Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[tdidymas]

where does Heb. 2:4 say these have ceased?

He is talking about eye witnesses of Jesus' ministry and resurrection,
He says that miraculous signs and gifts they did were for authenticating the message,
He speaks of those signs as being in the past, not the present.

He makes no claim of doing anything of the sort, which implies he had no such gift: "confirmed unto us by them that heard" - he is excluding himself from those performing the miracles, and including himself in those who witnessed the performance.
"both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost" - he is including gifts of the Spirit (of the 1 Cor. kind) in the miraculous acts which he is laying no claim to.

The distinction I am making is there is a difference between having a gift to perform miraculous acts and God performing isolated miraculous acts. The gift (of the 1 Cor. kind) is where a certain individual repeatedly performs those acts as they will, or that God performs them through that particular individual, so that those miracles are associated with that individual. When God performs isolated miracles, there is no particular individual that is associated with it, therefore, there is no person who has a gifting of the 1 Cor. kind. Those gifts were for authenticating the gospel message and eventually passed away as Heb. 2:4 indicates.

I'm simply trying to point out that the scripture itself has an indication that there was a time in the 1st Century that those activities stopped happening. We know from history and legend (Foxe's Book of Martyrs) that occasional miracles happened after that time (like John living through boiling oil), but it certainly was not as it was in the days of the gifts and working of miracles. Even today miracles happen, but they are few and occasional. Most of the "miracles" that people claim today are not miracles. In fact, many so-called "miracles" are fraudulent.
TD
BTW, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the writer of Hebrews didn't perform miracles or speak in tongues.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I'm happy for you. Everyone has different experiences. Don't try to demand that everyone else have the same experience as you, as that would be an abuse of what you have received.
TD

Well, I have to say that I believe the word "gibberish" is very derogatory, and I hate when people say that is all Pentecostal tongues is. It actually hurts my heart that they are criticizing God's gift. That is NOT the fear of the Lord as I see it. I don't care if people use their gift or not, but I hate their dishonor of God and ridicule of brothers in sisters in Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, I have to say that I believe the word "gibberish" is very derogatory, and I hate when people say that is all Pentecostal tongues is. It actually hurts my heart that they are criticizing God's gift. That is NOT the fear of the Lord as I see it. I don't care if people use their gift or not, but I hate their dishonor of God and ridicule of brothers in sisters in Christ.

Here is what Paul wrote -

I Corinthians 14:23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

 

[DamianWarS]

He is talking about eye witnesses of Jesus' ministry and resurrection,
He says that miraculous signs and gifts they did were for authenticating the message,
He speaks of those signs as being in the past, not the present.

He makes no claim of doing anything of the sort, which implies he had no such gift: "confirmed unto us by them that heard" - he is excluding himself from those performing the miracles, and including himself in those who witnessed the performance.
"both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost" - he is including gifts of the Spirit (of the 1 Cor. kind) in the miraculous acts which he is laying no claim to.

The distinction I am making is there is a difference between having a gift to perform miraculous acts and God performing isolated miraculous acts. The gift (of the 1 Cor. kind) is where a certain individual repeatedly performs those acts as they will, or that God performs them through that particular individual, so that those miracles are associated with that individual. When God performs isolated miracles, there is no particular individual that is associated with it, therefore, there is no person who has a gifting of the 1 Cor. kind. Those gifts were for authenticating the gospel message and eventually passed away as Heb. 2:4 indicates.

I'm simply trying to point out that the scripture itself has an indication that there was a time in the 1st Century that those activities stopped happening. We know from history and legend (Foxe's Book of Martyrs) that occasional miracles happened after that time (like John living through boiling oil), but it certainly was not as it was in the days of the gifts and working of miracles. Even today miracles happen, but they are few and occasional. Most of the "miracles" that people claim today are not miracles. In fact, many so-called "miracles" are fraudulent.
TD
BTW, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the writer of Hebrews didn't perform miracles or speak in tongues.

the verb in question is συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος (synepimartyrountos) it comes from the root for "with" and "testify" used a sort of portmanteau way. In the text it is in the present tense active participle and it should agree with the tense of the context which in the aorist (completed tense) which is seen in previous verbiage like "...confirmed to us by those who heard him..." if συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος means testifying-with and agrees with the previous aorist tense a translation like the NASB "God also testifying with them..." captures this.

What does this mean? The tense of the verb, while it agrees with tense of the context (aorist tense) it does not render these actions as finished that we should no longer expect them, which I would suggest is out of scope of the passage. It is a contextual reference where the author is showing that when these things happen they were ordained by God. Showing that these signs and wonders have ceased is simply not what this text is about and if the author intended to say this he does so very obscurely.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Here is what Paul wrote -

I Corinthians 14:23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Yes, it confirms and unbeliever or uninformed cessationist in their unbelief.

 

[Biblicist]

Why do you keep pertetuating this myth even when you know it is false? Throughout the whole of the twentieth century and beyond many bible scholars have supported the canon view. There was never a time it was "laid to rest" as you put it.

The first thing that should be asked of the few academics who have attempted to peddle the view that the τὸ τέλειον of 1 Cor 13:10 points to the establishment of the Canon is “Now be honest, what do you really believe?”

I am of the strong opinion that there is not a single academic who has ever peddled this particular viewpoint who actually believes a word of it; there is no possibility that an educated person (or anyone who has gone beyond grade school) could actually believe in such silliness; unless of course such a person is a card-carrying member of the flat earth society.

On the other hand, I can well appreciate that when individuals feel that they need to prop up a given worldview or notion that cannot be substantiated that desperation can push people into the realm of the ridiculous and even supposedly well-educated individuals can sacrifice their integrity if their monthly payroll demands that they uphold a given viewpoint, even if it is cessationism, the promotion of homosexuality, that God is dead, universalism or with a host of other humanist worldviews.

Even Jack Cottrell who you quoted has summed up the dilemma that is faced by the cessationist in that 1 Cor 13:10 is essentially the last battleground for the beleaguered cessationist, though most prudent cessationists realised way back in the 1970’s that it was a battle that had been soundly lost. Of all the sources that you quoted only a few are of any stature, though their presence on the question of 1 Cor 13:10 is not so much as a result of any theological prowess or insight but that the cessationist position simply lacks the academic substance that it so badly craves so their names become bandied about if for nothing else that there are few others to refer to.

As for most of the names that you referred to, they seem to be lesser lights or bit players that are probably best known within the confines of their own limited circles and very few of their names are familiar to me.

The following publications that support the canon/maturity view make that abundantly clear:

1 Corinthians (1951)
W E Vine

The Holy Spirit (1954)
John F. Walvoord, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary

Studies in First Corinthians (1966)
T. R. Applebury, former professor of New Testament at Pacific Christian College, California)

First Corinthians and the Tongues Question (Bibliotheca Sacra 1963)
Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary. (Argues for tongues, but not prophecy, ceasing at the end of the apostolic age)

Modern Tongues Movement (1967)
Robert G. Gromacki, professor emeritus of Bible and Greek at Cedarville University in Cedarville, Ohio.

Speaking in Tongues (1963)
Herman A Hoyt, president of Grace College and Seminary

New Testament Teaching on Tongues (1971)
Merrill F Unger, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Signs of the Apostles (1976)
Walter J Chantry

An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts (1978)
Douglas Judisch, former Professor of Biblical Studies at Concordia Theological Seminary

The New Convenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit (1993)
Larry Pettigrew, Professor of Theology Shephards Theological Seminary

To Teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:10 (1971)
John R McRay, Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College

Understanding Spiritual Gifts (1999)
Robert Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary

Speaking in Tongues (1975)
Joseph Dillow, professor in systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

The Holy Spirit: Power from on High (2007)
Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University

A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 (1996)
Myron J. Houghton (Senior Professor of Systematic Theology at Faith Baptist Bible College)

The Meaning of the Perfect in 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 (2004)
Andy M. Woods, (professor at Chafer Theological Seminary)

“When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?” (1993)
David Farnell, professor of New Testament studies at The Master's Seminary

First Corinthians (1935)
David Lipscomb

1 CORINTHIANS 13:8–13 AND THE CESSATION OF MIRACULOUS GIFTS (2004)
Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

CESSATIONISM IN 1 COR 13:8-12 (2003)
Donald G. McDougall, Associate Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary

Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? (1983)
Thomas R. Edgar, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Capital Bible Seminary

"The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy:" (1989)
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.

What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today? (1977)
Robert L. Reymond, Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary

....and probably many others I've missed.

As few of the above names are known to me and as most are of little substance and that their various positions have not been stated then there is little need to go any further with them.

1 CORINTHIANS 13:8–13 AND THE CESSATION OF MIRACULOUS GIFTS (DBSJ 9, 2004)
by R. Bruce Compton, Professor of Biblical Languages and Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
...
The Gender and Meaning of “the Perfect”
The critical question raised with these verses is the meaning of the term “the perfect” (to; tevleion) in 13:10. The term “the perfect” represents an articular neuter adjective functioning as a substantive and translated “the perfect” or “that which is perfect.”71 Much has been said about the neuter gender of the adjective and what that indicates in terms of the adjective’s antecedent.72 The best explanation is that the adjective gets its gender from the neuter noun forming the expression “in part” in 13:9–10. In other words, by using the neuter form of the adjective in this context, Paul signifies that whatever the “in part” refers to, “the perfect” refers to its counterpart or its antithesis.73 Having the adjective in the neuter gender thus links “the perfect” and the “in part” as having ultimately the same referent. Whatever the “in part” refers to, the “perfect” refers to as well. The only difference between the two expressions is the difference over the relative dimension or extent of the referent.

Having answered the question about the gender and antecedent of “the perfect,” what remains is to identify the meaning of “in part” in 13:9. Since Paul declares that the gifts mentioned in 13:9 are in some way “in part,” the proper approach to identifying the meaning of the phrase is to ask what these gifts have in common that could be described as “in part.” Based on the definitions given above, the common denominator among the gifts is that they all involve direct revelation from God. As such, the expression “in part” simply refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts is partial or piecemeal. The corresponding expression “the perfect” as the counterpart to the partial must refer to the full or complete revelation, of which these gifts contribute their portion. Finally, since these gifts are specifically identified in 12:27–28 as those which God has given to the church, the body of Christ, “the perfect” represents the full or complete revelation that God intends for the church. Thus, “the perfect” points to completed revelation God has intended for the church and has preserved in the New Testament.74

Two objections are raised against this definition of “the perfect.” The first is whether such a meaning is possible within the historical context of the first century. The second is whether such a meaning can be harmonized with the illustrations in the following verses, especially the illustration in 13:12 which appears to refer to the events surrounding the return of Christ. The first objection is addressed here. The second objection is answered in connection with the discussion of 13:12.

A number of interpreters argue that neither Paul nor his readers could have understood the concept of a completed canon of New Testament revelation. As such, Paul could not have intended this meaning in this passage. The concept of a canon, they aver, did not develop until the centuries following the close of the apostolic age. Hence, a text can never mean what it could never have meant at the time it was written.75

This is a legitimate criticism, if those who levy it against the definition of “the perfect” given above would demonstrate how it applies. Such criticism notwithstanding, the biblical and historical evidence argues to the contrary. This evidence argues that Paul and his readers would have been familiar with the concept of a completed, self- contained body of direct revelation from God. In other words, while the term “canon” may not have developed until after the first century, the underlying concept was familiar both to the writer and to his readers.76

Two arguments specifically support the recognition of this concept in the first century. First, there are several references in the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period and the first century that speak of the closing of the Old Testament canon as a self-contained body of direct revelation from God. This literature refers to the Old Testament as the product of prophetic revelation. Those writing note that true prophecy had ceased, and that God was not adding to what He had already revealed through His prophets. They say this in spite of the fact that Jewish literature flourished throughout this period.77 Furthermore, these same writers also note that God had promised in the future to revive once again the voice of prophecy, but that He had not yet done so.78 In other words, these Jewish authors recognized that God had authored an authoritative body of revelation, that this body was a self- contained identifiable entity, and that this body of revelation had been closed in the sense that nothing further was being added to it.79 That being the case, there is no reason why believers in the first century would have struggled with the concept of a biblical canon as an identifiable body of direct revelation given by God or with the concept of a completed canon.

Second, there are references in the New Testament that support this concept as well. The New Testament writers speak of God’s giving new revelation for the church. A number of the gifts mentioned in the immediate and larger contexts of the present discussion support this fact. This would include, among others, the gifts of apostles and prophets.80

Furthermore, the New Testament authors also speak of this revelation as an identifiable, self-contained entity, referred to as “the faith” or as “the traditions” which the apostles and others were handing down to the church.81 Lastly, they also speak of this revelation metaphorically as a foundation upon which the church would be built.82 The very concept of a foundation lends itself to the ideas of a fixed body of revelation and one that, once established, would have no more additions.83

All of this forcefully argues that Paul and his audience would have been familiar with the concept of “the perfect” as referring to a completed body of revelation for the church.84

For those who want to know why the more prudent cessationist academic will avoid the fallacy of trying to connect τὸ τέλειον with the Canon of Scripture then Compton's essay (who I have never heard of) is the reason why.

The Holy Spirit: Power from on High (2007)
By Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University from 1967 to 2015

The identity of the Teleion

The case for the cessationist view of miraculous spiritual gifts rests to a large extent on our ability to identify the teleion to which Paul refers in verse 10. We will now see how this can be done, based on the word itself and the context in which it appears.

Not "Perfect," but "Complete"

To determine what the teleion is, we must first consider the best English translation of the word in this context. The word is an adjective, and in this passage most Bible versions translate it “the perfect." (The original NIV has "perfection.") This is indeed one main meaning of the word, and it is properly so translated in other texts (e.g., Rom 12:2; Jasl:17). The verb form of the word (teleioo) is often translated “make perfect" (eg, Phil 3:12; Heb 7:28). Another main meaning of the adjective is "mature," and it is sometimes translated thus (e.g., l Cor 2:6; Eph 4:13). Still another main meaning is "complete,” though the adjective and the verb are seldom translated thus in the New Testament. The NIV does translate the verb as "make complete" in several places (e.g., Jas 2:22; 1 John 2:5), and the TNIV translates teleion as "completeness” in l Corinthians 13:10.

Which of these meanings best fits the context of l Corinthians l3:10? Despite the fact that most Bible versions use "perfect," the obviously intended meaning in this verse is "complete.” Why is this obvious? Because the teleion here is clearly contrasted with things that are partial (ek merous, "in part, of a part, partial"). Does it not make sense to contrast partial things with something that is complete? In my judgment this is a "no-brainer." Thus even though when reading most Bible versions we will encounter the word "perfect,” in our minds we must think the word "complete."

The Complete Thing

A second consideration is to recognize that teleion is a neuter adjective. Adjectives ordinarily modify nouns; but in this case no noun is given, thus it must itself be treated as a noun. In the Greek language adjectives and other parts of speech have different forms according to gender. i.e. they can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. If teleion here were in its masculine form (teleios), since it stands alone, we would translate it as “the complete one” or “the complete man,” referring to a person. But in fact the adjective is neuter in gender, thus must be read as “the complete thing."

This is very important because some have seen the translation, “When the perfect comes," and have jumped to the conclusion that this must be a reference to the second coming of Christ. After all, Jesus is the only "perfect one," and he definitely is coming again! The implication regarding miraculous gifts, of course, would be that tongues, etc., will continue until the second coming of Jesus.

When we understand, though, that teleion is a neuter adjective, we will see that it refers not to a person at all, but to a thing. If it referred to a person such as Jesus, the gender would have been masculine. Thus the best translation is "When the complete thing comes." Paul is thus saying that the partial things will cease when the complete thing comes.

Not Connected with the Second Coming

Do we have any way of discerning what this complete thing is supposed to be? Yes. For one thing, we know the limitations as to the time when it will appear. On the one hand, since Paul uses future tense ("will cease . . . will be done away”), the teleion must still be in the future relative to the time Paul was writing this letter. This means that the complete thing cannot be love, since love was surely already present within the church to some degree. It is important to see this, since love has upon occasion been suggested as the identity of the teleion. But this cannot be.

On the other hand, we know from something Paul says here that the teleion must be something that will come before the end of the age, before the second coming of Jesus. This is extremely important, because the most common view as to the identity of the complete thing is that is must have something to do with the second coming and with heaven.

How do we know that the complete thing must come before the end times and not in connection with the second coming? How do we know that it must come while the church is still existing in this age? Because of what Paul says in verse l8. Here he declares that the teleion will come and the partial gifts will cease while faith, hope, and love still abide or remain among God's people. If hope is still present, then the teleion must come before Christ's second coming, because once Christ comes, all that we are hoping for will become a reality, and hope itself will disappear. As Paul explains in Romans 8:24, we hope only for things we do not yet see, “for who hopes for what he already sees?" Some would apply this same reasoning to faith as well, since in one sense sight replaces faith (2 Cor 5:7) as well as hope.
In any case, verse la rules out any interpretation of the teleion that connects it with the second coming. Thus the partial gifts must cease sometime during the church age.

The Completed New Testament

A final consideration in our quest to identify the teleion is the fact that it is meant to replace some very specific kinds of gifts (v. 8). Since the complete thing replaces these partial things, it must be something similar in nature to the latter and must serve the same general purpose as the latter. What is the nature of the gifts named in verse 8? Prophecy, supernatural knowledge, and tongues (when interpreted) are all in the category of revealed knowledge. Thus the complete thing must also be in the category of revealed knowledge. Yet it is something complete, as contrasted with these partial forms.
Again this goes against identifying the complete thing as love, since love is not a revealed-knowledge kind of thing. Also, it rules out another view sometimes suggested, namely, that the teleion should be translated "mature" and that the "mature thing" is really the mature church (e.g., Robert Thomas, 79). Paul does seem to be contrasting childhood with maturity in verse 11, suggesting that the partial things are part of the church's childhood stage while the teleion is a mark of its maturity (see Unger, Tongues, 96-97). But the specific identity of the teleion must be something other than the mature church itself, since the latter is not a kind of revealed knowledge.

The only thing that meets all the requirements pointed out in this section is the completed New Testament. The teleion, the complete thing is the completed New Testament. When the completed New Testament has come, piecemeal prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will cease. Pettegrew is right: "Interpreting 'the completed teleion as the New Testament is still the most natural and logical explanation of the passage-far better than trying to introduce the Rapture, Second Coming death, or eternal state into the interpretation" (182).

This view is supported by the fact that elsewhere in the Bible God's will and word in the new-covenant era are described with this same adjective, teleios; see Romans 12:2, James 1:25; and Hebrews 5:146:1. Jacoby notes, by the way, that teleion is never used of heaven (Spirit, 189).

Some object to the view that the teleion is the completed New Testament on the grounds that no such document existed at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, so no one would have known what he was talking about. Keener, for example, says that the idea of a completed canon "could not have occurred either to Paul or to the Corinthians in their own historical context (since at that noint no one knew that point no one knew that there would be a New Testament canon). Thus we must accept “the impossibiility that Paul could have expected the Corinthian Christians to think he meant the canon” (97). This argument is completely without merit, however. All Christians from the church’s beginning would be familiar with the old-covenant canon (what "Scriptures" were the Bereans examining in Acts 17:11). They would also know that they were under a new covenant. Thus it is quite reasonable to think that they would be expecting a completed New Testament to guide them in this new-covenant age, in the same way that God's old-covenant people had the Old Testament to guide them. To call such an idea impossible-especially for an inspired apostle-is quite unfounded. "Moreover, how do we know that Paul is not telling them about the New Testament at this point? How else would the apostle explain that one day there would be a completed prophetic volume that would supplant all of the partial prophecies that had been given?" (Pettegrew, 182).

The New Testament was completed near the end of the first century, with the last writing of the Apostle John. All the New Testament books were then in circulation. Thus we must conclude that these partial gifts-such as tongues, prophecy, and knowledge-have ceased.

Cottrell is obviously aware that there is little use with trying to say that the neuter τὸ τέλειον cannot be connected with the future establishment of the Kingdom of God which is why he has developed a straw man by suggesting that as Christ will lead this new Kingdom that Christ's presence discounts this argument. This is certainly an underhanded approach on the part of Cottrell.

A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 153. (1996)
by Myron J. Houghton, Chairman of the Department of Systematic Theology, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, lowa.
...
What is "the perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10?
The Believer's Study Bible lists seven interpretations of this term "the perfect": "(1) the Completion of the canon, (2) the maturity of the church at the close of the apostolic age, (3) the death of believers and their immediate presence with the Lord (cf. 2 Cor 5:8), (4) the rapture of the church, (5) the return of Christ, (6) the eternal state, or (7) the eschaton (i.e., end time events) as a unified whole."

Several points should be noted about this phrase "the perfect." First, the fact that it is neuter ("that which is perfect") rather than masculine ("he who is perfect") does not rule out the possibility that it refers to Jesus Christ. In John 1:1 the Lord Jesus Christ is described as "What was from the beginning" and as "the Word of Life." Second, 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 is contrasting quantity, not quality. "For We know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." Third, tÉAEuoc, translated "perfect," means, "having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect."
Fourth, as Fee has written,

The use of the substantive, "the perfect/complete," which sometimes can mean "mature," plus the ambiguity of the first analogy (childhood and adulthood) has led some to think that the contrast is between "immaturity" and "maturity." But that is unlikely, since Paul's contrasts have to do with the partial nature of the gifts, not with the immaturity of believers themselves."

Fifth, in the quantitative contrast in verses 9 and 10 the partial is contrasted with the complete (or perfect). That is why Fee translates verse 10, "but when what is complete comes, what is in part passes away." The question remains, is it possible to determine the nature of the partial gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge? Yes. The answer is that they are revelational in quality. Since this is so, then "the perfect" must also be revelational.

Thus when the complete (revelation) comes, the (gifts communicating) partial (revelation) pass away (they are no longer necessary). Both what is complete and what is partial are revelational. So "the perfect" refers to completed revelation.

How does the child illustration in verse 11 fit in?

"When was a child, used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things." This contrast between being a child and an adult illustrates the difference between the partial and the Complete, Beyond this, it gives no help in determining which of the seven views of "the perfect" is correct, since the analogy is appropriate to each of them.
Should the word in verse 12 be translated "glass" or "mirror?"

This problem exists in English Bible versions as well as in Commentaries. The translation of this word determines the object seen. If "mirror" is chosen, then the object seen would be oneself, but if "glass" is selected, the object seen would be something else. Related to this problem is how the preposition is to be translated. If Éoérpov is translated "glass," the preposition should be rendered "through," and the idea would be that a person sees a vague object through a semi-transparent glass. But if this word is translated "mirror," the preposition should be understood as "by means of" or "in," and the idea would be that of a person looking in a mirror or by means of a mirror. The only other place in the New Testament where this word is found is James 1:23. In verses 23-24, James wrote, "For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was." This statement in James 1:23-24 supports the translation of Corinthians 13:12 as, "For now we see in a mirror, dimly," which is also the translation in the New King James Version and the New Revised Standard Version. "Mirror," then, is suggested as the correct translation, and the object seen in the mirror is one's own face.

What is the meaning of "face to face" in verse 12

In contrast to the "now" in the sentence, "For now we see in a mirror dimly," Paul added, "but then face to face." What does "face to face" mean? Some commentators think it refers to a believer seeing God face to face. Mare writes, "The metaphor is that of the imperfect reflection seen in one of the polished metal mirrors (cf. James 1:23) of the ancient world in contrast with seeing the Lord face to face (cf. Gen 32:30: Num 12:8; 2 Cor 3:18)."
This interpretation is problematic for three reasons. First, it seems to mix metaphors. Seeing one's own image indistinctly in a mirror is contrasted with having direct, personal fellowship with God. Though Fee recognizes a problem with this view, he nonetheless accepts it. "The analogy, of course, breaks down a bit, since one sees one's own face in a mirror, and Paul's point is that in our present existence one 'sees' God (presumably)...only indirectly." However, Paul's point is to contrast one looking in a mirror "dimly" with one looking in a mirror “face to face."
Second, Numbers 12:6-8 emphasizes not a prophet's fellowship with God, but God's revelation to Moses, which was direct and therefore clear ("mouth to mouth, even openly") and not indirect and indistinct ("in a vision...in a dream...in dark sayings"). Miriam and Aaron's charge against Moses concerned his role as a prophet: "Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses?" (v. 2). The issue was revelation from God, not fellowship with God. Similarly 1 Corinthians 13:12 is referring not to a believer's future fellowship with God but to revelation from God,
Third, the "now...but then" contrast in 13:12 is the same contrast as in verses 9-10 ("For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes..."). If one agrees that "the perfect" means the completed revelation of the Scriptures, then Paul lived during the "now," whereas believers today are living during the "then." If the first part of this verse describes a believer in Paul's day seeing his own face "dimly," in the imperfect mirror of partial revelation, it would follow that "but then face to face" refers to believers today seeing their own faces in the Superior mirror of completed revelation, that is, in the biblical canon. While the expression "face to face" in other contexts may refer to fellowship, nevertheless in 1 Corinthians 13:12 it describes the difference between seeing oneself in a mirror dimly and seeing oneself in a mirror face to face. "Face to face" describes the clear and direct revelation of oneself which believers today possess when they look into the mirror of the Scriptures, God's completed revelation.

What does "then I shall know fully just as also have been fully known" mean?

Three issues are involved in seeking to understand these words. First, when Paul said, "now I know in part," the verb "I know" is ylvcook (), but when he wrote, "but then I shall know fully just as also have been fully known," the verb is tryiv (soku), which means to "know exactly, completely, through and through." The New American Standard Bible therefore correctly renders the former verb "I know" while translating the latter verb "I shall know fully."

Second, to be consistent with the interpretive decisions already suggested in this article, the verb "to know" in the clause "now know in part," must have "myself" as its object. In other words Paul was saying that when he was writing, he had an incomplete view of himself, but when completed revelation would come, he would see himself just as God sees him. Because believers today possess complete revelation, they are able to understand what God's Word teaches about themselves, their potential, their limitations, and the means God has made available for them to obtain victory over sin in a clear and detailed manner that was not possible before the completion of the canon. The Scriptures equip a believer for every good work by being profitable for teaching, reproving, correcting, and training (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Third, the interpretation of the words, "then I shall know fully just as I have been fully known" (1 Cor 13:12b), adopted in this article is consistent with the interpretation given for the first half of this verse. Paul, who knew partial revelation and who had an incomplete canon of Scripture, saw what he was like "dimly" (v. 12a) or he knew himself "in part" (v. 12b). Believers today, on the other hand, possess the full biblical canon and see themselves "face to face," that is, clearly and directly, God's revelation about themselves is completed (v. 12a), and they fully know themselves just as they are fully known by Him (v. 12b).

Eschatological explanations of this verse do not fit as well. Holding the eschatological view, Fee recognizes its problem.

By this Paul intends to differentiate between the "knowing" that is available through the gift of the Spirit and the final eschatological knowing that is complete. What is not quite clear is the exact nuance of the final clause that expresses the nature of that final knowing, "even as also am fully known."
Fee offers this solution to this problem:

Most likely it simply refers to God's way of knowing. God's knowledge of us is immediate-full and direct, "face to face," as it were. At the Eschaton (sic), Paul seems to be saying, we too shall know in this way, with no more need for the kinds of mediation that the mirror illustrates or that "prophecy" or the "utterance of knowledge" exemplify in reality.

The writer of this article disagrees with Fee only on the timing, viewing believers today as already possessing this kind of knowledge in the completed canon of holy Scripture.

Other commentators seem even less consistent. Mare wrote, "Now through the Word of God, know in part; then, in the presence of the Lord I will know fully, to the full extent that a redeemed finite human being can know and in a way similar in kind to the way the Lord in his infinite wisdom fully and infinitely knows me." However, does Paul's statement permit Mare's qualification? Did Paul say believers will know "fully, to the full extent that a redeemed finite human being can know" or did he say believers "shall know fully just as" they "have been fully known?"

Kistemaker's interpretation falls under the same criticism.

As God knows Paul so Paul will know God. This is not to say that Paul will have knowledge that is divine, for Jesus explicitly states that no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt 11:27). We always remain creatures who are finite, while God is infinite in light that is unapproachable (1 Tim 6:16). The term knowledge signifies that as God knows Paul as his adopted son, so Paul will fully know God as his Father when he sees him face to lace. Again, one must raise the question whether the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12 permit this kind of limiting comparison.

In conclusion, with complete biblical revelation, believers today are able to know themselves fully, just as they are fully known by God.

Are the words "But now" in verse 13 temporal or logical?

Fee seems to think they are both. "Despite the long debate over the temporal or logical force of the combination, 'and now,' it is difficult under any circumstances to divest the adverb 'now' of all temporal sense." However, several observations argue that these words are to be understood as logical, not temporal. First, elsewhere in this epistle, Paul wrote, "but now" (vuvi Se) to state a logical conclusion. For example, after emphasizing the fact that many members in one body function for the benefit of the body, Paul concluded, "But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired" (12:18). "But now" clearly has a logical rather than a temporal meaning. Thus the New Revised Standard Version translates this passage, "But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose." In 15:14-19 Paul described what would be true if Christ had not been raised from the dead but were still in the grave. However, Christ was in fact resurrected: "But now Christ has been raised from the dead." Thus the words "but now" possess a logical rather than a temporal meaning. Second, in expressing a temporal distinction, as in 13:12, Paul used dipt, a different word for "now." Third, in 13:8 Paul began this passage by contrasting the permanence of love with the temporality of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. As he concluded this section, once again he emphasized the permanence of love.

In conclusion, the words "and now" in verse 13 introduce Paul's conclusion to the discussion that began in verse 8. As such, they should be understood as possessing a logical rather than a temporal meaning.
What is the significance of "abide" in verse 132

Love, in contrast to the temporary character of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, is permanent. But how should the comparison Paul made with love, on the one hand, and faith and hope, on the other hand, be understood? All three of these virtues "abide." This word, used in 13:13 means "remain, last, persist, continue to live." But Scripture teaches that faith is not permanent; it does not remain beyond Christ's return. Walking by faith is associated with our being absent from the Lord (2 Cor 5:7-8). When Christ returns, however, believers will be with Him forever (1 Thess 4:17), and so faith will no longer be needed. Scripture also teaches that hope is not permanent; it too will not remain beyond Christ's return (Rom 8:24). Faith and hope, then, will not remain beyond Christ's return. Nevertheless they do remain beyond the time when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge come to an end. The temporary nature of these gifts is emphasized repeatedly in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, while the three virtues are said to abide or remain. This being true, the time when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge come to an end must be before Christ's return, when faith and hope terminate. Only love remains forever, That is why the greatest of the three virtues is love.

In conclusion, faith, hope and love remain beyond the ending of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. Yet faith and hope do not remain beyond Christ's return. Therefore the time when the temporary gifts come to an end must precede the return of Christ.

Summary and Conclusion

In the past, those who believed that some of the spiritual gifts were temporary and no longer exist have used 1 Corinthians 3:8-13 to defend this viewpoint. More recently those who hold this view have come to use other Scripture for support, believing that this passage does not offer support for the cessationist position. A reexamination of this passage has attempted to show that strong support for a cessationist view can be found.

If one begins with the end of this passage by attempting to explain the words, "now I know in part, but then shall know fully just as also have been fully known" (v. 12b), very likely an eschatological interpretation will be adopted, and support for a cessationist viewpoint will not be found. If, however, one begins with verse 8, the revelational character of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will be emphasized and Paul's comparison between the temporary gifts, which communicated partial revelation, and the full and final revelation found in the completed canon of Scripture will be understood (w. 9-10). Then the remaining verses in this passage (vv. 11-13) can be interpreted consistently with the understanding of verses 8-10.

Houghton's position (never heard of him) quickly falls down with his comment:

"The answer is that they are revelational in quality. Since this is so, then "the perfect" must also be revelational".​

As tongues are not revelational but purely a prayer language that is spoken by the Spirit to the Father then his point collapses completely.

The Meaning of the Perfect in 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 (CTS Journal Fall 2004)

by Andrew M. Woods (President of Chafer Theological Seminary)
...
Context of 1 Corinthians 13:8–10
Before explaining the various interpretations of teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:8–10, the overall context in which these verses are found should be considered briefly. Divisions within the Corinthian assembly seem to be Paul’s dominant concern throughout the letter (1 Corinthians 1–4). This theme continues in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, where we learn that the Corinthians’ misuse of gifts was fragmenting the assembly. Paul explains that, in spite of the diversity of gifts, they all come from the same Lord (12:4–11) and exist for the purpose of serving within the same body (12:12–31). Because of the Corinthians’ preoccupation with the gift of tongues, Paul develops in chapter 14 the thesis that the gifts with a greater capacity to edify, such as prophecy, should be pursued instead of the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1–22). He also lays down rules for using the revelatory gifts in the local church (1 Corinthians 14:23–31).

Sandwiched between the two chapters detailing the proper perspective on spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12and 14) is chapter 13. Because of its vivid description of true love that can only be sourced in and generated by God, it has been appropriately labeled “the love chapter.” Paul’s purpose in including it between the two chapters on spiritual gifts is obvious. He desires that the gifts be exercised in an attitude of love rather than self-serving haughtiness that produced the divisions within the Corinthian assembly (1 Corinthians 4:6, 18). Experts divide 1 Corinthians 13 into the following three parts: verses 1–3 speak of “the necessity of love”; verses 4–7, of “the nature of love”; and verses 8–13, of “the endurance of love.”8

There can be no doubt that love is the dominant theme of the final paragraph (1 Corinthians 13:8–13), since both its very first and very last word is love (vv. 8, 13). The chapter’s final paragraph seeks to encourage the Corinthians to pursue a permanent fruit of the Spirit— love—rather than the transitory gifts of the Spirit with which they had become preoccupied. Paul shows the eternality of love by developing two sets of contrasts. First, he contrasts the duration of love with the temporality of the revelatory gifts. He explains that, unlike love, the revelatory gifts will cease (vv. 8–10). He then illustrates the point (vv. 11–12) by describing the cessation of the revelatory gifts as a transition from immaturity to maturity (v. 11) and from limited sight to full sight (v. 12). Second, he contrasts the triad of faith, hope, and love that will exist until Christ’s return (v. 13a) with love alone remaining afterward (v. 13b). In other words, because faith will be replaced by sight at the coming of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:7) and because hope will also be realized at Christ’s coming (Romans 8:24), these virtues will not last beyond Christ’s return.9 However, since love never fails (v. 8a), it will last and thus is the greatest (v. 13b) of the three.10

Ideal View

Description

The ideal view interprets teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:10 as something ideal, unblemished, or flawless. In other words, the ideal view attaches a qualitative meaning to teleion. Thomas notes that the most common English dictionary definitions of the word perfect also render the word qualitatively. Such definitions, when applied to 1 Corinthians 13:10, would include the following: “a. being entirely without fault or defect; b. corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept; c. the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state.”11 Adherents of this interpretation argue that the perfect refers to some ideal condition following the Parousia, when “partial knowledge conveyed by the word of knowledge will be replaced by perfect knowledge; partial insight into God’s wisdom through prophecy will be replaced by a face to face audience with Christ.”12 Such a removal of present limitations will take place after the church has been taken away to be with the Lord. The list of advocates of this view includes Godet, Robertson and Plummer, Parry, and Bruce.13

Five Interpretations

Within the rubric of understanding teleion as something ideal, flawless, or unblemished, at least five separate interpretations have emerged. Each view interprets teleion as referring to some distinct, significant eschatological event.14 The first view maintains that the perfect arrives when the believer dies and is subsequently ushered into the presence of God.15 The second identifies the coming of the perfect as the rapture of the church.16 The third contends that the perfect arrives at Christ’s second advent.17 The fourth uses the general category “eschaton” to define the arrival of the perfect.18
The fifth identifies the eternal state as the arrival of the perfect.19 No doubt, the face-to-face motif of 1 Corinthians 13:12, which is also used in Revelation 22:4 to depict the believer’s unhindered relationship with God in the eternal state, has contributed to the popularity of this view.20 Advocates of the eternal state view attempt to buttress their position by observing that the eternal state concept allows for the neuter form of “the perfect” that is found in 1 Corinthians 13:10. They also argue that the eternal state represents the most ideal time for the believers’ limitations to be removed, since then believers will be directly “illuminated by the very glory of God Himself (Revelation 21:23).”21

Contextual Relationships

How do those holding the ideal view handle the two illustrations of 1 Corinthians 13:11–12? Lenski’s comment on verse 11 is typical: “Paul compares his childhood with our present state and his manhood, which is so different from childhood and such an advance upon it, with our future state of glory.”22 Proponents of the ideal view also note that verse 12 further clarifies the time when the perfect comes. Grudem observes, “The word ‘then’ (Gk. tote) in verse 12 refers to the time ‘when the perfect comes’ in verse 10.”23 The phrase face to face of verse 12 coupled with the notion of knowing fully furnishes the weightiest evidence favoring the ideal view.24

Grudem contends that this phrase is used numerous times in the Old Testament in reference to seeing God. His examples include Genesis 32:20, Exodus 33:11, Deuteronomy 5:4, 34:10, Judges 6:22, and Ezekiel 20:35.25 Grudem concludes, “Such views [i.e., those that see the coming of the perfect at some point before Christ’s return] all seem to break down at 1 Corinthians 13:12, where Paul implies that believers will see God ‘face to face’ ‘when the perfect is come.’”26 Face to face is commonly taken as a reference to seeing Christ subsequent to His coming.27 It is contended that “‘knowing fully’ can only be a reference to the state of the believer in heaven after his glorification” because “no one this side of eternity has the capacity to know as God knows.”28 Toussaint sums up the sentiments of most commentators when he says, “Few would controvert the idea that verse twelve is anticipating the return of Christ for His own.”29

Strengths

The notion that teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:10 conveys something ideal to be manifested in the future has certain strengths. For example, this interpretation of teleion finds support in Greek literature. According to Thomas, “This meaning is illustrated in Plato in regard to his world of ideas and in other philosophical thought of the time prior to and simultaneous with the New Testament era.”30 At first glance, seeing face to face and knowing fully introduced in verse 12 seem to desribe the Parousia. Furthermore, various common translations of the Bible, such as the KJV and NASB, render teleion along idealistic lines through the as “perfect.” It is probably for reasons such as these that interpreting teleion as an ideal condition following the Parousia is the dominant opinion among commentators.31

Weaknesses

The strengths of the ideal view are outweighed by its numerous weaknesses. First, Paul never uses teleios to refer to the type of perfection that is defined as the absence of all imperfection.32 In fact, Paul usually uses teleios in reference to a grown man (1 Corinthians 4:26; 14:20; Philippians 3:15; Ephesians 4:13; Colossians 1:28). In Colossians 4:12, teleios means “mature” in the sense of being obedient to God. Another Pauline use of teleios is in Romans 12:2, where it carries the meaning “complete.”33

Second, although Greek philosophers understood perfection qualitatively, such a meaning is lacking in the New Testament.34 Utopian perfection was a philosophical rather than a New Testament concept.35 In the New Testament, teleios simply means “having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect.”36 When used of a person, teleios simply means being “full grown, mature, or adult.”37 Extra-biblical usage is not as persuasive as the New Testament usage for ascertaining the biblical meaning of a term. The fact that the ideal view must rely on extra-biblical uses of teleios demonstrates the scantiness of its supporting biblical evidence. Third, the New Testament never uses teleios for the various eschatological events that ideal view advocates typically attach to the word. Gromacki observes that teleios never refers to the Second Coming, millennium, or the eternal state.38

Fourth, the ideal view fails to provide a suitable antithesis to the phrase in part (ek merous) found in 1 Corinthians 13:9–10. In these verses Paul contrasts ek merous with to teleion. Ek merous is a quantitative phrase. It denotes the gifts’ partial nature rather than their imperfection in quality. Thus, rendering teleion in verse 10 as “ideal,” “flawless,” or “unblemished” does not provide an appropriate opposite to the quantitative phrase ek merous. It is appropriate to contrast two qualitative phrases or two quantitative phrases, but not a quantitative phrase with a qualitative phrase, as the ideal view does. Perhaps a better meaning of teleion “would be ‘whole’ or ‘complete’ as antithetical to ek merous.”39 In other words, “in part” and “whole” are a superior fit than “in part” and “unblemished.”
Fifth, to assert that to teleion in verse 10 refers to an ideal state is unnaturally to strain the illustration in verse 11, where Paul uses his own adulthood as a picture of the coming of to teleion. Yet Paul’s use of his own maturity hardly suggests flawlessness. Throughout his writings, Paul routinely draws attention to his own imperfections in his adult state.40 In fact, the very next verse (1 Corinthians 13:12) speaks of his present limitations and partial knowledge. In Philippians 3:12, he admits that he has not yet been perfected. Elsewhere, he calls himself the least of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:9), the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), and less than the least of the saints (Ephesians 3:8). In Galatians 5:16, he describes a current battle taking place between the flesh and the sprit within him. He depicts a similar battle in Romans 7 and concludes the chapter by referring to himself as a wretched man (Romans 7:24).41

Acts 23:3 records an example of Paul’s immaturity as he threatens with divine retaliation the high priest who struck him. In sum, because Paul saw himself as being caught between the “already” of his initial soteriological benefits and the “not yet” of his future glorification, he recognized his own imperfections in his present adult state. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that Paul analogized his current state to the ideal state in 1 Corinthians 13:11.

Sixth, the ideal view depicts the church’s transition from immaturity to maturity as something that takes place instantaneously at some eschatological event such as the rapture. Yet the analogy of 13:11 seems to describe this transition as a gradual process.42 At least two reasons can be cited for taking the passing of the partial things as a process extending over a period of time.

First, Paul uses the perfect tense of the word gegona rather than the aorist tense. On the one hand, the aorist tense communicates the idea “when I became a man, I put away childish things.” On the other hand, the perfect tense communicates the idea of process: “when I have become a man, I put away childish things.” The latter conveys the idea of a person looking back upon the process of doing away with immature behavior.43 Second, everyday experience “tells us that maturity is a gradual process of putting away childish habits.”44 This notion of a gradual transition from immaturity to maturity is far more compatible with the canon and maturity views, which advocate the church’s gradual weaning away from the apostolic revelatory gifts as the apostles died out and the New Testament canon was completed. The ideal view is incompatible with understanding maturity as a gradual process because it teaches an instantaneous transition from immaturity to maturity.

Seventh, defining teleion as the rapture or the Second Coming is problematic because teleion is a neuter adjective. Thus, it is unlikely to refer to the personal coming of Christ, which would require a masculine adjective.45 A better description of Christ’s personal coming would be the masculine “he who is perfect” rather than the neuter “that which is perfect.” Eighth, defining teleion as the eternal state is also problematic. This view holds that the Christian will spend seven years with Christ in heaven following the rapture and a thousand years on the earth during His millennial reign following His second advent. Then, after the creation of the eternal state, the believer’s limitations will be removed (Revelation 21–22). Yet Scripture never implies that the Lord will take away the believer’s restrictions to any greater degree in eternity than at their resurrection.46 Another problem with the eternal state view is that it fails to consider the overall context of these verses which relates to the theme of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12–14). To have such a sudden transition away from this topic and to the topic of the eternal state is contextually problematic.47

Ninth, the ideal view creates an open canon that is normative throughout the church age. Dean explains, “When theologians mistakenly identify te/leioj with the Second Coming of Christ, the perfection of heaven, the Rapture, or the Millennium, all the temporary gifts become normative for the entire Church Age.”48 Allowing the revelatory gifts of knowledge and prophecy described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 to operate throughout the church age is doctrinally problematic because of the New Testament teaching that God’s Word is completed (Jude 3; Revelation 22:18–19).49 An open canon also has negative ramifications for the life of the church by diluting the authority of the apostles,50 since it requires that the apostolic doctrine be continually augmented in accordance with the latest prophetic utterances.

In addition, an open canon ushers in false doctrine. MacArthur provides a historical analysis documenting how the concept of additional revelations has given rise to heretical movements within the church.51 Furthermore, an open canon negatively impacts the role of Bible exposition within the local church. Verse-by-verse teaching is typically neglected in churches that seek alleged new revelation. After all, why should a congregation devote itself to diligently studying antiquated Scripture when God is providing fresh insights today?

Finally, knowing fully and face to face in verse 12 can be interpreted as the completion of the New Testament canon. The validity of this interpretation will be developed in the final section of this article.

...
Quantitative Completeness View

Description

The quantitative completeness view understands teleion as completion of something that already exists in part. Unlike the previous two views, this view attaches a quantitative rather than qualitative meaning to teleion. Proponents of this position typically hold that the New Testament canon completes the partial revelation and revelatory gifts that are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12. This position also understands the various temporal indicators in 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 to refer to the “now” of the apostolic age (precanonical period) and the “then” of the postapostolic age (postcanonical period). A number of modern commentators hold this position, including Unger,83 Dean,84 Houghton,85 Gentry,86 and Vine.87

Three Vital Points

The following three points are vital to understanding the quantitative completeness, or canon, view. The first is that the partial gifts of knowledge, tongues, and prophecy spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 are revelatory gifts. During the time when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, the church was without the benefit of the completed New Testament canon, and thus without a body of truth to base its decisions upon. Therefore, divine guidance was provided through the vehicle of the revelatory gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues.

Prophecy’s character is revelatory.88 The gift of prophecy is based upon the Old Testament understanding of a prophet as one who received direct revelation from God (Deuteronomy 18:18). Peter surely understood the function of an Old Testament prophet in revelatory terms (2 Peter 1:20–21), and so did Paul. In Ephesians 3:5, he explains that the New Testament prophets revealed the mystery of the church. In 1 Corinthians 14:29–30, he emphasizes the revelatory function of prophecy by indicating that when a prophet is speaking, others are to judge what he says. The revelatory character of prophecy can also be seen in the divine messages revealed by the prophet Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11).89

The revelatory nature of the gift of knowledge can also be demonstrated by virtue of the fact that it is enumerated in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 alongside prophecy.90 Paul places gnōsis beside mysteria in 1 Corinthians 13:2 and between apokalypsis and profēteia in 1 Corinthians 14:6, thus investing the term with “the significance of supernatural mystical knowledge.”91 Thus, “the gift of knowledge apparently involved unusual spiritual insight, including the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit, in determining the proper solution for the many practical problems which arose in the early church.”92 The revelatory aspect of tongues can be seen in that Paul requires an interpreter, so that the speaker’s message can be shared with the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:26–27). Thus, tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, seem to have entailed receiving direct messages from God.93

The second point is that revelations provided to the early church by these revelatory gifts were designed to be only partial and were intended to be superseded by something more comprehensive. This explains why Paul consistently uses the phrase in part (ek merous) when referring to the gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues (1 Corinthians 13:9–10, 12). Gentry properly describes the partial revelations these gifts provided to the early church:

1 Corinthians 13:9 speaks of these revelatory gifts as piecemeal. They are, by the very nature of the case, fragmented and incomplete revelations: “We know in part (ek merous), and we prophesy in part (ek merous).” The idea expressed here is simply this: During the age between Pentecost and the completion of the canon, God gifted a variety of believers in various churches with these revelatory gifts. But during that age those gifts were sporadic in that they gave a revelation here and one there, an epistle here, a gospel there, but did not weave a total, complete New Testament revelatory picture to any one hearer or church. The various prophetic revelations offered at best partial insight into the will of God for the Church. . . .94

As Hodge explains, “the revelations granted to the prophets imparted glimpses of the mysteries of God.”95

The following is the third point that must be understood: if what is “in part” (ek merous) refers to the partial revelations brought to the early church through these revelatory gifts, then teleion, which stands in antithesis to ek merous, must refer to the New Testament canon, which completed and superseded the partial revelations. A completed New Testament canon would render piecemeal revelation obsolete by providing a complete picture of the mystery nature of the church and God’s program for the ages and thereby equipping the saints for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17). Gentry explains:

It is difficult to miss the antithetic parallel between the “partial” thing and the “perfect” (“complete, mature, full”) thing. Since the partial speaks of prophecy and other modes of revelational insight (v. 8), then it would seem that the “perfect,” which would supplant these, represents the perfect and final New Testament Scripture (Jms. 1:22). This is due to the fact that modes of revelation are being purposely contrasted. Thus, it makes the man of God adequately equipped to all the tasks before him (2 Tim 3:16–17). In other words, there is coming a time when will occur the completion of the revelatory process of God.96

Houghton similarly notes, “Is it possible to determine the nature of the partial gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge? Yes. The answer is that they are revelational in quality. Since this is so, then ‘the perfect’ must also be revelational.”97 Smith likewise observes, “‘That which is complete’ should logically be of the same kind as ‘that which is partial’ and is therefore most naturally understood as a reference to the completion of revelation for the Church Age.”98

Advantages of the Completed Canon View

Understanding teleion as a reference to the completed canon has several advantages. First, the meaning “complete,” or “whole,” is well attested in Paul’s writings.99 Second, the adjective teleion is used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe God’s Word (James 1:25).100 Third, and most importantly, the canon view does not pit a quantitative concept (ek merous) against a qualitative concept, as do the ideal and maturity views. It allows both expressions to be understood quantitatively. In other words, the concept of “complete” is a natural antithesis to the concept of “in part.” Thus, the idea of completed Scripture furnishes the best antithesis to the partial revelations given through the gifts of knowledge, prophecy, and tongues, because both expressions are taken in a quantitative sense.

Contextual Relationships

How then does the quantitative completeness view handle the illustrations of verses 11 and 12? Dean explains the adult-child analogy in verse 11:

The child represents the incomplete knowledge available to the infant, precanon church. Just as a child has inadequate knowledge to live as a mature adult, so the precanon church lacked a sufficient canon and doctrine to lead the spiritual life of the new Church Age. An adult reaches maturity when he is complete with the knowledge and skills necessary for life. So, too the post canon church has the completed canon of Scripture which is sufficient for every need, every problem, every difficulty in life. Through the learning of the doctrines of the Word under the filling of the Holy Spirit the believer is able to pursue spiritual maturity.101

Gentry observes the purposeful parallel between the three conditions representative of incompleteness in verse 8 (prophecy, tongues, and knowledge) and the three conditions representative of childhood in verse 11 (speaking, understanding, and thinking as a child). Thus, tongues are the equivalent of speaking as a child, knowledge is the equivalent of understanding as a child, and prophecy is the equivalent of reasoning as a child. Gentry goes on to offer the following explanation of the analogy:
When Paul was in his childhood, he thought as a child was expected to think. But when he became a mature man, he naturally put away childish thought modes. Similarly, when the church was in her infancy, she operated by means of bit by bit piecemeal revelation. But when she grew older, she operated by means of finalized Scripture. Thus, Although some versions translate esoptrou in 13:12 as “dark glass,” most translate the word as “mirror.” This translation is preferable because in James 1:23, the only other New Testament passage where esoptron is used, the context is clearly referring to a mirror.103 Thus, Paul compares piecemeal revelation to looking into a dim mirror and the completed canon to looking into a clear mirror. The mirror analogy is something the Corinthians would have understood well. According to Fee, “Corinth was famous as the producer of some of the finest bronze mirrors in antiquity.”104 “But even the best mirrors reflected images imperfectly.”105

Paul’s point was that looking into partial, piecemeal revelation was equivalent to looking into an imperfect mirror in that the viewer got only a partial picture of himself. However, after the completion of the New Testament canon, the viewer could look into a perfect mirror, and thus have the capacity to see himself as God saw him. Thus, face to face refers to the believer’s capacity to see himself clearly through the vehicle of a perfect mirror or the completed canon. According to Gentry:

Paul here seems to be teaching the Corinthians that now (in their situation before the completion of the New Testament canon) they were limited to sporadic, inspired insight into the authoritative will of God. They simply did know all God was going to reveal yet. They were, as it were, looking in a dim mirror. But when they finally have before them all the New Testament Scriptures, then they shall be able to fully see all they need to know, they will be able to see themselves just as they are in the sight of God.106

Interpreting the phrases mirror and face to face in this way is preferable because, as mentioned above, the only other place where esoptron (“mirror”) is used in the New Testament is in James 1:23. There the context deals with the capacity of God’s Word to provide the reader with a standard for honest self-assessment. This interpretation is also preferable because of the Scripture’s function of making man aware of his own sinfulness so he will see his need for justification and sanctification (Romans 5:20; 7:7; Galatians 3:24; 2 Timothy 3:16; James 1:23–25).

The completed canon then gives the believer the capacity to know fully (1 Corinthians 13:12b). According to Dean:
Paul envisioned a time, yet future when believers would have the entire realm of mystery doctrine to objectively know themselves as never before and be spiritually self-sustaining. Only God has a complete knowledge of the believer and only with a complete canon can the believer have sufficient, objective knowledge of himself. Through learning and applying doctrine from the completed and sufficient Scripture a mirror is constructed in his soul. This mirror of truth enables the believer to accurately and objectively evaluate his own life and circumstances from the divine viewpoint. Prior to the completed canon the believer could only have an incomplete understanding of who he is and what he possesses as a member of the royal family of God, and all the vast assets that God has provided for him. It is the completed Word of God that provides this sufficient, perspicuous understanding of ourselves as we truly are. Prior to the revelation of the mystery doctrine the believer looked into the mirror of God’s Word dimly and saw a riddle, due to incomplete revelation.107
Houghton similarly notes:
Because believers today possess complete revelation, they are able to understand what God’s Word teaches about themselves, their potential, their limitations, and the means that God has made available for them to obtain victory over sin in a clear and detailed manner that was not possible before the completion of the canon. The Scriptures equip a believer for every good work by being profitable for teaching, reproving, correcting, and training (2 Tim 3:16–17).108
Gentry likewise posits that some of the blindness of the early church may have been attributable to the lack of a completed canon. Lack of the entire realm of mystery doctrine may explain the church’s reluctance to separate itself from Judaism, as well as its pride and racism during the apostolic era (Acts 10–11; 15; Galatians).109

The canon view understands the first part of verse 13 as describing the continuation of faith, hope, and love into the postcanon age after the cessation of the revelatory gifts. The “now” (nuni) at the beginning of verse 13 is unlike the “now” (arti) at the beginning of verse 12.110 Although nuni and arti often overlap, “in passages where both occur together, arti has a more immediate sense.”111 Such immediacy seems to be the case in verse 12, where Paul contrasts the “now” of the precanon era with the “then” of the postcanon era.112 However, the nun in verse 13 “is broader, indicating the present age, the postcanon Church Age.”113 Nun is frequently used to depict the period of time between the two comings of Christ.114 The canon view understands the second part of verse 13 as describing the continuation of love despite the cessation of faith (2 Corinthians 5:7–8) and hope (Romans 8:24) following the Second Advent. If the quantitative completeness view is correct, then 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 teaches that the revelatory gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge passed away with the completion of the New Testament canon.115

Potential Weaknesses

The quantitative completeness, or canon, view is not without its criticisms. However, most of the objections raised against it are answerable. The criticism can be divided into the following two categories: criticisms related to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8– 13 and criticisms of cessationism in general. The criticisms regarding the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 will be handled first.

Face to Face

One criticism is that the phrase face to face refers to the events surrounding the Parousia because such language must refer to the believer’s direct fellowship with God. However, it is interesting to note, “verse 12 does not speak of seeing God face to face.”116 Gentry observes, “We should note that Grudem’s argument has to read ‘God’ into the reference: So when Paul says, ‘But then [we shall see] face to face,’ he clearly means, ‘Then we shall see God face to face.’”117 Moreover, although the face-to-face motif is sometimes used in the Old Testament to refer to fellowship with God,118 it is also used of revelation from God.

For example, in Numbers 12:6–8, the face-to-face language does not emphasize God’s fellowship with Moses but rather God’s revelation to Moses. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 13:12 is emphasizing God’s revelation to the believer rather than God’s eschatological fellowship with the believer.119 Such revelation from God was made available to the church through the completed New Testament canon. Furthermore, the phrase face to face in 1 Corinthians 13:12 cannot refer to seeing God without damaging the mirror analogy, since a person looks at the reflection of himself in a mirror rather than at someone else or at God.120 Thus, face to face in 1 Corinthians 13:12 refers to a person seeing his own reflection rather than to fellowship with God. As mentioned earlier, the only other place where esoptron (“mirror”) is used in the New Testament is James 1:23, where the context deals with the capacity of God’s Word to provide the reader with a standard for honest self-assessment.

Knowing As Known

A second criticism is that it seems presumptuous to interpret the phrase but then I shall know just as I also am known in 1 Corinthians 13:12b as believers knowing themselves through God’s Word just as God knows them. Such comprehensive knowledge seems unattainable this side of eternity. This dilemma has caused numerous interpreters to shy away from the canon view. For example, Rothaar observes, “It is pointed out that even today with a completed canon of Scripture we do not know fully. If we did, we would not be faced with the problem of interpreting the Scriptures as we are today.”121 D. Martyn Lloyd Jones apparently rejects the canon view for the same reason. He observes:
It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth . . . . It means that we are altogether superior . . . even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are now in a position which . . . ‘we know, even as also we are known’ by God . . . indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense.122
Houghton’s response is appropriate:
However, the problem does not go away if these words are interpreted eschatologically. In eternity, will believers really know fully just as they have been full known? The answer to this question seems to be, “Yes, but only in some limited qualified sense.” If that answer is acceptable for the eschatological interpretation, then it ought to be acceptable for this writer’s “completed canon” view as well.123
Those who doubt that the type of knowledge spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:12b is attainable this side of eternity forget that Paul in the same book also promises believers the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, who would search and disclose to them all the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:9–15).
A Completed Canon in Paul’s Mind?

A third criticism is that to discuss the completed canon in light of 1 Corinthians 13 is to force Paul to address a subject that was not in his mind at the time of writing.124 However, the notion of a completed New Testament canon would not have been foreign to Paul. Although he expected Christ’s imminent return, he also knew of the possibility that Christ’s return might be in the distant future, and therefore church-age believers would need a completed record similar to the one Old Testament believers possessed. Moreover, Paul indicates a sensitivity of a finite collection of New Testament writings when he speaks of guarding what has been committed to Timothy’s trust (1 Timothy 6:20; 1 Timothy 1:12, 14) and of his longing for the parchments (2 Timothy 4:13). Peter also indicated a similar awareness of a limited collection of New Testament writings (2 Peter 3:15). 125
...
Conclusion

Of the three dominant interpretations of to teleion (“the perfect”), the canon view best fits the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 13:8–10. Unlike the other views, it does not pit a quantitative concept against a qualitative one but rather allows two quantitative concepts to live in natural harmony and symmetry with one another. The semantic range of to teleion includes the notion of scriptural revelation (James 1:25), which provides a suitable antithesis to the incomplete revelation provided by prophecy, knowledge, and tongues. Moreover, the canon view fits well with the material that follows in verses 11–13, and the criticisms raised against the canon view in particular and cessationism in general are answerable. In comparison with the weaknesses of the ideal and maturity views, the canon view offers the most attractive interpretation of to teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:8–10.

As for Woods (again, I have never heard of him) his bias toward his own worldview certainly comes to the forefront with his following strange assessment of Paul's teachings:

"The chapter’s final paragraph seeks to encourage the Corinthians to pursue a permanent fruit of the Spirit— love—rather than the transitory gifts of the Spirit with which they had become preoccupied". ​

How can anyone pretend that Paul ever taught such a thing or that there is even a hint of this viewpoint within 1 Cor 13.

Three Arguments for the Cessation of Tongues (Conservative Theological Journal, March 2005)
By Robert Dean, Jr. M.A., Th.M., D.Min.
...
The meaning of “the perfect” (τέλειος)

I have never heard of him.

“When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?” BSac 150 (April–June 1993): 171–202;
David Farnell, professor of New Testament studies at The Master's Seminary
...
Much of the controversy surrounding spiritual gifts, particularly the miraculous gifts like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, has concentrated on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 as providing a crux interpretum regarding the continuance or cessation of the gift. Both sides have centered on this passage to argue either for or against the cessation of the prophetic gift.

All groups would agree that 1 Corinthians 13:10 indicates that gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are temporary. That such gifts will cease is not at issue so much as when those gifts will cease and what particular time is being indicated by the phrase o{tan deV e[lqh/ toV tevleion in 13:10. Whenever toV tevleion arrives, then these gifts will no longer be necessary. While the analyses of the passage have produced a variety of interpretations, the major views essentially reduce to two possible ways of rendering toV tevleion. The first view understands toV tevleion in an absolute sense of ‘perfect’ and has reference to Christ’s Parousia. Here the significance of toV tevleion is identified as ‘the perfection’ that will exist after Christ returns for His church, as seen in 13:12. At that time, all spiritual gifts, not just prophecy and knowledge, will cease. The only virtue which has permanent significance, is love (v. 13).

Several arguments are advanced in favor of this view. First, this view is the only one that adequately satisfies the explanatory confirmation of 13:12 where the ideal, final state is in view. Second, the meaning of ‘perfect’ best describes the period after Christ’s return. Third, the verb e[lqh/ can refer only to the precise moment of Christ’s second coming. Fourth, Pauline statements of eschatological hope center in Christ’s return (1 Cor. 1:7-9; 15:20-34; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). Fifth, Paul and other New Testament writers used the related term, tevlo’, of the same period (Rom. 8:18-30; 1 Cor. 1:8; 15:24; Matt. 24:6, 13-14). Sixth, maturity and the end are related in Paul’s writings (Col. 1:5, 22, 27-28).
The Second view is that toV tevleion refers to what is ‘mature’ or ‘complete’ rather than ‘the perfect state.’ Understood in this sense, toV tevleion draws on the figure of the church as Christ’s body collectively growing up during the age since the day of Pentecost. The gifts of 1 Corinthians 13:8-9 gradually ceased with the close of canonical revelation and the increasing maturity of the body of Christ (cf. Eph. 4:11-16, esp. v. 13, eij’ a[ndra tevleion, ‘the mature man’).

Admittedly any decision on these two options is not easy. However, the second view (‘maturity’) is the more viable. Arguments for the second view also constitute a rebuttal of the first view. First, Pauline usage of tevleio’ never conveys the idea of absolute perfection, and such a philosophical meaning is also questionable in the rest of the New Testament. Only this view allows tevleio’ a relative sense. Second, Paul’s constant use of the nhvpio’ . . . tevleio’ antithesis supports this interpretation. Tevleio’ elsewhere always possesses a relative meaning of ‘mature’ when used in proximity to nhvpio’ (13:11, o{te h[mhn nhvpio’, ‘when I was a child’; cf. 1 Cor. 2:6; 3:1; 14:20; Eph. 4:13-14). Furthermore the occurrence of tevleio’ is what suggests the nhvpio’ illustration of 1 Cor. 13:11 (cf. Heb. 5:13-14). Whenever the adjective is used in connection with nhvpio’, it always carries the connotation of gradual increase, not of an abrupt change.

Third, this view gives an adequate sense to the illustrations of 1 Corinthians 13:11 and 12. In verse 11 a relative maturity is signified, while verse 12 indicates an absolute maturity. Provision also exists here for the ultimate state after the Parousia, according to the demands of verse 12, in that maturity is of two kinds: one that is constantly changing and increasing (v. 11), and the other that is final and absolute (v. 12). The latter type is viewed in 13:12 as a future goal.

Fourth, Ephesians 4:13-14 more explicitly presents the picture of the maturing of Christ’s body collectively. A number of striking resemblances between 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4 tie these passages together in reference to gradual maturity. The parallels between these two passages are strengthened also by the historical connection of the writing of 1 Corinthians while Paul was ministering at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Since Ephesians 4:13-14 pictures a gradual development of Christ’s body from the beginning to the end, Paul’s picture in 1 Corinthians 13 would also convey the same concept. Fifth, this view provides for Paul’s uncertainty as to the time of the Parousia and status of a written canon. Sixth, as already suggested in note 69, the contrast with ejk mevrou’ in 13:9 requires a quantitative idea (‘complete’) rather than a qualitative idea (‘perfect’).

In light of this, Paul’s development from childhood to adulthood in verse 11 illustrates the progressive growth of the church through the critical period of its history. ... The contrast in verse 13a is that gifts of the earlier part of the paragraph were possibly to extend only through a portion of the church’s existence, whereas faith, hope, and love would characterize the entire earthly ministry. Beyond this, only one of the three virtues will survive the Parousia, and that is love itself. For this reason, it is declared to be the greatest gift. As Thomas concludes,

‘When the mature comes’ gathers together into one concept both the period of church history after the need for the gifts of direct revelation has ceased to exist (relative maturity illustrated in v. 11) and the period after the return of Christ for the church (absolute maturity illustrated in v. 12). By comparing these gifts to the maturity of the body of Christ Paul shows their temporary character (in contrast with love). A certain level of maturity has been reached once the N.T. canon has been completed and is in hand, and so the result is almost the same as that of [the completion of the New Testament canon view]. Yet Paul expected an imminent return of Christ and could not know, humanly speaking, that there ever would be a complete N.T. canon of 27 books before Christ returned. Hence, he was guided by the Spirit to use the more general language of maturity to allow for this.

Thus the gift of prophecy, along with tongues and knowledge, was a temporary gift which is no longer operative today.

The one theme that comes across from Farnell's essay is with his lack of confidence with his stated position.

The Meaning of the Perfect in 1 Corinthians 13:8–13 (CTS Journal Fall 2004)
by Andrew M. Woods (President of Chafer Theological Seminary)
...
Context of 1 Corinthians 13:8–10

Again, I have never heard of him nor can I recall where anyone has quoted him.

 

[Biblicist]

A very useful resource on the historical understanding of "That which is Perfect" can be found as a free 89 page PDF at;
www.ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/perfectpaper94.pdf

 

[RDKirk]

The first thing that should be asked of the few academics who have attempted to peddle the view that the τὸ τέλειον of 1 Cor 13:10 points to the establishment of the Canon is “Now be honest, what do you really believe?”

I am of the strong opinion that there is not a single academic who has ever peddled this particular viewpoint who actually believes a word of it; there is no possibility that an educated person (or anyone who has gone beyond grade school) could actually believe in such silliness; unless of course such a person is a card-carrying member of the flat earth society.

On the other hand, I can well appreciate that when individuals feel that they need to prop up a given worldview or notion that cannot be substantiated that desperation can push people into the realm of the ridiculous and even supposedly well-educated individuals can sacrifice their integrity if their monthly payroll demands that they uphold a given viewpoint, even if it is cessationism, the promotion of homosexuality, that God is dead, universalism or with a host of other humanist worldviews.

The real problem and danger of the cessassionist is that he must necessarily deny any and all working of the Holy Spirit today. The cessassionist must say in every case, "The Holy Spirit did not do that. That is not the work of the Holy Spirit."

And at some point, he has run into Mark 3:29.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The real problem and danger of the cessassionist is that he must necessarily deny any and all working of the Holy Spirit today. The cessassionist must say in every case, "The Holy Spirit did not do that. That is not the work of the Holy Spirit."

And at some point, he has run into Mark 3:29.

In reality, most cessassionists are partial cessassionists who divide spritual gifts into two classes - "sign" gifts and "ministry" gifts. There are very few Christians today who utterly deny the existence of any spiritual empowerment in the church.

It is like the legalists today. Although they loudly proclaim their obedience to the Law, they usually either deny the Law except for the Ten Commandments or they divide the Law into two classes, "moral" and "ceremonial" although the Bible does no such thing.

 

[swordsman1]

Regardless what the gift is it represents something we are lacking in without the gifting of the HS. They are all "in-part" not because the gifts themselves are lacking but because being bestowed a gift assumes the recipient is lacking.

That doesn't make sense. Why would a gift be described as being "in part" because it fulfills a need?

I never said the gifts of prophecy and knowledge were lacking because they are "in part". Being "in part" is just a general characteristic of those gifts - they only offer a partial revelation of God to man, but when completeness comes it will be replaced with a far better variant - "I will know fully", "I will see face to face" - a complete revelation of God to man. You can't say things along those lines about all the other gifts.

 

[swordsman1]

the word is what the word is. It does not have "multiple meanings" it has "multiple translations". a lexicon reflects its english use but the original use doesn't get changed because we translate it a specific way. I really don't know if it is qualitative or quantitative but unanimously translations favour a qualitative form in NT use, a simple word search reveals that. The NIV reads "but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears." showing they are using a quantitative abstract (completeness) with another quantitative (in part). in the 1984 edition it reads: "but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." which is the opposite focus showing a qualitative abstract (perfection) with another qualitative (imperfect). This reveals the NIV seems to be more interested in comparing apples with apples and will translate it to support a more like comparison. But even the NIV favours this word in a more qualitative form in it's other uses in the NT.

If you think quantitative fits better that's fine and I have no problem with it nor does it alter the interpretation.

Of course words have multiple meanings. "Ball" can mean a round thing you throw about, or it can mean a dancing party. We use the context to determine which one it is: "He threw the ball into the grass", "We are going to the ball".

Here is the Mounce Lexicon entry for teleios with its various meanings and usage examples:

- 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*​

Of those different definitions 'completeness' fits the context best in my view for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

 

[swordsman1]

Paul talks about something that hasn't taken place yet so under those conditions it is prophetic but if we are too call this a prophecy of the completion of the canon or end of the apostolic age this effects doctrine for us today. If this is the case it would be an obscure reference and very cryptic and since it has such an impact on doctrine it responsibly should be confirmed elsewhere in scripture. Let's take for example the doctrines that form mariology which are largely traditional based. Their biblical support points to Mary being called "Blessed" but this is hardly enough information to support the doctrines and this is why protestants largely reject these doctrines because they are not responsibly biblically supported. Could teleios point to the completion of the canon? It may be possible but is simply too obscure to form responsible biblical based doctrines.

The completion of the canon is not an obscure concept. Paul and his readers would already be familiar with such a concept seeing as they already had one completed canon, the Old Testament. They knew that they were now under a new covenant. So it is quite reasonable for them to be expecting a completed New Testament to guide them in the new covenant age.

If you think seeing the completed canon in this passage is cryptic, then the continuist interpretation is even more cryptic seeing that neither Christ nor his return is mentioned in the passage. Nowhere in scripture does the Greek word teleios ever refer to the return of Christ, the eternal state or anything eschatological. Nor does it fit the analogy of child maturing into an adult. Nor does it work with faith, hope & love outlasting the 3 gifts, if the faith and hope cease at the Parousia.

The doctrine of cessationism is not based solely on this passage. There are many other passages that support it such as Eph 2:20 where it says the church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone". Foundations are only built once at the beginning of the structure, not when it is nearly complete. If apostles ceased at the end of the apostolic age, and few people would dispute that, then so did NT prophecy. Apostleship was also gift, so there is one gift that most people agree has ceased - so why not others that are also foundational?

Then there is the obvious fact that the charismatic gifts did actually cease shortly after the apostolic age. The writings of the church fathers testify to that, and the doctrine of cessationism was widely accepted up until the start of the twentieth century with the rise of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements when people claimed that these gifts were now being restored. However these claimed gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

 

[Major1]

that last part is unconfirmed through scripture not to mention is proven wrong. Paul was not among these 11 present in Mark yet was still an Apostle and carried these "Mark signs" (I think he is the only confirmed one to get bitten by a snake) and still confirmed the spiritual gifts of apostleship. Clearly the HS operated outside of these 11 present even in the fullness that Jesus was speaking of.

I will have to disagree with you my brother.

In the case of the apostles, this calling to office was direct, immediate and a personal-physical call by Christ Himself as head of the church. They were called to be "fishers of men," as Jesus showed in the miracle of the draught of fishes.

Paul also was a "chosen vessel" for the same purpose as recorded in Acts 9:15...................
"But the Lord said to him, Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel".

Paul must be understood as having seen Christ directly in heaven in such away that the barrier between heaven and earth was opened in his call.

The apostles had a unique task to perform, that of laying the foundation of the New Testament form of the church institute. Paul indicates this in Eph.. 2:20, when he says that the church is..............
'built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, of which Christ Himself is the chief Cornerstone."

In the latter part of the Mark 16, Christ is speaking to the "eleven," Mark 16:14. It is to them, and in them, to the church, that Christ gives the commission to go and preach the gospel.

What is often overlooked in this discussion, however, is the purpose of these signs: "...The Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following..." Mark 16:20; that is, their function was to confirm the apostolic Word. They were not intended for just any purpose.

It seems to me that the language of Mark is also overlooked most of time. Mark is speaking of the apostles when he says,"so then after the Lord had spoke unto them ...the eleven of verse 14 ...And they (the apostles) went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them...."
That is the exact words found in Mark 16:19, 20.

I have always marveled at how easy it is to overlook those words and the fact that Mark is speaking specifically of the Apostles. Now it is my opinion which by some does not amount to a whole lot, but if we really get down to where the rubber meets the road, those who say they speak in tongues today do it because they want to!!!! They read those Scriptures about the ELEVEN and say, well, that applies to me too!!!

Then it should also be noted that Mark speaks of the matter as a promise made which was fulfilled. "And these signs shall follow...( Mark 16:17)... And they went forth... with signs following," (Mark 16:20). Grammatically......those are all PAST TENSE words. The viewpoint of Mark is that Jesus promised it, it happened as promised, and it is now fulfilled and done. He speaks of something accomplished, not something continuing in the church. There is nothing in the text which suggests or intends to speak of something perpetual in the speaking of tongues in the church.

The gospel having been declared, confirmed, and set down in the Scriptures, the function of these signs is, in fact, fulfilled. They served the laying of the foundation of the church. That does not mean there is no abiding element, as both the commission to preach the gospel abides and the miracles confirming the gospel are recorded in Scripture. The miracles, which are intended to confirm the faith of believers, are now recorded in Scripture, and they are sufficient for our faith. The Scriptures were written by eyewitnesses of these things. To require miracles today or the need to speak in a gibberish unintelligible noise is to declare that the Bible is insufficient for faith.

 

[swordsman1]

we should speak against malpractice of the gifts and teach biblical practices of the gifts just as Paul is doing in his letters to the Corinthians. I understand that tongues is such a sensitive subject because of wide abuse but this isn't a reason to say tongues are no more but rather it should be a cause to promote biblical practices.

In my view it is not a case of malpractice and abuse of genuine gifts, but a case of them not being genuine gifts to start with. What people today call the gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

 

[swordsman1]

As I said I spoke in gibberish for 6 years before repenting and being filled with the Spirit. After that night, there was a distinct difference in the sound of fluidity of the tongues I spoke. There is not a doubt in my mind that these are the same tongues as on the Day of Pentecost.

You spoke in a foreign human language you had never learned?

 

[Major1]

agreed. unbiblical practices should never be encouraged. it seems the Corinthian church had issues with these gifts as well but as Paul concludes "earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order." We too should not forbid these gifts today but we should seek biblical practices in them.

And that is the whole point I have been saying from the beginning. Actually you are sounding a whole lot like what we who do not accept speaking in tongues have been saying.

Anyone who says that they attend a church who follows the Biblical directions given in the Scriptures is IMO being "very creative" in their explanation.

As I have said, I was brought up in the Pentecostal church and have attend more of them than I can remember and I have NEVER seen tongues done Biblically!

That alone was the key to my looking at WHY they were not done Biblically. I have concluded that IMO it is because of the emotions of those who want to speak in tongues. My witness is that those really wonderful Christian believers get so caught up in heir emotions and their worship experience that it bubbles over into them using their tongues in a way which edifies' them instead of spreading the Gospel.

 

[Major1]

That doesn't make sense. Why would a gift be described as being "in part" because it fulfills a need?

I never said the gifts of prophecy and knowledge were lacking because they are "in part". Being "in part" is just a general characteristic of those gifts - they only offer a partial revelation of God to man, but when completeness comes it will be replaced with a far better variant - "I will know fully", "I will see face to face" - a complete revelation of God to man. You can't say things along those lines about all the other gifts.

Agreed. "In Part" means ............Temporary.

 

[Major1]

The real problem and danger of the cessassionist is that he must necessarily deny any and all working of the Holy Spirit today. The cessassionist must say in every case, "The Holy Spirit did not do that. That is not the work of the Holy Spirit."

And at some point, he has run into Mark 3:29.

That is not true my friend. Not true in any way!

The Holy Spirit is the one who fills us and uses us to glorify the Father. He is responsible for all the things we see around us today.

The "Cessassionist" simply does not believe that the "Sign Gifts" given by Jesus in Mark 16 to the ELEVEN are valid today.

Those gifts were given to the ELEVEN just as the Scripture say and not you and me.

IF there was such a thing today as an Apostle then IMO he would have those "sign gifts".

But what man today meets the requirements of an Apostle? NONE!

Therefore those gifts do not exist today because there are no apostles.

 

[swordsman1]

I am of the strong opinion that there is not a single academic who has ever peddled this particular viewpoint who actually believes a word of it; there is no possibility that an educated person (or anyone who has gone beyond grade school) could actually believe in such silliness; unless of course such a person is a card-carrying member of the flat earth society.

On the other hand, I can well appreciate that when individuals feel that they need to prop up a given worldview or notion that cannot be substantiated that desperation can push people into the realm of the ridiculous and even supposedly well-educated individuals can sacrifice their integrity if their monthly payroll demands that they uphold a given viewpoint, even if it is cessationism, the promotion of homosexuality, that God is dead, universalism or with a host of other humanist worldviews.

Even Jack Cottrell who you quoted has summed up the dilemma that is faced by the cessationist in that 1 Cor 13:10 is essentially the last battleground for the beleaguered cessationist, though most prudent cessationists realised way back in the 1970’s that it was a battle that had been soundly lost. Of all the sources that you quoted only a few are of any stature, though their presence on the question of 1 Cor 13:10 is not so much as a result of any theological prowess or insight but that the cessationist position simply lacks the academic substance that it so badly craves so their names become bandied about if for nothing else that there are few others to refer to.

Here we go again, straight in with the ad-hominems.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.​

Can you not even manage one reply to me without throwing a diatribe of insults and badmouthing cessationists? I don't know why I bother responding to your posts as you seem unwilling or unable to engage in any calm and reasoned debate.

For those who want to know why the more prudent cessationist academic will avoid the fallacy of trying to connect τὸ τέλειον with the Canon of Scripture then Compton's essay (who I have never heard of) is the reason why.

Why, what is wrong with it? You haven't said. You simply dismiss it without giving a reason. And you have heard from him before because I asked you to refute these same expositions a few weeks ago. You were just as flummoxed then.

Cottrell is obviously aware that there is little use with trying to say that the neuter τὸ τέλειον cannot be connected with the future establishment of the Kingdom of God which is why he has developed a straw man by suggesting that as Christ will lead this new Kingdom that Christ's presence discounts this argument. This is certainly an underhanded approach on the part of Cottrell.

What straw man? I cannot see anywhere where his talks about Christ leading his new Kingdom. He simply warns about people assuming Christ is "the perfect" because Christ is perfect.

Houghton's position (never heard of him) quickly falls down with his comment:

"The answer is that they are revelational in quality. Since this is so, then "the perfect" must also be revelational".
As tongues are not revelational but purely a prayer language that is spoken by the Spirit to the Father then his point collapses completely.

I have seen continuists and cessations alike argue that interpreted tongues are equivalent to prophecy. But that is an irrelevant side issue here. There is no doubt that prophecy and words of knowledge are revelatory and these are the 2 specific gifts that are "in part" and will be replaced when completeness comes. So it doesn't affect the argument in any way - it still follows their replacement will also be revelatory.

As for Woods (again, I have never heard of him) his bias toward his own worldview certainly comes to the forefront with his following strange assessment of Paul's teachings:

"The chapter’s final paragraph seeks to encourage the Corinthians to pursue a permanent fruit of the Spirit— love—rather than the transitory gifts of the Spirit with which they had become preoccupied".
How can anyone pretend that Paul ever taught such a thing or that there is even a hint of this viewpoint within 1 Cor 13.

What a bizarre response. How could anyone say that Paul doesn't encourage the Corinthians to pursue love?

 

[Major1]

Yes, it confirms and unbeliever or uninformed cessationist in their unbelief.

Actually it means that a lost person who was encouraged to attend a church, enters and sees the confusion, leaves the same way he came in......LOST!