Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Biblicist]

Why would calling teleios the completion of the canon affect doctrine? . . . . . .

The problem with changing Paul's focus on the Eschatological reality, where both our partial knowledge and even the limitations of our mortality are to changed by the completion of the Canon is indeed a major issue. Paul has gone to some trouble to detail how our partial understanding, the role of the Holy Spirit within the Church and with the limitations of our mortal body that these partial things will only be rectified when we see the Lord face-to-face and that our mortality is be changed by our new heavenly body.

 

[Biblicist]

Most commentaries of this passage up until the twentieth century go into no more depth than a couple of sentences. Usually as part of whole bible or at least whole book commentaries. When you take that shallow a study at this passage it is not surprising that people see the words “perfect” and “face to face” and immediately jump to the conclusion it is referring to the return Christ. Most of today’s paperback commentaries on 1 Corinthians suffer the same problem. Whether you are continuist or cessationist no one can deny this is a very obscure passage to interpret and an indepth multipage study is therefore required. Whether or not the recent in-depth studies have been prompted by the rise of the pentecostal/charismatic movement is irrelevant.

Commencing about the middle of next week I will be able to check somewhere around 15-20 commentaries on First Corinthians that were written prior to the 20th century to see what they have to say on 1 Cor 13:10; this demands some graciousness on the part of the staff of two major Christian libraries. What I have been doing in recent months is scanning in chapters 1, 12, 13 & 14 of some of the older commentaries so it will be worthwhile to speed up this rather laborious task.

The material by Calvin (1546) is certainly more than just a couple of sentences which cover pages 428-32. From what I have noticed so far with regard to the early Latin churchmen is that none of them entertain the idea (or even seem to be aware of the view) that 1 Cor 13:10 supposedly points to the Canon of Scripture, though most of their material seems to be little more than a few sentences.

Hodge (1857) is an important and respected theologian from the mid 1800’s and he spends a fair amount of time on or future state when we will stand before the Lord, through pages 294 -298 and he makes no reference to the completed Canon of the Scriptures, other than with;

“The word of God is a mirror wherein even now we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18), but what is that to seeing him face to face!​

I will be interested to see if any theologian prior to the cessationist writings of the mid to late 20th century give any credence to the notion that 1 Cor 13:10 is speaking of a completed Canon, though I know that B.B. Warfield (1855-1921) who certainly wrote during the 1800's holds to the Canon perspective.

 

[FenderTL5]

I will be interested to see if any theologian prior to the cessationist writings of the mid to late 20th century give any credence to the notion that 1 Cor 13:10 is speaking of a completed Canon, though I know that B.B. Warfield (1855-1921) who certainly wrote during the 1800's holds to the Canon perspective.

Earlier in this thread, someone posted a link to a paper/study on the various views/writings on this verse through history.
I don't know, nor can I vouch for the author; but it appears that everything is sourced. Here's the linkage to the paper. (http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/perfectpaper94.pdf)
I only read the Patristics and the conclusion thoroughly, merely scanning the latter writers. There were no surprises in my opinion and the conclusion was what I expected. ymmv.

 

[Major1]

CULT??? I don't know whether to report you or just ignore you.

First of all that was not addressed to you at all. It was to someone that I have know and debated with for some time now on a different web site. We have a history and believe me, he has said a lot worse to me than what I said to him.

Secondly, as this discussion has taken an observed direction to the negative side with personal comments coming in, and immature comments being made, along with argumenitive comments, maybe it would be wise to "ignore" me as that I believe is what I will have to do toward you.

I hope that you will be well and safe and that the Lord will bless you and your family.

 

[swordsman1]

Yes, face to face as in literally.

No, not literally. It is figurative. Moses didn't literally see God face to face. If he did he would die. That's why he was hidden in the cleft of the rock when God passed by on the mountain. Numbers 12 is figurative language. God didn't literally speak to the OT prophets in riddles either. It is saying God spoke to Moses in a clearer and more intimate manner than he did to the other OT prophets. Paul uses the exact same metaphors for revelation in 1 Cor 13, this time using an analogy of a mirror. When God spoke to men through the NT prophets it was like seeing dimly in a poor mirror (same word as riddles) but when completeness came (the completed canon), it was like seeing a perfect reflection of yourself - "face to face".

 

[Major1]

So Major1.....Very bold words.....brother? You claim to be a brother in the faith? then show it by encouraging the church.

Do you know what a cult is? A cult is by Christian definition a group of people with false beliefs who are not saved. This is more severe than a sect. A sect would be a Christian group who is saved but have unorthodox views and usually but not always believe they are the true church often the only true church.
So you are declaring that your 800 million brothers in the faith in the Pentecostal Charismatic movement are not Christians.
Very bold indeed. Very bold indeed. I am at a complete loss as to where to begin. I've been reading up and down these 44 pages and most of what you say seems to hang on 1 verse in Corinthians. You seem to be prepared to toss out the entire Bible just to hang on to your dogmatic unbelief in tongues. You seem to have an answer to Peter's words and to the rest of Corinthians encouraging the gifts not just for the 11 or 12 if you talk about Paul. You deny God answers the prayers of his children as I quoted above. You deny the work of the Holy Spirit. You attack God's Temple at every turn.

1Co_3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

Be cautious in what you declare and who you attack. The lord is not willing that anyone would perish but that all would come to repentance. Not saying that you are perishing but that you need to repent.

Tit 3:8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
Tit 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.
Tit 3:11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I am giving you your first warning Brother. This warning is in love but a warning none the less. I am sure you mean well and want to warn your brothers against these "ungodly gifts". These "works of Satan" but pray long and hard about it first.

I can admit I too have at times been divisive. It is so easy to talk in our heads and intellectually about all these things and not realize that in our hearts perhaps we do not really love our brothers. Maybe we are more concerned with winning the argument than really trying to help them. Do we really actually care what happens to them or have our hearts grown cold.

I don't know exactly how you have been hurt or offended by those who use the gifts of God for false profit or embellish things to look good or other wrong motives. I am so deeply offended by the things you are saying I need to check my own heart to be sure what I am saying is for your best. I know this may seem harsh and your first thought is probably who does this guy think he is. Yes, I'm calling you out individually and that's a bold thing to do....but as you said "reasons to be forceful in challenging their actions" I am also being forceful in dealing with you Brother and yes I know you are my brother. We will spend eternity together in heaven with the lord and will be great friends.

Your brother in the faith and in love.
Craig

That post was not sent to YOU. It was a response to someone with whom I have a long history with on another web forum site. We had several discussions which led to many unfortunate confrontations.

I noticed that you did not post the original comment from him to me which was a very personal attack which I felt needed to be responded to and that came from a debate at that other forum. I encourage you read that post my friend.

The word "cult" was a poor choice of words and I apologize for using it.

You are welcome to "call me out" as you put it any time you wish to do so. I would however say to you that the best way to deal with me is the same way you would with anyone else you have a disagreement with. You are welcome to disagree with me as well but I would have discussed the Bible teachings associated with that disagreement before I "Called you out" and warned you.

I am sure that you thought about what you would say and I am also sure that you believe it to be true to you. However if you will read and you said you had, you must have observed that there are several other people who have said a lot more than me and some have even been very personal and confrontational. Why do you feel as if you do not need to "Warn" them?

Not only that but in these entire 44 pages of debate, not one single moderator has said one single word to me concerning the things you said. Do you believe that you are that much more spiritual than all of the other people here???? Just a thought.

What I have been saying is that every thing we do and think as a Christian must be rooted in the Word of God so as to produce sound doctrine. The bottom line truth is always that doctrine does cause division, if the division is due to a disagreement over an important biblical teaching, division is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, and this is one of them, when people are confronted with the truth of the Scriptures and it conflicts with what they WANT to do, they become hostile and argumentative.

Paul declares in 2 Timothy 4:3............
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear”.

Now my friend, what I am saying along with all the others is that the speaking in tongues we see today is not Bible doctrine but is instead being done because those that do it, do it because that want to and not because it is sound Bible doctrine..

Titus 1:9–2:1 proclaims..........
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it…But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.”

You said............
"You deny God answers the prayers of his children as I quoted above. You deny the work of the Holy Spirit. You attack God's Temple at every turn."

All of those comments are FALSE! I never said God does not answer prayer.
I never said that the Holy Spirit is not at work today in the lives of believers.
I have never attacked God's Temple.

You have given me your opinion and I will now give you mine. Do not place words into my mouth and say things that are not said.

 

[DamianWarS]

Earlier in this thread, someone posted a link to a paper/study on the various views/writings on this verse through history.
I don't know, nor can I vouch for the author; but it appears that everything is sourced. Here's the linkage to the paper. (http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/perfectpaper94.pdf)
I only read the Patristics and the conclusion thoroughly, merely scanning the latter writers. There were no surprises in my opinion and the conclusion was what I expected. ymmv.

seems like an interesting read and thanks for reposting it, I missed the op.

 

[swordsman1]

ironically the word for "body" is a neuter noun. if you were to force a noun in the 1 Cor 13:10 passage, which I do not think is responsible, "body" grammatically agrees, but I have yet to find a neuter noun that agrees with the canon. You might argue "word" (rhema not logos) which is a neuter noun but it is specifically a spoken word not a written word so it does not fit a written canon especially when most of it's books originated through letters. I recently checked "knowledge" because v12 tells us "[we] know in part, but then [we] will know fully" so if the in-part refers to the same referent as "the perfect" then knowledge would be an ideal candidate. The noun knowledge (gnosis) comes from the verb "to know" (ginosko) used in v12 but alas it is a feminine noun so it too doesn't fit this misguided demand that it must be a neuter noun. Regardless the greek shows us its an abstract concept and not a "perfect thing" so although abstractly it could point to a neuter noun it does not demand it based on grammar.

I am not saying 'completeness' is the NT book, but rather the completion of the canon and it's distribution among the churches. That is indeed an abstract concept, there is no single noun that can describe it. I cannot see how it can be our bodies. "In part" is referring to the ceasing revelatory gifts of knowledge and prophecy ("we know in part and we prophecy in part"). Prophecy is the reception and distribution of God's word. If the referent to "in part" is prophecy, then it follows that the referent to 'completeness' is of the same nature.

When the pre-20th century commentaries agree that this is talking about seeing Christ face-to-face of course this includes the shallow as well as the in-depth; this argument is a bit of a strawman and assumes that because most commentaries are shallow then for this position it cannot be right... well the same can be said of course for every position in these commentaries and of course you are not representing the in-depth pre-20th century commentaries that come to the same resolution.

A dominate position pre-20th was "the perfect" was heaven which certainly fits an abstract concept of perfection as in heaven nothing will be in-part and we can see Christ "face-to-face" so then this would be a contrast of a heavenly dwelling (perfect) and earthly dwelling (in-part). I do not have a problem with this interpretation as it both makes sense contextually and is well support in scripture. This of course is not to say that modern commentaries all agree this refers to the canon.

No I am not saying shallow commentaries have no use in explaining other more straight forward passages. They clearly are. But when it comes to a highly obscure passage such as this, a shallow commentary is insufficient - it requires a far more in-depth study. Even Peter admitted that many of Paul's writings were difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16).

This is false as there are many modern commentaries that agree this is pointing ultimately to Christ and most recent commentaries have long abandoned this is the canon as it just cannot be defended.

That is not true. There have been many recent commentaries of this passage that espouse the canon/maturity view (Pettigrew - 2013, Cottrell - 2007, Compton - 2004, Woods - 2004, McDougall 2003, Thomas - 1999, Houghton - 1996), all of them in-depth studies. And I have not seen anyone refute their reasoning. The modern commentaries that claim it is Christ's return are mainly the short paperback commentaries on 1 Corinthians which only devote 2 or 3 sentences to this passage.

1 Cor 1:4-7 (same letter, same addressed people) says:
I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul opens 1 Corinthians affirming that the gifts should operate in full spectrum until the return of Christ. In light of this "the perfect" must point to the same thing. It is a natural conclusion the Corinthian church would draw and other suggestions unsupported through scripture would be too obscure with the details given.

That is a bogus argument. Many continuists attempt to claim that 1 Cor 1:7 is saying that all the gifts would continue until Christ's return, but it doesn't say anything of the sort.

Paul was directly addressing the Corinthians in this verse where it forms part of Paul's greeting to them where he lists various commendable attributes the Corinthians possessed. One of those was they were not lacking in their gifts, another was they were patiently waiting for the return of Christ. There is no connecting "until" between the two. It says "as you wait for the Lord's return", not "until the Lord's return".

Secondly, "you are not lacking in any gift" does not mean they possessed ALL spiritual gifts. They did not have the gift of apostleship for instance. Grammatically it means they do not COME SHORT in any gift they do possess (See Fee). Even if it is taken as meaning the Corinthians had all the gifts, that wouldn't mean that the universal church throughout all the church age would also have all the gifts. That is a non-sequitur.

Thirdly, it is doubtful that Paul is referring specifically to spiritual gifts here. The word 'spiritual' does not appear in the Greek. Charisma simply means gift of grace. So that would include the gift of salvation, the gift of the Spirit, the gift of divine inheritance, as well as spiritual gifts. Most commentators agree that Paul is not referring exclusively to spiritual gifts.

 

[swordsman1]

The problem with changing Paul's focus on the Eschatological reality, where both our partial knowledge and even the limitations of our mortality are to changed by the completion of the Canon is indeed a major issue. Paul has gone to some trouble to detail how our partial understanding, the role of the Holy Spirit within the Church and with the limitations of our mortal body that these partial things will only be rectified when we see the Lord face-to-face and that our mortality is be changed by our new heavenly body.

You are making the mistake of assuming that knowledge in this passage is referring to a knowledge of God. It is not, 'knowing' is referring to the revelatory gift of knowledge, one of the 3 gifts that would cease.

 

[1stcenturylady]

First of all that was not addressed to you at all. It was to someone that I have know and debated with for some time now on a different web site. We have a history and believe me, he has said a lot worse to me than what I said to him.

Secondly, as this discussion has taken an observed direction to the negative side with personal comments coming in, and immature comments being made, along with argumenitive comments, maybe it would be wise to "ignore" me as that I believe is what I will have to do toward you.

I hope that you will be well and safe and that the Lord will bless you and your family.

You deserve to be reported. This a public forum, worldwide in fact. NOTHING is just to one person.

 

[1stcenturylady]

No, not literally. It is figurative. Moses didn't literally see God face to face. If he did he would die. That's why he was hidden in the cleft of the rock when God passed by on the mountain. Numbers 12 is figurative language. God didn't literally speak to the OT prophets in riddles either. It is saying God spoke to Moses in a clearer and more intimate manner than he did to the other OT prophets. Paul uses the exact same metaphors for revelation in 1 Cor 13, this time using an analogy of a mirror. When God spoke to men through the NT prophets it was like seeing dimly in a poor mirror (same word as riddles) but when completeness came (the completed canon), it was like seeing a perfect reflection of yourself - "face to face".

Silly, we will have new bodies then that are immortal.

 

[swordsman1]

Silly, we will have new bodies then that are immortal.

You are missing the point. Dimly and "face to face" are metaphors for revelation in both passages.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You are missing the point. Dimly and "face to face" are metaphors for revelation in both passages.

So you actually believe that Paul meant the publishing of his letters as the perfect?

 

[Biblicist]

Earlier in this thread, someone posted a link to a paper/study on the various views/writings on this verse through history.
I don't know, nor can I vouch for the author; but it appears that everything is sourced. Here's the linkage to the paper. (http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/perfectpaper94.pdf)
I only read the Patristics and the conclusion thoroughly, merely scanning the latter writers. There were no surprises in my opinion and the conclusion was what I expected. ymmv.

Thanks but I was the one who posted that article.

The author of the article pointed out something that I had forgotten in that from what he can tell the earliest proponent of the Canon viewpoint was Govett who lived from 1813-1901 and of course Warfield produced his polemic against the supposed healing claims of the Roman Catholics in 1918 where he relied on the Canon view as well.

Leaving aside both Govett and Warfield, the Canon view seems to be essentially a false misdirect by cessastionist writers of the cessationist era of the early to mid 20th century, though any scholar who promotes such a strange view has essentially sold out his intellectual and spiritual integrity in an attempt to placate his cessationist peers; as I said in an earlier post, the first thing to ask any scholar or commentator who promotes this humanist view is "Now tell me, what do you really believe".

As I am aware that Decker's (1994) article is missing somewhere around a dozen to twenty commentaries on First Corinthians from the late 19th through to the early 20th century then I will have to check and scan these particular commentaries that reside within the two Christian libraries that I utilise.

Of course, what is interesting with Decker's material is with the early Latin churchmen and the commentators of the middle ages in that they seem to be unaware of the Canon view option for 1 Cor 13:10, I will be very interested to find out what the views were of the Christian academy in the later 1800's and early 1900's.

 

[swordsman1]

Leaving aside both Govett and Warfield, the Canon view seems to be essentially a false misdirect by cessastionist writers of the cessationist era of the early to mid 20th century, though any scholar who promotes such a strange view has essentially sold out his intellectual and spiritual integrity in an attempt to placate his cessationist peers; as I said in an earlier post, the first thing to ask any scholar or commentator who promotes this humanist view is "Now tell me, what do you really believe".

Ah back to the old ad homs and lies I see. I've already posted 5 in-depth commentaries by seminary professors PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. Perhaps you could tell us where these vile, deluded, humanist, heretical tricksters went wrong and refute their expositions instead of just slandering them. As I've asked you a number of times before without success I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Biblicist]

That is not true. There have been many recent commentaries of this passage that espouse the canon/maturity view (Pettigrew - 2013, Cottrell - 2007, Compton - 2004, Woods - 2004, McDougall 2003, Thomas - 1999, Houghton - 1996), all of them in-depth studies. And I have not seen anyone refute their reasoning. The modern commentaries that claim it is Christ's return are mainly the short paperback commentaries on 1 Corinthians which only devote 2 or 3 sentences to this passage.

This is another of those situations where your comments stagger me.

As I am undoubtedly the most read and resourced person on this forum when it comes to First Corinthians, in that I currently own about 80 commentaries on First Corinthians and upwards of 60 commentaries on Pneumatology, as much as you should be aware of this, I then come across the following nonsensical statement;

“The modern commentaries that claim it is Christ's return are mainly the short paperback commentaries on 1 Corinthians which only devote 2 or 3 sentences to this passage”.​

Of the three commentaries (of many) that I have quoted below, Thiselton has allocated 13 pages, Garland 8 pages and Ciampa/Rosner 15 pages. So maybe it would be wise to check your information before you post comments that are so nonfactual that they do become nonsensical.
- - - -
As for (Compton – 2004, Cottrell - 2007, Houghton – 1996, McDougall 2003, Pettigrew – 2013, Thomas - 1999, Woods – 2004), I am not sure that these particular commenters would be deemed to be peer-reviewed as I could not find any reference to them in the three following major commentaries on First Corinthians. Pettigrew who was apparently published in 2013 should have at least been quoted by Ciama/Rosner as he would have been previously published, but as I said, these three major commentaries do not even seem to deem them as being worthy to quote:

• The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) 870 pages, 18 pages of authors
• 1 Corinthians, Garland (2003) 1446 pages, 10 pages of authors
• The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ciampa/Rosner (2010) 922 pages, 7 pages of authors

From what I have observed over the years, any hardcore-cessationist commentator that tries to push views such as 1Cor 13:10 is supposedly speaking of the Canon of Scripture is generally deemed to be someone who is more concerned with agenda than with serious theology, and this view is also held by those who are not themselves Pentecostal or Charismatic.

Edit: I just saw your last post and of course this particular post has obviously addressed your question. In the end, if these individuals are being ignored by the better known authors of our day then what does this say about them?

And of course I loved your "Ah back to the old ad homs and lies I see", but I think that I will leave the lies to you to spread - why do you bother!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Ah back to the old ad homs and lies I see. I've already posted 5 in-depth commentaries by seminary professors PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. Perhaps you could tell us where these vile, deluded, humanist, heretical tricksters went wrong and refute their expositions instead of just slandering them. As I've asked you a number of times before without success I won't be holding my breath.

Last 20 years??? ROFL What about 2000 years? Even if someone went with the majority on humanist theories, what counts is there scriptural proof that it was for the preaching of the gospel? When did Paul use it for anything but praying when he taught abroad? Or teaching men to pray in the Spirit for one another? Are we to stop praying to God now that we have the Bible? Do we even always KNOW what to pray for that is God's will? No!

Abington Commentary, c 1929

prophecy (Scriptures)
knowledge (Theology)

"These gifts are transitory as we are but children, as are the language gift, as we have the disposition and mental processes of childhood are superseded by those of adult life. Now we try to guess at truth as we see its blurred and distorted outlines in the mirror of burnished metal. Scripture serves our needs now, but of necessity leaves much unexplained. These gifts belong to the present order, but will have had their day when immediate communion brings us into the presence of Him who knows us perfectly."

 

[swordsman1]

Of the three commentaries (of many) that I have quoted below, Thiselton has allocated 13 pages, Garland 8 pages and Ciampa/Rosner 15 pages. So maybe it would be wise to check your information before you post comments that are so nonfactual that they do become nonsensical.

Garland, after all his waffle, spends just one sentence explaining why he thinks teleios is the parousia. You have quoted it here before and I was easily able to refute it. Thiselton if I recall spends most of his time quoting the views of other authors and doesn't really make a judgement himself although he agrees it should be translated 'completeness' . I haven't read ciampa/rosner.

As for (Compton – 2004, Cottrell - 2007, Houghton – 1996, McDougall 2003, Pettigrew – 2013, Thomas - 1999, Woods – 2004), I am not sure that these particular commenters would be deemed to be peer-reviewed as I could not find any reference to them in the three following major commentaries on First Corinthians. Pettigrew who was apparently published in 2013 should have at least been quoted by Ciama/Rosner as he would have been previously published, but as I said, these three major commentaries do not even seem to deem them as being worthy to quote:

• The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2000) 870 pages, 18 pages of authors
• 1 Corinthians, Garland (2003) 1446 pages, 10 pages of authors
• The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ciampa/Rosner (2010) 922 pages, 7 pages of authors

Tell me, how exactly does their names not appearing in other commentaries constitute refuting their expositions?

From what I have observed over the years, any hardcore-cessationist commentator that tries to push views such as 1Cor 13:10 is supposedly speaking of the Canon of Scripture is generally deemed to be someone who is more concerned with agenda than with serious theology, and this view is also held by those who are not themselves Pentecostal or Charismatic.

As I said instead of slandering them why don't you refute their expositions? I'll tell you why. Resorting to the ad-hominum fallacy is typical of people who cannot refute an argument. Instead they attempt to blacken their opponents' reputation, hoping that enough mud will stick so that others won't want to be associated with it. It is a vile and shameful tactic.

 

[WonderingStranger]

The whole tongues ceased thing is based on 1 verse with an ambiguous subject called "The Perfect." There is no indication that The Perfect is scripture within the context. I always understood it without commentary to mean when Christ returns. That would be "The Perfect" IMO. Revelation affirms this when Christ says I am the Alpha and Omega, meaning the beginning and end, hence "The Perfect" (complete).

 

[Alithis]

The whole tongues ceased thing is based on 1 verse with an ambiguous subject called "The Perfect." There is no indication that The Perfect is scripture within the context. I always understood it without commentary to mean when Christ returns. That would be "The Perfect" IMO. Revelation affirms this when Christ says I am the Alpha and Omega, meaning the beginning and end, hence "The Perfect" (complete).

That's because it is, as you say ,speaking of When Jesus returns.
He is the perfect.
Its always been about Jesus.

These unbelieving naysayers for get that.