What is “That Which Is Perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10?

 What is “That Which Is Perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10?

1Cor.13
[8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
[9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
[10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
[11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
[12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
[13] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Some teach “That Which Is Perfect” refers to the Second Coming of Christ.  Many of this persuasion argue that during this “church age” that people still have the gift of tongues and knowledge.  They even argue that people still receive prophecy from God today.  These people fail to understand the “signs” were for the Jews (1 Cor 1:22) and that tongues were for a sign (1 Cor 14:22).  The Jews privileges, which includes the sign gifts, ended at Acts 28 with the pronouncement of Judicial blindness (Acts 28:25-28).  Others that believe “That Which is Perfect” refers to the Second Coming say that tongues, the gift of knowledge, and prophecy temporarily ceased during this age of grace and will pick back up during the tribulation.  They then argue that these things cease permanently at the Second Coming.  

For me and many others I know, the answer in the past has been “that which is perfect” refers to the completion of the canon of Scripture (i.e. The Completed Bible).  I might even be tempted accept the argument given by some scholars that John’s Gospel, Revelation, as well as First, Second, and Third John were written early, thus making 2 Timothy the last book of the Bible to be written.  If that argument is correct, then Paul completed the Bible with the writing of Second Timothy being the last book added to the canon.  To summarize this position consider the following:

•    During the Acts Period tongues, the gift of knowledge, and prophesy were all in operation to impart revelation from God until the Bible was completed.  When the last book of the Bible was written, there was no need for tongues, gift of knowledge, or prophecy because no more revelation was to be given from God.
•    For those that take an Acts 2 or traditional Mid Acts dispensational view, they argue that tongues, the gift of knowledge, and prophesy operated during a transition period in which the mystery program was gradually ushered in and the kingdom program (which included things such as signs, gift of knowledge, and prophecy) was gradually ushered out. 
•    Those that believe “That Which Is Perfect” refers to the completion of Scripture believe that the ceasing of tongues, the ceasing of the gift of knowledge, and the ceasing of prophecy is only temporary.  After the rapture most believe these things pick back up during the tribulation period.

I am now going to offer an alternative view to the above positions.  During the Acts period when Paul wrote books like 1 Corinthians he is anticipating Israel to repent and God to usher in the Kingdom on earth as was promised (Acts 3:19-21).    When Paul writes Corinthians he is not anticipating Israel rejecting the gospel and there being a long “church age” going out beyond his lifetime.  Paul says in 1 Corinthians the time is short (1 Cor 7:29).  Paul during the Acts period expected to be alive when the Lord returned (1 Thes 4:15).  If Israel had repented in Paul’s day, the tribulation and Second Coming would all have taken place in the first century.  When Christ returns the second time He makes a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jer 31:31 & Heb 8:8-13).  Under the New Covenant all will know the Lord (Jer 31:31-34), so the gift of knowledge will no longer be needed.   Nobody will need to be taught because the law will be written in their hearts.  Jeremiah 31:31-34 states:

[33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
[34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.   

Also at this time tongues will cease.  Zephaniah 3:9 states, “For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.”  It appears that God reverses His judgment that occurred at the Tower of Babel.

 Zechariah 13 makes it clear there will be no more prophets at this time.  Consider Zechariah 13:1-6

[1] In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
[2] And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
[3] And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
[4] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:
[5] But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
[6] And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

“Perfection” did not come by the Old Covenant of the law.  Hebrews 7:11 states, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?”  Perfection comes by a better testament that is associated with the New Covenant.  Hebrews 7:19-22 states:
[19] For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
[20] And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
[21] (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
[22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

To repeat when Paul writes Corinthians he is expecting all end time prophecies to be fulfilled during his lifetime of the first century.  He is not expecting tongues, the gift of knowledge, and prophecy to cease for a long “chuch age” of 2,000 plus years and then start back up temporarily.  In fact it appears that when he writes 1 Cor 13 he only expects these things to cease, vanish away, and fail one time and that would be when the New Covenant is implemented with Israel.  Perfection comes not just by Christ’s Second Coming but by Him implementing the New Covenant.  The writer of Hebrews says writes as if the New Covenant would be implemented during the first century, “…A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13).  Notice the same terminology Paul used in 1 Cor 13:8 “vanish away” is applied to the old covenant by the writer of Hebrews.

In conclusion, I am arguing “That Which Is Perfect” in 1 Cor 13 is not referring to the completed Bible, although I believe the Bible is perfect.  Also I don’t think “That Which Is Perfect” refers just to the Second Coming of Christ, although I believe Christ is perfect.  I think that which is perfect refers to  Christ implementing the New Covenant.  Once that is done there will be no more need of teaching or imparting knowledge.  There will be no need of prophecy (everybody will know as they are known).  Tongues will cease forever, because a pure language will return.  Although under Grace I believe God is no longer using tongues, the gift of knowledge, and prophecies, I think it is doctrinally incorrect to use 1 Cor 13 as a proof text for this argument.  The better argument is to understand that around Acts 28 Israel is “cast off” temporarily and that when Israel is cast off she does not see her signs according to  Psalm 74:1-9:

[1] O God, why hast thou cast us off for ever? why doth thine anger smoke against the sheep of thy pasture?
[2] Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.
[3] Lift up thy feet unto the perpetual desolations; even all that the enemy hath done wickedly in the sanctuary.
[4] Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy congregations; they set up their ensigns for signs.
[5] A man was famous according as he had lifted up axes upon the thick trees.
[6] But now they break down the carved work thereof at once with axes and hammers.
[7] They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground.
[8] They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
[9] We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.

Note in verse nine above, the signs cease, there is no prophet, and there is no special “knowledge.”  The reason for this condition is given in verse 1, Israel had been cast off.  Remember a “casting away” of Israel is spoken of as occurring in Paul’s last pre-Acts 28 Epistle (Romans 11:15).  This process could have stopped before Acts 28:28 if Israel had repented of unbelief.  Romans 11:23 states, “And they (Israel) also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.”

My Position on Dr Peter S Ruckman

 

     Dr Peter S Ruckman was an Independent Baptist Pastor as well as founder of Pensacola Bible Institute.  He was a controversial figure among the Independent Baptists for many reasons, but probably the main issue for them was that he was twice divorced and married 3 times.  Most Independent Baptists take 1 Timothy 3:2, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” to mean a pastor can only be married once.  Most would probably allow a remarriage if the first wife passed away, but that would be the only exception.  Outside of the Independent Baptist movement, in mainstream Christianity, Dr Ruckman’s position of believing and using only the King James Bible is considered controversial, since most mainstream Christians accept the position that only the “originals” were inspired and that all “conservative” translations are legitimate to use.  The majority of Independent Baptists use only the King James Bible, so any criticism Ruckman received from them on the KJV Only issue would concern the “mechanics” of how God preserved His word.  Some have said Ruckman believed the KJV translators were inspired, thus claiming “double inspiration.”  If Ruckman ever directly taught the King James Translators were inspired, then I missed that lesson.  The other main issue Ruckman was most criticized for by many Independent Baptists and mainstream Christianity was his “dispensational views” especially in regards to salvation.  For the “non-dispensational” or even “Acts 2 Dispensational” Baptists as well as those in mainstream Christianity Ruckman was considered “Hyper Dispensational.” 

     Considering the above, the question now comes up, “How About Ruckman and the Mid Acts Grace Believers?”  Many in the “Mid Acts Camp” are KJV Only, although they may disagree with Ruckman on the mechanics of how God preserved His word, there would not be much criticism of him in this regard from that group.  Of course, there are some Mid Acts people that accept any “conservative” translation, so they would be critical of the KJV only position of Ruckman.  Most of the Mid Acts people do not believe Ruckman went far enough in his dispensationalism, as opposed to the Independent Baptists and mainstream Christianity that believe Ruckman was a “hyper.”  I think Ruckman sometimes liked getting caught in the “middle,” because I heard him say more than once, “When you have both sides cussing you, then you know you have taken a Scriptural position.”  Having read all Ruckman’s commentaries and in comparing the teaching contained in them to the traditional Mid Acts teaching of Stam, O’hair, Baker, etc. the biggest difference I see is Ruckman practiced water baptism while the former did not.  Ruckman’s Bible teaching also would make as much “practical” application as he could to the “church” even if the book or passage was aimed doctrinally at the Kingdom Program of Israel.  He got a lot of criticism for this as well from the Mid Acts people.  They would usually say, Ruckman was not “rightly dividing.”  The truth is Ruckman taught Romans through Philemon was doctrine for the “church,” just like traditional Mid Acts people, and he understood that Genesis to John and Hebrews through Revelation presented Kingdom doctrine for Israel.  Ruckman in his “preaching zeal” would often muddy the water in his preaching, and as a result, his “right division” was not always as clear as the Mid Acts people would prefer. 

     Ruckman was more of an Acts 2 Dispensationalists when it came to “when the church started,” but he qualified that belief by stating, nobody knew the church started until Paul revealed it after his salvation in Acts 9.  In my opinion Ruckman was basically a “Mid Acts Baptist,” although he never claimed that title.  The Mid Acts people are very critical of Ruckman’s modified Acts 2 position because of it mixing “Jewish” stuff with the “church.”  Ruckman’s response to this was if the Mid Acts people really wanted to get consistent on everything, then they needed to follow E W Bullinger who eventually took the “Acts 28 Position” to avoid all the “Jewish” stuff in Acts.  I actually heard Ruckman say E W Bullinger was the most consistent of the dispensationalists.  Ruckman’s goal post was Acts 2 or the cross when it came to starting the “church,” and he was familiar with the Acts 9 and 13 goal post positions as well.  I don’t agree with Ruckman’s Acts 2 position, but in my mind, it is no more inconsistent than the Acts 9 or 13 Positions.  Moving the goal post to Acts 9 or 13 still does not get rid of water baptism, tongue speaking, miracle working, or Pentecost observance, etc.  The truth of the matter is the only way to get rid of water baptism, tongue speaking, miracle working, Pentecost observing, etc. is to put the goal post at the end of Acts 28 or take the position that God allowed both the Kingdom to continue to be offered during Acts with a new grace gospel being preached for individual salvation.  Paul describes his ministry in Acts as a “dispensation of the gospel” being committed to him (1 Cor 9:17).    Toward the end of Acts Paul definitely knows about the “mystery” (see Rom 16:25), although the details of it are not revealed until Paul writes Ephesians and Colossians after Israel’s final rejection of the kingdom in Acts 28.  Paul’s ministry after Acts 28 is described as being a minister of the “Mystery” dispensation (Col 1:25-27) in which he would fulfill or complete the word of God.  With the kingdom offer temporarily over at the end of Acts, Paul writes in Colossians that the ceremonial observances have no spiritual role in the dispensation of the mystery, but will again be part of God’s program in the future (Col 2:16-23).  So, considering this I would disagree somewhat with Ruckman’s dispensationalism as well as most of the Mid and Acts 28 dispensationalists. 

     Overall, I would say if one can get past Ruckman’s personality and demeanor, then I would recommend Ruckman for his stand on the King James Bible and his zeal to preach the gospel to the lost.  In my opinion, Ruckman’s modified “mid acts dispensationalism” is no more inconsistent than the Acts 9 or 13 position.  I agree with Ruckman that Bullinger was one of the most consistent dispensationalists, although I don’t fully endorse all of the Acts 28 position.

Smart "Rear End" Grace Believers

      I would have used another word for "rear end" in the title of this blog post, but some would have accused me of cussing if I had done so.  At any rate I want to address what I see as a problem among some grace believers.  In their actions and words they often come across as arrogant and "smart rear ends."  This is not how our Apostle Paul told us to conduct ourselves.  He states in Col 4:[6] "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."  Unfortunately many grace believers I have witnessed speak with all salt and very little or no grace to season it.  

     I will give an example of one being a "smart rear end" grace believer.  I heard a grace preacher once speaking of the truth that we have already been blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ.  This is certainly a true statement and I rejoice in it!  However, I heard him speak of some worker at a grocery store telling him to have a blessed day when he finished shopping.  I don't remember exactly what he said he told this employee, but he implied that this person was "stupid" for telling him to have a blessed day since he was already blessed with all spiritual blessings.  A better response would have been to thank this person for wishing him a good day, and maybe explain to this person the spiritual blessings that can be had in Christ. 

     You see the truth of the matter was this grace preacher was so "smart" that he actually showed his "back side" when it comes to both practical matters as well as doctrine.  He implied that he thought it is wrong to tell people to have a blessed day or to try to be a blessing.  Practically speaking we should always greet people with an attitude of blessing rather than cursing.  Our Apostle, that this grace preacher claims to follow, told us to "bless, and curse not" (Rom 12:14).  Paul actually teaches that even under grace there are physical blessings we can still experience.  He states, "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).  

     Unfortunately many grace believers' testimony is "curse, and bless not." 

Grace Believers and Hell

     Some Grace Believers reject the doctrine of hell, I assume because Paul did not specifically use the term "Hell," yet he does use terms like "flaming fire" and "everlasting destruction" that will be experienced by those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thes 1:8-10).  

     I already have a blog post on "Did Paul Believe in Hell" if you are interested.  See

https://acts20gracebeliever.blogspot.com/2022/01/did-paul-believe-in-hell.html

     If anybody, including Grace Believers, gets a doctrine wrong (hell, polygamy, Trinity, soul sleep, etc) the core of the problem is not with their "brand" of dispensationalism, whether Acts 2, Mid Acts, or Acts 28.  The core of the problem is rejecting the final authority of the King James Bible.  FYI, according to my computer the KJV uses the term "hell" 64 times in the Old and New Testament.  Although our Apostle Paul never used the term "hell," he did say in 2 Tim 3

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

     Hell existed before Paul was given the revelation of the mystery, for example, see Mat 10:28.  Hell continued to exist after the revelation of the mystery, for example, see Rev 20:13-14.

Grace Believers and Polygamy

      There is a fringe group in the "right division grace camp" that believe polygamy is OK under Grace.  It is true that God allowed polygamy in time past, but that was not His perfect will.  Genesis 2:23-24 states,

[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Note that in the beginning the first marriage was arranged by God and it consisted of only one man and one woman.  This teaching of only two in marriage (male & female) was also confirmed by Christ during His earthly ministry.  Matthew 19:5 states,

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The Apostle Paul during the Acts period as well as after Acts 28 confirms marriage as one male and one female becoming one flesh.  1 Corinthians 6:16 states,

[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

For one that might argue that things changed after the final offer of the Kingdom in Acts 28 in regards to the doctrine of marriage, note that Ephesians 5:31 (written after Acts 28) states, 

[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

God's perfect will under Grace, even after Acts 28, is for marriage to be between one man and one woman for life!

This "fringe" group of "right dividers" who have put their stamp of approval on polygamy actually give right division a bad name and cause some to reject the Bible instruction of 2 Timothy 2:15.   Some of this same group also reject the doctrine of the "Trinity" (see my previous blog post on this subject).  Another characteristic of some in this fringe group is they also reject the doctrine of hell.  I have an old post on my blog "Did Paul Believe in Hell," but I may do an updated post on this subject as well.  Some say these people got off base on these issues because they went too far in right division.  I disagree.  My belief is that these "fringe" right dividers got off base on these issues, not because of their "right division" (whether it be Mid Acts or Acts 28), but because they rejected or changed words in the King James Bible.