The argument over whether miraculous gifts continue today or cease, has become a hot topic issue, particularly in America. Some say yes, others say no; it can be hard to weight up which answer is right with so many impassioned views.
In this article I hope to illustrate that both positions have flaws.
But first, let's remember the cost it had on both Paul and the Corinthian church, for him to address them as he did. Paul acknowledged that he caused them pain, as he was pained too. He was anguished of heart and tearful as he wrote his letter to address their issues:
For I made up my mind not to make another painful visit to you. For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained? And I wrote as I did, so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice, for I felt sure of all of you, that my joy would be the joy of you all. For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you.
2 Corinthians 2:1-4
When tackling this conversation we need to remember that the disagreement is theological, not personal. The outcome ought to be maintaining our brothers and sisters in Christ. With that said, there are several passages that don't support either argument but frequently used in the debate on the spiritual gifts.
The gifts will cease, the question is when?
Some use 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 as the polemic argument both for, and against, spiritual gifts. On the one hand side you have those that believe this passage justifies that gifts continue. Equally, you have those that argue it's proof that one or more of the gifts have ceased.
One part of the puzzle is that "the perfect", which is teknon in Greek, could refer either to "the perfect" or "manhood". If it refers to Jesus, the question shifts towards premillennialism, postmillennialism, or amillennialism. If interpreted as maturity, the question shifts towards what does it mean to be mature - with most suggesting it means the maturity of the church and end of apostolic era.
However, if we read the verse, the core focus of Paul is not when they will end, it's the why they will end:
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
1 Corinthians 13:8-12
It's important to discern the reason that Paul is bringing this point to their attention. They are pursuing something that is temporary in nature. The miraculous gifts have a time and a place, but rather than hold on to the temporary, they should make fast towards the permanent gift of love. In theory both continuationists and cessationists can fall foul on this point, because neither side is focused on love.
If the gifts ceased, they should not be prioritised.
If the gifts continued, they should not be prioritised.
Whether the gifts continue today is neither the focus of this passage, nor relevant to the instruction. No matter what, abide in faith, hope and love; but the greatest of these is love:
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13:13 ESV
Continuationists Win: When believers fight over this verse, I'm inclined to believe that neither side wins. However, it doesn't seem to say that gifts ceased - only that they're temporary.
Will tongues cease of their own accord?
Some use 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 as proof that the gift of speaking in tongues will cease prior to knowledge or prophecy. At first glance the argument is compelling:
Paul uses an active voice to mean "pass away" for prophecy and knowledge.
Paul uses a middle voice to mean "ceases" for speaking in tongues.
The verse afterwards only includes prophecy and knowledge.
There may be some credit to this argument. However, it has been fairly well rebutted by continuationists. There are two main criticisms:
The first criticism is that the word for "ceased" is simply chosen to avoid repetition; the fact there's a difference holds no significance. Unfortunately, this criticism cannot disprove the cessationist argument for several important reasons:
Firstly, we cannot ascertain why Paul chose to use a different verb, only that he did. You can't argue from Paul's position to avoid the evidence.
Secondly, if Paul had intended to avoid repetition, the same verb for "pass away" occurs 4 times across the 4 verses. There's little evidence that Paul was trying to avoid repetition.
Thirdly, the following verse only includes prophecy and knowledge. Suggesting that it's not a causation, without evidence to support, doesn't constitute as a compelling rebuttle.
However, the second criticism is more substantial. Instead of arguing that the choice of word is simply stylistic, the second criticism is that the middle voice doesn't always mean passive. In fact, the exact same verb is used to describe Jesus rebuking the wind and raging waves, which then ceased:
And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm. He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?”
Luke 8:24-25 ESV
However, while this criticism addresses the gramatical issues, which proves the gifts don't cease of their own accord - it doesn't eliminate the possibility that God still brought them to an end. This second criticism fails to address the third point which is that knowledge and prophecy seem to be treated differently from tongues.
With that said, both arguments centre around grammatical differences and it's hard to prove or disprove Paul's rationale. The only thing that remains clear is that the gifts will end, but it's not clear when.
Draw: Neither side can prove Paul's thoughts, the passage can be used both ways.
Does Paul command us to seek spiritual gifts?
Some use 1 Corinthians 14:1 to suggest that Paul essentially commands us to seek spiritual gifts. However, that runs contrary to his point in Chapter 12:31 through to 13:13. In this section Paul is writing that love is the greater way (1 Corinthians 12:31) and we should pursue love as it's the greatest of all gifts (1 Corinthians 13:13).
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.
1 Corinthians 14:1
A better interpretation of this passage would be to "pursue love, but also desire the spiritual gifts". As Paul is happy that they are open to God's spiritual works, even that they are open to tongues - he only wants them to not neglect building the church:
Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
1 Corinthians 14:5
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.
1 Corinthians 14:39-40
This statement seems to be less of a command to pursue the gifts, rather, permission to pursue them. Do not forbid them; do not treat them as bad. They are not injurious to the church. Yet, seek the gifts that build the church, rather than continue with disorderly worship and self-satisfaction.
Cessationists Win: This passage is misused by continuationists to suggest that we are commanded to pursue gifts. Paul is clearly encouraging them to pursue love, but also desirous of the gifts.
Should I be cessationist or continuationist?
For the most part, I'm inclined to sympathise with the cessationist position. The use of tongues is often relegated to angelic tongues which is not supported by the account in Acts 2 and I don't believe it's supported in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 either.
While scripture doesn't seem to explicitly state that the gifts ceased, it didn't in the Old Testament either, yet they did. Furthermore, those that emphasise tongues don't seem to do so according to scripture. The lack of interpretation of tongues and prevalence of speaking tongues is cause for alarm.
There are historical records such as Plato's dialogues that suggest ecstatic utterance existed prior to Jesus' ministry. Today there are still pagan religions such as voodoo that use ecstatic utterance as part of communicating with spirits. There is little to distinguish between these pagan and Christian practices and that is problematic for the movement.
As it stands, believing that miraculous gifts are not part of the normative pattern of Christian ministry, while pursuing love, appears to be the most conservative response to this contentious issue.
Comments