Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 20
January 23, 1969
NUMBER 37, PAGE 7b-9a

"That Which" Not "He Who" In I Cor. 13:10

Billy Duncan

In rebuttal to an argument that the expression "that which is perfect" in I Cor. 13:10 refers to Jesus, I stated in a recent newspaper article, "But you can't correctly speak of Jesus as a 'that which.' (For it to be Jesus, the passage would read 'HE WHO.')" A friend directed my attention to I John 1:1-3 where the expression evidently in some way refers to Jesus. The purpose of this article is to give my reasons for believing that the use of "that which" in I Cor. 13:10 does furnish grammatical proof that Jesus is not referred to, that the argument when properly worded is sound and will stand, and to point out other proofs that Jesus is not under consideration. At the same time it is admitted that while the argument is sound, good judgment might lead one not to make the argument since it is open to quibbling from I John 1:1-3. The time required to answer such quibbling might be better used along other lines.

Before dealing with this argument, however, let us notice other arguments that show that miraculous gifts are not for today, and other arguments that show that Jesus is not referred to by "that which" in I Cor. 13:10. One approach is to show that the means through which these gifts were given to men have been removed. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost, (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-48), and the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 8:18) were the means. Since water baptism is to continue throughout the Christian dispensation (Matt. 28:19-20), and now there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5), baptism of the Holy Ghost has ceased and this means is no longer available. Likewise, there are no apostles today, since Paul was the last one to become a witness of the resurrection (I Cor. 15:4-9) as was required of apostles. (Acts 1:22; I Cor. 9:1). The means through which the gifts were given having been withdrawn, the gifts are no longer available.

Eph. 4:8-15 parallels I Cor. 13:8-13, showing that the gifts were temporary, lasting only "till" the unity or completeness of the faith or knowledge of Christ, the faith "once delivered" (Jude 3) and that Paul preached. (Gal. 1:23). This is fulfilled in the scriptures which contain the "perfect law of liberty" (Jas. 1:25) and that make the man of God "perfect." (II Tim. 3:16, 17). The scriptures fulfill the purposes of Eph. 4:14-15, (II Tim. 3:16, 17), making partial revelation unnecessary for those of v. 12.

Any suggestion that the miraculous gifts are for today and needed for today, is a suggestion that the scriptures do not serve the purposes that are given in II Tim. 3:16,17. Since the purpose of these gifts was to reveal and confirm the word of God, then any argument showing the completeness of the revelation contained in the scriptures is an argument showing that these gifts are no longer needed, and therefore no longer available.

In brother Farish's article, "Whether There Be Tongues They Shall Cease," (Guardian, 2-22-68), the contrast between "in part" and "perfect" was shown to sufficiently prove that the scriptures as the complete revelation of God's word is the "that which." Since "that which is in part" is the word of God which is known in part and prophesied in part (I Cor. 13:9), but was to be in completeness (John 16:13; 14:25,26) as it is now (II Tim. 3:16,17), then "that which is in part" had to cease when the word of God was completely revealed. Thus completeness of that which is revealed is the thing referred to by "that which is perfect." (I Cor. 13:10). Since partialness of God's word cannot exist today, then "that which is perfect" cannot refer to Christ, for partialness was not to be done away till "that which is perfect is come."

Another simple proof that the expression "that which is perfect" does not refer to Christ is in 1 Cor. 13:13. After having shown that some things were to be done away, Paul then shows what is to abide — faith, hope, and charity. But these will not all abide after Christ comes, for faith will become sight, and hope, fruition. "But hope that is seen is not hope, for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" (Rom. 8:24). Since faith and hope are to abide after the gifts were done away, and cannot abide after Christ comes, then "that which is perfect" has to come before Christ comes and cannot refer to Christ. "That which is perfect" is the completeness of the scriptures, and miracles are not for today.

And now back to the argument that I Cor. 13:10 says "that which" and not "he who." English Grammars show that the relative pronoun "which" is to be used only for things, "who" only for persons, and "that" may be used for both. Some indicate that earlier English usage did permit "which" to refer to persons, but our real concern is with the proper English translation of the Greek, and the Greek grammar involved. "That which is perfect" is the rendering from the Greek "to teleion." The case and ending identify this to be neuter gender, thus the "that which." The root meaning of "teleion" as given in Vine's, "signifies having reached its end (telos), finished, complete, perfect... (II) of things, complete, perfect, Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 13:10 (referring to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, whether in the completed Scriptures or in the hereafter);" Thayer's comment is also interesting, "the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven, I Cor. 13:10;" It is their knowledge of Greek grammar to which I appeal, not to their interpretations. Both recognize that the Greek which is translated "that which" must refer to things, or thing, and not to person or persons. This is demanded in I Cor. 13:10 by the gender used. Masculine gender is possible in the word for "perfect" and no doubt would have been used had the writer intended to refer to a male person.

I John 1:1-3 is presented as a passage in which Jesus is referred to by the expression "that which." In this passage the relative pronoun is not derived from the ending of some word, but the Greek relative pronoun is in the text. In J. Gresham Machen's New Testament Greek For Beginners, pgs. 173-4, "397. Like other pronouns, the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender and number but has its own case in its own clause... 399. The antecedent of the relative pronoun is frequently left unexpressed. Thus os can mean he who; n, she who; o, that which, what; oi, the men who, or they who; ai, the women who; a, the things which.- The third form is used in I John 1:1,3 and is translated "that which." In I John 1:2 nis is translated "which" or "that...which" and agrees in gender with the Greek for the antecedent, "life." Though this word is in the feminine gender, lack of personality in such words dictates the pronoun "which."

As is suggested in Barnes' Notes on I John, the lack of personality is due to the fact that the expression "that which" does not refer directly to Jesus, but to the attributes or evidences of divinity that were heard, seen and handled. These things are "of the Word of life" or concerning Him. Thus "peri" is the Greek for the first "or' in "of the Word of life." And in verse 4, John says "these things" in showing that "that which" John had seen and heard and which he was declaring unto them (v. 3) was also what he was writing unto them. So that we may conclude that the relative pronoun "which" is not used to refer directly to Jesus in I John 1:1-3.

Thus it seems that the argument on the pronoun used in I Cor. 13:10 is in harmony with both Greek and English usage and will stand. It is the grammar, no doubt, that led to the "thing" in Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott rendering of I Cor. 13:10, "but when the perfect thing comes, that which is partitive will be done away."

Other renderings of interest:

J.B. Phillips: "and when the complete comes, that is the end of the incomplete."

NEB: "and the partial vanishes when wholeness comes."

Moffatt: "but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will be superseded."

— P.O. Box 354, Trenton, Fla. 32693