Having considered the nature of tongues in previous posts, today we will look at the nature of New Testament prophecy. Like tongues, we will find that the contemporary charismatic practice of prophecy fails to match up to the New Testament description of the gift.

(This post is, again, in an annotated form — coming from a 2007 Shepherds’ Conference seminar on this topic.)

PROPHECY

The Continuationist Definition: The gift of prophecy is generally defined as a non-authoritative, often-incorrect, human report of true, error-free revelation from God. It is fundamentally different than OT prophecy, which had to be 100% accurate (cf. Deut. 13:1–5; 18:15–22). It is not canonical and does not replace the all-sufficient Scripture, but rather gives specific information regarding the application of Scripture in daily living (cf. [Wayne] Grudem, Kingdom and the Power, 81).

 Prophecy is “the human report of divine revelation. It is this that distinguishes prophecy from teaching. Teaching is always based on an inscripturated text; prophecy is always based on spontaneous revelation” ([Sam] Storms, Four Views [of the Miraculous Gifts], 207).

 Yet, “prophecy is occasionally fallible” because of the human agency involved. Every prophecy involves (1) divine revelation, (2) human reception and perception, (3) human interpretation, and (4) human application. It is in these human aspects where fallibility enters in. Thus, “in terms of revelation alone, the New Testament prophetic gift does not differ from the Old Testament prophetic gift” (Storms, Four Views, 207).

 Biblical examples of human error in NT prophecy include the disciples at Tyre (Acts 21:4) and the prophet Agabus (Acts 21:11) (cf. Storms, Four Views, 208).

 Although NT prophecy does not carry with it intrinsic divine authority (like OT prophecy) it is still edifying to the church, just as the gift of teaching does not carry intrinsic divine authority yet is edifying to the church (insofar as it is accurate) (cf. Storms, Four Views, 209).

 The accuracy of a prophecy varies in accordance with the measure of the gift and the faith of the one who is prophesying (Rom. 12:6) (cf. Storms, Four Views, 209). Romans 12:6 teaches that prophesy takes place “in proportion to [one’s] faith” meaning that the accuracy and frequency of prophecy can vary depending on how much faith one has been given (cf. [Jack] Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, 65).

 “Finally, one should avoid looking to or depending on the gift of prophecy for making routine daily decisions in life. God does not intend for the gift of prophecy to be used as the usual way we make decisions regarding his will” (Storms, Four Views, 211).

 Continuationists admit that people can rely too much on the subjective guidance of prophecy. “Usually this has been because they did not realize that prophecy in the Church age is not the word of God, and can frequently contain errors” (Grudem, Kingdom and Power, 84).

 “There is almost uniform testimony from all sections of the charismatic movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure, and will contain elements which are not to be obeyed or trusted” (Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 110).

The Cessationist Response

 The Bible never explicitly or overtly distinguishes New Testament prophecy from Old Testament prophecy. “If New Testament prophecy in distinction from Old Testament prophecy was not infallible in its pronouncements, this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast between the Old Testament institution and the New Testament institution. To suppose that a difference as important as this would be passed over without explicit comment is unthinkable” ([Sam] Waldron, To Be Continued?, 65).

 Continuationists “attempt to imply the fallibility of New Testament prophecy by showing that it was to be evaluated (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19 – 21) on the basis of Scripture. The problem is that Old Testament prophecy was also evaluated on the basis of Scripture (previous revelation). Deuteronomy 13:1–5 makes this patent. Clearly, this fact did not mean true, Old Testament prophecy was less than fallible” (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 66).

 “Continuationists note that the prophets were subordinate to the Apostles of Christ. This is said in order to imply their fallibility. It is certainly true that the New Testament prophets were inferior in rank to the Apostles. This is suggested, for instance, by the consistent New Testament order in which apostles are mentioned first and prophets second (1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). This subordinate position does not, however, imply their fallibility. As we have seen, the Old Testament prophets were distinctly inferior to Moses in the place they held in the nation of Israel (Num. 12:1–8). This, however, did not imply their fallibility” (cf. Walrdon, To Be Continued?, 66).

 “It may be argued that the New Testament prophets were of a different order than the Theocratic prophets designated by the phrase, ‘Samuel and all the prophets’ (Acts 3:24; 13:20; Heb. 11:32). But then so also were Abel, Enoch, Moses, and Jesus—all of whom the Bible describes as infallible prophets (Luke 11:51; Jude 1:14; Acts 3:20–23). Not just the Theocratic prophets, but all other true, biblical prophets were regarded as infallible in their pronouncements. Indeed, as we have seen, such infallibility was basic, indispensable, and necessary to being a true prophet (Deut. 18:15–22)” (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 66).

 To say that Agabus erred in his prophecy is to apply undue woodenness to Agabus’s words. If such were applied to other parts of the Bible, such would uncover errors in many places were conservative Continuationists would not want to find them. Moreover, neither Luke nor Paul nor anyone else criticizes Agabus’s prophecy (cf. Waldron, To Be Continued?, 67).

 “Continuationists argue that contemporary prophets receive a revelation or vision from God, but are not preserved from garbling the message when they utter it. Strictly speaking, this would mean they are seers and not prophets, a distinction nowhere made in the Bible. It would also mean they are false prophets (Deut. 18:15–22). Nowhere does the Bible make a provision for a well-meaning seer who garbles his message” (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 67).

 “None of the attempts to find a distinction between Old and New Testament prophecy are viable. It is undeniable that the key distinction at which the defender of Continuationism is aiming is simply absent from the New Testament” (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 68).

 On the positive side, the New Testament uses identical terminology (side-by-side) to refer to both Old and New Testament prophets and prophecy. OT prophets are mentioned in Acts 2:16; 3:24, 25; 10:43; 13:27, 40; 15:15; 24:14; 26:22, 27; and 28:23. References to NT prophets and prophecy are interspersed without any distinction or comment (Acts 2:17–18; 7:37; 11:27, 28; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9–11) (cf. Waldron, To Be Continued?, 68).

 Peter’s reference to Joel’s prophecy (in Acts 2:16 – 21) obliterates any distinction between OT prophecy and NT prophecy since the OT prophet Joel prophesied in the OT that in the New Covenant “your sons and daughters shall prophesy” with young men seeing visions and old men having dreams (cf. Waldron, To Be Continued?, 68).

 The book of Revelation, which is clearly New Testament prophecy, brings a curse on any who add to what it has revealed (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19).

 The NT explains that the New Covenant is better than the Old (Heb. 8:1–13; 2 Cor. 3:1–6). But this would be strange if the prophecy associated with the New Covenant is actually inferior to that of the Old.

 “There is not a single passage in the New Testament where the biblical terminology related to prophecy or prophesying refers to anything but the inspired reception and utterance of direct revelation. There is not one reference that differs from the Old Testament identification of the prophet as the spokesman and mouth of God” (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 69).

 “Based on the description of the prophet in the New Testament no one can demonstrate that they are a prophet apart from the ability to predict the future. The predictions are not vague, general statements, but rather quite specific predictions that may be verified within reasonable time. They must also receive direct, immediate revelation” ([Thomas] Edgar, Satisfied [by the Promise of the Spirit], 84).

 Grammatically, the “prophets” of Ephesians 2:20 can only refer to NT prophets. Like the apostles they were foundational to the establishment of the church. And, like the apostles, they are no longer on the scene (cf. Waldron, To Be Continued?, 76).

 New Testament prophets were, as seen from above, both infallible and authoritative in their prophecies. Thus, were NT prophecy still available today, it too would have to be both infallible and authoritative.

 Romans 12:6 is better understood as “corresponding to the faith” meaning that prophetic utterances must be tested by the truth of the faith (cf. 1 Thess. 5). Therefore, this verse could be saying ‘prophesy in accordance with the doctrine we believe.’ Such an instruction would fit well with other admonitions regarding prophecy. In addition, regarding the next several gifts listed in Romans 12, Paul instructs that they are to be exercised in the sphere of ministry corresponding to the respective gift. It is likely then that this is instruction to exercise prophecy in the sphere appropriate to prophecy: ‘the faith’ (Edgar, Satisfied, 111).

 “The New Testament offers no evidence anywhere of a qualitative difference in gifts given by the Spirit of God. This is as we might expect since God gives perfect gifts (James 1:16–17). All are described in the same way. We have no example of any qualitatively inferior or fallible gift or of any failure by any Christian who attempted to exercise a gift” (Edgar, Satisfied, 114).

SUMMARY: New Testament prophets are to be held to the same standard as Old Testament prophets since the NT writers make no attempt to distinguish between the two. Thus, the content of their prophecy (whether foretelling or forth-telling) must accurately convey the true, error-free revelation they are receiving from God. If their prophecy is shown to be incorrect, it is also shown to not be from God. Moreover, now that we have the completed “prophetic Word,” additional revelation from God is no longer needed for the present age.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Thus far, we have attempted to make the case that (1) there is only one kind of ”gift of tongues” talked about in the New Testament; and (2) that gift consisted of the supernatural ability to speak in authentic foreign languages for the purpose of evangelism or (when translated) edification within the local church. This understanding of tongues, obviously, runs contrary to the contemporary charismatic understanding.

Today, we will look at some of the church fathers (orthodox Christian leaders in the first few centuries of church history) to see what they understood the gift of tongues to be. Did they see it as consisting of authentic foreign languages? Or did they believe it was characterized by ecstatic utterances?

(Though we’ve only listed a few of the church fathers today, we have studied this topic at length. These quotes are consistent with all of the other patristic evidence we have been able to find. To read our journal article on this topic in The Master’s Seminary Journal click here.)

THE CHURCH FATHERS (REGARDING THE NATURE OF TONGUES)

A. Regarding the cessation of the gifts in general

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place.

Augustine (354–430): In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.

Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466): In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days.

B. The gift of tongues was closely associated with evangelism. It authenticates the message of the evangelist (cf. Heb. 2:2–3)

Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): It is not therefore necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, or raise the dead, or speak with tongues; but such a one only who is vouchsafed this gift, for some cause which may be advantage to the salvation of the unbelievers, who are often put to shame, not with the demonstration of the world, but by the power of the signs; that is, such as are worthy of salvation: for all the ungodly are not affected by wonders; and hereof God Himself is a witness, as when He says in the law: “With other tongues will I speak to this people, and with other lips, and yet will they by no means believe.”

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel.

Augustine (354–430): In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth.

Others agree including Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century), Hegemonius (before 350), Gregory of Nazianzen (c. 329–390), and Leo the Great (d. 461).

C. The gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages which the speaker had not previously learned. (Again the gift is closely associated with evangelism.) The content of tongues-speech was “the mighty deeds of God,” specifically with regard to the Gospel.

Gregory of Nazianzen (c. 329–390): They spoke with strange tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learnt it. And the sign is to them that believe not, and not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers, as it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to Me saith the Lord.

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), commenting on 1 Cor. 14:1–2: And as in the time of building the tower [of Babel] the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages.

Chrysostom [again]: “The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corithians, 35.1. Cited from 1–2 Corinthians, ACCS, 138 in reference to 1 Cor 14:2.)

Chrysostom (again): “For as the Apostles themselves had received this sign first, so also the faithful went on receiving it, I mean, the gift of tongues; yet not this only but also many others: inasmuch as many used even to raise the dead and to cast out devils and to perform many other such wonders: and they had gifts too, some less, and some more. But more abundant than all was the gift of tongues among them: and this became to them a cause of division; not from its own nature but from the perverseness of them that had received it.” (Ibid., 29.1. Cited from Schaff, NPNF, First Series, 12:168 in reference to 1 Cor 12:1–2.)

This is agreed on by Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202), Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236), Hegemonius (before 350), Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century), Augustine (354–430), Leo the Great (d. 461), and implied by others (such as Tertullian [c. 160–c. 220] and Origen [c. 185–c. 254]).

[Additional note:] The fathers equated the gift in Mark and Acts with the gift in 1 Corinthians 12–14. They did not see two types of the gift—one public and one private. They saw only one type of tongues—that as described in Acts 2.

D. The gift of tongues is given to select individuals by the Holy Spirit. Not everyone is expected to speak in tongues.

Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): It is not necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, raise the dead, or speak with tongues.  But only such a one who has been graciously given this gift—for the purpose that it may be advantageous to the salvation of unbelievers.

Ambrose (c. 340–c. 397): Not all, says he, have the gift of healings, nor do all, says he, speak with tongues. For the whole of the divine gifts cannot exist in each several man.

Others agree including Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), Jerome (c. 345–420), Augustine (354–430), and Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466).

E. The gift of tongues was never intended to be the hallmark of the church or its most prestigious spiritual gift. Rather, the gift of prophecy is preferable because it does not require interpretation or translation in order to edify the church.

Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century): The pursuit of prophecy is more acceptable [than the pursuit of tongues] because it is more useful.

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel. [Chrysostom taught that tongues is only equal to prophecy if it can be interpreted.]

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): Paul does not forbid speaking in tongues, however much he may belittle the gift, but he insists that it be kept under control and used for the edification of the whole church.

F. The purpose of the gifts (within the church) is to edify the body (cf. 1 Pet. 4:10–11 ). The ideal use of tongues, therefore, is when the gift is interpreted (translated) so that fellow believers are edified.

First Epistle of Clement Regarding Virginity (from third or fourth century): With the gift, therefore, which thou hast received from our Lord, serve thy spiritual brethren…and declare the gift which thou hast received in the Church for the edification of the brethren in Christ (for good and excellent are those things which help the men of God), if so be that they are truly with thee.

Basil (c. 239–379): Since no one has the capacity to receive all spiritual gifts, but the grace of the Spirit is given proportionately to the faith of each, when one is living in community with others, the grace privately bestowed on each individual becomes the common possession of the others…. One who receives any of these gifts does not possess it for his own sake but rather for the sake of others.

Others agree including Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202), Tertullian (c. 160–c. 220), Origen (c. 185–c. 254), Novatian (d. c. 258), Hilary (c. 291–371), Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century), John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), Theordoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466), and John Cassian (360–435).

G. The gift of tongues, if used in church, was to be used in an orderly manner.

Severian of Gabala (d. c. 408): The person who speaks in the Holy Spirit speaks when he chooses to do so and then can be silent, like the prophets. But those who are possessed by an unclean spirit speak even when they do not want to. They say things that they do not understand.

John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), commenting on 1 Cor. 14:40: Again giving a blow to them who chose to behave themselves unseemly without cause, and to incur the imputation of madness; and who keep not their proper rank. For nothing doth so build up as good order, as peace, as love; even as their contraries tend to pull down.

A BIBLICAL / HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF TONGUES

Summary: The gift of tongues was a supernaturally endowed ability, given by the Holy Spirit to select Christians, enabling those believers to speak in previously unlearned human languages. The ideal use of the gift involved the translation of the message for the general edification of fellow believers or evangelism of unbelievers. This ability was not given to all Christians nor were they commanded to seek it. It was not considered the hallmark of the early church, nor is it ever highlighted as a normal part of the Christian experience.

Hasel, The Gift of Tongues: “The contemporary phenomenon of ‘speaking in tongues,’ which is practiced by millions of Christians around the world at present, is of recent origin in Christianity. Even though there have been attempts by the score to demonstrate that the phenomenon of glossolalia in modern times has roots going back for centuries in Christian practice, it remains certain that it is of recent origin.”

Geisler, Signs and Wonders: “Even those who believe in tongues acknowledge that unsaved people have tongues experiences. There is nothing supernatural about them. But there is something unique about speaking complete and meaningful sentences and discourses in a knowable language to which one has never been exposed. This is what the real New Testament gift of tongues entailed. Anything short of this, as ‘private tongues’ are, should not be considered the biblical gift of tongues.”

This is a continuation of our notes from the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference. The goal of this seminar was to identify the New Testament description/definition of the charismatic gifts and then to compare it to contemporary charismatic practice. Today, we continue our look at the gift of tongues.

Yesterday, we saw that there is good reason to regard the gift of tongues as described in Acts as the same in kind as the gift of tongues as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In other words, there is only one kind of “gift of tongues” — not multiple kinds as some charismatic groups claim.

But was that solitary gift the ability to speak foreign languages (as cessationists claim), or was it some sort of unintelligible ecstatic utterance (as charismatics claim)?

Additional Thoughts Regarding Tongues:

1. The gift of tongues is closely associated with evangelism [in the NT]. It authenticates the message of the evangelist (Mark 16:17, 20; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 14:20–22; cf. Heb. 2:2–3). According to Acts, the content of tongue-speech was “the mighty deeds of God.”

2. The gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages which the speaker had not previously learned (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4, 8–11). According to Acts 10:47 and 11:17, the tongues of Acts 10 were the same as the tongues of Acts 2. By implication, the tongues of Acts 19 are also the same.

(This sets the precedent for seeing tongues as authentic foreign languages in 1 Corinthians 14—especially when one considers that Luke, who was Paul’s close associate, probably finished Acts after 1 Corinthians was written. In light of the Corinthian controversy, it is unlikely that Luke would have used identical terminology in Acts for something that he realized was intrinsically different than what was taking place in Corinth.)

3. 1 Corinthians 12:8–11 and 27–31 make it unmistakably clear that not everyone is given the gift of tongues (cf. 14:26). (Note that there is no contextual or grammatical warrant for seeing 1 Cor. 12 as one type of tongues [that only a few receive] and 1 Cor. 14 as a different type [that everyone is to receive]. Paul’s statement in 14:5 [“Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues”] is almost identical to his earlier statement in 7:7 regarding singleness [“Yet I wish that all men were even as myself”]. Thus, Paul’s wish does not indicate that which is possible, and in fact makes it clear that not everyone in the Corinthian congregation actually did speak in tongues. Moreover, in the verse, Paul is actually emphasizing the priority of prophecy over tongues. He is not promoting tongues, in the context, but rather prophecy.)

4. The “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is probably hyperbolic in keeping with the context. Paul seems to be using hyperbole here (as his subsequent examples make clear). It may even be a figure of speech meaning, “to speak very eloquently.” Even if it is taken literally, there are two things to consider: (1) It is the exception and not the rule (as evidenced by the rest of the NT teaching on tongues and as evidenced by Paul’s hyperbolic list); (2) Every time angels spoke in the Bible they spoke in a real language that people could understand (cf. Gen. 19; Exod. 33; Joshua 5; Judges 13) (cf. Geisler, Signs and Wonders, 166).

5. Paul makes it clear that the gift of tongues was never intended to be the hallmark of the church or its most prestigious spiritual gift. Rather, the gift of prophecy is preferable because it does not require interpretation or translation in order to edify the church (1 Cor. 14:1–5)

6. Paul defines what he means by speaking to God and not to men when he says that “no one understands” (v. 2). This would be true of a foreign language which someone spoke but no one else in the congregation knew. They would not be edified because they would not understand what was being said.

7. Geisler, Signs and Wonders, 167: “The fact that the tongues of which Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians could be ‘interpreted’ shows that it was a meaningful language. Otherwise it would not be an ‘interpretation’ but a creation of the meaning. So the gift of ‘interpretation’ (1 Corinthians 12:30; 14:5, 13) supports the fact that tongues were a real language that could be translated for the benefit of all by this special gift of interpretation.”

8. The purpose of the gifts (within the church) is to edify the body (12:7; the whole point of “love” overrides the gifts in chp. 13; cf. 1 Pet. 4:10–11). The intended use of tongues, therefore, is when the gift is interpreted (translated) so that fellow believers are edified. Tongues (languages) that are not interpreted (translated) do not profit the body because the message cannot be understood (14:6–11). The intended use of the gifts is the edification of the church (v. 12). Tongues that are not interpreted do not edify the church (and are therefore do not fulfill their intended purpose). (The private use of tongues is not ideal since the ideal usage edifies others—c.f 14:12–19)

9. The context implies that Paul’s prayer in 14:14–15 is a public prayer, not a private prayer, since the entire discussion regards the use of the gift in the church, and since verse 16 mentions that the ungifted person (who does not understand the language being spoken) will not be able to affirm a public prayer which he does not understand.

Again, verses 14–15 do not mitigate against the view that tongues are authentic foreign languages. The person who prays in a foreign language should also pray that he will be able to interpret the foreign language so that all who are present will be blessed by the translation of the message.

10. The madness of 14:23 seems to be similar to the supposed drunkenness of Acts 2:13. This, of course, would be a fitting response from those who heard others speaking in an authentic foreign language that they did not know.

11. Paul defines what he means by “let him speak to himself and to God” in verse 28 with the preceding phrase, “he must keep silent in the church.” This again does not preclude authentic foreign languages as the essence of tongue-speech.

12. Verses 10–11 directly mention foreign languages. Paul’s reference to Isaiah 28:11, 12 is a reference to foreign languages. These bolster the interpretation that tongues are languages, as the normal interpretation of glossa would suggest.

13. The gift of tongues was to be used in an orderly manner in the church (14:27–28, 39–40).

Note: There are no other passages that specifically teach about the gift of tongues. Some charismatics try to find tongues in Romans 8:26 and 2 Corinthians 5:13…but the context in those passages makes it clear that the gift of tongues is not in view.

Viewing tongues as authentic foreign languages best fits the clearer passage (of Acts 2) and has the least number of problems in interpreting 1 Cor. 14.

[Thomas] Edgar, Satisfied [by the Promise of the Spirit], 147: “There are verses in 1 Corinthians 14 where foreign language makes sense but where unintelligible ecstatic utterance does not (e.g. v. 22). However, the reverse cannot be said. A foreign language not understood by the hearer is no different from unintelligible speech in his sight. Therefore, in any passage where such ecstatic speech may be considered possible, it is also possible to substitute a language not familiar to the hearers. In this passage there are no reasons, much less the very strong reasons necessary, to depart from the normal meaning of glossa and to flee to a completely unsupported usage.”

[Gerhard] Hasel, Speaking in Tongues, 55: “There is but one clear and definitive passage in the New Testament which unambiguously defines ‘speaking in tongues’ and that is Acts 2. If Acts 2 is allowed to stand as it reads, then ‘tongues’ are known, intelligible languages, spoken by those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit and understood by people who came form the various areas of the ancient world to Jerusalem. We may raise a question of sound interpretation. Would it not be sound methodologically to go from the known definition and the clear passage in the New Testament to the less clear and more difficult passage in interpretation? Should an interpreter in this situation attempt to interpret the more difficult passage of 1 Cor 12–14 in light of the clearer passage of Acts 2? Is this not a sound approach?”

(By Nathan Busenitz)

This post continues from yesterday’s. It is part of a seminar we delivered at the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference with regard to the charismatic gifts.

II. BUILDING THE CESSATIONIST CASE

1. The What Question: [The "what" question refers to what the gifts were as described in the New Testament. It differs from the "when" question, which refers to when the gifts ceased in church history.]

[Contention:] The miraculous gifts of the Spirit as described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 are the same in kind as the miraculous phenomena displayed in the book of Acts.

TONGUES

A. The Charismatic Definition: The gift of tongues primarily consists of a devotional prayer language which is available to every believer. This prayer language does not necessarily consist of an authentic foreign language (and in fact usually does not). Rather it consists of a heavenly, spiritual language which, by definition, does not need to conform to the linguistic structures of earthly, human languages. As long as the tongues are used in private praise and prayer, they do not need to be interpreted.

While Acts 2 does explicitly say that speaking in tongues consists of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker, there is no reason why this text is necessarily the standard text on defining tongues. First Corinthians 12–14 seems to broaden tongues to include angelic and spiritual languages and not just human foreign languages. Thus 1 Cor. 12–14 provides the basis for our understanding of tongues, with Acts 2 providing one way in which the gift was manifested (specifically on the Day of Pentecost) (cf. Storms, Four Views, 220–21; Oss, Four Views, 280).

Adrian Warnock: “One thing that most of us agree on is that there are different kinds of tongues…. I think it is fair to say that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are different from those of Acts 2.  Paul himself speaks here of different kinds of tongues. It is at least possible that at different points in this passage [1 Cor. 12–14] Paul is talking about different forms of tongues.” (http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2006/11/blogging-gifts-tongues-and.htm)

B. The Cessationist Response:

I want to take just a moment to respond to the idea that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is somehow qualitatively different than in Acts or even than in 1 Corinthians 12.

The Miraculous Sign of Tongues Described in Acts

Some Observations:

1. Acts – The miraculous tongues in Acts were directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (2:4, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). In fact, tongue-speaking is evidence of having received the “gift” (dorea) of the Holy Spirit (10:45).

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (12:1, 7, 11, etc.). Similarly, the gift of tongues is an evidence (or “manifestation”) of having received the Holy Spirit (12:7).

2. Acts – Along those lines, in Acts 11:15–17, Peter implies that the tongue-speaking of Acts 10 was the same as that of Acts 2, even noting that Cornelius and his household had received the same gift (dorea) as the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. This indicates that the tongues of the Apostles (in Acts 2) was not limited just to the Apostles, but was also experienced (at least) by both Cornelius’s household (Acts 10) and the disciples of Apollos (Acts 19).

1 Corinthians – Paul, as an Apostle, possessed the gift of tongues (14:18). Yet he recognized that there were those in the Corinthian church who also possessed the gift.

3. Acts – The miraculous ability, as it is described in Acts 2, is the supernatural ability to speak in other tongues (meaning foreign languages) (2:4, 9–11).

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is described as a speaking gift (12:30; 14:2, 5). The fact that it can be interpreted (12:10; 14:5, 13) indicates that it consisted of an authentic foreign language, similar to the tongues of Acts 2. (Paul’s direct association of tongue-speaking with foreign languages in 14:10–11 and also his reference to Isaiah 28:11, 12 strengthens this claim.)

4. Acts – The primary word for tongues in Acts is “glossa” (2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6), although it is also described with the word “dialekto” on two occasions ( 2:6, 8 ).

1 Corinthians –As in Acts, the primary word for tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is “glossa” (12:10, 28; 13:1, 8; 14:2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 39), though Paul also uses the term “phoneo” twice (in 14:10–11).

5. Acts – It was a sign for unbelieving Jews (2:5, 12, 14, 19).

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (14:21–22; cf. Is. 28:11). Note that the gift is even called a “sign” in 14:22 (the word “sign” is from the same Greek word as “sign” in Acts 2:22). Thus, the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign.

6. Acts – It is closely connected with prophecy (2:16–18; 19:6) and with other signs that the Apostles were performing (2:43)

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is closely connected with prophecy (all throughout 12–14).

7. Acts – Some of the unbelieving Jews at Pentecost accused the apostles of being drunk when they heard them speaking in other tongues (languages which those Jews did not understand).

1 Corinthians – Similar to Acts, Paul says that unbelievers will accuse the Corinthians of being mad [not unlike "drunk"] if their tongues go uninterpreted (14:23), and are therefore not understood by the hearer.

The biblical evidence (from the correlating observations above) supports the conclusion that the gift of tongues described in 1-2 Corinthians consists of the same phenomenon as the miraculous sign of tongues depicted in Acts.

Added to this is the fact that Luke (the author of Acts) was a close associate of Paul (the writer of 1 Corinthians). Moreover, the book of Acts was probably written after the epistle to the 1 Corinthians. It is unlikely, then, that Luke would have used the exact same terminology as Paul if he understood there to be an essential difference between the two (especially since such could lead to even greater confusion about the gifts–a confusion which plagued the Corinthian church).

But what about 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 … are there two different gifts discussed in these chapters?

1. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:7, 14–26, Paul emphasizes that the intended purpose of all the spiritual gifts (including tongues) is the edification of the church. (This is reemphasized in chapter 13, where Paul notes that even the most magnificent display of any gift is useless unless it is marked by selfless love.)

1 Corinthians 14 – As in chapter 12, Paul emphasizes that the intended purpose of tongues (that which is ideal and should be pursued) is the edification of the church (14:5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 26).

2. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:1, in order to introduce the topic of “spiritual gifts,” Paul uses a form of the Greek word pneumatikos.

1 Corinthians 14 – In 14:1, as Paul returns to the topic of “spiritual gifts,” he again uses a form of the Greek word pneumatikos. (This comes after his parenthetical comments in chapter 13 on the superiority of love to any gift.) By using the same term, Paul indicates that he is returning to the same topic (and the same set of gifts) that he left at the end of chapter 12.

3. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:31, Paul instructs the Corinthians to seek the greater gifts (“greater” from the Greek word meizon).

1 Corinthians 14 – In 14:5, Paul indicates that the gift of prophecy is greater (“meizon”) than the gift of tongues and therefore it is to be sought by the Corinthians. This builds off of Paul’s thought in 12:31, indicating that he is still speaking of the same set of gifts as those discussed in chapter 12.

4. 1 Corinthians 12 – In chapter 12, the word for tongues comes from the Greek word glossa. It’s the same word that is primarily used in Acts to describe the gift of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14 – As in chapter 12, the word for tongues (with the exception of vv. 10–11) comes from the Greek word glossa. Lexically, of course, glossa either refers to the physical organ (of the tongue) or an authentic foreign language. The context here points to the latter understanding.

5. 1 Corinthians 12 – To “speak” with tongues in 12:30 comes from the Greek verb laleo.

1 Corinthians 14 – To “speak” with tongues in 14:2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23 comes from the Greek verb laleo. Thus the combination of laleo with glossa (“to speak in tongues”) is lexically equivalent in both chapters.

6. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:28–30, as noted earlier, Paul is explicit that not everyone speaks in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14 – a) In 14:5 Paul says that he “wishes” (thelo) that all the Corinthians spoke in tongues. The implication, then, is that not all of them did. Moreover, Paul’s wish does not necessitate that such was a potential reality. (Paul earlier used the exact same construction in 1 Cor. 7:7 to “wish” that all Christian men were single [unmarried]. Yet, obviously, such was not a potential reality, since many of his readers were already married.) Also, Paul’s wish was not intended as a motivation for the Corinthian readers to pursue tongues. Instead, as the rest of verse 5 makes clear, Paul’s real point was that they pursue prophecy (the greater gift–cf. 14:39).

b) In 14:23, Paul’s use of “all” simply means “all who have the gift of tongues,” just as “all” in verse 24 refers to “all who have the gift of prophecy.” Nowhere, then, in chapter 14 does Paul undermine what he has already made clear in 12:8–11, 28–30 (that not every believer speaks in tongues).

7. 1 Corinthians 12 – Throughout chapter 12, the gift of tongues is closely associated with other gifts including the gift of prophecy and the gift of the interpretation of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14 – The gift of prophecy in chapter 12 (vv. 10, 28–29) is the same as the gift of prophecy described in chapter 14 (vv. 1, 3–5, etc). Also the gift of interpretation of tongues in chapter 12 is the same as that in chapter 14. It follows, then, that the gift of tongues in chapter 12 is also the same as the gift of tongues in chapter 14.

Contextually, chapters 12–14 form one unit within the first epistle to the Corinthians. It is difficult to imagine that Paul would use the same terminology in the same context to refer to two categorically different phenomena.

What’s the point of all this?

Simply to make the case for the following:

1) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 2 was clearly the ability of the apostles to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned.

2) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 10 (and by implication Acts 19) is said, by Peter, to have been the same as what occurred in Acts 2.

3) The exegetical and historical evidence indicates that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians consisted of the same phenomena as that described in Acts. (As we will see.)

4) The exegetical and contextual evidence further indicates that, at least in its essence (or nature), there is only one gift of tongues being described in 1 Corinthians 12–14.

5) Thus, I conclude that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 was (as in Acts 2) the ability of select believers to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned. To assert that the gift in 1 Corinthians 14 is something categorically other than that (as in a non-rational spiritual prayer “language” which can be learned, and should be sought by every believer) is exegetically and contextually untenable.

6) Because the purpose was to edify the body—a purpose which, in order to be fulfilled, demanded that the foreign language be translated so that those in the congregation could understand it, Paul emphasizes the importance of interpretation (translation) in 1 Corinthians 14.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

The following notes come from a seminar I did at the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference, but which (for no reason other than my own neglect) were never posted at the Shepherds’ Conference website. This week, I will repost these notes (in several parts), making only limited edits in brackets. My hope is that the notes will be helpful to those on both sides of the charismatic debate.

I. BEFORE WE BEGIN. . .

At the outset of a discussion like this, it is always important to state a few preliminary clarifications. With that in mind, here’s a list of eight things I believe are worth considering:

1. This is an important issue, but it is not a first-level doctrine.

The charismatic debate is not a first-level doctrinal issue. After all, it is possible to be charismatic, non-charismatic, or even undecided and still be a Christian. One’s position regarding the continuation or discontinuation of the sign gifts is not determinative of his or her standing before God.

This does not mean that this issue is not important. It is very important because it has significant implications for both one’s private devotional life and the corporate body life of the local assembly. But it is not a first-level doctrine, and it’s good to remember that when voicing our disagreements.

I should add that my seminar here is intentionally directed toward the conservative evangelical continuationist, the “Reformed Charismatic.” Extreme charismatic and pentecostal groups, which in many cases actually do violate first-level doctrines — and thus should be confronted with boldness and directness — are outside the scope of what I am hoping to accomplish here.

2. The point of 1 Corinthians 12–14 is love, and a major purpose of the gifts is edification (1 Cor. 12:7).

It seems ironic that a passage in which Paul is emphasizing love for fellow Christians and unity within the body of Christ would itself become a primary point of division among believers. As Richard Gaffin writes: “Consider this disconcerting situation: Especially in recent decades the work of the one Spirit, given to unify the church (e.g., 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:3), has become the occasion (notice I did not say, the source!) of disunity and even divisions in the church” (Gaffin, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, 334).

To be sure, I am not asserting that we simply dismiss our differences as though they do not exist. But I am suggesting that, specifically with those who affirm the first-level doctrines of the gospel, we approach the issue in the spirit of Paul’s overarching instruction to the Corinthians. We go awry, I believe, if we interpret 1 Cor. 12-14 correctly (regarding the gifts) but subsequently miss Paul’s entire point in those chapters (regarding love).

3. It is possible to be confused about spiritual gifts.

The Corinthian situation highlights the fact that, even in apostolic times (when all agree the gifts were in operation), it was possible to be confused about the miraculous gifts. Our contemporary situation underscores this point.

As we noted yesterday, the Scriptures must be our authority in sorting through any such confusion. And we must be willing to reconsider our position (and the presuppositions that undergird our position) if the Scripture shows us areas in which our thinking needs to change.

4. Not every continuationist is the same.

In fact, there are over 20,000 distinct continuationist groups in the world [according to The International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements]— ranging from Pentecostal to Charismatic to Third Wave. Because of this vast spectrum, it is impossible to address the theological nuances of each group. The common link that these groups share is a belief in the continued operation of the miraculous sign gifts throughout the entire church age.

As I noted earlier, my target audience is the “Reformed Charismatic,” though I hope my approach will be helpful for anyone thinking through issues related to the sign gifts.

5. Not every cessationist is the same.

According to one online encyclopedia, there are at least four types of cessationists: Concentric, Classical, Full, and Consistent. (Personally, I wish “Full” would be renamed “Complete” so we could have them all alliterated.) Our ministry here at Grace Church would generally fall into the Classical category.

6. We’re not talking about miracles, we’re talking about miraculous gifts.

My seminar today is not concerned with whether or not miracles (in the general sense) still occur today. Many cessationists believe that they do. The question is, rather, are the miraculous gifts of the New Testament still in operation in the church today?

Sam Waldron expresses his cessationist position this way:

I am not denying by all this that there are miracles in the world today in the broader sense of supernatural occurrences and extraordinary providences. I am only saying that there are no miracles in the stricter sense [of] miracle-workers performing miraculous signs to attest the redemptive revelation they bring from God. Though God has never locked Himself out of His world and is still at liberty to do as He pleases, when He pleases, how He pleases, and where He pleases, He has made it clear that the progress of redemptive revelation attested by miraculous signs done by miracle-workers has been brought to conclusion in the revelation embodied in our New Testaments. (Waldron, To Be Continued?, 102)

7. I have been greatly blessed by some continuationists.

My list would not be complete without noting the profound positive impact that some continuationist authors and church leaders have had in my life. This would include men like Dr. John Piper, whose passion for the supremacy of God and the enjoyment of God has been infectious in my own heart; Dr. Wayne Grudem, whose Systematic Theology and other academic works have both instructed and inspired me; and C. J. Mahaney, whose humility and Christ-centeredness continues to convict me and to motivate me to greater godliness. I am deeply indebted to these men, as are many others. They are a treasure to the American church in the twenty-first century.

8. As a cessationist, I love the Holy Spirit.

Though it should be an obvious characteristic of any true Christian, I feel the need, as a cessationist, to establish a simple point from the beginning: I love the Holy Spirit. I would never want to do anything to discredit His work, diminish His attributes, or downplay His ministry. Nor would I ever want to miss out on anything He is doing in the church today. And I know I’m not the only cessationist who feels this way.

Because we love the Holy Spirit we are thankful to God for the Spirit’s amazing and ongoing work in the body of Christ. His works of regenerating, indwelling, baptizing, sealing, assuring, illuminating, convicting, comforting, confirming, filling, and enabling are all indispensable aspects of His ministry.

Because we love the Holy Spirit we are motivated to study the Scriptures that He inspired to learn how to walk in a manner worthy, being characterized by His fruit. We long to be filled by Him (Eph. 5:18), which begins by being indwelt with His Word, which is the Word of Christ (Col. 3:16–17), and being equipped with His sword, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17).

Finally, it is because we love the Holy Spirit that we long to rightly represent Him, to understand and appreciate His purposes (as He has revealed them in His Word), and to align ourselves with what He is doing in this world. This more than anything else gives us reason to study the issue of charismatic gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7-11). Our goal in this study has to be more than mere doctrinal correctness. Our motivation must be to gain a more accurate understanding of the Spirit’s work – such that we might better yield ourselves to Him in service to Christ for the glory of God.

The following is taken from a message John delivered several years ago at The Master’s College. It was transcribed by Tony Capoccia at The Bible Bulletin Board. Though certainly not true of all charismatics (lest we be accused of over-generalizing), the problem John points out here is a very real one in some charismatic circles.

I received an interesting letter the other day. It came from some people who came to Grace [Community] Church from a Charismatic church – a very large, prominent Charismatic church. 

That’s quite a jump — to leave there and come to Grace Church. The only thing they knew in their church about me was that I didn’t have the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s all they knew — that I didn’t believe [in the continuation of the gifts], so I didn’t have the power of the Holy Spirit.

They didn’t know much else [about our church], but as circumstances indicated they came to Grace, on a visit, and they never left. . . . There are a number of people who were in this group that came, and one of the ladies wrote a really interesting letter to me. It is an amazingly well-written letter. . .  [And] in the letter, this is what was laid out. When you think of the [broader] Charismatic movement, you think of speaking in tongues, or healings, or Benny Hinn knocking people down, and things like that. But there are some underlying things in the Charismatic worldview that are really very, very terrifying.  And she pointed out this in the letter. She said:

You know we lived all our life in this movement and one thing dominates that movement, and it is that Satan is sovereign. If you get sick, it was the devil. If your child gets sick, it was the devil. The devil made your child sick. And even if your child dies Satan somehow got the victory. If your spouse, your husband or your wife gets cancer, that’s the devil that did that. If you had an accident, the devil did that. If you lost your job, the devil did that. If things didn’t go the way you wanted them to go in your company or your family and you wound up with a loss of job or a divorce — the devil did all of that. The devil has to be bound and so you have got to learn these formulas, because you have got to bind the devil or he is really going to control everything in your life.

The devil dominates everything, and he is assisted by this massive force of demons who also have to be dealt with, and you have got to do everything you can to try to overcome these spiritual powers, and they are invisible and they are fast and they are powerful, and they are really impossible for you to deal with on any permanent basis, so it is an ongoing, incessant struggle with the devil.

And the lady in the letter just basically said, “We lived our whole lives thinking that everything that went wrong in the entire universe was basically because of the devil. The devil is really sovereign in everything and even God, along with us, is really struggling like crazy to overcome the devil.” 

She said:

I lived with heart palpitations, panic attacks, anxiety, frightening dreams — waking up in the middle of the night terrified that the devil might be doing something to my child while he’s lying in his bed. Just living in this constant terror of what Satan was doing; that when the wrong guy gets elected — Satan put him there. That when the society goes a certain direction it is all under the control of Satan. Satan is really the sovereign of everything and it is really difficult to get control of him — even God is up there wringing His hands trying to get control of this deal.

I lived with that fear and that terror because I took my church seriously.” And she said, “I came to Grace [Community Church] and one thing just totally shocked me. You said that:

The fact is, God is in control of everything! . . . When you get sick, or when somebody gets cancer, or when something goes wrong in the world, or when you lose your job, that is not outside the tolerances of God, that is not outside the purposes of God, in fact, God works all things together for good.

This was absolutely earth shaking. This was a total change for us, and the difference we found was so powerful that it totally changed the way we think about life.

That is the issue. We do not believe Satan is in charge of history; we believe God is in charge. That changes everything.  That takes all the panic out. I can honestly say that I have never had a panic attack. I have never awakened in the night worrying what the devil might be doing, because God has not only conquered Satan, but God has put Satan under our feet it says, and, “Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world” [1 John 4:4]. So we know God controls history. And this might surprise you, the devil is God’s servant. If you want to read a great book, read, Erwin Lutzer’s book on Satan, in which he points that out so capably.

Please forgive the informal nature of this post. But it’s late (on Thursday night of a busy conference week). The spiritual encouragement and fellowship this week has been wonderful. For those who haven’t been following the conference on Tim Challies’s blog, his live-blog updates have been great.

In addition to the general sessions, the Shepherds’ Conference offers several dozen breakout sessions (seminars) during the week. Tomorrow morning (Friday), I will be giving my seminar on the charismatic issue. (I noted this several weeks ago, when we began looking at several key passages in the debate).

Anyway, my seminar will essentially consist of two main parts…

I. The Case for Cessationism

II. A Response to Common Objections to Cessationism

For those who are interested, here are the ten objections I am responding to:

1. The claim that cessationism grieves and quenches the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 4:13; 1 Thess. 5:16–22).

2. The claim that there is no one text that explicitly demands the cessation of the gifts. The best cessationists can do is imply cessationism from a variety of texts.

3. The claim that cessationism is wrong because there are texts that explicitly demand that we not prohibit or despise the gifts, but rather seek them (1 Cor. 14:5, 39)

4. The claim that there are texts that indicate that the miraculous gifts will last for the entire church age (Acts 2:17–21; Romans 11:29; 1 Cor. 1:4–5 ; 1 Cor. 13:10; Eph. 4:11–13)

5. The claim that since the charismatic gifts filled more purposes/needs than just authenticating the message/messenger, and since those needs still exist in the church today, the gifts are also still needed.

6. The claim that cessationists are afraid to embrace the full power of the Holy Spirit due to peer-pressure, traditional stereotypes, and personal comfort boundaries.

7. The claim that cessationists are inconsistent in asserting that some of the gifts have ceased (the miraculous gifts) while some of the gifts have continued (the non-miraculous gifts).

8. The claim that cessationists promote a sterile overly-formal Christianity which overemphasizes doctrinal head knowledge and underemphasizes true spirituality.

9. The claim that cessationism is wrong because miracles still occur, not to mention all of the sign gifts that are displayed each week at thousands of charismatic churches.

10. The claim that cessationism (as a theological perspective) is dying out.

I’m sure my charismatic friends could add more to this list, but hopefully this is a fair representation of critiques. At the very least, the list represents various objections that I have encountered in my discussions regarding this issue.

I plan to post more on this topic in the coming weeks. I will probably put my notes from the conference up as well — responding to each of these objections (in what I hope is an intellectually-honest and gracious way). In the meantime, I would enjoy hearing from anyone from a continuationist persuasion, in case you believe I am missing something major in this list.

(By Nathan Busenitz) 

Over the last two days, we’ve looked at the question: Are there still apostles in the church today? Our answer has been “no” for the following reasons: (1) the qualifications necessary for being an apostle, (2) the uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship, (3) the authority of the apostles and the close of the canon, and (4) the foundational nature of apostleship within church history. Today we will consider a fifth and final reason why we believe the apostolate has ceased.

5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles

In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first century.

But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would follow after them. 

(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their contemporaries as apostles.

According to their own self-testimony, those that followed the apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and deacons of the churches. 

Thus, Clement (late first century) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, notes that:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Ignatius, for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11; emphasis added).

(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique and authoritative. 

Moreover, in keeping with our third point (from yesterday), it was “the doctrine of the apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the “memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.9). Along these lines, Justin writes:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The First Apology of Justin, 67).

The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the authoritative representatives of Christ Himself.

(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and unrepeated period of church history. 

The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus, 32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of fellowship during the apostolic age:

I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally; “all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35.) There were then no such words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise. (Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10; emphasis added)

Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long past. One additional passage might be cited in this regard:

I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8; emphasis added)

Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian (whom we cited yesterday) spoke of events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 21).

Historical Conclusions

Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the apostles themselves) as unique. Their writings were unique and authoritative. Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. Nor were the times that followed seen as equivalent to the times of the apostles.

Thus we conclude, once again, with Grudem:

It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Systematic Theology, 911)

A Final Note

Throughout these posts we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist.

It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Are there still apostles in the church today? Yesterday, we answered this question in the negative, and began giving the reasons for our conclusion. These reasons included (1) the qualifications necessary for being an apostle, and (2) the uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship. Today we will consider two more reasons why we believe the apostolate has ceased.

3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon

It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the cessation of the apostolic office.

We turn again to Dr. Grudem for an explanation of the close connection between the apostles and the writing of Scripture:

The New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)

Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament, He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church. It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His authorized representatives. 

Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, promising them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them. The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16).

To cite from Grudem again, “In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church” (Ibid., 911).

The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed? It doesn’t seem that we could.

But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, and since new inscripurated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and approval, it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today. The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts that necessarily go hand-in-hand.

4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles

Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since (following the construction metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages. As Grudem writes, “God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20)” (Ibid., 911, n. 9).

Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers. The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.

Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. (Emphasis added)

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).

Our apologies for the extended survey of historical literature, but our point is simply this: The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.

(To be concluded tomorrow)

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Forgive the cute title, but it underscores an important question in the cessation/continuation debate — namely: Are there still apostles in the church today? In other words, could someone today (perhaps a guy named “Murray”) be an apostle in the same vein as Peter or Paul?

At the outset, we should note that by “apostles” we do not simply mean “sent ones” in the general sense. Rather, we are speaking of those select individuals directly appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to be His immediate representatives on earth. In this sense, we are speaking of “capital A” apostles – such as the Twelve and the apostle Paul.

It is these type of “apostles” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. This is important since, especially in Ephesians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, Paul references apostleship within the context of the charismatic gifts. If “apostleship” has ceased, it gives us grounds to at least consider whether or not some of the other offices/gifts have ceased as well. If the apostles were unique, and the period in which they ministered was unique, then perhaps the gifts that characterized the apostolic age were also unique.

The question then is an important one, underscoring the basic principle of the cessationist paradigm – namely, the uniqueness of the apostolic age and the subsequent cessation of certain aspects of that age.

There are at least five reasons why I believe there are no longer any apostles in the church today (and in fact have not been since the death of the apostle John). We’ll unpack these reasons over the next several days.

1. The Qualifications Necessary for Apostleship

First, and perhaps most basically, the qualifications necessary for apostleship preclude contemporary Christians from filling the apostolic office.

In order to be an apostle, one had to meet at least three necessary qualifications: (1) an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) an apostle had to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) an apostle had to be able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). We might also note that, in choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, the eleven also looked for someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout His entire earthly ministry (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41).

Based on these qualifications alone, many continuationists agree that there are no apostles in the church today. Thus, Wayne Grudem (a continuationist) notes in his Systematic Theology, “It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today” (p. 911).

2. The Uniqueness of Paul’s Apostleship

But what about the apostle Paul?

Some have contended that, in the same way that Paul was an apostle, there might still be apostles in the church today. But this ignores the uniqueness with which Paul viewed his own apostleship. Paul’s situation was not the norm, as he himself explains in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9. He saw himself as a one-of-a-kind anomaly, openly calling himself “the last” and “the least” of the apostles. To cite from Grudem again:

It seems quite certain that there were none appointed after Paul. When Paul lists the resurrection appearances of Christ, he emphasizes the unusual way in which Christ appeared to him, and connects that with the statement that this was the “last” appearance of all, and that he himself is indeed “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 910).

He later adds:

Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1 Cor. 15:8), indicate that this will not happen (Systematic Theology, 911, n. 9)

Because Paul’s apostleship was unique, it is not a pattern that we should expect to see replicated in the church today.

(To be continued tomorrow)