The following are a patchwork of some of my class notes from Systematic Theology III at RTS, with parts of two sermons preached in First Corinthians.
There is no single text in the New Testament that says that the gifts of tongues and prophecy have ceased. Nor is there any such text saying that those gifts are expected to continue as the norm throughout the church age. Both sides are working from biblical premises and making inferences from there. Indeed both sides are approaching the texts they do (for their “biblical premises”) from antecedent premises about why those texts should function in the debate the way they do. Until such hermeneutical complexity is taken seriously, debates about these less clear matters will likely be unfruitful. Having said that, let us start with definitions and a summary argument for both positions.
Cessationism is the position that the miraculous gifts, especially tongues and prophecy, have ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture in the first century. Those gifts were signs to authenticate either the word itself or the Apostles’ ministry of founding the church by that word. Once the task was completed, the need for such authentication was likewise terminated. Consequently, the sign function was the ability of the word to be communicated in other real human languages as the gospel went forth. So one thing denied by this position is that these are “private” or “heavenly” prayer languages, as such amount only to gibberish.
Continuationism is the position that these miraculous gifts have continued throughout the church age, that they are more than signs to authenticate either the word or the apostolic ministry. In addition they play a spiritual role in the body of Christ as a whole. Different groups (whether Pentecostal or Charismatic) may emphasize different modes of operation in the use of each gift, but they would all point to Paul’s letter to 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 as clear proof that they were intended for the body at large, and not merely for the Apostles.
The best argument for continuationism. The argument will have to make clear how some New Testament texts evidence more universal function for these miraculous gifts—other than as “word-signs” authenticating the apostolic ministry in the first century—and, if true, these would cancel out the most powerful argument for their cessation and make such gifts perpetual needs of the church. The “some texts” which are candidates for this are 1 Cor. 12:7-10 (for the edification of the whole body—not attestation of the apostolic ministry); 1 Cor. 14:3 (for edification and exhortation); 1 Cor. 14:18-19 (for Paul’s own edification in private prayer). Attempting to deconstruct the “word-sign” concept as a reductionism, Sam Storms says,
“Gaffin isolates one function of miraculous phenomena, ties it with the period in which it occurs, and then concludes that they can have no other function in any other period of church history. And he does this without one biblical text that explicitly asserts it.”1
Here I think Storms ignores that great hermeneutical principle of the WCF, by “good and necessary consequence.” Nonetheless he still sets a high bar for the cessationist to clear. It may also be added that Storms shows some redemptive-historical sophistication himself, in reminding his readers that the normal use of “latter days” as in the Joel 2 prophecy is the entire church age.2 This will have to be addressed by the Cessationist.
The best argument for cessationism. That the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament is that prophecy and tongues in particular are indeed “word-signs,” as Richard Gaffin suggests,3 and with Christ as the fullness of revelation and the Spirit the guarantor of his Word to the apostles, the perfect deposit of revelation is not yet canonized. I think this argument is persuasive to the degree that is argued from the final revelation of Christ on outward to texts that explicitly deal with the signs. If we simply start with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 and Hebrews 2:4 as isolated prooftexts, it still begs the question of whether or not there are other functions of these gifts. Now there is a reason I did not include in Storms’ argument non-apostles exhibiting gifts. Gaffin makes his case still more compelling by walking through these passages with redemptive history in mind.
If we view these instances as sign-markers, in the book of Acts, of the Word going out from Jerusalem (2:5ff) to Samaria (8:14-16) and then out to the Gentiles (10:44-46), suddenly the fact that non-apostles are speaking in tongues is not disconnected from authenticating the apostolic ministry.
Acts 1:8 becomes a template for the apostles’ mission, for which the Spirit is given as the power and tongues are given as a sign. Gaffin summarizes the hermeneutical principle well in this way: “Pentecost belongs to the history of salvation, not to the order of salvation.”4 That is very significant because it makes the cessationist argument to rest in a very normal, wide swath of the New Testament account. And elsewhere these gifts are called signs of that apostolic mission of establishing the church: “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor. 12:12).
Now what about those extended passages in the Corinthian letter?
Paul had been giving rebuke to the Charismatic-Corinthian interpretation of the body and its gifts. He ends out his metaphor of the body with a series of rhetorical questions: Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor. 12:29-30) Fairly straightforward questions at first. It might seem as though all he is saying is: “Don’t get caught up in the spiritual-superstardom!” And that he is. But notice what he adds. He gives two massive clues of what is to come. First, But earnestly desire the higher gifts. There is a contrast. What did he just get done saying? The weaker is really the stronger. The last is really the first. This is the kingdom way. The things we often think are the higher gifts are not the higher gifts. Paul contrasts the miraculous against the “higher gifts.”
The miraculous were the signs, and not the substance. They were the crutches for learning and not the running of the race. They were the church’s infancy: as a child dresses up like its parents, so the first century church was meant to put away childish things. Not that those manifestations were childish things in themselves. They were in themselves a divine work, meant for a moment in time; but if treated as an end in themselves, they become a hall of mirrors.
There is yet another clue. Second, And I will show you a still more excellent way. More excellent than what? More excellent than the gifts they were just focusing on. The love chapter immediately following is not a radically different subject than the gifts in the body chapter. It is not sandwiched between the two chapters on spiritual gifts haphazardly and for no reason.
At this point a few difficult passages in Chapter 14 become a kind of last battleground for the Continuationist position. Many conclude that 14:2-3 speaks of a “private prayer language,” sometimes even speculating that this may be the meaning of “tongues of angels” (13:1). And while there is nothing in the text to logically exclude that, there is actually a good three-point argument against it. First, this is the lone verse even hinting at it: which is never in itself disproof, but which should always be taken seriously as counter-evidence. Second, if everything else in these three chapters points “up from tongues” precisely because they are a sign of a fuller reality, then “speaking to God” and “mysteries in the Spirit” doesn’t constitute a norm anyway. In other words, even if that was a partial function of tongues, it wouldn’t necessarily give us any expectation for it to continue; Third, the word for “tongues” was the ordinary word for normal human languages, whereas no word like “unknown” attaches itself anywhere in the New Testament.5
Now an inference is made from the other words here: no one understands him (v. 2). If no one understands Paul, then this cannot be a human language. Case closed, right? However, this could be seen in light of Paul’s general contrast, which would be true for known human languages. No one in the body understands him, but it was a sign for outsiders. And how could these same tongues be a “sign” to outsiders, as Paul says down in verse 22, unless it were a language to someone? The whole thing makes more sense (as we always interpret the less clear in light of the more clear) in a wider gospel-kingdom context.
What exactly was the initial appearance of the sign at Pentecost a sign of? Many have answered that by saying that it was the first-fruits of the reversal of the curse at Babel, where God confused the language of the peoples of the earth. Whereas the sin had always been unity projects that make a name and a kingdom for ourselves, in the gospel, Christ is shown to be the only force that reconciles the hostile parties (cf. Eph. 2:14): whether that is the alienation of man to God, or of man to man. Tongues makes a perfect sign for that. And that fits the Cessationist position. It doesn't really have much of a place in Charismatic usage.
Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up (v. 5). Just as in verse 1, we can fixate on the descriptive “eagerly,” so here we can fixate on the quantifier “all.” Once again, this is question-begging. All of whom? Let’s consider a few possibilities:
(1) All Christians throughout the church age.
(2) All periods in the church age, but not necessarily all Christians.
(3) All Christians in the first century church.
(4) All in a general (or hyperbolic) sense to these Corinthians.
First, a contextual argument for option 4. He caps this off at the end of this thought in verse 12: “since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit.” which is not without a hint of sarcasm. Second, there is a scale happening in this chapter, from prophecy being the superior end of tongues (vv. 1-5), and then knowledge being the end of both (vv. 6, 14-19).
Verse 29 is also crucial: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” Crucial question: Who are these “others” doing the weighing? Are they elders? Are they a special class of prophets? Or is it everyone, since everyone (to some degree) has the gift? Whatever the demographic, let me mention two things to keep in mind: (i.) 12:10 had mentioned those with “the ability to distinguish between spirits”; (ii.) the theology of Paul’s letters grows from the 40s to 50s to 60s, so that the final letters had to do with the big picture of the church (Ephesians), but also his more detailed instruction for the ministry (Pastoral Letters). Putting these two things together, it is not difficult to parse out how this passage applied to the immediate audience and to the whole church age thereafter. In a letter undoubtedly before the Corinthian letters, Paul wrote,
Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good (1 Thess. 5:20-21).
Interestingly this passage is one that easily can apply across the board of church history, if we understand the prophetic utterance to have settled upon the organ of preaching. But even in the first century where miraculous prophecies abounded, they were still be tested by Scripture. That’s how one “held fast” and “didn’t despise” prophecies. Part of the context for Paul’s letters is that their chronological development mirrors that of the development of the church structure. The churches of the 40s and 50s were still expected to manifest the gifts as the first generation of elders ever were being raised up, and as the Apostles could only be in a few places at once around the growing Christian world.
In terms of what this last stage of a group of such prophets looked like, observe: If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (vv. 30-32). Another group that practiced teaching in a sort of “democratic” fashion is the Quakers. The Friends, as they are also called, do not believe in a hierarchy or special teaching office. So after a silence, to await the moving of the Spirit, one gets up and speaks as he is moved, and then another.
But notice the spirit of these first century prophets made subject to prophets. This shows us two things: first, that prophets are called to be judges: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1); second, that prophets have a reasonable human nature that is not bypassed by the Holy Spirit, but rather is the Spirit’s proper channel.
Henry again explains that,
“Divine inspirations are not, like the diabolical possessions of heathen priests, violent and ungovernable, and prompting them to act as if they were beside themselves; but are sober and calm, and capable of regular conduct. The man inspired by the Spirit of God may still act the man, and observe the rules of natural order and decency in delivering his revelations.”6
Now I briefly mentioned Joel’s prophecy that is fulfilled at Pentecost. In what ways does proper exegesis of this passage and its fulfillment determine anything in this debate? It seems that both sides could hang a lot on Joel 2, but not, as far as I can tell, with any decisive conclusion. And interestingly it looks like much of it depends on how the “all” or “women” of the prophecy are being viewed.
For the continuationist, there is a triple-mention in the prophecy about these miraculous gifts being for all: “on all flesh” (28a), “your sons and your daughters” (28b), and “the male and female servants” (29). In anticipation of a cessationist objection, the continuationist can then say that verses 28-29 are of the first fruits of the new creation, while 30-32 refer to the Last Day. It would seem to be special pleading to say that anything in 28-29 belongs to the consummated eternal state, especially if Acts is showing it fulfilled. And it would be equally stretching to reduce the cosmic wonders to anything that happened at Pentecost.
For the cessationist, it is exactly the citation in Acts that provides more clarity. So when Peter says “This is what was uttered through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16), what we have is a clear and central fulfillment. The continuationist is too quick to look at the scope of the promise, and has glossed over its nature. Are these functioning as signs? If they are, then it is not clear why men (or Jews in the first century, or male preachers throughout the church age) could not function as a first fulfillment of the prophecy, and the rest concern the future state. It should also be noted that at Pentecost, it would be highly unusual for women to be vocal in the same way. The passage seems to exclude women: “these men are not drunk, as you suppose” (2:15).
Boice puts the roots of the promise in Numbers 11:29,
“Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” He then sees this as a general promise that all would be “ministers” or “servants” with the Spirit working in them, each with a different gift. The specific gift of prophecy that is spread to all is then understood as the spreading of the gospel message.”7
That would certainly explain it, but I am not sure of the strength of the exegesis.
I do not see how to rule between these two interpretations without my mind going over to other New Testament passages where women speaking in church is an issue. It is intermingled with the tongues and prophecy issue in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. But that would only loop us back into the previous debate about whether non-apostles manifesting signs proves the Continuationist point. Since I do not think it does, I have always defaulted to the Cessationist side of even this piece of the puzzle. Any application of Joel’s words to the age after the first century seems speculative.
I have also tended to be untroubled by this passage (rightly or wrongly) because I have taken to the use of that term “prophesying” in the way that William Perkins and others in the Puritan era meant it: that is, anointed preaching. A lower level of certainty about this controversy must be confessed than, say, our doctrines of Christ or of salvation by grace, etc. Because of this, although my own feet are firmly fixed in the Cessationist camp, I tend to plead for charity toward our Continuationist brothers and sisters, and insist that we draw a thick line between the merely unconvinced versus those charlatans and circus ringleaders of the darker side. Strange fire there is a plenty, but not all who wander after spiritual highs are lost.
1. Sam Storms, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? 4 Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 75, cf. 191.
2. Storms, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? 4 Views, 75.
3. Richard Gaffin, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? 4 Views, 42.
4. Gaffin, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? 4 Views, 31.
5. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 190.
6. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 2271.
7. James Montgomery Boice, The Minor Prophets, Vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 144, 48-49
Commenti