The When Question (Part 4): 1 Cor. 13:8
January 24th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
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)
It’s an interesting point, I had never picked up that connection between 8 and 9 before, but I can see what you are saying. I’m still debating whether I agree or disagree.
In any case, it does seem to me that even if verse 9 only refers to knowledge and prophecy, that would give us firm ground to believe that tongues will cease at the same time. Certainly it could be otherwise but I see no reason for saying that it must be, or even that it should be.
Just a thought. Your careful exegesis continues to be appreciated.
There are 2 main reasons why I still consider disagreement:
(1) It seems to me that languages can very easily be partial. One only needs to consider the language development of a child to see that a language can be spoken at different degrees of proficiency. And if one is talking about language, period, again, it seems that there are languages with different degrees of fullness in terms of vocabulary and grammar (granted, even a very poor language is still “complete” even if it lacks words for many things). That is to say, tongues could pass away partially (as a child’s speech or as a less developed language) just as knowledge and prophecy do.
(2) If your point holds that language cannot be partial, then that seems like a good explanation for the term pauo as opposed to kartargeo. I mean to say that, Paul is not intending to separate tongues from prophecy and knowledge, he is merely using a different word to more accurately describe the kartargeo of tongues. Furthermore, I do not see why Paul would state 3 things in parallel fashion (as if making a list); then, when referring to those things, only intend to refer to the 1st and 3rd items on the list, leaving the 2nd, the one right in the middle, completely stranded without a cause. The most natural interpretation seems that they go together.
Robert,
Good thoughts. Thank you for your feedback. Allow me to respond just briefly.
In contending that languages are not superseded by something greater (whereas partial prophecy and partial knowledge are both superseded by full revelation), I am following the reasoning of Thomas Edgar, in Miraculous Gifts p. 337. Edgar contends that languages cannot be completed or made full in the same sense as partial prophetic revelation or partial knowledge. (We will examine the “the perfect,” to teleion later in this series.)
As to whether or not tongues are included in vv. 9-12 by implication, commentators disagree (even among cessationists). While I believe the change of verbs (in v. 8 ), and the omission of tongues (in v. 9) are significant, not every cessationist would necessarily see this passage in the same way I do.
But there are some cessationists who do see this progression. For example:
“What is of some interest is how Paul moves from one thought to another throughout chapter 13 without losing sight of his main point. This is certainly true in vv. 8-12. He begins by referring to three revelatory gifts—prophecy, knowledge, and tongues—in v. 8 as he discusses revelation being given at the time of the writing. He then narrows this to two revelatory gifts—prophecy and knowledge—in vv. 9-11 as he discusses a fuller revelation, specifically inscripturated revelation. He then narrows further to one gift—knowledge, and that in a secondary manner—in v. 12 as he moves to the ultimate revelation of Christ Himself.” (Source, p. 212)
Nathan,
Your website is new to me, and I find it interesting. I appreciate your balanced approach. I see that you are seeking truth, and yet, you recognize that “love is superior” over every thing else. This helps me see the perspective of these discussions. In my own walk with Christ and serving others, I see that “love” is the core issue for all of us.
Excellent Post:
Looking forward to the rest of this series. I’ve always wondered if the switch even matters b/c the passage seems to indicate all of it will cease/be done away with the perfect not at separate times.
But I agree, that the words are not for stylistic variation.
Keep up the good work.
The difference in v8 between katargeo and pauo indicates two different reasons for the imperfect state of each gift to disappear. The cause is actually the same for each gift disappearing. The cause is that the perfect will come where “now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” Obviously our condition of partial knowledge will “pass away” when perfect and complete knowledge shall come.
The case of tongues is a little different. Ch14 clearly indicates that the norm for all speaking in tongues is that it is unknown: “for no man understandeth him”, “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret”, “my understanding is unfruitful”, “seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?”, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding…” It will no longer be possible for unknown tongues to continue when perfect and complete knowledge has come. Paul does not just drop the subject of tongues. The reason for tongues ceasing is contained right in the definition of the perfect.
The time element is not contained in the words katargeo and pauo. It must be derived from the context, and the context only contains one time element. It’s no use trying to fabricate some other time element when the time and cause are clearly indicated. Speaking in tongues and knowledge are both to pass away or cease at the same time and the cause is the same in each case. Perfect knowledge has come.
(I’m typing fast before work, forgive any typos.)
Yours in Christ,
Riley
I enjoyed how you pulled out the real meaning in these verses. I agree that many people do concentrate on the ceasing of gifts more than they do on the eternal state of love that is from the Father. Prophesy, knowledge, and tongues are all gifts that mankind can become prideful in possessing and forget that these gifts come from God. Things begin to center around themselves instead of God. When a person has love from the Father, the qualities about that person are of glorifying God instead of self. “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” When you meditate on this list, you begin to see how it really personifies the state of glorification that we all will one day attain. I do believe that he is coaxing the reader to raise his eyes higher than he is and what he can attain and place his sights on a Godly character that through sanctification and grace he will aspire to a more desirable condition than that of self-glorification. This post was most excellent in capturing the God-glorifying side of this debate. It certainly puts things into perspective…thank you!
@ Riley,
Could we possibly be agreeing on the ceasing? haha
@ John
Are you saying that everything pertaining to life and godliness would be “complete?”
@ RickB
What I was saying is that regardless of when the tongues “cease” and knowledge and prophecy “would be done away with” it seems to all end at “the perfect” so I don’t really see (as of yet) differing times of those gifts ceasing. I was only referring to those 3 gifts ceasing not anything/everything else.
On a side note, yes, I believe we will be complete when the perfect comes and have everything we need to for life and godliness. However, the perfect has not come yet, which I believe is Jesus Christ.
Riley,
Thanks for your thoughts here.
You note that “The cause is actually the same for each gift disappearing.” There are some commentators who would see this same implication in the text. For instance, some would point to the analogy of verse 11, and see the phrase “I spoke as a child” as a reference to tongues. But this is not explicitly clear, since speaking could refer to the gift of prophecy just as easily. In that sense, verse 11 would correspond more closely with verse 2. Others have suggested that Paul’s analogy in verse 11 does not correspond point-by-point with any particular gifts, but is rather a general way of discussing the revelatory gifts. My own approach to this passage is that Paul is using a cascading argument, narrowing his discussion as he goes along.
In any case, the gift of tongues, in verse 8, is not explicitly linked with to teleion (the perfect), in verse 10. Whether or not it is implicitly included is an issue commentators continue to debate. Those who argue for its implicit inclusion tend to minimize the exegetical significance of the change in verbs in verse 8 and in the absence of tongues from verse 9. Moreover, the force of the argument (that partial revelation ends when perfect revelation comes) seems to lose some of its force if tongues is included. (That, in my opinion, is why Paul does not mention tongues in verses 9–10).
I agree in principle with your statement “The time element is not contained in the words katargeo and pauo. It must be derived from the context and the context only contains one time element. It’s no use trying to fabricate some other time element when the time and cause are clearly indicated.” But I do not agree that the time element given necessarily applies to pauo, though it certainly does apply to katargeo. The link between to teleion and pauo is not explicit in the text. It seems possible, then, that Paul leaves the timing of pauo open-ended, since his point (about the eternality of love) does not depend on when tongues cease, but only that they do at some point.
Of course, in the end, the cessationist case does not ultimately rest on my understanding of verse 8, since not every cessationist sees verse 8 the same way I do. Whatever one’s position, I think we need to be careful to give proper significance to the exegetical indicators in the verse (the unique verb for “cease” in verse 8, the absence of tongues in verse 9, and Paul’s emphasis on partial revelation contrasted with complete revelation). Essentially ignoring those indicators as mere stylistic variations seems (to me) to be an inadequate approach to the text.
Thanks again for your comments.
Nate B.
Robert,
Just a quick follow-up. I was looking through Fee’s commentary today, and noted that he makes mention of the fact that, the absence of tongues in verse 9 is partly due “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).
Granted, Fee sees Paul’s change of verbs and the absence of tonuges in verse 10 as primarily stylistic. But, at the same time, he does recognize that the partial versus complete argument Paul is developing does not fit as well with tongues as it does with either prophecy or knowledge.
Anyway, for what it’s worth.
- NB
Several have spoken well about love already. Here are a few other thoughts about the love chapter. Since the love chapter does not exist by itself but is placed between two chapters concerning spiritual gifts there must be some connection.
Some people think, and seemingly really wish, that the more excellent way of love would be a replacement for the spiritual gifts. Others think that the love chapter is placed here between the other two chapters to show that the more excellent way is to properly regulate the spiritual gifts through love. I believe the later.
As I’m sure everyone knows there were no chapter divisions in the original Greek. Chapter 13 goes right on into ch14 without a break. I believe verse one of ch14 is very enlightening as both a summery of ch13 and an introduction to ch14.
Notice that it does not say, “Follow after love INSTEAD OF desiring spiritual gifts…” It says, “Follow after love, AND desire spiritual gifts…” The “AND” (caps added) is instructional.
Paul’s conclusion is not to replace the gifts but rather to regulate them by love. He says we should have both. Ch13 only condemns speaking in tongues, prophecy, faith, and sacrifice when it is without love. Since love is the greatest it should be the motivator and regulator of everything we do, including the gifts.
Paul’s application of love to speaking in tongues in ch14 is as follows.
1. The primary principle is that love is the greatest. (13:13)
2. Love requires edification of others and not just yourself in church. (14:12)
In order to edify the church when speaking in tongues several principles must be applied.
a.) the need for interpretation in order to edify others (14:13,14)
b.) decency and order for the interpretation to be heard (14:40)
c.) peace rather than confusion (14:33) as in plural tongues (14:23)
These principles are stated and applied right in the text. Paul’s conclusion incorporates all of these principles. He requires speaking in tongues to be one at a time with the interpretation which maintains decency and order as well as avoiding the confusion of plural tongues which cannot be decently interpreted. The interpretation provides for the edification of others. This is a loving way to handle speaking in tongues in church.
I might also point out that these instructions are to be applied in church. In church the love is directed towards other. When someone prays in tongues between themselves and God (14:2,28) the love is directed towards God and not yourself. “…thou shalt bless (God) with the spirit…” and “thou verily givest thanks (to God) well…”(14:16) It would be a very grave mistake, and a violation of love, to pray in tongues only for your own edification and forget the God to whom you are speaking. When speaking in tongues to God (14:2) the principle thing is love (blessing and thanks) towards God. Edification of self is merely a secondary and automatic benefit of such love.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
By the way Nate,
Thank you for the very thorough responses. I really do appreciate it and I am checking back regularly to see what you have posted in the comments. I still haven’t made up my mind about this section, but that’s just because I don’t see how it is necessary to do so. I do enjoy being educated on it though.
[…] The When Question (Part 4): 1 Cor. 13:8 […]