Should Christians Expect Miracles Today? Objections and Answers from the Bible, Part 2
8. Doesn’t Hebrews 2:3 tell us that miracles were restricted to the apostles, “those who heard him”?
In Hebrews 2:3-4, the author says about the message of salvation,
It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness23 by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.
The miracles here are said to come through those who heard the Lord firsthand (“those who heard him”), so it is argued that we should not expect them to be done through others who were not firsthand witnesses to the Lord’s teaching and ministry.24
But this argument attempts to draw more from the passage than is there. First, the phrase “those who heard him” (Hebrews 2:3) is certainly not limited to the apostles, for many others heard Jesus as well (Luke 10:1 ff.; John 6:60-70; 1 Corinthians 15:6). But more importantly, this position is claiming something the text simply does not say: That the gospel message was confirmed by miracles when it was preached by those who heard Jesus says nothing at all about whether it would be confirmed by miracles when preached by others who did not hear Jesus.
Finally, this passage says the message was confirmed not only by “signs and wonders and various miracles” but also by “gifts of the Holy Spirit.” If someone argues that this passage limits miracles to the apostles and their companions, then he or she must also argue that gifts of the Holy Spirit are likewise limited to the first-century Church. But few would argue that there are no gifts of the Holy Spirit today.
9. When Paul says, “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:22-23), doesn’t he warn us against seeking signs and say that we should just preach the gospel of Christ?
Here Paul cannot be denying that he performed miracles in connection with proclaiming the gospel. In Romans 15:18-19, a passage Paul wrote while in Corinth, he said,
For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr’icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
And 2 Corinthians 12:12 affirms clearly that Paul did work “signs and wonders and mighty works” among them.
So 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 cannot mean that Paul was denying the validity of wisdom or the validity of signs, for through Christ he worked signs and he taught wisdom. Rather, here he is saying that signs and wisdom do not themselves save people, but the gospel saves people. Signs and the wisdom Jews and Greeks were seeking were not the signs and wisdom of Christ, but simply signs to entertain or to fuel their hostility and skepticism, and wisdom that was the wisdom of the world rather than the wisdom of God.
10. When Paul talks about “power,” doesn’t he mean the power of the gospel to change lives? In fact, he says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” (Romans 1:16). Doesn’t this mean it is wrong to use the term “power evangelism” to refer to God’s power to work miracles in connection with evangelism?
Examining just the Greek and dunamis “power, miracle,” the term Paul most frequently uses for “power,” we find a number of passages that speak of miracles. He says that his entire ministry has been characterized by the “power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:19). This is an important verse because it gives a description of his entire gospel ministry up to that point. In 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about “the working of miracles” (1 Corinthians 12:10), and says that God has put in the Church “workers of miracles” (1 Corinthians 12:28), in both cases using dunamis.
Paul uses the same term to speak of the “signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Corinthians 12:12), which he did at Corinth. And he similarly uses dunamis “power” to speak of the fact that God “works miracles” among the Galatian churches (Galatians 3:5). These passages are all examples of Paul tying together the idea of power with evangelism and miracles. Of course, other passages show how “power” is connected with God’s power to change lives at conversion, or power to endure suffering and so on, but to say Paul only uses “power” to refer to God’s power to change lives is certainly not true.
This is also clear in Acts, where the key verse to the whole book is Acts 1:8:
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samar’ia and to the end of the earth.
The word here translated “power” (dunamis) occurs nine other times in Acts. In one case (Acts 4:33), it is unclear whether this “power” refers to powerful preaching that convicted the hearers or to miraculous signs that accompanied the preaching. But in the other eight examples (2:22; 3:12; 4:7; 6:8; 8:10 [in this verse referring to pagan miracle-working power], 13; 10:38; 19:11) it refers to power to work miracles. This meaning of the term dunamis is further confirmed by its frequent use in Luke’s Gospel to refer to miracle-working power.
Therefore, when Jesus promised the disciples in Acts 1:8 that they would receive “power” when the Holy Spirit came upon them, it seems that they would have understood it to mean at least the power of the Holy Spirit to work through their preaching and bring conviction of sins and awaken faith in people’s hearts.
The point is, we cannot separate these uses and say the only kind of power the New Testament talks about is power to preach the gospel, or to bring regeneration. The New Testament often uses power in referring to power to work miracles in connection with the preaching of the gospel or in the ongoing life of the Church.
11. I have heard stories of people who spoke in tongues and later found out that it was a demonic counterfeit—a demon was speaking through them and uttering blasphemies against Christ in an unknown language. Shouldn’t this danger warn us not to speak in tongues today?
We should recognize at the outset that there may be some mistake in reasoning behind this objection because Paul expressed no concern with this problem, even in the city of Corinth where many had come from a background of pagan temple worship, and where Paul had clearly said, “What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God” (1 Corinthians 10:20). Nonetheless, Paul says, “I want you all to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:5). He gives no warning that they should beware of demonic counterfeit or think this would be a possibility when they use this gift.
The theological reason underlying Paul’s encouragement at this point is that the Holy Spirit is working powerfully within the lives of believers. Paul says, “I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus be cursed!’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). Here Paul reassures the Corinthians that if they are speaking by the Holy Spirit working within them, they will not say, “Jesus be cursed!”25
Coming as it does at the beginning of a discussion of spiritual gifts, 1 Corinthians 12:3 is intended to function as reassurance to the Corinthians who may have suspected some Christians who came from backgrounds of demon worship in the temples at Corinth. Might this demonic influence still affect their use of a spiritual gift? Paul lays down the ground rule that those who genuinely profess faith that “Jesus is Lord” are doing so by the Holy Spirit working within, and that no one speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit will ever speak blasphemy or curses against Jesus.26
This fear, then, is not one that seemed to trouble Paul. He simply encouraged believers to pray in tongues and said that if they did so they would be edifying themselves (1 Corinthians 14:4).
What shall we say, then, about the stories of Christians who say they spoke in tongues for a time and then found there was a demon within them who was empowering this speech, and the demon was cast out?27 These are just examples of cases where experience is to be subject to Scripture and tested by Scripture, and the teaching of Scripture should not be subject to experience. We must be careful that we not let such reports of experiences cause us to adopt a different position than Scripture itself on this issue.
Specifically, if 1 Corinthians 12-14 views tongues as a good gift from the Holy Spirit that is valuable for edification and for the good of the Church, and if Paul can say, “I want you all to speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:5), then interpretations of contemporary experiences that, in effect, say, “I want you all to be afraid of tongues,” go contrary to the emphasis of the New Testament. (Note, for example, C. Fred Dickason’s quotation of Kurt Koch: “Seeking this gift for ourselves can be a very dangerous experience.”28 This is just not the perspective Paul has in the New Testament.)29
An alternative explanation for the stories given by Dickason is that the demons who said they were “tongues spirits,” and that they came in when some charismatics laid hands on the Christian in question, were lying. Satan “is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44), and he would love to have Christians afraid of as many of the Holy Spirit’s gifts as possible.
The possibility of demonic counterfeit of every gift certainly exists in the lives of unbelievers (see Matthew 7:22). But in the lives of believers, especially when there is positive fruit in their lives and positive fruit from their gifts, 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:4 and Matthew 7:16-20 tell us these are not counterfeit gifts but real gifts from God. We must remember that Satan and demons do not do good, they do evil; and they do not bring blessing, they bring destruction (John 10:10).
12. In 1 Corinthians 14:22 we read, “Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.” Doesn’t Paul mean here that tongues are a sign of a covenant curse by God against the unbelieving Jews? And shouldn’t that warn us not to use tongues today?
This objection is based on Paul’s having just quoted Isaiah 28:11 is one of judgment on rebellious Israel, some commentators have understood Paul to mean that tongues are always a sign of judgment on the Jews who rejected Christ. Thus, they are a sign of a “covenant curse” from God at one particular time in history, and should certainly not be used by us today.30
In order to evaluate this objection to tongues today, we need to look at the purpose of this passage. Paul is warning Christians not to speak in tongues in church without interpretation, and, in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25, he says that if they do so it would be acting and thinking like “children” (1 Corinthians 14:20). It is in this context that he quotes a prophecy of judgment from Isaiah 28:11-12:
In the law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:21).
In the context of Isaiah 28, God is warning the rebellious people of the northern kingdom of Israel that the next words they heard from Him would be words of foreigners they could not understand—the Assyrian army would come on them as agents of God’s judgment. Now Paul is about to take this as a general principle—when God speaks to people in language they cannot understand, it is quite evidently a sign of God’s judgment.
Paul rightly applies this to the situation of speaking in tongues without interpretation in the church service. He calls it a sign (that is, a sign of judgment) on unbelievers:
Thus, tongues are not a sign for believers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? (1 Corinthians 14:22-23).
Here Paul uses the word “sign” to mean “sign of God’s attitude” (whether positive or negative). Tongues that are not understood by outsiders are certainly a negative sign—a sign of judgment. Therefore, Paul cautions the Corinthians not to give such a sign to outsiders who come in. He tells them if an outsider comes in and hears only unintelligible speech, he or she will certainly not be saved but will conclude that the Corinthians are mad, and the uninterpreted tongues will therefore function to him or her as a sign of God’s judgment.
By contrast, Paul says that prophecy is a sign of God’s attitude as well, but here a positive sign of God’s blessing. This is why he can say that prophesy, is a sign “for believers” (v.22). And this is why he concludes his section by saying, “If all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (vv. 24-25). When this happens, believers will certainly realize that God is active among them to bring blessing, and prophecy will regularly function as a sign for believers of God’s positive attitude for them.31
Regarding public use of tongues with interpretation, it should be noted in connection with this passage that Paul’s reaction to this recognition of the sign function of tongues is not to forbid tongues in public worship, but to regulate the use of tongues so they will always be interpreted when spoken in public (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). This is an appropriate response, for it is only incomprehensible tongues that have this negative function toward unbelievers, both in Isaiah 28:11 and in 1 Corinthians 14:23. But when a speech in tongues is interpreted, it is no longer incomprehensible and it no longer retains this ominous sign function.32
Therefore, it is important to realize that in 1 Corinthians 14:20-23 Paul is not talking about the function of tongues in general, but only about the negative result of one particular abuse of tongues, namely, the abuse of speaking in public without an interpreter (and probably more than one person speaking at a time [cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23, 27]) so that it all became a scene of unedifying confusion.
In the rest of this section, Paul has a positive attitude toward the proper public function of using tongues plus interpretation, or the proper private function of speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10-11, 21, 22; 14:4-5, 18, 26-28, 39). So to use Paul’s discussion of an abuse of tongues in 14:20-23 as the basis for a general polemic against all other (acceptable) uses of tongues is contrary to the entire context in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
This crucial point, essential to understanding Paul’s meaning here, is completely overlooked by some Reformed and dispensational interpreters of this passage. For example, the fact that Paul is talking not about tongues with interpretation but about uninterpreted tongues (which were not able to be understood by the hearers) is overlooked by O. Palmer Robertson, 33 and also by Zane Hodges.34 Neither Robertson nor Hodges adequately takes into account that at Corinth any unbeliever who entered a church, whether Jew or Gentile, would not understand what was spoken in tongues. Paul repeatedly says that uninterpreted tongues could not be understood by the hearers at Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 14:2, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28). Paul’s main concern in 1 Corinthian 14 is to contrast intelligible with unintelligible speech.
In this connection, Robertson argues that tongues were a “sign” of the transition between God’s dealing with Israel and His dealing with all nations.35 That might possibly be true in some contexts (such as Acts 2), but it is totally foreign to the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14, where Paul makes no mention of the Gentile inclusion or of judgment on the Jews—he contrasts not “Jews” and “Gentiles” but “believers” and “unbelievers.” And because he does not specify Jewish unbelievers, while there were certainly Gentile unbelievers visiting the church at Corinth as well, we must understand “unbeliever” here as referring to unbelievers visiting the church at Corinth as well, we must understand “unbeliever” here as referring to unbelievers generally (both Jewish unbelievers and Gentile unbelievers). Paul is using Isaiah 28:11-12 not as a prediction about Jewish unbelievers, but as an example or illustration (with reference to unbelievers generally). Realizing this, Carson is right to conclude that Paul cannot be speaking here of tongues as a sign of a covenantal curse on unbelieving Jews.36
Moreover, neither Robertson, Gaffin nor MacArthur, all of whom use this “covenantal curse” interpretation to argue against tongues today, take into account that Paul’s solution in this passage is not to forbid the use of tongues altogether, but to direct that tongues be used with interpretation, or used privately (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).
13. Since Paul says that a person who speaks in tongues “edifies himself” (1 Corinthians 14:4), isn’t it better to avoid tongues and seek other gifts that edify the Church?
This objection wrongly assumes that we should never do things to edify ourselves. But certainly that is incorrect. We should read our Bibles daily, pray seek to grow in holiness and so forth. As we grow in Christian maturity, we are better able to serve Christ and edify His Church.
This objection also makes the mistake of drawing a conclusion that is contrary to Paul’s own conclusion in this very chapter. However much Paul warns against using tongues without interpretation in church, he certainly views it positively and encourages it in private. He says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Corinthians 14:4). What is Paul’s conclusion? It is not (as some would argue) that Christians should decide not to use the gift or decide that it has no value when used privately. Rather, he says in 1 Corinthians 14, “what am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also” (v. 15). And he says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all” (v. 18); “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy” (v. 5) and “Earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (v. 39).
How does speaking in tongues edify the speaker? According to 1 Corinthians 14:2, “One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God.” This implies that the person speaking in tongues is offering prayer or praise to God—even though his or her mind does not understand what is being said (1 Corinthians 14:14-17). Rather, the prayer or praise is coming from the speaker’s own human spirit and communicating directly to God (1 Corinthians 14:2). If this is so, then we would certainly expect edification to follow. Just as prayer and worship in general will edify us as we practice them, so this kind of prayer and worship edifies us too, according to Paul.
14. Doesn’t Jude 9 warn us not to rebuke demons? Then why is it that people today think they can speak directly to demons and cast them out?
This objection is based on the following verse in Jude: “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you'” (Jude 9). However, in context Jude is not talking about Christians in their encounters with demonic forces, but is pointing out the error of immoral and rebellious false teachers who “reject authority” in general and “slander celestial beings” (v. 8). On their own authority, they foolishly speak blasphemous words against heavenly beings, whether angelic or demonic.
The reference to Michael is simply to show that the greatest angelic creature, no matter how powerful, did not presume to go beyond the limits of the authority God had given him. The false teachers, however, have far overstepped their bounds and they show their foolishness when they “revile whatever they do not understand” (v. 10).
Therefore, the lesson of the verse is simply don’t try to go beyond the authority God has given you! When Jude 9 is viewed in this way the only question that arises for a Christian from this verse is, What authority has God given us over demonic forces? And the rest of the New Testament speaks clearly to this in several places. Not only Jesus, and not only His 12 disciples, but also the 70 disciples, Paul and Philip (who was not an apostle) are given authority over demons by the Lord Jesus. Jude 9, therefore, simply cannot mean it is wrong for human beings to rebuke or command demons, or that it is wrong for any but the apostles to do so. Both Peter and James encourage all Christians to “resist” the devil, and Paul encourages believers in general in general to put on spiritual armor and prepare for spiritual warfare.
The fact that Jesus gives all believers authority to rebuke demons and command them to leave is seen in several passages. During Jesus’ earthly ministry, when He sent the 12 disciples ahead of Him to preach the kingdom of God, He “gave them power… over all demons” (Luke 9:1). After the 70 had preached the kingdom of God in towns and villages, they returned with joy saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” (Luke 10:17), and Jesus told them, “I have given you authority… over all the power of the enemy” (Luke 10:19). When Philip, the evangelist, went down to Samaria to preach the gospel of Christ, “unclean spirits came out of many who had them” (Acts 8:7, author’s translation). Paul used spiritual authority over demons to say to a spirit of divination in a sooth saying girl, “I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her” (Acts 16:18).
Paul was aware of the spiritual authority he had, both in face-to-face encounters such as he had in Acts 16, and in his prayer life as well. He said, “For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4). Moreover, he spoke at some length of the struggle Christians have against “the wiles of the devil” in his description of conflict “against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (see Ephesians 6:10-18). James tells all his readers (in many churches) to “resist the devil and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). Similarly Peter tells his readers in many churches in Asia Minor, “Your adversary the devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith” (1 Peter 5:8-9).37
PR
Notes
23. The KJV translates verse 4; “God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders.” This translation suggests that the miracles bore witness to the people who heard Jesus and first preached. But the word “them” is represented by no word in the Greek text, and this translation is not followed by modern versions.
24. See Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles, pp. 18-19: “New Testament miracles are viewed in Scripture itself as God’s stamp of approval upon the message of the apostles, which was an inspired record of the things they had seen and heard while with Jesus. Recalling these wonders should deepen our respect for the authority of their words and prompt us to give the more careful heed.”
25. It might be objected at this point that speaking in tongues is not speech empowered by the Holy Spirit, but is speech that comes from the speaker’s own human spirit. But Paul clearly views all these spiritual gifts as generally empowered by the Holy Spirit, even the ones in which personality comes fully into play. This would be true of teachers, helpers and administrators, as well as those who speak with tongues. In each of these cases the active agent in performing the activity is the Christian who has the particular gift and uses it, but all these are nonetheless empowered by the Holy Spirit in their functioning, and that would also be true of the gift of tongues.
26. Also relevant at this point is John’s reassurance to his readers, in the context of demonic spirits that had gone out into the world: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).
27. See, for example, C. Fred Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1987), pp. 126-127; 188-191; 193-197.
28. Dickason, Demon Possession, p. 127.
29. We should remember that Dickason has a cessationist view with respect to speaking in tongues today (see p. 189: “I told her I doubted that there were any genuine tongues from God today in the New Testament sense”). Therefore, from his perspective, he is not making Scripture subject to experience, but sees these experiences as confirming his understanding of Scripture.
30. See this interpretation in 0. Palmer Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” Westminster Theological Journal 38 (1975-1976), 43-53.
31. I have discussed this passage in more detail in Wayne Grudem, “1 Corinthians 14:20-25: Prophecy and Tongues as Signs of God’s Attitude,” Westminster Theological Journal 41:2 (Spring 1979): 381-396; see also Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Eastbourne, England: Kingsway, and Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), pp. 171-182.
32. This paragraph and the next five paragraphs are taken from Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, pp. 177-179.
33. O. Palmer Robertson, “Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing,” WTJ 38 (1975-1976), pp. 43-53.
34. Zane Hodges, “The Purpose of Tongues,” Bib Sac 120 (1963), pp. 226-233.
35. Robertson is followed at this point by Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (Presbyterian and Reformed 1979), pp. 106-109.
John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 1978), sees tongues both as a judicial sign of judgment to Israel and as a sign of the transition to a period of gospel proclamation to all nations. But a fundamental flaw in this argument is that here MacArthur also overlooks the fact that in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25 Paul is talking about an abuse of tongues (speaking without interpretation), not a proper use of tongues (speaking with interpretation, vv. 27-28). MacArthur repeats this argument in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), p. 232.
36. Carson, Showing the Spirit, p. 111, in response to Robertson and Gaffin.
37. Of course, our greatest example of dealing with demonic powers by speaking to them directly and commanding them to leave is the example of Jesus Himself, who frequently did this in the Gospels, and by example and word He taught the disciples to imitate Him (see question 15). But I have mentioned these other examples at this point because someone might object that only Jesus had this kind of authority, and it was not given to other human beings.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. ©Copyright 1946, 1952, and 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.
Quotations from the KJV—King James Version are public domain.
This four-part series is taken from Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer, eds., The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? A Biblical Look at How to Bring the Gospel to the World with Power (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993). Used with permission.
