Friday, 8 August 2025

First Corinthians 13 And The Cessation Of Miraculous Gifts: A Critique Of Thomas Schreiner’s Spiritual Gifts: What They Are And Why They Matter

By R. Bruce Compton[1]

Introduction

In his recent book on spiritual gifts, Thomas Schreiner uses the final two chapters to argue for the cessation of the miraculous gifts.[2] As a fellow cessationist, there is much in his book that I can applaud, not least of which is his irenic spirit when discussing controversial topics or when arguing against another writer. Yet, there are some significant issues in his defense of cessationism where we disagree, and I want to address those issues in my response.

I begin by briefly summarizing Schreiner’s case for the cessation of miraculous gifts. Following this, I develop my critique of Schreiner’s arguments along two lines. First, I respond to his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and his conclusion that arguments for the cessation of miraculous gifts from this text are unconvincing. Second, I assess his case for the cessation of miraculous gifts based on his linking the miraculous gifts with the revelatory ministries of the New Testament apostles and prophets. Finally, I offer a conclusion on the case for the cessation of the miraculous gifts based on my critique of Schreiner’s arguments.

Summary Of Schreiner’s Case For Cessationism

Schreiner’s Arguments Based On 1 Corinthians 13:8–12

8Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When 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. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.[3]

The first of Schreiner’s two chapters on the cessation of miraculous gifts is entitled “Unconvincing Arguments for Cessation of the Gifts.” Here he discusses Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 13:8‒12 about the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge passing away with the coming of the “perfect.” He presents three options on how the “perfect” has been interpreted: (1) The completion of the New Testament canon; (2) The spiritual maturity of the church based on the completed New Testament canon (he calls this a variation of the first); and (3) The Second Coming of Christ. He quickly dismisses the second option. He says there is no evidence from church history that the church was more mature in the centuries following the completion of the New Testament than it was in the first century.[4] Following this, Schreiner presents his support for taking the “perfect” to refer to the Second Coming.[5]

1 Corinthians 13:10

Schreiner’s first argument is that the concept of a “canon” involving the collected writings of the New Testament was unknown to Paul and his readers. Paul understood that as an apostle his letters carried divine authority. But God did not reveal to Paul that his letters would be collected and become part of an authoritative New Testament canon. As well, the Corinthian readers had no concept of a canon that represented the writings of the New Testament. Thus, the concept of a New Testament canon was not something that either Paul or his readers would have understood.[6]

In addition, Schreiner argues that the New Testament teaches the imminent return of Christ. Believers are to anticipate that Christ could return in their lifetime. However, had Paul taught that the “perfect” referred to the New Testament canon, then the Corinthians would have known that Christ’s return was not imminent. Christ could not return until the New Testament had been completed and the canon had been formally recognized.[7]

1 Corinthians 13:12

Schreiner’s second argument from 1 Corinthians 13 focuses on Paul’s statements in 13:12 about his seeing “face to face” and his knowing “fully.” He notes from 13:9‒10 that the gifts that are “in part” will cease when the “perfect” comes. In 13:12 he links the “in part” nature of these gifts with Paul’s statement, “now I know in part.” Thus, at the time Paul wrote, his knowledge gained through these gifts was only “in part” or partial. From this, Schreiner argues that the expressions that follow in 13:12, “then [I will see] face to face” and “then I shall know fully” must describe what takes place when the “perfect” comes. That being the case, he concludes that these expressions most naturally refer to what believers will experience at Christ’s return.[8]

Schreiner supports his conclusion by examining the expression “face to face” in the Old Testament. Schreiner notes that the expression “face to face” is used when Jacob wrestled with the angel of the Lord near the crossing of the Jabbok (Gen 32:30), when Moses met with God on Mt. Sinai (Deut 5:4), and when Gideon saw the angel of the Lord at the winepress in Ophrah (Judges 6:22).[9] In each case, the expression “face to face” refers to an individual’s personal, visual encounter with God, with their seeing the person of God. Applying this to 1 Corinthians 13:12, Schreiner argues that Paul uses the expression “face to face” in the same way to describe what will take place when Jesus returns. Thus, at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he saw spiritual realities or truths imperfectly and knew them only partially. But, when Christ returns, partial knowledge will be replaced with complete knowledge and Paul will see Jesus “face to face.”[10]

Schreiner concludes his argument from 1 Corinthians 13 by showing what he believes is a fallacy of taking the “perfect” to refer to the New Testament canon. If the “perfect” refers to the canon, then that means the church today no longer has partial knowledge. Those who have the completed New Testament know spiritual realities fully. But, if that is the case, then that means the church knows more today than the apostle Paul. After all, Paul stated that he knows only in part. Yet, the idea that the church’s knowledge is superior to the apostle’s is clearly false. The church today knows the truth accurately, but not comprehensively. Believers will only know such things fully when Christ returns, and they see him “face to face.”[11]

Schreiner’s Arguments Based On Other Texts

Schreiner’s final chapter is entitled “An Argument for Cessationism.” Schreiner begins by admitting that a good case can be made from 1 Corinthians 13 that all the spiritual gifts continue until Jesus Christ returns. Yet, he quickly adds, “other texts…cast doubt on whether 1 Corinthians 13:8‒12 requires that all the gifts continue until Jesus returns.”[12] According to Schreiner, Paul simply did not know which gifts would continue until the Lord returns and which would not. Other texts must determine the answer to that question.[13]

For the answer, Schreiner turns to Ephesians 2:20 and Paul’s reference to the “foundation” for the church. Schreiner defines this “foundation” as the special revelation given to the church through the gifts of the New Testament apostles and prophets. He then links the “foundation” with the New Testament canon and argues that the canon of the Old and New Testaments—the Scriptures—constitute the believer’s sole and final authority.[14]

With Ephesians 2:20 as his biblical and theological starting point, Schreiner spends the rest of the chapter showing how this verse supports the cessation of the miraculous gifts. Beginning with the category “apostles,” Schreiner argues that the term is used in Ephesians 2:20 in the technical sense of those who saw the risen Christ and were commissioned by Christ to communicate special revelation for the church. He further notes that Paul identifies himself as an apostle in the technical sense and indicates that he was the last apostle commissioned by Christ. In other words, there were no more apostles whom Christ appointed after he appointed Paul. In sum, the term “apostles” in Ephesians 2:20 refers to the 12 plus Paul, and, with the death of the last apostle, the gift ceased.[15]

With the category “prophets,” Schreiner pushes back against the view by continuationists that there are two kinds of prophets in the New Testament. There are foundational prophets who spoke special revelation inerrantly, and there are ordinary prophets who spoke special revelation that was sometimes errant. According to proponents, the foundational prophets ceased with the completion of the New Testament canon; the ordinary prophets continue throughout the present period.[16]

In response, Schreiner argues that there is only one kind of New Testament prophet. These spoke infallibly the word of God such that their words, like those of the Old Testament prophets, were authoritative and inerrant.[17] As mentioned, Paul includes New Testament prophets as part of the revelatory “foundation” for the church in Ephesians 2:20. For that reason, Schreiner argues that they would necessarily cease at some point following the completion of the New Testament canon. Specifically, Schreiner holds that the prophetic gift slowly died out at some point during the first few centuries while the New Testament canon was being officially recognized. Once the canon was established, the prophetic gift ceased. He further argues that, if this were not the case, then ongoing prophecy threatens the Scriptures as the final and sole authority for the church.[18] Schreiner adds that it was his study of New Testament prophecy that put him “back on the road to cessationism.”[19]

Schreiner allows for the possibility that some of the other miraculous gifts, like tongues, the interpretation of tongues, or healing, may still exist. He concludes, however, that these too have likely ceased. Based on such texts as 1 Corinthians 14:5, he defines tongues and the interpretation of tongues as communicating special revelation, much in the same way as does prophecy. For that reason, since both tongues and the interpretation of tongues are revelatory, they too would have ceased with the completion of the New Testament canon.[20]

Turning to the gift of healing, Schreiner acknowledges that miraculous healings happen today, but questions whether the gift of healing is still operative.[21] He argues that the miraculous gifts, like healing, are all linked in Scripture with authenticating special revelation. In other words, the primary purpose of the non-revelatory miraculous gifts was to authenticate the revelatory gifts. He points to Old and the New Testament texts where miracles occur in connection with the giving of special revelation, as in the ministries of Moses (e.g., Exod. 7:1‒14:31), Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:1‒21:29; 2 Kings 1:1‒13:25), and Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 2:3‒4).

Schreiner admits that there were other purposes for the miraculous gifts beyond authenticating special revelation. He mentions, for example, that the gift of healing gave comfort to those healed and brought joy to God’s people. Nevertheless, he concludes that the primary purpose of miraculous gifts was to authenticate the revelatory gifts. As such, with the completion of the New Testament and the closing of the canon, the primary purpose of the miraculous gifts came to an end and these gifts likely ceased at that time as well.[22]

Critique Of Schreiners’s Case For Cessationism

A Critique Of Schreiner’s Arguments Based On 1 Corinthians 13:8‒12

According to the above, Schreiner’s case from 1 Corinthians 13 rests on three arguments. The first is that the “perfect” in 13:10 refers to what will take place at Christ’s Second Advent. The second argument is that neither Paul nor the Corinthians would have understood the concept of a canon representing the completed New Testament. The third argument is that taking the “perfect” to refer to the New Testament canon undermines the imminent return of Christ. I have previously written on 1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and the cessation of miraculous gifts, and the discussion that follows draws upon my previous work.[23]

The Interpretation Of “The Perfect”

The three gifts Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 13:8, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, represent the miraculous gifts Paul listed earlier in 1 Corinthians 12:8‒10.[24] Paul divided the gifts in 12:8‒10 into three sections and the three gifts in 13:8 are taken from the three sections in 12:8‒10, one from each section.[25] Thus, the gifts in 13:8 are intended to represent the entire list of miraculous gifts in 12:8‒10. Paul reverses the order of the gifts in 13:9, “for we know in part and we prophesy in part,” forming something of a chiasm with 13:8. And, for stylistic reasons, Paul omits the gift of tongues from the previous verse. Nevertheless, what he says about the gifts of knowledge and prophesy in 13:9 is understood to be true of the gift of tongues and the other miraculous gifts as well.[26]

As Schreiner notes, the critical question raised with these verses is the meaning of the term “the perfect” in 13:10.[27] The term represents a neuter adjective that functions as a substantive, a noun substitute.[28] The gender and number of the adjective are determined by its antecedent.[29] In this case, the closest antecedent that agrees with the adjective in gender and number is the neuter singular noun in the phrase “in part” in the preceding verse. In other words, by using the neuter singular form of the adjective, Paul signals that whatever the “in part” refers to that is partial “the perfect” refers to the same thing that is now viewed as “perfect” or “complete.”[30]

Since Paul states that these gifts are in some way “in part,” the proper way to determine what Paul means by this phrase is to ask what these gifts have in common that can be described as “in part.” From the immediate and larger contexts, the common denominator among the gifts in 13:8‒9 is that they all communicate special revelation.[31] As such, the phrase “in part” simply refers to the fact that the revelation communicated by these gifts is partial or piecemeal.[32] That being the case, the corresponding expression “the perfect” as the counterpart must refer to the full or complete revelation of which these gifts contribute their portion.

Furthermore, these gifts are among those in 12:27‒28 that God has given to the church.[33] In 12:27‒28, Paul writes, “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And, God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues” (emphasis added). As can be seen, Paul includes the revelatory gifts of prophets and tongues among the gifts which God has given to the church. The upshot of all of this is that the term “the perfect” in 13:10 must have in view the full or complete revelation that God has decreed for the church—a reference to the New Testament canon.[34]

Schreiner’s initial objection to this definition of “the perfect” is based on Paul’s statements in 13:12. He correctly links Paul’s declaration in 13:12 that Paul presently knows “in part” with the “in part” nature of the revelatory gifts in 13:10. And, he correctly identifies Paul’s counter statements about his seeing “face to face” and his knowing “fully” in 13:12 with the coming of “the perfect.”[35] The crux for Schreiner’s understanding of “the perfect” is his interpretation of the expression “face to face.” He argues from the Old Testament that the expression is used literally of someone having a direct encounter with God, of someone seeing the person of God. For that reason, “the perfect” most naturally refers to Paul seeing Christ “face to face” at Christ’s return.[36]

It must be granted that the expression “face to face” can be used in the Old Testament to describe an individual seeing God in person. This appears to be the case with Jacob’s encounter with the unnamed individual in Genesis 32:30 and with Gideon’s encounter with the angel of the Lord in Judges 6:22. In both passages, the description of this individual points to a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ, God’s unique Son.[37] However, in the majority of cases in the Old Testament, the expression “face to face” is used metaphorically to describe that which is open and direct. This is seen, for example, in the passage Schreiner uses from Exodus 33:11 describing God’s speaking to Moses “face to face.”[38]

That the expression is not used literally of Moses seeing God’s face is made clear in the verses that follow. In Exodus 33:18, Moses asks to see God’s glory. In response, the Lord specifically says that Moses cannot see his “face” (33:20). It would seem strange that Moses would be asking to see God in 33:18, if the expression “face to face” in 33:11 were to be taken literally of seeing God in person. From the qualifying phrase that follows, “as a man speaks to his friend,” the expression “face to face” in 33:11 is used metaphorically of God speaking with Moses openly and directly.[39]

Further support for this interpretation is found in Numbers 12:6‒8. There God declares, “If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision. I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses…. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly and not in riddles, and he sees the form of the Lord.” From this passage, it is apparent that speaking with Moses “mouth to mouth” is metaphoric language and refers to God’s speaking with Moses directly rather than through dreams and visions.

Comparing this passage with Exodus 33:11, the parallels argue for taking the two expressions “face to face” and “mouth to mouth” as synonyms.[40] True, God says that Moses sees “the form of the Lord. But we know from Exodus 33:18 this cannot mean that Moses saw God’s face. Elsewhere we learn that God appeared to Moses and the Israelites in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night (cf. Exod 13:21). Rather, the contrast in Numbers 12:6‒8 is between the opaque and somewhat enigmatic revelation God gave to the prophets through visions and dreams and the full and direct revelation God gave to Moses.[41]

This appears to be similar to the contrast Paul develops in his opening analogy in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Paul describes the church’s perception of God’s revelation based on the revelatory gifts with seeing something “in a mirror dimly,” that is, seeing something indistinctly or unclearly. In contrast, when God’s revelation for the church is fully disclosed, it will be like seeing someone “face to face,” that is, clearly and distinctly. The word “dimly” Paul uses in this verse is the same word the LXX uses to translate the expression “dark sayings” in Numbers 12:8 to refer to God’s giving revelation to the prophets in dreams and visions, not directly as with Moses. Thus, consistent with Paul’s metaphor in the first part of the comparison about his seeing “in a mirror dimly,” his counterstatement about seeing something “face to face” is also metaphoric. The phrase simply means to perceive God’s revelation for the church clearly and completely.[42]

Paul’s collocating the expressions “face to face” and “dimly” in 13:12 argues that he intentionally borrowed these from Numbers 12:8 to draw a parallel between the contrast Moses makes and the contrast he makes. The underlying principle in both passages is the clarity of special revelation, though the contrasts in Numbers 12 and 1 Corinthians 13 are not the same. In Numbers 12:8, Moses contrasts the clarity of special revelation that comes through dreams and visions with the clarity that comes through God’s speaking “face to face.” Paul recognizes the underlying principle and applies it in a new way to the contrast in clarity with special revelation that is “in part” with special revelation that is “complete.” In other words, God spoke to Paul “face to face,” as he did with Moses. However, because the special revelation Paul received for the church was “in part” or partial, it cannot compare with the clarity that comes with the completion of that revelation. Thus, Paul is able to rework the contrast in Numbers 12 and apply it in a new and different way, simply because he draws out an implication from the underlying principle—the clarity of special revelation.

The same can be said with Paul’s second analogy in 13:12, “Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” As with Paul’s first analogy, the “now/then” contrast corresponds to the “in part/perfect” contrast in 13:9‒10. As mentioned, Paul makes this connection explicit with the opening statement in his second analogy, “Now I know in part.” The debate centers on the second half of the analogy and Paul’s statement “then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” Schreiner argues that, when Christ returns, believers will see Christ and will know God fully, even as God has fully known them.[43]

There are several problems with this interpretation. Perhaps its chief liability is that it says too much. It blurs the Creator-creature distinction by equating, in some way, the believer’s knowledge of God with God’s knowledge of the believer. Several of those who champion this interpretation attempt to relieve the tension by qualifying their interpretation such that the verse does not say what their interpretation implies. The knowledge believers will have of God only approximates the knowledge God has of believers.[44] The problem with this qualification is that the comparative adverb Paul uses “just as” is always used elsewhere by Paul in the sense of an exact correspondence.[45]

For that reason, it is best to interpret Paul’s second analogy consistent with his first and Paul’s larger argument. As already mentioned, the expression in 13:12, “now I know in part,” essentially repeats Paul’s statement from 13:9. In 13:9, what was known “in part” was the revelation of God’s mind and will communicated through the miraculous gifts of knowledge and prophecy. This revelation was “in part” because the gifts provided only a portion of the revelation God intended for the church. It should be assumed that the expression “in part” in 13:12 carries the same meaning as in 13:9. Paul’s knowledge of God’s will that is mediated through the revelatory gifts is partial or piecemeal—“now I know in part.”

In contrast, when God’s revelation for the church is “complete” or “perfect,” then Paul will know fully what he presently knows only in part. Since to know “in part” refers to Paul’s knowledge of God’s will for the church, then to “know fully” must also refer to Paul’s knowledge of God’s will for the church. Full revelation will bring full knowledge of God’s will, just as partial revelation provides only partial knowledge of God’s will.

With that in mind, Paul’s statement about his being “fully known” picks up the thought of his previous analogy. Paul knows God’s will in a way similar to his knowing or seeing himself in a mirror, that is, dimly not distinctly. When “the perfect” comes, Paul will know fully the will of God for the church, even as others fully know him. Others see Paul directly and, thus, clearly and distinctly, not through the mediation of a mirror. This then is how Paul and his readers will know the will of God—clearly and distinctly, when God’s revelation for the church has been fully disclosed.[46]

Schreiner argues that a serious problem occurs if 1 Corinthians 13:12 refers to what will take place with the completion of the canon rather than with the return of Christ. If this interpretation of 13:12 is correct, then that must mean that we who have the completed canon know more about God’s will for the church than the apostle Paul did. After all, Paul declared in 13:12 that his knowledge was only “in part.”[47]

I wonder if this criticism misses the point of God’s giving special revelation through various individuals. Paul knew perhaps more of God’s will for the church than anyone else in his day. Yet, that does not mean that he knew everything that God chose to reveal through others, like the apostles Peter and John. Peter, for example, stated that there were things that Paul wrote that he (Peter) found difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:16). The point is that no one apostle knew all of God’s special revelation for the church. God gave much to the apostle Paul; God gave some to others. So, yes, since we have the completed New Testament canon, there is a sense in which we know more of God’s will for the church than even the apostle Paul knew.

The Concept Of A Canon

Schreiner further argues that neither Paul nor his readers could have understood the concept of a canon representing the entire New Testament. For that reason, “the perfect” in 13:10 cannot possibly refer to the New Testament canon.[48] The principle behind this criticism is that a text can never mean what it could never have meant at the time it was written.[49] This is a legitimate criticism, if those who levy it against the above interpretation of “the perfect” would demonstrate how it applies in this instance. In response, the biblical and extra-biblical evidence argues that Paul and his readers were familiar with the concept of a completed, identifiable body of special revelation from God. In other words, while the term “canon” may not have developed until after the first century, the underlying concept was familiar both to Paul and his readers.[50]

Support for this can be seen from Schreiner’s interpretation of Ephesians 2:20, the key text in his defense of cessationism. His argument is that once the “foundation” for the church has been laid with the New Testament canon, then the revelatory gifts that build on that foundation are no longer needed and pass away.[51] As mentioned earlier, Schreiner links the “foundation” in this verse with the New Testament canon.[52] However, in a subsequent article, Schreiner clarifies his point by distinguishing what Paul understood by the term “foundation” from what the church in the centuries following Paul understood by the term. According to Schreiner, Paul understood the “foundation” more broadly to refer to all the special revelation God gave to the church through the apostles and prophets. In contrast, the church in subsequent centuries understood the “foundation” more narrowly to refer to the special revelation God gave to the church that was preserved in the New Testament canon.[53]

Allowing for Schreiner’s distinction in the meaning of “foundation” and using his definition of what this “foundation” meant for Paul, Paul still understood the “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20 to refer to a specific, identifiable body of special revelation God was giving to the church through the New Testament apostles and prophets. Furthermore, based on Paul’s metaphor of a “foundation,” once that revelation was given, then nothing further would be added to it. In sum, Paul understood the concept of a New Testament canon, even though the term itself post-dated Paul’s writing.

So, my question is this. How can we have Paul refer to the concept of a New Testament canon in Ephesians 2:20—the special revelation God was giving to the church—and, yet, deny that Paul could possibly have had that concept in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 13:10? In other words, if Paul can refer to the concept of a canon of the New Testament in Ephesians 2:20, he certainly can refer to the same concept in 1 Corinthians 13:10.

Peter seems to echo a similar understanding in his description of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15‒16. Peter speaks of Paul’s letters in a way that suggests that Paul’s letters have been copied and collected and available to both Peter and his readers. Furthermore, Peter specifically places Paul’s letters on a par with “the other Scriptures.” The term “Scriptures” Peter uses in this passage is the same word Paul employs in 2 Timothy 3:16 to describe the canonical writings of the Old and New Testament.[54] How is it, then, that Peter can understand Paul’s letters to be part of the canonical Scriptures and not Paul? If Peter understood the concept of a canon that included Paul’s letters, then so could Paul.

All of this is consistent with what we find in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period from approximately 400 B.C. to A.D. 100. Several of these authors refer to the Old Testament as a distinct body of writings that were the product of prophetic revelation from God. They note that true prophecy had ceased, and that God was not adding to what he had already revealed through his prophets.[55] They say this even though Jewish literature flourished throughout this period. Furthermore, these same writers also note that God had promised to revive once again the voice of prophecy in the future, but that he had not yet done so.[56]

In short, these Jewish writers understood that God had authored the Old Testament as an authoritative body of prophetic revelation, that this body was a self-contained, identifiable entity, and that this body of revelation had been closed in the sense that nothing further was being added to it. That being the case, there is no reason why believers in the first century would have struggled with the concept of a biblical canon as an identifiable body of special revelation given by God or with the concept of a completed canon.

The Closing Of The Canon And The Imminent Return Of Christ

Finally, Schreiner argues that identifying the “perfect” in 13:10 with the closing of the canon creates a conflict with what the New Testament teaches about the imminent return of Christ. Using Schreiner’s definition, imminence means that the Lord could come back within the lifetime of each generation of believers, including the first.[57] When Christ returns, he will remove believers from the earth, translating those alive and resurrecting those who have died—the two activities commonly referred to as the “rapture” of the church. In sum, the imminent return of Christ means that there is nothing in prophecy that prevents Christ from returning to rapture the church in the sense that each generation of believers can hold out the hope of the Lord’s return.

The principle of imminence is derived from verses in the New Testament that speak of Christ’s return as “at hand,” that his coming is “near,” and that he is standing “at the door” (e.g., Jas 5:8‒9; cf. 1 Cor 1:7; Phil 3:20; Titus 2:13). In terms of the first century, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul apparently held out the possibility that he would be alive at the rapture of the church. Paul uses the first person when referring to believers who are alive when the Lord returns, “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord….” Furthermore, according to our interpretation 1 Corinthians 13:8‒12, Paul also held out the possibility that he would be alive when the canon was completed. Again, using the first person, Paul states that when the perfect comes, “then I shall know fully….”

Returning to Schreiner’s objection, he notes that the New Testament was not completed until the end of the first century. Thus, had Paul and the Corinthians understood that the New Testament canon must be completed before the Lord returned, then that rules out imminence, at least for those living in the first century. In other words, if the Lord could not return until after the canon was completed, then those living in the first century, like Paul, could not expect the Lord to return in their lifetime.

However, as Schreiner notes, the Lord did not reveal to Paul when the canon would be completed.[58] Assuming the completion of the canon would precede the Lord’s return, Paul apparently did not see any conflict with the possibility that both could take place within his own lifetime. The exact timing of each was unknown to Paul. Thus, from Paul’s perspective, the completion of the canon, like the Lord’s return, could take place with his generation.

In sum, God has fixed the time for the completion of the canon and for the Lord’s return. However, God has not revealed the timing of either of these events. According to Paul and the other writers of the New Testament, both events could take place within the lifetime of each generation, including the first. The fact that the canon was not completed until the end of the first century or that the Lord has not returned after two thousand years does not jeopardize the principle of imminence.

I want to make one more point with Schreiner’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:8‒12. Schreiner has argued that the case for the cessation of the miraculous gifts from this passage is unconvincing. I would like to argue the opposite point, namely, that apart from this passage a convincing case for cessationism cannot be sustained. Schreiner recognizes that, whatever the “perfect” refers to, Paul appears to say that all of the spiritual gifts continue until the “perfect” comes. However, based on other texts, he argues that the revelatory gifts and, likely, the other miraculous gifts ceased with the completion of the New Testament canon.[59]

I see two problems with his conclusion. Assuming for the moment that 13:10 allows for some of the gifts to cease before the “perfect” comes, the verse does not seem to allow the miraculous gifts to be among them, as Schreiner argues. The gifts Paul specifically mentions in 13:10 are all miraculous gifts involving the communication of special revelation, as Schreiner has stipulated.[60] So, how is it that the miraculous revelatory gifts can cease before the “perfect” comes, when these are the very gifts Paul says will continue until then?

Beyond that, Paul’s argument on the cessation of the miraculous revelatory gifts in 13:10 involves a cause-and-effect relationship. The indefinite temporal clause, “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away,” can only mean one thing. The coming of the “perfect” (the cause) results in the passing away of the partial (the effect).[61] In other words, there can be no cessation of these miraculous gifts until the “perfect” comes. The significance of Paul’s construction is specifically this. You cannot have the “perfect” refer to the return of Christ and have these gifts cease before that time. Paul’s grammar simply does not allow for that.

A Critique Of Schreiner’s Arguments Based On Other Texts

Schreiner’s case for cessationism based on other texts rests on two arguments. First, according to Ephesians 2:20 the revelatory gifts of the apostles and prophets laid the foundation for the church, the foundation being the New Testament canon. With the finalizing of the canon, these two gifts along with the rest of the revelatory gifts ceased.[62] Second, the primary purpose of the other miraculous gifts was to authenticate the revelatory gifts. Thus, with the completion of the New Testament canon, both the revelatory gifts and the miraculous gifts authenticating these have ceased.[63] I treat these arguments in sequence.

I agree with Schreiner that Ephesians 2:20 provides a convincing case that the gifts of apostles and prophets ceased with the completion of the canon. Once the foundation representing the completed canon was laid, then those laying that foundation would no longer be needed and these respective gifts would cease. According to Paul’s analogy, you can lay a foundation, but you cannot add to the foundation once it has been laid. In short, the gifts of the apostles and prophets which laid the revelatory foundation for the church ceased with the completion of the New Testament canon.

I also agree with Schreiner that the completed New Testament canon remains the sole and final authority for faith and practice for the church. As Schreiner notes, the antithesis would be that, if the revelatory gifts of apostles or prophets continue, then the canon as the foundation is not closed but open and the New Testament cannot be the sole and final authority for the church.[64] Finally, I agree that a closed canon means that the other revelatory gifts, like tongues and the interpretation of tongues, must have ceased as well. We cannot have one or more of the other revelatory gifts still operating and maintain a coherent defense for a closed canon.

The tension I see with Schreiner’s case, is with the miraculous gifts that do not involve the giving of special revelation. He mentions the gift of healing as one example. While Schreiner is not dogmatic about these gifts, his argument is that the non-revelatory miraculous gifts functioned primarily to authenticate the revelatory gifts. With the ceasing of the revelatory gifts, the miraculous gifts authenticating these would likely cease as well. The question here is not whether God can and does on occasion perform miracles. The question is whether the miraculous gifts themselves are still operating.[65]

Schreiner acknowledges that these miraculous gifts had other purposes, beyond their authenticating the revelatory gifts. He mentions, for example, that the miraculous gifts provided encouragement, comfort, and joy in response to the display of God’s power. Rather, his argument is that the primary purpose of the miraculous gifts was authentication. For that reason, with the ceasing of the revelatory gifts, the miraculous gifts likely ceased with them.[66]

My criticism of Schreiner’s argument is two-fold. First, how convincing is the case that the non-revelatory miraculous gifts have ceased, if they had purposes other than authenticating the revelatory gifts. If their sole purpose was to authenticate the revelatory gifts, then I think the argument would be air-tight. When the revelatory gifts ceased, the miraculous gifts of necessity ceased with them. But, if they had other purposes, then what prevents them from continuing to function in fulfillment of these other purposes, even after their primary purpose has ended?[67]

Returning to Ephesians 2:20, my second criticism is that Schreiner allows for the gift of prophecy to continue until the canon had been formally recognized in the centuries following the first century.[68] He clearly holds to only one kind of New Testament prophecy. Like the Old Testaments prophets, the New Testament prophets gave special revelation that was inspired, inerrant, and divinely authoritative.[69]

However, having the prophetic gift continue beyond the first century and beyond the completion of the New Testament raises questions. In what sense was the canon closed with the completion of the New Testament, if New Testament prophets continued to give new revelation? Also, if the gift of prophecy continued through the first few centuries, why did the early church not recognize and include this new revelation with the rest of the New Testament? In sum, the combination of a completed New Testament canon by the end of the first century and the ongoing gift of prophecy beyond the first century appears irreconcilable.

Conclusion

Taking the above together, I have argued that the case for “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 to refer to the New Testament canon is, in fact, convincing. Furthermore, I have argued that any defense of the cessation of the miraculous gifts that identifies “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 to refer to the return of Christ faces significant problems. Finally, I have also argued that the case for the cessation of the miraculous gifts based exclusively on linking the miraculous gifts to the ministries of the apostles and prophets falls short of convincing.

Thomas Schreiner is a valued colleague in the cause of Christ and the defense of the faith, and I have learned much from his writings. Our disagreement over the evidence for the cessation of the miraculous gifts is significant. At the same time, we have much more in common in our faith than the few places where we disagree. My interaction with him on this topic has served to sharpen my own thinking, and my hope is that it will do the same for others.

Notes

  1. Dr. Compton is professor of biblical languages and literature at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI. An earlier edition of this article was presented at the 71st annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Diego, CA, 21 November 2019.
  2. Thomas R. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts: What They Are and Why They Matter (Nashville: B & H, 2018).
  3. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are taken from the esv (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016).
  4. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 149.
  5. This interpretation represents the consensus among continuationists. See, for example, D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12‒14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 66‒76; Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 194‒216; Sam Storms, Practicing the Power: Welcoming the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in Your Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 244‒69. At the same time, other cessationists have argued similarly. See, for example, Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1979), 109‒12; Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit: Affirming the Fullness of God’s Provision for Spiritual Living (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 243‒46; Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They For Today?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 14 (2009): 8‒10.
  6. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 149‒51; idem, “A Response to Andrew Wilson,” Themelios 44 (2019): 25; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy: A Brief Case for Nuanced Cessationism,” Themelios 44 (2019): 32.
  7. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151, 156; idem, “A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 24.
  8. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151, 156; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 32.
  9. The person wrestling with Jacob in Gen 32:30 is not specifically identified. Schreiner refers to him as “the Angel of the Lord.” Based on context and Jacob’s description of this event, I concur with Schreiner’s identification.
  10. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151‒52; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 32.
  11. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 152; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 32.
  12. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 155, 156; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 32.
  13. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 156‒57.
  14. Ibid., 158; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 30.
  15. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 157‒59.
  16. Ibid., 159‒60. For a defense of two kinds of NT prophets, see Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000). For a rebuttal, see Bruce Compton, “The Continuation of New Testament Prophecy and a Closed Canon: Revisiting Wayne Grudem’s Two Levels of NT Prophecy,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 22 (2017): 57‒73.
  17. For a fuller defense, see Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018), 159‒61; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 30‒32. Schreiner allows that the terms “prophet/prophecy/prophesy” in the NT can refer to activity other than the communication of special revelation. For example, he takes the term “prophesy” when describing the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3 to refer to preaching the gospel, not to the giving of special revelation (“A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 27‒28).
  18. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 159‒62; idem, “A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 26‒27; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 33, 35.
  19. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 159.
  20. Ibid., 162‒64; idem, “A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 25.
  21. Schreiner, “A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 25, 28; idem, “It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 29.
  22. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 164‒67.
  23. R. Bruce Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004): 97‒144.
  24. On the miraculous or supernatural nature of the gifts in 12:8‒10, see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 655‒63. Contra D. A. Carson, who sees a mixture of natural and supernatural gifts (Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12‒14 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987], 37).
  25. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 655.
  26. Ibid., 714, fn. 379.
  27. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 149.
  28. BDAG, 995.
  29. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 81‒82.
  30. TDNT, s.v. “τέλειος,” by Gerhard Delling, 8:75; cf. BDAG, 995.
  31. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 657‒58, 659‒60, 713‒14. Schreiner takes “prophecy” and “tongues” in 13:8 as revelatory gifts, communicating special revelation from God. In contrast, he understands “knowledge” to refer to the gift of teaching (Spiritual Gifts, 19‒21, 128, 159‒62). See his discussion on the gift of knowledge in his commentary, 1 Corinthians, 256‒57. For a defense that “knowledge” refers to a revelatory gift, see Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” 119‒21; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 657‒58.
  32. BDAG, 633; Similarly, TDNT, s.v. “μέρος,” by J. Schneider, 4:596; NIDNTTE, s.v. “μέρος,” 3:282.
  33. See the discussion in Fee on the relationship between God’s giving these gifts to the local assembly in Corinth and God’s giving these gifts to the universal church (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 684, fn. 246).
  34. For further discussion and documentation, see Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” 123‒24.
  35. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151.
  36. Ibid.
  37. For Genesis 32:30, see Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis, 2 vols., New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H, 2005), 2:555‒61. For Judges 6:22, see Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 227‒33. On the question whether the angel of the Lord and the Lord are the same individual in the Judges passage, see Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., A Commentary on Judges and Ruth, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013), 271‒75.
  38. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151.
  39. See, for example, Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H, 2006), 699, esp. fn. 111; T. Desmond Alexander, Exodus, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 635‒36. For further discussion and documentation, see Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” 134‒36.
  40. NIDOTTE, s.v. “פֶּה,” by J. A. Thompson and Elmer A. Martens, 3:583.
  41. See, for example, Baruch A. Levine, Numbers, 2 vols., Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993, 2000), 1:341‒42.
  42. TDNT, s.v. “ὁράω,” by Wilhelm Michaelis, 5:344. Fee comes to a similar conclusion, albeit from an eschatological perspective: “More likely the emphasis is not on the quality of seeing that one experiences in looking into a mirror…but on the indirect nature of looking into a mirror as opposed to seeing someone face to face. The analogy, of course, breaks down a bit, since one sees one’s own face in a mirror, and Paul’s point is that in our present existence one ‘sees’ God (presumably), or understands the ‘mysteries,’ only indirectly. It is not a distorted image that we have in Christ through the Spirit; but it is as yet indirect, not complete.” Removing the statement “one ‘sees’ God (presumably),” Fee’s conclusion captures something of the force of Paul’s metaphors (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 718, emphasis added).
  43. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151‒52. Taking the “perfect” to refer to the return of Christ, Schreiner states, “Now Paul sees imperfectly and knows partially, but when the perfect arrives he will see “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). Partial knowledge will give way to complete knowledge (1 Cor 13:12)” (152).
  44. Schreiner does not address this tension in his book, but does so in his commentary, 1 Corinthians, 281‒82. From the perspective of those who champion the continuation of miraculous gifts, see Grudem’s caveats in Gift of Prophecy, 197.
  45. Ceslaus Spicq, Agape in the New Testament, 3 vols., translated by Marie Aquinas McNamara and Mary Honoria Richter (St. Louis: Herder, 1963), 2:166. Although taking the “perfect” in 13:10 to refer to Christ’s return, Spicq notes, “The expression ‘even as’ (kathōs; St. Paul uses the word twenty-five times) means ‘exactly as’; it makes an exact comparison.”
  46. Fee arrives at a similar conclusion, though with an eschatological perspective, “By this [analogy] Paul intends to delineate the difference between the ‘knowing’ that is available through the gift of the Spirit and the final eschatological knowing that is complete. What is not quite clear is the exact nuance of the final clause that expresses the nature of that final knowing, ‘even as I am fully known’…. [It is] more likely Paul is simply referring to God’s own way of knowing. God’s knowledge of us is immediate—full and direct, ‘face to face,’ as it were; at the Eschaton, Paul seems to be saying, we too shall know in this way, with no more need for the kinds of mediation that the mirror illustrates or that ‘prophecy’ and the ‘utterance of knowledge’ exemplify in reality” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 719). Replacing the references to “God” with “God’s will” and “eschatological” with “completed canon,” Fee’s conclusion again captures something of the force of Paul’s analogy.
  47. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 152.
  48. Ibid., 149‒51.
  49. Fee’s criticism is representative of this objection. Referring to the view that takes the “perfect” as the New Testament canon, Fee states, “Despite protests to the contrary, this is an impossible view, since Paul himself could not have articulated what did not come into existence until the nineteenth century; and it is a primary exegetical axiom that what neither Paul himself nor the Corinthians could have understood can possibly be the meaning of what Paul was writing to them” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 714‒15, fn. 23).
  50. Roger Beckwith, for example, states, “We commenced this work by remarking that, though the technical use of the word ‘canon,’ to denote the correct list of the Holy Scriptures or the collection of books so listed, goes back only to writers of the fourth century A.D.…, the use of lists is much older, and so is the concept of a collection of Holy Scriptures, to which some books properly belong and others do not” (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985], 63).
  51. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 157‒62, 168. Building on his argument from Ephesians 2:20, Schreiner states, “I have argued in this chapter that the gifts of apostle and prophet are no longer functioning, since the church is ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Eph 2:20), and that foundation is now established. We now have apostolic and prophetic teaching in the completed canon of the Scriptures” (168).
  52. Ibid., 158. In his subsequent article, Schreiner again links the “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20 with the New Testament canon, saying that “the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as Ephesians 2:20 says, and that the foundation has been deposited for us in the canonical scriptures, and the canon was closed with the writing of the New Testament” (“It All Depends Upon Prophecy,” 30, 34‒35).
  53. In another article, Schreiner states, “When Paul says that the church is ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Eph 2:20), it is legitimate to deduce theologically from this verse that the NT canon comprises the foundational teaching of the apostles and prophets. Still, Paul wasn’t thinking about the canon when writing this verse, nor does it follow logically that we have preserved today everything the apostles and prophets ever said and taught, and yet the teaching of all the apostles and all the prophets was still foundational—even the teaching that isn’t inscripturated” (“A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 25). By “[not] inscripturated,” I assume Schreiner means “not preserved in the canon.”
  54. BDAG, 206; NIDNTTE, s.v. “γράφω,” 1:604‒5.
  55. For further discussion and documentation, see Compton, “1 Corinthians 13:8‒13 and the Cessation of Miraculous Gifts,” 125‒26.
  56. Ibid.
  57. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 151.
  58. Ibid., 150‒51, 156.
  59. Ibid., 153, 155‒56.
  60. Ibid., 157‒64.
  61. BDAG, 730‒31. BDAG notes that with an aorist subjunctive in the temporal clause, as here, the action of the temporal clause (“when the perfect comes”) precedes the action of the main clause (“the partial will pass away”). See also Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Biblical Languages: Greek 2 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 140. Porter comments, “Temporal Clauses are often used to indicate the ‘time at which’ or ‘when’ some other event occurred. The particles or conjunctions most commonly used for introducing this kind of temporal clause are ὅτε and ὅταν.”
  62. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 157‒64.
  63. Ibid., 164‒67. As mentioned earlier, Schreiner allows for God to work miracles today, but that the gift of working miracles likely ceased when the canon was finalized.
  64. Ibid., 160‒61, 168.
  65. Ibid., 164‒67.
  66. Ibid., 164.
  67. Those cessationists not persuaded by the arguments from 1 Cor 13 often cite 2 Cor 12:12 as their chief proof-text. In this verse, Paul points to his performing miraculous works as signs or proof of his apostleship, “the signs of a true apostle were performed among you…with signs and wonders and mighty works” (cf. Heb 2:4). Proponents assert from this verse that the primary purpose for the miraculous gifts was as “signs” to authenticate the NT apostles. Furthermore, they conclude that, with the cessation of the apostolic gift, these miraculous “signs gifts” of an apostle must have ceased as well. See, for example, Samuel E. Waldron, To Be Continued: Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Amityville: Calvary, 2007), 29, 41‒43, 97‒102; Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?” 10‒12. However, their conclusion only follows if the miraculous gifts’ exclusive purpose was to authenticate. Once allowance is made for secondary purposes, then their assertion (miraculous gifts’ primary purpose was apostolic authentication) does not necessitate their conclusion (miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles).
  68. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 161; idem, “A Response to Andrew Wilson,” 28.
  69. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 93‒122, 159‒60.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)