14. Those Controversial Gifts? The Spirit and the Charismata
14
Those Controversial Gifts? The Spirit and the Charismata
Because the Spirit was present with his people, for Paul his giftings were as normal as breathing and were intended for the building up of the people in the present as they await the consummation.
One of the fads among evangelicals in the final decades of the twentieth century has been that of finding your spiritual gift. There was hardly a church or youth group that did not have such a conference or seminar. While I appreciate the motivation behind this movement, that each of us recognize and appreciate our role in the church, nonetheless the New Testament scholar in me winced on more than one occasion. I could not imagine Paul understanding what was going on at all!
My problems with this fad are several: taking the texts out of context, rearranging the gifts under our own convenient groupings, thus leveling the various passages in Paul into card-catalogue form, and focusing on discovering what the Corinthians would have known by experience. But the greatest problem for me is the nearly universal tendency to divorce the list of “Spirit manifestations” (Paul’s own term in context) in 1 Corinthians 12:8–10 from its clear setting of Christian worship.
We noted in the preceding chapter that community worship includes several extraordinary phenomena, which Paul variously calls charismata (“gracious giftings,” 1 Cor. 12:4), pneumatika (“things of the Spirit,” 1 Cor. 12:1; 14:1), or “manifestations of the Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:7). Such phenomena are especially the activity of the Spirit in the gathered community, as 1 Corinthians 14 makes abundantly clear.
This is an area, however, where there is also great diversity in understanding, both among scholars and within church contexts. The primary reason for this diversity is the basic assumption by most that Paul is intending to give instruction on the meaning and use of charismata in the various passages in his letters where this word occurs. What we have in fact is correction aimed at particular problems in particular churches; it is not systematic, nor does it cover all bases. Here our concern is to describe the phenomena as best we can in light of the available evidence.
This chapter, therefore, is not intended to cover the whole waterfront. We will focus on the various lists in 1 Corinthians 12–14, although at the outset I will cast the net a bit farther. As with the list of fruit (chap. 10 above), the lists in 1 Corinthians must first of all be understood in their context in 1 Corinthians 12–14, before I offer more general conclusions as to what each of the gifts is about.
How Many Gifts, and What Kinds?
Several things need to be said about the various lists in 1 Corinthians 12–14. First, none of them is intended to be complete, as though Paul were setting forth everything that might legitimately be called a “gift of the Spirit.” This is proved in part by the fact that no two lists are identical. It goes beyond the evidence—and Paul’s own concerns—to speak of “the nine spiritual gifts.”
Second, the items in 12:8–10 are called “manifestations of the Spirit,” which in context means, “different ways the Spirit shows himself when the community is gathered together.” Paul’s point here is the community’s need for diversity. The list is especially tailored to the situation in Corinth. Paul’s grammar and wording suggest a listing in three parts. The first two parts pick up words that held high court in Corinth (“wisdom” and “knowledge”) and seem to be an attempt by Paul to recapture these realities for the Spirit and the gospel. The next five have in common that they are, like speaking in tongues (glossolalia), extraordinary phenomena. Finally, after diversity is well heard, he includes the problem child, tongues, along with its necessary companion—at least in the community—the interpretation of tongues.
Third, attempts to categorize the items in the different lists are tentative at best. When those in Romans 12:6–8 and Ephesians 4:11 are included as well, a wide variety of terminology is used (motivational, ministerial, etc.) that the apostle would scarcely recognize and that at best are suspect. The broad spectrum of phenomena is best grouped under the three natural headings hinted at in 1 Corinthians 12:4–6: service, miracles, and inspired utterance. Paul does not refer to visionary experiences such as one finds in 2 Corinthians 12:1–6 as charismata, although they belong legitimately to a discussion of Spirit phenomena. Nor does he call people (for example, apostles, pastors) charismata; to be sure, they are gifts to the church, as Ephesians 4:11 shows, but only their ministries, not the people themselves, are legitimately termed charismata, in Paul’s usage.
Forms of Service
Items listed here include “helpful deeds” and “acts of guidance” from 1 Corinthians 12:28; see also “serving,” “giving,” and “caring for” (in the sense of leadership) in Romans 12:7–8. These are the least visibly “charismatic” of the gifts and the least obvious as expressions of corporate worship. They belong to Paul’s ever-present interest in relationships within the church. Thus they are Spirit activity, not so much in the sense of Spirit manifestations within the assembly as in the sense of the broad range of Spirit activity noted in chapters 9 and 10 above. To include them in a discussion of charismata would legitimize discussing any and all works of the Spirit as charismata, making the category useless.
The Miraculous
Included here are three items from 1 Corinthians 12:9–10, “faith,” “gifts of healings,” and “workings of miracles.” As the recurrence in 13:2 makes certain, “faith” in this list refers to the supernatural gift of faith that can “move mountains.” “Gifts of healings” refer to the healing of the physical body (the healing of mind and spirit are for Paul what conversion is about), and “workings of miracles” to all other such phenomena not included in healing.
The use of the plurals, “gifts” and “workings,” for the last two probably means that these gifts are not permanent, but each occurrence is a gift in its own right. That such phenomena were a regular part of the apostle’s own ministry is demonstrated in 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Romans 15:18–19. That they were also the regular expectation of Paul’s churches is demonstrated in Galatians 3:5. He would simply not have understood the presence of the Spirit that did not also include such evidences of the Spirit’s working that he termed “powers,” which we translate “miracles.”
Whether one believes such things happened depends almost entirely on one’s worldview. The so-called Enlightenment has had its innings, and moderns, helped along by the phenomenal advances of modern scientific discovery, are prone to unbridled arrogance. That is, Paul and his churches believed in such things, we are told, because of their “primitive” worldview, which moderns casually dismiss as unrealistic. For example, Rudolf Bultmann, speaking for many, caricatured the “three-storied universe” of Paul and his contemporaries. This modern worldview is widespread. Many evangelicals, who were incensed at Bultmann’s rationalism that so casually dismissed Paul’s affirmations of such works of the Spirit, adopted their own brand of rationalism to explain the absence of such phenomena in their own circles: by limiting this kind of Spirit activity to the age of the apostles.
But in defense of Paul, two matters about his affirmations of extraordinary Spirit manifestations must be noted. First, all such statements in Paul are sober, matter-of-fact, and usually offhanded, events that for him would have been open to investigation had anyone felt the need to do so. The reason for this is very simple—and theological. He was born and raised within a (Jewish) tradition that believed in God and could not even have imagined God as not being all-powerful. With this view of God as one who took an active interest in his universe and in the affairs of his people, it would never have occurred to Paul that the one who chose to be present with them in the incarnation and now by his Spirit would do otherwise than graciously step in and work in his people’s lives. Those who believe in God as creator and sustainer, but who balk at the miraculous both past and present, have created theological positions for themselves that are difficult to sustain and quite removed from the biblical perspective.
Second, Paul’s affirmations about miracles are not the statements of one who is trying to prove anything. That is, he does not point to miracles as grounds for accepting either his gospel or his ministry; on the contrary he rejects such criteria as authenticating ministry of any kind. The cross, with the subsequent resurrection, and the present gift of the Spirit are all the authentication he ever appeals to. Those who need an occasional miracle to keep their belief in God alive and those who feed on such “faith” by promoting the miraculous as authenticating their “gospel” also lie outside Paul’s perspective. His view expects and accepts, but does not demand, and on this matter refuses to put God to the test.
Inspired Utterance
Included here are “the message of wisdom,” “the message of knowledge,” “prophecy,” “the discernments of S/spirits,” “tongues,” and “the interpretation of tongues” from 1 Corinthians 12:8, 10, and “teaching” and “revelation” from 14:6. In light of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, we should probably also include “singing” from 14:26. Attempts to distinguish some of these items from one another are generally futile, as is any distinction between their charismatic or noncharismatic expression (for example, teaching or singing).
The “message of wisdom” and “knowledge” is language created by the situation in Corinth. For Paul the “message of wisdom” refers first of all to the preaching of the cross (see 1 Cor. 1:18–2:16; the terminology occurs nowhere else); whether it means some spontaneous expression of Spirit wisdom for the sake of the community is possible but can never be known. “Knowledge” is closely related to “mysteries” in 1 Corinthians 13:2, and elsewhere it stands close to the concept of “revelation” (13:8–9, 12; 14:6). Similarly, prophecy is closely connected to “revelation” in 14:6 and especially in 14:25, 26, and 30. Are these to be understood as distinctively different gifts? Or, as seems more likely, do they suggest different emphases for the expression of the prophetic gift, since that, too, seems to swing between “revealing mysteries” and more straightforward words of edification, comfort, and exhortation (or encouragement)? In any case, the use of uninterpreted tongues in the assembly is what brought forth the whole argument, and Paul uses prophecy as representative of all other intelligible inspired utterances that are to be preferred to tongues in that setting.
Both because Paul himself uses tongues and prophecy in a running contrast between (edifying) intelligibility and (nonedifying) unintelligibility in 1 Corinthians 14, and because of our inherent interest in these two phenomena, I offer some further suggestions about these two charismata.
Speaking in Tongues
Paul’s term for this phenomenon is literally “different kinds of tongues.” Enough is said in 1 Corinthians 12–14 to give us a fairly good idea as to how he understood it. We have already looked at the role of tongues in Paul’s life of prayer (at the end of chapter 12 above). Our interest here is to summarize what he says about it, especially focusing on its role in the community.
1. Whatever else, it is Spirit-inspired utterance; that is made plain by 1 Corinthians 12:7 and 11 and 14:2. This in itself should cause some to speak more cautiously when trying to “put tongues in their place” (usually meaning eliminate them altogether) in the contemporary church. Paul does not damn tongues with faint praise, as some have argued, nor does he stand in awe of the gift, as the Corinthians had apparently done—and some contemporary proponents of tongues do. As with all Spirit-empowered activity, Paul held it in high regard in its proper place.
2. The regulations for its community use in 14:27–28 make clear that the speaker is not ecstatic or out of control. Quite the opposite: the speakers must speak in turn, and they must remain silent if there is no one to interpret. Therefore the mind is not detached, but it is at rest and “unfruitful.”
3. It is speech essentially unintelligible both to the speaker (14:14) and to other hearers (14:16), which is why it must be interpreted in the assembly.
4. It is speech directed basically toward God (14:2, 14–15, 28); one may assume, therefore, that what is interpreted is not speech directed toward others but the “mysteries” spoken to God.
5. As a gift for private prayer, Paul held it in the highest regard (14:4, 5, 15, 17–18; cf. Rom. 8:26–27; Eph. 6:18), as noted in chapter 12 above.
Whether Paul also understood it to be an actual earthly language is a moot point, but the overall evidence suggests not. He certainly does not foresee the likelihood of someone’s being present who might understand without interpretation; and the analogy of earthly language in 14:10–12 implies that it is not an earthly language (a thing is not usually identical with that to which it is compared).
Our most likely access to Paul’s understanding is through his description of the phenomenon in 1 Corinthians 13:1 as “the tongues of angels.” The context virtually demands that this phrase refers to glossolalia or “speaking in tongues.” The more difficult matter is its close association with “the tongues of people.” Most likely this refers to two kinds of glossolalia: a human dialect, inspired of the Spirit but unknown to the speaker or hearers, and angelic speech, inspired of the Spirit to speak in the heavenly dialect. The historical context in general suggests that the latter is what the Corinthians understood glossolalia to be, and that therefore they considered it one of the evidences of their having already achieved something of their future heavenly status.
Paul shows considerable ambivalence toward this gift. On the one hand, with regard to its use in the public assembly, although he does not condemn it, he is obviously not keen on it. In any case, tongues should not occur at all if there is not an interpretation. On the other hand, as a gift of private prayer and utterance, Paul speaks of tongues quite favorably, obviously a topic that for Paul is very personal and private. The breakdown for him has occurred when what is personal and private comes into the public assembly, since it has no facility for strengthening the others. Here again the central focus on corporate life comes to the fore.
The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot—and probably irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit that functions in many of the same ways and for its practitioners has value similar to that described by Paul.
Prophecy
Of all the charismata, this is the one mentioned most often in Paul’s letters. It is specifically mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 5:20; 1 Corinthians 11:4–5; 12:10–14:40; Romans 12:6; Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; 1 Timothy 1:18; 4:14; and probably lies behind “through the Spirit” in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and “in keeping with a revelation” in Galatians 2:2. This implies a wide range of occurrence in Paul’s churches.
Although prophecy was also widespread in the Greek world, Paul’s understanding is thoroughly shaped by his history in Judaism. The prophet spoke to God’s people under the inspiration of the Spirit. In Paul such speech consists of spontaneous, understandable messages, orally delivered in the gathered assembly, intended for the edification or encouragement of the people. For the most part these appear to be directed toward the whole community, although 1 Timothy 1:18 and 4:14 (and probably Gal. 2:2) point to words spoken for the sake of individuals—but still within the context of the community.
That the utterances are spontaneous is certain from the evidence in 1 Corinthians 14:29–32, since a “revelation” comes to another while one person is still “prophesying.” Those who prophesy are clearly understood to be “in control” (see 14:29–33). Although some people are called “prophets,” the implication of 1 Corinthians 14:24–25 and 30–31 is that the gift is available—at least potentially—to all.
But it is also clear that it does not have independent authority. The combined evidence of 1 Thessalonians 5:21–22 and 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 14:29 indicates that all prophesying must be “discerned” by the Spirit-filled community. That is almost certainly the first intent of the gift of the “discernments of S/spirits” in 1 Corinthians 12:10, since the verb form of the noun “discernments” appears in 14:29 as the needed response to prophetic utterances, just as interpretation is needed with tongues.
The actual function of prophecy in the Pauline churches is more difficult to pin down. If our view of Galatians 2:2, 1 Timothy 1:18, and 4:14 is correct, then, on the one hand, the Spirit directs the lives of his servants in specific ways; sometimes they are singled out for the ministry the Spirit empowers (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14), and sometimes they are directed to undertake a difficult mission to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:2). On the other hand, the Spirit also reminds the church, probably repeatedly, that the words of Jesus concerning the increase of evil in the end (1 Tim. 4:1) are being confirmed. A misguided but heeded prophetic utterance that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2) probably led to the distress in Thessalonica.
In 1 Corinthians 14 yet another picture emerges of how the community regularly experiences the prophetic Spirit: in the case of believers the Spirit speaks encouragement and edification, and in the case of unbelievers he lays bare their hearts in such a way as to lead to repentance. All this textual evidence suggests that prophecy was a widely expressed and widely experienced phenomenon, which had as its goal the building up of the people of God so as to come to maturity in Christ (Eph. 4:11–16).
Some recent writing on this issue has been interested in the question of backgrounds and authority. This problem is related to the inspiration and biblical authority of the Old Testament prophets and a concern whether New Testament prophecy should be understood in the same way. Since Paul saw prophecy as evidence for the fulfillment of God’s eschatological promises, he undoubtedly also saw the New Testament prophets as in the succession of the legitimate prophets of the Old Testament. This explains in part why all such prophecy must be discerned, just as with those in the Old Testament. But the nature of the new prophecy was also understood to be of a different kind, precisely because of the church’s present eschatological existence. A prophet who speaks encouragement to the church in its between-the-times existence speaks a different word from the predominant word of judgment on ancient Israel.
The Discernment of Prophecy
In 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22, Paul exhorts: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophesyings; but test all things, and hold fast to the good and abstain from every evil expression.” If the tendency in one sector of the contemporary church is to disobey this injunction by quenching the Spirit through their rejection of prophecy, the tendency on the Pentecostal/charismatic side has been to disregard the rest of the injunctions—which are the main point!
Because of their sense of awe over God’s speaking in this way, spontaneously and often in an authoritative kind of voice, Pentecostals have traditionally let almost anything go among them in the name of the Lord. When discernment does happen, it is usually to weed out the bad. Paul’s concern lies on both sides, that they discern what the Lord is saying to them so as to hold fast to the good, as well as to be done with the bad.
What lies behind this disobedience on the part of the latter traditions is probably a lack of certainty as to the criteria for discernment, as well as a lack of clarity as to how it is to be done. Paul’s own criteria emerge in two passages, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in light of 2:2 and 1 Corinthians 14:3. This latter passage is more easily recognized: those who prophesy do so for the “encouragement (or exhortation), comfort, and edification” of the gathered people of God. A bit more needs to be said about the 2 Thessalonians passages.
The exhortations in 1 Thessalonians are probably given in anticipation of the problem that is spoken to in 2 Thessalonians 2. Although Paul is not sure of the source (prophetic word, his own former teaching, or his earlier letter), someone in the community has gone off half-cocked, and in Paul’s name has prophesied that “the day of the Lord has already come.” Paul’s response to this is 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12, where he reminds them how contradictory that utterance is to his actual teaching while among them. In a summarizing exhortation in verse 15, he then urges them to hold fast to his former teachings, whether they came when he was present among them or from his previous letter. Noticeably absent from this passage is the mention of “Spirit” from verse 2. Paul’s point seems clear: they are to weigh all such “Spirit” utterances in light of his own apostolic teaching. I would assume that the same holds true for all believers in all generations.
How Common Were the Gifts in Paul’s Churches?
That Paul can list all these items in such a matter-of-fact way, especially in 1 Corinthians 12:7–11, indicates that the worship of the early church was far more charismatic than has been true for most of its subsequent history. Some indeed have tried to make a virtue of this lack, arguing that the more extraordinary phenomena were relatively limited in the early church—they belong to more “immature” believers like the Corinthians—but are not needed in our more “mature” congregations! However, this argument not only misunderstands the childhood/adulthood imagery in 1 Corinthians 13:10–12, but it is also by the very nature of Paul’s letters a totally invalid argument from silence. One may as well argue that the other churches known to Paul did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper, since it is mentioned only in 1 Corinthians (10:16–17; 11:17–34), and as with tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 only to correct an abuse.
The evidence is considerable that a visible, charismatic dimension of life in the Spirit was the normal experience of Paul’s churches. That Paul should speak to it in a direct way so few times (esp. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 Cor. 12–14) is an accident of history: it was spoken to only where problems of abuse had arisen. The nature of the problem in Thessalonica, to be sure, is uncertain; either some of them are playing down the prophetic Spirit in their gatherings, or Paul is anticipating some problems and tries to bring it under the rule of “test all things.” More likely it is the latter. If so, then it is similar to the problem in Corinth. In any case, Paul’s response is never to eliminate such phenomena—they are the manifestations of the Spirit, after all—but to correct by urging proper use.
Even more telling are the offhanded, matter-of-fact ways these phenomena are mentioned elsewhere. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 Paul knows that someone has falsely informed them as to “the day of the Lord.” What he does not know is the source of this false information; one possibility is “through the Spirit” (most likely a nondiscerned prophetic utterance). Likewise in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 in the matter of head coverings, Paul refers to worship as “praying and prophesying,” the two primary ways of addressing God and people in the assembly. In Galatians 3:4 he can appeal to their “having experienced so many such things,” referring specifically to the experiential dimension of their coming to faith in Christ; and in verse 5 a major point of his argument rests on their ongoing experience of “miracles.” Finally, in the case of Timothy’s ministry (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14), Timothy’s own gifting is related to prophetic utterances in the community. In none of these instances is Paul arguing for the gifts; rather, the visible, charismatic expression of their common life in the Spirit is the presupposition from which he argues for another point.
We may conclude, therefore, that all the evidence points in one direction: for Paul and his churches the Spirit is the key to their understanding of Christian life, from beginning to end, but above all else the Spirit is experienced, and experienced in ways that are essentially powerful and visible. Although in some cases these Spirit experiences led to triumphalism—of a dualistic type (Spirit against earthly existence)—for Paul these experiences are part of the package. Paul does not ethicize the Spirit, as some have argued; for Paul ethical life by the Spirit is part and parcel of his understanding of the Spirit as the fulfilled eschatological promise of God. That is, the ethical life of the Spirit belonged to the promise and was experienced as such before Paul came to it. His concern is with correction, to ensure that his churches follow in the paths he has taught them from the beginning.
But triumphalism (a belief in assured, constant success and victory in every area of life) was not the necessary result of life in the Spirit, experienced in dynamic and powerfully visible ways, as Paul’s own life attests. Here is one who could keep the two together. He could experience the Spirit, visibly manifest among them often and regularly in giftings and empowerings of an extraordinary kind. But at the same time, his continuing fullness of the joy of the Spirit was in the midst of suffering and weaknesses of all kinds.
The Gifts of the Spirit between the Times
Finally, we need to look at a question that comes from our time, rather than from Paul. Many of the charismata, especially the more extraordinary ones (prophecy, healings, miracles, tongues), fell into a time of disuse soon after the apostolic period, only to appear spasmodically thereafter in what many refer to as splinter groups. In our century some have made a virtue of this history, arguing that these gifts belonged to the apostolic period to establish and verify the gospel but are not needed after the end of the first Christian century, when all the New Testament documents had finally been written.
Interestingly, Paul does speak to this question, in 1 Corinthians 13:8–10, but in a manner unrelated to the way it has been raised in our time. It is not surprising that his answer is once again related to his end-time framework and presuppositions. His solution in this case seems directed against the misguided understanding of charismata, especially tongues, on the part of the Corinthians.
In this passage Paul is arguing against the Corinthians’ overspiritualized view of the end times. They have apparently emphasized the already in such a way as to negate rather thoroughly the not yet. Already they are rich, full, and have begun to reign (1 Cor. 4:8). Tongues seem to serve for them as the “sign” (cf. 14:20–22) of their arrival. For them, speaking the language of angels (13:1) means that they are already partakers of the ultimate state of spiritual existence, leading them to deny a future bodily resurrection (15:12).
As part of his argument against this wrong emphasis on tongues, Paul insists that the gifts do not belong to the (final) future but only to the present. On this matter the Corinthians are deluded. The irony is that the gifts, to them the evidence of future existence, will pass away when the true future existence is attained (13:8a): the charismata are “partial” (v. 9); they are like childhood in comparison with adulthood (v. 11); they are like looking into a mirror in comparison with seeing someone face-to-face (v. 12). But this is not a devaluation of the gifts; rather, it puts them into proper (already but not yet) eschatological perspective. We are still in the present, so in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul not only corrects abuse but also urges proper use. In the present we should pursue love (14:1), because that alone is both for now and forever (13:13); but that also means that in the already we should eagerly desire the Spirit to manifest himself among us by giftings to build up the community. The final glory (what is complete) awaits.
What does not seem possible to extract from this passage is that Paul expected the charismata to cease within his lifetime, or shortly thereafter. This particular answer to the issue is raised today not on the basis of reading Scripture but from the greater concern as to their present legitimacy. But this is a question of worldview, pure and simple, and one that Paul could not have understood. His answer is plain: “Of course they will continue as long as we await the final consummation.” Any answer that does not follow in the footsteps of the apostle at this point may hardly appeal to him for support.
* * *
Paul’s word to the Philippians is worth our hearing and heeding today: “Join with others in following my example, brothers and sisters, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (3:17). In the context of Philippians that pattern included both “the power of Christ’s resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings” (v. 10). As noted in chapter 10 above, his example of a Spirit-empowered, Spirit-directed life was particularly wide-ranging and included personal Spirituality as well as the community phenomena noted in this chapter. We are already but not yet, and the only way we can so live is by the power of the Spirit. The reason for the gifts in the assembly is to build us up as we live out the life of the future in the present age. The Holy Spirit, as the renewed presence of God, is with us in our gatherings for this very purpose. Thus our final word is like the first one: the Spirit for Paul was an experienced end-time reality who served both as evidence that the future is already at hand and as the guarantee of its final consummation.
Reflection Questions