I am a tab bit late to the game
on the Matt Slick, JD Hall debate on the charismatic gifts. To be honest, I had
no idea that Matt Slick believed that the gifts were still in operation in the
church today. At any rate, during the debate Matt had with JD, Matt seemed to
come back again and again to 1 Cor. 1:7. For some reason, Matt thinks this text
does something significant to support his position. In this post we shall take
a look at this text to see if it does anything to support Matt Slick’s view
that the charismatic gifts, or as JD would call them, the apostolic sign gifts
are operating in the church today.
Paul wrote the first letter to
the Corinthian Church for very specific reasons. This makes the letter an occasion
epistle. Paul had received both reports about the behavior of the church as
well as some questions that needed to be addressed. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians
while he was in Ephesus, some time before Pentecost, probably early 55. Paul
had first preached the gospel in Corinth during his second missionary journey.
The event is recorded in Acts 18.
Ancient Greece was divided into
two Roman provinces: Macedonia, the capital of which was Thessalonica, and
Achaia, the capital of which was Corinth. Corinth was a mere 50 miles from
Athens. However, it was viewed as a crass antithesis to that intellectual
center. The center had been by freed slaves only around 44 BCE. The city was
strategically located on the Peloponnesian Peninsula. It benefited from the
trade routes the passed through it and had a thriving economy during New
Testament times. Corinth was proud of its diversity and tolerance. However,
this cultural mindset earn it a reputation for throughout the Roman empire, the
phrase “to act like a Corinthian” came to be Roman slang for engaging in sexual
promiscuity.
It was to the church located in
this particular city that Paul had occasion to write the letter that has come
to be known as 1 Corinthians. There is no indication in any of the New
Testament letters that any other community had as many problems or as much
chaos as the Corinthian church had. There were carnal divisions, heresies over
issues as basic as the resurrection, abuse of spiritual gifts, serious error in
how the Lord’s Table was being administered, and gross immorality that exceeded
that of the pagan culture. Corinth was a problem church if it was anything.
This alone should give anyone serious pause before selecting Corinth as their
model community for what a church ought to be. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Leon Morris divides 1 Corinthians
into 8 sections: Introduction, Division, Moral Laxity, Marriage, Meat offered
to Idols, Disorder in Public Worship, The Resurrection, Conclusion. The section
with which this post is concerned falls within the introduction. The
introduction is best broken down into two sections: The Greeting (1-3) and
Thanksgiving (4-9). The verse that Slick built is debate around, seemingly
anyways, is v. 7. The question then is this: is Matt Slick’s interpretation of
1 Corinthians 1:7 based on sound exegesis? That is the question this post seeks
to answer.
1 Corinthians 1:4-9
I give thanks to my God always
for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you
were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— 6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed
among you— 7 so that
you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord
Jesus Christ, 8 who
will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by
whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Before entering the text, a
little more should be said about the genre of New Testament letters. Osborne notes, “The major point of
hermeneutical significance is that the Epistles contain both occasional and
supracultural elements. For our purposes here, we must be aware that many
elements in the Epistles do not directly provide paradigms for the Christian
life today.”[1]
A good example of this is Romans 14 and the claim that there is in it a general
principle known as the weaker brother principle. Close exegetical scrutiny,
however, reveals that this is simply not the case at all. There are numerous
other examples, such as issues related to Christians eating meat that had been
offered to idols in the very epistle with which this post is concerned. This is
an important component of New Testament exegesis that must always be kept in
mind during the interpretive process.
The context of this passage then
begins with the greeting in vv. 1-3 and continues through v. 9. We see the
obvious marker in v. 10: Parakalo de umas. This places our specific
text, vv. 4-9 within the introduction. After his greeting, Paul tells the
Corinthians how thankful he is to God on their behalf: I give thanks to my God
always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus. Eucharisto
to theo, literally I am continually thankful, offering thanks to God! Paul’s
expression of thanksgiving is a customary present which indicates habitual
action. Note also should be made that Paul uses the personal pronoun mou.
He is continually giving thanks to his God! This makes the expression more
personal in nature. Paul continually thanks his God because of that
grace of God that had been given the Corinthians in Christ Jesus.
Verse 5
continues, “that in every way you were
enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge.” “That” is rendered from the
Greek hoti. It is better to think of this clause as in apposition to v.
4, rendering “that” as “because” or “namely that.” The flow looks like this:
because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, namely that, in
every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge. This
indicates more specifically that grace of God that was given to the
Corinthians. The Corinthians had been enriched in speech and knowledge. Paul
mentions this again in 2 Cor. 8:7 where he says they excel in speech,
knowledge, and faith. Speech and knowledge are gifts of grace from God
specifically given to the body in order that the body may benefit.
Verse 6, even as the testimony
about Christ was confirmed among you. This verse is a comparative subordinate
clause. It begins with the adverbial, comparative conjunction, kathos.
This is a type of adverbial clause that expresses a comparison between the
subordinate and the main clause. It could be used in this case to indicate the
extent of the enrichment, the reason why they were enriched, or finally, that
their enrichment was evidence that the testimony of Christ was confirmed among
them. I think Thiselton is correct in “that it denotes, not measure (just as) but how being enriched relates to
its cause in the impact of the gospel on the readers.”[2]
The genitive is qualitative. Christ is the focus of witness, and God through
the Spirit brings home the truth of
this witness as their Christian experience develops and as the Christian
community lives out its lifestyle and grows. Others respond, and thereby
further confirmation of the witness to Christ occurs. The whole experience is
no longer confined to a small group of individuals who may be similar in
stature, mind-set, or culture, but the truth is cross-referenced among a
widening and diversifying community in which the Holy Spirit is transparently
at work. In this sense in multi-cultural, pluralist Corinth, each new
experience of God and each new convert confirms
as valid this witness to Christ.[3]
The testimony of Christ is the testimony about Christ, the Son of the Living
God, that is, nothing short of the gospel. This testimony about Christ, or the
gospel, has been confirmed in the Corinthian believers. We see Paul refer to
this again in 2:1 which no doubt has given rise to the variant in this verse.
There Paul calls it to musterion tou theou, the testimony of God.
Clearly Paul is talking about his preaching of the gospel of Christ. A few manuscripts
have theou (B* F G 81 et al) while the majority (P46 א A C B F et al) read christou.
The latter is clearly preferred. The NET renders the clause, “just as” the
testimony of Christ has been confirmed among you.
Verse
7 continues; so that you are not lacking in
any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a
resultative subordinate clause that expresses the result of the main verbal
action. If we locate that action in v. 4, then this clause should be read with
v. 4 as follows: I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of
God that was given you in Christ Jesus… with the result that you are not
lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Another
point should be made here and that is simply this, the word hystereisthai
is a passive infinitive. The Corinthians
played no part in their lacking or not lacking in any gift of grace. If
we map diagram the text according to the discourse or flow, it would look like
this up to this point:
A
I
give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given
you in Christ Jesus
a.
that
in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge
i. even as the testimony about
Christ was confirmed among you
b.
with
the result that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing
of our Lord Jesus Christ
Bullets
(a) and (b), or v 5 and v 7 are sub-bullets under v 4 while v 6 is a sub-bullet
to v 5. The flow helps the reader the ground of Paul’s thanksgiving.
Verse
8, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in
the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is technically a continuative relative
clause. It connects the idea that follows with the chain that has just preceded
it. The personal pronoun hos likely refers to Christ since God is so far
back (v. 4). It is God who will confirm or establish the Corinthians to the
end, blameless! One hears the words, he who began a good work in you will bring
it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Phil. 1:6) The Corinthians are
reminded that it is the work of God that confirmed the testimony of Christ
among them and now that this same God will confirm them in the faith until the
day of Jesus Christ. This is what Paul is indeed that for which Paul is
continually thankful to God. This is the grace of God that has been poured out
on the Corinthians with the result that they are not lacking any gift of grace!
Verse 9 sums this up, God is
faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord. Paul reminds the Corinthians that God is faithful. How could the
Corinthians come behind in any gift of grace? They had received the grace of
God, had been enriched in all speech and knowledge, had the testimony about
Christ confirmed among them, had been confirmed blameless to the end, and all
of this was due to the grace and faithfulness of God alone!
A
I
give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given
you in Christ Jesus
a.
that
in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge
i. even as the testimony about
Christ was confirmed among you
b.
with
the result that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing
of our Lord Jesus Christ
B
Who
will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ/
C
God
is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus
Christ our Lord.
We now return to Matt Slick’s
interpretation of 1 Cor. 1:7. Matt Slick considers 1 Cor. 1:7 to be absolute
proof that the apostolic gifts continue to the present day. Slick says he bases
his argument on exegesis and nothing more. Well, as one exegetes this
text it becomes clear that there is nothing in 1 Cor. 1:7 that would support
such a narrow interpretation. Paul is simply saying that the Corinthians are
not lacking in any gift of grace. This potential lack does not necessarily
refer to the lack of special gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14, because
there Paul indicates that each Christian is not to exercise every gift (1 Cor.
12:27-31). Rather he seems to be referring more generally to God’s grace
actively counteracting the sins and faults so prevalent in the Corinthian
congregation.[4]
Slick insists that this text refers to the special gifts mentioned in chapters
12-14. Exegetically, Slick’s interpretation is weak at best. Most commentators
do not see any exegetical warrant for narrowing Paul’s use of the word charismata
to mean the special gifts mentioned later in the book since Paul uses the same
term elsewhere when he is clearly not referring to those particular gifts.
Romans 12 clearly encompasses more than just these gifts and Romans 6:23 has a
much broader view of God’s gift of grace in view.
The problem is far worse than
just a lack of exegetical warrant for Slick’s interpretation. There is also a
logical problem with Slick’s position. You see, Slick believes that the Church
is lacking in these gifts, if the cessationatist position is correct and
therefore, this is a contradiction of 1 Cor. 1:7. But such a state is
impossible given the nature of the charismata. Even if Slick is right
about 1.7 being more narrow in nature than almost all commentators believe, his
use of this text fails to contribute anything substantive to his position.
1 Corinthians 1:7 views God as
the one who does all the work necessary to ensure that the Corinthian
believers are not lacking in any gift of grace. If one were to listen to
Slick’s argument, they would be left with the distinct impression that this is
something the individual controls. However, such a view can nowhere be supported
by the biblical text. The text in question clearly places God in the position
of sovereignly ensuring that the individual/church does not lack any gift of
grace. Assuming for the sake of argument that Slick is correct, and that the
reference to the charismata belongs to 1 Cor. 12-14, one should examine
that text to see if it is indeed the responsibility of the Church to make sure
that it does not lack in any gift of grace. When we look at 1 Corinthians 12:7
we begin to get a glimpse into how these gifts come into the local body at
Corinth: To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common
good. The word given, didotai, is in the passive voice indicating
that the recipient of the gift is passive. And at the end of this pericope, in
v. 11, Paul writes, All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who
apportions to each one individually as he wills. Clearly, the
administration of the chariamata that Slick speaks about is entirely,
from beginning to end, under the specific adminstration of God the Holy Spirit.
God gifts men according to God’s purpose. An individual cannot will God into
giving him a gift if this is not already within God’s plan. The Church cannot “do
something” not to come behind in these gifts of grace. Paul calls these
particular gifts he phonerosis tou pneumatos, the manifestations of the
Spirit. These gifts are peculiar in that they are open disclosures of the Holy
Spirit by way of speech, thought, and by way of acts or miraculous. None of the
other gifts mentioned in the New Testament are said to be manifestations or
disclosures of the Spirit.
This being said, the logical
problem comes back into view once we understand just exactly how these gifts
functioned and who the administrator over them was at that time. Since God is
the one who dispenses the gifts to whomever he wills, Slick’s argument that the
church could lack a gift of grace is moot. The reason it is moot is that a church
can only lack gifts that are available to it at the time but that it does not
possess. This leaves Slick with a position that is logically classified as begging
the question. If J.D. Hall is correct, and I am highly confident that he
is, and these particular phainoic gifts are no longer being dispensed
by God, then it necessarily follows that the modern church cannot be said to be
lacking in a gift that God is no longer giving. The question we are asking is
if God is still gifting men in this way in the modern church. To travel back
into the NT and presuppose that all those gifts were available and practiced by
them at that time and should be practiced by us in our time is an unproven
assumption on the part of Slick. And 1 Cor. 1:7 does absolutely nothing to save
his position or even contribute anything interesting to the argument.
Slick may want to say that the
gifts are being dispensed today and that the Pentecostals and Charismatics are
engaging in genuine movements of God. But that is not an exegetical argument.
It is an argument from experience, just like his prophetic experience. After
all, he is the one who wants to make this an exegetical argument. Slick’s
position may be something like, we have the gifts in our possession but we just
are operating in them. This is again begging the question. I do not see the
gift of tongues like I read about it exegetically in the NT. And I was a
Pentecostal for over 15 years. I lived and breathed it. Slick has nothing on me
where experiencing the Pentecostal life is concerned. I am both experienced and
educated in that life. I also have to note that there is a high correlation of
heresy associated with those whom, according to Slick and other
continuationists, are not lacking in any gift of grace. That is a phenomenon I would
be interested in hearing someone like Slick explain. I understand it is outside
the exegetical and logical arguments one way or another. But it is an
interesting fact that someone on that side needs to explain logically and
exegetically.
Finally, Slick’s appeal to his
experience in the PCA and to his two prophetic experiences were tactics that he
would have been better off leaving outside the conversation. I respect Matt
Slick a great deal. I am a fellow presuppositionalist. I appreciate his
contributions in apologetics. But that he was hurt by a presbytery in the PCA
has nothing to do with this discussion. Either he has let that go, embraced God’s
sovereignty in his life or he is bitterly hanging onto it. But it has no place in
the discussion. If you can’t control your emotions, then don’t have the
conversation. In terms of the other experiences, they were just that, his own
experiences. And what we heard were not Matt Slick’s experiences, but his own
interpretation of those experiences. When a man attempts to use his credibility
one area to bully others into accepting his experiences in another area, there
is a danger that rather than gain credibility for the experience, he will lose
it elsewhere. And that is what happened in this discussion with J.D. Hall. Matt
attempted to bully J.D. into accepting his experience or publicly questioning
his credibility. It was an uncharitable dilemma for Matt to employ and he
should apologize to JD for doing it if he has not done so already. A proper
response is to place Matt’s credibility in apologetics and his experience aside
and recognize that what we are dealing with in one case anyways is a 30 year
old memory and interpretation of an individual experience. Sorry Matt, but I
cannot become a continuationist based on your subjective interpretation of a
memory of an experience you had 30 years ago. I couldn’t do that if you had the
experience yesterday.
In the end, this argument about
the ‘phainoic’ gifts of the Holy Spirit is not merely exegetical in nature. It
is empirical. It requires a two-step process. First, exegetically examine these
phenomena as they occurred in the NT. Once we understand what each gift looked
like when practiced in NT times, then we can compare that with what we see
taking place today and ask: is this that? And I think if we honestly approach
this issue in that way, we are likely to conclude with a negative response.
[1] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical
Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ©2006), 317.
[2] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans,
2000), 94.
[3] Ibid., 94–95.
[4] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor's
Bible Commentary Romans-Galatians, Volume 10 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1976), 190.
No comments:
Post a Comment