Author Archives: asphaleia

Reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated: a humble response to Dean Gonzales

Posted on September 23, 2010 | 7 comments

by Marv

What I liked best about The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues,  a blog series posted last year by Dr. Robert R. Gonzales, Jr., Dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary is the refreshing way that it takes the “humble” part seriously.  Dean Gonzales comports himself as a gentleman throughout, without the faintest whiff of ad hominem.  He also approaches the subject as a scholar, concentrating his argument on how best to understand the relevant scriptural texts.  In this he takes on Wayne Grudem’s position on prophecy, as laid out in The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. The fact that he chooses a worthy interlocutor such as Dr. Grudem is commendable.  As a whole Dean Gonzales takes an approach that ought to be widely emulated.

He is also clear.  He lays out his main thesis in a form of a syllogism, and backs it up with scriptural citation and logical discussion.  The syllogism reads as follows:

Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion: Therefore, tongues and prophecy have ceased.

Appreciative as I am of his approach, I am not, however, convinced by his argument.  It is a variation of a fairly conventional one, tying the term of charismata to that of the Canon.  In fact I have to object to his references to “scriptural-quality revelation.”  The Bible ascribes, I think, unique attributes to itself.  There is no other revelation, never has been, of equal “quality” to that of Scripture.

This is why the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, to which both Dean Gonzales and Reformed Baptist Seminary ascribe states that:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”

In multiple places Dean Gonzales makes reference to oral prophecy in the early New Testament church as “canonical.”  If this is so, I cannot see how to avoid the conclusion that not only the Holy Scripture, but also every genuine prophecy ever uttered would constitute the Canon.  The Confession, at least, would seem to limit canonicity to those prophecies that the Holy Spirit saw fit to inscripturate.

Similarly, the Bible warrants application of the term inspiration to the Scriptures, the written product of the Holy Spirit’s work.  Whether we are justified in using “inspired” for other manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7) is not readily obvious, to me at least, and his doing so tends to give Dr. Gonzales’ argument a certain circularity, assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, to the Confession, the Bible is the only “infallible” rule.  Contrary to the dean’s assertion or assumption and (perhaps) even Dr. Grudem’s understanding, even Old Testament oral prophecy was not “infallible” in the way that the Scriptures are.

If OT era prophecy were infallible, how could there be false prophecies?  I find it odd that verses such as Deut. 18:22 are often cited to suggest that OT era oral prophecy was inerrant or infallible, when it demonstrates precisely the opposite:

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

We are never similarly warned to watch out for “false Scriptures.”  In both the OT and the NT era, “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).  The Word of the Lord came to the prophet (Gen. 15:1, 1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Sam. 7:4).  In this last reference, Nathan received the Word of the Lord precisely because Nathan the prophet had spoken presumptuously to David earlier in the day (2 Sam. 7:3).  There is no great intertestamental shift involved that would allow for similarly presumptuous utterances in the NT era, such as the instructions to Paul not to go to Jerusalem, which he sees fit to ignore (Acts 21:4).

The OT prophet was responsible to report the Word of the Lord accurately, though he could fail to do so.  The Scriptures, on the other hand, by being theopneustos are guaranteed—certified to be the Word of the Lord.  They are thus of a quality above and beyond that of oral prophecy, in any era.  This is why Peter specifies “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20, emphasis mine).  The distinction of two levels of prophecy: “Scripture-quality” and otherwise, does not originate with Dr. Grudem, but is apostolic.

Now, one specific line of argument calls for special mention.  In his part seven he makes a point about the word “mystery” (μυστήριον), which at first blush gives an impression of decisiveness and may in fact be persuasive to many people.  Yet I’m afraid it does not hold up to scrutiny.

As he makes the point succinctly, I will simply quote him:

What I really want to call your attention to is the fact that according to 13:2 and 14:2 both prophecy and tongues reveal “mysteries.” The term “mysteries” is not referring to garbled nonsense. That term translates the same Greek word that Paul used in Ephesians 3 to speak of the canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets. And according to these passages in 1 Corinthians, these “mysteries” are “known” through the gift of prophecy (13:2) and they are “spoken” through the gift of tongues (14:2).

This argument fails in at least three ways:

1.  In bringing in Ephesians 3:3-9, Dean Gonzales commits a neat little fallacy known as “illegitimate totality transfer.”  The red flag that should tip us off to this is his phrase “the same Greek word that Paul used…to speak of…”  This is meant to imply that the Eph. 3 passage provides us the definition of the term μυστήριον, that is, that it refers to “canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets.”  But this semantic information is not carried by the single noun μυστήριον, but by an entire descriptive clause: “which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (v. 4).  This is not even a description of what a “mystery” in general is but specifically what Paul there calls “the mystery of Christ.”

The word “mystery” (μυστήριον) essentially denotes a “secret.”  The term was well known in the Greco-Roman world due to the plethora of “mystery religions” in which as part of the initiation, certain items of secret knowledge were imparted to the novice.  The practice has survived to this day in the arcana of societies such as the Freemasons, who possess a convoluted mythology which members are forbidden to reveal to outsiders.

Dean Gonzales simply overloads the word with extraneous meaning, as if he had reached into Eph. 3 with sticky fingers and pulled away half the context along with the noun.  Looking elsewhere, we come away with a more Ockham-friendly understanding that what μυστήριον conveys is the concept “secret” or something unknown or whose meaning is not easy to discern.

“As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (Rev. 1:20)

“But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.” (Rev. 17:7)

In these two cases the “mystery” is the secret to what the visionary imagery symbolizes.  John saw some strange things, knew they meant something, but did not know what they meant, needed to have someone decipher them.

2.  This is what is happening in 1 Cor. 14:2.  Paul is pointing out that a message given in a tongue sounds strange to the hearers, who know it means something, but do not know what it means, and cannot know unless there is someone who can decipher them.

Paul gives us no excuse for not understanding this, because he restates his point multiple times. Verse 2 alone makes Paul’s meaning clear: the problem with one giving a message in tongues in the church assembly, the problem is “no one understands him.” Then he restates his point: “but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”

Dean Gonzales states that by “mystery” Paul is “not referring to garbled nonsense,” but the issue is not nonsense versus meaningfulness, but meaning that is hidden versus meaning that is known. That by “mystery” here Paul means a message with hidden meaning (due to being in a foreign language) is evident from the many ways he says it:

“…speaks not to men but to God” (2)

“no one understands” (2)

“speech that is not intelligible” (9)

“speaking into the air” (9)

“I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.” (11)

“when he does not know what you are saying?” (16)

In short, the meaning of the word “mystery” in 1 Cor. 14:2 is made so abundantly clear within the context of the chapter itself, that giving preference to examples in remote context, theologically rich though they be, does not make exegetical sense.

3.  In 1 Cor. 13:2, Paul is talking about prophecy, not tongues, and so the concept of unintelligibility is not the issue.  Indeed, here he is making reference to “secrets” in the sense of deep, hidden, unrevealed knowledge.  This is clear because of his parallel of “all mysteries” and “all knowledge”:

“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge…”

But does this verse justify Dean Gonzales assertion that “Paul portrays NT prophecy as a revelatory gift by which the one who possess the gift comes to understand ‘all mysteries’”?  That Dean Gonzales would make such a claim is rather surprising in view of the fact that he knows perfectly well that in verses 13:1-3 Paul is engaging in hyperbole.  He argues as much within this very discussion: “Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” may simply be a form of hyperbole.”  Indeed, it is clearly hyperbole to suggest that any mortal human being would “understand all mysteries and all knowledge.”  This is a hypothetical gift of prophecy taken to the nth degree, not any reasonable expectation of what a given prophecy from a given church member would entail on a given Sunday.

Dean Gonzales then is very seriously overstating the nature of oral prophecy in the New Testament church.  It may well be opening up secrets of a sort.  Paul says as much in 1 Cor. 14:24-25:

“But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

But these secrets are not theological or doctrinal truths, hidden in the recesses of God’s eternal plan, things which, once revealed, find their place in God’s Canon, as a “prophecy of Scripture,” alongside the writings of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and John.  They are individual details of a particular person’s life, revealed to that person, through the Holy Spirit for “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Cor. 14:3) or else to convict regarding “concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8).

This is what Jesus does in John 4:17 when he says to the Samaritan woman:

“You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

To which she replies:

“Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.”

Jesus’ words to her, while perfectly true, and divinely authoritative, were for her specifically, not for the Canon, even though a few of the details occur as recorded speech within a canonical gospel.  Jesus told her more, things which are not reported by John, since the woman says Jesus “told me all that I ever did.”  They are important for her, but not “canonical” for the people of God.

On another occasion when Jesus gave a prophecy, he revealed future secrets of Peter’s life, but when asked about John’s life, Jesus said “what is that to you?”

Yet these are acts by which Jesus, prophesying through the Holy Spirit, spoke faith-enhancing words to individuals, none of which constituted temporary stand-ins for Scripture, the Canon being as yet incomplete.  Even these were not in the same class as Scripture, not “canonical.”

This brings us to the main problem with Dean Gonzales’ conclusion that prophecy ceased as the Canon closed: it contradicts the express teaching of Jesus.  Jesus prophesied, and intending that His church also would prophesy, He sent the Holy Spirit:

“Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:11-12)

“Whoever believes in” Jesus, is considerably broader than just those living prior to the close of the Canon.  Indeed, it has nothing to do with the Canon.

And Jesus did just as He said, pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, with the promise:

I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18)

The difference between OT era and NT era is not thus “canonical” versus “non-canonical”: there has always been this distinction.  It is not “infallible” versus “fallable,” since a prophet could always (though should never) speak presumptuously.  The significant difference, post Pentecost, is what we may call the “democratization” of prophecy.  In pouring the Spirit on “all flesh” so that even the most humble believer may prophesy, prophecy is no longer tied to the theocratic functioning of the nation of Israel.  While the prophet still has responsibility to speak the revelation accurately, there is, in the church, no death penalty for failure to do so.  In fact we are explicitly told “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1).  Our instruction is to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

“Good,” the apostle calls it, to which we may “hold fast.” This is not something to be rejected, but among the good works which we are told to stir up (Heb. 10:24) not to douse (1 Thes. 5:19).

That is the importance of Cessationist arguments such as Dean Gonzales’, to which, I respond, I hope, with equal respect and gentleness, yet with conviction that it does not teach what the Lord and the apostles in fact taught regarding prophecy and tongues.  To teach that prophecy and tongues have ceased in the Body of Christ, if in fact they have not ceased, is to discourage our brothers and sisters from the good that Our Lord has intended them to do.  Therefore, any argument that they have ceased had better be significantly more decisive than the one we have been examining.

7 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, Acts 2, body of Christ, cessationism, church, continuationism, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, Holy Spirit, Jesus the prophet, John 13-17, Old Testament, Personal, prophecy, prophet, revelation, tongues

Whence Tongues?

Posted on July 25, 2010 | 6 comments

By Marv

The vital and dynamic interconnection we believers share with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit (since Pentecost) is patterned after that between the Father and the incarnate Son through the Holy Spirit (John 14:11,20). This is by divine design. The works we are empowered to do through this union, from loving our brothers and sisters to effectual prayer—and including “spiritual gifts” are likewise the same works as the Father did through the Son (John 14:12), now distributed through the Body (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

Is there not one exception? The gift of tongues evidently appears only after Jesus’ ascension, at the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. Though we cannot say with certainty that Jesus never spoke in tongues, the textual evidence appears to suggest that tongues is new with the pouring out of the Spirit. This difference between Jesus’ ministry and the church’s ministry correlates with another difference. Jesus was “sent only to the lost sheep of the tribe of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). The Church is sent to “all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

Now Christ’s overall ministry has always been for the nations as well as to the Nation of Israel.

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (Is. 49:6)

There are foreshadowings of this ultimate purpose in the gospels. Jesus said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32) on the occasion of Greeks coming to see Him (vv. 20-21). Yet this phase of ministry does not engage in earnest until the baton is passed, as it were, to the Church as Christ’s Body, after Christ’s bodily departure from the earth.

That the form of this added charisma, tongues, should correspond so clearly to the expansion of Christ’s mission from the Nation to the nations is more than suggestive that in itself it carries a meaning. It is called a “sign” after all; it signifies something. That the impartation of human languages evokes the confusion of tongues at Babel is also hard to miss. I think this is perfectly deliberate, and I want to explain how I think this works.

If we compare Babel with Pentecost as to their relative places in the outworking of God’s plan of redemption, we find each one at a corresponding and in some ways inverse pivot point. The first eleven chapters of Genesis, far from being a mere string of Hebrew folktales, threaded like so many beads at the beginning of the Torah, lay the groundwork for the rest of the Bible. These chapters communicate two major elements, without which nothing in the remainder of the Scriptures would make much sense. The first is the introduction of the problem, sin, human rebellion to the Creator. The second is the first steps undertaken by the Creator to effect redemption.

We see in Genesis 1 God’s method of creating by dividing. The Babel account is not so much a “curse” as a hindrance to man’s collective ability, in order to restrain his descent into utter ungodliness. It is redemptive, or an element in the redemptive plan. It is a divide and conquer plan. By confusing the languages of men, He creates nations. Once He has divided mankind into nations, He proceeds to create a Nation for Himself. That Nation, in turn, will one day serve to bring redemption to the nations.

Beginning with the call of Abraham (Gen. 12) God builds a people, and with the exodus and the giving of the Law, He constitutes them a nation, His Nation. This is all ultimately for the nations (Gen. 18:18), but for a period of time the nations—the Gentiles—are segregated from the Nation by the Law. Understand that our word “Gentiles” is simply a rendering of the Hebrew word for “nations” (goyim).

It hardly needs pointing out that a major ongoing theme throughout the Old Testament is the separation of Israel from the Gentiles. This theme of separation begins with Abraham, just after the account of Babel and continues on through the Gospels up to the inauguration of the Church’s mission to the “all nations.” Then there is a shift, a radical change in orientation.

I picture this as a 90 degree shift. If the various nations are likened to parallel lines, such as in the grain of wood, then OT Israel operated on a national orientation, along the grain. The Church, by contrast, is like a line cutting across the grain, in trans-national orientation, “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev. 7:9).

The book of Acts narrates the beginnings of this shift in orientation. It is one of the main themes of the book, which begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. In chapter one Jesus sets the tone: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (v. 8). In chapter two, they do receive power, just as Jesus said they would, and they proceed, in fits and starts to fulfill Christ’s mandate to be a “light to the nations.”

It can be no mere coincidence that the moment of this shift is signaled by a phenomenon that features the praises of God being voiced in that languages of the nations (Acts 2:5-6). Babel produced the inability to speak in one tongue, Pentecost produced the ability to speak in many tongues. Babel was the starting point of the national orientation, in which God would plant His Nation. Pentecost was the end point of that orientation, and signaled the transition to a trans-national orientation, in which Israel was one nation among many (Eph. 2:11-17).

This phenomenon of Spirit-empowered utterance was new, in that it appeared in trans-linguistic form, but Spirit-empowered utterance was nothing new, as a perceptible evidence of the Spirit coming on a person for service had been seen in the past:

When he [Saul] turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day. When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. (1 Sam 10:9-10)

Were the disciples at Pentecost also among the prophets? Peter stood up on that day and directly declared this to be so (Acts 2:17-18). Though the phenomenon was “tongues” on this occasion, it was a manifestation of the prophetic promise of the New Covenant. Some two decades later (in Paul’s first letter to Corinth), we see that it was not a one-shot phenomenon, but remained and became part of the regular practice of the church (1 Cor. 14:26), attested to by Paul’s own use (v. 18), though it was not without controversy, apparently (v. 39).

Tongues functions in some sense as a “sign,” to unbelievers, Paul states (1 Cor. 14:22). I don’t think it is quite justified to specify as some do, to unbelieving Jews, but as we have seen, the form itself of the gift is a a declaration that the Spirit has been given also to the Gentiles (Acts 10:45-46), and would thus serve as part of what provokes Israel to jealousy (Rom. 11:11).

To say it is a “sign” is not to invoke the whole “temporary “sign-gift” construct. The sign-ness of tongues does not appear to express the totality of its usefulness. With it God is praised, with it the Church may be built up. We do not have much Scriptural narrative demonstrating an evangelistic use, but it would be surprising if this were not in the picture, and contemporary anecdotal evidence suggests it is. It is not just “an attestation to the validity of new revelation” or some such concept. At any rate, is a “sign for unbelievers” likely to be without use, as long as there are plenty of unbelievers to go around?

6 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, Acts, Acts 2, body of Christ, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, Holy Spirit, John 13-17, Power, sign gifts, tongues

The Muddled Middle: παύσονται in 1 Cor. 13:8

Posted on July 19, 2010 | 4 comments

By Marv

Certain grammatical features of 1 Corinthians 13:8 are the focus of a particular spurious argument sometimes made by Cessationists.  I want to explain the matter.

I will begin with two English sentences with different uses of the verb stop.

a.  Bob stopped the car at the light.

b.  The rain stopped.

The difference between the two is that (a) is transitive, while (b) is intransitive.  Note that in this particular case the verb is not marked for the difference in transitivity.  The usage is simply understood from context.  This is a particularity of stop and some other verbs in English.  A synonym of the (b) sense is cease, which can only be intransitive.  We do not say *“Bob ceased the car at the light.”

Other European languages make the same transitive/intransitive distinction in a different way, marking the verb to make the distinction explicit.  For example, for this same contrast French  uses a pronominal verb to indicate the intransitive form.  This is what is sometimes called a “reflexive verb,” but true reflexivity (for example se tuer “to kill oneself”) is only one of the form’s multiple uses.  So French grammarians prefer “pronominal,” since the form is made by attaching a (reflexive) pronoun.

Sentences equivalent to (a) and (b) in French would read:

(c)  Bob arrêta la voiture au feu.

(d)  La pluie s’arrêta.

Example (d) might appear to non-speakers to mean “the rain stopped itself,” but this would be q misunderstanding.  It is not auto-transitive, but merely intransitive.  In other words, there is no assignment of causality to the subject.  An animate subject might be understood as being the cause of its own “ceasing,” but this is due to its being the cause of the activity or motion in the first place.  An inanimate subject that is not considered self-activating does not become the cause of its own ceasing simply because of the pronominal or “reflexive” form.

The pronominal form in French has a range of uses, but for the verb arrêter, it serves as an intransitivizer.

Another European language, Ancient Greek, had a system equivalent to the Greek pronominal verb system.  It is known as the middle voice.  Like the French pronominal verb it may sometimes express true reflexivity, but it has a range of uses very similar to those of the French pronominal verb.  One of those is to serve as an intransitivizer.  Thus the verb παύω (pauō) in the active means “I stop,” in the transitive sense.  In the middle form, παύομαι (pauomai), means “stop” in the intransitive sense, or “cease.”

And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased (ἐπαύσαντο, epausanto), and there was a calm. (Luke 8:24)

This was the set usage of παύομαι even in Classical Greek.  Smyth (Greek Grammar) says of the middle voice in general “It will be noted that the active is often transitive, the middle intransitive.” (§1734); and of this particular verb: “παύειν make to cease, stop (trans.);  παύεσθαι  cease (intr.)” (§1734.14).

In 1 Corinthians 13:8 we have the same usage:

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease (παύσονται, pausontai); as for knowledge, it will pass away.

It is a matter, very simply, of intransitivity.  It is precisely the appropriate voice form for this verb.  However, the nature of middle voices is often poorly understood.  The usual blanket description holds that the verb “in some way acts upon itself.”  However, this is really next to useless, because this wording merely seeks to find some common ground for the disparate uses of the middle voice. 

The spurious Cessationist argument I referred to above employs one of two errors:

(1) Overstating the force of the grammatical function of grammatical form, for example trying to make it auto-transitive (“The rain stopped itself”) rather than simply intransitive (“The rain stopped.”)

(2) What we might call “double dipping,” where once the grammatical form has done its duty, we call it up again to render a second service.

For example the argument holds that in 1 Cor. 13:8 tongues are said not only to cease (at some future point) but to do so “by themselves.”  The middle voice is made to have two functions: (i) changing the active to passive, and (ii) adding the adverbial sense “by themselves.” 

The point of this is to argue that the text gives the gift of tongues a time-limited status.  So whatever it may be saying about knowledge and prophecy in regard to the coming of “the perfect,” tongues are a different case.  They just stop on their own. 

We find this argument referenced, of all places, in Dr. Daniel Wallace’s  Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.  It is true that it is listed under “Debatable Examples.”  However, Dr. Wallace is quite justifiably seen as a world expert in the Greek language.  Also, according to Monergism.com as well as Wikipedia, Dr. Wallace is one of the three best-known classical Cessationists (with Richard Gaffin and John MacArthur).  So even if classified as “debatable,” the argument has heft based on his name.

Now, at the end of Dr. Wallace’s discussion on the matter, he does state clearly that the basic function of the middle voice in παύσονται is to make it instransitive (423).  Yet this is only after he has introduced the matter as follows:

If the voice of the verb is significant, then Paul is saying either that tongues will cut themselves off (direct middle) or, more likely, cease of their own accord, i.e., “die out” without an intervening agent (indirect middle). (p. 422)

Dr. Wallace, then, is offering a choice between error (1) and error (2).  Both distort the actual “significance” of the middle voice, which in this case is no more or less than marking intransitivity. There is in fact no implication at all present in the grammatical voice as to any element of self-causation or limited duration.

The matter is actually less complicated than Dr. Wallace’s discussion makes it appear.  One misleading direction it takes is consideration over whether the middle voice here is “deponent” (it is not), or whether Classical usage is still present in the Koine.  Thus Dr. Wallace states in a general discussion about the middle voice:

One’s view of the nature of NT Greek has strong implications for this use of the middle voice. If one thinks that NT Greek has abandoned the rules of classical Greek, then h/she would not put much emphasis on the force of the middle voice in a given passage…

However, if one thinks that the NT Greek has, for the most part, retained the rules of classical Greek, then he/she will see more significance in the use of the middle voice. (p. 420)

We have already seen, however, in the citation from Smyth above, that the intransitive-marking function of the middle, particularly with παύω, was the well-established rule for the middle voice. 

To show how this argument has escaped the bounds of Dr. Wallace’s “Debatable Examples,” here re some much less restrained statements from another of the “three best-known classical Cessationists,” John MacArthur:

The verb that says tongues will cease (pauo) is in the middle voice. Let me show you the differences in the active, passive, and middle voices. In the active voice we would say, “I hit the ball.” In the passive voice we would say, “The ball hit me.” And in the middle voice (if English had a middle voice) we would say, “I hit myself.” In other words, the Greek middle voice is reflexive, indicating that the subject is acting upon itself. The middle voice also indicates intense action on the part of the subject. Literally, then, verse 8 says, “Tongues will stop by themselves.” That’s the meaning that the middle voice gives to the verb pauo. (“Speaking in Tongues”)

Here Dr. MacArthur does not even characterize the passive voice correctly (it would be “I was hit by the ball” not “the ball hit me.”) His description of the middle voice, however, is completely wrong.  This is clearly a matter of inferences drawn from a grammar’s general description of the middle voice.  His reference to “intense action on the part of the subject” is a dead give-away here.  Apparently, as learned an exegete as he is, he simply does not understand the middle voice in Greek.

Elsewhere he states:

It should be noted that 1 Corinthians 13:8 itself does not say when tongues were to cease. Although I Corinthians 13:9-10 teaches that prophecy and knowledge will cease when the “perfect” (i.e., the eternal state) comes, the language of the passage – particularly the middle voice of the Greek verb translated “will cease”- puts tongues in a category apart from these gifts. Paul writes that while prophecy and knowledge will be “done away” (passive voice) by “the perfect,” the gift of tongues “will cease” in and of itself (middle voice) prior to the time that “the perfect” arrives. When did this cessation of tongues take place? The evidence of Scripture and history indicate that tongues ceased in the apostolic age. ( “The Gift of Tongues”)

Here he is taking the implication far beyond what the text actually says, not only that tongues would cease “in and of themselves,” but “prior to the time that ‘the perfect’ arrives.”  This statement is completely unwarranted.

He even includes this fallacious argument in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:

Cease is from pauo, which means “to stop, to come to an end.” Unlike katargeo, this verb is here used in the Greek middle voice, which, when used of persons, indicates intentional, voluntary action upon oneself. Used of inanimate objects, it indicates reflexive, self-causing action. The cause comes from within; it is built it. God gave the gift of tongues a built-in stopping place. “That gift will stop by itself,” Paul says. Like a battery, it had a limited energy supply and a limited lifespan. When its limits were reached, its activity automatically ended. Prophecy and knowledge will be stopped by something outside themselves, but the gift of tongues will stop by itself. This distinction in terms in unarguable.  (I Corinthians. p. 359.)

Again, this statement is based on a very faulty understanding of the function of the middle voice.  There is nothing in it about a “built in” cause.  This is absurd merely on the intuitive level, that every time a Greek speaker says “The rain stopped” using the middle form παύομαι that he is making a statement about its “limited lifespan” or a “built-in stopping place.” This is nonsense, human language just doesn’t work this way.

There is a secondary matter that requires comment.  This “distinction in terms” that Dr. MacArthur refers to is a related part of this spurious Cessationist argument.  It is an interesting question, however:  Why in the ēcases of knowledge and prophecy does Paul employ the verb καταργέω (katargeō), but with tongues he “switches to” παύσονται?  Is he not drawing a distinction here, as MacArthur asserts is “unarguable”?

No, actually, he is not.  Sometimes the answer is given “stylistic variation,” but there is a bit more to it that this.  It is a matter of collocation.

Collocation has to do with the appropriateness of words to occur together even if they are grammatically able to do so.  It is what is wrong with Noam Chomsky’s example of linguistic nonsense: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”  The sentence is perfectly grammatical, but the sense of the words causes a “collocational clash.”

So in 1 Cor. 13, Paul generally wishes to make a point about the future obsolescence of the partial in the presence of the complete (more here), and his general statement is in v. 10: “but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away (καταργηθήσεται, katargēsētai).” 

Now this verb works well enough with “prophecies” and “knowledge,” but “tongues” is a different class of noun.  These are all shorthand designations for particular spiritual gifts.  “Prophecy” and “knowledge” refer to cognitive and communication acts in the first instance and the particular informational content as a result, in the second.  This information, being partial, becomes obsolete in the face of full knowledge and fulfilled prophecy.  Thus the verb καταργηθήσεται, translated here “will pass away” (ESV), is semantically appropriate, and there is no collocational clash.

“Tongues,” however, γλῶσσαι (glōssai) in Greek, is a different category of noun.  It does not refer to so much to the informational content of the activity, but to the activity itself.  The interpretation of a “tongue” may function in a way similar to prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5), but the word itself is more a designation of the activity than the result of the activity.   In the first instance the noun refers to the literal organ of speech and taste, the tongue.  In a second major sense, it means “language.”  The concept of speaking “in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4) was a specialized meaning within the Christian community. 

As such an activity does not so much “pass away” as discontinue, cease.  So evidently the verb καταργηθήσεται  presented collocational difficulty (like “sleeping furiously”), and so Paul used the more appropriate idea of “cease.” 

Besides this, there is an issue of the other meanings causing confusion.  Paul was not communicating that after the Parousia physical tongues would not be a part of our resurrection bodies, or that language and languages would also “pass away.” 

At any rate, the semantic nature of γλῶσσαι is quite sufficient to motivate Paul’s verb choice.  So that to infer from this choice an implicit message about an early expiration for the gift of tongue is completely unwarranted.

4 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 13, cessationism, Gifts, prophecy

Tagged , , , , ,

John 14:12 and Company

Posted on July 16, 2010 | 7 comments

By Marv

In this post I wish to make a simple point about John 14:12, a verse we have referred to often as foundational to our understanding of “spiritual gifts.”  I want to focus on the phrase “whoever believes in me,” as this is key to understanding what Jesus was teaching here, as well as what John intended to convey in his gospel. 

That phrase is far from unique, and in fact it fits into a major theme in that gospel.  The exact same phrase, and variations of that phrase occur throughout the book, and an examination of these clearly demonstrate that what Jesus says here about doing the same works as He is applicable to all believers, not merely the eleven in the room with Him that evening, not merely the apostles and close associates, not merely Christians of the first century, not merely those living before the close of the Canon.

The verse is neither obscure nor insignificant, and even bears the attention-grabbing prefix: “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.  (John 14:12)

These works Jesus refers to include much, much more than “spiritual gifts”: prophecy, healing, and such, but these are certainly included.  The works, Jesus states, back up His words and are with them a basis for faith (John 14:11).  Thus confirmation of the message of salvation is not relegated to any purported category of “sign gifts,” but to His works in general, works that, according to our Lord, will be done by “whoever believes” in Him.

Let’s look at that phrase.  In the Greek it is an articular infinitive:

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ  (ho pisteuōn eis eme) “the (one) believing in me”

Variations include:

A.  πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ  (pas ho pisteuōn eis eme)  “all the (one) believing in me”

B.  ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ (ho pisteuōn en auto) “the (one) believing in him”

C.  πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ (pas ho pisteuōn en auto) “all the (one) believing in him”

D.  ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν (ho pisteuōn eis ton huion) “the (one) believing in the son”

E.  ὁ πιστεύων  (ho pisteuōn) “the (one) believing”

   

There are many other related expressions in this theme, but I list those with identical or near identical wording. 

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him [πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ (pas ho pisteuōn en auto)] may have eternal life. (John 3:14-15)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him [πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ (pas ho pisteuōn en auto)] should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Whoever believes in him [ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ (ho pisteuōn en auto)] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

Whoever believes in the Son [ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν (ho pisteuōn eis ton huion)] has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me [ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ  (ho pisteuōn eis eme)] shall never thirst. (John 6:35)

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes [ὁ πιστεύων  (ho pisteuōn)] has eternal life. (John 6:47)

Whoever believes in me [ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ  (ho pisteuōn eis eme)], as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” (John 7:38)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me [ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ  (ho pisteuōn eis eme)], though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”  (John 11:25-26)

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me [ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ  (ho pisteuōn eis eme)], believes not in me but in him who sent me.  And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. (John 12:44-46)

It is sometimes said that even if we are not told that spiritual gifts will cease during the church age, we are not told they will continue either.  It looks to me as if that is exactly what our Lord tells us in John 14:12.

7 Comments

Posted in body of Christ, church, continuationism, John 13-17

Tagged , ,

The Best Continuationist Essay Ever Written by a Cessationist

Posted on July 8, 2010 | 6 comments

By Marv

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds has just posted on an article by Vern Poythress he calls “The Best Essay Ever Written on Spiritual Gifts Today.”  I’m rather inclined to agree.  I don’t think I’d express everything exactly as Dr. Poythress does, but given that caveat, I think he is exactly on target.

One commentator referred to Dr. Poythress’ approach as a “middle way” between Cessationism and Continuationism. I don’t think I’d call it a “middle way.”   Dr. Poythress himself, in his title, indicates he considers what he says to be “within Cessationist theology. ”  Shhh, don’t tell the Cessationists, but it sounds to me like what I mean by Continuationism.

The article is fourteen years old, having been published in JETS in 1996.  He calls it: “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology.”

Tweaks I’d make:

1.  Dr. Poythress says that modern spritual gifts are “analogous” to “Apostolic gifts.”  It isn’t completely clear to me from his article, but I’d say not only modern gifts but also ancient non-apostolic spiritual gifts were, in Poythress’ words, analogous to Apostolic gifts.

2.  I’m not quite sure apostles should be said to be exercising “Apostolic gifts” or simply their apostolic ministry.  I mean, Jesus wasn’t exercising “gifts” when He ministered in power.  I think the concept of “gifts” come in when we get to the non-apostolic members of the Body of Christ.

3.  I also would try to find a different word than “inspired” to express what Dr. Poythress means by it.  I prefer to reserve it for the Scriptures, in that the work of the Spirit extended to the writing.  I don’t think “people” or “gifts” ought to be modified by the adjective “inspired.”

4. “Analogous” might be very, very slightly weak for the relationship between the apostles’s ministry and non-apostolic, including modern gifts, but I think I might be inclined to accept it, provided I clarify that ancient non-apostolic gifts and modern gifts are real spirtiualgifts, not just analogs of real gifts.

Note, these tweaks are all terminological.  As far as the substance is concerned, run, do not walk to read his essay.

6 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, prophecy, revelation, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,