My wife teaches ESL at a local Junior High School. Her official role is to teach English to students who speak another language, but she always teaches so much more than just English. She teaches etiquette and ethics and critical thinking and … well … the list could go on. She is sometimes a teacher, sometimes a preacher, sometimes a momma to these students. She goes from one role to another seamlessly. It’s like breathing to her.
What is Prophecy
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2)
A key argument hierarchists make is that there is a substantial difference between a prophet and a teacher so that a woman can be one, but not the other. This separation is necessary because women were undeniably allowed to be prophets, both in the old and new testamental periods.
In order to uphold a ban on women as preachers, the hierarchists must compartmentalize the work of the prophet in such a way that it allows her to hold the title, without the privileges and authority normally assumed with the title (when men hold it).
Schreiner argues that prophecy differed from teaching in that “prophecy is based on spontaneous revelation (1 Corinthians 14:29-33a), while teaching is an exposition of received revelation.” [144]
Schreiner’s definitions of prophecy and teaching are too narrow. In an oversimplification of the prophetic task, Schreiner has constructed a false dichotomy between prophecy and teaching.
The Old Testament Hebrew prophets often interpreted the tradition of their community and discerned the cultural climate in order to speak divine truth.
Schreiner is a capable New Testament scholar. However, in analyzing the role of the prophet, I would appeal to some of the most capable Old Testament scholars.
Walter Brueggemann, for instance, writes that “the general phenomenon of prophecy in Israel is enormously diverse in its many manifestations. Any generalization about prophecy is likely to fail to comprehend the data …” [145]
Abraham Heschel concurs as he writes that the prophet is not only a prophet, “he is also poet, preacher, patriot, statesman, social critic, moralist.” [146]
Schreiner bases his differentiation between prophet and teacher on the idea that the teacher interprets existing material, whereas the prophet delivers new and spontaneous utterances directly from God.
There is no doubt that the prophet saw himself as the mouthpiece of God, and at times, experienced ecstatic states of consciousness in which he heard a word directly from God, or saw a vision of God. [147]
However, this was not the only (or even primary) means of accomplishing the prophetic task.
Merrill Unger reminds us that “the prophets— particularly those like Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah—frequently appear in the role of social and political reformers, revivalists and stirring preachers of righteousness in addition to being prognosticates of judgment or blessing as the occasion demanded.” [148]
Foretelling, then, was not the foremost work of the prophets. In fact, anything that the prophets said about the future was firmly tied to the present.
Again, Unger correctly notes that prophetic prognostication “was a preview of the future arising from the exigencies of the present, either to warn the impious of judgment or to encourage the faithful in perseverance. [149]
And Gerhard van Rad notes that it is obvious that on occasion the prophets were dependent on ancient traditions which they interpreted and presented in new and fresh ways. [150]
In this sense, the Old Testament prophets were the preachers and teachers of their day, interpreting anew the core values that the community had once embraced, but had long forgotten.
For instance, much of Moses’ work as a prophet was simply to remind the people of who they were and who their God was – after 400 years of slavery, they had forgotten their identity as children of the one true God. [151]
The evidence shows that Schreiner’s view of prophecy as only that which is spontaneous and never expository or interpretive is one-dimensional and erroneous.
This is not to say that the words of the prophets found in the canon of Scripture are not inspired by God. Only that God inspired the prophets in multiple ways, and contrary to Schreiner, one of those ways was through the interpretation of earlier traditions (existing material).
Unger rightly concludes that “it is a gross error” to make spontaneous utterances the predominant element in Hebrew propheticism. [152]
Walter Brueggemann suggests that prophets were often inspired by God in much the same way a poet might be. Brueggemann reminds us that Jeremiah, for instance, was “a man called and sent as a speaker of words with poetic passion and stunning imagination.” [153]
In other words, the inspirational message came as a combination of God’s Spirit and the intellect, perception, wisdom, and creative talents of the prophet.
John Skinner, in summarizing the prophets’ consciousness of authority and the nature of that authority, states that the prophets were not only conscious of being God’s messengers to the nation of Israel, but they also “appear to have been endowed with remarkable insight into the providential significance of the political events of their time.” [154]
Therefore, for the Old Testament prophet, the authority of the message was founded on a combination of the following: they believed that God spoke through them, they exhibited a brilliant ability to interpret history, tradition, and national events, they articulated their thoughts in compelling language, and their work eventually became canon (i.e., others eventually came to see them as authoritative).
The Old Testament Versus New Testament Prophets
Finally, Schreiner contends that the Old Testament and New Testament prophets were different because the Old Testament prophets were considered authoritative, and the New Testament prophets were not. [155]
Here Schreiner appeals to the work of Wayne Grudem. who argues that the successors to the Old Testament prophets were the apostles, not the New Testament prophets. [156]
I will argue that he bases his thesis, in part, on a misreading of Ephesians 5:20, however, even if Grudem were correct, he would then have to deal with the fact that women were also Apostles (see Junia, Romans 16:7).
Contrary to Grudem, Paul clearly makes a distinction between apostles and prophets. In Ephesians 5:20, it is possible that Paul is speaking about the Old Testament prophets that predicted the coming of the Messiah, but he is certainly not equating apostles to prophets, as Grudem contends.
Grudem also bases his thesis on the idea that “prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human – and sometimes partially mistaken – report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.” [157]
Grudem points to Paul’s exhortation to the church to test every prophesy (1 Thess. 5:20-21; 1 Cor. 14:29-33a), while contending that the Old Testament prophet underwent no such discernment process.
According to Grudem, “Old Testament prophets spoke the word of the Lord and what they said was absolutely authoritative – no part of it could be questioned or challenged.” [158]
Grudem, like Schreiner, is a careful and thoughtful New Testament scholar but is simplistic and unrealistic in his assessment of the Old Testament.
Brueggemann points out that the Old Testament prophet went through scrutiny very similar to that which Paul prescribes for the New Testament Church. [159] There was a stiff penalty for the prophet who missed even one prophecy (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22).
Grudem, however, erroneously points to this as the only criteria for judging a prophet and concludes from this that the Old Testament Prophet could never be challenged. [160] This is not substantiated by the Old Testament record.
Judging a prophet’s prognostic word based on Deuteronomy 13 proved difficult in reality. Many prophecies were for the distant future and came to fruition long after the prophet (and his contemporary listener) was dead.
Therefore, “the vexing question of how to determine true and false prophets” was very much on the minds of the Old Testament leaders. Brueggemann points to Deuteronomy 13:1-6 as an alternative criterion for judging true prophecy. [161]
The biblical writers clearly saw the weakness in depending only on the fruition of the prophetic utterance for discernment, and therefore, directed the listeners to theological substance as the primary criterion for judging between true and false prophets.
This was a process very similar to that which Paul prescribed for the Thessalonians, and which the Bereans used quite naturally (1 Thess. 5:20-21; Acts 17:11).
Grudem, therefore, is in error when he contends that the Old Testament prophets were above scrutiny.
In fact, often the words of the prophets were despised rather than revered. The Israelites frequently disobeyed Old Testament prophets like Samuel, Elisha, and Jeremiah, to name only a few, even when their proclamations were delivered with the claim to be the very words of the Lord (e.g., 1 Sam. 13:8-14; Jer. 36:1-32).
Amos’s preaching in Bethel aroused such opposition that he had to flee for his life (Amos 7:10-17). Jeremiah could hardly be characterized as one who enjoyed authoritative status in Israel. His audience disobeyed him, despised him, rejected him, beat him, and imprisoned him because of his prophetic ministry (e.g., Jer. 11:18-23; 12:6; 18:18; 20:1-3; 26:1-24; 37:11-38:28).
According to Jewish tradition, some prophets like Isaiah were tortured and assassinated (cf. 1 Kings 18:13). Jesus recalled that Israel had consistently despised, rejected, and killed her prophets (Matt 23:37).
F. David Farnell concludes that the aforementioned persecution “hardly conveys the impression of great respect afforded the Old Testament prophets by their contemporaries. Nor does it suggest that their messages were never questioned or rejected (cf. Heb 11:33-40).” [162]
The Old Testament prophets became revered mostly by later generations. Most had no such respect during their lifetime.
Charles Elliot reminds us that the prophets were mostly independent voices chastising the religious establishment in quest of spiritual revival and cultural re-orientation. “As a result, they often were unpopular with the populace, unkindly rejected by the kings, and purposefully maligned by pecuniary priests.” [163]
Again Farnell is instructive: “Only as later generations realized their ancestors had been disobedient idolaters who failed to recognize the prophets’ advice (cf. Ezra 9:1-11) did the prophets ascend to a place of esteem in the eyes of the people.” [164]
In light of the overwhelming Old Testament scholarship, Grudem’s thesis is unconvincing. [165]
Conclusion
In conclusion, the characterization of prophets proposed by Schreiner and Grudem is simplistic and unrealistic.
The Old Testament prophet was a complex character spanning more than six hundred years of Hebrew history, taking on many forms and functions.
“The prophets functioned as divinely appointed preachers; prognosticators; encouragers; poets; and watchmen over the moral and ethical values of God’s people.” [166]
They were some of the most important teachers in Hebrew history, using history and tradition to make their point. Although rare, women were unequivocally, and unashamedly included in their ranks.
FOOTNOTES
144. Piper, RBMW, p.217.
145. Walter Brueggemann, “Finally Comes the Poet: Daring Speech for Proclamation,” (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1989), p.24.
146. Abraham Heschel, “The Prophets, Vol. II,” (Harper & Row: New York, 1962), p.xii.
147. Schreiner fails to consider the fact that even when a prophet experienced a supernatural vision or spontaneous utterance, he or she still had to interpret the experience for his or her listeners. The Prophet was always acting as a teacher and interpreter no matter the nature of the message.
148. Merrill Unger, “Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory,” (Wipf & Stock: Eugene, Oregon, 2014), p.32.
149. Ibid, p.32.
150. Gerhard van Rad, “The Message of the Prophets,” (Harper: San Francisco, 1967), p.19.
151. Moses’ original request was for Pharoah to allow the people to go into the wilderness to worship Yahweh. Moses was calling for a renewal of the cultic worship life of Israel. Pharoah rightly saw the danger in this. If Moses could teach the people about the power of Yahweh, it would empower them to take control of their circumstances. Moses was a prophet, preacher, teacher, and revivalist (Exodus 5:1-5).
152. Merrill Unger, “Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory,” (Wipf & Stock: Eugene, Oregon, 2014), p.34.
153. Walter Brueggemann, “Finally Comes the Poet,” p.29.
154. John Skinner, “Prophecies and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah,” (New York: Macmillan, 1922), p. 121.
155. Piper, RBMW, p.217.
156. Wayne A. Grudem, “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), p.17.
157. Ibid, p.72.
158. Ibid., p.94.
159. Walter Brueggemann, “Finally Comes the Poet,” p.93.
160. Wayne A. Grudem, “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), p.17.
161. Walter Brueggemann, “Finally Comes the Poet,” p.93.
162. F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” (The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.23), p.171.
163. Charles Elliott, “Old Testament Prophecy: Its Nature, Organic Connection with Old Testament History, Messianic Prophecy, and New Testament Fulfilment,” (Franklin Classics Trade Press, 2018), p.153.
164. F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” (The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.23), p.176.
165. For a robust response to Grudem’s work see, F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” (The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol.23); or Jennifer Anne Cox, “New Testament Prophecy and Its Implications for the Ministry of Women,” (Sage Journals, 2016).
166. Walter Brueggemann, “Finally Comes the Poet,” p.98.
