If the most critical problems facing Christian churches today were to be enumerated, the 'top of the list' would have to include the role of the charismatic gifts in the church and the place of women in the church. These two issues, though hardly finding a mention in the traditional corpus of theology, now draw sparks of controversy as once did the classic disputes over the doctrine of the trinity and the two natures of Christ.

In response to the present circumstance, a respectful attitude among brothers who differ must be maintained. But at the same time, every effort must be made to return to the Scriptures so that they may speak on these matters. Every issue must be judged ultimately by the Word itself rather than by the opinions and experiences of men.

The following study attempts to look into the phenomenon of prophecy as it appears in Scripture. The implications of this question for the current circumstances in the church hopefully will become apparent in the process.

1. The Origin of Prophecy According to the Old Testament⤒🔗

Biblical prophecy had its origins in the Old Testament, which is a fact of some significance. Prophecy is not a distinctly New Testament phenomenon, but one which dates back to the most ancient experiences of God's people.

But when and where did prophecy first arise? Surprisingly, prophecy did not have its origins in the age of the great eighth-century B.C. figures such as Isaiah, Micah and Hosea. Instead, prophecy had its origin in a much more ancient setting.

Moses was the fountainhead of the prophetic movement in the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, Old Testament prophecy reached its point of highest glory in its beginning with Moses. Contrary to all concepts of an evolutionary development of religion in Israel, the apex of the prophetic movement found its expression in Moses, the original prophet and law-giver in Israel. He played a most unique role as mediator of the word of God to the people of Israel.

In the days before Moses, God spoke personally to the head of the various patriarchal families. The fatherly head would then communicate the word of God to his clan.

But how was God to communicate His word to a host of over a million people as they came out of Egypt? Would the Lord reveal himself simultaneously to 600,000 heads of families? Or would he continue throughout the subsequent ages of Israel's history to thunder with his own voice from heaven as he did at Sinai?

God's people themselves had strong feelings on this matter. They pleaded with Moses: Give us a substitute for this terrifying experience of hearing the thunder of God's voice (Deuteronomy 18:16). In response to the plea of the people, God provided a prophetic mediator and established the prophetic office. One man would receive the word of God in the mountain and subsequently mediate the word to the trembling people below. In this way prophecy had its origins.

Several significant conclusions may be reached about the nature of biblical prophecy as a consequence of the circumstances surrounding its establishment. The origins of prophecy reveal matters of continuing significance about the essence of the phenomenon.

First of all, the small, simple voice of the prophet substitutes for all the awesome signs of Sinai. The thunderous voice of God, the lightning, the fire, the smoke, the earthquake, the peal of the trumpet growing ever louder — all these frightening phenomena find their replacement in the voice of a single Israelite speaking among his brothers. Despite its relatively quiet tone, every word of the prophet comes as the very voice of God.

Secondly, the origin of the truly prophetic word is not to be found in the subjective experiences of a man. The prophet is not hallucinating when he declares, 'Thus says the Lord.' God's own word has come to the prophet, and finds its vehicle of communication in the chosen man's voice. God, not the subjective experiences of man, originates the prophetic word.

Thirdly, the word of the prophet is not primarily predictive in nature. Moses' main task in delivering the law at Sinai was not to predict the future, but to declare God's revealed will. Not a single prediction is found in the 'ten words', the heart of the revelation communicated through Moses.

The common distinction between the 'forth-telling' of the prophetic word and the 'Fore-telling' of the future by the prophet must be understood correctly. From the beginning, the 'telling forth' of God's word was just as much a revelation of the infallible, inerrant and perfect word of God as was his 'Fore-telling' of the future. It simply is not the case that the speaking forth of the prophet on various issues of the day was a kind of 'preaching' with diminished authority, while his 'Fore-telling' of the future was inspired, inerrant and infallible in its character.

As a matter of fact, the essence of prophetism is always defined in the Bible in terms of this 'speaking forth' of the very word of God, whether or not it involved a foretelling of the future. Occasionally the prophet might predict a future event. Obviously, this kind of insight could occur only by divine revelation. But the essence of prophecy was not determined by the predictive element, but by the nature of the prophet's utterance as being the very word of God.

Geerhardus Vos addresses this subject in his article on 'The Idea of "Fulfilment" of Prophecy in the Gospels'. With respect to the nature of prophecy, he says:

In connection with (the idea of fulfilment of prophecy), the question may be raised, What is precisely the force of the 'pro' in the name 'prophet': does 'prophet' mean 'foreteller', or does it mean 'forthteller', i.e., 'the one who speaks forth a word revealed to him by God'? In the Hebrew nabhi the latter finds expression, and it is, so to speak, an unexpressed circumstance that the word forthspoken in many cases happens to be a 'prediction'.¹

Prophecy should not be defined essentially as a foretelling of the future. Instead, it is the forthtelling of a revelation from God which on occasion also may involve the prediction of future events.

This perspective on the essence of prophecy is important for evaluating the question of the continuation of prophecy today. Obviously no one can foretell infallibly the specifics of a future event, as was the case in biblical prophecy, unless one has experienced a direct revelation from God. But it is equally true that no one can 'tell forth' the word of God in the prophetic sense apart from experiencing a direct revelation from God. Whether as 'Fore-teller' or 'forth-teller', the prophet communicated revelation from God. If a person affirms that biblical prophecy continues today in either of its basic forms, it should be clear that he is expressing belief that revelation continues today. While a contemporary preacher may be 'prophetic' in his pulpit ministry, he is not 'prophesying' in the biblical sense as seen in the history of the origins of prophetism.

 A fourth conclusion may be reached with respect to the nature of prophecy on the basis of its origins as preserved in Scripture. The ultimate goal of God's covenant cannot be realised so long as a prophetic figure must stand between the Lord and his people.

God's purpose in the covenant was to be one with his people. In establishing a covenant relationship, the Lord binds himself intimately to his people. But that closeness of relationship which God intended by the covenant cannot be achieved so long as a prophetic mediator must stand between God and the people. So long as a mediator must run from the top of the mountain to the people below, covenantal unity has not been fully realised.

This very point is emphasised by Paul in his statement that 'a mediator does not speak of one' (Galatians 3:20). The presence of a mediator implicitly suggests a separation of people from one another. So long as a mediator must run down the mountain carrying the word from God to the people, the oneness intended by the covenant has not yet been realised. Only if God himself should become the one who mediates the divine word could the oneness of fellowship intended by the covenant be fulfilled. Then the need for the intermediary work of the prophetic figure would come to an end.

This perspective on the final goal of prophetism is confirmed by the testimony of the new covenant documents. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the finality of the prophetic revelation as it is found in Jesus Christ. Previously God spoke in many different ways through many different prophetic mediators. But now he has spoken with finality in a Son (Hebrews 1:1). When the prophetic revelation comes directly through Jesus Christ, then the ultimate goal of the covenant has been realised. Experiencing the revelation of God through the Son means being one with God himself.

2. Foundational Passages on Prophecy in the Old Testament←⤒🔗

The historical context of the origin of prophetism in Israel provides a firm foundation for understanding the true nature of prophecy as it is manifest in subsequent history. This understanding finds significant elucidation in several other foundational passages on prophecy in the Old Testament. Essential to an appreciation of the role of prophetism in the new covenant is this old covenant background. Consider the following passages:

A. Exodus 7:1: 'Then the Lord said to Moses, See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country.'

In this passage Moses is as God, Aaron is his prophet and Pharaoh is the recipient of the prophetic word. Though the word of God originating with Moses is mediated through Aaron, it comes to Pharaoh with undiminished authority. Pharaoh's land is devastated because he does not heed the infallible, inerrant word of God communicated through Aaron who serves as Moses' 'prophet'. Mediatorship in no way diminishes the authority of the prophetic word.

B. Exodus 4:14, 15: 'And you shall set the words in his mouth. And I shall be with your mouth and with his mouth, and I will teach both of you what you shall do. And he (that is, Aaron as prophet for Moses) shall speak to the people for you. And it will be that he shall be to you for a mouth and you shall be to him for God.'

'Mouth to mouth': the descriptive phrase underscores the immediacy of the relationship that exists between God's Word and the prophetic word. The divine revelation goes directly from the mouth of God to the mouth of the prophet. The word of the prophet is the very Word of God. God does not communicate his revelation to the prophet 'thought to thought' or 'mind to mind', but 'mouth to mouth'. Prophetism, by definition, is concerned not merely with the reception of the Word of God, but with its communication as well. This description of the mode of communication of the prophetic word underscores the absolute perfections of the prophet's speech in representing God's Word. By a 'mouth to mouth' communication, God's Word is preserved in its integrity as it passes through the vehicle of the prophet.

C. Numbers 12:6, 7: 'God said, Listen to my words: If your prophet is Yahweh, then I, Yahweh, will speak to him. In a vision unto him I shall make myself known; in a dream to him I shall speak.'

The poetic parellelism of the original text underscores the revelatory character of the message that comes to the prophet:

• In a vision
• unto him
• I shall make myself known;
• In a dream
• to him
• I shall speak.

God shall take the initiative in making himself known by vision and dream. This mode of divine communication will characterise the experience of the prophet through the ages. The 'vision' and the 'dream' of the prophet originate with God, not with the insight of man. Although the context indicates that distinctive favour will be shown to Moses in that God will speak to him 'face to face', there can be no discounting of the fact that all the prophets will receive their message by a revelatory experience. That is the meaning of the Word's coming through 'dream' and 'vision'.

Strikingly suitable to this idea of prophetic revelation that comes through 'dream' and 'vision' is the fact that written prophecy in the Old Testament is presented vividly as a thing 'seen'. The writings of Isaiah the prophet are described as a 'vision' (hazon) which he 'saw' (haza). Subsequently, the 'word' (hadavar) which Isaiah 'saw' (haza) describes a particular message he received (Isaiah 2:1).

The prophets experienced this form of revelation repeatedly. Isaiah 'saw' the Lord's 'burden' (Isaiah 13:1). Amos and Micah 'saw' their word from the Lord (Amos 1:1; Micah 1:1). Habakkuk speaks of his entire book as a 'burden' that he 'saw' (Habakkuk 1:1). The prophets regularly 'saw' through 'vision' and 'dream' the word they were to communicate.

In contrast with this visionary reception of God's Word by a revelatory experience, the false prophets speak out of their own hearts. Jeremiah vivifies the major characteristic of the origin of the word of the false prophets. He declares: 'A vision from their heart they speak, not from the mouth of Yahweh' (Jeremiah 23:16). The word of the false prophet originates with the machinations of his own heart, not with the visionary experience granted to the true prophet of the Lord.

D. This contrast between true and false prophets is continued in the fourth foundational passage: Deuteronomy 13:4, 5. Rather than heeding the false prophet who originates his own dreams, Israel must keep God's commands as delivered by his prophets. God's nation must observe the way God commanded them to go. The false prophet 'must be put to death' because he has attempted to turn Israel from the revealed way they must follow.

Over against the false prophets are set the commands, ordinances and statutes that have been revealed through Moses and his true successors. The most basic test of the prophet is his adherence to the 'forth-telling' that already has come by divine revelation.

The prophets were not primarily predictors. No matter how spectacular a prophet's words might appear, he must be put to death if his statements contradicted the rather non-spectacular commands revealed to Moses, the prophet par excellence.

This respect for the divine character of the prophetic word needs to be carried over into the context of the new covenant. The denigration of prophecy to the level of non-revelational or semi-revelational 'forth-telling' finds no encouragement in the foundational texts on prophecy in Scripture. Prophecy is a speaking forth of the revelatory word of God, whether his word predicts the future or declares God's commands. Prophecy in its most basic form is a 'forth-telling' of the revelatory truth of God. Prediction of the future indeed will occur, but it functions secondarily to the essence of prophecy.

E. The fifth foundational passage on prophecy is found in Deuteronomy 18. This passage reads like a section from a Hebrew version of Roget's Thesaurus. Every possible word describing a method by which men might attempt to determine, control or predict the future is designated as an abomination to the Lord. Any proposed substitution for the revelatory word of God that comes through his prophet must be utterly rejected.

In today's pluralist society, people find it almost impossible to express a categorical 'no' to any form of experience promoted in a devotional atmosphere by Christians. But God's word says 'no'.

An unyielding resistance is required of the people of God with respect to any proposed substitutions for the divinely inspired prophetic word. In this case, God's people must speak with an absolute negation. No exception shall be allowed. Every form of non-biblical prophecy must be roundly condemned. Any effort to substitute man's fallible word for the divinely inspired prophetic word must be rejected.

This passage further declares that in the future a 'prophet' like Moses shall arise. This expectation anticipates in part the long history of prophetism in Israel that developed after Moses. In response to the continuous stream of false prophets that would develop in history, the Lord would raise up true prophets to give answer to their false counterparts.

Yet the text in Deuteronomy also seems to point to a singular prophetic figure that shall resemble Moses in a distinctive way. The passage does not say 'prophets the Lord your God shall raise up to you'. Instead, it states: 'a prophet like me the Lord your God shall raise up' (Deuteronomy 18:15).

Israel's experience under Moses cries out for one who will come that is greater than Moses. If the purpose of God's covenant actually is to be fulfilled, then a prophetic Mediator must come who in his person is more than Moses. Significant as the ministry of Moses might have been, it did not achieve the oneness between God and people that the covenant was intended to realise.

This prophet like Moses anticipated in this passage would speak the word of God with a power that would climax the shadowy form of Moses' revelations. Like Moses and his successors, this coming prophet may be rejected by the people. Yet because of the certainties of the covenant, he will succeed in his prophetic ministry where the original Moses failed.

In this light, it is not surprising to find the Apostle Peter applying this passage from Deuteronomy 18:15 directly to Jesus in the book of Acts. Jesus is the 'servant' (pais) who is like Moses in that he mediates the word of God (Acts 3:22, 26). But he is also 'son' of God (pais as well) who unites God with his people in fulfilment of the word of the covenant mediated through the prophets. If the Son of God himself now is the prophetic mediator of the covenant, then the ultimate goal of the covenant has been realised. For to receive the word of God from the Son is to receive the word of God from the Lord himself. Now that through Christ the prophetic mediator of the covenant is himself the God of the covenant, the oneness between God and his people originally intended in the covenant has been established. Now the office of prophet will find its final realisation in this one person who is Son of God and also prophetic mediator of the covenant.

Through his person, all the terrors related to the confrontation with God at Sinai are now removed. The fearsomeness once associated with standing in the presence of God evaporates when the mediator of the covenant is God himself, now standing among men as their servant (pais).

The history of kingship in Israel found its climax in Christ the king. The history of priesthood in Israel found its climax in Christ the priest. So also the history of prophetism in Israel finds its climax in Christ the prophet. He is the promised mediator par excellence. The Old Testament experience of a series of men who spoke God's very words finds its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, the prophet like Moses, who also excelled him in every way.

3. Prophecy about Prophecy in the Old Testament←⤒🔗

Having considered the testimony of these foundational passages about prophecy, it is now appropriate to consider a central Old Testament passage that has significance for understanding the phenomenon of prophecy as it appears in the New Testament. The classic 'prophecy about prophecy' in Joel 2 links the Old Testament experience with New Testament phenomenon.

The word of God through Joel declares: 'I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy' (Joel 2:28a). In anticipating the future, Joel uses the identical term for 'prophecy' found throughout the rest of the Old Testament. Does this word suddenly have a new meaning? Is Joel expecting a different kind of prophecy from that described in the foundational passages already considered?

No. Joel himself elaborates the significance of his prediction: 'Your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions' (Joel 2:28b).

Where did Joel get the idea that the prophetic word would be communicated through 'dream' and 'vision'? Was he the inventor of these concepts?

No. Joel draws on the passage in Numbers 12 which so clearly describes the origin of prophetism in the days of Moses. Joel's terms for 'dreaming dreams' and 'seeing visions' are identical with the words used in Numbers 12 to describe the communication of revelation throughout the ages. Joel's language also parallels the description of the 'seeing' of a 'vision' that frequently serves as the heading of a divinely inspired prophetic book.

So what did Joel expect? What would be the experience of God's people with respect to prophecy in the future?

Joel predicted a widespread manifestation of prophetic revelation in the future. The consummation of the ages would be accompanied by extensive revelatory experiences. Appropriate to the glory of Messiah's coming would be an unprecedented outpouring of the Holy Spirit, bringing with it many new revelations from God. Old men would 'dream dreams' and young men would 'see visions'. Both phrases describe experiences of a revelatory nature, drawing on the context of Numbers 12.

The New Testament indicates the fulfilment of this 'prophecy about prophecy' in several passages. Quoting Joel, Peter declares that the Old Testament prediction was fulfilled at the pouring out of the Spirit of prophecy at Pentecost (Acts 2:16). At this point, young men 'see visions' and old men 'dream dreams'.

The Spirit's outpouring on the disciples at Pentecost did not cause them to hallucinate. They are not conjuring up religious ideas in the tradition of the false prophets. Neither are they achieving new levels of human insight. Instead, they are undergoing revelatory experiences. The language used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament period now applies to the prophets in a new covenant context.

This same understanding of prophecy continues throughout the book of Acts. In Acts 11:27, 28, some 'prophets' came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus 'predicted through the Spirit' about future events. The term translated 'predicted' literally means 'gave a sign'. This terminology further relates the experience of Agabus to the communication of revelation.

Agabus' prophecy immediately became the basis for concrete action on the part of the disciples at Antioch. He revealed that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. Recognising the distress this foreseen famine would bring on the disciples already suffering in Judea, the disciples at Antioch decided to provide help by sending a gift to the elders through Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:29, 30).

Clearly this experience of the new covenant prophet fits the Old Testament pattern. Agabus issued his prediction as the result of a revelational experience. By no other means could he have known of the development of a famine in the future other than by a direct revelation from God.

The phenomenon of prophecy in a new covenant context appears once more in Acts 21:8-11. Paul and Luke are staying at the house of Philip the evangelist, who is said to have 'four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy' (v. 8). It should be remembered that Paul, who by this experience knew firsthand of the gift of prophecy as it was possessed by the four daughters of Philip, later gave approval to a woman's 'prophesying' in the church (1 Corinthians 11:15).

But what is the nature of this 'prophesying' as done by the daughters of Philip? The immediately following verses clarify the question. The prophet Agabus comes down from Judea and speaks revelationally by the power of the Holy Spirit. He predicts that Paul will be arrested in Jerusalem, which no one could know apart from a revelatory communication from God.

Once more it becomes clear that the idea of 'prophet' in the New Testament is the same as the idea of 'prophet' in the Old Testament. Only by a direct revelation from God could Agabus have known that Paul would be arrested in Jerusalem.

It is in this context that the role of women as 'prophetesses' in the New Testament church should be considered. A woman might be regarded as a 'prophetess' if she functioned as an instrument of divine revelation. If revelation were continuing today, then it might be expected that women as well as men might legitimately 'prophesy' in the church today. But just because revelation has ceased, women should not be expected to 'prophesy' in the church today.

These references in Acts provide testimony concerning the actual experiences of both Peter and Paul with the gift of prophecy in a new covenant context. As such they provide a natural backdrop for the explicit treatment of the subject of prophecy by these two key apostles.

4. Peter and Paul's Testimony Concerning Prophecy←⤒🔗

Peter explicitly discusses prophecy in the last of his writings. He recognises the significance of his remarks, as the introductory phrase indicates: 'Know this first,' says Peter (2 Peter 1:20, 21). He intends to discuss a matter of extreme importance.

Peter here declares that 'no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation' (NIV). The prophetic word communicates truth from God that otherwise could not be known. The insight of man could not originate this understanding of the will of God. 'For prophecy never had its origin by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit' (2 Peter 1:21).

Peter does not treat prophecy as though it were equivalent to keenness of insight. Instead, he describes the experience of divine revelation. According to Peter, all truly prophetic experiences partook of this same character. There is no exception. No (true) prophecy came by the will of man. All (true) prophecy came by the revelation of God's Spirit.

More particularly, Peter identifies this revelational experience with the words that the prophets spoke, and not just with the words the prophets wrote. The revelational experience of the prophets was not limited to canonical writings. All that came through them in the way of 'prophecy' was the very Word of God, whether spoken or written.

These holy men of God spoke as they were 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit. B. B. Warfield provides the classic explanation of this phrase:

What this language of Peter emphasises ... is ... the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: 'It was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.' To be 'borne' ... is not the same as to be led ..., much less to be guided or directed ... He that is 'borne' contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved.²

They were 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit as a ship is carried by the wind. Peter emphasises that there is no exception to this phenomenon as it relates to prophecy. All prophecy is of this sort. Holy men of God spoke as they were 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit.

Peter's representation of the prophetic experience finds full support in the description of Paul. In Ephesians 3:2, 3, Paul states: 'Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation.' The New Testament consistently represents a 'mystery' as a truth about God's redemptive programme once concealed, but now revealed. This 'mystery' now has been 'revealed' by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets (Ephesians 3:5). The two offices of apostle and prophet are joined together as the vehicles of divine revelation. Those extraordinary offices were the instruments by which God made known his revelation in the new covenant context. The substance of this 'mystery', once concealed but now revealed, is that the gentiles are fellow-heirs, fellow-participants, fellow-members in the body of Christ (Ephesians 3:6).

It is rather interesting that Paul does not speak about a predic­tion of the future when he refers to the 'mystery' that has been 'revealed'. Instead, he describes insight about a theology of the church. He declares that the 'forth-telling' of the apostles and prophets was revelational. The basic truth they taught about the role of Gentiles in the church was not a prediction about the future, but a divine declara­tion about the present. Yet it clearly was regarded as 'prophetic' in nature.

Paul's fullest elaboration on the new covenant manifestation of prophecy is found in 1 Corinthians 14. Verses 29 to 33 of this chapter have particular relevance to the subject of the revelatory nature of new covenant prophecy. In the immediately preceding verses Paul declares that the worship services of the church must be ordered to facilitate the proper functioning of the multiplicity of gifts. Two or three prophets' may speak while the others are to 'discriminate' (v. 29). The 'others' apparently refers to other prophets. But what is this 'discriminating' which is to occur in connection with the exercise of their gift by the prophets?

The New International Version expands on the word 'discriminate' (which it translates 'weigh carefully') by adding to the text of Scripture the phrase 'what is said'. The assumption of the translators is that the 'discrimination' to be rendered by the prophets has to do with the words that have been spoken. But this assumption overlooks the regular usage in the New Testament of the word 'discriminate'.

The Greek term diakrino has the basic meaning of 'to separate, to sever, to make a distinction'. Most frequently it is used to indicate a distinction among people. Acts 15:9 says: 'God made no distinction (diakrino) between us and them.' Between the Jewish people and the Gentile people God made no discrimination regarding the matter under discussion. In a similar manner, 1 Corinthians 4:7 declares: 'For who made you differ (diakrino) from someone else?' Again, the 'discrimination' to which Paul refers is between people. Following the same pattern, 1 Corinthians 6:5 states: 'Is there no one to discriminate (diakrino) between believers?' Once more, the distinction envisaged is one between persons. Finally, James 2:3, 4 declares: 'If you say one thing to the rich and another thing to the poor, have you not discriminated (diakrino) among yourselves?' Again, a distinction among people is the point of the discrimination.

If we keep before our mind this regular use of the term for 'discriminate', a more precise understanding of the use of the term as it is found in 1 Corinthians 14:29 may be arrived at. 'Two or three prophets should speak, and the other (prophets) should discriminate.' A judgment clearly must be made. But the judgment is not about the words being spoken by the prophets. Instead, a discrimination must be made among persons. Someone must determine who among the prophets is to speak and who is not to speak. This responsibility is entrusted to the prophets, who shall maintain order among their number. Even the utterance of inspired words must be exercised in a framework of order.

Paul assures his readers that all the prophets ultimately will have opportunity to speak (v. 31). But he also reminds them that everything must be done decently and in order. For even the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets (vv. 32, 33, 40).

So the discrimination in this passage refers to a distinction for the sake of order among prophets, not about the words of the prophets. Some may have to wait until a 'second service'. But all eventually will have the opportunity to deliver the revelation God has granted them.

Equally critical in understanding this passage is the word 'revelation'. A 'revelation' comes first to one, and then a further 'revelation' comes to another (v. 30). This reference to 'revelation' is bracketed by verses concerned with the experience of 'prophecy' (vv. 29, 31). It might be supposed that this 'revelation' actually is not a revelation. Instead, it is something less than a 'prophecy' that is 'revelational' as the term is understood elsewhere in Scripture. It could be imagined that this phenomenon might then be designated a 'non-revelational revelation'. It is revelation from God, a prophetic utterance. But somehow it is less than the classic phenomenon of prophecy. So some might be tempted to argue.

But such an analysis of the intent of Scripture takes a person far from the words of Scripture. The whole context suggests the 'normal' prophetic experience of receiving and delivering an inspired word from the Lord. 1 Corinthians was composed at a time when very little of the New Testament had been written. The church at that stage needed an authoritative word from the Lord to direct the pattern of their life under the new covenant. Very likely none of the inspired manuscripts of the New Testament was available to the Corinthians at this point in time.

Almost certainly the reference in Corinthians was not to an 'illumination' of new covenant scriptures or new covenant truth already known to them. Instead, the Corinthian church received authoritative, infallible and inerrant 'revelations' of the truths of the new covenant era through the manifold exercise of the gift of prophecy. The prophetic experience that had brought God's word to the old covenant community now communicated the truth about this new era to God's new covenant people. Because God was just now manifesting the wonder of the realities of the new covenant, it is not surprising that a manifold display of the prophetic gift occurred in Corinth.

The introduction of the concept of a 'non-revelational revelation' could be extremely dangerous when applied to prophetic utterances. If one prophetic utterance could be designated a 'non-revelational revelation', then any word of prophecy might eventually be declared a 'non-revelational revelation'. In the end, the revelational character of Scripture itself might be redefined in these confusing terms.

On the other hand, a great danger lies in another direction with this theoretical concept of a prophetic utterance that is indeed God's word, and yet is something less than the perfection of his word associated with biblical prophecy. Then a person is made subject in one sense to a word that supposedly is immediately inspired of God, and yet at the same time by its own definition participates in human fallibility. Even though he knows this supposedly 'prophetic' utterance to be fallible, is the believer nonetheless to submit as though it came directly from God? Or is he to resist yielding to this word that has come immediately from God because he knows it to be fallible?

This concept of prophecy, as it is being proposed in the church today, creates an intolerable circumstance, a dilemma of confusion that destroys the meaning of unquestioning obedience to God's word. It is not true to the teaching of the word of God, and has the potential for undermining the basic foundation of a life of trusting obedience to the revelation of God's prophets. It destroys the necessary distinction between the true and the false prophet, and makes God's people the helpless victims of error mixed with truth.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

The history of prophetism extends backwards to the time of Moses. From his day, God consistently revealed himself to his people through the stream of prophets he had promised Moses. The surety of the prophetic word enabled God's people to resist the pretences of the steady stream of false prophets throughout Israel's history. Joel, recalling the older Mosaic experiences of the prophets, predicted that the new covenant community would enjoy the same kind of prophetic revelation. The apostles Peter and Paul in their turn applied these same descriptions to the prophetic word of their own day.

In view of the biblical testimony concerning the nature of prophecy, several conclusions may be proposed:

• First, the starting-point of any discussion about prophecy today should begin with the long history of the revelational character of this gift of the Spirit. Throughout the old and new covenant eras, God remains as the originator of the truly prophetic word.

• Secondly, the warning of Scripture concerning the dangers of false prophecy must be remembered. If revelation continues, then prophecy continues. But if revelation has been completed with the perfection of the New Testament scriptures, then prophecy as the principal revelational gift has now ceased. The modern preacher may be 'prophetic' in his ministry just as he may be 'apostolic'. But he must beware of claiming for himself either the revelational experience of the prophet or the foundational position of the apostle. Many are the cases both ancient and modern of lives seriously damaged by an improper claim to prophetic utterance.

• Thirdly, the biblical testimony concerning prophecy has a critical effect on the question of the role of women in the church. The primary text supporting the speaking of women in worship refers to their 'prophesying' (1 Corinthians 11:5). If 'to prophesy' means to speak revelationally, then the role of women in the church today is clarified. Only so long as the revelational gift of prophecy remained alive in the church could women serve as instruments of the divine word. But if the prophetic word of God has found its perfection with the completion of the new covenant Scriptures, then the role of women as instruments of divine revelation now has ceased.

The questions raised by the subject of prophecy are not small in significance. They are critical to the health, the wellbeing and the proper ordering of the church of Jesus Christ today. Let the church be careful that all things are done decently and in order, in accordance with the teachings of the prophetic scriptures.