The When Question (Part 2): Acts 2
January 16th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Acts 2, which records the Day of Pentecost, is one of the central passages that must be considered in the continuationist/cessationist debate. In fact, the modern Pentecostal movement was born, in large part, through the study of this passage. In 1901, Charles Parham (the recognized founder of the modern Pentecostal movement),
directed [his students] to the account of Acts 2 where xenolalic tongues sparked the initial phase of Christian growth, and on Jan. 1, 1901, one of Parham’s students (Agnes Ozman) experienced the expected blessing and sign. (International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 956)
Parham was convinced that the end of human history would be marked by a “latter rain” outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and that the initial evidence of this outpouring would be miraculous tongues. For both of these elements of his theology, Acts 2 was a foundational starting point.
Thus the modern Pentecostal Movement was born.
We will discuss tongues-speaking later in our series. With regards to the when question, we are more concerned with whether or not Acts 2:17–21 (which comes from Joel 2:28–32) indicates how long the miraculous gifts will continue throughout church history.
Acts 2:16–21 is admittedly a difficult passage, and conservative evangelical scholars continue to debate its proper interpretation. There are at least four views regarding how these verses, at the beginning of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, relate to the prophecy of Joel 2:28–31.
1. Future Fulfillment Only. This view argues that Joel’s prophecy will be literally fulfilled at some point in the future (toward the end of the 7-year Tribulation period). Peter used Joel’s prophecy as an illustration of what was happening at Pentecost. (Merrill F. Unger [in “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit (Part 2)” BSac 101:403 (July 1944): 373-74], and Clifford Rapp Jr. [in “A Doctrinal Study of Acts 2:14” CTSJ 1:1 (Spring 1995)] defend this view.)
2. Dual Fulfillment. This view suggests that the prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost (at least partially [Joel 2:28-29]) with a more full fulfillment to come in the future. (Walter C. Kaiser, [in Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989) 43], Paul Feinberg, (in “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity [ed. J. S. Feinberg; Wheaton: Crossway, 1988] 126-127)] are representatives of this type of view. This view would include proponents of progressive dispensationalism.)
3. Past Fulfillment Only. This view suggests that Joel’s prophecy has been completely fulfilled in New Testament history. Whether the cosmic signs are allegorized, applied to Christ’s crucifixion, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, or applied to some other historic event, the case is made that we should not expect a future fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. (John R. Stott [in The Message of Acts (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990), 73] and F. F. Bruce [in Commentary on the Book of the Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 67–6] represent this view, which is the typical covenantal understanding of the text.)
4. An Advance Type. Daniel J. Treier, in “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32: A Multiple-Lens Approach” JETS 40:1 (March 1997): 13–26, argues for an advance typology, in which (if I am reading him correctly) Peter referred to the future historic events of Joel’s prophecy as a type of Christ’s earthly ministry. In the same way that the cosmic disturbances of Joel’s prophecy will motivate faithfulness to Yahweh at the end of the age, so the miracles of Christ should have invoked a similar response from the crowd at Pentecost. (Treier’s explanations and conclusions can be found in his article in JETS.)
Our goal here, of course, is not to delve into the pros and cons of each of these viewpoints. But I felt a treatment of Acts 2 would not be complete without at least acknowledging the various exegetical/hermeneutical issues that surround the text. (Personally, I am somewhere between numbers 1 and 2, with a curious interest in number 4. I find number 3 to be the least satisfactory approach, but again, that’s not what we’re here to talk about.)
Our goal is to consider this passage as it relates to the continuationist/cessationist discussion–specifically with regard to the when question. Does Acts 2:16–21 indicate how long the miraculous gifts of the Spirit will continue into the church age?
Acts 2:16–21: This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,
‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;
AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY,
AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS,
AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN,
I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy.
‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE
AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW,
BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS
AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD,
BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’
Douglass Oss, representing the Pentecostal (Assemblies of God) perspective, argues that Acts 2 sets the stage for continuing gifts throughout the whole church age. He writes,
The modern Pentecostal movement has from its inception emphasized Peter’s “this is what is spoken” definition of the “last days” as the primary foundation for the empowering aspects of its pneumatology. Spurred on by this understanding of fulfillment, Pentecostals have steadfastly proclaimed the continuing charismatic nature of the church empowered by the Spirit. (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views, p. 265).
In Oss’s view, Peter applied Joel’s prophecy to the whole church age (which began at Pentecost and will end at Christ’s return), and not just to Pentecost itself. The church age will be an age that is marked by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the evidences of such an outpouring will include prophecies and visions. Thus, we should expect charismatic phenomena (like prophecies and visions) to mark the entire church age.
But there is a problem. Joel’s prophecy includes other elements that did not occur on the day of Pentecost, and in fact have not yet occurred in church history (“wonders in the sky,” “signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke,” “the sun will be turned into darkness and the mood into blood.”) These cosmic signs are clearly not a normative, continuing part of the church age. Oss recognizes this difficulty and responds by writing:
It is often pointed out in objection to this understanding of the text that the more cosmic events (Acts 2:19b–20) simply did not occur and therefore Acts 2 is not the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. But in light of Peter’s clear fulfillment language (e.g., ‘this is what is spoken’), it is better to understand the signs that occurred on the day of Pentecost as marking out the beginning of the last days and the more cosmic signs as belonging to the end of the last days, just prior to the day of the Lord. (Four Views, 266).
In other words, the miraculous signs of Pentecost were a fulfillment of the first part of Joel’s prophecy, and the miraculous signs of the Parousia (Christ’s return) will be a fulfillment of the second part of Joel’s prophecy. The important thing to recognize (according to Oss) is that the church age is the age of the Spirit’s working. And since the Spirit is working for the entire church age, we should expect Him to dispense the miraculous gifts throughout the entire church age.
But there are a couple issues at play here. First, one has to assume that Oss’s understanding of the fulfillment language in Acts 2 is correct in order to embrace his view. I’m not sure all Pentecostals would agree with Oss’s assessment. Some would interpret Acts 2:16-21 in terms of dual fulfillment, identifying their contemporary experience with the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23.
Beyond this, however, I don’t see how Oss can exegetically support his claim that the signs accompanying Pentecost (and the apostolic era) should be expected to endure throughout all of the church age. Rather, it seems more tenable to assert, given Oss’s own reasoning, that in the same way that the cosmic signs are limited to the end of the age, the charismatic signs would be limited to the beginning. If that which marks the end is only found at the end, then that which marked the beginning could reasonably be expected to be found only at the beginning.
At best, in my opinion, Oss’s understanding of Acts 2:16–21 leaves the timing question open-ended.
What about the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23?
Traditionally, pentecostal charismatics have generally seen their movement as the “latter rain” of Joel 2:23. Thus, they believe that, though Joel 2:28–31 may have been partially fulfilled at Pentecost, its full fulfillment began in 1901 (or shortly before) when the modern Pentecostal Movement began. “Simultaneously, similar groups sprang up all over the world. They claimed that God in the last days before the millennial reign of Christ was pouring out His Holy Spirit upon His powerless church. There was to be a second, or fuller, realizing and fulfillment of Joel 2:28–29” (Robert C. Dalton, Tongues As of Fire, pp. 9–10). According to this perspective, the end of the church age will be marked by a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by miraculous gifts) just before the Lord returns. Even if the miraculous gifts ceased or significantly declined in church history, they have now reappeared in keeping with Joel’s prophecy.
One primary problem with this interpretation is that it undermines the chronology of Joel’s prophecy. If the specifics of Joel’s prophecy (in 2:28-29) are to be interpreted in a literal futurist sense, then the other elements of Joel’s prophecy must be viewed in the same way. But those other elements (which chronologically precede 2:28–29) have not yet literally occurred. Unger explains:
Before ever it [Joel 2:28–31] is fulfilled, however, the great invasion from the North must occur (Joel 2:1–10), the Tribulation take place (Acts 2:19–21), Armageddon be fought (Joel 2:11), Israel be regathered and converted (Joel 2:12–17), and the Lord’s Second Advent come, issuing in great deliverance (Joel 2:18–27). (Unger, “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit (Part 2),” 374)
One cannot take part of Joel’s prophecy in a literal futurist sense, and simultaneously disregard the other elements of his prophecy. Since those other elements have not yet occurred, the “latter rain” self-identification of some pentecostals becomes very difficult to exegetically maintain. Interestingly, some “latter rain” advocates will readily admit that the miraculous gifts either temporarily ceased or seriously declined at some point in church history. They differ with cessationists, of course, by asserting that the gifts have now reappeared in full force.
In an extended quotation, Thomas Edgar responds to the “latter rain” movement like this:
Many Pentecostals hold that the sign gifts did cease and that they have reoccurred in these “latter days.” This must be demonstrated from Scripture, however. There is no biblical evidence that there will be a reoccurrence in the church of the sign gifts or that believers will work miracles near the end of the Church Age. However, there is ample evidence that near the end of the age there will be false prophets who perform miracles, prophesy, and cast out demons in Jesus’ name (cf. Matt 7:22–23; 24:11, 24 ; 2 Thess 2:9–12). During the Church Age there will be false leaders who fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13–15). During the Tribulation period, there is no indication that believers, other than the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3–12, will perform miracles. Those performed by the two witnesses are exceptional, and their actions are comparable to those of Old Testament prophets rather than to those of the apostles. The two witnesses are not part of the church, and if they were, they could hardly be considered typical of the church.
The “latter rain” arguments are incorrectly based on verses that actually are referring to seasonal rainfall in Israel. Hosea 6:3 and Joel 2:23, for example, refer not to some unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days of the Church Age. They refer instead to spring rains, in contrast to early rains in the fall.
The arguments based on the expression “in the last days” in Acts 2:16–21 are also invalid. … This passage gives no evidence for a reoccurrence of miraculous gifts during the “last (latter) days” of the church. The present charismatic movement is characterized by phenomena that began in the church about 100 years ago, which apart from any historical connection or evidence are claimed to be the same as the miracles performed in the apostolic age. It is simply naive to accept this claim without some direct historical link or solid biblical evidence that these present phenomena are the same as those in the days of the apostles. (Thomas R. Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts” BSac 145:580 (October 1988), 375)
What can we conclude then about Acts 2:16–21 and the when question?
It seems to me that, no matter which hermeneutical approach the continuationist brings to the text, the exegetical evidence actually works against his non-cessationist views. At best, it leaves the question opened-ended—to be addressed by other, more specific texts.
More to the point, I believe Peter’s reference to the cosmic signs of Joel’s prophecy (which all agree do not characterize the entire church age) argue in favor of the viewing the charismatic signs similarly.
Oss’ view is the most straightforward interpretation, although I do not understand why he complicates things by saying that the signs of Pentecost mark the beginning and and the cosmic signs mark the end.
If the standard definition of “last” holds up then that provides very solid exegetical ground to support his claim that the signs accompanying Pentecost (and the apostolic era) should be expected to endure throughout all of the church age. Otherwise there would have to be days after the “last days” (v. 17) then last would not be last. By definition, “last days” must continue to the end, and in verse 16 Peter does seem to be marking the day of Pentecost as included in the “last days”. It seems clear then, that the “last days” will be from Pentecost until “the day of the Lord” and that what is prophesied to be poured out in the last days will indeed be poured out as long as the days are “last days”. To deny this interpretation it seems you must deny one of three things. (1) Either Joel was mistaken to call these days “last” (because they are not last if days come after). (2) Peter was mistaken to apply the prophecy to Pentecost (because the days were not last yet), or (3) Joel was mistaken to say the Spirit would be poured out (because the last days are here but no such signs are occurring, and Pentecost also did not match the prophecy).
Obviously, as the Word of God stands, none of those things can be. So it seems to me we should say, “these are the last days, therefore the Spirit is being poured out, and some time before the days are over the cosmic signs will occur.”
Very interesting work here. I am intrigued by this article and look forward to more great works like this. I am sure this article will bring great discussions.
In Christ,
A.P.Cunningham
Thanks for this, Nate. I’m preaching through Acts right now, and my next text to tackle is Acts 2. This will be helpful in my preparation.
Robert,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your interaction with my article (which was admittedly too long for a blog), and your subsequent thoughts.
Obviously, I do not believe that Joel was mistaken, that Peter was mistaken, that Luke was mistaken (in recording Peter’s sermon), or that the Holy Spirit was mistaken (in inspiring this text). Nor do any conservative cessationists (whether they be dispensational, progressive, or covenantal).
However, it seems to me that there are a couple weaknesses with your position. If I am reading you correctly, you are asserting that since “last days” refers to the entire church age, then the signs of the last days must accompany the entire church age. This is essentially what Oss asserts. The primary weaknesses with this position, as I see them, are:
1. The cosmic signs of Joel’s prophecy are just as much part of the “last days” as the charismatic signs. Since the cosmic signs do not characterize the whole, it is reasonable to conclude that the charismatic signs will not necessarily characterize the whole either.
2. Your view does not allow for the possibility that Peter was using Joel’s prophecy in either an illustrative or typological manner. Peter uses a similar structure in 1 Peter 2:25. (Whether or not Peter is using a pesher formula here is a matter of ongoing scholastic debate.) While an analysis of the covenantal/dispensational hermeneutic is beyond our scope here, it is important to realize that the prophecies and visions in Joel 2:28-29 occur after several significant eschatological events (see Unger’s quote above). If those events are taken literally, then it bolsters the case for either dual fulfillment or illustrative/typological use by Peter.
The three primary points of contact between Joel 2 and Acts 2 are (1) that the Spirit was poured out (though only in a limited sense, not on “all flesh”); (2) that miraculous signs accompanied the pouring out of the Spirit (though, in context, it is tongues, not prophecies and visions or heavenly wonders); and (3) that salvation was available to all who call upon the name of the Lord.
Peter had good reason, then, to draw parallels between what Joel prophesied and what was happening at Pentecost. But whether or not he saw it as direct/full fulfillment is not entirely clear. In fact, many conservative scholars (including charismatics) believe that he did not.
In any case, my point in this article was that Peter’s use of Joel’s prophecy does not conclusively demonstrate that the charismatic gifts will characterize the entire church age. At best, it leaves the question open-ended. At worst (for the continuationist), if the charismatic signs are seen as parallel to the cosmic signs, the precedent is set for phenomena which will not characterize the entire church age.
Thanks again for your comments.
- NB
Good thoughts. Nice article. Deep study.
Do the Reformed/Charismatics teach the “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is subsequent to being converted?
Perhaps this is a subject that needs to be kept seperate altogether.
This is one of the best articles by far Nate, I enjoyed it. I’ve never actually considered this passage in relation to the cessationist/continuationist issue. I would, however, like to share from a Charismatic point of view what I think this may mean.
After reading Acts 2:16-21 I’ve noticed that it makes no mention of speaking in tongues or even to Pentecost. It would seem that if Peter wanted to explain the miracle of the tongues it would have been more appropriate to quote Isaiah 28:11 and the surrounding verses.
But God’s ways are not our ways, and what may seem appropiate to our finite minds is not even comparable to the infinite depth of God’s wisdom and understanding. I believe, that there may be another way to understand why Peter quoted the verses out of Joel 2:28-31. Is it possible that Peter is using these Scriptures to both explain the actual incidents which occurred on this day as well as prove by the Word that this was the outpouring prophesied through Joel?
In otherwords Peter could have said: “This is the essential fulfillment of this prophecy which will begin today and carry on to the coming of the Lord Jesus”.
I believe the manifestation of the tongues is just a peice of the prophecy. Tongues are simply a part of the massive reservoir of giftings the Holy Spirit is pouring out on the Body of Christ. I believe the important thing Peter wanted the Jews to know is that the prophecy was being fulfilled, the Holy Spirit had come and God was going to do incredible things in the earth and save all who call upon His Name.
“‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’”(vs.17)
When are the last days he’s referring to? These are the last days (Heb. 1:1-2).
“God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND;” (vs.17)
I believe this is the essential message of the prophecy and the essential point Peter is trying to make. “What you see here today is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as prophesied!”.
The rest of the verses Peter quotes simply declare that everyone (Sons and Daughters, men young and old, bondslaves, etc.) will by the Spirit of God experience miraculous things (i.e. prophecies, visions and dreams). It points to the fact that miraculous things both on earth and in the heavens will occur ‘BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME’.”
If these things will continue to occur until Jesus returns, who are we to say what order they should be fulfilled in? Moreover, who are we to say that they’ve ceased or manifests on and off throughout the N.T. era?
I think Peter was just making the point that what the Jews were seeing and experiencing on this day was the actual BEGINNING of the fulfillment of the prophecies made by Joel. He closed his message with the command to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38) and the promise that all who repent and trust in Christ would receive this same outpoured Spirit of God (2:38-39).
Again, wonderful post and may God bless you in your service to the King.
donsands,
Most Reformed Charismatics generally agree with the approach that Wayne Grudem in his ‘Systematic Theology’ takes to the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and that is that it is synonymous with regeneration. Being a Reformed Baptist Charismatic I’m sure I don’t speak for all but I believe that in 1 Co. 12:13 it teaches that all genuine converts to Christ are “baptized WITH one Spirit INTO one Body”. In the same way that we are baptized WITH water INTO the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19) so it is with the Spirit Baptism.
I do believe, however, that the ‘filling’ of the Holy Spirit is a continual experience subsequent to conversion. An experience all Christians are commanded to seek (Eph. 5:18). Hope that helps.
CBX,
Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your gracious spirit.
I’m not totally sure I understand how your position is different than that of Douglas Oss. He sees the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28, which (at Pentecost and beyond) was manifest through charismatic signs (including tongues, prophecy, visions, etc). These signs not only marked the apostolic age, they continued on throughout the church age, and will continue until the Parousia.
The cosmic signs (of Joel 2:30-31), however, were not present at Pentecost, and in fact will not occur until the end of the church age.
Perhaps I am not reading you correctly, but it seems that your view is very similar to this. Joel 2:28-29 was fulfilled at Pentecost (and its fulfillment extends throughout the church age). Joel 2:30-31 was not fulfilled at Pentecost, but will be fulfilled at the end of the age. Joel 2:32 was fulfilled at Pentecost (and its fulfillment extends throughout the church age).
Would this be an accurate summary of your position? Or am I missing something?
Thanks,
NB
I suppose this would be an accurate summary of my position as far as I understand.
I have also reviewed the problems you have with this understanding of the text and have taken them into consideration. Your conclusion was:
“I don’t see how Oss can exegetically support his claim that the signs accompanying Pentecost (and the apostolic era) should be expected to endure throughout all of the church age. Rather, it seems more tenable to assert, given Oss’s own reasoning, that in the same way that the cosmic signs are limited to the end of the age, the charismatic signs would be limited to the beginning. If that which marks the end is only found at the end, then that which marked the beginning could reasonably be expected to be found only at the beginning.”
I clearly see your reasoning in this and totally respect it, plus I think it is a legitimate questioning of Oss’ interpretation of this passage.
I guess my response would be: Instead of saying the gifts of the Spirit were characteristic of the early church and the cosmic signs characteristic of the time before Christ’ return; couldn’t we just say that these manifestations began at Pentecost and will successively be fulfilled? What I mean to say is; is it possible that the fulfillment began here and will continue until all is fulfilled?
That helps cbx. Thanks.
Interpreting Prophetic Scriptures can be difficult.
Jesus quoted Isa. 61:1-2, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me…” as being fulfilled by his ministry but broke v2 in the middle and stopped quoting before the phrase, “the day of vengeance of our God” because it referred to the end times and was not being fulfilled yet.
You can see from this that a single prophecy can have multiple times of fulfillment. Even within a single verse. This at least shows that there is a possibility of a division in time between the two halves of Joel’s prophecy or the dual fulfillment of them.
I believe what we’re seeing in this scripture from Joel is similar to the two mountain peaks analogy; One is near (Pentecost) and the other farther behind (Day of the Lord). The valley in between the peaks (Church age) cannot be seen. Your assignment, “tell me what’s in the valley in between.” Tough assignment. From what I’ve seen a lot of people just assume whatever answer fits in nicely with their current theological perspective.
I see a lot of people who really want the Gifts of the Spirit to have passed away. They may feel threatened by supernatural manifestations, or feel they lack power to do such things, or as in unknown tongues it seems foolish and they don’t want to do it. I definitely believe that these kind of ideas put a bias in many people’s interpretation.
It really doesn’t matter whether you postulate cessation or continuation. Either way you’re going to have to do a lot a assuming to arrive at that conclusion. There’s a definite lack of textual evidence concerning what’s in between.
I think the comment about there not being more days after the “last days” is an interesting point. It also seems that Peter is saying that the “last days” had now begun. Since the end time signs obviously were not occurring right then Peter must have meant that the last days would continue until all the signs stated had been fulfilled.
About the term “all flesh.” It seems obvious that the day of Pentecost could hardly be considered a complete fulfillment of the Spirit being poured out on “all flesh.” That would seem to indicate that more is to come one way or another. It is interesting to observe that the Gifts of the Spirit are distributed to “every man” (I Cor. 12:7,11). “Every man” could easily be equated with “all flesh.” A distribution of all of the Gifts of the Spirit to “every man” would be a much more complete fulfillment of the first half of Joel’s prophecy than speaking in tongues alone on the day of Pentecost.. Prophecy is included in the Gifts and visions often contain various elements of prophecy, the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom, and discerning of spirits. (Seeing angels, demons, or Jesus would all fall under the category of Discerning of Spirits). So the Gifts of the Spirit can encompass both the prophecy and visions from Joel’s prophecy and the speaking in tongues that occurred on the day of Pentecost.
I would say that this scripture would allow for a continuation throughout the last days or the restoration of the Gifts of Spirit towards the end of the last days but I can’t prove it from this scripture alone.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
[...] Nathan Busenitz (John MacArthur’s personal assistant) takes a fresh and profitable look at the continuationist/cessationist debate over at Pulpit Magazine. [...]
@ Riley Brown
I agree that a prophecy could have multiple fulfillment, but I think its unfair to choose that particular one because our Lord deliberately cut the quote in half, so its pretty clear that the latter half it is to come at the end.
So although what you said is technically true, I don’t think it helps a lot in this case b/c the real trouble is why Peter quoted that particular piece as a whole.
Are you more thinking along the terms of the Psalms where they have double fulfillment?
Also,
For the Charismatics here, I have a question. Since the Spirit comes and goes and gives gifts to whomever he pleases – why doesn’t he hook me up w/ some prophecy it really help me out – I’d also really like to learn Japanese. jk
Sorry, for being facetious, but you get my point. Why does He skip over all of us poor cessastionist folk? Seems weird that if a person’s predisposition is to not like it that the Spirit would say “Fine, than you don’t get it.” From the NT it seems like they were given regardless of meriting it so to speak. That just struck me as weird that He would be holding out on us.
-John
Thanks for the response Nate. I better understand your critiques of Oss’ (and perhaps my) position now. However, I’m not quite sure that your critique works, or at least it doesn’t exactly address what I am trying to say.
My position is essentially that, “once established, it cannot cease due to the definition of last days.” The charismatic gifts were given at Pentecost, which Peter labeled as the last days. Days after the last days cannot exist (by definition of the word last), therefore the gifts must continue, otherwise the days were not last.
Now, does this mean that the cosmic signs would also have to happen on Pentecost for my interpretation to hold true? No, it just means that once the cosmic signs do occur, they cannot be revoked. Otherwise, as I tried to articulate, the use of the term “last” would be mistaken.
If the charismatic gifts were rescinded that would make Pentecost more like the initial days and the days of the cosmic signs more like the last days. But there is no such split. Pentecost is just as much a last day as Christ’s return is a last day. What happens last is last, it can’t be followed by something different.
For example, say that I was an honest (infallible) man and I was dying and I told a friend, “in my last days I will give everything I own to the poor.” A week later, my friend sees me and all my possessions are gone. I have done what I said I would do! But then a week after that my friend sees me again and I have back the very things I had given away. There is really only one conclusion he could draw: that I got a new lease on life and these are not indeed my last days.
You see by Peter’s (read: God’s) use of the word “last” he prohibits anyone from saying, “what happens now will change later”. If it changes it is not last!
I see your point about the cosmic signs not characterizing the whole therefore perhaps the charismatic signs not characterizing the whole, but I think before we say that “last days” is just another term for “church age” (i.e. a period of time), we should look at the more obvious meaning of “last days” as “the days which are final, conclusive, nothing comes after.”
To say something will be done in the last days (like the giving of the Spirit) then to say it was undone (like the withholding of the Spirit) is to make Peter’s word last meaningless.
Sorry, I realized that my previous post must sound pretty convoluted. I have continued thinking intensely about this passage and have realized now what I am really trying to say.
Basically what I am saying is that I do not see where in the world the idea that the Spirit may be withdrawn comes from in this passage.
I understand the concept that because cosmic signs do not constitute the whole, supernatural signs may not constitute the whole; my only problem with that is that I do not see the “constitute the whole” paradigm indicated anywhere in this passage or the rest of the Bible for that matter.
It seems to me that the most common-sense paradigm when talking about the pouring out of the Spirit, or anything else God will do, is the “given” paradigm.
When something is given, it is not taken back – that would called a loan. I think the framework of saying the Spirit is poured out and saying that cosmic signs will occur, is that the Spirit is poured out, it is now yours, and the cosmic signs will also occur, but later.
Just think of it as a person saying, “on Christmas I will give you a bike and a book”. If the bike was given Christmas morning yet not the book, one would never become sad and think, “he has given me the bike this morning, but the book will come tonight, that must mean that since I only get the book for part of the day then I only get the bike part of the day.”
That simply does not make sense. The bike is given, it is not to be taken back only because something else comes later. It is the same, as I see it, with Acts 2.
Where in the world do we get the idea that, when something is being poured out, “A doesn’t constitute the whole so B won’t constitute the whole?” To me, it just seems nonsensical. What we should be saying is “A has been poured out, so we have that, B hasn’t happened yet, so we’re expecting that.”
So here’s my guess: I am missing something extremely obvious and just can’t see the forest through the trees. Can someone help me out here? Where do get this paradigm from, other than a desire to demonstrate that the Spirit is gone? Why impose it on this text?
Robert,
Thanks for your comment.
Cessationists would not assert that the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost and then removed later. Rather we would contend that the miraculous charismatic signs that accompanied the Spirit’s coming were for the apostolic age only.
Cessationists very much believe that the Spirit is still active in the church today. While we do not believe the miraculous phenomena of Pentecost was to be characteristic of the entire church age, we would never suggest that the Spirit Himself is gone or inactive.
Hope that helps.
- NB