DEFINITIONS or What is a Spiritual Gift?

Chapter 1

Descriptive Words

To understand the nature of spiritual gifts we must first look at the words which the writers of Scripture used

to describe them. I Corinthians 12 lists them for us. Each word, it seems, views the gifts from another

standpoint, showing another aspect of their purpose, function, or source. Viewing these terms together yields

a more complete description of the gifts they are describing.

"Spirituals"

In verse 1 the Authorized Version (KJV) mentions "spiritual gifts." The Greek simply reads "spirituals" (ton

pneumatikon), meaning "things characterized or controlled by the Spirit." Spiritual gifts, then, are first of all

things controlled or characterized by the Spirit.

"Gifts"

In verse 4 we find the word "gifts" which translates from the Greek word charisma; hence, our term

"charismatic." The root word (charis) means "grace." So now if pneumatikon tells us that spiritual gifts are

things characterized by the Holy Spirit, charisma teaches us that they are gifts of God's grace. They are not

something we earn or deserve. They are gifts of grace. Regardless of what the term "charismatic" has come

to mean and imply today, there really is no such thing as a non-charismatic gift. All gifts are charismatic;

that is, all gifts are freely given by a gracious God.

This term is used also in Romans 12:6 and I Peter 4:10. (It should be noted that when Paul speaks of gifts in

Ephesians 4:7-8, he employs another term, dorea, which stresses virtually the same truth; i.e., that spiritual

gifts are just that -- gifts, not rewards.) This is further emphasized throughout the first half of chapter 12. For

instance, verse 7 tells us they are given; again in verse 8 is the same. Verses 11 and 18 declare that the gifts

are given sovereignly by the Spirit of God: He distributes them as He sees fit.

With this truth recognized, a basic principle begins to emerge, a principle which we shall develop later in

more detail. We naturally tend to think that a very gifted man must be a very godly man. A pastor, for

example, who is especially gifted in several areas (such as preaching, teaching, leadership, counseling, etc.)

is almost instinctively assumed to be spiritually mature and further advanced in holiness than the "ordinary"

believer. "What else could explain his great giftedness?" we think. The simple fact of the matter is that he

may or may not be spiritually mature. His giftedness really has nothing to do with the question, for gifts are

not given in proportion to holiness or anything else. Gifts are given freely and sovereignly by God to

whomsoever He wills. They are gifts of grace, not merit, and so they are not at all indicative of a person's

sanctification. They prove nothing but that God gives gifts freely. Spiritual gifts are "charismatic" -- gifts of

grace.

"Administrations"

In verse 5 Paul calls them "administrations." The term in the Greek is diakonia, "service," the same word

from which we get the word "deacon," which means "servant." The next fact about spiritual gifts, then, is

that they are services to be performed. Their primary function is for others. Gifts are for serving.

"Operations"

Verse 6 calls them "operations." This is the Greek word from which we get our English word "energy"

(energema). Spiritual gifts are also energizings. It is likely that this word emphasizes the divine energy

enabling us to perform the service. Peter has this very idea in mind when he says to "minister" (serve) with

the "ability" (strength) which God gives (I Peter 4:11). God gifts us to perform service in His strength.

"Manifestations"

Finally, verse 7 refers to them as "manifestations." The Greek word (phanerosis) means "to make visible,"

or "to display." Spiritual gifts, then, are visible displays of service to others. Spiritual gifts are not abilities

given to do something for yourself, alone. That is selfishness. They are visible "services" performed for

others. They are to be exercised in love, Paul teaches in chapter 13, and "love seeketh not her own" (13:5).

Definition

Putting together all these terms, we find that a spiritual gift is a God-given ability to serve the church

effectively. There are longer definitions which can be made, but this seems to say it all. God has graciously,

undeservedly equipped each of us with the ability to minister to others within the body of Christ. A spiritual

gift, then, more than being a possession, is a channel through which the Holy Spirit ministers to His church.

This is the means He has chosen to edify the Church.

Distinctions

Gifts and Gift

At this juncture, some distinctions are in order. The gifts of the Spirit are not the same as the gift of the

Spirit. In Acts 2:38 Peter says to those who inquired about salvation, "Repent, and be baptized every one of

you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

The "gift" (singular) of the Holy Spirit is simply the Holy Spirit Himself. The Holy Spirit Himself was the

promised Gift to all who believe on Jesus. Jesus spoke of this on several occasions. John 7:38-39 records

one such occasion. Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow

rivers of living water." Then John added the interpretive comment, "This spake he of the Spirit which they

that believe on him should receive." John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; and 16:7 also speak of the same promised

Gift, as does Acts 1:4-5. As will be developed later, the Holy Spirit is Christ's Gift to His church, and this is

basic to receiving the gifts (plural) of the Spirit: when we receive Him, we then also receive what He gives;

i.e., spiritual gifts. For example, since I married my wife, I have jokingly told her many times, "what's yours

is mine, and what's mine is mine!" That may be a little one-sided, but you see the principle -- when I

received her, I received also what was hers. All that was hers became mine as well when we became united

in marriage. And the same was true for her. Likewise, when I received the blessed Spirit of God, I received

Him in all that He had to offer. Among the wonderful ministries of the Spirit in the believer's life is the

ministry of gifting for service. This we received when we received Him.

Perhaps it would be helpful to pause here and explain another point in this verse (Acts 2:38). When Peter

said to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" he was not teaching that baptism is a requirement

of salvation. The Greek preposition translated "for" in this verse (eis) carries the idea of "because of."

"Repent and be baptized because of the remission of sins." It's like those posters in the police station, "man

wanted `for' robbery" -- they are not asking for volunteers! They are declaring that someone is wanted

"because of" his crime already committed; he is not wanted in order to commit it! The same is true here; we

are to be baptized in obedience to Christ because of our forgiven sins not in order to gain forgiveness.

Gifts and Fruit

Nor should we confuse gifts of the Spirit with fruit of the Spirit. Gifts are services to be performed for

others; "fruit" speaks of the graces or character traits of a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit

of God takes up residence in a man, He not only enables him to serve, but He also begins to cultivate

holiness, the evidence of which is a deep-seated "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

meekness, temperance" (Galatians 5:22-23). Both the fruit and the gifts are essential. Both are

manifestations of the indwelling Spirit. But the two are not the same.

Gifts and Talents

Finally, a word about talents. What is the difference between a gift and a talent? It is often said that we are

born with certain talents, natural abilities, but when we are born again we are given spiritual gifts -- talents

being natural and gifts being supernatural. It is interesting that such sharp distinction is never drawn in

Scripture. It is often inferred or just assumed, today, but never is it so stated in Scripture. And with all the

facts examined, it seems that this distinction is needless and difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate.

Let me explain. Galatians 1:15-16, for example, declares, in effect, that Paul was gifted to preach at birth.

But that gift, obviously, was not exercised until many years later. To be sure, he no doubt preached and

taught before he believed, but that preaching or teaching received an entirely new dimension when he was

saved. He had the gift (talent) all along; it became "spiritual" when he became spiritual. (A "spiritual" man is

a Christian. This is Paul's terminology in I Corinthians 2:14-15.) His "natural" giftedness (which, of course,

was sovereignly given also) became spiritual simply because he himself became spiritual. Or to look at it

another way, what is the difference between what your Sunday School teacher does each Sunday morning

and what your college professor did for you? The difference is obvious: the teaching of your Sunday teacher,

or your pastor, although that same talent, gift, could be used in a secular classroom, has an entirely different

dimension. That teaching is spiritual and ministers to the church. The talent is the same but has been given a

new dimension and a new capacity -- a capacity for spiritual things. Many a teacher has become "spiritual"

and so gained the ability to minister to the church with the same talent, the same gift, he had all along. That

talent simply became enhanced in its ability to serve the church effectively. It became spiritual. So the

contrast is not absolute; nor are such distinctions necessary. God wisely and providentially equips at birth;

the spiritual dimension is added at the new birth, but the talent itself is basically the same.

An Observation

Before leaving this matter of definitions, one more observation is in order, and that concerns that word

"manifestations." Just what is it that is manifested? What is made visible? It is the Holy Spirit Himself! A

spiritual gift is a "manifestation of the Spirit" (I Cor. 12:7, italics added). This is how the Holy Spirit is seen

-- in the exercise of spiritual gifts. One of the greatest displays of the Holy Spirit is a church in which the

members are exercising their gifts for one another. A church functioning as a gifted body is a beautiful

display of the Spirit. So a spiritual gift is not only an ability to serve; it is the channel through which the

Holy Spirit ministers to the body. This puts the discussion on a much higher level of importance! When you

exercise your gift in the service of other believers, it is to be recognized as the manifestation, the display of

the Spirit of God. God has chosen to minister to his people through us! Few things can match the blessing of

knowing and experiencing that.

So ask the question of yourself: how has the Holy Spirit ministered through you this week? How will He

next week?

The DIVERSITY or

What kinds of Gifts Have Been Given?

Chapter 2

Having come to an understanding of the nature of spiritual gifts, it is good to find exactly what gifts have

been given. In the New Testament, only the apostle Paul mentions them by name. He gives us five such lists.

All the lists are different, so it is necessary to look at them all together. The gifts are found in Romans 12:6-

8 (listing seven gifts), I Corinthians 12:8-10 (nine), I Corinthians 12:28 (eight), I Corinthians 12:29-30

(seven), and Ephesians 4:11 (four). Subtracting those repeated brings the total to nineteen. The following

chart shows them all as they are listed in these New Testament passages.

Romans 12:6-8 I Cor. 12:29-30 I.Corinthians 12:8-10 Ephesians 4: I.Corinthians 12:28

prophecy apostles word of wisdom apostles apostles

ministry prophecy word of knowledge prophets prophets

teaching teaching faith evangelists teachers

exhortation miracles healing pastor-teacher miracles

giving healing miracles healings

ruling tongues prophecy helping

showing mercy interpreting tongues discerning of spirits governing

kinds of tongues diverse tongues

interpreting tongues

Observations

Drawing from these lists of spiritual gifts, an almost endless number of observations can be made. It is

helpful, for example, to notice which gifts appear more than once and in more than one of Paul's epistles.

For instance, prophecy is mentioned in each of the five lists, and it is Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14

that prophecy is most important to the church. The gift of teaching is mentioned in four of the five lists and

in all three epistles. When apostleship appears, it is always listed first. In the three lists in which the gift of

tongues is mentioned (I Corinthians 12), tongues always appear last (along with its accompanying gift, the

gift of interpretation of tongues). Further, the miraculous gifts, such as tongues, healing, and miracles, are

mentioned only in First Corinthians and are found nowhere else in the epistles.

The Key List

It should also be noted that I Corinthians 12:28 is the key list in that it mentions the gifts in order of

importance. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,

after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Since it is obvious that

some of the gifts toward the bottom of the list (such as healing and miracles) were in operation before the

gifts higher in the list (such as apostles), the "first ... secondarily ... thirdly" must indicate order of

importance and not the order in which they were given to the church. This was of greatest significance for

the church at Corinth, for a large part of their problem was that they afforded tongues such a high place of

importance while prophecy and teaching were lost in its shadow -- which problem Paul addresses at length

throughout chapter 14. Virtually the same problem exists today, but it is corrected by this verse alone which

shows teaching to be superior to tongues.

Overlap

A close examination of these lists also reveals some overlap in the gifts. It may be that no two gifts listed are

perfectly identical, but it would be difficult to find any real difference between some. For example, it would

be difficult to demonstrate the difference between the gift of helps and the gift of showing mercy. Both have

the same focus: ministry (service) for others. Again, the difference between ruling and governing is very

difficult to determine. Even if exact identity is not intended, there is still much overlap. This is the case with

the gifts of the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge and the gifts of exhortation and teaching and the

gifts of helps and service. Likewise, the gifts of healing may not be as broad as the gift of miracles, but the

similarity is obvious. Care should be taken not to make sharp distinction where it is not intended.

Complete Lists?

Finally, it is helpful to notice that these lists are not exhaustive. We know that none of the lists by itself is

completely exhaustive because no one list mentions all the gifts. For example, the longest list, I Corinthians

12:8-10, does not mention apostles, pastor-teacher, ruling, etc. So it is not complete. Now if no one list is

complete, should we insist that all the lists together are complete?

There may be other spiritual gifts not so named in the New Testament: hospitality, preaching, prayer, music,

and counseling could all be examples of this. However, it would seem that any spiritual gift not specifically

named in the New Testament would generally overlap with some of those mentioned, only with a different

focus or emphasis. The gifts specified in the New Testament could be considered as general headings under

which any number of specific services could be found. The point is this: you may have a gift not mentioned

by name in the New Testament. Don't let anyone frustrate you by restricting you to these lists. God may

have an area of service for you in His church in another area. If you are wanting to know your spiritual gift,

it surely is good to study these lists at least as general guidelines for areas of service; your gift just may be

one that is specifically named by the apostle.

But beyond that simply look for an opportunity of service which you are capable of filling effectively.

Having found that, you will have found your spiritual gift -- whether or not it is so named by the New

Testament writers.

The DISTRIBUTION or From Whom & To Whom are the Gifts Given?

Chapter 3

In the opening verses of I Corinthians 12, Paul raises and answers another important question. That question

concerns the matter of the distribution of the spiritual gifts. Who gives them? And who receives them? This

dimension of the subject makes it particularly exciting.

The Source

The Holy Spirit

When we speak of the source of "spiritual gifts," it is immediately evident that it is the Holy Spirit Who

gives them. Verse 1 speaks of this when Paul describes the gifts as "things characterized or controlled by the

Spirit." Verse 4 speaks of varieties of gifts all coming from "the same Spirit." Verse 7 describes them as

"manifestations of the Spirit." Qualifying phrases such as "by the Spirit" and "by the same Spirit" are found

through verse 11. The gifts are given by the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity

But that by itself does not complete the answer. A closer look at verses 4-6 reveals that spiritual gifts are a

work of all three Persons of the Godhead. Verse 4 speaks of them as from "the same Spirit," as already

noted. But verse 5 speaks of them as from "the same Lord" (Jesus Christ) and verse 6 as from "the same

God" (the Father). Verse 18 speaks of God giving the gifts: "But now hath God set the members every one

of them in the body, as it pleased Him." Gifting believers is a cooperative work of the Triune Godhead.

The Work of Christ

Ephesians 4:7 and following add a new warmth to this when speaking of the gifts as coming from God the

Son Paul says, "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." He is

referring to a military custom of the day in which the conquering general would come parading back through

his home city, displaying all his captives and spoils of war to the cheering crowd and sharing those spoils

with the people, giving them out freely and generously. This passage pictures Christ returning victoriously

from his warfare with sin at the cross and so giving gifts to us, his redeemed people. "And he gave some

apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (verse 11). Our

spiritual gifts then are to be viewed as prizes from Christ's victory. They are a part of our share in the

blessings of the salvation He secured in His war with sin. This truth makes our spiritual gifts something to

be treasured and greatly appreciated! They are gifts from the Triune Godhead, provided by the triumphant

Christ who died, rose from the dead, and ascended into glory sharing with us, His people, the benefits of His

victory.

The Extent

Next arises the question of extent: Who receives these gifts? All the passages which come to bear on this

subject unite in teaching that all who belong to Jesus Christ are given spiritual gifts. Ephesians 4:7 says,

"unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." Peter writes, "Every man

hath received a gift" (I Peter 4:10).

Paul emphasized this over and again in I Corinthians 12:7 -- "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every

man"; verse 11, "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit dividing to every man severally as he

will"; verse 18, "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him"

(italics added). It seems that God has set out to impress us with the fact that each of us has a gift! Spiritual

gifts are not reserved for pastors or evangelists or any spiritual elite. All of God's people enjoy this blessing!

If you are a Christian, your spiritual gift has arrived! Now you may not have unwrapped it yet (you may not

be using it or enjoying it), but God has given you an ability to minister to the church. You, Christian friend,

have the privilege of being the channel of Divine blessing to others.

Principles

Body Function

One basic truth essential to the function of the church is emphasized here. That is the principle of body

ministry, body function. The church is not a spectator sport, the pastor playing and everyone else watching.

The church's ministry is not intended to be carried out by the pastor or a few people only. Every member of

the body is expected to function in his or her own place of service; for this, every member has been

equipped. That church suffers which depends upon the "professional" ministers only. It is depriving itself of

ministry and blessing. A body can only function well when all of its members fulfill their responsibilities to

one another. This is Paul's point in verses 12-31 of I Corinthians 12 with his detailed analogy of the body --

the ear is to be content being an ear and the foot a foot, and so on.

Christian friend, if you are not serving the church, you are failing as a member of the body! God has

equipped you to serve, and so to ignore that gift is ingratitude, and it deprives the church of blessing. God

has placed you as a member in a body; you must function as such.

No Universal Gift

Another principle which emerges here is that while all have a gift, all do not have the same gift, nor is any

one gift universal. This was a great part of the problem at Corinth, and it is the burden of Paul's argument in

I Corinthians 12:12-31. The Corinthians lacked no spiritual gift (I Corinthians 1:7); they had them all. Yet so

many of them felt that the gift of tongues should be enjoyed by all, which, according to the apostle would

lead only to confusion. Paul asks, "What would the body be like if it were just one huge eye?" (verse 17).

His sarcastic humor is pungent: if that were the case there would be no body at all! To use a modern

illustration, how would you like to be on a football team in which everyone wanted to be the quarterback? I

suppose you could call that unity, and it might make the front page of the sports section, but it would hardly

be a team worth betting on! Every man must fill his own position faithfully or there will be no victory. The

same is true for the church: if all tried to speak in tongues or if all tried to be teachers, there would be

confusion. All the gifts must be in operation for the church to function. So Paul asks "Are all apostles? Are

all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?" (verse 29). The Greek construction in this verse

demands a negative answer -- "no, all are not apostles" etc. All do not have the same gift.

God has distributed gifts as it has pleased Him. He has provided a variety of gifts and a variety of gifted

people for the proper functioning of the church. So do not feel that you are left out simply because you

cannot preach or teach or counsel. It is God's choice that you have your particular gift. He sees that it is best

to have diversity, and for that reason, no gift can be universal, and all cannot have the same gift.

Varied Giftedness

Another question arises here concerning the number of gifts a person may have. Each Christian has a

spiritual gift, but one only? Although each believer may have one primary area of giftedness, probably none

has only one gift. The apostles, we know, were multi-gifted men. They had the gifts of teaching, preaching,

exhortation, prophecy, tongues, discerning of spirits, evangelism, apostleship, healings, etc. Pastors also

must have more than one gift: the qualifications for their office include the gifts of teaching and leadership

and ruling (I Timothy 3:1-5). I Corinthians 12:11 tells us that the Spirit of God "divides to every man

severally as He will." This verb ("divide") in the Greek, appears in its noun form in verse 4, translated

"diversities," verse 5 as "differences," and verse 6 as "diversities" again. It seems that the apostle is telling us

that not only is there a variety of gifts and gifted people, but there is also a variety of combinations of gifts.

Examples of this are seen in the apostles and elders, as already noted. Another is Timothy: II Timothy 4:1-5

mentions his gifts of preaching, teaching and evangelism. Another person may have the gifts of mercy,

giving, and faith, or the like. So when Peter speaks of our gift in the singular (I Peter 4:10-11) it may simply

be viewed as one gift with several facets.

The point, then, is this: don't feel that you are locked in to any one area of service. God equips various

people in various ways. You may be, and probably are, one whom God has enabled to minister in many

ways.

Varied Effectiveness

There is also a varied degree of giftedness which God has wisely bestowed. Even among whose with the

same gifts there is a varied effectiveness. It is most obvious that some are gifted to a greater degree than

others. For example, some teachers are more effective than some others. The same is true of preachers and

every other spiritual gift. God has established this too. Often the greater effectiveness of a certain preacher,

for example, is due simply to his greater diligence in study and preparation. And although it can be argued

that those most diligent and proficient in study are those so gifted, it is nonetheless true that some are more

effective because God has enabled (gifted) them in a more effective way.

Paul affirms this in his epistles several times. For instance, I Corinthians 12:6 says that there are "differences

of energizings." In gifting us sovereignly, God has energized us sovereignly as well, so that some have more

divine "energy," as it were, for the functioning of their gifts. Romans 12:3 and 6 teach the same: Paul speaks

of exercising our gifts "according to the proportion of faith." So, as verse 6 says, the prophet is to exercise

his gift to the best of his ability, according to the proportion of faith given him. Beyond that he is required to

do no more. This is no excuse for laziness -- it is still necessary to sharpen your gifts as much as possible.

We still must "stir up" your gifts (II Timothy 1:6). But this is a revelation of the graciousness of God in

enabling His people in varying degrees and then requiring precisely that but no more.

What God requires from us, He provides for us. But what He provides, He does require.

Serving Apart From Giftedness

But can you minister outside your area of giftedness? Should you? Could you do so effectively? This

question is sometimes asked, but the answer is as simple as it is obvious. For instance, suppose your home

were just burned out, and you were left with nothing, and so you came to me asking for help. What would

you think if I replied, "I'm sorry, but my area of giftedness is teaching, not helps or giving." The question

answers itself -- absence of giftedness does not excuse or relieve Christian responsibility. You men are

responsible to lead your family whether or not you have the gift of leadership. You are responsible to teach

your children whether or not you have the gift of teaching. All Christians are responsible to witness for

Christ whether or not you have the gift of evangelism. You are responsible to give to support the ministry of

your church (assuming it is a church true to the Scriptures) whether or not you have the gift of giving. You

are responsible to promote Christian fellowship, whether or not you have the gift of hospitality. You are

responsible to exhort your fellow believers whether or not you have the gift of exhortation, and so on.

Your gift may be your starting point, your primary area of effectiveness, but do not ever let it detract from

serving or fulfilling responsibilities in other areas as well.

Summary

To sum up this chapter, then, spiritual gifts are gifts given by the Triune God secured by the conquering

Lord Jesus for every one of His people. God has sovereignly and variously equipped each member to

function in his or her unique place in the body. This function is not optional but expected and essential to the

body as a whole. And while no one gift is universal, all within the body are to care for the others in every

way possible. This is God's way of ministering to His church -- not through a gifted pastor only or through

only a few in leadership, but through all the members gifted to serve one another. This is the only way a

body can function.

The DIVISIONS or How Are The Gifts Categorized?

Chapter 4

Various efforts have been made to group or categorize the gifts mentioned in Scripture. Peter seems to

distinguish between speaking gifts and service gifts in I Peter 4:10-11 where he writes, "As every man hath

received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability

which God giveth." Some gifts focus primarily on "doing" and others on "speaking."

In order to serve various teaching purposes, others have attempted to categorize the gifts under various

headings. They would be listed in their categories as follows.

1./Temporary

/Permanent

Temporary apostleship

prophecy

knowledge

wisdom

discerning spirits

miracles

healings

tongues

interpreting tongues

Permanent evangelists

pastor-teacher

teaching

ruling

governing

exhortation

faith

giving

helping

mercy

ministry

2. /Speaking /Serving

/Sign

Speaking apostles

prophecy

evangelism

pastor-teacher

teaching

Serving ruling

governing

faith

giving

helping

mercy

ministry

Sign discern spirits

miracles

healings

tongues

interpreting tongues

wisdom

knowledge

3./Support

/Service

/Sign

Support apostles

prophecy

evangelism

pastor-teacher

teaching

Service ruling

governing

exhortation

faith

giving

helping

mercy

ministry

Sign knowledge

wisdom

discerning of spirits

miracles

healings

tongues

interpreting tongues

4./Foundational

/Support

/Service

/Sign

Foundational apostles

prophets

Service

ruling

governing

exhortation

faith

giving

helping

mercy

ministry

Support evangelism

teaching

pastor-teacher

Sign wisdom

knowledge

discerning of spirits

miracles

healings

tongues

interpreting tongues

Each of these divisions has merit, depending on the purpose being served. The three-fold division

between support, service, and sign gifts is helpful in its distinction between some of the permanent gifts.

Some gifts carry with them particular honor because they are especially vital to the church. These are the

support gifts which focus on the public ministry of the Word. In this sense they support the church. The

other of the permanent gifts, although essential, do not carry such dignity. These are differences the apostle

recognizes and will be developed in chapter 6. Also this grouping recognizes the special significance of sign

gifts -- gifts, chiefly apostolic, which served to authenticate the apostles and their message. This also will be

developed later in the discussion of the miraculous gifts.

The four-fold division of foundational, support, service, and sign gifts further recognizes the important

distinction between the temporary foundational gifts and the other supportive gifts which are permanent,

being a part of the superstructure phase of the church rather than its foundational phase of building.

For the purposes of this study, the simple two-fold division between the temporary and the permanent

gifts will be maintained. It is especially important for us in this day to recognize which gifts are no longer in

operation and which of them are. Part Two of this book will examine the permanent gifts; concerning them

there is little debate today. Part Three will investigate the temporary gifts in some detail.

Whichever method of division is employed, it is important to recognize the differences which exist

between certain gifts. There are differences in function, differences in importance, and differences in

purpose which, when recognized, greatly enhance our understanding of the gifts themselves.

The DESIGN or What is the Purpose of Spiritual Gifts?

Chapter 5

Returning again to I Corinthians 12, notice that the inspired apostle also addresses the question of purpose.

Just why has God given these gifts? What is their purpose?

Of course, the undergirding principle in all that we do is the glory of God. We must exercise our spiritual

gifts in order to glorify God aright. Peter teaches this in I Peter 4:11 when, writing of our spiritual gifts, he

says that they are to be exercised "that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ." Paul had

already written this to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 10:31), but here he becomes more specific. Yes, gifts

are for the purpose of glorifying God, but there is still another, more immediate purpose. That purpose is the

edification of the body of Christ. God is glorified when we use our gifts to build up the church.

This is implied in verse 5 where Paul describes the gifts as "administrations" (services). In verse 7 he says

the gifts are "given to every man to profit withal," or, "for the common good." This term ("to profit withal")

in the Greek is interesting. The root word is sumphero which literally means "to lift up together." God gave

spiritual gifts so that the members of the body of Christ could by them lift up one another, together. (So

while some may act like it, there really is no gift of criticism! The gifts are for building up, not tearing

down!) Ephesians 4:11-12 teach the same; they were given "for the perfecting of the saints unto the work of

the ministry unto the edifying of the body of Christ." Spiritual gifts are designed to edify the church.

Did you ever wonder why you were in the church? Here is one answer: to build the body. You are there not

only to get but also to give. This responsibility does not just belong to the pastor or a few of the church

leaders. Every member is gifted, and every member is then responsible to edify the body with that gift. And

for the whole body to be fully edified, all the gifts are needed. This is part of Paul's analogy in I Corinthians

12:14-31. The body is maimed and hurting without all the members functioning as they should. Imagine a

foot not walking (I Corinthians 12:15)!

Again this was precisely the problem at Corinth. Everyone was out for number one. Gifts were desired to

edify self, or even to display self. Today the same problem exists; many want a particular gift because it

supposedly aids in worship or because some similar personal benefit is derived from it. This selfish error is

the primary reason for chapter 13 in which Paul teaches that love would eliminate that kind of attitude. Love

"seeketh not her own." The purpose of the hand is to help the body, not itself. Likewise, the purpose of

spiritual gifts is the edification of the church. Gifts are "services"; their focus is others, not self.

In verses 20-25 Paul expands on this a bit further. "But now are they many members, yet but one body. And

the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of

you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble are necessary: And those

members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour;

and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath

tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there

should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."

This is his point: if it is true that the gifts are for the purpose of helping others, and if it is likewise true that

all the gifts are needed, then it is also true that all the gifts are important--there are no insignificant or

unneeded members. You may feel that since you do not have the gift of teaching or preaching you are not

important. To be sure, the teaching gifts do carry an honor peculiar to them, but all gifts are important

nonetheless. Imagine the fate of so many Christian endeavors were it not for those behind it with the

(seemingly insignificant) gifts of faith, giving, prayer, or helps! This is God's established means of building

His church. You may not feel that your gift of helps is important; if so, your attitude will change when you

find yourself on the receiving end of the same gift! Viewing them this way gives these gifts "more abundant

honor" (verse 24), and it promotes mutual care and concern within the body (verses 25-26).

Spiritual gifts are designed to edify. Where they do not accomplish this purpose, they are abused, and the

church suffers. And being designed to accomplish this, they all are important. They are important because

they edify.

Some of the gifts have still another purpose. They were to serve as signs, authenticating marks of the

apostles and their ministry. This will be examined in detail later in the discussion of the temporary gifts

(chapter 13).

The DEGREES or Are Some Gifts More Important?

Chapter 6

Having seen that all gifts are needed and essential because they all are designed to edify, let us turn to a

related question which affects our attitude and life in the church. The question is this: are some gifts more

important than others?

Again the answer is both simple and obvious. Extending the apostle's metaphor of the church as a body,

while all parts of the body are important, some are particularly essential, just as the heart, for example, is

more important than a hand. The Corinthians recognized that some gifts were greater: "But you are earnestly

desiring the best gifts" (I Corinthians 12:31; note that since gifts are sovereignly given this statement may be

better understood not as a command (imperative) but as a statement of fact (indicative mood) -- a mere

observation of what the Corinthians were in fact doing). Their problem, however, was that they had the gifts

in the wrong order! The flashier gifts were considered better than the teaching gifts, which problem Paul

corrects at length in chapter 14.

The Evidence

The Primacy of Apostles and Prophets

What gifts, then, are greater in importance? Paul spells out several gifts in I Corinthians 12:28. "And God

hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then

gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." As already observed (chapter 2), the apostle's

use of "first...secondarily...third" must imply order of importance, since no other order would make sense in

the verse. It should be obvious enough that apostleship is listed first simply because it is from the apostles

that we receive Christian teaching. They, along with the prophets, rated second in this verse, are

foundational to the church. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul says that the church is "built upon the foundation of the

apostles and prophets." This is also seen in Matthew 16:18-19 where Peter, as representative of the apostles,

is said to be the rock on which Christ builds His church and the one with the keys of the kingdom. The

apostolic witness to the Person and work of Christ is the foundation of our faith, Jesus Christ, of course,

being the chief cornerstone. Because of this, apostleship and prophecy are greater in importance than the

other gifts which follow in the list.

The Superiority of Prophecy and Teaching

Teachers, those who clearly present the truths of the Christian faith which the apostles have given, are

likewise more important than other gifts which are mentioned later in the list of I Corinthians 12:28, as

should again be obvious. To work a miracle, for example, is wonderful, but it does not meet the basic and

eternal needs of man as does teaching.

Paul continues in this vein in I Corinthians 14. The entire burden of his argument in this chapter is to show

that the gift of tongues, however valuable it may be, is vastly inferior to the gifts of prophecy (verse 1) and

teaching (verse 19), because while tongues may demonstrate vividly the supernatural power of the Holy

Spirit, it is not so useful in the clarifying of spiritual truth which alone reaches and meets man's basic and

greatest need.

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come

in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there

come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart

made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a

truth" (verses 23-25).

The Honor of Eldership

Likewise in I Timothy 5:17 Paul commands that the elders, especially the teaching elders, be esteemed

worthy of "double honor." This unquestionably refers to the elders' financial support (according to verse 18)

but must also imply the attitude of "honor" as we normally understand it. This is clear from his words in I

Corinthians 9:1-14 where, in effect, he states the reason why they are to be esteemed so highly: "If we have

sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" (verse 11). Ministry of

the things of God is worth much more than the material things of this life. Again his point is clear: some

gifts carry with them an honor not true of others.

This is further born out in passages such as I Thessalonians 5:12-13 and Hebrews 13:7 which command

believers to hold elders in high esteem and regard them with great love.

The Explanation

So there is a gradation of gifts, more honor is attached to some than to others. The next question, then, is

this: which gifts are the more honorable, and why? The most honorable gifts are those whose focus is on the

ministry of the Word of God, such as teachers and pastors/elders as well as apostles and prophets. Again,

this does not at all imply that some are unimportant; Paul is careful to make this clear in I Corinthians

12:15ff. All gifts are essential, but those whose focus is the public ministry of the Word of God are

especially important simply because without them the church would collapse. There would be no structure,

no form, no doctrinal framework apart from these gifts.

The Application

Is your attitude reflective of this? Do you show special, "double" honor to those who bring to you the Word

of God? Are the teaching and preaching of the Word of God more valuable to you than material things? And

does it show? This is not theoretical; this is Divine truth to be lived by all of us who belong to Him.

The DURATION or How Long Will They Last? & Can They Ever Be Lost?

Chapter 7

Temporary Gifts?

It really bothers some people to hear that some of the gifts of the Spirit may have been temporary and so not

present today. After all, they think, don't we have every right to expect and enjoy all that the early church

enjoyed? This is just not necessarily so, and it is an assumption which is not supported by the facts of

Scripture. Part Three of this book ("The Temporary Gifts of the Spirit") will examine this question in detail.

Chapter 13 will especially deal with this question.

Temporarily Gifted?

But what about gifted people? Is it possible for a Christian to lose his spiritual gift? Could it ever be

revoked?

Only a cursory glance at the New Testament reveals that some of the miraculous gifts, such as healings,

began to fade out of operation before the death of those who had those gifts. Paul, for example, often

performed healings, but later in his life the ability seems to be gone. This certainly is not because of any lack

of faith on his part, nor would anyone wish to contend that his gifts were revoked because of sin. The gift

itself was a temporary gift, and having served its intended purpose, it was withdrawn. (Again, this is

discussed at length in part three.)

Apart from the miraculous gifts, however, it seems that giftedness is permanent. Perhaps an observation of a

sad but all too common experience will explain. Did you ever hear a preacher or teacher, who was obviously

gifted to a great degree, whose life belied his message? Did you ever, then, sit back and wonder how in the

world he could preach or teach so well and why God did not revoke his gift? It is sad that this abuse of a

gracious gift ever occurs, but keep in mind the basis of that gift: there were no strings attached. There were

no conditions to be met. God simply gave gifts to his people sovereignly, as He willed, and we are left to use

them in accordance with His Word. The problem is that some abuse them and make them a shield for their

less than commendable lives, and that leaves some confused. But remember, God did not give these gifts

only when certain conditions were met or if a certain standard of holiness was reached. Giftedness, as

demonstrated earlier, does not insure holiness. Gifts are not a standard to measure a man's spiritual

condition. Even Judas Iscariot was gifted! Gifts are not for a spiritual elite but for all God's people, even

those who sometimes abuse them. If the gifts were connected with the filling of the spirit, then sin could

cause their demise, but they are not. They are given graciously and freely as gifts of God; they are gifts of

grace, not rewards of merit. (If this were not the case, we can only wonder how many Christians would be

allowed to keep their gifts, and for how long!) This being the case, spiritual gifts cannot be used as a cloak

for carnal behavior!

Romans 11:29 is interesting in this connection: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

God is no "indian giver." His gifts are not subject to recall. Unquestionably this verse is referring to the

nation of Israel and her covenanted blessings, but the principle is the same. God gives freely, graciously,

permanently, and unconditionally, just as He saves. We must not then spurn such grace but use our gifts for

His glory alone.

How Can I Find My Spiritual Gift?

Chapter 8

The Bible plainly tells us that every Christian is given a spiritual gift, some ability to serve the church. But it

is just that teaching that leaves many in a quandry: What is my spiritual gift? This very practical question is a

good one to consider. But sometimes it seems that the answers given only further complicate and confuse

the issue.

Some will say to look down the lists in Scripture in order to discover your gift. The problem with that

answer is that the lists are not necessarily exhaustive; they are not complete, except in general categories.

Some say to pray for a gift, but that cannot be right, for the gifts are sovereignly given, "as it pleased Him"

(I Corinthians 12:18; see also verse 11).

The Process

If you are wondering what is your spiritual gift, the following three steps may be helpful. The first two are

very practical and seem reasonable; the third is the expressed answer of Scripture and so will be examined

more fully.

Examine Your DESIRES

First of all, examine your desires. Simply ask yourself, "What do I want?" If God gifts you a certain way, it

is reasonable to assume that he will with that gift also give you the desire to exercise it. For example, I

struggled a while with the decision to preach, but it was not because I didn't want to preach. Quite the

contrary. I did want to exercise that gift, otherwise there would have been no struggle! But because I felt

unable and inadequate on the one hand and unwilling to endure its attending problems on the other, I had a

struggle. But God gave the desire as well as the gift. You should find the same.

Now be careful! You must examine your motives as well -- they can be deceiving. Your "call to service"

may in reality merely be a desire to excell or to be noticed. This was one part of the Corinthians' problem --

they wanted the gifts which made them noticed and prominent. James alludes to this very problem in James

3:1 where he commands his readers that they should not all try to be teachers. Many, it seems, have wanted

to teach and lead because of the honor associated with such activity. But desire for prominence is not a

proper motive; desire to serve others in the best way possible is.

Examine the EVIDENCE

Next, examine the evidence. Don't be naive like the man who was sure that he had the gift of teaching but

was puzzled why no one else seemed to have the gift of listening! Now certain gifts must be developed,

sharpened; but if the evidence says there is no giftedness, then find another area of service. If you have been

successful in encouraging, comforting, or even patiently rebuking people in the Lord, your gift may be

exhortation. And so on it goes -- simply examine the evidence in light of your desires.

Examine the OPPORTUNITIES

Finally, examine the opportunities God has given you. This is the stress of the New Testament in this regard.

Simply ask what is available. Look to see what is needed. Endeavor to find how you can serve and best

benefit the body. Simply look for a need which you are able to fill.

An Observation

These guidelines just mentioned seem to be in keeping with related Biblical principles. But it is enlightening

at this juncture to observe that the apostle Paul, in all of his discussion of spiritual gifts, nowhere gives any

instruction on how to recognize your gift. He goes to great lengths to let you know that you have one and

that you should use it to the good of the body, but he neither asks nor answers the question of how to

discover your specific gift. This is fascinating in comparison to all the worry over the question today. The

contrast is staggering! Evidently, to the New Testament writers, recognition of your spiritual gift is

relatively unimportant. I say evidently -- it is evident by virtue of the fact that the question is just never

discussed.

An Explanation

There is a reason for this. It may be that the very asking of the question could lead to a wrong answer. Let

me explain. The focus of spiritual gifts is service, service for the edifying of others. Since that is the case, it

would be much more in keeping with the apostle's instruction not to ask, "What is my spiritual specialty?"

but to ask simply, "Where can I best serve?" Within the range of opportunities God has placed before you,

where can you be most effective? What are the needs that face you? And how are you best able to meet

those needs?

To answer these questions is to find your spiritual gift, and it also is a check on your motives.

We have fallen into the error, today, of finding nice, tidy answers to questions which the New Testament

writers neither asked nor answered. The burden of their teaching in this regard was,

1) You have a spiritual gift, and

2) You need to serve and edify the body of Christ with it.

Any and all other considerations are at best secondary and at worst confusing -- in which case they hinder

more than help.

Application

Do you wonder what is your gift? Have you been asking that question in frustration with some of the

answers given you? Then it is time to begin searching for a place of service -- teaching, giving, helping, or

whatever. Having found a place of service which you are able to fill effectively, you will have discovered

your gift. The gift will become evident by your very exercise of it.

The emphasis of Scripture is body function and mutual help and edification. Our emphasis must be the

same.

The DISPLAY or How are the Gifts to Function?

Chapter 9

In the latter half of I Corinthians 12 (verses 12-31), Paul shows vividly how a church should function as a

multi-gifted body. The church is not an organization, primarily, but an organism, a body. The church is to

function as a body -- with all the members cooperating and ministering to the others. The work of the

ministry is not a spectator sport with only a few of the members playing. Each member functions to the

mutual benefit of all.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 the apostle teaches that the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors-teachers

are given to equip "the saints to the work of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ" (italics

added). It is the church in its entirety which is enabled by gifted men to carry out the ministry and build up

the body. It is body function, not just the function of a few members of the body.

Unity

Returning once again to I Corinthians 12, Paul first establishes his point of unity in the body. "For as the

body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so

also is Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether

we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (verses 12-13). The point is simple:

while so different in many respects, we are all members of the same body--many members, one body. That

is unity. We all were brought into this body by Christ when He baptized us in His Spirit. As a result, we all

drink of that same Spirit. We all together enjoy a unity with one another.

Diversity

His second principle is diversity. This is developed in verses 14-20 with the graphic and sometimes

humorous metaphor of the human body. Verse 14 begins the discussion by saying, in effect, that we don't all

do the same thing. A body is not made up of one member but of many, all with different functions. It is one

body with a diversity of members, each with its own function. His illustrations of this in verses 15-19 make

the point crystal clear. Imagine your foot jealous of your hand! Imagine your ear trying to act like an eye!

By the time we get to verse 18 we are ready to agree that God has wisely set the members in the body as it

pleased Him--and as it pleases us! I am quite pleased that my foot is on the end of my leg! So Paul asks, "If

they were all one member, where were the body?" (verse 19). Obviously, there would not be a body! This is

his point exactly. The church is a unified diversity. Like a human body it has various members, each of them

fulfilling its own responsibility for the entire body. He has gifted each member differently so that the body

can function well. It is a diversity within a unity.

Harmony

The result of all this is harmony. In a body unified and functioning diversely by the same Spirit there will be

harmony. This is Paul's point in verses 21-26.

Mutual Function

First of all this diverse unity produces a mutual function. "The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need

of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you" (verse 21). A body cannot walk well with one

foot. The two must work together. Or did you ever try to tie your shoe with one hand? Did you ever see a

church in which the ministry is expected to be carried out by the pastor only? There must be mutual function

in the body. All the various members working together for the edifying of the body. This is harmony.

Mutual Importance

There is also found in this a mutual importance. "Those members of the body which seem to be more feeble

are necessary" (verse 22; see verses 21-24). Of what use would be your leg without your foot? Limited, at

best, right? That is what happens to a church when a member refuses to fulfill his part of the ministry. The

church would be limited; a part of its body would not be functioning. The exercise of your gift is imperative.

Failure to exercise it is a crime against your brethren.

Further, an understanding of this eliminates pride on the one hand and jealousy on the other. It forces us to

realize that any ability we have is only given to us -- no matter how insignificant may seem your gift, it is

important for the functioning of the body -- that eliminates jealousy. With this there is harmony; without

this, there is "schism in the body" (verse 25).

Mutual Affection

Third, a proper display of spiritual gifts, this diverse unity, produces mutual affection. Did you ever get your

little finger caught in a door? Did you ever stub your little toe? Did it hurt only those little members, or did it

hurt the entire body? It almost hurts to think about it -- the whole body hurts! "Whether one member suffer,

all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it" (verse 26). This

is mutual affection. Paul gives the purpose of this diversely functioning body in verse 25: "that there should

be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another." When your

church begins to function as a body, everyone working for each other's edification, you will find rather than

the schism which is all too common, a harmonious peace and a mutual care and concern for one another

never before experienced.

Mutual Dependence

Last, there is mutual dependence. Imagine a hand trying to act on its own. Imagine a foot trying to act

independently of the hand -- ever try to turn on a light with your foot? Just as body function produces

harmony, so independence produces schism. In every church problem, someone is thinking that he can act

on his own and that he doesn't need the rest of the body. If we would learn to rely on one another, depend

upon one another, we would not only function better, but we would also get along better. Just as my hand

depends on my foot to take it to the light switch, so each member of the church needs the others for spiritual

blessing and edification. Whether or not you realize it, for edification you depend upon others. A unified

body functioning diversely produces that kind of harmony.

The call today, the American spirit, is a rugged individualism, independence. That may be good politics, but

it is spiritual suicide for a Christian to think that he can get along apart from the church body.

Application

How do you function in the body of Christ? Do you? Do you serve others? And do you appreciate it when

others try to serve you? Have you discovered yet that you need other Christians? Have you discovered yet

that they need you? What is your contribution to the building up of the body?

This is the proper display of spiritual gifts. May God grant more of it to the edifying of His church!

Spiritual Gifts and Love

Chapter 10

The love of Scripture is not emotion merely but an activity of the will: it purposes the good of the one loved,

expecting nothing in return (hence, the translation, "charity"). We must always be aware, then, that body

function does not depend on spiritual gifts but on love. And while spiritual gifts are important, they are not

so important as love.

This is the message of I Corinthians 13. Verses 1-3 mention gifts without love. Verses 4-7 speak of love

apart from gifts, which, if you had to choose, is much better. You see, if I really love the people whom God

has given me to shepherd, I will teach them, exhort them, help them, encourage them, and so on. The

emphasis of the gifts is service, and that stems from love. On the other hand, the most gifted person in the

world (the imaginary character of verses 1-3) apart from love accomplishes nothing (verse 1), is nothing

(verse 2), and gains nothing (verse 3). But love, whether gifted or not, will reach out to meet any and all the

needs of the body. Love is the fulfilling of the law.

This was the basic problem in Corinth -- not a lack of gifts, for they had them all (I Corinthians 1:7). Their

problem was a lack of love. Love would have dissolved or even completely avoided every one of their

problems, including their abuses of spiritual gifts!

Mark it well: love will not only prevent the misuse and abuse of gifts, but it will also ensure the

accomplishing of their intended purpose -- service to others.

So much better, then, not to merely search for a spiritual gift but rather to seek to exercise a gift in love -- to

seek to help and to edify. Only that will fulfill the intended purpose of the gifts and meet every need of the

body.

FIVE UNNOTICED GIFTS - Important but Often Ignored

Chapter 11

We have seen that there are various kinds of permanent gifts. There are support gifts -- pastor-teacher and

teaching. There are other speaking gifts which are permanent, such as exhortation, and there are service

gifts. But in a sense, all the permanent gifts are service gifts. Their purpose is to serve. The gifts are

described as "services" in I Corinthians 12:5. They are for the "work of service" according to Ephesians

4:12. So while there is a specific gift of service ("ministry," Romans 12:7), it is the purpose of all these

permanent gifts to minister to (i.e., serve) the church.

It is significant that Paul begins Romans 12 demanding complete consecration of every one of us who has

experienced "the mercies of God" (verse 1). We are to sacrifice ourselves for the work of the Lord (verse 1).

Obviously, that sacrifice of ourselves in service is not worth much if we are dead, so he calls for a "living

sacrifice." And if He doesn't have our bodies, He really doesn't have us at all, so he says that we are to

present our "bodies a living sacrifice." God demands of every one of us to expend ourselves for God. To put

our selves on the altar of sacrifice, as it were, giving over to Him all we are and have, placing ourselves

totally in service for Him. That is verses 1 and 2.

But how? In what way are we to serve Him? Verse 3 answers that question as it begins the discussion of the

exercise of our spiritual gifts. God says, in effect, "I want you to expend yourselves for Me -- serving

others." You see, if you are not serving others (which is the purpose of your giftedness), you are not

fulfilling the commands of Romans 12:1-2. You are not consecrated fully, a living sacrifice, unless and until

you are serving. With today's independent spirit and busy schedules it is difficult to even think much about

others, let alone take time to serve them. Nonetheless, consecration demands that we serve others, that we

exercise our gifts as God gives opportunity.

Turning to the permanent gifts themselves, we find at least five gifts which, although vital, are often ignored

or unnoticed.

Ministry

Romans 12:7 mentions this gift of ministry (see also I Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:12). As already

noted, the word in the New Testament translated "ministry" does not mean teaching or pastoring as your

pastor "ministers" the Word each Sunday. It is not "ministry" in the modern professional sense of the term.

The word simply means "service." It is a form of our word "deacon," which means "servant." This gift is the

God-given ability to serve others. Sound exciting? These people are the unsung heroes of the church! These

are the people who are willing to work behind the scenes at those necessary but unglamorous tasks. Whether

it is serving individuals in their needs or tasks or serving the church corporately in its needs or tasks, the gift

is the same and equally necessary. Apart from these servants the church would be crippled. For a church's

ministry to be vibrant, there must be those who are willing and eager to take care of the needs of others.

Helps

The gift of helps is very similar. The root word in the Greek means "to take instead of," that is, taking

another's work yourself. This is love in action. The early church was marked by so much of this, and the

more we know of it, the more we will be blessed as were they.

Showing Mercy

Likewise the gift of mercy focuses on the needs of others, perhaps with the added dimension of special

concern and care and sympathy in meeting those needs. Emotional support may well be a part of it. Of these

people there can never be too many.

Giving

This gift of giving is not the ability to put money in the church offering plate (although that may well be a

part of it!). It is the ability to provide for the financial and material needs of the church and its people. It

differs from the gifts of service and helps in that its focus is giving more than helping. The gifts of service

and helps deal more with giving self, or serving; the gift of giving deals with giving material things, or

financial giving. It is significant that Romans 12:8 commands that this gift be exercised in a certain attitude.

The giving is to be done "with simplicity," or generously, liberally, with singleness of purpose -- to provide

for a need, with no strings attached, joyfully, and without regret. It is supporting people individually or the

church corporately as a special ministry. This person does not give expecting praise for it. He asks nothing

in return. He gives for the sheer pleasure of ministering in this way.

Faith

Again, it seems strange to find faith mentioned as a special spiritual gift. Just as all Christians are required to

help, serve, show mercy, and give, so also all Christians are responsible to have faith -- for salvation and for

all of life. This gift of faith, however, is a special ability to believe God in unusual ways. It is the gift of

people like George Mueller. Some call it the gift of prayer or the gift of vision. We all are given a "measure

of faith" (Romans 12:3); this person has a greater measure. He is able to believe God to supply specific

needs as a ministry to others. His faith accomplishes results beyond the ordinary. This is how every great

Christian enterprise succeeds -- people behind it with great faith.

This gift is a special ministry exercised for others. If you have this gift, spend more time on your knees!

Summary & Conclusion

These five gifts (service, helping, showing mercy, giving, and faith) are both gifts which belong to some and

responsibilities common to all Christians. We all are responsible to give and show mercy to brethren in need

and to serve and help those who need it and to believe God in the doing of it all. James 2:14ff make this

clear, as do so many other passages of Scripture, especially John's first epistle. One sure mark of a Christian

is his concern and help of others. The gifts involve a giving, serving, helping, and mercy which is above and

beyond the expected. Like the good Samaritan in our Lord's parable who got his hands dirty with another

man's need and also spent his own money to purchase another's well-being, the person with these gifts is

able to cheerfully go beyond the expected.

These gifts will seem rather bland to some, not too exciting. But when you find yourself on the receiving

end of any of these gifts, your perspective will change! These gifts are vital! Those who have these gifts

exercise them to our benefit, and those who fail to exercise these gifts do so to our hurt.

Could one of these gifts be yours? Have you unwrapped it yet?

SERVING & LEADING

Chapter 12

The Leadership Gifts

This chapter will examine the more prominent or noticeable gifts of the Spirit which God gives to His

church today. In contrast to those studied in the previous chapter, these gifts serve in a leadership capacity

and, generally, have mostly to do with the public ministry of the Word.

Evangelists

The term "evangelist" means many things to many people. When you mention the word some immediately

think of Billy Graham and a crowded football stadium. Others think of outdoor tabernacles, hard benches,

and sawdust aisles. Still more think of inspiring song-leaders, sad stories, all followed by twenty-five stanzas

of "Just as I Am."

In the early church, the evangelists were considered the successors of the apostles. They did not think that

evangelists were the same as the apostles but merely that they continued the apostles' ministry.

The term in the Greek is related to the word "gospel." The euangelion is the "gospel," or the "good news."

Euangelizo (the verb form) means to announce the gospel, "to evangelize." The euangelistes is "the one who

evangelizes," or the "evangelist."

The term "evangelist" occurs only three times in the New Testament, none of which actually define what an

evangelist is. Acts 21:8 simply tells us that Philip was an evangelist; Ephesians 4:11 teaches that evangelists

are gifts to the church; and II Timothy 4:5 commands Timothy to do the work of an evangelist.

Pulling together the information available from these verses, we can come to an understanding of the term.

The word itself, we know, means to announce the good news, to evangelize. Ephesians 4:11-12 teaches that

the evangelist is for the purpose of equipping the saints to the work of the ministry to the edifying of the

body of Christ. And with the ministry of Philip recorded in Acts 8, we have an example of what an

evangelist is and does. An evangelist, then, is one who is especially effective in presenting the message of

the gospel to the lost and instructing believers in the faith. His ministry is an itinerate one, ministering to

believers and unbelievers alike in various locations. He is not one who announces new truth -- that is a

prophet. But he is one who announces truth. It seems that the New Testament evangelist more closely

resembles our present day missionary. He brings the good news to an unevangelized community, disciples,

establishes a church, and moves on. Our present day evangelists, as we have known them since the days of

Wesley and Whitefield with their itinerate ministries, whose ministries are extremely valuable to our

churches, do properly wear the title "evangelist," but the evangelist of the New Testament, it seems from the

example of Philip, had a broader work.

Pastors-Teachers

Their Identity

The gift of pastor-teacher is mentioned only in Ephesians 4:11, along with apostles, prophets, and

evangelists. Although the term "pastor" is the most common used today, it is only used (in its noun form,

poimen) here, and that only as it is associated with teaching. This is one gift with the combined

responsibilities of teaching and leading. The verb poimaino, "to shepherd," or "to pastor," is used in Acts

20:28 ("feed") in connection with the terms "elders" (verse 17) and "bishops" (verse 28). The same is found

in I Peter 5:1-5. All three terms refer to the same office -- a pastor is a bishop is an elder. According to I

Timothy 5:17, some elders have the specific responsibility of teaching ("especially they who labor in the

word and teaching"). This teaching-elder is the pastor-teacher. According to I Timothy 3:2 all elders must

teach. According to I Timothy 5:17 all elders rule, but some rule especially by teaching.

Their Number

As a glance through any concordance will reveal, the norm for the New Testament church is a plurality of

elders, or pastors (Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2-23, 16:4, 20:17; Philippians 1:1; I Thessalonians 5:12-13, "them";

I Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24; I Peter 5:1). There is no specific number stated; it probably

varied considerably with differing church needs -- God has given the gifts "as it pleased Him" (I Corinthians

12:18), but the norm is a plurality of godly men in leadership of a church. The responsibilities are too great

for only one man.

Their Qualifications

A man is not automatically a pastor by virtue of gifts alone -- there are also certain qualifications which

must be met. These qualifications are listed in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In these lists of qualifications there is

little emphasis on giftedness but much emphasis on character (Some gifts are alluded to, however, such as

teaching, ruling, preaching, leadership, exhortation, etc.). A position of such leadership carries with it great

responsibility. He must be a man whose faith can be emulated (Hebrews 13:7).

Their Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the pastor-teacher fall generally under two headings: leading and feeding. Terms such

as "oversee," "rule," "feed," and "teach" are used repeatedly in reference to pastors or elders. These are his

focus. The office of pastor was not given to embrace all the other gifts which are necessary for the ministry

of the body. This gifted man is to "perfect the saints to the work of the ministry." This simply means that it

is his job to train everyone else to minister. How different is his job description today!

Their Honor

Above all other permanent gifts, this one carries with it a special honor. Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 24, and I

Thessalonians 5:12-13 are two passages which make this clear. Of particular significance is I Timothy 5:17

where the teaching elders (the pastor-teachers) are "especially worthy of double honor" even in comparison

to the other elders! Those who serve the church by leading and teaching are particularly worthy of love and

esteem. Our attitude must be reflective of this.

Teachers

The gift of teaching appears more often in the catalogues of spiritual gifts than any other, only prophecy

excepted. A teacher, as the name suggests, is one with the ability to explain clearly the things of God. He is

not a prophet, announcing new truth, but one who is able to expound the truth already given. This gift, like

few others, requires preliminary work for its exercise. One who wishes to teach must train and prepare to

teach effectively. It is probably safe to assume that one with the gift of teaching has also been given a desire

to study and learn. A teacher must especially "stir up" his gift (I Timothy 1:6) to increase his effectiveness.

And again, the gift of teaching carries with it a special honor. The sowing of the things of God are especially

important and helpful (I Corinthians 9:11). Where would any of us be today were it not for gifted teachers

who have instructed us in our most holy faith!

Exhortation

Exhortation is another gift defined only by its name. The Greek word parakaleo includes three ideas: 1)

encouragement (consolation, comfort), 2) challenge, and 3) rebuke (admonition). Perhaps our word

"counseling" best conveys all the ideas. The exhorter picks up where the teacher leaves off. Someone has

said that if the teacher lays out the truth, the exhorter lays it on. The exhorter is one who has the insight to

take the broad principles of Scripture and apply them to a specific situation; on the basis of that he gives his

counsel. He is able to say, "Because the Scripture teaches this, you must...."

By the nature of this gift, the exhorter risks being unpopular with many. Many simply do not want to hear

someone else tell them what to do! Encouragement is good, challenge is okay, but rebuke?! But still, this

gift is essential to the church. Mutual exhortation is a responsibility of all Christians, not just those so gifted.

But if all are responsible for it, this person is particularly successful in it. His counsel must not be taken

lightly.

Ruling & Governing

Apart from leadership, any organization will collapse. These gifts are to fill that need. "Ruling" (Romans

12:8), often called "administration," is not the ability to shuffle papers all day. The term means to rule, or to

lead. It is used in I Timothy 3:4-5 of the elder (bishop) ruling his house and the church. The gift of

"governments" (I Corinthians 12:28) emphasizes authority in leading. This gift would be a requirement of an

elder (I Timothy 3:4-5) and would include the responsibility of ruling and leading in affairs of the church

such as discipline. The independent spirit of our society instinctively rebels at the idea of someone in

authority over such personal matters, but this is God's means of leading His church. Sometimes service must

be in the form of authority and leadership.

Conclusion

Serving and Leading

These six gifts are for serving -- those who have these gifts must never forget that! The attitude of a teacher

or a leader must be that of a servant, or he is abusing his gift to his own and the church's loss.

Serving and Following

These six gifts are for leading -- those who do not have these gifts must never forget that! If it is necessary

for the ruler to serve, it is equally necessary for those ruled to follow submissively in their serving.

To be in keeping with the New Testament plan, our attitudes must be correct on both counts.

Whatever Happened to the Miraculous Gifts?

or Have Some Spiritual Gifts Really Died Out?

Chapter 13

In the discussion of spiritual gifts few (if any) considerations loom larger than that of the miraculous gifts.

Do they still exist? Does God still give the gift of performing miracles to the church? Charismatics and other

advocates of the present exercise of the miraculous gifts assure their followers that they have every right to

expect any blessing enjoyed by the early church and that no Bible verse can be cited to teach the contrary.

Further, they assert, if Jesus Christ is always the same (Hebrews 13:8) then it naturally follows that His

blessings to believers in this age of His church must surely be the same as those at the beginning.

While these arguments may seem plausible to some, the question, of course, is whether or not they are in

agreement with Scripture. The inspired apostles demand that we "prove all things" (I Thessalonians 5:21)

and "test the spirits" (I John 4:1). This paper is an attempt to do just that.

Incidentally, the fact that Jesus Christ remains the same can in no way imply that He must always give the

same gifts to His church any more than it could imply that He would require Old Covenant sacrifices of

New Testament believers. He Himself remains unchanged; His dealings with His own may, however, differ

from time to time. Furthermore, as it will be shown below, God has not always given the same gifts to His

people. Throughout Biblical History, very few enjoyed the miraculous, although Jesus Christ has remained

the same.

Is there, then, any justification for saying that some (or any) spiritual gifts were given only temporarily? Is it

Scripturally correct to rule out the exercise of any gifts today?

These are critical questions which must receive clear answers, and the answer of Scripture is a resounding

"yes." It should be clearly understood that God never intended for some gifts to be operative in His church

permanently, throughout the entire church age; He gave some gifts to be enjoyed by that first-century church

only. The New Testament makes this very clear.

Our approach here will be to examine several lines of reasoning the Scripture gives to show that some gifts

were, indeed, only temporary.

The Qualifications Of Apostleship

The first and perhaps most obvious evidence for temporary gifts is found in the qualifications for the gift of

apostleship. When the eleven disciples sought a replacement for Judas Iscariot, the stipulations were clear:

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out

among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one

be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:22-23).

Notice two requirements: 1) company with Christ during His earthly ministry until His ascension, and 2)

witness of the resurrected Lord. These were the qualifications which had to be met by the new twelfth

apostle, who, as it turned out, was Matthias. Clearly, this eliminates any present day apostleship.

It seems that the second qualification is what the New Testament specifically emphasizes. Paul cited it in

defense of his own apostleship: "Have I not seen Jesus Christ?" (I Corinthians 9:1). This would also reveal

that these requirements apply not only to that elite group of "the twelve," other apostles excepted, as it is

sometimes argued. The qualification stands for all who would claim apostleship.

The requirement is clear: no man can be an apostle who has not been a witness to the risen Lord. So unless

someone is willing to claim that his age is more than twice that of Methuselah, there is no gift of apostleship

today. The qualifications for it simply cannot be met.

Already it is clear, then, that we cannot just assume that all the first-century gifts be given today.

The Nature Of Certain Gifts

Some gifts, by their very nature, are limited to that initial stage of church history.

Foundational Gifts

Apostles and prophets, for example, are foundational gifts (Ephesians 2:19-20). The church is built on this

foundation, the apostles and prophets. The nature of a foundation is that it is built upon; a builder does not

continue to construct a foundation, but rather having laid that foundation, he proceeds to build upon it. Once

the foundation is laid, there is no need to build another. The church, in Ephesians 2:19-22, is pictured as a

great building, a temple, in which God dwells. The foundation of this building is "the apostles and prophets,

Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone" (verse 20). The apostles and prophets were unique in their

position: their teaching is foundational to the church in that without it, the entire edifice would collapse. The

truth given to us by God through the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 3:5) supports the church.

This is anticipated in Christ's statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 which presents Peter, the

representative of the apostles, holding the keys of the kingdom as the rock on which Christ will build His

church. The apostles were foundational to the church; Christ was the chief corner stone. This is implied also

in Revelation 21:14 which states that the apostles' names are on the twelve foundation stones of the wall in

the New Jerusalem.

In recording for the church the life and teaching of Christ, the apostles and prophets are foundational. Christ

is the chief corner stone: to His redemptive labors nothing can be added. But the apostles and prophets do

supplement that work in the sense that they bear witness to it. With that foundation intact, the gifts which

make up the foundation are no longer needed.

Revelatory Gifts

Some gifts were revelatory; that is, some believers were enabled by their gifts to receive truth directly from

God. The question here is precisely this: Does God give revelations today? This is the issue at hand, for if

God is not giving revelations today, then it necessarily follows that revelatory gifts are no longer operative.

The New Testament is clear in its teaching that special revelation is no longer being given. In John 14:26 the

Lord Jesus Christ tells His disciples of the coming of the Holy Spirit and His ministry to them as they write

the books which came to be The New Testament Scriptures:

"But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all

things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

His promise to His disciples was that they would be guided into all truth; all truth would be given to them.

Jesus again made the same promise in John 16:12-13. All truth was given to the apostles. This "all truth," of

course, does not mean all truth about all things: the apostles were not informed of the laws of physics or

astronomy, etc. It is all truth in regards to Christian faith and life, the truth which, having received, the

apostles preached and recorded. The point is this: if all truth was revealed to them, then there is no more to

be revealed. Revealed truth is complete. This is precisely what Jude affirmed in verse 3 of his epistle when

he referred to the Christian faith as "once for all" given. John attested to the same in Revelation 22:18 where

he said, in effect, "this is all; there can be no more" and pronounces a curse on any who would attempt to

add to it.

It was the very clear understanding of our Lord and his apostles, the New Testament writers, that revelation

was complete. All the truth that God would reveal, he chose to reveal to his apostles and prophets, who with

that truth laid the foundation of the church. They gave the truth to the church; it's all here, and there is no

more. The foundation is complete, and with that the church passed into the superstructure phase of its

building. To claim further revelation, then, is to step far backwards into the foundational phase of the

church: immediately, "all truth" would become "some truth," and the Holy Scriptures would be incomplete.

The desire for further revelation than what is given in Scripture is not a desire for something more but an

invitation for much less. This is precisely what has been delivered by those who have claimed new

revelation -- Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon serves as a vivid example. Charismatic supposed visions and

revelations are no less destructive. To allow more is to deliver less: it undermines God's truth revealed

through His apostles.

The church and the world today do not need more revelation; they need only a fresh and honest

confrontation with the revelation which has been given in His Word.

Summary

Some gifts were foundational, and some were revelatory. With the foundation complete and revelation

ceased, these gifts are now extinct. They were temporary gifts -- gifts given to the church initially but given

temporarily, nonetheless.

The Pattern Of Miraculous Gifts

Many people seem to think that the Bible is one long story of miracle after miracle, from beginning to end.

Miracle workers, they think, were always a part of God's dealings with His people. But even a casual

observing of the Bible reveals that such is not at all the case. Historically, miraculous gifts were only given

occasionally. This pattern suggests that they were never intended to be permanent fixtures in the church.

The Bible records basically three periods of miracles.

Moses & Joshua

The first period of miracles was during the time of Moses and Joshua (c. 1400 BC). The incidents of the

plagues of Egypt, the parting of the sea, water from the rock, the quick and immediate judgment on Korah,

the fall of Jericho, the long day, etc., are all very familiar. Before the time of Moses and Joshua, however,

and even after, miracles are virtually unheard of. To be sure, there are sporadic miraculous events (such as

during the period of Judges), but the presence of a miracle worker, one who could at will cause the

miraculous, was not enjoyed.

Elijah & Elisha

Not until the time of Elijah and Elisha (c. 870 BC) is there any real miracle worker. With the ministry of

these men, rain was withheld, fire was brought from heaven, a widow's food was supernaturally supplied, a

boy was raised from the dead, the Jordan River was crossed again, a leper was cured, and on and on goes the

list (at least eight miracles each). But again, with the passing of these men, miracles cease; miracles recur

occasionally (as in the time of Daniel), but the ability to perform them is gone.

Christ & His Apostles

The next and last great period of miracles surrounds the ministry of Christ and His apostles. The four

gospels seem to never end in their record of the unsurpassed miracles of Christ, conquering demonic forces,

diseases, and even death. His apostles were given similar power, although not to the same extent. They too

performed an abundance of miracles. The pattern of Biblical history then repeats: with their passing, again

there is silence. Miracles do appear evident from time to time, but the presence of one who can at will heal

diseases and raise the dead is conspicuously absent.

Conclusion

The point which stems from this evidence is obvious: miracles are not the norm, and there is no reason to

expect them to be. They are the exception to the rule. The claim that the church today should expect to

experience any blessing enjoyed in the early church is completely without foundation: the facts of the

Biblical record speak clearly to the contrary. Miracles occur only occasionally and temporarily. Anyone

today claiming that miracles should be operative himself bears the burden of proof, for the pattern of

Scripture clearly shows otherwise.

The Purpose of Miraculous Gifts

Nor are these miracles scattered haphazardly. A question arises at this point: why were these miraculous

gifts given to the church? Why not at other times rather than only during these occasional periods? And why

did they end so abruptly?

The answer is simple: they were given to serve a specific purpose, and with that purpose served, they were

no longer needed, and so they were withdrawn.

Analyzing The Pattern

Note another pattern which emerges within this pattern just observed. In each period of miracles, the

miracles called attention to new revelation from God and attested to the authority of the miracle worker. The

miracles of Moses and Joshua were introductory to the Pentateuch and early historical literature, affirming

as well the authority of Israel's leaders, Moses and Joshua. Israel was at an all time spiritual low during the

ministry of Elijah and Elisha. God sent these men with His word (now recorded in the books of Kings and

Chronicles) to the nation at that time. With their abilities to perform the miraculous, God's approval of their

ministry was clearly affirmed. Turning to the New Testament, Christ and His apostles brought a new and

fuller revelation from God; their authority and the truth of their message were validated by their miracles.

This pattern is very clear: again and again God was calling his people's attention to His Word and the truth

of His messengers. This was the purpose of the miraculous gifts.

Stating the Purpose

Accordingly, the New Testament names these miraculous gifts "sign gifts." A sign is a mark or some means

of identifying something. For example, The distinguishing mark of all loyal Jewish men was their

circumcision (Romans 4:11, "sign of circumcision"). One "sign" of a Biblical scholar is his ability to work

well with the original languages. In this sense, miracles were signs; they had a purpose, and that purpose

was to "signify" or testify to the authority of the miracle worker.

Isaiah's famous prophecy was that the virgin-born son was a sign (Isaiah 7:14). Jesus' first miracle, the

turning of the water into wine at the wedding of Cana, is called, literally (Greek reading), the "beginning of

signs" (John 2:11). The healing of the nobleman's son was His "second sign" (John 4:54). Miracles were also

among the "signs of an apostle" (I Corinthians 12:12); they were apostolic credentials. The apostle Paul's

ministry was verified by "signs and wonders" (Romans 15:19).

The need for this kind of authentication is obvious. Picture yourself as a loyal Jew in that first century

hearing another Jew say that God has established a new religion (Christianity) insisting that the old way is

gone forever. In words perhaps not so kind, you would most likely inform him of his inevitable destiny!

That reaction would be completely understandable: after all, Judaism was God-given! Then as you would

watch this Christian perform such great miracles as healing and raising the dead, you would be able to come

to no other conclusion but that his power is of God, and so he must be telling the truth. The miracles, then,

served as signs. They testified to the truthfulness of God's messengers and established their authority. This

was their intended purpose.

The same is stated to be so in the case of Moses: the miracles were "that they may believe that the Lord God

of their fathers . . . hath appeared unto thee" (Exodus 4:1-5). Elijah's calling down fire from heaven had the

same effect as well (I Kings 18:36, "that they may know ... that I am thy servant"); it established his

authority. When Jesus was asked by the followers of John the Baptist if He was the Messiah, he replied by

merely pointing to His miracles (Matthew 11:2-6); they established the fact. Again, He did the same with

His enemies (Matthew 12:28; John 10:25). His ministry was "approved of God among you by miracles and

wonders and signs" (Acts 2:22). Likewise the apostle Paul's ministry was confirmed by spiritual gifts (I

Corinthians 1:6-7; see also Romans 15:18-20 and II Corinthians 12:12).

As if this were not enough, the author to the book of Hebrews also makes the point abundantly clear. In

chapter 2, verses 3-4, he speaks of the gospel which was "confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God

also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy

Spirit." The clear statement is that those who preceded (that is, the first generation Christians, "those who

heard Him") had worked signs and miracles. Notice the past tense, it was something that earlier generation

had which was no longer available. In other words, the inspired writer to the Hebrews affirmed that the

miracles were operative (note the past tense) by those earlier Christians and that those miracles served their

purpose of attesting to the truth of the gospel. They were God's means of affirming the truthfulness of His

messengers.

The clear and obvious understanding of the New Testament writers was that their faith was confirmed by

those miraculous gifts and that once that purpose was achieved, the gifts which achieved it were withdrawn.

The new revelation was given, confirmed, and is now here to stay "once for all" (Jude 3), but not its

confirming gifts.

Serving the Purpose Today?

No purpose would be served by seeking miraculous gifts today; their purpose has already been served. The

church has a validated and confirmed revelation from God, and that is all she needs. Further, if a man will

not believe the Scripture today, neither will he believe the miracles. There have been enough miracles to

establish the fact. It is not now a question of miracles but of faith. This was precisely Jesus' point in Luke

16:30-31 where He spoke of the rich man in hell calling for Abraham to send someone from the dead to

testify to his brethren: "If they hear one from the dead, they will believe!" he cried. The reply: "If they hear

not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." This, of course,

is precisely true -- Jesus Himself rose from the dead, an indisputable fact of history, yet His Word is

rejected.

Peter makes an astounding claim in his second epistle. While speaking of the miraculous event of the mount

of transfiguration he speaks of Scripture as a "more sure word of prophecy" (II Peter 1:16-21). Even in

comparison to miraculous events personally experienced, God's Word is supreme. The idea prevalent today

is that experience is normative; not so with Peter. For him, Scripture alone is completely trustworthy. God

intends for faith to rest on something much more credible than miraculous experience -- His Word. "We

walk by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7) or signs.

In light of the fact that Scripture is established and confirmed, asking for further signs would be exactly

contrary to faith (see Luke 11:29 and John 4:48). "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have

believed" (John 20:29).

Summary

Miraculous gifts appear only occasionally on the pages of Scripture. Their purpose is to validate the claims

of God's messengers who bring new revelation. That revelation having been confirmed, those sign or

confirmatory gifts are no longer needed. The Word of God is not only complete, but it is also well confirmed

by the miraculous gifts of those who gave it. Scripture, then, is both sufficient and trustworthy, but its

validating gifts which initially accompanied it are gone.

The Testimony of New Testament History

The earliest church history, recorded in the book of Acts and the epistles, reveal clearly a fading out of the

miraculous gifts. The early part of this period abounds with the miraculous: healing of lame, blind, and

diseased men, raising of the dead, casting out of demons, miraculous prison breaks, swift and immediate

judgment on sinners, etc. It reached its height with Paul in his third missionary journey: "special miracles"

were performed, such as merely sending a handkerchief to a person's healing (Acts 19:11-12).

The striking fact is that these great powers soon began to subside. In II Corinthians 12 Paul speaks of an

ailment which he could not heal, nor would God heal it in answer to his prayers. Writing from a Roman

prison to the believers at Philippi he speaks of his good friend Epaphroditus who nearly died as a result of

his terrible sickness (Philippians 2:26-27). God did heal him, but evidently it was a sickness out of Paul's

control. Later, writing to his younger friend and associate, Timothy, he advises him to take wine for its

medicinal value (I Timothy 5:23). Writing to him another time from a Roman dungeon he mentions that he

had to leave his companion, Trophimus, in Miletum because of his illness (II Timothy 4:20).

The obvious question is, what happened to the handkerchiefs? The only possible answer is that Paul's

miraculous powers were fading away. They evidently had served their purpose and so were being

withdrawn. Even that swift and immediate judgment such as on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), Herod

(Acts 12:20-23), and Barjesus (Acts 13:5-11) is noticeably absent later. In I Corinthians 5 a man is

"delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" because of incest (verses 1-5) but (presumably) later

is alive and well evidently restored (II Corinthians 2:6-9 and 7:9-12). In AD 63 Alexander was delivered

over to Satan (I Timothy 1:20) but by AD 67 was still not judged (II Timothy 4:14).

The point is clear: it is not at all unwarranted to speak of the cessation of miracles, for it is seen in the pages

of the New Testament itself. To say that they have continued unto today is completely without foundation.

The Testimony of Every Day Experience

It is just a fact of life that no one today is able to heal the blind and raise the dead. It is interesting that while

the healing of leprosy was one of the most common healing miracles in the New Testament, it is entirely

absent today; missionaries to lands where leprosy is prevalent do not see it healed. Nor are hypocrites dying

on the spot (Acts 5:1-11). No one today can look at another man and cause him to go blind, as Paul did in

Acts 13. All the claims notwithstanding, these things just do not happen today. These gifts are gone; it is a

fact of every day life. (This fact was also recognized by those generations of the church just following the

apostolic period. For a full discussion of this see B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, The Banner of Truth

Trust.)

The Promise of Christ

In John 14:12, the Lord made a fascinating promise: "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he

do also, and greater works than these shall he do" (italics added). Does this mean (as some teach) that

believers today can expect to perform greater miracles than He performed? If so, the promise has fallen to

the ground unfulfilled, for no one today can do what He did. His miracles are in a category all to themselves.

No one today can feed thousands of people with a small lunch. No one today can bring a man to life who

had been dead four days. Nor can anyone still a storm or walk on water. His miracles simply can not be

surpassed.

What did he mean, then? He was referring to the church's ministry of meeting men's basic needs, completely

and permanently. His miracles, while they were great, only met men's superficial needs -- physical healing,

food, etc.-- and that only temporarily, for men healed again became sick, and men fed again became hungry.

But in ministering the gospel of Jesus Christ, believers today can meet the basic and essential need of men

and meet it permanently.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon addressed this subject with characteristic eloquence:

"He sent them forth to work miracles as well as to preach. Now, he hath not given us this power, neither do

we desire it; it is more to God's glory that the world should be conquered by the force of truth than by the

blaze of miracles. The miracles were the great bell of the universe which was rung in order to call the

attention of all men all over the world to the fact that the gospel feast was spread; we do not need the bell

now . . . , for the moral and spiritual forces of truth to work by themselves, apart from any physical

manifestation, is more to the glory of the truth, and the Christ of the truth, than if we were all miracle

workers, and could destroy gainsayers. Yet still, though we work no miracles in the physical world, we work

them in the moral and spiritual world."

The point here is this: this promise clearly prophesies that His ministry of miracles would be supplanted by

something else, a ministry of spiritual healing. This greater ministry has replaced the other.

Summary & Conclusion

Our purpose here was simply to establish the fact that some gifts were only temporary. The evidence runs

along these lines. That some gifts were only temporarily given is evident by virtue of:

1) The Qualifications for apostleship

2) The Nature of Certain Gifts

Foundational Gifts

Revelatory Gifts

3) The Pattern of Biblical Miracles

4) The Purpose of Miraculous Gifts

5) The Testimony of Biblical History

6) The Testimony of Every Day Experience

7) The Promise of Christ

It is the teaching of Scripture that certain gifts were never intended to be permanent in the life of the church.

They were only for that foundational stage of the church. To return to them, then, would be a return to

infancy (I Corinthians 13:11). Christians today are far more blessed. They need not a return to those

revelations but a new and honest confrontation with Scripture, the all sufficient guide for faith and practice.

Apostleship

Chapter 14

Definitions

" Apostle"

The term "apostle" (Greek, apostolos) simply means, "a sent one." An apostle is a messenger, an

ambassador. The idea is that of representation: an apostle is a personal representative for the one(s) who sent

him. He comes in the place of, representing the interests of, and bringing a message from someone else.

" Apostle of the Church"

An apostle of a church, then, is one sent by a particular church to represent that church's interests and/or

deliver its message. Paul mentions that Epaphroditus was the apostle from the church at Philippi: "Yet I

supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow soldier,

but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants" (Philippians 2:25). The Greek word here translated

"messenger" is apostolos. The relationship between Paul and the Philippian church was a close one, and this

is one indication of it: they sent a messenger to assist Paul in his labors for Christ. He (Epaphroditus) was

their apostle; he represented the church at Philippi to the apostle Paul. II Corinthians 8:23 also mentions

such church apostles ("messengers," Greek, apostoloi).

" Apostle of Christ"

The gift of apostleship, however, refers to that carefully select group of men who were the personal

representatives of Jesus Christ Himself. "Apostle of Christ" is a much more specific and technical use of the

term "apostle." In a sense, all Christians are to be apostles for Jesus Christ, but this gift of apostleship

belonged only to a very few. An apostle of Christ was a personal messenger of Jesus Christ, sent by the Lord

Himself. He was a vicar of Christ (if you will pardon the expression!). He was one who represented the

interests of Jesus Christ to men.

Qualifications

Like the gift of Pastor-Teacher, one was an apostle not only by calling or gifting but also by meeting certain

qualifications. As already noted in the previous chapter, an apostle must have been one who could

personally testify to the risen Christ. This was Paul's argument in I Corinthians 9:1 which established his

own apostleship: "Have I not seen the Lord?" This was also one of the requirements stipulated by the eleven

for the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:21-22). The credentials of Christ's apostles also included the ability to

perform miracles. Jesus Himself gave this power to the twelve when He commissioned them (Matthew

10:1). Again in defending his apostleship to the Corinthians Paul mentioned this as something which

identified him as a true apostle: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in

signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" (II Corinthians 12:12).

The apostles were miracle workers who could bear personal witness to the risen Lord.

Their Position

Christ's apostles occupy a position of unique honor. In I Corinthians 12:28 they are listed as "first" in

importance. Jesus Himself affirmed this when He prophesied that in the coming Kingdom they would "sit on

thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:29-30). Revelation 21:14 speaks of their names on the

twelve foundation stones of the wall of the New Jerusalem. In Matthew 16:18-19 Peter, the representative of

the apostles, is the one who holds the keys of the kingdom and is the rock on which Christ will build His

church.

Why should they enjoy such honor? Not only because they were the personal representatives of Christ but

also because in bearing witness to Christ and His work, they were the foundation of the church (see chapter

13). It is their teaching on which the church is built, hence, their great honor.

Their Authority

Closely associated with this honor is their unique authority. They were personal ambassadors for Jesus

Christ, and as such their words carried divine authority. There was no appeal above their words, no

discussion, no debate. They were Divine legates, bringing the very word of God to men. Their authority in

the church was absolute.

A few examples should establish the point. In Acts 4:35-37, it is the apostles who are entrusted with the

church's financial matters. In Acts 6:2-6, the record of the first church split, they are telling the church

exactly what steps to take to settle the dispute. I Corinthians 4:17 declares the apostle Paul's example to be

binding. In I Corinthians 14:37 Paul says, in effect, "anyone who disagrees with me is not spiritual." He

claims that when he speaks it is Christ speaking through him (II Corinthians 13:3). Galatians 1:8-9

pronounces a curse on anyone disagreeing with Paul's teaching. I Thessalonians 2:13 declares that the word

of the apostle is the word of God. II Thessalonians 2:15 says, in effect, "do what I tell you to do, and believe

what I tell you to believe." II Thessalonians 3:6-15 commands harsh treatment on any who do not follow the

apostle's instruction and practice. This is real authority! The New Testament plainly teaches the authority of

the elders in the local church, but this kind of authority goes much further. This is the authority of Christ

Himself through His personal messengers.

This is not to say that the apostles were infallible in every detail of their lives. Paul's rebuke of Peter for not

practicing what he preached makes this clear (Galatians 2:11ff). Furthermore, after years of service for

Christ Paul himself still claimed to be the chief of sinners (I Timothy 1:15). But nonetheless, the apostles

were the authority: their word ended disputes and settled doctrine.

Nor is their authority limited to their first century contemporaries. The words of the apostles (now

inscripturated) are no less binding today. Their word is the Word of God. They were God's mouthpiece,

Christ's own representatives to His church.

Their Function

Many think that the term "apostle" simply means "missionary." The word "missionary" does come from a

Latin root which means "to send," so the inference is understandable. Paul was involved in much mission

activity, as were other apostles, but it is also clear that many, if not most, of the apostles remained in

Jerusalem for several years. So the function of an apostle was much more than only missions.

Their function was basically to, 1) lay the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 16:18), 2)

give God's revelation to men (Ephesians 3:5), and 3) demonstrate the truth of that revelation by the

exercising of their sign gifts (II Corinthians 12:12). These three functions were discussed in the previous

chapter.

Their Number

It is a surprise to some to learn that there were more than only the twelve apostles. It is an offense to others

to limit that apostolic number to only fifteen, or so. The New Testament, however, provides the evidence for

this plainly.

The Eleven

First of all, of course, there were the original twelve apostles, minus Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ.

They were Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew (called Nathaniel in John's Gospel),

Thomas, Matthew, James (the less), Lebbaeus (surnamed Thaddaeus, also called Judas, the brother of James

the less), and Simon Zealotes. These men are listed in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and

Acts 1:13.

Matthias

In the first chapter of the book of Acts, these eleven, after much prayer and under the direction of the Holy

Spirit, chose Matthias as the replacement for Judas Iscariot (verses 12-26). Some think that Matthias was

not, after all, the replacement God appointed, but rather Paul. This view seems to rest more on assumption

than Scriptural evidence. The fact of the matter is that Matthias was chosen, not Paul, and no hint to the

contrary is ever given. Nowhere is it stated that the eleven were too hasty in their choice. In fact, verse 26

directly states that Matthias "was numbered with the eleven"; in other words, he was number twelve.

Furthermore, Paul did not meet the qualifications stipulated in Acts 1:21-22 which required that the

replacement be one who companied with Christ during His earthly ministry up until His ascension. Matthias

was the twelfth apostle.

James

James, the half-brother of the Lord and writer of the epistle which bears the name, was another apostle. His

is an interesting biography, unbelieving until sometime after the resurrection. He is identified as an apostle

equal to the others in Galatians 1:19, and in Acts 15 his high standing among the apostles is evident.

Barnabas

Barnabas ("the consoler") was an apostle as well. He is so designated in Acts 14:4 and 14. Some today

question his apostleship; however, note that he is referred to as an apostle equal to Paul.

Paul

Paul, then, was the last man to enjoy the position of apostleship. He was "one born out of due time" in that

he was a later (indeed, the last) addition to the apostolic company (I Corinthians 15:8-11). Because of this,

evidently, some questioned his apostolic authority, which was no small matter to the apostle. Several times

he was forced to defend his own apostleship (cf., I Corinthians 9:1ff, Galatians 2, etc.). In nine of his

thirteen epistles, he is careful to identify himself as an "apostle of Jesus Christ" (e.g., I Corinthians 1:1). He

does so most forcefully in Galatians, specifying that his apostleship is a commission of Jesus Christ Himself,

not Paul or any other man (Galatians 1:1). It was a very important matter to him that it be recognized that his

commission was indeed from Christ personally. He further emphasized that he learned his theology from the

Lord first-hand, not from anyone else (Galatians 1:11-24).

Summary

It is a carefully guarded group of men who enjoyed the gift of apostleship, fifteen total -- the original eleven,

Matthias, James, Barnabas, and Paul. Evidently, this elite group was not open to any others. Others are

called apostles (II Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25), but these are church apostles. There is no small

difference between one commissioned by and representing a church and one personally commissioned by

and representing Jesus Christ! These were the men with the unique honor and authority in the church. There

were also apostolic legates, such as Timothy and Titus, who possessed some degree of authority as well, but

their authority was invested by the apostle Paul, not by Christ directly. Their authority was not absolute as it

was with the apostles. A man today claiming apostleship should carefully consider the implications of such a

claim.

Their Demise

Throughout the history of the church, apostolic succession has been claimed by some; the Roman Catholic

church is well known for such claims. But many arguments militate against the possibility of any modern

apostles.

1) The qualifications for the office cannot be met today (see above).

2) The nature of their work prohibits their continuance -- they were foundational with a revelatory ministry;

the church now is in the superstructure phase of its building, and revelations have ceased (cf., chapter 13).

3) The ability to perform sign gifts, the accompanying credentials of the apostles, is absent today (chapter

13).

4) Paul was the last apostle.

5) No one today has such absolute authority over the churches. Pastoral authority and leadership is one

thing, but apostolic authority is quite another. Furthermore, no one today has the privilege of doctrinal

infallibility as did the apostles (the pope's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Quite the contrary,

Christians today are simply to measure all teachings by the foundation-standard given by the apostles

themselves (Jude 17).

6) New Testament examples of successors to the apostles (eg, Timothy and Titus) are never called apostles

or regarded with full apostolic authority. They were to carry on the apostle's work as, in a sense, all

Christians are, but genuine apostolic succession was never considered; indeed, those first generation

Christians themselves recognized the uniqueness of the apostles of Christ.

7) The early church (just after the apostles) recognized their absence.

Conclusion

Apostleship was a temporary and very important gift. But only a very few received it. No one today is so

called or gifted, nor can anyone meet the necessary qualifications (see chapter 13).

Prophets & Prophecy

Chapter 15

Definitions

The verb "prophesy" means "to speak before" (from Greek pro, before, and phemi, to speak). The gift

includes both the idea of foretelling and forthtelling, predicting the future and preaching. A prophet was

God's mouthpiece: he spoke for God and gave His message. Sometimes that message was regarding the

future. Other times it concerned the present, even the past, or simply doctrinal truth, but it was always God's

message spoken forth.

The Issue

Some controversy arises at this point. Today's renewed interest and investigation of the spiritual gifts has

seen many non-charismatics redefine the gift of prophecy. The Charismatics, of course, readily admit the

revelatory nature of this gift and claim its operation today. Some modern non-charismatics have defined the

gift in another way, resulting in an interpretation which allows the gift of prophecy today but not in its

revelatory sense. They say that the gift of prophecy means only the ability to speak forth for God, to preach;

it is not necessarily, they say, a revelatory gift, but the ability to preach the truth of God's Word with great

power and insight.

The issue can be stated in the form of two questions: 1) Is it Scripturally allowable to limit the gift to only

forthtelling (as opposed to predictive prophecy)? and, 2) Is there in that forthtelling nothing revelatory? That

is, is it merely the ability to expound previously revealed truth?

So the question to clarify at the outset is one of definitions. The answer to this question will determine the

course of the remainder of the study.

Evidence

First of all, it must be recognized that one who prophesies is a prophet. This would seem obvious enough,

but there are those who seek to support this idea of non-revelatory prophecy by making sharp distinction

between these two -- a prophet being the one with the revelatory gifts and the one who prophesies being

merely the preacher of previously revealed truth. This distinction is both gratuitous and impossible to

demonstrate exegetically. One who teaches is a teacher. One who preaches is a preacher. And one who

prophesies is a prophet. There is simply no evidence of any distinction between a prophet and one with the

gift of prophecy.

Old Testament

There is no question or debate at all, among Bible believers, that the Old Testament prophets received direct

revelation and were able to foretell the future. Their function, in part, was to reveal what God would do in

the days or years that lay ahead. Their prophecies also dealt with matters of present concern -- what God

willed for His people at that time. Their prophecies further concerned matters of doctrine: God revealed

truth to them so that they, in turn, would "prophesy" it to the people. There were also times when God would

give revelation concerning the past, telling them about some event otherwise unknowable to them; Nathan's

confrontation with David over his sin with Bathsheba well illustrates this fact (II Samuel 12:1-12). The fact

is clear: the Old Testament prophets both foretold the future and forthtold God-given truth, but both aspects

unquestionably involved direct revelation. Their prophecy, whatever it concerned, was clearly revelatory.

New Testament

Neither is there any indication of change in the character of New Testament prophecy, but rather its

revelatory nature is clearly assumed. For example, when at His hearing before Caiaphas Jesus was spit upon

and smote in the face while blindfolded, He was mockingly exhorted to "prophesy who it is that smote thee"

(Luke 22:64). This prophecy would clearly involve direct revelation. When Jesus could tell the hidden past

of the woman at the well, He was immediately recognized as a prophet (John 4:19). Agabas exercised the

gift of prophecy in a predictive way: he foretold a coming famine and also Paul's coming sufferings (Acts

11:27-28, Acts 21:10-11). I Timothy 4:14 informs us of the same regarding Paul's gift of prophecy: God told

him that Timothy was to receive his gift by the laying on of hands; it was direct revelation. Ephesians 2:20

and 3:5 clearly associate the New Testament Prophets with receiving revelation directly from God, and that

revelation is not necessarily regarding the future but rather doctrine.

I Corinthians 12-14

Furthermore, it must be recognized that the only passage in the New Testament which treats the subject of

prophets and prophecy in an exhaustive manner is I Corinthians 14 (in its context, beginning with I

Corinthians 12). In this passage as well, the revelatory character of the gift is clearly present. In I

Corinthians 12:28 prophets are ranked as more important than teachers. In I Corinthians 13:2 the gift of

prophecy is explained as "understanding all mysteries and all knowledge." A "mystery," in New Testament

terminology, is a secret, something unknowable apart from direct revelation. The underlying assumption is

that the gift involved special revelation.

I Corinthians 14:1 states the theme of the entire chapter -- the superiority of prophecy to tongues. Verse 3

mentions prophecy but not in a definitive way; it only states the results of the proper exercise of the gift,

namely, edification. In other words, verse 3 explains exactly why prophecy is superior to tongues. The

following verses expand that argument: prophecy is intelligible speech, and tongues is not; hence, prophecy

is superior. And in that sense prophecy is associated with other intelligible speaking gifts, such as teaching

(verses 6, 9).

In the following section of chapter 14 prophecy and tongues are associated in this very respect -- that they

are both revelatory in nature (verses 26-30; cf., verse 2). Finally, verses 29 and 30 clearly demand that the

gift of prophecy being exercised in the church of Corinth was revelatory; it plainly states that the prophecy

was something "revealed."

Summary

It is clear enough that the gift of prophecy is not to be confused with the gift of preaching or teaching. That

there is overlap between prophesying and preaching is obvious, but the difference is important: A preacher

must take a text of previously revealed truth and seek to expound it, and his authority extends only so far as

the correctness of his interpretation of that text. But one exercising the gift of prophecy takes no such text

but rather delivers a new text, as it were. He delivers truth revealed by God. His authority, then, rests in the

message itself: it is the very word of God. Accordingly, prophecy is ranked above teaching (I Corinthians

12:28). The closest anyone could come, today, to prophesying is not preaching, but simply reading Scripture

ver batim.

The gift of prophecy was the ability to declare truth received directly from God, truth obtained by special

revelation. The prophets were mouthpieces of God, speaking His word, to their world, regarding either past,

present or future truth. They were men of inspired utterance.

The Importance Of The Gift

The gift of prophecy was very important in that it met a real and unique need of the early church. They were

at a loss without any of this new revelation yet recorded and available, so God gave His word "part by part"

(I Corinthians 13:9) through these gifted men until that written Word was complete.

The prophets' importance also is seen in that, along with the apostles, they were the foundation of the

church. Upon the truth revealed through them, Christ's church is built (Ephesians 2:20). Accordingly, they

are listed second in importance in I Corinthians 12:28.

The Validation Of Prophecies

I Thessalonians 5:19-20 commands the Christian to prove, or test, all prophecies. How? The apostles were

able by their miraculous gifts to vindicate their own message, but no such provision was given the prophets.

To serve as a check against men who would claim the prophetic gift falsely, others were given the gift of

discerning of spirits (see chapter 16). This gifted person would stand up and pronounce judgment on a given

prophecy, declaring whether it was of God or not. An example of this is given in I Corinthians 14:29 where

Paul commands that after the prophets speak, "let the other judge." The message of the true prophet was

absolute, but it had to be established that it was in fact from God. This was the function of the discerner of

spirits.

There was still another check given to validate the prophecy: complete agreement with the apostles was

mandatory. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual," writes the apostle Paul, "let him

acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37).

This is the standard by which to "test the spirits" (I John 4:1). This test was final. If any man claimed to

prophesy but was not in agreement with the apostles' teaching, that "prophecy" was not of God, no matter

what else may have seemed to validate his claim. Agreement with the apostles was mandatory.

New Testament Examples

The gift is mentioned in all five New Testament lists (see chapter 2), but only a few New Testament

prophets are mentioned. Agabus is one who had the gift. In Acts 11:27-28 he predicted a famine, and in Acts

21:10-11 he predicted Paul's coming sufferings, both of which came to pass as prophesied. (From this

example it is clear that the gift of prophecy involved the ability to foretell as well as merely forthtell).

Philip's daughters prophesied (Acts 15:32), but no details are given. Acts 13:1 mentions prophets and

teachers in the Church at Antioch, although no details are given, nor does it say which men were prophets or

which were teachers. Judas and Silas are designated prophets in Acts 15:32. Paul and the other apostles

evidently had this gift as well (e.g., Acts 27:23-24).

Their Demise

Several factors demand that the gift of prophecy is no longer given to the church.

1) The most obvious reason that the gift is no longer given is that there is no need for it today. God has given

a complete revelation which is altogether sufficient in all matters of faith and practice. The prophets met a

unique need of that first century church, before this revelation was available. The church today does not

need any prophets to give new revelation, only teachers and preachers to expose it to the Revelation already

given.

2) No revelation is being given today (cf., chapter 13). No one today can add a verse to Scripture; no one

today is receiving new truth.

3) The prophets were the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20), which is now complete (cf., chapter

13).

4) I Corinthians 13:8-13 specifically predicts their demise with the completed canon of Scripture. With a

complete Scripture, the other prophecies are useless.

Summary

Prophecy was an important gift to the church and met a unique need in the early church, but it is no longer

needed or given. Its "partial" messages (I Corinthians 13:9) have been replaced by the complete Revelation.

The church today stands, then, at a great advantage without it.

Three Obscure Gifts

Chapter 16

Word of Knowledge, Word of Wisdom, & Discerning of Spirits

The study of these three gifts begins with a problem -- the problem of identity or definitions. Like some of

the other gifts, these are nowhere defined in the New Testament, but unlike most other gifts, neither does the

New Testament definitely specify how they functioned or for what purpose. Being mentioned only in I

Corinthians 12-14 (12:4-11, 13:8-10, and 14:6), and perhaps referred to indirectly once or twice, these gifts

are relatively obscure. For definitions, then, the interpreter is left only to the simple meanings of the words

themselves, inferences and deductions drawn from them, and the contexts in which they appear.

With this data considered, it seems easiest to understand these gifts as temporary, revelatory gifts; that is,

they are gifts which involved direct revelation from God and were given to the early church only.

Definitions

Word of Knowledge

This gift is mentioned only in I Corinthians 12:8, 13:2(?), 8-10, and 14:6. To "know" something, of course,

means to grasp certain information. The identification "word of knowledge" reveals this to be a speaking

gift, the speaking forth of that knowledge to others. As explained above, it is revelatory knowledge that is in

view, knowledge received directly from God, not attained by normal methods of research and learning. In

those days before the availability of Scripture, the church relied upon men to deliver Divine Truth directly

from God; a man gifted with the word of knowledge was such a man. This gift is similar to the gift of

prophecy, differing perhaps in that this gift lacked the ability to foretell the future as could the prophets.

More than likely, as the name of the gift suggests, to the one with the word of knowledge God also gave

great insight and understanding of truth that had already been revealed. This knowledge would have been

revelatory as well.

The men with the gift of knowledge simply delivered and explained God's truth to the church. God gave

them the knowledge, and they relayed it to the church. Paul's frequent references to receiving and delivering

a divine "mystery" (secret) serve as good examples of this gift (e.g., Ephesians 3:1-5 and I Corinthians

15:51). God simply informed him of the otherwise unknowable truth which he was to deliver to the church.

Many people today are given a great capacity for understanding Divine Truth, but this understanding is

attained only by effort in the normal processes of learning. This gift of knowledge needed no such effort: the

truth was simply revealed by God.

Word of Wisdom

The difference between the gifts of knowledge and wisdom is slight, with much overlap. "Knowledge"

assumes a certain degree of understanding of certain information; "wisdom" assumes that plus a little more -

- the use or applying of that information to achieve certain ends. It is not knowledge merely, but knowledge

put to practical use. This gifted person not only understood the Truth of God but could also insightfully

apply that truth to the Christian life. Most Christians have been blessed to know some wise, discerning

Christian who always seems able to take some great truth of Scripture and relate it to a particular dilemma,

thus making the issue clear. Evidently, God enabled men to do that even before Scripture was finally given.

He gave them knowledge and with it the ability to use it to the help of his own life and that of others. God

still gives wisdom today and that in varying degrees, but this gift of wisdom was different by virtue of its

revelatory nature. Again, the apostles' frequent exhortations based on Divine Principles illustrate this gift

well.

Discerning of Spirits

Discernment is the ability to evaluate something. The Greek term here literally means "to judge through."

The gift of the discernment of spirits was the ability to "judge through" or evaluate prophecies, teachings,

and/or people, distinguishing the false from the true. In that day, you remember, God spoke to the church

through men such as the prophets. This gift (as noted in the previous chapter) served as a check on those

who would abuse that and give words and teachings which were not God-sent (e.g., I Corinthians 12:3,

where someone evidently taught that Jesus was accursed). This person with the gift of the discernment of

spirits could declare the true nature of such a prophecy and affirm the truth of the genuine.

Peter's insight into the hidden deeds and motives of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) and Paul's

evaluation of the demon-possessed girl (Acts 16:16-18) illustrate this well. Perhaps the clearest example is

found in I Corinthians 14:29 which commands someone other than the prophets to evaluate the prophecy

given. This check was needed when the church had no Standard, no canon of Scripture, by which to measure

the teachings.

As with the previous two gifts, there is a similarity today: God still gives discernment, but today's

discernment is not based on direct revelation but rather on a comparison with the truths and principles

revealed to the apostles and prophets and now inscripturated.

Their Demise

At least three considerations point to the fact that these gifts are no longer in the church.

1) Revelation is complete and has ceased.

2) The need for these gifts has passed. No more knowledge or wisdom and no other standard for the

evaluation of teachings is needed than what is given in Scripture. Furthermore, if prophets are absent from

the church (see chapter 15), then there is no need for the discerners to evaluate them.

Summary

These gifts of knowledge, wisdom, and discernment of spirits were temporary, revelatory gifts to the church,

given to fill a unique and temporary need. Today the church has the greater gift, the complete Revelation of

Scripture; that and that alone is the all sufficient guide for faith and practice.

The Gifts of Miracles & Healings Today?

Chapter 17

The problem of human sickness is as real as it is difficult. To desire and search for cures is both

understandable and, sometimes, rewarding. Furthermore, the miraculous and spectacular is intriguing and

fascinating. The combination of these two -- the search for healing and the desire to perform the miraculous

-- was indeed the experience of the early church. New Testament records abound with miraculous events,

not the least of which are the miraculous healings of people who were diseased.

Some in the present day have desired and even claimed to duplicate the experience of the early church as

recorded in the New Testament. With this, of course, has come both excitement and skepticism -- as well as

much discussion. The attempt here is to survey the relevant Biblical data and so provide an accurate guide in

this discussion.

Relevant Data

*Matthew 17:19-20 -- The disciples fail in an attempted miracle because of their lack of faith.

*Luke 10:17 -- The disciples cast out demons; no details are given.

*Acts 2:43 -- The apostles perform "many wonders and signs"; no details are given.

*Acts 3:3-16 -- Peter heals the lame man at the gate of the Temple.

*Acts 5:1-11 -- Ananias and Sapphira die at the word of Peter.

*Acts 5:12-16 -- The apostles heal many; some are healed merely by being under Peter's shadow as he

passed by.

*Acts 6:8 -- "Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people."

*Acts 8:6-7, 13 -- Philip, in Samaria, performs miracles and signs, among which were healings and casting

out of demons.

*Acts 9:32-34 -- Peter heals a paralyzed man in Lydda named Aeneas.

*Acts 9:36-42 -- Peter, upon request by the believers in Joppa, raises Dorcas from the dead.

*Acts 13:6-11 -- Paul blinds Elymas (Barjesus), the false prophet.

*Acts 14:3 -- Paul and Barnabas perform signs and wonders in Lystra; no details are given.

*Acts 14:8-10 -- Paul heals a lame man while in Lystra.

*Acts 19:11-12 -- Paul performed many "special miracles," healing and casting out demons with the use of

handkerchiefs and aprons.

*Acts 20:9-12 -- Paul raises Eutychus from the dead.

*Acts 28:1-6 -- Paul is unharmed by a snakebite on Melita.

*Acts 28:8-9 -- Paul heals many diseases while on Melita.

*Romans 15:15-19 -- Paul declares his ministry established by his "mighty signs and wonders."

*2 Corinthians 12:12 -- Paul declares that his miracles, signs, and wonders form a part of his apostolic

credentials.

*Hebrews 2:3-4 -- The author speaks of the miracles, signs, and wonders performed by those who first heard

Christ.

Observations

1. The healings were instantaneous. Further treatment was not necessary (Acts 3:1-11).

2. The healings were complete. Those who were healed could immediately resume their normal activities

unhindered by the sickness in any way (Acts 9:32-34).

3. The healings were permanent. This is not to say that the ones healed were never again sick, but it is to say

that the next day when the "healer" was gone, the sickness was not returned (Acts 14:4).

4. Those with the gift of healings had the ability to heal organic illnesses as well. They did not heal mere

psychosomatic illness (Acts 3:1-11; 5:14-16).

5. Those with the gift of healings were not selective in whom they would heal. They could heal anyone

(Acts 5:14-16; 28:8-9).

6. Those with the gift of healings could heal at will. There were no conditions placed on the ones being

healed (Acts 3:1-11). The same was true of other miracles (Acts 13:11-12).

7. Faith on the part of the one healed was not a requirement or condition. Faith was often rewarded, but it

was never stated to be a condition of a person's healing, nor was it ever used as an excuse for a failed

attempt to heal (Acts 3:1-11; 9:40).

8. The attempts at healing were always successful. (The only exception to this is the one occasion recorded

in Matthew 17:20 when the disciples lacked faith.)

9. The healings were usually performed for unbelievers (Acts 3:1-11; 5:14-16).

10. The healings were usually unsolicited (Acts 3:1-11).

11. The healings were secondary to preaching (Luke 9:6). This is also seen in Acts 20:17-38 where Paul

reviews his ministry in Ephesus and makes no mention of his great miracles performed there (cf. 19:11-12),

only his faithfulness in ministering the Word). No man was ever given a "healing ministry."

12. Those with the gift of healings could also raise the dead upon request (Acts 9:40).

13. Although the healings were not at all hidden, they were generally performed in relative privacy and

never in a public healing service. "Healing services" were never a part of the early church (Acts 3:1-11).

14. Miracles and healings were performed by the apostles and their close associates. Philip and Stephen are

the only non-apostolic healers.

15. The healings were never performed by a supposed "slaying in the Spirit" or the like.

16. The healings were performed free of any financial charge. Neither were any souvenirs sold or offerings

taken.

17. The healings and miracles could not be denied. They were indisputable feats of power (Acts 4:14-17).

18. The powers associated with the gifts of miracles and healings did not extend beyond healing, casting out

demons, and raising the dead. These powers did not include the ability to perform tricks, heal animals or

raise them from the dead, or the like.

19. Healings were performed in various ways: by touching (Acts 3:6); by being touched (Acts 5:15); usually

without physical contact of any kind (Acts 5:14-16; 9:32-34); by speaking (Acts 14:10); with the use of

handkerchiefs and aprons (Acts 19:11-12); with prayer (Acts 9:38-41); usually without prayer (Acts 3:1-11;

28:8-9); and sometimes even in absence (Acts 19:11-12).

20. The writer of the book of Hebrews, writing as a second generation Christian, speaks of the miraculous

gifts in the past tense (Heb.2:3-4).

Summary and Conclusion

The gift of healings appears in the New Testament as a miraculous (sign) gift of the Holy Spirit to the

apostolic company (2 Cor. 12:12) in order to confirm the new message which they were preaching (Heb.2:3-

4). The gift involved the ability to cure physical diseases apart from the normal healing processes. The gift

consisted of the ability to heal sicknesses and diseases at will, without medical treatment or any other curing

agents. The gift is closely associated with that of miracles (the broader term, evidently) and functioned at all

levels of human sickness -- physical and spiritual. The man so gifted was able to heal organic illnesses (e.g.,

3:1-11, a congenital illness), raise the dead (9:36-42), and even bring physical judgment (5:1-11; 13:6-11).

This gift seems also to have included the ability to cast out demons (19:12), which then would be its spiritual

dimension.

These observations are most revealing, especially in comparison with present-day claims to the gift. If there

are similarities they fade quickly in comparison with differences which are much greater and more obvious.

The gift of miracles enjoyed by the early church at the hands of the apostolic company appears to have been

a unique experience which served its purpose and then faded away.

The Gift of Tongues

Chapter 18

Preliminary Matters

The Crisis

It certainly would be no exaggeration to say that the tongues phenomenon has caused one of the greatest

crises the church has faced in this generation. Tongues is no longer something witnessed in Pentecostal

churches only; it is now seen everywhere from Roman Catholicism to Baptist and other independent

churches. For centuries all of Christendom recognized the gift to be inoperative; now, along with its

accompanying claims to healings, miracles, revelations, and "slayings in the Spirit," (which, by the way, is

something completely unknown to even the early church itself), it has invaded virtually every denomination.

Its preachers are claiming the occurrence of a modern Pentecost. Some are accusing preachers who refuse to

recognize the gift of being deceivers who rob God's people of God-sent blessings. In short, it has become

one of the hottest issues on the ecclesiastical scene: those who believe in it can not stop talking about it, and

those who do not accept it seemingly never stop hearing about it!

The Standard

It should be emphasized that there is, of course, only one Standard by which we can measure such claims --

Scripture. The question involved at this point is not whether or not any genuine Christian has had some kind

of experience; an experience may be very real and yet very wrong, or it may be very real and yet very

misunderstood. This issue of authority is particularly essential in a discussion of the gift of tongues, for there

are many who are sure that they have experienced it. But let us reemphasize it: only Scripture has the answer

to this question. Any and all experiences must be evaluated in light of the Word of God. We do not judge an

experience on its own claims but on the basis of Holy Writ, for the Holy Spirit will never be the author of

any experience which is not in accord with His Own Word. This can never be over-emphasized, especially

in dealing with a matter which is essentially experiential.

Relevant Passages

The gift of tongues does not occur in Scripture as often as some may think. The only passages which deal

with the gift in any specific way are Acts 2:1-13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7; and I Corinthians 12-14. It is

possible that the gift of tongues was also exercised in Acts 8:14-19, but it is impossible to be certain (the

question is what Simon "saw," verse 18). All of these passages will be investigated, but since I Corinthians

14 is the passage which gives the most specific instruction concerning this gift, it will receive most of the

attention.

The Nature of the Gifts

Definitions

It is not at all difficult to define the gift of tongues; because of the debate surrounding this issue, however,

support for the definition given here will be surveyed in some detail.

The gift of tongues was the supernatural ability to speak in a foreign, human language which was previously

unknown or unstudied by the speaker. Notice that the gift of tongues is not the ability to speak gibberish --

that requires no supernatural ability. But this is precisely where the debate begins. Virtually all liberal

theologians, because of their denial of the possibility of supernatural, direct revelation, teach that the gift of

tongues was merely ecstatic utterance. While they do not question the possibility of the supernatural,

virtually all Charismatics and many non-charismatics teach the same. Many of them believe that while the

tongues of the book of Acts were indeed foreign languages, the tongues of I Corinthians were different --

they were ecstatic utterances, gibberish, which contained a revelation from God understandable to God

Himself (for private, devotional use) and to the interpreter (for public use). This is not the case, however,

and that tongues were foreign languages is evident from the following considerations.

1. The Greek word translated "tongues" in Scripture (glossa) normally refers either to the tongue as a

physical organ or to a human language. This is precisely its use today -- we speak with our tongues in our

native English tongue. The word can be used in reference to ecstatic speech, but such usage is completely

foreign to the New Testament. Unless there is good reason (evidence) to understand the term as referring to

gibberish, it is unwarranted to assume that it does, especially in light of the fact that its meaning elsewhere

in the New Testament is always to the contrary.

2. In Acts 2 tongues, clearly, were known human languages (that is, known to the ones who heard). The

"other tongues" (heterais glossais) of verse 4 are explained to be the languages of the Parthians, Medes,

Elamites, Mesopotamians, etc., in verses 9-11. In verse 6 those who heard the disciples preach heard them in

their "own language." The Greek term for "language" in this verse (and in verse 8) is dialektos, from which

comes the English word "dialect"; it can only mean language, never gibberish. Furthermore, it is clear that in

Acts 2 tongues were designed to be a method of effective communication to those visiting Jerusalem for the

feast of Pentecost. In other words, the tongues of Pentecost broke down the language barrier; it did not set

up a language barrier. This rules out the possibility of gibberish.

3. Likewise, the gift was clearly that of languages in Acts 10 also, for in Acts 11:15-17 Peter identifies it as

the same phenomenon which occurred in Acts 2. It would seem obvious, then, to assume the same for the

tongues of Acts 19 as well.

4. The gift of tongues in I Corinthians is never stated to be anything different from that in Acts. To

understand it as something different would require some explanation. Furthermore, the Acts accounts were

written by Luke, who was Paul's associate; it is inconceivable that he would speak of another kind of

tongues without explanation.

5. In I Corinthians 14:4 Paul states that the one speaking in a tongue edifies himself. It is evident, then, that

he understood what he was saying, for edification would be impossible apart from understanding (which

point Paul proceeds to establish in the following verses). Incidentally, it is also evident from this that the true

gift of tongues was not a purely emotional experience but one in which the mind was active. Paul's

implication is that the one speaking in a tongue understood what he was saying and so was edified. His point

in the following verses is that what is not understood cannot edify. The gift of tongues is often characterized,

today, as though it were a holy trance of some kind, speaking things unknown even to the speaker himself!

This is clearly excluded by Paul's implication here. The assumption is that the speaker, in complete control

of his mental faculties, knows what he wants to say and is able, supernaturally, to say it in another language.

Like all other gifts, tongues were exercised intelligently.

6. I Corinthians 14:10-11 clearly demand the same. Paul is speaking of tongues "in the world" and demands

distinct sounds, known language.

7. In I Corinthians 14:18 Paul states that he had spoken in tongues more than any of them. He follows with a

statement affirming that this was never his practice in the church (verse 19). The only thing which could

make it necessary for Paul to speak in tongues more than they, then, would be his need of it on his

missionary journeys. Again, this points to language, not gibberish, for gibberish would have been pointless

in his foreign mission work; language, on the other hand, would have been most helpful.

8. In I Corinthians 14:21 Paul associates their gift of tongues with Isaiah's prophecy of Israel's hearing of the

Assyrian language. To understand the gift as gibberish would destroy his point of reference entirely.

9. In I Corinthians 14:22 Paul says that tongues were "for a sign." They were so spectacular that they would

arouse attention. Only human language could be effective as a sign. Ecstatic speech was well known from as

far back as the eleventh century, BC, especially as a part of the Greek mystery religions; it would have

served only to associate the Christians of Corinth with their pagan background. What made the Christian gift

of tongues different and significant was the fact that those so gifted were able to speak in previously

unlearned languages; mere gibberish, ecstatic speech, would have meant nothing and so could not have

served as a sign.

10. The Greek words hermeneuo and diermeneuo rendered "interpret" and "interpretation" in I Corinthians

14, normally mean "to translate" from one language to another. This is how the word is often used today:

when a man of one language speaks to an audience of another, he speaks through an "interpreter." This is its

usual meaning throughout the New Testament and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old

Testament; e.g., Genesis 42:23; Ezra 4:7; John 1:42; Acts 9:36). "Translation," then, points to language, not

gibberish.

11. Jesus specifically forbids ecstatic speech in prayer: "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the

heathen do" (Matthew 6:7). The Greek term translated "vain repetitions" has nothing to do with repeating a

prayer request (although Jesus does use the word here to refer also to mindless repetition of prayers) but

rather means "to babble" or "to speak babble." Jesus, here, expressly forbids gibberish. It is inconceivable

that He would forbid something which is itself a spiritual gift. The only alternative is that the tongues were,

indeed, languages. God never needed or intended for men to speak or pray in a "language" which even they

themselves could not understand. Such a thing would be pointless.

Objections

It would seem that the evidence given above is insurmountable. Those who hold that tongues were ecstatic

speech, however, present the following arguments.

Objection #1. On Pentecost, when the apostles spoke in tongues, they were accused of being drunk (Acts

2:13).

This is a common and fair argument. A close examination of the passage, however, reveals that there were

two groups of people present: 1) the foreigners who understood in their own language and were "all

amazed" at such an astounding phenomenon (verses 9-12), and 2) the Palestinian Jews who, because the

apostles were speaking in foreign languages, could not understand what was being spoken. These local,

Palestinian Jews are described as "others" (heteroi) in verse 13 in contrast to the foreigners listed in verses

9-12. Verse 13 says, then, that it was these local Jews who were issuing the charge of drunkenness. The

languages being spoken were understood clearly by the foreigners, so they were not the ones to raise the

charge of drunkenness. Furthermore, as already shown, the tongues of Acts 2 are specifically called

"languages" (dialektos) in verses 6 and 8.

(This, by the way, also shows that the miracle at Pentecost was in the speaking, not in the hearing, for there

were those who did not understand. A miracle of hearing would have been experienced by local and foreign

Jews equally.)

Objection #2. Paul speaks of the "tongues of angels" in I Corinthians 13:1, which must refer to a heavenly

language unknown to any human.

The problem with this understanding of this phrase is that Paul, in this entire scenario of verses 1-3, is

speaking in hypothetical terms. The "thoughs" in these verses are in the subjunctive mood, the mood of

unreality. In these verses Paul is speaking of things that clearly had not happened, such as giving his body to

be burned (verse 3). He is simply speaking in the superlative to make his point. There is nothing here which

demands gibberish. Furthermore, there is no example of anyone in the New Testament speaking in an

angelic tongue.

Objection #3. In I Corinthians 14, Paul uses the term laleo ("to speak"; e.g., verse 2). This word signifies

unintelligible chatter.

The fact of the matter is that this Greek verb need not mean chatter at all; it very often means simply "to

speak" (e.g., Matthew 9:18). Paul uses this verb in verse 21, no doubt, because this is the verb used in the

Septuagint which he is quoting. Furthermore, verses 34-35 of the same chapter use the verb to describe

"asking questions." Finally, verse 16 equates it with lego, a Greek verb which always means "to speak" or

"to say."

Objection #4. The term "unknown tongue" indicates ecstatic utterance.

The first and most obvious problem with this argument is that the term "unknown" is an addition by the

King James translators; the word is not in the Greek manuscripts (note that it is always italicized). Evidently

the translators fell into the common error of allowing their theology to unduly influence their translation.

Furthermore, even if the word were genuine, it would not demand gibberish; it could just as easily refer to

language unknown to the speaker.

Objection #5. I Corinthians 14:2 says that the tongues speaker speaks "to God" and that "no man

understands" the tongue.

It is interesting to find some verses of Scripture used to support a point when the verse teaches the exact

opposite; such is the case with this argument. As will be shown, Paul argues in this passage that an

interpreter is necessary, otherwise tongues are worthless, because they will not be understood. As a result

the one speaking in tongues (without an interpreter) speaks only to God, for, by the nature of the case, no

man can understand him (because there is no interpreter).

Objection #6. That an interpreter was needed in Corinth shows that Corinthian tongues were different from

the tongues in Acts.

Again, this argument also supports the opposite point. In Acts, the foreigners heard in their own language, so

they needed no interpreter. In Corinth when a man spoke in a foreign language, it by the nature of the case

was unintelligible; a translator was needed simply because there were no foreigners present to understand

the languages spoken. The utterance was unintelligible to the hearers but not to the speaker.

Objection #7. I Corinthians 14:14-15 says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my

understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the

understanding also." It is argued that Paul here contrasts praying with the spirit with praying with the mind.

Praying with the spirit, it is said, means praying with unintelligible speech, the mind being "unfruitful";

praying with the mind is praying in human language.

The Corinthians just may have been abusing the gift of tongues that way, and that is what Paul seeks to

correct in these verses. These verses, then, would say that very thing in order to teach the exact opposite.

The word "unfruitful" means "unproductive." It is evident by the explanation of verse 16 that Paul is

speaking of public prayer. All he says is that if you pray in a tongue, you may think you are praying, but you

are really accomplishing nothing; it is unfruitful, unproductive. You should rather be seeking to edify the

church (verse 12); i.e., by praying in a language all can understand.

In verse 15 he gives the solution: all prayer should be with the spirit and with the understanding both. In

other words, it should all be intelligible; else it will not be productive, and those who hear will not be able to

say "Amen" when you are finished "because he does not know what you say" (verse 16b). Whatever else

may be unclear about this verse, it is very clear that in the apostle's mind "praying in the Spirit" does not

indicate the absence of understanding; prayer must be both "in the Spirit" and "with the mind." Furthermore,

as was shown above, speaking in tongues was not something done without the mind; it was intelligent and

deliberate.

Many appeal to Romans 8:26 to support this same contention that praying "in the Spirit" is praying in

ecstatic speech. "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray for

as we ought, but the Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." But

notice that the "groanings" are made by the Spirit, not the Christian. This verse simply pictures the believer

in prayer wanting but not really knowing how to pray in God's will, in which case the Holy Spirit takes that

sincere heart of prayer to the throne in a prayer pleasing to God. The verse says nothing about "praying in

tongues." Nothing.

Summary

The gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a foreign language previously unknown or unstudied by the

speaker. The true gift had nothing to do with gibberish. The gift of the interpretation of tongues was the

ability to translate the message given in a foreign tongue. There is no evidence that the tongues of Acts is

any different from the tongues of I Corinthians, except as there may be some abuse of the true gift by the

Corinthians.

The Value of Tongues

It is important to understand the value which the New Testament places on the gift of tongues. Is the gift

important? It is to today's Charismatics. It was to the church at Corinth. Was it important to the New

Testament writers? The answer to that is clearly, "no!" To be sure, the gift had purposes to be served, and so

it was important for those purposes. But the gift itself was never emphasized by the New Testament writers.

The Book of Acts

In the book of Acts, the gift of tongues is exercised only three times (Acts 2, 10, 19). It is further referred to

in chapter 11 and may have occurred in chapter 8. But that is all Luke says about the gift in the entire book

of Acts covering all those many years of the first century church. Judging from Paul's remark in I

Corinthians 14:18, he spoke in tongues often during this period, but the Holy Spirit (and so, Luke) did not

recognize it as meriting record.

The Pauline Epistles

No New Testament epistle ever discusses or even mentions the gift except Paul's letter to the problem

church of Corinth. Even in Ephesians and Romans where Paul mentions and lists various spiritual gifts,

tongues are strikingly absent.

I Corinthians 12-14

Paul discusses the issue of tongues at length in I Corinthians 12-14; indeed, all of chapters 12-13 are

building to his direct discussion of tongues in chapter 14. To emphasize tongues' relative unimportance,

however, Paul is careful to always mention the gift last in his lists of gifts (along with the gift of

interpretation of tongues; cf. I Corinthians 12:10, 28, 29-30). It is his specific purpose in his list of gifts in I

Corinthians 12:28 to show which gifts are more important than others; again, tongues are last. He further

shows the relative unimportance of tongues in I Corinthians 12:29-30 by pointing out that God never

intended for everyone to have the gift.

I Corinthians 14

1. The Theme

The striking thing about I Corinthians 14 is that even a casual reading of the chapter reveals that Paul is not

at all emphasizing the gift of tongues, but he is actually de-emphasizing it. This is significant in light of the

common argument given by tongues speakers today: "since Paul wrote so much about the subject, it must be

very important for us." This argument misses the point entirely. Paul did not write I Corinthians 14 to

elevate the gift of tongues but to examine and evaluate their abuse and overemphasis of it. He wrote to deal

with a problem associated with the gift. Paul wrote just as much about eating meats and Christian liberty (I

Corinthians 8-10), but it was not to elevate the exercise of one's liberty but to curtail it. He devoted time and

space to a specific problem in a specific situation for a specific purpose; it is not up to us to then elevate

their specific problem but rather to understand the principles involved and apply them to our own

circumstances.

Paul did not write I Corinthians 14 to elevate the gift of tongues, and it is a complete misunderstanding of

the chapter to think otherwise. Paul states at the very outset (verses 1-2) that tongues are inferior, and then

he proceeds to establish that point through verse 25. The relative worthlessness of tongues is his stated

theme throughout these verses. I have heard that one radio preacher has said that the entire thrust of I

Corinthians 14 is, "cool it!" This is exactly right. It is amazing, then, how some could look to the Bible

where it depreciates something and use that very passage to elevate it.

Paul's stated purpose in chapter 14 is to show that gifts which present clearly the Word of God, either by

revelation (prophecy, verse 1) or by teaching (verse 19), are vastly superior to tongues; this is his starting

point in verse 1: "desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

2. The Explanation

He then proceeds to explain this preference in verses 2-25 where he goes to great lengths to demonstrate the

inferiority of tongues. The principles involved are 1) understanding, or intelligibility (verse 2), and 2)

edification (verses 3-6). Nothing is edifying that is not understandable; this is the principle which dominates

the following discussion. Tongues, he says, are not so edifying because they are not understandable (until

they are interpreted); so why make such a bother for them?

3. The Illustrations

He then gives two illustrations of his point: 1) musical instruments (vv.7-9) and, 2) human language itself

(vv.9-14; note the "so likewise" or "even so" of verse 9, pointing to the fact that he is illustrating his point of

the preceding verses). The point of his first illustration is that the sounds must be distinct and clear, or else

they are worthless. Did you ever hear a speaker who could amaze you with his speaking ability, but when he

finished you wondered what he said? This is Paul's second illustration. Such a speaker "speaks into the air"

(v.9). That, Paul says, is precisely what people think when you speak in tongues. You are like a barbarian to

them, a foreigner, because they can not understand you. What edification is there in that (see v.16)?

Say your pastor got up for his pastoral prayer next Sunday morning and said, "Eulogetos ho theos kai pater

tou kuriou hemon Iesou Chistou." Could you say "Amen" to that (see v.16)? Say then someone else got up

and gave the interpretation -- "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." You would say, "So

why didn't he just say that the first time?!" Paul's point exactly. By the nature of it, the prayer as it was given

the first time was unintelligible to any who did not know the language, and so it could not edify; thus,

tongues are inferior.

4. Paul's Practice

Precisely because of this, Paul says in verse 19, "in the church I had rather speak five words with my

understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue." It is

amazing how this verse is so overlooked. If words have any meaning at all, Paul says here that he never

spoke in tongues in the church. He said that he simply would rather not, because it does not serve to edify as

do teaching or prophesying. The clear teaching of the Word of God was preeminent, for that is what edifies.

(His reference in verse 18 to his tongues must then refer to his use of them in his missionary enterprises, not

as a function of worship in the local church.)

In verse 20 he tells them that this understanding requires a bit of maturity on their part. Their present

thinking about the gift of tongues was childish and selfish.

5. An Example Proves the Point

Finally, in verses 23-25, he pictures a church meeting; he is still working out his point that prophecy is

superior to tongues because it is much more edifying. "If therefore the whole church be come together into

one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they

not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is

convinced of all, he is judged of all, and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so falling down

on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." "What is it you want to do in your

meetings?" he asks. "Do you want to show off? or do you want to see people edified?" This question

answers itself. In light of this, the only solution is to do as Paul did; i.e., don't practice tongues in church

(v.19). That is why he tells them to grow up in their thinking (verse 20).

Summary

It is always important that our attitudes be reflective of the inspired apostle. It is abundantly clear that Paul

did not emphasize the gift of tongues, but rather he de-emphasized it. After all this, one can only wonder

how little the gift of tongues was exercised in the Corinthian church!

"But," someone may object, "if we follow that, we will never have any more tongues services at church!" A

very interesting and insightful observation.

Tongues Speakers: Who May Speak?

While many today are claiming that every Christian should enjoy the blessing of speaking in tongues, it is

plainly evident that the New Testament never even implies any such thing. Gifts are given sovereignly, "as

He will" (I Corinthians 12:11). The church is a body, each member having different functions. If the whole

body had the same gift, there would be nothing but confusion: "If the whole body were an eye, where were

the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?" (I Corinthians 12:17).

Paul expressly states in I Corinthians 12:29-30 that all do not speak in tongues: Are all apostles? are all

prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with

tongues? do all interpret?" The questions, as they are constructed in the Greek, demand a negative answer.

To understand it fully, the questions should be read "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are

they?" etc. The plain statement is that God never intended for all believers to have the same gift.

Many contemporary Charismatics, seeing the force of this, simply say that there are two different kinds of

tongues -- one as the gift per se, and the other is a tongue for personal, private use and intended for all

believers. Evidence? Nowhere does the Bible even hint that there is a gift of tongues which is not the gift of

tongues. The assertion of it is simply gratuitous.

The Purpose of Tongues

The Wrong Purpose

It is commonly believed that tongues serve the purpose of self-edification. Tongues, many think, edify the

one who speaks with them, and so this is their purpose.

However, the idea that tongues are for edification of self is completely unfounded; it is precisely contrary to

all that Paul was building toward in I Corinthians 12-14. The apostle went to great lengths to emphasize that

spiritual gifts are for edification of others. He says in I Corinthians 12:7 that gifts are "for the common

good." Paul's love song in I Corinthians 13 is so beautiful, in and of itself, that many have missed its very

point: he is showing that gifts must be exercised in love, and if they are exercised in love they will be

exercised for the benefit of others, not self. "Love seeketh not her own" (verse 5) but focuses on others. To

exercise a gift simply for its personal benefit would be a prostitution of it.

This is precisely the burden of Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14. Gifts are for the edifying of others, the

church, not self (see verses 3, 4, 5, 12, 17, 26). His argument in verses 1-3 is simply that tongues are inferior

simply because they do not tend to edification as does prophecy.

The argument is often given that in I Corinthians 14:2 and 4 Paul states that self-edification is the purpose of

tongues: "He that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God, for no man understands him....

He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." This, however, is

a complete misunderstanding of the verse; in fact, it is a precise reversal of its intended meaning. Yes, if a

man gets up in church and speaks in a tongue (with no interpreter), only God understands him, so he is not

speaking to men, only to God, and only the person himself is edified. But Paul is not commending that -- he

is criticizing it. He says, "this is what you are doing, but it's not good. It's bad! It is a misuse of a gift. You

should rather `edify the church.'" He is simply stating their practice as a prelude to his condemnation of it;

he is not stating the purpose of tongues. (Paul used this very same type of argument earlier; see I Corinthians

11:21.)

This is not to say that a gift can not edify the one exercising it. A preacher or teacher is continually edified

by the use of his gift, as is every other person by the use of his own gift. But it simply means that this is not

the purpose of any gift; gifts were given to enable believers to minister to others. To use them for any other

purpose would be a selfish prostitution of them. No man has a right to use his gift for the sheer purpose of

self-edification.

Furthermore, the fact that tongues were given to be a sign to unbelievers also excludes any idea of a private,

devotional use of the gift (this will be developed below).

What's more, if tongues were designed to edify, the church at Corinth would surely have been a different

church. No church in the New Testament spoke in tongues more that the church at Corinth, yet no church in

the New Testament was more carnal. Clearly, tongues did not edify the Corinthians.

The Stated Purposes

The New Testament is clear in its teaching that spiritual gifts are for the purpose of edifying the church.

Tongues did have that effect: when they were translated, they were the functional equivalent of prophecy.

That tongues were then edifying to the church (when properly used) cannot be questioned. However, in the

case of tongues, edification was only secondary; they had a greater purpose.

After exhorting the Corinthian believers to have more mature thinking about the gift, Paul quotes Isaiah

28:11-12 to establish the purpose of tongues: "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other

lips will I speak unto this people, and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore

tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." (I Corinthians 14:21-22). This

is the stated and intended purpose of tongues: they are for a sign, a sign to unbelievers.

This, then, is why tongues have so little purpose in the church: they are a sign to unbelievers. Their primary

purpose was not ministry to believers, but to unbelievers -- to arouse their attention to the gospel and to

confirm the credibility of Christianity in general. This is precisely the purpose served with the initial

occupance of the gift of tongues (Pentecost, Acts 2).

Nor does Paul necessarily imply in these verses (I Corinthians 14:21-22) that tongues are a sign of judgment

or a sign to the Jew only, as is often taught. He merely quotes Isaiah's statement to draw a principle from it,

namely, that tongues serve as a sign to unbelievers. Jesus said that the Jews would be given no sign at all,

except that of the resurrection (Matthew 16:4); and the apostle Paul himself had already told the Corinthians

that the Jews ask for but receive no sign at all (I Corinthians 1:22-23). If this sign were to the Jew only, Paul

would surely have stated it to this largely Gentile church in Corinth; rather, he merely says that tongues were

a sign to the unbeliever whether Jew or Gentile. This is all that is required from this statement. Tongues

were a sign to the unbeliever confirming the gospel and the new Christian message.

If the long ending of Mark is genuine or even historically accurate, Jesus also stated this to be the purpose of

tongues; tongues are "signs" (Mark 16:17).

Although this was the stated and so the primary purpose of the gift of tongues, they also served another

purpose: they demonstrated the reception of the Holy Spirit and the unity in the Body of Christ. Now be

careful! This is not to say that tongues is the evidence of a Spirit Baptism subsequent to salvation. But in the

book of Acts, tongues did serve to demonstrate the reception of the Spirit, i.e., salvation. By the nature of

that, then, those who spoke in tongues gave evidence of their unity in the body of Christ. This is precisely

what happened in Acts 2. It was the gift of tongues given to the house of Cornelius that convinced Peter that

the Gentiles too had received the Spirit and so had become a part of the church as well (Acts 11:15-18,

referring to the events of Acts 10:44-48). The same was demonstrated in Acts 19 with the disciples of John

the Baptist and also in Acts 8 with the Samaritans, if indeed tongues did occur then. Believers of all kinds --

Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile -- received the same gift and by it gave evidence of their unity in the same

body, the Body of Christ.

Summary

Tongues were never intended for personal, devotional use, nor can any verse of Scripture be found to teach

such a thing. Such would be a selfish and so unjustified reason for exercising the gift. Spiritual gifts were

given to edify others. The gift of tongues, specifically, was given as a sign to establish the gospel and the

Christian movement. They further served to demonstrate the reception of the Holy Spirit (salvation) and so

the unity of all those within the household of faith.

The Regulations

As we have seen throughout I Corinthians 14 Paul has been severely restricting the gift of tongues.

Beginning with verse 26, however, he adds even more regulations. No other gift is regulated as is the gift of

tongues. Paul has explained to the Corinthians the purpose of the gift, that it served as a sign to unbelievers.

Now he tells them that this purpose cannot be served unless the gift is exercised in the proper way and in

keeping with certain guidelines.

The Rules

Here are the rules which the apostle Paul gives for the exercise of the gift of tongues.

1. Edification (verse 26). This is the undergirding principle regulating all of the gifts in general. They must

serve to edify others.

2. No more than three in a service (verse 27). "At the most by three" indicates that to have three different

people speak in tongues in a given service would be rare. Entire congregations speaking, singing, or praying

in tongues is specifically forbidden here.

3. One at a time (verse 27). "And that by course" restricts the tongues speaking to one man at a time; any

more at once would only add to the confusion. It is confusing enough to listen to a foreign language; to

listen to two or more at once would be futile and certainly could not edify. The common contemporary

practice of standing up with a tongue during the preaching service is also forbidden here.

4. There must be an interpreter (verses 27-28). The giving of this regulation demands that the tongues

speaker know in advance of the presence of one with the gift of interpretation. If no interpreter is present,

Paul demands that the tongues speaker remain silent.

5. There must be only one interpreter (verse 27). The Greek word "one" is the number one, not a general

word referring to "someone." Paul requires here that the same interpreter give the interpretations of the one,

two, or at the most three tongues-messages given. No other interpreters are to speak.

6. The interpreter must be someone other than the tongues speaker (verses 27-29). Paul does not allow the

one speaking in a tongue to give his own interpretation.

7. Order (verses 29-33, 40). The gifts must never be exercised in a way that tends to "confusion," for that

would detract from their purpose (to edify). While formalism is not the only answer, chaos is clearly

excluded. The worship service must be conducted in an orderly fashion.

8. Self control (verse 32). "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" clearly excludes any

excuse such as, "I just couldn't restrain myself; the Holy Spirit just took over!" Paul expressly requires that a

man be in control of his faculties at all times. Being "carried away" is reflective of the pagan religions, not

Christian gifts (I Corinthians 12:2). This regulation precludes any so-called "slaying in the Spirit" or the like

in which a person is completely out of control; when the Holy Spirit requires self control, He will not then

cause the opposite. He will not violate His own word. The objection is often given, "But what if the Holy

Spirit should so overwhelm me that I lose touch with reality?" or, "I just couldn't hold it in," or the like. But

the clear assumption of this verse is that the Holy Spirit will never do that. He has forbidden it, and He

simply will never cause anything which is contrary to His word. Never.

9. No women allowed (verses 35-38). Paul could not be more clear in this prohibition. "Let the women keep

silence in the churches." Whatever else this refers to, it at least refers to the exercise of the gifts of tongues

and prophecy, for this is the context in which this command is given. Realizing, evidently, the storm of

protest this command would receive, Paul follows it with a statement of authority in verses 36-38, which

say, in effect, "if you don't agree with me on this score, you are conceited (verse 36), unspiritual (verse 37),

and rebelliously ignorant" (verse 38). The regulation could not be more clear; to reject it is to directly defy

the inspired apostle.

Other restrictions already noted but not so stated or listed in these verses also apply. They are as follows.

10. Tongues must be languages. Gibberish is completely foreign to the New Testament gift of tongues. To

speak in an "ecstatic utterance" is entirely without Biblical warrant.

11. Tongues must serve the proper purposes. Personal, devotional use is not a Biblical purpose served by the

gift.

12. Tongues must be public. Private use of the gift is completely without precedent and cannot serve as a

sign to unbelievers.

Summary

These are the regulations for the gift of tongues for which the inspired apostle leaves no room for debate

(verses 36-38). Where these rules are not followed, we may be sure that it is not the genuine gift, but a

counterfeit.

Again, someone may object, "But all these restrictions could do away with the practice entirely!" And also

again, that is a very insightful observation. I wonder what happened in Corinth.

The Cessation of Tongues

It raises no small protest, in some circles, to even question if tongues are for today. To say that they have

ceased usually evokes a response something like this: "The church of the New Testament had it, and so then

should we!" "All I want is what they had!" "There is no verse in the Bible which says we can't have them

today!"

First of all, that the early church had the gift in and of itself does not require that we should have it any more

than it proves that we shouldn't. Next, to have what they had may not be so good after all -- how would you

like to live without a complete Canon of Scripture, without a sure Standard to measure religious claims? It

would be a step backward, not forward. Furthermore, that there is no verse which precisely states the issue is

debatable (as we shall see), and even if there were none, Christian theology has never rested merely on proof

texts but rather on inductions drawn from the entire Bible (ever look for a single verse of Scripture to prove

the Trinity?). What's more, neither is there any verse of Scripture in the Bible which says we can have the

gift today.

The question will never be settled on the basis of emotional sentiment -- "I want what they had!" It can only

be settled by the teachings of Scripture; this is the only Standard capable of providing the answer.

Evidence

The Bible states in several ways and provides several reasons why tongues can not be a part of the church

today.

1. Paul directly stated in I Corinthians 13:8 that tongues would cease. In Paul's later epistles and in the other

New Testament epistles, tongues are strikingly absent. It is significant also that for some nineteen centuries

this gift of tongues was absent from the life of the church and never claimed by any legitimately Christian

group (see B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, The Banner of Truth Trust). Whatever may be unclear about

this passage, the plain fact is that the inspired apostle said that they would stop. And they did. If nineteen

centuries of absence is not "ceasing," it is difficult to imagine what else could qualify.

2. The Pattern of Biblical history is that miraculous gifts are given for a short time only and then withdrawn.

To assume that they should have remained is an assumption impossible to support.

3. The history of the New Testament gives clear record that the miraculous gifts were dying out even before

the death of the apostles themselves.

4. Revelation has ceased, and so the gift of tongues, which was a revelatory gift, has ceased as well.

5. The purpose of tongues has been served, and so they are no longer needed. They were to serve as a sign to

authenticate the gospel and to demonstrate the unity within the body of Christ. With the Christian church

and its unity an established fact, the signs of the same would serve no purpose.

6. The complete inferiority of the gift of tongues to prophecy (I Corinthians 14:1-3) or even teaching (verse

19) renders it unneedful. It really can accomplish nothing but what could be better and more easily

accomplished by teaching.

7. The very attitude of the apostle Paul toward tongues expressed in I Corinthians 14 and his stringent

restrictions placed upon the gift almost eliminate tongues entirely (e.g., verse 19). The attitude is so severe

and the regulations are so many, that proper exercise of the gift is almost impossible, even if it were for

today.

Objection: I Corinthians 14:39

The objection is often raised that in I Corinthians 14:39 Paul says not to forbid tongues. Does not this

demand us to allow them today?

The question is a fair one, but the answer may not be as simple as the questioner may think. Paul does not

command that we blindly accept all that claims to be the gift of tongues, else this would be a blanket

endorsement of many cults and pagan religions as well as the obvious frauds within the church itself. He

obviously means not to forbid the gift as it is legitimately given and properly exercised; this, in context

(verses 26-40), is clearly Paul's point. As we have seen, for many reasons there is no legitimate gift of

tongues today; so this verse would not require us to accept the claims of those who say they have it

(however sincere they may be). Furthermore, even if the gift were given today, it would be difficult, if not

impossible, to find it exercised in accordance with the regulations Paul gave for it (see the twelve rules listed

above; I, personally, have never witnessed a tongues meeting in which all of these rules were heeded), and

wherever these regulations are not heeded, this command (verse 39) could not apply.

Because of the Corinthians' abuse and misunderstanding of it, throughout the first thirty-eight verses of I

Corinthians 14, Paul severely restricted the gift of tongues; indeed, he had scarcely a good word to say about

the gift. Therefore, he very tactfully gave the command of verse 39, so that the Corinthians would not think

that he felt the gift to be entirely wrong; it was only wrong in its violation of the principles which he laid

out.

For a man to claim that the command of verse 39 applies to him, then, he must be able to demonstrate that,

1) God gives the gift of tongues today (giving answer the Biblical reasons given above), and 2) his gift is

being properly exercised and is in keeping with the apostolic regulations for it. Only then could verse 39

apply to him.

Conclusion

The gift of tongues was the gift of languages, a miraculous sign gift directed toward unbelievers but

emphasized very little in the New Testament. The gift was given to only a relative few in the early church

and was never intended to be possessed by all believers. Even while the gift was being given, certain

stringent limitations were placed upon its use. Following the foundational phase of the church with the death

of the apostles, the gift was no longer given. It naturally follows, then, that the gift of the interpretation of

tongues is gone as well.

Pentecost, Spirit Baptism, & Charismatism

The Debate

Central to the debate between Charismatics and non-charismatics today is the doctrine of Spirit baptism. The

Charismatics contend that it is an experience distinct from and subsequent to salvation in which a believer

completely receives the Holy Spirit into his life, fully empowering him for worship and service. Indeed, this

interpretation of the doctrine is the basic support of their entire system. This "second blessing," or receiving

the Holy Spirit after salvation is (they teach) the means to fullness of blessing in the Christian life and the

means to the exercise of the "charismatic" gifts. Without it, they claim, a person may be a Christian but not

fully blessed or fully enabled to worship and serve the Lord. They further teach that it is received only upon

the meeting of certain conditions, such as holiness and earnest prayer, and the chief evidence of receiving it

is speaking in tongues. These claims are central to the debate and must be evaluated carefully.

The Doctrine

The Extent

The New Testament teaches repeatedly that all Christians receive the Holy Spirit and that in the same

degree. There are no Christians who do not have Him. In fact, a person can not be a Christian without

receiving the Holy Spirit. One of the great blessings of salvation is the reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit

of God in the life of all believers.

John 7:38-39

Jesus promised, "He that believeth on me as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of

living water," to which the inspired apostle John added the interpretive comment, "But this spake He of the

Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive" (John 7:38-39). Jesus plainly promised that all

believers would not only receive the Spirit or merely receive Him partially, but that they would receive Him

in rivers of abundance. The New Testament elaborates in great detail on this abounding possession of the

Holy Spirit: the sealing, gifting, guiding, and sanctifying ministries of the Spirit are various aspects of it.

Romans 8:9

Perhaps most clear is the statement of the apostle Paul in Romans 8:9 which boldly declares that if one does

not have the Holy Spirit, neither does he belong to Christ. This reception of the Spirit of God is no second

blessing received after salvation; it is a very basic part of salvation itself. To speak of a man without the

Spirit is to speak of a man without Christ.

I Corinthians 12:13

One more verse of Scripture deserves attention in this regard; that is I Corinthians 12:13. Paul states, "For in

one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (author's translation). Several references to Spirit baptism are

found in the New Testament, but this is the only one that is directly interpretive. Others shed light on the

doctrine by reference to it, but this one alone seeks to interpret it; thus, it is the basic teaching on the subject,

the normative passage on the doctrine.

Notice first of all when this baptism occurs: it occurs at the time of salvation. It occurs when a man enters

the body of Christ; in fact, it is the very means of entrance. This is no later, subsequent experience, but the

event which brings a man "into one body."

Notice further the extent, that is, who is privileged to receive this blessing -- "all." This is not something

reserved for a later experience of a privileged few; it is a blessing enjoyed by all who are in "the body."

The Provisions

The New Testament is equally clear in its teaching that when a man is saved he is given all he needs to

complete his spiritual growth; he does not need to wait for anything else or any later blessing. Now there is

the definite need of growth, and that growth can only come through certain means; but even the newest

Christian has all the equipment necessary for worship and service.

Perhaps no verse of Scripture states this wonderful privilege any more clearly than does II Peter 1:3, which

affirms that believers have been given " all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (italics added). There

are no "have nots" in the body of Christ; not a member has been cheated or left out. This very point is also

stressed in Romans 6, which declares that in his struggle with sin in this life, the Christian has all that is

necessary for victory because of the sufficiency of Christ's work. The provision is complete for every

believer.

Prophecy & Fulfillment

This blessing of the Holy Spirit was prophesied by the Lord's forerunner, John the Baptist, the last prophet

of the old order. He prophesied, "I indeed have baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy

Ghost" (Mark 1:8). Over and again Jesus promised His disciples that He would send His Spirit (John 7:38-

39; 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14). Just before His ascension into heaven, Jesus commanded his disciples to

wait in Jerusalem for "the promise of the Father. . . . For John truly baptized in water, but ye shall be

baptized in the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:4-5). Ten days later they experienced the great

events of the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2), and they were "filled with the Spirit" (Acts 2:4). In

Acts 11:15-17, Peter associates Cornelius' reception of the Spirit with theirs at Pentecost and identifies both

as Spirit baptism.

The promise of the Spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost when the Lord sent His Spirit to indwell His church.

The Significance

"Spirit baptism," then, is a reference to the coming of the Spirit; the significance and implications of this

must now be determined.

1. The Baptizer

Mark 1:8

First of all, it is important to recognize Who it is that does the baptizing work. It is often thought that the

Holy Spirit baptizes; this is not at all the case. It is not the Holy Spirit but rather Christ Himself baptizing in

the Holy Spirit; this is what John the Baptist plainly prophesied would happen: "He shall baptize you in the

Holy Spirit" (Mark 1:8).

I Corinthians 12:13

The same is taught in I Corinthians 12:13 which states that "in one Spirit we all were baptized into one

body." Christ Himself baptizes, not in water but (in a mystical sense) in the Holy Spirit, thus making a man a

part of His body. The Authorized Version (KJV) translates the Greek preposition en as "by" in this verse.

This translation, although grammatically allowable, is not at all in keeping with Paul's line of thought here.

The thought is similar to that of Romans 8:9 which declares that a man without the Spirit is without Christ.

He is not showing that the Holy Spirit has formed the body of Christ but that all in the body of Christ enjoy

the blessing of the Holy Spirit, because in Him all are baptized (by Christ). The Holy Spirit is the common

denominator of all believers; therefore, all have Him. This is Paul's point. This is further stressed in the

remainder of the verse which declares that all in the body "have been made to drink into one Spirit."

In summary, the thought of I Corinthians 12:13 in this regard is this: all believers share in the Holy Spirit;

this is true because in Him all were baptized (by Christ) into Christ's body.

Conclusion

The phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit," although common, is never found in Scripture and conveys an

inaccurate doctrine. It is the Lord Jesus Christ Who baptizes, not the Holy Spirit. He baptizes, as John

prophesied, not in water, but in the Holy Spirit, thus placing a man into His body, the church.

2. The Meaning

One of the most striking of Christ's promises regarding the gift of the Spirit given at Pentecost is found in

John 14:12-18. Verse 16 promises the coming of "another Comforter," or the Paraclete (Greek, parakletos).

He is "another" in the sense of "same" (Greek, allos), the same help as was Christ. Verse 18 is the climax: "I

will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." Notice the identification, "I" -- "I will come to you."

This is often interpreted to signify a promise of His second coming or His resurrection from the tomb;

perhaps these are somehow included. But the emphasis of this promise is Christ's return to them in the

person of the Holy Spirit. He will come to them by sending the Holy Spirit, "another Comforter."

This verse is significant, then, in that it identifies the coming of the Holy Spirit as a continuation of Christ's

saving work. The coming of the Holy Spirit, Spirit baptism, is not something that can be viewed separately

from Christ's work: it is the continuation and (to this point in history) the climax of it. Jesus Christ, the Head

and Founder of the Church is present and living in His church, now, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the "other

comforter." The coming of the Holy Spirit was the coming of Christ Himself to His church.

This is the significance of the promise of His coming: the Holy Spirit was always present and working in the

world and in His people but never before in this capacity as the coming of Christ to His church. This was the

great promise of the Holy Spirit Who was "not yet given" (John 7:39): He came as the capstone of Christ's

personal provision for His church. This is the significance of Paul's comment in Colossians 1:27, " Christ in

you the hope of glory" (italics added). This is what Paul has in mind when he says that "Christ liveth in me"

(Galatians 2:20). This also explains why Paul could speak of the Holy Spirit's indwelling as equivalent to

Christ's indwelling (Romans 8:9). This further explains why the apostle could say "The Lord is the Spirit" (I

Corinthians 3:17) and why in one place he speaks of Christ supplying the gifts (Ephesians 4:7ff) and of the

Holy Spirit supplying them in another (I Corinthians 12:8). Moreover, this is the believer's vital union with

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ Himself is indwelling His church in the person of the Holy Spirit of God Who was sent and

given at Pentecost. This is the significance of Spirit baptism.

Summary

Spirit baptism, then, is not at all something which God does for a believer sometime after salvation: it is an

essential and prominent part of salvation itself. For a man to suggest that it is something received later, after

salvation, is to suggest an entirely new meaning of salvation; it suggests that in salvation Christ really didn't

provide everything after all. But make no mistake about it: when Christ saves, He provides everything. He

has not "left us orphans" (John 14:16), but rather He has come to indwell us by His Spirit, and He "has given

unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). We are "complete in Him" (Colossians

2:19).

Remaining Questions

The Contrast

One question that remains is this: what, then, is the difference between what the Old Testament believers

had and what the New Testament believers have? If the coming (gift) of the Spirit (Spirit baptism) is

something unique to this church age, what does the New Testament believer have that the Old Testament

believer didn't?

The answer to that question is not that believers of this age have the Holy Spirit while the others did not.

That Old Testament saints did have the Holy Spirit is obvious from the fact that, 1) their God-pleasing lives

(sanctification) would have been impossible without the indwelling Spirit, and 2) the passages of Scripture

which plainly state that the Holy Spirit was "in" Old Testament believers (e.g., Genesis 41:38, Joseph;

Numbers 27:18 and Deuteronomy 34:9, Joshua; Daniel 4:8, 9, 18, 6:3; I Peter 1:11, the Old Testament

prophets).

The difference is simply that, 1) by virtue of this baptism a man is a member of the body of Christ which

was first formed at Pentecost, 2) His ministry in believers today is greater and more extensive than before

(e.g., gifting, increased spiritual understanding, etc.), and 3) the Holy Spirit has come in a new and greater

capacity: He has come as the risen and ascended Christ to His church. Never before had the Spirit come in

this dimension. This interprets Jesus' declaration that the least of New Covenant believers are greater than

John the Baptist, the greatest of the Old Covenant believers (Matthew 11:11). This also explains the marked

difference in the apostles before and after Pentecost. The contrast is great, but not absolute. The Holy Spirit

has always indwelt His own; without this, none could have lived sanctified lives. But His coming in this

great dimension marked an immeasurable increase in provision and blessing, a blessing reserved for the

New Covenant believer (Ezekiel 36:27).

The Conditions

Another question involved concerns the conditions of receiving the Holy Spirit. It is often taught today that

Spirit baptism is received only by meeting the conditions of absolute surrender, total yieldedness, obedience,

faith, and/or earnest prayer. The basic assumption to such an interpretation is that the Holy Spirit can only

indwell that which is holy. That may seem like a proper assumption until it is asked how a person is to be

holy without the indwelling Spirit. How can a person live a holy life without the Holy Spirit indwelling and

guiding (Galatians 5:16)? Furthermore, if a man could live such a life without the indwelling Spirit, why

then would he need Spirit baptism at all? What would be the purpose of it in such a case? Such an

interpretation defeats itself: if a man can produce holiness by himself apart from the indwelling influence of

the Holy Spirit as a condition for receiving Him, then the need of Him is gone.

The New Testament teaching is quite to the contrary: the Holy Spirit does not come to indwell holy people.

He comes to indwell unholy people in order to make them holy. If this were not the case, then no one would

ever receive Him, for holiness is impossible without Him. Believers receive Him not because they are

righteous but because Christ's righteousness has been imputed to them. The Holy Spirit then comes to aid in

the struggle against and to gain victory over sin in the life.

Neither is prayer a condition of receiving Him but rather an evidence of it (see below).

The New Testament simply never states any such conditions for Spirit baptism. The receiving of the Spirit is

a provision of salvation itself, not a blessing received only upon the meeting of certain conditions afterward.

The Evidences

One more question concerns the evidences of Spirit baptism. Many teach that the chief (if not the only)

evidence of having received the Spirit is speaking in tongues. The following considerations militate against

that interpretation.

1) The New Testament simply never teaches such a doctrine; nowhere does it hint of that teaching. In fact,

the contrary is true: most of those present at Pentecost, although being baptized in the Spirit, never spoke in

tongues (Acts 2).

2) Throughout church history, the greatest movements of the Holy Spirit were never marked by the speaking

of tongues. Such a phenomenon is strikingly absent.

3) The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at His baptism, yet our Lord never spoke in tongues.

4) I Corinthians 12:13 teaches that all in the church have been baptized in the Spirit, while verse 30 teaches

plainly that all do not speak in tongues.

The evidences of Spirit baptism given in the New Testament are (seemingly) not so spectacular. Prayer

(Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:15-16), spiritual understanding (I Corinthians 2:12; Romans 5:5), assurance (II

Corinthians 1:22), holiness (Galatians 5:22-23), and love (I John 4:12-13) may not seem exciting to some,

but these are wonderful and thrilling spiritual qualities available only because of the indwelling Spirit. (It is

interesting that while assurance of salvation is an evidence of having received the Spirit, the basically

Arminian theology of the Charismatics, who speak most of having the Spirit, makes very little allowance for

such assurance.) These are the marks of a man indwelt by God's Spirit. The emphasis is not on tongues at

all, but on holiness (cf. John 15:26 and 16:14).

Do you want to know if you have received the Holy Spirit? These are the tests and the evidences.

Summary & Conclusion

The foundational teachings of Charismatism (i.e., that the Spirit is received after salvation only by the

meeting of certain conditions and is evidenced by speaking in tongues) is clearly not in keeping with the

Scriptural teaching.

Spirit baptism is the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ baptizes His people in the Holy Spirit, making

them a part of the church. Christ Himself has come to indwell His church in and by His Spirit; this is the

climax of His work in His people (to this point in history). Spirit baptism is the means of entrance into the

body of Christ, not a blessing received subsequently. It is received as a free gift, a part of salvation itself,

and is evidenced by holiness.

Charismatism & The Book of Acts

The Confusion Surrounding the Book

The Claims

Charismatic theology rests largely on the teaching that Spirit baptism occurs subsequent to salvation when

certain conditions are met and is evidenced by speaking in tongues. Their evidence? The book of Acts. Their

claim is that these teachings rest on the pattern set forth in Acts. This booklet will evaluate the book of Acts

in light of these claims.

There is some evidence for their claims. In Acts 2 the apostles were baptized in the Spirit at a time which

was subsequent to their salvation. In Acts 8 the order for the Samaritan converts was as follows: 1)

repentance and faith, 2) water baptism, 3) Laying on of the apostles' hands, and 4) receiving of the Holy

Spirit. The same is true in Acts 19. Again, in Acts 2, having been baptized in the Spirit the apostles spoke in

tongues; this also was the case in chapter 19 and possibly in chapter 8. Cornelius spoke in tongues upon

receiving the Spirit in Acts 10. According to the Charismatics, this is the pattern for today.

The Problems

But the issue is not settled quite so simply: upon closer examination the pattern does not hold true. For

example, in Acts 2 the apostles were baptized in the Spirit subsequent to salvation, but the 3000 others

received the baptism at the time of salvation. So which is normative? Which is the pattern for today? In Acts

10 the Gentiles were also baptized in the Spirit at the time of salvation. Furthermore, Spirit baptism occurs

before water baptism in Acts 2 and 10 and after water baptism in chapters 8 and 19. Once more, the Spirit

was given only by the laying on of the apostles' hands in Acts 8 and 19 but without it in chapters 2 and 10.

Upon close examination of all relevant data from the book of Acts, the Charismatic's supposed pattern

erodes. The "pattern" is not so consistent.

A Clarification

Confused? One thing is obvious: The Charismatics' supposed pattern in the book of Acts is not found in the

book of Acts! Their "pattern" is only a part of the pattern of the book of Acts. Indeed, it is difficult (but not

impossible) to find any overall pattern in the book. To follow the pattern of the book of Acts is a worthy

goal, but which pattern should be followed? The pattern in the book of Acts is (seemingly) inconsistent with

itself: sometimes there are tongues; other times there are none. With some the Spirit is received through the

laying on of hands; with others no such laying on of hands is needed. Some receive the Spirit before water

baptism, some after. If all Scripture is inspired, the interpreter must find a position and pattern which allows

for and includes all the Biblical data, not just a part of it.

A Principle

One more principle emerges from the midst of this confusion: doctrine must be based on the apostle's

teaching, not experience. To put it another way, in formulating theology, the apostles' teaching is normative,

not the experience of some in the history recorded in the book of Acts. To approach doctrine in any other

way brings total confusion (as that just surveyed) and does disservice to the inspired teaching of the apostles.

With this principle established (that apostolic teaching is normative), the interpreter must recognize that I

Corinthians 12:13 is the only interpretive comment on the subject to be found in the New Testament: "For in

one Spirit we all were baptized into one body." Other passages refer to Spirit baptism in one way or another,

but this is the only verse which seeks to explain it. From this statement, then, the interpreter can interpret the

issue, and using this verse as a guide he can sort through all the varied details in the book of Acts.

The Purpose of Acts

Basic to this study is an understanding of Luke's purpose in writing the book of Acts. He states that purpose

in the opening lines of the book: it is to set forth the continuation of the ministry of Christ after His

resurrection and ascension; that is, His ministry through His apostles (hence the designation, "Acts of the

Apostles"). He wrote to document the spread of the apostolic church from Jerusalem to the "uttermost part

of the earth" (Acts 1:8). His purpose, then, was not doctrinal but historical, which explains his failure to

explain the differences which arise in the "pattern" of the book. His purpose directed his style.

The Transition of Acts

Observing It

The book of Acts, then, is a transitional book, and as such it is unique. It bridges the gap between the old

dispensation and the new, from God's dealings primarily and almost exclusively with the Jews to his

dealings primarily and almost exclusively with the Gentiles. In the Gospels God's people still worshipped

according to the Mosaic Law with its tithes, sacrifices, and temple; in the epistles, God's people are the

church, meeting and worshipping outside the temple and apart from the Mosaic Law. In Acts there are both;

it is a period of transition. In the Old Testament order, the Angel of the Lord was appearing to men to reveal

God's will, a phenomenon unknown in this age; but in Acts the Angel of the Lord is at times at work as

before (e.g., Philip, Acts 8). Acts is a transitional book, and as such it is unique.

There is no other explanation for the varied and seemingly inconsistent "pattern" in the book of Acts: unless

Acts is seen as a period of transition, the confusion cannot be accounted for. The liberals use the "confusion"

as evidence for the opposition between Peter and Paul. The ultra-dispensationalists divide the book into

different dispensations. The only real solution lies in the fact that Acts is a transitional book; it records a

period of transition, the link between the Old and the New orders.

Explaining It

This transition period was necessary for at least two reasons.

1. A Foundational Period

The first is the need for a foundational period. A period of time was needed for the apostles and prophets to

lay the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). Their teaching had to be given, and then it had to be

validated by the exercise of their sign gifts (II Corinthians 12:12). The book of Acts records the history of

that foundational and miracle-working period; it sets the stage and lays the ground-work for the

superstructure phase of the church which followed. During a time of transition, some of both eras (those

before and after) will be apparent for a time. The foundation had to be laid, and it had to be confirmed by a

period of miraculous gifts; with this accomplished, the transition was complete.

2. Believers Living Before & After Pentecost

Another factor demanding a time of transition is the unique position of those people who were believers

before and after Pentecost. For them, by the nature of the case, Spirit baptism had to come subsequent to

salvation, for it first occurred on Pentecost. Such was the case with the apostles.

Furthermore, the cross and the day of Pentecost did mark a definite change in God's economy, but to those

believers who were not in Jerusalem to hear of it God did not open heaven and make the universal

announcement, "Okay, it's time now; everybody shift!" Obviously, time was required for the message to get

out to the other believers, and there must have been thousands of them who needed to hear the new message.

Some interpreters suggest that these believers who were not at Pentecost were nonetheless "ideally" baptized

without knowledge of it. But this is not in keeping with the facts. Two examples illustrate this well: Philip in

Samaria (Acts 8) and Paul in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). In the case of Philip and the Samaritan revival, there

were some believers there even before Philip's arrival (John 4:39) who did not receive the Spirit until Peter

and John later arrived and ministered Him to them (Acts 8:14-17). In Paul's case there were believers

converted under the ministry of John the Baptist who then did not receive the Spirit until some 20 years

later. In both cases there were men who were believing before Pentecost but who were not present on

Pentecost and so did not receive the Spirit until some time later; they had "not so much as heard whether

there be any Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2).

It is evident that only the believers present at Pentecost were baptized in the Spirit at that time; the others

moved into this transitional period without it, receiving it later when the Holy Spirit was ministered to them

by the apostles or their associates (Galatians 3:5). This is also why Jesus commanded His disciples to tarry

in Jerusalem until the arrival of the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5).

3. Other Factors

There were perhaps other factors requiring a transitional period, such as normal resistance to change, the

necessity to preach the gospel to the Jew first, and a needed period of miraculous signs, but these two

mentioned seem to be the most prominent.

Summary

There is, then, a quite different pattern emerging from a study of all the relevant facts, and it is explainable

only by recognizing the transitional character of the book of Acts. Those saved on or after Pentecost

received the Spirit at the time of their salvation (the three thousand at Pentecost and the Gentiles in the

house of Cornelius); those who were believers before Pentecost received the Spirit either on the day of

Pentecost (if they were present, as the apostles in Acts 2) or sometime later, when the apostles could

minister the Spirit to them (Acts 8 and 19).

Conclusion

As verified by Paul's comment in I Corinthians 12:13, those saved now follow the pattern of those in Acts

who were saved after Pentecost and receive the Spirit at the time of salvation. This is the norm once the

transition was complete. There are two exceptions to this pattern (Acts 8 and 19) and for very good reasons;

these will be explained below.

A Survey of The Relevant Passages

Acts 2

The events of the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 are the fulfillment of the promise Jesus gave over and

again to His disciples, namely, that He would come to them in the Person of the Spirit. It is an unrepeatable

event simply because it was unique: it marked the birth of the church, the day of its formation, the beginning

of a new age. It was the coming of the Spirit of Christ to take up residence in His church. This can only

happen once; there can be only one day of birth. There were present there people who were saved prior to

that time, so by the nature of the case Spirit baptism occurred after salvation.

So by virtue of its uniqueness, the events of Pentecost cannot be the norm today. It was a necessary part of

that transition period, but the circumstances can not be duplicated.

Acts 8

Acts 8 gives one example of people saved after Pentecost and receiving the Spirit still later, which is

explainable only in light of the fact that it was a part of a transitional period.

Of the many problems facing the early church, two were very prominent. One was for the Jews to be willing

to share their blessings with the Samaritans; the other was for the Samaritans to be willing to share them

with the Jews! Their hatred of each other was as long-standing as it was deep. Furthermore, the events of

Pentecost were led by Jews (the apostles); there were no Samaritans involved. Evidently (more evidence is

given below concerning the same problem with the Gentiles in Acts 10), God saw that if the Samaritans

received the Spirit without the Jews, unity would never be possible; the Samaritans would have their own

branch of Christianity. But being unable to receive Him independent of the Jewish apostles, they were

forced to recognize the unity God established and the authority of the apostles (even though they were

Jews). The same was true for the Jews themselves: seeing the Samaritans receive the Spirit at the hands of

the apostles, they could not deny that they were all a part of the same body. God uniquely withheld the Spirit

for a time in order to meet a unique need existing in that transitional period. Once that purpose was

achieved, this unusual events would no longer occur.

The fact that this order of events (receiving the Spirit after salvation) was indeed unusual is emphasized in

verse 16, which adds a note of explanation: "For as yet He was fallen upon none of them." The implication

of the statement is that this order of events is different from the norm. Luke felt it necessary to give this

explanatory note because the circumstances were so unusual. If this order of events were the norm, Luke's

explanation here would be pointless.

Acts 10

The same problem existed in a greater degree in reference to the Gentiles. To a Jew, a Gentile was a dog;

indeed, this is precisely why God needed to first teach Peter the lesson via the dream/vision of the

descending white sheet. This passage shows that even Gentiles were a part of the same body as Jews, and it

destroys the disunity between them: the Gentiles of the house of Cornelius believed and received the Spirit

just as did the Jews. Their experience was identical, so the unity was too obvious to deny.

That this was the purpose involved is evident from Peter's testimony in chapter 11 in which he gives account

to the Jerusalem church for these unprecedented happenings. They all agreed, for "the Holy Spirit fell on

them, as on us at the beginning" (verse 15). This was the purpose in chapter 10 and in chapter 8 as well. A

unique need was met during that transitional period.

Concerning the "pattern" of the book of Acts, discussed earlier, it is important to note that in this passage, 1)

Salvation and Spirit baptism are simultaneous, and 2) Spirit baptism is spoken of as salvation itself (verse

47).

Acts 19

In Acts 19:1-7 the problem was simply that there were some believers (disciples of John the Baptist) who

had not heard the message of the Holy Spirit. Being disciples of John the Baptist, they did, of course, know

of the teaching of the coming of the Holy Spirit; this was one of the Baptist's themes (cf. Luke 3:16). They

were faithfully awaiting the Messiah, but had not heard the entire message or that the Holy Spirit had,

indeed, come. Evidently, they were not present at Pentecost. The apostles, then, gave them further teaching

on the matter and ministered to them the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

1. The Contrasting Claims

The Charismatics claim that the book of Acts supports their position that:

1) Spirit baptism occurs after salvation upon the meeting of certain conditions. But this is not the teaching of

the book: Spirit baptism did occur subsequent to salvation a couple times but for obvious and unique reasons

that cannot be repeated (i.e., to accommodate believers living through the transition and to demonstrate the

unity of the body of Christ). Furthermore, it is not the consistent pattern of the book, and it is contrary to

Peter's and Paul's teaching on the subject (Acts 10:47; I Corinthians 12:13), nor are any conditions for

receiving the Spirit ever mentioned.

2) The evidence of Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues. This did happen in Acts 10 and 19 and possibly in

chapter 8. That tongues did demonstrate the reception of the Holy Spirit cannot be denied, for tongues is a

gift of the Spirit. But it was not the experience of all believers in Acts 2, only the apostles. Nor is it ever

stated that it should continue to be the evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence.

2. The Pattern

The pattern of the book of Acts does not teach that Spirit baptism follows salvation. This did happen on

occasion, but for very clear and unique reasons. The pattern is that, 1) those who were believers before

Pentecost received the Spirit either on the day of Pentecost, if they were present (as the apostles), or at a

later time when they heard the message and were ministered the Spirit by the apostolic company (as the

disciples of John the Baptist; cf. Galatians 3:5); and 2) those saved on or after Pentecost received the Spirit

at the same time (as the three thousand in Acts 2 and the house of Cornelius in Acts 10). The only exception

to this was the Samaritans, from whom the Spirit was temporarily withheld to demonstrate their proper place

in the body of Christ.

3. The Norm

The norm for today is Spirit baptism at the time of salvation, as was the case in Acts 2 and 10. Paul affirms

this in I Corinthians 12:13, as does Peter in Acts 2:38 and 10:47.

Summary

The book of Acts covers a unique period of church history. It is a book of historical transition and as such

should not be viewed as something given to by itself teach a "pattern" for the entire church age. A

permanent "pattern" is discernable in the book but only through the apostolic teaching given concerning it

(i.e., I Corinthians 12:13).

A Question of Authority: Scripture Vs. Experience

Chapter 21

One issue which inevitably arises in the discussion of the temporary nature of some gifts involves the

question of authority. Without exception (to the best of my recollection), each time I have endeavored to

show to one who believes that miraculous and revelatory gifts are for today that the Word of God teaches

that these gifts are no longer given to the church, the response is (in this or similar wording), "But I have

seen it happen," or "But it has happened to me! How can you deny that?" After looking through many

portions of Scripture regarding the issue, one such man said this: "I see what you are saying, but I just can't

believe that all these wonderful, sincere Christians could all be wrong!" To which I replied, "What about all

these other just as sincere Christians who believe the opposite? Do you think they all could be wrong?"

You see, games like that can continue ad infinitum. For every experience that can be shown to prove one

thing, another can be given to prove the opposite. The fact of the matter is that someone is wrong, whether

or not he is sincere; he may be sincerely wrong but wrong nonetheless. This is what I tried to point out to the

man with my reply. It becomes clear in the midst of conversations and confusion like this that the question

can only be settled in one way: "What saith the Scriptures." The conversation must proceed in another

direction entirely. The only standard which can adequately answer such a question is Scripture, not

experience. To appeal to an experience or to the sincerity of another Christian in order to settle a matter of

doctrine differs very little, in the final analysis, from the liberal who denies Scripture altogether. Only

"Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine" (II Timothy 3:16); a theology based on experience or

sentiment is a hollow one at best.

It may seem sacrilegious to some, but when I consider what is right or wrong in matters of religion, I really

don't care about your experiences, nor do you need care about mine. All that matters is what Scripture says.

One of the great tenets of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura -- "Scripture alone" is the infallible and all-

sufficient guide for faith and practice.

The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The Testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the

simple. The Statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The commandments of the Lord are pure,

enlightening the eyes. The Fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever. The Judgments of the Lord are true

and righteous altogether (Psalm 19:7-9).

In short, Scripture, in and of itself, is completely sufficient for every need. One of the most wonderful and

valuable possessions God has given His people is Scripture, which is His Word. It provides for every need

and answers every question. A Christian, then, does not judge an experience on its own merits but by the

Word of God! Scripture is not only infallible, but it is enough! It is all we need, and it is all God wants us to

consult in settling all matters of faith and practice. To appeal to anything else is an affront to the very

character of Scripture.

Now why is it so important to consider "Scripture alone" in matters of faith and practice? The answer is

obvious: simply because it "cannot be broken" (John 10:35); it is sure and unerring in every detail (Matthew

5:17-18). As such, it and it alone is the standard; nothing else can be, for everything else is fallible and

subject to error. To interpret Scripture by experience is to invite doctrinal confusion, disaster, and

contradiction; to interpret experience by Scripture is to find truth. What the Christian is required to do is first

of all look into God's Word to see what it teaches about a matter; with that established he can then properly

understand his experience. He must look to Scripture first, because it is sure. With that settled he can then

evaluate experiences, which are by themselves unsure, and weigh out all the alternatives concerning them.

Peter addresses this very issue in a fascinating way in II Peter 1:16-21. He is speaking of his experience on

the Mount of transfiguration where he saw and heard the testimony of God the Father to the majesty of Jesus

Christ. It was unquestionably a truthful and God-sent experience. Yet Peter does not leave us to trust his

experience; he rather points us to Something "more sure" (verse 19). Scripture, he says, is given by God

(verses 19-21), and so it is much more reliable than experience! This is fascinating, because it is precisely

contrary to common thinking today. We tend to think that Scripture is confirmed by experience. Peter says,

"No, experience is confirmed by Scripture."

Now there is no question that what Scripture teaches will be born out in our experience, but it is Scripture

that is normative, not experience. Our experience may be real and wrong at the same time. Furthermore our

experience may be misunderstood and/or misinterpreted. But Scripture is "more sure" and "cannot be

broken"; it cannot fall down at any point. Scripture alone is the guide to truth, nothing else and nothing less.

God intends for faith to rest on something much more credible than even miraculous experiences; He

requires faith to rest on His Word alone! "We walk by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7) or signs or any

other experience.

After a few minutes in the conversation mentioned above, I said to the man, "This entire conversation should

bother you!" "Why?" he asked. I replied, "Because through it all I have appealed to Scripture only, and all

you have cited is experience! Which is more important to you?" This is when he made his appeal to the

sincerity of his friends, which was shown to be an endless game as well. The point of it all was simply this:

neither side of the issue can be finally settled by anything but Scripture. The Word of God is supreme, not

experience. The wisdom of man will fall to the ground, but the Truth of God's Word abides forever.

The Word of God alone is authoritative. Let us never abandon this wonderful treasure. Sola Scriptura!

Modern Day Charismatism: A Biblical Appraisal

Chapter 22

Part Three of this book surveyed in some detail the New Testament teaching regarding the miraculous gifts.

The study would be incomplete apart from an appraisal of the Charismatic movement, for it is the

Charismatics who make so much of these gifts.

The purpose of this chapter must be made clear at the outset. While fundamental disagreement with the

Charismatics' claims is already evident, to condemn or vilify all who are involved in the movement would

serve no purpose. Our concern is merely with the truth of the Word of God and the good of His people;

doctrinal correctness is essential.

While there are many within the Charismatic movement who are no doubt sincere believers, the movement

as a whole has some very serious errors which must be recognized.

Charismatism Generally

First of all, let us look at Charismatism in general.

1. Perhaps the most obvious aspect of Charismatism is that it focuses on experience rather than on

inscripturated truth. The important questions seem to be what one has experienced, felt, or seen, whether it

be tongues, healings, "slayings by the Spirit," revelations, visions, or other miracles. This, in turn, fosters a

faulty system of hermeneutics (the science of interpreting the Bible) which interprets the Bible by and

subjects it to the seemingly infallible standard of experience (see chapter 21). But even with those first

believers who enjoyed the miraculous gifts legitimately, God was not so concerned with their experience as

He was with their understanding of Divine Truth as a means to their spiritual growth. To focus on emotions

or personal experience in the arena of faith will produce a hollow Christian life. Statements such as, "I just

want to have what they had in the early church!" are often mere self-centeredness. All we need and so all we

should want is what God says in His Word that He has for us. To discover what He says in His Word, then,

should be our goal, not emotional experiences.

2. Closely associated with this emphasis on experience is an under-emphasis on Scripture. Not only is its

authority questioned (however unintentionally) by the strict adherence to the (supposed) truthfulness of

experience, but further revelations are encouraged, thus leaving the devastating implication that Scripture is

not sufficient.

3. Closely related with this inadequate emphasis on Scripture is the devaluation of sound doctrine. Often

their call is to get away from all this doctrine which, they claim (and mistakenly so!), only tends to "dry you

up" spiritually. They seek to get together on the basis of a common experience -- the gift of tongues. Clear

Scriptural teaching is then left somewhere in the background, and it has virtually no prominent place.

Theology, then, the very basis of the Christian life and growth, is rendered unimportant.

4. Ecumenism follows along very naturally. With doctrinal truth devaluated, doctrinal differences do not

matter. Charismatics often make much of their unity -- getting together with unbelieving denominations

simply on the basis of tongues, etc. -- but it is not a true unity, for there is no true unity apart from truth. The

Biblical requirements for separation from doctrinal apostasy still remain, and genuine holiness is impossible

apart from it.

5. Charismatics also err in their obvious and deliberate over-emphasis on the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit

and His activity are the center of their worship and the most prominent part of their message. In contrast to

this, Jesus directly said that when the Holy Spirit would come, He would magnify Christ, not Himself (John

15:26 and 16:13-14)! In other words, where the Holy Spirit is elevated above the Lord Jesus Christ, we may

be certain that it is not a result of the Holy Spirit's ministry.

6. The teaching of the Charismatics also fosters a subtle form of spiritual pride. There are those (according

to their teaching) who have met the requirements for the blessing of the Spirit. There are also those who

"have enough faith" to be healed and remain healthy. This not only produces a feeling of guilt on the part of

those who have not experienced tongues and to whom God has not granted health, but it also creates a

feeling of superiority, or pride, on the part of those who have. It is not a matter of arrogance on the part of

many of them but rather a seeming attitude of pity for those who are not so blessed. This is an inevitable

fruit of their doctrine.

7. Another error is their surrender of self control. This is a part of their tongues speaking (both publicly and

privately) and tongues interpretations during which the person simply is supposedly) "overwhelmed" by the

power of the Spirit and completely out of touch with reality and out of control of self. This is also what

characterizes their so-called "slayings in the Spirit." But the surrendering of the mind is not only dangerous,

it is wrong. Such "carrying away" is characteristic of paganism, not Christianity (I Corinthians 12:2). Losing

one's self-control was precisely the effect of demon possession (I Corinthians 12:2). Such lack of self-

control never characterized the apostles. The tongues spoken were understood by the speaker so that he

himself was edified in the process (I Corinthians 14:4).

What's more, Paul expressly forbade this kind of practice when he said that "the spirits of the prophets are

subject to the prophets" (I Corinthians 14:32). Mark this well: the gifted person is able to control his spirit

and the exercise of his gifts, if, indeed, he has a true spiritual gift. Loss of self control is sure proof that the

experience is not a work of the Holy Spirit.

8. Charismatism also elevates the miraculous gifts. This was a part of the immaturity of the Corinthian

believers which Paul rebuked (I Corinthians 14:20). It is a mark of unbelief to require a sign (Matthew

12:38-39; Luke 16:1-4; John 4:48). Miraculous gifts were never intended to be the focus but rather the

ministry of the Word of God.

9. The basic assumption of Charismatism is wrong. Charismatism assumes that we have a right, today, to

have what existed in the early church. Who says? Such an assumption is lacking support entirely -- either

from Scripture, logic, or history. There is simply no way to establish the permanence of all gifts. As was

shown in chapter 13, it has always been God's pattern to give miraculous abilities for a period only and then

to remove them; to claim that He now is doing otherwise lacks foundation entirely.

10. Finally, the underlying doctrines of the movement are unscriptural. This is true in regards to tongues and

the other miraculous gifts, the nature, timing, and recipients of Spirit Baptism, as well as its general

subjectivism and basically man-centered foundation.

Tongues Specifically

It has already been demonstrated (chapter 18) that the gift of tongues is not being given today. But (for the

sake of argument) even if it could be shown that genuine tongues could be experienced today, many

problems would still remain.

The Problems

Apart from the fact that the gift is no longer given, there is clear evidence that what is witnessed today could

not be the genuine gift of tongues.

1. The nature of modern tongues differs from that of the true New Testament gift. The tongues of Scripture

were genuine human languages. The tongues of today are ecstatic utterances, gibberish. Therefore, the

tongues of today are not the true New Testament gift.

Some today claim to be actually speaking in some foreign language, but this claim has never been proved.

Linguistic analysis of their utterances, the facts that their sounds are never any different from English

syllables (usually no more than a few different syllables jumbled together), their supposed interpretations so

often closely resemble King James English and are usually mere loose quotations of Scripture, all point to

the fact that their "tongues" are mere gibberish and not human language.

2. The purposes of modern tongues are different from that of the true New Testament gift. The tongues of

Scripture were a public sign to unbelievers. The gift today is used for private worship.

3. The place of the exercise of modern tongues is different from that of the true New Testament gift. The

tongues of Scripture were a public sign to unbelievers. The gift today is used for private worship.

4. The distribution of modern tongues is different from that of the true New Testament gift. The gift today is

(supposedly) to be enjoyed by all Christians, it is allowed to women, and all are instructed to seek it. The

tongues of Scripture, on the other hand, were given to only a relative few, women were forbidden from the

use of it, and none were to seek it.

5. The emphasis of modern tongues is different from that of the true New Testament gift. The tongues of

Scripture are of little importance. The gift today is elevated and emphasized greatly.

6. The New Testament regulations for the gift of tongues are ignored and violated by the modern "gift" (see

the twelve New Testament regulations listed in chapter 18).

With all these glaring differences, it is obvious that what is experienced today is not the true gift of tongues.

The Holy Spirit will never give an experience which is contrary to His Word.

The Alternatives

If today's "tongues" are not the true gift, then what are they?

1. Some are obviously Satanic. Such could easily be so with the "tongues" of the pagan religions and the

cults as well as the obvious deceivers and frauds within Christianity itself.

2. Some of it is merely a learned practice. This certainly applies to those who give instructions on how to

speak in tongues. It is true, as they say, that "anyone can do it," but such is not the true gift.

3. Some of it is caused by the proper state of a willing mind. It is caused psychologically rather than by the

Holy Spirit.

Whatever the alternatives, it is clear that the modern phenomenon is not the true gift. The genuine gift is no

longer given, and the "tongues" of today break all the rules.

Conclusion

The Bible, history, and experience itself all declare that the practices of the modern Charismatic movement

are not of God and that their supposed gifts are not genuine but counterfeit.

Objection!

It may be puzzling to some at this point, for if the movement has so many errors, how have some been so

truly edified while in it? The question is a fair one, and the answer is clear. There can be no question that

many within the Charismatic movement have a genuine hungering for a more meaningful Christian life.

Tongues and post-conversion Spirit baptism are not the answer, but on the way to a supposed experience of

these, there is often a sincere seeking of the Lord and reading of His Word. These things are always

rewarded, and thus the person is edified to some extent in spite of his incorrect doctrinal beliefs. This does

not mean that doctrinal correctness does not matter, nor should anyone so excuse the errors of the

movement; doctrinal correctness would enhance the edification. It only means that God graciously rewards

those who sincerely seek Him in His Word.

Caution!

A word of caution is in order here, a caution to those on both sides of the issue. Those within the movement

should be more careful to base their teachings and experiences on the teachings of God's Word, and they

should not be condemnatory of those who insist on it. All feelings, experiences, beliefs, and thoughts must

lie subject to the authority of Scripture. Such an attitude of commitment to the authority of Scripture is

rarely found within Charismatism.

Those outside the movement must likewise be careful to recognize that while correct Biblical doctrine is

important, so also is a correct Biblical attitude. They must determine never to let down their strict adherence

to Scripture, but at the same time they must be loving. There are many in the Charismatic movement who

simply are untaught in the truth of God's Word in regard to these things; these people especially should be

the objects of patient concern.

Conclusion

A Restatement & Prayer

A Review

Part One of this book showed that spiritual gifts are various abilities God gives to His people to serve His

people (the church) effectively. The burden of the New Testament in reference to these gifts is service.

Christians are to serve one another out of a heart of genuine love. Each believer is privileged to be gifted by

God Himself for this purpose, and to fulfill this purpose each Christian is responsible. This is a

manifestation of the Holy Spirit Himself!

Part Two discussed the gifts available to the church today. This is the heart of proper New Testament

Church function. Each member is a part of the body, placed there to serve the entire body. Some of these

gifts are relatively unnoticed but extremely essential nonetheless; the church would suffer without these

gifts. Other gifts are more prominent and are given for the purpose of leading; without these gifts the church

would have no foundation or framework and could not stand.

Part Three demonstrated that the miraculous gifts are clearly not for today but were given to the early church

as a vindication of the apostles and their message. To have them today could not serve the purpose and

would be contrary to the faith God requires. They served to establish the credibility of the faith then being

delivered. We now with confidence hold that faith which was then established.

Part Four investigated issues related to the discussion of the temporary gifts. Charismatism has made much

of the miraculous gifts and has brought in other false doctrines as well. While there may be some spiritual

growth among the Charismatics, their understanding of the book of Acts and the nature, extent, and timing

of Spirit baptism is clearly in serious error. An unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture would

settle all such errors.

A Prayer

The subject of spiritual gifts is not only a fascinating study; it is also a subject of vital importance to the

church today. It is my prayer that this book has not only helped to clarify the issues involved but that it has

also encouraged you to be active and effective in the work of the Lord with your giftedness.

Appendix

I Corinthians 13:8-13

The Prophecy of I Corinthians 13:8-13

Finally, in I Corinthians 13:8-13, the apostle Paul prophesies that certain gifts will cease:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall

cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But

when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I

spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish

things. For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I

know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is

love."

Whatever else may be unclear about this passage, one thing is very clear: certain gifts--tongues, prophecy,

and knowledge--are said to be only temporary. They will cease. This is the point in context: in contrast to

love, which is eternal, spiritual gifts are temporary.

Stating The Issue

The question, of course, is, when? Answer: "when that which is perfect is come" (verse 10). The next

question, then, is, what is "the perfect," and when did or will it come? Virtually all Charismatics agree that it

is a reference to the second coming of Christ and so claim that these gifts mentioned here will continue until

then. Many others believe the same. Still others understand it to be a reference to the eternal state, death,

heaven, Scripture, or the mature church.

The Context

Before a passage can be interpreted, its context must be understood. Paul is dealing here with the subject of

spiritual gifts generally and the gift of tongues specifically. He began this discussion in chapter 12, and all to

this point is building to deal with the problem in the Corinthian church--not of spiritual gifts in general, but

of the gift of tongues specifically (see I Corinthians 14). With this in mind, Paul writes this beautiful treatise

on love (I Corinthians 13; see also chapter 10 of this book). Love, he says, must be the context of the

exercise of gifts, and love must be its motive and aim. In short, love is superior to gifts.

He makes this point of the superiority of love by showing that love is eternal. But gifts are only temporary.

Love will endure for ever; gifts will not. This is the point he develops in verses 8-13.

In verses 8-10, he simply states his case, that these gifts will not last indefinitely but will be replaced by

something better, something more complete ("perfect"). In verses 11-12, he explains his statement with two

illustrations: 1) childhood vs. maturity (verse 11), and 2) seeing through a dark glass vs. seeing clearly

(verse 12). Finally, he concludes with a summary statement in verse 13.

Exposition

In verses 8-9 Paul declares the temporary nature of three spiritual gifts: prophecy, knowledge and tongues.

"Whether there be prophecies they shall be abolished. Whether there be tongues they shall cease. Whether

there be knowledge it shall be abolished."

"Prophecy" simply means to speak forth. The gift of prophecy did not only refer to the ability to foretell the

future, although that was a part of the gift. Nor did it merely mean the ability to preach. A prophet (one who

prophesied) was one who received and so spoke forth new revelation from God. That revelation may have

focused on the past, present, future, or simply matters of doctrine or life. Whatever the exact subject of a

given prophecy, it was truth revealed directly from God, an "inspired" utterance. This is evident from I

Corinthians 14:29-30, which states that the prophets spoke what had been revealed to them. (This will be

developed more fully in chapter 15.)

The gift of "knowledge" was a revelatory gift as well. God would directly reveal some truth to a person so

gifted, and He gave them special knowledge of some subject. Many regard this gift as merely the ability to

understand the truth as it is revealed in Scripture, but this does not do justice to the remainder of the passage.

Paul says that knowledge will be "done away," and of course knowledge in that sense will never be done

away. Clearly, Paul is speaking of a special kind of knowledge, the gift of knowledge, revelatory

knowledge. (For further development see chapter 16.)

The gift of "tongues" is the supernatural ability to speak in a foreign language which is previously unknown

or unstudied by the speaker (see chapter 18 for a detailed discussion).

Two of these gifts (prophecy and knowledge) receive mention again in verses 9-10 and are described as

"partial": "For we know in part and we prophecy in part. The phrase "in part" ( ek merous) means "partially,

bit by bit." It refers to the gifts of prophecy and knowledge as only piecemeal, partial, in contrast to "that

which is complete (perfect)." In that day, revelation came bits at a time. When a prophet or a man with the

gift of knowledge spoke, the people received God's revelation "in part"; by the nature of it, it was not a

complete body of truth. Those gifts were important and served a vital purpose, but still they were

incomplete. It was incomplete revelation.

Paul says these two gifts (prophecy and knowledge) will "be abolished" ( katargeo, verse 8). The Greek verb

( katargeo) translated in this passage "fail," "vanish away" (verse 8), "done away" (verse 10), and "put

away" (verse 11), means "to abolish, to render inoperative or invalid, or to abrogate." In verses 8 and 11 it is

in the future tense and the passive voice, which mean that its subjects (prophecy and knowledge) will at

some time be acted upon so as to be rendered useless. Specifically, the arrival of "the perfect" will abolish

the gifts of prophecy and knowledge.

Tongues on the other hand, Paul says, "shall cease" ( pauo, verse 8). The Greek verb pauo indicates

something a bit different from katargeo. Rather than "being abolished" (as prophecy and knowledge),

tongues will simply "stop." Further, it is in the middle voice which differs from the passive in that the

subject is not acted upon but participates in the action of the verb. The meaning, then, is, "to stop, to stop of

themselves." To paraphrase it another way, "they will die out." While prophecy and knowledge will be

rendered inoperative by the arrival of "the perfect," tongues will simply run out all by themselves.

The grammar here is important, for it helps to identify the time of the cessation of these gifts. The indication

is that tongues will cease before the arrival of "the perfect" which abolishes prophecy and knowledge. If, for

example, during a timed exam a teacher who knows his students well says "Jack and Rick will be stopped,

but Carmen will stop," the meaning is plain: Carmen will complete the exam before the time runs out, while

Jack and Rick will run out of time before finishing the exam.

This is what Paul indicates in this passage concerning the gift of tongues: prophecy and knowledge will be

abolished by the arrival of "the perfect," but tongues will stop by themselves. This is why verses 9-10 make

no mention of tongues at all. These verses do not say that tongues will be abolished by "the perfect"

(literally, "that which is complete") but that the gifts of prophecy and knowledge, which are "partial," will be

abolished by the arrival of "the complete." The gift of tongues will have already stopped.

The idea of verses 8-10, then, is that tongues will sometime "stop," and later when this "complete thing"

arrives it will render prophecy and knowledge inoperative.

The question remaining is, what is "that which is perfect" ( to teleion, verse 10)? This phrase is variously

understood by different interpreters. Suggestions include the second coming of Christ, the eternal state,

heaven, scripture, and the mature church. Literally, the phrase reads "the complete" or "the complete thing."

The idea seems to be that because this thing which will come is "complete" these other gifts, being "partial,"

will be rendered obsolete. Partial things are not needed in the presence of completion.

The question then is narrowed a bit. "The perfect" stands in contrast to "the partial." Since "the partial" is

obviously a reference to partial revelation, "the complete" would most naturally refer to complete revelation.

It seems easiest to take this "complete thing" as a reference to Scripture in its complete form, the complete

revelation/cannon of Scripture. By the nature of it, when the full revelation of God comes (Scripture),

prophecy and knowledge are no longer needed; they are obsolete.

Several considerations support this interpretation. First, the Greek word teleion ("perfect") suggests the end

of a completed process, the reaching of a high stage of development, maturity. It is not at all "perfect" in the

sense of "faultless" but in the sense of complete, or mature. It is consistently used in this way with reference

to the Christian's maturity (e.g., I Corinthians 14:20, "men"), and in reference to the mature church. That this

is the meaning in verse 10 is clear from the illustration of verse 11, which speaks of a process of growth

from infancy to adulthood.

Unless this passage is the only exception, the term teleion ("perfect") is never used in Scripture to refer to

any of the alternative views. Given the fact that it appears in the neuter gender it would be very difficult to

see it as a reference to the return of Jesus Christ, where the masculine would be expected. The word is,

however, used of Scripture (in its adjectival form in James 1:25, "the perfect law of liberty).

An exact parallel to this interpretation of this passage is seen in Ephesians 4:12-13ff which speaks of the

church ("perfect man") being brought to its completion or maturity by Scripture ministered by gifted men.

The same is seen in Ephesians 2:20-22 and, in effect, in II Timothy 3:16-17.

So this interpretation seems best to fit with the normal understanding of to teleion ("that which is perfect").

Second, revelatory gifts (such as prophecy and knowledge) are no longer present in the church, for reasons

stated above and detailed in chapters 15 and 16. If these gifts are gone, then that which abolished them ("the

perfect or complete thing") must by the nature of the case have already come. One controlling factor in

defining "the complete," then, is that these gifts which it is said to abolish are no longer in the church. This

fact demands that "the perfect" (which is what is said to destroy these gifts) must now be past, not future

(that is, it has already come).

Opponents to this view realize the force of this reasoning and so redefine the gifts making them something

less than revelatory in nature. However (as mentioned previously), to define prophecy and knowledge as

something less than revelatory is not only gratuitous and impossible to demonstrate exegetically, but it is

logical suicide as well! If, as their interpretation demands, the gift of knowledge means only a great

understanding of the truth of Scripture, then in what sense are we to understand that this kind of will ever be

abolished (verse 10)? Furthermore (to jump ahead in the passage a bit), the abolishing of that kind of

knowledge would contradict the very point these interpreters attempt to establish from verse 12 when they

speak of that personal perfection and greatly increased knowledge experienced in heaven! In heaven that

kind of knowledge will be infinitely enhanced!

It is logically impossible to define the gift of knowledge as simply the Christian's increased understanding of

Divine Truth, and then to speak of that as being abolished! The problem is inescapable. (For a fuller

discussion of the nature and demise of the gift of prophecy, see chapter 15 of this book.)

In other words, the preferred interpretation of this passage must account for the abolition of "knowledge."

The only reasonable way to account for this is to affirm that what is spoken of is revelatory knowledge and

that this was abolished with the arrival of the complete revelation of Scripture.

Third, the truth of this interpretation is sure enough; that is, that revelatory gifts (such as knowledge and

prophecy) are useless precisely because of the arrival of the written Word, cannot be denied.

Fourth, as previously noted, the contrast involved is clearly one of revelation. The teleion is the opposite of

partial prophecy, piecemeal revelation. It is full knowledge which renders obsolete the partial knowledge,

just as the vacuum cleaner rendered obsolete the old carpet beaters and automobiles the horse and buggy.

The prophecy and knowledge gifts were temporal and partial in nature and to be rendered obsolete by a

complete revelation. This is the contrast which Paul draws in these verses. He is speaking of partial

revelation, partial truth being rendered obsolete; for the contrast to make any sense whatever, to teleion must

refer to completion in the same sense as of "the perfect." Since the gifts of prophecy and knowledge focus,

by their very nature, on divine truth, so must the teleion. Without this the contrast is destroyed!

To interpret "the perfect" as heaven or the second coming or glorification is to introduce a third idea into the

discussion. Paul is speaking of the completed revelation of God. This growth from a partial word from God

to a completed Word of God is the process which would one day be complete (verses 10-11). Possessing the

complete Word of God, those partial, revelatory gifts are like child's toys (verse 11).

Complete revelation is the thought of verse 12 as well. Granted, the imagery of "face to face" seems to

vividly portray the experience of the believer in heaven after death or the second coming or in the eternal

state. But this imagery must be considered in context. There is simply no reason to assume that Paul is

speaking of heaven. He has reached the conclusion of his argument--growth from partial revelation to

complete revelation; the "now" and the "then," the "face to face," and the "know even as I am known" must

be understood in this context. Paul is speaking of revelation; the idea of glorification fits in this passage

nowhere! The idea of the Christian's completion in heaven is completely foreign to Paul's line of reasoning

here.

The assertion made by many that it is evident from the language of verse 12 that the context is heaven begs

the question, and it is seeking to interpret the passage by the figures of verse 12 rather than determining the

meaning of these figures in the light of the passage. This violates a fundamental rule of hermeneutics.

Furthermore, if seeing "through a glass darkly" is figurative language (and it surely is), so must be seeing

"face to face." To demand from these words a literal viewing of Christ or a perfect knowledge in the

absolute sense while allowing a figurative, metaphoric understanding of the first part of the statement is

obviously inconsistent.

Paul is saying that with only these partial revelations, man receives only a partial picture of himself, as

though seeing "through a glass darkly." But with the complete Word of God, it is as though he sees "face to

face" and knows "even as also I am known," because only then can he fully see God's purposes for him,

what God requires of him, and what God says about him. This is possible only with a real exposure ("face to

face") to the "complete" Word of God which the "partial" prophecy and knowledge cannot offer.

The contrast, then, is not as great as it may at first seem to some. Paul is not saying that although we now

have imperfect knowledge, we will one day receive perfect knowledge. No Christian will ever have perfect

knowledge, nor is Paul saying that anyone will. Again, that thought is foreign to his line of reasoning. He is

merely saying that exposure to complete revelation will give far more to the believer than he could

otherwise have.

So verse 12 summarizes why those revelatory gifts must end: they were dark, dim, in comparison to the

clarity of final and complete truth, the Word of God.

Finally, the concluding statement of verse 13 clarifies the matter further. "And now abideth faith, hope,

charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Notice the "now," "now" as a matter of time (Greek,

nuni not de). When? Now--this present age. These things (faith, hope, love) abide now, even though those

gifts are gone.

This is one place where all the other alternatives fall into inevitable contradiction. If heaven or the eternal

state is in view, then Paul must be understood in verse 13 as saying "when we get to heaven we will need

these gifts no longer, but we will have faith and hope and love." This is absolutely impossible. "Faith is the

substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The Christian now walks "by faith and not by

sight," because he is not yet present with the Lord. But when he sees Him, faith will be no longer needed,

nor will hope. "Hope that is seen is not hope, Paul says (Hebrews 11:3, II Corinthians 5:7, Romans 8:24;

italics added). The basic assumption of these statements is that with sight, hope and faith will be no longer.

Faith and hope will not be a part of the Christian's experience in heaven, or Paul and the writer to the

Hebrews would be wrong in these statements.

But "now," even though those aforementioned gifts are absent, faith, hope, and love remain. The Christian

now has faith and hope, waiting for the day when it will be exchanged for sight in the presence of his Lord.

Mention should be made at this point concerning the interpretation which equates "the perfect" with the

"mature church" rather than with Scripture. This interpretation, which is held by a growing number of non-

charismatics, fits the idea of teleion very well, and it may well be involved, but only by implication. The

problem with it is that it is also a third idea brought in to the discussion. The issue under discussion is

revelation (the gifts of knowledge & prophecy), and so for the contrast to be parallel (verse 10), teleion must

have to do with revelation also. Otherwise the contrast/parallel is destroyed. The contrast is not a "partial"

church verses a "mature church" but rather "partial" revelation verses "complete" revelation. If we approach

verse 11 with the idea of the maturing of the church in mind, it fits very well, but again, there is nothing in

the text/context itself which leads us in that direction. Of course the completion of revelation brought the

church to maturity (cf, Eph. 2:20-22; 4:12-13ff; II Tim. 3:16-17), but the focus of teleion seems rather to be

revelation specifically.

Many object that the neuter ("that which is perfect," or "the perfect thing,") could not be a reference to

"Scripture," which is a feminine noun. But this objection can be raised against all of the interpretations, for

ecclesia (church) and the various words for the second coming ( apokalupsis, epiphaneia, parousia) are all

feminine nouns as well, and "heaven" is masculine. Nor could the neuter be a reference to Jesus Christ.

Nowhere in Scripture does the neuter teleion refer to either the church, the Scriptures, the second coming of

Christ, Christ Himself, or heaven. So the objection remains with all the positions equally. However, there is

no grammatical need for the feminine if used of Scripture ( graphe) if that noun ( graphe) is not in the

passage. The neuter fits the idea of revelation very well. It is not impossible for an unspoken noun to differ

in gender with its pronoun. Furthermore, teleion, in its adjectival form, is used in reference to Scripture in

James 1:25. So there is some warrant/precedent for this interpretation, which precedent cannot be claimed

for the other positions.

Conclusion

I Corinthians 13:8-13 prophesies that with completed revelation (Scripture), the gifts of knowledge and

prophecy were abolished, and that prior to that, tongues died off.

This passage, then, is a plain statement of the temporary character of some gifts. Specifically, the gifts of

prophecy, tongues and knowledge were gone from the church by the end of the first century.

Summary & Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to establish the fact of temporary gifts. The Scriptural evidence runs along

at least the following eight lines of thought. That some gifts were only temporarily given is evident by virtue

of:

1) The Qualifications for apostleship

2) The Nature of Certain Gifts

Foundational Gifts

Revelatory Gifts

3) The Pattern of Biblical Miracles

4) The Purpose of Miraculous Gifts

5) The Testimony of Biblical History

6) The Testimony of Every Day Experience

7) The Promise of Christ

8) The Prophecy of I Corinthians 13:8-13

It is the clear teaching of Scripture that certain gifts were never intended to be permanent in the life of the

church. They were only for that foundational, infancy stage of the church. To return to them, then, would be

a return to infancy (I Corinthians 13:11). Christians today are far more blessed. They need not a return to

those revelations but a new and honest confrontation ("face to face") with Scripture, the all sufficient guide

for faith and practice.