Preaching as Prophecy?

[requested deletion member 13777]

I have just read William Perkins' The Art of Prophesying and it has again led me to consider the validity of equating prophecy with preaching.

Perkins defines prophecy as "A solemn public utterance by the prophet, related to the worship of God and the salvation of our neighbours." He cites 1 Cor 14:3, 24, and Rom 1:9 as proof texts for this view.

Obviously there are parallels between prophecy and preaching (both are forms of proclaiming the Word of God) but several passages of Scripture cause me to doubt that it is right to call them one and the same or even use the term "prophecy" to describe preaching despite the fact many of the puritans did so.

1st - Acts 21:9 Phillip's four daughters prophesied. If this refers to preaching, it would appear to contradict Scriptures exclusion of women as teachers of the church.

2nd. In 1 Corinthians 14:1, Paul encourages the whole church to desire that they may prophesy. Perhaps, it could be said that this is a similar statement to his words in 1 Tim. 3:1, but his words in Timothy are much more qualified than in 1 Cor. 14:1. I'm doubtful Paul would encourage the whole church to desire to prophesy if he was referring to preaching, especially in light of James 3:1.

3rd. Acts 13:1 differentiates between teachers and prophets.

4th. Agabus is a prophet and predicted the future correctly (Acts 21:11; 28:17). I see no reason for a different definition of prophecy in the New Testament.

Does anyone here hold to the view, like Perkins (and many others it seems in the time period), that preaching and prophecy are the same? If so, I would be interested to hear reasons why. If there's any argument for or against which I'm missing, it would be of benefit to me to hear your thoughts.

 

[RamistThomist]

There are several prima facie problems with it:
a) You have women legitimately preaching.
b) that's not really what the Greek term means.
c) it raises the obvious question of whether prophecy continues today.

 

[iainduguid]

See my essay here for a scholarly discussion:
Duguid, Iain, “What Kind of Prophecy Continues? Defining the Differences Between Continuationism and Cessationism” in John M. Frame, ed. Redeeming the Life of the Mind: Essays in Honor of Vern Poythress. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2017.

 

[Phil D.]

See my essay here for a scholarly discussion:
Duguid, Iain, “What Kind of Prophecy Continues? Defining the Differences Between Continuationism and Cessationism” in John M. Frame, ed. Redeeming the Life of the Mind: Essays in Honor of Vern Poythress. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2017.

Would you be willing to provide a brief synopsis, or conclusion here?

 

[iainduguid]

Both Gaffin and Gruden are wrong, because they start from a misunderstanding of prophecy in the OT (though they are much closer together in their contemporary application than is usually acknowledged). There is both capital P prophecy and small p prophecy throughout the Scriptures. That points us toward a more nuanced interpretation of the issues, that is alert to the fact that particular texts may have either Prophecy or prophecy in view. I don't have much time to engage right now, so I'd encourage anyone interested to track down the full article.

 

[No Other Name]

Both Gaffin and Gruden are wrong,

Who are Gaffin and Gruden? Would they be aligned with Perkins' position in the OP?

Thank you.

 

[RamistThomist]

Who are Gaffin and Gruden? Would they be aligned with Perkins' position in the OP?

Thank you.

Grudem wouldn't be. He shows from the Greek that prophecy often means predict the future, which means it probably isn't synonymous with preaching.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

Who are Gaffin and Gruden? Would they be aligned with Perkins' position in the OP?

Thank you.

Grudem believes that Prophecy changes from the OT to the NT, New Testament prophecy being a fallible form of Prophecy. He says in NT Prophecy that "A Revelation from God is reported in the Prophet's Own (Merely Human) Words" (Systematic Theology 1994, 1054) and therefore is fallible in its proclamation though infallible in its reception. As far as I know, He wouldn't hold to the view of Perkins as @RamistThomist said.

I have never Read Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. but I believe he is a traditional cessationist.

 

[frog]

See my essay here for a scholarly discussion:
Duguid, Iain, “What Kind of Prophecy Continues? Defining the Differences Between Continuationism and Cessationism” in John M. Frame, ed. Redeeming the Life of the Mind: Essays in Honor of Vern Poythress. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2017.

Is the essay available without purchasing the book?

 

[iainduguid]

Is the essay available without purchasing the book?

If you message me, I could send you a copy.

Iain

 

[chuckd]

Does anyone here hold to the view, like Perkins (and many others it seems in the time period), that preaching and prophecy are the same? If so, I would be interested to hear reasons why. If there's any argument for or against which I'm missing, it would be of benefit to me to hear your thoughts.

From a certain point of view they are the same. G. Vos in Biblical Theology:
In view of this uncertainty of the several derivations it is exceedingly fortunate that from a few Old Testament passages we can gather with certainty the meaning attached to the word by Scripture in the sphere of revelation. These passages are: Ex. 4:16; 7:1; Jer. 1:5, 6. From these we learn that nabhi' was understood as an appointed regular speaker for a divine superior, whose speech carries the authority of the latter.

Though most of us think of a prophet as one who received an unmistakable message from God, either audibly, a vision (seer), or directly into their mind, and is repeating that message to God's people: "Thus says the Lord..." Obviously preaching does not do this.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I know they aren't identical views, but (without having read Perkins) it would seem both Grudem's view and the view of Perkins share the idea that prophecy in the New Testament is different from the OT, and that it includes the possibility of error. Or am I missing a piece of Perkins' argument?

 

[RamistThomist]

I know they aren't identical views, but (without having read Perkins) it would seem both Grudem's view and the view of Perkins share the idea that prophecy in the New Testament is different from the OT, and that it includes the possibility of error. Or am I missing a piece of Perkins' argument?

That part is true. Agabus, for example, wasn't 100% accurate (though he was close enough for all practical purposes and no one thought to apply the death penalty to him).

 

[jwithnell]

Who are Gaffin and Gruden? Would they be aligned with Perkins' position in the OP?

Thank you.

I haven't read Dr. Gaffin on this topic but he taught Biblical and systematic theology at Westminster. He develops a careful foundation in the Scriptures when writing or speaking on a topic.

 

[iainduguid]

Ed Clowney argued a long time ago that all believers are prophets, priests, and kings, while pastors, elders and deacons have unique aspects of the prophetic, priestly, and kingly roles, while of course Jesus fulfills all of these. Dr Gaffin agrees that we can speak of the "prophethood of all believers" (Perspectives on Pentecost, 59), though he doesn't explore what that might mean. Perkins and the other Puritans were picking up on the "prophetic" aspect of pastoral ministry. But it's hard to say things like that and still be a strict cessationist. On the other hand, Grudem's argument that Agabus isn't precise enough in his prophecy is hugely problematic from an OT perspective, where the writing prophets often have a certain level of imprecision. That's why as an OT scholar, the Gaffin-Grudem discussion is so frustrating since neither one deals at all with OT prophecy - they simply assume it is all capital P prophecy. Hence my article.