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 I are. God can and does use any gift or device he chooses to use, when he choses to use it. That, to me, is a description of an episodic display that is totally under God’s control, which might happen tomorrow, or not for 1000 years.
It also seems strange to me how certain claimed gifts (e.g. tongues etc.) only display themselves in congregations of the people who believe in them. I have wondered if sign gifts do exist today, why are the evidences of these always in certain types of churches? It seems to me that they would be popping up all over, in all types of churches. The argument that God doesn’t display them there is a little too judgmental and convenient.
Also, these gifts also show up in some far flung country with little or no corroboration. I have always found that interesting. Why not Time Square?
Look forward to further posts on this subject.
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 posteriori cessationist, the idea that isolated episodes might possibly have taken place somewhere along the way is neither troublesome nor particularly germane. The question is simply whether it is or is not a gift commonly distributed among believers that one should be able to walk up to a blind man and restore his sight, to give one example.
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 “Indonesian Revival: Why 2 million came to Christ” which attempted to demonstrate that the revival wasn’t specifically dependent on either miracles or visible spiritual gifts since a revival occurred mostly via non-“show” means on Java while more miracles and gifts were evidenced in some outlying islands. The work on Java was significantly older (though I would be very careful in using the word “established”) than the work on Timor. I’d also note that different groups were the primary leaders in each and that was another explanation he mentioned.
As I’ve noted before: I’m a “pragmatic” cessationist in the sense that I’m not eager to declare others visible gifting as invalid, I’ve never experienced more visible gifts like tongues or healing/miracles, and I think any particular congregation can be effectively administered either WITH or WITHOUT permitting the exercise of those gifts within the congregation without grieving the Holy Spirit (from my experience I’m drawing that conclusion.)
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 to be able to answer it, but I am baffled to know whether it is primarily the gatekeepers in the SBC who holds to some form of cessationism that causes it to be the defacto policy for the entire SBC? Or if the convention could vote on this matter at a well publicized time, would the Life-Way poll vote that reflected the majority of the SBC affirms continuationism win? We could debate this issue ’til the cows come home. Unfortunately, our convention will not take a stand on this issue. Even taking a stand as was taking on the Calvinist-Traditionalist issue affirming legitimacy on both sides would be helpful.
As a pastor who loves to engage in church planting, I find it difficult to answer the question from prospective church planters: Where does the SBC stand on the subject of spiritual gifts? It seems to me that it would be realitively easy for the SBC to provide an honest forthright answer to that question. Can anybody explain to me, why won’t the SBC answer this theological question? Does anybody know what NAMB’s position on this issue is? We don’t discriminate against cessationist or charismatic leaning church plants as long as they affirm the BFM 2000; but, the question that I can definitively answer for them is; where does the SBC and NAMB stand on this issue? Maybe when Bart becomes president of the SBC he will lead us to a definitive position on this matter. -:) That would be a great day.
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 need to be having—exegetical and deep.
2. I can see why you’ve concluded as you have and have attempted hypothetically to put myself in your position and see where I might wind up.
3. I don’t think that this passage accomplishes the development of an a priori case for continuationism for the reasons that I will summarize (since a comment is a comment and a post is a post and never the twain should meet) below.
a. There is no possible antecedent for “you” (to my understanding) that would make sense if “the end” is the second coming of Christ and the “confirmation” represents anything amounting to continuationism. The people are dead. Wherever they are, they are not prophesying or speaking in tongues. The church in Corinth is gone. We still await the end.
b. That the spiritual gifts were present in Corinth is not in question—at least, not between you and me. I think that most cessationists of every stripe regard the purported cessation as something that took place after I Corinthians had been composed. If one believes that I Corinthians precedes Hebrews by quite a bit (as I do), then the phenomenon of the testimony of Christ being confirmed in Corinth by attending miracles and spiritual gifts is something that both your interpretation and mine would alike expect. Since we both affirm it, the existence of it does not serve as evidence either for or against either of our positions.
c. Where bebaiosei (a pox upon you, Dave Miller, for the lack of Greek font support on this blog) appears in conjunction with heos telous, in the second use of the word, it appears in conjunction with the expectation that the Corinthian believers would be preserved “blameless” (anenkletous) in the day of our Lord Jesus. That’s a meaning that makes sense, for here is a confirmation that does indeed endure to the end: The Corinthian believers, long dead, are nonetheless preserved blameless all the way through until the last day. They are not practicing spiritual gifts; they are remaining blameless.
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 Corinth at the time of Paul’s writing, the general gist of what he is saying are applicable to all believers throughout all ages. I believe the differences are made plain in the context, and that even the material directed to specific situations in Corinth at the time are based on principles that hold true with all believers throughout all time.
2. Taking this into account, I the “you…to the end” dynamic you mention in your point a above may well be understood in the same way we as modern-day Evangelicals typically understand “behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” in Matthew 28:20. Jesus did not only promise His presence and authority to the eleven, but, in doing so, also promised His presence and authority to the Church throughout time.
3. If the method of confirmation for the 1st-century Corinthians was spiritual gifts, and the time extent of confirmation is till the end, the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, and if we in this time are still being confirmed, it seems odd to me that the method of confirmation changed sometime during the in-between period. If this were the case, it would seem to me that God, by way of divine revelation, should give some notification of this.
4. Also, early church history does not give testimony to spiritual gifts ceasing either before or at the time of the writing of Hebrews. Perhaps, based on certain assumptions, some decline in the frequency of their occurrence, but nothing with regard to their cessation until much later–and the evidence of this is dubious, at that.
5. My biblical hermeneutic is based on a preference for a correlation between 1 Corinthians and Hebrews, not a contrast due to a changed situation. I think a changed-situation hermeneutic will end up leaving you on shaky ground with regard to a lot of biblical interpretation.
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 what you are saying about the Great Commission is true, and certainly we would both agree that it is also true that Jesus did sometimes make promises that pertained only to subsets among those who would follow Him (some of His statements to Peter or John seem to pertain particularly to those men). It is necessary that we examine each statement on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is particular or universal, I think. Usually it will be obvious; sometimes perhaps it will not be.
3. The thorny problem you will face here, I think, is whether you will conclude that the multitude of non-charismatic believers in the present day and throughout the history of the church are not confirmed in the faith. 1 Corinthians 1:8 ties this confirmation to the hope of being presented blameless in Heaven. Do you think that we are lacking in the gifts? Do you consequently doubt our (we cessationists’) final destination?
4. I’ll save the church history information for my later post.
5. I may indeed find an out-of-service bridge somewhere down this road and have to double back. That’s the risk we run when we make interpretive choices. However, doesn’t your hermeneutical preference run the risk of begging the question?
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 “the end.”
With respect to point #5, I have an inkling, but am not totally sure what you mean. Could you tease that out a little further for me?
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 brings us back to #1, which is likely the root of every way in which you and I would see this sentence differently.
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 specifically applies here to the believers in Corinth. This is somewhat of a thorny question, because we know Paul was a prophet and he did at times receive specific revelation that had to do with specific people and circumstances. At the same time, though, he received much of his general doctrinal knowledge by way of supernatural revelation. What I would ask here is, is there any discernible pattern of Paul writing specific messages to specific individuals or groups of individuals based on information he had gained as a result of some specific word of knowledge directly applicable to them? I cannot think of any off-hand, but I may be forgetting some example of this.
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 the kathos clause does not do is stipulate means. The confirmation is not the means of the enrichment. The enrichment is not the means of the confirmation. These two things are simply in proportion to one another. Consider Louw Nida that kathos is a marker “of similarity in events and states, with the possible indication of something being in accordance.” Similarity and proportionality are the significance of this word. The content or nature of the confirmation is not given in this part of the sentence. We are merely told that its measure is in proportion to the measure of God’s gracious giving to them.
Where does that leave us on the first part of the sentence? They’ve been given gifts to such a degree that they lack nothing. This enrichment of them is the gift of God’s grace, and it has come to them in ample proportion to the way that the testimony of Christ has been confirmed among them. For this state of affairs Paul is thankful in an ongoing way.
Now, for the end of the sentence. Their lacking of no gifts takes place while they are awaiting the revelation of Jesus Christ. I take this participle to be temporal, as, it appears, do the translators of the preponderance of major English translations. Jesus Himself, it is promised, will confirm (or establish) the Corinthian believers as blameless in the last day.
It is true that the same verb bebaioo appears in both verse 6 and verse 8. It is clear, however, that the two need not—and perhaps MUST not—be translated the same way or taken the same way. This is dictated not by the theological implications that I might want to achieve but by the very different treatment of the verb in these two places.
1. They have different subjects: In verse 6, there is no subject. The verb appears in the passive tense. In verse 8, Christ is the one performing the confirmation. Granted, it is reasonable to conclude that the Godhead lies behind the confirming work in verse 6, but grammatically, the subjects of the two verbs are different.
2. They have different objects: That is, two different things are being confirmed in these two verses. In verse 6, it is the gospel message, the “testimony of Christ,” that is being confirmed. In verse 8, it is the individual believer who is being confirmed.
3. They have different predicate adjectives: That is to say, the latter has a predicate adjective and the former does not. What is being confirmed in the believers in verse 8 is their blamelessness.
4. And so, the only thing in common between these two clauses is the verb root.
That the structural environs are so dissimilar between the two is the reason why a translation like the ESV feels comfortable translating the verb using two different words in the mere space of two verses.
Between these two uses of bebaioo, the first one is the most similar to the usage in Hebrews 2. As in Hebrews, the clause in verse 6 involves the confirmation of the message of Jesus. I think it could be plausible to say that Hebrews 2 gives some clue as to the link of proportionality here: The message was confirmed to them by signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts (just as Hebrews 2 says), and then God enriched them in proportion and similarity to that by giving them spiritual gifts and signs and wonders during that apostolic age.
The second clause in verse 8, on the other hand, is no longer talking about the validation of the gospel message. Here what is being confirmed and made steadfast is the blamelessness of the Corinthian believers until the last day. Neither you nor I argue that this is the function of spiritual gifts, I think—that they serve as evidence of the justification or sanctification of believers. But with the change in object and the addition of the predicate adjective, this is clearly the meaning of verse 8.
So yes, I take the confirmation in verse 6 and the confirmation in verse 8 to be different things, because the grammatical context seems to require it and certainly permits it.
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 1 Cor. 13:9-10, at the very least both prophecy and knowledge will continue until “the perfect” comes. It seems to me hard to avoid the implication, letting 1 Cor 1:4-8 serve as a commentary on 1 Cor. 13:8-13, that “the perfect” in 1 Cor. 13:8-13 is linked to “the end” in 1 Cor. 1:4-8. Throw Eph. 4:7-16 in the mix, and 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
(see also 1 John 3:2 on this point).
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 passage, doesn’t he?
1. He uses different verbs: “pauo” for tongues and “katargeo” for knowledge and prophecy.
2. He uses different voices: middle voice for tongues and passive voice for knowledge and prophecy. Daniel Wallace makes a very good argument that middle voice usage for tongues is not deponent (not merely stylistic). Thus, tongues cease on their own, while knowledge and prophecy will be stopped when the perfect comes.
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 the gifts.
Though I linked to it earlier in my post Bart and I are discussing here, this may be a good time to post the following link to an excellent (and in my opinion, balanced) article discussing many of the exegetical issues involved with continuationism/cessationism and the various passages we are discussing here.
https://bible.org/article/questions-cessationists-should-ask-biblical-examination-cessationism
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 100 AD to 500 AD (preceding Constantine, can’t remember the exact date for him) in the Roman or Greek world where secular writers describe tongues, people being raised from the dead, healed etc.?
That would not be controlling for me, but I am interested.
Do Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, and others deal with these questions in any real way?
I would be interested to know.
Louis,
I’ll address this question in an upcoming post. “Upcoming,” of course, means in Barberspeak “before I have grandchildren.”