Although today's charismatic excesses have developed beyond the earlier practice of speaking in tongues into a veritable charismatic freak show (witness the ecstatic phenomena associated with the Toronto blessing), the more narrow issue of whether tongues are for today still needs to be addressed. I have not attempted to address the many other theological issues involved (such as the theology of the second blessing, the role of subjective experience in the Christian life, and so on). What follows is merely a compilation of the best Cessationist arguments demonstrating that tongues and prophecy have ceased with the close of the apostolic age. By no means are these arguments original with me. I have relied heavily on the work of Richard Gaffin in Perspectives on Pentecost (1979), which I consider to be the best book on the subject. In fact, much of what follows is merely a simplified outline of Gaffin's arguments, and I quote him quite liberally. Other sources are also cited by way of corroboration and exposition.

Statement of the Cessationist thesis

Positive affirmations

A pivotal presupposition

The presupposition stated

The presupposition proved

The presupposition defended

Three Cessationist arguments

The argument from the closing of the canon

The argument from Ephesians 2:20

The argument from tongues as a sign

An agnostic note on I Corinthians 13:8-13

Sources cited

"Cessationism" is here defined as the thesis that some of the gifts (and their corresponding offices) described in the New Testament are ordinary and perpetual, while others were extraordinary and have accordingly been withdrawn from the life of the church with the close of the apostolic age.

1. Pastors and teachers - Rom. 12:7; Eph. 4:11; I Tim. 3:1-7
2. Elders (gift of rule and government) - I Cor. 12:28; Rom. 12:8; I Tim. 5:17
3. Deacons (gift of serving, distribution, mercy) - Rom. 12:7-8; I Tim. 3:8-13
   
   
   
   

1. Apostles
2. Prophets (word of wisdom; of knowledge - I Cor. 12:8)
3. Evangelists
4. Distinguishing between spirits (I Cor. 12:10)
5. Tongues
6. Interpretation of tongues
7. Workers of miracles; healing ("faith" included here? I Cor. 12:9)
   
   
   

We cannot go into detail here, but it seems reasonable to assume that there is a close relationship between gift and office. In the case of the extraordinary gifts, it is not necessary to assume that an apostle was required to lay hands on every one who was given an extraordinary gift (though this did occur in some instances - Acts 8:17; 19:6; II Tim. 1:6). Rather, the charismatic endowment itself would have constituted one's ordination in such cases.

With regard to the ordinary gifts, the following picture emerges. In the Pastorals (which give us a glimpse of the order to be perpetuated in the church after the apostolic age), we see that qualifications (I Tim. 3:1-13), probationary testing (I Tim. 3:10), and ordination (I Tim. 5:22; Tit. 1:5) were becoming fixed elements in the setting apart of official leaders in the church who have gifts of teaching (pastor), rule (elder), or mercy (deacon).

In addition to such special offices, there is also the general office of all believers (Eph. 4:11-13). Since all in the body of Christ are gifted spiritually, each one may (and ought to) exercise his or her gifts "for the work of the ministry" and the edification of the body, without necessarily having to be ordained to a special office (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:16; I Pet. 4:10-11).

The question is not whether Cessationists accept (or deny) the reality of the Holy Spirit's work in the lives of believers.

The Cesssationist position affirms that all believers possess "the gift" of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 7:37-39; Acts 2:38; I Cor. 12:13). All who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into the Holy Spirit.

It further affirms that the post-apostolic church continues to be blessed with various distributions of the Holy Spirit ("gifts") for the edification of the body of Christ through various forms of ministry (I Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-16). Every believer has both "the gift" and "gifts." But not all believers have all the gifts, since they are distributed as God wills (I Cor. 12).

In addition, the Cessationist position does not deny the subjective, experiential aspect of the Christian life which may properly be regarded as one element of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. So profound and mysterious is the Spirit's work in the lives of believes that it may at times be "beyond words" (Rom. 11:33; II Cor. 9:15; 12:4; I Pet. 1:8), ministering to us at a level of our being that may seem to supersede our intellect. The Spirit ministers to us …

• by helping us to pray (Rom. 8:26-27; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20)
• by pouring God's love into our hearts (Rom. 5:5)
• by sealing us with a foretaste of heavenly glory (II Cor. 1:21f; Eph. 1:13f)
• by sanctifying us (I Cor. 6:11; I Pet. 1:2)
• by filling us with love, joy, peace, hope, etc. (Rom. 15:13; Gal. 5:22f)
• by quickening us with power to mortify the flesh (Rom. 8:13)
• by testifying to our spirit that we are sons of God (Rom. 8:15f)

This list is certainly incomplete, and undoubtedly many of the above aspects of the Spirit's ministry overlap and become indistinguishable in actual experience.

Cessationists also affirm that, although every true child of God has the Spirit as a permanent gift (Rom. 8:9), the believer's subjective experience of the Spirit is variable. Hence it is possible to grieve and quench the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30; I Thess. 5:19), and, conversely, we are commanded to be filled with and to walk in the Spirit (Eph. 5:18; Gal. 5:25).

"Tongues in the NT are always closely associated with prophecy and, when interpreted, are functionally equivalent to prophecy, as revelation from God which edifies others. In fact, tongues are a mode of prophecy." (Gaffin, p. 102) "We may even speak of the essentially prophetic nature of tongues, the difference being that tongues, unlike prophecy, require interpretation to be understood by others." (Gaffin, p. 80)

1. "A deliberate contrast between prophecy and tongues structures the whole chapter. This pair runs like a backbone down the body of almost the entire argument …. The pairing of prophesy and tongues that structures I Corinthians 14 ultimately roots in the fact that both are revelatory word-gifts." (Gaffin, pp. 56, 81). "What ties prophecy and tongues together, what they have in common that makes them comparable (contrastable) and explains their functional equivalence, is that both are word-gifts." (Gaffin, p. 58)
2. The interpretability of tongues (I Cor. 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26-28) indicates that they are an intelligible communication from God. They must therefore be divine revelation. (This point is valid regardless of whether the tongues at Corinth were actually existing languages.)
3. According to I Cor. 14:5 ("he who prophecies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets"), interpreted tongues are functionally equivalent to prophecy. (Robertson, p. 27) "The fundamental inferiority or depreciation of tongues relative to prophecy apparently applies only to uninterpreted tongues and is removed when interpretation takes place." (Gaffin, p. 57)
4. "The inspired, revelatory character of tongues is also seen in the fact that by the Spirit 'one who speaks in a tongue … speaks mysteries' (I Cor. 14:2)." Cp. I Cor. 13:2. (Gaffin, p. 79) "This term 'mysterion' in the NT has a very specific meaning which inherently includes the idea of the communication of divine revelation." (Robertson, p. 23)
5. "In Acts we find indications of a definite association between prophecy and tongues." Acts 2:4 (cf. vv. 17-18, citing Joel 2:28ff); 19:6 ("they spoke in tongues and prophesied"). (Gaffin, pp. 81-82)
6. Careful exegesis of I Cor. 14:14 (see 2 b below) leads to the following translation: "For if I pray in a tongue, the Spirit in me [or, the spirit given to me] prays, but my intellect lies fallow" (NEB). Thus, one who speaks in tongues speaks words inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that is the definition of prophecy. Cp. v. 2. (Gaffin, pp. 73-78)
   
   

The fact that Scripture mentions other secondary uses of tongues does not undermine the fundamentally prophetic and revelatory character of the gift itself. The following three arguments have been used in an attempt to elevate other secondary uses of the gift of tongues and in this way to minimize or eliminate the prophetic/revelatory element:

"In I Corinthians 14 Paul says that 'one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God' (v. 2) and that tongues involve 'praying,' 'singing,' and 'giving thanks' to God (vv. 14-17). An argument sometimes raised against the revelatory nature of tongues at Corinth is that this Godward direction of tongues is not the direction of revelation."

Response:

"Such an appeal … overlooks the Psalms and other doxological portions of Scripture. Are we to say that because they are addressed to God and not to men, they are therefore not revelation? On the contrary, with their Godward direction they are inspired revelation and recorded in Scripture in order that they may edify his covenant people, and this is precisely what (interpreted) tongues also are to do (v. 5)." (Gaffin, p. 80)

I Cor. 14:14 says: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." This text purportedly teaches that there is a nonrevelatory function for tongues as a sub-rational, non-conceptual expression of that which is deepest in the believer's spirit.

Response:

This view must take "my spirit" as a reference to the human spirit, and must place it in contrast with "my mind". But this is exegetically untenable for the following reasons:

• NT anthropology never pits man's "spirit" and "mind" against one another. The only dualism scripture accepts is that between the body and the spirit/mind/heart/soul, or between "the outer man" and "the inner man." The fact that Paul can speak of "being renewed in the spirit of your mind" (Eph. 4:23), shows that "spirit" and "mind" belong to the same basic semantic domain. Cp. also Mark 12:30. (Gaffin, pp. 74f)
• The word "spirit" in I Cor. 14:14 should not be interpreted anthropologically (as a component of the human psychology) but charismatically (as a reference to the gift given to each prophet by the Holy Spirit). This is an established usage: "The one who speaks in a tongue … speaks mysteries with [his] spirit" (v. 2); "since you are eager to have spiritual gifts" (lit. "spirits," v. 12); "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (v. 32); "to another, distinguishing between spirits" (I Cor. 12:10); "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (I Jn. 4:1); "the God of the spirits of the prophets" (Rev. 22:6).

I Cor. 14:4 tells us that "he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself." Usually, this verse is quoted in connection with an anthropological interpretation of "spirit" in vv. 2 and 14 (which we have examined above and found wanting). The argument is that, although tongues must be translated if exercised in public, they are still spiritually beneficial to the individual when used privately ("If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God," v. 28).

Response A:

"Any private use of tongues is not a gift somehow separable from, in addition to, or independent of its public exercise together with interpretation, as if the gift of tongues is given to some for private use, to others for public use (with interpretation). Rather, any private use of tongues is a strictly ancillary, peripheral aspect of the gift; private tongues are an accompanying, subsidiary benefit enjoyed by the recipient of the gift (to be interpreted) with its distinctive revelatory function. Note that it is just the prayer-tongue and the praise (song)-tongue (vv. 14f), usually seen to be central to the private exercise of the gift, which stand under the repetition of Paul's command for interpretation (v. 13; cf. v. 5). The view which holds that tongues are given primarily for the personal prayer life of the believer and not for public exercise in the congregation, along with interpretation, can be said only to have completely inverted Paul's outlook in I Corinthians 14." (Gaffin, p. 83)

Response B:

It is precisely this non-intellectual, sub-rational aspect of inspired, ecstatic speech that made the gift of tongues so attractive to the immature Christians at Corinth. And it is precisely this aspect that Paul wants to control, limit, and minimize. It is true that he does not out-right forbid speaking in tongues (in fact, he forbids that it be forbidden - 14:39). But he does chide the Corinthians for their immature priorities (14:20), since they had exalted ecstatic utterance over intelligent, edifying speech (prophecy, interpretation of tongues). Paul allows this ecstatic gift, obviously, because it was a genuine gift of the Spirit for that time, but he demands that this gift be exercised in a guarded fashion, precisely because of the abuses that can arise due to its necessarily non-rational, ecstatic element. He limits it in three ways:

• Like prophecy, tongues are subject to evaluation and discernment of its content by fellow-prophets in the setting of the assembled church (I Cor. 12:10; 14:29). All purported inspired, ecstatic utterances must be judged to see whether they are "in accordance with the analogy of the Faith" (Rom. 12:6 - for exegesis see Gillespie, ch. 1). "Do not treat prophecies with contempt; test everything; hold on to the good" (I Thess. 5:20f; cp. I Jn. 4:1-3).
• According to Gillespie, the pneumatics at Corinth apparently believed that unintelligible, ecstatic utterance (glossolalia) was the chief validating sign of authentic intelligible speech (prophecy). "Those who were spiritual infants view [tongues] as the sine qua non of the work of the Spirit, indeed, as the confirming 'sign' of prophetic utterance." (Gillespie, p. 160)
• But in I Cor. 12:1-3 Paul counters this simplistic and immature evaluation of the importance of tongues. To paraphrase: "You know that evidences of ecstasy are an unreliable criterion of authentic divine inspiration because in your pagan past they led you to the dumb idols (v. 2). Therefore (dio) the genuineness of all prophetic utterances must be judged on the basis of their material content alone (v. 3)." (Gillespie, p. 83)
• This second limitation is closely related to the first, but adds another dimension: ecstatic speech is not sufficient evidence that one is under the inspiration of the Spirit.
• In keeping with the requirement that tongues be in accordance with the orthodox apostolic gospel, Paul insists that they be translated in order that their orthodox content may edify the body. It is clear that such intelligent, rational, doctrinal edification is the only justification for exercising tongues in the assembly. If they cannot serve that purpose, they merely puff up the gift's possessor with pride, which is the opposite of love (I Cor. 13).
• Therefore, to argue that a private, self-edifying, nonrevelatory use of tongues should continue today would be to miss the central thrust of Paul's argument in I Cor. 14. For it is precisely this ecstatic, non-rational element which Paul insists must be made totally subservient to the public, testable, corporate, revelatory function of the gift. According to Paul, any nonrevelatory benefit of ecstatic speech is to be regarded as a secondary, ancillary side-effect of the gift's proper purpose and function, and therefore not something to be sought apart from that purpose and function.
• "The notion of nonrevelatory tongues, as the uninhibited vocalizing if the preconceptual, mind-less side of the personality … is not taught in I Corinthians 12-14, or elsewhere in the NT." (Gaffin, p. 81)

1. The apostolate was as much an unrepeatable, redemptive-historical event as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, because "the announcement of redemption cannot be separated from the history of redemption itself." (Ridderbos, pp. 12-15).
2. The apostolate was closed after the calling of Paul, since he states that Christ appeared to him "last of all" (I Cor. 15:8 - see Jones for detailed exegesis). The Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession has no exegetical foundation (Cullmann, pp. 207, 236).
3. The presence of the apostolate was a necessary condition for the production of the inspired New Testament scripture. "The redemptive-historical ground of the New Testament canon must be sought in [the] apostolic authority and tradition." (Ridderbos, p. 24)
4. Therefore, like the apostolate, the New Testament scripture is an unrepeatable, unique, and completed redemptive-historical event. "When understood in terms of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be open; in principle it must be closed. That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the apostles received from Christ… The closed nature of the canon thus rests ultimately on the once-for-all significance of the New Testament history of redemption itself, as that history is presented by the apostolic witness." (Ridderbos, p. 25)
5. The passing of the apostolate necessarily implies the closure of the canon of the New Testament.
6. For prophecy (including tongues-see "a pivotal presupposition" above) to continue on into subsequent sub-apostolic generations of the church, beyond the foundational period, would necessarily create tensions with the closed, finished character of the canon. In fact, such a continuation would exclude a completed canon in the strict sense. (Gaffin, p. 100).
7. Therefore, the prophetic gifts (prophecy, tongues, etc.) have been withdrawn from the church upon the closing of the NT canon.
   
   
   

1. Technically, this is not a separate argument from the preceding one. It fundamentally relies on the same theological considerations (the uniqueness and temporary nature of the apostolate). However, it is still pedagogically useful to set this argument up separately, since it is based on an explicit proof-text rather than theological deduction alone.
2. "The decisive, controlling significance of Ephesians 2:20 (in its context) needs to be appreciated…. I Corinthians 14 … has a relatively narrow focus and is confined to the particular situation at Corinth. Ephesians, on the other hand, may well be a circular letter, originally intended by Paul for a wider audience than the congregation at Ephesus. More importantly, 2:20 is part of a section that surveys the church as a whole in a most sweeping and comprehensive fashion. Ephesians 2:20 stands back, views the whole building, and notes the place of prophecy in it (as part of the foundation); I Corinthians and the other passages on prophecy examine one of the parts from within. Ephesians 2:20, then, with its broad scope ought to have a pivotal and governing role in seeking to understand other NT statements on prophecy with a narrower, more particular and detailed focus…." (Gaffin, p. 96)
3. "Eph. 2:20 associates 'prophets' with the apostles in the activity of foundational witness or word ministry." (Gaffin, p. 93)
4. These "prophets" are not OT prophets, but the same prophets encountered throughout the NT (Acts 13:1f; 21:10f; I Cor. 12:28; 14:1-40; Eph. 4:11; Rev. 1:1-3). This is demonstrated by the fact that Eph. 3:5 uses the same phrase "apostles and prophets" in contrast with the OT revelation.
5. One Noncessationist scholar admits that if Gaffin's exegesis of Eph. 2:20 were correct it would indeed vindicate the Cessationist position. He attempts to evade the force of this argument, however, by interpreting the phrase to mean "the apostles who are also prophets" (Grudem, pp. 45-64). But this exegesis cannot be substantiated by any true grammatical parallel (Wallace), and Grudem's other supporting arguments have been answered point-by-point (White).
6. "Tongues are tied to prophecy and stand, so to speak, in its shadow. There is at least the suggestion in the chapter [I Cor. 14] that tongues have no place in the life of the congregation apart from their coexistence and correlative exercise with prophecy." (Gaffin, p. 58)
7. Even if the gift of tongues per se is not in view in Eph. 2:20, the evidence adduced under "a pivotal presupposition" (above) forces us to conclude that insofar as tongues were interpreted they were functionally equivalent to prophetic utterance, and would therefore partake of the foundation of the church spoken of here.
8. Inherent in the foundation analogy is the idea that once the foundation has been laid, all other work is but building upon that foundation (I Cor. 3:10-15). When Paul identifies the apostles and new covenant prophets as the foundation of the church, he thereby asserts their unique, non-perpetual role.
9. Therefore, the gift of tongues was for the foundation of the church, and has consequently been "withdrawn from the life of the church along with prophecy and whatever other foundational gifts are bound up with the presence of the apostolate in the church." (Gaffin, p. 102).
   
   
   

1. Paul states that tongues as tongues (that is, apart from their revelational content when interpreted) were given as a sign of God's judgment against unbelievers (I Cor. 14:20-22).
2. In a way analogous to Jesus' parables (Mark 4:12), tongues were given primarily (but not exclusively) to harden Israel in unbelief. This function "is bound up inseparably with the decisive transition from old to new and final in covenant history, a transition which issues in the founding of the church." (Gaffin, p. 107)
3. Characteristic of the NT's use of the OT, Paul's citation of Isaiah 28:11-12 intentionally brings to mind the broader context of Isaiah 28, particularly, v. 16 ("Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed"). "In the NT this verse is prominent in the church-house passages; it is quoted in I Peter 2:6 (cf. v. 4) and evidently underlies the imagery of Ephesians 2:20 (cf. I Cor. 3:11). Christ as the church's foundation is the fulfillment of this prophecy. But it is also cited in Romans 9:33 (cf. 10:11), where it is applied to the offense taken by unbelieving Israel (cf. 9:31f) at Christ and the gospel. The judgment on Judah foretold by Isaiah, including God's alien speech, is fulfilled by the foundation-laying realized in Christ and the apostles (and prophets). The time of God's (once-for-all) activity of laying a foundation in Zion is also the time of terminal judgment on the unbelief in Zion provoked by that activity." (Gaffin, p. 108)
4. "Within this larger framework of prophecy and fulfillment, then, Paul's point in I Corinthians 14:21f is that tongues are the sign of God's judgment at the inauguration of the new covenant and the founding of the church. Tongues are the sign correlative with this (foundation-laying) activity which occasions (primarily Jewish) unbelief and the eschatological judgment attendant on it."
5. While we should not restrict tongues as a sign exclusively to unbelieving Jews (since I Cor. 14:22 seems to apply it to all unbelievers), it remains true that it was specifically Jewish unbelief that led to the abrogation of the old covenant order and the establishment of a new covenant foundation. Besides, we know from Acts 18:1-17 that Jewish opposition to the Gentile mission was quite strong in Corinth.
6. "It should not be overlooked that, whatever the significance of tongues as a sign, Paul clearly teaches that this function as a sign is an integral characteristic of tongues, present wherever the gift is exercised." (Gaffin, p. 109)
7. Therefore, since tongues as a sign belonged to a transitional period of redemptive history when the old Israel was being rejected and the new Israel was being founded, they are no longer needed today.
   

1. Some Cessationists, looking for the silver bullet argument against the continuance of tongues and prophecy, have attempted to identify "the perfect" with the completion of the NT canon. However, the better Cessationist exegetes admit that this interpretation cannot be sustained exegetically.
2. The coming of "the perfect" (v. 10) must coincide with the coming of Christ, for it is only then that we will know even as we are known (v. 12).
3. If this is admitted, are we then forced to the opposite conclusion - that tongues and prophecy will continue until the Parousia?
4. Not necessarily. "Paul might well have also mentioned inscripturation as a mode of revelation" which, like prophecy and tongues, is a "partial" mode of knowing God which will be superseded by "the perfect" at the Parousia. "But inscripturation has ceased. And if that be granted, then it is gratuitous to insist that this passage teaches that the modes of revelation mentioned, prophecy and tongues, are to continue functioning in the church until Christ's return." (Gaffin, p. 111)
5. "The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations." (Gaffin, p. 111)
   
   
   

Brown, Mark R., ed. Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers. Duncansville, PA: Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993.

Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953.

Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979.

Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Grudem, W. A. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.

Jones, Peter R. "I Corinthians 15:8: Paul the Last Apostle." Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985) 3-34.

Ridderbos, Herman N. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Second Revised Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988 (originally published 1963).

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993.

Wallace, D. B. "The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-KAI-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament." Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983) 59-84.

White, Fowler R. "Gaffin and Grudem on Eph 2:20: In Defense of Gaffin's Cessationists Exegesis." Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 303-20.