Tag Archives: the New Covenant

Uncategorized

The Jesus Covenant, Part 9: The Mysterious 2 Corinthians 3

6 Comments

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

–2 Corinthians 3 (ESV)

After my brief detour into Ephesians 2 back in Part 7 of this series, and a deeper look at the Abrahamic covenant as it applies to the nations we saw in Part 8, I’m ready to continue pursuing my look at the New Testament scriptures that refer to the New Covenant.

But first, a brief review.

We see Jesus referring to “the covenant” (the word “new” is added in some later texts) in the Last Supper narratives:

  • Matthew 26:26-29
  • Mark 14:22-24
  • Luke 22:19-20

But there are a number of passages in the New Testament letters that specifically refer to the New Covenant. We’ve already examined the following:

Today, we’ll take a look at the above-quoted 2 Corinthians 3, keeping in mind that we still have to address:

  • Hebrews 8:6-7
  • Hebrews 9:15-22

Before continuing, I just want to point something out. Based on the last part of this series, it seems that the primary gateway for the Christian to enter into a covenant relationship with God is through the Abrahamic covenant and specifically, the portion that describes the blessings of the nations through Abraham’s offspring (singular), which we interpret as meaning the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. If the New Covenant (see Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36) is a confirmation, validation, and expansion upon the previous covenants God made with the Children of Israel, then for our purposes, the New Covenant confirms, validates, and expands upon the blessings we receive for the nations that come from God, through Abraham and our faith in Jesus.

OK, here we go with 2 Corinthians 3.

On the surface, this chapter in Paul’s letter tends to confirm the traditional interpretation of the church, that the Law or Torah “was being brought to an end,” supposedly to be replaced by the New Covenant of grace through Christ. I found the following commentary at BibleGateway.com:

What to do when old ways die hard? Paul’s overall approach is not to denigrate the Mosaic covenant but rather to demonstrate the superiority of the new covenant over the old. To do this he uses a Jewish form of argumentation called qal wahwmer, or what today we would label an a fortiori argument (from lesser to greater). His line of reasoning is that if the glory of the old covenant was transient yet came with such overpowering splendor that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of its minister as he descended from Mount Sinai with the tablets of the law, how much greater must the new covenant be, whose splendor is permanent and whose glory does not fade. The implication is that though the Mosaic covenant can impart an initial glory and credibility to its ministers and adherents, because of its transitory character it has no lasting effect. Therefore for these visiting preachers to link themselves with a covenant that is fast becoming obsolete is to suggest that their competency is fading and their credentials are of no lasting importance. It is only the new covenant with its enduring splendor that can impart a permanent and lasting credibility to its ministers.

Paul’s evaluation of the Mosaic ministry is even more to the point. Far from being the key to the victorious Christian life, it is in reality a ministry that brings nothing but death (v. 7) and condemnation (v. 9) to those of God’s people who strive to live by it. To be a minister of the old covenant is therefore to be an instrument of death and destruction. The new covenant ministry, on the other hand, brings the Spirit (v. 8) and righteousness (v. 9). So to be a minister of this covenant is to be an instrument of life and salvation.

I know, the commentary seems pretty hard on the Mosaic covenant and its conditions, the Torah, but then, who is Paul’s audience. Is he addressing a group of Jewish disciples? It seems unlikely. This commentary might make more sense if he’s talking to a group of Gentile disciples of the Jewish Messiah who have been listening to other Jewish teachers emphasize that the Gentile must “obey Torah” and even convert to Judaism.

I have problems with the references to the Mosaic law “going away” but then again, should the Gentile disciples be listening to teachings that say they are to rely only on Torah obedience for the purposes of justification before God? Doesn’t the Abrahamic covenant emphasize faith?

The clue may be in another part of the commentary:

Paul’s emphasis in particular on the greater glory of the new covenant suggests that his opponents associated themselves in some fashion with Moses and the law–but not with its legalistic side, since there is no mention of circumcision or obedience to the law.

Paul’s Gentile audience may have been tempted to take on board the full yoke of Torah (and perhaps even to convert to Judaism) in order to achieve salvation. Is that why Paul refers to the Torah as “the ministry of death” in verse 7? Paul, in Galatians, was very harsh toward the Gentiles who were considering conversion to Judaism, even going so far as to say that if they did so, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross would become meaningless to them. (see Galatians 5:2)

Still, the content of this letter is puzzling, particularly in light of what we read in the Christian commentary:

To speak of the Mosaic covenant as a ministry that dispenses death would have sounded blasphemous to Jewish ears. It was the uniform opinion of the rabbis that what Moses gave the people of Israel were “words of life,” not words of death (as in Exodus Rabbah 29.9).

The BibleGateway.com commentary is quite correct in asserting this, but then how can they follow-up with this statement?

In verses 10-11 Paul takes his argument one final step and advances the idea that the splendor of the old covenant is not only dwindling but also completely eclipsed by the surpassing glory of the new covenant. This is because the Mosaic ministry is temporary, while the new covenant ministry is permanent.

It doesn’t sound like he’s saying that the Law is for the Jews and faith and grace is for the Gentiles, but that indeed, the Law is fading away and has disappeared altogether and has been replaced by the “new covenant.” But how can this be if the New Covenant merely confirms and expands upon all of the previously established covenants including the Abrahamic and Mosaic?

Seeking an alternate interpretation, I found one at torahtimes.org (Note: I know nothing of this ministry and so cannot vouch for their accuracy or legitimacy. I merely report an alternate way of looking at these verses):

It is the nature of a drash דרש to combine texts that on the literal level have little to do with one another in order to make a point. Paul is not trying to tell us that the ten commandments are the ministry of death. The common element in his quotations is the ministry of death, or the ministry that makes rebels guilty. This is what unites the drash. When the text “engraved … in stones” comes together with the text about the veil on Moses face, we must not assume that Paul is saying the two tablets of the ten commandments that Moses had at the time. That’s not how one interprets a drash. You have to find the homiletical theme of the two quotations and not assume that the use of the two texts mean anything other than what they are used for. The ministry of death in the stones were the curses inscribed upon Mt. Ebal when Israel came into the land. It’s mention next to Moses face is not Paul’s intent to confuse the literal facts but to give a homily on the ministry of death” (torahtimes.org, DLC).

Because I don’t like posting content from a source I am unsure of, I tried to find out something about the commentary’s author Daniel Gregg. I discovered something about him on Derek Leman’s blog. You can read the content there and make whatever evaluation of Mr. Gregg’s legitimacy as a Biblical interpreter you see fit.

That said, Gregg’s interpretation does point out that we may be missing something by trying to understand Paul’s letter in terms of modern Christian thought. Paul’s entire world view was as a Jew and a teacher, and his commentaries on the older scriptures were most likely to be a halalach interpretation that operates outside of traditional Christian thinking. In that sense, we may not easily grasp the meaning behind how Paul (apparently) speaks against the Law or defines it as being ended or fading away, Gentile audience notwithstanding.

My last source, the Rosh Pina Project has a viewpoint that seems to dovetail with Gregg’s (please click the link and read the entire commentary for the full context):

If the Ten Commandments are the ministry of death and condemnation, there is no way we can find life in them. The Ten Commandments are the ministry of death and condemnation, and not because they themselves are unrighteous. They are the ministry of death and condemnation because they show us to be unrighteous, and they show how utterly incapable we are of obeying God’s commandments.

From my own point of view, my reach may have exceeded my grasp. I don’t know what to make out of 2 Corinthians 3. If I maintain my basic assumption that the New Covenant cannot undo or replace the older covenants God made with Israel, then the surface meaning of Paul’s words and the traditional Christian interpretation of this chapter cannot be correct. The closest interpretation that fits my paradigm is the aforementioned Rosh Pina Project, and in this case, they say the Torah is only inadequate because we are inadequate.

Our incapability to serve or honour God through the commands which he decreed should force us to our knees, to cry out for mercy, and to place our trust in the atoning death and triumphant resurrection of Moshiach, without whom all our ‘righteous acts’ are like filthy rags before the Holy One.

I don’t know if I find that a completely satisfying explanation for everything Paul writes in this chapter, but I think it points in the right direction. Your opinions may provide more illumination in uncovering the mystery. Then we’ll proceed to Part 10 and Hebrews.

Uncategorized

The Jesus Covenant, Part 7: Sampling Ephesians

6 Comments

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands — remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

–Ephesians 2:11-22 (ESV)

I suppose this is something of a detour from the recommended reading list for the New Covenant I presented in Part 6 of this series, but a person named “Zion” (presumably, not his real name) suggested I put it at the top of my list in a comment he made on another one of my blog posts:

Ephesians 2 establishes gentiles as now part of the covenants, which I wonder how you deal with such, as I have never seen you address Ephesians.

Really? That only sort of lines up with the path I’ve been following thus far. On the other hand, I do want to be fair, and hence, my taking a small detour into Ephesians 2 and sampling the relevant verses in that part of Paul’s letter.

I feel that after reading the relevant portion of Paul’s aforementioned letter, my original response to Zion on the previously referenced blog post will do quite nicely as my analysis of this scripture’s relationship (or not) to the New Covenant.

The quote begins here (I’ve edited my original comments somewhat to make it more relevant)—

I read Ephesians 2 (ESV) and particularly verses 11-22 which are supposedly the ones that should lead me to believe that Jews and Gentiles in Christ have both been made “one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” (vv 14-15)

So Christ made Jews and Gentiles one by abolishing the law, which is how most traditional Christians read it. Sorry, but I disagree. Being “one” doesn’t necessarily mean we’re a single, great, homogeneous mass of humanity (but I know you don’t believe this because of our past conversations).

However, if you don’t believe in the absolute obliteration of Jewish and Gentile distinctions, then “one new man” can’t possibly mean to you what it means to a lot of traditional Christians. For all I know, the law of “commandments expressed in ordinances” that was abolished was the halakhah of Paul’s day that erroneously stated that a Jew even entering a Gentile’s home made the Jew unclean (see Acts 10). That’s just a guess of course, but it’s as good as any.

I’ll assume (though I’ve been wrong before) that you’re focusing on vv 19-20:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, (or sojourners) but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone…”

I suppose another way of saying it would be that “you are no longer strangers and God-fearers…” meaning that the non-Jewish disciples entered into a covenant relationship with God through Israel and specifically the living embodiment of Israel, Jesus Christ.

Verse 22 is interesting: “In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.”

In fact, this whole sequence of verses reminds me of an argument I once made relative to the Good Shepherd:

“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” –John 10:16 (ESV)

I once tried to make an argument that Gentiles and Jews are equal in the Messiah across all theological attributes because we are two pens that have been merged into a single flock with Jesus as our good shepherd. Nearly two years ago, I wrote about the results of a conversation between Gene and I which I called Lamb Chop. You can read the whole blog rather than have me copy and paste all the text over here. You should know that Ovadia’s blog no longer exists (that info will make sense when you read “Lamb Chop”) and I can only find “Shelters and Housing for Sheep and Goats” at issuu.com now, which is not the ideal interface for reading the document (but it’s better than nothing).

The core statement from “Lamb Chop” is this:

“Farmers have many sheep pens on a farm for the same flock. When it’s time to lead the flock to pasture you let them all to lead them to pasture. After they return from feeding, a shepherd separates each sheep into their respective pens.”

You can be part of the same flock but for various reasons, still be kept in different “pens”. That’s how I consider myself as being “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…” (Eph. 2:19) We can be fellow citizens of the household of God as covenant people, and I believe we all are, Jews and Christians alike, but trying to either eliminate our covenant distinctions or “shoehorning” the Sinai covenant into the Gentile sheep pen (forgive the mixed metaphor) seems a bit of a stretch given the text available.

—That was the entirety of my blog comment response but not of my thinking on the matter.

So what were we before we came to God through Christ and what are we now? Consider something from last week’s Torah Portion:

They provoked Me with a non-god, angered Me with their vanities; so shall I provoke them with a non-people, with a vile nation shall I anger them.

–Deuteronomy 32:21 (Stone Edition Chumash)

This compares well with both of the following:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience – among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

–Ephesians 2:1-3 (ESV)

Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

–1 Peter 2:10 (ESV)

The commentary for Deut. 32:21 in the Chumash states:

Israel angered God by worshiping deities that had no power or value. Measure for measure, God will let them be defeated and subjugated by nations that have no cultural or moral worth…

All of that describes us, the nations of the earth before coming to Christ and through him, being reconciled to God.

Not a pretty picture, but it gets worse.

Not for our sake, Hashem, not for our sake, but for Your Name’s sake give glory, for Your kindness and for Your truth! Why should the nations say, ‘Where now is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; whatever He pleases, He does! Their idols are silver and gold, the handiwork of man. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see; they have ears, but cannot hear; they have a nose, but cannot smell. Their hands – they cannot feel; their feet – they cannot walk; they cannot utter a sound from their throat. Those who make them should become like them, whoever trusts in them!

–Psalm 115:1-8 (Stone Edition Tanakh)

That’s us, or rather, that was us before turning away from our sins, repenting, confessing Christ, and coming to God. That was the state of Paul’s audience in his letter to the Ephesians before they too became disciples of the Master and worshipers of the God of Israel.

But what did they become and indeed, what do we become when we start calling ourselves Christians; when we choose to escape our fate as people of “nations that have no cultural or moral worth?”

Did we become “Jews” and convert to “Judaism?” It would appear not, even though it seems possible that some non-Jews did convert to Judaism in Paul’s day. In fact, the formerly-pagan Gentiles couldn’t have automatically converted to Judaism when they first became disciples of the Jewish Messiah. Here’s why.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

–Galatians 5:2-3 (ESV)

So when we stopped being pagan idol worshipers, if we didn’t become Jews and start practicing Judaism, what did we become and what did we start doing? Did we become “Israelites” and convert to some sort of “Israelism”. I’ve recently discovered a term and a movement called Adonaism, so did we convert to that and become “Adonai-ites?”

For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

–Acts 11:26 (ESV)

According to traditional Christianity, it was the Jews who surrendered their Judaism and converted to Christianity, but my long-term readers know I reject this claim. Rather, the Jews who came to faith in Jesus as Messiah became one of the number of sects of Judaism that existed at that time, in this case, a Judaism referred to as “the Way” or “the Nazarenes.” Christianity is just another way of saying “Messianism” or “Messianic,” so I suppose we could render Acts 11:26 as saying in part, “And in Antioch, the disciples were first called Messianics.”

But that still doesn’t appear to provide any differentiation between the Gentile and Jewish believers. We only know that prior to coming to Christ, the Gentiles were totally lost, separated from God and from His covenant people Israel. In entering into covenant with God through Christ (through the Abrahamic and New Covenants, though they are not specifically mentioned in Ephesians 2), we, along with Israel, have entered into closeness with our God.

But Israel was a covenant people long before the coming of the Messiah as recorded in the Gospels. We Gentiles depend totally and completely upon Christ to enter into any kind of relationship with God at all. The Jews, on the other hand, have had such a relationship with God since Moses and arguably, since the days of Abraham. We have not. That does not mean that the Jews do not need the Messiah. Far from it. In Judaism, it is well-known that the Messiah will restore all of Israel; all of the people; all of the Jews, to national and personal redemption and reconciliation with God, restoring them as the most honored among all nations; bringing to them the full measure of the promises.

And if their nation is not restored and their covenants are not all upheld, we Christians have no hope, because it is through those covenants; through Israel itself; through her firstborn son, the Jewish Messiah alone that we are also saved. It is in our own best interest as Christians to uphold and support the Jewish return to Torah as their birthright as a people, and to claim all of Israel as their national heritage.

So who are we?

We are sheep. We are sheep from a certain pen, a really, really big pen. The Jews are also sheep in a pen but a different pen from ours. Yes, we were all brought together in the same flock and indeed, we all answer (or someday will answer) to the voice of our one “good shepherd.” We Gentiles were once far off but have been brought near (which is not the same as being fused into) the people of Israel. We have commonality with the Jews in that we enjoy covenant relationship with God, but this does not change or diminish the specialness and the uniqueness of the specifically Jewish covenant responsibilities they alone must discharge for Hashem.

But why should we complain? We have been grafted into the root and from its sap, we are given life; eternal life with God through Jesus Christ. What more could we want?

Part 8 goes back to the roots of this series and takes a closer look at Abraham and why the covenant he made with God is so important to Christians.

Update, October 18, 2012: I found a rather interesting interpretation of Ephesians 2 and the “one new man” passage that quite clarifies my position. Go to a comment made by someone named “benkeshet” on Gene Shlomovich’s blog for the details.