1

Continuity or Discontinuity: An Examination of Old and New Testament Prophecy in the View of Wayne A. Grudem

Introduction What is the relationship between Old and New Testament prophets? Is there

continuity between the two or discontinuity? Could there be both, and if so, in what

sense? How will the answers to these questions shape the practice of the church? Wayne

Grudem’s book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today is viewed as a

standard reference by many advocates for the continuation of the gift of prophecy in the

church. Since Grudem’s work has become a bastion of defense among charismatic

groups, both reformed and non-reformed, and since he attempts to answer the preceding

questions, his view needs to be carefully considered. This paper will examine one

critical element of Grudem’s theology and exegesis, namely, the relationship between

Old and New Testament prophets.

Grudem’s View Stated In Chapter Two of The Gift of Prophecy, Grudem begins with this question, “If

we search the New Testament, will we find any counterparts to Old Testament

prophets?”1 He answers his own question in the affirmative and supports his assertion in

subsequent pages. Grudem states his position, “When we read the New Testament we

find several times when the apostles are connected with the Old Testament prophets,

but New Testament prophets, by contrast are never connected with Old Testament

prophets in the same way.”2 For Grudem the closest parallel to Old Testament prophets

in the New Testament are not prophets, but apostles. In other words, when addressing

1 Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, IL:

Crossway Books, 1988) 27. 2 Ibid., 28.

2

continuity and discontinuity, Grudem suggests that there is general discontinuity

between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets. For Grudem the only

real prophetic continuity that exists is in the relationship of Old Testament prophets to

New Testament apostles.

The chief reason for such a classification is that New Testament apostles were

infallible just like the prophets of the Old Testament. So Grudem says, “The most

significant parallel between Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles,

however, is the ability to write words of Scripture, words that have absolute divine

authority.”3 Thus, it is his contention that New Testament prophets, who were not

apostles, were fallible. This distinction between fallible and infallible has to do with

apostolicity and is critical to Grudem’s overall understanding of prophecy. Simply put,

prophets in the New Testament who were apostles were infallible, but prophets in the

New Testament who were not apostles were fallible. At this point a couple of questions

should be asked. First, is this distinction between two types of New Testament prophets

(fallible and infallible) justifiable? In other words, is it correct to say that there are two

types of prophets in the New Testament? Second, is Grudem correct in concluding that

there is a fallibility distinction between non-apostolic New Testament prophets and Old

Testament prophets? Is there a biblical category for fallible New Testament prophets? If

Grudem is wrong in asserting that there are two types of New Testament prophets

(authoritative and non-authoritative), and if Old Testament prophets were infallible by

3 Ibid., 29.

3

his own admission, then it also follows that it is wrong for him to conclude that there is

a fallibility distinction between Old and New Testament prophets.4

Grudem’s View Explained

According to Grudem, the words of Old Testament prophets were similar to

New Testament apostles in that they were inspired and authoritative. However, the

words of New Testament prophets, who were not apostles, were not inspired or

absolutely authoritative. In this way, Grudem is suggesting two expressions of New

Testament prophecy: authoritative apostolic prophecy and non-authoritative

ecclesiastical prophecy. Therefore, New Testament prophecies were infallible insomuch

as they were expressed apostolically, while they were fallible insomuch as that they

were expressed congregationally. The presumed arsenal in Grudem’s defense comes

from his exegesis of Ephesians 2:20.

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…5

To understand the contribution that Ephesians 2:20 makes to Grudem’s position, we

must observe that for him the critical phrase in the text is: evpi tw/| qemeliw| tw/n

avpostolwn kai profhtw/n translated “upon the foundation of the apostles who are

also prophets.” By translating kai as also and not and, Grudem is linking the two terms

apostles and prophets in an identical manner.6 Thus, we are left with the translation,

4 Grudem’s insistence upon distinguishing between two types of New Testament prophecy may

be a form of special pleading for Continuationism. The “two types” terminology is a distinction that Grudem is uncomfortable with and tries to avoid, but at the end of the day it still exists. See, The Gift of Prophecy p. 48.

5 Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the, New American Standard Bible; Copyright 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

6 Though this is a copulative kai, Grudem argues for an adverbial usage of the copulative which would carry the nuance of also or even. See: W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

4

“the apostles who are also prophets.” For Grudem, “the apostles who were also

prophets” represents one category of people, and one category of gifting whose

presence has ended in the church. Thus, he endeavors to defend this view from a

grammatical and contextual basis. 7

Arguing from the grammar, Grudem infers that “it seems best to conclude that

Ephesians 2:20 means that the church is ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles who

are also prophets’.”8 The result: infallible prophets who were apostles have ceased, but

fallible non-apostolic prophets continue. How significant is Grudem's argumentation? Is

it a locked case? The contention of this paper is that, in fact, it cannot stand because it is

neither grammatically nor contextually viable.9 Therefore, if Grudem is to argue for the

continuation of prophecy for today he will not be able to do it from this text.

Grudem’s View Critiqued

At this point the reader is left with a decision to make. Either Ephesians 2:20,

indicates that the apostles and New Testament prophets were the foundation of the

church, or it is teaching that “the apostles who are also prophets” were the sole

foundation of the church. As has been stated, this latter perspective is the view of Dr.

Grudem. Since it is argued that New Testament prophets, who were not apostles, were

not foundational to the church we must examine this claim closely. In order for this

argument to stand, Grudem will have to show that apostles and prophets in Ephesians

and Other Christian Literature, trans. W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, rev. ed. F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 495.

7 For a summation of his argument see, Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy pp. 340-346. 8 Ibid., 46. 9 The burden of this paper is not an attempt to argue that Grudem's overall or general view of the

continuation of prophecy is wrong. I recognize that his whole position on prophecy does not stand or fall with this argument, though it is important for him. Rather, my intention is only to argue that it seems, at best, Grudem cannot use this argumentation in support of his overall position on prophecy.

5

2:20 are referring to the same group of people.10 He attempts to do just this. This claim

will now be examined. To do this we must carefully consider the grammatical and

contextual evidence he presents.

Grammatical analysis

Does the Greek grammar of tw/n avposto,lwn kai. profhtw/n support the

translation “the apostles who are also prophets”? Before we attempt to answer this

question, a word needs to be said about its history of this interpretation. Grammatically

speaking, one is hard pressed to find any examples of individuals who have interpreted

this verse in Grudem’s direction. The net result is that scholarly exegetes in general find

his conclusion unpersuasive. The overwhelming consensus among careful scholars

working with this construction is an interpretation that argues against Grudem’s

exegesis. The one clear and perhaps most prominent example supporting Grudem’s

reading can be found in G.B. Winer’s Greek grammar.11

The controversy surrounds the semantic range of this type of construction. In a

recent discussion to this point Daniel Wallace suggests in his Greek Grammar Beyond

the Basics, that such a grammatical construal of the Greek is illegitimate.12 Wallace

demonstrates persuasively that Grudem’s interpretation of the syntax concerning the

article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Ephesians 2:20 has neither clear nor

ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true

10 Grudem concedes by saying, “The central question is whether these verses refer to all the Christians who had the gift of prophecy in first-century churches. If so, then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique “foundational” role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Gaffin- we would clearly expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete.” Ibid, 330.

11 G.B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. and rev. by W. F. Moulton, 3rd ed., rev. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882] § 19.4.d, p. 116.

12 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 284-286.

6

grammatical parallel that Grudem cites has been largely misunderstood (Eph. 4:11, tou.j

de. poime,naj kai. didaska,louj). He suggests that few exegetes have thoroughly

investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction.13

Despite this evidence, Grudem says of Wallace in The Gift of Prophecy, “I do not think

his argument is as persuasive as it might initially appear”. Thus he defends his exegesis

by stating, “The absence of the second article in the tw/n avposto,lwn kai. profhtw/n

means that the writer views the apostles and prophets as a single group”.14

Not only does Wallace disagree with this conclusion, other scholars see it as a

tenuous position. Even a preliminary survey of various exegetical and critical

commentaries has shown this. Charles Ellicott in his commentary on Ephesians says,

“No great stress can be laid on absence of the article: this only shows that the Apostles

and Prophets were regarded as one class, not that they were identical.”15 T. K. Abbott

says, “We have the analogy of iii. 5 and iv. 11, in both of which passages apostles and

prophets are named together, and the prophets are New Testament prophets. These

passages also disprove the suggestion that the apostles themselves are here called

prophets. The absence of the article before profhtw/n is natural, since the apostles and

prophets formed one class as teachers of the Church. […There appears no] reason here

why apostles should be called by this additional title.”16

The controversy rests in the perceived ambiguity of this Greek construction.

Despite the syntactical complexities of this type of construction, careful work has been

13 For further study here see: Daniel Wallace, “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-Kai’-

Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament” in Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983) 59-84. 14 Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy pp. 333-334. 15 Charles J. Ellicott, St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: with a Critical and Grammatical

Commentary (London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1864) 53. 16 T.K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, The

International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1946) 72.

7

done by grammarians to make sense of it. So, while Grudem’s exegesis is theoretically

possible, it becomes evident in this case that it is exegetically not probable.

An Analysis of the Construction

The article-noun-kai-noun construction has been the recipient of much research

by Greek grammarians. In fact, Grudem’s chief argument supporting the translation

“apostles who are also prophets” comes from an application of a grammatical rule

dealing with the above mentioned construction. This grammatical rule is known as the

Grandville Sharp rule. The rule states: when two nouns of the same case are connected

by a kai and preceded by only one definite article, then the latter noun always relates to

the same person that is expressed by the first noun.17 At first, stating the rule in simple

terms appears to add credence to Grudem’s exegesis. However, a more detailed

examination of the rule actually generates serious questions about his exegetical

conclusions.

There are four lesser known conditions that any given article-noun-kai-noun

construction must meet to qualify for the Grandville sharp conclusion. They are as

follows: 1.) Both nouns must be personal. 2.) Neither noun can be a proper name. 3.)

Both nouns must be in the same case. 4.) Both nouns must be singular. In my own study

of this construction I was able to find 74 occurrences of singular nouns governed by a

single definite article. When a more specified search was conducted eliminating all

occurrences of proper names, only 59 occurrences were found. In both cases, Ephesians

2:20 was not included in the list of occurrences because neither noun is singular. When

17 Grandville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article in the Greek Text of the New

Testament, 1st American edition, (Philadelphia: B.B. Hopkins, 1807) p. 3; In defense of the validity of the Grandville Sharp rule see: C. Kuehne, Journal of Theology, (“The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity” in JT 13 [September, 1973] 12-28.

8

the Grandville Sharp rule is applied to Ephesians 2:20 we can make three observations.

First, the rule by itself, without the stipulations, supports Grudem’s exegesis of

Ephesians 2:20. Second, when the grammar of the verse is tested by the conditions of

the rule, it meets all the conditions but one. Third, the condition within the Grandville

Sharp rule that the grammar of Ephesians 2:20 fails to meet is that both nouns have to

be singular.18 Therefore, Grudem’s exegesis of Ephesians 2:20 falls by the very

Grandville Sharp rule that presumably supported it.

More recently, work has been done to validate this point.19 It is plainly evident

that this is not the case. In fact, both of the nouns are plural. In Ephesians 2:20 apostles

and prophets are closely linked. They are both critical components of the one

foundation. But the Greek rules of grammar lend no support for Grudem’s apostles who

are also prophets’ interpretation. If Grudem continues to interpret the verse in this way,

he will have to do it on contextual grounds, even though the rules of grammar oppose

this reading.

Contextual Analysis

Having considered the grammatical weakness of Grudem’s position, it will now

be helpful to examine his argument contextually. The context of the book of Ephesians,

other writings within the Pauline corpus and the New Testament at large demonstrate a

clear distinction between apostles and prophets. Even if Grudem’s argument stood

grammatically (which is not the case), such an interpretation does not comport with the

18 Note Matthew 12:38, tinej tw/n grammate,wn kai. Farisai,wn. 19 See: E. A. Blum “Studies in Problem Areas of the Greek Article” [Th. M. thesis, Dallas

Theological Seminary, 1961] p. 29; and James Barr Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961) p. 4.

9

context of Ephesians nor other passages wherein these two gifts are clearly

distinguished.

The Ephesian Context

The context of Ephesians reinforces the grammatical argument that apostles and

prophets should be seen as fundamentally distinct and not equated.20 These words are

found together in three separate places in the book of Ephesians.21 In each instance they

are clearly distinguished. Unlike the Ephesians 2 passage, it is even clearer that there is

nothing in the grammar of Ephesians 3:5 and 4:11 to suggest an appositional or

epexegetical idea. In Ephesians 3:5, Paul is making the point that the mysteries of Christ

which were hidden in previous generations have now been revealed (nu/n avpekalu,fqh)

to the apostles and prophets. Through the use of adverb now it is clear that Paul is

referring to New Testament prophets. Further, since apostles and prophets are not in

apposition and are joined by a coordinating conjunction, these New Testament prophets

are to be seen as distinct from the apostles. Thus, F.F Bruce concludes, “The church is

built on the foundation upon the twofold (italics mine) foundation of apostles and

prophets.”22

When Ephesians 4:11 is examined the distinction becomes clearer. In this

passage Paul’s very ordering of the gifts shows that he intends to make just such a

20 I say “fundamentally” because there is some sense in which apostles and prophets though

entirely distinct are nonetheless united in some ways. See Dan Wallace, The Semantic Range, who says, “By way of illustration, the clause, “The Democrats and Republicans approved the bill unanimously,” the two political parties, though distinct, are united on a particular issue.

21 See, Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11. 22 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the New

Testament, (Grand Rapids: Mi., William B. Eerdmans 1984) 315.

10

distinction.23 To elucidate this point, he uses a me.n de construction to distinguish

between the gifts Christ has given to the church.24 David Alan Black says, “the particles

me.n…de may be coordinated with the article to function like a pronoun: “some

were…but others”. We have already noted the fragile aspects of Grudem’s argument

concerning the syntax of 2:20. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that the (me.n de)

construction of 4:11 supports what the (article-noun- kai.- noun) construction of 2:20

allows viz., the prophets are distinct from apostles.

Larger Pauline Context

When the larger context of Pauline literature is considered the distinction

remains in tact. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:28-29,

28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

If we allow this passage to speak on its own terms, it becomes further textual evidence

that the New Testament at large suggests a distinction between apostles and prophets.25

One must not overlook Paul’s purposeful use of the words “first” and “second” in

establishing the uniqueness of these gifts. Therefore, when 1 Cor. 12:28 is seen together

with Eph. 4:11, it establishes an overwhelming burden of proof for those who would see

anything other than a distinction between the titles in Ephesians 2:20.

Larger Canonical Context

23 Due to the clarity of distinction, Grudem takes pains to argue that the context and grammar of

Eph. 4:11 make it plain that the prophets mentioned there are different from those mentioned in Eph. 2:20.

24 David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me, (Grand Rapids: Mi., Baker Books 1998) 79. 25 It should be said that Grudem acknowledges the distinction in 1 Cor 12:28, but asserts that just

because they are used in distinction here does not mean that they are necessarily in distinction everywhere else as well (p. 343). However, in lieu of the evidence presented, the burden of proof remains with any who suggest anything other than a distinction.

11

Paul was not the only inspired writer who recognized the dissimilarity of these

gifts to the church. What is found in Paul’s usage of these terms in Ephesians and in the

larger Pauline context, can also be found in the writings of John and the larger canonical

context. One example can be found in Revelation 18:20 as John (or rather, the Lord

Jesus himself) draws a distinction between saints, apostles, and prophets. 26 In addition,

1 John 4:1 teaches that the only false prophets in the New Testament were those who

did not have authority, viz., they were not sent from God. The reverse is true. Being

sent from God implies authority-- meaning that all true New Testament prophets who

spoke for God were foundational.

The apostles and prophets are indistinct with regard to being foundational but

are distinct with regard to function. It may be said that while all apostles were

prophetic, not all prophets were apostles. The scope of apostolic ministry was universal

while the scope of prophetic ministry was more geographic and ecclesiastical role.27

Despite the difference in function, both shared an infallible authority and each

contributed in their own unique way to the foundation of the church. True prophets of

God are by definition authoritative because they speak on behalf of God.28 The category

of a true and yet fallible prophet is totally foreign to the pages of Scripture. By arguing

26 It should be stated that this distinction in no way undermines the authority of those who were

prophets but not apostles. In Are the Miraculus Gifts for Today, (Grand Rapids: Mi., Zondervan 1996) p. 48., Gaffin argues, “even the two explicit instances of non-apostolic prophecy in the New Testament do not support the view that it was fallible. These are the prophesies of Agabus in Acts 11:28, and 21:10-11.”

27 For validation of this point see the account of Agabus in Acts 11:27, 28; 21:10; also note the prophets found in Acts 13:1; 15:32.

28 True prophets in the Old Testament were by common consent inspired and infallible in their declarations. In the New Testament, particularly in Acts, indiscriminate references are made to both Old and New Testament prophecy with no distinction between the two. References to Old Testament prophecy include: Acts 2:16; 3:24, 25; 10:43; 13:27, 40; 15:15; 24:14; 26:22, 27 and 28:33. Interspersed among all these verses are references to New Testament prophecy. It is unwarranted to assert a distinction either in fallibility or authority between Old and New Testament prophets/prophecy without any explicit textual indication.

12

this way, Grudem abandons the unity of New Testament prophecy by establishing in

effect two gifts: non-continuing “foundational” infallible prophecy, and continuing

fallible prophecy.29

Additional Theological Observations

It should be observed that one of the clear theological presuppositions in

Grudem’s theology is the idea that there exists such a thing as a prophet who can be

both true and fallible at the same time. As we have seen, in order for Grudem’s

argument to work, he must show that the closest parallel to OT prophets in the NT are

not NT prophets but NT apostles. This is undoubtedly because in Grudem’s mind there

is an authority distinction between Old and New Testament prophecy. In addition, he

does not want to say that there is any such thing as continuing prophecy that carries

with it the authority of Scripture, as did OT prophecy. So, he says, “There is a very

prominent group of people in the NT who do speak with absolute divine authority and

who did write most of the books of the NT. These men are called not ‘prophets’ but

‘apostles’. In many ways they are similar to the Old Testament prophets.”30 Chief

among these “many ways” is the idea of speaking with “absolute divine authority”.

Grudem is right to affirm that OT prophecy was infallible. Where his thinking is

unpersuasive however is his argument for essentially two types of New Testament

prophecy. The result is that one type is apostolic and authoritative, while the other is

ecclesiastical and non-authoritative. He is bound to argue this way in order for him to

make the necessary distinctions he wants to make. On the one hand he wants to say that

OT prophecy and God’s inscripturated Word are absolutely authoritative. On the other

29 See: D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, (Grand Rapids: Baker , 1987) pp. 114-116. 30 Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, p. 27.

13

hand, he wants to affirm that the prophecy, which continues today, is subservient to

Scripture and does not rival it in authority. Thus, the only way he can hold to both

positions is to argue for an authority distinction between prophetic/apostolic and non-

apostolic/prophetic New Testament prophesy. His best evidence to support this

distinction, as we have noted, is found in his exegetical argument in Ephesians 2:20 for

apostles and prophets being a single group of people, making up the sole foundation for

the church. These apostle-prophets are the only individuals in the NT and beyond whose

prophecies carried with them absolute divine authority. But we have already shown the

exegetical and contextual deficiency of this argumentation. Thus, we will challenge his

premise.

It appears that Grudem has exercised a great deal of effort in trying to defend a

premise that is faulty to begin with, that is, the idea that are two types of New

Testament prophecy, authoritative and non-authoritative. It is the continuing of this

second category of New Testament non-apostolic, fallible, and ecclesiastical prophecy,

which exists today. In order to establish such a premise Grudem must show biblical

evidence for the existence of non-apostolic, non-authoritative, yet nevertheless, true

prophecy.

Naturally, he attempts to distance New Testament prophecy from Old Testament

prophecy, so that it is not subject to the strict standards of Old Testament prophecy.

Like the apostles in the New Testament all true prophets of the Old Testament were

infallible and absolutely authoritative. This is not to say of course that prophets and

apostles led lives that were infallible and always spoke with infallibility in every

circumstance, but it does mean that while prophets and apostles were speaking the

14

words of God within their apostolic and prophetic role these words were infallible and

absolutely authoritative. According to Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and Deuteronomy 18:15-22

it is clear that all true prophets spoke with infallibility and divine authority. It is also

clear that any prophet who claimed to be a mouthpiece for God and spoke false words

or made a mistake in their prophetic utterances were to be declared false prophets

(18:22). It has been argued, and I think persuasively so, that a true prophet must possess

two infallible marks, “First, what he prophesies must always come true. Second, he

must not contradict previous revelation, but teach people to follow the true God (the

God revealed through Moses.”31

The divine authority of Old Testament prophecy is without question. In addition,

the prophetic words spoken by a true prophet of God were to be obeyed. Those who

refused to listen and take heed to such words were punished. This is because such

prophecies came from the very mouth of God. With this as a backdrop for our

understanding of New Testament prophecy, several important questions surface.

First, if we look at the New Testament will we see any examples of prophecies,

which were fallible and yet true at the same time? Second, will we see any examples of

prophets who were fallible yet authoritative at the same time? Third, will we see any

examples of prophets who spoke fallible, non-authoritative words but were nevertheless

still considered to be true prophets? If the answer to any or all of these questions is in

the affirmative, Grudem appears to be on the right track. However, if the answers to

31 Sam Waldron, To Be Continued, Do The Miraculous Gifts Continue?, (Calvary Press: Merrick

NY, 2005) p. 52.

15

these questions are not in the affirmative, then Grudem is wrong to see an essential

authority/fallibility distinction or two-kinds of prophecy in the Bible.32

To be fair, Grudem changes the language in his book, The Gift of Prophecy from

speaking of “two kinds of prophecy” to “two types of prophets”.33 In this sense, he

argues that is not so much that there exists two kinds of prophecy but that there are two

types of prophets, ecclesiastical and apostolic. This however is a form of special

pleading, resulting in mere academic nuance. The reality is there can be no legitimate

divorce between prophets and their prophecies. A person is either a false prophet or a

true prophet. If he is a true prophet he is speaking the words of God and these words

must be true. The truthfulness or falsity of such words determines the genuineness of a

prophet. Therefore, it is expected that all legitimate prophets speak the true words of

God whether they are apostolic or non-apostolic and these words must not contain any

measure of error.

Finally, we must conclude with a few observations concerning the relationship

between infallibility and human mediation. First, we must not assume that prophetic

words lose their essential authority because they are communicated through human

agency. Though the divine voice is communicated by means of human agency, it

nevertheless does not diminish in any way the authority by which God speaks. What the

prophet says is nothing less than God’s word. God in His soverign orchestation will see

to it that His word, spoken through his true prophets, is communicated accurately and

32 Grudem’s cheif example is Agabus in Acts 21:10-11; 27-35 where his prophecy contains two

‘small’ mistakes. Grudem argues that this type of propecy would not have held up to the standard assigned to it in the OT. The problem with this is that in Acts 11:28 Agabus has already been identified as a true prophet, where the trueness of his prophecy is connected to his words coming to pass.

33 For this earlier language see: Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1982), 3-5, 110-113.

16

without error. The idea that the word of God is somehow fallible because it has come

through creaturly means is not scriptural and is infact the result of liberal theologians

such as Karl Barth.

Second, it is the clear assumption of evangelicals that OT prophets and NT

apostles communicated the words of God through human agency and yet this in no way

diminished the authority of their words. The apostles themselves are quick to affirm that

they spoke with divine authority. They did not assume that since they were merely

human beings that somehow their words lost a measure of authority. In fact the words

they communicate they expect to be obeyed, not because they said them, but because

God said them. This is how intimate God’s own word is bound up wit their

communication.

Third, it is hypocritical for Grudem, and others who go his direction, to assume

that a prophecy somehow loses authority because it is mediated through a person who is

less than an apostle. Surely, all the true prophets who spoke in Corinth carried

authoritative messages to be heeded and quickly responded to. What biblical evidence is

there for the suggestion that the standards for prophetic utterance changes when a less

than an apostle speak a prophetic word? If Grudem is to be consistent with the Biblical

witness he will have to acknowledge the unity of standard for all prophets whether they

are NT apostles or Corinthian’s with a spiritual gift. But if modern prophecy is to

continue under this standard, this is a scrutiny too great to bear. Perhaps this is the

reason why Grudem’s definition for prophecy is vague. In his words, a prophecy is,

“telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.”34

34 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994) p. 1049.

17

Summary

Grudem has argued for the continuation of a fallible version of NT prophecy.

His key proof text is Ephesians 2:20. He labors to prove that prophecy continues for the

church today because the church was established only on the infallible apostle/prophets

whose office alone has ceased. The result is that infallible NT prophecy ceased with that

office. What continues today is fallible ecclesiastical prophecy, which is not equal to the

scriptures in authority. I have labored to show that the problems with his arguments are

threefold. First it is exegetically unpersuasive. The grammar of Ephesians 2:20 will not

support the equation of apostles and prophets. Second, his argument is contextually

unpersuasive. The words apostles and prophets all through the book of Ephesians, the

larger Pauline corpus, and the rest of the Bible are clearly distinguished from one

another. Third, Grudem’s argument raises significant theological problems such as an

unwarranted discontinuity between Old Testament prophets and certain other New

Testament prophets. This discontinuity manifests itself in an unwarranted distinction of

authority resulting in illegitimate classification of two-types of NT prophets.

Conclusion

It should be said that while Dr. Grudem’s apologetic for continuationism rests

on a broader platform than just the distinction between Old and New Testament

prophets, it nevertheless is a key component to that foundation. This paper has focused

on that key component, and has attempted to show that it is an utterly insufficient piece

of evidence for building a theology for continued prophecy. Admittedly, the preceding

lines of argument have been brief and introductory. If time and space allowed they

could be expanded and developed. Nevertheless, they have at least identified some

18

serious obstacles for advocates of Grudem’s position. If one should choose to argue for

the gift of prophecy remaining with the church, let it be asserted that none of the weight

of that argument should rest upon the equation of prophets and apostles in Ephesians

2:20.

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books

Abbott, T.K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians,

The International Critical Commentary Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1946. Barr, James. Semantics of Biblical Language Oxford: Oxford University, 1961. Black, David Alan. It’s Still Greek to Me, Grand Rapids: Mi. Baker Books, 1998. E. A. Blum. Studies in Problem Areas of the Greek Article, Th. M. thesis, Dallas

Theological Seminary, 1961. Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Ephesians, The New International Commentary on the

New Testament, Grand Rapids: Mi., William B. Eerdmans 1984. Carson, D.A. Showing the Spirit, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Ellicott, Charles. St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1864.

The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. edition, © 1998, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-

Stuttgart. Grudem, Wayne A. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today Westchester,

IL: Crossway Books, 1988. Grudem, Wayne A. Are the Miraculus Gifts for Today, Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan,

1996. Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1994. New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975,

1977, by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. Sharp, Grandville. Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article in the Greek Text of the

New Testament, 1st American edition, Philadelphia: B.B. Hopkins, 1807. Waldron, Samuel E. To Be Continued, Do the Miraculous Gifts Continue? Merrick,

NY: Calvary Press, 2005. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1996.

Winer, G.B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. and rev. by W. F. Moulton, 3rd ed., rev. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882.

20

Articles Farnell, F. David “Does the New Testament Teach Two Prophetic Gifts?” Bibliotheca

Sacra 150 (January-March 1993): 62-88 Kuehne, C “The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity” Journal of Theology

13 (1973): 12-28. Wallace, Daniel “The Semantic Range of the Article-Non-Kai’-Noun Plural

Construction in the New Testament” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983): 59-84.

White, R. Fowler “Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin’s Cessationist

Exegesis” WTJ 54 (Fall 1992): 321-330.

21

22