2 Corinthians 3: Components of an Authentic Ministry

Introduction

This chapter, as well as the next, presents especially knotty problems for interpreters. In it we see the reality of the comment made by Peter concerning Paul’s writings. The Church president said that “there are things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsteady twist to their own destruction, as they do other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16, our translation). As one scholar noted, “Understanding chs. 3–4 requires a considerable amount of reading between the lines and a willingness to go with the flow of ever-developing and mixed metaphors.”¹ Even so, as is shown in this introduction and that for the next chapter, Paul’s overall themes can be easily grasped. It is with some of the particulars that the problems lie.

This chapter picks up where the last one left off. There Paul makes reference to his detractors, noting that they have begun the shameful process of peddling the word of God for profit (2:17). Here he notes that they carry letters of recommendation as a means of establishing their authority. His credentials and what has established his authority, he insists, are his converts. These, as letters, reside in his and his fellow workers’ hearts, written there by the power of the Spirit (3:1–3). His personal competence in gospel matters, he relays, comes directly from God. By this means, he and his associates minister a “new covenant” that follows not the letter of the old law but the spirit of it (3:4–6).

This new ministry, he says, eclipses the old one. He uses three examples to highlight how much more glorious the new covenant is over the old one: First, though the old one came with so much glory that the Israelites could not even look upon Moses while the Spirit of God was upon him, the new one came with such power that the Spirit could act directly upon the Saints, bringing even greater glory. Second, the old ministry with all its glory resulted in nothing more than condemnation, while the new one, because of its increased glory, brings righteousness. Finally, even though the old ministry had its glory, it is now becoming inoperative and, on that account, Paul stresses the importance of the new ministry that will operate forever. In sum, compared to the glory of the new ministry, the old had hardly any at all (3:7–11).

He next contrasts himself and his companions with Moses. Where the Old Testament prophet had to put a veil over his face to hide the divinely radiant glory from the people, Paul and his companions boldly and with open faces display the glory of the new ministry. He does castigate the Jews, noting that, figuratively, the veil as yet covers their hearts. This is because they deny Christ, whose power alone can take off the veil and reveal the glory of the new covenant. Any, however, who yield to the power of God’s Spirit will have the veil lifted and be able to not only see, as in a mirror, the glory of Christ but also be transformed into his likeness through ever-increasing glory (3:12–18).

Ministers of the New Covenant (3:1–3)

Greek Text

1 Ἀρχόμεθα πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνειν; ἢ μὴ χρῄζομεν ὥς τινες συστατικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν; 2 ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν ὑμεῖς ἐστε, ἐγγεγραμμένη ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινωσκομένη ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων·3 φανερούμενοι ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ διακονηθεῖσα ὑφʼ ἡμῶν, ἐγγεγραμμένη οὐ μέλανι ἀλλὰ πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος, οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις ἀλλʼ ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις. [SBLGNT]

Translation Notes and Comments

3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? / Are we starting again to commend ourselves?: The verb συνίστημι (synistēmi), “commend,” together with the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς (heautous), carries the idea of self-commendation.² That Paul uses the adverb πάλιν (palin), “again,” shows that he has already used this means before, likely when he first began preaching the gospel in the city. Self-commendation served the same purpose as letters of recommendation but without the involvement of a third party. It was done either by the presentation of credentials or by personal testimony of one’s position for the purpose of establishing “a reciprocal, trust-based relationship.”³ It was also used in cases where strained relationships needed to be repaired, such as Paul now faces.⁴

or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? / We certainly do not need, as some do, letters of commendation to or from you, do we?: The phrase ὥς τινες (hōs tines), “as some,” refers to Paul’s enemies. For a discussion of who these were, see “Paul’s Enemies at Corinth” in the introduction.

The συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (systatikai epistolai), “letters of recommendation,” were used widely in the Greco-Roman world, and there were even manuals that gave instructions on the most effective way to compose them.⁵ Such shows that to the Mediterranean people, credentialing was very important, and that they gave considerable weight to the opinions of relatives or people of prominence.⁶ Such letters were generally used by a person moving to a new location to validate status and to gain support or assistance from those in the area.⁷ The New Testament documents also show they were used by the early disciples (see Acts 9:2; 15:25–27; 18:27; 22:5; Rom. 16:1–2; Philem. 1:1–25; and 3 John 1:7–8). Clearly Paul is not opposed to such letters, but he forcefully rejects the idea that they are needed to establish his credentials in the Church, even if they would demonstrate his respectful pedigree.⁸

3:2 Ye are our epistle, / You are our letter: The noun ἐπιστολή (epistolē), “epistle, letter,”⁹ is sometimes used in our source as a synonym for γράμμα (gramma), a letter.¹⁰ In a more specific sense, however, each connotes a different type of written communication. A gramma, “letter,” afforded the writer more latitude in development, subject matter, and expression than did a formal epistle. “A letter is usually occasional; that is, it is written in consequence of some circumstance which requires it to be dealt with promptly. The style of a letter depends largely on the occasion that calls it forth. It expresses the writer’s views, sympathies, and interests. On the other hand, an epistle carries more authority, has a general aim, and targets a specific group of people. It is more formal like a public speech and lends itself to publication with the intent of more broad dissemination.”¹¹ Paul’s writings carry both elements but fall lightly into the category of an epistle, addressing as they do, by authority, specific issues with the intent that the instructions be published for others.¹²

Paul’s metaphorical use of the phrase ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν (hē epistolē hymōn), “our letter,” emphasizes his recognition that the greatest proof of his authority and position as a trustworthy Apostle is the conversion of his readers.

written in our hearts: The verb ἐνγράφω (engraphō), found here as a perfect passive participle, means “to write down, inscribe,”¹³ while the noun καρδία (kardia), “heart,” shows the location of the writing. The imagery is important, for the term “heart” connotes the inner life of the person that directs thinking, volition, and emotion.¹⁴ It is where the Spirit works (1:22) and spiritual illumination takes place (3:15–16; 4:6). In sum, what is there defines what the individual is.¹⁵

There is some debate as to whose heart Paul has in mind. Some ancient manuscripts have ὑμῶν (hymōn), “your,” while others have ἡμῶν (hēmōn), “our.”¹⁶ It makes sense that Paul would say that the letter was written on his readers’ hearts where it could be seen in their witness to the world. However, the context (and better manuscript tradition) argues for the letter to be in Paul and his companions’ hearts such that “all men” could see the converting power that was in them.¹⁷ With his use of the perfect tense of the participle, Paul shows that the letter written earlier clearly still remains to be read and known by all who will look.

known and read of all men / understood and read by everyone: The nature of the lives of the converts is public and bears witness to the power that Paul and his companions carry. The verb γινώσκω (ginōskō) means not only “to know” but also “to comprehend”¹⁸ and suggests that others can see the power that Paul and his companions carry in the effect it has on the lives of the Saints. The verb ἀναγινώσκω (anaginōskō) means “to read” but carries the nuance of reading aloud,¹⁹ and again, it highlights the public nature of the power the Apostle and his colleagues carry. Both verbs, as found here, are in the form of present passive participles and are cognates, but the aspect of the tense is continuous into the present, suggesting the ongoing nature of the power of the gospel as preached by Paul and the others. The force of the grammar is important here. The perfect participle of ἐνγράφω (engraphō) has as its subject the noun ἐπιστολή (epistolē), and the construction emphasizes the ongoing openness of the Apostle’s ministry played out on the Corinthian stage for all to see.²⁰

3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ / You clearly show that you are Christ’s letter: The conjunction ὅτι (hoti), “that,” signals to the reader that what Paul says in this verse explains or clarifies what he said in the former one. The verb φανερόω (phaneroō), “to show, disclose, be manifest,” is found here as a present passive participle but carries an intransitive sense of showing something. It carries the nuance of doing so clearly, with some detail, and publicly.²¹ It further suggests that what is made known is the external but nevertheless true revelation of the thing, in this case the recommending force of the disciples’ lives.²² The present tense of the participle shows that the process of revelation is continuing to happen at this very moment.

In the phrase ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ (epistolē Christou), “epistle of Christ,” the genitive case of the noun can be taken as objective and thereby denote a letter about the Savior. However, given the context, it is more likely a genitive of production, showing that Jesus is the one who wrote the letter.²³ It, therefore, belongs to him. Paul does not say just how these Saints “clearly show” that they are Christ’s letter, but it is likely because of the kind of lives they are living as converts.

ministered by us / delivered by us: The verb διακονέω (diakoneō) denotes the performance of a service very often performed by a go-between or agent.²⁴ When a person is acting in an official capacity, the best understanding of the word is “to minister,” but in keeping with the metaphor of a letter, the Apostle acts in the capacity of a postman whose task is to deliver the letter composed and sent by the Savior.²⁵ Without the service of the Apostle and the other missionaries, the letter would remain ever undelivered and therefore unknown.

written not with ink: The verb ἐνγράφω (engraphō), found here again (as in 2:3) as a perfect passive participle, means “to write down, inscribe.”²⁶ Paul uses it as a metaphor to represent the Saints who are the written letter that he so dearly loves and serves. The noun μέλαν (melan), “ink,” refers to a product made of soot and gum that, when applied with a reed pen, left readable pigment on a surface.²⁷ By the use of the negative particle οὐ (ou), “not,” Paul shows he is referring to conventional writing that is transitory and temporal.²⁸

but with the Spirit of the living God / but by the Spirit of the Living God: With this phrase, Paul brings the final element, namely the one he serves, into play. It is because of the living and therefore active Spirit of the Father that Paul feels such a deep commitment to and love for these people. It is the Spirit that the Father uses as his primary means or instrument in producing results.²⁹

not in tables of stone / not on stone tablets: The phrase πλαξὶν λιθίναις (plaxin lithinais), “stone tablets,” echoes the material on which God inscribed the law of Moses (see LXX Ex. 31:18). Paul seems to be using the imagery to compare or contrast what he is saying with the old covenant.

but in fleshy tables of the heart / but on tablets of human hearts: The adjective σάρκινος (sarkinos), “fleshly, material, human,” though sometimes associated with that which is worldly and even sinful, in this context denotes that which belongs to the physical world or human sphere.³⁰ On the meaning of καρδία (kardia), “heart,” see 3:2 above. That God writes on the human heart suggests that this mortal and even fallen organ can be transformed into the continuous bearer of God’s laws (compare Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 11:19; 36:26–27).

Analysis and Summary

The question at issue here is what constitutes a legitimate Christian ministry. What does it mean to “speak in Christ before God as men of pure motive, as men of God” (2:17, NR)? What is at stake is Paul’s legitimacy as an Apostle but, more broadly, that of apostolic authority in general. Who has the right to preside over the Church? In his defense, what Paul does here is reestablish the rules of presidency and thereby show who is able to govern with presiding and thereby legitimate authority. Paul insists on a divine, not human, criterion that is dependent not on the judgment of the branches but on the authority of the risen Lord, the power of the Spirit, and the discernment it brings.³¹ To push his point, at places throughout the rest of the epistle, he admits to the physical weaknesses his adversaries accuse him of but then shows that such weaknesses do not disqualify his apostolic authority. Rather that authority is confirmed by the profound spiritual change in the hearts of his converts (3:2). Not backing away from this point, Paul is not a bit afraid of either commending himself and his companions or boasting about what he, through divine help, has been able to do.³² The text clearly shows that Paul “does not regard his own person as anything special.”³³

He unabashedly admits that he is once again commending himself but seems to be asking why he has to go through the whole process once more since he had already cleared that hurdle without the need for letters of reference (3:1). It is little wonder that he felt put out. He was, after all, their spiritual father—God’s appointed Apostle—who brought them the word of salvation (1 Cor. 4:14–15). His magnanimity is shown by his willingness to re-present his case in order to reestablish their mutual trust. As he will show, his appeal to them is that of an Apostle who can commend himself “by his conscience and transparency of life and heart (4:1–2; 5:11–13; 6:4). Paul’s ‘self-commendation’ is paradoxical . . . because it is not a self-commendation but the commendation of the Gospel and of the work of God that takes place in him. He thus will commend himself in everything that the Corinthians do not expect or seek: in perseverance, in afflictions, in experiences of need and the suffering of distress (6:4–10).”³⁴

Part of what drives him is his detractors’ castigation of his authority and teachings. They apparently do so on the basis of their own supposed authority bolstered by letters of recommendation. Just who produced these letters is unknown, but they seem to have been derived from a branch or branches that the Corinthian Saints held in respect. It would have been easy for short-time members to give deference to those who were longtime ones. Since the oldest branches of the Church were in the eastern Mediterranean, persons coming from those branches would have been met with great respect. Since it was these very branches that were having the most difficulty in transitioning from the old covenant to the new, it is not surprising that the issue was transplanted to the west. Thus, the place of the law of Moses within Christianity was central to many of the theological difficulties the western Church faced.³⁵

A problem with these letters of endorsement is that one branch might unknowingly perpetuate false doctrine innocent of any deception. “One community could easily perpetuate a problem by endorsing a missionary who in turn passed on peculiar doctrinal teachings.”³⁶ As Elder McConkie noted, “It is much the same today where congregations of new converts are concerned. These new church members come from the sects of Christendom into the living kingdom of power and glory. Their baptism does not automatically cause them to forget all they have known and believed and perhaps taught. In the very nature of things and almost without being aware of it, some of them still retain fragments of those sectarian vagaries inherited from their fathers.”³⁷ If Church authorities were unable to correct such doctrines, as seems to have been the case with the early Church, then false teachings could become the norm, forcing out the true. Paul fought hard against this possibility.

In this portion of his epistle, he produces his own letter of recommendation (3:2). It is his converts who he feels are the best evidence of his power and truthfulness as an Apostle of Christ. His words express his high admiration for and also the importance of the truly converted. Their love and good works not only demonstrate the power of the gospel but also validate the integrity of the Apostle. Thus, the lives of the disciples commend the Apostle more than any mere letter, no matter by what authority it may have been written. By noting that the letter is inscribed (ἐνγράφω, engraphō) on “our hearts,” Paul expresses the closeness, even intimacy, that he and his companions feel toward these Saints.³⁸ The imagery infers that he carries his love for these people everywhere he goes.³⁹

Paul further notes that, though the letter is written on his heart, it is not hidden there. He demonstrates it so that it is known and read by everyone who is willing to give it a glance. The apostolic power of the ministry is both ongoing and transparent for all not only to see but also to enjoy if they will. Since letters were commonly read aloud, the imagery suggests the public nature of Paul’s ministry. Nothing is hidden and all is made known, and thus the gospel can be understood for what it truly is.⁴⁰

Paul is certain that, for those who will see, the lives of his converts are the only letters of recommendation that he needs. The living God has written, as it were, their names on Paul’s heart by the power of his Spirit (3:3). However, “given the disloyalty, fickleness, and waywardness evident within the messianic community in Corinth,” his assertion is quite remarkable.⁴¹ Nonetheless, it seems fully genuine. God’s Spirit has moved upon him to such an extent that he has a deep-felt love for these people and wants only the best for them even if it means they must endure a sound scolding.⁴²

This medium stands in contrast to the law of Moses, which was written on tablets of stone and unfortunately brought no life to those who would not internalize it. The new law is at its seat internal and life changing. Paul’s imagery echoes that of Jeremiah 31:31–33, in which the prophet looked to a day when the Lord would “make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers. . . . But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” In Paul’s case, it is not God’s laws but the names of the converts that are written on the hearts of the missionaries. “Christ has done an authentic, spiritual work in the Corinthians, yet in Paul as well. For, as the Spirit has worked through him to minister to the Corinthians, the Spirit has also worked on Paul, fostering a ministry of concern, compassion, and commitment toward them. Paul is not an opportunist ministering for his own profit (2:17), nor a hireling merely fulfilling an assigned drudgery. He is a called, deeply committed minister of Jesus Christ, who loves Christ’s church.”⁴³

The Saints are the product of the work of Christ, who alone has made them a fit and authentic letter of recommendation. Even so, the missionaries have played a part for they are the ones who prepared the letter.⁴⁴ The words Paul uses, “having been prepared by us” (διακονηθεῖσα ὑφʼ ἡμῶν, diakonētheisa hyph’ hēmōn), keep the image of a letter before his readers and suggest that the missionaries’ role is that of an amanuensis, or secretary.

God is the author of the human letter. The instrument he uses to write it is his living Holy Spirit.⁴⁵ Through the work of the Spirit, the heart is changed—one might even say, exchanged. According to Ezekiel 11:19, God will give to believers a heart that is undivided. Indeed, as he promises, he “will put a new spirit in them, and will remove the heart of stone from their bodies and give them a heart of flesh” (our translation; compare Ezek. 36:26–27). This spiritual transplantation produces the true Saint, whose changed life then becomes the letter of recommendation sine qua non for apostolic authority.

God Made Us Capable (3:4–6)

Greek Text

4 Πεποίθησιν δὲ τοιαύτην ἔχομεν διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 5 οὐχ ὅτι ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν ἱκανοί ἐσμεν λογίσασθαί τι ὡς ἐξ αὑτῶν, ἀλλʼ ἡ ἱκανότης ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ,6 ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης, οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος, τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ. [SBLGNT]

Translation Notes and Comments

3:4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward / Now we have such confidence through Christ toward God: The noun πεποίθησις (pepoithēsis), “confidence,” denotes a state of certainty about a thing so as to rely on it fully and completely. Here it carries the nuance of the assurance of an expected positive outcome.⁴⁶ With the demonstrative adjective τοιοῦτος (toioutos), “such,” the phrase “such confidence” points back to the trust Paul has in both the authority with and the purity in which he and his companions preached the gospel to the Corinthian Saints (2:17). He assures his readers that his confidence comes διὰ Χριστοῦ (dia Christou), “through Christ,” who is the active agent.⁴⁷ The implication is that his authority and ministry are divinely anchored. But he goes a step further. His confidence is also πρὸς τὸν θεόν (pros ton theon), “toward God,” where the preposition πρός (pros) marks an action directed to or done with reference to or with regard to someone, in this case, God.⁴⁸

The JST changes the verse to read, “such trust we have through Christ toward God,” thus emphasizing that it is only through Christ that one comes to God (John 14:6; D&C 132:12).

3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves / Not that we of ourselves are capable of thinking that anything came from ourselves: This verse stresses and expands the point Paul made in the one above. The adjective ἱκανός (hikanos), “capable,” denotes that which is proficient in meeting a standard, thus “competent, sufficient, capable, qualified.”⁴⁹ The verb λογίζομαι (logizomai) means to think about or believe in something but carries the nuance of thinking carefully about the thing believed in.⁵⁰ The phrase ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν (aph’ heautōn), “of ourselves,” stands parallel to the phrase ἐξ ἑαυτῶν (ex heautōn), “from ourselves,” and together they stress Paul’s point. The first phrase negates any idea that Paul and his companions see themselves as the cause of their competence in the gospel.⁵¹ The second phrase negates any idea that they see themselves as the ultimate source of “anything” (τι, ti)⁵² that has made their mission successful.⁵³ The whole phrase stresses the idea that Paul and his companions do not have even a shadow of belief that they are the cause of all the good that has come about.

but our sufficiency is of God / On the contrary, our competence comes from God: Again, Paul uses the noun ἱκανότης (hikanotēs), “competence,” to express his understanding of the source of his power or ability. The noun denotes a “state of being qualified or adequate for something,” meaning that the thing is in need of nothing more.⁵⁴ By using the adjective, the Apostle bears his heartfelt understanding that the source of his abilities is God given. Underlying it stands another message—the source of his apostolic authority and doctrine is also divinely derived. His words express his heartfelt understanding that he could never, on his own, have come up with anything so wonderful and beautiful as the gospel message or, for that matter, even have understood it. Further, it was God who revealed Christ to the Apostle and from whom Paul derived his authority.⁵⁵

3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament / who indeed made us capable ministers of a new covenant: The verb ἱκανόω (hikanoō) means “to cause to be capable or adequate” and suggests the idea of the empowerment of a person or the authorization of an action.⁵⁶ The noun διάκονος (diakonos), “minister, servant,”⁵⁷ in Paul’s thought, refers specifically to a Christian minister, a person, whether male or female, empowered to do God’s saving work through direct service. The idea came from Christ himself, who insisted that he and those who followed his way were to serve others in their quest for eternal life (Mark 9:35; 10:45; Luke 22:26–27). The idea behind the word is one of direct involvement. Such personal action broke with Jewish norms, where one’s social responsibility rested on giving alms that others ministered (compare Luke 10:30–35). In the general society, lowly service was viewed as too menial and well below the dignity of a free person (compare Luke 7:44–46). Paul’s teachings counter this idea and show Christian service as involving the entire community in the whole of the salvation process but under the direction of apostolic authority.⁵⁸

The phrase καινῆς διαθήκης (kainēs diathēkēs), “new covenant,” circumscribes the whole process. The noun διαθήκη (diathēkē), “covenant,” refers to an agreement that is made by one person’s initiative and not a compact derived from the work of two or more persons.⁵⁹ In this case, it is God alone who sets the conditions. The recipients have the right to choose whether or not to enter into the covenant, but they have no authority to negotiate terms or to modify the agreement in any way. It is an all-or-nothing deal. The adjective καινός (kainos), “new,” refers not just to what has been in existence for a relatively short time but, more especially in the present context, to “that which is recent in contrast” to that which has existed for a long time and, due to its age, is both obsolete and inferior in its nature. Thus, “the new is superior in kind” and established for the purpose of replacing the old.⁶⁰ The restored and fully implemented gospel is so superior to the law of Moses. Though designed to bring people to Christ, the law of Moses served only as a type or shadow of things to come with no power in and of itself to actually save anyone (Col. 2:16–17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1; 2 Ne. 11:4; Mosiah 3:15; 13:27–28). The new covenant, based on the Savior’s Atonement, not only fulfilled the old covenant but brought the life it could not.⁶¹

not of the letter, but of the spirit / not of the letter but of the Spirit: The noun γράμμα (gramma), “letter,” can refer to a single unit in an alphabet, a correspondence or document, or even an entire book.⁶² The word does not carry, as is often supposed, the nuance of reading something too literally or narrowly. In the present context, it most likely refers to the whole of the Mosaic law. The noun πνεῦμα (pneuma), “spirit,” can refer to the spirit of an individual, to an unembodied being, or as is the case here, to the Holy Spirit of God (see 3:3).⁶³ Paul’s statement shows that the “Spirit” stands in contrast to the “letter” of the law.⁶⁴ Thus, the term γραμμα (gramma), “letter,” summarizes the whole of the old covenant while πνεῦμα (spirit) does the same for the new. That being the case, the term “letter” refers to that which is obsolete, stagnant, and lifeless, while “the Spirit” refers to that which is new, necessary, and life giving.

for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life / because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life: With the conjunction γάρ (gar), “for, because,” Paul signals he is going to explain why he ministers the new covenant and forsakes the old. The verb ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō), “to kill,” denotes depriving something of life either by killing or eliminating it.⁶⁵ In this case the reference is to spiritual life. The verb ζωοποιέω (zōopoieō) means “to make alive” and, when associated with God, carries the transcendent sense of having a higher quality of spiritual life or enlivening.⁶⁶

Because it is vague, this phrase has generated three main schools of thought. For many in the early Christian movement, the term “letter” pointed to a too-literal reading of a scriptural text, while “the spirit” referred to a discernment of the true meaning that stood behind it. By the time of the Reformation, theologians interpreted the phrase as showing that a radical dualism existed between the old and new covenants. The former produced condemnation and death while the latter brought justification and life. This view saw the old law as abrogated and completely replaced by the new as the means of salvation. Between these two views were those who saw the old and new covenants not as in radical opposition but as belonging to a continuum. This school viewed the tension set up in 3:6 as “a contrast between those who attempted to keep the law apart from the work the Spirit” and those who accepted and relied upon it. These theologians insisted that the law could be fulfilled only with the help of the Spirit.⁶⁷

Analysis and Summary

To counter any suggestion that what the Apostle has said in this section of his letter (2:14–3:3) shows an arrogance on his part (after all, he is claiming a partnership with God), the Apostle explains the source and basis of his confidence (πεποίθησις, pepoithēsis) and competence (ἱκανότης, ikanotēs). He gives an unflinching testimony that the whole of his ministry relies on and is derived from Christ (3:4). Christ is the very basis of Paul’s confidence in all that the Apostle does and says. Further, the Lord gives the enabling power that Paul uses to push forward the work. However, though the Savior is the immediate agent working with the Apostle, there is one greater who stands behind the Lord and of whom Paul is constantly aware. This is the Father. That Paul’s affirmation that everything he does is directed “toward God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton theon) stresses his acute awareness that he must act according to the Father’s will. There is also here a tacit message to his detractors concerning the source and authenticity of his ministry.⁶⁸

In 3:5, Paul answers the rhetorical question he asked in 2:16, “And who is qualified for these things?” As stated in the Translation Notes there, the question is a good one, and the Apostle’s reflections captured in 3:1–3 have only served to accentuate its importance. Paul’s answer to the question given in 3:3–4 is emphatic: only those whom God qualifies.⁶⁹ Paul’s point is that, being aware of this qualification, neither he nor his companions would or could even think that they were somehow responsible for their successes. Further, his statement that all he does is directed “toward God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton theon, 3:4) reveals his awareness of his own lack of sufficiency in carrying out the work of the all-sufficient Father. The effect on Paul is a deeply felt humility.⁷⁰ This attitude placed him in direct contrast with the self-aggrandizing and self-competent detractors that were making a show among the Corinthian Saints.⁷¹ His heartfelt attitude, however, does not leave him dubious about his ministry and the authority that stands behind it. Due to his call and station as an Apostle of the Savior, he has full confidence (πεποίθησις, pepoithēsis) that his qualifications (ἱκανότης, hikanotēs) are God derived, and from this he will not back down even in the face of strong opposition.

Paul and his party, unlike his detractors, are “new-covenant ministers.” In 3:6, he confesses to his readers that of himself he is not adequate for such a ministry, but he and his companions have been made so (ἱκανόω, hikanoō) by God. Thus, despite their inadequacy, they have both a God-given assignment and the necessary authority to perform that task. Paul’s continual use of the word “minister” (διάκονος, diakonos), or its cognates, throughout the epistle helps him stress this point.⁷² The word in its present context carries the idea of official service performed by a representative of the Lord. This service is based on the new, not the old, covenant.⁷³ The focus of the word is on the service performed, not on the social relationship between the person being served and the one doing the service.⁷⁴ Paul seems to have used it to define the entire work encapsulated in the new covenant. It carries “the special quality of indicating very personally the service rendered to another” that is often generated by love.⁷⁵

By stressing the need for service, Paul is pushing, if not breaking, social norms. Among the Greeks, service carried little dignity. Many of the leisure class felt that happiness could not be found in any kind of menial work, no matter whom or how one served.⁷⁶ Thus, in that culture, any concrete obligation to one’s neighbor hardly existed. Even among many of the Jews at the time, the unconditional command to love and serve others had dissolved into meaninglessness. “Service was less and less understood as sacrifice for others and more and more as a work of merit before God. Finally, there arose in Judaism the idea . . . not to accord [even] service at table, to the unworthy.”⁷⁷ Such an exclusivist and unloving attitude ran contrary to the tenets of the new covenant. The doctrine of the Savior reached back to the Old Testament command that God’s people love and serve one another, and Jesus, the undisputed master of all, set the example by being the servant of all (Luke 22:24–27). This was the very heart of the new covenant.

This new covenant, as Paul knew (see 1 Cor. 11:23–28), had as its backdrop the Last Supper. There the Savior held up a cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20, our translation; compare 1 Cor. 11:25).⁷⁸ His words echo those of Jeremiah, who prophesied of the day when Jehovah would establish a “new covenant” with the house of Israel. At that time, the Lord promised he would “put [his] laws into their mind, and write them upon their hearts; and [he would] be to them a God and they [would be his] people” (LXX Jer. 38:31–33; Jer. 31:33, KJV). Both scriptures combine to define the nature of the Christian ministry. Its objective is bringing people under the transforming power of the new covenant established and empowered by the death and Resurrection of the Lord.

Paul’s major concern is how God’s will comes to be fulfilled in the life of the Saint. He sees no value in the “letter” (γράμμα, gramma) of the law. In the Apostle’s context, the noun “letter” refers exclusively to that which had been written. In its most strict definition, it denotes the Decalogue, but Paul apparently uses it to include the whole of the Mosaic writings along with the traditions that developed out of them.

In 3:6, Paul sets up an antithesis between the old “letter” and the “Spirit” as revealed through the new covenant. This covenant, unlike the old, is not bound by what is merely written or has become traditional but by the Spirit. Thus, the Apostle is not comparing a literal or legalistic reading of the Old Testament to a more nuanced spiritual one. His issue is not with the Old Testament itself but with the old Mosaic covenant, especially, as 3:7–11 show, with that portion that was written in stone, most notably the Ten Commandments.⁷⁹

In Paul’s writings, do the Spirit and the Mosaic law stand in unconditional antithesis? The Apostle’s exposition on this subject is not as clear as we would like. He does believe that the law of Moses was given by God and was holy and good (1 Tim. 1:8). The Apostle, however, to make his point, reduces the whole of the law to the single word “letter” (γράμμα, gramma), the term referring exclusively to that which had been written of old. From Paul’s point of view, because the law was, from the beginning, merely words inscribed on stone, it always lacked the ability to give spiritual life; it simply did not have the power to transform the soul from that of the natural man to that of a Saint (1 Cor. 2:14; compare Mosiah 3:19).⁸⁰ This is the Apostle’s main point. As a former Pharisee (Acts 26:5), he well knew “the religion of the Synagogue” with its emphasis on the scriptures. He also knew, even more fully, its total futility in bringing one to righteousness and into full service to God.⁸¹ The Hebrew scriptures themselves give ample evidence that Israel’s history during and after the Mosaic period was one of disaster following disaster. As biblical history clearly showed, the old law was fully ineffective in nature. Its problem was that it had no life, no means in and of itself of transforming the heart. In sum, the Hebrew scriptures themselves presented clear and incontrovertible proof that the words of the law never lifted off the stone tablets on which they had been written, and because of that, they remained ineffective for all.

From the text itself, Paul seems to have drawn his conclusion that “the letter kills,” because it lacks any kind of saving power. But how does he justify that statement? He is, admittedly, speaking in hyperbole to make his point. It is important to note that Paul does not ascribe the killing to a false use of the Old Testament or to a too-literal reading of the text. It is the nature of the “letter” itself—the whole law—wherein the problem lies.⁸² The law kills in two ways. The first is due to its inability to be nothing more than writing on stone tablets with no power to give help to its recipients.⁸³ The second is that it reveals what constitutes sin, namely disobedience to any point of the law. In revealing how to sin without any ability to help people resist it, it ends up being the means of their spiritual death. The Book of Mormon concurs. It asks the questions “How could [a person] sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?” and then answers, “Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given,” and the consequence was the “remorse of conscience unto man. . . . [I]f there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin. And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?” (Alma 42:17–21). Thus, the law made sin possible, and as Paul knew full well, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and further, “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). But there is hope, for “the gift of God is eternal life,” but it comes only “through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23), not from the law.

Thus, the ineffectiveness of the old law is, as Paul makes clear, done away in Christ. To countermand the weakness of the old covenant, God established the new one. As a result, the Saints simply do not need that law anymore because they are led by the Spirit which the Savior gives. That is not to say that the Savior did away with law. He did not. Instead he gave a new and living law dictated by the Spirit. This holy power writes the conditions and statutes governing the new covenant on the heart of the Saint. In doing so, it brings with it a transformation of the soul more in keeping with God’s holiness. Paul derives his position from his understanding of LXX Jeremiah 38:33 (Jer. 31:33, KJV). The prophet told of the coming day when God would write his law on the hearts of his people, and Paul could see that that promise was now being fulfilled. The agent executing the new covenant is the Spirit. In distinction to the dead “letter,” it alone can make a person more alive by three means: first, by revealing the content of the new covenant; second, by transforming the heart to accept the law; and third, by giving assisting power so that the person can live the law. It is this new covenant, not the old one, that Paul and his colleagues minister.

In sum, Paul’s “comparison here has more to do with contrasting approaches to ministry and the outcomes of those ministries, rather than with successive dispensations of the old covenant over against the new covenant. It is the new covenant that makes authentic Christian ministry possible, powerful, and productive (3:3, 6). The contrast in 2 Cor. 3 is not primarily with the old covenant per se but with the ongoing attempt to minister apart from the work of the Spirit and through a veil that lies over people’s hearts (3:14–15). The ‘letter,’ then, refers to an attempt to minister or engage the Scriptures apart from the new-covenant work of the Spirit. That form of ministry ‘kills’ just as it did in the old-covenant era.”⁸⁴

The Glory of the New Covenant (3:7–11)

Greek Text

7 Εἰ δὲ ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου ἐν γράμμασιν ἐντετυπωμένη λίθοις ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον Μωϋσέως διὰ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ τὴν καταργουμένην, 8 πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἡ διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος ἔσται ἐν δόξῃ;9 εἰ γὰρ τῇ διακονίᾳ τῆς κατακρίσεως δόξα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον περισσεύει ἡ διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης δόξῃ.10 καὶ γὰρ οὐ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδοξασμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει εἵνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης·11 εἰ γὰρ τὸ καταργούμενον διὰ δόξης, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ μένον ἐν δόξῃ. [SBLGNT]

Translation Notes and Comments

3:7 the ministration of death / the ministry of death: The noun διακονία (diakonia), “ministry, service,” in this phrase, refers specifically to the service that the old covenant rendered.⁸⁵ The word generally had a very positive nuance and could, therefore, be used to describe God’s service to the Hebrews in giving them the old covenant. Paul, however, gives it a negative spin based on its results. In calling the Decalogue, if not the whole system, “the ministry of death,” the Apostle, for the sake of argument, exaggerates its results.⁸⁶ There can be no doubt that the old covenant did prove itself to be deadly due to the faithlessness of Israelites who refused to live it and in consequence died both physically and spiritually. Had they lived it in faith, however, it would have brought them to their Messiah and to life (2 Ne. 25:25; Jacob 4:5–6).

written and engraven in stones / carved in letters on stone tablets: The reference is to Exodus 34:27–28, where Moses inscribed the law on the two stone tablets as revealed and dictated by the Lord. The verb ἐντυπόω (entypoō), “to carve,” means to precisely incise letters, usually by chiseling them into stone.⁸⁷ The imagery stands in stark contrast to the law written by the Spirit on the human heart.⁸⁸

The biblical text suggests that what Moses inscribed was only the Decalogue. The scriptures of the Restoration, however, show that the writings on the stone tablets consisted of much more than that. The first set contained the fulness of the gospel law. The second, however, due to Israel’s rebellion, contained much less. Indeed, the higher ordinances, along with the priesthood that administered them, Jehovah took away, and unstable Israel was left with the preparatory gospel and the Aaronic Priesthood (Ex. 34:1–2, JST; D&C 84:19–27).⁸⁹

was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance / produced such glory that the children of Israel could not look at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face: The reference is to Exodus 34:29–35. The verb γίνομαι (ginomai), found here as a passive aorist, means “to come into existence, to be produced.”⁹⁰ The noun δόξα (doxa), “splendor, glory,”⁹¹ appears twice in this verse. In the first case it refers to the glory produced by the “ministry of death”—that is, the Mosaic dispensation. In the second case it refers to the divine light that radiated from Moses’ countenance after he’d been in the divine presence for nearly six weeks and remained upon him for a time after he came down.⁹² This second “glory” was simply a reflection or result of Moses being in the presence of God as the law was given.

which glory was to be done away / a glory that was to be abolished: This phrase is an aside in which Paul makes a comment about the nature of the glory associated with the old covenant. In it, he transitions to another meaning of the noun δόξα (doxa), “glory.” Here it carries the idea of “esteem, greatness, honor”⁹³ and more especially the good reputation or standing of something or someone within a community.⁹⁴ In the LXX, the word carries the idea of “heaviness” or “weightiness.”⁹⁵ Taking all these nuances together, we see the greatness, respect, reputation, and dignity that God intended for the Mosaic ministry to have.

The verb καταργέω (katargeō) is often used by Paul, and only two of the twenty-seven occurrences in the New Testament are found outside his writings. It is used four times in this chapter (3:7, 11, 13, and 14). It is a compound of ἀργέω (argeô) derived from the adjective ἀργός (argos) that carries the sense of being idle.⁹⁶ The prefix κατά (kata) adds a causative sense, “to make useless, make of no effect,” and in the passive, “to be abolished, cease.”⁹⁷ In Paul’s writings, it carries any of three senses: “to make completely inoperative, to put out of action,” or “to deprive of power.”⁹⁸

Paul’s point is, therefore, that through the operation of Christ’s Atonement, the ministry of the old covenant with its law, ordinances, and services is being set aside or becoming inoperative. Therefore, any former obligations or commitments that were once associated with it are also passing away.⁹⁹ Paul is using the verb καταργέω (katargeō) to describe the present position of the old covenant. As the gospel spreads, the ministry of old is continually losing its force, weight, or glory. In sum, in view of the new covenant, the old one is being made inoperative and therefore can no longer demand allegiance. That the Apostle placed the verb (katargeō) last in the sentence gives strong emphasis to the idea of the covenant becoming inoperative.

3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? / will the ministry of the Spirit not be much more glorious?: Τhe negative particle οὐχί (ouchi) introduces a question that expects an affirmative answer.

For the noun “ministry,” see 3:7 above.

In the present context, the noun δόξα (doxa, “glory”) denotes the same idea as it did in 3:7 above—that is, it points to the esteem, honor, and prestige that the new ministry should have among the Christians. It also suggests the obligation and commitment to the restored gospel that it requires.¹⁰⁰ Again, for the sake of flow, we have translated the prepositional phrase ἐν δόξᾳ (en doxa), literally “in glory,” as an adjective, “glorious,” in our Rendition.

The noun πνεῦμα (pneuma), “spirit,” has a wide range of meanings, including “wind, breath, life-spirit,” and can refer to a person’s personal spirit.¹⁰¹ In the present context, however, it refers to the divine element that centers in God and emanates from him. It is, in LDS theology, sometimes referred to as “light,” “which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things” (D&C 88:12–13).¹⁰² It is also referred to as “the light of Christ” because it flows from the Father through the Son to humankind.¹⁰³ In the present context it is the bearer of the divine will. It can be enhanced in the lives of those who correctly seek it. It has the ability to enhance individuals’ righteousness and heighten their relationship with God, making it firm and permanent. Its possession serves to distinguish the Christian from the unbelievers and brings the Saints into fellowship one with another and with God (1 John 1:5–7).¹⁰⁴ With the restoration of this power in the days of the Apostles, the ministry of the Spirit had begun, and the ministry of the law of Moses was being superseded.¹⁰⁵

3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory / For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation: On the noun “ministration,” see 3:7 above, and on the noun “glory,” see 3:8 above. The noun κατάκρισις (katakrisis), “condemnation,” refers to “a judicial verdict involving a penalty, and connotes that which is found definitely guilty.”¹⁰⁶ Paul’s use of it as a reference to the Mosaic ministry shows his deliberate denigration of that system to enhance his point. The old ministration carried with it penalties for those who did not adhere to it, and since Israel did not, its term of service proved to be one of condemnation rather than blessing.

much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory / there is much greater glory in the ministry of righteousness: On the noun “ministry,” see 3:7 above, and on the noun “glory,” see 3:8 above. Paul expresses the power of the new age with the verb περισσεύω (perisseuō), which means “to be great, to abound, overflow,” and also “to be extremely rich,”¹⁰⁷ and carries with it the nuance of being “of great advantage.”¹⁰⁸ The Apostle’s point is that the new age is extremely rich and even overflows in what is beneficial to the Saints.

The noun δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē), “righteousness,” in the present context denotes the “quality or state of judicial correctness with focus on a redemptive action.”¹⁰⁹ The Apostle uses the noun to contrast the ministry of the Christian era with that of the Mosaic law. Where the latter brought only condemnation, the former brings in abundance the glory of righteousness, redemption, and promise.

3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth / Indeed, that which had been glorious does not now appear glorious because of the surpassingly greater glory: The verb δοξάζω (doxazō) means “to clothe in splendor, glorify.”¹¹⁰ Here, it is found in the form of a perfect passive participle that emphasizes the glory that had once shone from the face of Moses.¹¹¹ Paul uses it as a metaphor to represent the honor which the Mosaic ministry once had but has no more. The reason it has lost its excellence the Apostle expresses with the phrase τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης (tēs hyperballousēs doxēs)—literally, “the excelling” or “surpassing glory,” referring to Christian ministry. The verb ὑπερβάλλω (hyperballō), found here in the form of a present active participle, refers to that which has an extraordinary or surpassing degree of glory and in this case refers to the new ministry.¹¹² On the noun “glory,” see 3:7–8 above.

3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious / For if that which was to be abolished seemed glorious, how much more glorious is that which remains: On the verb κατεργέω (katargeō), “to abolish,” see 3:7 above. It is found here in the form of a present passive participle, denoting “that which was to be abolished.”¹¹³ Paul uses the term to refer to the Mosaic ministry. To describe it, he uses the phrase dia doxēs, literally “of glory,” while the new covenant he describes as en doxēs, literally “in glory.” The difference between the two phrases may be a case of hairsplitting, but if there is a difference, it is that Moses’ dispensation was glorious at its inception, while the new one remains in glory.¹¹⁴

The verb μένω (menō), found here in the form of a present active participle, refers to that which “remains, lasts, persists and continues to be active.”¹¹⁵ The verb stands in contrast to κατεργέω (katargeō), which denotes that which is becoming inoperative. Paul uses meno to refer to the ministry of the new covenant in which the Apostles are engaged, which includes a restoration of the fulness of the gospel advancing under the power of the Spirit of God.

Analysis and Summary

The problem Paul faced is largely due to the continuing tendencies of Jewish converts to cling to Mosaic practices and promulgate the importance of the law of Moses.¹¹⁶ It is possible that this section contains an implicit polemic that Paul launched against his detractors.¹¹⁷ These men could have been using Moses and the glory that fell upon him when he received the old covenant as a model of spirituality and proper ministry. The imagery of the splendor that rested on the Mosaic law stood in contradistinction to the supposed inglorious ministry of Paul and his associates.¹¹⁸ This view, however, is weakened because there is no concrete evidence in the letter itself that the Apostle had his detractors in mind.

Based on the context, rather than indirectly bashing his critics, the Apostle is pushing the abundant adequacy of his ministry (3:5) and the openness with which he proclaims it (3:12). That being the case, his purpose in writing this section is to portray the authentic nature of his ministry through a vigorous defense of his authority and doctrine.¹¹⁹ His focus is, therefore, less on the contrast between the old and new covenants and more on the differences between their ministrations. He describes the old ministry as that of “the letter” (3:6) and that of the new as the ministry of “the Spirit” (3:6, NR). One is the ministry of “death” (3:7); the other is that of “the Spirit” (3:8, NR). One is the ministry of “condemnation” (3:9); the other the ministry of “righteousness” (3:9). Thus, Paul’s contrasts suggest that his focus is on the “superiority of his new-covenant form of ministry, and specifically on the proclamation of the Word of God under the power of the Spirit.”¹²⁰

The Apostle forcefully sets up this portion of his argument by using very vivid language. He calls the application of the Mosaic law the “ministry of death” carved in stone. He also describes it as the “ministry of condemnation” (3:7, 9, NR). In doing so, he paints a very low picture of Israel’s response to the offices, duties, and functions of the old covenant.

The modern disciple should keep in mind, as Elder McConkie has noted, that

the law which God gave Moses is not to be taken lightly. True it was a “manifestation of death,” in that salvation did not come by the law alone. True it was a “ministration of condemnation,” in that those who received it had first rejected the law of God; but it was the most perfect system of religion on earth for a millennium and a half; and it was so designed as to prepare men [and women] for the fulness of that gospel truth which Christ brought. Paul’s approach here is to say: “There was glory and honor in the law of Moses, during the time when God reigned through it, but now, through Christ, has come ‘the glory that excelleth.’ If the law of Moses ‘was glorious,’ how much more so is the gospel of Christ?”¹²¹

Paul begins his argument by noting that the condemning and deadly ministry came with splendor as evidenced by the glory that radiated from Moses’ face. To stress his point, Paul then uses a rhetorical device known as qal wāḥômer, which is basically an a fortiori argument that emphasizes an idea by stressing that if a minor point x is important, then the major point y must be all the more important.¹²² In the present context, x (a position on which all the Saints likely agreed) was that Moses exhibited a wondrous glory when he came down from Sinai (3:7), while y (the point Paul wishes to make) is that the new ministry, attended as it is by the Holy Spirit, has a glory that eclipses into insignificance that which was once upon Moses (3:8).

Paul refers to the restored order with the fulness of the gospel and priesthood as “the ministry of the spirit.” The phrase emphasizes a major difference between the old and new covenants—namely, the restored and dynamic work of the Spirit now active among the faithful. It would be wrong, however, to see Paul as contrasting the letter (γράμμα, gramma) against the Spirit (πνεῦμα, pneuma) such that the letter counts for nothing and the Spirit for all. The Apostle should not be seen as “opposing the basic intent of the Scripture to its specific wording, as in our familiar distinction ‘the spirit and the letter of the law.’ Nor is he thinking [that there is] some mystical latent sense concealed beneath the text’s external form. The Spirit that Paul is talking about is the Holy Spirit, who is palpably present on the community as an experienced reality, manifest in spiritual gifts such as tongues and prophecy . . . [and is] transforming the lives and empowering the work of the ministry.”¹²³ The problem, as Paul views it, is that Israel could not keep the law without the enabling power of the Spirit to attend it. The Ten Commandments with the other statutes and ordinances were clear enough, and the Apostle sees no antagonism between their meaning and that of the intent of the Spirit. But the problem was that the “letter,” when separated from the “Spirit,” given fallen human nature, resulted not in life-giving obedience but in death-dealing disobedience. The Christian under the new covenant, therefore, must have both the law and the Spirit. This is because the letter without the Spirit leads not only to legalism but, more importantly, to a deadening effect on its adherence. The Spirit without the letter may bring life, but not how such a life ought to be lived. In sum, both are equally needed in the lives of the Saints.¹²⁴ As Elder Neal A. Maxwell asked, “Can we not keep the spirit of the law without leaving other things undone? Without such spiritual balance, staying on the straight and narrow path will be a great trial for us.”¹²⁵

The term “Spirit” (pneuma) in the LXX, when speaking theologically, refers to the element that centers in and emanates from God.¹²⁶ It is universally present but can come with greater concentration upon a person (see, for example, Judg. 14:6 and 1 Sam. 16:13), bringing with it divine power, ability, and authority. One of its chief effects upon an individual is that of prophecy—that is, the right and power to speak with God’s authority.¹²⁷ The rabbis taught that this Spirit had been withdrawn from Israel after the ministry of Malachi and would not return until the last days.¹²⁸ As a result, when Jesus came in the role of an inspired prophet (Matt. 13:57), it drew their attention (Mark 1:22, 27). His teachings clearly revealed that he was the eschatological Messiah bringing in the foreseen new age (see Deut. 18:15–19; Isa. 61:1–2; and Luke 7:22). One component of that new age was judgment, and Jesus reinforced that aspect (Matt. 10:34–36; Luke 12:49–53). He insisted, however, that the new ministry would deal much more with bringing blessings and life and oneness with God (Matt. 10:8; 11:28–29; Mark 2:17; 3:14–15; Luke 6:31–33; 9:54–56; John 3:16–17, 36; 5:23–24; 17:6–9). His response to the query by John the Baptist as to whether Jesus was the awaited Savior (Matt. 11:2–3; Luke 7:20–22) strongly suggests Jesus brought the promised blessing recorded in Isaiah (see Isa. 29:18–20; 35:3–5; 61:1–2). That the Apostles continued to work under that power motivated the Jewish leadership to continue to fight against them.

A critical aspect of the Lord’s ministry was his giving an endowment of the Spirit to others (see, for example, Mark 1:7–8 and John 20:21–22), which action continued into the post-Resurrection ministry (Acts 1:2; 2:4, 38) yet still under his direct supervision (Acts 2:33). The power of the Spirit was most clearly evidenced in prophecy. Indeed, it became the touchstone that the new age had commenced. “The same power that had inspired David and the prophets in the old age (Acts 1:16; 3:18; 4:25; 28:25) was now poured out in eschat[ological] plentitude as Joel had foretold ([Acts] 2:17–21).”¹²⁹ This power was the seat of individual conversion and brought with it the missionaries’ boldness in testifying and living the truth (Acts 4:8, 13, 29–31; 7:55; 13:9).

For Paul, this divine power was discernible by its manifest effects shown in speaking in tongues, healings, and, as noted, particularly in prophetic utterance (1 Cor. 12:3–11; 14:3–5). Its endowment brought with it the greatest of spiritual gifts, that of faith, hope, and divine love (1 Cor. 13:1–3, 13). In short, when filled by the Spirit, the Saints walked after the ways of God and manifested his power in their lives. The challenge of the Christians was to allow God to mold their character according to the pattern of life revealed by the Savior. The Apostle viewed such a life not as something the Saints achieved by themselves—that is, by their works alone—but principally as the product of the action of the Spirit upon them—that is, by its fruits (Gal. 5:18–23). It was in this way that they could walk or be led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:4–6, 14; Gal. 5:16, 18, 25).

The point that the Apostle is making here is his clear understanding that the “ministry of the spirit” stands in contrast to that of the old covenant. No longer were the disciples dependent on the “rule book” of the Mosaic law, which they had been expected, before their conversion, to follow blamelessly (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 5:1, 6). Now the Saints were to yield to the force of the new covenant both because it was written on their hearts (Jer. 31:31–33) and because it came with the power of God’s spirit. In sum, it brought with it both a true knowledge of God and the ability to discern and implement his will in their lives (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:3).¹³⁰ The result was the acquisition of glory.

In 3:7–8, the Apostle uses two nuances of the word “glory” (δόξα, doxa) to make his point. The noun could refer either to splendor and brilliance or to honor and esteem. Paul uses it initially in a scriptural context (Ex. 34:29–35) to describe Moses’ countenance as he came down from Sinai. The splendor radiated from the prophet’s countenance with such brilliance that the Israelites could look at him only with discomfort. Paul uses the second nuance in relationship to the ministry of the law to illustrate the preliminary high esteem or honor it was supposed to have had.

In 3:9, Paul skillfully contrasts two words: “condemnation” (κατάκρισις, katakrisis) and “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosynē). Both have forensic force, the first denoting an act that demands censure and conviction, while the latter denotes the positive result of divine judgment.¹³¹ The contrast helps him point out the difference between the old and new ministrations. The new age, he declares, overflows or is extremely rich (περισσεύω, perisseuō) in glory. Such glory the old ministry never achieved because, as he notes, it was suppressed by the veil Moses had to wear that, therefore, limited its glory to Moses alone. Not so in the new age. Under the indwelling of the Spirit during this ministration of righteousness, heavenly power involved every person who came actively into the new covenant and infused each with divine access and the rule of righteousness that flowed therefrom (3:17).¹³² Paul admits that currently this glory is “inward and unseen” by the spiritually myopic but is expressing itself in the message delivered by the Apostles and in the lives of those who receive the gospel (3:18).¹³³

By noting that the glory of the law is becoming “inoperative” (καταργέω, katargeō), the Apostle emphasizes the continually growing loss of the esteem, reverence, and honor it once held. Indeed, with the spreading of the new covenant, the old one was losing what little effectiveness it yet held. Paul’s analogy does not actually denigrate the old covenant itself but rather shows that, due to the glory or brightness of the ministry of righteousness, what glory the old ministry had is now so fully eclipsed it appears as nothing.¹³⁴ Therefore, any obligation, commitment, or allegiance the old covenant once commanded is now also done away.¹³⁵

He next asks, paraphrasing the scripture, “If the dispensation of death came with glory, will not the dispensation of life be attended with a much greater glory?” (3:9). He then testifies that the new ministry, one of righteousness, far outshines the ministry of condemnation. Indeed, in contrast to the immense glory of the new dispensation, the old one actually had no splendor at all (3:10).

His point is that the glory associated with the restored ministry is better than that of the old for two reasons: first, the initial ministry brought condemnation while the latter brings righteousness (3:9); and second, the former had only a glint that vanished away, while the latter has a splendor that will abide forever (3:11).¹³⁶

The Ministry of the New Covenant (3:12–18)

Greek Text

12 Ἔχοντες οὖν τοιαύτην ἐλπίδα πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρώμεθα, 13 καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀτενίσαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου.14 ἀλλὰ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν. ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται,15 ἀλλʼ ἕως σήμερον ἡνίκα ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται Μωϋσῆς κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν κεῖται·16 ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα.17 ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία.18 ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος. [SBLGNT]

Translation Notes and Comments

3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech / Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: With the phrase ἔχοντες οὖν (echontes oun), “seeing then,”¹³⁷ Paul shows that he believes his readers have followed his argument and accepted it. The point of that argument explains the basis for the “hope” he and his fellow missionaries have in carrying out the new ministry. On “hope,” see Translation Notes on 1:7 above. The hope of the glory that is part of the “ministry of the spirit” compels Paul and those working with him not to hide or diminish the word in any way. The noun παρρησία (parrēsia), “boldness, frankness, outspokenness, plainness,” refers to a type of speech deliberately designed to neither hide nor conceal anything.¹³⁸ The adjective πολύς (polys), “much, many, great,”¹³⁹ suggests the magnitude of the force the missionaries use in declaring the glory of the blessings available under the new ministration. The verb χράομαι (chraomai), “to use” or “to make use of,” denotes acting or thinking in a certain way toward others.¹⁴⁰ In this case, it refers to preaching the gospel through frank and open declarations concerning the blessing of living under the power of the Spirit.

3:13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face / unlike Moses, who would put a veil over his face: The reference is to Exodus 34:29–35. Paul contrasts the open declaration by the missionaries of the glory of the new covenant with Moses’ veiled declarations of the old covenant, shown by his having to cover his face when he taught the Israelites.

Due to vagueness, the whole phrase presents several translation difficulties. The verb τίθημι (tithēmi), “to put or place,”¹⁴¹ found here in the imperfect tense, suggests that, for some time, Moses had to keep taking off and putting on a veil as he interacted with Jehovah and his people. This was because the Israelites could not long withstand the glory radiating from Moses’ face. The verb ἀτενίζω (atenizō), found here as an aorist infinitive, means “to look at” but carries the nuance of “looking with an intense fixation on an object” or “to stare.”¹⁴² Thus, the idea conveyed in the phrase is not that the Israelites could not look momentarily on the glory streaming from Moses’s countenance but that they could not endure a prolonged exposure to it.¹⁴³

that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished / so that the children of Israel would not stare at the end of that which was to be abolished: Paul again uses the verb καταργέω (katargeō; see 3:7 above), found here as a present passive participle. It denotes that which is losing its significance, being put to an end, or being rendered inoperative.¹⁴⁴ Here the dominant nuance is the latter. The noun τέλος (telos) denotes “an end, outcome, result, or the completion” of something.¹⁴⁵ The text is vague on what telos refers to, since it is followed by the articular, genitive participle τοῦ καταργουμένου (tou katargoumenou), “of that which was being abolished.” But what is being abolished?

The dominant scholarly view concerning this passage is that Moses was hiding his face from the Israelites as a result of (telos) its once resplendent glory now beginning to fade (tou katargoumenou).¹⁴⁶ The problem with this interpretation is that there is no scriptural evidence that the glory gradually faded. It seems, rather, to have just vanished at some point.

Others interpret the passage by looking at what Moses wanted to accomplish by veiling his face. According to this view, his action was motivated by Israel’s hardheartedness. Due to that condition, the prophet wanted to hide from them the ultimate significance of the glory shining from Moses’ face: it was a manifestation of the power and might of Jehovah. By veiling his face, the prophet illustrated that the Israelites, due to their recalcitrance, would not be able to share in Jehovah’s glory.¹⁴⁷

Closely related to the above is the interpretation that sees telos as referring to the outcome of what Moses did—that is, actually hiding God’s reflective glory from the Israelites. In this case, the act symbolized God’s judgment against these intractable people. By covering his face, Moses illustrated that the full covenant, with its power and ordinances, had been taken away.¹⁴⁸ Taking the phrase eis to telos as a whole (literally, “as unto the end”) bolsters this idea.¹⁴⁹ It carries the idea of purpose or reason. This nuance suggests that Moses initially had a purpose in mind for the people that could only be realized if a certain condition was met. Just what that condition was is suggested in LXX Exodus 33:16. There Moses pleads with the Lord not to forsake Israel on account of their faithlessness evidenced in their making the golden calf. The prophet asks the Lord not to leave the Israelites but to remain with them, for only in that way could Moses and his people be glorified beyond all other nations. We see here the end or goal or purpose (telos) of what Moses initially wanted—namely, for Jehovah to remain among his people, thus glorifying them. The action with the veil shows that Moses was illustrating that this outcome or end could not be realized. The Israelites’ fear of approaching the divinely radiant Moses evidenced more than their yet-poor spiritual condition. It revealed that these people yet refused to live such that they could feel comfortable in God’s glory. The prophet’s veiling God’s reflected glory symbolized that they were cut off from Jehovah and the glory of the greater covenant.¹⁵⁰ In sum, the veil connoted the resultant barrier—produced by the sin of persistent rebellion—between the manifest presence of Jehovah and these people. Thus, Moses’ action not only was based on the Israelites’ fear of Jehovah but acted as a “judgment on the rebellion that spawned that fear.”¹⁵¹

3:14 But their minds were blinded / On the contrary, their minds were closed: The noun νόημα (noema), “mind,” in the present context denotes “the faculty of producing thought.”¹⁵² The verb πωρόω (pōroō), “to close,” in the form of an aorist passive refers to that which causes someone “to have difficulty in understanding or comprehending something.”¹⁵³ What caused the Israelites’ difficulty is obscured by the use of the passive voice, but the context suggests that the culprit was their refusal to come directly before Jehovah.¹⁵⁴

for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament / for even until this present day, the same veil remains unlifted during the reading of the old covenant: Because the punctuation for this clause is uncertain, various translations have been offered.¹⁵⁵ Our Rendition follows the broad sense of the passage.

The phrase τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας (tēs sēmeron hēmeras), “unto this very day,” shows that the problem faced and the effect realized by the early Israelites yet remain among their unconverted descendants.

The verb ἀνακαλύπτω (anakalyptō) means “to uncover or unveil.”¹⁵⁶ It is found here as a neuter present passive participle. due to the vagueness of the passage, it is uncertain what the verb’s subject is. The KJV and many other translations take κάλυμμα (kalymma), “veil,” as the subject of the participle.¹⁵⁷ In that case, Paul uses the veil as a metaphor for Moses’ judgment against Israel. Because the veil has never been lifted, it still affects the minds of the Jews by prohibiting them from seeing that the old covenant is coming to an end.¹⁵⁸ In short, the barrier that separated them from God because of their closed minds yet remains intact. Some scholars see a problem with this view because the text seems to say that it is not the veil that is being uncovered; it is the face. However, there is a passage in the LXX where the verb anakalyptō is used with a “covering” (συγκάλυμμα, synkalymma) as a direct object, rather than the object that is covered, and there are several other examples of anakalyptō governing the covering rather than what is being covered.¹⁵⁹ See below for further discussion.

Only here out of all his writing does Paul refer to the Mosaic law as τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης (tēs palaias diathēkēs), “the old covenant.” The adjective παλαιός (palaios), “old,” in the present context, carries the pejorative idea of something being antiquated, obsolete, and of no further use.¹⁶⁰ In 3:6, he refers to the restored gospel as καινῆς διαθήκης (kainēs diathēkēs), “a new covenant,” which he now seems to be contrasting with the Mosaic law. It is the restoration of the new covenant that has made the earlier covenant old and depleted.

which veil is done away in Christ / because that veil is abolished in Christ: Some scholars suggest that this clause is the subject of the participial ἀνακαλυπτόμενον (anakalyptomenon), “to be uncovered or unveiled,” found in the previous phrase. To be so, this clause must be taken as a kind of accusative absolute not dependent on what precedes it. That being the case, what Paul is saying is that to the Israelites, it was not uncovered or revealed (μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, mē anakalyptomenon) that the old covenant is abolished in Christ.¹⁶¹ Most commentators, however, regard this reading as less likely since this would be the only example of the use of a participial accusative absolute in the entire New Testament,¹⁶² and therefore, we have followed the more conventional translation in our Rendition.

Paul, again, uses the verb καταργέω (katargeō; see 3:7 above) found here as a present passive participle and thus understood to mean “to be abolished, removed, or made inoperative.”¹⁶³ In doing so, he is saying that only in Christ is the barrier (symbolized by the Mosaic veil that evidenced the separation of Israel from God) being made inoperative because of the power of the Atonement.

3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart / But until this very day, whenever Moses is read, a veil remains over their heart: For emphasis, Paul repeats the thought he made in 3:14, which is an allusion to Exodus 34:34. The conjunctive phrase ἥνικα ἂν (hēnika an), “whenever,” stresses the idea that in their public devotions, the Jews are unable to see either the law’s intent or Moses’ judgment against them.¹⁶⁴

With a rather clever switch to a metaphor, the Apostle turns the literal veil worn by Moses into a symbolic one that covers the hearts of the unconverted Jews. The imagery shows that the yet-unlifted veil still keeps them from seeing and thereby understanding the truth.¹⁶⁵

The noun Μωϋσῆς (Mōusēs), “Moses,” as used here, refers most narrowly to the Decalogue and most broadly to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. It is likely, however, that Paul has in mind the whole system of laws and ordinances plus the traditions the Jews built upon them.

The noun καρδία (kardia), “heart,” connotes the very core of the person in Semitic cultures. It is here where we find both the rational and emotional elements that define all that the person is.¹⁶⁶ That the veil remains over the heart emphasizes the extreme nature of the handicap placed upon the whole of the person.

3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away / But whenever their heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away: The opening phrase ἡνίκα δὲ ἐὰν (hēnika de ean), “but whenever,” is important because by its use the Apostle shows that each and every time a condition is met, something good happens. Here it looks to a change of heart.

The verb ἐπιστρέφω (epistrephō), “to turn, return,” in a religious sense, refers to a positive change of belief with its accompanying elevation in behavior. The force of the verb looks also at the thing to which one turns.¹⁶⁷ In this case, it is “the Lord.” In this phrase, the verb does not have an expressed antecedent, but the construction suggests it is τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν (tēn kardian autōn), “their heart,” found in 3:15. Supporting this translation is the JST of the verse, which reads, “when their heart shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” The noun acts as a fitting symbol for what happens to each individual who, in humility, allows the Lord to do his work. The passive voice of the verb hides the actor that takes away the veil, but Paul shows below that it is through spiritual power that it happens. Through that means, one leaves behind the hardened heart and allows the veil to be lifted. As a result, that barrier can no longer hinder such persons from seeing the beauty and power of the new covenant and the God who stands behind it.

The meaning of the noun κύριος (kyrios), “Lord,” is vague. It could refer to either God or Christ, or possibly even to the Holy Spirit. How one reads the next phrase determines which of these entities is meant here.

3:17 the Lord is that Spirit / the Lord is the Spirit: This phrase is yet another example of Paul’s ability to be obtuse, and the number of ways it is translated illustrates this point. ¹⁶⁸ The noun κύριος (kyrios), “lord,” can refer to any divine being, but in the Bible, it usually refers to either God or Christ and the latter more especially in the New Testament.¹⁶⁹ However, in the present context it is highly likely that the term refers to the Spirit of God.¹⁷⁰ Indeed, the noun πνεῦμα (pneuma), has a wide range of meanings,¹⁷¹ but the one that best fits in the present context is that of the divine influence or force that acts upon a human recipient.¹⁷² The definite article ὁ (ho) would then act as a demonstrative pronoun referring to a specific spirit and therefore need to be translated as “that.” The simplest way to take the phrase is to see ὁ κύριος (ho kyrios) as an epexegetical remark¹⁷³ uniting κύριος (kyrios), “Lord,” and πνεῦμα (pneuma), “spirit.” By doing so, the phrase would read, “Now when I say ‘Lord,’ I mean ‘the Spirit.’”¹⁷⁴ By translating it this way, the idea aligns nicely with what Paul says next.

where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty / where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom: The phrase τὸ πνευμα κυρίου (to pneuma kyriou), “the spirit of the Lord,” likely defines what Paul is referring to in the previous phrase. It is neither the Savior nor God but rather their divine influence that he has in mind. The term, therefore, does not refer to the Holy Ghost. It denotes, rather, as noted in 3:8 above, the divine influence that acts upon the recipient that brings to him or her powers not otherwise available. Paul describes what it brings as ἐλευθερία (eleutheria), “freedom.” In the present context the noun denotes an escape from the slavery of the Mosaic law.¹⁷⁵ This is because the Spirit removes the inhibiting veil and opens its recipients’ eyes to the truth of salvation in Christ alone.

3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord / And all of us who with unveiled faces contemplate the glory of the Lord: The conjunction δέ (de), “and, but,” here indicates continuation of thought and is, therefore, translated as “and” in our Rendition.¹⁷⁶ The phrase ἡμεῖς . . . πάντες (hēmeis . . . pantes), “all of us,” shows the universal nature of the phenomenon Paul now describes. The verb ἀνακαλύπτω (anakalyptō), “to unveil or uncover,”¹⁷⁷ found here as a perfect passive participle, indicates that an unveiling has taken place in the past and that its effect continues into the present. The verb κατοπτρίζω (katoptrizō), “to view through the use of a mirror, or contemplate,” found here as a present middle participle, denotes primarily seeing something in a mirror—that is, seeing its reflection only, not the thing itself.¹⁷⁸ Anciently most mirrors were made of polished bronze.¹⁷⁹ Mirrors made in Corinth were highly valued because of the fine workmanship used in their making.¹⁸⁰ Paul picks up on this item of pride (see also 1 Cor. 13:12) to illustrate that no matter the quality of the mirror, it does not reproduce the genuine article but only an indirect nonreality of it.¹⁸¹ Even so, his metaphorical mirror can do something no real mirror can. Through the power of the spirit, it can make the invisible visible to the believer.¹⁸² But it only works if a certain condition is met—namely, having the obscuring veil of hardheartedness and unbelief removed. With uncovered faces the Saints can see the glory of the Lord. That glory, however, is only a reflection seen as it were through a mirror. Even so, it shows the potential of what the believer may achieve.

are changed into the same image from glory to glory / are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory: The verb μεταμορφόω (metamorphoō), found here as a present passive, in its spiritual sense means “to change inwardly in fundamental character” and, given the force of the passive voice, “to be transformed.”¹⁸³ In LDS parlance, it denotes being changed from a “natural man” with his tendencies toward selfishness, egotism, and self-aggrandizement into a Saint who is “submissive, meek, humble, patient, [and] full of love” toward others (Mosiah 3:19).

The noun εἰκών (eikōn), “image,” denotes both something that is “made or drawn to conform to the likeness of the original” and “that which has the same form as the original.”¹⁸⁴ In this case, it refers not to the actual physical image of the Savior. Rather, it refers to the Christlike perfection, powers, and station that the Saints can achieve.

On δόξα (doxa), “glory,” see 3:7–8 above. In the present context, it refers to that ever-increasing power through which the Saints take upon themselves the power, majesty, and station of Christ by moving from a lesser level of glory to an ever-greater one until they receive a fulness of all that the Savior has (Rom. 8:17; compare Luke 12:42–44).

even as by the Spirit of the Lord / just as from the Spirit of the Lord: The adverb καθάπερ (kathaper), “just as, exactly as,” acts as “an emphatic marker of comparison between events.”¹⁸⁵ Here it points to the ongoing, dynamic power by which the Saints are transformed from a lower level of glory to a higher one. Paul is careful to identify that power. The preposition ἀπὸ (apo), “from,” acts here as a marker identifying the source.¹⁸⁶ The phrase ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος (apo kyriou pneumatos), “from the Lord’s spirit,” identifies that source. Again, it does not appear that Paul has the Holy Ghost in mind, but rather the enabling power that flows through Christ to assist in the transformation of the willing and reaching soul.

Analysis and Summary

The major thrust of Paul’s intent in 3:12–18 is to explain both his and the other missionaries’ audacious and open-faced proclamation of the gospel to all who will listen (3:12), in contrast to Moses’ veiled face when he spoke with the congregation of Israel (3:13; Ex. 34:33).

To further his point, the Apostle turns from his focus on the great difference between the glories of the Mosaic and current ministries to an examination of the implications in the story of Moses’ interaction with the children of Israel (Ex. 34:29–35). According to the Exodus account, when the people saw him, they were consternated because his countenance radiated with divine glory. Due to their discomfort at having to endure that radiance, Moses hid the glory by putting a veil over his face when working with the people. However, he took it off when he went into the tabernacle and stood before Jehovah. From Paul’s perspective, these acts had important theological significance. The first prevented the Israelites from seeing, due to their continuous rebellion, the completion of what was even then becoming inoperative—namely, the power of the old covenant (3:13). In short, the veil represented Moses’ judgment against hardhearted Israel. His act symbolized his refusing or cutting this recalcitrant people off from direct access to their God and the fulness of his covenant. They would no longer experience God’s manifest presence.¹⁸⁷ The second act, removing the veil, showed that Moses could still personally commune directly with God and receive his word (Ex. 33:9, 11), thus showing that such a close and personal relationship was possible for any who would be as the prophet.

Unfortunately, as the Apostle laments in 3:14–15, the problem of the veil’s effects yet remained upon the hardhearted among the Jews even though the gospel was now being preached. The veil metaphorically continued to cover the Jews’ hearts as they read Moses’ words. The stubborn persistence of the problem was due to their refusal to accept Christ. Therefore, they could not see that the ministry of the old covenant was being annulled and replaced by the new. In sum, the totality of the old system was coming to an end (τέλος, telos), but the Jews were blind to the fact that the old law had had its day and was being discontinued.¹⁸⁸ The glory of the old covenant as a means of procuring a more holy life had become inoperative and would remain so. The only way to lift the veil was to accept the Savior and the new covenant.¹⁸⁹

In 3:16, the Apostle insists that whenever a person accepts Jesus as the divine Son of God, the separating barrier, symbolized by the veil, is taken away. When he states that “we all . . . behold in a mirror the glory of the Lord” (3:18), he is emphasizing the effect of the veil’s removal. Each convert can see and enjoy a reflected and beautiful glory like that revealed in the countenance of Moses. As a result, the Saints all share the common salvation brought by the force of the new covenant. Of this fact, Paul is the unapologetic and almost brazen bearer. Three spiritually powerful events stand at the heart of the Apostle’s boldness: first, the Spirit’s lifting the veil from off the hearts of the converts; second, the ability of the converts to see the new covenant with its attending ministry for what it is; and finally, their experiencing the transforming effects in their lives.¹⁹⁰

The result is, as Paul notes in 3:17, freedom (ἐλευθερία, elytheria). For Paul, such freedom does not refer to some psychological or intellectual state that detaches one from sin, suffering, and death. The Apostle is well aware that he and his fellow Saints are, due to Christ, suffering in abundance. No, freedom does not mean being autonomous or unfettered from all bounds. It consists, rather, of being freed of the Mosaic law and the heavy restrictions it placed upon the observant.

But there is more to it than that. “Freedom from” carries with it the force of “freedom to.” The new “freedom to” is one of communion. It is freedom to hear and act directly with the Savior through the ministration of the Spirit conveyed via the new covenant. That includes not only praise to the Divine but also laments and petitions arising from suffering and need. Further, Paul sees this freedom as expanding beyond service to God to include service to neighbors and friends, whom the Christian can now freely serve.¹⁹¹

One aspect of that freedom Paul details in 3:18. Through the transforming power of the “spirit of the Lord” that is now operating upon the believers, the person is changed (μεταμορφόω, metamorphoō), by degrees, into Christlike glory. In his writings to the Romans, the Apostle makes a similar point. He admonishes his readers to not “conform to the pattern of this world but be transformed (metamorphoō) by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good, acceptable, and perfect” (Rom. 12:2, our translation). The renewal “in mind” that he refers to certainly involved a change in his readers’ mental or cognitive processes, including reasoning and perception, but reaches far beyond that. “Paul is not merely encouraging the Roman Christians to adopt a new moral outlook—he is impressing on them, the need for a profound transformation of the whole person.”¹⁹² Though long in process, this transformation is real and comes with ever-increasing glory until its recipients fully take upon themselves the nature of the Lord and obtain a celestial glory.¹⁹³ Paul’s theology shows that he fully accepted the idea of theosis (that a person really can become as God).¹⁹⁴

As Paul noted elsewhere, it is through the power of Christ that the Saints’ imperfect and weak bodies become “transformed in likeness to his glorious body, by the power which enables him to subject all things to himself” (Philip. 3:21, our translation). Only at the resurrection will the action become complete (Col. 3:4).¹⁹⁵ This transformation into the image of Christ, we need to stress, does not come by an act of will alone. It takes far more than that; it takes divine power given through the Spirit of Christ.

The Apostle skillfully reveals the ramifications arising from the ministration of the new dispensation. God’s people can now operate under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, all the believers have access to Christ’s spirit and his power, making it possible for them to come before the Father “with unveiled faces” (3:18, NR). This alone shows how much greater the new covenant is than the old. It is based on the ongoing nature of the ministry now being executed under the hands of the Apostles and their fellow missionaries. Through their means, God’s work in carrying out the “ministry of righteousness” is moving in the world, assisted and verified by the power of the Spirit itself that is being continually made manifest in the lives of the Saints (3:17–18).¹⁹⁶