Posted by deangonzales on April 6, 2009
I have tried to demonstrate that the Biblical evidence weighs in the favor of the cessationist position. I have argued that pre-parousia special revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament. I also have argued that NT prophecy and tongues are modes of pre-parousia special revelation. If these two premises are true, then, I believe, we have compelling reason to conclude that the prophecy and tongues of the NT have ceased (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8). The various objections raised by continuationists have not proven conclusive enough to overturn that conclusion (see Part 9, Part 10). I would like to close this series by offering some commendation, caution, and exhortation, which will apply to those on both sides of this debate.
Commendation
One of the aims of this series is to highlight what I believe to be some weaknesses and dangers of the continuationist position. In doing so, I do not want to convey a lack of appreciation for some of the legitimate concerns and emphases of our continuationist brothers. For example, many continuationists, like Dr. Grudem, are concerned to uphold the supernaturalism of Scripture. They firmly believe in the reality of divine miracles and God’s extraordinary providences. They are wary of a rationalistic tendency among modern scholars to explain away the miraculous. I want to commend them for upholding the supernaturalism of Scripture, and we who are cessationists do well to share their concern.
Furthermore, my continuationist brothers seek to give a proper emphasis to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. They take seriously the many NT references to the Spirit’s work of empowering the people of God for ministry. We who are cessationists should also strive to give appropriate emphasis to the Holy Spirit in our church worship and life. We should beware of developing a self-sufficient attitude that relies merely upon intellect, eloquence, or human resourcefulness. On the contrary, we desperately need the Spirit’s ongoing ministry in our lives as individuals and our life as a church. Borrowing from Luther’s language regarding the important place of the doctrine of justification, George Smeaton (whom I believe was a cessationist) aptly remarked,
Wherever Christianity has become a living power, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has uniformly been regarded, equally with the atonement and justification by faith, as the article of a standing or falling Church. The distinctive feature of Christianity, as it addresses itself to man’s experience, is the world of the Spirit, which not only elevates it far above all philosophical speculation, but also above every other form of religion.[1]
I think cessationists should share Smeaton’s zeal for the doctrine and ministry of God’s Spirit. Indeed, in this respect, we all should be “continuationists” and affirm a “pneumatic” Christianity.[2]
There are other areas of concern and emphasis among some of our continuationist brothers that also deserve our commendation, in my opinion.[3] In these areas, I believe those of us who are cessationists can and should learn from our continuationist brothers. Notwithstanding their commendable concerns and emphases, however, we must also be aware of some of the weaknesses and dangers of their position.
Cautions
In particular, I believe there are at least three areas of weakness and potential danger connected with the continuationist position on the subject of NT prophecy and tongues.[4]
(1) The authority and sufficiency of Scripture may, in some cases, be subtly undermined.
Continuationists like Grudem insist that the gift of prophecy must remain subordinate to Scripture and the official teaching of the church.[5] I certainly admire Grudem’s zeal to protect the final authority of Scripture. When Grudem and others begin labeling certain NT prophecies as “fallible,” however, it seems to me they open the door to allow for the same assessment of other prophecies in the Bible.
For example, in Matthew 10:23, Jesus tells His disciples, “You will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” If we apply Grudem’s criteria for prophecy to Jesus’ prediction, we would have to conclude that it did not literally come true and therefore was at least partially fallible. Grudem himself would resist that conclusion, but many critical scholars do not share his reserve. They would agree with Grudem that the NT contains examples of fallible prophecy, and they would not hesitate to apply his hermeneutic to Jesus’ predictions and label some of His prophecy as fallible. In fact, some would take Grudem’s argument a step further and apply it to the entire Bible.
The point I am underscoring is that it’s not a huge step from a Grudem’s view of NT prophecy to a neo-orthodox view of Scripture, which ultimately denies Scripture’s unique authority.[6] Once again, I’m certain Grudem himself would resist taking that step. I fear that for weaker souls, however, Grudem’s category of potentially fallible NT prophecy could sow the seeds of doubt that later develop into a full-blown skepticism towards the inspiration of Scripture. Furthermore, in a day when many professing Christians are discontent living by the general principles of Scripture, the promise of direct revelation from God that addresses specific situations on the spot is very appealing. The sad result, as O. Palmer Robertson notes, is that the specific word-for-the-moment takes precedence over the general principles of God’s Word.[7] In this way, Grudem’s view of NT prophecy and tongues can undermine the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.[8]
(2) The worship and order of the church can, in some cases, be disrupted.
In his book entitled, The Charismatics and the Word of God, Victor Budgen gives an account of one charismatic leader who assured his audience that his prophecy was not fallible and that he wasn’t afraid of making mistakes. According to Budgen, the man then tells of an incident when he wrongly accused a brother of immorality and later found he was wrong. Rather than deploring his action, he laughingly said that he normally was not so insensitive.[9]
This raises some important questions: how should God’s people respond when a church leader or member stands up in the midst of the assembly, proclaims, “Thus says the Lord,” and then utters a prophecy? How much of that prophecy should they regard as true? Ninety-percent? Eighty-percent? Sixty-percent? Who decides? And what happens if it is determined that the prophecy contains error? Should the church leader or member be allowed to prophecy again? How many mistakes can he make before he is disqualified? How serious of an error does he need to make before he is treated as a false prophet and put out of the church?
Grudem tries to offer some guidelines for the practice of prophecy in the church. He argues that NT prophecies should be evaluated according to Scripture and they should remain subordinate to the teaching ministry of the elders.[10] But I did not find any detailed guidelines for dealing with leaders and members who utter false prophecies. I suspect, based on his own distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy, that Grudem would advocate a much more tolerant approach to false prophecy today than was tolerated in Moses’ day. However, the NT warnings to the church against false prophets and false prophecy seem to carry a far greater weight of consequence and urgency than Grudem’s view would allow (cf. Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 12, 24; Mark 13:22; Acts 13:6-11; 1 John 4:1-3; Rev. 19:20).
For this reason, I believe Grudem’s view increases the potential for disruption in the worship and order of the church. Granted, the potential for disorder existed in the first-century church, and Paul did not necessarily forbid prophecy (1 Cor. 14:39). However, we no longer have living apostles to regulate our worship and to help us assess prophecy. Furthermore, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, Paul and the other Apostles had a different view than Grudem of the nature of NT prophecy. And I believe their view of NT prophecy as full-blown authoritative special revelation calls for a far more serious approach to “regulating” NT prophecy than many continuationists seem to practice today.[11]
(3) The minds of believers can be confused regarding true spirituality.
Whether intentional or not the impression is sometimes given that possession of the extra-ordinary is indicative of greater spirituality. Consequently, believers are encouraged to seek the gifts of tongues or prophecy as a means to draw closer to God. Sometimes the reception of these gifts is portrayed as a “second work” of grace. But the Bible makes abundantly clear that the possession of spiritual gifts by itself is no sure sign of spirituality. Thus, in Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus declares:
On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (ESV).
Clearly, the great criteria for the Day of Judgment will not be the possession of spiritual gifts but the evidence of spiritual grace. As Walt Chantry appropriately observes, “Inward graces or fruits of the Spirit, not outward displays of gift, are the signs of spirituality.”[12] I believe this is the point Paul stresses in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, where he’s addressing the subject of revelatory gifts:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing (ESV).
According to Paul, the possession of revelatory gifts may or may not have anything to do with one’s spirituality. What really matters is whether one possesses and manifests true Christian love. Unfortunately, that’s not always the impression given in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles today.[13] The impression is sometimes given that spiritual gifts are the key to greater holiness and victory over sin. As a result, the minds of believers become confused about the true nature of spirituality.
Exhortation
These are some of the potential dangers that may result from a continuationist position.[14] Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that there have been and are today continuationist teachers who have not fallen into these errors, but they have maintained a reverence for Scripture, have sought to promote a God-centered worship, and have provided sound teaching for believers.[15] Furthermore, I do not believe we should view or portray all versions of continuationism equally. Some of the more radical forms are heretical. Many continuationists, however, are serious-minded, God-fearing, Christ-loving, and gospel-preaching evangelicals. Indeed, some of them even share with us an appreciation for the doctrines of grace. Therefore, let both sides remember Paul’s exhortation to be charitable and humble when discussing the question of revelatory gifts.[16] To use a phrase that I believe was coined by the continuationist Joshua Harris, senior pastor of Covenant Life and successor to C. J. Mahaney, let all sides strive for a “humble orthodoxy.”[17]
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (1882; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1974), 1.
[2] This call is issued by several authors who contribute essays in a book recently edited by Daniel Wallace and M. James Sawyer entitled Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), which includes forewords by Josh McDowell and Wayne :Grudem. To learn more about the book, click here.
[3] I also appreciate the emphasis upon the emotions that is present in some Pentecostal and charismatic circles. Personally, I find that the Reformed tradition sometimes overemphasizes the importance of the intellect (usually in the form of “the primacy of the intellect”) and underemphasizes the emotions or, worse yet, assigns the emotions to the “carnal” or “sensual” nature of man. The result is to cast undue suspicion upon what may be, biblically speaking, legitimate expressions of emotion in worship.
[4] I agree with Grudem that the mere potential for danger does not necessarily provide an argument for or against a doctrine or practice. As he points out, “Some things that are right are dangerous, at least in some sense” (Systematic Theology, 1046). Nevertheless, it must also be added that everything wrong is, in some sense, dangerous. And the Scripture writers do not hesitate to warn believers against the dangers and weaknesses of certain positions. Thus, having already provided the arguments against the continuationist position, I feel justified to warn God’s people of its potential dangers.
[5] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1039-40, 60-61.
[6] Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Bible itself is not divine revelation but bears witness to divine revelation through the fallible words of man. Thus, there is no substantial difference between Grudem’s view of NT prophecy and a neo-orthodox view of Scripture.
[7] Robertson, The Final Word, 128.
[8] It’s notable that some continuationist theologians, like Donald Gee, admit this danger. Writes Gee, “[There are] grave problems raised by the habit of giving and receiving personal ‘messages’ of guidance through the gifts of the Spirit…. Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for ‘messages’ through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries …. The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.” Spiritual Gifts in the Work of Ministry Today (Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 51-52.
[9] The Charismatics and the Word of God, 2nd edition (Evangelical Press, 1989), 282.
[10] Systematic Theology, 1058, 60-61. See also the guidelines provided by Jeff Purswell of Sovereign Grace Ministries here.
[11] Budgen cites Herbert Carlson, a continuationist who does seem to advocate more serious consequences for false prophecy, such as suspension or excommunication (pp. 285-86). But I question whether such disciplinary actions are consistently carried out in Pentecostal and charismatic circles today.
[12] Chantry, Signs of the Apostles, 64.
[13] Thankfully, Grudem does not give this impression. He rightly asserts that spiritual gifts are “tools for ministry and not necessarily related to Christian maturity.” Systematic Theology, 1030f.
[14] For a more extended account of these errors and dangers, see Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God, and John F. MacArthur Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
[15] I am thinking of men like Martin Lloyd-Jones, Donald A. Carson, and John Piper. I would also include Wayne Grudem, whose Systematic Theology I have found overall sound, edifying, and helpful.
[16] I am willing to admit that the evidence for the cessation of tongues and prophecy may not be as clear and conclusive as the evidence for justification by faith or salvation by grace or the bodily resurrection of Christ. In fact, I believe that the very fact well-meaning Christians disagree over doctrinal issues like this one may be partly due to the fact that our present knowledge in this age is in some sense partial and fragmentary—even with the Scriptures. This is not to deny the sufficiency and clarity of the Scriptures in matters pertaining to our salvation. It is simply to allow for the fact that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (LBCF 1.7; cf. 2 Pet 3:16). This reality should make us long for the day when our partial knowledge shall be replaced by complete knowledge. Until that day, we must argue our convictions with charity and humility (Eph 4:15).
[17] This has been one of the dominant themes of the New Attitude Conferences founded by Harris. For more information, click here. This charitable and humble spirit is also exemplified in a message preached by continuationist Craig Cabaniss entitled, “Watch the Spirit Work: Serving Cessationists in Their Pursuit of the Spirit,” which can be downloaded here. One wonders whether cessationists might dare to return the gracious gesture and consider how we might serve continuationists (beyond mere debate). Any ideas?
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.
Posted by deangonzales on March 24, 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 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.
Objection #1: The Bible commands the church neither to despise the prophetic utterance nor to forbid speaking in tongues, which is a form of prophecy (1 Thes 5:20; 1 Cor. 14:39). Does not the abiding validity of these commands assume that tongues and prophecy will be an ongoing practice in the church?
Not necessarily. Some commands, prohibitions, promises, and institutions are unique to the period of redemptive history in which they occur. For example, God forbids his people to eat pork in Leviticus 11:7. But that prohibition was annulled with the coming of the New Covenant according to Acts 10:13-15. In the OT God commanded His people to circumcise their male children as a sign of the covenant (Gen 17:10). But according to Galatians 5:6 and 6:15, that commandment is no longer binding.
In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus commissions his disciples to preach the gospel exclusively to the lost sheep of Israel. But the provisional nature of that command is seen in Jesus’ post-resurrection commission to preach the gospel to “all nations” (Matt 28:19). In His Farewell Discourse, Jesus promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth (John 16:13). I believe a proper interpretation of this passage, however, sees it as a unique promise of inspiration made to His original disciples, which does not apply in the same way to subsequent generations of disciples. According to Ephesians 4:11, Christ gives ministerial gifts to the church, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. But, as we have seen in our study, Ephesians 2:20 assigns at least two of those ministerial gifts—the apostles and the prophets—to the foundational period of the Christian church.
Thus, it may be argued that the commands not to despise or forbid prophecy and tongues were specifically intended for the early church period of redemptive history. Of course, this does not mean that these commands no longer have application today (2Tim. 3:16). The Bible warns us not to despise apostolic instruction (1 Cor. 14:37, 38). We do not infer from this command that there must be living apostles present throughout the entire church age. Yet we still apply that command today in the sense that it teaches us not to despise the Scripture. In the same way, we may use the passages dealing with tongues and prophecy to encourage a proper attitude towards the Scripture. We may also use them in a qualified way to encourage a proper response towards the faithful proclamation of Scripture.[1]
Objection #2: The Bible warns us against “false prophets” in the last days (Matt. 7:15ff; 24:11, 24; 1 John 4:1). Do not these warnings assume the ongoing presence of true prophets in the last days?
Once again, these warnings may be unique to the period of redemptive history in which they were given. Furthermore, the presence of false prophets does not demand the ongoing reality of true prophets any more than presence of “false apostles” in the last days (2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2) necessitates the ongoing presence of true apostles. Indeed, Jesus warns us of “false Christs” and the Apostle John warns us of “antichrists” who will appear in the last days (Matt. 24:24; 1 John 2:18). But the potential threat of false “Messiahs” in our day does not necessitate the ongoing bodily presence of the Lord Jesus in our day! Similarly, warnings against false prophets do not have to assume the ongoing presence of true prophets in our day.
Objection #3: By discounting the possibility of ongoing tongues and prophecy, are we not guilty of putting God in a box? Are we not limiting God’s sovereign right and ability?
This charge can be either alarming or insulting to a Calvinist who is committed to the absolute sovereignty of God. We don’t like to be accused of “putting God in a box.” But, in reality, the cessationist is not attempting to put God in a box. On the contrary, the cessation argues that God has placed Himself within a box.[2] In other words, God has already revealed some of the things He will and will not do. The Children’s Catechism asks: “Can God do all things?” The answer: “Yes, God does all His holy will.” The implication is that God will not do what falls outside of his holy will. There are certain things God cannot do (Titus 1:2) and other things God simply will not do because He has chosen not to do them.
As a practical example consider the promise of Hebrews 9:29. This text assures us that Jesus Christ will appear a “second time for salvation to those who eagerly await Him.” Would we be putting God in a box by arguing that Jesus will not return until the end of the age and that we should not expect His ongoing bodily presence throughout the church age? Would it be putting God in a box to argue that Jesus cannot have ten bodily “second” comings but only two? Of course not!
We believe on the basis of God’s prior revelation in Scripture that Jesus will not return again until the end of the age. Furthermore, we believe on the basis of Scripture that tongues and prophecy served a vital purpose in the early church but they are no longer necessary for the church today. We don’t believe that’s a box we’ve created. Rather, we believe that is the way God Himself has chosen to work. In that sense, God has placed Himself in a box![3]
Objection #4: By rejecting all claims of ongoing tongues and prophecy, are we not running the risk of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” which is the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:31, 32)?
Admittedly, this objection causes the sensitive Christian to think twice. No one who loves Jesus Christ and who desires to please God would ever want to attribute a work of God to the devil. Nevertheless, there are two responses to this objection:
1. This objection is a two-edged sword.
It may also be argued that by endorsing and encouraging the modern practice of tongues and prophecy one might be guilty of giving heed to false and seducing spirits (1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 16:13-14). And the Bible warns us against adding to God’s word just as strongly as it warns us against subtracting from God’s word (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).
I’m not suggesting that we accuse all continuationist believers of “adding” to Scripture. Nor am I suggesting that we label all claims of ongoing tongues and prophecy as demonic. We should be as charitable and fair as possible. But I would also encourage non-cessationist brothers to be as charitable as possible with us. Both sides need to be careful how we apply those warnings.
In reality, I find it hard to believe that the cessationist position is displeasing to God when some of the greatest revivals in church history have occurred under the ministry of cessationists. For example, God used the preaching and writing of Jonathan Edwards in the revivals of the Great Awakening.[4] Some of Edwards’ contemporaries believed in a restoration of the gifts just prior to the Lord’s return. But Edwards disagreed. In his exposition of 1 Corinthians 13, he concludes, “Since the canon of the Scripture has been completed, the Christian Church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased.”[5] Elsewhere he writes,
Therefore I do not expect a restoration of these miraculous gifts in the approaching glorious times of the church, nor do I desire it. It appears to me, that it would add nothing to the glory of those times [of future revival], but rather diminish from it. For my part, I had rather enjoy the sweet influences of the Spirit, showing Christ’s spiritual beauty, infinite grace, and dying love, drawing forth the holy exercises of faith, divine love, sweet complacence, and humble joy in God, one quarter hour, than to have prophetical visions and revelations the whole year.[6]
I know of no one who would question the genuineness of Edward’s Christianity or the holiness of his life. And it is clear that God did use Edwards as a cessationist to be an instrument to bring spiritual revival to the land. While this fact does not prove the validity of the cessationist position, it does caution us against viewing it as equivalent to blasphemy against the Spirit.
2. It’s very likely that the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” refers not to the rejection of modern continuationist claims but to an act of irreversible religious apostasy.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not the act of a sincere Christian who cannot accept the claims of modern Charismatics. Rather, the “blasphemy of the Spirit” is the act of one who has experienced the illumination and power of the Spirit but who nevertheless ends up rejecting these gracious influences. And he turns his back upon the Christian faith in such a high-handed and self-determined manner that he puts himself beyond the state of repentance, and therefore, beyond the possibility of forgiveness (cf. Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-29; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; 1 Jn. 5:16).[7]
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] So Matthew Henry applies the prohibition “despise not prophesyings” (1 Thess 5:20) to “the preaching of the word, the interpreting and applying of the scriptures.” A Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6 (Fleming H. Revell Company, n.d.), 790-91. By “prophesyings” I believe Paul was referring to more than mere exposition of Scripture, but I agree with Henry that the passage has some application to non-inspired preaching.
[2] In the words of Richard Gaffin, “Scripture as a whole teaches that in his own sovereignty the Spirit has seen fit to circumscribe his activity and to structure it according to the patterns revealed there. Those patterns, not what the Spirit may choose to do beyond them, ought to be the focus and shape the expectations of the church today.” Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views (Zondervan, 1996), 25.
[3] O. Palmer Robertson argues similarly when he refers to Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension and remarks, “It is not so much limiting God by affirming that he will not have Christ crucified, raised and lifted to heaven over and over again. Instead, it is simply acknowledging the once-for-all character of these events in the progress of redemptive history.” The Final Word (Banner of Truth, 1993), 131.
[4] In particular, Edwards’ sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” and also his books, Some Thoughts concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England and A Treatise concerning Religious Affections, did much to further the revival. For a fuller account of Edwards’ contribution to the Great Awakening, see Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards & Whitefield (1842; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1989), and Iain H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography (Banner of Truth, 1987).
[5] Charity and its Fruits (1851; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1969), 30.
[6] The Works of Jonathan Edwards (1834; reprint, Banner of Truth), 2.275.
[7] See Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22 of The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Broadman & Holman Press, 1992), 203-05; Donald A. Carson, “Matthew,” in vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaelelein (Zondervan, 1984), 291-92; William Hendricksen, Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew (Baker, 1977), 527-29.
