Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

February 26, 2005

Quote:

He is already sidetracked!

I'm sorry Paul didn't take up the topics in the order you wish him to, but if I have to choose between his order and yours--well, sorry. My responsibility is to the text, and to those who asked me to do this.

Quote:

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

Maybe so, but in that case your quarrel is with Paul, not with me, 'cause he didn't ask it here.

The Galatians reference might be relevant if you can show some sort of textual link. Unlike the second death, it is at least by the same author. However, it comes from a very different context. The Corinthians were a pretty wild bunch, whild the Galatians had become legalists. That's a pretty tough obstacle to overcome.

If a man has two sons in college, one working too hard, and the other partying too much, he might write them both letters. To the workaholic, he might say, "Ease up, enjoy this time of your life, it only comes once." To the party animal he might well say, "Buckle down, this is an important opportunity you must not let pass."

If you don't know the context, you'll think he's contradicting himself. And if you deliver the wrong letter to the wrong boy, the situation will be compounded, not corrected.

So it is with these epistles. We can't apply them willy-nilly to suit our evidentiary needs of the moment, or we do violence to the author's intent.

And here, class, is one of my rules of hermeneutics:"The author was inspired--you're not." So we have to let the author's intent rule, and that intent necessarily includes the circumstances that "occasioned" the writing.

With all those cautions, I still doubt that Galatians will help your cause

Quote:

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like:

"the letter kills," 2 Cor 3:6

"the ministry that brought death" v. 7

"the ministry that condemns" v.9

Looks consistent with what I've been reading and saying so far. Shall I take a poll?

February 26, 2005

Quote:

I think I understand the point of doing this but so far its not brought any new comprehension---unless I am missing the point.

In a relatively simple passage such as this one, it won't necessarily bring a lot of new comprehension, to some. On the other hand, Robert is being quite helpful in demonstrating part of the utility of the method.

Someone has said that art is often knowing what to leave out. This method helps to keep us from bringing in unrelated material, and putting things, like Moses' face, where they don't belong.

Robert's argument about it being the glory of Moses' face that faded is quite plausible, until you put it in the type of contrast I did. Then it falls apart.

Quote:

But......what is the significance of "^" and the ">"?

Unfortunately, the font I have to use to keep everything lined up doesn't have an "up arrow" so I'm forced to use "^."

Same with left arrow "<-" and right arrow "->". Other fonts have those characters and would make the display clearer, but they are far from universally available, and would make no sense whatever to many readers. Courier, on the other hand, is a standard monospaced font.

Hope that clarifies it.

February 26, 2005

Quote:

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like:"the letter kills," 2 Cor 3:6 "the ministry that brought death" v. 7 "the ministry that condemns" v.9

Christ came to save mankind from "the curse of the law"! Those who reject Him remain "under law". To remain "under law" is death - hence, "the ministration of death". Therefore the Old Covenant has not been made obsolete because in the end the unbeliever must take "the curse of the law" upon himself....He has persistently refused Christ's doing and dying....

2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, [the Old Covenant] came in glory, 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...

"Came in glory"...what does that mean?

Two things:

1] According to Ex 19:18 -- "Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently.

2] According to Ex 34:29 -- "the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him."

The glory here refers to God's glory at the giving of the law. That glory faded from Moses’ face! That is the immediate context....

verse 8 "will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?"

What is "the ministry of the Spirit"? Can we find the answer to this question within the immediate context?

Verse 9 "If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!"

We have a clue: The ministry of the Spirit brings "righteousness"!

Verse 10 "For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory...."

The giving of the law was glorious! This I have already proved, but the "ministry of the Spirit" is more glorious. Again, in what way?

Verse 11 "And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

God's glory no longer resides at Mount Sinai. Neither does it any longer reflect in Moses’ face. In that respect that glory has faded. Apparently the ministry of the Spirit has a glory that lasts, but in what way?

Verse 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We [i.e., we believers] 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."

What does Paul mean here? Apparently the believer does not need a veil to cover his/her face! Does that mean we are glowing?

Verse 14 "But their minds [those Israelis at Mount Sinai] were made dull, [how so?] for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read.

What veil is Paul speaking of? In the preceding context he spoke of Moses’ veil....What does this infer?

Well, from where did this glory come? Right - the face of God. How can sinners approach a holy God? Well, they can't! A veil remains between the glory of God and sinners. What is the solution?

"It [the veil - the separation] has not been removed, because only in Christ is it [the veil] taken away."

No longer does the believer have to approach God's glory, His Holiness, through a veil. The partition has been removed by Christ's fulfillment of the Old Covenant!

This is also stated in Hebrews 10:19-22 "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place [where God resides] by the blood of Jesus [His doing and dying], 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain [veil], that is, [:"red"]his body[/], 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith....

Christ is the veil between sinners and a Holy God. We can come "in Him" before God's throne having the full assurance of faith in His doing and dying. That is Paul point...

Verse 15 "But to this day whenever Moses is read [i.e., the Old Covenant], a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Here Paul is not speaking of the Jews at Sinai, but the unbelieving Jews in His day. The same veil remains unless the unbelieving Jew turned to the Lord.

Verse 17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Liberty from what? The Old Covenant! That's why Paul warns believers to, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free [from under law], and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." [see Gal 5:1]

verse 18 "But we all [i.e., we believers], with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

I haven't seen a believer's face that glowed....So what is Paul speaking of? Are we looking intently into God's face? No! Then what is Paul talking of? Simply this: As we turn from the covenant of works and reflect on God's glory (His unconditional love or His goodness [see Ex 33:18,19]) we grow spiritually....We are being transformed and are from one degree of glory to another refecting His love....

February 26, 2005

I think maybe Robert has one valid point (along with some that aren't). I think he is correctly pointing out that Paul is not contrasting the old and the new, but rather Paul is comparing the similarities between the two situations (or the two columns of Ed's diagram).

Some of the similarities include:

- both came with glory.

- both had a veil.

- both Moses and Paul had authority derived from God.

February 26, 2005

The law of God's covenants has two purposes -- first, to teach us how to live in obedience; and second, to condemn the guilty. That second purpose is the "ministry of death" mentioned by Paul in verse 7, while the first is the "ministry of the Spirit" mentioned in verse 8. For the OT teaches that obedience is the result of the filling of the Spirit: "[:"blue"]I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.[/]" (Ezekiel 36:27 NASB)

So even the "ministry of death" and the "ministry of the Spirit" which Paul mentions in this passage are not contrasting the old and new, but merely mentioning the two sides of the coin which are common to both the old and the new.

On different note-- I think Paul's authority was being challenged because he didn't have written credentials issued by a recognized credential-granting authority, such as the "College of Rabbis". Those who were challenging Paul's authority in Corinth were probably "credentialed" by men. So Paul is using the visible evidence provided by the glorious transformation in the lives of his students as his "letter of authority".

February 26, 2005

Wow! Progress.

You're still jumping to conclusions, but not nearly so far. And every text you cited (with the exception of Hebrews) has some actual link to our passage.

However, I notice you haven't answered any of the questions I've put to you, whereas I've dealt with yours.

So, which is it?

* The fading glory of [:"blue"]Moses' face[/] is being compared to the surpassing glory of the [:"orange"]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 [:"orange"]new covenant[/]?

And if the former, show your evidence,in context, as I have shown mine.

Also:

Where in this passage do you find reference to the "2nd death?"

Let's be a good example, and play fair.

I'll deal with Hebrews in a later post.

February 26, 2005

For those concerned about the time this is taking.

Like anything else, the first time through takes longest. As you grow accustomed to using any tools, you get faster.
As I've indicated, the process is the product. We often learn more from overcoming obstacles than from smooth sailing.
Although some are being very helpful in posing obstacles that enhance our learning, the process does go faster when there are fewer, and they are more relevant.
So far, we've dealt only with epistles. Other literary forms pose other questions, and offer other rewards. For example, how do you interpret God's will out of a narrative where the author doesn't comment on the events, but merely relates them? Fun thing to do.
As we get better, and faster, and with fewer gratuitous obstacles, we find rewards we never anticipated.

One final note. I've demonstrated/coached scores of people, including skeptics and other teachers, in the use of this approach. What is happening here is heightened a little bit by the propensity of people on the internet, and particularly here, to pontificate, but otherwise it's pretty normal.

February 26, 2005

Quote:

Paul is not contrasting the old and the new,

but rather

Paul is comparing the similarities

The problem with that is that the whole passage is founded upon a stark contrast. "Not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

Life and death are polar opposites, despite some superficial similarities.

Looks to me like all the "but's" (yours and Paul's) have the same function.

There is some comparison, but the purpose is contrast.

I am not certain what you're referring to when you say, "both had a veil?" What veil are you referring to with regard to the New Covenant?

February 26, 2005

Quote:

The law of God's covenants

I do not understand what is meant by that phrase.

Quote:

has two purposes -- first, to teach us how to live in obedience; and second, to condemn the guilty. That second purpose is the "ministry of death" mentioned by Paul in verse 7, while the first is the "ministry of the Spirit" mentioned in verse 8. For the OT teaches that obedience is the result of the filling of the Spirit: "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:27 NASB)

That may be, but it is not what Paul is teaching here.

Quote:

not contrasting the old and new,

but

merely mentioning the two sides of the coin which are common to both the old and the new.

"Not contrasting?" Either Paul is contrasting when he uses "but," and so are you, or neither of you is. However, saying you're not contrasting makes your sentence meaningless.

Quote:

On different note-- I think Paul's authority was being challenged because he didn't have written credentials issued by a recognized credential-granting authority, such as the "College of Rabbis". Those who were challenging Paul's authority in Corinth were probably "credentialed" by men. So Paul is using the visible evidence provided by the glorious transformation in the lives of his students as his "letter of authority".

Based on this passage alone, that's certainly possible. It is a reasonable

February 26, 2005

"pontificate"? NEVER! (Sounds too catholic for me!)

Ben

February 26, 2005

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position: Are you saying that 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 teaches that the Old Covenant has been abolished?

Yes, Hebrews 8:13 seems to suggest that the Old Covenant has been abolished, but clearly what was abolished was the sacrifices and offerings. I get this from Heb 10:5 --"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me...."

This "body" was our corporate fallen life taken from the womb of Mary. For thirty odd years Christ wrought out a perfect life in our humanity. At the cross our life died "in Him." This is the New Covenant.... Hence, "we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The earthly sacrifices couldn't do this....That's why Matthew states, "And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom."

Besides the giving of the sacrifices and temple activities there was the giving of the law. That covenant is, "obey and live, disobey and die." As Moses said, "So He [God] declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deut. 4:13

While Christ fulfilled both the sacrificial demands and obeyed the law perfectly, the O.C. is still alive and well anytime one promises to be good in return for life.

That is why Paul states in 2 Cor 3:14, "For until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ."

That "day" was after the cross - after the Old Covenant was supposedly abolished. Also, God never gave the law as a means of salvation, rather He gave it so that fallen mankind could see the futility in gaining heaven by law. He knew the Jews of the Exodus couldn't keep it, but they didn't know....

The Old Testament sacrificial system will not "curse" the unbeliever in the end of time....So that being abolished or replaced makes perfect sense. However, if the O.C. is the law then what will "curse" the unbeliever in the end of time? Not God, but the law!

"The curse of the law" is not goodbye to life until the resurrection, no, it is goodbye to life forever because you have persistently said no to God's deliverance from under it....Therefore God will have to abandon you forever.

This can be seen by comparing Gal 3:13 with Deut 21:22,23

Gal 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”

Why did the Jews hang Christ on a tree? Because they wanted God to curse Him....What does this mean?

Deut 21:22,23 “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death [the method was stoning], and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God)...."

The Jews didn't want Jesus to merely die, they wanted to make sure that He wasn't resurrected. Did God comply? Yes, God abandoned Jesus on the cross....That's why Christ cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Immediately after this statement He dies....

Did our fallen humanity die in Christ's deity? Yes, we died not Divinity....The law says, "The soul who sins must die." Christ is not the sinner and unless the sinner dies the law has not been fulfilled.

Did our life (that Christ assumed at the incarnation) die eternally or was it raised up Sunday morning? No, our "old self" died eternally.....That's the 2nd death....In place of this life Christ gave of Himself. Hence He was raised with a sinless, glorified body that could walk through buildings. He took this perfect life to heaven and presents us before God's holy law "in Himself"....

So, the law was never done away with....It is the foundation of the whole controversy between Christ and Satan. IF you do away with the law then Nico is right -- everyone will be saved because it is the law that demands eternal death.

February 26, 2005

I say something complimentary, and there you go again, around the Bible in 80 verses.

Why don't you tell me what you think 2 Cor 3 is teaching--in context. Don't jump all over for your definitions and conclusions, show me something from 2 Cor, preferably chapter 3.

I've got to leave for church, but I can't let this pass. The Jews wanted to put Jesus to death; they would have stoned Him, as they later did Stephen. They went to the Romans for the authority to execute Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman mode of execution. So, aside from being out of context and therefore irrelevant to this passage, it's just plain wrong.

I know you're anxious, but your impatience leads you into silly mistakes.

February 26, 2005

Quote:

Paul is not contrasting the old and the new,

but rather

Paul is comparing the similarities

The problem with that is that the whole passage is founded upon a stark contrast. "Not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

Life and death are polar opposites, despite some superficial similarities.

It is true that Paul is contrasting life and death, but both of those were part of the old covenant. "[:"blue"]I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, [/]"(Deut 30:18) Also, when Stephen was on trial before the Sanhedrin, he testified that Moses "[:"blue"]received living words to pass on to us.[/]" (Acts 7:38) Apparently, the NT believers didn't view the Mosaic covenant as only an instrument of death, but also of life. Paul's readers did not share the "anti-old-covenant" bias that is an unconscious assumption of most modern Christians.

Since the old covenant itself included both life and death, then how could Paul's contrast between "life" and "death" be a contrast between the old and the new covanant? Wouldn't it rather be a contrast between the two roles or purposes of the old covenant?

February 26, 2005

Quote:

The law of God's covenants

I do not understand what is meant by that phrase.

I mean God's law which is incorporated in God's covenants-- the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the "New Covenant". When God makes a newer covenant, it doesn't invalidate any earlier covenants. This is evident from the fact that the Abrahamic covenant did not invalidate the covenant made earlier with Noah and the animals. Rather, the older covenant was incorporated in the newer covenant. The Mosaic covenant did not invalidate the Abrahamic covenant, but rather the Abrahamic continued within the Mosaic covenant. (Galatians 3:17) And the "New Covenant" does not invalidate the Mosaic covenant, rather the Torah is incorporated into the renewed covenant:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, I will put My law [torah] within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (Jer 31:33. Also quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10).

Jesus specifically stated that He did not come to abolish any part of the law, and that those who taught the smallest commands of God would be considered great in the kingdom of Heaven.(Matt 5:17-19)

Quote:

That may be, but it is not what Paul is teaching here.

When Paul spent time in Corinth, he taught the people the truths of the Old Testament. That foundation would have been the starting point for Paul's present teaching. With that foundation, his original readers would probably have reached a far different conclusion than that reached by present-day Christians who start with a 2000-year-old foundation of anti-OT traditions.

February 26, 2005

Quote:

Why don't you tell me what you think 2 Cor 3 is teaching--in context

I already have....

What do you say - are the terms of the law abolished? I'm speaking from your point of view of 2 Cor 3....

February 27, 2005

Quote:

Since the old covenant itself included both life and death, then how could Paul's contrast between "life" and "death" be a contrast between the old and the new covanant? Wouldn't it rather be a contrast between the two roles or purposes of the old covenant?

Take a look for yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..............|..^[:"blue"]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,..............|

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul says the "new covenant" is "not of the letter."

On the other hand, "the ministry that brought death was engraved in letters on stone."

Question: What "ministry was engraved in letters on stone?"

Question: What "ministry condemns men?"

February 27, 2005

Quote:

I already have....

No, not in this passage. You have presented me with a disparate collection of texts and notions from various sources, whose primary conection is in your head.

When it comes to the actual teaching of Paul in this passage, you exhibit a case of textual ADD--can't seem to keep focused on the business at hand.

Until you demonstrate how your position arises from a fair reading of the text, rather than being imposed upon it, it remains your own "private interpretation." I've made my method and my steps public, for all to see.

It's interesting to me how many things have been brought from outside the text, and how few have addressed the actual passage at hand. When you referenced Exodus concerning the veil, that was appropriate, because Moses' veil is clearly in mind in this passage. But the veil on Moses' face is NOT the same as the veil between the apartments in the Tabernacle. That's one reason why Hebrews is not relevant. There are others.

But the main point remains. You claim to describe the teaching of 2 Cor 3, but you only use it as a kind of hermeneutical trampoline, bouncing from here to there without warrant.

If you were an inspired interpreter a la Matthew, I'd relent, no matter how erratic your textual peregrinations. But I have no reason to believe you are. Since I'm certain that Paul was inspired, I'll stick with him.

Quote:

What do you say - are the terms of the law abolished?

What was the "ministry that brought death, and was engraved with letters in stone?" My point of view doesn't matter. I'm asking about Paul's point of view, in 2 Cor 3.

Please confine yourself to reading the text, and not Paul's mind.

February 27, 2005

Quote:

his original readers would probably have reached a far different conclusion than that reached by present-day Christians who start with a 2000-year-old foundation of anti-OT traditions.

Fine, then show me from the text.

And if you're suggesting I have a "foundation of anti-OT traditions," you're less perceptive than I gave you credit for.

February 27, 2005

2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, [the Old Covenant] came in glory, 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...

The glory here refers to God's glory at the giving of the law. That glory faded from Moses’ face! That is the immediate context....

verse 8 "will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?"

At this point, the immediate context does not define "the ministry of the Spirit"

Verse 9 "If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!"

The giving of the law at Mount Sinai was indeed glorious. However, the link to "the ministry of the spirit" is still left unresolved. Yet a clue is given in that it brings "righteousness"!

Verse 10 "For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory...."

Again, the giving of the law was glorious! What has not been answered is how the ministry of the Spirit is more so....

Verse 11 "And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

God's glory no longer resides at Mount Sinai. Neither does it any longer reflect in Moses’ face. In that respect that glory has faded. Apparently the ministry of the Spirit has a glory that lasts....Still, contextually, we have no answer to what "ministry of the Spirit" is....

Verse 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We [i.e., we believers] 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."

More of the same

Verse 14 "But their minds [those Israelis at Mount Sinai] were made dull, [how so?] For to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read."

What veil is Paul speaking of? In the preceding context he spoke of Moses’ veil....What does this infer?

Well from where did this glory come? Right - the face of God. How can sinners approach a holy God? They can't! Even Moses couldn't face God and live (see Ex 33:20) A veil (a barrier) remained between the glory of God and Moses.... However, the context has not yet revealed the meaning of "the ministry of the Spirit"!

"It [the veil - the separation/barrier] has not been removed, because only in Christ is it [the veil] taken away."

As long as one is under the Old Covenant, the veil/separation/barrier has not been removed! It is only removed "in Christ"!!!

Verse 15 "But to this day whenever Moses is read [i.e., the Old Covenant - the reading of the law], a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Please note that Paul's letter to the believers at Corinth was written well after the cross. The establishment of the N.C. occurred when Christ died (see Heb 9:22).

Likewise Paul is not referring to the Jews at Sinai, but the unbelieving Jews in His day. The same veil/barrier remains unless the unbelieving Jew turned to the Lord.

Verse 17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Liberty from what? The Old Covenant - the terms of the law! That's why Paul warns believers to, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free [from under law], and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." [see Gal 5:1]

verse 18 "But we all [i.e., we believers], with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord,are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit."

"The ministry of the Spirit" most likely involves the transformation of the believer from "one degree of glory to another. This is called sanctification. The context does not answer how it is more glorious....For that we must compare with other N.T. statements.

Nonetheless, what I stated concerning the law still stands. The Old Covenant exists today....Those who remain under it will parish. To demand death the law must still have authority over those who are under it.

February 27, 2005

"hermeneutical trampoline"

LOL

[good expression!]

Please keep bringing us back to the text at hand.

February 27, 2005

Quote:

At this point, the

immediate context does not define "the ministry of the Spirit"

. . .

AND

Quote:

the link to "the ministry of the spirit" is still left unresolved.

Let's look at the evidence from the text itself:

.....................................[:"red"]a 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,[/]..............|

Paul declares he is a "minister of the new covenant," which is NOT "of the letter," "but [is] of the spirit."

So this "new covenant" is "of the spirit." Then he mentions a "ministry of the of the spirit." Common sense, the structure of the passage, and direct logic suggest that these terms refer to the same thing.

You, however, think that the "ministry of the spirit" is "undefined" in this context, and what this ministry of the spirit is, is "unresolved" from within the text, that we must go far afield to understand it.

So tell us plainly, Robert, that you see no link between the "new covenant. . .of the spirit" and "the ministry of the spirit."

Tell us there is no connection, that it is either mere coincidence that they occur in a syntactically parallel construction, and that Paul actually expected the Corinthians to believe that the "ministry of the spirit" was totally separate from the "new covenant. . .of the spirit."

Explain how and why Paul expected that outcome from the way he structured the sentences.

February 27, 2005

Yes, Ed, please continue with your 'syntactical display' until you are finished with it. THEN, we, they, all...can discuss and/or argue. Please do not let Robert & Ron sidetrack you until you are through with your mission or project of teaching. Seems to me you are almost there, right?

Ben

February 27, 2005

Quote:

So tell us plainly, Robert, that you see no link between the "new covenant. . .of the spirit" and "the ministry of the spirit."

Wow, do you make this stuff up as you go??? Are you equating sinlessness with "the ministry of the spirit"?

Sure, the Spirit is linked with the N.C., but the foundation of the N.C. is not what the Spirit does in us as we "learn to walk in the Spirit." The foundation is what Christ did in our fallen humanity some 2000 years ago!

Now answer my question: Is the Old Covenant still in existence today? By "the old covenant" I mean "obey and live, disobey and die!" In other words is the law still binding today?

In a nutshell the question is, "Have the terms of the law been abrogated?"

February 27, 2005

Quote:

Wow, do you make this stuff up as you go???

That's the most incredible question so far. The text is from 2 Cor 3. The block diagram has been up on this forum since late Thursday. Every step has been taken deliberatly, allowing comment along the way. If you disagree with it, tell me how; better yet, produce something yourself showing how you think the various concepts are linked.

Quote:

Are you equating sinlessness with "the ministry of the spirit"?

I went back through the entire thread. I've never mentioned sinlessness.

Quote:

In a nutshell the question is, "Have the terms of the law been abrogated?"

Then the nutshell will have to answer. In 2 Cor 3, Paul does not address that question.

At this point I'm going to follow Dr. Ben's advice. It doesn't appear to me that you are able to focus on the text or my posts. You seem to be in some "free association" mode where I write a word, and you say the first thing that comes into your head.

So, from this point, unless you actually address what's really being/been written, I'm going to have to ignore you for the good of the rest. It's simply too time consuming trying to corral every rabbit you pull out of your hat.

February 27, 2005

Quote:

Seems to me you are almost there, right?

We have almost completed the first major step, exegesis. What Robert wants to do is called eisigesis. Instead of reading out of the text, he keeps trying to read things in that do not exist there. So we'll let him chase his phantoms.

Now we need to:

Identify the major segments of the passage, AND
Prepare a summary of the logic/arguments

And then we can move to the second major phase, cometimes called "biblical theology," sometimes called "interpretation."

So, what do you see as the major segments?

What do they say, in one sentence or less?

Sign In

Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

Recommended Posts

there buster

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

there buster

Robert

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

there buster

there buster

there buster

there buster

benherndon

Robert

there buster

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Robert

there buster

there buster

there buster

Robert

Jeannieb43

there buster

benherndon

Robert

there buster

there buster

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity