The meaning of diakrino

Grudem claims that Paul’s use of diakrino (discern, judge) in 1 Corinthians 14:29 supports his interpretation. “If Paul had meant that the Corinthians were to judge whether each speaker was a true or false prophet, he probably would have used some other word—not diakrino but probably krino” ^{41Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 60.} This is an interpretation that is clearly not supported by the Greek text.UEGW 237.4

The verb krino “to judge” is used 114 times in the New Testament. Paul uses it forty-three times; primarily in the sense of “to condemn” (Rom. 2:1, 3, 12, 16, 27; 3:7; 14:3; 1 Cor. 4:5; 5:3, 12, 13, etc.). God judges and condemns or vindicates people (Heb. 10:30, 31). Not once is it used in the sense of distinguishing between people. Diakrino appears nineteen times in the New Testament and seven times in the writings of Paul. It has a variety of meanings, one of which is to distinguish between people. Peter says that God “made no distinction [diakrino]” between Jewish and Gentile believers in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:9). Paul asks the Corinthians, “For who makes you different [diakrino] from anyone else?” (1 Cor. 4:7, NIV). And in the same letter he asks, “Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge [diakrino] a dispute between believers?” (1 Cor. 6:5, NIV). James says to his brethren, “Have you not discriminated [diakrino] among yourselves” by making a difference between the rich and the poor (James 2:3, 4, NIV)? “In these passages, three different New Testament authors use the term diakrino to indicate a distinction between people not between ideas. It is worth noting that two instances of this use of the term are found in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.” ^{42Robertson, The Final Word, 99.} This clearly contradicts Grudem’s argument. This meaning of diakrino also makes perfect sense in 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment [as to who is a true prophet]” (NASB). Eric Wright, therefore, concludes, “The discrimination believers are to make is not just between truth and falsehood in a prophecy, but between true and false prophets.” ^{43E. E. Wright, Strange Fire? (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1996), 286.}UEGW 237.5

An Old Testament example of this same judgment of true or false prophets is in 1 Kings 22 as explained by Micaiah. There are two categories of prophets who are called to prophesy before Ahab and Jehoshaphat. One group says that they will be granted victory in the war they are contemplating. Micaiah comes in and declares that God has not spoken by those prophets. He declares that if they go to war, Ahab will be killed. The king attempts to coerce the prophet by declaring that he should be locked up and not released unless they returned safely. Micaiah responds by declaring that “if you indeed return safely the LORD has not spoken by me” (1 Kings 22:28, NASB). Micaiah clearly understood that if his words proved to be false, so was his calling. There was no allowance for a false prophecy in a true prophet.UEGW 238.1

In view of the larger context of Scripture, this seems to be the natural reading of the text. The evaluation and examination of what was said had the purpose of testing the spirits to see whether they were from God, ^{44See David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 664.} not just picking what was true or false in what genuine prophets said. Contrary to Grudem, and many other interpreters, Paul was not advocating that fallible human reason is to sit in judgment on the messages God gave to these prophets.UEGW 238.2

The gift of prophecy was found throughout Bible times. Its continuity in the church is clearly indicated in the New Testament. As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe that this gift was manifested in the church in the life and work of Ellen G. White.UEGW 238.3

For more than one hundred years, so-called prophets have appeared from time to time in Pentecostal churches; and in recent decades there has been a proliferation of prophetic voices within Pentecostal, charismatic, and some mainline churches. These “prophets,” while claiming inspiration, do not claim equal authority with the biblical prophets because of their many mistakes and failed prophecies. This has led to the emergence of a particular theology and interpretation of New Testament texts to justify this modern phenomenon.UEGW 238.4

Some Adventists are trying to put Ellen White into the same category as these modern prophets whose existence is supported with a faulty exegesis. In 1889, Ellen White wrote a lengthy testimony on “The Nature and Influence of the Testimonies,” at the end of which she made the following appeal:UEGW 238.5

And now, brethren, I entreat you not to interpose between me and the people, and turn away the light which God would have come to them. Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. Do not feel that you can dissect them to suit your own ideas, claiming that God has given you ability to discern what is light from heaven and what is the expression of mere human wisdom. If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united. ^{45EGW, Testimonies for the Church, 5:691.}UEGW 239.1

This is a particularly appropriate counsel for today, which we all need to take to heart. What we have said does not negate the fact that we need to use proper hermeneutics to study and correctly interpret what Ellen White has written. However, the basic information of her visions, the God-given message, cannot be subjected to the reasoning of fallible human minds.UEGW 239.2