2 Corinthians 2:12-3:18

2 Corinthians 2:12-3:18

Introduction: Read the text. Reread the text closely (look for repeated words, pay attention to the conjunctions, figures of speech, etc.).

Literary Context: Again, with 2 Corinthians we will just do this very briefly and summarize each section in one or two sentences, though you will be expected to remember important elements of the text that were addressed in class.

So, would you please summarize for me 2 Cor 1:1-11. (Paul, beginning to reconcile, describes how God comforted him so that they may also be comforted). Now 2 Cor 1:12-23. (Paul defends his integrity and begins to explain the change of plans. He argues for the trustworthiness of his word based on the trustworthiness of God and the Gospel and the work that God is doing in him). Now 2 Cor 2:1-11. (Paul explains why he changed his travel plans: to avoid causing too much pain. While the letter was necessary, and would cause pain, he did not want to cause excessive pain. He also encourages them to give the verdict of love for the individual who had caused much pain, lest his own pain led to Satan robbing the church of him).

2.12-13: It may be tempting to simply gloss over 12 and 13 as mere travel plans, but it is worth paying attention to what he says about them. First of all, Paul has been to Troas a couple times now. The first was when he received the Macedonian call that is described in Acts 16:8-10 and these verses disclose an additional visit. His intent was to “preach the Gospel of Christ” (the preposition εἰς here denotes purpose), and God had opened a door for effective ministry (Paul uses the same metaphor in 1 Cor 16:9 to refer to his ministry in Ephesus and the results of that open door are evident in the number of converts that came about in Ephesus and the surrounding cities). Troas was a city with just as much potential. Keener describes it as a “significant and sizeable Roman colony, the port in Asia from which one sailed to Macedonia, and thence walked or sailed to Corinth” (502).

However, this door was left for the simple fact that Titus (whom Paul had evidently sent to Corinth with the corrective letter, as we read more in ch. 7) was not there, and thus his concerns for the Corinthians (how they would respond to the letter) were not relieved. This prompted him to set sail for Macedonia. Kruse notes: “The fact that he was prepared to leave behind a door that the Lord had opened for him in Troas and say goodbye to the infant church there only serves to underline his lack of peace of mind because he had not made contact with Titus, nor had his concern for the Corinthian believers been relieved” (117). If you are a Corinthian convert (bearing in mind the historical context), how would you react to hearing this from the apostle who led you to Christ?

2.14-17: Verse 14 will begin what some commentators refer to as a “digression” sparked by Paul’s recollection of his reunion with Titus that he will pick up again in chapter 7. A digression in a letter such as this is not uncommon whatsoever in the ancient world. Keener notes how Homer introduces a 75-line digression in one of his writings at the end of which he simply resumes the prior discussion by taking up the same verb with which he left off (IVPBBCNT 2nd 502). This digression begins as a thanksgiving rendered to God for the apostolic ministry.

Paul uses the term θριαμβεύω (triumph over) that calls to mind the Roman triumphal processions in which the emperor (according to Keener at this period the emperor would be the one to lead the procession) led the captives through the streets as the spoils of war. The victors would celebrate while the captives were subject to humiliation; however, as Paul uses the term (and as it is used elsewhere with the same grammatical structure as Paul has here), he could hardly be viewing himself as a soldier marching alongside the general, but as himself a conquered captive of the war. He was defeated, and yet he was the one thanking his captor! (Garland 141). The imagery of the triumphal procession continues with the “aroma” described by Paul. The preaching of the Gospel of Christ is the fragrance pleasing to God, and the use of such imagery calls to mind the incense that would be burned at these processions as offerings to the so-called gods.

In verse 15 the noun changes and Paul describes those in the apostolic ministry as the aroma of Christ to God (and he can do so because it is they through whom God proclaimed the good news of Christ), and this aroma will reach the nose of two kinds of people: “those who are being saved, and those who are perishing.” In the Roman triumphal processions, the fragrance of the incense smelled wonderful and pleasing to those who were victorious, how do you suppose it smelled to those who were destined to be executed? This is the point of verses 15b-16. Kruse writes: “…for the prisoners of war, the aroma would have been associated with the fate of slavery or death which awaited them” (120). While Paul frequently refers to himself as a slave of Christ and being led to death, the aroma of the Gospel was certainly that which brought to him life. Thus, we should not force the metaphor too hard and simply allow Paul to make his point: the aroma of the knowledge of Christ smells different to those two groups of people.

Now, such a ministry is beyond the ability of a man. The fragrance of the Gospel is to emanate through captives of the spiritual war to all places. Such a recognition leads Paul to this question that will not be answered until 3:5 “Who is sufficient for these things?” The term he uses is ἱκανός, which carries the sense of “enough, sufficient; a suitable quality.” We might rephrase the question: “Who is good enough for these things?” “Who is of suitable quality for these things, to be a rejoicing captive singing the praises of the triumphant one even during suffering (an idea underlined by what he stated in chapter 1)?” The answer will not be fully given until 3:5; however, he does assert the character of the apostles in the meantime. Unlike many teachers and traveling preachers who would simply sell God’s word for a profit, the apostle has acted with sincerity (remember 1:12) and as one “from God” “in the sight of God” and speaking “in Christ.” Notice how the determining factors of what the apostles preach are intimately connected to who they are in God, not what monetary benefit they can receive. They are commissioned by God, answerable to God, and those belonging to and located in Christ.

3.1-3: Chapters 3 and 4, as Witherington III points out, requires quite a bit of reading between the lines (377). Thus, when you study these chapters, you will find many trying to piece together what prompted Paul to have to ask this question in the first place. So, we’ll proceed forth with some caution.

Letters of recommendation were extremely common in this period of time. Paul himself adds letter of recommendation elements to different letters for various individuals (think of Rom 16 and Phoebe). The purpose of these were to provide some credentials for the one who was being recommended. Witherington notes: “These sorts of letters reflect a social milieu in which credentialing was considered important and in which considerable weight was given to the opinion of close friends or recognized authorities” (377). There is an introductory element to it as well, which begs the question: “Why on earth would Paul need such a letter written to the Corinthians, a church that he founded and referred to himself as a father to them?” The short answer, that is assumed by the manner in which he phrases the question, is that he wouldn’t, but this brings us closer to the why he asked the question in the first place.

If letters of recommendation (or even self-recommendation done tastefully) were intended to entrust the one recommended to the other, Paul’s question would imply that perhaps the relationship had been so undermined by those seeking to undermine his apostolic authority that he may have need to reintroduce himself. Garland writes: “In a rueful tone he basically asks them: ‘Has our relationship sunk to such a low that I must now call upon outside parties to vouch for me?” The implied answer is again “No,” but the fact that the question was asked at all showed the severity of the Corinthian crisis as it has been called.

In verses 2-3 it becomes apparent that he has no need of a letter of recommendation to them because they themselves are his letter of recommendation, they are the “seal of his apostleship” as he wrote in 1 Cor 9:1-2. The language that he uses here is very much rooted in the OT. The tablets of stone evoke the Law given at Mount Sinai while the letter written by the Spirit on the heart alludes to the prophetic description of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34, which goes well with who Paul attributes with writing the letter: “Christ.” See, the Corinthians themselves are Paul’s letter of recommendation written on his own heart (the one being recommended typically carried the letter) and this is being made known and read (both are in the present tense) by all people (notice how effective this type of letter of recommendation is. It far exceeds one that is written with pen and paper that only a few will read).

It is the Corinthians that show that they are a letter of recommendation for Paul from Christ. Christ has written the letter, though Paul has had a ministry role in it (the term he uses for his role is διακονέω). These Corinthians believing in the Gospel testify to the apostolic ministry of Paul, which ironically means that those who seek to undermine his apostolic position undermine the Corinthians Christianity. Hays writes: “They cannot question the legitimacy of his ministry without simultaneously questioning the legitimacy of their own origins as a community” (Quote from Garland 158).

3.4-6: But Paul does not doubt his apostolic ministry nor their Christian founding, and such confidence comes not through himself but “through” (διά “by means of”) Christ toward God. Paul did not write the letter, Christ did, he merely ministered it. His confidence is not rooted in his own sufficiency for the task (he’s already asked the question “Who is sufficient for such things?”) but rather through Christ, and this before (towards) God.

Verse 5 makes it readily apparent that this is not a self-sufficient or self-confidence being exuded by Paul, buth rather a confidence rooted in the empowering of God who makes his apostle, as Witherington puts it: “equal to the task of being a minister of the new covenant” (378). Here he divests himself of any claim to credit for the ministry that has been wrought through him and instead points to the one who makes his apostle “sufficient” (suitable) for the task. Harris writes: “Paul’s qualification and source of competence for the work of the ministry were not natural ability or personal initiative but divine enabling” (459).

This paves the way to discuss in the latter part of verse 6 the nature of the new covenant that is THE integral part of the apostolic ministry. (The “letter” is simply the Law with the Christ missing. The new covenant, effectuated by the Spirit, includes both). The contrast between the “letter” and the “Spirit” is not to be taken as a full scale condemnation of the OT Laws and such a view would ignore the fact that in Romans 7 Paul provides a full fledged defense of the Law while highlighting the necessity of the Spirit. Thus, we should not say: “This is a condemnation of legalism and Law observance,” rather (as will become apparent in the later verses) it is simply a brief introduction to the nature of the two covenants in which the first is clearly portrayed as lacking the integral element, namely Christ and the Spirit. The first covenant, the letter, leads to death because of the incapability of man to obey the Law. The Law, as Paul writes in Romans, is spiritual, but man apart from the Spirit of God, is unspiritual. He is in dire need of the Spirit, made available through Christ in the second and greater covenant (and this is the ministry of the Apostles).

3.7-11: Much has been said concerning what prompts Paul to discuss Moses as he does, with many conjecturing that his opponents have made an unfavorable comparison between the apostle and the tremendous figure; however, I want to focus your attention to two things, and in doing so we will have no need of reconstructing a possible historical scenario (Garland refers to this as “mirror reading”) and we can clearly see the main point of the argument.

First, one of the things that is incredibly important in interpreting a passage is to look for the repeated terms. Tell me, what term is repeated here? “Glory.” This is the main subject of these verses, the greater glory of the New Covenant compared to the Old. It is also helpful to see what conclusions Paul draws from what he says in order to better understand why he says it. The nature of the New Covenant ministry is what prompts Paul’s boldness in speech and confidence in ministry. The New Covenant surpasses the Old, in that while the Old was glorious, the New has far surpassed it. Thus in 3.12 he says: “Since, THEN, we have such a hope, WE ACT WITH GREAT BOLDNESS.” Likewise he says in 4:1 “Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.” (Garland is a very helpful source for this point). It is the nature of the ministry that Paul is engaged in that gives him such great confidence, and this not rooted in himself but in the one who makes him sufficient for the task (thereby confirming Paul’s confidence in the letter that he has written on his heart, the Corinthians).

Taking a little closer look, we find that through verses 7-11 the constant refrain is “how much more.” Remember, the key term is “glory,” and the refrain continues to point to the greater glory of the New Covenant. Keener notes that Paul is reasoning from the Jewish principle qal vahomer “how much more” (504). You’ve heard this stated before as an argument from the lesser to the greater. If it is true for this lesser thing, then how much more for the greater thing.

Now the lesser thing here is not insignificant. Paul’s short exposition of Ex 34:29-30 in which Moses comes down from MT Sinai with the two tablets and his face shining, reveals the glory of the giving of the old covenant. In so doing, he elevates even higher the ministry of the new. Garland writes: “(Paul) does not intend to denigrate Moses and his glory but wants to stress it so he can show how much greater is the glory attached to his ministry” (171).

Again, when Paul refers to the old covenant as “the ministry of death” we must remember that the same author wrote “the Law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14), and he writes in Romans 7:13 “Did that which is good (the Law), then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.” Notice how the culprit here is sin. Think of the “ministry of death” as short hand remembering what Paul teaches on the subject elsewhere.

That being said, it is still amazing to see a Jew speak about the Law in this manner. Garland notes: “To identify the Sinai experience as a ministry of death (3:7) is an astounding assertion for any Jew to make. Jews proclaimed that just the opposite occurred; the law gave life. A later rabbi expressed it this way: ‘While Israel stood below engraving idols to provoke their Creator to anger…, God sat on high engraving tablets which would give them life” (171). Again, they lead to life if one lives them out completely without fault, but the sacrifices themselves point to the need for the shedding of blood for sins, and thus the Law without Christ merely leads to death (because of the work of Sin), but the Law together with the one who fulfills it leads to life. Just comparing the two ministries in this manner demonstrates how much more glorious the new covenant ministry really is.

However, Paul does not just make the one comparison, he makes three. Kruse sums these up well enough: “The superiority of the new covenant is argued on three counts: the new covenant ministry of the Spirit is more glorious than the old covenant ministry of death; the new covenant ministry of righteousness is more glorious than the old covenant ministry of condemnation; and the permanent ministry of the new covenant is more glorious than that of the old covenant, which was transitory” (129). Death vs. Spirit. Condemnation vs. Righteousness. Transitory vs. Permanent. Which seems better? Obviously the second, the new covenant.

3.12-18: The result as concerns the ministry of Paul (who as an apostle is made sufficient for the task of the ministry of the Spirit) is boldness. This is exactly what he says in verse 12 while going on to highlight the missing piece of the old covenant and what his own contemporaries were missing when they read the Law.

Now, when Paul speaks of hope, what does he mean? What does the term “hope” mean? It is a confident expectation rooted in the character of God. Paul has a confident expectation concerning the ministry of the Spirit and the glory that will accompany it, and as such, as Garland writes: “He (can) now contrast his ministry with that of Moses to make the point that if the ministry of the Spirit has a greater splendor, then its ministers can have a greater boldness” (179). The term “boldness” here (παρρησία) carries the sense of “frankness, openness” of speech. This is immediately contrasted in verse 13 with the veiled face of Moses. The reason Paul can make the contrast is rooted in the transitory nature of the old covenant and the permanent nature of the new. That much is clear in verse 13, though just exactly what he means by the phrase “so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end” is unclear. Harris contends that “what was being brought to an end” was the glory reflected on Moses’s face, and thus the concealing of it “visually dramatized the coming eclipse of the glory of the Sinaitic covenant” (463).

Witherington III contends that it was not the radiance of Moses’s face that was fading, but the Old Covenant itself being brought to an end and thus the veil prevented the Israelites from understanding that the Law would be brought to an end.

Garland, espousing the work of Hafeman, argues that the veil was given for the express purpose of covering the glory of God for the protection of the people who themselves would be brought to an end (because of their sinfulness) if the veil was removed. He writes: “Wearing the veil was therefore Moses’ way of protecting the stiff-necked people from ‘the death-dealing judgement of the glory of God’ against sinners that is decreed in the old covenant” (189).

With all of that, two things must remain at the front of our focus in this passage: 1). the main subject is glory 2). Paul is highlighting the surpassing glory of the new covenant. Whatever interpretation we ascribe to concerning why Moses concealed his face, we know that he was concealing the glory of God. We also know that Paul has already pointed to the fact that the old covenant was transitory while the new is permanent. Verse 14a puts Israel’s failure to respond positively to Moses squarely at their feet, not his. Their minds were “hardened, made stubborn.” The language of “hardening” is not unfamiliar to Paul and ultimately comes down to a person’s acceptance of the message. For those who reject it, their hearts are hardened, while those who accept it find life (just like those in the triumphal procession smell the same aroma, but to one it is death to the other it is life).

Paul then states that the same veil as it were was still upon the faces of his contemporary fellow Jews whenever the Law was read because the veil is removed “in Christ.” That phrase “in Christ” is incredibly important in Pauline literature (for ex. Ephesians 1.1-14). Here it is apparent that what his fellow Israelites were lacking was not the Law, but Christ. They remained (or attempted to remain) in the transitory old covenant, while it was necessary to remove the veil by means of Christ. Verse 15 then reiterates verse 14a while verse 16 echoes 14b with the language of Ex 34:34 “But when he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out.” Entering the Lord’s presence (turning to the Lord), as Paul already stated, requires accepting Christ.

Even verse 17 serves to reiterate the point. Garland, explaining Belleville’s argumentation, writes “3:17a, “Now the Lord is the Spirit,” explains 3:16a, “But whenever anyone turns to the Lord”; and 3:17b, “and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom,” explains 3:16b, “The veil is taken away” (196). The believer thus experiences the Lord as the Spirit through Christ, and thus has access to the same transformative power that caused Moses’s face to shine with glory. The freedom expressed in verse 17 is the freedom from the veil (the removal of the hardened mind and the experience of the glory of God). This is the ministry of the apostle Paul empowered by God, who is the Spirit.