Please, some comments about the difference between this two commentaries series. The Expositor's is $129 and it covers the whole bible, and UBC is on sale for $99, and it is only the New Testament. Thanks.
From my experience I would say both are similar but i find the UBC (formally the NIBC) is slightly more in depth.
I have put 1 Corthinthians 13 below from both below for you to compare.
-Dan
EBC
12:31-13:3 Love is the most excellent way for a Christian to use his spiritual gifts. (12:31b is repeated here, since it is an important transition.) The word agape (“love”) is used in the NT of the deep and abiding affection of God and Christ for each other (John 15:10; 17:26) and for us (1John 4:9). It is also used of Christians in their relationship with one another (e.g., John 13:34, 35). Often more intense and deeper in meaning than philos (“having affection for,” Matt 10:37; Luke 7:5, et al.), it is quite distinct from eros, sensual or sexual love. Christians are to love, because they belong to God, and “God is love” (1John 4:8).
In referring to tongues and prophecy (vv.1-3), Paul is apparently trying to counteract the excessive emphasis the Corinthians were evidently placing on these gifts to the detriment of love for Christ and to their fellowmen. Tongues of men and angels are obviously the languages men and angels use. (On occasion, angels spoke to men in human language; e.g., Luke 1:13-20, 26-38). The mention of tongues in v.1 shows that Paul is referring in these chapters to human foreign languages as well as intelligent angelic communication. It was in the temple worship that the “resounding gong” and “clanging cymbal” were struck (2Sam 6:5; 1 Chronicles 13:8; Ps 150:5). Also prophecy, understanding mysteries and knowledge, and possessing dynamic faith are all nothing apart from love. Both “mysteries” (mysteria ) and “knowledge” (gnosis ) are governed by the same verb eido (“know,” “fathom”) and must mean the deep, secret things to be discovered about God’s redemptive works. “Faith” (pistis ) is not saving faith (as in Rom 5:1), but special acts of faith as in performing miracles, as the reference to the moving of mountains shows (cf. Matt 21:21). Moreover, Paul says that giving all one’s material wealth to the poor can be done without love and that one can even be martyred or submit voluntarily to torture without a sense of love for others. To take “surrender my body to the flames” as referring to an extreme form of martyrdom is preferable to taking it as some form of branding connected with slavery (cf. Hodge, in loc.).
4-7 Christian love is now described positively and negatively. Its positive characteristics are patience and kindness (v.4a), delight in the truth, and a protective, trusting, hopeful, and persevering attitude (vv.6b, 7). That love is patient (v.4) means that it is slow to become resentful (Hodge, in loc.). Verses 4b-6a state love’s characteristics negatively. To be “rude” or “behave disgracefully” (v.5) may refer obliquely to the disorderly conduct at worship referred to in 11:2-16 and in chapter 14). KJV’s “thinks no evil” (v.5b) gives an incorrect idea. The verb logizomai means “to reckon or take account of.” So NIV says, “It keeps no record of wrongs.” Indeed, for love to keep a record of wrongs would violate its nature. In v.6 the verbs chairo and syngshairo are basically the same; yet there is a difference. Love does not “delight” or “rejoice” (chairo ) in evil in which it has no part; but it does “rejoice in” (syngshairo ) the truth with which it does have a part.
Furthermore, love covers the faults of others rather than delighting in them (v.7). It is trusting, optimistic, and willing to endure persecution (cf. Rom 5:3, 4). In short, it “perseveres.”
8-12 Love is permanent, in contrast with prophecies, tongues, and knowledge—all of which will cease to exist because they will cease to be needed. In v.8, Paul uses the verb (katargeo, “abolish”; hence “cease,” “pass away”) to describe the cessation of prophecies and of knowledge; of tongues, he says “they will be stilled” (NIV). Here the verb is pauo, which also means “cease.” The reason these three will cease is that they are imperfect and partial (vv.9, 10) compared to perfect knowledge and prophetic understanding in heaven. He does not say when they will cease. Some think he meant that the need for miraculous gifts would cease to exist at the end of the apostolic period. This view is based in part on the implications of the meaning of the term teleion (“perfection”) v.10, which is taken to refer here to the completion of the canon at the end of the first century A.D. With this view, the term “prophecies” in v.8 is taken narrowly as referring to direct, inspired revelatory communication from the Holy Spirit or possibly to some special aid given by the Spirit to understand and present truth already revealed, as given in the written Scriptures (cf. Hodge, in loc.). All this, then, was done away when the canon was completed about A.D.100. This cessation would apply also to tongues and to the special gift of knowledge (vv.8, 9)—the “gift correctly to understand and properly exhibit the truths revealed by the apostles and prophets” (Hodge, in loc.).
There is something to commend this view as an argument against the position that the gifts mentioned in vv.8-10 continued, beyond the apostolic period, especially prophetic revelation. For if such revelation is held to continue, then might not the Koran, The Book of Mormon, and Science and Health be considered inspired revelations from God?
Nevertheless, it is difficult to prove the cessation of these gifts at the end of the first century A.D. by taking teleion to refer to a completion of the canon at that time, since that idea is completely extraneous to the context. While teleion can and does refer to something completed at some time in the future, the time of that future completion is not suggested in v.10 as being close.
On the other hand, in a number of contexts the related words telos (“end,” “termination;” “last part”) and teleo (“bring to an end”) are used in relation to the second coming of Christ. This is true in both non-Pauline writing (cf. James 5:11; Rev 20:5, 7; 21:6; 22:13) and 1 Corinthians 1:8; 15:24. Since in the contexts of the Second Coming these related words are used and since Paul himself used telos in talking about the Second Coming elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, it seems more normal to understand teleion in v.10 to mean that “perfection” is to come about at the Second Coming, or, if before, when the Christian dies and is taken to be with the Lord (2Cor 5:1-10).
There are other problems regarding the completion-of-the-canon view of teleion here. The conditional temporal hotan with the subjunctive form of the verb, “[whenever the end] should come” (v.10), suggests that Paul felt an indefiniteness about when the end he has in mind would come. But he shows no such indefiniteness in regard to the written Scriptures or the special position of the apostles (9:1, 2), whose work would be assumed to be coming to an end shortly upon their death. Similarly, the hotan with the subjunctive clauses and telos used of the Second Coming in 15:24, are also indefinite and open-ended: “then ... when [or, whenever] he hands over the kingdom....” Here again, Paul does not know exactly when this will occur. In contrast, the hote with the indicative clauses in 13:11 are quite definite as to the time of their occurrences: “When I was a child ... when I became a man.”.
One more problem with taking teleion to refer to the completion of the canon is found in the tote, (“then,” “at that time”) clauses in v.12. Did Paul really expect to live to the time of the completion of the canon and then expect to “know” or “know completely,” when other apostles (e.g., John) might (and actually did) live longer than he and it would be they who at that time would “know completely”?
All things considered, it is better to argue for the cessation of the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and the special gift of knowledge on the basis of the larger context of Paul’s writings and on the basis of the grammar of vv.9, 13: prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will pass away soon. Paul’s viewpoint seems to be that it would be when the important office of apostle with its requirement of men having seen the Lord and having been a witness to his resurrection (Gal 1:14-24) is no longer exercised. But “now” (nyni ) faith, hope, and love continue to remain (menei, present continuous sense).
Paul’s illustration of a child’s thoughts and speech, real but inadequately conceived and expressed in comparison with those of mature person (v.11) aptly conveys the difference between the Christian’s present understanding and expression of spiritual things and the perfect understanding and expression he will have in heaven (v.12). The metaphor is that of the imperfect reflection seen in one of the polished metal mirrors (cf. James 1:23) of the ancient world in contrast with seeing the Lord face to face (cf. Gen 32:30; Num 12:8; 2Cor 3:18). Paul’s thought in 12b may be expanded as follows: Now through the Word of God, I know in part; then, in the presence of the Lord I will know fully, to the full extent that a redeemed finite human being can know and in a way similar in kind to the way the Lord in his infinite wisdom fully and infinitely knows me. The Corinthians, Paul implies, must not boast now of their gifts (cf. 13:4), for those gifts are nothing compared to what is in store for the Christians in heaven.
13 In a temporal sense, the words “and now” can mean that faith, hope, and love continue “now, at this moment,” to be succeeded later by something else. This, however, is out of context with the preceding verses. Rather, “and now” introduces a conclusion; namely, “and now, there are faith, hope, and love—they, to be sure, remain now and forever.” By faith and hope remaining in eternity Paul means that trust (pistis ) in the Lord begun in this life will continue forever and that hope in the Lord begun now (Rom 8:24, 25) will expand and issue into an eternal expectation of his perfect plan for our eternal existence with him (cf. Rev 22:3-5). Paul has alluded to a special faith in v.2; now he expands it into an ongoing eternal faith and hope in an eternal God. Love is the greatest of these three graces because through faith love unites the Christian personally to God (1John 4:10, 19) and through God’s love (Rom 5:5) we are enabled to love one another (John 13:34, 35). Love is communicating grace and identifies us as children of God (John 13:34, 35; 1John 4:8, et al.).
W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians (EBC 10; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), n.p.
UBC
12:31b / Paul calls for and attempts to turn the thinking of his audience in a new, positive direction with the rhetorical declaration, And now I will show you the most excellent way. The words imply that the way Paul is about to reveal is “incomparable” or “all surpassing” (Gk. kath’ hyperboleän). His readers might recognize that in this statement Paul is claiming to present the highest form of Christian faith and practice. The word “way” (Gk. hodos) functioned as a euphemistic technical designation for Christianity in the early days of the church. At points in the NT one finds simple references to Christian belief and life as “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). Whether Paul intends to play on that image here is uncertain, but by claiming to show the Corinthians the most excellent way, he is nevertheless purporting to inform them of the essence of Christian living.
13:1-3 / Verses 1–3 establish the necessity of love, for love alone confers worth to all other spiritual gifts. The mention of tongues has immediate relevance to the Corinthian situation, and the gong and clanging cymbal are items naturally associated with pagan religious ecstasy, so that Paul’s words form a poetic critique of the Corinthians’ behavior as one knows it from the previous chapters. Yet in the next lines the gift of prophecy names a Christian phenomenon highly regarded by Paul. Thus, Paul makes a startling point in unambiguous fashion: Manifesting spiritual gifts, even a gift that Paul values, is useless without love. Paul is not merely issuing a condemnation of those who have religious values that are different from his own or those of his cohorts; he is stating the essential underlying motive or actuality that must influence and even control all spiritual realities. Moreover, the mention of mysteries and knowledge sounds a note about concerns that the Corinthians have demonstrated, and as Paul refers to such issues in this context, the first–century readers would naturally associate these matters with apocalyptic writings and the eschatological age of the end times because of Paul’s imposition and use of this perspective throughout the letter.
In turn, the reference to faith in verse 2 seems peculiar. In this statement, faith appears to be something akin to miraculous power, which might be a traditional definition rather than Paul’s own understanding of faith as “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22; cf. 1 Cor. 12:9). The phraseology is more reminiscent of the images introduced by Jesus in Mark 11:23 and Matthew 17:20; 21:21 than of Paul’s own perspective on faith. Paul makes it clear that even extraordinarily powerful faith, which can accomplish great feats, is of marginal value or even useless if the one with such faith has no love. Through a series of dramatic images, Paul makes his understanding of the “most excellent way” quite clear. Paul’s twin verdicts in these verses are that without love I am nothing and I gain nothing. According to Paul’s teaching about Christian belief and practice, human lives and achievements are ultimately judged by the presence or absence of love.
13:4-7 / A change of style occurs in verses 4–7. The content and style are those of Jewish parenesis, or concrete directions, and the form is didactic (instruction) rather than hymnic (praise). The English phrase love is supplies the verb “to be,” which is absent in Greek, but the translation accurately captures the descriptive intention of the lines. In brief, verses 4–6 create a listing of the characteristics of love that is epitomized in verse 7. Love is presented as the essential Christian attribute: Love is selflessness and is not self–centeredness. Love is patient and kind. It is “not jealous, boastful, arrogant, rude.” Then, with a shift from the nature of love to the activities of love, Paul declares that “love does not insist on its own way” nor, then, is it “irritable or resentful,” nor does it “rejoice at wrong.” Rather, love “rejoices in the right” (NIV: it does not envy . . . boast . . . is not proud . . . rude . . . self–seeking . . . easily angered . . . keeps no record of wrongs . . . does not delight in evil . . . rejoices with the truth). The reader of this letter would naturally associate the way that love does not act with Paul’s earlier references to the very behavior of the Corinthians in their gatherings for the Supper (ch. 11).
Paul’s language concerning love is crisp, and in rendering his words the NIV is more explanatory than succinct, although judicious and accurate. The NIV’s style is more verbose than Paul’s own diction, and while the translation provides important insights into the sense of Paul’s concise wording, it loses something of the vigor of Paul’s poetic style. The NRSV or even the KJV may be less immediately clear for contemporary readers, but Paul’s poetic style shines through in these versions. The lines critique the Corinthian situation elegantly but abstractly.
Paul summarizes the character of love, although he has already stated its traits, now saying that it “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things” (NIV: always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres). In short, love defines and directs Christian life, although Paul’s meditative mood is too poetic to allow him to make such a conventional declaration. The problem with Paul’s own elegant description of love is that later misreadings and misuses of this contemplation reinterpret love as if it were being gullible or welcoming abuse. In fact, the description Paul gives in verses 4–7 is of God’s love, which transcends the boundaries of selfishness or self–centeredness in the righteous pursuit of reconciliation and redemption (chs. 1, 4). The call to Christians is to live by the grace and power of God in such a way that God’s own love forms and directs life so that God’s love becomes the Christians’ love. Spiritual gifts must function in service to the aims of God’s love, or Paul says they are, despite their sometimes extraordinary effects, dead ends in themselves.
13:8-10 / Once again the style shifts at verse 8. Instead of the pithy wisdom sayings of the foregoing lines one encounters more elaborated arguments. The preceding verses of this meditation on love assert that charismatic gifts are worthless without love. Now Paul further promotes love by establishing the temporal quality of the gifts and the enduring, eternal, eschatological nature of love. Thus, verse 8 opens with a contrast between love and prophecies, tongues, and knowledge-declaring that love will endure and that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will come to an end (or will cease). This turn of thinking should cause alert readers to recall 1 Corinthians 7:31, where Paul said “the present form of this world is passing away,” so that now one encountering Paul’s statements may infer that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge belong to this world, not to God’s new creation. Moreover, and in further pursuit of the dramatic contrast between love and gifts, in verse 10 Paul identifies the basis for the cessation of knowledge and prophecy–they are imperfect. Finally Paul promises the survival of that which is perfect and declares the eschatological end of imperfection. Again, the statements should cause the attentive reader to recall Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 concerning what kinds of things will survive God’s scrutiny on the Day of final judgment.
13:11-12 / To make his point concerning the passing away of imperfection (that is, the gifts) and the eternal nature of love, Paul offers a dramatic metaphor in regard to the putting aside of childish ways. Immaturity gives way to maturity, so that a childish concern with flamboyant gifts should run its course and end with the advent of a mature concern for love. Moreover, with the ensuing metaphor of seeing in a mirror dimly Paul articulates a contrast between current existence and the promised eschatological vision of seeing face to face. The pattern of Paul’s logic is the contrast of lesser with greater, so that through these images he admonishes the Corinthians to have less concern for spectacular spiritual gifts and a greater concern for the reality of love, God’s own love.
From these metaphors Paul takes up the idea of knowledge that occupied his reflections in earlier chapters. Current knowledge is labeled partial, whereas eschatological knowledge is promised to be full. Current Christian knowledge, though valuable, is of limited importance in comparison with the full knowledge imparted by God in an eschatological form. Paul writes that all full eschatological knowledge, as well as current partial knowledge, is based in our being fully known by God, so that the reader learns again of God’s genuine priority in life and in the experience of salvation. As Paul made clear in chapter 1, what matters is not what humans know but what God has done, is doing, and will do.
13:13 / This concluding verse heightens the previous lines of thought and argument. Paul creates a slight contrast between what he says in these statements and what went before, for now the readers hear of the three highest gifts-faith, hope and love. Faith was mentioned in 13:2, but it is not clear that the same sense is intended here (see esp. Paul’s “faith–talk” in Romans and Galatians). Nevertheless, faith becomes the foundation for Christian life. In turn, hope emanates from faith (13:7), but as the lines continue one sees that Paul’s purpose in developing his argument in this manner is to establish the superiority of love, as he already stated in 12:31b.
Interpreters debate whether 13:13 means that faith, hope, and love are valid and remain valid eternally or that faith, hope, and love are now valid, but only love will endure eternally. From Paul’s wording it is impossible to make a final decision, although in context the second option may be preferable. In either case, one should see the superior and eternal character of love. The supreme characteristic and motivation for Christian life–now and forever according to Paul–is nothing other than love.
Additional Notes §37
These are among the most quoted verses in all of biblical literature. In fact, Paul’s words are so well known in Western culture that they require practically no technical explanation. Even the figures of his metaphors have become standard images in secular speech among most literate people. The logical lines of Paul’s argumentation were examined above, and the basic metaphors are either classic or self–evident. Thus, in the Additional Notes that follow, there are primarily a series of words from the NIV that are first given in their Gk. lexical form and then explained briefly in an effort to provide more than a superficial acquaintance with the elements of the substance of Paul’s thought.
The classic study of love, which has undergone much refinement through criticism, is A. Nygren’s Agape and Eros (rev. ed.; London: S.P.C.K., 1953). More recently, J. G. Sigountos (“The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13,” NTS 40 [1994], pp. 246–60) shows how recognizing the form of ch. 13 as an encomium assists comparison and interpretation in relation to both Plato and 1 Esd. 3; cf. J. Smit, “The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in the Light of Classical Rhetoric,” NovT 33 (1991), pp. 193–216; andfurthermore, see J. O’Brien, “Sophocles’s Ode on Man and Paul’s Hymn on Love: A Comparative Study,” Classical Journal 71 (1975/76), pp. 138–51.
On 12:31b-13:13 as an originally independent Pauline writing, see E. L. Titus, “Did Paul Write I Corinthians 13?” JBR 27 [1959], pp. 299–302.
12:31b / Paul writes in reference to the most excellent way (Gk. eti kath’ hyperboleän hodon), a phrase that essentially indicates “still a way better than any” or “yet an incomparable way.” The language is not extravagant exaggeration, despite the use of hyperboleä. Paul wants the reader to understand that this is an extraordinary path of life that goes beyond all others discussed up to this point. The claim may strike some as arrogant, but in a letter in which Paul has been concerned to curb the artificial, inappropriate arrogance of the Corinthians, the phrase should be taken as a sincere declaration of Paul’s conviction that he is about to portray the extraordinary essence of Christian life to the readers.
13:1 / The reference to tongues of angels (Gk. gloœssais toœn aggeloœn) recalls the discussion at 12:10 and may provide insight into the Corinthians’ practice of and fascination with tongues. Paul contrasts human and angelic tongues, perhaps indicating in the latter reference the understanding of tongues that was prevalent in Corinth. When certain Corinthians spoke in tongues they may have understood that they were being gifted with angel speech, a privilege that would distinguish those endowed with such a capacity.
Moreover, in the context of this letter Paul’s mention of a resounding gong (Gk. kalkos eächoœn; lit. “brass sounding”) and a clanging cymbal (Gk. kymbalon alalazon; lit. “cymbal tinkling”) would conjure familiar images in the minds of his readers. Such instruments were common in pagan worship, and in Corinth, where there was a vital brass industry, these would have been common implements for making noise and getting attention. See W. Harris, “‘Sounding Brass’ and Hellenistic Theology,” BAR 8 (1982), pp. 38–41; W. W. Klein, “Noisy Gong or Acoustic Vase? A Note on 1 Corinthians 13.1,” NTS 32 (1986), pp. 286–89. Furthermore, the mention of the cymbal may be related to the language of Ps. 150:5.
13:3 / A minor textual problem makes it uncertain whether Paul says that without love it is no gain to hand over one’s body “in order to boast” or “in order to be burned.” Most interpreters prefer the plain sense of the notion of Paul’s hypothetically surrendering his body to the flames, although the other reading is difficult to account for if it is not original. Whichever reading is authentic, the sense of Paul’s statement is that either the pride or the selflessness of sacrifice is worthless without the authorizing motivation of love. See J. K. Elliott, “In Favour of kautheäsomai at I Corinthians 13:3,” ZNW 62 (1971), pp. 297–98; J. H. Petzer, “Contextual Evidence in Favour of KAUCHËSOMAI in 1 Corinthians 13.3,” NTS 35 (1989), pp. 229–53.
13:4 / Paul’s description of love is complex. When he lists the positive aspects of love he uses stylized Gk. that is vivid with images. Concerning love he says it is patient (Gk. makrothymos; lit. “long–tempered”); kind (Gk. chreästos; lit. “useful” or “mild”). Then, Paul uses negative definitions to describe aspects that are not love: envy (Gk. zelooœ; lit. “to be zealous”); boast (Gk. perpereuomai; lit. “to put oneself forward” or “to show off”); proud (Gk. physioumai; lit. “to be inflated” or “to be full of one’s own importance”).
13:5 / In this verse a series of verbs continues to expand the negative definition of love by stating explicitly what love is not and what it does not do: rude (Gk. ascheämoneoœ; lit. “to behave dishonorably or indecently”); self–seeking (Gk. zeäteoœ ta heauteäs; lit. “to seek the things that are its own”); easily angered (Gk. parozynomai; lit. “to be hot–tempered” or “to be sharp”); keeps record of wrongs (Gk. logizomai to kakon; lit. “to reckon the evil”).
13:6 / Paul shifts the perspective slightly by offering an illustrative contrast that probably can be understood to summarize all the negative activity that he mentioned overtly in the preceding verses; moreover, in case he left anything out of the account, he offers a comprehensive summary of what love does not do: delight in evil (Gk. chairoœ epi teä akikia; lit. “to rejoice over unrighteousness [or wrongdoing]”); then, he states the opposite explicitly, saying what in fact love does: it rejoices with (Gk. sygchairoœ; lit. “to rejoice with” or “to congratulate”) the truth. The phraseology of this last positive declaration demonstrates love’s positive disposition in recognizing and celebrating “the truth” (God’s truth).
13:7 / Paul’s positive description of love’s activities continues with a series of verbs that name what love does. He qualifies the statements by saying that love always (Gk. panta; lit. “all things”) acts in this manner, or better, that the action of love is for the good of “all things.” Specifically, Paul recognizes that love protects (Gk. stegoœ; lit. “to bear” or “to cover”); trusts (Gk. pisteuoœ; lit. “to believe” or “to trust in”); hopes (Gk. elpizoœ; lit. “to hope”); and perseveres (Gk. hypomenoœ; lit. “to endure”). On the particular character of Christian hope, see E. Wong, “1 Corinthians 13:7 and Christian Hope,” LS 17 (1992), pp. 232–42.
13:8 / In contrast to what love always does, Paul gives another negative definition by saying that love never fails—a statement wherein the verb fails (Gk. piptoœ) means “to fall down.”
13:10 / The absolute character of the contrasts between the positive and negative features of love serves a rhetorical function and is a vivid illustration of what Paul means by love. The pattern of contrasts probably reflects Paul’s apocalyptic–eschatological worldview, as becomes evident in the references to perfection (Gk. to teleion; lit. “the complete/perfect thing”) and imperfection (Gk. to ek merous; lit. “the partial thing”). Paul is contrasting the temporal with the eternal. He has said that the form of this world is passing away (7:31), and in listing the qualities of love he declares what will pass away (the negative) and what does and will characterize the eternal (the positive). In meditating on love Paul reveals what he understands to be the character and the goal of the eschatological work of God.
13:11 / Paul adds to the images by offering a metaphor to drive home his basic line of thought. He refers to being a child (Gk. neäpios; lit. “infant” or “toddler”), a negative status in the way he states it and in the NT world. In the minds of most ancients, children were little unbridled bits of chaos, whose only hope was to grow into adulthood. Thus, Paul says he put . . . behind (Gk. katargeoœ; lit. “to have finished with”—here, perfect = “to have been finished with” or “to be completely done”) the things of that undesirable time. In ch. 3 Paul had confronted the Corinthians with their spiritual immaturity, so that this image resounds that note of criticism and reemphasizes the importance of their growing into spiritual adulthood.
13:12 / Paul’s second metaphor focuses on the use of a mirror. The mirror (Gk. esoptron; lit. “polished metal”) would have been a well–known commodity in ancient Corinth. Looking in a mirror had associations with vanity, so that Paul may be implying that the best one can do in the context of this world that is passing away is somewhat in vain. In any case, the metaphor is awkward, for one sees oneself in a mirror and one looks at another face to face. Paul’s chief concern, the future and direct encounter of humanity with God, directs his selection and combination of imagery in this statement. Cf. F. G. Downing, “Reflecting the First Century: 1 Corinthians 13:12,” ExpT 95 (1984), pp. 176–77; R. Seaford, “1 Corinthians XIII.12,” JTS 35 (1984), pp. 117–20. In fact, Paul is attempting to make a connection between seeing poorly in a reflection and knowing God poorly when a child (or knowing God poorly before “we” see him face to face).
Other elements of Paul’s comments were pertinent to the situation he confronted in Corinth. (1) At best, an ancient mirror gave a poor reflection (Gk. en ainigmati; lit. “in a riddle”). (For an intra–biblical reading of Paul’s image see M. Fishbane, “Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek 42:3, Num 12:8 and 1 Cor 13:12,” Hebrew Annual Review 10 [1986], pp. 63–75.) (2) The idiom of seeing face to face (Gk. prosoœpon pros prosoœpon, translated literally) is Semitic in character and may reflect the story of Moses’ seeing God directly. (3) Three verbs offer a concise theological assessment of the situation in Corinth as Paul saw it and as he has described it in this letter. The Corinthians are concerned with knowledge, but they only know in part (Gk. ginoœskoœ ek merous, translated literally). Only as God wills and works for the completion of God’s own purposes will humans ever know fully (Gk. epiginoœskoœ; lit. “to know thoroughly”). Indeed, whatever humans know that matters at all is the result of their being fully known (Gk. epiginoœskoœ, “to be known thoroughly”) by God. Paul applies this paradigm of knowledge, knowing, and being known to himself, but his implications for the Corinthians are evident. This use of himself as an example is consistent with the previous references to Apollos and Paul in ch. 4, where Paul explained that he engaged in such “personal” deliberations for the benefit of those in Corinth to whom he wrote. (For a highly debatable interpretation to the contrary, however, see E. Stuart, “Love is . . . Paul,” ExpT 102 (1991), pp. 264–66.)
Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (NIBC 7; Accordance electronic ed. 18 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 272-279.
Thank you Dan for your fast answer. I can see the difference. I appreciate it. Blessings!
