To Cease or to Continue, that is the Question

[JohnT]

Mark's Gospel was written after 1 Corinthians 15.

Wikipedia stated this:

By comparing Acts of the Apostles 18:1–17 and mentions of Ephesus in the Corinthian correspondence, scholars suggest that the letter was written during Paul's stay in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of AD 53–57.[2]​

First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia.

footnotes

1. Corinthians, First Epistle to the, "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", Ed. James Orr, 1915.
2. Pauline Chronology: His Life and Missionary Work, from Catholic Resources by Felix Just, S.J.

Mark the Evangelist (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of St. Paul and a disciple of St. Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Most scholars agree that it was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew’s and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke. Although the text lacks literary polish, it is simple and direct, and, as the earliest Gospel, it is the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus.​

Gospel According to Mark | Description, Authorship, & Facts

So the chronological argument goes to

Jesus is YHWH said: ↑
more arguments from silence as tongues is never mentioned as a gift after 1 cor 15

Since it can be logically assumed from their content, that Luke relies on what Mark the Evangelist wrote, Matthew and Luke (who also used first hand accounts) both borrowed from Mark.

From that evidence, it is impossible to rule out any influence of any of the Gospel writers upon Paul because he was a well-educated man, and in addition to his Rabbinical studies under Gamaliel. But it stands to reason (although an argument from silence) that Paul could have read any of the

Paul claims to have been educated by Gamaliel, one of the premier teachers of the Law in the first century. Gamaliel taught between A.D. 22-55, giving us an approximate early date for Paul’s education. If Paul began study at the latest age of 16, we can guess a birth year of about 6 at the earliest. Polhill observes that several rulings of Gamaliel appear in the Mishnah, mostly having to do with marriage and divorce. Perhaps Gamiliel’s views influenced Paul’s personal comments on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 (Polhill, Paul and his Letters, 30).

Gamaliel was himself a Pharisee in the tradition of the great Hillel. A generation before Christ there were two great rabbis, Hillel and Shammai..........​

from Paul: At the Feet of Gamaliel?

All this could have been happening during the three years of "post-graduate school" he had in Arabia:

Galatians 1:
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.


18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
​

Fight nice, fellows. You both have the truth from unbiased sources, one of which is Scripture, from which logical conclusions may be made about history.

​

 

[Strong in Him]

Wikipedia stated this:

By comparing Acts of the Apostles 18:1–17 and mentions of Ephesus in the Corinthian correspondence, scholars suggest that the letter was written during Paul's stay in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of AD 53–57.[2]​

First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia.

footnotes

1. 
   
   
   • Corinthians, First Epistle to the, "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", Ed. James Orr, 1915.
   • Pauline Chronology: His Life and Missionary Work, from Catholic Resources by Felix Just, S.J.

Mark the Evangelist (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of St. Paul and a disciple of St. Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. ​

??
Yes, 1 Corinthians written about 53-55 AD; Mark's Gospel written 60+ AD. So Mark's Gospel - the last verses of which mention the church speaking in tongues - was written AFTER 1 Corinthians. Paul might even have been dead before Mark's Gospel was written.

Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

??
Yes, 1 Corinthians written about 53-55 AD; Mark's Gospel written 60+ AD. So Mark's Gospel - the last verses of which mention the church speaking in tongues - was written AFTER 1 Corinthian's. Paul might even have been dead before Mark's Gospel was written.

and the ending of Mark is HIGHLY questionable and most believe it was added by scribes not in the original text.

so basing ones theology on a questionable text is shaky ground. the same goes with the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV which is also not scripture but added later by a scribe.

KJV
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

NASB
For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

And I'm a Trinitarian and would love more than anything for that to be true but it is not. So to base ones doctrine on questionable passage like the above is unwise.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

and the ending of Mark is HIGHLY questionable and most believe it was added by scribes not in the original text.

I know - but it's in Scripture.
Either it was written by Mark, in the 60s AD, as part of his Gospel, or it was added later by others.
The point is that it is a text which talks about speaking in tongues and it was written much later than 1 Cor 15.

That was your statement - that speaking in tongues is not mentioned after 1 Corinthians 15. Yes, Mark comes before Corinthians in Scripture, but the Gospel was written later.

so basing ones theology on a questionable text is shaky ground.

But that text is in Scripture. Whether written with the rest of the Gospel or added some years later, the people compiling the NT kept it in. If it was added later it was a comment on what was happening at the time.
It is a text in Scripture that was written AFTER 1 Corinthians 15.

Quite apart from the fact that people today speak in tongues.
I've read accounts of people speaking in tongues in services and being perfectly understood by someone who came from the country where that language was spoken. I can't tell you which books they were in; I've read so many over the years. I've also heard people peaking in tongues.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I know - but it's in Scripture.
Either it was written by Mark, in the 60s AD, as part of his Gospel, or it was added later by others.
The point is that it is a text which talks about speaking in tongues and it was written much later than 1 Cor 15.

That was your statement - that speaking in tongues is not mentioned after 1 Corinthians 15. Yes, Mark comes before Corinthians in Scripture, but the Gospel was written later.



But that text is in Scripture. Whether written with the rest of the Gospel or added some years later, the people compiling the NT kept it in. If it was added later it was a comment on what was happening at the time.
It is a text in Scripture that was written AFTER 1 Corinthians 15.

Quite apart from the fact that people today speak in tongues.
I've read accounts of people speaking in tongues in services and being perfectly understood by someone who came from the country where that language was spoken. I can't tell you which books they were in; I've read so many over the years. I've also heard people peaking in tongues.

I don't consider it scripture for the same reasons as the Johannine Comma

see this article, here is the conclusion below:

Irony in the End: A Textual and Literary Analysis of Mark 16:8 | Bible.org

Conclusion
This paper has attempted to demonstrate three things. First, Farmer’s argument that vv 9-20 represent the original reading raises too many questions to be considered a plausible option. Second, although certainty is impossible the evidence suggests that Mark intentionally concluded his account with the abrupt statement ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. There is ample evidence that Mark’s original ending was not mysteriously lost, that γάρ can end a sentence, and that an open ending was occasionally used in ancient literature. And third, Mark’s ending makes sense of the preceding narrative. The juxtaposition of promise and failure “provide a paradigm for the interplay between divine promise and human failure in Christian existence.”69

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't consider it scripture for the same reasons as the Johannine Comma

Doesn't matter what you consider; it's in the Bible.
Unless you are saying that not all of Scripture is trustworthy, or the Holy Spirit made a mistake when he let people include those words in the NT.

There is still the fact of what is happening today.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Doesn't matter what you consider; it's in the Bible.
Unless you are saying that not all of Scripture is trustworthy, or the Holy Spirit made a mistake when he let people include those words in the NT.

There is still the fact of what is happening today.

believe what you want to believe. have you ever studied textual criticism ?

do you know why marks ending is in brackets ?

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. ... Modern versions of the New Testament generally include the Longer Ending, but place it in brackets or otherwise format it to show that it is not considered part of the original text

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

believe what you want to believe. have you ever studied textual criticism ?

do you know why marks ending is in brackets ?

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. ... Modern versions of the New Testament generally include the Longer Ending, but place it in brackets or otherwise format it to show that it is not considered part of the original text

I'm well aware of that.
But my point remains - no one saw fit to remove it from Scripture. So it may not have been in the original text; it's still a verse in God's holy word.

Are you saying that you believe all of Scripture except the verses at the end of Mark and a couple of verses in 1 John? How many others verses/passages in the NT will not meet with your approval? How do you know you can trust the Bible if there are some verses you do not consider to be Scripture?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I'm well aware of that.
But my point remains - no one saw fit to remove it from Scripture. So it may not have been in the original text; it's still a verse in God's holy word.

Are you saying that you believe all of Scripture except the verses at the end of Mark and a couple of verses in 1 John? How many others verses/passages in the NT will not meet with your approval? How do you know you can trust the Bible if there are some verses you do not consider to be Scripture?

I'm saying I do not form any doctrine from those as my primary source. Does that make sense ?

In other words I'm not going to tell people poisonous snakes you will be immune so handle them and other liquids that can kill you to go and drink because God is with you nor will I base my belief in the Trinity on the passage in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I know - but it's in Scripture.
Either it was written by Mark, in the 60s AD, as part of his Gospel, or it was added later by others.
The point is that it is a text which talks about speaking in tongues and it was written much later than 1 Cor 15.

That was your statement - that speaking in tongues is not mentioned after 1 Corinthians 15. Yes, Mark comes before Corinthians in Scripture, but the Gospel was written later.



But that text is in Scripture. Whether written with the rest of the Gospel or added some years later, the people compiling the NT kept it in. If it was added later it was a comment on what was happening at the time.
It is a text in Scripture that was written AFTER 1 Corinthians 15.

Quite apart from the fact that people today speak in tongues.
I've read accounts of people speaking in tongues in services and being perfectly understood by someone who came from the country where that language was spoken. I can't tell you which books they were in; I've read so many over the years. I've also heard people peaking in tongues.

The problem you have here is the gospels are the story of Jesus up until His Ascension. So Mark 16 is looking back upon the promise which was fulfilled early on in the church and began at Pentecost. Si in reality my point still stands. There is no EPISTLE declaring tongues were still in operation after 1 Corinthians.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

In other words I'm not going to tell people poisonous snakes you will be immune so handle them and other liquids that can kill you to go and drink because God is with you

Well no; neither would I.
But the verse isn't saying, "you must, or even can, drink poison and it will not harm you". It, and tongues, are given as some of the signs that will be done in his name. They were. In the case of tongues they still are because tongues is a gift of the Spirit and no one can say that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer needed - or maybe they're trying to, which would explain why the church is in such a state.

 

[Albion]

In the case of tongues they still are because tongues is a gift of the Spirit and no one can say that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer needed - or maybe they're trying to, which would explain why the church is in such a state.

It still is a side-stepping of the issue of 'continue vs cease' to argue what a benefit having tongues-speaking today is IF THEY HAD ALREADY CEASED.

The Cessationist argument is that the tongues, as a matter of actual history, DID cease at some time in the past.

Therefore, no claim FOR them makes sense if based upon saying "but the Bible says they will not cease, so they must not have ceased regardless of what we know of the history of the Church."

 

[Strong in Him]

The problem you have here is the gospels are the story of Jesus up until His Ascension. So Mark 16 is looking back upon the promise which was fulfilled early on in the church and began at Pentecost. Si in reality my point still stands. There is no EPISTLE declaring tongues were still in operation after 1 Corinthians.

Yes but that's not what you said.
Your comment was:

more arguments from silence as tongues is never mentioned as a gift after 1 cor 15 because it CEASED to exist

Now as I said, in the NT it seems there is no document after 1 Corinthians which discusses/mentions speaking in tongues. I haven't researched it but that could well be true.
However, there are documents written after the mid 50s, when Corinthians was written, that do indeed talk about this sign/gift. One of these is the last few verses of Mark's Gospel - which weren't in original manuscripts and it is thought were added as as comment on what was happening in the early church at that time. That's just it; they were added later than the mid 60s when the Gospel was written - could have been in the 80s, 90s or later. So people were speaking in tongues after, or during, that time.
Also, as I said, they are verses that were kept in the Bible - no one looked at them 200 years later, said "Jesus didn't say that; they're not authentic", and threw them out.

Someone else in this thread has supplied a list of quotes from the early fathers, showing that speaking in tongues was happening. In truth, it hasn't stopped - see books by Denis Bennett, Colin Urquhart and others on the baptism in the Spirit.

 

[SaintCody777]

I actually admire Pentecostals for their taking of holiness seriously. This is something that is lacking in most of Christianity these days. Are all Pentecostals perfect? By no means. But the point is that if you were to read the New Testament, our thinking should not be that we can sin and still be saved, but our thinking should be that we are to live holy unto the Lord. For what do you make of Hebrews 12:14 that says that we are to follow after holiness without which no man shall see the Lord? For me: There is no point of being a Christian if one does not live holy unto the Lord. One is either a follower of Jesus, or they are not. Jesus said for us to pick up our cross, and not His cross. Christians should be living holy. For have you not read? “Be ye holy; for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:16). So the whole “holier than thou art” claim is false. So when Christians say something like this, I actually see such a claim as an attack upon Christians who seek to truly follow Jesus. For did Jesus advocate us to live holy or to sin?

As for Pentecostalism: Well, my position on Pentecostalism is that Scripture tells me one thing, and I have friends who are Pentecostal, so I am sympathetic and open to being wrong and yet on the other hand, I know there are tons of Scripture that keeps leaning heavily towards Cessationism. From a Scriptural standpoint (from my perspective): Pentecostals appear to take snippets of Scripture out of context to justify the continuation of the gifts. While I could be wrong about my interpretation, I have not seen any group today operating exactly like what we see in Scripture with the early church. We even see Paul later in his life appearing to not heal like he once did. It appears the sign gifts were temporary (Which is a pattern we see with all the miracles in the Bible). We see the great three miracle workers in the Bible are all followed by a time of no great miracles. Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. Then again, I could be wrong. For me: The most important thing is not focusing on the gifts, but it is focusing on God's grace, and living for the Lord. Life is too short to waste time on something that is not as important as loving God and loving others.

It did not cost God anything to do miracles. But it cost God dearly when He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins. This is because God loves us so much. This love makes us want to love Him and others in return. But many get caught up on the misuse of those gifts today like the Corinthians once did.

The "Holier than thou art" than I am talking about here has nothing got to do about their holiness code or lifestyle. I brought that code/lifestyle up only to distinguish the lifestyle of a Pentecostal from that of the Corinthians, who were sexually immoral to the degree that not even the world around them approved of it.
The "Holier than thou art" attitude I am talking about here that Pentecostals, especially those from the Oneness camp, is that they believe that speaking in tongues makes them holier Christians than those who don't speak in tongues. Here, in this area, is what they share in common with the Corinthians.

 

[Saint Steven]

The "Holier than thou art" than I am talking about here has nothing got to do about their holiness code or lifestyle. I brought that code/lifestyle up only to distinguish the lifestyle of a Pentecostal from that of the Corinthians, who were sexually immoral to the degree that not even the world around them approved of it.
The "Holier than thou art" attitude I am talking about here that Pentecostals, especially those from the Oneness camp, is that they believe that speaking in tongues makes them holier Christians than those who don't speak in tongues. Here, in this area, is what they share in common with the Corinthians.

Is there any indication that the Corinthian Christians had a holier-than-thou attitude? I don't recall that? It seemed that they weren't pious in the least.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Is there any indication that the Corinthian Christians had a holier-than-thou attitude? I don't recall that? It seemed that they weren't pious in the least.

1 Corinthians 3
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The "Holier than thou art" than I am talking about here has nothing got to do about their holiness code or lifestyle. I brought that code/lifestyle up only to distinguish the lifestyle of a Pentecostal from that of the Corinthians, who were sexually immoral to the degree that not even the world around them approved of it.
The "Holier than thou art" attitude I am talking about here that Pentecostals, especially those from the Oneness camp, is that they believe that speaking in tongues makes them holier Christians than those who don't speak in tongues. Here, in this area, is what they share in common with the Corinthians.

Well, I did not get that impression when you said it at first because I did not catch you making that distinction.

I would have called it the:
“holier than thou art because we speatheth in tongues” type folk.
If this is the case, then I agree; Such a thing is wrong.

Anyways, thank you for clarifying.

May you have a blessed day in the Lord.

 

[Butch5]

I found some definitions from Wiki today, and thought it would be a decent place to express opinions about one's beliefs about the Gifts of Holy Spirit being continued or ceasing. I do request that posters use Scripture in its context to back things up, and also to state "I am just guessing" when you are unsure.

Just as all of us do not have the same gifts, we do not all have the same ministry.

1 Corinthians 12:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;
5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.​

ESV

Therefore, just I cannot condemn you for being different than me, so also you cannot condemn me for being different than you. However, we ALL must answer to the same Master.

Let's begin!

Cessationism is a Protestant doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age. Reformers such as John Calvin originated this view. More recent development has tended to focus on other spiritual gifts too, owing to the advent of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement that have popularised a radical continuationism – the position that the spiritual gifts are meant for all Christians in every age.

Continuationism is a Christian theological belief that the spiritual gifts have continued to the present age, specifically those sometimes called[by whom?] "sign gifts",[1] such as tongues and prophecy. Continuationism as a distinct theological position arose in opposition to cessationism.

We can see from history that the gifts ended. Some of the early Christian writers, writing shortly after the time of the apostles, say that there were just a remnant of the gifts remaining in their day. We are told in Scripture that those gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands. So, after the apostles were gone the gifts would slowly fade away also. Paul also stated that the gifts would end. He said when the maturity or completion came knowledge and prophesy would end. He used the passive tense to indicate that something would cause them to end, the coming of the maturity or completion. Tongues on the other hand would end of its own accord. Paul used a middle voice verb for the cessation of tongues. He said, we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the completion or maturity comes what is in part shall cease. What was the knowledge and prophesy that was in part? It was the Gospel message. When they had the completion or maturity of the teaching that which was in part would cease. Well, that happened. Paul did achieve that full knowledge.

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(Acts 20:25-27 KJV)

Jude tells his readers to contend for the faith that was once delivered.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3 KJV

Concerning tongues, it was a sign for unbelievers just as Paul said. Isaiah prophesied of Christ coming with the gift of tongues. It was a sign to unbelieving Israel. It was a judgment, once that judgement came to fruition the gift of tongues would no longer be needed and would fade away of it's own accord.

For an in depth look at this subject you can read my article here, Spiritual Gifts and their Purpose.

 

[Guojing]

We can see from history that the gifts ended. Some of the early Christian writers, writing shortly after the time of the apostles, say that there were just a remnant of the gifts remaining in their day. We are told in Scripture that those gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands. So, after the apostles were gone the gifts would slowly fade away also. Paul also stated that the gifts would end. He said when the maturity or completion came knowledge and prophesy would end. He used the passive tense to indicate that something would cause them to end, the coming of the maturity or completion. Tongues on the other hand would end of its own accord. Paul used a middle voice verb for the cessation of tongues. He said, we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the completion or maturity comes what is in part shall cease. What was the knowledge and prophesy that was in part? It was the Gospel message. When they had the completion or maturity of the teaching that which was in part would cease. Well, that happened. Paul did achieve that full knowledge.

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(Acts 20:25-27 KJV)

Jude tells his readers to contend for the faith that was once delivered.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3 KJV

Concerning tongues, it was a sign for unbelievers just as Paul said. Isaiah prophesied of Christ coming with the gift of tongues. It was a sign to unbelieving Israel. It was a judgment, once that judgement came to fruition the gift of tongues would no longer be needed and would fade away of it's own accord.

For an in depth look at this subject you can read my article here, Spiritual Gifts and their Purpose.

Nice article, your summary of what Isaiah was really saying about stammering lips and another tongue gel with what I was saying here To Cease or to Continue, that is the Question

Pity even senior pastors also used it wrongly to teach that passage to teach that tongues are how God will give us rest.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For an in depth look at this subject you can read my article here, Spiritual Gifts and their Purpose.

I read most of it. Pretty good. I really like the emphasis you made on how tongues (signs) were for Israel. Well, said. I agree, whole heartedly on that point. The only place we differ is on the meaning of the word “perfect.” I believe the “perfect” is the canon of Scripture. James refers to the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). This is in context to receiving the ENGRAFTED Word (New Testament Scriptures), and being a doer of the Word (James 1:21-24). The gospel was already fully realized and preached by Paul in the early church. If the “perfect” is the gospel then that does not make any sense. The perfect had already come with the preaching of Paul (of which we clearly see in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The canon of Scripture (the Engrafted Word, i.e. the New Testament) ended in approximately 90AD with the book of Revelation. So tongues may have ceased in 70AD, and prophecy and revelatory knowledge ceased in approximately 90AD after Revelation was completed. Revelation is all about prophecy, and so no more prophecy was to be added after that book was complete. No more revelatory knowledge to write any new inspired Scripture would continue after Revelation. The perfect had came with the completion of the canon. The perfect Law of liberty was finished.