Even though it was not my intent to say that 1 Cor 1:7 specifically says that the “gifts” will continue until the revelation of Christ, you have at least acknowledged by your post that you fully realise that Paul is pointing to the time of the Lord’s return, which was the purpose of my earlier post.
There is no arguing that Paul mentions the Lord's return in 1 Cor 1:7, as he does throughout his epistles. But he does not say that all spiritual gifts would continue until then.
The point of my post, which you may or may not have missed, is that when the Christians throughout Achaia heard Paul’s letter for the first time that they would have connected 1 Cor 13:8 back with 1 Cor 1:7; though the perfect of 1 Cor 13:8 needs no further clarification beyond the plain meaning of the text.
There is absolutely no reason to presume the 2 passages would be seen to be connected. If 1:7 had the word
teleios in its description of the Lord's return, you would have a point, but it doesn't. Nowhere in scripture is
teleios associated with the Lord's return. 1 Cor 13:8-12 speaks of the revelatory gifts being partial and being replaced by
teleios. The Corinthians would thus have recognized that teleios in this context to mean completeness and not perfect, and so would not have linked it to the Lord's return which is never mentioned in 1 Cor 13.
Your focus toward the use by various translations of a comma or a semi-colon after any gift was strange as the translators would have only employed either a comma or a semi-colon as a breathing mark, so who cares if there is a comma there or not!
The comma in most major translations indicates they recognize that the Corinthians "not lacking in any gift" is a separate attribute and not dependent on them "waiting for the Lords return" as you suppose.
For what it’s worth, the major English translations such as the NIV, , Holman, NRSV, NAB, NJB, the NET Bible and the NLT (a translation??) do not include either a comma or a semi-colon so I would expect that most Western English speakers would not encounter a comma, but of course you would have already realised this. But as I said, it all counts for nought.
The only
major version that does not include a comma or semicolon to separate the 2 clauses is the NIV which is of course the one you quoted. Amusingly you were thus also forced to quote the NIV rendering of 1 Cor 13:10 "but when completeness comes".
So ‘everything’ does not mean ‘everything’ or something along that line which means that I will have to succumb to the irresistible temptation to have a bit of a light-hearted dig at you by asking, does up mean up or down and is hot supposed to mean hot or cold?
everything? What are you referring to?
Most importantly, as Paul has connected the Greek charisma of 1Cor 1:7 with the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit then they are of course included within his broad application of the word, as per the following graphic that I have constructed:
Hold your horses. Where do you get the idea that charismata here must mean a 1 Cor 12 gift of the Spirit. Perhaps you are getting confused by the fact that the NIV has added the word 'spiritual' in it's rendering of the verse. The word 'spiritual' does not in fact appear in the original Greek and the NIV has no warrant for inserting it. As I previously quoted, the BDAG lexicon recognizes that charismata here should not be translated as spiritual gifts, and as your beloved Thiselton point out:
The First Epistle to the Corinthians By Anthony C. Thiselton
[Commenting on 1 Cor 1:7...]
The specific "gifts" in 1 Corinthians 12-14 are often called either spiritual gifts or charismatic gifts. But it goes against the grain of Paul's emphasis in the thanksgiving, as Chrysostom, Luther, and Barth in particular urge, to focus attention on the "religious experience" of 1 Corinthians 12-14 rather than on the generosity of God's sovereign gift of himself in a variety of ways as sheer, unmerited favor. Although "One cannot say whether it was Paul himself who brought χαρίσματα into use as a term for πνευματικῶν," there can be no question about the difference of emphasis here between Paul and some of the "gifted spiritual people" at Corinth.' Indeed, the everyday use of "gifted" in modern English helps to make the point. "Gifted" people may be tempted to think of themselves as a cut above others. But, Paul responds, how can this be valid if "gifted" means receiving a gift (4:7)? Bittlinger therefore comments with justice "The term charismata denotes the source of gifts, i.e., divine charis (grace) becoming concrete." It seems that the Corinthian church preferred to speak of spiritual gifts, or even "spiritual people" (12:1).
Gift, for Paul, draws attention to the free, generous, giving of the Giver instantiated in the noun Xópic, grace, and the verb xopiopia, freely give. In 1 Cor. 7:7 such a gift (χάρισμα) takes the form of contentment in vocation to the celibate life, or, as Luther defines it, the gift of chastity.' There is no suggestion in these contexts that such "gifts" need to be "spontaneous." (On this, see our exegesis of 12:8-10 and parallels.)
From the commentaries that I own on First Corinthians it would seem that they tend to agree that whatever Paul meant with his Eschatological use of charisma in 1Cor 1:7 in that these things would only conclude with the future establishment of the Lord's Kingdom. The works that I have by Morris, Barnett, Soards, Garland, Johnson and others say much the same thing so over the next few days I will have to scan their comments and compile them into a very useful PDF and post it onto the forum.
I would surprised if any of those commentaries say 1:7 implies that all spiritual gifts would continue until the Lord's return. I know for a fact Morris doesn't.
With regard to 1Cor 1:7 speaking of how the
Manifestations of the Holy Spirit will continue on until the Lord's return, Wayne Grudem in his book
Prophecy (1988) p.233 states;
(c) A third reason why this passage refers to the time of the Lord's return can be found in a more general statement from Paul about the purpose of spiritual gifts in the New Testament age. In 1 Corinthians 1:7 Paul ties the possession of spiritual gifts (Greek charismata) to the activity of waiting for the Lord's return: 'You are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you await the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
This suggests that Paul saw the gifts as a temporary provision made to equip believers for ministry until the Lord returned. So this verse provides a close parallel to the thought of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, where prophecy and knowledge (and no doubt tongues) are seen, similarly, as necessary until Christ's return but unnecessary beyond that time.
1 Corinthians 13:10, therefore, refers to the time of Christ's return and says that prophecy will last among believers until that time. This means that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expected the gift of prophecy to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns'.
With regard to the continuist Wayne Grudem, it is not surprising to see him make this claim about 1:7, as the whole of his book is an attempt to show that prophecy continues today (or rather a new definition of prophecy). Therefore he has to clutch at every straw he can to try and show that 1 Cor 13:8-13 is referring to the Parousia.
He makes a number of errors here:
- Paul does not say the gifts continue "until the Lord returned" in 1:7 as he makes out. The word "until" is not present. He is adding his own preconceived idea to scripture. The most it says is that the Corinthians were not lacking in any gift AND IN ADDITION they were also waiting for the Lord's return. There is no dependent link between the two.
- He unwarrantedly assumes that because Paul said this to the Corinthians, it must automatically apply to all believers.
- He incorrectly assumes that charismata is exclusively referring to spiritual gifts.
Of course there are many other errors in his book. For instance he makes the claim the
"the foundation of the apostles and the prophets" in Eph 2:20 was referring to one and the same people, which has been widely refuted by other commentators; as does his claim that Agabus made mistakes in his prophecies where he verges on blasphemously calling the Holy Spirit a liar.
This quote of Grudem's (1988) was read by millions soon after it was published and this and other quotes by Grudem, Fee and Carson of essentially the same year had a great impact on the Evangelical (non-Charismatic) world, where Grudem's material alone was probably enough to remove the old cessationist worldview from the pinnacle it once held.
The continuist D A Carson doesn't see this verse as implying all spiritual gifts would last until the Lord's return. His only mention of this verse in his book Showing The Spirit is:
"In the first chapter, Paul assures the Corinthians that they do not lack any “spiritual gift" as they wait for the Lord’s return (although one wonders if the reference to the Lord’s return is a not-too-subtle reminder that even such spiritual wealth is nothing compared with the glory that is to come[1:7])."
Similarly the pentecostal Gordon Fee does not claim that 1:7 supports the continuation of all spiritual gifts. The most he is prepared to say about the reference to the Lord's return is that it was a reminder of the Corinthians' "overrealized eschatological understanding of their existence":
The First Epistle to the Corinthians - Gordon D. Fee
7. This clause functions to bring closure to the point that has been made thus far, namely, Paul's gratitude for their Spirit giftings, which serve as God's confirmation both of the gospel itself and Paul's preaching of it in Corinth. But by adding the eschatological note at the end, Paul also now attempts to set their present giftedness in the proper eschatological perspective of "already/ not yet."”
The clause itself is a result clause" that modifies the confirming word that has just preceded (v. 6),' so that the clauses of that passage and this one together recapitulate by way of historical reminder what was said in the immediately preceding clauses (vv. 4-5). Thus, "I thank God for the 'grace' bestowed on you (v. 4), in that God'enriched you with specific gifts of the Spirit (v. 5), just as historically it worked out in your midst by God's confirming our testimony about Christ (v. 6) so that you came short in no Spirit gifting (v. 7).”
It is not certain what precisely is intended by "you do not lack any spiritual gift." The verb "lack" ordinarily takes a genitive for its object and in that case would mean, as the NIV has it, that they potentially have at their disposal all the gifts of God. But here the verb is modified by a prepositional phrase, as in the beginning affirmation (v. 5, "in every way"), and therefore could mean that they do not come short, either in comparison with others or with normal expectations of Christians who have the Spirit, in any of the gifts that they do possess. Although many prefer the latter option (because of the grammar),' it is more likely that the syntax here is influenced by the earlier phrase ("enriched in every way").' Thus the clause merely repeats in a negative way what was already affirmed positively. This also means that the word charisma ("spiritual gift"), which could be seen to refer more broadly to the gracious gift of redemption," is, as in that earlier affirmation, to be understood more specifically to refer to those special endowments of the Holy Spirit' taken up in some detail later in the letter (chaps. 12-14; cf. Rom. 12:6).
But thanksgiving for present gifts is not the final - nor the only - word. For Paul such gifts are ever to be realized in the context of "eagerly awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Indeed, there is perhaps a correlation between the contemporary church's general loss of such "graces" and its general lack of eager expectation of the final consummation. It should be noted here that even though Paul's theological perspective is thoroughly eschatological, a comparison of this thanksgiving with that of his earliest letter (1 Thess. 1:2-5) indicates that an eschatological note is not a necessary element in the Pauline thanksgivings (in fact it occurs in later letters only in Philippians and Colossians).'
Why, then, this additional note about the coming of Christ? It may of course mean nothing more than that such a concern is ever present with the apostle himself, since salvation for Paul was primarily an eschatological reality, begun with Christ's coming and to be consummated by his imminent return. But it is also probable in this instance that that ever present concern is heightened by the Corinthians' own apparently overrealized eschatological understanding of their existence, which for them was related in particular to their experience of the "spiritual gift" of tongues (see on 13:1). Paul's gratitude for their giftedness, therefore, includes a reminder that they still await the final glory, since it seems to be the case that some among them do not have such eager expectation (see on 4:8 and 15:12).
What they eagerly await' is "for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed." where Paul returns again to the threefold "name" used above in the salutation (v. 3, and only once more in this letter - in the opening appeal v. 10). Although Paul ordinarily speaks of Christ's return in terms of his "coming" (parousia), in an earlier letter (2 Thess. 1:7) he has also referred to it as Christ’s "revelation" (apokalypsis). In the present case the choice of nouns is probably less dictated by any nuance of ideas between "coming" and "revelation" than by the general sense of the entire paragraph, which has God as its subject. Thus God will consummate the ages by the final "revelation" of his Son; it is this final christological revelation that the Corinthians are being reminded they yet await.
8. With this clause Paul finally brings to a conclusion this now long sentence (that began in v. 4). He does so by elaborating on the eschatological note struck at the end of the preceding clause (v. 7), now in terms of what it means for the Corinthians themselves. It is noteworthy that the language of this clause resembles that of the prayer found in his earliest letter (1 Thess. 3:13). It is possible, therefore, that the clause is intended to function very much like the prayer-reports in the other thanksgivings - however, with the significant difference that this is a strong affirmation, not simply a wish prayer." Paul is here confident that God will indeed "confirm" them to the end.
Significantly, he makes this affirmation by repeating the verb "to confirm," which appeared in the preceding metaphor (v. 6). Thus, instead of his usual "God will strengthen, or establish, you," Paul says that in the same way that God first "guaranteed" our testimony to Christ while we were with you, God will also' "guarantee" or "confirm" you yourselves "to the end." That this is a purposeful repeating of the preceding legal metaphor (v. 6) is further evidenced by the word "blameless," which carries the sense of their being guiltless (with reference to the law) when appearing before God at the final judgment because Christ's righteousness has been given to them." Finally, the use of the phrase "on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" also points to the final judgment. The OT eschatological expression "the day of the Lord" (see Amos 5:18-20; Joel 2:31) is appropriated by Paul and made christological. It is still "the day of the Lord," but "the Lord" is none other than Jesus Christ (see also 3:13-15; 5:5; cf. 1 Thess. 5:2).
What is remarkable is that Paul should express such confidence about a community whose current behavior is anything but blameless and whom on several occasions he must exhort with the strongest kinds of warning. The secret, of course, lies in the subject of the verb, "he" (= God)." If Paul's confidence lay in the Corinthians themselves, then he is in trouble. But just as in later passages (5:6-8 and 6:9-11), in Paul's theology the indicative (God's prior action of grace) always precedes the imperative (their obedience as response to grace) and is the ground of his confidence.
Not all, however, are agreed that the subject of the pronoun "who" is "God." In fact the most natural antecedent is "our Lord Jesus Christ," which immediately precedes it." Nonetheless, good reasons exist for thinking that Paul intended "God" as the subject. First, because God, to whom Paul is giving thanks, is the implied subject of all the passive verbs in the paragraph. Second, and in particular, God is the implied subject of the prior occurrence of the verb "confirm" (v. 6), thus indicating that God is also the one who will confirm the Corinthians themselves at the end. Third, in the final exclamation, God again is acknowledged as faithful in bringing all of this to pass.
Thus even though Paul is concerned to remind the church that they have not yet arrived, at the same time he holds out before them his great confidence that by God's own action they will indeed make it in the end. Consequently, by means of thanksgiving Paul redirects their confidence from themselves and their own giftedness toward God, from whom and to whom are all things.