Grudem vs. Ferguson: The Gift of Prophecy (Pt I)

Sinclair Ferguson penned the volume on pneumatology in the InterVarsity Press Contours of Christian Theology series, published in 1996. This wise and excellent work, simply entitled, The Holy Spirit, explores the doctrine of the Person and Work of the Third Person of the Trinity through a Christocentric lens, within a redemptive-historical frame, while relevantly engaging recent questions that have arisen in the wake of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements of the last century. For example, in chapters 3, 4 and 5, “The Gift of the Spirit,” “Pentecost Today?” and “The Spirit of Order,” respectively, Ferguson addresses questions surrounding the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, the meaning of “Spirit-baptism,” (en pneumati) and its relation to the unique inauguration of the new covenant at Pentecost, individual salvation, and seasons of “revival” throughout church history.

Ferguson focuses in on the question of speaking in tongues and prophecy – which has become the storm center of the Charismatic/Non-Charismatic controversy - in his penultimate chapter, “Gifts for Ministry.” In fact, of the 32 pages that constitute this chapter, 27 are dedicated to the debate over the continuation of these particular “word gifts” – more pages than any other one chapter in the entire book (with the exception of chapter 7, “The Spirit of Holiness”). Within the course of his argumentation against continuationism, the only author to receive any sustained and substantial critique is Wayne Grudem, and his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. This relatively large proportion suggests that Ferguson not only considers Grudem’s arguments significant, but also that the whole question of continuation is of great consequence.

Before diving into Dr. Ferguson’s critique, it is worth noting that, in addressing the import of Peter’s citation of Joel’s prophecy to explain the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, he concludes:

“…the central concerns here are not the specific issues which so fascinate the contemporary church (e.g., whether women may preach or prophesy, or whether prophecy is a continuing gift to the church in every age). Here ‘prophesy’ is a metonymy for sharing the messianic Spirit and experiencing the knowledge of the Lord which only the Spirit of the Lord could give (cf. 1Jn.2:20, 27),” (p.63).

Of course these questions were not Peter’s “central concerns” in announcing the ‘this-is-that’ fulfillment of Joel 2. But we cannot conclude that the text, therefore, does not speak to these questions. Certainly, prophecy is a metonymy for the privileged knowledge of God, previously limited to the select 'anointed ones' in the OT(1). As Ferguson concludes, we are not only now all priests in Christ, but prophets as well. However, as a metonymy, obviously “prophecy” does not exclude itself from the various dimensions and manifestations of “immediate, personal knowledge of God” that it here signifies (as Ferguson recognizes on p.62). And it would seem odd if this gift of prophecy, which not only marked the inauguration of the new covenant era, but typified the intimate relationship enjoyed by the Spirit-baptized people of God, were to be entirely absent for the remainder of that redemptive-historical epoch.

But turning to Ferguson’s interactions with Grudem’s arguments, the first observation made relates to the latter’s proposed interpretation of “apostles and prophets” in Eph.2:20 as an hendiadys: “the apostles who are prophets.” Ferguson fairly concludes that “it is doubtful whether this is the most natural reading of the text,” (p.210). But, as Grudem himself has noted in numerous places, this interpretation is relatively inconsequential to his overall case. What is of consequence, however, is Ferguson’s assumption that, in light of this verse, all prophets of the New Testament “exercised a foundational ministry…as a kind of apostolic plenipotentiary,” (p.210; cf. Grudem, pp.307-309). If this were the case, then clearly the role of NT prophets necessarily ended near the close of the apostolic era(2), and the formation of the canon. In an end note, Ferguson writes:

“The view of that Ephesians 2:20 should be taken as a controlling factor in this discussion has been criticized by Grudem and his colleague D.A. Carson. Carson’s criticism of this view as represented by Richard B. Gaffin Jr., is particularly sharp, not to say acerbic. He argues: ‘It is as illegitimate for Gaffin to use this verse as the controlling factor in his understanding of the New Testament gift of prophecy as it would be to conclude from Titus 1:12 (“Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons’”) that New Testament prophets were pagan poets from Crete (Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1Corinthinas 12-14, [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987], p.97). This is an infelicitous criticism. To regard Titus 1:12 as a controlling statement would be prima facie ludicrous,” (p.268).

Of course, this is Carson’s whole point. He has spent the last few pages (pp.91-96) building a case that prophecy covers a range of phenomena (typically with an authority that is sub-apostolic), and so to limit all prophecy to the apparently foundational function indicated in Ephesians 2:20 seems rather arbitrary. However, Dr. Ferguson continues:

“But if, as many commentators have held, Ephesians 2:20 refers to two offices, it inevitably and necessarily exercises a controlling function because it explicitly states that these offices are foundational.”

But this begs the complicated question of the relation between office, function and gift. It assumes that one is a prophet in the official sense of Ephesians 2:20 if and only if one possesses the gift of prophecy. But is the correspondence between gift and office so clearly one-to-one? For example, do all who possess gifts of teaching in the church necessarily occupy the office of teacher?

Moreover, were all the prophets really foundational in the New Testament church? Is there any evidence that, say, Philip’s daughters, or the other female prophets mentioned in 1Corinthians 11 and, presumably, 14 exercised the critical role of establishing the Church’s revelatory foundation? If so, this would be especially problematic for complimentarians. According to Ferguson, there is “consistent precedence given to prophecy over the fundamental but non-foundational ministry of pastors and teachers,” (p.268). However, it is very difficult to see how this could be the case, especially given the subjection of prophets to apostolic authority (e.g., 1Co.14:37-38) and, more remarkably, the continual evaluation by the congregations (or their local leadership) of the prophets’ utterances (1Co.14:29; cf. 1Th.5:19-21).

Curiously, Dr. Ferguson does not address this matter of “weighing” NT prophecies within the congregation. Perhaps he thought the matter sufficiently covered in Edmond Clowney’s chapter, “The Gift of Prophecy in the Church,” in The Church – his ecclesiological contribution to the Contours of Christian Theology series. However, I would note, Grudem clarified some of the confusions on Clowney’s part regarding his actual position and argument for the continuation of prophecy, and responded to some of his former professor’s critiques in Appendix Four of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (pp.307-311).

In our next post, we'll look at Dr. Ferguson's more involved critiques of Grudem's arguments from Acts 21.


(1) Grudem would appear to heartily agree. With respect to Moses’ wish expressed in Nu.11:25, he writes: “Moses longs not just for the prophetic gift but even more for the widespread personal relationship to God that the gift would indicate, for he knows by experience that prophets walk close to God,” p. 273, The Gift of Prophecy, 2000.

(2) On this note, Carson makes a fascinating point regarding the scriptural silence on the role of prophets succeeding the apostles: “The New Testament does not see prophets as the solution to the problem of apostolic succession…If the gift of prophecy was regarded as the equivalent in authority to that of Old Testament prophecy, and if it persisted throughout the New Testament era right into the midpatristic period, why, once the apostles had died, were the prophets not presented as the church’s bastion against false teaching, its source of light and information in the face of uncertainty?”