OK, first a refresher course: I am an a posteriori cessationist. Basically, I do not believe that an airtight case can be made from the New Testament to demonstrate any promise either that the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit would cease at the end of the apostolic age or that they would not. Either the continuation of the gifts or the cessation of them would be a possible outcome from the New Testament data. In other words, if the gifts have ceased, this would not impugn the reliability of the New Testament at all, since the New Testament makes no definitive claim about the duration of these spiritual gifts. Free to conclude either way, I conclude by a posteriori observation on a gift-by-gift basis that at least some of these gifts have either been seriously abated or have utterly ceased.
I should also note that my ongoing, elongated series about the nature of the gift of tongues involves a question separate from this one. This post is not a part of that series. The series considers only the gift of tongues and looks not at whether tongues have ceased but at what they actually are (although the latter certainly has implications for the former); this post concerns all of the so-called “sign gifts” regarding whether they have ceased.
Having made clear my own position and the focus of the post, let me say that I think one of the strongest cases for a priori cessationism comes out of the words of Hebrews 2:1-4
For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.
Three things about this passage interest me:
First, this passage asserts a purpose for spiritual gifts that is not identified clearly for us in I Corinthians. Spiritual gifts functioned to validate the eyewitness testimony of those who received the gospel directly from the Lord Jesus. The signs, wonders, and gifts of the Holy Spirit that marked the New Testament age can be understood as a testimony from God rather than exclusively as a mundane congregational function. That spiritual gifts are placed here in the same category with signs and wonders is remarkable and important. Cessationism makes more sense the more closely the spiritual gifts are tied to the peculiar concerns and attributes of the apostolic age.
Second, this passage explicitly links these phenomena (signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts) with the eyewitness generation of Christianity. Jesus spoke. Those who heard Him told the story. God bore witness with them, the eye(ear?)witnesses, by means of these signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts.
Third, the main verb in the sentence describing these phenomena is in the aorist tense, which is a past tense in Greek. It describes it as an action that took place in the past—this confirmation of the gospel by the eyewitnesses and by the miraculous signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts given by God. It is true that the participle in the sentence (“bearing testimony together with them”) is a present participle, but the tense of the main verb, not the tense of the participle, governs the tense of the sentence.
If we have within the canon of scripture an inerrant testimony from a first-century observer that the epoch of signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts accompanying and validating the apostolic testimony were already a part of Church History rather than a contemporary phenomenon, then we have a significant argument in favor of a priori cessationism. Here’s a small portion of David Allen’s take on the question:
In addition, the use of the past tense (aorist in Greek) “confirmed” implies that the miraculous gifts did not continue. Wallace made the point well:
If such gifts continued, the author missed a great opportunity to seal his argument against defection. He could have simply said: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which was … confirmed to us by those who heard and is still confirmed among us while God bears witness with signs.”
Wallace was careful not to overstate the case when he said that Heb 2:3–4 “involve[s] some solid inferences that the sign gifts had for the most part ceased.” Koester likewise took a judicious approach to this question:
The author did not seek to replicate the earlier ecstatic experience, since the basis of faith was not the miracles, but the message that was confirmed by the miracles. It is not clear whether the author assumed that miracles were still being done in his own time or whether the time of miracles had ceased. The author emphasizes perseverance rather than hope for miracles.
Thus, Heb 2:3–4 has some bearing on the debate about spiritual gifts today between cessationists and non-cessationists. If all the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were active at the time of the writing of this epistle, one would expect vv. 3–4 to be written differently. If all the miraculous gifts were active at the time of the writing of Hebrews because some of the eyewitnesses (apostles and others) were still alive, the text seems to imply that once the eyewitnesses died the miraculous gifts ceased.
-David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 198–199.
Allen, Wallace, and Koester are right to beware overstatement. Neither here nor elsewhere does the New Testament make any definitive statement about precisely when the gifts will cease. Both cessationists and continuationists would do well to remember this. One is tempted to remind anyone who feels triumphalistic about the lack of conclusive evidence for a priori cessationism in the New Testament that there is more evidence in the Bible to justify your taking a concubine than there are promises that the spiritual gifts will endure beyond the apostolic age. Scripture remains coy on the question in both directions, and there is circumstantial evidence from which we can infer in either direction. Some could point to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit among believers and try to argue that the Holy Spirit, if He will work at all, will likely work in the same way as He did in the apostolic age. Others could point to the pattern throughout the canon in which there are episodic bursts of signs and wonders and similarly argue that the ongoing work of God in history, if it will persist at all, will likely transpire in the same episodic way. Both are inferences with a biblical foundation, but that does not negate the fact that both are inferences. Where you choose to place the burden of proof will have a profound impact upon your conclusions.
Because even this passage does not speak definitively on this question, I remain an a posteriori cessationist rather than an a priori cessationist. But the testimony of Hebrews 2:4, when considered alongside the testimony of the early church fathers (whom I will consult in my next post in the aforementioned series), depicts a certain trajectory that makes me more confident, not less, in my a posteriori cessationism.
“depicts a certain trajectory that makes me more confident, not less, in my a posteriori cessationism.”
Even so, please don’t moon the continuationists. 😉
Rest easy: That’s one calamity from which the world is safe.
And yes, I saw what you did there. 🙂
Thanks for an interesting post. After wrestling with this as a new believer in the mid to late 1970s, then in college, law school, and since, I have come to the position that you advocate. I do not want to go around stomping on people who claim to have experienced something, but I do object to the claim that the sign gifts should be normative like other spiritual gifts. If the sign gifts are normative, active and still present, then they should be demonstrated like all of the other spiritual gifts. If not, then we are basically where you and… Read more »
Louis, You pose good questions. Sometimes our continuationist brothers have good answers, and I’m sure that one or two will enter the conversation sooner or later. I particularly want to affirm your “might happen tomorrow” statement. God is able to do whatever He wishes. If it serves His purpose to reinstate a ceased gift, He will do it! This fact is important for a posteriori cessationists, because although finding three people in medieval Europe who claimed to have spoken in tongues would refute a priori cessationism (since it is the affirmation of an absolute and ongoing negative), for the a… Read more »
To add to Louis’s comment is an interesting thought: what if God chooses to provide affirming miracles anew especially in areas of the world where those miracles–and not a more rational, Western worldview–provide necessary certification in spiritual conflicts that include real (and imagined) demonic activity? Then the same process of a posteriori cessationism possibly repeats as Christianity is established as a stable and growing presence. This is one explanation for the “Like a Mighty Wind” testimony of Mel Tari from the Timor-Flores revival in Indonesia. And it also could explain some of Dr. Avery T. Willis’ findings in his book… Read more »
Greg,
I think that’s entirely possible. Perhaps in some contexts God has given, is giving, or will give the biblical gift of being able to communicate with other people in languages that one has not studied. Perhaps in those contexts the blind receive sight, the lame leap with joy, and the dead are raised.
That is precisely the kind of things that were reported in Mel Tari’s book. Which, no doubt, was why it was fascinating so many believers: in part because there is a suspicion that we’re “doing it wrong” if we don’t see those things.
I haven’t heard of another book providing a sequel for that story. Which is why I mention the potential pattern that when the Gospel is introduced to a new area, perhaps God expands the boundaries a bit more than we expect.
Right. I understood. Good point.
Amen, Bart. I agree with you completely. One thing though….I never called myself a “priority cessationist.” I always used the term “open cessationist.” 😉
I, too, believe that the sign gifts of miracles and healing and tongues ceased when the Apostle’s died out. Thanks for bringing out the teaching of Hebrews 2:3-4….I had not heard that one, before.
David
It’s an easy one to miss—unlike the more popular passages, this one occurs as a quick statement in a chapter that’s really addressing another topic.
“…there is more evidence in the Bible to justify your taking a concubine than there are promises that the spiritual gifts will endure beyond the apostolic age.”
Best thing I’ve read all day. Made me snort my coffee.
🙂
It amounts to good-natured ribbing of a friend who tweeted a long time ago in my direction that there is more evidence in the Bible to justify my taking a concubine than there are declarations that gifts will cease.
Both sides of that discussion need to put the porcupines down before someone gets needled.
In my post on 1 Cor. 1:4-8 as a scriptural a priori defense of continuationism, the context of Heb. 2:1-4 plays an important role. When taken together with 1 Cor. 1:4–8 (and 1 Cor. 13:8-13), it seems quite clear to me that, rather than supporting cessationism, Heb. 2:1–4 is one of the strongest passages supporting continuationism.
See my full argument here:
https://sbcvoices.com/my-question-to-john-macarthur-what-about-1-corinthians-14-8/#comments
David R., and Bart, I believe that God has brought you into the Kingdom for such an hour as this. Your response to Bart’s post here is more to the point, and better argued than what I would have said. Headed to the airport to preach in Chicago tomorrow. But, I look forward to re-reading your materials David, and following this discussion as time permits. Bart, thanks for your insights on the Hebrews 2 passage. Obviously, I disagree with Dr. Allen’s conclusions, but I did find your extrapolations interesting. I’ve asked this question a thousand times and no one seems… Read more »
You flatter and embarrass me, leaving me with nothing to say.
David, I took a little time to re-read that passage of scripture and try to do so from your point of view. I don’t want to be one of those people who knows that he’s right and just needs time to figure out why. When we reach the point that scripture does not have permission to correct us, then we are officially beyond hope. Having been through that exercise (and having read the original article when it came out…did MacArthur ever respond?), I’d say: 1. I’m pleased with your approach, because this is just the kind of discussion that we… Read more »
Bart, Thanks for your kind and reasoned reply. I think you attack my line of argumentation at its weakest point. If there is a chink in the armor, it is there. However, I counter with the following… 1. First Corinthians is addressed specifically to the church in Corinth “together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” (1 Cor. 1:2) While it is evident that there are some personal contextual issues dealt with in 1 Corinthians that only apply in a certain sense to the believers in… Read more »
David, Those are all good points worthy of consideration. They do not accomplish a change in my interpretation either because I’m stubborn or because… 1. Although much in 1 Corinthians obviously pertains to the body of Christ as a whole, this sentence is the part of the superscription in which the Apostle is detailing those reasons for which he regularly gives thanks for this particular group of people. It is the common practice of Paul in these superscriptions to customize his Eucharisto to the particular details of the specific set of people who would first receive the epistle. 2. Certainly… Read more »
Bart, I will just respond to your points 3 and 5 here. In the mediate context of 1 Corinthians, Paul specifies that not all gifts are given to each and every believer: God sovereignly distributes the gifts as He determines. Thus, the promise of confirmation by way of miraculous spiritual gifts is not directly linked to certain gifts always given to certain individuals (or even, as I understand it, to certain groups of individuals). It is, rather, a general promise that He would continue to confirm believers and the proclamation of the gospel by way of supernatural spiritual gifts until… Read more »
That is, if it is a preference of yours to presume that a change like the cessation of spiritual gifts could not have taken place between 1 Corinthians and Hebrews, doesn’t that include some sort of non-cessationism in the premises, which is what you’ll wind up affirming in your conclusion? Thanks for the answer on #3. It seems clear to me that this idea of not lacking any gift is something that Paul is saying about this particular congregation of believers in Corinth and is not something that he is saying just about the church universal. But that really just… Read more »
RE: Your point #1. I think the point in question hinges specifically on the interpretation of 1 Cor. 1:8. Perhaps there is another option I am not taking into consideration here, but from what I am able to tell, Paul says what he says based upon one of two options: 1) he knew what he says regarding the Corinthian believers and their confirmation “to the end” on the basis of some personal prophecy or word of knowledge; or 2) he says what he says about the Corinthians on the basis of his general doctrinal knowledge regarding all believers, which he… Read more »
Of course, I’m saying that it actually IS a statement from general doctrine, but that the confirmation in view here consists of something other than spiritual gifts. I’m saying that it is the keeping of them blameless until the coming of Christ that is the confirmation to the end.
If that is what the confirmation here is, then the entire problem goes away. And that doesn’t require you to become a cessationist, either.
Okay then, I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the way.
Are you saying the method of the confirmation referenced in v. 8 is different than that of the confirmation referenced in vv. 6 & 7?
It seems to me Paul is saying in vv. 6 & 7 that the method of confirmation was the enriching in “speech” and “knowledge” and the presence of spiritual gifts, and that in v 8 it is this same confirmation that will continue to “the end.” The result of this confirmation, both in vv. 6-7 and v. 8 is keeping them blameless.
Well, that’s probably my fault for trying to be too succinct. Let’s not cut the dog’s tail off one inch at a time. Let me just give you a full exegetical treatment of those verses in my next comment, begging your pardon for what will surely be the length of it.
I give thanks
-always
-to my God
-concerning y’all
-over the grace
–of God
–which was given
—to y’all
—in Christ Jesus
—that y’all were enriched
—-in everything
—-in Him,
—-in every word
—–and
—-in all knowledge
—-just as the testimony of Christ was confirmed
—–in y’all
—-with the result that y’all are not lacking
—–in any gift
—–while y’all are awaiting
——the revelation
——-of our Lord Jesus Christ
——–who also will confirm you blameless
———until the end
———in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Well, as I feared, my formatting of that exegetical outline did not work at all. I’ll just have to do it all in prose.
Exegetical prose…
So, as you probably can’t see in such weak formatting, I take the “not lacking in any gift” to be a result clause modifying “you were enriched,” not a result clause modifying “the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you.” This is, I think, a customary way of understanding the hoste clause in the syntax of this passage. Also, the connection between “being enriched” and “not lacking” is semantically strong. The kathos clause indicates similarity or proportionality, not identity. The degree of their enrichment is equated with the degree of the confirmation of the testimony of Christ among them. What… Read more »
Bart, your knowledge of Greek far exceeds mine. I do know enough to at least follow your argument here, and I will concede that it is possible to interpret 1 Cor. 1:4-8 the way you have laid out here, especially if you take it alone, outside the context of the rest of 1 Corinthians and the NT. But to me it is hard to escape the parallels between the language in 1 Cor. 1:4-8, and that of 1 Cor. 13:8-13 in which the topic is the timeframe of the continuation of the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. According to… Read more »
David, in your comment made at 9:19 a.m. today, you stated, “According to 1 Cor. 13:9-10, at the very least both prophecy and knowledge will continue until “the perfect” comes. . . . The evidence appears quite strong to me that Paul expected spiritual gifts–including the so-called ‘sign gifts’–to continue until the full maturity of the Church, something that will not take place, as I understand it until the revealing (i.e. Second Coming) of the Lord.” Wouldn’t we need to go with your “very least” in this passage? Paul makes some distinctions between tongues and the other gifts in this… Read more »
David,
I cannot imagine anyone’s questioning your exegetical skills. Nor do I think that the question alone of how to understand the syntax of this one passage would require a change in your understanding of the other passages.
Mike, That is my motive for including the words “very least” in this comment: I am aware of the argument in favor of distinguishing between prophecy/knowledge and tongues on the basis of the different voices used here. I am not convinced that necessarily means that tongues will cease at a different time than prophecy and knowledge. My understanding of 1 Cor. 1:4-8 implies the on-going confirmation of the believers in Corinth being tied to “all speech,” not just some speech (i.e. prophecy, but not tongues) and to being “not lacking in any gift,” not just not lacking in some of… Read more »
David, in the article (footnote 67) that you referenced in your comment at 12:33 today, there is this statement:
“Tongues is also part of what passes away.”
When we look at the passage, however, verse 9 says that knowledge and prophecy (not tongues) are partial. Verse 10 says that when the perfect comes, the partial (knowledge and prophecy) “will be stopped” (future passive of “katargeo” – the same verb used with knowledge and prophecy in verse 8).
By the way, David, you might wonder, if I read the original article, why I did not offer comment upon it. It seemed to me that the atmosphere and environment after the Strange Fire conference was one in which folks like me ought to be quiet for a while, presuming that one preferred harmonious conversation over heated rhetoric. I don’t have your post in mind when I say “heated rhetoric”; I just wasn’t optimistic about the comment thread in that particular moment in time.
No problem. I figured you were probably just unusually busy at the time.
Here’s a question that I would like to know the answer to. I was an ancient history major as an undergraduate student. My strategy was to follow up with law school. Then I would be in a position of represening all of the Babylonians and Hittites in the South. My question is whether there are ancient non-Christian sources addressing this question. From my recollection, the ancient sources mention the Christian distinctives of communion (we were cannibals), not believing that the Roman Emporer was divine, and believing in the resurrection of Jesus, among other things. Is there ancient literature from say… Read more »
Louis,
I’ll address this question in an upcoming post. “Upcoming,” of course, means in Barberspeak “before I have grandchildren.”