Introduction
Wayne Grudem is an associate professor of theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He is respected among evangelicals as a careful exegete and theologian, which is reflected in his writing and teaching. In one particular focus of his study, he has forced evangelicals to think through some of the stands that have been taken on the nature and duration of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament and today. His writing and lecturing have forced biblical scholars to restudy some of those passages that were at one time considered “nailed down.” The challenges that he is making are large. They are large because they deal with a large theme in the Old and New Testaments. There is much material in the Scriptures on the subjects of prophets and prophecy. Grudem’s challenges are also large because they affect everyday life for many believers. Is God giving new revelation to men in our day? The answer to this question is significant for every church and every Christian. But, before the question of whether or not the gift of prophecy is given to believers by God today can be answered, an understanding of the nature of the gift of prophecy is required.
Grudem’s Understanding of the Nature of the Gift of Prophecy
Grudem understands the NT gift of prophecy to be largely different than the gift of prophecy in the OT. He claims that the OT prophet is essentially equivalent to the NT apostle.[1] The OT prophet possessed a prestigious title. He was known to be a spokesman for God that spoke authoritative and infallible words from God. When the prophet said, “Thus saith the Lord,” the people knew that his words would be binding on them. So, the prophet of God in the OT was well respected and even feared by the people.[2] Grudem says that evangelicalism has made the large mistake of assuming that the gift of prophecy in the NT is the same as that in the OT. He claims that a more careful study of the NT will reveal that there are many differences between the two. Grudem asserts that there are two types of prophecy in the NT: the apostolic gift of prophecy and the congregational gift of prophecy.[3] The apostolic prophecy was infallible, authoritative, and therefore could be recorded in the Scriptures. Because the canon is closed, the apostolic gift of prophecy has ceased. Only congregational prophecy is available to the church today. So, the gift of prophecy today is not authoritative, infallible, nor is it added to the canon of Scripture. In fact, Grudem claims that this prophecy is “not equal to Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human – and sometimes partially mistaken – report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.”[4] It is easy to see that, because the prophecy is seen to be on this lower level, so also is the prestige of the NT prophet.
Grudem rests his case for the congregational gift of prophecy on a relatively small number of key passages in the Scriptures.[5] These key passages involve various issues related to the nature of the gift of prophecy including the role of prophecy in the Church, the evaluation of NT prophecy and prophets, the authority of NT prophecy, and the infallibility of NT prophecy.
Key Passages of Scripture to Support Grudem’s Hypothesis
Ephesians 2:20
In this verse, Paul identifies the foundation of the church with the phrase, “the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Grudem gives four possible understanding of this phrase. He says the phrase could be saying that the foundation of the church is the NT apostles and the OT prophets; the teaching of the NT apostles and the NT prophets; the NT apostles and the NT prophets; or the apostle-prophets (apostles who are also prophets). Grudem argues for the fourth understanding given, the “apostle-prophets” view, and he gives four reasons: (1) He claims that the Granville-Sharp rule makes this understanding the most probable.[6] He sites many other examples in the NT when two nouns are connected by “kai” with only the first of the two nouns being preceded by an article. He says that in all of these cases both of the two nouns are referring to the same person or group of persons.[7] Grudem also points to Ephesians 4:11, which speaks of “pastors and teachers.” He says that many scholars today take that phrase to refer to one group of people, that of pastor-teachers.[8] (2) The context of the verse speaks of the revelation of a mystery to the “apostles and prophets.” Grudem says that the mystery of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the New Covenant was revealed alone to the apostles who were also prophets. It was not a revelation given to all of the NT prophets. This is an argument from the historical data. (3) The foundation of the church is spoken of in the NT as the apostles alone. This passage could not be saying that the foundation included another group of prophets aside from the apostles, because it would conflict with other Scriptural data. He sites Revelation 21:14 to prove that the foundation of the church included only the twelve apostles. Revelation 21:14 says, “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”[9] (4) It is more logical in light of Paul’s argument in this passage. Paul’s argument, according to Grudem, is that God has revealed the mystery of the Gentiles’ inclusion in the New Covenant to a special group of prophets, the apostles. It was not just any group of prophets, but to the group of prophets who were foundational to the church. God could have revealed the mystery to any prophets, but He appropriately revealed it to the prophets who were foundational – the apostles.[10]
Many arguments have been set forth against Grudem’s understanding of the passage. Kenneth L Gentry in his book, The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy, argues that although the phrase could refer to one group of apostles who are also prophets, the context “seems to suggest otherwise.”[11] He goes on to explain that in Ephesians 4:11 Paul refers to the apostles and to prophets as two distinct groups indicated by an article placed before each noun.[12] Gentry says it is unlikely that Paul is referring to a totally different group of prophets than what he refers to in 2:20. Chapter 4 verse 1 begins Paul’s section of application in his epistle. It is more likely that his reference to the two gifts (of apostles and prophets) is speaking of the two foundational gifts, apostles and prophets, mentioned in his doctrinal section in 2:20 and 3:5. Gentry also argues against Grudem’s point that the twelve apostles alone are mentioned in Revelation 21:4 as the foundation of the church. Gentry points out that the verse in Revelation refers to the foundation of the “outer wall” rather than to the church. Two different foundations are being spoken of.[13] Gentry also argues against the “revelation of the mystery” argument. Gentry says that at best Grudem’s argument is an argument from silence. Grudem says that the non-apostle prophets did not prophesy about the Gentile inclusion in the New Covenant. Scripture never says that the non-apostle prophets did not prophesy about the matter. Luke records the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. This account includes revelation about the inclusion of Gentiles in the New Covenant. Grudem says that Luke was not an apostle.[14] So, Grudem is inconsistent in saying that the mystery was revealed only to the foundational prophets who were apostles. If Grudem were consistent he would be saying that Luke’s writings, Luke and Acts, are not authoritative prophecy because they were not written by an apostle-prophet.[15]
F. David Farnell offers another argument against Grudem’s view. Farnell argues that Grudem misuses the Granville-Sharp rule. He says that Grudem apparently is not aware of at least one of the qualifications of Sharp’s rule.[16] One of the qualifications demands that the two nouns involved must both be singular. Farnell says that no examples of two plural nouns such as “apostles and prophets” in Ephesians 2:20 can be found that refer to one person or one group in the NT.[17]
The common cessationist understanding of the passages seems to be the proper one. This view says that the two groups, apostles and prophets, are two different groups given to the church as the foundation of the church. The evidence provided by Farnell related to Sharp’s rule rules out Grudem’s interpretation. The other two possible understandings mentioned above can also be ruled out. Paul’s reference to “prophets” could not be referring to OT prophets because he would have most likely listed them before apostles because they came before the apostles chronologically and in the progress of redemption. Paul could not be referring merely to the teaching of the apostles and the teaching of the prophets because Jesus Christ is said to be the Chief Cornerstone. Because it is Christ and not His work that is said to be the cornerstone, it is more probable that the foundation consists of people rather than the work of people in order to maintain the metaphor.[18] Also, it cannot refer to their teaching because Paul is speaking of the work of God in bringing the Jews and Gentiles together (two groups of people). The whole time he is speaking of uniting people together in building the church.[19] In Ephesians 4:11, Paul refers to apostles and prophets as two separate groups. Probably, he would refer to them as two distinct groups in 2:20 since it is in the same epistle.
1 Corinthians 14:29-31
Grudem tries to prove that Paul is referring to NT congregational prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:29-31 with Paul’s discussion on the evaluation and interruption of prophecy. Grudem asserts from this passage that congregational prophecy was on a lower level of authority than the OT prophecy and that NT prophecies contained a mixture of truth and error. Grudem adds that the whole procedure for evaluating prophecy was different from the OT. An OT prophet was put to death when his prophecy was judged to be false, according to OT Law.
In this passage, Paul gives some guidelines for the use of the gift of prophecy in the church. Since there were more prophets and prophecies in the NT, Paul saw the importance of making sure that things were done in an orderly manner because “God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Paul explains in verse 29 that while two or three prophets speak “others” will “pass judgment.” Verses 30-31 speak of the procedure to be followed in the case of a prophet who is interrupted because another prophet has been given a revelation.
Grudem says that the guidelines were laid down because of the need to sort out the truth from the error in the prophecies. The OT did not require these strict guidelines because the prophecies were infallible.[20] He has much more to say though about the passage. Regarding verse 29, he says that the “others” that pass judgment on the prophecies are people in the congregation. All the members of the congregation were to judge. Grudem says that this verse indicates that even an established prophet had to be tested over and over again. He argues that it is not probable that a new prophet came into the church at each meeting requiring the prophecies from the new prophet to be judged in order to establish the validity of this prophet. It is obvious that each prophecy had to be evaluated because every prophecy could possibly contain some error. The last point made by Grudem from this passage relates to the interruption of prophecies. Grudem asserts that the fact that a prophecy could be interrupted indicates that the prophecy was not an authoritative one. If the prophecy were indeed authoritative and infallible then surely an interruption would not have been allowed. After all, would not the church care if an infallible prophecy were lost because the prophet had been interrupted?[21]
Farnell gives a hearty reply to every one of Grudem’s arguments. He says that Paul gives further guidelines for NT prophecy because the more frequent use of the gift made it more difficult to maintain order in the church. There was more opportunity for people to abuse the gift.[22] Farnell says that the “others” in verse 29 must refer to other prophets rather than to others in the congregation. He gives several reasons. The Greek term for “other” in this verse refers to others of the same kind rather than to others of a different kind. Also, the most natural antecedent of “others” is “prophets” in the first half of the verse. As well, it is more consistent with the following verse. In verse 30 Paul refers to “another” (using the same Greek word for “others” in verse 29) where he is clearly speaking of prophets who receive a “revelation.” In 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul provides a list of various gifts given to the church. He lists “prophecy” beside “distinguishing of spirits” and “various kinds of tongues” beside “the interpretation of tongues.” It is evident that just as the use of tongues in the church required someone with the gift of interpretation in the same way the use of prophecy in the church required someone with the gift of discernment. And, a prophet was the best equipped person to judge the prophecy of another.[23] Concerning the need to evaluate an established prophet, Farnell says that each prophecy had to be evaluated in order to guard against false prophets. He says that a prophet, having his prophecies evaluated and affirmed initially, would most likely not be examined any more. But, there are examples given in the NT of false prophets that prophesied truth, so there was always the need to constantly be careful.[24] Matthew 7:22 provides an example of false prophets. Regarding the interruption of prophecies, Farnell argues that the fact of the prophet remaining “in conscious control of his mind and will” while waiting to give the rest of his prophecy would indicate that his revelation is from God.[25]
Grudem’s comparison of the OT and NT systems of evaluation of prophecy is not legitimate either. David McWilliams says that the difference in evaluation, or better the results of a negative evaluation, has a more reasonable explanation that Grudem offers. The difference concerns the “administration of the covenant.” The Corinthian church was not under the same law as the nation of Israel. So, while the evaluation of a prophecy was required, the consequence of a negative evaluation were different.[26]
Acts 11:27-28 and Acts 21:10-11
Grudem argues from these passages that there was a type of NT prophecy that was not “obligatory,” nor was it “precise” or without error.[27] He says that the NT prophecy was not authoritative. It was merely based upon revelation, but was understood and proclaimed with so much human involvement that it was not authoritative. So, these passages allow for consideration of the authority and infallibility of NT prophecy.
In Acts 11:28, Luke records that a prophet named Agabus came down to Antioch with some other prophets. Agabus stood up and prophesied that there would be a famine in the land, and the last part of verse 28 says that the famine did indeed take place in the reign of Claudius. In Acts 21:10-11, Luke records another prophecy of Agabus. According to the text, Agabus prophesied that the Jews from Jerusalem would bind Paul and then deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
Regarding Acts 11: 27-28, Grudem points out that Agabus’ prophecy was foretold “by the Spirit.” Grudem says that this phrase indicates that there is a “loose relationship between the Holy Spirit and the prophet.”[28] And, there is a degree of “imprecision” conveyed with the word “foretold” [29] indicating that the words of Agabus were more likely a “strong subjective sense of guidance from the Holy Spirit.” So, the prophecy given by Agabus was much different than the prophecy given by an OT prophet. Agabus’ prophecy is an example, then, of the congregational prophecy where God gives some kind of insight or guidance to a man, and the man does his best to present in to the people. But, due to his humanity he may present it with a mixture of truth and error.
Regarding Acts 21:10-11, Grudem says Agabus’ prophecy had “two small mistakes.”[30] The first mistake is that the Romans actually bound Paul; it was not the Jews according to Acts 21:33. The second mistake is that instead of the Jews delivering Paul into the hands of the Gentiles, the Jews tried to kill Paul according to Acts 21:31. Grudem concludes that Agabus would have been killed if he were subject to the OT standards of evaluation in the OT.
Many scholars have argued against Grudem’s assertions concerning Agabus’ prophecy. David B. McWilliams says that the fact that the prophecy was foretold “by the Spirit” does not indicate that there was a loose connection between the Holy Spirit and Agabus. In fact, the statement is similar to the phrase used in the OT, “Thus saith the Lord.” The similarity with this OT prophetic formula actually argues for the authority and infallibility of Agabus’ prophecy.[31] Kenneth Gentry argues that “foretold” is the same word used in Revelation 1:1 for the introduction of John’s prophecy. Certainly, Grudem would not call John’s prophecy into question because of this word being used. Further, Gentry points out that there is no rule in the Bible concerning the precision of a prophecy.[32]
Concerning the “mistakes” in Acts 21:10-11, Gentry argues that the prophecy was fulfilled at its “fundamental point.”[33] According to Acts 21: 27-31, 35 the Jews created an uproar that gave reason for the Romans to carry Paul away. Verse 35 actually states the fulfillment when it says, “he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob.” The mob was made up of the Jews. The Jews were ultimately responsible for Paul’s captivity. The same line of reasoning can be used to explain the second “mistake.” Acts 28:17 explains that Paul was “delivered from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” Ultimately, the Jews were responsible for Paul’s being delivered into the hands of the Gentiles.
From these arguments, it is clear that Agabus prophesied according to the pattern of the OT prophets. He gave an accurate, authoritative message from God to the people, and his prophecies were fulfilled according to the Scriptures.
Conclusion
Grudem’s study has been used by God to force men to clarify their interpretation of various passages as well as to sharpen their systematization of Biblical truths to form one coherent whole. The work done in this area will not be in vain. An understanding of prophecy affects an understanding of Scripture, the church, decision making, and many other issues. Is the Bible all that we need to live this life in a way that pleases God?[34] When a man seeks to know God, should he seek Him only through the Bible or through other prophecies as well? Should the leaders of a local church allow time for people in the congregation to share their revelations from God? Should a man trying to know and do God’s will in a particular circumstance of life look for a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit or for a revelation through a prophet in his local church?
This study has shown that prophecy in the NT was the same as prophecy in the OT. When a NT prophet spoke in the church he spoke a word from God that was authoritative and infallible because it was from God. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the two different groups of people, the apostles and prophets, has been laid. No longer are their apostles and no longer are their prophets. The canon of Scripture is closed, and the Christian today can be confident that he is thoroughly equipped to accomplish all that God has called him to through the ministry of the Scriptures. Praise God for His authoritative, infallible, and sufficient Word to His people.
Bibliography
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Farnell, F. David. “Does the New Testament Teach Two Prophetic Gifts?” TMJ 150 (January 1993): 62-88.
Farnell, F. David. “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis.” MSJ 2/2 (Fall 1991): 157-179.
Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy. Second Edition. Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, 1989.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Grudem, Wayne. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988.
McWilliams, David B. “Something New under the Sun?” BSac 54:2 (Fall 1992): 321-330.
Thomas, Robert L. Understanding Spiritual Gifts. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
White, R. Fowler. “Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin’s Cessationist Exegesis.” WTJ 54:2 (Fall 1992): 303-320.
White, R. Fowler. “Richard Gaffin And Wayne Grudem On 1 Cor 13:10: A Comparison Of Cessationist And Noncessationist Argumentation.” JETS 35/2 (June 1992): 174-181.
[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988), 25.
[2] Ibid., 17-23.
[3] Grudem says that he said at one time that there are “two kinds of prophecy” in the NT, but in this most recent book (1988) he does not want to phrase it that way. He wants to guard against an implication “that the ‘kinds’ of prophecy were different in many ways, with large differences in the prophet’s own experience, etc.” Ibid., 63.
[4] Ibid., 14.
[5] Of course, there are not many passages in the Scriptures specifically addressing prophets and prophecy.
[6] Ibid., 57.
[7] Ibid., 50-1.
[8] Ibid., 57.
[9] This is a quotation from the RSV, the translation from which Grudem quoted the passage. Grudem, Prophecy, 58.
[10] Ibid., 58.
[11] Kenneth L. Gentry, The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy, Second Edition (Memphis, TN: Footstool Publications, 1989) 30.
[12] Robert L. Thomas agrees with Gentry’s argument see Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spritual Gifts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 136.
[13] Gentry, Charismatic Gift, 31-32.
[14] Grudem, Prophecy, 329, footnote 130.
[15] See Thomas, Understanding, 136-7.
[16] Farnell references two Greek grammarians, Middleton and Wallace. See [16] F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/ Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” MSJ 2:2 (Fall 1991): 166-168.
[17] Farnell, “Fallible,” 158. Farnell also says that “pastors and teachers” in Ephesians 4:11 should not be taken to refer the same person (pastor-teacher) according to the qualification of the Granville-Sharp rule.
[18] Grudem, Prophecy, 48.
[19] Ibid., 48.
[20] Ibid., 79.
[21] Ibid., 79-80.
[22] Farnell points to the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 and it’s fulfillment in Acts 2:17-21 to show that the gift of prophecy was to be more prevalent in the NT church. F. David Farnell, “Does the New Testament Teach Two Prophetic Gifts?” Bsac 150 (January 1993): 81.
[23] Ibid., 84.
[24] Ibid., 84-5.
[25] Ibid., 85-6.
[26] David B. McWilliams, “Something New under the Sun?,” WTJ 54:2 (Fall 1992): 327.
[27] Ibid., 89-90.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid, 90.
[30] Ibid., 96.
[31] McWilliams, “Something New,” 325.
[32] Gentry, Charismatic Gift, 37.
[33] Ibid., 43.
[34] Grudem argues that he has not compromised the sufficiency of Scripture because he believes that the canon is closed. See Grudem, Prophecy, 299-310. McWilliams says that Grudem, by implication, does compromise the sufficiency of Scripture when he claims that a prophecy outside of Scripture is possible and sometimes necessary. See McWilliams, “Something New,” 330.
