Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Must We Apply The Bible s Tests For a True Prophet to Paul?
Half the New Testament! There are murmurs of shocked dismay. Yet, such a response presupposes an affirmative answer to the very question posed: does Paul belong in the New Testament?
My answer to such a response is simple: if Paul truly belongs, then prove it! Simply use the Bible's test for adding to Scripture and show everyone that Paul passes its tests. Is this asking too much?
The Bible insists that a Christian demand an answer. We are duty bound to ask our Christian brothers: where is the proof that Paul is to be treated as an inspired prophet? Where is the case Paul has ever been tested and proven a true spokesperson of God by the rigorous demands of Deuteronomy chapters 12, 13 and 18?No one wants to go there but the Bible commands it!
If these tests are to be ignored as to Paul in particular, then why do you think a decade prior to Paul's entry into Christian circles that Jesus emphasized repeatedly that false prophets were to come? (Matt. 7:15, 24:11, 24). Why do you think Jesus warned us these false prophets would come with true signs and wonders? So we would lower our guard and never apply Biblical tests for false prophets? Why would Jesus warn us these false prophets would come in His name ? ((Mark 13:22-23)). Wasn't Jesus trying to encourage distrust of Christians who claimed to have a prophetic office? How could we obey Jesus by refusing to apply the Biblical tests of a true versus a false prophet to Paul? Did Jesus provide us tests of orthodoxy so we would blindly accept someone like Paul who came with signs and wonders ( i.e ., healings, jails opening in earthquakes, etc.)? Of course not. Jesus made no exception for Paul.
"The flock is supposed to be on the lookout for wolves in sheep's clothing."
John F. Mac Arthur, Jr.
T/e- Qcrfgt h-coond
(1994) at 135.
Test for Valid Prophets
The Bereans in Acts 17:10-15 knew this. They tested a sennon by Paul against Scripture. Yet, they had little written material available to them. By comparison, today we are privileged to examine all of Paul's letters. The Bereans only had a single sermon whose contents are unknown. But if Luke presents the Bereans as doing something appropriate, then why would we think we don't have to test Paul in the same manner? We cannot just trust the Bereans' one-time test resolved the issue for all time. Paul could become a Balaam: an evil man converted into a true prophet who later apostasizes. (For further discussion on the Balaam issue, see page 52 below.) Just because Balaam passed the test for a true prophet initially does not guarantee he remained forever a true prophet. Balaam apostasized later and became a false prophet. Accordingly, the Bereans' conclusion about Paul proves nothing. Rather, we need to follow their example of testing Paul to see whether he seduces us from following the commands from prior Scripture and known Prophets (including Jesus).
We thus have an inescapable command from God to test Paul.
Moreover, we shall see Jesus reiterated these tests almost verbatim from Deuteronomy. He intended us specifically to use them to test the writings of anyone which the community wanted to add as inspired canon.
The first test of a valid prophet is they must make a specific prophecy using the name of the Lord. (Deut. 18:2022). If the speaker will not say God told them this secret about the future, the alleged prophetic statement is insufficient to validate the speaker as a true prophet even if it came true. The reason for such strictness is the test has both a positive and negative side. On the positive, if valid, we treat such a speaker's words as from God. Thus, the speaker's words must squarely come within God's definition e.g., an angel alone was his source, we cannot impose the death penalty on the speaker for false prophecy. We must follow Scripture strictly. In this example, the speaker did nothing worthy of death because he claimed his prophecy came from an angel alone, without God's voice confirming it. Thus, unless the would-be prophet says thus sayeth the Lord at some meaningful point as his source in conjunction with his prediction, he cannot be a prophet in the Biblical sense if his prediction just so happens to come true. For the same reason, if what he said proves false and he did not ascribe his source to God personally, we cannot kill him. Because he did not dare make the prophecy in the Lord's name, he suffers no penalty. No risk, no gain. No risk, no loss.
Likewise, if the event is easily predictable, such as the sun will come up or a plane will safely weather a stonn, there is nothing highly improbable in such an outcome. The predicted outcome, while not guaranteed, is predictable. It has a significant probability it would have happened anyway. The Bible says such predictions are not prophetic material. Jeremiah chapter 28 tells us that predictable events are no basis to regard their prediction as true prophecy. 1
- See, Jer. 28:8-9. As Knudd Jepperson (D.D., University Lecturer) points out on this verse: "The prophet who in the name of the Lord foretold misery and misfortune, however, would sooner or later be right. If the time had not yet come, one could rest assured that eventually there would be so much evil, that misery necessarily had to come." (Jepperson, On False And True Prophets in the Old Testament, God Himself for a highly specific and unlikely prediction. Otherwise, imposing a death penalty would be unjust. ((Deut. 18:20-22)). However, once exposed as false prophecy, God says: "Thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deut. 18:22). The necessity to follow this testing of their words comes from the command to not add to canon et seq.)
In summary, divine prophecy implies necessarily that the prediction must be something specific and highly improbable that only God would know. If it does not happen, the false prophet is to be killed. Of course, to repeat, the wouldbe prophet had to first use the words thus sayeth the Lord or an equivalent, e.g., Jesus claimed to speak as I AM Himself
Thus, Balaam went from a true prophet to a false prophet solely by the content of his teachings.
God explains why he allows such men to speak prophetically and have signs and wonders "that come true." God allows them to come to seduce you as a test of your Love for God. The Lord explains this precisely in (Deut. 12:3213:5:)
Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, So you shall purge the evil from among you. (ASV.) 2
If some would-be prophet seeks to "seduce" us "from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk," you must reject him. His god cannot be the true God. His god must be an idol even if he calls on Yahweh. This is true even if he comes with signs and wonders. God tells us to ignore such a prophet's words or otherwise we are joining his rebellion. Isaiah instructs us to apply a similar content-o riented test to determine a true prophet.
[Compare teachers] [t]o the Law and the Testimony [and], if they
speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in
them. ((Isa. 8:20)).
Norman Geisler, a conservative Christian scholar and President of the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, concurs on the essential meaning of Deuteronomy. He agrees that if Paul seduces us from following what God already commanded in previous Scripture, he must be rejected:
Any teaching about God contrary to what the people already knew to be true was to be rejected....If the teaching of the apostle Paul did not accord with the teaching of the Old Testament, brands him a false prophet. Geisler, a conservative defender of Scripture, agrees that Paul must be measured by whether his words accord with what God commanded in the original Hebrew Scripture.
Jesus says so likewise in (Matt. 7:15-23) and 24:11, 24. So does (Deut. 4:2) and (Deut. 13:5).
As to Paul, the Bereans were on the right path. They compared Paul to Scripture. (Acts 17:11). The Bereans simply did not have the later words of Paul. They did not have access to Paul's letters that we do. Paul's later words must be tested by Scripture that God delivered by the prophets before him. Paul's words must also be tested by the words of Jesus who is both Prophet and Lord.
Before we examine this Deuteronomy test, let's see what test is commonly used instead.
Does Paul Get A Free Pass Because of His Fiery Spirit, Zeal, and Long Acceptance?
When it comes to the question why was the canon put together to include Paul, Paulunists typically give unbiblical justifications. They retreat to a justification of inclusion based on our feelings, our perception of a good purpose, and long tradition. These grounds are set forth as an independent test which can validate something as canon despite the writing not otherwise satisfying the proper Biblical test.
For example, Josh McDowell in his famous Evidence that Demands a Verdict says the criteria for New Testament canon are: "Is it authoritative.... prophetic.... authentic.... dynamic? Was it received, collected, read and used...?" in the name of the Lord ;
-
Came true; and
-
The would-be prophet's teachings at all subsequent times are 100% consistent with prior tested and tried Scripture, and do not negate any commands in such Scripture.
The Origin of McDowell s Test
Where did the Josh McDowell test come from? Such a criteria to assess canon clearly first appears in a work called the Shepherd of Hernias. This work was written near 125 A.D. The Shepherd was part of Christian canon for about two hundred years thereafter. In the Codex Sinaiticus from the late 300 A.D. period, the Shepherd was printed right after the book of Revelation. Numerous church leaders said it was "divinely inspired."
The Shepherd taught in what it calls the Eleventh Commandment that "a true prophet" is someone who changes their hearers for the better, whose message is lofty, and who is meek and peaceable himself. By contrast, the false prophet will "shun" teaching the righteous. His listeners will be as empty as before they heard their message. 4 Under this loose test of the prophetic, the Shepherd itself was allowed to pass into the NT canon for two hundred years of early Christianity.
However, then in the late 300s, the Shepherd began to be dropped from canon productions. It was removed apparently because it said adultery could be forgiven. Tertullian
-
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino: Here's Life, 1979) Vol. 2 at 29.
-
See the Eleventh Commandment Shepherd then disappears from Christian canons beginning in the 300s. It never returns.
This adultery-as-unpardonable principle may seem an odd criteria to determine canon. However, it is the very same reason why pious Christians in the 300s tampered with Jesus' words in John 7:53-8:11. This is the passage where Jesus pardons the woman accused of adultery. Most versions of John's Gospel in the era of the 300s removed this passage. Augustine in 430 A.D. skewers them for deleting the text. Augustine mentions his contemporaries wrongly thought Jesus could not forgive the woman charged with adultery. 5 As a result of this deletion, most of us have read the NIV's note which says the most "reliable" manuscripts of that era omit the passage.
- The NIV footnote reads: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." This makes it appear this is a forgery. However, the NIV comment is misleading by lacking context. It is also patently false as to the claim "ancient witnesses" do not have the passage. First, the passage is in numerous uncials, including Codex D (Bazae Cantabrigiensis), G, H, K, M, U, and G. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic version, the Syriac Palestinian version and the Ethiopic version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is also in the Latin Vulgate (404 A.D.) by Jerome. Further, the passage is cited by a number of the patristic writers. Among them are Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (fourth century), and Ambrose (fourth century). It is also in Apostolic Constitutions , which is a collections of writings from Antioch Syria that is dated between 220 A.D. and 380 AD. Augustine (430 AD) reveals that the reason some were deleting this passage in later manuscripts was because of its message that adultery could be forgiven. Augustine writes: "This proceeding, however, shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather unbelievers and enemies of the Christian faith: inasmuch that, after (I suppose) of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they struck out from their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in pardoning the woman taken in adultery: as if He granted leave of sinning, Who said. Go and sin no more!" (Saint Augustine, De Conjug. Adult., Shepherd from canon. The reasoning behind both changes are identical. A false Christian piety grew up in the 300s which not only threw out the Shepherd, but also deleted words of our Lord.
This history is important on the issue of canon formation. While the Shepherd properly was excluded from canon in the 300s, it was removed for the wrong reason. The right reason is that it was not prophetic. It lacked a predictive prophecy to validate it. Also, it contradicted Deuteronomy on how to define and recognize a prophetic statement. The Shepherd was a false prophetic work. Yet, the Shepherd was rejected on the wrong-headed notion that adultery was an unpardonable sin. The same wrong-headed thinking caused Jesus' words in John 7:53-8:11 to be cast off in the 300s by sincere well-meaning but misdirected Christians.
As a result, when the Shepherd was ejected, it already had spread its erroneous notion about what is prophetic. During those two-hundred early years (125-325 A.D.), the Shepherd was accepted as a divinely inspired message. It redefined the test of what is prophetic canon. Then when the Shepherd was ejected, it unfortunately did not cause anyone to re-evaluate the notion of how to define valid prophetic canon.
The Shepherd s test of canon is the same as Josh McDowell's test quoted above. Under this test, we use our subjective impression of how authoritative it feels to us. We look to see if it has a positive effect, as we subjectively evaluate it.
If presence in canon implied early-on that a book was 'inspired', then the clearest proof of the effect of the Shepherd on early canon lists is the presence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It actually was written by Barnabas. 6 Hebrews. There is not even apostolic authority involved. The only test that justifies its inclusion comes from the Shepherd'' s loose canon test. The Epistle to the Hebrews is inspiring, lofty, and can change its hearers. Otherwise, it has nothing to justify any kind of inclusion in the NT canon. It passes the Shepherd' s test of prophetic. However, nothing from the word of God endorses the inclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews in our NT canon.
Did Paul Have A Predictive Prophecy in The Lord s Name Come True?
This leads us back to our main point. Under Deuteronomy, if we examine what belongs in the New Testament, there is no case to add anyone to canon except Jesus. He alone made a significant prophecy that came true, i.e., the fall of the Temple at Jerusalem and His own resurrection.
Paul, by contrast, has merely one arguable prophecy that came true. However, the claim for it is weak. In the middle of a terrible storm, Paul claimed an angel, without God simultaneously present in the vision, told him that no one would lose their life in a ship crash. However, he predicted the ship would be lost. (Acts 27:22-25). Paulunists never cite this as an example of Paul's predictive prowess. This is because in the same context, Paul's lack of constant inspiration Antitheses (144 A.D). said:
18.. .0ur Christ was commissioned by the good God [of the NT] to
liberate all mankind.
19.. .the Creator [of the OT] promises salvation only to those who
are obedient. The Good [God of the NT] redeems those who believe
in him, but he does not judge those who are disobedient to him.
See Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 . Paul's Words Are Not Always Prescient
Paul Predicts No Loss of Life
Acts 27:22-24
(22) And now I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there shall be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.
(23) For there stood by me this night an angel of the God whose I am, whom also I serve,
(24) saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must stand before Caesar: and lo, God hath granted thee all them that sail with thee.
Acts 27:10
[A]nd said unto them, Sirs, I perceive ( theoreo , perceive with the eyes, discern) that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the lading and the ship, but
More important, Paul claims the source of this second contradictory prediction is an angel who relays God's decision to save all on board. This takes away from it any claim that it is a prophecy at all. To be a prophecy that can be valid, it must take a risk of being a prophecy that is invalid. To be a prophecy of such kind, it had to be In the Name of God (Yahweh or 7 am ') Somewhere, there must be a claim God was present giving confirmation of the angel's words. We read in (Deut. 18:20-22)
(20) But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my
name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak
in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.
(21) And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word
which Jehovah hath not spoken?
(22) when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing
follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath
not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt
not be afraid of him.
Thus, had Paul's prediction been false, Paul could not fall under the false prophecy penalty of death in the Mosaic Testament. This is because the prophet must claim the prophecy is going to come true in God s name: "Thus speaketh Yahweh...." or some equivalent. If it is attributed directly to an angel without God simultaneously present in the encounter, it does not qualify. By claiming instead it will come true and you
-
God actually identifies Himself by two names and variations on the name. The first is Yahweh (and variants) and the second is "I am." See, (Exod. 3:14) ("And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.") Jesus used this name for Himself. In John 8:58: "Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." Thus, everything Jesus predicts is in the name of the Lord since He was claiming to be I Am.
-
An example of a false prophecy in Scripture is Hananiah in (Jer. 28:2), battling Jeremiah, the true prophet. In Jeremiah 28:2, Hananiah begins, " Thus speaketh Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, not come true, Paul would have been able to say 'some darker angel' must have given him the message that proved untrue. 'The angel deceived me.' There is wiggle room to avoid the death penalty if his prediction had proven untrue. Thus, to make a valid prophecy, one must by definition not only have a prophecy that comes true, but one must in advance say the message is directly from God. You cannot receive the reward of recognition as God's prophet unless one is willing to use His name initially in giving the prophecy. "No pain, no gain" embodies the principle. Thus, if one claims an angel gave it, and you do not claim it came with God's direct presence, it cannot be treated as a valid prophecy ab initio even if it later happens to come true.
This brings up a second problem with Paul's prediction about the storm as prophecy. Angels in the Hebrew Scripture make birth announcements and explain visions of the future with God present. They are heralds of a very limited nature. For example, in Daniel, they show and explain visions of the future with the "Son of Man" (Jesus) present. They speak God's words only when God is described as simultaneously present.
9 Paul's attribution of