Are Tongues for Today? Part 3
Originally published as a single article: “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” DBSJ 14 (2009). Read Part 1 and Part 2.
The argument from the purpose of tongues as attesting new revelation
The purpose of miraculous capacities in the early church was not limited to the attestation of divine messengers, but also included the attestation of their revelatory message (Heb 2:4). This is not to suggest that miracles were never expressions of divine compassion or that tongues never had a didactic function (see, e.g., Acts 2:5–12), but, as Saucy notes, “the primary purpose of the miracles was as signs of authentication pointing to God, his messengers or spokesmen, and their message, which was the word of God.”1 This seems to be the reason that the term “sign” (σημεῖον) is regularly used to denote tongues. A sign, by definition, is an “indication or confirmation of intervention by transcendent powers.”2 Attention here is on the subordination of the sign to that which it signifies—viz., that God is breaking into the natural order to disclose himself in some way.
Paul makes this point clearly in 1 Corinthians 14 when he notes that the edifying value of tongues is lost unless the tongues either attend or contain prophecy for the church. He writes, “If I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?” (1 Cor 14:6). In short, he regards the existence of signs apart from prophecy (that to which the sign points) as a profitless distraction. And while Paul admittedly allows for the interpretation of tongues to supply the necessary prophecy, he notes that this is abnormal in the church—tongues are normally means of assuaging skeptics (14:22), not conduits for revelation.
Peter echoes this sentiment when he describes the “prophetic word [i.e., Scripture] made more sure” by virtue of the miracle of transfiguration (2 Pet 1:19–20). Commentators are divided whether the verse is describing Scripture as “more sure” than the miracle of the Transfiguration, or as “more sure” because of the miracle of the Transfiguration. In either case, however, our point is made: the role of miracles is subordinate in function to the inscripturated Word. Once that inscripturated Word has been sufficiently attested, the major function of miracles and tongues disappears.
It is here that my greatest concern with tongues comes to the fore. If the foregoing is true, then the continuance of tongues implies either (1) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is inadequately attested or (2) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is insufficient for the needs of the present dispensation (violating the spirit of such texts as 2 Timothy 3:17 and 2 Peter 1:3–4). At best this understanding threatens Scripture’s unique authority and causes people to neglect Scripture in favor of other, more direct sources of instruction and guidance, and at worst it opens up the faith to an unbounded host of non-orthodox additions and emendations.3 It is difficult to see how the continuation of tongues and prophecy can coexist with the doctrine of biblical sufficiency, and even with the first-order doctrine of sola scriptura. And if church history tells us anything, it tells us that the denial of sola scriptura has functioned time and again as the threshold for heterodoxy in the development of the Christian church.
The argument from the purpose of tongues as kingdom markers
In Hebrews 6:5 we discover that the miracles performed by our Lord and by the early church described as the “powers of the age to come.” Dispensationalists have long used this text as decisive in arguing for cessationism—tongues are not for this age, but for the kingdom age, and so we should expect them to be suspended after Christ’s kingdom offer has been rescinded and the kingdom program has been properly adjusted to the present NT arrangement.
I believe this is still a sound argument. However, the widespread popularity of “realized eschatology” that swept through Christianity at large in the 1930s, overtook evangelicalism in the 1950s, and finally penetrated dispensational theology in the 1980s and 1990s, has tended to overturn this argument. As we noted earlier, the newest arguments for continuationism are much less rearward in focus, and correspondingly more forward-looking: tongues are not a lingering expression of an ancient church practice, but an anticipatory expression of eschatological hope. Seizing on the apparent fulfillment language of Acts 2:16–21 with reference to Joel 2:28–32, these argue (1) that the prophecy of tongues in Joel 2 is clearly eschatological in nature, (2) that its fulfillment began in Acts 2, and finally (3) that we should expect this eschatological practice to continue and even to expand in the life of the church as it approaches the end of the age. Many, in fact, seem to regard the eschatological argument for continuationism as unassailable.4 The following syllogism, adapted from Douglas Moo’s similar syllogism with reference to healing, has direct implications for the issue of tongues and prophecy:
Where the kingdom of God is present, tongues and prophecy are present.
The kingdom of God is present in and through the church in our day.
Therefore tongues and prophecy must be present in and through the church today.5
Moo goes on to qualify the conclusion to say that “the presence of the reign of God in and through the church makes miracles of healing possible, but not necessary,” noting that the latter understanding smacks of an “over-realized eschatology” that sees the kingdom present in all of its fullness. Moo concludes that “biblical balance is best preserved if Christians remain open to the exercise of miraculous healings but do not insist on them.”6
Looking objectively at this syllogism, I find the logic impeccable—if the major and minor premises are in fact valid. And it is not surprising that progressive dispensationalists, who have embraced not only the major premise (A), but also (at least in part) the minor premise (B), have begun to cautiously embrace more open views on tongues—there remains little in their system to preclude this.7 But traditional dispensationalism, which holds to a postponed kingdom and thus rejects minor premise (B), is able to deny the conclusion and argue positively for cessationism. In fact, one might go so far as to argue that traditional dispensationalism alone can successfully argue for cessationism.8 Not all, of course, are thus inclined. Robert Saucy (a progressive dispensationalist), for instance, denies that inaugurated eschatology demands tongues, arguing that while the church enjoys some of the spiritual/redemptive benefits of kingdom life, the full manifestation of the physical/empowering benefits of kingdom life remain future.9 Richard B. Gaffin (a non-dispensationalist) argues that tongues belong properly to redemptive history and not church history, noting that the “waiting” church does not have all of the kingdom benefits promised to the eschatological community of the redeemed.10 But while these attempts to maintain a cessationist position are noteworthy, they seem to reflect a bit of arbitrariness in application that is difficult to maintain. I am convinced that by far the most ironclad defense of cessationism lies in the hands of the traditional dispensationalist who sees tongues as expressions of powers of a kingdom in abeyance, as markers of an age still to come (Heb 6:5).
Joel 2 in Acts 2
The scope of this paper does not permit a full defense of the traditional dispensational view of the kingdom. This has been effectively accomplished elsewhere.11 But it does seem relevant to at least answer the specific question of the use of Joel 2 in Acts 2. At first blush Luke does seem to be suggesting that Joel’s kingdom promises are being fulfilled as the newly inaugurated kingdom begins to blossom: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16, KJV). And in continuationist literature, this is regularly assumed to be true without argument. However, as we begin to compare Acts 2 with Joel 2, an astonishing discovery emerges, viz., that none of the details of Joel’s prophecy find fulfillment in Acts 2: (1) the events in Acts do not take place “after the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord”; (2) the Spirit is not poured out on all mankind; (3) dreams and visions do not occur in Acts 2, and there is no clear indication that prophecy occurs either; (4) blood, fire, columns of smoke do not make an appearance, and (5) the concealment of the great luminaries does not occur. In fact, the one miracle that we do find in Acts 2—tongues—is ironically not predicted in Joel.12 As such, we have a great hermeneutical conundrum on our hands. Several options emerge:
Some, particularly of the more covenantal persuasion suggest that Peter has simply recast Joel’s prophecy and that the prophecy is fulfilled in its entirety at Pentecost.13
Some suggest that Peter is employing a combination of pešer techniques and “advance typology” to supply “eschatological application to a present situation” by the “use of text alteration or wordplay by a divinely inspired figure.”14
Some suggest that Peter sees Joel’s prophecy as having an extended fulfillment or multiple fulfillments such that the fulfillment has begun, but awaits completion.15
Some suggest that Peter was simply speaking analogically, that is, suggesting a point of similarity between the events predicted in Joel 2 and the events occurring in Acts 2—viz., the supernatural outpouring of pneumatological powers. In this case there is no fulfillment at all, only a point of similarity.16
I am convinced that fidelity to the plain, unalterable, and infallible text of the OT makes the first two options not only implausible, but incompatible with inerrancy. The third might be plausible if only there were at least one piece of the Joel prophecy actually fulfilled in Acts 2. In view of the fact that this is not the case, I am convinced that the analogical understanding of Peter’s language is to be preferred. In this case, the exercise of tongues in Acts 2 is not to be associated with the arrival of the kingdom, but is, instead, a kingdom marker, that is, a signal of a shift in God’s kingdom program that heretofore had been a mystery. As such, tongues in Acts functioned in the absence of the completed Word of God to confirm, specifically (but not exclusively) to the Jews, the viability of the dramatic change in how a believer is to rightly relate with God in view of the dissolution of sacrifices, the setting aside of the Law, the unfolding of God’s new dispensational vehicle, the church, and the unlikely inclusion of Gentiles in that body. All these changes, which a Jew would naturally view with a skeptical eye, merited proof from God that they were, indeed, legitimate changes—proof that a shift in God’s kingdom program had truly occurred. And this proof came, very often, in the form of glossolalia.
Editor’s note: the conclusion of this series will discuss tongues and the church.
Notes
1 Robert L. Saucy, “Open but Cautious,” p. 106. Saucy goes on to observe that tongues are not employed in the book of Acts to attest teachers, but only prophets, that is, those who served as direct spokesmen for God as the “first witnesses” of Christ (p. 109).
2 BDAG, s.v. “σημεῖον” p. 920.
3 I would be remiss at this point to ignore the protests of conservative continuationists, many of whom cling tenaciously to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible. Wayne Grudem, for instance, argues that the allowance of miraculous gifts in the church today need not conflict with “a strong affirmation of the closing of the New Testament canon (so that no new words of equal authority are given today), of the sufficiency of Scripture, and of the supremacy and unique authority of the Bible in guidance” (Gift of Prophecy, p. 18). These doctrines may be maintained by a continuationist, he affirms, if we recognize that, unlike OT prophecies, “prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority but was simply a very human—and sometimes partially mistaken—report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.” By thus assigning fallibility to modern-day revelations, prophecies, and by extension tongues, Grudem ostensibly safeguards the priority of the biblical record.
To me this explanation creates a great number of problems (e.g., an inexplicable dichotomy between OT and NT prophecy; renegade, non-authoritative, private revelations that are divine in origin, but which are also unverifiable and potentially untrue; etc.) and solves none. Grudem’s protests notwithstanding, it seems impossible to integrate Grudem’s continuationism with his affirmation that “Scripture contains all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 127). For a thorough rebuttal of Grudem see Waldron, To Be Continued? pp. 61–79; F. David Farnell, “Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets? A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis,” TMSJ 2 (Fall 1991): 157–81.
4 See, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 822–26; Craig Keener, Gift and Giver, pp. 52–57, 96–98; Douglas A. Oss, “The Pentecostal/ Charismatic View,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? 266–73; Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), pp. 224–25; Graham A. Cole, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), p. 255.
5 Douglas J. Moo, “Divine Healing in the Health and Wealth Gospel,” TrinJ 9 (Fall 1988): 197.
6 Ibid., pp. 197–98.
7 See, e.g., Ryrie’s prediction of this in his Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 177; also Bruce A. Baker, “Progressive Dispensationalism & Cessationism: Why They Are Incompatible,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 8 (Spring 2004): 55–88.
8 Moo makes this very point in his article, albeit in a somewhat backhanded way. He notes that [traditional] dispensationalists “should not necessarily expect divine healing in our day because the kingdom is not, in fact present.” Moo dismisses this view, however, as out of step with the evangelical consensus that the kingdom has been inaugurated, and concludes, “The kingdom is indeed present in our day, and we should expect to see signs of that kingdom” (Moo, “Divine Healing,” p. 197).
9 “An Open but Cautious Response to Douglas A. Oss,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? pp. 302–4.
10 “A Cessationist Response to Douglas A. Oss,” in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? pp. 285ff.
11 I recommend Alva J. McClain’s The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1959) as the best exemplar here. While McClain’s view of the kingdom differs (sometimes significantly) from the understanding that emerged from the Dallas school of theology (e.g., titles by Chafer, Walvoord, and Pentecost), they resonate together in placing the Messianic kingdom in the future. The mystery “form” of the kingdom advocated by the latter group is not to be confused with the already/not yet understanding of the progressive dispensationalist view of the Messianic kingdom.
12 In Roy Beacham’s excellent summary of this passage, he concludes sagely the “time, substance, and referents” of the fulfillment are all wrong—nothing matches! (“The Analogical Use of Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:15–21: A Literal Approach,” in The Holy Spirit: Bible Faculty Leadership Summit [Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998], pp. 109–10) .
13 E.g., John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), p. 73.
14 E.g., Daniel J. Treier, “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28–32: A Multiple Lens JETS Approach,”40 (March 1997): 18.
15 E.g., Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 112ff; Walter C. Kaiser, Back to the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), p. 43.
16 See. e.g., Beacham, “Use of Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:15–21”; Thomas D. Ice, “Dispensational Hermeneutics,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 41. For a helpful hermeneutical discussion of this use of fulfillment language in the NT, see Charles H. Dyer, “Biblical Meaning of ‘Fulfillment,’” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp. 57–69.
Mark Snoeberger has served as Director of Library Services at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1997, and as a part-time instructor here since 1999. Prior to coming on staff at DBTS, he served for three years as an assistant pastor. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from DBTS in 1999 and 2001, respectively. Dr. Snoeberger earned the Ph.D. in systematic theology in 2008 from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. He provides pulpit supply for area churches on an active basis and teaches in the Inter-City Bible Institute. He and his wife, Heather, have two sons, Jonathan and David.
- 116 views
As a fellow cessationist, I’m confused by the “kingdom marker” position. Perhaps you can straighten me out. You wrote:
“I am convinced that by far the most ironclad defense of cessationism lies in the hands of the traditional dispensationalist who sees tongues as expressions of powers of a kingdom in abeyance, as markers of an age still to come (Heb 6:5).”
But can a marker deny the thing it marks?
Do I misunderstand? To me, it seems the “kingdom marker” argument is counter-intuitive. Are we saying that God used kingdom powers to show the kingdom was in abeyance? Was He using an aspect of the kingdom to show the kingdom itself wasn’t here? Isn’t that counter-intuitive? Can it really be that God was using tongues, which you say was a kingdom marker, to display to 1st Century Jews that His kingdom was not present? Why would God prove His kingdom is in abeyance by miraculously displaying one of its markers?
Based on this logic, I might be tempted to see cessationism as more than a bit contradictory, and wish to embrace continuationalism, unless we want to claim dispensationalism is our hermeneutic.
Why wouldn’t a Jew, who is looking for the miraculous kingdom based on the OT prophecies, assume that the miracle of tongues actually showed him the church is a manifestation of the promised kingdom?
Further, why should tongues cease through out the church age if they actually prove to the Jews that the promised Jewish kingdom is not yet here?
And now that the canon is complete, is it too a kingdom marker that shows the kingdom is not here?
[Snoeberger] the exercise of tongues in Acts 2 is not to be associated with the arrival of the kingdom, but is, instead, a kingdom marker, that is, a signal of a shift in God’s kingdom program that heretofore had been a mystery. As such, tongues in Acts functioned in the absence of the completed Word of God to confirm, specifically (but not exclusively) to the Jews, the viability of the dramatic change in how a believer is to rightly relate with God in view of the dissolution of sacrifices, the setting aside of the Law…So I think the logic is not so much “tongues were a signal that the kingdom is postponed” as “tongues were a marker of a shift in the kingdom scheme of things” … but it does still seem a little fragile.
(On this point, I personally think Saucy and Gaffin’s solutions draw lines that are less crisp and sharp but more sturdy.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Mark Snoeberger] If the foregoing is true, then the continuance of tongues implies either (1) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is inadequately attested or (2) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is insufficient for the needs of the present dispensation (violating the spirit of such texts as 2 Timothy 3:17 and 2 Peter 1:3–4).The if/then either/or statements are set up to assure a certain outcome which makes any continuance of tongues under any circumstances impossible. I would add a third possibility.
The continuance of tongues implies that although Scripture is adequately attested and sufficient for the present age it is not available or accessible to all people. It is in missionary encounters in Cornelius-type situations that we should not be surprised to find the exercise of tongues which have nothing to do with the fake tongues “movements” of our day.
[Mark Snoeberger] I am convinced that by far the most ironclad defense of cessationism lies in the hands of the traditional dispensationalist who sees tongues as expressions of powers of the kingdom in abeyance, as markers of an age still to come (Heb 6:5).This is probably correct. If traditional dispenationalism [with its offer and rejection of the kingdom and with the kingdom now in abeyance] was clearly supported by Scripture then adopting this lens nicely dispenses with tongues. However traditional dispensationalism finds fewer and fewer proponents [which is not in itself a gauge of its veracity] and its kingdom position is due to the adoption of a hermeneutical system which is not unassailable. Since traditional dispensationalism is not “ironclad” neither is its defense of cessationism.
[Aaron Blumer] I think the logic is not so much “tongues were a signal that the kingdom is postponed” as “tongues were a marker of a shift in the kingdom scheme of things” .So tongues pointed to the church as some kind of kingdom shift?
If that is Mark’s point, my question still remains, can a marker deny the thing it marks?
The point dissolves into continuationism - the new kingdom is here - and hey - tongues marks it.
This is why, if I understand rightly, Mark’s argument that tongues is a kingdom marker is an argument for continuationism.
As for Steve’s… this is an angle on the question that is somewhat new to me and I do find it interesting.
Steve, are there sources you can link us to for digging into that “third possibility” in more detail?
My impression is that the kind of continuationism you are describing is significantly different from what Piper and others have articulated.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
(1) That miracles are “signs of the coming age” argues that they are not signs of the present age. In view of this, while I accept Moo’s syllogism as logically valid, I don’t accept on exegetical grounds his minor premise (that the Kingdom is present in and through the church in our day)—if it’s still coming, then it’s not here.
(2) That the readers had “tasted” these gifts argues, however, that a foretaste of Kingdom life had been experienced in the first century (cf., e.g., Matt 12:28).
The task, then, is to develop a model that incorporates these two key points and accounts for all the miracles that occur in the Gospels and in Acts. To me the best solution is to say that the miracles, in general, are somehow associated with God’s Kingdom program and that, specifically, they mark not only the presence of the kingdom, but also mark such details as (a) Christ’s offer of the kingdom and also (b) the legitimacy of the progressively revealed mysteries of the kingdom. As such, once the offer is withdrawn and the mysteries confirmed, the miracles exhaust their function for the NT era.
I’ll concede that the model is a bit unwieldy, but it seems to make sense of all the data.
MAS
The position that tongues persist today only in closed-access missions contexts I would say is the most biblically sensitive of all the continuationist models. It preserves the identity of tongues as genuine languages, retains something of an attesting function, and parallels to a degree the first-century setting. All that being said, however, I still have some doubts—in no particular order, and not all apply equally to everyone who holds to a variation of your proposal:
(1) The primary point of tongues is not to communicate divine truth, but to attest to the validity of revealed truth in the absence of a more authoritative source of attestation (so 2 Peter 1—the miracle of the Transfiguration faded once it has corroborated the message).
(2) The attestation seems to come specifically to those who lived in the era of insufficient NT Scriptures—those for whom no NT Scriptures existed—not merely for those who don’t have access to them (cf., in principle, Luke 16:29-31).
(3) Once the Scriptures are given in all their sufficiency, the normative pattern seems to be Romans 10—faith comes by hearing the Word of God from those sent to proclaim it.
(4) The perceived need for tongues in missions contexts often (though not always) rests on dubious theological foundations, e.g., (a) that the Scriptures are not self-attesting, (b) that people are “out there” seeking God and God must step in with extraordinary means to help them directly because the Church has failed to carry out the Great Commission, etc.
In short, I’m not sure that the closed-access missions contexts today equate to the first century context.
MAS
[Aaron Blumer] As for Steve’s… this is an angle on the question that is somewhat new to me and I do find it interesting.This article might be a good place to start.
Steve, are there sources you can link us to for digging into that “third possibility” in more detail?
My impression is that the kind of continuationism you are describing is significantly different from what Piper and others have articulated.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1996Modern.htm
[Mark Snoeberger] Steve,Mark.
The position that tongues persist today only in closed-access missions contexts I would say is the most biblically sensitive of all the continuationist models. It preserves the identity of tongues as genuine languages, retains something of an attesting function, and parallels to a degree the first-century setting. All that being said, however, I still have some doubts—in no particular order, and not all apply equally to everyone who holds to a variation of your proposal:
(1) The primary point of tongues is not to communicate divine truth, but to attest to the validity of revealed truth in the absence of a more authoritative source of attestation (so 2 Peter 1—the miracle of the Transfiguration faded once it has corroborated the message).
(2) The attestation seems to come specifically to those who lived in the era of insufficient NT Scriptures—those for whom no NT Scriptures existed—not merely for those who don’t have access to them (cf., in principle, Luke 16:29-31).
(3) Once the Scriptures are given in all their sufficiency, the normative pattern seems to be Romans 10—faith comes by hearing the Word of God from those sent to proclaim it.
(4) The perceived need for tongues in missions contexts often (though not always) rests on dubious theological foundations, e.g., (a) that the Scriptures are not self-attesting, (b) that people are “out there” seeking God and God must step in with extraordinary means to help them directly because the Church has failed to carry out the Great Commission, etc.
In short, I’m not sure that the closed-access missions contexts today equate to the first century context.
If you’re “not sure” then maybe you’re more open than I thought to this proposal. Neither of us has absolute certainty about the correctness of our positions. But it’s good that we can challenge and be challenged.
I think there is a good argument to be made from I Corinthians 13:8-12 for the use of gifts in pioneer missionary encounters. The gifts primarily functioned in the life of the church during its infancy. This passage treats the coming of the perfect and the passing of the partial. I’m not arguing here for a particular position of “that which is perfect” although even at the coming of Christ we will not have prefect knowledge. The comparison is between infancy and maturity. The gifts mentioned here belong to infancy. We should not expect to find them operative where biblical Christianity has taken root.
In the early church the gifts became no longer necessary. When that took place we don’t know. Some might argue for the final writing of Scripture by John in Revelation or when the canon was completed/recognized/available? And did the cessation of gifts take place every place at the same time? We don’t know, at least I don’t. However it is doubtful that all prophetic utterances, all exercise of tongues, all words of knowledge ceased immediately at the same time in every place. We would expect a gradual non-necessity and diminishing of these gifts as churches matured and were made aware of the God’s completed and sufficient Word. This is why I can oppose the counterfeit movements while allowing God to work in accordance with early church patterns in similar situations.
We do not have to accept every claim to the supernatural exercise of gifts as authentic, surely not where the accessible Word of God can be proclaimed as the sole authority for faith and practice. Neither do we need to fear that God may work in ways that we may never, need never experience. I have no expectation to speak in tongues here in the West. Yet I have no reason biblically to doubt that tongues might be exercised missiologically in situations of encounter and stages of infancy which parallel the first century context.
The phrase “the powers of the age to come” at Heb. 6;5 appears to be referring to our salvation based on the principle of the New covenant Spirit outpouring. Miracles, tongues, or markers, do not appear to be the subject. Hebrews 6:5 does not appear to be referring to miracles but to the future kingdom blessings of the Spirit that is connected with our salvation now and received in part or in principle now. The Kingdom is yet future. We should pray for its coming (Matt.6:9-13). It is to be visible and authoritative over all.
I wrote a 47page paper on this subject for George Ladd. Fortunately, he read it on one of his sober days and gave me a good grade though writing his differences all over the paper. Progressive Dispensationalists have given in to a kingdom view similar to Ladds. He viewed his view as non Dispensational.
To me there is a clear and certain way of understanding the reasons why tongues, miracles, and prophecy ceased. This has to do with the Jewish nature of revelation and the Messiah, the Jewish nature of the Apostles, the qualifications and nature of the Apostles of Christ, and the fact that such signs and wonders are connected with the Apostolic establishment of the NT assembly.
With the passing of the Apostles of Christ we have the passing of the authentication of revelation and the Gospel of the Jewish Messiah Rom. 3:1-2; Acts 1:20-26; 2Cor.12:11-12; Heb. 2:1-4; 1Cor. 12-14).
1 Cor. 12-14 is the clear teaching passage regarding the temporary nature of tongues, prophecy, and the temporary knowledge they give.. The partial passes as the child grows up and the more complete (not perfect) comes. This will happen when we, the church, are pursuing love, which trumps gifts, and when faith ,hope, and love are remaining in the church. There is no mention of the return of Christ or His person or presence in the context. The subject is the temporary which is immature in light of the more complete which the church shall have now. They are going to pass while the churches are in ministry. Some very good scholars have spoken and written as to this passage teaching cessationism. The greater biblical context is the Apostolic ministry.
I have stated some of this in my posts regarding part 2 of this series. My posts were probably too long and not clear or concise enough. I shall attempt to put it all together in a more clear and concise outline form.
I may have some disagreement on this passage with Mark Snoeberger . However, I am in agreement with his position and many of his arguments. I appreciate his efforts very much.
However, this meaning of powers in Hebrews 6:5 is by no means certain, and better alternatives have been suggested, such as healings (c.f. Heb. 2:3-4). Healing did in fact mark out the kingdom of God, but not tongues. Let me explain.
Healings accurately reflected the glorious ministry of Jesus Christ, who went about healing (c.f. Luke 6:19, Acts 10:38). From His perspective, they were an indisputable marker of His kingdom (Mat. 11:4-5, Mat. 12:28, Acts 3:6). In opposition to healings, tongues didn’t in any way reflect His ministry, or His Kingdom. He did not speak in tongues, nor did He instruct the apostles, representative of His kingdom, to do the same while He was among them.
In other words, tongues were not a marker of the kingdom He brought. The “tongues as kingdom marker” argument needs to be dropped. In so doing we will better understand why cessationism is the Bible’s own position.
Tongues reflected the truth that the glorious gospel of salvation is now for all peoples in the church age without the mediation of national Israel (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46). This was the very lesson the Jewish believers in Jerusalem at first struggled with (Acts 11:1-2, Acts 11:17-18).
One other point.
Our cessationism rests on a close and careful reading of the text, and will outlast the continuationist position for this very reason. We just need to be consistent. Mark writes “tongues are normally means of assuaging skeptics (14:22), not conduits for revelation.” This sentence continues two popular misunderstandings of tongues that need to be put to rest in order for us to provide a cogent biblical understanding of the spiritual gift of tongues.
First, tongues didn’t “assuage critics,” but was sign of judgment on the Jews; instead it judged them. Paul’s inspired use of Isa. 28:11-12 in 1 Cor. 14:21 delineates this judgment: “and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” This judgment called tongues helps establish our point that the kingdom promised to the Jews awaits a future fulfillment. At present the nation is under judgment, but they are not forgotten. God was still showing individual Jews, through tongues, His intense judgment to their nation in a way they could “back track.” Through the use of Isa. 28:11-12, God was using tongues to show the Jews that their present judgment was analogous to the Babylonian captivity, in which the Jews heard a men of strange tongues (Babylonian speech) speaking to them of their God’s judgment. Therefore, through tongues, God was providing a sign to Jews to repent, leave the apostate nation, trust in the Messiah, and join the Church.
Second, and by far the more common misunderstanding, the spiritual gift of tongues certainly was a conduit of revelation: “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries” (1 Corinthians 14:2). Tongues speakers spoke “mysteries.”
“Mysteries” are revelatory by definition and practice (1 Cor. 2:7) and like the spiritual gift of prophecy, revealed previously unrevealed truth (1 Cor. 13:2, 1 Cor. 15:51, Eph. 3:4-5). Prophecy was a more efficient means of sharing revelatory truth with the congregation than tongues, and was thus to be preferred by the assembly above tongues (1 Cor. 14:1). But tongues was definitely revelatory, and as such, extremely authoritative. So authoritative, in fact, that no continuationist is willing to grant them their original force. So let’s not join them them in their “dissing” of 1st Century tongues. The continuity position, at every level, tames the real gift of 1st Century tongues to something so lame it is unrecognizable from a biblical view point.
So let’s not try to cede our continuationist friends ground needlessly!
Tongues are not a part of the kingdom, as they would claim, nor did they mark the kingdom.
Tongues were authoritative revelation, not something less. As revelation from God, they were to be obeyed asthe word of God.
Let’s respectfully grant tongues their proper 1st Century context. The practice started on the birthday of the church, not in the “inbreaking of the kingdom” – the ministry of Jesus. This kingdom was rejected by the nation’s leaders and will be restored at a later time (c.f. Acts 3:21). Tongues only ever belonged in the church (not the kingdom), and served an important 1st Century function. They were a means of revelation to people of differing nationalities that God was now accepting men apart from Israel, for He was speaking revelatory NT mysteries to them in their native languages. They also served a purpose of judgment on the nation of Israel, condemning unbelief, while simultaneously displaying that God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (Romans 11:2).
[Ted Bigelow] Tongues were authoritative revelation, not something less. As revelation from God, they were to be obeyed asthe word of God.Ted:
You quote I Cor. 14:2 to show that mysteries were revelation. However the verse also states that the speaker is not speaking to men and that no one understands them. I don’t see how mysteries that no one understands can be authoritative revelation. Something else is going on here. Perhaps a bit of sarcasm on Paul’s part? And of course many interpreters see a difference between the tongues at Corinth (ecstatic speech) and languages in Acts. Were you limiting the revelation to tongues in Corinth or in Acts also? Of the three historical occurrences of tongues in the Book of Acts I fail to see authoritative revelation. Is that what Cornelius was doing - giving revelation that needed to be obeyed? I think tongues as revelation is not a “clear and careful reading of the text” and does not support a cessationist reading. I see how you get there but it’s a tortuous path.
[Mark Snoeberger] In short, I’m not sure that the closed-access missions contexts today equate to the first century context.
[Steve Davis]I too noticed this disqualifying statement by Snoeberger. And like a mouse in a peanut butter factory, Steve Davis was happy to seize it.
Mark.
If you’re “not sure” then maybe you’re more open than I thought to this proposal. Neither of us has absolute certainty about the correctness of our positions. But it’s good that we can challenge and be challenged.
Your article began with the expectation of a conclusion and if it offers one it certainly now must battle with this statement of uncertainty or was this simply specious diplomacy that needs to be withdrawn and a statement of certainty submitted?
Because if indeed it is the case that you are “not sure” you offer nothing more than the continutionists. And I must say this wasn’t the tenor of first 2 articles and even not this one.
I am also still interested in this banner argument of Steve Davis’ with regard to the hermenuetic and theology that justifies reducing the context of Cornelius to the novel point that if we can find a scenario today that contains enough similar elements but not all the elements of Cornelius’ context, as Davis asserts, the view that there is biblical allowance for the continued use of apostolic supernatural sign gifts in such tailored contexts is permissible.
[Alex Guggenheim]Mouse in a peanut butter factory! I would’ve expected cheese but I love peanut butter! However you certainly make too much of Mark’s “not sure.” He has presented fine articles presenting his position and to arouse the specter of “specious diplomacy” goes too far. Maybe you should be the one to withdraw your statement. Or maybe not everyone is as sure as you are about things which are unsure.[Mark Snoeberger] In short, I’m not sure that the closed-access missions contexts today equate to the first century context.[Steve Davis]I too noticed this disqualifying statement by Snoeberger. And like a mouse in a peanut butter factory, Steve Davis was happy to seize it..
Mark.
If you’re “not sure” then maybe you’re more open than I thought to this proposal. Neither of us has absolute certainty about the correctness of our positions. But it’s good that we can challenge and be challenged.
Commenting on 1 Cor. 14:2, you write: “I don’t see how mysteries that no one understands can be authoritative revelation.”
Well, of course we know God understands the tongue! But Paul is here referring to the practice of uninterpreted tongues in the church service. People in the worship service were speaking a tongue privately, to themselves, and not praying for interpretation. They needed, and received in 1 Corinthians 14, instruction. So did the church as a whole.
Surprisingly to many cessationists, Paul does not disparage tongues in this passage, for interpreted tongues have the same practical value as prophecy: “greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, *unless he interprets,* so that the church may receive edifying (1 Cor. 14:5). There isn’t any sarcasm in the passage at all. It is crucial instruction to an erring church that was utterly gifted.
Both gifts, tongues and prophecy, speak “mysteries.” Both communicate divine revelation with absolute authority. Paul tells us that tongues speakers give “some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching” in their tongues speaking (1 Corinthians 14:6, 1 Corinthians 14:30). All of that overlaps in the realm of speaking gifts, but those things are very authoritative. Hey, if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare for battle (14:8)? The bugle in an army was an authoritative summons to immediately obey the commanding officer. The tongues speaker, speaking without interpretation, is like that indistinct bugle. Everybody in the army goes, “huh?”
Tongues with interpretation is so authoritative it might call the entire church to immediate duty. Don’t fall into the Pentecostal trap and downplay it from the truly spectacular gift it was. They do that becasue they don’t have the real thing.
Yes, many interpreters claim there was a gift of unintelligible tongues, but the Scripture never affirm that position. Look at what Paul writes:
“There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner (Barbarian) to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner (Barbarian) to me. So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church” (1 Corinthians 14:9-12).
Paul is dealing with known human languages in chapter 14, or else these verses lose their implication that it is these kind of tongues that must be interpreted. The church is only built up when the unintelligible human language (a tongue) is interpreted (1 Cor. 14:16-17).
I agree with you that tongues in Acts is not necessarily authoritative revelation. I argued for this point in the last thread on Mark’s previous section to his article.
However, when Paul talks about “speaking in tongues more than you all” (1 Cor. 14:18), he is being literal – more than them all, i.e., the entire church put together. Given Paul’s sober-minded desire to speak 5 words “with his mind” (i.e., prophesy) than speak “10,000 words in a tongue (v. 19), he probably spoke in tongues in numerous missionary contexts.
Discussion