Philip, The Miracle Working Evangelist

Philip, while not an apostle, not one of the twelve, was nevertheless an important figure in the earliest days of the church.  He along with Stephen were among the seven that were chosen by the church in Jerusalem to oversee the work of providing for the needs of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the daily administration, evidently an administration of food and sustenance by the church to widows in need.  The qualifications for these seven men as put forth by the apostles was that they be “men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” (Acts 6:3 NKJV)

That they were full of the Holy Spirit is readily seen by the historical account of both Stephen and Philip in Acts 6:8-8:40.  Of Stephen it is said he “did great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8 NKJV)  Philip did much the same as can be seen from Acts 8:6-7, 13.  The people of Samaria “heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Acts 8:6 NKJV)  Simon, the one we often call the sorcerer, in accompanying Philip “was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.” (Acts 8:13 NKJV)

How did these two men, and our emphasis is on Philip, come to have such power?  How was it granted to them and why?  Was it by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  We are told that was the way the Holy Spirit was conferred (Acts 8:18).  Stephen and Philip were men full of the Holy Spirit before the apostles laid hands on them in Acts 6:6, read carefully Acts 6:3-6 with a view to chronology.  However, this could have been a second laying on of hands in Acts 6:6 that is recorded for us.  Perhaps the apostles had laid hands on them at an earlier date to confer the Holy Spirit.

Not every laying on of hands was for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit (see Acts 13:2-3).  It was on occasion an act showing support, approval, and fellowship when commissioning others for a task such as when Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them as they departed on their first missionary journey.

It may be that God conferred the miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit directly himself in the early days of the church as well as through the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  I have always wondered how Philip’s daughters who prophesied came to have that gift.  Did one of the apostles lay their hands on them?

Joel quoted God as saying, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; You sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” (Acts 2:17)  He did not say he would use an intermediary to do this.  See also Acts 2:18.  Acts 8:16 seems to imply to me, at least, that at times the Holy Spirit did fall on a baptized believer.  It reads, “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them.” (Acts 8:16 NKJV)  That implies to me that sometimes the Holy Spirit did fall on brethren without the laying on of hands.  I may be mistaken.

A number of prophets are mentioned by name in the book of Acts - Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen in Acts 13:1, Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32,  and Agabus in Acts 21:10?  Were they made prophets by the laying on of the apostles’ hands?  How about the unnamed prophets in Acts 11:27?  Some were indeed made prophets that way (Acts 19:6) but did God not make any prophets without the laying on of hands?  That is the question.

The Corinthians were to “desire spiritual gifts”(1 Cor. 14:1 NKJV) and “earnestly desire the best gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31 NKJV) even though it seems the church was full of spiritually gifted people already (1 Cor. 14:26).  But, Paul was not present with them as an apostle when he wrote them.  How were they to acquire spiritual gifts if no apostle was present to lay hands on them if that was the only way spiritual gifts were transmitted?  Is it not possible that God would confer those gifts directly himself?

1 Cor. 14:13 says that one who speaks in a tongue ought to “pray that he may interpret.” (NKJV)  This was a gift if it was to come that would be conferred directly by God himself, not by a laying on of hands, or so it seems.  The individual already had a gift, the gift of speaking in a tongue, but if he was to receive a second gift, that of interpretation, it was prayer that was needed, not the laying on of the hands of an apostle.  Again, so it seems to me. 

Then one wonders about the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip would convert shortly after the Samaritans (Acts 8:26-39).  Philip, not being an apostle, could confer no spiritual gift to him.  Was the eunuch going to be able to do the Ethiopian people much good without one or more spiritual gifts?  How were they to be acquired if not directly from heaven?  Did the eunuch have Philip’s sermon memorized so he could teach others?  He did have the scriptures, at least Isaiah, so perhaps he could have evangelized without a spiritual gift but one does wonder.

One can go back even earlier in time.  When Jesus was a babe the Bible speaks of a man named Simeon who saw Jesus as a baby in the temple.  He had been promised he would not die before seeing “the Lord’s Christ.” (Luke 2:26 NKJV)  The Bible says “the Holy Spirit was upon him.” (Luke 2:25 NKJV)  This gift did not come by the laying on of hands.  In the same chapter in Luke, we read of Anna “a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” (Luke 2:36-38 NKJV)  Her gift did not come from the laying on of hands.  There were no apostles yet.

The point I am getting at is I think it likely God conferred spiritual gifts upon mankind independently of the apostles at his discretion during the infancy age of the church.  I am certainly not denying the apostle’s ability to confer the miraculous measure of the Spirit by the laying on of hands.  The question is only about whether or not that was the one and only means of receiving such a measure in those days.

But it is a minor issue and of no real importance in view of the fact the days of miraculous spiritual gifts have long since passed.  Such gifts accomplished their purpose for that day and age and for all time which brings us to what that purpose was.

Why did Philip and others receive the miraculous measure of the spirit beyond the ability to teach the truth without error?  What was the purpose of wonders, signs, and miracles?  The apostle John in his written account of the gospel says he recorded Jesus’ signs to create belief.  “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Joh 20:30-31 NKJV)  So, the signs Jesus’ performed were to create faith.

They were also provided to confirm the word that was preached was indeed the truth and from God.  “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will? (Heb 2:3-4 NKJV)

These things have ceased today for they are no longer needed.  Once a truth has been confirmed how many times do you have to go back and reaffirm it?  Miracles, signs, and wonders that continue for centuries become commonplace and cease to amaze and create wonder.  They cease to be miracles, signs, and wonders and in doing so fail to convince of anything.

Philip’s ability to perform miracles had great effect in Samaria.  The biblical text says, “And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Act 8:6 NKJV)  And then, “When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” (Act 8:12 NKJV)  We thus see the purpose of miracles being fulfilled.

These people were now Christians.  However, they lacked spiritual gifts of any kind for Philip not being an apostle could not convey the Holy Spirit in its miraculous measure to them and God had not conveyed it to them directly.  It came by the laying on of the hands of the apostles.  “Through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given.” (Acts 8:18 NKJV)  Peter and John came to Samaria and did this for the brethren there (Acts 8:14-17).

These brethren were saved from their sins prior to receiving the miraculous measure of the Spirit.  Had Peter and John never come down to Samaria the brethren there would have still been saved.  However, without miraculous gifts it would have been hard for them to carry on once Philip left them.  They were babes in Christ.  There were no New Testaments.  Their knowledge and understanding was likely limited to the very first principles of the gospel.  One must also recognize the limitations of the human mind.  How well do we remember things?  How well can you argue spiritual matters from memory alone?  The apostles themselves were promised the Holy Spirit to help them to remember.  “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26 NKJV)

The need for spiritual help and guidance in every congregation established in the first century is one of the things that leads me to the belief that sometimes God likely bestowed gifts of the spirit directly as well as through the hands of the apostles unless we believe all congregations established in the first century were established by the apostles.  We know God did the bestowing directly with Cornelius and his household even if we believe, as I do, that on that occasion it was for a special purpose.

One other comment before closing this chapter on Philip’s preaching life.  Many think baptism is no part of the gospel.  Philip did not think that way.  He preached baptism as a part of preaching Christ and the kingdom of God.  How do we know?  The text does not say he did.  The text does say they were baptized, “both men and women were baptized.” (Acts 8:12)  How did the Samaritans know anything at all about baptism if Philip did not preach it?  Thus we see to preach “the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12 NKJV) involves preaching baptism.

The final question – did Philip preach non-essentials?  He did if baptism is not essential to salvation as so many teach today.  You must remember Philip was a Holy Spirit inspired preacher.  Think on that before belittling baptism.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?

In an article I wrote some time ago I had a gentleman of the Pentecostal persuasion respond seemingly upset with me over the issue of baptism as I was emphasizing the importance of water baptism which he was discounting as being nothing more than a picture of salvation (whatever that means).  Of course, his emphasis was on Holy Spirit baptism.  In any case, since I said I would respond I will do so here thinking I might as well make an article out of my response. 

When one reads the gospels the very first mention of the subject of baptism comes with the introduction of John the Baptist.  Mark says, "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."  (Mark 1:5 NKJV)  We know Jesus when baptized, by John, "came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him."  (Matt. 3:16 NKJV)  So our very first introduction to the subject of baptism relates it to water, not the Holy Spirit. 

However, John did prophecy of two other baptisms to come.  He says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  (Mat 3:11 NKJV) 

It is very important to note who will be doing the baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire.  Will it be the apostles, will it be man?  No, for the text says "He," a reference to Jesus, which means what?  If you are going to receive Holy Spirit baptism it will not be at the hands of men.  It will have to come directly from heaven itself.  Jesus will be the administrator. 

But, it means even more.  It means it cannot be a command for it is something Christ does for you.  In other words, it is a baptism you cannot obey.  It is something you receive, not something you do.  Pentecostals ought to keep this in mind because it is going to cause problems down the road.  Indeed, it is going to cause problems before one even finishes the book of Matthew. 

In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 Jesus speaking to the apostles said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NKJV)  The reader already knows enough from what has been said previously that this is a command for water baptism for it is the only baptism men can administer.  Men could baptize others with water but not with the Holy Spirit.  Only Jesus could do that. 

Furthermore, the command of the Great Commission was to teach those they baptized to go out and do the same with others--make disciples and baptize them—thus making the Great Commission a perpetual command for the ages.  This means in Eph. 4:5 when Paul said there was "one baptism" we know which one it was. 

Before the time of Paul's writing of the book of Ephesians, there had been two baptisms--water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism (the baptism of fire being yet future at the Day of Judgment).  However, by the time Paul wrote the book of Ephesians, scholars say sometime between 61 and 64 AD, only one baptism remained.  This was approximately 30 years after Jesus had ascended back into heaven and Paul now says as he writes there is but one baptism. 

This puts Pentecostals in a tight spot.  If they say we still have Holy Spirit baptism then they must deny we have water baptism.  If they say we still have both they make Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, out to be a liar for that makes two baptisms rather than one. 

Did Jesus speak about baptizing some in the Holy Spirit?  Yes, he did, but to whom?  It was to those with whom he met in Luke 24:33-49.  It was with those who were to "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49 NKJV)  It was to those who would first preach "repentance and remission of sins … in His name … beginning at Jerusalem."  Now who did that?  Was Peter the first one?  Did he preach baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) "beginning at Jerusalem"?  Yes, he did. 

In the book of John starting with chapter 13 and going through chapter 17 Jesus is with the apostles he had chosen at the Last Supper.  Here he again speaks about this select group being baptized with the Holy Spirit or words to that effect (John 14:16-18, 26, 16:13). 

Luke, in the book of Acts, speaks of "the apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:2) and then says, "to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:3-5 NKJV) 

Thus the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to a select few, not to all Christians.  All Christians received the Holy Spirit but not all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and there is a difference.  Many received spiritual gifts and thus had a measure of the Holy Spirit in that special sense as well, but the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to those few Jesus chose.  I remind the reader that while Holy Spirit baptism had to come directly from heaven spiritual gifts could be received at the hands of the apostles.  "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given."  (Act 8:18 NKJV) 

Even spiritual gifts were not to last endlessly until the Day of Judgment.  Paul says, in Eph. 4:11-14 (NAS), "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming."  

Apostles and prophets were obviously men with spiritual gifts.  Are there, apostles and prophets, still with us today?  The reader ought to highlight the word "until" in the above passage.  Words do have meaning.  "Until" places a time limit.  Then note the last verse that begins with "As a result."  The result is we will not be carried away "by every wind of doctrine" thus the earth will still be here when the apostles and prophets are gone and so will every wind of doctrine which we will not be carried away by. 

A passage that is even a little clearer is 1 Cor. 13:8-10, "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge (miraculous spiritual--DS), it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."  Some say this refers to Jesus' second coming.  Does it?  It is hard to see how you or I need to be told that there will not be prophecy in heaven.  Is that not self-evident?  Let me tell you what is "perfect" in addition to Jesus--his completed revelation to man in his word, the New Testament itself.  Do you doubt the word of God is perfect?  See Psalms 19:7. 

The one who takes issue with me says, "In John 3:5 water does not refer to Christian baptism in the name of the Lord.  Prove that it does."  If you recall John 3:5 reads as follows, "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (NAS)  Well, what are the other options?  Is it "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"  That is how this sincere man would have it read, but I think it is readily seen that this will not work in the context of how the sentence is phrased. 

He also argues that Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12 all refer to Holy Spirit baptism, not water baptism.  I have already shown that since there is only one baptism today, according to Paul, then it is an either/or option--either it is Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism.  If it is Holy Spirit baptism then the baptism Jesus commanded in the Great Commission is of no effect today and you cannot carry out the Great Commission. 

In Romans 6:3 Paul says, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?"  By using the word "us" Paul includes himself.  Let us hear Ananias at the time of Paul's baptism, Acts 22:16, "'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'"  It sounds to me like the responsibility is on Paul to "arise and be baptized."  It sounds like it is something Paul can attend to.  He can't if it is Holy Spirit baptism as my critic claims.  He will have to wait on Jesus to do that.  Thus my critic is in error. 

Gal. 3:27 reads as follows, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS)  Am I baptized "into Christ" or am I baptized by Christ?  Holy Spirit baptism is by Christ, not into Christ.  If Christ both baptizes one and puts one into himself (salvation is in Christ--2 Tim. 2:10) then if you are lost it looks like it is his fault since there is something he did not do for you.  I can obey the command for water baptism but I cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism for Jesus has the responsibility for that.  I have not clothed myself with Christ, and cannot do so, if it is out of my hands which would be the case if this passage refers to Holy Spirit baptism. 

Finally, Col. 2:12, which he says is a reference to Holy Spirit baptism, reads as follows with me including verses 11 and 13 in order to read the text in context.  "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions." (NAS) 

Beginning with Abraham if a male child was not circumcised the eighth day he fell out of covenant relationship with God.  This remained true on up through the entirety of the Mosaical Era.  You can read about it in Gen. 17:12-14.  If one is in covenant relationship with God he is a child of God.  He may or may not remain faithful and thus can be lost later but at the time he becomes a child of God he is saved. 

I have a question.  In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, after the giving of the Great Commission, when were those gathered there, the three thousand, placed into a covenant relationship with God?  Was it before water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?  Water baptism was necessary both for the forgiveness of sins and for the reception of the Holy Spirit and was prior to both.  Without the forgiveness of sins first, there was no covenant relationship with God, not under the new covenant. 

It would be good, perhaps, to quote Acts 2:38 here: "Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) 

Circumcision placed one into covenant relationship with God under the Law of Moses.  When were people placed in that relationship in Acts 2--was it before or after the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit?  One can readily see it was before the receiving of the Holy Spirit but after water baptism.  If you have received "remission of sins" you are saved and in a covenant relationship with God.  Circumcision in the covenant of Christ, in Christianity, is baptism from the heart of faith for the remission of sins in water, not Holy Spirit baptism.  In that act, when based on faith, sins are cut away (removed).  Colossians 2:11-13 is a reference to water baptism. 

But, sometimes it is good to argue against ourselves so, putting myself in my critic's shoes, I would come back and say have you not read Rom.2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God"? (NKJV) 

The same Paul who wrote Colossians wrote Romans.  We shall tie them together.  I remind the reader my critic believes the talk about baptism in Rom. 6, the first several verses, is a reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit.  But, Paul says in Rom 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."  There are two points to be made.  (1) You cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism thus his argument fails when he says the baptism of Romans 6 is Holy Spirit baptism.  (2) When were they set free from sin according to Paul?  Answer--when they obeyed.  

This excursion off on Romans 6 throws light on Rom. 2:29.  As this passage—Rom. 2:29--relates back to Col. 2:12 it shows, when combined with the study of Romans 6, that one cannot divorce faith from obedience.  Obedience is from the heart.  What is in the heart to produce this obedience?  Faith!  When understood that obedience is a part of saving faith, that there is no such thing as saving faith apart from obedience, I readily concede that salvation is by that kind of faith.  This faith always includes as an integral part of itself obedience. 

The trouble is the advocates of salvation by faith are generally such as do not define faith this way.  Their faith does not necessarily include any ideas of obedience thus water baptism is just kind of an option if I get to it, if I do it, when I do it, sort of thing.  When God says jump you cannot say I will if I want to, and when I want to, if I decide to.  That is neither faith nor obedience, it is rebellion.  How can one claim a circumcision of heart and talk of having the Spirit all the while saying it does not matter whether you obey what the Spirit has said, you can be saved whether you obey or do not obey?  Jesus, a man full of the Spirit, did not disobey a single commandment but we do and say it is okay and that we have the Spirit.     

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit still exists today then along with it we must have as a necessity those things that accompany it which include the spiritual gifts of the first century.  All Holy Spirit baptized individuals (the apostles) had miraculous spiritual gifts (2 Cor. 12:11-12).   Who ever heard of having the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not having spiritual gifts?  Do we have prophets today, do we have miracle workers today, do we still have revelation being given today?  Let each reader judge for themselves. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

 

  

 

 

If Miracles Have Ceased--the Implications

Have miracles ceased?  They have if we are talking about the kind of miracles performed by Jesus, the apostles, and those possessed of spiritual gifts in New Testament times.  The purpose of those miracles was to confirm that the word spoken was from God.  Such confirmation was needed.  Put yourself in the shoes of those living back then.  Here one comes into your midst claiming to speak for God.  Is he delusional, a madman?  Is he a charlatan?  Why should I give him the time of day?

People speak of blind faith.  The kind of faith the Bible demands of men is not blind faith but faith built upon reason, based on the word of God, confirmed by miracles.  I believe not because I am naive and will believe anything and will buy bridges in deserts but rather because God said, "come now, and let us reason together." (Isa. 1:18 NKJV)  I have done that--reasoning based on the word of God confirmed by miracles.

Why was the tomb of Jesus empty on the third day?  Why could the Romans not find the body of Jesus?  Why did they not even look for it?  What profit was there to be had in preaching Jesus as did Peter and the other apostles if they knew they had stolen the body and hidden it?  Was there money in it?  Was there power?  Was there security in doing so or danger?  Why did those 12 men put their lives on the line to preach the gospel?  Faith built on reasoning with the truth, a truth confirmed by the greatest miracle of all--the resurrection of Christ, is not emotionalism.  The unbeliever cannot explain the empty tomb nor can they explain the lives of the apostles.

The word spoken, however, would have little effect upon men in a day and age when revelation was not yet completed, indeed was just beginning to be given, without miracles accompanying it.  The people living in places like Asia (modern-day Turkey), Greece, and other remote locations knew nothing of Jesus originally.  His life, his death, his resurrection was not broadcast over TV, all over the Internet, and was not in newspaper headlines.  We have to put ourselves back in their time to understand what their situation was.  When a man like Paul arrives in your village the question is who is this man?  What is he talking about? 

The Bible thus says that after Jesus gave the Great Commission in Mark 16:15-16 the eleven, that soon became the twelve, "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs." (Mark 16:20 NKJV)  Paul spoke of the signs of an apostle.  He said in speaking to the Corinthians, "In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing.  Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. 12:11-12 NKJV)  In his first letter to them, the Corinthians, he says of his preaching that it was, "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:4-5 NKJV)  "Power" is a reference to the miraculous.

The writer of the book of Hebrews speaks of the same sort of thing when in talking about the preaching of the gospel message by those who had heard Jesus says, "God also bearing witness (with them--the speakers--DS) both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will." (Heb. 2:4 NKJV)  So we clearly see the purpose behind miracles, signs, wonders, gifts of the Holy Spirit, the miraculous in general, when the word was being preached to people who knew it not.

The Bible also gives us a second reason or purpose for spiritual gifts in the New Testament church.  After a person became convinced of the truth of the gospel and obeyed it what then?  He cannot order a Bible or New Testament from Amazon or Abebooks or go to Wal-Mart and purchase one.  Not only that but the New Testament has not yet been given in its entirety.

The complete revelation of the New Testament, the Bible calls it the new covenant, occurred over the course of a few decades in the first century, not instantly in a year or two.  The books were in the process of being written and delivered.  How do the members of the church know how to live?  How do they know right from wrong?  The answer was spiritual gifts given by God for the purpose of instructing the church in righteous living. 

Paul says of these gifts, "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all." (1 Cor. 12:7 NKJV)  He is talking about spiritual gifts.  Whatever your gift was (he gives a list of them in 1 Cor. 12:8-10, see also verse 28) it was to be used to profit everyone, not just yourself.  "Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel." (1 Cor. 14:12 NKJV)  Edification means to build up spiritually.  "Let all things be done for edification." (1 Cor. 14:26 NKJV)

Understanding the purpose behind miracles and spiritual gifts helps one greatly in understanding a passage written by Paul found right in the middle of his discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14, a passage where he declares that there will be an end to spiritual gifts not when Christ comes again but before then.  I refer to 1 Cor. 13:8-13.

"Love never fails.  But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part.  But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.  When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face.  Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.   And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:8-13 NKJV)

Let us note some things from this passage.  Paul says plainly that prophecies will fail, tongues will cease, and knowledge (talking about miraculously given knowledge) will vanish.  The question then becomes when.  Can we find out?  Yes!

Something will abide after these spiritual gifts have ceased.  What will that be?  Faith, hope, and love.  What does that mean?  Well, for one thing it means that if hope still abides after spiritual gifts are gone the spiritual gifts will be gone before Jesus returns to earth.  We still "hope" after the gifts have vanished but why am I hoping if Christ has already returned and I am now in possession of that for which I had been hoping?  Once you have received that which you were hoping for you do not continue to hope for it--there is no need.  Do not let anyone tell you that spiritual gifts are going to last until Jesus returns.  This passage destroys that false doctrine.  One must understand that prophecy, tongues, and inspired knowledge as spiritual gifts were representative of all spiritual gifts in that all were to vanish, not just those three.

That which "is perfect" in the passage is the final total revealed will of Christ--the completed revelation of Christ--the New Testament in its totality of inspired teaching.  Again, revelation was not all given in a single day or a single year.  It was a matter of a gradual revealing of the truth over a few decades in the first century until all was given that was to be given.  Perhaps reading 1 Cor. 13:10 will help you see this when read from another translation, "But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." (1 Cor. 13:10 ESV)  Spiritual gifts were the partial, completed revelation was the "perfect."   

One has to bear in mind that the word "perfect" often means "complete" in New Testament usage and this passage is an example of it.  The International Standard Version of the Bible translates 1 Cor. 13:10, "But when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with." (ISV)  The New Living Translation has it as follows, "But when full understanding comes, these partial things will become useless." (NLT)  Full understanding came when full revelation was complete.   

Another passage teaching the same thing is Eph. 4:11-15, "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head - Christ." (NKJV)

Note that apostles and prophets were to be only for a time--note the word "till" in verse 13.  When would the "till" arrive?  We can figure that out.  We have enough information to do that.  Note that when that time arrives we will no longer be children tossed about by every wind of doctrine.  This tells us that when the "till" comes ("we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood" - Eph. 4:13 ESV) that false doctrine will still be taught but we will no longer be carried about by it.  This means we are talking about a time prior to the return of Christ for upon his return false doctrine becomes a thing of the past.  So again we prove that miracles, spiritual gifts, etc., are not to last until the return of Christ.  They are gone before his return.  So again do not let anyone tell you that miracles and spiritual gifts are to last until Christ's return.

But one might object to this argument on the grounds that if this be true then it would also eliminate evangelists, pastors, and teachers.  Yes, it would--those miraculously qualified to do the work by being the recipient of a spiritual gift.  One needs to bear in mind, however, that with the completed revelation of Christ to man one no longer needed spiritual gifts to qualify or enable him for that work. 

Also, beware lest you be led astray thinking that since what is called Christendom today is divided that "the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God" never arrived.  Yes, that has been lost today but that does not mean they never had it say back in 120 A.D. (just using that date as an example).  Believe it or not there was a time when things were not like they are today.

The unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God and how to obtain to mature spiritual manhood in Christ are found in the pages of the completed New Testament.  Outside the New Testament you can know nothing of or about Christ or of the faith aside from some Old Testament prophetic utterances.  If you are carried about by false doctrine you need not be.  That is what you have a New Testament for--so you will not be led into false doctrine and can know the truth if you really want to know it. 

What are the implications of miracles having ceased?  Let me say to start that the implications are so great that some religious bodies will never accept it as fact for the simple reason it would destroy them as a religious body.  If a religious group's very existence is dependent on the continuation of miracles that is an exceedingly strong incentive to fight for them and argue for them and not accept New Testament teaching on the subject.

Remember the purpose of miracles was to confirm the word.  If you still want the world to believe you are a source of revealed authoritative teaching and preaching, teaching that cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament (emphasis here), received directly from God, then you must have miracles to confirm the word.  You cannot have the Catholic Church without miracles can you?  If they want to hand down law and claim God's authority for it then they have to have God performing miracles among them.  No choice about it.

The Catholic Church claims authority and teaches many doctrines that cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament (I think they will agree with me on this).  Why should any man believe them?  There is only one reason--miracles.  They must make the claim of miracles being performed among them and do their best to get people to believe they are genuine.  They will never accept that miracles have ceased.  If you are Catholic logic requires that you believe in modern-day miracles.  The miracles confirm that God is among them approving of them and their teaching.  They must have miracles to maintain their authority.  They will have their miracles with no New Testament passages bothering them.

One must remember the Catholic Church believes authority resides with them and not solely with the New Testament.  They are not willing to accept the New Testament alone as the final authority in religion.  This is not news to anyone familiar with the Catholic Church.

Pentecostal groups have a different motivation.  As far as I know they have not tried to get humanity to think that God hands down law today through them, law not found in the New Testament, but they have misunderstood the New Testament.  Their existence does depend on the continuation of miracles and spiritual gifts.  All know this who know anything about them.  If miracles have ceased they are left high and dry, out in the cold, and have taught false doctrine.  They must fight against what has been taught in this article.  If miracles have ceased, as I have been teaching, then where does that leave Pentecostalism?

One must remember that doctrine does not exist in a vacuum.  Every doctrine has implications.  As we all from time to time examine our beliefs we would do well to see where our thinking leads.  We must accept the implications for we really have no choice unless we are to throw all logic and reason out the window.     

[To download this article or print it out click here.]