His name does not have to appear. Its interesting you take issue with me here, when nowhere in the text does Paul refer to the scriptures coming in a cannon in the future as some imply.
The difference is that I am making a WARRANTED conclusion based on the analysis of the text, whilst your assumption that it is Jesus whom we see 'face to face' is UNWARRANTED .
Even when you give verses about face to face not specifically referring to the Lord they still relate to one person face to face with another. Not face to face with them self in the scriptures.
The analogy here is to do with seeing a person. Before we see with difficulty (like seeing dimly in a mirror), afterwards we see clearly (like seeing someone face to face). I don't relate the analogy to scripture myself.
Paul says a similar expression of then I shall know as i am known. This I believe refers to a similar expression Paul uses when he speaks of the resurrection of the dead and our heavenly state or glorified body and and all things that are before us and the High Calling of God he says
"12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend [perceive apprehend, obtain,] that for which also I am apprehended [perceive apprehend, obtain,] of Christ Jesus.13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended"(Philippians 3:12 KJV)
These two expressions in 1 Cor 13 and Philippians here are similar and the one in Philippians shows who is apprehending us it is Christ Jesus. I believe this is also the same as when Paul says
"...but then shall I know [perceive, acknowledge fully aquainted with] even as also I am known [perceive apprehend, obtain,]"
There is no parallel there. The verbs you are trying to equate are completely different. In Phil 3:12 katalambanó means to 'lay hold' or 'make my own' which is what virtually every bible translates it as (even the NKJV).
NASB but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
NIV but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
ESV but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
RSV but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
NKJV that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
DLNT but I am pressing-on to see if I may indeed take-hold-of that for which also I was taken hold of by Christ Jesus.
EHV but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus also took hold of me.
No it doesn't. Paul doesn't use the word perfect in direct connection to the perfect man. though he does connect it as in this section
"10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away....but when I became a man..."(1 Cor 13:10,11 KJV)
The word 'that' does not appear in the Greek. The phrase "that which is perfect" is the KJV's translation of the word
teleios. As I said it is an adjective without a noun.
In a sense this can refer to many things, to our glorified body to come, our heavenly state and fullness of Christ, the wonderous state and fullnes of heaven and the revelations to come. The knowing of God and Jesus Christ an the things of God no more in part.
As the noun itself is missing, in theory it could be any number of things. We must use the context to determine what it might be. There is nothing eschatological in the context. Nor is the adjective telieos ever related to anything eschatological anywhere else in scripture. But revelation is certainly in context: the revelatory gifts ceasing and being replaced by something else. The word teleios has 3 meanings - perfect, mature, or completeness. Completeness is the best translation here (as per NIV etc) as it is the antithesis of 'in part'. So teleios most likely refers to completed revelation. ie scripture.
Paul talks of the resurrection from the dead and says,
1 Corinthians 15:42
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"
1 Corinthians 15:43
"It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:"
1 Corinthians 15:44
"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
So when Paul uses the expression "that which is perfect is come" it can refer to all aspects of fullness that God shows in the glorified state including being raised in incorruption, and power and a spiritual body where no more in part prophecy or tongues or knowledge are needed in part, for we shall know as we are known. We will have all things and be unto the fullness of Christ unto the perfect man to the image of His Son Jesus Christ.
Then Paul says,
12 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.13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."(Philippians 3:11-15 KJV)
Just because Paul talks about the resurrection of the dead elsewhere in scripture does not automatically mean that is what he is referring to here. Using that logic you can claim it to be absolutely anything that Paul has mentioned elsewhere.
Paul didn't mention the scriptures here at all.
Nor does he mention the return of Christ. But we can infer the completed canon from the context of the passage. You can't do that with your interpretation.
No, you are wrong here. It seems that you are trying to downplay Pauls strong argument about his personal knowing of that which is perfect come. Yoo must know that this argument about Opaul seeing that which is perfect one day and to then know as he is known is a strong one that defeats the entire argument against the gifts and prophecy continuing.
Paul said,
"9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part...12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
Paul simply speaks of all of the Corinthians, himself included when he says "we" related to prophesying in part and seeing darkly for now. But then in the future he uses the personal expression "I" speaking of a revelation of His own faith and assurance and says "then shall I know even as I am known. There is no reason to think when he uses the personal "I" that he does not mean himself. This is such a strong argument against your theory of the scripture being that which is perfect that I can see no way out of it by you, even with a snow storm of Greek and straining at grammatical structures that you seem to bring grasping at straws (which don't prove what your trying to make them in this instance).
If you are being pedantic about Paul's use of "I", then it must only apply to him and him only. Only Paul would know in part. Only Paul would know fully just as he was fully known. If we are using your logic that "Paul spoke by revelation" and so he must be taken literally then it can't be interpreted in any other way.
The fact is Paul uses the first person singular in reference to the 'before' state, and so it is natural to retain that perspective when he refers to the 'after' state. To insist he must switch to the third person because he didn't know if he would be alive when the canon was completed is beyond reasonableness.
Even if you do insist it must relate to Paul personally, just because Paul died before the canon was complete does not mean he would not know it fully when he is in heaven. God's word endures forever (1 Peter 1:25, Isa 40:8), so every believer will fully know the scriptures, even those who died before they were completed.
Your whole argument is self-defeating. If you say it can't be the canon because Paul's use of "I" indicates he had to be alive when he "knows fully", then that same argument must also apply to your interpretation - it can't be the 2nd coming because Paul won't be alive when Christ returns!
You sound like you just make up stuff and then believe it. The early church was not some weak ignorant believers who did not have what we have today so they were not able to fully know God's revelation.
Nonsense. Having the scriptures is vitally important in the life of believers.
Without scripture we are woefully unequipped.
2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Without scripture is impossible to evangelise:
Rom 10:17 "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
Without scripture we cannot discern our thoughts
Heb 4:12-14 "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart"
Without scripture we will drift away from the faith:
Hebrews 2:1 "Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it."
Without scripture we would spiritually starve:
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Without them we have no life:
Prov 4:23-23 My son, be attentive to my words; incline your ear to my sayings. Let them not escape from your sight; keep them within your heart. For they are life to those who find them,
Without them we not be sanctified
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
The early church was only able to survive because they had the gift of prophecy to make up for those scriptures that were missing.
