Customer Reviews

Final Word

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

O. Palmer Robertson has written a very succint book on the doctrine of the cessation of revelatory gifts. He deftly traces the prophetic office from the Old Covenant into the New and finds its completion in the "prophet like unto Moses," the Lord Jesus Christ. He also correctly identifies biblical "tongues" as a subset of prophecy from the Book of Acts and demonstrates biblically how the gift of tongues and prophecy were anticipated to cease even in New Testament times with the completed canon of Scripture. Biblical theology at its best - highly recommended.

If you are interested in the controversy over the role of the charismatic gifts in the church today, you owe it to yourself to read this book. The writing was excellent, and the author managed both clarity and concision. He managed to explain quite a few key concepts without using too much jargon, too long of a length, or many of the other issues that often turn laymen off to theology-related books.

The arguments were, for the most part, quite compelling; although there are a few arguments I'm not sure I find that convincing (such as his argument that the gifts played a less prominent role in the Apostles' ministries and in the early church), he brought up many good points as well.

His arguments against the Third Wave view of prophecy (which teaches, among other things, that ordinary congregational prophecy can legitimately be a mix of truth and error) and for the continuity between Old and New Testament prophecy (some claim that New Testament prophecy is fundamentally different from Old Testament prophecy and thus must be held to a different standard) are especially compelling. These arguments alone make the book worth the price. I honestly don't see how anyone who has read his critique could maintain that the Third Wave view of prophecy is Biblical.

As I said, although I found this section of the book to be the strongest, this isn't to say that the other sections aren't strong too, or that he doesn't bring up good points there too. He does. In fact, most of his arguments for cessationism are quite strong and clearly presented. For you non-cessationists, no, his case does NOT depend on 1 Corinthians 13:8-10; he presents arguments from many different angles, none of which are dependent on this text. In particular he looks at why we would even need the gifts anymore.

I'd recommend reading this book with "Perspectives on Pentecost" by Richard B. Gaffin. They compliment each other very well, and these books could easily revolutionize your understanding of the Bible's teaching on the spiritual gifts. These books are perfect if:

- You're not sure what the Bible teaches on the topic

- You're convinced that the Bible doesn't teach cessationism (these books will show you that it does)

- You want to learn more about the controversy over the charismatic movement

- You want to understand how to answer the arguments for the charismatic movement and defend cessationism. Robertson's book is very good for this and ably answers many of the common arguments and misunderstandings found in the charismatic doctrines of the spiritual gifts. I fall into this category, as by the time I read this book I was already convinced that the Bible teaches cessationism (which I wasn't always convinced of, as I was charismatic for a number of years).

In short, this is a compelling book that I highly recommend to both charismatics (at least those who are prepared to test their beliefs in light of Scripture) and to non-charismatics (especially if you want to know how to defend your beliefs). Unfortunately, the charismatic movement and in particular the Third Wave has made massive inroads into evangelicalism lately, largely due to a lack of understanding of the issues involved in the pews and in the pulpit, and this book is a welcome antidote.

'Christianity emphatically is not a mystery religion.' p 26

Professor O Palmer Robertson takes issue with the continued presence of false teachers of doctrine. The office of prophet is qualitatively that of mediator, Robertson maintains, and since its inception with Moses, revelational content from God served a redemptive function. In the NT 'the mediator of the covenant is God Himself, now standing among men as their servant.' p 11 Special revelation found its consummation in Christ. Robertson clarifies the position that it is special revelation alone that is under fire. Claims to further communications from God, dubbed 'ordinary congregational prophecy', are due cause for concern as the facade is pock-marked with hypocrisy.

'It was not part of the Word that Christ brought, but the last closing Word.' John Calvin, Hebrews and 1 & 2 Peter 12:6

'A great danger also lies in another direction if we accept this concept of a prophetic utterance that is indeed God's word, and yet is something less than the perfection of His word associated with biblical prophecy. It destroys the necessary distinction between the true and the false prophet, and makes God's people the helpless victims of error mixed with truth.' p 19

Professor Robertson sees those who hold that biblical prophecy continues today in its form as foretelling (not preaching as 'forth-telling') clearly to believe that revelation continues today. Yet the difficulties of that position seem never-ending. Unjustifiable evasion of the biblical standard has introduced the difficulties.

'Women', says Grudem, 'were able to prophesy in both the Old Testament and the New. They could deliver messages from God to His people. But women could not assume the role of teacher over God's people in either the Old or the New Testament (see 1 Tim 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6 on New Testament teachers being only men, including the elders who did most of the teaching).' p 86, Countering The Claims of Evangelical Feminism. Grudem subordinates and ranks as less important the NT office of prophet to that of teacher, which is antithetical to Scripture: (Eph 2:20; Eph 3:5; Eph 4:11) - a flaw with immense implications for church structures. A better view would be that the gift of prophecy has, in fact, ceased, whilst the office of teacher is still in effect.

Giftings, such as speaking in tongues, are more often than not practiced in the wrong context, e.g., where Paul states almost inadmissible usage 'in the church', as specified in 1 Cor 14:19, 'Yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.' Charismatic pastors with little or no formal education in theology would do well to study this book, for they appear to be least informed of God's intended design with the offices of prophet and apostle.

'Tongues illustrated dramatically the universalistic nature of Christianity. God was not limiting Himself to one people. His wondrous works could be heard in all the languages of the world. Christianity was not exclusively a Jewish religion, despite its clearly Jewish origins. The need for a sign of transition exists no longer. Tongues, as in the case of all other workings of God in the world, find their significance when located properly in the history of redemption. When seen in its unique historical setting as a sign of transition to a world-wide gospel, tongues give the greatest glory to the universal gospel.' pp. 48-50

Of further value is the fact that though revelation has ceased (and therefore the revelatory gifts), God continues to reveal Himself through nature and through providence. And though God has stopped speaking in signs, wonders and prophecies, He still communicates and reveals through Holy Scripture.

'It is rather interesting that Paul does not speak about a prediction of the future when he refers to the 'mystery' that has been revealed. Instead, he describes insight about a theology of the church. The basic truth they taught about the role of gentiles in the church was not a prediction about the future, but a divine declaration about the present. Yet it clearly was regarded as 'prophetic' in nature.' p 16

The apostle Paul lauded the gift of love as eternal in his letter to the Corinthians, but attached no such expectation to the charismata: 'But where there are prophecies, they will fail; where there are tongues, they will cease; where there is knowledge, it will vanish away.' 1 Cor 13:8 The Greek word for 'fail' or 'vanish away', katargeo, expository dictionaries understand to mean depriving a person or thing of influence, force, or existence, thereby stressing the reversal of prevailing circumstances. Thus prophecy and tongues were necessary to a pre-Bible setting:

'The first letter to the Corinthians was composed at a time when very little of the NT had been written. The church at that stage needed an authoritative word from the Lord to direct the pattern of their life under the new covenant. Very likely, none of the inspired manuscripts of the NT were available to the Corinthians at this point in time.' p 18

The distinctions Robertson raises would seem unnecessary, but continued common practice in pentecostal and charismatic leadership would suggest it most necessary, and especially in the light of their distortions of NT teaching, a humbling of their wayward hearts seems totally in order. The biblical prophets and holy apostles had the ability to perform what was commanded, and did not issue vain claims to 'power' - a claim that Wayne Grudem has not been able to counter.

O. Palmer Robertson is widely esteemed as a warm, kindhearted Christian gentleman, as well as a prolific writer. By all accounts he is faithful to his Christian commitment as well as to his conservative Presbyterian commitment to the authority of Scripture as defended in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF, AD 1647). I trust that the following will be not perceived as an attack on this gentle spirit, but as an objection to a doctrine that has appeared sporadically throughout Church history but consistently in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, that is, cessationism--the doctrine that miracles and revelatory spiritual gifts ceased in some point around the end of the New Testament era.

Accordingly, Dr Robertson's work is an expansion and paraphrase of Paragraph 1 of the WCF, a document that expressed Scottish Presbyterian theology (though written mostly by Church of England scholars) in the time of Cromwell. This theology that was to be imposed on the British Isles by force, but failed owing to Cromwell's defeat. In this context, G.H.Milne's revised doctoral dissertation, "The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation," traces the fascinating struggle among the Westminster scholars over this first paragraph, which denied miracles and prophecy, when several of them--including their founder, John Knox--knew of, or had personally experienced prophecy, revelatory dreams and miracles in their own lives!

The writers of Paragraph 1 of the WCF certainly did not allow their own experience with God *or* (I would argue) the scripture to clutter up their polemical theology (Mk 12:24)! When the Westminster divines submitted their new theology to a suspicious House of Commons for approval, it was bounced back with the demand that every paragraph be supported by scripture! These scholars came up with thin scriptural support for their cessationist claim (only Hebrews 1:1-2 ??! This refers to the Bestower of the Spirit: Christ--not the scriptures!).

Jesus' criticism of the scribes in John 5:30 fits perfectly these academics who wrote paragraph 1 only to advance their struggle against the Quakers, Moravians and others who had *also* experienced God's charismata, as the Bible clearly commands (e.g., 1 Cor 14:1,39; 1 Th 5:19-20; Rom 11:29 "charismata" not withdrawn!). This last passage is a paraphrase of the rhetorical climax Peter uses in his Pentecost sermon. He is citing Isa 59:21 "And I, even I, says the Lord, 'This is my covenant with them: The Spirit that is upon you [Jesus, Isa 61:1-2? the 120?] and the words I put in your mouth, I will put in the mouth of your children and your children's children, *forever*!'" Peter is referring to the New Covenant of the Spirit, which is expressed in the gift of prophecy, unlimited to "even as many as the Lord your God shall call!" See J. Ruthven, "This Is My Covenant with Them," Appendix IV in "On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic against Post Biblical Miracles," 2nd ed. Word & Spirit Press, 2010.

If there are numerous NT commands to employ the charismata, how does one "Biblically" respond? Robertson ingeniously insists that the Scriptural commands to seek and employ gifts like prophecy are only for Christians in the NT era; that since God himself caused these gifts to cease, these commands in Scripture are irrelevant for us today!

But by what transparent exegetical process does Robertson deal with the clear commands of Scripture to "desire earnestly the best gifts, especially that you prophesy," "do not forbid to speak with tongues," "do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophesying," etc.? O. Palmer Robertson offers the ingenious (and circular) argument that the NT commands may be appropriately denied today. How? These commands, according to Robertson, are somehow part of a scheme of progressive revelation--"stages of the new covenant"--within the NT, (pp. 78-81).

First, as precedent he cites Jesus at one point commissioning his disciples to take no provisions with them (Lk 10:4)whereas later, he commands them to take along a purse or bag (with money) and to buy a sword(!).

Why? It is a sardonic command, like, "If you're going to sin, do it now, because scripture is to be fulfilled: "He was numbered among the transgressors." Proof of them already not trusting in God's provision was their bright response: "Lord look! Here are two swords!" Jesus' irony went right over their heads. He said, sarcastically, "It's enough!" The whole context is the problem of temptation--particularly the temptation to rely on oneself instead of God. The Jewish custom for the night of Passover also involved remaining awake all night to commemorate the "watch" for their deliverance of the Exodus. Jesus did this, but the disciples fell asleep and therefore into temptation. This prompted Jesus to legitimately ask, "Couldn't you `watch' with me for even an hour?" (Mt 14:37-41). Robertson, like the disciples, misses the point of the passage in claiming that these two commands contradict each other, thereby representing two stages of the New Covenant! Jesus' point is exactly the opposite of what Robertson intends: Jesus is not moving from one phase of the New Covenant to another, but rather confirming the *same* point: trust in God rather than the resources of a "transgressor."

He further misses the point when he contrasts the two other apparent contradictory commands of Jesus that he uses to prove two stages in the New Covenant: Jesus' command for the first commission to go "only to the house of Israel" (Mt 10:6; cf.15:24) and then to "all nations" (Mt 28:19). This is indeed a two-stage movement in applying the unchanging covenant, expanding from being offered to "the Jew first" then also to the Gentiles. This fulfills scripture: Isa 59:19-21 (its universalism predicated on the offer of the covenant to "Jacob") where the covenant of the Spirit is offered both to the "men of Israel" as well as to "all flesh" (Acts 2:22, 17>Joel 2:28).

But this is also an argument from analogy---one that has no bearing on the universal and permanent command for the gift of the Spirit (with the prophetic words in the mouths of their children's children) to Jew and Gentile--to "those who are afar off--that is, as many as whom the Lord God shall call" (Acts 2:39).

In the context of offering the covenant to the Jews and Gentiles, Paul also paraphrases Isa 59:21>Rom 11:29 "For the charismata and calling of God are irrevocable--not called back." So is this universal principle of Isaiah and Paul abolished from Scripture by the new doctrine/revelation of cessationism--added to the scripture? So what does the term, charismata, mean? In all of the remaining eight cases of charismata in the NT, every one of them refers to spiritual gifts that necessarily imply prophecy, and likely also miracles and other revelatory gifts (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 1:7; 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31 and 1 Tm 4:4).

Another example of a NT contradiction Robertson offers is the difference between the command to Gentile Christians to abstain from "things contaminated by idols, and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:20), and on the other hand, that "Paul declares that God has made all foods clean and that offering a piece of meat to an idol has no effect on its eatability [sic] so long as a weaker brother is not led into sin (1 Cor 8:4, 9)" p. 80-81.

This is no contradiction at all. In Acts 15:21 the reason for the restrictions on the new Gentile Christians is the same as Paul's in 1 Cor 8, that is, to avoid unnecessary offense to Jews--because Jews who keep the law are in "every city." Besides the specific instructions in Acts 15:20 are for all Gentiles under the Noahic law--the Jewish tradition being spelled out almost word-for-word in Jubilees 7:20-28. Acts is not imposing Jewish law on the Gentiles, but the generally-accepted laws for Gentiles! The principles underlying both Acts 15 and 1 Cor 8 are identical: not giving offense to a weaker brother.

Unfortunately, none of the examples he gives of a "changing" covenant within the NT actually show what he claims. Hence, there is not even an analogy to which he could appeal to show that *possibly* the commands to seek and employ the "miraculous" spiritual gifts could be invalidated by another stage in applying the covenant. This was probably Robertson's best potential argument: how to deny the clear commmands to appropriate the charismata. The answer, it turns out is, you can't.

Crucially, even if one were to grant a possible example of some sort of dispensational rescinding of a command that Robertson offers does not apply to the commands to prophesy and to not forbid speaking in tongues. Why? Because unlike the examples he gives, nowhere does the NT rescind the commands to seek or employ spiritual gifts in any way shape or form. Against the clear teaching of scripture, that the continuation of the spiritual gifts is contingent upon the end of this age/parousia, Robertson can only speculate that somehow there *might* be a "two-stage" dispensation at work within the New Covenant, thereby possibly abrogating these repeated commands and principles. So it seems clear that Robertson offers us a heterodox notion of the authority of scripture: a canon of scripture for the NT era believers, and another NT canon for the rest of us! As one who is committed to the divinely-inspired, authoritative, universal, and inerrant holy Word of God, I find Robertson's dismissal (or evasion) of some parts of scripture that contradict his theory disturbing. This is not a reassuring outcome for a book that purports to provide

Most fatal of all, Robertson's cessationism takes us *backwards* from the New Covenant of the Holy Spirit--a term that was virtually synonymous with revelation and prophecy in NT times--to a covenant that is written. (Didn't Paul have this discussion in detail in 2 Cor 3?) Thus cessationism is the doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees, the rabbinic doctrine of "it is not in heaven" (Deut 30:11-13) where the Law is given to mankind and distributed via the rabbis to the unenlighened. They actually taught, like the WCF, that God no longer sends prophets, miracles or even his direct word to humans, but rather has absented himself from the "great commission" of the rabbis: that they *alone* would interpret Scripture and teach it; God is out of the picture, just as Benjamin Warfield (a WCF defender) said that Scripture can be interpreted only by "objective method" [underlining his], which is "indispensable to the accurate attainment of the mind of the Spirit." It is interesting that Paul, like Jesus when faced with the same temptation by the devil, appeals to direct, immediate revelation: Deut 30:14 ("the word of faith [revelation] is near you [how near?] even in your mouth" cf. Isa 59:21) and Jesus: Deut 8:3 > Mt 4:4 || Lk 4:4. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [that procedes from the mouth] of God." The essence of the New Covenant is that God's revelation is moving *from written revelation* toward the *internal revelation* of the Holy Spirit. Robertson's cessationist scheme advocates a regression into the mode of mediated, indirect revelation of the OLD Covenant!

Moreover, Robertson, as all cessationists, confuse the *sufficiency* of scripture, with the *process* of revelation itself. Just as Christ is revealed to the sinner by the Spirit to lead him to salvation, so a gift of prophecy or word of wisdom is revealed for the edification of the church. In neither case does this *revelation* add to scripture or make it less than sufficient! Yes, there are off-center prophecies, but then so there is off-center preaching and theology. But these all are to be "judged" *according to scripture.* Prophecy is not therefore to be "despised" or "quenched" but we are to "hold fast that which is true." ("Let the others judge"). In this way, Scripture itself anticipates the problem of imperfect prophecies and provides a solution. Robertson skips lightly over the problem of Moses' unalterable Law and the acceptable subsequent prophetic tradition in the Old Testament. (Certainly the idea that prophecy ceased in Judaism with the writing of the last canonical prophet is seriously challenged by historians today). Was this something like the canon of the NT vis-a-vis it's prophetic tradition? Weren't the prophetic traditions in both cases *applying* the written tradition to their hearers, i.e., in the epistles and Revelation, with the expectation of continuing prophecy in the Church?

Particularly disturbing is Robertson's handling of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. He suggests that the "perfect" is somehow Jesus as the completion of revelation, even though the passage looks to a future coming of this "perfect"--the point at which the gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge (probably a representative list) will pass away. In locating the "perfect" in the past and seeing it as applying to his doctrine, Robertson follows the same interpretation of the Montanists, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Arians--all seen as heretics in the early Church. The early Church Fathers, on the other hand, were virtually unanimous in interpreting this passage as teaching that "prophecy shall continue in all the church until the end [parousia/end of the age]." On this see the exhaustive study by Gary Shogren, "How Did They Suppose `The Perfect' Would Come? 1 Corinthians 13.8-12 in Patristic Exegesis." JPT 15:3 (Oct 1999), pp. 99-121.

On miracles as proof of doctrine: If a heartbeat may "prove" that a person is alive, it does not mean that when the "proof" is completed, the heart *must* stop beating when the stethoscope is removed. But this is exactly what Robertson claims about miracles: if a miracle may be used to accredit doctrine (a dubious premise), it says nothing about the *continuing organic function* of ongoing spiritual gifts in the church, or the absolute requirement that God must stop granting miracles because some Enlightenment-era theologians misunderstood the purpose of God's power. "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power [dunamis = miracle or mighty work in most contexts] of God unto 'salvation'--used almost exclusively in the Gospels as healing, not just going to heaven! "That your *faith* not rest on persuasive words of wisdom [theology?], but on God's dunamis/power!" Robertson denies this biblical principle is for today: instead, we are to base our faith on sound doctrine (including cessationism) and NOT on miracles! This was exactly the position of Jews in the time of Jesus! This issue also constituted the parenetic temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, to which he responded with his claim to prophetic revelation: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every *word that proceeds from the mouth of God*" (immediate revelation as the central experience of the believer. This is the same point of 2 Cor 3 and the prophetic/revelatory nature of the New Covenant, vis-a-vis scripture, which could only be read and applied via the revelation of the Spirit, a similar concept to Calvin's testimonium, but often slighted by his followers).

Finally, Robertson does not keep the promise of his title: "A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today." *Many* passages of scripture teach the continuation of revelatory gifts and miracles, none to which Robertson offers a thorough, exegetical "Biblical Response." Among them: 1 Cor. 1:4,8; 13:8-12 and Eph. 2:20; 4:7,13. A substantial number of similar passages reiterate the themes of these three: Rom. 11:29>Isa 59:21; Eph. 1:13-14, 17-21; 3:14-21; 4:30; 5:15-19; 6:10-20; Phil. 1:9 10; Col. 1:9 12; I Th. 1:5 8; 5:11-23; 2 Th. 1:11-12; 1 Pt. 1:5; 4:7-12; 1 John 2:26-28, Jude 18-21, and Revelation 19:10 with 22:9, cf. Jer 32:20. Instead of diligent, serious exegesis of these (or any) passages, Robertson gives us speculation and generalizations. His examination of Eph 2:20 about the foundation of the apostles and prophets assumes that Grudem is the last word (or "the Case") on that subject, when in fact the issue is less complex than Grudem suggests. The "foundation" is a pattern to be replicated, not a mixed metaphor for spiritual gifts frozen in time (see Appendix III in Ruthven, above). Robertson's cessationism is based on a theory developed by early Greek pagans and Jewish polemics, not scripture. So in trying to protect the authority of scripture in his cessationism, Robertson ironically succeeds only in denying the authority and teaching of scripture itself about the continuing work of the Spirit as *biblically* defined! So in claiming to be "A Biblical Response to *the Case* for Tongues and Prophecy Today," Robertson is engaging an extremely limited field. "The Case" is far more than Grudem's contribution, based on Eph 2:20!

For historical and biblical views, respectively, Robertson's book should be read along with Milne, and Ruthven's "On the Cessation of the Charismata," 2nd ed.

Robertson has produced a fairly careful book with an irenic tone. However, insofar as he argues for cessationism as an entailment of the sufficiency of Scripture, it had better be the case that Scripture permits cessationism and that Robertson has the right notion of Scripture's sufficiency. But the former is not so obvious, in view of I Corinthians 1 and 13. Absent a demonstration that these passages permit cessationism, Robertson's doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture will appear to contradict the authority of Scripture. John Piper has proposed an alternative notion of the sufficiency of Scripture, namely, that Scripture tells us the means of grace to be used in every situation. Robertson's book is pleasantly brief and certainly worth reading, but I doubt that it will persuade those not already inclined toward its cessationist position.