Seeing Through a Glass Darkly

In one of his early church epistles the Apostle Paul wrote these words: “Now we see through a glass darkly; then we shall see face to face.” (1 Corinthians 13:12). In this sentence he speaks specifically of perception—how we see the world around us and how that perception shapes our reality view. But in the same passage he also talks about knowing in the same vein. He writes: “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” The fact that he describes the same transition from incompleteness to fullness with both of these functions shows us that it is not the differentiation between perception and knowing that he is most concerned with. Rather it is the act of transitioning itself. It is the potential of all human beings to go from an inferior, limited present experience to a fuller, more expansive one. Or another way to describe it: it is the potential of every human being to evolve in consciousness.

Both perception and knowledge are inward human functions with their source in our unique created endowment of spiritual consciousness. They also speak of a depth of experience that no other creature shares. In other words, though other creatures have the capability for sensual perception and a degree of intelligence, only humans have the potential to “see face to face” and “to know fully, as they are fully known.” This ought not to surprise us, for it has been said of us that we were created in the image of God. But it also ought not to surprise us that an erudite and spiritually wise man like Paul spoke of a “now” and a “then.” Why? Because it was obvious to him that the life we are living at present is not the life that we are capable of living one day—that now we see life through a darkened, distorted lens and know only in part, whereas later when the promise of our potential has been realized, we will see clearly and know in full. Moreover, if a man like Paul said such things about himself, it can also be deduced that he saw this as a “general condition of mankind.” He may not have used the terminology of consciousness evolution, but clearly his writings pointed to this predicament. This present evolutionary outworking is the same for all of us and has been throughout this age.

There is another very important point that Paul is making in these statements. Notice that he does not describe our present condition as completely void of spiritual vibrancy, only as inferior to what it could be someday. Our present state is darkened and only partially knowledgeable, but it is an active and awakened spiritual state. This is, in fact, one of the greatest mysteries about human life, as we now know it. Many people tend to view our present condition according to one of two extremes. They either see us as fully evolved already or as not even having left the starting gate in this regard. Those who hold by the first extreme tend to be pragmatists who, while not claiming that human beings are perfect, simply believe that this present version of human life is so far above the rest of creation that to speak in terms of evolutionary growth still to come is nonsense. We are what we are, and the only sane way to view our present state is to, of course, always be trying to improve it but not to think that there is some mysterious spiritual power at work in us, moving us forward into realizing some potential that we can only speculate about. Contrastingly, those who view us as having not yet left the starting gate do not necessarily debunk the idea of consciousness evolution but rather see the present plight of man as one that is still dominated by biological instincts, emotional reactivity, and unspiritual urges. Man may still have a future in which spiritual vibrancy plays a part, but at present this is simply not the case.

But the Pauline teaching clearly dismisses both of these extremes. It says that mankind has awakened to his created endowment of spiritual consciousness and is at present living in a well-defined state, in which consciousness is, in fact, very active, but that this state of consciousness is not indicative of fullness and fruition—rather only of beginnings, like a seed state. This is what Paul meant by his less-than-flattering descriptions of our perceptive abilities and present condition of knowing. Clearly, he is not taking the position that we are already fully evolved; nor is he saying that we have yet to leave the starting gate. Rather our status lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Throughout this age humankind has been actively responding to consciousness and in small ways, at least, evolving. But at the same time, we have not even come close to reaching our fulfilled potential in the Christ. In fact, it is this insistence that we have already arrived that has been one of the main forces keeping us stuck.

At first glance we might think that the opinion Paul is expressing about mankind’s degree of development in his day is one that few others shared. And in terms of secular society this might very well have been true. Two thousand years ago human secular societies were much more likely to line up in the camp of one of the two extremes mentioned above, if they were philosophically inclined at all. But Paul was not alone in his views about this matter. Rather they can be verified in other weighty intellectual circles, such as the rich Jewish rabbinical tradition Paul had been trained up in. In fact, the biblical writings that had preceded Paul’s writings (the Old Testament) clearly share this view about man’s present state of consciousness. Moreover, so do the teachings of Jesus. The problem is that prior to Paul’s honest and self-deprecating statement, the biblical writings tended to be more mystical and difficult to interpret correctly, not to mention that the same held true for Jesus’ teachings. This is because both the Old Testament writings and Jesus’ teachings leaned heavily on the parabolic method of teaching. And in order for parables to impart true knowledge, they must be rightly interpreted.

We see this matter of interpretation being powerfully applicable to the religious institutions that have proliferated during the past two thousand years. For instance, we see the parable of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden being interpreted by the Catholic Church as a literal historical event—an interpretation that has carried with it tremendous moral implications. It is not overstating the matter to say that this one wrong interpretation of a biblical parable has set the moral tone for human life throughout the entirety of the age. In fact, it is still the dominant moral narrative to this day.

This mistaken interpretation completely negates the aspect of man’s created endowment of spiritual consciousness. It implies that not only was Adam without consciousness; he was without the potential for consciousness evolution. Adam appeared in the Garden “as is.” He was created on the spot as the first man, already fully formed. And unfortunately, he turned out to be a flawed creation—one susceptible to temptation and doing evil. And in this scenario though Adam is the one upon whose shoulders most of the blame for human failure is usually placed, some of that blame has also fallen upon God the Creator Himself. For, if God created Adam in His own image, clearly that is not saying a lot about God. But when this parable is correctly interpreted we not only cease to ascribe failure to Adam and God; we also learn the same truth that Paul was teaching. In other words, we come to see that Paul’s estimation of our spiritual condition was shared by Moses, the Prophets, and later by Jesus.

What is the correct interpretation of the Garden Parable? It is precisely that Adam was a human being just like us who happened to awake to his created endowment of spiritual consciousness, thereby initiating and activating an entirely new level of experience in both perception and knowing for humankind. This awakening was so transformative that it not only altered his life experience; it also changed his biological DNA. This meant that from that time forward all of Adam’s biological descendants would have a share in Adam’s initiation, simply by being born. From that time forward human beings would not only have a created endowment of consciousness within them; that endowment would be active and awake. In fact, it would not be long before human life would become completely dominated by consciousness’ evolutionary outworking. Suddenly consciousness was in our thoughts, emotions, even physical sensations. It impacted our decisions, reactions, choices, etc. And it has never ceased from this evolutionary activity. If anything, its influence has increased over time.

Because this awakening of consciousness registered within Adam’s DNA it was passed down to all of his descendants, including you and me. Therefore, the same active influence of consciousness felt by Adam has also been felt by each of us. And it has been a constant influence—one that has literally transformed human life.

Does that imply that human life is now fully evolved and fruitful? Unfortunately, it does not. On the contrary, the teaching of the Garden Parable clearly shows that though Adam’s endowment of consciousness was active and awake it had its limitations and problems. How could this be? Was it not a good thing that mankind awoke (in Adam) to this glorious endowment—that which the Bible claims makes us like God? The answer is yes. It was a very amazing and good thing that befell the human race. But not so fast. As it turned out, this created endowment special to man was evolutionary in nature. And that meant that its potential would not be realized all at once. Rather it would unfold over time.

This unfolding process would involve passing through what might be called states of consciousness. And since consciousness’ influence was so powerful generally, this meant that whatever state of consciousness we happened to be passing through during a particular epoch or age would become highly defining for the outworking of human life. It would commandeer our belief systems and worldview. But theoretically, these states of consciousness, though all-consuming, would not last forever. They would be temporal and fluid, with each state that we left behind being like a snake’s shedding of its skin. Each layer of consciousness evolutionary unfoldment would bring us closer to our goal of fullness and fruition. And this explains Paul’s use of terminology. In the Adamic state we see as if through a glass darkly and know only in part, but in the next state—the state that was exemplified in the man Jesus—we will see clearly and know in full.

And so, going back to our Garden Parable, we see Adam now awake to consciousness, but lo and behold, he is clearly not fully evolved. Neither can it be said that he had yet to leave the starting gate. Rather he found himself somewhere in between these extremes. There can be no doubt that he was now awake and activated in consciousness, for in the blink of an eye he had become a completely different creature—not physically but rather altogether transformed inwardly, especially in the more subtle realms of outlook, feelings, reactions to circumstances, motives, etc. Life looked different, his surroundings looked different, and his circumstances were suddenly new and challenging. His perception had been completely transformed, but it cannot be said that he was seeing clearly or “face to face.” Why? Because he was clearly upset and floundering in this new orientation. Plus, we might say that his perception had instantly doubled, since he now was aware of not only good but also good’s flipside, evil. In fact, this was true of every facet of his life. Suddenly, everything had its dualistic flipside. And as he became aware of this phenomenon, he also experienced it. And as he experienced it, it became part of his field of knowledge. And so, incredibly we see that Adam’s situation was very much like what the Apostle Paul described four thousand years later: he saw life as if through a glass darkly and knew only in part. And if Adam and Paul were linked in consciousness in this way, so are you and me. And if we are linked in consciousness to Adam, that means that we are moving in the same state of consciousness that he was moving in. And that means that our endowment of consciousness has not evolved sufficiently for us to have broken the Adam-mold for the past six thousand years. We have evolved in some ways, but we have not evolved out of the Adamic state of consciousness.

This then is what Paul is trying to teach us. Using his own situation as a typical Adamic-human example he taught us the important truth that we were still very much moving in the Adamic state of consciousness. This was the source of our limited perception and partial knowing. But then he goes on to speak of a future outcome for mankind—one in which we all would see life as it really is and know fully, even as we are fully known.

Scoffers would say that perhaps Paul was just indulging in wishful thinking. After all, that too has been a typical ploy of Adamic consciousness. But I would argue that that was not the case with Paul. Why? Because he knew Jesus. And Jesus was the embodiment of the new consciousness of man that has been trying to be born for six thousand years. This was how Paul could say with certainty that at some point he would see clearly and know in full. If Jesus had come into a state of perception and knowing that was truly clear and full, the same was possible for him. This is the most powerful aspect to Jesus’ testimony. Everything about who he was and how he lived is possible for each and every human being to realize through the evolution of consciousness. This was the secret that Paul knew for himself and wanted to share with us, in order that we might share his hope.