There seem to be only two things that commentators agree on when it comes to 1 Corinthians 13:8–13: (1) The point of the passage is the superiority of love over spiritual gifts, and (2) This passage is one of the most hotly debated in the church today.
It is ironic, in fact, that a passage about love has been such a point of contention. And the interpreter, before he ever gets to these six verses, does well to first read the preceding half of chapter 13. Verse 2 is especially apropos, for even if we had all knowledge (such that we could solve every exegetical riddle including this one), but did not have love, we would be nothing.
I note this, not as an excuse for slip-shod exegesis, but rather as a reminder of Paul’s main point. His primary aim in verses 8–13 is not to tell his readers when the gifts will cease. It is rather to substantiate one important spiritual axiom, that the temporary is inferior to the eternal. In a church that had wrongly prioritized certain gifts, abusing them for selfish purposes, the apostle’s message could not have been more needed. He takes their focus from what will not last (prophecy, tongues, and partial knowledge), and reminds them of what will not fail (namely, love).
In studying this passage, I have been amazed at how much ink has been spilled in an attempt to explain what is essentially a sub-point in Paul’s argument. It’s not that the pages and pages of commentary are not helpful. I think they are. It’s just that I hate to see the grand flow of Paul’s thought lost, like a forest that can no longer be seen because of the trees.
That being said, Paul does make some important statements about spiritual gifts in this passage. It is with some reluctance, then, that we move from the grander theme of love to the specific topic at hand.
Verse 8
“Love never fails; but if prophecy, they will be done away; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be done away.”
In contrast to love, which never fails, at least three of the revelatory gifts will fail at some point. Those three gifts are delineated in verse 8 (prophesy, tongues, and knowledge). They are probably singled out because the Corinthian’s misuse of the gifts primarily centered around these three. Thus Paul is emphasizing his point: Love is greater than any gift, even the most popular gifts, like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge.
It is interesting (and I believe significant) that Paul uses two different words when speaking about the cessation of these gifts.
When speaking of prophecy and knowledge he uses a form of the word katargeo (translated “will be done away”), but regarding tongues he uses a form of the word pauo (translated “cease”). Some commentators have argued that this is simply a stylistic change, in which Paul used a different word to avoid redundancy. But that seems unlikely for at least two reasons:
(1) Paul uses katargeo again in verse 10 and once more in verse 11. By using it four times in vv. 8–11 (twice in verse 8 and twice in verses 10-11), Paul demonstrates that he is not adverse to a redundant use of the same word. In fact, he uses katargeo a total of eight times in this epistle, but uses pauo only once (and it is here, in this verse). Paul’s unique choice of pauo in contrast to his repeated use of katargeo, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is surely more significant than just a desire for stylistic variation.
(2) Paul’s argument will proceed by contrasting that which is partial with that which is complete (in vv. 9 – 11). While it is possible to have partial prophecy and partial knowledge, it is not really possible to have partial languages (no matter how those languages are construed). Thus, while partial prophecy (v. 9) and partial knowledge (v. 9) will “be done away,” tongues simply “cease” (or stop). The timing of that cessation (of tongues) is not explicitly delineated in the passage.
It is interesting to note as well that pauo is in the middle voice, perhaps giving it something of a reflexive force. Based on this, some commentators have contended that tongues cease of themselves. Other commentators disagree, arguing that the middle voice has no exegetical significance here beyond stylistic choice. In any case, I do not believe Paul’s change from katargeo to pauo can simply be glossed over as a stylistic variation. As one of my own Greek professors has written:
Paul used pauo for a distinct purpose, a purpose different from what he communicated by katargeo. The use of the two different verbs was not merely to avoid repetition, because Paul uses katargeo four times in vv. 8, 10, and 11. Thus a distinction is intended. (Source)
As Paul continues his argument in vv. 9-12, he narrows the discussion to knowledge and prophecy (as forms of partial revelation), and leaves the subject of tongues behind. He does not address the question of when tongues cease. He simply says tongues cease. This is in contrast to love which continues (vv. 8, 13).
The question of how long tongues will continue into church history, or when tongues will cease, is not directly answered by this text. Nor is it necessary to Paul’s main point.
But what about prophecy and knowledge? Paul now turns his attention to those two gifts in verses 9-10, which we will get to in our next post.
(To be continued tomorrow)
No comments:
Post a Comment