Category Archives: cessationism

He Has Spoken Through His Son

Posted on October 27, 2010 by | 2 comments

by Marv

The coming of the Son of God in the flesh is the turning point in redemptive history, that is in the outworking of God’s plan for rescuing His fallen world.  It marks a decisive divide between all that came before and all that God does from that crucial point onward.

Jesus indicated His own place in redemptive history in the parable of the tenants.  In this parable, God is likened to the owner of a vineyard who sends a series of bondservants to collect his due,  only to have them rebuffed, abused, even killed by the uncooperative tenants.  The next step is an escalation in the status of the messenger: “Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’” (Matt. 21:37).  The voice of the son, we understand, bears a superiority not just in degree, but in kind.

The magnificent opening of the epistle to the Hebrews encapsulates this same truth, and then goes on for thirteen chapters to develop this theme of Christ as superior to everything in previous phases of God’s plan, to urge against retrograde motion on the part of his readers.  He begins:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb. 1:1-2)

Continuationism is the understanding that according to the Scriptures, and Jesus Himself, during this era between Pentecost and the Parousia, God has established in the Church a vital and dynamic interconnection with Christ and the Father through the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, through which Christ continues to glorify the Father, build His Church, and advance His kingdom.

To express this understanding in the imagery of the parable of the tenants, after the son is killed, when the vineyard owner comes to “let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons,” (v. 4) the son is in fact restored to life.   He then continues actively to run the operations of the vineyard for his father, though off site.  As he is delegated the management by his father, he in turn delegates the on-site operation to the new tenants.  In this arrangement he remains in two-way communication with the tenants and supplies the resources necessary to the success of the operation.

Some others would modify this scenario by removing the idea of “two-way communication.”  The son, in this case, commits to written form everything he wishes to say or will ever wish to say to the tenants.  Thus he leaves them an operation manual, and determines that while he expects communication from the tenants to him, he will not communicate directly back to them, since the manual already contains everything he wishes them to know.

The former of these conceptions, according to proponents of the latter, is inaccurate in that it is incompatible with Hebrews 1:2, cited above.  The idea of ongoing two-way communication with God—that is that God to man communication (still) occurs by means other than the Bible—is denied, these assert, by the statement that now God “has spoken to us by his Son” (v. 2).  God’s speaking through prophets, inferior delegates, the “servants” of the parable, is relegated to “long ago.”

The use of Heb. 1:1-2 in support of Cessationism does have a noble pedigree.  It appears with the Westminster Confession of Faith as “proof text” number six, underlying what is generally taken to be a clause expressing cessation of ongoing revelation: “those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.” (WCF I.1)

However, there are two distinct propositions involved, taken to be stated or implied by Heb. 1:1-2:

1.  God, having delegated His Son to speak for Him, no longer employs the lower-level messengers He previously had sent.

2.  God having delegated His Son to speak for Him, the Son no longer is speaking.

Proposition 1 is non-objectionable, since it represents the author’s explicit point, and he goes on to elaborate on this point in the rest of the epistle.

It is far less clear, however, that the author intends Proposition 2 as part of his meaning, as a Cessationist application would suggest.  Also, if the author of Hebrews is saying that the Son has said all He has to say, when exactly are we to understand that the Son in fact ceased speaking?

What can we determine from the text?  First, the verb translated “has spoken,” elalēsen, “is aorist, in the past from the point of view of the writer.  The specific time frame is further specified: “in these last days.”

The author then contrasts two types of events, the ministry of the prophets in the more distant past, and the ministry of Christ in the recent past.  Can we legitimately infer from the author’s statement affirming Christ spoke in the past, a denial that He is therefore not speaking in the present and will not speak in the future?  Not on the basis of any valid understanding of either Greek grammar or logic.

At any rate, when exactly does the author mean to tell us that God’s revelation ceases?

If in fact we go by the tense of elalēsen, the past, we are left with the paradox, or rather the antinomy of an inspired writer, stating in his present that revelation had previously ceased in the past.  The very verse containing this word, not to mention the thirteen chapters yet to come contradicts the notion that God’s special revelation had already ceased at that point.

The author would have to mean some other time than that strictly indicated by the tense of the verb, if indeed he intends us to understand that communication through the Son comes to a point of completion and then ceases.  When would that be, exactly?

The ascension, the ending point of Christ’s bodily presence on earth?  Hardly, the entirety of the New Testament was written after this.

Besides, the author himself states in 2:4 that after Christ’s ascension God continued to testify through human messengers other than Christ: “God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”

Is it then the completion of the Canon?  It may or may not be factual to state that with the close of the Canon, the Son no longer speaks to us, and the Father no longer speaks through any other means.  But how is such an understanding to be drawn from the words of Hebrews 1:1-2, which was written, perhaps decades before the last NT book was written?

What do the author’s statements about the Son tell us about the work of the Holy Spirit?  Jesus’ own teaching predicts a future in which the Spirit’s work will include acts of speaking:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (John 15:26)“And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8)“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.  All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-15)

We find here, in fact, that the speaking ministry of the Spirit is a continuation of God speaking through the Son.  The Father delegates to the Son and the Son to the Spirit.

He delegates, not only to the Spirit, but to His Church. “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” (John 20:21)

So if the speaking of the Spirit is a continuation of the speaking of the Son, how long do we expect the Son to continue to speak through the Spirit?  Do we take Jesus’ words in John 16 then to be referring to the New Testament and nothing else?

If so, He said this to all eleven, but only commissioned three to write scripture:  Matthew, John, and Peter.  Did he exclude eight of those present and include others not present such as Paul, Luke, and James?

At any rate, the Son did in fact speak through the Holy Spirit in ways other than the writing of the New Testament:

“And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.” (Acts 16:6-7)

This is still, however, during the period of the open Canon. Of course, the Spirit continues to speak during this time.  Where are we ever told God will ever speak through the Spirit once the Scriptures, God’s sufficient written Word has been completed?

In Mark’s account of the Olivet discourse, Jesus gives instructions regarding what His disciples may expect in the days prior to His return, when the gospel is being proclaimed to all nations:

“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.  And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.  And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 13: 9-11)

Hebrews 1:1-2 in fact says nothing about the Son ceasing to speak.  The New Testament knows nothing of a time when once the Son has become incarnate, He ceases actively to glorify the Father to the world, to be God’s ongoing self-revelation.  What we can see are three distinct phases of His revelation activity (presented out of order).

The first.  His first advent, when He reveals the Father in His sinless life, He proclaims the gospel of the Kingdom, and dies sacrificially and rises again.

The third.  His glorious second appearing, when faith becomes sight we will know as we are known.

The second.  In between these times His Body, the Church, continues what in the first phase Jesus “began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).

“In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20)

Yes, “in these last days, [God] has spoken to us by his Son.”  Just so, in these days too, God speaks through His Son, who speaks through the Holy Spirit, who speaks through the Church, the Body of Christ.

2 Comments

Posted in Acts, Acts 2, body of Christ, cessationism, charismatic, church, continuationism, God speaking, hearing God, Holy Spirit, prophecy, revelation

Tagged , , , , ,

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

Posted on September 23, 2010 by | 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

Introduction to the Gifts of the Spirit

Posted on September 6, 2010 by | 1 comment

by Scott

As I recently mentioned, at Cornerstone, we are beginning an in depth series on the gifts of the Spirit as found in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11. So, on Sunday, we did just that. Here were the five points I emphasised from the text:

1) The knowledge of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:1)

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed.

Paul did not want this group of believers to be uninformed, or ignorant. Well, for the Corinthians, they had knowledge, but they had wrong knowledge as well as wrong practise.

So Paul comes in and teaches about healthy and proper practise. Many times, out of fear, it is easier to steer clear of things that have been continually done wrong. For example, some are afraid to engage with evolutionary biology because so many people have utilised as an attack against Scripture and Christ. But I think this might be a bit too reactionary on our part.

The same is true with the gifts of the Spirit. Many people are not open to these because they know how unhealthy the practises of some have been. I’m sure you have a few names or groups in your mind already. And, yes, that is true. But misuse and abuse should never lead us to abandon something. Rather, as imitators of Christ, we are called to faithful and healthy use. Such instruction was very relevant to the Corinthian church.

But, with today’s church, whereas most people have moved away from a possible antagonistic view towards the gifts of the Spirit, due to the major moves of the Spirit across multiple denominations and church groups, including an enormous amount of solid men and women of God, you might still find quite a lot of people uninformed. The Corinthians had wrong knowledge in a lot of ways. Many present day churches are just not knowledgeable at all about these gifts. Our best ideas are from television, or even worse, YouTube. But that doesn’t become all that helpful for becoming informed about the reality of these gifts.

And, so, that’s where we need to be challenged. We are not to remain uninformed. We are not to remain ignorant. Almost 2000 years later, we are to remain challenged by these words of Paul:

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. (1 Cor 14:1)

Where do we start? Most of us probably know some person or people involved in a church that believes in and correctly practices the gifts of the Spirit. And there are plenty of solid resources and books to consider – here is a short list of some. But let not our desire be to remain uninformed of these gifts. And, even more, let us be stirred to earnestly desire such gifts.

2) The nature of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4-6)

The first thing to briefly point out is the activity of the Trinity with these gifts:

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

Normally, the word Lord (kyrios in Greek) is utilised for Jesus and the word God (theos in Greek) is utilised for the Father. I am simply amazed at both the cooperation and unselfishness of the Trinity. If only the body of Christ could get a small glimpse of that reality, all that it might spur us on for what God Himself desires for us.

But, with regards to the nature of the gifts of God, all gifts, I believe there is a heavy amount of misunderstanding. It is all centred around certain thoughts that could go like this: First, we believe the gifts of God are secret, hidden abilities within us that we are called to search for, dig up and unearth. And, the way many of us do so is by taking a multiple-choice test to figure out what our top 3 or 4 gifts are. Then, we feel good that we have identified our gifts.

The thing is that such a pattern is not really left to us in Scripture, is it? Listen, I am not trying to say it is inherently evil to take a test for gaining information and understanding about the giftings and ministries God might have opened to us. But, when it comes down to it, we are not really ever asked to search and find out our gifts. God’s people are simply called to serve. We are told to get on with edifying the body, serving, blessing, building up, etc. Remember, these are serving ministries, not hidden abilities to unearth.

Think of it this way: The reason why we know someone is an evangelist is because they are drawing other people towards Christ. The reason why we know someone is a teacher is because they are faithfully explaining the truth of Scripture. The reason why we know someone has a ministry of leading is because people follow their lead. And so on and so forth.

There are 3 other reasons why I believe this is a more healthy approach to spiritual gifts than the test-to-find-out-your-gifts approach:

a) There are two main words in the Greek that we translate as ‘spiritual gifts’ – pneumatika and charismata. The word pneumatika (i.e. in 1 Cor 12:1) could probably be better translated as ‘spiritual people’ or even simply ‘spirituals’. There is nothing about hidden abilities to dig up that is found in this word. I don’t doubt that the Spirit puts things within us, since He does indwell us, and it might be that the word charismata could be used to make this point. But we still need to remember we have no precedence in Scripture to find out our gifts, especially through a multiple-choice test.

b) Look at the emphasis of vs4-6 again:

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

Vs4 utilises the word gifts in the place of the Greek word charismata. But look how it is coupled with the two words from the following two verses – service and activities. These gifts are serving ministries (for ‘ministry’ simply means ‘service’). And these are actual activities, or workings, of the Spirit. They aren’t hidden. They are activities we walk out through serving!

c) Finally, note the emphasis of vs7

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

Again, just as vs4-6 point out that they are something we serve in and are activities, here we are told they are manifestations. This also highlights that they are visible activities that take place – again, through serving.

So I focus in on the nature of these gifts because I believe we can easily hold to a warped view of such. We are not called to find out our gifts and, then, once we do, we slot in to where our gifts can be best used. It’s just not really done that way. Rather, we are simply called to serve. And as opportunities arise, if it is right, God will empower us to be used in such a service, in such a ministry, in such an activity, even a manifestation of God’s Spirit.

Therefore, I will be honest and say that I don’t believe the excuse, ‘Well, that’s not my gift,’ is a very valid one. So what if one doesn’t think they have the gift of whatever. Let’s be open and available to God in being utilised where we are weak. Remember, His grace is sufficient. His power will be made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9).

Yes, I am very much aware of balancing this with wisdom. I am not saying we throw anyone and everyone into any and every ministry activity. But, I would remind us that I have been emphasising that that is not how it works. You don’t throw people in to ministry opportunities. You see where a ministry, a service, and a manifestation of God is needed, and available people step in to serve in just that way as they are empowered by God.

That is the nature of the gifts of God’s Spirit. All of them.

3) The result of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:7)

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

The gifts are given mainly to be a blessing to people – to build them up, edify, exhort, strengthen. This is similar to what Paul says specifically about the gift of prophecy:

On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. (1 Cor 14:3)

When people serve in these gifts, the body of Christ will be spurred on towards the things of God. That is the fruit, the results. Even with prophecy, there are many who think 1) it is mainly about predicting the future, 2) it must be in King James English and 3) it must always be rebuke. But that is not what prophecy is mainly about, as Paul reminds us in this verse above. Of course there will be times to challenge and rebuke. That is a reality. But, in all, it’s given (even in rebuke) to help people move towards Christ. And such is truly building them up, strengthening them, blessing them.

Also, let me take a minute to remind us that the reverse is true as well. If the gifts of the Spirit are for the common good, then if we don’t have the people of God being utilised in such gifts, the body will be found lacking. It is as simple as that. It doesn’t mean we will forever be held back from moving forward in Christ. But these specific gifts will help us move towards Christ more and more, just as all the gifts of God will. That is important to remember.

4) The list of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:8-10)

By no means do I believe these 9 gifts are exhaustive, or even that the other lists in the NT (1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; Rom 12:6-8; 1 Pet 4:10-11) are exhaustive. There is quite a good representation amongst them. But there are plenty of other serving ministry gifts available to God’s people.

But these gifts remain part of the mix, no doubt.

Some find it helpful to divide these nine gifts into 3 groups of 3, as follows:

  • Gifts of power: faith, gifts of healings, workings of miracles
  • Gifts of thought: word (message) of knowledge, word (message) of wisdom, distinguishings between spirits
  • Gifts of speech: prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues

With Cornerstone, I am going to start with prophecy, as it seems the most readily available gift of the Spirit to God’s people (from my reading of passages like Acts 2:17-18 and 1 Cor 14). So, as and if I post articles about these gifts, I will probably follow my preaching order. We shall see.

5) The empowering of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:11)

Finally I emphasise that these gifts are empowered in God’s people, and this is obviously done by the Spirit. I have written plenty on how God has been emphasising His power to me as of late, and I have specifically been focusing on the power of the Holy Spirit. And, so, in this short verse, we are reminded of this empowering:

All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Similar words are found in vs6:

and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

We need to be connected to the power source, if you will, which happens to be the person of God’s Spirit Himself. The Spirit was given in the first place to empower God’s people to be witnesses (Acts 1:8). I feel 100% confident in acknowledging that these nine gifts, along with all of God’s giftings, will be helpful in walking out our call as an empowered people.

So, thus, you have some of my introductory thoughts to the gifts of the Spirit, at least as found in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11.

Just as a side note, for the sake of moving more towards discussion of the gifts, I left out addressing why some people believe these gifts have ceased (known as cessationism). If you want to read more of my thoughts addressing the usual passages quoted by cessationists, and some ‘positive’ affirmations of the continuation of these gifts, you can read here and here. Another objection of cessationism is that these gifts seemed to have ceased pretty much in the second and third centuries and nor do we see them much throughout church history. Here is some food for thought on the charismata in church history.

Lastly, I leave you the audio file from my message on Sunday if you would like to click on it below, or you can download from our podcast or iTunes.

1 Comment

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, audio, cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, Holy Spirit, prophecy, sermons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on July 19, 2010 by | 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 , , , , ,

Interaction With Michael Patton – PDF Document

Posted on July 15, 2010 by | 8 comments

by Scott

For those who have recently visited To Be Continued, you will notice that, yesterday, Marv and I completed our eight-part series interacting with Michael Patton’s own series entitled, “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. Michael Patton is head of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, which offers many such things as The Theology Program, Parchment & Pen blog, and the Theologica discussion network. Marv and I are regular interactors with both his blog and Theologica.

If one is interested, they can view the full series of Michael Patton by clicking here, or you can download a PDF document of the series by clicking here.

For those interested, you can read our eight posts here at To Be Continued or you can download our PDF document by clicking on the link here – Response to Michael Patton’s “Why I’m Not Charismatic”.

8 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Michael Patton

Tagged , , , ,