SBC Info & Articles

In the opposite manner from permanent gifts, some spiritual gifts are temporary in duration for two reasons. First, there is indication from a specific statement in the New Testament that a gift is temporary in duration, such as with the gifts of prophecy and knowledge (1 Cor. 13:10).  Second, the function of the gift is, with either the completion of the canon of the New Testament or the conclusion of the ministry of the apostles and prophets, no longer necessary to the functioning of the body of Christ, and the outcome of the gift can be accomplished by some other means.

The Gift of Prophecy / Prophets - There is some confusion concerning the duration of this gift, all caused by how it is defined and consequently operates. If the gift is defined as the ability to receive immediate and previously undisclosed revelation from God and communicate it to an audience, then most would agree that the gift was temporary in nature[1].  If the gift, though, is defined as the ability to receive revelation whether immediately or intermediately, and communicate it to an audience, then the gift must be operative until the end of time.  The difference between the two definitions can be illustrated as such:

 

The prophet in this diagram is comparable to the first definition.  He receives revelation directly (immediately) from God and either records it or speaks it and thus communicates it to an audience.  The second definition is illustrated with the following diagram.

 The preacher in this diagram receives revelation intermediately from God and communicates it to his audience. In this scenario, the preacher is equivalent to the prophet.  Since there will always be a need to communicate the Word of God to mankind, the gift then still is operative and will continue to be.  The key issue then, is whether the preacher can be considered equivalent to the prophet.

Wayne Grudem writes in his Systematic Theology that the gift of prophecy “… should be defined not as ‘predicting the future,’ nor as ‘proclaiming a word from the Lord,’ nor as ‘powerful preaching’ – but rather as ‘telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind.’”[2]  Grudem’s definition accurately captures the revelatory aspect of the prophet’s ministry but leaves wide open what may constitute revelation.  For Grudem, any thought or idea “from God” can be prophetic.  He then offers a number of arguments to defend his definition.  His first defense is that the New Testament counterparts to the Old Testament prophets were the apostles, not the prophets.  He contends the responsibility of communicating Scripture was given only to the apostles, and therefore, what the prophets communicated did not need to be “biblical”.  The problem of his argument, though, is what do you do with the biblical books of Mark, Luke, Acts, James, Jude and possibly Hebrews?  These books were not written by apostles; consequently, to limit the inscripturated revelation to the apostles is simply not accurate.  His second argument is that the term “prophets” had a wide range of meanings in New Testament times. He declares that the word simply was used of one who spoke, “on the basis of some external influence.”[3]  His conclusion is that since the gift could be used of anyone in a context not strictly Biblical, the operation of the gift in the church did not need to be the communication of the authoritative Word of God.  The problem with this argument is that simply because “the gift” is used in one manner in a certain context does not mean that it can be used in the same manner in a different context.  A third argument that Grudem posits is that the prophets did not speak with the authority equal to the words of Scripture.  He first cites Acts 21:4, where the disciples “through the Spirit” told Paul not to go to Jerusalem, which he did.  Grudem contends that if the words spoken by these disciples possessed the same authority as the words of Scripture, then Paul would not have disobeyed its instruction.  That possibly may be true, but who among us has not disobeyed what we know with absolute certainty to be the Word of God?  Paul was no different than any other fallible Christian. 

But it is also possible to understand the situation as these disciples having seen through the Spirit what would befall Paul in Jerusalem (as would Agabus in the following verses) and in their own spirit encouraging him not to go. Therefore, Paul was not being disobedient to the Word of God, but rather to the desires of these disciples.  Grudem then cites 1 Thessalonians 5:19, which says they were to test prophecies.  He contends that if these prophecies contained the same authority as the Word of God, then there would be no need to test its authenticity.  If that is true, then there also would have been no need of tests for canonicity when compiling the books of the Bible.  Grudem’s definition simply cannot be supported by the evidence of the New Testament.

The definition of the gift of prophecy can be determined best by looking at the meaning of the verb prophesy. To prophesy is a translation of the Greek word profhteuw (pronounced- prof-ay-too-ō). It is composed of the preposition pro, meaning “before,” and the verb fhmi, which means “to make known one’s thoughts, to declare, to say.”[4]  While the preposition pro may indicate a speaking before the time of an event’s occurrence (predictive foretelling of future events), it generally is used to indicate one standing before another (representative of) and conveying the mind of the other.  Vine adds that the verb is used “with the primary meaning of telling forth the divine counsels.”[5]  There is no reason to understand that as the word is used in the New Testament; in every case, it is used to describe one speaking a message directly received from God.

There are a number of reasons why prophesying is different from a simply declaring the Word of God. Probably the most significant reason is that other Greek words are used to describe such declarations.  The verb eÙaggelizw (pronounced- eu-ang-gel-idz-ō) is the word from which we get the English word “evangelize.” Its usage in Acts generally refers to the message of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, although the word literally means the declaration of any “good news.”  In that every Christian is commissioned to evangelize, it would seem almost necessary that every Christian possess the gift of prophecy in order to accomplish his God-given mandate.  Yet, 1 Corinthians 12:29 clearly says that not all possess this gift.

The Greek word khrussw (pronounced- kay-roose-ō) also is used throughout the New Testament and almost always is translated by the word “preach.” This is what Paul instructs Timothy to do with the Word in 2 Timothy 4:2.  As with euaggelizw, if prophesying was equivalent to preaching, then it would seem necessary that every preacher should possess this spiritual gift.

Obviously, preaching the Word of God and evangelizing the lost are commands given to the church for the duration of its time upon earth. But Scripture is clear that the gift of prophecy is a temporary gift.  As stated earlier, Ephesians 2:20 states that the church is built upon the foundation of the prophets.  Foundational gifts, like the foundation of a building, are exercised at the beginning of a dispensation of time and, when they have accomplished their purpose, cease to exist.

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 13:10 declares that at the coming of the perfect thing, prophecy will cease. Possibly the greatest argument to the perfect thing being the completion of the New Testament canon of Scripture is the operation of gift of prophecy.  Supposing the perfect thing is the rapture of the church presents two significant problems.  First, if prophesying is equivalent to preaching or evangelizing, then how will anyone be saved during the tribulation?  Scripture clearly teaches, though, that multitudes will be saved during those seven years of turmoil.  A bigger problem is what to do with Revelation 11:3, where John says that the two witnesses will prophesy throughout half of the tribulation - more than likely, the first half of the tribulation.  If prophecy ceases with the rapture of the church, it must then almost immediately begin again, which makes little sense.  If the perfect thing is the second advent of Christ, then a similar problem exists.  Joel 2:28 states that in the millennium, Israel’s sons and daughters shall prophesy.  Again, if prophecy ends with Christ’s advent, then it must also begin again immediately.  As with the rapture interpretation, this makes little sense.

That the completion of the canon of Scripture is the perfect thing referred to in 1 Corinthians 13 must be concluded by the teaching of 2 Peter 1:3. There Peter writes that everything pertaining to life and godliness is given to us by the knowledge (i.e. completed revelation) of the one who has called us to glory and virtue.  If we already possess everything pertaining to life and godliness, how would we need more revelation?  The idea that prophetic utterances are still being given today negates the teaching of 2 Peter 1:3 and robs the Scriptures of their sufficiency in dealing with all the issues of life.

Word of Wisdom - This gift, along with the next gift, is difficult to define in that it is only mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:8. No other passage specifically mentions it or describes its usage.  The temporary nature of this gift will be considered with the following gift since they are related to each other.

Wisdom, in Scripture, can be defined as the application of spiritual truth to the activities of life that enables one to accomplish the will of God. A perfect example of this is found in 1 Cor. 2:8, where Paul says that had the princes of this world known exactly who Jesus Christ was and the purpose of His coming, they would not have crucified Him.  Wisdom is dependent upon revelation.  Therefore this gift necessitated the revelation of the character of God and/or the accomplishments of salvation that affected the fulfillment of the will of God in the life of the New Testament believer.

Word of Knowledge- As with the previous gift, this gift also is mentioned specifically only in 1 Cor. 12:8. However, it must be what is in view in 1 Cor. 13:8 for two reasons.  First, Paul says that when the perfect thing comes, knowledge will have been perfected (v. 12).  How could knowledge be perfected if it vanishes away?  Secondly, no matter what one understands the “perfect thing” to be, in the eternal state, the saints of God will know various things.  For example, it is certain that we will know the identity of Jesus Christ.  If knowledge had passed away, this would be impossible.  Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that 1 Cor. 13:8 is dealing with the spiritual gift of the word of knowledge and not knowledge itself.

The popular understanding of the exercise of this gift is that of a charismatic minister who receives some revelation of a person through whom God is going to do something miraculous. This understanding is pure imagination.  Simply put, nothing in Acts or any of the New Testament epistles resembles this.  The only thing that comes close to resembling this popular concept is found in Acts 21:11, where Agabus the prophet prophesied that Paul would suffer at the hands of the Jews when he came to Jerusalem.  What sets this apart from its contemporary usage is that Agabus’ prophecy focused on a specific, identified person.  Generally, the person exercising this gift today has no idea to whom the prophecy pertains.  This leads to the second difference.  In that the person was known, what was predicted concerning him was easily verified.  In that no one knows to whom the word of knowledge of the contemporary minister pertains, it is then impossible to verify if the activity actually took place[6].  Certainly, if the Spirit of God can communicate what is going to happen, He can also communicate to whom it will happen.  Finally, Agabus’ prophecy was not positive in nature, but rather a prediction of trouble in Paul’s life.  Never have I heard anyone exercising this gift today predict anything but good things[7].

What the contemporary users of this gift get right is that it is a matter of revelation. The knowledge of this gift, along with the wisdom of the word of wisdom is referenced in 1 Cor. 2:6-12

“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”

These two gifts are also referenced together as a matter of revelation in Ephesians 3:3-10 and Colossians 1:26-2:3

“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,” (Eph. 3:3-10)

“Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 1:26-2:3)

In these three passages, not only are knowledge and wisdom linked together, but also they are declared to be mysteries. A mystery in the New Testament is something that was not revealed in the Old Testament and now made known by revelation.  This knowledge can not be obtained by human processes (Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man), but only by revelation.  If revelation ceases, then this gift also ceases.

Knowledge can be defined as the understanding of the facts concerning the nature of God and/or the accomplishments of salvation. This seems to be demonstrated by Paul in the Ephesians passage cited above, where he says that Jews and Gentiles should be fellowheirs and of the same body.  This knowledge could not be gained by reading the Old Testament apart from an understanding of the New Testament. Consequently, prior to the completion of the New Testament, this gift was necessary, but after its completion, there would be no need of its continuing operation.

As stated earlier, the discontinuance of a spiritual gift does not negate the continuing result of the function of that gift, only that there is now a different means of accomplishing that result. Revelation has ceased and therefore these two gifts cannot operate today, but believers still need knowledge and wisdom.  However, with a complete revelation, the Holy Spirit still operates in accomplishing this function, now through His illuminating ministry that is available to every believer, not simply those who possessed these spiritual gifts.

Faith - Before examining the nature of this gift, it is necessary to understand how the New Testament defines faith. When faith is declared in the New Testament it can refer to one of three types of belief.  First is saving faith: the belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the sufficient payment for one’s sin (1 Cor. 15:1-4), which provides the infinite righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 4:21-22) and eternal life (1 John 5:13).  In that spiritual gifts are given to the believer, that which constitutes a person as a believer then cannot be a spiritual gift.  Likewise, 1 Cor. 12:9 indicates that the gift is not given to every believer.  Since faith is required for salvation, this spiritual gift cannot be saving faith.  The second type of faith is doctrinal faith, which encompasses all that the Bible teaches.  It is referred to in Col. 1:21, 1 Tim. 4:1 and Jude 1:3, among other passages.  In that doctrinal faith was incomplete prior to the completion of the New Testament but unchanging now, the identity of doctrinal faith as a continuing spiritual gift is impossible.  The third type of faith declared in the New Testament is generic in nature and simply the ability to trust God for a specific accomplishment in the everyday affairs of life.  William McRae describes it as “the capacity to see something that needs to be done and to believe God will do it through him even though it looks impossible.”[8]

There is legitimate debate as to whether this gift should be classified as temporary or permanent. Simply by McRae’s definition, there is no reason to conclude that this gift is temporary.  Likewise, there is no specific statement in the New Testament the gift is temporary in nature.  However, there is reason to conclude that the gift is temporary in nature because Romans 10:17 indicates that faith comes from hearing.  While the New Testament was incomplete in the first century, Christians were limited in their ability totrust God for some specific accomplishment without a specific declaration from God of His intent to do so.  It must be emphatically declared that faith is not simply trusting God to do something, but trusting God to do what He said He will do. 

Faith is only limited by the extent of revelation. For example, Scripture declares that God is capable of performing miracles; of intervening in the affairs of man and accomplishing acts beyond man’s ability.  But Scripture does not declare that he will do so in every instance of life.  I can trust that God is capable of providing healing to a person who has terminal cancer.  But I cannot confidently declare that He will heal in all cases because there is no declaration in Scripture that He will.  The gift of faith then would be operative until the completion of the canon of the New Testament.  Once the canon was complete, every believer had the opportunity to trust God for every promise He has made and the gift became unnecessary.

Healings - It is important to note that this gift is found in the plural indicating that the gift covered a variety of illnesses or physical limitations. At the same time, it is important to note that the primary purpose of this gift was not to relieve these illnesses or limitations but to serve as that which authenticated the gifted person as God’s true representative.  Support for this can be found in a number of passages. 

First, those who possessed the gift could not always use it for curative purposes.  The apostle Paul, who healed the lame man (Acts 14:8-10), left Trophimus at Miletus sick (2 Timothy 4:20) and was unable to remove his own thorn in his side (2 Corinthians 12:8-9).  Second, if the gift was primarily intended for the health of people, the greatest ministry of anyone possessing the gift would be traveling from place to place to find the sick people and provide healing.  Nowhere do we find that the apostles or anyone else did that.  Third, there is only record of the apostles exercising this gift, although there is a possibility that 1 Corinthians 12:30 may open the door for others to possess it.[9]  If the gift was limited to the apostles, then the ability to remove sickness was rather limited.  Fourth, if the gift was primarily meant to relieve sickness and physical limitations, then there no longer should be a need for the medical occupation or medicines.  Yet James in his epistle states that if someone is sick, he is to call for the elders of the church who will pray for the sick person having anointed him with oil.  Oil was used medicinally in the first century.  If the elders (or at least one of the elders) possessed the gift of healing, there simply would have been no need for the anointing of oil and prayer.  If none of the elders possessed the gift of healings, then why call for them?  It would seem expedient to call for someone who had the gift of healings.  Finally, every person who was healed miraculously in the New Testament eventually died.  Never has a person died from good health.  Theoretically at least, it would seem that someone could live indefinitely as long as they stayed close by a person with the gift of healing.

In every usage of the gift in Acts, it always provided an opportunity for the person exercising the gift to declare the gospel message and to do so with authority. This was the primary function of the gift.  Once the word had been confirmed, the need for this gift disappeared (Hebrews 2:1-4). 

Miracles - The word “miracles” is a translation of the Greek word dunamij (dunamis), from which we get our English word “dynamite” and which is often translated ”power” in the New Testament.  As such, its scope of operation is broader than healings.  Examples of miracles performed in Acts include causing the death of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, the raising of Dorcas to life (Acts 9) and the smiting of Elymas with blindness (Acts 13).  Obviously, in that this gift was used for a destructive/negative purpose, as well as a positive one, the gift was not exercised simply to demonstrate power, but also was used as that which confirmed one’s authority in preaching the gospel.  The gift of miracles is included among the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12).  As such, it then must be a temporary gift.  This does not mean that God no longer performs miracles, but rather that His gifting of man to be able to do so has ended. Robert Thomas rightly concludes, “The age of miracles continues, but the age of miracle workers has ceased.”[10]

Discerning of Spirits - The person who possessed this gift had the ability to determine whether a prophet was speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirt, his own human spirit or a demonic spirit, and consequently, whether what he was speaking was of God. Without a complete New Testament revelation, believers could not compare what the prophet was saying to what God had said.  Therefore this gift was vitally important to the purity of belief in the early church.  As tongues speakers only were to speak when an interpreter was present, so prophets were to have their prophetic utterances judged (1 Cor. 14:29).  According to the wording of this verse, the other[11] was a prophet or who were prophets not prophesying at the time.  As prophetic utterances were established as being from God, then the individual believer became increasingly responsible for discerning for themselves the genuineness of any prophetic utterance because he had a means of comparison for the utterance to (1 Cor. 2:12-13).  By the end of the first century, having practically all the New Testament revelation,[12] John could command all believers to test the spirits (1 John 4:1).  Since this gift is specifically tied to the exercise of the gift of prophecy, it is necessary to conclude that it also ended when the gift of prophecy ended.

The Gift of Tongues - This gift is introduced in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. It is referred to four times in the chapter.

“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (2:4)

“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.” (2:6)

“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (2:8)

“Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” (2:11)

The word that is translated “tongues” in Verse 2 is the Greek word glwssa (glōssa) from which we get our English word glossary. This word can refer to the organ found in our mouths and is used a number of times in the book of James as such.  Otherwise, it refers to a known language of the world (with one possible exception).  The word that is translated “language” in Verse 5 is the Greek word dialektoV (dialektos) from which we get the word dialect. A dialektoV is simply a subset of a glwssa. For example, the prominent language of the United States, Canada, Great Brittan and Australia is English.  But the English spoken in the US is quite different from that which is spoken in England, which is different from that which is spoken in Australia.  Each country has its own dialektoV. In fact, even within each country you might find different dialects.  Certain words might possess unique meanings or pronunciations that differ from other areas within the area where that language is spoken.  A classic example is “Pittsburghese” (a supposed dialect of people living in the Pittsburgh, PA area where I live) and the word YINZ.  Yinz is a contraction of the word “you-ins,” spoken in other parts of Pennsylvania, which in reality is a derivation of the English word “you” when used in the plural.  In Verse 8 the word “tongue” is the Greek word dialektoj and in Verse 11 it is once again the word glwssa.

The word dialektoV is used in four other places, all in the book of Acts. In each use it is identified with a particular dialect.[13]  In the same manner, the word glwssa is identified in Verse 11 as “our tongues” after a list of a number of countries. It is almost universally agreed upon that on the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke in known languages of the world.

The singular possible exception to glwssa being a known language of the world is found in 1 Corinthians 13:1. There, the apostle Paul speaks of the tongues of angels.  Charismatic theologian Wayne Grudem writes, “Sometimes this gift may result in speaking in a human language that the speaker has not learned, but ordinarily it seems that it will involve speech in a language that no one understands, whether that be a human language or not.”[14]

Grudem emphasizes that in 1 Corinthians 14:2 the tongues speaker is not understood by anyone in the assembly. He concludes that some language apart from a known language of the world must have been spoken there.  If, however, you forget about the reference in 1 Corinthians 13:1 to tongues of angels, there would be no reason at all to make this conclusion.  The fact that no one understood what was being spoken could easily be explained.  Suppose I were to speak in Russian some Sunday morning, rather than preaching in English. No one would understand what I was saying, yet I would be speaking in a known language of the world.  But 1 Corinthians 13:1 is in the Bible and consequently, limiting the exercise of tongues to a known language of the world must be proven in accordance to what Paul stated there.

Positing a language of angels that man would be able to speak simply because it is mentioned in one verse of the New Testament is a dangerous thing to do. When the phrase is put into its context, it becomes clear that Paul was not saying that there was a heavenly language that man was capable of speaking.  It must be remembered that chapters 12 to 14 of 1 Corinthians were written to correct the misuse of all spiritual gifts and the Corinthians’ improper exaltation of some gifts, of which tongues was foremost.  Chapter 12 deals with the need for and function of all gifts working harmoniously as the members of the human body.  Chapter 13 examines the motivation for the use of gifts which is a love for others.  Chapter 14 then details the rules for the proper exercise of two gifts: tongues and prophecy.

1 Corinthians 13 can be outlined in the following manner:

            Verses 1 to 3 -The value of the use of spiritual gifts apart from love.

            Verses 4 to 8a - The definition of love in the use of spiritual gifts.

            Verses 8b to 13 -The preeminence of love over spiritual gifts.

In the first three verses of the chapter, Paul is arguing that any exercise of any spiritual gift, no matter how wonderful that gift may be, is worthless if it is exercised apart from love. That Paul is speaking hypothetically is found in the mood of the verbs used.  The mood of a Greek verb expresses the certainty of an action.  The indicative mood states that the action of the verb is a reality.  For example, in the sentence, “This morning I ate breakfast,” the verb “ate” is in the indicative mood, meaning the action took place.  “Eat your breakfast,” is an example of a verb in the imperative mood, a command.  The action of eating is not taking place, but should take place.  “Tomorrow I might eat breakfast” is an example of the verb in the subjunctive mood.  Like the imperative, it describes an action that is not happening, though this mood states  there is a possibility, but no certainty of it happening.  All the verbs in these verses are found in the subjunctive mood.

In each of these three verses, Paul begins with the exercise of a spiritual gift:

“Though I might speak with the tongues of men…

“And though I might have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge…

“And though I might bestow all my goods to feed the poor…[15]

It is possible, at least theoretically, that Paul experienced all three of these gifts. Without question, he did speak in the tongues of men and also without question, he did possess the gift of prophecy.  That he understood all mysteries and all knowledge was possible, though rather improbable.  There is no record in the New Testament that Paul bestowed all his goods to feed the poor, but the possibility of this is found in Galatians 2:10[16].  In each verse, he then adds a second exercise of a spiritual gift.

“[Though I might speak with the tongues] and of angels…”

“… and though I might have all faith, so that I could remove mountains…”

“… and though I might give my body to be burned…”

In each verse, the exercise of the second gift is a greater exercise than the first. Giving one’s body to be burned is the ultimate sacrifice.  While bestowing one’s goods to feed the poor is a wonderful sacrifice, goods can be restored; but once the body is sacrificed for another, that’s it!  Understanding all mysteries and having all knowledge is fantastic, but unless such knowledge is put into practice, all it may do is inflate one’s head.  Faith, based on such knowledge, accomplishes the will of God.  The exercise of the second-mentioned gift in each verse is the exercise of the first-mentioned gift, multiplied to the nth degree.  This is what Paul is communicating with the “tongues of angels.”  In contrast then, he states that even the ultimate exercise of any gift is valueless.  A “sounding brass” or a “tinkling cymbal” communicates nothing.  While Paul might be the most prestigious person in the world, having academic abilities in the field of theology greater than any man, he is nothing if his gifts are not exercised in love.  And if he sacrifices himself apart from love, he does not profit at all.

I Corinthians is one of the earliest epistles of Paul. At this point in his life and ministry, he obviously had not sacrificed his body.  Although later he would give his life for the cause of Christ, at this time he had not, and did not even have knowledge that he would in the future.  Likewise, though he possessed the gift of prophecy, he had not received all that he was to receive prophetically, and consequently did not possess all knowledge and understanding of mysteries.[17]  It is clear then that in these two verses, Paul is speaking hypothetically concerning the exercise of the second-mentioned gift.  The same must also be true regarding the exercise of gifts in Verse 1.  Without question, Paul did speak in the tongues of men, in fact, more than the Corinthians[18].  However, there is no record that he ever spoke in the tongues of angels.  The language of 1 Corinthians 13:1 cannot be used with certainty to declare the existence of a language belonging to angels.

On the other hand, neither can it be said with certainty that the language does not exist. Supposing the gift exists, there are yet at least two significant problems as to its usage.  First, in Acts 2, the languages exercised were spoken to people who knew those languages.  If I want to speak to the people of France, I will speak in French.  If I want to speak to speak to the people of Spain, I will speak Spanish.  If I am speaking in the tongues of angels, then of necessity, I am speaking to angels. 

Why would a believer speak to an angel? In the New Testament there is only place where a person spoke to an angel.  It is found in Acts chapter 10 where Cornelius sees an angel in a vision.  It is important to note that at this point in time Cornelius is not a believer.  Nevertheless, he addresses the angel in the very same manner as did Saul on the road to Damascus, calling the person Lord[19].   It is arguable that Cornelius did not see an angel, but saw Jesus Himself, just as did Saul before his conversion.  Even if Cornelius saw an angel, as an unbeliever he did not possess any spiritual gifts, and therefore it was impossible for him to exercise the gift of tongues.  While there are a number of instances where an angel spoke to a believer (especially in the book of Revelation), there is no record of a believer saying anything to an angel. 

What could a believer accomplish by communicating with an angel? Prayer is to be addressed directly to God and therefore the tongues of angels are unnecessary as a prayer language.  And while angels are ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation[20], they are under the authority of the Lord and not the believer.  There simply is no need or purpose for a believer to communicate with an angel.  And even if a purpose could be found, angels were able to communicate with humans were able to speak in human languages.

A second significant problem with the tongues of angels is that the gift of tongues was to be exercised only when an interpreter was present. The interpreter then could take the message of the tongues speaker and translate it into the language of the majority of the audience.  For example, suppose at a meeting (worship service) of Greek believers, an unbelieving person from Egypt entered to see what was happening.  The speaker, who possessed the gift of tongues, could speak immediately in the Egyptian tongue and present a message from God to this person.  But what value would that have for the Greek believers unless someone interpreted to them?  A person with the gift of the interpretation of tongues then could take what the speaker had said and convert it into the Greek (in this case) language and all would be edified.

What the tongues speaker said, as well as the interpretation of it could be verified. For example, if a tongues speaker said, “outwV gar hgaphsen o QeoV ton kosmon” a person with the gift of interpretation would translate the declaration into, “For God so loved the world.” But if you did not know the Greek language, how would you know that is exactly what the speaker said?  You could find a person who spoke Greek and English and ask him if the translation was accurate, or you could consult a Greek/English lexicon for the meaning of the words, and the translation could then be verified as accurate.  But how do you authenticate the language of angels?  Where is there a lexicon of angelic words?  Obviously, the possibility of corruption is great and the certainty of what was said (and consequent edification) is non-existent.

Those who believe in the gift of tongues as a heavenly language generally prescribe its use as a believer’s personal prayer language. The supposed biblical basis of this is found in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15[21].  Larry Sparks, in an article appearing in CharismaNews magazine in March 2014, writes the following concerning praying in tongues:

As you pray in tongues, you have a direct line to the president of the universe. Sometimes while praying in our native languages, we have the tendency to veer off and get distracted. We may start complaining. We may start going through the routine laundry list of prayer requests—and by the time we are finished reading them off to God, we feel more burdened than refreshed (because we actively thought of every single one of those circumstances as we listed them off in prayer). Tongues keeps us talking directly to God, praying in agreement with His perfect will (Rom. 8:26-28).”[22]

Sparks’ declaration contains a number of errors. Simple arguments will totally contradict his assertions.  First, if I am praying in my native tongue, are my prayers not going directly to God?  If they aren’t, where are they going?  Nowhere in Scripture is the believer directed to pray to anyone but God Himself.  Second, while it is true that the believer might become distracted during lengthy prayers, can it not also be true that the same might happen to someone praying in an unknown language?  Worse than that, if I should get distracted while praying in my native tongue, at least I would be able to know I did so.  How would I know if this happened while I was praying in a language I did not understand?  Finally, prayer is not for the purpose of being refreshed.  When Jesus finished praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, I can guarantee you that He was exhausted, not refreshed.

The question that must be answered by those who use tongues as a prayer language is why it is necessary to pray in another language than one’s own. Certainly God is able to understand anyone’s prayers in any language, so speaking in an unknowable language is unnecessary for God’s sake.  How then does it affect or enhance the prayers of the believer?  Sparks, along with many others, uses the passage from Romans 8:26-28[23] to assert that praying in tongues keeps the believer praying within the will of God.  However, this passage has nothing to do with praying in tongues.  In the verse, the Holy Spirit is the One who is making intercession, not the believer.  Secondly, the Holy Spirit is interceding with groanings that cannot be uttered (emphasis mine) while tongues are uttered words. 

Sparks and others also use Jude 20[24] to assert that the believer should pray in tongues and thereby build up his faith.  As with the Romans passage, Jude 20 does not say praying in tongues, but praying in the Holy Spirit.  Grudem, who allows for the possibility of using tongues as a tool for prayer, recognizes that Jude 20 does not advocate it.  Grudem writes, “Jude is simply saying that Christians should pray in conformity to the character and leading of the Holy Spirit … “  He then adds, “Pray at all times in the Spirit (emphasis his) with all prayer and supplication (Eph. 6:18) is specifically a statement that claims to cover all prayer that is made at all times.  It refers to prayer in conformity to the character of the Holy Spirit and sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, but it should not be restricted to speaking in tongues.”[25]  Sparks states, according to his interpretation of Jude 20, that the believer will build his faith by praying in tongues.  But the command of Jude 20 is for the believer to be building his faith which will result in them praying in the Spirit.  Sparks has it backwards!

The prayer that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 14 is public, not private. His argument is that if one is praying in a language that is not understandable, how can those who are hearing his words but not understanding what he is saying even say “amen” when his prayer is concluded.  That is unless there is an interpreter present.  While the person praying may genuinely be giving thanks (even unknowingly), the purpose of the exercise of all gifts is to edify other believers[26].  Praying in an unknown tongue without an interpreter present edifies no one and simply is not the God-intended use of the gift.

Another question that presents a major problem to using tongues as a special prayer language is why God waited in giving this gift until New Testament times. Certainly, believers in the Old Testament prayed, both publically and privately.  If tongues enhanced one’s prayers, why wasn’t this gift exercised in over four thousand years of history?

Some people, as well as ecclesiastical denominations (such as the United Pentecostal Church), teach that believers only can be certain of their salvation if they speak in tongues. The argument for this belief comes from Acts 2: The Spirit of God fell upon all the believers gathered together[27] and they all spoke with tongues,[28] therefore every true believer must speak in tongues.  The problem with the argument is that it makes a singular working of the Spirit of God the normative working.  Such reasoning would be like saying that I went to a party and everyone there was given a gift for coming, therefore I would expect to receive a gift at every party I attend.  Speaking in tongues did accompany people getting saved in a couple of occurrences in the Book of Acts.  When the Gentiles received Christ as Peter preached to them in Acts 10, it is recorded that they spoke in tongues.  Likewise, when Paul came upon a handful of disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, they too spoke in tongues as well as prophesied.  But when Peter preached a day or so after Pentecost as recorded in Acts 4, five thousand people came to trust Jesus Christ as Savior and there is no record that any of them spoke in tongues.  While this is an argument from silence (and admittedly a weak argument), it seems rather significant that out of so many people there would not be even one reference to someone speaking in tongues.  Likewise, in a number of other passages in the book of Acts, there is record of people coming to salvation without the record of speaking in tongues.[29]  To conclude that speaking in tongues is necessary to know that one is truly saved because all saved people in the book of Acts did so seems quite improbable.

There is a reason there is no record of all who trusted Jesus Christ as Savior were speaking in tongues in the book of Acts. The reason is that the gift of tongues is not given to all.  In 1 Corinthians 12:29-30, Paul asks a number of questions concerning the distribution of spiritual gifts such as, “Are all apostles? are all prophets?”  In Verse 30 he then asks if all speak with tongues.  It is relatively easy to discern from the first couple questions that the answer to these questions is no.  But the grammar of the text makes it perfectly clear.  With each question the negative particle mh (pronounced may) is included. The only answer to any such construction is no.  Speaking in tongues, then, cannot be the necessary evidence that a person is saved.

Some have stated that speaking in tongues was the evidence that a saved person had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Part of the problem of this assertion is that it confuses the baptizing, indwelling, gifting and filling ministries of the Holy Spirit.  The baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit is mentioned in only two places in Acts.  In Acts 11 it is recorded that the prophecy of Jesus spoken on the day of His ascension was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.[30]  This is the first occurrence of the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit chronologically, although it is actually the second mentioned occurrence in Acts.  The other occurrence is found in Acts 10 where the gospel first goes to the Gentiles.

In Acts 8 the Samaritans “received the Holy Ghost” when Peter and John laid hands on them. This is the only incident in Acts, subsequent to Pentecost, where the indwelling and baptizing ministries of the Holy Spirit are not coincidental with a person’s salvation.  Most Bible commentators agree that the delay was purposed by God so that the apostles would recognize that the gospel and salvation were not just for the Jews of Judea, but for the entire world.  No matter what reason explains the delay, there is no record that the baptizing ministry here produced the evidence of speaking in tongues.

Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that every believer has been baptized by the Holy Spirit.[31]  The result of the baptizing ministry is incorporation into the Body of Christ.  This is the only verse of Scripture in the Bible that states exactly what the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit accomplishes.  The verb translated “baptized” in this verse is an aorist-tense verb.  The aorist tense indicates an action at a point of time in the past.  A better translation of the verse would be, “For by one Spirit were we all baptized … ”  The only way this can be true of the totality of believers is that this baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit occurs immediately with a person’s confession of Jesus Christ as Savior.  If the baptizing ministry of the Spirit were dependent upon some accomplishment of the believer, then it would be possible that some, even many within the Corinthian assembly had not been baptized by the Spirit in that Paul stated the Corinthian church was a carnal bunch.[32]  As with the previous argument concerning tongues being the necessary evidence of a genuine salvation experience, the fact that not all speak with tongues, according to 1 Cor. 12:30, destroys the validity of this assertion.

Some claim that speaking in tongues is the evidence of a believer being filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 records that the believers were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and consequently spoke in tongues.  But it is one thing to say that this is the evidence and this is an evidence of the filling of the Spirit.  The filling ministry of the Holy Spirit is a repetitive ministry.  While Peter was filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, it is recorded in Acts 4:8[33] that he was also filled days later.  The verb “filled,” in this verse, is an aorist passive participle and should be translated as “after he had been filled,” indicating that between Acts 2 and Acts 4, there were times that Peter was not completely filled with the Spirit of God.

In Ephesians 5:18,[34] Paul commands all believers to be filled with the Spirit.  As a command to all believers, it is also a promise that all believers can be filled with the Spirit of God.  The results of filling are listed in the following verses, and those results do not include speaking in tongues.  Again, 1 Corinthians 12:30 states that not all believers have the gift of tongues; consequently, speaking in tongues cannot be the evidence of the filling of the Spirit.

That the gift of tongues was a gift given temporarily to the Church is unmistakably declared in 1 Corinthians 13:8.[35]  There, the only question is when the gift would cease, not if it would.  There are a couple of indications given in the grammatical construction of the verse.  The words “shall fail” and “shall vanish away,” referring to the gifts of prophecy and knowledge are translated from the same Greek verb, katargew (katargeō). The verb is composed of a preposition, kata (kata) meaning “down,” and the verb argew (argeō), which means to be idle or inactive. The verb paints the picture of something running out of energy or winding down in activity.  The action of the verb can be illustrated by picturing a person filling a container with water.  As the container fills up, the person pours the water slower and slower to avoid overflowing the container.  Once the container is completely full, the filling activity ceases.  The verb associated with the cessation of tongues though, is the verb pauw (pronounced pawō). It is found in eleven other verses in the New Testament.  It has the meaning of coming to an abrupt stop rather than the slow, winding down of katergew. This can be easily seen in its use in 1 Peter 4:1: “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;”   The believer here does not slowly sin less and less, but determines to abruptly stop sinning.

Not only are there different verbs used for the cessation of tongues and the cessation of prophecy and knowledge, but also the voices of these verbs are different. Voice indicates who is accomplishing or receiving the action of the verb.  An active voice indicates that the subject of the sentence produces the action of the verb (example: I hit the ball).  A passive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence received the action of the verb (example: I was hit by the ball).  A middle voice indicates that the subject of the sentence both produced and received the action of the verb (example: I hit myself with the ball) or that the subject alone produces the action of the verb (example- I, myself, hit the ball).  The verbs for the cessation of prophecy and knowledge are in the passive voice indicating that something is acting upon them to accomplish the cessation.  That something is the coming of the perfect thing of verse 10.[36]  The verb regarding tongues, though, is found in the middle voice.  Here, the meaning of the middle voice is that of tongues alone shall cease.  That is, the cessation of tongues is not dependent on or associated with the cessation of prophecy and knowledge, and thus not affected by the coming of the perfect thing. 

A correct understanding of the purpose of the gift of tongues is necessary to the understanding of its exercise and its duration. There is only one passage in Scripture that identifies God’s purpose for giving the gift, and it is found in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.

“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.” (1 Cor. 14:21-22)

There are three important observations concerning these two verses. First, the words “are for” (Greek = esti eiV)  are used in the New Testament to indicate "the vocation, use, or end"[37] of an object.  This is the only place in the New Testament where the purpose of tongues is declared.  Consequently, while tongues might produce other benefits, such as edification, its singular purpose is to be used as a sign.  Second, as a sign, its purpose was directed toward people on earth, not God in heaven.  God does not need any type of a sign, knowing perfectly all things and always acting righteously.  Third, the people on earth to which the gift was directed were unbelievers, not believers.

Not only was the purpose of the gift toward unbelievers, but a particular group of unbelievers: Jews. In that the passage was originally spoken by Isaiah, the “this people” of Verse 21 can refer only to the people of the nation of Israel (no other people is found in the context of the verse).  Dr. Renald Showers accurately comments on this passage writing:

The context of Isaiah 28:11-12 emphasized the tragic situation which existed in Judah during Isaiah's time. Through Isaiah the prophet, His spokesman, God had told the leaders of Judah what they should do in order to give the peo­ple of Judah rest from conquest and oppression by foreign powers (v. 12). Isaiah spoke God's word very clearly and repeatedly, "precept upon precept; line upon line" (vv. 10, 13), so that the leaders of Judah could not miss the message.

In spite of Isaiah's clear, methodical way of presenting God's mes­sage, the leaders "would not hear" (v. 12). They ridiculed the fact that God's prophet spokesman was trying to teach them, the leaders of the nation, knowledge. They complained that, in so doing, Isaiah was treating them as immature, little children (v. 9). They mocked his clear, repetitive method of presenting God's Word (v. 10). In other words, they willfully rejected God's message and prophet messenger.

Because these leaders of Judah rejected God's message in spite of its clear, methodical presentation by God's prophet messenger, God declared that He would speak to them in another way — "with stam­mering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people" (v. 11). What did God mean by this declaration? He meant that He would speak to these rebellious Jews through judgment — the judgment of conquest and oppression by foreigners whose language the Jews would not understand. As the Jews would be forced to listen to this foreign lan­guage of their oppressors, it would be a sign to them that they were under the judgment of God and that God was working with those who spoke the foreign language.[38]

With this background from the Old Testament, Paul moves to its application of use in the New Testament. It is instructive to note that the exercise of the gift of tongues was in every case found in the New Testament, always in the ultimate presence of unbelieving Jews.  On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, Jews had assembled from all over the world to observe the feast of Pentecost in the Temple.  When the gospel went to the Gentiles in Acts 10, the report was heard by “they that were of the circumcision,” who contended with Peter for his dealing with unclean Gentiles.  In Acts 19, the disciples of John the Baptist who responded to the gospel presentation of Paul and spoke in tongues were obviously Jews.  In that there was a synagogue of the Jews in Ephesus, they undoubtedly participated in its worship, or at least were commonly known by those who did.  Paul was able to speak in that synagogue for three months following the conversion of these 12 men (Acts 19:8).  Finally, the Corinthian church was next door to a Jewish synagogue (Acts 18:7) and Crispus, who was the chief ruler of the synagogue, came to faith in Christ.  It is probable that the exercise of the gift of tongues in this assembly (even if used improperly) was directed towards these Jews.

Because the New Testament use of tongues was associated with its use in Isaiah’s day, a contemporary parallel should be found in its circumstances. In Isaiah’s day, the “exercise of tongues” was in fulfillment of the prophecy given in Deuteronomy 28:49[39].  Isaiah prophesied of the fulfillment of this verse unless the nation repented.  Unfortunately, the nation did not listen to the prophet and suffered the judgment when the Babylonians came, destroyed the Temple and took the people into captivity.  Moses also spoke of God’s ultimate prophet who would come in time,[40] whose prophecy, if rejected, would bring judgment upon the nation.[41]  That Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of Moses’ prophecy concerning a coming prophet is verified in Hebrews 1:1-2.[42]  If the parallel is to continue, then Jesus must have spoken a message of a coming judgment upon the nation of Israel unless repentance occurred.  This message is found in parabolic form in Matthew 21:33-45.  While the message may have been stated in the form of a parable, it was clearly understood as noted in verse 45.[43]  Peter emphasizes this in his message on the day of Pentecost, exhorting those Jews to save themselves “from this untoward (crooked, perverse, wicked) generation.”

Since the purpose of the gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews of the impending judgment of God for their rejection of their Messiah, Jesus Christ, the gift would no longer be necessary, having fulfilled its purpose once that judgment had come. That judgment did come in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, slaughtering over one million people and taking captive over one hundred thousand more.[44]  That this judgment upon the nation of Israel was the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy is evidenced by the understanding of the early church.  Eusebius Pamphilus, who lived around 265 to 339 A.D., served as bishop of Caesarea in the land of Israel and wrote a significant work tracing the history of the Church from its beginning to 324 AD.  He wrote the following significant statements concerning this event:

The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and the whole land of Judea; the divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole generation of these evildoers from the earth… For it was indeed just, that in those very days in which they had inflicted sufferings upon the Saviour and benefactor of all men, the Christ of God, destruction should overtake them, thus shut up as in a prison, as an exhibition of the divine justice. The divine vengeance did not long delay to visit them for their iniquity against the Christ of God. [45]

Having fulfilled its purpose, the judgment having occurred, it should be expected that the exercise of the gift of tongues would cease. It did.  It is interesting to note that some of the church fathers made reference to the absence of tongues speaking in their writings.  For example, Chrysostom wrote,

This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more? (Chrysostom, 344–407)[46]

Until the early 1900’s, this gift was practically inoperative. Apart from the use by some heretical groups, it simply was not exercised.  But with the birth of the modern Pentecostal movement, then, the modern charismatic movement, and of recent decades the “Third Wave Movement,” the gift supposedly revived.  Those who hold to the revival of the gift face a couple significant theological problems regarding its exercise.  As stated before, the biblical exercise of the gift was in a known language of the world, not an ecstatic babbling.  The vast majority of tongues speaking today does not correspond to its use in the first century.  Second, the purpose of the gift was a sign to the Jews of impending judgment.  The purpose of the gift today has nothing to do with this purpose in the first century.  Simply stated, the modern exercise of the gift is completely different from its first-century use. 

Some who argue for the continuation of the gift (as well as other miraculous spiritual gifts) state there is no need for the modern gift to be the same as the first-century gift. Such is the position of Tommy Tenney. In his book The God Chasers, he writes, "God chasers ... are not interested in camping out on some dusty truth known to everyone. They are after the fresh pres­ence of the Almighty ... A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth; he must have present truth. God chasers don't want to just study the moldy pages of what God has done; they are anx­ious to see what God is doing."[47] The major problem with his statement is a matter of authority. How can he be sure what he is practicing is from God if he is not concerned with “past truth” presented on the “moldy pages” of Scripture?

If Scripture indicated that miraculous gifts such as tongues would cease for a time and then later be revived in a new form, then there would be authority from God for Tenney’s position. But such is not the case. The verb pauw (pauō), translated “cease” in 1 Corinthians 13:8, not only means to suddenly come to a conclusion, but also with finality. W. Robertson Nicoll says the use of this verb with the gift of tongues signifies that tongues are of, “a temporary significance not giving place to any higher development of the like kind, they lapse and terminate.”[48] This is clearly seen in the verb’s use in Hebrews 10:2[49] in reference to the sacrifice of animal offerings for sin in the Old Testament. Once Jesus, the Lamb of God, had offered Himself for sin, there simply was no need for the continuation of animal sacrifices, and they ceased. So was the exercise of the gift of tongues.

Compiling all the foregoing, this definition of the gift of tongues can be stated: Tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in a known language of the world without having learned the language. Its purpose was to be a sign to unbelieving Jews of a coming judgment upon the nation of Israel for its rejection of Jesus Christ as Messiah. It ceased permanently in its operation after the judgment came in the Jewish War with Rome, in which the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

Interpretation of Tongues - In that the gift of tongues is defined as the ability to speak in a known language of the world, the interpretation of tongues then must be the ability to translate that language into one’s native language or the language of the majority of the people present. If tongues speaking was the ability to speak in an unknown language, then it would be impossible to translate it, for as soon as one did the language became knowable.  In order that the body of Christ might be edified, an interpreter was required to be present whenever the gift of tongues was being employed (1 Cor. 14:27-28).

Apostles - That this gift is temporary in duration is indicated by its designation as being foundational to the church (Eph. 2:20). Difficulty in understanding the nature of this gift resides in the number of men called apostles in the New Testament.  The Gospels list the calling of twelve disciples by the Lord who were then called apostles (Luke 6:13).  In that Judas Iscariot died before the inception of the Church, he could not be included among those who comprised this spiritual gift.  There is continuing debate as to whether Matthias was correctly chosen to replace Judas.  Those who argue that the apostles were out of the will of God in choosing Matthias do so with the belief that Paul was intended by God to fill the ranks and be the twelfth.  There are a number of objections to this understanding.  First, the choosing of Matthias was done after prayerful consideration.  There is no indication that the apostles were out of fellowship with the risen Lord, and thus Matthias’ choosing could be seen as an answer to prayer.  Second, the choosing was based on a biblical absolute.  Peter cites Psalm 109:8 as justification for finding a replacement for Judas.  Third, the choosing of Matthias was sovereignly accomplished.  The casting of lots was a common method of determining the will of God through which God sovereignly acted.  Finally, there is no indication that Matthias’ name was removed from them when Paul was numbered with the apostles,.  It would seem reasonable that somewhere in the book of Acts some indication would be given that the apostles had made a mistake.

In addition to Paul, there also were others who could be considered apostles. Barnabas, James (the Lord’s brother) and possibly a few others seem to be called apostles in the New Testament[50].  The number of apostles is further complicated by John’s statement in Revelation 21:14 that the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem were inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles.  If there were only twelve apostles, how is it that Paul, Barnabas and James can be called apostles?  Or if Paul, Barnabas and James are apostles, why aren’t their names included on the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem?  These questions are important in determining the qualifications of an apostle and the use of the word in the ministry of the first century as recorded in Acts. 

The word “apostle” comes from the Greek verb apostellw (apostellō) which is composed of a preposition apo, meaning away from, and the verb stellw, meaning to send. Literally, an apostle is one who has been sent away by another.  Generally, this one was understood to possess an authority given to them from the sender to accomplish a certain task or responsibility.  It is used in the New Testament in a technical sense relating to the spiritual gift, and also a generic sense as anyone sent by another.  Such was the case of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25.  There the word “messenger” is the Greek word “apostoloV” (apostle). It is obvious that Epaphroditus was not an apostle in the technical sense in that Paul speaks of his relationship with him as a brother, companion in labor and fellow-soldier, but he was the Philippians’ apostle.  Recognizing the generic use of the word might describe some of the men declared to be apostles that were not of the twelve, but there still remains a problem, particularly with Paul.  In the 2 Corinthians and Galatians, Paul makes it crystal clear that he was numbered with the twelve by the will of God.  If this was not the case, Paul’s argument of the genuineness of his apostleship compared to the false apostles who were “ministering” to the Corinthian church would make little sense.

In the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas, certain qualifications for the replacement were established. Qualification 1 was that the man must have travelled with the apostles (more than likely one of the seventy, Luke 10:1).  This qualification brings with it two benefits.  First, the man would have been there to hear the teaching ministry of the Lord and would be prepared spiritually and intellectually.  Second, having been commissioned by Jesus for ministry, he would be experienced in meeting the spiritual needs of the lost as well as ministering to the saints.  Qualification 2 was that the man had to be an eyewitness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Since the resurrection was an integral part of the gospel, it was especially necessary in the early church to have someone who could personally attest to the genuineness of the event rather than from a hearsay perspective.

Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that he met the second qualification stating that the Lord appeared to him last of all (v. 9). It is clear that Paul did not follow the Lord during the Lord’s earthly ministry.  While this would seem to disqualify him from being an apostle, in reality he met the essence of it.  Paul declares in Galatians 1 that the gospel he preached was communicated by revelation directly from Jesus Christ (v. 12).  With that revelation also came the commission for ministry (v. 16).  Paul then, clearly meets the qualifications of an apostle as set forth in Acts 1.

Interestingly, Paul describes himself as an apostle as “one born out of due time” (1 Cor. 15:8). The phrase may indicate the fact that Paul’s apostleship came years after the formation of the twelve prior to Pentecost.  But the phrase is also used of the premature birth of a child.  In contrast to the twelve who had time to mature “in the womb of Jesus” during His earthly ministry and be prepared for ministry when the “day of birth” came, Paul was thrust into ministry almost immediately upon the “conception” of his faith in Jesus Christ.  And as a child who is prematurely born must struggle to survive, Paul had to labor far more than the twelve. By the grace of God, however, he became what the Lord intended him to be.

The apostleship of James is not so certain. Assuming[51] that the James in 1 Cor. 15:7 is James, brother of Jesus Christ, and not James, the son of Zebedee or Alphaeus (Matt. 4:21, 10:3), the second requirement for apostleship was met.  The problem lies with the first requirement.  While the family of Jesus is found with Him at various places during His earthly ministry, it is also true that James was an unbeliever until the resurrection (John 7:5, Acts 1:14).  While James may have been present to hear the teachings of the Lord, being an unbeliever he would not have been sent out by Jesus and consequently was unprepared for apostolic ministry.

There is also some question concerning the declaration of his apostleship in the New Testament. It might be that all that the Galatians 1 passage is stating is that while Paul attempted to meet with Peter (v. 18) and the other apostles (v. 19) the only one he was capable of meeting was James.  This would not necessarily mean that James was an apostle.  Grudem offers two other reasons for the apostleship of James.  He says that James exercised “a significant leadership function in the Jerusalem council, a function which would be appropriate to the office of apostle.”[52]  While this is true, it is also recorded in Acts that the council was composed of the apostles and elders (15:6).  James’ leadership also would be appropriate as an elder.  Grudem also contends that the writing of an epistle “would be entirely consistent with his having the authority which belonged to the office of an apostle, the authority to write words which were the words of God.”[53]  While this also may be true, the authors of the Gospels of Mark and Luke along with the books of Acts, Jude and possibly Hebrews were not apostles.  Being used of God in order to record the Word of God therefore is not evidence that one is an apostle.

Evidence for the apostleship of Barnabas is practically nonexistent. There is no record that Barnabas had any contact with Jesus during his earthly ministry as his name is first mentioned in Acts 4.  Likewise, there is no record of Barnabas having seen the resurrected Lord.   This does not mean that these two qualifications were unmet, but simply that the New Testament does not record that they were.  The only justification for Barnabas’ apostleship is found in Acts 14:14.  But if the word “apostle” used in this verse is understood in the generic sense as one sent by the church in Antioch, and not in the technical sense, then there is no reason at all to number Barnabas with the twelve.

It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul and Matthias were legitimately called apostles, making a total of at least thirteen. Why then are only twelve names found on the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem?  The answer may be simply that the honor given to the original twelve was reserved for these without implying that any others were not apostles.  In the same manner, Jesus chose only Peter, James and John to follow him up into the mount of transfiguration.  The other nine remained below.  That Jesus chose only those three did not mean that the other nine were in any way inferior in their position or ministry.

The function of an apostle is symbolically described by the statement in Eph. 2:20 of the church being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. A foundational gift not only implies its temporal nature, but also that those who were so gifted would provide the base upon which the ministry of the church would rest on for the duration of its existence.  The key issue here is universal authority[54].  The apostles were the first to be commissioned with the development of the church in what is known as the Great Commission[55].  Matthew’s gospel gives a three-fold ministry of the commission.  First, the apostles were to preach the gospel worldwide.  Second, the apostles would be responsible for baptizing those who believed the word they preached.  Third, the apostles were responsible for communicating to new believers their need for obedience to the word that Christ had and would communicate to the apostles.

With the third aspect of the great commission ministry came a distinguishing feature of the apostles in relationship to those who would follow them after the apostles’ death. The apostles would have a revelatory function in the infant church; those who succeeded them would not.  This does not mean that everything an apostle said or wrote would be included in the canon of Scripture, but rather that what an apostle said or wrote to a church or individual in matters of Christian living and worship was from God.  The apostle Paul particularly emphasized this in 1 Cor. 14:37, writing, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

The authority that an apostle possessed was validated by the demonstration of the miraculous.  Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:12 that the “signs of an apostle” were demonstrated before the Corinthians, which distinguished him from the false apostles who were plaguing the Corinthian church.  Probably Mark 16:17-18 delineates what those signs were: the ability to cast out demons (Acts 16:18), the ability to speak in tongues (Acts 2:4, 1 Cor. 14:18), the ability not to be hurt by serpents or poisonous drink (Acts 28:3-6) and the ability to provide healing to the sick (Acts 3:1-9, 9:33-35, 14:8-10, 28:7-9).  Mark ends his gospel by noting that these signs did follow the apostles “confirming the word.”  Obviously, once revelation had come to an end, these verifying gifts also would cease to function.

 

[1] Some will contend that the revelation a prophet might receive can be personal in nature (intended for a singular person or small group and not applicable to the entire church) and be on the order of guidance in a particular situation.  Therefore, there would be a continuing need for its exercise.

[2] Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, p. 1049-1050.

[3] Idid. p. 1050.

[4] Thayer, J.H., The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979) p. 651.

[5] Vine, W.E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Old Tappan, NJ: Flemming Revell Co., 1981) p. 222.

[6] Generally, the exercise of this gift occurs on a television broadcast where the minster says something to the effect that someone with a disease or ailment is going to be healed.  Someone may contact the minister later and say that he received that healing, and by that the minister might declare that his prophecy came to pass.  The problem with this is that there may not be evidence that the “healed” person ever really had the disease or ailment, or ever was healed, other than the person’s testimony.  Added to that is the problem of how the healed person knows that he was the one who the Spirit of God intended to receive the miracle.  If the minister declares, “Someone (singular) will receive this miracle,” and twenty-five people declare it was intended for them, what do you do with the testimony of the other twenty-four?

[7] I also find it interesting that this gift seems to get exercised most often just before the minister makes a plea for financial contributions.

[8] McRae, William, The Dynamics Of Spiritual Gifts, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) p. 66.

[9] While this passage may allow the possibility of someone other than the apostles possessing it, it seems probable that wording of Mark 16:18 would limit it to the apostles.

[10] Thomas, Robert, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1978) p. 185.

[11] ¢lloi = (plural) others of the same kind

[12] Only 2^nd and 3^rd John and Revelation were yet to be given

[13] “proper tongue”- 1:19, “Hebrew tongue”- 21:20, 22:2, 26:14

[14] Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan) 1994, p. 1072.

[15] I have added the word “might” to the King James translation in order to convey the subjunctive mood of the verbs.

[16] “Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” (Gal. 2:10)

[17] It is arguable that, even with all the revelation that he would receive, he still would not understand all mysteries and possess all knowledge

[18] “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:” (1 Cor. 14:18)

[19] “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest...” (Acts 9:5) “And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord...” (Acts 10:4)

[20] “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14)

[21] “For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.”

[22] http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43206-5-ways-that-praying-in-tongues-will-change-your-life-forever

[23] “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

[24] “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,”

[25] Ibid, p. 1073

[26] “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” (1 Cor. 12:7)

[27] “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.” (Acts 2:3)

[28] “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4)

[29] Acts 8:12-13, 9:42, 11:21, 13:48, 14:1, 16:1,   17:4-12, 17:34, 18:8, 19:18, 28:24

[30] “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 11:15-16)

[31] “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

[32] “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:1)

[33] “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,”

[34] “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”

[35] “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”

[36] “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”

[37] William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa­ment (4th rev. ed.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 228, 224.

[38] Showers, Renald, The Gift Of Tongues And The Old Testament, Israel My Glory, December/January 1988/89, pp. 13-14.

[39] “The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;”

[40] “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;” (Deuteronomy 18:15)

[41] “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:19)

[42] “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

[43] “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.”

[44] Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews, Vol. H, p. 388; quoted by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), p. 400, footnote 2.

 

[45] The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus, Book III, Chapter V, trans, by Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955), p. 86-87.

[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#cite_note-34

[47] Tenney, Tommy, The God Chasers (Shippensburg, Pa: Destiny Image, 2000), unnumbered pages in introduction (emphasis his).

[48] Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. II, (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co.) 1983, p. 900.

[49] “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”

[50] Barnabas is associated with the apostles in Acts 14:14, “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,” and James is associated with the apostles in Galatians 1:19, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

[51] This seems to be a safe assumption in that since the James is unspecified, it would be necessary for him to be a James that the Corinthians knew well.  James the son of Zebedee had been executed by Herod long before the formation of the Corinthian church.  There is no record given that James the son of Alphaeus had any dealings with the Corinthians.  In that James the brother of Christ was a prominent figure in the Jerusalem church, it seems most probable that he would be known to the Corinthians.

[52] Grudem. p. 908.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Later elders would exercise much of the same authority as the apostles but their authority would be limited to the particular local church to which they belonged whereas the apostle’s authority was for all churches everywhere.

[55] It is interesting to note that the Great Commission that is declared in the synoptic gospels, is given exclusively to the twelve (actually eleven at the time it was given).  While the evangelistic aspects of the commission is applicable to all Christians throughout the church age, the commission itself, was given only to the apostles.