Thiselton, Corinthians Commentary - does it discuss cessationism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Does Anthony Thiselton deal with cessationism vs. continuationism in his massive commentary on 1 Corinthians?
 
Yes, he does, but in the sense of explaining the views of other commentators. He tends to view tongues as groaning too deep for words. About the most emphatic and direct statement he makes on the matter is: "all that is clear is that the gifts cease at the eschaton.

He translates 1 Cor. 12:8-11 as follows:

(8) To one person, on his or her part, God bestows through the Spirit articulate utterance relating to “wisdom”; to another, inaccordance with the same Spirit, discourse relating to “knowledge.”
(9) To a different person faith by the same Spirit; to another, gifts for various kinds of healing by the one Spirit.
(10) To another, actively effective deeds of power; to another, prophecy; to another, discernment of what is “of the Spirit”; to another, species of tongues; and to another, intelligible articulation of what is spoken in tongues.
(11) All these things one and the same Spirit activates, apportioning as he wills to each person individually.​


Regarding 1 Cor. 12:8-11 he cautions, along with others cited,

These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate. All that is clear is that the gifts cease at the eschaton. It may be natural to assume that they continue up to the eschaton, since “prophecy” and “knowledge” belong together with “tongues.” But the assumption does not become an explicit statement about tongues rather than a possible allusion to them.​

Some snippets regarding prophecy:

Prophecy is for edification and encouragement and does not necessarily exclude teaching and doctrine (14:3, 31). It depends on revelation, and is sometimes closely related to prayer (11:4–5). The allusion to the cessation of prophecy in 13:10 refers only to the Lord’s return.151 If we were tempted to complain that the definitions of NT prophecy by David Hill, Gillespie, Aune, Müller, or Friedrich were too broad, Grudem concludes with an even broader comment: “Paul defines the function of prophecy very broadly in 1 Cor. 14:3: its functions could include any kind of speech activity which would be helpful to the hearers.”152 “The NT does not lead us to expect to find any distinctive speech forms for prophecy.”153

We should not despair of making some sense of προφητεία in 12:10. We have no reason to doubt the conclusion of Hill, Müller, Gillespie, and Friedrich that prophecy, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, combines pastoral insight into the needs of persons, communities, and situations with the ability to address these with a God-given utterance or longer discourse (whether unprompted or prepared with judgment, decision, and rational reflection) leading to challenge or comfort, judgment, or consolation, but ultimately building up the addressees.157 On the basis of 12:10 (in isolation from 14:1–25; see under 14:3) more cannot be said with certainty. While the speaker believes that such utterances or discourses come from the Holy Spirit, mistakes can be made, and since believers, including ministers or prophets, remain humanly fallible, claims to prophecy must be weighed and tested. It would go beyond the limits of exegesis to assume that the gift of prophecy belongs any more permanently to some specific individual as an “office” than the gifts of faith or kinds of healings. The epistle remains silent on this matter. Equally, it offers no evidence that prophecy ceases before the return of Christ at the eschaton (see on 13:10). Finally, as J. Panagopoulos insists, prophecy is not to be isolated from tradition, from its OT background, and from the function of announcing and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.158 Nothing links it with “trivial” messages to individuals.


1 Cor. 12:10 γένη γλωσσῶν, species of tongues, and ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν, intelligible articulation of tongues-speech. These two gifts of the Spirit must be considered together, since our exegesis and understanding of each relates to our interpretation of the other. Our starting point must be to take γένη, kinds, sorts, species, with full seriousness. Recent literature on this subject makes this abundantly clear. C. Forbes, e.g., lists a variety of “major views” of what tongues is thought to denote, or, rather, is thought to have denoted in the Pauline churches or for Paul.190 “One major view describes it as a form of inspired prayer and praise to be identified (at least in 1 Cor.) with praying or singing ‘in the Spirit’ (14:15).”191 There can be no doubt whatever that whereas prophecy denotes primarily speech-acts from God to the community or to individuals within the assembled church, tongues are addressed from believers to God (14:2: to God, not to human persons), as against prophecy “to human persons” (14:3). But why does Forbes categorize the role of tongues as “a sign” as another or “a second view” of the same phenomenon rather than the manifestation of some different kind or species of tongues?192 Too much literature seeks to identify glossolalia as “one thing” when Paul specifically takes pains to refer to different species.

He [nb: Forbes] then considers in detail my own earlier arguments that ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν and more especially ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ in 14:13 denote the power to put something into articulate speech, not to interpret or to translate, in the context of 1 Cor 12:10–14:40.233 I appealed to uses of the word in Philo and in Josephus to mean the capacity to express in words or articulate speech wonders which had otherwise left a person speechless, or able to react only emotively with awe or joy. I had observed that “no less than three-quarters of the uses [of διερμηνεύω and διερμήνευσις in Philo] refer to the articulation of thoughts or feelings in intelligible speech.”234 By contrast, the verb means to translate only when the context clearly relates to translation.

The only effective rejoinder that Forbes offers is that when ἑρμηνεύω is considered alongside its compound forms the ratio between the two possible meanings shifts.235 But I am only arguing that the verbs can mean to produce articulate speech in appropriate contexts, and that 1 Corinthians 12–14 provides such a context. His four-page discussion of my exegesis still leaves several questions unanswered, not least the string of difficulties which I did not mention but to which we now turn. Turner also applies such value judgments as “unconvincing” and “misunderstanding” to my argument, but ultimately everything rests upon (a) his insistence that Paul disparages only uninterpreted tongues (in fact, it is tongues in public); and (b) the hugely different presuppositions which result from (i) failure to work out the implications of a virtually universal understanding of Greek for proclamation; and (ii) appeals to the “normal” use of γλῶσσα to mean language (e.g., in Behm) when we are hardly discussing “normal” uses of the term!236

If comparisons with charismatic phenomena today are hermeneutically permissible, the association of certain states and experiences with rhythmic music, drumbeats, and quasi-dance idioms may offer some parallel, while such cries as “Hallelujah!” might instantiate uses of ancient linguistic (Hebraic!) liturgical formulae! In Heinrici’s sense of metaphor and poetic ornamentation, even the chanted choruses, in which the same lines of the simplest content are endlessly repeated and replicated in everincreasing cycles of psychological buildup, may just conceivably offer some broad analogue. This would certainly account for the ambivalence with which Paul seems to affirm the phenomena with one hand and express reserve with the other, as authentic praise which tends, however, too readily to leave the mind on one side, while releasing the deep emotions of gratitude, joy, and celebration (14:2, 5, 14, 15, 20). But this phenomenon could not account for 14:8–13 and 21–25. Hence other species of tongues must have (also) operated at Corinth​

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000. Print. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top