While going through word documents in my files, I came across one where I copied and pasted from two public facebook posts from Robert A. J. Gagnon, author of the excellent book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press, 2001) on (1) issues relating to "speaking on the tongues of angels" and (2) a critique of cessationism:
Robert
A. J. Gagnon, public facebook post on February 22, 2020:
Some think that by tongues Paul meant
exclusively the ability to speak in known human languages, as presented in Acts
2:3-13: “Each one [from the gathering multitude] was hearing them [i.e. the
believers] speaking in his own native language” (2:6). Often the motivation for
making such a limitation is to claim that tongues-speaking today cannot be a
genuine spiritual gift because it usually does not reflect a known human
language. However, from a purely historical reading of 1 Cor 13-14, this
limitation to human languages is probably incorrect as applied to the
Corinthian phenomenon and Paul's own view of tongues-speaking.
(Note: I am making the case as someone
who does not in fact speak in tongues and never has. In what follows I am
addressing the historical question of what Paul meant by speaking in tongues.
If the historical result is not to your liking because you are a cessationist,
kindly recognize that this is an irrelevant historical argument.)
In 1 Cor 13:1 Paul refers to “the
tongues of humans *and of angels*.” Some regard this reference to a language of
angels as pure hyperbole on Paul’s part. To be sure, there is some hyperbole in
what follows: “if I have the gift of prophecy and I know all the mysteries and
all the knowledge…” (13:2). Yet the hyperbole is not over the possession of the
gift per se but over the amount (not kind) of knowledge flowing from the gift.
The Corinthian “strong” were almost
certainly obsessed with angels. The explicit references to angels in 1 Cor are
too numerous (4:9; 6:3; 11:10; 13:1) relative to other Pauline letters to be
able to discount an interest in angels at Corinth (compare a comparable-sized
letter, Romans, where there is only one explicit reference to angels [8:38];
also none in 1 Thess, Phil, or even Eph; two in 2 Cor [11:14; 12:7]; one each
in 2 Thess [1:7] and Col [2:18]; two in 1 Tim [3:16; 5:21]). To be sure, there
are three explicit references to angels in the comparatively short letter to
the Galatians (1:8; 3:19; 4:4) but that is attributable to the Judaizers’
promotion of calendar observances of the Mosaic Law as compliance with the
cosmic cycles governed by angels.
Paul’s “because of the angels” remark in
1 Cor 11:10 indicates that the Corinthian “strong” believed that in their
communal worship they either joined the angels in heaven or the angels joined
them on earth (cp. the comparable belief of the Essenes at Qumran). Their
sexual asceticism probably stemmed from an awareness of the saying of Jesus
that “when people rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in
marriage but are like angels in the heavens” (Mark 12:25 = Matt 22:30 = Luke
20:35-36). Far from considering the unintelligibility of tongues to be a
defect, the Corinthian “strong” were probably thrilled that they uttered
incomprehensible “mysteries in [or: by] the Spirit [or: in/with (his) spirit]”
(pneúmati … mustēria [πνεύματι … μυστήρια]; 1 Cor 14:2). To them it was the ultimate
mark of their newfound identity as “persons of the Spirit” or “spiritual
persons” (pneumatikoi [πνευματικοί]).
That tongues-speaking for Paul and the
Corinthians meant “the language of angels” is also suggested by the fact that
Paul in 1 Cor 14 states that “the one who speaks in [or: with] a tongue (ho
lalōn glōssēi [ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ]) speaks not to humans but to God” whereas “the
one who prophesies speaks to humans” (vv. 2-3). Some argue here that in context
Paul meant only that tongues is unintelligible to people without a translation
(and so only God can understand), not that tongues is communication to God as
opposed to God communicating to us (cp. v. 28: “if there is no interpreter, let
him be silent in the assembly and let him speak to himself and to God”). Yet
Paul goes on to speak of praying “in [or: with] a tongue” (dative glōssēi
[γλώσσῃ]; 14:14) and of praying and singing and blessing or giving thanks to
God “with the [or: one’s] spirit [or: in the Spirit]” (dative tōi pneúmati [τῷ
πνεύματι]; 14:15-17).
Prayer, praise songs, and thanksgiving
are clearly forms of communication directed in the first instance to God, not
to humans. It seems likely, then, that tongues differs from prophecy not only
as regards comprehension (tongues being unintelligible to humans, apart from
interpretation) but also as regards directedness (tongues being communication
to God rather than God’s communication to us). One speaks in a given language
to communicate to the speaker of that language. If an English-speaking person
wants to communicate to someone who speaks only French, he or she speaks
French. That tongues is the language of heavenly beings follows logically from
the fact that it is communication to heavenly beings.
A third indication that Paul had in view
tongues as “the language of angels” is the fact that Paul appeared to regard
the “interpretation” or “translation” (hermēneía [ἑρμηνεία]) of tongues as
exclusively a revelatory gift of the Spirit that one should pray to receive (1
Cor 12:11, 30; 14:5, 13, 27-28) whereas in Acts 2 as-yet unbelievers in the
“multitude” each heard the words uttered by Jesus’ disciples in their own
native language, quite apart from the possession of a spiritual gift of
interpretation. Had Paul had in mind human languages in 1 Cor 14, he would have
added the possibility that a translation might be had not just from a
supernatural gift of the Spirit but also from a natural knowledge of one’s own
native tongue (certainly in a cosmopolitan city like Corinth).
Finally, there is corroborating evidence
outside 1 Cor for understanding tongues as angelic speech.
(a) In the first-century (B.C. or A.D.)
pseudonymous Jewish work known as the Testament of Job, Job purportedly gave
his daughters a miraculous belt that had healed him, which when they wore it
enabled them to speak in “an angelic language” (48:2), a.k.a. “the language of
the (heavenly) rulers” (49:2), “the language of those on high” (50:1), and “the
language of the cherubim” (50:2).
(b) The Church Father Tertullian spoke
favorably of a woman in his church in North Africa who “experiences [various
gifts of revelation] in the Spirit by ecstatic vision amidst the sacred rites
of the Lord’s Day in the church: she converses with angels, and sometimes even
with the Lord; she both sees and hears mysterious communications…” (De anima [=
Concerning the Soul] 9).
(c) According to later rabbinic
tradition, the late first-century (A.D.) rabbinic leader Yokhanan ben Zakkai
was so learned and pious that he could understand the language of angels (b.B.Bat.
134a; b.Sukkah 28a).
(d) In 2 Cor 12:4 Paul refers to a
person “snatched away” to Paradise in the “third heaven” who heard “unspeakable
[or: unutterable, inexpressible] words.” This may refer to a distinct heavenly
language (though it is possible that Paul means no more than words that are not
to be divulged).
The cumulative effect of these arguments
is that the evidence from literary and historical context strongly suggests
both that the Corinthian believers understood their speaking in tongues as
humanly unintelligible communication to divine beings in a heavenly language
and that Paul accepted this view of the matter. Indeed, Paul was able to
"thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all" (14:18).
Where Paul differed from the Corinthian
"strong" on this matter was not over whether this spiritual gift
existed, but over the degree of significance that the Corinthian converts gave
it (Paul ranked the gift relatively low; 12:28, 31), over a Corinthian
assumption that all truly "spiritual people" should possess it
("Do all speak in tongues?"; 12:29-30), and over a Corinthian
insistence that the gift be practiced in assemblies irrespective of
intelligible interpretation. If the Corinthians believed that tongues was a
distinctive mark of a "baptism of the Holy Spirit" as a second
blessing (I see no clear evidence here of such a belief on their part, though
it is a common assumption in today's charismatic and Pentecostal circles), then
Paul would have disagreed here as well (12:13).
Now this particular post does not do
everything. It does, I believe, do one thing: For those who claim that alleged
manifestations of tongues-speaking in today's church cannot be real unless the
speaker communicates in known human languages, this post shows that such a
litmus test is unbiblical.
I reiterate caveats from a prior post:
Although I have yet to hear of a credible biblical argument for cessationism,
this is not to say that there aren't some abuses of the gifts of tongues,
prophecy, and healing in the church today (there are). Nor am I indicating that
it is biblically correct to say that the "baptism in the Holy Spirit"
is a distinct "second blessing" as opposed to the experience that
defines conversion (it isn't) or that tongues is some special indicator of
spirituality that all believers should practice (it isn't).
Robert
A. J. Gagnon, public facebook post on February 23, 2020 (in response to Thomas
Schreiner, Why
I am a Cessationist):
I'm pulling my observations about Tom Schreiner's TGC article
defending the cessationist view from their burial in a ton of comments in a
previous post and making a separate post about it partly because Prof. Dr.
Thomas Schreiner's article makes one of the best cases for a cessationist view,
partly because I previously misunderstood his point about the meaning of
"the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10, and partly because I want to expand on
points that I made in the comments.
I want to make clear at the outset that neither for me nor for
Tom is this a fellowship-breaking issue. It doesn't belong, and shouldn't
belong, to the essentials of the faith. I also want to make clear that I think
Tom is a great scholar. I use his textbook on Pauline theology when I teach
that course and greatly appreciate his commentary on Romans, to name just two
of his many helpful works. Not only is Tom a great scholar; he is an even
greater human being, one of the greatest examples of a Christ-like life that I
have ever had the providential fortune to encounter. He is brilliant,
extraordinarily productive, humble, and loving, as godly a human as a human can
be. I would trust him with my life. This is a relatively minor disagreement
among brothers who deeply value each other.
Tom's case more or less rests on the single verse in Ephesians
2:20 regarding the church "having been built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets." While I agree that the apostolic office has ended
(per Paul's "last of all" in 1 Cor 15:8), it is an unwarranted
stretch to argue the same for prophets given that Paul provides no such
limitations on the prophetic office elsewhere. Indeed, as we shall see, Tom
admits that Paul himself in 1 Cor 13:10 entertained their presence in the
community of believers till Christ's return.
Paul clearly viewed the apostolic office as restricted to a
tiny minority of believers. That was not his view of prophets or the related
gift of speakers in tongues. Indeed, in 1 Cor 14:1 he urges the Corinthians to
"be zealous for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may
prophesy." He obviously didn't think that there were any apostles in the
Corinthian church; just as obviously he did believe that there were prophets
and tongues-speakers in the Corinthian church. He exhorted the Corinthians to
pursue the spiritual gifts, including tongues but especially prophecy; but, for
obvious reasons, did not, and would not, exhort his followers to be zealous to
become an apostle. Paul simply doesn't treat prophecy as a gift that belongs
only to the foundation.
The existence of a group in the foundation doesn't presuppose
non-existence outside the foundation. Christ himself is the church's
cornerstone but his presence does not lie exclusively in the past. Paul speaks
of believers in his own day as having already been built on the foundation of
apostles and prophets; yet prophets are still prophesying despite the fact that
the foundation to which he speaks has already been laid. Apostles too were
still functioning (including Paul) and many writings that would later be
assessed by the church as part of a NT canon were yet to be written. So the end
of the apostolic has to be derived from some other text than Eph 2:20 (as
noted, 1 Cor 15:8).
In short, Eph 2:20 just can't bear the weight that Tom places
upon it.
Now, unlike most cessationists, Tom does acknowledge that
"the perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 refers to the Second Coming. I hope my
cessationist friends will hear this. Tom knows that the evidence for that
conclusion is overwhelming. All other future references in 1 Corinthians point
to Christ's return and the resurrection from the dead. There is no thought at
the time Paul pens this letter for a completion of a NT canon. Paul operates on the premise
(though not categorical assertion, I think) that the time of Christ's return is
very soon (1 Cor 7:29-31). Furthermore, Paul's description of this future event
as a time when knowledge will no longer be "in part," when we will
"know fully just as [we] have been fully known" by God, and will see
"face to face" rather than as we know see ("through a mirror, in
a riddle") is hard to link to any other time than Christ's return.
Yet, while Tom acknowledges that "the perfect" here
refers to the Second Coming, he thinks that Paul teaches here only that tongues
and prophecy "could" last till Christ comes back, not that they
"will" last till then. "1 Corinthians 13:8-12 permits but
doesn’t require the gifts to continue until the second coming." [Note:
Earlier I misunderstood Tom as saying that 1 Cor 13:10 could refer to the
return of Christ but that it could just as well not. I apologize for that
misunderstanding and am now correcting it.]
While I think this is an ingenious attempt at getting around
the fact that "the perfect" must refer to Christ's return, I don't
think the solution is convincing. Paul saw value in the continuance of other
forms of direct revelation until Christ returns because even the witness of
Scripture does not cover all circumstances in life that affect individuals and
specific communities. Take the prophet Agabus, mentioned twice in Acts, as an
example. To the church in Syrian Antioch, the Jerusalem prophet Agabus prophesied
that there would be a great famine throughout the world (11:28). The church
there took the prophecy seriously enough to plan to send relief to the churches
in Judea. Later, Agabus warned Paul when he was at coastal city of Caesarea
that if he came to Jerusalem he would be arrested and bound (Acts 21:10-11).
These are not the kinds of revelations that Paul could have pulled from general
Scripture references at his disposal.
Knowledge will always be "in part" and not
"face to face" until we gain resurrection bodies. So Paul believed
that prophecy and tongues were needed to fill in that gap a bit (obviously not
completely) till the eschaton. I don't see how the completed New Testament
canon or the end of the apostolic office renders that need obsolete. Paul's
remarks in 1 Cor 13:8-13 clearly state that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge
will be "put out of use" and "cease" when, but only when,
Christ returns. Till then these gifts remain valuable for the church.
Those who have a high view of biblical authority should not
see things differently than Paul, in my view, even if the misuses and abuses of
these gifts may have turned them off to their enduring value to the church in
the whole time preceding Christ's glorious return.
This post should be read in conjunction with my prior post
that makes the case that Paul in 1 Corinthians understood the gift of tongues
to be in the first instance a heavenly language directed to God and angels, in
distinction to the specialized form of manifestation at Pentecost (human
languages directed to other humans).
[Note well: Although I am not a cessasionist, this is not to
say that there aren't some abuses of the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and
healing in the church today (there are). Nor am I indicating that it is
biblically correct to say that the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is a
distinct "second blessing" as opposed to the experience that defines
conversion (it isn't) or that tongues is some special indicator of spirituality
that all believers should practice (it isn't). I don't speak in tongues or
prophesy (at least not consciously) or have a special gift of healing so I have
no dog in the hunt other than a desire to be grounded biblically; perhaps too a
desire to see the church less divided over the question of charismatic gifts.
If my arguments do not persuade you, perhaps you can at least acknowledge that
they are reasonable positions taken by someone who views Scripture as
authoritative for faith and practice.]
