What Is Prophetic About Prophecies: Inspiration or Critical Memory?

journal of pentecostal theology 26 (2017) 178-195
brill.com/pent
What is Prophetic about Prophecies:

Inspiration or Critical Memory?
A Fresh Look at Prophets and Prophecy in the New Testament and
Contemporary Pentecostalism
Matthias Wenk
BewegungPlus, Burgdorf, Switzerland
m.wenk@bewegungplus.ch
Abstract
Books on ‘how to speak prophetically’ are flourishing. They mainly build on the as-
sumption that ‘inspired speech’ defines the core of the prophetic self-understanding.
This conjecture is also reflected in many scholarly works on prophecy. This articles
argues that at the heart of prophecy in both the Old and the New Testament lays the
identity-forming narrative of the people of God. Based on 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 it shall fur-
ther be argued that the Spirit’s role may also be described in disclosing the signifi-
cance of this narrative. That inspired oracles are not pivotal to the New Testament’s
understanding of prophecy is further evidenced in Mt. 7.15–34: False prophets are not
criticised for the content of their speech but for their lack of obedience to the will of
God. Therefore, Pentecostals today might listen carefully to their own identity-forming
narrative and telling the story might in itself be a prophetic act.
Keywords
prophets – prophecy – inspired speech – 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 – Mt. 7.15–23 – false prophets –
identity-forming narrative
* Matthias Wenk (PhD Brunel University, London) is an ordained Pastor by BewegungPlus, Lys-
sachstrasse 33, ch-3400 Burgdorf, Switzerland, and lecturer at the Theologisch-Diakonisches
Seminar, Aarau.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/17455251-02602002

What is Prophetic about Prophecies? 179
1 Introduction
Books on prophecy and prophetic ministry are booming among Pentecostal

and charismatic churches: Titles like ‘The Prophetic Intercessor’,1 ‘Activating
your Prophetic gift’,2 ‘Releasing the Spirit of Prophecy’3 or ‘School of Prophetic
Deliverance’4 enjoy a lot of attention on a grass roots level, not to speak of Kris
Valotton’s manuals on how to learn to speak prophetically.5 However, both in
New Testament (Pentecostal) scholarship as well as in popular Pentecostal/
charismatic literature there is an unresolved dichotomy between the discus-
sion on prophecy on the one hand and on prophets on the other. This dichot-
omy becomes particularly evident in the scholarly discussion of Jesus as the
role model of a prophet, and in the discussion on prophecy in the rest of the
New Testament. At times it seems as if the two topics are unrelated to each
other: one focusing on the life, ministry, and prophetic self-understanding of
Jesus, the other one focusing on inspired speech (form, content, features) and
prophetic oracles (both in early Christianity and the Greco-Roman world).
Although most studies on prophetic speech in the New Testament also dis-
cuss the Prophet as a (church) figure,6 there is also little resemblance between
these New Testament prophetic figures and their Old Testament processors or
Jesus. And perhaps this was so.
1 James Goll, The Prophetic Intercessor: Releasing God’s Purposes to Change Lives and Influence
Nations (Grand Rapids: Chosen Books, 2007).
2 Kevin Horn, Activating your Prophetic Gift (Kevin Horn, 2013).
3 Bill Johnson, Releasing the Spirit of Prophecy: The supernatural Power of Testemony (Shippens-
burg: Destiny Image Publishers, 2013).
4 Pauline Walley-Daniels, School of Prophetic Deliverance: Understand the Language, Interpre-
tations and Assignments (Lake Mary: Creation House, 2008).
5 Kris Vallotton, Basic Training for the Prophetic Ministry Expanded Edition (Shippensburg:
Destiny Image Publishers, 2014); School of the Prophets: Advanced Training for Prophetic Min-
istry (Bloomington: Chosen Books, 2015).
6 Aune compares early Christian prophecy with Greco-Roman prophecies, and while discuss-
ing prophetic actions of Jesus, he mainly focuses on form and content of early Christian
prophecy (David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World
[Eugene: Wipf & Stock], 2003). Similarly M. Eugene Borg, The Continuing Voice of Jesus. Chris-
tian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition [Louisville: Westminster Press, 1991]; Ferdinand Hahn
and Hans Klein, Die frühchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Voraussetzungen, ihre Anfänge und ihre
Entwicklung bis zum Montanismus (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 2011); Hans Klein, Auf
dem Grund der Apostel und Propheten. Bemerkungen zu Epheserbrief 2,20’ in Joseph Ver-
heyden et al. (eds.), Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 105–16.

180 Wenk
Those scholars focusing on Jesus as a prophet emphasize his prophetic

acts and critique of the religious leaders, rulers and others, and portray him
(as well as John the Baptist) in continuity with the Old Testament prophetic
ministry.7 On the other hand, those focusing on prophecy and inspired speech
tend to either implicitly or explicitly build on the assumption that in the
New Testament the experience of inspiration is at the heart of the prophetic
self-understanding.8
Part of the problem is that the New Testament references to prophets
and prophecy are sparse, hence Moberly correctly states that prophecy ‘as a
spiritual gift within the New Testament is much more narrowly defined than
“prophecy” as a vocation in the Old Testament.’9 Even Ulrich Luz, who argues
that the New Testament prophets clearly understood themselves ‘biblically’
and as in continuation of their Old Testament prototypes, focuses on speak-
ing in tongues, as well as on the prophets’ self-understanding as ‘charismatics’
who are primarily uttering inspired speech.10 At the end, Luz’s New Testament
prophets have limited resemblance with their Old Testament precursors.
But is there that little continuity between the Old Testament prophetic
self-understanding and the New Testament’s one? Is there a basic shift from
the Old Testament prophetic call to remember and return to God’s covenant,
to a New Testament emphasis on inspired speech? There are some scholars
that try to delineate more continuity in the prophetic self-understanding be-
tween the two Testaments than others. Closest to overcoming the dichotomy
between the prophetic awareness and ministry as found in the Old Testament,
and the discussion of the prophetic ministry in the New Testament, are Roger
Stronstad’s The Prophethood of all Believers11 and even more so Luke Timothy
7 William R. Herzog ii, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God. A Ministry of Liberation (Louis-
ville: Westminster, 2000), Werner Zager, Jesus aus Nazareth – Lehrer und Prophet. Auf dem
Weg zu einer neuen liberalen Christologie (Neukirch: Neukirchner, 2007), Richard Hosley,
The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel. Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate (Grand
Rapdis: Eerdman, 2012). He mainly addresses the debate between the ‘apocalyptic’ and
the ‘non-apocalyptic Jesus’ and sees Jesus mainly in opposition to the rulers of Israel.
N.T. Wright entitles his major section on Jesus ‘Profile of a Prophet’ (Jesus and the Victory
of God [London: spck Press, 1996], pp. 147–474).
8 Typically, Hahn & Klein, Frühchristliche Prophetie.
9 R.W.L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (Cambridge: cup, 2006), p. 170.
10 Ulrich Luz, ‘Stages of Early Christian Prophetism’ in Verheyden et al. (eds.), Prophets and
Prophecy, pp. 57–75.
11 Roger Strondstad, The Prophethood of All Believers. A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology
(Cleveland, tn, cpt Press, 2010).

Johnson’s book on Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church.12 Yet they build their argu-
ment exclusively on the Lukan writings and do not develop an overall picture
of prophets in the New Testament.
Building upon the Old Testament origin and understanding of the prophetic
ministry as rooted in the Exodus narrative, I shall argue that there is evidence
that allows to understand the New Testament role of prophets and prophecy
along similar categories as in the Old Testament. Thereby, the current dichoto-
my in the New Testament discussion of prophets on the one hand, and proph-
ecy as a merely inspired speech on the other, should at least be lessened. In
order to do so, I shall firstly define the role of critical memory (identity-forming
narrative) in the ministry of the Old Testament prophets. Secondly, I shall look
at 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 where Paul addresses a precarious issue in the church. It shall
be argued that in this passage the apostle is following the Old Testament pro-
phetic pattern of referring to the identity-forming narrative of God’s people in
order to confront an infringement. The role of the Spirit in that passage shall
be addressed as well. Finally, Matthew’s polemic against false prophets shall
be discussed, in order to see more clearly what this New Testament author
thought to be critical in regard to the prophetic ministry.
2 Identity-Forming Narrative and Prophetic Ministry in

the Old Testament
Prophetic oracles, at times even ecstatic experiences, have always been part of
Israel’s prophetic tradition (i.e. 1 Sam. 10.11). However, such experiences do not
adequately explain the focal point of Israel’s prophetic tradition: At the heart
of Israel’s prophetic tradition lies the memory of the Exodus as an identity-
forming narrative and not the reference to divine inspiration. This becomes
partially evident in Micah’s quarrel with his fellow prophets (Mic. 3.5–8): Ap-
parently, they were referring to dreams and visions for their prophetic self-
justification (Mic. 3.6–7), while Micah refers to his zeal for justice (Mic. 3.8),
or in the words of Levison: ‘The false prophets look for inspiration in visions,
12 Luke Timothy Johnson, Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church. The Challenge of Luke-Acts to
Contemporary Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). Per contra, Jospeh Verheyden
argues that Luke ‘does not want Jesus to be called a prophet or to presented like one.
It is a category that is used by some of his opponents who challenge his authority and
question his identity…’ (Joseph Verheyden, ‘Calling Jesus a Prophet, as seen by Luke’ in
Joseph Verheyden et al. (eds.), Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Litera-
ture [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], pp. 175–210).

182 Wenk
revelations, and divinations. … Micah’s declaration against Israel, by way of

contrast, is rooted elsewhere.’13 But where is it rooted, if not in dreams and vi-
sions, and where is Micha’s accent on justice coming from?
Walter Brueggemann has argued in several places that Israel’s prophetic un-
derstanding is rooted in the memory of the exodus experience and the alterna-
tive community raising from it. This alternative community, in turn, is in direct
conflict with the royal consciousness of the court.14 The German Egyptolo-
gist Jan Assmann even argues that Israel’s exodus narrative, and particularly
its theologizing of justice, actually deconstructs the idea of kingship and is
foundational for understanding Israel’s prophetic tradition. He provides three
reasons for his argument:
• First, the God of Israel is making his covenant not with a king (like it is the
case with Israel’s neighbors) but with a people. Therefore, the people is not
called simply to be loyal to the king, but foremost to God. By reclassifying
the usual twofold ‘God-king’ and ‘king-people’ relationship into a single
‘God-people’ relationship, the Assyrian state ideology is deconstructed;
God’s covenant with his people makes the king superfluous, hence prophets
call Israel back to covenant loyalty with Yahweh.
• Second, by theologizing the concept of justice and by writing a law codex,
the role of God in Israel is not restricted to being the judge of the laws issued
by the king, and thereby to guarantee justice, but he is also the legislator.
This shift is, according to Assmann, unique and revolutionary in antiquity.
The entire function of the king as lawmaker is thereby transferred to the
God of Israel, something that is unparalleled in old Oriental and Egyptian
legal traditions, where the king always was the lawmaker. The role of the
gods was simply to be the judges of the law system established by the king.
Hence, the role of the king became superfluous by Israel’s exodus and cov-
enant theology; the theologizing of justice by way of a written legal codex
meant nothing less than the end of royal jurisdiction.15 And this leads to his
third observation:
• Torah, as the foundation of the covenant between God and his peo-
ple, is something to be remembered, and thereby the memory of this
13 John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), p. 46.
14 Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989);
Reality, Grief, Hope; Three urgent Prophetic Tasks (Grand Raids: Eerdmans, 2014).
15 Jan Assmann, Der Exodus. Die Revolution der Alten Welt (München, Beck, 20152), pp. 249–
56; 289–90; 300–304.

i dentity-forming narrative becomes the key element in defining the people

of God. Remembering God’s covenant with his people meant for Israel to
remain faithful to God and to the fellow people. This too is unique in antiq-
uity, for both in Greece and in Egypt the stories remembered were not nor-
mative for people’s behavior nor did they create their identity as a people.16
In contrast, prophets constantly called Israel to remember the covenant
with Yahweh as their identity-forming narrative.
At the heart of Israel’s prophetic tradition, therefore, is the memory of the To-
rah as God’s law and covenant with his people. Thereby living in Canaan is no
longer only a matter of hope but even more of remembering the covenant of
God with his people. But rather than remembering God’s great and redeeming
deeds of the past, Israel followed other gods and acted in ways violating God’s
covenant with his people.17 Hence, at the heart of Israel’s prophetic tradition
is a narrative that has to be remembered and that is normative for Israel’s life
and identity – and not the experience of receiving inspired oracles or dreams.
There is no doubt that there are various passages throughout the New Tes-
tament suggesting that what the exodus and the covenant at Sinai were in
the Old Testament, the death and resurrection of Jesus as well as his Spirit-
outpouring are in the New Testament (i.e. 1 Cor. 11,17–33; Heb. 9.15).18 The
analogy between the Old Testament exodus and the New Testament story of
Jesus has been enhanced by various studies that have demonstrated how the
‘new exodus motif’, mainly as reflected in Isaiah, was central for the Gospel
stories,19 the book of Acts,20 Paul’s pneumatology,21 and for the letter to the
Hebrews.22 The question therefore arises, if the prophetic call to remember
the identity-forming narrative of God’s people lies at the heart of Israel’s pro-
phetic tradition in the Old Testament, is it also found in the New Testament
and its ‘new exodus story’?
16 Assmann, Der Exodus, pp. 235–40.

17 Assmann, Der Exodus, p. 337.
18 Part of that is also reflected in John’s ‘lamb of God’ terminology.
19 Cf. Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (wunt; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).
20 David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (wunt; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
21 Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel (wunt; Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2010).
22 King L. She, The Use of Exodus in Hebrews (Studies in Biblical Literature; New York: Peter
Lang, 2011).

184 Wenk
3 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 as a Prophetic Call to Remember
Before looking at this passage as a case study for the New Testament’s under-
standing of a prophetic ministry, the question has to be raised, if Paul did un-
derstand himself as a prophet or not?
3.1 Did Paul Understand Himself as a Prophet?

It has to be admitted that Paul nowhere refers to himself as a prophet, but
he is quite often defending his authority as an apostle. However, three ob-
servations may imply that Paul did indeed understand his ministry also as a
prophetic one:
1. The absence of any reference to his self-understanding as a prophet

could be explained with the argument that in Paul’s thinking there may
have been a close relationship between apostle and prophet, because
such a proximity between prophets and apostles is evidenced elsewhere:
Prophets were sometimes called apostles also in Jewish writings (Mek.
on Exod. 12.1).23 Hence, Paul would not be alone in making such an equa-
tion and may have understood his apostolic ministry also as a prophetic
one.24
2. Tobias Nicklas argues that Paul describes his prophetic self-understanding
with various motifs from the Old Testament prophetic literature, such as
his calling, his references to a ‘word from the Lord’, his use of ‘mystery’,
and his predictions of future events.25 The strength of Nicklas’ approach
is that he takes the narrative of Paul’s calling (Gal. 1.15–16) as the cent-
er of the apostle’s prophetic self-understanding. This allows him not to
be merely focused on Pauline references to divine inspiration and pro-
phetic speech. Nicklas can draw several parallels between Paul and the
Old Testament prophets like Amos and others who also claimed divine
calling as the source of their prophetic ministry. However, Nicklas no-
where discusses the role of ‘critical remembrance’ or the function of the
church’s identity-forming narrative in relation to Paul’s (possible) self-
understanding as a prophet.
23 For an overview on this discussion, cf. C.A. Evans, ‘Prophet, Paul as’ in G.F. Hawthorne
et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove: ivp, 1993), p. 763.
24 In Rev. 18.20 prophets and apostles are also listed together and singled out from the gen-
eral description of the believers as ‘saints’. Cf. also 2 Pet. 3.2 and Eph. 3.5.
25 Tobias Nicklas, Paulus – der Apostel als Prophet’ in idem, pp. 77–104.

3. The third argument grows out of Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians

itself:26 In 1 Corinthians 1–4, Paul is dealing with divisions in the church
over their favourite teachers. The two in question are Apollos and Paul,
and the dispute would seem to revolve around the question, who of the
two really speaks for God? This seems also to be the pervading theme
in 2 Corinthians 10–13, where the divisions have worsened to the point
where Paul’s opponents have questioned whether he even is a Christian
(2 Cor. 12.12). The question concerning authoritative speech also surfac-
es in 1 Corinthians 12–14, where Paul is talking about prophecy: Paul is
starting his argument with a reminder of the Corinthians’ past; this time
their pagan past (1 Cor. 12.2), which serves as a negative example when it
comes to prophets and prophecy. Then at the crescendo of the section
(1 Cor. 14.37) he challenges them that if they truly think they hear from
God and speak for him, they would recognise that he too speaks for God
in an authoritative manner; he too is speaking the command of the Lord
(κυριοῦ ἐστίν ἐντολή). This corresponds exactly with his argument in 1 Cor.
2.15–16 where Paul argues that if the Corinthians would indeed be people
of the Spirit, they would understand him, since he speaks as a person of
the Spirit. In both passages (1 Cor. 2.15–16 and 14.37) Paul argues that like
will recognize like (person of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 2.15–16; prophets in 1 Cor.
14.37–38), hence, Paul seems to regard himself too as a prophet.
It seems that there is enough evidence to support the view that Paul did indeed
understand his ministry also in prophetic terms.
3.2 Prophetic Exhortation and Identity-Forming Narrative in 1

Corinthians 1.10–2.16
Since the exodus motif was the identity-forming narrative of God’s people in
the Old Testament and thereby vital for the prophetic message (cf. Isa. 1.2–31;
Jer. 2.1–37; 11.1–17; 34.9–22; Ezek. 20.1–29; Hos. 1.1–11; Amos 2.6–16), it is to be
expected that the death and resurrection of Jesus became central for the pro-
phetic (or parenetic) message to the churches in the New Testament. Or to
put it differently: If Paul indeed understood his ministry as prophetic along
the lines of the Old Testament prophets, it is to be expected, that he too builds
his proclamation upon the identity-forming narrative of the New Testament
people of God.
26 I am indebted to Adam White, Alphacrucis College, Sydney, for this line of thought who
has made me aware of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 12–14 and its relation to 1 Corin-
thians 1–4.

186 Wenk
One such passage is 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 where Paul addresses the issue of schism,
boasting and the Corinthians’ appeal to wisdom. The passage following his
exhortation (1 Cor. 3.1–4.21) reflects a certain apologetic tone in regard to the
apostle’s own ministry. Hence, the apostle’s authority seems to have been un-
der dispute as well. While it is difficult to exactly reconstruct how these four is-
sues (schism, boasting, wisdom and apologetic tone) relate to each other,27 it is
quite clear how Paul proceeds to critique the Corinthians’ behaviour. And it is
also quite clear that for Paul the real issue at stake is a threat posed to the very
nature of the gospel by this schism.28 Hence, the quest of the church’s identity
as the people of God is in view. Therefore, this passage suits well to probe our
thesis of recalling the identity-forming narrative as foundational in prophetic
parenesis. The passage suits itself also for our purpose because there has been
an ongoing discussion whether or not Paul is applying a midrashic pattern or
not in this section.29 More recently Schrage has rejected this suggestion,30 but
this leaves the question open regarding its genre. I shall argue, that Paul follows
in this section very much the model of the Old Testament prophetic critique
that is built upon Israel’s identity-forming narrative in order to appraise the
people’s current situation. However, his argument to counter the Corinthians’
misconception of wisdom and boasting as well as the threat of schism is two-
fold: (a) Paul refers the Corinthians back to ‘their story with Jesus’ and (b) he
also refers to the revelation of the Spirit.
3.2.1 Reminding the Corinthians of Their Story with Jesus

(Identity-Forming Narrative)
In 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 the apostle re-defines the church’s understanding of the
Gospel by referring to the identity-forming narrative of the early church in
general (crucifixion of Jesus), and to the Corinthians’ story with the crucified
Jesus in particular (‘Brothers, think of what you were when you were called’31).
Paul, like the prophets of old, refers to God’s story with his people in order to
(re-)define the identity and behavior as God’s people, culminating in his ex-
hortation: ‘Therefore, let him who boasts, boast in the Lord’ (1 Cor. 1.31).
27 Cf. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (nicnt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987), pp. 48–51.
28 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 50.
29 Ellis argues that 1 Cor 2.6–16 is a midrash, a charismatic interpretation of scripture (E.
Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic [wunt; 18, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1978], pp. 25–26).
30 Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Korintherbrief (ekk; Zürich: Bezniger, 1991), i, p. 132.
31 Their calling by the Lord reflects the personal application of God’s covenant in their lives.

It is somehow surprising that within his allusion to the story of Jesus in gen-
eral as well as the Corinthians’ story with Jesus in particular, Paul exclusively
refers to the crucifixion: ‘Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?’ (1 Cor.
1.13); ‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to those who are being saved it is the power of God’ (1 Cor. 1.18). But this
corresponds well with his quote from Isa. 29.14 (1 Cor. 1.18), a passage that is
part of the prophet’s oracle of woe to the city of David. In this oracle against
Jerusalem, the prophet dismantles the religious activity of the covenant people
as foolishness and as being part of an illusionary world.32 In verses 17–24 the
prophet finally describes the Lord’s transformation of the current situation:
‘Once more the humble will rejoice in the Lord; the needy will rejoice in the
Holy One of Israel.’ With the term ‘once more’, Isaiah may refer to God’s deliv-
erance of Israel from Egypt, where the humble and the needy rejoiced (Exod.
15.1–21): God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt was the way how God made
the humble and the needy rejoice. In a similar way Paul argues that the foolish
message of the cross is the way by which the humble and the needy are made
to rejoice. In 1 Cor. 2.9 Paul quotes once more from Isaiah in order to assure his
readers that the crucified Jesus is the wisdom of God; however, people will not
perceive such wisdom unless the Spirit will open their eyes for it. Ultimately
God’s wisdom cannot be known by non-spiritual people, for no one knows the
mind of the Lord but the Spirit (1 Cor. 2.16);33 the wisdom of the cross is a para-
doxical wisdom.
It is surprising that throughout his critique of the Corinthians’ behavior, the
apostle nowhere refers to the resurrection of Jesus, an issue that is otherwise
most vital for Paul’s theology; something that is part of the tradition that has
been handed over to them (1 Cor. 15.1–5) and in which the power of God is
made manifest (Rom. 8.11).34 As noted above, he exclusively refers to the cru-
cifixion and the death of Jesus. Also, the reference to the Spirit-revealed apos-
tolic proclamation has as its horizon the death of Jesus35 – and not the Spirit’s
life-giving power that raised Jesus from the dead. Thereby, Paul is selective in
32 Cf. W. Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville: Westminster, 1998), p. 231.

33 This is a quote from Isa. 40.13 a part of the prophet’s critique of wisdom – and of Babel.
People’s fascination with the Babylonian empire does not correspond with God’s view
of it.
34 For the centrality of the resurrection in Paul’s theology, cf. Sebastian Schneider, Auferste-
hen. Eine neue Deutung von 1 Kor 15 (Forschung zur Bibel; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2005).
35 In Rom. 8.18-30 Paul even more explicitly relates the Spirit to the crucifixion of Jesus.
Hence, the power of the Spirit not only relates to the resurrection but also to the cru-
cifixion (cf. M. Wenk, ‘Der Heilige Geist als Solidarität Gottes mit den Bedrängten und
Ausgestossenen’ in M. Redling [ed.], Das Evangelium den Armen: Die Pfingstbewegung

188 Wenk
his reference to the Christian identity-forming narrative and he appeals to that

part that suits best his argument in countering the Corinthians’ problem of
schism, boasting and of a realized eschatology.36 Similar to the prophets of
old, Paul addresses in 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 an ethical problem within the church by
referring back to God’s covenant with his people: Their current behavior does
not agree with the way they have experienced God in the beginning.
However, unlike passages such as Jer. 11.1–10, Paul’s prophetic critique does
not end with an explicit declaration of disaster upon the people of God.37
Paul’s intention is that the Corinthians change: ‘I appeal to you, brothers, in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree …’ Nevertheless, he too ends
his exhortation, so to speak, open ended and seems not to be fully convinced
that they will adhere to his critique: ‘What do you prefer? Shall I come to you
with a whip, or in love with a gentile spirit?’ (1 Cor. 4.21).
3.2.2 Paul’s Reference to the Spirit

Without explicitly claiming prophetic authority, Paul is also countering the
Corinthians’ misconception of divine wisdom by referring to the revelation
of the Spirit in the past (1 Cor. 2.10–16). With the formulation ‘God has re-
vealed it to us by his Spirit’ (1 Cor. 2.10) Paul places himself both in line with
the Christian tradition known to the church in Corinth,38 as well as alongside
those that claim the divine pneuma for their position (1 Cor. 7.40).39 Thereby,
he assures the Corinthians that his message is in two ways trustworthy: It is in
agreement with the Christian kerygma known to all who love God (tradition;
identity-forming narrative), and it has been revealed by the Spirit; what Paul
says is not simply his own view. However, it is not certain whether this Spirit-
given revelation refers to a prophetic revelation (charismatic experience), or
something like the formulation in Acts 15.28: ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit
im Spannungsfeld zwischen sozialer Verantwortung und klassischem Missionsverständnis

[Erzhausen: FTthG, 2013], pp. 95–110).
36 For the possible link between Paul’s issue with the Pneumatikoi and a realized eschatology
in the Corinthian church, cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 12–13.
37 For a discussion that the prophetic message was less intended to call people to turn but
rather to accept the upcoming judgement as out of the hand of God, cf. J.M. Schmidt, ‘Pro-
phetie’ in H.J. Boecker u.a. (eds.) Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag,
1983), pp. 124–27.
38 The pronoun ἡμιν either refers to ‘those who love him’ (vs. 9), or to those that proclaimed
the good news to the Corinthians. In both cases Paul aligns himself with the Christian
tradition proclaimed to the Corinthians.
39 In this passage Paul is confronting the pneumatics in Corinth that refer to the divine Spir-
it for their position (cf. Schrage, 1. Korinther, ii, p. 206).

and to us …’.40 But either way, in 1 Cor. 2.10–16 the Spirit-given revelation is
related to the community’s sacred tradition: either the charismatic word con-
firms the identity-forming narrative,41 or the community’s tradition-building
process is described as a work of the Spirit. In both ways the work of the Spirit
and the sacred tradition are interrelated and confirm each other: They define
the church’s identity as God’s covenant people and become thereby normative
for their behavior.
However, it may be argued that Paul did not introduce his critique as ‘a word
of the Lord’, as did many Old Testament prophets (i.e. Jer. in 11.1–17). But in-
stead Paul did address them ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’. The for-
mulation διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος seems to indicate that the apostle assumes Christ
to be personally present in his exhortation.42 It may, therefore, be argued that
the formulation ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and the reference to
the Spirit-prompted revelation in the past (1 Cor. 2.6–16) take the place of the
‘word from the Lord’, as found often in the Old Testament prophets.43
In general it can be argued that in 1 Cor. 1.10–2.5 Paul counters the Corinthi-
ans’ misconception of wisdom and problem of schism with reference to their
identity-forming narrative, while in 1 Cor. 2.6–16 he links (equates?) this tra-
dition with Spirit-prompted revelation. Therefore, the apostle speaks ‘in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ’.
In sum, 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 reflects similar motifs as found in the Old Testament
prophetic critique of the covenant people. Also typically for the New Testa-
ment, the reference to God’s covenant with his people obviously no longer is
the exodus but God’s new covenant in Jesus. For his specific purpose, Paul did
only refer to the death of Jesus that cannot be understood as divine wisdom
unless it is revealed so by the Spirit.44 Jesus’ death, like God’s deliverance in
40 Acts 15.28 probably is best understood as referring to the community’s interpretation of

the work of the Spirit, rather than to a prophetic utterance. For a discussion, cf. M. Wenk,
Community Forming Power. The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (London: T & T
Clark, 2004), p. 304.
41 A similar argument is built in 1 Jn 2.26–27, where the anointing (Spirit) is given to hold on
to the tradition.
42 Schrage, Brief an die Korinther, pp. 136–37.
43 For a discussion of ‘word from the Lord’ in 1 Thess. 4.15, cf. Sebastian Schneider, Vollend-
ung des Auferstehens. Eine exegetische Studie von 1 Kor 15,51–52 und 1 Thess 4,13–18 (Forsc-
hung zur Bibel; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2000), pp. 231–40.
44 For a discussion of the textual difference in v. 10 (δέ or γάρ), cf. Fee, Corinthians, pp. 109–10.
I tend to agree with Fee that the emphasis is on the Spirit as the means of revelation and
less on the contrast between ‘them’ and ‘us’.

190 Wenk
the exodus, becomes normative for the church’s identity and conduct (cf. Phil.
2.5–11), hence there is no room for boasting regarding wisdom and there is no
need for any schisms among the church.
With all these similarities between Paul’s way of addressing a critical issue
among God’s covenant people, and the way the prophets of old did, it remains
a fact that the apostle never identified himself as a prophet, nor did he ever
claim prophetic authority for his exhortation. He rather defends his apostolic
authority later on in the letter. It also remains a fact that we have scarcely any
evidence on prophets in the New Testament in general – and we have just one
book that claims for itself to be ‘words of prophecy’ (Rev. 1.3; 22.10.18–19).45
Therefore, a close look at another passage that addresses the issue of proph-
ets, although false prophets, will help to understand better the New Testa-
ment’s understanding of a prophetic ministry and of prophecy.
4 Why False Prophets are Not Prophetic: The Critique of False

Prophets in Mt. 7.15–23
That ‘charismatic experiences’ or inspired oracles are not at the core of the
New Testament’s understanding of prophets and prophecy can also be seen
in Matthew’s critique on false prophets46 (Mt. 7.15–23).47 The warning of the
pseudo prophets is placed immediately prior to the conclusion of the Sermon
on the Mount in which Matthew has, so to speak, defined the good fruit in the
life of the disciples of Jesus. The passage clearly falls into two parts:
45 However, there are some parallels between the role of prophets as described in Revela-
tions and our reading of 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 as a prophetic critique, for in Revelation, proph-
ets ‘are those who preach the mystery of God (10.7), whose death brings delight to the
inhabitants of the earth (11.10) …’. See, John Christopher Thomas, The Apocalypse. A Liter-
ary and Theological Commentary (Cleveland, cpt Press, 2012), pp. 542–43.
46 Most likely these people were wandering prophets, similarly to 10.40–42 and Didache
11.1–12. Cf. Hans Weder, Die Rede der Reden. Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt heute (Zürich:
tvz, 1985), p. 237; U. Luz, Matthew. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2007), i, p. 377.
47 Luke with his general interest in prophecy even omits this reference (Lk. 17.23), and in
Lk. 6.26 Jesus refers to false prophets in the Old Testament. Hence, the reference does not
reflect a current struggle among Luke’s readers on the issue. Matthew pays most attention
to the topic of false prophets perhaps because his readers were struggling with the issue
(Mt. 7.15–23; 24.9–12, 23–28).

• Verses 15–20 introduce the criteria of discernment (good tree = good fruit;

bad tree = bad fruit),48 and the thought of the eschatological judgment.49
• In verses 21–23 the eschatological judgment is in the foreground, yet at the
same time the criteria of the tree and the fruit is further defined as well as
extended in its application: At stake is not only the recognition or rejection
of prophets, but also of people who cast out demons and perform miracles
by calling upon the name of Jesus.50 What has been said about prophets in
verses 15–20 is now applied to ‘charismatics’ in general, yet the connection
between prophets and people who perform miracles was often made in Jew-
ish writings of that time.51
The entire passage is soaked with language and metaphors rooted in the lxx.
This applies to those parts that are Sondergut as well as to the material Mat-
thew shares with Luke (Q).
Matthew is not the only one with his emphasis on a prophet’s way of life
as criteria for discerning between true and false prophets (Isa. 28.7–13;52
48 Whereas verses 16 and 17 are also part of Luke’s sermon on the plain (Lk. 6.43–45), the
introductory verse 15, with its warning regarding false prophets, is Sondergut. Also Son-
dergut are verses 18–20 in which Matthew emphasises the exclusiveness of his criteria by
the analogy of ‘kind of tree = kind of fruit’.
49 Cf. Mt. 12.33–35, where the metaphor tree / fruit is applied to the words of a person, simi-
larly to Lk. 6.45.
50 Whereas Mt. 7.21 is part of Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6.46; while for Matthew the
criteria is ‘the will of my father’ and Luke who ties it directly to the proclamation of
Jesus: ‘… and do not what I say’), Mt. 7.22–23 appears in Luke with a different content in
a different context (Lk. 13,25–27): Rather than ‘charismatics’ they are people that ate and
drank with Jesus and allowed him to teach them.
51 This is evident in the Elijah/Elisha stories. Negatively also in Josephus’ dispute with the
prophets of his own time (Bell. 6.285–288; Ant. 20.97–99). For prophets as people who
performed signs and miracle, cf. T.W. Overholt, Channels of Prophecy. The Social Dynamics
of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 86–96; M.D. Hooker, The Signs
of a Prophet. The prophetic Actions of Jesus (London: scm Press, 1997); E.W. Stegemann
und W. Stegemann, Urchristliche Sozialgeschichte. Die Anfänge im Judentum und die Chris-
tusgemeinden in der mediterranen Welt (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 19972), pp. 150–54.
52 Most likely the passage reflects the prophet’s critique of a feast associated with sacrifices,
which turned out to become an orgy (Georg Forher, Jesaja 24–39 [Zürcher Bibelkom-
mentar; Zürich: tvz, 19913], pp. 51–56). The reference to the drunken prophet undergirds
Isaiah’s message: The false prophets assume they have the political situation under con-
trol, in the same way they falsly assume that as drunkards they have themselves under

192 Wenk
Jer. 5.1–31;53 Zeph. 3.454). However, whereas there is a tradition in the Old Tes-
tament to disapprove of the false prophets’ way of life, this critique was never
the criteria per se. The content proclaimed by these prophets (often in form of
an optimistic view regarding the future) was always under debate as well. The
reference to the false prophets’ ungodly lifestyle merely embodied their aber-
ration (see below). Matthew is different; at no time does he criticise any of the
content proclaimed by his opponents. Thereby Mathew does not follow in his
critique of false prophets any pre-formulated tradition, not even Deut. 13.3b–4.
What counts for Matthew as criterion for true or false prophets is the ‘good
fruit’ (cf. Sir. 27.6)55 which he identifies in 7.21 with doing the ‘will of the Father’.
Considering that Matthew’s warning of false prophets, as well as his emphasis
on obedience, comes immediately prior to Jesus’ final call in the Sermon on the
Mount to hear and to do what he said, one can assume, that Matthew included
Jesus’ teachings in the sermon as part of ‘God’s will’.56 Hence, for Matthew the
sole criteria of a true prophet is his obedience toward God’s will, understood
both as the Old Testament law as well as Jesus’ proclamation. Thereby, for Mat-
thew the criteria for a genuine prophetic element is much closer to disciple-
ship than to the inspiration of prophetic speech.
In doing so, Matthew provides us both with a clear and yet complex crite-
rion for discerning false prophets: Their behaviour, depicted in the metaphor
of fruit and tree, and ‘doing the will of my father’. This criterion is both more
exclusive and more imprecise than its Old Testament counterparts; imprecise
control. Both times they err. (J.N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah 1–39, [nicot; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986], pp. 510–14).
53 Jeremiah accuses his opponents of breaking the covenant with God by their ruthless be-
haviour. They lead the people of God astray to worship idols.
54 What is criticized is not their behaviour in general, but their worshipping of and leading
others astray to worship idols.
55 For an overview on the ‘fruit – tree metaphor’, see: Petra von Gemünden, ‘L’Arbre et son
Fruit’, etr 69 (1994), pp. 315–28. For the argument that ‘fruit metaphor’ is associated with
‘keeping the law’, see: H. Sahlin, ‘Die Früchte der Umkehr: Die ethische Verkündigung
Johannes des Täufers nach Lk. 3:10–14’, st 1 (1948), pp. 54–68.
56 Considering the harshness of his language and the polemic against these false prophets,
it is somewhat surprising that he does not define his criteria more precisely. As clearly
and as exclusively Matthew formulates his criteria for rejecting the pseudo prophets, as
general and as unspecific it is. This may have made it difficult for his readers to apply it.
However, in identifying the bad fruit in verses 21–23 with ‘not doing the will of my Father
in heaven’, the text stands in the same tradition as Psalm 1, where thora obedience is
also described with the metaphor of a tree and fruit (similarly Prov. 10,16; 13,2; Isa. 3,10;
Jer. 17,10; 21,14). Cf. 4 Ezra 9.31, that speaks of God’s law as ‘sawed into Israel’. The people,
however, did not keep the law and perished, whereas the fruit of the law will never perish.

because Matthew does not specify the improper deeds of his opponents in any
detail (as i.e. Isaiah did). It is more exclusive because he nowhere disapproves
of the content proclaimed by his opponents; it is all a matter of obedience.57 It
seems that Matthew’s sole criterion has in view the double command to love,
which functions as a summery for ‘the will of my father’. However, this criteri-
on seems for Matthew not to be wholly detached from the prophets’ proper re-
lationship to Jesus and the dawning kingdom of heaven: The obedience called
for includes the obedience towards the teachings of Jesus; hence the emphasis
on discipleship throughout the Gospel.
Matthew is also not alone with his critical attitude towards signs and mir-
acles as the sole legitimation for prophetic claims.58 He does not reject char-
ismatic manifestations as such, but when in conflict with false prophets, he
shifts the discussion on a different level: Referring to signs and miracles in or-
der to support a prophetic claim becomes invalid as soon as the loving and act-
ing obedience toward the will of God is not visible in the person’s life. Matthew
formulates the criterion of obedience as absolute and exclusive. In stressing
loving and acting obedience towards the will of God as the sole criterion for
evaluating prophetic claims, he appraises discipleship more than words ut-
tered: He is critical towards certain ways of living and not primarily towards
certain messages proclaimed. So far we may conclude that Matthew seems
to have had little interest in false prophecies. His focus was on false prophets
(also in Matthew 24). He does not examine prophecies but rather prophets.59
Matthew’s theology of discernment may best be summarised with ‘beyond
dogmatic correctness’. His emphasis is on discipleship.
Discipleship, however, is for Matthew expressed in obedience, and this rais-
es the issue of moralism (or even legalism). With his strong emphasis on love
as the actual fulfilment of the law (see above), Matthew follows the pattern of
a Jewish ethics of solidarity, contrary to the Greek approach of the autonomy
57 With this emphasis on obedience as the sole criteria fort he validity of a prophetic claim,
Matthew is close to the story told in 1 Kgs 13.1–34: If the ‘guest prophet’ from the south is
disobedient and survives, he is a false prophet; if he stays obedient to his task, he is proven
to be a true prophet, and if he becomes disobedient but dies, he will be proven as a true
prophet also (cf. Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings [wbc, Waco: Word Books, 1985], pp. 173–74).
58 Similarly cautious towards signs and miracles in order to sustain prophetic claims is
Jospehus (Bell. 6.285–288, Ant. 20.97–99), and Apoc. Elia 3.13. Whether this text depends
on Rev.16.13 and 19.20, where the false prophets of the dragon and the best also performed
sings and miracles, is not certain. All these texts agree on the potential of signs and mira-
cles to blind and seduce the people of God.
59 This corresponds with Mk 13.22 (par. Mt. 24.24) and Acts 13.6: False prophets lead the
people astray so that they do not follow Jesus but any other devious person.

194 Wenk
of a person, thereby resulting in an ethics of self-control/self-discipline.60 Mat-

thew’s focus on discipleship and on obedience (‘the will of my father’) is on
interpersonal relationships rather than on an individual’s virtues and duties;
discipleship, following Jesus, is lived solidarity among people that formerly ex-
cluded one another from their respective groups, and it is also lived solidarity
among people that formerly shunned one another due to different social status
(i.e. Mt. 2.1–11; 5.21–26; 8.11; 15.21–28;61 25.31–46). Thereby his theology of dis-
cernment is also ‘beyond moralism’.
For discerning false prophets, Matthew neither refers to a detailed dogmatic
list of ‘truths and errors’ nor to a detailed moral code of ‘does and don’ts’. He
rather seems to have been looking for a lived solidarity as an expression of
a person’s obedience to the will of God; following Jesus cannot be separated
from interpersonal solidarity and without such, any prophetic claims of a per-
son seem, for Matthew, to be invalid claims.
5 Conclusion
What is prophetic about prophecies? Based on 1 Cor. 1.10–2.16 we may say that
the prophetic element in words of prophecy may less be found in newly re-
vealed insights or truths, nor in ‘personal oracles’ for individuals but in the
critical memory of the paradox of Jesus’ death as the wisdom of God. This
identity-forming narrative defines the self-understanding of the church and
will bear consequences for the life of the community of believers. According
to Paul it often takes the Spirit helping the believers to see such wisdom, for
it is not obvious and definitely not in line with the general way of reasoning
(at any time). This implies that the prophetic element in words of prophecy
cuts through people’s definitions of wisdom or success, since it cut through the
Corinthians’ understanding of wisdom. It redefines the church’s identity and
reality in light of God’s covenantal faithfulness to his people made manifest in
the death of Jesus. It also calls God’s people to live faithfully to their identity as
God’s called people. ‘Hearing from God’ may for Paul be closer to remembering
60 Cf. G. Theissen, Nächstenliebe und Statusverzicht als Grundzüge christlichen Ethos’, in

W. Härle/H. Schmidt/M. Welker (eds.), Das ist christlich. Nachdenken über das Wesen des
Christentums (Gütersloh: Mohn, 2000), pp. 119–42; idem, Erleben und Verhalten der ersten
Christen. Eine Psychologie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007,
pp. 408–409).
61 Although this story is no Sondergut (par. Mk 7.24–30), Matthew has substantially re-
worked it and thereby given the story due weight.

all that Jesus did and taught than to receiving inspired words and messages for
individuals. And the aim of such ‘prophetic remembering’ is to live and act ac-
cording to the church’s identity-forming narrative.
Based on Matthew’s polemic against false prophets we may say that the pro-
phetic element is for the evangelist closer associated with discipleship than
with charismatic manifestations. Prophecies spoken by prophets that do not
live in obedience to the Gospel and in solidarity with other people are of no
interest for Matthew.
If Pentecostals today truly want to learn ‘how to speak prophetically’ they
might have to listen carefully to the paradoxical wisdom of God made manifest
in the crucifixion of Jesus – as they often did in the past. And indeed it needs
the Spirit to understand such wisdom. They might also listen carefully to their
own identity-forming narrative and learn especially from the Old Testament
how such narratives are handed over from one generation to the next. Telling
the story faithfully might in itself be a prophetic act, for any generation is en-
dangered either to idealize their past or to disgrace and forget it.

What Is Prophetic About Prophecies: Inspiration or Critical Memory?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Prophetic About Prophecies: Inspiration or Critical Memory?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

journal of pentecostal theology 26 (2017) 178-195