http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=264
Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The printed version of this article in this month’s issue of
Reason & Revelation is the
abbreviated form of a much more comprehensive study of this topic. To view the unedited version,
click here.]
Numerous religious groups commonly claim the assistance of the Holy
Spirit in their lives. Famed religious television personalities boldly
announce the active influence of the Holy Spirit even as they speak.
Supposedly, the Holy Spirit talks to them personally, heals viewers
instantaneously, and enables them to babble uncontrollably in an
“unknown tongue.” All of this, then, is claimed to be “proof positive”
of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do miracles still happen? Can people
speak in tongues today? Does God, in the twenty-first century,
supernaturally countermand the laws of nature and heal people
miraculously?
“Come now, and let us reason together,” Isaiah said (1:18). It is absolutely imperative that we examine
Scripture—not
our feelings, not what someone else says happened to them, and not our
own experience. The only sure and certain approach is to ask: What does
the Bible teach? The reader must ask: “Do I honestly believe the Bible
to be the Word of God?” One must be honest, and willing to go where the
evidence takes him. If you had to choose between what you genuinely
think you have
experienced or seen firsthand, and what the Bible
actually says,
which would you choose? You must ask yourself: “Will I honestly accept
God’s written Word on the matter of miracles?” If you will, I invite you
to join me in an examination of what the Bible teaches pertaining to
miracles.
THE DEFINITION OF MIRACLES
First of all, what exactly is a “miracle”? How does
the Bible
use the word? The three central terms used in the Bible to designate a
supernatural (as contrasted with a natural) manifestation are: (1)
“miracle” (
dunamis); (2) “sign” (
semeion); and (3) “wonder” (
teras). All three terms occur together in Acts 2:22, Hebrews 2:4, and 2 Corinthians 12:12. Related terms include “work” (
ergon) and “mighty deed” (
kratos). The occurrence of a miracle in the Bible meant that God worked
outside
the laws of nature. W.E. Vine, whose Greek scholarship, according to
F.F. Bruce, was “wide, accurate and up-to-date” (Vine, 1952, Foreword),
stated that the word “miracle” (
dunamis) is used in the New Testament of “works of a
supernatural origin and character, such as could not be produced by
natural agents and means” (1952, p. 75, emp. added). Otfried Hofius noted that a “sign” (
semeion) “contradicts the
natural course of things” (1976, 2:626, emp. added) and, similarly, “wonder” (
teras) was used to refer to events that “contradict the ordered unity of
nature” (2:633, emp. added).
Thus, a miracle in the Bible was not just an event that was
astonishing, incredible, extraordinary, or unusual (e.g., the birth of a
baby or the narrow avoidance of an accident). A miracle in the Bible
was a
supernatural act. It was an event that was contrary to the
usual course of nature (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 755). The
miraculous must not to be confused with the
providential, where God operates
in harmony with the usual course of nature.
THE DESIGN OF MIRACLES
Second, it is absolutely imperative that one recognizes the
purpose of the miraculous. Miracles in the New Testament served the singular function of
confirmation. When an inspired speaker stepped forward to declare God’s Word, God
validated or
endorsed
the speaker’s remarks by empowering the speaker to perform a miracle.
Many New Testament passages articulate this fact quite plainly. For
example, the apostles “went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord
working with them, and
confirming the word by the
signs that followed” (Mark 16:20, emp. added). The writer of Hebrews asked:
[H]ow shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation; which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 2:3-4, emp. added).
Referring to the initial offering of the Gospel to the Samaritan
people, Luke stated: “[A]nd the multitudes gave heed with one accord
unto
the things that were spoken by Philip when they heard and saw the
signs which he did” (Acts 8:6, emp. added).
These passages, and many others (e.g., Acts 4:29-30; 13:12; 14:3;
15:12; Romans 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; cf.
Exodus 4:30), show that the purpose of miracles was to
authenticate the oral/spoken word as God’s Word. Miracles
legitimized and
verified
the teachings of God’s messengers, as over against the many false
teachers (like Simon in Acts 8:9, or Pharaoh’s magicians in Exodus 7:11)
who attempted to mislead the people. Greek lexicographer Joseph Thayer
noted that “sign” (
semeion) was used in the New Testament “of
miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by him, or
by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s” (1901, p.
573). Even the miracles that Jesus performed were designed to back up
His claim (i.e., spoken words) to be deity (John 3:2; 14:10-11)—a
pattern that is repeated in the New Testament many times over (e.g.,
John 2:23; 5:36; 6:14; 7:31; 10:37-38,41-42; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22). In
other words, Jesus performed signs and miracles to prove His divine
identity and thereby authenticate His message. His message, in turn,
generated faith in those who chose to believe His teachings (cf. Romans
10:17). Here is the consistent sequence presented in Scripture:
Signs → Word → Faith.
(1) Signs confirmed the Word; (2) the Word was presented to hearers;
and (3) faith was created (by the Word) in those who received it.
An excellent demonstration of this process was provided by Luke in his
report of the conversion of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. Elymas
the sorcerer tried to thwart Paul’s effort to teach Sergius the Gospel.
So Paul performed a miracle and struck Elymas blind. Luke next recorded:
“Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being
astonished at the
teaching of the Lord” (Acts 13:12, emp. added). One might well expect the text to have said that Sergius was astonished at the
miracle
that Paul performed. But Luke was careful to report the situation with
precision. The miracle that Paul performed captured Sergius’ attention,
causing him to recognize the divine origin of Paul’s Gospel message. The
Gospel message, in turn, generated faith in the proconsul—in harmony
with Paul’s later affirmation to Christians in Rome that faith comes by
hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Over and over again in the New
Testament, a close correlation is seen between the performance of
miracles and the preaching of the Word of God (cf. Mark 6:12-13; Luke
9:2,6).
But some maintain that there are other reasons for instances of divine
healing and tongue-speaking. Tongue-speaking is said to be a sign that
the tongue-speaker is super-spiritual. Others say that miraculous
healing serves the purpose of making the believer well—a simple act of
mercy to relieve his pain and suffering. They say God does not want us
to suffer, and so He will heal us just to ease our pain in this life
because we are His children.
Regarding the first claim, Paul insisted that the person who possessed the ability to speak in tongues
was not spiritually superior
to the one who had no such ability (1 Corinthians 14:6,9,12,19).
Tongue-speaking was simply one miraculous capability among many bestowed
by God without regard to a member’s spiritual status, let alone his
spiritual
superiority over another member (1 Corinthians 12:7-11,28-30).
Regarding the second claim, certainly, the compassion of God was
evident when people received miraculous healing in New Testament times.
And, surely, relief from suffering would have been a side effect of
being healed. But the Bible teaches that
relieving suffering was not the purpose of miracles.
Such a purpose would contradict—even thwart—the divine intent of this
created Earth as a place where hardship exists to prepare us for
eternity (see Warren, 1972). Death and sin entered the world due to
human choice. God allows the circumstances caused by human decisions to
take their course. He does not interfere with the natural order of
things to show partiality to some over others. The Christian is subject
to the same diseases, tragedies, and physical death that befall
non-Christians: “...for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”
(Genesis 3:19). Christians can
expect all sorts of hardship and
suffering (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 4:12-17).
Commenting on the purpose of miracles, J.W. McGarvey wrote:
[T]o say that they were wrought for the single purpose of showing
divine compassion toward the sick, and those oppressed by the devil,
would be to ignore a purpose which is easily discerned, which is openly
avowed by Christ himself, and which is of much greater importance (1910,
p. 354).
That purpose was “to support his proclamation...a necessary proof of the claim of Jesus” (pp. 355-356).
If God’s intention was to exempt individual Christians from sickness
and disease, He certainly has fallen down on the job, since the vast
majority of Christians throughout the last 2,000 years have experienced
the exact same afflictions suffered by unbelievers. If miracles in the
first century had as their object the improvement of the health of the
recipient, then Jesus and the apostles were dismal failures, because
they left untouched a lot of sick folk! Jesus healed a
minority of the sick people of Palestine, and healed
none
outside of that tiny geographical region (an exception being the
Canaanite woman’s daughter). In fact, one would be forced to conclude
that God’s compassion did not extend to
everybody. But the Bible affirms that
God loves the entire world of humanity
(John 3:16; Romans 5:8). Hence, miracles did not have as their central
purpose to show God’s compassion, nor to ease pain and suffering.
McGarvey noted:
[U]nlike these modern advocates of “divine healing,” the apostles were
never known to go about exhorting people to come forward for the healing
of the body. They effected miraculous cures in a few instances, “as a
sign to the unbelievers,” but they never proclaimed, either to saints or
sinners, that the healing of all diseases was a part of the gospel
which they were sent to preach. These so-called faith-cure churches,
therefore, and the preachers who officiate in them as “divine healers,”
or what not, are not modeled after the apostolic type, but are
misleading the people by humbuggery (p. 351).
The usual rebuttal to these observations is that the reason some people
do not receive a miracle is because “they do not have sufficient
faith.” But this objection is likewise unscriptural. It is true that
some individuals in the New Testament were commended for the faith that
they possessed
prior to being the recipient of a miracle (e.g., Mark 5:34). It does not automatically follow, however, that faith was a
necessary prerequisite to miraculous reception. Many people were
not required to have faith. For example,
all
individuals who were raised from the dead obviously were not in a
position to “have faith” (e.g., John 11:44). Nor did those possessed by
demons, since they were not in their right mind (e.g., Luke 9:42;
11:14). The man who was blind from birth actually showed uncertainty
regarding the identity of Jesus (John 9:11-12,17,25,35-36). The man who
was healed by Jesus as he laid beside a pool of water, in fact, did not
even know who healed him (John 5:13). On one occasion, Jesus healed a
paralytic after observing, not
his faith, but the faith of
his companions
(Mark 2:5). Additional texts indicate that many who received the
benefits of miracles were not required to have faith (Luke 13:12; 14:4;
Acts 3:1-10).
The opposite was true as well. There were individuals who possessed
faith, and yet were not healed of their ailments. Timothy was a faithful
and effective servant of the Lord. He had “frequent illnesses” and
stomach trouble of such severity as to warrant Paul referring to it by
inspiration. But rather than simply healing him, or telling him to “pray
for healing,” Paul told him to use “a little wine” as a tonic (1
Timothy 5:23).
Actually, John settled this question for the unbiased inquirer when he wrote that “many other
signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written,
that ye may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may
have life in His name” (John 20:30-31, emp. added). John said that
belief occurs
after the miracle—not before, in order to receive a
miracle! The New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim
that miracles occur today. They say a person must have faith
before
he or she can receive a miracle. The New Testament teaches that
miracles were performed to authenticate the divine origin of the
speaker’s message and/or identity. The message, in turn, generated faith
in the hearer (cf. Romans 10:17). Hence,
miracles preceded faith.
THE DURATION OF MIRACLES
These observations bring us to a third extremely critical realization:
once God revealed the entirety of the information that He wished to make
available to mankind (later contained in what we call the New
Testament), the need for miraculous confirmation of the oral Word came
to an end. Now, people can sit down with a New Testament and, with
honest and diligent study, conclude that it is God’s Word. Since the
purpose of miracles has once and forever been achieved, the miracles,
themselves, have ceased. I repeat:
the Bible teaches that miracles are no longer necessary.
Spiritual maturity is now within the grasp of every single individual
who chooses to access the means to maturity—the written Word of God.
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul argued that love is a more excellent
attribute than miraculous gifts. After all, miraculous gifts (i.e.,
prophecy, tongue-speaking, supernatural knowledge, etc.) were going to
fail, vanish, cease, and be done away (13:8). These gifts are identified
in the text with the expression “in part” (13:9-10). The “in part,” or
miraculous, would cease when the “perfect” had come. But to what does
the “perfect” refer?
The Greek word translated “perfect” is
teleios. The term does
not refer to “perfect” in the sense typically understood by the modern
English reader, i.e., to be sinless. Following this faulty notion, some
have concluded that the “perfect” refers to Jesus—since He has been the
only perfect person. Other interpretations apply “perfect” to heaven
(the only perfect place), or Christian maturity and perfect love (the
perfect condition or quality). But, in context, Paul was not contrasting
qualities or places. He was contrasting quantities, i.e., those things
that were incomplete and partial (miraculous gifts) with that which
would be total and complete (the fully revealed Word of God). The
inaccuracy of these interpretations is seen further in the Greek
definition of
teleios. The word refers to totality, that which is
whole, brought to its end, finished, and lacking nothing necessary to
completeness (Delling, 1972, 8:73; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 816;
Thayer, 1901, p. 618). Used in its neuter form, Paul was referring to a
thing—not a person—something that, when completed or finished, would
replace the incomplete or partial, i.e., the miraculous gifts—which had
only temporary significance. Commenting on the abolition of the
miraculous gifts of prophecy and supernatural knowledge (mentioned in
vss. 8 and 9), W.R. Nicoll correctly observed that “these charisms are
partial in scope, and therefore temporary: the
fragmentary gives place to the
complete”
(1900, 2:900, emp. added). Kenneth Wuest agreed: “In I Corinthians
13:10, the word means ‘complete,’ and is contrasted to that which is
incomplete” (1943, pp. 117-118). The exegete is forced to conclude that
Paul’s use of “perfect” referred to the completed revelation or totally
revealed New Testament Scriptures. The revelation of God’s will was
completed in its entirety when the final book of the New Testament,
Revelation, was written by John prior to A.D. 100.
Paul offered a useful illustration to clarify his point. When the
church possessed only small bits and pieces of God’s will, as revealed
through scattered miraculous gifts and the gradual production, between
approximately A.D. 57 and A.D.
95, of the written documents from the inspired writers of the New
Testament, it could not achieve full spiritual maturity. It therefore
was like a child (13:11). It lacked the necessary elements to reach
spiritual adulthood. However, when the totality of God’s will, which
became the New Testament, had been revealed, the church then had the
means available to become “a man” (13:11). Once the church had access to
all of God’s written Word, the means by which the Word was given (i.e.,
miraculous gifts) would be obsolete, useless, and therefore “put away”
(13:11). Notice that Paul likened miracles to “childish things” (13:11).
In other words, miracles were the spiritual equivalents of pacifiers
that were necessary while the church was in a state of infancy. Since we
now have access to “all truth” (John 16:13), the use of tongue-speaking
and other miraculous enhancements in the church today would be
comparable to an adult man or woman who continued to use a pacifier!
Paul then explained his point by comparing the initial necessity of
miracles to reveal and confirm God’s Word, with the idea of looking
through a clouded mirror (see Workman, 1983, p. 8). Once the entire
contents of the New Testament had been revealed, the miraculous gifts no
longer would be necessary. Having all of God’s revealed Word would
enable one to be face to face with that Word, rather than “looking
through a clouded mirror,” i.e., having partial access. Paul wrote
(13:11):
Now I know in part [i.e., my knowledge of God’s revelation is
incomplete and partial due to limited access via the miraculous
element—DM], but then [i.e., when all of God’s Word is finally
revealed—DM]
shall I know fully, even as also I was fully known [i.e., I shall be
made to know or taught thoroughly (which is the figure of speech known
as heterosis of the verb in which the intransitive is put for the
transitive—see Bullinger, 1898, p. 512)—DM].
Paul made the same point to the Ephesians. Miracles—the “gifts” given by Christ (Ephesians 4:8)—were to last “
till the unity of
the faith and
the
knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13, emp. added). Two
significant observations emerge from this latter verse. First, the word
translated “till” (Middle English for “until”) is
mechri, and was used as a conjunction to indicate the
terminus ad quem [finishing point] of the miraculous offices (mentioned in vs. 11) bestowed as gifts by Christ. [For treatments of the use of
mechri
in this verse, see Thayer, 1977, p. 408; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p.
517; Moulton and Milligan, 1982, p. 407; Blass, et al., 1961, pp.
193-194; Robertson, 1934, pp. 974-975; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 281;
see also the use of the term in Mark 13:30 and Galatians 4:19]. Nicoll
observed:
The statement of the great object of Christ’s gifts and the provision
made by Him for its fulfillment is now followed by a statement of the time this provision and the consequent service are to last (1900, 3:332, emp. in orig.).
Paul was “[s]pecifying the
time up to which this ministry and impartation of gifts are to last” (Vincent, 1890, p. 390, emp. added).
Second, the phrase “the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son
of God” often is misunderstood to refer to the eventual
unifying
of all believers in Christ. But this conclusion cannot be correct. Both
Scripture and common sense dispel such a notion. Complete unity within
Christendom will
never occur. Those who profess affiliation with
Christianity are in a hopeless state of disunity. Catholicism and
Protestant denominationalism are fractured into a plethora of factions
and splinter groups—literally thousands of divisions and disagreements.
Nor will unity ever be achieved even within churches of Christ. Even
first-century congregations did not attain complete internal unity.
In contrast with this interpretation, notice the use of the articles in the phrases: “
the faith” and “
the knowledge.” Contextually, Paul was referring to
the system of faith alluded to so often in the New Testament. Jude urged his readers to “contend earnestly for
the faith” (Jude 3). Paul referred to himself when he quoted others as saying, “He that once persecuted us now preacheth
the faith of which he once made havoc” (Galatians 1:23). Luke reported that “a great company of the priests were obedient to
the faith” (Acts 6:7). Elymas the sorcerer sought to “turn aside the proconsul from
the faith” (Acts 13:8). The early disciples were exhorted to “continue in
the faith” (Acts 14:22). As a result of Paul’s repeat visits to Lycaonia, “the churches were strengthened in
the faith” (Acts 16:5).
So “the faith” and “the knowledge” refer to the
completed body of information
that constitutes the Christian religion. Indeed, eight verses earlier
(Ephesians 4:5), Paul already had referred to “the faith” as the
summation and totality of Christian doctrine—now situated in the
repository of the New Testament. An honest exegete is driven to conclude
that once the precepts of New Testament Christianity had been revealed
on Earth, the miraculous element no longer was necessary. Miracles
lasted until “the faith” was completely revealed. They had served their
purpose, in the same way that scaffolding is useful while a building is
under construction. However, once construction is complete, the
scaffolding is removed and discarded as unnecessary and superfluous
paraphernalia.
THE DISPLAY AND DISPOSITION OF MIRACLES
Fourth, the actual exercise of miraculous gifts by Christians is
addressed in 1 Corinthians 14. In this context, Paul used the term
“gifts” (
charismata, from
charisma) in a technical sense (like
pneumatika) to refer to miraculous abilities, designated by Thayer “
extraordinary
powers...by the Holy Spirit” (1901, p. 667, emp. added; cf. Arndt and
Gingrich, 1957, p. 887). Hans Conzelmann stated that the term indicated
that “[t]he operations are
supernatural” and of “
supernatural
potency” (1974, 9:405, emp. added). [The word is so used in the Pauline
corpus in ten of its sixteen occurrences (Romans 1:11; 12:6; 1
Corinthians 1:7; 12:4,9,28,30-31; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). The
only other occurrence of the word in the New Testament was Peter’s
comparable use, i.e., to refer to supernatural ability (1 Peter
4:10)—see Moulton, et al., 1978, p. 1005]. Several relevant points occur
in regard to the gift of tongue-speaking that help one to understand
both the
temporary nature of miracles, as well as their
irrelevance to a contemporary pursuit and practice of New Testament Christianity.
Tongue-Speaking
First, the term “unknown” (in regard to tongues) is italicized in the KJV
because it does not appear in the original Greek text
(14:2,4,13-14,19,27). By inserting this word into their translation, the
translators were attempting to aid the English reader. They undoubtedly
were hoping to convey the idea that the languages to which Paul
referred were
unknown to the speaker, i.e., the speaker had no
prior training by which to learn or know the language. He spoke the
language strictly by God’s miraculous empowerment. “Unknown” certainly
was not intended to convey the thought that the tongues were unknown
to all humans and, as such, were non-earthly languages.
Second, the events reported at the very beginning of the Christian
religion (Acts 2) set the precedent for understanding that
tongue-speaking entailed no more than the ability to speak a foreign
human language (which the speaker had not studied) to people from a
variety of geographical locales (e.g., Parthians, Medes, Arabians—Acts
2:9-11). The unbiased Bible student must conclude that what is described
in some detail in Acts 2 is the same phenomenon alluded to in 1
Corinthians 14. All tongue-speaking in the Bible consisted of known
human languages (ideally, known to the very audience being addressed)
that were unknown (i.e., unstudied, unlearned) by the one who was
speaking the language.
Third, there is simply no such thing as an “ecstatic utterance” in the
New Testament. The tongue-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 entailed
human language—not
incoherent gibberish. A simple reading of the chapter demonstrates that
known human languages are under consideration. For example, Paul
paralleled tongue-speaking with the use of the trumpet in warfare. If a
bugler sounded meaningless noise, the military would be thrown into
confusion. It was imperative for the bugler to blow the proper notes and
tones, i.e., meaningful musical “language,” so that the army would
understand clearly what was being communicated (whether to charge,
engage, or retreat). “Sound without sense” fails to achieve the very
purpose of tongue-speaking. Paul stated:
So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be
understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be
speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world,
and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of
the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that
speaketh will be a barbarian unto me (1 Corinthians 14:9-11, emp.
added).
Obviously, Paul was referring to human languages—those that exist “in
the world.” He envisioned a scenario where two individuals, who spoke
different languages, are attempting to communicate with each other. If
one speaks in Spanish and the other in German, as they attempt to speak
to one another, each would be a “foreigner” to the other. Neither would
be able to understand what the other was attempting to say. Hence the
need for tongue-speaking, i.e., the ability to speak human language
unknown to the speaker but known to the recipient. Again, an examination
of 1 Corinthians 14 yields the result that no contextual justification
exists for drawing the conclusion that the Bible refers to, let alone
endorses, the notion of “
ecstatic” speech.
Fourth, Paul clearly stated that tongue-speaking was a sign to
unbelievers—not to believers (14:22). Tongue-speaking was to be done in
their presence, to convince
them
of the truth being spoken, i.e., to confirm the Word. The
tongue-speaking being practiced today is done in the presence of those
who
already believe that tongue-speaking is occurring and, when
an unbeliever, who is skeptical of the genuineness of the activity,
makes an appearance in such an assembly, the claim often is made that
tongue-speaking cannot occur because of the presence of unbelief. Once
again, the New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim
the ability to speak in tongues today.
Fifth, the recipient of a miraculous gift in the New Testament could
control himself (14:32). He was not overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit so
that he began to babble or flail about. Tongue-speaking today is
frequently practiced in a setting where the individuals who claim to be
exercising the gift are speaking uncontrollably at the very time that
others are either doing the same thing or engaging in some other
activity. This overlapping activity is in direct violation of three of
Paul’s commands: (1) that each individual take their turn one at a time;
(2) that no more than three tongue-speakers speak per service; and (3)
that tongue-speakers remain silent if no interpreter is present
(14:27-28).
The claim by many today to be able to speak in tongues is simply out of
harmony with New Testament teaching. Anyone can babble, make up sounds,
and claim that he or she is speaking in tongues. But such conduct is no
sign today. It is precisely the same phenomenon that various
pagan religions have practiced throughout the centuries. During New
Testament times, however, no one questioned the authenticity of
tongue-speaking. Why? The speaker was speaking
a known human language that could be understood
by those present who knew that language and knew that the speaker did not know that language beforehand. As McGarvey observed about Acts 2:
Not only did the apostles speak in foreign languages that were
understood by the hearers, some understanding one and some another, but
the fact that this was done by Galileans, who knew only their mother
tongue, was the one significant fact that gave to Peter’s speech which
followed all of its power over the multitude (1910, p. 318).
If and when self-proclaimed tongue-speakers today demonstrate that
genuine New Testament gift, their message could be accepted as being
from God. But
no one today has demonstrated that genuine New Testament gift.
Holy Spirit Baptism
Where, then, does the baptism of the Holy Spirit fit into this
discussion? Today’s alleged practitioners typically associate the
expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the
believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In
other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a generic reference to
miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any
other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy
Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit filled.” However, it might surprise the
reader to learn that the Bible alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very
narrow, specialized, even technical sense. Just because a person could
speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he had been
baptized in the Holy Spirit.
The very first allusion to Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament is
John’s statement: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he
that cometh after me...
will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11, emp. added). From this statement alone, one might assume that Christians
in general
would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But this assumption would be a
premature conclusion. John was not addressing a Christian audience. He
was speaking to Jews. Nothing in the context allows the reader to
distinguish John’s intended recipients of the promise of Holy Spirit
baptism—whether all humans, all Jews, all Christians, or merely some of
those in one or more of these categories. The specific recipients of
this promise are clarified in later passages.
Just before His ascension, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem
until they were “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In John
chapters 14-16, He made several specific promises to the apostles
concerning the coming of the Spirit—the “Comforter/Helper” (
parakletos)—upon
them, to empower them to do the peculiar work of an apostle (i.e., to
recall the words Jesus had spoken to them, to speak and write by
inspiration, and to launch the Christian religion). If these verses
apply to all Christians, then all Christians ought to have been
personally guided “into all truth” (John 16:13), and thus would have
absolutely no need of written Scripture (John 14:26). However, in
context, these verses clearly refer to
the apostolic office.
Jesus further clarified the application of Holy Spirit baptism when He
told the apostles that the earlier statement made in Luke 24:49 applied
to
them, and, in fact, would come to pass “not many days hence”
(Acts 1:4-5). Jesus also stated that the “power” that they would receive
would be from the Holy Spirit, which would enable them to witness to
the world what they had experienced by being with Christ (Acts 1:8).
Notice carefully that on this occasion, Jesus made an explicit reference
to the very statement that John had uttered previously in Matthew 3:
“For John indeed baptized with water; but
ye [apostles—DM] shall be
baptized in the Holy Spirit
not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, emp. added). Jesus explicitly stated
that the Holy Spirit baptism He would administer (in keeping with John’s
prediction) would occur within a few days, and would be confined to the
apostles.
All one need do is turn the page to see the promise of Holy Spirit
baptism achieve climactic fulfillment in Acts 2 as the Spirit was poured
out only upon the apostles. The antecedent of “they” in Acts 2:4 is
“the apostles” in Acts 1:26. The apostles were the ones who spoke in
tongues and taught the people.
They were the recipients of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the following contextual
indicators: (1) “are not all these that speak
Galileans?” (2:7); (2) “Peter, standing up with
the eleven” (2:14); (3) “they...said unto Peter and the rest of
the apostles” (2:37); (4) Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32, and applied it to that occasion as proof that
the apostles were not intoxicated; and (5) the text even states explicitly that the signs and wonders were “done
through the apostles” (2:43). This pattern continues in the book of Acts: “And by the hands of
the apostles
were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (5:12); “the
Lord, who bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and
wonders to be done by
their hands” (14:3); “what signs and wonders God had wrought...through
them” (15:12).
The next direct reference to Holy Spirit baptism consisted of Peter
describing the experience of the Gentiles in Acts 10. Referring to their
empowerment to speak in tongues, Peter explicitly identified it as
being comparable to the experience of the apostles in Acts 2. Note his
explanation:
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us [apostles—DM]
at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said,
John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy
Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us [apostles—DM]... (Acts 11:15-17, emp. added).
Peter unmistakably linked the baptism of the Holy Spirit predicted by
John in Matthew 3:11, and applied by Jesus to the apostles in Acts 1:5,
with the unique and exclusive bestowal of the same on the first Gentile
candidates of salvation. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit had occurred
between Acts 2 and Acts 10, why did Peter compare the Gentiles’
experience with the experience of the
apostles—rather than
comparing it with many other Christians who allegedly would have
received it at some point during the intervening years? The answer lies
in the fact that the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur during
those intervening years. Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a unique and
infrequent occurrence that came directly from Deity.
This understanding harmonizes with additional facts. The great prophecy
of the Old Testament, which made special reference to the coming New
Testament era as the dispensation of the Spirit, incorporated a most
noteworthy expression. God had declared: “I will pour out my Spirit upon
all flesh” (Joel 2:28, emp. added). Peter repeated it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17). “
All flesh” was a technical expression used by the Jewish writers of the Bible, who frequently divided humanity into
only two
racial groupings, i.e., Jew and non-Jew (Gentile). The reader is urged
to study carefully Isaiah 40:5 (cf. Luke 3:6) and Isaiah 66:23 as well
as Paul’s use of “we” vs. “they” and “both,” “all,” “none,” and “no
flesh” (Romans 3:9-20). “No flesh” and “all flesh” were technical
allusions to the two
categories of human flesh, i.e., Jew and non-Jew.
Observe, then, that the very first recipients of Holy Spirit baptism were the
Jewish apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The second recipients of Holy Spirit baptism were
Gentiles
who were members of the household of Cornelius (Acts 10). The
occurrence of that event convinced Jewish Christians that Gentiles were
fit prospects for the reception of the Gospel, and thus were valid
candidates for entrance into the kingdom (Acts 10:34-35,45; 11:18).
Thus, Joel’s remark, that God would pour out His Spirit on “all flesh,”
applied to the outpouring on
Jews in Acts 2 and
Gentiles
in Acts 10. The only other conceivable occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism
would have been Paul, who would have received direct miraculous ability
from God as well. His reception obviously was unique because (1) he was
not an apostle when the Twelve received the Spirit, and (2) he was “one
born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). Holy Spirit baptism, then,
filled two unique and exclusive purposes: (1) to prepare the apostles
for their apostolic (not Christian) roles, and (2) to provide divine
demonstration that Gentiles could become Christians.
Laying on of Hands
If Acts 2 and 10 are the only instances of Holy Spirit baptism in the
New Testament, how, then, do we account for the fact that numerous
others in the New Testament performed miracles or were able to speak in
tongues? If they, too, were not recipients of Holy Spirit baptism, how
did they receive the ability to do what they did? The New Testament
dictates only one other way that one could obtain a miraculous
capability:
through the laying on of the apostles’ hands. Only
the apostles possessed the ability to transfer miraculous capabilities
to others—a phenomenon that was described succinctly by Luke:
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given,
he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, that on
whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said
unto him, “Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to
obtain the gift of God with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in
this matter” (Acts 8:17-21, emp. added).
This description establishes two important facts: (1)
only the apostles
were able to impart to others the ability to perform miracles; and (2)
those other than the apostles who could perform miracles received their
ability
indirectly through the
apostles—not directly from God via Holy Spirit baptism.
This fascinating feature of the miraculous in the first century makes
it possible to understand how other individuals received their
supernatural powers. For example, Philip possessed the ability to
perform miracles (Acts 8:6,13). Since he was not an apostle, and since
he did not receive direct ability from God via baptism of the Holy
Spirit, where, then, did he derive his ability? Philip previously had
received the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 6:5-6). Likewise,
the first Christians in Ephesus were enabled to speak in tongues—when
the apostle Paul laid his hands on them (Acts 19:6). Even Timothy
received his gift from the laying on of Paul’s hands (2 Timothy 1:6).
Some have challenged the exclusivity of the role of the apostles in
their unique ability to impart the miraculous element by drawing
attention to the admonition given by Paul to Timothy: “Neglect not the
gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying
on of the hands
of the presbytery” (1 Timothy 4:14, emp. added).
How does one explain the fact that Paul stated that Timothy’s gift had
come through the presbytery (i.e., the eldership) as well? Once again,
the grammar of the text provides the definitive answer. In 2 Timothy
1:6, where Paul claimed
sole credit for imparting the gift to Timothy, he employed the Greek preposition
dia
with the genitive, which means “through” or “by means of ” (Machen,
1923, p. 41; Dana and Mantey, 1927, p. 101). However, in 1 Timothy 4:14,
where Paul included the eldership in the action of impartation, he
employed a completely different Greek preposition—
meta. The root meaning of
meta is “in the midst of ” (Dana and Mantey, p. 107). It refers to the
attendant circumstances of an event that takes place—the
accompanying
phenomena (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 510-511). It means “in
association with” or “accompanied by” (Moule, 1959, p. 61; Thayer, 1901,
p. 404; cf. Robertson, 1934, p. 611). In other words, Paul—as an
apostle—imparted the miraculous gift to Timothy. It came from God
through Paul. However, on that occasion, the local eldership of the church was present and participated
with
Paul in the event, lending their simultaneous support and accompanying
commendation. After examining the grammatical data on the matter, Nicoll
concluded: “[I]t was the imposition of hands by St. Paul that was the
instrument used by God in the communication of the
charisma to
Timothy” (1900, 4:127; cf. Jamieson, et al., n.d., 2:414; Williams 1960,
p. 956). Consequently, 1 Timothy 4:14 offers no proof that miraculous
capability could be received through other means in addition to
apostolic imposition of hands and/or the two clear instances of Holy
Spirit baptism.
CONCLUSION
In light of the biblical data set forth in this study, certain
conclusions become quite evident. Since there are no apostles living
today, and since Holy Spirit baptism was unique to the apostles (Acts 2)
and the first Gentile converts (Acts 10), there is no Holy Spirit
baptism today, there is no miraculous healing today, and there can be no
tongue-speaking. The miraculous element in the Christian religion was
terminated by God near the close of the first century. Once the last
apostle died, the means by which miraculous capabilities were made
available was dissolved. With the completion of God’s revelation to
humanity (now available in the Bible), people living today have all that
is needed to be complete and to enjoy the fullness of Christian
existence (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3).
The alleged miracles and tongue-speaking of today simply do not measure
up to the Bible’s description of the miraculous. They are unverifiable,
ambiguous, and counterfeit. Today’s “divine healing” consists of vague,
unseen, non-quantifiable aches and pains like arthritis, headaches, and
the like. In the New Testament, however, people were raised from the
dead—even days after death (e.g., John 11:17). Severed body parts were
restored instantaneously (e.g., Luke 22:50-51). People who had been
born blind had their sight restored (e.g., John 9:1). Those
lame from birth were
empowered to walk (Acts 3:2). First-century miracles were not limited
only to certain ailments and psychosomatic illnesses that could be cured
through natural means, or by “mental adjustments” on the part of the
infirm. Jesus healed “
all kinds of sickness and
all kinds
of disease” (Matthew 4:23, emp. added). No disease or sickness was
exempt in the New Testament (cf. Acts 28:8-9). Where are these types of
occurrences today? When has anyone restored a severed limb lost in an
accident? When has a self-proclaimed “faith-healer” raised anyone from
the dead? Where are the miracle workers who are healing the blind, the
crippled, and those whose infirmities have been documented as having
existed for many years (John 5:3,5)? Where are the televangelists who
will go into children’s hospitals and rectify birth defects, cancer, and
childhood diseases? Where are the modern-day miracle workers who have
ingested poison or been bitten by a venomous snake—yet remained unharmed
(Mark 16:18; Acts 28:3-5)? An honest searcher for the truth is
inevitably forced to conclude that the miraculous age has passed.
Human beings always are looking for something new, exciting, and flashy. They want something that makes them
feel
religious and secure—without having to face up to personal
responsibilities. Hence, there will always be those who will simply
disengage their minds, their spiritual sense, and their intention to
assess “the words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25).
Genuine Christianity today consists of simply taking the written Word
of God, and studying it carefully in order to learn what God expects of
us—no brass band, no circus theatrics, no flash of light, no dream or
vision, no sudden rush attributable to the Holy Spirit. There simply are
no short cuts to spirituality.
The miraculous is no answer.
[
NOTE: To listen to an audio sermon on this topic,
click here.]
REFERENCES
Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961),
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898),
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Conzelmann, Hans (1974), “
charismata,”
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).
Delling, Gerhard (1972),
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hofius, Otfried (1976), “Miracle,”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Jamieson, R., A.R. Fausset, and D. Brown (no date),
A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Machen, J. Gresham (1923),
New Testament Greek for Beginners (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910),
Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Moule, C.F.D. (1959),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1977 reprint).
Moulton, W.F., A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978),
A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition.
Moulton, James and George Milligan (1982 reprint),
Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. (1900),
The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdms).
Robertson, A.T. (1934),
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Thayer, J.H. (1901),
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Vincent, M.R. (1890),
Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).
Vine, W.E. (1952),
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Warren, Thomas B. (1972),
Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Williams, George (1960),
The Student’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), sixth edition.
Workman, Gary (1983), “That Which Is Perfect,”
The Restorer, 3[9]:6-9, September.
Wuest, Kenneth (1943),
Treasures from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The printed version of this article in this month’s issue of
Reason & Revelation is the
abbreviated form of a much more comprehensive study of this topic. To view the unedited version,
click here.]
In
the 1960s, as the storm clouds of social and political liberalism were
gathering, and leftist activists were beginning their half-century long
assault on traditional American (i.e., biblical) values, cries for
“tolerance” and “diversity” began to be heard. As the “New Morality”
asserted itself with its insistence on “free love” and “sexual freedom,”
the divorce rate in the United States suddenly exploded in 1965 (see
Whitehead, 1993). Lax attitudes toward sex resulted in co-ed dormitories
on university campuses, and “shacking up” (unmarried couples
cohabitating) became common place. The sinister conspiracy to
desensitize the American public’s commitment to Christian mores was
underway. In addition to the spread of pornography, extramarital sex and
divorce, premarital sex, unwed motherhood, and a corresponding clamor
for abortion rights quickly followed (see Miller, 2006).