The Use of Luke-Acts For Developing Our Pneumatology

Posted on June 9, 2010 by | 1 comment

by Scott

When it comes to developing our pneumatology, or our theology of the Holy Spirit, there has been much discussion on whether or not we can utilise the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts to inform our understanding. Honestly, some have not been keen on the idea of utilising Luke-Acts, since they would see it as more descriptive rather than didactic (teaching doctrine). Such a group would see the epistles (i.e. Paul’s letters) as the primary didactic source for our pneumatology and the descriptive parts (such as Luke-Acts) as secondary in teaching doctrine.

So, is it worth utilising Luke’s words in both his Gospel and Acts as a primary source for developing our theology of the Holy Spirit? Or should Luke’s two-volume work be seen more as a secondary pneumatological resource?

There are a couple of points I believe that are worth noting:

Luke as Both Historian and Theologian

An important thing to notice is that Luke stands as the only recorder of the early church and its history. Other Gospels (3 of them) had been written alongside Luke’s. But he alone holds a unique position as presenting early church history. It leaves us asking if his words should be relegated as secondary to the epistles or if they will give us a better understanding of the Spirit of God and His work.

If we are honest with the text, and note Luke’s pneumatological purpose in his recording of early church history, Acts does stand as a vitally important theological work. And its significance is especially heightened when studied with its preceding volume, the Gospel of Luke, as Luke emphatically highlights the work of the Spirit in the life of Christ.

So, whereas in the past, many evangelical theologians would have not seen the benefit of developing doctrine from narrative portions of Scripture, there has been a much great acceptance of such in recent years. This is a very important recognition, for we can definitely learn from narrative parts. We can learn just as much from God’s deeds as we can learn from God’s words. Even more, this inspired account of early church history is where theology and doctrine are being walked out in daily life. Thus, it carries importance. This is why I believe that Luke must be respected as both historian and theologian.

Below are a few passages showing how we can receive instruction from the historical recordings of Scripture.

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Yes, it is definitely true that Luke presents a descriptive history of the church in his second volume, Acts. No one can argue with such. But, what we must be willing to recognise is that it is a didactic history at the same time. There is no doubt that Luke wrote to teach. He did not only write to describe, he wrote with a purpose to instruct us, just as the writers of old would have done with their narrative portions of the Old Testament text.

As theologian Roger Stronstad reminds us:

‘If for Paul the historical narratives of the Old Testament had didactic lessons for New Testament Christians, then it would be most surprising if Luke, who modelled his historiography after the Old Testament historiography, did not invest his own history of the origin and spread of Christianity with a didactic significance.’ (The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p7)

Not only that, but we have these oft-quoted words of Paul:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Paul envisioned all parts of Scripture as God-breathed and useful for teaching. To say that certain portions of Scripture take precedence over others is not easily established from Scripture itself.

Luke Speaks For Himself

What I mean with this subheading is that, many times, theologians will try and squeeze Paul’s specific theological emphases into Luke’s theology. Thus, we end up reading Luke through a Pauline lens, which is not at all helpful.

Of course Scripture presents a harmonious whole. There is a unifying structure and nature to the entire text. But we need to give room for Luke to speak as Luke, rather than try and make Paul’s words fit into Luke’s words (or vice versa). For Luke is himself trying to teach us something about the Messiah, the mission of the church, the work of the Spirit, and a whole lot more. Let’s give this man room to teach us, even teach us apart from Paul’s own words.

Even more interesting, when it comes to the baptism and filling of the Holy Spirit, Luke speaks about these two issues many more times than Paul ever does. Consider these statistics:

  • Baptised in the Spirit: Luke 3 times; Paul 1 time
  • Filled with the Spirit: Luke 9 times; Paul 1 time

Not only that, but Luke utilises a lot of different phrases to describe these similar actions: the Holy Spirit came upon; the Spirit was poured out; the gift of the Holy Spirit; the Spirit fell on people; people received the Spirit. If we take all of these into account with regards to being baptised and/or filled with the Spirit, Luke has a lot to contribute on this topic. Our ears should be tuned to this man’s words.

Stronstad shares some more insights:

‘Consequently, just as the recognition that Luke is a theologian as well as a historian makes Luke-Acts a legitimate data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, so the recognition that Luke is independent of Paul will broaden the New Testament data base for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To recognize these two facts is to rehabilitate Luke as a historian-theologian of the Holy Spirit and to allow him to make a significant, unique, and independent contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.’ (p11)

Thus, I agree wholeheartedly with this final statement of Stronstad:

‘On the one hand, where it is appropriate, all parties in the current debate must abandon those largely self-serving methodological programs which conspire to either silence or to manipulate Luke’s distinctive theology. On the other hand, all parties must develop a methodological consensus for interpreting the gift of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. At a minimum, this consensus must include the following principles: 1) Luke-Acts is theologically homogeneous, 2) Luke is a theologian as well as a historian, and 3) Luke is an independent theologian in his own right.’ (p12)

And just as a side note, another great work on how Luke should be viewed as not only historian, but also theologian, is I. Howard Marshall’s Luke: Historian & Theologian.

As we look to develop a holistic pneumatology, consistent with the full text of Scripture, we must not forget Luke’s words and set them aside as only secondary to the words of Paul. Of course, we must also not pit Luke and Paul against one another, noting they were part of the same ministry team at times and are both within the canon of Scripture. But Luke’s words will, no doubt, enrich our understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. All we must do is allow for them to teach us.

1 Comment

Posted in Acts, Holy Spirit, Luke, pneumatology

Tagged , , , ,

“Charismatics are wrong ‘cuz it never happened to me” …and Other Stupid Statements. (Response to CMP, part 3)

Posted on June 8, 2010 by | 35 comments

By Marv

This post is part of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series at Parchment and Pen “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here. This is in response to part three.

Michael,

First, please don’t take the title too seriously.  It is, as you might suspect, an hommage to your own provocatively titled series, last seen here.  Besides, you start your part three by admitting that its argument is (a) not a very good one and yet (b) one that works for you.

I appreciate the irony though.  In certain circles it is Self-Evident Truth that Continuationists (a) follow experience over Scripture, and (b) are doing that “evil and adulterous generation” sign-seeking thing (Matt. 12:39; 16:4).  Yet here you tell us, first, that while the preponderance of Scriptural evidence backs Continuationism, you remain a Cessationist due to your experience.  Then, second, you demand a sign, failing which, you remain a (de facto) Cessationist.  It’s refreshing, to say the least.

With that introduction, here are a few thoughts on your part three.

1.  You are “open” Biblically and theologically to Continuationism.

The other day I heard somebody on the radio giving the usual condescending admonition to Continuationists always to give Scripture priority over experience.  This same guy kept making reference to “the four sign gifts.”  It was the first time I’d heard these given a definite number.  (Does that mean tongues has ceased but interpretation of tongues continues?)  I’d really like for him to put his money where his mouth is and show me the Bible passage teaching “the four sign gifts.”

Be that as it may, of course Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.  Michael, you pointed out some strong Biblical support for Continuationism in your part two.  As Scott has observed, you did seem to leave out Christ’s own teaching on the eve of his crucifixion (John 14-16).  This, I submit, is the place to start, and really leaves no doubt that the Father’s plan, the Lord’s instruction, and the believer’s expectation should be:

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)

So, Michael, if the Bible teaches something, if Christ teaches something, what kind of response is it to be “open” to it?  Try saying, “I’m open to that salvation-by-grace-through-faith thing, but I’ve never had a genuine gospel experience.”  The apostle Paul tells us to: “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” (1 Cor. 14:1) I mean, you don’t suppose “be open to” is an adequate translation of zeloute here?

What I am trying to say, Michael, is that as far as you’ve come from your previous self-confessed bias against Continuationism, if the Bible supports it, then why not move beyond “openness”?  Your lack of experience, I suggest, is in part due to lack of conviction that the Bible really teaches this.  What you see depends on what you expect to see.

POLICE INSPECTOR: “By George! How ever did you see that?”
HOLMES:  “Because I looked for it.”

2. Your expectations.

So what are you looking for, Michael?  May I suggest, based on some of your remarks, that you may have spent some time barking up the wrong proverbial tree?

First, as odd as it seems there is a whole preconceived notion about just what a “gift” is that may need rethinking.  You remark:  “I have never witnessed anything that would lead me to believe that someone has, as their gift to the body of Christ, any of the particular gifts…”  Well, if by this you mean some kind of at-will wonder-worker, I don’t think this has ever been the case. 

The concept of “gifts” is a reference to the fact that the works of Jesus, done by the Body of Christ, are distributed among the members.  These are first of all gifts given by the Lord to us, not our gifts to the Body.  Second, I don’t think the Bible teaches us it was like a team of spiritual X-men:  X has the power of prophecy, Y has the power of healing, Z has the power of tongues.  Based on what Paul says, on a given day any believer may give a prophecy, though not all will (1 Cor. 14:26, 31).  It may have been that some people particularly excelled in a particular gift, and so may be associated with it, but I think it is fallacious to understand a rigid one-for-one correspondence.

Second, in regard to prophecy, you refer to “the surrendering of my mind.”  I don’t think that is what New Testament prophecy calls for.  Paul says prophecy gives “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Cor. 14:3).  It may instantly resonate with someone (1 Cor. 14:24-25) or else is to be weighed (v. 29). 

As far as requiring a “sign” is concerned, well first, I thought you considered prophecy a “sign gift.”  Isn’t it already a sign, then?  “prophecy is [a sign] not for unbelievers but for believers,” Paul says (1 Cor. 14:22). 

Besides, with all the New Testament teaching on prophecy, and the clear “democratization” of prophecy in Acts 2, you go to Moses for the example of how things are to be done?  Deut. 34:10 states: “And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”  It might be nice if all who prophesied lived up to Moses example, but I wouldn’t expect this.  Is this really reasonable?

Also (and I just love it when Cessationists tell Continuationists how spiritual gifts ought to work) you opine:

If someone claims to speak on behalf of God—if someone claims to have a prophetic gift—you have every right and obligation to demand an attesting sign. As well, if you think you are a prophet—if you sincerely believe that God has called you to such a ministry—you need to tell God that you cannot do so without such a sign.

Okaaay, kids, always remember to talk back to God.  Umm, Michael,  in the first place, you draw on the example of Moses, whose demand for authenticating sign was not so much a sign of faith, as of reluctance, hesitation, doubt.  God had already given him His word to proclaim, and Moses hemmed and hawed until he ran out of excuses.  Go and do thou likewise?  So say you, Michael?

Second, this whole thing isn’t about anyone’s claim to have this or that gift.  It’s about believers being the Body of Christ, and God giving His words and doing His works through us, as he did through Jesus (John 14:10).   

Furthermore, it isn’t only prophets who speak on behalf of God.  Teachers, such as yourself do. 

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God.  (1 Pet. 4:10-11)

 

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:20)

 

Are pastors, teachers, and evangelists also to demand from God a sign, since they too speak on behalf of God?  Well, the good news is, we don’t need to demand, because God has always planned to co-testify as we deliver His message (Heb. 2:4).

In regard to what you say about healing, again, I think you are under a misconception to imagine a “gift of healing” as attached permanently to a particular person.  This is not necessarily what we as Continuationists are saying.  Moreover, your conceptually separating  praying for healing from “gifts of healings” is also missing the point.

But you knew I would say this, didn’t you.  And you head this response off at the pass.  You are told “that’s not the way it works.”  And, of course, you, a Cessationist–never seen it–know better:

If you say, “It’s not like that. God simply uses me sometimes to heal. I never know when he is going to and when he will deny such a request.” I would say that we are simply talking past each other. In my estimation, you do not have the gift of healing. You, like everyone else, simply have the ability to pray for healing, leaving the answer in the hands of God.

 

I agree about the talking past each other here, but, Michael, let me say gently, it might behoove you back up, hold your preconceived notions loosely, and listen to that perspective–there just might be something to learn.

When you begin to learn, you first do not even know what you do not know.  Some things need to be unlearned before learning can take place.

3.  The learning curve.

I don’t say that, or write these posts, claiming vast amounts of knowledge.  Only, it is really is a strange thing when Cessationists are sure they know more about spiritual gifts than Continuationists.  You point out how others aren’t doing it right.  Their prophecy is banal.  Their prayer for healing and any subsequent answers to prayer is not “the gift.”  Well, I agree that the Continuationist side may not be doing everything quite right.  Yet they are believing the Lord’s instructions, and doing something, and mixed results are better than no results. 

The church today largely has to rediscover what has been forgotten.  As with any practice, there is a learning curve.  At one time, these were passed on.  Jesus instructed His disciples how to minister in power, and they taught others.  Well, we haven’t got that now, I grant you. And I am not for an instant suggesting that contemporary Continuationists are infallible guides.  Still, how wise is it to completely disregard these?

So where are we to begin today? To recover what the Scripture teaches but generations have not really practiced?  You begin with the Scriptures, of course.  You begin by being convinced from Scripture that the works that Jesus did ought to be in evidence in the church today. 

But what does this look like?  Prophecy, for example.  How do you do it?  How do you know when it is happening?  Does it feel like something?  Does the prophesier hear a voice?  Audibly?  Inaudibly?  How do you really know it’s God?

I submit, Michael, you won’t know the answers by sitting on the sidelines.  There is hit and miss here, trial and error.  Does that seem little too messy?  Well, what are we supposed to do?  Don’t like the whole glass-half-empty thing?  The Cessationist answer seems to be “I don’t see any New-Testament quality miracles,” so out it all goes. 

What about half full?  How about getting in there and helping?  Don’t quite like the way things look in the Pentecostal, Charismatic, Third-wave, whole Continuationist world? So many of the Bible-scholar, teacher types have retreated into Cessationism, and left others to fend without them.  Is there a lack of balance in Continationism?  Whose fault is that?  Those who are in the game or those who are not?  For my money, I’d point a finger or two at the armchair quarterbacks.

4.  Get in the game.

So what we’re talking about here is you’ve never had a “genuine charismatic experience.”  Well, okay, you used to go to a “third-wave” college.  These days, do you ever put yourself in an environment where you might just have such an experience?

I was going to point out, if you were not already aware, that you have a fabulous opportunity in Sam Storms having moved to Oklahoma City.  Then of course I saw here that he’s now on Theology Unplugged.  Okay, so you two have met.

Still, my point is Credo House is what, 3-1/2 miles from Bridgeway Church?  Dr. Storms is, as you know, top notch in Bible exposition and theology.  And I doubt you can find a better go-to-guy for Continuationism–in these United States, anyway.  I believe Dr. Storms was not in town when you wrote this series last year.  So okay.  Now, however, you have no excuse.

35 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 14, cessationism, charismatic, church, continuationism, experience, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, God speaking, healings, John 13-17, Michael Patton, prophecy, Sam Storms, sign gifts

Tagged , , , ,

Response to Patton’s “Why I’m Not Charismatic” (Part 2)

Posted on June 2, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Scott

So Marv and I have set out to interact with Michael Patton’s 8-part series, “Why I’m Not Charismatic”. You can view Patton’s whole series here or you can download the e-booklet by clicking here.

Thus far at To Be Continued, Marv has interacted with part 1. In that post, Marv clarified that the usual (or ‘normative’?) words put forth in describing the continuationist-cessationist debate are not always helpful. Thus, Marv looked to challenge some of Patton’s definitions when discussing such a topic – words like charismatic, normative, ordinary, extraordinary, supernatural, and sign gifts.

I now proceed to interact with Patton’s part 2.

I will first begin by saying that part 2 is somewhat of an easier section to deal with, being that Michael Patton presents what he believes are five strong points for the continuationist case. Even if, in the end, Patton would not identify himself as a continuationist with regards to all the gifts of the Spirit, his willingness to identify positive points from the ‘other side’ shows his own integrity. We can very easily fall into the trap of speaking antagonistically or misrepresenting the other side. Yet it is obvious that is not Patton’s desire in his articles.

So let’s look at the five specific points Michael lists as the stronger arguments for continuationism.

1. Acts chapter 2 seems to suggest that the gifts of the Spirit (particularly prophecy) would be normative for the church.

In points 1 and 2, Patton begins with the book of Acts. From a New Testament perspective, I would have begun with the Gospels, looking at the teachings and works of Christ Himself as well as what He promised to His subsequent followers. Well, in reality, we could start with Genesis. And, in one sense, Patton does recognise this in point number 3. But let me explain a little more of why we need to centre this discussion in Christ (if we are not already aware of why).

In all, if we have anything, we have a Christ-centred faith. Every aspect of our faith – belief and practise – must be centred in Christ. And so we turn to centre our practise of the gifts in Jesus Christ Himself.

With regards to this practical part of our life, I am a firm believe that, whatever work Jesus took up in His life and ministry on earth, He would expect His church to continue that work. That is simply how the story is to unfold. Hence why we see a continuation of the works of Jesus in the book of Acts:

1In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. (Acts 1:1-2)

Jesus said He was going away, but He would send another like Him that would continue the same exact work (i.e. John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7; etc). And the Holy Spirit would specifically continue that work through the body of Christ.

The Spirit of Christ was sent by Christ to empower the body of Christ to continue the work of Christ. Did we catch that? Read it again.

So this all centres in Christ. If Christ was prophet, then the Spirit is prophetic and has been sent to empower the whole body of Christ to be prophetic (more on that here). If Christ was teacher, the Spirit also is a teacher and has been sent to empower the whole body to carry a didactic dimension in their ministry (even if we each are not specifically teachers).

So, while we need to look at Acts, for it presents a very positive outlook for the continuation of all of God’s gifts, we as new covenant believers must centre all of our theology in Christ Himself.

As for my own personal thoughts on Acts 2, after the Spirit had fallen on the 120, Peter has a revelation: This is the fulfilment of Joel’s words spoken so long ago. Joel said that, in the last days, God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh. This was happening right in front of eyes and ears as the tongues of fire descended and new tongues were spoken.

The last days had just been initiated right then and there. This was not to be some few final years before the parousia (presence/coming of Christ). The last days began some 1977 years ago at that great Pentecost.

What was the fruit of this outpouring?

As I hinted at above, God’s people would become of prophetic community. Oh sure, God would continue to have those specifically gifted as prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11; etc). But from now on, during the last days of the Messianic age when Messiah would reign over all heaven and earth, God’s Spirit would allow all of God’s people to be utlitised in the prophetic. Moses had longed for it (Numbers 11:24-30), but this was the beginning of the prophethood of all believers, as I’ve written about before.

This work of the Spirit would break all gender barriers and age barriers: sons and daughters; young men and old men; male servants and female servants.

Because the last days are the entire age from Pentecost onwards (or we might technically say first advent of Christ to second advent), we must expect God’s people to always function as a prophetic community. This includes revelations, prophecies, visions, dreams, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, etc. None of this has to be leather bound and added to the New Testament, and thankfully Scripture stands as a measuring stick of whether such prophetic words and actions are truly of God today. But there is no doubt that the last days are to be a continuing work of Jesus by the prophetic Spirit amongst His prophetic church in the world.

2. The entire book of Acts seems to show that the supernatural gifts are common within the Church.

There are two problematic words or phrases that come forth in Patton’s words under this point:

  • Normative
  • It is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative

I’ll refer you back to Marv’s thoughts on this enigmatic word normative, for he does a fine job in the first installment of this series, as I quote from below:

Does it mean “something everyone should expect in his or her Christian life?”  I guess that would mean pastoring a church is not “normative.”  Does it mean when you see it happening, you don’t have to automatically assume it’s fake?  Well, I guess not, because you seem to believe in divine healing, and yet wouldn’t exactly call it “normative.”  Does it mean something God intended for the Church to be engaged in throughout the Church age?  Well, I think we’re getting somewhere with this one, but there certainly seem to have been ebbs and flows in history, for whatever reason.

No doubt we might say that, whether good or bad, there is somewhat more of an expectation of all gifts of the Spirit within continuationist circles. For all practical purposes, if one is not sure if certain gifts of the Spirit exist or, even more, believe certain gifts no longer exist, there would not be much expectation in either of these groups. You might even find that those who make a profession that they are open to such gifts will still find a lack of expectation due to the uncertainty (I share more here about only being open to the gifts).

But, from my perspective, let me define this word, normative.

Even within the book of Acts, we easily forget that it was written over some 30 (+/-) years. Though it records quite a few prophecies, healings, miracles, and other varying acts of the Spirit, it doesn’t necessarily present a case that we should expect such gifts every single moment of every single day. But, to be honest, to argue that something must happen ‘every single moment of every single day’ is a very modern way of thinking. I don’t believe the ancient Hebrews and Jews thought in such detailed, 24-hour time periods. But moving on…

Though the above paragraph possibly gives more leverage to the cessationist, let’s think this through some more. One thing to recognise is that not every single healing, miracle, prophecy, etc, would have been recorded across the book of Acts (just as every preaching instance would not have been laid out in Acts). The Spirit was quite alive and well across the varying cities, towns and churches. We get glimpses of this in places like Galatians 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. So there was definitely more Spirit-activity going on than what we find recorded in Acts.

Secondly, the book of Acts contains a church that, though it was growing rapidly, was still a very small group by comparison. Maybe by the end of Acts (early 60’s AD) there was a church of 100,000. Maybe more, maybe less. But that is a healthy educated guess.

But today, in 2010, estimates are that there might be some 2 billion believers across the planet. That is a lot of followers of Christ! Not to mention that there are some 500 million within Pentecostal, charismatic and neo-charismatic church circles. So, though each person might not be utilised every single day in healings or miracles or prophecies or words of knowledge, we would expect the whole body of Christ being utilised in all gifts of the Spirit on a very regular basis. Remember, the Spirit is at work amongst a lot of Christians. Though, even as Marv recognised, there are ebbs and flows at times within history. That is ok.

The phrase one can normally here from the cessationist (or non-continuationist) is one which Michael gives: It is very difficult to build too much theology from narrative. I understand the argument somewhat, but I really think this kind of statement fails to be faithful to Scripture.

If this statement is true, then we have to be careful not to build ‘too much theology’ from major portions of the Bible, including most of the Pentateuch, the historical books of the Old Testament and the Gospels. But, of course, such a notion is silly.

What we need to realise is that we can learn from narrative, especially the didactic narrative of Scripture (see Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11). A story in and of itself might not be written to teach. But I am pretty certain Luke wrote to teach us something. Right?

As one author states:

‘If for Paul the historical narratives of the Old Testament had didactic lessons for New Testament Christians, then it would be most surprising if Luke, who modelled his historiography after the Old Testament historiography, did not invest his own history of the origin and spread of Christianity with a didactic significance.’ (Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, p7)

We have got to stop arguing that we cannot build theology from Acts. Such an argument fails and fails pretty bad. Rather, Luke will provide us with a great richness to our pneumatology, ecclesiology, Christology, and so much more, if we allow for Acts to be a didactic narrative. Not to mention that there is a verse that goes something like this: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching…

3. All of Scripture supports the idea that it is God’s nature to work in supernatural ways.

I won’t spend a lot of time here, since I have shared much on points 1 and 2 already. But, interestingly enough, Patton even quotes from Jack Deere’s Surprised by the Power of the Spirit to support this point.

And, lo and behold, Deere also takes time in the same book to show how the supernatural activity of God starts in Genesis and goes right through the whole of the biblical text. This is very consistent with the nature and character of the God whom we serve. If He had been doing such for thousands upon thousands of years (rather than in just a few cycles around the times of Moses, Elijah & Elisha, and Christ & the first apostles), then we must expect that same God to continue to act in such ways consistent with who He is, what He says and what He does.

4.  The New Testament never explicitly states that the supernatural
sign gifts would cease.

This is true, very true. Though many passages have been used to teach that the gifts would cease – four well-known being 1 Corinthians 13:8-12; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 1:1-2; and Hebrews 2:3-4 – these passages do not actually teach cessationism. I share more in this article, and Marv specifically looks at Hebrews 2:3-4 in this article.

Patton even takes time to look at 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 himself, giving his thoughts on why that verse does not support cessationism.

The thing is that, most present-day studied cessationists don’t simply quote a few verses and say, ‘You see, these gifts were meant to cease.’ And the same stands true for the reverse with continuationism. More than quoting a few Scriptures, it comes to dealing with a theological framework. And, for the cessationist, as Patton recognises, it comes down to 1) recognising certain gifts had a revelatory and confirmatory purpose and 2) that revelation and confirmation was connected to the message of the gospel before it was completed in the first apostolic witness now recorded in the Scriptures.

Therefore, now that we have the completed Scriptures as God’s revelation and confirmation of the gospel message, these gifts are no longer needed, or they are at least not normative. But, even now, the modern-day cessationist will probably say, ‘Oh these things can happen, but not normally.’ And they would probably argue that these are not normally needed any longer because we have access to the finished product of the canon of Scripture.

Well, see my thoughts above on normative. But suffice it to say: Christ walked in all of these things, He sent the Spirit to continue that same exact work, and that same work was to be continued via the body of Christ (though He can do things apart from us, for He is sovereign), since we are called to be Christ in the world today. There would have been solid expectation that Christ’s body would function just as Christ did Himself.

But, let me say this: If we as theologians, who centre our theology in the Scripture, cannot ultimately argue for the cessation of the gifts from the biblical standpoint, then we are ultimately building our own theological boxes that cannot hold together. To say it another way, we can espouse great theological treatises. But if we are not able to solidly back up that theological framework from Scripture, then we have a bit of a problem. And Patton has already recognised that the Bible does not explicitly say these gifts will cease. What are we to believe, then?

5. Personal Experience

For many a Christians, to announce that experience has been a reason why they believe anything, especially as one determining factor for their pneumatology, this would be deemed unhealthy. But, what we must be willing to recognise is that experience shapes our theology (I share more here). We cannot get away from it, both cessationist and continuationist. Hence, the reason why Michael Patton ultimately says he is a de facto cessationist – he believes he has never truly experienced certain gifts of the Spirit like prophecy and miracles, at least in the way he understands Scripture to teach about them.

Matter of fact, I think just about every continuationist I know would say that one of the reasons they believe in the continuation of all gifts of the Spirit is because they have personally experienced them. And, even wider than that, most people who say they believe in Jesus would refer to some kind of experience(s) with the living God as to why they believe and want to follow Jesus. This is part and parcel to life and our faith, and God is quite ok with that.

So, knowing Michael’s own presentation of the positive case for continuationism, I’m not sure why he would still want to lean towards being a de facto cessationist. But, in the end, I do understand that experiencing something is important for our theology. Very important.

Thus, there are two things I can recommend to Michael: 1) Please re-consider some of your definitions with terms like normative, sign gifts, revelatory and confirmatory gifts, etc. I think wrong definitions and expectations will be a hindrance towards moving into a biblical view of the the gifts of the Spirit. 2) Don’t read more theology on the topic, as you are already quite aware of many of the continuationist arguments. Rather, build relationships with solid continuationist believers. That is one of the greatest ways to see our faith stirred in this area. At least that is my testimony.

7 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, experience, Michael Patton

Tagged , , ,

I’m not Charismatic, either, Michael. (Response to CMP, part 1)

Posted on May 27, 2010 by | 11 comments

By Marv

This post is part of a series responding to C. Michael Patton’s eight-part series at Parchment and Pen “Why I am Not Charismatic,” which is also conveniently available for download as a single e-book here.  This is in response to part one.

 

Michael,

Glad we could have this chat.  You know, Paul warns us against wrangling about words, but your first post was mainly geared toward setting some definitions.  So I think we’d better start with some of the terminology.

1. First of all, “Charismatic.”  Looks like we’re going to get tangled up there.  You seem to want to use this as a blanket term, the way I’d use “Continuationist.”  Trouble is, it isn’t a blanket term.  It’s a reference to a specific movement, circa mid-20th century, and adherents of that movement.  Now you might think it ought to refer to any non-cessationists, for etymological reasons, and you might even hear folk using it that way, but I can’t agree.

First of all, early in the 20th century the Pentecostal movement sprang up, and as far as I know they did not refer to themselves as Charismatics, even though they’d fit your definition. 

They had other distinctions, a particular doctrine about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a second blessing.  Also they tended to found new denominations.  Mostly, I guess, because no one else would have them.  Anyway, at some point, a couple of generations or so later, their practices started to catch on among non-Pentecostals.  These people bought into the second blessing, baptism of the Spirit thing, with some modificatons, but stayed in their own denominations, and spread their understanding there.  They called themselves Charismatics.

Now, there are others who overlap with these people in terms of finding Biblical practices such as prophecy and healing… well, Biblical… Yet these people were never part of the Charismatic movement, and distance themselves from a great deal of the teaching and practice of that movement.  For example, they may not at all buy into the baptism of the Spirit thing à la the Charismatic movement.

So what do you call these people, who don’t self-identify as Charismatic, but are not Cessationist?  Well, Continuationist works well for me.  And that’s what I am.  (As if you haven’t already figured that out from our blog title.)

I understand that in part two you are going to refer to “Continuationism,” and you say “all Charismatics are Continuationists.”  And you should have said “not all Continuationists are Charismatics.”  But you didn’t; you said, “all continuationists, properly speaking, are charismatics (even if you must use a small ‘c’).”

Now, Michael, you had been going pretty well there, until then.  Maybe you can correct it on the next reprint.  (heh, heh, I know it’s an e-book…)

Look at it this way.  I hear a lot of people misuse the term “dispensationalist” as if it meant “cessationist.”  Now some people even think all dispensationalists are cessationists, which is also wrong.  But what if I decided, well, doggone it, I’m just going to use the word that way anyway.  So I say something like, “all cessationists, properly speaking are dispensationalists (even if you must use a small ‘d’).”  I mean, it does nothing, really, to the other guy, but it sure makes me look uninformed.  Just sayin’, Michael.

Nevertheless, I realize this is a bit unfair, since you’ve already written all your posts.  So anyway, I’ll read “Continuationist” when you say “Charismatic.”  But I might bring it up again.  Probably will.

2. The next word I want to bring up is “normative.”  That’s a great one.  I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone use it except a Cessationist (and by the way, I should disclose, I used to be one).  What does it even mean, anyway?  Does it mean the same as normal?  I google it, and I still can’t find anything that really fits in this context.  It’s simultaneously kind of an empty word and a loaded word.  Now, that’s hard to pull off.

Does it mean “something everyone should expect in his or her Christian life?”  I guess that would mean pastoring a church is not “normative.”  Does it mean when you see it happening, you don’t have to automatically assume it’s fake?  Well, I guess not, because you seem to believe in divine healing, and yet wouldn’t exactly call it “normative.”  Does it mean something God intended for the Church to be engaged in throughout the Church age?  Well, I think we’re getting somewhere with this one, but there certainly seem to have been ebbs and flows in history, for whatever reason. 

There was a period of time when for some centuries Israel had no prophets.  Does that mean prophecy wasn’t normative for Israel?  Or should we really describe historical oddities in a different way? 

3.  I love it that you define some gifts as ordinary and others as extra-ordinary.  Hey, here’s a question for you:  are the extra-ordinary gifts normative?  Heh, heh.  You picking up a hint of circularity there, Michael?  You practically say a Charismatic is one who believes the extra-ordinary is normative.  It’s kind of like saying X is someone who belives you can see the invisible or hear the inaudible.  It’s a great schtick, really it is, Michael. 

Only, yeah, you’re really begging the question by this “extra-ordinary” business.  It prejudices the discussion.  Similar ways to treat this are to refer to these as “dramatic” or “spectacular.”

The fact is, you’ve gotten yourself latched onto a faulty idea from the start.  Yes, God’s acts in our lives do often commend themselves as being of divine origin, unexplainable otherwise.  They do in fact, in a sense, make the invisible visible.  They call attention to the reality of God, his eternal power and divine nature, and such.  That is, they bring glory to him.  Yet what has that effect on someone maybe very, very ordinary.  It ought to be the case when looking at the starry sky, for example.  It’s something we experience when prayers are answered, divine timing, that sort of thing. 

But these aren’t characteristic of prophecy on the one hand and not of teaching on the other.  Or healing, but not encouragement.  When any of these are done in the power of the Holy Spirit, the extra-0rdinary, i.e. divine and not merely human, heavenly and not merely mundane, nature of these acts commend themselves.

4.  That brings us to supernatural.  Honestly, Michael, you are a teacher.  I suppose you avow the gift of teaching.  Anyway, I guess you see it as “normative.”  Yet it is not supernatural?

My goodness, your very faith is the gift of God given to you through the Spirit.  You can’t even believe in Christ apart from a supernatural act of God.  Cessationists are fond of saying conversion is the greatest miracle of all.  And so it is.  Yet, beyond that the obvious point goes missing.  Your ability to analyze, to express yourself, to persuade may all be “natural” abilities, but when you teach in the Body of Christ–I mean if you’re doing it right–you are exercizing the power of God through you.  Read Acts 1:8 for goodness sake. 

Michael there are no non-supernatural gifts of the Spirit, none.  To make that distinction for the so-called sign gifts is simply a failure to properly grasp what God is doing through his Body the Church.

5.  So let’s talk about “sign gifts.”  This is something of a personal bête noir for me.  I have a particular post just on that term.  I don’t need to repeat myself, or my other recent post on Heb. 2:3-4, but that verse states that God co-testifies to the gospel by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  It doesn’t say sign gifts, some gifts or the extra-ordinary, non-normative, spectacular, or dramatic gifts.  In fact, it says through signs, wonders, various miracles AND gifts of the Holy Spirit.  May we not understand from the Word of God that any gift ministered by the Holy Spirit functions as God’s witness to salvation in Christ?

6.  I won’t  take issue with your definition of Cessationist.  You lay out some particular claims made by this perspective.  You make a lot of distinctions, categories, lists to help define this camp.  I’m sorry, Michael, but I find this truly a house of cards: revelatory, confirmatory, temporary, permanent. (Egad, there’s that monstrosity “pastor-teacher.” Don’t get me started!)  Ever feel your boxes are a tad artificial?  Hey, I don’t think your charts are normative.

Essentially, by your own description, you say Cessationists are those who make the following assertions:

a.  Certain spiritual gifts serve to (and have the purpose of) confirming the gospel, while others don’t.  [I’ve already spoken to this one.]

b.  There is no other (primary/significant) reason for these confirmatory gifts to exist apart from this purpose.

c.  The close of the Canon makes this sole purpose of these confirmatory gifts obsolete.

d.  Since they are obsolete, we know that God no longer performs them through His church.

But, Michael, there is not a single one of these propositions that is taught in the Bible.

Yet the ongoing Spirit-empowered ministry of the Body of Christ is present all through the New Testament:  The Upper Room Discourse (John 14-16), Acts, Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12-14, Gal. 3:5, Heb. 2:3-4, and so on.

It’s there, but it’s obsolete, and should be understood to be such?  Is it like the Constitution of the U.S. the text of which still refers to senators as chosen by state legislatures, and still contains language about that deplorable 3/5 compromise?  Only we know when we read them they are no longer in force? 

So where are the amendments to the the New Testament, Michael?  Cessationists seem to be those who proclaim phantom amendments to our Church Constitution. 

All Continuationists are really saying is, old orders are good orders.

11 Comments

Posted in cessationism, charismatic, continuationism, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, Michael Patton, sign gifts

Tagged , , , ,

What about Hebrews 2:3-4?

Posted on May 26, 2010 by | 15 comments

By Marv

Hebrews 2:3-4 is one of the “usual suspects” that is rounded up from time to time, the allegation being that it supports Cessationism.  Does the evidence really indicate this?  No, not really, but Biblical material that may be used to back this point of view is so scarce that I suppose you have to take what you can get.

If facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the law and the facts are against you, you need Daniel Baird Wallace, PhD.  The eminent Greek scholar has a short article on the topic entitled “Hebrews 2:3-4 and the Sign Gifts.”  I think I do not overstate when I say that the article is technically dense and not all that easy to follow.  Think of Peter on Paul: “There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). Its very opacity, however, serves a rhetorical purpose: it discourages critical analysis of his arguments and encourages an ipse dixit acceptance based on Dr. Wallace’s well-deserved reputation.  This explains citations I’ve seen of the article that take an “Emperor’s New Clothes” approach; “okay, I don’t get it, but Dr. Wallace is a smart guy, and he says it’s so.” 

Yet, it is important to recognize that Dr. Wallace never claims to find Cessationism actually taught from the passage, but merely that it “seems to involve some solid inferences that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased.”  What Dr. Wallace is offering here does not seem to be so much his own expert opinion, but something akin to a legal brief:  selected arguments that could be made from the evidence, without necessarily personally endorsing them as valid.  How “solid” then are these inferences?  Not very, I’m afraid, as this post intends to demonstrate.  To say that the case is not very strong is no knock on Dr. Wallace. Who better to make the best possible case that can be made from the text?  Yet even he cannot make bricks without clay.

So I find myself once again taking issue with Dr. Wallace, whom as I have repeatedly stated, I hold in the highest esteem.  However, the conclusion of his article states:

I do not pretend to think that this sole text solves the problem of the duration of the sign gifts. But whatever one’s views of such gifts, this passage needs to be wrestled with.

Taking this as an invitation to respond meaningfully, I then accept graciously and offer my analysis in the spirit of fraternal dialogue.

Let us begin by citing the passage in its context, starting with verse 1 of the chapter, with the portion of the passage that Dr. Wallace treats underlined:

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.  For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

1.  My first objection is with the phrase “sign gifts” in Dr. Wallace’s title.  This has the effect of injecting a concept foreign to the text itself.  The passage refers to “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as a class, and not to any subset of these.  Dr. Wallace never presents an argument that the term here (merismois, not the more familiar charismata) is meant to indicate only “certain spiritual gifts,” but merely dives in using that phase.   More than a little gratuitous, this is “assuming facts not in evidence.”  In fact, since the author explicitly mentions signs, wonders, and miracles, and then gifts of the Spirit, it would seem reasonable to expect these last at least to include “gifts” that are not also “signs.”  At any rate, it is hard to see how any cogent Cessationism argument from this passage would not take down teaching and mercy along with prophecy and healing.

2.  His argument begins by countering a Continuationist argument in a way that is hard not to characterize as “spin.”  Cessationists assert that God empowered certain activities through His Church early on and then deliberately ceased to do so at a certain point of time.  Is it illegitimate to ask “where is that in the Bible?”  His response (which takes some force from the loaded term “prooftext”) is that we would hardly expect such a statement, given that the NT writers (a) themselves exercised the gifts and (b) anticipated the Parousia in their lifetime.   I don’t dispute Dr. Wallace’s logic but isn’t this then essentially an admission that the cessation of particular spiritual gifts is not something that New Testament actually teaches.  

3.  The meat of Dr. Wallace’s case, however, involves syntactic consideration of the grammatical unit in which the phrase “gifts of the Holy Spirit” is found.  This is something called a “genitive absolute,” and  the ESV renders it: “while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” Dr. Wallace takes pains to argue that its participle sunepimarturountos, “co-testifying,” bears a temporal adverbial relationship to the immediately preceding finite verb ebebaiothe, “was confirmed.”  This latter is in the aorist tense and has unquestionable reference to past time.   It is true that the participle generally piggy-backs on the tense of the main verb. 

Dr. Wallace ruminates at length on the proper place to connect the genitive absolute semantically.   He does this rather needlessly, though, I think.  He is certainly correct in his conclusion here, and there are several other reasons for it that he doesn’t mention.  At one point though he does suggest an unlikely alternative, with a notation that it would align with Continuationism.  I don’t know whether any Continuationist ever did argue for that analysis, but it lets him appear to shoot down a Cessationist argument, albeit a phantom one.

There are a number of significant points in this argument which require comment, but one almost makes all others moot.  The most important objection is made by Dr. Wallace himself, albeit relegated to a footnote at the bottom of the second page:

The aorist indicative means “it happened,” but we cannot legitimately extrapolate from that a meaning, “and it doesn’t happen now.”  The aorist can’t be used to state a negative in the present time.

Having assured us we cannot do it, he then proceeds to do it anyway.  Oddly, what “we cannot legitimately extrapolate” in the footnote, becomes the chief of his “solid inferences.” 

He offers examples of cases in which the aorist does in fact refer to only-past-not-future events (and at least the one about the finished work of Christ is valid). So we know that a past event can be once-for-all,  but this is no indication that events behind the aorist in this passage are.  In fact, Dr. Wallace’s second footnote specifically refutes the idea, since he states that John’s writing of Revelation was yet future.

4.  A genitive absolute is a structure derived from the circumstantial participle.  Dr. Wallace describes the circumstantial participle and specifically the genitive absolute as expressing “adverbial relations.”  I understand why he makes this statement, but I don’t think this is the best way to describe the function of the circumstantial participle in general terms.  The circumstantial participle serves as part of the syntactic scheme by which Greek puts together related predications within a sentence.  Semantically, this grants to each predication in a sentence a value relative importance to the whole, something linguists call prominence.  Generally, a sentence has a single finite verb, the central predication.  Either before this finite verb, after, or both, there are associated participles that typically, though not exclusively, encode predications of secondary rank, that is with lower prominence. 

Greek stongly prefers this hierarchical system of subordinating, known as hypotaxis, rather than coordinating, or syntaxis.  By contrast Hebrew greatly prefers syntaxis.  You can see this in the heavy use of “and” in Gospel of Mark, probably the most Hebrew-like Greek in the New Testament.   Hebrews, on the other hand, is (paradoxically?) the least Hebrew-like, and the Greek in the New Testament that most nearly reaches Classical Greek style.  It thus favors hypotaxis and sophisticated use of participles.

English preference falls somewhere between Hebrew and Greek.  This means that sometimes what English would express by coordination, Greek expresses with a participle.  The best known example I can think of is the “attendant circumstances” usage Matthew 28:19 where the participle/finite verb sequence is very correctly rendered by syntaxis in English: “Go therefore and make disciples.”  Trying to imagine some adverbial function in the participle here, such as temporal, is simply misunderstanding the syntax.

Of course the relation of the circumstantial participle may be and often is one we would categorize as adverbial, such as time, means, manner, or reason (when, how, or why).  These are often used where in English we use a subordinate clause, introduced by a subordinating conjunction.  They are often translated this way.  However, Greek uses subordinate clauses in addition to circumstantial participles.  So what’s the difference? The chief distinction is this:  a coordinating conjunction specifically indicates the semantic relation.  A circumstantial participle is understood to be dependant, but the nature of the relation is not indicated.  This is because it is either (a) self-evident or (b) multiple, or (c) just not important. 

The specific relation is only discerned from context.  In any case whatever the relation of the circumstantial participle may be determined to be, that relationship is not a high-ranking bit of information, else it would not be left implicit.  What this means in this case is that even if the participle sunepimarturountos should best be understood as temporal, the text does not treat this as a very important fact.  Accordingly, an analysis that does is distorting the text’s own force of argument.

5.  The genitive absolute is a specific type of circumstantial participle, one that supplies (in the genitive case) a semantic “subject” for the participle.  This allows that subject to be different from the subject of the main finite verb.  Typically also that subject would appear nowhere else in the sentence, though this is not a firm rule.  The genitive absolute has a range of usage from the common to the rather recherché.  The latter is exemplified by this passage, Hebrews 2:1-4, which is as elevated an example of Greek as any in the New Testament. 

This brings us to what is, without question, the most misleading assertion in Dr. Wallace’s article.  He describes the function of the genitive absolute as “usually of a temporal nature,” and further specifies that “over 90% of genitive absolute constructions are temporal.”  I have no reason to doubt that this is factual, but without resorting to Mark Twain’s quip about statistics, let me state in no uncertain terms that percentages is not the way to exegete the function of a word.  It would be all too easy to jump from “usually” to “probably” in this passage.  That would be a mistake.  Allow me to explain.

I mentioned earlier the range of use for the genitive absolute.  To understand what I mean, I would like to refer you to a table that lays out the distribution of genitive absolutes by New Testament books.  It was compiled by Lois K. Fuller and appears in her article “The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding.” 

She lists a total of 312 genitive absolute constructions in the New Testament.  Strikingly, these are disproportionately found in the narrative books.  Expository genre, such as the epistles contain relatively few.   Among these Hebrews contains the most.  Narrative literature, the gospels and Acts alone contain 264 of the 312 usages, or some 85%.  Note the similarity to Dr. Wallace’s figure of 90%. This is due to the way the genitive absolute is used in narrative literature. 

This is where the “usually” temporal usage comes in.  Time reference is of the essence of narrative structure.  Events follow one another in what linguists call contingent temporal succession.  The genitive absolute comes in handy here, useful in making transitions, indicating a setting in which one event crosses another event in time.  This is its dirt-simple use, employed even by writers who make no claim to refinement of style, such as Mark.  In the following examples, I underline where the genitive absolute is located.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem… (Matt. 2:1, NASB)

When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed.   (Mark 1:32, NASB)

As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them (Acts 4:1, NASB).

This relatively common, temporal, type of genitive absolute is easy to identify.  It typically occurs in initial position (“usually,” Dr. Wallace states in Beyond the Basics, p. 655), and in context it clearly serves as a transition, introducing the setting into which another action occurs.

The structure of Heb. 2:4 could hardly be more unlike these.  It is sentence final, not initial, and there is no hint of a transition.  It does not constitute a setting for another action.  There is no reason beyond citing statistics to take it as temporal.

6.  Dr. Wallace himself has this to say about temporal adverbial participles in Beyond the Basics:

As we have said, the temporal participle answers the question When?  As well, if a particular adverbial participle is to be labeled as temporal, this should be the primary element the author wishes to stress…  Therefore, once you have identified the temporal force of the participle, you should then go on and ask whether another more specific semantic value is intended. (p. 624)

Does Dr. Wallace do this himself?  Not that I can see.  He simply relies on the statistical data of the genitive absolute in very different contexts.  Does the “God also bearing witness…” unit actually serve to answer the question When?  Does it delimit the time frame in which the gospel “was attested to us by those who heard?”  I submit that this would be a difficult case to make, to see time as its primary function. 

7.  Can we in fact determine a more specific semantic function?  Yes, but to do so we have to back away from the tree and take a look at the forest.  Surprisingly, Dr. Wallace does not do much to consider the context, which is the single most important factor for determining and the semantic contribution of each individual part to the overall flow of argument.  He might perhaps have surveyed the fourteen uses of the genitive absolute by the author of Hebrews to gain an idea of his proclivities, to determine whether “usually temporal” applies to him.

A larger perspective is provided by an approach known as discourse analysis.  Taking this into account, we note first of all that the epistle uses time as an important theme, in particular the word “today.”  The very first verse of the epistle draws a contrast between the distant past (the fathers, the prophets) and the very recent past (us, the Son), and the author builds on this idea through the whole letter.  This is most evident beginning in Heb. 3:7: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion…”  He builds on “today” again in vv. 13 and 15, and repeats it in 4:7.  His primary point for his readers is that their experience of the recent past, reception of the gospel of Christ, supersedes the traditions of the distant past, and demands a choice in the present: “Today.” 

This is exactly what the author is saying as he begins chapter 2:

“Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” (v. 1)

He then lays out again the distant past/recent past contrast, noting the superiority of the latter:

For since the message declared by angels (distant past) proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (recent past) (vv. 2-3)

He then elaborates on the preeminence of the recent past experience:

a. “It was declared at first by the Lord,”

b. “it was attested to us by those who heard,” and

c. “God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”

“Angels” is easily trounced by Christ, the apostles, God himself, signs, wonders, miracles, spiritual gifts.

That all these are in the past from the perspective of the readers is not due to any hinted cessation of activity, but due to the author’s theme that what the readers have already been told requires their allegiance in the present time. 

What then is the genitive absolute of verse 4 doing?  I mentioned earlier how Greek uses grammatical form to signal relative prominence between predications.  In this case the genitive absolute, calling attention to itself by its being in sentence final position, seems rather to serve as a prominence-enhancing device. 

The author lays out the three witnesses to the gospel in stair-step fashion, with increasing prominence leading to a climax, the three demonstrating the superiority of the gospel to the Old Covenant Law:  first, Christ, then the apostles, then God’s own testimony.  That this is a case of increasing prominence is indicated by other grammatical features.

First the reference to Christ in v. 3a uses a very unusual structure involving yet another circumstantial participle and an infinitive, which places it on the bottom rung in terms of prominence, especially since the infinitive is passive.  The phrase archen labousa laleisthai, literally means something like “taking beginning to be spoken.”  Another semantic feature involved here is known as focus.  At this point the message is in focus (indicated by soterias, “salvation”) and the messenger is de-focused, in this case, perhaps surprisingly, this is Christ.  It is not indicating He is unimportant, but the text here takes Him out of the focus momentarily by relegating reference to him to by an agency phrase, dia tou kuriou, “through the Lord,” and this at the end of the unit. 

That the next step rises in prominence is accomplished primarily by shifting to the finite verb of the sentence ebebaiothe, “was confirmed.” This too is passive, however, and the focus continues to be on the message.  The apostles too appear in another agent phrase “by those who heard.”

With verse four, we reach the third step.  There is now a focus shift from the message to the messenger, who is God.  We have active voice rather than passive, and the verb, the genitive participle appears at the head.  I am suggesting that in this case the genitive absolute construction, in its striking position following the main verb also serves to give it prominence.  Beyond this, the author then piles on specifics as to the means of God’s testimony.  The multiplicity is emphasized by the correlative conjunction structure te kai… kai… kai…, “both and… and… and…”

I think a better case can be made for this function than to treat it as adverbial, temporal. This is not to say that its time is not roughly simultaneous to the apostles’ confirmation of Christ’s message.  I think it is, but this is not what the author is getting at.  So even if these three witnesses are all in the readers’ recent past, nothing here gives the slightest hint that what was experienced by “us,” i.e. the readers, will not be experienced by others later.  As Dr. Wallace himself says, there is no legitimate way to infer that it does.

To conclude, I’m afraid I cannot grant much solidity to the suggested inferences in Dr. Wallace’s article.  They fail to consider context, rely on misleading statistics, distort the emphasis of the passage, and distract from the rather clear observation that the Cessationism claim remains without legitimate Scriptural support.  Certainly it is not to be found in Heb. 2:3-4.

15 Comments

Posted in cessationism, continuationism, Gifts of the Spirit

Tagged , ,