Miraculous Gifts: If They Ceased, When?

Prophecy, tongues and other miracles were a sign that God’s covenant people was no longer ethnic Israel, but was now the Church. Joel 2 was partially fulfilled in Acts 2 and fully fulfilled in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed. The references to the moon turning to blood and the sun being darkened as well as Christ “returning on the clouds” are all references to judgment. Christ was returning to judge Jerusalem and destroy it.

It is likely that the sign gifts were diminishing at that point and then altogether ceased when it was clear that God had completely divorced ethnic Israel as his covenant people which was finalized in 70 AD.

We have Scripture revealing a partial or quasi-fulfillment of Joel 2 in Acts 2. What we don’t have is Scripture telling us the 70 AD temple destruction was the completion of it. In Acts 2, Peter seems to see the beginning of fulfillment of Joel as good news for Israel. In any case, when and where did the rest of the Joel 2 events occur in AD 70?

Paul’s evaluation in Rom. 11 is helpful as well. Paul does not describe Israel in terms of a nation that has been rejected that has another decade or so before the rejection is fully formalized (AD 70). Rather, his view is that they are temporarily sidelined.

Ro 11:1–5 1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. ESV

Furthermore, the basis for His not rejecting them as His covenant people is His own gracious foreknowledge and election, not their conduct.

Most of Revelation is the account of the destruction of physical Jerusalem, the Temple and God’s separation from the Jewish nation. Physical Jerusalem is the “Babylon” pictured in Revelation and even Peter refers to Jerusalem as Babylon. When Christ says that “not one stone will be left upon another,” He was speaking of 70 AD … and he also says that these things will happen in this generation.

Everything in Joel 2 is fulfilled in Revelation and 70AD in the exact same manner as that kind of apocalyptic language was fulfilled throughout all of the Old Testament. Just look at all the instances of “coming on the clouds” or “day of the Lord” or blood moons, etc. They are all forecasts of judgment. The fact that the Temple was destroyed and the manner in which it was destroyed makes it clear that God had ceased to be “married” to physical Israel. Btw, teis geis is translated as “the earth” all through Revelation. However, it is more accurately translated “the land.” This is just one of the reasons that dispensational understanding of Revelation is extremely suspect, thus:

They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell in the land? - Revelation 6:10

Another is the statement in Rev. 1 that these things must “soon” come to pass. Nothing in the DT understanding of Revelation makes “these things” to be soon.

However, God did ultimately fulfill His promises to Israel by bringing the Messiah through them. Paul himself was evidence that Jews were still being saved, but that God’s people had now become the church. God’s promises to Israel were ultimately fulfilled in Christ and the church. However, there is no longer any advantage to ethnicity. At one time, being born a Jew was a major advantage in gaining a relationship with God. But not any more. God is now married to the Church and according to Mosaic Law, once a man had divorced one wife and married another, he could not return to his former wife. Continuing a relationship with Israel and the church simultaneously makes God a polygamist. Returning to Israel after being married to the church would be a violation of His own law. Deut. 24 - God warns Israel that this can happen in Jeremiah 3:1

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. - Galatians 3:16

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. - Matthew 21:43

With all due respect, your last statement is so outside the realities of what Scripture says that I struggle to know where to begin in addressing it. God rejected all kinds of individuals due to persistent disobedience on their part and this is His constant warn to Israel throughout their existence. Are these all false threats?

@ Joshua

God is now married to the Church and according to Mosaic Law, once a man had divorced one wife and married another, he could not return to his former wife. Continuing a relationship with Israel and the church simultaneously makes God a polygamist. Returning to Israel after being married to the church would be a violation of His own law.

Dispensationalists use this polygamist argument also but for their purposes. Reading Jer. 3, God calls and invites the 2 nations back to him despite their spiritual adulteries. God is faithful, He cannot deny Himself. We are like sheep who stray yet he calls us back to Himself.

The Law was “given for man” in this regard (family faithfulness) and it is good, holy, and righteous. God can “marry” whom he wants. To apply “polygamist” to any of His relationships won’t work.

The period of 70-135 A.D. seems to be a good point of cessation in my mind based on the nature of the sign gift of tongues.

In I Cor. 14.21 Paul refers to the “Law” and quotes the relevant part from O.T. The “people” (amin) are Jews. So this sign gift was a judgment of sorts towards ethnic Israel. Paul’s following example of “believers” and “unbelievers” makes no sense because he switches the referents. The example only makes sense if one takes the unbelievers as a *class of unbelievers* namely ethnic Jewish unbelievers.

Reading Jer. 3, God calls and invites the 2 nations back to him despite their spiritual adulteries. God is faithful, He cannot deny Himself. We are like sheep who stray yet he calls us back to Himself.

To reward a disobedient and rebellious people who are covenant-breakers is not faithful. It is actually unjust. It is true that God did not finally divorce Israel in Jeremiah, it did not happen until later… unless you think this was a false threat. God’s faithfulness to judge when the terms of the covenant are not met by man is recognized in several places in Scripture. Nehemiah 9:33 says, “Yet you have been righteous in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly.” Meaning that God was right (faithful) to judge them for their disobedience. All that God does, including judgment is “faithful” - Psalm 33:4. God blesses the faithful and judges the unfaithful: With the merciful you show yourself merciful; with the blameless man you show yourself blameless; with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous. - Psalm 18:25-26

The Law was “given for man” in this regard (family faithfulness) and it is good, holy, and righteous. God can “marry” whom he wants. To apply “polygamist” to any of His relationships won’t work.

God cannot violate His own law. If He could, then Christ died for nothing. God could have just arbitrarily removed the penalty of sin from whomever He wished. He could not do that because He would have then been unrighteous and ceased to be God. Atonement had to be made - without the shedding of blood there is no removal of sin.

1. There is no exegetical reason to take Rev. 6:10 as “in the land” and every reason to understand it to mean “upon the earth.” Only when EPI is used in a temporal sense should it be translated as “in.” Here, with the genitive case, it is used in a spatial sense and should be translated “on, upon.” The phrase ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς appears some 57 times in NA28. I cannot see a single place where it is or should be translated as in the land. It is always translated “on” with very, very few exceptions and never in.

2. Your ipso facto use of symbolism is far too certain and distastefully dogmatic for a subject as difficult and thorny as this one.

3. Few scholars would dispute that A.D. 70 was not prophesied by Christ. Of course it fulfilled Christ’s prophecy that the temple would be destroyed.

4. If Revelation was actually written after A.D. 70, your entire premise falls completely apart. The evidence for a later date is quite impressive and creates numerous problems for those who hold to a perterist or partial-preterist understand the Revelation. After all, you said yourself that Revelation deals with things that are pointing forward in time from its writing.

5. The problem with taking ἐν τάχει in a purely temporal sense is that many of these events indeed have not taken place yet contrary to your use of symbolism at the start. The phase could mean simply that these things are immanent. This is the very next order of business to fulfill prophecy and usher in the actual kingdom reign and the end of the age. It could mean that once the events begin, they will happen in rapid succession. There was no “cloud-coming” of Christ in AD 70. To argue that there was has no support in the text and runs dangerously close to the heresy of Preterism, an outright denial of the literal second coming of Christ to the earth again as He emphatically promised.

6. It is clear that Paul’s picture of the Asian churches was quite different from the one painted by John. If this is true, and it certainly seems to be so, then a late date is far more likely given the state of spiritual lethargy these churches had reached by the time John wrote his Revelation.

7. John would have had to move from Palestine to Asian minor, replaced Paul, and been banished to Patmos over a period of time that is simply impossible.

8. Concerning your last statement, Paul disagrees with you completely. “God has not rejected His people, has He? μὴ γένοιτο is Paul’s answer. This is about the strongest Greek negative he could use. He then says that he is an Israelite! There is even at the present time a remnant according to God’s precious choice. Here he is still talking about national Israel. Paul then asks in v. 11, μὴ ἔπταισαν ἵνα πέσωσιν; They did not stumble so as to be detroyed, did they? Again, Paul says, μὴ γένοιτο. Absolutely not! Paul then tells us that by Israel’s rejection of the good news, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Paul sums up this argument in 11:25 by saying that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Clearly, the words ἀπὸ μέρους + ἄχρι indicates this hardening is to be understood temporally. In other words, it is on a timeline. It is not permanent. Israel has not been destroyed as God’s people. In your view, they are. In your view, Paul’s discussion here makes very little sense. He quotes Isa. 59:20-21a LXX with Isa. 27:9 LXX. A natural reading of Romans 9-11 can arrive at no other conclusion. However, enter that portion of Scripture with extreme theological bias and you are sure to do serious exegetical dancing along the way.

How can you call God’s grace unjust? The salvation of Israel is guaranteed by God’s grace through the act of covenant-making. He remains faithful to His unconditional promise. How can an unconditional promise be broken by a faithful God? לְדֹרֹתָם literally means to their generations or descendants. The descendants of whom? The construction has the 3mp pronominal suffix attached, meaning “their.” Moreover dor is also plural in number. However one understands Paul in Ga. 3, it can not be legitimately argued that the Abrahamic Covenant was not made with his natural seed through Jacob and, it is beyond dispute that this covenant was unconditional and eternal.