by Angus Harley

A fundamental belief behind Continuationists’ practice of modern prophecy is that in the NT there was a fallible, weak, form of prophecy that was not the same as the traditional, infallible, type of the OT. So today, we are told, this same form of fallible prophecy continues. It is not the “Thus saith the LORD” kind, as found in the OT. Agabus the prophet, as related in Acts, was one of these new era, fallible, prophets who got it partly wrong sometimes. I have already responded in part to this claim that Agabus was not a true prophet, to conclude that Acts 11:27-30 demonstrates that he was indeed a real prophet after the fashion of OT prophets.[1] This article is the second part of my critique of Continuationism, as founded upon Agabus’ prophecy recorded in Acts 21:1-14.

Here’s the whole text.

“When we had parted from them and had set sail, we ran a straight course to Cos and the next day to Rhodes and from there to Patara; 2 and having found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail. 3 When we came in sight of Cyprus, leaving it on the left, we kept sailing to Syria and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unload its cargo. 4 After looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. 5 When our days there were ended, we left and started on our journey, while they all, with wives and children, escorted us until we were out of the city. After kneeling down on the beach and praying, we said farewell to one another. 6 Then we went on board the ship, and they returned home again.”7 “When we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais, and after greeting the brethren, we stayed with them for a day. 8 On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses. 10 As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” 12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!” ”

Agabus’ arrest, binding, and delivery

The argument put forward by Continuationists is that Agabus, in Acts 21, got some of his facts wrong. Grudem cites two errors, “Paul was not bound by the Jews but by the Romans, and far from delivering Paul over to the Romans, they tried to kill him, and he had to be delivered from the Jews by the soldiers.” [2]

Part of what Grudem says must immediately be conceded, for twice we are informed that the Romans did bind Agabus with chains (Acts 21:33; 22:29).

Yet, this does not obviate the possibility that the Jews had, prior to this, bound him after a fashion. Certainly, he was physically apprehended by the Jews (Acts 21:30), so that his body was most likely physically restrained by them. Whether this included a material bond such as chains is not said. That Paul was taken from the Jews by “much violence” on the part of the Romans (Acts 24:7) might suggest that he was bound originally. Yet, there is no direct evidence for this possibility.

Even so, Agabus was arrested, and this implies some manner of custodial detainment and judicial process. That he was not merely assaulted and beaten by the Jewish mob is confirmed later by the Roman commander Claudius Lysias in his official report to his boss, “ “When this man was arrested by the Jews and was about to be slain by them” ” (Acts 23:27). In a courtroom setting, as recorded in Acts 24:6, the Jews sought to prosecute Paul before the Roman governor Felix. During this, the Jewish lawyer Tertullus states, “ “And he even tried to desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. We wanted to judge him according to our own Law” ” (Acts 24:6). All parties detaining Paul are operating at all times according to a form of legal and judicial procedure. The rabid, uncontrolled, behavior of the Jews is excused in their own eyes because of their own judicial procedure based on their Law.

To conclude that either one of the above accounts of Paul’s arrest pertained to a different event to that recorded in Acts 21 is not supported by the evidence. Acts 24:6 is the Jews bringing their full, Jewish, record of events to bear. Thus, Paul’s activity in the temple is recorded as the precursor to his arrest. Similarly, Lysias was giving his Roman record of events, so he begins with Paul’s arrest by the Jews and the attempt to kill him. He does not need to put in the Jewish concern and detail of this taking place around the temple. So, he adds that, after these things, he brought Paul to “their Council” (i.e., Sanhedrin). In other words, Lysias, as a Roman soldier and commander, is not interested in a blow-by-blow account of the historical details of Paul’s arrest in the temple, but on providing to his Roman superior his own report centered on his own actions and duties as a Roman commander.

Cessationists say that the matter of Paul being handed over by the Jews to the Romans is settled by Acts 28:17, “After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” ” The claim by some that it was the Roman garrison in Jerusalem that handed over Paul to the Romans is going against the wording itself, for we would expect something like, ‘The Romans in Jerusalem handed us over into the hands of those Romans in Caesarea.’ The fact that Paul does not mention the origin of the Romans is in itself telling us that he is implying the ethnical distinction that Jews of Jerusalem handed over Paul to the Romans. Just as significant is that Paul is addressing Jews in his speech, so that it is surely apparent to his hearers exactly what “Jerusalem” stands for. In Acts 28:19 the Jews are implied because, as part of the Roman judicial process, the Jews were required to allow the Romans to assess Paul’s particular case.

This exchange of the prisoner once more raises the possibility that Paul was bound in a physical fashion by the Jews but later was re-bound by the Romans. Such a thing happens regularly when prisoners are transferred from one authority to another. Yet, it must be underscored that there is no direct evidence in the text for this happening.

‘Gotcha!’

Continuationist reply to the above arguments, after the Cessationists have made their stake on Agabus, that Cessationists have failed to demonstrate that Agabus’ prophecy was literally fulfilled in all its details. This is the ‘gotcha’ moment for the Continuationists.

As just stated, it is possible that Luke’s narrative implies that Paul was literally bound by the Jews, only to be bound by the Romans, too. Historical narrative need not detail every action that transpired. Yet, even if Paul was not materially bound in some manner by the Jews, he was physically restrained by them and bound in that way. Of course, the lack of literalism, to the Continuationist, remains a major stumblingblock.

However, the standard counter-reply of Cessationism kicks in at this point: why would a prophecy have to have each and every word and syllable ‘literally’ fulfilled? This is a wooden, inflexible, unrealistic, version of both OT and NT prophecy. Nor am I aware that Cessationism has ever promoted such a standard to measure prophecy. Is this literalistic rule of prophecy actually found in the Scripture? We can all agree that the OT model of prophecy maintained that a true prophet’s words will come to pass, and a false prophet’s prophecy will not. But were the words of the ‘true prophets’ of the OT always operating in a literalistic sense? Continuationists themselves will tell you that this is not so, and that they allow for some prophetic speech that is symbolic and metaphorical. In that case, why do Continuationist not at least ask the question if something similar is going on with Agabus? The assumption of Continuationists is that because there is apparently no symbolism in Agabus’ words, then we are dealing with the ‘woodenly’ literal form of his words. But is this how prophetic utterances work, even those of the OT? If they do work that way, Luke was oblivious to it, as we will now see.

To Luke, there is direct continuity between the OT prophetic model and the NT one, between the pre-Pentecost model and the post-Pentecost, between OT prophets and the apostles and NT prophets. This is easily established from the book of Acts itself. In Acts 4, are we to say that both David- an OT prophet- and the apostles- acting as NT prophets- were given over to fallible prophecies? For the text of Psalm 2:1-3 refers to the kings of the earth taking their stand against the Lord. Where in the Gospels were the kings of the earth literally taking a common position and accepting counsel from one another? Was Caesar literally, or personally, involved with Jesus’ actual death? Was he in person, somewhere along the line, tied into Jesus’ death? Moreover, the NT disciples refer to the LXX reading and state that these kings “gathered together” in Jerusalem (Acts 4:26). When and where did this happen?  Did Caesar literally, in person, gather with other kings in Jerusalem? Where is the historical coming together of the kings of the Gentile nations? The sword of wooden literalism entails that Luke, David, and the apostles, all kind of got it right, but got some details wrong! Of course, the obvious solution to the prophecy of Psalm 2:1-3 and the disciples’ use of it is not to take each and every detail in a literal, wooden, manner. Some of it is literal and has a direct fulfillment. On the other hand, the kings of the earth most certainly did “gather together”, for they did so in a way that was metaphorical. Herod the king represented the Jews’ kingdom, and Pilate, the representative of Rome’s king, stood for the many nations subdued by Rome. Why are Grudem and co. unable to extend the same mixing of fact and metaphor to Agabus’ prophetic utterance?

What, then, did that mix of the literal and metaphorical look like in regard to Agabus?  The Romans did have to subdue the Jewish captors and detainers of Paul, and prize him from their hands, and then they bound Paul. Even so, the Jews were most certainly major players in judicially delivering Paul up to the Romans (Acts 28:17). The concept of delivering here is a judicial one, one of arrest and judgment, as with our Lord. For the entire process of Paul’s arrest was a combination of the Jewish judicial system and the Roman one working together. Indeed, it was, strictly, entirely a Roman-controlled process, for even the Jewish judicial court was obliged to Roman authority. This was one major reason why the Romans had to intervene. We see exactly the same process borne out in our Lord’s arrest, but in that case, the Jews willingly handed over Jesus to the Romans. From the point of view of the final result, in the court of divine justice, the Jews were guilty of, at the very least, metaphorically binding Jesus and giving him over to the Roman judicial process. Yet, there is little doubt they physically restrained Paul and, in that sense, bound him, too. Whether there was a material bond applied by the Jews is not specifically taught.

I have been stressing this judicial approach and procedure partly to highlight how events are recorded in historical narrative. Paul’s own testimony is true that he was indeed delivered up by the Jews to the Romans. This, of course, poses a mammoth problem for the Continuationists’ self-created and self-imposed rule of literal, wooden, prophetic wording and fulfillment. For in the actual record of the event-in-motion, of Paul being accosted by the Jews and then set free, as found in Acts 21, there is no mention of his arrest by the Jews, nor is there any statement saying he was handed over by the Jews to the Romans. Yet, there is ample proof that both things did happen. This teaches us not to push too hard on the historical narrative of events in the book of Acts, looking to them for a template for theological beliefs and practices. The wider narrative, including its testimonies recalling events, is equally as important to Acts’ teaching as the events themselves.

There is another example in Acts of the judicial process in action and the fulfillment of prophecy that does not require a wooden, literal, model. We must note that, the Jews willingly participated in the Roman-controlled judicial process throughout the time of Paul’s arrest and during Christ’s time, too. In fact, due to the corroboration of Jew and Roman in this judicial arrangement, Peter is able to say in Acts 2:36 that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. However, this was not literally so, but only in the broader context of the Jews participating in the Roman judicial system. Peter’s comment in Acts 2 as an apostle is his concluding statement and interpretation of various OT prophecies concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet, Peter does not feel obliged to keep to the legalistic rigor of sheer literalism in his interpretation of these OT prophecies.

Agabus and prophetic symbolism

In their zeal to apply the literalistic principle, a minority of Continuationsts argue that when Agabus ties himself with Paul’s belt to illustrate how the Jews will bind Paul, this action merely underscores the fallible element of Agabus’ words.

Cessationism correctly responds by pointing out that Agabus’ act of binding his feet is a form of prophetic symbolism, such as witnessed in the OT (1 Kg.11:29-32; Isa.20:2-4; Jer.13:1-11; 19:10-13; Eze.4:1-3; 5:1-4; 24:15-27). Even though some Continuationists acknowledge the prophetically symbolic nature of Agabus’ action, they do not follow through on it. The reason why they do not is because the implication is obvious: Agabus is operating just as a true OT prophet.

“This is what the Holy Spirit says”…not Agabus!

The phrase “ “This is what the Holy Spirit says” ” (Acts 21:11) is the NT equivalent of the OT, “Thus saith the LORD”. To insist, as Continuationists do, that Agabus ought to be using “Thus saith the Lord” is rather perplexing, to say the least. For one thing, we are in the era of the New Covenant and not the OT setting. Is not the New Covenant era the ‘Age of the Spirit’ (Acts 1-2)?  Is not part of the point of the book of Acts to depict God’s work, the risen Son’s activity, through the Spirit? Plainly, the NT unfolds from a New Covenant point of view the persons and acts of the Godhead that were known only at a distance, so to speak, from the OT perspective. Ironically, Continuationists are those who, above all, are arguing for the belief that the Holy Spirit’s work on the day of Pentecost was a great outpouring of the prophetic spirit, the same prophetic spirit that was only sporadically witnessed in the OT. Also, why would the NT deny to the Holy Spirit the role of acting as the prophetic source in an old-school manner? Who is to claim that there is a ban on the Holy Spirit from being the one who speaks always infallibly through a NT prophet?

We will pause a moment to comment on the principle of prophetic continuity in Acts 2. Peter’s citation of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21 is a mixture of literal and metaphorical fulfillment. Peter does not blink an eye at this. Nor, in this pivotal passage, does he posit an inferior or second type of prophecy distinct to that of the OT. To him, the major difference between the OT experience of the prophetic Spirit and that of the NT is that the New Covenant era brings the blessing of the prophetic Spirit to all people. No one accuses Peter of mishandling the OT text, or of a fallible interpretation of the prophetic utterance of Joel, for it is patent to all that he does not interpret OT prophecy as bound to a legalistic principle of wooden literalism. It is to be regretted that Continuationists, who are so zealous for prophecy and the Spirit, fail to understand key elements of the nature of NT and OT prophecy.

Continuationists bypass the import of the biblical text and Agabus’ actual wording, and do not focus on the fact that the Holy Spirit was speaking, “This is what the Holy Spirit says”. It is not what “Agabus” says! Are we now saying that in the book of Acts the Holy Spirit’s speech, revelations, and communications are fallible (see Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2, etc.)?  It is most unfortunate that, Continuationist have become so convinced of their model and its arguments that they bypass what the text is explicitly stating at this juncture.

The Continuationists’ assessment of the Spirit speaking reminds me of the logic of Reformed Theology that argues for a tripartite view of the Law of Moses. For it says that the Law was divided into moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The stark impropriety of this division is readily apparent, for which command of God, the divine being, is not inherently moral? Similarly, since when did the Holy Spirit speak fallible words?

Moreover, is not Agabus’ implicit claim to be the mouthpiece of the Spirit exactly what characterized true prophets of the OT (Acts 4:25; 28:25)? If the Holy Spirit was directly, at that moment in time, speaking through Agabus, it would be inconceivable that Agabus would pollute the Spirit’s communication with fallibility. Nor can one imagine, if a passage of time passed, that Agabus’ powers of recall were so diminished that he botched a one-sentence prophecy.  It is equally inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would fail to aid Agabus in his powers of prophetic recall of that one sentence!

“Through the Holy Spirit”

Continuationists consider as very strong corroborating evidence that Acts 21:4 says that believers incorrectly prophesied by the Spirit that Paul should “not set foot in Jerusalem”. In fact, Paul himself said in Acts 20:22 that the Spirit had bound him and was taking him to Jerusalem to suffer.

The majority position of Cessationists is that, the Tyrean brothers were prophesying to Paul about the persecution awaiting him in Jerusalem, but that they, out of love for him, were pulling him away from the Lord’s will to go to Jerusalem by making an emotional appeal to him.

Even though I have in this article argued that we must not turn the record of events in Acts into a theological template, there is the equal danger of reading too much into a text. I do not agree with the majority Cessationist reading at this juncture. I think the standard Continuationist logic (not their actual theology) is irrefutable here: if the text is implying that the Tyreans were prophesying through the Spirit, then this is to be understood as prophecies whose content was telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem. There is no evidence in context that any of the Tyreans were prophesying that Paul would go to Jerusalem to suffer, and that they, afterward, emotionally rejected the import of their own prophecies.

Having said this, the Continuationist position does not fare any better. For one thing, instead of the partially fallible model of Grudem and co., we get the completely fallible, erroneous, and spurious model of OT fake prophets who lied. For if the Tyreans to a man were all prophesying in the Spirit that Paul will not go to Jerusalem, then that one prophecy, with its singular content, was completely wrong. Moreover, the Spirit lied! It will be said, perhaps, that they prophesied that he ‘ought not’ go to Jerusalem. Are there instances in the OT, or NT, of ‘ought not’ and ‘ought to’ prophecies by genuine prophets? Did the OT prophet act in the realm of the ‘possible’ and ‘perhaps’? Did the Holy Spirit put words in the OT prophets’ mouths that were merely suggestive?

There is no doubt that the Tyreans were speaking to Paul “through the Spirit”. But what did this entail? There is nothing said in context about prophecy. We do, contextually, have an instance of a prophetic utterance: that of Agabus. However, it is quite normal in Acts to go from a prophetic utterance to the mundane and non-prophetic.

It will be said in reply that the Greek phrase dia pneumatos (“through the Spirit”) in Acts 11:28 is a reference to Agabus’ prophecy, and so the same Greek phrase in Acts 21:4 must be prophetic.

However, phrases and words must be interpreted in context. It is readily apparent that dia pneumatos does not invariably indicate an act of prophesying (1 Cor.2:10; 12:8; Eph.3:16; 2 Tim.1:14; see Acts 1:2; Rom.5:5). It is used in a wider variety of contexts. Each time, the general idea of the blessing and work of the Spirit in and through Christians is indicated. Never is it suggested that the product of his work is weak and fallible. Nor is it even suggested that human agency slightly corrupts the quality of the Spirit’s work. When Paul encourages Timothy to, “through the Spirit” (2 Tim.1:14), defend the Gospel, he is not implying or remotely suggesting that the help of the Spirit will come in a slightly fallible form, or that Timothy will manage to taint this help with his own fallen nature. The whole point of Paul’s prayer that the Ephesians be strengthened “through the Spirit” is to make those who are weak as to the flesh rely on one who is Almighty! This prayer loses its necessary vitality if it implies that the Spirit’s final product/aid is corruptible and prone to partial failure.

I come back to Acts as a narrative, and how the book of Acts unfolds events and their meaning. It is not prophesying that the Tyreans are engaging in, for they are moved into an emotional appeal of love, most likely. Acts 21:12-14 relates a similar situation, without, however, the use of the phrase “through the Spirit”:

12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”

All of the Christians Paul encountered in Tyre most likely knew that he was duty bound to go to Jerusalem to suffer for Christ’s name, as most certainly did Luke and the brothers and sisters in Ptolemais. Yet, this did not deter them, as brothers and sisters in the Lord, appealing to Paul in the fellowship of the Spirit (2 Cor.13:14), out of the bonds of Christian love and compassion placed in their hearts by the Spirit, from calling out to Paul not to go. They loved him that much! To attribute this appeal of love to anything other than the Spirit’s operation is surely missing the point. Nor is this appeal fallible or prone to fallibility. It is fully appropriate in its Spiritual form. It is not different to the cry of the Christian who is persecuted but must endure, or to Jesus’ own prayers in Gethsemane. The Spirit urges Christians, aiding them, to cry out to the Lord (cf., Rom.8:15-16), yet the same Spirit is the one who conveys the will of the Lord to bear the cross of persecution.

Summing up

It is highly regrettable that in pursuit of the novel fiction of a fallible form of Spiritual prophecy that Continuationists impose a false criterion concerning prophecy upon Agabus the prophet. Wooden literalism and its fulfillment must be discarded and in their place put the same OT form of infallible prophecy, whose content is measured by its fulfillment and its mixture of literal, metaphorical, and symbolic. Agabus was a New Covenant prophet, not a retrograde prophet who could not even meet the prophetic standards of the OT prophet! In an age of the Spirit in which divine revelations were to abound, it is highly disturbing, to say the least, that to Continuationists, this flood of revelations is peppered with errors. That the Spirit’s OT-prophetic batting average was 1.001 is indisputable, but, for some reason, his batting average descends into around .250 in the NT era! Continuationists have gone too hastily to the text of Acts as if it were a theological textbook and blueprint. It is not. It is a record of the redemptive victory of the Spirit in history, who empowered the first-century saints to take an infallible Gospel, accompanied by infallible prophecies, to the ends of the earth.

[1] Angus Harley, “Deconstructing Agabus the Prophet”, All Things New Covenant, June 3, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/06/03/deconstructing-agabus-the-prophet-acts-1127-30/.

[2] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 79.