When the Perfect Comes, Tongues will Cease
September 18th, 2006 by Stephen
Meg Logan has already replied to a post on MInTheGap’s blog regarding the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10, but as I had something half prepared, I thought I would add my perspective in this debate.
Let us look at 1 Corinthians 13:10 within context. This is the verse above all else which is used to argue for the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit. The passage (from verse 8 onwards) reads:
“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
Now, let me firstly say it is simply bad exegesis to interpret (as many people do) the ‘perfect’ to be the canon of scripture (the perfect revelation). It is bad exegesis because the Corinthians would not have understood the perfect to be the canon. They had no conception of a canon of scripture, and Paul’s words here would have made no sense to them if this is what he said.
The Corinthians would have understood the ‘perfect’ to refer to the perfect revelation of Christ that we have at his second coming. This is the meaning Paul was conveying to them. There is no deeper hidden meaning. Discussion of gender of “perfect” and such like is immaterial, as it is the perfect revelation in Christ of which Paul speaks, and not Christ himself.
But the belief that the ‘perfect’ is the canon of scripture is more problematic than it sounds, for if we hold to this ‘hidden’ meaning that the perfect is the canon, then what does this passage say?
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
Says Paul in the following verse. It is argued that tongues and prophecy are childish things! These childish things will be put away when the canon of scripture is come. But wait, the Apostle continues:
“For now we see through a glass, darkly;” (Emphasis mine). The Apostle Paul includes himself in this statement. He and the Corinthians see through a glass darkly, “but then face to face:” When? when the canon of scripture is come? This is what is argued, but the verse goes on:
“now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
Now we see the absurdity of this position. We are told that Paul is saying “now I know in part; but when the canon of scripture is come then I shall know fully.”
Paul wrote much of the canon, and yet we are to believe that his knowledge is partial until he completes that work! We are further to believe that we now see Christ more clearly then the Apostle, for we have that canon of scripture! That, to me, is nonsense.
If you write to me about yourself I will gain an understanding of who you are, and what you look like. The more you write, the more I will understand.
If you ‘phone me up then I will know how you sound and I may begin to understand you better by the inflexions of your voice. Nevertheless, I will only have a partial revelation of who you are (and what you really believe and are trying to communicate) until that day when I meet you face to face.
I know you in part, but when I meet you then I will know you more fully, just as you will more fully know me.
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
How can Paul be talking about the completion of the canon of scripture here? How would the Corinthians have understood it this way?
Any man who comes to this scripture without prejudice must surely give short shrift to such an interpretation. Let us not allow our own prejudices to hide the true meaning of God’s word. Nowhere does God say in his word that his gifts were temporary, and if we try to impose such interpretations upon scripture we will inevitably become unstuck.
Stephen, you contradict yourself.
This is absurd on its face because it’s exactly the point you are trying to make. Obvoiusly these gifts are temporary if they have any ending. The point you are trying to make is that they will end only when Christ returns. Ergo, they are temporary. Try to make sure you’re precise in your language when you’re being absolutist, ok?
I think you bring out a good point when you talk about context. I think that you have to view things from Paul’s mindset. He believed that Christ’s return was emminent– that it would probably happen in his lifetime or shortly thereafter. I think that he also did not envision the New Testament (as you said that the Corinthian believers did not as well).
Given those two thoughts, can we take as an absolute statement that the only time at which a sign gift would cease to be prevelant would be at Christ’s return? Again, this is why I spent a lot of time giving the “why is the gift here” discussion. Certainly, my point of view does not rest soley on this passage, but rests on what God has done throughout time.
I don’t think that anyone would disagree that God could part the Red Sea, cause famine to come at the hand of one of His servants, could cause people to speak in tongues or heal those that are sick. The question is, are those gifts that are in operation today?
If tongues are present, why aren’t they being used as a sign? Are the current people who practice tongues even worse in character than those at Corinth?
What about prophesy? Certainly there were tests of prophesy in the Bible, but how many people are actually telling something new from God? Is there new revelation?
I say all this for this point: Just because Paul, believing the next thing to come wasn’t the New Testament, but Christ’s return, accurately stated that tongues, prophesy, etc. would cease at Christ’s return does that mean that they could not cease when God stopped revealing Himself in that way while we wait for His return?
MIN, It really matters not, if they “could” “cease when God stopped revealing Himself in that way while we wait for His return”. Because, the WORD doesn’t support that they WOULD. I mean we could imagine all manner of things, but when it comes right down to it we all have to lean on the Word and nothing more!
Any arguement that you make based on experience is irrelevant. You do not have perfect experience. You are not aware of every instance of tongues or healing or prophecy worldwide. You cannot base an arguement on your experience. The Word is the only source for our understanding in this area.
For example, in my expereince previous to salvation, I didn’t know any rational Christians. They all seemed foolish to me. But it was I who was the fool. When I leaned onHis Word, I realized that He uses the simple to confound the wise, and that no one can understand anything rightly without first knowing Him. There are many people whose experience is that Allah is god, but that doesn’t make it true. THere used to be many people who believed that the world was flat, they had never seen the curve of the earth so it must have been flat!
I think you can see my point here.
Mrs. Meg Logan
Hi Min, thanks for your comments.
The sign of the pouring forth of God’s Spirit on all flesh was given. Of course, it would be strange if God had stopped pouring forth his Spirit (and whilst I know you don’t think that, I would note that in Joel’s prophecy the pouring forth involved dreams and prophecy – so why would these cease?)
I don’t think it is about character. I do think the state of the Church is material though. These things have a tendency to re-appear at times of revival (less so tongues than prophecy mind). When God is present in a very immediate way in His church, signs will follow the preaching of the Word.
One of Wesley’s ministers, for instance, spoke in tongues.
The daughters of Philip the evangelist prophecied (Acts 21:9), the Ephesian Christians spoke in tongues and prophecied (Acts 19:6) and the Corinthians were told to desire that they might prophecy week by week in the assembly, so that someone who entered would be convicted by what they heard.
It is clear that prophecy in the New Testament expectation of this gift was usually a direct and immediate personal informative revelation from God. Very little of the New Testament is revelatory prophecy, but many people prophesied.
It is certainly possible that they could have stopped earlier, but we are left with no biblical warrant to believe that is what happened.
Furthermore, a look at Church history does show these gifts occurring and re-occurring at times of revival throughout the Church age – especially healing and prophecy.
What is unusual in the modern church is the scale of the claims to these gifts, the mechanistic manner in which they are often assumed to work, and the relative powerlessness of many of the churches making the claims.
But that does not mean the gifts have ceased – only that we should even more diligently prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good.
Thanks again,
Stephen
Mrs Meg Logan: Thanks for your comments. I can’t add anything, because I agree with you.
Stephen
On ‘perfection’ and what it means: The Greek word used is translated ‘men’ or ‘adults’ in 1 Cor 14.20, clearly used in contrast to childhood. Verse 11 of chapter 13 shows that Paul is using it in a very similar way here.
So… the debate about the meaning of these verses should centre around when the church became mature, adult and grown up, not on when it will become perfect. Which supports the interpretation that the end of the apostolic age was in view.
Further support for this is the fact that Paul switches from ‘we’ to ‘I’ in chap 13.12, saying that he would fully know, not that we would. Meaning that he would by that stage have departed this world.
And some other thoughts on a question Stephen raised…
How could the Corinthians knowledge of Christ be compared with ours and described as ‘through a glass darkly’?
This is because we have the writings of John, Peter, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke and the writer of Hebrews. All these we can daily compare word by word, side by side. What the Corinthians had was one letter of Paul and the revelations of their own prophets. Clearly, they would need prophecy and words of knowledge to function effectively as a church, and clearly these gifts were not enough, which is why Paul had to write this letter in the first place.
“gifts were not enough”
careful…