\n
1 Corinthians 13:10 ESV<\/span><\/h2>\n“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.\u00a09<\/span>For we know in part and we prophesy in part,\u00a010<\/span>but when the perfect comes,<\/span> the partial will pass away.”<\/strong><\/p>\nThis passage alone is one of the only verses that John MacArthur uses to justify his cessation position. His website does try to give a full account of what he believes so I still spend the rest of this entry addressing the information he lays forth.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nTongues Will Cease<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nIn\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0Paul made an interesting, almost startling, statement: \u201cLove never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.\u201d In the expression \u201clove never fails,\u201d the Greek word translated \u201cfails\u201d means \u201cto decay\u201d or \u201cto be abolished.\u201d Paul was not saying that love is invincible or that it cannot be rejected. He was saying that love is eternal\u2014that it will be applicable forever and will never be pass\u00e9. Tongues, however, \u201cwill cease.\u201d The Greek verb used in\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0means \u201cto cease permanently,\u201d and implies that when tongues ceased, they would never start up again. (John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo far nothing strange here. We can see at this point that John can use a lexicon or a Greek concordance so at lease the original language is being addressed.<\/p>\n
Here is the question that this passage poses for the contemporary charismatic movement: if tongues were supposed to cease, has that already happened, or is it yet future? Charismatic believers insist that none of the gifts have ceased yet, so the cessation of tongues is yet future. Most non-charismatics insist that tongues have already ceased, passing away with the apostolic age. Who is right?\u00a0<\/strong>(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThat IS the right question: has this already happened or is it for the future? But he mischaracterized the bulk of denominations here trying to ![\"world](\"http:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/world-christians-by-denomination-300x279.jpg\")
<\/a>make it seem like all the non-cessationalist are somehow outliers. Most Christian denominations have a rather neutral stance on the gifts. Here are some major denominations that would be considered non-charismatic but disagree with MacArthur.<\/p>\n\n- United Methodists
\n<\/a><\/li>\n- Various Lutheran Denominations<\/a><\/li>\n
- Episcopals<\/a><\/li>\n
- About 50% of Southern Baptist<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
These few listed here makeup a large portion of the US denominations and when looking at the world demographics the denominations get increasingly more charismatic. So why does John believe that somehow his opinion is the majority opinion? I would suggest that he spends very little time outside of his own uber Reformed circles.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0itself does not say when tongues were to cease. Although\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians 13:9-10\u00a0teaches that prophecy and knowledge will cease when the \u201cperfect\u201d (i.e., the eternal state) comes, the language of the passage\u2014particularly the middle voice of the Greek verb translated \u201cwill cease\u201d\u2014puts tongues in a category apart from these gifts. Paul writes that while prophecy and knowledge will be \u201cdone away\u201d (passive voice) by \u201cthe perfect,\u201d the gift of tongues \u201cwill cease\u201d in and of itself (middle voice) prior to the time that \u201cthe perfect\u201d arrives.<\/strong> When did this cessation of tongues take place? The evidence of Scripture and history indicate that tongues ceased in the apostolic age.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAt first glance at the above paragraph I thought John was going to make my argument for me, but then he engages in some very poor Greek exegesis of the passage in an effort to justify his position. The part in question is bolded above.<\/p>\n
Let us first address the fact that MacArthur believes that the “Greek verb” (he means\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[manuscript],\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c9[lemma]<\/strong>) somehow sets tongues apart from the other gifts. He states that the middle voice in Greek somehow means that tongues are not part of the same timeline that the other gifts are. For the non-Greek geeks out there I will explain it in English.<\/p>\nThe middle voice in Greek typically means the subject and verb action is reflexive. It would be the same as saying “the basketball(subject) will come(verb) to a rest.” The basketball will come to a rest without being acted upon grammatically. Or if I said that “I(subject) will stop(verb) walking.” The subject is both performing and receiving the verb action.<\/p>\n
Whereas the passive voice means the subject is being acted upon. It would be the same as saying “the ![\"greek](\"http:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/greek-middle-voice-300x100.jpg\")
<\/a>basketball(subject) will be put(verb) to a stop.” It suggests that something will be acting upon the subject to cause the verb to be true. It would be the same as saying “Justin will be tripped.” Justin is the subject being acted upon. The middle voice would have said “Justin will trip (himself).” For further explanation read this Greek lesson.<\/a><\/p>\nWhile some interesting arguments can be made about why Paul used a\u00a0Future Middle Indicative verb to describe the ending of tongues but used a Future Passive \u00a0Indicative verb to describe the other gifts, none of these arguments would ever affect the timeline since they are all future tense and dependent on the “when” clause in verse 10.<\/p>\n
What is Paul really saying here?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nThis is why context is king when interpreting scripture. What is the whole passage about? ITS ABOUT LOVE!\u00a0More specifically it is about how love is better than the gifts. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”\u00a0<\/em>Paul does a classic argument frame in the 13th chapter on why love is better than all the gift and his final argument is that love is eternal but the gifts are temporal. “Love never ends. As for prophecies …..”<\/strong><\/p>\nThe final explanation for Paul lies in verse 12. “For now<\/strong> we see in a mirror dimly, but then<\/strong> face to face; “The gifts we ![\"1](\"http:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/1-cor-13-12-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>have for now but love is eternal and love will remain when we are face to face with our Father in Heaven. I would also end this section saying that some have argued that “when the perfect comes” refers to the Bible or the completion of the Cannon.<\/p>\nIn no way does the Greek word\u00a0\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd refer to simple noun like the Bible. The grammatical use of this word is as an adjective and most modern translations have already adjusted to reflect this. When a Greek accusative adjective is given a definite article (“the”) it gets used like a noun yet it very much is not a noun.\u00a0It would be better to think of it as a description.<\/p>\n
When the completion or perfection (of time or of this current temporal phase) comes, then all the gifts will cease, not just tongues. Moreover, perfection has not yet come.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nEvidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nJohn goes on to argue for the scriptural evidence.<\/p>\n
What biblical or theological evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, the gift of tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58 to 96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the Spirit at length\u2014but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Heb. 2:3-4). Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches.<\/p>\n
Charismatic believers insist<\/strong>
\n that none of the gifts have ceased\u2026<\/strong>
\n non-charismatics insist that tongues<\/strong>
\n have already ceased.\u2026<\/strong>
\n Who is right?<\/strong><\/p>\nThe revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose. And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12).
\n(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere John now tries to use his own\u00a0narrow data set to create theology that is not in the bible. In no way does it matter what the last recorded miracle in the Bible is. “When John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded.<\/em>” Of course no further miracles are recording……NOTHING is recorded in the Bible after Revelation. It’s the last book.![\"nothing](\"http:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/nothing-happened-217x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\nNext, John tries to make the classic “argument from absence,” which is maybe the weakest form of argument in all forms of debate. He surmises that since Paul didn’t mention the gifts to the Ephesians and the Romans they must have ended. But wait…. why did he mention them at all in Corinthians? He mentioned them because the church was\u00a0abusing them and they are doing more harm than good.\u00a0Paul spend much of his letter writing doing nothing more than correcting the churches. But he did not write to the Romans to correct them and we know from the Ephesian letters that they were much more mature than the Corinthians.<\/p>\n
He then tries to twist Hebrews 2:3-4 to mean that the gifts are in the past. “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord,\u00a0was confirmed to us by those who heard him.<\/span>\u00a0God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles,\u00a0and by gifts of the Holy Spirit\u00a0distributed according to his will.”\u00a0<\/em>But this passage does not state that the gifts have ceased. It was simply telling a story in past tense. Ironically, the verb\u00a0testified<\/em> (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) is actually a Present Active Participle. Basically, its an “-ing” verb. So the idea that this passage is trying to place the gifts only in the past is misrepresented by John’s failure to exegete. The verse is saying\u00a0about salvation; “God also testifying<\/span><\/strong> to it by…..”<\/p>\nThe revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose.\u00a0And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12).
\n(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nNo statement has ever been more unfounded.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nMore Evidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nJohn goes on to argue for the scriptural evidence as such.<\/p>\n
Second, tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21-22; cf.\u00a0Is. 28:11-12). They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down. And so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.<\/p>\n
Tongues were therefore a sign of transition between the Old and New Covenants. With the establishment of the church, a new day had dawned for the people of God. God would speak in all languages. But once the period of transition was past, the sign was no longer necessary.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nFirst John now tries to make arguments from things that do not exist. The first phrase that tongues were a sign to unbelieving Israel (meaning not the gentiles) is found nowhere in scripture. He was trying to make the connection from 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 that states:<\/p>\n
\u201cWith other tongues<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>and through the lips of foreigners<\/span><\/span>
\nI will speak to this people, (meaning Israel to John)<\/strong><\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>but even then they will not listen to me,<\/span><\/span>
\nsays the Lord.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nHowever, Paul goes on in the passage\u00a0to instruct the Gentile church on how to use the gifts, including tongues. The rest of what John says above is just unfounded commentary on what he believes God is doing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nLast Evidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nThe last piece of scripture\u00a0used really has nothing to do with the cessation of the gifts or tongues.<\/p>\n
Third, the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nOn this point I am not sure their is anything to disagree with. Paul spend much time in Corinthians trying to express that tongues is only useful in the church if an interpretation was present and was done in an orderly manner, and no more than three at a time. I personally, think charismatic churches tend to abuse the gifts and often might not even be speaking in tongues for real. On this sentiment, I agree whole heartedly with John.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nEvidence From History<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n
Here John has a lot of general information from church history but it boils down to one thing: tongues don’t really appear in church history so it must have ceased. Once again I would state that an argument of absence is not an argument. There are many things that church history is silent on. Furthermore, church history is not silent on the issue.<\/p>\n
Tongues and gifts are mentioned favorably in many texts and recorded as being used by Christians in many others. Here are just a few sources where tongues were written about in church history.<\/p>\n
\n- Didiche (70 AD)<\/li>\n
- Coptic Christian Texts (1st and 2nd century)<\/li>\n
- Tertullian (140 – 230 AD)<\/li>\n
- Census (176 AD)<\/li>\n
- Asturias Urbanus (232 AD)<\/li>\n
- Augustine (354 – 430 AD) [even argues for tongues continuance]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
and the list just goes on……..
\nExhaustive list HERE.<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\nConclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n
If the gifts or even just tongues have ceased, I do not believe that the above arguments provide any evidence for the theory. That does not mean that somehow I proved that tongues have continued. That would require a much larger post. I was only addressing the claims by MacArthur.<\/p>\n
Think I got it wrong? That’s ok. Just correct me in the comments. If I did indeed make a goof, I am willing to be corrected with proper evidence.<\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Until recently I never really spent much time thinking about whether or not the gifts of the spirit, specifically tongues, have ceased.\u00a0But that changed once I got familiar with the Reformed movement and the Calvinists.\u00a0As it turns out some\u00a0believe that “The Perfect” is referring to the Bible and they believe this because it is vital … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3002,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1365,7,1157,10,813,1008,19],"tags":[1375,1367,1366,1378,1373,1374,1371,1372,1377,1368,1369,1370,1376],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2682"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2682\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
This passage alone is one of the only verses that John MacArthur uses to justify his cessation position. His website does try to give a full account of what he believes so I still spend the rest of this entry addressing the information he lays forth.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
Tongues Will Cease<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nIn\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0Paul made an interesting, almost startling, statement: \u201cLove never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.\u201d In the expression \u201clove never fails,\u201d the Greek word translated \u201cfails\u201d means \u201cto decay\u201d or \u201cto be abolished.\u201d Paul was not saying that love is invincible or that it cannot be rejected. He was saying that love is eternal\u2014that it will be applicable forever and will never be pass\u00e9. Tongues, however, \u201cwill cease.\u201d The Greek verb used in\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0means \u201cto cease permanently,\u201d and implies that when tongues ceased, they would never start up again. (John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nSo far nothing strange here. We can see at this point that John can use a lexicon or a Greek concordance so at lease the original language is being addressed.<\/p>\n
Here is the question that this passage poses for the contemporary charismatic movement: if tongues were supposed to cease, has that already happened, or is it yet future? Charismatic believers insist that none of the gifts have ceased yet, so the cessation of tongues is yet future. Most non-charismatics insist that tongues have already ceased, passing away with the apostolic age. Who is right?\u00a0<\/strong>(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThat IS the right question: has this already happened or is it for the future? But he mischaracterized the bulk of denominations here trying to <\/a>make it seem like all the non-cessationalist are somehow outliers. Most Christian denominations have a rather neutral stance on the gifts. Here are some major denominations that would be considered non-charismatic but disagree with MacArthur.<\/p>\n\n- United Methodists
\n<\/a><\/li>\n- Various Lutheran Denominations<\/a><\/li>\n
- Episcopals<\/a><\/li>\n
- About 50% of Southern Baptist<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
These few listed here makeup a large portion of the US denominations and when looking at the world demographics the denominations get increasingly more charismatic. So why does John believe that somehow his opinion is the majority opinion? I would suggest that he spends very little time outside of his own uber Reformed circles.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0itself does not say when tongues were to cease. Although\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians 13:9-10\u00a0teaches that prophecy and knowledge will cease when the \u201cperfect\u201d (i.e., the eternal state) comes, the language of the passage\u2014particularly the middle voice of the Greek verb translated \u201cwill cease\u201d\u2014puts tongues in a category apart from these gifts. Paul writes that while prophecy and knowledge will be \u201cdone away\u201d (passive voice) by \u201cthe perfect,\u201d the gift of tongues \u201cwill cease\u201d in and of itself (middle voice) prior to the time that \u201cthe perfect\u201d arrives.<\/strong> When did this cessation of tongues take place? The evidence of Scripture and history indicate that tongues ceased in the apostolic age.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAt first glance at the above paragraph I thought John was going to make my argument for me, but then he engages in some very poor Greek exegesis of the passage in an effort to justify his position. The part in question is bolded above.<\/p>\n
Let us first address the fact that MacArthur believes that the “Greek verb” (he means\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[manuscript],\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c9[lemma]<\/strong>) somehow sets tongues apart from the other gifts. He states that the middle voice in Greek somehow means that tongues are not part of the same timeline that the other gifts are. For the non-Greek geeks out there I will explain it in English.<\/p>\nThe middle voice in Greek typically means the subject and verb action is reflexive. It would be the same as saying “the basketball(subject) will come(verb) to a rest.” The basketball will come to a rest without being acted upon grammatically. Or if I said that “I(subject) will stop(verb) walking.” The subject is both performing and receiving the verb action.<\/p>\n
Whereas the passive voice means the subject is being acted upon. It would be the same as saying “the <\/a>basketball(subject) will be put(verb) to a stop.” It suggests that something will be acting upon the subject to cause the verb to be true. It would be the same as saying “Justin will be tripped.” Justin is the subject being acted upon. The middle voice would have said “Justin will trip (himself).” For further explanation read this Greek lesson.<\/a><\/p>\nWhile some interesting arguments can be made about why Paul used a\u00a0Future Middle Indicative verb to describe the ending of tongues but used a Future Passive \u00a0Indicative verb to describe the other gifts, none of these arguments would ever affect the timeline since they are all future tense and dependent on the “when” clause in verse 10.<\/p>\n
What is Paul really saying here?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nThis is why context is king when interpreting scripture. What is the whole passage about? ITS ABOUT LOVE!\u00a0More specifically it is about how love is better than the gifts. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”\u00a0<\/em>Paul does a classic argument frame in the 13th chapter on why love is better than all the gift and his final argument is that love is eternal but the gifts are temporal. “Love never ends. As for prophecies …..”<\/strong><\/p>\nThe final explanation for Paul lies in verse 12. “For now<\/strong> we see in a mirror dimly, but then<\/strong> face to face; “The gifts we <\/a>have for now but love is eternal and love will remain when we are face to face with our Father in Heaven. I would also end this section saying that some have argued that “when the perfect comes” refers to the Bible or the completion of the Cannon.<\/p>\nIn no way does the Greek word\u00a0\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd refer to simple noun like the Bible. The grammatical use of this word is as an adjective and most modern translations have already adjusted to reflect this. When a Greek accusative adjective is given a definite article (“the”) it gets used like a noun yet it very much is not a noun.\u00a0It would be better to think of it as a description.<\/p>\n
When the completion or perfection (of time or of this current temporal phase) comes, then all the gifts will cease, not just tongues. Moreover, perfection has not yet come.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nEvidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nJohn goes on to argue for the scriptural evidence.<\/p>\n
What biblical or theological evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, the gift of tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58 to 96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the Spirit at length\u2014but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Heb. 2:3-4). Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches.<\/p>\n
Charismatic believers insist<\/strong>
\n that none of the gifts have ceased\u2026<\/strong>
\n non-charismatics insist that tongues<\/strong>
\n have already ceased.\u2026<\/strong>
\n Who is right?<\/strong><\/p>\nThe revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose. And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12).
\n(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHere John now tries to use his own\u00a0narrow data set to create theology that is not in the bible. In no way does it matter what the last recorded miracle in the Bible is. “When John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded.<\/em>” Of course no further miracles are recording……NOTHING is recorded in the Bible after Revelation. It’s the last book.<\/p>\nNext, John tries to make the classic “argument from absence,” which is maybe the weakest form of argument in all forms of debate. He surmises that since Paul didn’t mention the gifts to the Ephesians and the Romans they must have ended. But wait…. why did he mention them at all in Corinthians? He mentioned them because the church was\u00a0abusing them and they are doing more harm than good.\u00a0Paul spend much of his letter writing doing nothing more than correcting the churches. But he did not write to the Romans to correct them and we know from the Ephesian letters that they were much more mature than the Corinthians.<\/p>\n
He then tries to twist Hebrews 2:3-4 to mean that the gifts are in the past. “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord,\u00a0was confirmed to us by those who heard him.<\/span>\u00a0God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles,\u00a0and by gifts of the Holy Spirit\u00a0distributed according to his will.”\u00a0<\/em>But this passage does not state that the gifts have ceased. It was simply telling a story in past tense. Ironically, the verb\u00a0testified<\/em> (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) is actually a Present Active Participle. Basically, its an “-ing” verb. So the idea that this passage is trying to place the gifts only in the past is misrepresented by John’s failure to exegete. The verse is saying\u00a0about salvation; “God also testifying<\/span><\/strong> to it by…..”<\/p>\nThe revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose.\u00a0And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12).
\n(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nNo statement has ever been more unfounded.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nMore Evidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nJohn goes on to argue for the scriptural evidence as such.<\/p>\n
Second, tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21-22; cf.\u00a0Is. 28:11-12). They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down. And so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.<\/p>\n
Tongues were therefore a sign of transition between the Old and New Covenants. With the establishment of the church, a new day had dawned for the people of God. God would speak in all languages. But once the period of transition was past, the sign was no longer necessary.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nFirst John now tries to make arguments from things that do not exist. The first phrase that tongues were a sign to unbelieving Israel (meaning not the gentiles) is found nowhere in scripture. He was trying to make the connection from 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 that states:<\/p>\n
\u201cWith other tongues<\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>and through the lips of foreigners<\/span><\/span>
\nI will speak to this people, (meaning Israel to John)<\/strong><\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>but even then they will not listen to me,<\/span><\/span>
\nsays the Lord.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nHowever, Paul goes on in the passage\u00a0to instruct the Gentile church on how to use the gifts, including tongues. The rest of what John says above is just unfounded commentary on what he believes God is doing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nLast Evidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nThe last piece of scripture\u00a0used really has nothing to do with the cessation of the gifts or tongues.<\/p>\n
Third, the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nOn this point I am not sure their is anything to disagree with. Paul spend much time in Corinthians trying to express that tongues is only useful in the church if an interpretation was present and was done in an orderly manner, and no more than three at a time. I personally, think charismatic churches tend to abuse the gifts and often might not even be speaking in tongues for real. On this sentiment, I agree whole heartedly with John.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\nEvidence From History<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n
Here John has a lot of general information from church history but it boils down to one thing: tongues don’t really appear in church history so it must have ceased. Once again I would state that an argument of absence is not an argument. There are many things that church history is silent on. Furthermore, church history is not silent on the issue.<\/p>\n
Tongues and gifts are mentioned favorably in many texts and recorded as being used by Christians in many others. Here are just a few sources where tongues were written about in church history.<\/p>\n
\n- Didiche (70 AD)<\/li>\n
- Coptic Christian Texts (1st and 2nd century)<\/li>\n
- Tertullian (140 – 230 AD)<\/li>\n
- Census (176 AD)<\/li>\n
- Asturias Urbanus (232 AD)<\/li>\n
- Augustine (354 – 430 AD) [even argues for tongues continuance]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
and the list just goes on……..
\nExhaustive list HERE.<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\nConclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n <\/p>\n
If the gifts or even just tongues have ceased, I do not believe that the above arguments provide any evidence for the theory. That does not mean that somehow I proved that tongues have continued. That would require a much larger post. I was only addressing the claims by MacArthur.<\/p>\n
Think I got it wrong? That’s ok. Just correct me in the comments. If I did indeed make a goof, I am willing to be corrected with proper evidence.<\/p>\n
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Until recently I never really spent much time thinking about whether or not the gifts of the spirit, specifically tongues, have ceased.\u00a0But that changed once I got familiar with the Reformed movement and the Calvinists.\u00a0As it turns out some\u00a0believe that “The Perfect” is referring to the Bible and they believe this because it is vital … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3002,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1365,7,1157,10,813,1008,19],"tags":[1375,1367,1366,1378,1373,1374,1371,1372,1377,1368,1369,1370,1376],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2682"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2682\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
In\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0Paul made an interesting, almost startling, statement: \u201cLove never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.\u201d In the expression \u201clove never fails,\u201d the Greek word translated \u201cfails\u201d means \u201cto decay\u201d or \u201cto be abolished.\u201d Paul was not saying that love is invincible or that it cannot be rejected. He was saying that love is eternal\u2014that it will be applicable forever and will never be pass\u00e9. Tongues, however, \u201cwill cease.\u201d The Greek verb used in\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0means \u201cto cease permanently,\u201d and implies that when tongues ceased, they would never start up again. (John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So far nothing strange here. We can see at this point that John can use a lexicon or a Greek concordance so at lease the original language is being addressed.<\/p>\n Here is the question that this passage poses for the contemporary charismatic movement: if tongues were supposed to cease, has that already happened, or is it yet future? Charismatic believers insist that none of the gifts have ceased yet, so the cessation of tongues is yet future. Most non-charismatics insist that tongues have already ceased, passing away with the apostolic age. Who is right?\u00a0<\/strong>(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That IS the right question: has this already happened or is it for the future? But he mischaracterized the bulk of denominations here trying to These few listed here makeup a large portion of the US denominations and when looking at the world demographics the denominations get increasingly more charismatic. So why does John believe that somehow his opinion is the majority opinion? I would suggest that he spends very little time outside of his own uber Reformed circles.<\/p>\n It should be noted that\u00a01 Corinthians 13:8\u00a0itself does not say when tongues were to cease. Although\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians 13:9-10\u00a0teaches that prophecy and knowledge will cease when the \u201cperfect\u201d (i.e., the eternal state) comes, the language of the passage\u2014particularly the middle voice of the Greek verb translated \u201cwill cease\u201d\u2014puts tongues in a category apart from these gifts. Paul writes that while prophecy and knowledge will be \u201cdone away\u201d (passive voice) by \u201cthe perfect,\u201d the gift of tongues \u201cwill cease\u201d in and of itself (middle voice) prior to the time that \u201cthe perfect\u201d arrives.<\/strong> When did this cessation of tongues take place? The evidence of Scripture and history indicate that tongues ceased in the apostolic age.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n At first glance at the above paragraph I thought John was going to make my argument for me, but then he engages in some very poor Greek exegesis of the passage in an effort to justify his position. The part in question is bolded above.<\/p>\n Let us first address the fact that MacArthur believes that the “Greek verb” (he means\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9[manuscript],\u00a0\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03c9[lemma]<\/strong>) somehow sets tongues apart from the other gifts. He states that the middle voice in Greek somehow means that tongues are not part of the same timeline that the other gifts are. For the non-Greek geeks out there I will explain it in English.<\/p>\n The middle voice in Greek typically means the subject and verb action is reflexive. It would be the same as saying “the basketball(subject) will come(verb) to a rest.” The basketball will come to a rest without being acted upon grammatically. Or if I said that “I(subject) will stop(verb) walking.” The subject is both performing and receiving the verb action.<\/p>\n Whereas the passive voice means the subject is being acted upon. It would be the same as saying “the While some interesting arguments can be made about why Paul used a\u00a0Future Middle Indicative verb to describe the ending of tongues but used a Future Passive \u00a0Indicative verb to describe the other gifts, none of these arguments would ever affect the timeline since they are all future tense and dependent on the “when” clause in verse 10.<\/p>\n What is Paul really saying here?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n This is why context is king when interpreting scripture. What is the whole passage about? ITS ABOUT LOVE!\u00a0More specifically it is about how love is better than the gifts. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”\u00a0<\/em>Paul does a classic argument frame in the 13th chapter on why love is better than all the gift and his final argument is that love is eternal but the gifts are temporal. “Love never ends. As for prophecies …..”<\/strong><\/p>\n The final explanation for Paul lies in verse 12. “For now<\/strong> we see in a mirror dimly, but then<\/strong> face to face; “The gifts we In no way does the Greek word\u00a0\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd refer to simple noun like the Bible. The grammatical use of this word is as an adjective and most modern translations have already adjusted to reflect this. When a Greek accusative adjective is given a definite article (“the”) it gets used like a noun yet it very much is not a noun.\u00a0It would be better to think of it as a description.<\/p>\n When the completion or perfection (of time or of this current temporal phase) comes, then all the gifts will cease, not just tongues. Moreover, perfection has not yet come.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n John goes on to argue for the scriptural evidence.<\/p>\n What biblical or theological evidence is there that tongues have ceased? First, the gift of tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and the age of miracles and revelation ended with the apostles. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58, with the healings on the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10). From A.D. 58 to 96, when John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healing are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, an early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss gifts of the Spirit at length\u2014but no mention is made of the miraculous gifts. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past (Heb. 2:3-4). Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches.<\/p>\n Charismatic believers insist<\/strong> The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose. And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12). Here John now tries to use his own\u00a0narrow data set to create theology that is not in the bible. In no way does it matter what the last recorded miracle in the Bible is. “When John finished the book of Revelation, no miracle is recorded.<\/em>” Of course no further miracles are recording……NOTHING is recorded in the Bible after Revelation. It’s the last book. Next, John tries to make the classic “argument from absence,” which is maybe the weakest form of argument in all forms of debate. He surmises that since Paul didn’t mention the gifts to the Ephesians and the Romans they must have ended. But wait…. why did he mention them at all in Corinthians? He mentioned them because the church was\u00a0abusing them and they are doing more harm than good.\u00a0Paul spend much of his letter writing doing nothing more than correcting the churches. But he did not write to the Romans to correct them and we know from the Ephesian letters that they were much more mature than the Corinthians.<\/p>\n He then tries to twist Hebrews 2:3-4 to mean that the gifts are in the past. “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord,\u00a0was confirmed to us by those who heard him.<\/span>\u00a0God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles,\u00a0and by gifts of the Holy Spirit\u00a0distributed according to his will.”\u00a0<\/em>But this passage does not state that the gifts have ceased. It was simply telling a story in past tense. Ironically, the verb\u00a0testified<\/em> (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) is actually a Present Active Participle. Basically, its an “-ing” verb. So the idea that this passage is trying to place the gifts only in the past is misrepresented by John’s failure to exegete. The verse is saying\u00a0about salvation; “God also testifying<\/span><\/strong> to it by…..”<\/p>\n The revelatory gifts had ceased to serve any purpose.\u00a0And when the apostolic age ended with the death of the Apostle John, the signs that identified the apostles had already become moot (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12). No statement has ever been more unfounded.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n John goes on to argue for the scriptural evidence as such.<\/p>\n Second, tongues were intended as a sign to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21-22; cf.\u00a0Is. 28:11-12). They signified that God had begun a new work that encompassed the Gentiles. The Lord would now speak to all nations in all languages. The barriers were down. And so the gift of languages symbolized not only the curse of God on a disobedient nation, but also the blessing of God on the whole world.<\/p>\n Tongues were therefore a sign of transition between the Old and New Covenants. With the establishment of the church, a new day had dawned for the people of God. God would speak in all languages. But once the period of transition was past, the sign was no longer necessary.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n First John now tries to make arguments from things that do not exist. The first phrase that tongues were a sign to unbelieving Israel (meaning not the gentiles) is found nowhere in scripture. He was trying to make the connection from 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 that states:<\/p>\n \u201cWith other tongues<\/span> However, Paul goes on in the passage\u00a0to instruct the Gentile church on how to use the gifts, including tongues. The rest of what John says above is just unfounded commentary on what he believes God is doing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The last piece of scripture\u00a0used really has nothing to do with the cessation of the gifts or tongues.<\/p>\n Third, the gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift.\u00a0(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On this point I am not sure their is anything to disagree with. Paul spend much time in Corinthians trying to express that tongues is only useful in the church if an interpretation was present and was done in an orderly manner, and no more than three at a time. I personally, think charismatic churches tend to abuse the gifts and often might not even be speaking in tongues for real. On this sentiment, I agree whole heartedly with John.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here John has a lot of general information from church history but it boils down to one thing: tongues don’t really appear in church history so it must have ceased. Once again I would state that an argument of absence is not an argument. There are many things that church history is silent on. Furthermore, church history is not silent on the issue.<\/p>\n Tongues and gifts are mentioned favorably in many texts and recorded as being used by Christians in many others. Here are just a few sources where tongues were written about in church history.<\/p>\n and the list just goes on…….. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n If the gifts or even just tongues have ceased, I do not believe that the above arguments provide any evidence for the theory. That does not mean that somehow I proved that tongues have continued. That would require a much larger post. I was only addressing the claims by MacArthur.<\/p>\n Think I got it wrong? That’s ok. Just correct me in the comments. If I did indeed make a goof, I am willing to be corrected with proper evidence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Until recently I never really spent much time thinking about whether or not the gifts of the spirit, specifically tongues, have ceased.\u00a0But that changed once I got familiar with the Reformed movement and the Calvinists.\u00a0As it turns out some\u00a0believe that “The Perfect” is referring to the Bible and they believe this because it is vital … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3002,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1365,7,1157,10,813,1008,19],"tags":[1375,1367,1366,1378,1373,1374,1371,1372,1377,1368,1369,1370,1376],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2682"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2682\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dustoffthebible.com\/Blog-archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a>make it seem like all the non-cessationalist are somehow outliers. Most Christian denominations have a rather neutral stance on the gifts. Here are some major denominations that would be considered non-charismatic but disagree with MacArthur.<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/a><\/li>\n<\/a>basketball(subject) will be put(verb) to a stop.” It suggests that something will be acting upon the subject to cause the verb to be true. It would be the same as saying “Justin will be tripped.” Justin is the subject being acted upon. The middle voice would have said “Justin will trip (himself).” For further explanation read this Greek lesson.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>have for now but love is eternal and love will remain when we are face to face with our Father in Heaven. I would also end this section saying that some have argued that “when the perfect comes” refers to the Bible or the completion of the Cannon.<\/p>\n
\nEvidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n that none of the gifts have ceased\u2026<\/strong>
\n non-charismatics insist that tongues<\/strong>
\n have already ceased.\u2026<\/strong>
\n Who is right?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
\n(John MacArthur<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nMore Evidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>and through the lips of foreigners<\/span><\/span>
\nI will speak to this people, (meaning Israel to John)<\/strong><\/span>
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>but even then they will not listen to me,<\/span><\/span>
\nsays the Lord.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nLast Evidence From Scripture<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\nEvidence From History<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n\n
\nExhaustive list HERE.<\/a><\/p>\n
\nConclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
\n