προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι
διακρινέτωσαν·
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment