i. Tracing Paul’s Argument
Now that the most significant exegetical issues concerning 2 Corinthians 3 have been considered, we can trace the course of Paul's argument through the chapter. There are three main stages to Paul's defence of his ministry here. First, in 3:1-6, Paul directly addresses the claims of those who support themselves with literal letters of recommendation. Paul has no need of such letters, because the Corinthians are a living letter, who implicitly validate Paul's ministry. Paul is confident because the worth of his ministry does not rest on his own
competency, but on the competency of the God who sent him, allied with the life-giving Spirit that has written on the Corinthians' hearts. Verse 6 leads into the second part of Paul's argument by reintroducing the distinction between two different ministries, initially hinted at in verse 4. In 3:7-11, Paul details the ways in which his ministry of the new covenant differs from Moses' ministry of the old covenant. Whereas Moses' ministry was a temporary one, written with letters on tablets of stone, and leading to death, Paul's ministry is a permanent one, written on human hearts with the Spirit, and leading to life. Moses' ministry came with dazzling glory; given that Paul's ministry is superior, it must be even more glorious.516 In 3:12-18, having established the superiority of his ministry, Paul goes on to show what this means in practice. Paul, in contrast to Moses, is able to act with great boldness, and whereas those who Moses ministered to were separated from God's glory by a veil, those who Paul ministers to are unveiled, and are transformed.
ii. Two Covenants, Two Ages
One of the aspects of Paul's theology that vexes readers most consistently is his attitude towards the law. This ties in closely with the topics of history and time, as a
significant element of the continuity/discontinuity tension, because the place of the law in the life of the church is an indicator of the state of the historical and theological relationship between the church and Israel. Should believers follow the law, carrying Israel’s legacy?
516 As Hooker, 'Beyond the Things That are Written?', 298, fairly points out, Paul's opponents
might easily have responded at this point: 'the reason why you, Paul, do not wear a veil is quite simply that you do not have any glory to conceal!' If the glory of Moses' ministry made his face shine so that Israel were afraid, surely Paul's more glorious ministry should mean that his face is even brighter? Paul does not answer this objection directly, but in 4:6-7 he suggests why those under the new covenant do not visibly display glory.
161
Should they reject the law as a remnant of a former age, severing a potential link with Israel? Does the church carry on Israel’s story, or create a new one?
In some places within the Pauline corpus, we find remarkably positive claims regarding the law. The law is holy (Rom 7:12) and the Spirit enables believers to fulfil the law (Rom 8:4). On other occasions, however, Paul's claims regarding the law are shocking in their negativity. Paul regards his righteousness based on the law as rubbish (Phil. 3:8), and likens being under the law to being in slavery (Gal. 4:21-31). How should readers of Paul's letters deal with the apparent tensions between these statements? One option is to suppose that there is development within the Pauline corpus, with Paul adapting his views over time. Another option is to attempt to identify certain of Paul's statements as representing the 'real' Paul, and explain others as polemical, emotionally-charged exaggerations. Alternatively, we could abandon the quest for synthesis, and accept that Paul's theology of the law is ultimately incoherent.
2 Corinthians 3 is an important passage for addressing these questions, because here we see the two sides of Paul's attitude towards the law functioning side by side, in his comparison between the old and new covenants. On several occasions, Paul emphasises that the law, and Moses' ministry of that law, was glorious (3:7, 9, 10, 11). Set alongside these claims of glory, however, are several far more pejorative descriptions. The old covenant 'kills' (3:6), is a 'ministry of death' (3:7), and is a 'ministry of condemnation (3:9). Given that these apparently contradictory claims are set side-by-side, it will not do to dismiss either the
positive or negative claims as mere polemic; nor would it make any sense to suggest that Paul develops his view of the law within the space of a handful of verses. It would also be highly unsatisfactory to suggest that Paul's argument is simply incoherent, although this possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Assuming for the moment that Paul is not simply incoherent, how might we
understand the dynamic tensions regarding the law within 2 Corinthians 3? Fortunately, there are several important clues within these verses that indicate how Paul holds these claims together. First, as mentioned previously, it is significant that much of what Paul says about the law, and the ministry that went with it, is based on a relative comparison. Paul is keen to stress that the old covenant had much glory; it lacks glory in comparison with the new covenant. The comparative aspect of Paul's argument only goes so far in addressing the issue at hand, however. In verse 6, for example, Paul does not say that the letter gives life, but that the Spirit gives more life. Instead, with much greater impact, he states that the letter kills,
162
while the Spirit gives life. Here, the two covenants are not at different places on a sliding scale; they are utterly opposed.
The second feature of chapter 3 that is particularly worth noting here is the role of the Spirit. The Spirit features at numerous points in the chapter, clearly indicating that it has a central significance for Paul's argument (3:3, 6, 8, 17). Paul never quite makes the point explicitly, but bubbling under the surface of the text is the implication that the Spirit's role as an empowering figure is one of the fundamental features of the new covenant, marking it as radically different from the old. It is the Spirit which brings life (3:6), grants freedom (3:17), and transforms believers (3:18). In contrast with Israel, whose minds were hardened, and with Jews who have a veil over their minds, believers are unveiled before the glory of God. We find a similar, and perhaps more clearly expressed claim in Romans 8:2-4: 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do...so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.' It is not difficult to see a similar kind of logic underlying 2 Corinthians 3. The law was given by God in glory, but it was met by sinful, hardened Israel. Because of Israel's sin, the glorious law leads only to death and condemnation. In contrast, the new covenant includes the
empowering Spirit, which means that it leads to life and freedom.
This interpretation is supported by Paul's allusions to Ezekiel and Jeremiah. In Ezekiel 36, for example, God laments the fact that Israel have profaned his holy name among the nations (v. 22). His response is to restore Israel, and to set things right by placing a new heart within them, and giving them a new spirit (36:26). By placing his spirit within them, God will be able to ensure that Israel follow his statutes and observe his ordinances (36:27). In the new covenant of Jeremiah 31, God's law will be placed within his people, written on their hearts, and all of Israel will know him (31:31-33). For Paul, this time has come, and the words of the prophets are being fulfilled in those who follow Christ. His claims regarding the law cannot be read as if the law is being looked at in isolation. What concerns Paul is the interaction between the law and God's people. The combination of two factors - Israel's sin and hard- heartedness, and the absence of an empowering force within the old covenant - means that the law fails to bring about obedience. To some extent, then, Paul's 'problem' with the old
covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 is not what it does, but what it does not do. The new covenant, empowered by the Spirit, does not have this problem.
The third and perhaps most significant feature of Paul's argument in 2 Corinthians 3 regarding the question of the law is the presence of temporal themes. The various things that
163
Paul says about the old and new covenants are not detached, timeless claims; Paul is consistently aware of the dynamic of past, present and future within his argument, and two features of his argument clearly indicate that the law was meant only for a specific, limited time.
First, as previously mentioned, we find allusions to prophetic texts that explicitly point forwards to a time of change, when God will introduce a new covenant, with a different form and character. Bultmann argues that Paul's reinterpretation of scripture and his
particular construct of salvation history are foreign to the Old Testament.517 Certainly, Paul's reading of Exodus 34 goes beyond the original text, but in his repeated allusion to prophetic material, Paul aims to show that his claims are in line with the expectations set out within scripture itself. He reinterprets scripture, but he does not abandon it.
Second, Paul's statements involving a comparison between the old and new covenants include an important temporal aspect, showing how the former status of the law is different to the present status of the law. A key component of these comparisons is Paul's repeated use of καταργέω, used primarily to show that the law was an impermanent feature of the past, in contrast with the new covenant of the Spirit, which is a permanent feature of the present and future. The clearest example of this is verse 11, where Paul contrasts that which is permanent with that which was temporary. Given that Paul maintains that both ministries were ordained by God, we are left with an implicit scheme of the divine plan across history, including distinct phases.
Indeed, several commentators note the presence of an implicit salvation-historical scheme in 2 Corinthians 3. Murphy-O'Connor suggests that for Paul, the role that Moses played 'in the history of salvation has now been superseded.'518 Moses' ministry failed insofar as Israel 'gave a permanent value to something that was essentially provisional and
temporary, and this continues in the synagogue to the present day.'519 Commenting on the presence of salvation-historical ideas within 2 Corinthians 3, Stockhausen remarks that 'however unfashionable, this classic theological idea is inescapable.'520In a number of detailed works on 2 Corinthians 3, Scott Hafemann repeatedly emphasises the role that salvation- history plays in Paul's thought. For Hafemann, 2 Corinthians 3 'is a thesis-like summary of
517 Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an der Korinther, 91.
518 Murphy-O'Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians, 36. 519 Murphy-O'Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians, 37.
520 Carol K. Stockhausen, '2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis' in Craig A.
Evans, James A. Saunders eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 143-164, at 164. Stockhausen suggests that salvation-historical ideas are present in Paul's discussion of both Moses and Abraham.
164
Paul's understanding of the history of redemption from Adam and the Fall in the Garden, to Sinai, to the "covenant-heartedness under the old covenant, to the inauguration of the new covenant by Christ as the "second Adam," who is the very image of the glory of God, to the transformation of the Corinthians into that same image, and beyond.' This history 'is the "plot" or framework of Paul's thinking.'521 Hafemann overstates his argument somewhat, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that salvation history plays a fundamental role in Paul’s interpretation of the Exodus tradition, in the sense that he re-reads it by placing it in the context of a wider historical framework, now revealed in the Christ-event.
One potentially troubling aspect of this salvation-historical scheme is the questions that it raises about God's character and intentions. Given that God is capable of sending his Spirit and offering a covenant which leads to life, why did he choose to give a covenant that would lead to death and condemnation? If the divine plan was always to provide a new covenant, as indicated in the prophetic material that Paul cites, what purpose did the first covenant serve? These are questions that Paul addresses more thoroughly in Romans 9-11, but in both texts there is a certain ambiguity surrounding the role of hardening in relation to the divine plan. Not every single Israelite was hardened, however, and not every single Israelite was separated from God's glory by a veil.
iii. Moses, a Man out of Time
Within the Exodus 34 narrative, Moses holds a unique position, as the one who goes before the Lord unveiled. This means that in 2 Cor. 3:14-18, when Paul draws a direct comparison between the time of Exodus 34, and the present situation, Moses plays a unique role. First, in verse 15, 'Moses' refers not to the man, but to the Pentateuch, read in the present by Jews, who read it with a veil over their minds. Second, in verse 16, Moses' unique
experience of going before the Lord is adapted to apply to all who are in Christ. Moses' historically specific action becomes the universal, historically-detached possibility of turning to the Lord. Whereas in Exodus 34, Moses is the one person among the whole of Israel who can turn to the Lord unveiled, in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul claims this as a possibility for all believers. In this way, Paul constructs what might best be described as a typology.
Despite the lack of τύποςlanguage, 3:14-18 actually presents a more traditional typology than that found in 1 Corinthians 10. In Paul's rendition of the Exodus 34 narrative, we find two distinct groups, whose interactions with God's glory are in stark contrast. Among
165
the entirety of Israel, Moses alone is able to go before God unveiled; the rest of the Israelites are hard-hearted. In the present day, the same separation exists, except that the first group, previously represented only by Moses, now includes all believers, who are free and unveiled. In this way Paul presents Moses as pointing forwards typologically to those who are in Christ. This is particularly apparent in 3:16, where Moses' action of going before the Lord is rewritten to incorporate all those who turn to the Lord. It is interesting to note that in the initial stages of Paul's exposition of Exodus 34, Moses is primarily used in comparison with Paul himself, or with the apostolic party. Throughout 3:1-14, Paul intends to show that his ministry is like Moses' ministry, but superior to it. By verse 15, however, Moses' significance becomes more universal, as a type of all believers. This is not to say, however, that Paul's use of Moses is inconsistent. The fact that Moses, as an isolated individual, is a type of all those who follow Christ, is itself evidence for Paul's claims to superiority. Moses could not share his privileged position with the rest of Israel, because the covenant that formed the basis of his ministry was temporary, and devoid of the necessary power, i.e., the Spirit, to solve the problem of Israel's hardness. Paul, in contrast, is a minister of a permanent, Spirit-infused, life-giving ministry, which brings all believers into contact with God's glory.
Note, however, that the deficiencies in Moses' ministry of the old covenant relate to its effect on those to whom Moses ministered. Moses himself does not seem to suffer from the same hardness, or from the absence of the Spirit. Unlike the rest of Israel, Moses himself is able to go before God unveiled, and in doing so he is outwardly transformed; his face displays glory in a similar way to how believers themselves are transformed (3:18). To restate: one of the problems that Paul identifies with the old covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 is that it lacks the Spirit, which brings life and freedom to those under the new covenant. The absence of the Spirit is manifested in the heard-heartedness of Israel, and the fact that Moses must hide his face from them. The important point here is that these are not problems that seem to affect Moses himself, who takes his veil off when he goes before the Lord. In other words, while Moses' ministry is clearly presented as being inferior to Paul's, in terms of its wider effect on other people, Moses himself appears to transcend the limits of the old covenant, experiencing the benefits that accrue to those who are in Christ under the new covenant. In 3:18, Paul describes two things that happen to those who are in Christ. First, they are unveiled, meaning that they can clearly see the glory of God; second, they are transformed into the image of that glory. Both of these things apply to Moses, who goes before God unveiled, and whose face is transformed with dazzling glory.
166
iv. Conclusions to Chapter 6
This reading of 2 Corinthians 3 has problematic implications for both apocalyptic and salvation-historical readings of Paul. In several respects, 2 Corinthians 3 does actually
support the kind of historical scheme proposed by apocalyptic readings. The antitheses between the old and new covenants support the sharp distinction between the old age and the new, with the Christ-event as the dividing line. In addition, Paul suggests no positive role for the law in bringing about or preparing for the Christ-event. Nor are there any hints of a linear salvation history. The old covenant was intimately linked with death, and those who read the law were and still are veiled. This veil is only removed in Christ, and this is only possible now that a new situation has been brought about by the Christ-event. The temporary, fading glory of then old covenant has been replaced by the permanent glory of the new.
Moses, however, is presented as a temporal anomaly. In the darkness of the period of the old covenant, surrounded by stiff-necked Israel, Moses’ shining face appears as a
dazzling incongruity. The problem is not just that Moses does not share the experience of the rest of Israel, but that Paul reinterprets Moses’ experience in explicitly Christological or ecclesiological terms. Like Israel in 1 Corinthians 10, who receive the same blessings as believers – baptism, the Eucharist, Christ’s presence and blessing – Moses’ experience is described in terms that portray him as a proto-Christian of sorts. If the Christ-event is a