article9

§4 Glory (2 Cor. 2:14–4:6)

After 2:13 (“So I … went to Macedonia”), Paul suddenly interrupts his travelogue and begins a new section on his apostolic ministry, only to resume the travelogue in 7:5 (“For when we came to Macedonia”), recounting the arrival of Titus in Macedonia and the comforting news of the Corinthians’ repentance. Hence, the intervening material on Paul’s defense of the legitimacy of his apostleship (2:14–7:4) may seem digressive or even extraneous. In fact, some scholars think that 2 Corinthians 2:14–7:4 was not part of Paul’s original composition.

Nevertheless, there are important reasons for considering 2:14–7:4 as part of 2 Corinthians 1–8 (cf. M. Thrall). In the previous context, Paul had been trying to counter the Corinthians’ accusations against him, particularly in regard to his change of travel plans (1:12–2:13). In the process of defending himself and wooing the Corinthians back to his side, Paul appeals to his own straightforward, unequivocal apostolic commission and ministry. Like Moses, he is a spokesman of God who mediates the divine promises to the Corinthians (1:18–22). Even as Moses endured Korah’s rebellion (Num. 16–17), Paul has also endured a rebellion against his own authority in Corinth (cf. 1:24; 2:6–7). The present section develops the comparison between Paul and Moses in more explicit detail by showing that the apostle is a revelatory mediator. Through Paul, the minister of the new covenant, the Corinthians have received the Spirit and thus have access to the glory of God. The Corinthians cannot reject Paul and his apostleship without denying their own participation in the promises he originally mediated to them during the founding visit. Thus, the very existence of the Corinthian church is tangible evidence of the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship (cf. 1 Cor. 9:2, “For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord”).

This explanation of the general connection between 1:12–2:13 and the present section does not account for specific placement of the section in the middle of Paul’s description of his trip to Macedonia to find Titus. Here we can only speculate as to Paul’s motives. Since it was in Macedonia that the apostle heard the encouraging news from Titus, Paul may have inserted 2:14–7:4 into the travelogue in order to encourage more of the same repentance already shown by the Corinthians since the writing of the tearful letter. Indeed, Paul does conclude his defense with an appeal to the Corinthians to open their hearts to him (6:12–13; 7:2). Furthermore, if the purpose of the tearful letter had been to rebuke the Corinthians, then Paul’s defense of his apostleship in 2:14–7:4 would fit in with the account of the anxiety he felt while waiting for their reaction to the letter.

2:14–17 / Paul begins the defense of his apostleship with a thanksgiving to God, whom he has personally encountered and who has made him a mediator of divine revelation. This encounter with God not only establishes Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle, but it also distinguishes Paul from his opponents. Hence, the very first verses of the apology provide Paul’s essential answer to the charges against him. The rest of the section (3:1–4:6) elaborates in one way or another on 2:14–17. As we shall see, already in 2:14–17 Paul begins the crucial comparison between himself and Moses, using it to highlight the superiority of his ministry of the new covenant over Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant. Although the revelation that Moses received was glorious, the revelation that Paul has received is even more glorious. Hence, Paul defends himself first and foremost on the basis of his position as the revelatory mediator par excellence.

2:14 / Paul’s defense commences with a thanksgiving to God for his apostolic ministry as revelatory mediator. We note here again Paul’s use of the so-called apostolic/literary plural (us) with reference to himself, since Paul’s apostleship is the main issue in this section. This verse is so pivotal to Paul’s argument and yet so difficult to interpret that we will need to give it special attention.

The main problem is the interpretation of thriambeuein, which is correctly translated leads in triumphal procession. For some interpreters, this usage of the term conjures up an image of the apostle that seems quite unlikely, coming as it does as part of a thanksgiving at the very beginning of his defense for the legitimacy for his apostolic ministry. Further, Paul would thus seem to be portraying himself as a complete disgrace, a prisoner of war who is led by the conquering general (God!) in a triumphal procession that culminates in the apostle’s death. Many scholars have sought to avoid this interpretation either by proposing an idiosyncratic usage of thriambeuein (e.g., “make known” [G. Dautzenberg]) or by assuming the use of a rhetorical strategy whereby the meaning of verse 14 is ultimately positive. More recently, however, the trend has been to recognize the unequivocal usage of thriambeuein, with its negative implications for Paul, and then to correlate the passage with Paul’s apostolic self-conception as expressed elsewhere, particularly in his admissions of personal weakness and suffering in the Corinthian correspondence (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 4:10–11).

Whereas most interpretations of 2 Corinthians 2:14 consider the metaphor of triumphal procession only with respect to Paul, no interpretation so far has examined the metaphor with respect to God as the acting subject. In order to grasp this we will first recall a basic motif of the Roman triumphal procession, with its focus on the triumphant general and his chariot. Then we will investigate how Paul uses this imagery metaphorically in our text.

The Roman triumphal procession was originally led by the victorious general appearing symbolically as the living image of Jupiter. By the time of the empire, however, the procession was celebrated to honor the gods in thanksgiving for the victory. The Roman magistrates, the Senate, people carrying booty from the campaign, the priests leading the bulls for sacrifice, and enemy captives (who were executed at the end of the ceremony) entered the city, followed by the victorious general on a chariot leading his army. Normally, the chariot was a quadriga, that is, a two-wheeled chariot drawn by four horses harnessed abreast, although four elephants were sometimes used instead (cf. Plutarch, Pompeius, 14.4; Pliny, Natural History 8.4). Since Roman imperial coins frequently included images of the emperor in a triumphal chariot, the concept of triumphal procession was familiar throughout the Roman Empire. What do these findings imply for our text? If, by using thriambeuein, Paul portrays himself as being led by God in a Roman triumphal procession, then the image is one of God riding in a quadriga.

The metaphor in 2 Corinthians 2:14, as with all metaphors, presents us with two thoughts of different things—tenor and vehicle—active together and supported by a single word or phrase, whose meaning is a result of their interaction (“two ideas for one”). The “tenor” is the underlying subject of the metaphor, and the “vehicle” is the means by which the tenor is presented. In our passage, the vehicle is the idea of a Roman triumphal procession in which a conquering general rides a quadriga. However, the underlying subject is different. Paul merely uses the idea of the Roman triumphal procession in order to convey another set of associations—the thought that God on his throne-chariot leads the apostle captive.

The divine throne-chariot is found in both the OT and Jewish tradition. Quite commonly, the “chariotry/chariot of God” in Psalm 68:17–18 is taken to refer to the merkabah in which God descended to Mount Sinai. Ezekiel’s prophetic call-vision by the river Chebar (Ezek. 1:4–28; cf. 10:1–22; 43:1–4) gives us a cryptic picture of what later came to be known as the throne-chariot of God. In Jewish tradition, Ezekiel’s vision is interpreted as a reference to a merkabah or “chariot,” drawn by the four living creatures/beasts. This comes out most explicitly in a midrash (Exod. Rab. 43:8) focusing on the golden calf incident, which refers to the chariot of God as a “four-mule chariot.” Also, in Habakkuk 3:8 Yahweh is said to drive a horse-drawn merkabah (cf. M. Haran).

In sum, we have seen that by using thriambeuein, Paul evoked the image of a triumphal procession in which the triumphant leader rode in a four-horse chariot. This, in turn, suggested the familiar idea of the merkabah, which was commonly viewed as a chariot drawn by the four living creatures/beasts of Ezekiel 1. We should not be surprised that Paul would use Roman imagery to suggest an OT idea. Paul, who does not like to discuss his visions and does so only under compulsion (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1ff.), uses a metaphor in order make his point without being overly explicit about ineffable matters.

Furthermore, it is possible that in 2 Corinthians 2:14 Paul is alluding specifically to Psalm 68:17–18. According the LXX version of this psalm, when God in his chariot ascended from Sinai into his holy sanctuary on high, he led captivity captive and received gifts among humanity. Ephesians 4:8 actually applies Psalm 68:18 [LXX 67:19] to the ascension of Christ and the spiritual gifts, including apostles (v. 11), which he gave to the church (cf. G. B. Caird). This kind of interpretation of the psalm would, of course, be very congenial at the beginning of Paul’s defense of his apostolic office in 2 Corinthians 2:14–7:4. The use of Psalm 68:18–19 in Jewish tradition provides further evidence that Paul may have had this passage in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 2:14.

In Jewish tradition Psalm 68:18 refers not to God’s ascent on high, corresponding to his merkabah descent to Mount Sinai in verse 18, but to the ascent of Moses, who took captive the Torah and gave the gift of Torah to humanity. Thus, for example, the Targum interprets Psalm 68:18 as a reference to Moses, who ascended into heaven, received the Torah there, and brought the Torah to the people (cf. Exod. Rab. 28:1). According to Midr.Ps. 68:18, Moses ascended to the divine beings and there received the Torah as a “gift” for Israel. In the Jewish tradition, therefore, Psalm 68:17–18 refers to Moses’ merkabah encounter with God on Sinai and the revelation that he mediated to humanity.

Paul might be making the same connection between merkabah encounter and revelation in 2 Corinthians 2:14, for here also God both leads him in triumphal procession and “reveals” (phanerounti, spreads) through him the fragrance of the knowledge of God. In other words, Paul is presenting himself here as a mediator of divine revelation on par with Moses, summarizing the whole basis for his apostleship in this one verse. Hence, if metaphor is speaking about one thing in terms suggestive of another, then by speaking of a Roman triumphal procession in connection with divine revelation, Paul evidently suggests the throne-chariot of God and the powerfully complex tradition of Psalm 68:17–18. According to this tradition, God descended to Sinai in his merkabah and revealed himself to Moses and all Israel. Moses, in turn, ascended on high, took the Torah captive, and gave it as a gift to humanity. Although Paul’s image turns this tradition on its head by making the apostle a captive rather than the triumphant one (cf. 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5), it nevertheless preserves the idea that an encounter with the merkabah effects a revelation to humanity through a mediator. Paul’s claim is especially crucial in the situation at Corinth, where his opponents evidently claim to have numerous visions and revelations (cf. 12:1).

Paul’s thanksgiving in 2:14 (But thanks be to God) fits well in the context of merkabah tradition. The visionary often observed and sometimes participated in the angelic hymns before the throne of God, the praises of the heavenly beings being viewed as the model and example for heavenly worship (cf. 1 En. 71:11–12; Apoc. Ab. 17:4–18:1; K. Grözinger). How much more, then, is Paul’s praise warranted and justified, since his encounter with the merkabah rivals even that of Moses.

If God is said to be leading the apostle in triumphal procession in Christ, then we will do well to recall Martin Hengel’s idea of the conjoint activity between the Father and the Son. As a result of being seated at the right hand of God at the resurrection, the Son now sits in the divine throne-chariot with the Father, and both together, occupying the same throne, now carry out activities together (cf. Mark 14:62). Hence, just as “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19), so also here God “in Christ” leads the apostle in triumphal procession.

Once we recognize the traditional background of our text, it is not difficult to suggest why Paul would refer to his revelation as the fragrance of the knowledge of God. Jewish tradition associates wonderful aromas with the merkabah vision. For example, in the third heaven (= Paradise), where Paul encountered the merkabah (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2–4), the fruit trees are said to be ripe and fragrant, abundant crops give off a sweet smell, and the tree of life itself is indescribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance (2 En. 8:1–3). In sum, 2 Corinthians 2:14 presents God as revealing the knowledge of himself to the world through Paul. In connection with his ongoing encounter with the merkabah, Paul, as minister of the new covenant (cf. 3:6), becomes a revelatory mediator who infuses the world with an aromatic, Torah-like knowledge of God through the Spirit.

2:15–16a / Having presented himself as a revelatory mediator like Moses, i.e., one who mediates the revelation of the fragrance of the knowledge of God, Paul now substantiates (hoti, For) what he has said in verse 14 by identifying himself as the fragrance (aroma) of Christ, which brings either life or death. In keeping with the identification of the God and Christ who share the merkabah, the two fragrances are one and the same. Paul’s knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6) is life-giving knowledge. Like Moses, Paul sets before people life and death (cf. Deut. 30:15, 19).

At the outset of his defense, Paul divides humanity into two mutually exclusive groups, according to how each responds to his message: those who are being saved and those who are perishing. Paul’s opponents, who reject his apostolic authority, obviously fall into the latter category, for Paul’s message is inseparable from his person and commission (cf. 5:18–20). It is no coincidence that in 1 Corinthians 10:9–10 Paul uses the same verb of the Israelite rebels who spoke against God and against Moses and therefore “were destroyed” in the desert (cf. Num. 21:5–6). The apostle will come back to this dualism at the end of his defense, where he emphasizes the contrast between the two groups in terms of a series of antithetical pairs (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14–16a). For Paul, there are only two kinds of people: those who stand on the side of Christ and his apostle and those who stand on the side of Satan and his pseudo-apostles.

2:16b / Having stated in effect that he has had a merkabah encounter with God like that which Moses experienced on Sinai, that he has a role as a unique, revelatory mediator similar to that of Moses, and, furthermore, that his ministry is a matter of life and death just as Moses’ was, Paul stops to ask a sobering rhetorical question: “And who is sufficient for these things?” (“And who is equal to such a task?”). Paul’s question recalls the only parallel use of the term sufficient/competent (hikanos) in the LXX, i.e., the self-effacing words of Moses in Exodus 4:10 at the burning bush. There Moses expresses his inadequacy to lead God’s people out of bondage in Egypt: “And Moses said to the Lord, ‘I pray, Lord, I am insufficient (ouk hikanos eimi).… I am weak-voiced and slow-tongued.’ ” Thereupon, God reassures Moses, “I will open your mouth and I will instruct you as to what you will say” (v. 12). Paul’s sufficiency for his commission is the same as that of Moses, that is, God himself and the revelation of God through him. As Paul explicitly states in 2 Corinthians 3:5, his “sufficiency” (hikanotēs) comes from God. Hence, the expected answer to Paul’s question would apparently be this: “By God’s grace, I am” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9–10). What follows in 2:17 shows unequivocally that a positive answer is expected here.

2:17 / The substantiation (gar) for Paul’s sufficiency, particularly as a revelatory mediator like Moses (cf. v. 14b), is given in verse 17. The fact that Paul speaks before God, or better “in the presence of God” (katenanti theou), is tantamount to saying that Paul speaks to God face to face, just as Moses did (Exod. 19:9; 20:19; 24:1–2; cf. T. Mos. 1:14). There is thus a unique, heavenly dimension to Paul’s apostolic role, which sets him well apart from his opponents who peddle the word of God for profit. In this way Paul shows that he is sufficient as a revelatory mediator because, like Moses, he speaks “in the presence of God.” In 12:19 Paul repeats his assertion that “we speak in Christ in the presence of God,” thus providing a key indication of the structural unity of the letter.

Paul denies that he has any concern for personal profit from the divine revelation that he mediates. This is in contrast to Paul’s opponents, to whom he refers as so many (hoi polloi). If 2 Corinthians can be seen as a unity, as the repetition of 2:17 in 12:19 supports, then we can assume that the apostle is referring here to the same opponents as in chapters 10–13. Unlike the opponents who have come into the Corinthian church from the outside, Paul does not peddle the word of God. These “false apostles” have preached a different gospel (11:4) and have exploited the church (11:20). Paul, on the other hand, refuses financial support from the Corinthians, insisting instead on preaching the gospel free of charge (11:7–11; 12:14–18). The apostle does not want to be open to the charge of extortion, against which Moses himself had to defend himself during Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num. 16:3, 15).

Like the profit-seeking false prophets in the OT (cf., e.g., Num. 22:7; Mic. 3:5), Paul’s opponents evidently claimed visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1) and pretended to communicate the word of God itself (cf. Ezek. 13:1–16; Jer. 23:9–40). Unlike such self-styled prophets who lead others astray, Paul speaks the word of God with sincerity (cf. 1:12) and like men sent from God (“men sent” supplied by the translators). Paul is claiming not just to have been commissioned and sent from God, but rather more specifically to speak “from God,” that is, God is the source of his message (see also 2 Cor. 5:20). In other words, Paul is a mediator of divine revelation (cf. 2:14), casting himself in the mold of the true prophet (cf. K. O. Sandnes). Paul is not a prophet for profit; he has even put aside his apostolic prerogative in this regard (cf. 1 Cor. 9:12, 15, 18). And when the false apostles use this to accuse Paul (2 Cor. 11:7ff. and 12:12ff.), Paul turns the tables on them by recalling the OT tradition of the false prophets and their sordid gain. Paul, on the other hand, is a prophet like Moses.

3:1–6 / Realizing both that his daring comparisons of himself to Moses in the opening lines of his defense might sound like self-commendation and that the Corinthians were seeking proof of Christ’s speaking through Paul (cf. 13:3), Paul proceeds to adduce tangible evidence for his sufficiency and legitimacy as an apostolic revelatory mediator (cf. 2:16b), evidence that the Corinthians could not dispute without simultaneously denying their own faith and pneumatic experience. They had received the Spirit through Paul’s apostolic ministry! Hence, the Corinthians themselves are revealed as Paul’s letter of recommendation, written with the Spirit of the living God on tablets of fleshly hearts, attesting to Paul’s apostleship for all who read it (vv. 2–3). If the opponents used or needed letters of recommendation either from or to the Corinthians, Paul needs only the results of his ministry among the Corinthians in order to demonstrate the veracity of his apostleship, for he founded the church. Furthermore, Paul goes on to identify himself—in direct contrast to Moses—as a minister of the new covenant (vv. 4–6). Paul’s mediatory work among the Corinthians demonstrates that the eschatological new age of the Spirit foretold in Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26 had now arrived. All of this goes to show that Paul’s ministry is not merely an exercise in self-recommendation; it is the work of God in and through him that makes him competent to minister.

3:1 / Paul begins the new paragraph with rhetorical questions expecting a negative answer. The purpose of these rhetorical questions is to prevent the addressees from drawing a wrong conclusion from the argument in 2:14–17. By rejoicing in his merkabah experience in the very presence of God and in his role as mediator of divine revelation, Paul does not thereby commend himself to the Corinthians. The word again suggests that Paul had been accused of this in the past, that is, he presented himself without an introduction from a recognized and authoritative third party (see on 13:1). But Paul does not tell the Corinthians anything they do not already know (and believe) about him. His defensive strategy is merely to remind them of his apostolic qualifications and thereby to appeal to their conscience (cf. 4:2; 5:12; 6:4).

Paul continues to use the literary plural (we) in reference to himself. Letters of recommendation were given to a traveler so that he might find a good reception with the writers’ relatives or friends abroad. Paul himself routinely included in his letters recommendations for his associates (cf. 1 Cor. 16:10–11; 2 Cor. 8:22–24; Rom. 16:1–2; Col. 4:7–9, 10; Philemon).

Whereas in 2:17 Paul refers to his opponents as the “many,” here he refers to them as some. These opponents were evidently able to produce letters of recommendation in order to establish their legitimacy. Perhaps they even had letters from the Corinthians in order to find an open door in other Pauline churches; that would explain the reference to letters from you. The letters to the Corinthians (to you) would presumably be from an ecclesiastical body that the congregation would respect, perhaps even from the mother church in Jerusalem itself or from one of its leading apostles.

3:2–3 / Paul gives the reason he is not trying to commend himself to the Corinthians: he relies on the Corinthians as his letter of recommendation! If the Corinthians, who know him best and witness to his apostolic ministry, have sincere doubts about Paul’s legitimacy, how can he appeal to anyone else for a testimonial, except perhaps God or the Holy Spirit? The Corinthians have already accepted Paul’s apostolic message and have already experienced the Spirit in their midst mediated by Paul. Therefore, if the Corinthians were to deny Paul’s apostolic ministry, they would actually be denying their own existence as believers, for he founded the church at Corinth. By this very clever metaphor (You yourselves are our letter), Paul effectively shifts the burden of proof for his apostleship away from himself and onto the Corinthians. In other words, Paul is no longer on the defensive, but rather now on the offensive (cf. 12:19).

The Corinthians are Paul’s letter of recommendation, written on our hearts. This seems to recall the founding visit of Paul to Corinth, when the Corinthians first believed Paul’s apostolic message and came to faith. At that time, Paul inscribed them on his heart in several senses, including his fatherly affection for them as their founding apostle. Besides this, however, Paul’s whole defense is purposely framed by the term “heart” (cf. 3:2, 3; 6:11; 7:3). What Paul probably means in 3:2 is that the Corinthians are the visible manifestation of the legitimacy of his apostleship. In this sense, the Corinthians are a letter known and read by everybody (note the paronomasia between the two participles ginōskomenē and anaginōskomenē). Hence, wherever he goes, the apostle can present the Corinthians as evidence to authenticate his identity as a true apostle.

Paul shifts his image from the Corinthians as a letter of recommendation written on his heart (v. 2) to the Corinthians as a letter from Christ (see also 6:11–7:4). The Corinthians owe their existence as believers to the work of the Spirit that they received through Paul’s ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4; 1 Cor. 2:4–5); hence, their Spirit-led lives show (better: “reveal”) the reality and legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship (cf. 6:14–7:1). In keeping with his use of the language of revelation (cf. 2:14; 4:2; 5:11), Paul defends his apostleship by adducing the revelation of the Spirit from Christ, through himself (the result of our ministry [lit., “ministered, served by us”]), to the Corinthians. Hence, the authentication of Paul’s apostolic ministry is not merely subjective (written on Paul’s heart), but is also objective (known and read by everybody). Paul is, in effect, appealing to an argument that the Corinthians could not deny without at the same time denying their own faith and pneumatic experience.

In the process of emphasizing his mediatorial role in delivering the letter of Christ, Paul also contrasts in verse 3 the letter of Christ with the law in two ways: first, in terms of the medium with which the letter of Christ was written, and, second, in terms of the material on which it was written. In the second contrast, tablets of human [lit., “fleshly”] hearts clearly alludes to Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26 (cf. Jer. 31:33), where God promises to give the exiled nation of Israel a new heart and a new Spirit, that is, a “fleshly heart” (kardia sarkinē) to replace their “heart of stone” (kardia lithinē). Whereas before the exile the nation had not kept the law because of its continual hard-heartedness, after the exile the people would be gathered back to the land, restored to fellowship with God, and divinely enabled in the heart to keep the law. Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 3:3, and indeed in much of the rest of the context, cannot be understood without recognizing Paul’s fundamental, underlying assumption, which was common to much of Second Temple Judaism: The nation of Israel had come under the judgment of God in 587/6 B.C. and would remain under judgment until God intervened in the eschatological restoration of Israel from exile. By stating that the Corinthians had received the Spirit in their fleshly hearts, Paul unequivocally expresses the conviction that the eschatological promise of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26–27 (cf. Jer. 31:31–34) was now being fulfilled through his own apostolic ministry.

3:4–6 / In this section, Paul continues his defense of his sufficiency and legitimacy as an apostle in conscious comparison with Moses (cf. 2:14, 16b). Whereas in verses 1–3 Paul adduces the Corinthians themselves as tangible evidence that he mediates the eschatological gift of the Spirit just as Moses once mediated the law, in verses 3–6 he emphasizes the divine origin of his sufficiency as the basis of his confidence, a confidence that testifies that Paul has been made sufficient to be a minister of the new covenant.

3:4 / Paul begins with an assertion that summarizes what he has been projecting about himself in the previous context. Such confidence as Paul has as revelatory mediator is not merely an exercise in self-commendation. Paul’s confidence is objectively verifiable. It comes through Christ before God (see 2:17: “in the presence of God”). Thus, Paul alludes here again to his Moses-like merkabah experience in order to validate his apostleship. The revelation that Paul has received through this experience has mediated the Spirit to the Corinthians, so that they, in turn, become a verification of his true apostleship and a source of his God-given confidence. Such confidence is not self-confidence, therefore, since it comes only through Christ, the author of the apostle’s letter of recommendation (cf. 3:3).

3:5–6 / Paul goes on to explain the divine origin of his confidence. Here the apostle explicitly reintroduces the term competent/sufficient from the previous context. Recalling verse 12, alluding to Moses’ inadequacy (Exod. 4:10), Paul reiterates that God himself, “the sufficient One” (Ruth 1:20; Job 21:15; 31:2; 40:2), supplies his confidence. In himself, Paul is not “sufficient” to be an apostle, especially in view of his former persecution of the church (1 Cor. 15:9–10); however, because his “sufficiency” is now from God, Paul is “sufficient” to be an apostle (2:16; 3:4–5). During Korah’s rebellion, Moses found himself in a similar situation, in which he needed to defend his sending as something not from himself but from God (cf. Num. 16:28).

The fact that the term ministers or “servant” (diakonos) in verse 6a emphasizes Paul’s role as the mediator of the Spirit is substantiated by two observations. First, the term “minister” recalls the idea of “ministered/served through us” in verse 3, which clearly links Paul’s apostolic role with mediating the “Spirit of the living God.” Second, verse 8 explicitly refers to Paul’s “ministry of the Spirit.” Hence, by calling himself a “minister of the new covenant,” Paul has in mind particularly his part in mediating the Spirit to the Corinthians through his gospel message. “Minister of the new covenant” (kainē diathēkē) alludes to Jeremiah 31 (38):31, the only explicit occurrence of the term in the OT. According to Jeremiah 31:31–34, the nation of Israel and Judah had broken the Sinaitic covenant (and had therefore gone into exile); hence, God promises to make a new covenant that will involve forgiving their sins, writing the law on their hearts, and reestablishing the covenantal relationship with them. From Paul’s perspective, the promise of Jeremiah 31:31–34 was being fulfilled through his own ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 6:16–18).

When we understand the OT background of Paul’s reference to the “new covenant,” we realize the inner logic that holds 2 Corinthians 3:3b and 6 together, for both verses refer to conceptually related aspects of the restoration of Israel as found in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. On the one hand, Paul’s ministry mediates the Spirit expected on the basis of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26–27. On the other hand, Paul’s ministry mediates the new covenant expected in Jeremiah 31:31–34 when he “serves” the “letter of Christ” by means of the Spirit. In both cases we are dealing with allusions to OT passages that expect God to transform the people’s “hearts” when he delivers them from exile and reestablishes them in covenantal relationship with himself. Hence, Paul’s ministry of the “new covenant” implies that those who are in the church have now had their “hearts” transformed by God, so that their response to his will as revealed in the law ought to be one of willful obedience, instead of the stubborn disobedience so characteristic of preexilic Israel.

If Paul alludes in 2 Corinthians 3:6a to the “new covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. Ezek. 36:25–26), then the meaning of the phrase not of the letter but of the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6b becomes clear. Since Paul is a servant of the new covenant, he has been made sufficient to be a revelatory mediator of the Spirit through whom people are placed into the new covenant and obey the law by means of the Spirit with transformed hearts (cf. v. 3). Under the Sinaitic covenant, the people were unable to keep the law (here called the letter, i.e., the written expression of God’s will without the empowering work of the Spirit) because of the hardness of their hearts. However, under the new covenant inaugurated by Christ and mediated through Paul’s ministry, all that has changed for the better by means of the Spirit, who writes the will of God on the heart (cf. v. 3) and enables obedience (cf. Rom. 8:2–4; Jub. 1:22–24).

In 2 Corinthians 3:6c, Paul gives the reason (for, gar) God has made him sufficient to be a minister of the Spirit under the new covenant, rather than merely to serve the law without God’s transforming power: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The law of Moses promised both blessings and curses, depending on whether the nation of Israel remained faithful to the covenant or apostacized. Among the curses of the law that would come upon the people for disobedience, the worst were exile and death for the whole nation (cf. Lev. 26:14–39; Deut. 28:15–68). Therefore, when Paul states that the letter kills, he refers to the fact, commonly acknowledged in Second Temple Judaism, that the curse of the law had indeed come upon the nation and had caused national death (cf. Deut. 30:15–20; Ps. 115:5; Jer. 8:3; Dan. 9:11–13; Hos. 7:13; Exod. Rab. 42:3; see also Gal. 3:10).

In contrast to the death that the law brings because of the people’s inability to obey, Paul affirms that the Spirit gives life. According to Ezekiel, the life-giving Spirit is the central feature of the prophetic expectation of the restoration from exile. After the people have been punished and purged and brought again through the wilderness in a “new exodus,” they will be given a new Spirit that will reanimate the nation dead in its trespasses and sins (cf. Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). The Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37:1–14 portrays the exiles as bones into which God breathes his Spirit in order to reconstitute the nation of Israel on a new basis in the land (cf. 37:15–28). Hence, as S. Hafemann correctly observes, “The startling implication of 2 Cor. 3:6 is that this promised restoration from the exile, never fully experienced by Israel at her ‘return,’ is now said to be taking place in and through Paul’s new covenant ministry.” Eventually, the Spirit will also be the means of bodily resurrection (Rom. 8:11, 23).

3:7–18 / Up to this point in context of his defense, Paul has alluded only to the similarities between his own apostolic ministry and the ministry of Moses (cf. 2:14, 16, 17; 3:4–5). In light of his assertion that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (3:6), Paul goes on in 3:7–18 to explain the essential difference between the two ministries. The apostle bases his argument on the biblical tradition of the glory and the veil of Moses from Exodus 34:29–35. Basically, Paul’s argument is that Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant did not provide for Israel the immediate and constant access to the presence and “glory” of God in the way that Paul’s ministry of the new covenant does for the church. Indeed, the exile removed Israel from the presence of God altogether (cf. LXX 4 Kgdms. 17:18, 20, 23; 23:27; 24:3; Jer. 7:15). In effect, therefore, verses 7–18 give further evidence of the thesis in verse 6, that God made Paul competent to be a minister of the glorious new covenant.

Paul’s argument is divided into two parts: In verses 7–11, the apostle compares the “glory” of the two ministries. Then, in verses 12–18, Paul draws a conclusion based on verses 7–11, including the implications of Moses’ veil.

3:7–8 / This section contains the first of Paul’s three comparisons in 3:7–11 between the ministries of Moses and Paul. The argument here, as in the other two comparisons, is from the lesser to the greater (a fortiori or qal wahomer). Paul assumes that both his own ministry and the ministry of Moses have in common the glory that attends (or attended) them. For the apostle, there is nothing inherently wrong with the law (cf. Rom. 7:12). The difference between the two ministries is their respective effects (antithetical typology): Moses’ ministry of the written law resulted in death, whereas Paul’s ministry of the Spirit gives life. In a sense, verses 7–8 are really a restatement both of the letter/Spirit contrast of verse 6c and, reaching farther back in context, of the possible typological comparison in 2:15–16a.

As a result of the “glory” that attended the ministry of the law, the Israelites (lit., “sons of Israel”) were not able to gaze at the face of Moses because of the “glory” of his face. Already in Exodus 32–34 LXX, the glory on Moses’ face is clearly a mediation of the glory of God, manifesting Yahweh’s presence (cf. the “glory” of the Lord in Exod. 33:18–23).

The people are afraid of Moses’ descent (Exod. 34:30) and cannot gaze at his face because Yahweh had earlier warned them that the Lord’s presence among them would cause their destruction as a result of their sin with the golden calf (Exod. 33:3, 5). Hence, Moses, who mediates the glory of God, must put on a veil after speaking to the people. Yahweh’s glory could be in their midst, but only briefly (cf. Exod. 34:30–32; 34:34–35). From its inception, therefore, the law under the Sinaitic covenant brought judgment and death on the nation (cf. Exod. 32:27–29, 35), which is exactly Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 3:6c. It was Moses’ mediation of the glory of God on his face that brought with it the judgment of God upon a rebellious people. When “the glory of the Lord appeared” in the assembly, judgment often followed, as in case of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num. 16:19, 42).

If this interpretation is correct, then the participle (tēn katargoumenēn) that modifies the word “glory” in verse 7c probably does not mean fading though it was, for indeed the verb katargein is never found in this sense. Furthermore, in Jewish tradition, the glory on Moses’ face remained unchanged until his death (cf., e.g., Tg. Onq. Deut. 34:7). Elsewhere in Paul’s writings the passive verb is used in the sense of “to be made ineffective, powerless, idle,” “to be nullified,” or “to be abolished, brought to an end.” Hence, S. Hafemann plausibly suggests that Paul is referring in 2 Corinthians 3:7 to the fact that the veil of Moses brought the glory of God to an end in terms of its effect if not veiled, that is, the judgment and destruction of Israel.

In sum, Paul presents in verses 7–8 the distinction between his ministry and Moses’ ministry in antithetical typology: If Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant that consequently brought death came in glory, so that Israel could not endure it but had to have it repeatedly veiled, how much more does Paul’s ministry of the Spirit exist in glory, since it brings life (and unveiled, constant mediation of God’s glory). This argument goes to show that Paul is competent to be a minister of the new covenant (v. 6), for the Corinthians cannot deny either that, historically, Moses’ ministry brought death or that, experientially, Paul’s ministry has been instrumental in mediating the Spirit and the glory of God to them.

3:9–11 / With Paul’s having established that the ministry of the Spirit exists in glory (v. 8), the purpose of verses 9–11 is to support this conclusion by explaining Israel’s experience of the Sinaitic covenant (v. 7). Moses’ ministry of death (vv. 6, 7) is further described as a ministry that condemns (v. 9) that is brought to an end (vv. 10–11). In contrast, Paul’s ministry of the new covenant and of the Spirit, which gives life (vv. 6, 8), is further described as a ministry that brings righteousness (v. 9), of surpassing glory (v. 10), and as that which lasts (lit., “remains,” v. 11).

3:9 / Here Paul introduces the second of his three a fortiori arguments that both compare the glory of Moses’ ministry to that of Paul’s ministry and also point to the differences between the two. The ministry that condemns men (lit., “the ministry of condemnation”) refers to the effects of Moses’ ministry on the nation of Israel after the golden calf incident. From then on, and throughout the long history of Israel, the Mosaic law worked to pronounce judgment on the nation for its hard-heartedness and apostasy. The story of Korah’s rebellion (Num. 16–17) provides a forceful example. As Moses himself repeatedly foretold in the Torah, the curses of the law would come upon the nation in a full and final way (cf. Lev. 26:14–38; Deut. 11:26–28; 27:14–26; 28:15–68; 30:15–20; 31:16–32:47), as indeed they did in 722 and 587/6 B.C., when Israel and Judah were led into their respective exiles.

In contrast to Moses’ “ministry of condemnation,” Paul’s ministry is described as the ministry that brings righteousness. The fact that Paul’s new covenant ministry of the Spirit brings righteousness stems from the OT and Jewish expectation of what the Spirit would effect at the time of Israel’s restoration (cf., e.g., Isa. 32:15–17; 59:21; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:24–29; 1QS 4.20–22; Rom. 8:3–4). Furthermore, in comparison with the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness “abounds in glory.”

3:10 / The reason (For, gar) is given for why the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory in comparison with the ministry of condemnation. When the divergent results of the two covenants are compared (i.e., death and life, respectively), Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant has no glory now. The very fact that life, righteousness, and the glory of God come through Paul’s ministry shows that God now reveals his glory through the new covenant rather than through the old Sinaitic covenant.

3:11 / The third of three a fortiori arguments on the comparison of the two ministries gives the reason (NIV misses the force of the Greek gar) Paul’s ministry is a vehicle through which the surpassing glory of the new covenant is now being revealed. As in verse 7, the verb katargein should be rendered “bring to an end” (rather than fading away). As S. Hafemann explains, “The Sinai covenant’s mediation of the glory of God, which due to the hard hearts of Israel had to be continually rendered inoperative by the veil …, is now itself described as that which ‘was continually being rendered inoperative.’ ” We have seen that the whole history of Israel, beginning with the golden calf incident and extending throughout the preexilic period, is characterized by the hard-heartedness and sinfulness of the nation. The continual efforts of the prophets to call the people to repentance did not succeed. Hence, according to Jeremiah 31:31–34, the people irreparably “broke” (LXX: “they did not persevere in”) the Sinaitic covenant (v. 32). Either the Sinaitic covenant had to be done away with or else the curse of the law would have remained on the people.

In contrast to the Sinaitic covenant, which was being rendered inoperative from its inception, the new covenant is described in 2 Corinthians 3:11b as that which lasts or “remains” in glory. The inauguration of the new covenant signals the beginning of the eschatological fulfillment of God’s salvation-historical plan for his people and indeed for the world. This is the new and permanent vehicle for mediating God’s glory. According to Ezekiel, to which the present context repeatedly alludes, God would establish an “eternal covenant” with his people (cf. Ezek. 16:60; 37:26).

3:12–18 / The apologetic contrast between the ministries of Paul and Moses begun in verses 7–11 becomes sharpest in verses 12–18. Unlike Moses’ ministry, which mercifully blocked the glory of God, Paul’s ministry mediates the glory of God to believers. The whole section can be seen as an extensive commentary on Exodus 34:29–35 in light of Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 36:26–27. In a stunning way, Paul continues to build an argument for the legitimacy of his apostleship by placing the goal of his ministry over against the consequence of Moses’ ministry. In effect, the greatest man in the history of Israel is put beneath the itinerant tentmaker in an effort to get the Corinthian church to submit to the latter’s apostolic authority.

3:12–13 / The section begins with a conclusion (Therefore, oun) drawn from the previous discussion in verses 7–11. Paul refers to the hope drawn from the fact that his ministry mediates a covenant that “exists in glory” (v. 8) and that lasts (v. 11). Because of his hope in the mode and permanence of the new covenant, Paul (we) is very bold. The term can refer to boldness before God or before others, depending on the context. In Philo, for example, Moses is said to have spoken “with boldness, candor” before God about his rhetorical inability (On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 12; cf. 2 Cor. 2:16b; 10:10). Paul has already spoken of the “confidence” he has before God (v. 4), as he speaks face-to-face with the divine occupant of the throne of glory (cf. 2:14a, 17). Now, however, he refers to the “boldness” with which he proclaims the apostolic message before others, based on his encounter with the merkabah and the revelation from it of which Paul is a mediator (cf. 2:14).

In 3:13 Paul contrasts his own boldness in mediating the glory of God through the proclamation of the gospel to Moses’ repeated veiling of himself in Exodus 34:29–35. Most often, Paul has been understood to argue that Moses hid his face from Israel because the glory on it was fading (tou katargoumenou) and coming to an end (to telos). On this interpretation, Moses comes off as being rather disingenuous, whereas Paul is forthright and honest. But the point here is that Paul does not minister as Moses did, with a veil (kalymma) on his face. After the incident with the golden calf, Moses continually placed a veil over his face, so that the obstinate Israelites might not gaze into “the consequence” (to telos)—i.e., the judgment—of that which was being rendered ineffective by the veil, that is, the Sinaitic covenant itself (cf. 3:7). In the words of S. Hafemann, “Far from duplicity, Moses’ merciful intention was to keep Israel from being judged by the glory on his face, which was the telos of that glory in response to the hardened nature of the people.” In contrast to Moses, Paul proclaims the gospel with boldness because he knows that the glory of God that is now revealed through his ministry need not be veiled, since by means of the Spirit of the new covenant, it produces life rather than judgment and death.

3:14–18 / In this section, Paul broadens his apologetic for his apostleship from a contrast between himself and Moses to a contrast between unbelieving Jews and believers. Jewish unbelief in Paul’s message is not evidence against his apostleship, but rather an indication of the people’s historic recalcitrance; however, those who do accept his message behold the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into his likeness.

3:14 / In contrast (But) to Paul’s boldness in proclaiming his message (vv. 12–13a), Israel is described as hardened and closed to it. Here, the NIV translates the Greek verb pōroun as made dull instead of “were hardened.” The former is an unfortunate translation, for it completely obscures the OT and Jewish tradition of Israel’s obduracy (cf. C. A. Evans) that is brought to expression here. As we have seen, OT and Jewish tradition commonly views Israel on a historical continuum of sin and guilt due to the nation’s hard-heartedness. Therefore, in verse 14 Paul can jump without strain from Israel in the time of Moses to Israel in his own day (cf. Deut. 29:4; Jer. 7:25–26; 11:7–8; Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.271; Exod. Rab. 42:9 on Exod. 32:9: “To this very day Israelites in the Diaspora are called the stiffnecked people”; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). We might say that God hardened them in their hardness. Hence, the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship is no more disproved by Israel’s rejection of his authority and message than Moses’ legitimacy was refuted when Israel rejected his authority and message.

In 2 Corinthians 3:14b, the tradition of Israel’s obduracy is signaled by the important biblical formula, to this day. Paul is saying that from the time of Moses—and particularly the golden calf incident—to his own day, Israel has been blinded and unresponsive (cf. Ezra 9:7; Dan. 9:4–19; Bar. 1:19–20; Rom. 11:8). Just as Israel was hardened to the law in Moses’ day (Deut. 29:3–4) and in the days of the prophets (Isa. 6:9–10), Israel continues to remain so under the old covenant in Paul’s day as well (cf. Rom. 11:25; also Acts 28:26–27). As I have tried to show elsewhere, Deuteronomic tradition is crucial to understanding the apostle’s view of Israel in relationship to the law. Paul’s exilic perspective is similar to that found in Hekhalot Rabbati, which considers that Israel’s “heart has been closed since the exiles, and the words of the Torah were hard like copper and iron” all the way through to the contemporary period (Schäfer, §293; cf. §§283, 331).

In shifting from Israel’s past to its present, Paul continues to use the idea of the veil (kalymma) in order to show the historical continuity. Paul is saying that although Moses is read weekly in the synagogue, Israel is separated “to this day” from the revelation of the glory of God because of its rebellion. The original reason for the veil has not changed in all those centuries. The veil thus becomes a metonymy of effect (veiling) for cause (rebellious and unrepentant disposition).

Paul states that the veil remains to this day at the reading of the old covenant (palaia diathēkē). In referring to the Sinaitic covenant as “old,” the apostle obviously presupposes that the new covenant of which he is a minister has been inaugurated (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6). Those who are in Christ are now freed from the curse of the law and have the veil symbolizing their hard-heartedness removed by the Spirit of the new covenant. Without Christ, the majority of Jews remain hardened and cursed until the consummation, when “all Israel will be saved” (cf. Rom. 9–11). The negative effects of the old covenant persist, although they are in the process of being rendered inoperative (cf. 2 Cor. 3:11). It is Paul’s ministry that is instrumental in taking away the veil of hard-heartedness by means of the Spirit. As S. Hafemann aptly observes, “The designation ‘old covenant’ is Paul’s description of the Sinai covenant ministered by Moses in view of the ‘new covenant’ inaugurated by Christ and ministered by Paul.”

If, as we have suggested, Paul compares the Corinthian opposition to his apostleship with Israel’s rebellion (and especially, Korah’s rebellion), then the idea of a historical continuity becomes a powerful polemic against the apostle’s Jewish opponents in Corinth. The implication is thus that Paul’s opponents have not yet had the veil of hard-heartedness removed because they are yet not “in Christ” and do not have the Spirit. This corresponds to the way that Paul views the opponents elsewhere in the letter (cf. 6:14–16; 11:13–15). Hence, the apostle’s “defense” in 2:14–7:4 begins to turn the tables on his critics and bring their own salvation into question.

3:15 / Having stated that the veil (a metonymy for Israel’s obduracy) remains when the old covenant is read (v. 14), Paul restates this point in verse 15 and explicitly applies it to Israel’s heart when she reads Moses. The NIV does not translate the adversative conjunction (alla) with which the verse begins. In beginning the verse in this way, Paul wants to stress that, although Christ is the one who removes the hard heart of Israel (v. 14), “nevertheless (alla), to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil is being laid upon their heart.” As the parallelism between verses 14 and 15 shows, the expression when Moses is read is synonymous with the expression “when the old covenant is read” in the previous line (cf. Acts 15:21: “Moses” is “read in the synagogues every Sabbath,” i.e., the law or the Sinaitic covenant is read), for it was Moses who mediated the Sinaitic covenant and wrote it (cf. Rom. 10:5, 19). The condition of the Israelites’ hearts is the problem, not the law itself. Just as the hardened hearts of the wilderness generation led them to oppose both Moses and the covenant that he mediated, so also the Jews in Paul’s day remain unchanged. The veil of the people’s hard-heartedness continues to render them incapable of properly responding to the law, as well as to the gospel message.

3:16 / Having mentioned in verse 14 that only in Christ is the veil taken away, Paul elaborates on this point in verse 16, explaining more about the process by which the veil is taken away. The text alludes to Exodus 34:34a, where Moses is said to remove the veil whenever he speaks with the Lord. Hence, the understood subject of the verb in our text is not anyone but rather “he,” that is, Moses. Whereas a veil continues to be laid upon Israel’s heart whenever Moses is read in the synagogue (2 Cor. 3:15), whenever “he” (namely, Moses) returns to the Lord, the veil is being taken away (v. 16). Yet, if Moses is the implied subject of the verb, he stands paradigmatically for any Israelite who returns to the Lord. The text is purposely ambiguous at this point so that it resonates with Exodus 34:34 while adding the idea of repentance. Turning to the Lord in this sense is more than returning to the presence of the Lord as Moses did in the tent of meeting (although that is implied here, too), but rather a process of repentance whereby Israel’s hardened heart undergoes a fundamental change. Throughout the history of Israel, God had sent prophets to turn Israel to the Lord (1 Sam. 7:3; Hos. 5:4; 6:1; 2 Chron. 24:19; cf. 1 Thess. 1:9), albeit mostly without success. The prophetic call to repentance is a fixed motif of the Deuteronomic view of Israel’s history that goes hand in hand with the theme of obduracy (cf. O. H. Steck). Hence, before the restoration could be inaugurated and the new covenant established, Israel would need to return to the Lord in wholehearted repentance; then God would bestow his Spirit on them, so that their hearts of stone would be taken away, and they would be able to keep his commandments in perpetuity (cf. Tob. 13:6; Jub. 1:15, 23; 2 Cor. 3:6). Once again, Paul is arguing here from the perspective that the exile and curse of the law are brought to an end in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14).

Whether Lord (kyrios) refers here to God (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9) or Christ seems superfluous, since as we have seen (cf. on 2:14), God and Christ work together or even interchangeably, and Christ reflects the glory of God (4:6; see also 1:14). Of course, in keeping with the allusion to Exodus 34:34, kyrios in our text refers primarily to Yahweh. From Paul’s perspective, the veil that is now being removed when one returns to the Lord is the same one originally applied in Exodus 34:33. Paul hopes that through his own ministry some Jews will come to faith (Rom. 11:14; cf. 1 Cor. 9:19–20). Eventually, he expects that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:25–26), perhaps through a direct encounter with the resurrected Christ at the time of the Parousia (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). Similarly, Paul came to faith when he encountered the resurrected Christ on the way to Damascus and perceived him as the “Lord” seated at the right hand of God in accordance with Psalm 110:1.

As S. Hafemann correctly observes, Paul’s idea of the removal of the veil corresponds to the Isaiah Apocalypse (Isa. 24–27), where the universal revelation of the glory of God on Zion is portrayed as an eschatological counterpart to the theophany at Sinai. According to that apocalyptic text, universal judgment would be followed by the reign of the Lord of hosts on Mount Zion, when God would manifest his glory both before his elders (Isa. 24:1–23; cf. Exod. 24:9–16) and before all nations, thus reversing the veiling that took place in Exodus 34:29ff. (Isa. 25:6–8). The inclusion of the nations in this salvation would have been especially significant to Paul as the apostle to the nations (Rom. 11:13).