You can read the text here.
Paul continues to mount a sustained defense of his ministry in this section. His main tool is to argue from lesser to greater. The baseline assumption throughout the section is that the Mosaic covenant and law are glorious and there is no attempt to denigrate it.[1] So, if that covenant is glorious, then surely the coming of the Spirit, with its power to transform is even more glorious. Here glory is best understood as manifestation of the divine nature. So, the reasoning is clear, the Spirit with its ability to transform and bring life and righteousness is more glorious than the ministry that ultimate brought condemnation because it did not bring about the required transformation.[2] As a result the time of the Law is ending because the Spirit surpasses the Law.
Paul now shifts and probably tackles a specific charge laid against him. Paul was very frank in the way he presented the gospel, not veiling it from the Corinthians, like Moses did from the Israelites.[3] Paul believed Moses knew that he glory of the Old Covenant was real but could be mistaken for the fullness of God's revelation. He veiled that glory to prevent it from giving the perception of being the end goal. However, that mistake was made and his Jewish contemporaries continued to do so. Only in Christ is the true glory of the Mosaic covenant revealed because he is its fulfillment. Now the veil has shifted, from Moses face to the minds of those who continue to follow Moses' teachings.[4] Only in Christ will the veil be revealed that shows the full glory of God in Christ by the Spirit. The beauty of this new glory is that it gives true freedom, freedom from sin and of freed desire. This is brought about by transformation that occurs from contact with the divine presence through the Spirit.[5]
--------------------------------------
[1] This point is clearly made by both Thrall and Matera.
[2] Against Thrall it is not completely obvious to me that by 'justification' in vs. 10 Paul is talking about a legal verdict. I suspect the focus is more behavioral. The contrast with condemnation does not seal the point to me. The focus, I believe is on changes in behavior, and acquittal before God is a result of the righteousness produced in those who have received the Spirit.
[3] See Matera for the argument supporting the translation of frankness over boldness in 3:12.
[4] I am adapting, but not completely following Matera here.
[5] So Thrall.
Paul continues to mount a sustained defense of his ministry in this section. His main tool is to argue from lesser to greater. The baseline assumption throughout the section is that the Mosaic covenant and law are glorious and there is no attempt to denigrate it.[1] So, if that covenant is glorious, then surely the coming of the Spirit, with its power to transform is even more glorious. Here glory is best understood as manifestation of the divine nature. So, the reasoning is clear, the Spirit with its ability to transform and bring life and righteousness is more glorious than the ministry that ultimate brought condemnation because it did not bring about the required transformation.[2] As a result the time of the Law is ending because the Spirit surpasses the Law.
Paul now shifts and probably tackles a specific charge laid against him. Paul was very frank in the way he presented the gospel, not veiling it from the Corinthians, like Moses did from the Israelites.[3] Paul believed Moses knew that he glory of the Old Covenant was real but could be mistaken for the fullness of God's revelation. He veiled that glory to prevent it from giving the perception of being the end goal. However, that mistake was made and his Jewish contemporaries continued to do so. Only in Christ is the true glory of the Mosaic covenant revealed because he is its fulfillment. Now the veil has shifted, from Moses face to the minds of those who continue to follow Moses' teachings.[4] Only in Christ will the veil be revealed that shows the full glory of God in Christ by the Spirit. The beauty of this new glory is that it gives true freedom, freedom from sin and of freed desire. This is brought about by transformation that occurs from contact with the divine presence through the Spirit.[5]
--------------------------------------
[1] This point is clearly made by both Thrall and Matera.
[2] Against Thrall it is not completely obvious to me that by 'justification' in vs. 10 Paul is talking about a legal verdict. I suspect the focus is more behavioral. The contrast with condemnation does not seal the point to me. The focus, I believe is on changes in behavior, and acquittal before God is a result of the righteousness produced in those who have received the Spirit.
[3] See Matera for the argument supporting the translation of frankness over boldness in 3:12.
[4] I am adapting, but not completely following Matera here.
[5] So Thrall.
Comments
Post a Comment