The cessation of miracles

[Hidden In Him]

No idea, but it was not a first generation believer, as Heb 2 says.

And about the other question, you are arguing for a date of AD 70 as the date for Hebrews?

 

[KUWN]

And about the other question, you are arguing for a date of AD 70 as the date for Hebrews?

No, this was when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and the Jews fled to other locations throughout the world. The nation of Israel (Rom 9-11) was set aside so the Church could take up their role as the new elect people of God.

 

[Hidden In Him]

No, this was when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and the Jews fled to other locations throughout the world. The nation of Israel (Rom 9-11) was set aside so the Church could take up their role as the new elect people of God.

LoL. KUWN, forgive me here, but I am trying to ask you a question: You are attesting that the gifts had ceased by the time of the writing of Hebrews, so what time do you believe that was specifically? Or in other words:

When do you believe Hebrews was dated?

 

[KUWN]

LoL. KUWN, forgive me here, but I am trying to ask you a question: You are attesting that the gifts had ceased by the time of the writing of Hebrews, so what time do you believe that was specifically? Or in other words:

When do you believe Hebrews was dated?

Here is a brief post by a friend of mine on the date of Hebrews:

The terminus a quo of this epistle must surely be the death of Paul (summer of 64 CE), as can be inferred from 13:7 and 23. Further, these are now second generation Christians (2:3). The terminus ad quem is surely 1 Clement which quotes so extensively from Hebrews. Normally this is dated c. 96 CE, but it is possible that this date is much too late. Robinson, for example, presents evidence that it was written before c.70 CE. If so, then Hebrews must be dated even earlier. Nevertheless, if we side with the broad stream of NT scholarship, the range is c. 64-95 CE.

But there is another piece of evidence which more and more scholars are seeing as quite decisive, especially stimulated as they are by the work of J. A. T. Robinson. Throughout Hebrews the entire levitical system is spoken of in the present tense (cf. especially 5:1-4; 7:20, 23, 27, 28; 8:3, 4, 13; 9:6, 13; 10:2-3, 11). Although these have usually been downplayed by scholarship as bearing no weight (since many of them could easily be customary presents), “in some passages at least the writer is appealing to existing realities, whose actual continuance is essential to his argument.” After quoting 10:2-3 in his own translation (“these sacrifices would surely have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any sense of sin. But instead, in these sacrifices year after year are brought to mind”) Robinson makes the cogent point that “Had the sacrifices in fact ceased to be offered, it is hard to credit that these words could have stood without modification or comment. For their termination would have proved his very point.”21 Thus, it is not just the use of the present tense, but the incredible fact that the author does not point out the ruins of the temple in Jerusalem as vindication of his argument which argues for a date before 70 CE.

Finally, the total lack of awareness of eschatological fulfillment concerning the cult argues that the events of the Olivet Discourse had not yet begun to take shape. To be sure, the author warns of impending persecution—but this is better accounted for as Neronic (especially in light of Paul’s recent death!) than directly related to the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus 65 CE seems to be the best date. We can add further that the spring or summer of 65 is most probable, because in 13:23 the senior author indicates that he will come visit his audience, with Timothy at his side, “if he arrives soon.” Travel would be quite difficult (overseas, virtually impossible) during the winter, hence this note of some urgency would be most appropriate if there were enough time both of the audience to hear of his travel plans and for him to make the trip before winter.

Answer is approximately 65 AD.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Here is a brief post by a friend of mine on the date of Hebrews:

The terminus a quo of this epistle must surely be the death of Paul (summer of 64 CE), as can be inferred from 13:7 and 23. Further, these are now second generation Christians (2:3). The terminus ad quem is surely 1 Clement which quotes so extensively from Hebrews. Normally this is dated c. 96 CE, but it is possible that this date is much too late. Robinson, for example, presents evidence that it was written before c.70 CE. If so, then Hebrews must be dated even earlier. Nevertheless, if we side with the broad stream of NT scholarship, the range is c. 64-95 CE.

But there is another piece of evidence which more and more scholars are seeing as quite decisive, especially stimulated as they are by the work of J. A. T. Robinson. Throughout Hebrews the entire levitical system is spoken of in the present tense (cf. especially 5:1-4; 7:20, 23, 27, 28; 8:3, 4, 13; 9:6, 13; 10:2-3, 11). Although these have usually been downplayed by scholarship as bearing no weight (since many of them could easily be customary presents), “in some passages at least the writer is appealing to existing realities, whose actual continuance is essential to his argument.” After quoting 10:2-3 in his own translation (“these sacrifices would surely have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer have any sense of sin. But instead, in these sacrifices year after year are brought to mind”) Robinson makes the cogent point that “Had the sacrifices in fact ceased to be offered, it is hard to credit that these words could have stood without modification or comment. For their termination would have proved his very point.”21 Thus, it is not just the use of the present tense, but the incredible fact that the author does not point out the ruins of the temple in Jerusalem as vindication of his argument which argues for a date before 70 CE.

Finally, the total lack of awareness of eschatological fulfillment concerning the cult argues that the events of the Olivet Discourse had not yet begun to take shape. To be sure, the author warns of impending persecution—but this is better accounted for as Neronic (especially in light of Paul’s recent death!) than directly related to the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus 65 CE seems to be the best date. We can add further that the spring or summer of 65 is most probable, because in 13:23 the senior author indicates that he will come visit his audience, with Timothy at his side, “if he arrives soon.” Travel would be quite difficult (overseas, virtually impossible) during the winter, hence this note of some urgency would be most appropriate if there were enough time both of the audience to hear of his travel plans and for him to make the trip before winter.

Answer is approximately 65 AD.

Ok, I appreciate you posting that, as nearly all of it falls in line with what I believe as well (the supposition that he is referring to Paul and not some of the other apostles is somewhat inferred IMO, but another question for another time).

If we are going with a date of the summer of 65 A.D., this predates Jude by most scholars estimation, and in Jude we have the following statement towards the end of the letter:

20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳπροσευχόμενοι), 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

I'm guessing this becomes a debate over if the phrase here is referring to supernatural prayer or prayer with the mind, but what is your argument. The phrase "keep yourselves in the love of God" could also be regarded as referring to continuing to abide in the Presence of God. But let me start by asking if believe Jude predates Hebrews.

 

[AngelicArcher]

Ok, I appreciate you posting that, as nearly all of it falls in line with what I believe as well (the supposition that he is referring to Paul and not some of the other apostles is somewhat inferred IMO, but another question for another time).

If we are going with a date of the summer of 65 A.D., this predates Jude by most scholars estimation, and in Jude we have the following statement towards the end of the letter:

20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳπροσευχόμενοι), 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

I'm guessing this becomes a debate over if the phrase here is referring to supernatural prayer or prayer with the mind, but what is your argument. The phrase "keep yourselves in the love of God" could also be regarded as referring to continuing to abide in the Presence of God. But let me start by asking if believe Jude predates Hebrews.

The source of his friend's writing,just FYI.

19. Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, and Outline | Bible.org

I. Introduction Philip Edgcumbe Hughes opens the introduction to his commentary on Hebrews with some insights into this very enigmatic book: If there is a widespread unfamiliarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews and its teaching, it is because so many adherents of the church have settled for an...

bible.org

 

[KUWN]

The phrase "keep yourselves in the love of God" could also be regarded as referring to continuing to abide in the Presence of God. But let me start by asking if believe Jude predates Hebrews.

I think 65 AD is a reasonable date for Jude. Pretty much the same with Hebrews.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think 65 AD is a reasonable date for Jude. Pretty much the same with Hebrews.

Ok. But you are again not really answering my question. If they are commensurate, does ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳπροσευχόμενοι refer to charismatic experience or no?

 

[KUWN]

Ok. But you are again not really answering my question. If they are commensurate, does ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳπροσευχόμενοι refer to charismatic experience or no?

I am sorry I haven't answered your question. I see that you have now switched to prayer. I don't see anything mysterious about praying in the holy Spirit. In the holy Spirit would equate to praying while in fellowship, when you are of out of fellowship (having unconfessed sin in your life) you grieve that HS. Being in fellowship is a requirement to pray. And No, it makes no statement about referring to a modern day charismatic experience. I see you haven't read my recent post on the Cessation of miracles based on an analysis of Heb 2: 3, 4. Read that and tell me if you have any more questions.

see below:
Chapter Heb 2: 3, 4 In the sometimes heated discussions over the question of the duration of certain spiritual gifts, one argument has persisted from the side of charismatics: There is no proof text that any spiritual gift has ceased. As impressive as this argument sounds, a couple of responses should be given. First, if the NT was written by men who in fact exercised these sign gifts, why should they say that such had ceased? It would be difficult to find a text in which this point would be explicit. Second, the NT apostles by and large expected the Lord’s return in their lifetime (cf. 1 Thess 4:15: “we who are alive, who are remaining until the coming of the Lord”). Hence, we should not expect them to make any statements regarding the cessation of gifts, since that would presuppose that they knew the Lord’s return would be delayed. In order to find such a statement, we would need to construct the following scenario: A member of an apostle’s band writes a letter after that apostle had died. Further, in the letter he finds some reason to explicitly mention something about sign gifts.


Such a scenario is difficult to imagine. Happily, the NT provides not only one, but two books that fit such a picture: Jude and Hebrews. And both address--to some degree at least--the issue of gifts and authority. Our purpose in this paper is to look more closely at one text, Hebrews 2:3-4.

Hebrews 2:3-4 is a text often put forth by cessationists that certain spiritual gifts have ceased. The text reads as follows: (3) pw'" hJmei'" ejkfeuxovmeqa thlikauvth" ajmelhvsante" swthriva" h{ti,” ajrchVn labou'sa lalei'sqai diaV tou' kurivou, uJpoV tw'n ajkousavntwn eij" hJma'" ejbebaiwvqh, (4) sunepimarturou'nto" tou' qeou' shmeivoi" te kaiV tevrasin kaiV poikivlai" dunavmesin kaiV pneuvmato" aJgivou merismoi'" kataV thVn aujtou' qevlhsin.(“[3] How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which was at first declared by the Lord, and was attested to us by those who heard him, [4] while God was also bearing them witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will”).


The argument that this text refers to the cessation of certain gifts is based on an inference in the text, viz., that since the first generation of Christians were explicitly eyewitnesses to certain sign gifts, the second generation of Christians was not. Usually books that address the issue of gifts don’t go further than this point. One has to wonder how valid it is, however.


Several things in the text need to be examined to see whether this text has any validity for the cessation of sign gifts. First, the genitive absolute in v 4 (sunepimarturou'nto" tou' qeou'/ “God bearing witness”) needs to be addressed. A couple of points should be mentioned.

(1) On a purely syntactical level, the genitive absolute does not of course relate to anything. But it is not like the vocative--that is, it is not extra-sentential. Rather, it is virtually a constructio ad sensum. That is, it is merely a Greek convention for expressing adverbial relations, usually of a temporal nature.

(2) Thus, it is neither helpful nor accurate to leave a genitive absolute dangling. The genitive absolute exists precisely because the subject of the genitive participle is different from the subject of the verb in the main clause. But the genitive absolute construction is still dependent on the time of the main verb.

(3) So to what is it semantically dependent? The genitive absolute is most naturally subordinated to the aorist ejbebaiwvqh (“was attested, confirmed”). To take it back to the future ejkfeuxovmeqa (“shall we escape”) in v 3 is stretching things, although the meaning would fit a continuationist position (“How shall we escape . . . while God bears witness with signs and wonders . . . ?”). Still, not only the distance, but the awkwardness of meaning poses a problem. That is, the conditional participle (ajmelhvsante") makes perfectly good sense (‘if we neglect. . .’) as the modifier of the future verb. But what is the relation of the genitive absolute construction to the verb? Over 90% of genitive absolute constructions are temporal (the next largest category is causal). If that is the case here, what is the meaning? Is it something like, “by what means can we possibly escape this great salvation while God is bearing witness to us”?

The sense connection is lacking, no matter how you construe it. Take this a step further. It is even more improbable that the genitive absolute is subordinated to the conditional participle: “if we neglect . . . while God is bearing witness . . .” The force of the argument would have been considerably strengthened had the author said, “if we neglect so great a salvation which God bears witness to . . .” But that would require an adjectival participle--which, by definition, does not fit the genitive absolute construction. This leaves one of two options left: (a) the aorist indicative, ejbebaiwvqh, as the word to which the genitive absolute is semantically (not technically syntactically; see above) subordinate to. This makes perfectly good sense; besides, the structure fits most naturally: “it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God bore witness . . .” Or (b) the substantival aorist participle tw'n ajkousavntwn: the idea then would be that when eyewitnesses heard the message, God bore witness to them. This also makes good sense, and seems to be allowed for by the loose connection of the GA (genitive absolute construction) with the verbal element in the substantival participle. As such, it yields a nice text for cessationism. There are, however, three problems with it: (i) the aorist indicative is closer to the GA; (ii) GAs are normally semantically related to finite verbs (though they sometimes are attached to infinitives; I do not know of any examples off-hand in which they are attached to substantival participles, though this does not strike me as impossible); (iii) the overall meaning is more logically connected if the author is arguing that the confirmation was made by accompanying signs, rather than that the hearing was accompanied by such signs.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I see you haven't read my recent post on the Cessation of miracles based on an analysis of Heb 2: 3, 4. Read that and tell me if you have any more questions.

I'm aware. You've already posted it.

I don't see anything mysterious about praying in the holy Spirit. In the holy Spirit would equate to praying while in fellowship, when you are of out of fellowship (having unconfessed sin in your life) you grieve that HS. Being in fellowship is a requirement to pray. And No, it makes no statement about referring to a modern day charismatic experience.

How do you interpret εὐλογῇς ἐν πνεύματι (1 Corinthians 14:16). Is he speaking of a supernatural gift or of being in fellowship?

 

[KUWN]

I'm aware. You've already posted it.

How do you interpret εὐλογῇς ἐν πνεύματι (1 Corinthians 14:16). Is he speaking of a supernatural gift or of being in fellowship?

The supernatural gift of tongues was the ability to speak another Gentile language that you didn't go through the normal process of having to learn it. For example, and to modernize this, a French man was given the ability to speak Chinese without having to learn the language. That is the gift, the languages that they spoke are listed in Acts 2. Remember that the gift of languages was prophesied in Isaiah 28.11 (what you call the gift of tongues was defined by Isaiah 28 100s of years before the fulfillment of its prophesy). The Jews didn't understand the Assyrian language as they were deported to other countries. The gift of languages (Gentile) was primary for evangelism and for Gentile unbelievers (1 Cor 14.22). I have a longer article on languages I wrote many years ago and if you like, I will send it to you. It was a project I had to complete for my class on the book of Acts back in the 80s.

Finally, I do not believe that the modern gift of tongues has any relationship to the gift of tongues during the Apostolic Age.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The supernatural gift of tongues was the ability to speak another Gentile language that you didn't go through the normal process of having to learn it. For example, and to modernize this, a French man was given the ability to speak Chinese without having to learn the language. That is the gift, the languages that they spoke are listed in Acts 2. Remember that the gift of languages was prophesied in Isaiah 28.11 (what you call the gift of tongues was defined by Isaiah 28 100s of years before the fulfillment of its prophesy). The Jews didn't understand the Assyrian language as they were deported to other countries. The gift of languages (Gentile) was primary for evangelism and for Gentile unbelievers (1 Cor 14.22). I have a longer article on languages I wrote many years ago and if you like, I will send it to you. It was a project I had to complete for my class on the book of Acts back in the 80s.

Finally, I do not believe that the modern gift of tongues has any relationship to the gift of tongues during the Apostolic Age.

Ok, and so you distinguish προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι in 1 Corinthians 14:15 from εὐλογῇς ἐν πνεύματι in 1 Corinthians 14:16?

 

[KUWN]

προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι: The How to pray

εὐλογῇς ἐν πνεύματι: The content of prayer, to praise God

I think my answer is just off the cuff. It is what stands out to me. Open to a better answer.

 

[Hidden In Him]

προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι: The How to pray

εὐλογῇς ἐν πνεύματι: The content of prayer, to praise God

Synonymous terms. And both referring to the manifestation of a supernatural gift.

The supernatural gift of tongues