Another argument from the Cessationist camp has to do with te,leion in vs. 10. The argument suggests that when perfection (te,leion) comes, all that is partial (me,rouj) will pass away. Because te,leion is most often employed in I Corinthians to refer to individual, spiritual maturity, it is suggested that this reference must be to the maturity of the church.[1] The maturity of the church, it is argued most often, has to do with the completion (te,leion) of the perfect, biblical canon. One can sympathize with this argument, to be sure, in that “much of the impetus for this position stems from a profound concern for the finality of biblical truth.”[2]

However, this argument is exegetically weak. First, to argue that te,leion means “maturity” in one passage does not mean it has to mean maturity in the same way in another text. This is a word study fallacy known as Illegitimate Totality Transfer. We cannot transfer the meaning of a word from one context and make it mean the same thing in another context without a direct connection, especially a word with the lexical range of te,leion.[3] A word’s meaning is solely determined by its context. And here te,leion simply has to do with the completion of something; that is, having reached its intended or final purpose. As Fee notes, “The meaning in the present instance is determined by its being the final goal of what is, ‘partial.’ Thus its root sense of ‘having attainted the end or purpose’, hence ‘complete,’ seems to be the nuance here.”[4]

Second, the Cessationist appeal to vs. 11 does not hold water. Paul’s concern is not about moving past these spiritual gifts, but viewing them in light of the eschatological reality that they will someday no longer be needed, for they are not the telos of the Christian life – love is.[5] In exalting tongues and knowledge as the supreme sign of spirituality and the “heavenly now,”[6] the Corinthians have “mistaken the part for the whole and the partial for the final and in particular have overlooked the fact that while love already has finality here and now, knowledge [and glossolalia are] only in part.”[7] Paul’s concern is not the cessation of these gifts, but a proper understanding of their place in the whole scheme of things; his argument “has nothing to do with ‘childlikeness’ and ‘growing up,’ but with the difference between the present and the future.”

That vs. 11 has nothing to do with the maturity of the church is also substantiated grammatically. The ga.r in vs. 12 ties the whole argument back to vs. 8 and the passing away of these gifts, not the immaturity of the Corinthians. Vs. 12, itself, also suggests that vs. 11 cannot refer to the maturity of the Corinthians precisely because the argument has to do with the eschaton. There’s no reason, then to assume Paul takes a reproachful tangent in vs. 11. [8]

Third, the argument is exegetically weak because it is eisegetical. If these Cessationist scholars read Paul as Paul intended, they cannot concluded te,leion refers to the closing of the Canon, for we have absolutely no indication in this text or any other that Paul was ever aware a canon was going to be formed! If 13:10 refers to the completion of the Canon, then neither Paul nor the Corinthians themselves, would have any clue as to what Paul was writing about. As an exegetical principle, if the reader concludes the passage means something that neither the author nor the recipients could have known was the meaning, it is likely the reader is doing eisegesis, which is always a reflection of the reader’s biases.[9]

Hays quite direct about this, “This interpretation is simply nonsense. There is nothing in the passage about ‘The New Testament’ or about a future revocation of revelatory gifts for the church. Paul had no inkling that Israel’s Scripture would be supplemented by a new collection of canonical writings.”[10]

And even Reformed theologian M. Lloyd Jones held a similar conviction, “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 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.”[11]

Many Cessationists, recognizing these things, have abandoned this argument.[12]

What most scholars have recognized, including Cessationist ones, is that te,leion refers to the parousia of Christ, when Christians will know fully and see Christ face to face.[13] It is “a state of affairs where my knowledge is in some ways comparable with God’s present knowledge of me.”[14] The context and structure of this pericope do not support these Cessationist conclusions. Thus, this passage “hardly addresses the debate between Reformed and neo-Pentecostal writers about ‘tongues will ceases’ after the close of the canon or at a given stage of individual or historical maturity…This issue must be determined on other grounds than exegetical discussion of [these verses].”[15]