The lectionary New Testament readings for the coming week, Epiphany 2 in Year C, are 1 Corinthians 12.1-11 and John 2.1-11. For written commentary on John 2 (the wedding at Cana), see here, and for the video discussion of John 2 see here. (The sound quality leaves something to be desired—but the quality of the comment is as good as ever!) Here I offer commentary on 1 Corinthians 12, with the link to the video discussion at the end.
What we call Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is clearly part of an exchange with the faith community there, since Paul makes reference to the previous correspondence back and forth; we actually have Paul’s second and fourth letters (depending on how you reconstruct the exchange). This because significant at key points in this letter, as Paul makes it clear that he is responding to questions asked or issues raised by the Corinthians themselves—but of course we don’t know what they have said, and can only speculate. It is an important window into Paul’s exercise of authority; I wonder if today, in a Church of England church, we could imagine the congregation challenging and questioning their bishop in an exchange of correspondence!
We can know fairly precisely when Paul wrote this letter from his mention in 1 Cor 16.8 that he will ‘remain in Ephesus until Pentecost’, which apparently is near. From Acts 18–19, we know that Paul’s first brief visit there was in 54 (dated from what we know about Gallio’s time as proconsul of Achaia); Thiselton thus dates this letter to Spring of 54, but it could have been when he returned in Spring 55. We need to realise how unusual it is to know the precise dating of ancient texts in this way. Even the most sceptical scholar agrees that the letter was written by Paul—but note that Paul always writes with others (this letter is from him and Sosthenes, 1 Cor 1.1, who was beaten in public because of Paul in Acts 18.17!) and that he always uses a scribe, adding his own signature by hand in 1 Cor 16.21.
The opening formula here Περὶ δὲ (translated ‘Now, about…’ or ‘Now, concerning…’) peppers the second half of the letter, being found at 1 Cor 7.1, 7.25, 7.37, 8.1, 12.1, 16.1 and 16.12. It only occurs elsewhere in Paul in 1 Thess 4.9 and 5.1, but these are in response to reports Paul has heard, not from correspondence.
But what does Paul want to talk about? There is a long tradition of translating the subject as ‘spiritual gifts’, as if that is a question the Corinthians have raised, and so many readers infer that Paul uses the term charismata. But that does not occur for several verses. Paul in fact uses the term πνευματικῶν, which could be genitive masculine plural, or genitive neuter plural, so either ‘spiritual people’ or ‘spiritual things’. What Paul is addressing is the question of what it means to be ‘spiritual’, and in particular the question of spiritual maturity.
This appears to have been a question underlying many of the issues in Corinth. The division into groups that Paul notes in chapter 1 appear to be related to the question of who is the most spiritual, and whether there are superior ‘spiritual’ leaders that each group follows. But it also underlies the mistaken asceticism that Paul critiques in chapter 7, ‘It is good for a [spiritually mature] man not to touch a woman’. By contrast there, Paul says that being ‘spiritual’ does not mean you transcend the obligations of bodily married life.
Here, Paul radically reconfigures what it means to be spiritual in two ways—firstly, by providing a theological context for understanding what it means to be spiritual, and secondly by using the language of ‘gifts of grace’. In both these, Paul is concerned that the Corinthians have full understanding; he does not want them to be ‘ignorant’ or ‘uninformed’ (1 Cor 12.1) but wants them to ‘understand’ (1 Cor 12.3). As with Jesus, so with Paul: a key response to pastoral issues is to teach well.
Paul appears here primarily to be addressing gentile converts, rather than Jews, by talking of them having been ethne. The translation ‘pagan’ is misleading, in that (whilst accurate) it sounds rather derogatory now. In fact, this points to the paradox of the inclusion of gentiles into the Israel of God in Jesus. They have not become Jews in order to be saved and follow Jesus, so ethnically they remain gentile believers. But spiritually they are not longer ‘mere gentiles’ but part of the Israel of God. (We see this paradox up front in Rev 7; the people are heard being counted out as the Israel of God in twelve tribes, but John turns to see that they are gentiles from every nation.) It is striking that, despite being gentiles, Paul has earlier (in chapter 8) assumed that the scriptures of Israel are now their scriptures. They were gentiles, but of course still are gentile believers. They are not Jews, but are now part of the Israel of God!
Many of the gifts of the Spirit are gifts of speech, and Paul contrasts the dumbness of the idols (a regular trope in the OT) with the speech that the Spirit brings. But he goes further, and roots this within a Trinitarian theological context. So the Spirit is ‘the Spirit of God’ (and of course elsewhere the Spirit is described as ‘the Lord’ and ‘the Spirit of Jesus’), and the speech empowered by the Spirit is speech that affirms Jesus as Lord.
There is some debate in scholarship about the significance of the phrase Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς. Does it mean ‘Jesus is cursed’? Or ‘Jesus curse [you]’? And is this about people attacking believers, or people seeking to use the power of Jesus’ name over others? What practice is Paul drawing from?
I think that the answer to this comes from noting the structure of what Paul writes, as a kind of revised chiasm.
A no-one speaking
B in the Spirit of God says
C anathema Jesus
A’ no-one is able to say
C’ Lord Jesus
B’ except in the Holy Spirit
The point here is that the delineation between those who have the Spirit (the ‘spiritual’) precisely matches the delineation of those who confess that Jesus is Lord. In other words, all who follow Jesus are ‘spiritual’, in that we have all received the one Spirit to drink (1 Cor 12.13). There is therefore no hierarchy within the people of God, and in fact all receive the gifts of the Spirit and so have a ministry within the body.
We should also note that Paul’s language here is implicitly eschatological. To proclaim that ‘Jesus is Lord’ is a challenge to the claim that ‘Caesar is Lord’ within the empire—and thus a proclamation the that longed-for kingdom of God is, in some sense, presence. For any Jew, this signifies the end of this old age, and the breaking in of the age to come. This aligns with Paul’s (and Luke’s) understanding of the Spirit as the ‘end times’ gift of God; it is ‘in these last days’ that the Spirit is poured out on all flesh (Acts 2.17) and so the Spirit is the first fruits, the foretaste, and the downpayment of the new creation that is to come.
Paul now makes his second move in the discussion of ‘the spiritual’ by recasting it as being about charismata, gifts of grace. Any standing that individuals have, and any ministries that we exercise, are not the result of our own effort or virtue, but come about as the gift of God, as indeed has salvation itself. ‘The gifts of the Spirit are not badges of honour but tools for the job’.
This is reiterated by Paul’s next, threefold and Trinitarian summary: the varieties of gift are expressed as varieties of ways to serve, which are varieties of ways of God working in power. And these are from the Spirit, to be used following the servant example of the Lord Jesus, and empowered by God (the Father). Throughout this section, Paul uses the dynamic of ‘same’ and ‘diversity’ to emphasis the unity that holds together different ministries. This is not an institutional unity that is supposed to contain a diversity of beliefs, but a unity of belief that holds together a diversity of ministries. The Spirit is at work in ministry through each person, but all of this is ‘for the common good’.
(Note here too that ‘every member ministry’ is not merely about keeping everyone busy on a Sunday…!)
In his differentiation, Paul uses two different words for ‘another’ which is obscured in English translations but appear to demarcate the gifts of the Spirit into three groups. The two terms are allos meaning ‘another of the same kind’ (as in the English ‘alliteration’), and heteros meaning ‘another of a different kind (as in the English ‘heterodox’). I put allos in italics here, and heteros in bold underline.
To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits,
to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.
This groups the gifts into ones of understanding and insight, into ones of ‘supernatural’ actions, and the ones of speaking in tongues and interpretation. Incidentally, this clarifies what Paul here means by the ‘gift of faith’—not believing in Jesus (since that is effected by the presence of the Spirit, as he has just said) but the faith that God will bring someone healing.
(There is some debate about the nature of ‘tongues’. We forget that this is the usual word for ‘another language’, and some have suggested that this is just speaking in another human language in the context of a multi-ethnic congregation; where I am, we use for different languages, and so there is the need for translation, which is the same word in Greek translated here as ‘interpretation’. Yet Paul here is describing this as a ‘gift of the Spirit’ and not a simply human phenomenon, and his language of ‘the tongues of angels’ in 1 Cor 13.1 argues against such a sense.)
Paul concludes this discussion by reiterating that all these diverse gifts and ministers have a single source, the Spirit. Thus any who proclaim Jesus is Lord must have received the Spirit, and having received the Spirit must have been given gifts, since the Spirit gives to all.
Despite Paul’s later language of desire gifts, particularly the gift of prophecy, he is clear that it is the Spirit who decides who receives what. Our primary question then needs to be ‘What gifts has the Spirit chosen to give me?’ and ‘How can I then use these in the service of others?’.
Paul’s theology here offers a powerful critique of church cultures where there is either a formal or implicit hierarchy of those who are ‘most gifted’ or ‘most authorised’, or cultures where there are some who are active in ministry, and others who are passive. This fits precisely with Robert Banks’ characterisation in Paul’s Idea of Community (chapter 13):
Paul’s dissolution of traditional distinctions: between priest and laity
Within the church, distinctions between priest and layman, mediatorial and common service, cultic ritual and secular activity, do not and cannot exist…
Between officials and ordinary members
Paul rejects the idea of certain members of the community possessing formal rights and powers…
Between holy men and common people
Paul has no place in his view of community for the traditional distinctions between its members along cultic, official or religious lines…
This vision is as challenging to the church today as it has ever been!
Come and join James and Ian as they discuss these issues here:
Buy me a Coffee
How fortunate we are to be able to have such exegetical strength undergirding our discussion of 1 Cor 12 and 14 – from Fee, Thiselton, Carson, Martin, Grudem.
It is a brave person that would go out on a limb in these circumstances. And the content of chs 12-14 is so pivotal for Christian doctrine and practice.
Considering the context of this church and its development.
They were very much an immature childish Church and much divided,
They were of Paul, of Apollos or of [the historical?] Christ!
Are we not similar in our preferences for “authorities”?
Paul shows that this now the dispensation of the Spirit, of the Gospel of His {God’s} Son.
Are we correct in asking “what is your / my gift?
These are the gifts of the Holy Spirit manifested through all whatever their abilities or station.
It would seem that those manifesting such gifts need to be encouraged to develop them e.g. Paul / Timothy “stir up the gift that is within you “
“Let no man despise your youth”
Earnestly desire the best gifts, how much do we desire to build up and edify the church to glorify and enjoy God.?
The stark difference between the 1st and 2nd letters is quite noticeable
What happened in between them?
Could it be their time of repentance? “What zeal, what anger, what vehemence, what clearing of yourselves!!
A good soaking in the letters to the Thessalonians would give a good indication of a mature church.
Paul’s ecclesiology, and perhaps Ian’s (from his comments)
Was in large part modeled by J.N Darby to great effect.
The history of the Church, alas, has seen the suppression of proficient Evangelists and Church builders.
What seems to be needed is not now a new reformation but a Renewal of the ancient praxes’ which can only be generated by the Holy Spirit and those “in tune” with Him.
I would argue the grouping of gifts in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 is crucial to understanding their employment in the church. We have a chronological sequence:
A: Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge which will ‘pass away’.
B: Faith, hope, and love abide.
C: But love never ends.
I have never seen an exegesis that reconciles the anomalies of this, unless it is accepted that Group A refers to the miraculous apostolic transmitted gifts —’ knowledge’ being the supernatural knowledge that Peter displays in Acts 5. These three gifts of Group A eventually cease in the period after the death of the last Apostle (i.e., Apostles = the Twelve) who alone could transmit them (Acts 8:18).
So, we have a period when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge ‘pass away’ followed by Group B, a period of faith, hope, and love. When is that? Paul tells us there is no faith or hope in heaven because we will have achieved what we have believed and hoped for. Thus, it seems Group B is the ‘abiding’ church age.
Group C is the only gift of the six that ‘never ends’ because it survives the eschaton.
And is not possible that 1 Corinthians 13:1 is hyperbole/rhetoric — Paul making a point, not that there is such a thing as a ‘language of angels’ — a language spoken only by those that have a particular gift.
“Paul’s theology here offers a powerful critique of church cultures where there is either a formal or implicit hierarchy of those who are ‘most gifted’ or ‘most authorised.’”
— isn’t that the whole basis of the CofE hierarchy — complete with vestments to demonstrate such. Which, incidentally, Cranmer’s evangelical bishops hated.
why do you think ‘gifts’ of healing is uniquely plural?
Have you witnessed personally someone being healed today?
Hi PC1,
I believe that there is a distinction in the NT between ‘healing on demand’— demonstrated by the Apostles (e.g., Acts 9:34) — and a prayer in the church age that somebody would be healed. I have certainly seen the latter on many occasions.
Although Paul does not specifically mention healing in his first group, I think the reason is it didn’t serve the purpose of his argument.
Which is, that the first group of (partial) revelatory gifts — i.e. revealing the mind of God, are supplanted “when the perfect [i.e. complete] comes” (1 Cor 13:10) i.e., the completed Scripture comes.
I see no evidence that Paul understood the ‘perfect’ to be the completion of Scripture. I suspect Paul himself would be surprised that his letters to various churches in the 1st century ended up being viewed in the same way Jews viewed the Old Testament. But that’s for another time.
I would be interested in Ian’s take on Acts 8. Although I tend to think it is a rather unique situation, with it happening in Samaritan country and a sorcerer being a major character, I do find it intriguing that apparent believers did not receive the Spirit when they believed but only later through the apostles. And that there were clearly obvious signs that the Spirit had ‘come upon’ them, otherwise Luke could not have written as such. Typically that isnt the case today, though of course charismatics would often argue speaking in tongues or prophecying are the signs given today following a subsequent experience after conversion.
However strictly speaking your argument doesnt stand up as the text does not say certain gifts were given at the apostles’ hands, but rather the Spirt was given. Im assuming you would not argue that today believers do not receive the Spirit as there are no apostles around to do the needful.
I think “Signs of the Apostles” by Walter Chantry published by Banner of Truth handles the subject well. Certainly worth £5.50.
https://banneroftruth.org/uk/store/theology/the-signs-of-the-apostles/#:~:text=Book%20Description&text=In%20Signs%20of%20the%20Apostles,of%20individual%20men%20and%20women.
Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, all speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit.
We see it used in Christian initiation in Acts 8, where Philip the evangelist converts a number of Samaritans. Although he baptised them, he did not have the ability to lay hands on them. Thus two Apostles – Peter and John – came from Jerusalem and prayed “that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15–17)
So not unique – but one of the “elementary doctrines of Christ” still necessary today.
Hebrews 6:2 isn’t a narrative account of how this confirmation in the Spirit was given and so cannot be a practice unique to the Apostolic age or the Samarians. In fact, the passage refers to confirmation as one of Christianity’s basic teachings which, like baptism, is an initiation into the Christian life.
We read: “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.” (Heb. 6:1–2)
This passage walks us through the successive stages of the Christian journey – repentance, faith, baptism, confirmation, resurrection, and judgment. This passage encapsulates the Christian’s journey toward heaven, giving the order of salvation. Other kinds of the laying of hands (for ordination and for healing) are not done to each and every Christian.
Too bad some denominations only bother to do this for their episkopoi.
Hi PC1
Yes I’ve seen somebody receive a healing in church but not very often. Somebody receiving a gift of healing for someone else. Beautiful.
I don’t think that is the same as the healings the apostles did in the Gospels, or in Acts – as they seem to be somehow by authority given by Jesus. In this sense, perhaps my views are a bit cessation like? Self evidently, most Christians don’t go round healing the sick like all the apostles did with Jesus.
At our church, we see a lot more of the prophecy and word of knowledge gifts than we do the healing gifts. More than those though, loads and loads of serving others in a variety of practical and caring ways.
“Paul’s theology here offers a powerful critique of church cultures where there is either a formal or implicit hierarchy of those who are ‘most gifted’ or ‘most authorised.’”
Does it – or is Paul teaching us how gifts and the authority accompanying them should be expressed in the Church, i.e., in love and service? Just remove the word “most” and replace it with “distinct” gifts which confer differing degrees of “authority.”
Not all members of the Body of Christ have the same gifts and responsibilities: see Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:28-30; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13. and Titus 1:5.
HJ,
“Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, all speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit.”
The answer to the apparent contradictions in the different narrative accounts that have been pointed out on the blog is in the verse you quote. Hebrews 6:2 has washings (‘baptisms’) plural — in other words there are many different sorts of ‘baptisms’ in both the Hebrew Bible and in the NT. Similarly, there are different purposes for the laying on of hands.
To conflate what was happening in Acts 8:18 with 1 Cor 12:13, or with a (water) baptism of repentance, or with Jesus’s own baptism to ‘fulfil all righteousness’, or baptism as a metaphor for an ordeal, is not good exegesis.
HJ,
I am almost tempted to say a contextual approach to the Scripture text should be ‘elementary’ (Hebrews 6:1-2) – and thus we should avoid building a doctrine from a reception history understanding of a narrative account. But perhaps not, because I am not as bold as the author of Hebrews.
Unless it means that the baptisms of the Jews, which they frequently repeated, could not make them justified. It could also be the baptism of John as it relates and compares to the baptism of Christ. In other words, there is no need for the Christian Jew to revert to the washings of the temple. Similarly, the Jews had different reasons for laying on of hands.
I think Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary explains it best:
The context being the writer of Hebrews arguing that the Christians he is addressing haven’t properly grown; instead, they have regressed and needed to move on from these fundamental teachings of Christianity – from “milk” to “meat” – lest they fall into apostasy.
“Paul’s theology here offers a powerful critique of church cultures where there is either a formal or implicit hierarchy of those who are ‘most gifted’ or ‘most authorised’, or cultures where there are some who are active in ministry, and others who are passive.”
This comment, and the accompanying quotation from Banks, does make it sound like you’re arguing that Anglican ecclesiology is outright unbiblical, rather than simply flawed.
“Within the church, distinctions between priest and layman, mediatorial and common service, cultic ritual and secular activity, do not and cannot exist…” ? (emphasis mine)
“This vision is as challenging to the church today as it has ever been!”
Understatement much? 😉 If Banks is right, and if you agree with him that this is Paul’s view, then what on earth are you doing in the CofE. I’ve just noticed that Colin has asked this question already above. Did a Baptist or Congregationalist write this?
I think you are entirely correct in the video discussion and article about this passage though. The ‘peri de’ structure is really helpful in contextualising that Paul is responding to a question, rather than simply asserting some wisdom in a rambly or uncoordinated way (I heard one of my tutors jokingly describe Corinthians as ‘scattergun’), and the connection between our spiritual reality and our confession are really important, especially as so much dodgy theology seems to hang on it..
Thank you for the exegesis.
Mat
I thought the same Mat.
Hi Matt,
HJ says: “Not all members of the Body of Christ have the same gifts and responsibilities: see Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:28-30; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13. and Titus 1:5.”
Yes – but these gifts/responsibilities were seen to be for the local congregation. Clearly church leaders are to be respected, but are we suggesting that the local congregation has a hierarchy for these different gifts and need wear different vestments accordingly?
Thomas Cranmer, the first Archbishop of the Church of England, thought that such hierarchical distinctions were incompatible with a Reformed understanding of the church.
And indeed, many churches today that would be described as evangelical Anglican, for example since St Helen’s Bishopsgate, do try and avoid these trappings of Anglo-Catholicism. Unfortunately, our own church is not one of them.
Who says these gifts/responsibilities were seen to be for the local congregation?
What was the Council of Jerusalem about if not universal, authoritative teachings for the whole Church discerned by Apostles and elders, holding this responsibility, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Left to be autonomous congregations, these local churches would have fractured into Jewish and Gentile churches.
Happy Jack is correct and Archbishop Cranmer wrong (as I repeatedly tried to explain to his “ashes”!
Thanks,Mat. You make a very valid point. Banks’ understanding of ecclesiology and that of the historic churches in the western catholic (including C of E) and orthodox traditions are simply incompatible. He appears to work with the assumption that the fragmentary evidence in the NT can yield a single, coherent and binding ecclesiology which applies universally. That is clearly not the C of E view and no one in the C of E needs to agree with him. In addition everyone ordained in the C of E has promised publicly to accept it’s ecclesiology and the authority of bishops. We may disagree with that view as being unbiblical (and Banks clearly does) but then we’re free to belong to a different and more ‘biblical’ church. The issue is not about having bishops, priests and deacons and more about the faithful , loving and humble use of structured authority. And I think conservative evangelical churches of all denominations are just as likely to have a problem with that as any others. Avoiding words such as priest does not prevent power being used badly.
Yes, I concur. I think Banks is needlessly dogmatic about it as well, and I say that as a Baptist who would agree with him much more than an Anglican might. For what it’s worth I think Avery Dulles’ ‘Models of the Church’ does a better job of unpacking the differences between the denominations, precisely because he refuses to play theological relativism with his ecclesiology (though obviously he has his biases too).
If I were to be more conciliatory to the broader point Ian makes, I would say that there are obvious risks in a lack of hierarchy as well. If responsibility is always shared, and ministers are, de facto, no different than anyone else in authority or responsibility, then how does accountability work for when churches fail to discern the mind of Christ, or when their leaders fall into apostasy. I would want to be equally wary of the way power works (or corrupts) in a Christian community when it is assumed to be absent, just as I would when it is being plainly wielded.
I know there was more subtlety to Ian’s point that my initial comment suggested. ^^
Thanks,Mat. In the end I think we all live by traditions (and I would include the biblical traditions here) that we allow to have authority in our lives, and there’s no point in trying to discover the single, authentic form of the church and of authority within it. Also I can’t see what we gain by the pretense that the formally and publicly recognised ministers of the church are no different from everyone else. They’re given authority and power and it’s much better to acknowledge that.
Thank you Rev Paul for a concise and clear analysis on this passage, and to the commenters below who have illuminated it further for me. May God bless you all
Following Paul’s exposition of commitment-love (agapē) as the setting for use of the gifts, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 says that “where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is [supernatural] knowledge, it will pass away.” Does this mean that the gifts – or those gifts at least – would dwindle after the apostolic era? This suggestion is known as cessationism. Assuredly no more prophecies will be given for all believers, because scripture closed after that era. But prophets might still speak into local situations, and in Acts 2 Peter explained that Pentecost brings fulfilment of Joel’s words that God will pour out his Spirit on all people, who will prophesy and the Day of the Lord will come. (This means Jesus’ return in glory.) Peter would not have cited Joel’s passage if prophecy ceases sometime between Pentecost and the Second Coming, and Revelation 11:3 mentions prophecy that will be spoken before Christ returns, yet ahead of the present time. Paul says that these gifts cease “when the perfect comes” (1 Corinthians 13:10). When is that? Paul goes on: “Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror; then we shall see face to face” (11:12). Paul is speaking of Christ’s return. Zechariah (13:2-3) confirms that this is when prophecy will cease. So the gift of prophecy is available today.
It would make no sense that the peoples represented at Pentecost have prophets but other peoples would not see those gifts, which help to spread the faith amongst them; why would God do that? Cessationism arose as a doctrine in one particular culture. It was obviously an excuse for their dwindling in the mainstream churches of that culture; cessationists are as driven by experience above scripture as the charismatics they deplore. Corporate belief is not strong enough in these churches. In our culture today it is possible to go to church regularly and not even realise that you are not a Christian. How different is that from the church described in Acts of the Apostles, and what effect would this difference have?
Cessationism has gained further impetus from distaste at the muddle between the emotional and the spiritual in the modern charismatic movement. This muddle, which derives from wish-fulfilment, is clearest in sung worship. That is because of the stirring effect upon the human spirit of music (classical and modern equally, according to the listener’s taste); in heaven we shall be singing worship to Jesus (Revelation 14:1-3). But modern charismatics chase after signs and wonders when they should be seeking Jesus Christ. They have “sought to possess the power of the Spirit before they have gone under the flesh-severing knife of the cross” deeply enough. Corroborating this quote (from Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, p.259) is a further passage from the same book (p.133) about those who persevered in a difficult merger of a charismatic and a conservative evangelical congregation:
Each one of us agreed to drop whatever we thought or experienced about the working of the Holy Spirit. We died to it completely. We gave it up. And we asked the Lord to teach us all over again as little children… our entire focus shifted from what we thought we knew about the Holy Spirit to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself… After about a year… there rose up – out of death, out of the grave in the newness of life – the gifts of the Spirit. But they didn’t look like anything we had seen in the Pentecostal/charismatic movement… All things look different in resurrection.
This was a marriage of word and Spirit – exactly what was needed. But both factions needed to change more deeply than they had understood.
Hi Anton,
“Paul says that these gifts cease “when the perfect comes” (1 Corinthians 13:10). When is that? Paul goes on: “Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror; then we shall see face to face” (11:12). Paul is speaking of Christ’s return. Zechariah (13:2-3) confirms that this is when prophecy will cease. So the gift of prophecy is available today.”
I think you probably realise the Greek in 1 Cor 13:10 (‘teleion’) apparently carries the same nuance as the English translation ‘perfect’ — in that it can mean either without fault, or complete — thus we have in English grammar the ‘perfect’ tense, meaning a completed action.
With “face to face” Paul is surely referencing Numbers 12:8 which is about unclear and clear prophecy. Precisely Paul’s point? It is not about seeing Christ.
And is not Zecheriah 13 speaking of the cross and the beginning on the NT era: “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (Zech 13:1) — not the eschaton?
You say, it makes no sense that “other peoples would not see those gifts” — but they did. Many people (specifically, in context, non-Jewish) people received many gifts (e.g., Acts 10) — including the supernatural gifts — that is, all those whom the Apostles laid hands on to that end.
Anton
… I shoud have mentioned that Numbers 12:8 in NIV is, “face to face” (Num 12:8, NIV)
Clearly, NIV doesn’t get everything wrong 🙂
In this context Romans 1:11 is an interesting verse. In light of the fact that it is thought Paul had never visited Rome, what do we make of it?
I have not got the Gordon Fee commentary to hand, but I seem to remember he simply slides past it.
Actually Num 12:8 in both the Hebrew and the Greek says ‘mouth to mouth’, so NIV is again not the place to go for the more accurate translation!
Zech 13:1 is referring to the end of the age, not AD 30, when in fact many did repent and were cleansed from sin. Likewise, ‘On that day’ is a repetition of the phrase in Zech 12:3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11. It has yet to come to pass that Yahweh will strike every horse with panic and blindness and destroy all the nations that come up against Jerusalem. See When the Towers Fall p. 258.
Steven,
But, of course, to be ‘mouth to mouth’ one must indeed ‘face to face’. So we need to cut NIV some slack on this one?
An important issue for translation is how one deals with idiom. Is the accurate translation one which is word for word, or one which conveys the underlying idea in words appropriate for the target language and culture?
For instance, if you translated “you’re pulling my leg” word for word for a Frenchman, he would look completely baffled. In French, the equivalent idea is expressed by “pulling the nose”. Here are a couple of word for word translations of French idiom:
– climb the curtains
– guard your onions!
Any ideas as to meaning?
In Biblical Hebrew, there is the literal phrase about someone (including God) having a “hot nose”. Should that be translated word for word?
Colin
I think you’re forgetting that my comment was prompted solely by your saying ‘Numbers 12:8 in NIV is “face to face” (Num 12:8, NIV) Clearly, NIV doesn’t get everything wrong’. You shouldn’t now be trying to justify your mistake.
You could have cited Ex 33:11 or Deut 34:10 to more purpose. There the Hebrew word is ‘face’.
David
The ESV translators can be presumed to be aware of the point you make, which however is not apt here. Num 12:8 is the only instance of ‘mouth to mouth’ in the OT. If the author had wished to write idiomatically in his own language, he would have written ‘face to face’, which occurs in the OT many times. We should respect the choice of words, which in Scripture is never casual or arbitrary. In this case it reflects the fact that Moses often heard rather than saw (Num 7:89).
Steven, am I understanding you correctly that you would prefer translations into English to use ‘mouth to mouth’ in Num 12:8 because that would be more _accurate_? Good luck with that!
I seem to remember that the ESV translators translated God giving people ‘cleanness of teeth’ somewhere in Amos, was it? So maybe they weren’t as aware of David’s point as you might think.
But not the ones whom THEY laid hands on?
And what about the Revelation reference?
It amuses me that conservative evangelicals castigate modern charismatics for going overly by their own experience but insist on cessationism because their experience is that they have never witnessed the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. In my opinion they need to go to a place where the church is under serious persecution.
Anton,
“And what about the Revelation reference?” —I assume you mean Rev 11:3?
I admit you have me! I will not venture an explanation, Revelation is beyond my pay grade. But I would cite a certain Ian Paul, who in his commentary says, “This passage is particularly complex to make sense of because of the dense allusions to a series of OT texts” (Revelation (TNTC 20; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2018), 194.
In my long experience about commenting on these things, if we are citing Revelation to support a particular doctrinal position, I think we are probably getting desperate?
So, because *you* don’t understand the Book of Revelation, you think *I* should not quote it at you. That’s a great exegetical principle!
Anton,
“But not the ones whom THEY laid hands on?”
I am not sure what you mean by this.
And, “It amuses me that conservative evangelicals castigate modern charismatics for going overly by their own experience but insist on cessationism because their experience is that they have never witnessed the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.”
For many years I held office in a charismatic church.
To adapt Clouseau, I was criticising everyone and I was criticising no-one (i. e. every position but no individual).
Anton
You say:
So, because *you* don’t understand the Book of Revelation, you think *I* should not quote it at you. That’s a great exegetical principle!
You are usually more careful than this. I was saying that I didn’t feel qualified to speak on the verse you quoted.
Indeed, it all comes down to personal experience. Though I would say reports of for example healing become believed based on the person retelling it. If you trust that person because you know them personally and have never had a reason to think they lie or exaggerate, then you are much more likely to believe the event happened. But even cessationists sometimes agree that God can heal directly, they just interpret it differently than the operation of a gift.
Interesting comments here.
After long forensic examination of the Jesus of History here we are now in this new departure viz a viz the dynamic of the Holy Spirit as our starting point.
This generates and focuses discussion on the Church [another old chestnut] that is, various interpretations of what constitutes
“the church”
These early facts are summarily dismissed as a generational phenomenon.
Paul along with the writer of Hebrews Ch6 is endeavoring to move people on to perfection [Maturity]
The dynamic of the church is not its structure but it’s dynamic.
In Hebrews 6 the writer seeks to move on [not abandon] from the “first principles – to perfection.
It is through the Gospel that the Gospel of the Glory of God is revealed
So the question I ask is “what does perfection look like?
Our starting point, as with Paul and the Apostles, is
“What is the Gospel”? and “When will it again be central in our preaching and churches”?
ROM.1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power [dynamic] of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
2 PET.1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Shalom.
Is this not undergirded by being the people of God. God being among them, the Presence of God in gathered worship in contrast with pagan polytheism – worship.?
And at core is the Triunity of God: 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
(“The Trinity is presupositional to the entire argument, and it is the more telling precisely because it is so unstudied, so freely and unconsciously expressed” Gordon Fee – Paul, the Spirit and the People of God, hereafter Fee).
“To be a Pauline Christian, means to take the Spirit with full seriousness as the way the eternal God is ever present eith his people.” Fee
“God as Trinity, is the ground
both of our unity and our diversity within the believing community ..1 Corinthians 12:4-6…The more truly trinitarian we are in our thinking and experience, the more vigorously we should affirm our diversity and pursue our unity.” Fee
” In 1 Corinthians 12 the focus is mainly on the church as a community gathered for worship, which true also of the temple imagery in 3:16-17…
As God’s temple, inhabited by hid Spirit they formed a powerful fellowship, marked by work of the Spirit…
outsiders exclaim ‘surely God is among you’ Fee
1 Corinthians 12:8-10 “are called ‘manifestations of the Spirit’ which means different ways the Spirit shows hinselfwhen the community os gathered together…to the situation at Corinth.” Fee
There is much more from Fee as he spreads across the scriptures not only the scripture under consideration above.
I am not sure where we are up to on these links, but here goes:
HJ
You say:
“We see it used in Christian initiation in Acts 8, where Philip the evangelist converts a number of Samaritans. Although he baptised them, he did not have the ability to lay hands on them. Thus two Apostles – Peter and John – came from Jerusalem and prayed “that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:15–17)
The problem with this understanding as you might see — or perhaps you see it as the strength of the Roman system — is that it implies the Holy Spirit can only be received at the hands of an authorised person.
I suggest there was something else going on here — Peter and John were demonstrating the unique ‘sign of an apostle’ (the transmission of the gifts) signifying that they were authorised teachers of the Christian gospel (John 16:13; Acts 1:1-5) — and there were (contra Rome) no successors to this particular role. The appointment of Matthias was against the specific instructions of Jesus in that Acts passage.
Some argue the sign of an Apostle was that they had seen the risen Christ — but many hundreds had done that. The unique sign of an Apostle was that they were teachers personally commissioned by Christ (until Scripture was complete) and authenticated with this particular gift.
Otherwise, what Paul says in 2 Cor 12:12 does not make sense? He was claiming to have the signs of a “true apostle” contra the wonder working (false) super-apostles. What could that be? I argue that it was to transmit the gifts.
>>The problem with this understanding as you might see — or perhaps you see it as the strength of the Roman system — is that it implies the Holy Spirit can only be received at the hands of an authorised person.<<
No, it demonstrates that the normal means of initiation into the Christian community is baptism by water, followed by confirmation in the Spirit by the laying on of hands by an apostle or his successor. God is not bound by the sacraments and can work out with them.
>>The appointment of Matthias was against the specific instructions of Jesus in that Acts passage.<<
You'll have to elaborate that point. Where did Jesus instruct the Apostles there should be no replacement for Judas? It certainly means that by 80AD the Church had got it badly wrong!
HJ,
An ‘apostle’ is simply one who is sent — and it is used in this sense several times in the NT.
In John 16 Jesus personally commissioned a particular group of named individuals as the authorised teachers of the gospel — thus we have the ‘The Twelve’ or ‘Apostles’ capitalised.
Of course, Judas proved to be a traitor, and Peter appointed Matthias.
But Jesus had earlier said to them “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you [The Twelve] will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:4–5)
I have mentioned before on the blog, the subsequent account is crystal clear that the initial Pentecostal baptism Jesus promised was on the ‘The Twelve’ only.
Thus, Matthias was never commissioned by Christ, and he is never said to be an ‘Apostle’, rather that he was ‘numbered with’ them (Acts 1:26). It seems Christ later personally appointed Paul as the successor to Judas.
Of the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit
Our new venture commenced with the workings of the Spirit [as at the birth of the Church]
To declare that these manifestations are now redundant raises a few questions.
When did the Spirit decide that there was no need of them?
Could it be when he saw that the Church had many excellent theologians and interpreters,
Those chaps who speak in unknown tongues barely decipherable by the common man?
Granted those manifestations did subside at times; after all God is a “God who hides Himself “
(Isa 45:15) at times, especially in times of declension. The manifestation are for all and for the good of all, not for a designated few not even a Paul or Apollos.
As Jesuus said “… I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Or Paul … 1 Cor 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
But too the rest He said “Mat 22:29…. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
Is there some intra-Protestant dispute going on here about the gifts of the Spirit that I’ve inadvertently stumbled into?
Ultimately, one has to return to other (again disputed) Scriptural passages about Church authority and governance, i.e., Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:15. Jesus here, and in various other places, is commissioning Peter and the other 11 Apostles to extend and govern His Church as a community.
As for Pentecost, Acts reads “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” – “they” being that first seedling Christian community, gathered around the 12 apostles and Mary the mother of Jesus, 120 persons in all.
Interestingly, according to traditional Jewish historiography, the ‘Great Assembly’ was an assembly of 120 rabbis that ruled in the period after the time of the prophets up to the time of the development of rabbinic Judaism in 70 CE – a public assembly of Jews who returned to Israel after the exile in Babylonia. In this gathering the leaders and people of Israel rededicated themselves to the Torah as their inheritance and code of law.
In Acts we a new social group forming, but not a loose grouping of like minded individuals. It is a “new city” with a structure and authority – an “ecclesia” a “group of people called out.” This is what the Church is – a community with leaders having the authority to bind and loose, to make laws and adjudicate them, to include or exclude people from the organisation, and to forgive or retain sins.
Prior to Pentecost, Jesus breathed on the Apostles, saying “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21,22). You’ll note too that “Peter stood up with the Eleven” – and that included Matthias, whom the Apostles had lain hands on – the leaders of the new Church being formed.
The issue here is clear. If Matthias received full Apostolic authority from Peter, the Roman Catholic Church is justified in its understanding of modern Papal authority (but none as far as I am aware have been able to display the transmission gift that so impressed Simon in Acts 8:18).
In contrast, my understanding is that authority lies in Scripture, which encapsulates the teaching of those original Apostles and their representatives. Thus, in 1 Cor 13:8–13 Paul was comparing the partial revelation of the miraculous gifts (prophecy, tongues, and knowledge) with the revelation of Scripture which is able to make us ‘complete/mature’ — as he outlines in 2 Tim 3:16–17. Thus, no need for Apostles.
In other words, the miraculous gifts (as was often the case in the OT) were evidential gifts of the authority of the possessor — the original Apostles. But now that their teaching is found in Scripture, there is no need for receiving truth second hand.
This was the key issue that underpinned the Reformation —the final authority of Scripture and direct access to God for every person who believed. The corruption of the Roman Church was ultimately a secondary issue. Once the concept of indulgences was challenged everything else came under scrutiny.
As regards who received the initial Pentecostal baptism — watch he pronouns and the very specific Galilean identity of the eleven in the text of Acts 1–2, follow it with an open Bible (no chapter divisions in the Greek MS):
“MEN OF GALILEE, why do you stand looking into heaven? … And THEY [the eleven] cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was ‘numbered with’ the eleven apostles. When the day of Pentecost arrived, THEY [the eleven] were all together in one place.
And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where THEY [the eleven] were sitting [nowhere does the text say there were 120 in the house]. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to THEM [the eleven] and rested on each one of THEM [the eleven]. And THEY [the eleven] were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave THEM [the eleven] utterance…. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven [not just Galileans].
And at this sound the multitude came together, and they [the crowd] were bewildered, because each one was hearing THEM [the eleven] speak in his own [a known] language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not ALL THESE [the eleven] who are speaking [in tongues] Galileans?
… ‘watch he pronouns’ of course should be ‘watch the pronouns’
The issue here is not one of interpretation or opinion — it is simply the story Luke told. And most accept that he was a careful historian.
Of course, what significance we attach to the eleven receiving their baptism directly from Christ via the Holy Spirit is a matter of conjecture. But it certainly fits the understanding that to be an Apostle’(capital ‘A’) you had to be directly commissioned by Christ — as was Paul.
Yes indeed Colin, ‘watch the pronouns’. But what the pronouns refer to has to be inferred from the readers’ ongoing understanding of the situation. So why would ‘they’ refer to ‘the Eleven’ after Matthias ‘was added to their number’?
Hi Bruce,
Yes — does Acts 2:1 refer to the eleven, or the eleven plus Matthias? And did Matthias receive the Holy Spirit along with the eleven?
Luke has taken care not to describe him as an Apostle, rather that he ‘was numbered with them’. I suppose he could have laboured the point and made it clear who the ‘they’ were in his following account — but he was in narrative mode, not teaching mode?
There are other places in the NT that reinforce the concept of direct Apostolic commissioning by Christ, some of which I have mentioned on this blog. And I suggest it is no coincidence that Matthias is not referred to again in the NT.
I’m inclined to accept your main argument that the pronouns refer to the apostles and not all 120. I think that helps to clarify the significance of John 20:22 – that imparting of the Spirit was normative for all believers, not just apostles. Around that time all the believers received (the) Holy Spirit, including all in the upper room. That is how they came to be praying fervently, addressing the risen Jesus as ‘Lord’ and interpreting Scripture with a depth of understanding few of us would have managed.
But I think you are wrong in excluding Matthias from the new Twelve. When Luke says he was ‘numbered with the eleven’, he is not drawing a distinction between true apostles and lesser, humanly appointed ones; he is picking up the language of Peter himself (Acts 1:17). Just as Judas was truly one of the Twelve, so was Matthias, who took his place. Peter cites Scripture as authority for the appointment, and Luke in no way suggests that he shouldn’t have done.
There had to be twelve because they represented the twelve tribes of Israel – still in view so far as James was concerned (Jas 1:1) – and they would one day sit on twelve thrones (not eleven) judging the twelve tribes (Matt 19:28).
Paul was not Judas’s replacement. The twelve were all apostles to the tribes of the Dispersion; Paul, on the other hand, was appointed (by the Lord) to be an apostle to the Gentiles, as he explains in Galatians 2.
On further reflection I revert to the received understanding. The Greek text that I follow at Acts 2:1 says they were all ‘of one accord [not merely ‘together’]’ and ‘in the same place’ [‘in one place’ being a mistranslation]. ‘Of one accord’ is significant because it is the same word as in Acts 1:14, and ‘in the same [place]’ indicates the same place as in Acts 1:13. Thus all 120 are gathered there at Pentecost. When Peter quotes Joel, the implication is that those on fire with the Holy Spirit include women, i.e. more than the Twelve. They are all empowered to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection and faith in Jesus to their fellow Jews.
Luke, incidentally, explicitly counts 12 apostles at this juncture (Acts 2:14).
“If Matthias received full Apostolic authority from Peter, the Roman Catholic Church is justified in its understanding of modern Papal authority”
Except the text makes clear that Matthias did not receive authority from Peter. Those present found that there were two among them who were qualified to take Judas’ place, as they had witnessed the (bodily) resurrection and “had been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us”. They prayed and then cast lots to decide between them. The implication was that by this means God showed His choice. Petetr took the lead in saying that there needed to be a replacement, but the choice was not his, nor the authority.
Exactly. Others seem to assume this or that when there is no good reason for such assumptions.
HJ, re your first paragraph.
This is not new. It reflects the standing dispute between cessationist and what may loosely categorised as charismatics (across protestant denominations).
One of the books I read as an early Christian was by Anglican Bishop, David Pytches, Come Holy Spirit.
It is a division that remains, although the present pressure of revisionists seems to have brought together the groups in opposition.
From Colin H’s comments on this blog over time Colin is a cessationist ( adhering, so it seems, in this instance to ‘reception history’ to which he is opposed as far as Augustine ( not sure if that includes Augustine’s conversion experience) is concerned and the Fall.
Colin will correct and expand as necessary.
Geoff,
Yes. I am Sola Scriptura. I think many of the original Reformers would be amazed that I need to be on the defensive about this when in discussion with evangelicals.
Hello Colin,
Thank you for clarification.
Is there any reason that you accept the ‘reception history’ of ‘sola scriptura’, (which as you know is not ‘nuda scriptura’) yet make no mention of the remaining reformed ‘solas’. Do you receive those as well, in addition? Just asking.
And does your rejection of, ‘reception history’, include the doctrine of the Trinity? Or, more generally, the Creeds?
Not asking for you to be defensive, but interested in when, where and how you draw the line, as a leader. in establishing your accepted doctrines, systems, even.
Geoff
“How you draw the line, as a leader. in establishing your accepted doctrines, systems, even.”
I am quite happy with the ‘Apostles’ Creed’ which is lifted straight from the pages of the Bible.
The large confessional statements of the 17th century had agendas and sometimes make preposterous claims — for example both the 1644 WCF and the 1689 Baptist, bolster their ‘works contract’ view of the gospel (as N. T. Wright accurately describes it) — and declare that Adam had conscious knowledge of the all the 10 commandments in Eden.
This is one of the things that attracted me to the Bible’s marital imagery (ignored by the Reformers) which begins in Eden and reaches a culmination at the eschaton. It gives a unifying theme, not imposed on Scripture, but coming straight out of Scripture. Never once does any Bible author contradict another Bible author across the centuries as the story develops.
Geoff,
“Is there any reason that you accept the ‘reception history’ of ‘sola scriptura’”
But Sola Scriptura is not a product of reception history — I do not believe Sola Scriptura because many of the original Reformers rediscovered it. Any more than I believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide because the Reformers taught it.
I understand Sola Scriptura as meaning the Bible is the sole authority for my Christian faith and practice. In other words, I am free to take or leave whatever Augustine, Calvin, or the Pope tell me — or even what the next ABC will tell me.
It is interesting that you find me so puzzling. There are many evangelicals that don’t subscribe to the 17th century European Confessional statements — which in any case contradict each other at key points. Not to mention Anglican teaching which is based more on tradition and has different teachings which contradict each other even within that tradition.
How do we choose to select from this veritable potpourri? Which ones do we choose to give authority to? My answer is — none.
It is not that I am ignorant about these things.
I was a teaching elder in 1689 Baptist Confession church for 16 years — and Professor Robert Letham, who is an expert on the Westminster Assembly/Confession and thus extremely knowledgeable about the English Reformation, described my book on Cranmer published by Evangelical Press as, “Outstanding … lucid … accurate.”
Do you accept Letham’s teaching on the Trinity? I have his updated book and it is wider than sola scriptura.
BTW Colin,
I don’t find you puzzling; perhaps inconsistent and somewhat subjectively self selective in your acceptance and rejection.
A highly relevant question today, even based on ‘sola scriptura’ : does the God of self- revelation in scripture ‘ change his mind’?
And if so how would we know, why, when and how?
Are his attributes revealed only in scripture or are they deduced from an ad- mixture of scripture and reception history?
Geoff
“A highly relevant question today, even based on ‘sola scriptura’ : does the God of self- revelation in scripture ‘ change his mind’?”
If you believe in Sola Scriptura you would not know if God had changed his mind? That is why Richard Hays’ later position on the widening of God’s mercy was so puzzling.
I am not saying we cannot learn from reception history — or more accurately, I would say learn from biblical theologians over the years — including, for example, Calvin (of whom I am a great fan). But I grant them no authority outside of the text.
In other words, if an evangelical NT Greek scholar said that this word in this context means ‘X’ — I would grant them authority on that opinion. But such an opinion would be open to challenge if new knowledge about the understanding of that Greek word appeared. And he himself would not be a biblical theologian if he disagreed with that assessment.
The last article that Bob Letham had published in ET, the ET editor put a rider on it — explaining that the authority he accorded the different Church Councils of reception history might surprise some ET readers.
Bob Letham himself is keen to point out that he is not a biblical scholar — that he is an historical/systematic theologian. At a lecture I attended at UST, Bridgend by a guest Bob had invited (I seem to remember he was a Roman Catholic by confession) there was an extensive discussion at the end — but not anywhere in the lecture or in the discussion do I recall a single Bible verse being referenced.
Although I do accept the concept of the Trinity, my impression after reading his material — and that of others — is that much of our understanding is more about philosophy than theology.
I would suggest the concept of the Trinity arose precisely because of the New Testament, ie it is all about theology.
What did early Christian writers understand of 1 Corinthians 12, 14 and Acts 2? (Clement and others). What did Luke and Paul think they were describing and why? Corinthians is a letter so its addressed to that congregation – what about Luke? what narrative was Luke aiming to capture – has it always been understood in the current light? what about other patristic writers? what experiences do they capture that shed light on these texts? what does the tradition of other strands of Christianity understand about these texts?
(cards on the table, having started to read some early Christian writers I am less convinced that only reading the NT without looking at what Christians at or near the time were saying is ‘Biblical’ – feels like trying to reconstruct the history of the second world war, but only from Winston Churchill’s published volumes)
The blog is still open?
So, I summarise the understanding of those who believe that the miraculous spiritual gifts (not all gifts) were authenticating gifts for the Christ-commissioned apostles.
Once Christ ascended to heaven, how were people to know who were accurately relaying his teachings? He commissioned his named representatives — John 16:13 — “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” — this was to happen at Pentecost which is why he told them to stay and wait until that happened (Acts 1:1–5). Once they received “the spirit of truth” they were also given the authenticating ‘imprimatur’ of the ability to transmit the miraculous spiritual gifts (Acts 8:18).
These gifts, once transmitted, were also an end in themselves, for example: tongues (clearly known languages at Pentecost, Acts 2:7–8) accelerated the spread of the gospel; (miraculous) knowledge (Acts 5:1–11); healing on demand (Acts 9:34) to give authority to the early Apostles (e.g., Acts 5); and prophecy because there were no Christian Scriptures.
We tend to forget the early church, e.g., at Corinth and Rome etc., had no Bible. Despite what Wayne Grudem has claimed, that NT prophecy was sometimes right and wrong, there is no evidence for this. For example, Agabus (Acts 11, 21) who presumably had had hands laid on him by an Apostle, could speak with prophetic authority.
Thus, I argue, these gifts were not designed to ‘pep up’ our personal spiritual lives, or so God could tell us who to marry or what car to buy etc. — or be an ongoing phenomenon for the church that had the completed Scripture to enable us to become complete/mature, as in 2 Tim 3:15–16 (who want or needs more than that?) — in an age where faith, hope, and love abides.
There are multiple small witnesses to this transmission concept throughout the NT. For example, Paul told Timithy “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you” (1 Tim 4:14)
But it seems he had to clarify some confusion about this and later says, “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of MY hands” (2 Tim 1:6) — the explanation would be that he was with the elders when they laid hands on him.
Paul spent a long time at Corinth where they possessed a great many gifts, in contrast Rome seemingly had not had an Apostle visit, thus Romans 1:11.
People who had had Apostolic hands laid on them could exercise their gifts to their own death, thus the early church had period when people were able to authenticate what was being taught and recorded in Scripture.
The challenge for those that do not believe this is to answer the question: Where did the the authority of the NT Scripture come from? And why do we believe in a closed canon?
Parking the suppositions of Tractarian histrionics and discussions of priestcraft for the time being; we are entering into the examination of the Gospel and its dynamic, the Holy Spirit.
As our new venture progresses, we shall be compelled to consider
What is the Gospel? and who is the Holy Spirit?
I think we will be quite surprised or undone to learn of the true nature.
Paul was made a minister of this Gospel which he defined as
The “Glorious Gospel” of “the Glorious liberty of the sons of God”
which are its perfections.
Should you want to be ahead of the curve in our deliberations
I heartily recommend:-
Remarks on the Church and the World*
From: Collected Writings of J.N. Darby
/bibletruthpublishers.com/remarks-on-the-church-and-the-world/john-nelson-darby-jnd/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-doctrinal-4/la62613
The opening paragraphs are of the age but if persevered with
he forensicaly lays open the glories of Pauls’ Gospel.
The general consensus l believe, is that the canon was closed due to the deliberations of the early church councils with the protestant canon being closed at a later date.
We have considered the “Gospel of the Kingdom” in the Gospels;
viz a viz Called out-of and called into the Kingdom,hence the Ecclesial “called out ones”.
In the epistles define what we are “called to/for. not just as ecclesia
but by the Gospel of God we are called to a body, as the poetic psalmist says of the Messiah “a body you have prepared for me”
Through which Christ is set forth magnified and glorified by faith
through the Spirit.
It is not but the begining but the ending that is of importance.
For which Paul travailed (as in birth) until Christ is formed in us as Christians.