Since my last post was so controversial, I thought I would just get it out of my system. I’m going to follow up on a key argument that I heard from a cessationist who I respect very much (an intelligent and well-read pastor, and my good friend’s father). His argument hinged on his interpretation of the meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. John Piper, another pastor who I respect, hit this smack dab on the head. I’m going to let him do the talking. What follows is his sermon called “When will prophecy cease?”
_____________________________

In 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul says, “Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.” So the question I want to try to answer today is: What time is referred to when Paul says, “Prophecies . . . will pass away”? Has it already passed away or will it pass away at some future time?

The next two verses (9-10) give the reason for why prophecies and knowledge will pass away: “For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect [literally: For we know in part and we prophesy in part]; but when the perfect [or: mature, complete] comes, the imperfect [or: partial] will pass away.” So the reason prophecies will pass away is that a time is coming when the partiality and incompleteness of the gift of prophecy will be replaced by perfection and completeness and wholeness.

When Will Prophesy Cease?
When is that time?

When Scripture Is Complete?
One respected tradition says that the coming of perfection or completeness refers to the coming of the day when Scripture is complete, that is, when the last inspired writings are gathered into the Bible and the canon of Scripture is closed. Let me quote from one of these writers whom I highly respect:

When Scripture is completed, then the church will have revelation thoroughly suited to her condition on earth. Our completed Bible is perfect in the sense that it is utterly sufficient revelation for all our needs. Paul is saying, “When the sufficient comes, the inadequate and partial will be done away. Tongues will vanish away, knowledge [and prophecies] will cease at the time that the New Testament is finished.”

So when verse 10 says, “When the perfect comes,” they say it means, “When the perfect New Testament comes.” Is that what Paul means by perfect?

When Christ Returns?
The other view says that the coming of the perfect refers to the experience of perfection at the return of Christ.

So you see what is at stake in these two interpretations. If the coming of the perfect in verse 10 refers to the finishing of the New Testament, then the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge have all passed away because that time came 1,900 years ago. But if the coming of the perfect in verse 10 refers to the second coming of Christ, then the natural understanding of the text is that the gifts will continue until Jesus comes.

Testing the Options by the Rest of the Passage
Let’s test these two suggestions by the rest of the passage.

“When I Became a Man”
In the next verse (11) Paul says, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” Paul compares the experience of partial prophecy and knowledge to the experience of childhood, and he compares the passing away of these gifts to the experience of adulthood. That comparison doesn’t seem to decide the issue for us.

“Face to Face”
Let’s go to the next verse. Verse 12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.” Now this is really helpful in making our decision! Here in verse 12 Paul is describing what verse 10 refers to, namely, “when the perfect comes.”

I want to make sure that you see this. Notice the contrast in verses 9 and 10 between “our knowledge is imperfect” (v. 9) and “when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away” (v. 10). Then drop down to verse 12 and notice the same contrast in the second part of the verse: “Now I know in part” contrasts with “then I shall understand fully.” So verse 12 is clearly describing the coming of “the perfect” referred to in verse 10.

Now does the description of the coming of the perfect in verse 12 fit with the second coming or with the completing of the New Testament?

Let’s take the two halves of the verse one at a time. First it says, “Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.” Is it more likely that Paul is saying, “Now before the New Testament is written, we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the New Testament is written, we shall see face to face”? Or is it more likely that he is saying, “Now in this age we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the Lord returns, we shall see face to face”? In the Old Testament there are half a dozen references to seeing God “face to face.” Revelation 22:4 says that in heaven we shall see God’s face. 1 John 3:2 says that when Jesus appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is.

My conclusion is that the contrast between seeing fuzzily in an old mirror made out of metal and seeing face to face is not a contrast between first century spiritual knowledge and the knowledge we have from the New Testament today, but rather it’s a contrast between the imperfect knowledge we have today in this age and the awesome personal knowledge of God we will have when the Lord returns.

“Then I Shall Understand Fully”
The second half of verse 12 points in the same direction. It says, “Now I know in part [the very same words used at the beginning of verse 9]; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.” Now is this a contrast between before and after the New Testament or before and after the second coming?

It’s hard for me to imagine Paul or any of us saying that after the New Testament was written, we now in this age understand fully, even as we have been fully understood. This surely refers to knowing in some sense the way God knows us—not omniscience; it doesn’t say we will know everything. But we will “be freed from the misconceptions and inabilities to understand (especially to understand God and his work) which are part of this present life . . . [Our knowledge] will contain no false impressions and will not be limited to what is able to be perceived in this age.”

Conclusion
So my conclusion on this question is this: Paul is saying that prophecies will pass away not when the New Testament is completed but when this age is completed at the second coming of the Lord from heaven. That’s when “the perfect comes” (v. 10). That’s when all speaking and thinking and reasoning like a child will be put away (v. 11). That’s when we will see “face to face” (v. 12a). That’s when we will “know fully even as we have been fully known” (v. 12b).

What a can of worms this is. Well, I’m going to adhere closely to scripture here and make some interpretations of what I read, trying to cap my opinions as much as possible. The only reason I’m posting this is because I just read 1 Corinthians 14 and it seems to tackle this issue with straighforward clarity.

Speaking in tongues does not naturally edify others (simply because they can’t understand it). If it is used in the church: (1) there should be no more than two or three who speak [if you are the fourth, you must keep quiet]; (2) they must speak one at a time, not simultaneously; and (3) the word must be interpreted by one gifted as an interpreter. It seems that it is possible for the word to be interpreted by the one who uttered it (1 Cor. 14:13). All this is so the tongue will edify the church.

Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets…

Why? Because prophecy edifies others. (It is better to give than to receive.)

…so that the church may receive edifying….For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands…. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

That is why prophecy is considered better than tongues. Church is for the edification of the church.

How will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

However, the gift of tongues seems to have a different role in private prayer. If tongues is cautioned because it does not edify the church, then, in private prayer, which is not for the purpose of edifying the church, it is free from this caution and limitation. What I mean here is that legitimate practice of tongues is much more common in private than it is in public.

“For you are giving thanks well enough [when you speak in tongues]…”
“…let him speak to himself and to God.”
“I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.”
“Yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts [including tongues].”
“Do not forbid to speak in tongues.” [This one is the ringer.]

So then, tongues is a good thing in private, and in public it can be a good thing when and only when it edifies the church, according to the stipulations of orderliness and understanding outlined in 1 Corinthians 14.

Cessationists have overreacted.
(Oops. There goes my opinion.)