The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 7
Posted by deangonzales on March 16, 2009
In our previous post, we noted that continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative. Grudem’s arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets. Only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation. (2) the NT seems to contain examples of fallible prophecy uttered by NT believers or prophets. (3) NT prophecy was subject to evaluation and criticism, which seems to imply fallibility and lesser authority. These are Grudem’s three primary arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy.[1]
What shall we think about this distinction? I have five lines of response to Grudem’s arguments by which I want to argue that the Scriptures do not support Grudem’s distinction between OT canonical prophecy (infallible) and NT congregational prophecy (potentially fallible). In contrast, the data of Scripture seems to place NT prophecy in the same divine and authoritative category as OT prophecy. We’ll consider the first three below and the final two in our subsequent post.
OT prophets spoke the very words of God.
The nature of OT prophecy is highlighted in three key passages.
Exodus 7:1-2
Here, Yahweh declares to Moses,
See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you. And Aaron your brother shall speak to Pharaoh to send the children of Israel out of his land.
In this case, Moses was God’s prophet and Aaron was Moses’ prophet. God’s word is relayed through Moses, and then again through Aaron. Notice, however, that the final message delivered by Aaron comes to Pharaoh with, to use O. Palmer Robertson’s words, “undiminished authority.”[2] In this case, the prophetical words of Aaron are absolutely canonical.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
In this passage, God assures His people that when Moses passes off the scene, he will raise up another prophet like Moses. For our purposes, notice how this passage depicts the nature of true OT prophecy:
The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.’
Once again, this passage portrays a prophet as God’s spokesman. Notice that God does not merely place his words in the prophet’s head but rather in his mouth (v. 18). A prophet does not merely receive revelatory concepts in his mind, but he actually speaks divine revelation. Finally, Moses makes it clear in verse 15 and 19 that the prophet’s words will be canonical: “You shall listen to him …. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.”
What’s interesting for our purposes is the way in which Peter interprets this text in Acts 3:22-23. According to Peter, this passage finds fulfillment not just in the line of prophets following Moses but primarily in the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ, who may be rightly called the “Second Moses.” Certainly, this passage underscores continuity between the revelation of Old Covenant prophecy and the revelation of New Covenant prophecy of Christ.
2 Peter 1:20-21
Peter refers specifically to the “prophecy of Scripture,” which at the time of his writing was primarily OT Scripture. Regarding the nature of that prophetic revelation, Peter writes,
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Peter stresses the fact that the prophecy of Scripture does not originate with man but with God. Furthermore, Peter argues that the Spirit not only superintends the thoughts of the prophet but the words, which the prophet utters—”holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
In conclusion, the Bible clearly portrays OT prophecy as inspired revelation in the fullest sense, which is absolutely authoritative. With this point, Dr. Grudem has no quarrel, which leads to our second line of argumentation.
The Bible assumes an essential continuity between OT and NT prophecy.
Let’s travel back in time to the Day of Pentecost. Here Peter and the other apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” and, according to Acts 2:4, they “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” In the context, the word “tongues” is referring to foreign languages other than Hebrew (vv. 8, 11). Then, in order to put this strange phenomenon in proper perspective, Peter cites an OT prophecy of which their speaking in tongues is a fulfillment. The OT text is Joel 2:28-32, which Peter cites in verses 17-18:
‘And it shall come to pass in the last days,’ says God, ‘That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy’ (Acts 2:17-18).
The prophet Joel is pointing forward to “the last days,” when God will do something new and unusual. In these days, Joel says, prophecy will no longer be limited to a certain class of individuals. God will pour out his Spirit on “all flesh,” that is, upon “all [kinds] of mankind.” Men and women, young and old, slave and freeman will all prophesy. Thus, New Covenant prophecy will be much more widely distributed than Old Covenant prophecy. There is no indication, however, that this NT prophecy will be non-canonical. On the contrary, the equation of prophecy with “visions” and “dreams” (v. 17) strongly suggests that NT prophecy is of the same inspired character as OT prophecy.[3] Without doubt, Joel’s audience would have interpreted Joel’s promise of future prophecy as a reference to special revelation in the fullest sense of the word. Just as God had authoritatively and infallibly revealed himself to Israel through Moses and the OT prophets. So the day is coming, says Joel, when God would pour out His Spirit again upon the Gentile as well as the Jew, and God’s Spirit would provide His people with fresh supernatural revelation. According to Peter, Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. The “tongues” of Pentecost were the evidence of an outpouring of God’s Spirit which resulted in new revelation which was on the same level of inspiration and authority as OT prophecy. Moreover, we cannot limit this new canonical prophecy to the apostles since the fulfillment of Joel’s promise extends to women as well as to men (vv. 17-18).
Several NT passages treat NT prophecy as inspired and on a level with OT prophecy as canonical revelation.
Acts 13:1-4
The first passage I’d like us to look at is probably the least conclusive. Acts 13:1-4 clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit commissioned Paul and Barnabas to do missionary work. Second, the likely assumption is that the Spirit’s revelation came to them through the agency of NT prophets who happened to be in their company.
Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Commenting on the passage, F.F. Bruce writes,
As these prophets and teachers were carrying out their appointed ministry in the church, the Holy Spirit made known his will to them—doubtless through an inspired utterance from one of their number.[4]
I believe that we can also assume that this Spirit-inspired prophecy was canonical in the sense of being infallibly and absolutely authoritative. Just as God called Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah, so now He commissioned Paul and Barnabas. Not by the enlightened exhortation of the church, but the direct revelation of His Spirit. In other words, God’s word came to Barnabas and Paul with absolute divine authority.[5] If this is a proper reading of the passage, then we have a case of NT prophecy which is fully inspired and infallible.
Ephesians 2:20; 3:1-5
We find a clearer statement on NT prophecy in Ephesians 2:20 and 3:1-5. We’ve already noted how Ephesians 2:20 supports the cessation of Scripture-quality revelation. In that verse, Paul clearly speaks of the ministry of apostles as the foundational stage of the NT church’s formation: “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (emphasis added).
For our purposes, I want you to note that Paul refers not only to NT “apostles” but also to NT “prophets” as making up the foundation of the NT church. That the “prophets” in view are NT prophets is clear from the sequence in which the two words occur. When OT prophets are compared to NT apostles, they are listed before the apostles in sequence (2 Pet. 3:2). When the term “prophets” follows apostles, however, then NT prophets are in view (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). Furthermore, we know these are NT prophets because they along with the apostles were the recipients of NT revelation, which had not been revealed to the OT prophets in the same degree. This point is underscored in 3:1-5:
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles — if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets (emphasis added).
Obviously, this passage places NT prophets on a level with the apostles. The Spirit of God revealed to them, as well as to the apostles, “the mystery of Christ,” which He had not made known to the sons of men to the same degree as He was now doing to the apostles and the prophets. According to one of my Greek Lexicons, the word “mystery” can refer to “what can be known only through revelation mediated from God (Mat 13:11)” or “as a supreme redemptive revelation of God through the Gospel of Christ mystery (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9).”[6] Thus, the prophets, along with the apostles, communicated divinely authoritative revelation to the church (cf. Acts 13:1-4). What is more, as we’ve pointed out, the NT prophets belonged to the foundational period of the church, which makes it likely that they, along with the apostles, passed off the scene once the NT canon was completed.
Sensing the force of this argument, Grudem attempts to view the dual reference as a hendiadys. The term “hendiadys” comes from three Greek words: hen = “one,” dia = “through,” dys = “two.” It refers to a literary device in which two words are used to describe one basic idea. Thus, Grudem interprets the phrase “apostles and prophets” as referring to one class of individuals and translates it, “the apostles who are the prophets.”[7]
Linguistic studies on the structure of Paul’s statement in the original have shown Grudem’s interpretation to be improbable.[8] Moreover, other NT passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11, and Revelation 18:20 clearly distinguish NT apostles from NT prophets. The passage in Ephesians 4 is especially relevant since it occurs in the same letter as the reference in 2:20 and 3:5. Therefore, according to the exegetical evidence of Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5, both apostles and NT prophets were the recipients and the agents of divinely authoritative revelation.
1 Corinthians 13:2; 14:1-3
The next two passages I would like us to examine are found in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. First, let’s read 1 Corinthians 13:2: “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” In this first text, I want you simply to note that Paul portrays NT prophecy as a revelatory gift by which the one who possess the gift comes to understand “all mysteries.” Remember that according to Ephesians 3, the term “mysteries” refer to divine revelation of redemptive truth previously unknown—at least not to the same degree. With this in view, let’s turn to a complementary passage in 1 Corinthians 14:1-3:
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.
You’ll recall that in Acts 2, Peter equates tongues with prophecy. According to that passage, “tongues” is the gift of prophecy uttered in a foreign language. In this passage (and in chapter 13), however, Paul seems to contrast the two. How do we explain this? First, we should not view Paul’s distinction between prophecy and tongues as a contrast between rational speech and irrational noise and babbling. The Greek word translated “tongues” simply refers to language (cf. Isa. 28:11-12).[9] Genuine language is not a lot of irrational, incoherent noise. True language is always characterized by real words that are structured together in a coherent and rational fashion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19).
Second, Paul’s contrast between prophecy and tongues is not a contrast between human speech and angelic speech. Some modern Pentecostals and Charismatics appeal to 1 Corinthians 13:1 where Paul writes, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” On the basis of this verse, they argue, (1) that angelic language may be contrasted with human language, (2) that angelic language may be spoken by humans, and (3) that angelic language may sound unintelligible and irrational to humans, like “sounding brass or a clanging symbol.”
In response to this interpretation, note first that the “sounding brass and clanging symbol” refer to human speech as well as angelic speech which is not accompanied by love. The point is not that human speech is intelligible while angelic speech is unintelligible. The point, rather, is that preaching the gospel—whether in a human tongue or an angelic tongue—makes no sense if we are not living the gospel. Second, Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” may simply be a form of hyperbole—a way of saying, “Though I preaching the gospel with the eloquence of an angel ….” Third, even if Paul is alluding to an actual language spoken by angels, he nowhere clearly identifies that angelic language as the tongues being uttered in the Corinthian church. In fact, there are indications in the context of 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul has actual human languages in view. Paul’s illustration in verses 10 and 11 points to a human language rather than an angelic language:
There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me [emphasis added] (1 Cor. 14:10-11).
Moreover, Paul’s reference to tongues as a “sign to unbelievers” in verses 21 and 22 is based upon Isaiah 28:11-12, and that OT passage is referring to a human language which is foreign and unintelligible to the recipient (cf. Deut. 28:49; Jer. 5:15). For these reasons, it is best to view the gift of NT tongues neither as irrational babble nor as angelic speech, but rather as prophecy in a foreign language which corresponds to the tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8, 11). Paul’s contrast, then, is not between tongues and prophecy per se but between revelation uttered in a language intelligible to the church and revelation uttered in a language that is foreign to the church.[11]
What I really want to call your attention to is the fact that according to 13:2 and 14:2 both prophecy and tongues reveal “mysteries.” The term “mysteries” is not referring to garbled nonsense.[12] That term translates the same Greek word that Paul used in Ephesians 3 to speak of the canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets. And according to these passages in 1 Corinthians, these “mysteries” are “known” through the gift of prophecy (13:2) and they are “spoken” through the gift of tongues (14:2). Therefore, according to these passages, not only does the special revelation of NT prophecy reach the mind but it is uttered from the mouth as well! The Spirit does not merely provide the thoughts to think, but He gives the very words to say.
I do not believe these passages are not compatible with Grudem’s position. Grudem argues that in the case of NT congregational prophecy, revelation only extends to the mind and not necessarily to the mouth (see Grudem’s view illustrated in Part 6). But here, the one who speaks in tongues actually “speaks” the mysteries. This is not to deny that prophets may have added their own interpretation to a prophet’s message at a later time. But in that case, we must distinguish their interpretation from the prophecy itself. NT prophecy by its very nature is divinely inspired revelation—nothing more and nothing less.
Revelation 1:3; 22:7, 10; 18-19
The Apostle John identifies his writing as NT prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10). Furthermore, he claims absolute, canonical authority for this NT prophecy (22:18-19; cf. Deut. 4:2).
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book (22:18-19).
I realize Grudem would grant that John’s prophecy was completely inspired, inerrant, and divinely authoritative. In fact, he refers to this as a kind of exception to the rule.[13] But I want to suggest that the prophecy we find elsewhere in the NT is the same kind of prophecy uttered and inscripturated by John in the Book of the Revelation. And as John the Apostle makes clear by the closing words the book, such prophecy carries absolute divine authority.
In summary, then, I believe the Biblical evidence supports the view that Old Testament prophecy and New Testament prophecy belong to the same category of divine revelation. They are both special revelation in the fullest sense of the word. But what about Grudem’s examples of so-called “fallible” NT prophecy? And what about the texts that portray NT prophecy as susceptible to evaluation? We’ll take address these two questions in our next post so stay tuned.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1996), 1039-58.
[2] The Final Word (Banner of Truth, 1993), 6.
[3] The Old Testament often places “dreams” and “visions” in the category of canonical revelation (cf. Num. 12:6; 24:3, 4; 2 Sam. 7:17; 2 Chron. 32:32; Prov. 29:18; Isa. 1:1; Jer. 23; Oba. 1:1; Nah. 1:1).
[4] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Eerdmans, 1988), 245.
[5] Notice that the word was authoritative even before Luke recorded it in the Scriptures!
[6] Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament in Bible Works 4.0 (Copyright 1999), en loc.
[7] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway, 1988), 45-63.
[8] D. B. Wallace, “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983), 59-84; R. Fowler White, “Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin’s Cessationist Exegesis,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (Fall 1992), 304-21. See also the helpful analysis provided by Jonathan Christman, one of Grudem’s former students, which may be accessed here: “Wayne Grudem on Ephesians 2:20-An Exegetical Analysis.”
[9] When I was a new believer, a friend invited me to a Pentecostal Bible study where the subject of tongues was discussed. At the end of the study, the leader of the group asked us all to stand and pray for the Spirit. Everyone except me lifted their hands and began praying. Soon the woman standing next to me began dancing around and repeating over and over the phrase, “Babble … babble … babble.” That literally happened! But I don’t very much that’s what Paul had in view when speaking of “tongues.”
[10] Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 162.
[11] Some have cited verses 14 and 15 as proof that “tongues” is a non-intelligible utterance: “for if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.” They argue that since one’s understanding remains “unfruitful” when uttering a tongue, then it must refer to something distinct from a human language since even the one speaking cannot understand it. In verse 4, however, Paul seems to imply that the speaker could understand it: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” Consequently, we may interpret the phrase “my understanding is unfruitful” as shorthand for, “My understanding of the divine revelation does not produce fruit in the hearers when it is uttered in a foreign language” (cf. Matt. 13:22; 2 Pet. 1:8).
[12] Charles Hodge comments, “The meaning obviously is, that although not understood, yet what he utters contains divine truth. The difficultly was in the language used, not in the absence of meaning, or in the fact that inarticulate sounds were employed.” A Commentary on I and II Corinthians (1857; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1988), 280.
[13] “Of course, the words prophet and prophecy were sometimes used of the apostles in contexts that emphasized the external spiritual influence (from the Holy Spirit) under which they spoke (so Rev. 1:3; 22:7; and Eph. 2:20; 3:5), but this was not the ordinary terminology used for the apostles, nor did the terms prophet and prophecy in themselves imply divine authority for their speech or writing.” Systematic Theology, 1051.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
[...] shall we think about this distinction? In the previous post (Part 7), I sought to demonstrate (1) that OT prophets spoke the very words of God (Exod. 7:1-2; Deut. [...]
March 18th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Dear Pastor Gonzalez:
I am Rafael Alcantara from Dominican Republic. Probably you remember me.
I have three questions:
1) When 1 Cor 14:6 says: Now, brothers,[a] if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some(G) revelation or knowledge or prophecy or(H) teaching…
Do not these text tell that language sometimes is conect, not only with prophecy, but some other times with the knowledge or with teaching?
2) Do you think that the terms prophets in Ef 2:20; 3:1-15 and 4:11, include every person that prophecied at the church? This texts suggest that this was an office, as important as apostles and more important that pastors. But it seems that some persons not necessary had the office of prophet, but had the gift of prophecy. (Ananias, daugther of Philips, different kind of persons in Actas 2)
3) Do you think that the prophets in Efesios, has the same authority that the daughter of Phillips and the local prophets in Corintians?
Sorry for my english. Thanks for this posts, and the humility and respect that you have with persons that think different of you.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Rafael,
Good questions. I’ll try my best to answer them.
1) I don’t believe that speaking in a foreign language is always equivalent to the conveyance of special revelation. Paul’s argument seems to be that the use of foreign language without an interpreter is unedifying whether that foreign language is a special revelation or an uninspired teaching. Accordingly, Paul’s burden is that the Corinthians focus on those gifts that edify, i.e., communicative gifts that impart truth whether they be revelatory gifts or simply non-revelatory, preaching/teaching gifts. So, to answer your question, the ability to communicate in a foreign language may be viewed as either (1) a supernaturally imparted revelatory gift that imparts “mysteries” (i.e., special revelation) or (2) a God-given ability that is naturally acquired to communicate already revealed truth in a foreign language via preaching, teaching, exhorting, etc.
2) There is some debate whether Ephesians 4:11 is referring to offices or to functional gifts. Be that as it may, I think it’s likely that the gifts enumerated likely entailed distinct offices. Could one prophesy without being an official prophet? Well, I suppose so–in the same way that one might do the work of an evangelist without actually being an evangelist or do the work of a preacher-teacher without holding the office. That fact, if true, does not prove, however, that the non-official prophet’s message is uninspired. I see no reason to interpret the prophesy of Joel as forecasting a day when God’s spirit would be poured out on “all flesh” (not just Jews and not just official prophets) enabling all kinds of people to be conveyors of special revelation (i.e., prophecy, dreams, visions). The Psalmist Asaph was probably not an official prophet. But his Psalms are treated as inspired. The same is true of David.
3) Above, I argue that NT prophecy (whether in a known language or foreign language) involves the conveyance of divinely revealed “mystery,” which is a form of special revelation. To be consistent with my thesis, then, I would have to say that a prophetic utterance given by Phillip’s daughters or by a local prophet in Corinth would be a divine revelation and, therefore, authoritative. Phillip’s daughters, like Debra of Judges, would be treated as prophetesses, and their word would presumably be accorded the same status as the prophetic utterances of Debra.
Hope this helps.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
March 19th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Pastor Gonzalez,
According my second question, I think is more logic to see Ef 4, as office (or gifs-men, or in spanish, hombres-dones) in which is necessary for every office to have some gifts. For example, In the case of pastors, he need gifs of teaching, counselor and leadership…).
Thanks for take time to answer my questions.
Rafael
March 19th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Rafael,
Your questions were helpful, and it’s my pleasure to try to answer them though my answers may not always be adequate.
You’re probably correct. It’s likely that when Paul listed the “hombres-dones” in Ephesians 4:11, he probably had the office corresponding to each gift in view as well. So I would agree with you that there were probably NT Christians who may not have been viewed as “official prophets” that nevertheless exercised, as the Spirit gave utterance, the gift of prophecy. I am less inclined, however, to view such prophetic utterances–if genuine–as less authoritative simply because they did not come through an office bearer.
Thanks for the interaction!
Your brother in Christ,
Bob Gonzales
March 25th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I believe most Christians have interpreted the “prophets” of Eph. 2:10 (part of the foundation of the church) to be the OT prophets, not NT prophets; that is that Paul was saying that the church is founded on all of God’s special revelation, new and old.
Your description of tongues is frankly in stark contradiction to how Paul describes it in 1 Cor. 14:2. There he says that “no one understands” the one speaking in tongues. (The same idea is implied later in the chapter, vv 21-24 where the unbeliever doesn’t understand what is going on.) That is therefore different from the phenomena of Acts 2. I realize that fact tends to over-turn your straw-man that prophesy and tongues are canonical special revelation. Maybe you ought to consider rethinking your premises.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] prophecy and NT congregational prophecy in this installment. Then, in the subsequent posts (Part 7, Part 8), we’ll attempt to offer a biblical refutation, demonstrating that NT congregational [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am
[...] position of Wayne Grudem, a leading advocate of continuationism, as well as his main arguments. In Part 7 and Part 8, I’ll present arguments in favor of viewing NT prophecy and tongues as belonging [...]
June 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Nice article, Bob.
A few questions come to mind:
1) I find your argument that in 1 Cor. 14:14-15 “we may interpret the phrase ‘my understanding is unfruitful’ as shorthand for, ‘My understanding of the divine revelation does not produce fruit in the hearers when it is uttered in a foreign language’” quite interesting. But I wonder how you would take Paul’s earlier assertion that “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him,” as well as the necessity that there be an interpretation. Does it not appear that the one who speaks in a tongue also needs for there to be an interpretation? And isn’t this why Paul says in verse 13, “let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret”? Wouldn’t this indicate that the tongues speaker himself cannot understand what he says without an interpreter or without having the gift of interpretation himself? And doesn’t this seem to go against your understanding of verse 14?
It seems to me that Paul is giving a reason in verse 14 for the tongues speaker to pray that he may interpret, namely so that he himself can understand and tell others the meaning of what he has said. But if, as you suppose, the man can understand what he has said, then why does he need to pray for interpretation?
2) I think you have raised a good point when you highlight the use of the term “mysteries” as being “spoken” by the tongues speaker, but I wonder why you then assume that what is said of the tongues speaker can be transferred to the prophet. Grudem has pointed out that in 1 Cor. 14 the prophet receives a revelation and that it is this revelation that is from the Lord, not necessarily his communication of the revelation. Why would referring to the gift of speaking in tongues as focused on what is spoken necessitate that prophecy be the same in this context?
3) Also, while I agree that in Acts the languages spoken are known human languages, I wonder if what is happening in Corinth can be so restricted. I agree that it would include such languages, as your contextual arguments have shown, but couldn’t tongues also be broader than that? For example, why would you say that the gift of interpretation of tongues necessary? After all, the reason for tongues in Acts 2 was so that everyone could understand in his own language. But isn’t the assumption in 1 Corinthians that no one can understand what is said unless there is a gift of interpretation?
As I said in a comment to an earlier post, I am revisiting the whole issue. I appreciate your thoughtful posts and will continue to think through what you are saying. Thanks, brother!
June 20th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Hey Keith,
Thanks for taking the time to work though the posts and offer thoughtful questions. Some recent posts on the free offer of the gospel have preoccupied me and made it difficult for me to respond to comments on other posts. (Not to mention my pastoral and seminary responsibilities.) Nevertheless, I’ve flagged your comments with the hope of getting time when I get back from vacation late next week to attempt to answer them. I really welcome brotherly challenges and constructive criticism as I want to refine my own view on this topic. Thanks again for taking the time to read through the posts.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
June 20th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
No problem, Bob! I understand what it is like to be busy, and I take no offense when responses are slow in coming. You will always get the benefit of the doubt from me.
I pray that you will have a refreshing vacation, brother.
As Tigger would say, TTFN!
Keith