Did Tongues Disappear With The Completion of the NT Canon?

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

What About Tongues?

Dr. Couch, some Charismatics believe that tongues in Acts 2 is a true foreign language but the speaking of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is: (1) a kind of aesthetic utterance, a gibberish, (2) a foreign language, or (3) an angelic utterance and language. I heard you one time in the past give a sound answer that proved in both references, it is an actual language, and that the same thing is in view. Would you repeat that?

ANSWER: Unfortunately, most Charismatics are not very well-trained. They almost believe that it is wrong to study the Bible, and to understand it doctrinally by the Greek text. While some would deny this, in practice that is often how they operate when it comes to proving its message from the Greek language. I have seen them even get angry if you say, "The Greek text says …" They seem to believe that the KJV was inspired and is our actual Bible. They cannot get it through their heads that our English versions are just that, versions! But the proof that in both Acts and 1 Corinthians, we can demonstrate that tongues in both cases was a language and not some aesthetic mumbling.
In Acts 2 4 it is written that when the Spirit fell on those standing about "they spoke with other tongues. In Greek this is heterais glossais. In 1 Corinthians 14:21 (quoting Isaiah 28:11) Paul puts the two words together and writes the same thing with: hetroglossois. The meaning is identical and is translated other languages.

If I were a detective and went to the robbery scene, and found the same finger print in the bathroom, and in the den, I would rightly conclude that the finger prints were left by the same person. If I have the same phrase describing this miracle of languages in two different places, I would assume I am looking at the same phenomena. A language is thus in both places!

But this is too complicated for many Charismatics to understand. It is as if their biblical reasoning cannot go that far! But the fact is that they want to believe what they want to believe, when they want to believe it, never mind what the Bible says. And by the way, I have had Charismatics say just that. "But I don't care what the Bible says, my experience comes before the biblical text!"

I hope this helps.
Dr. Mal Couch

What About A Private Prayer Language?

Dr. Couch, I just read that a bunch of Southern Baptist pastors are very confused about the issue of speaking in tongues, and the subject of having a “private prayer language.” Have you heard about this? 

 

    Yes, the Washington Times reported a statistical study that showed 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believe one can have a closet or private prayer language. 7% were unsure on the issue. That is a total of 57% of Southern Baptist pastors who are in the dark and haven’t a clue as to how to study the Word of God and find definitive answers. They have been (1) listening too much to their “emotional” sheep (who have been watching too much charismatic TV), (2) watching too much hyper-charismatic TV themselves, (3) unable to exegete and study the Scriptures for themselves to find the right answers. 

    I am not surprised by this statistic mentioned above. I have never met many truly educated Southern Baptist ministers, especially those who have attended Southern Baptist seminaries or Bible schools. They are rarely taught the biblical languages and have only a smattering of exposure to biblical doctrine. The M.Div. program of one Southern Baptist school I know about gives only 9 hours in doctrinal survey courses, out of a total of 90 hours required. But they have about 9 hours the students must take in Baptist History! That M.Div does not require any biblical languages though some students may take a token amount, say, of 6 hours of Greek (which is useless for doing any exegetical work). 

    Southern Baptists push “fellowship,” increasing memberships, and baptisms, over and above doctrinal teaching of the Word of God, in order to strengthen and mature their sheep. No wonder the pastors do not know what they are doing when it comes to doctrinal clarity. 

    Thank the Lord there are a few who do indeed study their Bible and have answers, and, do not follow the crowd as to what is popular. But those numbers among Southern Baptist ministers are shrinking. Some Southern Baptist schools are so liberal they have turned green, as in green moldy cheese! But the blind Southern Baptist church members just keep on supporting these institutions. I really don’t understand that, and I wish someone would explain it to me! Probably the reason: loyalty to the denomination and to the “system” is more important than doctrinal integrity. 

    Thanks for asking,

    Dr. Mal Couch

What is the Difference Between a Pentecostal and a Charismatic?

Dr. Couch, what is the difference between a Pentecostal and a Charismatic? 

 

    Some of the differences have to do with practice and not doctrine. The Charismatics are "modernized" Pentecostals. The Jim Bakkers had a Pentecostal heritage but "came out of the closet" with Tammy Fay wearing make up and dressing extremely flashy. Many Pentecostals still believe in no makeup and dress in sackcloth and ashes! Doctrinally they are the same as far as I can tell. However, the Pentecostals really dislike the teaching that you can materialize what you want to just saying it. The name it and claim it thing! 

    I had a distant relative who was Pentecostal, who disliked Charismatics. He thought they were too showy. He felt if he sinned he would lose his salvation. He lived constantly in fear, studied the Bible only on the surface because he repudiated "the learning" of the Scriptures. I was influencing him and believe he was changing doctrinally. In a short time he would have given up his false tongues speaking, but he passed away before that happened. It was a terrible thing to see how shallow he was in terms of scriptural study. They all are. He had a lot of problems in his life, which they all do, though they try to deny this lest they lose their salvation. 

    Two of the best Bible teachers in America were charismatic, whom I will not name. They both have authored many, many books. You would know the names right off if I mentioned them. Before I met them they had given up their tongues speaking. I asked them why and they answered, "Because of the study of the Word of God. They saw what we were doing was wrong, was emotional and not biblical!" Sitting around the dinner table they would "speak" in tongues to show how they could turn it off and on at will! 

    Thanks for asking.

    Dr. Mal Couch,