Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

[Jeannieb43]

Beautiful exegesis [or exposition... or whatever it should be called].

VERY logical.

[there buster]

Thanks, but we're not done yet.

[Jeannieb43]

I HOPE not.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

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.

---

You mentioned you did not see the duplicity, in response to my stating Paul had taken some liberty with the experience of Moses. Here is where that shows up: Paul states the purpose of the veil was to keep the Israelites from seeing that the radiance was fading away -- as if Moses wanted to fool them into thinking it remained at full strength and wore the veil even past the point where the glory glow was fading off his face. That was the "duplicity" I was talking about.

-- Nico

[Nicodema]

OK, so Paul says he is not veiling his remarks -- not couching them in mystery or contradiction, not saying both yes and no at the same time. When he says "WE are not like Moses ..." he means himself and the other apostles. The veil on Moses' face in this case simply represents obscuring the glow or the light, the same sort of obscuring which occurs when the OT is read by someone who has not yet turned to Christ. Only in Christ is there that transparency and authenticity -- the need for veiling, couching, obscuring being done away with entirely.

Am I close? *hopeful look*

[there buster]

I'm preparing the next step, but let me reply.

Quote:

---

"WE are not like Moses ..."

---

He may mean himself and the other apostles; it is impossible for me to say for certain.

He may be using the "editorial we." He almost certainly is speaking for himself and his companions--Luke, Silas, Mark, Timothy--the cast varied from time to time.

As for himself, the "we," Paul is just saying that he is being candid--maybe even blunt, as was his wont.

As far as *hopeful look* goes, I'm by no means the final authority. I'm more of a guide on this journey. I'll state my understanding, but it's no more than that. Each one must own it for herself/himself. I'm just trying to model a process that returns as faithful an interpretation as possible.

As to the details, we may differ; as long as we have a sound method of study, we can feel that the large principles have authority.

The real purpose is not to find *the* interpretation--after all, we'll be studying the Bible for eternity. It's more of a safeguard to help us rule out really fanciful ones, and, frankly, to make us more tentative.

God's word is absolute truth. My understanding of that absolute truth is, however, limited in many ways.

This approach continually reminds us that the author of the text was inspired, and we're not.

Other approaches implicitly rely on an inspired interpreter, and that is diabolically problematical.

I should have the next step up within the hour.

Hope this is useful.

[there buster]

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[/]

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

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

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

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

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

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

..............|....[:"green"]15Even 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)

Assuming that we agree about the parallel structures, here's what I make of them.

Clearly, the "veil" runs through as the central theme.

The expressions "Moses" and "old covenant" I take to be parallel, and identify the Old Testament in general.

There are two provisos about that. 1) There was no canon of the OT yet. That would not come until around A.D. 200. There was a generally accepted body of "scriptures" so-called, but they were not identical to our OT. 2)I haven't yet examined the word covenant in the larger context of the chapter.

But here, at least, that's what the two expressions refer to.

So when the Jews read their scriptures, they do not understand their full import. In theological terms, they may see the types, but can't figure out the antitypes.

For them Isa 7:14 refers to a miraculous event in their past.

Once you see Christ, however, He becomes the lens through which all of Israel's history comes into focus. Suddenly the veil is removed, and everything in the OT takes on new significance. That's why Matthew can get away with hermeneutical "murder" in his application of OT texts. He sees Jesus not just as the fulfillment of OT prophecies but as the living embodiment of all God's activities on behalf of his people.

Any questions, comments, additions?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Any questions, comments, additions?

---

[:"red"] "....God is love." [/] 1 John 4:8 KJV

[:"red"] "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world" [/] John 3:17 KJV

[:"red"] "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." [/] John 1:18 NKJV

[:"red"] "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." [/] 1 John 5:11 KJV

[:"red"] "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." [/] John 17:3 KJV

Very astute and knowledgeable points made in this thread. I didn't read all of the posts, but in the ones I did read, the messages above didn't come through. Is it worth my time for me to know the basic message found in this thread? And Why?

Lift Jesus up!!

[there buster]

To All: I'm trying to get the block diagram for vv.1-11 up, but having trouble. Is it possible to change fonts on these? If so, how do I get courier?

To LifeHisCost:

Quote:

---

I didn't read all of the posts, but in the ones I did read, the messages above didn't come through. Is it worth my time for me to know the basic message found in this thread? And Why?

---

Here's why I think it might be worth your while. 1) It will answer your first question, eventually. 2) If you understand what is going on here, it should aid your own Bible study.

But in the end, you'll have to choose.

[Jeannieb43]

This thread is about II Corinthians 3. That's what I've come here to learn. And we're proceeding beautifully on that path....

[there buster]

Here's 2 Cor 3:1-11

Please understand that I do not represent this diagram to be without error. It's the best I can do quickly.

Sorry for the small font, but I had to go to courier, and a smaller size, in order to maintain the diagram. Otherwise it becomes incomprehensible.

1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?

Or do we/ /like some people,//need,/

...............................^letters of recommendation

...................................^to you or

...................................|from you?

.........v2You yourselves

are our letter,

.........^written on our hearts,

.........|known and read by everybody.

...........v3You show that

you are a letter

............^from Christ,

............|....^the result of our ministry,

............|written not with ink

..............^......^but with the Spirit of the living God,

..............|not on tablets of stone

..............|but on tablets of human hearts.

........|4Such confidence as this is ours

........|..........................^through Christ before God.

........|5Not that we are competent

........|..................^in ourselves

........|..................|to claim anything

........|..................|for ourselves, but

........v

our competence comes from God.

............................^6He has made us competent

..............................................^as ministers of a new covenant–

..................................<-[new covenant–]

.........__________________________________^________________________

.........^not of the letter ......................^but of the Spirit;

.........|for the letter kills,...................|but the Spirit gives life.

............^.......................................^

............|7Now if the ministry...................|8will not the ministry of the Spirit

..............^that brought death,..................|..^be even more glorious?

..............|which was engraved ..................|

..............|..^in letters on stone,..............|

..............|came with glory,.....................|

..............|..^so that the Israelites............|

..............|..|could not look steadily...........|

..............|..|at the face of Moses..............|

..............|because of its glory,................|

..............|.^fading though it was,..............|

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

..............|9If the ministry.....................|..vhow much more glorious

..............|..^that condemns men.................|is the ministry that

..............|..|is glorious,......................| ..^brings righteousness!

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

..............|10For what was glorious..............|

..............|..^has no glory now..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| the surpassing glory.

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

..............|11And if what was fading away........|..vhow much greater is the glory

..................^came with glory,.................|of that which lasts!

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

This should give you something to chew on for a while.

[there buster]

For a start:

1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?

Or do we/ /like some people,//need,/

...............................^letters of recommendation

...................................^to you or

...................................|from you?

You can see where Paul is making his point about authority again. With, it appears to me, no little sarcasm.

Now I'll divide the rest of the passage into sections. Please feel free to offer observations on each one.

Title/summary/description of following passage:

______________________________________________

.........v2You yourselves

are our letter,

.........^written on our hearts,

.........|known and read by everybody.

...........v3You show that

you are a letter

............^from Christ,

............|....^the result of our ministry,

............|written not with ink

..............^......^but with the Spirit of the living God,

..............|not on tablets of stone

..............|but on tablets of human hearts.

Title/summary/description of following passage:

______________________________________________

........|4Such confidence as this is ours

........|..........................^through Christ before God.

........|5Not that we are competent

........|..................^in ourselves

........|..................|to claim anything

........|..................|for ourselves, but

........v

our competence comes from God.

............................^6He has made us competent

..............................................^as ministers of a new covenant–

Title/summary/description of following passage:

______________________________________________

..................................<-[new covenant–]

.........__________________________________^________________________

.........^not of the letter ......................^but of the Spirit;

.........|for the letter kills,...................|but the Spirit gives life.

............^.......................................^

............|7Now if the ministry...................|8will not the ministry of the Spirit

..............^that brought death,..................|..^be even more glorious?

..............|which was engraved ..................|

..............|..^in letters on stone,..............|

..............|came with glory,.....................|

..............|..^so that the Israelites............|

..............|..|could not look steadily...........|

..............|..|at the face of Moses..............|

..............|because of its glory,................|

..............|.^fading though it was,..............|

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

..............|9If the ministry.....................|..vhow much more glorious

..............|..^that condemns men.................|is the ministry that

..............|..|is glorious,......................| ..^brings righteousness!

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

..............|10For what was glorious..............|

..............|..^has no glory now..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| the surpassing glory.

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

..............|11And if what was fading away........|..vhow much greater is the glory

..................^came with glory,.................|of that which lasts!

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

What strikes you about these passages? Just off the top of your head? Don't look too deep to start.

[benherndon]

I am watching what you are doing and saying, Ed. This comment is meant only to let you know I am still 'here'--but I don't buy 'green bananas' anymore so don't take too long, please.

Ben

[Jeannieb43]

"What strikes you about these passages?"

In speaking of the new covenant, I see him using contrasting couplets --

("not of the letter - but of the Spirit"

"Letter kills - but the Spirit gives life" etc.)

(even though he had said to them earlier "YOU are the letter from Christ, the result of our ministry....")

[there buster]

Quote:

---

but I don't buy 'green bananas' anymore so don't take too long, please.

---

One of the things I'm trying to point out is that "process" is in fact more important than "product," when it comes to Bible study. We will never know all there is to know about any particular passage-- for us, there is no final "product."

One of the big problems among Christians today is that we're so product oriented we ignore process. As Paul says in 1 Cor 13, "we know in part, we prophesy in part." As near as I can tell, Jesus' only question about hermeneutics was about process, not product: “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” Luke 10:26.

In fact, I believe the quest for certainty is the enemy of faith.

So you may be disappointed, if you're looking for the "definitive" exposition.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

("not of the letter - but of the Spirit"

"Letter kills - but the Spirit gives life" etc.)

---

Yes. He is deliberately contrasting the two.

Quote:

---

(even though he had said to them earlier "YOU are the letter from Christ, the result of our ministry....")

---

Here is a case where the confusion arises from the differences between Greek and English.

We have one word, "letter," which means a message sent from one person to another, or a single element of the alphabet.

The Greek has two different words: epistle, for message; and 'gramma' for letter of the alphabet.

For "Letter of recommendation" Paul uses 'sustaiko' which means, well, letter of recommendation.

So Paul sets up the early part of this chapter with,

"Do we need a 'sustaiko'?"

"YOu are our 'epistle.'"

In essence, "Why do you need someone else to recommend us to you? The very fact that you are Christians is the evidence of our calling."

Or, as The Message translates it:

'Does it sound like we’re patting ourselves on the back, insisting on our credentials, asserting our authority? Well, we’re not. Neither do we need letters of endorsement, either to you or from you. You yourselves are all the endorsement we need."

[there buster]

I want to look at the "meat" of this passage.

............................^6He has made us competent

..............................................^as ministers of a new covenant–

..................................<-[new covenant–]

.........__________________________________^________________________

.........^not of the letter ......................^but of the Spirit;

.........|for the letter kills,...................|but the Spirit gives life.

............^.......................................^

............|7Now if the ministry...................|8will not the ministry of the Spirit

..............^that brought death,..................|..^be even more glorious?

..............|which was engraved ..................|

..............|..^in letters on stone,..............|

..............|came with glory,.....................|

..............|..^so that the Israelites............|

..............|..|could not look steadily...........|

..............|..|at the face of Moses..............|

..............|because of its glory,................|

..............|.^fading though it was,..............|

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

..............|9If the ministry.....................|..vhow much more glorious

..............|..^that condemns men.................|is the ministry that

..............|..|is glorious,......................| ..^brings righteousness!

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

..............|10For what was glorious..............|

..............|..^has no glory now..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| the surpassing glory.

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

..............|11And if what was fading away........|..vhow much greater is the glory

..................^came with glory,.................|of that which lasts!

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

What strikes me, just looking at this, is how lopsided it is! Just in sheer volume of words, Paul spends much more time on the old covenant than the new.

Second, the level of detail is also lopsided. We get much more detail about the old covenant--almost no detail at all about the new!

See if you can distill the teaching on the Old Covenant into 3-5 key words

____________________________

Also the new covenant.

____________________________

I you were to summarize Paul's teaching in this passage about the old covenant in no more than a single sentence, what would it be?

____________________________

Now do the same for the new covenant, but in a single word or short phrase.

____________________________

[Jeannieb43]

[feeble attempt at this analysis...]

The old ministry, based on the law of Moses, brings death when exposed to the extreme brightness of God's glory.

On the other hand, the new covenant, in the ministry of the Spirit, even being much more glorious, brings righteousness.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

[feeble attempt at this analysis...]

---

Don't worry. I'm not one of the preacher creatures around here who'll try to make you look foolish. And let me say, that your attitude is ten times healthier than those who rush in, certain of the outcome.

The Bible is a marvelous gift. It is the greates gift of the Spirit. And we should all be humbled before it.

At the same time, it is made for us and for our children forever, so we can enjoy its beauty and majesty without fear.

Quote:

---

The old ministry, based on the law of Moses, brings death when exposed to the extreme brightness of God's glory.

On the other hand, the new covenant, in the ministry of the Spirit, even being much more glorious, brings righteousness.

---

That's a reasonable summary, but I'm looking for something even shorter.

One reason I go about this in short steps, is because we all develop the habit (not particularly yours, Jeannieb43) of wanting to go too deep too quickly.

This comes from more than a century of proof-texting, of taking one little verse and making it apply everywhere, of making one text sum up a whole doctrine. So we all (myself included) feel the expectation that, when we speak of Scripture--and we see that word in Old English type--we must be profound. Again, this is not about you. It's about a cultural custom of Christians in general.

So I wasn't seeking the "right" answer, only asking for an observation. Yours is eminently valid.

Here's the kind of thing I would say (much to the consternation of some of the interpreters around here).

..................................<-[new covenant–]

.........__________________________________^________________________

.........^not of the letter ......................^but of the Spirit;

.........|for the letter kills,...................|but the Spirit gives life.

............^.......................................^

............|7Now if the ministry...................|8will not the ministry of the Spirit

..............^that brought death,..................|..^be even more glorious?

..............|which was engraved ..................|

..............|..^in letters on stone,..............|

..............|came with glory,.....................|

..............|..^so that the Israelites............|

..............|..|could not look steadily...........|

..............|..|at the face of Moses..............|

..............|because of its glory,................|

..............|.^fading though it was,..............|

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

..............|9If the ministry.....................|..vhow much more glorious

..............|..^that condemns men.................|is the ministry that

..............|..|is glorious,......................| ..^brings righteousness!

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

..............|10For what was glorious..............|

..............|..^has no glory now..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| the surpassing glory.

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

..............|11And if what was fading away........|..vhow much greater is the glory

..................^came with glory,.................|of that which lasts!

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

Old Cov. 3-5

Old, fading, death.

New Cov.

More, lasting, glorious

One sentence.

The old covenant, both deadly and glorious, faded.

The new covenant brings lasting, more glorious righteousness.

Now, it's not that mine are right. The summary is necessary so that we see the big picture, so that we don't try to piece the puzzle together until we know what it should look like. Anything that runs far afield of those simple ideas will be unsupportable.

Once again, it's the process that matters. As W. Edwards Deming proved in manufacturing, if you get the process right, the product can't be far wrong.

So, does what I'm doing make sense to everyone?

[Robert]

• Old Cov. 3-5

  Old, fading, death.

  New Cov.

  More, lasting, glorious

Your conclusion is out of context!

"if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory...."

The glory came from God at the giving of the law.

"so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was...."

Clearly it was the reflected glory of God in Moses' face that faded and not the "old covenant." That's because the old covenant is alive and well! It has a function, as it did in the O.T.

Proof: "for until this very day (this letter to the Cor. was written some time after the cross, well after the N.C. was established) at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ."

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Your conclusion is out of context!

---

Your conclusion is premature. I haven't written any conclusion, yet, just a simple summary.

Since you have stated a "proof" let's see if it holds up--in context.

..................................<-[new covenant–]

.........__________________________________^________________________

.........[:"blue"]^not of the letter [/][:"red"]......................^but of the Spirit; [/]

.........[:"blue"]|for the letter kills,...................[/][:"red"]|but the Spirit gives life.[/]

............^.......................................^

............|[:"blue"]7Now if the ministry[/]...................|[:"red"]8will not the ministry of the Spirit [/]

..............[:"blue"]^that brought death,[/]..................|..^[:"red"]be even more glorious? [/]

..............[:"blue"]|which was engraved[/] ..................|

..............|..[:"blue"]^in letters on stone,[/]..............|

..............|[:"blue"]came with glory,[/].....................|

..............|..[:"blue"]^so that the Israelites[/]............|

..............|..[:"blue"]|could not look steadily[/]...........|

..............|..[:"blue"]|at the face of Moses[/]..............|

..............|[:"blue"]because of its glory,[/]................|

..............|.[:"blue"]^fading though it was,[/]..............|

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

..............|[:"blue"]9If the ministry[/].....................|..[:"red"]vhow much more glorious[/]

..............|..[:"blue"]^that condemns men[/].................|[:"red"]is the ministry that[/]

..............|..[:"blue"]|is glorious,[/]......................| ..^[:"red"]brings righteousness![/]

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

..............|[:"blue"]10For what was glorious[/]..............|

..............|..[:"blue"]^has no glory now[/]..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| [:"red"]the surpassing glory.[/]

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

..............|[:"blue"]11And if what was fading away[/]........|..v[:"red"]how much greater is the glory[/]

..................[:"blue"]^came with glory,[/].................|[:"red"]of that which lasts![/]

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

Everything on the left is being contrasted with everything on the right. The contrast is between the two covenants. Your interpretation makes a hash of syntax. Please note verses 10-11, bolded for your convenience.

According to you, in this passage. . .

..............|[:"blue"]10For what was glorious[/]..............|

..............|..[:"blue"]^has no glory now[/]..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| [:"red"]the surpassing glory.[/]

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

..............|[:"blue"]11And if what was fading away[/]........|..v[:"red"]how much greater is the glory[/]

..................[:"blue"]^came with glory,[/].................|[:"red"]of that which lasts![/]

Quote:

---

Clearly it was the reflected glory of God in Moses' face that faded and not the "old covenant."

---

Problem is, it doesn't make any sense--in context. Here's that position:

• The [:"blue"]covenant[/] of "the letter" is being compared to the [:"red"]covenant[/] of "the spirit"

• The [:"blue"]covenant[/] written in stone is being compared to the [:"red"]covenant[/] written by the Spirit
• The [:"blue"]ministry[/] that condemns is being compared to the [:"red"]ministry[/] that brings righteousness
• The fading glory of [:"blue"]Moses' face[/] is being compared to the surpassing glory of [:"red"]the new covenant[/] ????

--OR does it make more sense that --

• The fading glory of the [:"blue"]old covenant[/] is being compared to the surpassing glory of the [:"red"]new covenant? [/]

The latter is my position.

Now, you're free to claim that Paul suddenly changed the basis of comparison, but you'd better have some textual evidence for that sudden shift. But beware, more difficulties lie in that direction.

[Robert]

Your summary/conclusion or whatever you desire to call it is still incorrect. A simple question will frustrate your position:

Why does the unbeliever die the 2nd death?

[benherndon]

Just for this thread, Robert, please let's hear Ed 'out' completely. Let's not sidetrack him right now.

I've never seen 'syntactical display' such as this previously. I think I understand the point of doing this but so far its not brought any new comprehension---unless I am missing the point. But......what is the significance of "^" and the ">"?

Ben

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Let's not sidetrack him right now.

---

He is already sidetracked!

The question must be asked, "From what did Christ come to save humanity?"

Paul states that it is from, "the curse of the law" (see Gal 3:10) or the 2nd death!

Since Christ's doing and dying answers all the demands set forth in the law, then accepting His fulfillment of the law (i.e., Christ's righteousness) by faith infers we are no longer "under the law"! In a nutshell Christ has fulfilled all the Old Covenant demands.

Those who choose to reject Christ's law-obedience remain under law or the old covenant. In fact we are born "under the law." That is why Paul states, "the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives." Romans 7:1

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Your summary/conclusion or whatever you desire to call it is still incorrect. A simple question will frustrate your position:

Why does the unbeliever die the 2nd death?

---

I'm certainly open to evidence from the text that I'm mistaken. Can you show me where my analysis of 2 Cor 3:1-11 is mistaken--using the text?

Where in this passage do you find reference to the "2nd death?" To my knowledge, that is not a topic Paul is addressing. He is also not talking about the age of the Earth, signs of the end, or a myriad of other topics.

In the overall epistle, he is refuting some false accusations made against him. In these verses, he takes a small detour into this issue of the old covenant versus the new covenant. But he's not interested in the 2nd death, here, and so it is not legitimate for us to ask that question.

As far as I'm aware, the term "second death" occurs only in Revelation (2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). Different author, different genre, different book. The only use of the word "covenant" in Rev I find is in 11:19.

You may have a highly developed theology of the "second death," but it isn't relevant here, unless you can find me some sort of textual link.