“But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)
“And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?” (Mark 12:24)
I heard a pastor claim that it is the “power” and not the “words” that Paul evaluates. He then said that this “power” is something we ought to practice since we have been given authority to do so. Supernatural feats seem to be more of a priority to him than the “words” (gospel or doctrine). But if I am not mistaken, “the word of the cross… is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18-31).
So here is my question: Is this pastor’s application of the verse correct?
It is true that Reformed and Evangelical Christians frequently neglect the miraculous power of God, and charismatic excesses scare them off even more. Many of them seem to believe only in God’s “hidden” activities, such as conversion and providence. Some of them speak as if this has become a deistic universe since the days of the apostles. I am making a generalization — this complaint does not apply to everyone. In any case, several key aspects of the Reformed and Evangelical theology of miraculous power need to be revamped, because they are outright unbiblical and prejudiced. Yes, we can denounce the Charismatics all we want, but just because we say that one group is wrong does not mean that the other is right, and just because we talk about miraculous power does not mean that we are required to use the Charismatics as our model. But we still need a truly biblical theology on the subject.
That said, that passage from 1 Corinthians is referring to something else. The context is key. To paraphrase, “The kingdom of God is not just talk, but it carries actual power.” Or, as the NIV has it, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” This is said against the boasting of the Corinthians, who challenged Paul’s authority. Verse 19 refers to “the words of those who are arrogant” (NASB). So, Paul is not saying, “The kingdom of God is not a matter of doctrine but of power,” since he is not making a contrast between God’s words and God’s power, but he is referring to the arrogant words of the Corinthians. Nevertheless, the statement does make the point that the things belonging to God’s kingdom are powerful and effective.
The verse from Jesus means what it says. We should know both “the scriptures” and “the power of God.” Again, observe the context. He is speaking to those who deny the doctrine of resurrection, and thus deny God’s word and God’s power. So they know neither.
As for, “the word of the cross… is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18-31) — yes, but let us not equivocate. We must admit that there are such things as the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, and even if they are used to vindicate “the word of the cross” at times, they are not themselves “the word of the cross.” Even a cessationist must believe that at least some people in the Bible wielded divine power according to God’s will, and that this is not the same as preaching. Using this passage to refute the pastor would be to take it out of context just like he took the other passage from Corinthians out of context.
In summary, although they have a very developed theology of conversion, sanctification, and providence, Reformed and Evangelical Christians tend to neglect the miraculous power of God and fail to understand its operations. Their deficient theology on the subject makes them unable to make sense of many biblical passages, and even frequently lead them to distort these passages in order to maintain their view, or to consign them to an irrelevant ancient past so that they no longer have to deal with them.
So there is the need to abandon some traditional but unbiblical lines of thinking, but this does not mean that we follow the Charismatics, since they do not give us a good model of biblical interpretation and implementation. In fact, in constructing a biblical understanding on the subject, there is no need to mention them at all, but many people have so inseparably connected the two in their minds that they are no longer able to confront what the Bible actually teaches. The whole subject has been tainted for them. And sometimes what we are left with is bad exegesis, faulty reasoning, and a whole lot of unbelief.
Then, what follows is not a conclusive argument, or even a biblical argument, but it provides food for thought.
Many of those that we regard as heroes of the faith in church history in fact did not affirm the rigid and extreme cessationism that has become so popular today, and that has even become a test of orthodoxy in some circles. Consider Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and Lloyd-Jones. A number of other significant individuals might be mentioned as counterexamples, but then you might be surprised if you will read their biographies and journals. Sometimes this is written off as just one of their imperfections, but I suggest that it is their sober faith in God’s present and active power — yes, even miraculous manifestations — that made their character strong and their work effective.
For example, both Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones talked about an “anointing” to preach. It is something so real that the minister is conscious of it when it is present, and when it is stronger or weaker. But many have thrown out the entire concept, chalking it up to charismatic mysticism. A number of these respected preachers and theologians also talked about a calling to the ministry after the pattern of those we read about in the Bible, although it is agreed that the written revelation has been completed. But this has been thrown out as well. Perhaps people think that this ministry operates with a sense of authority and direction just because of my natural character or even sheer arrogance?
Moreover, there is often a double standard when it comes to this subject. If Spurgeon says something about the work of the Spirit in his ministry, then it is pure genius. If Mueller relates how God answered his prayer in a spectacular or even miraculous manner, we are awed and inspired. But if someone who has not yet attained idol status — or if he is still alive — makes a statement like Spurgeon’s or tells a story like Mueller’s, then he must be a charismatic heretic. As long as those uncomfortable things stay in the past, even the recent past, we are content, but God is now forbidden to do the same things that he did in Scripture. How dare he act sovereignly and upset our tradition?
Charismatic mysticism is certainly unbiblical and destructive, but to conspire against God’s power is not a whole lot better. It is a testament to God’s grace and faithfulness that the church has survived under so much unbelief — now, that is a sign and a wonder.