- by Carrie Shaw
- on July 16, 2026
Firstly, I want to make it clear that the goal of this article isn’t to critique or discredit the many good people of faith who land in a continuist lane. I have beautiful friends who affirm the charismatic (sign) gifts as ongoing and normative for the church today.
Neither is the goal simply to ‘win the argument’ or pretend there aren’t any lingering questions in holding to a cessationist position on the matter. No matter which side you land on, there are still questions without entirely satisfactory answers. And if I’m honest, I’m not sure that the argument for a cessationist position can be made from Scripture alone, although I certainly believe it’s more than compelling. However, I think that the cumulative argument from Scripture and history together builds a robust and convincing case for a cessationist view.
So while both sides look to the Bible as a guide, and endeavour to interpret its teachings in good faith, I think we also need to look beyond Scripture, into the misty annals of history, church tradition, and the unfolding life of the church. If one interpretation is correct, whether that’s continuationist or cessationist, we should reasonably expect it to find some reflection in the historical witness of God’s people.
And one of the first questions that I think is worth asking is this: what was “the perfect” that Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 13? There was clearly an expectation that certain gifts – ‘prophecies, tongues and knowledge’ – were temporary, and that there would come a time – when “the perfect” or “completeness” comes – when they would pass away.
Has “the perfect” that Paul spoke of already happened, or is it yet to come? Are we still in the age of the sign gifts, or did that cease long ago? If it didn’t cease, and “the perfect” is still to come, what should we make of the historical absence of tongues, prophecy or revelatory knowledge in the church over the past 1500 years? Have we, the church, been suppressing what the Holy Spirit might have been actively gifting?
Thoughts On “The Perfect”
No one really knows exactly what Paul meant. That’s the truth. But here are the four main views from the scholars:
1. The Return of Christ
This is the most widely held view among modern scholars and is defended by commentators such as Gordon Fee, Anthony Thiselton, D. A. Carson, and Tom Schreiner. According to this view, “the perfect” refers to the return of Christ and the final consummation of all things. Supporters point to Paul’s language about seeing “face to face” and knowing fully, which seems to fit the resurrection and the age to come.
Critics note, however, that this interpretation leaves unanswered questions about why prophecy and tongues appear to become increasingly rare throughout church history if they were intended to remain normal features of church life until Christ’s return.
It should also be noted that the scholars mentioned above are all continuationist or ‘cautiously open’ in principle, although they do differ from each other in their personal views on the practice of the spiritual gifts.
2. The Completed Canon
Some interpreters argue that “the perfect” refers to the completion of the New Testament canon. In this reading, prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge were partial means by which God communicated truth to the early church, but these became unnecessary once the apostolic witness had been fully recorded and preserved in Scripture.
The strength of this view is that it fits Paul’s contrast between what is partial and what is complete. Its main weakness is that phrases such as “face to face” and “then I shall know fully” seem much larger than the completion of a collection of writings, leading many modern scholars to reject this interpretation.
3. The Maturity of the Church
A third view understands “the perfect” as referring to the maturity of the church. Supporters often point to Paul’s contrast between childhood and adulthood later in the passage, arguing that the early church was in a foundational and immature stage that eventually gave way to maturity.
This interpretation has the advantage of taking Paul’s child and adult imagery seriously. It also aligns reasonably well with the historical trajectory of the early church, where claims of prophecy and tongues appear to become increasingly rare as the apostolic foundation was laid and the church matured. However, many commentators argue that it struggles to account for the more personal and eschatological language of seeing “face to face” and knowing fully.
4. The Completion of the Apostolic Era
A fourth interpretation sees “the perfect” as the completion of the apostolic era (circa AD30 – AD 95-100) . According to this view, the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge belonged to a unique period in which the gospel was being proclaimed, the church established, and the apostolic witness confirmed. Once that foundation had been laid and preserved, the partial means by which revelation was communicated were no longer required.
The strength of this view is that it fits the broader New Testament emphasis on apostles and prophets as foundational to the church. Its weakness is that, like the canon view, it must explain Paul’s language about seeing “face to face” and knowing fully. It also struggles to explain why evidence for prophecy and tongues continues into the second and even third centuries, after the apostolic era had ended.
Respected evangelical theologians including John Stott, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, Richard Gaffin, Michael Horton and, historically, John Calvin have defended various forms of cessationism, although they have not all argued for it on exactly the same grounds.
“The Perfect” Remains Unresolved
As you can see, the explanations above largely leave the debate unresolved. On their own, none of these interpretations provide a definitive answer, and each has strengths and weaknesses that continue to be debated by faithful Christians today.
So I want to be careful not to overstate or understate the case, based simply on a definition of “the perfect.” The miraculous sign gifts may have ceased, as the historical evidence noted in my previous article seems to indicate, but that would confirm that their function was tied to a particular purpose and that they were temporary in nature, only given until a particular time (“the perfect”) which has now passed.
Conversely, they may still continue, based on at least one interpretation of “the perfect,” namely the return of Christ. On that reading, the so-called sign gifts aren’t temporary signs tied to a particular stage of redemptive history, but ongoing spiritual gifts belonging to the church age. But this view then needs to explain why the miraculous hasn’t become the mundane, and why such gifts have historically appeared in isolated pockets, particular movements, or supposed seasons of revival rather than as the ordinary, consistent life of God’s people.
One argument is that the church had largely suppressed or neglected these gifts for much of its history but that they re-emerged, as the Pentecostal movement claims, in a small town in rural America at the turn of the 20th century.
The Birth Of Pentecostalism
In 1901, in Topeka Kansas, a group of Bible students, led by a man named Charles Parham, studied the book of Acts and concluded that tongues were the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. One of the students, Agnes Ozman, reportedly spoke in tongues after prayer and laying on of hands. This moment is often treated as the formal beginning of the Pentecostal movement, however things really didn’t crack on until 1906 at what became known as the Azusa Street Revival.
In 1906, William J Seymour, another student of Charles Parham, led a series of revival meetings in which tongues, prophecy, and miracles were reportedly experienced. The meetings quickly gained notoriety, with anywhere from 300 to 1500 skeptics and believers alike attempting to fit into a tiny, ramshackle building at Azusa Street, Los Angeles, for these services.
The revival quickly spread beyond Los Angeles. In September 1906, Seymour launched a newsletter called The Apostolic Faith, which reported testimonies of tongues, healings, conversions, and other events from Azusa Street. The lead story of the first issue was titled “Pentecost Has Come”, setting the tone for what the movement believed was taking place: the restoration of New Testament signs and wonders in the modern church.
Eventually reaching tens of thousands of readers around the world, the publication played a significant role in spreading news of the revival and promoting the emerging Pentecostal movement.
Alongside the newsletter, the movement quickly gained momentum through the various missionaries who had left Azusa Street, convinced they were carrying Pentecost to the nations. Some went to Africa, India, and China, initially believing tongues would enable them to preach in foreign languages without study. But that expectation quickly proved false. To their bitter disappointment, none of them were able to speak the local languages. Missionaries such as A. G. Garr later shifted the doctrine, arguing that tongues weren’t primarily for evangelism but for spiritual empowerment.
And that shift matters, because it raises the obvious question: what were tongues in Scripture? If the signs and wonders of the early church were being restored, isn’t it a legitimate expectation that they would be the same?
What Are Biblical Tongues?
In Scripture, tongues aren’t presented as the necessary evidence of Spirit baptism. Paul explicitly says that all believers are baptised by one Spirit into one body, yet he also asks, “Do all speak in tongues?” with the expected answer being no (1 Corinthians 12:13, 30). Tongues, then, cannot be the universal sign that someone has received the Spirit.
Neither are they presented as anything other than known human languages. While the descriptor ‘tongues’ has almost taken on a life of its own, it’s simply an old-fashioned word that meant languages. If you have an old King James Bible handy, open up the preface and you’ll see the notation “The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues…” Those ‘tongues’ were of course languages; Koine Greek, Hebrew, and some Aramaic.
Indeed, a supernatural gifting enabling a person to speak in known human languages was the expectation of the early Pentecostal missionaries. Yet when they arrived on the mission field, they found they were unable to communicate in the native languages of those they had come to reach. And the answer as to why not relates to why the gift of tongues – known human languages – was given in the first place.
This gift, first seen at Pentecost, was given to authenticate the apostolic proclamation of Christ to Jews from many nations (Acts 2:5-11). In Cornelius’ house, they confirmed that Gentiles had received the same gospel and belonged to the same people of God (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-18). In Ephesus, they marked the transition from John’s baptism into full participation in the new covenant community centred on Jesus (Acts 19:1-7). In Corinth, Paul even describes tongues as a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:21-22), while insisting that unless they’re interpreted they’re of no value to the gathered church.
In each case, the gift of tongues wasn’t private, or confirmation of a certain spiritual status. It was a public sign attached to the spread and confirmation of the gospel, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.
Taken together, these events seem to reveal a consistent pattern. The gift of tongues appears at pivotal moments in the establishment and expansion of the New Covenant, not as a universal mark of Spirit baptism, but as a public sign authenticating the advance of the gospel into new covenant communities. The emphasis throughout Acts isn’t on the spiritual experience of the individual but on God’s confirmation of the message and the inclusion of new peoples into the one body of Christ.
This raises a significant question. If tongues in the New Testament were consistently attached to key moments in the establishment of the New Covenant and the apostolic proclamation of the gospel, why would they suddenly become a widespread and expected feature of Christian experience in 1901? What changed? What new phase of redemptive history required the same authenticating sign?
Why Doesn’t 2026 Look Like Acts 2?
And this is the conundrum of the modern Pentecostal movement. The real disagreement isn’t whether the Holy Spirit is active today. The real question is whether the miraculous sign gifts, such as tongues, shown in Scripture as authenticating Christ, his apostles, and the advance of the gospel, would continue as normative gifts in the life of the church.
What purpose would the gift of tongues now serve, and, if they are indeed present in the church today, why don’t they resemble the tongues of first century Christianity? Are they even human languages at all?
The observations of modern linguists have reached much the same conclusion. After decades of studying glossolalia from around the world, language experts have consistently found that while modern tongues often resemble language in their rhythm and sound patterns, they don’t exhibit the characteristics of genuine human language. They lack the stable grammar, vocabulary and syntax that define real languages.
If that’s true, then the discussion becomes much more than a linguistic curiosity. It reaches the very heart of what modern Pentecostalism claims to have restored. If the biblical gift of tongues consisted of recognisable human languages, and the modern phenomenon doesn’t, are we really dealing with the same gift, or even a gift at all?
The issue isn’t merely academic. If tongues in Scripture were recognisable languages given as public signs authenticating the gospel, then modern glossolalia isn’t simply a slightly different expression of the same gift. It’s a fundamentally different phenomenon, and one that has often produced confusion, spiritual pressure, and serious misuse in the church.
It must also be noted that ecstatic speech isn’t unique to modern Christianity. Similar phenomena have been documented across a range of religious traditions. While this doesn’t prove that modern tongues are false, it does mean the phenomenon itself cannot be accepted uncritically as evidence of the Holy Spirit. Like all spiritual claims, it must be tested against Scripture.
And when compared with Scripture, the modern phenomenon of tongues struggles on several fronts. The tongues of the New Testament were recognisable human languages, understood by those who heard them or interpreted for the benefit of the church. They functioned as public signs authenticating the gospel and the inclusion of new covenant believers, not as private markers of spiritual status or maturity.
By contrast, modern tongues are typically unintelligible, rarely interpreted in accordance with Paul’s instructions, commonly presented as evidence of Spirit baptism despite Paul’s teaching that not all speak in tongues, and bear little resemblance to the gift described in Acts.
While many sincere Christians practise them with genuine devotion, its difficult to conclude that the modern phenomenon is the same gift presented in Scripture.
What About “Private Prayer Language”?
At this point, many continuationists will point to 1 Corinthians 14 and argue that Paul is describing a different kind of tongue altogether, one intended not for evangelism but for private prayer and personal edification. When individuals exercise the gift of tongues, either privately or in the gathered church, it’s argued that this isn’t the same kind of tongues demonstrated at Pentecost, or even the same kind of tongues discussed in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13. Instead, this is often referred to as a “private prayer language” or “praying in the Spirit”, the exercise of a gift given for personal edification.
But personal edification isn’t the controlling concern of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14. In fact, it’s almost the opposite. Nor does Paul give the impression that he has suddenly introduced a different gift from the tongues already discussed in chapters 12 and 13.
His exhortation in chapter 14 is that “all things be done decently and in order”, so that the whole congregation might be built up. The issue isn’t whether the speaker feels personally strengthened, but whether the church can understand and be edified. That’s why Paul repeatedly prioritises intelligibility, interpretation, and the building up of the gathered body.
Unknown tongues, without understanding or interpretation, were useless to the gathered church, for whom they were given. As Paul says, he would rather speak five words with understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (1 Corinthians 14:19).
And, of course, he’s also stressed in chapter 13 that even if he spoke with the tongues of humans or of angels, an obvious hyperbole, these gifts are nothing more than noise without love. For while these miraculous sign gifts – tongues, prophecy, and knowledge – would one day cease, love would abide forever.
In fact, nowhere does Paul talk about tongues as a private prayer language in the modern sense. He speaks about tongues in the context of the gathered church and regulates them precisely because uninterpreted speech doesn’t build up the body. If there’s no interpreter, the speaker is to keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God (1 Cor 14:28). That’s not Paul establishing a new category of spiritual language. It’s Paul preventing disorder in the assembly.
In Conclusion
Ultimately, I remain unconvinced that the modern charismatic understanding and practice of tongues reflects the gift described in the New Testament. That’s not because I doubt the power of the Holy Spirit, nor because I believe God has somehow withdrawn from His church. Or even, as one writer puts it, because I am a “heartless and misguided exegete”, “affronted by miracles and healing.”
Rather, it’s because the biblical gift appears to have had a specific and time-limited purpose, a specific and repeatable presentation, and a specific place within God’s unfolding plan of redemption. And when compared with Scripture, the modern phenomenon simply doesn’t fit the same pattern.
There was no new period of redemptive history in 1901 that would require the reappearance of an authenticating sign. Christ had come, the apostles had borne witness, the gospel had gone out to the nations, and the church had been established for centuries. So if tongues suddenly reappeared at the birth of Pentecostalism, we’re still left asking what exactly they were authenticating, and why the phenomenon looked so different from the gift described in Scripture.
That’s the problem modern Pentecostalism has never adequately resolved. It claims the restoration of a biblical gift, yet presents it with a different form, a different function, and a different theological purpose. At some point, the differences become too substantial to keep calling it the same gift.
A cessationist position in relation to tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge doesn’t answer every question surrounding “the perfect” or the precise timing of their fading from church history. But it does, I think, place the burden of proof back where it belongs. If modern tongues are the same gift restored, we need to be asking why and whether they resemble the gift described in Scripture.
If they don’t, then we should be extremely cautious about calling them by the same name or welcoming them into the normative life of the church.
What About Prophecy, Knowledge, Healing, Apostles And More…?
Of course, tongues are only one part of the discussion. Modern prophecy, revelatory knowledge, healing ministries, miracles, and claims of ongoing apostleship raise many of the very same questions. Do they resemble the biblical gifts in their purpose, authority, and practice?
Or have we come to redefine these gifts according to modern experience rather than the testimony of Scripture? Those are the questions we’ll turn to in the next article…
