25 Random Things About Me
1. I am a Hamburger expert. I sometimes keep a hamburger journal to keep track of all the great places across the country to get a good burger. I even have a rating system.
2. In 2000 I was arrested for a warrant for failure to pay *in full* a speeding ticket. Apparently I forgot to pay the $20 court processing fee.
3. I used to be a KJV-Only, girls-hafta-wear-long-skir
4. First concert: Springfield MO, 1998 – Newsboys, Third Day, and my fav: The Waiting
5. I know it’s hard to believe, but I was a Calvinist almost all the way through college. I still have many Calvinists friends and love them with a non-electing kind of love. I choose to love you all!!
6. I love Mt. Dew. Unfortunately, I drink so much of it that I am literally scared that I’m going to die at the age of 45 of stomach cancer. So, my 29th birthday is coming up in a week and I have committed myself to fully and finally giving up Mt. Dew (and all other soda) for good on that day.
7. My first French-kiss was next to a huge trash dumpster outside a Golden Coral when I was in 9th grade. I’m pretty sure it was the wettest, sloppiest thing I’d ever experienced and I couldn’t imagine why anyone would want to do such a thing. My how I’ve changed!!
8. My dream is to be a faithful, persevering pastor who really loves God. I want to look back on my life at the end and know that I did the best job I could and people’s lives were changed.
9. Some people’s lives are over after high school. But I wouldn’t go back for the world. I was 6’3, 160 lbs, with a military cut and a severe overbite (I had braces all through college and some of grad school). But most of all, I just like how my life has worked out and really wouldn’t go back and do any part of it all over again. Each experience has made me who I am.
10. My dad died under a year ago. I’m still pretty messed up about it and think about him everyday. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about him. My wife has woken me up from mid-dream where I was actually sobbing in my sleep.
11. Favorite Bands: Caedman’s Call, Counting Crows, Smashing Pumpkins, Switchfoot, Andrew Peterson, Bob Dylan, Lucky Boys Confusion. Hated Bands: AC/DC, Nickelback, Most things country.
12. I consider myself a dialectic of theological Liberalism and Conservativism. But I haven’t entirely worked out what it looks like yet. Lets just say I’m always in theological “process” or at least that my future is “open.”
13. I take academics pretty seriously, but I didn’t start doing that until half-way through my junior year of college. I was nearly on academic probation when I met Dr. Nelson and he encouraged me, first through his example, second through our relationship, to begin reading more and taking school more seriously. It took me until half-way through grad school to feel like I was caught up. And now I just can’t stop reading.
14. I have recently acquired a prescription for my chronic insomnia.
15. I am taking an advanced Greek course this Spring and I am so excited that I’m about to poop myself.
16. My wife and I are going to name all our girls after the Feminists of the Bible: Phoebe (on the way), Chloe, and I’m pushing for Rahab, but we’ll see what the wife thinks. But, really, if we get to a third girl with no boys, we’re going to name her Tommi.
17. I love Basketball. I’ve always been fairly athletic and get antsy when I don’t get to play ball for a while. The most points I’ve ever scored in a game is 34.
18. One time I stole some tracts from an anti-Bible preacher on a street corner in Indianapolis. The guy had a puff-paint shirt on that said, “Ban the Bible!” And though everyone thought he was a loon, I for some reason still thought it would be a good idea to steal his tracts. So I winked at my friend (Mike Lochard, who gave me a weird look), reached out and stole the tracts right out of his FANNY PACK! I then ran away, hearing him scream, “BRING BACK MY PAPERS, DEVIL BOY!!!”
19. My wife and I bought a house with another family. They have three crazy little boys. In the future, my wife and I want to move back to Fulton, MO and start a hospitality house for broken people.
20. I wrote my Master’s Thesis comparing the theological rhetoric Southern Baptists used to justify slavery with the rhetoric they used in both their justification for inactivity during the Holocaust and the theological rhetoric used to limit the roles of women in the church and family. It was a long one – 150 pages (w/out the footnotes).
21. Other than my wife, if I was stuck on a deserted island with someone I would choose Dr. Nelson. But if he didn’t want to be stranded with me, I’d choose JR Madill.
22. I talk a lot. Sometimes I think people are wearied with all my talking. But to be honest, most of it is religious/theological/spiritual in nature. I took a personality test a year ago, though, and it told me that sometimes people get wearied with my passionate talking because I make them feel like they should be passionate about the same topics as I am. If I’ve ever done that to you, I’m sorry. If I’ve ever talked too much around you, I’m sorry….but don’t expect it to change. 
23. I have recently had a great desire to get involved in domestic abuse shelters. Particularly I want to study the theology of abuse and how “Christian” men use their understandings of headship to justify “domestic” violence. (This is not the same thing as my MA Thesis, but it is related. What interests my here is how the Bible is used in abusive relationships.)
24. I wash my hands like 7-8 times a day, but only half the time you would think I should.
25. I am proud of my brothers and sister. Despite the brokenness of our home life growing up, despite the constant drama from the extended family (this person not wanting to talk to that person), the 4 of us really get along and genuinely love one another.
Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? (3/3)
Pejoratively Paul?
One aspect of interpreting I Corinthians that the Cessationists certainly get right is that this chapter is written as a corrective to Corinthian abuse of the charismatic gift of tongues. Indeed, “most of what he had to say restricted the use of tongues in the church.”[1] We must not lose sight of the fact that Paul desires that the gift of prophecy be exalted above that of tongues because prophecy is edifying to the entire congregation, not just the individual. Whereas our concerns may lie elsewhere, this is Paul’s.
However, losing Paul’s argument for their own, Cessationists quickly to jump from Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians to their assertions of the cessation of this gift. This is done first through their attempts to show that Paul has a disparaging attitude toward tongues. One example of this is their interpretation of 14:4 where Paul says, “the one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” MacArthur asserts that this edification of the self is contrary to the others-oriented love of 13:5. Indeed, he even suggests that the use of the word edify (oivkodomei/) here is likely pejorative in nature, citing 8:10[2] where the word means “strengthening” one’s conscience to do evil, [3] thus “the Corinthians were using tongues to build themselves up in a selfish sense. Their motives were not wholesome but egocentric.”[4]
The Cessationists are certainly correct that the Corinthians were using tongues to bolster their own self of spiritual maturity. However, the question is, is that what Paul means in 14:4? First, from the context, if one takes this use of oivkodomei/ as pejorative, one must also take the parallel statement in vs. 2 as pejorative: “for anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.”[5] Second, the Cessationist case here is weak here because it unnecessarily assumes self-edification is a negative, self-seeking thing.
However, Paul’s problem is not with the gift, but the Corinthian’s use of the gift. Therefore, we need not assume self edification resulting from tongues is negative, for “edifying oneself is not self-centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise.”[6] The issue is that self-edification is not what corporate worship is for.[7] Furthermore, if tongues is ego-centric then it makes no sense for Paul to desire that they all speak in tongues (14:5),[8] for he would be enjoining the entire congregation to practice egocentric, self-centered spirituality.
Another means by which Cessationists interpret Paul’s discussion of tongues as disparaging to the gift itself comes from Paul’s comments in vs. 14 where he states, “for if[9] I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive.” It is suggested that “my mind is unproductive” is Paul’s way of rebuking the Corinthians for their mindless ecstasy. That is, Paul rebukes them for employing a worship method that does not engage the mind.
In the end, however, this conclusion is assumed from a prior theological position. Contextually, if tongues is looked at pejoratively by Paul, then this is probably a negative statement. But if one does not assume that Paul has a problem with the gift, itself, then there is no need to read this comment as a rebuke. Rather, Paul is simply stating that when one prays in tongues “it does not benefit the minds of others”[10] or himself – the argument he has been making the whole time. Because it is an inarticulate gift, tongues simply does not engage the mind or call for a rational response in the same way prophecy does.[11] “Only the human spirit is active if one prays of speaks in tongues without interpretation. Paul prays both ways (with spirit and mind) and urges others to follow his example.”[12]
The Intention of Tongues
In the final argument we have room for, Cessationists make a move toward Cessation from I Corinthians 14 is in their discussion of the intention of tongues according to Paul. The intention of tongues, according to Cessationism, is a sign (shmei/o,n) to unbelieving Jews that they are under God’s judgment (14:20), particularly the covenantal curse of Deuteronomy 28:49.[13]
Unfortunately this argument is exegetically unfounded.[14] This reading is grounded solely on the basis of Paul’s citation of the Isaiah 28:11-12 (cf. Dt. 28:49, Jer. 5:15). It is argued that this sign is a sign of judgment upon unbelieving Israel and the OT citation is a forewarning of the fall of Jerusalem that results from Jew’s rejection of their Messiah. The problem, however, is that nowhere in this passage (or the rest of the Pauline corpus for that matter) does Paul explicitly touch on the issue of Jerusalem’s fall. Paul is not acting as a prophet predicting the fall of Jerusalem.
Rather, from the context of the Hebrew text[15]of Isaiah 28:9-13, it is clear that the word of the Lord is heard as meaningless gibberish to Ephraim as a sign of judgment upon them in the form of Assyrian oppressors. The word of the Lord to them actually gives them meaningless sounds instead of an escape route and thus “functions as a word of judgment simply because it provides no clear guidance.”[16] Thus Paul’s citation of this text is in full understanding that “when God speaks to people in a language they cannot understand, it is a form of punishment for unbelief.”[17]
However, rather than applying to unbelieving Israel, Paul’s citation of Isaiah 28 has a much more contextually plausible solution: the unbelievers coming into the Corinthian assembly in the next verse, who may associate the Corinthian church with the other Greek pagan religions with their ecstatic experiences. In the immediate context, then, Paul is making the case that “for a stranger to enter a meeting in which the babbling of strange tongues was being manifest apart from any interpretation, the very act of speaking in tongues held the potential for confirming that unbeliever in a failure to discern the presence of God.”[18] These inarticulate babblings would cause the unbelievers (vs. 23) to think the Corinthians were “mad.”[19] Such a response would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11-12 “to the effect that tongues do not lead sinners to obedience.”[20] Contra MacArthur, the text never indicates that the unbelievers (avpi,stoij) Paul references are Jews.[21] Even if my proposed reading of this text is wrong, it certainly deals with the contextual evidence of I Corinthians 14 better than the argument that restricts the sign to unbelieving Jews, as there’s nothing within this text that necessitates such a reading.
Finally, I think the structure of this passage should finally put the “unbelieving Israel” argument to rest:
Vs. 20 Exhortation: Redirect your thinking (about the function of tongues)
Vs. 21 OT Text: Tongues do not lead to obedience
Vs. 22 Application: So then –
Assertion 1 – Tongues a sign not for believers A.
But for unbelievers B.
Assertion 2 – Prophecy [a sign] not for unbelievers B’
But for believers A’
Vs. 23 Illustration 1 – Effect of tongues (1) on unbelievers (B)
Vs. 24-25 Illustration 2 – Effect of prophecy (2) on unbelievers (B)[22]
It is important to notice, first, that the discussion is permeated by the response of unbelievers who are visiting the Corinthian community. They are not specified as unbelieving Jews but are just general unbelievers. The entire structure of the passage points to the inability of uninterpreted tongues to convict them of their need for obedience to God. This is emphasized by the fact that both illustrations are directed at unbelievers in general, one demonstrating the ineffectiveness of uninterpreted tongues, the other, by contrast, demonstrating the effectiveness of prophecy. In fact, the point of the entire argument is summed up in that uninterpreted tongues neither calls the unbeliever to obedience nor does it actually edify the believing community as a whole. Thus, it is inappropriate for the public assembly. To take Paul’s argument anywhere else is to ignore the flow of the argument and the structure of the passage.
CONCLUSION
The arguments for the Cessationist position are varied and nuanced. These are not ignorant people who lack hermeneutical prowess or simply want to read their theology onto the biblical text. I would never question their sincerity and desire to know the full revelation of God. However, I believe that in the case of these chapters, they are mistaken primarily because they let their theological agenda determine how the text should be read.
While critiquing their arguments from these passages does not demonstrate the truthfulness of the charismatic position, it does mean that Cessationists must use other texts and other arguments to make their points. Paul’s concern in I Corinthians 13-14 does not lie in giving us an indication of when tongues will cease. Rather, Paul’s concerns lie with the Corinthians having a proper eschatological and ecclesiastical understanding of this gift, especially in comparison with prophecy.
To take Paul’s arguments and make them answer our questions instead of his is a hermeneutical fallacy that should be avoided at all costs. This trap, unfortunately, is the trap I see scholars on both sides falling prey to. The questions determining the Cessationist answers are largely questions raised in their reactions to the abuses of the charismatic movement.[23]
In the end, exegesis aside, I think this is the fundamental problem. In making Paul argue our points, we silence Paul’s voice in favor of our own. We then convince ourselves that Paul’s voice sounds amazingly like our post-Enlightenment voices. In the end, I agree with Craig Keener when he says, “I believe the position that supernatural gifts have ceased is one that no Bible reader would hold if not previously taught to do so. It is also a position based on a modern reading of the text shaped by Enlightenment culture.”[24] Until we learn to discern Paul’s voice from our own, we will never escape this problem.
[1] John F. MacArthur, Jr., Charismatic Chaos. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992), 224.
[2] Once again, MacArthur is guilty of a word study fallacy. One cannot simply transport the positive or negative force of a word from one context to another without justification. There is no reason, grammatically or contextually, to assume Paul is using oivkodomei/ in a pejorative sense in 14:4. He even acknowledges that oivkodomei/ may have a positive sense, but he prefers the negative because it supports is prefabricated conclusion. This may serve as an effective rhetorical tool, but it is hardly honest scholarship.
[3] MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos. 229.
[4] MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos. 229.
[5] MacArthur is actually willing to make this case, “Because of the absence of any definite article in the Greek text, it is also possible to translate this verse as, “One who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to a god” – referring to a pagan deity. Either way I Corinthians 14:2 is a condemnation, not a commendation. The context demands that.” MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 228. MacArthur’s “possible to translate” is certainly possible. But this conclusion is really a minority conclusion even among Cessationists. The Greek text likely does not refer to a pagan god simply because Paul is not rebuking them for idol worship! His concern is that they not even look like pagans, but he expresses no fear that they are actually worshipping pagan deities in this letter. Furthermore, if we applied MacArthur’s exegetical logic to John 1:1, the Jehovah’s Witnesses would win the debate. “Possibility” is not the same as “probability” or even “reality” for good reason. This is simply a case of MacArthur’s predispositions running a muck in his interpretation. He needs much more contextual evidence before he can conclude something this major.
[6] Fee, 657.
[7] Witherington, 282.
[8] “This sentence is often viewed as ‘merely conciliatory,’ especially in light of 12:28-30 where he argues that all will not speak in tongues. But that is not quite precise. Paul has already indicated that tongues have value for the individual, meaning in private, personal prayer (cf. vv. 14-15 and 18-19).” Fee, 658.
[9] The conditional sentence here is a Present/General construction. This means a better translation is “when I pray in tongues” and the emphasis then is on the result – the spirit praying, but the mind being unfruitful.
[10] Fee, 669.
[11] It should also be noted here that if my arguments are correct and Paul never speaks of tongues disparagingly in chapter 14, then MacArthur’s suggestion that when Paul uses the singular “tongue” he is referencing the Corinthian practice of “mere gibberish” while using the plural to refer to real languages, becomes nonsense. Furthermore, if his argument were true, Paul’s command to pray for an interpretation of the tongue (sing.) in vs. 13 would be equivalent to asking God for the meaning of a pagan utterance done in His name. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 226.
[12] Witherington, 283.
[13] O.P. Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” Westminster Theological Journal 38 (1975), 45-53.
[14] MacArthur argues that tongues must be a real, earthly language because in order for them to be a meaningful sign of judgment on unbelieving Israel, they would need to be a real, gentile language, not some kind of angelic speech. MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, 227.
[15] Scholars on all sides of this discussion have recognized that Paul follows neither the LXX nor the MT very closely here. In fact, he changes the citation from both of them in order to emphasize the presence of confusing tongues.
[16] Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in I Corinthians. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 186.
[17] Grudem, 192.
[18] C. M. Robeck Jr. “Tongues.” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 942.
[19] It should be noted here that the translation “mad” is misleading to the modern reader. The implication here is not “insanity,” but rather that the visitor will automatically associate the Corinthian’s ecstatic experiences with pagan ecstatic experience. As Witherington says, “Despite the usual translation of v. 23, Paul does not say there that the outsider will consider tongues speakers insane. Rather they will see them as ecstatic, carried away by some external powerful force, as a devotee of Dionysius might be.” Witherington, 284.
[20] Fee, 680. In light of this, we should be reminded that there is an element of contrast at work here – while tongues will not be effective for evangelistic purposes because it will leave the unbeliever confused, prophecy will be an understandable word that may prompt them to belief. This, not the ceasing or denigrating of tongues, is the purpose of the passage.
[21] MacArthurs reading is, again, based on an exegetical fallacy. We cannot assume that just because Paul cites an OT text that this means the texts fulfillment is solely for Jews. If this were the case, only Jews know the mind of the Lord (I Cor. 2:16/Isaiah 40:13), only Jews should pay their ministers (I Cor. 9:9/Dt. 25:4), and only Jews will receive that which God has prepared for those who love Him (I Cor. 2:9/Is. 64:4). In other words, one needs good exegetical reason to suppose the application of an OT citation is limited to the Jews, and that evidence is simply not present in chapter 14.
[22] Fee, 677.
[23] Clark Pinnock cites one good example of this, “The theory in the writings of B.B. Warfield that certain gifts have ceased…is more easily explained in terms of his polemic against the Catholic chuch and his apologetic agenda vis-à-vis miracles in the period of the Enlightenment rather than in terms of biblical data. Sadly, the Cessationist mindset becomes self-fulfilling. Failing to take seriously what the Bible sets forth as possibilities, people come under the influence of secular modernity by the back door. It leads to an experiential deficit that prevents people from entering into full Spirit reality.” Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 133.
[24] Craig S. Keener, Gift and Giver. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 93. Gordon Fee has a similar assessment, “Many evangelicals, who were incensed by Bultmann’s rationalism that so casually dismissed Paul’s affirmations of such works of the Spirit, adopted their own brand of rationalism to explain the absence of such phenomena in their own circles: by limiting this kind of Spirit activity to the age of the apostles.” Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 166.
Why I Look Forward to Fatherhood – Reason #8: Teaching Respect for Authority
Respect For Authority
When Perfection Comes: Miraculous Gifts For Today? (2/3)
Another argument from the Cessationist camp has to do with te,leion in vs. 10. The argument suggests that when perfection (te,leion) comes, all that is partial (me,rouj) will pass away. Because te,leion is most often employed in I Corinthians to refer to individual, spiritual maturity, it is suggested that this reference must be to the maturity of the church.[1] The maturity of the church, it is argued most often, has to do with the completion (te,leion) of the perfect, biblical canon. One can sympathize with this argument, to be sure, in that “much of the impetus for this position stems from a profound concern for the finality of biblical truth.”[2]
However, this argument is exegetically weak. First, to argue that te,leion means “maturity” in one passage does not mean it has to mean maturity in the same way in another text. This is a word study fallacy known as Illegitimate Totality Transfer. We cannot transfer the meaning of a word from one context and make it mean the same thing in another context without a direct connection, especially a word with the lexical range of te,leion.[3] A word’s meaning is solely determined by its context. And here te,leion simply has to do with the completion of something; that is, having reached its intended or final purpose. As Fee notes, “The meaning in the present instance is determined by its being the final goal of what is, ‘partial.’ Thus its root sense of ‘having attainted the end or purpose’, hence ‘complete,’ seems to be the nuance here.”[4]
Second, the Cessationist appeal to vs. 11 does not hold water. Paul’s concern is not about moving past these spiritual gifts, but viewing them in light of the eschatological reality that they will someday no longer be needed, for they are not the telos of the Christian life – love is.[5] In exalting tongues and knowledge as the supreme sign of spirituality and the “heavenly now,”[6] the Corinthians have “mistaken the part for the whole and the partial for the final and in particular have overlooked the fact that while love already has finality here and now, knowledge [and glossolalia are] only in part.”[7] Paul’s concern is not the cessation of these gifts, but a proper understanding of their place in the whole scheme of things; his argument “has nothing to do with ‘childlikeness’ and ‘growing up,’ but with the difference between the present and the future.”
That vs. 11 has nothing to do with the maturity of the church is also substantiated grammatically. The ga.r in vs. 12 ties the whole argument back to vs. 8 and the passing away of these gifts, not the immaturity of the Corinthians. Vs. 12, itself, also suggests that vs. 11 cannot refer to the maturity of the Corinthians precisely because the argument has to do with the eschaton. There’s no reason, then to assume Paul takes a reproachful tangent in vs. 11. [8]
Third, the argument is exegetically weak because it is eisegetical. If these Cessationist scholars read Paul as Paul intended, they cannot concluded te,leion refers to the closing of the Canon, for we have absolutely no indication in this text or any other that Paul was ever aware a canon was going to be formed! If 13:10 refers to the completion of the Canon, then neither Paul nor the Corinthians themselves, would have any clue as to what Paul was writing about. As an exegetical principle, if the reader concludes the passage means something that neither the author nor the recipients could have known was the meaning, it is likely the reader is doing eisegesis, which is always a reflection of the reader’s biases.[9]
Hays quite direct about this, “This interpretation is simply nonsense. There is nothing in the passage about ‘The New Testament’ or about a future revocation of revelatory gifts for the church. Paul had no inkling that Israel’s Scripture would be supplemented by a new collection of canonical writings.”[10]
And even Reformed theologian M. Lloyd Jones held a similar conviction, “It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth…It means that we are altogether superior…even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are now in a position which…’we know, even as also we are known’ by God…indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense.”[11]
Many Cessationists, recognizing these things, have abandoned this argument.[12]
What most scholars have recognized, including Cessationist ones, is that te,leion refers to the parousia of Christ, when Christians will know fully and see Christ face to face.[13] It is “a state of affairs where my knowledge is in some ways comparable with God’s present knowledge of me.”[14] The context and structure of this pericope do not support these Cessationist conclusions. Thus, this passage “hardly addresses the debate between Reformed and neo-Pentecostal writers about ‘tongues will ceases’ after the close of the canon or at a given stage of individual or historical maturity…This issue must be determined on other grounds than exegetical discussion of [these verses].”[15]
[1] Walter J. Chantry, Signs of the Apostles. (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1973), 50-52.
[2] Carson, 68.
[3] For example, even God is described as te,leion (Matt. 5:48), but certainly this does not imply that God has matured. Or consider Hebrews 9:11 where it refers to a perfect tent, but certainly here Paul is not referencing a perfect tent.
[4] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 644.
[5] Another contextual indication that these gifts cease in the parousia is in vs. 12, when Paul says, “Then (to,te) we shall see know fully.” The to,te is grammatically linked to the coming of the te,leion. In other words, the te,leion is the time of knowing fully and seeing God face to face. The events of vs. 12 “can only happen when the Lord returns.” Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1033.
[6] Had I had more space, I would have like to have placed Paul’s concern in the larger framework of this epistle. In brief, Paul repeatedly reprimands the Corinthians for their arrogance concerning knowledge and their “overly” realized eschatology. They thought they were living in the eschaton now and were therefore more spiritual than others in the congregation who were not. The prime identity marker for their spiritual arrogance was likely speaking in tongues, eating meat, and having a superior place at the Lord’s Supper, in addition to other things.
[7] Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 270.
[9] Fee, 645.
[10] Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 229.
[11] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things. Ed. Christopher Catherwood. (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1985), 32-33.
[12] MacArthur, 165.
[13] Carson notes that the phrase “face to face” in the Greek is most likely a parallel with Septuagint references to theophonic revelation. Carson, 71. In light of this it is difficult to see how the completion of the Canon is the same thing, contextually, as seeing God face to face or being fully known.
[14] Carson, 70.
[15] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000),
Last Night’s Dream: John Nelson Darby
I should’ve known something was wrong with this picture because when I’m awake I’m a pacifist. Anyway, a woman and her mother come to me and ask me to kill her husband. Apparently he’s been abusing her and she can’t escape him any other way. I agree to kill him and when I ask his name they tell me that he is John Nelson Darby – the post reformation “theologian” whose thoughts were later popularized by the Schofield Study Bible, which has swept through American evangelical/fundamentalism over the last hundred years. Officially the system is known as Dispensationalism and it’s probably best known for its rapture theology which says the church will be taken out of this world suddenly before the arrival of the Great Tribulation.
So I get a pistol out (not sure where I got it) and I go find JND in a church camp – he’s there with his father, his two brothers and his sister. I walk right up to him and shoot him in the chest. But amazingly he doesn’t die. I shoot him three more times but he still doesn’t even seem fazed.
Afraid of what has just occurred, I step back and begin apologizing (you would too if you didn’t have an escape from someone who apparently can’t die). In gentleness he forgives me. I am completely confused by this.
We walk into the church camp library and we’re standing there when all of the sudden a big earthquake strikes. Oddly enough, as massive as the earth quake is, the book on the shelves flip around over and over in their given shelves, but never fall. The paper signs taped above given sections indicating the kind of books in that section, they also come untapped only to spin around once and then re-tape themselves to the shelf. This happens numerous times.
For some reason the Darby family can’t survive earth quakes. One by one they pose (as if modeling) for their final moment, then they are shaken to death by the earthquake.
Miraculous Gifts for Today: a Critique of Cessationist Exegesis of I Corinthians 13
Bitter polemics all too often fill the contemporary conversation concerning the place of miraculous, spiritual gifts in the church. One of the problems with this debate is that both sides of the discussion already have their theological agenda in place prior to approaching the text. By doing so they read their prefabricated theology onto the text. Neither side, then, is able to discern the voice of the text from their own voices. The Reformed[1] and Dispensational theologians have traditionally held to a Cessationist position – that is, that the gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge,[2] ceased sometime after the death of the apostles. On the other hand, the Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals ardently believe that these gifts are for the church today and are normative for the contemporary church.
In the next few posts, most of my efforts will be spent on the Cessationist position as that is the side I am most interested in engaging.[3] I will examine their exegesis of both I Corinthians 13:8-11 and I Corinthians 14:1-25. I will begin with a brief examination of certain Cessationist arguments concerning 13:8-10 and conclude with a much longer examination of their arguments from I Corinthians 14. By the end, it will be demonstrated that, despite the exegetical prowess of so many Cessationist writers, their concerns often steer away from Paul’s and therefore they miss the point of these passages.
Contra Cessationism Post 1: Of Deponent Verbs and Rhetorical Effect
It has been successfully argued that the contemporary Cessationist position goes back at least to the Reformers polemics against the Roman Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries regarding claims of miraculous events. Combine these fierce debates with an Enlightenment epistemology which denied the existence of miracles as well as the validity of experience as an adequate means of theological formulation and the way is paved for Cessationism to take a strong hold in the modern world.[4] For the contemporary discussion it was the 19th century Protestant theologian Benjamin B. Warfield who, in response to Pentecostalism, shaped this discussion for years to come.[5] Warfield contended that the “extra ordinary charismata” were restricted, quite clearly, to the Apostles. These gifts served as an authentication[6] of Apostolic authority and, therefore, ceased upon the death of the apostles. His position has taken numerous paths in the Cessationist scholarship, especially in relationship to I Corinthians 13.
Cessationists often use I Corinthians 13:8-12 as a proof-text for undercutting the validity of tongues and other gifts for the contemporary church. Many assert that the verbal voice change in vs. 8 indicated the cessation of tongues. That is, in vs. 8-10 prophecy and knowledge are said to katarghqh,sontai,[7] that is, to be rendered powerless. The passive voice is significant here because with tongues Paul shifts to the middle voice, pau,sontai.[8] The middle voice, Cessationists argue, is reflexive, indicating tongues will have ceased in and of itself prior to the arrival of the perfect thing[9] of vs. 10. Tongues will cease on their own as opposed to prophecy and knowledge which will be stopped by an outside force.
There are two major problems with this reading, however. First, it does not acknowledge the likelihood that this word choice is merely a rhetorical tool employed by Paul for stylistic reasons. The structure of the verse quite clearly demonstrates this. The verse is set up in a chiastic fashion, whereby pau,sontai is given meaning in light of katarghqh,sontai :
A. ei;te profhtei/ai(katarghqh,sontai\
B. ei;te glw/ssai( pau,sontai\
A’. ei;te gnw/sij( katarghqh,setaiÅ
In other words, since the “A” envelopes, thus providing contextual meaning for “B”, there are clear structural reasons for concluding that Paul may merely intend a stylistic variation in the switch in verbal voice in vs. 8.
Second, the first critique of this Cessationist argument is reinforced by a much larger concern: the failure to understand the use of this verb in the middle voice throughout biblical literature.[10] The future tense of any verb is frequently accompanied by the middle voice. However, the middle voice quite frequently takes on active force. Known as deponent verbs; these verbs are middle in form, but active in force/meaning. To figure out whether we are dealing with a middle voice verb or a deponent verb we must observe how the middle voice form functions with a specific verb, for “one knows what force the middle voice has only by careful inspection of all occurrences of the verb being studied.”[11] Concerning pau,sontai, the evidence overwhelmingly points to deponent usage, as DA Carson has noted:
In the New Testament, this verb prefers the middle; but that does not mean the subject “stops” under its own power. For instance, when Jesus rebukes the wind and raging waters, the storm stops (same verb, middle voice in Luke 8:24) – and certainly not under its own power.[12]
In other words, that the verb, though in middle form, most often takes an active force as it is most often deponent.[13] This suggests the Cessationist reading of this text leaves much to be desired. The requirement lies with them to demonstrate that this verbal voice shift has any bearing on the argument at hand. They need to show why this occurrence of pau,sontai is not a deponent when the word prefers the deponent nearly everywhere else in the New Testament.
[1] Through the promptings of scholars like Wayne Grudem, many Reformed theologians are actually abandoning Cessationism altogether. So this is become less of an issue for that movement as time goes on.
[2] Because of the nature of this discussion it is important to define ones terms at the beginning. By tongues, I mean a spiritual gift given by the Holy Spirit that manifests itself in inarticulate utterances which are directed to God as a prayer or praise, though it may also take the form of song. By prophecy I do not mean sermonic rhetoric, but rather a spiritual gift whereby the Spirit gives particular insight into the life of the community that the prophet would not otherwise have known, which then compels the prophet to speak his word from God for the edification of the community. By knowledge, again I do not mean mere capabilities of retaining massive amounts of information, but rather the supernatural ability to know and understand certain things pertaining to the life of the community and their relationship with God that the person could not have accessed through natural means.
[3] I primarily critique the Cessationist position, first because I come from the Reformed and Dispensationalist traditions, so I want to engage “my own.” Second, I critique them here primarily because I repeatedly see their exegesis (again, because I have more experience with them) is faulty in that they assume a position prior to coming to the text and that prior theological commitment has bearing on their exegesis. Finally, I do this because once it has been established that these gifts are normative for the contemporary church, it is at that point we can begin to critique the Pentecostal exegesis, which in many ways also needs to be critiqued.
[4] J. Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical Miracles, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplementary Series. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). Ruthven acknowledges that certain church fathers held to certain Cessationist views, but historically speaking he demonstrates that this is a response to the excesses of the heresy Montanism, not solid biblical exegesis.
[5] It should be acknowledged that prior to Warfield, Thomas Aquinas was the most influential Cessationist in the history of the church. His arguments were not primarily polemics against the Montanists, rather, he suggests tongues have ceased because the decrepitude of the body and the perfection of knowledge in the eschaton. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolas S. Pauli: 1 ad Cor., 385, sect. 789.
[6] Though I don’t have time to go into this, this claim, itself, is questionable. The miracles never authenticated the apostles, the miracles authenticated the message of salvation offered by the apostles. There is a difference, and a failure to discern this is to nearly deify the apostles. I heard a Cessationist preaching on the radio recently and he appealed to Hebrews 2:4 saying that this text demonstrated the connection of these gifts specifically with the apostles. Unfortunately, this is wrong. The passage actually connects the “signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” to “it,” which in context is “this salvation. (vs. 3) ”“To be sure [the apostles] did signs and wonders, but these signs and wonders did not authenticate them; rather the signs and wonders authenticated the Lord Jesus and the message about Him. There is no scriptural reason, certainly no specific text, that would prevent Jesus from granting an outpouring of signs and wonders to His church in this century or any other century for that matter.” Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: A Former Dallas Seminary Professor Discovers that God Speaks and Heals Today. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 249.
[7] Future/Passive/Indicative/3/Plural
[8] Future/Middle/Indicative/3/Plural
[9] John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 165.
[10] Carson is much more direct here, calling this failure an irresponsible interpretation of the middle voice. D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 66.
[11] Carson, 67.
[12] Carson, 67.
[13] This is why most English translations from the KJV to the NASB translate the verb as active: “shall pass away.”
When Worldliness is Next to Godliness – OR – What is Your Response?
I received the link to this article from a very good friend of mine. As a soon-to-be parent I thought this article was really interesting…and maybe a bit disturbing. There were things in it that I found myself in agreement with and other things I wanted to scream “NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!” Some of you will read this and love it, others of you will read it and gasp in horror. But either way, I want to know what you thoughts are and, if you disagree, how would you approach the topic with a friend who cares deeply about the matter addressed here specifically as it is addressed. Especially comment on the “checklist” at the end.
“When Worldliness Is Next to Godliness“
by Selah Helms
My teenagers’ peers often discuss the movie Bruce Almighty, the rock groups Switchfoot and Evanescence, country music, sexy actors, and personal appearance. In these cultural elements, young people seem to live, move, and have their being. In fact, my own teenagers tell me that hardly anyone they know listens to anything but rock and country music. All this occurs among some of the most conservative Christians in the most conservative churches.
Although I am past forty, I remember what my peers and I once talked about. Yes, there were kids who were “into” appearance, culture, and popularity, but I could still find plenty who weren’t. Not so long ago, the youth who attended church together kept each other accountable for memorizing Scripture, sang hymns and visited in nursing homes, witnessed to passersby at community colleges or parks, and handed out tracts. However, today these activities are passé even in many conservative churches. They are also absent from the desires of many “Christian” teenagers. Over the past ten or twenty years, as the controversy over rock music in the church has largely died down, its prevalence has exploded to the point that few now even question whether any type of music could be harmful to our spiritual well-being.
The reasons why pop culture has so possessed our teenagers could fill volumes, as could the reasons for such differing views on what our Christian liberty permits. Rather than laying down a list of rules that would only invite argument, we’ll look at general principles that will guide us in shepherding our teenagers’ hearts as they interact with a decaying culture. In order to do this, we must step outside our culture and look at it as objectively as possible.
First, we must recognize that our society reeks of relativism when it comes to cultural judgments. Perhaps at no time in history before the Sixties generation did relativism so dominate the cultural conversation as it does today. If a work of art touches me in some way, then it must be pretty. If a piece of music “blesses” me, then it must be good music. If I don’t think I’m being harmed by what I see on screen, then the movie must be acceptable. Notice that in all these evaluations I am the point of reference, rather than an objective standard of truth or beauty.
Setting self as the standard for cultural judgments paves the way for decadence. As Ken Myers says, “As Christians, we insist that there are permanent standards for culture. Culture is the human effort to give structure to life. But human nature does not exist as a law unto itself” (All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes). Sadly, many Christians have abandoned their responsibility to fight cultural relativism and have fallen prey to their subjective views.
The ancients understood this concept better than we do. Aristotle believed that the purpose of education is to teach the student what he should like and what he should dislike. Such an education must teach what is beautiful and virtuous as well as what is ugly and evil in art, literature, and music. An Aristotelian view assumes the existence of standards of goodness and beauty beyond our own judgment:
[I]n rhythms and tunes there are likenesses particularly close to the genuine natures of anger and gentleness, and further of courage and moderation . . . and of the other things pertaining to character. This is clear from the facts: we are altered in soul when we listen to such things . (Aristotle, The Politics)
To paraphrase, good music—even apart from its lyrics—influences a person for good; bad music—even if its lyrics are good—influences him for evil. Plato’s Republic suggests this as well:
Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful.
Plato thus taught that examining the music of a given individual or culture reveals spiritual temperature.
In contrast, most Christians today subscribe to the relativistic idea that music is amoral, with no inherent good or evil in tempo or combination of notes, only in lyrics. Hence the oxymoron: “Christian rap” or “Christian hip-hop.” Our inconsistencies betray us. Since most of us still believe that books can be anti-Christian and that a picture can be pornographic, why can’t we see that music itself is an art form, suggesting attitudes and bringing either good or evil to our souls? Can music that exudes emotions of violence and rebellion link arms with the Christian message?
Peter Kreeft, speaking to a modern college student through a Socratic character, says, “If music is a divine thing, it can become a demonic thing. It seems to me that you do an injustice and irreverence to the greatness of music by not allowing that it can ever be evil” (The Best Things in Life). Many cultures throughout history have believed that music bypasses the brain and speaks directly to the heart, shaping and molding emotions of gratitude or arrogance, gentleness or violence.
We must also realize the addictive nature of pop culture. Our world of instant gratification tells teenagers to have their fun and have it now. When I am hooked on sugar and refined foods, I gradually tend to want more and more of them and less and less of healthy foods. Vegetables and wholesome foods begin to appear bland and boring, and a few sweets lead to a sweet tooth. In contrast, when I abstain from sugar, real foods seem perfectly appealing. Junk food thus dulls our appetites to the pleasure of quality nourishment. The same happens in cultural exposure. Too much junk culture makes quality art and music seem dull and boring. Classical culture requires something of us: it requires us to grow. We must thus exert ourselves to enjoy it by avoiding cultural junk that destroys our appetites for quality alternatives and by focusing on the superior flavor of the genuinely beautiful, pure, and true.
Ken Myers lists the distinctions between pop culture and healthy culture this way:
Popular culture focuses on the new, discourages reflection, [is] pursued casually to “kill” time, gives us what we want, tells us what we already know, celebrates fame, appeals to sentimentality, relies on spectacle, tend[s] to violence and prurience, leaves us where it found us, reflects the desires of the self, tends toward relativism, [is] used. Healthy culture (traditional, high culture) by contrast, focuses on the timeless, encourages reflection, [is] pursued with deliberation, offers us what we could not have imagined, celebrates ability, appeals to appropriate, proportioned emotions, relies on formal dynamics and the power of symbol, transforms sensibilities, encourages understanding of others, tends toward submission to standards, [is] received.
Allan Bloom, professor at the University of Chicago, compares consumption of pop culture to drug addiction: “[Rock music] ruins the imagination of young people and makes it very difficult for them to have a passionate relationship to the art and thought that are the substance of liberal [arts] education” (The Closing of the American Mind). According to Bloom, rock music is like a drug that repeatedly induces an artificial emotional high until the burnt-out student finds it difficult to be enthusiastic or excited about life’s genuine pleasures. “Their energy is sapped, and they do not expect their life’s activity to produce anything but a living.” So, overdosed on pop culture, young people become jaded, losing the ability to enjoy life’s simple and wholesome pleasures.
Finally, and most importantly, Christians need to consider the true purpose of Christian liberty. Paul says that many things may be permissible, but not everything is constructive or beneficial (I Corinthians 6:12). Christians who fear legalism go to great lengths to enjoy their liberty, sometimes to the point of crossing boundaries and thereby damaging rather than edifying their spiritual lives. We must remember the Lord’s injunction: “Only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Galatians 5:13b, NKJV). God gives us Christian liberty in order to free us to serve the cause of Christ. If a “liberty” causes us to be more worldly and shallow, less ministry-oriented, less heavenly minded, we have missed the boat.
Here, we find a good standard by which to measure our movies and music: does the work inspire an intense yearning for love, humility, submission, holiness, gentleness, and spiritual vitality? Does it make rebellion appear “cool” or repulsive? When we watched The Lord of the Rings as a family, we were challenged to the depths of our emotions to fight evil even when it seemed evil would win and to hold out hope when everything looked hopeless by obediently doing our part in our own life story.
Conversely, when we watched Pirates of the Caribbean, we were struck by the portrayal of a murdering, thieving pirate as a cool, fun guy who would fit perfectly into a teenage social clique. This kind of portrayal subtly wears our spirits down to the point where we minimize wrong and lose our repugnance toward evil. Myers reminds us, “[T]he erosion of character, the spoiling of innocent pleasures, and the cheapening of life itself that often accompany modern popular culture can occur so subtly that we believe nothing has happened.”
Therefore, my husband and I have come up with a checklist for evaluating the effects of popular culture on our teens:
* Does my teenager regard spiritual exercises (reading the Word, going to church) as dull and boring?
* Does my teen talk more about movies and music than spiritual things? Where is his/her heart?
* Does my teen disdain wholesome, simple fun as beneath him/her?
* Does he/she feel that he/she can only be communicated with through certain forms? (E.g., “This is my music. This is what speaks to me.”)
* Does my teen feel that popularity in a crowd that exalts pop culture is a must-have?
* Does the music my teen listens to exhibit irreverence or a casual attitude toward Christianity (not to mention sex or violence)?
* Does my teen disdain high culture in any way?
* Does my teen constantly push the boundaries, trying to go deeper and deeper into pop culture?
* Does pop culture significantly shape the way my teen dresses, acts, and talks?
* Does my teenager find rough, coarse, or rebellious people attractive?
f the answer to more than one or two of these is “yes,” the teenager’s heart has been drawn into the world. A fast from cultural junk food, along with lots of family discussion that prayerfully and intelligently evaluates art forms, can help purify his heart. We can minimize subjective judgment when we distance ourselves enough from the culture to evaluate it. The books quoted in this article can greatly enhance family studies.
Pastor John Piper relates that in his youth, the question many teenagers ask, “What is permissible?” paled, in his own mind, in comparison to the question, “How can I not waste my life?” (Don’t Waste Your Life). Teenagers need a cause beyond themselves to ward off the belief that entertainment and popular culture are the chief ends of life. Our teenagers should—and can be, with the right spiritual direction—consumed with godly cause. Even in this powerfully possessive culture, we can help our teenagers comprehend that their chief end is to glorify and serve God and enjoy Him in wholesome ways.
