Category Archive

You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Paper’ category.

Sanctification: Three Views (Part 2)

November 18, 2010 in Paper, Personal, Sanctification, Theology | Tags: , , , , , , | 2 comments

This is the second section of my paper. The first can be found here.

_______________________________________________________

The Lutheran View

Summary. The simplified way to communicate the Lutheran view is to say that sanctification is growing in understanding of how justified one is in Christ.[1] In this view, it is not as if sanctification is a process that takes place after one is justified. Instead, it is another aspect of our justification.[2] There are the ethical good works which a Christian will perform.[3] Yet, these good works are motivated by the faith which one has in work of God.[4] Faith frees a person to live a life of godly service and love.[5] Works, however, are not to be used as being a clear basis to establish the existence of true faith.[6] There is no linear progression in one’s ethical development.[7] It is not as if there is a goal which one is trying to attain in one’s ethical development.[8] This does not mean, however, that there are no advancements in ethical behavior.[9] There is the fruit of true faith which is spontaneous acts of good works;[10] but this advancement is not caused by attempts to attain it. The advancement the Lutherans would have us strive to obtain is grasping the immeasurable amount of grace we live in.[11] And it is by grasping this truth, how much we are sanctified in Christ, that our heart begins to love the things of God.[12]

Benefits of this View. The primary benefit is the centrality of Christ within this framework of sanctification. Everything is understood and lived within the finished salfivic work of Christ. There is no hope of meriting one’s salvation here. People can slip a merit theology in the back door when constructing a doctrine of sanctification, effectively saying, “Christ did justify me, but now I have to keep the ship afloat with my works.” Such a danger finds no place within the Lutheran view. From beginning to end the believer’s eyes are directed to Christ—His work and His accomplishments. The believer never should slip into despair when considering his own sinfulness and failures, for the believer’s salvation, from beginning to end, rests totally, finally, and sufficiently in the work of Christ on his behalf.

Problems with this View. The central objection to this view comes at the issue of motivation and action in dealing with sins. How does the bible instruct the believer to deal with sin in his life? From what the Lutherans would say, true obedience springs from the amazement of grace. As one grasps how justified they are in Christ, advancement in ethical living happens; the Christian does not aim at making a progress toward a more sanctified position.

Forde defends this by appealing to the texts which state that sanctification is a present possession for the Christian. In 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul tells the Corinthians that they are “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” In verses 28-31 of the same chapter, Paul says that Christ is our “righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Hebrews 10:10 says that Christians “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”[13]

The question, however, cannot be settled just by referring to the biblical testimony about definitive sanctification. Theologians outside the Lutheran tradition have recognized a definitive aspect of sanctification.[14] Definitive sanctification can be adequately worked into other models of sanctification as well. So then, the evidence must move beyond the fact that believers are sanctified in Christ. Thus, we must ask, does the bible limit sanctification to the definitive understanding or should we see more to sanctification?

Many verses testify that there is a present striving to attain holiness for the believer. Philippians 2:12 states, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” The verb for “work” (κατεργάζεσθε) clearly speaks of the believer making an effort in his sanctification.[15]

In 2 Corinthians 7:1 Paul admonishes the believers that by cleansing themselves of all defilement they will bring “holiness to completion in the fear of God.”  The words, ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην, speak of “a process of sanctification.”[16] In Hebrews 12:14, the author plainly communicates a linear movement in regard to growth in holiness: “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” The word the author uses for strive, διώκετε, “draws attention to an intensity and urgency that the community needs to display in order to heed the exhortation.”[17] The same verb is found in Romans 14:19 when it gives a similar imperative about love, “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.”  Once again the verse speaks to an action the believers must do.[18] Such verses clearly communicate that there is more than a definitive aspect. What they communicate is that Christians are commanded to make knowledgeable endeavors to be more Christ like in their lives.[19] “Everything [in the verses] points to a consistent and active endeavor.”[20] Merely letting faith produce fruit does not work with these verses.

Another question which can be raised is that if the Christian is only supposed to look upon their justification, not attainment of obedience, why don’t the Apostles teaching reflect such an emphasis? Paul, along with the rest of the Apostles, was a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:1-18). Yet, Lutherans would have us believe that Paul would teach as if he was under the old covenant with regard to commands. In all of his epistles, however, there is not even a hint that when Paul gives commands that he considers himself as speaking as if the old covenant is still applicable for Christians. Namely, that the commands are only to drive people to trust in Christ. Instead, imperatives flow out in indicatives. Paul will tell the Christians to do something because of their present identity in Christ. There is no hint that Paul is solely driving Christians to trust in Christ’s work on the cross;[21] he knows that the Spirit is presently active in believers. Thus, he speaks about his boldness about the success of his ministry with the Corinthians (2 Cor 3:1-6). He speaks as if obedience is attainable. If the Lutheran view is true, then we must ask why Paul, along with the rest of the Apostles, speak this way. Why is there not clarity about the believer just needing to see his need for Christ? The most obvious answer would be that the Lutheran view is foreign to the teachings of the Apostles. They speak as if the commands can be obeyed by those indwelt by the Spirit.

Such is the central problem in the Lutheran view of sanctification. In an attempt to avoid legalism, the view has dismissed the biblical teaching about the Christian’s need to progress in holiness. Yet, the bible clearly speaks of a growth in holiness that is linear, a movement toward a goal.

Application to Ernie. The Lutheran’s counsel to Ernie would be to rest fundamentally in the grace of God given to him through the sacrificial death of Christ. Christ is his righteousness, thus, there is no fear as to whether or not he is accepted by God. He is justified before God because all his present sins were placed on the Lamb slained. What he must grow in is the knowledge of this grace, and as he grows in knowledge of it, he grows in love for the One who has given him such grace. This is where Ernie grows: in the knowledge of how justified he is in Christ. Will the lustful thoughts go away? Maybe, but Ernie will not be trusting in his adherence to the law any longer. His faith will be rooted in Christ and he will grow stronger and stronger in this faith. The Spirit may decrease the pattern of lustful thoughts in his life, but Ernie will be unaware of such a work. What he will be aware of is how justified he is because of Christ.

[1]Gerhard O. Forde, “The Lutheran View,” in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, ed. Donald L. Alexander (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 13.

[2]Oswald Bayer, Living By Faith: Justification and Sanctification, Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 58-59.

[3]Ibid., 56. This is where the break in categories happens. Lutherans would not equate sanctification with ethical/godly living. “Now living morally is indeed an important, wise and good thing…But it should not be equated with sanctification.” Forde, “The Lutheran View,” 14.

[4]Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, Trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 283.

[5]Ibid., 289. Also compare Forde who uses the term, “spontaneous” to describe this. Forde, “The Lutheran View,” 14. The Christian accomplishes the work without a personal acknowledgment of the effort which accomplished the work. For instance, a Christian would just be generous when an opportunity arises. There would not be an internal effort in the person to push him to accomplish it.

[6] Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, 291. Also, “But this process of sanctification cannot be assigned grades. Believing means that one is removed from being in charge of oneself and responsible for one’s own judgment.”

[7]Bayer, Living By Faith, 62-65. Also, compare Forde, “It is not that we are somehow moving towards the goal, but rather that the goal is moving closer and closer to us…It is the coming of the kingdom upon us, not our coming closer to our building up the kingdom.” Forde, “The Lutheran View,” 29.

To contrast this view, other traditions would say that we are to attain to the image of Christ in our daily lives. So, let us say that that one is trying to be like Christ in regards to anger. Other traditions would say that you need to progress to the point where your use of anger matches the way Christ gets angry. There is a goal in this sanctification.

The Lutheran view, on the other hand, says that ethical living is not about the progression. There is no goal one obtains. One does not make an intentional effort to motivate themselves to not be angry.

[8]Ibid., 66. Also, compare Forde, “It is not that we are somehow moving towards the goal, but rather that the goal is moving closer and closer to us…It is the coming of the kingdom upon us, not our coming closer to our building up the kingdom.” Forde, “The Lutheran View,” 29.

To contrast this view, other traditions would say that we are to attain to the image of Christ in our daily lives. So, let us say that that one is trying to be like Christ in regards to anger. Other traditions would say that you need to progress to the point where your use of anger matches the way Christ gets angry. There is a goal in this sanctification.

The Lutheran view, on the other hand, says that ethical living is not about the progression. There is no goal one obtains. One does not make an intentional effort to motivate himself to not be angry.

[9]Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology, 292.

[10]Forde, “The Lutheran View,” 29

[11]Ibid., 28.

[12]Ibid., 29.

[13]Ibid., 16-17. He would also point to 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as basis for the Lutheran view.

[14]“We are thus compelled to take account of the fact that the language of sanctification is used with reference to some decisive action that occurs at the inception of the Christian life, and one that characterizes the people of God in the identity as called effectually by God’s grace. It would be, therefore, a deflection from biblical patterns of language and conception to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work.” John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume II Select Lectures in Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 278.

[15]“ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε is an exhortation to common action, urging the Philippians to show forth the graces of Christ in their lives, to make their eternal salvation fruitful in the here and now as they fulfill their responsibilities to one another as well as to non-Christians.” Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Commentary, ed. by I Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 280.

See Moises Silva, Philippians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. By Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic), 118-123, for a defense on why σωτηρίαν should been seen as sanctification and not total salvation.

[16]Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Commentary, ed. by I Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 513.

[17]Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. by D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 472.

[18]C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, The International Critical Commentary, ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1975), 721.

[19]Other verse which speak of active endeavoring of holiness: Rom. 12:2, Gal 5:25, 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 5:15, 1 Cor. 14:1, 1 Tim. 6:11.

[20]G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Sanctification (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), 101.

[21]Though, as will be brought out in the Reformed view, it is an aspect with every command.

Sanctification: Three Views (Part 1)

November 11, 2010 in Paper, Personal, Sanctification, Theology | Tags: , , , , , , | 3 comments

So that I am not burdening anyone with posting my papers in one massive post I decided that I would break them up. So when I post my papers they will be given in sections which come out every week. This way one does not have to block out 45 mins of a day to read the paper. Instead, they will come in manageable sections.

If you want to read the paper in full you can go to the papers section of the blog. I have a link that will direct you to the paper in google documents.

Also, my requests and reasons for posting my papers are found there as well.

Hope these are a benefit to you.

______________________________________________

Sanctification

Introduction

Sanctification is a fundamental aspect of the Christian’s life. Sanctification is the doctrinal position which encompasses the believer’s life after initial justification. To talk about sanctification is to talk about how a Christian grows more and more obedient to the teachings of Jesus. But what does that look like? When one looks at the bible what picture is painted about what growth in obedience looks like?

In this paper three major views of sanctification will be analyzed, critiqued, and worked out practically, with one view being defended. This paper will look at the views of sanctification espoused by the following theological traditions: Reformed, Lutheran, and Wesleyan. Each view claims that it understands how the doctrine of sanctification is lived out. Yet, their biblical backing will be tested in this paper with one position coming out of the refining fire as the most biblically faithful position.

Body

In the body of this paper, each view will be analyzed. There will be a summary of each view given at the beginning. The strengths of the view will be brought-up. Then the view will be critiqued in its faithfulness to the Biblical witness. One position will be shown as being the most faithful to the bible

The final outworking will be practically applying the view of sanctification to the life situation of a made up character called “Ernie.”[1] The situation with Ernie is that he has a habitual struggle with lustful thoughts. In light of this problem Ernie has prayed many times to God that he would be delivered from this sin. No answer to this prayer has been given. When he thinks of God, Ernie knows that God cannot look upon sin. Thus, Ernie is beginning to think that God can no longer forgive him of his sin. It is into this situation that each position will be brought to see how they would instruct Ernie.

More to come later…

[1]The character and the situation are taken from Donald L. Alexander, Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 7.

A List of Important Sermons and Articles That Are Worth Reading

September 24, 2010 in Paper, resources | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 3 comments

Justin Taylor complied a massive list of really good sermons and papers. The first four are his top sermons to read. Then Justin asked several pastors to give their lists as well.

Justin Taylor

Bryan Chapell

Graham Cole

Mark Dever

Dever also mentioned three books:

Kevin DeYoung

Stephen J. Nichols

Ray Ortlund

John Piper

David Powlison

  • B. B. Warfield, “Imitating the Incarnation“  (“The last page and a half offers the most riveting description of the goal of Christian living that I’ve ever read.”)

Fred Sanders

R.C. Sproul

Carl R. Trueman

Bruce Ware

  • R.C. Sproul, Lecture on “The Locus of Astonishment” (A brief summary is available here. For a similar talk, listen to “When Towers Fall.”)

Donald Whitney

Back Issues of SBJT Now Online

August 6, 2010 in Paper, resources | Tags: , | Leave a comment

Great news from Robert Sagers over at Between Two Worlds:

Good news: as of this afternoon, every issue of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT) through spring, 2008, is now online, in full.

So, that means that these (and many other) articles are now online, for free:

Carl F. H. Henry, “The Living God of the Bible” (1.1; spring 1997)

Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal” (2.1; spring 1998)

Robert H. Stein, “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament” (2.1; spring 1998)

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “The Whole Earth Is Full of His Glory: The Recovery of Authentic Worship” (2.4; winter 1998)

D. A. Carson, “Job: Mystery and Faith” (4.2; summer 2000)

Mark Dever, “Biblical Church Discipline” (4.4; winter 2000)

John Piper, “The Sovereignty of God and the Soul Dynamic: God-Centered Thinking and the Black Experience in America, Past and Future” (8.2; summer 2004)

Simon Gathercole, “The Cross and Substitutionary Atonement” (11.2; summer 2007)

Douglas Moo, “Paul’s Universalizing Hermeneutic in Romans” (11.3; fall 2007)

The SBJT editors through the years have been Paul R. House, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Stephen J. Wellum.

The most recent issue, on the theme “Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” is hot off the press. You can read Gregg R. Allison’s article in the issue, “Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and Preliminary Evaluation,” online free.

And as always, you can subscribe to the journal—and never miss an issue.

Some Articles of Interest

July 30, 2010 in Bible, Ministry, Paper | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Here are a few articles, which I have read recently, that I want to pass along to all of you.

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus by Peter J. Gentry who is Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In this paper Gentry explores the meaning of the seventy weeks found in Daniel chapter 9.

Do We Act As If We Really Believe That “The Bible Alone, And The Bible In Its Entirety, Is The Word Of God Written”? by Wayne Grudem who is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary. He delivered this paper as a presidential address during the 51st annual meeting of the ETS on November 17, 1999. This is a very important article for anyone studying theology on a higher level. In the paper Grudem gives six suggestions to biblical scholars who claim to believe that the Bible alone , and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God Written,

  • Suggestion #1: Consider the possibility that God may want evangelical scholars to write more books and articles that tell the Church what the whole Bible teaches us about some current problem.
  • Suggestion #2: Consider the possibility that God wants the Church to discover answers and reach consensus on more problems, and wants us to play a significant role in that process.
  • Suggestion #3: Consider the possibility that God wants evangelical scholars to speak with a united voice on certain issues before the whole Church and the whole world.
  • Suggestion #4: Consider the possibility that God may want many of us to pay less attention to the writings of non-evangelical scholars.
  • Suggestion #5: Consider the possibility that God may want us to quote his Word explicitly in private discussions and in public debates with non-Christians.
  • Suggestion #6: Consider the possibility that the world as we know it may change very quickly.

In the paper he explains the meaning of each suggestion.

Still Sola Scriptura: An Evangelical Perspective on Scripture by James M. Hamilton Jr. who Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A good article on the inerrancy of Scripture. Although, the bulk of the paper it seemed was dealing more with the Canon. What he did, however, have to say on the Canon was tremendous. If you wonder about the reliability of the Canon the facts given in this paper will aid you in becoming confident in it.

2 Corinthians 3:1-18

July 9, 2010 in Paper | Tags: , | 5 comments

This is a paper that I wrote for my 2 Corinthians class. The reasons that I will post some of my own work for classes are two fold: 1. My writing needs to be critique and challenged. I will never become a better writer, arguer, and thinker if people don’t question my reasoning and point out my errors in writing. So please, if you read these let me know where you disagree with me with precision, not just a  general “I don’t like.” Let me know what you don’t like and why you don’t like it. This would be a help to me to interact with you and hopefully sharpen both of our thinking. 2. Because what things I do study need to be passed on to aid others. Not that I have a lot of deep, spiritual things to say. But I want to aid in pointing people to Christ in any way I can. So enjoy!

_____________________________

2 Corinthians 3:1-18

Introduction

What gave Paul confidence in his sufficiency for ministry was the glorious nature of the new covenant. In the midst of being rejected by Jews and seeing the churches he founded weakened by false teachers, one could think that Paul would consider his ministry futile. But nothing could be further from the truth.

What we see in this chapter is Paul’s sufficiency found in the effectual nature of the new covenant. Paul could press forward in his ministry because the nature of the old covenant had been supplanted by the glory of the new. This new covenant would be the ministry of the Spirit who was the one who accomplished the work.

Body

This paper will argue the thesis by looking at four main sections of the chapter. The first section will look at the context leading up to the chapter. The next section will look at verses 1-6 and the aspects of the new covenant found there. Then in verses 7-11 Paul’s contrasting of the old and new covenants will be explored. Finally, we will look at the contrast between Paul’s and Moses’ ministry in verses 12-18.

Context

The beginning context of the passage is chapter 2 verses 14 through 17. In this section Paul sees himself as a thankful prisoner of God spreading the knowledge of God for either the life or death of the hearers. We will see that Paul considers himself being made sufficient for this commission because of the manner by which he performs it.

Paul begins by proclaiming thankfulness to God.[1] This thankfulness is given to God for what He is accomplishing through His apostles.[2] God is leading Paul as a thankful prisoner in a triumphal procession.

Paul sees himself as a conquered, yet thankful, prisoner in God victory procession. When Paul uses the word θριαμβεύω it pictures an “elaborate celebration of victory for the conquering Roman general parading through the streets of Rome.”[3] Part of the celebration was the general leading, “prisoners of war in a victory procession.”[4] Thus, Paul sees himself as prisoner of God’s conquest through Christ.[5]

Paul, also, sees Christ spreading the fragrance of the knowledge Himself everywhere through the apostle’s ministry. Paul builds on the fragrance metaphor to expound on the reception of the gospel message. Paul switches from Roman imagery to the sacrificial imagery used in the Old Testament.[6] Paul was the aroma of Christ being offered to God among the world. This aroma separates the world into two groups: Those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To those being saved it is a fragrance of life. But “Paul does not smell sweet to everyone.”[7] To those perishing it is a fragrance to death. Thus, its reception had eternal significance.

These truths act as the foundation for Paul’s ministerial actions. Paul is Christ’s trophy. Christ conquered Paul and uses him to spread the knowledge of God to everyone. The aroma of this message either saved or killed. Paul then asks the question about sufficiency. Who can be sufficient for such a calling that either brings death or life?

What is the answer to this question? On the one hand Paul could imply a negative answer and so deny self-sufficient for the ministry.[8] Yet, “the idea of ‘sufficiency,’ in and of itself, carries no such pejorative connotations.”[9] A person can say that he is capable of fulfilling a task without necessitating the denial of divine enablement. Paul will clarify why he is sufficient in verses 4 through 6 in chapter 3. Thus, Garland[10] and Harris[11] would see a “yes” and “no” tension. On the one hand, Paul is a qualified and capable messenger of this gospel and thus, his apostleship should not be rejected. Though, the reason he is capable is because God makes him sufficient (3:5).  Also, the logical flow between 16b and 17 implies a positive answer.[12] Finally, there is a connecting sufficiency theme running from these verses into chapter three.[13] Thus, a positive answer for the first usage fits the theme of the whole passage. Therefore, Paul is sufficient for the task of this life and death commission given to him. For Paul, unlike those who are peddlers of the word of God, was sincere in his task. His commission demands that he comes with openness.

Therefore, Paul is compelled to be a minister of Christ. The question raised against him was one of sufficiency. Thus, the following chapter answers the question, “How does the new covenant relate to the theme of Paul’s sufficiency for ministry?”[14]

Verses 1-6

In this section Paul will appeal to the Corinthians based on their inclusion into the new covenant. This new covenant is not like the old one which was ineffectual in what it produced. The new covenant supplies Paul’s sufficiency for ministry because of the effectual nature of the covenant. The old covenant could not provide salvation, the new covenant brings life and transformation by the power of the Spirit.

Paul asks about being commended about his ministry. Does his ministry need to be recommended to them again? If the Corinthians would look at themselves they would see the authenticity of Paul’s ministry. “The Corinthians need look only at themselves for proof that the new age of the new covenant has dawned.”[15] They are on Paul’s heart as well as being open for all to read. Their conversion and growth in Christ demonstrates the authenticity of Paul’s ministry. Then Paul begins to lay out truths of the new covenant of which the Corinthians are partakers in.

Paul gives four descriptions/aspects of the new covenant. First he shows the Pneumtalogical and Christological dimensions of the new covenant. Second, he describes the hearts of men which received God’s actions. Third, Paul shows the sufficiency he receives from the covenant. And forth, he demonstrates the contrast between the letter and Spirit.[16]

The first description of the new covenant in verse 3 displays the instrumentality of the Spirit through the person and work of Christ in the work of the new covenant. Paul tells the Corinthians that they are a letter from Christ. “Christ was the author of the letter, Paul was simply the amanuensis.”[17] Paul was the servant (διακονέω) of Christ who brought about the salvation of the Corinthians. The Corinthians “have their origin in Christ and belong to him.”[18] Paul highlights this truth to shed “light on the Christological newness of the new covenant.”[19] The Spirit’s work is never accomplished outside and contrary to but always in correlation and agreement to the purposes and workings of Christ. For the letter, which is the Corinthians, was written with the Spirit himself. As Fee states, “This, of course, is for Paul the key to everything.”[20] The Spirit takes an essential role in the salvation of the Corinthians in this new covenant. It is the Spirit who brings about their salvation.

The connection of the contrasts in this verse must be explored. What is the connection with the first contrast of ink with Spirit to tablets of stone and tablets of human hearts? Commentators have pointed out that it would be natural for Paul to speak in the second contrast about being written on papyrus.[21] Yet, “Paul’s imagery is fluid, as one image leads to another that leads to another.”[22] Thus, Paul makes the transition into this set of imagery. And the generally agreed upon understandings of “tablets of stone” has to do with the law and the old covenant. Some would see a denigration of the law taking place in this contrast. Thrall, for example, writes, “[it is contrasted] in such a way as to emphasise the superiority of Christian existence to life under the law of Moses.”[23] The context, however, does not favor such a speculation. Instead, the context supports Meyer’s assertion, “The contrast of ineffectualness and effectualness lies at the heart of this comparison.”[24] About the relation to law he writes,

We should not assume that Paul aims to denigrate the Mosaic law…Paul would affirm the divine origin of the law in that the very finger of God inscribed the Ten Words on those tablets of stone. Paul’s emphatic point lies elsewhere. The contrasting phrase highlights the different ways God acts under both covenants by focusing on the different objects of God’s inscribing action.[25]

For Paul, the nature of the contrast will be the foundation of his confidence in verse 4. Also, the contrast is in relation to the Corinthian’s salvation. Thus, Paul’s point in the contrast lies in the effectual nature of the new covenant to salvation.

The second main point of the new covenant expressed in this verse is the object of God’s action. God no longer writes on πλαξὶν λιθίναις but on πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις. The tablets of stone have already been connected with the Law given to Moses. In Deuteronomy 9:10 God gave to Moses tablets of stone with His law written upon them.[26] The metaphor of the heart (καρδία) speaks as the “seat of physical, spiritual and mental life”[27] With these two different tablets, Paul is describing the two different objects which God acted upon: One was of stone, and the other was of the heart.

The tablets of stone, the law, was God’s action for his people in the old covenant which was ineffectual in bringing new life. “God granted a great gift to Israel when he intervened in human history and provided a written expression of His will.”[28] However, the problem with the law was that it did not grant the power upon one to conform to it.[29] The law was a written code as to how one should live, no more than that. No enablement was given as part of the covenant. Thus, no inward effect happened to the Israelites.

Now, in the new covenant, the Spirit writes on tablets of “fleshly hearts” (καρδίαις σαρκίναις) which produces an effect. Undoubtedly Paul is referring to the passages in Ezekiel about God giving the Israelites a heart of flesh. “And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh” [30] (Ezek. 11:19). and “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” [31] (36:26).[32] With both verses, the outcome of the new heart is a people who walk in obedience to the Lord. “That they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them” (11:20). Thus, on Paul’s mind is the promise that the fleshly hearts, which the Spirit inscribes on, will live after the Lord.

Thus, “For Paul, the old and the new are characterized by two different accounts of divine agency.”[33] With the old covenant God gave external demands to the people. Yet, these demands met hearts of stone, the πλαξὶν λιθίναις, which would not receive them. But with the new “there is creation.”[34] God turns a heart of stone into a heart of flesh, a heart which can be written on by the Spirit.

Paul then links these truths with another aspect of the new covenant, his confidence, through Christ to God, in verses 4-6.[35] The truth that the hearts of the Corinthians are fleshly hearts allows Paul to be confident in regards to his ministry. Paul’s confidence is then directed though the person of Christ to be grounded in God.[36] Paul can claim no part in this new creation of καρδίαις σαρκίναις. All the sufficiency and competency to be a minister comes from God.

The final aspectual nature of this new covenant is the letter and Spirit contrast. The new covenant, which is the foundation of Paul’s confidence, is not of γράμματος but of the πνεύματος. There are three classifications on different understandings of γράμματος. The first is to see a hermeneutical principal being conveyed.[37] In this understanding there is a spiritual and a literal way of reading scripture. The second is to see a misuse or distorted view of the law taking place.[38] Those under the law either misunderstood its purpose or used it in a legalistic way. The third does see γράμματος referring back to the law of Moses.[39] From there, however, the view can be subdivided into two smaller categories. First, some see the law being cast in a negative light.[40] Second, others would see negativity being place on the effectual nature of the law.[41]

The best of these positions would be to see γράμματος as referring back to the law to show the ineffectual nature of it. Meyers pinpoints the primary problem with the first two groups. In the following verse Paul uses the same word which conveys the meaning, “that which is inscribed.”[42] This clearly points to the words of Moses written in the law, rather than pointing to hermeneutics or hypothetical background situations. Thus, those in the new covenant are no longer under the ineffectual law.

Those in the new covenant are under the effectual power of the Spirit. The Spirit gives life, where as the “external work of the Law stands in contrast with the work of the Spirit, which is inward, effective and eschatological.”[43] Ζωοποιέω points to the eschatological life the Spirit brings.[44] The law can only stand to give condemnation to those under it since it cannot impart life[45], the Spirit “grants the physical and spiritual life of which he is the source.”[46] Thus, “The new covenant is marked preeminently by inward divine enablement to carry out God’s will.”[47]

Paul’ ministry is recommended to the Corinthians because of the effectual power of the new covenant. He does not need a written letter because the Spirit has already done His work in their lives. Paul is confident about this work because, where as the letter leads to death, the Spirit brings life.

Verses 7-11

Paul is going more in-depth into the sufficiency and confidence for His ministry by contrasting the covenants. To do this Paul discusses the supplanting of the new covenant in place of the old one. Two main contrasts of the covenants come out. The first is that the old one is defined by death and condemnation. While the new one is of the Spirit and defined by righteousness.  The second is that the old covenant, under the law of Moses, was temporal and now done away with. But the new covenant is permanent. As such, the new covenant is more glorious than the first.

The old covenant was a glorious temporal covenant which brought condemnation upon those under it. Paul calls the covenant a ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου. Death was one of the attributes of the old covenant according to Paul. The law did not bring death with itself but allowed sin to produce death through the commandment (Rom 7:11-14). But even with sin understood, the old covenant was “death-dealing.”[48] For this ministry is also a τῇ διακονίᾳ τῆς κατακρίσεως. The old covenant only gave condemnation. Those under it could not live up to the demands of the law so they fell condemned.[49]

With the new covenant we have a ministry of the Spirit which brings righteousness. Once again Paul defines the new covenant as being of the Spirit. “Transformation of human beings did not occur in the old era under the Mosaic law, but it has been effected by the power of the Spirit in the new age.”[50] Thus, the workings of the Spirit in this ministry produce righteousness.

The primary issue regarding the nature of the covenants in this section is the temporal and permanent glories of each of the covenants. Paul uses the term for glory 10 times within these 5 verses.[51] Both covenants are attributed with glory.[52] Yet, the one carved in letters of stone was καταργουμένην.[53] There is debate to whether this participle should be rendered “to nullify” or “come to and end”[54] The best evidence suggests that the participle be rendered “to come to an end.”[55] Hence, the glory from the face of Moses was “fading.”[56] Thus, the old covenant, being symbolized by the face of Moses[57] was being brought to an end “from the moment of its inception in Exodus.”[58] Thus, the glories of the first covenant were temporal.[59]

Now, we are under the ministry of the Spirit which is permanent and more glorious. The first covenant was ineffectual in producing righteousness. The new one is the ministry of Spirit who, “grants life to human beings and produces righteousness. Those who have the freedom of the Spirit have the ability to keep God’s requirements.”[60] Because of the Israelites’ hardness of heart the commands of God where only carved letters on stone which pronounced judgment upon them. But now, those who are indwelt by the Spirit can produce righteousness. Thus, the old covenant is vastly inferior to the new age of the Spirit. The glory of the new covenant shines with more intensity to those that are in Jesus Christ.

It is on this truth that Paul is resting his sufficiency. He is a confident minister of the new covenant because of its permanent glory. The Spirit now works in the hearts of those who believe in Jesus to produce righteousness. The glory of the old covenant is now gone, what there is now is far better. Thus, Paul is a sufficient minister, for the very reason that he is not the ministry, but the Spirit is.

Verses 12-18

Paul grounds his boldness by contrasting his ministry with the ministry of Moses. Under Moses the people were unable to see the outcome of the covenant. They did not see the temporal nature and the fulfillment of it. This was because Moses put a veil over his eyes. Under the new covenantal ministry of Paul the veil is removed through Christ. And all those with unveiled faces become transformed by beholding the glory of the Lord. Thus, the covenantal realties undergird Paul’s boldness in ministry.

The contrast in these verses is one of κάλυμμα. Those under Moses were veiled and those who turn to Christ have the veil removed. Under the veil there is hardness; without the veil there is transformation. Paul switches in usage from the physical veil Moses used to the spiritual veil over people’s heart. To understand the contrast we will have to look at Paul’s usage and meaning of the veil.

To understand this section we must understand the veiling of Moses communicated here. This paper has already defended the position that by writing καταργουμένου Paul is referring to the old covenant.[61] So, Paul would have Moses putting on the veil so that the Israelites would not gaze at the end[62] of the fading old covenant. Several suggestions have been made to what is happening in this verse.[63] What is difficult is Paul saying that the purpose of Moses putting on the veil was to keep them from seeing the end. Is there deception coming from Moses actions? The answer is of course, “no.” The reason we can give this answer is from what is written in the next verse.

Paul writes that the Israelites minds were ἐπωρώθη. This is a passive form of πωρόω which when used in the New Testament[64] tells of “a situation of unbelief or misunderstanding…an obtuseness toward God’s revelation in Christ.”[65] In the gospel accounts the passages in Mark 8 and in John 12 can be connected with Isaiah 6:9-10.[66] And in Isaiah 6:9-10 Isaiah is given the charge to be a means of hardening Israel. Then in the passage in Romans 11:7-8 Paul says those who were not elect were ἐπωρώθησαν. Then to he uses Isaiah 29:10 and Deuteronomy 29:4 to prove this. And in these passages we have a clear testament to divine hardening.[67]

Thus, Moses was a means of divine hardening upon Israel. No life was given with the old covenant. So “the Lord had not given spiritual perception and so Israel was hardened in unbelief.”[68] Thus, the putting on the veil of Moses was an act of judgment upon Israel. This judgment kept them from seeing the end of what was fading. They were kept from seeing the future ministry of the Spirit coming through the Christ.[69]

What happened with the veil physically with Moses happens spiritually upon those who still live under the old covenant. For the Jews in the Old Testament to the Jews that Paul interacted with, they both lived with veils over their eyes. “The spiritual veil over the hearts prevents the Israel of Paul’s day from perceiving the eclipse of that same covenant in the form of the new covenant.”[70] They could not see the end of the covenant they were living in. Thus, when Paul interacted with the Jews, “they did not accept Paul’s preaching of the gospel of Christ from the Scriptures.”[71]

This is contrasted, however, with the glorious nature of the new covenant. In the new covenant, when one turns to the Lord the veil is removed. This unveiling is a change in the heart.[72] The heart is no longer hard against the things of God. Through Christ the veil is gone and the one enjoys the freedom of the Spirit.[73] In this context it is best to see ἐλευθερία[74] as speaking to both the “freedom from the veil of hard-heartedness,”[75] and “freedom for beholding God’s glory.”[76] Understanding freedom in this way bridges the two subjects of the veiled hearts (v12-16) and transformation from beholding God’s glory (v18).[77] With this unveiled heart one is able to behold the glory of God.[78] And from this glory he is transformed into the same image of who he is beholding. No longer are people’s hearts hard. Their hearts are open to the things of God. This is the glory of the new covenant.

Thus, Paul is very bold. Unlike Moses who was a means of divine hardening, his ministry unveils the heart to the glories of God. Paul can believe that his ministry will be a success because the sufficiency for it does not rest in him. He cannot unharden hearts. But the covenant he is under is defined by the Spirit who unveils hearts to see and glory of God. Thus, Paul is bold and confident.

Conclusion

Paul was a sufficient minister of Christ because his sufficiency was not from himself. He was a minister of a new covenant. This is in contrast to the old covenant which has faded away. The old covenant was ineffectual in changing the hearts of those under it. Thus, it became a ministry of death and condemnation. In this new covenant, however, the Spirit effectually unveiled hearts to the glory of God. And this unveiling would produce righteousness in those who had turned to the Lord. Paul could then strive forward in his apostleship knowing that his ministry would prove effective because of the Spirit.

Devotion

Who or what is our hope for success in ministry. Like Paul, we minister while being surrounded by discouragement. There are individuals who come into the church for a while but then abandon the faith. There are countless false gospels coming from the world and from those who claim to be Christians. The world is losing interest in orthodoxy Christianity. The desire is for something that will fit the modern mood of spirituality. Those who do join along with this modern mood become the objects of ridicule and scorn.

There are several ways we could answer these problems. We could answer by cultural accommodation. We could attempt to make the church look exactly like the world wants it to look. We could answer by toning the message down. If we never talk about the things which offend others then they will never be offended by us. Or we can make the standard of truth so low that practically everyone gets in.

The problem with these, however, is that they are the means were by the church no longer remains the church. Those actions are none other than spiritual adultery with the world. So where then are we to get our hope and confidence that church will not prove futile?

It is right where Paul found it, in the new covenantal realties brought by God. We exist in a ministry where the sovereign Lord unveils the eyes to His glory. In a world where there is nothing but rebellion the indwelling Spirit produces righteousness in those who have been given fleshly hearts. We do not minister under a covenant where the people look unto the glory of God with harden hearts. We minister under a covenant where people are transformed by the glory when the Lord unveils their hearts. We are not the sufficiency for this, the Spirit is. And so, like Paul, we can move out in confidence that God will give us the victory.

[1]Harris would classify this as a doxology since it is ascribing praise and glory to God. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 141

[2]Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, In The Anchor Bible, vol. 32a. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 187.

[3]David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, The New American Commentary, vol 29. ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 140.

[4]Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1996, c1989), LN. 39:59.

[5]Some would dispute the idea that Paul was seeing himself as being a prisoner in this procession. Barrett, Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 97-98. and Calvin,  John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries Volume XX: I Corinthians and II Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 157-158. would see Paul being a soldier in Christ’s army and sharing in the victory. For a rebuttal of this see Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14-3:3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 19-34.

Another question arises about the outcome of the prisoners. Hafemann would say that what awaited the prisoners s of the procession was death. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 21-22. He looks at triumphal processions described from the first century B.C. to the end of the first century A.D. and concludes, “to be ‘led in triumph’ means, in fact, to be ‘lead to death.’” Ibid., 34. This could work considering that Paul was one who felt as if he “had received the sentence of death” (2 Cor. 1:9). Who was “always carrying in the body the death of Jesus,” (2 Cor. 4:10) and who states that “death is at work” in him” (2 Cor. 4:12). Death was a constant possibility for Paul because of the sufferings he received.

Yet, Harris would point out, it does not fit the immediate context if Paul is seeing himself as being lead to death in verse 14. In verse 16 Paul speaks about death in such a connotation that Paul could not see himself as being a partaker in it. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 246. Harris also points out that there were times when the captives were not executed. Ibid., 246.

So it may be the wisest to not push the metaphor too far. We do know that Paul was highlighting God’s triumph over him. But beyond that, any theory should not play a major role in understanding the passage.

[6]Thus, ὀσμὴν, in verse 14, should be read with the same imagery in view. Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, in The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 110-111. Against this, however, Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 246, and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 67-68, would say that ὀσμὴν in verse 14 is still displaying the Roman metaphor of the incense being burned during the procession. Yet, even Harris says that the sacrificial system is being referred to in verses 15 and 16. Thus it seems inconsistent to have ὀσμή in verse 14 picture something different than what is pictured in verse 16. For a thorough study of the linguistic reason for making the switch on metaphor with ὀσμὴν in verse 14 see Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 35-45.

Cf.  Peter Balla, “2 Corinthians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 754. who says one does not have to chose one or the other. However, I believe the arguments made by Hafemann still stand.

[7]Garland, 2 Corinthians, 150.

[8]Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 102-103. See also Furnish, II Corinthians, 190-191.

[9]Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 90.

[10]Garland, 2 Corinthians, 150.

[11]Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 253.

[12]Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 89-90. See also Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 253, and Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 72-73.

[13]Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009), 65.

[14]Ibid., 65.

[15]Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 118.

[16]I am roughly following the four points Meyer lays out: (1) The Spirit is the instrument of writing in the new covenant, (2) the heart is the object of writing in the new covenant, and (3) the new covenant is the source of his ministerial sufficiency because (4) the Spirit is the intrinsic element of the new covenant that ensures its sufficiency for ministry. Meyer, The End of the Law, 67.

[17]Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 263.

[18]Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 303.

[19]Meyer, The End of the Law, 69.

[20]Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 303.

[21]Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 82. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 264.

[22]Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 303.

[23]Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Volume I (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994), 226.

[24]Meyer, The End of the Law, 69.

[25]Ibid., 69. See also Hafemann, “it is a contrast between the law as it usually functioned in the old covenant, in its impotency to change one’s heart, and the potency of the Spirit in its work in the heart within the new covenant.” Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit, 222.

[26]καὶ ἔδωκεν κύριος ἐμοὶ τὰς δύο πλάκας τὰς λιθίνας γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ θεοῦ

[27]Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. and trans. Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilber Gingrich [BDAG], 3rd Edition. (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. “καρδία”

[28]Meyer, The End of the Law, 70.

[29]Ibid., 70.

[30]καὶ δώσω αὐτοῖς καρδίαν ἑτέραν καὶ πνεῦμα καινὸν δώσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐκσπάσω τὴν καρδίαν τὴν λιθίνην ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτῶν καὶ δώσω αὐτοῖς καρδίαν σαρκίνην

[31]καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν καρδίαν καινὴν καὶ πνεῦμα καινὸν δώσω ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἀφελῶ τὴν καρδίαν τὴν λιθίνην ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν καρδίαν σαρκίνην.

[32]See Balla, “2 Corinthians”, 755, for the context of these verses.

[33]Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2004), 312.

[34]Ibid., 313.

[35]Jan Lambrecht, “Structure and Line of Thought in 2 Cor 2,14-4,6,” Biblica 64 (1983): 352. See also Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 111.

[36]One cannot help but notice the distinctive redemptive works of each member of the trinity being mentioned by Paul here. Paul’s confidence is grounded in the salvific workings of each member of the trinity. The Spirit is the life of the new creation, Christ is the means of salvation, and God the Father is the final grounds of salvation’s plan.

[37]Meyer footnotes present scholars who would accept variants of this view. Meyer, The End of the Law, 79 n. 61.

[38]Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 112-113. Furnish, II Corinthians, 201. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 149.

[39]There is a debate to the extent of the reference. Is it to the whole law of Moses or to just the Decalogue? Such a debate does not affect the outcome of the thesis so it will be passed.

[40]For instance, the law was “a written code of duty so onerous as to kill hope and love.” Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 87. See also Thrall, 235.

[41]Thus, “Again, the problem is not with the Law itself, but with the people whose hearts have remained hardened under the Sinai covenant.” Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 161. See also Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 305-306, Garland, 2 Corinthians, 166.

[42]Meyer, The End of the Law, 80.

[43]Mark A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18-3:20,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2-The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 134.

[44]Meyer, The End of the Law, 82.

[45]Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (London, England: Yale University Press, 1989), 131.

[46]Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 273-274.

[47]Ibid., 274.

[48]Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 282.

[49]This gives further proof that the old covenant was ineffectual. Meyer, The End of the Law, 86.

[50]Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 481.

[51]Meyer, The End of the Law, 87.

[52]This has caused problems for scholars. As Paul Duff states, “That problem has to do with Paul’s association of δόξα with a διακονία that is otherwise described in association with death and condemnation.”  Paul B. Duff, “Glory in the Ministry of Death: Gentile Condemnation and Letters of Recommendation in 2 Cor. 3:6-18,” Novum Testamentum 46 (2004): 318.

Sanders tries to bridge the association by saying that Paul held a tension. “Paul does not explain how it is that something which condemns and kills can be glorious. He is caught here as elsewhere between two convictions, but here there is no struggle to resolve them; he states them both as facts.” E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 1983), 138.

Hafemann would say that the point of Paul’s argument in these passages in not in differences of the covenants. “Indeed, the foundation of the argument is the similarity between the δόξα of the ‘ministry of death’ and that of ‘the ministry of the Spirit.’” Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 270-271. Cf. also Duff, “Glory in the Ministry of Death,” 319-320. Each one then takes this point to a different conclusion.

The position of this paper follows along the lines of Meyers who says, “Paul has no problem attributing glory to the old covenant as long as readers put the ‘old’ covenant in its proper eschatological place.” Meyer, The End of the Law, 87. n91.

[53]BDAG gives it four ranges of meanings: 1) to cause something to be unproductive; 2) to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness; 3) to cause something to come to an end or to be no longer in existence; 4) to cause the release of someone from an obligation. BDAG, s.v. “καταργέω.”

[54]Hafemann would render the meaning of the term, “to nullify.” Thus, Paul would be saying that the glory of the Lord shining off the face of Moses was nullified during that time to forestall judgment. “The glory on Moses’ face would have destroyed Israel due to their “stiff-necked” condition. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 301-309.

However, Meyer gives three reasons against this proposal. 1) In verse 11 the contrasts of the same word speaks of something coming to an end. 2) The parallels in verses 14 and 16 have the veil being removed, not being nullified. 3) The Israelites had encounters with the glory shining off Moses’ face when he did not have the veil on (Ex. 34:34-35). Meyer, The End of the Law, 91.

[55]BDAG, s.v. “καταργέω.” Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), S. 1:452-454.

[56]Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 284-285.Meyer, The End of the Law, 91-92.

[57]Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 285.

[58]Meyer, The End of the Law, 92.

[59]There is a lot of discussion about how Paul uses the passage in Exodus 34. The text in Exodus never mentions that the glories of Moses were fading after Moses put the veil on. Balla’s words, however, suffice to give a good explanation of what is going on. “It is unnecessary to see in Paul’s words a reference to Moses actually hiding the fading of the glory, because it is Paul’s view of the character of the old dispensation that it is fading away. Thus Paul does not necessarily add to the OT text any content that was not there, but he refers to the OT and at the same time says that from a view point of the permanent new covenant, the old covenant is transitory. Balla, “2 Corinthians”, 760.

[60]Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 135.

[61]Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 257.

[62]There have been a good amount of arguments about the proper rendering of τέλος here. The arguments are whether it should be rendered in a temporal sense (end) or a telic sense (goal). Yet, either understanding does not affect the thesis of this paper or section.

[63]See Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 297-298. and Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 259-261. For thorough lists on the different positions.

[64]Mark 6:52, 8:17; John 12:40; Romans 11:7.

[65]Carol Kern Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant: The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor. 3,1-4,6, Analecta Biblica (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 135.

[66]It is well understood that John referencing Isaiah 6:9-10. For the passage in Mark, Gregory Beale puts the passage in the context of the book. In Mark 4 the direct quote from Isaiah was used to condemn the nation of Israel. And in Mark 8 Jesus uses the same terms in asking the disciples “whether they are also fulfilling the Isaiah 6 prophecy like the rest of hardened Israel.” G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 271.

[67]Meyer, The End of the Law, 97-98.

[68]Ibid., 97.

[69]This is one of the great tensions in the Bible, God judging those whom He hardens. One of the best examples of this is Pharaoh in Exodus. Before Moses came into Egypt God told him that He, the Lord, would harden Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21).  Paul comments on this very passage in Romans and exclaims, “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18). This mystery will never be solved on this side of eternity. We must keep ourselves faithful to both sides of the revelation: we are responsible, and He controls our choices. He hardens and those hardened are responsible for their hardness of heart.

[70]Ibid., 98.

[71]Ibid., 99.

[72]Garland, 2 Corinthians, 194-195.

[73]The Christological and Pneumtalogical issues with the phrase, “the Lord is the Spirit” will be passed over. Sufficient to say that this author holds to the orthodoxy understanding of the Trinity.

[74]Meyer lists 4 main views about the meaning of ἐλευθερία found here. Meyer, The End of the Law, 103.

[75]Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, 401.

[76]Meyer, The End of the Law, 103.

[77]Ibid., 104-105.

[78]Plummer would want to render the participle κατοπτρίζω “to reflect.” Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 105-106. Yet, as Jan Lambrecht points out, the πάντες to ἡμεῖς reveals that Paul has all Christians κατοπτριζόμενοι. Thus, “to reflect” would not make sense. To understand it as “to behold” if perfectly.  Jan Lambrecht, “Transformation in 2 Corinthians,” Biblica 64 (1983): 246-248. See Also Meyer, The End of the Law, 100-102.

What did Circumcision Signify?

July 2, 2010 in Paper, Quote | Tags: | 2 comments

I found this tracing by Dr. Stephen Wellum in his article, Baptism and the Relationships Between the Covenants, very helpful with understanding circumcision. It gives the main purpose of why God gave it and the how it ends in Christ.
  • In the context of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the primary purpose of circumcision was to mark out a physical seed in preparation for the coming of Messiah. The marking purpose of circumcision may be viewed in two complementary ways.
    • First, circumcision marked out a national entity. With the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant, God chose one man and his seed to grow into a nation to prepare the way for the coming of Christ…It served as a physical sign to mark out a nation and to distinguish them as his people.
    • Second, circumcision marked out a male line of descent from Abraham to David to Christ. That is why, in a typological way, every Jewish male child, specifi cally those in Judah’s line, was a type of Christ who anticipated the day when the true/unique seed of Abraham would come.
    • (Circumcision also traces out the source of our moral corruption. Adam, as the head of the human race, is held responsible for sin. We were not corrupted through Eve but through Adam, and circumcision reminds us of this as well as the need for a radical spiritual surgery—hence it speaks of the need for a “circumcision of the heart.”)
  • But under the Mosaic covenant, there was also another purpose of circumcision which begins to point to spiritual and typological realities.
    • In this regard, physical circumcision pointed to the need of a spiritually circumcised heart which would result in a wholehearted devotion to the Lord (Deut 30:6; cp. Jer 4:4). Indeed, the new covenant promise in Jer 31:33 of the “law written on their hearts” combined with Ezek 36:25–27 pointed forward to the day when the entire covenant community would be circumcised in heart.
    • This emphasis picks up the teaching of the prophets that physical circumcisiononly availed the one who had been spiritually circumcised (see Rom 2:25–29). In this sense, circumcision serves as a type that finds its fulfillment and replacement in regeneration.
  • Now, in Christ, and the creation of the “new man” (Eph 2:11–22), the law-covenant has been fulfilled and the God-given divisions tied to that law-covenant have been removed so much so that Paul can proclaim, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcisionmeans anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal 6:15).
    • In this new era, a new covenantal sign, baptism, has been established to testify of the gospel and to identify one as having become the spiritual seed of Abraham, through faith in Messiah Jesus.
    • But unlike circumcision, baptism is not a sign of physical descent, nor is it a sign that anticipates gospel realities. Rather it is a sign that signifies a believer’s union with Christ and all the benefi ts that are entailed by that union.

~Stephen Wellum,  Baptism and the Relationships Between the Covenants, 163-165

The Expulsive Power of a New Affection

June 11, 2010 in Paper | Tags: | Leave a comment

I finished reading the sermon by Thomas Chalmers called The Expulsive Power of a New Affection. The thesis of the sermon is about the ineffectualness of fighting worldliness apart from a gospel affection.

Many of us (myself included) will try to wage war against sin by focusing on how bad and vile sin is. We will listen to sermons, memorize bible verses, and reminder ourselves that sin is wrong and will only lead to death. While such a message is right, Chalmers correctly points out that it is not enough. Even though we know that affection to the things of the world is wrong, if it is the only affection we have we will still live in it.

What Chalmers states is that we must be presented to a new affection. Namely, Jesus Christ and the gospel he presents. We cannot live with just the knowledge of how bad sin is. We have to see how good the Savior is and all the joys that are found in Him. This alone will draw our hearts away from sin and worldliness and into the blessedness of godliness.

I would encourage you to take the time to read the sermon. Be warned, the language is little archaic and it is not an easy read. But I believe that you will be rewarded for the work you put into reading it. I know that I was reward!

You can read the article here.

2 Corinthians 5:1-10

June 2, 2010 in Paper | Tags: , , , , | 3 comments

This is a paper that I wrote for my 2 Corinthians class. The reasons that I will post some of my own work for classes are two fold: 1. My writing needs to be critique and challenged. I will never become a better writer, arguer, and thinker if people don’t question my reasoning and point out my errors in writing. So please, if you read these let me know where you disagree with me with precision, not just a  general “I don’t like.” Let me know what you don’t like and why you don’t like it. This would be a help to me to interact with you and hopefully sharpen both of our thinking. 2. Because what things I do study need to be passed on to aid others. Not that I have a lot of deep, spiritual things to say. But I want to aid in pointing people to Christ in any way I can. So enjoy!

_____________________________

2 Corinthians 5:1-10

Introduction

The Apostle Paul’s aim was to be a faithful witness of the gospel among the Gentiles. Yet, he was not what the Greeks would consider an astounding speaker. One could even say that he was the opposite of a good Greek speaker. Yet, he was faithful in spreading the gospel amongst Gentile cities. One of which was Corinth. But after some time false teachers had crept in and were trying to turn the Corinthians’ hearts away from Paul by claiming that he was not a true Apostle. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians in attempt to win their hearts back.

In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 we see one among many appeals Paul made to the Corinthians in the book. The appeal which Paul makes in theses verses is that his ministry, as an Apostle, is not discredited because of his weak appearance. Paul had a hope that even though his ministry had taken such a toll on his body, he had a future resurrection that he was going to partake of. And such a hope gave him courage to press on in faithful ministry.

Body

This paper will argue that the above statement is communicated through 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. This will be done by looking at the context in which the section of 2 Corinthians is placed. Then it will be established by looking at individual aspects of the section. Verses 1-5 will show that Paul is talking about a resurrection which he is looking forward too. Verses 6-10 will communicate the courage for ministry which he received from the hope of the resurrection.

Context

Let us look back at the surrounding context to get the full picture. In chapter 4 verse 7 Paul begins by contrasting the treasure of the message found in verses 4-6 of the same chapter to the frailty of the minister, “We have this treasure (the ministry) in jars of clay (the minister, i.e. himself)” (4:7). What follows in verses 8-15 are the afflictions which Paul experienced in his ministry. While the message that he carried was glorious, the trials that the ministry put him through were anything but glorious.[1] Yet in verses 13-15 Paul keeps proclaiming the message which he had believed in.

In verse 16 Paul starts off by referring back to something previous which he had said. There is disagreement about the reference for “Διὸ”. [2] I believe, however, that Paul is referring back to verse 14 where he states his hope in the future resurrection.[3] We should see Verse 15 as part of the resurrection hope expressed in verse 14.[4] For in this verse Paul expressed certainty that the Corinthians would be in the presence of God. For he had suffered the affliction listed in verses 8-12 so that the grace[5] of the Spirit’s work of unveiling eyes could be given to them. They then believed in this message of grace delivered to them. Thus, verse 16 goes back to the hope of the resurrection which Paul expressed in 14.

Yet a sharp distinction between the resurrection and the ministry at Corinth should not be made.[6] Paul’s sacrifice had given which made him look forward to the resurrection was the sufferings for the Corinthians. Even though Paul has gone through tribulations, the ministry was being accomplished. The Corinthians came to accept the gospel.  Paul had completed this ministry of unveiling eyes to the glory of the Lord (3:1-18) among the Corinthians. He had seen the gospel do its work in their very lives. He sold himself out for them. All the afflictions listed through this section was all for their sakes (15a). He poured himself out so that they could be recipients and benefactors of this veil removing ministry and He knows that they will be present with him at the resurrection of Christ.

Now Paul shifts from speaking about his ministry to his weakness of appearance. He had made this sacrifice of ministry even though it has taken a toll on His body.[7] The key to understanding what is going on in this context is found in 5:12. There Paul makes the comment about “those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart.” “His deteriorating physical condition and shameful plight caused some in Corinth…to wonder out loud about his power as an apostle.”[8] The false teachers were attacking Paul on the grounds that He was weak in appearance[9] and “a minister of a covenant more glorious than Moses’ covenant could be expected to be a glorious figure.”[10] Garland points out another issue as well when he states, “Some in the ancient world interpreted affliction as a sign of god’s judgment and as something dishonorable.”[11] Whatever the specific reason was, the false apostles were attacking Paul about his appearance. Apparently the Corinthians were beginning let these charges get to them. Could they really trust a person that had such a weak appearance?

Paul, however, knew the truth about this world. Physical decay and abuse are not reasons to doubt one’s ministry. “On the contrary”, the abuse of his body in the present is in no comparison to the glory which he will receive. Paul says that he knows that the afflictions of this age are preparing him for a coming glory which cannot be compared to anything on this earth (4:17). So, Paul keeps his vision located on the future where eternal things reside (18).[12]

That is the context of 5:1-10. Paul is expounding to the Corinthians that his physical well being is not that important. He has given himself for their spiritual welling being. And the physical cost of it will be repaid when he dies. So, in 5:1-10 Paul is expounding on way the decay of his physical body is of little concern to him.

Verses 1-5

Verses 1-5 are about a future dwelling with the Lord when one dies. Paul expounds upon the statement that the gaze of the Christian should be on what is eternal. What is found in these verses is Paul looking ahead to the resurrection which he had talked about in his first letter to the Corinthians. Here he expounds on the future resurrection again but in somewhat different language. But the thoughts are the same. “The groaning and burden associated with the present body will give way to the stability and delight of being clothed with a new body.”[13]

To see this meaning we have to look at the parallel passage in 1 Corinthians. Then the text itself has to be studied. But, before we look at that; an issue regarding the eschatology of Paul needs to be considered.

Did Paul change his view of the time of his death and the coming of Christ? Harris would argue that Paul had an encounter with death while he was in Asia. And this encounter changed his understanding of his death and the coming of Christ. Before this, Paul would see himself living until the coming of Christ. But because of this brush with death Paul recognized that he was not going to survive until the coming of Christ. Paul is then expressing that change of belief in this passage.[14]

I believe an important general note can be brought up to help answer this question. Paul is not writing out a systematic theology on eschatology. He has a point to make to the Corinthians and against the false teachers. Penna is correct when he writes,

“The mistake of the commentators has perhaps been to try to be clearer than Paul himself…Paul does not offer dogmatic solutions but rather offers only certain suggestions, opens up certain ways of looking at the at it, confirms or excludes certain perspectives typical of the Christian faith.”[15]

We have to be careful that we are not trying to find more than what the Biblical writers were saying in what they wrote. Paul is not writing a dissertation on the end times but making a specific point by using some truths of the eschatos.

Since that is the case a strong point can be made against the idea that Paul is changing his mind about the coming of Christ. Schreiner articulates the point precisely, “This text [2 Cor. 5:1-10], however, is too ambiguous to signal such a change. Since Paul addresses the same church, he would have needed to make it much clearer that he was proposing a different time for the resurrection.”[16] So, there is not enough evidence presented in this text which should make us think that Paul is changing mind about the coming of Christ.

We have then established the fact that there is not enough to support the idea that Paul was changing his mind about the second coming of Christ in 2 Cor. 5:1-10. We can now study the individual aspects of the text to see that it, indeed, points to Paul’s hope in the future resurrection.

Let us look, first, at the parallel passage to this one in 1 Corinthians 15:35-57. There Paul discusses the resurrection from the dead as well. Paul talks about “What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.” (1 Cor. 15:42b). Regarding the body Paul refers to it as dying in “weakness”, “natural”, and “from earth” from verse 42-47. Also, Garland points out the correlating use of clothing terminology, of the term “perishable”, and the endings between these two passages.[17] Both talk about being clothed when the believer dies. Both speak about the body as perishing. And both end the section alluding to the same very, Isaiah 25:8. “This parallel with [1 Corinthians 15] opens the way to a true understanding of the contrast in 5:1-4 between the present body and the future one.”[18] Therefore, since there is a parallel of themes and terms used between 1 Corinthians 15:35-57 and 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 we should understand the main topic to be the same—namely resurrection.

With that correlation in mind we can look at the language Paul is using to see that he is talking about a future resurrection. What we have now is a ἡ ἐπίγειος οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, “an earthly tent-dwelling.”[19] The τοῦ σκήνους should be taken as an epexegetical genitive[20] which explains the meaning of the word it is attributed to. When our temporary structure will be torn down (καταλυθῇ) we have a οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν,[21] οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, “a building from God, a dwelling not made with human hands, eternal in the heavens.” For this eternal dwelling we grown (στενάζομεν), longing to put it on.

Following the context of the pervious verse Paul is obviously talking about the eternal things which He looks to. And there is a clear contrast going on through these passages. But what is Paul talking about when he says we are in a ἡ ἐπίγειος οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, and looking forward to a οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς?

Looking at the terms Paul used we can see the resurrection being describe. The first term that he employs is a “tent” (οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους).  Our present bodies are like a tent. A tent “is a common picture of the earthly life and its setting in the body.”[22] Using the tent imagery, “describes only the instability, and thus the vulnerability, of one’s mortal existence.”[23] Most commentators would also point to the use of the term in Wisdom 9:15 as referring to a body. This view also fits the context from 4:16-18 where Paul has been giving a contrast of the earthly and the eternal. Understanding the term to denote a human body fits very well here.[24]

Then, opposed to this weak tent, the believer will receive an eternal dwelling. There have been many proposals to what the term οἰκοδομὴν means here. Thrall lists nine different understandings of this term: 1) An individual resurrection body. 2) A heavenly habitation in the sense of the dwelling mentioned in John 14:2. 3) An interim heavenly body, received immediately after death. 4) A kind of spiritual garment, received in baptism, worn beneath the ‘garment’ of the material body and preserved beyond the grave. 5) The body of Christ. 6) The heavenly temple. 7) The resurrection body of Christ. 8 ) An image of the glory of the eschatological age. 9) The heavenly dimension of present existence.[25] Yet, the most agreed upon immediate meaning would be the spiritual body one would receive at the resurrection.[26] Harris states the point clearly, “in view of 4:16a, it seems incontestable that the ἐπίγειος οἰκία of 5:1a alludes primarily, if not solely, to the physical body and that therefore it would destroy the parallelism and opposition of the two parts of 5:1,”[27] Thus, while the body that Paul possesses now will be destroyed, an eternal body is waiting for Him in the future. [28]

The final question we have to ask is concerning the meaning of the word “γυμνοὶ” in verse 3. The verse begins be stating that by putting on[29] this heavenly dwelling we may not be found “naked”. So the meaning of “naked” has direct influence on the understanding of the previous terms.

There are three main understandings of this term.[30] It is either understood as “homeless,” “garmentless,” or “bodiless.” The understanding of “homeless” is to use architectural language which matches the terms “tent” and “building” in verses 1-2. But this understanding can be dismissed due to the fact that the word does not carry such a meaning.[31]

The term “garment” would be used to covey a moral view. Meaning, Paul does not want to be found being guilty of sin before God.[32] Two problems become apparent with this suggestion,  however. The first is that moral judgment is not in the immediate context. We do not see judgment until verse 10. So, where it could be a possibility, it should not be our first choice since the theme of mortal judgment is not found in the immediate context. The second problem is that the correlating word used in verse 4, ἐκδύσασθαι, is unquestionably referring to resurrection.[33] Because when one is clothed, the mortal (τὸ θνητὸν) is swallowed up by life (τῆς ζωῆς). And such language conveys a resurrection, not a moral standing.

Thus, the “bodiless” understanding is the best.[34] It fits with the over all context of resurrection. It, also, fits with the specific terms Paul uses in this section. Thus Paul is saying that by putting on this heavenly dwelling he will not be found in a bodiless state. [35] So, Paul is looking forward to the day when he will receive his resurrection body.

So after looking through this section we see Paul, speaking in the language of buildings and clothing to describe the future resurrection that awaits him. When Paul says that he is presently living in a ἡ ἐπίγειος οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους we understand him saying that he lives in a fragile body. Yet he knows that when the tent is destroyed he will posses a οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ which is a future resurrected body. And because he knows he will posses it there is no fear that he will be γυμνοὶ, or bodiless.

Therefore, though some may consider a battered and bruised body something to be ashamed of, Paul sees it differently. A battered and bruised body is only temporal. What Paul looks forward is a heavenly dwelling that will clothe him for eternity.

Verse 6-10

Because of the future hope that is before him Paul can make it his aim to be pleasing to God. In verses 6-10 Paul expresses the courage which he has because of this promise and what he is working towards before he reaches that hope. In other words, he can give himself to gospel ministry because of this future hope. This section will argue that Paul sees the future hope as a base for the courage to do his ministry.

Paul has a courage to accomplish the ministry which streams from the faith on the guarantee of the Spirit. The οὖν of verse 1 looks back to the preceding guarantee of the future resurrection which is given by the Spirit.[36] The perfect participle εἰδότες is casual in its function.[37] The truth that Paul is still in this body and not with the Lord is another reason for the courage.  Thus, there is the promise that supplies the courage and the task that demands the courage. For in verse 7 Paul expresses having faith in the promises of God and not on what he sees. Then Paul illiterates again in verse 8 about the courage which he has while expressing his desire to be with the Lord.[38] Paul can face the afflictions upon his body by the ministry because he is “confident that God will supply a superior replacement for [his body].”[39] Thus, courage fills Paul as he performs his calling as an apostle.

Paul’s courage is directed at the single aim to be well pleasing to Christ so that he could stand confidently before the judgment seat of Christ. Whether Paul was ἐνδημοῦντες or ἐκδημοῦντες Paul sought to be pleasing in his actions. For him, “what is alone important is whether one’s service as an apostle is finally judged acceptable to the Lord.”[40] This is completely contrary to the critics who would try to discount him based on weak appearance. For Paul, what ultimately mattered was God’s view of his ministry, not man’s.[41] Because it would be before Christ’s judgment seat where the deeds done in the body would be judged as to whether they were good or bad.

One must ask about the nature of the judgment being described here. Every Christian will have to stand before this judgment seat. The verdict of this seat will render to everyone what they have done in the body. So, will salvation or rewards be rendered at this judgment? Harris argues that “the tribunal of Christ is concerned with the assessment of works not the determination of destiny.”[42] Thus, “not status but reward is determined”[43] by this judgment seat.

Yet, other would see the judgment seat determining more than the distribution of rewards or loss of rewards. “The reward in these texts is eternal life itself.”[44] Thus, when standing before the judgment seat of Christ, one’s eternal destiny is at stake.

Two factors tip the scales towards understanding the judgment seat as eternally significant. The first is that when Paul speaks of God’s coming judgment it has eternal significance. At God’s righteous judgment He will render to each man according to his work, and he renders eternal life or wrath and fury (Rom. 2 5-8). We cannot be fully judged by human courts, but the Lord judges us. The Lord will bring every thing to light and each one will receive his commendation from God (1 Cor. 4:3-5). The second reason is that Paul more than likely has the false teachers in view when he writes this verse. The false teachers “advertise themselves as people who do good works and claim to be ‘servants of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:15), but all of this is subterfuge. The good works are lacking, ‘and their end shall be according to their works.’”[45] Therefore, when believers stand before the judgment seat of Christ they approach for the determination of their destiny.

How is this reconciled with the Biblical truth of justification by faith alone? Schreiner helpfully explains,

“God’s judgment on that day will be according to works but not on the basis of works (Rom. 2:6-10; 2 Cor. 5:10)…These good works are the fruit of faith and a result of the Spirit’s works. They do not, in and of themselves, achieve salvation…Future justification, then, is the manifestation of present justification.”[46]

Thus, the declaration made at the judgment seat of Christ will correspond with the declaration made when a believer puts true faith in Jesus Christ, “justified!” For the works displayed at the judgment seat will be the manifestations of a true faith.

So in conclusion to this section we see that the future hope which Paul looks towards gives him courage to complete the ministry. And this hope presses him on in the glorious pursuit to be found well pleasing to God on the final judgment day.

Conclusion

Therefore, we have clearly seen that Paul’s hope was laid in the future resurrection which he would attain. Though his opponents claimed that the afflictions which he had gone through discredited him as a faithful apostle, Paul knew other wise. He willing let his body suffer affliction and bruising for the sake of taking the gospel to the Corinthians. Paul could do this because he had a hope of a future resurrection where the weak tent where he presently resided in would be replaced by a dwelling from God. This dwelling would be an eternal residence so that he would not have to exist in a bodiless state. Thus, he fulfilled the callings of his ministry with courage. Because he knew that he would have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of his faithfulness.

Devotional

Safety, security, and peacefulness are words that can describe too much of American evangelicalism. Not only that, but when we think of preachers we think of preachers nicely dressed in the attire we deem appropriate. Whether it be a two piece suit of shorts with a T-shirt. We want them to look the way we want them to look. Given those reasons Paul would probably be an outcast in our churches. He was not safe, and he did not look the part.

Yet, that is how true gospel ministry is suppose to look like. By giving oneself for the glory of God and to love people by telling them the gospel message—and that is what Paul looked like. His eyes were centered on being well pleasing to God and his heart was poured out for the Corinthians. And he did this no matter if it took him to places where he abounded in material things or to places where death seemed imminent.

The encouragement that was set before His eyes in all of this was the hope of the resurrection. He knew that the suffering, caused by being faithful to God would be compensated in full by his Lord. Thus, he pressed on no matter how much it cost. May our eyes be opened to the inheritance that is ours in Christ Jesus as Paul’s eyes were open to it!

[1] Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 338.

[2] Garland has it referring back to verses 7-10. David E. Garland, 2 Corinthains, The New American Commentary, vol 29. ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 239. Barnett would see the whole of 1-15 as being referred too. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 250.

[3] C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on The Second Epistle to The Corinthians, Haper’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henery Chadwick (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1973), 145. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol 40. ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, TX: Word Book, 1986), 91. Margaret E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Volume I, (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994), 347.

[4] Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 134.

[5] Furnish would say that the “ἡ χάρις” is possibly referring to “that grace by which apostles are commissioned to the service of the gospel.” Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, In The Anchor Bible, vol. 32a.

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 287. Yet, this makes no sense. For the ministry that Paul was talking about was “διʼ ὑμᾶς” (for your sake), as Thrall points out. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 344-45. How was Paul’s apostleship suppose to spread through the Corinthians? Thus I agree with Thrall, as do Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 356. and Garland, 2 Corinthains, 237-238. that there is a salvific meaning in ἡ χάρις. So I take ἡ χάρις to be referring back to the grace which Paul was describing in 3:12-18.

[6] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 358.

[7] This “outer self” should not be understood to refer to the same concept as “the old man” Paul talks about in Romans. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 350; Furnish, II Corinthians, 289. It is to be taken as speaking to “his life as a mere man.” Martin, 2 Corinthians, 91.

[8] Garland, 2 Corinthains, 240

[9] Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 348.

[10] Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 250.

[11] Garland, 2 Corinthains, 240

[12] Much discussion has occurred on the topic of anthropology because of Paul’s statements of the “inner man” and “outer man.” The debate centers on dualism and the nature of body and soul. Such a discussion does not affect the thesis of this paper so it will be passed by. Sufficient to conclude on this matter is Garland’s admonition no to divorce these verses from the resurrection theme coming in 5:1-10. Ibid., 245.

[13] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 855.

[14] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 174-182.

[15] Romano Penna, Paul The Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike, vol. 1. trans. Thomas P. Wahl. (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1996), 232.

[16] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 855.

[17] Garland, 2 Corinthians, 245.

[18] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 367.

[19] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 370. See Also Furnish, II Corinthians, 292

[20] Barrett, , A Commentary on The Second Epistle to The Corinthians, 150. Plummer, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 142. and Thrall The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 360. would see it as a genitive of apposition. The meaning of the phrase, however, is not changed by this.

[21] A issue is raised about meaning of  ἔχομεν being a present active. What does Paul mean when he says that we have this dwelling from God in the present? Garland would see the verb meaning that we receive a resurrection body immediately upon our death. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 251-252.

However it is best to take the present as a futuristic present. Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 64. Cf. also Plummer, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 144 and Barrett, A Commentary on The Second Epistle to The Corinthians, 151. Also, understanding the verb in this way would not cause a problem with the word γυμνοὶ in verse 3. Cf. Ben Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World (Downners Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 205-206.

[22] Barrett, A Commentary on The Second Epistle to The Corinthians, 151.

[23] Furnish, II Corinthians, 293

[24] For a good summary of the literary evidence behind this understanding of the term see Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 357-359.

[25] Ibid., 360-367.

[26] Garland, 2 Corinthians, 250-51, Plummer, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 142. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 103. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 367.

[27] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 372.

[28] Although, while the primary understanding of these terms should be a body. One should not throw out, all together, a temple conection being made by Paul here. Our bodies are presently the temple of God (1 Cor 6:19). And Beale points out that the phrase, “not made with hands,” is “virtually everywhere else a technical way of speaking about the new eschatological temple. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology, vol 17. ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 257. Also, one can make the association of the “tent” with the tabernacle. Thrall would even allow tabernacle imagery to remain while not making it the primary meaning, Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 361-362. Thus, the idea that Paul is making a temple connection here should not be dismissed entirely. One will have to hold that Paul is talking about the real resurrection and body and the eschatological temple at the same time.

[29] Nestle-Aland 27th edition chose to go with ἐκδυσάμενοι as the best reading, thus rendering the translation of the word “putting off.” However, the variant reading should be preferred in this instance and translated “putting on.” Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Streams, Ill: Tyndale House, 2008), 541. Cf. Also Margaret E. Thrall, “‘Putting on’ or ‘Stripping off’ in 2 Corinthians 5:3,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance of Exegesis, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1981), 221-238.

[30] Taken from Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 385

[31] Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), S. 1:773-774. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1996, c1989), S. 2:53. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. and trans. Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilber Gingrich [BDAG], 3rd Edition. (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. “γυμνός”

[32] And there can be different types of this “moral” belief. For example, Furnish would see “having once clothed ourselves” in verse 3 referring to baptism. Thus naked is denying one’s baptism and so being found alienated from Christ. Furnish, II Corinthians, 298.

[33] Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 66.

[34] Barrett, A Commentary on The Second Epistle to The Corinthians, 156. Martin, 2 Corinthians, 105-106. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 387-388. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 259-260. Plummer, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 147. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 379. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 66

[35] This should not be taken as if Paul does not believe in an intermediate state. See fn. 38 below for a fuller discussion on this issue.

[36] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 394

[37] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 631. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 395.

[38] There is a question about the intermediate state when looking at verse 8. Is Paul saying that there is a state of being bodiless which one enters into while they await the resurrection? Or should Paul’s desire not to be found bodiless in verse 3 deny such a belief?

Verses 3 and 4 should not be seen as denying the intermediate state. Two reasons can be given for this. The first is that the topic of an intermediate state is not a concern for Paul at this point. Just as it is with the argument against the “garment” understanding of clothing, an interjection about the intermediate state is out of context. What Paul is arguing for is the greatness of the future body that he will posses. We should not try to read too much about a particular question into one term when the context is not about the particular question. The second one is that just because Paul does not want to exist in a bodiless state does not mean that he would deny such state. He does clearly, though sparsely, speak of being with the Lord right after he would die (2 Cor 5:8, Phil 1:23). Paul’s focus on the intermediate state is lacking “precisely because it is intermediate and temporary.” Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 466. He does not look to the intermediate state but beyond it. He is not against the intermediate state and would rather be in it but, “His preference is for the final state.” Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 367.

For a defense that the intermediate state is being referred to in verse 8 see Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 400-401.

[39] Barrett, A Commentary on The Second Epistle to The Corinthians, 158.

[40] Furnish, II Corinthians, 304.

[41] Martin, 2 Corinthians, 114.

[42] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 408-409

[43] Ibid., 409.

[44] Schreiner, Paul, 283.

[45] Ibid., 470.

[46] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 852-853.

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus

May 20, 2010 in Bible, Paper | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

So yeah, I am excited! The newest Southern Baptist Journal of Theology is coming out soon and topic will be on eschatology.

But the article I am most excited about is Peter J. Gentry‘s article, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus,”SBJT 14.1 (2010): 26–45. SBJT has graciously allowed the article to go up on the internet. Thanks to Dr. Hamilton for alerting everyone to this.

The Bible

The Gospel

My Church

My Schools

Follow Me

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 976 other subscribers

Support Biblical Training.Org