1 Corinthians 13:8-13: (8) Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. (9) For we know in part and we prophesy in part; (10) but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (11) When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. (12) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (13) But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Verse 8 was discussed in yesterday’s post.
In verse 9, I believe Paul narrows his argument to focus on prophecy and knowledge specifically (both of which are forms of partial revelation). Some will argue that tongues (along with all the other charismata) are implied by the context. Perhaps they are; and this is not essential to the argument I hope to ultimately make for this passage. At the same time, I believe interpreters must be careful not to simply (and conveniently) dismiss certain exegetical elements as “changes in style,” when those changes do not fit with their interpretation.
At the very least, it seems that Paul leaves out tongues in verse 9 because it is somewhat extraneous to his argument, which contrasts that which is partial from that which is complete. Gordon Fee (a continuationist) among others recognizes this distinction. Fee explains that the absence of tongues in verse 9 is due “partly to the fact that ‘tongues’ does not lend itself easily to the way these sentences are expressed. ‘We speak in tongues in part’ is not particularly meaningful” (p. 644, n. 21).
On a side note, if the cessation of tongues is tied to the “perfect,” and if the “perfect” refers to the return of Christ, the continuationist faces an interesting problem. Those who interpret “tongues” as “heavenly languages” or as “prayer speech to God” (as most continuationists do) are faced with a dilemma. Do heavenly languages stop (cease) when believers get to heaven? Thiselton in his commentary underscores this problem, noting that Paul’s use of pauo “must surely call into question the notion that tongues are either, in Paul’s view, a language of heaven, or a paradigmatic way of expressing exalted intimacy with God. If this were so, why would they cease at the eschaton [when the perfect comes]?” (p. 1061)
In any case, I believe Paul narrows the discussion here to prophecy and knowledge. He does this because his focus is on partial revelation in contrast to perfect revelation. This is explicit in verses 9-10, where the apostle writes: We know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect [complete] has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
There are at least a couple important exegetical points to be noted in these verses.
(1) First, “the perfect” (to teleion) can be translated as “perfect,” “complete,” or “mature.” Because of its contrast with the “partial,” it seems best to understand it as “complete.” Thus, it is perfect in the sense of perfectly complete (with an emphasis on quality rather than quantity). And it is mature in the sense of having reached its intended end or fulfillment. Paul’s use of the term elsewhere, as well as its use in the Septuagint, seems to support this understanding of the text. (For an extensive study of to teleion in the Pauline corpus, see here.)
(2) Second, both “the perfect” and “the partial” are neuter in gender and singular in person. This is in distinction to “prophecies” (feminine plural) and “knowledge” (feminine singular) from verse 8. Grammatically, the “partial” does not specifically refer to “gifts of prophesy” or “gifts of knowledge.” If it did, it would be feminine plural.
It seems instead, from the context, to refer to the the partial revelation (or knowledge) that results from (and thus characterizes) the revelatory gifts. This is in keeping with verses 2, 9, and 12, which emphasize not the incompleteness of the gifts themselves, but the incompleteness of the revealed information that comes from them. It is that incomplete revelation that will be done away when the perfect comes.
Along these lines, Thomas Edgar reasons:
The prophecies and knowledge in this passage are not the gifts themselves, as most interpreters seem to assume, but the content associated with the gifts. There are several reasons for understanding the passage this way. The gifts are not partial, nor will there be a day when the partial gifts will be replaced by complete gifts. The stress in this passage is not on the gifts but on knowledge and prophecies [which result from the gifts], such as Agabus’s prophecy regarding famine. The word ”prophecies” used here does refer to the gift in a few passages. However, it usually refers to the prohecies themselves. Likewise, “knowledge” is not described anywhere as one of the spiritual gifts. The “word of knowledge” is the gift; however this title is not used here. Finally, verse 12 refers not to gifts specifically but to unclear versus direct sight and partial versus complete knowledge.
. . . Someone will object that this entire section of 1 Corinthians discusses gifts; therefore, this must be the issue here. While Paul is still discussing gifts, in this particular section he is discussing the content resulting from the gifts and the basic element involved in the gift of tongues. He does this in order to show that the basic reason for these gifts is only temporal and the gifts are, therefore, less significant than love that lasts. Direct sight and complete knowledge will eventually be every Christian’s privilege; therefore, the partial knowledge and prophecy resulting from the gifts will no longer be necessary. (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, pp. 245-46)
Whether or not one agrees with all of Edgar’s conclusions (and not all cessationists do), his overarching premise is hard to argue against: namely, that Paul’s focus is on the incomplete revelatory content that characterizes the revelatory gifts. This is in contrast to the perfect, which by implication would refer to complete revelatory content, or at least a time when such content will be available.
This interpretation is further supported by the illustrations of verses 11–12. The child/adult contrast in verse 11 is one of limited understanding versus full, mature understanding. The mirror/face-to-face contrast, again, is one of limited “dim” perception as opposed to uninhibited “face-to-face” perception. Thus Paul concludes verse 12 by saying outright: “Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known.”
If our understanding is correct, then Paul’s emphasis is not: “When the perfect comes, the partial gifts will be done away.” Rather, his point is that: “When the perfect comes, the incompleteness and obscurity that now characterizes the gifts will be done away.” Or perhaps more clearly, “When the perfect comes, that which is partial about the gifts (namely, the obscure and incomplete knowledge that characterizes them) will be done away.” When complete revelation comes, partial knowledge will come to an end.
Richard Gaffin points out the significance of this understanding:
Paul’s primary emphasis here is on the partial, obscured quality of the believer’s present knowledge brought by prophetic gifts, in comparison with faith, hope, and especially love that have what we might call an eschatological “reach” or “grasp” (vv. 12–13). Such knowledge will not cease until the arrival of “perfection” (v. 10). . . .
With this accent on the partial quality of the believer’s present knowledge, the particular media of that revealed knowledge are, strictly speaking, incidental. Paul mentions prophecy and tongues because of his pastoral concern in the wider context (chaps. 12–14) about the proper exercise of these two gifts. But the time of their cessation is not a point he is concerned with, and it is gratuitous to insist on the contrary from verse 10. Rather, his interest is in showing the duration of our present, opaque knowledge — by whatever revelatory means it may come (and that would even include inscripturation) and whenever they may cease. (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, p. 55).
The question still remains as to what the “perfect” is. That will be the topic of our next post. Whatever it is, when it comes, the partial revelation and incomplete understanding characteristic of charismatic gifts will be done away, being replaced by a knowledge that is perfect and complete.
(To be continued tomorrow)
No comments:
Post a Comment