Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 3:7 - 3:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_3:7. Δέ ] leads on to a setting forth of the great glory of the Christian ministry, which is proved from the splendour of the ministry of Moses by a conclusion a minori ad majus.[161]
ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ] i.e. the ministry conducing to the rule of death; for τὸ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει , 2Co_3:6. It is not the law itself that is meant, but the ministry of Moses, which he accomplished by bringing down to the people the tables of the law from Sinai. Rückert erroneously thinks that the whole ministry of the Levitical priesthood is meant, against which what follows is clearly decisive. The reason assigned by Rückert, that Moses as μεσίτης τῆς παλ . διαθήκης can only be treated as on a parallel with Christ, and not with the apostles, is not valid, since in the context the prevailing conception is not that of μεσίτης but that of διάκονος , and as such Moses is certainly parallel to the ministers of the new covenan.
ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπ . λίθοις ] A comma is not to be put after γράμμ . (Luther, Beza, Piscator, Estius, and others, including Schrader and Ewald), which would require the repetition of the article before ἐν γρ ., and would make the sentence drag; but it is: which was imprinted on stones by means of letters. The death-promoting ministry of Moses was really graven on stones, in so far as the Decalogue engraven on the two tables was actually the ministerial document of Moses, as it were the registration of his office. In this case ἐν γράμμασιν is not something of an idle addition (in opposition to de Wette, who defends the reading ἐν γράμματι , and attaches it to τοῦ θανάτου ), but in fact an element emphatically prefixed, in keeping with the process of argument a minori, and depicting the inferior unspiritual character. Rückert (forced by his reference to the service of the Levitical priesthood) erroneously thinks that Paul means not only the tables of the law, but the whole Pentateuch, and that he has been not quite so exact in his use of the expression ( ἐντετυπ . λίθοις !).
ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ ] took place in splendour, was surrounded by splendour, full of splendour, see Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 284 [E. T. 330]. Bengel says rightly: “nacta est gloriam; γίνομαι fio, et εἰμὶ sum, 2Co_3:8. differunt.” Comp. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 284. It relates to the external radiance, which in the intercourse with God on Sinai passed from the divine glory (Exo_24:16 to the countenance of Moses, so that he descended from the mountain with his face shining (Exo_34:29 ff.). For a Rabbinical fiction that this splendour was from the light created at the beginning of things, see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 369 f. Others (Vatablus, and more recently, Flatt, Billroth, Rückert) take ἐν δόξῃ , not of that glorious radiance, but of grandeur, glory in general. So also de Wette and Hofmann. But this is opposed to the context, for in what follows it is not merely a visible proof of the δόξα which is adduced (as Rückert thinks), or a concrete representation of it (Hofmann), but the high degree ( ὥστε ) of the very δόξα which is meant by ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ . It is said, indeed, that 2Co_3:8, where the glory spoken of is no external one, does not admit of our reference. But even in 2Co_3:8 the δόξα is an external glory (see on 2Co_3:8); and further, we have here an argument a minori ad majus, in which every reader was historically aware that the minus, the δόξα of Moses, was an external one, while as to the majus, the δόξα of the ministry of the N. T., it was self-evident that it is before the Parousia merely something ideal, a spiritual possession, and only becomes also an external reality after the Parousia (and to this 2Co_3:8 applies).
ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι κ . τ . λ .] Philo gives the same account, Vit. Mos. p. 665 A; Exodus 34 has only: ἐφοβήθησαν ἐγγίσαι αὐτῷ , which was more precisely explained by that statemen.
διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πρ . αὐτ .] would have been in itself superfluous, but with the addition τὴν καταργ . strengthening the conclusion it has a solemn emphasis. Philo, l.c., calls this δόξα : ἡλιοειδὲς φέγγος .
τὴν καταργουμένην ] “Claritas illa vultus Mosis transitoria erat et modici temporis,” Estius. Ex. l.c. gives us no express information of this; but 2Co_3:13 clearly shows that Paul regarded the radiance which Moses brought down from his converse with God as only temporary and gradually ceasing, which, indeed, is self-evident and correctly inferred from the renewal of the radiance on each occasion. In this passing away of that lustre,—which even during its passing away was yet so great that the Israelites could not gaze fixedly on him,
Paul undoubtedly (in opposition to Hofmann) found a type of the ceasing of the Mosaic ministry (2Co_3:13); but in our present passage this is only hinted at in a preliminary way by the historical addition τ . καταργ ., without the latter ceasing to belong to the historical narration. Hence the participle is not to be taken, with Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, and others, including Rückert, in a purely present sense: “which yet ceases,” nor in the sense of transient (Ewald), but as the imperfect participle; the transitory, which was in the act of passing away.
[161] Without doubt this whole comparison of the ministry of the New Testament with that of Moses (vv. 7–11), as well as the subsequent shadow which is thrown on the conduct of Moses (ver. 13), and the digression on the obstinacy of the Jews (vv. 14–18), is not put forward without a special purpose, but is an indirect polemic against the Judaists. Comp. Chrysostom: ὅρα πῶς πάλιν ὑποτέμνεται τὸ φρόνημα τὸ Ἰονδαϊκόν .