About two-and-a-half years ago, I wrote a long-form article making the case that Scripture gives us no reason to view New Testament prophecy as qualitatively different than Old Testament prophecy. By closely examining all the New Testament uses of the words “prophet,” “prophecy” (noun) and “prophesy” (verb), I argued that we cannot conclude with any hermeneutical consistency that the prophetic gift has changed from infallible divine revelation to “something the Lord may bring to mind that may or may not be fully accurate.” The former definition captures how cessationists view the New Testament prophetic gift. The latter description reflects how continuationists view the New Testament prophetic gift.
In this article, I am going to focus on a set of arguments from Wayne Grudem in which he challenges the idea that the words “prophet,” “prophecy” and “prophesy” are used consistently throughout the New Testament to refer to infallible divine revelation. These arguments fit into Grudem’s larger belief that the prophetic gift is still active today and should be encouraged among God’s people. We will see that Grudem’s arguments do not overturn the thesis of my previous article, namely, that the New Testament writers see no difference between the Old Testament gift and its New Covenant counterpart.
Grudem begins by arguing that the linguistic milieu of ancient Greek culture shaped the way New Testament authors used the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy.” Grudem leverages multiple examples to demonstrate that the word prophet had a wider range of meaning than just “authoritative divine spokesman.” A prophet could be a teacher or a specialist in a particular area of study. The word was even used in a derogatory sense as a “quack”—someone who dabbled in strange medicine.1 Drawing from a thorough study conducted by Erich Fascher on the Greek word for “prophet,” Grudem concludes the word never means, “‘to predict, foretell, divine,’ or ‘to hold the office of a prophet.’”2 Grudem concludes:
Because of this wide range of meanings, one thing is clear: The word “prophet” would not automatically suggest “one who speaks with absolute divine authority” or “one who speaks the very words of God.” This was not the sense of the word in its everyday use in the Greek-speaking world.
This means that if Jesus and the New Testament authors had wanted a word which, in the first-century world, would mean “one who speaks the very words of God,” the Greek word “prophet” was not well suited to the task.3
Grudem then turns to first-century usage of the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy” in Judaism to build the case that these words were becoming more flexible outside of their Old Testament meanings and did not entail “absolute divine authority” (more on Grudem’s appeal to first-century Judaism below). Grudem argues that, given this range of meaning evidenced in Greek culture and first-century Judaism, the word can mean both “one who speaks for God” (as the Old Testament uses the word) or it can just mean, “spokesman, proclaimer.”4
In light of this background, Grudem then appeals to three biblical texts in order to prove that the NT writers use the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy” more broadly than just “one who speaks for God” or “authoritative divine spokesmen.”
“Prophet” in Titus 1:12
First, Grudem notes that Paul refers to a Cretan “prophet” in Titus 1:12 and appeals to this statement as evidence that the New Testament expands the meaning of “prophet” beyond the definition of “one who speaks authoritative revelation from God.”
In Titus 1:12, we find “prophet” (Greek prophētēs) in the general sense of “proclaimer, announcer, spokesman.” Referring to Epimenides (Cretan religious teacher, ca. sixth century B.C.), the verse reads: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” (RSV). Certainly Epimenides was not someone who spoke the very words of God! But Paul nonetheless calls him a “prophet (Greek prophētēs).”5
There are two problems with Grudem’s appeal to Paul’s statement in Titus 1:12. First, Paul calls Epimenides “a prophet of their own” (emphasis added). That is, it may well have been the case that Epimenides was considered a prophet by the Cretans in the sense that they believed he spoke words from God. Paul did not consider Epimenides a prophet of the true God, of course, but inasmuch as the word “prophet” denotes a divine spokesman or the claim to be a divine spokesman, Epimenides fit the classification. The question we must ask is how other Greek authorities thought of Epimenides’ prophetic status. Biblical commentator William Mounce notes that Plato called Epimenides a “divine man.” And, while Aristotle said that Epimenides did not “divine the future, but only things that were past but obscure,” another ancient philosopher, Diogenes Laertius, claimed that some people sacrificed to Epimenides as though he was a god.6
Second, in his quote from Titus 1:12, Grudem does not include Paul’s positive affirmation of Epimenides’s statement. Having dealt with the people of Crete already, Paul agrees with the Cretan prophet’s statement about their sinful, sluggardly ways. “This testimony is true,” the apostle exclaims as he exhorts Titus to “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). In this context, then, the truthfulness of a prophet’s utterance is tied to his prophetic office. That is, it is the expectation that prophets speak true words. Grudem’s contention that New Testament prophesy can sometimes be mistaken does not find support in this passage. Titus 1:12, therefore, cannot be used as evidence for the claim that the word “prophet” in the New Testament takes on a revised meaning as we transition to the New Covenant.
“Prophesy” in Luke 22:64
Grudem also uses Luke 22:64 as evidence that the New Testament writers are using the word prophet more broadly than “an authoritative divine spokesman.” In this incident, Roman soldiers blindfolded Jesus, beat him, and taunted him to “prophesy” who struck him. Commenting on this passage Grudem states, “In this case, their meaning is not, ‘Speak words with absolute divine authority,’ but rather a mocking challenge, ‘Show that you have knowledge by supernatural means—tell us who hit you even though you cannot see us.”7 But Grudem’s observation does not disprove the argument that prophecy is understood in both the Old and New Testament as authoritative revelation from God.
We must note that these soldiers were challenging Jesus to make a true declaration about something he could not have otherwise known. Grudem concedes that the soldiers were inciting Jesus to make the prophetic pronouncement through the use of supernatural means. What are these supernatural means? Because these were Roman soldiers, their worldview allowed for prophecy to have a divine origin. Even if these soldiers did not expect Jesus to access the divine to make his prophecy (something we cannot know anyway), it still would not prove that Luke is now open to a wider range of meanings for the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy.” Nothing about Luke’s use of “prophesy” in his account of the Roman soldiers’ mockery of Jesus supports the idea that there’s been a shift in the word’s meaning among New Testament writers. At the very least, this incident cannot be used to argue that prophecy can be occasionally fallible, for in this case, the soldiers wanted a true declaration from Jesus about who hit him.
Furthermore, as I demonstrated in my previous article, Luke uses the words prophet, prophecy, and prophesy countless times throughout his Gospel and Acts, and nearly all those uses have an unambiguous reference to Old Testament prophets. Given this context and the actual interaction of the Roman soldiers with Jesus, this incident in no way proves that Luke is now widening his understanding of prophecy.
“Prophet” in John 4:19
Finally, Grudem appeals to Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well in John’s gospel:
In the narrative about the woman at the well, as soon as Jesus tells the woman the secrets of her past life, she says, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet” (John 4:19, RSV). Now Jesus had not yet convinced her that he could speak with divine authority in his actual words; he had just demonstrated that he had knowledge that had not come by ordinary means (he knew about her five husbands).
Again, Grudem notes this passage as evidence that the word prophet has a wider meaning in the New Testament than “authoritative divine spokesman.” But does Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman really prove such an assertion? First, one must assume that the Samaritan woman means something less than “authoritative divine spokesman” because nothing explicit in the text itself leads us to conclude that. At most, the text is neutral on this point. But given her background as a Samaritan and as one whose religion was deeply influenced by Judaism, it is more likely that her use of the word prophet means “authoritative divine spokesman.” In other words, instead of assuming that her understanding of the word prophet has been influenced by the surrounding Greek culture, the woman’s religious background leads us to assume that “prophet,” in this case, carried the connotation of “divine spokesman.”
Second, like the episode in Luke 22, Jesus provides true information about the woman’s life which is precisely what caused her to comment about his prophetic status. Thus, even granting that the Samaritan woman meant something less than “authoritative divine spokesman,” this text cannot be used to argue that the New Testament authors are now accepting a broader meaning for the words prophet, prophecy, and prophesy that include the idea that some prophecies can be mistaken in their details. In each case—Titus, Luke, and John—the prophet is someone who makes true statements.
What About First-Century Judaism?
Let’s go back to Grudem’s argument from first-century Judaism. Grudem refers to several different sources in order to prove that among the Jews, the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy” had more flexible meanings and did not always denote authoritative divine spokesmen or speech. In response, we must first note again that the New Testament writers are drawing from Old Testament texts as authoritative sources for their understanding of prophecy. So, while references to rabbinic sources may prove that the meaning of prophecy was flexible among first-century Jews, it does not necessarily prove that the New Testament writers were following this trend.
But even so, the examples Grudem provides do not strongly argue that the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy” were being used in a way that was a departure from how these words were used in the Old Testament. For example, Grudem refers to the Babylonian Talmud where Miriam is called “a ‘prophetess’ simply because of something she predicted.”8 Grudem, however, only mentions this passage in passing; he does not quote it. Here’s the passage:
For she prophesied when she was the sister of Aaron, i.e., she prophesied since her youth, even before Moses was born, and she would say: My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver the Jewish people to salvation. And at the time when Moses was born the entire house was filled with light, and her father stood and kissed her on the head, and said to her: My daughter, your prophecy has been fulfilled. But once Moses was cast into the river, her father arose and rapped her on the head, saying to her: My daughter, where is your prophecy now, as it looked as though the young Moses would soon meet his end. This is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Miriam’s watching Moses in the river: “And his sister stood at a distance to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4), i.e., to know what would be with the end of her prophecy, as she had prophesied that her brother was destined to be the savior of the Jewish people (b.Meg. 14a).
It is clear from this passage that a predictive prophecy was expected to be true. Yet, Grudem claims that this is an example where the Hebrew words “prophet,” “prophecy” and “prophesy” refer to “people who predicted the future but who were never thought to speak God’s very words or to have God’s authority attached to the very words they spoke.”9 But this is a strange distinction to make given the Old Testament context on which the Talmud is basing its interpretations. Did the author of this passage really believe that a true prophecy from Miriam about Moses came from anyone other than God himself? And if true, would it not be authoritative?
Grudem also mentions the Talmud’s reference to Rebecca as a prophetess, but only to note that the context shows “that the idea of prediction, not that of authority, is what motivated the choice of this word.”10 Again, however, Grudem only mentions the passage; he does not quote it. Here’s the passage:
At that moment the prophecy of Rebecca was fulfilled, as it is written that Rebecca said of Jacob and Esau: “Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?” (Genesis 27:45), as Rebecca foresaw that the future bereavement for both her sons would be on the same day. The Gemara comments: And although their deaths were not on the same day, in any event their burials were on the same day, as Esau was killed and buried on the same day that Jacob was buried (b. Sot. 13a).
Here, the Talmud says that Rebecca’s prophecy in Genesis 27:45 was fulfilled when Jacob killed Esau. Now, there is no evidence in the Old Testament that Jacob killed Esau or that they died on the same day. But that’s precisely why the Talmud attempts to rectify this discrepancy by saying, “And although their deaths were not on the same day, in any event their burials were on the same day, as Esau was killed and buried on the same day that Jacob was buried” (Sotah 13a). The author of the Talmud viewed prophecy as true proclamations that, given the context of the Old Testament and God’s dealings with Israel, came from God.
The above examples are representative of Grudem’s other examples from Judaism. My point in highlighting these two examples is to demonstrate that Grudem’s appeal to rabbinic teaching does not overturn the claim that the New Testament authors use the words “prophet” and “prophecy” to refer to divinely authoritative spokesmen and speech.
Conclusion: A Faulty Assumption
Grudem’s argument and alleged New Testament evidence are rooted in the assumption that the New Testament authors are more influenced by Greek culture and first-century Judaism in their use of the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy” than by the Old Testament itself. But this is a faulty assumption. If we were to apply this presupposition to other New Testament words (like “God,” “grace,” “truth,” etc.), we would quickly be at a loss for how to interpret the New Testament with any consistency.
Yes, it is obvious that the New Testament authors used words that were used in Greek culture, but they often filled those words with biblical meanings. In the case of the words “prophet,” “prophecy,” and “prophesy,” their meanings were all derived primarily from the Old Testament, not even from first-century Rabbinic interpretations. As my previous article demonstrated, any reference to New Testament prophets or prophecy is inextricably intertwined with unambiguous references to Old Testament prophets and the standard definition of prophecy. As we have seen, it becomes a matter of hermeneutical arbitrariness, therefore, to locate places where the words do not hold that same meaning.
Grudem’s arguments, therefore, cannot be used to support the claim that New Testament prophecy is qualitatively different than Old Testament prophecy.
NOTES
1Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, Revised Edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), 34
2Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 35.
3Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 35.
4Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 35.
5Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 39.
6William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 398
7Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 39
8Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 37.
9Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 37.
10Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 37.