Criswell Theological
Review 4.1 (1989) 21-37.
Copyright © 1989 by The
THE SUFFICIENCY OF PAUL,
MINISTER OF THE NEW COVENANT
DAVID E. GARLAND
Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary
W.
C. Van Unnik calls 2 Corinthians 3 one of the most
"interest-
ing portions" of Paul.1
As interesting as it might be, many who try to
grasp the nuances of Paul's argument may feel at
times that they have
a veil over their minds. It is a passage fraught
with exegetical per-
plexities. A. T. Hanson goes so
far as to say that this is "the Mount
Everest
of Pauline texts as far as difficulty is concerned--or should we
rather call it the sphinx among texts, since its
difficulty lies in its
enigmatic quality rather than its
complexity?"2 In spite of its difficul-
ties, this text gives us an entree into Paul's view
of the ultimate
significance of his ministry as a
mediator of the New Covenant.
The issue that Paul is addressing in
2:14-4:6 is his sufficiency as a
minister of the New Covenant.3 He
raises the question in 2:16: "Who is
sufficient for these things?" The answer he
apparently got from the
interlopers at
have made inroads in the church by vaunting their
sterling credentials
and their stirring spiritual prowess and have
brought Paul's apostolic
1 W. C. van Unnik "'With an Unveiled Face,' An Exegesis of 2
Corinthians iii
12-18," NovT 6 (1963) 152.
2 A. T. Hanson, "The
Midrash in II Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration,"
JSNT 9
(1980) 19.
3 See the tables
demonstrating the number of similar constructions and the cyclic
(
2:14-4:6," Bib 64 (1983) 344-80, particularly 348-53. See also T. E. Provence, "'Who is
Sufficient for These Things?' An Exegesis of 2
Corinthians ii 15-iii 18," NovT 24 (1982)
56-58;
E. Richard, "Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of I Cor., III,
I-IV,
6," RB 88 (1981) 352-53; and M. Carrez, La Deuxieme Epitre de Saint Paul aux
Corinthiens (CNT 8; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1986) 89.
22 CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
legitimacy into question. They have eloquence,
visions, and an authori-
tative bearing they consider
to be worthy of so powerful a gospel.
They
also have letters of commendation (from whom, we can only
guess) that authorize their activity (3:1). Paul will
grant some of the
criticism leveled against him--in person, he may
appear to some as
weak (10:10), ineloquent, and inelegant (1 Cor 4:11-13)--but he will
not concede that he is insufficient for his
apostolic ministry. Faced
with the rival claims of these interlopers and the
distressing deteriora-
tion of his relationship
with the Corinthians, he vigorously defends
himself as one who is sufficient (i!kanoj)4 through God for his ministry:
"not that we are sufficient (i!kanoi) from ourselves to
claim anything;
our sufficiency (i[
(i[ka<nwsen, 3:5-6a).
The problem is that the Corinthians have misunderstood Paul
(they have understood only "in part," 1:13-14), and
he wants them to
understand him fully (5:11-12) so that his
relationship with them will
not only be preserved but solidified. Paul must
also contend against
rival braggarts who have measured themselves by human
standards
(10:12),
boasted quite beyond appropriate limits (10:13-18), and un-
dermined his credibility. He
therefore finds himself in the unpleasant
position of having to praise himself to restore
their confidence in him
(12:11),
and he must do this in a manner that is both inoffensive
according to accepted social conventions of the
times and congruent
with the gospel of the crucified Christ. In the
thematic statement in
1:12-14,
he asserts that he has manifested godly sincerity in his min-
istry and that they have
every reason to be proud of him (literally, "to
have a boast"). In 5:12, he writes: "We
are not commending ourselves
again but giving you cause to be proud of us, so that
you may be able
to answer those who pride themselves on a man's
position and not on
his heart." This provides the context for
understanding his comments
in 2:14-4:6.6 In this section he is
providing grounds for their pride in
him. This is his boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17). In the
process of defending himself, he lays out for us
his view of the
surpassing splendor of the ministry of the New
Covenant in which we
all share.
4 D. Georgi
(The Opponents of Paul in Second
Corinthians [
tress,
1986] 233) contends that this was a catchword used by Paul's protagonists in
5 See Plutarch's treatise, On
Praising Oneself Inoffensively.
6 See J. T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination
of the
Catalogues o f Hardships
in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99;
ars Press, 1988) 148-53.
Paul's Sufficiency
(2:14-17)
Paul begins his defense in this section
by thanking God for his
ministry and by contrasting himself with those
whom he castigates as
“merchants of the gospel.” Like so many shady sophists, they
peddle
their religious wares for their own material gain
(see 10:7, 12; 11:5,
21-23).
They are no better than hucksters because they handle
the
gospel as if it were cheap merchandise to be hawked at
a fair booth.
Paul
may be alluding to the peddler's tendency to adulterate the
product to cheat the buyer (see Isa 1:22 LXX; Sir 26:29); because, in 4:2,
he insists that he has “renounced disgraceful,
underhanded ways."7
Paul
himself neither dilutes the gospel to increase profits nor modifies it
to make it more palatable because he refuses to
accept financial
support for his ministry. Or, by referring to
them as “peddlers,” he may
be implying that they have simply reduced
preaching the gospel to a
trade. They were simply in “the business of preaching. . . without any
ultimate concern.”8 The allusion to
his rivals who did demand support
from the church would not have been lost on his
readers. Paul is not in
the “apostle trade”; he has his ministry by the
mercy of God (4:1), and
it has ultimate significance both for himself and
the world. He
therefore commends himself as a man of sincerity,
commissioned by
God,
and who, before God, speaks in Christ (2:17) with confidence
(3:4)
and boldness (3:12) and is displayed publicly for all to see (2:14).9
When Paul commends himself in an
attempt to restore his rela-
tionship with the Corinthians,10
he leaves himself open to the charge
of being “presumptuous and brazen in dealing with
them”11 (see 3:1;
4:2;
5:12; 6:4; 10:12, 18). Paul responds to this by asserting that his
“cboldness” is not attributable to
self-interest, conceit, or personal
7
'many' was neither offensive enough to lead to destruction
nor powerful enough to lead
to salvation (cf. I Cor.
i 18). Paul's gospel was such a word, however, since
it was a
pure gospel from God."
8 J.
2 Cor. 2:14-17 in its
Context," JSNT 17 (198.'3) 42.
9 The word qriambeu<ein
customarily was used in the context of the victory parade
of the conquering general when prisoners of war
were led about in utter humiliation
prior to their execution. If this is the meaning that
Paul intends, he portrays himself as
"the very showpiece of God's triumph"; but instead of
being downcast and defeated,
he gives thanks to God. He gives thanks because
his submission to God has resulted not
in his annihilation but his salvation. See
Fitzgerald, Cracks 161-62; and S. Hafemann,
Suffering and the Spirit (WUNT 2/19; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1986) 18-39.
10 On the social aspects
of self-commendation, see P. Marshall, Enmity
in
Social Conventions in
Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 2/23;
MGhr [Paul
Siebeck], 1987) 259-77.
11 V. P. Furnish, 2 Corinthians (AB32a; New York:
Doubleday, 1984) 245.
24
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
achievements but "to the
splendor of the ministry which he serves."
He
goes so far as to compare himself and his ministry to Moses and
his ministry.12 When he asks who is
sufficient to be a servant of a
ministry that has such a life-and-death impact on
the lives of others,
one should recall the qualms Moses expressed when
God called him
to lead
LXX,
Moses says, "I am not worthy" (i!kanoj or "sufficient"; Exod
4:10).
Paul says as much himself, because he is keenly aware of his
own personal frailty given his awesome role as a
sweet fragrance of
life to some but as a putrid stench of death to
others.13 He is not
worthy,14 not because he fails to
measure up to the superapostles
(11:5;
12:11), but because he fails to measure up to Christ in whom he
speaks. In the case of Moses, God assured him that the
"one who gave
a mouth to man" will "open your
mouth" and will "teach you what
you are to say" (Exod
4:11-12). In the case of Paul, God does much
the same thing (see 12:9); but Paul goes on to say
that God works
through him in a far more glorious way than God
ever did through
Moses because the ministry of the Spirit is far
more glorious.
Therefore, Paul's answer to his
question in 2:16, "Who is sufficient
for these things?" is that he is, but only through the grace of God. His
confidence rests in God who gave him both his
ministry in the New
Covenant
(see I Cor 15:9;
The
fitness of Paul is primarily related to the message that he has been
sent out by God to preach. Consequently, fleshly
heritage or accom-
plishments (Phil 3:4), religious
powers (2 Cor 10:2), or the affirmation
of humans--things his opponents paraded before
others--mean
nothing.
Paul's Letter of
Recommendation (3:1-3)
Paul's rivals have apparently sought
to manufacture their own
sufficiency with commendatory letters from third
parties to ensure
12 I disagree with those
who claim that his appeal to Moses is attributable to his
rivals' identification with Moses as a divine man. See
Georgi, Opponents
254-58; and
M.
Theobald, Die uberstromende Gnade. Studien zu einem
paulinischen Motivfeld
(FzB 22; Wurzburg, 1982) 202. This is an extreme case of mirror
reading whereby one
imaginatively constructs the views of
Paul's opponents from his every argument in the
letter.
13 This is a priestly
image rather than one associated with the triumphal procession
and reflects Paul's belief that he is in priestly
service of God (see Rom 15:16). The one
who persecuted the church has been transformed into
a life-giving fragrance (see Sir
39:13-14;
24:15; 2 Bar 67:6). How people respond to his message will lead them either
to life or death.
The rabbis viewed the law as an odor
of life (b. Ta’an.
7a; Yoma
72b; Sabb.
88b;
‘Erub. 54a), but Paul argues that the law can only be associated
with death.
14 The same word appears
in 1 Cor 15:9, "I am not worthy to be an
apostle" (see
Matt
3:11; 8:8; Luke 7:6).
that they receive both a warm reception and material
assistance.15
Paul
did not depend on the recommendations of others. Since he did
not receive his apostleship by the vote of man, or
his gospel by the
teaching of man (Gal 1:1, 11-12), he did not need
the credentials,
patronage, or golden opinions of man to carry out
his commission. If
God
made him sufficient to serve as an apostle, he does not need a
second opinion from humans. Paul would not have been
more of an
apostle with an apostle certificate or a note
from a pillar apostle in his
bag. In fact, letters of recommendation would only
have been useful
where Christians had already been established, and
Paul's policy was
to venture only into pioneer mission territory
(Rom 15:20). He iden-
tifies this as his kanw<n, his jurisdiction, in
10:13, 16. As the first mis-
sionary to come to
notable Christians would have hardly done him
any good since there
were no Christians there to be impressed.16
In this situation, only the
power of the word could be effective. Apparently, the
rivals only
poached on the work of others (see 10:15-16;
11:12) and never
launched a church themselves. Therefore, they
required the recom-
mendations of others to gain a
foothold in churches that were already
established.
Since Paul believes that God alone
can validate a ministry (10:18),
he first points to the founding of the Corinthian
church as evidence of
his sufficiency for the apostolic task. He contends
that he does have a
letter of recommendation, so to speak, in the
Corinthians (3:2); their
very existence is a testimony to his sufficiency.
The Corinthians are his
"workmanship in the Lord" and "the seal of his
apostleship in the
Lord"
(1 Cor 9:1-2). Mindful that they were created
"in the Lord," he
clarifies his statement that they are "our
letter" (3:2) and says that they
are "Christ's letter delivered (diakonhqei?sa) by us" (3:3). He is the
courier, and the letter is written by Christ on
Paul's heart.17 This letter
15 Paul does not condemn
the practice of using commendatory letters because he
composed them for others to create friendship
between the one recommended and the
recipient (Rom 16:1-2), to establish those
recommended in a position of authority
(2
Cor 8:16-24; Phil 2:19-23; Col. 4:7-9), to appeal to
his friendship with the recipient to
forgive the one recommended (Phlm),
and to declare his support for the one recom-
mended (Phil 2:25-30). See also 1 Cor
16:3, 10; and Acts 9:2; 15:23-29; 18:27; 22:5. What
troubles him about his rivals' letters of
commendation is that they used them to oppose
and exclude him. See
16 G. Theissen,
The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:
Essays in
by J.. H. Schutz
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 38-39; see also C. Talbert, Reading
Corinthians (New York: Crossroad,
1987) 143.
When he writes to
groundwork for a mission to
lished church outside of his
sphere of influence. But he does not gather kudos from
others; instead, he lays out the gospel that he
preaches so that they can see for
themselves his insight into the mysteries of God.
17 The verse contains a
textual variant, "your hearts" or "our hearts." The manu-
script evidence overwhelmingly supports the reading
"our." This would be similar to
26
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
is vastly superior to any that his opponents might
possess because it is
the work of the Spirit. If the rivals wish to
compare letters, what is
written by the Spirit far outclasses anything
penned in ink. Their
letters have a human author; Paul's, a divine
author. Their letters are
visible to only a few; his is visible to one and
all.
In 3:3c, Paul changes tack slightly
by asserting that this letter has
been inscribed on human hearts and not on stone
tablets. Papyrus or
parchment would seem to be a more appropriate
comparison at this
point, since the letters of his rivals would hardly
have been etched in
stone. But Paul refers to stones because he wants to
move on to a
comparison between his ministry for Christ and
Moses' ministry for
the law. His real concern is to give the grounds
for "the confidence we
have through Christ before God" (3:4), and he
wants to contrast the
giving of the law that was engraved on stones (Exod 31:18; 32:16;
34:.1;
Deut 9:10) with the promise of the New Covenant that will be
inscribed on hearts. Jeremiah prophesied:
"This is the covenant which
I
will make with the house of
will put my law within them, and I will write it
upon their hearts; and
I
will be their God and they will be my people" (Jer
31 :3; see also
Ezek
11:19; 36:26). God prefers living hearts to dead stones because
they can better communicate what the purposes of the
living God are
for humanity and what the presence of the
life-giving Spirit is able to
do. In effect, Paul audaciously declares in 3:3
that the prophecy of
Jeremiah
31 has come to pass in the church at
ministry.
Letter Versus Spirit (3:4-6)
Paul leads into his contrast between
the ministry of the New
Covenant
and that of the Old in 3:7-18 by stating that "the letter kills
and the Spirit gives life" (3:6b; see Rom
2:29; 7:6). This seems to be a
negative evaluation of the law which Paul
identifies as "spiritual" in
Rom
7:14. Cranfield, in his comments on Rom 7:6, seeks to
explain
this apparent contradiction by arguing that
"letter" refers to the mis-
use of the law: "'Letter' is rather what the
legalist is left with as a
result of his misunderstanding and misuse of the law.
It is the letter of
the law in separation from the Spirit."18
Similarly, Barrett argues that
his statement in 4:6: "For it is God who said,
'Let light shine out of the darkness,' who
has shone in our hearts to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Christ." See W. Baird, "Letters of
Recommendation: A Study of II Cor 3:1-3,"
JBL 80 (1961) 166-72.
Notice that the verbs ("having
been inscribed") are perfect participles and stand
opposed to "ephemeral human
recommendations," see E. Richard, "Polemics.." 346.
18 C. E. B.Cranfield, The Epistle to the
Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1975) 339'-40.
Georgi, Opponents 251; elaims
that the opponents introduced the word gra<mma
into the discussion by calling their ministry a
ministry of gra<mma.
"letter" refers to the way Paul viewed his Jewish
contemporaries'
understanding and application of the
law; it is man-made religion that
does not penetrate to the heart.19 This
interpretation assumes that
humans turn God's law into a written code of behavior
by which they
mistakenly seek to attain their own righteousness.
From Paul's per-
spective, this can lead only to
death (Rom 7:5-7; 1 Cor 15:56).
Therefore,
the reason that the letter kills is that one is deceived into
believing that life and righteousness can be found
through obedience
to legal prescriptions (Rom 7:11) when in fact
they can be found only
in Christ (see Phil 3:9).20
While these statements are true,
they do not explain this verse
because misunderstanding or misapplication of
the law is not men-
tioned at all in 3:6. This
interpretation ignores the fact that Paul
specifically contrasts God's
inscribing the law on stones with God's
inscribing it on human hearts through the Spirit
(3:3).21 He contrasts
an external code with an indwelling power. The
"letter" refers to
what is merely written. It is ineffectual because it
cannot produce life,
obedience, or righteousness but can only pronounce
a death sentence
on those who fail to obey it (see Gal 3:10, 21).
With only the letter, the
people shrivel into dry bones and desperately need the
Spirit to
revive them (see Ezek 37:4-6, 14) and empower them
(see Rom
8:1-11).
The Spirit therefore completes God's action in giving the law.
The
Spirit gives life and enables the old to become new (5:17; Eph
4:22,
24;
The Ministry of Stone Versus the Ministry of the Spirit (3:7-18)
In 3:7-18, Paul examines the giving
of the law recorded in Exodus
34
and what it reveals about the ministry of Moses. He is not con-
cerned that the rivals
"have overstressed the Old Testament and
understressed the newness of
Christ" as Best, for example, contends.22
At
this point, he is not countering the false teaching of those stirring
up the congregation against him but justifying his
own boldness (3:12)
and confidence (3:4) as a worthy apostle of the new
covenant (3:6) by
19 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, (HNT;
human opinion and performance, and the work of God by
his Spirit" (112). Paul did
not intend to suggest that the OT law was merely a
human instrument; it was inspired
by God (Rom 7:14)--"but it was easy to misuse
it" to make oneself feel superior to
others.
20 Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 201 notes that existence
that is centered entirely on
something human is cut off from the true source of
life and can only die. Origen took
this as a justification for his allegorical method
and an argument against literal interpre-
tation (for a fuller
discussion, see Furnish, 2 Corinthians
199-200), and some moderns
have misused this as a proof text for arguing
against moral constraints.I'
21 G. Schrenk, "gra<fw," TDNT
1 (1964) 765-67.
22 E.
Best, 2 Corinthians (Int.; Atlanta:
John Knox, 1987) 28, 30, 32, 33.
28
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
contrasting his ministry, a ministry of the Spirit,
with that of Moses, a
ministry of the letter. Nor should these verses
be regarded as an
independent "midrash"
inserted parenthetically into the text, as some
have proposed;23 they are an integral
part of Paul's defense of his
sufficiency as an apostle of Christ.24
Paul has already said that the
letter kills, and now he expands on
that statement with a most surprising exposition of Exod 34:28-35. He
begins with what he considers to be an undeniable fact
that the Old
Covenant
was accompanied with glory (do<ca), a key word that
occurs thirteen times in 3:7-4:6 (the verb form occurs
twice).25 Paul's
argument runs, if splendor attended a ministry
which was only
chiseled in stone, how much more must be the
splendor of the
ministry of the Spirit. The refrain, "put if
. . . how much more," pulses
through these verses as Paul contrasts "the
ministry of death" with
"the ministry of the Spirit" (3:7), "the splendor
of the ministry of
condemnation" with "the
splendor" of "the ministry of righteousness"
(3:9),
and that which is "annulled" (or "fading") with that which
is
"permanent" (3:11). He then concludes with a somewhat
enigmatic
explanation of why Moses veiled himself before the
sons of
whereby he contrasts his own boldness with
Moses' cautious reserve.
With
this interpretation of Exodus 34, Paul demonstrates that the
boldness (3:12), freedom (3:17), and glory (3:18)
that he lays claim to
have nothing to do with his personal characteristics
but have every-
thing to do with the intrinsic splendor of the
ministry he serves. He
knows himself to be a flawed vessel but one that
contains a perfect
treasure (4:7). The glory he claims is not the
empty glory (kenodoci<a)
that self-applause or the acclamation of others
bestows; it is the glory
that God bestows on all those who serve in the
ministry of the Spirit.
Because
he knows himself to be a minister of the glorious New
Covenant
and an ambassador of Christ (5:20), Paul can respond to the
question, "Are we beginning to commend
ourselves again?" (3:1) with
the bold assertion, we can "commend ourselves
to every person's
conscience before God" (4:2). He can do this
because of the glory of
the ministry he serves.
23 H. Windisch,
Die zweite Korintherbrief (MeyerK 6;
&
Ruprecht, 1924) 105, contended that 3:7-18 was a
pre-existing midrash on
Exodus 34.
It
is therefore only tangentially related to Paul's argument. This view has been
accepted
by S. Schulz, "Die Decke
Moses. Untersuchungen zu einer vorpaulinischen Uberlie-
ferungin 2 Kor.
3:17-18," ZNW 49 (1958) 1-30;
and D. Georgi, Opponents,
264-71. See
arguments against this view in M. Hooker,
"Beyond the Things That Are Written?
24 See n 3 above.
25 "Glory" may
refer to the power of God (see Rom 6:4), the outward manifesta-
tion of God, God's
character, or the transforming power of God.
The Ministry of Death Versus the Ministry of the Spirit (Life) (3:7-8)
It is astounding that a Jew would
ever have identified the Sinai
experience as a ministry (diakoni<a) of death (3:7). Jews
proclaimed
that it was just the opposite; the law gave life. A
later Rabbi expressed
it this way: "while
Creator
to anger. . . , God sat on high engraving tablets
which would
give them life" (Exod. Rab. 41:1).26 As a Pharisee,
Paul was no
different from any other devout Jew who searched
the law and the
prophets because he believed he had life in them
(see John 5:39). But
after his encounter with the risen Lord (4:6), he
came to realize that
the law bore witness to Christ (compare John 5:47).
He was con-
vinced that the righteousness
of God had been manifested in Jesus
Christ
apart from law (see Rom 3:22; 1 Cor
1:30; 2 Cor 5:21). He also
must have reasoned that if salvation comes only
through Christ, then
salvation could not come through the written law.
If the law does not
lead to life, then it must lead to death (Rom 7:10;
Gal 3:21; 1 Cor
15:56) .
Because of his faith in Christ, Paul
came to view the law-holy,
righteous, and good as it was (Rom 7:12)--as a
ministry of death. To
say that it was engraved in letters on stones (3:7)
is simply another
way of saying that the letter kills (3:6). But this
ministry of death
came with evident splendor. When Moses came down
from Sinai with
the tablets of the law, his face radiated from the
residual rays of the
divine glory (3:7). Paul argues, if glory accompanied
something that
leads to death, how much more glory will accompany
the ministry of
the Spirit that leads to life (3:8)?
The Ministry of
Condemnation Versus the Ministry of Righteousness
(3:9)
In 3:9, Paul identifies Moses'
covenant as the ministry of condem-
nation and contrasts it with the ministry of
righteousness. When the
people of
their behalf but was helpless to remove either their
guilt (Exod 32:31-
33)
or his own. The law that he gave them only condemns, which is
why Paul can characterize it as a ministry of death
(Rom 3:19-20; Gal
3:10).
The Spirit, on the other hand, acquits (Rom 5:16, 18; 8:1)
because Christ not only intercedes for the
condemned (Rom 8:26, 34),
his death atones for their sins (Rom 3:21-26; 2 Cor 5:21). The law
demands obedience; the Spirit gives it. The law
would eliminate
sinners by sentencing them to death; the Spirit
would illuminate them
26 See also Sir 11:11; Wis 6:18; Pss Sol 14:2; 2 Bar
38:2; and other texts cited in
Str-B 3:129-32.
30
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
by revealing the glory of the Lord (3:18), the
truth of God (4:2), and
the promise of the resurrection (4:13-14). If a
ministry that could lead
only to condemnation possessed glory, how much more
glory must
the ministry that leads to righteousness possess?
Impermanent Glory Versus
Permanent Glory (3:10-11) :
Paul's interpretation of Exodus 34 infers
that the glory that ac-
companied the ministry of Moses was either a
fading glory or a glory
that was to be annulled. The verb katargei?n can mean "to
fade" or
"to disappear" and is translated that way in the RSV,
NIV. It can also mean "to nullify," “to
annul,” or "to pass away." The
latter is the meaning it normally has in Paul27
and is the translation
employed by the KJV ("to be done away,"
3:7; "to abolish," 3:11). In
my opinion, Paul plays on the double meaning of
this verb to make a
further distinction between the ministry of
Moses and the ministry of
the Spirit. The glory on Moses' face faded (3:7),
and for Paul this
betokened the fact that the covenant of the law
that he presented to
covenant of the letter was only transitory (see
Gal 3:19-25; Rom 10:4)
and can now be identified as "old" (3:14;
see Rom 7:6).
Once again, Paul argues a fortiori that if the Old Covenant that
was to be annulled had glory, how much greater
would be the glory
of the new, abiding covenant (3:11). This has
significant implications
for the status of the Old Covenant and its glory.
When the new
comes, the old is transcended. The gospel with its
forgiveness based
on grace and direct access to God is God's
ultimate word. Lambrecht
writes: "When compared with the overwhelming new
glory, the
so-called glory of the Old Covenant is no glory at
all."28 And
Plummer
remarks: "When the sun is risen, lamps ceased to
be of
use."29
A Veiled Minister Versus An Unveiled Minister (3:12-15)
Paul now reaches the main contention
of his interpretation of
Exodus 34. If the ministry of the Spirit has a
greater splendor, so do
its ministers. He expresses this in 3:12,
"Therefore, having such a hope
we exercise much boldness" (parrhsi<a).30 This
"boldness" is immedi-
ately evident as he now
audaciously compares himself to Moses.
27 So Furnish, 2 Corinthians, 203.
28 Lambrecht,
"Structure," 356.
29 A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Second Epistle of
30 Boldness (parrhsi<a) was the upshot of the
coming of the Spirit in Acts (Acts
2:29;
4:13, 29, 31; 28:31). Van Unnik, "'With Unveiled
Face'," 160, notes that boldness
was not greatly treasured in the ancient world
because it meant "speaking without
Moses
ministered with a veil covering the glory reflected in his face;
Paul
is unveiled, beholding the glory of the Lord and being trans-
formed from one degree of glory to another (3:17).
Paul develops the imagery of the
veil from the account of how
Moses'
face shone with a divine radiance when he left the presence of
God on Sinai (Exod
34:29-34).
His luminous appearance so terrified
the people that they fled from him, but he was able
to coax them to
return and presented them with the commandments of the
Lord.
After
Moses finished speaking with them, he then placed a veil over
his face. The texts does not tell us explicitly why
Moses did this,31 but
Paul's
interpretation finds great significance in the inference that Moses
habitually32 wore a veil when he met
with the people. In 3:7, he notes
that the ministry of death came with such splendor
"so that the sons
of
of the glory of his face which was fading."
In 3:13, he says that Moses
placed a veil over his face, "so that the sons of
intently on the end of that which was being
annulled" (or "fading").
For
Paul, this is further proof of the superiority of the New Covenant,
but it raises a number of exegetical questions.
What exactly is it that
was being abolished (or fading)? And why did Moses
veil his face?
One prominent view takes the
participle in 3:13 (tou?
katargou-
me<nou) to mean "to fade" and identifies what was fading
as the glory
on Moses' face. Moses veiled his face to prevent
that glory wane. Bruce, for example, argues that
Moses veiled his face
when he left the presence of God so that the
Israelites should not see
that his was only a fading glory that needed
constant recharging.33
Barrett
concludes similarly that Moses veiled his face "that they might
not see the glory come to an end and thus be led to
disparage Moses
as being of no more than temporary
importance." He goes on to say:
"Moses
acted as he did not with a view to concealing the truth but in
order to persuade the children of
more likely to do so if they did not see the end of
the glory."34
restraint about the most painful things,"
"not mincing words." It was, however, the
characteristic of the true friend and
not the flatterer (see 1 Thess 2:2; Phlm 8; Phil 1:20).
As
Paul uses the term, "It describes the courage with which he is emboldened,
as an
apostle, to exercise his ministry openly and
without fear" (Furnish, 2
Corinthians, 231).
And
Hanson ("Midrash," 15) observes that it
required boldness to claim "that God has
been uniquely revealed in the human form of Jesus
Christ."
31 According to Philo, Vito Mos. 2.14.70, their eyes could not
"stand the dazzling
brightness that flashed from him like the rays of
the sun." See also Ps.-Philo 12:1.
32 e]ti<qei is imperfect, while the
LXX has the aorist e]pe<qhken.
33 F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (
1977)
121; see also idem, I & II
Corinthians (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971)
192.
34 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New
32
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
This
interpretation comes up against the fact that the noun "glory"
(do<ca) is feminine and the
participle (tou?
katargoume<nou) is either
neuter or masculine.35 But aside from that,
it attributes some measure
of subterfuge on the part of Moses for putting the
veil on before the
people. If not guilty of outright deceit, he was at
least hiding some-
thing from them; and it seems most unlikely that Paul
would have
construed Moses' actions so negatively.36
It is my view that Paul uses the
glory that faded from Moses' face
as a figure for the Mosaic covenant that would
eventually be annulled.
The
key for understanding how Paul interprets Moses' intentions is the
verb a]teni<zein, "to gaze
intently," which occurs only in vv 7 and 13 in
Paul's letters. Unfortunately, it is
usually translated "see" (RSV) or
"look" (KJV). But if it is translated with its usual
meaning, "to gaze
intently," it can be interpreted to mean
that Moses did not simply
want to prevent them from seeing the glory that was
radiating from
his face dim, he wanted to keep them from fixing
their attention on
something that was only passing; namely, the covenant
that Paul has
described as written on tablets of stone (3:3,7),
as something that kills
(3:6),
as a ministry of death and condemnation (3:7, 9), and as some-
thing that is being annulled (3:11). The people could
easily mistake
what was to be annulled as something permanent and
as their ulti-
35 C. J. A. Hickling ("The Sequence of Thought on II Corinthians,
Chapter Three,"
NTS 21 [1974] 391) contends
that the Israelites would not have been surprised that
Moses'
radiance began to fade the longer he was away from the source of the glory,
which makes it unlikely that Moses would have tried
to hide that fact. Later rabbis
declared, however, that the brightness remained
until his death (see Str-B 515).
36 In this
interpretation, Moses prevents
face, and the result is that their minds become
hardened. In 4:4, Paul claims that Satan
blinds minds to keep them from seeing the light of the
gospel of the glory of Christ
which would imply that Moses acted like Satan by
causing the blindness of
as bold as Paul is in his interpretation, this
could hardly have been Paul's conclusion.
Furnish (2 Corinthians, 232) contends that Moses veiled his face "in
order to keep
the Israelites from seeing the extinction of the
splendor that was being annulled." This,
he claims, explains why Moses was so timid. It was
not because he attempted to .
deceive the people but because he knew that his
ministry was destined to pass away.
Many other views have been proposed
to explain the significance of the veiling.
One
interpretation, worthy of serious consideration, contends that Moses hid his
face
for reverential reasons because he did not want to
profane the glory of God that was
too sacred for human gaze (Windisch,
Zweite Korintherbrief,
119; Hickling, "Se-
quence," 391). The
problem with this view is that Paul does not draw any special
attention to its sacredness but to the fact that
it was being annulled or fading. A. T.
Hanson
("The Midrash in II Corinthians 3: A
Reconsideration," JSNT 9 [1980]
3-28~
interprets the veiling to signify that Moses viewed
the pre-existent Christ in the
tabernacle; and the reason he put on the veil
"was to prevent the messianic glory from
being seen by the Israelites." This was because
Moses knew it was part of the divine
plan that
opportunity for the Gentiles to believe (13).
mate hope because of the glory that attended the
giving of the law.
Paul
assumes in his interpretation that Moses recognized that his
ministry of the letter would be annulled in spite
of its great glory and
attempted to prevent the people from focusing on
what was only
impermanent. Therefore, in Paul's view, Moses did
not don the veil to
con the people but to try to prevent them from
riveting their attention
only on what was destined to be transcended.37
This best explains the
"but" (a@lla) in 3:14: "but
their minds were hardened" (compare Deut
29:4;
Isa 6:10; 29:10). It indicates that Moses' attempt
failed. The
people misconceived things, and they remain deluded as
evidenced
by the fact that they still keep their gaze
focused only on the letter.
Paul applies the veil figure to
explain the unbelief of the majority
of Jews in his day. The veil now becomes a
blindfold.38 When they
read the old covenant, they do not recognize that it
is old. They still
look to Moses and not to Christ as the final say
because they fail to see
that the coming of Christ extinguishes whatever
glory Moses had.
They
fail to recognize that Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4),
that he has inaugurated a New Covenant, and that he
embodies the
true glory of God. They see Christ only from the
perspective of flesh
(kata>
sa<rka, 5:16) and do not
recognize that in him everything that is
old passes away (5:17).
Paul's conviction that salvation
only comes through Christ governs
his interpretation of Exodus 34. As a way of
salvation, the ministry of
the letter has been abrogated. As promise, it has
been fulfilled. As
something temporary, it has been replaced by that
which is perma-
nent. The new covenant that
was prophesied in Jeremiah 31 has
arrived and replaced the old covenant, and the
veil "is abolished" in
Christ
(katargei?n, 3:14).39.
For Paul, the law be properly read and
understood only in Christ because only in Christ
can one see that the
37
See J.-F. Collange, Enigmes de la deuxieme epitre
de Paul aux Corinthiens
(SNTSMS
18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 96-97; and R. P. Martin,
2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco, TX:
Word, 1986) 68, who writes, "the fading glow on
Moses'
face betokened the temporary nature of nomistic
religion. But the Jews, both in
Moses'
day and a@xri
ga>r th?j
sh<meron ('until the present
day'), have shown their
obtuseness by looking to Moses as the final
embodiment of God's salvation."
38 See Rom 11:7-8, 25,
where Paul states that
stupor and that a hardening (pw<rwsij) has come upon some of
them.
The
veil image may be derived from the practice of veiling the Torah scrolls in
their niche in the synagogue and/or from the veiling
of the head in prayer.
39 Even though the verb katargei?n is used elsewhere in
the passage for the
annulment of the Old Covenant (3:7, 11, 13) and a
different verb for removing a veil
(periairei?n) appears in 3:16, the
"veil" and not "the Old Covenant" is the subject of the
verb, because "the same veil" is the
subject of the previous clause, and there is no
indication that the subject has changed. The
present tense implies that it is in process of
being abolished. If it were referring to the Old
Covenant, one would expect the aorist,
since it has already been abolished with the coming
of Christ.
34
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
New
Covenant has indeed replaced the Old. But Paul has identified
all of this as the ministry of the Spirit (3:8),
and he now turns to the
role of the Spirit in unveiling the truth and
transforming darkness into
light (see 4:6).
The Lord is the Spirit
(3:15-18)
Paul affords a note of hope by
asserting that the veil/blindfold
can be removed by turning toward the Lord (3:16).
This is his inter-
pretation of Exod
34:34. As Moses took off the veil literally when he
went in before the Lord, so this will happen
figuratively to anyone
who comes to the Lord. It is much debated among
scholars as to
whom Paul means by "the Lord,"40
but I take the expression "turn to
the Lord" as simply another way of referring
to conversion, which
entailed belief in Jesus as Lord (see 1 Cor 6:17; 12:3, where "the Lord"
refers to Christ). In 3:14, Paul says that the veil is
annulled in Christ;
and it would seem logical to assume that in 3:16 he
also has Christ in
mind when he says, "whoever turns to the Lord,
the veil is removed."
Verse
17 continues: "Now the Lord is Spirit, and where
the Spirit
of the Lord is, there is freedom."41
By specifically referring to the
Spirit
at this point, Paul returns to the central theme of the passage,
the ministry of the Spirit. When one believes, one
enters into the
40 "The Lord"
has been taken to mean God, Christ, or the Spirit. Those who argue
that "Lord" refers to God contend that
3:16 is a citation of Exod 34:34 which has
Yahweh
in view and point to a similar expression in 1 Thess
1:9 which clearly refers to
God. See, for example, J. D. G. Dunn, "2
Corinthians III. 17- The Lord is the Spirit,"
NTS 21 (1970) 309-20. The problem with this
view is that it implies that Paul believed
that the Jews had not turned to God. As Paul saw
things, this was not their failure. He
affirms that
because they had not believed in Christ (Rom
10:1-4).
Those who argue for the Spirit point
to the emphasis on the Spirit in the context
and the statement in 3:17 that the Lord is the
Spirit. See, for example, E. Wong, "The
Lord
is the Spirit," ETL 61 (1985)
48-72. But the idea of turning to the Spirit never
occurs elsewhere in Paul's writings.
One must be mindful when
interpreting this passage that Paul is not concerned
here, as Hooker, "Beyond," 301, points
out, "with the niceties of trinitarian
theology"
(compare Rom 8:9-14).
41 Some take "the
Lord" to be an explanation of who "the Lord" is in Exod 34:34,
the passage that Paul is interpreting (compare Gal
4:25;- 1 Cor 10:4); and the
attempts to capture this by translating it:
"Now the Lord of whom this passage speaks
is the Spirit." But
the exalted Christ, and Spirit refers to "the
mode of existence" of the Lord. This best
explains the expression, "Spirit of the
Lord" in 3:18; it depicts "the power'" in which the
Lord
encounters the community. Schweizer writes, ".In
so far as Christ is regarded in
His
significance for the community, in His powerful action upon it, He can be
identified
with the pneuma. In so far as He is also Lord over His power, He can
be differentiated
from it, just as the I can be distinguished from the
power which goes out from it."
sphere of the Spirit (Gal 3:2); and when one reads the
law with the aid
of the Spirit, one is able to penetrate beyond the
letter and perceive
its true significance as pointing to Christ. The
Spirit leads one to see
the necessity of giving oneself over to the ministry
of reconciliation,
and this is precisely what happened to Paul himself
after his encoun-
ter with Christ. When the
light shone in his heart, his benighted vision
cleared, and he saw the face of God in the Son
of God (see 4:4). As is
clear from these verses, he also began to read the
law in a radically
different way, and one can understand why on five
different occasions
the synagogue subjected him to the discipline of
the lash (11:24).
Paul has stressed the Spirit's
operation on hearts versus that of ink
on stone tablets (3:3), the Spirit's giving of
life versus the letter's
meting out a death sentence (3:6), and now he
emphasizes the Spirit's
freedom. In the immediate context, the freedom
he is talking about is
freedom from the veil. In the age of the Spirit,
there is no call for
veils, which is what marks the contrast between Paul
and Moses. Paul
does not veil himself or his gospel but makes things
evident and
spreads the knowledge of God (2:14; 4:6) for all
to see (3:2). The
uncovered face of Paul that looks up to God also
turns uncovered to
others. Freedom therefore would be parallel to the
boldness in 3:12.
But freedom also entails the freedom
of access to God for all who
turn to the Lord. In 3:18, Paul certifies that
"we all," with unveiled
face, are able to behold in a glass42 the
glory of the Lord (contrast
Exod 40:35; 1 Kgs 8:11). The "we all" contrasts with the one Moses. In
the age of the Spirit, no one has to wait outside
the tent while another
enters into the presence of God only to get a glimpse
of a veiled
reflection of God's glory that is destined to fade
away. In contrast to
the one who reads God's revelation in the Old
Covenant with a veiled
mind, the Christian sees firsthand the
self-revelation of God in the
person of Christ (see 4:4,6). What is more, believers
are changed into
the likeness they see.43 As Moses
radiated the glory of God, so do all
42 For a summary of the
lexical evidence for katoptrizo<menoi,
see J. Dupont, "Le
Chretien, miroir de la grace divine, d'apres
2 Cor. 3, 18," RB 46 (1949) 393-411. In the
usage of the period, the word meant
"behold"; but Dupont argues in spite of
this that
Paul
uses the word idiosyncratically to mean "to reflect" as a mirror
does. This would
mean that Christians reflect the glory of God just
as the unveiled Moses did. But the
contrast is not between Christians and Moses but
between Christians who behold the
glory of God and Jews who cannot because their hearts
are veiled. Paul uses the word
"to behold as in a glass" because in this world what we
see is only the reflected image
of God. The direct vision of God will come only at
the end when we will we see "face
to face" (1 Cor
13:12). See J. Lambrecht, "Transformation in 2 Cor 3,18," Bib 64 (1983)
243-49.
43 See Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 15:49; Phil 3:21; Mark 13:43. J. A. Fitzmyer
("Glory
Reflected
on the Face of Christ [2 Cor 3:7-4:6] and a
Palestinian Jewish Motif," TS 42
36
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
who turn toward the Lord. But Paul notes that this
transformation is
the work of the Spirit (literally "from the
Lord of the Spirit," 3:18),
and this means that there are significant
differences from what hap-
pened to Moses and what
happens to Christians. First, the changed
condition of Christians need not and should not be
concealed because
the glory they reflect is a permanent one and
should be a permanent
testimony to the world. Second, the glory does not
fade, as it did with
Moses, but only increases from one degree of
glory to another.
One
must be careful, however, not to think of this
glorious transformation
in terms of a human appraisal of what glory is.
This was his bone of
contention with his rivals. We are transformed into
the likeness of
Christ,
but Christ was crucified! Paul asserts that Christ's glory can be
seen in him, but it can be seen precisely in his
afflictions, persecutions,
and the wasting away of his outer nature (4:7-18).
For Paul, the glory
of the Lord is paradoxically manifested in his own
life by the fact that
he always carries in his body the death of Jesus
(4:10).
Paul's Ministry (4:1-6)
In 4:1-6, Paul sums up his defense:
"Having such a ministry we
do not lose heart, . . . but in open manifestation
of the truth commend
ourselves to the conscience of every person before
God" (4:1-2). In
the preceding verses he has contrasted his own
ministry with that of
Moses.
Moses did not act boldly but was timid, as is clear from his use
of a veil. Paul is bold and faces all openly.
Moses' ministry was to be
annulled; Paul has God's ultimate word which is
permanent. The
glory of Moses was reserved for him alone; the glory
of the Lord is
bestowed on all who turn to the Lord. Moses'
transfiguration was only
temporary; the transfiguration of Christians will
only increase from
one degree of glory to another.44 Now,
Paul briefly contrasts himself
[1981]
630-44) shows that "transfiguration by vision" need not be derived
from a Greco-
Roman
religious motif (compare Apuleius Metamorphoses XI) but was at home in a
Palestinian environment, namely,
44 L. Gaston, "Paul
and the Torah in 2 Corinthians 3," Paul
and the Torah (Van-
couver:
are less than comfortable with this apparent
dismissal of Judaism by Paul. This un-
compromising insistence on Christ as
the absolute truth does not sit well with a
pluralistic age. Paul was not interested in
fostering better relations with his fellow Jews
but converting them, and he was not averse to
disturbing their religious sensitivities.
The
fact is that he gave his life for his kindred in the flesh, suffering the
synagogue
discipline of the 39 lashes, and venturing to
loved him, in hopes that he might save some of them
(Rom 11:14). The fears of his
friends proved to be well-founded, and Paul was
eventually martyred for the faith and
because of his concern for his brethren (Rom
9:1-5). He did this because of his
conviction that they were dead wrong about God and
about Christ. Christ was not an
with those who employ disgraceful (literally,
"the secrets of shame"),
guileful, and underhanded means and who
adulterate the word of
God to gain followers (4:2; see 11:3-4, 13-15). He commends himself
as one who does not preach himself but Jesus
Christ as Lord (4:5) and
who has humbled himself as the Corinthians' slave
for the sake of
Christ
(4:5). But he will not be servile when it comes to the glory of
his ministry. In this he will boast--a boast that
rests in the Lord. He
does not do this to inflate himself but to
reestablish the mutual
confidence he formerly shared with the Corinthians.
He hopes that
they will now understand him better and recognize
his sufficiency in
the ministry of the Spirit.
alternative plan for Gentiles, but the only way for
all humankind. Some today might
label this as dogmatic intolerance, but it is not
anti-semitism nor anti-Judaism. Paul
fervently believes that the true hopes of Judaism
have been fulfilled by Christ. To hold
fast to the old would be like insisting on trying to
cross the
decayed
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: