For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels.
Read Chapter 3
Ambrosiaster
AD 400
The law of Moses was not made glorious because of the splendor on his face. That splendor was of no benefit to anyone and did not have the reward of glory. It was rather a hindrance, not through its own fault but through the fault of sinners. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.
For even that which was made glorious, &c. For, by a common Hebraism, is here assertive, not causal. The glory of Moses cannot be called glory when compared with that of the Apostolic office, which far excels it. "As," says Theodoret, "the light of a lantern shines at night, but is at noonday overpowered by the sun, so was the glory of Moses overshadowed by Christ." This is the bearing of the phrase "by reason of the glory that excelleth."
And this is what the apostle writes in another place: “And yet what was glorified is without glory because of the surpassing glory”; for the justice of the law, to be sure, in comparison with the grace of the gospel would not appear to be justice. “For if that,” he says, “which is done away with is glorious, much more will that be glorious which abides.”
Paul does not disparage the Old Testament but highly commends it, since comparisons are apt to be made between things which are basically similar in kind.
Now in what has gone before, indeed, he showed that this also is with glory; and not simply is with glory, but even exceeds in it: for he did not say, How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather in glory? but, exceed in glory; deriving the proof from the arguments before stated. Here he also shows the superiority, how great it is, saying, 'if I compare this with that, the glory of the Old Covenant is not glory at all;' not absolutely laying down that there was no glory, but in view of the comparison. Wherefore also he added, in this respect, that is, in respect of the comparison. Not that this does disparage the Old Covenant, yea rather it highly commends it: for comparisons are wont to be made between things which are the same in kind. Next, he sets on foot yet another argument to prove the superiority also from a fresh ground. What then is this argument? That based upon duration,
