Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:12 - 3:18

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:12 - 3:18


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

VII.—DIFFERENT RESULTS OF THE TWO KINDS OF MINISTRY. HARDENING OF THE JEWS

2Co_3:12-18

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness [unreservedness] of speech: 13And not as Moses, [om. which] put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could [might] not steadfastly look to [upon] the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded [hardened]: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ [upon the reading of the Old Testament remains the same veil untaken away, because it is taken away (only) in Christ]. 15But even unto this day, when Moses Isaiah 16 read, the veil is [lies, êåῖôáé ] upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn 17[turns] to the Lord, the veil shall be [is] taken away. Now the Lord is that [the] Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is [om. there] is liberty. 18But we all, with open [unveiled] face beholding as in a glass [mirror] the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [om. even] as by the Spirit of the Lord [the Lord, the Spirit].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Co_3:12-13. Having, therefore, such hope.—The ἐëðéò (hope) has reference to the future glory of the New Testament ministry as it had been alluded to in 2Co_3:8. This glory had been called permanent in 2Co_3:11, and was to be for the glorification of Christ when he should come to judgment. Some interpreters regard 2Co_3:6 ff. as a digression, and think that we have here a resumption of the subject ( óὖí ) there broken off, and that ἐëðßò is here equivalent to ðåðïßèçóéò there. This is, however, directly opposed to the peculiar and essential signification of ἐëðßò , and to the connection. [That trust, even if we regard it as “filled out into hope by the intervening vision of the glory of his work” (Stanley), had reference rather to the results of his work, while this hope looked forward to something future and undeveloped]. The therefore ( ïὖí ) introduces us to the practical results which were to follow the glorious ministration of the Gospel, and ôïéáὐôçí (such) indicates the greatness or superiority of the hope.—We use great boldness of speech.—The whole tenor of the discourse shows us that ðáῤῥçóßá cannot mean the internal confidence or joyfulness which the Apostle felt, but the frank, open and unreserved manner which characterized his outward deportment, and the plainness or perspicuity (evidentia) which distinguished his addresses. [Chrysostom: “We speak out everywhere with all freedom, abating, concealing, mistrusting nothing; with confidence, as if we had no idea that we should injure your sight as Moses did that of the Israelites.” The Greek word ðáῤῥçóßá embraces the three ideas of openness, candor, and boldness. Moses’ address was interrupted by intervals of concealment, and was constantly reserved on account of his want of full confidence in his people. We have no reason for fears, distrust or concealment]. The connection is: The glory which is connected with the New Testament ministry, makes us unreserved in our communications with the people, and induces us to present divine truth unveiled before them. The very spirit of our religion also demands this, for God’s people could never reach the glorious privileges he has promised them without an opportunity of looking freely and without reserve upon all that our system of religion contains. (Emmerling).—The phrase ÷ñῆóèáé ðáῤῥçóßá occurs more than once in Plato. The idea contained in ðáῤῥçóßá ÷ñþìåèá (Indicative, not Subjunctive) is carried out into more detail in 2Co_3:13, though negatively by referring to an opposite kind of proceeding by Moses.—And not as Moses put a veil over his face.—This principal sentence is elliptical, because its predicate is to be found in the incidental remark made in connection with it. Such an ellipsis may be found in other Greek writings, but must here be supplied from the words used and the connection following. We may supply after êáὶ ïὐ , simply ðïéïῦìåí (we do), or more freely, ôßèåìåí êÜëõììá ἐôὶ ôὸ ðñüóùðïí ἡðìῶí (we put a veil over our faces). The allusion is to a veiling process, quite different from the great boldness which had just been professed. It is said that Moses put over his face a covering (veil); that the children of Israel might not gaze at (clearly see) the end of that which is passing away. By ôÝëïò ôïῦ êáôáñãïõìÝíïõ is meant either the end, the literal fading away of the splendor which was on Moses’ face (though such a view would not correspond with the subsequent part of the representation); the end of that splendor regarded as the symbol of the whole Old Testament ministration (office) and possibly of the Old Testament dispensation (Religion) itself; or (throwing aside the whole idea of a symbol) of the ministration or institution itself; or the end of Moses himself as the representative of that institution (in which case the masculine would not agree with the neuter ôὸ êáôáñã . of 2Co_3:11); or the design, the purpose which that ministration or even the law itself was established to accomplish, the result to which that institution led, and for which it was prepared, viz., the divine glory to be unveiled in Christ, and of which the veiled radiance on Moses’ face was a symbol and reflection. (Comp. 2Co_3:14; 2Co_3:18, 2Co_4:4; 2Co_4:6). Well established usage will not permit us to take ðñὸò ôὸ ìὴ ἀôåíßóáé ecbatically [implying a mere consequence of a course of action, without reference to the views of the actors] in the sense of: so that, but we are obliged to understand by them the aim or purpose which the agents had in view. In every instance in which the phrase occurs in the New Testament it probably has reference to a subjective Divine purpose (comp. Meyer), and not to a merely objective result of divine arrangements. And yet we may suppose that so great a prophet as Moses, profoundly acquainted with the general scheme of the Divine administration, may have known that he was fulfilling a divine purpose, or at least that he was promoting such a result. That he was practising an intentional deception (Fritzsche), or was guilty of an improper dissimulation, the Apostle was far from implying. Even if we make the end of that which is passing away, refer to the end of Moses’ ministry (comp. 2Co_3:11), and suppose that Moses saw that end ( ôÝëïò ) typified by the disappearance of the radiance from his face, such a covert proceeding (tecte agere) must be regarded simply as a pedagogic or disciplinary course of conduct. The same may be said of an interpretation proposed by Meyer (but which need not include a reference to a Rabbinic allegory), according to which Paul recognizes in ôÝëïò , what he afterwards brings out more fully, viz., a judicial or retributive proceeding, at least on God’s part. This implies that a sight of the Divine radiance on Moses’ face was withheld from the children of Israel, because their previous conduct had made them unworthy of such a favor. Such a concealment was a symbolical representation of the fact that in consequence of their sins, Moses, i. e., the law represented by him, or the Scriptures of the Old Testament read by them, would remain so veiled before them, that they could never perceive the Divine glory which rested especially upon those Scriptures and those rites which testified of Christ; and accordingly they would continue in unbelief and have no part in the salvation by Christ. Neander: “The mind of the Apostle was entirely taken up with the symbolical meaning of this incident. Moses is in his eye simply a symbol of the whole legal economy, and from this point of view everything in the history is regarded. The covering which Moses used to conceal his face, represents the entire veil of symbols under which divine things were represented. As long as these divine things could be seen only in the light of the Old Testament, there was no way of distinguishing eternal truth from the temporary form in which it was represented to men (essence and symbol). The contrast here implied may therefore be carried out thus: we who make known the Gospel to men need never fear that its glory may some day come to an end. We may allow our hearers the clearest and freest inspection of its mysteries, and its radiance will only shine forth the more brightly.”

[“The whole subsequent section (14–18) is parenthetical. Before and after it, the ministry is the subject; in it, they to whom the ministry is directed. But it serves to show the whole spirit and condition of the two classes, and thus further to substantiate the character of openness and freedom asserted of the Christian ministry” (Alford)].

2Co_3:14-16. But their minds (mental perceptions) were hardened (made callous).—The words distinctly announce that this was a divine judgment. Íïὴìáôá signifies not the already formed thoughts (2Co_2:11), but as in 2Co_4:4; 2Co_11:3, the spiritual sense, the power used in thinking and willing (Beck, Seelenl. p. 59), or the various activities of the íïῦò (Meyer). We may furthermore conceive (retaining the signification usually given: thoughts, intellectual perceptions), that these powers become petrified or hardened, i. e., are put so completely into stocks, and made immovable, that they no longer yield to pressure, and can make no progress toward that clear knowledge on which everything depends. Ðùñïῦí , (from Ðῶñïò , callus, an induration of the skin which destroys all sensibility), obdurare, to harden, to blunt (Isa_6:10; Mar_6:52; Mar_8:17), is sometimes used with respect to the heart ( êáñäßá . Rom_11:25), and sometimes of the Jews ( ïἰ ëïéðïß ). We are left in doubt when this hardening took place, for this depends upon the relation given to ἀëëÜ . If this has reference to ðáῤῥçóéá ÷ñþìåèá , and particularly to êáὶ ïὑ (2Co_3:13), meaning: “We act in an open manner, with no such concealment as Moses practised, and yet their íïÞìáôá have become hardened,” we must suppose that the hardening had but recently taken place when the Apostle wrote. But if we refer it to ðñὸò ôὸ ìὴ ἀôåíßóáé , (i. e., to their gazing, etc.), the hardening must have taken place in Moses’ time, though the subsequent remarks show that it had continued to the Apostle’s own time. It is in favor of the latter reference, that the veil is immediately afterwards the subject of discourse. In this case it is said directly that the minds of the people were hardened, that, they might not look upon the end (scope, object) of that which is abolished. He proves and illustrates his position, that the hardening was not abolished, by an appeal to the actual facts before their eyes, in the condition of the nation at the time he was speaking:—for until this day, the same veil remains on the reading of the Old Covenant.—That these facts resulted from the same causes which were in action in Moses’ day, he asserts by saying that the same veil ( ôὸ áὐôὸ êÜëõììá ) remains: for as a veil was interposed between the divine radiance on Moses’ face and the eyes of the Israelites, so has the divine radiance of the Old Covenant been concealed from that people, down to the period in which he was writing. [It is not directly implied that this veil was over the heart, under the preaching of the Gospel. The reference is solely to the Israelitish nation under the hearing and reading of the Old Covenant. But the change of the medium of communication makes necessary a change of figure. After Moses oral communications ceased—it was a book which spoke to them. The reason any do not see the glory when they read, is not in the book which addresses them, but in the heart of the reader. The active influence which obstructed the proper understanding of the truth was in the other direction, and the veil had to be on the heart. Comp. Alford.] It is as if a veil had been thrown over the reading, for the great truths of the Old Covenant were not recognized even when they were plainly read, and the glory of God actually contained in that dispensation remained a mystery to them. [In opposition to Theodoret, who maintains that the power which hardens, was entirely from within the heart itself, Meyer endeavors to show that the passive åðùñþèç clearly implies that the hardening was the act of another (comp. Rom_11:7). The word signifies blindness (as in our authorized English version) only by a double metaphor, i. e., by supposing that the intellect and heart lose their perceptive power. Chrysostom says the nation became “ ôὸðá÷ὺ êáὶ ÷áìáßæçëïí , stupid and grovelling,” because they prided themselves on the superior glory of Moses.] ’ Åðé may refer either to place, i. e., over the reading, which would here correspond to the face of Moses when he spoke to the people; or (better) to time, i. e., during the reading. Comp. 2Co_3:15, ἡíßêá ἀíáãὶíùóêåôáé , etc. We meet with the phrase ðáëáéὰ äéáèÞêç (Old Covenant) nowhere else in the New Testament; and it must here designate, not the original Scriptures, the collection of books which now bear the name, but the Covenant itself; the substance of what was read in the synagogues (the writings of Moses and the Prophets), whose types and promises contained the divine glory afterwards revealed in Christ. [Such an expression shows how deep was Paul’s conviction, that that ancient covenant was now becoming antiquated, and was about to be superseded.]

In the remaining part of 2Co_3:14, ìὴ ἀíáêáëõðôüìåíïí may be construed as if the participle were to be taken absolutely—it not being unveiled (or discovered to them) that it (the Old Covenant) is done away in Christ.—Or, inasmuch as it remained concealed from the Jews that the Old Covenant was to be abrogated in consequence of the appearance and work of Christ (Rom_10:4; Col_2:14). Such an expression would be a particular determination of what had been meant by saying that the same veil remains, etc. These words may, however, be joined with the previous words so as to say: “the same veil in the reading of the Old Covenant remains not taken away,” and then ὅôé ἐí ÷ñéòôῷ êáôáñãåῖôáé gives us the reason: “because it is taken away in Christ.” That this would actually take place only in Christ was a self-evident thing to the Apostle and his readers; and that this “only” is sufficiently indicated by the emphasis which must be laid upon ἐí ÷ñéóñῷ , cannot be doubted. It is very natural, however, from the example of 2Co_3:13, to refer êáôáñãåῖôáé to the Old Covenant, and an entirely different word ( ðåñéáéñåῖôáé ) is used with respect to the removal of the veil. On the other hand the structure of the sentence makes it natural to connect ἀíáêáëõðôüìåíïí with êÜëõììá ; and even if we have a right to use the participle in this case absolutely (since it is not common for any verbs to be used in this way except ἐîüí , åἰñçìÝíïí , and such like), it is hard to justify the use of ἀíáêáëõðôå ͂ éí in this absolute manner, inasmuch as everywhere else it has with it an accusative of the object. The attempt which Rückert has made to combine the two constructions together, and to make the Apostle say: “and will not be taken away, that they (the people) might see that it (the Old Covenant) has its end in Christ,” has no claim to our acceptance. The reading ὅ ôé , which Luther [and our Eng. translators] followed, and which makes the nature of the covering itself the reason for its not being removed (=quippe quod, Meyer) has opposed to it all the old versions, whose testimony on such a point should have especial importance. The positive contrast to the negative ìὴ ἀíáêáëõðô . is given in 2Co_3:15—But even until this day when Moses is read, a veil lies upon their heart.—This means, according to the previous construction, either, “it will not be disclosed that, etc., but until this day the veil is upon their hearts;” or “and will not be discovered, because it will be taken away in Christ, but until this day a covering lies,” etc. The latter interpretation would not seem to have required the repetition of êÜëõììá . The want of the article may be accounted for on both interpretations on the ground that the veil is transposed from the object looked upon to the persons looking. This change may have been in the Apostle’s mind when he wrote 2Co_3:14, if ἐðὶ ( ôῃ ἀíáãí .) be taken with respect to time, and then the present clause is only a more complete definition of that idea. In no case (even if ἐðὶ has the sense of on or over) could the Apostle have spoken of two coverings in order to imply a high degree of incapacity. This would have required an additional êáß before ἐðὶ ôÞí êáñä . áὐôῶí . This is the only time ἡíßêá is found in the New Testament, but in the Sept. it occurs frequently, and in this very passage in Exo_34:34 it is used in the sense of a space of time =when. The name Ìùῦóῆò signifies here the writings of Moses. The covering said to be extended [“ êåῖôáé ἐðῖ with the accusative pregnans: involving the being laid on and remaining there”—Alford] over the hearts of the people, signifies not an obstruction to their moral powers i. e., of the will, but a defect in the intellectual faculties of understanding.—But when it turns unto the Lord the veil is taken away (2Co_3:16).—Here the veil in fact is said to be removed in consequence of an act of the will. The heart ( êáñäßá ), which is the subject of ἐðéóôñÝøç (for as ôéò or ’ Éóñáçë have not yet been mentioned, they cannot be made such a subject), seems to be regarded here in two aspects: first as the seat of intelligence, and then as the seat of the will or of self-determination. The ἐðéóôñÝöåéí ἐðὶ ôὸí êýñéïí , is the turning of one’s self to Christ, and this is a conversion just as far as it had been preceded by a turning away. In the rejection of the Lord the heart of the children of Israel was regarded as completely apostate, and hence its conversion to Christ would be looked upon as a return to the Lord. This conversion is supposed to have taken place before the veil is taken away, inasmuch as the latter is said to be the consequence of the former ( ἡíßêá ἅí ). Luther’s translation: “Wenn es sich bekehrte, so würde,” etc., (if it shall turn, the veil will, etc.), is incorrect, and would not perhaps have been made had the author of it not been influenced, probably unconsciously, by the idea that such a conversion before the removal of the veil was impossible. But the same assertion is found manifestly in Rom_11:25 ff. The Apostle is not speaking of those individual conversions which take place in every age. But when this general conversion shall be brought about, when that aversion to Christ which springs from a carnal mind and proud self-righteousness shall be overcome, and when, consequently, they shall confidingly and with sincere acknowledgements of their guilty error and unbelief, turn to Him, they will clearly discover as they read the Old Testament that it everywhere bears testimony for Christ. The Divine glory really contained in its types and prophecies, and now more fully revealed in Christ himself, will shine so clearly that they will be able to look upon it with a steadfast gaze. The expression reminds us of Exo_34:34. In the mind of the Apostle the removal of the covering from Moses’ face when he went again into the Divine presence seemed a type of the future removal of Israel’s blindness. Ðåñéáéñå ͂ éí contains an intimation that the veil was completely around the heart. [As this is the verb used in the Sept. of Exo_34:34, and as ðåñéῃñå ͂ éôï there and almost uniformly throughout that version can be taken only in an active sense, Stanley contends that the word here ( ðåñéáéñå ͂ éôáé ) should have an active and not a passive sense (strips off—not, is stript off). He also thinks that the only nominative which both ἐðéóôñÝøῃ and ðåñéáñå ͂ éôáé can have is Ìùῦóῆò (and in this Calvin and Estius agree with him), since ’ Éóñáὴë is too remote, and ἡ êáñäéá is not sufficiently prominent. He thinks that then each clause beginning with ἡíßêá will correspond, and that the parallel with Exo_34:34 will be preserved. He takes Moses as the representative of not only the Old Covenant but of the nation, and makes the sense to be: “when Moses, in the person of his people, turns again to Him who is our Lord now as he went of old time to Him who was their Lord in Sinai, then he strips off the veil from his face and from their hearts, and then the perishable nature of the law will be made manifest in the full blaze of the Divine glory.” But ἡ ̔ êáñäßá is quite as natural a subject for ἐðéóôñÝøῃ , and as likely to be prominent in the Apostle’s mind as Ìùῦóῆò , and the idea of ἐðéóôñÝøç is certainly that of a thorough conversion, and not a mere change of opinion about the law. The careful adoption by the Apostle of the words of the Sept., some of which were strange to him, shows that he was closely copying the imagery of the history; and he here intends to say, that as Moses had on a veil when his face was turned away from God, and took it off when he went in to God, so the heart of the people when turned from the Lord was veiled, and when it turned to him had the veil removed. Both ἐðéóôñÝøç and ðåñéáéñ . should be rendered as an indefinite present and not in the future as in the authorized version. The turning and removing of the veil was in process of completion. The process was continually going on by the turning of individuals in every age, though the general conversion was in the distant future.]

2Co_3:17-18.—Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, is liberty—(2Co_3:17). This sentence is connected with 2Co_3:16, and explains or gives the reason for what is said there. We have in fact a syllogism, though its several members are not given in their regular order. The major premise is: Where the Spirit of the Lord is, is freedom; the minor is: as the Lord is the Spirit, whoever turns to the Lord has that Spirit; and the conclusion is: therefore such a one must be free, and will no more be enveloped by the covering which veils and checks the action of the soul (Meyer). It is evident from 2Co_3:18 that the liberty connected with the removal of the covering which obstructed the people’s open insight into the divine glory, is not a new subject of discourse foreign to what had been discussed, as e. g., a freedom from the yoke of the law (though this must be virtually communicated during such an insight). ̔ Ï äὲ êýñéïò is intimately connected with 2Co_3:16 : ‘But the Lord, to whom their heart thus turns, is the Spirit.’ Many artificial explanations have been given of this verse. Without noticing those attempts which have been in direct contradiction to the meaning of the words and the scope of the context, (one of which went so far as to conjecture that the reading must have been ïὐ äÝ êýñéïò ) we find here such an identification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, that the Lord, to whom the heart turns, is in no practical respect different from the Holy Spirit received in conversion. The fellowship of Christ into which it entered, when it turned to the Lord, was in truth the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Christ is virtually the Spirit, inasmuch as He communicates Himself in conversion, and at other times by means of the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is His spirit: the animating principle of the Lord’s indwelling and influence in the hearts of believers is this Holy Spirit (comp. Rom_8:9 ff.; Gal_2:20; Gal_4:6; Php_1:19; Act_10:28 comp. with Eph_4:11; Joh_14:18 et. al.). In favor of this explanation is the immediately following phrase: ïὐ äÝ ôὸ ðíåῦìá êõñßïõ (where the Spirit of the Lord is), in which we may notice also, that the article before ðíåῦìá indicates that every thing which is certainly the work of the Spirit, must be exclusively from Christ (Neander). But such a virtual identification of Christ and the Spirit, can have reference only to Christ in His state of exaltation (comp. 1Co_15:45); for it is only in that state that He is the independent source of all divine light and power to the bodies and souls of believers. He is then no longer dependent upon any source beyond Himself, for the divine light and power which he possesses or dispenses: and the Son of man is no longer the Son of God in a state of self-renunciation, dependent upon the influences of the Spirit, but a perfect centre of divine fulness. Hence, we may say of Him: he is the Spirit, (not merely quasi) because he is glorified in the spiritual world. From this it moreover follows (for the idea is essential to that of the Spirit of God), that the new birth, (in which what is here called liberty, i. e., the free action of the mind, a free intuition of the divine glory, and a release from the impediments of a fleshly nature, is included) must have its source in Him. He it is who makes like Himself those who turn to Him, and from Him proceeds the pure free light of life (the truth which makes us free). Hence no sooner is it said that the Lord is the Spirit than He is called the Spirit of the Lord. [Paul had been speaking of a spirituality in the ancient dispensation, which had been entirely missed by the ancient Jews. This abstract spirituality he wished to connect with a concrete reality, and hence he here says that the Lord (to whom the heart of the people must turn) is that Spirit. Even this Lord, he also wishes to identify (not in his essential nature, but in his activity in this special department) with the Holy Spirit (who, the next verse shows, is here meant). Comp. Alford. The ancient fathers (especially Chrysostom and Augustine, see Wordsworth) were led by their extreme dogmatic zeal to press this verse into a proof of the Holy Spirit’s divinity. They almost universally construed ôὸ ðíåῦìá as the subject, and ὁ êýñéïò as the predicate of the sentence. Grammatically this is allowed to be perhaps possible, (Alford, Meyer). but it is evidently forced, and the sentiment so expressed would be entirely foreign to the course of the Apostle’s argument. It is only inferentially from the identity of our Lord’s and the Spirit’s operations, that such a doctrine here enters]. In 2Co_3:18 he refers still further to the way in which this freedom, which has its source in the Lord and his Spirit, is produced among those who believe in Christ. In illustrating this he now recurs to the figure of the glory and the free looking upon it.—But we all with open face.—The object of äὲ is, not to put what was now to be said in contrast with what had been said of the Israelites or of Moses, (as if his idea was: “this is true not only of one, but of all,”) but simply to indicate a continuance of the discourse. ̓ Çìåῖò (we) includes not merely the Apostle and his fellow-laborers, or the Apostle and all who preach the Gospel (Catholics appeal to 2Co_4:1, and contrast ðÜíôåò (all) with the single individual Moses), but all believers, who, the connection shows, must be included in the ðÜíôåò . (Chap 2Co_4:3; 2Co_4:6). In correspondence with the removal of the veil and the liberty of which he had been speaking, he now speaks of an open or unveiled face ( ἀíáêåêáëõììÝíῳ ðñïóþðῳ ). This implies that the covering which had been extended over the heart of the people might be taken off, and that the spiritual face might thus be freed from the veil which prevented its vision of the glory. In consistency with this, must be our explanation of the next clause:—beholding in a glass— êáôïðôñéæüìåíïé ). This word, which is not found at all in the Septuagint, and occurs in the New Testament only in this place, has the sense in the active voice of: to show in a mirror, or, as in a mirror, to reflect; and in the middle: to reflect one’s self, to see one’s self in a glass [Winer, § 39, 3; Jeff., § 362 ff.]. With reference to the example of Moses, we may interpret the words thus: we show to ourselves in a mirror the glory of the Lord; and in doing so we are not veiled as Moses, but we have uncovered faces. We are compelled, however, by both the preceding and the succeeding context, to think of a looking of believers, 1, in contrast with the Israelites, who were kept from looking upon the Divine glory by a covering upon their hearts; and 2, with reference to the being changed ( ìåôáìïñöῦìåèá ) connected with this looking (comp. 1Jn_3:2). Êáôïðôñéæåóèáé has therefore the meaning in this place of: to perceive as in a mirror (we meet with the word in this sense in Philo.; see Meyer). There is no imperfection, of vision necessarily implied here, as in 1Co_13:12. The glass is not the internal spirit, i. e., the heart of the believer (for the eye which looks is supposed to be there), but the Gospel.—The glory of the Lord (i. e., of Christ, not of God) is the representation which is given of Christ‘s life, greatness, power, loveliness, etc. (Beck, Christl. Lehrwiss. I., p. 67), or of His grace and truth (Joh_1:14), His holiness and Divine fulness (Col_2:9), as these were manifested among men. These are exhibited to us in the Gospel as in a mirror. And as we look into this by faith, freely and unobstructed by any covering of a fleshly mind (such as impeded the vision of the Jews)—we are changed into the same image.—The image here is the image of the Lord, and that with which it is said to be identical ( áὐôὴí ), is not the ðÜíôåò (as if he would thus say that all were made alike), but that which they had been said to look upon, viz., the very same image which we all behold, for we all behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror. While thus looking we shall be changed: we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1Jn_3:2; comp. Rom_8:29). Neander: “We have here a beautiful contrast: the Jews who looked with covered faces upon the glory in Moses’ face, did not really look into it, and so remained as they were before, unchanged. But when Christians look with unveiled faces upon the image of God in Christ, this very looking implies that they are already in communion with Christ, and necessarily reacts upon their internal and spiritual life. The more they penetrate by such a believing contemplation the Divine glory, the more will their hearts be pervaded by what they behold.” There is no direct reference therefore to the final transformation which believers will experience when Christ shall come in the Parousia, but only to the gradual assimilation to Christ which takes place in them during the present life: the becoming partakers of the Divine nature (2Pe_1:4) and the putting on, of Christ, and of the new man (Rom_13:14; Eph_4:24). The accusative does not require that any word like êáôÜ or åßò should be understood; nor need the whole phrase be taken in an adverbial sense analogous to ôïῦôïí ôὸí ôñüðïí (in this wise); for in the very idea it is implied that the development or change is according to a particular form (Meyer). In the phrase: from glory to glory the words from glory ( Üðὸ äüîçò ) may designate the causal source from which the influence proceeds, i. e.. “the glory of the Lord;” and to glory ( åἰò äüîáí ) the glory which is produced in us, that to which it brings us (comp. 2Co_2:16); or the whole phrase may signify the continuous development as it advances step by step. The former explanation receives support from the sentence which immediately follows:—as by the Lord the Spirit ( êáèÜðåñ ἀðὸ êõñßïõðíåýìáôïò ). And yet the other explanation harmonizes very well with ìåôáìïñöïýìåèá , and on etymological grounds may readily be conceded, inasmuch as ἀðὸ äüîçò åἰò äüîáí would be quite as allowable a form of speech as ἐê äõíüíìåùò åἰò äýíáìéí (Psa_84:8). The êáèÜðåñ ἀðὸ êõñ . ðí . may also be made to harmonize very well with this explanation: we shall be changed from one degree of glory to another just as might be expected from the Lord (or according to the nature of what comes from the Lord). The êáèÜðåñ has a more forcible signification than ὡò , and denotes the agreement of the effect with the cause (like ὡò in 2Co_2:17). We may inquire whether ðíåýìáôïò in the phrase ἀðὸ êõñὶïõ ðíåýìáôïò is dependent upon ἀðὸ and êõñßïõ upon ðíåýìáôïò [by the Spirit of the Lord], comp. 2Co_3:17, ðíåῦìá êõñßïõ ; or whether ðíåýìáôïò is governed by êõðßïõ [by the Lord of the Spirit], in which case we may also inquire whether the words ðíåýì . and êõñ . are in the relation of dependence (by the Spirit which is from the Lord), or in that of apposition (by the Spirit who is the Lord). To govern ðíåýìáôïò directly by ἀðὸ is not allowable evidently on account of the position of the words. We must certainly concede also that the relation of apposition is not as natural as that which is commonly given to the genitive. The relation of dependence which has commonly been acquiesced in for our passage gives us likewise a very good sense: “very much as we might expect from one who is the Lord of the Spirit” (comp. êýñéïò ôῆò äüîçò in 1Co_2:8). Êõñéïò (Lord) furthermore implies that the Lord not only has or possesses the Spirit, but that He has complete power in this matter to direct in the dispensation and communication of the Spirit according to His pleasure in ever growing fulness. If we so construe it as to make this Spirit the same as the Holy Spirit, even that Divine agent is His Spirit (Rom_8:9 f.; Gal_4:6), for the Spirit is shed forth or sent, by and through Him (Tit_3:6; Act_2:33; Joh_15:26); so that the Spirit’s agency among men is dependent upon Him. If, however, the words are taken in a qualitative sense: “by one who is the Lord of the Spirit,” i. e., of the Divine light of life, this Divine light of life is no other than the ðíåῦìáἅãéïí which He communicates from the infinite fulness of His own Divine life. The want of the article before. both êõñßïõ and ðíåýìáôïò makes this qualitative signification most probable. [As Meyer well remarks, however, this qualitative meaning is entirely inadmissible here, since throughout our passage the word ôíåῦìá must mean the Holy Spirit (the Divine Spirit) in His personal subsistence]. Both interpretations, however, terminate in the same general sense. Neander: “Paul has before his mind in this passage the whole course of the Christian’s progress, commencing here on earth and attaining its perfection in the heavenly world.”

[Each prominent word in this passage has been made the object of special attention and difficulty. 1. The object beheld, was the glory of the Lord. Paul had shown this to be Christ (2Co_3:17), but He is here contemplated as an image ( åἰêüíá ) in a mirror (not “a glass,” but êáôüðôñïí ). An image is usually an imperfect likeness (1Co_13:12), and the Gospel must imperfectly represent Him. It is not the objective and glorified Christ Himself that we see. 2. The act of beholding, is here (not ἀôåíéæù , as with Moses, but) êáôïðôñßæù . The rays are reflected and not directly received (see Chrysostom’s beautiful comparisons in the Hom. notes). The ancient expositors usually interpreted this word in the sense of: reflecting as in a mirror, meaning that believers reflect the glory of the Lord, and they are followed by Luther, Olshausen, Billroth and Stanley. But most modern commentators have felt compelled to disregard their authority, high as it is on such a question, and to take the word in the sense of beholding as in a mirror. Though they have been able to appeal to but one well established quotation (Philo) to sustain them in such a usage, one instance especially in Alexandrian Greek is sufficient, with the obvious necessities of the context, to warrant us in adopting such a meaning. Certainly no instance has been found in which the word has the meaning: to reflect, and we can see no connection between reflecting the Divine image and being changed into the same. 3. The persons beholding, are many, “all ( ðÜíôåò in contrast with one Moses), with open face.” Both Christ and the heart are ἀíáêåêáëõììÝíïé . 4. The effect of the beholding is, “we are metamorphosed into the same image” (accusative without a preposition to show the immediateness of the transition, and the present indic, to show the beginning but not the completion of the change, Webster, Syn., pp. 81 ff.). All become like their Lord, and of course like one another. 5. The reason for the change, “as by the Lord the Spirit.” Suitably, as might be expected from the Lord ( êáèÜðåñ ), and efficiently ( ἀðὸ ) from Him as the source of influence. We cannot but sympathize with Alford when he says of the rendering: the Lord of the Spirit, that it “seems to convey very little meaning, besides being altogether unprecedented.” We add that Paul had been preparing us for the expression: the Lord the Spirit (apposition, the Lord who is the Spirit) by expressly showing that Christ was both the Lord and the Spirit of the Old Covenant (2Co_3:16-18). Such an expression seems as grammatical and suitable as “from God the Father” ( ἀðὸ èåïῦ ðáôñὸò ) in Rom_1:7; Eph_1:2; Php_1:2, et alic. comp. 2Co_1:2].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Even in the understanding of revealed truth, there is a clear distinction between legal bondage and evangelical freedom. Until the mind gets extricated from that bondage it is concerned only with a multiplicity of special details; the living unity formed by the general truths, in which all these concentrate, is covered by a veil—and no proper conception of the divine system as a whole, is possible. The glory of Christ which constitutes the true aim of every part of God’s word can never be appreciated or discovered by a heart thus confined and lowered, for such occupations will be like a veil over the internal eye. But no sooner does one attain the position of evangelical freedom than his eye is opened upon the general system and principles of truth. And such a position is gained when the heart is turned toward Christ, in whom the fulness of the Godhead substantially dwells, all particular rays of truth concentrate, and each truth acquires a self-evidencing power. The moment we thus recognize and surrender our hearts to Christ, we renounce all idea of satisfaction in ourselves or our doings, and we lay hold on Christ as the only source of peace or life. The veil immediately drops from our spiritual face, the divine glory in the Scriptures acquires a wonderful lustre, our souls become thoroughly enamored of God in Christ, and we begin to grow into the image of holy love as it beams from the Gospel. A living likeness of Christ is formed within, old things pass away, and all things are created anew. A quickening light brightens up within us, from glory to glory unto the perfect day of the celestial life.

2. This legal position may be illustrated in all those who turn from the more perfect revelation God has given us in the Gospel, but especially in the Jewish people still clinging to a dispensation which was intended to be only provisional and shadowy. In religious matters, their intellectual faculties have always been torpid and inflexible; and they seem unable to leave the schoolmaster, whose only business was to direct them to Christ himself (Gal_3:24). They know only the law as given by Moses, and nothing of grace and truth by Jesus Christ (Joh_1:17). By minute acts of obedience to many particular precepts they hope to merit the divine favor, and they fail of recognizing that righteousness of faith which renounces all merit and trusts to mere grace, though it was often illustrated in the lives of their own saints, and in all the dealings of God under the ancient covenant. In like manner when they contemplated their prophetic Scriptures, their minds were occupied only with such particular expressions as best accorded with their carnal notions, and they failed to comprehend that general kingdom in which all such specifications find their right position and unity. But a time is coming when not only a few individuals, as in past and present times, but the whole nation shall become tired of such things, and with humble hearts and broken spirits shall turn to Him who was promised and offered first, and who still offers Himself, to them as their Messiah. In His own time He will so present Himself to them, that they will confess with shame, that He, and He alone, is their Messiah; with a free and clear insight they will read that Word which has so long been a sealed book (Isa_29:10 ff); the covering shall be taken away from their hearts; and they will look with unveiled faces upon that Christ who is not only their true Lord, but the Spirit, and communicates the Spirit and spiritual liberty to all who turn to Him.

[3. The Old Testament should be studied under the New Testament light. Not only should we throw ourselves back among the persons and scenes there portrayed, so as to understand what was real and necessary for them, but as much as possible look on them in their relation to the whole future of God’s kingdom. As a part of a preparatory system, directed by a Ruler who sees the end from the beginning, all persons and events have quite as much significance with reference to something in the future, as with reference to the age and circumstances in which they were. A Grotius therefore, who found a Christ nowhere in the Old Testament, fails of reaching its true significance, quite as much as a Cocceius, who found Him in everything.

4. The Lord Jesus was as fundamental a reality under the Old Covenant as under the New. He “was that Spirit” which was truly under the letter, and “the Lord” from whom the people then turned. The Incarnation was not the first and abrupt entrance of a divine Person into our humanity. Christ was not only “the body” to every “shadow” (Col_2:17) but the agent in every event and institution of the ancient covenant. Every redeemed sinner of every age must owe not only his redemption to “the blood of the cross,” but his recovery and conduct unto actual salvation, to him as the “Captain of the Lord’s host.” He is the only Mediator between God and man; and whatever falsehood we discover under the Rabbinic fables of the “Angel Jehovah,” we must recognize “the Lord the Spirit” under the “Jehovah” of the ancient covenant.

5. And yet there is an essential distinction between the Old and the New Dispensation. If we refuse to go with many who would totally divorce Christianity from Judaism, we equally shrink from those who look upon it simply as a developed Judaism. Though every dispensation of the true religion must be built upon the same fundamental principles, their outward forms may be radically different. The patriarchal and Mosaic ministrations were predominantly and characteristically legal. The latter especially, was a system of minute rules, and but few principles. Little was left to discretion or free affection. Pardon was shadowed forth as well as human guilt under the sacrifices, but these were a veil which concealed a mystery not to be trusted to men’s weakness. An esoteric reserve was in every rite and symbol. The New Covenant abolishes all this. God’s people are entrusted with the highest mysteries. The disciplina of Hellenism, of Rabbinism, and of Sacerdotalism generally, is entirely abjured. All idea of a pedagogic system, preparatory to something hereafter, is renounced. God’s people are no longer in pupilage, but in their full majority. Christianity is an everlasting Gospel, and the last of all conceivable dispensations of the true religion among men. See a Sermon of Dr. Emmons, on “The Mosaic Dispensation abolished by the Christian Dispensation.” Works, Vol. VI. Ser. 13.

6. Congeniality of mind is indispensable to a perception of the truth. No one is prepared to study theological truth until he has “turned to the Lord.” When he yearns after the Lord and salvation, then the veil which confined the view to what is selfish and individual, drops off from the heart, and a full system of truth and an everlasting kingdom beams upon an “open face.” Joh_7:17.

7. The Jewish people are yet to be converted to Christ. It is a wonderful prophecy which the ancient Prophets and Apostles have given us, that amid the wreck of all ancient nations, the Jewish, the most unlikely to do so of them all, should survive; and that the heart (the collective national heart) would turn to Christ. This is a separate matter from the assertion, that as the “Covenant people,” they are to have special privileges and honors among other nations in the kingdom of Christ.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Chrysostom:

2Co_3:18. “As soon as we are baptized, our souls being cleansed by the Spirit are illuminated so as to shine brighter than the sun; we not only look into the divine glory, but we receive a degree of lustre from it, as a piece of pure silver receives the rays of the sun when it is placed within its beams and reflects them—not merely because of its own nature, but because of the sun’s luminousness. In like manner the soul which has been purified and made brighter than silver, receives a beam of the Spirit’s glory, and reflects it.” [Theodoret:—As clear water presents an image of those who look upon it, of the sun itself and of the vaulted sky, so the pure heart is converted into a kind of copy and mirror of the divine glory.]

Starke:

2Co_3:12. Whoever would cheerfully speak of divine truth, must first receive Christ freely and joyfully to his own heart, and believe that salvation is freely offered to all men (1Ti_2:4). Hedinger:

2Co_3:13. Israel’s blindness was more than common; they had much preaching and but slight impression; Moses’ face shone brightly upon them, and why could they not behold him? A brutish habit, a dull intellect, inveterate wickedness, and an irreconcilable antipathy to God and His Word, had formed a thick covering around their hearts (2Co_4:3). 2Co_3:14 :—Hedinger. Israel’s blindness was not a mere natural effect, but a judgment of God that they might henceforth be ever reading but learning nothing. What multitudes seem in haste to harden their hearts by their abuse of hearing and reading! Why do they read at all, if they have no desire to be healed (Mar_4:25)? If we would derive any profit from reading the Old Testament, or get rid of Moses’ covering, we must become acquainted with Jesus Christ and seek for Him there. Then shall we perceive that the law was never given us to justify us, and that the only justification which will avail before God, is not in ourselves, but in Christ by faith.

2Co_3:15. It is a terrible thing to be blind, but to be blind with no desire to see in the midst of clear light, is far worse (Joh_9:39; Rev_3:17).

2Co_3:16. We can never have a true practical knowledge of God except by turning to the Lord. 2Co_3:17. To have Jesus alone, is to have the Gospel comfort and the sweetest pleasure. The surest refreshment is found in the way of godly sorrow. Glorious triumph of faith! The curse is abolished, Satan is vanquis