I’ve discussed this with a friend a few times and even presented on it in one of my theology classes. It’s a rather heated debate within the Christian community. Did the sign gifts pass, or are they something to be embraced by Christians today? Many wonderful people are on either side. But what does the Bible actually say about the matter? For a different perspective on the whether or not God still speaks to people today see- Church Mystic and Almost Heresy.
“Does God still speak to individuals as he did in the Bible and, if so, does he do so in the same way?” That was the prompt for this post. When I first read it my thoughts immediately split- are we talking about personal interaction or more group oriented through prophecy and miracles? The answer to my question was both. Upon sitting down to research, I had no idea where to begin. But as I began to search the Cornerstone library for resources, I came to a rather quick conclusion.
One of those questions is answered with a simple, “yes.” There’s not doubt that God still speaks to individuals. He does so in the same ways he did in the Bible, as well as new ways (as new technologies and advancements in society have come about). I will not focus on this because I believe it to be rather evident from the scriptures themselves.[note]2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-2; John 10:27; Rom 1:20; James 3:17; John 14:17; 1 Cor 3:16; Rom 8:26-27. For explanations and thoughts on these references see Crosswalk.[/note] If you wish for further discussion or explanation on God speaking to individuals today, feel free to contact me.
Which leaves the discussion on God speaking to humanity through prophecy and/or miracles. This is a rather typical discussion within the Church, with proponents of each side believing they are 100% right (but that’s the way it normally goes, isn’t it?) The main debate comes down to one question- do the sign gifts of the spirit (prophecy, speaking in tongues, miracles, prophecy) persist today or did they end sometime in the past (after the apostles died? when the Bible was fully canonized? some other time? There are many opinions about when this time was.)
Each side has been given their own “title.” Continuationists believe that these gifts have continued throughout history (in various amounts and giftings) and will continue until the coming of Christ; Cessationists believe that the gifts ceased sometime in the past and we are now left only with a few gifts (the non-sign gifts). Each position has reasons for the belief of such, and some are even convincing. However, when we look at scripture holistically, there seems to be only one position that makes sense.
There’s little doubt that prophecy itself (and the other sign gifts as well) have played a much less prominent role in the church throughout history than they did during the times of the apostles. The question then becomes, did they disappear entirely? Before we get into the history, let’s take a moment to discuss the main passage of scripture at hand during the Continuation vs. Cessation debate. 1 Corinthians 13 begins by discussing how love is more important than anything else. It then moves on to the famous description of what love is and ends with discussing how some things will come to an end, but love will last forever.
The scope of this post is going to focus on the beginning and end of the chapter, and mostly ignore the description of what love is. The point of the passage is not what love is, but how everything other than love is meaningless without it.[note]David E. Garland. 1 Corinthians. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2003.) 609; Gordon D. Fee. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing, 1987.) 629.[/note] This is clarified when he makes the comparison between that which lasts forever (love) and that which will pass (knowledge, hope, gifts).[note]Garland, 1 Corinthians, 620; Fee, The First, 643.[/note] It’s clear that gifts exist in the present age of the church but will eventually pass.[note]Fee, The First, 643.[/note] In order to help determine whether or not the gifts have passed, one needs to look into the reason for the gifts. All spiritual gifts are given to help build and maintain the body. They are given to whomever God wills, and nothing can be done to attain or lose them on one’s own part. At some point, the church will no longer need the gifts, though.[note]Ibid 647.[/note] That’s because, much like knowledge as a baby, the gifts are only “partial”; they are not the whole. They are not the ultimate uplifter and maintainer of the Church. They can only do so much. At some point, there will be a perfect church maintainer, and the gifts will pass.[note]Ibid 644.[/note]
Most cessationists believe that this happened when the Bible came to be canonized. Others believe that the gifts simply passed after the Apostolic age was over (which is another thing that some believe isn’t over yet). Interestingly, most commentaries hold the continuationist view. In order to find definite thoughts by cessationists, I had to research articles (but there were few articles from continuationists).
Thomas Edgar wrote an article arguing for the church to reject the continuation of the sign gifts. In it, he articulated many reasons why the sign gifts should not be accepted by churches today. Many argue for the continuation of gifts based on the principle that it’s the last days, and that’s when the Bible says the gifts will be most used.[note]Thomas R. Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts” in Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no 580. (1988). 375.[/note] The main thrust of his argument, however, is that in order for the gifts churches are using today to be the same as the gifts in the New Testament, they must be the same, and Edgar believes they are not.[note]Ibid 372, 276.[/note]
He breaks down a few of the gifts and describes how they are different. First, he discusses how healings today are often undeterminable and left to the word of those who are healed. [note]Ibid 377.[/note] I’m not sure how cancer being healed can fit into that description.[note]Sometimes cancer is healed by medication, yes. Sometimes it isn’t healed, yes. However, when cancer is healed (and however it is) that is nothing short of a miracle because even the doctors aren’t sure how it works.[/note] Furthermore, with the advance of medicine, there is no reason to believe that God can’t use medicine to heal people. That’s why He gave humans the brains in order to come up with the medicine. So let’s just say that people are healed today both in the same way and in new ways. That doesn’t make it any less of a healing, does it?
He then moves on to discuss how modern demonic exorcisms are not the same. In antiquity, exorcisms were normally performed en masse, in public, the exorcism was immediate, and it was normally on unbelievers. Edgar argues that today is essentially the exact opposite. Exorcisms are rare, happen in private, typically take multiple sessions (and aren’t always successful), and are normally only done upon believers.[note]Edgar, “Cessation”, 377.[/note] While yes, these things are true, there is one important difference Edgar ignores: culture. In a world where society was more “in tune” with the spiritual world (that is to say they had a higher respect for it than most people today and understood there were good and evil spirits out there), there would be a different view and implementation of exorcisms. Where the entire society is trying to ensure they are free of evil spirits, they are more likely to seek exorcisms, even en masse. Likewise, in a world where they are more apt to believe in evil spirits, it’s easier to remove them. It’s often said the greatest trick the devil has played is convincing the world he doesn’t exist. And that’s pretty evident in society today (even amongst Christians.) It’s hard to do something that isn’t’ entirely believed. Perhaps that’s why exorcisms are less successful today- there’s no wholehearted belief in the evil spirits and that the ritual will work. Or maybe I’m just justifying the idea because I believe they still exist and can happen. Who knows. Let’s move on.
The last gift he specifically talks about is tongues. He argues that in the time of Paul, speaking in tongues always happened in verifiable languages and was used in public for the sake of unbelievers hearing the gospel.[note]Ibid, 378.[/note] I’m not sure where he got this idea (and I’ve actually heard it before) but it’s entirely untrue. First, we discussed earlier how the spiritual gifts are for the church to be edified and maintained. That doesn’t fit with the idea that tongues was for unbelievers.[note]I’m not ignoring 1 Corinthians 14:22.[/note] If tongues were only for unbelievers, why would Paul require that someone be present to interpret tongues when someone speaks in the church?[note]1 Cor 14:27[/note] And, if nobody is present, why would he require, “they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately.”[note]1 Cor 14:28 (NLT).[/note] Now, yes, Paul states that tongues are for unbelievers. However, they cannot be solely for unbelievers if not even 10 verses later he’s telling people to speak in tongues to God alone. Certainly, if they were purely for unbelievers, Paul would allow the tongues to be used even without an interpreter because the unbeliever would understand it.
The last difference Edgar tries to make between modern miracles and sign gifts is that they are too similar to Pagan practices. He states that the same can be said about the practices of early Christians too, though, so I’m not entirely sure what his point there was.[note]Edgar, “Cessation”, 384.[/note]
His most convincing argument for churches to stray from modern “signs” is that they disappeared for nearly 1900 years.[note]Ibid, 372.[/note] He does note that the gifts appeared sporadically throughout time, but because they were so sporadic it proved they were illegitimate.[note]Ibid, 373. I’m not sure how he came to that conclusion, though.[/note] The early church was known for overusing the gifts (as evidenced by Paul’s letters asking them to control their usage) so how did they just disappear.[note]Ibid, 374.[/note] And some argue that the gifts disappeared for a time, but are now back. However, scripture does not indicate that this is something that would happen.[note]Ibid, 375.[/note] He even goes so far as to say that because Moses’ miracles didn’t continue, it makes sense to believe that the miracles of the early church leaders didn’t either.[note]Ibid, 380,382.[/note]
The entire continuation vs. cessation argument essentially comes down to the definition of one word: teleios. The word means, “perfect”, “lacking nothing”, “the perfect state of all things”.[note]Joseph H. Thayer. Thayer’s Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House)[/note] Paul states that when the teleios comes, all that is partial will be complete. When he speaks of knowledge he is addressing our knowledge of God and confirms that even prophecy is only in part.[note]Fee, The First, 644.[/note] But when the teleios comes, the partial things (prophecy, gifts, etc.) will be of no more use. But three things will remain forever- hope, faith, and love.
Cessationists believe the teleios is referring to the canonization of the Scriptures. However, when Scripture is taken as a whole that does not fit. Nor does it make sense with Paul’s analogy. Paul is careful to contrast the partial with that which will last forever. If the gifts were not to last until the end times (and end sometime in the not too distant future) the contrast between the partial and the eternal would be diminished.[note]Garland, 1 Corinthians, 626.[/note] If that’s not convincing, though, let’s take a closer look at teleios.
We’ve already seen the “official” definition of the word. That definition would not fit well with how the cessationists interpret it. Maybe Paul uses the word differently, though. That’s always possible, right? Well, teleios is used 19 times in the New Testament. Three by Jesus, eight by Paul, one by John, and two by the author of Hebrews.[note]Mat 5:48, Matt 19:21, Rom 12:2, 1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 13:10, 1 Cor 14:20, Eph 4:13, Phl 3:15, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14, Heb 9:11, Jas 1:4, Jas 1:17, Jas 1:25, Jas 3:2, 1 John 4:18.[/note] Paul’s seven other uses of the word describe someone or something (God’s will) that is perfect. When ascribed to a person, it’s best to think of it talking about a mature believer (as nobody will be perfect on Earth, but will be eventually).
What about the rest of the uses? Christ tells people to be teleios like God is and then they can get into heaven. The author of Hebrews is again talking about mature believers, and even uses it (“teleios tabernacle”) to describe Christ. James is describing mature Christians again, and John is discussing teleios agape. Translated- perfect love. He’s talking about God’s love.
Every other usage in the New Testament, especially by the same author, the word is used to describe something in relation to Christ. Christ is asking people to be perfect like He is. James, Paul, and the author of Hebrews[note]For those of you who do not know, I have not identified this person because Scholars are unsure who they are. I personally believe it to be Priscilla.[/note] are talking about mature Christians and/or God’s desire for people and the world, and John is discussing God’s love. It makes little sense to take this one instance to mean something else. Especially when that something else simply does not fit.
Cessationists believe that the teleios came when the Scriptures were canonized.[note]This is not the singular belief of Cessationists, but it is the most common so it’s the one I’m dealing with.[/note] That would mean that the Bible is the perfect. Knowledge is now in full. IF the Bible were the teleios there would be no confusion, no disagreement. Paul states that our knowledge is partial, but when the teleios comes that will be gone and we will know in full. You would be hard pressed to even find a cessationist who believes that we know in full with the Bible. Our knowledge of God is still incredibly partial, and discussions like this demonstrate that. We’re debating whether or not the Bible is the teleios that ushered the end of the partial things such as knowledge and signs. The fact that this discussion even exists seems to point to the fact that it is not.
If the gifts did not stop, and prophecy and the like are still present in Christians today, why are they less prevalent? What happened to them? The short answer- church politics.[note]Isn’t that always the problem?[/note] There is no doubt that church history shows a decline in prophecy.[note]Graham Houston, Prophecy: A Gift for Today? (Downers Grove, InterVarsity 1989) 148.[/note] During the early days of the church, there was much prophecy. However, upon the arrival of the bishops, a conflict emerged. The tension between the bishops and the prophets formed. This tension was essentially a tension between organized religion and unorganized. The bishops wanted to keep everything organized, whereas the prophets wanted the Church to be more free to bend and sway with God.[note]Ibid, 162.[/note] Ultimately, in 95 the church in Corinth split because of this and being cautious of all prophecy became the norm, spreading throughout the Catholic church.[note]Ibid, 162-163.[/note] For this reason, prophets tended to keep to themselves, and records of such gifts became scarce.
So then, to answer the initial question- yes. God does still speak to people today through prophecy and sign gifts. There is little evidence within Scripture to argue that the sign gifts have passed. Without them passing, we are only left to believe that God still gifts them out to those whom he chooses. Perhaps they are given in a lower volume today. We don’t know.
But I do know one thing- we need to be careful with how we apply this non-essential belief. I have seen continuationist churches do more harm than good by being like the overzealous Corinthians. The church I grew up attending stated (without actually stating) that if you did not speak in tongues you were not saved. They had a process of baptizing you in the Holy Spirit after you were saved. Immediately afterward they asked you to speak in tongues. If it didn’t work, they tried again at a later date. Like any good Christian boy, I didn’t want to not be saved, so I pretended. I spent probably 15 years pretending to pray in tongues at various church events. The pastor often prayed in tongues from the pulpit and asked the congregation to join in. This is very clearly against Paul’s teaching on the usage of tongues in 1 Corinthians- NOBODY WAS THERE TO INTERPRET! But there I was, feeling like a failure because I couldn’t actually do it, but pretending to so I didn’t look like a bad Christian.
That’s the exact opposite of the point of 1 Corinthians 13. In this passage, Paul is talking about the gifts, yes, but his emphasis is on love. Love lasts forever, gifts will cease. Love will never fail, our current knowledge will be revealed as minuscule. Love will never change. If you don’t employ the gifts with love, then what’s the point of employing them at all?
