The Duration of Prophecy: How Long Will Prophecy Be Used in the Church? (Part 2) by Wayne A. Grudem

Part 2 of Professor Grudem’s exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 13. The Duration of Prophecy: How Long Will Prophecy Be Used in the Church?

Objections to This Interpretation

Various objections to this conclusion have been raised, usually by those who hold that the gift of prophecy has ceased in the church and should no longer be used. In this section, we shall examine those objections one at a time. Some of them deal with 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 specifically, and others deal with broader concerns.

1. “This passage does not specify when the gifts will cease”

The first objection to our conclusion above comes from Richard Gaffin’s thoughtful study, Perspectives on Pentecost. While Gaffin agrees that “when the perfect comes” refers to the time of Christ’s return, he does not think that this verse specifies the time of the cessation of certain gifts. He thinks, rather, that Paul is just viewing “the entire period until Christ’s return, without regard to whether or not discontinuities may intervene during the course of this period.”⁴

In fact, Gaffin argues, Paul’s overall purpose is to emphasize the enduring qualities of faith, hope, and love, especially love, and not to specify the time in which certain gifts will cease. He says:

Paul is not intending to specify the time when any particular mode will cease. What he does affirm is the termination of the believer’s present, fragmentary knowledge . . . when “the perfect” comes. The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned and will have to be decided on the basis of other passages and considerations.⁵

He then adds that, in addition to prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, Paul might just as well have added “inscripturation” too—and if he had done this, the list would then have included an element which ceased long before Christ’s return. (Inscripturation is the process of writing Scripture.) So, Gaffin concludes, it might be true of some of the others in the list as well.

In response to this objection it must be said that it does not do justice to the actual words of the text. Evangelicals have rightly insisted (and I know that Gaffin agrees with this) that passages of Scripture are true not only in the main point of each passage, but also in the minor details that are affirmed as well. The main point of the passage may well be that love lasts forever, but another point, and certainly an important one as well, is that verse 10 affirms, not just that these imperfect gifts will cease sometime, but that they will cease “when the perfect comes.” Paul specifies a certain time: “When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away” (1 Cor. 13:10, rsv). But Gaffin seems to claim that Paul is not actually saying this. Yet the force of the words cannot be avoided by affirming the overall theme of the larger context instead.

In addition, Gaffin’s suggestion does not seem to fit with the logic of the passage. Paul’s argument is that it is specifically the coming of “the perfect” which does away with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, because then there is a new, far superior way of learning and knowing things “even as I have been known.” But until that time, the new and superior way of knowing has not come, and therefore these imperfect gifts are still valid and useful—the thing that will render them obsolete (the state of affairs at Christ’s return) has not yet come.

Finally, it is precarious to put much weight on something we think Paul might have said but in fact did not say. To say that Paul might have included “inscripturation” in this list means that Paul might have written, “When Christ returns, inscripturation will cease.” But I cannot believe at all that Paul could have written such a statement, for it would have been false—indeed, a “false prophecy” in the words of Scripture. For “inscripturation” ceased long ago, when the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John.

So Gaffin’s objections do not seem to dislodge the force of our conclusions on 1 Corinthians 13:10. If “the perfect” refers to the time of Christ’s return, then Paul says that gifts such as prophecy and tongues will cease at that time, and implies therefore that they continue through the church age.

2. “Prophecy ceased when the New Testament was complete”

Those who make this second objection argue that “when the perfect comes” means one of several different things, such as “when the church is mature,” or “when Scripture is complete,” or “when the Gentiles are included in the church.”

Probably the most careful statement of this view is found in the book by Robert L. Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today?⁶ but another clear statement of a similar position is found in Walter Chantry’s book, Signs of the Apostles.⁷

Chantry’s argument depends on the fact that elsewhere in the New Testament the word here translated “perfect” is used to refer to human maturity (1 Cor. 14:20) or to maturity in the Christian life (as in 1 Cor. 2:6). Yet here again we must note that a word does not have to be used to refer to the same thing every time it is used in Scripture—in some cases it may refer to “mature” or “perfect” manhood, in other cases some other kind of “completeness” or “perfection.” It is used in Hebrews 9:11, for example, to refer to the “more perfect tent”—yet we would not therefore conclude that “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 must refer to a perfect tent (or tabernacle). The precise reference of the word must be determined by the individual context, and in 1 Corinthians 13, as we have seen, the context indicates that “when the perfect comes” refers to the time of Christ’s return.

Reymond’s argument is somewhat different. He reasons as follows (34):

(a) “The imperfect” things mentioned in verses 9-10, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, are incomplete means of revelation, “all relating to God’s making his will known to his church.”

(b) “The perfect” in this context must refer to something in the same category as the “imperfect” things.

(c) Therefore “the perfect” in this context must refer to a means of revelation, but a completed one. And this completed means of God’s making his will known to his church is Scripture.

(d) Conclusion: “When the perfect comes” refers to the time when the canon of Scripture will be complete. Reymond notes that he is not saying that “the perfect” refers exactly to the canon of Scripture, but rather that it refers to “the completed revelatory process” that resulted in Scripture (32). And in response to the objection that “then I shall see face to face” in verse 12 refers to seeing God face to face, he answers that it may simply mean seeing “plainly” as opposed to “obscurely” (32).

In response, it may be said that this argument, while careful and consistent in itself, still depends on one prior assumption which is really the point at issue in this whole discussion: the authority of New Testament prophecy and related gifts. Once Reymond assumes that prophecy (and tongues and the kind of “knowledge” mentioned here) are Scripture-quality revelation, the whole argument falls into place. The argument could be recast as follows:

(a) Prophecy and tongues are Scripture-quality revelation.

(b) Therefore this whole passage is about Scripture-quality revelation.

(c) Therefore “the perfect” refers to the perfection or completion of Scripture-quality revelation, or the completion of Scripture. Yet in such an argument the first assumption determines the conclusion. Before this assumption can be made, it would have to be demonstrated from an inductive analysis of the New Testament texts on prophecy, such as I have attempted to do in this book. Yet, to my knowledge, no such inductive demonstration of the Scripture-quality authority of New Testament congregational prophecy has been made.

Moreover, there are some other factors in the text of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 that are hard to reconcile with this position. The regular Old Testament usage of seeing “face to face” as an expression not just for seeing clearly but for personally seeing God (see above) remains unexplained. And the fact that Paul includes himself in the expressions “then I shall see face to face” and “then I shall know as I have been known” makes it difficult to view these as references to the time of the completion of Scripture. Does Paul really think that when the other apostles finally finish their contributions to the New Testament he will suddenly gain such a remarkable change in his knowledge that he will know as he has been known, and will go from seeing in a mirror dimly to seeing face to face?

In addition to the views of Reymond and Chantry, there have been other attempts to see “when the perfect comes” as some time before Christ’s return, but we will not treat them in detail here. Such views all seem to break down at 1 Corinthians 13:12, where Paul implies that believers will see God “face to face” “when the perfect is come.” This cannot be said about the time suggested in any of these other proposals.

The proposal about the completion of the “canon” of New Testament Scripture (the group of writings that came to be included in the New Testament) also fails to fit Paul’s purpose in the context. If we take a.d. 90 as the approximate date of the writing of Revelation, the last New Testament book written, then the end of the writing of Scripture came about thirty-five years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (about a.d. 55).

But would it be persuasive to argue as follows: “We can be sure that love will never end, for we know that it will last more than thirty-five years!”? This would hardly be a convincing argument. The context requires rather that Paul be contrasting this age with the age to come, and be saying that love will endure into eternity.⁸

In fact, we see a similar procedure elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. When Paul wants to demonstrate the eternal value of something, he does this by arguing that it will last beyond the day of the Lord’s return (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13-15; 15:51-58). By contrast, prophecy and other gifts will not last beyond that day.

Finally, these proposals fail to find any support in the immediate context. Whereas Christ’s return is mentioned clearly in 1 Corinthians 13:12, no verse in this section mentions anything about the completion of Scripture or a collection of the books of the New Testament or the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church or the “maturity” of the church (whatever that means—is the church really mature even today?). All of these suggestions bring in new elements not found in the context to replace one element—Christ’s return—which clearly is right there in the context already.

So Richard Gaffin, who himself holds that the gift of prophecy is not valid for today, nevertheless says that the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10 and the “then” in verse 12 “no doubt refer to the time of Christ’s return. The view that they describe the point at which the New Testament canon is completed cannot be made credible exegetically.”⁹

It should perhaps be said again that these alternative explanations of 1 Corinthians 13:10 often seem to be prompted by a prior conviction that New Testament prophecy consists of words equal to Scripture in authority. Now I have no objection to bringing to bear on one passage of Scripture what is clearly taught in other passages of Scripture, because I am convinced that all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore consistent with itself. But when the view that New Testament congregational prophecy was equal to Scripture in authority is itself open to considerable doubt (see chapters 2, 3, and 4 of The Gift of Prophecy), then it is appropriate to be very hesitant to use that view as an explicit or even implicit factor influencing us to adopt a very doubtful interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10 as well. Clear teachings of Scripture elsewhere should rightly influence our interpretation of any one text of Scripture, but doubtful or tentative conclusions about teachings of Scripture elsewhere should have only very slight, if any, influence on the interpretation of any one text.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones observes that the view which makes “when the perfect comes” equal the time of the completion of the New Testament encounters another difficulty:

It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth. . . . It means that we are altogether superior . . . even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are now in a position in which . . . “we know, even as also we are known,” by God. . . . indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense.¹⁰

John Calvin, referring to 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, says, “It is stupid of people to make the whole of this discussion apply to the intervening time.”¹¹

3. “1 Corinthians 13 refers only to prophecies contained in Scripture”¹²

This third objection also ignores the context of 1 Corinthians 13. Paul is talking about spiritual gifts and is showing how love is superior to them. In 1 Corinthians “prophecy” certainly does not refer to “written Scripture” but to a gift of prophecy that was not divinely authoritative. That is what Paul is telling the Corinthians how to use.

4. “Prophecy is a miraculous sign-gift associated with the apostles, and therefore it ceased when the apostles died”

There is no doubt that miraculous gifts were closely associated with the apostles, and that miracles did confirm the truth of the apostles’ message. In fact, most of the remarkable miracles in Acts were done by or through the apostles.

However, several other facts must be kept in mind:

(a) Almost everything in Acts (including evangelism and the founding of churches, for instance) is closely connected with the apostles. This tells us nothing about whether miracles could occur in relation to other Christians to confirm the truth of the gospel they were proclaiming or to serve some other purpose (edification of believers, ministries of mercy to those who were sick, etc.) all through the history of the church. The fact that miracles were done mostly through the apostles does not tell us that they couldn’t be done through others as well.

(b) Clearly not all miracles in the New Testament church were done by the apostles. James 5:14-15 indicates that James expected some instances of healing to occur through “the elders of the church,” not through the apostles. Galatians 3:5 implies that Christ was the one who presently, in the absence of the apostle Paul, “works miracles” among the Galatian churches. And Philip and Stephen, both non-apostles, had miracles done by or through them as well (Acts 6:8, 15; 7:55-56; 8:7, 13, 39).

(c) Whatever we may think about the restriction of some “miraculous” gifts or “sign” gifts to the apostles, the gift of prophecy simply cannot be put in that category. The New Testament gives us evidence that the gift of prophecy was clearly not restricted to the apostles, but was used by ordinary believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 12–14); in Antioch (Acts 11:28; 13:1; 15:32); in Tyre (Acts 21:4); in Caesarea (Acts 21:9, 10-11); in Jerusalem (Acts 11:28; 21:10); in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:19-21); probably in Ephesus (see Acts 19:6; Eph. 4:11); and probably in many other cities as well (Acts 20:23; and note that Eph. 4:11 and Acts 2:17-18 speak not of any local church but of the church in general).

So prophecy was not restricted to or limited to the apostles, and should not be thought of as some kind of unique “sign-gift” which would be used only by the apostles. It was given for the use and benefit of the whole church.

5. “It is a historical fact that prophecy did cease early in the history of the church”

(a) First, we must object that the premise just stated is very doubtful on historical grounds.¹³ There were people claiming to be prophets or to prophesy throughout the history of the early church—the problem was that too often they misunderstood their gift, or others misunderstood it, so that their utterances were (mistakenly) treated as actual words of God. Sometimes they would be tolerated, sometimes they were too much of a threat to the established leadership of the churches and they would begin splinter groups with several followers—tragically, no longer under the restraining and evaluating authority of the established church.

Then, too, others may have had “revelations” given to them which they then did not express, or simply included without comment or attribution to the Holy Spirit in a prayer, or a sermon or word of exhortation, or in the writing of a hymn or some devotional literature.

On this first point, one additional comment is in order. If we assume that this study is correct in seeing New Testament congregational prophecy as based on a “revelation” from the Holy Spirit yet not possessing the authority of God’s own words, it must still be admitted that such a careful understanding of prophecy is one which might easily be blurred or forgotten. It would eventually be very easy, then, for more and more Christian prophets, whether for good or ill motives, to begin to claim not only that they had received a “revelation” from God or Christ, but also that they spoke with absolute divine authority in their words. This was in fact apparently what happened, at least in Montanism and probably in many other cases as well. Of course, if these prophets began to promote heretical ideas, the reaction of the rest of the church would eventually be to drive them out altogether. Someone who claims absolute divine authority would eventually be either accepted or rejected; he could not be merely tolerated.

But along with this rejection of prophets who misunderstood their status there was perhaps also a rejection of the gift of prophecy altogether, so that a failure on the part of the church itself to understand the nature of the gift of prophecy might have been the cause of a fairly complete suppression of at least the public expression of the gift of prophecy in the church. This explanation is only a suggestion, and I am not offering it here as the result of investigation into the historical evidence that would be necessary to confirm or deny it.

(b) Second, it should be clear that I am not suggesting here that Paul was expressing in 1 Corinthians 13 an opinion on the relative frequency of prophesying in the history of the church. That would be subject to much variation depending on the spiritual maturity and vitality of the church in various periods, the degree to which prophecy was sought as a blessing or rejected as a heresy, the frequency with which public worship normally made provision for the exercise of this gift, and the degree to which the nature of New Testament prophecy was correctly understood.

What Paul is speaking about, however, is the total and final abolition of prophecy which is to be brought about by divine initiative at the return of Christ. And he is saying that he thinks that until the time of the return of Christ the gift of prophecy will at least to some extent remain available for use, and God will continue to give people the revelations that make prophecy possible.

With particular reference to prophecy, Calvin (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 305) notes the abundance of spiritual gifts in Paul’s day and comments (on 1 Cor. 14:32):

Today we see our own slender resources, our poverty in fact; but this is undoubtedly the punishment we deserve, as the reward for our ingratitude. For God’s riches are not exhausted, nor has His liberality grown less; but we are not worthy of His largess, or capable of receiving all that He generously gives.

 

PR

 

Concluding in the Fall 2001 Issue:

The Relationship between the Gift of Prophecy and Scripture

Spiritual Gifts as Characteristic of the New Covenant Age

Application for Today

Notes

4. Gaffin, Perspectives, 109-110.
5. Ibid., 111.
6. Robert L. Reymond, What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today? (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), 32-34. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Reformed Analysis (Lakeland, Fla.: Whitefield Seminary Press, 1986), 31-33, lists both this view and the view of Gaffin (see objection 1, above) as acceptable options.
7. Walter J. Chantry, Signs of the Apostles: Observations on Pentecostalism Old and New (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1976), 51-52.
8. Some argue that faith and hope will not endure in heaven, so 1 Corinthians 13:13 only means that faith and hope last until, not beyond, Christ’s return. However, if faith is dependence on God and trust in him, and if hope is a confident expectation of future blessings to be received from God, then there is no reason to think that we will cease to have faith and hope in heaven. (See Carson’s good discussion of faith, hope, and love as “eternally permanent virtues” in Showing the Spirit, 74-75.)
9. Gaffin, Perspectives, 109; compare Max Turner, “Spiritual Gifts Then and Now,” Vox Evangelica 15 (1985): 38.
10. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Prove All Things, ed. Christopher Catherwood (Eastbourne, England: Kingsway, 1985), 32-33.
11. John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. J. W. Fraser, ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1960), 281 (on 1 Cor. 13:10).
12. This is the position of S. D. Toussaint, “First Corinthians Thirteen and the Tongues Question,” BSac 120 (1963): 311-316.

13. The view that miracles died out early in the history of the church was argued at length by Benjamin B. Warfield, Miracles: Yesterday and Today, True and False (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1953), formerly published as Counterfeit Miracles, 1918. It should be noted that Warfield’s argument, though frequently quoted, is really a historical survey, not an analysis of biblical texts. Moreover, Warfield’s purpose was not to refute any use of spiritual gifts among Christians like those in much of the charismatic movement today, whose doctrine (on all matters other than spiritual gifts) and whose church affiliation put them in the mainstream of evangelical Protestantism. Warfield rather was refuting the spurious claims to miracles which had come from some branches of Roman Catholocism at various periods in the history of the church from various heretical sects. It is open to question whether modern-day cessationists are right to claim Warfield’s support when opposing something far different in doctrine and life from what Warfield himself opposed. Warfield’s position has come in for criticism from evangelical historians as well. See Max Turner, “Spiritual Gifts Then and Now,” 41-43, with notes to other literature; Donald Bridge, Signs and Wonders Today (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1985), 166-177; and Ronald A. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984).

“The Duration of Prophecy” is Chapter 12 of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today by Wayne A. Grudem, Copyright © 1988, 2000, Revised Edition, Pp. 400. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois 60187. Publisher’s page.