Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

Gospel-Driven Prophecy

August 2010

Gospel-Driven Prophecy
Understanding the Differences Between
Old Testament and New Testament
Prophets and Prophecy

Revision: August 2010

Introduction
About six years ago God graciously and patiently led me along the path of what I believe is a
Bible-mandated, gospel-driven approach to the charismatic. Since then I’ve tried to carefully
work from my experience as a former cessationist through the greatest obstacle and point
of contention, confusion and frustration, which is the subject of prophecy. The fact that
biblical and/or reformed charismatics cling to it so tenaciously drives their reformed non-
charismatic brothers and sisters crazy at times. I've found this to be the case time and again
with even my closest cessationist friends. And in return, they drive me crazy with
presuppositions, beliefs, ideas, and conclusions that are just plain not biblical or logical.
Doctrinally, we may feel like two cats in a dryer. Relationally, I want to feel fervent love for
my brothers and sisters. This article has been an ongoing attempt to deeply enjoy both
environments.

Originally, this article was broken up into a series of blog posts, and was an attempt to
answer the contention, confusion and frustration. I hoped to do so by pointing out that the
differences between OT and NT prophecy are clear enough that they obviate many if not
most of the objections offered against what I am convinced now is a biblical-charismatic
view of prophecy. I’ve tried to make it plain that a closer observation of OT and NT

Page 1 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

prophecy will show that some of the biggest preconceived necessities which cessationists
put forward regarding the subject of biblical prophecy are not necessarily true as they apply
to NT prophecy in the local church. In other words, they like me assume far too much about
OT prophecy when it comes to NT prophecy, even though the Bible makes it plain that they
are vastly different.

Why Prophecy is Gospel-Driven


So now to an important question as I unfold this article. Why have I called referred to
prophecy in the title as “gospel-driven”? I’ve entitled it this way for one reason: because this
the gospel and the promises that flow out of it (primarily the Holy Spirit) are the roots from
which all NT prophecy springs. And everything about prophecy is connected to this root
system, and flows out from it. Consider two important texts which make this connection so
clear.

The first is 1 Corinthians 12 which begins with a gospel confession of Jesus as Lord. Such a
confession flows from a belief that is guided by the Holy Spirit (v. 3). The Lordship of Jesus
Christ is the essential message of the gospel. And the Holy Spirit's work of empowering one
to acknowledge this point is also directly connected with the Spirit's work of empowering
one to serve the body of Christ with spiritual gifts.

The second is the most important and helpful passage on the subject in all of Scripture - 1
Corinthians 14. It begins with the doctrine of love which was previously exposited in great
detail in chapter 13. Prophecy results from a pursuit of love, as Paul commanded in 14:1. That
love, as expressed in chapter 13, is nothing more than an embodiment of the gospel of Jesus
Christ in word and deed.

From the very beginning of the discussion on spiritual gifts, then, Paul is out to show that
any discussion about them, including a discussion on two in particular (tongues and
prophecy), should be guided with the understanding that the Holy Spirit is at work to exalt
the Lordship of Jesus Christ through His body in the local church.

The highest reflection of this work of the Spirit is the love which the saints have for one
another. And this gospel-driven love for others is, therefore, what guides and guards the
usage of the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14. Without gospel-driven love, prophecy could
not be given to people "for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (14:3). It is
only as it is driven by love that prophecy is able to focus upon and accomplish these primary
gospel-driven objectives in the local church.

With the gospel as the foundation, what I want to attempt to do in this article is to
differentiate between OT and NT prophecy in an attempt to answer objections against it,
while also returning biblical NT prophecy to its proper place among the saints in the local
church today.

Page 2 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

Most germane to the discussion of cessationism and continuationism is the subject of


modern-day prophecy and how, if at all, it correlates to the historical acts of prophecy in the
Scriptures. More than any other spiritual gift, this particular one raises more cause for
concern, especially among sound evangelicals who identify themselves as cessationists or
even those referring to themselves as “open-but-cautious.” That cause of concern has
chiefly to do with one primary notion and/or accusation against continuationism:

Continuationism supposedly calls into question the


sufficiency and even authority of Scripture when it
claims that the gift of prophecy is still in operation
today in the local church.

It is especially in light of this point that a fair, balanced, and legitimate observation of
prophecy and prophets in the Scriptures should be presented. This is my desire in this article
which, though intended to provoke much thought, study, and discussion, is not in any way
intended to be a formal, theological presentation on the subject. In other words, this is
fodder for the debate on the charismatic gift of prophecy among those who are truly
interested in discovering, investigating, and utilizing the gift today. If you’ve already made
up your mind and concluded it’s not for today, then you’ve already got an answer for
whatever I say here. If so, my only response would be the hopeful expectation that you’ll
not conclude on the matter before you have considered (or even reconsidered) all the facts
(Prov. 18:13, 17).

The Differences Between OT and NT Prophets and Prophecies


The first and oft-raised point of contention among cessationists is that their counterpart,
continuationists, assert that the gift of prophecy in the OT and the gift in the NT are wrongly
differentiated from each other. The charge against us is that we make a distinction between
OT and NT prophecy where supposedly we are not biblically justified in doing so.

This is the primary issue raised almost immediately among many of my personal
cessationists friends, especially those who shared the same cessationistic seminary
education with me. I’d like to submit however, that unless I have seriously overlooked
something, the response I offer in this article seems clear enough from just a simple
observation of Scripture on this area. And I’m open to further discussion in order to
understand it better.

When I respond to my cessationist friends that the gift of prophecy in the OT and NT, as well
as the offices of prophet in the OT and NT are different from one another, I am usually met
with a raised eyebrow and a smile as if I were somehow engaging in a bit of exegetical ballet
dancing. Perhaps I am unwittingly dancing with danger. Nevertheless, allow me to present
the differences here for anyone to observe so that they make their own conclusion. These

Page 3 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

differences speak for themselves and do not at all seem to point to some charismatic
experience looking for a justification through hermeneutics, nor an attempt to cram a
presupposed theology into a few texts of Scripture (as is often alleged by cessationists).

Old Testament Prophets & Prophecies


1. OT Prophets Were Rare

Old Testament prophets were rare and unique. A cursory observation reveals that they were
rare simply because there just weren’t that many of them by comparison with the numbers
of people alive during those days. Do you remember how many of them there were? By my
count there seemed to be around two and a half dozen prophets ranging from Moses all the
way down to Malachi, or even John the Baptist, if one counts him as the last OT prophet.
This number would also include female prophets such as Hulda (2 Kings 22:14) and Deborah
(Judges 4:4).

Added to this number of named prophets would be the unnamed prophets such as those
whom Obadiah hid in the caves from Jezebel (1 Kings 18:4), the seven thousand prophets
who did not bow the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18), or the prophets in the prophetic school led
by Elijah and Elisha (2 Kings 6:1-5).

So then, even though the OT prophets numbered into the thousands, they were still rare by
comparison with the number of people they served. In other words, the ratio of prophet to
people was massive, to say the least. The fact was, not everybody in Israel was a prophet.
And this builds a foundation for the second point.

2. OT Prophesies Were Unique

The fact that prophets were rare is inseparably connected to the nature of their prophetic
messages. In short, OT prophets and their prophecies were unique. The majority of the
prophets seemed to live during the monarchial period of Israel’s history. This was a season
of several hundred years where the united and later divided nations of Israel and Judah had
to live in the consequences they created for themselves when they demanded a king from
the prophet Samuel.

This is significant, for the official office of OT prophet seems to have arisen around the
eleventh century, B.C., before the exile of both nations to Assyria and Babylon. There were a
few prophets after the exile, but some, like Ezekiel during this time period, served a dual
role as priests and prophets, functioning differently in the life of Israel. Malachi is the last OT
prophet, dating somewhere around 450 B.C., after the return from exile. And it has been
largely assumed by most theologians that John the Baptist was technically the last OT
prophet, serving as a prophetic gateway to transition the Old Covenant to the New.

Page 4 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

The rarity and the uniqueness of the office form the basis for the two primary differences
between OT and NT prophets. OT prophets were appointed and raised up by God, primarily
during the monarchial period, to call the kings of both Israel and Judah (including various
pagan nations as well) to repentance and to pronounce the impending destruction on these
nations for their refusal to repent.

In summary, conflict with the governing rulers of God’s chosen nation was the most common
experience of an OT prophet. Hardly a prophet is found during this long period of history
where he was not in conflict with the kings of Israel and Judah. They seemed to operate as
God’s counterbalance to the often unrestrained wickedness of the kings and rulers and false
prophets. The last of these was, of course, John the Baptist whose conflict with Herod
Antipas’ adultery and refusal to repent landed the prophet in prison where he was
eventually executed.

3. Summary of OT Prophets and Prophecies

In summary, OT prophets were specially appointed by God as well as by other prophets.


Much of the prophecy of OT prophets was focused on calling rulers to repent, and calling
people back to the worship of YHWH. All of it took place in the community or context of the
nation of Israel, though often it was directed at other pagan nations. And yet even then
these prophets prophesied because of their divine and sovereign connection to the
discipline of God’s people.

Further, only some of what these prophets prophesied is actually recorded for us in
Scripture. And considering the fact that these prophets numbered into the thousands, this is
very significant in light of the discussion at hand. So quite soon into the discussion we find the
unavoidable conclusion that in the OT not all prophecies of the prophets were written down
and preserved as Scripture.

New Testament Prophets & Prophecies


The First Comparison: NT Prophets Included ALL of God’s People

There are two primary facts about OT prophecy which form the basis for comparison to NT
prophecy: OT prophets and prophecies were rare and unique. These two observations are
the very grounds which separate most (though certainly not all) of the OT prophets from
the NT prophets.

When we turn to the NT we find prophets to be quite different from those in the OT.
Compared to OT prophets, NT prophets are not rare at all. In fact, that is exactly the intention
of the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost, which was prophesied by the OT prophet Joel, the Holy
Spirit was finally poured out in abundance on the people of God as a fulfillment of the New

Page 5 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

Covenant promises. Referring to a new group of prophets, called the church, Peter (in Acts
2:17 ff.) quotes Joel’s prophecy (from 2:28 ff.).

“…‘And in the last days it will be,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on
all people, and even your sons and daughters will prophesy; and your young
men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. Even on my
servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and
they will prophesy” (NET Bible).

Surely the emphasis is clear enough for everybody to see! Prophesy is no longer about a rare
individual anointed as a prophet by another prophet. In the New Covenant, prophecy is
about the Holy Spirit anointing all of His people to prophesy as His prophets – men and
women, sons and daughters, children and adults, young and old, slave and free.

None of this is in common with OT prophets. And as previously noted that’s precisely a point
of Pentecost: a pouring out of the Spirit on all God’s people and not just upon the specially
appointed. All are anointed with the Spirit, and not just special individuals. Prophets are no
longer specially chosen, but rather they make up all God’s chosen people.

What is interesting to take note of is that this has been God’s original intention all along. A
simple reading of the story in Numbers 11:26-29 makes that plain enough.

But two men remained in the camp; one’s name was Eldad, and the other’s
name was Medad. And the spirit rested on them. (Now they were among
those in the registration, but had not gone to the tabernacle.) So they
prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and
Medad are prophesying in the camp!” 11:28 Joshua son of Nun, the servant of
Moses, one of his choice young men, said, “My lord Moses, stop them!”
Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for me? I wish that all the Lord’s people
were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (NET Bible)

Compare that with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:1 and 5 where he writes, “Pursue love
and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophecy…I wish you all…would
prophesy.” What we’re faced with then, are two bookend statements, with Joel’s prophecy
in the middle of the shelf, all of which undeniably point to the conclusion that it is ultimately
God’s will for all believers to prophecy.

Numbers 1 Corinthians
Joel 2:27-28
11:29 4:1, 5
Page 6 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

A Second Comparison: NT Prophecies Have a Different Purpose

In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul makes several statements which bridge the first facet of NT prophets
– that prophesy is for all God’s children – to the second facet which I see as the purpose of
NT prophecy. I will show this in a moment. Let me stress here, however, the NT attention on
the first facet considered in verse one, which I just quoted above: “Pursue love and be
eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”

There can be no clearer instruction on the fact that God desires everyone in the local church
to be gospel-driven by a pursuit of love, purposing to see love control all the gifts, especially
that of prophesy, which Paul was eager for the Corinthians to eagerly pursue. You’ll note
that this verse was not written to specific individuals. It was written to the whole church and
everyone in it. Such clear instruction should span the cultural and historical gap to local
churches today.

There are two other verses in this context which continue to emphasize the all-inclusive
purpose of prophecy. Fast-forwarding to verse 5, Paul explains, “I wish you all spoke in
tongues, but even more that you [all] would prophesy. The one who prophecies is greater
than the one who speaks on tongues…”

Paul seems to continue the stress the emphasis that Pentecost initiated upon all the people
of God. Speaking for God, Paul instructs the church at Corinth that prophesy is intended for
all believers and not just certain ones. Then, toward the end of the chapter in verse 31 Paul
explains regarding the exercise of the gift in the church. “For you can all prophesy one after
another, so all can learn and be encouraged.” Once again, there is a clear emphasis on the
fact that all may prophesy. Prophesy then is no longer for certain persons whom God
appoints, as in the OT.

Having established Paul’s uniformity of all-inclusiveness with Peter’s interpretation of


Pentecost, a brief return to verse 3 of 1 Corinthians 14 will finalize the primary purpose of this
gift of prophesy. Not only was the gift given to prove the all-inclusive nature of the work of
the Spirit in the church of Christ, but it was also given in order to accomplish something
specific.

Paul teaches us that, “the one who prophecies speaks to people for their strengthening,
encouragement, and consolation.” In this verse we find that the connection between NT
prophets and their prophecies largely differs from the connections of OT prophets and
prophecies. It is by this facet that they are clearly and unmistakably distinguished from one
another.
It is in light of this that you’ll not want to miss the two facets of OT prophecy and how they
compare with NT prophecy. First, regarding the element of rarity, the majority of the
prophets of the NT were average, ordinary church members. Certainly at least three of the
apostles (Peter, James, and John) had the gift of prophesy. This would seem to make them

Page 7 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

rare, placing them in the category of OT prophets. Yet strangely they are never mentioned
as prophets, but as apostles.

Second, regarding the element of uniqueness, you’ll remember that the historical context is
different. NT prophets are not prophesying to rebellious OT Israel and her kings and rulers.
They are prophesying to the redeemed NT church.

Undoubtedly the prophetic gifting of the apostles who wrote Scripture was special in the
sense that they were apostles, and as such they were chosen by Christ to be the initial
bearers of the gospel to the world, to be the writers of Scripture, and the builders of the
church. This puts them in a special category.

Yet again they are apostles and not prophets. And their possession and usage of the gift of
prophesy is for the NT church and not OT Israel. In essence, the apostles can be seen as the
first to possess a gift which was prophesied in the OT as eventually being desired for and
poured out upon all the redeemed.

The analysis seems to point in the direction that NT prophets are not seen in the NT
appearing before Israel’s kings and pronouncing doom and judgment, calling rulers to
repent. Peter’s call to repentance after his first sermon in Acts 2:22 would seem to indicate
such. But his audience was those gathered for the Feast of Booths, and he addresses them,
“Men of Israel…”

While rulers may have been present, the context makes clear that they were not the primary
audience as was the case with OT prophets and their messages. And while Paul appeared
before kings and rulers, they were not the kings and rulers of Israel. They were pagan kings.

In the end, while OT and NT prophets and prophecies seem to slightly overlap in context and
purpose, they are very much different from each other both in context and purpose.

Applying the Differences Toward an Attempted Resolution


Hopefully these observations will lead to a more interactive and meaningful discussion
between cessationists and continuationists on the subject of prophecy as it relates to
perceived conclusions. We are all guilty of reasoning with error. And this is where it more
often than not shows itself.

If we perceive that we understand another person’s argument, then we also presume to


make analyses and conclusions that we perceive are the logical outflow of their argument.
Arminians are infamous for this in their perceptions and conclusions regarding Calvinism. If
God is sovereign and freely elects whoever He desires, then those who believe in this cannot
believe in or be genuine about evangelism. This is illogical, of course, because of the Bible’s
clear teaching on the connection between election and evangelism. Just as the Arminian

Page 8 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

perception of election does not necessitate the denigration of genuine evangelism, the
cessationist’s perception of OT prophecy does not necessitate that NT prophecy be treated
the same way. Let’s apply this to three problems in particular.

The three problems I will attempt to address here all find their resolution in the stated
purpose of NT prophecy as gospel-driven, established in 1 Corinthians 14:3. The Bible
teaches that NT prophecy today is for the gospel-driven purposes of strengthening,
encouraging, and consoling all believers. When the biblical purpose of NT prophecy guides
any discussion about it, many problems which were considered previously difficult seem to
disappear.

One: NT Prophets Do NOT Have to Have a 100% Track Record.

The first of these problems is the cessationist claim that NT prophets in the local church
today must have a 100% accurate prophetic track record because the OT prophets had to
meet this requirement. At first glance, this argument is incredibly strong, but only so on the
surface. Given the differences, especially in the nature of the NT prophetic word, such a
necessity cannot be demanded for two reasons.

First, a consideration of the usual OT texts referred to in order to contravene cessationism


reveals a different conclusion when we use the most foundational rule in bible study and
exegesis – context. When we apply this simple rule to an observation of two OT texts, this
particular problem of requiring 100% accuracy in track record is not so problematic. The texts
themselves do not, in fact, teach this. These two texts are Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:15-22.

Considering 13:1-5, an exegesis of this passage shows us that there was something else,
something very important, which must also accompany a prophet’s words in order for it to
be deemed punishable by death. Here is the text in its entirety from the ESV.

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or
a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he
says, ‘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 taught rebellion
against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and
redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which
the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from
your midst.”

Page 9 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

I think a basic observation helps us conclude two simple points here.

1. First, there is no mention in this test of stoning a prophet because he got a prophecy
wrong. It’s just not there, unless I’ve missed it here or in any other text.

2. Second, the death penalty for the prophet is noted in key conjunctions in bold and
phrase in italics. I’m amazed at how often the “and” and “because” are missed in this
passage. Not only does this prophet prophesy, but he also promotes rebellion
against God through idolatry. He prophesies accurately, but it is accompanied with
wickedness. It is for this that the prophet is to be executed, because he is a false
prophet among God’s people, and not because a prophecy did not come true. A
reading of Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 13 reveal that this Deuteronomy passage was
actually in and of itself a prophecy.

In the other text found in 18:15-22, an exegesis of this text will be guided by an oft-
overlooked phrase found in verses 15 and 18. The ESV translates the key phrases as “a
prophet like me” (v. 15) and “a prophet like you” (v. 18). The context is prophetic in itself, for
it predicts the coming of a prophet like Moses. Moses was a foreshadow of a greater
prophet, the fulfillment of which is found in the person and prophetic ministry of Jesus
Christ. Acts 3:17-26 and 7:37 help us understand exactly how a NT understood this prophecy.
It is in this context that the following verses are found:

“And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has
not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word
does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not
spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of
him” (vv. 20-22).

Here is the most often-used text to refer to a prophet whose words don’t come true. Yet if
we are honest with the text and refuse to reshape or remold it to fit a preconceived
cessationistic view of prophecy, we find that the text in its entirety is a prophetic reference
to Jesus Christ.

Now, there are two possible exceptions here. The first is that the 18:15-22 text should be
read in harmony with 13:1-5 so that the false prophet of 18:20-22 should get the punishment
of 13:1-5. Perhaps this is legitimate. But if it is, I think that an exegesis of each text would
reflect that when placed together they point to this conclusion: execution is for the prophet
who presumes to fulfill that role of a Moses-like prophet yet with wickedness as its
motivation and inaccuracy as its total effect.
The second possible exception is this. If we were to allow, for the sake of argument, that the
latter half of Deuteronomy 18:15-22 does not refer to or connect with the first half, and that
the prophetic words that do not come true can and should apply to any prophet, we are
faced once again with the primary purposes of OT prophets as compared with NT prophets.

Page 10 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

Remembering the primary purposes of OT prophecy – speaking judgment against a


rebellious nation – helps us contrast NT prophecy in the local church today, which is not at
all about dealing with rebellion. NT prophecy is not about proclaiming and predicting
judgment on a rebellious nation of people any longer.

To be sure, there were those obvious references to predicting the future, and it certainly
happened from time to time in the Scriptures, as in the cases of Jesus, Agabus, Paul, and
John. But these predictions do not make up the majority of the contexts for NT prophecy.
Prediction was by far the major context of pre and post exilic OT prophetic messages, even
as far back as the early days of Israel.

But the clear difference between this and NT prophetic messages makes the cry for 100%
accuracy a moot point. The OT passages referred to cannot and should not be honestly used
in order to argue against a biblical-charismatic understanding of NT prophecy in the local
church today.

To conclude on this point, let me turn your attention to a plain reading of 2 Samuel 7:1-17.
Doing so will help conclude this matter about a 100% accuracy track record for OT prophets.
In this text we read of David telling Nathan about his heart’s desire to build a temple for the
Lord. Nathan’s response seemed fitting: “And Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in
your heart, for the Lord is with you’” (v. 3).

At this point our minds are called to attention again with the rule of exegesis regarding
context. The very next verse begins with a conjunction which contrasts verse 4 and what
follows there with verse 3. “But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan…” In
verses 5 and following, the Word of the Lord to Nathan differs completely from what
Nathan the prophet told David to do. Yet strangely for our cessationists friends, Nathan still
lives and retains his position as prophet of God. He was wrong. But he wasn’t executed. He
maintained his office as prophet. Hmmm. Quite strange, eh?

Two: We’ll Know False Prophets by Fruit and Not Track Records

Toward a conclusion of this point, it seems good to speak to a couple of peripheral issues
connected to this one just addressed. First, the Deuteronomy 13 passage, in my estimation,
points clearly to that which Jesus addressed in Matthew 7:15-23.

In Deuteronomy 13, while the word “fruit” is not used, I believe the concept is clearly in
view, for the false prophet in that context is bearing fruit not in keeping with the accuracy
and presumed source of his prophetic word. The fruit of his accuracy belies wickedness and
idolatry, and in turn bringing judgment. And this is that which Jesus addresses in Matthew 7.
We will know false prophets by their fruit, not necessarily by their accuracy and track record.

Page 11 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

This point provides a helpful segway into the next peripheral issue.

Three: Abuses of Prophecy Do NOT Negate Prophecy Itself

Prophetic abuses are in extreme manifestation today. They have caused the contamination
of many genuine works of God in the past and present, and will continue to do so in the
future. If then, we are pointing to the abuses of supposed and self-proclaimed NT prophets
today who utilize their “gifting” outside the confines and accountability of the local church,
then “yes” the track record is understatedly important.

However, we have already seen that the NT teaches the context of prophetic messages in
the church are not inherently predictive, but are strengthening, encouraging, and
comforting. Holding the standard of 100% accuracy to that kind of prophetic message could
be compared to holding Special Olympic athletes by the standards of normal Olympic
athletes. Though they seem familiar, they really are not at all.

Four: Fruits and Abuses Necessitate Biblical Examination and Testing

These are not manufactured differences, and they make passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:19-
22 and 1 Corinthians 14:29 shift into focus as they relate to prophetic activity in the local
church today. Examining prophetic words, according to these texts, is not for the purpose of
weeding out false prophets, as is often argued by cessationist, but rather for affirming true
ones along with their words.

Again, making our exegetical appeal to the foundational rule of bible study – context - we
learn that false prophets are not in view of either of these books. Examination of a prophetic
word in the local church at that time was for the purpose of determining its harmonization
with existing Scripture and with the stated purposes of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:3.

Now, could it be said that the 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians passages help interpret in
some fashion Jesus’ warnings against false prophets in Matthew 7? Perhaps. It would be
dishonest not to reason that in some sense whatever examination of prophetic words is
going on in the Thessalonian and Corinthian passages must of necessity include the
observation of the fruit the prophetic word produces.

Primarily, the references by Paul do not make explicit reference to false prophets anywhere
in the contexts. So it would be incorrect to interpret those text as having reference to such
persons. Secondarily, however, in attempt to formulate a theology that also includes Jesus’
words, an examination of the fruit of one’s prophetic words, it would seem, must occupy
some of the examination process going on in Paul’s commands. It may be a tough issue, but
it does not in anyway preclude a necessity of a 100% accurate track record.

Page 12 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

Five: New Testament Prophetic Experiences Today Do NOT Require a Parallel


Somewhere in the New Testament

Another perceived necessity by cessationists is that of experience. As a former cessationist, I


argued that if a person had a supposed charismatic experience, especially as it related to
prophecy, it had to have a parallel in the Scriptures to justify it as a biblical prophecy. This is
related to an excellent tool in church polity known as the regulative principle, whereby a
local church determines that it will only implement and utilize those practices and
experiences which are found in the Bible. The opposite is the normative principle, whereby a
local church determines that if the Bible does not condemn it then it may be practiced.

I once adhered to the regulative principle in most areas of local church ministry, which
traditionally (though not necessarily consistent with the principle itself) excluded
charismatic practices and experiences. If an experience could find no parallel in Scripture,
then it must be deemed as unbiblical, I reasoned.

This view certainly exalts the authority of Scripture over faith and practice both in our
personal lives as well as in the corporate lives of believers in a local church. However, I have
come to believe that the strict position of this traditional view is not logical, for there are
many, many charismatic experiences and practices which are found throughout the NT, but
are strangely not practiced today…in the name of solid bible study, of course.

Further, this principle it is not a very humble position, for while it seeks to submit to the
authority of Scripture, it does not completely give sway to the sovereignty of God to act as
freely as He wills in the local church. After all, we are working with a God who is distributing
spiritual gifts to each person as HE decides (1 Corinthians 12:11). That said, while the Bible is
not a book documenting every charismatic practice and experience, it is obviously a book
filled with doctrine and teaching which ought to guide and guard all such matters.

The same argument we use in answering those who deny inerrancy is useful here also. To
them we answer that the Bible was never intended to be used as a scientific encyclopedia,
so that any supposed errors we uncover are not troublesome to the view. Since the Bible is
not a book to which we compare modern scientific discoveries and conclusions, such
arguments are no obstacles to the doctrine of inerrancy. And in like fashion, the fact that we
cannot find a parallel in the NT for every prophetic word today in the church poses no real
problem to the continuationist view of prophecy today. The Bible was never intended to be
used as a handbook on experiences or an inspired list of legitimate and illegitimate ones.

The fact that I can’t find a person’s prophetic message or charismatic experience in any
verse may mean it doesn’t originate from God. And on the other hand, it may also mean that
it did. Some prophetic words can be known for sure as originating from God.

Page 13 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

Take the clear teaching of Scripture in passages like 1 Corinthians 14, for example. This text
gives an overall reflection of the gifts in the church, though the context speaks specifically
to prophecy. Verse 31 teaches us that order is the primary reflection of God’s presence in the
operation of the gifts in the local church. Therefore, any experience or prophetic word that
promotes disorder, such as the strange phenomena manifested in some parts of the
Toronto Blessing or Brownsville Revival for example, can justifiably be concluded as
unbiblical. So in some instances, while we may never know for sure whether it is from God, in
many instances we can know for sure that a word is from the Lord, while all prophetic words
can clearly be known by their fruits.

God’s sovereignty is something that is clearly taught in Scripture and is also a doctrine and
application both cessationists and continuationists alike can agree upon. This doctrine
necessitates His continued freedom to work out His sovereign plan in the lives of His church
with prophetic experiences that we may not be able to explain with some parallel in
Scripture, yet are always guided by such theology in Scripture. How foolish I will look at the
judgment seat of Christ when it is revealed how many times I acted towards a believer’s
prophetic experience as Job’s friends acted towards his suffering. I’ve since learned to “put
my hand over my mouth to silence myself” (Job 40:4). None of us are worthy to act as judge
or analyst of what God has sovereignly determined to do among His people or in His world.
And cessationism is guilty of this when it comes to legitimate prophetic words by God’s
people today.

Six: NT Prophecy Today Does NOT Have to be Enscripturated to be Genuine.

Finally, the last perceived necessity of cessationists is that those who claim to experience
prophetic messages in the NT church today must enscripturate their prophecies like
prophets of the NT church did. Cessationism claims that if one has received and given a
prophetic word he or she believes has come from God, then that prophetic word should be
considered equal to the words of Scripture and therefore ought to be recorded in the Bible.
To this, I offer two simple questions which would seem to resolve this dispute quickly.

1. Was every prophecy of every OT prophet written down and preserved as Scripture
for us today? We’ve already seen that this was definitely not the case.

2. Was every prophecy of every NT prophet written down and preserved for us today
as Scripture? We’ve already seen that this too is most definitely not the case.

The illogical nature of this argument is seen when we return to the first facet of NT
prophecy. The Spirit promised to pour out His gift of prophecy on all people. The fact that
some NT prophets had their messages recorded as Scripture does not necessitate that all NT
prophets’ messages must also be recorded there. God’s sovereignty is the determining factor
here, so that only He can explain why Agabus’ prophecies are recorded and not the
prophecies of Philip’s three daughters, for example.

Page 14 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

A prophecy was recorded in Scripture when God sovereignly determined that it should be.
So we can safely assume two truths then, based upon this fact.

1. First, any prophetic message which God wanted recorded in Scripture was in fact
recorded.
2. Second, those prophecies which were not enscripturated are not necessarily
unbiblical or ungodly.

Therefore, what we do have today in the Scriptures is a repository of teaching, instruction,


doctrine, narrative, history, and prophetic messages that serve as the doctrinal cornerstone
of the universal and local church, as well as the guiding trajectory for what kind of prophetic
activity the Holy Spirit might be expected to produce among believers in the NT church
today.

The more I think about it, the second facet of NT prophecy – its nature - almost seems to
negate the enscripturation of NT prophecy from the start. As the Bible teaches, NT prophecy
was about encouraging, strengthening, and comforting, and not necessarily about doctrine,
though it obviously included it that.

Demanding of NT local church prophets today that their prophetic messages must be of a
doctrinal nature like the ones recorded in the NT is to ignore something very plain. It is to
look at the sheer amount of NT prophecy occurring in the NT (especially in light of the
promises of Pentecost) and ignore the obvious fact that it was rare for a NT prophet to even
deliver a doctrinal message on par with Scripture such that it should be recorded there.
Whenever they, it was recorded in Scripture. But the majority of it was not doctrinal, but
was in keeping with the purpose of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:3. And this guiding principle
almost necessitates that it would hardly if ever be enscripturated to begin with.

Conclusion
The conclusion is that the NT prophecies given today encourage, strengthen, and comfort
based on the sound doctrine and faith delivered to us in the Bible. Part of the fruit of a prophet
and his/her message will be its faithfulness to the Word of God. Another part of that fruit is
whether it adheres to the expressly designed purpose of NT prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:3.

As far as I am able to tell, the prophetic experiences I have had, whether I have received
them or given them, have been rooted in the Scriptures and are guided by them, so that the
content, force and message of the prophetic word is in harmony with it. This is only possible,
of course, when the believer abides in Christ and Christ’s words abide in them (John 15),
when the Word of Christ dwells richly in us (Colossians 3:16). This is why the inspired
Scriptures must be the foundational element in the believer’s life else genuine prophetic
activity cannot occur with any degree of faithfulness to what God has already given us to
guide us in faith and life.

Page 15 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

The primary objection to NT prophecy today by cessationists is that such a view undermines
the sufficiency of Scripture. What they intend by such an objection is that NT prophecy could
and possibly does supplant the authority and place of the Scriptures in the life of a believer.
In their minds, and in mine as well, the Scriptures are the sole authority in all matters for
every believer and every local church. However, the objection has been based on several
misunderstandings.

First, a misunderstanding of OT prophecy has contributed to this problem. I have attempted


to make basic exegetical observations about the two key texts in Deuteronomy which
cessationism holds as key texts to their objections. These texts as read in their contexts,
however, do not provide any foundation for the objection.

Second, a misunderstanding of NT prophecy has also contributed. I also attempted to make


a basic observation of the purpose of NT prophecy according to 1 Corinthians 14:3. And if this
is the express NT purpose for prophecy, then it can no more compete or supplant or undermine
Scripture today than it did when it was in operation in the early church. Further, the
prophecies delivered in line with these purposes do not purport to equate themselves with
the Scriptures, but instead come alongside them and seek to assist in application of those
Scriptures.

Third, the fact that thousands upon thousands of biblical prophetic words delivered
throughout redemptive history are not recorded in Scripture should be ample evidence
enough to conclude that just because a prophetic word is received and given doesn't
necessarily make it equal with Scripture. And neither, then, should the prophet who
delivered it be viewed as equal in status or authority with the prophets or apostles of the OT
and NT.

Therefore, if biblically-based prophets and their prophecies today do not intend to compete
with Scripture but support and apply it, they cannot and should not be represented as
supplanting or undermining the Bible, except of course, where a person loses sight of the
nature and purpose of NT prophecy.

In the past I’ve issued a public challenge to cessationist friends, and it’s one that bears
repeating here. It is a worthy consideration, especially for reformed cessationists who hold
so dearly to the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Spirit during the First and
Second Great Awakenings. Here’s the challenge.

Read through A Narrative of Surprising Conversions by Jonathan Edwards (available online


at http://jonathanedwards.com/text/narrative.htm), as well as the other two corresponding
works, The Distinguishing Marks of the Work of the Spirit of God, and An Account of the
Revival of Religion in Northampton 1740-1742. All three titles are published by Banner of Truth
Trust under the title Jonathan Edwards on Revival.

Page 16 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

I’ve yet to meet a reformed cessationist who does not appreciate Edwards and his revivals.
But let’s face the honest truth: there was a significant amount of the unexplainable that
went on during these years. I understand the primary conclusions Edwards made concerning
the many strange manifestations that took place under his preaching, though little if any of
it was prophetic in nature: we cannot always tell a true work of the Spirit of God by the
manifestations. Yet I also know the analyses he made of some of it. And the bottom line is
that much of it was unexplained in the mystery and sovereignty of God. God was most
certainly at work even though it could not be theologically explained. In my mind much of
the same is occurring today, and most people seem scared away from a work of the Spirit of
God simply because they have no category in which to put the things they observe.
Cessationism continues to take this category away from the church, which essentially robs
the church of its rightful and biblical cup by which it receives these works of the Spirit.

The second part of the challenge is to read the oft-criticized work by Jack Deere, Surprised
by the Voice of God, as well as his more recent work A Beginner's Guide to the Gift of
Prophecy. While I highly recommend the entire book and do not agree with everything in it,
of particular interest are chapters five entitled “Presbyterian Prophets?” and chapter six
entitled “A Conspiracy Against the Supernatural.”

These chapters were challenging for me as a reformed cessationist. And in the end I was
very surprised that these godly, sound men and their charismatic experiences have been
seemingly excised from reformed history, much like Iain Murray excised most of the
charismatic beliefs of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his biography. (An excellent review of Lloyd-
Jones and his charismatic beliefs can be heard on a biographical lecture delivered by John
Piper).

To be sure, the experiences of a few godly men do not necessitate the truth of any of it. But
the reason for the challenge to read it is at least to stimulate serious conversation about the
fact that it did happen to reformers whom we love and respect, and in some cases,
prophetic predictions were shockingly fulfilled in detail.

If any serious student of the Bible is honest, he is wary of exegetical ballets. I am particularly
perceptive to them because I used to perform in them, just like all of us have. It is next to
impossible to escape the presuppositions with which we all come to almost every text in
Scripture. But the differences between OT and NT prophecy presented here, though not
exhaustive, are obvious enough so as to warrant our notice and attention in sorting them
out. There was no fancy footwork taking place in these observations. My hope is that
cessationist theologians from beginning student to mature scholar may at least
acknowledge the differences as a very legitimate beginning point in the discussion, despite
where they may think they have already landed in their conclusions.

The differentiation I make as a continuationist regarding OT and NT prophecy is not an


altogether unusual or inconsistent one as if often the criticism. The differences are plain

Page 17 of 18
Gospel-Driven Prophecy
August 2010

enough for all to see. And I trust that the application of these differences to common
criticisms, as simplistic as my responses have been, may be taken a bit more seriously so that
they are not so quickly leveled against continuationists. In other words, well-meaning
cessationists should take these differences, observations, and responses as seriously as I
take theirs. And I can say that with honesty as one having lived in both camps. May the Lord
use these challenges as He wills in the lives of His people, cessationist and continuationist
alike.

Page 18 of 18

S-ar putea să vă placă și