![]() Martin, 2 Corinthians (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5-7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 550-81 Ralph P. For various approaches to the issue, see G. ((This article assumes-but does not seek to defend- the view that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is not an interpolation but is part of the warp and woof of Paul’s flow of thought. On the other hand, in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 the new covenant is presented mainly in terms of continuity. The new covenant is better than the old, not because it has a fundamentally different goal, but because it actually fulfills that goal in Christ.)) The problem in the old covenant was that its “goal” ( telos) was unattainable because it had no provision to overcome Israel’s hardness of heart (3:13-14). For instance, the assumption throughout the passage is that the purpose of both covenants was that God’s people experience God’s glory. ((It is worthwhile to note that even in 3:1-18 there are some elements of continuity between the old and new covenants. That discontinuity is emphasized in 3:1-18 is clear, for the very presence of the descriptor new (3:6) assumes a contrast with something old (3:14). 1 Cor 11:25), the new covenant is presented mainly in terms of discontinuity, especially as it is contrasted with the old covenant. In 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, which contains one of the few places Paul uses the phrase “new covenant” (cf. ![]() Why did Paul consider the new covenant to be a solid basis for his ministry? How did he contend for its superiority in comparison to other covenantal contenders? As the argument unfolds, we can see a twofold perspective on the nature of the new covenant that runs along the continuity-discontinuity spectrum. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988).)) For a good foray into some of the ways theological systems unpack themes of continuity and discontinuity, see John S. ![]() The question before us concerns deciphering in what sense this is true. ((Of course, in some sense it is true that the new covenant is in both continuity and discontinuity with the old. To put it simply, one’s view of how the new covenant relates to the old will determine in large part what theological system is embraced. ![]() Should the relationship primarily be cast in terms of continuity, such that the nature and structure of the new covenant are in essential continuity with the nature and structure of previous covenants? Or should the relationship primarily be understood in terms of discontinuity, such that the newness of the new covenant is emphasized? No doubt, such themes of continuity and discontinuity are located along a spectrum, but different points along the spectrum delineate some of the key differences among theological systems today. Evangelical Christians from various perspectives have wrestled with how the New Testament (NT) relates to the Old, and, more specifically, how the new covenant relates to the prior biblical covenants. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |