Old Covenant--2 Cor. 3?

[openairboy]

What is the OC in 2 Cor. 3? In covenant theology, how do you see this as a different administration of the same covenant?

Thanks,
openairboy

[Edited on 3-20-2005 by openairboy]

 

[Theological Books]

Originally posted by openairboy
What is the OC in 2 Cor. 3? In covenant theology, how do you see this as a different administration of the same covenant?

Thanks,
openairboy

[Edited on 3-20-2005 by openairboy]

lol... sweeeeeet I absolutely LOVE 2 Corinthians 3.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Theological Books

lol... sweeeeeet I absolutely LOVE 2 Corinthians 3.

Huh? What?

 

[Arch2k]

One of the most interesting discussions of this chapter I found in O. Palmer Robertson's "The Christ of the Covenants" pages 191-199.

He notes three things in this passage that provide a basis of comparison to the New Covenant.

1)the glory of Moses' face

The Old Covenant had glory, but in comparison to the New Covenant, it's glory is overshadowed. It was still a revelation from God, and therefore glorious, but brought about death and condemnation (which drives the elect to Christ)

2)the fading of the glory of Moses' face

The fading of the glory of Moses' face referes to the temporality of the Sinaitic Covenant. The "Covenant of Law" was never meant to be an end, but to point to that end.

3)The symbol of the veiling of Moses' face

Here Robertson argues that that the Israelites failed to notice that the glory of the old Covenant was passing away, and it was because Moses veiled his face that they were blind to this. They could not see that the types and shadows of the cerimonial law were not an end of themselves, but pointed to that end, Christ, the ultimate sacrifice.

A short summery. I would recommend reading this for yourself to get the whole argument.

 

[Theological Books]

Originally posted by openairboy

Originally posted by Theological Books

lol... sweeeeeet I absolutely LOVE 2 Corinthians 3.

Huh? What?

I beg your pardon, but that passage was the recent focus of a conversation between a friend and me. I told him to browse this board and look for this verse being discussed (in a very similar manner after reading the most recent Westminster Theological Journal and an article written against Meredith Kline), and, TADA!, one is started within the same week. I was very pleased it came up.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Theological Books

Originally posted by openairboy

Originally posted by Theological Books

lol... sweeeeeet I absolutely LOVE 2 Corinthians 3.

Huh? What?

I beg your pardon, but that passage was the recent focus of a conversation between a friend and me. I told him to browse this board and look for this verse being discussed (in a very similar manner after reading the most recent Westminster Theological Journal and an article written against Meredith Kline), and, TADA!, one is started within the same week. I was very pleased it came up.

O.k., that makes more sense. I will have to hunt down that WTJ. I wasn't sure how to take your original post.

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by openairboy]

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
One of the most interesting discussions of this chapter I found in O. Palmer Robertson's "The Christ of the Covenants" pages 191-199.

He notes three things in this passage that provide a basis of comparison to the New Covenant.

1)the glory of Moses' face

The Old Covenant had glory, but in comparison to the New Covenant, it's glory is overshadowed. It was still a revelation from God, and therefore glorious, but brought about death and condemnation (which drives the elect to Christ)

2)the fading of the glory of Moses' face

The fading of the glory of Moses' face referes to the temporality of the Sinaitic Covenant. The "Covenant of Law" was never meant to be an end, but to point to that end.

3)The symbol of the veiling of Moses' face

Here Robertson argues that that the Israelites failed to notice that the glory of the old Covenant was passing away, and it was because Moses veiled his face that they were blind to this. They could not see that the types and shadows of the cerimonial law were not an end of themselves, but pointed to that end, Christ, the ultimate sacrifice.

A short summery. I would recommend reading this for yourself to get the whole argument.

I have been looking at Robertson, and will reread that section and ask a few more questions.

Thanks for your time,
openairboy

 

[Scott]

Keith: Have you checked out Calvin's commentary on this passage? I am not sure whether it will be helpful or confusing.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Scott
Keith: Have you checked out Calvin's commentary on this passage? I am not sure whether it will be helpful or confusing.

No, but I will. Jordan has some interesting comments on the Old Covenant and he seems to be building off of Robert S. Rayburns theses, which I am aware of, but have not read. Jack Collins, one of my profs at CTS, bought into Rayburns theses, I believe, and I really loved his view of the Bible and approach to the Scriptures.

I will read Calvin and, if it doesn't confuse me, maybe I will post some findings.

Thanks for the input.

Keith

 

[Scott]

I will be interested to hear your thoughts. I just mentioned it might be confusing because it left me a bit confused when I read it (which was some time ago).

 

[Peters]

John Owen wrote a great piece of work around 2 Corinthians 3 - 4, The Glory of Christ. It's not quite in the same vein as this thread, but certainly worth reading.

I share Bradford's enthusiasm for these chapters.

 

[kceaster]

All...

If one seeks to find a reason for there not to exist one complete covenant of grace, one does not find it here in II Cor. 3. Of course, that all depends on the presuppositions.

If one has the presuppostion that there is not one covenant of grace running through redemptive history, one will focus on the differences of the glories between the old and the new.

However, if one has the presupposition that there is one covenant of grace running through redemptive history, then one sees glory in both the old and the new, which is what Paul is getting at.

Why are they yet blinded? Because they see the glory of God in the Mosaic economy. Yet for all this glory, the righteousness that comes by the law is the letter that kills. The liberty that the Lord brings is the glory of His revelation. It is grace for grace, as John puts it in chapter 1 of His gospel.

With our eyes, we cannot see the glory of the old administration because the light has shined. Those who still dwell in the shadow, their glory is veiled to us. We see it rightly as the beggarly elements. Yet, they were still elements. There was glory in them. And we know that glory to be Christ in the shadows. We cannot imagine it, because we have never seen it.

This does not mean that we long to go back, but we look forward to the day when all of the glory of God will be revealed.

So, I believe given the presupposition, one will either look at this text and focus on the difference of the glory, or the difference of the glory. The first does not see a single covenant of grace, the second is assured of one.

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

You have to interpret Scripture by Scripture and see that the difference in glory, as taught in Hebrews, is related to the change in priesthood, sacrificial laws, and outward administration, with Christ as our Mediator, not man.

 

[Peters]

"For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious" (2 Corinthians 3:9-11).

The "glory" of these covenants cannot even be compared. I fail to see how they can be one.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

They're not "one" in the sense you seem to be thinking, but they are different administrations of the same, single, continuous spiritual reality of salvation. The way it is applied, understood, administered, and realized changed throughout redemptive history as the "mystery" was unfolded and finally culminated in Christ.

 

[Peters]

Hi Gabriel,

Yes, Ephesians 3 is true. But i do not see how an anticipation of the New Covenant can be seen in an administration of death and condemnation.