https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/
Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION
| by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
Numerous religious groups commonly claim the assistance of the Holy
Spirit in their lives. Famed religious television personalities boldly
announce the active influence of the Holy Spirit even as they speak.
Supposedly, the Holy Spirit talks to them personally, heals viewers
instantaneously, and enables them to babble uncontrollably in an
“unknown tongue.” All of this is claimed to be “proof positive” of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do miracles still happen? Can people speak
in tongues today? Does God, in the twenty-first century, supernaturally
countermand the laws of nature and heal people miraculously?
“Come now, and let us reason together,” Isaiah said (1:18). It is absolutely imperative that we examine Scripture—not
our feelings, not what someone else says happened to them, and not our
own experience. The only sure and certain approach is to ask: What does
the Bible teach? The reader must ask: “Do I honestly believe the Bible
to be the Word of God?” Answers to critical questions of human existence
require that a person be willing to spend time in the Word, “rightly
dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). One must “search the
scriptures” (Acts 17:11). One must be honest and willing to go where the
evidence takes him. If you had to choose between what you genuinely
think you have experienced or seen firsthand and what the Bible actually
says, which would you choose? You must ask yourself: “Will I honestly
accept God’s written Word on the matter of miracles?” If you will, I
invite you to join me in an examination of what the Bible teaches
pertaining to miracles.
THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLES
First of all, what exactly is a “miracle”? How does the Bible use the
word? The three central terms used in the Bible to designate a
supernatural (as contrasted with a natural) manifestation are: (1)
“miracle” (dunamis); (2) “sign” (semeion); and (3) “wonder” (teras). All three terms occur together in Acts 2:22, Hebrews 2:4, and 2 Corinthians 12:12. Related terms include “work” (ergon) and “mighty deed” (kratos). The occurrence of a miracle in the Bible meant that God worked outside the
laws of nature. W.E. Vine, whose Greek scholarship, according to F.F.
Bruce, was “wide, accurate and up-to-date” (Vine, 1952, Foreword),
stated that “miracle” (dunamis) is used in the New Testament of “works of asupernatural origin and character, such as could not be produced by natural agents and means” (1952, p. 75, emp. added). Otfried Hofius noted that a “sign” (semeion) “contradicts the natural course of things” (1976, 2:626, emp. added) and, similarly, “wonder” (teras) referred to events that “contradict the ordered unity of nature”
(2:633, emp. added). Thus a miracle in the Bible was not merely an
event that was astonishing, incredible, extraordinary, or unusual (e.g.,
the birth of a baby, a flower, or the narrow avoidance of an accident).
A miracle in the Bible was a supernatural act. It was an event
that was contrary to the usual course of nature (Arndt and Gingrich,
1957, p. 755). The miraculous is not to be confused with the providential, where God operates within the usual course of nature.
THE DESIGN OF MIRACLES
Second, it is absolutely imperative that one recognizes the purpose of
the miraculous. Miracles in the New Testament served the singular
function of confirmation. When an inspired speaker stepped forward to declare God’s Word, God validated or endorsed the
speaker’s remarks by empowering the speaker to perform a miracle. Many
New Testament passages articulate this fact quite plainly. For example,
the apostles “went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with
them, and confirming the word by the signsthat followed”
(Mark 16:20, emp. added). The Hebrews writer asked: “[H]ow shall we
escape, if we neglect so great a salvation; which having at the first
been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both bysigns and wonders,
and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews
2:3-4, emp. added). Referring to the initial proclamation of the Gospel
to the Samaritans, Luke stated: “[A]nd the multitudes gave heed with one
accord unto the things that were spoken by Philip, when they heard, and saw the signs which he did” (Acts 8:6, emp. added). The apostles prayed to God: “[G]rant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done” (Acts 4:29-30, emp. added).
These passages, and many others (e.g., Acts 13:12; 14:3; 15:12; Romans
15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; cf. Exodus 4:30), show
that the purpose of miracles was to authenticate the oral/spoken word as God’s Word. Miracles legitimized andverified the
teaching of God’s messengers, as over against the many false teachers
(like Simon in Acts 8:9, or Pharaoh’s magicians in Exodus 7:11) who
attempted to mislead the people. In the late nineteenth century, Greek
lexicographer Joseph Thayer worded this point well when he noted that
“sign” (semeion) was used in the New Testament “of miracles and
wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or by which men
prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s” (1901, p. 573). Even
the miracles that Jesus performed were designed to back up His claim
(i.e., spoken words) to be deity. Consider two examples: (1) Using the
parallel term “works” (a key word in the book of John), Jesus remarked
to Philip, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in Me? thewords that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth hisworks. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or else believe Me for the very works’ sake”
(John 14:10-11, emp. added); (2) Nicodemus said to Jesus: “Rabbi, we
know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that
thou doest except God be with him” (John 3:2, emp. added). This pattern
is repeated in the New Testament many times over (e.g., John 2:23;
5:36; 6:14; 7:31; 10:37-38,41-42; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22). In other words,
Jesus performed signs and miracles to prove His divine identity and
thereby authenticate His message. His message, in turn, generated faith
in those who chose to believe His teachings (cf. Romans 10:17). Here is
the consistent sequence presented in Scripture: Signs → Word → Faith.
(1) Signs confirmed the Word; (2) the Word was presented to hearers;
and (3) faith was created (by the Word) in those who received it.
An excellent demonstration of this process was provided by Luke in his
report of the conversion of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. Elymas
the sorcerer attempted to thwart Paul’s effort to teach Sergius the
Gospel. So Paul performed a miracle by striking Elymas blind. Luke next
recorded: “Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed,
being astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (Acts 13:12, emp. added). One might well expect the text to have said that Sergius was astonished at the miracle that
Paul performed. But Luke was careful to report the situation with
precision. The miracle that Paul performed captured Sergius’ attention,
causing him to recognize the divine origin of Paul’s Gospel message. The
Gospel message, in turn, generated faith in the proconsul—in harmony
with Paul’s later affirmation to Christians in Rome that faith comes by
hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Over and over again in the New
Testament, a close correlation is seen between the performance of
miracles and the preaching of the Word of God (cf. Mark 6:12-13; Luke
9:2,6).
MIRACLES CONFIRM THE WORD | |||
PASSAGE
|
MESSAGE
|
CONFIRMATION
|
RESPONSE
|
| Acts 4:29-32 | “Speak Your Word with all boldness” | “by stretching out Your hand to heal and that signs and wonders may be done” | “those who believed were of one heart and soul” |
| Acts 8:5-12 | “the things spoken by Philip;” “Philip…preached Christ” | “hearing and seeing the miracles which he did” | “they believed Philip as he preached the things…and were baptized” |
| Acts 13:7-12 | “sought to hear the word of God” | “You shall be blind, not seeing” | “the proconsul believed…being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord” |
| Acts 14:2-3 | “speaking boldly in the Lord” | “The Lord…was bearing witness to the word…granting signs/wonders to be done” | “a great multitude…believed” |
| Romans 15:18-19 | “I have fully preached the gospel of Christ” | “in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God” | “to make the Gentiles obedient” |
| 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 | “my speech and my preaching” | “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” | “that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” |
| 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 | “our gospel did not come to you in word only” | “but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance” | “you became followers of us and the Lord, having received the word” |
| Hebrews 2:1-4 | “so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord” | “God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” | “give the more earnest heed” |
| Mark 16:15-20 | “preach the gospel…they went out and preached…the word” | “the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs” | “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” |
| John 2:22 | “He had said this...the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said” | “when he had risen from the dead” | “they believed” |
| John 2:23 | “in His name” | “they saw the signs which He did” | “many believed” |
But some maintain that there are other reasons for divine healing and
tongue-speaking. Some say tongue-speaking is a sign that the
tongue-speaker is super-spiritual. Others say miraculous healing serves
the purpose of making the believer well—a mere act of mercy to relieve
his pain and suffering. They say God does not want us to suffer, and so
He will heal us just to ease our pain in this life because we are His
children.
Regarding the first claim, in Paul’s admonitions directed to the church
of Christ at Corinth, he insisted that the person who possessed the
ability to speak in tongues was not spiritually superior to the one who
had no such ability. The tongue-speaker had a responsibility to utilize
his gift appropriately, i.e., to help others (1 Corinthians
14:6,9,12,19). His gift no more placed him in a spiritually superior
position than did any other gift possessed by any other member—whether
the ability was miraculous or non-miraculous (1 Corinthians 12:11-27).
Tongue-speaking was simply one miraculous capability among many bestowed
by God without regard to a member’s spiritual status, let alone his
spiritual superiority over another member (1 Corinthians 12:7-11,28-30).
Regarding the second claim, certainly, the compassion of God was evident
when people received miraculous healing in New Testament times. And,
surely, relief from suffering would have been a side effect of being
healed. But the Bible teaches that relieving suffering was not the purpose of miracles.
Such a purpose would contradict—even thwart—the divine intent of this
created Earth as a place where hardship exists to prepare us for
eternity (see Warren, 1972). Death and sin entered the world due to
human choice, and God allows the circumstances caused by human decisions
to take their course. God is not going to interfere with the natural
order of things to show partiality to some over others. The Christian is
subject to the same diseases, the same tragedies, and the same physical
death that befall non-Christians: “for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19). The Bible, in fact, warns Christians
that they can expect to be the recipients of all sorts of
hardship, opposition, temptation, and suffering (e.g., 1 Corinthians
10:13; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 4:12-17). Commenting on the purpose of
miracles, J.W. McGarvey wrote: “[T]o say that they were wrought for the
single purpose of showing divine compassion toward the sick, and those
oppressed by the devil, would be to ignore a purpose which is easily
discerned, which is openly avowed by Christ himself, and which is of
much greater importance (1910, p. 354). That purpose was “to support his
proclamation…a necessary proof of the claim of Jesus” (pp. 355-356).
If God’s intention was to exempt Christians from sickness and disease,
He certainly has fallen down on the job, since the vast majority of
Christians throughout the last 2,000 years have experienced the exact
same afflictions suffered by unbelievers. If miracles in the first
century had as their object to improve the health or physical well-being
of the recipient, then Jesus and the apostles were failures, because
they left untouched a lot of sick and dying folk! Jesus healed the
minority of the sick people of Palestine, and healed noneoutside
of that tiny geographical region (with the exception of the Canaanite
woman’s daughter). In fact, one would be forced to conclude that God’s
compassion did not extend to everybody. But the Bible affirms that God loves the entire world of humanity (John
3:16; Romans 5:8). Hence, miracles did not have as their central
purpose to demonstrate God’s compassion, nor to ease pain, sickness, and
suffering. Writing in 1898, McGarvey made the following observations:
[U]nlike these modern advocates of “divine healing,” the apostles were never known to go about exhorting people to come forward for the healing of the body. They effected miraculous cures in a few instances, “as a sign to the unbelievers,” but they never proclaimed, either to saints or sinners, that the healing of all diseases was a part of the gospel which they were sent to preach. These so-called faith-cure churches, therefore, and the preachers who officiate in them as “divine healers,” or what not, are not modeled after the apostolic type, but are misleading the people by humbuggery (p. 351).
The usual rebuttal to these observations is that the reason some people
do not receive a miracle is that “they do not have sufficient faith.”
But this objection is likewise unscriptural. It is true that some
individuals in the New Testament were commended for the faith that they
possessed prior to being the recipient of a miracle (e.g., Mark 5:34). It does not automatically follow, however, that faith was a necessary prerequisite to miraculous reception. Many people were not required
to have faith as a prerequisite. For example, all individuals who were
raised from the dead obviously were not in a position to “have faith”
(e.g., John 11:44). Nor did those possessed by demons have faith before
being healed, since they were not in their right mind (e.g., Luke 9:42;
11:14). The man who was blind from birth actually showed uncertainty
regarding the identity of Jesus (John 9:11-12,17,25,35-36). The man who
was healed by Jesus as he laid beside a pool of water, in fact, did not
even know who healed him (John 5:13). On one occasion, Jesus healed a
paralytic after observing, nothis faith, but the faith of his companions (Mark
2:5). Additional texts indicate that many who received the benefits of
miracles were not required to have faith (Luke 13:12; 14:4; Acts
3:1-10).
The opposite was true as well. There were individuals who possessed
faith, and yet were not healed of their ailments. The apostle Paul
obviously had plenty of faith. He had an “infirmity” that was so painful
that he called it “a thorn in the flesh” and “a messenger of Satan” (2
Corinthians 12:7-10). Yet his earnest prayers to God for relief did not
result in his being healed. Timothy was a faithful and effective servant
of the Lord. He had “frequent illnesses” and stomach trouble of such
severity as to warrant Paul referring to it by inspiration. But rather
than simply healing him, or telling him to “pray for healing,” Paul
advised him to use a little wine as a tonic (1 Timothy 5:23). Another
Christian worker and companion of Paul in his evangelistic travels,
Trophimus (Acts 20:4: 21:29), had to be left at Miletus due to his
sickness (2 Timothy 4:20). Epaphroditus was an extremely valuable worker
in the kingdom of Christ, so much so that Paul referred to him as “my
brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier…and minister to my need”
(Philippians 2:25). When he became sick “nigh unto death” (Philippians
2:27,30)—likely due to his exhausting kingdom activity and service to
Paul—Paul did not heal him. These examples demonstrate that personal
faith was not prerequisite to the reception of a miracle in the first
century. Miracles were inextricably bound to the authentication of the
spoken Word of God.
But what about those verses that seem to indicate that faith did have
something to do with whether a miracle would be forthcoming? For
instance, what of Matthew’s observation that when Jesus went to His own
country, He “did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief ”
(Matthew 13:58)? Notice that the text cannot be correlating the
presence of the miraculous with the presence of belief. After all, “not
many” implies that some miracles were performed—even though
unbelief was rampant. The point that Matthew was making, therefore, was
that when Jesus performed a few miracles to authenticate His oral claim
to deity, the evidence was rejected, making it superfluous for Christ to
offer any further miraculous demonstrations. Albert Barnes explained
this matter succinctly:
We are not to suppose that his [Jesus—DM] power was limited by the belief or unbelief of men; but they were so prejudiced, so set against him, that they were not in a condition to judge of evidence and to be convinced. … It would have been of no use, therefore, in proving to them that he was from God, to have worked miracles. … He gave sufficient proof of his mission, and left them in their chosen unbelief without excuse (1956, p. 150, emp. in orig.).
Jesus was simply doing what He instructed the Twelve to do: “whatsoever
place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, …shake off the dust
that is under your feet” (Mark 6:11). He also had said: “[N]either cast
your pearls before the swine” (Matthew 7:6). If performing additional
miracles would have confirmed the Word, Jesus would have performed them.
John actually settled this question for the unbiased searcher. He worded
the thematic statement of his Gospel record in the following words:
“Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have
life in His name” (John 20:30-31, emp. added). John said that belief
occurs after the miracle—not before, in order to receive a
miracle! The New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim
that miracles occur today. They say a person must have faithbefore he
or she can receive a miracle. The New Testament teaches that miracles
were performed to authenticate the divine origin of the speaker’s
message and/or identity. The message, in turn, generated faith in the
hearer (cf. Romans 10:17). Hence, miracles preceded faith. Even tongue-speaking was designed to convince the unbeliever to give heed to the message (1 Corinthians 14:22).
A good summary passage that pinpoints precisely the purpose of miracles
throughout the Bible is seen in the incident concerning the widow of
Zarephath to whom Elijah was sent for assistance in surviving the famine
during the reign of King Ahab. When her son’s serious illness
culminated in his death, Elijah brought the boy back to life, raising
him from the dead. Her subsequent verbal observation summarizes
succinctly the function of the miraculous: “Now by this I know that you
are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is the
truth” (1 Kings 17:24). The miracle fulfilled its intended purpose: to
verify that, as a genuine emissary of the one true God, Elijah was a
communicator of God’s Word.
THE DURATION OF MIRACLES
These observations bring us to a third extremely critical realization:
once God revealed the entirety of the information that He wished to make
available to mankind (later contained in what we call the New
Testament), the need for miraculous confirmation of the oral Word came
to an end. Now, people can sit down with a New Testament, the written
Word of God, and, with honest and diligent study, conclude that it is
God’s Word. Many preachers and teachers today have failed to acknowledge
this crucial biblical factor. They fail to face the fact that we have
absolutely no need for the miraculous. Since the purpose of miracles has
been achieved, the miracles, themselves, have ceased. I repeat: the
Bible teaches that miracles are no longer necessary. We have everything
we need to function in this life, to be pleasing to God, and to survive
spiritually (2 Peter 1:3). Spiritual maturity is now within the grasp of
every single individual who chooses to access the means to maturity—the
written Word of God. To insist that we have need for the miraculous
today is to undermine, and to cast aspersions upon, the all-sufficiency
of God’s Word (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The most detailed treatment of the phenomena of miracles in the New
Testament, including tongue-speaking, healing, and prophecy, is 1
Corinthians 12, 13, and 14. These three chapters were written to
Christians at Corinth because miracles were being abused and misused.
Chapter 12 defines the miracles. Chapter 13 indicates their duration.
Chapter 14 explains their disposition. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul argued
that the body (the church) should function harmoniously by using
miraculous gifts properly. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul argued that love is
a more excellent attribute than miraculous gifts. After all, miraculous
gifts (i.e., prophecy, tongue-speaking, supernatural knowledge, etc.)
were going to fail, cease, vanish, and be done away (13:8). These
miraculous gifts are identified in the text with the expression “in
part” (13:9-10). The “in part,” or miraculous, would cease and be done
away when the “perfect” had come. But to what does the “perfect” refer?
The Greek word translated “perfect” is teleios. The term does not
refer to “perfect” in the sense typically understood by the average
modern English reader, i.e., to be sinless. Following this faulty
notion, some have concluded that the “perfect” refers to Jesus—since He
has been the only perfect person. Other interpretations apply “perfect”
to heaven (the only perfect place that will be free of sin and
imperfection), or Christian maturity and perfect love (the perfect
condition or quality). But, in context, Paul was not contrasting
qualities or places. He was contrasting quantities, i.e., those things
that were incomplete and partial (miraculous gifts) with that which
would be total and complete (the fully revealed Word of God). The
inaccuracy of these interpretations is seen further in the Greek
definition ofteleios. The word refers to totality, that which is
whole, brought to its end, finished, and lacking nothing necessary to
completeness (Delling, 1972, 8:73; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 816;
Thayer, 1901, p. 618). When referring to persons, teleios refers
to being full-grown, adult, and mature (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p.
817; Thayer, 1977, p. 618). Used in its neuter form, Paul was referring
to a thing—not a person—something that, when completed or finished,
would replace the incomplete or partial, i.e., the miraculous
gifts—which clearly had only temporary significance. Commenting on the
abolition of the miraculous gifts of prophecy and supernatural knowledge
(mentioned in vss. 8 and 9), W.R. Nicoll observed that “these charisms
are partial in scope, and therefore temporary: the fragmentary gives place to the complete”
(1900, 2:900, emp. added). Kenneth Wuest agreed: “In I Corinthians
13:10, the word means ‘complete,’ and is contrasted to that which is
incomplete” (1943a, pp. 117-118). Whereas James used the term teleios to
refer to the all-sufficiency of God’s Word in its ability to achieve
everything it was intended to do (James 1:25), the exegete is forced to
conclude that Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed
revelation or totally revealed New Testament Scriptures. The revelation
of God’s will was completed in its entirety when the final book of the
New Testament, Revelation, was written by John prior toA.D. 100.
Paul offered a useful illustration to clarify his point. When the church
possessed only bits and pieces of God’s will, as revealed through
scattered miraculous gifts and the gradual production, between
approximately A.D. 57 and A.D. 95, of the
written documents from the inspired writers of the New Testament, it
could not achieve full spiritual maturity. It therefore was like a child
(13:11). It lacked the necessary constituent elements to reach
spiritual adulthood. However, when the totality of God’s will, which
became the New Testament, had been revealed, the church then had the
means available to become “a man” (13:11). Once the church had access to
all of God’s written Word, the means by which the Word was given (i.e.,
miraculous gifts) would be obsolete, useless, and therefore “put away”
(13:11). Notice that in this illustration, Paul likened miracles to
“childish things” (13:11). In other words, miracles were the spiritual
equivalents of pacifiers that were necessary while the church was in a
state of infancy. Now that the church has access to “all truth” (John
16:13), the use of tongue-speaking and other miraculous enhancements in
the church today would be comparable to an adult man or woman sucking on
a pacifier!
Paul then explained his point by making a contrast between the initial
necessity of miracles to reveal and confirm God’s Word, and the idea of
looking through a clouded mirror (see Workman, 1983, p. 8). Once the
entire contents of the New Testament had been revealed, the miraculous
gifts no longer would be necessary. Having all of God’s revealed Word
would enable one to be face to face with that Word rather than “looking
through a clouded mirror,” i.e., having partial access. Paul wrote
(13:11): “Now I know in part [i.e., my knowledge of God’s revelation is
incomplete and partial due to limited access via the miraculous element—DM], but then [i.e., when all of God’s Word is revealed—DM]
shall I know fully even as also I was fully known [i.e., I shall be
made to know or taught thoroughly (which is the figure of speech known
as heterosis of the verb in which the intransitive is put for the
transitive—see Bullinger, 1898, p. 512)—DM].”
Paul made essentially the same point to the Ephesians that he made to
the Corinthians. Miracles—the “gifts” given by Christ (Ephesians
4:8)—were to last “till the unity of the faith and the knowledge
of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13, emp. added). Two significant
observations emerge from this latter verse. First, the word translated
“till” (Middle English for “until”) is mechri, and was used as a conjunction to indicate the terminus ad quem [finishing point] of the miraculous offices (mentioned in vs. 11) bestowed as gifts by Christ. [For treatments of the use of mechri in
this verse, see Thayer, 1977, p. 408; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 517;
Moulton and Milligan, 1982, p. 407; Blass, et al., 1961, pp. 193-194;
Robertson, 1934, pp. 974-975; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 281; see also
the use of the term in Mark 13:30 and Galatians 4:19]. Nicoll observed:
“The statement of the great object of Christ’s gifts and the provision
made by Him for its fulfillment is now followed by a statement of thetime this provision and the consequent service are to last” (1900, 3:332, emp. in orig.). Paul was “[s]pecifying the time up to which this ministry and impartation of gifts are to last” (Vincent, 1890, p. 390, emp. added).
Second, the phrase “the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” often is misunderstood to refer to the eventual unifying of
all believers in Christ. But this conclusion cannot be correct. Both
Scripture and common sense dispel such a notion. Complete unity within
Christendom will never occur. Those who profess affiliation with
Christianity are in a hopeless state of disunity. Catholicism and
Protestant denominationalism are fractured into a plethora of factions
and splinter groups—literally thousands of divisions and disagreements.
Besides, Protestant denominationalism did not exist in the New Testament
era, and the New Testament neither countenances nor legitimizes any
such “manifestation” of Christianity. Nor will unity ever be achieved
even within churches of Christ. The first-century congregations did not
attain complete internal unity. Nor have the post first-century
congregations achieved unity within.
In contrast with this interpretation, notice the use of the articles in the phrases: “the faith” and “the knowledge.” Contextually, Paul was referring to the system of faith alluded to so often in the New Testament. Jude urged his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Paul referred to himself when he quoted others as saying, “He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc” (Galatians 1:23). Luke reported that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Elymas sought to “turn aside the proconsul from the faith” (Acts 13:8). The early disciples were exhorted to “continue in the faith” (Acts 14:22). Due to Paul’s repeat visits in Lycaonia, “the churches were strengthened in the faith” (Acts 16:5).
So “the faith” and “the knowledge” refer to the completed body of information that
constitutes the Christian religion. Indeed, eight verses earlier
(Ephesians 4:5), Paul already had referred to “the faith” as the
summation and totality of Christian doctrine—now situated in the
repository of the New Testament. An honest exegete is driven to conclude
that once the precepts of New Testament Christianity were revealed on
Earth, the miraculous element no longer was necessary. Miracles lasted
until “the faith” was completely revealed. They had served their
purpose, in the same way that scaffolding is useful while a building is
under construction. However, once construction is complete, the
scaffolding is removed and discarded as unnecessary and superfluous
paraphernalia.
THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF MIRACLES
| |
1 Corinthians 12-14
|
Ephesians 4
|
| “Gifts” (12:4,9, 28,30,31) | “Gifts” (4:7-8) |
| “no schism in the body” (12:25) | “joined and knit together” (4:16) |
| “one body, many members” (12:12,14,18-20,27) | “whole body, every part” (4:16) |
| “apostles, prophets, teachers” (12:29) | “apostles, prophets, pastor-teachers” (4:11) |
| “prophecies, knowledge” (13:8) | “prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers” (4:11) |
| “fail, cease, vanish, done away” (13:8-10) | “until” (4:13) “we come to the unity of the faith” (4:13) |
| “when perfect comes” (13:10) | “the knowledge/the fullness of Christ” (4:13) |
| “shall know” (13:12) | “the knowledge/the fullness of Christ” (4:13) |
| “child” (13:11) | “children” (4:14) |
| “man” (13:11) | “man” (4:13) |
| “put away childish things” (13:11) | “grow up” (4:15) |
| “love” (13:1-8) | “love” (4:15-16) |
| “edification of the church” (14:3-5,12,17) | “edifying the body of Christ” (4:12) |
THE DISPLAY AND DISPOSITION OF MIRACLES
Fourth, the actual exercise of miraculous gifts by Christians is
addressed in 1 Corinthians 14. In this context, Paul used the term
“gifts” (charismata, from charisma) in a technical sense (likepneumatika) to refer to miraculous abilities, designated by Thayer “extraordinary powers…by
the Holy Spirit” (1901, p. 667, emp. added; cf. Arndt and Gingrich,
1957, p. 887). Hans Conzelmann stated that the term indicated that
“[t]he operations are supernatural” and of “supernatural potency”
(1974, 9:405, emp. added). [The word is so used in the Pauline corpus
in ten of its sixteen occurrences (Romans 1:11; 12:6; 1 Corinthians 1:7;
12:4,9,28,30,31; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). The only other
occurrence of the word in the New Testament was Peter’s comparable use,
i.e., to refer to supernatural ability (1 Peter 4:10)—see Moulton, et
al., 1978, p. 1005]. In the Corinthian context of chapter 14, special
attention was given by Paul to two of the miraculous gifts in
particular: prophecy and tongue-speaking. Several relevant points occur
with regard to the gift of tongue-speaking that help one to understand
both the temporary nature of miracles as well as their irrelevance to a
contemporary pursuit and practice of New Testament Christianity.
Tongue-Speaking
First, in 1 Corinthians 14, the term “unknown” (in regard to tongues) was italicized in the KJVbecause
it does not appear in the original Greek text (14:2,4,13-14,19,27). By
inserting this word into their translation, the translators were
attempting to aid the English reader. They undoubtedly were hoping to
convey the idea that the languages to which Paul referred were unknown to
the speaker, i.e., the speaker had no prior training by which to learn
or know the language. He spoke the language strictly by God’s miraculous
empowerment. “Unknown” certainly was not intended to convey the idea
that the tongues were unknownto all humans and, as such, were non-earthly, non-human languages.
Second, the events reported at the very beginning of the Christian
religion (Acts 2) set the precedent for understanding that
tongue-speaking entailed no more than the ability to speak a foreign
human language (which the speaker had not studied) to people from a
variety of geographical locales (e.g., Parthians, Medes, Arabians—Acts
2:9-11). The unbiased Bible student must conclude that what is described
in detail in Acts 2 is the same phenomenon alluded to in 1 Corinthians
14. All tongue-speaking in the Bible consisted of known human languages
(ideally known to the very audience being addressed) that were unknown
(i.e., unstudied, unlearned) by the one who was speaking the language.
Third, there is simply no such thing as an “ecstatic utterance” in the
New Testament. The tongue-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 entailed human
language—not incoherent gibberish. A simple reading of the chapter
demonstrates that known human languages are under consideration. For
example, Paul paralleled tongue-speaking with the use of the trumpet in
warfare. If the bugler sounded meaningless noise, the military would be
thrown into confusion. It was imperative for the bugler to blow the
proper notes and tones, i.e., meaningful musical “language,” so that the
army would understand what was being communicated (whether to charge,
engage, or retreat). Sound without sense fails to achieve the very
purpose of tongue-speaking. Paul then stated:
So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me (1 Corinthians 14:9-11, emp. added).
Obviously, Paul was referring to human languages—those that exist “in
the world.” He envisioned a scenario where two individuals, who spoke
different languages, are attempting to communicate with each other. If
one speaks in Spanish and the other in German, as they attempt to speak
to one another, each would be a “foreigner” to the other. Neither would
understand what the other was attempting to say. Hence the need for
tongue-speaking, i.e., the ability to speak human language unknown to
the speaker but known to the recipient.
Later in the chapter, Paul quoted Isaiah 28:11-12 where God threatened
the Israelites with the fact that their failure to listen to Him (by
means of the words spoken by His prophets) meant that He soon would be
communicating to them through the language of their Assyrian
conquerors—conquerors whom God would send against them. This powerful
illustration presupposes the fact that in both Isaiah and 1 Corinthians,
human languages are under consideration. After quoting Isaiah, Paul
drew the conclusion that tongue-speaking was intended by God to be
directed to unbelievers. Why? Because it would prove to the
unbeliever that the tongue-speaker, who did not possess the natural
ability to speak that language, was being empowered by God to speak in
the language spoken by the unbeliever. The unbeliever would recognize
the divine origin of the tongue-speaker’s ability, and thereby be
willing to consider the words being spoken as the instructions of God.
Again, an examination of 1 Corinthians 14 yields the result that no
contextual justification exists for drawing the conclusion that the
Bible refers to, let alone endorses, the notion of “ecstatic” speech.
Tongues of Angels?
But what about Paul’s passing reference to the “tongues of angels” in 1
Corinthians 13:1? Would not this reference prove that tongue-speaking
could involve languages beyond those spoken by humans? In the first
place, consider the role, purpose, and activity of angels described in
the Bible. The word “angel” (Greek—angelos; Hebrew—malak)
simply means “messenger”—one who “speaks and acts in the place of the
one who has sent him” (Bietenhard, 1975, 1:101; Botterweck, et al.,
1997, 8:308; Grundmann, 1964, 1:74ff; Gesenius, 1847, p. 475; Arndt and
Gingrich, 1957, p. 7). It does not mean merely “to send,” but rather “to
send a messenger/message” (Ringgren, 1997, 8:310). It is true that
angels in both the Old and New Testaments carried out a wide range of
activities beyond message-bearing, including: worshipping God
(Revelation 5:11-12); comforting, aiding, and protecting (Daniel 6:22;
Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43; Acts 5:19; Hebrews 1:14); and executing
judgment and inflicting punishment and death (e.g., Matthew 13:49; Acts
12:23). But it still remains true to say that the meaning of the term
“angel” is a messenger—one who communicates a spoken message. Therefore,
their principal role in God’s scheme of things was to function as
messengers to humans (Grundmann, 1964, 1:74). Consequently, angels
always are represented in Scripture as communicating in human language.
In the second place, what logical reason exists for humans to speak in
an alleged “angelic” language that is different from human language?
What would be the spiritual benefit? The Bible certainly makes no
provision for humans to communicate with angels in such a language, nor
would there be any need for an angel to communicate to a human in a
non-earthly language. The whole point of 1 Corinthians 12-13 was to
stress the need to function in the church in ways that were meaningful
and understandable. Since God, by His very nature, never would do
anything that is superfluous, unnecessary, or frivolous, it follows that
He would not bestow upon a human being the ability to speak in a
non-human language. The ability would serve no purpose! The Bible simply
offers no rationale nor justification for identifying the “tongues of
angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 with some heavenly, otherworldly,
non-earthly languages.
In the third place, if, in fact, the “tongues of angels” refers to known
human languages, what was Paul’s point? Since angels were God’s
appointed spokesmen, they naturally would perform their assignment in
such a way that God would be represented as He would want to be. God’s
own angelic emissaries would have complied with their responsibility in
such a way and manner that they would have God’s approval. In other
words, angels would naturally articulate God’s message as well as it
could be expressed (i.e., perfectly). When God inspired mere humans to
communicate His will, He integrated their own educational background,
stylistic idiosyncrasies, and vocabulary into their oral and literary
productions. No such need would have existed for angels. Their
communications would have been unfiltered through human agency. Their
announcements would have been the epitome and pinnacle of eloquence and
oratorical skill.
Perhaps, then, Paul was not drawing a contrast between human and
nonhuman languages at all. Before referring to the “tongues of angels,”
he referred to “the tongues of men.” Why would Paul say, “Though I speak
with the tongues of men”? After all, isn’t that precisely what all
adult humans do? We humans speak at least one human language! Paul must
have been referring, then, not to the ability to speak a human language,
but to the ability to speak allhuman languages. No
tongue-speaker in the first-century church had the ability to speak all
human languages. In fact, the textual evidence indicates that most
tongue-speakers probably had the ability to speak only one human
language—which he, himself, did not understand—thus necessitating the
need for an inspired interpreter (1 Corinthians 12:30; 14:26-28). Paul
could apparently speak more languages than any of the others (1
Corinthians 14:18). If the “tongues of men” referred to the number of
human languages (rather than referring to the ability to speak a human
language), then the “tongues of angels” would refer—not to the ability
to speak an angelic language—but to the ability to speak human
languages the way angels do.
Here, then, would have been Paul’s point: even if a tongue-speaker could
speak every human language known to man, and even if that
tongue-speaker could speak those human languages with the efficiency,
skill, and perfection that God’s angelic messengers have spoken them in
history, without love, the ability would be wasted. With this
understanding of the text, Paul was not contrasting human with nonhuman
language. He was encompassing both the quantity (if I could speak all
human languages) and the quality (if I could speak them perfectly) of
speaking human language.
One final point on the matter of the “tongues of angels” merits mention.
Even if the expression actually refers to angelic tongues that are
nonhuman, it still is likely that tongue-speakers were incapable of
speaking such languages. Why? Paul was speaking hypothetically and
hyperbolically. No human being (with the exception of perhaps Jesus) has
ever been able to speak in all human languages. For Paul to suggest
such was to pose a hypothetical situation. It was to exaggerate the
facts. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking all
human languages—which I’m not.” Likewise, no human being has ever been
able to speak the tongues of angels. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I
were capable of speaking the languages of angels—which I’m not.” This
conclusion is supported further by the verse that follows the reference
to the “tongues of angels.” There, Paul used two additional hypothetical
events when he said, “if I…know all mysteries and all knowledge” and
“if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains” (1 Corinthians 13:2).
But no one on the planet (with the exception of deity) has understood
all mysteries and all knowledge, nor has had faith that could literally
remove mountains. Again, Paul was merely saying, “even if I could do
such things—which I can’t.”
Fourth, Paul stated very clearly that tongue-speaking was a sign to unbelievers—not believers (14:22). Tongue-speaking was to be done in their presence, to convince them of
the truth being spoken, i.e., to confirm the Word. The tongue-speaking
being practiced today is done in the presence of those who already believe that
tongue-speaking is occurring and, when an unbeliever, who is skeptical
of the genuineness of the activity, makes an appearance in such an
assembly, the claim often is made that tongue-speaking cannot occur
because of the presence of unbelief. Once again, the New Testament
teaches the very opposite of those who claim the ability to speak in
tongues today.
Fifth, the recipient of a miraculous gift in the New Testament could
control himself (14:32). He was not overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit so
that he began to babble or flail about. Tongue-speaking today is
frequently practiced in a setting where the individuals who claim to be
exercising the gift are speaking uncontrollably at the very time that
others are either doing the same thing or engaging in some other action.
This overlapping activity is in direct violation of three of Paul’s
commands: (1) that each individual take their turn one at a time; (2)
that no more than three tongue-speakers speak per service; and (3) that
tongue-speakers remain silent if no interpreter is present (14:27-28).
The claim by many today to be able to speak in tongues is simply out of
harmony with New Testament teaching. Anyone can babble, make up sounds,
and claim he or she is speaking in tongues. But such conduct is no sign today.
It is precisely the same phenomenon that pagan religions have practiced
through the centuries. In the New Testament, however, no one questioned
the authenticity of tongue-speaking. Why? The speaker was speaking a
known human language that could be understood by those present who knew
that language and knew that that particular speaker did not know that
language beforehand. As McGarvey observed about Acts 2: “Not only did
the apostles speak in foreign languages that were understood by the
hearers, some understanding one and some another, but the fact that this
was done by Galileans, who knew only their mother tongue, was the one
significant fact that gave to Peter’s speech which followed all of its
power over the multitude” (1910, p. 318). If and when self-proclaimed
tongue-speakers today demonstrate that genuine New Testament gift, their
message could be accepted as being from God. But no one today has
demonstrated that genuine New Testament gift.
Holy Spirit Baptism
Where does the baptism of the Holy Spirit fit into this discussion?
Today’s alleged practitioners typically associate the expression “Holy
Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak
in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy
Spirit baptism is simply a generic reference to miraculous empowerment.
Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action
is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be
“Spirit-filled.” However, it might surprise the reader to find that the
Bible alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even
technical sense. Just because a person could speak in tongues or work
miracles did not necessarily mean he had been baptized in the Holy
Spirit.
The very first allusion to Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament is
John’s statement: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he
that cometh after me...will baptizeyou in the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11, emp. added). From this statement alone, one might be tempted to assume that Christians in general would
be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But this assumption would be a
premature conclusion. John was not addressing a Christian audience. He
was speaking to Jews. Nothing in the context allows the interpreter to
distinguish John’s intended recipients of the promise of Holy Spirit
baptism—whether all humans, all Jews, all Christians, or merely some of
those in one or more of these categories. Likewise, the exact recipients
of the baptism of fire (i.e., hell) are not specified. However, as is
often the case in the Bible, the specific recipients of this promise are
clarified in later passages.
Just before His ascension, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem
until “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In John chapters
14-16, Jesus made several specific promises to the apostles concerning
the coming of the Spirit—the “Comforter” or “Helper” (parakletos)—upon
them, to empower them to do the peculiar work of an apostle (i.e., to
recall the words Jesus had spoken to them, to speak and write by
inspiration, and to launch the Christian religion). If these verses
apply to all Christians, then all Christians ought to have been
personally guided “into all the truth” (John 16:13), and thus would have
absolutely no need of written Scripture (John 14:26). However, in
context, these verses clearly refer tothe apostolic office.
Jesus further clarified the application of Holy Spirit baptism when He
told the apostles that the earlier statement made in Luke 24:49 applied
to them, and would come to pass “not many days hence” (Acts
1:4-5). Jesus also stated that the “power” that they would receive would
be from the Holy Spirit, which would enable them to witness to the
world what they had experienced by being with Jesus (Acts 1:8). Notice
very carefully that on this occasion Jesus made an explicit reference to
the very statement that John had uttered previously in Matthew 3: “for
John indeed baptized with water; but ye [apostles—DM] shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not
many days hence” (Acts 1:5, emp. added). Jesus specifically and
explicitly identified the Holy Spirit baptism that He would administer
(in keeping with John’s prediction) would take place within a few days,
and would be confined to the apostles.
All one need do is turn the page to see the promise of Holy Spirit
baptism achieve dramatic and climactic fulfillment in Acts 2 when the
Spirit was poured out only upon the apostles. The antecedent of “they”
in Acts 2:4 is “the apostles” in Acts 1:26. The apostles were the ones
who spoke in tongues and taught the people. They were the
recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the
following contextual indicators: (1) “are not all these that speak Galileans?” (2:7); (2) “Peter, standing up with the eleven” (2:14); (3) “they...said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles” (2:37); (4) Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 and applied it to that occasion as proof that the apostles were not intoxicated; and (5) the text even states explicitly that the signs and wonders were “done through the apostles” (2:43). This pattern continues in the book of Acts: “And by the hands of the apostles were
many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (5:12); “the Lord, who
bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to
be done by their hands” (14:3); “what signs and wonders God had wrought…through them” (15:12).
The next direct reference to Holy Spirit baptism consisted of Peter
describing the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10. Referring to their
empowerment to speak in tongues, Peter explicitly identified it as
being comparable to the experience of the apostles in Acts 2. Note his
explanation: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them,
even as on us[apostles—DM] at the beginning. And I
remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave
unto them the like gift as he did also unto us [apostles—DM]…”
(Acts 11:15-17, emp. added). Peter unmistakably linked the baptism of
the Holy Spirit predicted by John in Matthew 3:11, and applied by Jesus
to the apostles in Acts 1:5, with the unique and exclusive bestowal of
the same on the first Gentile candidates of salvation. If the baptism of
the Holy Spirit had occurred between Acts 2 and Acts 10, why did Peter
compare the Gentiles’ experience with the experience of the apostles—rather
than comparing it with many other Christians who allegedly would have
received it during the intervening years? The answer lies in the fact
that the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur during the intervening
years. Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a unique and infrequent
occurrence that came directly from deity.
This understanding harmonizes with additional facts. The great prophecy
of the Old Testament, which made special reference to the coming New
Testament era as the dispensation of the Spirit, incorporated a most
noteworthy expression. God declared, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh” (Joel 2:28). Peter repeated it on the day of Pentecost (Acts
2:17). What did God mean by the expression “all flesh”? Members of the charismatic community insist that “all flesh” means “all Christians.”
They maintain that every Christian can receive the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. They claim that to narrow the application of the promise of Holy
Spirit baptism to a select group of individuals would deprive all other
Christians of the opportunity to receive miraculous power. However,
upon what biblicalbasis may such a claim be made?
Those who claim the presence of miraculous gifts are guilty of the very
thing they condemn—narrowing the expression “all flesh.” Surely no one
would take the position that it means all animal flesh—since animals are not the recipients of God’s spiritual provisions. Nor would anyone contend that it means all human flesh—since
all wicked, disobedient, unbelieving people would hardly expect, let
alone desire, to receive God’s Spirit. Those who agree that the
expression “all flesh” must undoubtedly be qualified to exclude the
animals and the unbelieving will nonetheless insist that narrowing the
meaning to less than “all Christians” is unjustifiable.
To understand the proper meaning and application of the expression “all flesh,” one must examine the biblical use
of the expression. “All flesh” often is used in the Bible to refer to
the bulk of humanity (e.g., Genesis 6:12-13). It also can include all
animal flesh (e.g., Genesis 6:17,19). However, with God’s special
utilization of the descendants of Abraham in His scheme of redemption,
“all flesh” often has the more technical meaning of “all nationalities.”
The primary reason for this specialized use of the expression was due
to the fact that most of the Old Testament was written against the
backdrop of the presence of the nation of Israel. God is certainly “no
respecter of persons” (Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1
Peter 1:17; Acts 10:34-35). He does not favor one ethnic group over
another. However, since His redemptive intention included bringing Jesus
into the world for the benefit of all, someone had to be selected
through whom Jesus’ arrival might be achieved. That man was Abraham
(Galatians 3:8,16) and, consequently, his descendents.
As a result of this circumstance, the Jewish writers of the Bible frequently divided humanity into only two racial
groupings, i.e., Jew and non-Jew (Gentile). For example, in what is
obviously a strongly Messianic passage, Isaiah (the “Messianic prophet”)
predicted the coming of John the baptizer who would prepare the way for
Jesus. He exclaimed: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all
flesh shall see it together” (40:5). The reference to “all flesh” was an
unmistakable reference to the availability of salvation to both Jew and
Gentile in the Christian era, as evinced by Luke’s quotation of the
passage (Luke 3:6). The same is true in another prophecy that Isaiah
uttered pertaining to the coming Christian era: “All flesh shall come to
worship before Me” (Isaiah 66:23). The Jews of Isaiah’s day would not
have been very pleased with Isaiah’s declarations, since they most
certainly would have understood him to be predicting the incorporation
of Gentiles into God’s favor—which the Jews felt they alone enjoyed.
Paul cinched the meaning of “all flesh” in his premiere treatise on
justification by faith. He drew a clear distinction between the two
ethnic categories by first declaring the sins of the Gentiles (Romans
1:18-32) and then declaring the sins of the Jews (Romans 2:1-3:8).
Notice carefully his concluding remarks as he brought the first section
of the book to its climax: “What then? are we [the Jews—DM] better than they [the Gentiles—DM]? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under
sin” (Romans 3:9, emp. added). He then quoted a series of Old Testament
verses, which verified his emphasis upon the two (and only two)
categories of human flesh, using two significant terms: “none” and
“all.” “None” means neither Jew nor Gentile. “All” means both Jew and
Gentile. Then he articulated his grand and climactic conclusion:
“because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”
(Romans 3:20, emp. added). “No flesh” referred to Jew and Gentile. In
other words, neither Jew nor Gentile could be justified by law alone.
“No flesh” and “all flesh” were technical allusions to the two categories of human flesh, i.e., Jew and non-Jew (cf. John 17:2).
Observe, then, that the first recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, as we have seen, were theJewish apostles
on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It equipped them to establish the
church and to write, speak, and confirm inspired truth. The second
recipients of Holy Spirit baptism were the Gentile members of the
household of Cornelius in Acts 10. It convinced Jewish Christians that
Gentiles were fit prospects for the reception of the Gospel, and valid
candidates for entrance into the kingdom (Acts 10:34-35,45; 11:18). So
Joel’s statement, that God would pour out His Spirit on “all flesh,”
applied to the outpouring on Jews in Acts 2 and on Gentiles in
Acts 10. The only other conceivable occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism
would have been Paul, who would have received direct miraculous ability
from God as well. His reception was obviously unique because (1) he was
not an apostle when the Twelve received the Spirit, and (2) he was “one
born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Holy Spirit baptism, then,
filled two unique and exclusive purposes: (1) to prepare the apostles
for their apostolic (not Christian) roles, and (2) to provide divine
demonstration that Gentiles were to be allowed to become Christians.
One additional consideration deserves comment regarding Joel’s prophecy.
If “all flesh” referred exclusively to the Jewish apostles and the
first Gentile converts, why did Joel include “sons, daughters, old men,
young men, servants, and handmaids” in the reception of God’s Spirit
(Joel 2:28-29)? As was typical of Hebrew prophecy, progressive,
sequential, and complete fulfillment would be forthcoming. A prophecy
could possess several features that found fulfillment in a variety of
circumstances. It is apparent, on the basis of the references already
discussed (e.g., Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; 11:15-17), that only the first part of Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The “last days” (Acts 2:17) referred to theentire Christian
dispensation from Pentecost to the Judgment. The outpouring of the
Spirit, therefore, would include more than just the baptism of the Holy
Spirit that was confined to the Jewish apostles on Pentecost and the
Gentiles a few years later. Though the peculiar phenomenon of Holy
Spirit baptism was limited to those two specific ethnic groups (i.e.,
the twelve apostles and the household of Cornelius), additional activity
of the Spirit would include the impartation of miraculous gifts through
the laying on of the apostles’ hands (discussed below). This conclusion
is evident from the fact that no “daughters” or “handmaids” received Holy Spirit baptism on Pentecost. Nor is there any evidence of the occurrence of “dreams” or “visions”
on Pentecost. With the Holy Spirit’s expanded presence in the
instigation of Christianity in the first century came the eventual
impartation of miraculous ability separate and apart from Holy Spirit
baptism. The broadened fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (subsequent to
Acts 2) is seen in the references to Philip’s daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9) and in the occurrence of visions (Acts
9:10; 10:3,10; 16:9). However, these miraculous manifestations, though
included in Joel’s prophecy, were not instances of Holy Spirit baptism.
The common link in the Holy Spirit’s outpouring on Pentecost and the
manifestations of the Spirit thereafter was the baptism of the Holy
Spirit on the apostles—who were the keys to the further distribution of miraculous power in the early years of Christianity.
1 Corinthians 12:13
But what about Paul’s statement to the Corinthians? He wrote: “For in
one Spirit were we all baptized into one body…and were all made to drink
of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Some have insisted that this
verse teaches that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is imparted toall Christians.
Careful analysis of the verse, however, demonstrates that Paul was not
referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was received only twice
in the New Testament (if you omit Paul). If the Corinthians had been
baptized in the Holy Spirit, Paul likely would have worded the verse:
“We were all baptized in one Spirit into one body.” This wording would
have made it plain that their baptism was Holy Spirit baptism. However,
Paul connected “baptized” with “into one body,” and placed “in one
Spirit” before both “baptized” and “into one body.” Did he mean
to say that their baptism entailed being indwelt with the Spirit, or
having the Spirit overwhelm (i.e., immerse) them, or come upon them,
i.e., that the Holy Spirit, Himself, was what the Corinthians had received or been baptized in?
The grammar of the passage provides a decisive and definitive answer.
The word “Spirit” is in the instrumental case in Greek, indicating
personal agency. The personal agent in the passage who did the baptizing
is the Holy Spirit. His baptizing resulted in the placement of the
individuals into the one body of Christ. The verb is aorist, showing
that Paul was referring to a once-for-all act in the past. Wuest
explained: “It is not the baptism with the Spirit or of the Spirit, in the sense that the Holy Spirit is the element which is applied to us. It is the baptism by the Spirit. This baptism does not bring the Spirit to us in the sense that God places the Spirit upon or in us.
Rather, this baptism brings the believer into vital union with Jesus
Christ” (1943b, p. 86, emp. added). The Corinthians were the
beneficiaries—not of the Spirit—but of the Spirit’s guidance or
assistance. They were baptized by the Spirit (cf.KJV, NKJV, NASV, RSV, NIV).
Further grammatical evidence in the context supports this conclusion.
Earlier in the chapter, Paul said that no person could say that Jesus is
Lord “but in the Holy Spirit” (vs. 3). A person could say Jesus is Lord
without being in the Spirit or having the Holy Spirit in or on him.
But a person could not say Jesus is Lord if the Holy Spirit had not
revealed such information about Jesus—as He did by empowering the
apostles to produce written revelation. A few verses later, Paul
pinpointed several gifts that were given “through the Spirit,”
“according to the same Spirit,” and “in the same Spirit” (vss. 8-9, ASV). All three phrases are equivalent, and refer to the Holy Spirit’s action, not the state of being in the Holy Spirit. Paul’s summary of the section verifies that this meaning is intended: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (vs. 11).
In view of these contextual details, one is forced to conclude that in
verse 13, Paul could be referring to no other baptism than the baptism
enjoined by Christ in the Great Commission, i.e., the “one baptism” of
Ephesians 4:5, the baptism which Paul, himself, administered to the
Corinthians (Acts 18:8)—water baptism. The Holy Spirit was the
agent through Whom Christ enjoined water baptism by means of the
preached message. When a person complies with the instruction to be
baptized in water, that person is baptized into the one body of Christ.
Other verses in the New Testament confirm this understanding. Jesus
announced: “[U]nless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus meant what Paul meant, that
when one obeys the teaching of the Spirit to be baptized in water, he is
granted entrance into the kingdom. Paul reiterated this same teaching
on two other occasions. To the Ephesian church, he pointed out that
Jesus gave His life for the church “that He might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). He meant
that an individual is permitted to be a part of the cleansed church of
Christ when he submits to water baptism in accordance with the Holy
Spirit’s inspired Word. Likewise, Paul told young Titus that Jesus
“saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Again, he meant that one is saved (and hence added
to the body) at the point of water immersion, in which spiritual renewal
is extended by the Holy Spirit.
We are forced to conclude that 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not refer to
Holy Spirit baptism (see also McGarvey, 1910, pp. 254-256, and Reese,
1976, p. 76). The two instances of Holy Spirit baptism previously
discussed (i.e., in Acts 2 and 10) stand unmistakably in stark contrast
with the baptism alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:13. The
Corinthian baptism placed the Corinthians into the body of Christ, i.e.,
at their conversion. But when the apostles were baptized in the Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they were already saved. When the
household of Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit, they were not
yet saved and were inducted into the body of Christ only after Peter called for “water” (Acts 10:47-48).
Laying on of Hands
If Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the only instances of Holy Spirit baptism in
the New Testament, how then do we account for the fact that many others
in the New Testament performed miracles or spoke in tongues? If they
were not recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, how did they get the
ability? The New Testament dictates only one other way to receive
miraculous capability: through the laying on of the apostles’ hands.
Only the apostles possessed the ability to transfer miraculous
capability to others. This phenomenon is described succinctly by Luke:
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:17-21, emp. added).
This description establishes two important facts: (1) only the apostles
had the ability to impart to others the ability to perform miracles; and
(2) those other than the apostles who could perform miracles received
their ability indirectly through the apostles—not directlyfrom God via Holy Spirit baptism.
This fascinating feature of the existence of the miraculous in the first
century makes it possible to understand how other individuals received
their supernatural powers. For example, Philip, who was not an apostle,
possessed the ability to perform miracles (Acts 8:6,13). If he was not
an apostle, and he did not receive direct ability from God via baptism
of the Holy Spirit, where, then, did he derive his ability? Luke informs
us that Philip previously received the laying on of the apostles’ hands
(Acts 6:5-6). Likewise, the first Christians in Ephesus were enabled to
speak in tongues when the apostle Paul laid his hands on them (Acts
19:6). Even Timothy received his gift from the laying on of Paul’s hands
(2 Timothy 1:6).
Some have challenged the exclusivity of the role of the apostles in
their unique ability to impart the miraculous element by calling
attention to the admonition given by Paul to Timothy: “Neglect not the
gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Timothy 4:14, emp. added).
Even though Paul plainly declared that the “gift of God” which Timothy
possessed was conferred “through the laying on of my hands” (2 Timothy
1:6), how does one explain the fact that Paul also stated that Timothy’s
gift came through the presbytery (i.e., the eldership) as well? Once
again, the grammar of the text provides the answer. In 2 Timothy 1:6,
where Paul claimed sole credit for imparting the gift to Timothy, he
employed the Greek preposition dia with the genitive, which means
“through” or “by means of ” (Machen, 1923, p. 41; Dana and Mantey,
1927, p. 101). However, in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul included the
eldership in the action of impartation, he employed a completely
different Greek preposition—meta. The root meaning of meta is “in the midst of ” (Dana and Mantey, p. 107). It denotes the attendant circumstances of something that takes place—the accompanying phenomena
(Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 510-511). It means “in association with”
or “accompanied by” (Moule, 1959, p. 61; Thayer, 1901, p. 404; cf.
Robertson, 1934, p. 611). In other words, Paul—as an apostle—imparted
the miraculous gift to Timothy. It came from God through Paul. However,
on that occasion, the local eldership of the church was present and
participated with Paul in the event, lending their simultaneous support
and accompanying commendation. After examining the grammatical data on
the matter, Nicoll concluded: “[I]t was the imposition of hands by St.
Paul that was the instrument used by God in the communication of the
charisma to Timothy” (1900, 4:127; cf. Jamieson, et al., n.d., 2:414;
Williams, 1960, p. 956). Consequently, 1 Timothy 4:14 provides no proof
that miraculous capability could be received through other means in
addition to apostolic imposition of hands and the two clear instances of
Holy Spirit baptism.
CONCLUSION
In light of all the biblical data set forth in this study, certain
conclusions are quite evident. Since there are no apostles living today,
and since Holy Spirit baptism was unique to the apostles (Acts 2) and
the first Gentile converts (Acts 10), there is no Holy Spirit baptism
today. Likewise, there is no miraculous healing today. There are no
tongue-speakers today. The miraculous element in the Christian religion
was terminated by God near the close of the first century. Once the last
apostle died, the means by which miraculous capability was made
available was dissolved. With the completion of God’s revelation to
humanity, now available in the Bible, people living today have all that
is needed to be complete and to enjoy the fullness of Christian
existence (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 4:14).
The alleged miracles and tongue-speaking of today simply do not measure
up to the Bible’s description of the miraculous. They are unverifiable,
ambiguous, and counterfeit. Today’s “divine healing” consists of vague,
unseen, non-quantifiable aches and pains like arthritis and headaches.
But in the New Testament, people were raised from the dead—even days
after death (e.g., John 11:17). Severed body parts were instantly
restored (e.g., Luke 22:50-51). People who had been born blind had their sight restored (e.g., John 9:1). Those lame from birth were
empowered to walk (Acts 3:2). First-century miracles were not limited
only to certain ailments and psychosomatic illnesses that could be cured
through natural means, or by mental adjustments on the part of the
infirm. Jesus healed “all kinds of sickness and allkinds
of disease” (Matthew 4:23, emp. added). No disease or sickness was
exempt in the New Testament (cf. Acts 28:8-9). Where are these instances
today? When has anyone restored a severed limb lost in an accident?
When has a self-proclaimed “faith-healer” raised anyone from the dead?
Where are the miracle workers who have healed the blind, the crippled,
the paralyzed, and those whose infirmities have been documented as
having been in existence for many years (John 5:3,5)? Where are the
televangelists who will go to the children’s hospitals and rectify birth
defects and childhood diseases? Where are those who have ingested
poison or been bitten by a venomous snake and remained unharmed (Mark
16:18; Acts 28:3-5)? An honest searcher for the truth is forced to
conclude that the miraculous age has passed.
But human beings always are looking for something new, something
exciting, and something flashy. They grasp for the attractive and the
appealing, they want the easy way out, and they want something that
makes them feel religious and secure—without having to face up to
personal responsibilities. Hence, there will always be those who,
instead of searching the Scriptures to find out whether these things are
so (Acts 17:11), will simply disengage their minds, their spiritual
sense, and their ability to assess “the words of truth and reason” (Acts
26:25).
Genuine Christianity today consists of simply taking the written Word of
God, and studying it carefully in order to learn what God expects of
us: simple meditation and reflection upon the Word of God—no brass bands
or circus theatrics, no flash of light, or dream, or vision, no sudden
rush attributable to the Holy Spirit. The pathway to heaven consists of
honest, intensive investigation of written revelation, and a life of
diligent self-discipline and self-denial that strives to incorporate
spiritual attributes into one’s life—attributes like patience,
compassion, kindness, humility, forgiveness, honesty, integrity, peace
of soul, joy, and clean, moral living. There are no short cuts to
spirituality. The miraculous is no answer. Even in the first century, miracles were not designed to develop these spiritual attributes.
Certainly, God loves us and has promised to care for us (e.g., Matthew
6:33). But His workings in the Universe and in our lives are undertaken
today providentially through the natural laws that He set into motion.
After the first century, He has not—and will not—violate His own
purposes by interfering with these laws in order to perform a miracle.
In the final analysis, we are under obligation to seek His assistance by
listening to the instructions found in His written Word. Only words
from God, then and now, will equip us and prepare us for eternity. As
Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68, emp. added). Jesus said to the Father, “Sanctify them in the truth: thyword is
truth” (John 17:17, emp. added). When Satan attempted to prod Jesus
into performing a miracle, Jesus said to him, “Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every wordthat proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4, emp. added).
[NOTE: To listen to an audio sermon on this subject, click here.]
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1956 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Bietenhard, Hans (1975), “Angel,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. (1997), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Conzelmann, Hans (1974), “charismata,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).
Delling, Gerhard (1972), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Grundmann, Walter (1964), “angelos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hofius, Otfried (1976), “Miracle,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Machen, J. Gresham (1923), New Testament Greek for Beginners (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Moule, C.F.D. (1959), An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1977 reprint).
Moulton, W.F., A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament(Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition.
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1982 reprint), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. (1900), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Reese, Gareth (1976), New Testament History—Acts (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Ringgren, Helmer (1997), “malak,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Robertson, A.T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Thayer, J.H. (1901), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Vincent, M.R. (1890), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).
Vine, W.E. (1952), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Williams, George (1960), The Student’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), sixth edition.
Workman, Gary (1983), “That Which Is Perfect,” The Restorer, 3[9]:6-9, September.
Wuest, Kenneth S. (1943a), Treasures from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Wuest, Kenneth S. (1943b), Untranslatable Riches from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).