What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?

[music4Him]

Originally posted by Lastdazed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
In another thread I ask when is it complete? Now after concideration of that question heres the next question in the form of a poll.

What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?

1Cor.13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

BTW, inside the poll there is a "other" button if you choose this please share your ideas. This is the fist poll I have ever did so I may have left something out.

Thank you,
Music4Him

Well, kinda weighty topic for my first post, but hey, why not.

I voted "other".

"That which is perfect" is the maturity commanded of believers under Christ (Mt 5:48; Mt 19:20-21/1Thess 3:10/James 1:4), both *immediately* in Corinth...

--COMPARE THIS--

(1 Corinthians 13:10-11) when that which is perfect may come, then that which [is] in part shall become useless. When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe

--TO THIS--

(1 Corinthians 14:20) Brethren, become not children in the understanding, but in the evil be ye babes, and in the understanding be ye perfect

--AND THIS--

(2 Corinthians 13:9,11) ...and this also we wish, [even] your perfection...Become perfect



...and also for all believers under the New Covenant system:

--COMPARE THIS--

(1 Corinthians 13:4-8,10-11; 14:20) Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails... when the perfect comes, the partial [imperfect] will be done away...when I became a man, I did away with childish things...Brethren, do not be children in your thinking...in your thinking be perfect

--TO THIS--

(1 John 2:5-6,10) But whosoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked...He that loveth his brother abideth in the light

--AND THIS--

(1 Jn 4:8, 11-13, 18) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love....if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another... If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit...Herein is our love made perfect...There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear...He that feareth is not made perfect in love. </font>[/QUOTE]That is fine Lastdazed only have you checked to see if in the greek if the word "perfect" means the same in the scripture that you posted?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr012.html

Music4Him

 

[music4Him]

BTW, Lastdazed welcome to the board.~

 

[Lastdazed]

Originally posted by music4Him:
That is fine Lastdazed only have you checked to see if in the greek if the word "perfect" means the same in the scripture that you posted?

Music4Him

I'm more concerned with it's biblical usage than with it's dictionary etymology, but yes, the etymology is the same in enough of my examples to measure up to your standard, and is proof that the "perfect" in 1 Cor 13:10 was an attainable attribute at the time of Pauls writing, and not some quality that would only be available after some future (to them) coporate event.(canon, parousia, etc.....)

Individual perfection is in view here, not coporate.

Paul is showing that if any man have any charism in the fullest potential, such is made of no use apart from agape.

They are "In part", which is the opposite of "perfect," and should be translated as "imperfect(-ly)". The use of charisms is imperfect (lacking, in part) to the extent that they are not done with love -- thus Paul's command: "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14; cf. 1 Peter 4:8-10). In contrast to love, which is unfailing (13:8), the lesser charisms fail when the higher virtues are missing, as is stated explicitly in 1 Cor 13:1-3 and 2 Peter 1:5-10. Like Paul, St. Peter says that, without love, the charism of gnosis is "made barren and unfruitful" (2 Pet 1:5-10)

The meaning of "love never fails" is explained in 13:4-7, which shows it has nothing to do with some future exemption from disestablishment. The statement about the charismata being made null in 13:8-9 is to be compared against love's EFFICACY in 13:4-8. The contrast here is NOT one of duration in history, but of efficacy (as also stated in 13:1-3 and 2 Peter 1:3-10). Peter states that if the higher virtues of love are in a man, he will never fall, be barren, or unfruitful in the "epignosis" of Christ (2 Pet 1:8-10). This concept of being barren, unfruitful, and falling is the essence of imperfection and immaturity. It is the essence of the state of childhood in sanctification.

Paul's point is as follows: while they may indeed have had these charisms manifesting in their greatest potential ("all knowledge" in 13:2, 1:5, Rom 15:14; and "all faith" and "bestowing all goods" in 13:2-3), without love they are "nothing," nullified, made useless. Without proper exercise of the spiritual gifts in love, they are "in part," and therefore may, in worse cases, be rendered "nothing," of "no effect," "stopped" (nullified). The Corinthians had all gnosis (the spiritual gift - 1 Cor 1:5). Even so, without love, they would still be lacking (i.e., "knowing in part," "prophesying in part"). Paul shows that without love present, the exercise of spiritual gifts could be made useless, stopped, made "nothing" (13:1-3,8-9). So, again, the "knowing in part" did NOT mean having "a lack of all gnosis", rather, it meant having ALL gnosis yet not exercised properly with love (13:2). This immaturity potentially renders the charisms "of no effect," "nothing."

Paul was trying to encourage the Corinthians to be perfect right then and there, and not at all waiting for some future event to accomplish this (1 Cor 14:20, 2 Cor 13:9,11). As Paul also said to the Thessalonians: "we pray night and day exceedingly that we might see your face AND MIGHT PERFECT THAT WHICH IS LACKING IN YOUR FAITH ...and the Lord make you to increase and abound IN LOVE one toward another and toward all...to the end that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness...for this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication; that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the lust of sensuality, even as the Gentiles who know not God....for God has not called us unto uncleanness, but to holiness" (1 Thess 3:10-13, 4:3-5,7). So here, as with the Corinthians, Paul is seeking to perfect that which is in part, the lacking. Paul is seeking their perfection in love and holiness.

 

[Lastdazed]

Originally posted by music4Him:
BTW, Lastdazed welcome to the board.~

Hey thanks!

Your the first to do so!

I appreciate it.

 

[music4Him]

Lastdazed

I have no problem with what you are saying its your opinion.

I was only trying to point out that in the Greek that the New Testament was written the word "perfect" takes on different meanings when used as an adj. or noun also theres the masculine and fenimin and nuter parts in how the word is used for its meaning. I used to think that a word in the scripture ment what it ment that is until I came to the Baptist board. They messed up my taking the words for face value and my literal thinking and showed me that even I could error by doing so. The words that the translators used when writing the KJV don't mean the same as back then either. Just like the Greek words might have one little "e" or "oo" in a word differntly and it will take on a new meaning but in English would be written the same. (Sounds confusing don't it?)

Thats when I studied this "pivitol scripture of debate" useing their rules and found out what I did and came to a conclusion about it. Thats when I did the poll to see if there were others that see it the same as I do....and now I know there is.

Music4Him

 

[Link]

Lastdazed,

Are you arging for a kind of one-time sanctification experience in which on is perfected in love, something that Paul hoped to reach in his lifetime.

 

[Lastdazed]

Not exactly Link, I suppose you could say I'm arguing for an "any time" sanctification experience.

As I said, individual sanctification is in view, not coporate. Paul is not saying that "that which is perfect" is some future coporate event,iearousia, cannon of scripture, etc... otherwise he could not have been exhorting His audience to be perfect right then and there.

Tongues, Just as all Holy Spirit charisms would "Cease", meaning "become ineffectual" when they are practiced apart from agape.

That is what is being taught By Paul here.

 

[Briguy]

Link writes:
""This contradicts scripture. If there was no interpreter, one could not speak in tongues IN THE CHURCH. If there is no interpreter, the speaker in tongues is still allowed to ‘speak to himself and to God.’""

Link, here is one area where you are ust missing a crucial point. Paul had just said in 1 Cor. 12:7 that spiritual gifts, tongues and int. of Tongues included, were for the edifying of the "body". In this case, a given assembly of believers.

Tongues was a sign to unbelieving Isreal as DHK showed but they could be used in a gathering as we see in 1 Cor. 14. They would be used like this. A person would come to an assembly of believers and not speak the language that was being spoken. They would not be able to hear the gospel because they would not understand the language. A tongue speaker would stand up and give a short "message" about Jesus in the language of the foreigner. The foreign person would hear the gospel-type message but the rest of the people would not be edified because they would not understand. That is where the interpreter would come in. He would interpret the message as it was being spoken so the whole "assembly" would be edified, which fulfills 1 Cor. 12:7. (I suppose the interpreter could interpret any questions the foreigner would ask as well.) Anyway, if no interpreter was present the tongue speaker was told not to speak. They knew who had these gifts because they were not widespread as some want to think, because of the initial tongues in Acts. No, by 50AD when Paul wrote 1 Cor. Tongues and Int. of Tongues were still gifts but only to a few and that is why a whole assembly could gather and there be no one with the gift to Int. The gift was real in 50Ad and Paul saw it being abused and so told them the way the gift could be used and not abused. Paul did not know how long the gift would last at the time 1 Cor. 14 was written but he knew the gift would fade away on its own, because that is what he said. Remember gifts must edify the "body" not us personally. Self-edification from a spiritual gift goes against scripture. Being self-edified in prayer or while singing is a totally different thing. Also, just because the "sign" was to the Jews did not mean that a jewish person had to be present when the "sign" was displayed. It probably happened that way most of the time but it would not have to. Paul was saying to the church in Corinth that Tongues were a sign to the Jews so they would know why tongues were around in the first place. If there is a road sign that says, "slow down, dangerous road ahead" it is seen by those going fast and those going slow already. It is a sign that is just out there for anybody to see who passes that way. So it is with tongues and Int. of tongues.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Link]

Briguy,

Your interpretation goes against what the text says. Paul says that if one speaks in tongues, no one understands him, and he speaks mystries in his Spirit. If the way tongues worked was that it was spoken for the sake of one person in the assembly who spoke that language, then it wouldn't be true that 'no man understandeth him.'

Also, there is no indication that the gift of interpreting tongues was rare. Paul listed it among the gifts that are given to the church. He didn't way were given. He didn't say was rarely given. Interpretation of tongues is the one gift Paul specifically instructs certain people to pray for. if one couldn't expect God to grat this gift, why would He ask people to pray for it.

Lastdazed-- i don't see where you get that from the passage. I see Paul saying that when completion comes, that which is incomplete will be done away with. What is 'that which is in part' in your interpretation?

 

[Lastdazed]

Originally posted by Link:
Lastdazed-- i don't see where you get that from the passage. I see Paul saying that when completion comes, that which is incomplete will be done away with. What is 'that which is in part' in your interpretation? [/QB]

Link,
Let me first set the framework.
Chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians detail Paul's understanding of New Covenant sanctification/edification by the Holy Spirit, which is also known as "perfecting the saints." By comparing 1 Corinthians 12-14 with Eph 4:7-16, Romans 12:2-13, and Colossians 3:5-25 we arrive at a whole picture of the process of the maturation of saints unto holiness and obedience through sanctification of the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Cor 3:18). God has sovereignly set a diversity of gifts in the Church (see full listing of Christ's "members" by comparing Eph 4:8,11-12, 1 Cor 12:18,28-31, and Rom 12:3-9) to nurture saints from the "babehood" of early regeneration unto "maturity" (i.e., "perfect" - Gr. "teleios") as full-grown saints. The "babe" language of 1 Cor 13:11 correlates to the spiritual "babe-hood" addressed in 1 Cor 3:1-2, 1 Cor 14:20, 1 Pet 2:2, Heb 5:12-14, and Eph 4:14. It is the calling of every Christian to become holy and mature like the Master (1 Thess 4:3-9; 2 Cor 7:1; Lk 6:40). The Holy Spirit begins His work on newly regenerate Christians (the "babes" of 1 Cor 3:1-2, 1 Pet 2:2, 1 Cor 13:11/14:20, Heb 5:12-14, and Eph 4:14), and, through the means of sanctification/edification listed in Ephesians 4:8,11-12, 1 Corinthians 12:18,28-31 and Romans 12:1-9, He brings them unto maturity to be like the Master (Lk 6:40). Paul shows clearly that spiritual maturity is a process of spiritual development from being babes to being full grown (1 Cor 13:11). This is done according to the measure God has determined for each (Eph 4:7,16; Rom 12:3,6), and via the Holy Spirit's New Covenant ministry and powers (Eph 3:14-21).

The context of chapters 12-14 is concerned with seeking the edification of others using various spiritual means (12:7,25; 14:3-5,12,14,16-20,26,31), and the functioning of divine love never fails to accomplish its end result of edification (1 Cor 8:1-3); as such, it is the more excellent way, surpassing "gnosis" (Eph 3:19). In contrast, (addressing your specific question above) knowing "in part" and prophesying "in part" is not as effective nor as supreme as the exercise of love. Prophesying, tongues, knowledge, and all spiritual gifts can be made useless when exercised imperfectly, improperly, and apart from love. Love is, therefore, the more excellent way. The meaning of knowing and prophesying "in part" is evident: the phrase "in part" (Gr. "ek merous" - partial, imperfect) means something is lacking (compare to the "perfect v. lacking" concept in James 1:4; 1 Thess 3:10; Matt 19:20-21). This partial, this "lack," is compared to a lack of clarity in spiritual seeing in 13:12 (cf. Num 12:6-8). It is also compared to the imperfect understanding and comprehension of small children versus that of adults in 13:11. The phrase "in part" is also to be contrasted with Paul's earlier use of "all", as in "all knowledge" and "all faith" and "understanding all mysteries" in 1 Cor 13:2-3. Therefore we see that "in part" is equivalent to "imperfect," "immature," "lacking," in this passage. As such, the phrase "that which is in part" means "immaturity" or "imperfection" in the same-yet-opposite way "that which is perfect" means "maturity" or "perfection" (Gr. "teleios"). As verses 13:1-3 emphatically stated, one can be graced with great powers of the Spirit and still be "nothing" if divine love is not present. Such a one is not mature (Gr. teleios), is not like the Master (Luke 6:40). The parallel passage of 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 adds further light: "we all have knowledge (Gr. gnosis). Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies." We see from this passage that having knowledge can make one arrogant, a quality opposite to that of love, which edifies. Arrogance is immature, lacking, "in part". Such is not perfect and not like the Master (Lk 6:40).

For certain, "ceasing to be the child" and "becoming the man" (1 Cor 13:11/14:20) means to exercise all the charisms in love and according to rule, and to stop the "in part" abuses of the charisms through immaturities/imperfection. That is what Paul means by putting away the childish things and becoming perfect (1 Cor 13:11/14:20).

In 13:8-9, Paul is simply restating what he just said in 12:31-13:3:

--COMPARE THIS--
1 Corinthians 12:31-13:3 (YLT) desire earnestly the better gifts, and yet a far excelling way do I show to you: If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing; and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.

--TO THIS--

1 Corinthians 13:8-9 (YLT) all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth--love doth never fail. But whether there be prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless, for we know in part ["imperfectly"], and we prophecy in part ["imperfectly"]

Link, These two statements are precisely parallel , and they both explain how the charismata can be made of no effect, nullified, made "nothing," by a lack of love and holiness in believers (i.e., through imperfection). In 1 Cor 12:31-13:3, the class of charismata just discussed in chapter 12 are said to be made of no effect, useless, nothing, by a lack of love. The charismata are in this way nullified, made nothing, made useless, cease. The same thing is being said in 13:8-9. In 1 Cor 13:8-9, the class of charismata just discussed in chapter 12 are said to cease, be made of no effect, useless, nothing, by the same lack of love, the same imperfection of the believer--i.e., by the precise immaturity the Corinthians were exhibiting.

 

[Briguy]

Link, speaking mysteries to the air is not a good thing. This is a statement by Paul trying to get a Tongue speaker to understand that they are to use their gift only when it edifies the "body". It was a controlled gift not some mystical one.

Also, Paul did not say to pray for the gift of tnterpretation. He just said, I believe in Chapter 12 that the Holy Spirit gives the Gifts as HE WILLS. Paul would not now say pray for a gift. Remember, Paul is rebuking the Corinth church here. It is not a pleasant letter, it is pointing out what they are doing wrong in many areas, including the use of Tongues. No, Paul is simply saying that a Tongue spoken but not Interpreted, so their is assembly-wide understanding is a perversion of the gift. So, not to pervert the gift of tongues, he says to pray that you can interpret what you said. In slang it would read "Hey pal, if you speak in a foreign language around a bunch of people who don't speak that launguage, you better start praying you can interpret what you said, otherwise you just perverted what was given you by the Holy Spirit.

I stand by my statement that Tongues and Interpretation of tongues were rare. I said above that Paul said for a Tongue speaker to keep quiet if no interpreter was present. In an entire assembly it is then very possibly that there will not be an interpreter. That would not happen with a widely given gift. Please offer another explaination to what Paul said if I am not right. Thanks!

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Link]

Lastdazed,

I can see why you see a connection between perfection and love. But I do not think every reference to perfection necessarily has to do with love.

I suppose you could interpret the passage about ‘for we know in part….’ to be saying that if we have perfect love that our knowledge and prophecy will be perfect and no longer in part. Is that how you would read that?

But, imo, your interpretation does not fit as the passage proceeds further to say that when the perfect comes Paul will know as he is known.

Notice Paul says ‘when that which is perfect is come’ not ‘when I am perfected. I see ‘the perfect’ as something external to the believer coming, that effects the believer.

 

[Link]

Briguy wrote,
***Link, speaking mysteries to the air is not a good thing. This is a statement by Paul trying to get a Tongue speaker to understand that they are to use their gift only when it edifies the "body". It was a controlled gift not some mystical one.***

I see no reason to eisegete the idea that Paul is saying that ‘speaking mysteries with his spirit’ is a bad thing. The verse in question does not talk about ‘speaking into the air.’ Mysteries are not necessarily ‘mystical’ in the modern sense. A mystery is a secret, or a revealed secret, not necessarily something ‘mystical’ in the sense the word mystical is used nowadays. Paul is saying that if a man is speaking in tongues, he is speaking with his spirit and we do not know what he is saying. Paul’s point that he will make in this passage is that tongues need to be interpreted if spoken out into the assembly.

He does not say that tongues are only to be used to edify the body. He does tell the Corinthians to be zealous of spiritual gifts that edify the church. Later, he teaches that if there is no interpreter, a speaker in tongues may still speak to himself and to God, but must keep silence in the church.

***Also, Paul did not say to pray for the gift of tnterpretation. He just said, I believe in Chapter 12 that the Holy Spirit gives the Gifts as HE WILLS. Paul would not now say pray for a gift. Remember, Paul is rebuking the Corinth church here. It is not a pleasant letter, it is pointing out what they are doing wrong in many areas, including the use of Tongues. No, Paul is simply saying that a Tongue spoken but not Interpreted, so their is assembly-wide understanding is a perversion of the gift. So, not to pervert the gift of tongues, he says to pray that you can interpret what you said. In slang it would read "Hey pal, if you speak in a foreign language around a bunch of people who don't speak that launguage, you better start praying you can interpret what you said, otherwise you just perverted what was given you by the Holy Spirit.****

The fact remains that Paul tells the person who spoke in tongues to pray that he may interpret. Does this contradict the idea that the Spirit gives the gift to whom He wills? No, not at all. We can see the principle in scripture that God is a diligent rewarder of them that seek Him. God wills to give good things to His children who ask in faith with the right motives.

One could reason, “If God wills for us Christians to eat, why should we pray for our daily bread? He will feed us if it is His will.” The reason we pray for our daily b read is because Christ commands us to do so. Also, there are many things God would give us if we ask, but ‘ye have not because ye ask not.’

Yes, the Spirit gives gifts as He wills. Yes, the Spirit may give gifts to those who seek God diligently for them in prayer. Why would Paul teach the Corinthians to covet the better gifts, especially that they might prophecy if there were no chance that most of them could get this gift?

***I stand by my statement that Tongues and Interpretation of tongues were rare. I said above that Paul said for a Tongue speaker to keep quiet if no interpreter was present. In an entire assembly it is then very possibly that there will not be an interpreter. That would not happen with a widely given gift. Please offer another explaination to what Paul said if I am not right. Thanks!***

Intepretation may operate as some other gifts. A person may receive an interpretation on one occasion, but not on another. I would imagine that a prophet in Corinth may have heard revelations from other prophets that he had not received himself. He probably didn’t get every prophecy himself. The same may have been the case with interpreters of tongues. Paul does not comment on whether the gift of interpretation was rare or not. It may have been that the Corinthians were behaving in such a disorderly manner, that they did not give the interpreters a chance to use their gifts and did not even know who the interpreters were.

It seems especially unlikely that tongues was a rare gift in Corinth. It seems likely that a large number of them were misusing this gift, hence the long passage on the subject. Paul even gives an example ‘if all speak in tongues’ and another example of all prophesying. Do you have anything in the passage that causes you to believe that tongues were rare in Corinth?

Btw, in the first chapter, Paul said that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. I Corinthians 12 mentions several gifts that were among them. So I would imagine that the gifts were rather widespread in the Corinthian church.

 

[Briguy]

Link, couple quick points. Paul is telling the Corinthian church that most of what they were doing as the gift of Tongues, was gibberish and not the gift of tongues at all. He was letting them know that many of them were trying to use the "showy" gift of tongues when they did not even have it. Many of the comments he makes in regards to Mysteries, self-edification, speaking to the air, being notes with no pattern, etc... Those are showing that what they were doing was wrong because the real gift was uased the way he says later in Chapt. 14, decently and in order. Tongues and Int. of Tongues were not all that common. You still have not addressed why in a whole assembly no interpreters may be present.

We are never told to pray for a gift or to seek a gift. God the Holy Spirit decides who needs what gifts and logically they are given to us when we receive the Holy Spirit at the time of our salvation. We are told in scripture, as I said, that the Holy Spirit decides. If we pray for a gift them we are telling the Holy Spirit what to do when He would know before we are saved what gift/s we will have get. It makes no sense to me that we can ask God for a gift when he does the equiping himself.

When Paul said to pray for the interpretation it was becaused many many people were spouting out gibberish and he knew there was no interpretation. His statement was a simple rebuke not a call to pray for gifts!!!

1 Cor. 12:7 says that "Gifts" are for the good of the "body". There is no exception for using a gift for self-edification. Read the verse in context and it makes sense.

Finally, the end of 1 Cor. 12 should read "You ARE coveting what you think are the best gifts but I will show you something better" and he goes on to discuss love. The whole chapter 12 talks about the behind the scenes "gifts" being as important or more important the the "up front" (speaking) gifts. It makes no sense that Paul would say to go after a gift when he just made the point of saying wasn't the gift/s was not any better then any other gift/s. All gifts are equal, there are not better gifts in that sense. so my rendering, which the RSV gives as an alternate rendering, makes the most sense. In the Corinth church members were trying to have gifts they didn't even have because it gave them attention and Paul says that is wrong and tells them about love.

OK that was not so quick, Anyway, have a great day,
In Christ,
Brian

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Link writes:
""This contradicts scripture. If there was no interpreter, one could not speak in tongues IN THE CHURCH. If there is no interpreter, the speaker in tongues is still allowed to ‘speak to himself and to God.’""

Link, here is one area where you are ust missing a crucial point. Paul had just said in 1 Cor. 12:7 that spiritual gifts, tongues and int. of Tongues included, were for the edifying of the "body". In this case, a given assembly of believers.

Tongues was a sign to unbelieving Isreal as DHK showed but they could be used in a gathering as we see in 1 Cor. 14. They would be used like this. A person would come to an assembly of believers and not speak the language that was being spoken. They would not be able to hear the gospel because they would not understand the language. A tongue speaker would stand up and give a short "message" about Jesus in the language of the foreigner. The foreign person would hear the gospel-type message but the rest of the people would not be edified because they would not understand. That is where the interpreter would come in. He would interpret the message as it was being spoken so the whole "assembly" would be edified, which fulfills 1 Cor. 12:7. (I suppose the interpreter could interpret any questions the foreigner would ask as well.) Anyway, if no interpreter was present the tongue speaker was told not to speak. They knew who had these gifts because they were not widespread as some want to think, because of the initial tongues in Acts. No, by 50AD when Paul wrote 1 Cor. Tongues and Int. of Tongues were still gifts but only to a few and that is why a whole assembly could gather and there be no one with the gift to Int. The gift was real in 50Ad and Paul saw it being abused and so told them the way the gift could be used and not abused. Paul did not know how long the gift would last at the time 1 Cor. 14 was written but he knew the gift would fade away on its own, because that is what he said. Remember gifts must edify the "body" not us personally. Self-edification from a spiritual gift goes against scripture. Being self-edified in prayer or while singing is a totally different thing. Also, just because the "sign" was to the Jews did not mean that a jewish person had to be present when the "sign" was displayed. It probably happened that way most of the time but it would not have to. Paul was saying to the church in Corinth that Tongues were a sign to the Jews so they would know why tongues were around in the first place. If there is a road sign that says, "slow down, dangerous road ahead" it is seen by those going fast and those going slow already. It is a sign that is just out there for anybody to see who passes that way. So it is with tongues and Int. of tongues.

In Christ,
Brian

Thanks for a true and sober explanation!
Maybe Paul knew WHEN 'tongues' would cease, when and as the Apostolic generation would pass by, I would say.

 

[Link]

Briguy wrote,
****…Paul is telling the Corinthian church that most of what they were doing as the gift of Tongues, was gibberish and not the gift of tongues at all. He was letting them know that many of them were trying to use the "showy" gift of tongues when they did not even have it.***

I do not see how you can come to this conclusion from the text. This looks to me to be eisegesis—you have a negative attitude toward tongues and read it into the text. I really do not see how you can arrive at your conclusion if you just follow the argument Paul is making without reading any ideas or prejudices into the text.

Nowhere in chapter 14 does Paul question the validity of the speaking in tongues of the Corinthians. Can you show me where you think Paul is saying that their tongues is fake?

*** Many of the comments he makes in regards to Mysteries, self-edification, speaking to the air, being notes with no pattern, etc... Those are showing that what they were doing was wrong because the real gift was uased the way he says later in Chapt. 14, decently and in order.****

1. You seem to be reading your own definition into ‘mysteries.’ I cannot think of a single negative reference to mysteries in the New Testament scriptures. The deep things of the Gospel are called mysteries. I cannot find any reference to a ‘mystery’ that has no meaning and is just gibberish in scripture either.

2. Edification means build up. Self-edification is building oneself up. This is not negative. Jude ends his epistle telling his readers to build themselves up in the most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. David encouraged himself in the Lord. Self-edification is a good thing. It is inferior to edifying the whole church, however. Church meetings are a time for mutual edification and not self-edification.

3. It is clear that real gifts can be used in a disorderly manner. Imagine if truly gifted teachers all stood and taught at the same time. Paul tells the prophets to proper order in which to prophesy. He does not question their gifts. Paul tells the speakers and interpreters of tongues the proper way to use their gifts. He does not question their gifts.

4. On ‘speaking into the air’ and ‘notes with no pattern’ you are divorcing these statements from the larger context in your interpretation. Paul compares these things to speaking a real, genuine, language that the speaker could not understand. Languages are ‘not without signification.’ But they do not do any good to someone who does not speak them, unless they are interpreted. Let us look at the context of the scripture in question:

6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7. And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.


Notice that the comments about the uncertain sound on a trumpet and that speaking in a tongue that people do not understand is ‘speaking into the air’ lead up to Paul’s explanation that if one speaks a GENIUNE language to someone who does not understand, he will be a barbarian to that person. So Paul isn’t questioning the validity of their languages. Rather he is explaining the lack of usefulness of speaking tongues to someone who does not understand them.

Also notice that these comments comes after the hypothetical situation Paul lays out of he himself coming to the Corinthians speaking in tongues. He asks what his own tongues would profit them. You agree with me that Paul’s speaking in tongues was genuine, right? Or do you think he was just babbling? The verses immediately after the one I quote continue on arguing for interpretation.

Another verse illustrates the point that Paul makes in the verses above about tongues not edifying others without interpretation.

16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Here Paul may be giving the Corinthians an example of the kind of thing they were doing—praying in tongues in church without interpretation. He says that they give thanks well. So apparently the tongues were real and not just gibberish, otherwise they wouldn’t have been giving thanks well.

*** Tongues and Int. of Tongues were not all that common. You still have not addressed why in a whole assembly no interpreters may be present. ***

They wouldn’t be present because all of them had to visit a sick friend in the hospital on the same day.

Seriously, how do you come up with the idea that there were not many tongues speakers. The passage seems to indicate tongues was common. Interpretation was lacking, not tongues. Interpretation may have been lacking because the Corinthians just weren’t using it enough, with the tongues speakers dominating and not waiting for the interpreters to use their gift.

Paul’s statement ‘if there be no interpreter’ is an if statement. He does not say if this is common or rare. If there were 300 believers and 5 interpreters, it is possible that all five could not be available at the same time. Also, maybe an interpretation did not always have an interpretation to every interpretation of tongues. Then the issue would be that there is no interpreter for that particular tongue. (That seems to be the way it works with Pentecostals today. Sometimes two people get the same interpretation of the same tongue, btw. But one gives it.)

From the actual text, we see that Paul says that every time the Corinthians met, every one of them had a tongue, and every one of them had an interpretation. This is in verse 26. Paul may have been using hyperbole, but even if he were, we should at the very least conclude that both of these gifts were common. The first chapter of I Corinthians said they came behind in no spiritual gift.

***We are never told to pray for a gift or to seek a gift. God the Holy Spirit decides who needs what gifts and logically they are given to us when we receive the Holy Spirit at the time of our salvation. We are told in scripture, as I said, that the Holy Spirit decides.****

Sure we are told to pray for gifts. Paul commands to desire the better gifts. Jesus commands to pray for what you want. So logically it follows that we should pray to receive the better spiritual gifts. God often wills to give us things we pray for. Whether He willed us to pray for the things He willed us to have, and made us do it by predestinating it is a topic for another thread.

Btw, the Bible does not say that we receive all our gifts before we are saved. Take a look at this verse.

Romans 1:11. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

Paul’s audience here are already believers. Their faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. But in spite of this, it was still possible for Paul to impart unto them some spiritual gift. So it is clear that it is possible to receive spiritual gifts after you are saved.

We would not expect Paul to be able to impart gifts apart from the will of the Spirit. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in churches. Yet when Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders, he said that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. There is no contradiction here. If the Holy Ghost makes men overseers, that doesn’t mean he can’t show who the overseers are through the Spirit. God can also give us spiritual gifts in answer to our prayers, and still the gifts can be given according to the Spirit’s will.

**If we pray for a gift them we are telling the Holy Spirit what to do when He would know before we are saved what gift/s we will have get. It makes no sense to me that we can ask God for a gift when he does the equiping himself.***

It makes perfect sense, especially when you see the way God works throughout the Bible. God works with and through us. He does His will, but accomplishes it through the prayer of the saints and the work of His people here on the earth. We see this all throughout the Bible.

And there is a difference between telling the Spirit what to do, and asking God for something.

Briguy wrote,
***Finally, the end of 1 Cor. 12 should read "You ARE coveting what you think are the best gifts but I will show you something better" and he goes on to discuss love***

So you think Paul is rebuking them for coveting the best gifts? A careful study of the book argues against this. In chapter 14, Paul seems to imply that the Corinthians were not coveting the best gifts.

In chapter 14 we read,
12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

It is likely that the reason Paul told them this was because they were NOT zealous of gifts that edified the church. So he was trying to get them to be zealous of these gifts—to desire them. If they were already desiring the better gifts, why would Paul have written this verse.

Therefore, it makes better sense to interpret Paul’s statement at the end of I Corinthians 12 as a command to desire the better gifts, and to pursue love. Doesn’t love want to edify the body? (For the readers, the Greek form for command is the same as the form for a statement, at least in some cases.)

Besides, that verse in I Corinthians 12 was not even the verse I had in mind. The verse I had in mind was I Corinthians 14:1

1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Is this verse a command or a statement. Is Paul saying the Corinthians are already following after charity, already desiring spiritual gifts, and especially the gift of prophecy? Or does it make more sense to interpret this as a command as the translators obviously did.

The command makes sense. If the Corinthians were already following after charity, why would Paul have written all that stuff about being a clanging gong? It seems like he is correcting them for a lack of love. Chapter 11 demonstrates a need for more love. So this should be interpreted as a command.

Is Paul telling the Corinthians that they are already especially desire the gift of prophecy? The context argues against this idea, because Paul goes on to exhort the Corinthians to encourage the Corinthians to value prophecy over speaking in tongues. They desired tongues, apparently, but Paul tries to get them to desire prophecy. So 14:1 should be taken as a command, as I would imagine 99% of scholars who have translated the Bible would agree.

***When Paul said to pray for the interpretation it was becaused many many people were spouting out gibberish and he knew there was no interpretation. His statement was a simple rebuke not a call to pray for gifts!!!***

So, in other words, are you saying Paul is not really telling the people to pray that they might interpret? Why would he say it if he didn’t mean it?

***1 Cor. 12:7 says that "Gifts" are for the good of the "body". There is no exception for using a gift for self-edification. Read the verse in context and it makes sense.***

Individual speaking in tongues outside of the meeting is good for the whole body. There is no contradiction here. But speaking in tongues without interpretation does not edify the whole assembly. No verse in scripture condemns building oneself up (self edification.)

Jude 20
12. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.


*** It makes no sense that Paul would say to go after a gift when he just made the point of saying wasn't the gift/s was not any better then any other gift/s. All gifts are equal, there are not better gifts in that sense. so my rendering, which the RSV gives as an alternate rendering, makes the most sense.***

Paul doesn’t say all gifts are equal. In fact, he ranks gifts in this very passage! First apostles, then prophets…. He does teach that all members and their gifts are needed. Your heart is more important to the function of the body than your little toe, but does that mean you chop you toe off?

*** In the Corinth church members were trying to have gifts they didn't even have because it gave them attention and Paul says that is wrong and tells them about love.****

I do not see any evidence that Paul is saying that the Corinthians were making up fake gifts. His argument about tongues assumes their tongues are genuine. The closest thing to ‘fake gifts’ would be the warning that about someone who curses Christ, but Paul may have been using an extreme case to prove a point, or he may have been pointing out that not everything is from the Spirit. But this sort of manifestation doesn’t show up in I Corinthians 14, and Paul does not deal with the issue of fake tongues at all in the entire book.

 

[Briguy]

Link, I only have a second but i will try to comment on more of your points over the weekend or Monday. Do you really believe that your Pastor has a BETTER gift from God then he gave you?? Lets say your gift is "helps or "service" and you really love visiting people and meeting some of their needs. In the list you mentioned you would have other gifts better then yours. Does God really see the preacher preaching as better then the person gifted in knowledge studying and interpreting His word. See what I am saying. There just must be a different explanation then God ranking the gifts in order of better to worse. Think about that, more to come. thanks for the nice debate. This is good for both of us, I believe.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Link]

Briguy,

Paul comes right out and says that he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues. Is Paul saying that the person who prophesies is of greater intrinsic worth than the person who speaks in tongues, or is his point that prophesying is a greater gift since it builds up the whole body?

Btw, I seem to have gifts in the same category as some of the pastors in my church, btw, so I wouldn't know how to answer your question. I do not believe Paul is saying one person is worth more than an another, but some gifts are greater in that they edify the body more.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

quoting someone, QB, I look at the scripture as saying that "something" is going to happen to were tongues will cease, prophecy will fail, and knowledge will vanish away......a logical guess will be something that will be so complete that we will not to need these gifts anymore. QE

When Christ has come into the life of a person, he counts all things - good or better things, even spiritual or Scriptural things - as loss against the excellence of Him. Like Paul said of the Old Covenant, that its GLORY, was as NO glory against that of Jesus.

 

[Lastdazed]

Originally posted by Link:
Lastdazed,

I suppose you could interpret the passage about ‘for we know in part….’ to be saying that if we have perfect love that our knowledge and prophecy will be perfect and no longer in part. Is that how you would read that?

Yes. See specific examples given in 13:1-3. Also note that the statement "love never fails" does not mean it continues past the time "that which is perfect comes" . The statement that love "never fails" speaks of its superior efficacy (13:4-7; 12:31) in contrast to that of all the lesser charisms (12:31-13:3). Love is unfailing, unfaltering. This all-surpassing efficacy forms the essence of why love is the "far excelling way" compared to the other charisms, and this forms the crux of Paul's argument in all of 1 Cor 13. Love cannot be nullifed (made nothing/rendered inneffectual). Love is unfailing.

Love is unfailing (as detailed in 13:4-7), but the lesser charismata are definitely not so--they fail (see12:31-13:3, 13:8). The lesser charismata--whether they be X, Y, or Z--may be be ineffectual and nullifed through imperfections of the believer (immaturity/absence of love/"the lacking" per Jas 1:4/Mt. 19:20). This nullification of charisms is described in 13:1-3. So, whatever the lesser charismata (tongues, miracles, government/rule, healing, sacrifical acts of giving, etc.), they are all subject to nullification or various failings by an absence of love and holiness. Even in their absolute, maximum potential ("have ALL faith..."understand ALL mysteries"..."give ALL..."), the charisms listed in 1 Cor 12:7-30 don't hold a candle to the surpassing efficacy of divine love. Love surpasses the charism of gnosis in excellence (per Eph 3:19), and love is called the "bond of perfection" (per Col 3:14).

When perfection is attained, imperfections/immaturities are done away. "The Perfect" nullifies "the Imperfect." The grown man (the perfect) does away with his former childish ways, the child (the imperfect). So while imperfection may nullify or render useless the lesser charisms, "the perfect" nullifies or renders useless "the imperfect".

1 Corinthians 13:10-11, 14:20 (YLT): "and when that which is perfect may come (cf. 14:20; 2 Cor 13:9,11), then that which is in part shall become useless. When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe...Brethren, become not children in the understanding, but in the evil be ye babes, and in the understanding become ye perfect"

Paul's desire is that the Corinthians experience the supernatural Love that surpasses even the charism of gnosis (Eph 3:18-19). Paul's desire is that they should "have love, the bond of perfection" (Col 3:14). Paul's desire is expressed in his closing remarks to the Corinthians: "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Corinthians 16:14). That is maturity (perfect). See also Peter's connection:

1 Peter 1:2, 22 - Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another with a pure heart fervently

That is maturity (That which is perfect).

But, imo, your interpretation does not fit as the passage proceeds further to say that when the perfect comes Paul will know as he is known.

All sanctification is a process of growth into knowing God "face to face," and all true believers are growing in sanctification under the New Covenant system. Sanctification is a transforming/transfiguring process unto true holiness and righteousness (cf. Eph 4:23-24/Rom 12:1-2/Rom 8:29/2 Cor 3:18). The life of Moses is clearly the example Paul is drawing from in this verse (see: Num 12:6-8/Deut 34:10-11/Heb 3:2-5). Those who have divine love and are pure see God, and have Christ's-likeness:

Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace...and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God (physically) at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1 Jn 3:6 whosoever sinneth hath not seen him (i.e., spiritually seen Him)

1 John 3:17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Notice Paul says ‘when that which is perfect is come’ not ‘when I am perfected. I see ‘the perfect’ as something external to the believer coming, that effects the believer. [/qb]

I suppose you'd have to elaborate if you see this external force effectine the individual believer or the corporate church.

In the context of continuation vs cessation, it is my understanding that the cessationist relies on the idea of "corporate perfection" via the canon, parousia, etc...

This notion that some corporate whole would become magically perfect in love because of the canon or Parousia is a concept entirely foreign to scripture. Rather, INDIVIDUALS come into the attributes of Christ by the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification and sanctifying ministries (i.e, through charisms) -- see Eph 4:11-16; 2 Pet 1:3-11. The state or health of the "body of Christ" as a whole is dependent upon the state of the body's individual parts (Eph 4:16; 1 Cor 12:12-30). You cannot apply "perfection in love and holiness" to a corporate whole, for scripture doesn't speak in that manner.