1 Corinthians 12-14

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 13:8):

Ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει· εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται· εἴτε γλῶσσαι, παύσονται· εἴτε γνῶσις, καταργηθήσεται.

Transliteration:

hĒ agapē oudepote piptei; eite de prophēteiai, katargēthēsontai; eite glōssai, pausontai; eite gnōsis, katargēthēsetai.

Translation (NIV)

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Comment by D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987) (brackets added):

In verse 8, the verb with prophecies and with knowledge is in the passive voice: prophecies and knowledge "will be destroyed," apparently in connection with the coming of "perfection" (verse 10). But the verb with "tongues," παύσονται (pausontai), is in the middle; some take this to mean that tongues will cease of themselves. There is something intrinsic to their character that demands they cease ― apparently independently of the cessation of prophecy and knowledge. This view assumes without warrant that the switch to the verb is more than a stylistic variation. Worse, it interprets the middle voice irresponsibly. In Hellenistic Greek, the middle voice affects the meaning of the verb in a variety of ways; and not only in the future of some verbs, where middles are more common, but also in other tenses the middle form may be used while the active force is preserved. At such points the verb is deponent. One knows what force the middle voice has only by careful inspection of all occurrences of the verb being studied. In the New Testament, this verb prefers the middle; but that does not mean the subject "stops" under its own power. For instance, when Jesus rebukes the wind and raging waters, the storm stops (same verb, middle voice in Luke 8:24) ― and certainly not under its own power.

In short, I do not think that very much can be made of the use of παύσονται (pausontai) in verse 8, any more than one can make much of other stylistic features that regularly escape detailed comment (e.g., prophecy and knowledge change their order when Paul moves from verse 8 to verse 9).

Analysis (Zerwick):

οὐδέποτε : never.
πίπτω : metaphorically fail .
εἴτε...εἴτε... : whether (it be)...or...
προφητεῖα : prophecy.
καταργηθήσοντα : (first time) future passive of καταργέω bring to nothing.
γλῶσσα : tongue ; language.
παύσονται : future middle of παύω restrain ; middle cease.
γνῶσις : knowledge.
καταργηθήσεται : translate will be superseded.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 13:9):

ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν·

Transliteration:

ek merous gar ginōskomen kai ek merous prophēteuomen;

Translation (NIV)

For we know in part and we prophesy in part

Comment by D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987):

Edgar takes a slightly different line. He argues that prophecies and knowledge are stopped (i.e., the are destroyed [passive voice]), whereas tongues simply stop. The passive voice in connection with the cessation of prophecies and knowledge shows, he argues, that some external event brings the cessation about ― the arrival of "perfection." That is why, in verses 9-10, only prophecies and knowledge are mentioned, and not tongues. Tongues, he claims, are in a class by themselves, and are not touched by the arrival of "perfection." After all, only prophecies and knowledge are "partial": the partial-versus-complete does not apply to tongues. Their cessation must therefore happen before the arrival of "perfection."

Edgar is not the only writer who believes there is a great significance in the fact that tongues are not mentioned in verses 9-10; but he is probably the most lucid and dogmatic. Nevertheless, against his proposal weigh the following factors. First, must Paul mention all three ― prophecy, knowledge, and tongues ― repeatedly throughout these verses? One might as easily argue that in verse 12, where Paul writes, "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully," that prophecy is so dropped from view that it too must be excluded from the discussion. Must Paul be a stylistic pedant? Second, what applies to the content of prophecy, including the partial-versus-complete contrast, surely applies to the content of tongues once it is assumed that tongues are interpreted (see especially 12:5).

Analysis (Zerwick):

μέρος : part, ἐκ μέρους partially, in part.
προφητεύω : prophesy.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 13:10―part 1):

ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται.

Transliteration:

hotan de elthȩ̄ to teleion, to ek merous katargēthēsetai.

Translation (NIV)

but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

In Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987), D. A. Carson's exegesis of 1 Cor. 13:10 is much too comprehensive to be fully quoted in this thread; to present just a fraction of Carson's entire discussion will require more that a single post, so here is the first of a series:

[...] Paul doubtless has in mind the entire charismatic panoply. The time of their passing is clearly related to the contrast between "perfection" and "the imperfect" (verse 10). The latter is a synthetic expression based on an adverbial phrase¹ found three times in these verses: "we know in part, "we prophesy in part (both times in verse 9), and again "I know in part" (verse 12): that is, our knowledge of things divine is partial, and our prophecies likewise produce at best partial information. This adverbial prepositional expression is then substantivized in verse 10 by the addition of an article,² and rendered (in the NIV) "the imperfect" ― that is the in-part-ness. The disappearance of this kind of imperfection or in-part-ness, is dependent on the arrival of "perfection" (verse 10), which stands over against the "in-part-ness" nature of the charismatic gifts in Paul's day. That is made clear by verse 12b: "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am known.

¹ἐκ μέρους.
²τὸ ἐκ μέρους.

To be continued...

Analysis (Zerwick):

ἔλθῃ : aorist subjunctive of ἔρχομαι come.
τέλειος : complete ; perfect.
τὸ ἐκ μέρους : what is partial/incomplete ; what is imperfect.

[John Reece]

...continued:

Carson asks "But when does this perfection come, and in what does it consist?"; he then discusses three groups of theories the last of which is this:

The third and majority interpretation is that "perfection is related to the parousia (or presumably death if that should intervene and if the matter of "perfection" is looked at from a purely individual point of view rather than absolutely). I say "related to the parousia" rather than "parousia" itself, because some have objected that the word παρουσία (parousia) itself is feminine, whereas the word for "perfection" is masculine. The objection is without merit, for "perfection" is not the parousia itself, but the state of affairs brought about by the parousia.

The outcome of the debate over these positions is very important, because Paul writes that the imperfect disappears when perfection comes. In other words, the gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and tongues (and presumably by extrapolation most* other charismatic gifts) will pass away at some point future to Paul's writing, designated by him as "perfection." If this point can be located in the first or second century, then no putative gift of prophecy, knowledge, or tongues is valid today. Conversely, if this point is located at the parousia, then there is nothing in this passage to preclude a valid gift of tongues or prophecy today. This would not necessarily mean, of course, that each contemporary claim of a particular gift is valid. Nor would it necessarily mean that a charismatic gift or gifts could not have been withdrawn earlier than the parousia. But it does mean that Scripture offers no shelter to those who wish to rule out claims to charismatic gifts today.

In my judgement, this third position has powerful evidence in its defense. Among the most important factors are these: [...]

*I say "most" because χάρισμα, as we saw in the first chapter, can refer to salvation itself, which presumably does not disappear (though even in this instance the incompleteness of its present realization will eventually disappear). Moreover, the gift of apostleship (12:28) has certain peculiarities associated with it that I shall briefly mention in the next chapter.

To be continued in the next post...

[John Reece]

...continued:

According to Carson, among the most important factors in the evidence supporting the position he presented here are the following seven:

• (1) It is difficult to believe that Paul could have expected the Corinthians to think that by "perfection" he was alluding to the cessation of the writing of Scripture.

• (2) Most important is verse 12b. Perfection entails a state of affairs where my knowledge is in some ways comparable with God's present knowledge of me: "then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known [sc., by God]." This does not mean that Paul expects to be granted omniscience, but "that in the consummation he expects to be freed from the misconceptions and inabilities to understand (especially to understand God and his word) which are part of this present life. His knowledge will resemble God's present knowledge of him because it will contain no false impressions and will not be limited to what is able to be perceived in this age."¹ Paul's point is not that the charismatic gifts disappear because of their intrinsic weakness or failure. His argument is built rather "on the foundation of what is to come."² In Barth's memorable words, "because the sun rises, all lights go out."³ When that wonderful knowledge of God becomes ours, the purpose of such gifts as prophecy, knowledge, and tongues will have disappeared: what possible service could they still render?

¹Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 213.
²Günther Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, trans. Paul L. Hammer (London: SCM, 1969), 184-85.
³Karl Barth, The resurrection of the Dead, trans. H. J. Stenning (New York: Arno, 1977), 81.

The other five factors will be presented in subsequent posts...

[John Reece]

...continued:

Carson (op. cit.) discusses seven of the most important factors supporting the view he presented here. To see the first two of the seven factors, see here. Here is the third:

• (3) Scarcely less important is verse 12b. Now we see "but a poor reflection": the expression suggests unclear or still indistinct divine revelation;¹ but then, when perfection comes, "we shall see face to face" ― almost a formula in the Septuagint for a theophany,² and therefore almost certainly a reference to the new state brought about by the parousia. As Turner remarks, the reference to the parousia is "so sure that Calvin was able to say: 'It is stupid of people to make the whole of this discussion apply to the intervening time.' However much we respect the New Testament canon, Paul can only be accused of the wildest exaggeration in verse 12 if that is what he was talking about."³
  
  ¹The combination δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι has provoked considerable discussion. It probably embraces an allusion to Num. 12:6-8 (see Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 145-146 n. 53). Both from the inferior quality of mirrors in the ancient world, and from the angle of vision, mirrors can provide only an indirect and incomplete picture of reality. The second prepositional phrase probably does not mean the revelation already given is enigmatic, mysterious in that sense, utterly baffling, but simply indistinct.
  ²The words πρόσωπον πρὸς (or κατὰ) πρόσωπον are not found in the New Testament, but in the Septuagint in the following passages (only): Gen. 32:31; Deut. 5:4; Deut. 34:10; Judg. 6:22; Ezekiel 20:35; cf. Exodus 33:11; and Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 213.
  ³Turner, "Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," 39.

[John Reece]

...continued:

Carson (op. cit.) discusses seven of the most important factors supporting the view he presented here. To see the first two of the seven factors, see here; to see the third, see here.

Here are factors 4-6:

• (4) The force of verse 12 similarly rules out the suggestion that "perfection" refers (as in Ephesians) to the joining together of Jews and Gentiles into one new and "perfect" man. That theme is irrelevant in the context of 1 Corinthians 13. Indeed, any preparousia maturity simply trivializes the language of verse 12.

• (5) Verse 11 also draws a sharp contrast. Although the infant/adult contrast is a standard rhetorical device of the ancient world, its specific application here demands a considerable leap forward from infancy to manhood. To argue that the spiritual experience and maturity of the early church before the canon's completion are to the experience of maturity of the postcanonical church just what the experience of an infant's talk and understanding is to that of an adult is historical nonsense.

• (6) If it is true that the word for perfection is nowhere else used for the entire state of affairs brought about by the parousia, it is also true that it almost always occurs as an adjective. Only here is it a neuter, articular substantive, probably created precisely to serve as a contrast to "the partial" or "the imperfect."

To be continued...

[John Reece]

...continued:

Carson (op. cit.) discusses seven of the most important factors supporting the view he presented here. To see the first two of the seven factors, see here; to see the third, see here; to see the fourth, fifth and sixth, see here.

Here is factor number seven, followed by Carson's concluding comment:

• (7) The view that Paul is referring to the closing of the canon depends on understanding New Testament prophecy and related gifts as having the same revelatory and authoritative significance as inscripturated prophecy. If that presupposition can be challenged ― and I shall attempt to challenge it in the next chapter ― then there is considerably less theological pressure to adopt that stance.

None of this, of course, suggests Paul is interested in establishing the ideal relative frequency of prophecy in the church; nor have we yet mentioned historical objections that argue the gifts of prophecy and tongues actually did cease. At the moment, such matters are irrelevant. In these verses Paul establishes the end of the age as the time these gifts must finally be abolished.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 13:11):

ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐφρόνουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐλογιζόμην ὡς νήπιος· ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.

Transliteration:

hote ēmēn nēpios, elaloun hōs nēpios, ephronoun hōs nēpios, elogizomēn hōs nēpios; hote gegona anēr, katērgēka ta tou nēpiou.

Translation (NIV)

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Analysis (Zerwick):

ἤμην : imperfect of εἰμί be.
νήπιος : infant ; child.
ἐλάλουν : imperfect of λαλέω speak.
ἐλογιζόμην : imperfect of λογίζομαι reason.
γέγονα : perfect of γίνομαι, ὅτε γέγονα since I became or preferably now I am.
κατήργηκα : perfect of καταργέω here, have finished/done with.
τὰ τοῦ νηπίου : childish things.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 13:12):

βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

Transliteration:

blepomen gar arti di' esoptrou en ainigmati, tote de prosōpon pros prosōpon; arti ginōskō ek merous, tote de epignōsomai kathōs kai epegnōsthēn.

Translation (NIV)

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Analysis (Zerwick):

ἄρτι : now.
ἔσοπτρον : a mirror, of polished metal, usually bronze, δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου in a mirror.
αἴνιγμα : riddle, so ἐν αἰνίγματι "in a puzzling way", obscurely, indistinctly.
μέρος : part, ἐκ μέρους partially, in part.
ἐπιγνώσομαι : I shall really know, future of ἐπιγινώσκω know thoroughly/perfectly.
ἐπεγνώσθην : aorist passive I am known (by God).

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 13:13):

Νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα· μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη.

Transliteration:

Nyni de menei pistis, elpis, agapē, ta tria tauta; meizōn de toutōn hē agapē.

Translation (NIV)

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

D. A. Carson ― in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987) ― ends a 4-page exposition of 1 Corinthians 13:13 with this:

Two conclusions follow from this exposition. The first is obvious: there does not appear to be biblical warrant, at least from this chapter, for banning contemporary tongues and prophecies on the grounds that Scripture anticipates their demise. [...]

Second, there is a more startling implication. In the words of one commentator, "Now ... love and the charismata are set in anthesis to each other, and we have the eschatological argument that the latter will cease. They are accordingly, unlike love, not the appearance of the eternal in time, but the manifesting of the Spirit in a provisional way. Thus these very gifts hold us fast in the 'not yet.'" [Conzelmann, First Corinthians].

Two centuries ago, Jonathan Edwards probed the question as to what makes the church like heaven. His answer: it is love. The church's manifestation in time of the glories that are yet to come is not accomplished in the gift of tongues, nor even in prophecy, giving, teaching. It is accomplished in love. One day all the charismatics who know the Lord and all the noncharismatics who know the Lord will have nothing to fight over; for the so-called charismatic gifts will have forever passed. At that point, both of these groups of believers will look back and thoughtfully contemplate the fact that what connects them with the world they have left behind is not the gift of tongues, nor animosity toward the gift of tongues, but the love they sometimes managed to display toward each other despite the gift of tongues. The greatest evidence that heaven has invaded our sphere, that the Spirit had been poured out upon us, that we are citizens of a kingdom not yet consummated, is Christian love.*

*Perhaps it should be said that from a broader, biblical perspective this test is always a necessary but not always sufficient criterion. For instance, in his first epistle, John lays out three tests: a truth test revolving around christological confession, a moral test revolving around the Christian's principal obedience to Christ, and a love test ― and John does not suggest that two out of three constitute a passing grade. Other tests are found elsewhere that serve to check any putative believer's claim to grace; for the New Testament writers are at one in believing that saving grace transforms a person. But although no biblical test is universally sufficient, a particular test may be sufficient in a particular context. In the context of Corinthian disputes over the χαρίσματα (charismata), Paul's test of love is both necessary and sufficient.

Analysis (Zerwick):

νυνὶ δέ : and now.
τρία : neuter of τρεῖς three.
μείζων : greatest = comparative for superlative of μέγας.
ἡ : referring to ἀγάπη as previously mentioned (anaphoric).

[John Reece]

[NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 14:1):

Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην, ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε.

Transliteration:

Diōkete tēn agapēn, zēloute de ta pneumatika, mallon de hina prophēteuēte.

Translation (NIV)

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

Comment by D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987):

Paul hastens to transcend the spiritual gifts entirely with his chapter on love. Taking up the argument in 14:1, he does not attempt to rank all the gifts he has listed in chapter 12. Rather, assuming that spiritually minded believers will want the greater gifts, and having encouraged them along such lines, he proceeds to distinguish which is the greater of the two ― the two that apparently stand at the heart of the Corinthian debate. And here, as Mills puts it, "Paul's main objection is not to the practice of glossolalia so much as to the estimate of the practice."

That thought, of course, is simply a corollary of the love expounded in the previous chapter. The importance of love does not mean it should be pursued at the expense of spiritual gifts: they too are to be eagerly desired. We have already noticed that there is no clash between this encouragement and Paul's insistence that the spiritual gifts are sovereignly distributed. Here the apostle immediately becomes more specific. Eagerly desire spiritual gifts, he says, especially the gift of prophecy.

Analysis (Zerwick):

διώκετε : imperative of διώκω pursue, διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην be eager in pursuit of love.
ζηλοῦτε : imperative of ζηλόω ; ζηλόω (τι) be zealous for (something).
πνευματικός : spiritual ; τὰ πνευματικά spiritual matters (9:11), especially spiritual gifts.
μᾶλλον : especially.
ἵνα προφητεύητε : that you may prophesy : subjunctive of προφητεύω prophesy.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 14:2):

ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·

Transliteration:

ho gar lalōn glōssȩ̄ ouk anthrōpois lalei alla theō̧; oudeis gar akouei, pneumati de lalei mystēria;

Translation (NIV)

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

Comment by D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987):

The person who speaks in a tongue does not in the first instance speak to men but to God. No one understands him (14:2). Some noncharismatics seek to reduce the scope of that "no one" to "no one who does not know the (human) language that is being spoken." That is barely possible; but since the preceding line draws a contrast between speech directed to people and speech directed to God, it seems more natural to understand the "no one" in a broader, principial fashion. The content of tongues-speech is "mysteries." The word may be used here in a non-technical sense to suggest that "the speaker and God are sharing hidden truths which others are not permitted to share."*

*Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthian.

Analysis (Zerwick):

λαλῶν : participle of λαλέω speak.
γλῶσσα : tongue ; language.
ἀκούω : hear, sometimes understand.
πνεύματι : dative of instrument.
μυστήριον : originally place of initiation, hence secret things ; mysteries.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 14:3):

ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν καὶ παράκλησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν.

Transliteration:

ho de prophēteuōn anthrōpois lalei oikodomēn kai paraklēsin kai paramythian.

Translation (NIV)

But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.

Comment by D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987):

By contrast, the one who prophesies strengthens, encourages, and comforts others. That does not mean that prophecy is the only gift that has these virtues: teaching and tongues that are interpreted do as well. In other words, these functions of prophecy are not definitional. The context specifies that the issue is intelligibility: among spiritual gifts of speech (others such as giving or administration are not in view), only those that are intelligible result in the immediate edification of the church.

Analysis (Zerwick):

προφητεύων : participle of προφητεύω prophesy.
οἰκοδομή : edification.
παράκλησις : exhortation, encouragement.
παραμυθία : encouragement, consolation.

[John Reece]

NA27 Text (1 Corinthians 14:4):

ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ· ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ.

Transliteration:

ho lalōn glōssȩ̄ heauton oikodomei; ho de prophēteuōn ekklēsian oikodomei.

Translation (NIV)

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

Comment by D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Baker Book House, 1987):

True, the tongues-speaker may be edifying himself (14:4) but that is too small a horizon for those who have meditated on 1 Corinthians 13. This does not mean that Paul is prepared to abolish tongues. On the contrary, he would love all of them to speak in tongues (which of course implies that some of them did not). This cannot mean that Paul's conception of the ideal church, as a considered theological stance, is that every Christian speak in tongues ― any more than his desire in 7:7 that all be celibate as he is means his considered theological stance is that the ideal church must be celibate. After all, Paul has just finished insisting, in chapter 12, that not all do speak in tongues. The text before us simply means that Paul knows the gift of tongues is from God and is therefore a good gift, and he wants his beloved converts to enjoy as many good things as possible.

To be continued...

Analysis (Zerwick):

οἰκοδομέω : edify, build up, ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ edifies himself.
ἐκκλησία : church.