[B-Greek] 2Cor 3:15-16 hHNIKA ... AN

Donald Cobb docobb at orange.fr
Sat Feb 13 05:33:52 EST 2010


The following message did not get through the first time. My apologies 
if some of you receive it twice.

DC

=========
Dear Blue,

Dear Blue,

I unfortunately do not have the time right now to persure this thread, 
in which a lot has already been seen. I think much more so than what has 
been said, there are hermeneutical and interpretive issues mixed into 
many comments.

2 Corinthians 3 is a wonderful and frustratingly allusive (and elusive!) 
passage. Parts of it have already come up for discussion at various 
times over the last year or so that I've been more or less following 
B-Greek (and probably several times before that). To respond to your 
question, I think one of the complicating factors is that the veil 
actually has multiple referants and "locations":

- In vv. 12-13, it is a physical veil placed over Moses physical face, 
to keep people from gazing at the fading glory (i.e., from seeing that 
the glory of the old covenant was fading and disappearing).
- However, since Jewish attachment to the Torah has precluded many from 
recognizing that the glory of Christ's coming far outshines the glory of 
the "Old Covenant", Paul, in "midrashic" or allegorical fashion, 
transforms the physical veil into a spiritual one, and one that is no 
longer on Moses' face but in the hearts of the members of the synagogue.
- As F. Watson (*Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith*) and others have 
pointed out, Paul is also taking Moses as a representation of the Mosaic 
covenant. When Moses (i.e., the Law) is read there is a (spiritual) veil 
that prevents his hearers from seeing that the glory of that covenant is 
disappearing.
- Finally, that veil, negatively, is seen as having been removed from 
the readers' hearts (v. 18, "we all"). Paul opens up the metaphor there 
to include all believers (not only Jewish Christians) and states what 
happens generally in the New Covenant.

I personally continue to be convinced that questions of "conditionality" 
are not really in Paul's pureview in this passage. I think he is trying 
to state what he sees happening, both in the first century synagogue and 
in his own ministry. He describes that through the use of the Exodus 
passage and what "did actually take place" in the Mosaic covenant (Ex 
34:34).

Most of what has been said up to now leaves to one side the central 
point of this whole passage, i.e., that Paul, being accused by (probably 
Jewish Christian) adversaries of acting insincerely, with hidden 
motives, states 1) that he is acting transparently (πολλῆ παρρησίᾳ 
χρώμεθα, POLLH PARRHSIA XRWMEQA, v. 12) with an unveiled "face", i.e., 
heart and 2) that that is the basic reality of the new covenant 
ministry, i.e., "unveildness". The very character of the New covenant as 
it actually plays itself out in Paul's ministry precludes his acting 
with a "veil". 3) That unveiling also gives a "freedom" that the Old 
Covenant messianism the Jewish Christians are seeking to foist upon 
Pauline churches, can never give.

I recognize that, having said all that, we are far into the realm of 
interpretation, and as I already mentioned, I think it's as much in the 
area of interpretation as in grammatical issues that the various 
statements have come out.

Blessings,

Donald Cobb
Aix-en-Provence



Blue Meeksbay a écrit :

Dear Brian, Donald or both:
 
< I know this thread has been played out and you may not desire to answer – that is fine, I do not want to start it up again, but this thread was very interesting, and I hope you can address one last question.  I hope I correctly understood both of your views. Even though you agreed to disagree, it seems sometimes your points were not that far apart, at least, on some things.  
 
Much has been said about the basis of Paul’s discourse being the account recorded in Ex. 34.  One thing has always bothered me about this passage. Why, when we come to the account in II Cor. 3, do we believe the veil is over the hearts Israelites? If we follow the example of Ex. 34, do we not have to conclude that the veil is over the face of Moses? It seems the analogy demands this, and, indeed, this seems to be what Paul emphatically declares in verse 14 – "ACRI GAR THS SHMERON hHMERAS TO AUTO KALUMMA EPI THi ANAGNWSEI THS PALAIAS DIAQHKHS MENEI..."  He says TO AUTO KALUMMA (the veil over Moses) remains unlifted. It does not tell us the veil is transferred to the Israelites. Is this not what "TO AUTO KALUMMA" is telling us? >






More information about the B-Greek mailing list