Sam Storms on Infallible Prophecy: Point Number Five

Fifth, yet another statement in 1 Corinthians 14 confirms this understanding of NT prophecy. In v. 36 Paul asks, “Or was it from you that the word of God came?” He doesn’t say, “Did the word of God originate with (or “first go forth from”) you,” as some have suggested. Let’s not forget that the “word of God” didn’t originate with Paul either!

Rather, Paul’s statement is designed to prevent them from making up guidelines for public worship, based on an alleged prophetic word, contrary to what he has just stated. His point is that a Scripture quality, authoritative “word of God” has not, in fact, been forthcoming from the Corinthian prophets. Paul does not deny that they have truly prophesied, but he denies that their “words” were equal in authority to his own. Such “words” were in fact of a lesser authority.

In order to make sure we continue to focus on the subject, I want to remind you that the issue at stake here is the quality of NT prophecy. Sam Storms and other non-cessationists claim that it is of a lessor quality or authority than either OT prophecy or the teachings of the apostles that eventually became encapsulated in Scripture. Mr. Storms is working through ten points that he believes supports his argument. In reviewing his argument, I am searching for any implication in the text, properly interpreted of course, that lends support to Storms’ argument.

In his fifth point, Storms claims that 1 Cor. 14:36 lends support to his view that NT prophecy is of a lessor authority or quality than canonical Scripture. It reads as follows, ἢ ἀφʼ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; The literal translation is; “Or from you the word of God went out, or to you only has it come?” Paul uses the spatial frame “from you” to draw extra attention to the tone of his argument.

Storms has opened up a real can or worms in this section. If Paul is referring to prophecy when he uses the phrase, ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, then Storms seems to have shot his own foot. This phrase is always used of the authoritative word of God. It appears 11 times in NA28 and in every single case there is nothing to distinguish it from itself. Everywhere it appears it appears as the authoritative communication from the one triune God.

So then, what was Paul actually getting at with this question? Was Paul actually dealing with the authoritative nature of NT prophecy? Can we really interact with this verse through such a contemporary lens? If we knew nothing about modern, contemporary claims of prophetic utterances, would we even be looking at the text from Storms’ perspective? I find it difficult to believe that we can honestly answer that question in the affirmative. It seems that Storms continues to interpret 1 Corinthians 14 through the lens of modern Charismatic experience.

Even if the Corinthian believers were not prophesying and were only preaching the Word of God and teaching it, could Paul have said the very same thing to them? I think we can easily answer in the affirmative. The Corinthian believers were not in sole possession of the Word of God. God’s word had gone out to the universal church, and the Corinthian believers did not have the corner on the market of divine truth. Like every other community, the Corinthian group must submit to apostolic authority.

“As TEV makes clear, the two halves of this verse balance one another; the Christian message neither began nor ended in Corinth. The implication is that the Corinthians have no right to decide independently of other Christian communities how Christians should believe.”^[1]

“The balance for the Corinthian Christians is that they are one of a number of churches that now stretch across the cities of the eastern Roman empire. They may live in one of the most important cities of the province, but they need to learn humility.”^[2]

“Witherington offers two useful observations on v. 36. First, he perceives the point of Paul’s rhetorical questions to lie in the scenario that “it appears the Corinthians are trying to make up their own rules, and perhaps thinking their own word is sufficient or authoritative or even the word of God for themselves.”^[3]

“Who do they think they are anyway? is the implication; has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul’s instructions, on the one hand, and be so out of touch with the other churches, on the other?”[4]

There is no connection at all between 1 Cor. 14:36 with the present argument put forth by Storms. There is no reason to think that Paul is concerned to help the Corinthians understand that their local prophetic utterances are somehow less authoritative than Scripture. What Paul is concerned with is the autonomous desires of this community and their spiritual pride, which emerges throughout the letter. Storms’ fifth point does absolutely nothing to advance his case and lends not an ounce of support to his contention that there is a difference between the prophetic Word of God coming through prophets and the canonical Word of God encapsulated in Scripture.

---

^[1] Paul Ellingworth, Howard Hatton, and Paul Ellingworth, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 326.

^[2] Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Romans to Philemon., vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 174.

^[3] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1161.

[4] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 710.

The Content of the Ancient Gift of Prophecy

προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν·

One of the greatest challenges to interpreting Paul’s letter to the Corinthians today is the tremendous temptation to do so in light of modern Charismatic practices and interpretations. The interpreter must work hard to ignore the noise coming from that quarter so as to allow proper exegesis to run its course. Only then are we in a better place to understand the truth revealed in the text. Perhaps then we are in a better position to discuss the question of NT prophecy.

Neither UBS nor NA28 lists any textual variants in this short sentence. Other than the fact that Comfort tells us in a note on p46 that δὲ was a superlinear addition, we have barely any work to perform from a textual critical standpoint.

Translating this text is also very straightforward. “But let two or three prophets speak and the others examine.” The NAS leaves the conjunction untranslated. I include it for the simple reason that it is there and I have no reason to exclude it yet, nor will I as far as the point of this post is concerned.

The Corinthian Church was founded by Paul in Acts 18. The work there seemed to begin to advance when Paul moved his work the house of Titus Justus. In fact, even the leader of the synagogue, Crispus, believed along with his household. Corinth was a very wealthy city, strategically located on the Peloponnesian peninsula. It controlled two harbors and all trade moving to Asia as well as to Italy. Corinth was a city of the strong. Wealth and strength quite naturally tend to produce pride. For the Corinthian, status was a prominent fixation. This creates an atmosphere where the virtue of humility and the idea of serving others are more than a little challenging. The occasion for this letter was one of rejoinder. The Corinthians had asked several questions of Paul and this letter is the product of that event.

Paul begins the larger literary context within which our text is located in 1 Cor. 12:1 with the phrase, “Now concerning the spirituals.” This indicates as in other places, that the Corinthians had questions concerning the spiritual gifts. Paul’s objective is to provide some clarity around the purpose and function of those gifts. It is in this context that our subject emerges.

The very first question that no one seems to be asking or answering in this discussion of the spiritual gifts is this: are there any differences between Christian living post the canon and Christian living during this period of the Church before the revelation had been completed? In other words, is there any difference between us, and the ancient Corinthian Church? Better yet, is there any difference between NT Christian living during the transition period and those living outside that transition period? I fail to see how the answer to that question could be anything other than, absolutely! Once that fact is established, we can then understand that drawing parallels between modern Christianity and transitional Christianity can be overly simplistic and even downright naïve. In reality, there are three periods that must be taken into consideration when examining God’s activity in the Christian Church. The transition period which is the period when revelation was still in progress. The second period is that period when the revelation was completed but was still being circulated and collected. The third period is that period of time that represents not only the completion of the revelation, but also the completion of the collection and recognition of that revelation in one document. It is the divine document of divine documents, known as the Bible. The transition period was completed at some point in the late first century. The second period was completed as all the writings made their way throughout the communities culminating in the fixed canon. The third period continues to present day.

The text I am examining is one that is used by many Continuationists to justify their conclusion that NT prophets were different, not authoritative, and non-binding. I will dispute the principle behind this view below. For now, I want to get back to our short exegesis of the text. The Greek word λαλείτωσαν, from λαλέω is a present, active, imperative. This indicates that Paul is issuing a straightforward command. It only appears in this form in the GNT in this text. It is a very common word used to mean, speak or talk. The second word we are interested in is far more nuanced that this one. The word διακρινέτωσαν, from διακρίνω, is also a present, active, imperative. Once more, Paul is issuing a command to the Corinthians. The root of this word is κρινω, which is the word commonly translated, judge. According to ANLEX (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT), it means “(1) as evaluating the difference between things discern, distinguish, differentiate (MT 16.3); (2) as making a distinction between persons by evaluation make a difference, decide between, pass judgment on (AC 15.9); (3) as a legal technical term for arbitration judge a dispute, settle a difference (1C 6.5); (4) in the aorist tense, the middle sense is conveyed with the passive form; (a) as debating an issue dispute, contend, argue (AC 11.2); (b) as being undecided within oneself doubt, hesitate, waver (JA 1.6)” Louw-Nida says, to make a judgment on the basis of careful and detailed information—‘to judge carefully, to evaluate carefully.’ BDAG informs us, “to evaluate by paying careful attention to, evaluate, judge pass judgment on w. acc. ἑαυτόν on oneself.”

It is for this reason that scholars like Wayne Grudem, believe that OT prophets and prophecy was fundamentally different from NT prophecy. After all, who are we to pass judgment on the Word of God? In our apologetic and theology, we repeatedly argue that the Word of God is self-authenticating and fully authoritative. The kind of judgment we see in 1 Corinthians is therefore new. Such a view fails to properly nuance what we mean when we say we hold the Scripture to be self-authenticating and authoritative. There is a distinction to be made between judging something to be the Word of God and judging the Word of God. Were OT prophets subject to the same kind of judgment? Deut. 13 provides for the clear judgment of dreamers and prophets who arise, even giving signs that come true. The test of whether or not they are true prophets is whether or not they point back to what has already been revealed. So the kind of judgment we see in the NT is not new at all. It has always existed since we learned about prophets thousands of years ago. Paul is not telling the Corinthians to do anything any differently than God, through Moses, had already told the ancient Hebrews to do. In addition, Jesus warned His disciples in Matt. 7 that many false prophets would arise and would deceive many. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Hence Paul was giving the Corinthians nothing new. In fact, the word προσέχω means to be in a continuous state of readiness to learn of any future danger, need, or error, and to respond appropriately—‘to pay attention to, to keep on the lookout for, to be alert for, to be on one’s guard against.’ To introduce a new concept in this text, that had not already been given by Moses and reinforced again by Christ Himself is clearly the product of eisgesis. It is understanding this word and this text through the modern Charismatic experience and interpretation. It is thoroughly anachronistic.

I would continue with a straightforward exegesis of the passage but I think we have gone far enough to recognize that there is no new concept or idea of prophecy revealed in this text. Moses had already established this very practice hundreds of years before Paul pinned the command. In addition, Jesus had also repeatedly warned of false prophets and clearly expected that any prophet and their prophecy would come under scrutiny.

So then, if what I have argued above is true, then one wonders, what was the likely content of these prophecies? First of all, we are not speculating on a teaching of Scripture. Scripture does not reveal the content of these prophecies. But let us see if we can eliminate some things that others think it might have been. Could it have been what we hear from modern Pentecostals today? For example, a prophecy comes out that Titus is to marry Mary. Now, how on earth could something like that be judged to from God or from man? The short answer is that judgment of such prophecies is impossible. We simply cannot know for sure. Therefore, the most important thing we learn about this text is that all NT prophecy was judge-able. In fact, all NT prophecies by divine command had to be judge-able. This is because Paul commanded the Corinthians to judge them all. No prophecy could escape scrutiny. Any prophecy that could be rendered unjudge-able would necessarily be judged false because it places the Christian in a position of not being able to obey the divine command. Most modern prophecies are not really prophecies. There are three popular types that come to mind. First, there are those prophecies that state what we already know from Scripture. For instance, someone may prophesy that I am going to be tempted to sin but that God is with me. Okay, thank you for telling me what God has already told me. Second, there are those prophecies that are predictive. These are the ones that never seem to pan out unless they are educated guesses and not really prophetic utterances. For instance, the church may have acknowledged that a young man has the attributes of a leader and someone prophecies he will become a leader some day and some day he does. Amazing! The third kind of prophecy concerns things that really aren’t judge-able. These prophecies are personal and instructive. They tell people what career to pursue, what job to take, who to marry, where to live, etc. We can rule them out as legitimate because they do not fall into the category of biblical prophecy because all biblical prophecies are judge-able. The first group of prophecies can be dismissed as well because they are simply the Word of God regurgitated. They are not legitimate, at the moment divine revelations or Words of God. One way to judge a prophet was first and foremost that he had to be recognized by the leaders as a prophet. Apostolic recognition was one criteria for judging prophets and prophecies. The apostolic component seems to be significant.

Agabus prophesied that Paul would be taken prisoner and amazingly he was. Predictive prophecies can be judged based on their fulfillment. Some prophecies can be judged based on their connection with apostolic authority. During this time of transition, prophecy played a critical role in the unfolding of divine revelation that came to be encapsulated in Scripture. In addition, it is quite possible, and highly probable that some prophecies contained what would eventually become encapsulated in Scripture. For instance, while Paul was writing to the Galatians his anathema upon all who preach a different gospel, a prophet in Corinth could have been giving the same light to the Corinthians. Another prophet completely unfamiliar with Isa. 53 could have been given that revelation someplace else to give to that local church. To speculate that these prophets were off giving revelation to these believers that no one else ever came to have is a fruitless exercise. If it is true, it is irrelevant. God withheld it from us for a reason, that is, if it is true which I doubt. Personally, I see no reason to embrace that view and I see no way it can be anything more than baseless speculation. The fact that God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in Scripture would indicate to me that what God revealed to them, he also revealed to us. Otherwise, we are back to the question of the universal sufficiency of Scripture. This would mean that some NT Christians needed more than we have in the text while the rest of us do not. I find that view enormously unappealing and relatively indefensible.

The view that there is a new brand of prophet and prophecy in the NT is without exegetical support. The scrutiny originally given by Moses in Deut. 13 was reinforced by Christ in Matthew 7 and here by Paul. There is no good reason to think otherwise. The warnings against false prophets are abundant in the NT. That there was some criterion in place by which prophets and their prophecies were to be judged is evident. When Paul and Barnabas were separated for the ministry by the Holy Spirit, it was through prophecy in the presence and under the consent of apostolic authority. For the most part, modern prophecy is either restating what is obvious in Scripture, not subject to judgment for lack of a criterion, educated guesses, and mostly failed predictions.

The failure by Steve Hays, Wayne Grudem, Michael Brown, and others to recognize the transitional nature of the ancient Church and God’s dealings with men at that time has led to unnecessary confusion regarding the charismata. For example, Hays’ outrageous view that Jesus’ appearance to Paul should not be viewed as exceptional and instead, should be taken as normative, is just one example of the logical end of where this hermeneutic leads. With kind of interpretive method in hand, it is no wonder that Charismatics have been unable to contradict and refute error. My final point here is that this verse actually commands what the Strange Fire conference has set out to do: critically examine prophecy. It is a rare occurrence that you will find a Charismatic leader encouraging others to question their “Word from God!” In fact, most of them use their status as a way to discourage any questioning of their claims and prophecies. If you don’t believe me, just go to a Charismatic forum, pick a famous Charismatic leader, find a clearly unbiblical prophecy or sermon, and place him under scrutiny and see what happens. In other words, attempt to apply 1 Cor. 14:29 to the Charismatic prophets and watch what happens.

The Sufficiency of Scripture in View of Pentecostal Tongues and Prophecy

Each generation of the Church is obliged to immerse itself in, and practice the doctrines of Christianity that have been handed down to her from the inception of the apostolic tradition (Acts 18:5; 1 Tim. 4:15). Neglecting this responsibility has led to catastrophic outcomes across most, if not all branches of Christianity, and most especially, the visible Church in general. In this post, I will attempt provoke my audience of readers to once again rejuvenate their understanding of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture and the implications that such a doctrine has on the modern claims of contemporary prophecy and tongues averred by Pentecostals and by non-Pentecostal continuationists.

My fundamental premise is quite simply that both individually, and corporately, we have all that is necessary for faith and practice given to us in the canon of sacred Scripture. We need nothing more than what is contained in the Bible if it our desire to grow spiritually, to honor God in our life, and to be conformed to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.

John Frame gives one definition of the Word of God as God’s free communications with His creatures. [Frame, Doctrine of the Word of God] To the collection of authoritative Hebrew Scripture were eventually added some additional writings in the form of gospels, a historical account, letters, and an apocalypse. [Allison, Historical Theology, 41] These writings were, from the very beginning of their existence, the authoritative Word of God. The primary purpose of Scripture is sanctification. The Word of God comes to us in order to change us. It is the instrument by which God brings His people back into a true knowledge and relationship of and with Himself. It is the instrument by which God restores in our hearts a love for Him, His truth, and all that He commands us to be and to do. It is the final revelation of God, completing the whole disclosure of his unfathomable love to lost sinners, the whole proclamation of his purposes of grace, and the whole exhibition of his gracious provisions for their salvation. [Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration] Scripture is viewed as the very foundation of the Church (Eph.2:20). Where Christian theism is concerned, nothing is more important to this system of truth than the sacred Scriptures, which provide the very foundation of her existence.

When I say that Scripture is itself sufficient for faith and practice, what exactly do I mean? I mean that sacred Scripture gives the Church and the individual all they need in order to carry on a life that is pleasing to God in the highest form. Nothing more is necessary. The Scripture is sufficient to that end. Paul, writing to the Thessalonian Church said this, “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).” Scripture was given to perform a work in us. Louw-Nida defines this word as “to be engaged in some activity or function, with possible focus upon the energy or force involved—‘to function, to work, to be at work, practice.’

The Westminster Confession states it this way, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.” [WCF I.vi] This point was made in contradistinction to Roman Catholic claims of tradition as well as Anabaptist mysticism. Neither tradition nor mystical experiences are necessary for faith and practice.

Paul tells Timothy explicitly, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:14-15). The sacred Scriptures bring salvation to the whole person. Every part of human existence is redeemed, saved, made whole by the teachings of sacred Scripture. What more do we require? What more could we ask for?

Paul continues, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). According to Paul, nothing more is needed outside of Scripture to equip the saints for every good work. The Word of God is sufficient to perform its predetermined work in our lives and in the life of the body of Christ. Here Paul says that the purpose of Scripture is to equip the believer for every good work. There are no good works required of God that Scripture is not sufficient to equip us to perform. “It signifies that without exception (πᾶν, “every,” in the sense of every kind) God has equipped “the person of God” to do what is “good,” i.e., what he has indicated in his scripture should be done, since he himself is the norm of all good.” [Knight, The Pastoral Epistles]

To be sure, even those gifts mentioned in the text of Scripture itself, to include offices and experiences were all given for our own equipping. They were not events that happened to individuals without any relation to the overarching purpose of their record in the sacred writings. Every revelation in Scripture was given, not solely for the benefit of the purpose receiving, but for our benefit as well. In fact, I would argue that every revelation of Scripture was given primarily for us, not the individual having the experience. The latter would always be of secondary concern.

If one accepts the view of Scripture as both necessary and sufficient, the question then arises what are the consequences of this position on the standard Pentecostal/continuationist view of tongues and prophecy. I think we can talk about this briefly to see if the modern claims of tongues and prophecy are coherent with the reformed or conservative view on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Most scholars readily admit that NT tongues were actual languages. I am not going to argue with the counterclaim to this because it is entirely without merit, reason, and especially sound exegesis. In addition, modern studies reveal that modern tongues practiced in Pentecostal theology are not actual languages. Therefore, if one is going to claim that this modern phenomenon is linked to the NT Church, they will have to find another way. The way to approach this difficulty, according to some, is to view modern tongues as this private prayer language mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:2. However, the context of this chapter would not support the view that this phenomenon is the same as that witnessed in Pentecostal circles today. This is because the tongues mentioned in 1 Cor. 14 can be interpreted. We see this in verse 13 where Paul says that the one who uses this language must also pray that he can interpret it. Only real languages can be interpreted. Some argue that this a code-like language similar to a computer code. Others confess that the modern phenomenon is not the same as NT tongues, but that does matter because the experience is similar. Suffice it to say, there is not one shred of biblical support for such subjective and nonsensical arguments. From this we conclude that NT tongues were always either understood by those who spoke that language, or they were capable of being interpreted into the language of the community. This means that NT tongues were in fact always an actual language.

In light of this, while NT tongues, properly interpreted, and prophecy may have been valuable while God was in the process of giving what has come to be known as His final revelation in Scripture, it is difficult to understand, in the light of the sufficiency of Scripture, how these gifts would hold value once that revelation had been finalized.

If a person prophesies, we are told, that that prophecy is tested with Scripture. This raises the question as to why I need prophecy today if I already have a sure word from God. If I already have a Word from God about which I AM certain, why would I need a word from God about which I might not be certain? And if that prophecy simply tells me something that Scripture already tells me, why do I need it at all? I already have it in the form of Scripture. Is it possible that it is the perceived supernatural experience that excites me more than the Word from God? That is a good question. If tongues with its interpretation and prophecy are merely telling me something that Scripture already tells me, they are completely superfluous and unnecessary. I have a fixed word from God that is sufficient. I don’t need someone to tell me the same thing under some supposed ecstatic spell if you will.

On the other hand, if tongues and its interpretation along with prophecy are actually telling me something new, then we must presume we need whatever it is God is telling us. And if we need this new word from God, then Scripture is fact not sufficient. This is a serious problem for anyone arguing for continuationism while also trying to maintain the reformed position on the sufficiency of Scripture. It is as I have argued before, the revelational speaking gifts are either superfluous or they are destructive of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

What Steve Hays and others should consider is that the prophecies and tongues along with their proper interpretation that we are discussing, were actually used to give the Church the word of God that they had not yet heard (or maybe they had heard some of it) but would come to be inscripturated in God’s time. In other words, NT Scripture and perhaps OT Scripture being unavailable at the time to most of the Church, were being given by God through prophets, through prophecy, and through tongues and its interpretation until the Church was given the most fixed Word from heaven. Part of the problem is that we so often presume that ancient NT prophecy and the speaking gifts were what we see in modern Pentecostalism. There is no reason to think this to be the case and every reason to think, as I have argued, given the transition period of the NT Church, that the situation was much more reasonable and much closer to the situation I describe. It is also quite reasonable to think that some prophets were endowed with the ability to remember what they had heard from an apostle elsewhere and they in turn spoke those words under the movement of the Holy Spirit as a prophet was inclined to do. There are enough reasonable possibilities and probabilities at our fingertips that it seems hardly necessary to invent positions that result in a real threat to the authority, necessity, and sufficiency of Scripture.

Distinctions in Prophets or Prophecy and Revelation: Discussions with Hays

The saga continues with Steve Hays over at Triablogue on the subject of Pentecostal theology, revelations, and our ramblings on other matters. It is clear that Steve and I do not agree on these issues. In a recent blog, Steve introduced some new points that I think most people are likely to have a couple of questions on.

To support his claim that there is a distinction in the nature of prophecies, Hays refers us to Numbers 12:6-9. Hays explicitly tells us that this text was written to instruct us on the differences in Prophetic revelation and utterances. He says there is a broad distinction between verbal and visionary revelation. Hays further breaks down the visionary revelations into representational and allegorical visions. In addition, says Hays, “Allegorical visions employ figurative imagery. That makes them somewhat enigmatic.” It appears that Hays is telling us that God’s revelation to His prophets can be ambiguous, unclear.

The context of Numbers 12 is extremely important if we are to rightly understand what is taking place there. The whole point in Numbers 12 is one of sole authority. Moses had married a Cushite woman and his siblings, Aaron and Miriam did not approve. They both spoke against God’s prophet and God Himself convened a special conference between the three of them. The purpose of this conference was to point out the distinct calling, role, and relationship God had in Moses. The purpose of the meeting had nothing to do with different modes of revelation. It was all about the difference between Moses and all the rest of the prophets. Note that the rest of the prophets, except for Christ the prophet like unto Moses, are in the same category. Hays lifts this text out of its proper context in order to prop up a position that Scripture really does not prop up itself. This shows that if there is a distinction between OT prophets and NT prophets, Hays must look elsewhere to establish it. I wonder if Hays considers John the Baptist an OT prophet. Surely he was one.

Hays then asserts that judging prophecies in the NT was quite different from judging them in the OT. This is no doubt true. However, I am not sure that Deut. 18:15-22 is the best text to compare with 1 Cor. 14:29 given its Messianic nature. Nevertheless, we expect there to be differences between the consequences of false prophecies given the fact that they were under two different covenants. The concept of judging any prophetic utterances is present in both texts. Secondly, we cannot ignore the fact that prophetic utterances in the NT were not always predictive in nature. Hence, judging such prophecies would take on a different standard. Nevertheless, if a NT prophecy happened to be predictive, why would we expect judging the integrity of such a prophecy to be any different from one in the OT? Hays does not provide any exegetical or rational justification for his position.

Hays then accuses me of being egalitarian by attempting to connect Philip’s prophesying daughters with apostolic authority. Apparently, because I believe that God’s word is binding and authoritative regardless of who said it, that means that I somehow collapse the biblical principle of male leadership. I confess that this point is difficult to take seriously. It doesn’t matter if the Devil himself passed on a word that was actually God’s word, it would absolutely be no less authoritative and binding. The authority of Scripture or revelation does not rest in the apostolic office. It rests in God Himself. That Philip had four virgin daughters that prophesied is very interesting, but we know very little about the details of this situation. God deliberately made the decision not to give us more facts around this piece of history. Nevertheless, Hays statement that I am egalitarian because of my views regarding OT and NT prophets being without any material difference is just that, a statement. It is not an argument and it does not contain an argument. The fact remains that when anyone brings us the Word of the Lord, that Word is authoritative not because of the one bringing it, but because of what it is by nature, the Word of the Lord.

Finally, Hays points us back to Agabus, arguing that several scholars “defend the veracity of Agabus.” I have responded to Hays’s reference to Agabus already. Apparently he has refused to consider my view. Perhaps he will hear Polhill’s comments, “This was not so much a warning on Agabus’s part as a prediction. Unlike the Christians of Tyre, he did not urge Paul not to go. Rather, he told him what was in store for him. This was all the more certain when one considers the nature of such prophetic acts in the Old Testament. The act itself set into motion the event it foretold. It established the reality of the event, the certainty that it would occur. Agabus’s act prepared Paul for the events to come and assured him of God’s presence in those events.” [Polhill, NAC, Acts] There is no reason to think that Agabus was counseling or advising Paul against going to Jerusalem. That is an unjustified imposition on the text.

In summary, Hays’s categories for prophecy, while interesting and intellectually stimulating fail to find support in the text. Numbers 12 has been wrenched out of context and used to support an argument it was clearly not intended to support. The subject was the distinct nature of God’s relationship and use of His servant Moses.

Second, the Word of God is not infused with authority by the apostles. It is exactly the opposite. My use of Scripture no more entitles me to apostolic or eldership authority any more than it would have Philip’s daughters. Hays’s egalitarian charge is reduced to absurdity.

Last, Hays’s interpretation of Agabus is far wide of the mark. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Agabus was issuing advice, counsel or even a warning. Luke records this event and the words of Agabus as a straightforward prophecy in a very similar fashion to OT prophecies. Any attempt to say that Paul played fast and loose with Agabus prophetic utterance is a gross misunderstanding and misreading of a text that is fairly easy to interpret as far as I can tell.

The back and forth of this discussion is not necessarily a bad thing. Healthy, respectful dialogue on subjects like this in the Spirit of Christian charity and out of a concern for Christian truth and within the confines of the Christian ethic can be extremely productive. I am a bit uneasy about the tone of these discussions. I especially worry about my tone. I know my passion for truth can sometimes come across as proud and arrogant. And no doubt, I am guilty of those dispositions at times. In our passion for Christian truth, we sometimes forget that our first aim is to serve our Christian brothers and sisters. Our goal, after all, is to convince others of the truth that we are convinced us because we think it is in their best interest to embrace it and because it honors our Lord. We do little to advance the Christian message when our desire to win an argument eclipses our sincere love for each other and for God’s truth. Not only is the Christian community looking on to see how we treat one another, so too is the world.