Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

[Robert]

Quote:

---

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.

---

Let me quote your conclusion:

Quote:

---

"The old covenant, both deadly and glorious, faded."

---

By "faded" do you mean,

A] Still remains (although less glorious)

or

B] It has been abrogated?

[there buster]

1) What is there about "summary" you can't read?

2) Although Paul is not concerned with that question directly, if you would simply examine the relevant part of the text you might get some light, instead of so much heat.

Let's (but I repeat myself) look at the text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..............|11[:"blue"]And 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

So the old covenant "is glorious," and "was fading." That's as much as Paul has to say about your question in this passage.

So, as I understand this passage, it doesn't say whether the old covenant has completely faded "away." I'm not going to take the time to go into the topical study about whether the law is "abrogated" or not. It's too time-consuming to do properly in this venue, and there are plenty who are willing to do it poorly.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

So the old covenant "is glorious," and "was fading." That's as much as Paul has to say about your question in this passage.

---

Maybe you are right....Maybe his whole point is just to contrast the two....IF that is the case I am not interested in further involvement. The reason I reacted is that I thought you were taking the position that the O.C. has been abolished. If you are interested in that subject you know the post and where to find me.

The floor is yours,

Robert

[there buster]

It never ceases to amaze me what happens when we persist in bringing our questions to the Biblical text.

So what are the major segments?

(NOTE I've replaced some of the text with "placeholders" for the purposes of this discussion)

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–

........|/--------------------------------------------------------^/

........|/--------------------------------------------------------|/ DISCUSSION OF "NEW COVENANT"

........|/--------------------------------------------------------|/

......./|/

........|12Therefore, since we have such a hope,

...........^we are very bold.

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.

....................................................|/

....................................................|/ DISCUSSION OF "VEIL" OVER OT

....................................................|/

17Now the Lord is the Spirit,

and where the Spirit of the Lord is,

.....^there is freedom.

18And we,

.......^who with unveiled faces

.......|all reflect the Lord's glory,

.......|are being transformed into his likeness

...................^with everincreasing glory,

.........................................^which comes from the Lord,

................................................................^who is the Spirit.

©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Take a look for yourself:

---

Ed, it looks pretty plain in the diagram that you've constructed. However, you too have added some assumptions to the text, that are not spelled out in the text. (I'm not accusing you of sinister motives nor of sloppy methods. We all come to the text with our own assumptions. And we tend to be rather blind to our own assumptions until someone else questions those assumptions.) Or perhaps I am misreading your diagram.

The way I understand your diagram and explanaition of it, you have the old covenant on the left, and the new covenant on the right and have stated that Paul is emphasizing the contrasts between the two.

Doesn't that assume that Paul understood the new covenant as being separate from the old covenant? Does the text specify this? There is linguistic and scriptural evidence that the "new" covenant should rather be referred to in English as the "renewed" covenant. In Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 and 10 the only difference between the old covenant and the new covenant is that God will write his instructions (torah) on our hearts (this had been the people's responsibility under the old covenant). It doesn't specify that the new covenant would have a different set of laws, only that God's people would relate differently to God's laws. Is there any textual basis (or scriptural basis) for assuming that the old covenant is separate from the new covenant?

Later in the passage Paul states that a veil is placed over the hearts when people read the old covenant and that the veil is removed when a person "turns to the Lord". Paul does not find fault with the old covenant itself, but rather with the veil that obscures the glory of the old covenant until a person turns to the Lord. What happens at the point when a person turns to the Lord? Does the old covenant fade away? No, the veil is removed so that the person sees the glory of the covenants and the surpassing glory of the Messiah. This is evident from the attitude of the believers towards the law as testified in Acts 21:20, "[:"blue"]You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.[/]" (NIV)

In the passage you are diagraming from 1 Cor 3, couldn't it be diagramed it so that the contrast begins earlier in the chapter? On the left would go letters written in ink or on stone; on the right side would go letters written on human hearts. The ink-written credentials/letters of recommendation which Paul's detractors seemed to value would go on the left along with the ink or stone-written letters of the covenant (which only serve to condemn if that's the only place they get written.) Paul's letters of recommendation written on the hearts of his students would go on the right side along with the Spirit-written covenant renewed in the hearts of the believers.

In answer to your earlier query regarding my statement that both covenants had a veil:

At the giving of the old covenant there was a veil between the people and Moses' face. At the giving of the new or renewed covenant there was a veil between the hearts of the people and the truths of the old covenant.

[benherndon]

Ed, in your post #157467 you brought out the verses between 13 and 17 but you did not in this last post above. Is there some special reason?

What do you think is the difference from what you are saying about 2Cor 3 than what I was saying and...... which may have contributed to your starting of this thread?

Ben

[there buster]

Quote:

---

it looks pretty plain in the diagram that you've constructed. However, you too have added some assumptions to the text, that are not spelled out in the text.

---

That's why I kept asking for input. I specifically did not claim it to be inspired. That's why I make each step public. Because no scripture is of any private interpretation, the process we use should be transparent.

Quote:

---

Doesn't that assume that Paul understood the new covenant as being separate from the old covenant? Does the text specify this?

---

I don't know how Paul understood it until I look at what he said. That's what I'm trying to do.

Excellent question! So let's take it one step at a time.

Here's the straight text:

"He 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."

"not of the letter but of the spirit"

I see that "not/but" as a contrast between "a new covenant" and "something else." What do you see? How would you diagram/structure it?

What is another plausible reading?

Quote:

---

There is linguistic and scriptural evidence that the "new" covenant should rather be referred to in English as the "renewed" covenant.

---

Yes, Walter C. Kaiser makes the point that there is no word in Hebrew for "renew." But each covenant is renewed with changed provisions, more advantageous to us.

Be that as it may, we have this text to deal with.

Quote:

---

n the passage you are diagraming from 1 Cor 3, couldn't it be diagramed it so that the contrast begins earlier in the chapter? On the left would go letters written in ink or on stone; on the right side would go letters written on human hearts.

---

Yes, but it wouldn't change anything. That contrast concerns the letters, not covenants. It may well be an intentionally parallel construction, but it puts the old covenant in worse shape, not better.

Quote:

---

At the giving of the old covenant there was a veil between the people and Moses' face. At the giving of the new or renewed covenant there was a veil between the hearts of the people and the truths of the old covenant.

---

Looks to me like both veils relate to the old covenant. In the text, the link between "new covenant" and "veil" is pretty weak.

..................................[:"red"]<-[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!

........|12Therefore, since we have such a hope,

...........^we are very bold.

13We are not like Moses,

..................^who would put [:"red"]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 [:"red"]same veil[/] remains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

Looks to me like there's a lot in the way between "new covenant" and "veil."

On the other hand

" [:"red"]same veil[/] remains when the [:"red"]old covenant[/] is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when [:"red"]Moses[/] is read, a [:"red"]veil[/] covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

As I said in an earlier post, it seems clear to me that "old covenant" and "Moses" are parallel expressions referring to the OT. In that case, the veil is linked to the OT in both cases.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Ed, in your post #157467 you brought out the verses between 13 and 17 but you did not in this last post above. Is there some special reason?

---

Yes, because to put it in would have run over the right margin and made a mess of the diagram. Each section had already been discussed in detail anyway. And I did say why:

Quote:

---

(NOTE I've replaced some of the text with "placeholders" for the purposes of this discussion)

---

Quote:

---

What do you think is the difference from what you are saying about 2Cor 3 than what I was saying

---

I started the thread because there was no way, no common ground on which to settle the differences in that discussion. I also wanted to model just how that can be done. Finally, I don't yet know what the differences may be. I'm not jumping ahead, but taking this one step at a time.

I think I've demonstrated already how effective some of these means can be. There are several major things I'm teaching.

1) The typical approach of conclusion--search for evidence is fundamentally flawed, and does not honor scripture.

2) Even when we start with the text, it is tempting to skip steps, to jump to conclusions. That does violence to scripture as well.

3) I thoroughly subscribe to the understanding that no scripture is to be of any private interpretation--nor does it need to be left to brilliant theologians. With a few tools (furnished by brilliant scholars), and some careful work, most people can interpret the Bible with some confidence.

4) when this whole process is followed, the interpretation carries an authority no single individual can summon. By making the process public, people are convicted by the results--not by the skill or eloquence of the interpreter, but because they can see the power of the original message.

I have many stories I could tell about this, but I will save them for elsewhere.

[benherndon]

It appears to me that you have finished what you call 'syntactical display'. I noted previously that I've never seen this done before but that I think ( ) I do it in my mind when I read it.

Would you like to now: Go through the entire chapter in a running manner, verse by verse and insert your 'interpretation' of what you are reading. I need you to give a practical interpretation that applies to understanding what 'teaching' Paul is giving. I seem to think that you and I are nearly in 'sync'.

Or, would you like me to go through it verse by verse and insert my interpretation as I read and, then, have you take me to task?

This is a text which I feel SDAs do not focus on because it is too painful for them and they take up the ideas of others who have missed the clear message of it---and which makes this chapter be in 'sync' with Rom 3 & 14, Gal 3, Eph 2, and Hebrews---and in sync also with the Gospels. This, in my opinion, and I am an 82 yr old SDA who spent 20 yrs in SDA education, and who was a 'traditional' SDA until I spent lots of time reading ONLY the Bible for spiritual teaching about God and Christ---is a severe problem for SDA theology!

If you would prefer to discuss this in private I would think that might be best because of its possibly divisive effect on others not ready to know it all?

Ben

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I do it in my mind when I read it.

---

Some people are more adept at it than others. There are passages, however, many of them in Paul, which are simply too complex to keep straight in your head. And this is a good safeguard.

Quote:

---

I need you to give a practical interpretation that applies to understanding what 'teaching' Paul is giving. I seem to think that you and I are nearly in 'sync'.

---

The third step is called both "systematic theology," and "application." In my own study, I often go through all three steps in a few minutes. A complex passage might take a couple of hours.

It's exciting to lead a class who all know how to use this aproach get going on a difficult passage. We've barely scratched the surface.

I had a class that discovered a chiasm in one passage, and they still think of it as their own.

Quote:

---

This is a text which I feel SDAs do not focus on because it is too painful for them

---

Sadly, too many traditional SDA's are no longer "people of the Book," because the Book defies their expectations.

I once had a head elder who opposed my teaching because, "When people study the Bible too much, it causes trouble." Interesting notion for an SDA, huh?

When he actually visited my class, he enjoyed it. But he did find it unsettling.

I'll try and speed up for you.

[there buster]

Section One:THE LETTERS THAT MATTER

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.

[:"blue"]

Section Two:THE BASIS OF PAUL'S CONFIDENCE (The New Covenant)

........|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–

........|/--------------------------------------------------------^/

........|/--------------------------------------------------------|/ DISCUSSION OF "NEW COVENANT"

........|/--------------------------------------------------------|/

......./|/

........|12Therefore, since we have such a hope,

...........^we are very bold.

[/]

[:"red"]

Section Three:THE SUPERIORITY OF THE NEW COVENANT

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.

....................................................|/

....................................................|/ DISCUSSION OF "VEIL" OVER OT

....................................................|/

17Now the Lord is the Spirit,

and where the Spirit of the Lord is,

.....^there is freedom.

18And we,

.......^who with unveiled faces

.......|all reflect the Lord's glory,

.......|are being transformed into his likeness

...................^with everincreasing glory,

.........................................^which comes from the Lord,

................................................................^who is the Spirit.

[/]

©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

Those are the three major segments I see.

I would summarize them as follows:

1. The changed lives of the Corinthians are the credentials that validate Paul's ministry in a way no human credentials could.

2. Paul is confident because he has recieved the life giving new covenant, which is far superior to the old. Even the greatest ministers (possibly Rabbis who give credentials) of the Old Covenant have nothing on those who receive the new covenant. They are as different as life and death.

3. After, all the Jews just "don't get it." They don't see Christ in the Old Testament, so they don't really understand it. Those who receive Christ have their lives, and their understanding of the OT transformed.

That's what I think Paul was telling the Corinthians.

O.K. let's have it!

[benherndon]

I agree with the first section. His authority comes from God---not in letters of recommendation like perhaps the Jews that had possibly stirred up the Corinthians since he last visited with them.

Quote:

---

6He has made us competent

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

---

>>>Paul is aware of the New Covenant that Jesus wrote with His blood as mentioned in Isa 42(Christ and His disciples talked of the New Covenant in His blood) where one can also get a prophecy of Christ's Law. Jeremiah predicted the New Covenant but didn't write it. Jesus did that and explained it. The New Covenant is NOT the Old Covenant 'renewed' as Ron has mentioned. "Note Bene" those last two verses of Rom 8. The writer of Heb 8 is reminding others that there was promised a New Covenant--and NOW it is here! The writer of Heb 8 is not the definer of the New Covenant. Paul was ordained, he implies, by his 'baptism' of the Spirit in Damascus and the 14 yrs in the desert where he apparently(!) worked out his understanding of the New Covenant to be the life death and resurrection of Christ reconciling us to God---while the people were still sinners!

V. 6 continues---"..not of the letter (the Ten Commandments--as he shows in the next verse) but of the Spirit (Christ--as is shown in the latter verses of the chapter) for the letter kills."--as is shown as he notes in V. 7 the 'ministry that brought death' is boldly proclaimed to be what was "engraved in letters on stone" (the Ten Commandments, again) "..came with glory" that was fading V. 8 -"will not the ministry of the Spirit (Jesus, again--defined later in the chapter)be even more glorius"

In V. 9 Paul writes showing the 'ministry that condemns' (refers again to the ministry that brought death) is outshown by the 'ministry that brings righteousness'--that is the Spirit radically exceeds 'the Law' in its glory.

V. 10 actually says that the glory that is attributed to the former really is 'no glory' in comparison to the 'surpassing glory' of the New Covenant. One must see that the authority of the Old Covenant has 'no glory' now!

V.11---can the reader see that the Old Covenant/Testament's former glory that has faded to nothing in authority, is compared to the New Covenant glory that 'lasts' forever and will never 'fade away'?

V 12---Paul is "bold" with confidence in his declaration against the Judaizers that had come to mess with the Corinthians and confuse them that they were still to be under the authority of the Old Covenant Law. He is unafraid to tell them 'like it is'!---so he continues with 'boldness'.

Quote:

---

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.

---

>>>>Now Paul, again 'boldly'(V 13 & 14), declares a comparison between what the Israelites failed to see with what today's reader fails to comprehend, or 'see', that the authority of 'the Law' is 'done away' and 'abolished'(see KJV) in favor of the 'ministry of righteousness or ministry of the Spirit' (which is defined later to be the 'ministry of Christ and His Grace') The authority of 'the Law' is ABOLISHED. The Bible says it is 'abolished'!!! Don't try to shy away from those bold words. "The Law" has no more authority over the Christian!!! Gal 3 in its latter verses and Gal 4 (comparing the two Covenants) says the same thing! "The Old Covenant/Testament is 'cast out'(KJV)" Its all through Pauls writings!! Its like comparing the moon,s brightness to the sun's!! The difference is dramatic!! Jeremiah predicted the New Covenant would not be like the Old Covenant--and it isn't.

V. 15--When the old covenant ("old testament" in KJV) is read there is a veil hiding the true import of its impermanence by those who look to it for 'authority' over them. But V. 16--'when anyone turns to the Lord (realizes that the Christian is under Grace and not under 'the Law') that veil is taken away." The emphasis is on the supassing glory of the New Covenant when compared to the 'fading' 'done away' 'abolished' 'no glory', the 'end' of the glory, the impermanence of the glory (authority) of the Old Covenant/Testament. Don't shy away from those 'bold' words.

V. 17---Christ and the Spirit are synonymous and He has brought, via Grace, literal 'freedom' from the burdensomeness of the Old Covenant/Testament laws, decrees, regulations and rules which when given Moses said were to last forever. Many like to say God is always the same and never changes. I am aware of those comments but there are other comments that shows He does what is best for His people as time goes by and circumstances change. They changed dramatically during Christ's presence on this earth 2000 yrs ago. Things haven't been the same since. We are 'being transformed' into His likeness as we mature in the faith all of which comes as a 'gift', too, in our own spirit's and conscience's growth.

Where, Ed, do you see that I depart from the meaning of the texts in 2Cor 3? Have I built a 'great tower' really?

Tell me where I'm wrong or have gone too far in your opinion---I am not too sensitive. I have my share of arrogance and ignorance but, that aside, I'm trying to be fearlessly objective when I read the Bible. I am no longer bound by my old teachings from whatever source. They are either clearly supported by the Bible or they are clearly not supported by the Bible. I willed to just read the Bible for what it had to say to me. I do not believe what I've done is 'private interpretation'--- nor is what I've done what that text in Peter is talking about.

Some people, there are always some that 'privately interpret' and gain a following---like occurred in Waco and Jonestown----those people are very dangerous and evil in my opinion--though I leave their eternal life in His hands, not mine, of course.

Sorry this is so long.

Ben

[benherndon]

There is another aspect of this that I have not directly dealt with in the above discussion---which was meant to show my belief in what the meaning of 2Cor 3 is. You, Ed, have given yours pretty much even though you may still wish to 'flesh out' your 'syntactical displays' with further 'interpretation'. Let's see if our thoughts have similarity or not.

But, now that the Old Covenant/Testament and its contained Ten Commandments have been 'abolished' in authority, according to my understanding (Is it me that has the 'veil'?-- )----what will guide the Christian?---i.e., How now shall we live?

The answer to that question is to go to the New Testament/Covenant to see how the Christian is to live his life. It cannot follow the Old Covenant, the laws, decrees, rules and regulations of the Torah for they are a unit, "keep it all or none of it!". and we have seen that at the moment of Christ's 'fulfillment' of the meaning of "the Law and Prophets" the curtain to the MHP of the temple in Jerusalem was torn top to bottom, ripped open. This is very significant, IMO, because the entire Jewish religion was dependent upon and centered in the sanctuary rituals. Their significance for the Jew and for all others was suddenly dramatically negated. The Jewish, or Moses, era of authority suddenly was 'abolished' in 'authority' and replaced by the Grace of Christ's reconciliation of the sinner to the Father!(This is the Christian era) "the Law' is 'gone' now as far as its authority over us is concerned. (Gal 3) Now we are under what Paul has described as Christ's Law--which is simplified (in comparison to the Old Covenant law) to Love God and love mankind, trust Jesus' actions in our behalf and worship Him. If we do that we will respond to the 'writing in our hearts' of Christ's Law of love as we show our shame for doing wrong things and being 'selfish' enough to love to do things which hurt God and others in this life. We are changed to do good deeds. The latter are not necessarily connected to the Old Covenant though, of course, it had contained within it those aspects.

So, 'the Law' is, still, for the ungodly, the liar and adulterer, the murderer, the unholy and irreligious--who obviously do not accept that Christ has died for their failings----don't believe in Him, ignore Him, make no effort to do what is right--which they know in their hearts to do right but don't do it. Their consciences become hardened---they do not deserve to live 'eternal life'---and according to scripture they will not. However, they CAN repent, and have a reformation of their hearts toward God and their fellow men----though once into this evil way of life it is harder to 'come back'.

The NT clearly says there is no 'license' to sin. Sin is ignoring God, failing to recognize and appreciate His Gift of reconciliation and love. Sin is, as Robert has so often said, also, showing evil self love.

Once again, having been all my life an SDA, I see that the problem this church and its people have is the failure to limit their authority to the Bible ONLY. This is a big problem with lots of not-so-pleasant & potentially bad complications for the organization and..... they just don't know how to 'handle' it. Witness the many meetings to try to settle or examine certain problematic beliefs that almost always end in 'no action' at all. In great concern it meets with those who bring up the problems like the "Daniel" problem meeting in Lancaster, CA, and the problem around Dan 8:14, & pericope,(Glacier View) and the Rea discoveries in Glendale----but it always resists and, then, still doesn't know exactly what to do but 'act like' nothing happened. Think of the 1919 Bible Conference, too.

Our leadership really needs our prayers, love and consideration.

Ben

[there buster]

Quote:

---

>>>Paul is aware of the New Covenant that Jesus wrote with His blood as mentioned in Isa 42(Christ and His disciples talked of the New Covenant in His blood) where one can also get a prophecy of Christ's Law. Jeremiah predicted the New Covenant but didn't write it. Jesus did that and explained it. The New Covenant is NOT the Old Covenant 'renewed' as Ron has mentioned. "Note Bene" those last two verses of Rom 8. The writer of Heb 8 is reminding others that there was promised a New Covenant--and NOW it is here! The writer of Heb 8 is not the definer of the New Covenant. Paul was ordained, he implies, by his 'baptism' of the Spirit in Damascus and the 14 yrs in the desert where he apparently(!) worked out his understanding of the New Covenant to be the life death and resurrection of Christ reconciling us to God---while the people were still sinners!

---

I really have no response to all that, except that it is beyond the scope of this inquiry.

Paul says quite a bit about the New Covenant here, from whence we might go elsewhere. If this was a topical study, we would want to go first to Paul's other writings (and Hebrews is problematical in this regard), then to other contemporary sources (probably Luke).

Quote:

---

V.11---can the reader see that the Old Covenant/Testament's former glory that has faded to nothing in authority, is compared to the New Covenant glory that 'lasts' forever and will never 'fade away'?

---

"To nothing" goes beyond the text, but I think it is a fair reading.

Oooops! Duty (as in lovely wife) calls! More later.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

V 12---Paul is "bold" with confidence in his declaration against the Judaizers that had come to mess with the Corinthians and confuse them that they were still to be under the authority of the Old Covenant Law. He is unafraid to tell them 'like it is'!---so he continues with 'boldness'.

---

Possibly. I think he's more concerned with the Corinthians themselves, but either reading is reasonable, and neither is actually crucial.

Quote:

---

>>>>Now Paul, again 'boldly'(V 13 & 14), declares a comparison between what the Israelites failed to see with what today's reader fails to comprehend, or 'see', that the authority of 'the Law' is 'done away' and 'abolished'(see KJV) in favor of the 'ministry of righteousness or ministry of the Spirit' (which is defined later to be the 'ministry of Christ and His Grace') The authority of 'the Law' is ABOLISHED. The Bible says it is 'abolished'!!! Don't try to shy away from those bold words. "The Law" has no more authority over the Christian!!! Gal 3 in its latter verses and Gal 4 (comparing the two Covenants) says the same thing! "The Old Covenant/Testament is 'cast out'(KJV)" Its all through Pauls writings!! Its like comparing the moon,s brightness to the sun's!! The difference is dramatic!! Jeremiah predicted the New Covenant would not be like the Old Covenant--and it isn't.

---

"Abolished" Well, I'm not "shying away" from those words, I simply maintain that this passage doesn't go that far. It certainly says nothing to deny that the law is abolished, but this passage doesn't make it unequivocal.

I've not done a detailed study of the two covenants per se, so I'm not willing to go that far here. I could share my general understanding, but I wouldn't be prepared to make strong statements yet.

Quote:

---

V. 15--When the old covenant ("old testament" in KJV) is read there is a veil hiding the true import of its impermanence by those who look to it for 'authority' over them. But V. 16--'when anyone turns to the Lord (realizes that the Christian is under Grace and not under 'the Law') that veil is taken away." The emphasis is on the supassing glory of the New Covenant when compared to the 'fading' 'done away' 'abolished' 'no glory', the 'end' of the glory, the impermanence of the glory (authority) of the Old Covenant/Testament. Don't shy away from those 'bold' words.

---

I'm not at all afraid of bold words. I'm just not willing to make absolute statements about the covenants based on one passage, when it's not the only one that speaks to the issue.

Clearly, the new covenant is incomparably superior to the old, that's absolutely Paul's import.

But in the parallel between "Moses" and "old covenant," it appears very clear to me that Paul intends us to see the entire Old Testament--the covenants, the law, the nation, the system. The Jews don't get any of it, still read it in its most concrete, literalistic sense.

Quote:

---

V. 17---Christ and the Spirit are synonymous

---

I don't see that in this passage. One could make that argument legitimately, perhaps, based on the "paraclete" passages in John. But that is far, far afield from this text.

[there buster]

The next and final phase is called either "application" or "systematic theology."

Having determined what Paul said, and what beliefs these words embodied, we're now ready to answer the question "So what?"

What does this mean for us today? How then should we live.

God never changes, but men, and the times, do nothing else. So if God is to reach men, something He has proven He will pay any price to do, He must continually repackage His message. God doesn't change, but His means of communication do, in order to hit the moving target of humanity.

[benherndon]

Those words---'done away', 'faded or fading', 'have no glory in comparison', 'abolished'---are not my words. If anybody has a problem with those words & the their use by Paul they should take another long look, IMO.

Spirit and Lord (Christ) are synonymous? Yes, they are. Read again V. 17. The Lord is that Spirit! What is, is! 'syntactical display' should bring that out, seems to me. Lord = Spirit Spirit = Lord isn't that a bit 'syntactical' or do I err?

I do not mean to argue---but I was beginning to have problems with my old SDA teachings as I read, read and re-read the Bible. When my old Godly sweetheart of 64 yrs read that chapter to me out of Phillip's translation one morning on the way to Sabbath school, I said, "Wait, Honey! Read that again!!" She did and I said outloud, "Whoa"! Where are my SDA friends??

Things have not been exactly the same ever since. That was a 'key' for me that opened up Romans and Galatians, Eph, Hebrews 8 (I erred and said Rom 8 when I meant Heb 8 in an above post). Whoa, folks. Somehow if you are going to continue to support the binding of the Ten Cs, you've got to do a better job of explaining 2Cor 3, Gal 3, Rom 14, Col 2, Eph, Heb AND the whole NT.

We have been told we have lots to learn and much much to unlearn! Isn't the subject of 2Cor 3 some of what we need to learn and isn't some of what we've been taught that which we should unlearn?

This is all meant to be gently said.

Now in your opinion, Ed, just where am I 'far off'?

Ben

[benherndon]

I am wondering where LHC, DaveM, Shane and others are on this chapter of 2 Cor 3?

How to they interpret, or analyse this chapter in relation to SDA teachings?

Actually, Ed, I suspect we are pretty close in our tenative conclusions at least. Do you think we are NOT close?

Ben

[Nicodema]

[Meat of the passage--questions]

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

the ministry that condemns men

or

letter that kills

Also the new covenant.

the ministry that brings righteousness!

or

Spirit that gives life

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?

Its former glory is fading away.

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

All-surpassing glory, which lasts.

That's what I'm seeing.

Nico

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Those words---'done away', 'faded or fading', 'have no glory in comparison', 'abolished'---are not my words. If anybody has a problem with those words & the their use by Paul they should take another long look, IMO.

---

I have no problem with those words, either. I simply state that "abolished" goes beyond what this passage teaches. Certainly, this passage makes such an interpretation possible, but it does not require it.

To reiterate, I'm not doing a study of the New Covenant v. the Old. I'm just working with 2 Cor 3. Now, if you can find other evidence within 2 Cor that the Old Covenant is abolished, that would be directly relevant to this passage.

As I said, I have my own view of the covenants, which I'm willing to state, but with the understanding that it does not represent a systematic study of the topic, only my general understanding.

I'm willing to undertake the topic on another thread, if people want to. But the last thing I want to do is create yet another thread where one person preaches, another objects, and a theological food fight erupts.

I love to study the Scriptures. And amazing things happen. In one class, the students said, "We've been talking, and as a result of this class, every marriage represented here has strengthened. But we don't understand why. We haven't been studying marriage issues, just various passages of Scripture."

My only answer is that when you arm the Spirit with His sword, that penetrating scalpel operates where it's most needed.

Quote:

---

Phillip's translation

---

I love Phillips.

I am not aware that I ever stated you were "far off."

[there buster]

Yes, Nico, your analysis looks good to me.

I'm guessing you intuitively see the value of this methodical approach.

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

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?

Its former glory is fading away.

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

All-surpassing glory, which lasts.

That's what I'm seeing.

Nico

---

>>>>Bingo!!!, Nico!

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

I am not aware that I ever stated you were "far off."

---

>>>My apology! and, I didn't mean for you to see the question as an argument, for example. I used the statement to see if you think I am 'out in left field'.

However, once again, the word, "Abolished" IS in some translations, including the favorite SDA Bible which is the KJV. So, it is not unreasonable to say that something that has 'no glory compared to the surpassing glory' is 'abolished'. In Gal 4, speaking of Hagar being a proxy for the Old Covenant, the KJV uses the words, "cast out".

Those are pretty strong terms when compared to the statement in John 5 and 'watching' the actions of Christ and His level of regard for 'the Law'.

This is heady stuff for SDA theologians, preachers and teachers---seems to me. This is why I say that if, IF, we could somehow preserve the very respectable status for EGW by settling that she is 'pastoral' rather the 'nearCanonical' (my words) we could be free to interpret the scriptures 'for ourselves' which she said for us to do in her Signs article of March 21, 1906, "The Bible is our Only Guide" When we add that she is almost Biblically 'prophetic' we cause problems when trying to analyse, interpret, exegete (whatever) the scriptures.

Why not let the Sabbath worker join our church? He doesn't work EVERY Sabbath but he loves God and wants to honor His creation and the freedom from 'slavery' of our spiritual ancestors, and, he is a good man doing good deeds!---so why not let him be baptized and come to worship with us on Sabbaths when he is not working? There would be many advantages to this for him, his family, AND the church.

That is why I have gotten into 2Cor 3 at all.

Ben (in haste)

[there buster]

Well, now you've opened up a new line of inquiry.

In our church plant, we have three options for membership.

1) The "Believer" Option

Here you simply state that you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and that you have been/will be baptized in some fashion.

In that option you can vote on 90% of everything we do, participate/lead out in worship and most ministries.

2) The SDA option. As we always say, those rules are made elsewhere.

3) Compass Group membership. This is our core group, our steering committee. Membership is by invitation only, and is made only if the existing Compass Group is unanimous.

We baptize "into Christ," and wait for growth into Adventism. But we don't push for it or urge it.

Quote:

---

However, once again, the word, "Abolished" IS in some translations, including the favorite SDA Bible which is the KJV.

---

I stand corrected. I should have gone to the Greek much sooner on this. Well, I never claimed infallibility. But the Greek is pretty clear.

καταργέω

(don't know how that displays on your screen; looks good on mine)

katargeō to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:—abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

[benherndon]

You,Ed Dickerson, are my kind of man!! Intelligent but not 'arrogant'---may I be so blessed, Lord!!

I like what your church planting does (according to what you wrote!) Where is a church like that? I like that!

Ben