Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 2 Corinthians 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3:1-6:10. THE GLORY OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE
The first three verses, like 1:12-14, are transitional. They are closely connected with the preceding expression of thankfulness and confidence, for ἑνοςσνσάενclearly looks back to ἐ ελκιίς…λλῦε. But μ χήοε κτλequally clearly anticipates ππίνι τιύη, and there is more pause between the chapters than between vv. 3 and 4. These three verses, therefore, are best regarded as introductory to the Apostle’s vindication, not only of himself, but of the high office which he holds, and of the message which he is commissioned to deliver.
The first verse gives us further insight into the opposition which confronted St Paul at Corinth. Evidently one of the charges brought against him was that he was always asserting himself and singing his own praises,—of course because nobody else praised him. A man who has often to speak with authority is open to this kind of criticism, and there are passages in 1 Cor. which would lend themselves to such a charge; 2:6-16, 3:10, 4:3, 14-21, 9:1-6, 11:1, 14:18. But more probably it was the severe letter, of which 10-13. may be a part, which provoked this criticism. There is plenty of material for such criticism in those four chapters. Titus, no doubt, had reported the existence of these cavillings, and perhaps he knew that they had not been completely silenced. The Apostle does not assert that they still exist, but he meets the possibility of their existence with a tactful question. Then he still more tactfully asks a question which can be turned against his opponents. Finally, he makes a statement which is likely to go home to the hearts of the Corinthians and win those who are still wavering back to their devotion to him. The readiness with which the passionate outburst of 2:14-17 is turned to account for the vindication of the Apostolic office is very remarkable.
3:1-3. I have no desire to commend myself. The only testimonial which I need I have in you, and all the world can read it.
1 In claiming to be competent to deliver a message which involves the momentous alternative of ultimate life and death, do I seem to be commending myself once more? I was obliged to assert myself in my last letter, but I have no need to do so now. There are people who bring letters of recommendation to you, and ask you to give them such; and no doubt they require them. 2 But what need have I of such things, when you yourselves are my letter of recommendation written on my very heart, a letter which the whole world can get to know and construe, wherever I go and tell of you? 3 It is made plain to all that you are a letter composed by Christ and published by me; written not with the blackness of perishable ink, but with the illuminating Spirit of the living God ; written not, like the Law, on dead tables of stone, but on the living tables of sensitive human hearts.
1. Ἀχμθ πλνἑυοςσνσάεν ‘Are we beginning again to commend ourselves?’ It makes no difference whether we take πλνwith ἀχμθ or with σνσάεν The sentence is certainly a question. Taking it as a statement involves a clumsy insertion in order to get a connexion with ἢμ κτλ such as, ‘Or if you object to our commending ourselves, I reply with this question, Do we need, etc.’ Ἀχμθ is a sort of echo of the supposed criticism; ‘He is beginning to belaud himself again.’ The πλνplainly shows that St Paul is aware that this charge of self-praise had been made. He alludes to it again 4:5, 5:12, 6:4. It may have been an insult offered to him by ὁἀιήα, the great offender; but, whoever started it, it was accepted as true by some of the Corinthians. There are passages 1 Cor. which would give a handle to such a charge; 9:15, 14:18, 15:10 ; cf. 4:16, 7:40, 11:1; 2Co_1:12.
The question may be a direct reference to τνἑυοςσνσαότν(10:12) and to ὑʼὑῶ σνσαθι(12:11). If they are, we have further evidence that 10-13. is part of the severe letter written between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. 1-9. These three verses are strangely out of harmony with the last four chapters, if those chapters are part of the same letter: they are natural enough, if those chapters had been previously sent to Corinth and had occasioned, or intensified, the charge that St Paul was too fond of praising himself. See Rendall, p. 65.
We find σνσάενor σνσάα, ‘to bring together,’ used in two senses in N.T. (1) ‘To bring persons together,’ to introduce or commend them to one another; 4:2, 5:12, 6:4, 10:12, 18; Rom_16:1. (2) ‘To put two and two together,’ to prove by argument and evidence; 7:11; Gal_2:18; Rom_5:8. This difference of meaning is not clearly marked in LXX, but in Susann. 61, Theod. has σνσηε of Daniel’s proving that the elders have borne false witness. See on Rom_3:5. In these two senses the verb is peculiar to Paul in N.T. and is found chiefly in this Epistle. It occurs elsewhere only Luk_9:32 and 2Pe_3:5, in quite other senses. The position of the reflexive pronoun is to be noted. In this Epistle we have ἑυὸ σν in a bad sense, 3:1, 5:12, 10:12, 18 ; and σν ἑυος in a good sense, 4:2, 6:4, 7:11.
ἢμ χῄοε ὥ τνς ‘Or is it the fact that we need, as some people do?’ This side-stroke at the false teachers is very effective ; he alludes to the ο πλο of 2:17 and others like them. St Paul often speaks of his opponents as ‘certain persons,’ τνς(10:2; 1Co_4:18, 1Co_4:15:12; Gal_1:7; 1Ti_1:3, 1Ti_1:19). The μ, implying a negative answer, throws back its force on the previous question, and shows that the suggested criticism is unjust. Harnack thinks that the Apostles required a fresh commission for each missionary expedition. That was clearly not the case with St Paul.
σσαιῶ ἐιτλνπὸ ὑᾶ ἢἐ ὑῶ. These words tell us three things : that the Judaizers had brought letters of recommendation from some one; that they had already left Corinth ; and that before leaving they had obtained, or had tried to obtain, letters of recommendation from the Corinthian Church. We know nothing, however, as to who gave recommendations to the Judaizers ; perhaps leading persons in Palestine did so. It is not likely that they had obtained credentials from any of the Twelve or from the Church at Jerusalem.* Letters of this kind were commonly brought by travelling brethren as evidence that they were Christians and honest persons. The Epistle to Philemon is a σσαιὴἐιτλ for Onesimus; and ἐάεεἐτλς Ἐνἔθ πὸ ὑᾶ, δξσεατν(Col_4:10) probably refers to a previous letter of recommendation. St Paul sometimes commends individuals to the Church whom he addresses; e.g. Titus and his companion (8:22 f.), Timothy (1Co_16:10 f.), Phoebe (Rom_16:1). Cf. Act_15:25 f., Act_15:18:27; 2Jn_1:12. Papyri yield examples; Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 226) says that the letters in Episiolographi Graeci, Hercher, pp. 259, 699, begin, like Rom. 16., with σνσηι Suicer (ii. 1194) gives instances of such letters in the early Church. The Latins called them epistolae commendaticiae or literae formatae. How necessary they were is shown by Lucian, who says that an adroit unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simplehearted Christians, and he can soon make a fortune out of them (Perigr. Prot. 13). Diogenes condemned γάμτ σσαιάas useless ; nothing but personal experience of men, he said, was of any real value (Arrian, Epict. 11, iii. 1). This, however, was what existed between St Paul and the Corinthians; and it was πσςσοαιώεο ἐιτλςCf. Act_28:21, and see Harnack, Mission and Expansion, i. p. 328.
If we are right in inferring from this verse that the Judaizers had left Corinth, we have a strong argument for the view that 10-13. was written before 1-9, for in 10-13. the Judaizers are denounced as a present plague in Corinth.
If the reading ε μ be adopted, we must translate, ‘unless it possibly be the case that we are needing, etc.’; and we must interpret this as a sarcasm ; ‘unless it be the case that we are so unable to get recommendations that we are compelled to praise ourselves.’ This sarcasm shows that the charge of St Paul’s praising himself is ridiculous. So clumsy an interpretation need not be accepted, for the balance of evidence is decisive against ε μ אB C D E F G, Latt. and other versions have ἢμ, A K L P, Arm. have ε μ B D 17 have σνσᾶ, F G σνσάα, all other witnesses σνσάενA D have ὥπρτνς other authorities ὥ τνςD E F K L P, d e Syrr. add σσαιῶ after ἐ ὑῶ, and F G add σσ. ἐιτλν Omit both words with אA B C 17, 67* *, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Chrys. Ambrst.
2. ἡἐιτλ ἡῶ ὑεςἐτ. The asyndeton is effective, and the two pronouns are in telling juxtaposition. The convincing statement is flashed out with emphatic suddenness and brevity; ‘The letter of recommendation which we have to show are ye.’* No other testimonial is needed, either to the Corinthians or from them. They know what Apostolic teaching has done for them ; and all the world can see this also. Their changed life is an object lesson to themselves and to all outside ; and both they and the outsiders know how this change has been produced; it is writ large in the history of the foundation of a Church in such a city as Corinth. The Apostle appeals, not to written testimony, which may be false, but to the experience of all who know the facts. There seems to be an allusion to this passage in the Ep. of Polycarp (11:3), where he says “among whom the blessed Paul laboured, who were his letters in the beginning.” See on 4:14 and 8:21.
The details which follow are neither quite clear nor quite harmonious. St Paul dictates bold metaphors, in order to set forth the convincing character of his credentials, and he does not stop to consider whether they can all be combined in one consistent picture. ‘Written in our hearts’ does not agree well with ‘read by all men,’ and yet both were true. The Christian life of the Corinthians was impressed in thankful remembrance on the hearts of those who had converted them, and it was recognized by all who knew them. It was also impressed on the hearts of the Corinthians themselves. See on 1Co_9:2. Experience showed to the teachers that their ministry had been blessed by God; the existence of the Corinthian Church convinced them of this, and they could appeal to that conviction with a good conscience. Experience also taught the world at large that the men who had produced this change at Corinth were no charlatans ; and it had taught the Corinthians themselves the same truth.
ἐγγαμν ἐ τῖ κρίι ἡῶ. There is probably no allusion to Aaron ‘bearing the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate (pouch) of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the Lord continually’ (Exo_28:36). The idea of intercession is foreign to this passage. ‘Written on our hearts’ suggests to us the idea of deep affection, and Chrys. interprets the words of the love to the Corinthians which causes Paul to sing their praises in other Churches. But it may be doubted whether this is the exact meaning of the words. The context seems to require some such meaning as this; ‘Our own hearts tell us that you are our recommendation, and everybody else can see this also.’ The compound ἐγγ implies that this fact cannot slip from our hearts, cannot be forgotten ; cf. ἣ ἐγάο σ μήοι δλοςφεῶ (Aesch. Pr. V. 789) ; and ἐίρψνἐὶτ πάο τςκρίςσυ(Pro_7:3). The plur. ‘hearts’ probably implies that other teachers are included with the Apostle; contrast ‘our heart’ in 6:11 The ‘heart’ in Scripture is the inner man, the centre of personality, known only to God; Rom_5:5, Rom_5:8:27; Eph_1:18, Eph_1:3:17; 1Pe_3:4; Rev_2:23. See art. ‘Heart’ in Hastings, DB. and DCG.; Milligan on 1Th_2:4.
Lietzmann and Bousset would read ὑῶ for ἡῶ with א17 after κρίι. Confusion between the two pronouns is often found in MSS., and might easily be made at the outset in dictating, the pronunciation being similar.
‘My testimonial is written in your hearts and can be read by all, for all can see that you are Christians.’ Schmiedel and J. Weiss would omit the whole clause as a gloss.
γνσοέηκὶἀαιωκμν. Note the change from perf. to pres. participles. It was written long ago and the writing still remains, and this is continually becoming known and being read. See on 1:13 respecting the word-play* and the meaning of ἀαιωκμν. Some suggest that these participles are in the wrong order, for one reads a letter before one knows its purport. Has St Paul been careless, or has he sacrificed sense to sound? Probably neither: one recognizes the hand-writing before one reads the letter; at any rate, one perceives that it is a letter before one reads it.
ὑὸπνω ἀθώω. Another blow, whether intended or not, to his opponents, whose testimonials were not published.
3. φνρύεο. The construction is continued from ὑεςἐτ, and the meaning is continued from ἀαιωκμν. ‘Ye are our epistle, read by all, for you are being made manifest.’ The idea of ‘making manifest’ is freq. in this part of the letter; 4:10, 11, 5:10, 11, 7:12.
ἐιτλ Χιτῦ Is the genitive subjective, objective, or possessive? Probably the first, and in that case it may be another hit at the false teachers; ‘their testimonials have little authority, but ours were written by Christ.’* Or he may be merely disclaiming all credit; ‘Christ is the agent to whom the composition of the letter is due; I am only the instrument.’ Chrys. takes the genitive as objective; ‘a letter which tells of Christ.’ Some moderns make it possessive; ‘ye are a letter belonging to Christ,’ i.e. ‘ye are Christians.’
δαοηεσ ὑʼἡῶ. We need not seek an exact interpretation and ask whether, if Christ is the author of the letter, δα. ὑʼἡῶ means that St Paul was His amanuensis, or that he carried the letter to its destination.†The metaphor is not thought out in detail. The words mean that St Paul and his colleagues were Christ’s ministers in bringing the letter of recommendation into existence by converting the Corinthians. See on 1Co_3:5, 1Co_4:1. We have ὑόhere, not, as in 1:19, 1:4, the more usual δά Chrys. understands δαοηεσ of St Paul’s preparation of their hearts; ‘for as Moses hewed the stones and tables, so we your souls.’ Per ministerium nostrum scripsit Christus in vobis fidem seem caritatem ac reliqua bona (Herveius). We have the passive δαοεσα, as here, in 8:19, of the service rendered; in Mar_10:45 it is used of the person who receives the service.
ο μλν. Cf. 2Jn_1:12; 3Jn_1:13; Jer_36:18. See artt. ‘Ink’ and ‘Writing’ in Hastings, DB., atramentum and tabulae in Diet. of Ant. Ink could be blotted out (Exo_32:33) or washed off (Num_5:23, where see Gray’s note). Non atramento scriptum est, id est non ita ut possit deleri, sicut ea quae atramento scribuntur; sed Spiritu Dei vivi, id est ut aeternaliter et vivaciter in cordbus nostris aut vestris permaneat, sicut ille qui scripsit vivit et aeternus est (Herveius). See the beautiful passage in Plato, Phaedrus, 276 C, in which it is said of the good teacher, that he does not much care to write his words in perishable ink, tracing dumb letters which cannot adequately express the truth, but finds a congenial soul, and then with knowledge sows words which can help themselves and him who planted them, and can bear fruit in other natures, making the seed everlasting and the possessor of it happy.
πεμτ Θο ζνο. See on 1Co_12:3 and Rom_8:9, Rom_8:14. The epithet ζνο is not otiose; the Spirit is an efficient force, and the letter which it produces consists of living persons. Moreover, the epithet accentuates the contrast between the abiding illumination of the Spirit and the perishable blackness of inanimate ink. In the Pauline Epp. and Hebrews, Θὸ ζνis frequent; in Mat_16:16, Mat_16:26:63; Rev_15:7, we have the less common ὁΘὸ ὁζν For the difference see Westcott on Heb_3:12.
οκἐ παί λθνι. This again is not quite in harmony. It would have agreed better with the metaphor of a letter to have said ‘not on parchment’ (ἐ μμρνι, 2Ti_4:13), or ‘not on papyrus’ (ἐ χρῃ 2Jn_1:12). But the Apostle has already in his mind the contrast between the Mosaic and the Christian ministry (vv. 4-11), and he therefore introduces here ‘tables of stone’ (Exo_31:18, Exo_34:1) rather than ordinary writing materials. He suggests that the living ‘letter of Christ,’ which is his testimonial, is superior, not only to the formal letters brought by the Judaizing teachers, but even to the tables at Sinai. Those tables were indeed written with the finger of God; yet they remained an external testimony, and they had no power of themselves to touch men’s hearts; whereas the credentials of the Christian teachers are internal, written on the yielding hearts both of themselves and of their converts. The Corinthians cannot disregard a commendation written on their own hearts. The law written externally is a terror to evil-doers; the internal law is an inspiration to those who do well. As soon as the Apostle’s thought had reached the ‘tables of stone,’ the current contrast between ‘the heart of stone’ and a ‘heart of flesh,’ τνκρίντνλθννand κρ σρίη (Eze_11:19, 36:26; cf. Jer_31:33, Jer_32:38), would easily come in to strengthen the comparison.
Omitting details, which give fulness but somewhat disturb the metaphor, we have as the main thought this; ‘That which Christ by the Spirit of God has written on your hearts is recorded in our hearts as commending us to all mankind.’ Once more (see on 1:22) we can perceive how the elements of Trinitarian doctrine lie at the base of the Apostle’s mind and influence his thought and language; cf. Rom_15:16.
ἐ παὶ κρίι σρίας This difficult expression is the better attested reading: κρίι is a manifest correction, for no one would alter KapBias to Unless with WH. and Wendland we suspect a primitive error, such as the accidental insertion of the second παί, we must accept the harder reading and take κρίι in apposition with παί Two ways are possible, according as σρίαςis taken with παί or with κρίι. The former is very awkward; ‘on tables (viz. hearts) of flesh.’ It does not follow, because σρίαςbalances λθνι, and λθνι agrees with παί, that therefore σρίαςagrees with παί. But Syr-Hark. takes it so; ‘on tables of flesh—on hearts.’ ‘On tables (which are) hearts of flesh’ is less awkward, but not pleasing. In dictating, St Paul might easily utter the words slowly in the order in which we have them, ἐ παί— κρίι— σρίας But the proposal to omit παί is attractive. Both λθνι and σρίαςindicate the material of the παί, which in each case has ἐ, while the instruments (μλν, πεμτ) have no preposition; σριας(1:12, 10:4; see on 1Co_3:1) would indicate quality, especially ethical quality.
B, f Vulg. insert κίbefore ἐγγαμν. K has γγαμν. κρίι (אA B C D E G L P, Syr-Hark., Eus.) rather than κρίς(F K, Latt. Syr-Pesh. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Goth. Iren. and perhaps Orig. Did. Cyr-Alex.).
3:4-11. The Superiority of the New Ministration to the Old
God alone made us competent to be ministers of the new covenant, which in splendour immeasurably surpasses the old.
4This confidence, that you are a letter composed by Christ testifying to the effectiveness and validity of our commission, is no fiction of my own invention: it comes through Christ, and it looks reverently to God as its source. 5It is not a confidence that of ourselves we are competent to form any estimate of results, as though we made ourselves sufficient. All our competence to form such an estimate has its source in God. 6For of course He did not leave us incompetent of serving Him when He called us to be ministers of His new covenant with men,—a covenant which consists, not of a lifeless written code, but of an active penetrating Spirit. For the written code imposes a sentence of death, but the Spirit breathes new life.
7Now if the Law’s dispensation of death, which was a thing of letters graven on stones, was inaugurated with such dazzling manifestations of glory that the Children of Israel could not look steadily at the brightness on the face of Moses, a brightness which was already beginning to fade away, 8how much greater must be the glory of the dispensation of the Spirit! 9For, surely, if the dispensation which sentences men to death can be a manifestation of God’s glory, then the dispensation which offers righteousness as a gift to men must be a far greater manifestation. 10For the former may be said to have had no real glory, because its glory pales and vanishes before the overwhelming glory of the latter. 11For if that which comes and soon passes away has somewhat of glory, much more must that which for ever abides be arrayed in glory.
4. Ππίηι δ τιύη ἔοε. ‘And confidence of this kind we possess through Christ to God-ward.’ He refers to the ππίηι just expressed, viz. that he has no need of any credentials other than the testimony which the existence of the Corinthian Church bears: that fact by itself suffices to prove his Apostleship. But he at once hastens to show that in this confidence there is no self-praise and no claim to credit; for it is conditioned in two ways which entirely exclude vain-glorious thoughts; it is through Christ, and it is towards God. In LXX ππίηι occurs only in the taunt of Rabshakeh, Τ ἡππ ατ ἣ ππια; but it is fairly freq. in other versions. It is found six times in Paul and nowhere else in N.T. See Index IV.
δὰτῦΧιτῦ ‘Therefore not through any innate power of our own. Apart from Him we could do nothing (Joh_15:5). He gave us the power that we have’— τῦοἡῖ δδκτςτ θρο (Thdrt.).
πὸ τνΘό. Erga Deum, which is the second security against boastfulness. ‘The quiet confidence which gives us strength (Isa_30:15) is not directed towards anything earthly as the ultimate source of strength, but towards God’ (Rom_15:16). The idea is that of looking towards the person on whom one relies. This use of πό is rare; the usual prepositions after ππίηι are ες(8:22) and ἐ (Php_3:4), and after ππιέα, which is very freq. in N.T. and LXX, ες ἐ, and ἐίwith dat. (1:9) or acc. (2:3). In 2Th_3:4 we have ππίαε δ ἐ Κρῳἐʼὑᾶ, a construction which would have stood very well here.
5. οχὅι…λʼ The ππίηι is further explained, both negatively and positively, in order to exclude still more emphatically the suspicion of self-commendation. ‘I do not mean that (1:24) of ourselves we are sufficient (2:16) to account anything as originating with ourselves.’ He does not claim the right or power to judge that he and his fellows are the real authors of any part of the work; they claim no credit whatever. Experience has proved that as ministers they are competent, for the Corinthian Church exists; but all their competency comes from above.
The statement is particular, not general; and it has reference simply to the successful work at Corinth. The Apostle is not denying free will, nor is he declaring that the natural man can do nothing but evil. Calvin’s remark, Paulus non Poterat igitur magis hoininem nudare omni bona, is altogether beside the mark.
By a fanciful derivation, El Shaddai, as a name for God, was sometimes interpreted as meaning ‘The Sufficient One.’ In Rth_1:20, Rth_1:21, ὁἹαό, and in Job_21:15, Job_31:2, 39:32 [40:2]. Ἱαό, is used as a Divine name. It is just possible that St Paul had this in his mind here; ‘Our sufficiency comes from the Sufficient One.’ Nowhere else in LXX or N.T. is ἱαόη found.
ἀʼἐυῶ should be placed before ἱαο ἐμν(אB C, Copt. Arm.) rather than after λγ τ (A D E F G P, Latt.) or after ἱ. ἐμν(K L, Syr. Hark.) or be omitted (17, Syr-Pesh.). λγσσα (אA B K L P) rather than λγζσα (C D E F G). For έ ἑυῶ, B F G have έ ατν(WH. ii. p. 144).
6. ὃ κὶἱάωε ἡᾶ. ‘Who also made us sufficient as ministers,’ where ‘who’ = ‘for He.’ No English version before the RV. marks the repetition, ἱαο, ἱαόη, ἱάωε: nor does the Vulgate, which has sufficientes, sufficientia, idoneos fecit. There is a similar repetition in δαοηεσ, δαόος δαοί, and this is followed by δξ (eight times in five verses), δδξσα, τ δδξσέο. As in 1Co_3:5, δάοο is used in quite a general sense. There is no evidence that at this time δάοο had an exclusively official sense, or designated any particular class of Christian minister: see Westcott on Eph_4:12. The aorist ἱάωε points to the time when St Paul was called to be an Apostle; at that crisis he was made competent (Col_1:12) to respond to the call. See Index IV.
κιῆ δαήη. ‘Of a new covenant’ (RV): ‘of the New Testament’ (AV) is misleading. The covenant is fresh and effective, with plenty of time to run, in contrast to the old covenant, which is worn out and obsolete. Thiss is the constant meaning of κιό as distinct from νο, so that κιό always implies superiority to that which is not κιό, whereas what is νο may be either better or worse than what is not νο. See Trench, Syn. §lx. and Lightfoot on Col_3:10.
The usual word for ‘covenant’ is σνήη which occurs thirteen times in LXX, but not at all in N.T. It is not suitable for a covenant between God and man, for it suggests that the parties meet on equal terms. See on 1Co_11:25. Here the emphasis is on κιῆ. Contrast δαήη κιῆ μστς(Heb_9:15), where the emphasis is on δαήη. To be ministers of the old covenant was no great distinction; there were large numbers of them, and their duties were largely matters of routine. But to be made competent ministers of a new covenant with God was an extraorinary grace. In Heb_12:24 we have δαήη να μστς the only passage in which δαήηναoccurs. Christianity was both ναand κιή it was of recent origin and it was effective, whereas Judiasm was old and effete. It was also αωί. ‘I will make a new covenant (δαήη κιή) with the house of Israel’ (Jer_31:31. ‘And I will make an everlasting covenant (δ αωίν with them, that I will not cease to do them good’ (Jer_32:40).
We are not yet in a position to say the final word respecting the rendering of δαήηin N.T., where the word occurs thirtythree times, mostly in Paul (nine) and in Hebrews (seventeen). Probably the extremists on both sides are in error. It seems to be reasonable to hold that δαήηcannot always be rendered ‘covenant’ in accordance with LXX use, and that it cannot always be rendered ‘testament’ in accordance with the usage of classical writers and that of Greek-speaking populations in the East in the first century. Among the crucial passages are Gal_3:15-18 (see Lightfoot) and Heb_9:16, Heb_9:17 (see Westcott). It does not follow that, because ‘covenant’ is the meaning elsewhere in N.T., therefore ‘covenant’ is the meaning in both these passages; or that, because ‘testament’ is the meaning in one or both of these, therefore ‘testament’ is the meaning everywhere. Deissmann (Light from Anc. East, p. 341; Licht von Osten, p. 243) says; “There is ample material to back me in the statement that no one in the first century a.d. would have thought of finding in the word δαήηthe idea of ‘covenant.’ St Paul would not, and in fact did not. To St Paul the word meant what it meant in his Greek O.T., ‘a unilateral enactment,’ in particular ‘a will or testament.’ This one point concerns more than the superficial question whether we write ‘New Testament’ or ‘New Covenant’ on the title-page of the sacred volume; it becomes ultimately the great question of all religious history; a religion of grace, or a religion of works? It involves the alternative, was Pauline Christianity Augustinian or Pelagian?” On this Lietzmann rightly remarks that, however true it may be that δαήηalmost always means ‘testament’ in profane literature, yet in the very numerous passages in LXX in which a δαήηbetween God and man is mentioned it cannot have this meaning; and this is true also of the passages in N.T. which have been influenced by the LXX. “I know of no instances of ‘a unilateral enactment’ (einseitige Verfü We must abide by the Hebrew and translate ‘covenant.’ One instance of this usage we at any rate have in Aristoph. Birds, 440. Peisthetairos refuses to have any dealings with the birds, ἢ μ δάωτίγ οδ δαήη ἑο—not to peck him.” See Ramsay’s valuable dissertation, Galatians, § 33, 34, pp. 349-370; A. Lukyn Williams, Galatians, pp. 68-70; Wickham, Hebrews, pp. 71-73; Expositor, Dec. 1908, pp. 563-565; E. Riggenbach, Der Begriff der Diatheke im Hebraerbrief, 1908; Muntz, Rome, St Paul, and the Early Church, pp. 146 f., 165 f.
ο γάμτςἀλ πεμτς ‘Not of letter, but of spirit, for the letter puts to death but the spirit gives life.’ This saying holds good of many other things besides the Law and the Gospel; everywhere letter prescribes, spirit inspires. But we must not be misled by the common contrast in English between ‘letter’ and ‘spirit,’ which means the contrast between the literal sense and the spiritual or inward sense of one and the same document or authority. By γμμ and πεμ St Paul means two different authorities; γάμ is the written code of the Law, πεμ is the operation of the Spirit in producing and promulgating the Gospel. See on Rom_2:29, Rom_7:6.* This passage is almost a summary of the Ep. to the Romans. St Paul mentioned the tables of stone (v. 3) in preparation for this comparison between the old ministration and the new. The old put forth a written code of duty, so onerous as to kill hope and love; the new is inspired by the spirit, which is able to revive what is ready to die. See Swete, The Holy Spirit in N.T., p. 319.
We see here once more (see on 1Co_9:20; Dobschü Probleme, p. 82) how completely St Paul had broken with the Jewish Law.†He has now reached the main topic in this portion of the Epistle (3:1-6:10), viz. the glory of Apostleship under the new covenant. The Judaizing teachers had not been able to extricate themselves from the trammels of the old covenant. But experience has taught St Paul that the embrace of the Law has now become deadly. It is effete and cannot adapt itself to the new conditions. It is purely external; ‘Thou shalt not do this overt act,’ ‘Thou shalt do this overt act.’ It has no power to set free and strengthen the moral elements in man. It makes heavy demands, but it gives nothing. It commands and imposes a punishment for disobedience; but it gives no power or encouragement to obey. The spirit of Christianity is the opposite of this. It is a living force. Instead of pressing the man down from without, it lays hold of him from within; it supplies, not slavish rules, but emancipating principles. It enriches and quickens those who welcome it, and it makes them both desirous and able to follow its inspirations. “The Law,” says Chrys., “when it takes a murderer, puts him to death; grace, when it takes a murderer, gives him light and life.”
It is evident from the language used that the Apostle is contrasting the spirit of the Gospel, not merely with ceremonial regulations, but with the whole code, whether ceremonial or moral, of the Mosaic Law. That Law said to the Jew, “Obey, or it will be worse for you.” The Christian says to the Gospel, “Obedience is the thing that I long for.”
The genitives, γάμτςand πεμτς probably depend on δαόος(see v. 8); but the meaning is much the same if we take them after δαήη. They are qualifying or characterizing genitives and are equivalent to adjectives: we might translate, ‘not letter-ministers, but spirit-ministers.’ Winer, p. 297; Blass, §35. 5.
τ γργάμ ἀοτ This does not refer to capital punishment, which the Law inflicted for a variety of crimes, such as adultery, blasphemy, dishonour to parents, idolatry, murder, prophesying falsely, sabbath-breaking, witchcraft, etc., although there may be some indirect allusion. In a much more serious sense the Law kills, in that it sends men along the road which leads to eternal death. It does this by its prohibitions, which at once suggest the doing of what is prohibited, and also make men conscious of having sinned and merited punishment. “By giving edge to the conscience, it intensifies the sense of remorse. A child will go on doing a wrong act ignorantly, till it has become a habit, without any inward dissatisfaction; till at length some authoritative voice says, ‘That is a wicked act.’ Then everything is changed. Each recurrence of the evil habit brings misery to the child. It has the sentence of condemnation in itself. The commandment has slain the child” (Lightfoot). Again, the letter kills by setting up lofty standards, which it does not help men to reach, and which without help they cannot reach. This takes the heart out of them, for they feel from the first that disastrous failure is certain. Moreover, the Law held out no hope of a resurrection, by means of which the failures of this life might be rectified. Lex non est adjutrix legentium, sed testis peccantium quae mortificat peccatores (PseudoPrimasius). Spiritus vivivicat qui intus docet animam qualiter ea quae audit intelligere debeat (Herveius). With St Paul the principle that ‘the letter puts to death’ is an axiom; and it was confirmed by his own experience. See on Rom_7:7-25, pp. 184-189. But this verse would have been very obscure if we had not possessed Romans, which was written in Corinth and shows what St Paul had been teaching there. In all this disparagement of τ γάμ there was no danger of seeming to disparage Christian writings, for as yet there were no Christian Scriptures. The Apostle, without being aware of it, was beginning to make such writings.
The excellent cursive 17 has ο γάμτ ἀλ πεμτ, which is supported by Lat-Vet. non litera sed spiritu; but Vulg. has non litterae sed spiritus. B has ἀοτίε, אG K P 17 have ἀοτνε, a form said to be Aeolic, A C D E L ἀοτνιwhich D3 L accentuate ἀοτνι
7. ἡδαοί τῦθντυ See on 1Co_15:56 and comp. Gal_3:10, which quotes Deu_27:26: δαοί is not abstract for concrete, ‘ministry’ for ‘ministers’; it means the whole dispensation of the Mosaic Law. The Apostle’s main object is to show the superiority of the Christian ministration. This involves disparaging the Jewish ministration, which he does in strong language, because of the mischief done by the Judaizers. “See,” says Chrys., “how he again cuts the ground from under the Judaistic point of view.” He adds that the Apostle does not say that the Law produced death, but that its ministry tended to death, when it declared ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die’ (Eze_18:4).* The inferiority of the Law to the Gospel is shown in three different aspects, the second of which is an explanation or justification of the first; it is a ministration of death, a ministration of condemnation, and a ministration which was designed to be only temporary.
ἐ γάμσν ἐττπμν λθι. ‘In letters, and engraven on stones.’ It is necessary to insert ‘and,’ in order to make clear that we have here two attributes of the δαοί, which was in writing that might never be read or understood, and written on dead and heavy material. ‘Graven in letters on stones’ would give only one of these ideas. Κκλμέηἐ τῖ παί is said of the writing made by God on the first tables (Exo_32:16). It is not said who wrote on the second tables (the nom. may be God or Moses), nor whether the writing was engraved or not (Exo_34:28). The Commandments, as the centre and basis of the Mosaic code, are here put for the whole of it, as the Sermon on the Mount is sometimes put for the whole of the Christian code. ‘In writing’ would be better than ‘in letters’; but the connexion between γάμ and ἐ γάμσνmust be preserved.
ἐεήηἐ δξ. ‘Came into existence in glory,’ i.e. had a glorious inauguration; or ‘came to be in glory,’ i.e. was transported into a glorious condition. Bachmann defends the latter rendering by a number of instances from papyri in which γγεθιἐ seems to mean ‘pass into a certain state’; ἐ νσ γνμνς ἐ ἀφλῖγνσα, κτλ This use is not rare in N.T. Cf. [Luk_22:44]; Act_22:17; Php_2:7; 1Ti_2:14; 1Ti_1:10, 1Ti_1:4:2; but it does not fit the context here. The Law was not given in an inglorious condition and afterwards promoted to a glorious one; it was ἐ δξ from the first. Driver notices that St Paul’s key-words in this passage (δξ, δδξσα) are suggested by the LXX rendering of ‘shone’ in Exo_34:29, Exo_34:35, viz. δδξσα. We may contrast the aor. here with the fut. ἔτιin v. 8; the latter implies permanence, the former not.
ὥτ μ δνσα ἀεία. Exo_34:30 says no more than that ‘they were afraid to come nigh him’; but Philo (Vita Moys. i. 2, p. 665) gives the current belief; κτβιεπλ κλίντνὄι ἢὅεἀῄι ὡ τὺ ὁῶτςτθπνικὶκτππῆθι κὶμδνἐιλο ἀτχι τῖ ὀθλοςδνσα κτ τνποβλνἡιεδῦ φγοςἀατάτνο. There was a Jewish tradition that the light which shone in Moses’ face was the light which inaugurated the Creation. Vulg. here varies the translation of πόωο in a capricious way; ut non possent intendere filii Israhel in faciem Mosi propter gloriam oultus ejus, quae evacuatur. See Index IV. On the difference between ὥτ with the infinitive and ὥτ with the indicative, see T. S. Evans in Expositor, 3rd series, iii p. 3. Excepting here and v. 13, ἀείενis peculiar to Luke in N.T.; it is freq. in Acts. In LXX it is rare and late.
τνκτρομνν ‘Which was being done away’; imperfect participle. It was very splendid, but it was very transient. This is not stated in Exodus, but it seems to be implied, and it is brought in here with much effect at the end of the sentence, to be enlarged upon as a separate point of inferiority in v. 11. ‘Was to be done away’ (AV) is certainly wrong,* and ‘was passing away’ (RV) is doubtful. In v. 14, as generally in Paul, the verb is passive, and it may be passive here and in vv. 11, 13; see on 1Co_1:28, 1Co_15:26 and on Luk_13:7 for the meaning of the verb.
γάμσν(אA C D2 and 3 E K L P, d e f g Vulg. Copt. Syr. Pesh. Goth.) rather than γάμτ (B D* F G). f Vulg. omit the ἐ before γαμ א D2 and 3 E K L, d e f Vulg. Arm. insert ἐ before λθι. In all three cases note the divergence between Greek and Latin in bilingual MSS.
8. πςοχ μλο. ‘How shall not to a greater extent the ministration of the spirit be in glory?’ The ἔτιdoes not point to the future coming of the Messianic Kingdom; it indicates that δαοί τ πεμτςwill continue to be in an atmosphere of glory. Or ἔτιmay be the logical future, of the natural consequence of what has been stated. Cf. ε δ ἀεάοε σνΧιτ, πσεοε ὅικὶσζσμνατ (Rom_6:8).
9. ε γρἡδαοί τςκτκίες The second point of contrast is explanatory (γρ of the first; the Law is a δα. τ θντυbecause it is δα. τ κτκ, for condemnation results in death. ‘If such a ministration is glory, to a much greater extent the ministration of righteousness is superabundant in glory.’* The use of the pres. here is against ἔτιbeing the logical future. By ‘righteousness’ is meant that which is attributed to man when he is justified. Through faith in Christ man is more than forgiven; his debt is cancelled and he has something placed to his credit.
The ἐ which is usual after πρσεεν(8:7; Eph_1:8; etc.) is omitted here, probably to balance δξ in the first clause. In the first contrast we have ἐ δξ …ἐ δξ in the second, δξ …δξ Cf. 1Th_3:12; Act_16:5; here many texts insert ἐ.
ἠδαοί τ. κτ(B D2 E K L P, f g Vulg. Copt. Goth.) is probably to be preferred to τ δαοί τ κτ(אA C D* F G 17 d e Syrr.); but the latter may be original ; ‘For if the ministration of condemnation has glory.’ D E G have ἐτνafter δξ א D E F G K L P, Latt. Arm. have ἐ before δξ.
10. κὶγρο δδξσα τ δδξσέο. ‘For indeed that which has been made glorious in this respect has been deprived of glory by reason of the glory which exceeds it?’ It is outshone by something which is much more dazzling and beautiful. When the sun is risen, lamps cease to be of use; orto sole lumen lucernae caecatur. In this way the paradox becomes true that ‘what had been made glorious was not made glorious.’ In comparison with the glory which superseded it, it seemed to have had no glory at all. Cf. ὁοο τῖ τφοςἂ ἦε ἕεάγ τνἡεέω ὀθλῶ (Xen. Mem. iv. iii. 3). Stallbaum on Plato, Rep. 329 B gives other examples of this use of ἕεα
If ἐ τύῳτ μριbe taken with τ δδξσέο, the meaning will be ‘in respect of the illumination of Moses’ countenance.’ But it is better to take the words with ο δδξσα and understand them as anticipating what follows; ‘in this respect,’ viz. because of the overwhelming glory of the Gospel. The phrase is repeated 9:3, and nowhere else in N.T. Ὑεβλενis found only 9:14; Eph_1:19, Eph_1:2:7, Eph_1:3:19; and its derivative ὑεβλ is also purely Pauline in N.T., peculiar to this group, and most freq. in 2 Cor. (1:8, 4:7, 17, 12:7); in LXX only 4 Mal_3:18.
For ο δδξa few cursives and a few Latin texts have οδ δδξ Vulg. has nec and also spoils the oxymoron by rendering nam nec glorificatum est quod claruit in hac parte. ενκν(אA B D E G P) rather than ἕεε (C K L).
11. Third contrast; again explanatory (γρ and in support of what precedes. ‘For if that which was being done away was through glory, to a much greater extent that which abideth is in glory.’ What is given to last only for a time is as nothing in comparison with what is given to last for ever. Christianity is εαγλο αώιν(14:6), a Gospel reaching forward into eternity and bringing with it στρα αώιν(Isa_45:17; Heb_5:9<