PROPHECY, "THE PERFECT" AND THE END OF WHAT?

by John MacArthur

The final argument John Piper made on his podcast in support of the continuation of fallible prophecy has to do with the identity and timing of “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12.[1] Here’s what he said:

The future in view here, I think, is manifestly when Christ comes. When the perfect comes, in the time of adulthood when he’s not speaking like a child anymore, the time of seeing face to face, not in a mirror anymore, but rather knowing fully even as I have been fully known. That’s not any time in this age. That’s the end of the age, when we will know fully even as we have been fully known.

So that’s when the gift of prophecy stops. So, this text is a pretty clear argument, I think, that the gift of prophecy and tongues will continue until Jesus comes back. And it seems to me that the reason they pass away, it says, is precisely because they’re imperfect. They’re not Scripture-level authority, because verse 9 says, ek merous prophēteuomen—that’s the Greek—we prophesy ek merous, we prophesy in part, just like a little child, trying to reason, and think, and talk, and when he grows up and becomes a man, in the age to come, he won’t need that kind of help anymore.[2]

That summary reflects what has become a very common interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8–12. Because of its popularity, many are not aware that it rests upon unfounded assumptions and is entirely at odds with the respected exegetes both of church history and today. But by focusing on what Paul actually said, I believe we can clear away the confusion that continuationists have inserted into this text.

What is “the perfect”?

The word translated “perfect” is from téleios, and is used to describe something that is morally perfect, full grown and mature, or complete. The different nuances of téleios have given rise to various interpretations of what “the perfect” refers to: F.F. Bruce said “the perfect” is love itself; B.B. Warfield, the completed canon of Scripture; Robert Thomas, the mature church; Richard Gaffin, the return of Christ; and Thomas Edgar, the individual believer’s entrance into heavenly glory.[3]

Significantly, though they disagree on the referent of “the perfect,” each one of those respected New Testament scholars is a committed cessationist. Clearly—and contrary to the assertions of so many continuationists—the cessationist case does not stand or fall with 1 Corinthians 13:8–12. As New Testament scholar Anthony Thistleton says, “Few or none of the serious ‘cessationist’ arguments depends on a specific exegesis of 1 Cor. 13:8–11. . . . These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate.”[4] Even continuationist scholar D.A. Carson admits that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13 do not “necessarily mean that a charismatic gift could not have been withdrawn earlier than the parousia.”[5]

That said, I believe the best way to understand the timing of “the perfect” is closer to John Piper’s view. Here’s what I wrote in Strange Fire:

Of the possible interpretations, the believer’s entrance into the Lord’s presence best fits Paul’s use of “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10. This makes sense of Paul’s later statement in verse 12 about believers seeing Christ “face to face” and possessing full knowledge—descriptions that cannot be realized this side of glory.[6]

So just as cessationists can disagree among themselves about what “the perfect” is and still be cessationists, John Piper and I can agree on when “the perfect” comes and yet still disagree about when the miraculous gifts cease.

This demonstrates that a conscientious student of Scripture—whether cessationist or continuationist—should not look to 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 as a trump card in this discussion, imagining that a simple quotation of the passage should make it obvious that his view is the right one. This text has to be carefully handled to make the author’s intention plain (2 Tim. 2:15). In the remainder of this post, I hope to do that by asking two crucial questions of this text.

What (exactly) is lacking in New Testament prophecy?

The contrast in 1 Corinthians 13 is not between the imperfect/fallible and the perfect/infallible, but rather between the partial and complete. Paul clearly said, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when theperfect comes, the partial will pass away” (ESV, vv. 9–10, emphasis added).

But Piper takes “perfect” to mean “infallible” and “in part” to mean “fallible.” Here’s what he said while quoting verses 9–10 (his comments are noted in italics):

For now we know in part and we prophesy in part—that’s a very crucial statement: ‘We prophesy in part’; but when the perfect comes—as though the prophecies were not that [i.e., not perfect]—the partial will pass away.[7]

Don’t miss the interpretive conclusion Piper has insinuated there (it’s especially clear in the audio). He sees the contrast between “we prophesy in part” and “but when the perfect comes” as suggesting a qualitative difference between the gift of prophecy practiced among the Corinthians and whatever is going on at the time of the perfect. To him, that means the New Testament gift of prophecy must not be perfect—that is, it must not be infallible.

But there is absolutely no justification for that. Prophesying “in part” doesn’t mean prophesying fallibly or inaccurately; it means that the prophecies do not provide the kind of exhaustive knowledge believers will possess when they enter Christ’s presence. The same can be said of Old Testament prophecy: It was infallible, but it was also “in part” because it did not provide the complete fulfillment of God’s revelation found in the New Testament. Even the two Testaments together do not provide the exhaustive knowledge believers will enjoy in glory, which is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12.

Therefore, we should not understand “in part” to mean “fallible” but rather “partial” or “nonexhaustive.” And we should not understand “perfect” to mean “infallible” but rather “complete.” Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 13:9–10 is to be understood this way: We know in part and we prophesy in part; but when that which is complete comes, that which is partial will be done away. What was lacking in New Testament prophecy was completeness (a quantitative issue) not accuracy (a qualitative issue). The qualitative perfection of New Testament prophecy was never in question—until the modern challenges of the charismatic movement.

What (exactly) will pass away?

After Piper argues that the timing of “the perfect” is the end of the age when we see Christ (which I agree with), he then draws the conclusion, “So that’s when the gift of prophecy stops.”[8] And that’s where my agreement stops. Verse 8 does not say the gift of prophecy—singular—will pass away; it says prophecies—plural—will pass away. The cessation Paul speaks of does not have to do with the gift of prophecy, but prophecies, which are the result or the product of the gift of prophecy.

Here’s how Sam Waldron explains it:

The emphasis, therefore, is not on the gift of prophecy itself, but on the various revelations orprophecies given through the gift. Thus, verse eight emphasizes not the gift of prophecy, but the contents of prophecy—the prophecies plural given through the gift of prophecy. The emphasis, then, of the preceding context is not on the gifts of tongues and prophecy. It is clearly on the knowledge—the partial knowledge—associated with those gifts.[9]

Now, lest you think Waldron is guilty of making too fine a distinction, take a moment to reflect more deeply on verses 9 and 10.

John Piper believes “the partial” in verse 10 is a qualitative statement referring to the gift of fallible prophecy. He would have us read the passage this way: For we know fallibly and we prophesy fallibly; but when the perfect comes, the fallible gifts will be done away. But in order to maintain Paul’s parallel between “the partial” and “the perfect,” Piper’s interpretation would force us to conclude that “the perfect” refers to a gift. Here’s how that sounds: For we know fallibly and we prophesy fallibly; but when the perfect, infallible gifts of prophecy and knowledge come, the fallible gifts will be done away.

So, are we to expect to receive perfect, infallible gifts of prophecy and knowledge when we see Christ face to face? No indeed. Piper has already told us “the perfect” is not a gift at all but “is manifestly when Christ comes.” This internal inconsistency should make the error obvious. On the one hand, the parallelism shows the contrast between “the partial,” which is fallible, and “the perfect,” which is infallible. But that parallelism is ignored in the next instance to maintain that “the perfect” is not an infallible gift, but the completeness of knowledge believers enjoy when face to face with Christ. You can’t have it both ways.

So Waldron is correct. “The partial” does not refer to the gift of prophecy itself but rather to the partial (and, at the same time, infallible) knowledge that results from the exercise of this gift. This partial knowledge is contrasted not with a perfect gift of knowledge but with the perfect, comprehensive knowledge believers will enjoy when they come face to face with Christ.[10] With that in view, you can back away from the details of the text to discover the point. Paul is not trying to teach the Corinthians when the gifts will cease but that there will come an end to the knowledge conveyed through those gifts. As I wrote in Strange Fire:

It is important to note that Paul’s purpose in this chapter was not to identify how long the spiritual gifts would continue into later centuries of church history, as that would have been essentially meaningless to the original readers of this letter. Rather, he was making a point that specifically pertained to his first-century audience: when you Corinthian believers enter the glorified perfection of eternity in heaven, the spiritual gifts you now prize so highly will no longer be necessary (since the partial revelation they provide will be made complete). But love has eternal value, so pursue love because it is superior to any gift (v. 13).[11]

Thomas Edgar agrees:

If, as seems apparent in the passage, the teleion refers to the individual’s presence with the Lord, this passage does not refer to some prophetic point in history. These factors mean that this passage does not teach when the gifts will cease or how long they will last. It serves to remind the Corinthians of the abiding nature of love in contrast to the gifts, which by their inherent nature are only temporal, only for this life.[12]

So, although it is often used as a slam-dunk text to support continuationism, 1 Corinthians 13 teaches nothing directly about when the gifts cease. Paul is once again correcting the Corinthian believers—the knowledge they so highly prized, which came as a result of prophetic gifts, would one day be outshined by the enduring character of love. Rather than trying to show up one another with ostentatious displays of their giftedness, they should focus their energy on loving one another.

Conclusion

This was the third post dealing with the texts John Piper used to support fallible prophecy (1 Thess. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 11:4–5; 1 Cor. 13:8–12). None of the continuationist interpretations of these passages compels us to abandon the doctrine of cessationism. What I’ve provided doesn’t break any new ground. It is nothing more than the historic position of the church, which is faithful to the biblical view of prophecy.

I hope Christians will see that the support for fallible prophecy and the continuation of the miraculous gifts is exegetically suspect and does not hold up to biblical scrutiny. And I hope they will challenge anyone who attempts to diminish and degrade the full power of God’s prophetic word by redefining it according to continuationist presuppositions.

There is no virtue in allowing error to continue unabated and unchecked. Confronting and correcting it is often unpleasant for all involved, but it is the loving thing to do. I’ll have more to say about the pastoral duty to confront and correct error, as a matter of sincere Christian love, in my next post.

---

[1] Be sure not to miss the previous posts: Biblical Prophecy and Modern Confusion, Prophecy Redefined, andFallibility and Female Prophets.

[2] Ask Pastor John, episode 215, 6:04–7:19.

[3] John MacArthur, Strange Fire, p. 148.

[4] Anthony Thistleton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC), pp. 1063–64.

[5] D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, p. 70.

[6] John MacArthur, Strange Fire, pp. 148–49.

[7] Ask Pastor John, episode 215, 5:31–5:46.

[8] Ask Pastor John, episode 215, 6:34–6:38.

[9] Sam Waldron, To Be Continued?, pp. 63–64.

[10] See also Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, p. 245: “The prophecies and knowledge in this passage are not the gifts themselves, as most interpreters seem to assume, but the content associated with the gifts. There are several reasons for understanding the passage in this way. The gifts are not partial, nor will there be a day when the partial gifts will be replaced by complete gifts.”

[11] John MacArthur, Strange Fire, p. 149.

[12] Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, p. 246; cf. Sam Waldron, To Be Continued?, p. 64: “The conclusion must be that Paul is teaching the doing away of partial knowledge in favor of perfect knowledge in verse 10. He says nothing about when the gifts of prophecy and tongues pass away. He only refers to the passing of the present and partial knowledge that was conveyed through those gifts. He leaves open the question of the time of the passing of the gifts of prophecy and tongues. This passage is, therefore, not conclusive for the continuation of the gift of prophecy. That issue must be decided on other grounds.”

For comments and more, go over to this link at GTY.

FALLIBILITY AND FEMALE PROPHETS

by John MacArthur

In my last article, I started to address John Piper’s comments in episode 215 of the Ask Pastor John podcast. In interacting with his interpretive claims, that post was getting a little long; I decided to show mercy to the reader, bring that article to a close, and pick up here where I left off.

To bring you up to speed, here’s how John defined the gift of prophecy in episode 215:

I take [the gift of prophecy] as something that God spontaneously brings to mind in the moment; and because we are fallible in the way we perceive it, and the way we think about it, and the way we speak it, it does not carry that same level of infallible, Scripture-level authority.[1]

As I pointed out before, that is a radical departure—both from the Old Testament definition of prophecy, and from the church’s historic interpretation of the nature of prophecy. The Bible has portrayed the gift of prophecy consistently, from Genesis to Revelation, as always verbal, propositional, infallible, and authoritative. But continuationists like John Piper and Wayne Grudem modify the definition of prophecy, evidently believing that the Holy Spirit gave the church a lesser gift consisting in spiritual impressions that are ambiguous and non-authoritative.

John points to three passages in support of his view. I addressed the first passage (1 Thess. 5:19–21) in my previous article. In this post, I’d like to consider his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:4–5. Next time, we will address 1 Corinthians 13:8–13.

In 1 Corinthians 11:4–5, Paul writes, “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head.” Piper says this about that text: “I don’t see how women prophesying in the assembly fits with an infallible, Scripture-level authority when Paul forbids that kind of authority to be exercised over men by women in the church in 1 Timothy 2:12.”[2]

Admittedly, the scenario in 1 Corinthians 11 raises some interpretive questions that are not easy to answer, not just because of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, but also in light of what Paul says a few pages later:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:33b–35, ESV)

So, are women permitted to prophesy in the assembly in chapter 11, but forbidden to do so in chapter 14? How do we reconcile these statements?

Continuationists like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and D.A. Carson believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 should not be viewed as a prohibition on women prophesying in the church, since they seem to be practicing that with Paul’s approval in 11:5. Rather, they say 14:34–35 is a prohibition on women prophets judging prophecies. In other words, Paul is teaching that women can’t judge the prophecies of male prophets since that would be “exercising authority over a man” and would violate 1 Timothy 2:12.[3]

The obvious question in response is, “How could women prophesy and not be teaching and exercising authority over a man?” And their response is to infer, without any explicit textual warrant, that this gift of prophecy must be a watered-down version of the historic gift of prophecy—no longer infallible and authoritative, but a mere sharing of advice that is inferior even to teaching.

But again I ask: Is the only legitimate answer to infer such a radical redefinition of the gift of prophecy, especially without a single explicit comment from any New Testament author? Is there another interpretation, which fits all the biblical data, does not depend on inference, and requires less explaining away of explicit prohibitions? Indeed, there is a still more excellent way.

Outside the Assembly

I believe the simplest answer is that the prohibition for women to speak comes in a specific context, namely, “in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34). In 1 Corinthians 11,  Paul does not begin addressing the Corinthians in the context of their local assembly until verses 17 and 18. Verse 18 says, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church . . .” The first matter that Paul addresses as it regards the gathered assembly is the issue of division, and that doesn’t come until 11:18. Therefore, especially in light of 14:34–35, it’s very likely that Paul’s reference to praying and prophesying in 11:4-5 is not intended to be understood in the context of the corporate gathering. Women were able to exercise their authoritative, instructive gift of prophecy outside the assembled church.

It certainly was not unheard of for New Testament prophets to prophesy outside of the assembly, as in the case of Agabus (Acts 21:10–11). And even today, we who believe that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church nevertheless make every opportunity for gifted women to teach children and other women (Titus 2:3–4). Teaching in a children’s ministry or leading a women’s Bible study does not violate 1 Timothy 2:12, and nor does their prophesying. There is no reason that the Spirit could not have provided some women with the same gift of prophecy he gave to men, and yet limited its use to outside the gathered assembly.[4]

Old Testament Prophetesses Did Not Undermine Complementarianism

Besides this, we have explicit biblical evidence that a woman exercising an authoritative, Scripture-level prophetic gift does not undermine biblical complementarianism. Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Anna (Luke 2:36) were all prophetesses in the Old Testament era. This means they exercised the standard Old Testament prophetic gift—namely, infallible, authoritative prophecy.

Piper would not say that men’s and women’s roles changed from egalitarianism in the Old Testament to complementarianism in the New Testament. But he is forced to this undesirable position if he wishes to maintain his objection to infallible prophecy on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12. If both men and women in the Old Testament could prophesy with an infallible and authoritative prophetic gift, and not violate the gender roles established in the created order, why should we assume that would have changed in the New Testament?

“Your Sons and Your Daughters Shall Prophesy”

What’s more, when Peter announced the inauguration of the Spirit’s ministry on the Day of Pentecost, saying, “This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: . . . your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:16–17), there is no indication that these daughters would receive a radically redefined prophetic gift. On the contrary, Peter explicitly identifies the Old Testament gift with the New Testament gift. As an Old Testament prophet himself, Joel couldn’t have been referring to anything but Old Testament prophecy, which we all agree was infallible and carried Scripture-level authority. And it is precisely the New Testament gift of prophecy—received by both men and women—that Peter cites as the fulfillment of that promise. The conclusion is inescapable: Women exercised an infallible and authoritative prophetic gift.

Conclusion

Therefore, if New Testament prophecy is infallible, authoritative, and on par with Scripture, as we claim, then 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 does not contradict Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12. These texts harmonize without having to radically redefine the gift of prophecy.

Next time I’ll address John Piper’s comments on 1 Corinthians 13, which many continuationists see as one of the most important texts in the continuationist/cessationist debate. Be sure to stay tuned.

---

[1] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 1:04–1:37.

[2] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 3:49–4:09.

[3] D. A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), pp. 140–53.

[4] See John MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, MNTC (Chicago: Moody, 1984), pp. 256–57.

For comments and more, click here to go over to the original post at Grace To You

PROPHECY REDEFINED

by John MacArthur

In episode 215 of Ask Pastor John, Dr. Piper gets to the crux of the cessationist-continuationist debate. In his view, modern prophecy is not “infallible, Scripture-level, authoritative speaking,” but rather “something that God spontaneously brings to mind in the moment, and—because we are fallible in the way we perceive it, and the way we think about it, and the way we speak it—it does not carry that same level of infallible, Scripture-level authority.”^[1] He claims three texts of Scripture to provide “exegetical reasons” for his view.

John’s view is also Wayne Grudem’s view, and represents a radical departure from the historic position of the Christian church. More to the point, it is a direct contradiction of 2 Peter 1:21:  “No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” What God gave to His prophets was not diminished one iota by human fallibility. The Holy Spirit so superintended the speaking (and writing) of every single word such that what God wanted to say was spoken, and it was spoken unequivocally. Piper’s and Grudem’s novel view departs from the biblical, historic view of the gift of prophecy and dangerously tampers with divine integrity and authority.

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible demonstrates four foundational characteristics of true prophecy. First, true prophecy is always verbal, the very words of God. It’s never an impulse or an impression; it’s never a feeling that needs interpretation.^[2] Rather, true prophecy is a precise message.

Second, true prophecy is propositional—it is testable as either true or false. That’s what logicians recognize as the law of the excluded middle—a proposition is either true, or its negation is true. If someone invokes the Holy Spirit as the source of his prophecy, but what he says is false, God commands His people to reject both prophecy and prophet (Deut 13:1–5; 18:20–22).

Third, true prophecy is infallible. Whatever God spoke through His prophets was error-free and utterly unaffected by human fallibility.

Fourth, because a true prophecy is verbal, propositional, and inerrant, the only conclusion to draw is that it carries the full weight of divine authority. Ever since the end of the apostolic age and the completion of the canon, only Scripture can legitimately claim that level of authority (2 Tim. 3:16).

John Piper defended his departure from the biblical, historical view of the gift of prophecy by citing three biblical texts. In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, Paul says: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” Piper makes much of the fact that Paul speaks of prophecies, or prophetic utterances, rather than the prophets themselves. He insists that this is a categorical difference from 1 John 4:1, in which the apostle John calls the church to “test the spirits . . . because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (emphasis added).

A Distinction Without a Difference

To distinguish between (a) testing and rejecting false prophecies and (b) testing and rejecting false prophets is to make a distinction without a difference. Nowhere in Scripture is a prophet divorced from the words he speaks, as Piper proposes. On the contrary, by the very definition of the word, a prophet was one who spoke forth the words of God. A true prophet was judged on the basis of the truth or falsehood of his prophecies. A false prophet was one who uttered false prophecies; and false prophecies are, by definition, the utterances from a false prophet. This distinction without a difference indicates the kind of interpretive overparsing used to arrive at a particular interpretation. That is something so unlike nearly every other aspect of John Piper’s ministry.

Testing Does Not Legitimize Prophetic Fallibility

In his podcast comments, Piper reveals an assumption that lies at the heart of the continuationist view of fallible prophecy. He believes that testing and evaluating prophets by their prophecies are things “you would not do if they spoke with infallible, inerrant, Scripture-quality authority.”^[3]

But isn’t that precisely what we see in the Old Testament—God commanding His people to test those who spoke with infallible, inerrant, Scripture-quality authority? Whether someone predicted falsely (Deut. 18:20–22), or predicted truly and yet prescribed falsely (Deut. 13:1–5)—if what he spoke was not in accord with God’s previously revealed words—God commanded the people to judge him as a false prophet and condemn him to death.

So, does the command to test and judge Old Testament prophets imply they could legitimately deliver fallible prophecies? Absolutely not. God’s command required Old Testament believers to guard zealously, and without prejudice, the truth entrusted to them, which is remarkably consistent with commands in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14). To assume, as Piper does, that being told to test New Testament prophecies implies a brand-new category of “fallible prophecy” is baseless. It fails the test of biblical scrutiny.

Radical Redefinition Without Comment

There is a second reason why biblical commands to test prophecy (cf. 1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:19–21) do not amount to evidence for fallible prophecy. Such an interpretation assumes that New Testament prophecy is radically different from the Old Testament gift.

Following Grudem, Piper posits a radical discontinuity between prophecy in the two Testaments, as if Old Testament prophecy is infallible and authoritative, while the New Testament gift of prophecy is not. But that bold conclusion is nothing more than a highly questionable inference. However, if such a radical redefinition of this gift had taken place between the Old Testament and New Testament eras, we would be right to expect explicit statements in Scripture to inform us of this change. As Sam Waldron states:

If New Testament prophecy in distinction from Old Testament prophecy was not infallible in its pronouncements, this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast between the Old Testament institution and the New Testament institution. To suppose that a difference as important as this would be passed over without explicit comment is unthinkable.^[4]

That is, however, precisely what the continuationist asks us to believe.

Not only is an explicit redefinition of prophecy absent from the New Testament, the overwhelming witness is to the continuity of prophetic gift from the Old to the New Testament. First, the New Testament uses identical terminology (e.g., prophet, prophesy, prophecy), side by side, to refer to both (a) Old Testament prophets and prophecy and (b) New Testament prophets and prophecy. Taking just the book of Acts for example, Luke refers to Old Testament prophets in 2:16, 3:24–25, 10:43, 13:27, 13:40, 15:15, 24:14, 26:22, 26:27, and 28:23. Interspersed among those passages are references to New Testament prophets and prophecy in 2:17–18, 11:27–28, 13:1, 15:32, and 21:9–11.^[5] Luke makes no distinction between the nature of their prophecies and the level of their authority, but considers them equal in every respect. Anyone who reads Luke’s record in Acts would naturally conclude that the prophetic gift of the New Testament is on par with that of the Old Testament—indeed, that they were one and the same gift.

The burden of proof, then, weighs heavily on the continuationist to clearly defend from Scripture this radical redefinition of prophecy. Appeals to dubious inferences drawn from texts that speak about testing prophecy “do not approach the kind of explicit precedent”^[6] required to meet that burden. As long as the cessationist can provide plain-sense interpretations of texts like 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21 that are consistent with the traditional definition of prophecy, there is no biblical warrant for anyone to accept such radical and unfounded redefinitions.

Why Would Christians Despise Prophecy?

Piper goes on to raise the question of why Thessalonian Christians would have been tempted to despise prophecies if those prophecies had Scripture-level authority.^[7] His own answer to that question is, “Probably because they [the prophecies] are wacko . . . stupid . . . weird . . . [and] off the wall.” Piper is by no means the only continuationist to create that kind of chaotic background as a setting for the early churches. But the error, as I see it, is that he and others have superimposed their personal experiences in the contemporary charismatic movement onto the local churches of the New Testament. While that’s unjustified and anachronistic, it does help us understand Piper’s abiding reluctance to reject modern-day “prophets” when they speak forth “prophecies” that are wacko, stupid, weird, and off the wall.

So why would the Thessalonians have been tempted to despise prophecies? Can we answer that questionwithout resorting to radically redefining the gift of prophecy? Is there a plausible answer to that question thatdoesn’t require us to impose a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments? I believe there is. As I wrote in Strange Fire:

Because false prophets were prevalent in Old Testament Israel (Deut. 13:3; Isa. 30:10; Jer. 5:31;14:14–16; 23:32–22; Ezek. 13:2–9; 22:28; Mic. 3:11), God’s people needed to be able to identify and confront them. That same reality applied to New Testament believers as well, which is why Paul instructed the Thessalonians to test prophetic utterances carefully. . . .  

The presence of false prophets in the first-century church is a fact that is clearly attested in the New Testament (Matt. 7:15; 24:11; 2 Tim. 4:3–4; 2 Peter 2:1–3; 1 John 4:1; Jude 4). Commands to test prophecy must be understood against that backdrop. Believers were commanded to discern between those who were true spokesmen for God and those who were dangerous counterfeits. The Thessalonians, in particular, needed to be wary of false prophets. Paul’s two epistles to them indicate that some within their congregation had already been misled—both with regard to Paul’s personal character (1 Thess. 2:1–12) and the eschatological future of the church (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11). Much of Paul’s instruction was in response to the erroneous teaching that was wreaking havoc within the Thessalonian church. Perhaps that is why some of the Thessalonians were tempted to despise all prophetic utterances, including those that were true.^[8]

Whatever you might conclude about the interpretation I’ve offered of 1 Thessalonians 5, it is, at the very least, more preferable than the continuationist interpretation, which requires Christians to radically redefine the gift of prophecy without a single explicit comment from any New Testament author.

Conclusion

Since this post is long enough already, I’ll stop here and ask you to stay tuned for my response to John Piper’s interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 and 1 Corinthians 13:8–13. If I didn’t write another word to interact with his interpretations, I hope what I’ve written is enough to help you think carefully about some continuationist assumptions you may have come to accept or embrace uncritically. It’s my prayer that you’ll find the continued interaction helpful and illuminating as you rightly divide the Word of Truth and work out your salvation before God with fear and trembling.

---

[1] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 0:51–1:28.

[2] In the case of revelatory dreams, which required interpretation (e.g., Gen. 40:8–13), even the interpretation was a matter of revelation, since “interpretations belong to God” (Gen. 40:8b). The one who claimed to be an interpreter of dreams was required to report the revelation he received from the Lord accurately and without error.

[3] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 2:24-2:32.

[4] Samuel E. Waldron, To Be Continued? Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Greenville, SC: Calvary Press Publishing, 2005), p. 65.

[5] Supporters of Grudem’s hypothesis of a two-tier gift of NT prophecy—that is, that there are both apostolic-level and congregational-level gifts of prophecy—might object that these references refer only to apostolic-level prophecy. However, the passages listed include the examples of Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9–11) and Agabus (Acts 11:27–28), whom Grudem himself regards as a congregational-level fallible prophet.

[6] Waldron, To Be Continued?, p. 66.

[7] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 2:33ff.

[8] MacArthur, Strange Fire, p. 125.

For comments and more, go over to the original post at Grace To You.

BIBLICAL PROPHECY AND MODERN CONFUSION

by John MacArthur

It’s been nearly five months since the Strange Fire conference, and we’ve been very encouraged to see how many good conversations have started as a result. The conference dealt with a sensitive, deeply ingrained way of thinking, so the potential to hurt feelings and offend friends was very real. I never took that lightly, but I believed it was important to tell the truth about the charismatic movement and proclaim the absolute sufficiency of Holy Scripture.

One reaction of particular interest to me was from my friend John Piper, so when I was pointed to his Ask Pastor John podcasts, I was eager to listen. The first thing I’d like to say is how much I appreciated John’s kind opening remarks.[1] It sounded as if, at the time he recorded that podcast, he still hadn’t personally listened to the material presented at the conference. That put him in the unfortunate position of responding only to what people were reporting was said about him. It seems that those close to John misunderstood certain statements at the conference,[2] so he responded to what he thought were criticisms and misrepresentations of him and his ministry. Given that context, for him to respond with such gracious and humble remarks makes me so grateful for his friendship and the partnership we’ve shared in the gospel for all these years. The feelings of love and appreciation are entirely mutual.

Clarifying a Misunderstanding

But just to set the record straight, I wasn’t commenting on the relative frequency or conviction with which John preaches on this issue in his ministry. My concern is not that he doesn’t seem “exegetically convinced enough to advocate” for the continuationist position with his own flock (though he has expressed his own confusion over this doctrinal issue [3]). Rather, I was making the observation that John’s commitment to the continuation of the miraculous gifts is a rare error—an anomaly—in his otherwise sound theology. It genuinely confuses me that such erudite and sound-thinking brothers like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and others could get this issue so wrong. Nevertheless, I know that John has never advocated—and has often criticized—the excesses, abuses, and theological errors that have been associated with Pentecostalism and other stripes of the charismatic movement. For this I have always been thankful.

So I hope that clarifies what I said and why I said it. It’s unfortunate that most of John Piper’s first podcast was spent on responding to such a misunderstanding, and I’m thankful for the opportunity to correct it.

Redefining Prophecy

Nevertheless, there are some other comments he made in this first podcast that I’d like to respond to. The first has to do with John’s belief that prophecy is God spontaneously bringing biblical truths to a preacher’s mind. Now, it’s good for a preacher to pray for that. But that is not the supernatural gift of prophecy. This illustrates one of the central concerns of my book Strange Fire: the charismatic movement, even down to the most conservative continuationists, has entirely redefined the New Testament miraculous gifts.

In Scripture, prophecy is always presented as the infallible, authoritative declaration of God’s inerrant revelation. It was not an impression on the mind, whether clear or vague, but a verbal declaration, using words the prophet vocalized audibly or wrote legibly in the presence of others who could hear or read them. Scripture never uses the terminology of prophecy to speak of mystical, intuitive impressions. When continuationists use the biblical terminology of the miraculous gifts to describe something other than the biblical phenomena—when they take a word with a very narrow meaning in Scripture (such as prophecy) and give it a new, broad, unbiblical application—that is, when they redefine the terms—continuationists tacitly concede the central premise of the doctrine of cessationism, namely, that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit as defined and practiced in the New Testament do not occur today. But what concerns me most is that they open the door for falsehood and abuse. They also give cover to false teachers to hijack biblical terms, inject them with strange doctrine, and deceive people.

The Question of Obedience

In another comment John says he advocates obedience to texts like 1 Corinthians 12:31, 14:1, and 14:39. He seems to imply that cessationists are disobedient to those passages. To frame the issue in those terms begs the question. In the first place, cessationist theology allows for the operation of the miraculous gifts at the time Paul was writing Scripture (i.e., before the cessation of divine revelation). But, secondly, the very claim in question is whether the miraculous gifts have continued past that foundational apostolic era. To simply appeal to those texts, which were addressed to believers during a time in which the gifts were operational, and to assume Christians are to apply and obey them in precisely the same way today, John is assuming what he’s trying to prove. But if the rest of scriptural teaching instructs us that we are not to expect the continuation of the miraculous gifts after a particular point, then obviously the way we apply and obey these texts will be different for us than it was for the Corinthians. It’s precisely at that point that we need to have the discussion. Shallow appeals to superficial-level interpretations won’t settle this issue for serious-minded students of Scripture.

Having said that, I’d like to address the texts Piper mentioned in his podcast. Because we began that discussion in the Strange Fire book, permit me to quote extensively from the portions of the book that deal with those texts. That’ll help us carry the conversation forward. On 1 Corinthians 12:31:

First Corinthians 12:31 is often translated as a command: “But earnestly desire the best gifts.” Yet that choice of translation raises a serious question. If spiritual gifts are given by the Spirit’s independent prerogative (1 Cor. 12:7, 18, 28), and if each gift is necessary to the building up of the Body of Christ (vv. 14–27), then why would believers be told to desire gifts they had not received? Any such notion would go against Paul’s whole argument in 1 Corinthians 12, where each individual believer is to be thankful for his or her unique giftedness, contentedly employing it in ministry for the edification of the church.

In reality, 1 Corinthians 12:31 is not an imperative. Grammatically, the form of the verb desire can also be rendered as a statement of fact (indicative), and the context here supports that translation. After all, there is nothing in the flow of Paul’s argument to expect a command, but much to commend the indicative. [Note 28: Charismatic commentator Gordon Fee acknowledges the legitimacy of the indicative view (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], p. 624). Fee lists a number of additional scholars who take that same view.] The New International Version rightly captures the apostle’s point in its alternate reading of this verse: “But you are eagerly desiring the greater gifts.” The Syriac New Testament similarly states, “Because you are zealous of the best gifts, I will show to you a more excellent way.”[4]

And on 1 Corinthians 14:39:

The apostle Paul ended his discussion regarding the gift of tongues with these words: “Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:39–40). Because all the gifts were still active when that corporate command was written, the Corinthian believers were not to forbid the legitimate and orderly exercise of the gift of languages. The corporate nature of the command is important; this was not a mandate for every individual within the Corinthian congregation to seek the gift of prophecy. Rather, the church as a whole was to prioritize prophecy over tongues—because it did not require translation in order to edify others.

Charismatics sometimes use verse 39 to insist that anyone who forbids the practice of charismatic glossolalia today is violating Paul’s injunction. But the apostle’s command has nothing to do with the modern imposture. At a time when the authentic gift of foreign languages was still in operation, of course believers were not to forbid its use. But today, it is incumbent upon churches to stop the practice of the spiritual counterfeit. Because unintelligible speech is not the true gift, to dissuade someone from such a practice is not a violation of Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:39. Quite the contrary. The disgraceful jumble and irrational blabber of modern glossolalia is actually a violation of verse 40—and those who are committed to decency and order in the church are duty-bound to suppress it.[5]

First Corinthians 14:1 is very similar to the first part of 1 Corinthians 14:39, and so should be interpreted in the same way. Thomas Edgar comments:

That 1 Cor. 14 refers to priority of activity in the assembly rather than to the priority of individual desires is obvious, but must be kept in mind in order to understand the verses involved. Therefore, it is the priority given by the church as a group to the ministration of gifts in the assembly that is discussed. . . . The phrase “that you may prophesy” definitely refers to the attitude of the church as a whole, since the context of 1 Cor. 14 is decidedly against every individual prophesying. Paul has already stated that all are not prophets. The concept that everyone is to prophesy would also invalidate the entire emphasis of chap. 12, viz., that all members do not have the same function. Therefore, 1 Cor. 14:1 must refer to the attitude of the church as a whole.[6]

Finally, even if John or others were to quibble with those interpretations, there is another way to respond to the implied accusation that cessationists are “disobedient” to those texts. Consider how a Christian living under the New Covenant is to obey the commands for animal sacrifice prescribed in the book of Leviticus. Does the refusal to slaughter a lamb on the Day of Atonement mean that a Christian is disobedient to the clear command of the Old Testament? Of course not. Based on what the totality of Scripture teaches about atonement for sin, we “obey” such commands by looking to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, which fulfilled and eclipsed those sacrifices, and by resting in His once-for-all finished work. Similarly, because of what the totality of Scripture teaches about the purpose, function, and temporary nature of the miraculous gifts, the cessationist obeys the commands to “earnestly desire to prophesy” by looking to the perfectly sufficient revelation of the written Word, which fulfilled and eclipsed all previous revelation, and by resting in His once-for-all finished Word.[7]

In the next Ask Pastor John podcast, episode 215, John Piper speaks clearly and transparently about his view of the gift of prophecy. I’m eager to respond and interact with him on that point in the next post, because that is the question at the very heart of the debate. Be sure not to miss the next post.

---

[1] Piper: “Well, the last thing I want to do is in any way diminish or obstruct John MacArthur’s incredibly fruitful expository ministry. I love John. I love that ministry. I have an app on my phone called DownCast, which is for managing your audio podcasts, and I listen to very few people, and John MacArthur is one of them. And that’s because his attention to the text, and his love of the Bible, and his ability to apply it in forceful and relevant ways is incredibly helpful to me. And I don’t hesitate to tell people, ‘Go there and grow.’ So anything I say by way of disagreement is not in any sense a diminishment of that. And I continue to benefit from John’s ministry to this very hour” (Ask Pastor John, episode 214, 0:46–1:44).

[2] Interviewer: “Allegedly, it was said that while you do have a category for prophecy and tongues today, and while you are personally open to them, this is an ‘anomaly’

For comments and more, kindly go over to the original GTY Blog post over here  

MODERN DAY REVELATIONS

"Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3, emphasis added).

For many years I've watched with deep concern as a significant number of Christians have drifted from a thoughtful, biblical, God- centered theology to one that is increasingly mystical, non- biblical, and man-centered. One of the most disturbing indicators of this trend is the proliferation of extrabiblical revelations that certain people are claiming to receive directly from God.
Such claims are alarming because they dilute the uniqueness and centrality of the Bible and cause people to lean on man's word rather than God's. They imply that Scripture is insufficient for Christian living and that we need additional revelation to fill the gap.
But God's Word contains everything you need to know for spiritual life and godly living. It is inspired and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness so that you may be fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16). What more is necessary?
When the apostle John died, apostolic revelation came to an end. But that written legacy remains as the standard by which we are to test every teacher and teaching that claims to be from God (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). If a teaching doesn't conform to Scripture, it must be rejected. If it does conform, it isn't a new revelation. In either case, additional revelation is unnecessary.
God went to great lengths to record and preserve His revelation, and He jealously guards it from corruption of any kind. From Moses, the first known recipient of divine revelation, to the apostle John, the final recipient, His charge remained the same: "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2; cf., Rev. 22:18-19).
Don't be swayed by supposed new revelations. Devote yourself to what has already been revealed.
Suggestions for Prayer:
Ask God to guard your heart from confusion and help you to keep your attention firmly fixed on His Word.
For Further Study:
According to 2 Timothy 4:1-4, why must we preach and uphold God's Word?


From Drawing Near by John MacArthur Copyright © 1993. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.com.
Additional Resources

• Free Sermon Downloads
• Drawing Near
• NAS MacArthur Study Bible (Hardcover)

ESCHATOLOGY 101 DIFFICULTIES

by Jesse Johnson

 

Why is eschatology a difficult topic? Consider: there are three views on the return of Christ as it relates to the millennial kingdom. Either Jesus will return before the kingdom or after the kingdom, or that there is no millennial kingdom. That pretty much covers all of the bases right there. Moreover, when you look through church history, you see all three of those views advanced by major theologians. Why isn’t this easier?
The same tension is true inside of premillennialism. You have those who think the rapture is before the tribulation, those who see it as occurring during the tribulation, and those that see it at the end. Why can’t MacArthur and Piper simply meet at Starbucks and sort this out for the rest of us?
I think there are a two main reasons studying eschatology is difficult:  1. The complexity of church history. As I noted, there are famous pastors and theologians all over the eschatological map. Thus, people on all sides often appeal to authority, as in “Jonathan Edwards was the greatest theologian ever, and he was post-mil, so there.” I call this the “Confessions Can’t be Possibly be Wrong” syndrome.
The problem with it of course is that all of the views have their adherents. It is easy to forget that people—even our heroes in church history—are products of their time and their own education. Every era has its own theological blind spots, and some of those remain even to this day.

2. The difficulty of telescoping prophecy. Prophecy tells of future events, but it often does not distinguish between future events that may be separated by thousands of years. The most obvious example of this is Isaiah 61, which describes the advent of the Messiah. Isaiah tells us that he will come to preach the good news to the afflicted and proclaim liberty to the captives. Jesus said that he fulfilled that prophecy. But then Isaiah 61:2 says that the Messiah would also proclaim the day of Vengeance from God. When Jesus read the scroll of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18, he stopped in the middle of the verse, declaring that some of it was fulfilled at his first coming, and implying that the rest would be fulfilled at his second coming.
This effect is often compared to the similar illusion you have of mountain peaks. From a distant valley two peaks appear to be next to each other, but once you begin hiking, you realize that they might in fact be several miles apart. From a distance they looked parallel, but on top of them you see a huge valley between.
This same effect is in prophecy. Daniel tells of 70 weeks for example, and the first 7 and the second 62 are end-on-end. But it is that 70^th one that lies on the other side of over 2,000 years. Isaiah describes the kingdom and the eternal state, two events that I think are separated by 1,000 years, but he often flows from one to the other seamlessly.
This effect makes the study of prophecy anything but an exact science. Scripture is clear as to the future events, and we know that they will be fulfilled down to the exact detail (as was prophecy at the Messiah’s first coming), but it becomes difficult to sort out the precise order of all future events.
Yetwith that said, I hasten to add that scripture is perspicuous, and while the exact order of all future events is prophetic and thus slightly veiled, there is enough revelation to discern a general framework.
Which is why I am comfortable calling myself premillennial and pretribulational. The teaching of the Bible is such that I have never really been able to understand how someone could reject the reality of the millennial kingdom, and the weight of a few passages compels me to see the return of Christ before that kingdom. That’s not to say that I know all the details of the kingdom, but I am more than comfortable saying that I thinks Scripture is clear on the issue.
As for the rapture, because of the difficulty of prophetic passages, I understand why all three major rapture views (pre-trib, pre-wrath, and post-trib) have problem passages. They involve the timing of future events, and those events are often described in contexts where prophecy is telescoped, and it remains unclear precisely how all the details will line up.  However, I am still confident with saying that the best understanding of the verses that speak of a rapture points to one that is pretribulational.
Next week I’ll lay out my positive argument for that view.

Related Posts

• 4 Honest Questions About the Millennial Kingdom
• Eschatology 101--definitions