The “Problems” with Biblical Prophecy

By Nathan Busenitz @http://www.sfpulpit.com/

Recently, I have been studying biblical prophecy from an apologetics perspective. It is a fascinating topic, and one that I have found to be very confirming.

In my studies I have come across five major objections to biblical prophecy (from critics and skeptics). Perhaps there are others, but these are the primary ones that I have found. Without going into too much detail, for the sake of space, I would like to briefly respond to each of these five objections in today’s post.

Critical Objection 1: Many biblical prophecies were written after the events they predict.

This objection is usually reserved for prophecies that were both predicted and fulfilled during Old Testament times (since it is impossible to credibly assert that the messianic prophecies of the OT post-date the life of Christ).

In response, a couple points can be made. First, very compelling cases have been made by conservative commentators for the authenticity of each of the Old Testament prophecies in question. Excellent discussions on the dating of each prophetic book, and even each individual prophecy, can be found in solid exegetical commentaries and other resources on the Old Testament.

To cite one example, after extensively studying Daniel’s prophecies (one particular hotbed among critics) from a linguistic and historical point-of-view, Gleason L. Archer concludes, “The linguistic evidence from Qumran makes the rationalistic explanation for Daniel no longer tenable [i.e., that it was written later than the events it predicts]. It is difficult to see how any scholar can defend this view and maintain intellectual respectability.” Later he notes, “There is no evading the conclusion that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel were inspired by the same God who later fulfilled them, or who will fulfill them in the last days.”[1]

Second, it is important to understand that the case for redating OT prophecies (as the critics attempt to do) is an arbitrary one—driven primarily by their antisupernatural presuppositions. But if messianic prophecies (which everyone agrees predate Jesus Christ) can be shown to have been fulfilled by Christ, then there exists an undeniable example of predictive prophecy being fulfilled. Such would directly undermine the antisupernatural presupposition that critical scholars bring to the text.

Evangelical scholar Robert C. Newman, who has written considerably on the topic of biblical prophecy, notes the failure of critical scholarship to discount the authenticity of OT prophecies: “Even when critical scholarship has done its best to redate Old Testament texts so as to avoid fulfilled prophecy, the constraints provided by the translation of the Old Testament into Greek (250–150 B.C.) and the rise of the Christian church leave a substantial residue of clear examples [of fulfilled prophecies].”[2]

Critical Objection 2: Many “fulfillments” were arbitrarily directed toward Jesus by His followers (even though the original prophecy had nothing to do with the coming Messiah).

I believe this objection is due in large part to confusion over the way that the New Testament writers speak of prophetic “fulfillments.” As Bible scholar William Varner explains:

Regarding the specific number of promises about the Messiah, there is a wide divergence of opinion. Rabbinical writings refer to 456 separate Old Testament passages used to refer to the Messiah and messianic times (Edersheim, 710-41). One Christian scholar lists 127 personal messianic prophecies (Payne, 667-68). The differences are due to the way in which the New Testament refers to the Old Testament promises. There are direct messianic prophecies (e.g., Micah 5:2; Zech. 9:9); typical messianic prophecies, utilizing an immediate referent in the prophet’s day which pointed to the ultimate referent (e.g., the sacrificial levitical system); and applications of Old Testament concepts to the Messiah (e.g., the reference Matthew 2:23 makes to the prophets saying: “He will be called a Nazarene.”) If we limit ourselves to the direct messianic prophecies just mentioned, a conservative number would be around 65.[3]

When we talk about “fulfilled prophecy” with unbelievers, I believe it is best to either explain how the New Testament speaks of fulfillment, or to focus on direct messianic prophecies. Narrowing the “prophetic field” to just the direct messianic prophecies does not diminish the apologetic value of prophecy. Rather (in our opinion) it increases the credibility of our apologetic case by removing potential confusion from the hearer.

It has been calculated that the probability of only 48 prophecies coming true in one person is 10 to the 157th power, making it a statistical impossibility.[4] The point is that the case for Christ does not get any weaker when we get more specific.

We would add also that the Jews before the time of Jesus saw key passages like Genesis 3:15; Deuteronomy 18:15, 18–19; Psalm 2; 118:22; Isaiah 7:14; 11:1–10; and 53:1–12 as messianic in nature. Jesus’ followers did not invent the messianic implications of these passages.[5] As Alfred Edersheim explains, “A careful perusal of their [the Rabbi’s] Scripture quotations shows that the main postulates of the New Testament concerning the Messiah [i.e. that Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah] are fully supported by Rabbinic statements.”[6]

Critical Objection 3: Many of the “fulfillments” were intentionally fulfilled by Jesus, meaning they were faked. Jesus was motivated to try and fulfill messianic prophecy, so He manipulated the circumstances to make that happen.

The answer to this objection is easy. On the one hand, there are prophecies that Jesus intentionally fulfilled. We cannot deny that He was very aware of the Father’s timing (cf. John 13:1; 17:1), and that He deliberately purposed to accomplish certain things at the proper moment (cf. Luke 9:51; 18:31).

On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled many prophecies that no mere man could accomplish in his own power, no matter how intentional he might be. The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah would be a physical descendant of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), Jacob (Num. 24:17), Judah (Gen. 49:10), Jesse (Is. 11:1), and David (Jer. 23:5), but not of Jeconiah (Jer. 22:30—making the virgin birth necessary); that He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); that He would have a forerunner like Elijah (Mal. 3:1); that He would be able to perform miracles (Is. 35:5, 6); that He would cause a major stir among His people and eventually be rejected by them (Psalm 118:22); that He would be beaten and killed as a criminal (Is. 53:5–12); that He would be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9); that He would have His side pierced (Zech. 12:10); that He would die before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26); and that, in spite of His death, His days would be prolonged, implying resurrection (Is. 53:10).

This list is not exhaustive, but it makes the point because these are things that would be humanly impossible to fake or manipulate. Jesus fulfilled many prophecies that an ordinary human being could not have “orchestrated” or “pre-arranged.”

Finally, it should be noted that even if Jesus did fulfill some prophecies intentionally, this does not invalidate those predictions. The fact that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy perfectly, intentionally or not, points convincingly to Him as the Messiah. No one else in all of history (in spite of their best efforts) can make such a claim.

To quote Newman again: “Of all the Messianic claimants that Judaism has ever had, the only one ever considered an outstanding historical figure and ethical teacher (even by atheists) is Jesus of Nazareth. And He ‘just happened’ to conduct His short public ministry and be ‘cut off’ (killed) in the period A.D. 28-35 [in fulfillment of Daniel 9]!”[7]

Critical Objection 4: Many of the “fulfillments” were invented by Jesus’ followers (as recorded in the NT gospels) and cannot be independently verified by other sources.

This objection can also be answered on several fronts. First, as we have discussed in previous articles, the New Testament gospel writers demonstrate themselves to be historically reliable sources. Second, the main points of the Jesus’ life are attested to by sources outside the Bible (see here).

Third, even Jesus enemies (in places such as the Babylonian Talmud) do acknowledge certain key aspects of Jesus life by attempting to explain them away: such as the virgin birth (prefigured in Isaiah 7:14), Jesus’ healing and other miracles (see Isaiah 35:5–6; 61:1–2), Jesus’ claim to deity (prophesied in Isaiah 9:6), His rejection by the religious leaders (foretold in Psalm 118:22); and His horrific death (predicted in Isaiah 53).[8]

Fourth, as we noted above, Daniel 9:26 predicted that the Messiah would come before the destruction of the temple (something that would have been necessary for his ancestry to be confirmed by the temple’s genealogical records). Not only would this have been completely outside of Jesus’ control, it is also clearly attested by historical fact.

It might also be added that other prophecies (regarding the nation of Israel) have also been fulfilled since the time of Christ. Following the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem by the Romans (Daniel 9:26; cf. Luke 21:24), such prophesies include the dispersion of the Jews among the nations (Deuteronomy 28:64; cf. Ezekiel 22:14–15; Hosea 9:17), the persecution of the Jews throughout much of history (Deuteronomy 28:65–67), and the subsequent return of Israel to the land (Ezekiel 20:34; Hosea 3:4–5; Amos 9:14–15; cf. Isaiah 11:11).

Nearly two millennia after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews again established a nation in the Promised Land in 1948. As Jewish-Christian scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains, “The restoration of the Jewish State is a fulfillment of those prophecies that spoke of a regathering [of the nation] in unbelief in preparation for judgment” (cf. Ezekiel 20:33–38; 22:17–22; 36:22–24; Isaiah 11:11, 12; Zephaniah 2:1, 2).[9]

Critical Objection 5: Many biblical prophesies have not come to pass.

This is easily answered by noting the difference between historical prophecies (those which spoke of events which would occur in a relatively short time after they were predicted—including messianic prophecies), and end-times prophecies (which will not be fulfilled until Jesus returns) or heavenly prophecies (those which are not fulfilled on this earth).

To quote again from Dr. Varner:

The key to understanding the role of the promised Messiah, and also the main difference between traditional Jewish and Christian messianic views, lies in recognizing His dual role of suffering and reigning. While there are many passages that describe a glorious reign for the Messiah (Jer. 23:5,6; 30:1–10; Zech. 14:3ff), there are others that describe His rejection and suffering (Psalm 22, Isa. 53, Zech. 9:9; 12:10; 13:5-7). The NT views the suffering and glory passages as fulfilled in Jesus’ first and second comings respectively (Luke 24:25-27; I Peter 1:10,11).[10]

* * * * *

Notes:

[1] Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), 24–26.

[2] Robert C. Newman, “Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” pp. 214–225 in In Defense of Miracles, edited by Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 224–225.

[3] William Varner, The Messiah: Revealed, Rejected, Received (Bloomington, Ind.: Author House, 2004), 7.

[4] John Ankerberg with John Weldon and Walter Kaiser, The Case for Jesus the Messiah (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1989), 21.

[5] Josh McDowell, in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 169ff surveys some of the Jewish testimony to such prophecies.

[6] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, one volume edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972), 165.

[7] Robert C. Newman, “The Testimony of Messianic Prophecy” 203–214 in Evidence for Faith, edited by John Warwick Montgomery (Dallas, Tex.: Probe Books, 1991), 212.

[8] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton University Press, 2007) catalogues many of the references to Jesus found in Jewish writings after Christ.

[9] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah (San Antonio, Tex.: Ariel Press, 2003), 104.

[10] Varner, The Messiah, 7.

An Amateur Theologian’s Attempt to Address Wayne Grudem’s View of Prophecy (Part II)

By Brian Thornton @ http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com

The following is a continuation from yesterday of my thoughts on Dr. Wayne Grudem’s position concerning prophecy from Chapter 53 of his work, Systematic Theology. This was originally sent to a friend who asked me to evaluate my position in light of Dr. Grudem’s:

- Grudem next appeals to 1 Thes. 5:19-21 - “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.”

- Grudem assumes here that within a given prophecy there can be both good and bad. Paul doesn’t explicitly state this. His exhortation could just as easily mean, ‘hold fast only to the good prophecies’. There’s no direct indication that Paul was referring to a single prophecy that might contain both good and bad.

- It is interesting that Grudem splits NT prophecy into two categories: 1) authoritative apostolic writings and declarations and, 2) imperfect everyday Christian utterances that could contain both good and bad within the same prophecy.

- Next, Grudem addresses 1 Cor. 14:29-40. Here are verses 29-31: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;”

- There is nothing here to hint that the prophecies done in a corporate setting were something other than doctrine related…the oracles of God. In fact, the text seems to give weight to the view that these prophetic revelations were related to truth and doctrine.

- V. 31 “so that all may learn and be exhorted”

- V.29 “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment (or make a distinction)”

- The context here is that judgment (or weighing what’s been said) can and is to take place right there on the spot. The plain reading of this instruction from Paul seems to indicate that as prophets were speaking, what they were saying could be judged and weighed right then in that same corporate setting. There is no indication from Paul that the believers would have to come back at a later time once some uncertain prophecy containing impression on the mind or heart had been made to declare whether or not it in fact turned out to be true. How can this happen except with prophecies concerning known truth…already revealed doctrine?

- NOTE: I am not saying that I believe with 100% certainty that the type of prophecy Paul was speaking of was nothing but the oracles of God. What I am saying is that the text supports the view that whatever was being prophesied, it could be verified or refuted right there in the same corporate setting.- Finally, I want address something regarding some of Grudem’s comments on the type of prophecy he states was in the NT church and which [he believes] exists today. He makes these two statements:

- “There are many indications in the New Testament that this ordinary gift of prophecy had authority less than that of the Bible, and even less than that of recognized Bible teaching in the early church”

- “So prophecy has less authority than “teaching,” and prophecies in the church are always to be subject to the authoritative teaching of Scripture.”

- If this is the case, then why did Paul place prophecy above teaching in 1 Cor. 12:28?

- “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.”

- There is a clear order here, and one that I believe Piper even acknowledged in one of his sermons. Paul was not randomly listing gifts, but was specifically giving a list in a particular order.

- I have not looked into this aspect at any great depth, but it seems problematic to Grudem’s view of prophecy from an initial examination. IF the prophecy mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:28 is the same type as described by Grudem, then it is troubling that Paul gives it more importance than teaching, yet Grudem gives it less importance than teaching.

- Paul mentions some of the gifts in Eph. 4:11, and prophecy is again listed before teaching.

- “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,”

CONCLUSION:

- Grudem’s attempts to find biblical support for what he calls reporting something that God has laid on the heart or brought to the mind are weak at best, and are misleading and do damage to Scripture at worst. He provides no biblical examples of personal, private revelations from God (apart from those that foretell the future), and the exhortations he appeals to from Paul of how to handle prophecy are solely in the context of corporate worship.
- My conclusion from Grudem’s material is this: IF the kind of prophecy Grudem attempts to put forth is still in operation today, then it is to be done only in a corporate setting, and the body should be able to test it on the spot. There is no basis from Grudem’s material for private, personal guidance or impressions or callings. The only non-corporate examples he provided were prophecies which detailed future events. I still can’t get over the fact that Grudem used direct prophecies that foretold of future events (which came true) to prove the existence of personal impressions that God might lay on the heart or mind, and that are subjective and may contain error.
- I’ll go ahead and jump the gun on my review of Piper’s material to say that, although he assumes the existence of private, personal guidance from God, Piper also does not provide any biblical support for it at all (I will clarify that as I go back through his sermons to make notes and be sure of that statement…but I can’t recall right now any specifics from Piper of personal revelatory guidance from God).
- I do not find Grudem’s position convincing that there existed in the 1st century what he and so many are claiming is happening today in the form of people receiving personal messages from God that contain impressions, leadings or instructional guidance on how to live or details of specific things to do (what Phil Johnson calls IM’s from God…instant messages). From a Scriptural perspective, it just seems to be a total non-issue (unless, of course, people want to claim that they have and are receiving direct revelations from God via audible voices, angels, visions, etc.).

- In the larger context of things outside Grudem’s material here on prophecy…am I still a cessationist? I think so. And I will continue to ponder this subject as I study more, including Piper’s material, which is my next task to tackle.

FINALLY:

- The implications of this type of prophecy are critical, because…IF it is true that the type of prophecy Paul instructs about in 1 Cor. 14 is still around today and is supposed to be in practice (and it involves Spirit-led revelations), then aren’t churches who don’t practice this type of prophecy quenching the Spirit? And wouldn’t this be a very serious matter needing the attention of churches and their elders?

An Amateur Theologian’s Attempt to Address Wayne Grudem’s View of Prophecy

By Brian Thornton @ http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com

The following is a response I gave to someone who had asked my opinion of Wayne Grudem’s position on prophecy as outlined by him in his work, Systematic Theology. My response addresses Grudem’s argument for the type of prophecy he believes existed in the first century and which he believes still exists even today, specifically: Chapter 53: GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: (PART 2) SPECIFIC GIFTS - How should we understand and use specific spiritual gifts?

My comments here are limited to prophecy, though Grudem addresses other spiritual gifts in this chapter such as healings, tongues and miracles. I will post the first part of my response today, and probably the rest of it tomorrow. If you have access to it, I would encourage you to read Chapter 53 of Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology in order to get a full perspective of his position and my responses. Keep in mind that this response is limited to only what Grudem has written in this particular chapter (53). Here goes:

At the outset, let me say that I feel I am in no position to refute every single point that someone like Piper or Grudem would make concerning this issue [prophecy]. I have not studied it enough, nor do I have the intellect to put forth a systematic theology of my own on the scale of Grudem or Piper. What I believe I can do, though (and have an obligation to do), is analyze Grudem’s position on prophecy in light of what Scripture reveals and to evaluate Grudem’s use of that Scripture to make his point concerning what he believes about the reality of prophecy today. What follows are some notes I made as I read through Grudem’s chapter (several times) on spiritual gifts, specifically prophecy, and this is by no means an exhaustive look at my thoughts on this. I submit these thoughts humbly and with no divine or final authority. Please note that I also did not utilize MacArthur or any other commentator prior to drawing my conclusions, or in order to make the following points. These are my thoughts alone, and as such, the responsibility for them rests with me.

I guess the easiest way to do this is by using bullet points, so here goes.

Grudem starts off with his case appealing to 1 Cor. 12:28 and 12:8-10, but he primarily follows the flow of v.28, and then addresses words of wisdom/knowledge and distinguishing or spirits from v8. Here is v. 28 – “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.”

Regarding Grudem’s case concerning what he puts forth as being prophecy today, here are my thoughts:

- Grudem says, “Much more commonly, the words prophet and prophecy were used of ordinary Christians who spoke not with absolute divine authority, but simply to report something that God had laid on their hearts or brought to their minds.”…the phrase much more commonly seems to denote several examples from Scripture that can be referenced to support this. He also says, “There are many indications in the New Testament that this ordinary gift of prophecy had authority less than that of the Bible, and even less than that of recognized Bible teaching in the early church”. The term many, such as much more commonly, seems to indicate a plethora of examples to support this position.

- First, I expected to see many indications of how prophecy was much more commonly something that God had simply laid on someone’s heart or mind, as opposed to direct, clear, revelatory information. Here is what Grudem appealed to in order to make his point:

- Acts 21:4 – “After looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.” Grudem says that if this prophecy had contained God’s very words, then Paul would never have disobeyed it. This presupposes that these disciples were telling Paul that the Holy Spirit was telling them to tell him NOT to go to Jerusalem, and the passage doesn’t give that indication at all. I agree with the NASB alternative meaning for the phrase through the Spirit, which would render the verse as because of impressions made by the Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit was revealing to these disciples that Paul was going to be captured and bound in Jerusalem, and as a result of that they urged him not to go there, because they didn’t want to see any harm come to Paul. The passage does not give any indication that they told Paul that the Holy Spirit said not to go…only that the Holy Spirit revealed to them what was awaiting Paul in Jerusalem. I think what we have here is the response by the people to the revelation that Paul would be arrested…not a prophecy that he should not go to Jerusalem.

- In fact, this prophecy echoed Paul’s own revelation from the Holy Spirit concerning this very thing in Acts 20:22-23 – “And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.”

- This is again confirmed (third time) by the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21:27, which Grudem tries to use to show that prophecy then (and now) can contain errors and therefore exists as an imperfect impression or thought from God, rather than clear, direct, revelatory information. Here is the account of Agabus’ prophecy in Acts 21:10-11 – “As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: `In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’””

- Grudem attempts to show that this prophecy from Agabus was just a thought or impression upon Agabus, and not solid, direct, accurate information. Agabus is clear here as well when he begins with, “This is what the Holy Spirit says”.

- He attempts to show that Agabus gave an “erroneus” prophecy regarding Paul being bound and handed over to the Romans, and I find his argument here to be weak and unconvincing. His own acknowledgement of objections to this interpretation are more convincing than his own position at this point. It is clear that Agabus’ prophecy did in fact take place and was an accurate prophecy.

- Grudem seems to be stretching with his attempted justification here that Agabus’ prophecy was incorrect and therefore proof of prophecy being some kind of personal impression-type information from God, rather than clear and unambiguous. He attempts to go a long way to discredit Agaus’ prophecy, and just to prove his own view of what prophecy was and is today as being an imperfect, lower than teaching gift that can be full of errors and therefore not a direct word from God. I just don’t buy into Grudem’s argument here, nor into his interpretation of Scripture with respect to Agabus.

- We have another incident of a prophecy from Agabus in Acts 11:28 – “One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.”

- Here we have another specific prophecy from Agabus that comes to pass as his prophecy concerning Paul came to pass.

- That is it…two passages (I added the one from Paul and the other one from Agabus). That is the extent of Grudem’s prophecy examples to show that prophecy was and is simply an impression on the mind or heart given to common Christians by God that could/can be erroneously interpreted.

- I find it interesting that all of Grudem’s examples he uses to prove that prophecy was/is subjective and not direct, clear information from God are prophecies that foretold of future events…ALL of which came to pass.

- I find it hard to see how these examples translate over to subjective, personal revelatory guidance-type impressions from God on the mind or heart of the believer.