Assembly of God and Tongues

[Major1]

It's one thing not to be afraid I suppose, but it can be another thing to be willing to accept what the text has to say.

That is absolutely correct. Lets see if that will be the case here. Not in any way to be argumentative, but allow me to give an example.

The Scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 14:34.......
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says".

There it is in the black and white of God's Word. Do we believe it and accept it????
Now in my years of experience, speaking in and visiting many churches including Pentecostal ones, it is always the women who are speaking in tongues. But what does the Bible clearly say?????
"Let your women keep silent in the churches".

Many will say that Paul is saying women should not talk in church. But we know that is not the case. At first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are never allowed to speak at all in the church. That is what the Bible says, correct???

However, earlier in the same epistle in 11:5, Paul mentions women’s praying and prophesying as allowable activities, and we know that older women are to teach younger women as written in Titus 2:4.
So then, what is going on here??? Is this a contradiction???? Is it a mistake???..........NO!

When we read and study the Scriptures leading up to 14:34 we see clearly that Paul was correcting the way the church was operating and he was speaking specifically about "Tongues". The whole 14th chapter is about not speaking in tongues so the context is tongues. Then he says specifically to the women in the church............
"You WOMEN are to be silent in the Church".

So then the command of 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not that women be absolutely silent in the church all the time but is focused on WOMEN saying that women should not participate in the speaking of tongues.

Now folks, if women are removed from the tongues movement, there is no tongues movement at all and that is exactly what the Scriptures actually say.

This should be interesting. Do we accept the Scriptures or do we excuse them away by means of denominational; teachings?

 

[Biblicist]

That is absolutely correct. Lets see if that will be the case here. Not in any way to be argumentative, but allow me to give an example.

The Scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 14:34.......
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says".

There it is in the black and white of God's Word. Do we believe it and accept it????
Now in my years of experience, speaking in and visiting many churches including Pentecostal ones, it is always the women who are speaking in tongues. But what does the Bible clearly say?????
"Let your women keep silent in the churches".

Many will say that Paul is saying women should not talk in church. But we know that is not the case. At first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are never allowed to speak at all in the church. That is what the Bible says, correct???

However, earlier in the same epistle in 11:5, Paul mentions women’s praying and prophesying as allowable activities, and we know that older women are to teach younger women as written in Titus 2:4.
So then, what is going on here??? Is this a contradiction???? Is it a mistake???..........NO!

When we read and study the Scriptures leading up to 14:34 we see clearly that Paul was correcting the way the church was operating and he was speaking specifically about "Tongues". The whole 14th chapter is about not speaking in tongues so the context is tongues. Then he says specifically to the women in the church............
"You WOMEN are to be silent in the Church".

I had to read your second last paragraph a few times to see if I was misreading you but it does seem that you are attempting to say that in 1Cor 14 Paul is somehow placing a blanket ban on speaking in tongues?

So then the command of 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not that women be absolutely silent in the church all the time but is focused on WOMEN saying that women should not participate in the speaking of tongues.

As you have not provided any Scriptural analysis, this makes your reasoning a bit hard to follow as Paul does not forbid women from singing or praying and as congregational tongues is always directed by the Holy Spirit to the Father as words of thanksgiving and praise, then why would Paul forbid women from offering words of praise and thanksgiving to the Father? Are you maybe suggesting that women may not sing or offer words of praise to their Father during congregational meetings?

On the Day of Pentecost Peter quoted Joel 2 where he said that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy and in Acts 21:9 we are told that Phillip had four daughters who prophesied. I would have to ask, if they are not permitted to prophesy in church then where are they supposed to prophesy.

To return to 1Cor 12, in verse 7 he say that the Holy Spirit works through the individual, for the good of the one and for all, where the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are distributed across the entire local congregation; Paul did not say that the Holy Spirit only works through men where in verse 12 Paul speaks of “all the members” and not just the men. In verse 6 Paul tells us that “God works all thing in all” which means both men and women.

In verses 12-27 goes to some length to say that all are one in Christ, which means those who are free, slave and men and women. As the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:8-11) have nothing to do with church government (I recognise that a woman cannot be an Elder), then they are free to offer words of praise and thanksgiving to the Father just as a man is. In 14:5 Paul says that he wishes that all spoke in tongues, which includes both men and women where Paul was most likely making reference to the congregational setting.

When Paul says in 14:34 “the women are to keep quiet in church”, as he had changed topic back in verse 24 from tongues to prophecy, even though Paul has not forbidden a woman to praise the Father in tongues or that they cannot prophesy, he does not allow them “to speak” where he elaborates on this in verse 35 by saying “if they want to learn anything, let them ask their husbands”, which has nothing to do with offering words of praise to the Father in the Spirit or even to that of prophecy. When it comes to judging or discerning a congregational prophecy, it would be up to the men of the congregation (the Elders) to make a decision on the prophecy and of course if the prophecy was directed to an individual then they would also be required to do the same. Edit: Paul could be rephrased in the following way; "If a woman wants to know something about a prophecy (or maybe offer an opinion) then she should discuss these matters with her husband/father at home".

Now folks, if women are removed from the tongues movement, there is no tongues movement at all and that is exactly what the Scriptures actually say.

As much as our women tend to be the more vocal within both our Continuist and cessationist congregations, I suspect that if we were to forbid them from offering words of praise to the Father (in English), then many Continuist and cessationist congregations would be very quiet indeed. As I have spent 40 years within the Full Gospel movement, I can recognise that our women can certainly be vocal, just as they can be within a cessationist congregation (unless they are hogtied), so we should not be surprised to see as many women as there are men who both prophesy and speak words of praise to the Father.

This should be interesting. Do we accept the Scriptures or do we excuse them away by means of denominational; teachings?

This is my point, as the cessationist position is not so much a theological construct but instead where it is primarily a set of denominational teachings, then I can ask again, why should we follow the cessationist worldview when it does not stand up to the light of the Scriptures?

Edit: An additional sentence added to para. 6
Typo: Paul speak to Paul speaks

 

[swordsman1]

This is my point, as the cessationist position is not so much a theological construct but instead where it is primarily a set of denominational teachings, then I can ask again, why should we follow the cessationist worldview when it does not stand up to the light of the Scriptures?

The cessationist position is based entirely on scripture and the correct exegesis thereof. Charismatic/pentecostal doctrines however come about by people attempting to justify what they mistakenly believe to be the gifts of tongues/healing/prophecy by trying to shoehorn their preconceived ideas into scripture. It doesn't work however - they can only do so by ignoring the established principles of bible interpretation (eg by taking verses out of context, making unwarranted assumptions, etc).

 

[Major1]

I had to read your second last paragraph a few times to see if I was misreading you but it does seem that you are attempting to say that in 1Cor 14 Paul is somehow placing a blanket ban on speaking in tongues?


As you have not provided any Scriptural analysis, this makes your reasoning a bit hard to follow as Paul does not forbid women from singing or praying and as congregational tongues is always directed by the Holy Spirit to the Father as words of thanksgiving and praise, then why would Paul forbid women from offering words of praise and thanksgiving to the Father? Are you maybe suggesting that women may not sing or offer words of praise to their Father during congregational meetings?

On the Day of Pentecost Peter quoted Joel 2 where he said that “your sons and daughters shall prophesy and in Acts 21:9 we are told that Phillip had four daughters who prophesied. I would have to ask, if they are not permitted to prophesy in church then where are they supposed to prophesy.

To return to 1Cor 12, in verse 7 he say that the Holy Spirit works through the individual, for the good of the one and for all, where the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are distributed across the entire local congregation; Paul did not say that the Holy Spirit only works through men where in verse 12 Paul speaks of “all the members” and not just the men. In verse 6 Paul tells us that “God works all thing in all” which means both men and women.

In verses 12-27 goes to some length to say that all are one in Christ, which means those who are free, slave and men and women. As the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:8-11) have nothing to do with church government (I recognise that a woman cannot be an Elder), then they are free to offer words of praise and thanksgiving to the Father just as a man is. In 14:5 Paul says that he wishes that all spoke in tongues, which includes both men and women where Paul was most likely making reference to the congregational setting.

When Paul says in 14:34 “the women are to keep quiet in church”, as he had changed topic back in verse 24 from tongues to prophecy, even though Paul has not forbidden a woman to praise the Father in tongues or that they cannot prophesy, he does not allow them “to speak” where he elaborates on this in verse 35 by saying “if they want to learn anything, let them ask their husbands”, which has nothing to do with offering words of praise to the Father in the Spirit or even to that of prophecy. When it comes to judging or discerning a congregational prophecy, it would be up to the men of the congregation (the Elders) to make a decision on the prophecy and of course if the prophecy was directed to an individual then they would also be required to do the same. Edit: Paul could be rephrased in the following way; "If a woman wants to know something about a prophecy (or maybe offer an opinion) then she should discuss these matters with her husband/father at home".


As much as our women tend to be the more vocal within both our Continuist and cessationist congregations, I suspect that if we were to forbid them from offering words of praise to the Father (in English), then many Continuist and cessationist congregations would be very quiet indeed. As I have spent 40 years within the Full Gospel movement, I can recognise that our women can certainly be vocal, just as they can be within a cessationist congregation (unless they are hogtied), so we should not be surprised to see as many women as there are men who both prophesy and speak words of praise to the Father.


This is my point, as the cessationist position is not so much a theological construct but instead where it is primarily a set of denominational teachings, then I can ask again, why should we follow the cessationist worldview when it does not stand up to the light of the Scriptures?

Edit: An additional sentence added to para. 6
Typo: Paul speak to Paul speaks

I am of the understanding that Cessationism IS the position of the Scriptures.

As for posting Scriptures to valid my comments. I do not mean to disrespect you as I do not know you but my experience in this subject is that the people who want to speak in tongues are going to do so no matter what the Scriptures actually say. But I am glad to do so for you.

YES, I am saying exactly that about 1 Corinthians 14. I am sure you read the comment but you missed where I stated that women according to Paul were certainly meant to speak and sing and pray in church. He specifically said that "women are to be silent in church".

1 Corth. 14:1...
"Follow after love and desire spiritual gifts but rather that ye may prophesy".

Without a doubt Paul is telling the Corinthian church to stop the emotional experiences of speaking in tongues.
Jesus never spoke in tongues.
There is no record of the apostles speaking in tongues after Pentecost.
There is no record of Paul speaking in tongues or any sermon delivered in a tongue.

He did speak in tongues because he said that he did. How did he speak the gospel to those he visited with. He spoke in his language and they heard him in their own language. That is what happened at Pentecost.

Tongues were never a rapturous, ecstatic, mysterious utterance that we see today. Tongues were foreign languages.
On the day of Pentecost the apostles spoke in their own language but everyone there heard the gospel in his own language.

Acts 2:6...
"Now when this was noised abroad the multitude came together and were confounded, because that EVERY MAN IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. "

Now we can both use denomination jargon and spiritual words and things like IMO and so on and so on. But my dear brother, the exact words in the Scriptures are......"women are to be silent in church".

But we already have seen as I posted, Paul told us that women were to do prayers and singing and so on. So then we must look at the CONTEXT of what he was inferring and when we do that we see that the whole 14th chapter is Paul speaking about tongues. So then the context demands that he is saying to women to..."not speak in tongues in the church".

I said and say again that if the church obeys the directions of Paul in the Bible, then women will not speak in church in tongues and if that is the case, there is then NO tongues movement at all.

1 Corth. 13:8-10........
"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away."

Only two things have been perfect. The Lord Jesus and the Scriptures. The word "perfect" in the Greek grammar is neuter which means it refers to a THING and not a PERSON. IMO that means the perfect is the Bible is the perfect thing and since we have it the temporary gift of tongues given to the apostles are now over.

 

[Major1]

The cessationist position is based entirely on scripture and the correct exegesis thereof. Charismatic/pentecostal doctrines however come about by people attempting to justify what they mistakenly believe to be the gifts of tongues/healing/prophecy by trying to shoehorn their preconceived ideas into scripture. It doesn't work however - they can only do so by ignoring the established principles of bible interpretation (eg by taking verses out of context, making unwarranted assumptions, etc).

Correct!
The tongues we see in churches today are not the example set forth in the Scriptures.
What we see today is those people who feel the need to be excited about their relationship with Jesus and make utterences as a release of their emotions and not a language as told to us in Acts 2.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

Not entirely - What HAS BEEN HAPPENING for the last 100 years, or so is that when a Person is "Endued with power" (to use Jesus' terminology for the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit"), then one effect of that will be that he/she finds that there's a "new language" now present in their minds, which they can speak at will for as long as they choose to.

However the REAL evidence of the "Enduement of Power" would be (drum roll) POWER IN MINISTRY!!!!!

After I spoke in tongues for the first time back in '73, before long I was hip deep in Bible teaching to a variety of different groups including Catholic Bible studies among Charismatic Catholics. The Parish Priests had no idea what was going on and INVITED Protestant Pentecostal and Charismatics in to "Fill in the blanks". and God would "feed me" what I was supposed to do in the meetings I taught for YEARS.

THAT's evidence of the "Enduement of power" - not babbling in a language you don't understand - WHICH IS SOMETHING that GOd SAYS is a GOOD thing, and edifying to the tongues speaker who's spirit is speaking to GOD in a language given by the Holy Spirit.

Of Course The Pentecostal denominations DO HAVE their doctrines of "Initial Evidence" which TO THEM is the ability to speak in tongues. I have for the last 43 years. The "Oneness Pentecostal" Lunatic Fringe (UPCI) teaches the heresy that no TONGUES = NO SALVATION. Mainline Pentecostals/Charismatics HAVE NEVER taught the foolishness.

 

[Major1]

Not entirely - What HAS BEEN HAPPENING for the last 100 years, or so is that when a Person is "Endued with power" (to use Jesus' terminology for the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit"), then one effect of that will be that he/she finds that there's a "new language" now present in their minds, which they can speak at will for as long as they choose to.

However the REAL evidence of the "Enduement of Power" would be (drum roll) POWER IN MINISTRY!!!!!

After I spoke in tongues for the first time back in '73, before long I was hip deep in Bible teaching to a variety of different groups including Catholic Bible studies among Charismatic Catholics. The Parish Priests had no idea what was going on and INVITED Protestant Pentecostal and Charismatics in to "Fill in the blanks". and God would "feed me" what I was supposed to do in the meetings I taught for YEARS.

THAT's evidence of the "Enduement of power" - not babbling in a language you don't understand - WHICH IS SOMETHING that GOd SAYS is a GOOD thing, and edifying to the tongues speaker who's spirit is speaking to GOD in a language given by the Holy Spirit.

Of Course The Pentecostal denominations DO HAVE their doctrines of "Initial Evidence" which TO THEM is the ability to speak in tongues. I have for the last 43 years. The "Oneness Pentecostal" Lunatic Fringe (UPCI) teaches the heresy that no TONGUES = NO SALVATION. Mainline Pentecostals/Charismatics HAVE NEVER taught the foolishness.

Sorry Bob but I can not agree with you. You did not post any Scripture which would support your opinion of tongues being only for the ministry.

Did someone interpret your language? What was the language that you spoke in?

A careful reading of Acts 2 says that the people HEARD the apostles in their OWN LANGUAGE!

 

[Biblicist]

I am of the understanding that Cessationism IS the position of the Scriptures.

As for posting Scriptures to valid my comments. I do not mean to disrespect you as I do not know you but my experience in this subject is that the people who want to speak in tongues are going to do so no matter what the Scriptures actually say. But I am glad to do so for you.

It might help if I explain my background by saying that over the past 20 years I have placed most of my theological focus on gaining a better understanding of the Full Gospel nature of the Scriptures. This is why I currently have 14 contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians (more to be added) with numerous electronic books and articles on such issues where I am also interested in the culture of the Church of the first century particularly with the community and city of Corinth. When it comes to the more respected theologians, I always try and keep abreast of what they have to say particularly when it relates to matters which address the Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

At this point of time I feel that I can legitimately say that I have encountered and read through every recognised option and viewpoint when it comes to Acts 2, 9 and 10, 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14 Ephesians 4 and with James 5.

YES, I am saying exactly that about 1 Corinthians 14. I am sure you read the comment but you missed where I stated that women according to Paul were certainly meant to speak and sing and pray in church. He specifically said that "women are to be silent in church".

Your viewpoint is certainly a contradiction as you cannot say one thing and then say another. Okay, as with my earlier statement that within the congregational setting, as tongues are always directed to the Father as words of praise and thanksgiving, then why would Paul only allow men to speak words of praise to the Father through the Spirit and not women?

1 Corth. 14:1...
"Follow after love and desire spiritual gifts but rather that ye may prophesy".

Without a doubt Paul is telling the Corinthian church to stop the emotional experiences of speaking in tongues.

I would imagine that most people would see your position as being quite a stretch of the imagination. In 1Cor 14:5 you would have noted that Paul desires “that you all speak in tongues” which is about as far as you can get from your own position. Why would Paul want to prohibit the people of God from allowing the Holy Spirit to speaks words of praise and adoration to the Father within the setting of the congregational meeting – it makes absolutely no sense. Later on in verses 12 & 14 Paul instructs those who desire to allow the Holy Spirit to speak such words of praise to the Father, that they also seek to allow the Holy Spirit to give them an articulation of what he was saying to the Father so that the congregation can gain an understanding of what the Spirit was saying.

In chapter 14 Paul makes no attempt to dismiss the ability of anyone within the congregation to speak words of praise to the Father, where instead his concern is that all our speech within the congregational meeting must be through intelligible communications, which is why he demands that evey occurrance of tongues is followed up with an articulation.

Jesus never spoke in tongues.

Even though the Scriptures are silent on this matter, I would have to wonder why the Son of God would need to speak with his Father in this way. Having heard this argument over the years, I have to wonder if some people feel that they have no need to have the Holy Spirit interceding for them to the Father in tongues, where they obviously feel that they can pray just as effectively as the Son of God does to his Father - wow!

There is no record of the apostles speaking in tongues after Pentecost. There is no record of Paul speaking in tongues or any sermon delivered in a tongue.

As we are spending a fair amount of time within First Corinthians where Paul has been encouraging the Church to pray in the Spirit (tongues) and that we are to allow for three prophecies and three words of praise to the Father in tongues then your statement does seem to be a bit out of lace. I suspect that you have probably realised that you are stretching your point way too far, which might work within your own circles but that would be it. Why would Paul say to the Corinthians in 14:18 that he is glad that he speaks in tongues more than anyone else within Corinth?

He did speak in tongues because he said that he did. How did he speak the gospel to those he visited with. He spoke in his language and they heard him in their own language. That is what happened at Pentecost.

Wait a minute! How can you say that the Apostles never spoke in tongues and then claim (without any evidence) that Paul supposedly employed tongues to evangelise?

As Paul has never mentioned or even suggested that he used tongues in this manner then why would you take this particular line of view? As Paul was a Roman citizen, where he was born in an important Roman city, then this would have meant that he would have been able to speak Latin, which was the language of government throughout the entire Empire, along with that of Greek being the language of commerce, at least within the Eastern portion of the Empire.

When Paul stood up and spoke to the Athenians, I hardly think that he would have spoken in tongues where instead he would have spoken to them in Greek. Don’t forget, for those who could speak Greek, this meant that they would be able to converse with most population groups, at least within the Eastern portion of the Empire, whereas Latin would have been the predominant language within most of the Western Empire.

Tongues were never a rapturous, ecstatic, mysterious utterance that we see today. Tongues were foreign languages.
On the day of Pentecost the apostles spoke in their own language but everyone there heard the gospel in his own language.

Acts 2:6...
"Now when this was noised abroad the multitude came together and were confounded, because that EVERY MAN IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. "

It would be almost unanimously agreed within the Christian academy that the 120 spoke in known human languages through the power of the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit anoint the unregenerate in such a way when the dual purpose of the Holy Spirit speaking through the 120 was to announce that the Holy Spirit had now been given to those who are a part of the Body of Christ and to signify that the New Covenant was about to go to all nations?

It is a common misconception that the what the 120 were saying to the Father, with regard to his greatness and mighty works, that this was supposed to be a gospel message. If Peter had not provided the churches first evangelistic messsage, then the crowd would have dispersed where most would have presumed that the Galileans were only speaking reheased phrases in languages that they did not know.

I don’t know what version you are using for Acts 2:6 but it has omitted “them speak” which changes the meaning of the Greek λαλούντων αὐτῶν.

Now we can both use denomination jargon and spiritual words and things like IMO and so on and so on. But my dear brother, the exact words in the Scriptures are......"women are to be silent in church".

But we already have seen as I posted, Paul told us that women were to do prayers and singing and so on. So then we must look at the CONTEXT of what he was inferring and when we do that we see that the whole 14th chapter is Paul speaking about tongues. So then the context demands that he is saying to women to..."not speak in tongues in the church".

I’m confused; as I have never come across even a cessationist commentator who has suggested what you have said regarding women and tongues (though they may exist); as you have not been able to connect this with what Paul has said, then I am at a loss as to how you can first rightfully point out that Paul allows women to pray in sing within the congregational setting, but you then claim that he is somehow forbidding them to speaks words of praise to the Father through the Spirit – I am at a complete loss as to how you have constructed your position where maybe it comes from within a particular denominational understanding.

I said and say again that if the church obeys the directions of Paul in the Bible, then women will not speak in church in tongues and if that is the case, there is then NO tongues movement at all.

I still cannot see how you are connecting Paul’s comment that “women are to remain silent within the church” with a supposed prohibition against them speaking in tongues. If you had more exposure to either Pentecostal or charismatic worship and ministry, you would be able to see that both men and women prophesy to the congregation and speak words of praise to the Father in tongues.

1 Corth. 13:8-10........
"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away."

Only two things have been perfect. The Lord Jesus and the Scriptures. The word "perfect" in the Greek grammar is neuter which means it refers to a THING and not a PERSON. IMO that means the perfect is the Bible is the perfect thing and since we have it the temporary gift of tongues given to the apostles are now over.

You would be correct in that even though the Scriptures are speaking about Jesus, Paul is technically referring to the Parousia or Eschaton which is an event (and not a person), where the New Heavens will be established with the return of Jesus as King. Even though Jesus is the focus of the culmination of all things, that which is perfect speaks not so much of a single person but of a major cataclysmic event.

The view that Paul was supposedly making reference to the completion of the Canon was common up until the 1970’s where once many cessationists realised that Paul was speaking about the arrival of the new Heavenly Kingdom, this allowed many of them to cast off this old denominational understanding. This understanding was finally laid to rest way back in the 1970’s where it is often referred to as being the final golden nail in the coffin of the cessationist worldview. For many countless thousands of cessationists, once this hurdle was removed it allowed them to fully embrace the Full Gospel.

 

[Major1]

It might help if I explain my background by saying that over the past 20 years I have placed most of my theological focus on gaining a better understanding of the Full Gospel nature of the Scriptures. This is why I currently have 14 contemporary commentaries on First Corinthians (more to be added) with numerous electronic books and articles on such issues where I am also interested in the culture of the Church of the first century particularly with the community and city of Corinth. When it comes to the more respected theologians, I always try and keep abreast of what they have to say particularly when it relates to matters which address the Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

At this point of time I feel that I can legitimately say that I have encountered and read through every recognised option and viewpoint when it comes to Acts 2, 9 and 10, 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14 Ephesians 4 and with James 5.


Your viewpoint is certainly a contradiction as you cannot say one thing and then say another. Okay, as with my earlier statement that within the congregational setting, as tongues are always directed to the Father as words of praise and thanksgiving, then why would Paul only allow men to speak words of praise to the Father through the Spirit and not women?


I would imagine that most people would see your position as being quite a stretch of the imagination. In 1Cor 14:5 you would have noted that Paul desires “that you all speak in tongues” which is about as far as you can get from your own position. Why would Paul want to prohibit the people of God from allowing the Holy Spirit to speaks words of praise and adoration to the Father within the setting of the congregational meeting – it makes absolutely no sense. Later on in verses 12 & 14 Paul instructs those who desire to allow the Holy Spirit to speak such words of praise to the Father, that they also seek to allow the Holy Spirit to give them an articulation of what he was saying to the Father so that the congregation can gain an understanding of what the Spirit was saying.

In chapter 14 Paul makes no attempt to dismiss the ability of anyone within the congregation to speak words of praise to the Father, where instead his concern is that all our speech within the congregational meeting must be through intelligible communications, which is why he demands that evey occurrance of tongues is followed up with an articulation.


Even though the Scriptures are silent on this matter, I would have to wonder why the Son of God would need to speak with his Father in this way. Having heard this argument over the years, I have to wonder if some people feel that they have no need to have the Holy Spirit interceding for them to the Father in tongues, where they obviously feel that they can pray just as effectively as the Son of God does to his Father - wow!


As we are spending a fair amount of time within First Corinthians where Paul has been encouraging the Church to pray in the Spirit (tongues) and that we are to allow for three prophecies and three words of praise to the Father in tongues then your statement does seem to be a bit out of lace. I suspect that you have probably realised that you are stretching your point way too far, which might work within your own circles but that would be it. Why would Paul say to the Corinthians in 14:18 that he is glad that he speaks in tongues more than anyone else within Corinth?


Wait a minute! How can you say that the Apostles never spoke in tongues and then claim (without any evidence) that Paul supposedly employed tongues to evangelise?

As Paul has never mentioned or even suggested that he used tongues in this manner then why would you take this particular line of view? As Paul was a Roman citizen, where he was born in an important Roman city, then this would have meant that he would have been able to speak Latin, which was the language of government throughout the entire Empire, along with that of Greek being the language of commerce, at least within the Eastern portion of the Empire.

When Paul stood up and spoke to the Athenians, I hardly think that he would have spoken in tongues where instead he would have spoken to them in Greek. Don’t forget, for those who could speak Greek, this meant that they would be able to converse with most population groups, at least within the Eastern portion of the Empire, whereas Latin would have been the predominant language within most of the Western Empire.


It would be almost unanimously agreed within the Christian academy that the 120 spoke in known human languages through the power of the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit anoint the unregenerate in such a way when the dual purpose of the Holy Spirit speaking through the 120 was to announce that the Holy Spirit had now been given to those who are a part of the Body of Christ and to signify that the New Covenant was about to go to all nations?

It is a common misconception that the what the 120 were saying to the Father, with regard to his greatness and mighty works, that this was supposed to be a gospel message. If Peter had not provided the churches first evangelistic messsage, then the crowd would have dispersed where most would have presumed that the Galileans were only speaking reheased phrases in languages that they did not know.

I don’t know what version you are using for Acts 2:6 but it has omitted “them speak” which changes the meaning of the Greek λαλούντων αὐτῶν.


I’m confused; as I have never come across even a cessationist commentator who has suggested what you have said regarding women and tongues (though they may exist); as you have not been able to connect this with what Paul has said, then I am at a loss as to how you can first rightfully point out that Paul allows women to pray in sing within the congregational setting, but you then claim that he is somehow forbidding them to speaks words of praise to the Father through the Spirit – I am at a complete loss as to how you have constructed your position where maybe it comes from within a particular denominational understanding.


I still cannot see how you are connecting Paul’s comment that “women are to remain silent within the church” with a supposed prohibition against them speaking in tongues. If you had more exposure to either Pentecostal or charismatic worship and ministry, you would be able to see that both men and women prophesy to the congregation and speak words of praise to the Father in tongues.


You would be correct in that even though the Scriptures are speaking about Jesus, Paul is technically referring to the Parousia or Eschaton which is an event (and not a person), where the New Heavens will be established with the return of Jesus as King. Even though Jesus is the focus of the culmination of all things, that which is perfect speaks not so much of a single person but of a major cataclysmic event.

The view that Paul was supposedly making reference to the completion of the Canon was common up until the 1970’s where once many cessationists realised that Paul was speaking about the arrival of the new Heavenly Kingdom, this allowed many of them to cast off this old denominational understanding. This understanding was finally laid to rest way back in the 1970’s where it is often referred to as being the final golden nail in the coffin of the cessationist worldview. For many countless thousands of cessationists, once this hurdle was removed it allowed them to fully embrace the Full Gospel.

Long posts such as yours here allow for a lot of interaction and going from one thing to another and I struggle with that. If you would like to post ONE opinion then I could concentrate on it, respond to it and post the Bible reason to validate my posting..

As for your work on commentaries, I am very blessed to know that you have put in that much effort. I really do not feel comfortable posting anything of myself and I will just leave it to you that I am just an old country boy from the Promised Land of Alabama.

 

[Biblicist]

After I spoke in tongues for the first time back in '73, before long I was hip deep in Bible teaching to a variety of different groups including Catholic Bible studies among Charismatic Catholics. The Parish Priests had no idea what was going on and INVITED Protestant Pentecostal and Charismatics in to "Fill in the blanks". and God would "feed me" what I was supposed to do in the meetings I taught for YEARS.

As I came into the things of the Spirit only a year after you did, I can certainly concur that the Roman Catholic charismatic priests were in most part at a complete loss as to what they were supposed to say to their charismatic members. It was interesting to see so many non-Roman Catholic charismatics not only ministering to individual Roman Catholic charismatics but where they also ministered within their congregations and within other formal meetings.

Of Course The Pentecostal denominations DO HAVE their doctrines of "Initial Evidence" which TO THEM is the ability to speak in tongues. I have for the last 43 years. The "Oneness Pentecostal" Lunatic Fringe (UPCI) teaches the heresy that no TONGUES = NO SALVATION. Mainline Pentecostals/Charismatics HAVE NEVER taught the foolishness.

It should be pointed out that the Doctrine of Initial Evidence reflects more of a classic-Pentecostal position such as which is held by the AoG. Outside of the AoG this particular view is undoubtedly on the decline where I only changed my understanding from the classic-Pentecostal position a few years back.

 

[Biblicist]

Long posts such as yours here allow for a lot of interaction and going from one thing to another and I struggle with that. If you would like to post ONE opinion then I could concentrate on it, respond to it and post the Bible reason to validate my posting..

As for your work on commentaries, I am very blessed to know that you have put in that much effort. I really do not feel comfortable posting anything of myself and I will just leave it to you that I am just an old country boy from the Promised Land of Alabama.

Yes, I certainly do enjoy my theology and having spent many years comparing my own views with that of the better contemporary theologians I can certainly prattle on. I did have a good chuckle with your country boy from Alabama quip - it was priceless.

 

[swordsman1]

It would be almost unanimously agreed within the Christian academy that the 120 spoke in known human languages through the power of the Holy Spirit.

And that is the only description in scripture of what tongues actually is - foreign human languages. Nowhere is it redefined as a non-human language, a heavenly language, the language of angels, or anything else. Unless you can quote some verses that say otherwise?

You would be correct in that even though the Scriptures are speaking about Jesus, Paul is technically referring to the Parousia or Eschaton which is an event (and not a person), where the New Heavens will be established with the return of Jesus as King. Even though Jesus is the focus of the culmination of all things, that which is perfect speaks not so much of a single person but of a major cataclysmic event.

The view that Paul was supposedly making reference to the completion of the Canon was common up until the 1970’s where once many cessationists realised that Paul was speaking about the arrival of the new Heavenly Kingdom, this allowed many of them to cast off this old denominational understanding. This understanding was finally laid to rest way back in the 1970’s where it is often referred to as being the final golden nail in the coffin of the cessationist worldview. For many countless thousands of cessationists, once this hurdle was removed it allowed them to fully embrace the Full Gospel.

The notion that 1 Cor 13:8-13 is the nail in the coffin of cessationism is quite simply wishful thinking on the part of the continuationist who has failed to study the passage sufficiently and hastily arrived at a naive and flawed conclusion. Quite the opposite, this passage in fact turns out to be one of the many nails that debunks continuationist teaching.

It is a common mistake to believe that this passage is saying that the gifts of tongues, prophecy and words of knowledge will cease only when Christ returns at the Parousia. Most people see the words "when the perfect comes" (or "when completeness comes" as the NIV more accurately renders it), and "face to face" and immediately jump to the conclusion it is referring to seeing Christ face to face when he returns. Careful examination of the passage however reveals it is nothing of the sort. Christ is never mentioned, nor his return, nor the eternal glorious state. 'Face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror, not to seeing Christ.

Here is the passage:

1 Cor 13:8-13 (NIV) 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​

In v8 Paul tells the Corinthians that the gifts of tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge would cease at some point after the time of writing his epistle. He then says in v9 that these prophecies and words of knowledge were only revelations "in part". In v10 Paul says that when "completeness" comes those partial revelatory gifts would disappear. Completeness would replace that which is in part. If what is "in part" is partial revelation, then it follows that the "completeness" that replaces it must be completed revelation. ie the completed canon.

In v12 Pauls tells the Corinthians that now (at the time of writing), when they had to rely on prophecy for knowledge of the Christian faith, was like seeing a reflection dimly in a mirror. (The NIV omits the word 'dimly' but it is in the original greek and all other versions). Mirrors in those days were very poor, being made of metal polished as best they could, and produced a very blurred and indistinct image. However after "completeness" comes it would be like seeing "face to face". They would see Gods revelation to man with far greater clarity. Paul was comparing the time when believers only had a partial view of God's revelation in the form of prophecies and words of knowledge, to when God's full revelation to man would become clear in the form of the completed canon.

It is no coincidence that Paul chose the terms 'seeing dimly' verses 'face to face' to describe the before and after effect of inferior prophecy being replaced by clearer scripture. He is alluding to Numbers 12:8 when God says of Moses "With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles". God spoke to Moses in clear 'face to face' revelations and not in obscure 'riddles'. The word for riddle is the same word Paul uses here ('ainigma') which is translated 'dimly' in the NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV etc.

Clearly it doesn't refer to seeing Christ face to face. If Paul was referring to seeing Christ in glory, then it wouldn't just be prophecy, words of knowledge, and tongues that will cease. All the spiritual gifts will cease. In heaven there will be no need for healers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, giving, faith, discernment of spirits, etc. Yet Paul makes no mention of those ceasing. Only the revelatory gifts cease, the purpose of which was to provide divine guidance in the faith in the absence of scripture.

The other contrast Paul makes and is often overlooked in the analogy of a child reaching maturity of adulthood in v11. A child only has partial wisdom and knowledge and makes many foolish mistakes. He gradually learns things peice by peice (akin to prophecies) to correct his childish ideas. But this state is only temporary and when the child matures to adulthood he obtains a full measure of knowledge (akin to the completed canon) and puts aside childish notions.

Although in my view 'teleios' has been correctly translated as 'when completeness comes' in the NIV and several other versions, continuationists latch on to the fact that some bibles translate it as 'when that which is perfect comes', claiming it to be when Christ comes or when the eternal state comes. The word is in the neuter form so it clearly cannot be Christ. Although it can mean perfect, when Paul uses the word 'teleios' elsewhere in his writings it nearly always refers to something that is complete or mature, not perfect. (See 1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 14:20, Phil 3:15, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14). In fact nowhere in scripture is 'teleios' used to describe the coming of Christ, the eternal state, or anything eschatological. It is however used to describe scripture in James 1:25. At the end of this post I have included some lexical definitions 'teleios' which should shed some further light on the meaning of the word.

Finally in v8 Paul says that love never fails and will remain beyond the passing of the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge. In v13 he adds two other virtues which will also remain, along with love, after those gifts have ceased - faith and hope. But faith and hope are only present in this current age and do not continue in the eternal state since our hope and faith will then be a fulfilled reality. So those gifts must have ceased in this current age sometime before the Parousia.

There is a useful academic study comparing the various interpretations of this passage by Dr. Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. It is available here: https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2004/Compton.pdf



τέλειος (teleios)

Mounce

brought to completion; fully accomplished, fully developed, Jas. 1:4a; fully realized, thorough, 1 Jn. 4:18; complete, entire, as opposed to what is partial and limited, 1 Cor. 13:10; full grown of ripe age, 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:14; fully accomplished in Christian enlightenment, 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28; perfect in some point of character, without shortcoming in respect of a certain standard, Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Col. 4:12; Jas. 1:4b; 3:2; perfect, consummate, Rom. 12:2; Jas. 1:17, 25; compar. of higher excellence and efficiency, Heb. 9:11


Friberg Lexicon:

26442 τέλειος, εία, ον complete, perfect; (1) with its chief component as totality, as opposed to partial or limited; (a) of thingsin full measure, undivided, complete, entire (RO 12.2); substantivally τὸ τέλειον the finish, completeness (1C 13.10); comparative τελειότερος, τέρα, ον more complete or perfect (HE 9.11); (b) of persons complete, perfect (MT 5.48; 19.21); (2) with its chief component being full development as opposed to immaturity; (a) of persons full grown, mature (1C 14.20); substantivally οἱ τέλειοι adults, mature persons; used of spiritually mature persons (1C 2.6); (b) of things fully developed, complete (JA 1.4; 1J 4.18); (3) with its chief component being full preparation or readiness complete, perfect (CO 1.28; JA 3.2); in all its meanings τ. carries the component of a purpose that has been achieved

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT):
Ãleios.
...
D. The NT.

1. The use in Matthew carries the LXX sense of “whole” or “undivided.” Thus the rich young ruler is not yet “undivided” in his obedience to God (19:20). God is undivided in his conduct toward us, and so must we be in our conduct toward him and others (5:48). Our total love should encompass even enemies.

2. The sense “whole” or “complete” also occurs in Jms. 1:4. Those are whole who do the whole work and whose steadfastness works itself out fully. This means looking into the “entire” law of liberty (1:25) and doing it...
...
3. In the Pauline corpus “whole” seems to be the sense in 1 Cor. 13:10. The gifts do not give the full knowledge which is to come. Col. 4:12 refers to the solid position of those who are “complete” in God's total will. Yet the idea of maturity is also present, as in 1:28, where Paul's aim is to present believers “full-grown” under the direction and in the power of Christ's cross and resurrection, teÃleios may thus be the opposite of neÒÄpios etc. (1 Cor. 14:20; cf. Phil. 3:15 and perhaps 1 Cor. 2:6, where the truly mature understand the message of the cross as the wisdom of God). In Rom. 12:2 knowledge of the entire or perfect will of God comes through the renewing of judgment by the Spirit.

4. Heb. 5:14 distinguishes between initial doctrines for neÒÄpioi and full fare for the mature (teÃleioi) who know God's will and can differentiate good and evil. In 9:11 the heavenly sanctuary is “more perfect” than the provisional temple.

5. The NT never seems to use teÃleios for a gradual advance to Christian perfection or for a two-graded ideal of ethical perfection. It plainly means “whole” or “entire” in Matthew, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles, and it also has the sense of “mature” in some passages in Paul.

E. The Apostolic Fathers. Here, too, the term has the senses “total,” “complete,” “full,” “supreme,” and then “perfect” (cf. fasting in Hermas Similitudes 5.3.6, the church as a perfect temple in Barn. 4.11, Esther in 1 Clem. 55.6, and Christ the “perfect man” in Ignatius Smyrneans 4.2).

UBS Lexicon:

6023 τέλειος , α , ον complete, perfect, whole ( ἔργον τ. full effect, successful results Jas 1.4); full-grown, mature (of persons); τελειότερος more perfect (He 9.11)


LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

42280
τέλειος and τέλεος, α (Ion. η) , ον, in Att. also ος, ον: (τέλος):-having reached its end, finished, complete, Il., etc.:



LEH Lexicon:

8823 τέλειος
τέλειος,-α,-ον+ - A 3-9-1-4-2-19
Gn 6,9; Ex 12,5; Dt 18,13; JgsB 20,26; 21,4

perfect, entire, without spot or blemish (of sacrificial victims) Ex 12,5; perfect (in his kind; of pers.) Gn 6,9; perfect, complete, expert 1 Chr 25,8; complete Jer 13,19; absolute Ps 138(139),22
Cf. DANIEL, S. 1966, 287-288.295-296; WEVERS 1993, 81; ïNIDNTT; TW



EDNT Dictionary:

5199
τέλειος, 3 teleios perfect, complete; adult*
1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. Range of meaning — 3.a) Matthew — b) 1 Cor 2:6 — c) Eph 4:13 — d) James

...

Τέλειος is used in a threefold fashion in the NT:

a) as an adj. referring to people or God: (the) complete/mature ones (1 Cor 2:6; Heb 5:14; perhaps also Phil 3:15; Col 4:12 [is the intention here to distinguish between less perfect Christians, or is the word used ironically?]); perfect, of God (only Matt 5:48) and human beings (Matt 5:48; 19:21; Col 1:28; Jas 1:4; 3:2); mature (1 Cor 14:20, contrasted with παιδίον); on Eph 4:13 à 3.c.;

...

b) When in 1 Cor 2:6 Paul addresses Christians as complete/mature, i.e., as "perfected pneumatics"

...

VGNT Dictionary:

4251 τέλειος [pg 629]
τέλειος,

lit. “having reached its end (τέλος).” Hence (1) “full-grown,” “mature,”

...

Gingrich Lexicon:

6356 τέλειος
τέλειος, α, ον having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect—1. of things Js 1:4a, 17, 25; Hb 9:11; 1 J 4:18. τὸ τέλειονwhat is perfect Ro 12:2; 1 Cor 13:10.—2. of persons—a. full-grown, mature, adult adj. 1 Cor 14:20; Eph 4:13; subst. Hb 5:14. For 1 Cor 2:6 the sense may be adult, or it may belong under b below.—b. the initiate into mystic rites, perh. 1 Cor 2:6 (see a above); probably Phil 3:15; Col 1:28.—c. perfect, fully developed in a moral sense Mt 5:48a; 19:21; Col 4:12; Js 1:4b; 3:2.—d.of God as absolutely perfect Mt 5:48b.* [teleo-, combining form, as in teleology] [pg 198]

LSJM Lexicon:

53906 τελειοκαρπέω
Entry words: τελειοκαρπέω, τελεοκαρπὲω, τελειοποιέω, τέλειος, τέλεος, τελέως, τέληον, τελειοώτατος
...

2. of animals, full-grown, ...

3. of persons, accomplished, perfect in his kind, in relation to quality, ...

4. of prayers, vows, etc., fulfilled, accomplished, ...

5. of numbers, full, complete, ...

...

2. completely, absolutely, thoroughly, ...

3. the neut. τέλεον is also used as Adv. in later Prose, Luc.Merc.Cond. 5, App.BC1.8, Sor.2.56, etc.

 

[Major1]

And that is the only description in scripture of what tongues actually is - foreign human languages. Nowhere is it redefined as a non-human language, a heavenly language, the language of angels, or anything else. Unless you can quote some verses that say otherwise?



The notion that 1 Cor 13:8-13 is the nail in the coffin of cessationism is quite simply wishful thinking on the part of the continuationist who has failed to study the passage sufficiently and hastily arrived at a naive and flawed conclusion. Quite the opposite, this passage in fact turns out to be one of the many nails that debunks continuationist teaching.

It is a common mistake to believe that this passage is saying that the gifts of tongues, prophecy and words of knowledge will cease only when Christ returns at the Parousia. Most people see the words "when the perfect comes" (or "when completeness comes" as the NIV more accurately renders it), and "face to face" and immediately jump to the conclusion it is referring to seeing Christ face to face when he returns. Careful examination of the passage however reveals it is nothing of the sort. Christ is never mentioned, nor his return, nor the eternal glorious state. 'Face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror, not to seeing Christ.

Here is the passage:

1 Cor 13:8-13 (NIV) 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​

In v8 Paul tells the Corinthians that the gifts of tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge would cease at some point after the time of writing his epistle. He then says in v9 that these prophecies and words of knowledge were only revelations "in part". In v10 Paul says that when "completeness" comes those partial revelatory gifts would disappear. Completeness would replace that which is in part. If what is "in part" is partial revelation, then it follows that the "completeness" that replaces it must be completed revelation. ie the completed canon.

In v12 Pauls tells the Corinthians that now (at the time of writing), when they had to rely on prophecy for knowledge of the Christian faith, was like seeing a reflection dimly in a mirror. (The NIV omits the word 'dimly' but it is in the original greek and all other versions). Mirrors in those days were very poor, being made of metal polished as best they could, and produced a very blurred and indistinct image. However after "completeness" comes it would be like seeing "face to face". They would see Gods revelation to man with far greater clarity. Paul was comparing the time when believers only had a partial view of God's revelation in the form of prophecies and words of knowledge, to when God's full revelation to man would become clear in the form of the completed canon.

It is no coincidence that Paul chose the terms 'seeing dimly' verses 'face to face' to describe the before and after effect of inferior prophecy being replaced by clearer scripture. He is alluding to Numbers 12:8 when God says of Moses "With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles". God spoke to Moses in clear 'face to face' revelations and not in obscure 'riddles'. The word for riddle is the same word Paul uses here ('ainigma') which is translated 'dimly' in the NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV etc.

Clearly it doesn't refer to seeing Christ face to face. If Paul was referring to seeing Christ in glory, then it wouldn't just be prophecy, words of knowledge, and tongues that will cease. All the spiritual gifts will cease. In heaven there will be no need for healers, pastors, teachers, evangelists, giving, faith, discernment of spirits, etc. Yet Paul makes no mention of those ceasing. Only the revelatory gifts cease, the purpose of which was to provide divine guidance in the faith in the absence of scripture.

The other contrast Paul makes and is often overlooked in the analogy of a child reaching maturity of adulthood in v11. A child only has partial wisdom and knowledge and makes many foolish mistakes. He gradually learns things peice by peice (akin to prophecies) to correct his childish ideas. But this state is only temporary and when the child matures to adulthood he obtains a full measure of knowledge (akin to the completed canon) and puts aside childish notions.

Although in my view 'teleios' has been correctly translated as 'when completeness comes' in the NIV and several other versions, continuationists latch on to the fact that some bibles translate it as 'when that which is perfect comes', claiming it to be when Christ comes or when the eternal state comes. The word is in the neuter form so it clearly cannot be Christ. Although it can mean perfect, when Paul uses the word 'teleios' elsewhere in his writings it nearly always refers to something that is complete or mature, not perfect. (See 1 Cor 2:6, 1 Cor 14:20, Phil 3:15, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, Heb 5:14). In fact nowhere in scripture is 'teleios' used to describe the coming of Christ, the eternal state, or anything eschatological. It is however used to describe scripture in James 1:25. At the end of this post I have included some lexical definitions 'teleios' which should shed some further light on the meaning of the word.

Finally in v8 Paul says that love never fails and will remain beyond the passing of the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge. In v13 he adds two other virtues which will also remain, along with love, after those gifts have ceased - faith and hope. But faith and hope are only present in this current age and do not continue in the eternal state since our hope and faith will then be a fulfilled reality. So those gifts must have ceased in this current age sometime before the Parousia.

There is a useful academic study comparing the various interpretations of this passage by Dr. Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. It is available here: https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2004/Compton.pdf



τέλειος (teleios)

Mounce

brought to completion; fully accomplished, fully developed, Jas. 1:4a; fully realized, thorough, 1 Jn. 4:18; complete, entire, as opposed to what is partial and limited, 1 Cor. 13:10; full grown of ripe age, 1 Cor. 14:20; Eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:14; fully accomplished in Christian enlightenment, 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28; perfect in some point of character, without shortcoming in respect of a certain standard, Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Col. 4:12; Jas. 1:4b; 3:2; perfect, consummate, Rom. 12:2; Jas. 1:17, 25; compar. of higher excellence and efficiency, Heb. 9:11


Friberg Lexicon:

26442 τέλειος, εία, ον complete, perfect; (1) with its chief component as totality, as opposed to partial or limited; (a) of thingsin full measure, undivided, complete, entire (RO 12.2); substantivally τὸ τέλειον the finish, completeness (1C 13.10); comparative τελειότερος, τέρα, ον more complete or perfect (HE 9.11); (b) of persons complete, perfect (MT 5.48; 19.21); (2) with its chief component being full development as opposed to immaturity; (a) of persons full grown, mature (1C 14.20); substantivally οἱ τέλειοι adults, mature persons; used of spiritually mature persons (1C 2.6); (b) of things fully developed, complete (JA 1.4; 1J 4.18); (3) with its chief component being full preparation or readiness complete, perfect (CO 1.28; JA 3.2); in all its meanings τ. carries the component of a purpose that has been achieved

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT):
Ãleios.
...
D. The NT.

1. The use in Matthew carries the LXX sense of “whole” or “undivided.” Thus the rich young ruler is not yet “undivided” in his obedience to God (19:20). God is undivided in his conduct toward us, and so must we be in our conduct toward him and others (5:48). Our total love should encompass even enemies.

2. The sense “whole” or “complete” also occurs in Jms. 1:4. Those are whole who do the whole work and whose steadfastness works itself out fully. This means looking into the “entire” law of liberty (1:25) and doing it...
...
3. In the Pauline corpus “whole” seems to be the sense in 1 Cor. 13:10. The gifts do not give the full knowledge which is to come. Col. 4:12 refers to the solid position of those who are “complete” in God's total will. Yet the idea of maturity is also present, as in 1:28, where Paul's aim is to present believers “full-grown” under the direction and in the power of Christ's cross and resurrection, teÃleios may thus be the opposite of neÒÄpios etc. (1 Cor. 14:20; cf. Phil. 3:15 and perhaps 1 Cor. 2:6, where the truly mature understand the message of the cross as the wisdom of God). In Rom. 12:2 knowledge of the entire or perfect will of God comes through the renewing of judgment by the Spirit.

4. Heb. 5:14 distinguishes between initial doctrines for neÒÄpioi and full fare for the mature (teÃleioi) who know God's will and can differentiate good and evil. In 9:11 the heavenly sanctuary is “more perfect” than the provisional temple.

5. The NT never seems to use teÃleios for a gradual advance to Christian perfection or for a two-graded ideal of ethical perfection. It plainly means “whole” or “entire” in Matthew, Paul, and the Catholic Epistles, and it also has the sense of “mature” in some passages in Paul.

E. The Apostolic Fathers. Here, too, the term has the senses “total,” “complete,” “full,” “supreme,” and then “perfect” (cf. fasting in Hermas Similitudes 5.3.6, the church as a perfect temple in Barn. 4.11, Esther in 1 Clem. 55.6, and Christ the “perfect man” in Ignatius Smyrneans 4.2).

UBS Lexicon:

6023 τέλειος , α , ον complete, perfect, whole ( ἔργον τ. full effect, successful results Jas 1.4); full-grown, mature (of persons); τελειότερος more perfect (He 9.11)


LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

42280
τέλειος and τέλεος, α (Ion. η) , ον, in Att. also ος, ον: (τέλος):-having reached its end, finished, complete, Il., etc.:



LEH Lexicon:

8823 τέλειος
τέλειος,-α,-ον+ - A 3-9-1-4-2-19
Gn 6,9; Ex 12,5; Dt 18,13; JgsB 20,26; 21,4

perfect, entire, without spot or blemish (of sacrificial victims) Ex 12,5; perfect (in his kind; of pers.) Gn 6,9; perfect, complete, expert 1 Chr 25,8; complete Jer 13,19; absolute Ps 138(139),22
Cf. DANIEL, S. 1966, 287-288.295-296; WEVERS 1993, 81; ïNIDNTT; TW



EDNT Dictionary:

5199
τέλειος, 3 teleios perfect, complete; adult*
1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. Range of meaning — 3.a) Matthew — b) 1 Cor 2:6 — c) Eph 4:13 — d) James

...

Τέλειος is used in a threefold fashion in the NT:

a) as an adj. referring to people or God: (the) complete/mature ones (1 Cor 2:6; Heb 5:14; perhaps also Phil 3:15; Col 4:12 [is the intention here to distinguish between less perfect Christians, or is the word used ironically?]); perfect, of God (only Matt 5:48) and human beings (Matt 5:48; 19:21; Col 1:28; Jas 1:4; 3:2); mature (1 Cor 14:20, contrasted with παιδίον); on Eph 4:13 à 3.c.;

...

b) When in 1 Cor 2:6 Paul addresses Christians as complete/mature, i.e., as "perfected pneumatics"

...

VGNT Dictionary:

4251 τέλειος [pg 629]
τέλειος,

lit. “having reached its end (τέλος).” Hence (1) “full-grown,” “mature,”

...

Gingrich Lexicon:

6356 τέλειος
τέλειος, α, ον having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect—1. of things Js 1:4a, 17, 25; Hb 9:11; 1 J 4:18. τὸ τέλειονwhat is perfect Ro 12:2; 1 Cor 13:10.—2. of persons—a. full-grown, mature, adult adj. 1 Cor 14:20; Eph 4:13; subst. Hb 5:14. For 1 Cor 2:6 the sense may be adult, or it may belong under b below.—b. the initiate into mystic rites, perh. 1 Cor 2:6 (see a above); probably Phil 3:15; Col 1:28.—c. perfect, fully developed in a moral sense Mt 5:48a; 19:21; Col 4:12; Js 1:4b; 3:2.—d.of God as absolutely perfect Mt 5:48b.* [teleo-, combining form, as in teleology] [pg 198]

LSJM Lexicon:

53906 τελειοκαρπέω
Entry words: τελειοκαρπέω, τελεοκαρπὲω, τελειοποιέω, τέλειος, τέλεος, τελέως, τέληον, τελειοώτατος
...

2. of animals, full-grown, ...

3. of persons, accomplished, perfect in his kind, in relation to quality, ...

4. of prayers, vows, etc., fulfilled, accomplished, ...

5. of numbers, full, complete, ...

...

2. completely, absolutely, thoroughly, ...

3. the neut. τέλεον is also used as Adv. in later Prose, Luc.Merc.Cond. 5, App.BC1.8, Sor.2.56, etc.

Good stuff my brother but way too long for me to read all of it. What I did focus on however is that you are correctly saying that 1 Corth. 13:8 is not the coming of Christ.

I am not a Greek expert but have over the years read up a little on it, enough to know that the "PERFECT ONE" in neuter in Greek is a reference to a THING and not a person.

The only other thing in this world beside Christ would be the Bible. So the Scriptures are saying that when the Scriptures are complete, they will be perfect and then the temporary things such as tongues and knowledge and prophesying will cease.

I know that the people who want to speak in strange utterences do not want to accept that but there it is in the black and white letters of God's Word.

 

[Major1]

Yes, I certainly do enjoy my theology and having spent many years comparing my own views with that of the better contemporary theologians I can certainly prattle on. I did have a good chuckle with your country boy from Alabama quip - it was priceless.

I should have been clearer on that. I am from NORTH Alabama. The city of Cullman. What is very funny is that it is a center for the Catholic faith and my family all came up to be protestants.

I can see that you are well versed in your belief and I will be glad to speak with you as I said, one thought at a time.

I do not argue neither do I like confrontation. I simply post the Scripture and then what it says to me. No one has to accept anything I say as I said, I am nothing but an old country boy.

 

[Major1]

Yes, I certainly do enjoy my theology and having spent many years comparing my own views with that of the better contemporary theologians I can certainly prattle on. I did have a good chuckle with your country boy from Alabama quip - it was priceless.

Excellent! Nothing wrong with "prattling" as long as you have another pair of underwire close by.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I know that the people who want to speak in strange utterences do not want to accept that but there it is in the black and white letters of God's Word.

This is the STandard "Cessationist" interpretation of 1 Cor 13:8. There are OTHER interpretations (which I won't bother with since nobody's listening anyway).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Sorry Bob but I can not agree with you. You did not post any Scripture which would support your opinion of tongues being only for the ministry.

GOOD - since I never said anything even remotely Like that.

I SAID that the "Enduement of POWER" is for ministry, and illustrated one way in which that has worked in MY experience. I Won't even get into the Musical, and Deliverance from fear aspects of it. "Tongues" has never been a significant issue. They're Just There, and speaking to Him in tongues brings peace.

I HAVE been burdened to Interpret tongues spoken by others, and to occasionally give prophetic utterance in the context of a CHurch service. There has never been ANY emotional content to Manifesting the Gifts.

I Said the "Tongues" appear to just "Come along" as part of the "Package". I've NEVER been burdened to SPEAK in Tongues to the Church in "Message format". I COULD just stand and "rip off" a tongue - but then I'd be acting like the Corinthians that Paul had to correct (note that he NEVER SAYS that their tongues are "phony" - just that they're using them improperly).

Did someone interpret your language?

I've never been burdened to Deliver a Message in a Tongue to a congregation - so NO.

What was the language that you spoke in?

Actually it's "SPEAK IN" there's no "Past tense" to it. And I wouldn't know what it is. I know a lot of languages/Language groups that it's not. No Gutterals, and nothing that sounds remotely "Romantic". It Varies over the years, sometimes suddenly changing significantly.

A careful reading of Acts 2 says that the people HEARD the apostles in their OWN LANGUAGE!

This is the "minority opinion" (Miracle of HEARING) on Acts 2 - i.e. that the Disciples:
a) Spoke in the common tongue, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.
b) Spoke in an ANGELIC Tongue, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.
c) Blabbed in Gibberish, and were HEARD in the "Common tongue" of the listeners.

The "MAJORITY OPINION" (Miracle of Utterance) is that the disciples "Spoke in other tongues (specific, and listed language groups) that they DID NOT KNOW, as the Holy SPirit gave them utterance."

 

[Bob Carabbio]

As I came into the things of the Spirit only a year after you did, I can certainly concur that the Roman Catholic charismatic priests were in most part at a complete loss as to what they were supposed to say to their charismatic members. It was interesting to see so many non-Roman Catholic charismatics not only ministering to individual Roman Catholic charismatics but where they also ministered within their congregations and within other formal meetings.


It should be pointed out that the Doctrine of Initial Evidence reflects more of a classic-Pentecostal position such as which is held by the AoG. Outside of the AoG this particular view is undoubtedly on the decline where I only changed my understanding from the classic-Pentecostal position a few years back.

It's been in decline since the mid-'70s PRIMARILY due to Charismatic influence. When the CHarismatic outpouring ended in the late '70s - MANY CHarismatics flowed back into the "Historic Pentecostal" Denominational groups, and had a "Liberalizing Effect" on 'em. The Assembly of God HAD BEEN a very Legalistic, and "Clothesline Holy" bunch until the '80s when things started to change.

Here in Dallas MANY Assembly of God churches are like Baptist Churches that forgot to change the sign.

 

[Biblicist]

It's been in decline since the mid-'70s PRIMARILY due to Charismatic influence. When the CHarismatic outpouring ended in the late '70s - MANY CHarismatics flowed back into the "Historic Pentecostal" Denominational groups, and had a "Liberalizing Effect" on 'em. The Assembly of God HAD BEEN a very Legalistic, and "Clothesline Holy" bunch until the '80s when things started to change.

Here in Dallas MANY Assembly of God churches are like Baptist Churches that forgot to change the sign.

People such as ourselves who were able to experience at least a part of the Charismatic Renewal during the 1970's (I was a teenager and in my early 20's), we were certainly blessed, where it has given those who have an interest with doing so a unique opportunity to observe the Church from these undoubtedly mighty days to what we have now . . . which is . . . umm . . . not all that exciting, at least within much of the Western Church. I would be prepared to say that much of the Australian Pentecostal church is not all that disimilar to what you are experiencing in Texas.

 

[Biblicist]

Good stuff my brother but way too long for me to read all of it. What I did focus on however is that you are correctly saying that 1 Corth. 13:8 is not the coming of Christ.

Even though 1 Cor 13:10 is specifically pointing to the establishment of the future Kingdom of God here on earth, we cannot seperate this event from the return of Jesus, as he will be the one who will be leading the heavenly armies as he establishes God Kingdom. Once he returns with his Kingdom we will then "know face to face".

I am not a Greek expert but have over the years read up a little on it, enough to know that the "PERFECT ONE" in neuter in Greek is a reference to a THING and not a person.

If you shoot down to the reference to Danial Wallace's entry (#13), who is of course an avid cessationist, even this cessationist Greek specialist acknowledges that 1Cor 13:10 is referring to the future Kingdom of God that Jesus will one day establish here on earth.

"Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραοή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.6 A more likely view is that "the perfect" refers to the coming of Christ7 (note the terminus given in v 12 (τότε) as "face to face," a personal reference that does not easily comport with the canon view)". Daniel B. Wallace​

Theologically speaking, Christian scholarship, be it cessationist, open-but-cautious, charismatic or Pentecostal, the consensus is that 1Cor 13:10 is speaking of the Return of Christ with he new Kingdom. If anyone has any links to a credible academic who says otherwise I would appreciate it if someone would post such an oddity.

The only other thing in this world beside Christ would be the Bible. So the Scriptures are saying that when the Scriptures are complete, they will be perfect and then the temporary things such as tongues and knowledge and prophesying will cease. I know that the people who want to speak in strange utterences do not want to accept that but there it is in the black and white letters of God's Word.

To be specific, the Christ is in currently in heaven with his Father where beside the Word of God we now have the Holy Spirit residing within us, where it is the Holy Spirit who outworks through the Believer in prophecy, wisdom, healing, tongues etc.


-----------------------

1 Corinthians 13:10 “The Eschaton”

1. First Corinthians, David E. Garland (2010) p.622-23 (Cessationist?)

“The perfect” refers to the state of affairs brought about by the Parousia (Robertson and Plummer 1914: 287, 299-300; Lietzmann 1949: 66, 189; Fee 1987: 646; Schrage 1999:307-8). Paul uses the verb ἐλθεῖν (elthein) in Gal 4:4 to refer to the coming of the fullness of time. Here, the battery of future tenses, the disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete, and the reference to knowing as God knows us, all point to the end time. He contrasts the present age with the age to come. The “perfect” is shorthand for the consummation of all things.​

2. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp. 944-46 (Pentecostal AoG)

The nature of the eschatological language in v. 12 further implies that the term “the perfect” has to with the Eschaton itself, not some form of “perfection” in the present age.​

3. First Corinthians, Collins, Harrington (1999) p.486 (unknown)

It is clearly a reference to the eschaton.​

4. First Corinthians, Richard Oster (1995) p.312 (unknown)

. . . One approach interprets this as a temporal phrase, keeping it in the same “now-then” eschatological framework as we have seen in the preceding verses . . . [this] has appealed to the greatest number of interpreters and correctly so. The eschatological interpretation more fully appreciates the radical nature of the coming perfection and consummation when “faith will become sight and hope will be fulfilled” and love will “bridge this age and the eschatological reality.​

5. Conflict and Community in Corinth, Ben Witherington (1995) p.271-72 (Charismatic)

Verses 11f. should probably not be understood as saying that it is childish to speak in tongues or to prophesy, since Paul himself still does such things. He is saying that there is an age appropriate to such things and that now is that age. When the completion of the age finally comes, then it will be time to set aside what was appropriate and needful in that age. Only later will one know as one is known by God. . . Paul speaks of faith and hope as being completed in the next age to come. . . But love is the greatest because it will carry on into the next life.​

6. The Message of 1 Corinthians, David Prior (1985) p.233 (Cessationist?)

Each of these will either become irrelevant or else be swallowed up in the perfection of eternity: for when the perfect come, the imperfect will pass away.​

7. 1 Corinthians, Marion L. Soards (1999) p.274 (Cessationist?)

Now Paul further promotes love by establishing the temporal quality of the gifts and the enduring, eternal, eschatological nature of love. . . This turn of thinking should cause alert readers to recall 1 Corinthians 7:31, where Paul said “the present form of this world is passing away,” so that now one encountering Paul’s statements may infer that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge belong to this world, not to God’s new creation. . . Finally Paul promises the survival of that which is perfect and declares the eschatological end of imperfection. Again, the statements in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 concerning what kinds of things will survive God’s scrutiny on the Day of final judgment.​

8. 1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Mark Taylor (2014) p.315 (unknown)

The remainder of the unit (13:9-12) focuses on the incomplete character of knowledge and prophecy along with two illustrations that distinguish the present age and the age to come in order to emphasize the eschatological character of love, which remains forever (13:13).​

9. 1 Corinthians, Simon J. Kistemaker (1995) p.467-68 (Cessationist)

When believers depart from the earthly life, they leave everything behind that is imperfect and incomplete. They enter heaven and experience the joy and peace of a sinless state. But their perfection will not be complete until Christ’s return, the resurrection, and the final judgement day. At the end of the cosmic time, the spiritual gifts which believers now possess in part will cease. Their imperfect spiritual gifts on earth will be superseded by their perfect state of knowledge at the consummation.​

10. 1 Corinthians, Leon Morris (1958/85) p.180 (Unknown)

Perfection (to teleion) conveys the idea of the destined end or aim. It is partial disappears (katargeo again; see on v.8).​

11. The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa & Brian S. Rosner (2010) p.656 922 pages (probably cessationist)

The context (esp. v. 12) makes is abundantly clear, however, that the point at which Paul expects the gifts to pass away or disappear is when we see the Lord “face to face” and “know [him] fully, even as [we are] fully known.” It is unlikely that Paul has in mind some particular perfect or complete thing or person.​

12. The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright 2012 (unclear)

“The point of 13:8-13 is that the church must be working in the present on the things that will last into God’s future. Faith, hope and love will do this; prophecy, tongues and knowledge, so highly prized in Corinth, will not. They are merely signposts to the future; when you arrive, you no longer need signposts. Love, however, is not just a signpost. It is a foretaste of the ultimate reality. Love is not merely the Christian duty; it is the Christian destiny. To hold the Corinthian church together, Paul needs to teach them love; but to teach them love he needs to teach them eschatology”.​

13. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace (1996) (cessationist)

1 Cor 13:10 όταν δε ελθη τό τέλειον, τό έκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται whenever the perfect comes, the partial will be done away

Although there can be no objection to the τέλειον referring to the completion of the canon grammatically (for the adj. would naturally be neuter if it referred to a thing, even if the inferred noun were feminine, such as γραοή), it is difficult to see such a notion in this passage, for this view presupposes that (1) both Paul and the Corinthians knew that he was writing scripture, and (2) the apostle foresaw the completion of the NT before the Lord's return.6 A more likely view is that "the perfect" refers to the coming of Christ7 (note the terminus given in v 12 (τότε) as "face to face," a personal reference that does not easily comport with the canon view).8

Cf. also Matt 19:17; 27:29; Mark 1:4; Acts 5:31; Rom 8:34; 12:9, 21; 1 Cor 1:20, 25-28; Gal 4:27; Eph 1:20; 2:14,16; 1 Tim 5:16; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 4:18; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7.
Footnotes:
6 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT) 645, n. 23, remarks that this "is an impossible view, of course, since Paul himself could not have articulated it."
7 One cannot object that the reference is not to the coming of Christ because the adj. is neuter, since the neuter adj. is sometimes used for persons for masons of rhetoric, aphoristic principle, suspense, etc. Cf. Matt 12:6,41; 1 Cor 1:27-28; Heb 7:7.
8 This is not necessarily to say that the sign gifts would continue until the Second Coming, for in Paul's mind he would be alive when Christ returned (cf. 1 Thess 4:15). Such an anticipation summarily removes this text from supporting either the charismatic or cessationist position on sign gifts.​

14. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective, John MacArthur (1978) p.165 (cessationist)

Many suggestions have been made as to the identity of “the perfect thing.” Some believe it is the canon; others say the maturing of the church; some hold out for the rapture and still more for the second coming. But it seems that “the perfect thing” has to be the eternal state—the new heaven and new earth created after the kingdom as the following two points show:​

1. In the millennial kingdom there will be prophesying and teaching resulting in knowledge . . .
2. It also seems to me that “face to face” in 1 Corinthians 13:12 can only be explained as being with God in the new creation.​

15. Calvin's Commentary, Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) Link (cessationist?)

10. When that which is perfect is come "When the goal has been reached, then the helps in the race will be done away." He retains, however, the form of expression that he had already made use of, when he contrasts perfection with what is in part "Perfection," says he, "when it will arrive, will put an end to everything that aids imperfection." But when will that perfection come? It begins, indeed, at death, for then we put off, along with the body, many infirmities; but it will not be completely manifested until the day of judgment, as we shall hear presently. Hence we infer, that the whole of this discussion is ignorantly applied to the time that is intermediate.
​

16. Martin Luther: Sermon for the Sunday before Lent; 1 Corinthians 13 link (unclear)

31 “We know in part”; that is, in this life we know imperfectly, for it is of faith and not of sight. And we “prophesy in part”; that is, imperfectly, for the substance of our prophecy is the Word and preaching. Both knowledge and prophecy, however, reveal nothing short of what the angels see--the one God. V.10. “But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.”

He proves this by way of illustration and contrasts the child with the man. To children, who are yet weak, play is a necessity; it is a substitute for office and work. Similarly, we in the present life are far too frail to behold God. Until we are able, it is necessary that we should use the medium of Word and faith, which are adapted to our limitations.​

17. 1 Corinthians, Alan F. Johnson, p.254 (Cessationist)

I side with the consensus in identifying perfection with the coming of Christ (1 Cor 1:8; 4:5; 15:50-58). This conclusion alone, however, does not settle the question whether all the Spirit’s manifestations that were present at Corinth are still present today. It simply removes 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 as a text supporting cessation of certain gifts. Whether such gifts are present today will depend on other factors, such as the witness of postbiblical history, larger theological issues and the parallels of modern phenomena with biblical descriptions.​

----------------------------------------
Some older Commentaries:
The following articles were found at https://www.studylight.org/commentary/1-corinthians/13-10.html


18. Adam Clarke Commentary

But when that which is perfect - The state of eternal blessedness; then that which is in part - that which is imperfect, shall be done away; the imperfect as well as the probationary state shall cease for ever.​

19. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

But when that which is perfect is come - Does come; or shall come. This proposition is couched in a general form. It means that when anything which is perfect is seen or enjoyed, then that which is imperfect is forgotten, laid aside, or vanishes. Thus, in the full and perfect light of day, the imperfect and feeble light of the stars vanishes. The sense here is, that “in heaven” - a state of absolute perfection - that which is “in part,” or which is imperfect, shall be lost in superior brightness. All imperfection will vanish. And all that we here possess that is obscure shall be lost in the superior and perfect glory of that eternal world. All our present unsatisfactory modes of obtaining knowledge shall be unknown. All shall be clear, bright, and eternal.​

20. John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

But when that which is perfect is come,.... When perfect knowledge of God, of Christ, and of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven shall take place; which will not in this life, but in that which is to come.​

21.Wesley's Explanatory Notes

But when that which is perfect is come - At death and in the last day. That which is in part shall vanish away - Both that poor, low, imperfect, glimmering light, which is all the knowledge we now can attain to; and these slow and unsatisfactory methods of attaining, as well as of imparting it to others.​

22. Abbott's Illustrated New Testament

Shall be done away; that is, the uncertain and imperfect attainments made in this life will be superseded by clear and certain knowledge.​

23. Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament

1 Corinthians 13:10. ἔλθῃ, is come) in its own time, by degrees, not by a sudden bound. In spiritual things, those of weaker age ought not too eagerly to aim at what belongs to those, who have reached greater maturity. That, which is perfect, comes at death; 2 Corinthians 5:7 : and at the last day.— τότε, then) not before. Therefore prophecy and knowledge never entirely pass away in this life.​

24. Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible

But when we come to heaven, we shall be in such a state, as nothing shall or can be added to us; then our partial and imperfect knowledge shall be swallowed up in a knowledge perfect and complete.​

25. Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament

That which is perfect; the perfect knowledge of heaven.​

26. Whedon's Commentary on the Bible

10. The perfect will in due time supersede these partial gifts and performances. This does not mean that the gifts shall cease in the Church on earth in process of time, though that may be implied; but that they will be outgrown in eternity. Nor does it mean that our knowledge as a faculty will disappear; or that we shall cease to know any thing we now know in the future; but that our knowledge as a special gift, supernaturally bestowed over others, of which some Corinthians were so proud, should disappear. These, like glittering but needless ornaments, would drop off in our advancing stages of existence.​

27. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(10) That which is perfect.—This verse shows, by the emphatic “then,” that the time when the gifts shall cease is the end of this dispensation. The imperfect shall not cease until the perfect is brought in. (See Ephesians 4:11-13.)
That which is in part; our present imperfect knowledge, with our present imperfect means of gaining it through prophecies, tongues, etc.​

Edit: Added in entry #17 Alan F. Johnson
Edit: Added in the older commentaries