Seeing as many of those commentaries and articles were published in the 1990's and 2000's you are clearly wrong in saying this interpretation died a death in the 70's (Cottrell - 2007, Thomas - 1998, Houghton - 1996, Woods - 2004, Farnell - 1993, Compton - 2004). The completed canon/maturity view is clearly alive and kicking in academic circles.
Still that won't stop you from using plenty of ad hominem derogative cliches such as "hardened", "a dying breed", "last bastion", "flogging a dead horse", "relic of a bygone era" etc in order to try to paint the authors in a bad light.
Wallace is clearly mistaken in his interpretation and his objections can easily be countered:
Paul certainly did know he was writing scripture and he told the Corinthians in no uncertain terms:
1 Cor 14:37 "what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command."
As an Apostle of Christ he would have been well aware of the Apostles' responsibility as authorized messengers of Christ to write down and distribute their God-breathed words to the churches via the epistles.
Col 4:16 "After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea."
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
2 Peter 3:1-3 "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles."
And Peter also says that Paul's writings are to be regarded as Scripture:
2 Peter 3:14-16 "our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Paul knew that only the Apostles of Christ were authorized to write scripture and soon the last of them would die at which point the NT canon would be closed. That is why near the end of his life he told Timothy not to expect new teachings but to preserve and pass on those received.
2 Tim 1:13-14 "What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."
2 Tim 2:2 "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."
Jude 3 "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints"
Paul also points out that the church was
"built on the foundations of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20) and foundations are not something that are left incomplete.
Paul know that they were under a new covenant. Thus, in the same way that God's old-covenant people had the Old Testament to guide them, it is quite reasonable to think that Paul was expecting a completed New Testament to guide them in this new-covenant age.
Wallace then makes the common mistake of assuming 'face to face' refers to seeing Christ face to face.
Although Wallace disagrees with most cessationists on this passage, that does not mean he is now a continuist, as his footnote explains:
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.
Is that still the best you can do in presenting the continuationist case of this passage? The commentators you quote give hardly any exegetical evidence for their conclusion. Most are no more than one sentence long!
But lets look at them yet again:
Garland tries the best with 3 pieces of evidence:
"The battery of future tenses" - of course Paul is using future tenses. The canon hadn't been completed when he wrote to the Corinthians!
"The disappearance of the partial replaced by the complete"- Yes! partial revelation is replaced by complete revelation. Garland is making an excellent case for the canon view.
"The reference to knowing as God knows us"....Yes, now the canon has been completed we know God's revelation to man as well as God knows us....fully, intimately, and completely. 'Knowing' in this passage to revealed knowledge, not general knowledge. We will never know general knowledge fully, even in the eternal state, as that would make us omniscient.
Fee's only evidence is the "The nature of the escatological language in v12"... What escatological language? He is clearly mistaking 'face to face' with seeing Christ.
Collins gives no evidence for his assertion that it is Eschaton.
Oster:....ditto. It is interesting to see that Oster correctly notes the Eschaton is when "faith will become sight and hope will be fulfilled". Yet he did not notice that Paul says faith and hope will remain after the revelatory gifts had ceased, thus proving they cease before the Eschaton?
Witherington makes the same mistake as Garland regarding 'knowing'. He also affirms that faith and hope cease at the Eschaton yet fails to notice that Paul says they remain after the gifts have ceased.
Prior doesn't provide any evidence for it being the eschaton. He simply assumes it is.
Soards - ditto.
Taylor - ditto.
Kistemaker claims that what will be perfect will be ourselves. But there is absolutely no warrant for that in the passage. The perfect is something that comes, not something we become.
Morris - No evidence given.
Johnson - ditto.
People will notice one big difference between your list of commentaries and mine: mine go into considerable exegetical depth, whereas yours are little more than a single sentence with little or no evidence to back up their assertions. But anyway, now that you have posted the Eschaton interpretation of this passage, people can examine the arguments on both sides and judge for themselves which is correct.
