In this series so far, we have looked at the purposes of the spiritual gifts in general, and the apostolic office and tongues in particular. We also looked at the what exactly those two gifts were by looking at the qualifications of an apostle, and a survey of what constituted the gift of tongues. Now, we turn our attention to another facet of internal evidence: “When?” In this section of the series we will look to see if scripture points to when the miraculous gifts were to see.
Internal Evidence – When?
Acts 2
In Acts 2.14-21, Peter begins to deliver the first sermon of the Christian church in which he alludes to a prophecy in Joel to explain the fact that the disciples had received the Holy Spirit as promised which led to speaking in tongues. The text says:
“But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”
Here Peter has quoted from Joel 2.28-32 on the pouring out of God’s Spirit on all flesh. Notice that Peter, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, has changed the time reference of Joel’s prophecy from “it shall come to pass” (Joel 2.28) to “In these last days” (Acts 2.17). We know from context that Joel was indeed connecting the pouring out of God’s Spirit to the “great and awesome day of the Lord” (Joel 2.31), which has several meanings in the Prophets including coming judgment on a nation or people and the end of the Jewish age. Peter retains the connection here by not only referring it to the last days but including the signs given by Joel of the day of the Lord: Signs in the heavens, the sun darkened and the moon turning to blood, etc. It seems both Joel and Peter saw the pouring out of the spirit as a sign of the day of the Lord. Continuationists say that this is proof that the gifts are still in existence today, because Jesus has yet to return at the consummation of all things. However, the problem is not so cut and dry.
In Matthew 24, we find the “Olivet Discourse,” where Jesus is answering the disciple’s questions on the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. There are many similarities of Matthew 24 (and the parallels in Luke 21 and Mark 13) and that of the prophecy in Joel and Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. Of particular note in the three examples is the use of cosmic language, including signs and wonders in heaven, the sun, the stars and the moon (Matthew 24.29; Acts 2.19,20; Joel 2.30,31). There are many who hold that these signs must be literally fulfilled, yet the literary sense does not demand this as I have shown in my post on the Olivet Discourse.[1] I will not repeat all that I have already said in that post, but suffice it to say that the use of such cosmic language in the Old Testament, from which both Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Acts 2 drew from, such cosmic language was used to point to the overthrowing of authority and impending judgment. It was used by Isaiah on the destruction of Babylon (Isaiah 13.10) and by Ezekiel on Egypt (Ezekiel 32.7-8).
More important to the discussion at hand is the use of time texts that seem to pinpoint when these signs were to take place. If the signs and gifts are tied to these signs, then the timing of these signs would most likely point to their ceasing. Matthew 24 is of importance here as Jesus gives a significant time frame:
“Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (verse 34)
Jesus said that this generation, that is His contemporaries, would not pass away until all these things would take place. Jesus also said:
“Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16.28)
Again, the phrase “coming in his kingdom” denotes language of judgment in the Prophets, which Jesus told his disciples (some standing here) they would see in their own time (will not taste death). As I’ve shown previously the Olivet Discourse does not intend to talk about the second coming and the end of all things, but rather concerns itself with the end of the Jewish Age and the destruction of the temple (see footnote number 1). Seeing as how Matthew 24, Acts 2, and Joel 2 seem to refer to the same event, the end of the Jewish age and the destruction of the temple, the gifts are tied to that same time period, and thus we would expect them to have ceased once their function was over. This is most evident in the gift of tongues, which I showed from 1 Corinthians 14.21-22 points to this same judgment on Jerusalem and Daniel 9’s seventy weeks prophecy which brings an end to vision and prophecy (two things specifically mentioned in Joel’s prophecy) which would occur in the first century (see part VI).
It seems then, that we should conclude on the testimony of Peter, Joel, Jesus, Matthew, Daniel, et al. that the miraculous gifts were tied into the “these last days” of the Jewish Age which came to a violent end in 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. We should expect that since this time has passed, so have the gifts which were a sign to the unbeliever of coming judgment and along with the end of new revelation, prophecy, and visions.
————————-
1. http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/matthew-24-and-the-olivet-discourse/
RSS/XML Feed:
Email:
When ever something is not around that should be around the teachers which are the cause of it not being around come up with some kind of excuse. The gifts of God’s spirit are not confined to a period of time. They are only manifest in conjunction with the correct message of salvation being heard and in conjunction with correct obedience to this message. The gifts verify that the message explains the truth about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. For since it is true that only a very few people ever find the small narrow gate into the kingdom of God and a false message of salvation built on the concept of the error Jesus warned against has been introduced, the gifts of God’s spirit differentiate between who is telling the truth and who is not. Being redundant but emphatic the first correct rule is: NO GIFTS=FALSE GOSPEL AND A FALSE TEACHER!
What has happened from the time the Galatian error was recognized until now. Is that the pathological component of the Galatain error is the component that these contemporary churches are built on. Rule two is: NO SPIRITUAL GIFTS IN THE BODY=FALSE MESSAGE OF SALVATION+FALSE TEACHERS+ COUNTERFEIT CHURCHES!
All contemporary churches are counterfeits and all contemporary churches are built on the same foundational error of Jesus crucifixion NOT being an OFFENSE. Gal. 5:11 “offense of the cross.” For all contemporary messages of salvation, by NOT explaining that the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed, unilaterally construct false gates into the kingdom of God so that everyone who hears and believes these false gospels is purposely kept out of God’s kingdom and have no connection to the Head of the church of God. This is the true condition of religious belief and outcome present today. Contemporary messages of salvation, by design, keep it hidden, that because the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed a new law has been added to the law of God. Rom. 5:20 & Heb 7:12. For it is only by the addition of this law of one word that the crucifixion of Jesus was according to God’s set purpose exceedingly sinful. So that by the faith to obey this one word from the mouth of God all must come to God by the narrowness of this one word commanded by the Lord thy God and delivered by the spirit through the apostles on the day of Pentecost. For it is this stone of law regarding that the sacrifice of Jesus’ life by bloodshed has made perfect the Way of obedience into the kingdom of God according to law. For this new law added to the law of God, can only be obeyed by the faith to Repent of the one sin of the murder of the man Jesus for forgiveness of all sins and be baptized into this way of faith to receive the promise of God’s spirit. Any other way of explaining why Jesus has been crucified always comes short of the glory of God by being shown that any other way is not the way Jesus has perfected by the sacrifice of his life for another man to become one with God by the faith to obey what is commanded.
1) You have offered no exegetical reasoning for anything you say
2) You haven’t interacted with anything I’ve said, either in this post or any of the rest of the series, which I doubt you’ve read
You can be redundant and emphatic all you want, but it’s still without any interaction with the text and the arguments made from scripture throughout the series. Until you are able to give reasonable exegesis on why your interpretation of the text is the correct one, or at least interact with the actual posts made here, I am not going to publish anymore of your comments.
Jn. 16:8. The issue of guilt relative to sin is still the remaining issue AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion. All Contemporary messages of how to be saved from the penalty of death relative to sins are an opposite assumption which assume that Jesus’ crucifixion is a resolution. These “gospels” are unilaterally a contradiction of Jn. 16:8 Further the base foundational principle of supposition to the crucifixion of Jesus relevant in all contemporary messages of salvation is a compatible to Caiaphas assumptive in Jn. 11:49-50. The pre-suppositional aspect of Caiaphas thought, as his words state, is the suppose that by committing the sin of murder by bloodshed a resolution between God and the person who believes the conjecture of sin becoming rectified by a future sin is assumed rational. That Caiaphas conjecture is irrational along with all contemporary messages of salvation is the fact presented by 1 Cor. 2:7-9, that the solution to rectify sins, i.e. true reason for the crucifixion of Jesus, was of unknown content by any person and existing record prior to his crucifixion. Without basis of fact present prior to Jesus crucifixion the assumptive of all contemporary messages expressing the thought “Jesus died in your place”, “Jesus paid the penalty for your sins”, “Jesus took your place on the cross”, etc. are nothing more than an expression of the exact same thought of Caiaphas which is an error of thought expressed as a lie. The only reason for Caiaphas statement to be in the record is for a comparative reference to recognize incorrect future expressions of thought that express the same irrational complex as Caiaphas has stated. Which is why Jesus said ‘Beware of the corruption of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Caiaphas was a Sadducee.
In regard to your conjecture that the passage of time is relevant to rescind the gifts of God’s spirit, I differ with your conjecture that passage of time is in any way relevant and clearly said so. I can’t remember exactly when I first heard the conjecture you are espousing but even then, and it’s been a long time ago, I felt it was screwy. The gifts of God’s spirit are only withheld relative to the fact of any incorrect message of salvation being believed. For the correct explanation and relative response of obedience to why Jesus has been crucified is verified to be the only correct explanation by the manifestation of the gifts. The gifts of God’s spirit are given as evidence that the message believed is correct.
There is, as in absolute, only one Way the Acts 2:38 command can be obeyed. I am sure you think you have a better way than I do, but as you admit the gifts are indeed absent aren’t they? And isn’t it you that has made the reference to the Acts 2 message? As I said time is only an excuse to explain the absence of the gifts for, as you say, it takes correct exegetical process to understand error. Maybe you need to try correct process, perhaps?
Theodore A. Jones
Oh. By the way we are of the same concern to “see reformation” of the contemporary churches. So in one sense we are on the same page. However by admitting that reformation is necessary the cause that has caused the need for reformation is equally necessitated to be identified first. The truths that motivate me is the fact of there being a church building on the corner of every block and several in between those two, but even with that fact in place, the truth is that only a very few ever find the small narrow gate into the kingdom of God. It is the second fact that is my greatest concern so I had to ask why it is true. The only reasonable conclusion by my estimate is a defective message of salvation. Another fact is the ability to interpret the Bible correctly is a spiritual gift. Since it cannot be otherwise than true that only a few ever find the small narrow gate into God’s kingdom it is also equally true that there are only a very few that interpret the Bible correctly. Isn’t this also true? So a correct interpretation is really truthfully an odd duck. True?
Theodore A. Jones
“I can’t remember exactly when I first heard the conjecture you are espousing but even then, and it’s been a long time ago, I felt it was screwy.”
The thing is “how you feel” is not a sound hermeneutic in interpreting Scripture. You still haven’t interacted with why they text does not say it. You still have to show why perfect does not mean complete when the context plainly shows it.
My invocation of Acts 2 was within the bounds of Joel’s prophecy, using the hermeneutic principles of the analogy of faith, and looking at the historical redemptive context. Joel, speaking of the end of the Jewish age, and Peter’s quote of “these last days” seem to reference the gifts as tied to the end of the Jewish Age and the destruction of the temple (see Matthew 24 for Jesus’s usaage of the same signs and his time frame references).
As for your comment on reformation, it is true that there is a small, narrow gate. It is also true that many people who call themselves Christian are not necessarily. But we also have to recall John’s vision of a multitude no one can number in heaven in the book of Revelation. So, the number of the elect throughout all time is in fact very large, even if just a small number of the entire population of all time. It seems that by your assertions, that you affirm the second half of that but not the first. The call for reformation, while being somewhat of a salvific nature for me (so many people think that going to church or doing Christian things will save them, it doesn’t), it’s also a matter of ecclesia semper reformanda est, the church is always reforming. Entailed in that is a call to be continuously looking at our teachings, and reforming ourselves back to biblical doctrine all around, not just soteriology. It seems that by your rejection of orthodoxy within church history on essentials such as soteriology, then you are quite negating John’s vision since those are what the historic church has held as necessary doctrine, including the atonement and double-imputation. John’s vision hardly rings true within this frame-work. But again, this is set for another conversation all together and has strayed from the post at hand.
Out of everything I have said to you so far don’t you think I purposely chose the word ‘felt’? Knowing before hand that it would ruffle your feathers. You are a young fellow and there is nothing wrong with that, but let me ask. You are or have paid to learn the system of hermeneutical interpretation, right? So the spiritual gift of interpretation can be purchased ? Right?
Isn’t it true that Jesus says that the things you learn in secret that it is those things that are to be shouted from the house top? I am very well aware of the methods and assessment procedure afforded to hermeneutics. If I used them I’d wind up in the same busted up leaky craft you are in. As for the ‘historical redemptive context’ see 1 Cor. 2:7-9. The truth is not any soul knew the true reason for Jesus crucifixion prior to the Acts 2 message. Neither angel or prophet. For if the true purpose of his crucifixion had been able to be determined it never would have happened. Why? (I can tell you, but I’d like to see your answer first.)
Historical redemptive context is smoke. Don’t let it get in your eyes. Correct message of salvation= spiritual gifts, but nothing else, not even time, affects or effects this union.
RE. to 6 Just because it is true that only a few find the small narrow gate into the kingdom of God, it does not also mean that only a few will use it. Another thing you have left out is the fact of another gospel. The flaw in this another gospel is the fact of the cross not being an offense i.e. a sin. Gal. 5:11
As to your philosophical assumption of election i.e. predestination. ref. 1 Pt. 2:8b It can be the other way by God’s choosing. The determinate for becoming one with God is by the process of 1. hearing their message 2. the faith to obey their message. The philosophical logic of the Presbyterian only needs natural birth for activation, but none of God’s children are born by natural birth, ref. Jn. 1:13 & Jn. 8., but this does not mean the Presbyterian has not been predestinated by God for his choice to prove the Presbyterian illogical relative to the same illogical assumptive of the Jews in Jn. 8. I fully agree that the Presbyterian has indeed been chosen by God, but not for what the Presbyterian thinks he has been chosen for. God needs tangible proof of theoretical assumptive believed to be true, for a proof that it is false. There has been only one Way perfected by Jesus to get into the kingdom of God. No one is going to be given the latitude to argue with God which is why the Presbyterian has been predestinated by God. God does not give his glory to another which is why Jesus is God’s only begotten son. If the Presbyterian’s assumption of predestination is true another begotten personage would only have to be begotten to be one with God. Which is why Jesus says “I do not share my glory” of being God’s only begotten son. Glad it was your idea to bring this up, but glad I didn’t.
It only takes one little biddy pinch of leaven, to leaven the whole lump. Look and live.
Wow, you know what they say about assuming right?
“You are or have paid to learn the system of hermeneutical interpretation, right? So the spiritual gift of interpretation can be purchased ? Right?”
No. I haven’t. I don’t start seminary until August 13th, so sorry. Don’t mean to burst your bubble. I will deal with your various straw-men of election later, as I am off for work. After that, I am finished with this because you keep trying to drag us off topic, have yet to actually deal with the text or the series in question, and show no signs of actually wanting to represent the position I hold with any sort of accuracy.
The last first. Correct. I have no former or futuristic intentions of being or becoming other than an antagonist to the positions of doctrine you now hold in conjunction with being an antagonistic unilaterally toward contemporary doctrines of these contemporary churches. My conjecture is that these contemporary churches, by having for a foundation
, in place of, sacrifice to, death in place of, etc., is an agnostic conjecture of exchange for the truth of God. For the truth about the crucifixion of Jesus can only be truthfully described as the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. The church of God which Jesus is head of has no other foundation. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for it to have the need to be in constant reformation like your church needs.
Straw- men. I may be of the type, but some straw men, at least, have the guarantee of not burning “Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.” For the burning of straw men who neglect the way of escape perfected by the Lord’s crucifixion is also a guarantee. No exceptions, even if they are predestinated to be Jew or gentile.
Aug 13th. The start date for certification of the attempt to buy spiritual gifts. Aye? Smart move.
Fair enough. You have thus far shown that you would rather continue to drift off topic and argue via admitted strawmen and ad hominem without any exegetical look at the passages themselves, as well as showing that you’d rather “ruffle my feathers” than have actual discourse. As such, I have asked you several times to take it back to the passage in question itself. Thanks for the discourse thus far, but it has become nothing more than casting pearls before swine, as I’m sure it is from both perspectives.
This has to be one of the weirdest interactions I’ve ever witnessed.