The Cessation of Special Revelation: Objections to the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues Answered, Part 2
Posted by deangonzales on March 25, 2009
In “A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8), we’ve tried to demonstrate from the Scriptures that tongues and prophecy are forms of that pre-parousia special revelation which has been completed with the closing of the New Testament canon. The Christian church, therefore, should not expect the revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy today. Before we conclude our study, however, I’m endeavoring to respond to important objections raised against the cessationist position. I addressed the first four objections my last post. The last objection, which entails two passages that seem to contradict the cessationist position and which is, therefore, the most challenging to answer, I’ll attempt to address below.
Objection #5: Do not passages like 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and Revelation 11:3-13 indicate that the gifts of prophecy and tongues will continue until the Return of Christ?
I have saved the most serious objection for last. There are two passages in the NT that seem—at least on the surface—to present a challenge for the cessationist position.
1. 1 Corinthians 13:8-13
According to continuationists, like Wayne Grudem, 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 unambiguously locates the termination point of revelatory gifts at the end of the age when Christ returns. To appreciate their argument, let’s look at the text:
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Allow me to make some preliminary observations. First of all, this passage is addressing the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (v. 8). All three are modes of divine revelation, and as such, they are means through which God’s people acquire knowledge about divine things. Second, because of the inherent limitations of these gifts, they are only able to convey partial and fragmentary knowledge of God and His will (vv. 9-12). Third, these revelatory gifts and the fragmentary knowledge that they convey are only temporary (8, 10). From the standpoint of this epistle, the day is coming when they will no longer be in operation. Fourth, the question is whether this passage specifies the precise time of their cessation. And the answer to that question depends upon the way one interprets verse 10: “But when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” What is “the perfect”? What is “the partial”? And how do they relate to the cessation of prophecy and tongues? There are at least four different ways of answering those questions.
a. The continuationist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13
According to Wayne Grudem, the “partial” (to ek merous) of verse 10 “refers most clearly to knowing and prophesying.” The “perfect” (to teleion) refers to “the time of Christ’s return,” or more precisely to “a method of acquiring knowledge,” which will be acquired at Christ’s return. This “perfect” method of knowledge is referred to in verse 12: “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.” “This means,” writes Grudem, “that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expected these gifts to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns.”[1]
I must confess that on the surface Grudem’s exegesis and conclusions seem consistent with the text. Taken by itself, the passage could mean what Grudem alleges. Of course, it should be remembered that Paul believed Jesus could return in his own lifetime.[2] And Paul lived at a time when there was ongoing revelation and the canon of Scripture had not been completed.[3] Thus, had Jesus returned when Paul and the Corinthians were still alive, then the revelatory gifts would have spanned the entire church age. In that case, Grudem’s view would have proved correct.[4] But cessationist scholars are not convinced Grudem’s conclusion is demanded by the text. In light of the biblical evidence for the cessation of special revelation, they have suggested other ways to understand Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 13:10.
b. Three cessationist interpretations of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13
The three cessationist approaches to 1 Corinthians 13 may be described as the completion of Scripture view, the age of maturity view, and the agnostic view.
(1) The “Completed Canon” View [“perfect” = completion of spec. rev.]
Those who hold this view agree with Grudem that “the partial” refers to prophecy, tongues and knowledge as incomplete modes of revelation. They do not see “the perfect,” however, as a reference to Christ’s return. On the contrary, since the “partial” refers to modes of revelation, the “perfect” must also refer to a mode of revelation that has been completed. Therefore, according to this view, Paul is assuring the Corinthians that the revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will continue until the completion of special revelation, that is, the close of the canon. This view is held by a number of Reformed theologians[5] though some modern Reformed scholars and expositors have rejected it. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, for example, argues that this view
means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth…. It means that we are altogether superior … even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! … indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense.[6]
While I would not go as far as Dr. Lloyd-Jones in describing this view as “nonsense,” I do share his reservations. It seems to me that this view depends largely on the assumption that the “perfect” is an allusion to a completed canon of Scripture. But there is no clear evidence in the immediate or larger context of Scripture that this is what Paul has in mind by “the perfect.” Furthermore, the church’s state of knowledge after the closing of the canon sometime in the 2nd century A.D. does not seem to correspond to Paul’s description of that “perfect” state in verse 12—seeing face to face and knowing as we are fully known.[7] For these reasons, I do not prefer the “Completion of Scripture” view, though I would not rule it out as a possibility.
(2) The “Age of Maturity” view [“perfect” = maturity of church]
In an article entitled, “Tongues…Will Cease,”[8] Robert Thomas argues that “the perfect” is a reference to the doctrinal and spiritual maturity of the church. He points out that the Greek word translated “perfect” often carries the meaning of maturity. This interpretation fits will with Paul’s illustration in verse 11 and, to quote Thomas, “pictures the Christian church collectively, growing up as one body, beginning with its birth, progressing through different stages of development during the present and reaching complete maturity at the parousia.”[9] It also finds a parallel in Ephesians 4:11-16 where the church progressively reaches Christlike maturity through indoctrination in the truth.[10] Thus, according to Thomas, the revelatory gifts passed away once the church became doctrinally mature and no longer needed them.
The problem with this view, like the previous view, is that it does not seem to correspond to the facts of history. It could be argued that the church was doctrinally immature for many centuries. It is even questionable whether the church has reached Christlike doctrinal maturity today. Thus, even if one held to Thomas’ interpretation, he could still argue for the possibility of tongues and prophecy today—at least in areas of the world where the church has not reached doctrinal maturity.
(3) The “Agnostic” View [“perfect” = the parousia]
According to cessationists like Richard Gaffin, the passage does not really tell us when prophecy or tongues will cease.[11] These writers agree with continuationists that “the perfect” is a reference to the glorified state, which will be ushered in by the Second Coming. They argue, however, that Paul’s primary focus is on the state of knowledge rather than on the revelatory modes that convey that knowledge. Thus, Gaffin writes,
Paul is not intending to specify the time when any particular mode will cease. What he does affirm is the termination of the believer’s present, fragmentary knowledge … when ‘the perfect’ comes. The time of the cessation of prophecy is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations.[12]
In other words, Paul’s main point is that the fragmentary state of the believer’s knowledge will cease when Christ returns and the believer is ushered into the very presence of God. Then God will communicate with us personally, and our knowledge of redemptive truth will come to maturity. Paul does not definitively address the question of when the modes of revelation will cease. For Paul the gifts of prophecy and tongues might continue to the end of the age. Or they might cease sometime before the end of the age. It all depends on when Christ returns. And as we have already noted, Paul did not ultimately know the answer to that question. Thus, for Paul and for the Corinthians, the question of whether the revelatory gifts could continue until the Return of Christ was, as Gaffin notes, an “open question.”
I’m not certain the question is entirely “open” for us today. We do know that Christ’s return has been delayed for at least 20 centuries. Furthermore, we do know that the writing of inspired Scripture ceased after the first century. And since Scripture belongs to the same class of partial and fragmentary revelation as prophecy and tongues, then we are not entirely unwarranted to conclude that the gifts of NT prophecy and tongues, like the writing of Scripture, have ceased.[13] Even a non-cessationist like Donald A. Carson concedes that these words would not “necessarily mean that a charismatic gift could not have been withdrawn earlier than the parousia.”[14]
2. Revelation 11:3-13
According to Revelation 11:3-13, God will raise up “two witnesses” that will prophesy and perform miracles for the space of 1,260 days. After this time, they will be slain by their enemies, yet raised from the dead unto glory. How should this passage affect our view of tongues and prophecy? Does it support a continuationist view or a cessationist view of tongues and prophecy? The way one answers these questions, depends on how he interprets the timing, agents, and nature of this prophecy.
a. The Timing: When does the prophesying take place?
Those who adopt a “preterist” interpretation of Revelation locate the timing of this prophesying sometime during the first century, often before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.[15] On the other hand, commentators who follow a basically “futurist” interpretation assign the prophesying to the future, just prior to the return of Christ. According to John Walvoord,
The punishments and judgments the witnesses inflict on the world also seem to fit better in the great tribulation period…. It is only at the end of the great tribulation when their ministry has been accomplished that their enemies temporarily have the upper hand, and this is allowed by sovereign appointment of God.[16]
The majority of commentators, however, adopt a historicist or idealist interpretation of the passage and extend the prophesying of the two witnesses throughout the entire church age. In the words of William Hendricksen, “This is the period that extends from the moment of Christ’s ascension almost until the judgment day.”[17]
b. The Agents: Who are the witnesses that are prophesying?
There is a great deal of divergence of opinion regarding the identity of the “two witnesses.” Those who assign the ministry of the two witnesses to the first century identify them either as two unknown first-century prophet-martyrs or as two of the seven churches mentioned in chapters two and three. Another first century possibility would be the NT apostles and prophets referred to by Paul in Ephesians (2:20; 3:5; 4:11). In this case, the reference to “two” witnesses may also be an allusion to Jesus’ practice of sending out His apostles two-by-two (Luke 10:1).[18]
On the other hand, futurist commentators interpret the “two witnesses” as two future prophet-martyrs.[19] Since there are obvious parallels between the ministry of these two witnesses and that of Moses and Elijah, some expect a reappearance of those two OT prophets just prior to Christ’s return.[20]
The majority of commentators, on the other hand, seem to interpret the “two witnesses” more symbolically. Less common is to interpret this in some sense as a reference to Scripture: either Moses and the Prophets or the Old Testament and the New Testament or Law and Grace. More common is the view of Hendricksen who writes, “The true church is now represented under the symbolism of two witnesses.”[21] G. K. Beale agrees and offers six arguments for viewing the two witnesses as “the entire community of faith.”[22]
If we interpret the “witnesses” as a symbolic reference to the church, we can view the number “two” as an allusion to the biblical requirement of at least “two witnesses” to make a legal testimony valid (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 26:60; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).[23] Or, since John also identifies the two witnesses as “two olive trees,” we can interpret this passage in light of Zechariah 4:1-11 and see it as a reference to the “royal priesthood” of all believers.[24]
c. The Nature of the Prophecy: How should we interpret the prophesying described?
Those who place the ministry of the two witnesses in the first century can interpret the prophesying as New Covenant revelation mediated through the NT apostles and prophets. Those who locate the ministry of the two witnesses just prior to the Lord’s return look for a possible revival of special revelation at the very end of the age.[25] But those who see the church’s ministry throughout church age must interpret the “prophesying” either as genuine special revelation or as something less than special revelation.
The majority of commentators who interpret the “two witnesses” as a reference to the church and their ministry as extending throughout the church age seem to interpret the “prophesying” as faithfully proclaiming the gospel. Albert Barnes argues, “The word prophesy does not necessarily mean that they would predict future events; but the sense is that they would give utterance to the truth as God had revealed it.”[26] According to Henry B. Swete, “The witness of the church, borne by her martyrs and confessors, her saints and doctors, and by the words and lives of all in whom Christ lives and speaks, is one continual prophecy.”[27] Philip Hughes writes, “The power exercised by the Lord’s witnesses … illustrates … the judgment that is effected through their prophecy, that is to say, by their faithful proclamation of God’s word.”[28]
But G. K. Beale seems to follow the more consistent route and interprets the “prophesying” as actual prophecy when he writes,
The OT had prophesied that the entire eschatological community of God’s people would receive the Spirit’s gift of prophecy (Joel 2:28-32). The early Christian community understood that Joel’s prophecy had begun fulfillment in their midst (Acts 2:17-21). This prophetic gift would be the means by which the entire church would ‘witness’ to the whole world.[29]
Whether Beale interprets the NT “gift of prophecy” as Grudem does is not absolutely clear. But on the surface, he seems to be reading “prophecy” as something more than merely preaching and sharing the gospel.[30]
What can we conclude from Revelation 11:3-13 regarding the gift of prophecy and today? It would seem from our survey of commentators that the preterist interpretation best fits the cessationist view of prophecy—the prophecy John depicts is genuine revelation that occurred during the first century. The futurist interpretation best fits the open but cautious view of prophecy—the prophecy John depicts is genuine revelation that will occur just prior to Christ’s return. Since Christ’s return is imminent, the church should be open but cautious towards claims of the prophetic gift.
The historicist or idealist interpreter would seem forced to a choice. Either he makes this reference to prophecy as “an exception to the rule” and interprets it as a non-inspired witness to the gospel. This allows for a cessationist view of prophecy, but it seems to disregard the uniform meaning of prophecy as inspired revelation. Or he interprets John’s description of prophecy as genuine revelation that will be uttered by the church throughout the church age. In other words, he would seem forced to adopt the continuationist view of prophecy.
There is, however, another possibility. In light of the highly symbolic nature of Revelation, I believe it’s possible to interpret the activity of the two witnesses as literal prophecy. But just as two literal witnesses refer symbolically to the church, so too the literal act of prophesying may symbolically refer to the church’s gospel witness. Those who object and argue that the “prophesying” described must refer to actual divine revelation that occurs throughout the church age must consistently do the same for the Moses and Elijah-like miracles described in verses 5 through 6. Since no such catastrophic miracles have literally occurred throughout the church age, it seems better to interpret the miracles and the prophecy symbolically.[31] In this way, we interpret the word “prophesying” consist with its biblical usage—as divine revelation—but we also allow for a symbolic function of the terminology in Revelation, which is consistent with our cessationist viewpoint.[32]
This interpretation may not satisfy all continuationists. But the wide divergence of views and the symbolic nature of this passage should caution us against making it a proof text for any position. Not surprisingly, Wayne Grudem does not even appeal to this passage in his argument for prophecy in the church today.[33] We do well to share his reserve.
In our final installment of this series, we’ll attempt to draw some practical conclusions from our study and offer some words of caution or exhortation to both continuationists and cessationists.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Systematic Theology, 1031-35; See The Gift of Prophecy, 227-33.
[2] Consider passages like 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:15, 17; 5:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7
[3] Most scholars assign the completion of the NT writes to the last decade of the first century.
[4] Of course, if this had happened, neither Grudem nor we would have ever been born and the current debate over tongues and prophecy would be none existent!
[5] Jonathan Edwards, Charity and its Fruits, 29-30; Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles, 50-52; Robert L. Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today? 32-34; Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God, 73-89.
[6] Prove All Things, ed. Christopher Catherwood, 32-33; Richard Gaffin Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost, writes, “The view that they describe the point at which the New Testament canon is completed cannot be made credible exegetically” (109).
[7] Reymond suggests that we understand “face to face” as a reference to greater clarity as opposed to relative obscurity (32). However, as Grudem rightly notes, the expression more likely refers to communication in personal encounter (cf. Gen. 32:20; Deut. 5:4; 34:10; Judges 6:22; Ezek. 20:35 [note: the texts in Genesis and Judges preserve the same Greek wording in the LXX as in 1 Corinthians 13:12]).
[8] Robert Thomas, “Tongues…Will Cease,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17:2 (Spring 1974), 82-97.
[9] Ibid., 86.
[10] The main difficulty associated with this view is that it requires the term “perfect” to do double duty—to refer both to the relative maturity of church during the church age, and also to the absolute maturity of the church after the parousia. Thomas concedes this difficulty, but believes it is warranted by the context (87).
[11] Richard Gaffin Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost, 109-112; cf. R. Fowler White, “Gaffin and Grudem on 1 Cor 13:10: A Comparison of Cessationist and Noncessationist Argumentation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1992); Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, 227-29.
[12] Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, 111.
[13] Christ’s eschatological triumph over death may provide a helpful analogy. According to 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, Christ will destroy death, the last enemy, at His second coming. But when we interpret this passage in light of the overall teaching of Scripture, we find that Christ’s triumph over death is achieved in stages, beginning with His first coming (cf. Gen 3:15; John 19:30; Rom 16:20; Rev 2:11). Similarly, though the “partial” will ultimately terminate at the parousia (1Cor. 13:10), it is conceivable that the “passing away” could occur in stages.
[14] Donald A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, 70.
[15] See Kenneth Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate, 65-67.
[16] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 178, 180. Cf. Charles Ryrie, Revelation, 72-74; Wilbur Smith, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1510-11; Mounce, The Book of the Revelation, 223.
[17] More Than Conquerors, 155. Cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 572; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The New Bible Commentary, 1182-83; Phillip Hughes, The Book of Revelation, 123. George Ladd combines the second and third: “… the two prophets may represent the witness of the church to Israel throughout the age, which witness will be consummated in the appearance of two prophets in the time of the end. The flexibility of apocalyptic symbolism must allow for such possibilities.” A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 154.
[18] So Hendricksen, 155.
[19] Wilbur Smith, 1510; Ryrie, 72-74; Walvoord, en loc.
[20] Merrill Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, 191.
[21] Hendricksen, 155; Cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray: “… the Church in its prophetic capacity” (1182); Albert Barnes, Barnes Notes on the New Testament, 1645-46; William Mounce believes the two witnesses are a symbol for the church, but he locates their witnesses during “the last tumultuous days before the end of the age” (p. 223). Leon Morris limits the reference to Christian martyrs in the church. The Revelation of St. John, 147; Alan Johnson believes the reference is to certain individuals throughout and at the end of the church age who are called like John to bear prophetic witness to the truth. “Revelation” in vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 504-05.
[22] Those arguments may be summarized as follows: (1) The witnesses are identified as “lampstands” (v. 4) as are the churches in Revelation 1:20. (2) The reference to the beast “making war” against the witnesses is based upon Daniel 7:21 where the final evil kingdom makes war against Israel, the people of God. (3) The reference to the “whole world” seeing the defeat and resurrection of the two witnesses suggests the corporate church spread throughout the world rather than two individuals. (4) The witnesses prophesy for “three and a half years” which is probably a symbolic reference to tribulation throughout the church age (cf. 11:2; 12:6, 14; 13:6). (5) The Revelation elsewhere represents to the church as bearing “testimony” to Jesus (6:9; 12:11, 17; 19:10; 20:4). (6) The powers attributed to the two witnesses are divided equally which suggests a non-literal interpretation (pp., 573-74). In my mind, the first, third, and fifth arguments are the most persuasive (together with the symbolic nature of the book).
[23] This is the primary reason, I believe, Jesus sent out his disciples “two-by-two” (Luke 10:1).
[24] The passage in Zechariah identifies the two olive trees as the governor, Zerubbabel, and the High Priest, Joshua (vv. 2, 3, 11). These two men, in turn, represent the uniting of the royal and priestly function in Messiah.
[25] See Robert Saucy, “Open But Cautious” in Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views, ed. Wayne Grudem, 68, 128.
[26] Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1645.
[27] The Apocalypse of St. John, 132.
[28] The Book of the Revelation, 125; Cf. R. C. Lenski: “The true church, as being separate from all those outside (11:1), shall witness and prophesy by means of the little book (the inspired gospel) in its public ministry to the whole obdurate and hostile world in order to reveal its full guilt.” Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation, 338-39.
[29] Beale, 574.
[30] On the one hand, Beale says, “The church does not have precisely the same prophetic authority as Moses, Elijah, or Christ since the prophetic ministry is not now attested by such miracles” (p. 584). On the other hand, Beale alludes to the Apostle Paul’s witness to Felix as an example of the church’s prophetic witness (p. 585). Beale’s former comment would seem to indicate a less than inspired prophetic witness. But his latter would seem more consist with a fully-inspired prophetic witness. Actually, Beale probably advocates the same view suggested in my closing remarks: the reference to “prophesying” literally refers to special revelation, which is used symbolically, in this context, for the church’s faithful proclamation of the gospel.
[31] If the prophecy refers symbolically to the church’s witness, then the miracles would refer symbolically to the judgments that fall upon those who reject the gospel and persecute God’s witnesses. As Richard Lenski argues, “These Old Testament allusions point to fearful New Testament counterparts. It ever was, is, and will be a fearful thing for those who are enemies of the Word and the witnesses to fall into the hands of the living God, Heb. 10:31” (339). Cf. Jesus words to his disciples in Matthew 10:13-15.
[32] I believe this is Vern Poythress’ view when he writes, “… 11:10-14 gives us a general visionary representation of the witness of the church and of God’s preservation and vindication of that witness.” The Returning King, 127. I suspect this is also Beale’s view.
[33] At least this is true of his systematic theology and his monograph, The Gift of Prophecy.
9 Responses to “The Cessation of Special Revelation: Objections to the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues Answered, Part 2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Did you read any part-preterist interps of the first passage that may have suggested a comparison of imperfect/perfect (reflection/face-to-face) to the shadow/fulfillment idea of Hebrews? According to the part-pret interp, the era of the Apostles was a transition era from the mysteries of the OT era into the clarity of the NT, which era ceased with the apocalyptic destruction of the temple and, with it, all the shadows of the old order. The transition was complete, declared so by the providence of God in history, leaving only fulfillment and perfection in Christ. The shadowy types that symbolically mediated our relationship to God were finally done away with, leaving only our face-to-face relationship with God.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
You write, “Paul’s main point is that the fragmentary state of the believer’s knowledge will cease when Christ returns and the believer is ushered into the very presence of God.” This is true. But that doesn’t mean that the passage at least implies that “when” (not “before”) Christ returns the partial (tongues, prophesy, gift of knowledge), will pass away.
Then, incredibly, “since Scripture belongs to the same class of partial and fragmentary revelation as prophecy and tongues,”. No. It most certainly does not. The inerrant, fully inspired Word of God does not belong in the same class as the tongues (which often people didn’t understand) or the prophesies that were judged. You’ve just assumed that from the start. It is your straw man. And it is demeaning to scripture and doesn’t do justice to what scripture says about those phenomena in the New Testament.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Bob, I appreciate your humble approach to this topic and the obvious respect that you have for those who differ from your interpretation. In time, I hope some capable and intelligent objector will eventually stumble upon these posts in order to interact with them with the same humble and irenic spirit.
Until then, I guess John will do.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Bob,
I take Gaffin’s view in the sense of his exegesis in my book, To Be Continued? I believe, however, that the point is that 1 Corinthians does not say that the gifts continue till the perfect (the perfect knowledge brought by Christ’s coming), but only that the fragmentary knowledge conferred by tongues and prophecy continues until Christ’s coming. The contrast is not between partial gifts and perfect gifts, but between partial knowledge and perfect knowledge. Thus, the question of the time of the cessation of the gifts of tongues and prophecy is not nailed down by 1 Corinthians 13. I think Gaffin’s view allows this question to be decided by other passages and considerations. He thinks, I believe, that those other considerations require cessationism.
Sam
March 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
John, do you believe that in the age of the new heavens and the new earth, we’re going to sit around tables and read Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians?
March 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
John
Can you on the other side prove exegetically what you say? Your point I believe it ‘Tongues not understood, prophecy judged’ are not of the same authority as Scripture? Can you explain your position exegetically? I know you say Bob has set up a straw man but having made your assertion can you prove it exegetically?
Thanks
RB
April 7th, 2009 at 8:46 am
[...] In “A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8), we have tried to demonstrate from the Scriptures that tongues and prophecy are forms of that pre-parousia special revelation which has been completed with the closing of the New Testament canon. The Christian church, therefore, should not expect the revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy today. Before we conclude our study, however, I’d like to respond to five objections that are commonly raised against the cessationist position. I’ll address the first four objections in this post. The last objection, which entails two passages that seem to contradict the cessationist position and which is, therefore, the most challenging to answer, I’ll reserve for my next post. [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
To Dennis,
Respectfully, I don’t think Bob has been humble or intelligent at all in these articles. He’s shown he hardly takes those who differ with him seriously. He doesn’t seriously deal with Grudem’s positions or others. He’s not once tried to engage me (although I’m the least of those he should try to engage). He just repeats his conclusions. Just because he’s not inflammatory doesn’t mean he’s respectful or serious.
To Sam,
1 Cor. 13:8-12 speaks of knowledge, prophesy, and tongues passing away. Paul says they do so “when the perfect comes” (not 2,000+ years before). To say that of the three it is only the knowledge that will continue and will pass away when the perfect comes is purely arbitrary.
To Scott,
I hope so! What would be wrong with reading Ephesians in the New Earth?
To Robert,
To show that tongues were not understood does not take any difficult exegesis. Paul frankly states it in 1 Cor. 14:2, “For one who speaks in a tonue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” I don’t see the ambiguity in that verse. The same understandingis implied in 14:22, where the unbeliever if he comes in and hears speaking he doens’t understand will think the people are crazy. Further, the same is implied in the very word “glossolalia”, to speak in tongues (foreign languages). If I’m speaking in a language that both myself and my hearers understand then I’m not speaking in tongues. Either one of us (myself or my hearers) or both of us must be ignorant of the language I’m speaking for it to qualify as glossolalia. At Pentecost it was the speakers. In 1 Corinthians, it is the hearers and the speakers. It being unintellible, it therefore doesn’t qualify as the kind of special revelation that Bob has assumed it is (and never once proved that it is) in this entire series. At no time was either it or the intelligible prophesies transcribed and treated as revelation equivalent to scripture.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
To Dennis, Sam, Scott, and John,
Since John addressed each of you and has accused me of being neither humble nor intelligent, I thought I should offer a brief rejoinder (I’d offer a fuller one, but I just have two many other responsibilities right now).
First, I think I’ve tried to convey a humble demeanor throughout these posts. Of course, I’m not the best judge of my own heart (Jer. 17:9). So I’ll have to pray and ask God to show me if there’s pride behind these posts. I’m grateful that John has challenged me on this matter, and I pray that his challenge will serve to foster whatever humility might be lacking in my heart or exposition of this topic.
Second, I don’t think I’m all that intelligent. It’s true that I have a Ph.D., but a degree doesn’t guarantee wisdom or insure that an interpreter always gets it right. So I’ll offer no defense to this charge. If John and others think my articles on this topic betray ignorance and ineptitude, then they have the right to make that assessment, and I hope they’ll pray that God will grant me greater wisdom.
Third, as I pointed out to John in the comment section of another post, I have consciously tried to fairly represent and engage Dr. Grudem’s primary arguments on the subject of NT prophecy and tongues (Part 6, Part 7, Part 8). John may be correct that I don’t “seriously deal” with them. Lord willing, when I have more leisure, I’ll attempt to review my posts and think of how I might do a better job of interacting with Dr. Grudem, whom I respect.
Fourth, John accuses me of “not once [having] tried to engage me.” In fact, I corresponded with John privately via email on this topic. My responses did not satisfy him, so he went to my blog and left (negative) comments on nearly all the posts. It’s true, that I haven’t had the time to respond immediately to John’s comments. In addition to my regular seminary responsibilities as dean and my duties as a pastor, I was teaching an Elementary Hebrew as an adjunct professor in the months of February and March. Consequently, I just haven’t had the time to follow up and respond to John. Today, however, I responded to comments he left on Part 8 and Part 11 for those interested. I’m also responding here with the hopes of demonstrating to John that I’m not trying to ignore him and want to take his criticisms seriously.
Finally, I’ll attempt to address John’s argument above regarding tongues. That fact that tongues conveys “mysteries” and that “mysteries” elsewhere refer to the revelation of New Covenant realities that were before hidden or, more precisely, not completely revealed under the Old Covenant leads me to view the tongues of which Paul speaks as a form of the kind of special revelation uttered by inspired apostles (1 Cor. 4:1; Eph. 2:20; Eph. 3:8-10). For more, see my exposition of in Part 7. John, however, like other continuationists I’ve read, believes in a kind of communication in a foreign language that is intelligible neither to the speaker nor to the recipient but only to God, hence, a kind of foreign (angelic?) prayer language. He cites 1 Corinthians 14:2 and alludes to 14:22 above. I’m not certain how those verses prove that the mystery uttered in a foreign language is non-inspired and semi-revelational. If, as you argue, those speaking in tongues at Pentecost did not actually understand what they were communicating (which was the mighty acts of God) even though their receptor audience(s) understood, does that fact itself preclude the interpreter from classifying their utterance as divinely authoritative prophecy? Doesn’t Peter himself identify the tongues spoken on Pentecost as “prophecy” of a kind that the prophet Joel had predicted (Acts 2:16-21)? And if we read the prophecy of Joel (2:28-32) in its original context and life setting, is there any hint that the NT prophecy he portends will be poured out on all flesh (including Jew and Gentle) will be less authoritative or inspired than that OT prophecy with which his readers were familiar?
It might be helpful for me to insert a question John raised on another one of these posts, along with my answer. John queried, “If prophesy in the NT church was considered equivalent to scripture, why didn’t they write it down?” It seems that John wants to reserve the idea of infallible, inerrant, divinely authoritative for that revelation that is recorded in Scripture. Here’s my response:
Well, I can’t give you the ultimate answer to that question because I’m not God. What I can say is that the Holy Spirit was sovereignly selective concerning what oral prophecy became inscripurated in both testaments. For example, in John 20:30-31, the apostle writes,
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
What John says of Christ’s works can also be said about Christ’s words. Both were revelatory, yet not all Christ’s words and works were recorded in the canon of Scripture. Only those that God deemed necessary to constitute the canon for the NC community. The fact that some of Jesus’ teachings were not recorded in Scripture does not make those “non-canonical” sayings less inspired or authoritative. All of Jesus’ teaching about God, man, sin and salvation was to be received as the Word of God without qualification.
Similarly, when an apostle spoken in the capacity of an official witness to the person and work of Jesus or matters pertaining to the life, order, and mission of the church, he spoke as Christ’s official spokesman with Christ’s delegated authority (Matt 10:40) and his words, whether oral or written, were to be received and obeyed as inspired revelation from God (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14). Accordingly, it is not there mere inclusion of special revelation in the canon that elevates it to the status of full-blown divine revelation. The moment Isaiah spoke to the people the word of Yahweh (even before it was recorded in writing), it was to be received and obeyed as God’s word. Similarly, when a genuine NT apostle or a true NT prophet declared, “Thus says the Lord,” their word was to be received as divine revelation.
So I don’t believe the Bible teaches that all special revelation must be written down in order to be inspired, inerrant, and divinely authoritative.
Hope this helps.
Blessings!
Bob Gonzales