Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.
Monday, March 17, 2014 | Comments (27)

by John MacArthur

In my last article, I started to address John Piper’s comments in episode 215 of the Ask Pastor John podcast. In interacting with his interpretive claims, that post was getting a little long; I decided to show mercy to the reader, bring that article to a close, and pick up here where I left off.

To bring you up to speed, here’s how John defined the gift of prophecy in episode 215:

I take [the gift of prophecy] as something that God spontaneously brings to mind in the moment; and because we are fallible in the way we perceive it, and the way we think about it, and the way we speak it, it does not carry that same level of infallible, Scripture-level authority.[1]

As I pointed out before, that is a radical departure—both from the Old Testament definition of prophecy, and from the church’s historic interpretation of the nature of prophecy. The Bible has portrayed the gift of prophecy consistently, from Genesis to Revelation, as always verbal, propositional, infallible, and authoritative. But continuationists like John Piper and Wayne Grudem modify the definition of prophecy, evidently believing that the Holy Spirit gave the church a lesser gift consisting in spiritual impressions that are ambiguous and non-authoritative.

John points to three passages in support of his view. I addressed the first passage (1 Thess. 5:19–21) in my previous article. In this post, I’d like to consider his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:4–5. Next time, we will address 1 Corinthians 13:8–13.

In 1 Corinthians 11:4–5, Paul writes, “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head.” Piper says this about that text: “I don’t see how women prophesying in the assembly fits with an infallible, Scripture-level authority when Paul forbids that kind of authority to be exercised over men by women in the church in 1 Timothy 2:12.”[2]

Admittedly, the scenario in 1 Corinthians 11 raises some interpretive questions that are not easy to answer, not just because of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, but also in light of what Paul says a few pages later:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:33b–35, ESV)

So, are women permitted to prophesy in the assembly in chapter 11, but forbidden to do so in chapter 14? How do we reconcile these statements?

Continuationists like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and D.A. Carson believe that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 should not be viewed as a prohibition on women prophesying in the church, since they seem to be practicing that with Paul’s approval in 11:5. Rather, they say 14:34–35 is a prohibition on women prophets judging prophecies. In other words, Paul is teaching that women can’t judge the prophecies of male prophets since that would be “exercising authority over a man” and would violate 1 Timothy 2:12.[3]

The obvious question in response is, “How could women prophesy and not be teaching and exercising authority over a man?” And their response is to infer, without any explicit textual warrant, that this gift of prophecy must be a watered-down version of the historic gift of prophecy—no longer infallible and authoritative, but a mere sharing of advice that is inferior even to teaching.

But again I ask: Is the only legitimate answer to infer such a radical redefinition of the gift of prophecy, especially without a single explicit comment from any New Testament author? Is there another interpretation, which fits all the biblical data, does not depend on inference, and requires less explaining away of explicit prohibitions? Indeed, there is a still more excellent way.

Outside the Assembly

I believe the simplest answer is that the prohibition for women to speak comes in a specific context, namely, “in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34). In 1 Corinthians 11,  Paul does not begin addressing the Corinthians in the context of their local assembly until verses 17 and 18. Verse 18 says, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church . . .” The first matter that Paul addresses as it regards the gathered assembly is the issue of division, and that doesn’t come until 11:18. Therefore, especially in light of 14:34–35, it’s very likely that Paul’s reference to praying and prophesying in 11:4-5 is not intended to be understood in the context of the corporate gathering. Women were able to exercise their authoritative, instructive gift of prophecy outside the assembled church.

It certainly was not unheard of for New Testament prophets to prophesy outside of the assembly, as in the case of Agabus (Acts 21:10–11). And even today, we who believe that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church nevertheless make every opportunity for gifted women to teach children and other women (Titus 2:3–4). Teaching in a children’s ministry or leading a women’s Bible study does not violate 1 Timothy 2:12, and nor does their prophesying. There is no reason that the Spirit could not have provided some women with the same gift of prophecy he gave to men, and yet limited its use to outside the gathered assembly.[4]

Old Testament Prophetesses Did Not Undermine Complementarianism

Besides this, we have explicit biblical evidence that a woman exercising an authoritative, Scripture-level prophetic gift does not undermine biblical complementarianism. Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Anna (Luke 2:36) were all prophetesses in the Old Testament era. This means they exercised the standard Old Testament prophetic gift—namely, infallible, authoritative prophecy.

Piper would not say that men’s and women’s roles changed from egalitarianism in the Old Testament to complementarianism in the New Testament. But he is forced to this undesirable position if he wishes to maintain his objection to infallible prophecy on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12. If both men and women in the Old Testament could prophesy with an infallible and authoritative prophetic gift, and not violate the gender roles established in the created order, why should we assume that would have changed in the New Testament?

“Your Sons and Your Daughters Shall Prophesy”

What’s more, when Peter announced the inauguration of the Spirit’s ministry on the Day of Pentecost, saying, “This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: . . . your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:16–17), there is no indication that these daughters would receive a radically redefined prophetic gift. On the contrary, Peter explicitly identifies the Old Testament gift with the New Testament gift. As an Old Testament prophet himself, Joel couldn’t have been referring to anything but Old Testament prophecy, which we all agree was infallible and carried Scripture-level authority. And it is precisely the New Testament gift of prophecy—received by both men and women—that Peter cites as the fulfillment of that promise. The conclusion is inescapable: Women exercised an infallible and authoritative prophetic gift.

Conclusion

Therefore, if New Testament prophecy is infallible, authoritative, and on par with Scripture, as we claim, then 1 Corinthians 11:4–5 does not contradict Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12. These texts harmonize without having to radically redefine the gift of prophecy.

Next time I’ll address John Piper’s comments on 1 Corinthians 13, which many continuationists see as one of the most important texts in the continuationist/cessationist debate. Be sure to stay tuned.



[1] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 1:04–1:37.

[2] Ask Pastor John, Episode 215, 3:49–4:09.

[3] D. A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), pp. 140–53.

[4] See John MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, MNTC (Chicago: Moody, 1984), pp. 256–57.


Make a Comment

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.

Submit

#1  Posted by Natan T  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 3:59 PM

It's a good argument, but it would be more preferable if you could have a face to face, open debate with continuationists instead of writing on your site, where many audiences are cessationist.

#2  Posted by Dale Mcalpine  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 4:46 PM

How does Dr John M answer the assertion regarding Agabus that his prophecy was fallible ? and therefore an example of the kind of prophecy Grudem talks about in his Systematic Theology ?

Thank You for your ministry John.

God bless

#3  Posted by Gabriel Powell  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 4:57 PM

Dale,

Since it's not related to this point, I'll simply point you to the following resources where you'll find that Agabus was infallible and accurate.

Short blog post: Throwing Prophecy Under the Agabus

Seminar from Strange Fire Conference: A Word from the Lord: Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy

John MacArthur and Phil Johnson concur with the above explanations during this Q&A at the conference.

#4  Posted by Dale Mcalpine  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 4:58 PM

Many thanks Gabriel, much appreciated.

Lord bless you and your ministry, for His glory.

Heb 13:20-21

#5  Posted by Tony Huy  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 5:08 PM

I'm a little confused in Dr. MacArthur's mixing of prophecy="infallible message from God" and prophecy="teaching". If prophecy is in fact an infallible message from God per the OT (as argued by Dr. MacArthur) in the previous post, then the answer to this question he asks seems obvious:

"The obvious question in response is, “How could women prophesy and not be teaching and exercising authority over a man?” "

The answer is prophecy is not teaching, unless we want to say that teaching is infallible. And if prophecy is not teaching, then shouldn't we decouple the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:2 to the issue of prophecy, since that verse is specific about the activity it's prohibiting for women.

Again, this statement makes the assumption that prophecy=teaching, but taken with the previous post, that would imply teaching is infallible:

"And even today, we who believe that women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church nevertheless make every opportunity for gifted women to teach children and other women (Titus 2:3–4). Teaching in a children’s ministry or leading a women’s Bible study does not violate 1 Timothy 2:12, and nor does their prophesying. There is no reason that the Spirit could not have provided some women with the same gift of prophecy he gave to men, and yet limited its use to outside the gathered assembly."

Mixing the argument that prophecy must be the same as in the Old Testament (i.e. infallible) and that prophecy is roughly "teaching" (or I often here preaching) leads to a indefensible conclusion.

#6  Posted by Michael Riccardi  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 6:47 PM

Tony,

I don't think Dr. MacArthur indicated anywhere that he believes prophecy equals teaching. Neither of the quotes you provided necessitate that conclusion. The point, rather, is that both teaching and prophesying would constitute a woman "exercising authority over a man" and thus would violate 1 Tim 2:12.

Piper's argument is that (a) if women teaching is a violation of the biblical teaching of headship and submission, and (b) prophecy is of greater authority than teaching (which we say it is), then (c) how could women prophesy over men and not violate 1 Tim 2:12?

His answer is to say, "The kind of prophecy they're exercising in isn't the kind of Scripture-level authoritative prophecy that we're used to seeing everywhere else in Scripture. It's a 'prophesying' that amounts to little more than advice."

MacArthur's answer is to say, just as it is permissible for women to teach in some contexts today without violating complementarianism, from the lesser (i.e., fallible teaching) to the greater (i.e., infallible prophecy), it is very likely for it to have been permissible for women to prophesy in certain contexts without violating complementarianism. His argument is that those contexts are outside the gathered assembly, and not when men are present.

None of that necessitates equating prophecy and teaching.

#7  Posted by Gabriel Powell  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 7:46 PM

Tony,

In addition to what Michael Riccardi said, I would simply add that prophecy by its very nature is a form of teaching (communicating truth). So all prophecy is teaching, but not all teaching is prophecy.

#8  Posted by Tony Huy  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 8:04 PM

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the clarity. Still, it seems to me that a statement like:

"How could women prophesy and not be teaching ..."

implies an equating of prophesy to teaching. Perhaps that was not the intention, but the statement at face value does lead a reader to believe that.

(Btw, I should disclose that I've been listening to Dr. MacArthurs study on 1 cor 14 and there he repeatedly describes prophesy as teaching / preaching / forth-telling of the word of God, so perhaps my vantage point is slightly skewed because of those sermons in addition to the blog post and not just the blog post.)

#9  Posted by Tony Huy  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 8:09 PM

Gabriel,

While I agree with you that prophesy is a form of teaching in that it conveys truth, I don't think we would want to equate prophesy to teaching because again, (1) we would be stuck saying that teaching is infallible, and (2) we would not be distinguishing between teaching and prophesy the way Paul does (1 Cor 12:19; 14:6)

#10  Posted by Mark Costik  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 9:50 PM

The saying "Too much knowledge is a bad thing" comes to my mind. I wouldn't have even followed John Piper down this rabbit hole. If he wants to stray and wonder about in some kind of Q&A and give a knee jerk answer, that's on him. I think John Piper needs to be quick to listen, and slow to speak. The message of Christ is a very simplistic one. It's complexity comes to everyone in his and her own way. I don't understand why some pastors feel the need to dissect snippets? Grandeur? I enjoy Pastor Macarthur's sermons but this kind of stuff gives me the 10 yard stare.

#11  Posted by Mark Costik  |  Monday, March 17, 2014at 9:55 PM

I'm not sure if everyone has the same Bible verse just above the "submit" button or not on this web page? But God is showing His sense of humor concerning this blog between Pastor M and Pastor J... Proverbs 17:27 is right at the bottom of this blog. "Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding."

#12  Posted by Ted Bigelow  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 6:35 AM

Part 1:

I can see an observant continuationist undercutting John’s interpretation here, that Paul’s discussion of church practices first begins in 1 Cor. 11:18. What about the words in 1 Cor. 11:16 that sum up Paul’s teaching on head coverings:

“we have no other practice, not have the churches of God”?

If the practice in all the churches in 1 Cor. 11:16 doesn’t refer back to the traditions Paul passed along in 1 Cor. 11:2, then what are these practices? The only alternative is to believe Paul passed along traditions (practices) to the Corinthian church “that you firmly hold to” (11:2), but these must be traditions (paradosis) outside the corporate worship of the church. What paradosis shall we suppose, authority and submission in the home? The evidence in the letter does not support that the Corinthian’s home life was quite so mature (1 Cor. 7:1-5, 11:5). Given 1 Cor. 11:16, the word “first” in 1 Cor. 11:18 makes better sense as meaning “first in importance” rather than “first in order” (Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians, 386).

But would taking “first” in 1 Cor. 11:18 this way weaken the Cessationist claims? Actually, the opposite would occur. Such an interpretation paves the way for a stronger connection between 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Cor. 11:5, by 1) having the two texts enforce the same practice (no prophesying by females in corporate worship), 2) remove all confusion on what prophesy is and is not, and 3) clarify Paul’s meaning concerning head coverings in 1 Cor. 11:5-6.

#13  Posted by Ted Bigelow  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 6:36 AM

Part 2:

Numbers 1 and 3 can be tracked down an article in Westminster Theological Journal about 40 years ago. It provides some insight on Paul’s pretty severe language in the passage, especially 1 Cor. 11:6. Here’s the article: “Of Silence and Head Covering” -- By: Noel K. Weeks, WTJ 35:1 (Fall 1972)). Here is a good summary on the web: (http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/headship-and-worship-notes-on-1-corinthians-112-16.php).

Essentially, Noel Week’s explanation of 1 Cor. 11:5 is that for a Christian women to prophecy in church she had to first let down her head covering for freedom to speak. If she did so she became the social equivalent of a prostitute (“whose head is shaved”). Thus Paul was using social shame to prevent the practice of women publicly prophesying in church.

John’s blog above has a note of confusion in it – can women prophesy today? John writes,

“Teaching in a children’s ministry or leading a women’s Bible study does not violate 1 Timothy 2:12, and nor does their prophesying.”

Is John saying what continuationists affirm, that women do prophesy today in some form? If so, is today’s prophecy a form of teaching/preaching, a prophesying that, like continuationists believe, is less than OT prophesy – that is - less than direct revelation?

If so, then isn’t John committing the same fallacy as those he criticizes – redefining prophecy as radically less than the prophesy of both the OT and NT, and thereby undermining the reality of authoritative revelation in prophecy that he is working so hard - and so successfully - in this series of blogs to preserve?

Or is John saying, “no, women today don’t prophesy in any way, shape, or form?”

#14  Posted by Fred Butler  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 7:08 AM

Nathan, #1 writes,

It's a good argument, but it would be more preferable if you could have a face to face, open debate with continuationists instead of writing on your site, where many audiences are cessationist.

Why? How is an open face to face debate better? Continuationists frequent here more than you know. They just don't comment.

While I certainly see value in a moderated, public debate, there does exist a certain ability and discipline to utilize face to face debate for everyone's benefit. If you are not someone who is adept at such things, even if you are defending the correct position, if you cannot present your case well, the other person can make you look foolish based upon his personal charisma and speaking abilities.

Additionally, written debate/response has been the historic precedent for the church. The first major "debate" of the Reformation was a written debate between Erasmus and Martin Luther. Writing allows the audience to re-read, chew on, mull over, and evaluate the arguments. Those are opportunities that are not necessarily a part of a face to face debate and many in the audience may forget the important elements because they were distracted with how one of the participants spoke, or looked, or reacted, or whatever.

#15  Posted by Chris Mcintyre  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 7:12 AM

This is a teachable moment. Thank you for your ministry and dedication to explain the truth of God's word with proper exposition. God is faithful, and His Word is clear and true.

"The beginning of wisdom is: acquire wisdom; and with all your acquiring, get understanding."

#16  Posted by Lisa Mckay  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 7:42 AM

I have nothing witty or enlightening to add other than I love these articles..and particularly appreciate when two brilliant men can debate the fine points and yet still honor and respect one another. These kinds of discussions are how we determine for ourselves what be believe and why.

#17  Posted by Mary Elizabeth Palshan  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 8:43 AM

I think many here would agree that Dr. John Piper has historically been a bit confusing with some of his tweets and other comments in social media. He often does not explain himself very well; and he seems to take for granted that everyone understands his position(s). However, when it comes to explaining God’s Word, in his books or sermons, this particular problem never seems to exist, and his choice of words leads one to understand he is a brilliant communicator. So I can never understand WHY the confusion.

Example: “I take [the gift of prophecy] as something that God spontaneously brings to mind in the moment; and because we are fallible in the way we perceive it, and the way we think about it, and the way we speak it, it does not carry that same level of infallible, Scripture-level authority.”

When I first read his quote I immediately thought of this passage. “ But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26).

Could it be possible that he was referring to this particular passage of Scripture?

Good to see you back at GCC, Gabriel. And a special hello to Rudi Jensen.

#18  Posted by Travis Allen  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 8:50 AM

Ted Bigelow:

You make a good point. If men were required to pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered, and women were required to keep their heads covered (or else be mistaken for a prostitute), then Paul has effectively excluded women from prophesying in the local assembly.

However, that's not immediately obvious to a 21st-century American reader. Many assume, as John Piper has done, that Paul's mention of women prophesying in the context of the assembly is tantamount to affirmation. If we grant the local assembly context begins at 1 Cor. 11:2, then continuationists demand to know why Paul wasn't more explicit in condemning women for prophesying in church. Why did he choose instead to focus on head coverings?

It’s not without precedent that Paul passed by one issue to deal with another. He did that in the previous section, chapters 8–10, setting aside the "strong" Corinthian's justification for flirting with idolatry ("there is no God but one") to deal with the more fundamental issue of practicing love toward one another. However, he came around full circle to condemn idolatry strongly at the end of chapter 10 (vv. 14-22).

I believe he did the same thing in chapters 11–14. He temporarily set aside the fact that women were prophesying in a mixed assembly to deal with a more fundamental issue: the higher priority was to give visible testimony to the role distinctions between men and women. By abandoning their head coverings, women were undermining their testimony to the divine order of male headship and female submission.

If Corinthian women would align themselves with God’s will in their marriages, publicly portraying male headship and female submission in that cultural context by wearing head coverings (1 Cor. 11), then they would be well positioned to practice the same distinctions in other situations as well.

So, practicing role distinctions in marriage (11:3–16) is foundational to practicing role distinctions in the local church assembly, even when, particularly when, exercising the gift of prophecy (14:33b–35). Women were not to prophesy in the church.

Again, thanks for the comment, Ted.

#27  Posted by Jeremy Gardiner  |  Monday, April 07, 2014at 5:07 AM

Hey Travis, just wanted to let you know that the "mistaken for a prostitute" theory is a myth. It was started in the late 19th century with no sources but those who advocate it today usually do so by misquoting Strabo. Search "head covering movement corinthian prostitutes" for more info.

#28  Posted by Travis Allen  |  Tuesday, April 15, 2014at 9:46 AM

Jeremy:

I did the search you recommended and read your article. While I recognize there are myths about the Roman vs. Greek Corinth (i.e., 1,000 temple prostitutes) and the meaning of the head covering, it's not a myth that a wife caught in adultery could be publicly disgraced by the punishment of having her hair shorn (v. 6).

As Gill observed, the portrait of a husband and wife, both without veils, is common to the statues in Corinth, all but one showing Roman women unveiled. However, as Bruce Winter writes, "Only high-class Roman women had their statues carved; the presence of only one veiled statue suggests that it was a statue type and therefore may have had nothing to do with the portrayal of the 'new' Roman wife. If it had, it would have resulted in a complete loss of dignitas for a husband who had allowed his wife to be portrayed in his own household where he was, by convention, the head."

You might find that whole chapter interesting to read. It's called, "Veiled Men and Wives and Christian Conscientiousness," in After Paul Left Corinth, by Bruce Winter.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that Paul's argument (for male-female distinctions in 1 Cor. 11:2-16) goes back to the created order. The application of those distinctions--visibly, in public, in Corinthian culture--meant wives in Corinth should wear head coverings. The same application makes sense today in cultures where head coverings have significance. When a woman wears a head covering in American churches, however, there is no immediate recognition of the meaning that existed in Corinth (Greek and Roman).

Thanks for the comment.

Travis

#19  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 9:41 AM

#17 Mary

Hi Mary. You know I was praying for you :-)

And my heart is full of joy to see Fred Butler here too.

#20  Posted by Rudi Jensen  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 9:48 AM

#17 Mary

There is a difference in the new revelation-aspect. That is the main point, as I see it.

#21  Posted by Mitch Eddards  |  Tuesday, March 18, 2014at 11:59 AM

Dr. Piper's Ministry started to get into the strange and charasmatic in some respects I noticed starting a couple years ago or so. I went to both Passion 2012 and 2013 i noticed some of Dr. Piper's teachings have been more or less leaning in that direction. Although I admire him for his passion in the pulpit I also agree with this analysis of some of the things that he said as well as others. Though no preacher is perfect Dr. Piper included; there is more to be said to this topic which I'm sure will be continued in another blog..

#23  Posted by Chad Wallace  |  Wednesday, March 19, 2014at 3:47 AM

Another passage to recognize ...

On the next day we who were Paul’s companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. (Acts 21:8, 9 NKJV)

On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. (Acts 21:8, 9 NASB)

Agreed ... The gift given has to be used outside the gathering of the whole church for it to remain in the context of the scriptures. My take on this passage since there is no prophesy from them referenced is that Phillips daughters were simply known to prophesy. Since it is mentioned, there is a place for it.

From Blueletter

Part of Speech: verb

Root Word (Etymology): from G4396

Outline of Biblical Usage:

to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict

to prophesy

with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp. to the kingdom of God

to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation

to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels

under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others

to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office

#24  Posted by Craig Fulford  |  Wednesday, March 19, 2014at 6:30 AM

Mitch Eddards said, "Dr. Piper's Ministry started to get into the strange and charasmatic in some respects I noticed starting a couple years ago or so."

I agree Mitch and it almost seems like Dr. Piper is somewhat "confused" when it comes to the continuation of certain "gifts" and that many of his comments are actually attempts to "test" his "feelings" and "thoughts". I think we all say some things at one time or another just to see how it sounds, not necessarily because we have a firm belief in it's content.

Unfortunately, in Dr. Piper's position I do not think this is a "good thing".

#25  Posted by Ryan Mann  |  Monday, March 24, 2014at 10:10 AM

IIRC, MacArthur does equate prophecy with teaching in his Study Bible notes. (I believe he claims the NT gift is no longer foretelling or revelatory, but forthtelling what has already been revealed. Correct me if I'm wrong.) The confusing thing to me about his criticism of Piper is that his own study Bible notes "redefine" the definition of prophecy he attempts to be consistent with here.

FWIW, not saying I agree with either side. Enjoying the discussion.

#26  Posted by Jeremy Gardiner  |  Monday, April 07, 2014at 5:03 AM

Interesting to know that Dr. MacArthur still holds to the view that 11:2-16 is for outside the assembly. I assumed he changed his mind as the heading in his commentary noted that 11:2 was the start of a new section that were "instructions for corporate worship".

I gave another take on the "in the first place" argument made by Dr. MacArthur here: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles/is-the-lords-supper-the-first-time-paul-dealt-with-church-issues