The When Question (Part 6): The Perfect
January 26th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
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 and 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.
Could it be that “….that which is perfect is come….” refers not to anything specific but is stating a principle.
When Christ comes is one example.
When the scripture is completed is another.
In all of life when that which is perfect is come then that which is imperfect falls away.
He illustrates it in verse 11 with a child thinking imperfectly but when more mature puts away that which is imperfect.
Not that we ever gain perfection here but comparatively speaking when that which is perfect comes we put away that which is imperfect.
I guess this is another way of saying that when the scripture is completed then the need for tongues has passed away.
Helpful series study for me.
If I come to see that the gifts [sign gifts] have ceased, and another brother in Christ has the gift of tongues, then we are going to have quite a disagreement. I have brother’s in Christ where this is exactly what is taking place.
For some brothers we can not fellowship, and for others we can.
You nailed it down with: ” .. be more concerned with what has value for the life to come (namely love).”
Paul’s pray is that we would grasp the love of Christ; the height, depth, width, & length of it, which is beyond knowing.
Love, Christ’s love, must be our highest value, our greatest desire. To know how much He loves us, and to experience this love, so that we can live this love out in our lives for His glory.
Rodney,
Thank you for your comment. The idea that Paul’s statement in verse 10 is essentially an axiomatic principle used for the sake of argument is a valid option. In fact, Thomas Edgar argues for that view in his exegesis of this passage. Edgar finds the timing, then, not from verse 10 so much as from verse 12. In Edgar’s view, verse 12 can only refer to heaven (or glorification). Thus the “when” of verse 10 must refer to heaven also.
Other commentators (such as Robert Thomas in his exegetical digest of this passage) see Paul’s use of the word “perfect” as intentionally ambiguous (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), such that while it looks forward to complete revelation, it does not specify the means through which that complete revelation will come. Thus, it is broad enough to allow for the possibility of either the completed canon, the mature church, or the eternal state.
Nate,
Great discussion so far. I’m a bit surprized that more people have not responded to you! I trust they are reading your posts!
Though it is a secondary doctrinal issue, it certainly has big implications for church leaders as they try to establish biblical standards within their own local church body, especially within public worship.
I hope that you are going to continue this discussion and examine the biblical case for cessationism if one can be made.
Dear Brothers,
Looking at the broader usage of teleios in the New Testament modifies my understanding of the English word “perfect.” We must ask ourselves, based upon usage, what is the quality of perfection that is meant? It seems that the answer is found in a perfection that is exemplified in the differences between a little boy and a mature man. Not perfect in the absolute sense, but in the relative sense. A “perfect” that is synonymous with wholeness, completion, or maturity, as Paul’s illustrations within the context point toward. Thus I find myself agreeing with B. B. Warfield in 1 Cor. 13:8-13 (completion of the canon of Scripture) and Robert Thomas in Ephes. 4:11-13 (mature N.T. Church). The other positions outlined don’t seem to justify a solid cessationist position from the Scriptures. I highly recommend Palmer Robertson’s book on this subject, The Final Word.
My Two Cents,
Chuck O’Neal
Nate (and Steve),
Thanks. I have truly learned a lot reading this series of posts. I am preparing a sermon and wanted to follow up on a series of messages our teaching elder has given in Romans 12. So the text in Romans 12 lead me to 1 Peter 4 and 1 Cor. 13. I really struggled with which text I would preach. This series of posts has assisted me tremendously.
Don’t think for a second that the reason you haven’t gotten much response is because no one is reading. Nate, you just thoroughly cover the issues and give such concise exegesis - that there really is no comment to make. Except, thanks.
Brian
Superb discussion, Nate. Well done. FWIW, I am in agreement with #2, for reasons outlined earlier (some of which Chuck touched upon). But I can see merit to the other positions as well.
Chuck,
Thanks for your comment. Your point about the broader use of teleios is certainly a valid one. The word can mean, “perfect,” “complete,” or “mature,” depending on context. Don McDougall, who takes the “mature church” view, has done an extensive study of Paul’s use of teleios in this article. Professor McDougall uses that evidence, combined with the analogy in verse 11 and the similarities between this passage and Eph. 4:11-13, to support his final conclusions about the passage.
The biggest difficulty (in my opinion) for the “mature church” view is that it has trouble explaining v. 12. If verse 12 is a reference to glorification (and most commentators, including McDougall, believe that it is), then it seems to supply the time element of verse 10. (The “then” of v. 12 corresponding to the “when” of v. 10).
The “closed canon” view on the other hand does not see v. 12 as a reference to heaven or the second coming. Instead, this view sees verse 12 as simply another analogy of partial revelation (”in a mirror”) being replaced by full revelation (”face to face”). This corresponds with James 1:23-25, but is apparently not how the early church understood Paul’s analogy. This view also must explain why Paul would reference something his readers probably would not have immediately understood or anticipated (the closing of the canon), without at least some further explanation.
Nonetheless, you make a good point. Thanks for your interaction.
- NB
1 Cor. 1. Paul here says pursue love and most of all seek prophesy. Is this connected with the last verses of 12? Since there are no chapter breaks in the original, could this be continuation? Is it just possible that prophesy is the perfect that makes love mature, complete?
You rejected the first three posititions. Then, why did Paul write Ephesians anyway? There the subject is maturity, and that of knowledge before practice. The topic is fullness of knowledge to be able to practice. And, the practice all has to do with preparation for endurance through the end. Knowledge in 1 Cor is connected to prophecy. Since there are different ways in which prophecy is nuanced, could prophecy include the teaching of the word of God, such as speaking to one another the truth (complete knowledge) in love? And, could Ephesians be something more than a pastoral Epistle, prophecy, perhaps?
Ephesians talks of being ready for the Day such that we should no longer be children, able to stand, see 1 Cor. Now, go backwards to the beginning of 1 Cor. There the subject is (people like you) teaching faleshoods, mere opinions, that which they do not know to be the truth, over against the “perfect” foundation. You may say that you are building with “good,” materials but you have admitted that they’re not pure. Are you afraid? For the DAY will expose you, unless of course as a teacher you are not held to a higher standard.
You have just demonstrated that you do not know what you are talking about. I.e., you have six options and you “choose” one because, in your opinion, is seems most reasonable to you and beside that your boss wrote his opinion and holds it out as truth! Is it true? Is it the only truth? Then why should anyone believe you? Then, how is that building one another up in the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints, speaking the truth in love. Wouldn’t it be more honest and humble to admit and warn, that what you teach is not true, necessarily?
Now, if you do not believe that the Church will go through the tribulation and you teach the false doctrines of the pre-tribulation rapture, then there is no need to believe that pastors need to teach properly, encouraging their hearers as they see the days approaching so that all will come into the unity of the faith, no longer children under tutors, to a complete knowledge so that they will be able to stand, because they won’t have to stand. And, there is no reason for Ephesians. Why do all that is necessary to stand, be matured, able to put on the Armor of God ready stand against the flood of those times? When there are none of those times? Well He gave pastors until that time, but since there is not going to be a time, why have pastor’s?
You position leads to an endless morass of confusion. How does a ministry promote a book that exalts truth, yet doesn’t believe that we can ever arrive at it. Hypocrites, what are those? There cannot be any, there cannot be false teachers as long as it is legitimate to continue to promote the fancies of mens opinions and no call to humble oneself and seek the truth, like Paul commands in 1 cor 13.1. But, then again those kinds of admonitions are really inconsequential, since in your economy of thought it is impossible.
For my family and I, we will seek that which Ephesians commands we seek. See you in the tribulation.
“see you in the tribulation”?
Thomas, you have some far out thoughts goin’ on here. You confused me.
I think Nate did a masterful work in putting this study together.
I don’t know him, but from what I have read, he seems to be a man who fears the Lord, and fears to misrepresent the Holy Writ.
Grace and peace.
“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.”
Again, I would have to agree with this statement concerning the gifts because in verse 2, it says, “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge, and though I have ALL faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Here, Paul is giving an example of “the perfect” in the saying of “ALL” or implying “without the lacking of any part” of these gifts. Obviously, we will never be perfect in these gifts until our glorification. He goes on to say that even if he did have the gifts in all their fullness (he uses “all”) but lacked love, it would be accounted to him as nothing or he would be nothing. If we look at the greatest commandment, it is to love the Lord with all our hearts, souls, strength, and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. When Jesus is talking to His servants at Judgment Day and lists all the things they did for Him (the church), He does not list their abilities to prophesy, speak in tongues, etc, but, instead, lists the acts of love they did for the church because of their love for Christ. If you read on in 1Cornithians 14, it talks about the need to perform these gifts in order to edify the Body of Christ. We edify the Body of Christ out of love. The “gift” behind all these wonderful and needed gifts is the gift of love for His church. If these are not performed in love, then we are as “sounding brass or clanging cymbals” and they become useless. So then, it is not necessarily a specific “time” in the time line of human existence in which these gifts will cease (although the imperfect state of them will cease when we are glorified), but that they cease when one starts using them in a manner that is self-glorifying and then is not useful or edifying for the Body of Christ. One can take me for an example of knowing something that might be of value, but because I answered in an unloving manner in several posts before this one, it was as “sounding brass or clanging cymbals”. The info became useless to the person who questioned my references. I became defensive and tried protecting self instead of forgetting self, loving that person with Christ’s love, and looking to glorify God by proclaiming of truth about heresy to that person. This is probably a poor example but makes my point.
Well, I don’t have the gift of tongues (that’s basically for use in church with the interpretation, the Holy Spirit almost never inspires me to do that - obviously not my gift) but I do pray in tongues everyday to God (14:2). I also lead a healing prayer ministry several times a week. Then I attend First Baptist Church in my home town on Sunday. They certainly are not Charismatic. I don’t have a problem with that. I can fellowship with anybody that knows and loves Jesus. Obviously there are some differences but love covers it. I would have no problem fellowshipping with John MacArther himself even though I suppose he thinks I pray gibberish to another god. I can overlook a few warts.
Let’s keep the love and unity of the Spirit even if we don’t agree on everything. I fully agree that love is more important than speaking in tongues. After all, all of us who truly know, love and trust Jesus are going to make it to heaven whether we speak in tongues of not. We’re going to have to put up with each other for a loooooooong time. Might as well start now.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Thomas,
I have to say that much of what you wrote above makes little sense. You’re all over the place. Perhaps you are angry at Nathan’s conslusions, in which case you should calm down a bit.
You might also try to stay on point. This discussion is about WHEN the gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge will cease. Specifically, its about how to PROPERLY interpret Paul’s statements in I Cor. 13:8-12 regarding the TIMING of the cessation of these gifts.
Instead of launching an ad hominem attack against Nathan for presenting the various views (which shows some humuilty and thoroughness on his part), why don’t you join the discussion and give us your interpretation of this passage?
What do you think is the proper interpretation of I Cor. 13:8-12? How do you arrive at your conclusion?
Perhaps we’ll all benefit from your exegetical insights.
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for your insightful comments. I agree with you that the main point of what Paul is saying in I Cor. 13 is that all the gifts must be exercised in love if they are to properly edify the body and glorify God.
May I offer a point regarding something else you said? Your words:
“So then, it is not necessarily a specific “time” in the time line of human existence in which these gifts will cease (although the imperfect state of them will cease when we are glorified), but that they cease when one starts using them in a manner that is self-glorifying and then is not useful or edifying for the Body of Christ.”
Many spiritual gifts can be used improperly for self-glorification. I believe this is what motivated Paul to reprove the Corinthians in I Cor. 12-14.
Paul also clearly says that tongues will “cease” and prophecy and knowledge will “pass away” in 13:8. Though the question of WHEN this will happen is secondary to the proper exercise of these gifts, it is still important to the proper functioning of the body, especially in the context of local church ministry, don’t you think?
As a pastor, it is my obligation to see to it that all things are done peoperly and in order in corporate worship as Paul instructs in I Cor. 14:40.
Wow that was amazing. I’ve honestly never heard a cessationist say that 1 Cor. 13 was talking about the eternal state. I mean, I see your point, you state it well, but I’m just a little knocked off my saddle.
I mean, it seems to me that if the gifts are to last until the eternal state then as long as there are Christians who are not in the eternal state then we should be empowered with the revelatory gifts.
Otherwise that begs the question, “at the arrival of whose eternal state did prophecy and knowledge cease?” And once again (also see my final comment on Acts 2) the whole concept of that question seems foreign to Scripture.
If one does not identify “the perfect” with Scripture then how does one make any case for the gifts ceasing? If “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation,” (1 Cor 14:2) then how is the church today any less in need of, “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” that the church that initially practiced the charismatic gifts?
In other words, if you agree that (at least) prophecy and knowledge are to remain until the individual Christian reaches his or her eternal state, and you agree that the purpose of prophecy and knowledge is to express love (in upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation) then logically, such things would be available to us today. Saying that this does not shed any light on when the gifts will cease just seems to come out of left field.
I’m sorry if I come across as a bit harsh since I am a bit riled up about this. I really don’t mean to sound that way, your analysis is excellent. It’s just that I see this as a critical issue for the very reason that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 13. I want to love people like Christ loved people - not without power (to heal when they are sick) or heart-piercing words of comfort (prophecy when they are floundering), but in all things believing that God can and does give all to his children. (Rom 8:32)
And as this passage shows - as long as we are separated physically from Christ (who is truly all), these gifts are necessary and are part and partial to God’s promises in Scripture. Perhaps this passage combined with Romans 8:32 is really the most powerful case for continuationism.
@ Robert
Although I don’t agree, I really like your explanation and how you presented it and am still thinking about it. I always enjoy good insights, even on opposing view points.
A couple of real fast examples of how I as a cessationist believe in #6 is that those things knowledge, gifts, and tongues are not over, just the gifting of them.
I believe Dr. MacArthur once said (don’t quote me but I’m pretty sure) that tongues could happen in an extreme situation. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson says the same thing that knowledge, tongues, and prophecy are not over with ie banned forever from this world never to return, but individuals possessing specific gifting of knowledge, prophecy and tongues are. This is a very important distinction.
I personally believe that in the tribulation there will be a return of those gifts (well at least 1/3
) b/c that’s a different dispensation (and that’s another story).
Robert,
Thanks for your comment. Sorry for the surprise. Viewing the “perfect” as something beyond this life is not an unusual cessationist view, from John Chrysostom to Thomas Edgar to John MacArthur to Richard Gaffin to many others.
In this particular passage, if the emphasis is on partial knowledge versus complete knowledge (rather than the gifts themselves); and if Paul is writing in terms of his own personal experience (as verse 12 seems to indicate) rather than in terms of church history; then he leaves the question of when the gifts cease in church history unanswered in this passage.
Thus, I believe we must look to other passages to answer the when question.
Having said that, I certainly recognize that there are some compelling arguments for the other views of the “perfect.” As I noted in the article, any of the six views of the “perfect” can be adopted and still fit within a cessationist framework.
Thanks again for your comment.
- NB
Sorry the Greek and Hebrew fonts will not display in this format.
Commentary
The main point of this passage is a contrast between the never failing of love and the now vs. then aspects of the special revelatory ministries. Verses 8 and 9 declare this contrast while verses 10 through 12 illustrate it in three analogous examples. And finally verse 13 communicates Loves superiority over the other temporal blessings of faith and hope which will out last the revelation ministries but not Love which never fails.
Verse 8
Love never fails, but prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will be put away. Several points of observation must be made at this point. First there is in the grammar a distinction between the putting away of tongues and the putting away of both prophecy and knowledge. ei;te glw/ssai( pau,sontai (if there are tongues, they will cease) the word pau,sontai which is translated “they will cease” is a future middle indicative third person plural verb, which indicates that they (the special ministry of tongues) will cease on their own or on behalf of themselves in future time. It is believed by many that this future time would be when the ministry had served the purpose for which God gave it to the Church. Paul declares the purpose of this ministry in 1Co. 14:21-22, which says. In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and yet, for all that, they will not hear me,” says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. The words “this people” are a direct reference to unbelieving national Israelites, Paul celebrates the use of tongues within this gentile church because he sees it as an evangelical outward call to his kinsmen according to the flesh. And not only an evangelical call but also a warning of soon coming destruction (Is. 28:9-15). It should be noted that Paul calls tongues a sign; this gives us a clue as to when it’s purpose would be complete. In 70 AD just a few years after this letter was written the unbelieving nation of Israel was destroyed, thus this evangelical sign to warn unbelieving Israelites had hit it’s target, thus we can conclude that tongues ceased to be given as a ministry by the Holy Spirit around 70 AD. And even though many will reject any appeal to Church history as evidentiary based upon the fact that many items in early church history are disputable it seems however important to mention that Church history records no accepted use of the ministry of tongues after 70 AD.
Another key observation in regard to the nouns profhtei/ai, (prophecy) glw/ssai, (tongues) and gnw/sij (knowledge) in this verse is that they represent ministries or gifts in the context not prophecy, languages, and knowledge in general. Thus due to the context one should read the passage like this, Love never fails, but the ministries or gifts of special knowledge, tongues and prophecy will fail. All three of these nouns are identified as ministries or gifts in the list given by Paul in chapter 12. A professor I had while a student in Bible College taught with utter sarcasm, that since knowledge has not ceased none of the gifts have ceased. The error of his interpretation lies in the fact that he divorced the word gnw/sij) (knowledge) from it’s context and thus used the word in a way in which the text never intended it to be used. This fact will become more important as we examine Paul’s further usage of these words.
Verses 9 & 10
Paul uses this passage to declare a limit upon the revelatory nature of the ministries of knowledge and prophecy at his time. There is no great mystery in the word (me,rouj) translated “part” it simply means fragment or piece, in other words the ministries of knowledge and prophecy used in this early church only produced a fragment or fraction of the full revelation. For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
Verse 10 starts with the two words o[tan de which is translated “but when”, these words let us know that there is a link coming between the two verses, and that this link expresses a measure of time. When the complete thing comes the thing in part will be put away.
Our first key observation of grammar is the word te,leion, which is, translated “a perfect thing” without the article or “the perfect thing” with the article. This word is a nominative neuter singular pronominal adjective, and thus being with out a noun matching in case gender and number we translate the word the perfect or complete thing. Dr. Robert Thomas of Masters Theological Seminary has written in regards to this word, that it should not be translated “perfect.” The reason he gives is that it damages the reader of the New Testaments ability to properly understand the meaning of the word; this is because the English word perfect means much more then the Greek word intended to convey. Today’s English word “perfect” implies a theoretical non-attainable state of perfection. And although some modern scholars might try to say that this is an expectable interpretation for the Greek word te,leion The problem however lies in the fact that this word did not mean perfection in this sense in the first century AD when this letter was written, In fact in all of the New Testament the word refers to a finishing, completing, or maturing. According to Dr. Thomas the word did not take on the Greek philosophical meaning of theoretical non-attainable perfection until much later in the Roman culture. This combined with the use of the word me,rouj “part” helps define tevleion in the context as “the complete thing” in contrast to the thing in part. Thus it should read, “But when the complete thing comes, the thing in part will cease.”
Recently I was challenged by a charismatic friend on this point. He asked me to show him any place in scripture where the word “perfect” or “tevleion” clearly applied to the scriptures themselves. In response I took him to 2Timothy 3:16-17 where we see the concept that the scriptures are sufficient to completely train the man of God for all aspects of Christian life and duty, and James 1:25 where James through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit applies the adjective “tevleion” to the scriptures themselves. From passages such as these we derived the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. It is also this doctrine that is under attack when anyone seeks to promote a continuation of revelation beyond scripture. God’s special revelation is sufficient and complete, it is able in itself to be the measuring rod for all matters of faith and practice.
Therefore it is the contention of this student that a compilation of the evidence provided by this text (1Co 13:8-13) shows that the best interpretation of the concept in verse 10 is that the “complete” is in fact the finished cannon of scripture.
The word katarghqh,setai is the same word translated in verse 8 “to be put away” in reference to prophecy and knowledge. It is important to note that this word is a future, passive, indicative, 3rd, singular verb. To emphasize the passive sense I use the English word “put” rather then the more common word “done” in my translation of the passage. The word (katarghqh,setai) 6means to render inactive, to do away with or to abolish. So in an even clearer way we could read the verse this way; “When the complete prophesy and knowledge comes, the in part or partial prophesy and knowledge will be put away.”
Verse11
It has been said that verse 11 is a reference to the ministry of tongues and that Paul is making speaking in tongues equal to “baby talk.” It has also been said that this verse is a reference to the immature state of the church. And when the church reaches a state of maturity it would no longer need those gifts. The first view seeks to contextually interpret without a good grammatical reason to limit the verse to the ministry of tongues. The Second seeks to deal with the analogy yet ads elements, which are not found in the context. It would seem therefore that better reasoning would be to look at the analogy in terms of Paul’s syllogism (Our special ministries of knowledge and prophecy are in part, when the complete thing is here, the thing in part is put away, Therefore when the complete thing is here the special ministries of knowledge and prophecy will be put away). It seems therefore that Paul is through symbolism restating his proposition as an analogy, which helps to capture the sense in which the partial is put away. The statement “When I was a child” is speaking of the nature of the things, which are partial; they are not yet full, complete, or mature. For added emphasis Paul declares the natural out flow of the child, he will speak, understand, and think as a child. Due to the context and Paul’s use of the word (kath,rghka) “to put away,” it would seem as though the words think, understand and speak are a direct reference to the 3 mentioned gifts in their incomplete, unfinished, or immature state. The statement “When I became a man I put away childish things” is an analogous way of repeating the truth of verse 10. When the Complete thing comes the thing in part is put away. The analogy is not intending to say that the ministries were childish; rather it is making a comparison between the incomplete understanding of a child and the clearer understanding of an adult.
Verse 12
This verse contains the words a;rti (now) and to,te (then) twice. These two time indicators reveal present and consecutive states. The present state was the very minute, hour, day, year, or generation to which Paul wrote. Paul’s purpose was to show contrast between the present and the consecutive (that which was and that which was to come). The first two clauses state “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face;” In many of the commentaries I have consulted these two clauses have been interpreted in a way which determines the meaning of these word pictures based upon the their normal meanings outside of context rather then exploring the context to determine if there is a more accurate interpretation. With that said let us now examine the three levels of Context. First we have the syntax of the immediate clause (ble,pomen ga.r a;rti diV evso,ptrou evn aivni,gmati). It begins with the verb blepp-oh-men which means to see, understand, or perceive, and it ends with the noun en-ig-ma-ti from which we get our word enigma, the idea according to Bauer, Arndt, and Ginrich, and the Friburgs is that of a revelation obscurely expressed. We can read the clause like this “For now we understand(see through a mirror) in obscurely expressed revelation (dimly).” This is the only way this verse can fit the immediate context, which is making a contrast between ministries of revelation and ministering to one another in love to the abandonment of self. The next clause says (to,te de. pro,swpon pro.j pro,swpon) pro-soh-pawn, pros, pro-soh-pawn a figure of speech, which says literally face to face, according to Bauer, Arndt, and Ginrich it means “the seat of understanding”. This idea is also seen in Numbers 12:8 which uses the Hebrew equivalent (hP,ú-la, hP,) “face to face”. In this passage God explains to Aaron and Miriam the meaning of this figure of speech when he says “With him (Moses) I speak face to face, clearly, and not in riddles”. The figure of speech is not difficult to understand in Numbers (which means to speak clearly) or in 1Corinthians 13, which means to understand with clarity. The passage should then be understood in this way “For now we understand in obscurely expressed revelation, but then we will understand with great clarity.” Moving on to the next level of context makes this truth even clearer. The next level of context is the “general” context, this refers to the context of the whole book or books if the author wrote more then one to the same group, for example 1&2 Timothy, 1&2 Peter, 1,2&3 John, 1&2 Thessalonians, and 1&2 Corinthians. In the second epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Paul uses the same word picture (that of looking through a mirror). It is also significant that this is the only other time in the New Testament that this figure of speech is used. Paul most likely used this expression to identify with the members of the Corinthian church since Corinth was a major production center for mirrors. In 2Cor. 3:14-18 Paul draws a contrast between Old Testament revelation (in which the ministry of Messiah had to be understood as with a vail over the face) and NT revelation of Messiah (which was easier to understand like looking in a mirror). The phrase, “to see through a mirror” in this passage, is to understand the clearer unveiled revelation of Jesus Christ. In contrast to the Old Testament understanding of the Messiah, which would be to see (understand) with a veil over the face. Paul’s use of similar language helps us to understand the meaning of the figures of speech used in our text 1Cor. 13:12a. Paul seems to like word pictures that help his readers to see with their minds eye the idea he wants to convey, this is seen through out his writings e.g. his vivid pictorial description of the creatures (vessels for wrath or mercy) relationship to the creator (potter) in Romans 9.
Part “b” of verse 12 contains two additional clauses also containing the time indicators “now” and “then.” To help explain the meaning of these clauses it is important to explain a basic rule of biblical hermeneutics (The art and science of interpretation). This rule is sometimes described with the phrase “context is key.” This means that context is the tool by which a word’s meaning is determined; this contextual meaning can often overrule a lexical definition. In verse 12 Paul writes the phrase “now I know in part.” This is the very same word structure as verse 9, which says “now we know in part.” Thus it is clear that the lexical word “know” (ginw,skw) should be rather “a ministry of special knowledge.” As has been established as the sense in verse 9, and thus the clause should be understood like this, “Now my (Paul’s) ministry of special knowledge is in part.” This consistent understanding of the word (ginw,skw) should be applied to the following clause as well. And should be understood, “then I shall understand just as my ministry of special knowledge has been understood.” In other words Paul is describing a future time when rather then one or two letters being read in a church (as was the case in Corinth), there would come a time possibly in Paul’s very lifetime when a complete revelation to the church would be available even for him to see, read, and understand.
Verse 13
Paul opens the verse with “nuni. de. me,nei” meaning “but now remains.” The word “nuni.” meaning “now” reminds us of the now vs. then time aspects being contrasted in the passage while the word “de.” an adversative conjunction meaning “but” points out a contrast, and the word “me,nei” meaning “to remain” is a present active indicative verb which expresses a continual remaining. The idea of the first clause is this, “but now faith, hope, and love remain and will keep on remaining past the coming of the complete thing of versec10.
Paul views it as necessary to emphatically limit that which will remain by using the phrase, “ta. tri,a tau/ta\” meaning “these three” or “just these three.” We have seen that Paul expected the partial prophesy and partial knowledge to cease in his own lifetime, in contrast we now see that the heart motivation by which these partial ministries were to be exercised, namely faith, hope and love, would continue even after the complete prophecy and knowledge had arrived.
Finally Paul closes the verse with another adversative clause stating that in contrast love is the greater then faith and hope. The text does not explicitly declare how love is superior to faith and hope, for the answer to this we are bound to the context. In this context the verb meaning “to remain” is our key to understanding how love is superior to faith and hope. While it may be argued that love is superior in general to faith and hope the scope of the text limits love’s superiority to that of duration of remaining. Paul has just communicated that faith, hope, and love will remain beyond the time of the coming of the complete prophecy and knowledge, now he seeks to expand even further into the future the remaining of love past that of faith and hope. Paul is here communicating that both faith and hope while remaining past the time of the completed prophecy and knowledge will at some point themselves cease and this in contrast to love which he has already declared will never cease.
Scripture tells us that faith and hope are temporal and that they will cease when their object is revealed. The Object of our faith (1 Corinthians 15:14; Galatians 2:16; 3:14; 5:5; Hebrews 11:1) and hope (Romans 8:24-25; 2 Corinthians 1:10) is Christ and His promise to resurrect His people. When Christ returns and the dead are raised those who are his will no longer hope in his coming
Now
The church now (in the time in which the letter was written) possessed ministries of partial prophecy and partial knowledge, they were “now” like children in understanding, they were “now” only able to comprehend the mysteries of their revelations as through a dim mirror, “now” Paul only possessed partial knowledge, and “now” remained and will keep on remaining faith, hope and love.
Then
The church will “then” (at the coming of the complete prophesy and knowledge) posses a full prophecy and knowledge, they will be like adults in understanding, they will understand the mysteries of the revelations clearly as looking face to face not in a dim mirror, “Then” even Paul if he lived to that point will know fully being able to read the writings of the other authors of the NT just as his writings have been read and embraced by all the church as scripture.
Steve,
I do agree that it is important to know when the gifts end for the proper functioning of the church. As I look at the church through history and today’s church in America and then also in persecuted churches, I see the gifts wax and wane with the purity level of the church. When the church first started these gifts were vibrant but so was their persecution thus their close relationship with God. As I look at the church in America, I don’t see/hear much Biblical teachings much less the gifts being given by God to us. We are lukewarm and far from God as a whole, although, there are some that are not, but compared to the persecuted church we are like children playing in the market place. The persecuted church is experiencing the gifts per reports from very trustworthy missionaries. God does make promises to us but there are always conditions to be met for the receiving of those them.
Oh no worries about the surprise Nate, I totally believe you, I guess I’m just not as well read on the subject as I would like to be.
I still have this nagging question though from both Acts 2 and now this. Acts 2 is unclear about how long precisely the gifts will last. 1 Cor 13 is unclear about how long the gifts will last.
This, at the very least would imply that we should have an “open” position to the gifts. (And I argue the rest of Scripture makes clear that if we are open to the gifts then the proper action is to pursue them.) Yet the position you advocate is one of them ceasing. To say they have ceased requires and additional piece of information.
Now, I am aware that this series is not yet done, so I can only assume that that is what you are leading up to. I just want to clarify that to say the gifts have ceased is still no where found in Scripture.
I am interested to see what further items are discussed as this series continues.
I love you, Nate
Seriously
[…] “>Comment on The When Question Part 6: The Perfect by Justin Hoke Extremely interesting post. I’ve included it to my bookmarks.Love never fails, but prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will be put away. … Thus due to the context one should read the passage like this, Love never fails, … this contextual meaning can often overrule a lexical definition. …I think it’s nice article.Link to original article […]
[…] “>Comment on The When Question Part 6: The Perfect by Justin Hoke I don’t agree with this completely but anyway i think it’s interesting and useful. Probably it can help many people.The text does not explicitly declare how love is superior to faith and hope, for the answer to this we are bound to the context. In this context the verb meaning to remain is our key to understanding how love is superior to faith and …What do you think on this?Link to original article […]
Justin,
I have several problems with your post. One is that I think you’re applying a predisposed and overly narrow definition to the term “perfect.”
The word “teleios” means (1. brought to its end, finished, 2. wanting nothing necessary to completeness 3. perfect 4. that which is perfect) according to Thayer.
You said, “…in all of the New Testament the word refers to a finishing, completing, or maturing.” (in other words it’s not used to mean totally perfect in the NT) What about Matt. 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect (τελειος-teleios), even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (τελειος).” The first occurrence of the word perfect is defined by the second occurrence of the word which refers to the Father. (Perfect “even as” your Father.) Is the Father God merely mature, finished, or even just complete? I believe he is totally, sinlessly perfect in every way and this is the way Jesus is using the word. The standard of perfection required for heaven is measured by God himself. This humanly unattainable requirement of perfection explains why no one can save themselves. We’re not and can’t be perfect, we’re sinners. Only the sacrifice of Jesus can, “present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable (perfect) in his sight:” Col. 1:22 (parenthesis added) I believe this is the same perfection spoken of in Heb 10:14 “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” I must point out that the word “perfected” used here is “τελειοω-teleioo” (to make perfect, complete-Thayer) which is derived from “teleios”. We are required to be as prefect (τελειος) as the Father is and the sacrifice of Jesus has perfected (τελειοω -made perfect) us forever to meet that requirement. The sacrifice of Jesus causes us to “be… perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven in perfect.” Your point about “τελειος-teleios” never meaning “perfect” in NT does not hold. Your interpretation of the perfect as meaning only the completion of the Bible is not necessarily correct. Other interpretations of the word perfect are possible and I will post my view on this passage shortly.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Nate,
I think the “mature church” view can reasonably answer the problem of v. 12. If I understand Dr. Thomas’ point of purposeful ambiguity then that would include Paul’s view of the second coming, which of course is imminent. So from Paul’s perspective he cannot predict if the Lord will return today or 2000 years later. It’s not the privilege of an inspired prophet like Paul to know the day or the hour of the return of the Lord. Therefore, Paul provides two possible answers to the when question: v. 11 at the maturity of the church, progressive revelation, etc. if the return of the Lord is delayed passed the apostolic generation; v. 12 if the Lord chooses to return within his generation and that of the partial sign gifts era. So the perfect can be ambiguous based on which element of maturity/perfection/completion comes first.
This is why I believe that the first century apostolic era and completion of the canon and thus maturity of the church is when the tongues and propetic revelatory gifts passed. Church history documents its passing. The Biblical record shows a progression of the passing of those types of gifts (Phil. 2:25-30; Paul’s inability to heal Epaphroditus; 2 Tim. 4:20?; inability to heal Trophimus; the lack of discussion about the sign gifts in later epistles).
I agree that the major focus should stay on love (how do minister to each other; parameters of how spiritual gifts should be conducted), and truth (how we discern the work of the Spirit from the counterfeits; aka this weeks discussion).
Thanks Nate, well done with the discussions.
Dan
This is one of the most balanced posts I have ever read on this subject. Thank you Nathan for the care and fairness you displayed in your circumspect words.
Really good.
Sola Fide,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14