Answering a Friendly Calvinist!

I came across the above lengthy video (over 2 hours long) in which Leighton Flowers debates with a Calvinist named David Louis; and if I were to act as an impartial referee, I would have to conclude that the Calvinist guy won the debate. He debates and presents his arguments in a very reasonable, friendly, amiable (and logical) way; and Leighton Flowers is not doing very well in responding to him. He dodges and dismisses his arguments without giving them an appropriate reply. It seems he doesn’t have good answers to give, so he dodges it instead, which is a pity, because David Louis appears to be a very reasonable guy and a good debater, and presents good arguments, which deserve to be properly answered. I will discuss only one of his comments. At around 46:20 minutes into the video he makes the following comment in response to Leighton Flowers:

“I will be the first Calvinist to admit there are, let’s call them tensions—I would want to call them that because it is my position—but … what I would push back on you is, there is also issues in the other framework; so for example, if God created the universe, knowing that there would be rape; yet he created that universe anyway, knowing that, isn’t he still somewhat responsible, even from your view, of ordaining it? Now, you can remove it one step, right? and say, ‘Well, he didn’t create it directly; you Calvinists say, He causally ordained it.’ Okay, granted; but in every other theistic system, don’t you have to deal with the problem that God created the universe where there would be rape? Couldn’t he have not created that universe? Couldn’t he have created a perfect universe? He chose to create a universe where that stuff is happening. So part of my problem as a Calvinist listening to … Arminians in general, is they want to act like us Calvinists are the only ones that have the problem with this theodicy issue. ‘You Calvinists, God is on the hook for you in your system; in ours he is not.’ Well, wait a minute, yes he is, because if he created a universe where he knew there would be rape, but he did it anyway.”

Those are legitimate questions which deserve an appropriate reply. There are several issues raised in there that need to be separated. The first is, What does he mean by “universe”? The “universe” is a very big place. This earth is a tiny speck of dust compared to the rest of the “universe”. To equate what is happening in this world (at this brief period of time) with what is happening in the rest of the “universe” (for the rest of eternity) is not a reasonable assumption. This earth is not only a tiny speck of dust compared to the rest of the “universe,” it also stretches over a time-span which is less than a tiny speck of dust compared with the rest of eternity. The time-span of this earth is approximately a few thousand years. How long is that compared to the rest of eternity? It doesn’t even compare. So the first thing he needs to do is to add some perspective to his question. The way the question is framed makes it sound as though what is happening in this world, at this brief period of time, is what is happening in all the rest of the “universe,” and for all the rest of eternity, which of course is not an accurate description of what is happening.

Having added some perspective to the question, we next come to the question of why does God allow evil to exist in this brief period of mortality? But before giving the answer to that question, there is another perspective that we need to get right. Evil is not the only thing that is happening in this world. There is also a lot of good that is happening in the world. If you talk to Calvinists, you come away thinking that nobody ever does any good, and nothing good is happening in the world at all, which of course is not biblical, and is not true. There are lots of people who are doing good in this world—as well as a lot of people who are doing evil. I would hazard a guess that there is more good being done in the world than evil. But the question being asked is, Why does God allow the evil to take place in the world? That is a question that is very clearly answered in scripture. It leaves no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. The scriptures that give the explanation are these:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

(See also Psalm 9:7-8; 96:12-13; 98:8-9; Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; Rom. 14:10–12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12) How could God “judge” people according to their “works” (“good” or “bad,” and reward them accordingly), if they had no power to do evil; or if the choice between good and evil didn’t exist? There are several implications to those scriptures. The first is that people are free to choose between good and evil. If that freedom didn’t exist, and they were like robots, and were preprogrammed to choose good or evil (as in Calvinism), they could not be “judged” for their actions either. That would be a mockery of justice. “Judgement” implies culpability, which implies (and necessitates) complete libertarian freewill. How can you “judge” someone for their “actions” if they had no control over their actions, and were preprogrammed like robots to do as they did? Calvinists try to get round it by saying that we freely choose what we want, but our wants and desires are predetermined by God, which is absurd logic and a dodge. If our wants and desires are predetermined, then our choices are not freely made.

Another implication of those scriptures is that this brief period of mortality is a testing ground. It is a period of trial to see if we would choose good or evil, right or wrong—and be rewarded accordingly. It is not something which is going to continue indefinitely, and for the rest of eternity (which is what his question is implying). To be “free,” people must be permitted to make wrong choices as well as right choices. When they make wrong choices, innocent people are going to get hurt. That is a necessary and inevitable part of this mortal experience. The good news is that it won’t last very long. And at the end of it we will enter into judgement where all wrongs will be put right, and everyone will receive a just reward for all the right (or wrong) which they have done—and those who have innocently suffered will be fully compensated. After that we have the rest of eternity to look forward to, where the present condition no longer applies.

Another interesting question that arises from this discussion is, What role does the Atonement of Jesus Christ play in all of this? The answer is that the Atonement makes it possible for people who have done wrong to repent of their sins and be forgiven, so that they will not be held accountable for it on judgement-day. Repentance is a universal concept. You don’t have to be a Christian to repent. Anybody of any faith, culture, or religion who genuinely repents (i.e. recognizes that he has done wrong, puts it right where possible, and determines to never do it again), will be forgiven, even if they have never heard of Jesus Christ. They will be forgiven by virtue of the Atonement, even if they don’t know it themselves. “Imputed righteousness” is a Calvinistic invention. There isn’t any such thing. The correct theology is forgiveness and remission of sins, by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, through faith and repentance. “Faith alone” doesn’t save anyone. But faith coupled with genuine repentance does.

But the answer to the original question is a simple one, and is given in the scriptures cited. What is happening in this world, at this present time, is not what is happening in the rest of the “universe,” and will not be continuing forever for the rest of eternity neither. It will last only for this brief (very brief) period of mortality. It is a test, a trial, to see who will be faithful and obedient to the will of God, and who will not be. At the end of it everyone will be “judged,” and will receive their “wages” according to how they have (freely) chosen to live their lives in this world—and thereafter will either be happy or unhappy accordingly for the rest of eternity to come. And nobody is “predestined,” nor “preprogrammed” to do evil or good (according to the heresy of Calvinism). That is the simple and correct answer to the original question. The scriptures cited permit of no other explanation. Calvinists claim to be biblical. If they are, and want to be honest with themselves, they have to admit this, that that is the only explanation possible from the scriptures cited (and possibly others that could be given).

Sola Scriptura and Therefore Charismatic?!

I came across the above video by Dr Michael Brown, speaking in defense of the Pentecostal Charismatic movement, which he apparently adheres to, who believe in (and claim) the continuation of the miraculous gifts mentioned in the Bible, such as the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing etc. His argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that says that such gifts should be done away, notably quoting the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 14:39, “Wherefor, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.” His argument basically is that the Bible does not say that such gifts should be done away, therefore the Pentecostal Charismatic claims to possessing such gifts are true. That is not a valid logical argument. Just because the Bible does not say that such gifts should be done away, it does not logically follow that anybody making such claims (including the Penticostal Charismatics) must therefore be genuine and true. The Bible also teaches that it is possible for people to make false claims; and it is also possible for some to be deceived. Jesus says, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matt. 24:4) And John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” (1 John 4:4) To Timothy Paul wrote, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13) To the Thessalonians Paul writes, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21) In the same chapter of Paul that he quotes from, verses 32 and 33, Paul also says, “And the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Cor. 14:32–33) And again in verse 40 he says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40) The kind of erratic, uncontrolled, and abnormal (even dangerous) behavior sometimes manifested by those who make such claims in the charismatic movement is evidence that they are not genuine. They are at best false pretenses, and at worst evidence of demonic possession. We are required to “try the spirits,” to see if they be “of God;” and not believe “every spirit” (1 John 4:1). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21–22.) Paul further says, “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” (Gal. 5:22.) And again, “For the fruit of the Spirit is all goodness and righteousness and truth; proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” (Eph. 5:9–10.) The spirit manifested by these folks contradicts that, therefore it cannot be of God. The erratic and abnormal (even dangerous) behaviors sometimes manifested by those who make such claims in the charismatic movement are telltale signs that their claims are not genuine.

More On KJV Only by James White

Following my previous post, in which I had commented on Dr Michael Brown’s critique of the KJV, I found another interesting video in which Dr James White is interviewed and quizzed on the KJV controversy, which is worth watching. He discusses the subject a little bit more intelligently than Dr Michael Brown does, but not much better. I don’t intend to discuss everything that was said in the video; but only to briefly comment on another example of a supposedly “faulty translation” in the KJV that he provides. At around 13:47 minutes into the video he quotes Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” as an example of faulty translation, suggesting that the word “and” in that context is incorrect, because it implies that they killed Jesus first, and then they hanged him on a tree afterwards! But that is a failure on his part to read the KJV in its proper historical context, rather than a fault of the KJV. The word “and” in that context is used idiomatically to mean something like, “... whom they killed, and did so by hanging him on a tree”. This reading is confirmed by all contemporary translations, as the following examples will demonstrate (starting with the earliest):

Tyndale Bible 1534:

The God of oure fathers raysed vp Ie Iesus whom ye slewe and hanged on tre.

Coverdale Bible 1535:

The God of oure fathers hath raysed vp Iesus, who ye slewe, and hanged on tre.

Matthew’s Bible 1537:

The God of our father raysed vp Iesus whom ye slewe and hanged on tree.

The Great Bible 1539:

The God of oure fathers raysed vp Iesus, whom ye slewe, and hanged on tre.

Geneva Bible 1560:

The God of our fathers hath raised vp Iesus, whom ye slewe, and hanged on a tree.

Bishops Bible 1568:

The God of our fathers raysed vp Iesus, whom ye slewe, & hanged on tree.

King James Bible 1611:

The God of our fathers raised vp Iesus, whom yee slew and hanged on a tree.

King James Bible 1769:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Webster’s Bible 1833:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree:

So none of these guys were smart enough to figure this out,  and we had to wait for the superior intelligence of James White, and our modern translators to come to that momentous realization? I don’t think so. They were translating according to the contemporary idiomatic usage of their time. The word “and” carries the implied meaning of, “and did so by …”. And none of that means that we should now “change the KJV”. The KJV is written in the idiomatic language of its time, and is best appreciated in the form that it was originally written. If somebody prefers to read a more modern translation, there is nothing wrong with that, and there are plenty to choose from. But I have yet to find a serious criticism of the KJV that is not more a reflection of the ignorance and bias of the critics, rather than a genuine issue with the KJV. James White isn’t faring any better than the rest. They are all tearing their brains out in order to find fault with the KJV, and all they succeed in doing is exposing their own ignorance instead.

The quotes from early Bible translations, by the way, came from a site called Textus Receptus Bibles, which is a great site for studying and comparing the early Bible translations. They also provide eBook editions of many of the old Bibles very cheaply, which are worth buying.

Dr Michael Brown’s Critique of the KJV

I was watching the above video by Dr Michael Brown in which, while acknowledging some value to the KJV, nevertheless he finds various faults with it which, on further examination, turn out to be unfounded, and reveal that he has an issue with the English language rather than with the KJV. While one or two of his criticisms may be valid (and inconsequential), the rest show an extraordinary lack of understanding plain English. For example at around 24:30 minutes into the video he finds fault with the translation of a Greek word in Luke, referring to Jesus as “master,” whereas in his judgement it should be translated “teacher”. Well, the word “master” (in British English at least) actually means “teacher”. That is one of the meanings of it. That is where the word “headmaster” comes from. It means “headteacher,” or the “principal” of a school. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary lists 14 different definitions for the word “master” in English. Definition #9 is given as: “a male teacher at a school, especially a private school;” and then it gives as an example the phrase: “the physics master;” by which is meant the guy who teaches physics in a school, or the “physics teacher”. I went to a private English school as a kid, and all our “teachers” there were then called “masters”. The guy who taught physics was called the “physics master,” the guy who taught history was called the “history master,” the guy who taught English was called the “English master” etc. And the guy who was in charge of the whole school was called the “headmaster”. Americans did not invent English; the English people did; and they were the ones who gave us the KJV.

Another example he gives after 34:30 minutes is the translation of a Greek word which in the Corinthian epistles is translated mostly as “weakness;” but in 2 Cor. 12 it is also translated as “infirmity;” which he again concludes to be “incorrect,” because he thinks that the word “infirmity” literally means “sickness,” whereas the original Greek word means “weakness,” and therefore should always be translated as such in the KJV. He is wrong about that too. The word “infirmity” also means “weakness”. That is one of the definitions of it—if not the primary definition. In some dictionaries it is listed as the primary definition. Google is your friend. A Google search for “infirmity, meaning” will quickly provide many dictionary definitions which confirms the above. So it looks like Dr Brown has an issue with the English language rather than with the KJV.

Another criticism that he makes of the KJV is that the meanings of many of the words have changed over time, and therefore they need to be “modernized”. But that is true of any great literature of the past. It is equally true of the writings of William Shakespeare or John Milton. We don’t try to “modernize” their writings just because the meanings of the words have changed; so why the KJV? The KJV is a great piece of English literature, like Shakespeare or Milton—as well as being scripture. If somebody prefers to read a more modern translation, there is nothing wrong with that, and there are plenty of them to choose from. I am not a “KJV-only” guy. But if you are going to find fault with the KJV, you had better know what you are talking about. To suggest that you need to “modernize” the KJV just because the meanings of the words have changed would like saying that you need to modernize Shakespear just because the meanings of the words have changed. So it looks like Dr. Michael Brown has an issue with English literature as well as with the language—rather than with the KJV.

There is nothing wrong with making modern translations of the Bible. If somebody thinks that they can make a better translation of the Bible in modern English, good luck to them, let them try. But I also reserve the right to compare it with the KJV, and decide for myself which one I like best; and so far I haven’t found one that beats the KJV.

I was initially introduced to the Bible through modern translations, because I found the KJV too heavy going at first. I read two modern translations of the Bible before feeling confident enough to tackle the KJV. The modern translations served as stepping stones to introduce me to the KJV. Had it not been for those, I might not have felt confident enough to venture into the KJV when I did. But now that I have, and am able to compare them, I find no other translation that matches the KJV, especially in capturing and conveying the spiritual intent of the biblical message. Verbal accuracy is not the only thing that makes a good translation. The KJV may not be verbally accurate in every instance; but it captures and conveys the spiritual intent of the biblical message better than any modern translation does, in my opinion. And I believe there are reasons for that. It did not happen by accident. Paul says that the things of God are “spiritual,” and are “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The KJV conveys that spiritual message of the Bible better than any other translation does.

So the bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with making modern translations of the Bible; although the KJV still remains the best attempt so far; and Dr Michael Brown appears to have an issue with the English language and literature rather than with the KJV.

After writing the above, I found another video by Dr Michael Brown on the subject of Bible translation and the KJV, in which he continues the same theme as before, which can seen here:

I don’t intend to comment on everything he has said in it, but just briefly mention a couple of points. Skipping the initial introductory remarks, starting at 01:18 minutes into the video he says the following:

“No translation is perfect; and I am quite sure, I have no doubt whatsoever, especially having reread the preface of the King James translators, which I hadn’t looked at in many years, I have no question whatsoever, but if those men were alive today—take those same individuals, same background, same heart, same training—take those people, put them as Christian men today, they absolutely would be working on a new translation. There is no way under the Sun that they would be telling everyone, ‘Use the King James.’ They would be the first to say, ‘Ah, we know the Hebrew better now, we know the Greek better now, we have more manuscript evidence, more archaeological finds, the English language has changed dramatically, let us improve on the older translation, and do something like that,’ or, ‘let’s work on one of the modern translations to get it even better.’ I have no question, no question whatsoever, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that if the King James translators were alive today, they would not be ‘King James only’. They would not be saying, ‘use the King James’. I have no question about that whatsoever.”

I think that he has got that partly right, but mostly wrong! I think that if the original translators of the KJV were alive today, or were miraculously brought back to life in our time; and were miraculously endowed with a perfect knowledge of all the changes that have taken place in English since their time; as well as being made aware of all the linguistic, archaeological, and manuscript discoveries that have been made since; and they were also made miraculously aware of all the modern translations of the Bible that have been made since then; they wouldn’t have been terribly impressed by any of them. I think that their response to us today would still have been, “Stick with the KJV for now until we have made our revision, and after that you can use our revised version of the KJV.” And when they had made their revision, the end result would still be substantially the same as the KJV, with only small variations. The language, vocabulary, and idiomatic usage of their revised version would still be the same as the KJV, with minor variations. Dr Brown then proceeds to supply us with another ridiculous example of a supposed “mistranslation” in the KJV. At 2.30 minutes into the video he says the following (emphasis added):

“So one of the examples I gave of a wrong translation was in Acts chapter 12 verse 3. And it says this in the King James: ‘And because he [Herod] saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)’ So what is wrong there? Nothing. So it is telling us it is the days of ‘unleavened bread,’ right? And then it goes on to say this: after arresting him, verse 4, and I am reading King James: ‘And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.’ That shouldn’t say, ‘Easter’. It is the one time only in the King James where it says ‘Easter’. It is a mistranslation. It shouldn’t say Easter. And in fact the New King James, and basically every English translation since then has said, ‘Passover,’ which is what the Greek says; and whenever that Greek word, pascha, the Passover occurs in Greek, it is translated as Passover in English. The same in the King James, except for this one verse. Now defenders of King James, in thinking that there are no errors in the King James, said no, they can explain why it says Easter there, and you have to read the history of the translation, and go back to William Tyndale, and so on, and in Hebrew. Okay, we are going to do that on the other side of the break. … So, let’s go back to the King James Version of Acts chapter 12 verse 4, where it translates the Greek word for Passover, it translates that with Easter. Now elsewhere in the New Testament it is rightly translated with ‘Passover,’ so why did it get it wrong there? …”

This required some exploration; so I did a search, and found that the word “Passover” occurs 26 times in the New Testament in the KJV; and the word “Easter” occurs only once, in Acts 12:4, like he says. So if the translators of the KJV managed to “get it right” 26 times out of 27, how did they “get it wrong” this one time only? Did they go crazy, lose their minds, or have a brain seizure? Or could it be there was some logic behind their thinking? Is it not more reasonable to at least give them some benefit of the doubt, and try to find out what their thinking behind it might have been, before concluding that they “got it wrong”? I find his cavalier attitude, and tendency to summarily dismiss, and readily accuse the translators of the KJV of “getting it wrong,” without giving them the slightest benefit of the doubt, or trying to explore what their rationale behind it could have been, to come across as very arrogant and presumptuous indeed. If they translated it 26 times out of 27 one way, and chose to do it differently on this one occasion only; you don’t just accuse them of “getting it wrong” without exploring what their possible motives for doing it that way might have been. Either they were mad, stupid, or brain-dead; or they had a reason for doing it that way which to their way of thinking gave them the justification for doing it. You don’t just accuse them of “getting it wrong” without exploring what their possible motive for doing it that way might have been. After doing more research into it, however, I found that this is something that has been commented on and discussed quite a bit in the past, with plenty of useful information on it available on the Internet. Some interesting quotes from a couple of articles in Wikipedia on the subject is a good place to start. The first quote is from an article on “Easter” as follows (emphasis added):

“Easter is linked to the Jewish Passover by much of its symbolism, as well as by its position in the calendar. In most European languages, the feast is called by the words for passover in those languages; and in the older English versions of the Bible the term Easter was the term used to translate passover.

• • •

“Easter is linked to Passover and the Exodus from Egypt recorded in the Old Testament through the Last Supper, sufferings, and crucifixion of Jesus that preceded the resurrection. According to the New Testament, Jesus gave the Passover meal a new meaning, as in the upper room during the Last Supper he prepared himself and his disciples for his death. He identified the matzah and cup of wine as his body soon to be sacrificed and his blood soon to be shed. Paul states, ‘Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed’ (1 Cor. 5:7 NIV); this refers to the Passover requirement to have no yeast in the house and to the allegory of Jesus as the Paschal lamb.” (link)

The following quote is from another article in Wikipedia titled “Names of Easter”:

“In Old English the form Pascan was used [for Easter] by Byrhtferth (c. 970 – c. 1020) and the form Pasches in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1122. Although now limited to specialized uses, the terms the Pasch or Pascha are sometimes used in Modern English. Pace, a dialect form of Pasch, is found in Scottish English and in the English of northeastern England, and used especially in combination with the word ‘egg’, as in ‘Pace Egg play’.

“In nearly all Romance languages, the name of the Easter festival is derived from the Latin Pascha. In Spanish, Easter is Pascua, in Italian and Catalan Pasqua, in Portuguese Páscoa and in Romanian Paşti. In French, the name of Easter is Pâques and also derives from the Latin word but the s following the a has been lost and the two letters have been transformed into an â with a circumflex accent by elision. In Romanian, the only Romance language of an Eastern church, the word Înviere (resurrection, cf. Greek Ἀνάστασις, [anástasis]) is also used.” (link)

Lots more interesting and informative discussion can be found on the subject online, of which this article: “Easter or Passover?” is one among many.

So we conclude that the KJV “gets it right” time and time again; while it is Dr Michael Brown who keeps “getting it wrong” over and over! If the message that he is trying to give is that making modern translations of the Bible is a good thing; or that there is nothing wrong with making modern translations; I am with him on that. I don’t have a problem with others attempting modern translations of the Bible. But that is not the same as finding fault with the KJV. He doesn’t need to find fault with the KJV to convey that message, or to justify making modern translations. If, however, his aim is to actually find fault with the KJV, then he had better know what he is talking about, and it is evident that he doesn’t. He hasn’t a clue! And it is very presumptuous of him to repeatedly accuse the translators of the KJV of “getting it wrong,” when in fact he is the one who keeps “getting it wrong,” and doesn’t even know it. He is projecting his own limitations and failures on to the eminent translators of the KJV. The KJV still remains the best translation of the Bible into English that has been attempted so far, in spite of its limitations; and it is unlikely to be supplanted by anything else anytime soon.

No “Ongoing” Women Prophets in the OT!?

[It looks like this video was deleted on the original site! I wonder why! He has, however, expressed similar sentiments elsewhere and in other videos, such as the one which I have already responded to here. At around 28:22 minutes into the video he says the same kind of thing.]

I was watching the above video by John MacArthur in which at 2.2 minutes he makes the following comment:

“… and just to support that, there is no woman in the Old Testament that had an ongoing prophetic ministry. There are a couple of occasions where God used a woman to speak; but there is no woman in the Old Testament with an ongoing prophetic ministry, none.”

That is obviously incorrect. There are at least two great prophetesses mentioned in the Old Testament who had an “ongoing prophetic ministry”. The first was Deborah, who was not only a great prophetess, but also the (chief) “judge” in the land during the reign of the “Judges,” which was a leadership position equivalent to being the chief ruler of the land (as well as a military position)—and was very much an “ongoing prophetic ministry”. It was like being the President of the United States—but much more powerful. It was a prophetic as well as a political, legal, and military position at the same time. She led successful military campaigns, presided over army generals and military officers—and did so by her prophetic office. It combined a prophetic office with that of a political, legal, and military one at the same time. It can’t get more powerful than that. And it was very much an “ongoing” ministry. It was a mission for life. It was not a “fixed term” appointment, and there were no “elections”. It was the same kind of prophetic office or ministry that Samuel had, no difference. Anything that Samuel could do, Deborah could do. It was as much an “ongoing prophetic ministry” for her as it was for Samuel:

Judges 4:

4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

Judges 5:

14 Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.

15 And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak: he was sent on foot into the valley. For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart.

That does not fit the description of the role of a “prophetess” in the Old Testament that John MacArthur gives. Another good example is that of Huldah the prophetess, who didn’t have quite such a powerful position as Deborah had, but came close to it. Kings, priests, rulers, and chief ministers of the land would approach her for advice, and to obtain the word of the Lord by revelation through her:

2 Kings 22:

12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying,

13 Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.

14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.

15 And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me,

16 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:

17 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.

18 But to the king of Judah which sent you to enquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard;

19 Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the Lord.

20 Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.

2 Chronicles 34:

14 And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses.

15 And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan.

16 And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it.

17 And they have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand of the workmen.

18 Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.

19 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes.

20 And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king’s, saying,

21 Go, enquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book.

22 And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect.

23 And she answered them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me,

24 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah:

25 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched.

26 And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard;

27 Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord.

28 Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again.

She wasn’t the kind of powerful ruler that Deborah was, but she came close. Kings, priests, and chief ministers of the land approached her for advice, for divine guidance, and to inquire of the Lord through her. That made her position almost higher than that of the king. And her position was very much one of an “ongoing ministry”. She didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere, and disappear into nothing. How did those people know that she was a “prophetess,” to want to go and “inquire of the Lord” through her, unless she had an “ongoing reputation” as such? Another renowned prophetess mentioned in the Old Testament is Moses’ sister Miriam: 

Exodus 15:

20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Numbers 12:

1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.

3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

4 And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.

5 And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.

6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.

10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.

12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb.

13 And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.

14 And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.

15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.

16 And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.

Numbers 20:

1 Then came the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, into the desert of Zin in the first month: and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there.

Micah 6:

4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

She is put on a par with Moses and Aaron in her leadership position and prophetic ministry—although Moses took the lead over the two. Isaiah refers to his wife as a “prophetess (Isaiah 8:3); and Joel informs us that there shall be prophetesses which shall arise in the future (Joel 2:28). So it appears that John MacArthur has got his understanding of the OT somewhat skewed. Now how that compares with Beth Moore, I wouldn’t like to say! This is a critique John’s commentary on the Bible, not his comments about Beth Moore! But I guess Beth Moore can take comfort from the fact that John’s biblical exegesis doesn’t quite meet all expectations.