In contrast to the death that the law brings because of the people’s inability to obey, Paul affirms that the Spirit gives life. According to Ezekiel, the life-giving Spirit is the central feature of the prophetic expectation of the restoration from exile. After the people have been punished and purged and brought again through the wilderness in a “new exodus,” they will be given a new Spirit that will reanimate the nation dead in its trespasses and sins (cf. Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). The Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37:1–14 portrays the exiles as bones into which God breathes his Spirit in order to reconstitute the nation of Israel on a new basis in the land (cf. 37:15–28). Hence, as S. Hafemann correctly observes, “The startling implication of 2 Cor. 3:6 is that this promised restoration from the exile, never fully experienced by Israel at her ‘return,’ is now said to be taking place in and through Paul’s new covenant ministry.” Eventually, the Spirit will also be the means of bodily resurrection (Rom. 8:11, 23).
3:7–18 Up to this point in context of his defense, Paul has alluded only to the similarities between his own apostolic ministry and the ministry of Moses (cf. 2:14, 16, 17; 3:4–5). In light of his assertion that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (3:6), Paul goes on in 3:7–18 to explain the essential difference between the two ministries. The apostle bases his argument on the biblical tradition of the glory and the veil of Moses from Exodus 34:29–35. Basically, Paul’s argument is that Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant did not provide for Israel the immediate and constant access to the presence and “glory” of God in the way that Paul’s ministry of the new covenant does for the church. Indeed, the exile removed Israel from the presence of God altogether (cf. LXX 4 Kgdms. 17:18, 20, 23; 23:27; 24:3; Jer. 7:15). In effect, therefore, verses 7–18 give further evidence of the thesis in verse 6, that God made Paul competent to be a minister of the glorious new covenant.
Paul’s argument is divided into two parts: In verses 7–11, the apostle compares the “glory” of the two ministries. Then, in verses 12–18, Paul draws a conclusion based on verses 7–11, including the implications of Moses’ veil.
3:7–8 This section contains the first of Paul’s three comparisons in 3:7–11 between the ministries of Moses and Paul. The argument here, as in the other two comparisons, is from the lesser to the greater (a fortiori or qal wahomer). Paul assumes that both his own ministry and the ministry of Moses have in common the glory that attends (or attended) them. For the apostle, there is nothing inherently wrong with the law (cf. Rom. 7:12). The difference between the two ministries is their respective effects (antithetical typology): Moses’ ministry of the written law resulted in death, whereas Paul’s ministry of the Spirit gives life. In a sense, verses 7–8 are really a restatement both of the letter/Spirit contrast of verse 6c and, reaching farther back in context, of the possible typological comparison in 2:15–16a.
As a result of the “glory” that attended the ministry of the law, the Israelites (lit., “sons of Israel”) were not able to gaze at the face of Moses because of the “glory” of his face. Already in Exodus 32–34 LXX, the glory on Moses’ face is clearly a mediation of the glory of God, manifesting Yahweh’s presence (cf. the “glory” of the Lord in Exod. 33:18–23).
The people are afraid of Moses’ descent (Exod. 34:30) and cannot gaze at his face because Yahweh had earlier warned them that the Lord’s presence among them would cause their destruction as a result of their sin with the golden calf (Exod. 33:3, 5). Hence, Moses, who mediates the glory of God, must put on a veil after speaking to the people. Yahweh’s glory could be in their midst, but only briefly (cf. Exod. 34:30–32; 34:34–35). From its inception, therefore, the law under the Sinaitic covenant brought judgment and death on the nation (cf. Exod. 32:27–29, 35), which is exactly Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 3:6c. It was Moses’ mediation of the glory of God on his face that brought with it the judgment of God upon a rebellious people. When “the glory of the Lord appeared” in the assembly, judgment often followed, as in case of Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num. 16:19, 42).
If this interpretation is correct, then the participle (tēn katargoumenēn) that modifies the word “glory” in verse 7c probably does not mean fading though it was, for indeed the verb katargein is never found in this sense. Furthermore, in Jewish tradition, the glory on Moses’ face remained unchanged until his death (cf., e.g., Tg. Onq. Deut. 34:7). Elsewhere in Paul’s writings the passive verb is used in the sense of “to be made ineffective, powerless, idle,” “to be nullified,” or “to be abolished, brought to an end.” Hence, S. Hafemann plausibly suggests that Paul is referring in 2 Corinthians 3:7 to the fact that the veil of Moses brought the glory of God to an end in terms of its effect if not veiled, that is, the judgment and destruction of Israel.
In sum, Paul presents in verses 7–8 the distinction between his ministry and Moses’ ministry in antithetical typology: If Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant that consequently brought death came in glory, so that Israel could not endure it but had to have it repeatedly veiled, how much more does Paul’s ministry of the Spirit exist in glory, since it brings life (and unveiled, constant mediation of God’s glory). This argument goes to show that Paul is competent to be a minister of the new covenant (v. 6), for the Corinthians cannot deny either that, historically, Moses’ ministry brought death or that, experientially, Paul’s ministry has been instrumental in mediating the Spirit and the glory of God to them.
3:9–11 With Paul’s having established that the ministry of the Spirit exists in glory (v. 8), the purpose of verses 9–11 is to support this conclusion by explaining Israel’s experience of the Sinaitic covenant (v. 7). Moses’ ministry of death (vv. 6, 7) is further described as a ministry that condemns (v. 9) that is brought to an end (vv. 10–11). In contrast, Paul’s ministry of the new covenant and of the Spirit, which gives life (vv. 6, 8), is further described as a ministry that brings righteousness (v. 9), of surpassing glory (v. 10), and as that which lasts (lit., “remains,” v. 11).
3:9 Here Paul introduces the second of his three a fortiori arguments that both compare the glory of Moses’ ministry to that of Paul’s ministry and also point to the differences between the two. The ministry that condemns men (lit., “the ministry of condemnation”) refers to the effects of Moses’ ministry on the nation of Israel after the golden calf incident. From then on, and throughout the long history of Israel, the Mosaic law worked to pronounce judgment on the nation for its hard-heartedness and apostasy. The story of Korah’s rebellion (Num. 16–17) provides a forceful example. As Moses himself repeatedly foretold in the Torah, the curses of the law would come upon the nation in a full and final way (cf. Lev. 26:14–38; Deut. 11:26–28; 27:14–26; 28:15–68; 30:15–20; 31:16–32:47), as indeed they did in 722 and 587/6 B.C., when Israel and Judah were led into their respective exiles.
In contrast to Moses’ “ministry of condemnation,” Paul’s ministry is described as the ministry that brings righteousness. The fact that Paul’s new covenant ministry of the Spirit brings righteousness stems from the OT and Jewish expectation of what the Spirit would effect at the time of Israel’s restoration (cf., e.g., Isa. 32:15–17; 59:21; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:24–29; 1QS 4.20–22; Rom. 8:3–4). Furthermore, in comparison with the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness “abounds in glory.”
3:10 The reason (For, gar) is given for why the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory in comparison with the ministry of condemnation. When the divergent results of the two covenants are compared (i.e., death and life, respectively), Moses’ ministry of the Sinaitic covenant has no glory now. The very fact that life, righteousness, and the glory of God come through Paul’s ministry shows that God now reveals his glory through the new covenant rather than through the old Sinaitic covenant.
3:11 The third of three a fortiori arguments on the comparison of the two ministries gives the reason (NIV misses the force of the Greek gar) Paul’s ministry is a vehicle through which the surpassing glory of the new covenant is now being revealed. As in verse 7, the verb katargein should be rendered “bring to an end” (rather than fading away). As S. Hafemann explains, “The Sinai covenant’s mediation of the glory of God, which due to the hard hearts of Israel had to be continually rendered inoperative by the veil …, is now itself described as that which ‘was continually being rendered inoperative.’ ” We have seen that the whole history of Israel, beginning with the golden calf incident and extending throughout the preexilic period, is characterized by the hard-heartedness and sinfulness of the nation. The continual efforts of the prophets to call the people to repentance did not succeed. Hence, according to Jeremiah 31:31–34, the people irreparably “broke” (LXX: “they did not persevere in”) the Sinaitic covenant (v. 32). Either the Sinaitic covenant had to be done away with or else the curse of the law would have remained on the people.
In contrast to the Sinaitic covenant, which was being rendered inoperative from its inception, the new covenant is described in 2 Corinthians 3:11b as that which lasts or “remains” in glory. The inauguration of the new covenant signals the beginning of the eschatological fulfillment of God’s salvation-historical plan for his people and indeed for the world. This is the new and permanent vehicle for mediating God’s glory. According to Ezekiel, to which the present context repeatedly alludes, God would establish an “eternal covenant” with his people (cf. Ezek. 16:60; 37:26).
3:12–18 The apologetic contrast between the ministries of Paul and Moses begun in verses 7–11 becomes sharpest in verses 12–18. Unlike Moses’ ministry, which mercifully blocked the glory of God, Paul’s ministry mediates the glory of God to believers. The whole section can be seen as an extensive commentary on Exodus 34:29–35 in light of Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 36:26–27. In a stunning way, Paul continues to build an argument for the legitimacy of his apostleship by placing the goal of his ministry over against the consequence of Moses’ ministry. In effect, the greatest man in the history of Israel is put beneath the itinerant tentmaker in an effort to get the Corinthian church to submit to the latter’s apostolic authority.
3:12–13 The section begins with a conclusion (Therefore, oun) drawn from the previous discussion in verses 7–11. Paul refers to the hope drawn from the fact that his ministry mediates a covenant that “exists in glory” (v. 8) and that lasts (v. 11). Because of his hope in the mode and permanence of the new covenant, Paul (we) is very bold. The term can refer to boldness before God or before others, depending on the context. In Philo, for example, Moses is said to have spoken “with boldness, candor” before God about his rhetorical inability (On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 12; cf. 2 Cor. 2:16b; 10:10). Paul has already spoken of the “confidence” he has before God (v. 4), as he speaks face-to-face with the divine occupant of the throne of glory (cf. 2:14a, 17). Now, however, he refers to the “boldness” with which he proclaims the apostolic message before others, based on his encounter with the merkabah and the revelation from it of which Paul is a mediator (cf. 2:14).
In 3:13 Paul contrasts his own boldness in mediating the glory of God through the proclamation of the gospel to Moses’ repeated veiling of himself in Exodus 34:29–35. Most often, Paul has been understood to argue that Moses hid his face from Israel because the glory on it was fading (tou katargoumenou) and coming to an end (to telos). On this interpretation, Moses comes off as being rather disingenuous, whereas Paul is forthright and honest. But the point here is that Paul does not minister as Moses did, with a veil (kalymma) on his face. After the incident with the golden calf, Moses continually placed a veil over his face, so that the obstinate Israelites might not gaze into “the consequence” (to telos)—i.e., the judgment—of that which was being rendered ineffective by the veil, that is, the Sinaitic covenant itself (cf. 3:7). In the words of S. Hafemann, “Far from duplicity, Moses’ merciful intention was to keep Israel from being judged by the glory on his face, which was the telos of that glory in response to the hardened nature of the people.” In contrast to Moses, Paul proclaims the gospel with boldness because he knows that the glory of God that is now revealed through his ministry need not be veiled, since by means of the Spirit of the new covenant, it produces life rather than judgment and death.
3:14–18 In this section, Paul broadens his apologetic for his apostleship from a contrast between himself and Moses to a contrast between unbelieving Jews and believers. Jewish unbelief in Paul’s message is not evidence against his apostleship, but rather an indication of the people’s historic recalcitrance; however, those who do accept his message behold the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into his likeness.
3:14 In contrast (But) to Paul’s boldness in proclaiming his message (vv. 12–13a), Israel is described as hardened and closed to it. Here, the NIV translates the Greek verb pōroun as made dull instead of “were hardened.” The former is an unfortunate translation, for it completely obscures the OT and Jewish tradition of Israel’s obduracy (cf. C. A. Evans) that is brought to expression here. As we have seen, OT and Jewish tradition commonly views Israel on a historical continuum of sin and guilt due to the nation’s hard-heartedness. Therefore, in verse 14 Paul can jump without strain from Israel in the time of Moses to Israel in his own day (cf. Deut. 29:4; Jer. 7:25–26; 11:7–8; Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.271; Exod. Rab. 42:9 on Exod. 32:9: “To this very day Israelites in the Diaspora are called the stiffnecked people”; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). We might say that God hardened them in their hardness. Hence, the legitimacy of Paul’s apostleship is no more disproved by Israel’s rejection of his authority and message than Moses’ legitimacy was refuted when Israel rejected his authority and message.
In 2 Corinthians 3:14b, the tradition of Israel’s obduracy is signaled by the important biblical formula, to this day. Paul is saying that from the time of Moses—and particularly the golden calf incident—to his own day, Israel has been blinded and unresponsive (cf. Ezra 9:7; Dan. 9:4–19; Bar. 1:19–20; Rom. 11:8). Just as Israel was hardened to the law in Moses’ day (Deut. 29:3–4) and in the days of the prophets (Isa. 6:9–10), Israel continues to remain so under the old covenant in Paul’s day as well (cf. Rom. 11:25; also Acts 28:26–27). As I have tried to show elsewhere, Deuteronomic tradition is crucial to understanding the apostle’s view of Israel in relationship to the law. Paul’s exilic perspective is similar to that found in Hekhalot Rabbati, which considers that Israel’s “heart has been closed since the exiles, and the words of the Torah were hard like copper and iron” all the way through to the contemporary period (Schäfer, 293; cf. 283, 331).
In shifting from Israel’s past to its present, Paul continues to use the idea of the veil (kalymma) in order to show the historical continuity. Paul is saying that although Moses is read weekly in the synagogue, Israel is separated “to this day” from the revelation of the glory of God because of its rebellion. The original reason for the veil has not changed in all those centuries. The veil thus becomes a metonymy of effect (veiling) for cause (rebellious and unrepentant disposition).
Paul states that the veil remains to this day at the reading of the old covenant (palaia diathēkē). In referring to the Sinaitic covenant as “old,” the apostle obviously presupposes that the new covenant of which he is a minister has been inaugurated (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6). Those who are in Christ are now freed from the curse of the law and have the veil symbolizing their hard-heartedness removed by the Spirit of the new covenant. Without Christ, the majority of Jews remain hardened and cursed until the consummation, when “all Israel will be saved” (cf. Rom. 9–11). The negative effects of the old covenant persist, although they are in the process of being rendered inoperative (cf. 2 Cor. 3:11). It is Paul’s ministry that is instrumental in taking away the veil of hard-heartedness by means of the Spirit. As S. Hafemann aptly observes, “The designation ‘old covenant’ is Paul’s description of the Sinai covenant ministered by Moses in view of the ‘new covenant’ inaugurated by Christ and ministered by Paul.”
If, as we have suggested, Paul compares the Corinthian opposition to his apostleship with Israel’s rebellion (and especially, Korah’s rebellion), then the idea of a historical continuity becomes a powerful polemic against the apostle’s Jewish opponents in Corinth. The implication is thus that Paul’s opponents have not yet had the veil of hard-heartedness removed because they are yet not “in Christ” and do not have the Spirit. This corresponds to the way that Paul views the opponents elsewhere in the letter (cf. 6:14–16; 11:13–15). Hence, the apostle’s “defense” in 2:14–7:4 begins to turn the tables on his critics and bring their own salvation into question.
3:15 Having stated that the veil (a metonymy for Israel’s obduracy) remains when the old covenant is read (v. 14), Paul restates this point in verse 15 and explicitly applies it to Israel’s heart when she reads Moses. The NIV does not translate the adversative conjunction (alla) with which the verse begins. In beginning the verse in this way, Paul wants to stress that, although Christ is the one who removes the hard heart of Israel (v. 14), “nevertheless (alla), to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil is being laid upon their heart.” As the parallelism between verses 14 and 15 shows, the expression when Moses is read is synonymous with the expression “when the old covenant is read” in the previous line (cf. Acts 15:21: “Moses” is “read in the synagogues every Sabbath,” i.e., the law or the Sinaitic covenant is read), for it was Moses who mediated the Sinaitic covenant and wrote it (cf. Rom. 10:5, 19). The condition of the Israelites’ hearts is the problem, not the law itself. Just as the hardened hearts of the wilderness generation led them to oppose both Moses and the covenant that he mediated, so also the Jews in Paul’s day remain unchanged. The veil of the people’s hard-heartedness continues to render them incapable of properly responding to the law, as well as to the gospel message.
3:16 Having mentioned in verse 14 that only in Christ is the veil taken away, Paul elaborates on this point in verse 16, explaining more about the process by which the veil is taken away. The text alludes to Exodus 34:34a, where Moses is said to remove the veil whenever he speaks with the Lord. Hence, the understood subject of the verb in our text is not anyone but rather “he,” that is, Moses. Whereas a veil continues to be laid upon Israel’s heart whenever Moses is read in the synagogue (2 Cor. 3:15), whenever “he” (namely, Moses) returns to the Lord, the veil is being taken away (v. 16). Yet, if Moses is the implied subject of the verb, he stands paradigmatically for any Israelite who returns to the Lord. The text is purposely ambiguous at this point so that it resonates with Exodus 34:34 while adding the idea of repentance. Turning to the Lord in this sense is more than returning to the presence of the Lord as Moses did in the tent of meeting (although that is implied here, too), but rather a process of repentance whereby Israel’s hardened heart undergoes a fundamental change. Throughout the history of Israel, God had sent prophets to turn Israel to the Lord (1 Sam. 7:3; Hos. 5:4; 6:1; 2 Chron. 24:19; cf. 1 Thess. 1:9), albeit mostly without success. The prophetic call to repentance is a fixed motif of the Deuteronomic view of Israel’s history that goes hand in hand with the theme of obduracy (cf. O. H. Steck). Hence, before the restoration could be inaugurated and the new covenant established, Israel would need to return to the Lord in wholehearted repentance; then God would bestow his Spirit on them, so that their hearts of stone would be taken away, and they would be able to keep his commandments in perpetuity (cf. Tob. 13:6; Jub. 1:15, 23; 2 Cor. 3:6). Once again, Paul is arguing here from the perspective that the exile and curse of the law are brought to an end in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14).
Whether Lord (kyrios) refers here to God (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9) or Christ seems superfluous, since as we have seen (cf. on 2:14), God and Christ work together or even interchangeably, and Christ reflects the glory of God (4:6; see also 1:14). Of course, in keeping with the allusion to Exodus 34:34, kyrios in our text refers primarily to Yahweh. From Paul’s perspective, the veil that is now being removed when one returns to the Lord is the same one originally applied in Exodus 34:33. Paul hopes that through his own ministry some Jews will come to faith (Rom. 11:14; cf. 1 Cor. 9:19–20). Eventually, he expects that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:25–26), perhaps through a direct encounter with the resurrected Christ at the time of the Parousia (cf. Phil. 2:9–11). Similarly, Paul came to faith when he encountered the resurrected Christ on the way to Damascus and perceived him as the “Lord” seated at the right hand of God in accordance with Psalm 110:1.
As S. Hafemann correctly observes, Paul’s idea of the removal of the veil corresponds to the Isaiah Apocalypse (Isa. 24–27), where the universal revelation of the glory of God on Zion is portrayed as an eschatological counterpart to the theophany at Sinai. According to that apocalyptic text, universal judgment would be followed by the reign of the Lord of hosts on Mount Zion, when God would manifest his glory both before his elders (Isa. 24:1–23; cf. Exod. 24:9–16) and before all nations, thus reversing the veiling that took place in Exodus 34:29ff. (Isa. 25:6–8). The inclusion of the nations in this salvation would have been especially significant to Paul as the apostle to the nations (Rom. 11:13).
3:17 Paul proceeds to explain (Now, de) the removal of the veil as providing access to the presence of the Lord through the Spirit. This extremely obscure and controversial statement seems to equate the Lord with the Spirit (cf. John 4:24). As we have seen, Lord can refer either to God or to Christ in Paul’s writings, for they act together or interchangeably. Hence, the Spirit is closely identified with both God and Christ (cf. 13:14). On the one hand, it is called “the Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:9, 14; 1 Cor. 2:11, 14; 3:16; 6:11; 7:40; 12:3; Phil. 3:3), “the Spirit of the living God” (2 Cor. 3:3), or “the Spirit which is from God” (1 Cor. 2:12); and on the other hand, it is called “the Spirit of (Jesus) Christ” (Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19) or “the Spirit of his Son” (Gal. 4:6; cf. Rom. 8:14). In fact, Romans 8:9 uses “the Spirit of God” interchangeably with “the Spirit of Christ.” The fact that 2 Corinthians 3:17a refers to the same close identification of the Spirit with God and/or Christ is signaled by the expression the Spirit of the Lord in verse 17b. In emphasizing the identification between the Lord and the Spirit, Paul shows the historical continuity between Moses’ encounter with the Lord in the tent of meeting and believers’ experience of the presence of the Lord through the Spirit of God.
The presence of the Spirit of the Lord spells freedom as a result of the new covenant situation in Christ. Upon returning to the Lord and receiving a new heart through the Spirit of the Lord, those who have been enslaved in exile receive freedom. The proclamation of liberty to captives is at the very core of the OT’s “good news” for Israel (cf. Isa. 52:2–10; 61:1–2). Of particular interest is Isaiah 61:1, where the “Spirit of the Lord” (pneuma kyriou) who comes upon the prophet, sends him “to preach good news” (euangelisasthai) to the poor and to proclaim “release” (aphesin; MT, derôr, “liberty, freedom”) to the captives. We find the same idea developed elsewhere in Paul (cf., e.g., Gal. 3:10–14; 4:1–7, 21–31; Rom. 8:14–16, 21).
3:18 The apostle goes on to explain another effect of the removal of the veil and its similarity to Moses’ experience in the tent of meeting. In the previous context, Paul has consistently used the first person plural (we)—the so-called apostolic/literary plural—with reference to himself alone. Since verse 16, however, Paul has begun to refer more generally to all those who return to the Lord. Therefore, “we all” (pantes is not represented in the NIV translation) most naturally includes Paul and all other believers, another aspect of the mutuality to which Paul has repeatedly brought attention in the letter (cf. 1:1–2, 3–11, 24; 2:2). Very much like Moses, who removed his veil when entering the presence of the Lord (Exod. 34:34), all believers, from whom the veil of hard-heartedness has been removed, are being progressively transformed into his likeness, that is, into the image of the Lord. Paul’s defense is vulnerable at this point, for to admit that all believers have direct access to, and actual participation in, the glory of God, might seem to diminish the apostle’s own unique role in mediating that glory. Potentially, the opposition in Corinth could then argue against Paul as Korah had done against Moses: “All the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (Num. 16:3; see further on 2 Cor. 3:6). Nevertheless, Paul seems intent on showing that, through Christ, access to God’s presence has now been granted to all believers, who, without fear of death, are free to gaze upon and to be transformed by the revelation of God’s presence, that is, the glory of God (cf. Renwick). In any case, however, Paul is the one who originally mediated the Spirit to the Corinthians (and hence the presence of God among them) and who in some special sense remains the spokesman of God and Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20).
A physical transformation derived from speaking with God is evidently the result of having beheld the divine glory (cf. Exod. 34:29). According to the Psalm 68:18 tradition, Moses saw God’s throne on Mount Sinai. Seen in this light, Paul’s own encounter with the merkabah throne that he mediated to the Corinthians (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14) becomes, through the Spirit, their portion as well. Believers thereby behold the glory of God itself, even as Moses did (cf. Exod. 33:18; 34:6, 29; Num. 12:8). Furthermore, the likeness to which Paul refers here is undoubtedly the anthropomorphic “likeness of the glory of the Lord” that Ezekiel saw in his vision of the merkabah (Ezek. 1:26, 28; cf. Dan. 7:9–10). This interpretation is reinforced by Paul’s choice of the verb “behold as in a mirror” (katoptrizesthai), for the idea of the mirror and reflected divine glory are likewise drawn from Ezekiel 1 and merkabah tradition based on Ezekiel 1 (cf. D. J. Halperin and others cited in Additional Notes below). Ezekiel saw his vision as in a mirror, either in the water of the river Chebar (see Additional Notes below) or in the “gleaming amber” in the midst of the fire that accompanied the theophany (cf. Ezek. 1:4, 27).
According to the apostle, those who are in Christ are in a process of transformation into the image of God “from glory to glory” (which the NIV translates as with ever-increasing glory). What has already partially begun by the life-giving Spirit will be consummated through the Spirit at the Parousia (cf. Rom. 8:29–30). Hence, 2 Corinthians 3 describes the double process of transformation by means of the Spirit: a moral/ethical transformation in the heart (vv. 3ff.), which contrasts with Israel’s hardened heart “to this day” (v. 14), and a physical transformation in the body (v. 18). Interestingly enough, merkabah mysticism included both aspects as goals of ascending to the divine throne-chariot.
4:1–6 In 2:14–4:6, Paul defends the legitimacy of his apostleship by focusing on the glory of God that his ministry mediates. In the final section of this argument (4:1–6) Paul asserts the integrity of his ministry and claims that those who reject his apostleship and his gospel message are blinded by Satan. Paul goes back to his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road to establish the legitimacy of his apostleship. 2 Corinthians 4:1–6 concludes Paul’s argument as it began in 2:14–17, with reference to Paul’s vision of God’s throne. There are also several other striking correspondences between the beginning and the end of 2:14–4:6.
4:1–2 In 3:12–18, Paul argues that the reason he is so bold is that, in contrast to Moses’ ministry, his own ministry transforms lives and mediates the glory of God to believers. In 4:1–2 Paul reiterates his point from 3:12–13. Here Paul returns to using the apostolic plural (we), referring to himself. Through God’s mercy (lit., “as we have received mercy”), Paul has the ministry of the new covenant (cf. 3:6ff.). The mercy to which Paul refers here is his call to apostleship on the way to Damascus, when the persecutor encountered the risen Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9–10; also Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:15–16). If he has something to commend him, it is the gracious working of God in and through him. His sufficiency is from God (2 Cor. 3:5).
Since he has graciously received the ministry of the new covenant, with its transforming work of the Spirit, Paul does not lose heart; for although Paul’s proclamation of the gospel is not being met with open arms by his people Israel, neither Paul nor his gospel is really to blame. This obduracy fits into a historical pattern of hard-heartedness and rebellion. For his part, Paul focuses on presenting the gospel and conducting himself with candor and honesty (cf. 2:17), since he is mediating divine revelation (the word of God and the truth). To counter his opponents’ personal attack against him (see further on 7:2), Paul hopes to commend himself to the Corinthians (v. 2). Although this may sound like a contradiction to Paul’s opening salvo in 3:1 (“Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?”), his point is similar to what he has been arguing all along, because Paul’s commendation stems from tangible evidence that the Corinthians can access because of their familiarity with him and the results of his gospel in their midst (cf. 1:12; 3:2; 5:11). Therefore, Paul commends himself to every man’s conscience, and particularly to the Corinthians’ conscience (cf. 5:11). This appears hyperbolic at first sight, but Paul has already stated that, through his evangelistic ministry, God reveals knowledge of himself “in every place” (2:14). From Paul’s perspective, the divine origin of his message is apparent. But realizing that human conscience is not the ultimate authority (see on 1:12), Paul also states that he commends himself in the sight of God. As we have seen in 2:17 (cf. 12:19), the apostle states that in Christ he speaks sincerely “in the presence of God,” that is, the actual physical presence of God seated on his heavenly throne.
4:3 From the beginning of his defense, Paul claims that, through his apostolic preaching, God reveals the fragrance of the knowledge of himself to the whole world (2:14), even though Paul admits that there are two different perceptions of that fragrance. Besides being a “fragrance of life” to those who are being saved, it can also be a “smell of death” to those who are perishing (2:15–16a). In 4:3 the apostle reiterates the negative effect of his his preaching, for having characterized his preaching as a “revelation of the truth” (4:2), he acknowledges that some people remain hardened to it. Paul admits that his gospel is veiled to some people, since not everyone accepts his message, including most Jews (cf. Rom. 9–11). Here again the figure of a veil is used as a metonymy of effect for cause (hard-hearted rebellion). This represents another direct comparison between Paul and Moses, for Israel has the same reaction to Paul’s message as it had to Moses’ (cf. 2 Cor. 3:15).
As Paul goes on to explain, his message is veiled to those who are perishing (apollymenoi). Paul uses the same participle in 2:15 in contrast to “those who are being saved.” Hard-hearted rebellion under both the Sinaitic covenant and the new covenant produces the same result, that is, judgment and death (cf. Num. 17:13; 1 Cor. 10:9–10). This provides yet another direct comparison between the ministries of Paul and Moses. Furthermore, Paul may have in mind here specifically his opponents in Corinth, who have rejected both his message and his apostleship.
4:4 Paul explains the (Satanic) source of the hard-hearted, veiled state of those who have rejected his apostolic message. The full expression the god of this age (ho theos tou aiōnos toutou) occurs nowhere else in the NT; hence, there has been some debate whether the articular noun ho theos refers to God (as usual in Paul) or to Satan (unattested in Paul). It seems to have gone unnoticed that Daniel 5:4 LXX decries those who have praised idols made with their own hands rather than “the God of the age/world [ton theon tou aionos] who has power over their [life-] spirit.” Similarly, Tobit 14:6 (in Codex Sinaiticus) expects that “all the nations in the whole world” will one day praise “the God of the age/world [ton theon tou aionos].” Hence, our passage apparently refers to God himself as the one who has blinded the minds of unbelievers, an idea supported by other Pauline passages (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14; Rom. 11:8). Such a notion, however, is as repugnant to the modern mind as the Markan explanation of Jesus’ use of parables (Mark 4:12, citing Isa. 6:9–10). Therefore, commentators usually prefer to interpret the expression as a reference to Satan, even though such a designation seems to have no parallels. In Paul’s writings, “this age” refers to the present evil age that is perishing (cf. Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 2:6, 8; 3:18; Rom. 12:2), as opposed to the age to come that brings resurrection of the dead and consummation of the new creation (cf. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; Rom. 8:18–25; 1 Cor. 15:20–28). The present evil age is governed by “the rulers of this age” (1 Cor. 2:6, 8) and “the prince of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2). Hence, the ruler of this age (apparently Satan) could also be called “the god of this age.” In that case, it is Satan who causes people to harden their hearts to the truth. We may compare the many statements about Belial (cf. 2 Cor. 6:15) in Second Temple literature, according to which Belial is the ruler of this world and of this age (Mart. Isa. 2:4; 4:2–6; T. Reu. 4:11; 1 QS 1.23–24; 2.19) and the one who leads people’s hearts astray (Jub. 1:20; T. Reu. 4:7; Sib. Or. 3:63–74; CD 4.12–19). It is not easy to choose between these options, and each has its own plausibility. We may give a slight preference to interpreting the expression as referring to God, who frequently hardens people’s hearts against him (e.g., Exod. 4:21; 7:3, 13; 9:12, 35; 14:4, 8; Deut. 2:30; Isa. 63:17).
The unbelievers whose minds are blinded include all those who reject the Pauline gospel, especially the opponents of the apostle in Corinth (cf. 6:14, 15), who are really servants of Satan (cf. 11:12–15). Such people cannot see the light of the gospel. According to Acts 13:47, Paul understood his commission in terms of Isaiah 49:6: “I have made you a light for the nations, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.” In our passage, the content of the light of the gospel is further described as the glory of Christ. When Paul met the resurrected Christ on the way to Damascus, God revealed his Son to Paul (Gal. 1:16). At that time, Paul saw Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1), and this made Paul an eyewitness apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1–11). In the previous context of our passage, much has been said about “glory” as the representation of God’s presence. Thus, Moses’ face so shone with the glory of God that the Israelites could not gaze at it (2 Cor. 3:7). The glory of Christ is likewise a manifestation of God’s presence, for the text goes on to describe Christ as the image of God. Paul has already referred to the Lord’s “likeness” in 3:18, presumably alluding to the anthropomorphic appearance of God in Ezekiel’s throne-chariot vision (Ezek. 1:26–27). If God and Christ sit side by side in the divine throne-chariot, that would explain why Christ is viewed here as the glorious manifestation of the image of God that one sees in a merkabah vision.
4:5 Having identified the content of his gospel as the glory of Christ, the very image of God, Paul goes on to reinforce this content, evidently in the face of criticism that he champions himself (“we do not preach ourselves”). Perhaps the very defense of his apostleship has opened him up to the charge of preaching himself. Perhaps his opponents in Corinth have charged the apostle with selfish ambition, extortion, and power mongering (cf. 1:24; 2:17). After all, Paul’s preaching put him in a unique mediatorial position, which demanded respect and compliance. From Paul’s perspective, the situation he faces in Corinth is not much different from the opposition Moses encountered during Korah’s rebellion. After being charged with exalting himself above the assembly of the Lord and lording it over the people (Num. 16:3, 13), Moses felt compelled to affirm his divine sending and to deny both that he had taken tribute (v. 15) and that the works he was doing were of himself (v. 28). Paul’s opponents considered him a fraud as an apostle (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16), preaching his own Damascus-road vision, which was nothing more than a delusion (cf. 5:13).
The apostle responds to these (implicit) accusations by emphasizing that he is not interested in promoting himself, even if he is forced to do so in the face of heavy opposition. Rather, the central content of Paul’s gospel is Jesus Christ as Lord, just as the latter was revealed to him on the way to Damascus. Both Paul and the early church understood Jesus Christ in terms of Psalm 110:1: “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’ ” (cf. Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25). As we have seen, the application of this text to Jesus Christ strongly implies that Christ sits at the right hand of God on the merkabah throne-chariot (cf. Mark 14:62). Also, this psalm is part of the background for calling Christ “Lord.” Hence, the one whom Paul preaches is none other than the co-occupant of the divine throne of glory, the Lord of all (cf. Rom. 10:12; Acts 10:36).
Far from lording it over the Corinthians and promoting his own selfish interests, Paul characterizes himself as their servant, or even their “slave,” for Jesus’ sake. This actually subordinates Paul to the Corinthians, following the model of Jesus himself (cf. Phil. 2:7; Mark 10:44–45; 1 Cor. 9:19).
4:6 The apostle goes on to explain that he preaches Jesus Christ as Lord because he experienced a revelation of Jesus Christ on the way to Damascus. Here, as throughout 2:14–4:6, Paul continues to refer to himself with the first person plural. He is recounting the divine revelation that brought him personal knowledge of gospel on the way to Damascus. Ultimately, Paul cannot get behind the seminal revelation that made him an apostle in the first place, even with the additional signs of the apostle that attest to his ministry (cf. 12:12).
God is described as the author of the revelation in terms of an allusion to Genesis 1:3–4 LXX (“And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. And … God divided between the light and the darkness”) and/or to Isaiah 9:1 LXX (“O people who walk in darkness, behold a great light; you who dwell in the region and shadow of death, a light will shine upon you”). While both passages contain key terms linking to the present text, the Isaiah passage seems particularly appropriate as the source of Paul’s allusion, given the obviously “postexilic” perspective of 2 Corinthians 2:14–4:6. Even if Genesis 1:3–4 is deemed to have a greater affinity with our text by virtue of the common vocabulary (God, said, light, and darkness), the Genesis passage has been read in light of the Isaiah passage. The restoration of Israel, of which Paul is already a part (cf. Rom. 11:1–2), is tantamount to a new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). In fact, elsewhere in Isaiah the restoration is described in grandiose terms as inaugurating the new creation of the heavens and the earth (cf. Isa. 65:17–19; 66:22). This interpretation of our text would fit well with Paul’s idea of “the light of the gospel” (2 Cor. 4:4), understood against the background of Isaiah 49:6 (see above on 2 Cor. 4:4). Isaiah is well known to be a major influence on the apostle’s thinking (cf. R. B. Hays).
Paul moves from general (the scriptural allusion about Israel) to specific (Paul himself): The God who restores Israel to covenantal relationship made his light shine in Paul’s heart to give him the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. Paul is speaking here from his own personal experience in his heart (cf. Gal. 1:16). Paul’s call to apostleship, like the call of Moses and the prophets, took place in his encounter with the glory of God, this time “in the face of Christ.” This seminal experience provided Paul with the knowledge, so that through him, God reveals the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ in every place (2:14). Paul thereby becomes a revelatory mediator like Moses.
The revelation that Paul received was the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. This alludes to Paul’s vision of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1; cf. 15:8; Acts 9:3; 22:6, 11; 26:13). On the way to Damascus (and often subsequently [cf. 2:14; 12:1]), Paul saw Christ as the “image of God,” indeed as the anthropomorphous image or likeness of God that Ezekiel saw in his merkabah vision (Ezek. 1:26–27; see above on 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4). In other words, “the same image” and “glory” in 3:18 is specifically the “glory of God” being revealed “in the face of Christ” (4:6), who is “the image of God” (4:4; cf. Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15). Seated next to God in the divine throne-chariot, Christ is the very image and glory of God (cf. Gen. Rab. 8:10 on Gen. 1:27 [cited above]; Ps. 8:5–7; see further N. Deutsch). Here it is interesting to note that in Hekhalot Zutrati, the story of the “Four Who Entered Pardes” to encounter the merkabah concludes with God’s statement that R. Aqiba “is worthy to behold my Glory” (Schäfer, 346; cf. 673; Sir. 49:8: “It was Ezekiel who saw the vision of glory, which God showed him upon the chariot of the cherubim [epi harmatos cheroubin]”). Certainly it would have been important to Paul’s defense if he could likewise claim to have been worthy to behold the divine glory (cf. 2 Cor. 2:16b).
Additional Notes
3:7–18 According to Exod. 34:29–35 LXX, when Moses descended from Mount Sinai with the two tablets in his hand, he did not know that his face was glorified. However, when Aaron and the elders of Israel saw Moses’ face, they were afraid to come near him. After giving the people the commandments, Moses put on a veil and wore it whenever he spoke with the people, except when he entered the tent of meeting and spoke to God.
3:7–8 The glory of Moses’ ministry is, of course, commonly assumed in early Judaism (cf., e.g., Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.70; 4 Ezra 3:19, 31, 36–37; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 34:29). See further Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, pp. 287–98. On Paul’s concept of glory (doxa) and its background, see also Carey C. Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1992); Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God, pp. 99–121.
According to the Ascension of Isaiah, the progressively greater glory of each successive heaven has a counterpart in the physical transformation that Isaiah undergoes as he ascends. In the third heaven, the prophet notices that “the glory of my face was being transformed” (7:25). In the seventh heaven, he is transformed so that he becomes like an angel (9:30). Nevertheless, he and the angels are capable only of glancing at God, whereas Isaiah sees the righteous [dead] “gazing intently upon the Glory” (9:37–38).
On Paul’s use of katargein in the sense of “abolish, annul,” see Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, pp. 301–13.
3:9–11 Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, p. 330.
In 1 Cor. 10:1–14, Paul alludes to the golden calf incident and the ensuing divine judgment. On the OT/Jewish background of Paul’s understanding of this incident and its significance for the history of Israel, see Karl-Gustav Sandelin, “Does Paul Argue Against Sacramentalism and Over-Confidence in 1 Cor. 10:1–14?” in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (ed. Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 165–82 (esp. pp. 177–79).
3:12–13 On the term bold (parrēsia), see Spicq, TLNT, vol. 3, pp. 56–62; Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, pp. 338–47. Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.168–169) proudly contrasts the openness of Moses to the masses with the great Greek philosophers Phythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, and the Stoics, who did not venture to disclose their true beliefs to the masses.
On the interpretation of to telos here, see esp. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, pp. 347–62 (here p. 359). The exegetical options on this complex text are too numerous to list here; cf. Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 255–61.
3:14 The connection of v. 14 to the foregoing is difficult, for it is not immediately obvious what the opening alla (But) relates to; in other words, what the hardening of the Israelites’ minds is contrasted with (cf. Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 262–63). The simplest answer is to suppose that Paul is contrasting his own apostolic boldness (v. 12) with the Jews, whose minds have been hardened from the time of Moses to Paul’s day (v. 14). One might have expected a perfect tense verb to express this idea, but the aorist is regularly used in the LXX to refer to a past action with results that continue to the contemporary period (cf., e.g., Gen. 47:26; Deut. 3:14; 29:3; Josh. 6:25; 7:26; 22:17; 23:8; Judg. 1:21; 10:4; 18:12; 1 Kgs. 9:13; 12:19; 2 Kgs. 2:22; 8:22; 10:27).
Cf. Craig A. Evans, To See and Not to Perceive: Isaiah 6:9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (JSOTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).
On their minds were made dull see Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.271.
On the formula to this day, see further Brevard S. Childs, “A Study of the Formula, ‘Until this Day,’ ” JBL 82 (1963), pp. 279–92. When passages such as Deut. 4:25–31 (cf. also 2 Kgs. 17:23; 1 Chron. 5:26) were read in the ancient synagogue, the words “to this day” would have been interpreted as a description of the contemporary condition of Israel in exile, as indeed Dan. 9:4–19, 2 Chron. 29:9, Ezra 9:7, 1 Esd. 8:74, and Josephus, Ant. 11.133 show. Cf. also Bar. 1:19–20; Rom. 11:8 (citing a combination of Deut. 29:4 and Isa. 29:10; cf. Isa. 6:9–10). According to m.Sanh. 10:3 (cf. b. Sanh. 110b), Rabbi Aqiba contends that “the Ten Tribes are not destined to return” from exile, citing Deut. 29:28 to support this point: “And he [sc. God] will cast them out to another land as at this day.” Cf. Exod. Rab. 42:9 (on Exod. 32:9): “R. Abin said: ‘To this very day Israelites in the Diaspora are called the stiffnecked people.” See also Saebø, “yôm,” TDOT, vol. 6, pp. 7–32 (here pp. 15–16). For the expression “from the days of Moses until now” in the context of sin and exile, see Hekhalot Rabbati (Schäfer, 293). See also 2 Kgs. 21:15; b. Yoma 53b–54a contains an interesting controversy about whether the scriptural expression “until this day” applies only to the time of writing or to anytime thereafter as well.
Cf. James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993), pp. 645–65.
On b. Ber. 32b (“From the time the Temple was destroyed, an iron wall cut Israel off from its Father in heaven” or “the iron wall that was between Israel and its Father in heaven has come to an end”), see Baruch M. Bokser, “The Wall Separating God and Israel,” JQR 73 (1983), pp. 349–74. Cf. Eph. 2:14.
3:15 Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, p. 384.
3:16 Cf. N. T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p. 183: “… the basic point of the chapter: those who are in Christ, the new-covenant people, are unveiled precisely because their hearts are unhardened (3:1–3, 4–6).”
Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, pp. 394–95.
There are a number of OT citations in Paul’s letters that originally refer to Yahweh, but Paul applies them to Christ (cf. Rom. 10:13; 1 Cor. 1:31; 10:26; 2 Cor. 10:17). On Paul’s use of Lord (kyrios), see L. W. Hurtado, “Lord,” DPL, pp. 560–69.
3:17 On the problems of interpretation in v. 17a (Now the Lord is the Spirit), see Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 278–82 (Excursus III).
The Spirit of the Lord (pneuma kyriou) occurs frequently in the LXX (cf. Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 10:6; 16:13, 14; 1 Kgs. 18:12; 22:24; 2 Kgs. 2:16; 2 Chron. 18:23; 20:14; Isa. 11:2; 61:1; Ezek. 11:5; Mic. 2:7; 3:8).
S. Hafemann sharply distinguishes here between freedom “from” and freedom “for,” arguing that Paul has in mind the latter, that is, freedom for obedience to the law (Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, pp. 405–7). The distinction becomes untenable, however, when we consider the Exodus typology in the passage: Just as God once delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt to a covenantal relationship with himself at Sinai, so also he now delivers his people from slavery to a new covenantal relationship which requires obedience.
3:18 In omitting the word “all” in the translation, the NIV evidently accepts the reading of P46. The omission there, however, is most likely due to a scribal error.
Cf. Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God, pp. 97–98.
According to Exodus, Moses’ face was charged with glory because of his exposure to the resplendent presence of the Lord (Exod. 34:29–30; cf. Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.70; Pesiq. Rab. 10:6; 2 Cor. 3:7, 13). His encounter with the living God resulted in physical transformation. One who ascends to the merkabah is also subsequently transformed in the process into the likeness of the divine glory. Cf. C. R. A. Morray-Jones, “Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah Tradition,” JJS 43 (1992), pp. 1–31; Segal, Paul the Convert, pp. 34–71; idem, “Paul and the Beginning of Jewish Mysticism,” p. 111; M. Himmelfarb, “Revelation and Rapture: The Transformation of the Visionary in the Ascent Apocalypses,” in Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium (ed. John J. Collins and James H. Charlesworth; JSPSup 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 79–90; idem, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 29. In 1QH 12.5 the psalmist gives thanks to God because the Lord has brightened his face with his covenant. A physical transformation is also evident in Rom. 8, which expects that believers, who already have the indwelling Spirit of adoption (vv. 11, 15), will be glorified at the Parousia (v. 30), when they are conformed to the “image” (eikōn) of God’s Son (v. 29; cf. Phil. 3:21), who is the “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; cf. Ps. 8:5–7).
The Lord’s glory (hē doxa kyriou) occurs frequently in the LXX with reference to the glory of Yahweh (cf. Exod. 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35; Lev. 9:6, 23; Num. 14:10, 21; 16:19, 42; 20:6; 1 Kgs. 8:11; 2 Chron. 7:1, 2, 3; Pss. 104:31; 138:5; Isa. 35:2; 40:5; 58:8; 60:1; Ezek. 1:28; 3:12, 23; 10:4, 18; 11:23; 43:4, 5; Hab. 2:14).
In view of our interpretation of 2 Cor. 2:14, it seems significant that the Targum interprets Ps. 68:19 particularly with reference to proselytes: “You ascended to the expanse, O prophet Moses; you led captivity captive; you taught the words of the Law; you gave gifts to the sons of men. But as for the rebellious who are becoming proselytes (and) are turning in repentance, there rests upon them the Shekinah of the glory of the Lord God.”
The difficult hapax legomenon katoptrizesthai probably denotes “to behold as in a mirror” (cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.33; 3.39) rather than merely “to see” or “to reflect” (so NIV). Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, p. 409; Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 290–95 (Excursus IV). Cf. 1 Cor. 13:12, where Paul refers to seeing in mirror in order to describe believers’ current perception of heavenly realities in contrast to the face-to-face vision at the Parousia.
On Ezek. 1 as the background of 2 Cor. 3:18, see, e.g., Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 60 with n. 94; Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, p. 212 with n. 22; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (2d ed.; WUNT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), pp. 231–33. Cf. a passage from the Visions of Ezekiel referring to what Ezekiel saw “at the river Chebar [Ezek. 1:1],” in Halperin The Faces of the Chariot, p. 230; also p. 265. Cf. also b. Yebam. 49b; Lev. Rab. 1:14: “All prophets saw [the divine vision] through the medium of nine mirrors. So it is written: Like the appearance of the vision that I saw, like the vision I saw when I came to destroy the city, and visions like the vision I saw at the river Chebar. And I fell on my face [Ezek. 43:3]. Moses saw through the medium of a single mirror: By vision, and not in riddles [Num. 12:8]. The rabbis say: All the prophets saw [the divine vision] through the medium of a dirty mirror. So it is written: I speak to the prophets, and I multiplied visions, and so forth [and I liken myself through the prophets (Hos. 12:11)]. Moses saw through the medium of a sparkling mirror. So it is written: He sees the Lord’s appearance [Num. 12:8].” See further Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, pp. 231–38, 265. Note that Wis. 7:25–26 refers to Wisdom as a “spotless mirror of the working of God” and a “pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty.”
Another interpretation sees the reference to the Lord’s likeness against the background of Gen. 1:26–27 and of Christ as the “Second Adam.” Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, p. 424. We have seen evidence, however, that Gen. 1:27 was interpreted in light of the merkabah vision of Ezek. 1 (cf. Gen. Rab. 8:10 [cited above]). This dovetails with Ps. 8:5–7, where the psalmist exults in the fact that Yahweh has made “man/the son of man” a little lower than “God” (MT only; LXX: than the angels), has crowned him with “glory” (doxa), and has put all things under his feet (cf. Ps. 110:1; 1 Cor. 15:27).
On the present and future aspects of the transformation by the Spirit in Rom. 8, see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 2/48; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), pp. 221–66.
4:1–2 On God’s mercy as a reference to Paul’s Damascus road christophany, see Kim, Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 11, 26, 288–96; Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 298. See further on v. 6.
On the use of enkakein in the sense of lose heart, see Spicq, TLNT, vol. 1, pp. 398–99. M. Thrall argues that the verb here denotes “be remiss” (Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 298–300).
4:4 The expression the god of this age (ho theos tou aiōnos toutou) is unique in the NT, although 1 Tim. 1:17 refers to God as “the King of the ages (ho basileus tōn aiōnōn).” Nevertheless, Paul can use the articular term “god” (ho theos) in a sense other than God, as Phil. 3:19 shows: “their end is destruction (apōleia); their god (ho theos) is their belly.” See further Origen, Commentary on Matthew 11.14; Thrall, Second Corinthians, vol. 1, pp. 306–8; Susan R. Garrett, “The God of this World and the Affliction of Paul: 2 Cor. 4:1–12,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians (ed. D. L. Balch, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 99–117 (here pp. 104ff.).
The Christ-hymn in Col. 1:15–20 refers to Christ as the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”
S. Kim makes an interesting case that several epiphanic visions, including that in Ezek. 1:26–27, should be read together as the background of Paul’s christological conception (Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 137–268).
4:6 Cf. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 162.
Cf. Carol Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (AnBib 43; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970).
On the interpretation of 4:6 as a reference to Paul’s Damascus road christophany, see Kim, Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pp. 229–32.
Cf. Nathaniel Deutsch, The Gnostic Imagination: Gnosticism, Mandaeism and Merkabah Mysticism (Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 13; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 99–111.
