Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:1 - 3:11

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:1 - 3:11


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

VI. HE MEETS CHARGE OF SELF-RECOMMENDATION BY POINTING TO WHAT HE HAD DONE AT CORINTH. THE DIVINE SOURCE OF HIS CONFIDENCE; EXCELLENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT MINISTRY AND ITS SUPERIORITY TO THAT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

2Co_3:1-11

1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others [om. others], 2epistles of commendation to you, or [om. letters of commendation] from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be [being manifested that ye are] the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables [or tablets] of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart [on hearts which are tablets of 4flesh]. And [But] such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5not that we are sufficient [om. of ourselves] to think anything [from, áö ̓ ourselves] as of [out of, åî ] ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God: 6who also hath made us able [sufficient as] ministers of the New Testament [Covenant]; not of the [a] letter, but of the [a] spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven [engraven in letters] in stones was glorious [in glory ἐí äüîῃ ], so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away [is passing away, ôὴí êáôáñãïõìÝíçí ]; 8How shall not [rather] the ministration of the spirit be [om. rather] glorious [in glory]? 9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed [abound, ðåñéóóåýåé ] in glory. 10For even that which was [has been] made glorious had [has been having, äåäüîáóôáé ] no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11For if that which was done [passing, ôὸ êáôáñãïõìÝíïí ] away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious [abideth is in glory, ôὸ ìÝíïí ἐí äüîῃ ].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Co_3:1-3. What the Apostle had said in 2Co_3:15-17 was liable to misinterpretation by ill disposed persons, on the ground that it was a boasting or a commendation of himself. He guards against this by reminding the Corinthians that he felt no necessity of recommending himself to them or to others, inasmuch as the work which Christ had accomplished by him in their city was a sufficient recommendation for him in every part of the world.—Do we begin to commend ourselves.— Ἀñ÷üìåèá is capable of an invidious meaning, such as might be insinuated by an opponent; do we presume etc. (comp. Luk_3:8). ÐÜëéí qualifies the infinitive, and refers to something which might be regarded as self-commendation either in his first Epistle (1 Corinthians 2-4, 1Co_7:25; 1Co_7:40; 1Co_9:14; 1Co_9:18;1Co_15:10), or in his earlier discourses or letters.—Or need we like some, epistles of recommendation to you, or from you?—The verb óõíéóôÜíåéí ( ôéíß ) signifies: to bring together, to introduce, to commend (Rom_16:1, and frequently in our Epistle). Self-commendation in the sense of praising one’s self, is mentioned with disapprobation also in 2Co_10:18. In the following sentence, if we accept of åὶ ìὴ as the true reading, we must suppose that a decidedly negative and ironical answer was presupposed in it, or that the previous question goes on the presumption of an absurdity, [Jelf. Gram. § 860, 5. Obs. Webster Synt. and Synn. of N. T., chap. 8. p. 126.] q. d.: “unless it be that we need,” i.e. only under such a presumption could such an idea be entertained. This reading is not really more difficult than the strongly authenticated ἥ ìÞ , although the latter is grammatically incorrect, inasmuch as nowhere else in the New Testament does ìÞ occur in such a question after a ἤ , which must necessarily exclude all which precedes it. It makes very prominent the absurdity of the question: or do we not yet need? and it may be regarded as combining together the two constructions ἢ ÷ñÞæïìåí and ìÞ ÷ñÞæïìåí [Without the ἐὶ ìÞ , the previous question (which we might expect the Apostle to repel by a decided ïὑäáìῶò ), remains almost entirely without notice, and a new one is started which only inferentially negatives it. If ἐὶ ìὴ is taken (as all usage requires it to be,) in the sense of nisi, (unless) the interrogative character of the sentence it introduces (according to our English version) ceases, and it notices the previous question in the only way it deserved notice, viz: ironically or even derisively. The sense would be: “I can need no commendation either from myself, for that would be introducing myself, or boasting where I am already well known; or from others to you, for none know me better than you; or from you to others, for your conversion and present state are better known as our work than anything you can say. Surely then the mere mention of such a thing is enough to show its absurdity.”] We often read of óõóôáôéêáὶ ἐðéóôïëáß in the church after the death of the Apostles. When members of the church travelled from place to place they were usually recommended from one bishop to another, and the letters thus given became a means of maintaining fraternal intercourse between the bishops and their congregations. [Paul himself appears to have recognized the commencement of such a custom. In Gal_2:12, he speaks of some “who came from James,” as if even then some authority was expected from the Apostolic College at Jerusalem. Two years before, Apollos passing into this very city of Corinth, did bring “letters from the brethren” of Ephesus (Act_18:27); and as many of the Corinthians professed to be followers of Apollos, it is no impossible thing that such were here aimed at. The 13th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) ordained that “clergymen coming to a city where they were unknown, should not be allowed to officiate without letters commendatory (Epistolæ Commendariæ,) from their own bishop.” Comp. Neander, Chr. Rel. vol. I, pp. 205, 360 ff. In the Clementine Homilies Peter warns his hearers against “any apostle, prophet, or teacher, who does not first compare his preaching with James, and come with witnesses;” where Paul seems especially aimed at, and we have perhaps a specimen of what Paul was contending against in our epistle.] W. F. Besser: “ Were the Corinthians inclined to reckon their own Apostle among those strangers who needed such letters?” The absurdity implied in the question lay in the supposition that the Apostle [ ἐáõôïὺò ] who was well known not only at Corinth but everywhere, should need any commendation from others or from himself, as if he were a stranger. By the words ὤò ôéíåò he evidently alludes to those antipauline teachers, who, as his readers well knew, had brought letters of recommendation to Corinth, and had taken such letters from Corinth when they departed. He thus not only shows that he needed no such letters, but he shows this in a way which throws confusion upon his opponents, while it honors and encourages the Corinthians themselves—our Epistle, i.e., the Epistle of commendation (gen. possess.; not: which we have written, for he speaks not of his own part in composing it until 2Co_3:3, but which we have) is yourselves.—By placing the predicate first he makes it more emphatic and connects it more immediately with the preceding verse. The close collocation of the emphatic ὑìåῖò with ἡìῶí is also very significant. A similar arrangement of words may be seen in 1Co_9:2. The large Church which had been founded by him, and which had become so rich in spiritual gifts, was a glorious work of the Holy Ghost, and so a Divine Epistle which would commend him to all the world without any letters from men. Besser: “it was an Epistle of a peculiar kind, for Paul was at the same time its writer and its receiver.”—This metaphor he carries out in the subsequent verses in accordance with the nature of his subject, noticing first the complete certainty which he and Timothy possessed (this is the reason that êáñäßáéò is in the plural as in 2Co_4:6; 2Co_7:3) for the commendation of their work, and then the general notoriety of this work in all the churches:—written in our hearts.—In these words his own feelings are alluded to, inasmuch as he speaks of the writing in his own ( ἡìῶí ) and not their ( ἱìῶí ) hearts (although ὑìῶí may be found in some authorities of no great importance, comp. Meyer). “Paul meant that he carried this Epistle, not in his hand to show at any time, but continually with him, inasmuch as he bore the Church upon his heart.” It is not of his love that the Apostle is here speaking (as in 2Co_7:3, and Php_1:7), and it would seem altogether inappropriate to make him allude here to the official breast-plate of the high priest (olshausen). On such an interpretation we could trace no connection between it and the following sentence, [in which the Epistle is said to be known and read, not by God, but by men]. The phrase: in our hearts, is equivalent to: in us, and the meaning of the whole expression is: So inscribed upon us and so carried about with us everywhere, that it becomes known to all. This idea is yet further defined and explained in the words:—known and read by all men:—it is a work which will be universally recognized, a letter which every one will know to be his, and which all will read as his [Grotius: the handwriting is first “known” and then the Epistle is “read”] (Ewald: read within and without, thoroughly). Events which had taken place in one of the principal cities of the world would necessarily have a world-wide notoriety (comp. Rom_1:8).—In this prominent relation to all the world we must not suppose that the Corinthians were themselves included, as if the ðñὸò ὑìᾶò of 2Co_3:1 were here again referred to, for as the Epistle was made up of the Corinthians, they would not be likely to be included also among its readers.—Forasmuch as ye are manifested to be an Epistle of Christ, ministered by us, (2Co_3:3).—Grammatically the participle: manifested ( öáíåñïýìåíïé ), the object of which is to give a reason for their being known and read of all men, is to be connected with the nominative of the previous sentence ( ὑìåῖò ἐóôÝ ). ÷ñéóôïῦ in ἐðéóôïëὴ ÷ñéóôïῦ is the gen. of the author, and it is implied that the Epistle came from Christ, for it is of the origin and not of the contents nor of the proprietorship of the Epistle, that the Apostle is speaking. He now speaks of himself in the words: ministered by us, as Christ’s instrument in the composition of the Epistle; and he no longer thinks of it as a letter of commendation, but simply as an exhibition of the way in which their faith had been drawn forth and their Church had been founded. It had been prepared and sent by the Apostle and his companions, acting as the ministers and servants of Christ (comp. 1Co_3:5 ff.). Ëéáêïíåῖí ôé is here used as it is in 2Co_8:19. The difference between this and any ordinary Epistle was evident from the materials with which and on which it was written.—written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in fleshy tablets of the heart.—The Epistle itself, the new spiritual life they had experienced, had been produced by the Holy Spirit, whose continual agency is here pointed out. This agency wrought with great power, so as to renew their hearts, but through the instrumentality of the Apostles and their testimony respecting Christ. It seems inappropriate and altogether too dogmatic to find in the ink here spoken of the figure of those lifeless and impotent means which were sometimes made use of, such as the law and those doctrines which have no quickening power, or the shadows and ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. Some representation of the Jewish law and the Sinaitic legislation must, however, have been floating before the Apostle’s mind, when he brought out the additional figure of the tablets of stone. This representation is not strictly consistent with the metaphor of an Epistle and of ink, and we can explain it only by the recollection that the Apostle was contrasting the work of the Spirit under the New Testament with the work of the law under the Old Testament, i.e., the effecting of a Divine life in the heart by the Spirit of the living God, with the outward engraving of the Divine precepts upon tables of stone. There may also have been in his mind some recollection of such passages as Jer_31:31-33 (comp. Heb_9:4). The phrase ðëÜêåò êáñäßáò occurs in the Sept. of Pro_7:3. Fleshy ( óÜñêßíáé .) in contrast with stony ( ëßèéíáé ), designates a living susceptibility (comp. Eze_36:26). [The ending— éíïò refers to the substance or material of which a thing is made, in distinction from— éêïò which refers to that which belongs to that thing. Our Lord was óáñêéíüò (fleshy, of human flesh subsisting) but not óáñêéêüò (fleshly, subject to fleshly lusts and passions). The word is used only in this place according to the Receptus, but it is given for óáñêéêüò by many MSS. in Rom_7:14, and Heb_7:16. Trench, Synn., Series II., p. 114; Webster, Synn., p. 232, and Web. and Wilk. Com.]. The word hearts ( êáñäßáò ) expresses also more definitely the nature of the substance made use of. In speaking of their spiritual life, he could very significantly say: ye are an Epistle (a writing) inscribed upon heart-tablets. He does not exactly say: your hearts ( êáñäßáò ὑìῶí ) but generally êáñäßáò , and he thus describes the peculiar nature of the Epistles of Christ, i.e., they are Christ dwelling in the heart by faith (Eph_3:17).

2Co_3:4-6. In 2Co_3:2 f. Paul had expressed great confidence with respect to what had been accomplished at Corinth through his instrumentality, and he had claimed it as an evidence of his Apostolic power. In what he now says he recurs to his assertions there:—Such confidence, however, we have, through Christ towards God.—The same word, ðåðïßèçóéò , occurs in 2Co_1:5; 2Co_8:22; 2Co_10:2. Ôïéáýôç is stronger than áὕôç would have been. The reference here may be to 2Co_2:17, or 2Co_2:15 ff.; at least so far as 2Co_3:1 ff. may be giving the reasons for what is there said of the Corinthian Church, but not so as to make 2Co_3:1-3 either a parenthesis or a digression.—He intended to say that he owed this strong and joyful confidence of which he was speaking (Neander: a confidence that we are able to work such results) entirely to Christ; for it was Christ whom he served and under whose influence he accomplished every thing he did; and it was therefore through Christ that he had such confidence in what he could do.—But he had this confidence, he says, towards God ( ðñὸò ôὸí äåüí ), i. e., not before God, as a matter which was right in God’s sight, but in the direction of, or in respect to God (Rom_4:2) the Author of the work and the One to whom all the results were due (Osiander, Meyer).—Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing of ourselves, as if from ourselves, (2Co_3:5). Here ïὐ÷ ὅôé is used as in 2Co_1:24. If this sentence had been intended to be the object of ðåðïßèçóéí , or to be simply a development, of the thought contained in ðñὸò ôὸí èåüí , the phrase ought to have been ὅôé ïὐ÷ . Even if he gave God the honor of governing and guiding all the circumstances and accomplishing all the results of which he had spoken, he might still without impropriety have referred to his personal qualifications and have commended, and had confidence in, what he had done. On the other hand, he is on his guard here and he gives to God all the praise. He more particularly defines what this sufficiency orability is ( ἱêáíüò occurs also in 2Co_2:16) by ëïãßóáóèáß , (Lachmann: ëïãßæåóèáé ) ôé . ἀö ’. ἐáõôῶí , etc. Ëïãßæåóèáé signifies to consider, to reflect upon [with the notion of a result, to make out by reasoning], and refers here to that which proceeded from him and properly belonged to himself as an Apostle, in distinction from the results which depended upon the Divine blessing (1Co_3:6). It was the discernment of the best means and the best manner for the performance of his official duties, and a fixed purpose in the accomplishment of them (Meyer); or more comprehensively, the intellectual and moral qualification for his duties—the thoughts which were indispensable to the proper performance of his Apostolic work (Osiander). On no construction can we regard him as here ascribing this ðåðïßèçóßò and his ἰêáíüôçò for maintaining it to God, as if his object was to say that God was the source of this trust and of his confidence in his own qualifications [Rückert]. Nor should the assertion be limited to his work of instruction, for this is required as little by the context as is the doctrine which our older dogmatists were accustomed to derive from this passage, respecting the inability of the natural man generally to think any thing right or good. The Üö ̓ ἐáõôῶí which makes their ability ëïãßóáóèáß ôé dependent upon themselves, is more clearly defined by ὡò ἐî ἑáõôῶí , which designates the original source or efficient cause; as if our sufficiency had its origin in ourselves (Meyer). [Hodge: “There is a difference in the prepositions: ἅö ’ ἐáõôῶí ὡò ἑî ἑáõôῶí : not from ourselves, as if out of ourselves. We should express much the same idea by saying, our sufficiency is not in or of ourselves”]. The ἀö ’ ἑáõôῶí belongs not exclusively to ἱêáíïß ἐóìåí , nor to ëïãßóáóèáé ôé , but to both of them in conjunction. If we accept of the reading ἐî áὐôùí (with B. F. G. et. al.), we should translate: as those who are sufficient of themselves ( ὡò ἱêáíïὶ ὅíôåò etc.). The positive assertion contrasted with this is:—But our sufficiency is of God.—The word sufficiency here ( ἱêáíüôçò ) refers to the same object with respect to which they were sufficient as ἱêáíïß does. With this sentence must be connected the relative sentence—who also hath enabled ( ἱêÜíùóåí ) us as ministers of a new covenant (2Co_3:6).—The object of êáὶ is not to introduce a new, higher, or more general thought in contrast with ëïãßóáóèáß ôé , for then the expression would have been: ὅò êáὶ äéáêüíïíò — ἱêáí . ἡìᾶò , but to introduce a sentence to confirm and explain what had gone before: “who has even (or truly) made us sufficient,” etc. [Conybeare: comp. ἱêáíüò (2Co_2:16) ἱêáíïß (2Co_3:15) and ἱêÜíùóåí (2Co_3:6). Ad. Clarke: a formal answer to the question: Who is sufficient for these things? God (replies the Apostle) hath made us sufficient as ministers]. Äéáêüíïõò (ministers) is a concise expression for åἰò ôὸ ἕéíáé äéáêüíïõò , etc., (to be ministers), or åἰò äéáêïíéáí (for the ministry, comp. ἱêáíïῦí åἰò in Col_1:12).—The object of the ministry [i. e., ê . äéáèçêçò , the new covenant] is put in the genitive, as in 2Co_11:15; Eph_3:7; and Col_1:23, and is without the article because it is the genit. of quality. [The article is wanting also before ãñÜììáôïò and ðíåýìáôïò ] i. e., “of a new covenant.” It was new because it was altogether different from the old covenant which Moses founded. The basis of the former covenant was the law ( íüìïò ), whereas the later, covenant was founded wholly on grace and reconciliation in Christ; the condition of salvation in the former was obedience to the law, whereas in the latter it was faith in Christ (Rom_10:5 ff.). [Neander: ÄéáèÞêçò is not to be explained here according to its pure Greek signification (arrangement, will), but in accordance with the Heb. áְøִéú , which denotes a mutual transaction, an agreement (covenant) in which God promises something on condition that men fulfil what He requires of them]. This ministry of a new covenant is explained immediately by an antithetical sentence:—not of the letter, but of the Spirit.—As this expression is in explanation of and in apposition with the phrase, a new covenant, it must depend not upon äéáèÞêçò (covenant) but upon äéáêüíïíò (ministers). Comp. 2Co_3:7-8. We have here the same contrast as in Rom_2:29; Rom_7:6. The ministers of the Old Testament were busied principally with a letter, an inflexible, lifeless and written law; and they were bound to present and to inculcate with much zeal the duties of that covenant; whereas the ministers of the New Testament were concerned mainly with the Spirit. They had to do generally with a Divine power which wrought in the mind, renewed the heart and brought men into fellowship with God; and their work was to induce as many as possible to enter into this covenant and participate in its blessings. These two ministries gave a peculiar character respectively to the two covenants.—In the sentence—for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life—we have the reason for what had just been said, viz: God has made us sufficient for a ministry which is not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter kills, etc. (Flatt: what was written killed, but the Spiritual quickens into life). The connection must be sought by referring to the great aim of the Apostolic work, which was, as Paul’s readers well knew, to bring men into a holy fellowship by a Divine life (comp. Rom_1:16 f. et. al.). There is no need therefore of suggesting in addition that the ministry of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit, must be higher and far preferable, for, etc. The reason which the Apostle assigns is not that the ministry of a higher economy requires higher qualifications; nor, that under this higher economy the ministers must have a capacity for higher endowments (Osiander). Neander: “These words have been commonly applied to the contrasted literal or spiritual understanding of Christian truth. But Paul says nothing here directly on this subject. His words strictly refer merely to the law as a letter which gives commands, and the spirit of faith which makes alive. But probably this relation of the letter to the spirit may be applied to every precept of a merely ethical nature, with which Christianity, as the religion of the Spirit, is contrasted.” Light is thrown upon the whole passage by recollecting that the Apostle had in his eye those Judaizing teachers whose motives were derived from the law, and who vaunted themselves over Paul because he proclaimed nothing but grace. Such teachers were in danger of leading souls astray by pretending that their influence was salutary, while his was dangerous and corrupting. In opposition to such he gives the reason why God had qualified him and his fellow-laborers to be ministers of a new covenant which was not of the letter but of the Spirit. Exactly the opposite of what they pretended was found, in fact, to be true. The letter to which they devoted their energies killed, while the Spirit to whose service he was addicted made alive. This killing refers, not merely to a negative powerlessness or inability to awaken that life in the soul through which men freely perform works pleasing to God; nor merely to the introduction of a moral death, i. e., an opposition to the Divine will, produced by the sense of guilt which the commandment excites; nor even to a killing in a spiritual sense, because sin is the death of the soul; but to the sentence of condemnation and the exclusion from all hope of life and salvation which the law pronounces. Such is the idea of death ( èÜíáôïò ) in Rom_6:21; Rom_6:23; Rom_7:5 et. al. This death is indeed occasioned by those moral influences (Rom_7:7 ff.), and is in other passages pointed out under the phrases: the curse of the law (Gal_3:10), and, the law worketh wrath (Rom_4:15). This introduces also a death of the heart which paralyzes all moral power (Bengel, Osiander). The question, however, is, whether the Apostle has reference to this in our passage. He certainly had no thought of bodily (physical) death, as the wages of sin (Rom_5:12), and produced and demanded by the law (1Co_15:56; Rom_7:9), for such a death takes place also independently of the law (Rom_5:13); nor as a penalty of the law, for such a killing ( ἀðïêôÝéíåéí ) would not be a proper antithesis to the giving of life ( æùïðïéåῖí ). But the giving life or quickening is the effect of the eternal life ( æùὴ áἰþíéïò ) which is quickened in the soul (Rom_8:2; Rom_6:10-11), or of the introduction of the soul into that fellowship with God which is completed in the resurrection.

2Co_3:7-11. The Apostle now proceeds ( äὲ ) to show that the ministry of the New Testament was far preferable to that of the Old, both in the effects which it produces and in the spirit which it reveals. For the sake of comparing them he brings them face to face with each other, and then from the glory of the Old Testament service which appeared with such splendor in Moses face, that the children of Israel could not look upon him (2Co_3:7), he draws a conclusion, a minori ad majus.—But if the ministration of death, engraven in letters upon stones, was in glory (2Co_3:7).—Instead of the simple designation the ministry of the letter, which he had used in 2Co_3:6, he now uses the phrase, the ministry of death—which works in favor of, or as it were, under the direction or authority of, death. He thus attributes the consequences of the letter directly to the ministry under it, and so anticipates the reason for the inferiority which is set forth in 2Co_3:9. The definition: engraven in letters upon stones, shows that we must not here think of the Levitical priestly service (Rückert); and the express mention of Moses leads us to understand the ministry of Moses himself. We are to regard him, not as a mediator in contrast with Christ, but as a minister ( äéÜêïíïò ) representing all teachers under the law in contrast with the Apostles and ministers of the New Testament. By a bold turn of expression he combines the ministry itself with its object, and designates the whole as one which was engraven in letters upon stones (the only point on which we can here agree with Meyer, who regards the Decalogue as Moses’ commission or matricula officii). The ministration of Moses and of all his successors consisted in the presentation and enforcement of the law whose letters had been engraven upon stone (tablets). In this way he brings out in strong language the stiffness and externality of the ancient service. Neander: “The article before ãñÜììáóéí was designedly left out by the Apostle, because he intended to imply that a ministration which was conveyed only by letters must have been of a very general nature.” If ἐí ãñÜììáóéí (or ãñÜììáôé ) were connected directly with ôïῦ èáíÜôïõ , as Luther and some others contend the words should be [the ministration of death in letters, or the ministration which produces death by means of letters], the article would have been required ( ôïῦ ἐí ãñÜì ). The predicate ἐãåíÞèç ἐí äüîῃ , is essentially the same as if it had been ἐãåí . ἔíäüîïò . But we are here evidently directed to the divine glory ( áָּáåֹã ) within whose radiance the ministration was performed. Of an essential dignity or eminence the Apostle was not in general speaking, for in the next sentence:—so that the children of Israel could not keep their eyes fixed on Moses’ face (2Co_3:7), there is no representation of the consequences or of the visible tokens of the glory, but of the remarkable degree in which this ministration participated in the divine radiance. In 2Co_3:8 also ( ἕóôáé ἐí äüîῃ ) it is the heavenly glory which is spoken of. [Webster and Wilkinson think that the ἐóôáé refers to the future, not from the time of writing merely, but to a future from past time, or rather a future of inference, as, if that were so, what will this be:] Then, amid the glories of the great day of revelation, when the kingdom of God shall be perfected, and when all external form shall correspond with essential excellence, the dignity of the New Testament ministration will be especially manifested. The narrative in Exo_34:29 ff. is rather freely quoted, inasmuch as we are there merely informed that when Aaron and the children of Israel saw that the skin of Moses’ face shone they were afraid to come near him. But everything essential to Paul’s, and even to Philo’s account, is there. For even the ἀôåíßóáé , the fixed gaze upon his face, was too much for them. The reason for this is further given when it is added—for the glory of his countenance—but with the important addition—which was to be done away.—This addition gives us a new point in the comparison, and places the inferiority of the legal ministration in a strong light (comp. 2Co_3:11; 2Co_3:13). Neander: “In this Paul discovers a symbol of the fading glory of Judaism.” But he has not yet commenced speaking of the discontinuance of the ministration and its glory, but only of that fact in which he saw a hint of this. He there makes use of no purely present participle (Luther: that which nevertheless is ceasing), but, in accordance with the history, an imperfect participle signifying—that which was passing away. The Apostle presumes that this radiance was transitory; and with great justice, since it always became visible when Moses came from the Divine presence [Estius: passing away when the occasion was over]. The inference from this is briefly and simply expressed in 2Co_3:8—how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be yet more glorious?—In ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò the Apostle resumes the subject of the ministration of the Spirit in 2Co_3:6, which had been interrupted by the enlargement in 2Co_3:7 with respect to the letter: engraved in letters upon stones. But the idea is not that the Spirit rests upon this ministration (though this is silently presumed), but that the ministration was the medium through which the Spirit, and the life he bestowed were communicated and enjoyed (in opposition to ôïῦ èáíÜôïõ , comp. 2Co_7:6). [The verbs ãßíïìáé and åἰìß are here brought into striking contrast; ἐãåíÞèç ἐí äüîῃ – ἕóôáé ἐí äüîῃ . Bengel: ãßíïìáé , fio, et åἰìß sum, are quite different. Stanley: ἐãåíÞèç , came into existence. Ellicott (on 1Ti_2:14): “the construction ãßíåóèáé ἐí occurs occasionally, but not frequently in the New Testament, to denote the entrance into, and existence in, any given state.” Webster: “ ἐãåíÞèç ἐí äüîῃ =was made to be in glory for a time; ἕóôáé ἐí äïîῃ =shall be in glory permanently” (Synn. sub. ãßí .)]. As ἕóôáé leads the mind to the future (comp. “this hope” in v. 22), we-must not refer the glory ( äüîá ) to the miraculous endowments and works of the Apostles. ̓́ Åóôáé , however, need not be regarded as the fut. consequentiæ, or as equivalent to esse invenietur (si rem recte perpenderis), and we are hardly safe in understanding it of a progressive development. In the Apostle’s mind the second advent of Christ (Parousia) was so constantly present, that it would seem to him needless to give a more particular explanation of his language. The kind of ministration of the spirit, which he had in view, and the argument from the less to the greater, which he applies to it, will be accounted for or confirmed when he comes to explain more particularly the two ministrations, the first, as a ministration of condemnation, and the other as a ministration of righteousness.—For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministration of righteousness abound in glory (2Co_3:9).—[If Lachmann’s reading ( ôῇ äéáêïíßᾳ ) be adopted, the translation would be, ‘if to the ministration of condemnation be glory,’ etc., but the sense would not be essentially altered]. Here the former corresponds to the killing and the death, and the latter to the making alive, of 2Co_3:6-7. The condemnation refers to the curse of the law. The ministration which was employed in the enforcement of the letter, i. e. the Old Testament law, was compelled to denounce condemnation against transgressors (comp. Deu_27:26), and by its enforcement of a law which brought the sinful passions into active opposition to its requirements, it brought men under the curse. The righteousness, which is here contrasted with the condemnation, is the same as the being just (or righteous) before God, and is the great object of the proclamation of Divine grace under the New Testament ministration. Under that ministration, faith is awakened, and man’s relations to God are rectified, so that he can be justified, and attain everlasting life in the Divine kingdom (comp. Rom_1:17; Rom_3:22 ff, Rom_3:22; Rom_3:30 et al.) The Apostle, however, partially modifies what he had thus said of these two ministrations, by withdrawing all reference to time in the use of ἐãåíÞèç and ἕóôáé . Instead of ἐí äüîῃ we have the nominative äüîí , with Ýóôßí understood. The meaning is the same, and the expression is more forcible than the adjective ἕíäïîïò would have been (comp. Rom_8:10; ôὸ ðíåῦìá æùÞ ). On the other hand the expression is strengthened by the use of ðåñéóóåýåé , signifying: overflows or abounds in glory.—For even that which, has been glorious, is not glorious in this respect, on account of the glory which excels (2Co_3:10).—Here the previous idea is further strengthened by saying that the glory of the contrasted ministration was abolished, although that ministration had previously been declared to have been made in glory ( ãåíçèῆíáé ἐí äüîῃ ), or to have been glory ( äüîá , 2Co_3:7; 2Co_3:9), on account of the superabundant glory of the other. The êáß (even) indicates a climax and qualifies the verb: is not glorious, or has no glory ( ïý äåäüîáóôáé ), which expresses a single idea (that which is deprived of glory), and goes beyond the minus of the comparison. A more particular explanation of the idea is given in ἐí ôïýôῳ ôῷ ìÝñåé , which signifies: in this particular, i. e. with respect to the relation which the Old Testament ministration bore to that of the New Testament.—The phrase, that which has been glorious ( ôὸ äåäïîáóìÝíïí ), [“shows a strange use of the perfect (as does äåäüîáóôáé ), and is taken from Exo_34:29; Exo_34:35 of the Sept.” Stanley]. It does not stand here for the whole Old Testament economy, but simply the Mosaic ministration, or that which was surrounded by, or shared in a Divine radiance.—Having said that this was not glorious in this respect, the Apostle adds the reason for that deprivation, by saying that this was on account of the surpassing glory. He here refers to what he had said of the ministration of righteousness abounding in glory ( ðåñéóóåýåé ἐí äüîῃ ). Before the superabundant glory of the ministration of the New Testament, the glory of the Old Testament ministration entirely disappears as the moon’s splendor vanishes in the sun’s radiance. There is, therefore, no necessity of taking the phrase, that which has been glorious, in a general and abstract sense (Meyer), without an allusion to the Mosaic service in the concrete sense, until it comes up in the predicate, where ἐí ôïýôῳ ͅ ôῷ ìÝñåé has the sense of: “in this respect (i. e. when we compare the glory of the Mosaic ministration with the Christian, 2Co_3:9) the glorified becomes unglorified.” In 2Co_3:11 the expression, the surpassing glory ( ôῆò ὑðåñâáëëïýóçò äüîçò ) is still further justified by the introduction of a new element into the comparison, although it had been symbolically suggested in 2Co_3:7.—For if that which is transitory was with (passing through) glory, much more that which abides is in glory.—This new element is the permanent in distinction from the temporary, that which is vanishing: “on account of the super-abounding glory.” For each ministration there is presupposed an economy or dispensation, one of which is passing away, and the other is abiding. The Old Testament ministration with the law itself, is supposed to pass away with the entrance of the New Testament ministration (comp. Rom_10:4). The latter must remain until the second coming of our Lord, when it will be eternally, glorified in His heavenly kingdom. [Neander: The Apostle probably had a special design when he used the different prepositions äéὰ ( äὸîçò ) and ἐí ( äüîῃ ). Äéὰ . designates a point of transition and hence implies that the thing spoken of, was passing and transitory, while ἐí implies that which is permanent.] Äéὰ äüîçò signifies strictly that the glory merely accompanied the object [Winer § 51, i. p. 306. Webster (Synn. p. 166) says that it indicates particularly an object in a state of transition, while passing through a state] whereas ἐí äüîῃ implies that the object continued in glory. Sometimes, however, even äéὰ is used to designate the fixed condition or state of a thing (2Co_2:4; 2Co_5:7), and hence it is possible that Paul used both expressions as nearly equivalent, for we know that he not unfrequently changed his prepositions even when he referred to the same relation. In either case äéὰ seems appropriate to the êáôáñãïýìåíïí , and ἐí to the ìÝíïí . In the translation, the distinction can with difficulty be made perceptible (comp. Osiander).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

When nothing but Christ, and Christ in his completeness, is preached, and when the preachers know by experience the reality of what they preach, all who have learned the deadly condemnation and inefficiency of the law to save the soul will feel the power of truth, will be rescued, forgiven and renewed by Divine grace, and will become animated by a spiritual life which will know no limit but the perfection of God. Such results will need no proof that they are from God, for all who have eyes to see will not only commend the human laborer but give honor to the God who bestowed both the success and the power to labor. Those legal task-masters who exalt themselves so much above the preachers of free grace, will never disturb the common security nor bring anything to real order; and in due time, even in this world, it will not be hard to distinguish between the preaching which saves and that which destroys the soul. But a day is coming when all things shall be made especially manifest, when those who have turned many to righteousness shall present before the Lord a great company of enlightened, justified and sanctified ones, who shall shine as the stars forever and ever; while those who preached nothing but the law shall (Dan_12:3) be filled with unspeakable horror and confusion, as the lamentable and fatal consequences of their course shall be fully brought to light.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Starke:

2Co_3:1. No one needs a better letter of credence than that testimony of men’s own consciences and works which are sufficient to praise him.

2Co_3:2-3. Every believer is an epistle in which the Holy Ghost reveals the knowledge of God in Christ; he is an open epistle in which all can learn something of what God can produce in the heart; and he is an epistle of Christ, for the hands and tongues of all true teachers are the instruments which the Holy Spirit uses to form him into the Divine image. If God’s writing is in the heart, the willing heart, the faithful obedience and the ready tongue will not fail to discourse of God. In such cases there will be real life, and not mere letters upon stone. Preachers should never doubt, that when they perform their parts, the appropriate fruits of their labor will infallibly follow.

2Co_3:5. No one can speak of God as he should, until he has been taught of God (Joh_6:45). Whatever gifts we have, and whatever praise we gain, should therefore be ascribed entirely to God (Jam_1:17). Oh how many make idols of themselves.

2Co_3:6. Luther:—The letter is to teach us, that while the mere law of God and our own works give us knowledge, they cannot show us that God can be gracious; but it shows us that everything we are and do is condemned and worthy of death, since without Divine grace we can do nothing. The Spirit, on the other hand, is to teach us that grace without law or personal righteousness gives us knowledge, but in such a way as to give us life and salvation. Hedinger:—The Gospel is accompanied by a penetrating life, which enlightens and gladdens those who are awakened and condemned to death; it is therefore from the Spirit and is the source of spirit and life. Every word of God, as it comes from the Divine heart and hand, has some special design and a power of its own. In some cases it is to command and in others to produce obedience; in some it is to threaten and in others it is to comfort; in some it is to chastise and wound, and in others it is to heal and revive. To every work which His wisdom has ordained He has also adjusted just that measure of power which is precisely adapted to the end he has in view. The word which created the world is not the word which creates a new heart. For this is needed a word of far greater power (Eph_1:19).

2Co_3:7. Hedinger:—The law also has power and light. It has a terrible thunderbolt for those who have awakened consciences, and where Christ does not comfort them and anoint them with His Spirit, they are struck down to the mouth of hell. Those who would partake of the Divine nature must mount up in spirit often to God, become familiar with Divine things, converse much with God in prayer, and listen in their most secret souls to God’s voice in His word, and it will not be long before their souls will be full of Divine light.

2Co_3:8. The Gospel is indeed a quickening and a saving power, by means of which Christ is glorified, and rises like a clear morning star (2Pe_1:19) to shed upon His people’s hearts the full beams of His eternal glory (Rev_21:23 ff.).

2Co_3:9. Hedinger:—When the word of the kingdom casts its clear light upon thee, look steadily upon it. Many love darkness and shun the light (Joh_3:19). Walk in the light lest darkness come upon thee (Joh_12:35).

2Co_3:10. The Gospel is the source of an indescribable glory when it is truly applied to the hearts of God’s people, for the glory of the Lord is even now shed forth upon them; but when Jesus, who is their life, shall be fully revealed, their glory will be complete (Col_3:4).

2Co_3:11. The spirit of life is better than death, righteousness than condemnation, and that which is permanent than that which vanishes away; how much better then is the ministration of the New Covenant than that of the letter?

Berlenb. Bible, 2Co_3:2 :—Real candor and frankness of manner can spring only from a consciousness of innocence. A preacher’s success must be estimated not from the multitudes who attend upon his ministry, but from the sound conversions which take place under it. Many may, and certainly will condemn him; but this is no evidence that he is wrong. Let us only be concerned that we are begotten by the Word of truth to the glory of God, and that men may say of us: The Lord hath created and formed them for himself.

2Co_3:3. The minister who fails to point men from himself to Christ, is trying to make himself a pope. We should never stop at what is external, but press forward to the inward spirit of everything. Let men see that those hearts of ours which were once of stone, are now fleshly tablets, and that this is the Lord’s work. The heart which takes no impression from the Gospel, has no part in the New Covenant.

2Co_3:4. True confidence in God, is not of ourselves, but comes through Christ.

2Co_3:5. The spiritual man finds that a union with Christ gives him an invincible power, in proportion as he sees that he is not sufficient of himself to do anything, as of himself, i. e., to know and overcome the subtle assaults of spiritual pride and self-will. Few persons possess this power, because they never thoroughly know themselves, or understand how utterly insufficient they are even to think anything which will convince them of God’s grace and truth. This is wholly a spiritual and divine work, and can be accomplished only by divine instruments. When this fact is fully recognized, we can no longer endure in ourselves those contrivances and counterfeits which the ingenuity of man has devised; for every degree of credit we take to ourselves, only hinders the growth of grace in our hearts. Whatever benefits the renewed man attains, is in consequence of his new creation, and never will he hesitate to cast the crown at the feet of God and of the Lamb. And yet this subjugation of the vile spirit of self-love, self-sufficiency, self-flattery, etc., requires the severest struggle to which our natures are ever called. If Christians in general need to be divested of all confidence in themselves, surely those who lead them should seek to be especially free from it.

2Co_3:6. The letter which supplies no