Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Biblicist]

What your testimony of having the most commentaries and being the most prolific responder on 1 Corinthians says to me is that it proves all the books in the world can not make one wise if he misses the foundational work needed.

I am glad for you that you feel the need to tell everyone about your library. Personally I do not think that is a wise thing to do and the 2nd reason I do not do that is because my arm is not long enough to pat my own back.

Why should I not let others know that I decided long ago to invest in the better commentaries on First Corinthians and that I make the effort to search for the older commentaries and scan them; should I allow ignorance to be a badge of honour! Hopefully, by the end of next year I will have established a comprehensive website that will be based on this material, which will mean the end of my presence on this forum.

As for my rather substantial library, which consists of over 800 commentaries and many of them having been recently published, if nothing else, it should let the cessationists realise that if they wish to make unsubstantiated comments that I should be able to pick them up on this.

As an example, I would not expect to see any of the cessationists who have posted on this particular thread ever trying to say that the historical understanding that teleion is that it relates to the Canon of Scripture. Having said this, I am aware that I need to check somewhere between a dozen to maybe 20 commentaries on First Corinthians that were written from the late 1800's to the first few decades of the 20th century, which is a task that I hope to complete over the next few weeks. Once the material has been sourced I will assemble it within a PDF file and post it onto the forum.

Guess what, once this task is completed I will then be able to say that I have quite a few more commentaries on 1 Cor 1, 12, 13 &14!!

Nonetheless, to me personally and you are welcome to disagree with me, but by simple observation anyone can confirm that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school.

As our ability to speak in tongues was never intended to speak to man but to God then I suspect that even some of the Twelve had to spend some time learning to speak Greek and/or Latin.

Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2 and we would not be having this lovely conversation.

Again, as I have stated on numerous occasions within this thread, the 120 never spoke to the crowd but they spoke words of praise that were being directed to the Father; nothing within Luke's account of the Day of Pentecost should lead anyone to think that the 120 were speaking an evangelistic message to the crowd - that is simply an old wives tale.

As for the miracle gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles in Luke 9:1-2. And, again by simple observation we can see that as the era of the apostles drew to a close, healing, like tongues, became less frequent.

The Apostle Paul, who raised Eutychus from the dead in Acts 20:9-12, did not heal Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25-27, Trophimus in 2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:23, or even himself in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9.

The question then must be WHY????

The problem here is that you are not differentiating between the Signs & Wonders that both the Twelve and Seventy performed with those of the Manifestations of the Spirit, the two are not one and the same. With Signs & Wonders the Father is the Agent but the Holy Spirit is the Agent of the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit.

Signs & Wonders certainly have a specific purpose and even though they can be encountered today they are usually encountered within Greenfield regions, though the Father can certainly intervene if He so chooses within the local congregational level, which is contrary to the teachings of Wimber with his previous Signs & Wonders conferences.

Again, IMO and not from a bunch of commentaries, since there are no Apostles today, all of the sign gifts have been replaced with the Completed Word of God.

As I have often stated, after the death of John there have certainly been no Apostles-of-Christ though the Office of the congregational apostle has certainly continued on down through the ages, though we tend to refer to them as Church planters.

 

[Biblicist]

If Mark 16 was only to the apostles, that would follow that all those who spoke in tongues in the 1st century were apostles.

This is a very strange statement as Paul's letter alone to Corinth and to the region of Achaia (leaving aside Acts) is that they probably all spoke in tongues. This is one of those times where I have to ask, do you really believe what you posted or did you not think it through before you did?

 

[Biblicist]

Robert L. Thomas, Understanding the Spiritual Gifts, pg. 130 - "... a completion of the revelatory gifts coincided1 with the completion of the New Testament".

Poor Thomas, who in this day and age with all our current knowledge on the writings of the first few centuries would dare suggest that the Manifestations of the Spirit ceased with the completion of the Canon; no wonder Thomas is seen as being a bit of a relic who belongs to a bygone era.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Your false accusations don't change my mind, as I continue to hold the challenge out to you or anyone who would agree. Not only am I not mocking, I am actually trying to edify the body of Christ. I think that you are accusing me to justify your own behavior.
TD

Test your motives or God will.

 

[1stcenturylady]

This is a very strange statement as Paul's letter alone to Corinth and to the region of Achaia (leaving aside Acts) is that they probably all spoke in tongues. This is one of those times where I have to ask, do you really believe what you posted or did you not think it through before you did?

That's not what I believe. That was a question of a cessationist's reasoning in response to their post that said Mark 16 was only written to and about the apostles. So that would follow that if someone else spoke in tongues, they must be apostles too if it was true that only apostles spoke in tongues. That's malarkey.

 

[Biblicist]

That's not what I believe. That was a question of a cessationist's reasoning in response to their post that said Mark 16 was only written to and about the apostles. So that would follow that if someone else spoke in tongues, they must be apostles too if it was true that only apostles spoke in tongues. That's malarkey.

Oops . . . I attributed the material to the wrong person, I don't know how I inserted your name, sorry!

 

[HowRU?]

There are two forms of tongues demonstrated in the Bible...in Acts 2 Peter and the others come out speaking God's message and the HEARERS HEAR each in their own language...(this says nothing of the apostles speaking in these other languages, that is an unfounded assumption...eisegesis not exegesis)...the people of Cornelius household apparently demonstrated "the self same gift" (gifts being given severally as HE WILLS)

The second is neither God speaking to man nor through man, it is man speaking to God in a language Paul says that "no man understands"...how many men or type of men are NONE (God also distributing this gift severally as He wills). It is not a human language.

Neither of these are to be confused with what we hear today (and sadly in some churches is taught), but that does not mean such gifts have in any way ceased. What we have not seen in years (though I have heard a few testimonies) is someone standing up in church and speaking in a language they do not know and cannot speak, that someone else then interprets (knowing that language).

Good points here @pshun2404; in my opinion there are three forms of tongues indicated in scripture, but you've done some good work here.
I haven't seen the OP's rebuff of this. (I may have missed it, however. It is hard to rifle through 47 pages of a thread).

 

[DamianWarS]

it is doubtful that Paul is referring specifically to spiritual gifts here. The word 'spiritual' does not appear in the Greek. Charisma simply means gift of grace. So that would include the gift of salvation, the gift of the Spirit, the gift of divine inheritance, as well as spiritual gifts. Most commentators agree that Paul is not referring exclusively to spiritual gifts.

Why do you think charismatics use the term "charismatic"? 1 Cor 12, which is the opening context of 12-14, uses charisma to identify these gifts dominantly translated as "spiritual gifts" even though neither the word "spiritual" or "gift" is in the greek. This word is in fact what links the two together rather than separate them as you suggest. I can't speak for all your examples but "the gift of the Spirit" is not charisma it is "dorea" which means simply "gift" in a more proper sense. Basically any time you see "gift" in Acts it's talking about dorea not charisma. And so "the gift of the spirit" is not the same as "gifts of the spirit" It would serve you well to study the greek and its biblical use first before you comment on these things.

What does charisma mean and can it mean spiritual gifts? it is rooted in the word "charis" which is commonly translated as grace. It can be thought of as "grace given gifts" but never translated that way. the well known verse Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" uses the word charisma (translated as "gift" or "free gift") so this word goes beyond just spiritual gifts and somehow extends to salvation itself.

To use the historical-grammatical method as you suggested early (only this time properly) the roman world had a patron/client system that would have been well known by the corinthians and would invoke this meaning simply by using the word "charisma" a patron was someone typically in a higher social standing and able to do things for a client that they could not do themselves. The client would seek a patron and what the patron would give them was their "charisma" in return the client would give them their service or their loyalty.

With that in mind spiritual gifts and salvation are both things we cannot obtain for ourselves and they need to be given to us by "the great patron". It not only fits spiritual gifts but is the word use for spiritual gifts in context and there is no reason to dispute that charisma is spiritual gifts, by the greek, by translations or by the context... all agree with charisma as spiritual gifts in it's use in 1:7 and 12-14.

 

[HowRU?]

My amazingly gifted Ecuadorian Charismatic / Pentecostal wife speaks in tongues......
the first time that she did it she was told by somebody in the church from India.....
that she had been praising God in one of the dialects of India.......

So.... there does seem to be an exception to virtually every general rule.....

The Patriarch Joseph / Yosef is said to have been given 70 languages in the one night before he went before Pharaoh King of Egypt........

There were either seventy or seventy two steps leading up to the Throne of Pharaoh......
statements in each of the seventy or seventy two languages had to be made on each step.....
(Joseph already knew both Hebrew as well as Egyptian by the time the angel of the L-rd was sent to him to teach him other languages).........

Moses is rumoured to have praised G-d and prophesied as an infant...

Fantastic point here, @DennisTate, I heard several other accounts of this very same thing happening. One was of someone praising God in an ancient language no longer in use; the other delivering news of the safety of a missionary to her parents in the native dialect known only to the parents by the tongues spoken by their pastor! (He only knew that he was to speak in tongues and wait for the interpretation)
In my own times praying in the spirit, my tongues shift through many different sounding languages, I've heard Hebrew words, definite Asian sounding dialects, other Middle Eastern sounding dialects, some very primitive and unfamiliar, etc.
The OP has seemed so adamant in resisting the idea of Spiritual gifts operating in the church today. It causes me some concern for him and his family. The Bible warns about being careful not to quench the Spirit. After all, "We know in part..."

 

[DamianWarS]

Good points here @pshun2404; in my opinion there are three forms of tongues indicated in scripture, but you've done some good work here.
I haven't seen the OP's rebuff of this. (I may have missed it, however. It is hard to rifle through 47 pages of a thread).

Acts speaks of the "dorea" of the HS and 1 Corinthians 12-14 speaks of the "charisma" of the HS; both are translations as "gifts" and may confuse the two as talking about the same thing. Dorea is gift in the proper sense and charisma is a word rooted in "charis" which means grace. Charisma somehow is connected with grace itself and is not "gift" but more like grace given gifts; the charisma of the HS.

What we see in Acts is an account of how the HS manifested himself upon the baptism of the HS through the "dorea" of the HS in believers. What we see in 1 Corinthians is the teaching of the "charisma" of the Holy Spirit and how it should operate. They do not follow the same rules and can biblically be seen as having different focuses.

The biggest difference is the teaching in 1 Corinthians clearly states not all do have the gift of tongues and Paul also clearly states that if you demonstrate the gift of tongues it should be interpreted so that all may be edified. This is the focus of the charisma of the HS, which is the edify the body of believers. However in Acts what we see happening violates these rules as we see these manifestations of the spirit indiscriminately given to all rather than each something different. We also see examples where "tongues" don't seem to be interpreted so it appears to have a different set or rules. Where these examples in Acts certainly edify they do not seem to by specific in building a body of believers as 1 Corinthians is but rather at aimed at a confirmation of the "dorea" of the HS and also a unique evangelistic role to them.

 

[Biblicist]

You have said and I quote..........................
"As I am undoubtedly the most read and resourced person on this forum when it comes to First Corinthians, in that I currently own about 80 commentaries on First Corinthians and upwards of 60 commentaries on Pneumatology, as much as you should be aware of this............".

If I were to wait a few more weeks then I will have even more commentaries and resources than I have now!

I would in the light of that post an observation to you that maybe you could consider and help me with.

Based on the context of the chapters going back to chapter 12---- rather than the Greek word for perfect "teleion", Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 12:1 he is talking about spiritual gifts and not anything eschatological and obviously he continues that line of reasoning all the way through chapter 14.

Over recent decades and even centuries, the vast majority of commentators would probably agree with you in that Paul is referring to “spiritual gifts” throughout 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14. But on the other hand, the more recent commenters (20th century) will also acknowledge that Paul’s use of “Now, about the pneumatikon . . .” δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν in 1 Cor 12:1 does not specifically relate to what are often referred to as the “spiritual gifts”.

The options are;

1. Spiritual gifts
2. Spiritual ones (persons)
3. Spiritual matters
4. Spirituals​

My own preference is for either spirituals or spiritual matters (I am still undecided) as the things that Paul speaks about in chapter 12 are not all Manifestations of the Spirit. In fact, I should point out that I do not use the term “spiritual gifts” and if I am forced to use this when responding to others, I will always include the term within quotation marks or even within brackets as (aka, spiritual gifts).

Now the list found in 1 Cor 12:7-11 are certainly activities of the Holy Spirit;

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Faith
4. Healings
5. Powers (aka miracles)
6. Prophecy
7. Discernment of spirits
8. Tongues
9. Interpretation of tongues​

But in 1 Cor 12:28 we have the 8 Congregational Offices, where four are Spirit driven (in Bold) and four are best deemed to be natural talents etc;

1. Apostle
2. Prophet
3. Teacher
4. Workings of Powers (aka, miracles)
5. Healings
6. Helps
7. Administrations
8. Tongues​

Now I am not speaking for you or anyone else but IMO that is context of those Scriptures as I read them. Just something to think about..........and I maybe wrong here but when I read chapters 12 through 14 again I found the name of Jesus only two times and no mention whatsoever of the 2nd Coming or the New heaven and New Earth or heaven.

Even though Jesus is hardly referred to within 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 and that the Holy Spirit does not even get a mention in chapter 13, this really accounts for very little.

Many commentators will charge the Corinthians with holding to an over-realised eschatology which is something that I will not address, but Paul certainly places a strong eschatological element throughout First Corinthians which he addresses within the first few introductory verses:

(1Co 1:4-9 NIV) 4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way-- with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge--​

6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.​

So from the fourth verse of his letter Paul has established the “now but not yet” of our Salvation, where we have the Holy Spirit as a down payment of our future resurrection but it is interesting that in chapter 13 he emphasises our future state where we will encounter the very face of the Father.

(1Co 15:51-57 NIV) 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Paul has again spoken of our future state.

However, the words GIFTS is mentioned or suggested 32 times. Now that leads me to believe that the Context in view is GIFTS.

As @DamianWarS has recently pointed out in a few recent posts, the words for our English ‘spiritual gifts’ are covered by a number of Greek words and frequently the various translations will use the word gift or the term spiritual gift when there is absolutely no warrant to do so from the Greek. Even though Paul certainly addresses the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts), he also addresses the 8 Congregational Offices where as I said previously four are not Spirit driven but are based more on human talents and inclinations.

I have used the following (partial) chart before in this thread and even though it is not complete it shows how the NIV uses various Greek words for gift:

What then do I believe is Paul's point? Is it not clear that Paul has been telling us of things that will fail in contrast to love that will never fail. He particularly points out knowledge and prophecies and tongues and states that they are in parts but when "that" which is complete comes then the part will be done away.

Now please take notice here and feel free to correct me. Since YOU and others do not accept Cessation of GIFTS and believe that the Coming of Jesus is the context, and some heaven itself.............
then why doesn't Paul say when He comes, or heaven itself comes which is perfect comes but rather when "that" which is perfect comes.

The question better be rephrased as to why Paul has said a lot of things in a certain way!

As an attempt to give my thoughts on this question, which most of us have probably asked at times, I suspect that as Paul was a Master Theologian that his technical writing style then forces us to read his teachings through the entirety of his writings. To understand Paul might require that we understand his broader teachings as well - at least this is how I view things.

Again, the CONTEXT of chapters 12-14 is NOT Jesus, His coming or heaven.

Other than the Eschatological passages within chapter 13, Paul covers a number of themes throughout chapters 12, 13 & 14, let alone with the other chapters within First Corinthians.

Paul tells us what is partial in chapter 12 verses 7-10, it is the revelation of God given through the Holy Spirit. It seems clear to me that when the perfect/complete/finished revelation came in the form of the written Scriptures there will be no need for knowledge or prophesy or tongues anymore since all of God's will has been revealed.

As I have said on many occasions (as have some others), tongues is not used to speak to man but only to God, where the Holy Spirit speaks either words of praise and adoration or he intercedes on our behalf to the Father as we pray in the Holy Spirit. Tongues has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit communicating a message to mankind, that is the role of prophecy which the Holy Spirit always gives through the local language of those present.

 

[Biblicist]

He cites Robert Thomas (what were you saying about cessationist authors never being cited?) but dismisses the canon/maturity view by saying: . . .

Oh yes, Garland did refer to Robert L Thomas. I re-ordered the four that you referred to to make it easier to check through the commentaries that I mentioned but obviously I missed this one. I did check with a few other well known commentaries who ignored all of them but as they were only around 300 pages each I decided not to quote them.

(what were you saying about cessationist authors never being cited?)

Why would I ever say such a silly thing when I regularly quote cessationist commentators?
What I did say was that the four that your quoted I have not seen in the more recent substantial commentaries.

I wonder if the irony of Garland's reference to Thomas was lost on you as Garland did not quote him under "Sources quoted" but under a general listing which often means that "Yes, I know of a certain person but their material is not really worth addressing". I found the same with Houghton and another that you quoted with Fitzmyer's (2008) substantial commentary where their names were only included within a footnote with other commentators.

 

[Biblicist]

The 23 publications I have cited that support the canon/maturity view are all from reputable sources, the authors nearly all being seminary professors. They are published either with reputable Christian book publishers (such as Kregal) or theological journals (such as Bibliotheca Sacra). Both are peer reviewed each having their own rigorous editorial review processes. Theological journals are peer reviewed equally or even more rigorously than book publishers as they are focused more on exegetical quality rather than profit.

When it comes to either published commentary or with articles that almost any individual who has either an earned and recognised Master’s or Doctorate in theology can submit a post to, the material that is found within published works is of a far higher order as a publisher has to first weigh up if a given commentator/author has enough status for them to recoup their publishing expenses.

At this point of time I am perusing through an online Journal source that I have access to with my university staff member account, what I often wonder with some journal entries is as to why they have been accepted for academic use; maybe the editor or editors knows the individual concerned and has decided to give them a bit of a hand with peer recognition, nothing else makes sense. I would find it hard to see an editor allowing many journal entries to be used within their publications.

It seems you don't even understand what peer reviewed means. It is not how often they are cited in other books.

Considering that prior to our interactions that I don’t believe you had ever used (or knew how to use) a Biblical Lexicon or that you may have possibly never used a serious commentary, then you should keep such remarks to a minimum as they only serve to make you seem silly, remember, when it comes to the writings of the Christian Academy you are but barely a novice (if that) and when it comes to the things of the Holy Spirit you are essentially an outsider who is looking in.

Yes I know there are quite a few posts exhibiting the fallacy of ad-hominem, slandering cessationists. But I don't see any refuting the canon/maturity view.

Oh, here we are again, back with your quirky 'ad-hominem' statements; maybe if you had a few substantial arguments then you would be able to do a bit better than this.

 

[Biblicist]

It is confirmed by church history, the church fathers affirming that the gifts of tongues had ceased by around 400AD, coinciding perfectly with the completed canon being distributed among the churches. And ceased they remained until around 100 years ago when Pentecostals claimed that tongues had returned. However their version of the gift does not match the biblical definition.

From what we know of this time period I hardly think that anyone other than the monasteries would have had a copy of the New Testament and of course the average man was undoubtedly unable to obtain a personal copy of the Scriptures up until the 1700-1800's as most could not afford to buy one. Even with those monasteries that had their own copy, we can be assured that the monks placed very little emphasis on the Word of God as against the teachings of their various church leaders.

Then we have the issue of where Rome fought tenaciously to keep the Word of God from being translated into the languages of the various people groups and if any tried to do this they were usually burnt at the stake. This means that for most people a copy or even access to the Word of God was not able to be realised for maybe 1700 years after the death of the last Apostle and about 1300 years after the completion of the Canon.

If anything, the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit were probably needed more during this time period than during the first century of the Church.

 

[Major1]

If I were to wait a few more weeks then I will have even more commentaries and resources than I have now!



Over recent decades and even centuries, the vast majority of commentators would probably agree with you in that Paul is referring to “spiritual gifts” throughout 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14. But on the other hand, the more recent commenters (20th century) will also acknowledge that Paul’s use of “Now, about the pneumatikon . . .” δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν in 1 Cor 12:1 does not specifically relate to what are often referred to as the “spiritual gifts”.

The options are;

1. Spiritual gifts
2. Spiritual ones (persons)
3. Spiritual matters
4. Spirituals​

My own preference is for either spirituals or spiritual matters (I am still undecided) as the things that Paul speaks about in chapter 12 are not all Manifestations of the Spirit. In fact, I should point out that I do not use the term “spiritual gifts” and if I am forced to use this when responding to others, I will always include the term within quotation marks or even within brackets as (aka, spiritual gifts).

Now the list found in 1 Cor 12:7-11 are certainly activities of the Holy Spirit;

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Faith
4. Healings
5. Powers (aka miracles)
6. Prophecy
7. Discernment of spirits
8. Tongues
9. Interpretation of tongues​

But in 1 Cor 12:28 we have the 8 Congregational Offices, where four are Spirit driven (in Bold) and four are best deemed to be natural talents etc;

1. Apostle
2. Prophet
3. Teacher
4. Workings of Powers (aka, miracles)
5. Healings
6. Helps
7. Administrations
8. Tongues​

Even though Jesus is hardly referred to within 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 and that the Holy Spirit does not even get a mention in chapter 13, this really accounts for very little.

Many commentators will charge the Corinthians with holding to an over-realised eschatology which is something that I will not address, but Paul certainly places a strong eschatological element throughout First Corinthians which he addresses within the first few introductory verses:

(1Co 1:4-9 NIV) 4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way-- with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge--​

6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.​

So from the fourth verse of his letter Paul has established the “now but not yet” of our Salvation, where we have the Holy Spirit as a down payment of our future resurrection but it is interesting that in chapter 13 he emphasises our future state where we will encounter the very face of the Father.

(1Co 15:51-57 NIV) 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Paul has again spoken of our future state.


As @DamianWarS has recently pointed out in a few recent posts, the words for our English ‘spiritual gifts’ are covered by a number of Greek words and frequently the various translations will use the word gift or the term spiritual gift when there is absolutely no warrant to do so from the Greek. Even though Paul certainly addresses the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts), he also addresses the 8 Congregational Offices where as I said previously four are not Spirit driven but are based more on human talents and inclinations.

I have used the following (partial) chart before in this thread and even though it is not complete it shows how the NIV uses various Greek words for gift:

View attachment 207069​

The question better be rephrased as to why Paul has said a lot of things in a certain way!

As an attempt to give my thoughts on this question, which most of us have probably asked at times, I suspect that as Paul was a Master Theologian that his technical writing style then forces us to read his teachings through the entirety of his writings. To understand Paul might require that we understand his broader teachings as well - at least this is how I view things.


Other than the Eschatological passages within chapter 13, Paul covers a number of themes throughout chapters 12, 13 & 14, let alone with the other chapters within First Corinthians.


As I have said on many occasions (as have some others), tongues is not used to speak to man but only to God, where the Holy Spirit speaks either words of praise and adoration or he intercedes on our behalf to the Father as we pray in the Holy Spirit. Tongues has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit communicating a message to mankind, that is the role of prophecy which the Holy Spirit always gives through the local language of those present.

Good stuff but it actually did not answer my question. It does show that you have a lot of commentaries available but not one that answers that you are willing to accept.

Again, in 3 chapter the name Jesus is used by Paul 2 times and the return of Jesus ZERO times as the context of those chapters.

That being the case, why didn't Paul say HE instead to that which is "perfect"?

I do respect your efforts though.

 

[Biblicist]

Good stuff but it actually did not answer my question. It does show that you have a lot of commentaries available but not one that answers that you are willing to accept.

It is probably that I have failed to understand the strength of your question or from my perspective, its relevance.

Again, in 3 chapter the name Jesus is used by Paul 2 times and the return of Jesus ZERO times as the context of those chapters.

That being the case, why didn't Paul say HE instead to that which is "perfect"?

Don't forget, there have been at least four occasions where I have pointed out that Paul was specifically referring to the Eschaton and not to Jesus, though Paul did refer to Jesus in chapter 1.

D.A. Carson put it rather well back in 1987 with his book Showing the Spirit p.66;

"The objection is without merit, for 'perfection' is not the parousia itself, but the state of affairs brought about by the arrival of the parousia".​

As to the limited references to Jesus in 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 when we consider that the role of the Holy Spirit is being emphasised within both the life of the local Church and the Believer then we should not be surprised that Jesus is hardly referred to.

Hopefully this will address your question.

 

[Major1]

This is an example of where the cessationist is either confused or that their commentators have intentionally inserted some misdirection into this passage with the intent to change Paul’s intended message to one that suits their own agenda; and this is why I refer to cessationism not as a theological construct but as a worldview.

Even though I disagree with D.A. Carson’s following view in his book Showing the Spirit (1987) regarding the nature of knowledge, where he also views knowledge in this situation as being a charisma and not general knowledge (pg.64), he does at least recognise that the Manifestation of knowledge, will, along with the other Manifestations of the Spirit disappear when “the state of affairs brought about by the arrival of the parousia” is in place.

[Carson] When ‘perfection’ comes, the ‘imperfect’ disappears: what is the connection between these two categories?

Some of the details are clear. What passes away, of course, is not knowledge per se, but the charismatic gift of knowledge (for knowledge itself will never pass away; and if it did, no one would know it); not the content of prophecy, but the individual prophesyings; and by extrapolation, Paul doubtless has in mind the entire charismatic panoply”.​

Even though there is a possibility that Paul was referring to the Manifestation of knowledge, as he also includes tongues which is never used to speak to man but to God then I would be more inclined to view Paul’s use of gnosis as being our knowledge of God and spiritual things while we are currently on earth.

You said................
"Even though there is a possibility that Paul was referring to the Manifestation of knowledge, as he also includes tongues which is never used to speak to man but to God then I would be more inclined to view Paul’s use of gnosis as being our knowledge of God and spiritual things while we are currently on earth.

A possibility????????????

1 Cor. 13:8-10 says that there is much more than a possibility..............
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when THE PERFECT comes, what is in part disappears."

With all due respect to your host of commentaries, the question is NOT a possibility but rather it is a DONE DEAL. Those things, gifts are over and the only question is "What is the PERFECT or COMPLETNESS that Paul is talking about?

THAT is the question.

Personally, and with all due respect to you, I do not need the commentaries of others to understand the Scriptures and come to my own conclusions which I have done over the years. There are 3 schools of thought produced by hundreds of commentators and scholars and alomist all of them fall into one of these 3 theologies.......

1).
The interpretation of the adjective "perfect" which is in the Greek the word, teleion as a reference to something ideal, flawless, or unblemished that is typically associated with something yet to transpire in the eschaton. This position understands the various temporal indicators in 13:8–13 to refer to the “now” on earth and the “then” in the eschatological presence of the Lord.

However, in the contextual format of chapter 12-14, there is NO MENTION of the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore unacceptable to interject that thought as the focus of who the Perct is in chapter 13 as there is no grammatical context for that theology.

2).
The second position understands teleion as referring to the maturity of the church.

The problem with that view is that the church even today is not complete. It grows every single day as more and more people come to Christ as Saviour.

3).
The third position understands teleion as referring to something that completed what had already existed in part. This position typically holds that the finished New Testament canon completed the partial revelatory gifts spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 and understands the various temporal indicators in vv. 8–13 to refer to the “now” of the apostolic (precanonical) era and the “then” of the post-apostolic (postcanonical) era.

Now then, when we get down to where the rubber meats the road, anyone's acceptance of any of those is dependent upon what they already want to believe.

By that I mean that if a person is someone who wants to speak in tongues and wants to believe that there is a "Word of Knowledge" available today they will reject #3 outright because it does not meet "WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE".

We are creatures of our nature. If we have been taught something our whole lives and even if it is wrong, we will stick with that understanding because it is what we are comfortable with and we do not want to learn something new.

 

[Major1]

It is probably that I have failed to understand the strength of your question or from my perspective, its relevance.


Don't forget, there have been at least four occasions where I have pointed out that Paul was specifically referring to the Eschaton and not to Jesus, though Paul did refer to Jesus in chapter 1.

D.A. Carson put it rather well back in 1987 with his book Showing the Spirit p.66;

"The objection is without merit, for 'perfection' is not the parousia itself, but the state of affairs brought about by the arrival of the parousia".​

As to the limited references to Jesus in 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 when we consider that the role of the Holy Spirit is being emphasised within both the life of the local Church and the Believer then we should not be surprised that Jesus is hardly referred to.

Hopefully this will address your question.

I appreciate your answer. May I also remind you that there are NO references to the coming of Christ in those 3 chapters.

If the Perfect is Christ, or the church or the 2 Coming of Christ, do you not think that Paul would have presented some contextual truths that pointed to those things?

Also, do you have an answer as to why Paul used the word "THAT" instead of "HE".

"When "THAT which is perfect is come...............".

Does that not indicate to YOU a THING and not a person or an event which corresponds to the Greek nueter of the word Teleion?............"Something completed/mature."

Again, with all respect to you as a learned man of the Scriptures, I am ask YOU your opinion and not a response from a commentary from someone else who is not available to join our conversation.

 

[Major1]

in context the grammar shows the word is an abstract concept not dependant upon a head noun. The grammar may point to a "thing" or "event" but it does not demand it and that logic needs to be abandoned for it to be responsibly interpreted.

Just consider for a moment that with the other explanations being Jesus Himself, the maturity of the church or the 2nd Coming of Christ and even the New Heaven and New Earth, does it not seem logical and acceptable that compared to those other options available, the "completeness of the Canon of Scriptures" presents at least an equal acceptance and or consideration from a man such as yourself with so much Bible understanding?

You are admitting that the grammar of the Greek makes the "Perfect" available to be a THING.
Would that not make is worth consideration as possible in your mind?

 

[Biblicist]

Again, with all respect to you as a learned man of the Scriptures, I am ask YOU your opinion and not a response from a commentary from someone else who is not available to join our conversation.

Yes, true indeed and it comes under the heading of reception history which addresses how we each receive our core values from whatever community or communities we reside within.

Here’s where I have sort of an advantage in that my first year or two was not only within a cessationist congregation but within a cessationist world. This was prior to satellite communications and the Internet (and to think there was actually such a time) where my surroundings were not so much proactive in their cessationism but as we sort of existed in a bit of a vacuum when it comes to what was happening in the world with the massive Charismatic Renewal then for a time I was left to my own devices.

When it came to Acts 2 and First Corinthians in particular, I was like many others in that most of us probably never heard a sermon on the things of the Spirit so we tended to meander along with life quietly wondering what it was all about. It was only when I started my first job that I was able to access the limited Christian bookstores in my city where I started to come across books about these Charismatics. When I was eventually invited to a F.G.B.M.F.I meeting one Saturday morning I guess that I was primed to go and four hours after I was prayed over to receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues I then began to pray in the Spirit on my own and things grew from there on.

So my own experiences began within a sort of vacuum and it was only when I began to pray in tongues that the knives came out by the members of my local congregation. This means that my decision to embrace the fullness of the Spirit was not imposed upon me by peer pressure but as a result of an honest appraisal of what the Word of God had to say on these matters.

The advantage of having an early interest with the better commentaries on First Corinthians, is that it has allowed me to consider a wealth of opinions on each relevant passage of Scripture. It has probably been in the last five years that I have obtained the wealth of my resources and through an increased study on this material I have actually made some major changes to my theology, where I no longer hold to the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence where I now understand that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is soteriological along with a few other once cherished views.

One of the great joys that I hope that I have been able to convey to the other Pentecostals and Charismatics on this forum is that Continuism had seized the High Ground of Theology by the mid to late 1980's, which is well reflected in the wealth of contemporary commentaries and journals; so for the Continuist a strong appreciation of these commentaries and journal articles simply becomes a joy to delve into.

As to the meaning of teleion, considering that this question has been discussed ad-nausea then I will leave it alone for now.