Office of Prophetess in the New Testament
By Pastor Rolf Preus
I have been asked
to address the topic, “The Office of Prophetess in the New
Testament.” The letter of
invitation explained that this was in “response to President
Kieschnick’s invitation to study this topic.”
In his acceptance speech to the 2001 Convention of the Lutheran
Church – Missouri Synod, President Gerald Kieschnick said,
do not believe in the ordination of women to the pastoral office.
I do believe that women should have the privileges of voting in
the church and serving in any and every capacity except pastor and
elder. I also believe that
our Synod should explore the clearly acceptable biblical role of
prophetess and its implications for women in the church in the 21st
Whether or not the
so-called “biblical role of prophetess” is “clearly acceptable”
I will leave for you to judge. It
certainly is not clearly defined. Is
every woman who prophesies a prophetess?
Philip the Evangelist had four virgin daughters who prophesied
(Acts 21:9), but Luke does not call them prophetesses.
Is there a difference between the office of prophetess in the Old
Testament and the office of prophetess in the New Testament?
The only prophetess mentioned in the New Testament is Anna.
But does she belong to the New Testament? Or should she and Simeon be put into the category of those
straddling the two Testaments? They
saw the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Incarnation, but they did
not live to witness the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost when
the New Testament gift of prophecy was given.
Is all prophecy in the New Testament identified as prophecy? Does Mary’s Magnificat qualify as prophecy?
It sounds like prophecy, but Mary is not called a prophetess nor
are her words called prophecy. What
about the testimony of the Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at
Jacob’s Well (St. John 4:39), whose words led many of the Samaritans
to believe in Christ? Or
consider the clear confession of Martha (St. John 11:21-17) where she
confesses the doctrine of the Apostles Creed even before the apostles
understood it. Does this
kind of theological discourse constitute prophecy?
What does the word
“prophesy” mean? The
standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives as the first
definition of the Greek word propheeteuoo
“proclaim a divine revelation” followed by “prophetically reveal
what is hidden” and “foretell the future.”
Any of these standard definitions would suggest that it requires
a special revelation from God for one to prophesy.
This is implied in 1 Corinthians 14:30 where St. Paul speaks of
something being revealed to one of the prophets.
On the other hand, Bible Bill Beck translates propheeteuoo
as “speak God’s word” in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 and renders the noun
propheetees of Ephesians 4:11
as a verb: “to speak the Word.”
This need not require any special revelation.
Beck translates this same noun in 1 Corinthians 12:28 as
“preachers.” It appears
that Beck is in these instances trying his best to make Paul talk
American, as the name of the translation suggests.
It is certainly true that the prophets of 1 Corinthians 12:28
were preachers and that the men and women who prophesied as related in 1
Corinthians 11:4-5 were speaking God’s word.
David Kuske, of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon, in an
exegetical treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, defines “prophesy” as
“sharing God’s word with others to strengthen, encourage, or comfort
them.” He bases his
definition on 1 Corinthians 14:3 which reads, “But he who prophesies
speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.”
The word “prophetess” occurs only two times in the New Testament, in Luke 2:36 and in Revelation 2:20. In the first instance, St. Luke identifies Anna as a prophetess. In the second instance, Jezebel identifies herself as a prophetess.
Little is said
about Anna. She was a
devout elderly widow who spent all her time in the temple, fasting and
praying. She came into the
temple as Simeon was speaking and she heard him say the Nunc Dimittis. She proceeded to tell others about Jesus.
Specifically, she talked about the Lord
“to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” (Luke
2:38) While Simeon did not
make explicit reference to the atonement, Anna did.
Perhaps she understood Simeon’s words to Mary, “yes, and a
sword will pierce through your own soul also,” as a reference to
Christ’s suffering. The
salvation that Simeon saw would not be without a scandal or price.
Yet it would redeem sinners.
This is what was revealed to Anna, the prophetess.
This was the substance of her prophecy.
The only other
occurrence of the word “prophetess” in the New Testament is in
Revelation 2:20 where St. John quotes Jesus as saying, “You allow that
woman, Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and beguile my
servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to
idols.” Not only does
Jesus say that he will punish her, he also threatens to kill her
children as well unless they repent.
In addition to
these two instances in which the word “prophetess” is used, there
are three references to women prophesying.
St. Peter quotes from Joel 2:28-29 in his Pentecost sermon.
We read in Acts 2:17-18, “Your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy . . . on my menservants and on my maidservants I will pour out
my Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy.”
The second reference to women prophesying occurs in Acts 21:9,
where we read that Philip the Evangelist had four virgin daughters who
prophesied. The third
reference is in 1 Corinthians 11:5, where St. Paul teaches that every
woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her
The Holy Spirit has
seen fit to record for us what Anna the true prophetess spoke. He has also preserved a record of the false teaching of
Jezebel the false prophetess. He
has not chosen to place into the Holy Scriptures the words of the women
who prophesied, as recorded in Acts 2, Acts 21, and 1 Corinthians 11. St. Luke appears to be content with recording for us the
simple fact that women did prophesy, as God, through the prophet Joel,
said they would. St. Paul
does not address what the women in Corinth were saying when they
prophesied, but that they were dishonoring their heads when they
prophesied without a head covering.
St. Paul’s words
in 1 Corinthians 11:5 tell us very little about what the women were
actually doing. Opinions
vary. Of course, the
various interpretations must also deal with the apostolic prohibition
against women speaking in church that Paul delivers 1 Corinthians 14:34.
How can women prophesy without speaking?
Kenneth Bailey, who
received his Th D from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis in 1972, is a
Presbyterian scholar serving as Canon Theologian for the Episcopal
Diocese of Pittsburgh. He
says that the women described in chapter 11:5 were leading the public
worship along with the men.
He makes the following argument:
11:4-5, the men and the women
are prophesying. Thus the
reader knows that the prophets who interrupt one another in chapter 14
are comprised of both men and
women. So when the women in
14:34-35 are told to be silent and listen to the prophets, it is clear
that some of those prophets are women.
Bailey explains St.
Paul’s intent by saying,
not be upset if I urge you to cover your heads when you lead in worship
(i.e. pray and prophesy). Do
not for a moment see this as a put down.
Quite the opposite, let this be a sign of your authority (v.11)
to exercise your prophetic gifts in leadership along with the men. Do it “Because of the angels.” Let them applaud the
wondrous fact of your restored status in the new creation and let the
image of God that is within you shine forth.
Gregory Lockwood, in his recently published commentary on First Corinthians, takes a different view. He suggests that there was good reason why St. Paul did not forbid the women from prophesying in chapter eleven while he clearly forbade them to speak in chapter 14. He points out that the Apostle was providing pastoral care to the congregation. This required him to deal with the people as he found them, carefully laying a foundation from which he could build. Lockwood does not argue that the prophesying of 11:5 did not take place in the church service and he does not argue that this prophesying could occur without the women taking part in the prohibited speaking of 14:34. These are the standard arguments often proposed by traditionalists. He rather makes the case that St. Paul approaches the abuses in the congregation in a deliberate and pastoral manner that becomes more firm as it becomes more clear. It is, in my opinion, a very persuasive argument that avoids creating further exegetical difficulties in the effort to solve an apparent conflict.
Kieschnick would like the Missouri Synod to “explore the clearly
acceptable biblical role of prophetess and its implications for women in
the church in the 21st century.”
There are very important implications for women and men in the
church of the 21st century in the fact that women in the New
Testament prophesied. I intend to explore some of these implications this morning.
This is not to say that we may rightly speak of a New Testament
office of prophetess. I
have been unable to find such an office. Anna did not hold a New Testament office.
Surely no one would argue that Jezebel did!
Yet the only two uses of the word “prophetess” in the New
Testament apply to these women. The
fact that women prophesied does not require the conclusion that these
women were regarded as prophetesses.
In Acts 21:9 we read that Philip “had four virgin daughters who
prophesied.” They are not
identified as prophetesses in the New Testament.
Yet in the following verse we read of “a certain prophet named
Agabus.” The New
Testament does not teach an office of prophetess. It names no woman as holding such an office.
As we shall see, it is impossible for the church to establish
such an office today.
The words that the
women prophesied are not recorded for us in the Bible. Neither are their names.
Was their every prophecy directly and supernaturally revealed by
God? Or did their
prophesying sometimes refer to a more general activity, somewhat like a
theological conversation with a specific purpose of providing comfort,
encouragement, and so forth? I
would like to suggest that these questions need not even be addressed,
to say nothing of being answered, in order for us to understand the
implications of the fact that women prophesied after the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
The most important
implication of the fact that women prophesied after Pentecost is that
the ministry of the word and sacraments belongs to women as much as it
belongs to men. The Holy
Spirit has bound Himself to the ministry of teaching the gospel and
administering the sacraments. As
Lutherans confess in Augsburg Confession, Article V:
are the Anabaptists and others who teach that we obtain the Holy Spirit
without the external word of the gospel through our own preparation,
thoughts, and works.
the ministry of the word, and the Holy Spirit go together.
Anyone who has any one of these has all of these.
If Jesus belongs to you, the Spirit of truth whom he sends from
the Father (John 15:26) also belongs to you and has come to you.
If a woman prophesies, she has the Holy Spirit.
If she has the Holy Spirit, she has the ministry of the Holy
Spirit. If she doesn’t
have the ministry of the Holy Spirit, she doesn’t have the Holy
Spirit. If she doesn’t
have the Holy Spirit, she doesn’t have Jesus and she is not justified
by faith. The denial that
the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments
belongs to all Christian women is a denial of the doctrine of
justification by faith alone.
This is why Jesus
ordained the original preachers, not by laying his hands on them, but by
breathing on them and giving them the Holy Spirit. (John 20:22-23) Had Jesus ordained the first ministers in the same way that
ministers were afterwards ordained, namely by the laying on of the
hands, the office would belong solely to the office holders.
But Jesus chose to ordain the first preachers by breathing the
Holy Spirit on them instead and in this way to teach us that whoever has
the Holy Spirit has the ministry of the word.
Preaching on the words of Jesus, “Receive the Holy Spirit,
whosoever sins you forgive are forgiven and whosoever sins you retained
are retained,” Luther said in a sermon he delivered on the Sunday
after Easter in 1522:
power is here given to all Christians, although some have appropriated
it to themselves alone, like the pope, bishops, priests and monks have
done: they declare publicly and arrogantly that this power was given to
them alone and not to the laity. But
Christ here speaks neither of priests nor of monks, but says: “Receive
ye the Holy Spirit,” Whosoever has the Holy Spirit, power is given to
him, that is, to every one that is a Christian.
But who is a Christian? He
that believes. Whoever
believes has the Holy Spirit. Therefore
every Christian has the power, which the pope, bishops, priests and
monks have in this case, to forgive sins or to retain them.
belongs immediately to the church, not only collectively, but also
specifically to every individual member of the church.
Whoever has the Holy Spirit has the ministry. Every single believer has the Holy Spirit and so every single
believe has the power to forgive sins or to retain sins.
As Luther wrote to the Christians in Prague,
we take our stand: There is no other Word of God than that which is
given all Christians to proclaim. There is no other baptism than the one
which any Christian can bestow. There is no other remembrance of the
Lord’s Supper than that which any Christian can observe and which
Christ has instituted. There is no other kind of sin than that which any
Christian can bind or loose.
The doctrine of
justification by faith alone requires that the means by which faith is
obtained must belong to every believer.
This is why the office of preaching the gospel and administering
the sacraments must belong to every individual Christian, male and
female. This office does
not belong to individual Christians only insofar as they delegate it to
others. It belongs to
individual Christians precisely because they are Christians.
It will always belong to each Christian individually because this
office cannot be taken away from any Christian so long as he or she is a
Christian. It is inside of
them, where the Holy Spirit dwells.
Listen to a portion of another sermon Luther preached on the
Gospel Lesson for next Sunday. Commenting
on the words, “as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you,”
here you notice Christ begins and institutes the office of the ministry
of the external Word in every Christian; for he himself came with this
office and the external Word. Let
us lay hold of this, for we must admit it was spoken to us.
It was to the
apostles that Jesus said, “You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit
not many days from now.” (Acts 1:5)
Jesus did not merely predict this event.
He promised it. He
caused it to happen. Jesus
can send the Holy Spirit from the Father because the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Jesus would have no business sending the Holy Spirit if the Holy
Spirit did not proceed from him. He
does. So Jesus did.
Did Jesus give to the apostles the Holy Spirit when he breathed
on them? He surely did. Did Jesus pour out the Holy Spirit on them “not many
days” after his Ascension? Yes
he did. And not only on
them, but on all flesh, that is, on all believers.
As St. Peter preached:
this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
The Holy Spirit is
poured out on all flesh, not just on the apostles.
The prophecy, visions, and dreams are clear evidence that
Jesus’ promise is now being fulfilled.
Twice the gift of prophesying is mentioned and both times men and
women are included. The
office belongs equally to both men and women because both men and women
are equally heirs of the promise, as St. Paul teaches in Galatians
For you are
all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ. There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male
nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and
heirs according to the promise.
St. Peter concludes
his citation from the prophet Joel with these words: “Whoever calls on
the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
These words are echoed by St. Paul in Romans 10, after which he
proceeds to lay down the need for a call into this office if one is
publicly to carry out its duties.
There is no
ministry instituted by Jesus that does not belong immediately to the
whole church and to every individual member of the church, that is, to
those who believe and are baptized.
The office of preaching must belong to those whose faith is
obtained by the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the
sacraments. This is so
because whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, but they
cannot call on him in whom they have not believed and yet this faith
comes from the preaching of the preacher whom God sends.
There are two
things we may conclude from this. First,
every single Christian may and should speak the word of God. The Christian father is called by God to teach God’s word
to his children. The
Christian mother is called by God to teach the word to her children. Every Christian is called in baptism to speak God’s word
for the benefit of his neighbor. In
cases of need, every Christian may rightly do everything on which faith
depends. This includes
baptizing, preaching, absolving, comforting, rebuking, and so forth.
Second, we may
conclude that the mediate call into the preaching office that comes
through the church is a call from God.
Since God has given the ministry to the church, the call from the
church is divine. This was
Luther’s argument. He
writes, “Since a Christian congregation neither should nor could exist
without God’s word, it clearly follows . . . that it nevertheless must
have teachers and preachers who administer the word.”
There are two
things we may not conclude from this.
First, the fact that the office of preaching belongs to every
Christian does not mean that every Christian may publicly preach.
“How shall they preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:15)
“Concerning church government it is taught that no one should
publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper
call.” (AC XIV)
Second, the fact
that the office belongs to the church immediately does not mean that the
church may do with this office as she pleases.
God gave it to her. God
did not authorize her to change it from what he instituted it to be. Just as the church may not change the gospel that is preached
or the sacraments that are administered, neither may she change the
office to which God has entrusted the preaching of the gospel and the
administration of the sacraments. Just
as the church appeals to the Words of Institution when teaching and
defending the truth concerning the Lord’s Supper, she should also rely
on the instituting words of Jesus when teaching and defending the truth
about the office of preaching.
This is what the
Lutheran Confessions do. The
Lutheran Confessions ground the office in the calling of the apostles by
The words of Jesus that he spoke to his first ministers after he
rose from the dead as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, and
John 20:21-23 are the foundation for the office in the Lutheran
Confessions. Adolf Hoenecke,
the great Wisconsin Synod theologian, speaks from within the
confessional Lutheran dogmatic tradition when he asserts that “The
ordinary preaching office is the continuation of the extraordinary
apostolic office, a continuation God himself wants.
It is of divine institution in and with the apostolic office.”
C. F. W. Walther taught the same thing.
Under the second of his theses on the ministry, Walther writes:
“The divine institution of the holy ministry is evident from
the call of the holy apostles into the ministry of the Word by the Son
of God . . .”
As Scripture proof, Walther lists, among other texts, Matthew 28,
Mark 16, John 20, and John 21.
Both Hoenecke and
Walther taught that the office belonged immediately to all Christians.
To teach that the office belongs to the church is not to teach
that the office derives from the church.
Baptism does not come from the baptized.
The Lord’s Supper doesn’t come from those who eat and drink.
The gospel and the sacraments as well as the office instituted to
distribute these treasures come from Christ, not from the church.
As Luther writes, “This office is a service or ministry
proceeding from Christ to us, and not from us to Christ.”
He goes on to establish the office of preaching firmly in the
[St. Paul] terms his office “service or ministry of Christ” and
himself “minister of Christ,” because he was ordained of God to the
office of preaching. So all
apostles and bishops are ministers of Christ; that is preachers,
messengers, officers of Christ, sent to the people with this message.
The office comes
from Christ and is given to the church.
It does not come from the church.
In order to secure the christological foundation of the office as
it exists in the church today it is necessary to ground it firmly in the
apostolate, that is, in the instituting words of Jesus in calling the
preachers into the office.
The generation of
theologians that followed Walther in the Missouri Synod and Hoenecke in
the Wisconsin Synod neglected this important foundation. Nowhere in his treatment of the ministry in his Christian
Dogmatics does Francis Pieper refer to Mark 16:15-16 or John 20:21-23.
He begins his discussion of the ministry by asserting that only a
congregation can establish it,
and from that point onward he treats the office, not as it exists by
virtue of its institution by Jesus, but as it exists by virtue of its
establishment by the Christian congregation.
To be sure, he stresses the divine institution of the office in
opposition to Hoefling,
but he does not appeal to Christ’s instituting words in calling the
apostles as the first ministers of the church.
the so-called Wauwatosa theologians, there was a retreat from
Hoenecke’s bold affirmation that the preaching office was the
continuation of the apostolic office.
John Schaller wrote in his very influential essay, “The Origin
and Development of the New Testament Ministry”: “Here we now at once
need to understand that there can be no talk about a transmission
of the apostolic office.”
theology evolved into the two schools identified today by the names of
two Midwestern American states, neither school was willing to ground the
office in Christ’s calling of the apostles into the office.
They argued primarily over whether or not the local congregation
was the only divinely established form of the church.
The doctrine of the ministry during this decades-long debate was
subordinated to the argument about what kind of gathering was or was not
church. Both sides affirmed
that the ministry of the word belongs immediately to the church.
Both sides agreed that the call from God was the call through the
church. The assumption
appeared to be that if you can rightly identify the church you will have
rightly identified the ministry of the church. The debate between Missouri and Wisconsin was not so much
“What is the office?” as it was “Who’s got the office?”
By neglecting the
apostolic foundation of the ministry, the unity of the office was
broken. It was broken
during the first half of the 20th century but nobody noticed
until the second half when a proliferation of ministries bubbled up from
among the baptized. With
the invasion of feminism and the Charismatic Movement (which combined to
form the Church Growth movement), churches that grounded the ministry in
baptism were unable to keep the ministry from dissolving into
innumerable constituent parts to be distributed evenly and fairly among
gifted Christians, both male and female.
What we need to do
in response to this is to return to the office that Jesus gave us on the
day he rose from the dead. While
the ministry comes to us from God through the church, it doesn’t come
from the church. It comes
from Jesus. Go back to that
first Easter and Pentecost and look at what happened in space/time
history. Jesus institutes the ministry on Easter Sunday.
He sends the Holy Spirit who establishes the church on Pentecost.
The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ by giving his gifts of
prophecy, speaking in tongues, healings, and so forth to those who
receive the apostolic word.
By testifying to the
apostolic word, the Holy Spirit testifies to Christ.
By sending the Holy Spirit with his gifts when Christ’s
preachers begin to preach Christ shows he is giving this apostolic
ministry to the whole church. Thus,
Jesus establishes the ministry for the church.
The Holy Spirit creates the church through the ministry.
Jesus gives the office to the church, but it remains his office.
The church is built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ the
chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:20)
The church is not built on the foundation of the prophets and the
apostles, but on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
The apostles have primacy. Whenever
apostles and prophets are mentioned together, the apostles are always
mentioned first. In
Ephesians 4:11, the ascended Lord Jesus gives apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors and teachers.
St. Paul explicitly teaches the primacy of the apostles in 1
Corinthians 12:28, “And God has appointed these in the church: first
apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then
gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.”
There are four reasons for asserting the primacy of the apostolic
First, the apostles
were personally taught by Jesus and were eyewitnesses of his miracles
and his resurrection. The sine qua non of being an apostle was to have been with Jesus from
his baptism until his ascension and to have been a witness of his
resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22)
Second, Jesus personally sent the apostles, instituting their office by giving to them their specific duties. These duties are clearly stated in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. These duties are summarized in Articles V, XIV, and XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession as preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments, that is, the duties of the pastoral office. No one but the eleven are present when Jesus calls them into the apostolic office. In St. Luke’s Gospel, others besides the eleven are present. In that account, Jesus does not directly tell the apostles what to do but uses the passive voice, saying, “Repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47)
apostles’ words are recorded for us in the New Testament and serve as
the norm for all the doctrine of the church until the end of time.
It was specifically to the apostles that Jesus promised the
Spirit of truth who would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
apostolic office was given here on earth for the purpose of being
transmitted to others here on earth.
While every single Christian can and should take comfort in
Christ’s promise to remain with his church until the end of the world,
in the first instance this promise of Matthew 28:20 refers to the
apostles and their successors in the office.
In Acts 1:20 we read, concerning Judas, “let another take his
office.” The Greek word
is episkopeen, that is, the
office of bishop or pastor. The
apostles identified themselves as bishops and elders, the office that we
today usually call pastor. St.
John, who was an apostle, an evangelist, and a prophet, called himself,
“the elder” or “the pastor” as he introduced himself in his
second and third epistles. In
2 Timothy 2:2, St. Paul writes, “And the things that you have heard
from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be
able to teach others also.”
None of these
features of the apostolic office can be said to describe the New
Testament office of prophet. The
prophets did not necessarily need to have seen Jesus.
They were neither taught nor sent by Jesus. They wrote no Scriptures to serve as the norm for the church.
And, most importantly in connection with our topic for this
morning, the prophetic office was only immediately bestowed and could
not be transmitted mediately, whether by the prophets themselves or by
Speaking of the Old
Testament prophets, John Schaller writes:
a prophet was, rather, each time a separate gift of God to the church;
he came with a specific commission, preached his revelation, and left
behind no successor who by virtue of his office took over his special
work . . . The special work of a prophet, that is, his specific office,
ceased with his death. It
could not, of course be inherited or passed on since it consisted in
proclaiming new revelations.
And so the New
Testament prophetic office also disappeared.
It had to give way and be subsumed under the ongoing apostolic
ministry entrusted to the pastors.
Once the normative Scriptures were written and the apostolic
office had been entrusted to the called and ordained pastors, the need
for the prophetic office diminished until it was no more.
The refusal to subordinate the prophetic office to the apostolic
office may represent a desire to separate the Holy Spirit from
Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sinners.
Herman Sasse writes:
greatest danger that threatened Christian prophecy was that the
Spirit-revelation that proceeded through the prophet in the present time
claimed precedence over the Christ-revelation which had come to pass in
the past. In the Montanist
movement the ancient church’s prophetic movement actually succumbed to
this danger. Then the word
was forgotten through which the Paraclete’s message is indissolubly
bound to, and at the same time subordinated to the Gospel about the
Incarnate Word: “He shall glorify me, for he shall take of mine, and
shall show it unto you” (Jn 16:14f.).
The binding of prophecy to the Christ-revelation which happened
once in history, this humble subordination of prophecy underneath the
apostolic message is what distinguishes New Testament prophecy from Old
This is why the
prophetic office of the New Testament that came from heaven had to give
way to the office that Jesus instituted here on earth for the care of
sinners. The work of the
bishops/presbyters/pastors described in such texts as Acts 20:28, 1
Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, and 1 Peter 5:1-4 does have a prophetic
feature, to be sure. But
these men are also to be physicians of the soul.
This requires the continual giving out of the forgiveness of sins
through the full gospel ministry of preaching the gospel and
administering the sacraments. No
one may assume the duties of this office unless God calls him through
the church, that is, through a mediate call.
The office of
prophet (and if there were the office of prophetess) in the New
Testament can only be given immediately.
The church could receive such prophetesses as gifts from God.
The church could regulate their activity. But the church could not serve as the means of placing a
woman into such an office. Prophets
and prophetesses do not receive mediate calls.
This is not to say
that God could not send prophetesses today.
He surely could. If
he did, we would expect him to do so immediately, for this is how God
sends prophets. He
wouldn’t send the Holy Spirit to assemble a call committee that would
then determine the parameters of the office and the scope of the duties
of said prophetess, perhaps setting a term limit of her service that
could, should her performance be acceptable, be renewed every five
years, calling on a synodical or district office to provide names of
suitable candidates. No, he
would just do it. Here she
is! Her name is Eunice
Dissen! Now listen up!
Bo Giertz, known
for his popular novel, Hammer of God, has a valuable contribution
to make in this regard. In
an article published in the Springfielder in 1970, Giertz says:
we must count on the recurrence of prophecy where and when God pleases.
Something of the gift of prophecy can appear also in the
Christian witness in daily life. When
good, courageous women stand up and speak a clear Christian word as the
individual situations may give opportunity . . . then this can be on the
same level as that to which the Bible refers as prophecy.
Giertz also notes
that “prophecy is not an office in the sense of being a commission
entrusted through the church nor does a person possess prophecy as an
ever on-going opportunity to serve.”
God reserves the
right to call prophetesses to prophesy.
He has not given this to the church to do.
This is essentially Luther’s point when he addresses the matter
of women prophesying in the Scriptures.
He mentions women who spoke God’s word with authority when God
called them to do so. These
women included Sarah, Miriam, Huldah, Deborah, Mary, and Anna.
God sent these women. But
God does not authorize the church to place women into the public
preaching office. He
clearly and emphatically forbids it.
God forbids it when St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that a
woman may not speak in church. God
forbids it when St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 that a woman may not
teach. God forbids it when
he chooses to call only men as the original preachers.
God reserves the
right to do what he forbids us to do and we have no business arguing
with God. Instead, we
should listen to the women he sends to speak to us.
They have more of a right to be heard than do men who send
themselves and push their way into where God has not sent them.
We should listen to the Mother of God who prophesied when she
sang her Magnificat. Elisabeth
spoke the authoritative word of God to which every faithful Christian
heart willingly submits when she said, “Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed in the fruit of thy womb!” (Luke 1:42)
Mary also spoke the dogmatically binding truth when she said:
soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God, my
To what is Mary
referring when she preaches to us about God graciously regarding her,
blessing her, and doing great things to her?
She is talking about having a Baby.
Her first parents were made in the image of God and fell from
grace, bringing the whole world with them.
Now, in her virginal womb was the Image of God made flesh.
Listen to the prophecy of this woman!
God did not see fit to record for us the words spoken by Philip
the Evangelist’s daughters, or the women who prophesied in Corinth, or
any other prophetic utterance spoken by the women who prophesied after
Pentecost. But the Holy
Spirit has preserved for us these words.
He chose them
specifically for our generation, you know.
We have seen the fulfillment of the secular prophet’s dire
prediction made over eighty years ago:
the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
We have seen the
bitter fruit of feminist ideology wreak havoc on the home for
generations. Can we hear in
Mary’s song the voice of God? Of
what use is a prophetess if we shut our ears to her prophecy?
Is not Mary preaching to us that the blessing that God first
pronounced on those made in his image is now to be reaffirmed in every
Christian mother’s womb? For
the original blessing in the very beginning was a fruitful womb.
“Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful
and multiply.’” (Genesis 1:28)
That blessing was marred and obscured by the pain of childbirth
and the heartbreak that sin brings to every mother’s heart.
But in Mary’s
womb Christian motherhood finds its redemption and sanctification. In the Virgin’s womb is our God and brother, Jesus.
Mary is truly Theotokos, the God-bearer, and so are her daughters in the faith,
who by teaching God’s word to their children bring the Lord Jesus
Christ to them and place him into their hearts.
If every generation shall call Mary blessed, should not our
generation bless the vocation of Christian motherhood as a higher
calling than anything that the church could form out of her own devises? When the Holy Spirit put these words into the mouth of the
Mother of God, was he not also teaching our generation that the fruitful
womb is still God’s reward (Psalm 127:3)?
And is it not also true that the Christian mother, who faces
possible death whenever life is conceived in her womb, has by that
conception of life the proper call from God to bring the words of life
to the children God gives her?
The highest office
that God gives to his daughters is not and cannot be given by the call
of the church. When our
generation of Christian men and women learns this and takes it to heart,
we will have begun to understand the implications of the gift of
prophesy that God gives to Christian women.
Pastor Rolf Preus
April 6, 2002
Lenski argues against it. See
The Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, by R. C. H.
Lenski, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1961,
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich,
The University of Chicago Press, 1957, page 730.
David Kuske, “Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16,”
ESSAYS-ON-LINE, Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, 1999.
“The Women Prophets of Corinth: A study of aspects of I Cor
11:2-16” by Kenneth E. Bailey, published in Theology Matters, A
Publication of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry
Volume 6, No 1, page 11.
“Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View” by
Kenneth E. Bailey, published in Theology Matters, A Publication
of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Volume 6, No 1,
“The Women Prophets of Corinth” page 14.
Concordia Commentary: A Theological Exposition of Sacred
Scripture: 1 Corinthians, by Gregory J. Lockwood, Concordia
Publishing House, St. Louis, 2000, pages 527-534, especially pages
They are called “prophets” by Miltiades, an anti-Montanist
polemicist quoted by Eusebius.
However, Miltiades is specifically refuting the Montanist
claim that their “prophetesses” spoke from God, and is not
seeking to establish an office of prophetess in the New Testament.
See: Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to
Constantine, Translated by G. A, Williamson, Dorset Press, 1965,
The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, Edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert.
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2000, page 40.
Sermons of Martin Luther, Edited by John Nicholas Lenker,
Volume 2, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1988, pages
Luther’s Works, American Edition.
General Editors, Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann.
Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1958, Volume 40, pages 34-35
Lenker, Volume 2, page 359.
 The meaning of “need” in this regard was addressed by the old Norwegian Synod in the following theses on lay-preaching that were adopted in 1862. Grace for Grace: Brief History of the Norwegian Synod, S. C. Ylvisaker, Editor, Lutheran Synod Book Company, Mankato, Minnesota, 1943, page 139
1. God has instituted the public ministerial office for the public edification of the Christians unto salvation by the Word of God.
2. God has not instituted any other office for the public edification of the Christians to be used along-side of the public ministerial office.
3. When a man assumes the direction of the public edification of the Christians by the Word, he thereby assumes and exercises the public ministerial office.
4. It is a sin when a person assumes this (office) without a call or without need.
5. It is both a right and a duty in case of actual need for anyone who is capable of doing so to exercise the public ministerial office in a Christian and orderly manner.
6. The only correct definition of “need” is that there exists a need when a pastor is not at hand and cannot be secured; or when, if there is a pastor, he either does not serve the people properly but teaches false doctrine, or cannot serve them adequately but only so rarely that the people cannot thereby be brought to faith or be kept in it and be defended against errors, so that the Christian must faint for lack of care.
7. When such need
exists, efforts should be made to relieve it by definite and proper
arrangements according as circumstances will permit.
AE, 39, page 309.
See, for example, AC XXVIII, paragraphs 5-6; Treatise, paragraphs
Adolf Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, Volume IV,
Northwestern Publishing House, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1999, page 192.
C. F. W. Walther, Church and Ministry, Translated by J. T.
Mueller, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1987, page 177.
Lenker, Volume 6, page 66.
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Volume III, Concordia
Publishing House, St. Louis, 1953, pages 439-469.
Pieper, page 439 “Only a congregation can establish the public
Pieper, pages 444-449.
John Schaller, “The Origin and Development of the New Testament
Ministry,” The Wauwatosa Theology, Volume III, Curtis Jahn,
Editor, Northwestern Publishing House, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1997,
page 88. (emphasis in the original)
Schaller, page 88.
“Apostles, Prophets, Teachers: Concerning the Early History of the
Office of the Ministry” by Hermann Sasse in Scripture and the
Church: Selected Essays of Herman Sasse, Jeffrey J. Kloha and
Ronald R. Feuerhahn, Editors, Concordia Seminary Monograph Series,
Number 2, 1995, pages 22-23.
“Twenty-Three Theses On The Holy Scriptures, The Woman, And The
Office Of The Ministry,” by Bo Giertz, The Springfielder, volume
XXXIII, no. 4, March, 1970 page 20.
Giertz, pages 20-21.
 Here is his argument in his letter on the Infiltrating and Clandestine Preachers:
But I am astonished that in their spiritual wisdom they haven’t learned to adduce examples of how women have prophesied and thereby attained rule over men, land, and people. There was Deborah (Judg. 4 [:lf]), who cause the death of King Jabin and Sisera and ruled Israel. There was the wise woman in Abel, in David’s days of whom we read in II Sam. 20[:13ff.], and the prophetess Huldah, in the days of Josiah (II Kings 22 [:14ff.]). Long before, there was Sarah, who directed her husband and lord, Abraham, to cast out Ishmael and his mother Hagar, and God commanded Abraham to obey her. Furthermore, the widow Hannah (Luke 2 [:36ff.]), and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1 [:46ff.]). Here they might deck themselves out and find authority for women to preach in the churches. How much greater the reason for men to preach, where and when they please.
shall for the present not be concerned about the right of these
women of the Old Testament to teach and to rule.
But surely they did not act as the infiltrators do,
unauthorized, and out of superior piety and wisdom.
For then God would not have confirmed their ministry and
worked by miracles and great deeds. But in the New Testament the
Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, ordained that women should
be silent in the churches and assemblies [I Cor. 14:34], and said
that this is the Lord’s commandment.
Yet he knew that previously Joel [2:28f.] had proclaimed that
God would pour out his Spirit also on handmaidens.
Furthermore, the four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21
[:9]). But in the
congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be
silent and not preach [1 Tim. 2:12].
Otherwise they may pray, sing, praise, and say “Amen,”
and read at home, teach each other, exhort, comfort, and interpret
the Scriptures as best they can.
(AC, 40, pages 390-391)
Likewise, Luther argues in From the Misuse of
the Mass 1521
Paul did not forbid this out of his own devices, but appealed to the law, which says that women are to be subject [Gen. 3:16]. From the law Paul was certain that the Spirit was not contradicting Himself by now elevating the women above the men after He had formerly subjected them to the men; but rather, being mindful of His former institution, He was arousing the men to preach, as long as there is no lack of men. How could Paul otherwise have singlehandedly resisted the Holy Spirit, who promised in Joel [2:28]: “And your daughters shall prophesy.” Moreover, we read in Acts 4 [21:8-9]: “Philip had four unmarried daughters, who all prophesied.” “And Miriam the sister of Moses was also a prophetess” [Exod. 15:20]. And Huldah the prophetess gave advice to pious King Josiah [II Kings 22:14-20], and Deborah did the same to Duke Barak [Judg. 4:4-7]; and finally, the song of the Virgin Mary [Luke 1:46-55] is praised throughout the world. Paul himself in I Cor. 11[:5] instructs the women to pray and prophesy with covered heads. Therefore order, discipline, and respect demand that women keep silent when men speak; but if no man were to preach, then it would be necessary for the women to preach.
The Works of Rudyard Kipling, The Wordsworth Poetry Library,
Cumberland House, Ware, Hertfordshire, England, 1994, page 794.
(From the Gods of the Copybook Headings, by Rudyard Kipling,