By Angus Harley

In any debate over the ‘gifts’, typically a Continuationist will ask the Cessationist for his reading of 1 Corinthians 13:10. To the Continuationist, the Cessationist argument just doesn’t hold water, here. So, I’m routinely, as a Cessationist, asked my view of 1 Corinthians 13:10 and the “perfect man”. Except, I’m never able to give the answer the Continuationist seeks to disprove. I think it highly unlikely that Paul is referring to the completed canon of Scripture. The reader might think, then, that I take Gaffin’s route of saying that the “perfect man” is the eschatologically perfected man that we all will become at the end of time who is perfected in knowledge. But, I don’t believe this either. Indeed, I think there is a strong case for arguing that there is no evidence for either Cessationism or Continuationism in relation to this text and its context, as the perfect man most likely ought to be understood in a wholly different manner.

The Mature

My basic thesis is that the phrase “the perfect” (to teleion, neuter, singular) in v10 ought to be interpreted as referring to “the mature” instead. To be fair, the standard reading of teleion as a neuter, singular in James 1:4 does refer to the “perfect”. But I would suggest that “mature” is doable there, too. Even if this is not so, “mature” is a real option here in 1 Corinthians 13:10. The adjective itself is used in 1 Corinthians 2:6 and 14:20 to refer to the “mature” man, just as in Ephesians 4:13. The Corinthians were plagued with spiritual immaturity and fleshliness, so Paul refers to the mature man as one who is mature in wisdom and thinking, who avoids foolish beliefs and practices. The assembly in Corinth was riddled with factions, arguments, and poor behavior, and chaos was evident every time they meet to worship. The assembly as a body was anything but mature. Rather, ‘maturity’ was measured in various ways by those of a fleshly disposition, with one of the strongest being how well one was ‘endowed’ with the ‘gifts’. It was the exact same prideful nonsense that one sees in the Charismatic movement today. In the context of 1 Corinthians 13, the mature man is a reference to the body of Christ, there in Corinth, together as one, reaching a state of spiritual maturity that is characterized by love. In its fundamental form, this status is not in any way tied to the gifts or their usage, as we will see. So much for my thesis.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31

To understand the position I’m putting forward, we need to go back to 1 Corinthians 12. The entire content of this chapter is devoted to arguing that the assembly, although abundantly gifted by God’s Spirit, must not use these gifts in a selfish manner. Nor must believers think that because they have certain gifts and are higher up in the scale of gifting that they are spiritually superior to those members who have gifts lower down on the scale. All were members together of one body, and all the gifts counted in the service of the assembly- albeit some gifts were given a higher ranking than others.

In the closing verses of the chapter, Paul has this to say in concluding:

27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

As to my argument, the verses that are critical here are vv27-28a, “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church”. It is the Greek text that draws my attention. The phrase “individually members” renders the Greek mele ek merous. In particular, it is ek merous, “individually”, that is central, for it is that exact phrase that is used in 1 Corinthians 13:9 (x2), 10, 12. Four times! Here in 12:27, it clearly has no relation to something that is partial. Paul is not merely stating that each member in the body is a particular member. The emphasis is upon gifting: each member is ‘particularized’, ‘individualized’ in the sense of having a specific gift, which gift is essential for the building up of the body. We know this because of the relative pronoun in v28. Translations usually do one of two things: they ignore the relative pronoun hous in v28, as the NASB does; or, they translate it as “some” and give the impression that it denotes the gifts that are subsequently enumerated. E.g., “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues” (KJV). I think it more likely that the relative pronoun hous (“some”) refers back to v27, and is talking about the individualized gifting of the members of the body. Paul then enumerates some of those gits in v28. If I may paraphrase:

“And some of these particularized-gifted members placed by God in the assembly are, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, afterwards powers, afterwards gifts of healings, helpings, governings, divers kinds of tongues”.

Now, if this is a correct reading of the text, then it means we can at least investigate 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 from a different perspective.

1 Corinthians 13

Before coming to 13:8-13, the progression of Paul’s argument must be understood. There are three stages here in chapter 13:

  1. Vv1-3 reveal that any amount of gifting plus zealous service is utterly useless if not accompanied by love. It is vital that the reader absorb this fact. For Paul has in the previous chapter magnified the gifts, but at the very end of the chapter, he says there is a better way. Indeed, often huperbolē is translated “more excellent” in 12:31, but I think this does not capture Paul’s thought. The idea is of something excessively exceeding (see Rom.7:13; 2 Cor.1:8; 4:7, 17 (x2); 12:7; Gal.1:13), not of excellence. The latter idea is too tied to some form of continuity between the gifts and love. This is not at all Paul’s point, however, in 1 Corinthians 13, where he is in stages putting distance between love and the gifts.
  2. Vv4-6 confirm this interpretation, for love itself, defined in its own right, is entirely separated from any form of gifting. Love does not need gifting at all.
  3. Vv7-13 completes and seals Paul’s argument, wherein he says that the attitude that assembly service is ultimately based on the use of particularized-gifting (ek merous) belongs to a state of spiritual immaturity and childishness, and, in the true body of Christ, gives way to the ‘grown man’, the mature man, of love, of the true and only form of pure service.

Now, the reader’s mind will immediately react- and rightly so- that Paul does not cast-off gifting. True enough. But, we must not make the mistake that gifting, particularizing, is Paul’s focus here in chapter 13. His sole focus is the ministry of love. It is it that does not need gifting. Love does not require anything; it stands all by itself, and is in itself the highest and purest form of service. And in that form of reasoning, we see how particularized gifting in itself as the template of service becomes redundant and useless in the presence of love.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

This brings us to vv8-13 proper. The entire thrust of these verses is to draw the Corinthians away from all the gifts and to focus on the greatest goal of all- love! For it is love that ultimately builds up the assembly and ministers to the lost, not gifting. That is why v8 begins, “Love never fails” (see ahead), and this is then set in firm contrast to gifts. There is in this no sense of continuity, but only utter discontinuity.

V8. “Love never fails” (NASB). I would argue that the term “fails” (pipto) does not mean “fails” but “falls”, as used everywhere else in Paul and the NT. Love does not fall. What does this mean? It means it meets the mark, the standard. It does not fall short. It does not totter and collapse. It invariably meets its goal of building up the body. Whereas, mere gifting used in zealous service falls flat on its face (13:1-3, 8ff.). The possession and zealous use of tongues, knowledge, prophecy- high level gifts- as ends in themselves fall down and fade away before love.

V9. The prophesying and knowledge ‘in part’ actually is not about partial prophesying and knowledge vs full prophesying and knowledge, but concerns particularized gifting. The phrase ek merous is taking us back to 1 Corinthians 12:27-28. Particularized, individualized gifting is the current state of mind of the immature man, the Corinthian ‘man’, or assembly. It was all he ever thought about! What, then, of the ‘we’ aspect? Isn’t Paul inserting himself into the equation? Doesn’t that imply some form of continuity between the gifts and love? Paul is using rhetoric and irony. Who was more gifted than he? If anyone could claim superiority in gifted-service it was Paul, the alpha ‘particulazired’ one! Listen to what he says elsewhere, “18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 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” (1 Cor.14:18-19). Is this not simple love and maturity vs gifting? The proliferation of gifting and super-zealousness in using them are utterly useless unto themselves. No one knew this better than Pau!

V10. As said already, it is the mature, not perfect, Paul has in mind, and it is not the partial, but particularized gifting, that is before him. The aorist subjunctive “should come”/”comes” (NASB) (elthē) is not in context conveying an event far off in the future, but functions here, as it does elsewhere, to confirm a state to be met or fulfilled:

 “but whoever drinks/may drink of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14); “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Paul is saying, ‘When the state of maturity is met, the prevailing model of individualized gifting will be done away.’

V11. Paul hammers home this contrast- not continuity- in giving the illustration of putting away childish things. He does not say, in other words, that his speaking/thinking grew more mature, or that the speaking/thinking he had as a child developed into its perfect form as a man. He says, rather, that he spoke and thought one way as a child, and in a completely contrasting way as a man.

V12. The mirror analogy, so often the cause of tension in the Continuationist-Cessationist debate, has nothing to do with that subject. For, Paul is contrasting the Corinthians’ current immature state to what they ought to be, and must become, as the body of Christ. As one, as the body, they are meant to reflect a whole, mature man, not a divided, immature child. Yet, does not Paul imply that Jesus will know them at the end of time, “but then face to face…just as I also have been fully known”? No, this is not at all the focus. Paul’s argument is that the mature man is the type of man that will reflect the image of Christ, the Spirit-image. It is the same theology as 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, where the Christian looks into a mirror and sees not himself, but the image of Christ in him, the Spirit’s presence through him. This man will know as he is known by the Christ and the Spirit.

V13. It confirms my reading. It does not say, “But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love because it will last to the end.” Faith will be to the end, so will hope. Nor does Paul teach that love will continue after the end of our time on earth, but faith and hope will not. The argument is concerning the present: faith and hope are not sufficient in themselves. A man might have faith as strong as Samson, but if it is without love, what is it (v2)? Also, the believer can be so zealous in serving God, for his hope is not in this life. But what is this service if it is not done in love (v3)? Thus, the greatest of these three is love.

What, then, about the gifts? It is obvious from 1 Corinthians as a whole that Paul doesn’t ignore them, and argues for their usage. Nonetheless, mere gifts, used with the utmost zeal, are entirely redundant. When weighed before God as things in and of themselves they are nothing. It is love alone that gives to gifts their value, love that stands on its own, and is the true form of service to the Lord.