What Is the “Perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10?
It seems there are almost as many views of “the perfect” as there are commentators who write about 1 Corinthians 13:8–13. Space on a blog does not permit a full investigation into each of these, but rather a cursory explanation of the major views.
The Different Views
(1) Some (such as F.F. Bruce) argue that love itself is the perfect. Thus when the fullness of love comes, the Corinthians will put away their childish desires.
(2) Some (such as B.B. Warfield) contend that the completed canon of Scripture is the perfect. Scripture is described as “perfect” in James 1:25, a text in which the same word for “mirror” (as in v. 12) is found (in James 1:23). Thus partial revelation is done away when the full revelation of Scripture comes.
(3) Some (such as Robert Thomas) contend that the mature church is the perfect. This view is primarily based on the illustration of verse 11 and on the close connection between this passage on Eph. 4:11–13. The exact timing of the church’s “maturity” is unknown, though it is closely associated with the completion of the canon, and the end of the apostolic era (cf. Eph. 2:20).
(4) Some (such as Thomas Edgar) see the believer’s entrance into the presence of Christ (at the moment of death) as the perfect. This view accounts for the personal aspect of Paul’s statement in verse 12. Paul personally experienced full knowledge when he entered Christ’s presence at his death (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8).
(5) Some (such as Richard Gaffin) see the return of Christ (and the end of this age) as the perfect. This is also the view of most continuationists. Thus, when Christ comes back (as delineated in chapter 15), the partial revelation we know now will be made complete.
(6) Some (such as John MacArthur) view the eternal state (in a general sense) as the perfect. This view accounts for the neuter of to teleion (as a reference to a general state of events and not a personal return of Christ), and also allows for the obscurity of revelation to continue into the Millennial Kingdom. This view overlaps with both numbers 4 and 5 above in that, according to this view: “For Christians the eternal state begins either at death, when they go to be with the Lord, or at the rapture, when the Lord takes His own to be with Himself” (John MacArthur, First Corinthians, p. 366).
My Preferred View
Of these views, I (personally) find the last three more convincing than the first three. This is primarily due (I will confess) to the testimony of church history. Dr. Gary Shogren, after doing an in-depth study of some 169 patristic references to this passage, concludes that the church fathers unanimously saw the perfect in terms of something beyond this life (most normally associating it with the return of Christ). Even Chrysostom (who was clearly a cessationist) saw it this way. While not authoritative, such evidence is difficult to dismiss.
From an exegetical perspective, the first three views have difficulty explaining the phrase, “then I will see face-to-face” (v. 12) as something other than the full knowledge that believer’s receive in glory. It is also difficult to imagine how the term “perfect” could describe the Christian’s present level of knowledge in this life.
View 6 then (which overlaps with views 4 and 5) is my preferred understanding of the perfect. In this sense, “the perfect” or “perfection” would be essentially synonymous to “glorification.” Such a view seems to adequately fit the historical data, while also accounting for the personal nature of Paul’s statements in verse 12. The moment of the believer’s glorification is the moment in which all the partial knowledge of this life is removed and replaced with full knowledge.
Though we have the completed canon, our knowledge is still not perfect (which is why discussions like this one continue to persist). Do we have all that we need for life and godliness? Absolutely. But do we now know fully as we will then be fully known (v. 12)? This does not seem to be the case.
For Paul, his partial understanding and partial knowledge was done away at the moment of his death, when he was ushered instantly into the presence of Christ (v. 12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:8). The incompleteness and obscurity of this life disappeared. In its place he experienced the full revelatory knowledge of glory. When he died, his partial knowledge became full knowledge, as his faith became sight.
For Paul’s readers (and for all believers who would die throughout church history), complete understanding came at the moment they entered the presence of Christ. For those believers, in the future, who are alive at His return, complete understanding will come at the moment of His appearing. In either case, the obscurity of this life is done away for each believer when glorification comes.
If, as seems apparent in the passage, the teleion refers to the individual’s presence with the Lord [either through death or through rapture], this passage does not refer to some prophetic point in history. [Instead,] it serves to remind the Corinthians of the abiding nature of love in contrast to the gifts, which by their inherent nature are only temporal, only for this life. (Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 246)
Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians, then, is that they be less worried about what only has value for this life (the limited knowledge derived from the gifts), and be more concerned with what has value for the life to come (namely, love). This fits perfectly within the scope of Paul’s larger argument.
Thus, how long the gifts will continue into church history is not explicitly addressed in this passage. For Paul and his Corinthian readers, living in an era in which charismatic gifts were unarguably operational, it is unlikely that Paul was thinking in terms of church history and more likely that he was thinking in terms of the personal experience of his audience. For the Corinthian recipients of this letter, the limited knowledge of prophecy did not “cease” at the close of the canon or at the return of Christ. It ceased, instead, at the moment they were ushered into our Lord’s presence.
Paul’s point, then, is that until we each get to heaven our knowledge (through whatever means it comes) remains incomplete. But when glorifcation comes, then that which is partial will be done away.
One Important Closing Thought
In closing our discussion on this text, one final point should be made. The interpreter can take any of the above positions, and still remain a cessationist. In fact, there are cessationists who hold to each position listed above.
Thus, Anthony Thiselton notes in his commentary: “The one important point to make here is that few or none of the serious “cessationist” arguments depends on a specific exegesis of 1 Cor 13:8–11. … These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate” (pp. 1063, emphasis original).
Ultimately, we conclude that this text does not explicitly answer the when question, with regard to when the miraculous gifts will end in church history. To be sure, they will not continue into the eternal state. But whether or not the gifts themselves remain in operation until the end of the church age is something beyond the scope of Paul’s argument. It is not the apostle’s purpose to answer the when question from the perspective of church history. Rather, his goal is to make one very important point: Love is superior to the gifts. While the gifts produce that which is incomplete (and therefore limited to this life), love never fails — it has value both for this life and for the life to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment