Artistic Rendering of the Prophet Agabus
Speak Fair, Bold Agabus
Breaking the Spell Apocalypticism
By NeoDromos
The gift of prophecy was undeniably present in the First Century church. This included prophecy in the general sense as an inspired message from God but also the subset of predictive prophecy. And there were prophets in the church. And the Apostle Paul paid high regard for those who were in this role (I Cor 12:28). But was there a defined scope for the exercise of the prophetic gift? I believe there was and will make the case in this article.
Condition One: Christ is the Culmination of Old Testament Prophecy (Matthew 5:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the …the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)
“For all the prophets …prophesied until John.” (Matthew 11:13)
These scriptures are largely invoked in reference to controversies about the law. I have removed references to the law in the above verses so that the topic of prophecy will stand out. In the first scripture, the capitalized term “Prophets” refers to those sections of the OT that contain prophecy not people who hold the office of prophet.
The prophecies of the Old Testament were not about modern nations and geopolitics. These prophecies, according to the cited scriptures above, were across the board about Jesus. It is difficult to grasp how a prophecy concerning Assyria attacking Israel could be about Jesus. But consider how if there were not an explanation in the New Testament of Jonah’s being in the belly of the Great Fish, we would not make the connection with Jesus. Luke wrote in 26:45, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures…” It is not the identity of certain nations that unlocks Bible prophecy, as some assert, it is Jesus himself.
There is no reason to assume that we have the depth of understanding of the scripture that Jesus gave as a special gift to his disciples. In verse 46, Luke wrote, “And he (Jesus) said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day…” If you feel that you are endowed with a special understanding of the Bible because of your association with a certain denomination, find where it states v. 46 in the Old Testament as a prophecy. The disciples of Jesus at that time were miraculously given this understanding. They understood the Bible at a level that we do not.
The point is, if Jesus said he was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy then he was and is. You cannot buttonhole him and talk Britain, the United States, Germany, and the Common Market nations. He was that fulfillment, just as he said, whether you understand it or not. Assyria conquered Israel and the event was controlled by Jesus and the object lesson is in Jesus and that ship has sailed. The upshot is that Old Testament prophecy is done. Every retrospective understanding of OT prophecy must now have meaning and relevance only in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Condition Two: Christ Forbids Prophecy Regarding the Parousia (Acts 1:7)
Q: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”
Jesus: “… It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”
Jesus forbade prophecy regarding Parousia. The surrogate language for the Parousia in the scripture above is the restoration of the kingdom. This means the limits of knowledge of the future Parousia extended in the First Century as far as they ever would. Subsequent generations could add nothing. And any attempt to predict the Parousia would be an encroachment on the power of God the Father to schedule the eschatological event. These words are from the mouth of Jesus. After all, Jesus himself gave the prophecy concerning the Parousia in Matthew 24. Why would it need future expansion? In his own prophetic statement, Jesus warns against false prophets in Matthew 24, saying, “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Combining the principles spoken by Jesus in Matthew 24 and Acts 1, the lesson is that any prophecy that Jesus did not directly make concerning the Parousia is a false prophecy.
Condition Three: The Agabus Precedent (Acts 11:27-28)
“And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: Which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.”
Agabus was a prophet who foretold the future. Later he foretold something disastrous that would happen to Paul. The Agabus Model of prophecy included only near-term prophecies that were of strategic importance to the church or to an individual. Agabus did not during his career as a prophet provide a revision of the prophecy concerning the Parousia as an independent opus. There are no documents to my knowledge that record any prophecies of Agabus other than the New Testament.
Agabus did not seek to modify or re-work the large-scale prophecies given by Jesus. He apparently understood Acts 1:7. Consider that Jesus did not return in the expected timeframe. The events of 70 AD came and went. Paul began to realize that the church had misunderstood the timing of the Parousia. It was a time of discouragement in the church. If there was ever a time when an update of prophecy concerning the Parousia would be critical to the church, it was that time. Yet, Paul did not ask Agabus for a new rendition of the prophecy concerning the Parousia after Jesus did not return. Nor did Paul not go to one of the recognized prophets in the church and ask to have the whole Parousia thing straightened out by the issuing of a new and updated prophecy. Jesus’ Matthew 24 prophecy is what it is, then and now.
Note: An interesting read is the part of Didache, circa First Century, that deals with prophets. It explains how legitimate prophets should be treated in the church. It also explains how to distinguish a false prophet from a real prophet. One criterion stated early: “… but if he (the prophet being evaluated) ask for money, he is a false prophet.” See The Didache, on Prophets
The Empirical Consequences – The Great Disappointment of 1844
I don’t know if one would class William Miller as a prophet. Some refer to him as a millenarian prophet. Maybe he was just an interpreter of Biblical prophecies. But he did innovate times and circumstances. Whatever his status, he was involved in predicting the Parousia and the start of the millennium. Some branches of modern Millerism are still apocalyptic, for instance, the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, the various Armstrongist denominations, and others.
Apocalypticism among Millerites seems to be focused on the prophecies concerning the Parousia in contravention to Acts 1:7. The classical outcome of this approach is found in the Great Disappointment of 1844 when Millerites expected the Parousia to happen and it dramatically did not. This has been a continuous theme in other apocalyptic Millerite groups. The events of history are instructive to those who would heed them. Jesus meant what he said in Acts 1:7. And we have the recorded history of the repeated empirical evidence.
Summarizing the Case
No doubt there are other conditions that constrain the gift of prophecy in the church. I have invoked only the three most obvious. But apparently in the fervor for the Parousia, even the obvious is overlooked. These are the three conditions:
1. Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and repurposing OT prophecy for application to modern times does not have Biblical support.
2. Jesus specifically closed the door on prophecy that supplemented what he had already said about the Parousia in response to questioning by his disciples.
3. The Agabus Model limits prophecy to prophesying events of pragmatic and strategic value in the near term. The Model nowhere supports the idea of re-working or reissuing the major prophecies of Jesus concerning the Eschaton.
The early church, which respected such prophets as Agabus, would have recoiled at the idea of using end-time prophecy, the engine of Apocalypticism, to engender fear as a technique for fund-raising. They would have especially looked askance at anyone trying to overlay or modify what Jesus already stated and sealed.
