Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

[there buster]

I've been watching the thread on 2 Cor 3. It seems to be generating ever more heat, and less and less light.

I wonder, would it be possible to start over, from scratch. It appears to me that a great deal of the current discussion has slipped it's moorings entirely. It has less and less to do with 2 Corinthians. And I cannot see how we can get back to 2 Cor. from where the argument currently is.

So I'd like to ask that we go back and read all of 2 Corinthians, or at least expand the context within Corinthians by a couple of chapters each way before we launch off into systematic theology.

Interpretation is at least a three-step process. But we are accustomed to starting at the end, and looking for evidence, we almost always skip the first two steps.

The first step is exegesis, to "read out" from the text what the author was saying to his audience.

Now, I haven't read every single one of the 27 pages of posts, but I haven't yet seen any references to 2 Cor 1 or 2 Cor 2. Am I the only one that thinks that's a little strange?

[benherndon]

Hello!

This is good, as far as I'm concerned. Let's have more ideas put into 2Cor 3 and what it means particularly to SDAs today.

You seem to speak with some authority so let us please know who you are and from what background you speak.

I am more than willing to listen.

Ben Herndon

[there buster]

I'm not certain that I have any particular authority, other than the value of my words on this thread.

You asked about me so I'll share some.

I'm a teacher by gift and by training, and that's what I always do, whether I'm writing articles for our periodicals, or speaking.

But the best teaching isn't didactic, isn't "Sit down and listen to me," so that's not what I do.

I'm a fourth generation (maybe fifth on one side) SDA, but a first generation Christian. Teachers and missionaries populate my family tree on both sides.

Among other things, I'm a church planter and lay pastor. In the last several years I've published numerous articles in SDA publications (16 last year). I've also been blessed to speak to SDA audiences all across NA, in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe.

As to education, I hold a B.A. in Education and an M.A. in Education (Religious Education) from Andrews. The latter included classes in the Seminary. In addition to that, two of my best friends teach at the Seminary, and we've engaged in lively debates for thirty years in one case, and forty in the other (we went to Academy together).

That gives you some idea of my background. However, I want to stress that none of that necessarily confers any authority on me, nor do I think of myself in that way.

I have taught Sabbath School since I was seventeen, and even taught Bible in some fairly unusual (hostile) settings. That teaching experiences give me a certain confidence in my approach that may come through.

Anyway, I started this thread because I hoped that with a new beginning, and a shift of emphasis, we might get a lot more light out of 2 Cor 3 (which I confess I've never made an in-depth study, so I have nothing "prepared"). In my cursory examination, it appears to me that some small, but fairly basic misunderstandings/misapplications have led participants into positions from which they cannot either reach resolution, or simply retreat.

Let the results of the approach I suggest speak for themselves.

[benherndon]

Thanks for telling us about you. Interesting that I too hold a B.S. from 'old' EMC, now Andrew's. But to clarify that B.S. a little bit. I finished the last year of pre-med at EMC. After I graduated from CME (now LLU) Andrews gave me a B.S.---I didn't ask for it, just go it in the mail. But in that last year at EMC Prof Thiele was the religion professor. Don't know if you ever knew or met him.

I am second generation SDA. Went to church school in Tulsa, Enterprise Academy, Southern, Andrews, then LLU.

Was not particularlyl specializing in religion at all even though was regular attendee to SS and church all my life. My wife is LLU-RN. My two children are LLU-Dentistry.

Worried about my salvation and imperfection I have had the goal to read the Bible through yearly. It was doing that that left no time for other reading and, I feel, opened my eyes to Adventism which I have studied pretty much for a layperson. I consider EGW to be "pastoral". Paul says he has left nothing out so I have taken him at his word and made the Bible the main and virtually sole authority on Christian matters.

Happy to get your ideas---my mind is not 'sealed'---I have been in a learning mode for many years. If you have something to teach, I am all ears.

Ben

[there buster]

My understanding of EGW is perhaps for another thread. For this thread, and any other concerning the interpretation of Scripture, I will make the following statement.

Ellen White almost never makes an exegetical statement. She makes homiletical use of Scripture a great deal. She did not consider herself a theologian, neither did she consider that her writings were definitive vis-a-vis Scripture. In accordance with her practice and her declared preference, I do not consider he comments on Bible passages to be dispositive, as a rule. Exceptions arise so rarely as to be essentially disregarded.

So in a thread like this, you'll rarely see me bring in an EGW quote, except, perhaps, to reiterated her statement about her writings being the lesser light.

As far as teaching, what I have to share concerns not the content of 2 Cor 3, although presumably we will get there, but about the method or approach of Bible study.

Rather than giving a lengthy and technical set of hermeneutical principles, I prefer to simply do the study, mentioning the rules as they emerge.

One of the oldest of these rules is "A text without a context is a pretext."

A large part of the dispute I see on the other thread appears to me to be irrelevant to the context of 2 Cor 3, because it doesn't take into account the larger context of the entire letter, Paul's purpose in writing, and Paul's evident method of exposition.

Take a verse or two out of 2 Cor 3, add in texts from other authors, OT and NT. Stir well, and-- voila! -- a, well, I don't know what it is exactly.

You can take the doorhandle from a Packard, add it to the transmission from a Dodge, the starter from a Chevy, and the carburetor from a classic Aston Martin. But where do you put your brand new, BMW fuel injector? And, if you're going to drive in New Zealand, why is the steering wheel over on the left side of the front seat?

So I ask again. In the discussion, I saw little about 2 Cor chapter 1,2,4,or any other chapter. Does that seem strange to anyone else?

[benherndon]

Thanks for your background info. I've read 2 Cor many times, and, I did it again last evening in response to your prompting. I've posted a lot so everybody knows what I think. Let's listen to you and others, too, perhaps.

Ben

[there buster]

Epistles, letters, are "occasional writings." That is, they are a response to some event or series of events. It can be as simple as the passage of time, wanting to "bring people up to date," or needing to explain something newly discovered or appreciated, or it can be a response to an achievement, a problem, or an attack.

As a an aside, this is useful in understanding the Testimonies, as well. They are also occasional writings.

So, the first question we need to ask, the question which determines the larger context is: Why did Paul write this letter?

Though we cannot hope to specify "why" in every detail, we should be able to determine from the letter itself at least some of the purpose.

The epistle begins with some very curious expressions, ones which raise questions, and suggest answers.

Quote:

---

12Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace.

---

This isn't the kind of thing you bring up, unless someone has made an accusation to the contrary. Someone at Corinth has accused Paul of some sort of dishonesty.

Quote:

---

23I call God as my witness that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth.

---

This is a pretty extreme expression, don't you think? Unless his integrity was under attack, why would he need to make such a strong claim?

Although we don't know the name, Paul probably alluded to his accuser in 2:7-12.

Quote:

---

5If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent–not to put it too severely. 6The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. 7Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven–if there was anything to forgive–I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake,

---

Because of this, much of the letter appears to be an attempt to re-establish Paul's credibility and apostolic authority--not because he needed to be so recognized, but because Corinth needed the cousel he was providing.

I believe this is part of the broad context in which we need to understand chapter three.

Thoughts, questions, comments?

[benherndon]

Let us not sidetrack your teaching by questions and comments now. Please go ahead and make your points.

[there buster]

This is the way I go about it. So questions and comments would not be a sidetrack.

Remember, I'm concerned with the "how," much more than the "what."

And rather than build a grand tower of interpretation before we check out the foundation, I like to test each stage as we go.

Any questions, comments, so far?

[benherndon]

No questions or comments yet. Continue to develop your thoughts. I don't even know what to comment until I know what you are saying. So far, we aren't there yet.

Ben

[there buster]

Under the circumstances, I assume there's no significant disagreement with what I've said so far.

Another point about letters, especially Paul's letters.

They ramble. If you undertake to make a syntactical display, or "block diagram" of these Epistles, you get a feel for just how much they ramble.

There is a perfectly good reason for this. Paul is dictating, is thinking out loud. In several of the epistles he makes a point of "here, I'm writing this with my own hand," and on at least one occasion, the scribe makes his own comment.

2 Cor doesn't have either of these indicators, but the style, and the rambling, are similar.

Paul has two or three main points he wants to make to the Corinthians, but along the way, as he talks, he strikes various "targets of opportunity."

So a large number of his excursions are just that, they are asides, not part of his main thread of thought.

By the time we reach chapter 3, the question of Paul's authority, and the accusations about him, are still very much on his mind:

Quote:

---

1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you?

---

It is in this context that the chapter begins, and although he meanders along on several topics, it is the burden of what he has to say.

His confidence, he says, is not because of any skill in himself, but because his message and authority come from God.

Quote:

---

4Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

---

In explaining this, he mentions a new covenatn, and to explain that he runs far afield.

[benherndon]

Ed, I like to hear what YOU have to say. If I talk, I don't learn anything new.

Ben

[Nicodema]

Keep going!

[benherndon]

Nico, I am taking it that your last comment, "Keep going." is to Ed. But he may be tied up on Robert's thread, "...you who want to be under law..."

I 'went' long enough on the thread I started----and, hopefully, stopped!

Why is it that the 'traditionalists' get sooo upset when some of the 'traditional' beliefs are questioned? Seems they are the ones that get sort of 'edgy' so easily. Leave them alone to discuss their 'traditional' and 'unique' beliefs and they even get 'edgy' with each other though they are both transparently 'traditionalists'. (Surely I'm not the only one that sees that.)

("The New Testament was written not in classical Greek, nor in the "biblical" Greek of the Greek version of the Old Testament, nor even in the literary Greek of its own day, but in the common language of everyday life. This fact has been fully established by the Greek papyrus discoveries and the grammatical researches of the last twenty-five years. It follows that the most appropriate English form for the New Testament is the simple, straightforward English of everyday expression."--by Goodspeed in 1923, yet!

What this means is---what it says is probably what it means outright! It isn't complicated unless one hangs his own 'godgiven' insights onto it! Traditionalists often improperly use the one text in all of the NT, the last two verses of 2Peter 1, to accuse others of 'private interpretation'. This is wrong use of the text. The Bible can be understood by the common believer OR, OR, OR!-- it is likely to be perverted by those with an agenda seeking fame or money--or both!)

The NT isn't so hard to understand after all. And, it seems to me that "most Christians" have figured it out pretty well.

Ben

[there buster]

No, I'm not tied up on Robert's thread. This one comes first. I've had a couple of days away from my desk. I'll get into this more a few minutes from now.

[there buster]

I want to begin with a caveat. I have not done a syntactical display on this chapter yet, so I reserve the right to revise my initial assessment.

It seems evident to me, however, that Paul is still dealing with the accusations against him.

Having said

Quote:

---

our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant

---

Paul feels obliged to explain that a bit, and gets sidetracked again. Now, I'm not claiming that the new covenant is unimportant, only that it is not his main concern here. After traveling down that side road a ways Paul returns to his central theme--dealing with the accusations and his apostolic authority.

Having mentioned

Quote:

---

that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory

---

Paul picks up on that rhetorical device to reinforce his main theme.

Quote:

---

12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face

---

See how this picks up the thread he has been using from the start. Someone has accused him talking out of both sides of his mouth

Quote:

---

Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say, “Yes, yes” and “No, no”?

18But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” ch. 1:17, 18

---

Of boasting and promoting himself (see 1:12-14; 3:1ff)

Paul says he is not "pulling his punches," to use a contemporary idiom; he's not "veiling his face," like Moses, he's "telling it like it is," to use another contemporary idiom.

That's the main thrust of this passage. The discussion of the veiling of the face is an aside.

Now, having said it is an aside doesn't diminish it's fascination. Many a brilliant speaker throws of sparks to the side as he's pursuing other ideas. But it does mean that we should be wary of putting too much freight on this passage, which is a digression.

Another way of saying it is that we should be wary of making more out of this passage than Paul did.

Make sense, to this point? Because if you disagree with what I've said so far, the rest of the way will only complicate the matter.

More important, if I've missed something important, or have failed to make something clear, it will frustrate the study, even if there are no major disagreements.

[benherndon]

At least Nico and I are listening. Please continue. I haven't spoken with Nico about what you are saying but I am sure we both will watch with interest your comments. How can we know what you are saying until you've said it all?

Keep going!---we can work on the complications after we decide the are that.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Why is it that the 'traditionalists' get sooo upset when some of the 'traditional' beliefs are questioned? Seems they are the ones that get sort of 'edgy' so easily. Leave them alone to discuss their 'traditional' and 'unique' beliefs and they even get 'edgy' with each other though they are both transparently 'traditionalists'. (Surely I'm not the only one that sees that.)

---

Nope, you're not alone - I see it too. I see people fighting over something when from outside their debate it looks to me like they both share the exact same viewpoint but are literally taking exception to the WORDS used by one another to express it! In other words, it's a war of pure semantics.

I know they get fairly frantic when I start questioning the typical view of the Second Resurrection, what it means to love our enemies, and a lot of other things. Well, I question these things because I am unsatisfied with where the consensus currently places them. I might never be satisfied with that. They will have to learn to deal with that or be patient that free and open inquiry permits truth to will out.

Quote:

---

"... ... It follows that the most appropriate English form for the New Testament is the simple, straightforward English of everyday expression."--by Goodspeed in 1923, yet!

---

Two things help one be more comfortable with common language translations, even paraphrase translations: (1) getting older; (2) comprehending the reality of the process of inspiration and moving away from (a) magickal belief in a more literal, verbatim dictation; ( needing to believe the words themselves are the anchor for the Truth in them in the pedantic sense.

Quote:

---

Traditionalists often improperly use the one text in all of the NT, the last two verses of 2Peter 1, to accuse others of 'private interpretation'. This is wrong use of the text. The Bible can be understood by the common believer OR, OR, OR!-- it is likely to be perverted by those with an agenda seeking fame or money--or both!)

---

Amen, Ben. I myself prefer to use a different text in 2 Peter 1, that of verse 19: "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts." -- emphasis added. Some read this verse carelessly and apply the dawn of day and rising morning star to the Second Coming, but no, it speaks of something taking place in the heart -- the dawning of a source of Light brighter than that of any lamp. And it speaks of scripture as a lamp shining in a dark place until this event occurs. Tell me, who ever navigated or walked by a flashlight in noonday?

I'm NOT saying "ditch the Bible." What I'm saying is ... the written word is there to serve a purpose, not to supplant the purpose. In fact ... it might be interesting to meditate on this verse in the light of the whole thing about the veil over the face when Moses is read that we were discussing in 2 Cor. 3.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

It seems evident to me, however, that Paul is still dealing with the accusations against him.

---

Yes but like Paul is wont to do, he soon branches off into pursuing some other point with vigor. He does this throughout this portion of the epistle, to the point where much of chapters 3 and 4 are expounding theology rather than defense of his authority. In fact it becomes so interwoven that it is difficult for me to determine which is the theme and which are the sidetracks!

Quote:

---

Having mentioned

Quote:

---

that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory

---

Paul picks up on that rhetorical device to reinforce his main theme.

Quote:

---

12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face

---

See how this picks up the thread he has been using from the start. Someone has accused him talking out of both sides of his mouth

Quote:

---

Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say, “Yes, yes” and “No, no”?

---

---

In this respect he kind of takes liberty with that story of Moses, in that he assumes Moses to have used the veil duplicitously. Is there, in fact, any indication of such an use in the OT? I understood Moses simply veiled the glory for the sake of the COI that they wouldn't be afraid of him or something.

Quote:

---

Paul says he is not "pulling his punches," to use a contemporary idiom; he's not "veiling his face," like Moses, he's "telling it like it is," to use another contemporary idiom.

That's the main thrust of this passage. The discussion of the veiling of the face is an aside.

... Now, having said it is an aside doesn't diminish it's fascination. Many a brilliant speaker throws of sparks to the side as he's pursuing other ideas. But it does mean that we should be wary of putting too much freight on this passage, which is a digression.

---

So are you saying it is rather fruitless to develop any "deep" theology from that concept and imagery? Because I see some pretty deep meanings there. What you are saying makes sense for the early part of chapter 3, but I find it very hard to fit verses 15-18 into that context. They seem to be development of an entirely separate thought altogether.

Quote:

---

Make sense, to this point? Because if you disagree with what I've said so far, the rest of the way will only complicate the matter.

---

Basically, yes, though see my question about verses 15-18 above.

[benherndon]

Ed, you must have gotten sidetracked. You were showing how to interpret 2Cor 3.

I think Gregory was going to give it some more thought, too.

Waiting...just waiting. By not commenting on what you have said so far is not ignoring you, please understand.

Ben

[there buster]

Quote:

---

He does this throughout this portion of the epistle, to the point where much of chapters 3 and 4 are expounding theology rather than defense of his authority. In fact it becomes so interwoven that it is difficult for me to determine which is the theme and which are the sidetracks!

---

Yes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, he does this in almost every epistle, in large part, because he's dictating.

Quote:

---

In this respect he kind of takes liberty with that story of Moses, in that he assumes Moses to have used the veil duplicitously. Is there, in fact, any indication of such an use in the OT? I understood Moses simply veiled the glory for the sake of the COI that they wouldn't be afraid of him or something.

---

I don't see the duplicity.

Quote:

---

So are you saying it is rather fruitless to develop any "deep" theology from that concept and imagery? Because I see some pretty deep meanings there. What you are saying makes sense for the early part of chapter 3, but I find it very hard to fit verses 15-18 into that context. They seem to be development of an entirely separate thought altogether.

---

What I'm saying is that we should not put more freight on it than Paul gave it. That, of course, is a matter of interpretation. While I agree there's a little more "meat" here than in some of the other verses, it's still basically an aside.

Moses veil is more of an illustration than a central theme. It is an illustration which is significant enough to distract Paul for several verses, but it still functions as an illustration of his main point.

I'm arguing that whatever interpretation we come up with must be in that larger context. Paul siezes upon the veil as an illustration, gets intrigued, and then returns to the main point, in the verses that follow (Ch. 4 ff).

Quote:

---

1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

---

Now we're ready to start.

[Jeannieb43]

I love this Bible study! (Just happened onto it by checking "Active Topics.") Now I've read this entire thread, and am eagerly awaiting the next installment.

Just one question, Ed. What version of the Bible are you using here? I have four different Bibles opened out on my desk right now (KJV, NKJV, New Living, and Today's English/"Good News"). Haven't been able to find your exact words from any of them. [Prolly it's the NIV. My NIV is so worn out -- and the type keeps getting smaller and smaller every year <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> -- that I don't use it as often....]

But I digress.

Please continue.

[there buster]

I'm using the NIV, for convenience sake. It is the semi-official translation of denominational publications, so I've gotten used to it.

The NASB is a marginally better study Bible, but best of all is to use several. This is not a passage that I see any particular language issues with, so I'm just using NIV as a default.

[there buster]

13Weare not like Moses,

..................^who would put a veil

.....................................^over his face

.....................................|to keep the Israelites

....................................................^from gazing at it

....................................................|while the radiance was fading away.

...............v14But their minds were made dull,

...........vfor to this day

the same veil remains

...........^.......|when the old covenant is read.

...........|It has not been removed,

...........|....|because only in Christ

...........|is it taken away.

...........|

...........|....15Even to this day

...........|....when Moses is read,

...........|a veil covers their hearts.

...........|

...........|.....16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord,

...........|the veil is taken away.

I tried to do a quick block diagram, or syntactical display of the passage, but the system doesn't preserve either tabs or spacing, so I'm left with what you see above. It helps some, but not nearly as much as I'd like. Ignore the "." they're just spacers. The "|" and "^" and "v" are intended to indicate dependence.

What do you see?

[there buster]

Here's a quick overview of what I see:

13We are not like Moses,

..................^who would put a veil

.....................................^over his face

.....................................|to keep the Israelites

....................................................^from gazing at it

....................................................|while the radiance was fading away.

...............v14But their minds were made dull,

...........vfor [:"green"]to this day[/]

the same [:"blue"]veil remains[/]

..............^.......|when the [:"red"]old covenant[/] is read.

..............|[:"blue"]It has not been removed,[/]

..............|....|[:"orange"]because only in Christ

..............|is [:"blue"]it [:"orange"]taken away.[/][/][/]

..............|

..............|....15Even [:"green"]to this day[/]

..............|....when [:"red"]Moses[/] is read,

..............|[:"blue"]a veil covers their hearts.[/]

..............|

..............|.....16But whenever anyone[:"orange"] turns to the Lord,[/]

..............|[:"blue"]the veil [/][:"orange"]is taken away.[/][/][/]

(Emphasis mine)

Paul uses the illustration of Moses veiling his face (v. 13); then he applies that episode to the Jews. This 'application' he repeats twice (vv. 14-16)--these appear clearly parallel structures.

Good teachers often repeat the same idea in slightly different word, increasing the likelihood it will be correctly understood. So these two examples are two ways of expressing the same essential truth, not a statement and elaboration.

Let me repeat for clarity. Paul says he is not veiling his remarks (v. 13); then he elaborates on the episode of Moses and the veil, applying it to the ways Jews and Christians understand the OT (don't make too much of "OT," it's just a shortcut for now). He repeats that application for clarity's sake (vv. 14-16).

O.K. Let 'er rip.