Exodus 7:1-2
Here, Yahweh declares to Moses,
See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall speak to Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land.
In this case, Moses was God’s prophet and Aaron was Moses’ prophet. God’s word is relayed through Moses, and then again through Aaron. Notice, however, that the final message delivered by Aaron comes to Pharaoh with, to use O. Palmer Robertson’s words, “undiminished authority.”[2] In this case, the prophetical words of Aaron are absolutely canonical.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
In this passage, God assures His people that when Moses passes off the scene, he will raise up another prophet like Moses. For our purposes, notice how this passage depicts the nature of true OT prophecy:
The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.’
Once again, this passage portrays a prophet as God’s spokesman. Notice that God does not merely place his words in the prophet’s head but rather in his mouth (v. 18). A prophet does not merely receive revelatory concepts in his mind, but he actually speaks divine revelation. Finally, Moses makes it clear in verse 15 and 19 that the prophet’s words will be canonical: “You shall listen to him …. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.”
What’s interesting for our purposes is the way in which Peter interprets this text in Acts 3:22-23. According to Peter, this passage finds fulfillment not just in the line of prophets following Moses but primarily in the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ, who may be rightly called the “Second Moses.” Certainly, this passage underscores continuity between the revelation of Old Covenant prophecy and the revelation of New Covenant prophecy of Christ.
2 Peter 1:20-21
Peter refers specifically to the “prophecy of Scripture,” which at the time of his writing was primarily OT Scripture. Regarding the nature of that prophetic revelation, Peter writes,
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Peter stresses the fact that the prophecy of Scripture does not originate with man but with God. Furthermore, Peter argues that the Spirit not only superintends the thoughts of the prophet but the words, which the prophet utters—”holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
In conclusion, the Bible clearly portrays OT prophecy as inspired revelation in the fullest sense, which is absolutely authoritative. With this point, Dr. Grudem has no quarrel, which leads to our second line of argumentation.
The Bible assumes an essential continuity between OT and NT prophecy.
Let’s travel back in time to the Day of Pentecost. Here Peter and the other apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” and, according to Acts 2:4, they “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” In the context, the word “tongues” is referring to foreign languages other than Hebrew (vv. 8, 11). Then, in order to put this strange phenomenon in proper perspective, Peter cites an OT prophecy of which their speaking in tongues is a fulfillment. The OT text is Joel 2:28-32, which Peter cites in verses 17-18:
‘And it shall come to pass in the last days,’ says God, ‘That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy’ (Acts 2:17-18).
The prophet Joel is pointing forward to “the last days,” when God will do something new and unusual. In these days, Joel says, prophecy will no longer be limited to a certain class of individuals. God will pour out his Spirit on “all flesh,” that is, upon “all [kinds] of mankind.” Men and women, young and old, slave and freeman will all prophesy. Thus, New Covenant prophecy will be much more widely distributed than Old Covenant prophecy. There is no indication, however, that this NT prophecy will be non-canonical. On the contrary, the equation of prophecy with “visions” and “dreams” (v. 17) strongly suggests that NT prophecy is of the same inspired character as OT prophecy.[3] Without doubt, Joel’s audience would have interpreted Joel’s promise of future prophecy as a reference to special revelation in the fullest sense of the word. Just as God had authoritatively and infallibly revealed himself to Israel through Moses and the OT prophets. So the day is coming, says Joel, when God would pour out His Spirit again upon the Gentile as well as the Jew, and God’s Spirit would provide His people with fresh supernatural revelation. According to Peter, Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. The “tongues” of Pentecost were the evidence of an outpouring of God’s Spirit which resulted in new revelation which was on the same level of inspiration and authority as OT prophecy. Moreover, we cannot limit this new canonical prophecy to the apostles since the fulfillment of Joel’s promise extends to women as well as to men (vv. 17-18).
Several NT passages treat NT prophecy as inspired and on a level with OT prophecy as canonical revelation.
Acts 13:1-4
The first passage I’d like us to look at is probably the least conclusive. Acts 13:1-4 clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit commissioned Paul and Barnabas to do missionary work. Second, the likely assumption is that the Spirit’s revelation came to them through the agency of NT prophets who happened to be in their company.
Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Commenting on the passage, F.F. Bruce writes,
As these prophets and teachers were carrying out their appointed ministry in the church, the Holy Spirit made known his will to them—doubtless through an inspired utterance from one of their number.[4]
I believe that we can also assume that this Spirit-inspired prophecy was canonical in the sense of being infallibly and absolutely authoritative. Just as God called Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah, so now He commissioned Paul and Barnabas. Not by the enlightened exhortation of the church, but the direct revelation of His Spirit. In other words, God’s word came to Barnabas and Paul with absolute divine authority.[5] If this is a proper reading of the passage, then we have a case of NT prophecy which is fully inspired and infallible.
Ephesians 2:20; 3:1-5
We find a clearer statement on NT prophecy in Ephesians 2:20 and 3:1-5. We’ve already noted how Ephesians 2:20 supports the cessation of Scripture-quality revelation. In that verse, Paul clearly speaks of the ministry of apostles as the foundational stage of the NT church’s formation: “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (emphasis added).
For our purposes, I want you to note that Paul refers not only to NT “apostles” but also to NT “prophets” as making up the foundation of the NT church. That the “prophets” in view are NT prophets is clear from the sequence in which the two words occur. When OT prophets are compared to NT apostles, they are listed before the apostles in sequence (2 Pet. 3:2). When the term “prophets” follows apostles, however, then NT prophets are in view (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). Furthermore, we know these are NT prophets because they along with the apostles were the recipients of NT revelation, which had not been revealed to the OT prophets in the same degree. This point is underscored in 3:1-5:
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets (emphasis added).
Obviously, this passage places NT prophets on a level with the apostles. The Spirit of God revealed to them, as well as to the apostles, “the mystery of Christ,” which He had not made known to the sons of men to the same degree as He was now doing to the apostles and the prophets. According to one of my Greek Lexicons, the word “mystery” can refer to “what can be known only through revelation mediated from God (Mat 13:11)” or “as a supreme redemptive revelation of God through the Gospel of Christ mystery (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9).”[6] Thus, the prophets, along with the apostles, communicated divinely authoritative revelation to the church (cf. Acts 13:1-4). What is more, as we’ve pointed out, the NT prophets belonged to the foundational period of the church, which makes it likely that they, along with the apostles, passed off the scene once the NT canon was completed.
Sensing the force of this argument, Grudem attempts to view the dual reference as a hendiadys. The term “hendiadys” comes from three Greek words: hen = “one,” dia = “through,” dys = “two.” It refers to a literary device in which two words are used to describe one basic idea. Thus, Grudem interprets the phrase “apostles and prophets” as referring to one class of individuals and translates it, “the apostles who are the prophets.”[7]
Linguistic studies on the structure of Paul’s statement in the original have shown Grudem’s interpretation to be improbable.[8] Moreover, other NT passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11, and Revelation 18:20 clearly distinguish NT apostles from NT prophets. The passage in Ephesians 4 is especially relevant since it occurs in the same letter as the reference in 2:20 and 3:5. Therefore, according to the exegetical evidence of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5, both apostles and NT prophets were the recipients and the agents of divinely authoritative revelation.
1 Corinthians 13:2; 14:1-3
The next two passages I would like us to examine are found in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. First, let’s read 1 Corinthians 13:2: “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” In this first text, I want you simply to note that Paul portrays NT prophecy as a revelatory gift by which the one who possess the gift comes to understand “all mysteries.” Remember that according to Ephesians 3, the term “mysteries” refer to divine revelation of redemptive truth previously unknown—at least not to the same degree. With this in view, let’s turn to a complementary passage in 1 Corinthians 14:1-3:
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.
You’ll recall that in Acts 2, Peter equates tongues with prophecy. According to that passage, “tongues” is the gift of prophecy uttered in a foreign language. In this passage (and in chapter 13), however, Paul seems to contrast the two. How do we explain this? First, we should not view Paul’s distinction between prophecy and tongues as a contrast between rational speech and irrational noise and babbling. The Greek word translated “tongues” simply refers to language (cf. Isa. 28:11-12).[9] Genuine language is not a lot of irrational, incoherent noise. True language is always characterized by real words that are structured together in a coherent and rational fashion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19).
Second, Paul’s contrast between prophecy and tongues is not a contrast between human speech and angelic speech. Some modern Pentecostals and Charismatics appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:1 where Paul writes, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” On the basis of this verse, they argue, (1) that angelic language may be contrasted with human language, (2) that angelic language may be spoken by humans, and (3) that angelic language may sound unintelligible and irrational to humans, like “sounding brass or a clanging symbol.”
In response to this interpretation, note first that the “sounding brass and clanging symbol” refer to human speech as well as angelic speech which is not accompanied by love. The point is not that human speech is intelligible while angelic speech is unintelligible. The point, rather, is that preaching the gospel—whether in a human tongue or an angelic tongue—makes no sense if we are not living the gospel. Second, Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” may simply be a form of hyperbole—a way of saying, “Though I preaching the gospel with the eloquence of an angel ….” Third, even if Paul is alluding to an actual language spoken by angels, he nowhere clearly identifies that angelic language as the tongues being uttered in the Corinthian church. In fact, there are indications in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul has actual human languages in view. Paul’s illustration in verses 10 and 11 points to a human language rather than an angelic language:
There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me [emphasis added] (1 Cor. 14:10-11).
Moreover, Paul’s reference to tongues as a “sign to unbelievers” in verses 21 and 22 is based upon Isaiah 28:11-12, and that OT passage is referring to a human language which is foreign and unintelligible to the recipient (cf. Deut. 28:49; Jer. 5:15). For these reasons, it is best to view the gift of NT tongues neither as irrational babble nor as angelic speech, but rather as prophecy in a foreign language which corresponds to the tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8, 11). Paul’s contrast, then, is not between tongues and prophecy per se but between revelation uttered in a language intelligible to the church and revelation uttered in a language that is foreign to the church.[11]
What I really want to call your attention to is the fact that according to 13:2 and 14:2 both prophecy and tongues reveal “mysteries.” The term “mysteries” is not referring to garbled nonsense.[12] That term translates the same Greek word that Paul used in Ephesians 3 to speak of the canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets. And according to these passages in 1 Corinthians, these “mysteries” are “known” through the gift of prophecy (13:2) and they are “spoken” through the gift of tongues (14:2). Therefore, according to these passages, not only does the special revelation of NT prophecy reach the mind but it is uttered from the mouth as well! The Spirit does not merely provide the thoughts to think, but He gives the very words to say.
I do not believe these passages are not compatible with Grudem’s position. Grudem argues that in the case of NT congregational prophecy, revelation only extends to the mind and not necessarily to the mouth (see Grudem’s view illustrated in Part 6). But here, the one who speaks in tongues actually “speaks” the mysteries. This is not to deny that prophets may have added their own interpretation to a prophet’s message at a later time. But in that case, we must distinguish their interpretation from the prophecy itself. NT prophecy by its very nature is divinely inspired revelation—nothing more and nothing less.
Revelation 1:3; 22:7, 10; 18-19
The Apostle John identifies his writing as NT prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10). Furthermore, he claims absolute, canonical authority for this NT prophecy (22:18-19; cf. Deut. 4:2).
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book (22:18-19).
I realize Grudem would grant that John’s prophecy was completely inspired, inerrant, and divinely authoritative. In fact, he refers to this as a kind of exception to the rule.[13] But I want to suggest that the prophecy we find elsewhere in the NT is the same kind of prophecy uttered and inscripturated by John in the Book of the Revelation. And as John the Apostle makes clear by the closing words the book, such prophecy carries absolute divine authority.
In summary, then, I believe the Biblical evidence supports the view that Old Testament prophecy and New Testament prophecy belong to the same category of divine revelation. They are both special revelation in the fullest sense of the word. But what about Grudem’s examples of so-called “fallible” NT prophecy? And what about the texts that portray NT prophecy as susceptible to evaluation? We’ll take address these two questions in our next post so stay tuned.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1996), 1039-58.
[2] The Final Word (Banner of Truth, 1993), 6.
[3] The Old Testament often places “dreams” and “visions” in the category of canonical revelation (cf. Num. 12:6; 24:3, 4; 2 Sam. 7:17; 2 Chron. 32:32; Prov. 29:18; Isa. 1:1; Jer. 23; Oba. 1:1; Nah. 1:1).
[4] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Eerdmans, 1988), 245.
[5] Notice that the word was authoritative even before Luke recorded it in the Scriptures!
[6] Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament in Bible Works 4.0 (Copyright 1999), en loc.
[7] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway, 1988), 45-63.
[8] D. B. Wallace, “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983), 59-84; R. Fowler White, “Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin’s Cessationist Exegesis,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (Fall 1992), 304-21. See also the helpful analysis provided by Jonathan Christman, one of Grudem’s former students, which may be accessed here: “Wayne Grudem on Ephesians 2:20-An Exegetical Analysis.”
[9] When I was a new believer, a friend invited me to a Pentecostal Bible study where the subject of tongues was discussed. At the end of the study, the leader of the group asked us all to stand and pray for the Spirit. Everyone except me lifted their hands and began praying. Soon the woman standing next to me began dancing around and repeating over and over the phrase, “Babble … babble … babble.” That literally happened! But I don’t very much that’s what Paul had in view when speaking of “tongues.”
[10] Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 162.
[11] Some have cited verses 14 and 15 as proof that “tongues” is a non-intelligible utterance: “for if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.” They argue that since one’s understanding remains “unfruitful” when uttering a tongue, then it must refer to something distinct from a human language since even the one speaking cannot understand it. In verse 4, however, Paul seems to imply that the speaker could understand it: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” Consequently, we may interpret the phrase “my understanding is unfruitful” as shorthand for, “My understanding of the divine revelation does not produce fruit in the hearers when it is uttered in a foreign language” (cf. Matt. 13:22; 2 Pet. 1:8).
[12] Charles Hodge comments, “The meaning obviously is, that although not understood, yet what he utters contains divine truth. The difficultly was in the language used, not in the absence of meaning, or in the fact that inarticulate sounds were employed.” A Commentary on I and II Corinthians (1857; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1988), 280.
[13] “Of course, the words prophet and prophecy were sometimes used of the apostles in contexts that emphasized the external spiritual influence (from the Holy Spirit) under which they spoke (so Rev. 1:3; 22:7; and Eph. 2:20; 3:5), but this was not the ordinary terminology used for the apostles, nor did the terms prophet and prophecy in themselves imply divine authority for their speech or writing.” Systematic Theology, 1051.
