That which is perfect

[Watchman]

Ah yes..Wayne Jackson. A good CofC brother with whom I have several disagreements. Carry on...I'll catch up.

[MyCoolUsername]

Ah yes..Wayne Jackson. A good CofC brother with whom I have several disagreements. Carry on...I'll catch up.

I guess I won't tell you that I am C of C then

[percho]

As I have asked you before..

How do you get 2nd advent when the the Perfect is aimed at the completion of the partial.
You conclusion is in grave error by ignoring the context and adding in a new subject that is in no way covered in any of the previous verses here.

In essence the passage is saying
We half a cup half full of milk, and it is currently being filled.
When it is filled which will be soon, then we will have a complete cup of milk and we will no longer need to keep filling it. So the milk tap will shut off.

Now you are saying..
We now have a half of cup of milk, the tap is running but nothing is being filled..
However when dad takes us to Disneyland land 20 years from now we can get full cups of milk, yay!!
( We have to wait large amounts of time to get a full cup of milk?)

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Did that verse describe someone perfect?

1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

What took place between those two verses?

Did that verse describe something perfect, especially when compared with these verses? Phil 3:11,12 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

[Watchman]

I guess I won't tell you that I am C of C then

I was raised therein...and that is where I met our Father.

[MyCoolUsername]

Here is a question.
Is the word of God not perfect? If so, then how can it not be what is discussed in 1 Cor?


“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:” (Rev 22:18).
This here shows the book is complete. The end.

We have the bible to show us the way.
We also have faith, hope, and love.
When Jesus comes again all we will have is love. We will no longer need faith and hope. We will see him face to face.


“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” (Jam 1:23-25).

The reason why people like myself believes the gifts have ceased is because the church has been established. The first century did not have the bible from Beginning to End. It was not complete. Signs and wonders had to exist for the apostles to go out and preach the gospel. The bible had not been published, but when it was they "died out". There was no need because the PERFECT word of God has been distributed all over the world. And we know these signs and wonders happened because of the bible too!

[BroRog]

Yes, in the passage before us, Paul is setting up a comparison between “now” and “then.” Yes, the “now” is the time during the writing of the letter to the Corinthians. However, the “then” is the Second Advent—the Parousia.

Too bad Paul doesn't say that though. My problem with your interpretation is that it just isn't there. There is no mention of the second coming at all in his argument, and it doesn't make sense of his argument. He ends chapter 12 by suggesting to the Corinthians that there is a more excellent way. And so, in chapter 13 he presents his case and his justification for why the Corinthians should seek a higher standard and a more mature way of thinking about the spiritual gifts. The Second Advent doesn't enter into it. Paul doesn't argue that the Corinthians need to change their behavior because Christ is going to come back someday. Rather, he argues that the basis for a change in their behavior and in their thinking is the fact that Love endures, even when prophecies cease. He builds his argument by asking the Corinthians to judge the relative value of two good things: spiritual gifts and Love. Spiritual gifts are good, and so is Love. But Love is always needed; love is always appreciated; we are forever indebted to love each other. The way of Love is more excellent because the way of love will endure into eternity. Even after all is said and done, even after all prophecies have been given, even after all words of knowledge have been given, even after all tongues have been spoken, Love will last beyond that.

None of the scholars whom I have read, and I have read many of them, suggests that Paul’s knowledge at the time of writing was “perfect,” or that he himself thought that his knowledge was perfect.

These other scholars aren't here to defend their own position, so all I can do is defend mine. Take a look at the analogy Paul uses.

. . . When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

I would be surprised to hear a scholar disagree with my observation that Paul speaks of himself in the past tense when referring to his time as a child in which he spoke, reasoned and thought as a child. He has become a man and has done away with childish things. Given that he uses this analogy to help explain what he means by "knowing in part" and "the perfect'. It breaks down like this: knowing in part is in some significant sense very similar to speaking like a child, reasoning like a child, and thinking like a child. And "when the perfect comes" is in some significant sense very similar to becoming a man and putting away childish things. Since Paul speaks of himself in the present tense, becoming a man, we expect that for him, the perfect has already come. Just as he reasoned as a child, when he was a child, he knew in part. We know "in part" if we know like a child knows. But the perfect comes, when we no longer reason as a child. And in the context, he is talking about the spiritual gifts. There is a mature way to think about them and there is an immature way to think about them. Anyone who gives more significance and priority to love over the spiritual gifts has matured in his or her thinking.

However, you may ask, what about 1 Cor. 12-16,

1 Cor. 2:12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13. which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual [/]words.[/i]
14. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. (NASB, 1995)

Surely Paul is not claiming that the spiritual man has the measure of the knowledge of Christ that he will have upon the Second Advent! No, Paul is referring in this passage to the moral judgment of Christ. Indeed, he is laying down the foundation for what he is about to write in chapter 5, and his authority for writing what he writes in that chapter.

Much of the time when Paul uses the term "we" he is talking about himself, or if others, he is talking about himself and the other apostles. When he ways, "we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God . . ." he is talking about himself. And again, when he says, "But we have the mind of Christ." he is talking about himself or himself and the other apostles. This is why he will go on to say that he is the foundation and the master builder. He and the original apostles have given the church the conceptual foundation upon which Apollos and every other Bible teacher is building a body of teaching.

I could quote numerous commentators on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians who share my understanding of 2 Cor. 13:10, but for the sake of brevity, I shall quote from one that is representative. Thomas Charles Edwards wrote in his A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1885),

τὸ τέλειον, “the fully developed;” not merely perfect knowledge, but generally “the perfect state of things.” Maier and Evans well observe that ἔλθῃ contains an allusion to the second coming of Christ. The parousia will bring with it all that is perfect. The course of history is a progress towards perfection in so far as it marches onwards to the Advent.

I have in my personal library many commentaries on the Greek text of 1 Corinthians written by English, German, and French scholars, and none of them even so much as alludes to the understanding that you have presented in your post. Do you know of such a commentary or an article in a peer-reviewed journal?

What I have is a clear understand of what Paul said. Isn't that all I need? A person doesn't need a scholar to figure this out. All a person needs is to pay attention and follow the logical progression of ideas. Paul begins this chapter by exhorting his readers to seek a more excellent way. This gives the reader his first clue as to what the next chapter is going to be about. Then he asks his readers to evaluate the relative value of two good things: the spiritual gifts and love. He suggests that since love will endure beyond the existence of prophetic utterances, for example, then love is the better, more excellent way. Then he goes on to explain that in order for someone to treat another person with love, he or she must know themselves as others know them. We typically use a distorted mirror to see ourselves, which causes our knowledge of ourselves to be inaccurate or incomplete. We won't have full knowledge until we see ourselves as others see us.

And, we don't need to wait until the Second Advent of Christ to see ourselves as others see us. Anyone can do that now, if such a person is willing to admit the truth about themselves while avoiding the typical distractions we find so readily at hand. A child will make excuses; a mature person won't. A child will seek to blame others; a mature person won't. A child will deny it ever happened; a mature person won't. A child acts as if the world revolves around him; a mature person makes room for others and cares for them as they care for themselves -- giving honor, respect, dignity, patience, kindness, and forgiveness to others since such a mature person has come to understand that the other person is no more but no less worthy of love -- that the OTHER person is ALSO created in the image of God.

[Jemand]

The Master's Seminary Journal (Fall 1993)

1 COR 13:11 REVISITED
AN EXEGETICAL UPDATE
Robert L. Thomas


Reasons Why to teleion Cannot Mean "the Perfect" in 13:10
The most common definitions of the English word "perfect"
applied to 1 Cor 13:10 would probably include:

(a) being entirely without fault or defect5
(b) corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept
(c) the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or
quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state.

Either of these three or a combination of them is the usual
notion the average person attaches to the word. All three are
qualitative in nature, a characteristic that renders them unsatisfactory
renderings of to teleion. Four reasons demonstrate this:

(1) No other use of teleios in Paul can possibly mean "perfection"
in the sense of the absence of all imperfection. In fact, the meaning of
"perfection" in Greek philosophers`that of a "perfect" man`is absent
from the NT. Utopian perfection was a philosophical notion, not a
NT idea, for this word. Elsewhere in Paul the adjective is figurative
and refers almost exclusively to a grown man (cf. 1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Phil
3:15; Eph 4:13; Col 1:28; cf. also Heb 5:14).

One other time, in Col 4:12,it means "mature" in the OT sense of wholeness and obedience to
God's will, and picks up on his ambition for every man as stated in Col 1:28.10
So six out of the other seven times Paul uses the word, it means "mature."
The remaining use is in Rom 12:1 where its meaning is "complete."

This pattern of usage establishes a strong probability that the word includes the sense of maturity in 1 Cor 13:10,
especially since its other two uses in 1 Corinthians have that sense.

(2) In the immediate context of 1 Cor 13:8-13, a qualitative word
is unsuitable in light of the apodosis of the sentence in 13:10. "Perfect"
is not a suitable opposite to k mroyw ([ek merous], "partial"). A better
meaning would be "whole" or "complete" as antithetical to ek merous.12

(3) The terminology of 13:11 is most conclusive, however,
because it is an analogy with the stages of human life (i.e., npiow [npios,
"child"] and nr [anr, "child"]).

(a) This analogy directly impacts the meaning of to teleion
in 13:10, because it sets up a teleios/npios antithesis in vv. 10-11 that is
relative, not absolute, and therefore incompatible with the concept of
perfection. The difference between childhood and adulthood is a
matter of degree, not one of mutually exclusive differentiation.
(b) The npios/anr antithesis in v. 11 has the same contextual effect of ruling out the notion of an ideal state as denoted by
the translation "perfect."

(4) The terminology of 13:12 requires an allusion to degrees of
revelatory understanding, not perfection or freedom from
imperfection. The verbs blpomen (blepomen, "I see") and ginskv (ginsk,
"I know") correlate with the gifts of prophecy and knowledge and their
limited insights compared with the complete understanding that will
prevail in the future. This is quantitative, not qualitative, so to teleion
must have the same quantitative connotation.

Hence both etymological and contextual considerations argue
emphatically against the meaning "perfect" for to teleion.

Thank you for these quotes from the article by Robert L. Thomas. I have one of his books in my personal library, How To Choose a Bible Version. It is a good book. I wish that I could say the same for his article. As he writes himself, his rather unique interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 has drawn very severe criticism by some well-known scholars—including Wayne Grudem. I do not have the time tonight to explain the inaccuracies of some of his points nor to demonstrate the absurdity of his interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10, but others have already done so. If I have the time tomorrow, I may point out some of the worst of the deficiencies in his arguments in defense of his interpretation.

Again, thank you for bringing this article to our attention. I had not seen it before.

[Colight]

Thank you for these quotes from the article by Robert L. Thomas. I have one of his books in my personal library, How To Choose a Bible Version. It is a good book. I wish that I could say the same for his article. As he writes himself, his rather unique interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10 has drawn very severe criticism by some well-known scholars—including Wayne Grudem. I do not have the time tonight to explain the inaccuracies of some of his points nor to demonstrate the absurdity of his interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:10, but others have already done so. If I have the time tomorrow, I may point out some of the worst of the deficiencies in his arguments in defense of his interpretation.

Again, thank you for bringing this article to our attention. I had not seen it before.

I have not read any refute thus that made sense in the context of the passage
I would think any refute needs to address the context of the partial as being in the light of Knowledge and prophecy related to the mystery doctrine of the church. For that was a new doctrine for the time Paul was in.

Also many of the refutes have ignored dispensational theology, where this write takes that into consideration.
Also another book called "Tongues" By R.B. Thieme Jr. Takes a nice crack at the greek and pretty much agrees with Thomas on the outcome.

[Colight]

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Did that verse describe someone perfect?

1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

What took place between those two verses?

Did that verse describe something perfect, especially when compared with these verses? Phil 3:11,12 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Ok...
What does that have to do with 1 Cor 13...

Does every time they mention water in the bible should we think of baptism?

[Colight]

What, if anything, is your point, Colight? State it in your own words and don't hide behind the words of others. What is the point of your post? it is simply idiotic to hold to your idea that the perfect refers to something NEVER prophesied. The perfect meaning the completed canon of scripture is about as out of context as my personal hygiend habits.

Why the attack?
If you had read my post you would see I was responding to a request.

Sheez some people just step in it on their own...

[JCE]

would all agree that it was written that Jesus the head of the corner AKA the foundation of the church.being the head of what?what are the foundation stones that complete the foundation floor?the true Church would not be a building,or even us,this church is what it was all about,is about,life everlasting.about saving the world,of which we should be apart of to fulfill all prophecy concerning it. the world is not in danger we are.the church is,Faith,Hope,chariety,compation,mercy,knowlege,an d because of all,the Wisdom to exist in the world that was created for us.these are the 7 churches that all life in Heaven is based.of these it is written fall upon them and be broken and be saved. as the alturnitive should these stones fall upon, they will grind to dust. no faith no hope no mercy. a little lesson of history that may not have crossed from the spirit to the mind,before there was government all rule was from the chosen leader or leaders.that were given laws to give to the people.which worked until it didn't.compremise,strict enforcement unconcerned of who or what, they became the law and that was final.in all civilizations from the beginning man has failed to be more than we are today.missing the point.we live here,all of us.we have no other place to go,this is our Home away from Home.that being heaven.what is the failure of all mankind from the begining to this day?if we didn't have money,credit cards,and everything was there for the asking,what would you do.leave all the work for the others or actually work your job and be apart of the race of man on Earth. or be as those who made the slaves do all the work while sitting on there collective behinds.brings into memory the story of a flood that drowned the world.Jesus wasn't about words debated mulled over theorized hashed and rehashed until nothing made any more sence than it had at the beginning.
he began with this, Repent For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.not words to be taken litely.or out of hand,they can be the beginning of a new life free from the ignorance of the past and now.the beginning of knowlege is the fear of god.psalms ch.1.what means repent?is it mere words thought or spoken in an attempt to demand of god to forgive,or actual need to know what is expected of us to live this brave new Life.repent and should the Lord truly forgive the spirit will guide you into the life you asked for,with all the knowlege you need to know and with it the wisdom to teach your children and they theirs.
if? the world did end,would that be the end of life for man on earth?what is the world that would end?freedom of choice is of God,of these are good and evil.and only to mention,your choice of image that God is to you.Jesus or yes satan.
your choice still good or evil.
I would that you were hot or cold but because you are neither hot nor cold but luke warm,I will spew you out of my mouth.
letter to the 7 churches.
there is a woman called jezebele made to lie in a bed and whoever commits fornication with her I will kill her children.
that woman is the daughter of zion.the bride to be of the son of god.fornication is the act of useing her for self glory self fame self,the children are those who have been led astray by those who would.
darwin had a theory that humans are evolved from monkies.meaning naturally changed.why does this theory only work on paper and not in real life?afterall a monkey after a million years is still a monkey,and live by the rules set for monkies.
ch.13 rev.here is wisdom.what is a beast?it is an uncontrolable creature.the beast with this can not be satan or devil.
as even men cast out satan and wicked spirits.who does that leave.Fear GOD.were you aware that even by accepting that the number 666 refered to the devil you show your lack of understanding or wisdom.to see evil where there is none.?
revelations reveales the knowlege you have learned from the spirit that taught you. what is true and what is not,that is the question.true is what you will believe and a lie is what you will not believe.both are the same yet opposite.
what you will believe is the choice you must make,the implications are everlasting.
this is the world we live in it will last as long as it lasts, as long as we last.what will mankind become?will we meat that wall at full speed or that cliff blinded by our own ignorances.or will man be bold and find the true world that was always ment to be.we are what makes and breakes the world to come.

[Jemand]

BroRog and Robert L. Thompson are both, to a very substantial extent, basing their interpretation of the Greek word teleios in 1 Cor. 13:10 upon Paul’s analogy in verse 11, so let us take a look at verse 11 in context,

8. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10. but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB, 1995)

In verse 10, Paul states an objective truth that when the perfect (BDAG lexicon, p. 995) comes, the partial will be abolished, wiped out, set aside (BDAG lexicon, p. 525). In verse 11, Paul parenthetically gives us an analogy in which he compares the state of being a child with the state of being an adult. A child is a human being, but not a fully formed human being, and behaves differently than an adult. There is, in Paul’s analogy, no gradual, qualitative progression from childhood to adulthood—but only the contrast between a child and a fully formed human being (a quantitative rather than qualitative comparison). In verse 12, Paul continues his thought in verse 10, and writes that in our present state of fully formed human beings, we (including himself) see in a mirror dimly, but when the perfect (the totality, a quantity rather than a quality) comes, we shall see face to face. We shall no longer be looking at ourselves in a state of unclearness, but rather we will be looking at Christ face to face, and we will know fully as we also have been fully. Such a reality will not occur until the Second Advent!


Robert L. Thomas, at the time he wrote his article, was a professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary—a seminary with an extremely strict and detailed statement of faith. The “members of the board of directors, administration, and faculty members are annually required to sign a statement affirming agreement with this Statement of Faith,” imprisoning them in a cell so extremely small that they can scarcely breath—let alone dare to think or study the Scriptures for fear that their understanding of the Bible should mature a little and cause them to loose their job! What could more severely stifle one’s growth in Christ and understanding of the Bible?

[John146]

BroRog and Robert L. Thompson are both, to a very substantial extent, basing their interpretation of the Greek word teleios in 1 Cor. 13:10 upon Paul’s analogy in verse 11, so let us take a look at verse 11 in context,

8. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10. but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB, 1995)

[COLOR="#000080"] In verse 10, Paul states an objective truth that when the perfect (BDAG lexicon, p. 995) comes, the partial will be abolished, wiped out, set aside (BDAG lexicon, p. 525). In verse 11, Paul parenthetically gives us an analogy in which he compares the state of being a child with the state of being an adult. A child is a human being, but not a fully formed human being, and behaves differently than an adult. There is, in Paul’s analogy, no gradual, qualitative progression from childhood to adulthood—but only the contrast between a child and a fully formed human being (a quantitative rather than qualitative comparison). In verse 12, Paul continues his thought in verse 10, and writes that in our present state of fully formed human beings, we (including himself) see in a mirror dimly, but when the perfect (the totality, a quantity rather than a quality) comes, we shall see face to face. We shall no longer be looking at ourselves in a state of unclearness, but rather we will be looking at Christ face to face, and we will know fully as we also have been fully. Such a reality will not occur until the Second Advent!

I couldn't agree more. You nailed it. We have to compare "the perfect" directly to the imperfect the same as we would contrast a boy and a man. In the case of Paul's analogy of a boy and a man, one is immature and one is fully mature. The process of growing from being immature to mature is not in view there, as you pointed out. It is only contrasting immaturity with full maturity. Incompleteness with completeness. So, it seems to me that the coming of the "the perfect" relates to when we are changed and perfected in the future at Christ's second coming at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:50-54). At that time are bodies will be perfected and the perfect will have come. We will then know just as God fully knows us and we will see Jesus face to face (1 John 3:2).

There are plenty of things now that are hidden from us that we cannot see in the spirit realm. John said "it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2). I can't see how we can know fully as we are fully known until 1 John 3:2 is fulfilled which will be at the return of Christ.

[Slug1]

There are plenty of things now that are hidden from us that we cannot see in the spirit realm. John said "it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2). I can't see how we can know fully as we are fully known until 1 John 3:2 is fulfilled which will be at the return of Christ.

Hooah, amen!

[Colight]

BroRog and Robert L. Thompson are both, to a very substantial extent, basing their interpretation of the Greek word teleios in 1 Cor. 13:10 upon Paul’s analogy in verse 11, so let us take a look at verse 11 in context,

8. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10. but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB, 1995)

In verse 10, Paul states an objective truth that when the perfect (BDAG lexicon, p. 995) comes, the partial will be abolished, wiped out, set aside (BDAG lexicon, p. 525). In verse 11, Paul parenthetically gives us an analogy in which he compares the state of being a child with the state of being an adult. A child is a human being, but not a fully formed human being, and behaves differently than an adult. There is, in Paul’s analogy, no gradual, qualitative progression from childhood to adulthood—but only the contrast between a child and a fully formed human being (a quantitative rather than qualitative comparison). In verse 12, Paul continues his thought in verse 10, and writes that in our present state of fully formed human beings, we (including himself) see in a mirror dimly, but when the perfect (the totality, a quantity rather than a quality) comes, we shall see face to face. We shall no longer be looking at ourselves in a state of unclearness, but rather we will be looking at Christ face to face, and we will know fully as we also have been fully. Such a reality will not occur until the Second Advent!

The Child reference also Paul is including himself in, there fore he as human could become this mature man. When that would occur the childish things would be set aside.

Which occurred around 97 ad.

To me this is more in context...



12. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB, 1995)

What is the process that Christ was suddenly placed into that passage?

My position is still that the Complete is linked to knowledge and prophecy it is not any reference to the 2ND coming.

This is not a metaphor as to what Christ looks like.. Paul saw Christ, he knows what Christ looks like
You are also taking quite a bit of liberty with the interpretation..
Also what does face to face have to do with in complete knowledge?
How does help a immature congregation who is in partial revelation of the mystery doctrine?
To know that the partial knowledge and prophecy they have is building up the complete does make more sense and is more in the context of the point Paul is getting at.

Also you state the 2nd advent..
There is a little thing of the rapture and tribulation, in which all believers will be removed.
Therefore the reference can not be toward that 2nd advent.

It seems that interpretation requires a lot of liberty which steps on the toes of other doctrines..

this is why I must reject it.