2 Corinthians 3

[radhead]

Has anyone really looked closely at this chapter? It sounds as if Paul is saying something very bold. Something that goes against the idea of organized religion: God is a Spirit. He speaks through the heart. Therefore, his "word" cannot be written down on pages. In fact, once it is written down, it begins to immediately fade in its original glory. The way that the glory on Moses' own face was fading after he wrote down his scripture.

Paul doesn't even try to say that his own writings are on that level. But even if he believed that they were, wouldn't Paul's writings be subject to that corruptibility as well? Isn't anything made by man corruptible?

Whereas the living God's "word" is something that cannot be expressed in human language, because it is written on our hearts.

I know this sounds like a bold message. But there seems to be no other way to interpret this. Am I wrong?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Paul begins this chapter by pointing out that he, the apostle Christ used to begin the Corinthian church, did not need a “letter of recommendation” from anybody: “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone” (verses 1-2).

The people themselves served as authenticating proof that Paul was an apostle of Christ: “You 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. Such confidence we have through Christ before God” (verses 3-4).

Paul then explains that God is the real source of his authority: “Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 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” (verses 5-6).

 

[radhead]

But he also admits (in a different letter I think) that he (or anyone, including an angel) could lose their focus in the future, saying that they should be condemned when that happens.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

But he also admits (in a different letter I think) that he (or anyone, including an angel) could lose their focus in the future, saying that they should be condemned when that happens.

Could you please show the reference so I can better understand what was said.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Paul has already mentioned “tablets of stone,” and then the “new covenant.” He then builds the contrast between the new and the old. His authenticity as an apostle of Christ is not built upon the old covenant, but upon the new — not on the letters engraved in stone, but in the Spirit of God.

Let’s see how he develops the contrast: “Now if the ministry that brought death, 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, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?” (verses 7-8).

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Let’s pause to be sure we know what Paul is talking about. He is talking about something written on stone, at a time when Moses’ face shone with glory. He is talking about the Ten Commandments. This is what was written on stone. Paul is calling the Ten Commandments a “ministry that brought death.” Paul was not a minister of the letter (the Ten Commandments), but of the Spirit.

Notice that he does not say, like some people want him to, that he was a minister of “the spirit of the law.” Instead of combining law and spirit, Paul equated the law with the letter, and he made a contrast between the Law and the Spirit of God.

Of course, it was God who gave the Law. Nevertheless, Paul saw a fundamental contrast between the Law and the Spirit, between the old and the new. There is continuity, of course, for both old and new are covenants of the same God. But even though God does not change, and his underlying principles do not change, his covenants do.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Paul explains some differences in the next verses: “If the ministry that brought condemnation is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!” (verse 9). The Ten Commandments were a ministry that condemned people. They had some glory, but not nearly as much as the new covenant. The Ten Commandments cannot bring righteousness, but the new covenant does.

“For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory” (verse 10). The Ten Commandments have no glory now, Paul is saying, in comparison to the new covenant, which brings life and righteousness.

“And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!” What was fading away? Moses’ face was fading, but Paul is not talking about Moses’ face any more — he is talking about “the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone.” That is what “came with glory” (verse 7). That is what was fading away.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Ten Commandments, Paul is saying, came with glory, but they were temporary, just as surely as the glory of Moses’ face was temporary. The new covenant not only has much greater glory, but it also “lasts.” The Ten Commandments, Paul implies, do not last forever. They were designed as a temporary “ministry of condemnation,” designed to lead people to Christ.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Paul says that the Ten Commandments, although good, are temporary and fading. What has faded away concerning the Ten Commandments? Some people try to say that the Ten Commandments, instead of fading, are actually more binding on people today than ever before. They want to expand the Ten instead of letting them fade.

But Paul is saying that there is a fundamental change in the way people relate to God. The old way is a written law that condemns people to death. The new way is the Holy Spirit, which brings forgiveness and life. The Spirit leads us to obey God, but it is a fundamentally different relationship, a different basis of relating to God.

There is some basic continuity between the old covenant and the new. Most of the Ten Commandments are quoted with approval in the New Testament. Those commands reflect aspects of God’s law that were in effect long before Sinai—from the beginning. One is not — the Sabbath command. It was a ceremonial law, instituted for a temporary time period.

 

[talitha]

I know this sounds like a bold message. But there seems to be no other way to interpret this. Am I wrong?

Respectfully, I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion, having read this chapter three times since reading your post. While it is true that the written word is there to lead us to the Living Word, i.e.: Jesus Christ, that does not make it worthless, and I don't see any passage in this chapter that would lead you to believe that? Can you cite specific verses and how you are reading them? Thanks.

 

[radhead]

Could you please show the reference so I can better understand what was said.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"
Galatians 1:8

 

[radhead]

Respectfully, I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion, having read this chapter three times since reading your post. While it is true that the written word is there to lead us to the Living Word, i.e.: Jesus Christ, that does not make it worthless, and I don't see any passage in this chapter that would lead you to believe that? Can you cite specific verses and how you are reading them? Thanks.

I guess we just read it differently. I can't pick a single verse because it seems like the message of the entire chapter.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I guess we just read it differently. I can't pick a single verse because it seems like the message of the entire chapter.

I did go into a lot of detail explaining much of the chapter. Is there anything that you want me to clarify?

 

[radhead]

I did go into a lot of detail explaining much of the chapter. Is there anything that you want me to clarify?

I don't know. This is a complex issue. Maybe the message I am getting is that once you read something you might not have to read it again. What's more important is what it means to you, rather than trying to over-analyze the original meaning. It's like watching a movie or reading a book. You should just read it normally and absorb what you can. If you want to do it again later that's okay, but don't read it and try to analyze it at the same time, unless it was an especially difficult passage.

 

[cloudyday2]

@radhead , when I read the chapter, I got a different message more similar to the posts from @jason_delisle . However, I think Paul would have been opposed to replacing the stone tablets of the Torah with new stone tablets (i.e. the narrow-minded reading of Paul's own letters)

 

[cloudyday2]

Another useful piece of information is that 2 Corinthians is probably several different scraps of letters that were spliced together into the current form. Some scholars believe that a small portion was a quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls instead of from Paul.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2corinthians.html

 

[radhead]

There is some basic continuity between the old covenant and the new. Most of the Ten Commandments are quoted with approval in the New Testament. Those commands reflect aspects of God’s law that were in effect long before Sinai—from the beginning. One is not — the Sabbath command. It was a ceremonial law, instituted for a temporary time period.

How can you say the the New Covenant is equal to the New Testament? Did Paul give his approval to everything that was written in the New Testament, compiled centuries after he died? If the New Testament equalled the New Covenant, what authority did the men who compiled the New Testament have, that they could determine such a major thing like that?

On whose authority would that be known? Maybe the Jewish people should have some say on what the New Covenant is, since the idea came from their own writings. I don't understand why Christians should have so much power and control over such a thing.

Your neighbor believes that God's covenant is written on the human heart, yet you are trying to tell your neighbor that the covenant is written by men. What authority tells you that?

 

[talitha]

How can you say the the New Covenant is equal to the New Testament? Did Paul give his approval to everything that was written in the New Testament, compiled centuries after he died? If the New Testament equalled the New Covenant, what authority did the men who compiled the New Testament have, that they could determine such a major thing like that?

On whose authority would that be known? Maybe the Jewish people should have some say on what the New Covenant is, since the idea came from their own writings. I don't understand why Christians should have so much power and control over such a thing.

Your neighbor believes that God's covenant is written on the human heart, yet you are trying to tell your neighbor that the covenant is written by men. What authority tells you that?

Wow, radhead, just as with the OP, your words here seem unrelated to what you are responding to. I am baffled - but intrigued - I wish I could understand your thought processes. Very interesting.

I read over all of Jason's posts here, and he never says that the New Covenant is equal to the New Testament. However, the New Testament does point us to the New Covenant. The New Testament was written by Jewish people, for the most part, and the first partakers of the New Covenant were Jewish people. The Covenant itself was of course written by God - and basically it's that all people - Jew and Gentile - are now offered atonement through Jesus Christ, not by adhering to the Law. Jewish people don't really have say about it because it is the offer of God to them and to us. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world - this is God's plan all along.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

 

[radhead]

Wow, radhead, just as with the OP, your words here seem unrelated to what you are responding to. I am baffled - but intrigued - I wish I could understand your thought processes. Very interesting.

I read over all of Jason's posts here, and he never says that the New Covenant is equal to the New Testament. However, the New Testament does point us to the New Covenant. The New Testament was written by Jewish people, for the most part, and the first partakers of the New Covenant were Jewish people. The Covenant itself was of course written by God - and basically it's that all people - Jew and Gentile - are now offered atonement through Jesus Christ, not by adhering to the Law. Jewish people don't really have say about it because it is the offer of God to them and to us. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world - this is God's plan all along.

The New Covenant says that no one will have to tell anyone else about God because everyone will already know Him. That doesn't sound anything like Christianity, does it?