Is New Covenant Prophecy Fallible?

Is there any aspect of life where the New Covenant’s existence is inferior to that under the Old Covenant? This may seem like an odd question, but it actually is significant. Most of the time, we focus on the superiority of the New Covenant in relation to the Old Covenant under Moses. And rightly so! After all, the Old Covenant never had the provision to save anyone (Heb 10:4). It was never able to perfect anyone (Heb 10:1). And whereas under the Old Covenant, God’s relationship with the people was located spatially in the temple, now believers in the New Covenant are regarded as the temple of God where He lives (cf. 1 Cor 6:19; Eph 2:19-22). The New Covenant is vastly superior in every way.

The surpassing value and greatness of the New Covenant is a major theme in the New Testament. Paul describes the comparison of the Old and New covenants as follows:

For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation [the Old Covenant], the ministry of righteousness [the New Covenant] must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.

2 Corinthians 3:9-10

The Inferiority of New Covenant Prophecy

Let’s return to our original question: Is there any aspect of life where the New Covenant existence is inferior to that under the Old Covenant? It is common today to regard New Testament prophecy as something less than Old Testament prophecy, thereby making it inferior to Old Testament prophecy. Consider the definition given by Wayne Grudem:

Prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but was simply a very human and sometimes partially mistaken report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.
(Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 14).

The Biblical Definition of Prophecy

In contrast to this definition of New Testament prophecy from Grudem, according to the Old Testament, prophecy was exactly equal with Scripture in authority (Deut 18:18-19; cf. 2 Pet 1:20-21). In fact, because a prophet represents the very words of God, if the prophet speaks anything God has not directly communicated to him, then he is to be put to death (Deut 18:20-22; cf. Jer 14:14-16).

In the Old Testament, even if a prophecy was not recorded in Scripture, it was treated as the very words of God that must be obeyed. No mistakes were allowed. God’s revelation through human beings was not obstructed by human frailty. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit ensured that accurate communication through the prophet took place.

However, if Grudem’s definition of New Testament prophecy is accurate, that means prophecy has taken a significant step backward. The Holy Spirit no longer guarantees absolute accuracy. Under this redefined New Covenant prophecy, now prophets no longer accurately represent God. Although prophets would have all of the privileges of the New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit, their actual prophecy is inferior to what had already existed.

I don’t think this reasoning makes sense. I think it is a mistake to view New Covenant prophecy as devolving into spiritual impressions or feelings that are riddled with errors. In addition to not making logical sense, I don’t think there is any way to redefine prophecy using these new terms based on the New Testament. There is no biblical evidence to warrant such a seismic change in the definition of prophecy.

The biblical definition of prophecy is a man or woman speaking on behalf of God, authoritatively and accurately. This led to spectacular displays of God’s glory in the Old Testament. There is no reason (logical or biblical) to redefine prophecy as something inferior to the Old Covenant, when the blessings of the New Covenant are far superior in glory and greatness.