Glory versus no glory, 2 Corinthians 3:7-11

Status
Not open for further replies.

JTB.SDG

Puritan Board Junior
I understand that when Paul calls the Law a ministry of death and a killing letter, he's referring to it as abstracted from the promises of Sinai, more of a law/gospel difference.

I'm wondering about the latter part, the comparison of lesser to greater glory. I understand that the glory aspect is indeed a comparison, not a contrast. The lesser glory is surpassed by the greater glory. Here is my question: Is this comparison related to the law/gospel or to the old/new covenant? Law/gospel: Is Paul saying the glory of the Law, in its bare form, only telling us what to do but giving us zero power to do it, condemning us for sin, etc etc, that the function of the law has glory--but hardly any when compared to the GOSPEL? OR, does the comparison have to do with the old/new covenants? Old/new covenants: IE, the OT administration of the Covenant of Grace sure had a lot of glory, but it was also clothed with the earthly and temporal, given in pictures, contained the add-ons of the ceremonies, and though gave us shadows of Christ lacked the substance--it had glory, to be sure--but no glory when compared to what we have now in the NEW COVENANT? Is this a Law/gospel contrast, or is it an old/new covenant contrast?
 
Here’s a short answer:

Keep in mind the greater context. Paul is writing in defense of his ministry. (vs. 1-3) Paul is comparing his ministry with that of Moses. (vs. 3, 6, 7ff) Therefore, I think your second choice (old/new covenant) is more in keeping with the chapter as a whole than your first. (Law/gospel)
 
Is this a Law/gospel contrast, or is it an old/new covenant contrast?
Is it that important to choose the one over the other? A "minister of the new covenant" is a "minister of the gospel." I would say that the former is actually a conclusion from the latter.

v7 gives a theological interpretation of Ex.34:29-35, in which the emphasis falls on the fading of the glory of Moses' face. Moses only showed his face when it was shining full of glory, covering it as it faded. The Exodus text at first explains the people's reaction to his facial glow as fear, v30; but the veil wasn't worn on account of their fear, but to preserve the people's acquaintance with the glory of the revelation in spite of Moses' weakness, i.e. that what he had was temporary possession.

The Old Covenant required a lot of "maintaining appearances," in the nature of signs so far from having substance; and so many signs. The New Covenant is a more immediate, a nearer encounter with the substance, in part because of the Spirit's profusion, v8. The law has a passing function, v11; while the gospel remains.
 
Is it that important to choose the one over the other? .

Really fair question Bruce. The reason I'm asking is I'm working on a training for local pastors, and I've structured this section into two headings: 1) differences between old and new covenant dispensations; and 2) differences between the Law and the gospel. I'm trying my best not to mix these two, because I don't want the men to come away misunderstanding the difference. At the same time, it does seem silly to perhaps over-analyze to death these kinds of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top