The second half to Doug Kutilek’s article on the apostolic transmission of the charismata, or spiritual gifts. For introduction and background, see PART 1.
——
Paul
Before leaving Acts, the conversion of Paul must be addressed. Though there are three accounts of his conversion (Acts chapters 9, 22 and 26), only two (9 and 22) record the coming of Ananias to see him while he was yet blind, and only one, chapter 9, records the imposition of Ananias’ hands on Paul. God explains to Ananias before He sends him on his mission of contacting Saul/Paul: “and [he, i.e., Saul] hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight,” (v. 12). The going of Ananias is recorded in vv. 17,18:
“And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized;”
The instructions given by the Lord are clear: the imposition of Ananias’ hands on Saul was for the sake of healing his blinded eyes, which in fact occurred. We also read that Ananias, in conveying the Lord’s message in addition mentions as an apparent purpose of the imposition of hands “and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” These words spoken by Ananias (no more a case of “adding to God’s word” than Eve’s addition to the recorded words of God, “neither shall you touch it” in Genesis 3:3) may be appealed to by some as proof that the charismata could be conveyed by other than Apostolic hands. To this objection, we respond, first, that no sign-gift (Emphasis added. As mentioned in my prior commentary, this phrase is employed pejoratively to convey a definition that confirms the author's biases. The phrase "sign gift" does not appear in the Bible.)
of any kind is recorded in any of the three accounts of Paul’s conversion, and second, that being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is not synonymous with either receiving or exercising the charismata. (The author is parsing concepts in order to create artificial distinctions. The fact of the matter is the laying on of hands conveys or imparts something in a supernatural way. That's all we really need to understand.
Here Ananias is conveying healing [miraculous] and the filling of the Holy Spirit [miraculous], and elsewhere we find Paul imparting gifts to Timothy [miraculous] and Peter imparting the Holy Spirit [miraculous].
In addition, the story of Simon the Sorcerer has some interesting details:
Ac. 8:13-20 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!"Notice that Simon witnessed the signs and miracles [13] Philip was doing, then saw the impartation of the Holy Spirit by the apostles [18]. Simon wanted to pay for the ability to impart the Holy Spirit [19]. Peter's response? He referred to the Holy Spirit as the gift of God.
This defeats the author's case. The "charismata" are indeed linked to being filled with the Holy Spirit.
These are divine transactions. Any divine transaction is supernatural by definition. And any supernatural occurrence in the Bible outside the author's narrative necessarily refutes it.)
It is true that on one occasion in Acts, being filled with the Holy Spirit and the manifestation of the charismata are plainly mentioned together in the same verse (Acts 2:4), (The author too easily excludes contrary evidence.)
yet frequently being filled with the Holy Spirit is spoken of in a context where the charismata are not in evidence: Acts 4:8, 31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 11:24; 13:9 (Arguing from silence.)
(unless some would insist that the bold preaching mentioned in Acts 4:8, 31; 7:55; and 13:9 is exercising the gift of prophecy; certainly tongues is not in view in any of these contexts. (More arguing from silence.)
In Acts 13:9, being filled with the Holy Spirit and the miraculous smiting of Bar-Jesus/Elymas are in admittedly close proximity). Likewise, several times in Acts where charismata appear, no mention is made of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:7; 6:8; 8:6,7,17; 9:40; 10:44-46; 19:6; etc.).
Outside of Acts, John the Baptist and his father are both spoken of as “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:15, 67). John never performed any miracles (John 10:41); Zacharias is said to have “prophesied” when so filled (1:65). Under any circumstances, these fillings were before the bestowal of the Spirit’s gifts on Pentecost.
In the rest of the New Testament, only once is being filled with the Holy Spirit mentioned–and not in I Corinthians. Rather, in Ephesians 5:18, Paul commands, “be filled with the Spirit,” but says nothing contextually to connect this with the manifestation of the charismata. (The author's exceptions are beginning to add up. At what point does he admit that his categories are false distinctions and need to be abandoned?)
From the evidence of the New Testament, then, there is no necessary connection between being filled with the Holy Spirit and manifesting a sign-gift. (Emphasis added.
"Necessary" is a weasel word. No one has claimed there needs to be a "necessary connection.")
They may be spoken of together (with one clear example, or perhaps two, in the New Testament) or gifts may appear without the Holy Spirit’s filling, and conversely, this filling may occur with no manifestation of gifts. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to believe that Ananias conveyed to Paul any charisma, (Argument from silence.)
and he does not, therefore constitute an exception to the pattern of transmission of the charismata only by the laying on of Apostolic hands. And even if it were conceded that Paul’s case formed an exception (which we do not in the least concede), his conversion and apostleship is so unique that it cannot be appealed to as a paradigm of normal or ordinary Christian experience.[9] (Isn't that the crux of the author's argument, that the charismata "cannot be appealed to as a paradigm of normal or ordinary christian experience?" The author uses his premise as evidence!)
Romans 1:11
In Romans 1:11, Paul expresses his long-held desire to visit the believers in the city of Rome: “For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift [charisma]” [emphasis added]. It seems evident that Paul here claims that he personally has the power to convey to the Roman believers charismata, and that his personal presence is essential to this conveying. Such an interpretation of Paul’s words is consistent with what we have seen elsewhere: that the Apostles but only the Apostles had the power to transmit the charismata to others, and that this was performed by the laying of the Apostles’ hands on the recipient. (An assertion yet to be demonstrated. And it's worth adding that Acts is about the acts of the apostles, not about the acts of the deacons or the acts of nameless attendees of the Ephesian church. Why does the author expect to find anything beyond the ministries of those who are the subject matter of the accounts provided?
In fact, this makes the occasional non-apostolic appearance in the narrative even more important and not so casually dismissed.)
Some, however, see in this reference something other than a reference to the sign-gifts or ministry-gifts of the Holy Spirit. Gill, for example, explains: “not any extraordinary gift of the Spirit; but spiritual light, knowledge, peace, and comfort through his ministerial gift.”[10]
Alford emphatically writes,
“That the carisma here spoken of was no mere supernatural power of working in the Spirit, the whole context shows . . . . And even if charisma, barely taken, could ever. . . mean technically, a supernatural endowment of the Spirit, yet the epithet pneumatikon, and the object of imparting this charisma, confirmation in the faith,would here preclude it.”[11]
On the other hand, Adam Clarke explains the phrase of v. 11, “some spiritual gift” as,
“This probably means some of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which, being given to them, might tend greatly to establish their faith in the Gospel of Christ; and it is very likely that such gifts were only conferred by means of apostles.”[12]
Some might object [13] that Paul writes to the Roman believers as if they already had and exercised charismata (12:6-8), while as yet neither he nor, apparently, any other Apostle had ever been to Rome (the Roman Catholic Church’s insistence that Peter founded the church at Rome notwithstanding)[14], and therefore the Apostles could not have conveyed these gifts personally to the believers at Rome, and therefore they must have been acquired by some other means.
The answer to this objection is patently obvious. Romans 16:3-15 contains an extended list of names of Christians in Rome to whom Paul sends personal greeting, and who were therefore known personally to him (and also to believers with him at Corinth, from where he wrote the letter, 16:21-24). These people, including the notable Priscilla and Aquila, had been before in the presence of Paul, in at least some cases at Corinth, and it was at that time he could have transmitted the charismata to them. Problem resolved. (This is "patently obvious," that Paul "could have transmitted the charismata?" In other words, wherever there might be an example that violates the author's premise, it is dismissed with a wave of the hand. Would the author tolerate a charismatic person using the same technique to defend the supernatural gifts?)
Timothy
In Paul’s two letters to Timothy, he twice mentions Timothy’s charisma (though without declaring what it was). In I Timothy 4:14, Paul wrote, “Neglect not the gift [charismatos], which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” This probably took place when Paul selected Timothy as his missionary assistant (Acts 16:1-3), though Robertson suggests at a time a number of years later.[15]
First, the bestowal of this gift involved a human intermediary; it was not a direct Divine endowment. Second, whatever the English text may appear to say, the Greek is clear on the point that neither the prophecy, nor the laying on of the hands of the “presbytery” (a group of elders or pastors) was the effectual means by which the bestowal was accomplished. Robertson explains:
“By prophecy (dia propheteias). Accompanied by prophecy (1:18), not bestowed by prophecy. With the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (meta epitheseos ton cheiron tou presbuterious). . . . Here again meta does not express instrument or means, but merely accompaniment.” [16]
What then was the means or instrument by which Timothy received his charisma? Paul’s second letter to Timothy gives us the answer: “Stir up the gift [charisma] of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands” (II Timothy 1:6). The word “through” is the Greek word dia, here used with the genitive case, and which indicates the intermediate agency by which the gift was transmitted. [17] The grammatical construction is identical to that in Acts 8:18. (Waaait a minute. What, exactly, did the presbytery do? Why are they mentioned at all? And what evidence does the author have that first and second Timothy are referring to the same event? And on what basis does the author exclude the possibility that the presbytery and Paul bestowed different gifts? The author is simply fitting these events into his template, nothing more.)
The case of Timothy and his charisma fits the pattern discovered elsewhere in the New Testament, (That is, fits the pattern as deconstructed by the author.)
excluding the sovereign bestowals of the charismata at Pentecost and the house of Cornelius (and also, most probably, in the case of Paul). (Glaring exceptions, I would say.)
In all places where the means is stated by which individuals received the charismata, the human agents were always Apostles: the deacons of Acts 6, the Samaritans in Acts 8, the twelve disciples in Acts 19, the Roman Christians potentially (Romans 1:11) and Timothy. The writer is aware of no other examples in the New Testament. (How about Timothy? 1Ti. 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. Timothy wasn't an apostle, but he was receiving instructions about the laying on of hands?
What about Hebrews? He. 6:1-2 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Again, the addressees had received instruction about the laying on hands. Why would this happen if only the apostles could do so?)
Apostolic Successors?
Since the transmission of the charismata was exclusively an apostolic prerogative, it is pertinent to ask: did the Apostles have any duly authorized successors in this or any other distinctively Apostolic aspect of their ministry? Two instances from the New Testament seem to exhaust the direct Biblical evidence.
First, in Acts 1, the assembled disciples took action to fill the vacancy in the number of Apostles caused by the death of Judas who betrayed Christ (vv.15-26). Peter and the others recognized the need for replacement of Judas with one who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (v. 22). The disciples put forward two possible candidates, then after praying for God’s directive will, cast lots and selected Matthias. Clearly, here was an appointed successor to an Apostle. It is misguided to say that Matthias was evidently not God’s choice, since Matthias is never mentioned again by name in Acts or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Such criticism is its own refutation, since neither Nathanael, nor Matthew, nor Philip nor most of the others of the original Apostles are mentioned by name after Acts 1 either. All the Apostles, Matthias included, were mentioned collectively in Acts 2:42-3 (teaching and performing wonders); 4:33 (testifying powerfully to the resurrection of Christ–the very purpose for which Matthias was chosen); 5:12 (performing miracles); 5:18 (being arrested); 6:2 (selecting deacons); etc. Under any circumstances, the remaining Apostles felt compelled in Acts 1 to appoint a replacement for Judas to the office of Apostle.
The only other case of the death of an Apostle expressly mentioned in the New Testament is the death of James the son of Zebedee and brother of John in Acts 12:2 at the hands of Herod Agrippa I. We read nothing of a conference or council convened among the remaining Apostles to appoint a replacement for James. While this is an argument from silence, (Emphasis added.)
it has some force, in that the office of Apostle required that a person be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. (Um, no. This is an egregious misrepresentation of the verse. Let's read what the Bible actually says.
Ac. 1:21-22: Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.The single qualification was those who...
...have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us...The author falsely appeals to must become a witness with us of his resurrection as a second qualification (...the office of Apostle required that a person be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ.)
This is not a qualification, it is a duty to be performed by the replacement apostle. One does not become a witness of an event, one is a witness. To become is to change status from something one wasn't before into something one isn't presently. The new apostle was to join with the apostles and become with them someone who testifies the events of the resurrection!
The post-resurrected Christ even gave this very thing as a command:
Ac. 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Further, Paul did not qualify. He was not with them from the beginning.
Indeed, we note there were at least 19 apostles named, plus we conclude that there were many apostles beyond the biblical record.)
As the first century progressed, more and more of those eyewitnesses died, and were by definition irreplaceable. Ultimately, those qualified by such experience to be Apostles would dwindle in number to zero, and the office would expire even if a series of qualified replacements had been appointed for now one, now another of the original Apostles as they died. (A false conclusion from a false premise.)
It seems evident from the limited evidence of the New Testament (and from early church history, which knows nothing of continuing Apostolic circle), that the office of Apostle expired as the Apostles died, John being perhaps the last to die. (Another false conclusion from a false premise.)
Conclusion
What are the implications of these findings? First, apart from the sovereign direct bestowal of the charismata by God in Acts 2 and 10 (and probably to Paul), all examples in the New Testament where information is given point to one pattern: the charismata were transmitted to Christians solely by the means or instrumentality of the Apostles laying hands on them. None but the Apostles, not even those who possessed miraculous gifts such as Philip and Stephen, two of the original deacons, could transmit the gifts to others.
It is also important to recognize that while many or even perhaps most of those references to the bestowal of gifts which have been examined have reference to the so-call “sign-gifts” and not to the “service-gifts,” it is impossible to separate them in the matter of Apostolic bestowal, since there is no certainty which gifts were to be given to the Romans, for example (1:11), or that which Timothy possessed (I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6). Indeed, separating sign-gifts from service-gifts is an impossible task since the exact nature of most of the gifts mentioned in I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 is unknown. All the gifts, of whatever nature, where conveyed by Apostolic imposition of hands.
Finally, because the Apostles evidently had no duly constituted and appointed successors, no one beyond their number was given the power or authority to continue the work of conveying the charismata. As a result, the charismatic gifts would have expired with the death of the Apostles, or at the very latest, with the death of those who received the gifts from the Apostles, or, roughly speaking, by 150 A.D. at the very latest.
Of course, the implication of this final deduction is significant: if there have been no charismata operative in the Christian community since the middle of the second century, then of course there are none today, whether sign- or service-gifts. As a result, all of the modern-day claims by Pentecostal and related groups of the possession of the gift or tongues or prophesy or healing (or knowledge, in the case of Pat Robertson) are illusory, if not down right fraudulent. Further, all the energy and effort put into non-charismatic evangelical seminars and booklets and tapes to help people discover “their spiritual gift” has been so much well-intentioned but misguided effort. The discussion has come 19 centuries too late.[18]
Footnotes:
9. When and where Paul received his charismata is a matter of speculation. It seems probable that they were sovereignly and directly bestowed on him by God, perhaps at conversion. His first reported exercise of a charisma seems to have been on the island of Cyprus when he smote Bar-Jesus/Elymas blind, Acts 13:9-11.
10. Vol. VI, p. 4.
11. Vol. II, p. 317. See, for a similar position, Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans, pp. 26-7.
12. Vol. VI, p. 39. He continues, I think erroneously, “and as the apostle had not yet been at Rome, consequently the Roman Christians had not yet received any of these miraculous gifts, . . . ” On wherein his error lies, see below.
13. One of my students in Romania raised this very objection in a class I taught in 1992.
14. See Alford, vol. II, pp. 33-37 for some analysis of the founding and founder(s) of the church in Rome.
15. Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. IV, pp. 581, 582.
16. p. 581
17. On this use of dia with the genitive, see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 102.
18. Warfield in Counterfeit Miracles reports that the post-Reformation Puritan writers uniformly recognized that the charismata had all expired in the first century.
Bibliography
Alford, Henry, The Greek New Testament, revised by Everett F. Harrison. 4 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
Bruce, F. F., Commentary on the Books of Acts. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.
Clarke, Adam, The Holy Bible: A Commentary and Critical Notes. New York: Abingdon Press, n.d.
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. N. p.: Macmillan, 1927.
Gill, John, Gill’s Commentary. 6 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980 reprint.
Hodge, Charles, A Commentary on Romans. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972 reprint.
Poole, Matthew, A Commentary on the Holy Bible. 3 vols. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963 reprint.
Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.
Warfield, B. B., Counterfeit Miracles. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976 reprint.
Indeed, we note there were at least 19 apostles named, plus we conclude that there were many apostles beyond the biblical record.)
As the first century progressed, more and more of those eyewitnesses died, and were by definition irreplaceable. Ultimately, those qualified by such experience to be Apostles would dwindle in number to zero, and the office would expire even if a series of qualified replacements had been appointed for now one, now another of the original Apostles as they died. (A false conclusion from a false premise.)
It seems evident from the limited evidence of the New Testament (and from early church history, which knows nothing of continuing Apostolic circle), that the office of Apostle expired as the Apostles died, John being perhaps the last to die. (Another false conclusion from a false premise.)
Conclusion
What are the implications of these findings? First, apart from the sovereign direct bestowal of the charismata by God in Acts 2 and 10 (and probably to Paul), all examples in the New Testament where information is given point to one pattern: the charismata were transmitted to Christians solely by the means or instrumentality of the Apostles laying hands on them. None but the Apostles, not even those who possessed miraculous gifts such as Philip and Stephen, two of the original deacons, could transmit the gifts to others.
It is also important to recognize that while many or even perhaps most of those references to the bestowal of gifts which have been examined have reference to the so-call “sign-gifts” and not to the “service-gifts,” it is impossible to separate them in the matter of Apostolic bestowal, since there is no certainty which gifts were to be given to the Romans, for example (1:11), or that which Timothy possessed (I Timothy 4:14; II Timothy 1:6). Indeed, separating sign-gifts from service-gifts is an impossible task since the exact nature of most of the gifts mentioned in I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 is unknown. All the gifts, of whatever nature, where conveyed by Apostolic imposition of hands.
Finally, because the Apostles evidently had no duly constituted and appointed successors, no one beyond their number was given the power or authority to continue the work of conveying the charismata. As a result, the charismatic gifts would have expired with the death of the Apostles, or at the very latest, with the death of those who received the gifts from the Apostles, or, roughly speaking, by 150 A.D. at the very latest.
Of course, the implication of this final deduction is significant: if there have been no charismata operative in the Christian community since the middle of the second century, then of course there are none today, whether sign- or service-gifts. As a result, all of the modern-day claims by Pentecostal and related groups of the possession of the gift or tongues or prophesy or healing (or knowledge, in the case of Pat Robertson) are illusory, if not down right fraudulent. Further, all the energy and effort put into non-charismatic evangelical seminars and booklets and tapes to help people discover “their spiritual gift” has been so much well-intentioned but misguided effort. The discussion has come 19 centuries too late.[18]
Footnotes:
9. When and where Paul received his charismata is a matter of speculation. It seems probable that they were sovereignly and directly bestowed on him by God, perhaps at conversion. His first reported exercise of a charisma seems to have been on the island of Cyprus when he smote Bar-Jesus/Elymas blind, Acts 13:9-11.
10. Vol. VI, p. 4.
11. Vol. II, p. 317. See, for a similar position, Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans, pp. 26-7.
12. Vol. VI, p. 39. He continues, I think erroneously, “and as the apostle had not yet been at Rome, consequently the Roman Christians had not yet received any of these miraculous gifts, . . . ” On wherein his error lies, see below.
13. One of my students in Romania raised this very objection in a class I taught in 1992.
14. See Alford, vol. II, pp. 33-37 for some analysis of the founding and founder(s) of the church in Rome.
15. Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. IV, pp. 581, 582.
16. p. 581
17. On this use of dia with the genitive, see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 102.
18. Warfield in Counterfeit Miracles reports that the post-Reformation Puritan writers uniformly recognized that the charismata had all expired in the first century.
Bibliography
Alford, Henry, The Greek New Testament, revised by Everett F. Harrison. 4 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
Bruce, F. F., Commentary on the Books of Acts. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954.
Clarke, Adam, The Holy Bible: A Commentary and Critical Notes. New York: Abingdon Press, n.d.
Dana, H. E., and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. N. p.: Macmillan, 1927.
Gill, John, Gill’s Commentary. 6 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980 reprint.
Hodge, Charles, A Commentary on Romans. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972 reprint.
Poole, Matthew, A Commentary on the Holy Bible. 3 vols. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963 reprint.
Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.
Warfield, B. B., Counterfeit Miracles. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976 reprint.
No comments:
Post a Comment