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.

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

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

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.

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.

Are you saying that everything pertaining to life and godliness would be “complete?”

Could we possibly be agreeing on the ceasing? haha

(I’m typing fast before work, forgive any typos.)

Yours in Christ,
Riley