By Angus Harley

Agabus the prophet is the poster boy of a certain group in the Continuationism movement, for he is, they tell us, the perfect example of a prophet of the NT type that told fallible, weak, and inconsistent prophecies. According to Wayne Grudem and co., Acts 11:27-30 clearly demonstrates the fallibility of Agabus’ prophecy:

“27 Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. 29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. 30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.” (Acts 11:27-30)

Grudem

Because Grudem’s exegesis of Acts 11:27-30 is rather short, I will cite his whole comment:

“The question is, what kind of authority attaches to the prophecy of Agabus?

When Luke says that Agabus foretold “by the Spirit” he uses a phrase (Greek dia tou pneumatou) which is never used in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) to refer to prophetic speech. The word dia (“through” or “by means of”) seems to signify “the originator of an action,” and this construction would be well suited to express 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 (note “we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” in Romans 8:37, RSV; and “guard through the Holy Spirit the good tradition that was entrusted to you” in 2 Timothy 1:14—both using the same grammatical construction).

A degree of imprecision is also suggested by the word translated “foretold” (Greek sēmainō, “signified, indicated”). This same word was used in extra-biblical literature (such as the Jewish writer Josephus or the secular writer Plutarch) of prophetic speech “that simply gives a vague indication of what is to happen,”2 and we may conclude that absolute divine authority is neither required nor ruled out by this description.

Therefore, although the evidence in this passage is too slim to draw any certain conclusions, Luke’s language is entirely compatible with a kind of New Testament prophecy similar to that in 1 Corinthians, prophecy that was based on a “revelation” but was not reported in divinely authoritative words. In fact, the vagueness attaching to the expressions “signified, foretold” and “through the Spirit” would seem to suggest—but only suggest—some lesser kind of authority.”[1]

Avoiding the text

Conspicuous by its absence in Grudem’s account of Acts 11:27-30 is any attempt to actually talk through the text. He takes us to word studies, extra-biblical sources, and cites biblical verses that do not shed light on his argument.

Let us now address the text. Notice how Agabus is a prophet, and that he comes from Jerusalem, as no doubt endorsed by its leaders. He gave a prophecy. The term semaino might, in this context, indicate “signified” in the sense of some prophetic symbolism (cf., Rev.1:1); but nothing of this sort is specifically mentioned contextually, nor does semaino ever refer in the NT to prophetic symbolism in terms of action. It seems to be that, it is his words that are the focus, therefore, not his actions. This verbal prophecy is surely confirmed by the fact that Acts 11:29 conveys its general, yet not specific, content, “to indicate (semaino) by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world.” He was unveiling a revelation from God “through” (dia) the Spirit. Any attempt to pin vagueness on Agabus’ words by resort to the fact that Luke does not record the actual words Agabus uttered is preposterous. We know this because of what Luke writes immediately after Agabus’ communication, “And this took place in the reign of Claudius.” The famine did happen exactly as Agabus said it would. Indeed, the assembly organized itself spontaneously to react to Agabus’ prophecy and the ensuing famine. No notion of vague language is found in the narrative, therefore.

Semaino

In accordance with ignoring the actual story of Agabus, Grudem also chooses to bypass the NT’s record on semaino, and instead informs us of some extra-biblical references to semaino that allow for the idea of vagueness. Why any NT exegete would pin his hopes on extrabiblical literature such as written by Plutarch and Josephus is beyond this humble student of God’s word. So let us look at the NT’s use of semaino. Does the term semaino have a special import?

In Acts. The only other use of semaino in Acts is in 25:27. Festus writes to King Agrippa of the Apostle Paul, “ ”For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate also the charges against him.” ” It would seem that, in this instance, semaino conveys the idea of giving necessary and crucial information; not to do so would be “absurd”, writes Festus.

In Revelation. In Revelation 1:1, semaino is used to describe the “revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his bond-servant”. This revelation was “communicated” (semaino) to the apostle John by an angel. In Revelation, this revelation is verbally given but also through symbolic visions. In Revelation, the term “revelation” indicates the unveiling of mysteries. Thus, this communication was detailed and exceptionally important. Anything but vague. Moreover, in this verse, the revelation was prophecy, and was infallible.

In John. It is interesting how John’s Gospel uses semaino (John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19).  In the case of Jesus, he taught his disciples something that was completely factual, exceedingly important, and, in these instances, was obviously revelatory. Jesus would state something that, at that time, people did not understand, then John the apostle explains Jesus’ meaning:

John 12:32-33: “32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.”   John 21:18-19: “18 “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” 19 Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He *said to him, “Follow Me!”

John 18:31-32 relates the words of the Jews: “31 So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” The Jews said to him, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” 32 to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.”

This time, it is the Jews who say that they are not allowed to put anyone to death. They were pressing Pilate to get rid of Jesus. Which did happen. Thus, the words of the Jews were exceptionally important and pointed toward Jesus’ impending death, even that it would be at the hands of the Romans.

Indeed, one could argue that the Jews’ words had a prophetic hue to them. After all, the Jewish high priest Caiaphas “prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation”, even though all he said was that it was necessary for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish (John 11:49-53). Neither Caiaphas nor the Jews were actual OT prophets. Nor were they NT prophets! Their own words had a prophetic meaning to them precisely because God invested their words with prophetic meaning. In similar fashion, although the Jews were not prophets of the Lord, they acted as such without knowing it, and their ‘prophecy’ was fully accurate.

This interpretation would not surprise us if we were seeing comparisons between Old and New Testaments. In the OT, Balaam, who was a false prophet that sought to curse Israel, ended up prophesying blessings upon Israel, all of which were 100% accurate (Num.23-24). And if a donkey can, with 100% accuracy, convey the Angel of the LORD’s will (Num.22:22-35), so can a rebellious Jew, or Jews, convey God’s exact will.

Conclusion. There is utterly no vagueness attached to the use of semaino in the NT. It is happily attached to traditional ideas (such as found in the OT) of prophecy and revelation from God. Jesus was conveying what was going to happen to him, just as the Jews spoke about Jesus’ death. All things were precisely fulfilled that were spoken of. Even in the case where semaino is not used in a prophetic context, it conveys the total opposite of vagueness and uncertainty, to the point that Felix said that not to “indicate” the exact charges against Paul would be “absurd”.

“through the Spirit”

The Greek phrase dia tou pneumatos (“through the Spirit”) was said, by Grudem, to convey vagueness, and “a rather loose relationship between the Holy Spirit and the prophet”.

The exact phrase dia tou pneumatos is used in only five places: Acts 11:28; 21:4; 1 Cointhians .2:10; 12:8; Ephesians 3:16. 2 Timothy 1:14 does amount to the same, for it refers to the “Holy Spirit” (dia tou pneumatos hagiou). The latter phrase is also used in Acts 1:2 and Romans 5:5, so we’ll include all of them.

 In Acts. Acts 1:2 refers to our Lord Jesus giving instructions “through the Holy Spirit” to his disciples before he was taken into heaven. Hardly vague and uncertain, or ‘human’!

 As Acts 21:4 is the subject for another article on Agabus, I will defer my exegesis of that text until then.

In 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 2:10 uses “through the Spirit” to indicate God’s revelations, or thoughts, through his Spirit, to the assembly (1 Cor.2:9-16). Contrary to Grudem’s hypothesis, these teachings are not inaccurate, or ‘well-meaning’, but direct revelations that were entirely replete with the mind of God. Also, they had no human thought or error injected into them.

If things that come “through the Spirit” are inaccurate and fallible, what then do we do with 1 Corinthians 12:8? In context, “through the Spirit” the Corinthians were given numerous gifts: a word of wisdom, a word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues (1 Cor.12:8-10). If one gift is tainted by the ‘human’ factor, then surely they all are! If prophecies are in error because they are mixed with vague human thought, then surely the miracles might or might not work, or will partially work, due to humans not naturally having divine power to perform miracles. And healings will be similarly hit and miss at the same time; same for tongue speaking, and for their interpretation, and so on. I was not aware that the Spirit of Christ, from heaven, gave such fallible, impartial, weak, and vague ‘gifts’ to the body of Christ!

In Romans. Romans 5:5 relates how God’s love was poured out on our hearts through the Holy Spirit. A perfect, non-fallible, non-human, gift that was not tarnished, weakened, or tainted by man’s fallibility and fleshliness.

In Ephesians. Ephesians 3:16 once again relates God’s gift, of inner strength, to the assembly. His strength is not then diluted, weakened, rendered fallible, or deficient by believers’ humanity.

In 2 Timothy. Chapter 1, v14 teaches that the Ephesians were to guard, through the Holy Spirit, the treasure of the Gospel that had been entrusted to them. One would imagine that “through the Spirit” was put in by Paul to specifically counter any possibility of mere flesh, mere humanity, guarding this treasure. In other words, the only true and successful way to guard the truth is through the Spirit, for humans cannot achieve this goal.  Therefore, “through the Spirit” indicates that it takes God’s unfailing power to get the job done; any potential failure was therefore coming “through man”, not “through the Spirit”.

Conclusion. The exact opposite of human failure and vagueness, or anything of its kind, is conveyed by “through the Spirit” or “through the Holy Spirit”. Indeed, the phrase itself conveys that God himself uses the Spirit, his unerring divine agent, to bring his unfailing, eternal blessings and gifts to his people. Any failure, vagueness, or fallibility that might ensue would not occur “through the Spirit” but solely through man’s flesh.  

Grasping at straws

Grudem’s hypothesis has all the hallmarks of someone who is pushing a theological agenda, but cannot muster up exegetical evidence to defend his case. He therefore grasps at straws, and leans on extrabiblical material, creates a mystical notion that “through the Spirit”, when used of men, conveys a loose relationship between the Spirit and the believer, and, worst of all, makes not attempt to deal with the actual text of Acts 11:27-30.

The evidence of this text is abundantly clear: Agabus acted just like an OT prophet: he spoke infallibly about an event, a famine, which did occur, as explicitly noted by the text. What more needs to be said?  

           

[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed., (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), Kindle: Acts 11:28: Agabus, scene 1.