There are a handful of passages that many — not just in the Churches of Christ — use to argue that the age of miracles ended with the completion of the New Testament. The most popular prooftext is found in 1 Corinthians 13, a chapter on keeping a congregation united through love for each other.
(1 Cor 13:8-13) 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. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 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. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
The traditional argument
The argument flows along these lines —
* “Perfection,” or “that which is perfect” in the KJV, is the New Testament, the complete revelation of God’s will for his church. It replaces partial knowledge and partial prophecy — miraculous gifts given by God until the New Testament was completed.
* Knowledge pre-New Testament is “like a child.” Moreover, the spiritual gifts provide only a “poor reflection.” When the New Testament comes, we’ll come “face to face” with perfect knowledge.
* Before the New Testament, our knowledge is partial; with the New Testament, we have full knowledge.
* Faith and hope “remain,” but they’ll be realized at the End of time. However, love will continue beyond the End to our life with Jesus in heaven.
Thus, there is “now,” when 1 Corinthians was written, there is “when that which is perfect” comes (about 100 AD), and there is the End of time.
There are, of course, problems with this theory.
* What on earth does this have to do with uniting the church at Corinth or how to exercise spiritual gifts in the assembly? Why would Paul be prophesying the coming of the New Testament at this point in the book? His point is the superiority of love to all other spiritual gifts, not the superiority of the New Testament to spiritual gifts.
* In what sense might the New Testament cause me to see “face to face”? That seems to be a reference to Exodus 33:11, regarding God speaking with Moses “face to face.” That sounds like a description of the End of time, doesn’t it?
* “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” seems — like face to face — to refer to interpersonal knowledge. I mean, do we really mean that I should know the New Testament as well as God knows me (perfectly!)?
* How does saying love is the greatest of the three refer to how long love will last?
* How could the church at Corinth have considered “that which is perfect” or “perfection” to refer to the New Testament? Surely Paul meant to be understood by the church in Corinth?
* And what about —
(1 Cor 14:20) Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
“Adults” is the very same word translated “perfection” in chapter 13, in very much the same discussion. Perhaps the same word means the same thing in both places? Both passages involve a contrast with being a child.
The End-of-time argument
This raises the obvious second theory, which is that Paul is referring to the new heaven and new earth as “that which is perfect,” which certainly fits the text better.
(1 Cor 13:8-13) Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease [at the End of time]; where there are tongues, they will be stilled [at the End of time]; where there is knowledge, it will pass away [at the End of time]. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when [the End] comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 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. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then [at the End of time] we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then [at the End of time] I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
It fits, right? But not quite with verse 13. If faith, hope, and love “remain,” what doesn’t remain? Isn’t Paul contrasting the remaining of faith, hope, and love with something? But if Paul is speaking of knowledge and prophecy ending at the End of time, well, faith and hope will End at that time as well — so they don’t “remain” in contrast with spiritual gifts. They all remain.
(Rom 8:24) For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
(Heb 11:1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
And how does saying that these gifts will last until Jesus returns in any way help Paul make his point? His goal is to push the Corinthians away from pride in their gifts and toward love for each other. Does it help to say: these gifts will be around for thousands of years?
I can’t rule out this meaning. Many very capable commentators take this view, and they just may be right.
We’ll consider another possible meaning in the next post.
"Many will say to me on that day, a 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'" -Matthew 7:22
Does this make you wonder if Jesus expected the miraculous works to continue for a long, long time?
"Of course?" That sounds a little overconfident to me. What you have called the traditional argument is entirely plausible and it fits the argument Paul was making.
That's an easy question to answer, directly from the context. Some of the Corinthians were pursuing tongues and prophecy as though they were the greatest gifts. Everything from 1 Cor 12:31 through chapter 14 is making the point that other gifts are more important than tongues and prophecy. Part of Paul's argument was that those gifts were becoming obsolete and would pass away. He sums up in 1 Cor 14:12:
It's indisputable that Paul was saying that tongues and prophecy would cease. From verse 8:
Because those gifts would pass away, they were inferior to gifts that would not pass away.
I can know the full message God delivered through the inspired writers — in contrast to what the first century church had, with the bits and pieces of revelation coming from time to time, from prophets in their midst. And as I know the full message, the message knows me:
You then ask:
There is nothing unusual about passages that are obscure to the readers of the day, but which become clear later. The Corinthians would have clearly understood from this text that tongues and prophecies would pass away, but they would not have understood precisely when. Knowing precisely when was not essential to the central message — namely, that they were pursuing the wrong gifts.
The entire argument, culminating in verse 13, is that gifts that last longer are greater than gifts that end sooner. Naturally, in the context of that argument, the greatest gift is the one that lasts longest.
And the same point is being made: namely, they were acting immaturely in regard to the gifts, and they needed to grow up.
A compelling argument can be made from the Greek for "complete" and "partial" in verses 9-10. For more on why the "complete" refers to NT scripture, see my previous article.
Jay, I will add my "third option" wihch may differ from your own. I think the the "complete" was something that was to occur within the lifetime of those to whom the letter was written.
I do NOT think it was the written word of the NT. That does not fit the context or even 1st century expectations. Since there were many who expected the imminent return of the Lord, that option makes more sense.
But what makes even more sense is that Paul was referring to something that would make sense in the lifetimes of his readers.
The gifts of tongues, prophesy, and the other gifts in that category WOULD end. Where you and the traditionalists you accuse err is connecting this passage with God working miracles, or with Gid answering prayer. Paul does not make this connection so why whould we? Both you and the traditionalists are building an accusation on an opinion.
God bless.
Not all "traditionalists" make that connection. But your point is valid. This passage says nothing about the cessation of miracles in general. And it certainly doesn't foretell a time when God would be limited to "providence" in answering prayer.
You are correct, Alan. Not all traditionslists make that claim. My apologies for the inference.
It is good to see "Alan" spelled the correct way. 🙂
God bless.
Leaving the interpretation of 1 Cor 13 out of the picture for the moment….
Although people like to argue about two categories of how God works today, there are actually three.
Category 1.
New Testament Bible Miracles: God shows his power directly though humans who heal the sick, defy laws of physics (weather, gravity, water to wine, etc.) and raise the dead. All of the above events happened immediately rather than as a process that occurred over time.
Category 2
Some call miracles while others call providence: God answers our prayers by altering the natural events of things. These are typically more processes over time and not immediate events as in the Biblical Miracles above.
Category 3
Let 'er rip (my phrase): God has placed everything in motion and stopped interactive encounters with our world.
Everyone I know (traditional cofC) believes that Category 1 has been done away and we are living under Category 2. I don't know anyone (although I assume some do) who believe God is operating in Category 3.
Using the same generic meaning for the word miracle that could imply Category 1 or Category 2 just confuses this issue immensely.
Please, either qualify the word 'miracle' as being different than 'raising the dead – Category 1' or choose a different name to support Category 2.
I know I have said this in the past but hoping that stating it in a different way produces better understanding.
While the NT is "complete" (teleios) in that it provides all that one needs to come to a saving faith in Christ, it does NOT answer nor solve all the questions (doctrinal, unity, etc.) that man has had throughout the centuries, including the many posts to the many topics that have appeared on this website. If it did I guess we would have another set of "laws" which God avoided since it didn't work the first time! (Romans & Hebrews) One way to consider the charismata is to think of them in these two basic groups: Revelational gifts: Tongues (only IF interpreted); Special knowledge & Prophecies. (Then, in the1st Century) Confirmational gifts: Faith, Wisdom, Healings, Miraculous Powers, Distinguishing spirits(To end at some future time), & Love, which is eternal & therefore the greatest of the gifts. Additional scriptures which I believe point to the presence of these gifts until we see "face to face." (i.e., parousia), Ge 32:30; Dt 34:10-12; Jgs 6:22; Rev 22:4. "Dear friends, now we are children of God, (even without the completed NT) and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, (face to face) we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is." (1 Jn 3:2)
Jim,
Interesting groupings.
A question for clarification:
Where would you categorize raising the dead as in Acts 9:36+ ?
Very true. That doesn't negate the fact that it is the complete message which God delivered "once for all" to the saints.
If that is not the case, then I'm missing something, because I have not received any of the additional revelations that would have been coming to some gifted folks today via prophecies, revelations, and interpreted tongues. Where can I get the parts I'm missing? Is someone writing all those down so I can read and understand them?
Of course most of us don't think we're receiving additional revelations from God. There's no other source than the scriptures for God's word today. Nothing new is being revealed. What we have in the OT plus NT canon is sufficient, is it not?
Alan,
I don't understand why you gave an explanation for why tongues and prophecy would cease while ommiting an explanation for why knowledge would cease. Wasn't knowledge described as "passing away" as well?
It doesn't make sense to me. Is knowledge an inferior gift as you describe that will pass away too? Maybe you are saying we don't need "special" knowledge like the apostles had now that we have the NT. I don't understand the rationale.
I think the knowledge he is talking about is a miraculous gift of the Spirit, just as tongues and prophecies are.
In other words, people were given knowledge which they never learned, facts they never encountered. When Paul wrote that knowledge would pass away, I think that is what he meant. So, the same explanation applies to all three.
Sounds about right to me.
Pingback: Church of Christ Deism: In Response to Alan « One In Jesus.info