DURATION of Charismata, B (HS book pt 15)
B. Acts 8 and the duration of miraculous charismata
1. A proposal implying cessation
While himself able to do miracles, Philip did not pass on miraculous gifts to the Samaritans. After Peter and John came down from Jerusalem, they prayed and laid hands on the believers to that end. Simon the sorcerer saw that “by the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given” (8:18). The inference has been that “apostles” should be read in contrast to Philip. When the Twelve passed off the scene, there would be no perpetuation of gifts beyond those who received them second hand—as Philip evidently did (Acts 6:6).
2. Suggested caution in this regard
a. We need not read the statement restrictively. It may be non-restrictive. Δίδοται is present tense in an indirect discourse clause after a leading verb in past tense. Luke’s point does not have to be a generality statement; the present tense could mean progressive action rather than characteristic action: “But Simon, seeing (having seen) that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Spirit was being given . . .” What Simon was watching at the time is more likely the point; he would probably not have known about other situations; hence, Luke would not be reporting that Simon had seen a generalization.
The generality may have lain in Luke’s awareness, and he worded the instance with Simon as part of the generality Luke knew. What Simon saw was part of the pattern even though he may not have been able to do more than guess that such was the case.
b. Peter does not tell Simon that he could not give the gift he requested—the ability to pass on gifts to third parties. Instead, he condemns the motivation behind the request.
c. The reason for Philip’s not passing on the gifts may not have been that he could not. Dispensing these gifts through the apostles openly legitimized the Samaritan campaign and identifιed Samaritans as part of the same body as the Jews.
d. Even if Philip could not pass gifts on by the imposition of hands, it does not follow that they would disappear with the apostles. They could continue by answered prayer (1 Corinthians 14:13). The inference may suggest too mechanical a process for obtaining these charismata. These are abilities dispensed by a person, not transfers of energy through someone’s hands.
C. Other passages suggest a distinctive operation of the Spirit through the apostles with the further suggestion that these charismata would not be permanent—at least in the range that the apostles had them. The peculiarity of persons unites with the peculiarity of purpose handled in the next heading.
1. Acts 8 may imply that only the apostles could pass on gifts to others, with the further inference that the gifts would cease when the apostles died. There is no case of imparting miraculous gifts except by an apostle. The case of Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14; cp. 1:5, 18) is not clear since (a) Paul indicates in 2 Timothy 1:6 that he had laid hands on Timothy as well, perhaps at the same time as the presbytery did. (b) “Gift” may not mean supernatural gift here (see earlier statements on “gift”); it may indicate the slot of ministry they were setting Timothy aside for (1 Timothy 4:14 + 2 Timothy 1:6; cp. Ephesians 4:8-16). Finally, (c) 1 Timothy 4:14 says “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” not by their hands. The phraseology sounds more like accompaniment (with the presbytery) than agency (by the presbytery).
2. 2 Corinthians 12:12 speaks of “the signs of an apostle” with the inference that something about them was distinctive.
Although apostle can be a term equivalent to evangelist, Paul’s usage here is part of his authentication as a “primary” apostle. So, we are inclined to take “signs of an apostle” as something distinctive as to range, manner of receiving, or kind. The apostles received their miraculous signs directly from Christ while others typically may have received them indirectly. The Corinthians could not have told from the exercising of Paul’s gifts how he received them, but his comment to the Corinthians (12:12) about signs may have had the same force as his comment to the Galatians (1:11-12) about the message. The difference is that Galatians represents a claim while Corinthians represents an appeal.
3. Ephesians 2:20 speaks of apostles and prophets as being the foundation of the church historically. The charismatic offices put in that foundation may be so pictured because they were not perpetuated.
4. In Hebrews 2:3-4 the writer presents himself as a second-generation Christian—whether to identify with his readers or to indicate that he was, in fact, a second-generation Christian. He assigns the charismata to first-century believers.
5. Daniel 9:24, “To seal up vision and prophecy,” refers to the cessation of prophecy. The passage relates seemingly to the finality of special revelation, so it would be no longer progressive as before. If it is not progressive, it does not require continued miraculous manifestation to verify new revelation. Maybe the text means the “fulfillment” of all vision and prophecy.
6. Responses to the proposition that miraculous gifts were passed on only through the laying on of the apostles’ hands
(a) “Let the ones speaking in a language pray that they may interpret” (1 Corinthians 14:13). Prayer appears to be a second method of obtaining at least individual gifts.
(b) “Desire earnestly the greater gifts” Paul says to the Corinthians at a time when no apostle was among them (1 Corinthians 12:31). This could be an idiomatic use of the imperative mood as in John 2:19: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” But it sounds more like Paul’s comment to Timothy that “the one that desires the work of an elder desires a good thing” (1 Timothy 3:1).
(c) The Romans had gifts, but no one had evidently been among them to dispense gifts (Romans 12:4-8). On the other hand, Paul wanted to go to Rome to impart some spiritual gift to the Christians there (1:11). The gifts listed in 12:4-8 may not represent supernatural gifts; or if they do, they could have come to Rome by converts migrating from elsewhere. Romans 1:11 may refer to earlier times when they had not yet received such enablements. The situation is not clear.
(d) In Galatians 3:5 Paul refers to someone who was “supplying [the Galatians] the Spirit” and working miracles among them. Was this person “supplying” them the Spirit in the sense of passing on gifts to them or by ministering to them? In this case, there may also be an implication that the Judaizing teacher(s) were not ding miracles of passing on miraculous gifts so that such gifting would not be confirming their false teaching: “Does the one who is proving you with the Spirit and working miracles among you, do it by the works of law or by the hearing of faith” (Galatians 3:5)?
(e) There is no record of anyone but an apostle ever passed on miraculous gifts, but that may be due to the brevity of the accounts. The New Testament was largely written before that second generation passed off the scene.
(f) 1 Timothy 4:14 (see above)
(g) Philip the evangelist worked miracles, but the imposition of the apostles’ hands in Acts 6:6 was not necessarily for more than appointment to the benevolent work at hand that the original “seven” were selected by the church to do. The same goes for Stephen (6:8).
D. The lack of apologetic necessity (sufficiency of the written word)
Miraculous manifestation has served to authenticate the divine origin of new revelation (John 3:2, e.g.). The inference is that once its authenticity was established, there was no necessity for such signs. The record of the authentication suffices. The testimony of believable witnesses of authentication replaced it (John 20:30-31; Hebrews 2:3-4; etc.). Belief by others contemporary or later called for sufficient evidence, not overwhelming evidence.
Miracles are not necessary except for new revelation or special guidance, but there is no exact correlation between the two. Miracles may be useful at other times for efficiency, effectiveness, or relief of suffering. Even in new revelation, miraculous confirmation may not be necessary; God may substitute providence for miracle to establish his purposes and confirm special revelation.
1. In keeping with this last point, is Jesus’ comment to Thomas, “Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed” (John 20:25). God is more glorified by an open heart than by someone he has to “make” believe by stupendous display.
2. God’s not manifesting himself openly to unbelievers is partially due to that principle as well.
3. In Luke 16:31 Jesus has Lazarus comment that if people refuse to believe Moses and the prophets, they will not believe even if someone arises from the dead (cp. 1 Corinthians 14:21).
4. The scripture depreciates craving after signs (Luke 1:18-20; 10:17-20; 11:29-30 = Matthew 12:38-42; I Corinthians 1:22).
5. Too much emphasis on miracles is counterproductive because it diverts attention from God to God’s effects on individuals’ benefits (cp. 1 Corinthians 12:29-13:13).
6. Finally, “sign” does not always mean something miraculous (1 Corinthians 14:21; Luke 2:12, e.g.); so the objection to seeking signs generalizes to continually needing reassurance because of weak faith or reluctance to believe.
The record of authentication replaces miraculous authentication. Once the new revelation is authenticated, it does not have to be re-established time after time. Nevertheless, that pattern is not absolute because miracle had also the function of benefit, as in healing. Even authentication of messengers could be appropriate under special circumstances such as in pioneer fields or from time to time when the gospel is under concentrated attack (cp. Elijah on Mount Carmel, where no new revelation was being given; it was re-authentication of previous revelation). The Old Testament era differed in that it had progressive revelation. The canon was not closed as long as there was a succession of prophets. Now the faith is “once and for all time delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
E. The finality of the gospel
Since scripture teaches that the revelation through Christ is final (Daniel 9:24; Jude 3, e.g.), no further revelation will replace the church age as the Christian dispensation replaced the Mosaic economy. So again, perpetuation of miracle is a moot point.
While we can admit the tendency of that thought, some considerations apply. We can agree that “closing the canon” does not eliminate continuous revelation for guidance. Those gifts available to enhance ministry might continue and be available upon request (prayer), the enhancement being as much to aid the servant as to convince observers. Miracles could re-authenticate former revelation as in Elijah’s contest with the Baal prophets.
F. The testimony of history
Two classic volumes by Henry Barclay Swete trace the work of the Spirit historically: The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: A Study of Primitive Christian Teaching and The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study of Christian Teaching in the Age of the Fathers. The consensus among Protestant historians has been that the charismata passed out of use with claims for the gifts appearing seriatim. Roman Catholicism has taken a “classical Pentecostal” stance, a position at one with the doctrine of apostolic succession. Montanism emphasized supernatural gifts during the second century and later. Albigenses, Waldenses, Jansenists, and others made such claims as well.
For doctrinal reasons, we do well to exercise caution about supernatural phenomena, because miracle authenticates the claim of the miracle worker (Mark 2:6-9, e.g.). Such phenomena would either (a) mean that the theological differences have been immaterial (which seems surprising), (b) be demonic (which seems harsh), (c) be fake (which may apply), (d) be psychosomatic, (e) parapsychological, or (f) mistaken identity. The correlation between doctrine and miracle could lessen the historical objection to perpetual charismata if we felt free to write off most of church history as doctrinally aberrant, a rather extreme stance. Surely some in sub-apostolic times were as spiritually mature and doctrinally correct as the Corinthian Christians, who had such gifts among them.
One approach to temporary presence of gifts adopts the idea of the “latter rain,” which teaches that near the end time miracles will return. Passage invoked are Joel 2:23; Jeremiah 5:24; Deuteronomy 11:14; (cp. Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-21; James 5:7). Even if true, that belief does not validate current claims unless these are the “latter days,” something not yet evident.
G. The purpose of the gospel
The gospel is not for deliverance from human limitation. “Jesus wants you well” is not a New Testament promise. Underlying many differences in Holy Spirit studies is the relationship of God (hence, Holy Spirit) to the world. God seems to operate first and usually through normal interpersonal and natural processes, and specially through direct intervention when the others are not sufficient for his purposes.
H. John 20:29
Jesus told Thomas that those are blessed who believe without seeing. The inference is that people are more blessed who believe without seeing miracles. Taken together with Jesus’ depreciation of miracles relative to salvation, that observation is probably true; but it is a different thing from dismissing supernatural manifestation altogether. Such certainly happened in the appearance itself. In the case of Thomas, his disbelief was rather extreme, countering the testimony of several trustworthy eyewitnesses he had known for years. It bordered on obscurantism; that may be why Jesus said what he did and may imply a difference from disbelief in less certain circumstances.
I. The distinctively apostolic and prophetic roles were part of launching the church.
Ephesians 2:20 pictures the household of God as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. From that figure we might argue that supernaturally enabled prophecy belonged to the apostolic age—the foundation. The foundation figure in Ephesians 2 does have a historical thrust in contrast to the theological thrust of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Prophets in Ephesians 2 are New Testament prophets rather than Old Testament ones (3:5).
Excepting one interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13, the observations above are argue against continuous miracle. All the arguments for ending supernatural manifestation with the passing of the apostles turn on (1) the finality of the gospel revelation through Christ plus (2) the correlation between miracle and new revelation. That thought lies behind raising points to show that no one but apostles could pass on the gifts, the argument from “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13, and the tendency to read restrictively rather than positively passages like Hebrews 2:3-4; Ephesians 2:20; Daniel 9:24; 2 Corinthians 12:12 (“signs of an apostle” vs. non-apostle; and Acts 8:14-24 (“the laying on of the apostles’ hands” vs. Philip’s hands).
We conclude that the New Testament evidence for cessation of miracles is tentative, though theological and historical considerations may foster that conclusion if not made absolute.
The following entries represent arguments for continuation of miracles.
J. Mark 16 and the duration of miraculous phenomena
1. The statement itself
The text deals with the apostles’ work and with Jesus’ promises that signs would follow those who believe through their ministry. Believers in 16:17 corresponds with the believers of 16:16. So, the text does not deal explicitly with duration. That is an (a) inference from the nature of the case, (b) information from elsewhere in the New Testament or from history, or (c) personal experience with such phenomena.
The promise in 16:17-18 finds adequate fulfillment in 16:20; so, Jesus does not necessarily look beyond what Mark’s gospel states as fulfilling that promise. Since the writer states a fulfillment, we must entertain the possibility that he states it to indicate its fulfillment. “Their ministry” does not mean just the ones they converted. It should include all those laboring under their direction during their ministries.
2. Some have suggested an inference: miraculous manifestation lasts as long as the apostolic commission, including the conditions for salvation. But the cases are not the same.
a. The purpose of God’s operation in history is salvation, not miraculous display. Miracles are aids in establishing gospel truth. Once that establishment has happened, God’s pleasure decides on the need for subsequent miraculous manifestation.
b. Granting such power is God’s doing; so we wait to see whether he grants it. Obedience to God is our doing, and we follow it until he withdraws the command or the opportunity to obey it.
c. 1 Corinthians 13 makes clear that miracle is secondary and non-germane to Christianity like salvation is.
d. It would be about as appropriate to argue that the apostles would carry out the Great Commission all the time in the Christian era because they are the ones Jesus was talking to.
3. An ad hominem consideration is valuable.
If languages are practiced as a sign on the basis of Mark 16, why not snake handling and public poison drinking? They would be more objective proof that something miraculous is occurring. Since drinking poison and snakebite cure are listed among the signs, there ay be insight here into the motivation and manner of using miraculous gifts.
They are not something we seek out deliberately; they are protections in response to a need that calls them forth. In Paul, we can compare the case of snakebite in Acts 28:1-6, of exorcism in Acts 16:16-18ff., of language speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:18-19, of healing in 2 Timothy 4:20 (cp. Luke 10:17-20). He was not enamored with seeking opportunities to display miracles even before unbelievers, much less before believers. Rather he responded to situations that came up while he was proclaiming the gospel. “For many days” he put up with the maiden in Philippi that had the spirit of divination before he exorcised the demon (Acts 16:16-18). Mark’s prediction sounds quite like Jesus’ empowerments at the Mission of the Seventy: “I have given you authority to treat on snakes and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you in any way.”
4. Most textual critics think Mark 16:9-20 represents material not in the original gospel. We make no attempt here to bring that consideration to bear on the question at hand because no impropriety belongs to anything in this pericope. The section might be genuine even though manuscript evidence for its integrity is weaker than preferred.
K. The presence of the occult
As there has been a correlation made between miracle and new revelation, there has been a correlation between miracle and the presence of the demonic. The latter has been done with opposite conclusions.
On the one hand, so it is said, “No miracle today, no demonic possession today.” On the other hand, some have said, “Demonic possession today; so supernatural gifts today (exorcism).” Both positions beg the question either of current manifestation or of current demonic activity.
Christians often apply to demonic activity Christ’s promise that “no one will snatch you out of my hand” (John 10:28). Surely Satanic forces cannot possess Christians contrary to their will. As to possessions already in place with a disbeliever, we may invoke the observation that whatever is available through miracle is available through answered prayer, a principle that applies to all kinds of needs taken care of by miracle. The effect of that realization is the separation of demonic activity and divine miracle. Moreover, exorcism is never called a spiritual gift in the New Testament. The guardian-angel possibility may apply here (Matthew 4:6; Psalm 18:10; 26:53; Acts 12:7-15; Hebrews 1:14; cp. Psalm 91:11-12). In this promise, Jesus more likely has in mind Jewish and Roman opponents of the day; they would not overthrow Christ or his followers: even death—by execution, as it turned out—would not prevail against him or the building of his church (Matthew 16:18).
L. The application of all the promises to God’s people
Claiming God’s promises presupposes that they apply to the ones who claim them. That fact means reinvestigating texts about duration. There is no reason to set aside the question about who a statement addresses—one of the most basic principles of interpretation. Its generalization must then be by the nature of the case or some other direct statement.
M. John 14:12 says, “They will do greater things than these.”
1. What is Jesus’ time reference?
2. Is there anything miraculous that is greater than resurrection or healing from
Leprosy or blindness from birth?
3. Jesus was speaking directly only to the apostles; how do we generalize his
promise beyond them?
4. What is the nature of the “greaterness”? Is it greater as to kind or degree?
In Hebrew idiom especially, greater degree may express better kind (cp. majestic plural, which uses plural number for greater degree). (a) Jesus told his audiences that their righteousness needed to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20); to do that, they would have to switch kinds of righteousness. The Pharisees had carried their kind of righteousness about as far as imaginable. (b) In Matthew 11:11 Jesus said that no one was greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom was greater than he—denial plus affirmation of the same point! The greatness of those in the kingdom could not have been a more extreme degree of the same kind; that greatness had to be in another kind of category that was greater than John’s. (c) Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12-13-14 that love is greater than supernatural gifts—a different kind of thing. (d) When Jesus’ disciples returned from the Mission of the Seventy, he told them that having their names written in heaven was more important than exorcising demons, healing, or performing signs (Luke 10:17-20). So, doing something greater than Jesus’ miracles is not necessarily doing greater miracles than his.
N. Romans 11:29 says, “The gifts and calling of God are not repented of.”
Paul’s subject is not the duration of sign gifts. He is talking about the role God gave Israel. Besides, the translation can be progressive present instead of characteristic present: “The gifts and calling of God [to Israel] are not being repented of [in calling the Gentiles into fellowship with him].” God has not changed his mind about Israel; they are still responsible for standing for the one true God and serving as a light to the nations in that regard.
Arguments for permanent manifestation follow one or two lines: they argue for progressive revelation or for continued miracle for other purposes: to authenticate special guidance with a closed canon, to benefit as with answered prayer, to assist in ministry as with the “ministry” gifts, or to re-affirm previous revelation.
We may ask again why duration of charismata is even an issue—why we would expect any difference in the level of supernatural manifestation in the first century and today. Several items we have noted relate to such a change.
1. In the New Testament era, we do not have the progressive revelation that occurred in the Old Testament era, and miraculous manifestation corresponds largely with the new revelation. Christians have a closed canon. God may consider sufficient the record of original confirmation.
2. God created us in his image to live in the natural realm, so supernatural enablement is exceptional rather than typical. The kingdom of God is not about miracles but personal relationship. Even in the first century, miraculous manifestation was the exception instead of the rule.
3. The continued presence of miracles with Christians can distract even Christians themselves; so once miracles have served their purpose, they can disappear to avoid the idea that they are integral to the faith.
4. Everything available through miracle is available through answered prayer; so, not having miraculous endowments does not leave us orphans in evangelism, edification, and personal growth.
Conclusion Re Method
The biblical, historical, and theological arguments for and against continued miraculous phenomena do not seem decisive. Rather than attempting to establish either view, we do better to operate as early Christians did—where there was no such discussion—and apply the tests.
That procedure is safer because it does not force us into a position where we cannot remain open to what God may want to do. We dare not put themselves in a situation like that of first-century Pharisees, who could not even in principle allow for Jesus’ claims as vindicated by his miracles: claiming to be the Son of the Blessed was itself blasphemy (Matthew 26:63-65; Mark 14:61-64; Luke 22:70)! Our interpretation of Acts 8, 1 Corinthians 13, and other texts, may be as incorrect as the Pharisees’ understanding of texts about the Messiah and his mission. We do not want to lock ourselves into some idea that requires us to assign all manifestations to the power of Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24 ff.). That charge put the Pharisees in danger of committing blasphemy.
This procedure is safer also because, though scripture might give adequate evidence for the cessation of miracles, we may not be skillful enough to see it there or convince others that it is there. Taking the suggested approach does not make us vulnerable any more than it did first-century Christians, and it buys time to arrive at what is not clear.
As a final point, the biggest concern is not about modern miracles, but about the doctrinal claims and special guidance that claimants may use such signs to validate. The challenge comes from a call for unity based on experiences rather than on doctrine. The implication can be that the doctrinal questions are irrelevant that distinguish Christian groups. Even more unsettling is the appearance of some of these experiences in quasi-Christian groups, to say nothing of non-Christian religions. The approach to miracles must be such that it can deal with those demonstrations by which other religions try to establish their claims.
Addendum on the Imposition of Hands
The question arises as to whether we should lay hands on people to give them gifts. If we do not have that authority or power, nothing will “happen.” If there seems to be such a need for ministry or witnessing gifts, we can invoke prayer. By putting the matter in the framework of prayer, we make possible the receiving of benefits, but we avoid “putting God on the spot” or “presuming on God’s grace.” We would be acting “presumptuously” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) because we have no commission so to such a thing.
christir.org