“The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.” (2 Corinthians 12:12)
That verse deserves to be read and reread during this discussion. To some degree, and I don’t want to overplay this, but to some degree signs, wonders and miracles were the marks of an apostle. Here are some verses from Acts that suggest the same thing:
“Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.” (Acts 2:43) In the earliest days of the church, it was the apostles who were doing wonders and miraculous signs. The Spirit was given to all that obeyed (Acts 2:38; 5:32), but not all did miracles. The apostles did the miracles.
“The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.” (Acts 5:12) Time has passed, thousands have been converted, yet it is still the apostles who are doing the miracles.
Seemingly, this gift could be passed on by the apostles through the laying on of hands. The first evidence is circumstantial: in Acts 6, the apostles lay hands on 7 men. Shortly after we read that Stephen, one of the seven, is doing miracles, the first non-apostle that is mentioned as doing so. In Acts 8, we see another of the seven, Philip, doing miracles in Samaria. He was unable, however to pass on the gift. Peter and John came from Jerusalem, laid hands on the believers, and they received this outward manifestation of the Spirit. I’m convinced that these people had received the indwelling Spirit, but the Spirit had not “come on” any of them in the outward sense.
Acts 8:18 is important: “When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”” The apostles were able to pass on the ability to do miracles, the outward manifestation of the Spirit. Those that received that manifestation, the miraculous gifts, were apparently unable to pass the gift on to others (which is why Philip couldn’t pass the gift to the Samaritans).
The exception was Cornelius, in Acts 10. There is no denying that his is an exceptional case; Peter compares it to what happened at Pentecost, years before. I believe that Cornelius and his household received the outward manifestation of the Spirit before baptism, much the same as people in the Old Testament did. This happened as a sign to Peter and the other Jews that God was accepting the Gentiles.
None of this is stated explicitly. I have drawn inferences from the wording of different texts; I won’t make my inferences a line of fellowship. But this framework helps me understand what I see in the New Testament and helps explain why the early church writers spoke of miracles in the past tense.
I’ll have some more to say on this subject, but would love to hear what YOU have to say. Does any of this make sense?
Sounds strangely familiar to me :)
Okay. This level of agreement is just freaking me out.
Seriously, though — I fully agree with what you’ve said so far, and with the gentleness with which you hold it and present it.
I might suggest that there are still areas in this world, on the fringes of the kingdom, where the need for “exceptional cases” probably still exist. This possibility might also explain why the ECF speak of the gifts in the past tense.
I would suggest that both Acts 8 and Acts 10 represent exceptional cases. Acts 8 says that they Peter and John prayed that the Samaritans might “receive” the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit had not yet “come on” any of them. “Come on” is parallel to “receive” and assigning the special meaning of “outward manifestation” seems arbitrary because it simply assumes what you are trying to establish. I believe that the crossing of the gospel into Samaritan territory represents the crossing of a threshold that was just as significant as the crossing over to the Gentiles. Both are anticipated as significant transitions in Acts 1:8. To draw attention to the dramatic importance of these moments, God gave the Spirit at extraordinary moments — in Acts 8 after baptism in the name of Jesus, and in Acts 10, before it. There is no mention of “outward manifestations” by the Samaritans in Acts 8, although some may well have been present. But it seems that the Spirit himself was temporarily withheld from the Samaritans so that their inclusion could be ratified by apostolic authority, and hence not open to question on the part of Jewish believers. None of this answers the question of whether or not miracles ceased with the apostolic age, but I think it does undermine one argument that is often made by those taking that position. The early creeds maintained that the church is always “apostolic,” always sent out into the world. It would make sense that, as the kingdom continues to cross new frontiers and extends to the ends of the earth, there is a continuing place for signs and wonders. Perhaps they are more rare today because we are less apostolic.
Anthony,
Thanks for the comment. My understanding of the Spirit “coming upon” a person stems from the fact that this phrase is used throughout the Bible to describe the Spirit taking control of a person and leading them to do miraculous things. We also have to consider that whatever it was the Samaritans lacked and then received when the apostles came was something that could be observed. Admittedly, Luke could have been informed by the Holy Spirit that no indwelling had occurred, but even Simon could see that the Spirit was given when the apostles laid their hands on people. If this were merely the indwelling, how would he know that?
From what we see in the Old Testament regarding eras of miraculous activity, I have no problem with the Spirit not working through people as he did in the first century. There is no evidence that anyone after Elisha had the gifts that he and Elijah did until Jesus himself came. The same for the period between Moses and Elijah. Is it impossible that God bring in a new miraculous period? No, but there is no reason to expect it, either. (In my rarely humble opinion)
Grace and peace,
Tim
Anthony,
A couple of more comments:
(1) Yes, Acts 8 is an exceptional case. I should have acknowledged that.
(2) Luke’s talk of not receiving the Spirit does complicate the interpretation. My suggested understanding seems to fit the situation better, in my view, but it is not the only possibility.
Thought I should add those to the discussion.
Pingback: TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen » Blog Archive » A framework for understanding New Testament miracles: Conclusions
Pingback: Canon and false teachers in the 1st century | TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen
Pingback: The gift of the Spirit in Acts 2:38 | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts
In Acts 9 Ananias laid hands on Paul, and he was not an apostle, correct? In 1 Timothy 5:2 Paul instructs Timothy (also not an apostle). These verses don’t mention miracles being imparted, but Paul received the gifts somehow. If these instances of non-apostles laying on hands are not for the purpose of passing on the gifts of the holy spirit, what was the purpose?
I think “laying on of hands” was often used as a sign of blessing and/or commissioning. I don’t think it always involved the imparting of gifts, though it can obviously be hard to prove a negative. (that is, nothing is said about receiving gifts in these instances, but we can’t prove they weren’t received)
Pingback: The baptism of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16 | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts