The apostle shows that he does not need to commend himself or to be commended by the Corinthians; that God had qualified him for the work of a minister of the new, and not of the old covenant, vs. 1-11. He exercised his ministry in accordance with the peculiar character of the new dispensation, vs. 12-18.

PROOF OF THE APOSTLE’S FITNESS FOR HIS WORK, AND ITS NATURE. VS. 1-11.

Although the concluding paragraph of the preceding chapter contained a strong assertion of the integrity and fidelity of the apostle, he says, it was not written for the purpose of self-commendation. He needed no commendation from any source, v. 1. The Corinthians themselves were his commendation. Their conversion was an epistle of Christ authenticating his mission and his fidelity, which all men could read, vs. 2, 3. His fitness or sufficiency for his work was due in no measure to himself, but to God, who had endowed him with the qualifications of a minister of the new covenant, vs. 4-6. This covenant and its ministry are far superior to the old covenant and the ministry of Moses, because the one was a ministry of death, the other of life; the one was of condemnation, the other of righteousness; the glory of the one was transient, the glory of the other is abiding, vs. 7-11. 1. Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some (others), epistles of commendation to you, or (letters) of commendation from you ?

Many of the peculiarities of this epistle are due to the fact that at the time of writing it the apostle’s mind was filled with conflicting feelings. On the one hand, he was filled with gratitude to God and love to the Corinthians on account of their repentance and ready obedience; and on the other, with feelings of indignation at the perverse and wicked course adopted by the false teachers in Corinth. Hence even in the expression of the former class of feelings, he is interrupted or turned aside by the thought that his opponents were on the watch to turn every thing to his disadvantage.

Thus although there was nothing of a spirit of self-commendation in his thanking God for causing him to triumph, or in the assertion of his sincerity, in 1:15-17, yet he knew that his enemies would put that construction on what he had said. He seems to hear them say, ‘He is commending himself again.’ It is plain from the use of the word again in this connection that the charge of praising himself had before been made against the apostle, whether founded on his former epistle or what he said on other occasions, is uncertain and unimportant.

The authorities are divided as to whether hj mh or eij mh is the true reading in the following clause. If the former, the sense is, “Or do we need,” etc.; if the latter, “Unless we need,” etc. The latter gives an ironical turn to the passage. The apostle sets it forth as certain that his apostolic mission and authority were so authenticated, that he did not need, as certain people did, letters of commendation either to them or from them. These false teachers had no doubt gained access to Corinth on the strength of certain letters of recommendation. They were so little known and had so little character, that when they went elsewhere, they would need to be commended by the Corinthians. With Paul the case was different. 2. Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men . Ye are our epistle , etc., or, The epistle which we have ye are . You as Christians, your conversion is, as it were, a letter from Christ himself authenticating our mission and fidelity. Written in our hearts . The plural form, our hearts , may be explained either on the assumption that the apostle is speaking of Timothy as well as of himself; or on the ground that he says hearts instead of heart for the same reason that he says We instead of I ; or that the word is used figuratively for the affections. It is not Paul’s manner to make his associates the joint authors of his letters, and in no one of his epistles does he speak more out of the fullness of his personal feelings than he does in this. It was not Timothy who was accused of self-commendation, who needed no letters of commendation, and it was not of Timothy’s mission that the conversion of the Corinthians was the authentication, and therefore it was not in Timothy’s heart that the epistle referred to was written. Paul is speaking of himself. A thing is said to be written in the heart when it is a matter of consciousness; when it is a matter of subjective, as distinguished from objective knowledge. Thus the law of God is said to be written on the heart when the knowledge of it is inward and not merely outward. Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10; Romans 2:15. Any thing of which a man is certain, or of which he has a conviction founded upon his inward experience, may be said to be written on his heart. That the Corinthians were his epistle was to the apostle a matter of consciousness. It was a letter written on his heart which he could neither misunderstand nor be ignorant of. Comp. Romans 10:8. Any thing also that is very dear to us is said to be written on the heart, or to be in the heart. So Paul says to the Corinthians, “Ye are in our hearts,” 7:3.

The apostle therefore may be understood to mean either that he was perfectly certain that the conversion of the Corinthians was for him a letter of commendation; or that it was most dear to him. A letter cherished in his heart. The context is in favor of making the former idea the prominent one. This letter, however, was not only well known to the apostle, it was known and read of all men . It was a palpable evidence of his divine mission, which no one could be ignorant of, and which no one could gainsay. Men could not doubt its genuineness, nor could they question its import. He expresses the same idea when he says, “The seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 9:2. 3. (Forasmuch as ye are) manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.

The fact that the Corinthians were to Paul an epistle of commendation, is here confirmed; uJmei~v — fanerou>menoi o[ti ejste>, ye are conspicuous or publicly known as the epistle of Christ . That is, an epistle of which Christ is the author. Ministered by us . The conversion of the Corinthians was the work of Christ, effected by the ministry of Paul. Considered as a letter, they were a letter of Christ written by the hand of Paul as Christ’s instrument. The importance or superior worth of this epistle is set forth in what follows by a twofold contrast or comparison. First, it was not a letter written with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God. Any man could write with ink; Christ alone can write with the Spirit of God. This is a figurative way of expressing the idea that the conversion of the Corinthians was a divine, supernatural work, and therefore an irrefragable proof that Paul, by whose instrumentality the work was effected, was the minister of Christ. This was a letter, therefore, infinitely above any ordinary letter written with ink. Secondly, it was not an outward, but an inward, spiritual work. The decalogue, written on tables of stone by the finger of God, was indeed a divine work, and proved the divine mission of Moses; but what was that to writing the law upon the fleshly tables of the heart! The work of regeneration and sanctification is always represented in the Scripture as a much higher manifestation of divine power and grace than any mere external miracle. In predicting the new dispensation in contrast with the old, God says, “Behold the days come when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, — but I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,” Jeremiah 31:31-33. To this the apostle evidently refers to show that the evidence of his mission was of a higher character than that of Moses, and that his ministry was far more exalted and glorious.

Instead of the genitive, kardi>av , the great body of ancient MSS have the dative, kardi>aiv; on tables which are hearts of flesh , instead of fleshly tables of the heart . The majority of editors adhere to the common text on the authority of the Greek fathers. The sense is the same. 4. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward .

This confidence in the divinity and glory of his mission, and in his sufficiency for the apostleship he had from Christ and in the presence of God. It was a confidence so strong (and yet so humble) that it did not quail even under the eye of God; much less therefore under the scrutiny of the bleared eyes of his opponents. Such confidence , not merely confidence in the fact that the Corinthians were to him a letter of commendation, but the confidence expressed in the whole context, and especially in 2:15-17. This confidence he had through Christ . It was not self-confidence. It was not the consciousness of superior excellence, but a conviction of the truth of the gospel and of the reality of that vocation which he had received from Christ. This confidence of the apostle that he was what God had called him to be, an able or fit minister of the gospel, was not a trait of natural character; it was not a conclusion from his inward and outward experience; it was one of the forms in which the Spirit of God which was in him manifested itself; just as that Spirit manifested itself in his humility, faith, courage, or constancy. It is easy to determine whether such confidence is self-inflation, or the strength of God in the soul. If the former, it has its natural concomitants of pride, arrogance, indifference, contempt of others. If the latter, it is attended by self-abhorrence, meekness, long-suffering, a willingness to be the least and lowest, and by all other graces of the Spirit. To God-ward , pron . This may mean in reference to God, i.e. a confidence exercised toward God as its object. Or, pro>v may be used here as in Romans 4:2. Abraham, it is there said, had no kau>chma ground of boasting , pron , before God ; that is, none that could stand his inspection. Paul says he had a confidence before God; that is, one which could endure in his sight. 5. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency (is) of God .

The apostle had strongly asserted his sufficiency or fitness for his work.

He here tells us what was not, and then what was, the source of his sufficiency. Not that , i.e. I do not say, or, I do not mean, that we are sufficient of ourselves. In most of the older MSS the words ajfÆ eJautw~n of ourselves , stand after logi>zasqai> ti , “sufficient to think any thing of ourselves,” instead of, as in the common text, ‘sufficient of ourselves to think any thing.’ The former order of the words has greater authority, and gives perhaps the better sense. There is a difference in the prepositions in Greek which is not expressed in the English. Paul says his sufficiency or ability to think any thing was not ajfÆ eautw~n wJv ejx eautw~n , not from himself as out of himself. He was not the source of this sufficiency either remotely or immediately. We should express much the same idea by saying, ‘Our sufficiency is not in or of ourselves.’ Comp. Galatians 1:1.

What he disclaims is sufficiency or ability to think any thing ; the implication is any thing right or good. He had no power of himself to accomplish any thing. His fitness for his work, whether consisting in knowledge, or grace, or fidelity, or efficiency, did not arise out of any thing he was in or of himself. The word logi>zqasqai does not here mean to judge , or to think out or determine . The idea is not that Paul was of himself unable to judge what was best and right, i.e. to think out the means of rendering his ministry successful. The word is to be taken in its simplest sense, to think . Thought is the lowest form of our efficiency, in so far as it is much easier to think good, than either to will or to do it. Paul means to say that so far as the subject in hand is concerned, he could do nothing, not even think. He was in himself absolutely empty and powerless. Our sufficiency is of God . All our fitness for our work — all our knowledge, holiness and power are of God. They are neither self-acquired nor self-sustained. I am nothing, the apostle would say; God in me is every thing. The same truth and feeling are expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:10. 6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life .

This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The relative oJv is here used as in Luke 8:13, and elsewhere, as implying the cause or reason. Our sufficiency is of God, who ; equivalent to for he hath made us able ministers. The same radical word is retained, iJka>nwse hath rendered us iJkanou>v , sufficient , able, well qualified, ministers of the new testament , kainh~v diaqh>khv of the new covenant , as the word diaqh>kh always means in the New Testament, unless Hebrews 9:16 be an exception.

The covenant formed between God and the Hebrews at Mount Sinai is called the Old Covenant; the gospel dispensation as distinguished from the Mosaic is called the New Covenant. Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:8,9,15; etc. As, however, the promises of the gospel, and especially the great promise of redemption by the blood of Christ, underlay both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, the plan of salvation or the covenant of grace, is also called the New Covenant, although older than the Mosaic covenant, to distinguish it from the covenant of works formed with Adam. This gives rise to no little obscurity. It is not always easy to determine whether the words “new covenant” refer to the gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant of grace inaugurated in the first promise made to our fallen parents. And in like manner it is not easy always to decide whether the words the “old covenant” designate the Mosaic covenant or the covenant of works. The context must in every case be our guide in deciding these questions. In the present case it is plain that by the New Covenant the apostle means the gospel as distinguished from the Law, — the Christian as distinguished from the Mosaic dispensation. It was of that he was made a minister, and it is that which he contrasts with the Old Testament economy. Not of the letter, but of the spirit . These words admit of two constructions. They may depend on the word covenant. ‘Covenant not of the letter, but of the spirit.’ They thus determine the nature of the New Covenant as being not of the letter but of the spirit. This is the construction adopted by perhaps the majority of modern commentators.

The older interpreters, followed by our translators, make the words in question depend on ministers . “Ministers not of the letter, but of the spirit.” This latter is not only more familiar to the readers of the English version, but is favored by the whole context. Paul contrasts two dispensations; one he calls the letter, the other the spirit. He says he is minister of the one, not of the other, and afterwards, vs. 7, 8, he speaks of the ministry of death and ministry of the spirit; the ministry of condemnation and the ministry of righteousness. That the words letter and spirit as here used mean the law and the gospel is plain, first, because it is the law and the gospel which he proceeds to compare in the following verses, and secondly, because these are terms which he elsewhere uses in the same sense. Thus in Romans 7:6 he speaks of the oldness of the letter and newness of the spirit. In Romans 2:27 he characterizes the Jew as being of the letter, i.e. as having the law. Comp. also Galatians 3:3. If it be asked what is the ground of these designations, why the law is called letter , and the gospel spirit , it may be answered in the first place, that the law is called gra>mma , letter , for the same reason that it is called gra>fh , scripture . It was something written. Not only was the decalogue, the kernel of the Mosaic economy, originally written on stones, but the whole law was a volume known as the writings . And in the second place, the law as written was something external and objective. It was addressed to the eye, to the ear, to the understanding. It was not an inward principle or power. It held up the rule of duty to which men were to be conformed, but it could not impart the disposition or ability to obey. It was, as it were, a mere writing or book. On the other hand, the gospel is spiritual, as distinguished from what was external and ritual. It is the power of God, Romans 1:6; the organ through which the Spirit works in giving life to the soul. These words therefore express concisely the characteristic difference between the law and the gospel. The one was external, the other spiritual; the one was an outward precept, the other an inward power. In the one case the law was written on stone, in the other on the heart. The one therefore was letter , the other spirit . For the letter (i.e. the law) killeth , but the spirit (i.e. the gospel) giveth life .

This is the reason why God hath made Paul the minister of the spirit. ‘God had made us able ministers not of the law but of the gospel, for the law kills, but the gospel gives life.’ This passage and the following context present two important questions. First, in what sense does the law kill?

And second, How is it that the apostle attributes to the Mosaic system this purely legal character, when he elsewhere so plainly teaches that the gospel was witnessed or taught both in the law and the prophets? As to the former of these questions, the answer furnished by the Scriptures is plain. The law demands perfect obedience. It says, “Do this and live,” Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12, and “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them,” Galatians 3:10. As no man renders this perfect obedience, the law condemns him. It pronounces on him the sentence of death. This is one way in which it kills. In the second place, it produces the knowledge or consciousness of sin, and of course of guilt, that is, of just exposure to the wrath of God. Thus again it slays. And thirdly, by presenting the perfect standard of duty, which cannot be seen without awakening the sense of obligation to be conformed to it, while it imparts no disposition or power to obey, it exasperates the soul and thus again it brings forth fruit unto death. All these effects of the law are systematically presented by the apostle in the 6th and 7th chapters of his epistle to the Romans, and in the 3rd chapter of the epistle to the Galatians.

The second question is more difficult. Every reader of the New Testament must be struck with the fact that the apostle often speaks of the Mosaic law as he does of the moral law considered as, a covenant of works; that is, presenting the promise of life on the condition of perfect obedience. He represents it as saying, Do this and live; as requiring works, and not faith, as the condition of acceptance. Romans 10:5-10; Galatians 3:10-12.

He calls it a ministration of death and condemnation. He denies that it can give life. Galatians 3:21. He tells those who are of the law (that is, Judaizers) that they had fallen from grace; that is, had renounced the gratuitous method of salvation, and that Christ should profit them nothing. Galatians 5:2,4. In short, when he uses the word law, and says that by the law is the knowledge of sin, that it can only condemn, that by its works no flesh can be justified, he includes the Mosaic law; and in the epistle to the Galatians all these things are said with special reference to the law of Moses. On the other hand, however, he teaches that the plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning; that Christ was the propitiation for the sins committed under the old covenant; that men were saved then as now by faith in Christ; that this mode of salvation was revealed to Abraham and understood by him, and taught by Moses and the prophets. This view is presented repeatedly in Paul’s epistles, and is argued out in due form in Romans 3:21-31, Romans 4, and Galatians 3. To reconcile these apparently conflicting representations it must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of it under one aspect, is not true under another. 1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, “What is written in the law? How readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live,” Luke 10:26-28. This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death.

This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. 2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience.

Under this aspect also it was purely legal. But, 3. As the gospel contains a renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through a Redeemer.

This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation. It was those who trusted, not those free from sin, who were saved. Thus Moses wrote of Christ, John 5:46; and thus the law and the prophets witnessed of a righteousness of faith, Romans 3:21. When therefore the apostle spoke of the old covenant under its legal aspect, and especially when speaking to those who rejected the gospel and clung to the law of Moses as law, then he says, it kills, or is the ministration of condemnation. But when viewing it, and especially when speaking of those who viewed it as setting forth the great doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, he represented it as teaching his own doctrine.

The law, in every form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demanding works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Testament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the light in which it was viewed. And therefore Paul sometimes says it does the one, and sometimes the other. But the spirit giveth life . The spirit, or the gospel, gives life in a sense correlative to that in which the letter (i.e. the law) kills. 1. By revealing a righteousness adequate to our justification, and thus delivering us from the sentence of death. 2. By producing the assurance of God’s love and the hope of his glory in the place of a dread of his wrath. 3. By becoming, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, an inward principle or power transforming us into the image of God; instead of a mere outward command. 7, 8. But if the ministration of death, written (and) engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which (glory) was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?

It was the design and effect of the law to kill. This is true, so far as the work of salvation is concerned, of the law in all its forms, whether the moral law as revealed in the Scriptures, or as written in the heart, or as the Mosaic law. In all these forms it was designed to bring men to the knowledge of sin and helplessness; to produce a sense of guilt and misery, and a longing for redemption, and thus be a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. Galatians 3:24. This was a necessary office, and therefore glorious. But how can it compare with the gospel? How can that which only makes us know that we are sinful and condemned, be compared with that which delivers us from sin and condemnation? This is the idea which the apostle expands, and, as it were with exultation, turns over as though he could not let it go, in vs. 7-11. But if the ministration of death, written (and) graven in stones . The Greek is, eji de< hJ diakoni>a tou~ qana>tou ejn gra>mmasin e[ntetupwme>nh ejn li>qoiv , but if the ministration of death in letters engraven in stones . The simplest interpretation of these words is that the ministration of death was in letters, i.e. by means of letters, engraven on stone; which is the sense expressed by the free translation given in our common version. According to this view ejn gra>mmasin are connected with what follows. But more commonly they are connected with what precedes; the ministration of death in letters , which Luther makes to mean, “the ministration which by means of letters (i.e. the written law) produces death.” This certainly gives a good sense and consistent with the context; but it is not so simple or natural as the one first mentioned. It will be observed that Paul says that the ministration was engraven on stone. It was, however, of course not the ministration (the office of a minister) but the law itself that was thus engraven. There are two things here stated. First, that Moses was the minister of a covenant that produced death; and secondly, that that covenant was an external economy or system. These two ideas are combined at the expense of mere verbal accuracy in a single clause. The word diakoni>a : ministration , means either the service , i.e. the act of ministering, or the office of a dia>konov or minister. Commonly the former. In what sense the ministry of the law was a ministry of death, and the reason why the law is described as engraven on stone, have already been stated. The law is thus exhibited as external, as opposed to what is spiritual. Was glorious , ejgenh>qh ejn do>xh| , existed in glory ; was surrounded, as it were, by a halo. The reference here is only indirectly to the brightness of Moses’s face, which was but a symbol of the glory of his ministration.

The glory which pertained to the old dispensation was not the illumination of the countenance of Moses, which was merely an incident. It was of the same kind, though less in degree, as the glory of the gospel. The one dispensation was indeed glorious, but the other was more so. So that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses . The whole service was so glorious that even the face of Moses was so bright that the people could not look upon it. This brightness of the face of Moses was in two respects a symbol of the glory of the old dispensation. In the first place, it was an outward brightness. So too the glory of the Mosaic dispensation was derived in large measure from its pompous ritual, its temple, its priesthood, its sacrifice, and, above all, its Shekinah, or visible symbol of the divine presence. But what was all this to the glory of the gospel? What was a bright cloud overhanging the cherubim, to the light of God’s presence filling the soul? And secondly, the brightness of the face of Moses was transient. The participle katargoume>nhn may be taken as imperfect — They could not behold it as it was vanishing away ; or as present, which is evanescent , or perishable . It was in its own nature a mere transient brightness, analogous to the temporary splendor of the service committed to him. How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious ? If the one was glorious, how much more the other! The future shall is not to be understood in reference to the future world. The idea is not that hereafter, when Christ’s kingdom is consummated, the ministration of the gospel shall be found more glorious than that of the law. The future expresses the certain sequence. If the ministration of death was glorious, the ministration of the Spirit shall assuredly, if rightly considered, be regarded as glorious. This is plain from the fact that the things compared are the ministration committed to Moses and the ministration committed to Paul; and also from the reason assigned for the superiority of the latter, which is not what is to be realized in the future, but what is experienced in the present. It was because it is the ministration of the spirit that it is more glorious than the ministration of death. The ideas of life and life-giving are inseparable from that of spirit. Hence the Holy Ghost in the ancient creeds of the church is designated as to< pneu~ma to< a[gion , to< ku>rion , to< zwopoio>n . And hence the gospel as the source of life is called spirit. It is doubtful, however, whether the word spirit here refers to the Holy Spirit, or to the gospel. Luther renders the phrase hJ diakoni>a tou~ pneu>matov , das Amt, das den Geist giebt , i.e. the office which gives the Spirit; because it is by the ministration of the gospel the Holy Spirit is imparted to men. This view is perhaps commonly adopted.

But as in v. 6, spirit , as opposed to letter , evidently means the gospel as opposed to the law, and as the things compared are the law and gospel, or the ministry of the one and the ministry of the other, the probability is that Paul intended the word to be so understood here. The gospel is spirit because it is the source of life. Instead of being something external and powerless, it is inward and saving; and this is the ground of its superiority to the law. 9. For if the ministration of condemnation (be) glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

This verse is a confirmation of the preceding. The gospel is more glorious than the law, for the ministration of righteousness is more glorious than the ministration of condemnation. The ministration of condemnation is that ministration which brings men into a state of conscious condemnation, that is, which makes them know and feel that they are condemned. The ministration of righteousness is that ministration which reveals a righteousness by which men are justified, and thus freed from the condemnation pronounced upon them by the law. As much better therefore as justification is than condemnation to eternal death, so much better is the gospel than the law. Although the words kata>krisiv , condemnation , and dikaiosu>nh , righteousness , are here in antithesis, it does not follow that the latter means justification , which is a sense it never has in the New Testament. It retains its proper meaning, righteousness , i.e. that which the law demands. It is not justification, but the ground of it; that on account of which a man is justified or pronounced righteous. The gospel, being the ministration of the spirit, is the ministration of righteousness, because as what is spirit is life-giving, the gospel must reveal a righteousness which satisfies the demands of the law, and thus free us from judicial death, or it could not be the source of life. It is true that the life of which the gospel is the source is more than mere justification; but as justification is the necessary condition of spiritual life, Paul here exalts the gospel by making it the means of securing that righteousness which is necessary to sanctification and inseparable from it.

The use of the present tense, perisseu>ei , doth abound , in this verse, serves to confirm the explanation given of v. 8. Paul in both instances is speaking of the glory which now belongs to the ministry of the gospel, not of what is to be hereafter. 10. For even that which was made glorious hath no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth . For even , kai< ga>r for moreover . Too little was said in simply asserting that the gospel excelled the law. The law, though glorious in itself, ceased to be glorious in the presence of the gospel, as the moon loses its brightness in the presence of the sun. That which was made glorious , to< dedoxasme>non , that which was and is glorious , viz. the ministry of Moses, and, by implication, the law or dispensation of which he was the minister. Hath no glory , ouj dedo>xastai , is not glorious , ejn tou>tw| tw|~ me>rei , in this particular . This is explained by what follows. Because of the glory that excelleth. The ministry of the gospel so much excels the ministry of the law, that the latter ceases in the comparison to be glorious at all. This is the common and natural interpretation of the text. Two other explanations have been proposed. First, the words ejn tou>tw| tw|~ me>rei are connected with dedoxasme>non , that which was glorious (viz. the ministry of Moses), in this particular, viz. that the face of Moses was rendered luminous. This gives a very insignificant sense. The shining of the face of Moses was not the glory of his ministry or of the old economy. It was but a symbol of it. Second, Meyer and others, retaining the ordinary construction of the passage, make the apostle say, that the general truth that the lesser glory is eclipsed by the greater, was illustrated in this case , i.e. in the case of Moses and his ministry. This brings out the same sense as that given by the ordinary interpretation, but in a less natural way. That which was made glorious , to< dedoxasme>non , naturally refers to the definite subject of which the context treats, which is the ministry of Moses. 11. For if that which was done away (was) glorious, much more that which remaineth (is) glorious .

A new ground of superiority. The old dispensation and its ministry were temporary, the new is permanent. There is nothing to intervene, no new revelation, no new economy, between the gospel and its ministry, and the final consummation. Whoever are to be converted, whatever nations are to be brought in, it must be by the preaching of the gospel, which remaineth , or is to continue, according to Christ’s promise, until the end of the world.

In the former clause the apostle says the law was dia< do>xhv , with glory , in the latter, that the gospel was ejn do>xh| , in glory . This is a mere variation of expression without any difference of meaning. Comp. Romans 3:30; 5:10. That the binding authority of the law ceased on the introduction of the gospel, is a doctrine which the apostle had to sustain against the Judaizing tendency of the early Christians, on many occasions. To this point the epistles to the Galatians and to the Hebrews are principally directed. As Paul’s opponents in Corinth were of this class, there is little doubt that what he here says of the inferiority and temporary character of the old economy had a special reference to them; while his strong assertion of his divine mission, of the dignity and superiority of the ministry which he had received, was intended to counteract the influence of their invidious attacks upon his authority. No less clear is the inculcation of the other great truth here presented. The gospel did away the law, but is itself never to be superseded. These are “the last times,” the last dispensation, which is to continue until the consummation of all things.

THE CLEARNESS AND FREEDOM OF THE GOSPEL AS CONTRASTED WITH THE OBSCURITY OF THE LAW. VS. 12-18.

The apostle having referred to the transient brightness of Moses’s face, as a symbol of the passing glory of his ministry, here employs the fact that Moses veiled his face as a twofold illustration. In the first place, it is symbolical of the obscurity of the revelation made under the old dispensation. As the brightness of Moses’s face was covered, so spiritual or evangelical truth was of old covered under the types and shadows of the Mosaic economy. In the second place, it is symbolical of the blindness which rested on the minds of the Jews, which prevented their seeing the true import of their own institutions, vs. 12-15. Nevertheless, as Moses removed the veil from his face when he turned to the Lord, so both the obscurity which rests on the law, and the blindness which rests upon the mind of the Jew, are dispelled when he turns towards Christ. The vision of his glory transforms the soul into his likeness, vs. 16-18. 12. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.

Seeing then that we have such hope , literally, Having then such hope , i.e. because we have it. The hope to which he refers must be that mentioned in the context, v. 14, that the gospel and its ministry were, and would prove themselves to be, far superior to the law and to the ministry of Moses.

What in v. 4 he calls pepoi>qhsiv , confidence , he here calls ejlpi>v , hope , because the confidence which he felt had reference not only to the present, but also to the future. We use great plainness of speech , i.e. parjrJhsi>a , outspokenness . This stands opposed to all concealment, whether from timidity or from a desire to deceive; and also to all fear of consequences. It is a frank, open, courageous manner of speech. Paul therefore says that in his case it was the result of his firm conviction of his divine mission and of the truth and glory of the gospel which he preached, that he proclaimed it fully, intelligibly, and without regard to consequences. Its being to the Greeks foolishness, and to the Jews a stumblingblock, did not prevent his declaring the whole counsel of God. The same cause will ever produce the same effect. If Paul’s experience of the truth and excellence of the gospel led him to declare it without reserve, a similar experience will produce a similar openness and boldness in other ministers of the gospel. This indeed is one of the glories of Christianity. It is characteristic of error to practice reserve and to seek concealment. In all the religions of antiquity there was an esoteric and exoteric doctrine; one for the people and the other of the initiated. They all had mysteries carefully concealed from the public eye.

So in the Romish church, just in proportion as it is infected with the spirit of heathenism the doctrine of reserve is avowed and practiced. The gospel is not preached with openness, so that all may understand it. The people are kept in ignorance. They are told they need not know; that faith without knowledge, a blind confidence in rites which they do not understand, is all-sufficient. But if a man in a church has the conviction that the gospel is of God, that it is unspeakably glorious, adapted to all and needed by all in order to salvation, then the word will be preached openly and without reserve. 13. And not as Moses, (which) put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.

And not as Moses , that is, we do not do what Moses did. Paul had just said that he used great plainness of speech, that he practiced no concealment or reserve. Of course he means that Moses did the reverse.

He did use concealment and practice reserve. This is no impeachment of the character of Moses. Paul is not speaking of his personal character, but of the nature of his office. The truth concerning man’s redemption was not “in other ages made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” Ephesians 3:5. It was not consistent with the nature of the ministry of Moses to use the parjrJhsi>a , the openness, in communicating the doctrines of redemption, which it is the glory of the Christian ministry to be permitted to employ.

He was sent to speak in parables and in types, to set forth truth in the form of significant rites and ceremonies. He put a veil over the glory, not to hide it entirely from view, but to obscure its brightness. The people saw the light, but only occasionally and imperfectly. Paul had already spoken of the brightness of Moses’s face as a symbol of his ministry, and therefore he represents him as veiling himself, to express the idea that he communicated the truth obscurely. Paul was sent to let the truth shine forth clearly; he did not put a veil over it as Moses did, and was commanded to do. That the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. That is, to prevent their seeing the end or fading away of the brightness of his face. The word katargou>menov (that which is abolished ) is used, v. 7, in reference to the glory of the face of Moses, and v. 11 in reference to his ministry and the dispensation to which it belonged. Here the reference is to the former, because his face is spoken of, and its brightness was veiled, and therefore, it was the brightness the end of which the Israelites were prevented from seeing. If this be so, then te>lov , the end , must mean the termination, and not the design or scope. In Romans 10:4, Christ is said to be the end of the law, not only as abrogating it, but as being the object towards which it tended.

He was that which it was intended to reveal. Those commentators who make katargou>menon (that which is abolished ) refer to the old law and its ministry, give te>lov the sense of end or object. They understand the apostle to say that Moses put a veil over his face to prevent the children of Israel seeing Christ, who was the end of the law. But this gives a most incongruous meaning. How could Moses’s veiling his face prevent the Israelites seeing Christ? The first part of the verse cannot be taken literally, and the latter part figuratively. If the veiling was a literal covering of the face, that which the veil hid must be something which a literal veil could cover. The majority of commentators, therefore, understand the words, that which is abolished , to refer to the visible brightness of the face of Moses, and the end to mean the termination of that brightness. The whole clause therefore means that Moses veiled his face in order to prevent the Israelites seeing how soon its brightness faded. But what has this to do with the point in hand? In answering this question it must be remembered that the apostle had referred to the brightness of the face of Moses as a fit symbol of his ministry, inasmuch as it was external and transient. To say, therefore, that Moses veiled his face that the people might not see the end of its brightness, is a figurative way of saying that Moses hid the light, or taught obscurely, that the people might not understand the true nature and intent of his ministry. But how is it consistent with the character of God that he should commission Moses to teach obscurely in order that he might not be understood? Some endeavor to obviate this difficulty by that ajteni>sai expresses the result and not the design. ‘He put a veil over his face, so that (not, in order that ) the children of Israel did not see the end of that which is abolished.’ Or, to drop the figure, ‘He taught obscurely, so that the people did not understand him.’ This explanation, however, is forbidden by the force of the preposition pro>v , which in such connections properly expresses the design or intention. There is no special difficulty in the matter. Whatever is, God intended should be. If Moses taught obscurely or in types, God intended that he should do so. If, in point of fact, the Jews misunderstood the nature of their own economy, regarding as ultimate and permanent what was in fact preparatory and temporary, this was included in the divine purpose. It was evidently the plan of God to make the revelation of the scheme of redemption gradually. The whole was by slow degrees evolved from the original promise made to our first parents. Perhaps the object of their faith was the simple promise of redemption. To Abraham it was revealed that the Redeemer was to be one of his descendants. To Moses it was made known that he was to be a prophet like himself, and the nature of his work was obscurely set forth in the priesthood and sacrifices which he ordained. This was enough for salvation, so long as nothing more had been revealed. It was in accordance with this plan that Moses spoke in such a way that the people did not understand the full import of his teaching, God having purposed “that they without us should not be made perfect,” Hebrews 11:40. The passage before us is parallel, in a measure, to Mark 4:11, where our Lord says, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but unto them that are without all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive.” There is, therefore, as just remarked, no special difficulty in this passage, even if it is understood to teach that Moses was commissioned so to veil his teachings that they should not be clearly understood. There is another difficulty connected with this verse. It does not seem to agree with Exodus 34:30. There it is said that the people were afraid to approach Moses on account of the brightness of his face, and the implication (according to the English version, at least) is, that it was to calm their fears he put on a veil. Whereas here it is said that he put a veil over his face that the people might not see the transient nature of that brightness. There is no inconsistency between the two accounts. The veiling had both effects; it calmed the fears of the people, and it prevented their seeing how fleeting the brightness was. As both effects followed, both were intended. Paul in this epistle assigns in different places three or four reasons why he commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous member of their church. That it was meant as a test of their obedience, 2:9, is not incompatible with its being a proof of his care for them, 7:12. There is, however, not even the appearance of discrepancy between what the apostle here says and Exodus 34:30-33, as it is rendered both in the Septuagint and Vulgate. The English version of that passage is, “And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.

And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.... And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.” According to this Moses put a veil over his face when he spoke to the people, and the implication is that he did it because they were afraid on account of the brightness of his countenance. But the Hebrew, in v. 33, is simply, “Moses ceased to speak with them, and put a veil over his face.” The natural meaning of which is that he did not veil his face until he had ceased speaking. The Septuagint therefore renders the passage, “And when he ceased speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.” And the Vulgate, impletisque sermonibus, posuit velamen super faciem suam . It appears from the following verses that when Moses went in before the Lord, he removed the veil; and when he came out his face shone, and he spake to the people, and again resumed the veil. According to this interpretation of the original, the object of putting on the veil was not to calm the fear of the people, but, as Paul says, to prevent their seeing how the brightness of his face vanished. 14. But their minds were blinded; for unto this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which (veil) is done away in Christ .

In the preceding verse Paul was speaking of his ministry; the same subject is resumed in the following chapter. Verses 14-18 are therefore a digression, although intimately connected with what precedes and follows.

The particle ajlla> either introduces something just the reverse of what precedes, and means on the contrary , or simply something different, and is to be rendered but . This verse admits of two modes of connection with what precedes. ‘The Jews did not understand the ministry of Moses, on the contrary , their minds were blinded.’ Or, the connection may be with the main idea of the preceding context. ‘We use great plainness of speech, but their minds are blinded.’ That is, notwithstanding the clearness with which the gospel is presented as the substance and true meaning of the old economy, still the Jews were so blinded they did not perceive it. In either way the sense is good. But as it is so much the habit of the apostle to connect what follows with what immediately precedes, and as the figure of the veil, which is not mentioned in v. 12, is continued in v. 14, it is most natural to make the connection with v. 13, where that figure is introduced, especially as Paul’s immediate object in v. 12 is not to exhibit his plainness of speech in opposition to the hebetude of the Jews. It is the general fact that under the new dispensation the truth is exhibited plainly which he asserts. The blindness of the Jews is only incidentally introduced. Their minds , noh>mata , thoughts, affections . It means the whole inner man. Were blinded , ejpwrw>qh , properly were rendered hard or callous. The word is used both of the understanding and of the feelings.

It expresses an inaptitude both of seeing and feeling. They neither understood nor felt the power of the truth. For until this day remaineth untaken away the same veil . This is a confirmation derived from experience of the fact previously stated. That the minds of the Israelites were thus blinded and hardened, is proved from the fact that until this day they do not understand the law. The same veil , i.e. the same obscurity. A veil was thrown over the truth as first revealed by Moses, and that same veil is there still. The Israelites of Paul’s day understood their Scriptures as little as their fathers did. They remained satisfied with the external, ritual and ceremonial, without penetrating to what was beneath, or asking the real import of the types and shadows of the old economy. In the reading of the Old Testament , that is, when the Old Testament (covenant) is read. This metonymical use of the word covenant for the books in which that covenant is contained, is perfectly familiar to our ears, as we are accustomed to call the two great divisions of the Scriptures the Old and New Testaments or covenants; but this is the only instance of this use of the word in the New Testament. The English version does not in this passage follow the order of the Greek, which reads, “For until this day the same veil in the reading of the old covenant remains.” Here the sense is complete. The following clause, mh< ajnakalupto>menon o[ti ejn Cristw|~ katargei~tai , admits of three interpretations. 1. The first is that adopted by our translators; mh< ajnakalupto>menon is referred to the preceding clause (remains untaken away ), and o[ti (because , or that ) is read as two words, o[ ti which, i.e. which veil is done away in Christ. So Luther, in his free translation: Denn bis auf den heutigen Tag bleibet dieselbige Decke unaufgedeckt über das Alten Testament wenn sie es lesen, welche in Christo aufhöret. The great majority of editors, however, read o[ti . 2. The word ajnakalupto>menon , untaken away , is, as before, referred to ka>lumma , veil , and o[ti is rendered because . ‘The veil remains untaken away, because it is removed (only) in Christ.’ 3. ajnakalupto>menon is taken absolutely, and o[ti is rendered that . ‘The veil remains, it being unrevealed that it (viz. the old covenant) is done away in Christ.’ In favor of this last-mentioned interpretation it is urged, that the old covenant was in fact done away in Christ, and that ignorance of that fact prevented the Jews understanding their own Scriptures. The sense therefore is good. Besides, the word katargei>tai , is done away , is the proper term to express the abrogation of the law, but not so suitable to express the idea of the removal of a veil, for which, in v. 16, Paul uses the word periairei~tai , is removed .

The word katarge>w is used in verses 7:11 and 13, to express the passing away of the brightness of the face of Moses, and of his ministry and dispensation, of which that brightness was the symbol, and therefore it is the more probable that it has the same reference here. On the other hand, however, it must be admitted that ajnakalupto>menon naturally agrees with ka>lumma , the veil remains untaken away , and that ajnakalu>ptw , to uncover or unveil , is not the common word to express the idea of making known or revealing. See v. 18, ajnakaluptome>nw| prosw>pw| , with unveiled face . The second interpretation, therefore, above mentioned, is on the whole to be preferred. ‘The veil which hid the meaning of the Old Testament remained unremoved, because it is done away in Christ, whom the Jews rejected.’ The Old Testament Scriptures are intelligible only when understood as predicting and prefiguring Christ. The present katargei~tai (is done away ) is used as expressing the certain consequence. The knowledge of Christ, as a matter of fact and as a matter of course, removes the veil from the Old Testament. 15. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart . But , ajlla> , on the contrary , i.e. so far from being taken away, the veil remains until this day. When Moses is read . The word hJni>ka , when , is used in the New Testament only here and in v. 16. As it occurs often in the Septuagint, and is used in Exodus 34:34, it is the more probable that the language of that version was before the apostle’s mind, and determined the mode in which he presents the incident of Moses veiling his face, which, as shown above, accords better with the view which the Septuagint gives of the original than with that presented in the English version. In Acts 15:21, Moses, it is said, was read every sabbath day in the synagogues. The veil , or, as the article is wanting, a veil , was, however, over his face. The apostle presents the idea that the Jews did not understand their Scriptures in two forms. He says, in v. 14, that a veil rests on the Old Testament, and here that a veil was over the hearts of the Jews. The true source of the want of knowledge was subjective. The revelation of Christ, even in the writings of the Old Testament, though obscure when compared with that contained in the writings of the apostles, was sufficiently clear to be understood if the Jews had only been in a right state of mind. Hence our Lord upbraided his disciples, saying, “O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken,” Luke 24:25. Compare Acts 13:27-29. The darkness was not so much in the Scriptures, as in their minds. 16. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away .

According to the narrative in Exodus 34:29-35, as understood by the Septuagint, and as expounded by the apostle, the face of Moses was made to shine by speaking with the Lord; when among the people (except when delivering his message) he wore a veil; when he turned to the Lord he removed the veil. To this allusion seems to be here made. So long as the people were turned from the Lord, the veil was on their heart; they could not understand the Scriptures; as soon as they turn to the Lord, the veil is removed, and all is bright and intelligible. When it shall turn to the Lord ; hJni>ka dÆ ejayh| , when it has turned , i.e. when the conversion is accomplished, and as often as it occurs. The most natural subject of the verb ejpistre>yh| (turned ) is kardi>a (heart ). A veil is on the heart, but when it turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. As, however, the apostle is speaking of the heart of the Jews, and as the turning of their heart is their turning, so the sense is the same if the word Israel be supplied. The veil is on the heart of the people, but when the people turn to the Lord the veil is taken away. Calvin and others supply Moses as the nominative. By Moses, however, Calvin understands the Law. ‘When Moses is read, a veil is on the heart of the Jews; but when he, i.e. the law, is directed to Christ, who is the end of the law, then the veil is removed.’ That is, as soon as the Jews see that their law relates to Christ, then they understand it. This, however, is obviously an unnatural interpretation, as ejpistre>yh| expresses the turning of the heart or of the people to God, and not giving the law a particular interpretation. Stanley, who also says that Moses must be the nominative of the verb, makes him, however, the representative, not of the law, but of the people. ‘When Moses turns to the Lord he strips off the veil.’ The word periairei~tai he gives an active sense, according to its common use in the Septuagint. This too is less simple and natural than the common interpretation given above. The veil was on the heart of the people, and when it, i.e. their heart, turns to the Lord, it is stripped off ; periairei~tai is the word used in Exodus 34:34.

By Lord here, as the context shows, we are to understand Christ. He is the Lord whom Moses saw face to face on Mount Sinai, and to whom the Jews and all others must turn if they would enjoy the light of salvation. 17. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord (is), there (is) liberty .

The first point to be determined with regard to this difficult passage, is the relation in which it stands to what precedes. It may be either an explanation or an inference. If the former, then it is designed to show why turning to the Lord secures the removal of the veil from the heart. It is because the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit is, there is liberty, freedom from the law, from its bondage and obscurities. If the latter, then the idea is, that since the veil is removed by turning to the Lord, it follows as a further consequence that by thus turning we have liberty. The force of the particle de> , which so often introduces an explanation, and the whole structure of the passage is in favor of the first interpretation. 2. It is plain that the Lord here means Christ. This is clear not only because the word Lord , as a general rule, in the New Testament, refers to Christ, but also because the context in this case demands that reference. In v. 14 it is said that the veil is done away in Christ, and in v. 16 that it is removed when the heart turns to the Lord, and here that the Lord is the Spirit. The main idea of the whole context is, that the recognition of Jesus Christ as Lord, or Jehovah, is the key to the Old Testament. It opens all its mysteries, or, to use the figure of the apostle, it removes the veil which hid from the Jews the true meaning of their own Scriptures. As soon as they turn to the Lord, i.e. as soon as they recognize Jesus Christ as their Jehovah, then everything becomes bright and clear. It is plain, therefore, that the Lord spoken of is Christ. This also determines another point, viz. that