For Now We See Through a Glass Darkly

"Through a Glass Darkly" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward
“Through a Glass Darkly” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward


The verse in Corinthians is that for now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we are consigned to ignorance or blindness and that we should just lie down and accept it as a curse.

How many people claim to have met God yet relish their ignorance and inflict it upon the rest of the world?

Some say there’s ignorance, and then there’s learned ignorance. I’m beginning to suspect that all ignorance is learned, or at least willful.

I’ve also discovered that, in a mysterious way, the wisdom that transcends knowledge still needs the knowledge that it transcends.


10 Replies to “For Now We See Through a Glass Darkly”

  1. Darkley – Oakley, very good


    Yes I agree that its not about lying down and accepting ignorance as a curse. Rather I understand it as whatever we do know, is small in comparison to everything that can be known which is reality.

    And in context I think it is not about bragging about knowledge and being annoying but about love. I remember one email doing the rounds a while ago entitled “what I have learned”. It had everything from a 5 year old saying they had learned that you can’t hide broccoli in a glass of milk to a 90 year old who had learned that he still has a lot to learn.

    I’m not sure if I understand you as you intend with all ignorance being learned or willful. If someone does something in ignorance is always because of being taught or through deliberate choice? Or could it just be because they don’t know about something in a way that has nothing to do with their life experiences or attitude? For example, if you put your feet up on a chair, showing the soles of your feet to someone else in some eastern countries, it’s taken as an insult. If you don’t know about that is it always because of what you have learned, you are deliberately choosing to insult, or just because you haven’t learned that it is an insult in that culture and have not intended to be insulting?

    I understand I think, better what you are intending with what you say about wisdom needing knowledge that it transcends. So wisdom needing the context of knowledge in which to be present?

  2. I am confused by the “e” in “darkley.” I am enough of a pedant that misspellings are enough to make me miss what’s going on. Is there some purpose, at present, lost on me, for the “e?”

  3. You said: “I’ve also discovered that, in a mysterious way, the wisdom that transcends knowledge still needs the knowledge that it transcends.”

    And I think you’re right. However, I believe that the knowledge transcended by wisdom and the knowledge that is a prerequisite for wisdom are not necessarily the same.

Comments are closed.