pleonast.com: slave_of_jesus

I told John that my next post would be “Why the ‘New Testament’ is not the new testament.” However, I would like to make one last effort to get more discussion of 1 Corinthians 13 out of the way before focusing on Paul’s concept of the new covenant, since it is heavily laden with references to the Spirit. I also wanted to try to answer Ethan's questions to me. This is also my attempt at that.

Before I start, let me explain what the traditional argument is for why 1 Corinthians 13 is anticipating the completion and reception of New Testament Scripture as a replacement and improvement from gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. I know this argument well because I spent countless hours perfecting it myself when I used to advocate this position.

(1) If “knowledge” and “prophecy” are “in part” and headed towards becoming “complete,” then it makes good sense that the “complete” is the compilation of aforementioned “knowledge” and “prophecy” for all of the churches of Christ, making the repetition of prophecies and knowledge obsolete. This system is superior to scattered prophecies without knowledge of all the others.

(2) In verse 13, faith and hope are said to “remain” after the “complete” has come, but themselves will last until the second coming of Christ, forcing the conclusion that Paul was saying the miraculous “knowledge” and “prophecy” would cease within history before Christ comes back.

I would like to go through the different phrases of the second half of 1 Corinthian 13, which I will show why the interpretations above are not closely enough reading the verses they propose to argue from. Before I do, let me remind the readers that Paul talks more about “knowledge” in 1 Corinthians than any other book, and introduces the contrast between present “knowledge” that the Corinthians have been blessed with, their “spiritual” gifts, and what they are currently supposed to be waiting for, “the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” as early as 1:5-7. Their “knowledge” winds up being critiqued because (1) they don’t use it as a tool for love and (2) they act as if they’ve reached the goal in terms of knowledge, but in fact it is still to come (8:2; 10:12).

For Paul, what he looks forward to most of all is the coming of Jesus. Philippians is loaded with this desire, its mentioned at the end of every chapter in 1 Thessalonians. Indeed, Paul believes that it could come at any time, like a thief in the night (not that it has to, but it could). Not only does Paul begin 1 Cor by speaking of them supposedly waiting for the revelation of Christ, but he has to defend that the resurrection is important and what they should be waiting for in ch. 15. He then ends the letter itself, similar to the way he started it, with this appeal: “Our Lord, come!” (Marana tha - though some believe it is Maran atha which means, “Our Lord has come.”)

It would be odd indeed for Paul to believe that (A) Jesus could (but not necessarily) come back at any time, as in 1 Thes 5:2, and (B) that in a couple of decades after his death the last NT documents will be written and collected to guide the church for decades or centuries to come. It would seem that if he did believe that he was only in the infancy period of God’s revelation to the church, then he wouldn’t also believe the Lord could come back at any time, a belief that so often functions as a motivational tool among other NT letter writers (James 5:8-9; 1 Peter 4:7).

The first half of 1 Corinthians 13 is a description of Paul's "better way" (love) following Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts in ch. 12. Paul had emphasized the fact that the variety of gifts all come from "one Spirit" which all Christian drink from, and gifts are just that - gifts from the Spirit. Therefore, no one ought to look down on another for having a less impressive looking gift. Rather, the gifts are given to help the body. This leads Paul immediately to a discussion of love, which ought to be the decisive factor in how gifts are used. Indeed, while the gifts are from the Spirit, there is nothing more Spiritual than love itself, which will outlast the gifts listed in 1 Cor 12. The Corinthians think they know it all and have already attained, but Paul wants to them to know the highest knowledge is still to come and there is only one way to get there: love.

Here we go with a brief commentary on 1 Cor 13:8-13

8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Note first that what Paul says will happen to “prophecies” and “knowledge” is that they will “pass away.” There are two major problems with the interpretation that says “complete” is simply the adding up of the “parts.” The word translated here “pass away” means “to bring to naught, abolish.” It is translated just this way when Paul uses it to say the rulers of the world are “doomed to pass away” (1 Cor 2:6) and “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:26).

Whats the big deal with that, you might ask, doesn’t that only enhance the argument that prophesying and the miraculous receiving of knowledge will be abolished or destroyed? Unfortunately for that argument, what Paul says will “pass away” in 1 Cor 13:8 is not the ability to prophesy or receive miraculous knowledge (a verbal action), but the contents themselves, the noun. It doesn’t say “prophesying will pass away” or “receiving miraculous knowledge will pass away” but “as for prophecies, they will pass away” and “as for knowledge, it will pass away.” This use of “pass away” is similar to the way Paul uses the word in Romans 7:6 where the Law of Moses a person is bound to is “abolished” when coming to Christ. Paul is saying that the prophecies themselves will, not be added up and bound, but pass away into obsoleteness. That begs for whatever "perfect" is to come not to consist of that which was abolished, but be something different. Something fuller.

9 For our knowledge is in part and our prophecy is in part.

I would like to point out that the word “in” is supposed to be a translation of the word “ek” in the Greek. If you know Greek, you know this is the word we are taught to translate as “from” or “out of.” The wording “in part” makes for a smoother translation than “out of part” or “from part,” but the latter translations capture the idea that the revelations being given in the first century church a qualitatively different than that which was to come later, not quantitatively. In other words the prophecies are revealing only the kind of knowledge of God available in this world, which is only partial. It is not the full blown revelation we will receive in the end. Therefore, we are receiving prophecies that are "from the part" that God has made known to us in this age. But when the perfect revelation of God is made available, then the old way of knowing God and the prophecies that pertain to this age will be abolished and pass away.

Its not simply that the church was going to have more prophecies of the same kind of thing, add them up, and then have the whole. Rather, the knowledge and the prophecies were given could only exhaust the kind of revelation available during this age. We see God dimly, through the mirror of the face of Christ. But I’ll mention this last point again later.

10 but when the perfect comes, the in part will pass away.

Again, when the “in part” is “abolished” here, we’re not talking about reaching the top of the stairs and being finished with stairs. Its more like, when the elevator comes, you don’t need stairs. Remember, what is abolished here is “knowledge” and “prophecy” (nouns), not “prophesying.” This, again, points to a prior, lesser qualitative level of “knowledge” passing away, not a quantitative level being left behind.

It has been rightly noted the gender in Greek of "perfect" or "complete" is neuter, which means it refers back to "part," which is also in the neuter. Since no personal name, neither Jesus or God, is a neuter gender word in Greek, it is reasoned by some that, therefore, the "complete" is merely the adding of the "parts" and not a reference to Christ's coming.

The problem here is that the argument isn't that the "complete" actually is "Jesus" or a person, but rather the "complete" is an event which amounts to the fulness of revelation. One does not need to disagree that the "complete" is the completion of the "partial" to hold this view. One must only assert that the way in which the partial is replaced by the complete is not simply by adding a few more parts together. Rather, the complete is something that comes along that is qualitatively different than that which was partial. That is, the kind of revelation. Paul didn't seem to think the Corinthians were limited in terms of their receiving "all knowledge" (1:5) of a particular kind of knowledge that is possible in this age. Rather, they lacked the "revealing of Christ" (1:7) in which they would receive a new degree of glory and be able to see God "face to face" (13:12), an intimate quality of the knowledge of God not before available to them.

Remember, this is in keeping with a view that says the "part" (prophecies/knowledge) is abolished when the "complete" comes. A gradual adding of parts cannot explain how prophecies (not prophesying) become abolished when the perfect comes.

11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

Paul likes to use the child/man metaphor in his writings. He does so in Galatians 3:34-4:7 to speak of children being under the Law and leaving that for sonship through Christ. We also see it in Ephesians 4:13-14 where “manhood” refers to “unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God” (v 13) and being “children” refers to susceptibility to false doctrine (v14). It is in the then present period of being “children” for which Christ has provided apostles, prophets, eavngelists, pastors, teachers, etc (v12)… “until” (v13) the time of the full knowledge of the Son of God. In verse 13 most translations have “knowledge of the Son of God” but the word used for “knowledge” is more than just “gnosis” but “epignosis” which intensifies the word to mean “know fully”, as the same word is translated in 1 Cor 13:12. In any case, in Ephesians 4 Paul seems to use the “child” period to be the church before Christ comes back, and the “manhood” period to be when we have “full knowledge” of the Son of God and are no longer susceptible to false teachings.

12a For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.

This phrase “face to face” is obviously a fairly common phrase both in and outside the Bible. Yet out of 16 times the phrase is used in the Bible, all of them refer to two individuals meeting with one another personally. Indeed, it is a term of intimate encounter. I’m not personally aware of any other way to used the term, so it would be odd if Paul is somehow using “face to face” to refer to receiving the collected NT documents. It seems more likely to me that “face to face” is intended to evoke the imagery that Paul would go on to use with the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 3 when speaking of how God reveals himself. That is, “face to face” evokes Moses’ most intimate encounter with Yahweh on Mt. Sinai, something nobody else ever got to do (Deut 34:10). Whereas Moses’ face reflected God’s glory after his encounter, the people did not see it because of the veil he wore (2 Cor 3:13), but Paul says we see Jesus’ face reflecting God’s glory and we look with unveiled face (3:18). In 2 Cor 3:18, Paul uses the word “beholding as in a mirror” which has the same root as the word for mirror in 1 Corinthians 13:12. The idea is that now we have knowledge of God as reflected through the mirror of the face of our new Moses, Jesus, but the time will come when we like Moses/Jesus will stand in God’s presense and see his face for ourselves. The gradual transformation of the believer starting in this age (2 Cor 3:18) will be finished at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:50-52). And this process is a process of coming to “know” Christ. See further.

12b Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Those who wish to see in this verse an intellectual idea of the “full knowledge” of God’s will through the NT tend to focus on the first part, and make little if any comment on the contrast with being fully known. And its plain to see why. The idea that we are “fully known” refers to being known by God through our new relationship as his sons through adoption. Earlier in the letter, and in language that cannot be a conincidence, Paul says, “But if one loves God, one is known by him.” The idea is that in this present age we can rejoice to have our standing before God completely restored, and we are fully known to him as his children. But we do not yet fully know God. Our knowledge of Christ comes in stages. Whereas in Philippians 3:7 Paul comments on the “surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus,” he goes on to state his future goal “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection” (v10). At that final stage of knowing Christ, and only that stage, would Paul consider himself having reached the “complete” (v12).

Another point to be made here is that Paul doesn’t say then “you” will know fully or even “we” will know fully. Paul says “then I will know fully.” If the full knowledge to come that Paul was speaking of is the reception of the entirety of the New Testament, then when would Paul have received it? He died before the NT was finished. This seems to turn Paul into a liar. Even if we take “I” in a rhetorical way so that Paul represents the whole church, this still at least has to include Paul. Yet Paul would never receive a copy of the NT.

Also, even if we allow that the whole of the 27 books of the NT could add something to Paul’s own knowledge of God’s will, given that Paul’s name is on about half of those documents, how realistic is it to think that Paul could contrast his future “full knowledge” with his present knowledge as the difference between being a child and being a man? Or the difference between seeing somebody through a metal mirror and seeing him face to face? Rather, these metaphors are qualitative ones, not quantitative ones. Paul was not worried about missing some of the cognitive facts, or even the Corinthians, since he described this church full of prophets as “all knowledge” in 1:5. It wasn’t more of the same they needed, but a qualitatively different kind. To fully know God in a relationship way.

Also, "then I will know fully" is extremely difficult to take, in my opinion, as merely the collection of the documentation of NT knowledge/prophecy. After all, simply having a book in your hand is no more advantage to the Christian that the OT was the Jews. Having a collection of documents isn't "knowing fully," simply by virtue of the fact that one still needs to interpret the text. And in doing so churches/individuals have invariably come to disagree on what it means. It seems rather preferable to have individual prophecies to clarify current issues, and having a collection of documents has hardly done better than having Paul write 1 Corinthians to clarify issues. It seems that new prophecies would be quite relevant and helpful. Why should we think it preferrable to have 27 fixed texts to supplant the NT system where they had both letters and new prophecies?

13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Finally, we arrive at the age old argument that Paul is contrasting faith and hope as things that “remain” with the fleeting gifts of the Spirit. But the problem is that Paul isn’t here contrasting faith and hope with knowledge and prophecy, the former being things that remain somehow after prophecy. Look again at verse 13. Some verses drop off the word “now,” which is unfortunate. The Greek word “nun” which means “now” is there, so don’t let a translation that lacks it fool you. For smoothness, a translation might omit it, but Paul is saying that faith, hope and love are things that remain, abide, or continue “now,” not “after” the prophecies are abolished. That means Paul is using faith and hope as contemporaries with prophecy and knowledge. And this is true since the beginning of the chapter. He speaks of “faith so as to move mountains,” faith being an important ingredient in the present age of spiritual gifts. Paul contrasts knowledge and prophecies that will be abolished with love in verse 8. In a parallel way Paul contrasts the faith and hope of the present age with love, that will not be abolished. The point being is that love is the closest knowing of God you can get until the next age, leaving noone to boast of “faith to move mountains” or knowledge or having been given a prophecy.

The next major revelatory event that Paul looked for in the life of the church, the one he himself longed for, is the coming of Christ, for whom we still wait. This is not to say that Paul didn't think of inspired writings being left to help the church. Indeed that was one of the ways the Spirit was already ministering in Paul's own time. I'm just saying that Paul doesn't leave any hint that such writings were one day going to take over the sole method of God instructing his people, or that any particular collection of documents would be "the canon" to serve as a manual for all Christians everywhere, being the sole and final authority for all matters of Christian practice.


	(46 older comments)
grizzlytwelve	I believe the issue here is more directly related to "how" they received the "anointing" that "abides" with them. The anointing is not the same as the Spirit (it is an anointing that they receive from the Spirit). John is not substituting the word "anointing" in place of the word "Spirit"...but rather he is substituting it for another concept, which I believe in the context is best understood as the "abiding word". The strong contextual emphasis has been on the abiding word that they have received from the apostles in the "beginning". Note Ch. 1:3,5; and Ch. 2:3-5,7,14,25. The issue though really is about "how" they have received this word. The text says that they recieved the word from the apostles...but it also says that the word originated from the Spirit. How is this best understood? Ch. 1:5 explicitly says that the apostles heard the message from "Him" (the Spirit) and then delivered it to them. If we follow the epistle from 1:1 all the way to our verse in question (2:27), there is no reference I can find of the recipients of this letter having "heard" the word directly from the Spirit and not through the apostles. Were there spiritual gifts in the first century church? To be sure. Are spiritual gifts the topic that John is emphasizing here? Not that I can see...the point of emphasis from 1:1 forward is that they are to allow the word that they have heard from the beginning to abide in them...and NOT be moved by apostate doctrines and movements. John's statements with regard to the brethren not needing him or another to teach them are not indicative of these brethren having the same miraculous power and direct revelation that he and the other apostles had received but rather it is a reminder that they have ALREADY heard these things before and should know them.
grizzlytwelve	The issue is also not so much (for them) about whether or not they received this word in written form or not...but it is about the Spirit revealing the truth of the gospel through the apostles. In this historical context, I would not say that John is referring to the written NT (not that this helps or hurts either point of view here).
grizzlytwelve	Josh, do you not see the inherent contradiction in acknowledging the apostles as the "authoritative bearers of the gospel" and yet also affirming that the average believer has just as much direct revelation from the Spirit? If such were truly the case, then there would be little point in the apostles being viewed as the source of authority in all matters pertaining to the church...the average believer could have simply petitioned the Spirit...why petition the apostles at all if such is the true meaning of "you have an anointing and have no need that anyone teach you"? Surely John is not saying that they have heard "all things" apart from apostolic revelation and thay should not view themselves as in any way dependent on the apostles! On the contrary, it would seem that John is emphasizing that they must abide in what they have already received from the apostles.
grizzlytwelve	But if (I emphasize IF) you agree that the apostles served in a unique role in the revelation of the gospel...why do you believe it proper to assume that the promise of the Spirit not leaving THEM applies to the church as a whole, in the same sense and in the same way? Your original point in appealing to 1 Jn. 2 was to demonstrate that miraculous spiritual gifts will be a "permanent fixture in the church"...and yet what you have really done here is to assume that since it was said that the Spirit would not leave the apostles then it is proper to conclude that the Spirit will also remain with the church in the same way permanently. Considering though the special position that apostles held in revealing the gospel, this conclusion (based on these passages) seems not only un-necessary but also somewhat presumptuous.
grizzlytwelve	As far as Jeremiah and others saying that the "new covenant" would be written on the "hearts" of believers...this really has nothing to do with whether or not we should understand the written NT as the complete word of God. It does not mean that the law of Christ will not be provided in written form (anymore than Deut. 6:6 means that the old law would not be provided in written form). The point is not relevant.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	As for the "anointing" being the abiding word rather than the Spirit, and the anointing being something they receive from the Spirit, John's Gospel and the epistles make it clear that both the word and the Spirit need to abide in the believers. Lets look at the verses in 1 John 2 together...again: 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he has promised us, eternal life. 26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you; 27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him. The "truth" operates on a couple of levels in the Gospel of John. The Spirit passes truth to the believer, the truth of Jesus. It is clear that disciples need to "hear" the truth verbally, but is also clear that they need to have truth in their hearts on a spiritual level. Both levels are both considered necessary and are guarenteed for believers in the Gospel of John. Jesus says "Unless you are born of water and Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God" in ch.3. It is also the case the believers are guaranteed this Spirit in John 7:37-39. Its both necessary and a guarantee. The can argue that there is unique role for the apostles in John in passing on the verbal word and that all later disciples are dependent upon this transmission, but this is equally true of the Holy Spirit which never loses its function of continuing to reaffirm the truth of the gospel message and bring it to remembrance in the heart of believers. For this reason, the Spirit is promised to abide forever. This is seen in 1 John 2 in that not only have the believers received the gospel in verbal form from the apostolic messengers, but that they have no need to be written, because the Spirit that guides into "all truth" has remained with them to perform the function Jesus described in John 14 and 16. The Spirit is described by Jesus therein as "the Spirit of truth." It has a truth affirming and reaffirming function. The gospel in their heads does not "teach them" anything they don't already know. Rather, the Spirit teaches them as is described in John 16.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	You seem to be suggesting that the "Holy One" in verse 20 is the Holy Spirit, such that the Holy Spirit anoints a person with the word of truth. If this is so, then verse 27 is made difficult. The "anointing which you have received from him" has a prior antecedent for "him" only in the Son or Father from verse 23, but its possible that the "him" in verse 27 refers all the way back to verse 20. Just supposing the anointing is from the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit himself. I fail to see the practical difference between my original position and what you are now saying, unless you argue that the Holy Spirit only anoints them with the truth through the apostles, and not an anointing from within. I would find denying the later problematic on the basis of the the Gospel of John.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Also, Adam, I never affirmed "that the average believer has just as much direct revelation from the Spirit?" Not all guiding into truth has to do with a direct revelation. Much of what I have said operates on the level of applying the gospel message to daily situations, or reaffirming the gospel message, not coming up with it out of thin air. As for this comment: "If such were truly the case, then there would be little point in the apostles being viewed as the source of authority in all matters pertaining to the church"...I don't remember affirming or the NT affirming that "the apostles [are] viewed as the source of authority in all matters pertaining to the church." I would review Jeremiah on this topic. The failure of the priests and prophets in his day as well as the failure of the people to stay faithful is part of what led to the prophecy that in the new covenant (1) God would write the law on their hearts and (2) they wouldn't need teachers to tell those in the covenant "know the Lord." Which is why Paul and John take the opportunity to tell the believers mature in the Spirit that they have no need to write them. Thats an affirmation that they are true new covenant Christians.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I have not affirmed, as far as know, that the Spirit would remain in the church in exactly the same way it was in the apostles. The gospel was once for all delivered through the apostles, so we don't need anyone to reinvent the wheel. But the ability to "teach" this truth to others properly and believers to need to "remember" this truth authentically has never gone away. Jesus said that when he left the earth "I will not leave you orphans" (John 14:18) and that they Holy Spirit "will be with you forever" (eis ton aiona). The end of Matthew concludes as well, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" ("age" translates aionos). Luke 24:49 as well concludes with the promise of the coming Spirit, a promise repeated for the whole church (Acts 2:39). That the Spirit would remain in the church is simply a staple in the NT understanding of this age. I'm not demanding that the gifts the Spirit gives from within believers has to be miraculous today, I'm just saying there is no way to rule out such a claim for today on the basis of NT teaching.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Adam, I'm afraid you have failed to understand what really is an important point in Paul's teaching when you say the following: "As far as Jeremiah and others saying that the "new covenant" would be written on the "hearts" of believers...this really has nothing to do with whether or not we should understand the written NT as the complete word of God. It does not mean that the law of Christ will not be provided in written form." You see, Paul says that we are "not under law but under grace" (Rom 6:14) because "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6). It is important to Paul that we are not bound and controlled by a document, one, rather than a personal agent. But, two, Paul says that a written covenant stands as a testimony to guilt, which is in part why the law was abolished. If you want a written covenant to mediate your relationship with God, then as Paul says in Gal 2:18, "But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor" with which to have "handwriting of requirements" against us (Col 2:14).
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Thus, you see that the "New Testament" cannot be the complete word of God, or else it would condemn us. Rather, Christ in our hearts through the Spirit is the complete word of God. And while this way of knowing the Word is only in part, we will know him fully "face to face" in the end.
grizzlytwelve	Then it would appear that we are not bound by apostolic writings at all (regardless of whether or not they represent the complete word of God). If what you say is true, there is not even a supplemental need for the inspired word in written form...all of the NT documents are unnecessry (for the first century church as well as for us).
grizzlytwelve	Josh, I believe you know that the passages you have quoted with regard to not returning to a "written" law/document refer specifically to the Law of Moses. The notion that concepts expressed in such passages rule out a written law of Christ is beyond reasonable...and denies what is plainly stated with regard to apostolic writings (1 Cor. 14:37). Do you really believe that what Paul wrote by the Spirit did not provide condemnation in 1 Cor. 6:9-10? The emphasis with regard to the law of Christ (as well as the law of Moses) being written on heart is NOT excluding the potential or reality of such a law being revealed in written form...BUT rather that the law (whether received by word, by written document, or by direct inspiration of the Spirit) should be IN our hearts...and not just in our exterior behavior going through the motions.
deusvitae	Quite. Christianity was never designed to be a mere study of a book, but a life lived according to God's revealed principles. And I also agree that there really is no place for written revelation in this schema. Why have written revelation if the real revelation is God? Why would the Spirit provide inspired gifts for 100 years and then be quiet (in revelatory terms) for at least 1800 years if not ever since? Why is the Book still the guide and focus? And why didn't the Corinthians already understand this from the revelations of the Spirit? Why did Paul have to bother to write it down and send to them?
grizzlytwelve	If I believed as you do Josh, I would probably chuck my Bible...what would be the point in having one? The Spirit would tell me everything I need to know. If the NT is truly such a pathetic document that causes more confusion than unity and common understanding, then it would appear that such an action is long overdue...for all of us.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Adam, you keep trying to draw conclusion about what I do believe based off statements I've made about other things I believe. And you've done a miserable job. And this isn't the first time you've done this. It makes me wonder if you've really been trying to listen to me, or whether you've listened only for the sake of finding chinks in my armor or something. I haven't said that apostolic charges are not authoritative or from the Lord. I have just said that such statements reflect the covenant already made without words. This wasn't true of the Law of Moses. What was written was the Law. There wasn't a law behind the law. My next claim is only that the new covenant is to act like God, but only possible because God dwells within the believer and powers her to do so. The Spirit of Christ is the law, the law of Christ. The best summary of this law is "love." Even as "God is love." You keep speaking of the Spirit guiding through special revelation as if I'm saying the Holy Spirit articulates words that you hear in your head. What I'm describing is more subtle. Its more that the "renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5) restores our marred likeness back to the image of God, such that our wrongly trained conscience and heart is turned back and oriented towards spiritual things. This happens in degrees. Paul feels the need to write to those who are not leaning on the Spirit, hence still carnal, to encourage them (1 Cor 3) to walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:24-26). But others he feels he has no need to write (1 Thes 4:9) because they have been receptive to God's handwriting on their hearts. What Pauls said in 1 Cor 6:9-10 condemning certain behaviors is condemning, not because his authoritative handwriting says so, but because it accurately reflects the covenant already in play through the Spirit. Indeed, Paul says that believers have access to that same knowledge without him (see Gal 5:19-23). Ethan, I have absolutely not said that there is no place for written revelation. Prophets, more than the average believer, are gifted to articulate the will of God in some area. But all words from prophets are mere approximations of what lies behind the curtain. We see in a dim mirror. The best we can hope to do is know God, to prayerfully lean up his guidance as we dimly understand it, and wait upon the Lord's return. Words from prophets help articulate things for us. (By the way, Ethan, you are not off the hook on our previous discussion.) I have said, and stand by, that the "new covanent" is not presented in words, indeed who could describe God completely in words? No, the NT is not the "complete word of God." How could it be? It all reflects the word of God and comes from the word of God (like when the "word of God came" to so and so in the OT). Yet the NT documents can help say some particular things in particular areas that are true and helpful.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	The things we need to protect like the apple of our eye is the gospel which needs to be believed before we can enter into that covenant.
deusvitae	...yet, Josh, Paul still writes to the Thessalonians. His statement that they have no need for anyone to write to them is just that-- they're doing what they're supposed to do. But he writes and encourages them anyway. The new covenant is more than God's revelation, just like the old covenant was more than the Law of Moses. But the revelation of the new covenant is limited to the revelation of God to man in the NT. If you need any attestation of this, look at the past 1900 years.
deusvitae	And no, you've not really answered your own question to satisfaction. The partial thing is subsumed in the complete thing. The sketch may not be as clear as the photograph, but that does not invalidate the sketch. The sketch, at its level of representation, was still accurate to its theme. It gets subsumed in the photo that provides everything the sketch does plus greater detail. The same is true with that which was known/prophesied. Such is not invalidated. It is not destroyed. Its realities are still found in the complete, because the partial is part of that which is complete. The part vanishes in the whole, because it is now part of something greater.
deusvitae	But I still think that you're assuming the proof of the main issue. I haven't yet been convinced of the reason to believe that Paul is talking about anything more than the substance of what has been revealed through the Holy Spirit through three particular gifts to the Corinthians and how that will all be subsumed in the completion of the partial revelation they have. I see no grander, loftier concept here. It makes for nice and flowery theology, but it seems to be sailing at least 10,000 feet above the context of 1 Corinthians 13.
grizzlytwelve	What you said Josh is that the NT "cannot be the complete word of God or else it would condemn us"...which is an utterly absurd and illogical argument. What makes it all the more absurd is that you then turn around and claim that the new covenant is "not presented in words"...completely contradicting yourself and Scripture (1 Cor. 2:12-14; Heb. 4:12; Eph. 6:17). Whether through written or verbal means, God communicates to us through the Spirit with "words"...He SPEAKS to us. The word that we receive from God will judge us in the last day...regardless of whether or not we receive it in written form (Jn. 12:48).
grizzlytwelve	Here is the problem as I see it Josh...you view the Scriptures as being the "words from the prophets" and not really the "words of God"...God's law is somewhere behind the curtain communicating to us in some nebulus way without words. But I think you are just confused...what made the Law of Moses the "law of God" was the fact it came from God by means of the Spirit who guided Moses as he wrote. The word came from God and hence it was the word of God, even though it came through Moses. It was even supposed to be in the hearts of believers. The NT Scriptures are just as much the "law" and "word" of God because they come from God (it is the same criteria being applied here). We would do well to keep in mind that God also communicated to individuals through the Spirit before Christ...the issue was never about whether or not something was written on parchment or stone but it was entirely about the SOURCE of the revelation. BOTH the Old and New Covenants came through the Spirit and both were to be written on the hearts of believers.
grizzlytwelve	Previously, you said that this issue was "not an either or proposition" with regard to the complete word being found in either the Spirit or the written word...the two were meant to complement each other. But now...YOU are making this into an "either or proposition" but contradicting yourself in presently insisting that the New Covenant is not written down...in fact it is not even communicated with "words". Do you see what you are saying?
grizzlytwelve	But again...we need to redefine the "complete word" here. It now seems that you have switched gears Josh and are using this term to refer to something other than what Jesus promised when He told the apostles that the Spirit would guide them in "all truth". We need to get back on the same page here with our terminology because you are now using this expression in the sense of the ultimate and final knowledge that we reach at some point after this life...and not the revelation of all things through the Spirit. If what you say is true (that the revelation of the Spirit cannot "come" and be "complete" in this life) then Jesus was clearly mistaken because He said the exact opposite.
grizzlytwelve	But to conclude for myself (I don't see much point in continuing this discussion right now) the issue is not about trying to "describe God completely with words". If you believe that this is the issue, then you have misunderstood the basis of our disagreement. Rather, the issue is about the complete revelation that has been provided for us in THIS life...and whether it presently comes through written or spoken words of inspired men or whether or not this complete revelation comes to every believer directly through the Spirit. That is the point of contention...but we do not seem to be making much progress on this point at the moment.
	login to comment

hide comments

1 Corinthians 13 and "face to face": Some new evidence from 2 Cor 3

08-11-08 12:26pm EST

I have appended below this new post a copy of an old one from November having a thorough-going contextual exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13 in connection with the "perfect" or "complete.". Feel free to supplement this new post with the one below it if you'd like more on 1 Corinthians 13 overall. But I would like your feedback on this poast on 2 Cor 3 in blue. Thanks!

The passage in discussion here is 1 Corinthians 13:12: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
I was tipped off years ago that "face to face" is an allusion to Moses' meetings with God in the OT (Num 12:6-8; Deut 34:10) emphasizing the intimate mode of the coming revelation that Paul is speaking of. I have employed this argument (see the past below this one) hoping to convince others to recognize that this "face to face" encounter which Paul was speaking of in 1 Cor 13:12 is nothing other than an anticipated encounter with the Lord.

After all, it would be strange if Paul had in mind the completion and collection of NT Scripture since:
(1) He himself wrote half the documents and its difficult to see how those documents could significantly improve his own knowledge of revelation, let alone make night and day difference.
(2) Paul didn't say "you will see face to face" but "I will see face to face," and Paul died before the last NT writings were finished. So when would Paul see this book? Never. But if it is being with the Lord, this will happen to him at the last day.
(3) Paul believed that the Lord could come back any time. This would preclude any definite expectation of a collection of documents in decades to come to provide the fulness of knowledge to guide the church for centuries later.

But not too long ago I discovered that I don't have infer Paul is making an allusion with "face to face" to Moses' encounter with God in the Old Testament. As it turns out, Paul makes a similar argument already in his second letter to the Corinthians.

In 2 Cor 3:6-18 Paul makes a contrast between the Law of Moses, a written code with no personal agency to assist believers, and the new covenant which he charaterizes as the "ministry of the Spirit." He argues that the new covenant comes with more glory than the old. Moses would come back from speaking to God with his face shining, but the people stopped seeing this fading glory because he wore a veil. But Paul argues that the believer through the Spirit is able to behold the face of Christ.

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. 2 Cor 3:18 NASB

My RSV doesn't use the word "mirror" so I never saw the connection to 1 Cor 13 before. The root for the word for "mirror" from 1 Cor 13:12 (esoptrou) is recognizeable in the word for "beholding as in a mirror" (katoptrizomenoi) in 2 Cor 3:18.

It is also translated "reflecting" in some translations, making the verb active. So you can translate it to mean that Christians reflect the glory of the Lord, or that Jesus is the mirror through which we see the glory of the Lord. The Greeks thought of mirrors to perform both the function of reflecting you and reflecting at you, so the early church writers gave both meanings simultaneously to the verse (we behold the the glory reflected through the Spirit of Christ and we reflect Christ).

Jesus is called God's "likeness" or "image" (Greek is "eikon" from which we get the word "icon") in the same context in 2 Cor 4:4. Two verses later we learn that God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 4:6

Thus, we have come full circle from 1 Cor 13:12. In discussing the perfect knowledge to come, Paul says we see in a mirror now but will then see face to face. In 2 Cor 3:6-4:6 Paul describes Jesus' face as the mirror, like Moses', that reflects the knowledge God's glory to us and transforms us gradually. But, as Paul holds out in 1 Cor 13:12, the final level of knowledge of God's glory will be had in our own "face to face" encounter with God, not a reflection of the "knowledge" of God's glory through the face of a Moses figure reflecting God's glory. We, greater than Moses' glory, will be changed by Jesus from our lowly body to be like his glorious body. (Phil 3:21)

We will see God's glory for ourselves and share in his glory. "Glory" is a word Paul uses a lot for the final hope, the final transformation. As Paul says in Col 1:27, the Spirit of Christ in the believer is "the hope of glory." Compare this with 1 John 3:2: it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This is why I have concluded that Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 13 that this whole age and our existence here under the new covenant is one of seeing in the the mirror dimly the knowledge of God's glory. And any spiritual gift we have is only a lesser degree of glory than that which we are ultimately seeking in the end. But love itself is the highest degree of glory we can attain in the here and now, unchanging in the next age.

PS Remember, there is a post just below this one giving a fuller discussion of 1 Cor 13 if you are interested.


	(68 older comments)
slave_of_jesus_jdb	With regard to "death," the people in the time of 2 Kings 4 also didn't have modern methods of determining death. We can be skeptical, if we want. Or the servant whom Jesus "cured" with a word that was found well that same hour. Maybe he wasn't really paralyzed, he just hurt his back and lost mobility for a little while. Happens all the time (Matt 8). One could also be skeptical as to whether the little girl in Mark 5 was really dead as well. This really isn't the point. I'm not really interested in critiquing biblical miracles. My only point is that we shouldn't be as skeptical of Christian miracle claims as the atheist is. That is, for each case to assume "guilty until proven innocent." Again, my research is lacking. But when you say "I am not "arrogantly" assuming that my experience is a universal exerience. I am just basing my conclusion on the information available to me at the present..." I fail to see the difference. If you are allowed to be skeptical of all the claims that are going on today because of your limited experience, then you are saying you have the right to assume your limited experience is universal.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	As for your thinking that the Bible leaves us expecting miracles to cease, I mean directly. Your reasoning from the texts is not based on what they say, but your own philosophizing. You assume all of their miracles were indisputable. You assume the texts we have are all indisputably authentic such that we could use no more authentication, and your own skepticism towards miracles shows why miracles are really most effective to individuals experiencing or witnessing them, not hearing distant reports of them, which makes the continuing miracles still helpful. Miracles could bear testimony to the same truths they did initially. After all, Adam, surely much fewer miracles could have been performed than were. Far be it from us to say that God would give us only us much as we absolutely need. What you don't seem to get about miracles "confirming the word," is that they confirmed not Scripture but the gospel to those who saw them. You still seem to reason from your 21st century perspective that the apostles and prophets were bearing witness to NT inspired writings. Rather, the writings are merely reflections of all that was going on. The "word" these writings talk about is still very much in question today, as you well know. How could you say "the primary purpose for which miraculous gifts of the Spirit were given is no longer relevant"?
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I shouldn't be too hard on you, Adam. After all, its not as if I leave you with an alternate view nicely and coherently laid out concerning 1 Corinthians 13 and miracles today.
deusvitae	When Paul expects the end to come is a red herring, and something that can only be inferred. We can't really know. I think you're being too dismissive of the three specific gifts, and trying to make too much of the end of the discussion without focusing on the substance of the discussion. Remember-- teleion here means "perfect, complete." What is the completion (perfection) of speaking in tongues? What is the completion of prophecy? What is the completion of knowledge? Of what is speaking in tongues a "partial"? "Spiritual gifts"? It is one spiritual gift, but if we're going to use that logic, we have the completion in the full complement of spiritual gifts. That's not what Paul is talking about. So what is it a "partial" of, Josh, if it is not partially the revelation of God? The same is especially true of prophecy and knowledge. Why were the Corinthians prophesying, Josh? Of what is the prophesying a "partial" form of? Of what is the knowledge a "partial" form of? It's as if you're making a god out of knowledge in your discussion. The partial things they are receiving are the partial revelations of God regarding His will for mankind. Those partial things are leading to completion, and the completion is found in the full revelation.
deusvitae	As to your questions: (1) presupposes that Paul had already received every form of revelation he would receive when he wrote 1 Corinthians-- unsubstantiated and unnecessary. (2) also presupposes the same as (1), and is not open to the possibility that the more complete revelation was coming. Notice that he does not use this type of language in, say, 1 or 2 Timothy. (3) is sheer presupposition. Merely because Paul does not know when Jesus will return is no evidence that he automatically immediately expected it. In fact, the level of ignorance that Paul considers himself in is good evidence that he is still looking forward to further revelation, which militates against most of these presuppositions.
deusvitae	The reality is, Josh, that it's hard for us who have received the full revelation of the NT to place ourselves in a time and place where it was (a) not only fully revealed, but also (b) without a lot of written attestation, (c) difficulties in maintaining and having people read the OT already written, let alone NT works, and (d) the dependence on the spiritual gifts that just isn't around today.
cowboybrian	i view the "perfect" as life with Christ beyond the flesh on the basis that even with the "full" revelation, i dont "fully know" (vs 12) anything, and neither do you. and prophecy i would imagine didn't reveal the same type of knowledge that is revealed thru scripture... yet i dont really believe in miracles via mans hands today... so ????
deusvitae	How can life with Christ beyond the flesh be the "completed thing" of which speaking in tongues/prophecy/knowledge are a "partial"? They're not similar in kind. If it meant that, I would expect to say that "our life we live in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." And why wouldn't prophecy be the same type of knowledge that is revealed through the Scriptures, Brian? Why were the prophets there, and what were they doing? And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words. Acts 15:32 Their message was directed for the encouragement and strengthening of the saints, the same reason for preaching today, no? And on what basis do we preach? The Word. They didn't have the NT as the basis upon which to preach. That is why the message of the prophets is completed in the full revelation of God. It was a partial to that which is complete.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Hey now, you just deleted a bunch of interesting looking comments I was looking forward to reading along with the others. What gives?
slave_of_jesus_jdb	You might find my next planned post on what the "new testament" is and isn't interesting.
deusvitae	That Christ factors heavily in revelation is beyond doubt. But the corollary between speaking in tongues/prophecy/knowledge as partial and Christ somehow being the completed form it is lacking and not really presented. Those three gifts were present to inform about Christ. The partial to complete would go from the partial revelation about (the will of) Christ to the complete revelation regarding (the will of) Christ. Perhaps the end verses in the chapter have a slightly different referent than vv. 8-10?
deusvitae	We must also remember that the three gifts mentioned in verse 8 involve the work of the Spirit, not Christ Himself. That which is partial of the Spirit would be completed by...the Spirit. I don't see any indication that would show why that which the Spirit provides in partiality in these three gifts would not be completed by Him.
deusvitae	Then why doesn't Paul simply identify love as the perfect thing? Why call it a "thing" when love is feminine? I don't disagree with what Paul's trying to get across-- but I still think that there's something to his identification of these three elements and how he "puts them in their place" so to speak. I don't see how it's a stretch to see how Paul, in an overall discourse on the superiority of love, gets in a little nugget indicating that the very thing which the Corinthians are priding themselves upon will pass away soon.
cowboybrian	the bible is brought to us because of the gifts in the apostles. how could that possibly be the perfect. like i said we dont know fully. if a kid in bible class asks a curious why question or a weird question adults dont make, we usually tell them "well know in heaven" or "god didnt tell us in the bible."
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, I'm gearing up to respond to your comments to me, in fact I might just make a new post summarizing where we are. But before I do, I would like you to note that in 1 Cor 13, unlike prophecy and knowledge, "tongues" are not said to come to some sort of completion or perfection. I'm not sure what that would even entail on either view. What, an ispired complete lexicon of all languages?
whats_his_name56	I'm willing to take all the help I can get...
deusvitae	Granted, Josh, tongues may not come to a "completion," but they are part of that which is partial that will cease when that which is completed comes.
deusvitae	I would not say that Paul turns them into a "thing"; instead, he is speaking about their referent. That which is prophesied and known is what is partial, and it is a "thing". It will be completed in that which is complete. So, if we plug in, say, "revelation" to "that which," we have the partial revelation as manifested through prophesy and knowledge that will be completed with the fullness of the revelation.
deusvitae	That is why love cannot be the "completed thing," because Paul is speaking not about the things themselves (speaking in tongues/prophecy/knowledge), but the greater whole of which the three are now a part (the revelation of God).
autumn_rain	Ya know Josh...you never made up for not making it down to G-burg! ;) Have a good rest of the week!
tntitan	Josh, sorry I haven't stopped by to add to the discussion. I haven't read any of it, but from the amount of discussion, I assume you are wrong. :-P
heatherbrackeen	comment off the point a little i like the fact tht paul uses "face to face" imagery because as someone who heard the voice of god and then was struck blind im sure the idea of seeing face to face was enticing to him.
singforjoy	Haha... no, but one time I did take it a little far and got to sheep #5000!
autumn_rain	That would be pretty cool!
Gods_Country_Girl	Yes, that FC youtube makes me want to go there very badly..
	login to comment

hide comments

A study of the "perfect, "knowledge," and "love" in 1 Cor 13 in the context of 1 Corinthians

08-08-08 06:33pm EST

Apparently, the Corinthians prided themselves on having "knowledge" revealed to them in the Spirit. And Paul does not deny that they have received authentic knowledge from God. He does, however, chastise them for the way in which they use that knowledge--to elevate themselves. He says in I Cor 8:1-3, he lays out some very important principles which are developed all throughout the letter:

"Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." "Knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him."

Notice some key words here: "knowledge," "love," and "known." Sound familiar? You guessed it, they all show up in I Corinthians 13. The Corinthians were using things they knew inappropriately. They used it pridefully to build up their image and wield it as an instrument to put others in their places. You might think that he is talking about some kind of false knowledge. However, I think it is more that it is knowledge possessed without love. You know many folks in this position (you might be thinking of me at various times). Just take any fellow who is really studied in the Scriptures and whose interpretation of many passages is dead on, but he lacks love. He bashes and thrashes with his knowledge and really discourages others. I think that is more what is going on here.

In the letter of I Corinthians, Paul uses the phrase "Or do you not know that..." a lot of times, and it is not found in any of his other letters except twice in Romans 6. In other words, while the Corinthians know some things, they don't know other things that are also important and relevent. But the difference between Paul and them isn't simply that Paul knows more, but that he is mature enough to use what he does know for the sake of love (cf. I Tim 1:5ff). He says in I Cor 13, So what if I really did know absolutely all mysteries and "all knowledge." Would I be any better off for it if I lacked love? Not at all!

In fact, all propositional/factual knowledge of this world will some day be just as important as the stats on the back of an old baseball card for a guy that nobody today has ever heard of, bent up and rotting away in a dump somewhere. But there is another kind of "knowledge" that Paul treasures more than anything else. This is not factual knowledge, but to "know" in the sense of having a relationship with someone.

Back in I Cor 8:3, Paul had said, "But if one loves God, one is known by him." Remember earlier how we had said that that upon the believer is bestowed the Spirit which brings us into a more intimate relationship with God, in which we received adoption as sons and daughters. The idea of I Cor 8:3 is recapitulated in the John 14:23: "answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (see Holy Spirit in verse 25).

For Paul, to be possessed by the Spirit of God now is to have a downpayment on the future hope of being transformed, not just on the inside "from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18), but to be transformed on the outside in the resurrection body so as to be able to undergo heavenly living (I Cor 15:48-52). But for Paul, the greatest benefit of this resurrection is to know Jesus more fully: "Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil 3:8). And we all know the joy he had over the thought that he would go "be with Christ" (Phil 1:23).

Furthermore, he writes to the Galatians that, "now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God" (Gal 4:9). He had just mentioned at the beginning of the chapter that they had received the Spirit of adoptions, so as to become God's children. That is the way in which are now "known by God" in the fullest sense, for they are already his children ready to be redeemed at the appointed time. However, their mode of existence in the flesh is still less than ideal, but the Holy Spirit living within them is "the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it" (Eph 1:14).

The possession is presumably their resurrection body, in which they will meet the glorified Lord. As he says in Colossians 1:4, "When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." And Paul tells the Thessalonians to comfort one another because when they meet the Lord in the air after being raised from the dead, "Thus we shall always be with the Lord" (I Thes 4:17). This is the same sentiment (note: "know") in I John 3:1-2: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."

Getting back to I Corinthians 13, it is no accident that a bunch of verses about "love" are jammed right between Paul saying how worthless "knowledge" is without love and how knowledge will pass away but love remain later. I think what I have written so far should be adequate for the person reading I Cor 13:8-13 again to see that "knowledge" is the knowledge given through God's Spirit that pertains to the world in the here and now, whereas the the perfect knowledge is "perfect" or "complete" because it is the true object of what our temporary knowledge combined with love is working toward: our perfect "knowing" of Jesus which is not possible while in the flesh.

"Perfect" knowledge will not simply be the adding up of the pieces of knowledge acquired in the first century. No, the perfect knowledge will make the partial knowledge (propositional data or down payment through Spiritual gifts) pass away and become obsolete entirely. The complete knowledge is a new mode of knowledge. He says that the incomplete mode of knowledge will "pass away" (I Cor 13:10). While grammatically it might be unobvious whether or not it is the "incomplete" that will pass away or the "knowledge" that will pass away," I think all things considered that it is the package that is passing away and replaced with a new and fuller mode of knowledge.

As Paul has primed us in I Cor 8:3: "But if one loves God, one is known by him." Love never fails and will not "pass away" or lose relevence for eternity. And the one who loves God now is "known by God." That is, because the Spirit of God and of adoption dwells within the believer, God knows him fully. Paul says in I Cor 13:12 "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." Surely this idea has to do with being revealed with Jesus in glory, the downpayment being upgraded to inheritance. After all, if he was speaking of the "New Testament," I wonder just what we think Paul could have learned from the New Testament as we have it today that he didn't already know. And when was he going to receive a copy? Never!

Just before that, still in I Cor 13:12, Paul wrote: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." This really seems to be an allusion to the Old Testament where Moses is described as having a most intimate relationship with Yahweh because he spoke to Yahweh "face to face" (Dt 5:4; 34:10). Especially Ex 33:11: "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." In addition, Yahweh says his relationship with Moses is closer than with your run of the mill prophet, because while he speaks to normal prophets in riddles and dreams, he speaks to Moses "mouth to mouth" (Num 12:7-8). It may be true, based on John 1:18 that Moses did not literally see God in all his glory, but he is surely used by Paul as a type for his seeing the Lord in glory, or to have the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6) more fully than the temporary knowledge provided through the Spirit.

When Paul speaks of putting away "childish ways" in I Cor 13:11, the childish ways seem to be the old mode of existence as children adopted through the Spirit, but becoming a man is receiving the inheritance and coming to know God fully when appearing with Christ in glory. Alternatively, it could be a reference to the childish way in which the Corinthians are using knowledge, instead of letting the eternal and abiding love guide them, the true fruit of the Spirit.

"Love" abides forever because it carries the believer into eternity, whereas faith and hope wear out their usefulness upon the day of glory. It is this very subject of "hope" that Paul takes up in Romans 8 in the context of final redemption: "For who hopes for what he sees" (v24). And that hope is to be "glorified with Christ" in verse 17. And, indeed, he emphasizes again the enduring nature of "love." He says that nothing can "separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (v39). Not even death. It endures and never fails. That is why it is imperative that it characterize our lives, so that we be "sons of the Most High" now to receive the inheritance later (Luke 6:35-36).


	login to comment

Question for you all about the NT Canon

08-06-08 12:02pm EST

What makes you so sure that the 27 books of the New Testament constitute "the canon" by which God chooses to regulate all Christian practice for this age?

This is different than asking why you think each of the 27 books is inspired. Assuming they are all inspired, how do you know these particular 27 books constitute one whole canon designed to communicate God's will for Christian practice?

This is also different from asking how it came about historically that we have the 27 books we do in our NT. Obviously many early Christians thought all these books were orthodox and inspired. But this doesn't necessarily mean that it is God's intention to use the 27 books that have come down to us as one book communicating all Christian practice.

The NT indicates there were other inspired documents besides the ones we have record of (that is, there is other Scripture we don't have), so merely asserting the inspiration of the 27 NT books we have is not enough to establish that they were intended to function as a unit when put together.

My question is not whether or not all of the inspired writings that we have are authoritative. Just whether or not the way they communicate together is different than how they communicate as individual documents. Do they communicate God's will differently as a collection, a whole, a canon, than they do simply as individual inspired writings?

Again, here, I'm not saying that the inspired writings would disagree, so of course they compliment each other. But one church receiving 1 Corinthians would not think they had received all of God's will for them. Then when they received Romans they would expect that to compliment what they already knew, but they wouldn't then expect that since they had two letters they had the full will of God. So also when they received three, ten, twenty and finally 27. Why think that having 27 individual inspired writings somehow constitutes and exhaustive expression of God's will and that they function to express something together that they wouldn't express merely as individual documents?

Why should we believe the 27 books we have, though inspired, should function together as a unit to express God's will, incomplete without all 27 parts, but as a whole "it" is exhaustive? Are the 27 books after our OT an "it" or simply a "them"?

Do you have any Scripture to support you conclusion?


	(49 older comments)
janedoe	I'll have to ponder it.
deusvitae	I guess that shows some of the deficiencies of our "all-or-nothing" approach. Personally, if such a work were found, I would consider it profitable for reading and understanding. It would no doubt shed greater light about the church in the first century, which would itself be beneficial. But since God did not see fit to preserve it for all saints at all times, I could not in good conscience add it to the "canon." But I don't honestly expect it to happen-- we have lively chats among early Christian authors about works that are inspired or not, and we are in possession of all of them.
tntitan	Kevin, I could be wrong, but I think you underestimate what Josh is getting at. I have made that mistake before.
tntitan	If you read back through Josh's comments, he is clearly questioning whether Scripture - not just the Scripture we have, but Scripture itself - is the only way God intended to communicate his will to us. Take this quote for instance: "You might think that Jesus was promising to lead the apostles into all truth and then, after that was finalized, we would just inherit all truth from them in the form of Scripture. But you don't actually have any Scripture that says that." Something "other than the Bible" is exactly what Josh is talking about. I have asked Josh where he is getting this other truth, but he has not answered yet. Whatever it is will probably explain how Buddhists can be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit without being baptized into Christ.
tntitan	Actually, I'd be pretty surprised if these discussion were not directly linked. Regarding the loving Buddhist who is obviously saved although he rejects Jesus, Josh says "But at least thats not a detrimental loss if God has already found a way to commune with him and know him." This "way God found" would have to be extra-Biblical, so Josh needs to show that the Bible doesn't claim to be the only way God has chosen to communicate his will to us today.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	No Garland, this has nothing to do with that. The "why" behind my questions, which I have attempted not to specify so as not to skew the answers, has to do with how the Scripture does or does not express God's authority, I am not exploring other means of getting authority or salvation. There are many good comments that I would like to speak to and hope to do so soon, but I wouldn't want discussion to stop on account of Garland's guessing on what I'm trying to get at personally. I think not focusing on "Why Josh is asking" is better for a more well-rounded and deeper discussion of these important questions.
tntitan	Fair enough, brother. Carry on...
simon_says	In response to kevin's question, "...is the Bible, as we have it now (as 1 big collection of letters), what God intended us to have?" Yes. I think we can use the same passage I used above in 2 Peter. Peter said God provided us with all the things we need to know on how to find salvation and live a godly life (obviously paraphrasing). I have faith that God wouldn't for thousands of years lead man astray by only allowing part of His plan and instructions to be widely accepted as His Word. If God gave us all things, we have all things. We have no evidence of God giving us what we need to know in any other form but the Word. I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't had any new revelation or a new letter found in hundreds and hundreds of years. How unmerciful would God be to do something like that to His people? Maybe, as I said above, I'm too simple minded and relying too much on my faith that God loves all men and wants all to come to Him for salvation and has provided, as He promised, an easy-to-understand and direct path to Him (e.g. His Word).
kevin	To clarify your understanding of my statement above. If another "letter" were found, I don't think it would "reaveal" any great truth we don't already have. In fact, there are some books in the NT that we could possibly do completely without. While I'm not positive, I would bet there are some letters (probably the shorter ones) that simply "clarify" or shed light on other matters. That is, everything said in these letters can be confirmed or supported from other inspired writings. If these books aren't truly "necessary" to understanding God's love of man, our sinful nature, and our need for Christ, then I don't see why another "book of the Bible" would constitute God being "unmerciful and doing that to his people." A new epistle, might simply clarify or reinforce other ideas. Believe me, I have confidence that my bible, all 66 books of it, has everything that I NEED to be able to be pleasing to God. In fact, I would say that I don't really NEED every single book in the Bible. If I lived in some remote area of the globe and only had a NT, could I be pleasing to God? Absolutely. Does having access to an OT provide amazing insight into what Christ truly did for us. Absolutely. What this comes down to is, we don't HAVE to have Paul's letter to the Laodicians. It did exist though. We do know that. So if it were ever found, what would we do with it. Personally, I wouldn't see it as God "playing a big trick" on humanity and allowing us to be "deceived." It would be God, in His providential way, providing something to mankind that he thought we needed now.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	John, thanks for popping in on my blog. Jesus' reference to the tripartite Old Testament is a good example of how Jews were to be "a people of the book." From the get go in the Law of Moses we are told that the Law was to be written and serve as the foundation of revealed practice for the people. There is no such foundation in the NT. Undoubtedly the apostolic writings were to supplement what had been taught to the churches, but there is no reference to any sort of law of sorts, whether written or verbal. They were taught things and preached the "word", but there is no law ever referred to. And it is certainly not documented if there was one, though I don't think so since its never spoken of. The old law was document centered, the new is not (though supplemented). Correct me if I'm wrong.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Leah, thanks a bunch for coming and participating in the discussion. The more the merrier. I totally concur with 2 Peter 1, that God has provided "all things" pertaining to godliness "through the knowledge of him" [Jesus]. The problem of course is that the verse isn't talking about Scripture, its talking about the knowledge of Jesus that was available from the day of Pentecost onward, right? So my disagreement is not there. The rest of your argument seems to come from how your presuppose that knowledge is given and what that knowledge entails. What does it mean to know Jesus? Paul describes people coming to know Jesus in his earliest writings. Shoot, the Ethiopian Eunuch appears to have come to know Jesus in a matter of minutes or hours according to Acts 8, since Philip "preached Jesus" to him on the spot. Yes, there is a "word" which we should be confident that God has preserved or else we all would be hosed. But my question isn't whether we can still have "all things" pertaining to life and godliness through coming to know Jesus. I don't think that is a terribly lofty project. I'm questioning how the 27 surviving inspired documents function to express God's authority. If we simply add together positive statements from each one, that is different than assuming "everything important" is explained in them. For instance, many people have a side and an argument for or against Christians participating in the army, but the person who claims the Bible in words clearly says is making an incredible statement. Yet you can't say its not an "important" question. All I am getting at here is that the Bible leaves more for the Spirit-filled believer to reason out than the "canonical authority" project brethren have cooked up. When people decide the 27 are more than just 27, they are "a whole," they start saying things about "silence" and making positive arguments from "inferences" that just have to be there since the 27 gives us "all things" the way they define "all things."
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan's statement: "we have lively chats among early Christian authors about works that are inspired or not, and we are in possession of all of them" boggles my mind. For the first several centuries of the church we have numerous and diverse quotes from believers citing lots of intertestamental Jewish literature as Scripture. And we have them refering to those writers among themselves as "inspired" and even using theopneustos from 2 Tim 3:16. Furthermore, Ethan, you are dreaming if you think you can eliminate documents as worthy of being added to the canon because they were not universally available to all believers for all time, since undoubtedly there was significant delay to various churches as to when they received all 27 documents we now have...whether decades or centuries. One church received Mark 10 (or Luke) without an exception clause for diverse while another congregation at a different time received Matthew 19 having an exception clause and who knows how long it was till both communities had both documents. Leah, you speak totally out of presumption when you refer to no new revelation or inspired documents or whatever and how mean God would be.
deusvitae	Why does the statement boggle your mind, Josh? Which document that was even considered to be inspired by anyone do we not have? The Shepherd? We have that-- from the fourth century no less. We have 1 Clement. 1 Enoch. The Apocrypha. So what document is missing that anyone considered inspired, of which we have not a copy and not a clue regarding its contents?
j_a_c_o_b	Josh, your posts always hurt my brain.
jlmanager	Responding to your response to me above, it is true that the Law was written down - but what about the Prophets? How does, say, Obadiah relate to the Jewish law, other than as an example of God's judgement against Edom for failing to "love thy neighbor as thyself"? While written against a different people, it carries the same theme and exemplifies the Law, and Jesus gave it the same weight. Peter wrote (2 Pet. 1) that he intended to "remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have" and that "I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things". The Apostles taught as Jesus had commanded them, and we have both the Gospel that they preached written from 4 perspectives, the history of the early church, and the writings, mostly from Apostles, that serve both to remind of principles that can be traced back to the Gospels and to rebuke those who were not holding "to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thes. 2:15). By seeing what they corrected, commanded, etc., in essence we get the picture of what those traditions were.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, I guess I was speaking of documents referred to in the NT by Paul, such as in 1 Cor 5:9, Philippians 3, the "letter to the Laodiceans" in mentioned in Colossians, potentially 2 Cor 1, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1f suggests that Paul was a known letter writer already at that time (presumably his second letter we have on file). Are you saying that none of these were inspired? Or that the rest of the twelve probably never wrote anything? With all the first century prophets we hear of no more than 27 inspired documents were written?
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Brother John, thanks again for your response. Obadiah would not be adding to the Law, he was a preacher of the Law. So also with the documents we see in the NT. They are supplemental in that way, not foundational. The foundation of the NT is not a legal code that was enumerated at some point that we just down happen to have recorded an have to infer from various occassional letters. Rather, the foundation of the new covenant was the Holy Spirit. Paul makes exactly this contrast in 2 Corinthians 3. A good read. With regard to the written exhortations and reminders of the apostles, again my post is not about whether the NT writings we have are inspired, authoritative, or providentially preserved for our profit. My post is about the nature of God's intention with what has been providentially preserved. Do they function together as a unit to enumerate the Law? And, as some say, to provide us with every important to know about God's will? Or does it more modestly present us with what we need to know to enter Christ and allow our Spirit-filled judgment to hash out the rest? With some apostolic training wheels via scattered letters? I contend that the "New Testament" (27 documents) is not the "new covenant" as is assumed by many ("testament" being the word used in Hebrews to refer to the covanent). And the difference is important, me thinks.
deusvitae	Yet, Josh, none of those are under discussion in early patristic works.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I'm sorry, Ethan. I think I was/am confused about what you were saying.
smiley_mcbutterbutt	I don't mind at all.
deusvitae	What I am saying is that the likelihood of ever finding anything that could be considered "inspired" is next to nil, considering that all the documents concerning which discussion existed regarding their inspiration in the period after the New Testament are known and in our possession.
chooselove	dude. it's cool. i'll just email you :)
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, so are you including any post-NT documents as inspired or no?
browneyedpeas	Hey, remember that shampoo you left when you moved from Tampa? No, you probably don't, and I don't blame you. Well, the widow's oil is still going strong...! I don't understand it...it's incredible! How much did you pay for the neverending shampoo?
deusvitae	I don't think any are, but they are part of the "discussion" that existed in the second/third centuries.
	login to comment

hide comments

New Improved playlist

08-06-08 11:53am EST

(I like to listen to it from other people's computers when I'm away from my own. This time no autoplay)

5 >> 25 >> >>>