Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

[there buster]

Well, Ron, when you go far afield from the passage to define the "something else" Paul is contrasting the new covenant with, when this evidence is in the very verses under discussion--

Quote:

---

It could hardly be more explicit.

Paul's ministry

has produced letters

[:"red"]not written with ink[/]........but with [:"blue"]the the Spirit[/]

[:"red"]not on tablets of stone[/].. . .but on [:"blue"]human hearts[/]

Paul is a minister

of the new covenant

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

the [:"red"]ministry of the letter brought death[/].....but the [:"blue"]ministry of the Spirit brings life[/]

the [:"red"]other ministry brings death[/]......but the [:"blue"]new covenant ministry brings righteousness[/]

The parallel construction gives these attributes to the "something else"

written with ink

written in stone

written with letters

brought death

condemns

no glory now

---

it's hard for me to take your comments seriously. How many things were written in stone in the OT? My quick search of the OT reveals two references, both to the same thing.

Now, I recognize that it may be inconvenient to some understandings of the OT that some may hold. That's not my problem. To show me some plausible reading of the text is one thing. But to ask me to believe Paul was unclear where he was explicit, or that he didn't say what he very clearly said, is not reasonable.

I invite anyone to go back through this thread. Look at my presentation, then at Ron's, and make up your own minds.

It seems clear to me that you have an agenda, and when the text doesn't say what you want it to, it suddenly becomes "unclear."

My agenda, stated repeatedly, is to be faithful to the text. Give me credible evidence that something else was written in stone and brought death, etc. and I'll look at it. That it doesn't accord with your understanding of the covenants is simply not my problem. I have attempted no detailed explication of the covenants. I'm willing to do so, but it would be very time consuming.

In any case, I will keep going about it in the very same way, examining each text, in context, taking into account genre and other appropriate considerations. Going through a three-step process of Exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology. And I will simply go where the text leads.

Repeatedly in our exchanges, I have asked for plausible alternative readings of the text in question. What I get instead is excursions all over the place, ignoring--even contradicting--the plain meaning of the text at hand.

There are some passages, Galatians 3 is presenting some, where the meaning is far from plain. But that just isn't the case in 2 Cor 3, as my analysis has demonstrated.

[LifeHiscost]

[:"red"] "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." [/] Mark 10:15 KJV

KISS, I'm for that.

Lift Jesus up!!

[Ron Amnsn]

Hello Ed,

I've looked back over what I've written here and can't see where I disagreed with your point that what was written "on tablets of stone" refers to the ten commandments. What I have disagreed with is your assertion that Paul was contrasting the new covenant against the old covenant. I concede that it is difficult to see any other interpretation than what you've laid out when one starts with modern Christian definitions and assumptions about the new covenant and Paul's ministry.

I'm working on a diagram of the passage that shows how the various parts of 2Cor 3 work together to present a message that is consistant with the context of Paul's life, writings, and ministry in Corinth. I will share it shortly.

You are correct that I have an agenda. For years I was content with the contradictory interpretations of Scripture that I was taught, where we just glossed over passages that disagreed with, or seemed to disagree with, other parts of Scripture. Now I am seeking to understand the Scriptures in the complete context as a unified whole, where the New Testament agrees with itself and with the Old Testament.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I concede that it is difficult to see any other interpretation than what you've laid out when one starts with modern Christian definitions and assumptions about the new covenant and Paul's ministry.

---

I didn't start out with those assumptions. I started out with the text. Look at the beginning posts, see if you can find anything other than understanding this text. Where do you see any implicit or explicit assumptions about the covenants? I stated precisely what I had in mind: That epistles are occasional writings, and that Paul was responding to criticism about his authority. What on earth does that have to do with "assumptions about the covenants?" {i]You brought assumptions about the covenants into this, not me. I simply stated the general context, then began breaking down the text so its main features could be laid bare. I wasn't thinking about anything but getting the textual analysis a correctly as I could. That's the way I do things, to overcome such assumptions. And it's amazing, when you go about it that way, sometimes you actually learn something.

The problem around here is that too many people already know everything. Doesn't leave much room for learning.

You are starting outside the text, trying to fit it into an artificial grid you've assumed.

How do you propose to understand Paul's writings if you start somewhere other than with his writings?

Finally, you assume that the analysis I laid out disagrees with the OT. It does not.

I'll be delighted to see an alternative diagram, but it has to make sense in the immediate context first. Otherwise, Paul might just as well have written nonsense sentences filled with "keywords" we could use any way we want.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

How do you propose to understand Paul's writings if you start somewhere other than with his writings?

---

Well, did Paul start out by writing, or did Paul start out by studying the Old Testament Scriptures and teaching those Scriptures to the Corinthians? Did Paul and the Corinthians start out with a modern Protestant view of Scripture, or was their understanding of Scripture based primarily on the Old Testament? It seems that your insistence on excluding the larger context assumes that Paul wrote in a vacuum, and that Paul's original readers had no previous experience with Paul or with Scripture.

Quote:

---

You are starting outside the text, trying to fit it into an artificial grid you've assumed.

---

Yes, my method does place limits on the text. But are those limits artificial or are they reasonable? If an author teaches integrity and honesty, is it artificial to require his writings to be truthful and honest? If a teacher claims to agree with everything written in the law and in the prophets, is it artificial to limit our interpretation of his writings to those things that agree with the law and with the prophets?

Quote:

---

Where do you see any implicit or explicit assumptions about the covenants?

---

I stated this earlier. Let me try to make it plainer. By setting up your diagram so that the Old Covenant is contrasted against the New Covenant, you seem to be assuming that Paul viewed the two covenants as separate, mutually exclusive entities. Although that assumption is theoretically a possibility, there is no indication in Scripture that the two covenants were thus separate. There are many indicators in Scripture and in Paul's life indicating that the Old Testament instructions of God from the Old Covenant are incorporated into the life of believers under the New Covenant.

[Ron Amnsn]

At Ed's suggestion (insistance) I have carefully analyzed and diagramed 2 Cor 3. My goal was to determine the meaning that Paul and his original readers would have put on the text. Along the way I learned some valuable things. (Thanks, Ed.) To show how the various parts relate to each other I used a simplified form of sentence diagramming like we learned in school. I also expanded the passage to include the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 4, and added some notes to explain why I placed things the way I did.

The main differences between my findings and Ed's stem from how we diagramed the phrase "not of the letter, but of the Spirit" in verse 6. In Ed's diagram this phrase modifies "new covenant"; in mine it modifies "adequacy", or as the NIV puts it, "made us competent".

I will try to post the three images of the diagram below, but if it doesn't work you can find the diagram here.

I'm interested in hearing any critiques or comments. I won't have much time to respond except on weekends, so plese be patient.

[]http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/diagram1.gif[/]

[]http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/diagram2.gif[/]

[]http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/diagram3.gif[/]

[there buster]

My first reaction is: Congratulations.

Second, it looks very nice. As someone who has done several hundred of these, I know how much work went into it.

And yes, Ron, I'm not surprised you learned something. I do, every time I tackle this task. The very process forces certain issues to the surface.

I do not anticipate having the time to address this in detail before next Monday. Several deadlines loom.

I see some pretty obvious problems with this interpretation, but I'm quite encouraged to see you invest the effort to understand the passage, and I'd prefer to see what others think about your diagram (and mine, if they like).

Once again, congratulations! Very nicely presented!

[Robert]

Maybe you guys should use advanced calculus to formulate the Scriptures!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It seems that your insistence on excluding the larger context assumes that Paul wrote in a vacuum, and that Paul's original readers had no previous experience with Paul or with Scripture.

---

Not at all. I'm just saying we don't know what Paul's understanding was until we read what he said. For one thing, even a cursory examination of Paul's writings makes it clear he has a radically different understanding of the OT than did his contemporaries. You're assuming it was the same. I'm saying,"Let's examine his own words to find out."

Quote:

---

If a teacher claims to agree with everything written in the law and in the prophets, is it artificial to limit our interpretation of his writings to those things that agree with the law and with the prophets?

---

But you're assuming that his understanding of that "agreement" is the same as your understanding, an understanding derived separately from his works. On the other hand, I insist on finding out what he means from his own words, logic, and explanation. YOu're saying "He must have meant this, because I believe that."

Quote:

---

By setting up your diagram so that the Old Covenant is contrasted against the New Covenant, you seem to be assuming that Paul viewed the two covenants as separate, mutually exclusive entities. Although that assumption is theoretically a possibility, there is no indication in Scripture that the two covenants were thus separate.

---

When Paul says, "Not A, But B" it's a clear indication that A and B are separate. And since that is in the Scripture at hand, that's a severe problem for your statement. My diagram simply makes that fact visible.

Your diagram is an attempt (and a valiant one) to conceal the not/but contrast, by stringing them out, as if they were entirely separate, even though there are parallel words and expressions all over the place.

The only assumption necessary for my conclusion is that language has meaning.

Quote:

---

There are many indicators in Scripture and in Paul's life indicating that the Old Testament instructions of God from the Old Covenant are incorporated into the life of believers under the New Covenant.

---

So what? There are some concepts in the Articles of Confederation that were incorporated into the life of the U.S. under the Constitution. That doesn't change the fact that the Articles of Confederation are no longer the law of the land.

Next week, or whenever I have a little more time, I'll take on your diagram.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

For one thing, even a cursory examination of Paul's writings makes it clear he has a radically

different

understanding of the OT than did his contemporaries. You're assuming it was the same.

---

Where does Paul or the New Testament say that Paul's understanding of the OT is radically different than that of Jesus, or Peter, or James, or Isaiah? The Jews in Berea didn't seem to have any trouble seeing agreement between Paul's teachings and the OT Scriptures that they searched daily. (Acts 17)

It's certainly a common assumption that Paul's view was different, but Paul himself says in the passage above that the veil over the OT is removed whenever a person comes to Messiah. Since that is so, what evidence do you have that Paul is claiming a radically different view of the OT than that of other believers who have had that veil removed?

Certainly, the traditional Christian interpretations of certain passages of Paul's writings are different than the teachings of the unveiled Old Testament. But that's because traditional Christianity has wanted the NT to disagree with the OT. Paul foretold a "falling away" whose primary characteristic would be "lawlessness" (anomia), and we've seen that historically in Christianity. But we don't have to accept the interpretations of Paul's writings foisted on us by lawless theologians.

Christian theologians traditionally interpret Colossians 2 to show that "the law was nailed to the cross" and that Judaisers were causing trouble in the congregation by teaching OT feasts etc., and by condemning the gentile Christians who were not following those OT teachings. However, if you read the passage in context, it is easy to see that the folks who were causing the trouble were not teaching from the OT. Paul said the OT was "profitable for instruction, reproof," etc. Paul says something quite different about what the troublemakers were teaching in Colossae. What was being taught by the troublemakers in Colossae sounds like something similar to gnosticism, in which case the troublemakers would have been condemning those who engaged in "gluttonous" and "sensual" activities such as feasting on the Sabbaths and other feasts (as instructed in the OT). Paul's admonition to "Let no man judge you..." has quite the opposite meaning to how it has traditionally been interpreted.

Quote:

---

But you're assuming that his understanding of that "agreement" is the same as your understanding, an understanding derived separately from his works. On the other hand, I insist on finding out what he means

from his own words, logic, and explanation.

YOu're saying "He must have meant this, because I believe that."

---

Not so. What I am saying is that agreement has to be found. It doesn't have to match my understanding. If Paul could teach the Jews of his day to see agreement between his gospel and the OT, then I would expect that he (or someone) can teach me to see the same, especially since I was raised on those traditional interpretations of Paul's writings which do not seem to be in agreement with the Old Testament. In my experience thus far, however, everyone who interprets Paul's writings so that they disagree with the OT has made no effort to show agreement between the OT and their interpretation of Paul's writings. Rather, they use their interpretation of Paul's writings to overthrow the OT.

Quote:

---

When Paul says, "Not A, But B" it's a clear indication that A and B are separate. And since that is in the Scripture at hand, that's a severe problem for your statement. My diagram simply makes that fact visible.

---

Yes, that would be so if Paul was explicitly supplying the definitions for "A" and "B". But he doesn't. You are getting those definitions by implication from your diagram, and I'm not convinced that the words you supply match the definitions that the original writer and readers would have supplied.

Quote:

---

Your diagram is an attempt (and a valiant one) to conceal the not/but contrast, by stringing them out, as if they were entirely separate, even though there are parallel words and expressions all over the place.

---

Oh. I thought we were trying to understand what Paul wrote. Now, are you saying that Paul is required to have intentionally inserted every single one of the parallelisms that you created in your diagram?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There are many indicators in Scripture and in Paul's life indicating that the Old Testament instructions of God from the Old Covenant are incorporated into the life of believers under the New Covenant.

---

So what? There are some concepts in the Articles of Confederation that were incorporated into the life of the U.S. under the Constitution. That doesn't change the fact that the Articles of Confederation are no longer the law of the land.

---

The relationship between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution seems to be somewhat different than the relationship between the renewed covenant and the old covenant. I can look in my Bible and find the details of the Mosaic covenant, with its terms and requirements, but the new covenant doesn't seem to be there in the same sort of detail. And the terms of the new covenant that are in the Bible aren't very clear. Do all your neighbors know the Lord? My neighbor doesn't. Neither does my brother. In Hebrews 8:11 (and Jeremiah 31:34) it indicates that when we are living within the New Covenant all our neighbors and brothers will know the Lord. So apparently the new covenant hasn't fully supplanted the old covenant in the way that the Constitution has replaced it's predecessor.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Where does Paul or the New Testament say that Paul's understanding of the OT is radically different than that of Jesus, or Peter, or James, or Isaiah?

---

Where did I mention Jesus, or Peter, or James? And how did Isaiah become one of Paul's contemporaries?

In the Jewish world of Paul's time, his understanding was radically different than his contemporaries. That's why they opposed him everywhere he went. You know, the Judaizers? They kept insisting that you had to keep the OT law. You can find some of it in Acts 15. The were Jews like Paul. And they didn't agree with him. Did I leave anything out?

You're the one that keeps referring "traditionial Christianity." I keep telling you all I care about is understanding the text at hand.

Collossians 2 is such a specialized reference, and so different from this text, that it's essentially totally irrelevant. As a serious student, you surely know that χειρόγραφον (cheirographon) occurs only here in Scripture, and that its a technical term, quite different from either νόμος or ἐντολή. Only "traditional Christian" interpreters get caught on that one.

Quote:

---

I'm not convinced that the words you supply match the definitions that the original writer and readers would have supplied

---

I didn't supply any words in the diagram, I used those of the NIV. That's just wrong.

Quote:

---

the parallelisms that you created

---

Get any grammar text. When someone writes, "not A, but B," then the writer created the parallels. They exist--need I say it yet again?--in the text!

[Ron Amnsn]

Hello Ed,

Thanks for the clarification. Indeed Paul's view of the Old Testament was somewhat different than that of the Jews who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. But I don't find any conclusive evidence that Paul's view of the Old Testament was different than that held by all the Jewish believers in Jerusalem who were "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20).

Quote:

---

You know, the Judaizers? They kept insisting that you had to keep the OT law.

---

The NT doesn't use Judaize to refer to teaching the OT law. Since this isn't directly related to the current passage, I'll discuss it in the thread What's a Judaizer?

[there buster]

Well, that's fine, Ron. Go and amuse yourself. You have this whole artificial structure you've built, and no one can describe it as well as you, because you invented it.

Who the Judaizers were is too simple an issue to waste much effort on. No, the Bible doesn't use the word "Judaizer." Nor does it use the word "trinity." (Yawn). I just can't manage to get interested.

And you might take the trouble to respond to what I actually wrote, as in:

Quote:

---

In the Jewish world of Paul's time, his understanding was radically different than his contemporaries.

---

All you keep saying amounts to this:

"Paul didn't disagree with those who agreed with him."

Blinding!

[there buster]

Analysis of Ron's diagram/arguments.

This is a very interesting example of 'fitting the text' to a conclusion, rather than coming to a conclusion based on findings within the text.

Ron's eagerness to 'read into' the text is betrayed by his bulleted list of Paul's "allusions."

Does Paul indeed "allude" to Deut. 6?

[Aside to Ron: This is an example of where I see the "I think" method." You think these are allusions, but you state it as fact. The problem isn't that you think so, it's that you don't distinguish between what you think and what can be established from the text]

Not by the definition of most scholars.

Is there a parallel idea to Deut. 6? Certainly. Rather than an allusion, most scholars would call this a "homiletical" use of the same imagery.

Now, much of the passage is based on an allusion to real events in Exodus 34. Without that allusion, we'd have a puzzle.

Relatively minor points, but, to make rhetorical use of another scripture, "He who overstates the little things, will even more overstate the big things."

Had Ron said these were "possible allusions," I would let it pass. Why? Because it is possible. But it is by no means as certain as Ron is. That's a problem.

Ron's ruminations about what Paul "recognized" are not based in this text. Neither does he give us citations. That would have been helpful, because then we could determine whether or not they were relevant to this passage, and in what way. This is another example of bringing assumptions to the text, rather than finding meaning within the text.

The principle area of dispute comes in 3:12-18. I had used the NIV for my diagram, and Ron used the NASB. So let's use the NASB in direct comparison. I reproduce the verses with the NASB's own paragraphing, etc.

Quote:

---

13and 12(A)Therefore having such a hope, (B)we use great boldness in our speech,

13and are not like Moses, ©who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.

14But their minds were (D)hardened; for until this very day at the (E)reading of (F)the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

16(G)but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where (H)the Spirit of the Lord is, (I)there is liberty.

18But we all, with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord, are being (L)transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from (M)the Lord, the Spirit.

---

I got the text from:

Bible Gateway.com

The letters in parens() are their "cross-references," or related passages. Deut. 6 is not among them.

Rather than do another diagram, I'm simply going to put linked words or phrases in the same color. First Ron's:

Quote:

---

12(A)Therefore having such a hope, (B)we use great boldness in our speech,

13and [:"blue"]

are not like Moses,[/]

©[:"green"]

who used to put a veil over his face[/]

so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.

14But their minds were (D)hardened; for until this very day at the (E)reading of (F)the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

16(G)[:"green"]

but[/]

whenever a person turns to the Lord, [:"green"]

the veil is taken away.[/]

17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where (H)the Spirit of the Lord is, (I)there is liberty.

18[:"blue"]

But we all,[/]

with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord, [:"blue"]

are[/]

being (L)transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from (M)the Lord, the Spirit.

---

Here are the links:

[:"blue"]are not as Moses[/]

[:"blue"]But we all,[/] with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord, [:"blue"]are[/]

[:"green"]who used to put a veil over his face[/]

[:"green"]but[/] whenever a person turns to the Lord, [:"green"]the veil is taken away.[/]

One at a time:

[:"blue"]are not as Moses[/]

[:"blue"]But we all,[/] with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord, [:"blue"]are[/]

According to Ron, we [:"blue"]are not as Moses, But we all,[/] with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord.[:"blue"]are[/]

Oh, but wait ! I thought Moses viewed the glory of the Lord with unveiled face? He veiled his facr for the convenience of the others. So we ARE like Moses-- I guess that word 'not' has to go. But that would turn the meaning of the text on its head! Which is exactly what this linkage attempts to do.

Next: [Moses] [:"green"]who used to put a veil over his face, but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.[/]

This isn't nearly so egregious, except for what it leaves out. Obviously, if the veil from "Moses' face" is to be removed when a person turns to the Lord, it must be a figure of speech. But what does this figure of speech signify?

It's also repugnant to Occam's razor, which claims the best explanation is the simplest. If the veil that is removed is a figure of speech, it's simpler to believe it is answered in the previous clause to the very same sentence. Lo and behold, we have a reference to "Moses" in the very same sentence! Ron's diagram obscures this fact.

" 15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

16(G)but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Hummmmm. "Moses is read; Moses is read." What could that mean?

Could it possibly be "the readingof the old covenant" in the verse before?

Let's try that one (v 14 in blue; vv.15-16 in red):

[:"blue"][14]for until this very day [/]

[:"red"]15But to this day [/]

[:"blue"]at the (E)reading of (F)the old covenant[/]

[:"red"]whenever Moses is read, [/]

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

[:"red"]a veil lies over their heart;[/]

[:"blue"]because it is removed in Christ[/]

[:"red"]16(G)but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.[/]

In Ron's diagram, this parallelism is completely obscured. Or are these parallels only in my imagination?

Which makes more sense, finding the parallels right next to each other, often with the same verbs, or skipping all this to find parallels elsewhere?

Ron has to go afield, and has to obscure obviously parallel constructions, because the clear meaning of the text doesn't fit his pre-existing categories.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Who the Judaizers were is too simple an issue to waste much effort on. No, the Bible doesn't use the word "Judaizer." Nor does it use the word "trinity." (Yawn). I just can't manage to get interested.

---

I guess by trying to be brief I neglected to make myself clear. The New Testament does use the term Judaize (in Greek), but in a distinctly different way than the way you have used it. It was not applied to those who were teaching the law of Moses.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Not by the definition of most scholars.

---

I am glad that truth is not contingent upon how "most scholars" define it. In fact, Jesus had this to say about the learned of His day:

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Mat 11:26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It was not applied to those who were teaching the law of Moses.

---

So you say. Long on assertion, short on evidence. First you tell me "it's not in Scripture," but then you tell me who it was applied to. So, "It wasn't used at all, but you know how it was used." That's an amazing feat of sleight of hand.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I am glad that truth is not contingent upon how "most scholars" define it. In fact, Jesus had this to say about the learned of His day:

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Mat 11:26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight

---

Your many posts make it evident you are not happy with most of your teachers. In general, you don't seem to think much of them.

Well, I don't think much of cheap shots. Rather than actually answer what I wrote with evidence, logic, or reasoning, you post something which you think has some relationship to the Bible scholars of today, appropriating the words of Christ for your own purposes. Doesn't that worry you just a little?

I've never understood why so many Christians think it is bad form to say, "I disapprove of what you said. I'm upset at you. You made me angry!" But are quite willing to say, "God disapproves of what you said. God is angry at you." I wonder how often they've actuall consulted with God about these matters. I wonder if God really wants us to use His name so freely.

Frankly, I have my doubts.

It is fashionable to trash intellectuals in some SDA circles, and they can be full of themselves. But my experience with Bible scholars is that they are humble, tentative, and willing to listen and learn from anyone.

It's the ones who claim to be directly schooled from God, and who feel free to thunder and condemn in His name, or snipe with a verse or quotation misapplied that bother me.

Even in the Bible, it's not true that ignorance=wisdom, or ignorance=piety. It's the Bible that exhorts us to study, and to reason together.

As far as revealing things to infants, well, it might be helpful to remember there's a difference between childlike and childish.

Childlike means full of wonder, trust, and an eagerness to learn.

Childish means infantile, petulant, selfish.

I've spent many years teaching, every level from kindergarten to grad school and seminary. The childlike student, of whatever age, comes eager to learn. The childish spends all his time excusing his lack of effort, and complaining that he either knows it already, or doesn't see any use for it.

No texts, no quotations. Just experience.

[wicklunds]

True...

But then you don't know me and my situation either. And believe me I have weighed what I believe, but I don't find it profits me much to argue with people predisposed to disregard others' opinions who don't do exhuastive, intellectually athletic, diagrams to illustrate something that could be done the same by a simple, thorough reading. I see that there are ones in positions of teaching and leading responsibility who find it acceptable to slight the word of God, perpetuate personal bias, and make it their point to corral the sheep into their pen or face academic penalty. Is this o.k.? Could I do better? Maybe not. But I am intelligent to know when I smell a rat and when the rat I smell is myself. Where there is dissonance, confusion follows. Where confusion is found, there is Satan making inroads.

For what its worth, what may seem to you to be a lack of effort, might in fact be a person tentative to wonder into someone else's world of pet-heresies. If you were about to enter a building and saw that one of the load-bearing beams had a critical flaw, you would make haste for the door to the exterior. I believe that there is a true and a false, I would hope you would too. I pray that the wisdom I believe God has bestowed on me is not personal darkness. I am also tentative to trust my own understanding at the same time. But I will need convincing as to why your teaching experience constitutes a sound defense for college profs. You are biased. Repeat after me...I will not accept New theology in any of its varied forms. There....I feel better now.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Repeat after me...I will not accept New theology in any of its varied forms.

---

Repeat after you? What possible reason have you given me to want to do that? Besides, my experience is that those most concerned about "New theology" have very shallow notions of the Old, just a strong sense of certainty. In fact, it's pretty well understood that certainty and knowledge are inversely proportional. But you probably know that already, or it's not useful anyway.

Quote:

---

I don't find it profits me much to argue with people predisposed to disregard others' opinions who don't do exhuastive, intellectually athletic, diagrams to illustrate something that could be done the same by a simple, thorough reading.

---

"Something that could be done the same by a simple, thorough reading."

Yeah, I guess you're right. All that exhaustive work for nothing. You either already knew it, or it wasn't useful after all.

Quote:

---

You are biased.

---

You're right. A friend of mine describes the type of Bible study I do as "studying the Bible as if you might learn something." So, you're right. I'm biased to thinking: there might be more than I know already.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ed,

Thank you for taking the time to critique the diagram I made.

I included my interpretation of the passage in my diagram to save time for those who wanted to know what I was getting at. I'm sorry if I somehow gave the impression that my way of interpreting was the only valid way. To save room on the diagram, which was already too wide, I did shorten my notes by removing some of the explicit qualifiers that would be necessary if I was presenting my diagram in a scholarly environment.

You are quite right that the allusions I referred to are just possible allusions. And you may also be correct in pointing out that technically it may be a "homiletical use" rather than an allusion. However, I think you failed to recognize that I said the allusions were to Scriptural concepts rather than to specific passages.

Yes, it is true that the passages I referred to are not in 2Cor 3, but those passages and the concepts derived from them would have been quite familiar to both Paul and his original readers. To effectively refute the idea I was trying (in as few words as possible) to convey, I think you would need to show that the concepts which I mentioned are either unscriptural, or that the writer and original readers would not have been familiar with those concepts or passages, or that there is such a lack of similarity between those concepts that I mentioned and what Paul wrote in the passage at hand that it would be quite unlikely that Paul's original readers would recognize the connection which I suggested.

It does not surprise me that the NASB translators failed to include a cross-reference to Deut 6:6. Because those translators are living as if the Old Covenant has been totally abolished, they tend to include only the cross-references that put their theological position at the forefront. I don't think any scholar believes that the cross-references included in a Bible such as the NASB are the only possible valid references; so the lack of a cross-reference to Deut 6:6 from 2Cor 3 is not of much relevance. Shouldn't we study the Bible for ourselves rather than rely solely on the experts and scholars who have preceded us?

Quote:

---

"He who overstates the little things, will even more overstate the big things."

---

I may be mistaken, but it appears that you have resorted to calling my character into question, rather than dealing with the issues presented in the passage at hand.

Quote:

---

Ron's ruminations about what Paul "recognized" are not based in this text. Neither does he give us citations. That would have been helpful, because then we could determine whether or not they were relevant to this passage, and in what way. This is another example of bringing assumptions to the text, rather than finding meaning within the text.

---

You are right that this concept is not explicit in this passage, but neither is it foreign to the passage. In describing his ministry at the start of the passage, Paul mentions that death is one of the outcomes of his own ministry (2:14-16), which shows within this context that Paul recognizes that death can be the outcome of something that is good and necessary like Paul's ministry. It is not much of a stretch to apply the same idea to the law of God. In Romans 7:9-13 Paul deals directly with the concept of God's good law effecting death. I did assume that Paul and his readers were familiar with, and in agreement with, the Old Testament passages such as Psalm 19 and 119 that extol the goodness of God's law and and the desireability of God's righteousness judgment (even though God's law and judgments require the death of sinners). And I did assume that as an apostle of Jesus, Paul was in agreement with the words of Jesus in Matt 5:17-19 which say that Jesus did not abolish the law but rather the law will endure until the end.

Quote:

---

According to Ron, we are not as Moses, But we all, with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord.are

Oh, but wait ! I thought Moses viewed the glory of the Lord with unveiled face? He veiled his face for the convenience of the others. So we ARE like Moses-- I guess that word 'not' has to go. But that would turn the meaning of the text on its head! Which is exactly what this linkage attempts to do.

---

The placement of these phrases in my diagram is well founded. If you look up the cross-reference "(G)" in verse 16 it references Ex 34:34. In the older NASB (pre-1995 edition) all of verse 16 is printed in upper-case letters indicating that it is a quotation from the Old Testament. Here are the two passages:

Quote:

---

Exodus 34:34-35 "[:"blue"]

But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would take off the veil

until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel what he had been commanded, the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in to speak with Him.[/]"

2 Cor 3:16 "[:"blue"]

BUT WHENEVER A MAN TURNS TO THE LORD, THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY

.[/]"

---

(The following two paragraphs are merely my opinion.)

The quotation above is not word-for-word partly because the original is in Hebrew and the quotation is in Greek (and we're reading it in English), and partly because Paul is also applying verse 16 to his present situation. If Paul was indeed quoting from Exodus 34:34, as the older NASB edition indicates, then Paul could be simply saying that Moses covered his face when he spoke to the Israelites and Moses uncovered his face when in the presence of the Lord. Thus Moses was only in the direct presence of God part-time, and he only received a certain amount of glory. By changing the quotation to say "a man" rather than "Moses" in verse 16, Paul is indicating that the same principal is still at work, except that "Now the Lord is Spirit" (verse 17), and because the Lord is Spirit the presence of God is constantly accessible to all believers. Paul indicates this by saying, "We all are beholding the glory of the Lord" (verse 18) and "that which remains in glory" (verse 11).

When Paul says, "We are not like Moses" (verse 13) he is contrasting the part-time nature of Moses being in the presence of God and the full-time "beholding the glory of the Lord" that is now available through the ministry of the Spirit.

Quote:

---

Hummmmm. "Moses is read; Moses is read." What could that mean?

Could it possibly be "the readingof the old covenant" in the verse before?

---

Yes, I believe the two phrases refer to the writings of Moses. I don't see that my diagram tries to obscure that, nor do I see that it would be of any advantage to my interpretation to try to do so. Sometimes the word "old" refers to something obsolete, but sometimes it refers to things of high value that have endured the test of time, like old friends, old wine, the old rugged cross, and the old-time religion.

By the way, verse 14 is the only place in the Bible that contains the term "Old Covenant". Translaters have inserted the term into other passages by way of interpretation. (I know, this paragraph doesn't have any relevance to the current discussion. I just thought it was interesting.)

I look forward to any other comments you may have.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Repeat after you? What possible reason have you given me to want to do that? Besides, my experience is that those most concerned about "New theology" have very shallow notions of the Old, just a strong sense of certainty. In fact, it's pretty well understood that certainty and knowledge are inversely proportional. But you probably know that already, or it's not useful anyway.

---

Very nice...maybe it is that they knew the old theology as a simple and Adventist affirmation of the old landmarks in the SOP. Some people don't verbalize well what they believe. Does that mean they dont have strong beliefs? Because they are not theology profs. or don't do theological diagramming gymnastics doesnt make them more subject to the flames of hell than you. But I know that many are refuting new theology based on how worship standards have slidden from liturgical to contemporary. This is scary and challenging to them and the only way they have to protest is to recognize that something "new" is afoot. Is this too shallow for our self-aware professor types? Your attitude reflects the fact.

Quote:

---

Yeah, I guess you're right. All that exhaustive work for nothing. You either already knew it, or it wasn't useful after all.

---

I've tried the diagramming myself, otherwise I wouldnt have a strong opinion one way or the other. You seem to do a lot of work for little to no yield (seemingly). Mainly for bragging rights to the other profs. and some ego-stroking and back-slapping. Do you really believe they are a helpful tool? And, hey, maybe they are to you and that is great! Go at it all day and all night if you want. I would rather be doing missionary work or something along those lines. I guess we have to have someone to keep up with the secular theology schools right? If this is what it means to spread the gospel, I think I would like my mentality to be inversely proportional to it...no...wait...it already is!!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

You are quite right that the allusions I referred to are just possible allusions. And you may also be correct in pointing out that technically it may be a "homiletical use" rather than an allusion. However, I think you failed to recognize that I said the allusions were to Scriptural concepts rather than to specific passages.

---

No, I did not fail to recognize that they were "Scriptural concepts." But that applies to a host of things which are not part of this passage.

Quote:

---

To effectively refute the idea

---

I wasn't attempting to refute the idea. I demonstrated your use of a somewhat careless approach.

Quote:

---

It does not surprised me that the NASB translators failed to include a cross-reference to Deut 6:6. Because those translators are living as if the Old Covenant has been totally abolished, they tend to include only the cross-references that put their theological position at the forefront.

---

I'm not familiar with how "those translators are living?" Do you kow them?

Interestingly, that is in fact an attack on their character, followed by one on their intellectual integrity.

Quote:

---

I don't think any scholar believes

that the cross-references included in a Bible such as the NASB are the only possible valid references; so the lack of a cross-reference to Deut 6:6 from 2Cor 3 is not of much relevance.

Shouldn't we study the Bible for ourselves rather than rely solely on the experts and scholars who have preceded us?

---

Kinda confusing, Ron. Do you think I should believe what you "don't think" about "any scholar," or should I study it for myself? And how do you justify the notion that I rely "solely" on scholars who have preceded me. When you bring in the nebulous "any scholar" to bolster your case, and then tell me not to rely on him, it doesn't build confidence in your reasoning ability.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"He who overstates the little things, will even more overstate the big things."

---

I may be mistaken, but it appears that you have resorted to calling my character into question, rather than dealing with the issues presented in the passage at hand.

---

I simply pointed out a demonstrated habit of mind. I consider it careless thinking, not a character flaw. After all, I didn't talk about "how you were living," of which I have almost no knowledge. I pointed out how you post, of which there is abundant evidence.

Quote:

---

The placement of these phrases in my diagram is well founded. If you look up the cross-reference "(G)" in verse 16 it references Ex 34:34.

---

You missed the entire point, here. I guess you missed this part of the post:

Quote:

---

Now, much of the passage is based on an allusion to real events in Exodus 34. Without that allusion, we'd have a puzzle.

---

My point is that your link of those two verses is logically impossible.

Quote:

---

are not as Moses

But we all,

with unveiled face, (J)beholding as in a mirror the (K)glory of the Lord,

are

---

I point out with the emphasis the rather large parts of the second text you leave out.

But the real problem is that is just doesn't make any sense

"we are not as Moses"

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord,"

Don't you see it? Moses saw the glory of the Lord "with unveiled face", and your link says we are not "with unveiled face," but we "are" "with unveiled face." It's simply mutually exclusive: we're not like Moses while at the same time we are.

The problem is that the two texts ARE NOT PARALLEL

Verse 13 IS NOT talking about how Moses viewed the Lord

Verse 18 IS about how we view the Lord

Verse 13 IS about how Moses had to veil his face for the Israelites.

Verses 14-16 then goes on to talk about how they (the Israelites) are still veiled when viewing Moses/the OT

So you've tried to make Moses veiling for the Israelites somehow parallel--not to the immediately adjacent and obvious clauses and verses-- but to us whose faces are not veiled, seeing the Lord

There's just no way to make it parse.

We needn't look to Biblical scholarship here. Simple syntax tells us it's nonsense.

Quote:

---

When Paul says, "We are not like Moses" (verse 13) he is contrasting the part-time nature of Moses being in the presence of God and the full-time "beholding the glory of the Lord" that is now available through the ministry of the Spiri

---

No reason to jump clear down to verse 18, when the clear contrast is in the preceding clause!

Quote:

---

we use great boldness in our speech, 13and are not like Moses,

---

You're asking us to believe that Paul is not contrasting himself and his associates with Moses, in the very same sentence, but rather that he is contrasting Moses with us, in a different paragraph. And, since it matters to you, this paragraph distinction can be seen in the "pre-1995" NASB.

Quote:

---

In the older NASB (pre-1995 edition) all of verse 16 is printed in upper-case letters indicating that it is a quotation from the Old Testament. Here are the two passages:

---

I see. We're not to trust post-1995 scholars, but we should recognize pre-1995 scholarship. I don't know how any of them live.

Ron, your method is both inconsistent and, in the end, incomprehensible. Sentences don't mean what they clearly say, and you know what Paul was thinking, whether he mentions it in any way or not. Too much magic.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Your many posts make it evident you are not happy with most of your teachers. In general, you don't seem to think much of them.

---

To be fair and ehem.. impartial.. I should interject here with some "positive" observations about my experience so that you might not think I am being too hard on the profs...

backpedal, backpedal...

They are sincere about what they teach, they seem to genuinely care about people, they really do treat those who agree with them (and even much of the time those who don't) with respect, they seem to sincerely believe that the theological choices they have made and are teaching to the students are sound based upon their own "hard work", they make sure that you are not using that "old", "outdated", "inferior", King James Bible to make theological propositions, they really do teach their own form of church history which buffers their personal points of view quite nicely to make things seem ripe for liberal change, They say that they are keeping the channels of communication open to ensure "free-inquiry"whenever one of those conservative "sniper-typers" take "pot-shots" at them, I even had one prof. who I thought I could agree with tell me that we should allow syncretism in our theological inclusiveness, and hey that is certainly a plus.

With all these notes, why should I not sing like I am in the choir right?

Quote:

---

Well, I don't think much of cheap shots. Rather than actually answer what I wrote with evidence, logic, or reasoning, you post something which

you think

has some relationship to the Bible scholars of today, appropriating the words of Christ for your own purposes. Doesn't that worry you just a little?

---

Yeah purely experiential...right...no logic or reason at all...maybe I could do one of those fancy diagrams for you like you do so nice. On second thought, I'll pass!

Quote:

---

I've never understood why so many Christians think it is bad form to say, "I disapprove of what you said. I'm upset at you. You made me angry!" But are quite willing to say, "God disapproves of what you said. God is angry at you." I wonder how often they've actuall consulted with God about these matters. I wonder if God really wants us to use His name so freely.

---

I disapprove of what you said. I'm upset at you. You made me angry!

Quote:

---

It is fashionable to trash intellectuals in some SDA circles, and they can be full of themselves. But my experience with Bible scholars is that they are humble, tentative, and willing to listen and learn from anyone.

---

Mmmm...sorry to report that I am not saying what I say because it is fashionable or chik (shiek?), but because I am genuinely concerned. Maybe you are too high up on your horse to understand that when I say what I say, I risk being alienated and black-balled from ministry in the church I love and care about. Does this change your attitude towards what I am saying at all? And when I voice my concerns, I am intolerant and obtuse and I am standing in the way of others pursuit of Jesus. Wow! I never wanted this job, but I have a heart for following where I believe God has lead me, and I will need much help in turning around if that is what needs doing. I do want to say that I have tried not to make any attacks personal by not mentioning names and or specific places.

Quote:

---

Even in the Bible, it's not true that ignorance=wisdom, or ignorance=piety. It's the Bible that exhorts us to study, and to reason together.

---

Yeah, reason, exactly right!! But the reasoning process is being short-circuited by something here, and I dont wanna start pointing fingers...

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Repeat after you? What possible reason have you given me to want to do that? Besides, my experience is that those most concerned about "New theology" have very shallow notions of the Old, just a strong sense of certainty. In fact, it's pretty well understood that certainty and knowledge are inversely proportional. But you probably know that already, or it's not useful anyway.

---

Very nice...maybe it is that they knew the old theology as a simple and Adventist affirmation of the old landmarks in the SOP. Some people don't verbalize well what they believe. Does that mean they dont have strong beliefs? Because they are not theology profs. or don't do theological diagramming gymnastics doesnt make them more subject to the flames of hell than you. But I know that many are refuting new theology based on how worship standards have slidden from liturgical to contemporary. This is scary and challenging to them and the only way they have to protest is to recognize that something "new" is afoot. Is this too shallow for our self-aware professor types? Your attitude reflects the fact.

Quote:

---

Yeah, I guess you're right. All that exhaustive work for nothing. You either already knew it, or it wasn't useful after all.

---

I've tried the diagramming myself, otherwise I wouldnt have a strong opinion one way or the other. You seem to do a lot of work for little to no yield (seemingly). Mainly for bragging rights to the other profs. and some ego-stroking and back-slapping. Do you really believe they are a helpful tool? And, hey, maybe they are to you and that is great! Go at it all day and all night if you want. I would rather be doing missionary work or something along those lines. I guess we have to have someone to keep up with the secular theology schools right? If this is what it means to spread the gospel, I think I would like my mentality to be inversely proportional to it...no...wait...it already is!!

---

I would like to see a cessation of all this ad hominem and automatic knee-jerk treatment of everyone else on this site as if they are potential suspects in your personal cultic paranoias.

It is a personal stumbling block for me, I find it impossible to read that sort of thing and genuinely discern WWJD. Especially when I know HE would not be silent but *I* would be unable to remain loving or polite if I opened my mouth any further.

Thanks.

-- The Weaker Sister