Tag: spirit

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 6

How did Paul view Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are however literary identities. One kind is a typological identity.
Nevertheless, when it [the heart, v. 16] shall turn to kyrios, the veil shall be taken away. Now the
Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17 (KJV revised)
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…But when Moses went in before Yhwh to speak
with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. Exod 34:30-34 (KJV revised)
The comparison here is with Moses ‘going in’ before Yhwh without a veil. The use of the verb ‘to turn’
picks up the children of Israel ‘outside’ who ‘turned away’ from Moses (Exod 34:31 – they turn back,
same verb in the LXX). Paul is saying that when the heart of the Jews turns to Yhwh, the veil will be taken
away, i.e. they will then be like Moses.
Paul’s first exegetical comment upon the incident is that ‘The Lord is the Spirit’. The identity here is
typological; Yahweh in Moses’ day stands for ‘the Spirit’ in Paul’s day. That Paul is thinking in terms of
typological comparison is shown by his earlier remarks. The Corinthians were not a letter written in
‘tablets’ of stone but one that was written in the ‘tablets’ of the heart with the Spirit of the living God (2
Cor 3:3). In order for the Jews to be such a letter, they would have to ‘turn’ to the Spirit. Paul is stating
this imperative by his assertion that ‘the Lord’ (Yahweh) is ‘the Spirit’.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Paul does mean the Lord is the Spirit.  Could this interpretation be possible? Sure, but why should I think it is likely? It is true that Perry goes on from here, but I find nothing that I think really clinches this argument. It’s as if he gets to make an assertion and then moves on. Responding to David Capes, he says:

Capes says that “the most convincing evidence that ku,rioj in [2 Cor] 3:16 refers to Jesus comes from [2
Cor] 4:5”,
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
2 Cor 4:5 (KJV revised)

Well, yes. That does seem convincing. Paul speaks of the Lord in one chapter and then a scant few verses later, he says Jesus is Lord, a common saying of his.

This illustrates the problem confronting exegetes; ku,rioj is used to refer to Yahweh and Jesus Christ and
commentators can get confused over usage. Paul’s point here in v. 5 is about the content of preaching,
whereas in the previous chapter, his concern has been with understanding the driving force of preaching
– the Spirit. Paul’s teaching about the Spirit takes the form of a typological comparison with Yahweh.
Capes is therefore simply mistaken. With typological identity, the type may have the same role, status or
function as the anti-type. In the comparison between Yahweh and the Spirit, both are the source of
instruction.

I look over this and I wonder how this is a response to what was said. The content of the preaching would be Jesus is Lord which would mean…..Jesus is Lord? And then when we see a reference to the Lord in 2 Cor. 3, perhaps that same Lord is Jesus? There doesn’t seem to be anything odd about this reading.

For Perry who seems to suspect theological motives under every interpretation he disagrees with, it looks like he is the one who is letting his theology guide his interpretation.

Next time, we will discuss alleged cases of mistaken identity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Who God Is

What do I think of Ben Witherington III’s book published by Lexham Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I received this book from Lexham, I was a bit skeptical. After all, Ben Witherington is an excellent New Testament scholar, but I have not heard of him being a theologian. Still. I knew that since he wrote it, it would likely be brilliant. The book looked small as well so I thought it would be a quick read and so I decided to dive in.

First off, I was right on one point. This is a quick read. I started it in the late afternoon and I finished it before I went to bed that evening. If you want a quick read on the nature of God, a primer as you will, this is the one to go to. It’s a short read, but let’s get to the other parts.

Second, my skepticism proved to be wrong. This is really a great book. It’s not a dry read from a New Testament scholar. It’s really a passionate act of worship, something I don’t think I’ve seen like that from Witherington before, but it was an excellent work. It focuses on a select few attributes of God, and not always the ones we normally go to.

Normally, if you pick up something like the Summa Theologica for example, you will get the far more metaphysical concepts of God. I was just looking it up. Aquinas wrote a lot, but in the Prima Pars I don’t see love mentioned. What Witherington covers is five concepts. Love, light, life, spirit, and unique.

This isn’t an apologetics book per se. You won’t find arguments for the existence of God or the reliability of Scripture. All of this stuff is just assumed, and that’s fine. This book is more of a devotional book for those who believe.

At times, Witherington does touch on some secondary issues. Towards the end, some issues I didn’t care for being discussed, but if that distracts you from the overall point of the book, you have greatly missed out. Witherington’s book is a refreshing step out of the ivory tower as it were to a place where theology is meant to meet real life.

Far too long, I have said that a disconnect is there. Too many apologists I think have been doing what Lewis said, been so intent on proving God exists that you would think He has nothing to do but to exist. Witherington’s work reminds us that theology is meant to touch your life. It should change how you live.

Are you worried you won’t understand it because it’s deep talk about God? Don’t be. Witherington’s book is very readable. Like I said, it’s short enough that you can read it in a day, but it will be a day well spent. You will find at least one gem in here that will get you closer to worship of our great God.

In Christ,
Nick Peters