Commentaries on 1 Corinthians - expressly cessationist

[Eoghan]

I am looking for some good recommendations. In discussing Paul's letter to the Corinthians I think it will be necessary to look at Paul's other letters in particular and the style he uses in developing a line of reasoning, so a commentary that sticks only to 1 Corinthians I believe would come unstuck.

Thoughts and suggestions welcome!

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Not a commentary, but Dr. Robertson's The Final Word is worth the read.

The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today - O. Palmer Robertson - Google Books

 

[timmopussycat]

With specific reference to Paul's reasoning style, both Fee on 1 Corinthians (introduction) and Longenecker on Galatians esp. ch. 1:17 - 21 give us some points worth pondering.

 

[RamistThomist]

MacArthur's commentary deals with it, though it is somewhat limited:

1) It runs the risk of being a glorified word-study.
2) MacArthur's real opponent is probably TBN.

 

[Eoghan]

With specific reference to Paul's reasoning style, both Fee on 1 Corinthians (introduction) and Longenecker on Galatians esp. ch. 1:17 - 21 give us some points worth pondering.

I am struggling to find "Fee" which commentary series do you have in mind?

Found it. While the reviews praise his scholarly work, he is writing as a Pentecostal. To my mind this predetermines the outcome - wrongly! If Lee can maintain a continuationist position then he is misunderstanding several key theological points in the New Testament - no?

 

[RamistThomist]

With specific reference to Paul's reasoning style, both Fee on 1 Corinthians (introduction) and Longenecker on Galatians esp. ch. 1:17 - 21 give us some points worth pondering.

I am struggling to find "Fee" which commentary series do you have in mind?

Found it. While the reviews praise his scholarly work, he is writing as a Pentecostal. To my mind this predetermines the outcome - wrongly! If Lee can maintain a continuationist position then he is misunderstanding several key theological points in the New Testament - no?

Maybe, maybe not. Fee is also a recognized authority on 1 Corinthians, and there are different varieties of continuationism.

 

[Eoghan]

I am interested to see if the position that "tongues" were known foreign languages can be maintained throughout the NT.
I would like to know if there is a distinction between "knowledge and prophecy" which will pass away and "tongues" which will fail.
Are prophecy and knowledge basically preaching (with authority, none of your lame homilies) and a sound theology - remember that Jesus names John the Baptist as the pre-eminent prophet - forthtelling rather than foretelling!
The importance of the closed cannon - there being no more revelation.
The significance of Jesus meeting Paul on the road to Damascus giving apostolic authority to him v the "everyday" claims of charismatic leaders to private audiences with Christ.

I honestly cannot see a Pentecostal maintaining these distinctions or even seeing them as valid questions - can you?

 

[Eoghan]

I think that older Puritan commentaries will have avoided the Charismatic issue precisely because it was a non-issue. For that reason I guess I need a contemporary commentary that does address these issues and knocks them on the head.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am interested to see if the position that "tongues" were known foreign languages can be maintained throughout the NT.
I would like to know if there is a distinction between "knowledge and prophecy" which will pass away and "tongues" which will fail.
Are prophecy and knowledge basically preaching (with authority, none of your lame homilies) and a sound theology - remember that Jesus names John the Baptist as the pre-eminent prophet - forthtelling rather than foretelling!
The importance of the closed cannon - there being no more revelation.
The significance of Jesus meeting Paul on the road to Damascus giving apostolic authority to him v the "everyday" claims of charismatic leaders to private audiences with Christ.

I honestly cannot see a Pentecostal maintaining these distinctions or even seeing them as valid questions - can you?

Not all continuationists are wacky Pentecostals. Technically, I'm not even a continuationist. I simply hold with the Covenanters that "prophecy" can be active today and I leave it at that.

 

[Peairtach]

Charles Hodge did a commentary on I Corinthians which is cessationist, and which, although I haven't read it myself, Palmer Robertson said used the standard cessationist argument on chapter 13. I believe it is online somewhere.

The Lutheran scholar, Douglas Judisch, wrote one of the best books I've read on cessationism, "An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts" (Baker Biblical Monograph, 1978). This may be available online, or may be bought secondhand from Abe books or elsewhere. He deals with each of the Scripture passages that teach cessationism, including those in I Corinthians. In my humble opinion he blows the whole Pentecostal/Charismatic thing out of the water.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[py3ak]

I think that older Puritan commentaries will have avoided the Charismatic issue precisely because it was a non-issue.

That's not quite true. While obviously you didn't have Charismatics in our modern sense, you did have to people who were pretending to inner light, new revelations, etc. In every age there is a desire to hear from God outside of his word - or to give the fantasies of our own minds the status of divine revelation.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Kistemaker's commentary is quite good, and you might also check out W. Harold Mare's commentary in the Expositor's set.

 

[Marrow Man]

Not to be overlooked (because it is not a commentary per se) is Richard Ganz's 20 Controversies That Almost Killed a Church. He gives a lot of good practical application from 1 Corinthians, and he does a good job with the tongues issue. He is writing as a faithful Reformed Presbyterian and a Jew who was converted to Christianity (particularly important with understanding the tongues issue).

Twenty Controversies That Almost Killed a Church: Paul's Counsel to the Corinthians and the Church Today: Richard L. Ganz: 9780875527901: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Hamalas]

I haven't read it, but I know that Riddlebarger is a cessationist so here you go: Lectio Continua: First Corinthians (Expository Commentary): Kim Riddlebarger, Jon D. Payne: 9781938139000: Amazon.com: Books

 

[louis_jp]

Not to be overlooked (because it is not a commentary per se) is Richard Ganz's 20 Controversies That Almost Killed a Church. He gives a lot of good practical application from 1 Corinthians, and he does a good job with the tongues issue. He is writing as a faithful Reformed Presbyterian and a Jew who was converted to Christianity (particularly important with understanding the tongues issue).

Twenty Controversies That Almost Killed a Church: Paul's Counsel to the Corinthians and the Church Today: Richard L. Ganz: 9780875527901: Amazon.com: Books

Do you have this book..... if so, may I borrow it?

 

[Marrow Man]

Not to be overlooked (because it is not a commentary per se) is Richard Ganz's 20 Controversies That Almost Killed a Church. He gives a lot of good practical application from 1 Corinthians, and he does a good job with the tongues issue. He is writing as a faithful Reformed Presbyterian and a Jew who was converted to Christianity (particularly important with understanding the tongues issue).

Twenty Controversies That Almost Killed a Church: Paul's Counsel to the Corinthians and the Church Today: Richard L. Ganz: 9780875527901: Amazon.com: Books

Do you have this book..... if so, may I borrow it?

But, of course.

 

[Reformguy]

Not to hijack this thread but Keith Mathison has his top 5 commentaries for each book of the Bible on Ligionier's site.

Top Commentaries on Every Book of the Bible by Keith Mathison | Ligonier Ministries Blog

 

[timmopussycat]

With specific reference to Paul's reasoning style, both Fee on 1 Corinthians (introduction) and Longenecker on Galatians esp. ch. 1:17 - 21 give us some points worth pondering.

I am struggling to find "Fee" which commentary series do you have in mind?

Found it. While the reviews praise his scholarly work, he is writing as a Pentecostal. To my mind this predetermines the outcome - wrongly! If Lee can maintain a continuationist position then he is misunderstanding several key theological points in the New Testament - no?

Not with reference to the point you raised which was Paul's reasoning style. See especially "The Church and Its Apostle" pp. 4-15 (in which the modern "Pentecostal" application of Paul's words in 1 Cor 12-14 do not at all come into the picture) and pp. 46-194 for the detailed exegesis that underlies Fee's view of the main critical issue between Apostle and church.

 

[Eoghan]

What precisely do you intend by "prophecy"?

You also use the phrase "can be" rather than "should be". It has long been a source of consternation to charismatics and Pentecostals alike that cessationists make a distinction between that which is normative and that which is possibel.

 

[Eoghan]

Not all continuationists are wacky Pentecostals. Technically, I'm not even a continuationist. I simply hold with the Covenanters that "prophecy" can be active today and I leave it at that.

What precisely do you intend by "prophecy"?

You also use the phrase "can be" rather than "should be". It has long been a source of consternation to charismatics and Pentecostals alike that cessationists make a distinction between that which is normative and that which is possible.

 

[Eoghan]

Charles Hodge did a commentary on I Corinthians which is cessationist.

I have this commentary and got it down last night. I was interested to see the development of the idea that tongues were simply foreign languages. The purpose of this gift seems to have been two-fold: firstly as a sign that the Gentiles were being included (Acts 2 foreshadows this) and secondly that it was a form of revelation. In this latter sense it required interpretation if it was to be of benefit to anyone else. If I were to give a message in German it's audience would be severely limited.

That Paul commands that those speaking in foreign languages should restrain themselves and give way to another clearly teaches that it was not ecstatic in the sense of being uncontrolled but was a normal human ability - given supernaturally. It seems then that the insights or teachings they had to offer were subject to their own control. As one preacher pointed out the Corinthian church was founded in Acts 18, prior to the spirit being given to John's disciples in John 19. 1 Corinthians was written very early in the history of the church while these gifts were still active. They filled a gap which would be occupied by the New Testament epistles.

Where there is systematic preaching from the whole of the NT any additional proclamation of the gospel is superfluous. Where there is no declaration of the whole counsel of God tongues and interpretation would be useful, were it not for the fact that nobody would be sufficiently informed to judge what was said. Denying that we have all the is required written down for us will not revive the obsolete gift of foreign languages.

This takes us back to Acts 2 and the function of preaching in foreign languages which informs the Jews that God has turned from them to the Gentiles. The foreign languages were to facilitate the progress of the gospel amongst the Gentiles. When Paul expresses gratitude that he speaks in foreign languages more than all of them he is no doubt thinking of his missionary work. It is also noteworthy that he uses the plural giving an indication that he used a variety of foreign languages.