1 Cor 13: 8 Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, 13:10 but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

This is a key text in the debate about the cessation of the charismata.  We focus here especially on v10 – ‘when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside’ (my emphasis).

Fee: ‘what is complete’

(a) Some have thought this refers to the completed canon is Scripture.  This is the view of B.B. Warfield, and also of Victor Budgen.  Budgen says that the word translated ‘perfect’, which occurs 18 times in the NT, never refers to heaven.  This may be so, but Paul was not referring to a location, but rather to a condition.

‘Perfect’ that which is complete, or mature. Its precise meaning should be determined by the context. According to Barrett, it refers here to ‘totality’, especially ‘the whole truth about God’.

H.M. Carson (Spiritual Gifts For Today?) notes that Paul was, of course, a writer of inspired Scripture:

‘Yet Paul, the author of infallible Scripture, acknowledges that he is still in an imperfect state and will only know fully when perfection comes.  Is he really saying that he will reach fulness of knowledge when he has written his other epistles, and when the new Testament authors have completed their work?’

Schreiner (Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ):

‘In some circles “the perfect” is understood to refer to the New Testament canon. This reading is impossible since Paul had no conception that he was contributing to a completed canon of writings that would function together as an authority for the church in its history. Paul was keenly conscious of his authority as an apostle, and he expected churches to submit to his authority. But he did not have any notion that history would last a long time. To see “the perfect” as referring to the New Testament canon is an example of anachronism.’

(b) Others have thought that it refers to spiritual maturity.  But this is similarly unpersuasive: whose maturity is Paul referring to, and when?  The 21st-century church can scarcely claim to be more spiritually mature than its 1st-century counterpart.  Some have argued that the mature church of Ephesians 4:11-13 is in the apostle’s mind.

(c) The great majority of commentators, ancient and modern, have thought that it refers to the life to come.  This view is supported by Calvin, Poole, and Hodge among older commentators, and Fee, Schreiner and Soards among modern authors.

This is supported by v12, if that verse can be thought of as continuing and extending the thought of v10.  It makes  little sense to say that we shall ‘see face to face’ when the canon of Scripture is completed, and perfect sense to say that we shall do so when Christ returns.

Calvin:

‘Paul might have put it this way: “When we have reached the winning-post, then the things that helped us on the course will be finished with.”…But when will that perfection come?  It begins, indeed, at death, because then we put off many weaknesses along with the body; but it will not be completely established until the day of judgment, as we shall soon learn.’

Samuel Annesley, in Puritan Sermons, Vol 1:-

‘O that I could but discover what my soul should long for; namely, how to look beyond Christ to God, in whom alone is my complete happiness, and then to look in some respect beyond God to Christ, to give the Lamb his peculiar honour, when I shall be with the Almighty, and with the Lamb as in a temple; when the glory of God and of the Lamb shall be the light, (Rev. 21:22, 23,) whereby I shall see that God, who dwelleth in such light, as no mortal eye can behold. (1 Tim. 6:16.) That will be a blessed vision indeed. “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (1 Cor. 13:10, &c.)’

Matthew Henry:

‘There will be no need of tongues, and prophecy, and inspired knowledge, in a future life, because then the church will be in a state of perfection, complete both in knowledge and holiness. God will be known then clearly, and in a manner by intuition, and as perfectly as the capacity of glorified minds will allow; not by such transient glimpses, and little portions, as here.’

Barnes:

‘The sense here is, that in heaven—a state of absolute perfection—that which is “in part,” or which is imperfect, shall be lost in superior brightness. All imperfection will vanish. And all that we here possess that is obscure shall be lost in the superior and perfect glory of that eternal world.’

Ryle (Old Paths):

‘Here in this world our sense of rest in Christ at best is feeble and partial: but, “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (1 Cor. 13:10.)’

Fee:

‘Paul’s distinctions are between “now” and “then,” between what is incomplete (though perfectly appropriate to the church’s present existence) and what is complete (when its final destiny in Christ has been reached and “we see face to face” and “know as we are known”)’

Schreiner:

‘“the perfect” most likely refers to the second coming of Christ, the end of the age. The perfect is equivalent with seeing God face to face (1 Cor 13:12), which most naturally refers to the coming of Christ. “Face to face” often refers to theophanies in the Old Testament (Gen 32:30; Deut 5:4; 34:10; Judg 6:22; Ezek 20:35), and thus seeing a reference to Christ’s return is most probable.’

Thiselton (Shorter Commentary):

‘The completed whole will not come (v. 10) until the end time. But then its arrival will be like the sun that eclipses, swamps, or drenches out, the efforts of candles that we needed when it was dark.’

Grudem (Systematic Theology, 2nd ed.), in the course of an extended discussion of ths subject:

‘1 Corinthians 13:10…refers to the time of Christ’s return and says that these spiritual gifts will last among believers until that time. This means that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expected these gifts to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns.’

Alan Johnson (IVPNTC):

‘Does perfection refer to some future development of the Corinthians as they individually and corporately mature in love (Talbert, Murphy-O’Connor, Mitchell, Snyder), or to some future eschatological event associated with the parousia of Christ (R. Martin, Carson, Grudem, Ruthven, Schatzmann, Hemphill, Thiselton, Bruce, Witherington, Fee, Turner), or to the completion of the New Testament canon (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, Warfield, Walvoord, Geisler, MacArthur, Gaffin)?

I side with the consensus in identifying perfection with the coming of Christ (1 Cor 1:8; 4:5; 15:50–58). This conclusion alone, however, does not settle the question whether all the Spirit’s manifestations that were present at Corinth are still present today. It simply removes 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 as a text supporting cessation of certain gifts. Whether such gifts are present today will depend on other factors, such as the witness of postbiblical history, larger theological issues and the parallels of modern phenomena with biblical descriptions.’

How relevant is this passage to the cessationist/continuationist discussion?

Schreiner knows that this verse is used by continuationists as evidence that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit will continue until the Parousia.  He agrees that such a reading is possible, but not necessary.

Thiselton notes that few serious cessationist arguments rely on an exegesis of this text.  For instance, he says that neither Aquinas, Calvin nor Hodge appeal to this passage in their advocacy of a cessationist (or -near-cessationist) position.

Thiselton concludes:

‘These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate. All that is clear is that the gifts cease at the eschaton. It may be natural to assume that they continue up to the eschaton, since “prophecy” and “knowledge” belong together with “tongues.” But the assumption does not become an explicit statement about tongues rather than a possible allusion to them.’

Even John McArthur, that most vocal of modern cessationists, while agreeing that Paul’s teaching here refers to the  time when the believer sees his Lord face to face, says that this passage cannot be used to settle the question about when the charismatic gifts will cease.  MacArthur cites Thomas Edward with approval:

‘If, as seems apparent in the passage, the teleion [“perfect”] refers to the individual’s presence with the Lord, this passage does not refer to some prophetic point in history. These factors mean that this passage does not teach when gifts will cease or how long they will last. 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.’

Quoted in MacArthur, John F. Strange Fire (p. 149). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

Aware of the exegetical weakness of the cessationist position, many conservative evangelicals espouse an ‘open but cautious’ approach.

Boice (Foundations of the Christian Faith):

‘We dare not put God in a box on this matter, saying that he cannot give the gifts of healings or miracles today. He can. On the other hand, to say that is not the same thing as saying we have a right to expect healings or that what passes for the miraculous today is authentic.’

Blomberg:

‘Verses 8–12 caution us against ever rashly labeling apparent manifestations of the Spirit as something other than that, on the basis that certain gifts are no longer with us. This is particularly sobering when we recall that the one sin Christ identified as unforgivable was the allegation by certain Jewish leaders that signs of the Spirit’s presence were actually the work of the devil (Mark 3:29–30). But these verses also make plain the imperfection of all current exercise of the gifts. So we should be quick to reject all claims that exalt alleged prophecy, tongues, and the like, above Scripture, or which give them even equal value.’

This is wise counsel.  It should be added, however, that for many evangelicals, ‘open-but-cautious’ has come to mean, in practice, ‘not-very-open-but-very-cautious’.  A degree of over-caution is understandable, given the disrepute into which the more extraordinary gifts have been brought, not least among the purveyors of the so-called ‘prosperity gospel’.

But let exegesis, rather than fear, prejudice or experience, guide us.