10. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth<\/em> ] Rather, For even that which has been glorified<\/strong> (i.e. the face of Moses, typical of the Law) has not been glorified in this respect<\/strong> (i.e. in comparison of the New Covenant. The Geneva Version renders ‘in this point<\/em> ’ see ch. 2Co 9:3<\/span>, where the expression occurs again, also the received text in 1Pe 4:16<\/span>) on account of the glory<\/strong> (i.e. of the New Covenant) which surpasses<\/strong> (it). Other explanations of the passage have been given, but Bp. Wordsworth, who places this passage and the LXX. of Exodus 34<\/span> in parallel columns, shews how St Paul throughout this chapter is using the very words of the LXX., which must therefore be the index to his meaning. He paraphrases thus: “that was glorified<\/em>, but glorious as it was, it was not glorified in one respect that is, it was not glorified relatively to and in comparison with the Evangelical<\/em> Ministry, which far transcends its glory, and absorbs it.”<\/p>\n For even that which was made glorious – <\/B>( <\/SPAN><\/span> to dedoxasmenon). That was splendid, excellent, or glorious. This refers doubtless, to the laws and institutions of Moses, especially to the primary giving of the Law. Paul does not deny that it had an honor and majesty such, in some respects, as the Jews claimed for it. It was glorious in the manner in which it was given; it was glorious in the purity of the Law itself; and it was glorious, or splendid in the magnificent and imposing ritual in which the worship of God was celebrated. But all this was surpassed in the brighter glory of the gospel.<\/P> Had no glory – <\/B>Greek: Was not glorious, or splendid ( <\/SPAN><\/span> oude deoxastai. It had comparatively no glory or splendor. Its glory was all eclipsed. It was like the splendor of the moon and stars compared with the bright light of the sun.<\/P> By reason of the glory that excelleth – <\/B>In the gospel; in the incarnation, life, sufferings, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus; in the pardon of sin; in the peace and joy of the believer; and in the glories of the heavenly world to which the gospel elevates dying men.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 10<\/span>. For even that which was made glorious<\/B><\/I>] The law<\/I>, which was exhibited for a time in great glory and splendour, partly when it was given, and partly by the splendour of God in the tabernacle and first temple; but all this ceased<\/I> and was done<\/I> away<\/I>; was intended to give place to the Gospel<\/I>; and has actually given place to that system; so that now<\/I>, in no part of the world is that law performed, even by the people who are attached to it and reject the Gospel.<\/P> <\/P> The glory that excelleth.<\/B><\/I>] The Gospel dispensation, giving supereminent displays of the justice, holiness, goodness, mercy, and majesty of God.<\/P> <\/p>\n The law had in it something of intrinsic glory and excellency, as it was the revelation of the will of God to and concerning his creatures; there was an inseparable glory attending it upon that account: and it was made glorious in the ministration of it; as it pleased God that the giving of it should be attended with thunder and lightning, fire and smoke, and an earthquake, and a voice like to the sound of a trumpet, as we read, Exo 19:16-18<\/span>; this was an accidental and adventitious glory, and made that which was glorious in itself, glorious also in the eyes of the people, that saw and heard these things. But yet, saith the apostle, if we compare it with the glory of the gospel, it had comparatively no glory; so much doth that excel. For though the law was the revelation of the Divine will, as well as the gospel, yet the law was the revelation of the Divine will but as to duty, and wrath, in case of the nonperformance of that duty: but the gospel is the revelation of the Divine will, as to grace and mercy, as to remission of sin, and eternal life. And although the gospel came not into the world as the law, with thunder, and lightning, and earthquakes; yet that was ushered in by angels, foretelling the birth and office of John the Baptist, and of Christ; by the great sign of the virgins conceiving and bringing forth a Son; by a voice from heaven, proclaiming Christ the Fathers only begotten Son, in whom he was well pleased. But that which the apostle doth here principally intend, is the exceeding excellency of it, in regard of its further usefulness and comfortable nature. <\/P> <\/p>\n 10.<\/B> For even<\/I> theministration of condemnation, the law, 2Co3:7<\/span> (which has been glorified<\/I> at Sinai in Moses’ person),has<\/I> now (English Version<\/I> translates less fitly, “wasmade<\/I> . . . had”) lost its glory in this respect by reasonof the surpassing glory<\/I> (of the Gospel): as the light of thestars and moon fades in the presence of the sun.<\/P><\/p>\n For even that which was made glorious<\/strong>,…. The apostle grants that there was a glory in the law: it “was made glorious”; it was glorious in the author of it, who is God; it was of his appointing and ordaining, agreeable to his nature, and a declaration of his will; his authority was stamped upon it, and it was written by himself, which cannot be said of any other law whatever; it was glorious in its promulgation, God himself appeared in great glory at the giving of it; Christ was then present; it was ordained by angels, and by them delivered into the hands of Moses, on whose face such a glory was left as could not be steadfastly looked upon; and it was attended with thunderings, lightnings, the sound of a trumpet, c. it was glorious in the matter of it, it contained great and excellent things the substance of it is love to God, and to our neighbour; and it was glorious in its properties, being, in its nature and substance, holy, just, good, spiritual, perfect, immutable, and eternal; but yet<\/p>\n had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth<\/strong>. There is such an excelling glory in the Gospel, that the other is swallowed up and lost in it; it excels it in those things in which it was so glorious: in the author of it, which, though the same, yet with this difference; the law was given by God as a judge, the Gospel by him as a Father, as the Father of Christ, and of his people in him; the law is the birth of his holiness and righteousness, the Gospel of his wisdom, grace, and love; the law declares his will with respect to duty, the Gospel with respect to salvation; the authority of God is stamped on the law, but the Gospel is the image of Christ; the law was written by the finger of God, but the Gospel was hid in his heart, and came from thence: in the promulgation of it, through the long train of patriarchs and prophets, that went before it to usher it in; it was published by Christ, the Son of God himself, confirmed by the gifts and miracles of the Holy Ghost, and in it is a greater display of the glory of God; it was attended with angels too, and a voice from heaven delightful and not terrible; and there was a glory on Christ’s countenance, far exceeding that of Moses’s: in the matter of it; which is the love, grace, and mercy of God; the Lord Jesus Christ, in all the glories and fulness of his person and offices; salvation by him, spiritual blessings, exceeding great and precious promises; neither of which are to be observed in the law: the ordinances of it vastly exceed the legal ones; and it has greatly the advantage of it in its effects on the souls of men, when accompanied by the Spirit of God.<\/p>\n In this respect <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The glory on the face of Moses was temporary, though real, and passed away (verse 7<\/span>), a type of the dimming of the glory of the old dispensation by the brightness of the new. The moon makes a dim light after the sun rises, “is not glorified” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>, perfect passive indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>).<\/P> By reason of the glory that surpasseth <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The surpassing (–<\/SPAN><\/span>, throwing beyond) glory. Christ as the Sun of Righteousness has thrown Moses in the shade. Cf. the claims of superiority by Christ in Mt 5-7<\/span>. <\/P><\/p>\n That which was made glorious had no glory in this respect [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious. The peculiar form of expression is taken from Exo 34:29<\/span>, 35<\/span>, Sept., “Moses knew not that the appearance of the skin of his face was glorified.” ” The children of Israel saw the face of Moses that it was glorified. “Much unnecessary difficulty has been made, chiefly about the connection and meaning of in this respect. That which hath been made glorious is the ministry of death and condemnation (vers. 7, 9), the ministry of Moses in the giving of the law, which ministry was temporarily glorified in the shining of Moses ‘ face. Hath not been made glorious is only another way of expressing was passing away (ver. 7) : of saying that the temporary glory of Moses ‘ ministry faded and paled before the glory of the ministry of Christ. The figure which pervades the whole passage (7 – 11) is that of a glorified face. The ministration of the law, impersonated in Moses, is described as having its face glorified. It is to this that in this respect refers. Paul says that the ministry of the law, which was temporarily glorified in the face of Moses, is no longer glorified in this respect; that is, it no longer appears with glorified face, because of the glory that excelleth, the glory of Christ ministering the Gospel, before which it fades away and is as if it had not been. This accords with ch. 4, where the theme is the same as here, ministry or ministration (ver. 1); and where the christian revelation is described as” the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ” (ver. 6). This is the key to our passage. To the same purpose is ver. 18, where the Christian is represented as gazing, through the Gospel, with unveiled face, upon the glory of God in Christ, and as being changed thereby into the image of Christ. The glory of the law in the face of Moses has faded before the glory of the Gospel in the face of Jesus Christ.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For even that which was made glorious,”<\/strong> (kai gar ou dedoksastai to) “For indeed has not been glorified the thing,” The letter, of the stone-law-The law that was written in stone, and its glory days are passed, Col 2:14-17<\/span>; Gal 3:19<\/span>; Gal 3:24-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Had no glory in this respect “<\/strong> (dedoksasmenon en touto to merei) “had (not) glory in this respect,” in respect to the kind or degree of glory of the new ministry of the covenant, of the Holy Spirit and His manifestation in the church, as He came to the church on Pentecost, to abide with her forever, Act 2:1-4<\/span>; Joh 16:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “By reason of the glory that excelleth,”<\/strong> (eineken tes huperballouses dokses) “For the sake of the excelling glory,” or the surpassing glory of the Spirit thru the new covenant church, which excels the glory of the ancient, decadent Law of Moses, now and forever hereafter, even in and beyond the millennial age, Eph 3:21<\/span>; Rev 19:1-9<\/span>; Rev 20:9-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 10. What was rendered glorious. This is not a correction of what goes before, but rather a confirmation; for he means that the glory of the law is extinguished when the gospel comes forth. As the moon and stars, though in themselves they are not merely luminous, but diffuse their light over the whole earth, do, nevertheless, disappear before the brightness of the sun; so, however glorious the law was in itself, it has, nevertheless, no glory in comparison with the excellence of the gospel. Hence it follows, that we cannot sufficiently prize, or hold in sufficient esteem the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the gospel, like the splendor of the sun when beaming forth; and that the gospel is foolishly handled, nay more, is shamefully profaned, where the power and majesty of the Spirit do not come forth to view, so as to draw up men’s minds and hearts heavenward. <\/p>\n (10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory.<\/strong>More accurately, St. Paul reproducing the very tense which he found in the LXX. of Exo. 34:35<\/span>, that which had been glorified has not been glorified<\/em>i.e.,<\/em> has lost its glory.<\/p>\n In this respect . . .<\/strong>The phrase is the same as in 2Co. 9:3<\/span>; 1Pe. 4:16<\/span>. The English expresses it very fairly. In this point, as compared with the gospel, the Law has lost its glory; it is thrown into the shade by the glory that excelleth. The imagery seems to bring before us the symbolic meaning of the Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah appear in glory, but the glory of the Son of Man surpasses that of either. (Comp. Notes on Mat. 16:1-4<\/span>.) The word for excelleth may be noted as peculiar to St. Paul among the writers of the New Testament.<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. <\/strong> The very fact that the old ministration was destined to be surpassed, was a respect <\/strong> or point in which it was not glorious. <\/p>\n Even that<\/strong> Old ministration. <\/p>\n In this respect<\/strong> Or point; namely, by reason <\/strong> of a more excelling glory to come to the new. Its glory <\/strong> is shaded in anticipation of its future eclipse.<\/p>\n ‘For truly that which has been made glorious has not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasses For if that which passes away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.’<\/p>\n ‘In this respect’ or ‘in this case’ may also be translated ‘partially’ (thus ‘that which has been made glorious partially has not been made glorious’ i.e fully glorious), but either way the sense is clear.<\/p>\n For while we can certainly say that the first was made glorious, its glory is as nothing when compared with (in respect of) the second. For the second so surpassed the first in glory, that the glory of the first is totally outmatched. So while the first covenant was made in glory, it was in a glory that was passing away, it was a secondary glory. How much more then will the superior second covenant be made in glory, and in a glory which remains. It will never pass away. For that glory is the glory of the Lord revealed and enjoyed by those who can now look on Him without fear (2Co 3:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n For the first covenant ministers death and is passing. The second ministers life and righteousness, and is eternal. We must, however, remember that this is the final verdict, looked at from what each can finally achieve. Of course the same God Who acts through the second covenant acted through the first. That too was a covenant of grace, and that too offered a means of salvation. But in the end it turned out that it was only taken up by the few. It was a matter of their choice. On the other hand all who enter into the second covenant find salvation, for it is a covenant of salvation, and puts those who respond to it within God’s saving purposes in Christ. It is a matter of His choice. The first covenant having given deliverance (I am the Lord Who has delivered you), goes on to make demands, which may not be fulfilled, the second gives deliverance, and then gives power, and goes on giving and giving again and again.<\/p>\n We are not to think from this that the first covenant was a failure. It succeeded in what it set out to do. It established Israel as a nation made up of many conglomerate parts, it provided them, especially through the prophets, with a basis for moral living which was unsurpassed until Christ came, and it provided a means of salvation through God’s appointed means. But in itself it could not give life. It offered life, but only on condition of a true response of faith and obedience, and that response was mainly lacking. Under it God did in mercy give life to those who truly responded to Him, but true response was small. The second covenant is, however, a covenant of life. It does not only offer life, it imparts life. And those who respond to it are in Christ, and enjoy all the benefits that He has purchased for them through His blood.<\/p>\n We may summarise the situation, some of which is read in by implication, as follow:<\/p>\n 1) The written covenant, the letter, kills, because it is external and cannot change the heart of a man. It is a ministration of death. It catches a man out, points the finger at him, and destroys him. But the Spirit gives life, because He enters into a man’s very being and writes on His heart, imparting the righteousness that is required. His is an unceasing ministration of life.<\/p>\n 2) Both covenants came with glory, but one was passing away and was less glorious, because it led to condemnation, while the other is permanent and is exceedingly glorious, because it leads to righteousness and acceptance.<\/p>\n 3) The mediator of the first bore a fading glory and the covenant was temporary, the Mediator of the second has a continuing glory and the covenant is eternal<\/p>\n Paul’s purpose in writing this downstaging of the old covenant and exaltation of the new may partly have been as a result of Judaising influences in the church. Especially if missionaries had come from Jerusalem with letters of commendation, causing part of the opposition against his message (see 2Co 11:18-23<\/span> compare 2Co 3:1<\/span>) and laying a great emphasis on Moses as God’s ideal. It is pointing out that in the end what Moses brought was not sufficient.<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>For even that which was made glorious<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Though the shewing that the ministration of the gospel is more glorious than that of the law, be what St. Paul is treating of here, thereby to justify himself, if he has assumed some authority and commendation to himself in his ministry and apostleship; yet, in his thus industriously placing the ministry of the gospel in honour abovethat of Moses, may he not possibly have an eye to thejudaizing <\/em>false apostle of the Corinthians, to let them see what little regard was to behad to that ministration, in comparison of the ministry of the gospel? <\/p>\n 2Co 3:10<\/span> . A more precise grounding of the previous . . . by the highest climax of this relation. For even<\/em> ( ) that which is glorious is without glory in this point by reason of the superabundant glory<\/em> .<\/p>\n ] The chief element is prefixed, and combined into one<\/em> idea (Hartung, Partikell.<\/em> I. p. 122; Baeuml. p. 278): gloria destitutum est<\/em> . The perfect<\/em> denotes the continuance of what had taken place; Khner, II. p. 70.<\/p>\n ] is referred to the Mosaic religious economy<\/em> by Emmerling and Olshausen, following older expositors, quite against the context. Most refer it to the ministry of Moses<\/em> , which had been made glorious through the radiance on his countenance, 2Co 3:7-9<\/span> . But see belo.<\/p>\n ] in this respect<\/em> (2Co 9:3<\/span> ; 1Pe 4:16<\/span> ; Col 2:16<\/span> ; often in Greek authors), is joined with by Fritzsche, l.c.<\/em> p. 31 (also de Wette and Ewald): “ quod collustratum fuit hac parte h. e. ita, ut per splendorem, qui in Mosis facie conspiciebatur, illustre redderetur<\/em> .” But on the one hand supposing that . denotes the ministry of Moses the so taken would be an utterly superfluous addition, since the reader would already have had full information in accordance with the context through . having the article; on the other hand, we should expect to point to something said just before, which, however, is not the case, since we must go back as far as 2Co 3:7<\/span> . If, again, with Ewald, we take as “ in all that is Jewish<\/em> , apart from what is Christian,” and refer it to the then still subsisting state of the temple, synagogue, etc., how enigmatically Paul would have expressed himself, without any hint of his meaning in the context! Following Chrysostom ( ) and Theodoret ( , namely, to the ministers of the N. T.), most commentators (including Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann) join it with ., so that it would indicate the reference in which the sentence . . holds good (see Hofmann), and consequently would have the meaning: “ over against the office of Moses<\/em> .” But how utterly superfluous, and in fact cumbrous, would this . be if so taken, especially seeing that there still follows . . ., which serves to throw light upon the relation asserted! How surprising would this amplification be at this very point, where the comparison is carried to the highest pitch, and the representation is so forcibly and pithily begun by the oxymoron . .! Rckert (following Flatt) connects also with , but explains it: in this respect<\/em> , that is, in so far as the first<\/em> was the<\/em> . At variance with the connection. For not in so far as the Mosaic ministered to condemnation and death, is its splendour darkened, but in so far as its splendour is outshone by a far greater splendour, that of the of the N. T. Besides, if the assumed reference of were to be held correct, the would necessarily be the principal element (predicate) in what precedes, not merely an attributive definition of the subject. On the whole, the following explanation, against which none but quite irrelevant objections [163] are made, seems to be the right one: is certainly to be connected with ; , however, is not to be taken as a designation of the Mosaic in concreto<\/em> , but signifies that which is glorified generally, in abstracto<\/em> ; so that, in addition to the said of it, there is also given with the reference to the particular concrete thing of which the apostle is speaking, the reference to the ministry of Moses, namely, thus: “ for in this respect, i.e.<\/em> in respect of the relation of glory in which the Mosaic stands to the Christian (2Co 3:9<\/span> ), it is even the case that what is glorified is unglorified<\/em> .” Analogously, the of the moon, for instance, is no , when the of the sun beams forth (1Co 15:14<\/span> ).<\/p>\n . ] by reason of<\/em> (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep.<\/em> p. 329 B) the superabundant glory<\/em> , which obscures the , exhibits its as relatively no . This applies to the future glory of the N. T. , setting in at the , but already conceived as present.<\/p>\n [163] The objection made by Osiander is a dilemma logically incorrect. Hofmann urges that cannot mean: in this case<\/em> . But it is not at all alleged to have that meaning, but rather: in this point<\/em> , i. e. hoc respectu<\/em> , in the relation under discussion. See on this adverbial usage, C. Fr. Herm. ad Lucian. hist. concer<\/em> . p. 8.<\/p>\n 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 10. Had no glory<\/strong> ] To speak of, and in comparison. The light of the law was obscured and overcast by the light of the gospel. The sea about the altar was brazen, 1Ki 7:23<\/span> , and what eyes could pierce through it? Now our sea about the throne is glassy,Rev 4:6<\/span>Rev 4:6<\/span> , like to crystal, clearly conveying the light and sight of God in Christ to our eyes. <\/p>\n 10.<\/strong> ] For<\/strong> (substantiation of the foregoing ) even that which has been glorified<\/strong> (viz. the . . ., which was by the brightness on the face of Moses) has not been glorified<\/strong> (has lost all its glory) in this respect<\/strong> (i.e. when compared with the gospel, , Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 481.<\/p>\n De W. takes . . with , ‘that which was in this particular glorified,’ viz. in the brightness on the face of Moses: but that would more naturally be : as it now stands I cannot divide otherwise than | | . Meyer takes . as abstract<\/em> , and as pointing to the concrete<\/em> : ‘that which has been glorified (general and abstract) has in this particular department (concrete, viz. the . . . which was .) no glory: q. d. the glorified is unglorified in this case.’ This may certainly be, and is ingenious: but the other is simpler) on account of<\/strong> (i.e. when we take into consideration) the surpassing glory<\/strong> (viz. of the other : present<\/em> , because spoken of qualitatively).<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10<\/span> . : for that which hath been made glorious, sc.<\/em> , the Ministration of the Old Covenant, hath not<\/em> [really] been made glorious in this respect, viz., on account of the surpassing glory<\/em> (of the Ministration of the New Covenant); i.e.<\/em> , the surpassing glory of the second made the glory of the first seem nought. The phraseology of Exo 34:35<\/span> ( ) is still in the Apostle’s mind. has been otherwise explained as equivalent to “in this instance of Moses”; but it seems (see ref.) to be merely a redundant phrase, added for the sake of emphasis, introducing . .<\/p>\n made glorious = glorified. Greek. doxazo. See p. 1511. <\/p>\n had no glory = was not glorified, as above. <\/p>\n excelleth. Greek. huperballo. Occurs here, 2Co 9:14, Eph 1:19; Eph 2:7; Eph 3:19. <\/p>\n 10.] For (substantiation of the foregoing ) even that which has been glorified (viz. the . . ., which was by the brightness on the face of Moses) has not been glorified (has lost all its glory) in this respect (i.e. when compared with the gospel,- , Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 481.<\/p>\n De W. takes . . with , that which was in this particular glorified, viz. in the brightness on the face of Moses:-but that would more naturally be :-as it now stands I cannot divide otherwise than | | . Meyer takes . as abstract, and as pointing to the concrete: that which has been glorified (general and abstract) has in this particular department (concrete, viz. the . . . which was .) no glory: q. d. the glorified is unglorified in this case. This may certainly be, and is ingenious: but the other is simpler) on account of (i.e. when we take into consideration) the surpassing glory (viz. of the other :-present, because spoken of qualitatively).<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10. , was not even glorified [had no glory]) The limitation immediately follows, in this respect. The greater light obscures the less.- , that which was glorified) So LXX:, Exo 34:29; Exo 34:35, , .<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10 <\/p>\n For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect,-[Not only does the glory of the dispensation of righteousness exceed that of the ministration of condemnation in that it is moral and spiritual as well as outward and physical, but the glory of the ministration of righteousness far exceeds the glory which preceded it, in this respect that it is permanent.]<\/p>\n by reason of the glory that surpasseth.-The law of Moses, while it was glorious, loses all claims to glory, compared with the greater glory of the ministration of the Spirit that so exceeds it. It is more glorious, as Jesus was more glorious than Moses; as its eternal rewards in heaven are more glorious than the temporal blessings in the land of Canaan. <\/p>\n had: Job 25:5, Isa 24:23, Hag 2:3, Hag 2:7-9, Act 26:13, Phi 3:7-8, 2Pe 1:17, Rev 21:23, Rev 21:24, Rev 22:5 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Isa 43:18 – General Hag 2:9 – glory 1Co 4:21 – shall 2Co 3:7 – which 2Co 3:9 – exceed<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10. Had no glory is said in a comparative sense only, for Paul has already shown the first covenant to be very glorious. However, it was nothing when compared with the second; it was glorified by being given through the Spirit.<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respecti.e. hath had its glory eclipsed,by reason of the glory that surpasseth.<\/p>\n 2Co 3:10-11. Even that which was made glorious The law, especially at its first dispensation; had no glory in this respect, &c. That is, none in comparison of the gospel, which has such a transcendent glory in it. The greater light swallows up the less. For if that which is done away The law, and the whole Mosaic dispensation, which, being only typical and shadowy, of course ceased when the antitype and substance came. Hence its priesthood is changed, Heb 7:11-12; its covenant, Heb 8:6; its sanctuary and whole service, Heb 9:1-9; with all its privileges and blessings, they being generally of a worldly and carnal nature; much more that which remaineth The gospel, which is to continue without any alteration to the end of time; is glorious Its high- priest is consecrated for ever, and has an unchangeable priesthood, Heb 6:20; Heb 7:24; Heb 7:28. Its law, or covenant, remains the same through all ages: its sanctuary, the visible church, is built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: its spiritual worship and service are of perpetual obligation; and its privileges and blessings, being all of a spiritual and heavenly nature, though possessed in their first-fruits in time, shall be reaped in their full harvest in eternity. Such are the three particulars in which the glory of the new covenant far exceeds that of the old.<\/p>\n For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. <\/p>\n Verse 10 <\/p>\n No glory in this respect; that is, in comparison with the glory of the new dispensation.<\/p>\n The New Covenant glorifies God so much more than the Old Covenant did that Paul could say the Old Covenant had no glory by comparison.<\/p>\n For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 10. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth ] Rather, For even that which has been glorified (i.e. the face of Moses, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 3:10”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28799\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"