8. Objections Raised by Continuationists

Charismatics are bound to have further objections to the interpretation I have given in the previous chapters, and to prepare my response I have read an extensive bibliography of the best of the first-, second-, and third-wave charismatics. The charismatic scholar that I have the most respect for is Wayne Grudem.¹⁸³ I will use him as a foil in this chapter for two reasons: 1) He has had more influence in promoting a Continuationist theology within Reformed circles than just about any other author. 2) He is a Cessationist on apostleship, and as such has done a great service in moving Charismatics away from a shaky foundation on the canon of Scripture. However, his position on prophets is still problematic.

Though Wayne Grudem is a champion of inerrancy, many of his readers are not. As one example, an influential pastor in Omaha has recently reasoned that if what Scripture terms “prophecy” can be in error (as Grudem says it can), then why cannot Scripture (which is also called “prophecy”) have error?¹⁸⁴ If a mixture of divine and human means a mixture of truth and error in congregational prophecy, why can’t a mixture of divine and human in Scripture also mean a mixture of truth and error in what 2 Peter 1:20 speaks of as the “prophecy of Scripture”?¹⁸⁵

We believe that when Cessationism is affirmed for both apostleship and prophecy a credible case can be made for the cessation of all authoritative revelation intended to guide the church as a whole. It is not the intention of this paper to demean Wayne Grudem or other Continuationists who hold to a dual kind of prophecy. Great men have done so. It is the intention of this paper to indicate that there is no credible exegetical basis for making two kinds of prophet, one errant and the other inerrant. All prophecy was inerrant and infallible (the very word of God - 2 Peter 1:21) and all prophetic offices and functions have ceased.

Wayne Grudem has many arguments against this viewpoint, but I will try to interact with most of them by dealing with his two most fundamental assertions: First, that Ephesians 2:19-3:7 is not referring to a cessation of prophecy, but only a cessation of the foundational office of apostle. Second, Grudem’s assertion that New Testament prophecy is totally different from Old Testament prophecy, and was never intended to be an inerrant disclosure of God’s will. His discussion of Acts 21 has been very influential in convincing Reformed people that New Testament prophecy always has the potential mix of truth and error, and that New Testament prophets should not be judged on the standard that Old Testament prophets were judged by in Deuteronomy.

The claim that New Testament prophecy is different from Old Testament prophecy refuted

Grudem makes a number of distinctions to preserve the inerrant authority of Scripture over against the supposedly errant but useful ministry of a New Testament prophet. First, he insists that there are two kinds of prophet in the Bible: Old Testament prophet and New Testament prophet. Second, he insists that unlike an Old Testament prophet “who speaks God’s very words,”¹⁸⁶ the New Testament prophet cannot claim to be communicating the very words of God.¹⁸⁷ Thus, while Old Testament prophecy is inerrant, New Testament prophecy is not.¹⁸⁸

This further leads to the conclusion that while Old Testament prophecy has “absolute divine authority,”¹⁸⁹ New Testament prophecy was “something quite different… [since it] had only the authority of the merely human words in which it was spoken.”¹⁹⁰ Thus New Testament prophecy is not a communication of God’s words to man, but is a dimmer revelation that is understood in varying degrees of accuracy by the prophet and put into human words.

However, Grudem does acknowledge that the New Testament occasionally uses the term “prophecy” to describe an inerrant revelation. In order to counter the implications of this, and in order to preserve the inerrancy of the book of Revelation (which is also called a prophecy), Grudem distinguishes between two kinds of prophetic utterance in the New Testament.

Though in an earlier work, Grudem argued for two kinds of prophet in the New Testament,¹⁹¹ he now argues that inspiration only comes to apostles. He speaks of inerrant prophecy by apostles (who are also prophets) and errant prophecy in the New Testament by all others. He says, “When the prophecy is spoken (or written) by an apostle, then the words have unique authority – absolute divine authority… To disbelieve or disobey a prophecy spoken by an apostle is to disbelieve or disobey God… But such absolute authority simply does not apply to the words of ordinary prophets in local New Testament congregations… Their prophesying is different in this sense.”¹⁹²

He appeals to Ephesians 2:20 to describe the foundational character of (as he translates it) “apostles who are also prophets.” Thus Grudem is able to preserve the unique character of Scripture as a final revelation from God that is absolute, inerrant, propositional truth. However, as brilliant as his position shows itself to be at places, it is the view of this author that Grudem is exegetically inaccurate, and opens the way for the very attacks against the inerrancy and authority of Scripture that we are seeing today.

There are many evidences that the New Testament authors saw no difference between prophetic speech and prophetic writing other than the fact that the latter was committed to paper, and some (but not all) of the prophetic writings were also included by God in the canon.¹⁹³ 2 Peter 1:21 is clear when it says, “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke [notice this is not just writing – they “spoke”] as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). Thus it was not simply Paul’s writings that are the very Word of God. Even Paul’s prophetic speech was the Word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says the same thing: “when you received the word of God which you heard from us [this is speech here], you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” Even Paul’s oral prophecies were considered to be the very words of God every bit as much as Old Testament prophecies were. So in addition to apostolic writings, apostolic prophecies were also inspired.

Continuationists often assert that the New Testament does not use the word “prophecy” with respect to any New Testament writing. Grudem recognizes that Revelation is called a prophecy (Revelation 1:3; 2:19; 22:7,10,18-19), so he spends some pages explaining why this is an anomaly, and simply an illustration of Ephesians 2:20 (see below) where an apostle is writing an inspired book which also happens to have prophetic elements to it. He insists,

It is safe to say that in authority, in content, and in scope, no other prophecy like this has ever been given to the New Testament church.

In conclusion, the book of Revelation shows that an apostle could function as a prophet and record a prophecy for the New Testament church. But because its author was an apostle, and because it is unique, it does not provide information which is directly relevant to the gift of prophecy as it functioned among ordinary Christians in first century churches.¹⁹⁴

This is simply not true. We have already cited 2 Peter 1:20-21 to show that all prophecy, both oral and written, has equal authority and is labeled “prophecy.” Romans 16:25-26 is another passage that also helps to define the meaning of the term prophecy. This passage refers to the New Testament Scriptures as “the Scriptures of the prophets” (NASB). Grudem insists that this cannot be a reference to New Testament Scripture since “Paul always (thirteen of thirteen other times) uses ‘scripture’ (Greek graphe) to refer to Old Testament Scriptures.”¹⁹⁵

However, the following considerations prove that this is indeed a reference to New Testament Scriptures. First, the New Testament does indeed refer to itself as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 lumps Paul’s writings in with “the rest of the Scriptures.” Paul himself quotes Luke as “Scripture” in 1 Timothy 5:18.

Second, Paul speaks of these “Scriptures” as being a “revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began” (v. 25). This is parallel to Ephesians 3, which speaks of the recent “revelation” of the “mystery” “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ” etc. (Eph. 3:1-7). Ephesians excludes any knowledge of the mystery in the Old Testament Scriptures (and thus the need for new prophecy).

Third, Romans 16 makes clear that this mystery is “now made manifest.” It was not partially made manifest in the Old Testament.

Fourth, this mystery is specifically “by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for the obedience of faith” (v. 26). If the mystery wasn’t revealed in the Old Testament (clear from Ephesians 3:8-21), and “from the beginning of the ages has been hidden” (v. 9), and “in other ages was not made known to the sons of men” (v. 5), it is difficult to see how Paul can say that the Old Testament Scriptures are in any way the means of making the mystery known. Though there are commentaries that differ with this interpretation, they fly in the face of these stubborn facts.¹⁹⁶

There is a great deal of other evidence showing that the New Testament knows of no distinction between Old Testament inspired prophets and New Testament uninspired prophets. For example, the New Testament very fluidly moves between Old Testament prophets/prophecies and New Testament prophets/prophecies, all the while using the same term to describe them. An examination of the following Scriptures will show that Luke shows no understanding of the distinction that Grudem is making: Luke 1:67,70,76; 2:36; 3:4; 4:17,24,27; 6:23,26; 7:16,26,28, 39; 9:8,19; 10:24; 11:29,47,49-50; 13:28,33-34; 16:16,29,31; 18:31; 20:6; 22:64; 24:19,25,27; 24:44; Acts 2:16-18,30; 3:18,21-23,25; 7:37,42,48,52; 8:28,30,34; 10:43; 11:27; 13:1,6,15,20,27,40; 15:15,32; 19:6; 21:9,10; 24:14; 26:22,27; 28:23,25.

Luke uses the term prophet indiscriminately to describe the pre-charismatic Zacharias and prophetess Anna (Luke 1:67; 2:36), canonical and pre-canonical prophets (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:18,21,24), John the Baptist (Luke 1:76; 7:26,28; 20:6), individual canonical prophets like Isaiah (Luke 4:17; Acts 8:28,30,34; 28:25; ), Jonah (Luke 11:29), Joel (Acts 2:16), David (Acts 2:30), Amos (Acts 7:42), Samuel (Acts 13:20), the author of Kings (Acts 7:48), all the Old Testament canonical prophets (Luke 11:47,50; 13:28,34; Acts 7:52; 10:43), Scripture in general (Luke 16:16,29,31; 24:25,27,44; Acts 7:52; 13:15,27,40; 15:15; 24:14; 26:22,27; 28:23), as well as non-canonical prophets like Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jesus (Luke 4:24; 24:19; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37,42), the New Testament prophets that Jesus would “send” (Luke 11:49; Acts 11:27; 13:1,6; 15:32; 19:6; 21:9-10), and false prophets (Acts 13:6).

Note that the only references in Acts to “prophecy,” “prophesy,” or “prophesied” are in Acts 2:17-18 (OT quote of NT prophecy), Acts 19:6 and 21:9. As to references to “prophet” and “prophets,” you will notice that in 28 of these verses from Acts the word is referring to an inspired, inerrant prophet either in the Old Testament or prophesied in the Old Testament. There are only seven verses where the word describes what Grudem calls a New Testament congregational prophet, but those references are intermixed with references to Old Testament prophets as if Luke thinks that they are exactly the same thing.

For example, in Acts 13 we have two references to prophets in the Antioch church mixed in with four references to “the Law and the Prophets,” “Samuel the prophet,” “the Prophets which are read every Sabbath,” and a quotation from Old Testament prophets. That’s four references to Old Testament prophets mixed in with two references to New Testament prophets. This list is overwhelming evidence that there is not a hair’s breadth of difference between an Old Testament prophet and a New Testament prophet in the books of Luke or Acts. If the New Testament authors had intended to make such a distinction as Wayne Grudem advocates, surely a different word would have been used. It therefore appears to be a legitimate definition of New Testament prophecy to say that it is “speech which is inspired by the Spirit and therefore totally true and authoritative.”¹⁹⁷

One more side note is the reference to “false prophets” in Acts 13:6. Given the presence of error in all modern “prophets,” how could the expression “false prophets” be a useful designation if all New Testament prophets had the possibility of falsehood in their prophecy? The evidence clearly stands against any bifurcation between Old Testament prophet and New Testament prophet.

Grudem’s exegesis of Ephesians 2-3 refuted

Wayne Grudem objects to our interpretation of Ephesians 2-3 with the following arguments:

He argues the Granville Sharp rule should be applied to this passage

Grudem’s first argument is that the Granville Sharp Rule should be¹⁹⁸ applied to the Greek of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5, so that it “means that the church is ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles who are also prophets.’”¹⁹⁹ According to Grudem, Paul was not talking about apostles plus New Testament prophets (as two different people), but about apostles who are also prophets. In other words, on his view, the apostles and prophets are exactly the same people. Of course, if the Granville Sharp Rule applies here, then he is right.

However, several Greek scholars have shown that his reading violates the Granville Sharp Rule. For example, Daniel B. Wallace, in his advanced Greek Grammar, gives extensive discussion of this Greek rule and states,

in the TSKS construction, the second noun refers to the same person mentioned with the first noun when:

(1) neither is impersonal; (2) neither is plural; (3) neither is a proper name.

Therefore, according to Sharp, the rule applied absolutely only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns. The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s principle have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth.²⁰⁰

Wallace spends 20 pages discussing this Greek rule, and demonstrates how Grudem’s reading is impossible. His concluding observations with regard to this text are pertinent to our argument. He says,

This text has become something of a theological lightning rod in conservative circles in America in the past several years, largely due to the work of Wayne Grudem. Grudem argues that the apostles and prophets are identical here. This is essential to his view of NT prophecy: on the one hand, he holds to a high view of scripture, viz., that the autographs are inerrant; on the other hand, he believes that non-apostolic prophets both in the early church and today mixed error with truth. If in Eph 2:20 the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and other prophets, then it would seem that Grudem either has to deny inerrancy or affirm that non-apostolic prophets only spoke truth (and were thus on par with OT prophets). Hence, he spends much ink arguing that in the NT the prophets are a separate class of individuals. This distinction allows him the luxury of embracing an inerrant NT while admitting that today’s prophets (as well as first century non-apostolic prophets) can commit error in their predictions.

We must refrain from entering into the larger issues of charismata and fallible prophecy in our treatment of this text. Our point is simply that the syntactical evidence is very much against the ‘identical’ view, even though syntax has been the primary grounds used in behalf of it.²⁰¹

Grudem’s claim that the mystery of Jew and Gentile was never revealed through New Testament prophets

Grudem’s second objection is that the mystery of Jew and Gentile together in one body was revealed through the apostles, but not through prophets. After listing several New Testament passages that describe this mystery, he says, “The remarkable thing about all of these passages is that there is no suggestion anywhere that this revelation… was ever made to any ‘prophets’ in the New Testament.”²⁰²

However, eight of the passages that he cites are from Luke, who was not an apostle. Indeed, non-apostles wrote several books of the Bible: Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Jude, and James. If only apostles could give inspired, inerrant revelation, then how did those books come into existence?²⁰³ Some argue that they wrote those books under the oversight of an apostle, and that since the apostle approved the book, it was inspired, but supervision to prevent mistakes is an altogether different thing from inspiration. It would have to be Mark, Luke, Jude, James, and the writer of Hebrews themselves who were inspired and “moved by the Holy Spirit,” “for prophecy never came by the will of man” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Secondly, we have already demonstrated from Romans 16:25-26 that the “prophetic Scriptures” show this mystery. Third, Revelation 10:7 explicitly ties the “mystery” together with all the prophets. It says, “but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets.” These first three points are overwhelming evidence that Grudem is wrong. Fourth, Ephesians 3:5 explicitly says that both prophets and apostles had this mystery revealed to them (assuming that our argument against the Granville Sharp rule applying is true).

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. (Ephesians 3:1-7)

His objection that the metaphor of a foundation refers to something that is complete, whereas prophets continued to give new prophecies around the empire.

A third objection Grudem brings up is that the metaphor of a foundation shows something complete, but “if the foundation consists of apostles plus all those who had the gift of prophecy in all the New Testament churches in the entire Mediterranean world, then it would have to be a ‘foundation’ that is continually being changed and added on to.”²⁰⁴ A repetition and constant reinforcement of the message in Ephesians 3 is not a constantly changing foundation. It is giving the same foundational revelation of the one mystery repeatedly.

His objection that Paul could have addressed Gentile prophets as proof that they were one in Christ.

A fourth objection given by Grudem is that since “there were certainly many Gentile prophets in that foundation… then it is hard to understand why Paul would not emphasize that fact to prove the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church.”²⁰⁵ This does not logically follow. Anyone that questioned the decision of Acts 15 could also question the legitimacy of a prophet. Second, where is the evidence of Gentile prophets?²⁰⁶

His claim that prophets didn’t speak with authority

A fifth objection given: “To my knowledge, nowhere in the New Testament is there a record of a prophet who is not an apostle but who spoke with absolute divine authority attaching to his very words.”²⁰⁷ On the contrary, Peter insists that “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). Note that Peter’s description is not simply to written Scripture. It includes that which was spoken. In addition to this spoken prophecy was the written “prophecy of Scripture,” none of which had any admixture of “private origin” (v. 20). If only apostles could write Scripture, how else did Luke, Acts, James, Jude, and Hebrews come into existence? The previous points give plenty of evidence that all prophets spoke with authority.

Why the need for inspired prophets in every church?

Finally, it is objected that there would be no need for the “tens of thousands” of prophets in every church to be inspired since very few of them would be able to write Scripture. Continuationists insist that prophets and prophesying were far too universal to require inspiration. F.F Bruce grossly exaggerates the ubiquity of prophesying when he said, “Prophesying appears to be as common an exercise as praying.”²⁰⁸ While some of the passages that are cited to prove universal and constant prophesying may refer to other phenomena, this is an important criticism.

In response it could be said that nowhere are we told about the numbers of prophets. We are told that Paul witnessed testimony from the Holy Spirit in every city of his last journey (Acts 20:23). Could prophets in every city be stretched to more than a hundred or so? We simply are not told the numbers.

Second, we could counter-argue, “Why was there a need for twelve apostles if only four of them wrote Scripture?” Obviously an office that gives inspiration is not just required for the writing of Scripture.

Furthermore, there was an enormous need for infallible guidance in every congregation. Acts 15 shows an almost church-destroying issue of whether Gentiles could come into the church and be considered part of Israel without getting circumcised. It was a controversy that ravaged the church. Every church in the empire had this major issue and every church needed prophetic revelation to remind them of this mystery. According to Ephesians 3, this was the very purpose for the apostles and prophets: Judaizers questioned this “mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power” (Eph. 3:4-7). The Judaizers argued the opposite - that Gentiles had to become Jews via circumcision before they could join the church.

Apostles and prophets were both ministers of the same mystery. They were needed to settle this mystery for all time in the first century. Both were equally up to the task because both were infallible representatives of God. That didn’t mean they couldn’t also reveal other things beyond their three primary tasks. For example, Samuel wrote Scripture and helped Saul find his donkeys by prophetic insight. Though prophets had a high calling of bringing covenant lawsuits, revealing this amazing mystery, and protecting believers from the deception of the Great Apostasy, they could also do mundane things like warn Paul of danger. Prophets were equally part of the revelational foundation with the apostles.

Questions raised about the nature of prophecy in Acts 21

The biggest argument that Grudem raises is his assertion that New Testament prophets made mistakes, whereas Old Testament prophets did not. Old Testament prophets were judged as false if even one prophecy proved wrong, whereas New Testament prophets could have numerous mistakes, and yet still be used by God in a fallible way to bless the church. His most credible proof texts come from Acts 21, so this chapter will restrict its arguments to that chapter.

Acts 21:4 says, “And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem.” Grudem says,

But if this really is a report of prophesying, as it certainly seems to be, then it is very significant for understanding the nature of prophetic authority in ordinary New Testament congregations. It is significant because Paul simply disobeyed their words, something he would not have done if he had thought that they were speaking the very words of God…

In short, this passage indicates a type of prophecy which was not thought by Paul to possess absolute divine authority in its actual words: the prophets at Tyre were not speaking ‘words of the Lord.’

…There is a revelation from the Holy Spirit to the disciples at Tyre, and in response to that revelation, they tell Paul not to go to Jerusalem. The difference in our viewpoints is that I would call the response or report of that revelation a ‘prophecy’, and Dr Gaffin would not. But whatever term is used, it is significant that we would both say that there can be a ‘revelation’ from the Holy Spirit to a person or persons, and also a spoken response to that revelation which can have ‘impaired validity’ and ‘unreliability.’ That is really the essence of what I am arguing for in this book, and what – it seems to me – the New Testament usually calls ‘prophecy’.²⁰⁹

Did the Spirit tell Paul not to go up to Jerusalem or did the disciples?

Note the “they” (in contrast to Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12)

Grudem’s main mistake is calling both what is revealed and what they say as “prophecy.” Since the text does not, I think we should be cautious. Here are some questions: First, did the Spirit tell Paul to stay out of Jerusalem or did the disciples or was it both? Both Grudem and I agree that the Spirit did not say that, or there would be a contradiction in the sacred text. Verse 4 says, “They told Paul…” There was something that the Spirit enabled as well, and we will look at that, but it was the disciples who were said to speak. There are other prophecies in Acts where the Spirit is said to speak (Acts 13:2 – “And the Spirit said…”), but here it says, “They told Paul.”

Note that the Spirit clearly led Paul to go to Jerusalem earlier (19:21; 20:22-25)

It is clear that the Spirit of God has already led Paul to go to Jerusalem. Acts 19:21 says that “Paul purposed in the Spirit” to go to Jerusalem. In Acts 20:22-25 Paul said, “I go bound in the Spirit for Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me.” It is clear that the Spirit was telling the apostle Paul that he would be in Jerusalem and would be chained there. Every city had similar revelations of the Spirit. Those would be false prophecies if Paul didn’t head to Jerusalem.

Note that by inspiration the Spirit said Paul would be in Jerusalem and authorized his bringing the Gentile donation (Rom. 15:25; 1 Cor. 16:3; Rom. 15:30-33; etc).

Third, the inspired writings of Paul are exceptionally clear that Paul had to go to Jerusalem. Over and over Paul said that he would be there to bring the offerings of the Gentile churches. Romans would not be an inerrant book if Paul did not end up in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25; 1 Cor. 16:3; Rom. 15:30-33).

Note that Jesus approves of what Paul did (Acts 23:11)

Acts 23:11 shows that Jesus approved of what Paul did. “But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, ‘Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.”

Note that Luke and the disciples are finally convinced this really was “the will of the Lord” (Acts 21:14).

In Acts 21:14, Paul finally convinces the others that going to Jerusalem was indeed the will of the Lord. “So when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, ‘The will of the Lord be done.’” If the Spirit really told Paul not to go to Jerusalem, then He would have contradicted Himself. On this Grudem and I are agreed, so I won’t belabor it.

Then what did the Spirit do (note the words “through the Spirit”)?

Why did Luke say that they told Paul “through the Spirit”? What does “through the Spirit” mean? Grudem says that it expresses “a rather loose relationship between the Holy Spirit and the prophet, since it allows room for a large degree of personal influence by the human person himself.”²¹⁰ I don’t see how that could be if the only thing reported here is what the Spirit Himself did not say. It may refer to a general influence of the Spirit, yes, but I don’t see how the part Grudem sees as wrong could be attributed to the prophecy in any way.

Furthermore, the term “through the Spirit” can refer to inerrant prophecy. For example, Acts 1:2 says about Jesus, “until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen.” That appears to be quite strong – moral imperatives from the mouth of Jesus. Grudem doesn’t want the phrase to have that strong of a meaning, yet it is certainly a possible meaning.

The same phrase “through the Spirit” is used in Acts 11:28 when it speaks of a previous prophecy of Agabus that was fulfilled. So it could refer to prophecy.

In 1 Corinthians 2:10 it clearly refers to inspiration given to the apostles. Grudem doesn’t want to go there. He wants it to mean an uninspired prophecy.

On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 12:8 indicates that it wouldn’t even have to be a prophecy. It says, “for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit.”

The following Scriptures would support Grudem’s thesis of general influence of the Spirit: Eph. 3:16; 6:18; Rom. 5:5; 2 Tim. 1:14. However, those aren’t helpful for his position because those are clearly not called prophecy. That’s the key point.

Was this instead a previous inerrant revelation about the coming danger (see parallel in verse 11) that enabled them to warn Paul and tell him not to go to Jerusalem? Did Paul disobey a prophecy? Or was he ignoring something lesser? Or is this verse parallel to verses 10-14?

I don’t want to be dogmatic on this verse, but it is my view, and the view of the vast majority of commentaries that the saints got a previous prophetic revelation about the dangers that Paul would face quite parallel to verse 11. By means of this supernatural knowledge (that’s the “through the Spirit” portion), they approached Paul and not only told him about the danger, but added that Paul should not go. Without the supernatural knowledge they wouldn’t have even known to make this logical conclusion. So they make an OK conclusion (but it’s not the right conclusion) based on this Spirit-given knowledge.

There was a distinction between the advice that they gave and the former revelation that the Spirit gave. Luke leaves it vague because he is going to amplify in verses 10-14 how all these examples of previous prophecy worked out. He gives four examples of prophecy to Paul in these chapters and then amplifies only one to illustrate. There have been other attempts to reconcile this verse²¹¹ with those in which the Spirit told Paul to go to Jerusalem, but this is the most likely one. In any case, the passage does not prove Grudem’s thesis.

Questions raised on the daughters who prophesied in verse 9.

Are Luke’s brief accounts of prophets (Luke 20:23; 21:4,9) being thematically explained by 21:10-14?

Grudem’s next objection to all prophets being inspired comes from verse 9: “Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.” I agree with Grudem that they likely prophesied the same things that chapter 20 has said happened in every city, and probably the same thing that the saints in verse 4 and Agabus in verse 11 prophesied. We are not told that, but in terms of how Luke crafts the story, that seems reasonable.

Does this verse show “that these prophecies did not have the authority of words of the Lord”?²¹²

I fail to see how Grudem can get from the text that this verse shows “that these prophecies did not have the authority of words of the Lord.” He concludes this by saying 1) first, that women don’t have authority over men, and certainly not over apostles, 2) second, that if their prophecies were infallible, their prophecies would be on par with those of the apostles and this would give them authority over the apostles when they prophesied to them.

That does not logically follow. It is not that women can’t have apostolic authority over men. They can’t have any authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). On the other hand, if the prophecies that they gave fit the description of 2 Peter 1:21, then their prophesying is not any more exercising authority over the apostles than Balaam’s donkey was exercising authority over Balaam when God spoke through the donkey. They are merely vehicles for the direct work of God. Otherwise, we get into trouble in many places in Acts. For example, prophets in Acts 13 command Paul and Barnabas to go as missionaries. Does that mean that they have authority over apostles? No. They are simply giving direct revelation from the Lord. Keep in mind that 2 Peter 1:21 says, “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

So I don’t have any problem with the idea of women prophets speaking to men as Deborah did. I do have a problem with women teaching men or exercising authority over men, because this is clearly forbidden in the New Testament. When it comes to prophecy it is God speaking, not Deborah or the virgins. Notice that Peter isn’t just talking about written prophecies of the Bible. He is talking about spoken prophecies – all prophecies. So again, Grudem is reading into the text something that is not there. It simply says that they prophesied, and that should be interpreted as any Hebrew would (in light of Old Testament prophecy): inerrant prophecy.

Another problem arises if prophecy involves God’s revelation mixed with man’s words and opinions (as Grudem affirms) - it then appears to be more akin to teaching since her words, opinions, and will could potentially be imposed on an apostle along with God’s revelation. This truly would be a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 where the inspired apostle said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.” On Grudem’s definition, how could a woman prophet avoid mixing her will (authority), opinions (guidance), and words (teaching). If anything of her own will is mixed in, then prophesying over men violates Paul’s prohibition of exercising authority and teaching over men.

With our definition of prophecy this is not a problem since 2 Peter 1:21 says that no prophet (whether male or female) had their will involved in the giving of prophecy at all - “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Inspiration enabled them to receive the revelation infallibly and to communicate it infallibly.

Questions raised about Agabus.

Is there a distinction between an Old Testament prophet “who speaks God’s very words” and a New Testament prophet “who speaks on the basis of some external influence”²¹³ and with “no absolute divine authority”?²¹⁴. Grudem asserts that there is, and uses Agabus to prove that the function of New Testament prophets was to be “speaking merely human words to report something God brings to mind”?²¹⁵

The questions revolving around Agabus in Acts 21:11 come to the heart of Grudem’s thesis. Speaking of Agabus, Luke says

When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.”

Because there aren’t any so-called modern prophets who get their prophecies correct 100% of the time (the best ones boast of a 60% accuracy rate), it is imperative that Grudem find error in New Testament prophecy as well. Otherwise you don’t have a parallel. He knows that Old Testament prophecy was inerrant and infallible.

He says that whereas an Old Testament prophet “speaks God’s very words,” a New Testament prophet “speaks on the basis of some external influence” and has “no absolute divine authority”²¹⁶ because he is “speaking merely human words to report something God brings to mind [emphasis mine].”²¹⁷ I don’t have a problem with saying that the Spirit brings things to mind for Grudem and other Charismatics. I am not in any way denying their experience. I am denying that their experience is Biblical prophecy. Let’s look at the evidence for infallible prophecy in Agabus.

One of the problems with Grudem’s thesis that there is a sharp distinction between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets is Luke’s usage of the word “prophet.” Agabus is called a prophet in a book that frequently calls writers of the Old Testament books “prophets.” We have already examined every reference to prophecy and prophets in the books of Luke and Acts, and there is not the slightest hint that Luke did not think of prophets as inspired and infallible.

Acts 15:32 says, “Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.” Notice the word “also.” If they were “also” prophets, who are the other prophets that Judas and Silas are being compared to? I see only two alternatives: Either this is referring to the inspired decree of Jerusalem which was written by James and was said to be from the Holy Spirit in verse 28 (that’s the immediate context), or it is comparing them to the only other prophets mentioned in chapter 15 - the Old Testament prophets quoted in verses 15-17.

Either way, Judas and Silas are being compared to inspired prophets. There were inspired prophets; Judas and Silas were also prophets. Again, there is not a hair’s breadth of difference between an Old Testament prophet and a New Testament prophet like Judas or Silas.

Furthermore, notice that in Acts 21:11 Agabus is not only called a “prophet,” but he also acts with prophetic authority even with Paul. No one would dare to walk up to a man like Paul and remove his belt unless God told him to do so and unless he had already been recognized to be a prophet, as Agabus had in Acts 11:28.

Third, just as Ezekiel and other prophets had prophetic acting in connection with their prophecies, Acts 21:11 says that Agabus “took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said.” This is prophetic acting. This is such a strong parallel to Old Testament prophetic acting that several commentaries point it out.²¹⁸

Fourth, Agabus begins his prophecy with a “thus says the Holy Spirit.” The phrase, “thus says the [followed by some title of God]” is used 448 times in the Old Testament to precede an Old Testament prophecy. Any Jew reading this would take Agabus to be doing exactly what Old Testament prophets did, and numerous commentaries agree.²¹⁹

Fifth, just as Old Testament prophets were tested before they were officially recognized (Deut. 13; 18), Agabus had already been tested in Acts 11:28. As we will see, the New Testament commands the testing of prophets in the same way that the Old Testament does (Matt. 7:15-23; 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thes. 5:19-22). Luke records, “Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.” This indicates an evaluation of a prophet. Let’s consider the whole subject of evaluation.

Grudem says that while individuals were responsible to evaluate the content of individual prophecies, they weren’t called to judge each prophet as true or false (as they did in the Old Testament).²²⁰ In other words, Grudem wants Christians evaluating each prophecy on whether they think it is right or not, but he doesn’t want them categorizing someone as a false prophet simply because 40+% of what he prophesies is incorrect. He knows that if he used that kind of criteria, it would pretty much wipe out the prophetic ministry of charismatics in the USA.

Again, he is trying to distance New Testament prophets from Old Testament prophets. When prophecies did not come true in the Old Testament, no one was supposed to ever listen to such a prophet again. In fact, he was in danger of being stoned. With modern Charismatics, prophets are constantly mixing error with truth (as Grudem freely admits). After reading Grudem, I would get the impression that (definitionally) there could be no such thing as a false prophet in the New Testament. I know he doesn’t believe that because the New Testament speaks of false prophets eleven times,²²¹ but when more than 40% of what a prophet says is false and the prophet can still be considered by Grudem to be a “true prophet,” it makes it difficult to understand how anyone can be a “false prophet.” It’s not just the prophecy, but the prophet himself who is judged as “false.” That’s identical to the Old Testament.

So here’s my question: “Why is Agabus not a false prophet if Grudem is correct that Agabus made two mistakes that are at the heart of his message? We have already demonstrated that Zechariah 13 insists that New Covenant prophets will be judged by the same standard that Old Testament prophets were. Now we turn to some New Testament evidence that shows this was indeed practiced. In Matthew, Jesus promised to send apostles and prophets to His church. He gave warnings about false prophets who would creep into the church.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-16)

Notice that he is warning about the prophets, not just the individual prophecies. He says you will know them, not just which individual prophecies are correct. Matthew continues:

Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. (Matt. 7:16b-17)

Notice that it is the tree itself that is being judged, not just the fruit. Certainly judging the fruit is part of judging whether the tree is bad or whether the prophet is false, but it is both the fruit and the tree that is in view. Grudem’s thesis about New Testament prophets does not hold up. Continuing in verse 18 to describe the tree illustration of the prophets, Jesus says,

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.

He is not talking about individual Christians in their sanctification or you would have perfectionism. Do Christians bear any bad fruit of sin in their lives? Yes. Regrettably they do. All of us do. The context is talking about false prophets and the bad fruit of false prophecies. True prophets are infallible and never bear bad fruit. They never have any error mixed with truth when they prophesy: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.” And a bad tree (a false prophet) can never bear good fruit (or prophesy by the Holy Spirit). Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit will never use a fallible prophet to communicate His will. It is 100% bad fruit (i.e., not given as prophecy by the Holy Spirit) or it is 100% good fruit (i.e., inerrant and fully the Word of God). Verse 19:

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Is this not quite parallel to the Old Testament? Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18 both command Israelites to ignore a prophet if something he says does not come to pass. He is to be cut off from his people. God took prophecy very seriously in the New Testament too. Remember that the trees are prophets: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” It’s not just the content of the prophecy that is discarded; the prophet himself is judged and discarded. Jesus is talking about prophets in the New Testament church age.

Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ (Matt. 7:20-22)

We are not just talking about prophets from other religions. We are talking about people who thought they were prophesying in the church and serving Jesus.

And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ (Matt. 7:23)

Those were obviously false prophets. I think this passage is determinative of how we treat prophets. Christ is giving instructions for the church in advance. This means that there are no prophets in the church today since no modern prophet that I know of has a 100% accuracy rate.

Does that mean that what Charismatics are experiencing is not from the Spirit? No. I am not saying that. I think that God is indeed giving at least some of them illumination (or what Milne calls “mediate revelation”).²²² Illumination is a far cry from inspired revelation, and I believe that this is one among many passages that teach that all prophets gave inspired revelation. Further, they were judged like OT prophets were. Grudem’s thesis that it is just the content of a prophecy that is evaluated, not the prophet himself, is not true.

In this connection, it is interesting that 1 Corinthians 14 describes judgment of prophets: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.”

Is it just the message that is subject to other prophets, or is the prophet himself subject to their judgment? The context indicates that it is both/and: “And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (v. 32). That judging of prophets happens is certain.

There is a division of opinion about who the “others” are who do the judging. There are five main opinions: 1) Grudem’s position that it is all those present at the meeting,²²³ 2) others assert that it is the leaders of the assembly,²²⁴ 3) still others think it is those specially gifted with the gift of discernment,²²⁵ and 4) my position is that it is the other prophets.²²⁶ However, even if one of the first three theories is correct, it is still the case that false prophets are determined by the criteria given in the Old Testament.²²⁷ In my opinion, the context (which is speaking about prophets) shows that the other prophets did the judging. There could be established and trusted prophets who would help to weed out false prophets. This is why verse 32 says, “And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” However that phrase is understood, there is clearly a judging activity that is happening.

Excursus - The charge that Cessationism is a violation of 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20

Sometimes the charge is made against Cessationists that they are in violation of 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 and are guilty of despising prophecy. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, it is the Continuationists who are despising true prophecy by degrading prophecy in its character, message, authority, and inerrancy. We honor true prophecy and elevate it to the highest level. It would be profitable to spend some time evaluating this passage since it has troubled the souls of some.

Verse 19

Verse 19 says, “Do not quench the Spirit.” That is an important admonition, and I never want to quench the Spirit or grieve the Spirit by rejecting anything that the Spirit may want to give. Some of the Cessationist Puritans experienced the same kinds of things that Third Wave Charismatics talk about while rejecting the idea that prophecy continued. For example, John Maynard said, “For I cannot conceive, but that the good Angels should as well suggest good thoughts, as the evil Angels do evil thoughts…As for the godly, I am perswaded, they are many times directed strongly, by the secret suggestions of the Angels, for the avoiding of dangers, and the obtaining of good.”²²⁸

Likewise, John Hacket believed that God continues to give dreams, he seemed to think that since there is no longer any inspired prophet to interpret the dreams, we ought to be hesitant about the interpretation. Nevertheless, he endorsed the dream of Augustine’s mother Monica as being genuine.²²⁹

Appendix A gives an introduction to the astonishingly wide diversity of experiences that the Westminster Divines had of the Holy Spirit’s guidance through dreams and visions and premonitions. It also shows just as strongly that they all endorsed a cessation of inspired prophecy. While I disagree with some of the Puritan exegesis, I have no problem with their experiences and their sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. I have experienced remarkable guidance and providences, but I would never dare to call them prophecy. It is not experience that we are questioning in this chapter, but the theological framework of Continuationism.

Consider the implications of some interpretations of this verse. To quench the Spirit is to suppress His convictions. It is parallel in thought to grieving, resisting, and rebelling against the Spirit. How is that done? According to Continuationists, it is by ignoring modern prophecy. According to the Bible, such quenching, resisting, grieving, and rebelling is always framed in terms of rebellion against God’s revelation in the Bible. It is here where some Charismatics begin to deny the sufficiency of Scripture. They insist that by ignoring new prophecies we could be disobeying the directives of the Holy Spirit. The moment a person goes to moral imperatives, this ceases to be an academic question, and it begins to be an attack against the sufficiency of Scripture. Furthermore, it completely undermines Wayne Grudem’s desire to keep prophets from making their prophecies authoritative. If they are not authoritative, how could not believing in them be quenching the Holy Spirit?

I believe we have made tremendous progress when third wave Charismatics like Wayne Grudem can affirm the sufficiency of Scripture for life and ethics.²³⁰ The sufficiency of Scripture was a foundational doctrine for the Reformation, and the Reformers recognized that every Protestant doctrine was up for grabs when the sufficiency of Scripture was denied.²³¹ Reformed people have insisted that if we think we need²³² any more revelation than the Bible provides, we contradict Paul who said that the Scriptures are enough so “that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17). Paul asserts not only that Scripture is sufficient, but he also says that it is abundantly sufficient (“thoroughly”).

The obvious question is, “Why seek new revelation when the old is abundantly adequate?” Some possible answers might be:

1. We are slow to study and understand the Scriptures²³³
2. People in some lands don’t have the Scriptures²³⁴
3. During emergency situations, we don’t have time to research answers²³⁵
4. New revelation gives information which is not needed for Christian living, but which can be helpful in Christian living²³⁶

While the footnotes on that paragraph suggest that these answers are not adequate in reconciling the doctrine of sufficiency with the teaching of new revelation, it is primarily the rhetoric of the Charismatics that makes me wonder if they have really embraced the doctrine of sufficiency with any degree of zeal.

For example, am I living a substandard Christian life when I do not seek or follow new revelation? Does new revelation give me a more personal dimension with the Lord than Scripture does? Am I opening myself to a deeper walk with the Spirit when I pursue such gifts? Does a “Word of Knowledge” about a person’s past, present, or future bring inner healing that the Bible could not bring? If you answer yes to those questions, then it seems to me that you are denying that the information in Scripture is enough to make us “complete.” Surely you would agree that a substandard walk, or a lack of closeness or even a lack of depth in my walk implies a lack of completeness? Certainly a lack of inner healing apart from a word of knowledge implies that Spirit-applied Scripture is not sufficient. The Westminster divines were united in saying that any continuing work of the Spirit is always grounded and anchored in the Scriptures.

Or is this new revelation only an option that is neither needed nor mandated? That position might be consistent with sufficiency, but it does not seem to fit the language of Scriptures such as Luke 21:14-15 which commanded the apostles to not make the ordinary preparations required by Scripture to answer adversaries: “Therefore, settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.” If that passage applies today, then following new revelation seems to be more than just an option. It is a command. This seems to be recognized by Charismatics instinctively. The rhetoric often implies that we “should” seek such revelation, we “need” it, we “must not neglect it,” etc. Is the need an ethical need? Then it is a “good work” and becomes a denial of 2 Tim. 3:17.

I cannot think of any definition of “need” for revelation that does not violate either the words “complete,” “thoroughly equipped” or “good work” of 2 Timothy 3:17.²³⁷ So I believe that third wave Charismatics need to be more consistent with their position on the sufficiency of Scripture.

Verse 20

Verse 20 says, “Do not despise prophecies.” If God continued to give prophecies I would receive them. One of the prophecies that Paul didn’t want them rejecting was this uncomfortable book of 1 Thessalonians that was rebuking them for their sin. He wanted them to cherish that book and not despise it, since the book was a prophecy. We are in deep water when we despise any prophecy of the Scriptures. Why? Because it is the inerrant word of God.

These congregations in Thessalonica were also despising prophets that had been sent to them to teach them three things: 1) The mystery of Jew and Gentile being in one body (Eph. 3:1-6), 2) bringing warning of God’s covenant lawsuit against Israel (Luke 11:49-51; Matt 23:29-38; Rev. 1:3; 10:7,11; 11:3,6,10,18; 16:6; 18:20,24; 22:6-7,9-10,18-19), and 3) warning of the coming apostasy (2 Thes. 2:1-12; Acts 20:28-29; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; Matt. 24:10-14,24-25). The prophets God sent to the various congregations were trying to keep them from falling, yet despite their valiant efforts, a massive apostasy was happening even in the days of the apostles. The people were despising the prophets who had been sent to them. In fact, the falling away prior to AD 70 was the Great Apostasy.

So when Continuationists ask, “Why would God put a temporary command in the Bible when it cannot apply to us?” we would reply that it was desperately needed in the first century, and also that it continues to apply in three ways: First, it continues to stand as a rebuke to those who despise any portion of Scripture. Second, it continues to apply to those who seek to promote a racial divide between Jew and Gentile (one of the main purposes for those prophets). It continues to apply to those who need to heed the covenant lawsuits that such prophets would have brought. There are enough of the covenant lawsuits recorded in the Bible that they can apply to any new situation. Finally, the general equity of this passage would continue to apply for our need to avoid apostasy.

Verses 21-22

It is important that we not stop reading at verse 20. Verses 20-21 say, “Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” The amplified Bible has, “Abstain from evil [shrink from it and keep aloof from it] in whatever form or whatever kind it may be.” He’s talking about the bad tree and the bad fruit. He’s saying, “Stay away from it. Don’t even listen to them.” When you’ve tested a prophet to be false, avoid him altogether and avoid his prophecies altogether. If Charismatic prophets are self-confessed false prophets (at least 40% of their prophecies are false), then in obedience to this Scripture, we should avoid them. Thus, this passage actually works against Continuationists like Wayne Grudem.

The point is, Agabus had been evaluated just as every prophet should. In chapter 11 he was evaluated based on the fulfillment of a prophetic prediction. To evaluate the Charismatic movement as false on prophecy is to obey this command, not to disobey it.

Did Agabus predict two events which ‘did not come to pass’?

With that as further background, let’s look at Grudem’s analysis of Agabus. On page 100, Grudem says,

strictly speaking, Agabus predicted two events which ‘did not come to pass’ Deut 18:22.²³⁸

I find it shocking that Grudem would be willing to admit that Agabus would have been judged as a false prophet in Deuteronomy. Grudem is admitting that if Agabus had lived in the Old Testament, he would have been stoned as a false prophet! Yet ironically, the supposedly mistaken Agabus has now become a model for New Testament prophecy! On the same page he says,

Luke so clearly describes the non-fulfillment of the two parts of the prophecy in the immediately subsequent narrative.²³⁹

Earlier he also approvingly quotes D.A. Carson as saying about Agabus’ prophecy, “I can think of no reported Old Testament prophet whose prophecies are so wrong on the details.”²⁴⁰ Based on what we have seen about prophecy, if Grudem and D.A. Carson are right about these mistakes, then we would have to treat Agabus as a false prophet rather than accepting Grudem’s conclusion that it’s OK for modern prophets to make mistakes. Was Agabus actually wrong? Absolutely not!

What’s the first purported error? Grudem claims that Agabus makes a mistake by saying that the Jews will “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles” (v. 11) when what actually happened is that “the Jews do not ‘deliver’ Paul over to the hands of the Gentiles…. [but] tried to kill him themselves (Acts 21:31). He had to be forcibly rescued from the Jews by the tribune and his soldiers (Acts 21:32-33).”²⁴¹ Grudem calls this a “mistake” that is at “the heart of his prophecy” and that “on these two key elements, he is just a bit wrong.”²⁴²

My answer is that Paul’s own language recorded in Acts 28:17 actually affirms nearly every detail of Agabus’ words in 21:11, while in no way contradictory to it. Consider the parallels in the following chart:

Let’s further examine these details. Agabus says, “So shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man,” using the Greek word deo for bind. Paul said, “I was arrested in Jerusalem” using the same Greek word deo for “arrested.” So whether you translate it as bind or as arrest, Paul said that what Agabus prophesied actually happened to him.

Agabus says, “and deliver him over,” using the Greek word paradidomi. Paul said, “and handed over” using the same Greek word.

Agabus said, “into the hands of the Gentiles,” and Paul says “to the hands of the Romans.”

With these close parallels, it is premature to declare Agabus in error. Paul certainly does not seem to see him as being in error. The following scenario is one plausible explanation of what happened: We know the crowds were trying to kill Paul. Verse 27 speaks of “the whole crowd,” verse 28 of the “men of Israel,” and verse 30 of “the people,” but we aren’t told what the Jewish leaders were trying to do. This arrest takes place in the temple. The Sadducees controlled the temple. The Sadducees were in bed with Rome, and the High Priest was appointed by Rome. Ordinarily, the Sadducees tried to cooperate with the Romans in order to save their jobs. They would no doubt have been trying to keep the crowd from killing Paul when there were Roman soldiers around. So perhaps they handed Paul over to the Romans while the crowds were trying to do a lynching. We simply aren’t told. With Paul himself saying that he was handed over to the Romans, and using the same language as Agabus, I am comfortable in saying that every detail of this part of the prophecy was fulfilled.

The second supposed mistake: Grudem contrasts the statement in verse 11, “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt” with verse 33 – “the commander… commanded him to be bound with two chains.” The claim is that it was the Romans, not the Jews who bound Paul, making this “an inaccurate prophecy.”

You cannot call it an error if there is a plausible explanation. This is the point conservatives make when liberals claim there are mistakes in the Bible. If you can give two or three plausible explanations, you cannot say it was an error. Here is a plausible explanation: There were no doubt two bindings: one with a belt and one with chains. Notice that Agabus used the belt from Paul’s robe to bind Paul (or, as some interpret it, to bind his own hands).

Paul’s belt was something that would have been readily available to the Jews when they “laid hands on him” (v. 27), cried for “help” (v. 28), “seized Paul” (v. 30), took him out of the temple (v. 30), and beat him (v. 32). It is very likely that they used a restraint of some sort during that time lapse. The Romans did not use a belt, but used chains (v. 33). Though the text does not say it, it makes perfect sense to say that the Jews bound Paul with a belt (perhaps even his own belt) in order to beat him, the Romans then come on the scene, the Sadducees (being nervous about a confrontation with Rome) handed Paul over to the Romans, and the Romans then used chains for imprisonment. It is clear that Grudem has not proven any error.

Is Grudem right when he says that New Testament prophets should not say, “Thus says the Lord”?

Another difference that I see between Grudem and our text is that Grudem frequently tells people not to say, “Thus says the Lord.”²⁴³ It bothers him when Charismatic “prophets” do that. With the degree of fallibility that he believes exists with prophecy, he believes that it is presumptuous to say, “Thus says the Lord” as if the “prophet” is communicating the very words of God. I applaud him for his cautions, but it would achieve the same goal and be much more Biblical if he told modern so-called “prophets” not to call what they are doing “prophecy,” but instead to speak of it as a word of knowledge, illumination, guidance or something like that.

The fact of the matter is that Agabus does indeed say, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” and then gives the very words of the Spirit. To me that argues strongly against Grudem’s position.

Is Grudem right that the phrase “Thus says the Holy Spirit” can refer to an approximation of what God has revealed?

Grudem tries to explain this away. He says,

“Thus says the Holy Spirit” means here not that the very words of the prophecy were from the Holy Spirit, but only that the content generally had been revealed by the Spirit.²⁴⁴

On the next page he says,

“Thus says the Holy Spirit” means “The Holy Spirit was saying ‘approximately this’ or ‘something like this.’”²⁴⁵

My answer is twofold. First, the phrase, “‘Thus says the [with a divine title]” is used 448 times in the Old Testament to precede prophetic utterances that carried the very words of God. It is arbitrary to assign a different meaning to a very familiar Hebrew phrase – a technical phrase. This is a phrase that Hebrews would immediately have associated with infallible prophecy from the Old Testament. Luke himself quotes two of those Old Testament occurrences in Acts 7:49 and 15:17. More and more it looks like the text is being made to fit a conclusion rather than inductively deriving a conclusion from the text.

My second response is that the New Testament uses similar phrases to introduce Scripture (Rom. 12:19; 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:21; 2 Cor. 6:17-18; Heb. 3:7; 8:8-10; 10:16; 10:30; Rev. 1:8; 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22; 14:13). Agabus was an inspired prophet just like the Old Testament prophets were. Some people have said that this trivializes the nature of inspiration by making it relate to things like predicting persecution. Actually, it no more trivializes prophecy than Paul’s inspired statement, “Greet Mary,” in Romans 16 trivializes Romans, or “Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas,” in 2 Timothy 4:13 trivializes the book of 2 Timothy, or Samuel’s prophesying about where Saul could find his donkey trivializes the inspiration of Samuel the prophet.

The fact of the matter is that their inspired gift could be used by the Spirit for anything that the Spirit desired.

What difference does it make?

It makes a difference on how we view the canon of Scripture.

I think you can see that it does make a huge difference what we believe about these things. It makes a difference on how we view the canon of Scripture. If the only people who were inspired in the New Testament were Apostles, then how did the Gospel of Mark get in the Bible? He wasn’t an apostle. How did the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts get in the Bible? Luke was not an Apostle. What about the books of Hebrews, James, and Jude? Grudem’s answer is that these men must have been associated with the apostles, and the apostles must have reviewed their books. However, something doesn’t become Scripture simply because an apostle read it and approved it. There were thousands of people associated with the apostles. What about every elder that the apostles had established in the churches? It is not a good enough argument. 2 Peter 1:20 says that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private origin.” It is the origin that is at stake, not whether an apostle read what Mark wrote. The next verse says, “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

I am grateful that Grudem is one of the leading defenders of the authority of Scripture. He’s an able combatant on this important issue. It would be so much simpler to say that apostles and prophets wrote the New Testament. Instead of spending a hundred pages defending canon, you could spend a dozen. It would be so much clearer. This present book has been much longer than it needed to be precisely because of the confusion caused by those who believe in continuing prophecy. We have demonstrated in a previous chapter that both the Old and New Testaments tightly link all Scripture to prophets and call all New Testament Scripture “the Scripture of the prophets” (Romans 16:26).

It makes a difference on how we evaluate “prophecies” today. Is the revelation simply guidance, or is it prophecy?

Second, it makes a difference on how we evaluate purported prophecies today. Is the revelation simply guidance, or is it prophecy? Grudem is doing a valiant job of getting Charismatics to not treat prophecy abusively by giving it more authority than he believes it should have, but he goes beyond the Scripture in telling modern Agabuses that they can’t do what Agabus did. It would be so much simpler to say, “All the gifts of the Spirit are at work in the church except for Apostleship and Prophecy.” Those two are sealed up in the Scripture (as Daniel 9 and Isaiah 8 say).

It affects our confidence in Scripture.

Third, it affects our confidence in Scripture. There are pastors who excuse their mistakes in “prophecy” by trying to say not only that Agabus made mistakes, but by trying to say that Old Testament prophets made mistakes too. One pastor said that when Paul had the prophetic Macedonian call in Acts 16, he thought it was a man calling him over to Macedonia, and it ended up being Lydia, a woman who called him. He said that Paul’s chauvinism made his ability to receive the message slightly messed up. My response is, “There were men like the Philippian jailor in Macedonia too.”

These people are using Grudem’s proof texts for errors in prophecy to undermine all Scripture. Grudem is trying to correct such misguided attitudes, but there isn’t sufficient grounds to be able to do so on his terms. It would be so much easier to accept the teaching of Scripture that apostleship and prophecy were inspired and foundational gifts that we have with us until the Second Coming, but we only have those gifts as they are preserved in the Bible. I receive every word of prophecy that God has preserved for me. I do not despise any true prophecy.

I have personally had many of the experiences that charismatics call “prophecy,” but I label them as guidance, illumination, God-given wisdom, etc. It is not an issue of experience, but an issue of theology. I believe the theology laid out in this book is quite clear - all prophets and prophecy ceased in AD 70.

Though even some Westminster Assembly scholars disagree with me on that point, they all agree that all authoritative revelation ceased and we are bound to one rule for life - the Bible. I will end this chapter by quoting the fine summary of the historic Protestant position on cessationism found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1.

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

May we never relinquish the one sure word of prophecy that continues to be in our possession today – the Bible. It contains all the prophecy that we need. May we trust it, follow it, and evaluate all teaching based upon it.