“For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.”
For
The word “for” is a term of explanation, indicating that the analogies in this verse are explaining and reinforcing the analogy in verse 11.
now
The word “now” refers to the present state at Paul’s time of incomplete revelation in contrast to a finished revelation. The delimited gifts of prophecy and knowledge were a limited revelation, but there would be a finished revelation at some point future to Paul’s time.
we see in a mirror, dimly,
Paul introduces a second illustration of the difference of understanding between finished revelation and his present state of incomplete revelation – the mirror. The city of Corinth produced some of the best-polished bronze mirrors in the world at that time. Mirrors of the first century were not as clear as the mirrors of today, for they were dim. Paul’s present knowledge was dim and indistinct, but when the canon would be complete, Christians would have a clear knowledge of God’s mind.
The word “dimly” means an enigma. Secondary means of knowledge cannot convey a clear image; only direct knowledge can. An enigma is a puzzle. If three-quarters of a jigsaw puzzle were missing, we would have an enigma, a puzzle. None of the gospels was written when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. John had not written his gospel, his three letters, or the book of Revelation. Paul had only partial revelation in the time he lived.
but then
“Then” is when the “perfect” of verse 10 will have come.
face to face.
At the completion of the canon, there would be a clear perspective through which we would look at things. As seeing in a mirror dimly is a metaphor, so is the phrase “face to face” a metaphor. Neither expression is literal, so this does not refer to seeing God in heaven. This is nothing like a theophany (seeing God in a physical manifestation) but is a revelation of God through His Word.
Now I know in part,
Again, we have the term “in part.” Paul knew, “in part.” This is the same meaning as 13:9. What Paul knew in part was God’s mind through the gifts of prophecy and knowledge. The knowledge of God mediated through revelatory gifts was partial, for the gifts could provide only a partial revelation of God’s mind.
but then I shall know
Note the “now”/“but then” contrast. When the “perfect” comes, it will supersede the partial. The word “know” in the previous phrase, and this phrase picks up the partial knowledge found in the gift of knowledge. When God’s revelation would be complete in the canon, Christians would know God’s revealed truth fully. Full revelation would bring full knowledge of God’s mind.
just as I also am known.
The phrase “just as” needs qualification. We do not have similar knowledge to God as He has to us in an exact correspondent fashion. The words “just as” mean exact correspondence, so we cannot know God fully. “Face to face” is a metaphor for seeing something clearly as over against dimly and is not a reference to seeing God “face to face.” Paul’s knowing in part, repeats his statement of 13:9, where knowing in part was knowledge of God’s revelation. Paul’s knowledge of God’s mind was similar to knowing or seeing himself in a mirror (not distinctly), but when the “perfect” would come, Christians would fully know the revealed mind of God. Others saw Paul clearly and distinctly, not through the mediation of a mirror as the pre-canon period is to a child, so the post-canon period is to the adult. We have a much more fully developed revelation in a complete canon.
PRINCIPLE:
As the pre-canon period is to the child, so the post-canon period is to the adult.
APPLICATION:
The permanent revelation of God’s mind is more important than the temporary revelation of God through the gifts of prophecy and knowledge. We remind ourselves of our loved ones by pictures. That falls short of seeing them in person. We love the Lord through the Word of God, but one day we will have direct knowledge of Him and fellowship with Him personally. We have a faith once delivered to the saints:
Jude 3, Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
The more we know the Word, the more we know Christ. The only way we can know Him today is through the Word.
2 Co 3:18, But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror (the Bible) the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Grant, in 2 Cor.3:18, Paul says (NKJV): “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Depending on the translation, the “mirror” is sometimes stated and other times not. But my question is: Did Paul use the idea of the “mirror” of God’s Word the same way in the 2 Cor. passage as he did here in 1 Cor.? That is, if in 1 Cor. 13:12 he was saying the “mirror” was the Word/revelation but that it was “dim” because it was incomplete revelation, does the “mirror” of 2 Cor. 3:18 still refer to revelation, or specifically to the New Covenant–and isn’t that still “revelation” of the Word? How do the two “mirrors” in these verses relate to one another? Thanks!
Deb, the Greek word in 2 Co 3:18 is a term for sensory state or event (katoptrizw)for “seeing.” It is a different word than in 1 Co 13:12 (esoptrou). katoptrizw (verb) in 2nd Cor was the most common term in the papyri for a mirror–it is something that produces a reflection. It can be used for “to contemplate something.” The idea is “beholding the glory of the Lord as reflected and radiant in the gospel in contrast to 2 Cor. 3:15.” We could translate the Greek–“as though we were beholding in a mirror.” The idea is to reflect visual patterns coming from some source. Louw-Nida says this: “In order to speak of a reflection of light, it may be necessary to say ‘to throw back the light’ or ‘to shine back the form.’ Sometimes it is necessary to stipulate a type of object which reflects such light, for example, ‘we are a shining object that shows back the glory of the Lord.'”
Regarding the word “mirror” in 1 Co 13:12, the word is a noun meaning mirror. It carries the idea that we now see only a refracted image, obscurely, and not face to face as we shall hereafter. Mirrors in Bible times were usually made of highly polished metal.
Regarding the parallel between 1 & 2 Co–the idea in 1st Co is revelation but the idea in 2nd Co is specifically the glory of God per se. The contrast is between the fading glory of Moses with the growing glory of God. God’s glory is eternal because of the presence of the Holy Spirit. We do not see the full glory of God but progressively become more and more exposed to it–progressive sanctification. Although this passage does not refer to the Bible per se, it is implied.
Thank you, Grant. That’s clarifying.
1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."
12For
The word “for” is a term of explanation, indicating that the analogies in this verse are explaining and reinforcing the analogy in verse 11.
now
The word “now” refers to the present state at Paul’s time of incomplete revelation in contrast to a finished revelation. The delimited gifts of prophecy and knowledge were limited revelation, but there would be a finished revelation at some point future to Paul’s time (around 50 – 70 AD).
we see in a mirror, dimly,
Paul introduces a second illustration of the difference of understanding between finished revelation and his present state of incomplete revelation – the mirror. The city of Corinth produced some of the best-polished bronze mirrors in the world at that time. Mirrors of the first century were not as clear as the mirrors of today, for they were dim. Paul’s present knowledge was dim and indistinct, but when the canon would be complete, Christians would have a clear knowledge of God’s mind (2014 AD we should be in that era).
The word “dimly” means in enigma. Secondary means of knowledge cannot convey a clear image, only direct knowledge can. An enigma is a puzzle. If three-quarters of a jigsaw puzzle were missing, we would have an enigma, a puzzle. None of the gospels was written when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. John had not written his gospel, his three letters, or the book of Revelation. Paul had only partial revelation in the time he lived.
but then
“Then” is when the “perfect” of verse 10 will have come.
face to face.
At the completion of the canon, there would be a clear perspective through which we would look at things. As seeing in a mirror dimly is a metaphor, so is the phrase “face to face” a metaphor. Neither expression is literal, so this does not refer to seeing God in heaven. This is nothing like a theophany (seeing God in a physical manifestation), but is a revelation of God through His Word. Nonetheless, for any restoration or revival do we not need the manifestation of the Lord?
Manney, yes, for revival to come there must be confession and God coming to show Himself and His glory through the Word and work in individuals. Revivals in history have come through conviction of sin and turning back to the Word. God shows Himself through His Word today, not personal, physical manifestations. That happen before the completion of the canon.
Mean we know our love ones in heaven thank God for that.
Thanks for the exegesis. I’m interested in the interpretation of “face to face”. This Greek phrase seems unique in the New Testament. Many commentators use similar occurrences in the Old Testament (Ex. 33:11; Num. 12:8 etc) to infer that its when believers are with Christ. One says its “a metaphor meaning the most intimate kind of knowledge”.
Also, I see that the Greek word translated “know fully” is also used in 1 Cor. 14:37; 16:18 in the sense of “acknowledge” and “recognition”. Can they be used to understand the meaning in 1 Cor. 13:12?
By the way, I appreciate your interpretation because I think the statement that spiritual gifts cease at death is obvious (and so doesn’t need to be stated in Scripture)!
George, I am not minimizing the difficulty of interpreting this passage, however, let me offer these answers to your question:
The New Testament is identified with τὸ τέλειον. The argument is that the possession of the canonical Scriptures removes the partial or incomplete understanding and thus removes the need for prophesying. This view also finds support indirectly because of the role the gifts of prophecy and knowledge played in the completion of the New Testament canon.
Note this exegetical comment from Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains:
πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον: (an idiom, literally ‘face to face’) the position of one person facing another, with the implication of direct, personal interaction—‘face to face.’ τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον ‘but then face to face’ 1 Cor 13:12. The implication of this idiom in 1 Cor 13:12 is that there will be clear understanding, and in some languages it is necessary to shift somewhat the figurative expression. For example, it may be necessary to render this passage as ‘how we now understand is like seeing a dim image in a mirror, but then we shall understand as clearly as though we were seeing face to face’ or ‘… as though we were seeing something directly.’
Regarding uses in the Old Testament note this comment:
This interpretation is problematic for three reasons. First, it seems to mix metaphors. Seeing one’s own image indistinctly in a mirror is contrasted with having direct, personal fellowship with God. Though Fee recognizes a problem with this view, he nonetheless accepts it. “The analogy, of course, breaks down a bit, since one sees one’s own face in a mirror, and Paul’s point is that in our present existence one ‘sees’ God (presumably) … only indirectly.”25 However, Paul’s point is to contrast one looking in a mirror “dimly” with one looking in a mirror “face to face.”
Second, Numbers 12:6–8 emphasizes not a prophet’s fellowship with God, but God’s revelation to Moses, which was direct and therefore clear (“mouth to mouth, even openly”) and not indirect and indistinct (“in a vision … in a dream … in dark sayings”). Miriam and Aaron’s charge against Moses concerned his role as a prophet: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses?” (v. 2). The issue was revelation from God, not fellowship with God. Similarly 1 Corinthians 13:12 is referring not to a believer’s future fellowship with God but to revelation from God.
Third, the “now … but then” contrast in 13:12 is the same contrast as in verses 9–10 (“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes …”). If one agrees that “the perfect” means the completed revelation of the Scriptures, then Paul lived during the “now,” whereas believers today are living during the “then.” If the first part of this verse describes a believer in Paul’s day seeing his own face “dimly,” in the imperfect mirror of partial revelation, it would follow that “but then face to face” refers to believers today seeing their own faces in the superior mirror of completed revelation, that is, in the biblical canon. While the expression “face to face” in other contexts may refer to fellowship, nevertheless in 1 Corinthians 13:12 it describes the difference between seeing oneself in a mirror dimly and seeing oneself in a mirror face to face.
“Face to face” describes the clear and direct revelation of oneself which believers today possess when they look into the mirror of the Scriptures, God’s completed revelation.
George, re your “fully know” question. There is gross over interpretation of this term when people try to imply that the Greek term ipso facto means heaven. Note the lexical meaning: There are 42 occurrences of ἐπιγινώσκω in the New Testament: “know” 30 times, “acknowledge” five times, “perceive” three times, “take knowledge of” twice, “have knowledge of” once, and “know well” once. The fundamental ideas of this word are 1) to become thoroughly acquainted with, to know thoroughly; to know accurately, know well. 2) To know, to recognize by sight, hearing, of certain signs, to perceive who a person is, to know i.e. to perceive, to know i.e. to find out, ascertain, to know i.e. to understand.
Thanks Grant.
But the NET version quotes Fee and introduces the idea that the two situations being compared in v.9-12 are an “indirect” understanding/relationship (on earth) and a “direct” understanding/relationship(in heaven)! So, assume a literal “face to face”. However, I can’t see how this explanation relates to the first illustration of childhood compared to adulthood. How is childhood indirect and adulthood direct?
George, I would have no brief with “indirect” as the interpretation. When we look at a partial canon, it is not the same as a fuller exposure to God’s thoughts in a complete canon. Childhood is indirect in that it is through the conveyance of a partial canon whereas a full canon would reveal who and what the Lord is most fully.
Of course these verses are in metaphoric or parabolic language. But they really do refer to our knowledge of spiritual understanding being incomplete here on earth but made whole, of course in heaven. Ver. 11 and 12 give an obvious metaphor of our understanding being childlike, or as looking through a glass darkly. Job, 8:9 and 1Cor.8:2,3. speak to the vast knowledge of spiritual things of which we know nothing. Just look at the “modern” versions of the bible, disagreeable commentaries, denominational bias, etc. that show plainly that we really do, only know in part. We have lost the “fear of the Lord, and speculations run rampant. James 3:1,2.
Interessanter Beitrag!
Page, you may want to look at this study: https://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/doctrine/44583-2/
Thanks Grant! For the first time I understand this piece of scripture 🙂
How can we know God perfectly in this life if we are not yet glorified? I’m certain I won’t know or love perfectly until I’m in the presence of God. I’ll continue to be flawed until then because I’m human. The only human who ever knew and loved perfectly was Jesus.
Nancy, we cannot now or even in eternity know God perfectly. Note my qualification in the commentary.