Beholding the glory of the Lord?

[jaydam]

Maybe we have whose face is being veiled all wrong: rather it was God's face that was veiled, and this face is unveiled in Christ, whom Moses was a vivid type of.

I'm no Greek expert, but from my first year Greek understanding, I believe the unveiled face is possessed by the "we" of verse 18, so it could not be God's face being unveiled.

Yea, I was just checking that out. Interesting the face is singular. Think about this, all the Israelites standing before Moses, Moses is glowing and puts on his veil.

"We all having the face veiled, no longer beholding the glory of Moses."

Maybe it's a stretch, here's an interlinear if you can parse up the Greek some:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/3-18.htm

I think the face being singular would relate to the interpretation of the Greek I gave in my longer reply to you where Paul talks about himself and Timothy as "each" - in other words, individuals - thus with individual faces.

"We each with unveiled face..."

Edit: In other words, Paul talked about himself and Timothy as a collective "we" but here he distinguishes their faces individually. Because while they minister as a team, their transformation happens as individuals.

[dizerner]

I think the face being singular would relate to the interpretation of the Greek I gave in my longer reply to you where Paul talks about himself and Timothy as "each" - in other words, individuals - thus with individual faces.

"We each with unveiled face..."

Edit: In other words, Paul talked about himself and Timothy as a collective "we" but here he distinguishes their faces individually. Because while they minister as a team, their transformation happens as individuals.

Right. The point being that whether Moses has the veil or the people all have individual veils, either way the veil is a blockage between them. It all boils down to what "because the veil is taken away in Christ" applies to.

[dizerner]

The problem that comes to my mind when you speak of an ongoing transition "from Law to Grace" is that I believe Paul is speaking of Mosaic Covenant (ministry of condemnation) vs. New Covenant (ministry of righteousness), and I do not believe our move from one covenant to the other is ongoing, but a one time matter. I don't see how we can be ongoing by degrees in both covenants. I take from Paul that he believes to hold any of the old covenant is to be under the entire thing.

As Steve pointed out though, on the other side of the coin is the fact that these people were never under Judaism, yet it was written to them. If you get a man saved on the street he goes straight into the new covenant.

I wasn't going to pick a discussion over it, but since you pointed it out, I believe Steve might be mistaken in his understanding of the word "we" in the immediate context - at least the way I think he meant it. I do not believe it includes the Corinthians, but only Paul and Timothy - who are both being counted as Jews by Paul in this passage.

All the way back to chapter 1, Paul distinguishes himself and Timothy as the "we" to the church in Corinth "you" - 1:6, 7, 8, etc.

Then in chapter 3, "we" Paul and Timothy, is again seen contrasted with "you" the church in Corinth 3:1, 2, 3.

Getting to the immediate context being considered, Paul opens with telling about how the "us" - to be known contextually as Paul and Timothy still - are sufficient ministers of the new covenant, which they ministered to the church in Corinth.

Paul begins to look at the glory of the covenant which he and Timothy are ministering, and in verse 12 says that it is because of how glorious the hope of the new covenant is that he and Timothy - v12 - used boldness of speech, unlike Moses.

Continuing for a moment into chapter 4, Paul's use of "we" continues to refer to himself and Timothy in relation to their ministry of which the church in Corinth was a recipient. This is most clearly seen in 4:4 and 4:12 as Paul again uses "we/us" and you respectively.

Therefore, in context, the "we" is understood to refer to Paul and Timothy. Now to be considered is 3:18 where it says "we all" - a different phrase.

The Greek word is πᾶς and means "each" - and paired with the contextual use of the word "we" as relating to Paul and Timothy would seem to best be understood as meaning in paraphrase, "But we (Paul & Timothy), with unveiled faces, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from the Old Covenant we were under as Jews, to the New Covenant which we ministered to you."

I don't think you can contextually make Paul's use of "we" at least through chapter 6 be inclusive of the Gentiles at Corinth, but it means directly Paul and Timothy who are being counted as Jews coming out of the old covenant to be ministers of the more glorious new covenant.

Thus, the glory to glory transition is meant to refer specifically to Paul and Timothy, not the audience.

I like this idea but one phrase gives me pause, we have two things in conjunction "when one" with "we all" which kind of point to universal truths:

Nevertheless when one [anyone?] turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all [who have turned to the Lord?], with unveiled face

[jaydam]

I like this idea but one phrase gives me pause, we have two things in conjunction "when one" with "we all" which kind of point to universal truths:

Nevertheless when one [anyone?] turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all [who have turned to the Lord?], with unveiled face

Go backwards. "When one" who? Not anyone, but a Jew with a veil on their heart while hearing Moses read - v15, who had their minds blinded - v14, who is clearly a Jew - v13.

Therefore, it is the Jews with the veil, who get it taken away when they turn to the Lord, and are moved from the old glory to the new glory...

Paul looks for a moment at the plight of the Jews under the passing and old glory, then brings it back to himself and Timothy who have the ministry he began talking about earlier in chapter 3 and goes back to in 4:1.

[dizerner]

I like this idea but one phrase gives me pause, we have two things in conjunction "when one" with "we all" which kind of point to universal truths:

Nevertheless when one [anyone?] turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all [who have turned to the Lord?], with unveiled face

Go backwards. "When one" who? Not anyone, but a Jew with a veil on their heart while hearing Moses read - v15, who had their minds blinded - v14, who is clearly a Jew - v13.

Therefore, it is the Jews with the veil, who get it taken away when they turn to the Lord, and are moved from the old glory to the new glory...

Paul looks for a moment at the plight of the Jews under the passing and old glory, then brings it back to himself and Timothy who have the ministry he began talking about earlier in chapter 3 and goes back to in 4:1.

Yea, focused on the Jews, but pas seems an odd choice for two people? Do have an example of similar usage?

[jaydam]

I like this idea but one phrase gives me pause, we have two things in conjunction "when one" with "we all" which kind of point to universal truths:

Nevertheless when one [anyone?] turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all [who have turned to the Lord?], with unveiled face

Go backwards. "When one" who? Not anyone, but a Jew with a veil on their heart while hearing Moses read - v15, who had their minds blinded - v14, who is clearly a Jew - v13.

Therefore, it is the Jews with the veil, who get it taken away when they turn to the Lord, and are moved from the old glory to the new glory...

Paul looks for a moment at the plight of the Jews under the passing and old glory, then brings it back to himself and Timothy who have the ministry he began talking about earlier in chapter 3 and goes back to in 4:1.

Yea, focused on the Jews, but pas seems an odd choice for two people? Do have an example of similar usage?

Perhaps he is saying we all - not just him and Timothy - as in all Jews who get unveiled faces.

Then he returns to himself and Timothy in 4:1.

To me, "we" is clearly Paul and Timothy in every surrounding verse except 3:18 where it is unclear. 3:18 is clearly limited to at least Jews though. Thus, it could be it is to be understood as all/each Jew who move from glory to glory as they turn to the Lord.

Either way, the understanding comes out that glory to glory is speaking of Jews, whether as a whole or as Paul and Timothy, who move from covenant to covenant - and it does not relate to Gentiles.

[dizerner]

Perhaps he is saying we all - not just him and Timothy - as in all Jews who get unveiled faces.

Then he returns to himself and Timothy in 4:1.

To me, "we" is clearly Paul and Timothy in every surrounding verse except 3:18 where it is unclear. 3:18 is clearly limited to at least Jews though. Thus, it could be it is to be understood as all/each Jew who move from glory to glory as they turn to the Lord.

Either way, the understanding comes out that glory to glory is speaking of Jews, whether as a whole or as Paul and Timothy, who move from covenant to covenant - and it does not relate to Gentiles.

Well this is a bit sad for me to think of, because the verse has always been quite a personal inspiration to me.

In defense of how I've always seen it I guess I'd just point to different places that indicate a real spiritual progression in our lives of sanctification and glorification.

Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.

[jaydam]

Perhaps he is saying we all - not just him and Timothy - as in all Jews who get unveiled faces.

Then he returns to himself and Timothy in 4:1.

To me, "we" is clearly Paul and Timothy in every surrounding verse except 3:18 where it is unclear. 3:18 is clearly limited to at least Jews though. Thus, it could be it is to be understood as all/each Jew who move from glory to glory as they turn to the Lord.

Either way, the understanding comes out that glory to glory is speaking of Jews, whether as a whole or as Paul and Timothy, who move from covenant to covenant - and it does not relate to Gentiles.

Well this is a bit sad for me to think of, because the verse has always been quite a personal inspiration to me.

In defense of how I've always seen it I guess I'd just point to different places that indicate a real spiritual progression in our lives of sanctification and glorification.

Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.

It was quite shocking to me as I had always had it presented in much the same way you understood it. Can't say as I'm sad though since it always makes me happy to move into a more truthful understanding of the Bible.

I do agree with your view that other places do teach about a progression, even if it is not seen here.

[dizerner]

Perhaps he is saying we all - not just him and Timothy - as in all Jews who get unveiled faces.

Then he returns to himself and Timothy in 4:1.

To me, "we" is clearly Paul and Timothy in every surrounding verse except 3:18 where it is unclear. 3:18 is clearly limited to at least Jews though. Thus, it could be it is to be understood as all/each Jew who move from glory to glory as they turn to the Lord.

Either way, the understanding comes out that glory to glory is speaking of Jews, whether as a whole or as Paul and Timothy, who move from covenant to covenant - and it does not relate to Gentiles.

Well this is a bit sad for me to think of, because the verse has always been quite a personal inspiration to me.

In defense of how I've always seen it I guess I'd just point to different places that indicate a real spiritual progression in our lives of sanctification and glorification.

Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.

It was quite shocking to me as I had always had it presented in much the same way you understood it. Can't say as I'm sad though since it always makes me happy to move into a more truthful understanding of the Bible.

I do agree with your view that other places do teach about a progression, even if it is not seen here.

Yea, that's true I do strive for accuracy. I appreciate hearing a different honest perspective, thanks.

[steve]

I have no problem with your ideas, but I can't get away from Paul's wording. Every literal translation that I can find (e.g., NASB, ESV, NKJV, NET Bible, Young's Literal Translation) translates the verb in 2 Corinthians 3:18 in a progressive sense: "we all...are being transformed." If Paul is talking about himself and Timothy, and about a transition that occurred at the time of their conversion from Judaism, in what sense was that still progressing at the time of writing?

In view of the fact that Paul, speaking on the same subject of "the glory" just 16 verses later (2 Cor.4:16-17), speaks unambiguously of an ongoing process, I think we have a contextual lock on his meaning.

When Paul wants to speak of a once-for-all transition occurring at conversion, he knows how to use the proper verb tenses—as in Colossians 1:13*—"[God] has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." By the way, in the previous context of Colossians 1:3-10, Paul has also distinguished between "we" and "you." However, "you" (in verse 10) becomes "us" (verse 12), so that, in verses 12-14, "us" and "we" seem to include all Christians, including the readers.

If Paul were making your point, in 2 Corinthians 3:18, then, not only the verb tense, but his choice of the verb itself "metamorphosized" or "transformed" would seem less appropriate than would a word like "relegated," "reassigned," or "transferred," or some such. Metamorphosis is a process, not a punctiliar event. In what sense does your idea involve Paul and Timothy in a momentary metamorphosis from one glory to another? If your view is correct, then the two "glories" are objective domains—not subjective states.

I am very aware of the interpretation you are bringing to 2 Corinthians 3:18, and I once seriously considered it, but I could not escape the four considerations I presented in my first posting (remember those?). By the way, while I have heard your very sensible arguments for your interpretation, I would be interested in hearing your rebuttal of my four arguments—with the addition of those raised in this post. Paul's (and indeed the whole New Testament's) use of "glory" (e.g., 2 Cor.4:17) seems to fit my analysis. How does Paul's use of "glory" (doxa) better fit yours?

Just keeping the ball rolling here, since you asked for feedback.

--------------------

* For additional examples of Paul using correct verb tenses when describing past conversions, see also:Acts 19:2; Gal.2:20; 5:24; 6:14; Eph.1:13; 2:5-6, 8, 13; Col.3:3, 9-10; 1 Thess.1:5,9; etc.