The Gift of Prophecy 101

Posted on October 11, 2010 by | 2 comments

by Scott

On Sunday at Cornerstone, after a few weeks of visiting speakers, I continued on from my introduction to the gifts of the Spirit. I began what will be a two-Sunday series on the gift of prophecy, maybe something like seminars entitled Prophecy 101 and Prophecy 102.

You can listen to the message by clicking on the icon below, or you can download from Cornerstone’s podcast site or iTunes.

For those interested, the major thrust of my message can be found in the article below.

There are five terms I specifically discussed:

1) Revelation

At times, in discussing this word amongst varying Christians, there are two unhelpful perspectives that I believe can arise from the term revelation. They are as follows:

a) Super-scary

This comes with regards to some ideas about the book of Revelation. The Greek word for revelation is apokalupsis, and it’s where we get our word apocalypse. And that word apocalypse brings up all sorts of unhelpful images, with a special thanks to Hollywood in recent decades.

Oddly enough, the word apokalupsis or revelation simply means an unveiling or an uncovering. As an illustration, it’s quite like being present at a theatre play and awaiting the beginning scene of the play. The curtains are drawn closed and everyone is chattering away with anticipation of the opening scene. And, at the first sound of the pit orchestra, the curtains open and the crowd sees the beautiful and intriguing set designed on stage, the cast of characters beginning with a great dance, etc. With that, we just had an unveiling, an uncovering.

The same is true of God’s revelation. When God reveals, He is pulling back the curtain, if you will, for us to see.

b) Super-spiritual

Some Christians hold that God is no longer revealing Himself (they might term it as no more ‘special’ revelation) because we now have all of God’s revelation fully and finally recorded within the canon of Scripture. The Bible is the final measuring stick for the beliefs and practises of the church and, thus, God no longer speaks and specifically reveals Himself. But I have three minor points to bring up about God revealing Himself today.

a) No new redemptive revelation.

I would agree with just about every evangelical Christian that God is no longer bringing forth new redemptive revelation. To claim such is dangerous. Well, it’s heretical. We believe that Jesus Christ and his work alone is the final word on God’s redemptive plans for all peoples. To that, there is nothing to add. As Paul said, if we preach another gospel than the finished work of Christ and, well, one will be cursed (Gal 1:8-9).

b) God has always been speaking and acting outside the Bible.

As I always make sure I communicate, I recognise that the Bible stands as the measuring stick for our faith and the practice of our faith. And, within the the text, we find a very thorough account of all God has said and done from the beginning until the first century. We truly know this is God’s inspired word.

But, of course, the Scripture does not record every word and act of God, does it? A couple of small examples are found in 1 Sam 10:10-13 and 1 Tim 1:18-19. In the first, we find Saul empowered by the Spirit prophesying amongst a group of prophets. What they said was not recorded in Scripture. But there is no doubt that, as prophecy, it would have been Spirit-inspired utterance. In the second example, we read of Paul reminding Timothy of the prophetic words that were made about him and that ‘by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience’. In both situations, we would have found Spirit-inspired prophecy. But in neither case do we find those prophetic, and revelatory, words recorded in Scripture. The event is mentioned, but not the specific words. And that is quite ok. God has been doing it ever since the beginning and He will keep doing so until all things are completed in Christ.

c) God speaks and reveals today.

As all would note, nothing that God speaks and reveals today would contradict the tenor of Scripture summed up in Christ and the gospel. Such is out of bounds, for we are convinced Scripture is the word of God.

And, so, one way that God still speaks today is through Scripture. Some refer to this as illumination, which is a helpful term. But some use it over and above the term revelation, for they are convinced God no longer does it. But both terms do refer to God unveiling Himself, making Himself known to His creations. It’s just that the term illumination centres around light. And revelation also has to do with light, because revelation helps us see better. So I believe the terms are connected, kind of semantical cousins.

Now, when I say God speaks through Scripture, I do mean that He speaks from the God-breathed words that are right there in the text. But I also believe that He utilises those same words, at times, to speak things that were not intended within the text. I will give you one example from my own life. One day, as I was reading Jesus’ words in Matt 6:21 – For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. – I understood that Jesus was speaking in the context of challenging people that they cannot have two masters. Such is impossible. But, as I was meditating on the passage, God said to me, ‘Scott, this is true of me as well. Where my treasure is, there my heart is also. And my people are my treasures, and, therefore, my heart is with them.’

God utilised Scripture to speak to me. It wasn’t something ‘in between the lines’. But God definitely used what was already there to reveal more of His heart to me. Now, sure, I could have also received that from reading Psalm 139 or other passages. But God took the text I was meditating on and spoke to me right then and there. Of course, many a folk claim this, with some of it being quite off-base. But there are some guidelines that can prove helpful, of which I have shared a bit here.

Still, I also believe very much that God speaks and reveals Himself ‘outside’ of what is in the Bible. Again, the Bible is the measuring stick for such revelation and that which is truly from God will not contradict that summation of Scripture in Christ. But the reality is that God is a relational and living God, and relational and living beings actually communicate. It’s part and parcel to being relational. I cannot imagine God not speaking, not revealing, not unveiling. It’s at the core of who He is. So God will and does speak, even if there is no verse and chapter number to quote.

2) New revelation

The big question I always get asked is: Is this new revelation?

I have talked about this already above, but I would say there is absolutely no new redemptive revelation. Again, Christ and his work are the final word on that. Such is a closed chapter. But, with regards to God speaking into our lives, our situations, our churches, even the nations today, I am ok to recognise it as ‘new’. Why? Because our lives, situations, churches, etc, are not detailed in Scripture. God didn’t speak about Scott Lencke in Scripture. God did not speak about Cornerstone in Scripture. God did not speak about 21st century Belgium in Scripture. Of course, that which is in Scripture speaks into all three of those. But not in a detailed sense. And I find God still regularly speaks, with detail, into those areas of real life.

3) Prophet

I didn’t spend a long time on this, but I did give what I believe is a solid, working definition of a prophet: one who received and brought forth a direct, inspired, revelatory message from God.

Now, some of these prophets, especially in the Old Testament, were given the amazing, special and authoritative privilege of having their words recorded in the Scripture. And for that every Christian is thankful for their God-inspired words in the Bible. But, of course, not every prophet had their words recorded in Scripture. But, such people were still utilised in direct, inspired, revelatory messages from God, with this ministry continuing into the new covenant era (i.e. Agabus, those in Corinth, those in Antioch in Acts 13:1-3, Philip’s daughters, etc), and I am very much convinced it still continues today.

4) Prophetic community

I have shared about this a lot, but, suffice it to say, because the Spirit of prophecy was to be poured out on all God’s people as of Pentecost, we now have a prophetic community in the whole body of Christ. When Peter stood up on that great day, he quoted some words from Joel’s prophecy:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18)

The reality is that now, male and female, young and old, are part of the prophetic community of all believers. We don’t simply have the priesthood of all believers, but we now also have the prophethood of all believers. I share much more in this article.

5) Prophecy

Finally, I began to touch on the gift of prophecy. There is much more to share next Sunday (and, thus, in another post here). But here are a few things I shared thus far.

I believe there are two misunderstandings about prophecy:

a) Prophecy is mainly about prediction.

I am not a fan of the word prediction because it makes one think of fortune telling and palm reading, which is, of course, very dangerous. I would rather use the term forth telling. And, yes, God forth tells things to come. Such is right through the Bible, and I have known such today as well. But prophecy isn’t always about saying something to the effect of: In the next week, events A, B and C will take place in your life. Why? Because the goal is not prediction. The goal is summarised fairly by Paul in these words:

On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. ( 1 Cor 14:3)

Prophecy could include forth telling from God, of directives and things to await with regards to ‘the future’. But that is not the central core of prophecy. Prophecy is God unveiling His plans, His purposes, His ways, His heart for the upbuilding, encouragement and consolation of His people.

b) Prophecy is mainly about rebuke.

This is another misnomer for some. Again, a quick glance at 1 Cor 14:3 reminds us of one central goal with prophecy. It doesn’t mean that prophecy is merely a pat on the back with a, ‘You’ll be ok. Hang in there.’ At times, prophecy will involve correction and rebuke. But even in rebuke and correction, such comes forth with the ultimate goal of seeing people strengthened, edified and built up. This is in line with Paul’s earlier words about the purpose of all gifts of the Spirit:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (1 Cor 12:7)

Therefore, I would say a helpful and good working definition for prophecy is this: a Spirit-inspired, intelligible, verbally delivered message intended to edify, encourage and comfort other believers. I’ve seen this happen on a regular basis for the past 12 years of my life in Christ and I would never, ever be moved from seeing it as something foregone, ending a long time ago with the finished product of our canon of Scripture. And I have not only known prophecy and revelation to come forth today, but I have also known the true fruit to come from it, that of upbuilding, strengthening, encouragement, exhortation and the common good.

2 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, audio, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, God speaking, prophecy, prophet, revelation, sermons

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Wayne Grudem on Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5

Posted on October 1, 2010 by | Leave a comment

by Scott

Many people who have spent time studying pneumatology and the gifts of the Spirit will probably be aware of Wayne Grudem and the works he has written around such topics. Grudem believes the charismata gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 still exist today. He is one of the many ‘theologically-minded’ and scholarly Christians now standing as advocates for these gifts of the Spirit. Others are Sam Storms, John Piper, Gordon Fee, Mark Driscoll, Jack Deere, and many other such people.

Though one can get a taster of his theological stance on the gifts of the Spirit in his Systematic Theology (pgs1016-1088), another of his writings, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, gives a much more in-depth treatment of the gift of prophecy, as you would expect from such a title.

Though the book definitely stands as an evangelical stalwart for study on the gift of prophecy, I believe the book fails to incorporate the full biblical teaching on prophecy, as well as the nature of apostles and prophets. I want to deal with one area where I believe his work has some shortcomings. This revolves around his discussion on New Testament apostles. With this specific matter, Grudem offers what I believe is faulty exegesis on the passages of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5. You can see his discussions in chapter 2 of the book (pgs45-47), as well as in his Appendix 6 (pgs329-436). Remember, this is in the revised edition from 2000. I don’t believe earlier copies have Appendix 6.

Before analysing some of his words, let’s quote the two biblical passages. I shall give a little bit of context around these verses up for discussion:

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-22)

4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (Eph 3:4-6)

What does Grudem teach about New Testament apostles and prophets by looking at these two Scriptures? The two bullet points below are a summary of his thoughts:

  • New Testament apostles are equal to the Old Testament prophets in their authority. Therefore, these two groups, NT apostles and OT prophets, are the authoritative recorders of Scripture.
  • Subsequently, New Testament prophets have much less authority than New Testament apostles.

In discussing the two Ephesians texts, Grudem gives four possibilities of how to understand the roles of apostles and prophets in the New Testament. Those possibilities are below, with the emphasis being his own:

  1. the apostles and the Old Testament prophets
  2. the teaching of the apostles and New Testament prophets
  3. the apostles and New Testament prophets themselves
  4. the apostle-prophets themselves (that is, the apostles who are also prophets)

His conclusion is that the best interpretation can be found with the fourth option. For Grudem, from a New Testament perspective, these two verses in Ephesians teach that apostles and prophets are mainly one joint ministry rather than two distinguishable ministries. Such helps maintain his viewpoint that New Testament apostles are the authoritative writers of the New Testament while the prophets of the Old Testament era were the authoritative writers of the Old Testament.

Grudem goes on to state:

After considering these views…it seems best to me to conclude that Ephesians 2:20 has meaning 4, that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles who are also prophets,” and Ephesians 3:5 should be understood to mean that the mystery of the Gentile inclusion in the church “was not made to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles who are also prophets by the Spirit.” (p46)

But such a view only seems contrived to prove one’s point rather than to be carefully founded in exegesis of the Scripture. For starters, in every other place outside of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5, apostles and prophets are actually distinguished from one another. The two main places we see this distinction are:

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:11-13)

28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? (1 Cor 12:28-29)

One other major point Grudem brings up to try and prove that apostles and prophets are one group in both Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 is that, in both instances in, the definite article ‘the’ is found before the word apostle, but not before prophet. Thus, Paul is referring to one joint authoritative group, mainly apostle-prophets.

Theologian, Edmund Clowney, who oddly enough used to be Grudem’s seminary professor, and they maintain a great relationship to this day, answers Grudem in his own work:

The absence of the article before ‘prophets’ in Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 indicates, then, not that prophets are identical with apostles, but that they are closely linked with them since they, too, receive and communicate revelation. (The Church, p261, italics mine)

This makes perfect sense, for we see prophets carrying a very unique and important ministry amongst the body of Christ within the New Testament. Some examples are:

  • Acts 13:1-3 – Prophets utilised in the apostolic commissioning of Paul and Barnabas together.
  • Acts 15:22-35 – Following the Jerusalem council, Judas and Silas, who were prophets, accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their trip to Antioch. We read that these two were ‘leading men among the brothers’ (vs22) and of their strengthening role they had to the church (vs32). Noting that in vs32 we are told these two are prophets, we can assume that the verse is not simply telling us they were simply doing a little encouraging. But it is highly probable the strength and encouragement came out of their prophetic ministry. Not to mention Silas’ continued role in Paul’s apostolic-ministry team.
  • 1 Cor 12:28 – Though I am not up for pyramid-like leadership structures, we still get a sense of the important role prophets had from reading this verse – first apostles, second prophets, third teachers…
  • Eph 4:11-13 – Prophets are part of a team of ministries that are given by Christ to the church to help equip and prepare them for ministry. They have quite a significant role, along with apostles, evangelists, teachers and shepherds.

I’m not negating the role of apostles, nor would I even look to negate their primary role within the New Testament. But apostles never replaced prophets in any sense. They both existed alongside each other, as we find in the testimony of the New Testament itself. Prophets were foundation layers, in conjunction with apostles (hence Eph 2:20 and 3:5). Prophets were revelatory communicators, and still are.

Therefore, my conclusion is that apostles and prophets are two distinguishable ministries, yet both working together in an all-important, authoritative role within Christ’s body. For practical purposes today, this does not mean we add to the biblical canon, making their words the rule of faith for the entire body of Christ for all time. But, by His Spirit, God still utilises these ministries in relaying revelation from God. And such would make sense, for God has always been communicating even outside the bounds of the biblical canon. This was even taking place in biblical times as Scripture was being authored and inspired by God.

So, when God speaks today, it doesn’t mean we write 4 John or 3 Thessalonians or 1 Brussels. It simply means that, as people speak forth revelation (or what they claim as revelation), we learn to weigh it against Scripture, keep it before the leaders we are connected to, keep it before the wider body we are in relationship with, and pray for discernment. It doesn’t make it easy. But it makes us move towards becoming the men and women God desires His body to be – hearers of His word. How amazing to hear the living God through both His written revelation and through His spoken revelation.

Thus, in all, though I do believe I understand the desire of Wayne Grudem to uphold the importance of the revelation of God as found in the trustworthy, God-breathed canon of Scripture, I do not believe that we faithfully accomplish this by somewhat watering down the role of prophets, claiming that apostles replaced prophets as the only authoritative revelatory communicators of the new covenant era. Nor can I agree with another major premise of his, mainly that God’s revelation can come to the mind (or spirit) with 100% accuracy, but by the time it is spoken from the mouth of humans today, it is no longer 100% accurate. But, hey, challenging that notion is for another day and another time. In all, I would call Grudem to rethink his exegesis of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5

Leave a comment

Posted in apostles, Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4 ministries, prophecy, prophet

Tagged , , , , , ,

A Simple Way God Spoke Through A Song

Posted on September 26, 2010 by | Leave a comment

by Scott

I thought I would share some music musings that I had originally posted over at The Prodigal Thought. I wanted to share a simple little story about an ol’ favourite singer of mine, a song that has been stuck in my head this week, and a little story of how God spoke to me through the song.

One of my favourite singers since I was a little toddler has been Kenny Rogers. Yes, Kenny Rogers! Now, I don’t listen to him on a regular basis today, but my ventures with Kenny Rogers all started when I was just a little tyke of a boy. I fell in love with his singing when he appeared on one of the Muppets episodes (not the Muppet Babies cartoons, but the real Muppet puppets). And my parents taped that one show (on a VHS tape) and I watched it constantly, continually, perpetually, even religiously. My parents regularly recall how I would always call out to them, ‘Mommy, daddy. Kenny Waagerrs and Mwuppwets! Kenny Waagerrs and Mwuppwets!’

I supposedly could not get enough. And I have vague memories of that one show with Kenny Rogers embedded deeply within me.

Well, interestingly enough, before I was to move to Brussels, Belgium, I had been involved with a guy’s prayer group on a weekly basis within our local church. A few weeks before I moved, the guys were specifically gathered around me, praying for my situation. I had shared how there were a lot of things going on with preparing to end out things in Memphis and preparing to head to Brussels. I was beginning to feel quite overwhelmed.

As the guys were praying for me, one of my good friends, Sam, spoke up and said something to the effect of: Scott, I don’t know if you know the Kenny Rogers song, The Gambler. But I really believe God wants to speak to you through the one line that says, ‘You’ve gotta know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.’
Sam went on to share how, in this time, there are things that I need to consider if they are worth holding onto or if it is simply better folding them and laying them down. Though you might laugh, and some might even mock at my suggestion that God could ever speak through such a song, it was quite a strengthening word given to me from a simple line from a simple song, a song from my favourite singer as a little tyke. I will always remember that evening as I gathered with a handful of guys for prayer. And who wouldn’t remember a time when God speaks like a two-edged sword into your life and situation?

So, lately I have been singing that song. And so, in tribute to my most-liked singer as a little boy, and in remembrance of that strengthening word before heading to Brussels, I post this video of The Gambler by Kenny Rogers.

Leave a comment

Posted in God speaking, music, Personal, prayer, prophecy, video

Tagged , , , , ,

Reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated: a humble response to Dean Gonzales

Posted on September 23, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Marv

What I liked best about The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues,  a blog series posted last year by Dr. Robert R. Gonzales, Jr., Dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary is the refreshing way that it takes the “humble” part seriously.  Dean Gonzales comports himself as a gentleman throughout, without the faintest whiff of ad hominem.  He also approaches the subject as a scholar, concentrating his argument on how best to understand the relevant scriptural texts.  In this he takes on Wayne Grudem’s position on prophecy, as laid out in The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. The fact that he chooses a worthy interlocutor such as Dr. Grudem is commendable.  As a whole Dean Gonzales takes an approach that ought to be widely emulated.

He is also clear.  He lays out his main thesis in a form of a syllogism, and backs it up with scriptural citation and logical discussion.  The syllogism reads as follows:

Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion: Therefore, tongues and prophecy have ceased.

Appreciative as I am of his approach, I am not, however, convinced by his argument.  It is a variation of a fairly conventional one, tying the term of charismata to that of the Canon.  In fact I have to object to his references to “scriptural-quality revelation.”  The Bible ascribes, I think, unique attributes to itself.  There is no other revelation, never has been, of equal “quality” to that of Scripture.

This is why the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, to which both Dean Gonzales and Reformed Baptist Seminary ascribe states that:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”

In multiple places Dean Gonzales makes reference to oral prophecy in the early New Testament church as “canonical.”  If this is so, I cannot see how to avoid the conclusion that not only the Holy Scripture, but also every genuine prophecy ever uttered would constitute the Canon.  The Confession, at least, would seem to limit canonicity to those prophecies that the Holy Spirit saw fit to inscripturate.

Similarly, the Bible warrants application of the term inspiration to the Scriptures, the written product of the Holy Spirit’s work.  Whether we are justified in using “inspired” for other manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7) is not readily obvious, to me at least, and his doing so tends to give Dr. Gonzales’ argument a certain circularity, assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, to the Confession, the Bible is the only “infallible” rule.  Contrary to the dean’s assertion or assumption and (perhaps) even Dr. Grudem’s understanding, even Old Testament oral prophecy was not “infallible” in the way that the Scriptures are.

If OT era prophecy were infallible, how could there be false prophecies?  I find it odd that verses such as Deut. 18:22 are often cited to suggest that OT era oral prophecy was inerrant or infallible, when it demonstrates precisely the opposite:

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

We are never similarly warned to watch out for “false Scriptures.”  In both the OT and the NT era, “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).  The Word of the Lord came to the prophet (Gen. 15:1, 1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Sam. 7:4).  In this last reference, Nathan received the Word of the Lord precisely because Nathan the prophet had spoken presumptuously to David earlier in the day (2 Sam. 7:3).  There is no great intertestamental shift involved that would allow for similarly presumptuous utterances in the NT era, such as the instructions to Paul not to go to Jerusalem, which he sees fit to ignore (Acts 21:4).

The OT prophet was responsible to report the Word of the Lord accurately, though he could fail to do so.  The Scriptures, on the other hand, by being theopneustos are guaranteed—certified to be the Word of the Lord.  They are thus of a quality above and beyond that of oral prophecy, in any era.  This is why Peter specifies “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20, emphasis mine).  The distinction of two levels of prophecy: “Scripture-quality” and otherwise, does not originate with Dr. Grudem, but is apostolic.

Now, one specific line of argument calls for special mention.  In his part seven he makes a point about the word “mystery” (μυστήριον), which at first blush gives an impression of decisiveness and may in fact be persuasive to many people.  Yet I’m afraid it does not hold up to scrutiny.

As he makes the point succinctly, I will simply quote him:

What I really want to call your attention to is the fact that according to 13:2 and 14:2 both prophecy and tongues reveal “mysteries.” The term “mysteries” is not referring to garbled nonsense. That term translates the same Greek word that Paul used in Ephesians 3 to speak of the canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets. And according to these passages in 1 Corinthians, these “mysteries” are “known” through the gift of prophecy (13:2) and they are “spoken” through the gift of tongues (14:2).

This argument fails in at least three ways:

1.  In bringing in Ephesians 3:3-9, Dean Gonzales commits a neat little fallacy known as “illegitimate totality transfer.”  The red flag that should tip us off to this is his phrase “the same Greek word that Paul used…to speak of…”  This is meant to imply that the Eph. 3 passage provides us the definition of the term μυστήριον, that is, that it refers to “canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets.”  But this semantic information is not carried by the single noun μυστήριον, but by an entire descriptive clause: “which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (v. 4).  This is not even a description of what a “mystery” in general is but specifically what Paul there calls “the mystery of Christ.”

The word “mystery” (μυστήριον) essentially denotes a “secret.”  The term was well known in the Greco-Roman world due to the plethora of “mystery religions” in which as part of the initiation, certain items of secret knowledge were imparted to the novice.  The practice has survived to this day in the arcana of societies such as the Freemasons, who possess a convoluted mythology which members are forbidden to reveal to outsiders.

Dean Gonzales simply overloads the word with extraneous meaning, as if he had reached into Eph. 3 with sticky fingers and pulled away half the context along with the noun.  Looking elsewhere, we come away with a more Ockham-friendly understanding that what μυστήριον conveys is the concept “secret” or something unknown or whose meaning is not easy to discern.

“As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (Rev. 1:20)

“But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.” (Rev. 17:7)

In these two cases the “mystery” is the secret to what the visionary imagery symbolizes.  John saw some strange things, knew they meant something, but did not know what they meant, needed to have someone decipher them.

2.  This is what is happening in 1 Cor. 14:2.  Paul is pointing out that a message given in a tongue sounds strange to the hearers, who know it means something, but do not know what it means, and cannot know unless there is someone who can decipher them.

Paul gives us no excuse for not understanding this, because he restates his point multiple times. Verse 2 alone makes Paul’s meaning clear: the problem with one giving a message in tongues in the church assembly, the problem is “no one understands him.” Then he restates his point: “but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”

Dean Gonzales states that by “mystery” Paul is “not referring to garbled nonsense,” but the issue is not nonsense versus meaningfulness, but meaning that is hidden versus meaning that is known. That by “mystery” here Paul means a message with hidden meaning (due to being in a foreign language) is evident from the many ways he says it:

“…speaks not to men but to God” (2)

“no one understands” (2)

“speech that is not intelligible” (9)

“speaking into the air” (9)

“I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.” (11)

“when he does not know what you are saying?” (16)

In short, the meaning of the word “mystery” in 1 Cor. 14:2 is made so abundantly clear within the context of the chapter itself, that giving preference to examples in remote context, theologically rich though they be, does not make exegetical sense.

3.  In 1 Cor. 13:2, Paul is talking about prophecy, not tongues, and so the concept of unintelligibility is not the issue.  Indeed, here he is making reference to “secrets” in the sense of deep, hidden, unrevealed knowledge.  This is clear because of his parallel of “all mysteries” and “all knowledge”:

“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge…”

But does this verse justify Dean Gonzales assertion that “Paul portrays NT prophecy as a revelatory gift by which the one who possess the gift comes to understand ‘all mysteries’”?  That Dean Gonzales would make such a claim is rather surprising in view of the fact that he knows perfectly well that in verses 13:1-3 Paul is engaging in hyperbole.  He argues as much within this very discussion: “Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” may simply be a form of hyperbole.”  Indeed, it is clearly hyperbole to suggest that any mortal human being would “understand all mysteries and all knowledge.”  This is a hypothetical gift of prophecy taken to the nth degree, not any reasonable expectation of what a given prophecy from a given church member would entail on a given Sunday.

Dean Gonzales then is very seriously overstating the nature of oral prophecy in the New Testament church.  It may well be opening up secrets of a sort.  Paul says as much in 1 Cor. 14:24-25:

“But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

But these secrets are not theological or doctrinal truths, hidden in the recesses of God’s eternal plan, things which, once revealed, find their place in God’s Canon, as a “prophecy of Scripture,” alongside the writings of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and John.  They are individual details of a particular person’s life, revealed to that person, through the Holy Spirit for “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Cor. 14:3) or else to convict regarding “concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8).

This is what Jesus does in John 4:17 when he says to the Samaritan woman:

“You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

To which she replies:

“Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.”

Jesus’ words to her, while perfectly true, and divinely authoritative, were for her specifically, not for the Canon, even though a few of the details occur as recorded speech within a canonical gospel.  Jesus told her more, things which are not reported by John, since the woman says Jesus “told me all that I ever did.”  They are important for her, but not “canonical” for the people of God.

On another occasion when Jesus gave a prophecy, he revealed future secrets of Peter’s life, but when asked about John’s life, Jesus said “what is that to you?”

Yet these are acts by which Jesus, prophesying through the Holy Spirit, spoke faith-enhancing words to individuals, none of which constituted temporary stand-ins for Scripture, the Canon being as yet incomplete.  Even these were not in the same class as Scripture, not “canonical.”

This brings us to the main problem with Dean Gonzales’ conclusion that prophecy ceased as the Canon closed: it contradicts the express teaching of Jesus.  Jesus prophesied, and intending that His church also would prophesy, He sent the Holy Spirit:

“Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:11-12)

“Whoever believes in” Jesus, is considerably broader than just those living prior to the close of the Canon.  Indeed, it has nothing to do with the Canon.

And Jesus did just as He said, pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, with the promise:

I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18)

The difference between OT era and NT era is not thus “canonical” versus “non-canonical”: there has always been this distinction.  It is not “infallible” versus “fallable,” since a prophet could always (though should never) speak presumptuously.  The significant difference, post Pentecost, is what we may call the “democratization” of prophecy.  In pouring the Spirit on “all flesh” so that even the most humble believer may prophesy, prophecy is no longer tied to the theocratic functioning of the nation of Israel.  While the prophet still has responsibility to speak the revelation accurately, there is, in the church, no death penalty for failure to do so.  In fact we are explicitly told “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1).  Our instruction is to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

“Good,” the apostle calls it, to which we may “hold fast.” This is not something to be rejected, but among the good works which we are told to stir up (Heb. 10:24) not to douse (1 Thes. 5:19).

That is the importance of Cessationist arguments such as Dean Gonzales’, to which, I respond, I hope, with equal respect and gentleness, yet with conviction that it does not teach what the Lord and the apostles in fact taught regarding prophecy and tongues.  To teach that prophecy and tongues have ceased in the Body of Christ, if in fact they have not ceased, is to discourage our brothers and sisters from the good that Our Lord has intended them to do.  Therefore, any argument that they have ceased had better be significantly more decisive than the one we have been examining.

7 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, Acts 2, body of Christ, cessationism, church, continuationism, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, Holy Spirit, Jesus the prophet, John 13-17, Old Testament, Personal, prophecy, prophet, revelation, tongues

Four Questions For Worship Leaders

Posted on September 22, 2010 by | 1 comment

by Scott

As a musician and worship leader myself, I regularly look to give input into our music team and worship leaders at Cornerstone. Recently, I have been emphasising these four questions with our worship leaders as very important to ask as we lead both the music team and the congregation.

1) How is your intimacy in your own worship?

One thing I am very convinced of is that one cannot lead others where they have not been themselves. Of course, God is sovereign and can do as He so pleases. But it is much more difficult to lead people where we have yet been.

And so, we need to be intimately relating with our Lover, for we are His beloved. This is not so much about programmed quiet times or reading a certain amount of Scripture and praying a certain amount of time, though those things are not bad. But can you imagine a husband and wife always approaching one another in a programmed way? It would not work very well. The two typically want to simply be with one another, listen, talk, laugh, etc. And it usually is very spontaneous instead of programmed. Yes, study the Word. Yes, have specific prayer focus. But also be spontaneously and freely intimate with Him.

One way to grow in this as musicians and worship leaders is with our own instruments and voices. We are told in 1 Samuel 16:16 that David was ‘a man who is skillful in playing the lyre’. The word for skillful in the original Hebrew is yada, which refers to being knowledgeable and acquainted with. David knew his instrument with intimacy. Hence, why this man was able to intimately worship Yahweh.

We are called to worship God as intimate lovers. It is our great privilege. And our intimacy can be expressed through music and voice, whether on the guitar, with the piano, with a snare drum, with the voice, or with a CD on in the background.

2) Are you leading the team and the people?

As leaders, we have a responsibility to lead. It sounds simple, but we have to lead. Of course we need to guard against acting as Levitical priests completely responsible for administering the presence of God to people. Some churches lean too far that way. We are all called to maturity. But, in our worship leading, we are called to serve both our musicians and the congregation by leading them. Leading is an opportunity to serve.

So, practically, we can lead with hand signals and with specific statements into the microphone for all to hear. Sheep like to be led, and so we have a great opportunity to lead. All the while, we are challenged to know the leading of God’s Spirit and to remain humble, especially steering clear of any manipulation in our worship gatherings.

3) How are the transitions between songs?

For some inexperienced teams, there might be a lack of wisdom of how to transition between songs, both musically and from a Spirit-led perspective. Hence, there might be a lot of complete stops with no smooth flow from one song into another. Of course, there is no legalism here. But solid flow between songs, however that might look in varying situations, can help maintain a corporate focus of worship.

Remember, leading worship is an opportunity to serve the body. And what might seem like a small thing as transition between songs can go a long way in serving the body. Can you imagine how helpful it would be if the congregation is in a deep place of worship and the music team transfers nice and smoothly from one song to the next? Now imagine the opposite? Though a smooth transition might go unnoticed by many who are not musicians, it will definitely be a blessing and help to the corporate gathering, even if that blessings lies in the background.

Of course, there will be times when it is appropriate to completely stop at the end of a song. Such scenarios might be: 1) a big ending to a song of celebration, 2) a needed time of stillness and silence to hear God or 3) a possible key change that does not flow well between one song to the next and so we end the song before beginning the next one. But this, too, is all part of considering smooth and helpful transitions between songs. A small practical aspect that can make a big difference.

4) What is God currently stirring and speaking to the church?

This is very paramount as leaders, whether one is involved in preaching-teaching the Word, leading worship, inviting the congregation to take of the bread and wine, to whatever aspect of leading within the corporate gathering. We definitely need to be aware of what God is currently saying and stirring.

So, for worship leaders, as songs are chosen, our great goal is not to choose our favourite songs or the newest song, though maybe such will connect into what God is already doing. But we need to learn to hear God. We must guard against being over-burdened with this responsibility. We serve a wise and sovereign God. Nevertheless, as leaders, we need to be regularly asking what God is currently stirring and saying.

What a blessing the simple choosing of songs can be as it links directly in to what God is particularly stirring within the larger context of the body.

Here we have an awesome opportunity – the love-worship relationship with our Father. And what a sobering responsibility – learning to lead the people of God in our corporate gatherings. I am grateful that our God is the initiator of the worship relationship. And I am grateful that God Himself is very interested in helping us grow as leaders in the corporate worship setting.

1 Comment

Posted in music, worship, worship leading

Tagged , ,