Dr. Couch, the charismatics, who are generally ignorant about the Greek text, in 1 Corinthians 13:10, take the "perfect" to by the coming of Christ. Thus they say that tongues will not disappear until Christ returns. I understand that you take the perfect to be referring to the completion of the NT canon. Can you explain?
ANSWER: One of the arguments against my position is that the passage does not refer to the NT canon, thus I have to insert that idea in the text. But those who hold that it is referring to Christ's return also insert their idea into the context of the passage. They argue that I am going to my theology (that tongues are no longer with us) in my view. But they are also doing the same thing—inserting their view that it is referring to the second coming of Jesus!
I argue from two points: (1) the coming of this "perfect" is replacing the "partial" mentioned in the passage. We know that the canon of Scripture was not complete when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. (2) I have evidence from church history that sometime after the canon was complete (circa. 90 AD, with the book of Revelation) that many of the key church fathers said that tongues had ceased.
Does it make sense to say that Christ's coming will cause the "partial" to go away, whatever the partial is? But we can say that for sure we only had part of the canon of Scripture—it was not complete when Paul wrote!
The word "partial" is a neuter word (meros). The verb says that in the future "it will be made ineffective, powerless, abolished." The word is "katargeo", and it is a Future Passive Indicative in form. "The partial will be acted upon in the future and it will be abolished."
Interestingly, in the Greek lexicon (Balz & Schneider) the word meros here has to do with "eschatology (prophecy) and [future] history."
Church history confirms what I say, and so does Balz & Schneider!
Iranaeus (120-202) in his work "Against Heresy" says: "These Corinthians who were 'mature' received the Spirit of God and spoke 'in all languages' (not jibberish). We do not hear of the brothers in the church now speak in these languages."
Chrysostom (345-407) said: "This entire passage (1 Cor. 13) is obscure; but the obscurity is by our own ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place."
Eusebius (126-180) Against Montanus the heretic. "He raved and babbled in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy strange things which was not the custom of the church handed down by tradition from the beginning. Some of those who heard were indignant and they rebuked him as one that was possessed. He stirred up two women and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely."
Augustine (354-430). "In the earliest time, the HS fell upon them that believe; and they spoke with tongues (languages) which they had not learned as the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted for the time to show the gospel of God was to run through all languages over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign and it passed away."
In my opinion, the argument is over about tongues. This shows the value of church history in that it can explain sometimes what is happening in a biblical text.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
ANSWER: One of the arguments against my position is that the passage does not refer to the NT canon, thus I have to insert that idea in the text. But those who hold that it is referring to Christ's return also insert their idea into the context of the passage. They argue that I am going to my theology (that tongues are no longer with us) in my view. But they are also doing the same thing—inserting their view that it is referring to the second coming of Jesus!
I argue from two points: (1) the coming of this "perfect" is replacing the "partial" mentioned in the passage. We know that the canon of Scripture was not complete when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. (2) I have evidence from church history that sometime after the canon was complete (circa. 90 AD, with the book of Revelation) that many of the key church fathers said that tongues had ceased.
Does it make sense to say that Christ's coming will cause the "partial" to go away, whatever the partial is? But we can say that for sure we only had part of the canon of Scripture—it was not complete when Paul wrote!
The word "partial" is a neuter word (meros). The verb says that in the future "it will be made ineffective, powerless, abolished." The word is "katargeo", and it is a Future Passive Indicative in form. "The partial will be acted upon in the future and it will be abolished."
Interestingly, in the Greek lexicon (Balz & Schneider) the word meros here has to do with "eschatology (prophecy) and [future] history."
Church history confirms what I say, and so does Balz & Schneider!
Iranaeus (120-202) in his work "Against Heresy" says: "These Corinthians who were 'mature' received the Spirit of God and spoke 'in all languages' (not jibberish). We do not hear of the brothers in the church now speak in these languages."
Chrysostom (345-407) said: "This entire passage (1 Cor. 13) is obscure; but the obscurity is by our own ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place."
Eusebius (126-180) Against Montanus the heretic. "He raved and babbled in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy strange things which was not the custom of the church handed down by tradition from the beginning. Some of those who heard were indignant and they rebuked him as one that was possessed. He stirred up two women and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely."
Augustine (354-430). "In the earliest time, the HS fell upon them that believe; and they spoke with tongues (languages) which they had not learned as the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted for the time to show the gospel of God was to run through all languages over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign and it passed away."
In my opinion, the argument is over about tongues. This shows the value of church history in that it can explain sometimes what is happening in a biblical text.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
