“WHAT ABOUT CONTINUING REVELATIONS AND MIRACLES IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TODAY?" [A Study ofthe Doctrine ofthe ‘Sufiency of Seis BIBLIOTECA SERRA & LEMOS ‘es. Alan Ren Alva Associate Profesor of Thesogy an Apologetic ‘Cotensat Theslogi Serums St Lows, Mio as a ape dcher tom dhot! ) PRESBYTERIAN eee oeSTA Ray “What About Continuing Revelations and Miraces inthe Presbyterian Church Today?” ‘The modern charismatic (neo-pentecostal) movement is one of the most influential forces in Christendom today, transcending historic denominational tines and casting its advancing shadow across significant segments of grassroots church ie, However, aside from the movement's characteristic disinterest in ecclesiastical Purity, its leaders rather being primarily concerned that they and their rank-and-file supporters, regardless of theirehurch affiliation, be able to testify to the “experience” of having spoken in tongues aside, I say, from this doctrinal weakness (and others I will not ‘mention, its insistence that all or most ofthe gifts ofthe Holy Spirit, including the revelatory gifts of apostle, prophet, nd glostoalist, are legitimately present in the church today creates real difficulties for those Presbyterian churches creedally committed tothe teaching that the revelatory charismata passed out ofthe life of the church With the completion of the scriptural canon. The problem they g) create is this: if these modern charismaties! are fight in theit understanding of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, then those Presbyterian churehiesconfessionaly committed the Westminster ‘Confession of Faith with its veaching (1, v2) that the revelatory gifts have ceased are wrong. If However, the Westminster Confession of | Faith is right when it teaches thatthe revelatory gifts have ceased, then these charismaties are in error, and the men among them ‘eannot on this ground alone legitimately be chutch officers of "he wor charismatic” pertelning ait docs othe gts the Holy Spin ‘ne sent derive of eery Chan auc never Chain pve at {ett ne pit ofthe Spit ior 126 7,1) However, oles eerse need he ‘word ued ete inte popular meders sere veler to Chis who Selene {hd teach tht ll at leat mow of the Spt gil expecially Bool, ‘wopbecy, and mirauots pial healing power, af lepaely pret in oe hota‘churches with this confessional commitment inasmuch as they wil ‘be required at their ordination to subscribe to the system of doctrine taught in the Confession Some Presbyterian pastors, however, argue that “many. charismatic Christians who claim to make prophetic utterances and who practice glossolalia do not believe thatapostes ae stil with us, this git to the church having clearly passed from the scene with the death of the apostle John. Nor are they, so these same pastors continue, by thei prophetic and glosolalie utterances confronting, nor do they claim to be conironting, the ehurches with new “revelations.” (The fact of the matter is that many, indeed, maybe ‘most, charismatic Christians do believe that they are privileged ‘organs of revelation) Provided thea that they conform to the confessional position of the church on all other doctrinal matters, ‘and provided that they meet the qualifications for office holders stated in I Timothy 21-15, these pastors continue, there is no good ‘eason to withhold biblical church office from them. Inshort.they are not out of accord, sotheclaim goes, with either the Seriptures or the Confession. "Now no practicing charismatic Christan, itis true, would lay claim to an understanding of the gifts that is not supported by "Tish ardy bene oma the pst the cst oteeatona sane prof he Srna ohne Meme Caesiat if Fate Conng ands th few ape the Cones, oes ify Scape pret long ih ced insane ean Fee inn wt Chan curt sto pound caching. ise ape tee dnd a ne Sept ate snd New Tesumens. som tes Scupiurs sont he Wenner nen deters odeoe teams issih Thc os pero nd ‘Ge tinge they f doting ug Coveson oan ‘revelation to the Scriptures of the Oh and New teams “he caer thold crcl ot ht fam nt ping that charac ‘hrs canbe mene of. cher Whe concn ‘Stina Tete Sore burs and str in Cit hy shal fern! mucha way honed noe lomo secre {fegerion whet shuts non mec equa ar eae ‘hth alc ths poi which an aang ee dwt ese foc io sing neo pemesalehngssbows toe roses nap {Eo hoch meer dasa us tun feed a otehot to pce thr bein nth red these mann tha Shes os ling Armin ies woai be enn not ach ree inbe chs 2 , Iyportan te: a a 6 pengsie He prezerio es hades the Mis he Seriptare“n shor, those who props and speak tonguesjusiy their terances by an appeal to! Covnians 1 At Tes hag never met one who did not apne to thi pasage to expan Tis ‘experience. Inston, pricing charismaties are wiling for thet practi toe judged by I Corinthians I4:"It what we are doing.” They say, "is not supported by this passage, we wl be te frst fo fdmit‘me are wrong” They claim then merely to have what the Corian Christians of 1 Corinthians 14 had. The fst question then that must be faced by those pastors who are concemed to determine wheter these good andsinoere Christians arc ented to. hold office in their ehurees is the nature and function of the Dropteticand lowoalic its descrted in| Corinthians la Arethe Bite there dieu revelatory in nature and function” Are the harsmatics there, according to the apo, organ of revelation? Some related questions are what isthe nature of the language Spoken by the glotolaist Was t @ known langage, capable of ‘ing translated, or was it a hapsodic “unearthly tere? Was this language "in he Spirit ineligibletothe glssoaist himself Sound” exebee. demonstrates tat the bits of prophesy and__[ | Bowlin dessibed in| Corinthians 1¢ re cevltery both inh" fatureand function, then pastors who sincerely belive. that Propositional trance fromGod ceased withthe posto ae but ‘Mo at the same time defend ter charsmatiechareh membersand officers bythe disclaimer that these parishioners are not speaking fevelationg mist conclude ether that ther parishioners do nothaye ‘what the Corinthian eharsmatis had and thus ave unstiptual in their praciee or that they themselves are wrong tn thet representation of what thelr prihiones are doing and that these OOD er hing revlationy an thus they int fevaluate ee {wm and thelr churches position onthe cessation ofthe revelatory charimata, Now the intresting fact in ths connection, as We said atlie is that isnot the chaamatis themcves who normally Glace being ongare of revelation, asthe abundance of clams in {heir literature wil readily show. Rater, avery often the pastors ‘of churches commited to the tacking of the eeseaton of the revelatory charsmata who rake te distaime: for them, perhaps fut of a eed to jusily the presence of eharsmate Chrstans on ‘heir own sessions and diaconaes, But what does | Corinthians 14 teach? That i he fel ee1. Prophecy and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14 ‘The following exposition of 1 Corinthians 14 grew out of a controversy in which T found myself over a study on slomsolalia ‘made by a group of Presbyterian churchmen in 1973 and distributed in pamphlet form under the tite, Speaking in Tongues. | was interested in (I) the meaning the study paper placed on the word “mysteries” in I Corinthians 4:2; and (2} whether the glossolalistin 1 Corinthians 14 understood what he himself was saying in his charismatic language, I discovered that the study paper affirmed nothing direct about the fist of these two issues, but it did draw definite conclusions relative tothe seeond. Concerning the second issue, it declared both Paul and modern tongues speakers say thatthe Bl does nor involve the mind (U14) This brings am ditional problem if the nature of ingues does no involve the mind, now can the gi full ts function of dityng the inavidual? There ate no rational answers this problem becnose ne dont fully now as 'we ae aly known. Pethaps we can draw an example of this nor rational efying irom out own experiences of Chit flows. Why are e'nt even tempted stay at home sadist the very bes preacher we ean fin on te Tadio? Ist it eeaise we are ediied by the ppt! ‘presence of other bellevers (emphasis supplied) 4 Consequently, the seventh concision of tat study read as follows: “These tonguss [of | Comnthisns Ia) mere nor Ineligible 10 the ‘speaker spat fom a special it of nterpretaion but werea eure oF personal edition even tough uniligible™ (omphasa following questions about this conclusion ofthe earlier study: does ‘not Christan fellowship, if it eifies at all, do so because of the activity of the mind and the intelligible discourse involved in such fellowship? Do Christians not assemble themselves. together primarily because God commands it? Then, when they do, do they hot understand with thelr minds what they are doing I fail to see ifnow the “physical presence of other believer,” apart from mental activity and rational discourse, ean edify anyone. Otherwise, a8 Dr. Gordon H. Clark has pointed out somewhere, « Christian could simply st down by another Christian unknown to him on abusand be edified merely by the proximity of the latter's presence which is absurd to suggest. IT he kos that the man is a Christian, is it not With his mind that he knows? I repeat again, I fal to see how non, ‘ational activity ean edify anyone. Furthermore, I reject the notion! 4 that Paul teaches this, although i is true that modern glossolaists and that study paper do. So should the reader fal to discover any redeeming value inthis present study, I would stl strongly suggest thatthe earlier study is patently lacking in its analysis of what iis. precisely that edifies che Christian man. Turning now to I Corinthians 14:1-22, 1 will present a running ‘commentary on the passage. I feel that this procedure i the most Tucid way to present the material and my conclusions. Readers are advised to have the Bible before them, for occasionally a verse will bbe paraphrased, these paraphrases including within them a great deal of underlying exegesis which, if written out, would have expanded this study far beyond what would have been feasible ot practical ‘In ths passage Paul demonstrates the superiority of the git of! prophecy fo that of glossolalia based upon the formers ability to cafy the whole Christian assembly while the latter, unless translated, is able to edify only the glossolalist himself. Theinablity ‘of glossoialia to edify the church arises, not fom its being ‘nonsensical, but from ignorance of the language on the part of the assembly. Therefore, in order to edify the ehureh, one should more earnestly desire to’ speak five words which the assembly can lunderstand than ten thousand words in an unknown language. The edification of the churchis of prime importance then as far as these silts ofthe Holy Sprit are concerned. All thisis seen from the nature Of the gifts (vss. 5) and from the necessity ofa proposition being Understood for edification to oocus (v8. 22). saul exhorts the Corinthian believers to seek spiritual ‘gifts (a pneumatia), especially (mallon de) the gift of propice. ‘The recipient of ths gift of prophecy, identified as a prophet” yo 14:29, was, as such, an organ of revlation(14:30scfalso'Acts [1.27 28 and Acts 21:10:11). t should be noted in passing thatfreelation ceased atthe end of ‘the apostolic age (Wesiminster Confession, I) there ate no more prophets inthis sens ofthe word, Consequently, Pauls exhortation {o seek the git of prophecy would no longer be in force, Rather it Would have to be viewed as being in force only as long as the Tevelatory process was still in progress with the result that no One should be encouraged to seek the gift of prophecy today. Furthermore, one would no more be in error in seting sade the apostolic injunction not to forbid plossolalia (1 Cor. 14396), if ‘lossoalia is revelatory in function, than when he forbids prophecy (0s. 39) Such an injunction would beinforee only while revelation as sill in the process of being given ‘Verses 2-3 Paul explains his preference forthe git of prophecy ‘overthe gift of glossolalia by contrasting their respective capable for edification. This emphasis on edification must not be overlooked, for there is a sustained emphasis on this point {throughout the entire section under discussion, Gunther Bornean forcefully points this fact up when he delares that Paul“subjecte, events of worship tothe single and clear erterionofthe'edifcation? ofthe congregation... Paul regulates {the git of the spritualsts] witha firm hand. The principle of this regultion-—the gradation of Bifts—is termed oikodome["edification”| (14:26)... Paul useothe {terms ‘edification’ and ‘to edly” in chapter 14 so iss than seven times (the formerin 143-5, 12, 26 thelatter twice in a, 17) othe {erm ‘edification’ is clear in its negative and positive sense. it ‘expressed. the ‘rejection of the self-sufficient hypertrophy” of ‘religious individualism and egoism, which exhausts itself in the ‘production of spiritual phenomena in order to center upon itct® Positively it expresses the helping ofthe other person, not only in his individuality butasa member of the'ehureh (14:12) since the congregation is not edified except through the word understand. ably addressed to another and applied to him as admonition and consolation (14:3)" (Early Christian Experience, pp. 162-63). The cin is that Paul values prophecy more highly than gloolalia ike ite piosata spells nto men otto God Toren ater ‘an undettands him, because he speaks mysteries bythe Spits on the other hand, the prophet speaks to men Tor their ediieation, encouragement, and comfor. Whats the nature ofthese Congues? Were they foreign languages, a ee ne a ie ee or een per beets serie sccete coer oy cease adn eg owen el aco at Eee rata tesa Ce ey > ena ei tn ode uf Haws lea ly natn Pricueeanenti acorn oi a (3) The glossa could be used for prayer, praise, and thanksgiving wth ecm hin Ce Ee ee au en ee ee Sta eters aneaseckenaetene forsee gone ee ae alae rem Lee reac antes ; Pea cee cog ere eer a as ocean ema se Ur de top foreign languages, more specifically, languages foreign to that {ep eer, oom esha, tegnes es SET oer neem Ser Sara ic cemmaceen ee ‘As foreign a then, they were sranviated, not interpreted. The Greek rata te rd ae est rite eatt wceraeee gemma eas Rorcieatem pores epee ce 1Spirit he speaks mysteries" As for its Old Testament background, the word musierin("mystery") is employed by LXX only Danis 2(in Dan. 49 of 0, Nebuchednezzarsisioniscalledamusterion) lwanslate the Aramaic raz("secre"). Thslater word inthisDanighc context_is clearly descriptive of the hidden. purpose of God: concerning elas ays (vs. 28, 29,45) which was reveled ela” ‘ss. 19, 22,28, 29, 30, 47) by vision (hesu-—vs. 19) to Daniel a the interpretation of Nebuchadnezats dream (heiem)- That musterfon| in LXX refers unequivocally co propositional data made avaiable, AW to man only asthe result of divine vclatoryactity gues | ‘That this [XX usage of musirion, and not its usage inthe Greek ‘mystery religions.” should be considered as ikely the lexe ‘gographical background for its New Testament, especially its Pauline, occurrences seems equally quite cleat. Concerningits New Testament occurrences, the Arndt-Gingrich Greek Lexicon has thie to say about the general meaning of musterion xystery") in the New Testament iteratre Our lit, wes it to mean the secret thoughts, plans, and ispensations of God which are hidden fr. the human Feason, a3 well as fr. all other comprehension below the divine ivel, and hence must be revealed to those for whom, they are intended (p. 532), Concerning this verse particularly, the same lexicon declares: ‘The one who speaks in tongues... utters secret truths in the Spirit which he alone shares w. God, and whieh bis fellow-man, even a Christian, does not understand ibid). A review of the occurrences of musterion in Pauls leters would seem to sustain the conclusion of the Amdl-Cingrich Lexicon Consider the following examples: God revaed trough Pat is hack (Othe mpriery that para hardening of Irat has happened ‘until the fun of the Gents comes in om: 1:39), (2)the mystery that Cheatane Iving atthe Pasoase willbe instantly tnsfomed (I'Cor 1831). ee eats see are numa tenance et Ereuns irel oea a eae moeneal eae eerie ea meee te erst erm pa cere ser tetas ec eat areolar Satay raiatronen eee ae ca eae ena eae ene oi ct A are ae sorte area mnie Marana ce car canted a ce aren wee pet deerass eserenmrarun On pia emetammarney pectin, ety (re eran fers acts mes meat Geatanes Perouse ered GER am canon nae A Sing etre rt ea SCR ne eee Hae) wees ere aE em ren, /and (a). because Acts 217 represents, tongues ea jjundetstood, as equivalent to prophecy, T submit that there is strong. presuimption in favor of understanding the word here as relerning to-hidden truths Beir made known tothe glossolaist by ‘evelarion$ Furthermore, when he spoke mysteries, the glossolalis, sg a of i ay nar tee ha nia aa opsina oma tas ceed recon i {eno aration ites tat {eatys miter of he gnpel be erected sr nt uh rapundercomments pes the bbc! yates but no as one who “pear peo we Tat ‘dy wil contend that this ater elegant veto inthe rveaory enmity theft centryitis certain, spoke meaningful truths, not gibberish ithe spoke such propositions as those just noted in Romans 11:25; 16-25; 1 \ ,Corinthians 27-13; 15:51; Ephesians 33-6; and Colossians |:26-27 ) pSome non-charismatic defenders of modern-day gossoalia who oy ute the view Which Tadvocate here thatthe “mysteries” of vs. 2 Felet to truths received through revelatory ‘activity urge in ‘opposition that the phrase, “he speaks... 9 God,” in this verse (ef, ‘also-vss"-13+47) ix tanguage descriptive of prayer, not language ‘descriptive of revelatory activity. To this objection | offer three ‘counter-observations. (I) Masy of the canonical psalms which assume a prayer form, thats, whose words are addressed to God, reveal nonetheless great truths which the church would not have. ‘known otherwise apart from them (cf. eg, Pas. 8,16, 22, 69, 90, 102,138, 143, 145). Thisisjust to say, in short, thatthe fac hat the slossoalist might indeed have been praying during the exercise of his gift does not by that fact preclude the ability ofthe Holy Spiitto reveal through his prayer otherwise unknown truth to. the slossolalist and, when translated, to the assembly. (That Paul lace tses language deseriptve of prayer in ss. 13-17 is not conclusive evidence that the glossolalist only prayed when exercising his gift auls words can be construed as illusiaivein intent-—hedoes refer to singing “with the spirit” in vs. 1S—as readily as they can be Sonsirued as exclusive in intent) (2) It is possible that Paul's “declaration that the glossoalist “speaks to God!” states nothing ‘more than what thesituation logically demands. risquiteapparent, ino man understands him" (as Paul expressly atest BY his gor clause in vs. 2) that in areal sense hes speaking not to wien But to God since God alone understands him. In other words, Paul might not be alluding to prayer at all in vs. 2 but rather simply to the realities of situation in whicha man finds himself speaking (o other ‘menin a language unknowntothem. In much the sameway in which ‘We might say colloquially of the speaker. "He is talking to the winds, the people certainly donot understand him,” so Paul similarly could be saying: “He is speaking to God; he is certainly not speaking to ‘en since they donot understand him” (cf. vs,9-—"you ate speaking into the air), By capitalizing on this possible meaning of Pauls scholars have argued tha this precisely what Paul means not only by the words under discussion but also by the word *mysteries.” But this possible suggestion concerning the so called prayer language cannot be extended to the word "mysteries= 10 ‘inasmuch as tis word has a clearly established Pauline usage as we hhave already seen, (3) The coup de graceto the entire objection isthe fact that, even if Paul's phraseology is descriptive of prayer activity and the word “mysteries” refers to words unrecognized ‘by the ‘audience, juxtaposed as these words arein tis versetothedativewin {or by the Spint (or the spiritual git] (ef. exposition of spirit” in ‘ss 12-14) it only means that the language refers no longer directly to evelatory activity as such but now rather tothe related activity of inspiration, the Spirits superintending influence upon the hurman ‘organ of revelation carried out in the interest of insuring inerrancy to the proclamation of revealed truth, and hence stl indirect to the revelatory process, So we virtually come ful citle back tothe original assertion that the plosolalist was an organ of revelation in the apostolic chureh, Verse 4: “He who speaks in a charismatic language edifies himself.” Paul declares. The following parallel clause reads:“*he who Prophesiesedifes the chureh.” The reason that the prophet edifics the church, of course, is because his message of edification, encouragement, and comfort is intelligible to the church. The church understands him. Now if the prophet’ intelligibility was necessary tothe churet’s edification, I fase the question here, docs it not follow that the glossolalist’s intelligibility to himself was necessary to his edification? Let me say this another way. Why did the glossolalst’s words no ely thechurch? Isitnot beemusehe was ‘not understood? How could he then edify himself, a fact that Paul clearly afirms? Are we not permitted to conclude that his own, edification resulted from his understanding of himseif® Both Calvin (on 14:14) and Hodge similarly understand Paul here, and further support for this conelusion will be forthcoming. ‘Should aa atcmpt to aguc that simply the swareets or knowledge persthat he nan speaking nan akpown tongue would hae cif the poses eet be potted ont hat the etre acer would have know ths fet io. Butch Snowe ma sot sft appreny,n Pal opin toe he any sine he expres state that iit prophet se oslo ei toe sembly obios sits that tek mr hon he mee Ende se 1S speaking nap unkown language to ely the onnalat And wats ‘more han" atthe knowidge of wha he was ing? oVerse: Paul wishes that allof the Corinthian Christians spokein charismatic languages (of course, asthe Lord will, for he knows {thatthe Spirit will not give the gift to everyone, accordingto 12.11), ‘but he immediately conjoins the stronger wish that they all Prophesied. The reason for his preference is given: “Greater is he ‘who prophesies than he who speaksin charismatic languages, unless he translates [his language] that the church may receive edifica- tion." Cary, for Paul the greater desirability between these two charismata was determined by their capacity to edify the larget ‘number; the gift that edified the church was the more desirable et. ‘Under one condition only would acharismaticlanguage prove to be of equal value—i it were translated, that the eburch might be csified. Then it was equivalent to a prophecy, ‘Verse 6: Paul fortes the previous conclusion by asking rhetorically: “Since things are so [run de}, how shal Ibe of any profit to you if T come to you speaking @ charismatic language, except T speak to you by revelation [this would refer to the “mystery,” explained through a translation} or by (the gifts off knowledge, or prophecy, or teaching?” Paul's concern again heres the church's edification; glosolaia apart from a translation is tunable to profit the church, ‘Verses 7-9: In vs. 7-8 Paul lustrates hisemphasis on edification from musical instruments, and applies his point in vs. 9. Inanimate sound-producing objects—the fle, the harp, the trumpet do not benefit their hearers by their sounds, Paul affirms, unless theit sounds are understood. Pauf's statement concerning the trumpet ES da 1 een rope wnt, ey gar hae oval in ein io his Spi-gen aby to oak an uaknote lengua ‘ould heeanceted hs trance aoa tat, howe Mc was apparel Derive ofthe Spinrad tensiatr (om, 27-28). Very ly the pile ‘hind the aos instence that the slomolit remain sent“ there oe cto” was the uiveral bel ntl that sath aa be exbiched mouth of two or thee winewes (Det 1:1; Matt 16.29" 5519, With another dang the rasating oth he plomollt ad the art ‘ould be support of ads “check” on cach other Whe hee ery efit ‘ecrophas pce by Pa upon Bosaabe grace in I Cor, [tis bbe! ‘ones ely what tata to am willing for oo oral hc os tee ‘wolf speak on any one sxanon, 2 particularly to the point: “If the trumpet should give an recognized [aden] sound, who wil prepare himsalfor bate? Now Patl apps he vntration “So ako, excepryougiethroogh ‘your language an intligible utterance, how tal that whieh Spoken be knows? You are [simps] speaking ito the arin “ln, a fara edification of other is conoeed. Verses 10-12: Paul iluststes the same point by considering languages spoken commonly among me “There atc ever 0 many Kinds of languages in the word, and none without moun, Nevertheless if! do not understand the meaning of the language {ten drain tes phones) Tahal be tegrded by the speakers stranger, andthe speaker illbea stranger tome" Pvom intrusi, Paul urges (vi. 12)"So as, since youre seekers of oprtaa git seek the edieation ofthe chireh in onder that you may exe that is tocexcel, desire to posses the charmata which are Uefa the church’ edication. Hin empss agin obvious the Christus Sentral concern nseckingand exerting charomatcwisshould be the edieaton of Christs church ‘Onefurter observations necesary while Weare commenting on this verse Its exremely important fora proper understanding of vss 1419 that we notice hee that where Paufs word in 4 for “spirital gis” ispreumaita, his word in this verse for spa sits" issimply the pla of pneum,iterallyspte lodge nos £ pints meanmanstationof he Spr, or forms under which the Spirit manifests himself. Ts not aval metonomy when the effect receives the name of i cause” (It ponble that Preumat inv, 2 has reference, a8 hee to thespstnl gi ed {terete iso be translated “hy mean of hs spiritual g") Verse 13:50 mich shoul the desire to edi the chub central forthe osiolalis that Paul now admonishes te anol when he raysinan unknown language to pay "to the ed tha {ia} he may translate” The aposte's reason behind this exhowaton bows: so concerned should the glssolai be that heey the ‘hrc ‘that his sole motive ia preying in an anknown language publicly should be hat hina] with Rs ransation the church nit Be edie (Paul in goin to demand in vs 8 that if here no traitor present, the glosoaist i to remain quiet) In ther words the purpose ofthe preerin this vee i nt fo ean the Incaniag ofthe prayer for ar we have sugested earlier tne speaker aknows the meaning already; rather, its purpose is to provide the Yerba! communication, afer wranalaon, which wil edits the churet 4. Verse 14: We come now to a crus interpretum. Itisfrom this verse * and those that follow (throughs. 19) that modern glossolalists infer that the glossolalst of the first century did not himself comprehend his speech, for does Paul not say that when the glossolalis praysin a charismatic language his spirit prays while his mind is unfraiful, ice. while his mindislackingin understanding, uncomprehending” | ‘am not prepared to acquiesce inthis view, What docs Paul meattb) “spirit”? What does Paul mean by"mind”? What does Paul mean by unfruitful”? Should oneinterpret this verse(and those following) in, )aueh a way that “spirit” is understood as the human sprit and “mind” is understood as rationality? Does the Bible know anything of a psychology of man which distinguishes ontologially between “spin” and “mind”? T think not. What then docs Paul mean? | ‘would suggest that “spicit™ here refers to the “spiritual git. of glossoalia.” Inverse 12,as we haveseen, Paul refers o spiritual gilts spirit.” By “mind” Paul means “understanding.” (Here there is litle disagreement.) By “unfruitfl” (akarpos), ‘while one might argue that it means “uncomprehending,” I would argue that it means, in keeping with the entire context with its conoern forthe edification of others," produces no fruit” that sit does not benefit ‘others ct this uniform meaning in Mat. 13:22; Eph $:1l; Tit 3:14, 2Pet, 1:8) In other words, Paul is saying: “Pray in order thatthe "The pas "withthe mind (fm tot not [mou xcs thre tmes in the ‘imme eonet (as. 15,19). It snare thatthe NIV, dr by What the ‘Taare Was Pas obiow tention aver 13, ama ie psse ‘hee “ineligible” that i eomapreheabie to oner: Iie foo ad tat these teats fale to segard thr serene the “coat forthe forme te sucess ano tram verse 8 acorn ha iil ray tli > ‘ate han a hey di namely 1 will ray wth my mind” they had dose 0, thee tse oecureaces af thi herbal te pts easing “sigh ‘ach ae in coud then ave helped to determine Pas meaning inte it ‘Teco ning nerfs Noun eatate ‘eas someting ks “comprehension” bata it Cet nthe Ugh ofthe ‘tents tthe following three oecreass rom Py conc that Re be “ndastood by others), whee be decir: tat “ny competherson una ® {hath eam, “ny undrsanlegs no producing undestandgin my hare ereisjut the “breakthrough that isreusieto the covet understanding tbe “ ‘church may be edified; for consider if, for example, should prayin "charismatic language, my spiritual gift is indeed being exercised, but my understanding is not producing any understanding in “others.” This view has in its favor the entire preceding context, ‘where again and again Paul stresses is concern forthe edification of ‘thers. Glossolalia does not benefit anyone other than the lossolalist himself. We shall see that this interpretation is ‘onfirmed by vss. 16 and 17 where itis said thatthe man ignorant of the prayer’s meaning cannot sayAmen” tosucha prayer because he ‘Joes not understand Verse 15; In this verse Paul expresses what his own practice isin the use of glossolalia. He says in effect: “I not only pray withthe spiritual gift [which T myself understand], but I also pray with ‘understanding (that is, to be comprehensible to others}: [not only ‘ing with the spiritual gift, but Lalso sing with understanding hat is, €0 be comprehensible to others} In accord with the entire context, this Yerse, 0 understood, points out Paul's conscious awareness of his ever-present responsibilty to edify others. The Corinthians should follow Paul's example. That this is Paul's meaning is verified in ys 16-19. Verses 16-17: The Greek epei (sines”) clearly brings out the connection of these verses as a continuation and verification of the ‘ame argument or conclusion ofthe preceding verse. "Since thisisso [that is, since intelligibility is necessary to comprehension and hence {odification},” says Paul, "i you should bless (God, by praise and thanksgiving] by the exercise of your spiritual git, how will the lungitted[lit, “Re who occupies the place of the unlearned"] say “Amen” at your thanksgiving, since he doesnot understand what you say? For you offer thanks ina manner well-pleasing [to Go}, but the other man is not edified." The strong contrast between the lwo clauses of the latter verse implies that the glossolalist in his ‘thanksgiving does so in a way not only acceptable to God but also comprehensible to himself (ts. 4). Hisedificationisincontrastto the other man's non-edification which is traced in the former verse to a lack of understanding of what is being said. Again, the ssa. While he NIV i eter ceri that she KI itis he eae that [Sv stoodon he hrolé ofthis brentbroughand Wepretrsted rn king ‘he pugs il undar aso aute eeaing Is éImplication is inescapably in favor of comprehension as imperative Yor any and all elieaton Hodge Comments ot ths This prove that the seer must have understood csi, Frif he unteigle us, su bev theapeker ap well toane ner itwar nee a theyshoudsnderand norco bedi ear tales | ec tht he should understand what hs tote benefited. Tha vere sthereone doce spa fj ttearis ofthe pit oftongcs ichassmethattene ste G9 Be tem did not understand then own words The \f a Scripture recognizes no uninteligent worship of God, or oi? any spiritual edification... disconnected from the truth ‘Again, be writes: 11s sai... that words may toue he flings which do "ot cony any distinct novons tthe mind But weeanast fay Amen touch wordy any more than ncean to as Sth Bind eoonal Worship i such an cal stands at a great remove froin the tneigent scrisg demanded by the apostle” (on 14:16). ns tou Pl as ind gt for he any cin aneye he a Shichavayatocomanies mera een fnihowond ve nshoge haan est ay iid te campuses uc ‘croc i ute coe ae dome eee ig tage tata Spin ae \ff the Tact thatthe current preoccupation wih this silt bythe odors dlrkoatc norm! oill pooner neva andor penal ar ah “God's written Word by her ministers, ohne rth ees es ogee Hel ouch spumen ‘That Paul should give thanks to God that he was more abundantly endowed with the gift of tongues, i that gift consisted in the ability to speak in languages which he himself did not understand, and the use of which, on that assumption, could according to his principle benefit» hither himself nor others, is not to be believed. Equally _gvclear is it from this verse(vs. 19] that to speak with tongues ‘vas not to speak ina state of mental unconsciousness Paul” says that although he could speak in foreign languages more than the Corinthians, be would rather speak five Words with his understanding, ie, $038 t0 be intligible, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. ..-That I mightteach othersalso... shows whats ‘icant by speaking withthe understanding. Its speaking in such a way as to convey instruction, Verses 20-22: 1 shall conclude this exposition with some comments on these three verse. These Verses register stil further the ‘leemphasis of glossolalia onthe part of the apostle. Invs. 20 hesays in effect "Grow up! Mature in Your thinking. Stop estimating the less useful above the more useful gifts." Then in the next two verses heseekstoshow what isthe real situation ina church enamored with teachers speaking languages the people cannot understand. He (quotes Isaiah 28:11-12. In the Old. Testament context, Isaiah febukes the drunken priests who ridicule him for his'simple, {nteligible message in Hebrew. Since they do not want an inteligible message, he prophesies, God will speak to them through people ofa strange tongue (in the Old Testament context he refers, ‘bf course, to the Assyrians) The prineipleenunciated hereby Isaiah 's inshore, that to beaddressed by God inan unintelligible language is not an indication of maturity and insight into spiritual matters in. ‘those fo whom God speaks this language. While the employment of Toreign languages can be a blessing in carrying out the Great ‘Commission, a8 We all acknowledge, they can indicate also God's curse-response, sayé Paul, to immaturity and unbelie. Paul here febukes the Corinthians for’ their spiitual immaturity. The Corinthians must see tha its not necessarily a mark ofthe divine favor to have teachers WhOSe languages they could not understand. To an obedient people, God sends prophets speaking their own fi 0that there can be no language. Although itis tre thet Paul does permit wo of at he o conlue ti sein et be rented hat the an Bion, thre plonclalststospeak ina gan Chota cate ee yclescontue prophetic and oso it ofthe Spit render he een erect te Corinthian Were ose Tr een organ of even, ain oping wih fo wted \ sel sup see fal dicen aut uments gegen te rea Carona he petunia along in voor esse | miner Cofeton of Fuh nein wt af wash Performances. Paul certainly is not insisting that any speak in ‘ow pleating to Gos; namely prayer, the reading of the Seipare, reubutin gs curt inded fthereieno interpreter react Past | he preaching and ang ofthe Word of God, Sng and the outa demands that theebenoaudbiegostlaainthechren | mintraton and receving of he ecrament,Furterore, he» \ Aa socal sto speakiohimefandtoGod hatte | linart Chan wot, te Conenion make des i isto commune silently with God. If this admonition refer to ff | tational iteligible adoration of and submission wi ig and if Cima gowelata” which no eran even ere naichan ff tclrence to rae, tit be de “with underatancg” and exer of the git theres communion ih God ere tana vocal akon languages Xi). Te Sst eed that the understanding could nt have bern a abeyance Inthelanguage commen eth cnaegaton (vi). emir Our commentary on I Corinthians 141-22 compete. If our ie pret thot of Gas Word pin” Large Cac, seeaiten ment shows hat the ignosepurtbainihs ue 19), Those who hea he Word of God ae odo 0 "wh 09 am at nomzatonal men in Chstn worap Te canting Gt) Seng haurteted pope AU Corinthian glossolalist did in fact understand what he himeeif wos teaching and admonishing of one another (Col: 3:16) iin certain mariner alone mow iCal modem lonsalait thru to bine vera of hese gon mut Uae see fee any losolins today claim to. sayngtiat the cramene re oe adnered inlay and sndertand nithing hy inthe nau Fushrmor our feted th oman. In al wry he Standards of Sfamaton shows tat what he Criningowolala sk aot [Prete eal or rao nels. Nowhere do ‘the nature of revelation, This may be demonstrated also simply from these Standards anticipate prophetic and glos ‘an analysis of the experience itself which the glossolalist professed to the activity of worship today. have Consider: when the glossolais lied to peal ngage which head ever studies he was ell claming bet God ne cney 4 miracle within him, But this miracle was not like the miacte of hd. pelorn verso if ‘restoring sight or raising the dead, It was the impartation ofa verbal accescete da menra goto communication in a foreign language to the mind and lips of a We ees Person ignorant beforchand of that language, Now who will deny, tion cabee # ME {tie that communication was translated fr tcongreaton et py! Bene coneregation in thar translation did oceve a metnaeaheety \" foin eaven without the osrumenalty of Script Ne ne thinking person wl forts plain that sucha meng, legen, was immediacy rom God. No rewlatona ain cier eke ee anything more It seems that thvecharsmatis who lan todey {hat their prophecies and glosslaiewterancs ae revels onal "ature are more perceptive than thse who attempt todstond te ueranes with the ela that they are not really uteing se mysteries Tike protein the Confession for hitmen it 1 Cor 1H 9U. The Cessat of the Revelatory Charismata fazvous he aya “oh Wit a dot sco Sa nt wna dort oe roe ofan eset, see of ula and fan claims, by saying haa suc. ‘The real issue is the teaching of Scripture on this matter, Sites hat oy ncramesrtns cea Tu hs taascay hee ye set i ca incu of popntirtet aan ‘Song eres oral eb ca peat ne ea ga seen mt Groping S08 ung remot ate’ ca tt toca gneerning all things necesary for his own glory, man's salvation’ ik oni PS cnc, tn So es eee ag lg fee od estan scutes v «Gite Si rien of men” ish kd a Bice goes sae 2 oe ta Frococan ce ae 2 a he ety 2 ' stghestcquvocaton. Taking them together an interpreting cach le ‘ifcment inte pit of the ober one can hal comeive of “ongeraspertuon ofthe cxstion of vevelation thas onc finds ere isthe Consion correct belive es andi the folowing page sil etempt to state my reasons for believing $0. cre proced yn the quetion of Ue correcnes ofthe Wesimintet Confession of ath al be inorder to make clea rose what t tha the Coneson of Fal by teense Isat nacceased. To begin, ie ute apparent tht the Confenion of Fai doesnot intend by thes aserons to teach hat Godino ‘Boge tevening himself n and by atures that is to my, the Confession ofFlth docs nt negate acontnalng general reeliion in teatn. Note the present ens of the verb in the allowing Scat: “sc the works of ceaton dos far manifest the foods visit, and power of asioleave menunexcusable= ire id, Rom. 120. ‘Kenn wont truth f God concerning who the Fater andthe Son eal aris inal singly ade the ponessionofthesinne! that bebo as precouathiscopie data, te Bible represents this Segulsiton of knowledge as the rent of divine revelatory actly iSiate 1r2577 16to-, Luke 2832 48; John 648, Aas 1614, Cor, 2a, 2 Cor. 6 Eph 17-18 Sine ths revelatory Work feviely pena the ina’ min a) ay be Senate jee rcvlaon of mination. hie subjective revelation itcinaon) sto be atid ith wht the Confesion of Fath Greats of a0)"theinvardiluminatonof be Spintof God which ‘Vnecesary forthe saving understanding of such things a are fehl inthe Word of Serpe (3) 2) Cheat “revealing tio the elec in and bythe Word, the mtr of salvation {Vitivan, and’) the work of he Spin our“effstual alg” Stereby God slightens the minds of the cect sprtully and {Bling to andeand thee tts of Gad reveled I Serpur (XD, (of course, inhsaupersionohiscomprehension S71Beindo the put of Christ ohald be cary toed om & {hese satements fagsno see ith He simply soperiatends the tteudy-gieaTeiclton mediated through prophets and apostles, fa ifuines men inthe subjective reception of that bectie iets) Hence i cera nn this suena ubjectve reelon| hich the Confon dears hab eased. a9 a Stil further, the Confession does not intend by these assertions to deny for one moment that God reveals his will for ts rectors, ‘ssues (V vii; Rom, 8:28). Ina certain sense such divine peovdenee {fDtstitutes a revelation of God's wll for hs childrens ven and snap be distinguished as the revelation of the will of providence Ba a Should ‘be obvious immediately that a specitic action by the Christan relative to these sues may be said to be unimpeactabiy eaincident with God's revealed providentil will only wjier ts (Christian has actually responded rationally and voltionally orwhee appeared to him to be the “open daor” in such & way’ that hae ‘alking through it” (orefusaltodo so) has become Jat acvompit in history. This isso, in keeping with the Confession, snply beceree in these cases there is no unassailably certain’ propootionad statement on the basis of which the Chistian ean say before har Zesponse: “I know that itis God's will that..." The mest he cancay visa vl providence is: *I shin, in the igh of al the crcumstancey {that it may be God's will that...” But once he actually commit himself to specific course of action, iis certain that it was the will of divine providence that he do so, But itis precisely beeates Knowledge of providence is always a knowledge “alter the leer ther vine providence can never be made one's guide for future decisions and actions; one simply never knows with certainty belorchoed What the future providentially holds for him, Even x0, God tos Brovidentially govern his ereatures, and this fact the Confession of Faith asserts in no ‘unceriain terms. If it is not natural revelation, subjective revelation, or the revelation of the will of providence which are said to have ceases what is it precisely thatthe Confession of Faithasserts aseeaccts careful reading of the confessional statements under question (vi will make it evident that iis al the revelatory maine on ‘methods (*ways") employed by God in Old Testament and Nog ‘Testament times by which objective propositional guidance wee directly evealed {rom heaven which ar sald to have ceased. BeJore the completion of the inscripturation of his revealed will Gat ere Confession states, “at sundry times, andin divers manners” revealed himsell. But after he had commited his wil for his church “wholly 2 ‘unto writing” dectares the Confession, “the former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people” ceased, which ways have ‘continued in abeyance, Note both the prevent tense of the verb and {the present-time word “now” inthe phrase “being now ceased.” Its) just because God no longer reveals his will propositionally to his“) church directly from heaven that the Seriptures are sid to be" most, necessary” (1/1) to the discerning of God's wil for his church, Furthermore, an investigation of the extra-confessional statements of the Westminster dvines as exprested in their other writings and sermons will disclose that itis just this divine activity of giving ‘Propositional revelation directly irom heaven that they believed had fzased with the completion of the inscripturation ol canonical revelation (cf, Benjamin B, Warfield, The Westminster Assembly ‘and ls Work, pp. 195, 196, 208, 224, 225,280, 281,282, 285-86, 304, 306; ef, also J. Mecter, ed, Selecied Shorier Writings of BB. Warfield, TI, 563, $68, 370) Al of this, taken together, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, means that we should expect no apostles, no prophets, no human organs of any kind beating revelations directly from heaven atthe present time (ef. Appendix 2A) Its with nothing les than complete and utter seriousness that the Westminster Confession of Faith advances the doctine of tbe Jinality of Scripture as ar a direct propositional revelation of God's mind and will ae concerned, It is this attribute of the Seriptures. finality which lis Behind the insstenoe ofthe Confession that “in all controversies of religion the Chuteh is finally to appeal unto them” (vii), and that “the Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion areto be determined, andall decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writer, doctrines of men, and private spirit, are to, be «examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, canbe no other but ‘he Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (1/x; ef. Appendix 2B). "Furthermore, a comparison of these statements with othet Protestant confessions wil disclose thatthe Westminster position i ‘by no means unique among Protestant statements of faith In the French Confession of Faith (1559) we are told Inasmuch as [the Bible] isthe rule of al truth, containing all that is necessary for the setvice of God and for our 2salvation, iis not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to ad to it, to take away from it, oF to change it(V) ‘Again, the Belgic Confession (1561) affirms [God] makes himself... known to us by his Holy and divine Word; that isto Say, as far asis necessary for usto know in thi life, to his glory and our salvation (11) Furthermore, the same Confession affirms: We believe that these Holy Scriptures fully contain the wll ‘of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation, i sufficiently taught therein... tis unlawful for anyone, though an Apostle, to teach otherwisethan we are now tught in the Holy Scriptures. since i is forbidden to add unto or take away anyihing from the ‘Word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thercof is most perfect and complete in all respects (VII) ‘The Second Helverte Confession( 1566) expressly declares: We believe and confess the Canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God... And in this Holy Seripture, the universal Church of Christ has all things fully expounded Which belong to a saving faith, and also othe framingof a lite acceptable to God; and in tis espect it is expressly commanded of God that nothing be either put to or taken from the same ... .. when this Word of God is now preached in the church ..we believe thatthe very Word of God is preached... and that neither any other Word of God isto be feigned, nor tobe expected from heaven.(1) The sixth of The Thirty-Nine Articles (1571) reads: Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva- tion: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may Be proved thereby, is not to be requited of any man In The Formula of Concord (1877) we read: ‘We believe, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which all dogmas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other whatever than. the prophetic and apostolic writings both of the Old and ofthe ‘New Testament... But other writings, whether of the fathers or ofthe modems, with whatever name they eome, are inno wiseto be equalled tothe Holy Seriptures, but are all to be esteemed inferior to them, $0 that they be not ‘otherwise received than in the rank of witnesses, 1 show ‘what doctrine was taught after the Apostles’ tims also, ‘and in what pats of the world that more sound doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles has been preserved.() ‘The irish Articles of Religion (161) reads on this point ‘The ground of our religion and the rule of faith and all saving truth is the Word of God, contained in the Holy Scripture . ... The Holy Seriptures contain all things ‘necessary to salvation, and areableto instruct sificiently inall points of faith that we are bound to believe, and all ‘ood duties that we are bound to practice (6) From these statements itis clear that the Westminsterassertionisin so way unigue to Protestant confesionaism, BUt rather tat i simply has let its voice to the combined testimony of many before it atextimony, not simply of Presbytrianism, bt of Protestantism 8 a whole, tothe effect that revelation has ceed and that the only fle of faith and practice i the Scriptures of the Old and New ‘Testaments Ifthe WesominsrerConfesion of Paithismore explicit) its simply fo its credit and is glory as a precte and arcuate” sMafsment of faith, Ceriinly « confesion of faith should. not equivocte in stating a studied theologieal postion In the fae of Such overwhelming testimony, the Protestant today should not lightly beush such festimony aside. Only on equally overwhelming and inconirovertibe evidence should heinsie otherwise tothe eect that revelation has nor cesedandthaitcomes fom God dtel} 19 men today. 2sIn spite of Protestantism’s historic confessional testimony, ‘however, many people under the influence of the claims of the ‘modern charismatic movement are callinginto question the postion of historic Protestantism on this matter and are being persuaded by ‘the most extravagant claims that God is speaking diecty to men today (asa case in point consider David Wilkerson's The Vision), shoriciuiting thereby the absolute necessity for the Scriptures as faras.a revelation from God is concerned, and calling into question its sufficieney. [would emphasize that thisis precisely the immediate result of such teaching. or just ro the degree that men today claim to ‘receive revelations from God directly, and propagate these so-called “revelations.” just to that degree, they and the men who hear and, accede 0 ther do not need the Scriptures alone. The Christian who, lasses that he or others receive such revelations, to be consistent, Tmust oeaseTo speak ofthe Bible as the only infallibie rule of faith and Practice, for he or they have another, namely, the new revelations. Such revelations by their very nature would be on a par with Scripture respecting their authority. Paul Woolley is absolutely Fight when he says “I such communications were actually being made, every Christian would bea potential author of Scripture. We Would only need to write down accurately what God said tous, and ‘we would be legitimately adding to the Bible, for such writings Would be the Word of God” (The Infalible Word, p. 192).And how isthe Christian to respond tothe rst verb in theimperative modein Such a revelation whem it eomes, andi will come, indeed, it already has! Must he dismiss it out of hand? Must he heed it? Ist aot true ‘that he faces nothing less than a crisis in authority? The answer is ‘obvious. This inevitable result, as the outcome ofthe denial of the ‘Westminster position, should be clearly understood as we consider now two reasons for urging the correctness of the Confession of Faith IL The argument from the post-apostolc writers It is clear from the writings of the first generation of post- apostolic writers that they were aware that an epoch had ended with the passing of the apostles from the scene through death. R. Laird Harris decares: “Clement, Irenacus, and Polyearp all clearly istinguish themselves from the apostles, and they named no other 26 ‘apostles than those within the circle ofthe Twelve” nspirationand Canonicity ofthe Bible, p.231) Let us hear them directly. Clement of Rome, our frst witness, dates to about A.D. 95, According to Trenaeus, he had seen the apostles and hd the highest regard lor ‘them. He writes: “The apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ." They are"the greatest and most righteous pillars of the church” Of Paul he declares: “Truly under the inspiration of the Spirit he wrote to you" Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote in approximately A.D. 117, deprecates himself as not being “compe. tent for this, that beinga convict, Ishould write you as though I were fan apostle... Ido not, as Peier and Paul, ise commandaents ‘unto you. They were apostles, 'am but condemned man” (Letter to Rom. eh. 4). Polyearp, bishop of Smyens, wrote around A.D. 118. Irenaeus tells us that Polyearp had been instructed by the apostles and in fact had been appointed bishop of the church of ‘Smyrna by the apostles. He declares "For nether am, ors any ther like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and ‘losious Paul, who, when he came among you, taught face to face ‘withthe men ofthat day the word which coneerneth truth carefully and surely, who also, when he was absent, wrote letter unto you ‘Testimonis from Papias (c. A.D. 140) andthe epistles of Diognetas fand of Barnabas could also be cited. ‘The last named source expressly limits the number of the apostles to the Twelve and declares that Jesus chose them. Here is an explicit disclaimer to postleship for himself and for anyone else. If anything i clear fromm ‘these writings, atleast in the opinion of these Fathers itis that ‘Chris’ gift to the church of apostles had terminated with the death ‘of the apostle John, Warfield tells us that the anxiety of the post: Apostolic Fathers “with reference to themselvesscemsto belest they should be esteemed overmuch and confounded in their pretensions ‘with the Apostles” (Miracles, p. 10), ‘Now what isthe immediate conchision that may be drawn from the fact of the close ofthe apostolic age~the age during which the anon was completed—i it is not that revelation was, then sufficiently complete, and that as far as a Word from God is ‘concemed, the compieted canon sufficiently meets that need? ‘are wer of Hebrews 1:-2) ctype he Haat of Ga sevelation in is Sonim thse lat dye) wha Son evetaion hoe faces, ad ms, ese be separated fom hs Yeveson though hi pen, 2UL The argument from Seripture ‘The following expositions will suggest that the Scriptures ‘themseves envision a time when, with their own completion, the revelatory gifts Would pass out of the life ofthe chureh as no longer ‘necessary. While I believe that each exposition can stand onits own ‘ris, the several expositions should also be viewed in coordina tion and taken in their cumulative effect Matthew 10:19-20: Mark 13:11; Luke 21:14-15 “The promise in this group of verses that before their judges the Holy Spirit would give the disiples words to speak in their defense zhas not only been used unlawfully by ill-prepared preachers who will ‘not study to justify their laziness, but also has been sed wrongly by ‘charismatis to teach that Christ promised to his church continuing revelations throughout this age, [twill be obvious to anyone who ‘ill read the Matthew 10 context without bias that Christs promise is given specifically to “the twelve,” the promise occurring in a Context preceded and followed by verses (10:5 and 11:1) in which “the twelve” are specifically mentioned. Moreover, the reference in verse 23 to the coming of the Son of Man refers not tothe second ‘oming® but rather to his coming injudgment against Jerusalem in ‘A.D, 70, does Matthew 1628, 4:30 2664; Mark 1211;and Luke 21: 14-18. Ineach of these eases, the context gute clearly restrictsthe Promise to the disciples and to the apostolic age. ‘Should one disagree with this interpretation, preferring in the light of Luke 12:11-12 to construe Cheist’s promise as to apply it to this entre age, the burden of proof ress with him to offer an exposition which will justify such a construction. Eventhen tisstil not necessary to. understand Chris's promise as teaching the Continuation of the revelatory process. Theologians have long ‘istinguished between word:revelarion as the divine communica- tion of truth to men in propositional terms and illumination asthe "we aFe ls coming ata reernce to Jen cond coming, me ar fone to ‘one orthe ter of wo very tnasacery consent te words ete a [sone propecy of Jesus which proved to be wrong, or hey were ut tot ‘oh by an ear char fervesty beng ate mmedte Parsi of Jess, ‘Mclean te tuswortinc ofthe tex 8 Holy Spirit's enabling of Christians generally to understand, to ‘ecall 0 mind, and toapply the Scriptures they havestudied. Even Jesus’ promise were applicable to ths entire age, it stl nced only ‘mean that the Holy Spirit will enable Christians in times of Persecution to respond to their persecutors powerfully and Persuasively out of their knowledge’ of Seripture, as did Martin, Luther before the Diet of Worms in 1821, Thomas Cranmer before his executioners in 1556, and in more modern times Pastor Georg, Vins in Communist Russia in 1974 oho 1428.26; 1612-13 ‘These passages are often employed by modern charismatics to jst hari to receving coming selon The Feasoning goes lke this: doesnot Jesus say that “the Holy Splat, ‘whom the Father wll send in my name, Wil tech you sl hogs? (126, and does he not also promise tat “when be, the Spr of teuth, comes, he wil guide you into al truth (e139 Yen he cern doe But there are svral eatin thecontets hte ‘wostalement that make it equally clear at these promises apo to the disciples then present and only By neglecting thr contents can they be applied to anyone ee. Consigethe fet that thor ‘om fit quoted proms mae are thse about wom eat an sy: “All this T have spoken while still with you" (1038) and about wnom Jesus can say He[the Holy Spirit] wilreming you of everything Ihave sai to you" (14:2), Tet not evident thai these ‘words apply to those then immediatly in his presenee? Cans imoreoversthefact that thse to whom the econ quoted promises sade aethoseabout whom Jesancansay“Thavemiuchmareto ty ‘vou, more than youean now bear But when fe, the Spiro rath om, he wil guide you nto al rik (1612-38). si notevident again that thise words apply to those then immediately his Presence? And who are thx? His disciples or as Luke designates fem, is aponles (Luke 613), OF course, our Lorts words should not be so construed as 0 rest the revelatory cre soley to those then present, Obvious, Paul wasto become an apostle later; Mark and Lue, though never commissioned a apostles pers, quite likely were given ie Bt of Prophecy o else wroteinsuch close proxiity tothe apostles Mark »‘to Peter; Luke to Paul) that they became virtually living extensions of the apostolic circle and were superintended in their writings by the apostles, In any case, my point here is that these contexts in Jon's Gospel clearly intend these promises to apply to those immediately present, with the burden of proof resting on the modern charismatic to demonstrate that they include him as well. ‘Actually, only by mishandling these texts can he claim that the promises here apply to him. Aes 238-39 ‘Charismatics appeal quite often to these two verses incon- rovertible proof that glossolala is a normative experience forall Christians throughout this entireage. The promise" unto youandto Your children, and to all who are alar off (vs. 39, itis said, isthe ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit asa “second work of grace” subsequent Jo. salvation itself, which is accompanied by the evidential phenomenot of glossolalia, ‘Apart from the faulty perfectionist” thinking which lies behind “second work of grace” theology, this understanding of the promised gift restricts the promise contingent upon repentance too ‘everey, Its not a gift baptism”) from the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit himself thats promised Cof the Holy Spirit” is an appositional genitive), whichis just to say that the promised giftin -the passage i ust salvation itself, Paul assures every Christian in | Corinthians 1213 that he has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and has been made to drink ofthat Spin. Thisis tantamount to saying, in acord with Peter's statement, that every Cristian has received “the gift of the Holy Spirit," thats, the Spint himset To insist, furthermore, thatthe baptism of the Holy Spirit will always be evidenced by glostolalc utterances is contrary both to experience and to Paul who teaches that glossolalia will only be siven to some (1 Cot. 12:10) 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 In | Corinthians 12:8-10 and 28-30 Paul itemizes several of the ccharismata of the Holy Spirit. He makes it clear, both by didactic Statement and by illustration (ihe body and its members), that toall Christians the Holy Spirit graciously imparts his gifts (which vary in value and significance) ashe sees fit (ef. 127,11). Thesegifisrun the x0 Toor 4 ‘gamut from the apostle to the speaker and the translator of tongues. No one gift wil every Christian necessarily have, but whatever gift the Christian possesses, he should exereseit with ove agape). This is the emphasis of | Corinthians 13. The apostle write in vas. 1-3, ‘mentioning some ofthe gifts to make his point, of love's value, He says in effect: ‘Though I were to possess the gift of glossolalia to the highest conceivable degree, without love my words are simply noise, as far as my listeners are concerned. ‘Though I were to exercise the mystery-expounding git of prophecy, the pift- of knowledge, and the miracle- Producing gift of faith, without love Iam worthless. ‘Though I were to have the gift of helps to sucha degree that I gave all my goods, indeed, even my body, for others, ‘without love I remain sill unprofited, Then in ws 47 be speaks ofthe ves of love, and conludes tis sectonin is. 6-13 y emphasizing the permanent character faith, hope, ang erpesay oven this soon ns 19, hesetion ‘whi we are concern a the pest ime he speaks aio of {hevomporaiy of some ofthe git He declare thatthe pit of Soph wl ease rom he we dairges he itt ponalaa Srltop rom ever paa) an the pt of knowledge wl ese Ges an ver orp eter fost ee ‘hich are temporary, wil be completely done away het ti Compete Ting (10 lon es come” tha wh there Bo fume seo of theo Here Pats anwer would apes ihe Gestion, Whey “wi the its of prophecy, lows, and Enowledge en His answer whenthe compete ing” ba ome Bur what is "the complete thing” and when wil itcome? I obvious that fone can determine what "the complete tng be srl have the regis lo tothe time ofthe ceeton these ‘relied ima Tae -csponaWenify “the complete thing” wih ma axanbost, ent sieht and ll usderading, all of which, ‘sures apea with the Para andisacompanying ees a‘But this interpretation is due, in my opinion, firs, to the meaning hich, perhaps uncritical, is placed upon the phrase"Tace to face” in ws. 12; second, to the questionable English translation of epiginoskein in the same verse as meaning "to know fully": and third, tothe eschatalogcal perspective which i given tothe phrase, again in the same verse: "Iwill know just as also { was kno will be sai later regarding the mean at this juneture that ifthe terms: «as t sin Deuteronomy 34:10), even plainly [umar'eh}, and notin ‘dark: sayings [bechidork; LXX: al” ainigmaton)” then the expression “face to face” may mean simply “plainly” as opposed to “obseurely" As for epiginasteln, Bultmann indicates in his article ‘ninoneo a Kittel TONT 03-04, hat tha ital he sume ‘meaning in this verse as ginoskein has, that is, "to know.” Tes the difficult phrase “just as also I was known" (but cf, 1 Cor, :3; Gal, 4:9) that expresses the degree of knowing, and even this phrase may mean simply something like "completely" or “without obscurity.” But it remains the task of exegesis to determine what iti that is ‘completely or plainly known. recognize the broad supportand themerit ofthe view that insists that Paul has before him an eschatological perspective when he ‘employs such phrases as "the complete thing” and" shall know just as also I was known.” But | propose an alternate interpretation of. the passage which not only has exegetical ment, I believe, but also will show thatthe popular understanding ofthese verses is in exon {Gy namely, I propose that “the complete thing” refers tothe completed revelator} process ai the point of the completion of the New ia do not say thatthe completing” refer immedi totbe competed Ney Fame aon tol erly ot aly nig at ‘Ne Testament canon snot jing perseizimedtely btn te mind of Pal aos ne Ne Testament canon imimetaly o b coerd inthe ptsage But do belive tat what immediatly blore Pat's mind Ine eof the complete Things te competed revelatory proceso which proces came Serre {| eit comlaton wie pecan th compo ote New Teme Y¥ | Gon inatber wort isthe pracstand ot hereof the proses Lil pei the following expostion, thx ander dacunson in Coriabiae 1 8 2 d"faceto__ allusion, as mang commentators sugges, to Numbers 12.8 Which | Toads "With hin [Moses] Topeak month to mouthorstacetoface™ “Testament canon. Iwill proceed now toa brief running commentary con these six verses before Us ‘Verse & In this verse Paul assures his readers that love will never come to an end, whereas the gifts of prophecy, glossolalia, and_f [knowledge were only temporary. In my opinion, these gifts, by their ‘ery nature, refer tothe divine activity—atthattimein progress— of. ‘revealing the divine wil to those frst-century Christians, t being @ Settled opinion among fot a few notable expositors that (I) the gift ‘of prophecy, as Hodge writes, consisted “in occasional inspiration and revelations, not merely or generally relating tothe future, asin the case of Agabus, Acts 11, 28, but either in some new ‘communications relating to faith or duty, or simply an immediate Impulse and aid from the Holy Spirit in presenting truth already known, so that the conviction and repentance were the effects aimed at and produced «The difference. .. between the apostles and ‘prophets, was, that the former were permanently inspired, so that ‘het teaching was a all times infallible, whereas the prophets were infallible only occasionally"—ef. | Corinthians 1:24-25, 29-20; (2) the gift of glossolaia was the speaking of “mysteries (142) or secrets, undiscoverable by human reason, whieh divine revelation Alone makes known— ct also | Corinthians 14:21-22;and (3)the gift ‘of knowledge (not knowledge per se since this certainly will not be terminated in any accounting of to teleion and which, to the contrary, the believer is assured of in vs. 12, but the gift of Knowledge mentioned in 128 and 13:2) was the special divine ‘enabling granted to some men in the local assembly of the first- fentury church, prior to and in the absence of a completed and \ isseminated canon of revelation (which alone makes possible, interpretation by the “analogy of Scripture,” a privilege we take for) ‘granted today), to discern immediately and correctly the intention Of the writings ofthe apostles and to communicatetheirintent tothe ‘worshiping assembly, These gilts then are either directly revelatory’ in nature ot have to do with accurately comprehending revelation under the direction of the Holy Spirit prior to its completion ‘Verses 9-10: Referring the previous gifts by mentioningthe first land the third, Paul declares that at that time they (the revelatory community composed of apostle, prophets, ee.) know only a part (of something) and prophesy only apart (of something), butwhen fo teleion the complete thing”) comes, 10 ek merous (the partial or 38i ‘acomplt thin” wileas thai, theincomplet wil vanish titra of compas ane | To tleion isin ths context, employed with rk merous ek | merous octrsfourtimesinves 3) showing hat aileron ‘fall come ators it willeomeasthe culmination ofeproces 2 whieh took merous functions a2 ror designation of that | process a ee comnplae stage. (That feleion can and docs serveas term designating culmination ofa proces is evden from te |) alaymenin Ephesians 413 to deste the sanction the hur nts matron fo te complete man) Girt Weater makes the si servation. he writes: “Logically, 10 veleion ‘mus refer to completeness or perfection in the same rem that ‘elered to by 10 ok merout” ted by Gromacks The” Moses Tonge Metener p18) Now te cone the to Grek rats deat ti elm by etree tthe tory afta {propos lesla, and Knows pits at we hacen al ‘atg to Gods making hs wil knowato hice flo, Om this consruction, that to telaonrctrstothecompeion the revelatory process. oo Verses 1-12 The two ilustrations in thee verses empasie the tcnporary character ofthese its and teach gana hy were to bereminated when th every procs ws ome Consider the fist lution of verse Tl vtht of ont fom [| enltood to manhood There are things righty anton oh hilchood, Paul argues, Sach at ehh speech: though; ahd Teasonings, which are seaside with thematuriy of manod. Not nly dos the mature man“put aay rom fare sameverb the verbs edn vs. an 10) the thingy of ehildsoed but the fetsnosene of asin dong so. They avery proper tt dese things associated with the earlier period of immaturity. Similarly, a completed revelation no longer hat teed of tow temparsy \y’* seveaional aids which served as means of divine guidance foe tS ‘he complton ef te revelatory proce suchas ponte, Prope glossolalists, and translators of tongues, ‘ ‘The second ilustraton ihe metaphor of the mirror and faceso- face confrontation ~of vm 2, perbape less obvious in mesing teaches the sane eel th width compton of the reeltory proven the meant employed theles complete stages reveal and 10 know God wil (and the fess complete Mapes ™ themselves) no longer need or do exist. Note the terms of the ‘contrast and the precise point of comparison in “now” (ari) and “then” (ote). Nov, says Paul, we see (as) through a. mirror ‘obscurely, but then (when 10 teleion has come) (as it were) face to face, that plainly. Now my knowledges partial, but hen (when 0 teleion has come) my knowledge will be complete? One should not ‘assume too quickly that the expression “face to face” refers to the ‘mutual confrontation of Christ and his people t his coming for,as | ‘Weaver argues: “Ifthe mirror is metaphorical for something. then () the “Tace (0 face’ expression is also metaphorical for something” | > (ibid, p. 127.9 Metaphorical for whae? Obviously for complete Knowledge (cf. 13:12). But complete knowledge of what? Obviously, of whatever itis that isthe concern of the immediate context. And that concer, T suggest, is God's objective self= fevelation of himacif and of his will to his people (ef. Warfield, ‘Miracles, . 26... when the whole knowledge of God. had been incorporated into the living body of the world’s thought there remained ... nofurther revelation to be made, and there has been. no further revelation made”). In other words, tis the second hal of the verse that isillustrated by and in turn sheds light on the Pauline ‘metaphor in the first half of the verse. The now and then of both halves ofthe verse refer respectively tothe age when the revelation of God's will was yet in the process of being completed and which would be completed with the termination ofthe apostolic age, and Tig wi ip tone who mayconciode hat tsa pompous bol stroke toa of the completed canon that gives fo men "complete Hnowledge" of Go for he ‘gs tovemind hem hats notforcanto ats hough or ho tach a hte ‘Sready nto bein thse complscnes or mat ase to the Chia a {enti sence Ths lsapparet, for xampl, fom (I doce cl setion the Chastanssaead judged tobe comple) vahteus in Gods sight (Rom, 125; doco of union wth hr —the Chan har been made compen {eit (Co 210 and) doctrine of doctrinal matriy—techareh, ating “mothe knowledge of the Son of God ou atu ah tothe mete of he ‘ture whit eon tothe fn of Chet eer and now expected no lager [Sheinmanae,Yoestereandtherey wats andearred about ee) Wind ocrine, ty the tnckery of eet (hee dangers ovo, appropeately