Prophecy in the NT

[AlexMiller1984]

I'm sure there are posts on here about prophecy and cessationism, but the few I tried had links that no longer work.

One of my biggest struggles in embracing cessationism is the way Paul talks about the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul exhorts the church to earnestly desire the gifts, especially prophecy (14.1, 39) for a person's upbuilding, encouragement and consolation (14.3) and the church's also (14.5). Prophecy is a sign for unbelievers (14.22) for their repentance and conversion (14.24 - 25) and when given, should be weighed (14.29).

I struggle to understand how or why this gift ceased. Yes, Ephesians 2.20 shows that the church is built on the apostles and prophets, and yes, I affirm that there are no more apostles and, in that sene, the office of the apostle has ceased. However, in Eph. 4.11, apostles and prophets were given to equip the saints for ministry until we attain unity and knowledge of Christ. I don't understand how or why the office/gift would cease if the purpose for its being given continues until Christ's return.

I affirm that prophecy cannot err, but I also affirm that, if it's present in any sense, and must be weighed (1 Cor. 14.29), and thus is weighed by fallible humans who may either wrongfully affirm or deny a word of prophecy. The difficulty for me is that prophecy, in so far as it is foretelling, takes time for its accuracy to be authenticated. Prophecy as forthtelling is more difficult to authenticate; by what standard is it judged?

So, with all that out there, whether coherent or not, I'd love to get insights on why cessationists argue for the cessation of prophecy and how they handle the above passages in 1 Corinthians 14.

 

[Ploutos]

Now that the continuationist movement has had time to age, it has become apparent that appealing to "plain" and "simple" interpretations of certain biblical passages like 1 Corinthians 14 has not been a magic bullet for eliminating exegetical difficulties regarding spiritual gifts.

It does not in and of itself "win" the dispute one way or the other, but watching continuationists twist themselves into pretzels to try to iron out all the wrinkles in their system has driven the point home time and time again: despite those "obvious" passages and despite the fact that a certain amount of interpretive work is required to arrive at a cessationist view, there is a reason orthodox Christianity has always tended toward cessationism to some degree or another.

I could also say the same for the paedo/credo debate, covenantal/dispensational, etc. There's a bit of hubris (certainly not intentional or conscious on the part of those many believers who are better than their theology) in turning to a Bible passage and rediscovering the plainly obvious reading that the rest of the church has somehow forgotten. Well, there's a reason for that, and when these "new" theological discoveries mature, they usually end up discovering that the hard way.

At the end of the day, as a layman who has neither the time nor the intellectual capacity to plumb the depths of the debate over continuing gifts, I'll stick with my cessationist viewpoint because I see absolutely no indication that the "plain" reading of 1 Corinthians 14 solves more exegetical difficulties than it creates. In fact, I think it solves exactly 1 minor difficulty and creates a slew of much more significant ones.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Begin with a complete definition of prophecy. Prophecy is indissolubly connected with revelation. There are times in the Bible when prophecy is "foretelling," but most of the time it is "forthtelling," which is to say: proclaiming and preaching the substance of that which is revealed. Proper preaching in the present hour is the residue of the prophetic gift. What you read mostly in the OT writing prophets is their preaching in accordance with the Torah and the rest of the scriptures in hand, which portion the Spirit had preserved for theirs and future generations.

The NT era began without a written NT. The apostle's knew Jesus and his teaching, and other disciples had elements of his word in their memory; but it was the apostles who were directly promised supernatural recollection (Jn.14:26; Mk.13:11). But these men could not be everywhere the church was planted. Inasmuch as revelation is centered on Christ and his work, both in OT context as well as NT, and the Word has come and spoken with finality (Heb.1:1-2)--therefore it was of utmost importance that any NT word necessary for any part of church should be provided to them. Hence, the need for NT prophecy.

What need is there for continuing prophecy for a church that has in its possession the whole NT committed to writing, seeing that it is sufficient to "thoroughly equip" the man of God for "every good work?" The preacher's task is to unfold the divine revelation concerning Christ, which was exactly the prophet's task. The prophetic word being committed to the page, what extra revelation is required? Does it not indicate a lack of confidence or the perception of insufficiency in Holy Scripture where fresh revelations are demanded, or expected? When there is a final appearance of the Lord, we can expect that universal revelation to be accompanied with direct intelligible communication from the heavenly throne. Till then, we should be content with the miraculous possession we have already in the sacred text.

Everything Paul wrote about the blessing of prophecy we affirm wholeheartedly. Nothing he wrote has fallen to the ground, unless you believe there is something missing in the finished Bible that you or someone else needs. If it is in the Bible, then what is needed is not a direct revelation of that again to an individual or church, but the labor of a student of the word--either the reader himself or a prepared and sent teacher or preacher of it.

Whoever receives a so-called "revelation" of prophecy today should be looking to see it appended to the book of Revelation for the sake of the whole church (because there is no private revelation from God, 2Pet.1:20). I think it would come right after the warning "not to add anything."

It remains the duty of Christians who receive the teaching and preaching of the Bible to judge it, especially it is the duty of the elders of the church but not only them. They judge it by their long acquaintance with solid and faithful instruction, and with the aid of the Spirit of discernment.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm sure there are posts on here about prophecy and cessationism, but the few I tried had links that no longer work.

One of my biggest struggles in embracing cessationism is the way Paul talks about the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul exhorts the church to earnestly desire the gifts, especially prophecy (14.1, 39) for a person's upbuilding, encouragement and consolation (14.3) and the church's also (14.5). Prophecy is a sign for unbelievers (14.22) for their repentance and conversion (14.24 - 25) and when given, should be weighed (14.29).

"Prophecy" in 1 Cor. 14 means "preaching," in the view of no small number of interpreters.

Yes, Ephesians 2.20 shows that the church is built on the apostles and prophets, and yes, I affirm that there are no more apostles and, in that sene, the office of the apostle has ceased.

In Eph. 2:20, "the Apostles and Prophets" is a phrase that means "the New and Old Testaments." "The Apostles" = the New Testament. "The Prophets" = the Old Testament. Compare the traditional phrase "the law and the Prophets" to mean "the Old Testament," in Lk. 16:16 and throughtout the gospels and Acts. Thus, the Westminster Standards cite Eph. 2:20 in their statements on Scripture as a rule of faith.

However, in Eph. 4.11, apostles and prophets were given to equip the saints for ministry until we attain unity and knowledge of Christ. I don't understand how or why the office/gift would cease if the purpose for its being given continues until Christ's return.

They continue to "equip the saints" through the Scripture they left. Leaving God's inspired word in written form as a perpetual testimony to the Church of his will was their principal office.

 

[lynnie]

Scroll down in this to #12, the historical section. Poythress is/ was a prof at WTS, may be retired.

Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology

by Vern S. Poythress [Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/1 (1996): 71-101. Used with permission. pdf here.] Abstract The Book of Revelation is inspired. Modern visio…

frame-poythress.org

Our Reformed fathers in the faith believed in and experienced prophecy of the foretelling sort. It is an undeniable part of our history. You can't hold to the WCF and then just dismiss Rutherford's comments on this as doctrinally wrong, after all he did to help write the WCF, in my opinion. I'm not saying I agree with everything Poythress says, but he is being intellectually honest on this subject.

There are some undeniable prophecy things out there. Dave Wilkerson saw 500 fires burning in the middle east, shared what he "saw" with a great burden to pray, and was mocked and scorned by many. Then Saddam invaded Kuwait and set about 500 oil wells on fire, and the rest is history. I've seen "a word of knowledge" happen that is amazing, glorious, and very helpful to those who needed it ( me once too), and could only have come from God. ( By the way Dave W saw thousands of fires burning in American cities all over, before he died. I'm still expecting it. Grid down, or civil unrest, or bombs, I don't know). Spurgeon had a couple dozen or more "words of knowledge".

Agabus in Acts 11 is a good example for us. The problem today is that " words" and "prophecies" have so taken over so much that I think- maybe I am cynical- that well over 99% of them are flesh or ego or demons. The objective word has to be paramount and such subjective things secondary. But ask the average person in church today, and the "holy spirit moving" means prophecies, not good preaching or sound doctrine.

 

[Ploutos]

My understanding is that we believe the Holy Spirit moves when and where he wills, so while forthtelling may occur, this is not the same as a spiritual gift of prophecy, tangibly given to a particular person as in the charismatic conception.

 

[lynnie]

My understanding is that we believe the Holy Spirit moves when and where he wills, so while forthtelling may occur, this is not the same as a spiritual gift of prophecy, tangibly given to a particular person as in the charismatic conception.

Yes. I may have misunderstood the OP on a reread. Hebrews is clear that "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son". The office of a prophet is ended, we have no more Samuels or Jeremiahs whose words are to be taken as the very word of the Lord to His people.
Clearly from the history Poythress details, the holy spirit works in ways that nowadays many call prophetic, but I am sure none of those Reformed fathers in the faith regarded any of it as canonical or their speakers the equivalent of OT prophets. Maybe the OP is struggling with semantics, I am not sure. When Phillip's four daughters prophesied I don't think we are intended to regard them as we regard Isaiah. I better stay out of this one because it probably needs a Greek and Hebrew scholar to look at the words we use for prophecy and prophets, to articulate the thing that Hebrews says ended in these last days while respecting the activity of the Holy Spirit in extraordinary "prophecy or prophetic" ways. I am not such a scholar.

 

[MW]

So, with all that out there, whether coherent or not, I'd love to get insights on why cessationists argue for the cessation of prophecy and how they handle the above passages in 1 Corinthians 14.

Under the OT prophets functioned as messengers of the covenant which God made with the nation of Israel through Moses. Moses was the apostle sent by God and the prophets served under him. These prophets were until John the Baptist, who was the forerunner of THE Prophet to come. THE Prophet was foretold by Moses, the apostle of the old covenant. And THIS Prophet is the apostle and high priest of our profession, who is greater than Moses. We must now hear Christ in all things that He reveals to us. In these last day God speaks to us by His Son. See Matt. 11; Acts 3; Heb. 1, 3.

Christ appointed apostles whom He sent to establish His witness in the earth. Prophets functioned alongside and beneath apostles in the N.T., while the purpose of God for the inclusion of the Gentiles was still being revealed, Luke 11:49; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; Rev. 18:20. The apostolate has ceased as there are no longer any witnesses to the resurrection of Christ. The prophetic office has ceased with it, which coincides with the full revelation of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the witness of Christ among the churches of the Gentiles. The perfect has come; so that which was in part has been done away, 1 Cor. 13:10.

In 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle addresses the Corinthians as those who were caught in an infant state of the church (see chaps. 2-3 for the way the apostle addresses them). He gives instruction to moderate the use of spiritual gifts while they were all still in operation. He is careful to tie the gifts to their redemptive-historical function as revealed through the prophet Isaiah, who pointed to them as an eschatological judgment on unbelieving Israel (Isa. 28). In light of this the prophetic word is set forth as having first priority since it speaks to the edification of the church. But even here he presses the subordinate nature of prophecy to the commandment of the Lord issued through an apostle, v. 36-37.

 

[Elias_Amare]

In Eph. 2:20, "the Apostles and Prophets" is a phrase that means "the New and Old Testaments." "The Apostles" = the New Testament. "The Prophets" = the Old Testament. Compare the traditional phrase "the law and the Prophets" to mean "the Old Testament," in Lk. 16:16 and throughtout the gospels and Acts. Thus, the Westminster Standards cite Eph. 2:20 in their statements on Scripture as a rule of faith.

Hello, Charles.
In Eph 2:20, "the Apostles and Prophets." Wouldn't the phrase "prophets" include the New Testament office? Is their a connection between Eph 2:20 and Eph 3:1-6? Is the prophets mentioned in 3:5 different from Eph. 2:20 prophets?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Hello, Charles.
In Eph 2:20, "the Apostles and Prophets." Wouldn't the phrase "prophets" include the New Testament office? Is their a connection between Eph 2:20 and Eph 3:1-6? Is the prophets mentioned in 3:5 different from Eph. 2:20 prophets?

You are correct that in Eph. 3:5, "prophet" is being used of officers of the New Testament, since it is contrasted with the "the sons of men in other ages."

The best solution is probably that there, in Eph. 3:5, Paul is using the term "prophet" in the same way as in Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 14, for preachers, who are tasked with interpreting and applying the prophecies of the Old Testament.

There is not a lot of evidence in the New Testament for an office of prophet akin to the Old Testament office, where a man was called to speak visions and revelations directly from God. We have some cases of prophesying, like in Philip's daughters in Acts 21:9, but they did not occupy a church office of "prophetess," since no such office is mentioned and women are barred from holding office in the church.

Romans 12:6 seems to hint at the idea of the New Testament prophet being a biblical interpreter, when it says "whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith" (ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως). If the prophecies under consideration where a vision or revelation, it is unclear what the analogy of faith would have to do with it, but if they were interpretation, then an exhortation to interpret and preach in a way consonant with the faith and with other Scriptures would make a lot of sense.

 

[Elias_Amare]

There is not a lot of evidence in the New Testament for an office of prophet akin to the Old Testament office, where a man was called to speak visions and revelations directly from God. We have some cases of prophesying, like in Philip's daughters in Acts 21:9, but they did not occupy a church office of "prophetess," since no such office is mentioned and women are barred from holding office in the church.

Modern cessationists tend to equate the Old and New Testaments office of prophets and evaluate the modern claim of "prophesying" by the Old Testament (i.e., Deut 13:5, Ezek 13:6, 9) at the same time, the non-cessationists try to "differentiate" and "lower" the New Testament prophet, then give "freedom" to the modern "prophet," i.e., accuracy.
Do you have thoughts on this?

Also in the Old Testament, Miriam is called the prophetess (Exo 15:20-21). Is this similar case to Philip's daughters?

 

[Polanus1561]

Daniel read Jeremiah and was built up to hope and to pray.

Same function today.

 

[iainduguid]

Modern cessationists tend to equate the Old and New Testaments office of prophets and evaluate the modern claim of "prophesying" by the Old Testament (i.e., Deut 13:5, Ezek 13:6, 9) at the same time, the non-cessationists try to "differentiate" and "lower" the New Testament prophet, then give "freedom" to the modern "prophet," i.e., accuracy.
Do you have thoughts on this?

Also in the Old Testament, Miriam is called the prophetess (Exo 15:20-21). Is this similar case to Philip's daughters?

I address this in my article "What Kind of Prophecy Continues? Defining the Differences between Continuationism and Cessationism", in Redeeming the Life of the Mind: Essays in Honor of Vern Poythress. If you can't access this, please PM me and I'll email you a copy.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I wrote this a while ago, 'Airtight' argument against continuing prophecy.

 

[AlexMiller1984]

Now that the continuationist movement has had time to age, it has become apparent that appealing to "plain" and "simple" interpretations of certain biblical passages like 1 Corinthians 14 has not been a magic bullet for eliminating exegetical difficulties regarding spiritual gifts.

It does not in and of itself "win" the dispute one way or the other, but watching continuationists twist themselves into pretzels to try to iron out all the wrinkles in their system has driven the point home time and time again: despite those "obvious" passages and despite the fact that a certain amount of interpretive work is required to arrive at a cessationist view, there is a reason orthodox Christianity has always tended toward cessationism to some degree or another.

I could also say the same for the paedo/credo debate, covenantal/dispensational, etc. There's a bit of hubris (certainly not intentional or conscious on the part of those many believers who are better than their theology) in turning to a Bible passage and rediscovering the plainly obvious reading that the rest of the church has somehow forgotten. Well, there's a reason for that, and when these "new" theological discoveries mature, they usually end up discovering that the hard way.

At the end of the day, as a layman who has neither the time nor the intellectual capacity to plumb the depths of the debate over continuing gifts, I'll stick with my cessationist viewpoint because I see absolutely no indication that the "plain" reading of 1 Corinthians 14 solves more exegetical difficulties than it creates. In fact, I think it solves exactly 1 minor difficulty and creates a slew of much more significant ones.

Thank you for your thoughts on this, I appreciate it.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Modern cessationists tend to equate the Old and New Testaments office of prophets and evaluate the modern claim of "prophesying" by the Old Testament (i.e., Deut 13:5, Ezek 13:6, 9) at the same time, the non-cessationists try to "differentiate" and "lower" the New Testament prophet, then give "freedom" to the modern "prophet," i.e., accuracy.
Do you have thoughts on this?

Well, I'm a cessationist, but I don't think what is called "prophecy" in the New Testament is the same as what Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, etc were doing.

Also in the Old Testament, Miriam is called the prophetess (Exo 15:20-21). Is this similar case to Philip's daughters?

Perhaps. It's hard to be certain, given that so little is said concerning each one.

 

[Elias_Amare]

I address this in my article "What Kind of Prophecy Continues? Defining the Differences between Continuationism and Cessationism", in Redeeming the Life of the Mind: Essays in Honor of Vern Poythress. If you can't access this, please PM me and I'll email you a copy.

Hello, Iain.
I read your article a while back. If I recall correctly, you argue for allowing both capital-P and small-p prophecy in the New Testament, and this was similar to prophecy in the Old Testament. Then applying small-p prophecy to 1 Cor 14.
Similarly, someone insisted to me on making a distinction between the office of prophet and the gift of prophesying. Similar to Capital-P and lower case-p prophecy.
I'll read your article if I missed something. In the meantime, how will we understand this distinction in 1 Cor 12: 27-31?

Well, I'm a cessationist, but I don't think what is called "prophecy" in the New Testament is the same as what Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, etc were doing.

If I may ask, what is the nature of the New Testament office of prophet? You already pointed out that "New Testament prophet being a biblical interpreter".
Is this extraordinary office one that was a biblical interpreter?