Rex Banks.

Introduction

Scripture explains the existence and order of the universe in simple and majestic language: "He spoke and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast". (Psa 33:9) The whole of creation reflects God's wise decree and is subject to His sovereign rule. It also has one ultimate goal - His glorification. It is towards this Great Goal that God's providential oversight works, by which we mean that toward this end He "governs the material world according to fixed laws which He Himself has established". (Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology [see our study On Providence]) But if God providentially governs through "fixed laws" operating within nature, this does not mean that He is limited to the use of those laws or that He Himself is subject to them in His dealings with the cosmos. The Bible tells us that at times God has chosen to work by way of a miracle, by which is meant "an event brought about in the external world by the immediate efficiency or simple volition of God" and "without the intervention of any subordinate cause". (ibid) (This is an understandable definition and sufficient here). Thus at the divine command, water becomes wine, corpses are restored to life and a paralytic rises from his bed. In fact scripture does more than simply assert that God has performed miracles; it goes further and asserts that the Great Goal of glorifying God is in fact achievable only because of the Great Miracle which lies at the heart of the Biblical message. C.S. Lewis put it this way in his Miracles:

"All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian."

Elsewhere Lewis says:

"The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation. They say that God became man. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this....... (S)o every particular Christian miracle manifests at a particular place and moment the character and significance of the Incarnation. There is no question in Christianity of arbitrary interferences just scattered about. It relates not a series of disconnected raids on Nature but the various steps of a strategically coherent invasion...The fitness, and therefore credibility, of the particular miracles depends on their relation to the Grand Miracle; all discussion of them in isolation from it is futile."

This is an important point. Deny the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection from the dead and the testimony of the "signs" which He performed and you are left with a pathetic, self-deceived Galilean peasant and a tatty old book with nothing of value to say to us today. A naturalistic "Christianity" is simply not an option for us. Sadly many influential figures in the world of Biblical criticism have emphatically rejected all accounts of scriptural miracles (see our Modern Biblical Criticism). For example Rudolf K. Bultmann, renowned German theologian wrote in his Jesus Christ and Mythology:

"(M)odern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe. He does not acknowledge miracles because they do not fit into this lawful order."

Bultmann specifically mentions the resurrection as an event which does not fit into the lawful order and in so doing he shatters the very foundation of the gospel. (1Cor 15:1 ff)

Lewis is also correct in his assertion that there is nothing arbitrary or haphazard about the miracles wrought by God or about the record of the various "miracles" "signs" "wonders" and "works" which inspired men have preserved for us. By way of illustration, at least 35 miracles are recorded in the four gospel accounts and many commentators point out that each writer has a definite purpose in view. For example, we are told that in Matthew the miracles focus attention upon Jesus as the fulfilment of Old Testament scripture and that in Mark the miracles demonstrate Christ's power and authority, a theme likely to appeal to the Roman mind. Luke and John create their own frameworks within which to treat the miracles of Jesus, Acts shows (among other things) the relationship of the apostles to the gifts and so on. In short there is a serious theological purpose and a discernible pattern here, and miracles were never placed on the same level as party tricks, or viewed as ends in themselves.

The Old Testament record too reveals that visible miraculous events were rare and designed with specific purposes in view. For example from Creation to the Flood Enoch's translation is the only observable miracle and from the Flood to the time of the patriarchs we have only the confusion of languages. Then there is very little until the time of Moses and Joshua when the Exodus and Conquest were accompanied by an outpouring of miraculous events. During the time of the Judges Gideon asks "And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying 'Did not the Lord bring us out from Egypt?' " (Judges 6:13) During the ministries of Elijah and Elisha many miraculous events took place, but apart from this they are rare down to the close of the Old Testament period. Many who do not know the Old Testament well imagine that it is primarily a book describing a stream of spectacular supernatural events but this is not correct.

Following the close of the Old Testament we have a 400 year period devoid of prophesy and miracle. In 1st Maccabees 9:27 (written in the inter-testament period) we read: "So there was a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them." Interestingly, when, in due course John the Baptist arrived upon the scene to prepare the way for the Christ, he too "performed no sign". (Jn 10:41)

Concluding Comment

G.H. Clark has the following comment in his discussion of miracles in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible:

"When....one adopts a view of the world as God's creation, and when God is regarded as a living, acting, personal Being, the appropriateness of miracles depends on God's purposes. In such a theistic world-view, where God desires to have some converse with mankind, the occurrence of miracles is no longer an anomaly."

"If God lives, miracles are not only possible, they are appropriate; and whether or not one has occurred is not a question for secular science, but is a matter of testimony by divinely appointed witnesses."

Those of us who believe in the inspiration of the Bible and who are not philosophically opposed to the very idea of miracles have no difficulty believing that the supernatural events recorded in scripture took place exactly in the manner described by the inspired writers.

In my view there are many sincere individuals today who unreservedly accept the Biblical account of miracles but who have arrived as an incorrect view concerning the purpose and duration of the supernatural gifts, a view which has had many unfortunate consequences. In a word I am convinced that there are sound scriptural reasons for concluding that no man today has the same God-given miraculous abilities as those which were possessed by certain individuals in the "apostolic age" in a word miracles have ceased. It is true of course that God does not change, (Mal 3:6) and true that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Heb 13:8) but it does not follow that God's activities do not change in accordance with His predetermined plan. After all the Lord ceased His creative activity, (Gen 2:2) not because He was unable to continue but because it was according to His divine plan to do so. I will argue that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are unavailable today, not because God lacks power but because God choses not to make them available.

I realise that it is very difficult to challenge cherished convictions without giving offence but it is certainly not my intention to be discourteous in any way. I write as one who was brought up in a religious group which held firmly to the belief in latter day miracles. I also write as one who, as an adult began his own spiritual quest quite open to the possibility that supernatural gifts are available today. In large measure what I have to say in the next section grows out of my past struggles in coming to terms with this question.

1) On Miracles: Confusion

Central to the Hebrew epistle is the message that the gospel of Jesus Christ is superior to anything that Judaism had to offer. In chpt 2:3,4 there is a warning not to neglect the great salvation offered by Christ, along with a reminder that the gospel message had been "confirmed" to the recipients of the letter by those who heard it from the Lord. The Hebrew writer then speaks of "God also bearing witness with...(those who heard) both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will." F.F. Bruce comments on this verse:

"The witness of their informants, however, was confirmed by the signs and wonders and mighty works which attended their proclamation of the message: these were tokens granted by God to attest the truth of what was proclaimed. The testimony of the New Testament writings to the regularity with which these phenomena accompanied the preaching and receiving of the gospel in the early apostolic age is impressive in its range...The New Testament writers...would not have appealed to the evidence of these miraculous manifestations if there was any possibility that their readers would reply that they had never seen or heard of such things."

Despite differing views on the purpose of the gifts, I know of no-one who denies that divinely-bestowed supernatural gifts functioned to confirm the truth of the message proclaimed by the miracle worker. This is important because, since God cannot lie ( Tit. 1:2; Heb 6:18) He cannot confirm doctrinal error. It is also evident that if two doctrines cannot both be true then at least one of them must be false. Clearly if individuals or groups teach conflicting doctrines in the name of Christ, God cannot be the author of them all and the Holy Spirit cannot be providing supernatural confirmation for all of them. Yet the reality is that on every side we encounter groups claiming miraculous attestation for a whole spectrum of conflicting doctrines as the following examples show:

In his Counterfeit Miracles B.B. Warfield writes concerning the Roman Catholic Church:

"This continuous manifestation of supernatural powers in its bosom constitutes one of the proudest boasts of the church of Rome; by it, it conceives itself differentiated say, from the Protestants; and in it it finds one of its chief credentials as the sole organ of God Almighty for the saving of the wicked world."

Warfield speaks of the "distinctive teachings of this church as to monasticism and asceticism, relics and saints, transubstantiation, and the like, in honour of which the alleged miracles are performed," and eleven years of attending Catechism classes gave me first hand knowledge of these and other "distinctive teachings" (such as papal infallibility) for which miraculous attestations are claimed.

In his Is The Holy Spirit For Me? Harvey Floyd says:

"Another thing that disturbs the old Pentecostal is that Catholics lay claim to the 'Pentecostal experience.' And this makes them better Catholics." (Floyd here quotes Ray Hughes a traditional Pentecostal writing in the '70s) 'According to a number of Catholic writers, Catholic Pentecostals tend to go back and begin using avenues of contact with God that they had abandoned - the rosary, the Real Presence, devotion to Mary'."

Clearly since the Holy Spirit cannot testify to the truth of contradictory doctrines, and since Protestant charismatics are firmly opposed to such doctrines as the Real Presence and such practices as praying to Mary, at least one group is mistaken in claiming divine support for its position.

We confront the same situation when we leave the Roman Catholic Church out of consideration. How confusing it must be for sincere truth seekers who sit at the feet of leading Faith Movement figures such as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, Jerry Saville, and Charles Capp, to hear leading "charismatics" accuse these and other members of the Movement of spreading heresy. For example in his influential book Christianity in Crisis Hank Hanegraaff points out that the most scholarly rebuttals of the Faith Movement have come from within the ranks of the charismatic movement from men like Gordon Fee and Charles Farah. In his A Different Gospel D.R. McConnell writes:

"I would no more reject charismatic renewal than I would reject the Holy Spirit who gave it."

But like many who embrace charismatic renewal, McConnell argues that the Faith Movement has not emerged from the Wesleyan-Holiness movement from which the Pentecostal and charismatic movements came but from quite a different source. He says:

"First we will use the historical approach to prove that the founder of the Faith movement, E.W. Kenyon, has a direct historical connection to institutional cults...Second we will employ the theological approach to prove that because of Kenyon's historical connection to the metaphysical cults, the modern Faith movement teaches doctrines that are neither biblical nor orthodox. In other words, because the historical root is cultic, the theological fruit is cultic as well."

(McConnell goes on to express the view that most members of the Movement are sincere, and that it is not a cult to the degree of Mormonism and J.W's). He adds:

"(This is about) doctrine, killer doctrine, doctrine that has taken hundreds of human lives and destroyed thousands of faiths and churches. Someone must give an account for these lives."

This is strong language. Whatever we make of all this one thing is clear - if doctrine taught by those claiming miraculous gifts is openly denounced as "killer" doctrine by others committed to a belief in charismatic renewal, God's hand is not in both.

Just as committed to a belief in present-day miracles as our friends within the Wesleyan-Holiness-Pentecostal movement and the Faith movement, are those individuals within groups which are generally labelled "cults" by mainstream Protestantism. Our Mormon friends of course find the following in the Book of Mormon 9:7-8:

"And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, no prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues; Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them."

In his Charismatic Chaos John F. MacArthur Jr asks and answers the following question concerning Jehovah's Witnesses:

"And do the Witnesses believe they have new revelation? Indeed they do! They have plainly said so in their magazine, Watchtower: 'The Watchtower is a magazine without equal on earth...This is not giving any credit to the magazine publishers, but is due to the great Author of the Bible with its truths and prophecies, and who now interprets its prophecies' (Watchtower [April 15, 1943], 127)."

In the 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah Witnesses we have:

"It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communicating to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose."

Our friends within the Seventh Day Adventist movement look to their own "prophet" Ellen G. White who wrote in the introduction to The Great Controversy:

"Through the illumination of the Holy spirit, the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been opened to the writer of these pages. From time to time I have been permitted to behold the working, in different ages, of the great controversy between Christ the Prince of life...and Satan...."

In modern times Christendom has seen the rise of many groups claiming direct supernatural guidance and divinely bestowed miraculous powers. Under the leadership of charismatic figures teaching fundamentally different doctrines, many of these groups have attracted a wide and dedicated following - but still God is not the author of confusion.

Finally it is important to keep in mind that it is not only in the modern era of the post-apostolic period that individuals and groups claiming supernatural illumination and power have won many ardent followers. One of the earliest figures of controversy was a second century convert from mystery religion who was called Montanus. Concerning him Britannica has this to say:

"Little is known about Montanus. Before his conversion to Christianity, he apparently was a priest of the Oriental ecstatic cult of Cybele, the mother goddess of fertility. According to the 4th-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, Montanus c. 172-173 entered into an ecstatic state and began prophesying in the region of Phrygia, now in central Turkey. Montanus became the leader of a group of illuminati ("the enlightened"), including the prophetesses Priscilla (or Prisca) and Maximilla. The members exhibited the frenzied nature of their religious experience by enraptured seizures and utterances of strange languages that the disciples regarded as oracles of the Holy Spirit."

"Among other things Montanists prophesied that "the heavenly Jerusalem was soon to descend on the Earth in a plain between the two villages of Pepuza (Montanus' own village [Rex]) and Tymion in Phrygia". (ibid)

Montanus also prophesied that he would have a leading role in this new kingdom, and he claimed to possess the final revelation of the Holy Spirit. Clearly since his prophesies never came to pass the Bible believer must conclude that he was a false prophet (Deut 18:22) and that his "tongue speaking" and other signs were not of divine origin. Nevertheless we read that "The movement spread throughout Asia Minor (and) inscriptions have indicated that a number of towns were almost completely converted to Montanism". (ibid) Clearly popularity is no guarantee of truth.

Succeeding centuries brought other claimants at various times but although many welcomed them as instruments of spiritual renewal, history has been especially unkind to those who, like the Montanists, tried their hand at prophesy. For example, Britannica has the following on Edward Irving, whose teachings became the basis of the religious movement known as Irvingism:

"After working as a mathematics teacher and studying theology part time, Irving was called in 1822 to the Caledonian chapel in London as a preacher. His chapel congregation grew so rapidly that in 1827 a new and larger church was built for him in Regent Square. His popularity waned, however, because of his increasing stress on apocalypticism and eschatology, including his prediction in 1825 that the Second Coming of Christ would occur in 1864."

The Irvingites suffered many other prophetic failures, and thus like Montanus and many others they failed the Biblical test. Popularity does not determine truth.

Concluding Comments

The Bible believer who knows anything of history and anything of the present state of Christendom has to confront a difficult reality. He knows that God is not the author of confusion, he knows that God cannot endorse error and he knows that a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste (Matt 12:25) - yet he also knows that earnest, committed seekers have claimed and continue to claim that supernatural works testify to the truth of a multitude of conflicting doctrines. Montanists, Gnostics, Catholics, Albigensians, Mennonites, Ranters, Quakers, Moravians, Shakers, Irvingites, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Faith Movement adherents etc. etc. - all with competing theologies and all claiming supernatural endorsement.

Sometimes those of us who deny the reality of modern-day miracles are warned that we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We are reminded that the existence of false signs and wonders does not prove that genuine miracles do not occur today. This is true, but let's go on and consider some other facts which, in my view support the cessationist position.

2) On Miracles: Tongues

Introduction

Perhaps you saw the recent Holmes programme on T.V. One which featured interviews with members of a particular denominational group who were claiming that the Lord had performed miracles upon tooth fillings during services of the church. There is no doubting the sincerity of those who appeared on the programme. Nor is there any doubt that the group's representative was genuinely dismayed upon learning that a dental examination had failed to confirm that a miracle had occurred in the one case which was investigated. Apparently the "tooth filling" phenomenon is new to New Zealand but elsewhere it's been around for a while. For example in his The Third Wave, C. Peter Wagner reports that, according to faith healer Carlos Annacondia of Argentinia, individuals fall under the Spirit's power "on a fairly regular basis" during his campaigns, and discover that decayed teeth have been filled and that new teeth have grown where there were none before.

Now it is clear that the tooth filling phenomenon is quite different from any of the miracles described in scripture, and this is also true of a good many of the alleged supernatural manifestations which are so prevalent in certain religious circles today. Perhaps like me you have examined such things as the hysterical laughter, the frenzied convulsions, the "running for the Lord," the outbursts of clucking, the "stages of drunkenness," the shriekings, the twitchings etc. and found nothing in scripture which begins to explain such "manifestations of the Spirit." I am not asking about the sincerity of a man or woman who giggles or shrieks uncontrollably during church services; I am arguing that there is no scriptural basis for attributing such behaviour to the influence of the Holy Spirit. In similar vein, I am convinced that what many describe as "speaking in tongues" today is quite different from the spiritual gift which is described in the New Testament, and in the following paragraphs I will explain why I take this position.

The word "glossolalia" ( from the Greek word for "tongue/language" [glossa] and the word "to speak," [lalein]) is frequently used in connection with one of the miraculous gifts mentioned in scripture, and our present interest is in the nature of that gift. Today many insist that speaking in tongues involves " utterances approximating words and speech, usually produced during states of intense religious excitement. The vocal organs of the speaker are affected, the tongue moves without the conscious control of the speaker, and unintelligible speech pours forth". (Britannica) However while many believe this to be an accurate description of the gift of tongues spoken of in scripture I am convinced that this gift actually involved the miraculous ability to speak in real human languages which the speaker did not know, and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with "unintelligible speech" or "utterances approximating words and speech." Let's consider some of the relevant points.

a) Ecstatic Utterances

Earlier we pointed out the difficulty of explaining how individuals and groups with conflicting doctrines could all claim supernatural attestations for their teachings (see our Confusion) and this difficulty is especially evident in the case of tongue speaking. For example the early "church father" Tertullian was for a while a follower of Montanus (see Confusion) and he believed that the latter's incoherent utterances were messages from God - yet the prophecies of the Montanists concerning the descent of Jerusalem never eventuated. What's more Tertullian strongly condemned the gnostic sect (Against Marcion) which also laid claim to tongue speaking abilities. Closer to our time our Mormon friends say "We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues." (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith) The "tongues" of Catholic charismatics, Pentecostals, Faith Movement adherents etc. are linguistically indistinguishable. Since God cannot confirm or endorse error this constitutes a real problem.

When we look beyond the borders of Christendom we find that ecstatic utterances are common to many pagan religions as well. In their The Charismatic Phenomenon Peter Masters and John C. Whitcomb say:

"Any number of false religions can do exactly the same things, but many charismatic adherents have no idea of this fact. Tongues-speaking such as we know today (i.e. ecstatic utterances [Rex]) is engaged in regularly among Buddists, Hindus...Moslems, Shintoists, spiritists and voodoo devotees.............."

One scholar, writing for a prestigious American sociological institute, found tongue-speaking was practised by the Hudson Bay Eskimos, as well as by the priestesses of jungle tribes in North Borneo.................

Indeed, various medical authorities tell us that tongue-speaking is occasionally manifested in connection with certain mental health conditions, such as dissociation, hysteria, epilepsy and schizophrenia. Tongue-speaking has also occurred under the influence of LSD.... Jung....describes a spiritualist medium who spoke in tongues "fluently, rapidly and with charm. She spoke with bewildering naturalness, and when she had finished there passed over her face an incredible expression of ecstatic blessing."

Britannica tells us that "glossolalia occurred in some of the ancient Greek religions and in various primitive religions." By way of example: The Pythia (priestess) of the Greek oracle at Delphi often went into an ecstatic state during which she uttered sounds revealed to her by the python (the snake, the symbol of resurrection), after drinking water from a certain spring. Her "words" were then interpreted by a priest to help a suppliant find a way to avoid calamities, especially death. Those who have some knowledge of the New Age Movement will not be surprised at the following by Texe Marrs in his New Age Cults and Religions:

"Here is how a conference brochure described the course, What is Sumari, and How Did it Come About? to be taught by Toni Kosydar: 'Toni will speak on how Jane Roberts came to sing in Sumari and what the experience meant to her...' Jane: 'I heard a babel of voices in strange languages......Suddenly I chanted the words in a loud ringing voice 'Sumari, Ispania, Wena nefarie...' (and so on [Rex]). The brochure went on to explain that this is what was called 'speaking in tongues...' "

We could multiply examples many times over, but enough has been said to show that there is nothing unusual about the practice of uttering unintelligible words and certainly nothing difficult about the practice. Even without a close look at the relevant texts it is surely evident that when Paul described tongues as a "sign...to unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22) he cannot have meant that a stream of disjointed words would constitute proof of God's presence. Too, keep in mind that since the inhabitants of Roman-Greek Corinth would have been very familiar with mystery religions, (there was even a temple of Isis in the city) ecstatic utterances would have been nothing new at all. With this in mind let's take a look at the relevant passages in the New Testament itself.

b) Tongues in the New Testament

Mark 16:17-18: "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Prior to Mk 16:17, 18 the word "tongue" has been used in the gospels of the physical organ or of language, and if this is not its meaning here it would have conveyed nothing to Jesus' hearers. Under "glossa" Thayer cites Mk 16:17 and has: "to speak with other tongues which the speaker has not learned previously ". [emphasis mine] Gareth L. Reese makes the following comment on the word translated "new" here:

"The fact that kainos is used rather than another word for new (neos) is easily explainable if the 'tongues' are foreign languages unfamiliar to the speaker. Neos has the implication of 'new in time never existing before'; whereas kainos simply means 'fresh, recently made, unused.' "New tongues " are a language unused by the speaker before. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts)

Mk 16:20 tells us that the signs "confirmed the word." How would unintelligible language do this? Consider the case of Corinth for example. Gordon Fee reminds us in his comments upon 1 Cor 8:5 ("there are many gods and many lords") that the word "kyrios" (lord) "is the normal title for the deities of the mystery cults". (Int. Std Com on the New Testament :1 Corinthians) Elsewhere he tells us that "the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended ...(cultic meals) all their lives." How would unintelligible utterances function to confirm the truth of the gospel to those already very familiar with the phenomenon from their own pagan backgrounds?

Acts 2:1-11: Acts chpt 2 records the beginning of the church on the Day of Pentecost following the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. We are told that "when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place". (Acts 2:1) Now according to the rules of grammar, the antecedent of the pronoun is usually found by referring back to the nearest noun with which it agrees in person number and gender. The verse prior to Acts 2:1 ends "and he (Matthias) was numbered with the eleven apostles," and thus we must take it that "they" refers to the twelve apostles. It is important to keep in mind that those who insist that the pronoun in Acts 2:1 includes the "one hundred and twenty persons" of Acts 1:15 are ignoring a basic point of grammar. Also we note that the individuals spoken of were all "Galileans," (Acts 2:7) and that Peter took his stand "with the eleven" not the "one hundred and twenty". (Acts 2:14) A few days earlier Jesus had told the "apostles whom He had chosen" (not "the one hundred and twenty") to wait in Jerusalem for "power". (Acts 1:1:12)

In Acts 2:2,3 the manifestation of the Spirit was accompanied by "a noise (from heaven) like a violent, rushing wind" and "tongues as of fire." Only the most implacable enemies of supernaturalism would refuse to be convinced by such a sign but many "tongue-speaking" episodes today are unaccompanied by such objective supernatural proofs.

The twelve "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance". (Acts 2:4) The multitude "were bewildered...were amazed and marvelled" (Acts 2:6-8) because all who were speaking were Galileans, (Acts 2:7) and in their amazement they ask "how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?" (Acts 2:8). And again "we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God". (Acts 2:11) Clearly what these individuals heard was not unintelligible speech but recognizable languages. The word translated "language" in vs 6, 8 is the word from which we get "dialect."

Some have attempted to argue that two miracles occurred on this occasion-one enabling the apostles to utter ecstatic speech and another enabling the hearers to understand this ecstatic speech in their own languages. Not only does the text say nothing of the sort, but listen to Acts 2:13: "But others were mocking and saying, 'They are full of sweet wine.'" Clearly these were individuals who could not recognise any of the languages spoken by the twelve, but this could not have been the case if a miracle had been performed upon the hearers as well as upon the speakers. The "tongues" of Pentecost then were human languages.

Acts 10 - Cornelius' Household: While Peter was preaching "the Holy Spirit fell upon" the household of Cornelius and the "circumcised believers" were hearing them "speaking with tongues..." (Acts 10:44-46) Peter very clearly identifies this with the Acts 2 event, describing these Gentiles as those "who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did." (Acts 10:47) Later when Peter speaks of this event he says "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning". (Acts 11:15) Thus the tongues of Acts 10 are the same as the tongues of Acts 2 - languages.

Acts 19:1-7: Since Luke has twice defined the nature of the tongues in the book of Acts we must take it as read that the incident described in Acts 19 involved the same phenomenon.

1 Corinthians 12-14 (esp. chpt 14): The Corinthian church is plagued by immaturity (3:1 ff) which has lead (among other things) to division (1:10ff) arrogance (1 Cor 4:18; 5:2) and selfishness(11:20ff). In this section of the Corinthian epistle Paul attempts to correct problems which have arisen in the assemblies as a result of jealousy and competitiveness. The Corinthians must come to understand that the gifts of the Spirit (which had become a stumbling block to the church because of misuse) were from the same divine source, (12:4-6) were bestowed for "the common good" (12:7) and were valueless without love (chpt13).

In the course of giving instructions relating to the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly, Paul has more to say about the gift of tongues, and many argue on the basis of chpt 14 that the apostle is discussing unintelligible speech. In my view the opposite is true, and chpt 14 supplies further proof that tongue-speaking involved real human languages. Hopefully this can be demonstrated without getting too bogged down in this chapter (which has a number of red herrings).

As mentioned earlier Paul here tells us that "tongues are for a sign...to unbelievers" (14:22) and we have argued that ecstatic language is no kind of sign at all. It is very common and would not have been distinguishable from the phenomenon found in the mystery religions of the time. It is simply not reasonable to think that garbled inarticulate sounds could constitute proof of divine activity.

In chpt 14:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 ff as follows: "In the law it is written, 'By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me' says the Lord." Isaiah's point was that since Israel would not listen to God He will speak to them through the language of the Assyrians - a human language. In the same way tongues are designed for unbelievers (14:22) and they are as much human languages as was the Assyrian tongue.

Some remind us that in 14:2 Paul says that "no one understands" the one who speaks in a tongue and argue that this is proof that unintelligible speech is under discussion. However we need to keep context in mind. Consider a similar statement by Jesus in John 3:32: "no man receives His (Jesus) witness." Now clearly the "no man" limited by context as the very next verse (Jn 3:33) shows. So too when Paul says "no one understands" the tongue-speaker he is making the obvious point that, as a general rule, a message delivered in a foreign language [say the Persian tongue] is going to be lost upon most in the local assemblies. [What of words spoken in the Tibetan tongue in a church service here in Hamilton?]

Verse 23 is also cited in support of the ecstatic language position. Paul says that the ungifted or unbeliever entering an assembly where "all speak in tongues" would conclude that those assembled are "mad." But this would also be true if tongue-speaking involved real languages. If all members of the assembly spoke in different foreign languages unknown to the majority present, a visitor would surely conclude that something very strange was afoot (especially if they failed to speak "in turn.") After all, those who did not understand the languages in Acts 2 drew a similar conclusion (see above).

Paul's statement that "in his spirit" the tongue-speaker "speaks mysteries" (14:2) has also been a source of misunderstanding for some. It is not true that the language suggests something mysterious or beyond understanding. It is not difficult to show that the term mystery or mysteries is used to speak of divine truth or truths hitherto unrevealed but now made known in the New Testament period. In this very letter Paul uses the term to speak of the gospel. (2:7 cf Rom 16:25-27) So Paul's point in 14:2 is not that tongue-speaking involves something mysterious, but rather that the message consists of "divine truths, things which God has revealed." (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1st and 2nd Corinthians)

Clearly when Luke wrote the book of Acts several years after Paul had written 1st Corinthians he knew exactly what the apostle had meant by "tongues" and he used this same term to describe the miraculous ability to speak in foreign languages (Acts 2) because in both cases the same phenomena were under consideration.

Concluding Comments

Not so long ago a first-time visitor to one of our assemblies suddenly stood up just before our guest speaker ascended the podium. Our visitor delivered a message "in tongues" which he then "translated" himself. He told us that he had been led by the Spirit to endorse our guest speaker as a man of God who taught the word accurately. A little later in the course of leading our Bible class the guest speaker who had received the endorsement brought a lesson on the subject of miraculous gifts in which he explained from scripture why these gifts (including tongue-speaking) had ceased. Our visitor meant no harm. He intended to encourage us with his message - but clearly there is something wrong when a "miraculous gift" testifies to the truth that miraculous gifts have ceased! Our visitor turned out to have a position of leadership and influence in a local denominational and was no novice.

3) On Miracles: Apostles and the Gifts

When Jesus told his Jewish listeners that "the Law" would remain in place in its entirity until "all is accomplished" (Matt 5:17, 18) He was of course speaking of the Law of Moses which had been given to Israel some 1500 years earlier. Clearly then the provisions of the Mosaic law remained in place until that very day, and we remember that Moses had given strict instructions that the divine legislation not be altered in any way. (Deut 4:2; 32:44 ff)

Now many of the events surrounding the giving of the Law, the inauguration of the Levitical Priesthood and the ministry of Moses were unique in the history of the nation. The giving of the Law was accompanied by "a blazing fire...darkness and gloom and whirlwind". (Heb 12:18) The construction of the Tabernacle, the induction of the tribe of Levi into the Priesthood and the Lord's custom of speaking to Moses face to face (Ex.33:11) were events which were associated with the ushering in of a new covenant and were not repeatedly witnessed by every generation which followed. Gideon for example wonders why the miracles which the "fathers" witnessed at the time of the Exodus were not being performed in his day, (Judges 6:13) and we are told that in the days of Eli "word from the Lord was rare...(and) visions...infrequent". (1 Sam 3:1) (This is not to say that there were no prophets or miracle-workers throughout Israel's history. This is not my point. My point is that certain arrangements at the time of the giving of the Law were unique).

In a word, it is true that once having been given, the Mosaic Law was to last until Christ's new Covenant in His blood, but it is equally true that many of the events surrounding the actual giving of that Law were unique. They were one-off because the laying of a new foundation is a one-off event. Prophets in succeeding generations did not communicate with the Lord as Moses did and the special gifts bestowed upon such men as Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 31:1 ff) for the construction of the Tabernacle were not available after its completion. Thus the fact that God employed certain tools and made certain necessary arrangements in inaugurating the Mosaic Covenant did not mean that these tools and arrangements were to remain with the people of the covenant throughout its duration.

Now this same distinction between permanent provisions and temporary arrangements must also be kept in mind when studying the New Covenant which was instituted by Christ in His blood. It is certainly true that the New Testament sets forth definite, precise, understandable doctrines which will remain in force until He returns (see our Salvation in One Body) and it is certainly true that no man has the right to add to or remove from this all sufficient body of truth. However we must be careful not to confuse this permanent body of teaching with the temporary arrangements necessary to inaugurate the New Covenant. Clearly the establishment of the church of Christ was a one off event. The church was not re-established from scratch in every succeeding generation. Clearly too the giving of the New Testament was a one-off event. Having once been given, the full and final revelation of God's Son will never pass away. (1 Pet. 1:24, 25) And so, just as special temporary arrangements were necessary for the giving of the Law, so too certain temporary special arrangements were necessary for the inauguration of Christ's New Covenant.

The failure to make a distinction between the body of truth provided for Christians of every generation and the temporary provisions which accompanied the establishment of the New Covenant once for all in the days of the apostles, lies at the heart of the confusion which surrounds the question of modern day miracles. In this context we need to look carefully at what the New Testament has to say about the apostolic office.

The Apostolic Office

The New Testament was of course written in ordinary first century Greek and the inspired writers made use of words and expressions which were well known to their readers. However it is also clear that certain common words are used in a special sense in the New Testament documents. For example the word "ekklesia" was commonly used in the first century to speak of an assembly and it is used this way in the New Testament. (e.g. Acts 19:39,41) But the word also takes on a special meaning in scripture, and this is evident from the fact that it is often translated "church." Now clearly as students of scripture our task is to let the inspired writers define their own terms for us and this is why it is so important to examine scriptural usage carefully when studying a particlar word or expression. This is certainly true in the case of the word "apostle."

The word translated "apostle" is found in classical Greek but is not common. It is used to speak of a naval expedition or a group of colonists, and Herodotus uses it of a personal envoy. The verbal form is used of the ideal Cynic teacher "sent by Zeus." In the Jewish translation of the Old Testament the noun form is found only in 1 Kings 14:6 where Ahijah the prophet tells Jeroboam's wife "I am sent to you with a harsh message" (from God). The term appears to be the equivalent of the Hebrew word 'shaliah' which was used of agents sent out by the Jewish rabbis to visit Jews of the Dispersion. These agents collected taxes for the support of the rabbinate and also preached and taught in the synagogues. However while all of this is interesting it does not give us an accurate picture of New Testament usage.

In the New Testament the word "apostolos" occurs 79 times and it "always denotes a man who is sent, and sent with full authority". (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) So it is used for example of the "commissioned representative of a congregation" (ibid) such as in the case of the men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints (2 Cor 8:23) and in the case of Epaphroditus who is an "apostle" of the church at Philippi. (Phil 2:25) In this sense too Andronicus and Junias are "men of note among the apostles". (Rom 16:7) Thus just as the word "ekklesia" is used in the New Testament in the general sense, so too the word "apostolos" is used in the general sense to speak of individuals sent out with authority.

But this is not the full story. In Lk 6:13 we are told that Jesus "called His disciples to Him; and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles." We do not know how many disciples were with Jesus but later on He sends out the twelve "apostles" (Matt 10:1 ff; Lk 9:1ff [esp. v10]) and then "seventy others" (Lk 10:1). Thus the "twelve" who are "named as apostles" are distinguished from the "others." Jesus speaks of the "regeneration" as a time when Peter and others will "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt 19:28) while the "twelve foundation stones" of "new Jerusalem" bear the names of "the twelve apostles of the lamb" (Rev 21:14). Judas, one of the twelve, betrays Jesus and then commits suiside. After the Lord's ascension and prior to the day of Pentecost, Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit tells a gathering of one hundred and twenty disciples that Judas' "office" (Acts 1:20) is to be taken by another. He says: "It is therefore necessary that of the men (here the word for males) who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us - beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us - one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:21, 22)

Notice that the individual chosen was to "occupy this ministry and apostleship " from which Judas had turned (1:25) and according to Peter in order to be considered for the office he had to be one who had:

a) accompanied the Lord and His disciples from the time when of John the Baptist's ministery until the day of His ascension; and

b) seen the risen Lord and able to become a "witness with... (the other apostles) of His resurrection". (Acts 1:22)

Two candidates were put forward and the Lord chose (Acts 2:24 [note the divine initiative]) Matthias who was then "numbered with the eleven apostles". (Acts 1:26)

Clearly then in addition to its general meaning, the word "apostle" is used in a narrow "technical" sense. Paul, who was later chosen by the Lord Himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15) describes himself as "one untimely born," (1 Cor 15:8) a reference to the abnormal circumstances surrounding his call to the apostolic office. Nevertheless Paul did not regard his having seen the Lord on the Damascus road as a visionary experience but as an actual resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:8) and can say "Am I not am apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1) Writing in the 50s of the first century he can say that the Lord appeared to him "last of all" (1 Cor 15:8) - thus no-one after Paul has had a similar experience. As an apostle Paul can say that (like the other apostles) he was "not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the father who raised him from the dead". (Gal 1:1) As an apostle he can claim authority in the churches. (1 Cor 14:37, 38; 2 Cor 13:10; 2 Thess 3:14)

Much more could be said on this subject but the point to notice is the fact that the word "apostle" is used in the New Testament to designate a group possessing certain qualifications which individuals in subsequent generations could not possess. In other words the office of apostle was not designed to be a permanent fixture within the body of Christ, and this was clear from the outset. Victor Budgen says in his book The Charismatics and the Word of God:

"Other Christians readily recognised the uniqueness of apostolic authority... Ignatius, an early Christian leader, writing between AD 100 - 115, makes a clear distinction as he declares, "I do not lay injunctions on you as did Paul and Peter; they were apostles..." These were men whose ministry God had sealed in a special, unique and powerful manner."

Clement of Rome wrote in 1st Clement about 96 AD:

"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 labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe."

A number of different groups today claim to have living "apostles," by which they mean that the apostolic office survives within their fellowships. Judged by the Biblical standard all such claims are wrong.

The Apostle - Gift Connection

Now once we recognise that the apostolic office was a unique feature of the early church it helps us to understand why the miraculous gifts did not survive the apostolic age, because scripture teaches both directly and by implication that the gifts and the apostolic office go hand in hand. Let's take a look at some relevant facts:

a) We have seen (Tongues) that on the day of Pentecost the twelve apostles were "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4) and began to speak in languages which they had never learned. Just days earlier Jesus had promised the apostles that they would "receive power" when the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 1:8) in Jerusalem. ( Acts 1:4) Following Peter's sermon in Acts 2, three thousand people obeyed the gospel (v 41).

b) These three thousand people received an infinitely precious gift at the point of baptism. According to Romans 8:9 "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit [1 Pet 1:11) he does not belong to Him." Now, whatever Paul meant by these words in Romans 8:9 it is clear the three thousand new Christians did indeed come to "have the Spirit" in this sense. Again whatever Peter meant by the promise "you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38) it is clear that this promise was fulfilled to those to whom it was made on that day.

c) We read on and are told that sometime after the conversion of the three thousand (2:42) "many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles". (2:43) Sometime later still we read that "at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people". (Acts 5:12) Of course by now many more had become Christians in addition to the three thousand (2:47; 4:4) but the apostles are singled out as the ones through whom the miracles were taking place. We can draw an important conclusion from all this, and the conclusion is that whatever it means to "have the Spirit" as per Romans 8:9 it does not involve possession of miraculous abilities because many thousands of faithful Christians in Jerusalem who did indeed "have the Spirit" were not performing miracles.

d) The first record of "wonders and signs" at the hands of a non-apostle occurs in Acts 6:8 where we read that "Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." Earlier Stephen has been introduced as "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 6:5) Along with six other men "of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" Stephen is brought before the apostles, who, "after praying...laid their hands upon them". (Acts 6:6) Concerning the imposition of hands F.F. Bruce has said:

"The imposition of hands is mentioned in a variety of contexts in the Old Testament for the bestowal of a blessing (cf Gen 48:13-20), for expressing identification, as when the sacrificer laid his hands on the head of the sacrificial victim (Lev 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 16:21 etc), for commissioning a successor (cf Num 27:23) and so forth. According to the Mishna, members of the Sanhedrin were admitted by the imposition of hands."

e) This is the first time that we read of the apostolic laying on of hands in the book of Acts and it is immediately followed by the first account of wonders and signs at the hands of a non-apostle upon whom hands have been laid. As we read on we learn that Philip, (Acts 6:5) another of the seven upon whom the apostles had laid hands, goes to the city of Samaria where he preaches the gospel and performs many miracles (8:5 ff). Many are baptised including a magician named Simon who is amazed at the "signs and miracles" performed by Philip. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard the news about Samaria they sent them Peter and John. Why did they do this?

f) We are told that when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem they "prayed for (the Christians at Samaria) that they might receive the Holy Spirit " (8:15). We are told that the Spirit "had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16). Now clearly since these Samaritans were already Christians they did indeed "have the Spirit" (as per Romans 8:9) and thus Peter and John have something else in mind when they pray for the Spirit. This becomes clear in v 17 where we read that the apostles "began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit."

g) So here we have a reception of the Holy Spirit by those who already "have the Spirit," (Rom 8:9) and it is a reception of the Spirit which results from the laying on of the apostles hands. This is expressly stated in v 18 where we are told that "Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles hands." What Simon "saw" was that the apostles could do what Philip, a non-apostle, could not do - they could impart miraculous gifts of the Spirit to those who, as Christians, already possessed Him.

h) What we learn then is that the ability to perform miracles was available to Christians like Philip and Stephen and the Samaritans, and it was imparted by the laying of the apostles' hands. We also learn that the non-apostolic recipients of these miraculous gifts did not themselves receive the ability to pass the gifts on to others. Thus the apostles Peter and John come to Samaria to do what Philip a non-apostle, cannot do. Later when the apostle Paul laid his hands upon a group of baptised believers "the Holy Spirit came upon them and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying". (Acts 19:6)

i) Many passages of scripture make more sense once we understand the connection between the apostles and the miraculous gifts. For example Acts 8 closes with a word about Philip and we are told that he travelled from Azotus to Caesarea "preaching the gospel to all the cities" (v 40). Now Azotus is 60 miles from Caesarea and Philip's preaching tour likely took him through Lydda and Joppa. Likely the "saints at Lydda" (Act 9:32) and the "disciples" at Joppa (Acts 9:38) are the fruit of Philip's efforts. Since Philip was a non-apostle he could not have passed on the miraculous gifts to his converts in these cities and this may well explain why they sent for Peter when Tabitha/Dorcas fell sick and died (9:36-43). The Christians at Lydda believed that Peter could do what they could not do.

j) Paul's defence of his apostleship may also throw light upon this matter. Since the truth of the gospel message is at stake, Paul boldly informs the Corinthians that he did not consider himself "in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles". (2 Cor 11:5) He asks them indignantly: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1) He adds "If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." (1 Cor 9:2) In 2 Corinthians he returns to this theme and says: "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. for in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches...." ( 2 Cor 12;12, 13)

k) Now in just what way are the Corinthians Paul's "work in the Lord" and the "seal of ..(his) apostleship"? True he did introduce them to the gospel, but church-planting is no proof of apostleship (e.g. Philip). However Paul can remind the Corinthians that they "are not lacking in any gift" (1 Cor 1:7) and this is significant. Paul is appealing to the fact that the Corinthians, his "work in the Lord," possess spiritual gifts as proof of his apostleship. Paul, as an apostle could bestow upon the brethren at Corinth what Philip could not bestow upon the brethren at Samaria and thus the Corinthian church was the "seal" (or "sign" or "stamp of approval") of his apostleship. The "signs of a true apostle" would include the ability to do what the non-apostolic miracle-workers at Corinth could not do - confer the gifts of the Spirit.

l) Some have argued on the basis of 1 Tim 4:14 that Timothy received his "spiritual gift" from "the presbytery" (i.e. a group of elders) rather than from an apostle, but this is not taught in this text. If Timothy had a miraculous gift then he got it from the apostle Paul who elsewhere tells the young man to "kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through (dia) the laying on of my hands". (2 Tim 1:6) In 1 Tim 4:14 however the gift is said to have come "with (meta) the laying on of hands by the presbytery." A.T. Robertson points out that "meta does not express instrument or means but merely accompaniment". (Word Pictures) So the laying on of hands by the elders was by way of appointing Timothy to a ministry (cf. Acts 13:3) and it was not the means of bestowing a miraculous gift.

This connection between the apostolic office and the miraculous gifts is so important to grasp, because as we have seen, the apostolic office was limited to the first generation of Christians. This being the case it follows that when the apostolic office ceased the miraculous gifts also ceased because they could only be passed on by the imposition of the apostles' hands. In a word there are no gifts today because there are no apostles today. However before leaving this topic we do need to say a word about the one exceptional situation of Cornelius and his household in Acts chapter 10.

Acts 10: Cornelius and His Household

Acts chapter 2 describes the establishment of the church when the apostles were "clothed with power on high" (Lk 24:49) and the gospel was preached for the first time. In the first gospel sermon Peter tells the assembled crowd that the miraculous events which they had witnessed were a fulfilment of Joel's prophecy concerning "the last days," a prophecy in which the Lord promised to "pour forth..(His) Spirit upon all mankind". (2:17) Now by "all mankind" of course Joel meant people of all nations. Later Peter says to the assembled Jews and proselytes: "the promise (i.e. the gift of the Holy Spirit) " is for you and your children and for all who are far off." (2:39) Again the "far off" ones are the Gentiles, (Eph 2:13) and Paul will later explain that "the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel". (Eph 3:6)

However subsequent events prove that neither Peter nor his hearers grasped this fundamental doctrine concerning the full, equal, participation of the Gentiles in the gospel. The fact is that for a number of years no effort is made to preach to the Gentiles. In the first nine chapters of Acts we read of the conversion of Jews, proselytes and Samaritans - but not Gentiles. (The Jews distinguished between Samaritans [who were of Abrahamic descent] and Gentiles [Matt 10:5] ). The divine plan of course was for the apostles to be Christ's "witnesses" in "Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth," (Acts 1:8) and by the time we get to Acts 10, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria have all received the good news. It is now the turn of the Gentiles and in many ways Acts 10 may be seen as the "Gentile Pentecost." Consider the following points:

a) When Peter made the good confession in Matt 16:16 ("Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God") Jesus pronounced a blessing upon him and said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". (Matt 16:19) In Acts 2, Peter opened the door of salvation by preaching the first gospel message. In Acts 10 he opens the door for the Gentiles and Peter will later say that it was "God's choice" that he be the one to first preach the gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7)

b) The opening verses of Acts 10 record how the Lord uses a vision of "clean" and "unclean" animals to teach Peter that he must not "consider unholy" that which God has "cleansed" ( v15). The Lord is preparing Peter to preach the message of salvation to a devout Gentile named Cornelius. (Acts 10:1, 2) It is interesting that Peter still needs this lesson a number of years after Pentecost, but he is quick to apply this principle (v 28) and to draw the conclusion that "God is not one to show partiality" on the basis of race (vs 34, 35).

c) As Peter "began to speak" (Acts 11:15) the message of salvation (11:14) to these Gentiles "the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message (i.e. upon Cornelius and his household) " (10:44) so that Peter and his Jewish brethren "were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God." (10:46) Now earlier we were told of Peter's having concluded that "in every nation" God fearers are acceptable to Him, but now we are told that the Jewish visitors are "amazed" at this turn of events ( 10:45). Why is this the case?

d) They are amazed, we are told "because the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also" (10:45). Peter says that they had received the Spirit "just as we did" (10:47) and later explains this to mean that the Holy Spirit "fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning". (Acts 11:15) The "beginning" is of course the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and the "us" are the apostles. Later Peter will explain that God gave these Gentiles "the same gift as He gave to us" (Acts 11:17) meaning baptism of the Holy spirit (Acts 11:16). What amazes the Jewish visitors then is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been poured out directly upon Cornelius without the laying on of the apostles' hands, and the only parallel that they can find is what happened in Jerusalem to the apostles years before as recorded in Acts 2.

e) We recall that in Acts 2 Peter explained by inspiration that the powerful and dramatic manifestation of the Spirit with respect to the apostles was in accordance with the prophecy of Joel; the prophecy that God's Spirit would be poured forth "upon all mankind". (Acts 2:17) Now "all mankind" meant Jew and Gentile, but no Gentile was present on the day of Pentecost. Thus Joel's prophecy was not fulfilled until the outpouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius in Acts 10. Significantly up until that time, those Jewish Christians who had been scattered because of persecution had been speaking the word "to no one except to Jews alone," (Acts 11:19) but after the "Gentile Pentecost" we read that some "began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus" (Acts 11:20) and the preaching of the gospel to the entire world gets under way.

Concluding Comment

The New Testament records certain unique events associated with the coming of the New Covenant, the establishment of the church and the giving of God's full and final revelation through His Son. It also sets forth a body of teaching which will never pass away. The apostolic office was held by uniquely-qualified men of the first century church and claims by different groups today that they possess living apostles flounder upon the Biblical description of the office. Moreover since it was through the laying on of the apostles' hands that miraculous gifts were bestowed these gifts did not survive the apostolic age.

4) On Miracles: The Partial and the Perfect

Childhood is a wonderful time of learning, growth and investigation, but it is of course a preparatory stage of life and it does not last forever. All of us recognise that in the world of nature the failure to grow to maturity is a sign of abnormality, an indication that all is not well with a particular organism. Because everyone understands this it is no surprise to find the New Testament writers urging Christians to leave spiritual childhood behind and to move on to maturity in Christ, both for their own good and the good of the church as a whole (e.g. 1 Cor 3:1 ff; Heb 5:9 ff).

It is also significant that the New Testament speaks of the universal church in terms of childhood and maturity. This is understandable because we need only glance at the book of Acts to see that the first century church did not appear instantaneously on the scene as a fully-developed, fully functioning entity with her all-sufficient guide, the Bible available from day one. A period of growth and development took place during the apostolic period, and the New Testament writers speak of this period as a time of childhood and immaturity. It was a "setting up" period which was to be followed by manhood and the coming of age. It is my conviction that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were part of the childhood period and that once the church was fully established upon the completed word of God the gifts were removed, just as scaffolding is removed from a building once it is complete. With this in mind let's take a look at a passage of scripture which, in my view, teaches just this.

1st Corinthians 13:8-13

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-14:40 Paul deals with problems connected with church worship. In 11:2-16 he gives attention to matters relating to the head covering and in 11:17-34 he addresses problems relating to the Lord's Supper. Then in 12:1-14:40 Paul discusses the granting and use of spiritual gifts. Immaturity and rivalry have led to the abuse of these gifts in the assembly and the situation must be corrected. Developing his argument in chpt 12, Paul first of all reminds the Corinthians that the gifts are all from one divine source and that they are all given for the common good (12:1-11). Next he emphasises the diversity of the gifts in their unity (12:12-31a). Then in 12:31b Paul says "And I show you a still more excellent way," (N.A.S.V cf K.J.V) "a most excellent way" (American Std) "the most excellent way"(N.I.V).

Without getting bogged down in the details here the general idea is that Paul is about to describe "a way" or "a way to do something" which is beyond all comparison. That way is love which is described in detail in 13:1-7. This then is the context of 1 Cor 13:8-13. Let's take a close look at this paragraph, radiating out from v10 which is the key to unlocking this passage.

a) Verse 10: "but when the perfect comes the partial will be done away." Now, what is "the perfect" which is yet to come when Paul writes? The word translated "perfect" is from teleios, an adjective which "(i)n Greek thought and usage ...often means 'totality' (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). Thayer tells us that it can be used of that which is "brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect." Used of people it can mean "full-grown, mature, adult" (Arndt and Gingrich). Here in v. 10 it is used as a noun (neuter) with the definite article ("the") hence "the perfect" or "that which is perfect." The word itself does not tell us just what is meant by "the perfect" here.

b) However the immediate context helps us because in v 10 "the perfect" stands in contrast with "the partial" (ek merous). We read in T.W.N.T that "the meaning 'whole' is suggested at 1 Cor 13:10 by the antithesis to ek merous (the partial [Rex])." So if we can find out what is meant by "the partial" we will then know what is meant by "the perfect." Verse 9 helps us because we are here told that "we know in part (ek merous) and we prophesy in part (ek merous)." The "in part" and "the partial" then have reference to knowledge and prophecy.

c) As we consider context once more we find that in 12:8 Paul has listed "the word of knowledge" (logos gnoseos) and prophesy among the supernatural gifts. Again in13:2 Paul links the "gift of prophecy" and "knowledge." In this verse (13:2) Paul says "if I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge.." telling us that by means of prophecy, hitherto undisclosed truths (mysteries) are made known and supernatural knowledge (the "word of knowledge") is made available. As T.W.N.T points out, the "ref in 13:8 is to the logos gnoseos ( i.e. the word of knowledge [Rex]) grouped with other charismata (i.e. gifts [Rex]) in 12:8, cf the list in 13:2."

d) Thus if the "partial" refers to prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) which is incomplete, the "perfect" refers to its counterpart, namely prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) in its fulness, its completeness, its perfection. This of course is what the we have in the Bible. The fully revealed, completely sufficient Truth contained in scripture is the "perfect" which Paul speaks of in 1Cor 13:10. Not everyone agrees and different suggestions have been made concerning "the perfect," but we need to keep in mind that to " teleion " stands in contrast with "ek merous " and Paul tells us exactly what he means by "partial" and "in part." Those who find a reference here to Christ's second coming are really importing this idea into the text. In fact the word is not used elsewhere in the New Testament to speak of Christ's return or of the circumstances surrounding that return, and in this same letter when Paul does speak of "the end" he uses "telos". (1 Cor 15:24)

e) Anyway what we have in the New Testament is the whole truth which God has made available through prophecy and supernatural knowledge. This is why Paul speaks of the passing away of the partial. His point is that with the coming of the "perfect" we no longer need the piecemeal revelations which miraculously-gifted men provided during the infancy of the church. The "perfect" having come there is simply no place for the "partial." The Holy Spirit led the apostles to "all the truth," (Jn 16:13) and brought to their remembrance "all" that Jesus said to them. (Jn 14:16) This truth is "the living and abiding word of God" which, having once been revealed will never pass away, (1 Pet 1:22-25) and it is completely sufficient for all man's spiritual needs. (2 Tim 3:16, 17) James speaks of the gospel as "the perfect law, the law of liberty" (Jas 1:25) and Guy N. Woods comments on this verse:

" The law into which Christians are to look intently, is a perfect one. "Perfect" in this passage, is from teleion, from telos, end, thus indicating completeness, fullness, wholeness. The law of Christ is full, complete, embodying all that is necessary to accomplish its purpose." (A Commentary on the Epistle of James)

f) Verse 11 illustrates the difference between the two situations. Prophesying in part and knowing in part are likened to the state of infancy or childhood whereas the state associated with "the perfect" is that of manhood or maturity. Passing from childhood to manhood involves doing away with "childish things" (i.e. incomplete, partial revelation). Paul's point is not that children do not have accurate perception but that they have limited perception, and in the same way partial revelation is not inaccurate revelation but revelation which lacks completeness.

g) Verse 12 compares the "in part" situation to that of seeing "in a mirror dimly" and the "perfect" situation to that of seeing "face to face." Verse 12 is connected to the previous verse with the explanatory "for" meaning that Paul is here explaining the childhood-manhood illustration in verse 10. Perhaps by "in a mirror dimly" Paul has in mind the fact that ancient mirrors were of poor quality reflecting only a dim image, but there may be a better explanation. Kittel tells us that Philo uses the word "mirror" in connection with divine revelation adding "The Pauline text (of 2 Cor 3:18 and 1 Cor 13:12) thus means that by the Spirit we are those who see". (T.D.N.T)

h) Lets say something about the word translated "dimly" and the expression translated "face to face." This is an important verse because many who insist that "the perfect" refers to Christ's second coming understand "face to face" here to mean face to face with Christ when He returns. However notice this:

- the word "see" has no object here. Those who believe that Paul is speaking of seeing Christ must introduce this into the text.

- in Exodus 33:11 we read that "the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face..." In Greek (Sept) the expression "face to face" in Ex 33:11 is different from the expression "face to face" in 1 Cor 13:12 but it conveys the same idea. In what sense did God speak to Moses "face to face"? The expression certainly does not mean that Moses saw God face to face because the Lord immediately says to Moses "You cannot see my face..." (Ex 33:20) and "My face shall not be seen". (Ex 33:23)

i) What we are being told here is that God spoke to Moses in a direct manner and this is made clear from an incident in the book of Numbers. In the book of Numbers chpt 11 we read that the Lord placed His Spirit upon seventy elders and "they prophecied. But they did not do it again". (11:25) Then in 12:6-8 we read:

"(The Lord) said, Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the Lord..."

j) Thus in the Old Testament the expressions "face to face" and "in dark sayings" are used to draw a distinction between two kinds of communication, the former being more direct than the latter. Going a step further we note that the expression "in dark sayings" in Num 12 (Sept) and the expression "dimly" in 1 Corinthians 13 both translate a form of the word "ainigma " which literally means "in an enigma" (A.T.Robertson: Word Pictures) or "riddle, indistinct image" (Rienecker/Rogers: Linguistic Key to the New Testament). Clearly then in 1 Cor 13:12 Paul is discussing the difference between partial communication by way of miraculous gifts which he describes as seeing in a mirror dimly, and full, complete communication by way of the all-sufficient scriptures which he speaks of as seeing face to face.

k) Verse 12 continues " now I know in part, (ek merous) but then (when seeing face to face) I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known." Again the "now" speaks of the period before the completion of the New Testament. The change from "I know" to "I shall know fully" reflects the fact that Paul changes from the usual word for "know" to an the intensified form of the verb. Some argue that full knowledge is only available in heaven and that Paul must therefore be speaking of the time following the Lord's return, but this will not do. A glance at a concordance reveals that the same intensive form is used of knowledge available in the here and now. For example Paul uses the intensive form to speak of those who know the truth (1 Tim 4:3) and Peter uses it of those who have known the way of righteousness. (2 Pet 2:21) So Paul's "I shall know fully" need not refer to future enlightenment in heaven.

l) The apostle speaks of knowing fully "just as I also have been fully known." Some understand Paul to be speaking of a time when he will know God just as he has been fully known by God (not to the same degree but with the same directness). However Paul does not say "fully known by God" but simply "fully known." Later Paul will use this same intensive form in 2 Cor 1:14 where he says that the Corinthians "partially did understand us," meaning that a portion of the church at Corinth trusted his motives. Also he speaks of himself as "well-known". (2 Cor 6:9)

m) The chapter concludes: "But now abide faith hope and love these three; but the greatest of these is love." In contrast with the miraculous gifts which will cease, faith, hope and love will "abide," and this concluding statement supports the position that Paul is discussing cessation of the gifts in the here and now. This is the case because elsewhere Paul says concerning hope: "For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one hope for what he sees?" (Rom 8:24 cf. Rom 15;4; Gal 5:5) Hope then is part of the Christian's earthly experience but since "hope that is seen is no hope" it will not exist in heaven. The point is that Paul is not drawing a contrast between gifts which will cease when Jesus returns and hope which will abide in heaven; rather he is drawing a contrast between gifts which will cease upon earth (when the "perfect" comes) and hope which will continue to remain upon the earth long after miraculous gifts have ceased to exist.

Concluding comment

"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied." (Jer 23:21)

On all sides today competing voices lay claim to miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit and a multitude of conflicting doctrines are being taught in the name of Christ. Many church services have come to resemble circus arenas in which ecclesiastical ringmasters compete to entertain with new and increasingly bizarre performances. Criticism is often met with a warning not to touch "God's annointed." Others acknowledge the "excesses" but tell us not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I have argued that there is neither baby nor bathwater since there is simply no scriptural support or real evidence for latter day miracles. Some may think that we are nitpicking but listen again to Jeremiah:

" Behold I am against the prophets" declares the Lord "who use their tongues and declare," The Lord declares (23:31)."

Let's never forget that God is jealous of His holiness and fiercely protective of His word. Spurious claims to speak for God, to have a "word of wisdom" a "word of knowledge" or a divinely-bestowed gift are dangerous claims indeed. Finally let me emphasise that I say these things not out of hatred or malice but as one who is deeply conscious of having wasted many years caught up in what I now view as egregious error. God bless you in your studies.

Home|Contents