The Gift of Prophecy

Limitations of Prophecy

In spite of its significance and unequivocal connection with Old Testament prophetic tradition, Paul was equally clear that prophecy had its limitations: ⁸¹ GOP 179.4

Where there are prophecies, they will cease; . . . we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears . . . Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known (1 Cor. 13:8-12, NIV [1984]). GOP 179.5

The knowledge that prophecy produces is at best partial information—a poor reflection in a mirror of the inexhaustible treasures of divine realities, both now and future. It presents an enigma/riddle (ainigmati). ⁸² This enigmatic indirectness compares to the limitations imposed by seeing God reflected through a mirror on the one hand with seeing God directly and clearly on the other—“face to face.” ⁸³ Through prophecy one does not see the thing itself but only its mirror image through an intermediary. There is often the need of a new orientation in order for prophecy to be fully grasped—as per Jesus explaining prophecies of the Messiah following His death and resurrection to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25, 44, 45). For this reason prophets didn’t always know themselves what was intended in their prophecies. ⁸⁴ Nor could prophets fully grasp the meaning of another prophet’s sayings. ⁸⁵ This partial enigmatic indirectness, however, in no way undermined either the prophecy’s truthfulness or the Holy Spirit’s integrity as the “Spirit of truth”. ⁸⁶ It was still in fact “a lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). GOP 180.1

Furthermore, prophecy requires evaluation and by implication, sifting (reception/rejection): “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” (1 Cor. 14:29). The word translated “pass judgment” is diakrinetōsan, which means to evaluate, judge, make a distinction between. While the verb has a wide range of meaning in Paul’s writings, ⁸⁷ in the immediate context, diakrinō connotes making a distinction between prophetic words—and by implication, between prophets. Using the same terminology, Paul earlier links the prophetic gift with the Holy Spirit-empowered gift of the discernment of prophecies: “He [the Spirit] gives one . . . the ability to prophesy. He gives someone else the ability to discern whether a message is from the Spirit of God or from another spirit” (1 Cor. 12:10, NLT). ⁸⁸ This discerning of the spirits is coupled to prophecy as its auxiliary, ⁸⁹ since prophecy needs checks. ⁹⁰ In another context where the value of the prophetic gift itself was either overly questioned or unappreciated altogether, Paul urges thoughtful evaluation: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:19-21). ⁹¹ GOP 180.2

If our analysis of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is accurate, then the evaluation, which Paul calls for, concerns the discerning of true prophecy from false and by implication, true prophets from false. From what source would a purported prophetic manifestation come—the Holy Spirit, the human spirit (i.e., self-initiated), or an evil spirit? ⁹² While there is no explicit warning of false prophets in Paul’s otherwise positive exposition of the prophetic gift, false prophets were nevertheless part of the first century spiritual landscape and very much tacit in his directive for evaluation. ⁹³ Evil spirits were at work in the New Testament congregations. ⁹⁴ The evaluation Paul envisioned was clearly between the true and false prophetic gift and not a different sort of evaluation of a different kind of prophecy. There was no Corinthian phenomenon of ordinary congregational prophecy where “each prophecy might have both true and false elements in it, and those would be sifted and evaluated for what they were” or where prophecy was “speaking merely human words to report something God brings to mind.” ⁹⁵ GOP 181.1

This conclusion is further nuanced by the organic connection between prophecy and revelation (1 Cor. 14:6). Holy Spirit engendered revelation precedes prophesying, and yet revelation is given utterance through the medium of prophecy. ⁹⁶ They are inseparable: simultaneous, yet sequential. Prophecy is based on receiving a revelation. ⁹⁷ A prophet may not always have a revelation for every moment and occasion, but is ever dependent on the moving of the Holy Spirit. ⁹⁸ Authentic Spirit-engendered prophecy does not reflect human initiative or resource. ⁹⁹ Unlike the gift of tongues, which apparently was a “once-in-a-lifetime” endowment and evidently could be used at will, ¹⁰⁰ prophets did not in the same way own the Spirit of prophecy in the sense of expecting to reproduce it at will. ¹⁰¹ They were ever dependent on Holy Spirit revelation. As noted above, such revelation, while partial and often enigmatic, would in no way undermine either the prophecy’s complete truthfulness or the Holy Spirit’s integrity as the “Spirit of truth.” ¹⁰² GOP 181.2

Again, there is no ordinary congregational prophecy envisioned here—where each prophecy might have both true and false elements in it or where the prophet merely shared in human terms something God had brought to mind. If the Holy Spirit was in fact facilitating the revelation, then the prophecy would be authentic (1 Cor. 12:11). But even if a given prophecy were authentic, it still needed evaluation—not because it communicated anything wrong, but because the presence of false prophets was ever a reality. GOP 182.1

As already noted, false prophets were part of contemporary culture and would come into the church as well. In the Corinthian community there evidently were some “who prided themselves on being prophets” (1 Cor. 14:37). ¹⁰³ This did not in any way mean that they were genuine prophets. The context seems to imply that these would-be prophets spoke on their own initiative and selfish motives rather than through genuine Holy Spirit revelation. The possibility of a congregation plagued by the commotion of competing prophets vying for attention and dominated by conceited members who refuse to listen to what others have been saying would not testify to genuine prophetic phenomenon, let alone the presence of God (verse 25). ¹⁰⁴ GOP 182.2

While authoritative, genuine New Testament prophets nevertheless would ever have an objective point of reference beyond the local congregation that would clarify both their authenticity and authority, i.e., Old Testament Scripture and apostolic writings: “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (verses 36-38). GOP 182.3

Two things come into view here. First, New Testament prophets serve in the context of their own place in the history of “the word of God”—the gospel of Christ. ¹⁰⁵ Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the extant apostolic unfolding of the mystery of the gospel prophesied therein provide an objective biblical and revelatory point of reference. ¹⁰⁶ There is a larger and prior revelatory oversight of historical authority and internal completeness against which inspired and revealed data is qualified and tested. The earlier tests the later. The hermeneutical horizon belongs exclusively to the biblical canon. GOP 182.4

Second, in some respect the prophets, at least at Corinth, served in the context of some kind of apostolic oversight. Did Paul anticipate this when he asserted that God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets (1 Cor. 12:28)? Was there some kind of contemporaneous answerability between apostles and prophets—not in terms of one being more important than the other, or one being more authoritative than the other, but that one [apostles] had some kind of leadership precedence over the other [prophets] in the founding and building up of the church and in affirming the biblical point of reference (which they themselves provided in their own writings) for evaluating the veracity and authority of the other [prophets]? ¹⁰⁷ The text is not clear. However, we know that even genuine prophets were to be evaluated. We know too that Paul challenged Corinth’s prophets and asserted parameters regarding their place in worship. GOP 182.5

This engagement of fellow prophets by Paul in no way suggests differing kinds of prophecy with differing levels of authority. ¹⁰⁸ If the Holy Spirit did inspire both, then there would be no hierarchy or degree of inspiration and revelation. There might have been, though, a hierarchy of practical relevance, i.e., apostles and prophets building and supervising the larger church’s missional movement, and prophets relating to more regional congregational nurture. ¹⁰⁹ If this diversity of roles did exist, it would not change the hermeneutical hierarchy of earlier revealed and inspired sources of the Hebrew Scriptures, to which the apostles themselves were accountable. Nor would it change how the apostles themselves eventually became part of those very determinative sources in terms of New Testament literature. That an apostle could challenge a fellow prophet may be the reason that, in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul refers to “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13; cf. Rev. 2:2). Being a prophet was not enough if Paul kept focus on the Lord’s command (1 Cor. 14:37). Again, the text is not clear on such a possible limitation of prophecy. GOP 183.1

Finally, while the gift of prophecy is potentially available to all—because every believer receives the Holy Spirit ¹¹⁰—only a few will actually be so used. This is the nature of spiritual gifts. Not all receive the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 12:29). What is meant, then, by “you can all prophecy one by one”? “ ¹¹¹All” here does not mean that everyone has this gift. Rather it refers either to (1) those who do have the gift and how they are to handle themselves in a community worship context (i.e., apostolic coworkers); or (2) a hypothetical situation in that Paul is simply showing how even if everyone were to have the gift—for which he invites all of them to earnestly seek ¹¹²— everything needs to be done in an orderly fashion and for the edification of the body. The fact that some erroneously thought they had the prophetic gift suggests that not everyone actually had it, including those who so thought they might (1 Cor. 14:36-38). GOP 183.2