the completion of the canon is not a biblical theme and scripture itself cannot support this interpretation where an eschatological interpretation not only is the historical interpretation but has wide bible support such as in the opening and closing of 1 Corinthians. It is the only responsible biblical interpretation.
Non sequitur. That fact the completion of the canon is not a common theme in scripture does not exclude it from being the correct interpretation of 1 Cor 13.
The eschatological view is not the only historic interpretation of that passage.
It is not a responsible interpretation when there are a number of flaws with the theory (which you have not addressed).
the context is of alll the spiritual gifts and the 3 are used representative for all the gifts. this is completely consistent with the way Paul previously handles the immediate context of spiritual gifts with the images of the body and showing how love is above all, not to mention the poetic style he uses that also is suggestive of this.
The two gifts that disappear when completeness comes are the 2 revelatory gifts, prophecy and words of knowledge. It is highly unlikely these would be representative of all the gifts. If Paul was choosing example gifts to represent all the gifts he would have chosen a larger number of diverse gifts, not two very similar gifts. Just like he did a few verses earlier (v1-3) where he chose 5 diverse gifts to represent all of them. In fact if they were representative he would most likely have kept the same ones he used earlier.
Paul is very specific that only the 2 revelatory gifts will be done away as they are "in part". If those 2 gifts are representative of all the other gifts then all the other gifts must also be "in part". Now I can see why prophecies would be "in part" because each prophecy provides only a piece of God's revelation to man; but none of the others makes sense. Miracles are "in part"? Evangelism is "in part"? Exhortation is "in part"? Discernment is in part? Pastors are "in part". Giving is "in part"? Leadership is in part? Mercy is in part? Administration is in part? Helping is in part? None of those make sense.
Now what about the other problems with the eschatalogical view that I have highlighted?
If Paul wants to be clear he has no trouble doing this, but if he is meaning the completion of the canon and only the 3 gifts mention he does not highly cryptically and irresponsibly I might add, this is not consistent with Paul's style.
It is not cryptic at all. The two revelatory gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge are "in part" - they only provided piecemeal revelation. When "completeness" comes they both disappear and are replaced by a much clearer, complete form of revelation - the completed canon. It is less cryptic than the eschatological interpretation, with far less 'problems'.
Apostle is an untranslated word. it means "a messenger" or "sent out one" and it is not an abstract 1st century office of the church. The word actually is common greek and was more often used in a military context like an ambassador. Biblical speaking the word is used in different ways.
Jesus is called "the apostle and high priest" in Heb 3. Jesus himself quotes scripture saying "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has
sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners…"
sent here is the verb form of apostle which would mean in that context Jesus would be an apostle "of the Lord". And all other scripture where Jesus speaks of being sent uses the same verb. Paul is not this kind of apostle.
The 12 disciples are all apostles. The 12 are "sent out" such as verse like "As you sent Me into the world, I have sent them into the world" the word "sent" is the verb for apostle. Acts 1 opens telling us of the chosen apostles and that Judas was replaced by Matthias "to take over this apostolic ministry". Paul is not this kind of apostles.
Paul was an apostle and he uniquely calls himself out as not just any apostle "
sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead" so Paul identifies other apostles and separates himself in this mix as one called by God rather than man.
there were other apostles than just these 12 + Paul, for example, Barnabas was called an apostle in Acts 13. it's a fitting word to use because as Paul and Barnabas were literally "sent" out so can be called apostles simply by taking this task on but it affirms the sending out was by the church and the HS so this apostleship was ordained and made clear from others outside the 12. There are also others, in
Romans 16 Pauls makes reference to a husband and wife and calls them "outstanding among the apostles". Others called apostles are Silvanas and Timothy and possibly more unmentioned. So apostles can be used more broadly in a missional aspect and these examples show us it's broad use. The word "missionary" is not in the bible but it is an anglicized version of the a Latin use of apostle. Missionaries are "sent out" and if they were identified in the bible they would be called apostles.
All Christians are also "sent out" and so all Christians are apostle of Christ, in that we carry the message of Christ and are sent out by Christ to do this, but this is different than the role of Paul as an apostle so being an "apostle" isn't such a cut and dry statement.
By far the most common use of the word 'apostle' in the NT is as a term to refer to the handful of men who were divinely appointed, miracle working, spokesmen of Christ. ie the Twelve + Paul + 2 or 3 others. When combined with the definite article "the apostles", as it does in Eph 2:20 for example, it refers exclusively to them. The Greek word 'apostolos' can also mean 'messenger' but it is only used in that sense in 3 places in the NT (John 13:16, Phil 2:25, 2 Cor 8:23) and our bible translators are wise enough to not use the English word 'apostle' in those places but instead use the word 'messenger' (or similar) to avoid confusion.
BDAG Lexicon
apostelos ἀπόστολος
① of messengers without extraordinary status delegate, envoy, messenger (opp. ὁ πέμψας) J 13:16. Of Epaphroditus, messenger of the Philippians Phil 2:25.—2 Cor 8:23.
② of messengers with extraordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy (cp. Epict. 3, 22, 23 of Cynic wise men: ἄγγελος ἀπὸ τ. Διὸς ἀπέσταλται).
ⓐ of prophets Lk 11:49; Rv 18:20; cp. 2:2; Eph 3:5.
ⓑ of Christ (w. ἀρχιερεύς) Hb 3:1 (cp. ApcEsdr 2:1 p. 25, 29 T.; Just., A I, 12, 9; the extra-Christian firman Sb 7240, 4f οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος. Μααμετ ἀπόστολος θεοῦ). GWetter, ‘D. Sohn Gottes’ 1916, 26ff.
ⓒ but predominately in the NT (of the apologists, only Just.) of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys. Also Judaism had a figure known as apostle (שָׁלִיחַ; Schürer III 124f w. sources and lit.; Billerb. III 1926, 2–4; JTruron, Theology 51, ’48, 166–70; 341–43; GDix, ibid. 249–56; 385f; JBühner, art. ἄ. in EDNT I 142–46). In Christian circles, at first ἀ. denoted one who proclaimed the gospel, and was not strictly limited: Paul freq. calls himself an ἀ.: Ro 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1f; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Ti 1:1; 2:7; 2 Ti 1:1; Tit 1:1.—1 Cl 47:1. Of Barnabas Ac 14:14; 15:2. Of Andronicus and Junia (less prob. Junias, s. Ἰουνία) Ro 16:7. Of James, the Lord’s brother Gal 1:19. Of Peter 1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1. Then esp. of the 12 apostles οἱ δώδεκα ἀ. (cp. ParJer 9:20; AscIs 3:21; 4:3) Mt 10:2; Mk 3:14; Lk 22:14 (v.l. οἱ δώδεκα); cp. 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; Ac 1:26 (P-HMenoud, RHPR 37 ’57, 71–80); Rv 21:14; PtK 3 p. 15, 18. Peter and the apostles Ac 2:37; 5:29. Paul and apostles Pol 9:1 (cp. AcPlTh Aa I, 235 app. of Thecla). Gener. the apostles Mk 6:30; Lk 24:10; 1 Cor 4:9; 9:5; 15:7; 2 Cor 11:13; 1 Th 2:7; Ac 1:2; 2:42f; 4:33, 35, 37; 5:2,12, 18, 34 v.l., 40; 6:6; 8:1, 14, 18; 9:27; 11:1; 14:4; 2 Pt 3:2; Jd 17; IEph 11:2; IMg 7:1; 13:2; ITr 2:2; 3:1; 7:1; IPhld 5:1; ISm 8:1; D ins; 11:3, 6. As a governing board, w. the elders Ac 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4. As possessors of the most important spiritual gift 1 Cor 12:28f.Proclaimers of the gospel 1 Cl 42:1f; B 5:9; Hs 9, 17, 1. Prophesying strife 1 Cl 44:1. Working miracles 2 Cor 12:12. W. overseers, teachers and attendants Hv 3, 5, 1; Hs 9, 15, 4; w. teachers Hs 9, 25, 2; w. teachers, preaching to those who had fallen asleep Hs 9, 16, 5; w. var. Christian officials IMg 6:1; w. prophets Eph 2:20; D 11:3; Pol 6:3. Christ and the apostles as the foundation of the church IMg 13:1; ITr 12; 2; cp. Eph 2:20. οἱ ἀ. and ἡ ἐκκλησία w. the three patriarchs and the prophets IPhld 9:1. The Holy Scriptures named w. the ap. 2 Cl 14:2 (sim. ApcSed 14:10 p. 136, 17 Ja.). Paul ironically refers to his opponents (or the original apostles; s. s.v. ὑπερλίαν) as οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀ. the super-apostles 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11. The orig. apostles he calls οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀ. Gal 1:17; AcPlCor 2:4.
So did the gift of an apostle cease? depends what you mean by this. I can't speak for you but I am called as a messenger (apostle) of Christ to preach the gospel. if this was a gift would it not be the greatest of them all?
So do you call yourself an apostle (of the biblical kind)? Do we still have apostles like Paul, John, Peter, etc today? Or have they ceased?
yet Christians are still sent out
But Christians today are not the foundation of the church as Eph 2:20 says the apostles and prophets were. The only conclusion to draw from that verse is that both apostles and prophets have ceased.
we are sent to those who have yet to accept the Bible, apostolic gifts may be warranted as well so that Christ may establish his authority and by glorified.
Faith comes by hearing the gospel as presented in scripture (Rom 10:17), not by observing miracles. Christ and the apostles in scripture have already been authenticated by their miracles.
where does it state it will stop after we put together the bible? it doesn't. so why jump to this conclusion? The bible can only support an eschatological meaning to this verse in question so why try and force another meaning, especially one only confirmed outside of scripture?
There is a strong allusion to it in the main passage that deals with the cessation of the revelatory gifts. Far more so than the return of Christ. There is not a single verse in scripture that says all the gifts would continue until His return.
An important distinction here is if the gifts are continually offered or if the gifts are continually received. the latter is dependant upon man, the former is dependant upon the HS. I'm not really interested in what man does or does not do, I'm interested in the will of the HS.
Right. The Holy Spirit distributes gifts according to his will (1 Cor 12:11). If certain gifts have been absent from the church since apostolic times what does that tell you about His will for those gifts?
spiritual neglect or drift doesn't need to have biblical evidence (but there're lots if you want some like the letter to the Church in Sardis)
So the God withdrew the gifts because the church neglected them? That means God's 'punishment' for the errant cessationist church was to withdraw the very gifts that would enable them to reform. A vicious circular argument that makes no sense at all.
misuse is not a reason to sweep this under a 1st-century rug, nor is it a reason to continue neglecting what the bible teaches. The Corinthians got it wrong and after Paul tells them off he leaves them with "...do not forbid speaking in tongues"
It is not misuse of todays 'gifts' that I object to. It is their very nature I have a problem with. If the charismatic gifts that are claimed to have been reinstated in the last century are true NT gifts they would match the biblical descriptions. They don't. So what does that tell you about today's so called gifts? They are bogus are they not?