No Signs and Wonders

7/27/2019 No Signs and Wonders

1/34

Bibliotheca Sacra / October-December 1988

The Cessation of the Sign Gifts--Thomas R. Edgar

Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis

Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, Maryland

Referring to the charismatic movement Hollenweger states that "in the nottoo distant future there will be more Christians belonging to this type ofChristianity than to the Anglican community. They will number almost as many asall other Protestants together." He feels that the numerical and perhaps thespiritual center of Christianity will shift to "Indigenous Non-white" or "ThirdWorld Pentecostal" churches. The validity of such a prevalent force is an issuethat cannot be ignored.

The Essential Question: From God or Not from God?

As with any other doctrinal issue it is important to know the truth or theerror of the "charismatic" position. This is not a purely doctrinal matter,

since in the charismatic movement in all its various forms, such asPentecostalism, neo-Pentecostalism, "power evangelism," and the "signs andwonders" movement, emphasis is placed on phenomena and subjectiveexperiences. These experiences, which transcend doctrinal considerations anddoctrinal boundaries, are the raison d'etre of the movement. They are not merelythe daily outworking

Page 372

of one's doctrine as distinct from his doctrinal position, but are usuallycrisis events that allegedly go beyond normal, traditional Christianexperience. These so-called "spiritual" experiences are either from God ornot from God. There can be no neutral or partially true position. Eitherthey are biblically true or they are false experiences. If they are

biblically false then the issue is much more serious than merely anotherview of the Christian life, since the charismatic movement involves aspiritual experience that attempts to be in direct contact with supernaturalforces. Whether the charismatics are correct can only be determined from theScriptures and other relevant facts. By the very nature of the issue, the"gifts," such as tongues, healings, and signs and wonders, so prevalent intoday's charismatic movement, are either from God or not from God. There can beno middle ground.

Evidence Contrary to the Validity of the Phenomena

Several factors give evidence that the phenomena of the charismatic movement arenot the gifts and activities of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. On theother hand charismatic proponents have given no evidence, other than theirassumption, that these are the same phenomena. That their numbers are growing,that the followers are enthusiastic, and that there are alleged miracles are notevidence that the phenomena are from the Holy Spirit, since all these occur inother religions. To argue that the New Testament gifts could occur today or thatno verse rules out such a possibility is not enough; it must also be shown thatthe modern charismatic "gifts" are the same as in the New Testament. The

proponents of the charismatic movement have been unsuccessful in proving eitherthe first (the possibility of the gifts today) or the second (that these are thesame phenomena). Are all phenomena automatically from the Holy Spirit simply

because someone makes such an assertion, unless a verse can be found thatdirectly states they are not? It is not enough merely to assert that charismatic


2/34

phenomena are New Testament phenomena. There must be evidence that they are thesame.

The Evidence Of History

If the miraculous gifts of the New Testament age had continued in thechurch, one would expect an unbroken line of occurrences from apostolictimes to the present. If they are of God, why should such miracles be absent for

centuries?

The entire controversy exists because the miraculous gifts of the NewTestament age did cease and did not occur for almost 1,900 years of churchhistory and certainly have not continued in an unbroken line. Questionsabout their presence today as well as differing opinions,

Page 373

even among charismatics, regarding the nature of tongues, prophecy, andcertain other gifts are due to the fact that they ceased. Chrysostom, afourth-century theologian, testified that they had ceased so long before his timethat no one was certain of their characteristics.

History contradicts the charismatics. Though some have attempted to provethat tongues and other miraculous gifts have occurred in the postapostolichistory of the church, the very paucity and sporadic nature of allegedoccurrences is evidence against this claim. Referring to alleged instancesof tongues-speaking, Hinson, a church historian, sums up the situation thisway: "The first sixteen centuries of its history were lean ones indeed. . .. if the first five centuries were lean the next were starvation years forthe practice in Western Christendom and doubtful ones in EasternChristendom."

After a few alleged instances in the second century there is a gap of almost1,000 years before a few more occur. Obviously it would not have been difficultto produce evidence for these gifts during the apostolic age. Why then is theresuch a dearth of evidence if the gifts continued throughout church history? The

alleged instances are even more rare if restricted to genuine believers, and ifhearsay evidence is omitted. If instances of the gift of healing rather thansupposed answers to prayer are considered, the alleged instances all but vanish.That these miraculous workings ceased in the past can hardly be refuted, and thisis recognized by many charismatics. Dayton feels that many charismatics actually

prefer to grant that certain gifts ceased, since they regard today's phenomena asa latter-day pouring out of the Spirit.

Explanations are unrealistic. It is one thing for a doctrine such asjustification by faith to be temporarily lost due to man's frailty. It isanother thing entirely for miraculous signs and wonders to be missing. Those atPentecost were not expecting to speak as they did.

Page 374

In Acts no tongues speaker was previously aware of the existence of thegift; yet they spoke. They could hardly have had faith in their ability to

perform miracles or to speak in tongues, since they were unaware of suchgifts. They did not obtain or lose the ability because of their belief orlack of belief in the charismata. If God gave these gifts during the history ofthe church, they would have occurred regardless of man's frailty. To argue thatthe gifts faded away in the postapostolic church because of a failure to believein miracles evades the facts of history and has no biblical support.

First Corinthians 12-14 implies that the early church was only too inclined


3/34

toward such gifts rather than against them. In almost every religion menhave been inclined toward the miraculous rather than toward rejectingobvious miracles. And yet some argue that miracles ceased or nearly so inthe early church--an era when belief in the supernatural was rampant andwhen the signs and wonders actually occurred--because of disbelief inmiracles! Yet it is claimed that in the most rationalistic of ages, when nomiracles were occurring, 19- and 20th-century Christians believed to theextent that the gifts reoccurred, and reoccurred on the scale of today's

claims. Since modern Christians are so receptive to signs and wonders andmodern man is so willing to believe the charismatic claims, on what basiscan one assume that the early Christians would refuse to do so? Thosewilling to believe religious miracles are always plentiful. To claim thatthis "miraculous infusion" of the Spirit gives joy, purpose, power forservice, and revitalization of the church, and at the same time claim thatsuch a tremendous working was ignored, rejected, and allowed to drop out ofthe early church which experienced it, is illogical. The only reasonableexplanation for the lack of these gifts in church history is that God didnot give them. If He had given them, they would have occurred.

Since these gifts and signs did cease, the burden of proof is entirely onthe charismatics to prove their validity. Too long Christians have assumedthat the noncharismatic must produce incontestable biblical evidence that

the miraculous sign gifts did cease. However, noncharismatics have no burden toprove this, since it has already been proved by history. It is an irrefutablefact admitted by many Pentecostals. Therefore the charismatics must prove

biblically that the sign gifts will start up again during the Church Age and thattoday's phenomena are this reoccurrence. In other words they must prove thattheir experiences are the reoccurrence of gifts that have not occurred for almost1,900 years.

"Latter day" explanations are inadequate. Many Pentecostals

Page 375

hold that the sign gifts did cease and that they have reoccurred in these"latter days." This must be demonstrated from Scripture, however. There is

no biblical evidence that there will be a reoccurrence in the church of thesign gifts or that believers will work miracles near the end of the ChurchAge. However, there is ample evidence that near the end of the age therewill be false prophets who perform miracles, prophesy, and cast out demonsin Jesus' name (cf. Matt. 7:22-23; 24:11, 24; 2 Thess. 2:9-12). During theChurch Age there will be false leaders who fashion themselves as ministersof righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13-15). During the Tribulation period, there isno indication that believers, other than the two witnesses of Revelation11:3-12, will perform miracles. Those performed by the two witnesses areexceptional, and their actions are comparable to those of Old Testament

prophets rather than to those of the apostles. The two witnesses are notpart of the church, and if they were, they could hardly be consideredtypical of the church.

The "latter rain" arguments are incorrectly based on verses that actuallyare referring to seasonal rainfall in Israel. Hosea 6:3 and Joel 2:23, forexample, refer not to some unusual outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last daysof the Church Age. They refer instead to spring rains, in contrast to early rainsin the fall.

The arguments based on the expression "in the last days" in Acts 2:16-21 are alsoinvalid. If the "last days" referred to in Acts 2:17 includes the day ofPentecost, the beginning of the Church Age, and "if this is that" (v. 16)includes Pentecost, then it cannot mean at the same time the "last days"of thisChurch Age. On the other hand if the "last days" do not include Pentecost, then


4/34

Pentecost was not a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, and Acts 2:16-21 refersspecifically to Israel and is still future. Either way this passage gives noevidence for a reoccurrence of miraculous gifts during the "last (latter) days"of the church. The present charismatic movement is characterized by phenomenathat began in the church about 100 years ago, which apart from any historicalconnection or evidence are claimed to be the same as the miracles performed inthe apostolic age. It is simply naive to accept this claim without some directhistorical link or solid biblical evidence that these present phenomena are the

same as those in the days of the apostles. The most reliable evidence would be adirect historical link with the apostolic gifts due to their continuity in thechurch. However, as already argued, history testifies to the contrary. The giftsceased and there is no reason to expect their presence or reoccurrence today.

Lack Of Similarity With The New Testament

For any phenomena to make credible claim to be the same as the gifts andmiracles of the apostolic age there must be great similarity

Page 376

between the two. Any phenomena can be intentionally duplicated or copied.Therefore similarity alone cannot prove the modern phenomena are genuine.

Conversely a lack of similarity is definitely evidence against the claimthat they are the same as the New Testament gifts and miracles.

An examination of the New Testament reveals that the modern charismaticphenomena are not sufficiently similar to those of the apostolic age. Whereare the tongues of fire and the rushing of a mighty wind as on the day ofPentecost? Do missionaries blind their opponents as Paul did? Do churchleaders discern hypocrisy and pronounce the immediate death of members as in Acts5:1-11? Do evangelists amaze an entire city with miracles as did Philip (8:5-8)?Are they then taken to another place of ministry by the Holy Spirit (vv. 39-40)?Are entire multitudes healed by merely being in the shadow of the healer (5:15)?Do prophets give specific prophecies which come to pass soon after (11:27-28)?

The miracles and signs of the apostolic age were clearly and overtly

miraculous. Even the opponents of the gospel could not refute the miraclesof the apostolic age. But today's "signs and wonders" cannot be verifiedeven by those who are neutral or friendly to the movement. A detailedcomparison with specific individual gifts shows an amazing lack ofsimilarity between the New Testament gifts and the modern "charismatic"gifts.

The gift of healing. The New Testament gift of healing is a specific gift to anindividual enabling him to heal. It is not to be confused with healing performed

by God in answer to prayer. New Testament healings include those with verifiableafflictions and handicaps such as the man who was crippled from birth (Acts3:1-10). The healings were instantaneous, complete, and obvious to all. The mancrippled from birth had never walked, but he was instantly able to walk and jump.The healings in the apostolic age never failed regardless of the faith of therecipient. They did not depend on direct physical contact (5:15). There were no

preliminaries, healing meetings, or incantations. The healer merely stated to theindividual, even when the individual was unaware of the intention to heal(3:1-10), something equivalent to the words, "In Jesus' name, stand up and walk."The healings were usually in public, performed on unbelievers, and often enmasse.

The modern charismatic movement made little impact on the basis of speakingin tongues alone. It was not until "healing" was added that the movement

began to grow in significant numbers.


5/34

Page 377

Today's healers admittedly often fail. This is blamed on the lack of faithof the sick rather than on the healer. The alleged healings are seldominstantaneous or complete. They usually are not healings of objectivelyverifiable illnesses; they often pertain to internal disorders such as"emotional healing." Rather than being irrefutable, they are unverified oreven denied by those neutral. They involve healing meetings, preliminaries,

incantations, and usually repeated visits. They are not performed in thestreets, en masse, or at a distance. In a crowd they are usually performedon only a select few. They are never performed on those who are not aware of the"healer" or his intention to "heal."

There is little correspondence between modern-day charismatic "healings" and thehealings recorded in the New Testament. The differences are so vast that many oftoday's healers are careful to point out that they do not have the gift ofhealing, but are merely those to whom God often responds with healing. No oneheals today in such a way that it is clearly the New Testament gift of healing.

Exorcism of demons. The miraculous ability to exorcise demons directly alsoneeds to be differentiated from answers to prayer (James 5:14). Theexorcisms in Acts concerned those clearly recognized as "possessed,"

including a girl with a mantic gift (Acts 16:16-18). They were clearlydifferentiated from those who were merely ill (5:16). They were not nebulouscases of emotional problems such as "personality meltdown," frustration, tension,the "demon of worry," the "demon of drugs or alcoholism," as is often the case inalleged exorcisms today. Such can hardly be considered demonism in the NewTestament sense.

The New Testament instances of exorcism never failed, were withoutpreliminaries, were instantaneous, were usually performed in public, oftenen masse, usually on unbelievers, and in the case of the mantic girl (Acts16:16-18) apart from any cooperation of the demonized. Today's "exorcisms"often fail, often require repeated sessions, are usually unverified asdemonism, are never en masse, seldom if ever occur in public, and are onlyon the cooperative "faithful." Many cases are similar to common psychiatric

or religious counseling sessions that are claimed to be "demon exorcism."This is not to suggest that genuine cases of demon possession may not exist. The

point is that merely claiming to exorcise demons gives no evidence that one isactually doing so.

Page 378

Raising the dead. Dorcas had been dead for some time when Peter apart fromfanfare instantaneously raised her (Acts 9:40). The incident regardingEutychus (20:7-12) concerns a boy who fell three stories and was dead. Paulwith no fanfare pronounced him alive. In the apostolic age with all themiracles, exorcisms, healings en masse, and so on, there are only these twolow-profile incidents of raising the dead. This action was apparently rareeven for the apostles. There is no reason to expect this today. Nomodern-day "raising of the dead" has been verified. Wimber refers to a manwho fell, hit his head, was apparently unconscious for three minutes, and"came to" with a bump on his head. After Wimber and others prayed the bumpeventually went away. This is incredible, not as a miracle, but that anyonewould consider this as a possible raising of the dead. Would anyone have

been convinced by such a "miracle" that Jesus was the Son of God or that theapostles represented God?

The gift of tongues. The nature, purpose, and other characteristics of thegift of tongues, including a complete exegetical discussion and refutationof the concept of private or devotional tongues is included elsewhere. The


6/34

tongues of the apostolic age were genuine miracles, since they were theability to speak previously unlearned foreign languages, rather than the"charismatic tongues" of today, which can easily be duplicated. The only

passage describing the nature of tongues speaking is Acts 2:4-11, where they aredefinitely languages. Peter stated that the tongues-speaking in Cornelius's house(10:46) was the same as on the day of Pentecost (11:17). And there is no reasonto assume the instance in Acts 19:6 was different. Since 1 Corinthians 14repeatedly states that the tongues-speaking in Corinth was in an assembly of

believers, why then was it mysterious and why was there lack of understanding? Itwas because the believers did not understand the foreign languages of thetongues-speakers. The mystery was not because the tongues in 1 Corinthiansdiffered in nature from the tongues in Acts.

New Testament tongues were verifiable foreign languages. The term glw'ssameans "language" and is never used for ecstatic speech. By contrast, today's"tongues" have never been verified as actual languages. All objective studies byimpartial linguists indicate that they do not have the characteristics common tolanguages.

The New Testament gift of tongues is specifically said to be a sign forunbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22). This is how it functioned at Pentecost. Allinstances were public, not private. The people who

Page 379

spoke in tongues in Acts (2:4; 10:46; 19:6) were not previously aware thatthe ability or gift existed, and in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 the people were not

previously aware of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They could not have beenseeking or in any way exercising belief in such a gift, and yet theyreceived it. There is no indication that the New Testament speakers spoke in atrance; they were in control of the phenomenon. Perhaps the most outstandingcontrast is usage. The gift of tongues in the New Testament functioned, as didall the other gifts, for ministry to others (1 Cor. 12:1-30; 1 Pet. 4:10), ratherthan primarily for the benefit of the speaker as in the modern charismaticmovement.

There is no similarity between today's tongues and the New Testament gift.Today's charismatic proponents are wrong regarding the nature, purpose, use, andevery other aspect of tongues. There is no reason to assume merely on the basisof their claim that they are correct in identifying their tongues-speaking--whichcan easily be duplicated and is common to man--as the New Testament gift oftongues.

Conclusion. The "charismatic gifts" of today are not similar to the NewTestament phenomena either in general perspective or in the details. Thereis no evidence to conclude that they are the same; there is every reason toconclude that they are not. The historical fact that the New Testament giftsceased long ago and the fact that there is no historical link whatever betweenthe charismatic phenomena and the New Testament gifts require the sameconclusion. The only remaining possibility for giving credence to the moderncharismatic claims would be to produce direct statements of Scripture that theapostolic phenomena will always be present in the church, or that they willspecifically be in the modern church despite their cessation through most ofchurch history. Even if this were produced, there must also be evidence that thecharismatic phenomena are somehow the same phenomena referred to in the passages.However, there is no specific biblical evidence such as this. There is no

biblical statement that requires a denial of historical fact or that requires anequation of such dissimilar entities merely on the assertion of the proponents.All objective evidence is contrary to the charismatic claims. It is notsufficient to assert that by faith their claims must be taken contrary to theevidence. This is existential naivetT, not faith. Faith is trust in biblical


7/34

evidence rather than in experience.

Biblical Evidence For Cessation

No Bible verse specifically states that tongues, signs, and wonders willcontinue throughout the Church Age. Nor is there a verse that specificallystates they will cease at the end of the apostolic

Page 380

age. However, this does not mean that one cannot take a position on thisissue. Many doctrines, such as the Trinity, are not directly stated but arederived from the study and correlation of passages of Scripture. There areseveral indications in the Scriptures that the gifts of tongues, healing,and miracles (signs and wonders) will not continue. The charismatic movement inall its forms rests not on exegetical evidence that the gifts will continue, buton the assumption contrary to history that since they occurred in the apostolicage they should also occur today. The foundation for this assumption isnonexistent.

The New Testament church was not characterized by power and miracles as thecharismatics assume. It was characterized by the problems addressed in the

epistles (including, e.g., the problems that beset the Corinthian church)and the problems of the churches described in Revelation 2 and 3. Miracleswere performed with very few exceptions only by the apostles (Acts 2:43;5:12). Those who "turned the world upside down" were the apostles, not thechurches as a whole. The charismatics assume that the church today should be liketheir imaginary church. They assume that the entire church today should be ableto do all the apostles did in the New Testament.

If the church as a whole had performed miracles, it is only an assumption,apart from evidence, that this should be true today. This assumption is notinterpretation. The assumption that the miraculous events recorded in theBook of Acts should occur today is "a distinct hermeneutic, a distinctivelyPentecostal manner of appropriating the Scriptures." This development oftheology on the basis of narrative rather than on direct teaching of

Scripture is always a precarious methodology.

General biblical evidence. Moses performed a series of miracles. However,they did not continue throughout the Old Testament nor were other believersexpected to do the same. The Old Testament prophets occasionally performedmiracles, but Israel in general was not expected to do so, nor did themiracles continue throughout Israel's history. The fact that someindividuals on special occasions in biblical history performed miracles didnot result in others doing the same or in a continuity of those miracles. Sothere is no reason to assume that since the apostles and a few members of theearly church performed miracles, they are to be expected today.

Specific biblical evidence. In addition to evidence from history there isalso specific biblical evidence that certain gifts were temporary. The term"apostle," commonly used in ancient times in the

Page 381

sense of "representative," in a few passages describes representatives of alocal church. This is not the New Testament gift of apostleship. Nor canthis term, contrary to its normal meaning and contrary to the New Testamentdescriptions, be equated with the modern missionary merely on the basis ofetymology. The only individuals in the New Testament who clearly possessedthe miraculous gift of apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and could performmiracles as required of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12) were the Twelve and Paul.


8/34

Perhaps Barnabas and James can be included. Almost every branch of thechurch, including most Pentecostals, has held that apostles in this sensehave not continued in the church. The charismatic reliance on the narrativeof Acts is often avoided when defining "apostles" or "prophets," as toorestrictive. These gifts can be precisely delineated, however. Imprecise use ofScripture is a common failing among charismatics. No matter how one tries to

broaden the term "apostle," there is little doubt that apostles such as theTwelve and Paul did not continue. If they did not, then all things are not as

they were in the New Testament church, all miraculous gifts did not continue asin the beginning church, and at least one gift in the New Testament did notcontinue.

In addition the New Testament sets standards for an apostle that precludethe continuance of this gift. Not only must an apostle be able to performmiracles (2 Cor. 12:12), not only was the early church very careful aboutgranting anyone, even Paul, the title of "apostle" (Gal. 2:1-10), but alsoan apostle must have seen the resurrected Lord (1 Cor. 9:1-2; Acts 1:22-26). Paulexplicitly stated that he was the last one to see the resurrected Lord (1 Cor.15:8), and he specifically connected this fact with his apostleship. Thisrequirement for apostleship refers to genuine appearances of the resurrectedChrist and not to "visions." There have been no resurrection appearances sincethe apostolic age. Paul clearly stated that the last appearance was to him.

(Revelation 1:12-18 refers to a vision, and is not an appearance of theresurrected Lord in bodily form on earth.) Therefore apostles in the sense of theTwelve and Paul cannot occur today.

When Paul wrote that all gifts were given to the church (1 Cor. 1:7) andbenefited the church, he did not mean that all believers

Page 382

were apostles or performed miracles, but that the apostolic, miraculousministry was experienced by and benefited the Corinthian church. Paul wrotein Ephesians 2:20 that the apostles and prophets are the foundation for theuniversal church. This at least implies that they were only for the

beginning, and this accords with the other specifics mentioned above. Since

"apostle" in the full sense of the gift was only a temporary gift and didnot continue in the church, the biblical precedent is established that somegifts given in the apostolic age did not continue and were only temporary.It is contrary to Scripture to assume that all gifts and all happenings ofthe apostolic church are to continue and to be expected in today's church.

Since the ones who performed the miracles were only in the beginning church, itis logical that the miracles themselves were only for the apostolic age. Sincethe ability to perform such miracles was evidence of apostleship (2 Cor. 12:12),then with rare exceptions others could not have performed such signs and wonders,and they would not continue when the apostles ceased. In addition to thisimplication the temporary nature of miracles is directly supported by Scripture.Mark wrote that the apostles went forth in accord with the Lord's instructionsand preached (aorist tense) everywhere and the Lord confirmed their word withsigns. This is all placed in the past at the time of Mark's writing (Mark 16:20;the time of the present participle is relative to the past tense of the mainverb). The same is true in Hebrews 2:3-4, which says miracles were performed byeyewitnesses of the Lord (apostles), and were performed by God to confirm theword of the eyewitnesses. All this was past at the time Hebrews was written (themain verb is past tense and the participle is relative in time to the main verb"was confirmed"). In both cases the signs, wonders, and miracles are referred toas being in the past at the time of writing; they were not referred to asoccurring at that time. In both passages miracles were performed by the apostles(eyewitnesses) and are described as intended by God as evidence to authenticatethe apostles' preaching.


9/34


10/34

communication with God is contrary to the biblical teaching that allbelievers have full access to God. Romans 8:26 states that all believers arehelped in prayer by the Spirit with inaudible, nonuttered, internal groanings.

The tongues movement presupposes that communication with the spiritual realm ismore direct when it is apart from the mind. Such a concept, though found invarious religions, is contrary to biblical Christianity. This emphasis on a levelof communication that bypasses the mind and is not direct communication from the

believer to God is a dangerous teaching. This interest in "supernatural" events,not primarily as convincing signs but as the daily experience of believers thatsupposedly places them in contact with the supernatural, is dangerous. Thismiddle-level, spirit realm, called the "excluded middle," is an area ofcharismatic emphasis.

The emphasis on experience, particularly in this level above the rational,often results in emphasizing "experience" over Scripture. In a recentnationally televised program on the subject of televangelism severalcharismatically oriented evangelists appealed to the "call" as the licensefor a sinning preacher to continue his ministry. They made no appeal to theScriptures.

Similarities To Non-Christian Religions

The modern-day charismatic movement is disturbingly similar to practicescommon in paganism, while at the same time it lacks correspondence to

biblical miracles. Trancelike states and communications on a level apartfrom the mind are common in paganism. An emphasis on physical healing andexorcism for the benefit of adherents is common. The experience of a poweror force "overcoming" the participants is similar to pagan practice. The

bizarre and often wild practices of early Pentecostalism seem similar topagan religion.

Page 385

The idea of contact and interest in the spirit world, the "excluded middle"between God and man, is also common to pagan religions.

The Effects Of The Movement

All groups and doctrinal persuasions of Christendom have experiencedtheological and moral problems with both their leaders and laymen. As otherChristians have experienced, so a number of charismatic leaders have ledlives that are morally or ethically contrary to Scripture. If not morecommon, this is at least as common as among noncharismatics. Therefore itmay be safely concluded that all the alleged miracles and so-calledtongues-speaking have not produced any genuine spiritual advance overnoncharismatics. It has produced enthusiasm for the miraculous, but this isnot to be equated with spirituality.

All these supposedly miraculous events have produced no advance in biblicalknowledge or spiritual living. The basic doctrines common to the movementare not original with charismatics. Their main claim to biblical knowledgeis the assumption that the current church should be like the early church.Since the movement has not produced more spiritual believers or any advancein biblical or theological knowledge, what has it accomplished? Is it notamazing that a movement that claims to have restored power for service,ability to communicate with God more than others have, ability forself-edification, power to heal and perform other miracles, and ability to

prophesy and receive direct revelation, has produced no significant advancein spirituality or in biblical or theological knowledge? Is it notinconsistent that a movement which claims to be in direct contact with the


11/34

Holy Spirit, to have all gifts such as prophecy, apostleship, and the wordof knowledge, to communicate directly with God by tongues-speaking and othermeans, can at the same time include Roman Catholics, conservative and liberalProtestants, amillennialists, premillennialists, Calvinists, Arminians, those whodeny the verbal inspiration of the Bible, and those who reject Christ's vicariousatonement on the cross?

Apparently the Holy Spirit is not concerned with communicating any

information to correct all these differences, many of which are crucial andsome of which are incorrect. All this direct communication with the Spirithas apparently done nothing to correct even basic errors. It has not even

produced unity among charismatics regarding the nature and purpose of manyof the gifts. This movement has solved no theological issue, produced noadvance in biblical knowledge, and has not produced more spiritualChristians. Would such an effusion of the genuine Spirit of God produce solittle? Other than enthusiasm there seems to be no spiritual advantage to

Page 386

this movement and the noncharismatics are not missing out on any genuinespiritual benefit. On the negative side the movement has split churches, andthrough its televangelists the movement has had one of the most significant

negative impacts on the testimony of the church in recent history. Thesecharacteristics are evidence that the charismatic phenomena are not the NewTestament phenomena, that the genuine gifts are not present.

Conclusion

In every attempt to prove that the New Testament gifts exist today, thecharismatic movement fails. The objective evidence of history and lack ofcorrespondence with the New Testament indicate that the genuine miraculousgifts ceased and have not reoccurred. Biblical evidence indicates that thesegifts ceased with the apostolic age. The theological associations and results oftoday's so-called miraculous gifts are contrary to gifts given by God. Themovement has not produced Christians who are more spiritually mature, as would beexpected of a genuine occurrence of the New Testament gifts. Apparently a

Christian experiences no spiritual loss by not becoming involved in thecharismatic movement.

On the other hand there is a dangerous similarity to non-Christianpractices, there is a dangerous interest in supernatural phenomena that give noevidence of being from God, and there is a disturbing interest in the spiritualworld somewhere between God and man. Since evidence points to the cessation ofthe miraculous gifts in the apostolic age, no one can be confident that thecharismatic phenomena are from God. Since believers are warned to avoid contactwith the intermediate spiritual world and since they should do only what they areconfident God approves, no one should experiment in the realm of the charismatic

phenomena.

Apostles And The Apostolate In The New Testament--

Robert Duncan Culver

A number of currents of thought in contemporary church life invite freshattention to the precise nature and purpose of the New Testament apostolate. SomeRoman Catholics and "charismatics" are presenting new ideas about revelation. Inthis age of lawlessness, persons in many denominations and sects are raisingquestions about ecclesiastical authority. Others have misconceptions about "the


12/34

signs of an apostle." In addition, there is the growing habit of referring tocertain foreign missionaries or strong religious leaders as apostles --apparently intended literally rather than metaphorically.

The word apostle is a loan word from Greek by way of Latin. As with the wordbaptize, another such loan word, the reader of the Bible must decide what itmeans from the way it is used. The bare elements of the Greek word ajpovstolo"mean "one sent forth." The root meaning of the word, however, does not indicate

how, when, by whom, nor for what purpose he is to be sent.

Linguistic Background

New Testament use alone is decisive for the meaning of an apostle and forthe theological significance of the apostolate. This is true of manyimportant theological terms of Scripture but peculiarly true of this one.Though the word was already old, and there is a near-equivalent Hebrew wordused in the Old Testament and in Rabbinical literature, the New Testamentuse is unprecedented.

131

132 / Bibliotheca Sacra - April-June 1977

Background in Greek Usage

The word apostle (ajpovstolo") in the older Greek literature was a specialmaritime term or military term. A dispatched fleet was known collectively as "theapostle." The same was true of a military expedition. Such an "apostle" wasutterly impersonal, without responsibility as such; it simply had the quality of

being sent away. In the Greek world, ajpovstolo" never became a term for apersonal emissary or representative. "Thus its later Christian usage was aninnovation to Greek ears or to those familiar with Greek." In Greek culture,religious messengers were called by other names, some of which are used in theGreek Now Testament and are translated by such words as angel, niessenger,

preacher, etc.

Ordinarily in the case of important terms in the New Testament, theSeptuagint shows that those Greek words already had a biblical usage beforethe New Testament authors employed them. Righteousness, for example, in theGreek New Testament is dikaiosuvnh. This word is widely used in theSeptuagint and is almost always the rendering of idx and its cognates, Soall the Old Testament uses of idx bear directly on the meaning of the NewTestament word.

But such is not the case with apostle. There is a word in Hebrew (jylv)which means about what apostle means but it is not rendered apostle by theSeptuagint, except for one case, which hardly furnishes a precedent (1 Kings14:6). The writings of Philo and Josephus, usually helpful, furnish no aideither.

Background In Jewish Usage

The Christian usage, however, does seem to have some connection with aJewish legal custom and name thereof with roots in the Old Testament. TheHebrew verb for "sending an authorized messenger" is jlv (2 Chron. 17:7).The simple passive participle of this verb is used of authorized messengers. Thisword jwlv (1 Kings 14:6), though apparently not attaining technical status in theOld Testament or in postbiblical Judaism (and perhaps earlier) does seem toattain that status in the form sometimes modified to jylv. As such, it is a legalterm, not a religious term. Insofar as there is a background for apostle inJewish or Hebrew words and uses it is


13/34

Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament / 133

the jylv. This word and usage appears sometimes, with modifications fromAramaic, in the Rabbinical literature. The Rabbis said of a jylv "the onesent by a man is as the man himself," i.e., the sent person is a minister

plenipotentiary for the one who sent him. The idea has deep roots in the OldTestament. When David's servants said to Abigail, "David sent (jlv) us to thee to

take thee to wife," she prostrated herself to them and in every respect treatedthem as if they were David himself (1 Sam. 25:40-41). Later when David sent (jlv)his servants to commiserate Hanun, king of Ammon, and those servants wereinsulted and shamefully treated by that hapless king, David went to war withAmmon, showing that such an insult to the persons of the messengers was an insultto the king himself and his country. The apostolate and Jesus' words to Hisapostles come immediately to mind: "He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and hethat receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me" (Matt. 10:40).

This office is frequently mentioned by name for official representatives ofvarious groups, communities, and official bodies of Judaism in the earlycenturies of the Christian era and earlier. Authorities furnish manyexamples. Apparently Saul of Tarsus was functioning as a jylv for the Jewishauthorities at Jerusalem when be met Christ on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1-2).

It is this word and its Jewish precedents, not the Greek use of ajpovstolo",which furnishes the true source -- insofar as a source may be sought -- forJesus' innovation of the apostolate. Further support for this assertion is seenin the fact that the Aramaic translation of the Bible (the Syriac Peshitta) usesthis very word jylv to translate ajpovstolo" in the New Testament and for "hethat is sent" (John 13:16).

In all Jewish use the central idea is official delegatedness. The jylv isnot a preacher, as such, or missionary, or herald (though these may be trueof him). His capacity is that of one empowered by a sending party or groupto act with full authority for the sender. Hence prophets of the OldTestament were not, as such,


14/34

The Origin of Jesus' Apostolate of Twelve

The first known followers of Jesus came from John's disciples, as seen inthe first chapter of John. Several of the followers known as the twelveapostles were with Him during His first year of ministry (largely inobscurity) in Judea, but they must have spent time in Galilee too, for there isno reason to believe they were yet instructed to leave their customaryoccupations. Early, however, in His second year of ministry, mainly in Galilee,

"He called them to give up their ordinary employments and be with Him constantly.And probably not many weeks afterwards, He promoted them to the third and finalstage of nearness to Himself, by ordaining them to be apostles." (See Mark3:13-19; Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1-10; cf. 6:13-16, esp. v. 13).

The initiative in becoming a disciple came partly from the men who becamedisciples -- and there were multitudes of them. There were other Jewishteachers who had disciples (maqathv", "learner, follower"). The initiativefor becoming Jesus' apostle, however, came entirely from the Master Himself: "Hecalled unto Him His disciples; and of them He chose twelve, whom also He namedapostles" (Luke 6:13; cf. John 15:16).


The initial purposes of Jesus in constituting twelve of His disciplesapostles was threefold: "that they should be with Him, and that He mightsend them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to castout devils" (Mark 3:14-15). That Jesus called them from the first with aview to instructing them fully as founders of the church in the period after Hisascension can hardly be doubted (cf. Matt. 28:19-20). The second purpose was tohave them serve as His accredited representatives in announcing the presence ofthe Messiah-King and His kingdom (Matt. 10; Luke 9:2). In a sense this purpose ofthe apostolate ended when a few days later they returned and reported the missionaccomplished. The third purpose -- to have miraculous powers -- was similar tothe Lord's purpose in using those powers, viz., to provide credentials asdivinely certified heralds of the arrived kingdom (cf. Matt. 10:2 with 11:1-6).Whether this apostolate did indeed come to an end with the completion of thisinitial mission is a moot question. The Twelve certainly failed in later efforts

to provide the "signs of an apostle" (Matt. 7:14-17; cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom.15:19; 1 Thess. 1:5). They also forsook their Lord (Matt. 26:56). There wasindeed a later renewal of the endowment of power. Yet the discourses of Jesuswith the Twelve, especially the Upper Room Discourse of John 13-18, do clearlyimply that their Lord was addressing the Twelve as accredited plenipotentiariesfor an age about to begin at Pentecost, however sad their temporary lapse mayhave been. Further, the several promises and charges given by Jesus to theapostles during their years with Him compel one to believe that from the momentof their first commission Jesus constituted them the first chronologically in thechurch to be founded. Likewise, as the "founders" of the church, they were itsfirst teachers (Matt. 16:18-19; cf. John 20:19-23; Eph. 2:20; see also Matt.19:28; Luke 22:28-30).

The Confirmation of the Apostolate of Twelve After Jesus' Resurrection

The risen Christ consorted with His disciples for forty days after theResurrection, giving the Twelve (reduced by one through the defection ofJudas) renewal of their commission. The Twelve, scattered after they leftthe Upper Room, then reassembled. Then over a period of forty days theywitnessed several Resurrection appearances of Jesus. At these appearancesthe Lord renewed their commission as His apostles (Matt. 28:16-20; Luke24:33-49; Acts



15/34

1:8). With the commission, they received orders to remain together atJerusalem until endued with the promised Holy Spirit (Luke 24:46; Acts1:4-8). It was by this renewal of commission that the Eleven becamedefinitively constituted as Christ's apostles (ajpovstoloi =


16/34

John 4:6; John 14:26; 1 Thess. 2:13). Accordingly, later generations ofbelievers -- and believers to the present hour -- have regarded apostolicity ofsome degree as an undoubted, essential quality of New Testament Scripture.

An apostle is required to furnish "the signs of an apostle." These consistof power at some critical juncture to perform undoubted miracles (cf. Acts4:16). Deuteronomy 18:9 and 13:1 furnish the Old Testament background. TheGospels consistently show that Jesus' human nature was enabled to be the

palpable vehicle of such miracles by the special bestowal of the Holy Spirit(Matt. 3:16-4:25 and parallels) and the same was to be true of the apostles aftertheir post-Resurrection recommissioning by Christ (Acts 1:8; cf, Mark 16:14,19-20). The apostles performed such acts (Acts 2:43; 5:12). Furthermore, there isreason to believe that only they and they to whom they conveyed such powers

performed miraculous acts in the early church (1 Cor. 12:8-11, 28), and that whenthe Word had been thus confirmed the miracles ceased (Heb, 2:1-4). As in the OldTestament epoch God furnished signs for His accredited messengers, so Hefurnished "signs of an apostle" (2 Cor. 12:12; cf. Pss. 74:9; 105:27-28). Thesesigns were God's means of "bearing witness with them" (Heb. 2:4).


The several Gospel reports of how Jesus rebuked the demands for miracles --

demands made by shallow-thinking crowds of thrillseekers or of debauchedkings -- cannot do away with the evidential and certifying function of NewTestament miracles. Neither do the remarks of Paul near the end of 2Corinthians regarding the perverse reasonings of the Christian citizens ofCorinth regarding his ministry do away with this function of miracles. Themiracles were not for edification of the believers primarily, and neitherJesus nor Paul says so. The believers of today do not need them foredification and should not ask for miracles for such reasons. Faith hasanother method.

An apostle must possess plenary authority among all the churches. In this hediffered from the holders of other New Testament ecclesiastical office, for inthe New Testament, bishops (or elders) and deacons wielded only local-churchauthority and had only local function. But Peter could judge an Ananias or

Sapphira by personal authority (Acts 5:1-11), not church authority. Paul asserteda personal responsibility for "all the churches" (2 Cor. 11:28), and in distantPhilippi, Paul could judge concerning a matter of moral discipline in acongregation at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:3). Apostles could and did write most of theepistles of the New Testament canon, giving commands to churches far away,claiming inerrant divine authority for themselves and even for one another (1Cor. 14:37; cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). They had power to furnish faith and order as amodel for all future generations, and to exercise discipline over all disorderlyChristians (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10).

Alleged Perpetual Apostolate and Succession

A considerable segment of Christendom claims two further essential qualities ofthe apostolate -- perpetuity and power of succession. But perpetuity isinconsistent with the very nature of the work of the apostles. Furthermore, therecould not be successors displaying the above particular set of qualifications,since many of the qualifications are essentially supernatural in character andsome are historically impossible for others besides the contemporaries of Jesus.Also the New Testament texts cited to "prove" apostolic succession and papal

primacy simply do not support either one.

That the bishops of episcopally governed churches are true apostles inlineal succession through successive passing down of the office by laying on ofthe hands of ordination is held in dogmatic


17/34


form by the Roman Catholic Church -- being set forth strongly not only inthe canons and decrees of the Council of Trent but also by severalrelatively mild post-Vatican II publications. The Roman Catholic Churchclaims to be the only church with true apostolic authority and therefore the onlychurch with a valid ministry. Similar claims, though less formally made, areasserted by Anglican High-Churchmen, by Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic,

and other Oriental churches deriving from Christian antiquity.

For evidence of their claim to apostolicity, Roman authorities cite (1) thechoice of Matthias, (2) reference to apostles other than the Eleven andPaul, (3) Jesus' statement about the apostolic mission (Matt. 10:14), and(4) His words to Peter about his having the keys (Matt. 16:18-19). A recentarticle in an important Roman Catholic dictionary of biblical theologysummarizes the position and the arguments for it:

During Jesus' public activity a portion of the disciples was, at appointedtimes, commissioned to represent Messiah. Likewise the extensive preparation ofthe disciples for their apostolic office, as particularly defined promises (cf.Mt 16:19; 18:18) makes it clear, that with this short apostolic function [theirfirst preaching mission?] not all could be realized which Jesus had intended.

After his departure Jesus would not leave his flock behind shepherdless (cf. Mt9:36; Jn 21:15-17); therefore he promised his disciples the transmission of powerof binding and loosing. Their decrees in the church will be the decisions of therisen Lord (Mt 16:18; 18:18). The transmission of this power, limited neither bytime nor space, followed through the resurrection (Mt 28:18ff.). Now is Jesus nomore sent only to the lost sheep; therefore, he entrusted also the full power ofall the peoples to the pastoral care of his fully empowered representatives.These representatives of the good Shepherd were employed at the beginning tillthe end of the time when the Lord comes again [Mt 10:24?]. It is thereby madenecessary that the full power of Christ-representation also be transmittedthrough the entire history of the church. Or should the certainty of sinsforgiveness be established only for the first generation of the church? Jesusconveyed this divine power which had so amazed the Jews (cf. Mt 9:8) to hisapostles (Jn 20:21ff.), whereby this gift of grace, even after the day of his

ascension to heaven, should remain in the world till his second Advent.


John 21:15-17 signifies, finally (as also previously Mt 16:18f.) the specialposition of Peter as first among the fully commissioned. Thereby [i.e., in theRoman papacy] Christ created a principle of regulation and gave the apostoliccompany an inner structure. The large number of the apostles [all the bishops inevery generation] necessitated quite certainly essential arrangement [or order]and subordination.

The reader is directed to the article "Succession, Apostolical" inMcClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia for a valuable refutation of this claim.Suffice it to say here that (1) none of the Scriptures cited above in thedistinguished Roman Catholic work really support the claim, (2) no one after theApostolic Age has truly seen the Lord, and (3) no one has the signs of an apostle-- specifically to confer supernatural powers by the laying on of hands.Supernatural "sign gifts" were prevalent in that first generation, but noneexcept apostles had the power to pass the sign gifts along to others.

Problems and Questions

Beyond the essentials of the apostolate treated above, some subordinatetopics merit brief attention: the question of Peter's special place, if any,among the Twelve; the extraordinary apostolate of Paul; the relationship of


18/34


19/34

New Testament) not only spoke inspired words but wrote Scripture. The namesof some of them are known, e.g., Mark and Luke. Perhaps such a prophet wroteHebrews. (See Romans 16:26, "the scriptures of the prophets.")

Roman Catholic authors and other advocates of a continuing apostolate seekto find an extension of the office to numerous individuals mentioned on the

pages of the New Testament. Other more disinterested writers are puzzled bythe passages involved but come to different conclusions. Were there, indeed,

apostles other than the twelve original ones plus Matthias and Paul? Is there a"lesser sense" in which a class of prominent persons engaged in missionary work,then and now, may be called "apostles"? This writer thinks not. A better way may

be followed in interpreting and employing the New Testament data offered.

Reference has already been made to the fact that persons commissioned to act asministers plenipotentiary for congregations, in the manner of the Jewish jylvwere called by the word apostle (ajpovstolo"), though often translated"messenger" (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25), Attention has also been called to the factthat once Jesus used apostle in the sense of "he that is sent" without directreference to the Twelve (John 13:16). This seems to furnish an explanation ofActs 14:14, in which Luke refers to "the apostles, Barnabas and Paul," therebydirecting attention to their commissioning as apostles (i.e., authorizedmessengers) of the Antioch church (Acts 13:2). The connection seems unmistakable.

Romans 16:7 states that Andronicus and Junia, Paul's "kinsmen" are "of note amongthe apostles," but this does by no means necessarily affirm that these twoobscure persons were apostles of Christ in any special sense. First Corinthians9:8 shows that the Lord's brothers (presumably Jude and James?) were prominent

persons but fails to state that they were apostles.

The same can be said of 1 Corinthians 15:7, which likewise falls short ofclearly affirming James to be an apostle, though it is quite capable of

being understood in that way. The passage shows that James held a positionof leadership as prominent as that of an apostle. Galatians 1:19 seems tosay that James the Lord's brother was an apostle. He is thought by some to

be none other than "James the Less," though this seems unlikely since Jesus'brothers appear to have rejected Him until after His resurrection. However,


James could have been, like Paul, an apostle "born out of due season." There isthus no strong evidence that any New Testament persons except the originalTwelve, Matthias, Paul, and possibly James the Lord's brother, were ever esteemedin New Testament times to be apostles of Jesus Christ. Thus the so-called "lessersense" of apostleship cannot be defended successfully.Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationist Exegesis

--R. Fowler White

The question of whether the NT gift of prophecy continues in the life of thechurch today came again to the attention of the evangelical world as arecent cover story in a leading evangelical periodical spotlighteddevelopments among advocates for the gift's continuation.1 In the midst ofthat article, Wayne Grudem's book, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testamentand Today, was singled out as a standard reference among many leaders of thecurrent prophecy movement.2 The work covers a large number of issues, butarguably none is more important than the treatment of the two principaltexts related to the question of prophecy's duration, 1 Cor 13:10 and Eph2:20. In a previous article,3 I compared Grudem's exegesis of 1 Cor 13:10with that of cessationist Richard Gaffin and urged acceptance of Gaffin'scontention that the question of the time of prophecy's cessation is notanswered in that text, but will have to be settled by appeal to other


20/34

passages and considerations. In this article, I turn again to Gaffin andGrudem, this time evaluating their positions on Eph 2:20, the passage thatis chief among those "other" texts bearing on the question of prophecy'sduration. This evaluation is warranted by the cruciality that the text hasfor each man's views and by the attention that each man has given to theother's exegesis of it.4 In addition, since Grudem's recent thought on thetext moves beyond Gaffin's earlier discussion, a fresh assessment ofGrudem's exegesis is in order. Our considerations begin with a review of

Gaffin's interpretation.

I. Gaffin on Eph 2:20

If we wish to understand Gaffin's orientation to the interpretation of Eph2:20, we must understand that for him this verse "ought to have a pivotaland governing role in seeking to understand other New Testament statementson prophecy."5 This role results from the fact that Eph 2:20 is part of asection that stands back, takes a sweeping and comprehensive look at thewhole church-house, and notes the place of prophecy in its construction.Prophecy's place, of course, is in the foundation of the church, a place,according to Gaffin, occupied in association with but distinction fromapostleship.6 Moreover, as foundational to the church, the prophets have a"temporary, noncontinuing function in [its] history, and so by God's design

pass out of its life, along with the apostles."7

Before reaching this conclusion, Gaffin acknowledges that profhtw'n in thetext may describe the apostles and thus tw'n ajpostovlwn kaiV profhtw'n mayexpress the meaning Grudem proposes, viz., "the apostles who are also

prophets." This interpretation, Gaffin observes, "is possible grammaticallyand the apostles do exercise prophetic functions (e.g., Rom 11:25f.; I Cor.15:51ff.; I Thess 4:15ff.; cf. I Cor 14:6)."8 Nevertheless, he urges that "acombination of considerationsis decisively against it."9 Thoseconsiderations may be summarized as follows.10

First, in Eph 4:11 Paul plainly distinguishes apostles and prophets asseparate groups. Second, in 1 Cor 12:28, the only NT text outside Ephesianswhere apostles and prophets are mentioned together, Paul again clearly

distinguishes between them. Third, Paul nowhere else designates theapostles, either individually or collectively, as "prophets," thus castingdoubt on any proposal that he did so in Eph 2:20. Fourth and finally, sincePaul nowhere else identifies apostles as prophets, an attempt on his part todo so in Eph 2:20 would have been lost on his readers "without at least someword of explanation, especially since he goes on in the same context (4:11)to reinforce the conventional usage."11

For these reasons, Gaffin contends that Grudem's proposed exegesis of Eph2:20 is "unlikely, even forced."12 Instead, a decisive edge must belong tothe view that these words refer to the NT prophets in association with butdistinction from the apostles.

II. Grudem on Eph 2:20

To understand the contribution that Eph 2:20 makes to Grudem's case forprophecy's continuation, we must see that for him the critical phrase in thetext, tw'/ qemelivw/ tw'n ajpostovlwn kaiV profhtw'n, means "the foundationof the apostles who are also prophets."13 Accordingly, in the context ofPaul's comprehensive historical metaphor of housebuilding in Eph 2:19-22,14v. 20 teaches that the apostles represent the only gift whose addition tothe church ceased once God completed its foundation; that is, apostleship isthe only gift whose presence in the church will have ended long beforeChrist's return. By his exegesis of Eph 2:20, then, Grudem disassociates NT

prophets who are not also apostles from the church's foundation and urges us


21/34

to see prophecy as a gift that has a continuing function in the church'shistory and life.15 The points Grudem offers in support of his view may besummarized as follows.16

First, the semantic range of the article-noun-kaiv-noun construction in theNT, as well as the likely meaning of that construction in Eph 4:11, permitsus to interpret tw'n ajpostovlwn kaiV profhtw'n as meaning "the apostles whoare also prophets." Second, the NT portrays the apostles alone, and not the

prophets also, as the recipients of the foundational revelation of Gentileinclusion in the church.

Third, the foundation metaphor in Eph 2:20, which signifies somethingfinished before a superstructure is begun, fits best with Grudem's exegesis,in that new Christians who received the gift of prophecy would not be addedto the church's unfinished foundation after its superstructure is begun, butto the church's superstructure as it is built on the finished foundation ofthe apostles. Fourth, and again in relation to the foundation metaphor, thefoundational role attributed uniquely to the apostles in Rev 21:14 isconsistent with Grudem's view of Eph 2:20.

Fifth, Paul's focus on the universal church in Ephesians 2-3 would havepredisposed the peers of the prophets in the local churches not to link them

with the apostles in the foundation of the universal church in 2:20. Sixth,in Ephesians 2-3 Paul fails to cite the purported inclusion of Jewish andGentile prophets in the church's foundation, even though that idea wouldhave been most pertinent to his argument for the equality of Jews andGentiles.

Seventh, the unambiguous evidence in 1 Corinthians 12-14, 1 Thess 5:20-21,and several texts in Acts, according to which the non-apostolic prophets didnot have a foundational role in the church, clarifies the apostolic identityof the foundational prophets in Eph 2:20. Eighth, there is no record ineither the NT or the post-apostolic writings indicating the existence ofnon-apostolic prophets who had a part in the universal church's foundation.

Ninth, as for Eph 4:11, the context and grammar make it clear that the

prophets mentioned there relate to local churches, while those in Eph 2:20relate to the universal church. Tenth, as for 1 Cor 12:28, Paul does indeeddistinguish between apostles and prophets there, but this one referenceshould not dictate the meaning of every reference, for example, Eph 2:20,where the words "apostles" and "prophets" appear.

Eleventh, though the apostles as a group are never designated prophets orany of the other distinct ministries in the church, there is no inherentreason why they could not be called "prophets" in Eph 2:20, provided thegrammar and context favor this exegesis. Finally, the grammar and context ofEph 2:20 provide clear signals of Paul's intention to identify the apostlesas prophets, preventing any possible confusion with the prophets of Eph4:11.

Having argued his case from grammatical and contextual factors and defendedit against Gaffin's objections, Grudem urges, "it seems best to concludethat Ephesians 2:20 means that the church is 'built upon the foundation ofthe apostles who are also prophets'."17

III. A Critique of Grudem's Exegesis of Eph 2:20

The exegesis of Eph 2:20 is clearly crucial both to Grudem's argument forprophecy's continuation and to Gaffin's argument for prophecy's cessation.It is crucial for Grudem because, if Gaffin's exegesis of 1 Cor 13:10 doesindeed shift the debate over prophecy's duration to other passages and


22/34

considerations, then Grudem's case for prophecy's continuation stands orfalls with the exegesis of Eph 2:20. It is crucial for Gaffin because, ifGrudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20 proves persuasive, then Gaffin's case for

prophecy's cessation confronts an insurmountable obstacle. With theseobservations in mind, I wish now to evaluate Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20and in so doing defend Gaffin's exegesis. To complete this twofold task, Ishall take up Grudem's argumentation point by point.

1. The Semantic Range of the Syntax in Eph 2:2018

Despite his claims to the contrary, Grudem's exegesis is not at allcompelling from a grammatical point of view. For one thing, Grudeminterprets the syntax of tw'n ajpostovlwn kaiV profhtw'n without due regardfor the fact that this construction involves plural nouns. As odd as it maysound, with the exception of Eph 4:11 (on which I shall comment below),Grudem fails to cite a single example of the construction in question in Eph2:20: every one of the texts he adduces in favor of his exegesis is anexample of a construction involving something other than two plural nouns.19

Even if Grudem were to correct this problem, his case would have anotherserious obstacle to overcome. The obstacle is that Grudem interprets thesyntax of the article-noun-kaiv-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a

way which, as D. B. Wallace20 has demonstrated, has neither clear norambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even theone true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, touV" deV

poimevna" kaiV didaskavlou") has been widely misunderstood because fewexegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of thearticle-noun-kaiv-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldlychallenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphaticallyinsisting "that such a view has no grammatical basis" in NT usage.21According to Wallace's findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11is that it means "the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are alsoteachers"; more likely, it means "the pastors and other teachers."22

With the grammatical evidence favoring Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20 sonoticeably lacking, we can give little or no credence to his conclusion that

the translation "the apostles who are also prophets" is "just as valid [asthe translation "the apostles and prophets"] and perhaps even more inkeeping with New Testament usage."23 On the contrary, Wallace's studyconfirms that, while Grudem's exegesis is a theoretically possible meaningof the construction in question, it is nevertheless, statistically speaking,the least likely meaning of that construction. To be sure, non-statisticalfactors are relevant to this discussion and we shall consider them in theheadings that follow. At this juncture, however, let us observe that thesyntactical evidence is decidedly against Grudem's exegesis of Eph 2:20:statistically speaking, the most likely meaning of the text is that itrepresents apostles and prophets as two distinct groups united by theirfunction as foundation stones,24 that is, as two distinct gifts united infoundational, revelatory witness to Christ and the mystery revealed inhim.25

2. The Apostles and the Revelation of Gentile Inclusion

Grudem asserts that the apostles were the sole recipients of the revelationof Gentile inclusion. This observation is basically an argument fromsilence: since the NT clearly affirms the apostles' reception of therevelation but is silent on the prophets' reception of it, we must concludethat only the apostles received it.26 The validity of Grudem's claim dependson whether he has established a burden of proof. In my view, he has not

because he fails to consider the relationship between the oracles of Agabusand the revelation of Gentile inclusion. Grudem's only interest in these


23/34

prophecies is to establish their edifying function and to challenge theclaim that they possessed absolute divine authority.27 The prophecies ofAgabus however are profoundly relevant for evaluating the prophets' relationto the revelation mentioned in Ephesians 3. In Acts 11:28, an oracle fromAgabus, a prophet in the Jerusalem church (11:27), prompts the Greekdisciples at Antioch to contribute famine relief for their Judean brothersand sisters (11:29). In other words, the prophet reports a revelation

pertaining directly to that aspect of the mystery of Christ mentioned in Eph

3:6: his prophecy in effect occasions a cementing of the newly-established,foundational bond of fellowship within the church between Jews and Gentiles.Likewise, in Acts 21:10-11, Agabus reports a revelation relating directly tothe progress of Paul's apostolic ministry to the Gentiles--again, the aspectof the mystery discussed in Ephesians 3.28 For all their relevance then tospecific life situations and concerns in the early church, the prophecies ofAgabus are nevertheless revelations with an undeniably direct and integralconnection to the mystery revealed in Christ. Grudem therefore appears quitemistaken in his claim that the NT is silent on the prophets' reception ofrevelation(s) pertaining to the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church.

3. The Foundation Metaphor

Grudem objects to Gaffin's view of Eph 2:20 because, insofar as it implies

that prophets would be added to the church's foundation after itssuperstructure had been started, the foundation metaphor would no longersignify something finished before a superstructure is started, but somethingsubject to change thereafter. This objection, however, overlooks the factthat even Grudem's own "foundation of the apostles who are also prophets"was subject to change after the superstructure was begun. Before PentecostMatthias was added to the foundation begun with Christ (Acts 1), and wellafter Pentecost Paul was added to it (Acts 9). While the church's foundationawaited the additions of Matthias and Paul to it, the building of the restof the church was not held up--as Grudem's analysis of the metaphorsuggests--until God completed its foundation. On the contrary, the rest ofthe church was being built on the foundation such as God had constituted itto that point. If it were otherwise, the addition of literally thousands tothe church between Pentecost and Paul's conversion (e.g., Acts 2:41; 5:14;

6:7) would have no significance in terms of God's housebuilding activity inEphesians 2.29

The foundation metaphor, then, did not carry the implications Grudem assignsto it and God's housebuilding work proceeded on a foundation to which otherscould be added.30 This scenario could be followed no doubt because all thosewho bore the foundational witness spoke with one voice concerning Christ andthe mystery revealed in him.

4. The Apostles and the Foundation in Rev 21:14

Grudem appeals also to Rev 21:14, where consistent with his exegesis of Eph2:20, John apparently attributes a unique foundational role to the apostles.This observation, however, has a number of problems.31 Perhaps most obviousis the fact that John's assertion is not as consistent with Grudem'sexegesis of Eph 2:20 as it first appears. John, after all, assigns afoundational role only to (the) twelve apostles. Even Grudem, however, wouldacknowledge that in Ephesians 2-3 Paul regards himself as a part of thechurch's foundation by virtue of his reception of the revelation of themystery. So, on grounds other than Rev 21:14, Grudem knows of at least oneapostle other than the Twelve who had a foundational role. I would take thisconcession a step further and contend on the basis of the considerationsdiscussed in this essay that we know of still others who had a foundationalrole, that is, the NT prophets. Clearly, then, Rev 21:14 does not tell usthe whole story about the church's foundation and therefore Grudem's appeal


24/34

to it is inconclusive.

5. The Peers of Prophets in Their Local Churches

Grudem insists that Paul's focus on the universal church in Ephesians 2-3would have prevented the peers of the prophets in local churches fromassociating them with the apostles in the foundation of Eph 2:20. But wemust ask, why would the prophets' peers not make this association?

Apparently, Grudem would have us simply presume that NT prophets would belinked with either the universal church or the local church; they could not

be linked with both of these entities. Since Grudem's discussion at thispoint is more assertion than argument, one is left to surmise that thisdisjunction is rooted not only in what Grudem believes is Paul's exclusivefocus on the universal church, but in what he insists is thenon-foundational role of non-apostolic prophets in the rest of the NT. Atany rate, as it stands here, Grudem's point resembles the argument that theapostles' correspondence cannot have perpetual importance for the universalchurch because it consisted of occasional writings addressed to localchurches. Grudem would agree that such a view is based on a falsedisjunction. His discussion here, however, involves a similar falsedisjunction. At the same time, Grudem overlooks the fact that in Eph 2:19-22Paul focuses not only on the universal church (in v. 21, pa'sa oijkodomhv)

but also on the local church (in v. 22, kaiV uJmei'" [Gentile Christians,cf. vv. 13, 19]).32

6. The Missing Argument of Ephesians 2-3

Grudem claims that in Ephesians 2-3 Paul ignores the supposed inclusion ofGentile as well as Jewish prophets in the church's foundation, even thoughsuch an idea would have been most pertinent to his argument for the equalityof Jews and Gentiles. Here again we find Grudem arguing from silence, andagain the validity of his argument depends on whether he has established a

burden of proof. I do not believe he has.

The chief difficulty with Grudem's analysis is that he fails to takeadequate account of the relationship between Ephesians 2 and 3. To be sure,

we can affirm with Grudem that Paul's concern in 2:11-22 is to demonstratethat through Christ God has brought about equality (fellowship) between Jewsand Gentiles. But what is Paul's interest in 3:1-13? There Paul describeshis ministry as a stewardship of preaching the mystery of Christ to theGentiles, especially that aspect of the mystery which is the equality ofJews and Gentiles in Christ. Paul's interest then is in defining hisministry to the Gentiles as it relates to God's work through Christ, adiscussion of no little importance to his Gentile readers.33

Taking full account of Paul's focus in Ephesians 3, we see quite clearly whyhe ignores the importance of Gentile prophets in the foundation whileadvancing his argument: Paul is evidently more concerned to define therelationship between his preaching and the equality of Jews and Gentilesthan he is to demonstrate further the truth of that equality. Moreover, itis not, as Grudem suggests, that Paul inexplicably ignores the Gentile

prophets in the foundation while pursuing his argument; rather, it is thatPaul ignores everyone in the foundation other than himself, except toidentify himself with them as those to whom God had revealed the mystery.Suffice it to say therefore that Paul's overriding concern to magnify hisown ministry explains why he "fails" to cite the foundational Gentile

prophets as proof of the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church.

7. Explicit Passages on Prophecy by Non-Apostles

Grudem maintains that tw'n ajpostovlwn kaiV profhtw'n in Eph 2:20 must refer


25/34

to one group since 1 Corinthians 12-14, 1 Thess 5:20-21, and certain Actspassages demonstrate clearly and explicitly that non-apostolic prophets didnot have a foundational, that is, absolutely authoritative, role in thechurch. For this argument to have any force, we must first accept Grudem'sassumption that Eph 2:20 is unclear and less explicit than other NT texts on

prophecy. But, in view of our evaluation of Grudem's claims regarding Eph2:20 in this essay, we can hardly accept his assumption. As for Grudem'sexegesis of the passages in 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Acts, space

does not permit a complete response, nor is there need to duplicate Gaffin'sgenerally satisfactory discussion of that material.34 I would however addone point to Gaffin's consideration of the judging of prophecies.

According to Grudem, Paul's description of the judging of prophecies in 1Cor 14:29 and 1 Thess 5:20-22 presupposes that each prophecy is a mixture oftrue and false elements. If this is the case, then clearly the judging

process must involve sorting out the true and false elements in eachoracle.35 This interpretation, however, is neither the only nor the best wayto interpret the evidence.

Fundamentally, Grudem's exegesis turns on his assumption that the objectsbeing judged (sorted) are the true and false elements in any one oracle. Butlet us take another look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1

Thessalonians 5. In the Corinthians passage, the apostle looks at anindividual meeting of the local church (14:26) and envisions a plurality of

prophets speaking during any given meeting: "let two or three prophetsspeak" (14:29a). In the Thessalonians passage, Paul's commands are adaptableto an individual meeting of the local church or to the whole course of itsmeetings, but in any case he envisions a plurality of prophecies beingheard: "do not despise prophecies" (5:20). Thus, whether Paul iscontemplating the meetings of the local church individually or collectively,his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5 presume that hisreaders would be hearing a plurality of prophets speaking their oracles.

My point in making this observation is that while Grudem reads Paul's wordsas preparing the churches to sort out the true and false elements in any oneoracle, it is clearly more in keeping with Paul's very words to read them as

preparing the churches to sort out the true and false oracles among the manyoracles they would hear. To put it another way, while Grudem says that"[e]ach prophecy might have both true and false elements in it,"36 we shouldsay that the many prophecies heard in the meetings of the local church mighthave both true and false prophecies among them.37

On the presupposition that the prophecies heard in the churches might haveboth true and false prophecies among them, Paul's instructions in 1 Cor14:29 and 1 Thess 5:20-22 are manifestly consistent with the broader contextof NT teaching on the subject of judging prophecies. According to thatteaching, the churches judged prophecies in order to distinguish betweentrue and false prophets (1 John 4:1-6; cf. Matt 7:15-20 with Matt 12:32-37and 24:23-26). In line with this picture we find Paul citing standards bywhich the Corinthians and Thessalonians should judge oracles (1 Cor 12:3;14:37; 1 Thess 5:21-22; 2 Thess 2:15).38 In fact, it is particularlynoteworthy that Paul cites such standards for the Thessalonians at least in

part to dispel the confusion caused among them by a deceiving propheticspirit (pneu'ma, 2 Thess 2:2) from within their own number or the church atlarge.39

In the light of these factors, I would contend that for Paul, as for therest of the NT, the judging of prophecies was a process of evaluating the

prophets' words in order to pass judgment on the prophets themselves.40Significantly, when interpreted in this way, the judging of NT prophetslooks quite similar to the judging of OT prophets. To be sure, the


26/34

preconsummate punishment applicable to false prophets in the NT differedfrom the death penalty prescribed for their OT counterparts.41 Thisdifference aside, the NT criteria for sorting out true and false prophecywere identical to those in the OT. In sum, prophets in both Testaments were

judged as to (1) their conduct (e.g., Jer 23:10-15; Matt 7:15-23); (2) thecontent of their prophecies (e.g., Deut 13:1-5; Matt 24:23-27); and (3) themeans of revelation (e.g., Num 12:6-8; 1 Cor 13:2, 9, 12; 15:51).42 Used inconjunction with the gift of discerning the spirits (1 Cor 12:10),43 these

criteria enabled the church, like ancient Israel, to determine the ultimatesource of the prophecies they heard (the Holy Spirit or some other source).I would therefore argue that Grudem has fundamentally misunderstood Paul'steaching on the judging of prophecies, and has thus transformed a standardapostolic, even canonical, directive into a Pauline idiosyncracy.

8. The Vain Search for Foundational NT Prophets

Grudem claims that the search for Gaffin's foundational NT prophets is avain one and that in the absence of evidence for their existence, we shouldtake seriously alternatives to Gaffin's exegesis of Eph 2:20. Grudem's claimhere is only as strong as the arguments he previously advanced. As I see it,those arguments are either inconclusive or refutable, and thus one couldargue quite plausibly that the prophets for which Grudem searches are in

fact in the NT. Consequently, even if this argument has confirmatory valuefor those who already accept Grudem's conclusions, it has no positive valuefor those who reject them.

9. Apostles and Prophets in Eph 4:11

Contrary to Gaffin's appeal to Eph 4:11, Grudem insists that the context andgrammar of that text make it clear that the prophets mentioned there aredifferent from those mentioned in 2:20: the prophets of 4:11 had a(non-foundational) role in local congregations, whereas those of 2:20 had a(foundational) role in the universal church. This difference is not as clearas Grudem contends.44

First of all, we have already seen that Grudem's argument concerning the

syntax of Eph 2:20 is tenuous at best. Indeed, far from disclosing that theprophets in 4:11 and 2:20 are different, the meVndev construction of 4:11only makes explicit what the article-noun-kaiv-noun plural construction of2:20 implied, viz., the prophets are distinct from the apostles. This pointis strengthened by the fact that the article-noun-kaiv-noun pluralconstruction in 4:11 (touV" deV poimevna" kaiV didaskavlou") does notfunction as Grudem says it does in 2:20.45

Second, what Grudem says about the contexts of 2:20 and 4:11 indicates thathe has not seen the connection between the two. On the one hand, as Iobserved above (III. 5.), Grudem overlooks the fact that in 2:20-22 Paulassigns apostles and prophets a foundational role not just in the universalchurch (v. 21), but in local congregations as well (v. 22).46 On the otherhand, Grudem really says nothing to counter Gaffin's observation that 2:20and 4:11 are parts of a larger context, viz., 2:11-4:16, in which Pauldiscusses the church (universal and local) and its composition as thenewly-created body of Christ.47 Within that larger unit, 4:7-16 expands onPaul's description of the church in 2:11-22 by pointing out the harmony ofthe differing gifts distributed by Christ in the body.48 Given thisconnection between the two sections, it is extremely unlikely that the

prophets mentioned as foundation stones of the church in 2:20 are other thanthe prophets who contribute to its upbuilding in 4:11-12. In fact, in viewof the larger context of 2:11-4:16, the prophets' specific role in thehousebuilding work pictured in 4:7-16 would have to be none other than theirfoundational function described in 2:20.49


27/34

Clearly, then, contrary to Grudem's interpretation of the grammar andcontext of Eph 2:20 and 4:11, the prophets mentioned in those texts are thesame, having a foundational role in the church universal and local.

10. Apostles and Prophets in 1 Cor 12:28

As for Gaffin's appeal to the distinction between apostles and prophets in 1

Cor 12:28, Grudem acknowledges that Paul does indeed distinguish betweenapostles and prophets there, but he protests Gaffin's appeal by saying that1 Cor 12:28 should not dictate our exegesis of Eph 2:20 or any other passagewhere the words "apostles" and "prophets" appear. This response, however,overreacts to Gaffin's argument. Gaffin is not advocating the interpretive"tyranny" of 1 Cor 12:28 over other texts: he is simply saying that 1 Cor12:28, together with Eph 4:11, establishes a burden of proof for those wholike Grudem would see something other than a distinction between apostlesand prophets in Eph 2:20. It remains for Grudem to produce the evidence thatshifts the burden of proof from himself to those who differ with him.

11. No Reason Not to Designate Apostles as Prophets

In this connection, Grudem argues that if (as Gaffin acknowledges) the

apostles performed prophetic functions, and if the apostles Paul and Johnspoke of their personal prophetic activity, then there is no inherent reasonwhy the apostles as a group could not be called "prophets" in Eph 2:20,

provided the grammar and the context favor that interpretation. There aretwo significant problems with Grudem's discussion at this point.

First, Grudem attaches a crucial--and fatal--proviso to his claim. He saysthe identification of the apostles as "prophets" is reasonable, "providedthe grammar and context favour this interpretation."50 We have already seenabove that neither the grammar nor the context of Eph 2:20 favors hisexegesis. By the lack of merit in his proviso, then, Grudem robs his pointhere of its intended force.

Second, the warrant for our identification of the apostles as prophets turns

on the criterion by which we identify someone as a prophet.51 Though Icannot argue the point fully here,52 I would contend that since the NTcustomarily links spiritual gifts to the ongoing ministries and stewardshipsof some believers in distinction to others (Rom 12:4-6; 1 Cor 12:5, 28-30; 1Pet 4:10-11), we should understand that in the absence of evidence to thecontrary the term prophet applies to those believers who by virtue of theirongoing engagement in prophetic activity are distinguished from other

believers.53

Using this criterion in evaluating the apostles' prophesying, we would haveto say that their identification, individually or collectively, as prophetsis based more on conjecture than proof. For instance, Paul certainly alludesto his own prophetic activity (1 Cor 14:6), but the evidence for hisidentification as a prophet in the conventional sense is inconclusive,first, because his prophesying does not appear as an ongoing ministry thatdistinguished him from other believers, and second and more importantly,

because Paul invariably distinguishes himself from others by identifying his"gift" ("stewardship," "ministry," or "grace") as that of apostleship or itsnon-prophetic correlates.54 Moreover, that John (and arguably Peter) engagedon occasion in prophetic activity (Rev 1:3; 22:7; Acts 10:9-29) fails tomeet the criterion above for identifying him as a prophet in the customarysense. Finally, apart from considerations of the grammar and context of Eph2:20, it is pure speculation to argue that any of the other apostles met thecriterion and could therefore be called prophets.55


28/34

In light of these considerations, it would

Documents

No Signs and Wonders