Wayne A. Grudem On Ephesians 2:20

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.

1

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.

2

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

3

“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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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,w n. 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. 19

8

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.

9

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.

10

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 21:1011.” 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.

11

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 30

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

12

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 nonapostolic/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

13

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.

14

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.

15

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.

16

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

17

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.

18

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, DStuttgart. 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.

19

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.

20

21

22