 |  |
is not valid: there is no word to correspond with "answer" in the original. A more literal
translation yields a different meaning and message:
"As water, face to face;
So heart, man to man."
"If I bring rock together, it abuts, but there is no mixture. If I pour sand together, it
meets, but I may trace the parcels if they differ; but `water' is a fine picture of `heart'
. . . . . two sparkling drops, as they touch, instantly are blended" (Miller).
There seems no room for doubt but that the apostle speaks of a "mirror" here. No one
having any acquaintance with language will be stumbled by the use of dia, "through".
We see "through" a mirror in the sense of "by means of" the mirror and dia with the
genitive is translated "by" or "through" in the sense in I Cor. 1: 1, 9, 10, 21; 2: 10;
3: 5, 15, to give no more instances.
What does the apostle mean when he says "in a glass darkly"? The word translated
"darkly" is ainigma, our English "enigma". There is an allusion here to Numb. 12: 8.
"Mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches" (ainigmaton).
Ainisso, the verb from which ainigma, "enigma", is derived, means to hint, intimate
with obscurity, insinuate, teach by figurative language.
We have discussed the necessary limitations of human knowledge and of Divine
revelation to human hearers in the series entitled "Fruits of "Fundamental Studies"
(Volume XXIX, p.161), and to this limitation the apostle refers when he says that "Now
we see by means of a mirror enigmatically".
Are there no images, figures, or symbols in the epistles of the mystery? Is not the very
title "Christ" a condescension to our limitations? It means "Anointed" and we can
appreciate the symbols involved, but when we see "face to face" will not the title "Christ"
be, for the first time in our experience, "recognized" even as we are "recognized"? Do
not the facts that lie behind the figures "head", "body", "members", "temple", "citizens"
await fuller recognition? If we now "know" even as we are known, what is the meaning
of the words:
"The Love of Christ which passeth knowledge"
or
"The peace of God which passeth all understanding"?
There are a few, who, by reason of temperament and circumstances, torment
themselves with problems concerning the future glory. One such problem that we have
had put to us is "Will the saints recognize their loved ones in glory?" For our own part,
we have no problem. Recognition is incipient in individuality, and individuality is vitally
bound up with memory, and I cannot remember things pertaining to myself without
remembering things pertaining to others. Peter, even in this life, apparently had no
difficulty in recognizing Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, even though
he had met neither of them in the flesh. Should any reader of these lines still be worried