(A) Introduction. (Read the reference)

I found this a very difficult passage to deal with. Paul seems to underestimate the merits of the Old Covenant under which many godly men of faith lived. God surely didn't make the Old Covenant to kill and condemn men. Perhaps, too, Paul failed to acknowledge the dangers of the New Covenant. He must have been aware that by proclaiming Christ's sacrificial death set men free from the demands of the law he encouraged the idea that "everything is permissible." 1Cor10v23. (See exposition on 1Cor10v14to33.) If salvation is by grace and grace covers all our sins we may think it is safe to sin.

William Barclay's commentary on this passage was by far the most helpful not least because he endeavours, as always, to draw practical lessons from it.

This is a long exposition. It could form the basis of two sermons.

(B) The Superiority of the New Covenant.

(1) What is a covenant?

It is a contract God makes with men whose terms are laid down by God alone. God contracts to give men certain benefits if they abide by his terms. The benefits are absolutely guaranteed if men willing submit to God's conditions.

(2) The nature of the Old Covenant.

The best statement of the Old Covenant is found in Dt30v11to20 and especially v16: For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

(3) The nature of the New Covenant.

The new covenant is new not in the sense that tomorrow's newspaper will be new but in the sense that if I changed to a better newspaper it would be new. It is new in point of quality.

There is no clear, complete statement of the new covenant in the New Testament! Perhaps the best summary of it is found in Heb9v15: For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from sins committed under the first covenant. (See exposition on Heb8v6to13)

The description of the new covenant in Hebrews needs to be taken with one of Jesus' promises - like the one in John6v40: "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Jesus contracts to give eternal life to all who look to and believe in him. God the Father also agrees to this contract because he was satisfied with the sacrifice for sin Jesus offered at Calvary. Jesus sealed our pardon with his blood.

(4) Why does Paul write to the Corinthians about the Old Covenant.

We can only surmise that the "super-apostles" but false apostles from Jerusalem of whom Paul writes later in the epistle were persuading the Corinthians of the importance of the old covenant. It seems unlikely that the Jewish legalists had gone as far as the men who caused such trouble amongst the Galatians because Paul's criticism of them is not quite as vitriolic.

I can imagine these men from Jerusalem, confidants of James the elder, stressing Jesus' role in establishing the Kingdom of God the subjects of whom were expected to behave in a certain way. Jesus certainly taught what he expected of his subjects! The legalists may have gone further and pointed out that Jesus observed the Sabbath, kept the dietary laws and celebrated all the Jewish festivals. So a gospel of conduct and works was preached that was anathema to Paul who stressed over and over again that salvation was a gift received by grace and through faith.

(5) Paul reacts by stressing the superiority of the New Covenant.

Paul does so rather more drastically than the writer to the Hebrews in the following ways:

(a) The old covenant brought death and new covenant gives life. He has made us ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2Cor3v6.

This seems very strange to me! Moses said to the Israelites in Dt30v19: This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live .... .

There is little doubt that through the centuries many Jews did love and worship God. They did not have a legalistic attitude to the law but instead saw it as an expression of God's concern for his people. Psalm 119 is a lengthy celebration of the law. The best Jews saw keeping the law not so much an obligation but an expression of their devotion to God.

The law condemned to death those that blatantly disobeyed it. This was not really Paul's experience. He said of himself: touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Phil3v6. A.V. Paul realised, from experience, that during the time he lived by the law he was spiritually dead. Certainly the legalistic attitude to the law adopted by many Pharisees killed in the following ways:

* It obscured God's intent. Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Mk2v27. The law of Moses was given for man's benefit not for God's. God intended it to be beneficial to men, not a burden. The Pharisees made the law a burden and by so doing killed men's love for God.

* It devalued the virtues that really mattered to God. The Pharisees strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. They scrupulously tithed the herbs in their gardens but neglected what was really important: justice, faithfulness and mercy. Such behaviour killed a man's regard for God. Was God a stickler for the rules but unconcerned about the state of a man's heart.

* It destroyed integrity. A legalistic religion encourages people to pretend to be what they are not in order to win favour in the eyes of others. It is profoundly insulting to God whom we can never deceive.

* It makes God's grace redundant. The law was given to the Israelites in the context of their great deliverance from slavery in Egypt. God delivered by his grace and gives them the law as a further expression of that grace. The sacrificial system was a way of being absolved from sin by offering a token payment to God and relying on his grace to accept it.

A legalistic attitude destroys dependence upon grace. People come to rely on virtue gained from obeying the law to win God's favour. It is almost as if by keeping the law God is put under an obligation to bless.

Legalism breeds self-sufficiency and self-righteousness. Both separate a man from God. They are barriers to fellowship with God. Jesus made this clear in his Parable of the Publican and Pharisee. (See exposition on Luke18v9to14.)

When legalism begins to infect a church it wreaks havoc. There is a loss of spiritual freedom. Some Christians feel oppressed, fearful and inadequate. Others become proud, self-righteous and judgemental. Gradually Jesus is displaced from his central position. Orthodoxy, conformity and rigidity replace grace and love and joy. In this way law kills.

The Holy Spirit gives life through the new covenant in the following ways:

* By assuring the believer that he is loved by God and adopted into his family. Paul wrote to the Romans: God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom he has given us. Rm5v5. See also Rm8v15to17.

* By ensuring the believer relies upon God's grace rather than his own efforts for salvation. The Spirit keeps grace to the forefront of our minds. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Rm5v8.

* By helping the believer to understand what Christ wants of him and to acquire those virtues most pleasing to God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Gal5v22. I do not believe the Spirit produces these qualities in the Christian automatically. Sometimes reading Paul you almost get that impression. But Peter writes: For this reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and brotherly kindness, love. 2Pet1v5to7.

(b) The old covenant condemns and the new covenant brings righteousness. If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! v9.

This also seems rather strange to me! Paul in his epistle to the Romans elaborates on the idea that the law condemns us because we are unable to keep it. My problem is that Moses said something completely different. He told the Israelites: "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Dt30v11. It is worth reading the whole passage because Moses was at some pains to spell it out.

I don't think there can be any doubt that a man like Daniel lived by the spirit of the law. Even his enemies found nothing to accuse him of. I am sure he was a righteous man, a man of faith and rectitude who pleased God.

We must always remember that Paul was writing out of his experience as a legalistic Pharisee. He was fearful that the very attitude that once blinded him was going to infect the Corinthian church.

Legalism condemned because:

* It fostered a critical spirit. Church members were encouraged to look for and condemn faults in others. Individuals guilty of a minor infringement of the rules could be publicly rebuked. Legalism kills charity in the judge and hope in the sinner.

One of the features of cults is the public humiliation of the dissident. Some strict Protestant sects are not much better. I can remember being verbally chastised and banned from preaching at a church for saying that smoking the occasional cigar was not the greatest of sins. Nor is it! If that was my only failing I would be a happy man!

* It encouraged morbid introspection. The man trying to please God by keeping the law has something to worry about. Does he really love God enough? Does he love him with his whole heart? Couldn't he love God more? Can he be sure there is nothing he covets? Does refraining from work on the Sabbath mean that he must spend the day in suspended animation?

This sort of attitude means the law condemns you. You keep falling short - you are just not good enough.

It is a dangerous road to tread. I believe Jesus warned against it in the Sermon on the Mount. I think he told his listeners that if they really wanted to earn God's favour their righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees. He then proceeded to set some wholly unobtainable targets: not being angry with your brother, never insulting your brother, never looking at a woman with lust and so on. Philip Yancey in his book, 'Soul Survivor,' writes about Leo Tolstoy's attempts to live by the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy was sincere and determined but he failed. His quest for holiness ended in disappointment. It actually made him unhappy and difficult to live with.

The new covenant brings righteousness because:
* It makes provision for the forgiveness of sins through the sacrificial death of Jesus. We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb10v10.

* Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. How much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Rom5v17. I love the words of Nicolaus L Von Zinzendorf's great hymn:

Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness
My beauty are, my glorious dress;
Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,
With joy shall I life up my head.

John Donne the great English poet said this as death beckoned:

I cannot plead innocency of life, especially of my youth, but I am judged by a merciful God, who is not willing to see what I have done amiss. And though of myself I have nothing to present to Him but sins and misery, yet I know He looks upon me not as I am of myself, but as I am in my Saviour .... I am therefore full of inexpressible joy, and shall die in peace.

* Those who receive it are helped by the Holy Spirit to be the men and women of whom God approves. The writer to the Hebrews quotes the words of the prophet Jeremiah: The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel ...... . I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. Heb8v8to12.

These words need to be interpreted carefully. It is easy to assume from them that after conversion a person automatically acquires virtue through the operation of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Paul also gives this impression when he writes things like: You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. Rom8v9. I believe that when a person becomes a Christian they are predisposed by the Spirit to please Jesus but after that virtue is dearly bought through teaching, testing, discipline, correction, prayer and diligence. After all, there were many in Corinth who had been born again of the Spirit who were very, very far from perfect.

(c) The old covenant was temporary and the new covenant is permanent. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! 2Cor3v10.

Just as the shining glory of Moses' face after receiving the old covenant eventually faded so the glory of the old covenant itself faded. It served its purpose in producing and preserving a people of God - the Jews. Sadly, the very instrument that kept belief in the one, true God alive also produced a fierce, self-righteous, racist nationalism.

Paul aptly described the role of the old covenant when he wrote to the Galatians: So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law. Gal3v24. Jesus, himself, said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them." Mt5v17.

Jesus brought the old covenant to completion by making the ultimate sacrifice of himself for sin on the cross. It was this act of supreme love and God's grace in accepting it that instituted the new covenant and established a new, better and lasting relationship between man and God. It is a relationship that makes believers joint heirs with Christ. It will last forever - unfading in its glory for all eternity.

Yet there remains a tendency to go back to the old. This is a feature of human nature. James Herriot describes in his charming books on life as a country vet in Yorkshire how some farmers were suspicious of antibiotics and wanted him to use the old familiar remedies. They didn't think a simple injection compared favourably with colourful, eye-catching, messy but useless old treatments.

Jesus recognised this weakness when he said: "And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.'" Jn5v39. (See exposition on Lk5v33tof39.)

There are some relatively harmless manifestations of the 'old is better' attitude in the church like unwillingness to accept that any version of the Bible could improve on the Authorised Version. However, there are some pernicious examples too:

* While there is debatable scriptural evidence (such as that in Colossians 2:11-12), paedobaptists believe that infant baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision. Almost all the Christian denominations who practice infant baptism justify it by going back to the old covenant God made with Abraham.

* The inexcusable practice of calling Christian leaders priests. Why is it that only priests at the altar can administer the Lord's Supper? It is because Christians have returned to the old covenant of a priestly group who alone could officiate at the sacrifices in the Temple. There is no further need of priests. Christ made the final sacrifice for sin. He doesn't have to be offered up again!

* Sabbath observance. What a song and dance some strict Protestant groups have made of observing the Sabbath. Christians live by the new covenant and don't keep the Sabbath. Sunday is our special day - a day not so much of rest as of worship. A legalistic attitude to Lord's Day observance made Sunday the most miserable day in the week for me as a child.

* Using a list of doctrines as the touchstone of orthodoxy and dismissing dissenters as unsound and equivalent to second-rate Christians. Doctrines written in stone resemble those commandments that were used in the time of Christ to condemn men rather than to exalt God. Lists of doctrines smack of the old covenant and are little better than lists of rules and regulations.

In words quoted by William Barclay: 'When the sun has risen the lamps cease to be of use'.

(1) A greater confidence.

As Paul described Moses fading glory he remembered how he veiled his face. This sets him off on another train of thought. He suggests the veil was to stop the Israelites witnessing the fading glory. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 2Cor3v13.

There is nothing in Dt34v29to35 to suggest that Moses veiled his face because his glory faded. If anything he veiled his face because it produced fear in others including Aaron. See Dt34v39. The account also tells us that whenever Moses went into the Tabernacle to speak with God he removed his veil. When he came out to communicate God's message to the people his face shone. Moses only replaced the veil after he finished relaying God's instructions.

It is possible Moses revealed his radiant face to lend authority to the message he passed on. It was a sign from God of his authority to act as his spokesman. Perhaps, between the sessions Moses had with God the radiance faded.

Paul claimed that because of the glorious life-giving new covenant he had a hope that made him bold. Therefore since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses .... . v12. Paul did not need a shining face to give him authority. He had a competence from God; a continual, unfading competence as a minister of the new covenant. Our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant .... . v5and6.

So there is no need for any evangelist to rely on anything but the simple gospel. There is no need for any shining face - the razzmatazz of the big gospel rally - the stage, the setting, the glamorous singers, the celebrity testimonies, the oratory - the great, big, dazzling spectacle of it all. In Corinth Paul sat in the dust among the tent makers sewing and boldly gossiping the gospel, telling men and women of Christ and him crucified - saving the lost by the sheer power of his glorious, unfading message.

(2) Veiled eyes.

Paul accused the Jews of reading the old covenant with veiled eyes and dull minds. To this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. v14. I fail to see how Jewish rejection of Jesus has much to do with Moses wearing a veil. I believe he stretches the analogy too far - not for the first or last time. However it is true that the Jews at the time of Jesus read the Old Testament with veiled eyes. They didn't see how the Passover, for example, pointed forward to a Messiah who would be the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world - even with Isaiah 53 to help them. Instead the Passover probably reinforced the Jew's pride in being the people of God - special because only they were chosen amongst all the races of men.

William Barclay says that it remains possible to approach the Bible with veiled eyes. Our eyes can be veiled by:

(a) Dogma. We can bring our doctrine to Scripture and look for texts and passages to support it. It is possible to be more interested in finding support for our own views than arriving at the truth. I have listened to two sermons recently from a convinced Calvinist. One was based on Ephesians1v3to14 in which the preacher emphasised the sovereignty of God in chosing, predestinating and adopting us in accordance with his pleasure and will. Eph1v5. However the preacher did not mention verses 13 and 14 that refer to man's responsibility: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit. In other words God's choice is not unconditional. Men have to hear the gospel and believe before they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and adopted into God's family. Calvinists struggle with many passages in Hebrews because they do not admit the possibility of genuine Christians falling away. (See exposition on Heb10v26to39.)

The Arminian must also be careful not to ignore Scriptures that do not fit conveniently into his doctrinal system. For instance Jesus said: All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. Jn6v37. It is easy to emphasise the second half of that saying and to ignore the first half. People need to be prepared for belief. The apostle Paul kicked against the pricks before being converted.

(b) Wishful thinking. We can find in Scripture what we wish to be there. This is particularly true when it comes to a woman's role in the church. Some use Paul's comment that women should keep quiet in the church to ban woman from teaching men conveniently ignoring the references to women prophets. Others use Paul's statement that men and women are one in Christ to argue that women should have leadership roles in the church ignoring the fact that the elders in the early church were all men. See 1Tim3v2.

I knew a loveable clergyman whose son was not a Christian who persisted in the belief that all would be saved in the end; God was not willing that any one should perish. 2Pet3v9. My friend's eyes were veiled. He just would not acknowledge the warnings of Jesus: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Jn3v36.

(c) Experience. My friend Tommy is hostile to Christianity. He does not want anything to do with it. He often describes Christians as hypocrites which I always feel is a shame because the Christian he knows best is me. His attitude in part derives from his experience of the Roman Catholic Church in his boyhood - an experience that made him feel guilty. So his eyes are veiled to the great, liberating truths of Christianity. He is like the Jews of old. Only Jesus is able remove the veil from his eyes.

There is no doubt that in some respects my eyes are veiled. My experience is so unlike Paul's. I did not have a dramatic conversion when I was conscious of being born again. I have not been baptised in the Spirit like Paul. I share no supernatural gifts with the apostle: healing, speaking in tongues, prophesy. My preaching is not in the Spirit's power as Paul's was. Paul tends to emphasise the importance of the indwelling Spirit in controlling the Christian and producing virtue. See Gal5v16to26.

My emphasis is different. I always stress the necessity of belief in Jesus. I teach that the way to virtue is through love and obedience to Jesus and Christian service. I emphasise a believer's responsibility to take up his cross, deny himself and follow Jesus. In all this the Holy Spirit is like a wise and resourceful friend who provides necessary help. Now because of my experience I probably put too much stress on what the believer must do in his own strength and not enough on the work of the indwelling Spirit. I need to strive for a better balance.