The
Grudem/Storms Model and Acts 21.4
The
Grudem/Storms model has the following basic structure:
(1) God reveals something to a person.
(2) In the reception of the revelation there
is the possibility of problems entering into the process.
a. A faulty interpretation of the revelation
may happen.
b. There may be additions to the revelation
that are added by the receiver.
(3) In the communication moment what is
communicated is a mixture of the revelation (given by God) and possible
misinterpretations or additions generated by the receiver.
Sam Storms
articulates important distinctions in this regard:
The
key is in recognizing that with every prophecy there are four elements, only
one of which is assuredly of God: There is the revelation itself; there is the perception
or reception of that revelation by
the believer; there is the interpretation
of what has been disclosed or the attempt to ascertain its meaning; and there
is the application of that
interpretation. God is alone
responsible for the revelation.
Whatever he discloses to the human mind is altogether free from error. It is as infallible as he is. It contains no falsehoods; it is wholly
true in all its parts. Indeed, the
revelation, which is the root of every genuine prophetic utterance, is as
inerrant and infallible as the written Word of God itself (the Bible). In terms of the revelation alone, the New Testament prophetic gift does not differ
from the Old Testament prophetic gift.
Error
enters in when the human recipient of a revelation misperceives, misinterprets
and/or misapplies what God has
disclosed. The fact that God has spoken perfectly does not mean that
human beings have heard
perfectly. They may interpret and apply, without error,
what God has revealed. But the
mere existence of a divine revelation does not in itself guarantee that the
interpretation or application of God’s revealed truth will share in its perfection.
Is
there any Scriptural evidence for such a model? Wayne Grudem argues in this way about Acts 21.4:
In
this passage Paul is nearing the end of his third missionary journey, and he is
drawing near to Jerusalem. His
ship lands at the port city of Tyre (in Syria, on the coast, somewhat northwest
of Galilee). Paul and his
companions had to wait there for several days while the ship unloaded its
cargo, so they sought out the Christians there.
And
having sought out the disciples, we stayed there for seven days. Through the Spirit they told Paul not
to go on to Jerusalem. And when
our days there were ended, we departed and went on our journey (Acts 21:4-5,
RSV).
This
verse does not mention prophecy directly, but the parallel with Acts 11:28,
where human speech activity ‘through the Spirit’ is explicitly attributed to
the prophet Agabus, suggests that these disciples were in fact
prophesying. (In contrast to Acts
13:2, human spokesmen are here explicitly credited with the warning.)
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.
On
the other hand, if the disciples at Tyre had a gift of prophecy which was
similar to what we found at Corinth and at Ephesus, and perhaps also at Antioch
(see above), then Paul’s disobedience to the prophecy would be entirely
understandable.
In
fact, we can surmise something of how such a prophecy would come about. Suppose that some of the Christians at
Tyre had had some kind of ‘revelation’ or indication from God about the
sufferings which Paul would face at Jerusalem. Then it would have been very natural for them to couple
their subsequent prophecy (their report of this revelation) with their own
(erroneous) interpretation, and thus to warn Paul not to go.
Grudem adds
these thoughts in a later essay defending his view:
[T]he expression “through the Spirit” (in Greek, dia tou pneumatos) modifies the verb
“they were telling” in the Greek text (it modifies the imperfect verb, elegon). That is why the verse is
translated, “And through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem”
(italics added). So here is speech given “through the Spirit” that Paul
disobeys! This fits well with a view of prophecy that includes revelation given
by the Holy Spirit and an interpretation and report of that revelation that is
given in merely human words, words that the Holy Spirit does not superintend or
claim as his own, words that can have a mixture of truth and error in them. This
is why the prophecies have to be tested, and this is why Paul feels free to
disobey in this case.
What
is important to realize is that there are a number of cessationists who argue
in a very similar manner in regards to Acts 21.4. They may not call this “prophecy” but they, nonetheless,
recognize the dynamic of a revelatory word being added to by human
interpretations. Consider the
following cessationist treatments of Acts 21.4. Richard Gaffin recognizes a conceptual distinction between
the revelation given by God and the human response that is merged in the
“speech-act”:
Again,
Luke’s point is not the impaired validity and unreliability of their speech, in
which nevertheless the Spirit is somehow instrumental, but their recoil against
what the Spirit had revealed to them of Paul’s future. That revelation and their response to
it must not be confused or merged in their speech-act.
In response to
Gaffin’s statement Wayne Grudem states:
Here
Dr Gaffin seems to understand the event in a way similar to what I expressed
above. 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’. But if the concept be admitted even if it is called
not ‘prophecy’ but ‘an unreliable human speech-act in response to a revelation
from the Holy Spirit’, there does not seem to be much difference in our
understanding at this point. Nor
does there seem to be strong reason for saying such an ‘unreliable human
response to revelation from the Holy Spirit’ could not happen today.
In
a treatment specifically targeting Grudem’s work O. Palmer Robertson writes the
following in regards to Acts 21.4:
The
strongest case for a different kind of prophecy in the new covenant community
may be derived from the prophecies related to Paul’s going up to
Jerusalem. In its baldest form,
Acts 21:4 indicates that ‘through the Spirit’ the disciples at Tyre urged Paul
not to go on to Jerusalem. Yet
earlier Paul reported to the saints in Ephesus that he was ‘compelled by the
Spirit’ to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22).
On the surface of things, it appears that the report of an apostle
regarding the work of the Spirit is flatly contradicted by the urging through
Spirit that comes through the disciples.
This way of putting things captures the issue quite well. Is it to be concluded that the true
nature of new covenant prophecy now has become clear? Is it that through one and the same Holy Spirit messages are
to be delivered to God’s people for their direction that flatly contradict one
another?
Several
noteworthy commentators of various theological persuasions have no problem
resolving the apparent discrepancy.
Neither Johannes Munck nor F. F. Bruce nor J. A. Alexander nor John
Calvin suggests that the Spirit has contradicted himself, or that New Testament
prophecy hereby is proven to be a mixture of good and bad, of truth and
error. Each in his own way
concludes that the Spirit revealed to these disciples the sufferings Paul would
undergo at Jerusalem. To this
perfected revelation the concerned disciples appended their own conclusion:
that Paul should not proceed to Jerusalem. It was not that the Spirit or prophecy erred at this
point. Instead, it was simply that
the disciples’ concern for the well-being of their mentor limited their
apprehension of the good that might come from Paul’s suffering.
Notice
that Robertson acknowledges the disciples “appended their own conclusion” and
that their prior beliefs “limited their apprehension.” Dr. Grudem responds to Robertson in
this way:
Dr.
Robertson, by way of response, refers to four commentators on Acts who all
concluded that the Holy Spirit had revealed to these disciples “the sufferings
Paul would undergo at Jerusalem” and then to this matter that the Holy Spirit
had revealed, “the concerned disciples appended their own conclusion: that Paul
should not proceed to Jerusalem” (p. 111; he refers to commentaries by Munck,
Bruce, Alexander, and Calvin). It is interesting that this is exactly what I
think happened as well, though Dr. Robertson does not indicate this to the
readers (see GiftNTT, 93-95=GiftNTT2000, 75-77).
In
addition, Dr. Robertson says that none of these commentators suggests, “that
the Spirit has contradicted himself” (p. 111). The problem with this objection
is that I do not suggest that the Spirit has contradicted himself either, but
Dr. Robertson does not indicate that to his readers. More precisely, I think
that the interpretation given by some
of these prophets contradicted the true message of the Holy Spirit that
Paul had earlier received, and that he was following as he went up to
Jerusalem.
The
difficulty with the entire passage, and one which Dr. Robertson nowhere
mentions or deals with, is the fact that the expression “through the Spirit”
(in Greek, dia tou pneumatos)
modifies the verb “they were telling” in the Greek text (it modifies the
imperfect verb, elegon). That
is why the verse is translated, “And through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem”
(italics added). So here is speech given “through the Spirit” that Paul
disobeys! This fits well with a view of prophecy that includes revelation given
by the Holy Spirit and an interpretation and report of that revelation that is
given in merely human words, words that the Holy Spirit does not superintend or
claim as his own, words that can have a mixture of truth and error in them.
This is why the prophecies have to be tested, and this is why Paul feels free
to disobey in this case.
An interesting
historical note is that George Gillespie makes a similar point with respect to Acts 21.4. Gillespie was a theologian at the Westminster
convention that produced the famous Westminster Confession of Faith. He is also
suspected of being behind some of the specific wording of Chapter One (“Of the
Holy Scripture”). Gillespie wrote the following in A Treatise of Miscellany Questions:
Although such as had the gift
of prophecy did not, nor could not err, so far as they were inspired by the
Holy Ghost, in prophesying, much less in writing Scripture, yet they might
have, and some had, their own mistakes and errors in particular cases…Another
instance in those prophesying disciples, Acts xxi.4, ‘Who said to Paul, through
the Spirit, that he should not go to Jerusalem.’ Their foretelling and
foreknowing of Paul’s danger at Jerusalem was from the Spirit of prophecy; but
the consequence they did draw from hence, that therefore Paul should not go up
to Jerusalem. This interpreters conceive was only from their own spirits,
though they misfathered it upon the Spirit of God.
He goes on to quote the English Annotations upon 1 Cor. 14.31 as saying:
There might be also something
mingled with that which the prophets received, and it might fall out that that
which they added of their own, by way of confirmation, illustration, or
application, might be justly subject to censure, wherefore it must be tried and
judged by others, whether the prophecies proceed from the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, and according to the rule of faith.’ Isa. viii.20.
Although this
discussion has focused only on one passage there is, nevertheless, an important
congruence of thought among cessationists and continuationists as to their
understandings of Acts 21.4. Both
groups seem willing to affirm the same reality. The dividing issue seems to be what linguistic token to use
when describing this reality.
Continuationists have no problem calling this reality “prophecy” whereas
cessationists are very hesitant to use this word to describe the issue.
