The purpose of this chapter is to examine Paul’s use of scriptural narrative in 2
Corinthians 3, and to draw out the implications of this for Paul’s understanding of history and time. Unfortunately, this is not a straightforward process. 2 Corinthians 3 is a particularly
145
challenging text, presenting interpreters with a number of complex, interrelated questions.464 It forms one part of Paul's wider argument in defence of his own ministry, which covers a large portion of 2 Corinthians, taking the shape here of an extended comparison between his ministry and Moses' ministry. The logic of Paul's argument is difficult to follow at times, and this problem is only compounded by numerous cases where there is significant debate over how to translate particular words or phrases. A central feature of Paul's argument is his use of the Old Testament, including direct interaction with Exodus 34: 29-35, which tells the story of Moses' descent from Sinai with a glowing face, as well as more subtle allusions to
prophetic texts such as Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31. Unfortunately, understanding Paul's use of these texts is doubly difficult; first, because the source material itself is far from
straightforward; second, because of the liberal way in which Paul edits and reinterprets this source material. Given these difficulties, it will be necessary to deal with some of the tricky exegetical details before considering some of the wider theological implications of the text. Our interest here is to consider what kind of salvation-history, if any at all, is implicit in this passage. In addition, what is the nature of the comparisons between Moses and Paul, and between the Israelites of Moses' day and the Jews and Christians of Paul's day?
i. Paul’s Defence of his Ministry
First, however, it is important to consider the place of 2 Corinthians 3 in the letter as a whole. Paul's main aim in 2 Corinthians is to defend his ministry against criticisms. 2
Corinthians 3 forms one part of this wider argument, and so it must be read in that context. Given that much of this chapter is taken up by a defence of Paul's ministry against his critics, it is important to consider who these critics were, and what basis they had for criticising Paul.
Space does not permit a detailed examination of these questions, but in my reading of 2 Corinthians 3, I find myself in agreement with the conclusions reached by Jerry L. Sumney in his excellent study of Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians.465 Sumney argues that the
464 Scott Hafemann, who has written at length on 2 Corinthians 3, describes it as 'one of the
most difficult passages to understand within the Pauline corpus.' See Paul, Moses, and the History of
Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1996), 1. As Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 123, humorously puts it, 'It is hard to escape the impression that, to this day, when 2 Corinthians 3 is read a veil lies over our minds.'
465Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians
(Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990). As indicated in the title, much of Sumney's work is focused on assessing the methodological basis for 'mirror-reading' Paul's opponents. His conclusions regarding the identity of Paul's opponents in chapter 1-9 are primarily based on the 'explicit statements' found in 2:17; 3:1a; 5:12, supported by other allusions.
146
predominant issue in 2 Corinthians 'is that of the proper criteria for evaluating minister and ministries.'466 Paul differs from his opponents on the question of 'the proper manifestation of divine power in apostles' lives.'467 Their differing outlooks take concrete form in disputes over payment, evidence of status, and appropriate demeanour. This means that Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians are quite different from the Judaizing opponents in Galatians. Here, the focus is more on Paul himself, rather than the theological content of his gospel – although the two are necessarily linked to some extent.
Paul begins 2 Corinthians 3 by directly comparing himself with his opponents. Whereas they prove their credentials with written letters of recommendation, Paul needs no such written letters. Paul does not reject letters of recommendation per se, but questions whether he, Paul, requires one.468 The Corinthians themselves are Paul's letter of
recommendation. There is some debate over whether this 'letter' is written on Paul's heart, or on the Corinthians' hearts (3:2),469 but Paul's meaning is fairly straightforward either way: Because of their relationship with Paul, the Corinthian church are a public, living validation of his ministry. They are a letter of Christ, prepared by Paul,470 and written by the Spirit.471 It is noticeable that in verse 3 Paul very quickly moves from talking about physical letters written with ink, to letters carved on tablets of stone. Given that Paul's opponents did not literally carry around tablets of stone, this metaphorical leap is Paul's own invention, but it
466 Sumney, Identifying Paul's Opponents, 146. 467 Sumney, Identifying Paul's Opponents, 147.
468 Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 260
469 The first person plural possessive pronoun ἡμῶν is better attested (Papyrus46 A B C D G K
P Ψ 614 17r9 Byz Lect it vg syrp, h copsa, bo goth arm) than the second person ὑμῶν (א 33 88 436 1881
ethro). Despite the greater support for the former, however, the latter fits the context better; Paul is
vindicated by the Corinthians themselves, whose hearts have been changed by the Spirit. For arguments in favour of ἡμῶν, see Rudold Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 74; Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 259; Thomas Schmeller, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Zurich: Patmos-Verlag, 2010), 188. For ὑμῶν, see C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: A&C Black, 1973), 107; Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 127; Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1984), 181; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the
Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 32; Thomas E. Provence, 'Who is
Sufficient for These Things? An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 2:15-3:18', 54-81; Robert B. Sloan, '2 Corinthians 2:14-4:6 and "New Covenant Hermeneutics" - A Response to Richard Hays,' Bulletin for
Biblical Research 5 (1995), 129-154, at 139.
470 In several places in this passage, Paul refers to himself in the first person plural, e.g. with
ἡμῶν in verse 3. This may indicate that Paul has in mind not just himself, but the apostolic company as a whole. See Sloan, 'New Covenant Hermeneutics,' 135-40.
471 By introducing the Spirit into the debate, Paul echoes his argument in Gal. 3:1-5, where the
147
allows him to move on to a discussion of the contrast between the old and new covenants, setting up the second reference to stone in verse 7.472
After highlighting the superiority of his 'letter' to those of his opponents, a superiority which demonstrates the competency of his ministry, Paul considers the nature of this
competency, which comes from God, rather than from Paul himself (3:5). This recalls the pattern of verse 3, where Paul prepares the letter, but the letter belongs to Christ and is written with the Spirit. Immediately, Paul turns to the question of the nature of the covenant of which he is a minister, leading into a comparison of the two covenants that was hinted at in verse 3. Paul’s comparison of the two covenants initially appears to be quite arbitrary. What do the covenants have to do with Paul's ministerial credentials? The progress of Paul's argument seems less arbitrary, however, when one recognises how Paul repeatedly alludes to prophetic material, and to two texts in particular:473
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah...this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be my people (Jeremiah 31:31-33).
A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes, and be careful to observe my
ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God (Ezek. 36:26-27).
Several key terms in the beginning of chapter 3 can be found in these two texts, including 'new covenant' (3:6 cf. Jer. 38:31-34),474 'hearts of flesh' (3:3 cf. Ezek. 11:19; 36:26), and 'written on your hearts’ (3:2 cf. Jer. 31:33). Jeremiah 31 also mentions God's
472 Morna D. Hooker, 'Beyond the Things that are Written? St Paul's Use of Scripture' in New Testament Studies vol. 27.3 1991, 295-309, at 296, sees this as one of a number of places within 2
Cor. 3 where Paul's argument becomes muddled.
473 Exod. 31:18 and Ezek. 11:19 may also be in Paul's mind here. See Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 265.
474 καινὴ διαθήκη also appears in Paul's discussion of the Lord's table in 1 Cor. 11:25, where
it appears that that he uses a pre-existing tradition. See Margaret Thrall, The Second Epistle to the
148
spirit, which, as we will see, plays an extremely important role in Paul's argument. Given all of this rich imagery found in the prophets, it is not difficult to see how Paul might have made these connections when thinking about written letters of approval, in contrast with the living 'letter' of the Corinthians. In addition, it is possible that Moses was used by Paul's critics as an example of someone who had a more glorious ministry.475 If this were the case, it would be entirely unsurprising for Paul to answer his critics by engaging in a discussion of Moses' ministry in comparison with his own.
After directly comparing his ministry with that of his opponents in 3:1-4, then, Paul changes tack and compares the new covenant, of which he is a minister, to the old covenant, of which Moses was the chief minister. He does so by positing a series of antitheses between the two:
Tablets of stone Tablets of human hearts
Letter Spirit
Kills Gives life
Temporary Permanent Condemnation Justification
These antitheses all lead to the conclusion that Paul's ministry of the new covenant is one of greater glory. Significantly, though, at no point does Paul make any attempt to
downplay the glory of Moses' ministry of the old covenant, although he does say that this glory has now faded, or been abolished (3:7).476 In fact, Paul goes out of his way to
475 John Koenig, ‘The Knowing of Glory and Its Consequences (2 Corinthians 3-5)’ in Robert
T Fortna, Beverly R. Gaventa eds., The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), 158-169, at 159-60, identifies three reasons that suggest this may be the case. First, Paul's focus on the old covenant as a mediator of glory is not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Second, Moses and the law are not serious issues for the Corinthians in prior extant correspondence, but are suddenly introduced here. Third, Paul's opponents are denounced
immediately prior to and following Paul's 'midrash' on Exodus 34. Against the idea that Paul responds to a specific argument of his opponents using Moses, Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 228, suggests that 'It would be simpler to suppose that it is Paul himself who has combined the thought of the metaphorical letter of introduction, which Christ as its author, with that of the Decalogue, written ‘by the finger of God’, and has used it as a subordinate motif to underline the superiority of the new order.’ In a similar way, N.T. Wright, 'Reflected Glory: 2 Corinthians 3:18' in L.D Hurst, N.T. Wright eds., The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 139-50, at 141, argues that while it is possible that Paul's opponents used Moses, this is not necessary in order to explain Paul's argument, given that covenant is an important theme throughout the passage.
149
emphasise the glory of Moses' ministry, introducing the idea of Moses' glorious shining face (3:7), and repeatedly describing the old covenant as glorious, despite its shortcomings (3:7, 9, 10, 11). Paul's argument in support of his own ministry is based on a relative comparison with Moses'. If Paul's ministry is more glorious than Moses' ministry, then the more glorious Moses' ministry was, the more glorious Paul's ministry must be. This argument follows a simple logical pattern, deriving a conclusion from two premises:
P1: Moses' ministry was one of glory
P2: Paul's ministry is greater than Moses' ministry, as shown in the antitheses. Therefore C: Paul's ministry is one of greater glory.
That Paul chose to use this particular kind of argument477 suggests that his opponents, or at least the Corinthians to whom he writes, could have been expected to accept his
premises. In response to those who call the glory of his ministry into question, Paul points to the permanent, life-giving, heart-engraving power of the Spirit. The antitheses posited between the two covenantal ministries, and the logical conclusions drawn from these, lead Paul into a direct comparison with Moses, beginning in verse 12.
ii. Rereading Exodus 34
The main text that Paul engages with in 2 Corinthians 3 is Exodus 34:29-34, which tells the story of Moses' descent from Sinai with the tablets of the covenant.478 This comes after the golden calf incident in chapter 32, which means that these tablets are the second ones given by God, after the first were broken. The text tells us that as Moses came down from the mountain his face was shining, because he had been talking with God. Two features of the Exodus narrative are particularly noticeable when read alongside Paul's version.
First, in Exodus 34, Moses is initially unaware that his face his shining. After coming down from the mountain, Aaron and the Israelites are afraid to approach, but Moses calls
477 This type of argument, following an "if X...how much more Y" pattern is comparable to
the rabbinic Qal-Wahomer, the light and the heavy, also known as a minore ad maius, from the lesser to the greater. Other examples of Pauline usage include Rom. 5:8, 10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24. See Furnish,
II Corinthians, 204; Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 279; Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 239.
478 Jane Heath, ‘Moses’ End and the Succession: Deuteronomy 31 and 2 Corinthians 3’ NTS
60 (2014), 37-60, argues persuasively that while Paul’s engagement here is primarily with Exodus, his reading of this text is also influenced by Deut. 29-32. Paul draws on the closure motifs there, as Moses’ ministry comes to an end, suggesting that Jesus is the true successor to Moses.
150
them near to him, and gives them the commandments that he had received on the mountain. Only then, in verse 33, does Moses put on the veil. We are then told that whenever Moses went before the Lord, he took off the veil, only putting it back on afterwards. It is implied, however, that whenever Moses went in to speak with the Lord, he would afterwards leave the tent, tell the Israelites what he had been commanded, and only then put the veil on again. These details are not included in Paul's account of the story in 2 Corinthians 3.
Second, Exodus 34 does not include any explicit claims that the glory of Moses face faded, or was in the process of being annulled. καταργέω does not occur in the LXX here, and there is no equivalent in the Hebrew. This is a detail that is introduced by Paul.479 The closest that we come to an explicit explanation of the veil in Exodus 34 is in verse 30, which states that the Israelites were afraid when they saw Moses' face. That said, while the Exodus narrative does not explicitly state that Moses’ glory faded beneath the veil, it does leave room open for such an interpretation. As Watson argues, the scriptural narrative does not
satisfactorily explain why Moses veiled his face, and nor does it state what happened to Moses’ face when it was veiled. There is therefore an ambiguity present within the story, and Paul’s reading is an attempt to provide a solution to a problem which the text itself poses.480
Whereas the line of argument in 3:1-11 is relatively easy to follow, 3:12-18 poses some much more difficult exegetical questions. Why does Paul think that Moses veiled his face, and to what extent does his interpretation depart from Exodus 34? What is the meaning and significance of καταργέω, which occurs four times in chapter 3? What does τέλος mean in verse 13? How does Israel's hardening relate to Moses' veiling? Why does Paul switch from talking about the Israelites of Moses' day to Jews of his own day? Who precisely turns to the Lord, and what does this actually mean? Who is the Lord in verse 17, and what does it mean to say that he is the Spirit? What is the meaning and significance of the mirror in verse 18? These questions are complex, but are important for gaining an understanding of Paul’s argument as a whole, and therefore for examining the wider implications of the text.
Paul begins in verse 12 by drawing an explicit distinction between himself and Moses. Unlike Moses, Paul argues, the hope that he has because of the new covenant allows him to
479 See Linda L. Belleville, 'Tradition or Creation? Paul's Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2
Corinthians 3.7-18', Craig A. Evans, James A. Sanders eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1993), 165-86.
480 Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 292-295. Stephen K. Davis, The Antithesis of the Ages: Paul’s Reconfiguration of Torah (Washington: The Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 2002), 201, makes a similar argument: ‘Although his reading runs counter to what is expected, and his counter-reading is attributable to his ‘messianic’ lenses, Paul is only
151
act with πολλῇ παρρησία. Crucially, then, it is παρρησία, boldness, which Paul identifies as a key difference between himself and Moses.481 Verse 13 serves to support this distinction. Paul has great boldness, unlike Moses, who veiled his face. This means that we should approach verses 13-14 already with a good idea of what Paul wants to say. His description of Moses must support the claim that Moses did not have the same kind of boldness that Paul has. What is the evidence that Paul gives to show that Moses lacked boldness in his ministry? That Moses put a veil over his face.482 Unfortunately, this simple answer belies the
complexity surrounding the tricky issue of Moses' veiling, which itself is bound up with questions of how best to understand some key terms in Paul's description, including καταργέω and τέλος.
Several translations use the language of 'fading' in verse 13. For example, the RSV states that Moses veiled his face 'so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendour.' The idea here is that after meeting with God, Moses' face was glorified, but that this glory began to fade away after Moses left God's presence. Alternatively, καταργέω could