Nibley's reading of Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians 13

[Vort]

Another thread that is discussing anti-Mormon arguments brought up 1 Corinthians 13. I have little (read: no) interest in anti-Mormon thought or conversation; either they are deluded and led astray or they are liars, and neither case interests me.

 

But it reminded me of a lecture in Nibley's "Time Vindicates the Prophets", maybe 15 or 16, where he touches on 1 Corinthians 13. I am not sure how valid his interpretation was, but it's certainly worth considering.

 

Nibley's thesis for this chapter is, in essence, that Paul is warning the people that the coming apostasy will remove many of the most precious gifts of the Spirit from them. He even names three of them in verse 8: prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (gnosis), noting that tongues shall "cease" and prophecy and knowledge will both "vanish away" (katargeo, same word used in both cases, as the Blue Letter Bible shows). These are among the very greatest of the gifts of the Spirit; without them, the Church cannot survive.

 

According to Niblye, Paul then contrasts these three virtues that will be taken with three that will remain: faith, hope, and charity (in the KJV; most other translations render it as "love"). In the last verse, verse 13, Nibley points out that the KJV's "colorless" term "now" would be better translated as "at this time", and emphasizes that the verb "abideth" really means "stay behind": That is, these three (prophecy, tongues, revelation) will be taken, but these other three (faith, hope, charity) will stay behind. A quick comparison of other translations show that most English versions do indeed render this verb as "remains".

 

This gives a much different and distinctly Latter-day-Saint-friendly flavor to 1 Corinthians 13. I found it fascinating; hope some others do, too.

[Just_A_Guy]

I like that reading; but I'm not 100% sure on its being THE correct one.  I read verses 9-10 as suggesting that the gifts of prophecy and knowledge are, by their very nature, "partial" or incomplete and therefore inferior to the triad of faith, hope and charity.

 

(I'd be happy to be talked out of my perception; but for now, that's the way I see it.  :)  )

Edited December 5, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

I'm not married to Nibley's interpretation. I just thought it was an interesting and potentially fruitful idea worth exploring.

 

If I were to argue the Nibley interpretation against verses 9 and 10, I would probably suggest that those verses are a parenthetical insert by Paul, clarifying that especially with the impending apostasy that was probably even then in progress*, the supernal gifts of tongues and prophecy were at best partial and were understood to be on their way out, but that we need not worry; in the perfect day, all such things will be restored in their fulness.

 

*It appears the apostles fought a never-ending and ultimately losing battle against apostasy. Their field of labor was simply too widespread, and they lacked sufficient well-educated and well-trained leadership to stitch the various churches together. Paul constantly laments this point; his frustration with the condition of Saints in various cities becomes apparent at some points. I'm reminded of Peter's epistles to terrorized disciples, wherein he basically prepares them for death, telling them that this world is all hellbound anyway, and their kingdom awaits them elsewhere. Peter seemed to know full well that those disciples, at least, were not going to survive the raging persecutions.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

... that Paul is warning the people that the coming apostasy will ...

 

Just to clarify... is the thesis based on the idea of Paul's referring to "the great apostasy", or are we talking about an apostasy of some sort that is supposed to come...?

[Vort]

Just to clarify... is the thesis based on the idea of Paul's referring to "the great apostasy", or are we talking about an apostasy of some sort that is supposed to come...?

 

Based on Nibley's various lectures, I would assume the former. Nibley was convinced that both the early Saints and the earliest Church fathers knew all about the coming "great apostasy", and that this idea was overthrown only with the "smashing victory" won by the neo-Platonists in the late second and third centuries.

[The Folk Prophet]

Based on Nibley's various lectures, I would assume the former. Nibley was convinced that both the early Saints and the earliest Church fathers knew all about the coming "great apostasy", and that this idea was overthrown only with the "smashing victory" won by the neo-Platonists in the late second and third centuries.

 

So, if I read that into your explanation of Nibley (I haven't read him directly on this one) then during the great apostasy revelation and prophesy ceased (known and understood) but faith, hope and charity remained. I question this premise as any way valid. For, as we know, by faith all things come to pass...including revelation and apostasy. And we well, per scripture, know that if such things cease, it is because of the loss of faith.

[Vort]

So, if I read that into your explanation of Nibley (I haven't read him directly on this one) then during the great apostasy revelation and prophesy ceased (known and understood) but faith, hope and charity remained. I question this premise as any way valid. For, as we know, by faith all things come to pass...including revelation and apostasy. And we well, per scripture, know that if such things cease, it is because of the loss of faith.

 

Remember the teachings of Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) on faith: It is "the subject of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". It is in this sense, I suspect, that Paul is talking about faith. Clearly, we have a much more expansive definition of faith as the principle in all intelligent action, a quality of God himself; but the narrower definition of "faith" used to mean "belief without knowledge" is common in scripture.

[The Folk Prophet]

Remember the teachings of Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) on faith: It is "the subject of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". It is in this sense, I suspect, that Paul is talking about faith. Clearly, we have a much more expansive definition of faith as the principle in all intelligent action, a quality of God himself; but the narrower definition of "faith" used to mean "belief without knowledge" is common in scripture.

 

I do not agree. Paul knew, every bit as much as Moroni, Mormon, Nephi(s), etc. and as well as all the biblical prophets who preceded him, the expansive definition of faith, and used it accordingly.

 

You misquoted, btw. It's the "substance" of things hope for (I presume you just mis-typed). :)  Or, it might be termed, the foundation of things hoped for. This is because by faith all the things Paul explained occurred...in point of fact, the rest of Hebrews 11 very definitely goes into the broader understanding of faith. By faith are all things of God brought to pass. That is the overall theme of Heb 11. And very much supportive of what I said. When faith goes, so do the things of God from the faithless life (with the obvious exception of pleading, warning, and punishing).

 

I do not agree that usage of the term "faith" in the scriptures to mean merely belief without knowledge was "common".

 

Perhaps I'm off point with this...but...well...there it is. :)

Edited December 6, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest intra]

These are among the very greatest of the gifts of the Spirit; without them, the Church cannot survive.

you state this flatly, as though it is obvious -- perhaps to you, but to me, it is not. 

i have to ask myself, "does the life of the Church depend on spiritual gifts? what is the source of the life of a believer?" 

i just want to walk through what i am thinking here: 

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

(John 6:47-50) 

it seems to me that Christ is Life. (as He said - I am the Way, the Truth and the Life - and He does not lie). He said those that did not see Him, yet believed, are blessed. so is it not possible to believe - and receive Him - without having seen Him by the action of any of these gifts?

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

(John 14:9) 

The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.

(John 14:21) 

so God is revealed by Christ, and Christ is revealed by Himself to the one who loves Him. what is required for the church to have life is to know God. what is required to know God is to see Christ. what is required to see Christ is to love Christ, and then Christ will reveal Himself to you. 

the Church then, to have life, needs to love Christ. 

the question then, is this: 

can we love Jesus Christ without speaking in tongues, words of prophecy or secret knowledge? 

 

[Guest intra]

 For, as we know, by faith all things come to pass...including revelation and apostasy. And we well, per scripture, know that if such things cease, it is because of the loss of faith.

it's not by faith that all things exist and come to pass, it's by Christ: 

 

For from him and through him and to him are all things.

(Romans 11:36) 

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(John 1:3) 

And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

(Colossians 1:17)

 

and every sign and heavenly knowledge is through the power, calling and working of God, not by human belief and trust:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence

(2 Peter 1:3)

He will not cease to exist if you have no faith in Him.

prophecy is not by private interpretation, but by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21). signs are not by human effort, but by the power of God through His Spirit (Romans 15:19). knowledge is not by carnal thought, but the gift of God (Proverbs 2:6). it may require faith on our part to receive these things, but not for these things to exist. 

we know however, that the Spirit will be taken away in the last times (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8). this is so that the one He restrains will be fully revealed -- if these signs are all given through the spirit, and the spirit is removed, is this perhaps the final cessation of them? see then that it doesn't depend on human effort, but on the will and purpose of God. 

i believe when Paul says 'these things remain' he means that argumentatively, they stand unchallenged and undiminished, in contrast with temporary things like visible signs and revelation of mystery.

in that day when all things are made known, when we are fully known and fully know, where is revelatory knowledge? 

at the end of days, where is prophecy? 

when every knee bows and every tongue confesses Christ is Lord, where are signs? 

but hope, faith and love are not taken away. at that time, hope becomes fully realized in existence. faith becomes complete knowledge. and the greatest of these, love, remains love. 

[The Folk Prophet]

it's not by faith that all things exist and come to pass, it's by Christ: 

 

Well that's a bit of a silly thing to argue. By Christ is implied. "By faith", in the context of Christian discussion, means "by faith in Christ".

 

Obviously I'm not talking about faith in the Prime Minister of Canada or some such.

[Guest intra]

Well that's a bit of a silly thing to argue. By Christ is implied. "By faith", in the context of Christian discussion, means "by faith in Christ".

 

Obviously I'm not talking about faith in the Prime Minister of Canada or some such.

i'm not trying to argue that Christ is the proper object of faith (though of course this is true!), but that Chris Himself is the originator of all these things, not faith itself. 

one can have faith, rightly in Christ, and not prophesy, not be given new revelation of mystery, and not speak in tongues - and that diminishes neither Christ nor faith. 

this is the problem with 'faith healers' and the like, i think, when they say a sickness or whatever is not taken away because faith is lacking, it's not the lack of faith, but the will of God, who heals. Joseph Smith had every faith to set up a temple in Missouri, but it did not come down to his faith, but God's will, right?

Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

(Zechariah 4:6) 

if i have faith that can move mountains, it's not my faith that moves the mountain, but the one my faith is in. it may be moved 'because of' my faith, but not 'by' it.

'faithless Israel' was still sent prophets bearing testimony (Jeremiah 3:8, for example). this wasn't because of their faith, but the faithfulness of God, which remains even when we are faithless. 

if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself.

(2 Timothy 2:13)  

so it is the Lord, not faith, that gives the spiritual gifts, even while they are received through faith. 

maybe a petty distinction, sure, but i make it my habit to 'give glory to whom glory is due' :) 

[The Folk Prophet]

i'm not trying to argue that Christ is the proper object of faith (though of course this is true!), but that Chris Himself is the originator of all these things, not faith itself. 

 

I did not say that faith was the originator of those things. I said that without faith they cannot occur.

 

one can have faith, rightly in Christ, and not prophesy, not be given new revelation of mystery, and not speak in tongues - and that diminishes neither Christ nor faith. 

 

That's turning it around. I didn't say one would always prophesy if one has faith. I do say that if one does prophesy that one must have faith first.

 

if i have faith that can move mountains, it's not my faith that moves the mountain, but the one my faith is in. it may be moved 'because of' my faith, but not 'by' it.

 

This is a wasted semantic point. "By" and "because of" can easily mean the same thing.

 

maybe a petty distinction

 

^ this.