⁸Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror [or “through a glass dimly”]; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Three parts:

Our present condition: vv. 8-9, and 11-12a. The phrases “in part,” “imperfect,” and “seeing through a glass darkly” describe our present life. If you wanted a good biblical example of ‘epistemic distance’ this is it. We know ‘in part’. We know enough (and don’t know enough) for this present life.

Our future state: vv. 10b, 12b. The phrases “imperfection disappears,” “putting childish ways behind me,” “seeing face to face,” and “knowing fully as I am fully known” all describe out future state.

The coming of perfection. Whatever this is, it marks the transition from our present condition to our future state. When ‘the perfect’ comes, we’ll mature out of (the analogy of v. 11) our present “imperfect, childish ways” characterized by “partial” and “dark” (or “obscure,” the Greek of “darkly” or “poor reflection” of v. 12 is literally “in an enigma”) knowledge. We will “then” (making it future, subsequent to the “coming of the perfect”) “know fully, even as we are fully known” which is “seeing face to face.”

-----------------

Anybody see anything interesting here?

I thought it was interesting that in v. 8 Paul says “knowledge” will pass away I (presumably with the coming of ‘the perfect’). But at the same he says that when the perfect comes “I shall know….” Well, if you “shall know fully,” it’s not the case that “knowledge” per se passes away. A certain ‘kind’ of knowing passes away. And as he explains it, it becomes clear. What passes is mediated knowledge. We see “di’ estropon,” or “through a glass/mirror.” But then…what? Face to face. Not through a better glass/mirror, even a very clear one. Rather, face to face. Nothing standing in between. Unmediated. In other words, when Paul says “knowledge will pass away” he’s saying “we won’t use maps anymore.” And when he says we’ll nevertheless “know as we’re known” he means our knowledge (of God) will be experiential and direct. We’ll live IN THE TERRITORY of God without need of MAPS. This may be the ultimate fulfillment of the new covenant that Jeremiah foresaw: “They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them.”

I’ve said a lot about the difference between maps and territories, how the map isn’t the territory though it can help mediate knowledge about the territory. It communicates truthfully (as far as maps go) about the territory. But it isn’t itself the territory. The day will come when our experience of God will not be partial or depend upon maps or mediation. We’ll know “as we’re known” and that, it seems to me, means “directly, unmediated and transparent presence.”

The other question is what Paul has in mind by “estropou” (glass/mirror). Corinth was famous for its fine mirrors. Ancient mirrors were polished metal. Not glass at all I don’t think. That might suggest that here we’re not looking “through a glass” to some object on the other side, so to speak. We’re looking “at ourselves” and seeing a poor “reflection.” Of whom? Of ourselves. 

Something tells me D will prefer this reading. ;o) But against it, and for the idea that the mirror is not a means of self-reflection of viewing some “other” is a) the use of “dia” as opposed to “en” before “estropou.” The former, followed by a genitive, shows instrumentality or agency. In James 1 (the only other time this word for mirror/glass is used) you clearly have one looking “into a mirror” (an seeing one’s self). There “en” is used. Here “dia” is used, which is why you have some translations that translate it as “through a glass” rather than “into a mirror.” In the first you’re vision of others (and presumably God) is obscured through epistemic distance. In the latter you’re vision of yourself is obscured through the same.

In favor of “through a glass” is the fact that when perfection arrives we see “face to face” and come to know “even as we are known,” which make best sense as interpersonal, relational knowing. It would seem strange to interpret “face to face” as seeing my own face without the aid of mediation. (Though again, something tells me D will argue FOR this!) And clearly “being known” presumes a knower other than myself, presumably this knower just IS the other whose face we see directly. And lastly, the whole direction of the passages, being “love,” wouldn’t end will if in the end its fulfilled in my coming to “know myself just as fully as God knows me.” That would seem to undermine the relational character (I/Thou) of love at the very point it’s needed.

The last question is, doesn’t the promise of knowing God “as fully as God knows me” offer too much? I mean, come on. My knowledge of God will equal (in depth, cf. “fully”) God’s knowledge of me? I don’t think so.

T

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/17/2009 3:36:02 PM (GMT-6)

"offer too much?"

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/17/2009 3:59:44 PM (GMT-6)

Make sense?

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/17/2009 3:58:26 PM (GMT-6)