REASONS WHY TO TELEION CANNOT MEAN “THE PERFECT” IN 13:10
The most common definitions of the English word "perfect" applied to Corinthians 13:10 would probably include:
(a) being entirely without fault or defect
(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 New Testament." Utopian perfection was a philosophical notion, not a New Testament 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].o One other time, in
Colossians 4:12, it means "mature" in the Old Testament sense of wholeness and obedience to God's will, and picks up on his ambition for every man as stated in
Colossians 1:28." So six of the other seven times Paul uses the word, it means "mature." The remaining use is in
Romans 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 Corinthians 13:10, especially since its other two uses in 1 Corinthians have that sense.
[2] In the immediate context of
1 Corinthians 13:8–13, a qualitative word such as "perfect" is unsuitable in light of the apodosis of the sentence in 13:10, “Perfect" is not a suitable opposite to ek merous ["partial"). A better meaning would be "whole" or "complete" as antithetical to ek merous.
[3] The terminology of 13:11 is most conclusive because it is an analogy with the stages of human life [i.e., nēpios (“child"] and anēr ["man"]].
(a) The analogy directly impacts the meaning of to teleion in 13:10 because it sets up a teleios/nēpios antithesis in verses 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 nēpios/anēr antithesis in verse 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 blepomen ("I see") and ginõskõ ("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.
REASONS WHY TO TELEION MUST MEAN “COMPLETE” OR “MATURE”
Corresponding to the reasons for not translating "the perfect" in
1 Corinthians 13:10 are four considerations pointing toward the meaning “complete” or "mature" for to teleion.
1. The idea of totality, wholeness, or completion controls the New Testament usage of teleios. In the present connection, totality takes on an added dimension: "Yet in the main the feeling of antiquity . . . was that only an 'adult’ can be a 'full' man; hence these senses can overlap in Paul."' The thought behind the overlap of "complete" and "mature" in this word's usage is that in the minds of the ancients, adulthood represented a degree of completeness not present during childhood. If ever a clear case for this overlap in meaning existed,
1 Corinthians 13:10 is that case. The background of teleios not only allows for the overlap, the circumstances of the context also require the dual concept of “complete-mature."
2. Another reason for this meaning is the consistent sense of the teleios/ nēpios antithesis in Paul, the New Testament, and all Greek literature. Whenever in the proximity of nēpios, as it is in
1 Corinthians 13:10–11, teleios always carries the connotation of adulthood versus childhood [1 Cor. 2:6 and 3:1; 14:20; Eph. 3:13–14; cf. Heb. 5:13–14)." In
1 Corinthians 2:6 Paul speaks of imparting wisdom to tois teleiois (“the mature"), but he encounters an obstacle because, according to
1 Corinthians 3:1, his readers are nēpiois ("infants"]. In
1 Corinthians 14:20, his command to the Corinthians is to be children (nēpiazete) in malice but adults (teleioi) in understanding. In
Ephesians 4:13–14, his goal is for all members of Christ's body to attain to the unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, i.e., to a teleios anēr ("mature man"), so that they be no longer nēpioi (“children"). The writer of Hebrews echoes this antithesis in 5:13–14 when he compares elementary teaching to milk that is suitable for a nēpios ("child" or “infant") with solid food that is suitable for teleiōn ("the mature").
3. First Corinthians 12–14 has many parallels with
Ephesians 4:1-16, a passage that teaches the gradual maturing of the church through the present age. That correspondence is all the more instructive in light of Paul's presence in Ephesus while writing 1 Corinthians. He was probably teaching the Ephesian church the same principles he penned in the Corinthian letter. Then about five years later, as he wrote back to the Ephesian church, he found it necessary to reemphasize and develop the same truths about growth in the body of Christ that he had instructed them about while present with them. The similarities between the two contexts include the following:
- All Seven unifying influences listed in Ephesians 4:4-6 are present in 1 Corinthians 12–14 [1 Cor. 12:4-6, 13; 13:13, 14:22). Particularly noticeable are one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one baptism, and one God and Father of all.
- Emphasis on unity in the body [1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11–13, 24—26; Eph. 4:3, 13) along with the diversity of the body's members (1 Cor. 12:14—26; Eph. 4:11, 16) pervades each passage.
- The noun meros (“part") in both passages depicts individual members of Christ's body (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:16).
- Corporateness of the body (1 Cor. 12:27a; Eph. 4:15–16) combines with an individualistic focus [1 Cor. 12:27b; Eph. 4:4, 7, 16) as a ruling consideration in both places.
- The general subject under discussion in Ephesians (Eph. 4:7, 11) is spiritual gifts as it is in 1 Corinthians 12–14.
- The figure representing the church in both passages is the human body, as it is always when Paul talks about spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 4:4, 15–16; cf. Rom. 12:3-8).
- Edification of the body of Christ is the stated objective in both sections (1 Cor. 14:12, 26; Eph. 4:12, 16).
- Growth from childhood to adulthood is portrayed in Ephesians 4:13–14 as it is in 1 Corinthians 13:11,
- The nēpios/teleios anēr antithesis is found in Ephesians as it is in 1 Corinthians 13:10–11 (Eph. 4:13–14)
Love is the overarching quality in the growth process in both passages [1 Cor. 13:1-13; Eph. 4:15–16).
Since
Ephesians 4:1-16 offers a distinct picture of a gradually developing and maturing body of Christ," the probability is strong that Paul intends to convey the same in
1 Corinthians 13:11, Though he may not say explicitly “the complete or mature body" [i.e., the complete or mature body with reference to revelatory activity) in
1 Corinthians 13:10, he had doubtless taught them verbally at some time during his extended eighteen-month residence in Corinth (as he did the Ephesian church) regarding this analogy so that it was perfectly clear to them what he was talking about. It remains for the interpreter to clarify what he meant by resorting to another of his writings quite relevant to 1 Corinthians.
4. The illustration of 13:11 is hardly suitable to refer to the difference between the present and a period after the parousia. So, the analogy of verse 11 must be supplying data supplemental to what is in verse 12.
a. To say that the parousia is in view in verse 11 is to see Paul as using his own adult status to illustrate a perfection that follows the parousia. Yet, in
Philippians 3:12, he views himself as incomplete in his current state as an adult [teteleiōmai ("I am brought to completeness"), a perfect tense; cf. gegona,
1 Corinthians 13:11, which has a present force: "now that I am a man"). In fact, in the very next verse,
1 Corinthians 13:12, he disclaims such a completed state by noting that currently he is among those whose present state is that of conspicuous limitations." This state of incompletion in Paul as an adult negates any possibility that he intends his adulthood of verse 11 to correspond to the state of ultimate completion in verse 12. It is also contrary to Pauline Christian humility as reflected elsewhere in the apostle's Writings that he would choose such an illustration (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8; 1Tim. 1:15)
b. The nature of the transition from childhood to adulthood is not Sudden as will be the change at the parousia. It is a gradual process. Adolescence is a transitional period between childhood and adulthood.
c. By nature, the process described by katērgēka ("I render inoperative") in 13:11 indicates an altered condition that Continues. It is a dramatic perfecto It indicates "a change of state which still continues; the emancipation from childish things took place as a matter of course, . . . and it continues."* If Christ did not return before a permanent body of New Testament revelation was finished, a degree of completion would arrive that would render unnecessary a continuation of the process involving the revelatory gifts.
d. The difference between childhood and manhood is a feeble illustration of the vast difference between the Christian's present state and that which will exist after the parousia.
- From Understanding Spiritual Gifts - A verse by verse study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 by Robert Thomas (Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary in Sun Valley, CA).
