What Is the Perfect?

E. Timothy Uy

doi:10.5281/zenodo.21907595

Chapter 1: Scripture --- What Does the Text Actually Say?

Overview (Scripture)

This chapter examines 1 Corinthians 13:10 --- “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” --- with the attention it deserves: verse by verse, word by word, in Greek and in context. The goal is not to settle the question of what “the perfect” means, but to establish precisely what the text says, what the grammar permits, what the Old Testament background illuminates, and where genuine interpretive disagreement begins.

Key Principle: The question “what is the perfect?” cannot be answered by a single verse in isolation. It must be read within the argument of 1 Corinthians 12—14, interpreted through its Greek grammar, and heard against its Old Testament echoes. All four of those layers are addressed here. What other SCAR components (Christocentrism, Antiquity, Reality) contribute will build on this foundation.

The Literary Context: 1 Corinthians 12—14

Chapter 13 is not an independent love poem that Paul inserted into his letters. It is the theological hinge of a three-chapter argument. Reading it in isolation --- as if it were a wedding reading --- strips it of its polemical force.

The Corinthian Problem

The congregation at Corinth had developed a spiritual hierarchy. Tongues were the prestige gift. Those who spoke in tongues --- particularly in public, without interpretation --- were regarded as especially Spirit-filled, especially advanced. This created pride, disorder, and fractures in the body. Paul has been addressing this throughout chapters 12—14.

The Three-Chapter Arc

Chapter 12: Diversity of Gifts. Paul establishes that all gifts come from the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God (12:4-6). The body has many members; no one member is the whole body; the less-honored members are indispensable (12:22-24). The chapter ends pointedly at 12:28-31: God has appointed in the church apostles, prophets, teachers --- and then tongues, listed last among eight categories. Paul asks rhetorically: do all speak with tongues? (12:30). The implied answer is no.

Then comes the transition that introduces Chapter 13:

“But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.” --- 1 Corinthians 12:31 (KJV)

The phrase “a more excellent way” (kath’ hyperbolēn hodon, literally “a surpassing-excellence way”) introduces Chapter 13 as the climax of the argument --- not a sentimental digression, but the decisive move.

Chapter 13: The Supremacy and Permanence of Love. Paul’s argument has three movements:

vv. 1—3: Without love, every gift --- including tongues, prophecy, and even martyrdom --- is worthless. This is a direct challenge to Corinthian values.
vv. 4—7: Love’s character: patient, kind, not envious, not self-seeking.
vv. 8—13: Love’s permanence versus the temporariness of gifts. The gifts are for now; love is forever. This is the theological argument that requires our closest attention.

Chapter 14: Return to the Gifts Discussion. The bridge back is explicit:

“Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.” --- 1 Corinthians 14:1 (KJV)

Chapter 14 then provides the practical instruction that was suspended for Chapter 13: prophecy is greater than tongues because it edifies the whole body. Tongues without interpretation is worthless in public worship. Everything must be done decently and in order (14:40).

The structure reveals Paul’s purpose: Chapter 13 is not a standalone meditation on love. It is the theological basis for Chapter 14’s practical rulings. Because love is supreme and permanent, and gifts are temporary instruments of love, gifts must be governed by love --- which means intelligibility (edification) takes priority over ecstatic experience.

The Full Greek Text of 1 Corinthians 13:8—13

The following is the NA28 Greek text with a translation that tracks the Greek as closely as possible:

v. 8 Ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει· εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται· εἴτε γλῶσσαι, παύσονται· εἴτε γνῶσις, καταργηθήσεται.

Love never falls/fails. But whether prophecies, they will be rendered inoperative; whether tongues, they will cease; whether knowledge, it will be rendered inoperative.

v. 9 ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν·

For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

v. 10 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται.

But whenever the perfect comes, the partial will be rendered inoperative.

v. 11 ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐφρόνουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐλογιζόμην ὡς νήπιος· ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.

When I was a child, I was speaking as a child, I was thinking as a child, I was reasoning as a child; but when I have become a man, I have rendered inoperative the things of the child.

v. 12 βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

For we see now through a mirror in a riddle, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as also I was fully known.

v. 13 νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα· μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη.

But now there remains faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Verse-by-Verse Grammatical Analysis

Verse 8 --- Three gifts, two verbs.

The structure is a triple eite … eite … eite (“whether … whether … whether”). But the two verbs are not the same:

Prophecies: καταργηθήσονται --- future passive indicative of καταργέω
Tongues: παύσονται --- future middle indicative of παύω
Knowledge: καταργηθήσεται --- future passive indicative of καταργέω

Prophecies and knowledge share a verb (καταργέω, future passive). Tongues alone receive the verb παύω in the middle voice. Whether the variation is deliberate or a stylistic variatio is itself one of the contested points --- the debate about what the variation means, and whether it means anything, is addressed in detail in the word study section below.

Note also the single verb piptei (“falls/fails”) for love: οὐδέποτε πίπτει --- “never fails.” Love does not cease, does not become inoperative, does not fall away.

Verse 10 --- The key verse.

ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον employs a deliberate grammatical construction:

ὅταν + subjunctive = indefinite temporal clause: “whenever,” “at whatever time.” This is not ὅτε (which would mean “when,” marking a more definite future). ὅταν leaves the timing open --- indefiniteness of the temporal anchor, not uncertainty about whether the event will occur. Paul assumes the arrival; he does not name a date (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 478-79 on the indefinite temporal construction).
ἔλθῃ = aorist active subjunctive of erchomai, “to come.” The aorist here refers to a single, point-in-time arrival --- not an ongoing process.
τὸ τέλειον = the neuter singular definite article + neuter singular adjective used as a substantive. This is “the perfect [thing/state].” The neuter prima facie suggests a state or event rather than a person --- which is why the ablest advocates of the personal reading speak of “the state of affairs at Christ’s coming” rather than of Christ simpliciter. Framed that way, the personal reading and the eternal-state reading begin to converge. (It is worth recording that the objection is modern: “none of the extant Greek fathers even remarks on any supposed difficulty of applying the neuter gender to the eschaton” --- Shogren, JPT 15 [1999].)
τὸ ἐκ μέρους = “the partial [thing/state].” The article + prepositional phrase used as a substantive, exactly parallel to τὸ τέλειον. What is partial will be rendered inoperative.

Verse 11 --- The childhood analogy.

Paul shifts to first-person autobiographical form: “When I was a child… but when I became a man…” Three activities characterize childhood: speaking (elaloun), thinking (ephronoun), reasoning (elogizomēn) --- all imperfect tense (continuous past action). Then: “I have put away childish things” (katērgēka ta tou nēpiou) --- perfect tense (completed action with present result). Paul has put them away and they remain put away. The analogy emphasizes both the decisive character of the transition and the naturalness of it: no one mourns the end of childhood when adulthood arrives. The partial is not condemned; it is superseded.

But the analogy raises an important exegetical question: does the transition from childhood to adulthood happen gradually (maturation over time) or suddenly (a decisive event, like a Roman toga virilis ceremony)? The Greek does not settle this. The perfect gegona (“I have become”) in verse 11 --- like the perfect katērgēka beside it --- describes a completed transition whose result abides, which fits a decisive arrival with an enduring state; yet the process of growing up is gradual. The verb form itself favors the decisive, completed transition; the gradual dimension is supplied by the cultural image of growth, not by the tense. Both dimensions are present in the image.

Verse 12 --- Two types of knowing.

The verse contrasts two time-markers (arti vs. tote, “now” vs. “then”) and two verbs for knowing:

ἄρτι γινώσκω = “now I know” --- present active indicative of ginōskō (G1097), general knowing, partial knowing
τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι = “but then I will know fully” --- future middle indicative of epiginōskō (G1921), intensive compound verb

This is not the same verb in two tenses. Paul deliberately switches verbs. The prefixed epi- carries the force of thoroughness or completeness (cf. BDAG on epiginōskō: “to have a thoroughgoing knowledge of, know well”).

Then comes the most remarkable clause: kathōs kai epegnōsthēn --- “even as also I was (fully) known.” This is aorist passive of epiginōskō: Paul was fully, thoroughly known. By whom? The passive without agent leaves the referent unstated, but the context overwhelmingly points to God. Paul is saying: the full knowing that awaits us in the “then” will be analogous to the way God already fully knows us. God’s perfect, complete knowledge of us becomes the standard by which our future knowledge will be measured.

Verse 13 --- The logical “now.”

νυνὶ δέ (“but now”) opens the concluding verse. The particle nuni is the emphatic form of nun (“now”). This “now” is more likely logical than temporal, though careful exegetes defend both readings. The logical “now” means: “as things stand, given everything I have argued” --- the current dispensation, the between-times in which we live, is characterized by faith, hope, and love. On the temporal reading, faith and hope “remain” through the present age and give way at the arrival of “the perfect” --- faith to sight (2 Cor. 5:7), hope to possession (Rom. 8:24) --- a reading that, far from weakening the argument, itself points “the perfect” toward the eschaton (see Appendix A). On either reading, love alone extends into the eternal state, because love is of the nature of God himself.

Deep Word Studies

τέλειος / τὸ τέλειον (teleios / to teleion, G5046)

Form in 1 Cor 13:10: τὸ τέλειον --- neuter singular substantive with definite article.

Root: From τέλος (G5056), “end, goal, completion.” The teleios family clusters around the idea of having reached one’s telos --- one’s intended end, goal, or purpose. This is not primarily moral perfection (as in modern English “perfect”) but functional completeness: a thing is teleios when it fully actualizes its purpose.

BDAG (3rd ed., p. 995-996): “pertaining to meeting the highest standard, perfect … (1) of persons: full-grown, adult, mature … (2) of things: complete, perfect.”

Semantic range across the NT:

Reference	Form	Context	Meaning in Context
Matt 5:48	τέλειοι (pl.)	”Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father … is perfect”	Moral completeness, imitation of God
1 Cor 2:6	τελείοις (dat. pl.)	”We speak wisdom among them that are perfect”	Mature believers (vs. immature, “babes in Christ”)
1 Cor 14:20	τέλειοι (pl.)	”In understanding be men” (lit. “be teleioi”)	Intellectual and spiritual maturity, contrasted with children
Eph 4:13	ἄνδρα τέλειον	”unto a perfect man”	Corporate maturity of the body of Christ
Phil 3:15	τέλειοι (pl.)	”Let us therefore, as many as be perfect”	Those who are mature in faith (Paul includes himself)
Col 1:28	τέλειον	”present every man perfect in Christ Jesus”	Goal of apostolic ministry
Heb 5:14	τελείων (gen. pl.)	“strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age”	Mature believers, contrasted with “babes”
James 1:4	τέλειοι… ὁλόκληροι	”Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire”	Completion through tested patience
James 1:25	νόμον τέλειον	”the perfect law of liberty”	The complete, sufficient law (of Christ)

Observation on neuter τὸ τέλειον: Of the NT uses listed above, all refer to persons or process except James 1:25 (nomon teleion, “perfect law”) and 1 Cor 13:10 (to teleion). The neuter substantive to teleion could refer to:

A state or condition (“the perfect state” / “completeness”)
A thing (“the perfect thing” / “the completed canon”)
A person (possible only in an extended sense --- the neuter more naturally names a state or event, which is why precise advocates of this reading speak of the state of affairs at Christ’s coming)
An event (“the perfect [event]” / “the consummation”)

The grammar alone does not settle which. Context must decide --- and context is precisely what is disputed.

καταργέω (katargeō, G2673)

Form in 1 Cor 13:10: καταργηθήσεται --- future passive indicative, third person singular.

Etymology: κατά (down, against) + ἀργός (idle, inactive, from ἀ- + ἔργον, “work”) = “to make idle, to render inoperative, to put out of function.”

BDAG (p. 525): “to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness, invalidate, make powerless, make ineffective; to cause to come to an end or to be no longer in existence, abolish, wipe out, set aside.”

This is not the word for destruction. Paul uses several different words for ending: apollumi (destroy, perish), phtheirō (corrupt, destroy), lyō (loose, dissolve). Katargeō consistently carries the nuance of supersession --- a lesser reality is made inoperative by the arrival of a greater one. The lesser thing is not annihilated; it is rendered unnecessary.

Paul’s usage of καταργέω across his letters (25 occurrences --- more than any other NT writer):

Rom 6:6 --- “the body of sin might be destroyed (katargeō)” --- the body of sin rendered inoperative, not annihilated; the believer still has a body
Rom 7:2 --- “she is loosed (katargeō) from the law of her husband” --- freed from obligation by death of the husband
1 Cor 1:28 --- “to bring to nought (katargeō) things that are” --- worldly wisdom rendered ineffective by the cross
1 Cor 2:6 --- “the princes of this world, that come to nought (katargeō)” --- rulers whose wisdom is being made inoperative
1 Cor 6:13 --- “God shall destroy (katargeō) both it and them” --- food and the belly rendered inoperative at resurrection
1 Cor 13:8, 10 --- prophecies and knowledge rendered inoperative by the perfect
1 Cor 15:24 --- “he shall have put down (katargeō) all rule and all authority and power”
1 Cor 15:26 --- “The last enemy that shall be destroyed (katargeō) is death”
2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13, 14 --- the old covenant glory “done away” (katargeō) by the greater glory of the new covenant
Gal 3:17 --- “the covenant… cannot disannul (katargeō)” the promise
Gal 5:4 --- “Christ is become of no effect (katargeō) unto you” --- the effect of grace nullified by those who seek justification by law
Eph 2:15 --- “abolished (katargeō) in his flesh the enmity” --- the law of commandments rendered inoperative

The consistent Pauline pattern: Something good (the law, the old covenant glory, the gifts) is made inoperative by the arrival of something better (Christ, the new covenant, the perfect). Katargeō does not mean the lesser thing was bad; it means the greater thing has arrived and made it unnecessary.

The use of the passive voice (katargēthēsetai) is significant: the gifts do not cease themselves; they are rendered inoperative by an external agent --- the coming of the perfect. Compare the middle voice of παύσονται for tongues (see below).

παύω (pauō, G3973)

Form in 1 Cor 13:8: παύσονται --- future middle indicative, third person plural.

Active voice (pauō): “to stop, cause to cease” --- transitive. One thing stops another.

Middle voice (pauomai): “to cease oneself, come to an end of one’s own accord” --- intransitive, reflexive. The action stops from within.

The middle voice question has generated significant exegetical debate in recent decades, particularly among cessationist and continuationist scholars.

The cessationist argument from the middle voice (associated especially with Thomas R. Edgar; Robert L. Thomas advances it more tentatively --- “perhaps no great significance may be attached to this distinction,” he concedes, before exploring it): The distinction between katargeō (passive) for prophecy and knowledge versus pauō (middle) for tongues is theologically intentional. Katargeō in the passive means “will be rendered inoperative [by an external cause]” --- the coming of the perfect. But pausomai in the middle means “will cease of itself” --- tongues will stop on their own, independent of and prior to the coming of the perfect. On this reading, tongues ceased as a spontaneous, internal cessation (perhaps at the close of the apostolic age), while prophecy and knowledge await the coming of the perfect to be done away.

The continuationist response (associated especially with D.A. Carson, Max Turner, and Gordon Fee): The middle voice of pauō does not carry the weight this argument requires. In Hellenistic Greek, the distinction between middle and passive voices was collapsing; deponent verbs (always middle in form, active in meaning) were common; and pauō in the middle was simply the standard intransitive usage of this verb. It does not imply self-causation in any meaningful theological sense. The argument, on this view, “overloads” a common grammatical form. Furthermore, Paul does not say when the ceasing will occur; he lists tongues, prophecies, and knowledge together as temporary, without necessarily implying they cease at different times.

The state of the argument: Both sides agree on the grammar --- παύσονται is future middle. The debate is whether the middle voice implies a different timing or mechanism of cessation compared to the passive katargēthēsontai. Wallace’s treatment --- the standard intermediate grammar’s --- is double-edged, and now verified against the print (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 422-23). Against the deponent reading he notes that “παύσονται is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives,” and that “the real force of παύω in the middle is intransitive… in the middle, it ceases from its own activity”; he concludes that “Paul seems to be making a point that is more than stylistic in his shift in verbs.” But he immediately adds the boundary: “this is not to say that the middle voice in 1 Cor 13:8 proves that tongues already ceased! This verse does not specifically address when tongues would cease, although it is giving a terminus ad quem: when the perfect comes.” So the tradition’s own reference grammar lands where this study does: the variation is real and cannot be dismissed as purely accidental --- and it fixes no date. It warrants careful attention without certainty.

ἔσοπτρον (esoptron, G2072)

Form in 1 Cor 13:12: δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου --- genitive singular, “through a mirror.”

Etymology: ἐς/εἰς (into) + ὀπτ- (seeing, from optanomai) = “the thing for seeing into” --- a mirror.

Ancient mirrors: In the first century, mirrors were made of polished metal --- typically bronze. Glass mirrors, backed with reflective material, were a much later invention. Ancient bronze mirrors gave a recognizable but distorted, imperfect reflection: you could see your general form and features, but the image was dim, wavering, and monochromatic. Even a high-quality mirror showed an approximation.

Corinthian bronze (aes Corinthium): This detail is not incidental. Paul is writing to Corinth --- a city whose bronze work was celebrated throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. Pliny the Elder (Natural History 34.6-8, c. 77 AD) records that Corinthian bronze (aes Corinthium) was more highly prized than silver or even gold --- its formula, according to the legend he reports, blended by chance when Corinth burned at its capture (hoc casus miscuit Corintho, cum caperetur, incensa, NH 34.6). He describes three varieties: one approaching the color of silver, another more resembling gold, and a third in which the metals were blended in equal proportions (NH 34.8). Beyond these he mentions a bronze whose formula could not be reproduced --- the liver-colored hepatizon --- which he ranks well below the Corinthian, though far above the bronzes of Aegina and Delos.

Paul’s audience would have understood immediately: even the polished bronze mirrors of everyday Corinthian life --- and Corinthian bronze was the most prized metalwork in the ancient world --- produced only a dim, partial image. If that is your best seeing, how much more limited is your knowledge compared to what the “then” will reveal.

NT usage of ἔσοπτρον: This word appears only twice in the NT:

1 Corinthians 13:12 (here)
James 1:23 --- “a man beholding his natural face in a glass (esoptron)” --- one who looks in a mirror and then immediately forgets what he saw

The LXX uses esoptron only twice, both times in deuterocanonical wisdom literature: Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, where Wisdom is “an unspotted mirror (ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον) of the working of God,” and Sirach 12:11. Its rarity makes Paul’s choice deliberate and precise.

αἴνιγμα (ainigma, G135)

Form in 1 Cor 13:12: ἐν αἰνίγματι --- “in a riddle/enigma.”

Etymology: From ainisomai, “to speak in riddles.” The word gives English “enigma.”

BDAG (p. 27): “an obscure or difficult matter, riddle, enigma, indirect image.”

NT usage: This word appears only once in the entire New Testament --- here. That rarity signals that Paul chose it for a specific reason.

The critical Old Testament allusion: The word resonates with the Septuagint of Numbers 12:8, where God speaks of Moses:

“With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches (δι᾽ αἰνιγμάτων, di’ ainigmatōn); and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” --- Numbers 12:8 (KJV)

In the LXX, God contrasts his communication with the prophets (through visions and dreams, in riddles --- ainigmata) with his communication with Moses (mouth to mouth, clearly, not in riddles). Among the prophets, Moses alone knew God “face to face” as a standing mode of communication --- “not in dark speeches” (Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10). (Scripture applies the idiom punctually to others --- Jacob at Peniel, Gen. 32:30; Israel at Horeb, Deut. 5:4; Gideon, Judg. 6:22 --- but for no one else is it an ongoing mode of revelation.)

Paul’s use of ainigma in 1 Corinthians 13:12 is almost certainly a deliberate echo of Numbers 12:8. He is saying: our present knowing is like that of the ordinary prophet --- through visions, through indirect means, through riddles. The “then” will be like Moses --- face to face, not through enigma. But Paul is not saying that a few special people will have this. He is saying that all believers, when the perfect comes, will have what only Moses had in the old covenant.

πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (prosōpon pros prosōpon)

Literal meaning: “face toward face,” “face to face.”

The OT background is essential for understanding what Paul means. This phrase carries enormous covenantal weight in the Hebrew scriptures:

Genesis 32:30 (English versification; MT and LXX Rahlfs number the verse 32:31):

“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים / LXX: εἶδον γὰρ θεὸν πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον), and my life is preserved.” --- Genesis 32:30 (KJV)

Jacob’s encounter at the Jabbok was unique. He wrestled with the divine and survived, naming the place “face of God.”

Exodus 33:11:

“And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים / LXX: ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ), as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.” --- Exodus 33:11 (KJV)

The intimacy here is remarkable: as one friend speaks to another. Yet paradoxically, Exodus 33:20-23 limits this: Moses cannot see God’s face and live; he sees God’s back. The “face to face” language is relational and covenantal, not necessarily literal visual perception of the divine face.

Numbers 12:8:

“With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” --- Numbers 12:8 (KJV)

The LXX has: stoma kata stoma lalēsō autō, en eidei, kai ou di’ ainigmatōn --- “mouth to mouth I will speak with him, clearly (in form/vision), and not through riddles.” The contrast with ainigmata (riddles) is the precise background Paul is drawing on in 1 Cor 13:12.

Deuteronomy 34:10:

“And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.” --- Deuteronomy 34:10 (KJV)

This eulogy of Moses at his death declares that no subsequent prophet achieved what Moses had. The “face to face” relationship was Moses’s unique privilege in the old covenant.

Paul’s claim is striking: When “the perfect” comes, what was Moses’s exclusive privilege in the old covenant --- knowing God face to face, not through riddles --- will become the common experience of all believers. This elevates “the perfect” to something of extraordinary eschatological weight. Whatever it is, it must be sufficient to grant every believer Mosaic intimacy with God.

ἐπιγινώσκω (epiginōskō, G1921) versus γινώσκω (ginōskō, G1097)

In 1 Cor 13:12:

“now I know” = ἄρτι γινώσκω (G1097) --- present active indicative, general knowing
“then I shall know fully” = τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι (G1921) --- future middle indicative, intensive compound

The epi- prefix on epiginōskō carries the force of thoroughness or intensification. BDAG (p. 369): “to have a thoroughgoing knowledge of, know well; to know again, recognize; to acknowledge.” Moulton and Milligan note that in papyri, epiginōskō often carries the nuance of “official recognition” or “full identification.” Fee (NICNT on 1 Corinthians) notes that “the compound form implies a fuller, more complete knowledge.”

The passive clause: kathōs kai epegnōsthēn --- “even as also I was fully known” (aorist passive). God’s epiginōskō of Paul is the standard. Paul does not say “I will know as much as God knows” (which would be absurd) but “my knowing will be like the way I have been known” --- relational, thorough, personal, without the veil of partiality. The emphasis is on the quality of the relationship, not on omniscience.

The contrast in the passage:

Present: partial (γινώσκω) --- like seeing in a mirror, in a riddle
Future: full (ἐπιγνώσομαι) --- like face to face, like the knowing by which God has known us

The Critical Parallel: Ephesians 4:11—13

This passage is the most important parallel in Paul’s letters for understanding what “the perfect” might mean:

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” --- Ephesians 4:11-13 (KJV)

Key observations:

The gifts serve “until” (mechri --- “until, as long as”) something is reached. The gifts are means to an end, not permanent features of the body.
The goal is “a perfect man” (eis andra teleion) --- the same teleios root as in 1 Cor 13:10. Here it is explicitly applied to the corporate body of Christ: not a mature individual but “a perfect man” referring to the church in its full, unified, mature state.
The standard is “the fulness of Christ” (tou plērōmatos tou Christou) --- the complete Christ, the whole body joined to its head.
Potential connection to 1 Cor 13:10: If the “perfect man” of Eph 4:13 and the to teleion of 1 Cor 13:10 refer to the same eschatological reality, then:
- The gifts (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers in Eph 4; prophecy, tongues, knowledge in 1 Cor 13) are temporary instruments
- Their purpose is to bring the body to maturity/completeness
- When that maturity/completeness arrives, the instruments are superseded
A complication: The gifts listed in Eph 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) are not identical to those in 1 Cor 13:8 (prophecy, tongues, knowledge). Are these the same set of gifts discussed in both passages, or different gift-categories? Cessationists sometimes argue that the “foundational” gifts of apostles and prophets (cf. Eph 2:20) ended with the apostolic generation, while the “body-building” gifts continue. Others argue the two lists overlap significantly and should be read together.

The Eph 4:13 parallel does not settle the question --- it intensifies it. The “perfect man” in Ephesians is clearly the corporate maturity of the body of Christ, but whether this is achieved at Christ’s return, through ongoing history, or in the eternal state is not specified.

Translation Comparison Table

1 Corinthians 13:8 --- Three Gifts, Key Verbs

Translation	”prophecies shall fail"	"tongues shall cease"	"knowledge shall vanish”
KJV	”they shall fail"	"they shall cease"	"it shall vanish away”
ESV	”they will pass away"	"they will cease"	"it will pass away”
NASB (2020)	“they will be done away"	"they will cease"	"it will be done away”
NET	”they will be set aside"	"they will cease"	"it will be set aside”
NIV (2011)	“they will cease"	"they will be stilled"	"it will pass away”
LSB	”they will be done away"	"they will cease"	"it will be done away”

Note: Only the KJV and NIV render the two occurrences of katargeō (prophecies, knowledge) with different English words (KJV: “fail” / “vanish away”; NIV: “cease” / “pass away”). Every version shown renders the two verbs differently: all but the NIV reserve “cease” for pauō, while the NIV inverts the pattern, giving “cease” to prophecies (katargeō) and “be stilled” to tongues (pauō). The NASB and LSB most clearly show the passive vs. middle distinction by rendering katargeō as “done away” (passive force implied) and pauō as “cease” (intransitive/reflexive).

1 Corinthians 13:10 --- “The Perfect”

Translation	Rendering of τὸ τέλειον	Notes
KJV	”that which is perfect”	Relative pronoun + adj.; neuter preserved
ESV	”the perfect”	Clean and minimal
NASB (2020)	“the perfect”	Same as ESV
LSB	”the perfect”	Same
NIV (2011)	“completeness”	Abstracts to a state rather than a thing
NET	”what is perfect”	Concrete substantive, like the KJV
NLT	”the time of perfection comes”	Paraphrases as temporal event
NRSV	”the complete”	State

Significance: The NIV and NRSV render to teleion as an abstraction (“completeness,” “the complete”) rather than a substantive noun (“the perfect [thing]”); the NET keeps the concrete substantive (“what is perfect”). This reflects a translational choice that slightly favors the “state” interpretation over the “event” or “person” interpretation, though the NET’s translator note discusses the ambiguity explicitly.

1 Corinthians 13:12 --- Mirror and Knowing

Translation	”through a glass"	"darkly” / “dimly"	"know fully”
KJV	”through a glass"	"darkly"	"know even as also I am known”
ESV	”in a mirror"	"dimly"	"know fully, even as I have been fully known”
NASB (2020)	“in a mirror"	"dimly"	"know fully, just as I also have been fully known”
LSB	”in a mirror"	"dimly"	"know fully, just as I also have been fully known”
NIV (2011)	“in a mirror"	"dimly” (literally “obscurely”)	“know fully, even as I am fully known”
NET	”in a mirror indirectly”	[phrase combined]	“know fully, just as I have been fully known”

The KJV’s “glass” and “darkly”: The KJV’s “glass” follows the common early modern English usage (a “looking glass” = a mirror). The Greek esoptron is precisely a mirror, not a window --- the modern translations are more accurate. “Darkly” (en ainigmati) is literally “in a riddle/enigma” --- “dimly” (ESV/NASB/NIV) softens this into visual metaphor and loses the OT allusion to Numbers 12:8. Technically “in a riddle” is the most accurate rendering, but it sounds peculiar in modern English.

The Four Candidate Interpretations: Strongest Scriptural Arguments

Chapter 4 presents each view in full detail. Here, the goal is to identify the strongest scriptural argument for each --- the passage that, if interpreted in a particular way, most naturally supports that view.

1. Completed Canon (Cessationism)

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect (teleios), throughly furnished (exērtismenos) unto all good works.” --- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)

Argument: While the word rendered “perfect” in 2 Timothy 3:17 is ἄρτιος (“complete, fitted”), not τέλειος, proponents argue the concept is directly parallel: the exērtismenos (“thoroughly furnished, fully equipped”) of the man of God suggests that Scripture is sufficient --- it gives the believer everything needed. If Scripture already provides “the perfect” equipment, then the arrival of “the perfect” of 1 Cor 13:10 may coincide with the completion of the canon. Supporting texts: James 1:25 (“the perfect law of liberty” --- a completed, sufficient law) and Jude 3 (“the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”).

2. Christ’s Return (Classic Continuationism)

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and 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 (KJV)

Argument: The “face to face” language of 1 Cor 13:12 most naturally describes the vision of God / Christ that believers receive at the resurrection. “We shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2) is the most direct NT parallel for seeing “face to face.” Supporting texts: 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (the resurrection transformation), Philippians 3:20-21 (“he shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body”), and Revelation 22:4 (“they shall see his face”).

3. Corporate Church Maturity (Progressive-Historical View)

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” --- Ephesians 4:13 (KJV)

Argument: The “perfect man” of Eph 4:13 is the corporate maturity of the body of Christ --- the church growing up together into its Head. If to teleion in 1 Cor 13:10 refers to this same corporate maturity, then the gifts cease when the church reaches that mature, unified, fully-functioning state. Supporting texts: Colossians 1:28 (Paul’s goal to “present every man perfect in Christ”), Hebrews 6:1 (“let us go on unto perfection”), and the structural argument that the gifts of Eph 4:11 serve “until” (mechri) this maturity is reached.

4. Eternal State (Glorification View)

“And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” --- Revelation 21:3 (KJV)

Argument: The “face to face” knowledge of 1 Cor 13:12 --- knowing as we are known --- can only be fully realized in the eternal state, when the veil of creation-finitude is removed entirely. The “then” of Paul’s contrast is the eternal state, not a penultimate event. Supporting text: Revelation 22:4 (“they shall see his face”) --- the direct vision of God that was denied even to Moses (Exod 33:20) will finally be granted in the new creation.

What Is Clear

Paul is contrasting a present state (“now,” “in part”) with a future state (“then,” “the perfect”) --- the transition is clearly future from Paul’s perspective in his own argument.
Three gifts (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) are explicitly described as temporary. Love is explicitly described as permanent: “charity never faileth.”
The verb katargeō for prophecy and knowledge carries the nuance of supersession, not annihilation --- the gifts are not condemned but transcended.
The verb pauō in the middle voice is used specifically for tongues --- this is a grammatical fact, though its interpretive significance is disputed.
The “face to face” language of verse 12 deliberately echoes the Mosaic tradition of Numbers 12:8 and Deuteronomy 34:10 --- whatever the “perfect” is, it grants believers a form of knowing that surpasses even prophetic experience and approximates (in relational quality) the unique intimacy Moses had with God.
The ἐπί-prefix on epiginōskō signals a more thorough, complete knowing than the partial ginōskō of the present age.
The neuter τὸ τέλειον is a substantive, not a predicate adjective --- Paul is referring to a specific reality (“the perfect [thing/state/event/person]”), not describing something as “perfect.”
Chapter 13 functions as the theological hinge of 1 Corinthians 12—14, not as a freestanding love poem. Its argument about the temporariness of gifts is made in service of Paul’s pastoral argument about order in worship.

What Is Debated

Whether the middle voice of παύσονται signals that tongues will cease before, independently of, or simultaneously with the doing-away of prophecy and knowledge at the coming of the perfect. The grammar is real; its theological weight is disputed.
Whether τὸ τέλειον refers to (a) the completed New Testament canon, (b) Christ’s return and resurrection, (c) the corporate maturity of the body of Christ, or (d) the eternal state. The neuter substantive is compatible with all four readings; context must adjudicate and context is itself disputed.
Whether the childhood analogy (v. 11) models a gradual process (the church maturing over centuries) or a decisive event-transition (the arrival of a new dispensation or age). The perfect gegona (“I have become”) suggests a completed transition with an abiding result, but growing up is gradual.
Whether “face to face” in verse 12 refers to a literal seeing of Christ at his return, a relational quality of knowing available through the Spirit, or the direct vision of God granted only in the eternal state. All three OT parallels (Genesis 32:30, Exodus 33:11, Numbers 12:8) are themselves somewhat metaphorical for “direct encounter.”
Whether Ephesians 4:13 (“a perfect man”) refers to the same event or state as 1 Corinthians 13:10, and if so, which interpretation of Eph 4:13 should govern 1 Cor 13:10.
Whether “now I know in part” describes an epistemological limitation inherent to creatureliness (which would persist until the eternal state) or a provisional limitation of the present age relative to the age of full revelation (which would end at a particular historical or eschatological moment).
Whether νυνὶ δέ (“but now”) in verse 13 is temporal (referring to the present age) or logical (referring to the state of affairs as Paul has described it) --- which affects whether faith, hope, and love all persist into the eternal state.

Summary (Scripture)

The textual evidence of 1 Corinthians 13:8—13 presents a case study in genuine grammatical ambiguity at a theologically crucial point. What is not ambiguous is Paul’s main argument: love is permanent; gifts are temporary servants of love; the partial is destined to be superseded by the perfect. These claims Paul makes with force and clarity. The debate begins precisely where Paul says when and what --- and here the text deliberately leaves the referent of to teleion unresolved.

The word studies reveal a rich semantic field. Teleios in the neuter substantive is unusual in Paul and could point to a state, an event, a corporate reality, or --- less likely but grammatically possible --- a person. Katargeō tells us the transition will be one of supersession, not destruction. The middle voice of pauō is a grammatical fact that has generated serious exegetical argument; neither the cessationist nor the continuationist reading should be dismissed. The mirror and the ainigma anchor Paul’s argument in the Moses tradition of Numbers 12:8, suggesting that whatever the “then” is, it brings believers into the quality of divine intimacy that was Moses’s exclusive privilege in the old covenant. The double-compound epignōsomai points to a mode of knowing qualitatively unlike present experience --- thorough, personal, analogous to God’s knowing of us.

The four candidate interpretations --- completed canon, Christ’s return, church maturity, eternal state --- each have genuine scriptural footing. The honest exegete must acknowledge that the text was not written to settle the cessationist-continuationist debate that was unknown to Paul; it was written to humble the gift-proud Corinthians by showing them that even their most impressive charismatic experiences are servants of something infinitely greater, and that something infinitely greater has not yet come. Whether it comes at the close of the apostolic age, at the Parousia, through the progressive maturation of the body, or only in the new creation: on that question, the text is genuinely open.

What is not open is Paul’s purpose in writing Chapter 13. He is not writing a philosophical treatise on epistemology. He is writing to a church that confused the means with the end, that elevated the servant above the master, that prized the instrument over the music it was meant to play. His answer is not to denigrate the gifts --- he urges his readers to desire them (14:1). His answer is to relativize them: love is eternal; gifts are for now; “now” is passing; therefore, govern your gifts by love.

Next: Chapter 2 examines what Jesus taught and demonstrated about love, knowledge, and the nature of the age to come --- and what his priorities reveal about the question at hand.