For Paul, Satan is a conquered, yet still dangerous, foe. Although “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20), Satan is still “the god of this age,” who blinds the minds of unbelievers from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Cor. 4:4), and he is “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (Eph. 2:2). There can be no fellowship between the realm of Belial and unbelievers, on the one hand, and the realm of Christ and believers, on the other; for they are as mutually exclusive as darkness and light (2 Cor. 6:14–16). Nevertheless, Satan tries to thwart believers at every point, either by leading them astray to “another gospel” (11:3–4) or by tempting them (1 Thess. 3:5; 1 Cor. 7:5). Likewise, Satan tries to thwart the apostle, whether by afflicting him (2 Cor. 12:7), by preventing him from going to certain places at certain times (1 Thess. 2:18; cf. Rom. 1:13), or by rendering his apostolic work useless (1 Thess. 3:5). Paul is aware that Satan has schemes by which he can gain the upper hand (cf. Eph. 6:11; 4QMMT C 29, referring to “the plans of evil and the scheme of Belial”). Therefore, in this spiritual warfare against a formidable adversary, believers need to be properly equipped with the armor of God, so that they may be able to withstand the onslaught (1 Thess. 5:8; Rom. 13:12; Eph. 6:10–18).
Because he does not want Satan to triumph in this struggle, Paul has forgiven the offending brother for the Corinthians’ sake. Evidently, the apostle wants to present a united front against the adversary, for otherwise the enemy would outwit Paul. If Satan can divide the Corinthian church even more deeply than it already is (cf. 1:10; 3:1–4; 4:14; 6:1, 4, 6; 12:14–31), then he will have succeeded in completely neutralizing its witness, its role in attesting to the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship, its contribution to the collection, and its partnership with the apostle in the westward expansion of the gospel. If we can see 2 Corinthians as an appeal for concord (see Introduction; also on 13:11), then the readmission of the offender serves the purpose for writing the letter.
2:12–13 Having discussed the issue of the one who slandered him during his painful second visit (vv. 5–11), Paul abruptly resumes his train of thought from verse 4, where he mentioned that his tearful letter was written as a reaction, under great distress and anguish. In verses 12–13 Paul goes on to state that, while waiting to hear of the Corinthians’ response to his letter, he himself was overwhelmed with concern over the situation, and that he actually changed his travel plans because of that concern. Hence Paul is able to show that, far from being double-minded, his single-mindedness toward the Corinthians resulted in the change of plans that brought him to Macedonia. The apologetic tone of verses 12–13 is palpable once it is seen in the context of the foregoing section on accusations against Paul.
2:12 Paul begins by explaining what he was doing in the period after sending the tearful letter. After his traumatic second visit to Corinth, he stayed in Ephesus for a while and then traveled to Troas (or to “the Troad,” i.e., the whole region in which the city was situated) in northwest Asia Minor in order to do some missionary work. When Paul went is uncertain, but it was probably after the nearly fatal tribulation mentioned in 1:8–11. Why Paul went is also uncertain, other than that he seems to have made prior arrangements with Titus to meet him there (see v. 13). But why did Paul choose to meet Titus in Troas and not somewhere else? In the port city of Troas there was probably already a small number of believers to whom Paul had preached the gospel on his second missionary journey (cf. Acts 16:8–10; 20:7). Now he evidently wanted to continue the work that he had started there. The metaphor of an opened door indicates that the Lord had given him a good opportunity to preach the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 16:9; Col. 4:3; Acts 14:27).
2:13 Having mentioned the successful missionary work in which he was engaged in the period after sending the tearful letter, Paul then describes how his concern for the situation in Corinth overwhelmed him. Despite the good opportunity for spreading the gospel in Troas, Paul did not wait there for the arrival of Titus. Paul wanted to hear as soon as possible from Titus how the letter had been received in Corinth (cf. 7:6–15). When he did not meet Titus in Troas, Paul became so anxious that he traveled to Macedonia in order to try to find Titus, in effect reverting to his original plan of going to Macedonia before coming to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 16:5). Paul evidently knew that after delivering the tearful letter to the Corinthians and hearing their response, Titus would have taken a northerly route, making his way back to Paul in Troas via Macedonia. Here again we notice that, in describing his travels, Paul thinks in terms of Roman provinces like Achaia (1:1; 9:2; 11:10), Asia (1:8), and Macedonia (1:16; 2:13; 7:5; 8:1; 11:9). He obviously has at least a mental map in view.
If Paul was willing to relinquish a golden opportunity to preach the gospel in Troas, an opportunity that the Lord himself had opened for Paul (v. 12), that shows how much the church at Corinth meant to him, and how concerned he was over the outcome of the situation. Whereas formerly the Corinthians, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, had given Paul’s spirit rest, probably at the time they delivered the Corinthians’ letter to Paul (1 Cor. 16:17–18; cf. 7:1), Paul now had no peace of mind (lit., “no rest for my spirit”; cf. 7:13b). Only Titus’s report of a positive reply from the church at Corinth could do that. And much was riding on that response for Paul’s entire enterprise: the success of his collection for Jerusalem, the advance of his mission to Spain, and the spiritual lives of the Corinthians themselves. No wonder Paul was uneasy! This anxiety is part of Paul’s regular apostolic suffering on behalf his churches (cf. 7:5; 11:28).
At this point, Paul interrupts his travelogue and delays telling us how he met Titus in Macedonia and what Titus told him; he continues that story in 7:5–16. By delaying the narrative, Paul heightens the suspense in the letter and puts greater emphasis on the intervening section (2:14–7:4), in which he defends the legitimacy of his apostleship and appeals to the Corinthians to reconcile themselves to him. Actually, Paul has already begun both his defense and his appeal for reconciliation in the thanksgiving (1:3–11) and in the section on accusations (1:12–2:4).
Additional Notes
2:12–13 In Isa. 45:1, the Lord would open doors for Cyrus, his anointed, in the sense of military conquest.
2:13 Titus was a Gentile by birth, and Paul strongly opposed circumcising him during the time of the apostolic council (cf. Gal. 2:3). Titus was not involved in the founding of the church at Corinth. Nevertheless, he was able to deliver the tearful letter and to assist in reconciling the church with Paul. Titus is bringing the collection in Corinth to a conclusion (2 Cor. 8:6). According to the Pastoral Epistles, Titus later worked as a church leader on Crete (Tit. 1:5).
Paul refers to his peace of mind (or “spirit”) and its function in several other contexts as well (cf. Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 14:14).
Glory
After 2:13 (“So I … went to Macedonia”), Paul suddenly interrupts his travelogue and begins a new section on his apostolic ministry, only to resume the travelogue in 7:5 (“For when we came to Macedonia”), recounting the arrival of Titus in Macedonia and the comforting news of the Corinthians’ repentance. Hence, the intervening material on Paul’s defense of the legitimacy of his apostleship (2:14–7:4) may seem digressive or even extraneous. In fact, some scholars think that 2 Corinthians 2:14–7:4 was not part of Paul’s original composition.
Nevertheless, there are important reasons for considering 2:14–7:4 as part of 2 Corinthians 1–8 (cf. M. Thrall). In the previous context, Paul had been trying to counter the Corinthians’ accusations against him, particularly in regard to his change of travel plans (1:12–2:13). In the process of defending himself and wooing the Corinthians back to his side, Paul appeals to his own straightforward, unequivocal apostolic commission and ministry. Like Moses, he is a spokesman of God who mediates the divine promises to the Corinthians (1:18–22). Even as Moses endured Korah’s rebellion (Num. 16–17), Paul has also endured a rebellion against his own authority in Corinth (cf. 1:24; 2:6–7). The present section develops the comparison between Paul and Moses in more explicit detail by showing that the apostle is a revelatory mediator. Through Paul, the minister of the new covenant, the Corinthians have received the Spirit and thus have access to the glory of God. The Corinthians cannot reject Paul and his apostleship without denying their own participation in the promises he originally mediated to them during the founding visit. Thus, the very existence of the Corinthian church is tangible evidence of the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship (cf. 1 Cor. 9:2, “For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord”).
This explanation of the general connection between 1:12–2:13 and the present section does not account for specific placement of the section in the middle of Paul’s description of his trip to Macedonia to find Titus. Here we can only speculate as to Paul’s motives. Since it was in Macedonia that the apostle heard the encouraging news from Titus, Paul may have inserted 2:14–7:4 into the travelogue in order to encourage more of the same repentance already shown by the Corinthians since the writing of the tearful letter. Indeed, Paul does conclude his defense with an appeal to the Corinthians to open their hearts to him (6:12–13; 7:2). Furthermore, if the purpose of the tearful letter had been to rebuke the Corinthians, then Paul’s defense of his apostleship in 2:14–7:4 would fit in with the account of the anxiety he felt while waiting for their reaction to the letter.
2:14–17 Paul begins the defense of his apostleship with a thanksgiving to God, whom he has personally encountered and who has made him a mediator of divine revelation. This encounter with God not only establishes Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle, but it also distinguishes Paul from his opponents. Hence, the very first verses of the apology provide Paul’s essential answer to the charges against him. The rest of the section (3:1–4:6) elaborates in one way or another on 2:14–17. As we shall see, already in 2:14–17 Paul begins the crucial comparison between himself and Moses, using it to highlight the superiority of his ministry of the new covenant over Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant. Although the revelation that Moses received was glorious, the revelation that Paul has received is even more glorious. Hence, Paul defends himself first and foremost on the basis of his position as the revelatory mediator par excellence.
2:14 Paul’s defense commences with a thanksgiving to God for his apostolic ministry as revelatory mediator. We note here again Paul’s use of the so-called apostolic/literary plural (us) with reference to himself, since Paul’s apostleship is the main issue in this section. This verse is so pivotal to Paul’s argument and yet so difficult to interpret that we will need to give it special attention.
The main problem is the interpretation of thriambeuein, which is correctly translated leads in triumphal procession. For some interpreters, this usage of the term conjures up an image of the apostle that seems quite unlikely, coming as it does as part of a thanksgiving at the very beginning of his defense for the legitimacy for his apostolic ministry. Further, Paul would thus seem to be portraying himself as a complete disgrace, a prisoner of war who is led by the conquering general (God!) in a triumphal procession that culminates in the apostle’s death. Many scholars have sought to avoid this interpretation either by proposing an idiosyncratic usage of thriambeuein (e.g., “make known” [G. Dautzenberg]) or by assuming the use of a rhetorical strategy whereby the meaning of verse 14 is ultimately positive. More recently, however, the trend has been to recognize the unequivocal usage of thriambeuein, with its negative implications for Paul, and then to correlate the passage with Paul’s apostolic self-conception as expressed elsewhere, particularly in his admissions of personal weakness and suffering in the Corinthian correspondence (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 4:10–11).
Whereas most interpretations of 2 Corinthians 2:14 consider the metaphor of triumphal procession only with respect to Paul, no interpretation so far has examined the metaphor with respect to God as the acting subject. In order to grasp this we will first recall a basic motif of the Roman triumphal procession, with its focus on the triumphant general and his chariot. Then we will investigate how Paul uses this imagery metaphorically in our text.
The Roman triumphal procession was originally led by the victorious general appearing symbolically as the living image of Jupiter. By the time of the empire, however, the procession was celebrated to honor the gods in thanksgiving for the victory. The Roman magistrates, the Senate, people carrying booty from the campaign, the priests leading the bulls for sacrifice, and enemy captives (who were executed at the end of the ceremony) entered the city, followed by the victorious general on a chariot leading his army. Normally, the chariot was a quadriga, that is, a two-wheeled chariot drawn by four horses harnessed abreast, although four elephants were sometimes used instead (cf. Plutarch, Pompeius, 14.4; Pliny, Natural History 8.4). Since Roman imperial coins frequently included images of the emperor in a triumphal chariot, the concept of triumphal procession was familiar throughout the Roman Empire. What do these findings imply for our text? If, by using thriambeuein, Paul portrays himself as being led by God in a Roman triumphal procession, then the image is one of God riding in a quadriga.
The metaphor in 2 Corinthians 2:14, as with all metaphors, presents us with two thoughts of different things—tenor and vehicle—active together and supported by a single word or phrase, whose meaning is a result of their interaction (“two ideas for one”). The “tenor” is the underlying subject of the metaphor, and the “vehicle” is the means by which the tenor is presented. In our passage, the vehicle is the idea of a Roman triumphal procession in which a conquering general rides a quadriga. However, the underlying subject is different. Paul merely uses the idea of the Roman triumphal procession in order to convey another set of associations—the thought that God on his throne-chariot leads the apostle captive.
The divine throne-chariot is found in both the OT and Jewish tradition. Quite commonly, the “chariotry/chariot of God” in Psalm 68:17–18 is taken to refer to the merkabah in which God descended to Mount Sinai. Ezekiel’s prophetic call-vision by the river Chebar (Ezek. 1:4–28; cf. 10:1–22; 43:1–4) gives us a cryptic picture of what later came to be known as the throne-chariot of God. In Jewish tradition, Ezekiel’s vision is interpreted as a reference to a merkabah or “chariot,” drawn by the four living creatures/beasts. This comes out most explicitly in a midrash (Exod. Rab. 43:8) focusing on the golden calf incident, which refers to the chariot of God as a “four-mule chariot.” Also, in Habakkuk 3:8 Yahweh is said to drive a horse-drawn merkabah (cf. M. Haran).
In sum, we have seen that by using thriambeuein, Paul evoked the image of a triumphal procession in which the triumphant leader rode in a four-horse chariot. This, in turn, suggested the familiar idea of the merkabah, which was commonly viewed as a chariot drawn by the four living creatures/beasts of Ezekiel 1. We should not be surprised that Paul would use Roman imagery to suggest an OT idea. Paul, who does not like to discuss his visions and does so only under compulsion (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1ff.), uses a metaphor in order make his point without being overly explicit about ineffable matters.
Furthermore, it is possible that in 2 Corinthians 2:14 Paul is alluding specifically to Psalm 68:17–18. According the LXX version of this psalm, when God in his chariot ascended from Sinai into his holy sanctuary on high, he led captivity captive and received gifts among humanity. Ephesians 4:8 actually applies Psalm 68:18 [LXX 67:19] to the ascension of Christ and the spiritual gifts, including apostles (v. 11), which he gave to the church (cf. G. B. Caird). This kind of interpretation of the psalm would, of course, be very congenial at the beginning of Paul’s defense of his apostolic office in 2 Corinthians 2:14–7:4. The use of Psalm 68:18–19 in Jewish tradition provides further evidence that Paul may have had this passage in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 2:14.
In Jewish tradition Psalm 68:18 refers not to God’s ascent on high, corresponding to his merkabah descent to Mount Sinai in verse 18, but to the ascent of Moses, who took captive the Torah and gave the gift of Torah to humanity. Thus, for example, the Targum interprets Psalm 68:18 as a reference to Moses, who ascended into heaven, received the Torah there, and brought the Torah to the people (cf. Exod. Rab. 28:1). According to Midr.Ps. 68:18, Moses ascended to the divine beings and there received the Torah as a “gift” for Israel. In the Jewish tradition, therefore, Psalm 68:17–18 refers to Moses’ merkabah encounter with God on Sinai and the revelation that he mediated to humanity.
Paul might be making the same connection between merkabah encounter and revelation in 2 Corinthians 2:14, for here also God both leads him in triumphal procession and “reveals” (phanerounti, spreads) through him the fragrance of the knowledge of God. In other words, Paul is presenting himself here as a mediator of divine revelation on par with Moses, summarizing the whole basis for his apostleship in this one verse. Hence, if metaphor is speaking about one thing in terms suggestive of another, then by speaking of a Roman triumphal procession in connection with divine revelation, Paul evidently suggests the throne-chariot of God and the powerfully complex tradition of Psalm 68:17–18. According to this tradition, God descended to Sinai in his merkabah and revealed himself to Moses and all Israel. Moses, in turn, ascended on high, took the Torah captive, and gave it as a gift to humanity. Although Paul’s image turns this tradition on its head by making the apostle a captive rather than the triumphant one (cf. 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5), it nevertheless preserves the idea that an encounter with the merkabah effects a revelation to humanity through a mediator. Paul’s claim is especially crucial in the situation at Corinth, where his opponents evidently claim to have numerous visions and revelations (cf. 12:1).
Paul’s thanksgiving in 2:14 (But thanks be to God) fits well in the context of merkabah tradition. The visionary often observed and sometimes participated in the angelic hymns before the throne of God, the praises of the heavenly beings being viewed as the model and example for heavenly worship (cf. 1 En. 71:11–12; Apoc. Ab. 17:4–18:1; K. Grözinger). How much more, then, is Paul’s praise warranted and justified, since his encounter with the merkabah rivals even that of Moses.
If God is said to be leading the apostle in triumphal procession in Christ, then we will do well to recall Martin Hengel’s idea of the conjoint activity between the Father and the Son. As a result of being seated at the right hand of God at the resurrection, the Son now sits in the divine throne-chariot with the Father, and both together, occupying the same throne, now carry out activities together (cf. Mark 14:62). Hence, just as “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19), so also here God “in Christ” leads the apostle in triumphal procession.
Once we recognize the traditional background of our text, it is not difficult to suggest why Paul would refer to his revelation as the fragrance of the knowledge of God. Jewish tradition associates wonderful aromas with the merkabah vision. For example, in the third heaven (= Paradise), where Paul encountered the merkabah (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2–4), the fruit trees are said to be ripe and fragrant, abundant crops give off a sweet smell, and the tree of life itself is indescribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance (2 En. 8:1–3). In sum, 2 Corinthians 2:14 presents God as revealing the knowledge of himself to the world through Paul. In connection with his ongoing encounter with the merkabah, Paul, as minister of the new covenant (cf. 3:6), becomes a revelatory mediator who infuses the world with an aromatic, Torah-like knowledge of God through the Spirit.
2:15–16a Having presented himself as a revelatory mediator like Moses, i.e., one who mediates the revelation of the fragrance of the knowledge of God, Paul now substantiates (hoti, For) what he has said in verse 14 by identifying himself as the fragrance (aroma) of Christ, which brings either life or death. In keeping with the identification of the God and Christ who share the merkabah, the two fragrances are one and the same. Paul’s knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6) is life-giving knowledge. Like Moses, Paul sets before people life and death (cf. Deut. 30:15, 19).
At the outset of his defense, Paul divides humanity into two mutually exclusive groups, according to how each responds to his message: those who are being saved and those who are perishing. Paul’s opponents, who reject his apostolic authority, obviously fall into the latter category, for Paul’s message is inseparable from his person and commission (cf. 5:18–20). It is no coincidence that in 1 Corinthians 10:9–10 Paul uses the same verb of the Israelite rebels who spoke against God and against Moses and therefore “were destroyed” in the desert (cf. Num. 21:5–6). The apostle will come back to this dualism at the end of his defense, where he emphasizes the contrast between the two groups in terms of a series of antithetical pairs (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14–16a). For Paul, there are only two kinds of people: those who stand on the side of Christ and his apostle and those who stand on the side of Satan and his pseudo-apostles.
2:16b Having stated in effect that he has had a merkabah encounter with God like that which Moses experienced on Sinai, that he has a role as a unique, revelatory mediator similar to that of Moses, and, furthermore, that his ministry is a matter of life and death just as Moses’ was, Paul stops to ask a sobering rhetorical question: “And who is sufficient for these things?” (“And who is equal to such a task?”). Paul’s question recalls the only parallel use of the term sufficient/competent (hikanos) in the LXX, i.e., the self-effacing words of Moses in Exodus 4:10 at the burning bush. There Moses expresses his inadequacy to lead God’s people out of bondage in Egypt: “And Moses said to the Lord, ‘I pray, Lord, I am insufficient (ouk hikanos eimi).… I am weak-voiced and slow-tongued.’ ” Thereupon, God reassures Moses, “I will open your mouth and I will instruct you as to what you will say” (v. 12). Paul’s sufficiency for his commission is the same as that of Moses, that is, God himself and the revelation of God through him. As Paul explicitly states in 2 Corinthians 3:5, his “sufficiency” (hikanotēs) comes from God. Hence, the expected answer to Paul’s question would apparently be this: “By God’s grace, I am” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9–10). What follows in 2:17 shows unequivocally that a positive answer is expected here.
2:17 The substantiation (gar) for Paul’s sufficiency, particularly as a revelatory mediator like Moses (cf. v. 14b), is given in verse 17. The fact that Paul speaks before God, or better “in the presence of God” (katenanti theou), is tantamount to saying that Paul speaks to God face to face, just as Moses did (Exod. 19:9; 20:19; 24:1–2; cf. T. Mos. 1:14). There is thus a unique, heavenly dimension to Paul’s apostolic role, which sets him well apart from his opponents who peddle the word of God for profit. In this way Paul shows that he is sufficient as a revelatory mediator because, like Moses, he speaks “in the presence of God.” In 12:19 Paul repeats his assertion that “we speak in Christ in the presence of God,” thus providing a key indication of the structural unity of the letter.
Paul denies that he has any concern for personal profit from the divine revelation that he mediates. This is in contrast to Paul’s opponents, to whom he refers as so many (hoi polloi). If 2 Corinthians can be seen as a unity, as the repetition of 2:17 in 12:19 supports, then we can assume that the apostle is referring here to the same opponents as in chapters 10–13. Unlike the opponents who have come into the Corinthian church from the outside, Paul does not peddle the word of God. These “false apostles” have preached a different gospel (11:4) and have exploited the church (11:20). Paul, on the other hand, refuses financial support from the Corinthians, insisting instead on preaching the gospel free of charge (11:7–11; 12:14–18). The apostle does not want to be open to the charge of extortion, against which Moses himself had to defend himself during Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num. 16:3, 15).
Like the profit-seeking false prophets in the OT (cf., e.g., Num. 22:7; Mic. 3:5), Paul’s opponents evidently claimed visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1) and pretended to communicate the word of God itself (cf. Ezek. 13:1–16; Jer. 23:9–40). Unlike such self-styled prophets who lead others astray, Paul speaks the word of God with sincerity (cf. 1:12) and like men sent from God (“men sent” supplied by the translators). Paul is claiming not just to have been commissioned and sent from God, but rather more specifically to speak “from God,” that is, God is the source of his message (see also 2 Cor. 5:20). In other words, Paul is a mediator of divine revelation (cf. 2:14), casting himself in the mold of the true prophet (cf. K. O. Sandnes). Paul is not a prophet for profit; he has even put aside his apostolic prerogative in this regard (cf. 1 Cor. 9:12, 15, 18). And when the false apostles use this to accuse Paul (2 Cor. 11:7ff. and 12:12ff.), Paul turns the tables on them by recalling the OT tradition of the false prophets and their sordid gain. Paul, on the other hand, is a prophet like Moses.
3:1–6 Realizing both that his daring comparisons of himself to Moses in the opening lines of his defense might sound like self-commendation and that the Corinthians were seeking proof of Christ’s speaking through Paul (cf. 13:3), Paul proceeds to adduce tangible evidence for his sufficiency and legitimacy as an apostolic revelatory mediator (cf. 2:16b), evidence that the Corinthians could not dispute without simultaneously denying their own faith and pneumatic experience. They had received the Spirit through Paul’s apostolic ministry! Hence, the Corinthians themselves are revealed as Paul’s letter of recommendation, written with the Spirit of the living God on tablets of fleshly hearts, attesting to Paul’s apostleship for all who read it (vv. 2–3). If the opponents used or needed letters of recommendation either from or to the Corinthians, Paul needs only the results of his ministry among the Corinthians in order to demonstrate the veracity of his apostleship, for he founded the church. Furthermore, Paul goes on to identify himself—in direct contrast to Moses—as a minister of the new covenant (vv. 4–6). Paul’s mediatory work among the Corinthians demonstrates that the eschatological new age of the Spirit foretold in Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26 had now arrived. All of this goes to show that Paul’s ministry is not merely an exercise in self-recommendation; it is the work of God in and through him that makes him competent to minister.
3:1 Paul begins the new paragraph with rhetorical questions expecting a negative answer. The purpose of these rhetorical questions is to prevent the addressees from drawing a wrong conclusion from the argument in 2:14–17. By rejoicing in his merkabah experience in the very presence of God and in his role as mediator of divine revelation, Paul does not thereby commend himself to the Corinthians. The word again suggests that Paul had been accused of this in the past, that is, he presented himself without an introduction from a recognized and authoritative third party (see on 13:1). But Paul does not tell the Corinthians anything they do not already know (and believe) about him. His defensive strategy is merely to remind them of his apostolic qualifications and thereby to appeal to their conscience (cf. 4:2; 5:12; 6:4).
Paul continues to use the literary plural (we) in reference to himself. Letters of recommendation were given to a traveler so that he might find a good reception with the writers’ relatives or friends abroad. Paul himself routinely included in his letters recommendations for his associates (cf. 1 Cor. 16:10–11; 2 Cor. 8:22–24; Rom. 16:1–2; Col. 4:7–9, 10; Philemon).
Whereas in 2:17 Paul refers to his opponents as the “many,” here he refers to them as some. These opponents were evidently able to produce letters of recommendation in order to establish their legitimacy. Perhaps they even had letters from the Corinthians in order to find an open door in other Pauline churches; that would explain the reference to letters from you. The letters to the Corinthians (to you) would presumably be from an ecclesiastical body that the congregation would respect, perhaps even from the mother church in Jerusalem itself or from one of its leading apostles.
3:2–3 Paul gives the reason he is not trying to commend himself to the Corinthians: he relies on the Corinthians as his letter of recommendation! If the Corinthians, who know him best and witness to his apostolic ministry, have sincere doubts about Paul’s legitimacy, how can he appeal to anyone else for a testimonial, except perhaps God or the Holy Spirit? The Corinthians have already accepted Paul’s apostolic message and have already experienced the Spirit in their midst mediated by Paul. Therefore, if the Corinthians were to deny Paul’s apostolic ministry, they would actually be denying their own existence as believers, for he founded the church at Corinth. By this very clever metaphor (You yourselves are our letter), Paul effectively shifts the burden of proof for his apostleship away from himself and onto the Corinthians. In other words, Paul is no longer on the defensive, but rather now on the offensive (cf. 12:19).
The Corinthians are Paul’s letter of recommendation, written on our hearts. This seems to recall the founding visit of Paul to Corinth, when the Corinthians first believed Paul’s apostolic message and came to faith. At that time, Paul inscribed them on his heart in several senses, including his fatherly affection for them as their founding apostle. Besides this, however, Paul’s whole defense is purposely framed by the term “heart” (cf. 3:2, 3; 6:11; 7:3). What Paul probably means in 3:2 is that the Corinthians are the visible manifestation of the legitimacy of his apostleship. In this sense, the Corinthians are a letter known and read by everybody (note the paronomasia between the two participles ginōskomenē and anaginōskomenē). Hence, wherever he goes, the apostle can present the Corinthians as evidence to authenticate his identity as a true apostle.
Paul shifts his image from the Corinthians as a letter of recommendation written on his heart (v. 2) to the Corinthians as a letter from Christ (see also 6:11–7:4). The Corinthians owe their existence as believers to the work of the Spirit that they received through Paul’s ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4; 1 Cor. 2:4–5); hence, their Spirit-led lives show (better: “reveal”) the reality and legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship (cf. 6:14–7:1). In keeping with his use of the language of revelation (cf. 2:14; 4:2; 5:11), Paul defends his apostleship by adducing the revelation of the Spirit from Christ, through himself (the result of our ministry [lit., “ministered, served by us”]), to the Corinthians. Hence, the authentication of Paul’s apostolic ministry is not merely subjective (written on Paul’s heart), but is also objective (known and read by everybody). Paul is, in effect, appealing to an argument that the Corinthians could not deny without at the same time denying their own faith and pneumatic experience.
In the process of emphasizing his mediatorial role in delivering the letter of Christ, Paul also contrasts in verse 3 the letter of Christ with the law in two ways: first, in terms of the medium with which the letter of Christ was written, and, second, in terms of the material on which it was written. In the second contrast, tablets of human [lit., “fleshly”] hearts clearly alludes to Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26 (cf. Jer. 31:33), where God promises to give the exiled nation of Israel a new heart and a new Spirit, that is, a “fleshly heart” (kardia sarkinē) to replace their “heart of stone” (kardia lithinē). Whereas before the exile the nation had not kept the law because of its continual hard-heartedness, after the exile the people would be gathered back to the land, restored to fellowship with God, and divinely enabled in the heart to keep the law. Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 3:3, and indeed in much of the rest of the context, cannot be understood without recognizing Paul’s fundamental, underlying assumption, which was common to much of Second Temple Judaism: The nation of Israel had come under the judgment of God in 587/6 B.C. and would remain under judgment until God intervened in the eschatological restoration of Israel from exile. By stating that the Corinthians had received the Spirit in their fleshly hearts, Paul unequivocally expresses the conviction that the eschatological promise of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26–27 (cf. Jer. 31:31–34) was now being fulfilled through his own apostolic ministry.
3:4–6 In this section, Paul continues his defense of his sufficiency and legitimacy as an apostle in conscious comparison with Moses (cf. 2:14, 16b). Whereas in verses 1–3 Paul adduces the Corinthians themselves as tangible evidence that he mediates the eschatological gift of the Spirit just as Moses once mediated the law, in verses 3–6 he emphasizes the divine origin of his sufficiency as the basis of his confidence, a confidence that testifies that Paul has been made sufficient to be a minister of the new covenant.
3:4 Paul begins with an assertion that summarizes what he has been projecting about himself in the previous context. Such confidence as Paul has as revelatory mediator is not merely an exercise in self-commendation. Paul’s confidence is objectively verifiable. It comes through Christ before God (see 2:17: “in the presence of God”). Thus, Paul alludes here again to his Moses-like merkabah experience in order to validate his apostleship. The revelation that Paul has received through this experience has mediated the Spirit to the Corinthians, so that they, in turn, become a verification of his true apostleship and a source of his God-given confidence. Such confidence is not self-confidence, therefore, since it comes only through Christ, the author of the apostle’s letter of recommendation (cf. 3:3).
3:5–6 Paul goes on to explain the divine origin of his confidence. Here the apostle explicitly reintroduces the term competent/sufficient from the previous context. Recalling verse 12, alluding to Moses’ inadequacy (Exod. 4:10), Paul reiterates that God himself, “the sufficient One” (Ruth 1:20; Job 21:15; 31:2; 40:2), supplies his confidence. In himself, Paul is not “sufficient” to be an apostle, especially in view of his former persecution of the church (1 Cor. 15:9–10); however, because his “sufficiency” is now from God, Paul is “sufficient” to be an apostle (2:16; 3:4–5). During Korah’s rebellion, Moses found himself in a similar situation, in which he needed to defend his sending as something not from himself but from God (cf. Num. 16:28).
The fact that the term ministers or “servant” (diakonos) in verse 6a emphasizes Paul’s role as the mediator of the Spirit is substantiated by two observations. First, the term “minister” recalls the idea of “ministered/served through us” in verse 3, which clearly links Paul’s apostolic role with mediating the “Spirit of the living God.” Second, verse 8 explicitly refers to Paul’s “ministry of the Spirit.” Hence, by calling himself a “minister of the new covenant,” Paul has in mind particularly his part in mediating the Spirit to the Corinthians through his gospel message. “Minister of the new covenant” (kainē diathēkē) alludes to Jeremiah 31 (38):31, the only explicit occurrence of the term in the OT. According to Jeremiah 31:31–34, the nation of Israel and Judah had broken the Sinaitic covenant (and had therefore gone into exile); hence, God promises to make a new covenant that will involve forgiving their sins, writing the law on their hearts, and reestablishing the covenantal relationship with them. From Paul’s perspective, the promise of Jeremiah 31:31–34 was being fulfilled through his own ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 6:16–18).
When we understand the OT background of Paul’s reference to the “new covenant,” we realize the inner logic that holds 2 Corinthians 3:3b and 6 together, for both verses refer to conceptually related aspects of the restoration of Israel as found in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. On the one hand, Paul’s ministry mediates the Spirit expected on the basis of Ezekiel 11:19 and 36:26–27. On the other hand, Paul’s ministry mediates the new covenant expected in Jeremiah 31:31–34 when he “serves” the “letter of Christ” by means of the Spirit. In both cases we are dealing with allusions to OT passages that expect God to transform the people’s “hearts” when he delivers them from exile and reestablishes them in covenantal relationship with himself. Hence, Paul’s ministry of the “new covenant” implies that those who are in the church have now had their “hearts” transformed by God, so that their response to his will as revealed in the law ought to be one of willful obedience, instead of the stubborn disobedience so characteristic of preexilic Israel.
If Paul alludes in 2 Corinthians 3:6a to the “new covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. Ezek. 36:25–26), then the meaning of the phrase not of the letter but of the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:6b becomes clear. Since Paul is a servant of the new covenant, he has been made sufficient to be a revelatory mediator of the Spirit through whom people are placed into the new covenant and obey the law by means of the Spirit with transformed hearts (cf. v. 3). Under the Sinaitic covenant, the people were unable to keep the law (here called the letter, i.e., the written expression of God’s will without the empowering work of the Spirit) because of the hardness of their hearts. However, under the new covenant inaugurated by Christ and mediated through Paul’s ministry, all that has changed for the better by means of the Spirit, who writes the will of God on the heart (cf. v. 3) and enables obedience (cf. Rom. 8:2–4; Jub. 1:22–24).
In 2 Corinthians 3:6c, Paul gives the reason (for, gar) God has made him sufficient to be a minister of the Spirit under the new covenant, rather than merely to serve the law without God’s transforming power: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The law of Moses promised both blessings and curses, depending on whether the nation of Israel remained faithful to the covenant or apostacized. Among the curses of the law that would come upon the people for disobedience, the worst were exile and death for the whole nation (cf. Lev. 26:14–39; Deut. 28:15–68). Therefore, when Paul states that the letter kills, he refers to the fact, commonly acknowledged in Second Temple Judaism, that the curse of the law had indeed come upon the nation and had caused national death (cf. Deut. 30:15–20; Ps. 115:5; Jer. 8:3; Dan. 9:11–13; Hos. 7:13; Exod. Rab. 42:3; see also Gal. 3:10).
