Replies

From the article, Driscoll says:

He continued, "So, when do these gifts cease? When? When Jesus comes back, when we see him face to face. So the Cessationists are right: certain gifts will come to an end. But the Cessationists are wrong: the end has not yet come. And the Continuationists are right: all the gifts continue until we see him face to face, until Jesus comes again."

In contrast, MacArthur says:

Apostolic authority and the apostolic message needed no further confirmation. Before the first century ended, the entire New Testament had been written and was circulating through the churches.

Driscoll may not always be wrong, and MacArthur may not always be right; but in this Driscoll is very far wrong and departs from the grammar and exposition of the Koine Greek of the time of writing of Chapter 13 of this book to the arguing, disunified Corinthians. Very simply, the crux of the debate rests on gender and number of the two demonstrative pronouns "that" in verse 10. Here's the verse:

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (AV, DRB leaves out 'then').

If the first "that" is masculine and singular, then it could refer to Jesus. If that were so, and Driscoll was correct in his exegesis, then the second "that" would have to refer to the "certain gifts," which then must refer logically to three spiritual categories--prophecies, tongues, and knowledge--summed up in the plural sense, either "spirituals" (v. 12:1), or "gifts" (v. 12:4); both of which are both neuter and plural.

However, in the text, both of these demonstrative pronouns are neuter, and both are singular. The conjugationof the verbs expresses the pronouns are third person singular. Therefore, in context, the reader would never have thought that the verse referred to The Christ or His perfection (and hence not the time of His second coming), nor to a plural number of items consisting of the temporary "spirituals". Driscoll's exposition spurns, if not scorns, the explicit grammar, and is worthy of further attention only because his theme does violence to the doctrines of how The God administers His People. The distraction and division of/in the churches today from this misinterpretation cannot come from The Holy Ghost.

Therefore, Driscoll can not be correct in any sense. On the other hand, MacArthur, in referring to doctrine of the presence of the complete, compiled, finalized, and shared, progressively revealed body of the Sayings of The God, The Word, The Hrema (neuter, singular), never to be diminished or embroidered, thus may certainly be correct in calling for the practicing of pseudo-gifts to stop.

Here is the way that I personally suggest that the first century Corinthian, Jew or Gentile, would have understood this verse had he interpreted it to us in the American English of our time:

"And/but whenever it has arrived--that completely finished thing--then that thing having partial quality shall become unuseful any more" (note that "partial" is anarthrous and imparts quality, not particularity, and is therefore singular).

That "thing" that has arrived is the completed anchor of The Faith, The Holy Bible, completely fit for the salvation of the populated world, and the guidance of The God's saints throughout Eternity.

The "thats" as used in 1 John 1:1 and 1:3 are both neuter and singular.

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; . . . That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full" (1 Jn. 1:1,3-4)(my emphasis)

I fully insist that John here in "that which" and "which" (singular, neuter) refers to the body of Sayings, the Rhema, about (peri) The Word of Life." These two demonstrative pronouns do not refer to Christ Himself. They refer to the body (soma) of accumulated and inspired sayings concerning Jesus ("these things," plural, neuter), making them neuter.

Now in this time, this era, this dispensation, there is no more special revelation occuring, no more prophecies originating from on High, since now that the Bible is not deficient in anything pertaining to The Faith, Its propagation, and administration. There are no Papal Bulls redefining the doctrines of The Old Sword. The Perfected Word is closed to any further amendment, and its content has been sealed since John, the Theologian, under The Holy Ghost's inspiration, laid down his pen. The Volume was then fully completed. It has been preserved through the ages by His appointed conveyance, the local churches, and need no Lower or Higher Criticism to synthesize a "newer" and "better" apograph.

There is no more need for vocal communication of sounds not even known by man through objective grammar--they ceased for lack of need or use and have long been forgotten. Today's attempts to resuscitate them is spurious, not encouraged by The Author or His Spirit.

There is no "word of knowledge." The God has done away with that, since The Indwelling Holy Spirit has activated spiritual discernment in the maturing disciple to both interpret and wisely apply the counsel of the Will of The God, through dreading to disappoint or disobey His commandments, and by walking in His Ways with Him (Ps. 128:1). That is, there is no extra-Biblical supernatural implantation of information not already supplied in His Fully and Completely Finished Word. Anything else has been negated. Forever.