For those who speak in tongues...

Hi Ray, I read your post and you were acually not accurate in your very first argument. Earlier in this thread we discussed what Paul meant by saying "I would that you all spoke in tongues" He is not actually saying that he really wishes that everyone spoke in tongues. He already said in this letter "Do all speak in tongues" with the obvious implied "NO" answer. This is just simply a figure of speech. Also in 1 Cor. Paul says "I would that you all were like me" meaning not married. He didn't mean that either. He is just simply making a point by saying something that is not possible. It is called Hyperbole.

Paul never said he spoke tongues to the Lord more then others. He said he spoke in tongues more then others. Why? because he was the greatest of missionaries and he used tongues to speak real languages to those who could not understand him. This miraculous ability was a sign to the jews.

In 1 Cor. Paul qoutes the Isaiah prophecy and then says "therefore" and says Tongues are a sign to unbelievers. He ties the two thoughts together into one. He did not have to say unbelieving Jews because he just said who he was talking about in the previous phrase. Would you say "I was playing football against the bears and I scored a touch down against the bears"??? No you would say that you scored a touchdown against them. The subject has already been established. Tongues were a sign of judgement to the house of isreal because of their unbelief. Paul says that straight out but pre-conceived ideas sometimes stop us from seeing things in scripture clearly. That has been said about me as well. Though I had no thought on Tongues one way or another when I started studying the subject.

Just some thoughts for a Thursday morning!

In Christ,
Brian

 

Well just a question.......
I have always maintained that there is more to the scripture in 1 Cor. 13:10. In which I say it is a pivitol verse on how you understand it.


1Cor 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Which leads to my question......can anyone answer this question I ask on this thread?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3487/2.html?

 

Briguy said:Hi Ray, I read your post and you were acually not accurate in your very first argument. Earlier in this thread we discussed what Paul meant by saying "I would that you all spoke in tongues" He is not actually saying that he really wishes that everyone spoke in tongues. He already said in this letter "Do all speak in tongues" with the obvious implied "NO" answer. This is just simply a figure of speech. Also in 1 Cor. Paul says "I would that you all were like me" meaning not married. He didn't mean that either. He is just simply making a point by saying something that is not possible. It is called Hyperbole.

Tam says: Well, not really. In both cases; tongues and marriage, Paul is saying that he thinks it would be best if all could speak in tongues, and if all could be not married. He knows that all cannot speak in tongues and not all can be single.

But the thing is , it is a good thing either way. For some it is good to be married, but to others it is good to be single. For some , it is good to speak in tongues, to others it is not.

It is not impossible for all. Some do, some don't.

BTW, why use the word Hyperbole when exaggeration would work just as well?

Selah,

Tam

[ December 08, 2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: tamborine lady ]

 

tamborine lady,

I am pleased to see that you do not hold 'speaking in tongues' as a sign that one is filled with the Holy Spirit as some Pentecostal people believe. Your theology on the gifts of the Spirit seem very well balanced.

Apparently, now we have the option if we do not like what God says in His Word to merely marking it off as hyperbole.

No, God told Paul to tell Christians that it would be fine if all believers spoke in tongues but He would rather that we preach in our language of the people we are standing in front of at a gathering [I Corinthians 14:5] Rather than exegeting the whole verse I will leave it at this. I might confuse some people who do not understand the apostles teaching about 'the interpretation of tongues.'

Ask a Baptist if Paul was simply exagerating when He told people who got saved to be baptized. Are we going to say that Jesus merely overstated the case for water baptism? I think not . . .

No Biblicists like us get two options. We can say that the gifts of the Spirit ended with the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., or the new option of marking it off as hyperbole.

If you are going to be true to the Word of God you will not ridicule any of the Lord's truth to His church.

 

I meant to say, 'Now Biblicists like us get two options.

Ray

 

The question on that thread was answered. I will state it again. In 1Cor.13:10 "that which is perfect" is stated in the neuter case. Christ is a masculine noun. It cannot refer to Christ. Love is a feminine noun. It cannot refer to love. The love in John 3:16 "God so loved..." is a verb and must agree with the subject "God," also masculine. Thus none of these fit. The most logical case, give the context of "revelation" is "revleation" the revelation of God's Word--the Bible. Whe the Bible was "complete" then that wich was in part--temporary gifts--were done away.
DHK

 

Here is another view (I think by John Piper)

When the perfect comes

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/spiritual_gifts/signs_wonders.html


When does the "perfect" come which marks the end of the imperfect gifts like prophecy?

The answer is plain in the text if we follow Paul's line of reasoning. Verse 8 says, "Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away" (RSV). Why are these gifts temporary? The answer is given in verse 9: "For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect." So the reason these spiritual gifts are temporary is their incompleteness or imperfection.

How long then are they to last? Verse 10 gives the answer: "When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away." But when is that? When does the perfect come? The answer is given in verse 12: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood." The "now" of incompleteness and imperfection is contrasted with the "then" of seeing face to face and understanding even as we are understood.

So the answer to the question of when the perfect comes and when the imperfect gifts pass away is the "then" of verse 12, namely, the time of seeing "face to face" and "understanding as we are understood." When will this happen?

Both of these phrases ("seeing face to face" and "understanding as we have been understood") are stretched beyond the breaking point if we say that they refer to the closing of the New Testament canon or the close of the apostolic age. Rather, they refer to our experience at the second coming of Jesus. Then "we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) The phrase "face to face" in the Greek Old Testament refers to seeing God personally (Genesis 32:30; Judges 6:22). Thomas Edwards' hundred-year-old commentary is right to say, "When the perfect is come at the advent of Christ, then the Christian will know God intuitively and directly, even as he was before known of God" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 353, italics added).

This means that verse 10 can be paraphrased, "When Christ returns, the imperfect will pass away." And since "the imperfect" refers to spiritual gifts like prophecy and knowledge and tongues, we may paraphrase further, "When Christ returns, then prophecy and knowledge and tongues will pass away."

Here is a definite statement about the time of the cessation of spiritual gifts, and that time is the second coming of Christ. Richard Gaffin does not do justice to the actual wording of verse 10 when he says, "The time of the cessation of prophecy and tongues is an open question so far as this passage is concerned" (Perspectives on Pentecost, p. 111). It is not an open question. Paul says, "When the perfect comes [at that time, not before or after], the imperfect [gifts like prophecy and tongues, etc.] will pass away."

Therefore, 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 teaches that such spiritual gifts will continue until the second coming of Jesus. There is no reason to exclude from this conclusion the other "imperfect" gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. Since these include miracles, faith, healings, etc., with which we associate "signs and wonders", there is clear New Testament warrant for expecting that "signs and wonders" will continue until Jesus comes.

Now add to this conclusion the forthright command in 1 Corinthians 14:1, and you will see why some of us are not only open to, but also seeking, this greater fullness of God's power today. This command says, "Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." And it is repeated twice: "Earnestly desire the higher gifts" (12:31); "Earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues" (14:39).

I wonder how many of us have said for years that we are open to God's moving in spiritual gifts, but have been disobedient to this command to earnestly desire them, especially prophecy? I would ask all of us: are we so sure of our hermeneutical procedure for diminishing the gifts that we would risk walking in disobedience to a plain command of Scripture? "Earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy."

I have come to the point of seeing that the risk lies in the other direction. It would be a risk not to seek spiritual gifts for myself and my church. It would be a risk not to pray with the early church, "Grant your servants to speak your word with boldness while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through your holy servant Jesus." Disobedience is always a greater risk than obedience.

Much of my experience disinclines me to "earnestly desire spiritual gifts" especially the gift of prophecy. However, I do not base my prayer for such spiritual empowering on experience, but on the Bible. The Scripture is sufficient for all circumstances by teaching us the means of grace to be used in all circumstances. And I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that one of the means of grace needed in our day is the extraordinary demonstration of power by signs and wonders. Here is what he said:

What is needed is some mighty demonstration of the power of God, some enactment of the Almighty, that will compel people to pay attention, and to look, and to listen. . . . When God acts, he can do more in a minute than man with his organizing can do in fifty years. (Revival, pp. 121-122)

Lloyd-Jones calls this mighty demonstration of power a fresh baptism in the Holy Spirit and he relates it directly to spiritual gifts.

The special purpose . . . of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is to enable us to witness, to bear testimony, and one of the ways in which that happens is through the giving of spiritual gifts. (The Sovereign Spirit, p. 120)

By the use of these gifts, he sees the possibility of "compelling people to pay attention" in their speed to destruction. By this, the gospel could receive fresh authentication in our day as in the days of the apostles.

It is perfectly clear that in New Testament times, the gospel was authenticated in this way by signs, wonders and miracles of various characters and descriptions . . . Was it only meant to be true of the early church? . . . The Scriptures never anywhere say that these things were only temporary–never! There is no such statement anywhere. (The Sovereign Spirit, pp. 31-32)

But now we can say even more. In 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, there is a clear teaching that not only were these things not temporary, they were meant to last till Jesus comes.

 

qwerty

Its just so clear. I dont know how it can be missed...but some manage.

God bless,

Mike

 

This is not a theory. It is a fact stated by Paul, and fulfilled in Scipture. If you do not accept the Scriptures then you are the one that has the problem. Look at it again.

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--The Holy Spirit didm't have Paul write this for the good of his health. It is here--part of Scripture, for a reason.
"In the law it is written"--Specifically Isaiah 28:11,12, which Paul is quoting from
"With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people;" This is what was written in Isa. 28,11,12 (at least part of it). The Lord was saying: I have spoken to you in your language (Hebrew) all these many years and you have rebelled. You have not listened. I will give you a sign. There will a come a day when I will speak God's message in a Gentile's language: with other men's languages and other lips (not your own). I will speak to you, yet in foreign languages, not the language of Hebrew, and still you not take heed to me. Know of a certainty that when this happens judgment is just around the corner. It was a sign that was given 700 years that would point to judgment unless Israel would repent and mend their ways in that alotted time. But Israel did not repent. The went on in their sinful ways. And when the Messiah cam they rejected him and crucified. That was the ulitimate act of disobedience and rejection of God.

It was at that time (shortly after) that Pentecost happened. Pentecost was a Jewish feast when thousands of Jews gathered from many different nations came to Jerusalem. On that day the Holy Spirit descended on these 120 and they began to speak the message of God in foreign languages. The Jews knew well of the prophecy in Isa.28:11,12. They realized this was a judgment of God. Thus Peter's sermon's for them to repent. It was a sign to the Jew--a sign for them to repent, or the impending judgment on God would come. Though 3,000 did repent it was not enough to stave off the judgment of God which did come in 70 A.D. After that the sign was no longer needed. This is not a theory. It is fact based on Scripture. It is irrefutalble. The Scripture has no other explanation.

Not just because the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus is in the form of a dove, and a voice came out of heaven "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." That doesn't mean we can never see it happen again.
That is you logic. Historical events do not repeat themselves. You will never see God speak to Moses through a burning bush either. It was a historical event. So, was the day of Pentecost. So were the other events recorded by Luke in the Book Of Acts were tongues occured--historical events.

Then you believe that God will bring you out of Egypt with a strong arm, will lead you through the wilderness for 40 years, that your shoes and clothes for 40 years will not wear out, that you will be fed on the real phyiscal manna that looks like coriander seed for forty years. These were promises given to Israel. Are they given to you as well?

There are some historical events that will never fit anyone today. The feat of Pentecost, and the events that pertaint to them, are one of them. I haven't seen anyone with a cloven tongue of fire on thier head recently either.

You have no Scriptural basis for this statement; none. Neither have you stated any. Jesus fulfilled the law on the cross. All the cereconnial aspects of the law were done away with at the cross. The ceased. That is but one example. Do you still offer goats and lambs. They ceased as well. The sign gifts of the Holy Spirit have also ceaed.

What has been going on? The sacrifice of animals like sheep? To Allah in Islamic countires maybe. They also speak in tongues (their mysitical maulvis called pirs). It is an evidence that that speaking in tongues is as much a gift of the Holy Spirit as it is in the Islamic Religion. It isn't.

I listened. Did you?
DHK

 

Red Herring RED HERRING RED HERRING

How about this scripture.

1 Cor 13-10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I asked about this too qwerty,but nobodey answered.

My question was,do we now know God as He knows us?

Peace,

Tam

 

That's an easy question to answer Tam, since Paul never asked it.
If he did, Paul was making a claim to deity. No one will ever know God as He knows us. No one will ever be omniscient. Only God has that knowledge. You have the wrong question. Paul never even suggested as much.
DHK

 

Briguy,

You said, 'Paul never said he spoke tongues to the Lord more then others. He said he spoke in tongues more then others. Why? because he was the greatest of missionaries and he used tongues to speak real languages to those who could not understand him. This miraculous ability was a sign to the jews.

I wrote a long post and lost it, so now I will be to the point. Paul needed no such miracle as you have contrived in your mind with the help of other false teachers. Due to the trade routes by land and sea in this area of the world, everyone had some understanding if not a lot about the Greek language. It was like most Hispanics in our nation, they have an understanding of some of not all English language. No miraculous miracle was necessary in this Roman dominated world. There was your first mistake.

The second one is that Paul was not dealing with a majority of Jews. Study the logistics and you will see that Corinth was a seaport city on the trade route. The Church at Corinth was a Gentile church.

Thirdly, I agree with you that Paul tells us that God does not grant the 'gift of tongues' to all of the saints, though the apostle wished that all could have it [I Cor. 14:5]. Then in 14:18 we can stay well within Biblical exegesis by saying that Paul was not opposed to this Heavenly prayer language for private devotions [I Cor. 14:18]. He freely admitted that he experienced this in his prayers to the Lord.

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Th.D., from Dallas Seminary says,

'However much he may use tongues outside the assembly (publicly or privately), in the church (emphatic in the Greek) he must speak with understanding in order to teach others.' The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.

The gifts and callings of God are without repentance, which means that the 'gifts of the Spirit' are not trashed in this dispensation/era of time [Romans 11:29].

I know you feel that these gifts from God ended at someone's preconceived idea as to their ceasing, but this is a lie from the evil one.

Shall we also dismantel the miracles, water baptism, Holy Communion because someone things we should do this?

Who started this idea/doctrine that the 'gifts of the Spirit' are a matter of distant past history?

 

First, the cessation of the gift of tongues can be proven quite apart from the passage in 1Cor.8-13. Though I believe firmly the perfect refers to the Word of God, people will argue this ad infinitum. So leave this passage, and look at other Scripture which is far more clear on the matter.

Thus:
#1. The passage, explaimed above (1Cor.14:21; Isa.28:11,12) is irrefutable. Biblical tongues was a sign to the Jews, particularly the unbelieving Jews. When the Day of Pentecost came, Peter with great force drew this point home to them, that they with wicked hands had crucified the Lord of Glory. This was God's sign to them. Impending judgment was right around the corner and they knew it. It was a sign to the Jews. The sign pointed to an event. The event has come and gone. Tongues has likewise come and gone. Signs don't continue on for 21 centuries.

#2. Tongues are real foreign langauges--all the time. The tongues of today are not. They are gibberish. If the tongue being spoken is not a foreign langauge that someone in the congregation can recognize and be edified by it, it is not for today.

#3. There is not one single verse in the Bibe that points to tongues as a private prayer language--not one. Icor.14:2,4 are often taken out of context to defend this practice, but it just isn't there. There are two requirements (biblically) for speaking in foreign languages (tongues). 1) You always had to have an interpreter with you. You could not speak in tongues without an interpreter. So go into your room and pray in tongues, but make sure your interpreter comes along with you. Secondly, It was a gift to edify the entire church (which nullifies the above point). For if your in your room praying alone with your interpreter, how does that edify the entire church? Tongues is not, cannot be a private prayer language--never was intended to be. It like all gifts of the Spirit was given to edify the entire church. Name one gift of the Spirit that is given to edify just oneeself. How about the gift of healing?--Do you heal just yourself??

#4 Tongues was nevr permitted to be spoken by a woman.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
--I didn't write the Bible Tam, God did. But that is what the Bible says and teaches. Women are not allowed to speak in tongues. Case closed on that one.

#5. Every person that spoke in tongues (it had to be a real foreign language), must have an interpreter. If not, he had to maintain his silence. There could be no more than three in the entire service that could speak in tongues, and each had to speak in turn, never at the same time.

#6. Tongues was a sign of an apostle or one that was closely related to an apostle to affirm both the message and the messenger that they were from God. We don't need that confirmation any longer.

Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Signs and wonders, and spiritual gifts authenticated an apostle and his message. Paul taught this very clearly in the Word of God. This God's Word, not mine.
It was a sign of an apostle, to distinguish him from other false "apostles" or teachers.

These facts alone show that tonges have ceased. Particularly the fact that tongues was a sign to the unbeleiving Jew. The sign has come and gone. We don't need it anymore. It was a sign to authenticate an apostle. We don't have the apostles anymore. They died before the end of the first century. The sign has come and gone. All of these things point to the cessation of tongues (as well as other gifts). They were historical gifts given during a historical period of time--the first century.
We don't have little "Moses's ruuning around perforuming replicas of the "ten plagues" either. What you have is a counterfeit.
DHK

 

IRENAEUS (AD 115-202), pupil of Poly-carp, who was a student of John the apostle wrote: "In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to the light for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostles term spiritual." *38
*38 Against Heresies, V:6:1

JUSTIN MARTYR (AD 100-165) "It is possible now to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God."*39
*39 Dialogue with Trypho, 82, 88

See an article (from which the above quotes were gathered) at:

Cessationism vs Biblicism
http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2000/cess62_1.html

 

My final aurhority is the Bible, not church fathers whose quotes may or may not be taken out of context.
Stick with the Scriptures. That is where the debate is.
DHK

 

DHK,

Of course they are. Since when did a heavenly language cease being a *foreign* language just as French or Italian are?

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, if I have not love..."

Yes they are. Whether they are an earthly language that the speaker has never learned or whether they are a heavenly language...they are a foreign language being miraculously spoken as a gift of the Holy Spirit.

No they arent.

Thats false and unscriptural.

The word of Almighty God:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."

"For he who speaks in a tongue speaks does not speak to men, but to God, for no one understands him, for he speaks mysteries."

"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding"

The word of Almighty God:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."

"For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God, for no one understands him, for he speaks mysteries."

"he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself"

"but if their is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God"

Grace and peace,

Mike

[ December 09, 2005, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

That's an easy question to answer Tam, since Paul never asked it.
If he did, Paul was making a claim to deity. No one will ever know God as He knows us. No one will ever be omniscient. Only God has that knowledge. You have the wrong question. Paul never even suggested as much.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]1 Cor-13-10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

So tell me DHK, why did Paul say the scripture above in bold type??

If no one will ever "know as we are known", then why did Paul say it in the first place??

Is this another place where scripture doesn't mean what it says?

I say it means that when we are in heaven with Jesus, then we will know Him as He knows us. That does not mean that we are Gods. We will still not be equal with Him!

But then we will see clearly the things we now see darkly.

Peace,

Tam

 

Of course they are. Since when did a heavenly language cease being a *foreign* language just as French or Italian are?

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, if I have not love..."</font>[/QUOTE]Where did Paul say he could speak in a heavenly language? He didn't. Where did Paul say he gave his body to be burned (in the same passage)? But the fact is he didn't. Each statement is hypothetical, conditional. They start with a "though" or an "if." It's like saying "If I could fly faster than speeding bullet, then..." But the fact is I can't. It is conditional (if), and a hypothetical statement. Paul didn't even say it was possible. He only said if such a condition existed and if he coud do it, then it would be useless without love.
There is no "heavenly language" except in your mind. You are making this up. It is unbiblical.
What language in the Bible did angels ever speak in? They always spoke in human languages. When John takes us to Heaven, what language does he hear? He hears and records human languages. You are inventing a concept of your own imagination to justify an unbiblical practice.

They are not from heaven. You have no idea whether you are praising satan or God. You don't know what you are saying. You are not speaking in a real foreign language as the apostles did: "How hear we every man in our own language? That in itself is proof enough that the modern tongues is not of God. There is no "heavenly language. That is your imaginary concept, not backed up anywhere in Scripture. The Holy Spirit enabled people of the first century to speak in foreign lnaguages ONLY. Anything else was not of God.

That was a statement loaded with Scriptural backup! Read 1Cor.12:1-3. There is evidence there that some of the Corinthians were going back into their pagan roots: some speaking gibberish, and some of them praising Satan by demonic spirits. This is what happens today also (in part) in the modern tongues movement. People don't know what they are saying and some of them are so influenced by Satan (when they think it is the Holy Spirit), that they don't know it is Satan, that they end up praising the god of this world, instead of the God of Creation!

So what is your point?
1. The "tongues of men and of angels have nothing to do with the unsciptural gibberish spoken today. You ought to feel ashamed of yourself even to equate the carnal gibberish of today with those languages (real and foreign) that angels are able to speak so perfectly and poetically.

The Word of God Almighty remains just that: the Word of God almighty--contained in 66 books of the Bible, each one inspired of God. There are no other inspired books. God does not inspire any one else to speak his word. Anyone claiming to do so is a false prophet.

"For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks unto God (not unto men)" This is the very reason why it was unbiblical. The statement was a rebuke. The gift was given to the entire church--always! If you are speaking off by yourself in your own little corner speaking to God in your own foreign language what does it benefit but your own ego and nothing else. You boost your pride, your ego--"Here's somemthing I can do that not everyone else can do--na na na na na!" But you don't edify the church as Paul commanded the use of tongues to be. Tongues always had to have an interpreter--ALWAYS! But if your off in your corner speaking to God, you don't have your interpreter with you don't you. You violate the Scriptures, because the gift is not a selfish gift; it is given for the whole church.

Anyone can sing and/or pray in the spirit. That doesn't necessarily have to be in tongues. Even if it was, it woould still demand all the other restrictions Paul has put in place--like having someone interpret the song for you--from one language into another. You hope he is a good singer in the other language.
DHK

 

That's a slam-dunk DHK !!

Right on !!

 

Paul says "Even as also I am known," not "even as God knows me." He doesn't claim that he will know himself like God knows him.
He sees through a glass darkly, i.e., the Old Testament. The early believers (especially at Corinth), for this was an early epistle) had only the Old Testament--part of the Word of God, and this epistle to go by. Paul writes them further on and tells them that Holy Spirit illuminates their minds and helps them understand what the Scripture means. Even then at that time, as they read the Olt Testament, it reflected back to them what they were. It convicted of sin, showed them their faults, pointed out their errors. It was a mirror. The metaphor is used often in Scripture. How much more would it do this when the Scripture would be complete--a day that Paul hoped to see some day, but had no idea that he would be martyred before that day came.
Thus he writes, (in anticipation of that day)
"but then shall I know even as also I am known."
The Bible will reveal to him fully who he really is. It will act as a full length mirror so to speak. Look at what James says:

James 1:22-25 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

"Then shall I know even as I am known." Those are all first person singular pronouns, and never refer to any one else knowing him. He refers just to himslf and no one else. When the Word of God is completed, he will be able to look into it and see himself for what he really is.
Already he could ask the Lord to do that through the Old Testament:

Psalms 139:23-24 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

How much more would the New Testament reveal to him "who he is."

It means exactly what it says. It says nothing about him knowing as much as God. That would be heresy.

Nowhere do God and Jesus enter into this picture. You are reading into this passage what you want it to say. Those are simply your ideas. The passage all the way through is speaking of the revelation of God. Prophecy was a means of revelation. Tongues was a means of revelation. (Revelatory) knowledge was a means of revelation. Going into chapter 14 he contrasts tongues and prophecy (both means of revelation. God's revelation to mankind is theme going right through this entire passage.
DHK