Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

[presidente]

This is one of the common misunderstood point of the healing signs in the 4 Gospels.

Jesus didn't perform those healings because he took pity and was kind to those who are sick.

And when Jesus went out He saw a great multitude; and He was moved with compassion for them, and healed their sick.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus is love and is definitely kind. Rather the healings were prophesied, as stated in my point 2. They were all healings to testify his identity to Israel.

The apostles did signs and wonders. Does that mean every sign they did was prophesied, specifically, in the Old Testament? In Mark 16 we read, 'these signs shall follow them that believe.' There are other signs besides specific fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy.

The problem I see here is that you insist on reading one purpose into a passage. Jesus healed the sick, in line with what Old Testament prophecy said about Him, but that does not mean He did not heal out of compassion also. Paul and Barnabas performed signs among the Gentiles. Those don't have to be specific signs from a Messianic prophecy you can point to the the OT to be signs.

You seem to be interpreting scripture trying to find excuses for the parts about signs and wonders not being ongoing. But you have no Biblical justification for this presupposition.

 

[presidente]

What are these signs suppose to testify to, now that Israel has fallen?

If you had Israel 'falling' in 34 AD (or how ever you date a year after the ascension) then there are a lot of 'signs' referred to in Acts after that point in time. Paul wrote in Romans 11:11 'but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles', and still went on to heal many people. Paul wrote in Romans 15:19, "19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."

Anyway, I do not get the underlying presupposition in your question. Signs can be fulfillments of specific prophecies, a fulfillment of a prophecy that points to a prophecy even further down the road, or a something predicted that indicates a prophecy is true. They can also be things that indicate that God is at work, like the miracles the apostles did, and others who are not apostles, and the type of things believers do as seen in Mark 16. Why would Israel falling mean there were no more signs?

 

[presidente]

Yes, that was the point I was trying to address in my points 8 to 10.

In 1 Cor, all the 9 gifts were mentioned. That letter was written during the transitional period between Acts 7 and Acts 28, where signs and wonders were still given to Paul, as well as the Gentile churches, as a sign to Israel.

This is a presupposition, not something you can prove from scripture. Where does the Bible speak of a 'transitional period' or teach that New Testament passages on signs or spiritual gifts are only for this period?
What you are doing is called eisegesis. You aren't getting this doctrine from scripture. You have an unbiblical theory, and you are wrapping a few verses around it. Also, you would have to read in the idea of 'ONLY' into passages where it does not exist. Jesus performed signs like healing that showed that he was a Messiah. But His healing was also done out of compassion.

We also see that the I Corinthians 12 gifts are given to members of the body of Christ for the common good. Where does the Bible say that they are just for Israel, and just for a limited period of time.

Signs are not exclusively for Israel. Paul declared that Elymas would be blind in Acts 13 and a (presumably) Gentile official of the Roman empire believed. Paul and Barnabas told of the signs they did among the Gentiles in Acts 15. Looking back at an example, a lame man in Lystra or Derbe was healed and the crowd was so Gentile-pagan they mistook the apostles Paul and Barnabas for gods. Then the apostles persuaded them not to sacrifice to them.

And God is still working with Israel, provoking them to jealousy. Why would the provoking to jealousy referred to in the song of Moses in Deuteronomy and in Romans 11 stop during this time of Gentile conversion? There is no reason to think that isn't going on. And there is no reason, Biblically, to think that God would not enable people to do signs as part of this provoking them to jealousy.

But by the time Paul wrote his prison epistles and pastoral letters after Acts 28, do you notice he no longer talk about tongues, in Ephesians 4 for example

What other parts of the Bible do you think cease to be true just because Paul doesn't mention them in Acts 28. I don't recall Paul saying not to fornicate in Acts 28. Does that mean that he did not teach on that because it was okay to fornicate by Acts 28? If someone has an agenda-- to allow fornication-- then he could use pretty much same line of reasoning you are using for spiritual gifts. Why would Paul not mentioning a spiritual gift in a certain chapter mean that gift is no longer valid or available?

 

[presidente]

You agree that God did change in his dealings and instructions with man correct?

You agreed that there was a time when physical circumcision was necessary from us, but now, no.

Who is 'us'? Did God ever require those who were not physical descendants of Abraham to be circumcised? I do not recall reading where he asked Noah to be circumcised. In Acts 15, the apostles and elders met to discuss whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and commanded to obey the law of Moses. But James and the elders wanted Paul to go into the temple and pay the expenses for some men for a temple ritual to dispel rumors such as the idea that Paul taught against Jewish people circumcising their children. Paul also circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother, but he was very much opposed to Gentiles being cirumcised.

There was a time when we were not allowed to eat meat, followed by us being allowed to eat meat, after the flood, but no blood, and now all animal is clean for eating (Acts 10).

You've got an Asian-sounding handle. Are you Asian? Whether you are or are not, where does the Bible command Asian Gentiles, or Irish Gentiles, or whatever Gentile nation to not eat meat. God gave Noah everything that creeps along the ground, without blood. Then He gave the Jewish people more restrictive laws.
The apostles and elders in Acts 15 wrote to the Gentiles to abstain from fornication, from things strangled and from blood, and from the pollutions of idols.

 

[presidente]

As I already stated in this thread, he repeated some and deliberately left others out

1 Cor 12 list
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

versus Ephesians 4 list

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

If you don't think it was deliberate, that is fine. We are just sharing our different interpretations here.

Is there any reason to think that BOTH passages are not true? I accept both passages. Are you arguing that one passage is not true anymore, and the other one is?

 

[presidente]

True, you do agree, however, that the book of Revelation has closed the canon on new prophecies right?

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The word 'book' here in literal translations is 'scroll.' They didn't carry the Bible around in a book, in a codex bound on one side back then. They used scrolls. The codex became popular later, and it was then possible to have the whole Bible in your hand.

If you look at the beginning of the book of Revelation, it is referred to as 'this book of prophecy' and at the end there are curses for adding or removing from the book. There is no curse for prophesying after the book of Revelation is written.

The idea that a prophecy has to be added to the Bible if it is given nowadays doesn't make sense. You don't add a prophecy to the Bible unless you actually add it. There were a lot of prophecies given in Biblical times that were not added into the cannon. For example, Samuel told Saul about prophets he would meet coming from Shiloh. It happened just as Samuel predicted. These prophets prophesied, and Saul prophesied also, but their prophecies are not recorded in scripture. Micaiah's prophecies are not recorded that he spoke that Ahab did not like before that one account of the vision he saw and before Ahab died. We read about the book of Iddo the seer in the Bible, but his book is not in the Bible.

The prophecies of the prophets in Corinth are not recorded, either. It is clear from scripture that not all prophecies are recorded in the Bible, so it is silly to argue that if someone gets a prophecy today, he must be adding to the Bible.

The book of Revelation also predicts two witnesses prophesying, so that argument is inconsistent with what the book actually says. If you want to be loose with interpreting the verses about those curses, does saying there is or was no more prophesying after the last word in Revelation--which takes away from its prophecy teaching about the two witnesses-- count as 'taking away' from what the book teaches?

 

[Guojing]

And when Jesus went out He saw a great multitude; and He was moved with compassion for them, and healed their sick.



The apostles did signs and wonders. Does that mean every sign they did was prophesied, specifically, in the Old Testament? In Mark 16 we read, 'these signs shall follow them that believe.' There are other signs besides specific fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy.

The problem I see here is that you insist on reading one purpose into a passage. Jesus healed the sick, in line with what Old Testament prophecy said about Him, but that does not mean He did not heal out of compassion also. Paul and Barnabas performed signs among the Gentiles. Those don't have to be specific signs from a Messianic prophecy you can point to the the OT to be signs.

You seem to be interpreting scripture trying to find excuses for the parts about signs and wonders not being ongoing. But you have no Biblical justification for this presupposition.

Yes, as I said, Jesus was certainly kind and compassionate.

I am saying it is not for us in the Body of Christ to use those scriptures to claim faith for healing. Jesus did those healings to testify to Israel that he is their Messiah.

For now, healing is not promised to us, but rather peace, according to Paul in Philippians 4:6-7.

 

[Guojing]

If you had Israel 'falling' in 34 AD (or how ever you date a year after the ascension) then there are a lot of 'signs' referred to in Acts after that point in time. Paul wrote in Romans 11:11 'but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles', and still went on to heal many people. Paul wrote in Romans 15:19, "19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."

Anyway, I do not get the underlying presupposition in your question. Signs can be fulfillments of specific prophecies, a fulfillment of a prophecy that points to a prophecy even further down the road, or a something predicted that indicates a prophecy is true. They can also be things that indicate that God is at work, like the miracles the apostles did, and others who are not apostles, and the type of things believers do as seen in Mark 16. Why would Israel falling mean there were no more signs?

I have addressed signs after Acts 7 in my point 8

 

[Guojing]

Signs are not exclusively for Israel. Paul declared that Elymas would be blind in Acts 13 and a (presumably) Gentile official of the Roman empire believed. Paul and Barnabas told of the signs they did among the Gentiles in Acts 15. Looking back at an example, a lame man in Lystra or Derbe was healed and the crowd was so Gentile-pagan they mistook the apostles Paul and Barnabas for gods. Then the apostles persuaded them not to sacrifice to them.

There is an explanation why the blinding of Elymas is a sign to Israel

Just as Jesus performed the miracle at the wedding feast to begin His public ministry, Paul performs a miracle before embarking on his first journey with Barnabas into Gentile territory.

This miracle temporarily blinds the Jew, Elymas, for hindering the gospel, while showing Sergius Paulus, a Gentile, believing the gospel.

Not only did Paul get their attention, but he also demonstrated the power behind his message and made a point of how Israel hindered the gospel while the Gentiles accepted it. Israel’s blinding will be temporary.

 

[Guojing]

Who is 'us'? Did God ever require those who were not physical descendants of Abraham to be circumcised? I do not recall reading where he asked Noah to be circumcised. In Acts 15, the apostles and elders met to discuss whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and commanded to obey the law of Moses. But James and the elders wanted Paul to go into the temple and pay the expenses for some men for a temple ritual to dispel rumors such as the idea that Paul taught against Jewish people circumcising their children. Paul also circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother, but he was very much opposed to Gentiles being cirumcised.



You've got an Asian-sounding handle. Are you Asian? Whether you are or are not, where does the Bible command Asian Gentiles, or Irish Gentiles, or whatever Gentile nation to not eat meat. God gave Noah everything that creeps along the ground, without blood. Then He gave the Jewish people more restrictive laws.
The apostles and elders in Acts 15 wrote to the Gentiles to abstain from fornication, from things strangled and from blood, and from the pollutions of idols.

Genesis 17 is the first mention of physical circumcision and it was directed to Abraham and his descendants, so obviously Noah will not be included.

My point was that God has changed in what he required man to do, throughout the scripture. That's all.

 

[presidente]

In the scriptures that I have quoted in my OP,

Did God tell Moses in Exodus 4, to tell the Jews to believe "in faith" that Moses is sent by God? In the last verse of Exodus 4, it was explicitly stated that the elders believed after the signs.

Did the Angel of the Lord rebuked Gideon, in Judges 6:17, when the latter asked for signs that it was indeed the Lord talking to him?

When John the Baptist's disciples came to Jesus in Luke 7 and ask him to verify his identity, why didn't Jesus rebuke them but immediately did all the signs required in Isaiah 35:4-6?

Why didn't Jesus told John's disciples to go back to John to tell him to believe in faith?

Asking for signs is about the same as asking for evidence. Israel, since she was born in the book of Exodus, was never expected to take by faith that God was with them.

Jesus reaction for those asking for signs depended on the audience. To one group of inquirers He told them a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.

But Jews requiring (or demanding) a sign does not mean that there is no role of signs for Gentiles. After Egypt saw what God did to the armies of Egypt, they knew that He is the LORD. Sergius Paulus believed after he saw something supernatural. Samaritans paid close attention to what Philip said after he did miracles. Jews demanding a sign doesn't mean there is no role of signs for Gentiles.

Besides, during this age, blindness IN PART is happened to Israel. There are still Jews being saved even during this era. They say a number of Jews (and Muslims also) who put their faith in Christ have had dreams that lead up to that decision. There is certainly no reason to make a doctrine out of the idea that God will not do signs through His saints to help win Jews to Christ when they hear the word proclaimed. You can invent arguments about 'transitional periods' and such, but those arguments are contrived, not the teaching of scripture.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus reaction for those asking for signs depended on the audience. To one group of inquirers He told them a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.

But Jews requiring (or demanding) a sign does not mean that there is no role of signs for Gentiles. After Egypt saw what God did to the armies of Egypt, they knew that He is the LORD. Sergius Paulus believed after he saw something supernatural. Samaritans paid close attention to what Philip said after he did miracles. Jews demanding a sign doesn't mean there is no role of signs for Gentiles.

Besides, during this age, blindness IN PART is happened to Israel. There are still Jews being saved even during this era. They say a number of Jews (and Muslims also) who put their faith in Christ have had dreams that lead up to that decision. There is certainly no reason to make a doctrine out of the idea that God will not do signs through His saints to help win Jews to Christ when they hear the word proclaimed. You can invent arguments about 'transitional periods' and such, but those arguments are contrived, not the teaching of scripture.

Paul made it clear for us in the Body of Christ, to walk by faith and not by sight.

If you want to believe signs are still for today, I am fine, thanks for sharing your different perspective.

 

[presidente]

There is an explanation why the blinding of Elymas is a sign to Israel

Just as Jesus performed the miracle at the wedding feast to begin His public ministry, Paul performs a miracle before embarking on his first journey with Barnabas into Gentile territory.

This miracle temporarily blinds the Jew, Elymas, for hindering the gospel, while showing Sergius Paulus, a Gentile, believing the gospel.

Not only did Paul get their attention, but he also demonstrated the power behind his message and made a point of how Israel hindered the gospel while the Gentiles accepted it. Israel’s blinding will be temporary.

If you can come up with an allegorical interpretation of the passage, that doesn't negate the literal meaning of the passage or the more literal applications of it. It still shows that signs can be effective with Gentiles in some cases. What Jews besides the apostles were around when the lame man was healed many verses later and the Gentiles tried to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas. And there is no reason, from scripture, at least, to argue that there is no role for signs and wonders among Jews or Gentiles in the modern era. If you believe God is sovereign, you should allow for it, unless you have scripture that shows otherwise. That is what I have not seen from you. You've got a theory that you wrap some verses around, but not scripture that actually teaches the idea of no miracles after the first century.

 

[Guojing]

If you can come up with an allegorical interpretation of the passage, that doesn't negate the literal meaning of the passage or the more literal applications of it. It still shows that signs can be effective with Gentiles in some cases. What Jews besides the apostles were around when the lame man was healed many verses later and the Gentiles tried to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas. And there is no reason, from scripture, at least, to argue that there is no role for signs and wonders among Jews or Gentiles in the modern era. If you believe God is sovereign, you should allow for it, unless you have scripture that shows otherwise. That is what I have not seen from you. You've got a theory that you wrap some verses around, but not scripture that actually teaches the idea of no miracles after the first century.

I am simply saying that sign is for Israel.

Its to show the nation that God is blinding them to the gospel, albeit temporarily, while allowing the gospel to now reach the gentiles, who will believe

You are of course free to disagree and offer your own interpretation of that. We are in a bible discussion forum after all.

 

[presidente]

Paul made it clear for us in the Body of Christ, to walk by faith and not by sight.

If you are trying to use that to argue that signs and wonders either have no role in the evangelism of unbelievers (who haven't come to faith yet) or that the I Corinthians 12 gifts have no role in promoting the good of the body of Christ, then you are misusing that scripture.

Paul, who wrote that scripture, did signs and wonders from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum. Would you accuse him of walking by faith and not by sight?

That passage also reminds me of Peter, who, when he believed, walked on water, but when he saw the winds and waves, he doubted, and began to sink.

If you want to believe signs are still for today, I am fine, thanks for sharing your different perspective.

Do you have any scripture to show that they cannot happen today?

 

[presidente]

Why didn't Jesus told John's disciples to go back to John to tell him to believe in faith?

Asking for signs is about the same as asking for evidence. Israel, since she was born in the book of Exodus, was never expected to take by faith that God was with them.

If someone sees signs and believes, that is still faith. Jesus said of his resurrection to Thomas that because he had seen, he believed, but blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Zecharias is described as a righteous man, but when he dared to ask an angel for a sign, he was struck dumb as the sign. Maybe he should have been satisfied seeing an angel. Mary didn't demand a sign that we see recorded in her encounter in Luke.

 

[presidente]

I have addressed signs after Acts 7 in my point 8

The verse you cite for point 8 does not support your assertion:

8. Paul was given signs and wonders temporary to alert Israel of the change in dispensation (Acts 15:12)[/quote[

Where does the Bible say that signs and wonders were temporary or were there to alert Israel to a change in dispensation?

Here is the verse

12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
(ESV)

 

[presidente]

I am simply saying that sign is for Israel.

Signs are for Israel, but signs are for Gentiles, too. I have demonstrated this with scripture.

Its to show the nation that God is blinding them to the gospel, albeit temporarily, while allowing the gospel to now reach the gentiles, who will believe

I find it problematic when you just make up doctrine, and promote it, without scripture that actually backs it up. You use scripture, and then promote your theories about why that verse is there in your scheme of things, rather than deriving this doctrine from scripture. This is called eisegesis.

Where does the Bible teach that signs are to show Israel that God is blinding them to the Gospel? Notice, the blindness is partial during this time when Gentiles are coming in, so how could you rule out either signs for those among Israel who are not blinded, or else more signs for those who are blinded? Where ___in the Bible___ do you get the connection between Israel's blindness and the purpose of signs, and what about the other purposes of signs that are not about blindness?

 

[Guojing]

The verse you cite for point 8 does not support your assertion:

The follow up argument I presented to Dino

So if you believe that Israel required a sign from God that someone was sent to them.

And if you believe that, currently, Israel the nation is an enemy to God when it comes to the gospel (Romans 11:28), so in God's eyes, Israel the nation has fallen (Romans 11:11)

It seems more than reasonable to conclude, from the above 2 premises, that God is not showing any signs to anyone now.

But yes, you are right, after the Body of Christ is raptured, and God restarts his dealings with Israel, signs and wonders will definitely be making a comeback then. (Matthew 24:24, Revelation 11:3-6)

 

[Guojing]

If someone sees signs and believes, that is still faith. Jesus said of his resurrection to Thomas that because he had seen, he believed, but blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Zecharias is described as a righteous man, but when he dared to ask an angel for a sign, he was struck dumb as the sign. Maybe he should have been satisfied seeing an angel. Mary didn't demand a sign that we see recorded in her encounter in Luke.

If you want to hold that doctrine, I am fine.